John Howard
'''Mosquito ringtone Talk:John Howard/Archive1/Archive 1'''
General Details
=Howard vs Peacock=
Firstly, when the article mentions that, in 1985, Howard 'challenged' Peacock, what do we mean by this? Howard did not launch a challenge in the sense that he never contested a ballot against Peacock. Nor, as far as I'm aware, was Howard ever seriously considering running against Peacock. Peacock felt threatened by Howard and bungled an attempt to remove him from the Deputy Leadership position (he spilt the DL position, expecting Howard to challenge for the leadership - Howard simply recontested for his old position, putting Peacock in an untenable position and forcing him to resign).
:It's slightly before my time, but if that is the true picture please edit the article to reflect it (I suppose I could get The End of Certainty and have a look...)
=1998 Election=
Secondly, about the financial figures in the 1998 election - again, I thought that the ALP actually outspent the Coalition (not particularly odd - it routinely happens in state elections nowadays), but that a tax-reform lobby group spent millions of dollars running a parallel campaign to the Coalition.
:Dunno. I do remember "Australians For Tax Reform" (aka the Business Council of Australia). Lexis-Nexis might be able to answer that one.
=Work-for-the-Dole=
Thirdly, I seem to recall Peter Reith and Tony Abbott saying at various times that the work-for-the-dole program was not intended to create new jobs (however, I can't back that up, so I'll have to dig out a quote from somewhere).
Sabrina Martins User:Merric/Merric
For edits like these, which sound reasonably uncontroversial to me (particularly if you can cite sources) just go ahead and make them. Nextel ringtones Robert Merkel/Robert Merkel 06:09, 18 Aug 2003
: I concur. Abbey Diaz Tannin/Tannin 08:25, 18 Aug 2003
Adam Rewrite
Hi Adam,
in your extensive rewrite, you took out a few aspects of the article which I'd written in. Inevitably, I'd like to discuss a few of these:
''The Liberal Party was in a precarious internal state before the Free ringtones 1996 election. Although the Liberals had once been the "natural party of governance" in Australia, ruling for all but three years from 1949-1983, they had at that point lost five successive elections. When Howard regained the helm in 1995, he was their third leader in two years.''
''The strategy for the Majo Mills 1996 election was to moderate the harsh image which had harmed the Liberals at the previous (Mosquito ringtone 1993) election. They released policies and pledges which were significanctly more environment- and welfare- friendly than their previous election platforms. The incumbent Prime Minister Sabrina Martins Paul Keating, was perceived as lacking empathy with the broader public with his intellectualised "big-picture" approach to politics and combination of harsh political tactics and perceived elitist tastes.''
The rewrite doesn't seem to capture the fact that the Liberals were genuinely desperate, that the party was close to falling appart, and the fact that there was something brilliantly disingenuous about the '96 Liberal platform (note: someone who's read more than me might be able to shed some light on whether it is Howard, or his advisors, who deserve the credit for this).
The article now says:
''Soon after taking office Howard took control of the domestic political agenda, sometimes in unexpected ways. ''
This sentence doesn't seem very enlightening. Is this talking about anything other than the gun control issue? Did Howard "take control of the agenda" more than any other newly elected Prime Minister? How much of the agenda was due to Howard and how much to the rest of Cabinet?
The revised version no longer mentions some significant aspects of the government's first term - the importance of Mal Colston's vote (without which numerous pieces of legislation would not have been passed), the reversal of popularity after Cheryl Kernot's defection, or the fact that Australian universities were to start charging full fees for the first time since the 1970s.
That section of the article should probably also mention Brian Harradine...
You also removed the reference to database-driven campaigning in marginal seats. Can you confirm or deny that the Liberals gained a very significant advantage as a result of this? If, as I've heard, these Nextel ringtones Karl Rove/Rovean techniques were in use, they would have been worth at least a few percentage points, thus being a major factor in the '98 election victory.
Abbey Diaz Pde/Pde 03:41, 12 Oct 2003
Dear Pde: My feeling, after having either written or edited all the other Prime Minister articles, was that the Howard article was too long and too digressive and contained too much material which strayed too far from the biographical. Of course Howard's biography has to be placed in its political context, or it makes no sense to non-Australian readers, but an article on John Howard is nevertheless not a Cingular Ringtones History of the Howard Government. That was why I pruned quite a lot of the discussions about policies and political events which (in my opinion) did not cast light on the central subject of the article.
You may feel I have gone too far, and if so you are free to work some of that material back into the text, but hopefully in a way which doesn't bog the reader down in side-issues.
On the particular points you raise:
*I didn't think either the Colston saga or the Kernot defection was sufficiently relevant to Howard's biography. Foreign readers find the Australian parliamentary system difficult enough to follow, let alone trying to explain the balance of power in the Senate. In ''this'' article it is a distraction from the subject.
::Well, maybe the two cases are very different. I think Colston should be included, because the affair was so central to the spirit (and outcomes) of the first term. But I agree that there's a end bowing John Howard vs. radically reducing History of the Howard Government issue. Which is an aspect of the issue you pointed out before, on the structure of political articles...
*The material about the 1996 campaign is I suppose more debateable, although I don't in fact think the Liberal Party was about to disintegrate, any more than the ALP is now. Part of the historian's job is to critically reassess short-sighted media overstatement with the benefit of hindsight.
*I agree that the sentence you quote is weak, it was my attempt to lead into your discussion of the 1996-98 policy agenda. Feel free to replace it. :)
*Both parties use database driven campaign techniques and there's nothing particularly sinister about them. In any case I don't think Liberal Party campaign tactics are relevant to this article unless Howard invented them himself, which he didn't.
::Of course both parties use them now and whether they're good or bad for democracy is a question beyond the scope for this article (digression: I couldn't find an article on election campaigns, so I carter tried election campaign/created a stub). The story I heard was that in 1998, the Liberals had started using databases, while the ALP had not. If that was in fact the case, it may have been quite important to JH's career.
Finally I'm sorry if I have butchered your copy too severely. I'm still getting used to people doing it to me.
::No problem, I guess the challenge of wiki collaboration is to move from the moment of "Oh no! They've butchered it" to agreement on a better text :) see chatterbox Pde/Pde 08:35, 12 Oct 2003
dramatizing on Adam Carr/Adam 04:31, 12 Oct 2003
Working-class
"Many working-class voters backed the Howard line on illegal immigrants and asylum-seekers, while the party's middle-class supporters strongly opposed it."
Can somebody please clean this up? I really don't like any discussion of 'class'. It is wrong to make any distinction between socio-economic groups in such an obviously belittling manner. school rivalries Mark Ryan/Mark Ryan 06:40, 19 Nov 2003
:Mark, it can be perfectly sensible NPOV commentary to describe things in terms of class (or race, or religion, for that matter), provided there is actually a statistical basis for the claim. I don't know enough to comment on the facts in this particular case, though. And it's important to not jerusalem by correlation implies causation/confuse correlation with causation. and precocious Pde/pde 01:53, 21 Nov 2003
::OK. Thanks for clearing that up for me. Anyway, I had interpreted the old paragraph wrong, thinking it was referring to working and middle-class supporters of the Liberal Party, not the ALP. It makes a whole lot more sense now. :-) women but Mark Ryan/Mark Ryan 02:53, 22 Nov 2003
:::The amusing thing is, I was under the same impression until I was actually trying to reword it. spreading epidemic User:Pde/pde
Simon Crean
Simon Crean is no longer leader of the opposition. The page should be modified to reflect that. ''he kept his lead in the opinion polls over the new Labor leader, Simon Crean.''. Reference: http://www.alp.org.au/
:Done. - railroad tracks Mark/Mark 13:12, 2 Jan 2004
Category
I have deleted the "Catgeory: Australian Liberal Party MHRs" for the following reasons:
*It is the Liberal Party of Australia, not the Australian Liberal Party.
*They are MPs, not MHRs.
*A "category" with only one person in it is useless - there are 68 Liberal federal MPs - are you going to tag all of them?
*We already have a perfectly good people currently List of members of the Australian House of Representatives - why do we need to duplicate this, in a less useful form?
and chatting Adam Carr/Adam 13:09, 3 Jun 2004
:To each of your points:
:*Then change it. Why delete?
:*Then change it. Why delete? (I used MHR to refer to the lower house specifically; I didn't know if MP's referred to MHRs and senators as a group, or just MHRs)
:*Yes, past and present. It will never happen if people keep removing them.
:*In groups like this, categories are becoming a replacement for many (though not all) list articles.
:The one thing I would change about what I have done, is have each person in separate categories: eg. John Howard, rather than in '''Australian Liberal Party MHRs''', is a member of
:*'''Liberal Party of Australia politicians''' (includes all federal Liberal politicians, past or present, upper or lower house)
:*'''Australian MHRs''' (or MPs) (includes all federal politicians, past or present, House of Reps)
:*'''Current Australian politicians''' (may think of a better name) for politicians still in parliament.
:Your habit of deleting things that you don't like isn't going to help Wikipedia. Fix, don't delete. voluntarism is Chuq/Chuq 23:46, 3 Jun 2004
Some things can only be fixed by being deleted. What is the point of creating "category" articles which merely duplicate, in an inferior form, what already exists? Go and do something original rather than trying to redo what other people have already done. on lodging Adam Carr/Adam 00:36, 4 Jun 2004
East Timor
I find it astonishing that Adam Carr would revert my edit with the comment: "(rvt comments about Timor which are (a) matters of opinion and (b) not relevant to this article)". His version said:
:''Australia led pressure on well meanwhile Indonesia to uphold that country's offer to been three East Timor of a referendum on independence, and later contributed a significant peacekeeping/policing force to protect the inhabitants against pro-Indonesian militias. Most Australians and the rest of the Western world viewed this as a moral, principled stand. Howard reversed a decades-old bi-partisan foreign policy of appeasement towards Indonesia which had hitherto been followed by governments of both persuasions.''
The formulation "Most Australians and the rest of the Western world viewed this as a moral, principled stand" is most certainly a matter of opinion for which no evidence is offered. My correction:
:''On the one hand, some in Australia and the rest of the Western world viewed this as a moral, principled stand. However, critics observe that the motivation for this intervention may have been less than altruistic: instead of negotiating with a relatively strong and determined government of hitherto been Indonesia over rights to the oil and gas resources in the Timor Sea, Australia now is able to deal with a powerless and desperate government in french leadership East Timor. According to the British-based non- governmental humanitarian group dodgers this Oxfam, Australia's thirst for petroleum poses a threat to East Timor's independence http://''
is an attempt to balance the article with an opposing (and documented) view. If opposition to Howard's East Timor policy is "not relevant", than surely the dubious assertion that the whole world admires it cannot be relevant, either. 172.192.173.23
Just for the record, the line "the rest of the Western world viewed this as a moral, principled stand" was not written by me. I agree that it is too sweeping and could be deleted. However, the line "instead of negotiating with a relatively strong and determined government of Indonesia over rights to the oil and gas resources in the Timor Sea, Australia now is able to deal with a powerless and desperate government in East Timor" is even more sweeping, and much more tendentious. ''Many'' more people in Australia would subscribe to the former statement than to the latter. The correct solution is probably to delete all opinionated statements about Timor. This is not after all an article about Timor, and a statement of the fact that Howard did what he did will probably suffice here. Adam Carr/Adam 04:24, 28 Jun 2004
Newspaper Article
Hey, I e-mailed a Newspaper Article on John Howard/him to the http://canberra.yourguide.com.au/home.asp. User:Patricknoddy User talk:Patricknoddy 8:02 August 22, 2004 (EDT)
Letter
I got a letter from him. Patricknoddy/Patricknoddy 21:14, 31 Aug 2004 Patricknoddy User:Patricknoddy/Patricknoddy 21:14, 31 Aug 2004 User talk:Patricknoddy 17:14 August 31, 2004 (EDT)
:What did it say? - Ta bu shi da yu/Ta bu shi da yu 13:22, 1 Sep 2004
Could we setup a temporary block on a specific network range?
I notice in the history there has been quite a bit of vandalisation from the following netblock:
inetnum: 211.26.0.0 - 211.27.255.255
netname: INTERNETPRIMUS
descr: Primus Telecommunications
descr: Internet Services Network
country: AU
admin-c: jp21-ap
tech-c: rc35-ap
mnt-by: APNIC-HM
mnt-lower: MAINT-PRIMUS-AU
status: ALLOCATED PORTABLE
remarks: -+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
remarks: This object can only be modified by APNIC hostmaster
remarks: If you wish to modify this object details please
remarks: send email to hostmaster@apnic.net with your organisation
remarks: account name in the subject line.
remarks: -+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
changed: hm-changed@apnic.net 20030930
source: APNIC
person: Jeff Pace
nic-hdl: JP21-AP
e-mail: netops@primus.com.au
address: L3 1 Alfred Street
address: Circular Quay
address: Sydney NSW Australia
address: 2000
phone: +61-2-9423 2400
fax-no: +61-2-9423 2410
country: AU
changed: netops@primus.com.au 20030724
mnt-by: MAINT-PRIMUS-AU
source: APNIC
person: Richard Coombe
nic-hdl: RC35-AP
e-mail: netops@primus.com.au
address: Level 3
address: 1Alfred Street
address: Circular Quay
address: Sydney NSW 2000
phone: +61-2-9423 2400
fax-no: +61-2-9423 2410
country: AU
changed: netops@primus.com.au 20030724
mnt-by: MAINT-PRIMUS-AU
source: APNIC
(from http://www.apnic.net/apnic-bin/whois.pl)
Could we block this for a while? (I may yet regret this as I may be in the same network range at work... still) - Ta bu shi da yu/Ta bu shi da yu 04:36, 6 Oct 2004
:iPrimus and Primus-AOL combined make one of Australia's largest ISPs. Are you suggesting blocking the entire ISP? - Mark/Mark 07:14, 10 Oct 2004
::Yup. Only for a short while. I was putting this out there temporarily to see what happens. Probably not practical. - Ta bu shi da yu/Ta bu shi da yu 09:12, 10 Oct 2004
No mention of Medicare
Didn't Howard vote against Medicare and brand it a waste? Why doesn't this article mention that? - Ta bu shi da yu/Ta bu shi da yu 04:49, 10 Oct 2004
: Because, in my understanding, it is not realy relevant to this article. Xtra/Xtra 09:54, 10 Oct 2004
: Actually, I disagree. In 1987, John Howard was recorded as saying that bulk billing will not be permitted for anyone except pensioners and the disadvantaged. Also, try the following quote from Margo Kingston' website:
:: JOURNALIST: But Mr Howard, you used to oppose Medicare.
:: PRIME MINISTER: Yes, I did.
:: See http://webdiary.smh.com.au/archives/000294.html.
:So, perhaps this should still be added. - Ta bu shi da yu/Ta bu shi da yu 05:48, 13 Oct 2004
::I think it is relevant, given that Howard has been posing lately as Medicare's best friend. The fact is that Howard doesn't beliece in universal health insurance and never has, and if he ever gets the chance he will abolish it (like if he should ever get control of the Senate, for example). Adam Carr/Adam 06:50, 12 Oct 2004
::: I think your being a tad cynical adam. I can guarantee you that Howard will not abolish medicare even in the event of a senate majority. it is irrelevant to this article, plus i doubt anything could be written on that topic that was not POV. incidentaly, what are these fake greens how to votes that i have been hearing about? Xtra/Xtra 13:31, 12 Oct 2004
::::Across Melbourne Ports and some other seats the Libs had a squad of teenage girls dressed in green t-shirts and caps handing out a green-coloured HTV saying "vote for a green Australia" or variants of that. This was clearly designed to deceive Green voters, especially first-time voters, into voting Liberal, and led to angry scenes at several booths. This is all photographed and documented, and will lead to legal action. Adam Carr/Adam 02:26, 13 Oct 2004
Menzies
That bit about 2012 being when Howard passes Menzies is wrong - Menzies was PM for a total of 18 years, 5 months and 12 days so Howard will pass him on August 24, 2014. PMelvilleAustin/PMA 09:17, 10 Oct 2004
Excelled academically?
From the Sydney Morning Herald:
Howard scored As in English and modern history in the Leaving Certificate and Bs in Latin, chemistry and economics. He failed general maths.
These are reasonable marks but I wouldn't say Howard excelled academically as the article states. Is it reasonable to put these marks in the article or should the statement just be removed?
:The statement should be removed. Adam Carr/Adam 06:50, 12 Oct 2004
FTA
I guess there should be a sentence or two about the FTA with the USA, right in the middle of the current last paragraph of the third term.
Reverting edits
It appears that some people are reverting edits that aren't vandalism without giving any reason ''why'' they are doing this. The text was reverted "These criticisms came from conservative figures such as ex-Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser and political commentator Robert Manne, as well as critics from the military, public service and Howard's own personal staff." to "These criticisms came from conservative figures such as ex-Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser and political commentator Robert Manne, as well as the more usual critics on the left." Why was this done? No explanation was given! It's ironic that both statements are pretty POV and have unattributed critics though. - Ta bu shi da yu/Ta bu shi da yu 14:12, 12 Oct 2004
:I must say I agree with your factual version more that the clearly POV original. Markhurd/Mark Hurd 15:45, 12 Oct 2004
ministries
those ministries seem a bit bulky compared to the article. could they be made their own article with a link here? Xtra/Xtra 06:50, 21 Nov 2004
:They're already in a list of Australian ministries that Adam just created. I also agree that they bloat the article. Ambi/Ambi 06:58, 21 Nov 2004
It's not my fault that he has been in power so long or has appointed so many ministers. All the other PM articles now have similar lists. Adam Carr/Adam 07:02, 21 Nov 2004
:I guess the point is that they bloat the article - if that's the case for this one, it's most probably the case for most other Prime Ministers, particularly those who have served more than one term. Note that I've not seen this repeated elsewhere (none of the US Presidents have their administration in their article, none of the UK Prime Ministers have their cabinet there, etc.) Ambi/Ambi 08:26, 21 Nov 2004
Yes they do. Adam Carr/Adam 08:32, 21 Nov 2004
whether they do or not, adam. wouldn't it make more sense just to have a link to your article of the ministries. don't think that i don't apreciate your work, because i do, but it really looks silly here. Xtra/Xtra 08:45, 21 Nov 2004
That is an entirely subjective statement, with which I disagree, and I don't see why your opinion about what looks silly is any more determinative than mine. Contra Ambi, I am bringing the Australian PM articles into conformity with the US President and UK PM articles, which do indeed give Cabinet lists. Mine are just more comprehensive, which is what an encyclopaedia is supposed to be. Adam Carr/Adam 08:57, 21 Nov 2004
that now looks much better adam. Xtra/Xtra 00:37, 24 Nov 2004
I think the separate articles look good too. Also as the info isn't duplicated from the Australian Commonwealth ministries 1901-2004 article, theres no chance of the info getting out of sync. Chuq/Chuq 01:11, 24 Nov 2004
Freemason
We should mention somewhere that he is a Freemasonry/Freemason. http://www.nobbys.net.au/~gumtree/mmma15.htm
That website makes it clear that he is NOT a Freemason. Adam Carr/Adam 14:09, 9 Dec 2004
2nd longest serving
Howard will become the 2nd longest serving PM on 21 December. Adam Carr/Adam 02:57, 10 Dec 2004
personal website
sorry, but i had to remove the link, because the spam filter wouldnt let me save it with the link still there. Xtra/Xtra 13:14, 20 Dec 2004
external links
the links that user:Wm/wm continues to put up to anti howard propogander on this page would be like me putting up the liberal party's dont trust latham website on latham's page. or the liberal link anti-green pamphlet on bob brown's page. both of which are innapropriate in this forum. Xtra/Xtra 03:45, 21 Dec 2004
:
:John Howard Lies is a valuable resource for anyone seeking information about the Howard term of government and should be included.
:The parody blog is political satire, as John Howard is prominent politician, it is relevant information and relates to the subject and Australian history
:I expect these links to be re-instated and will be seeking to escalate this dispute through appropriate procedures Wm/Wm 04:29, 21 Dec 2004
i suggest that you try to obtain a consensus of editors to this page if you wish to re-instate them. Xtra/Xtra 06:05, 21 Dec 2004
:
:Take as an example the entry on Noam chomsky: Noam_Chomsky#Criticism_of_Chomsky/Criticism_of_Chomsky
:we can see here that links criticising the subject are permitted in this case, despite many of the referenced material lacking any substance - Why should it be that links to sites offering criticism of Howard are not permitted? - http://www.johnhowardlies.com/ is packed full of actual quotes from John Howard - it is extremetly relevant to anyone searching for information about Howard. Wm/Wm 05:46, 22 Dec 2004
:: these (the blog and the lies website) aren't critisisms. they are blatant propogander. Xtra/Xtra 07:13, 22 Dec 2004
::p.s. i can take a quote from anyone, use it out of context, or mix it with irrelevant information, and make it sound like the complete oposite of what it meant. that is all that that website is. Xtra/Xtra 07:18, 22 Dec 2004
:::You appear to be suggesting that the http://www.johnhowardlies.com/ site contains falsities. Yet you have not supported this claim with any examples. Please provide examples of how it takes quotes "out of context" and mixes with "irrelevant information" Wm/Wm 05:26, 23 Dec 2004
John Howard misleads Parliament
Xtra has removed my new paragraph:
:In 2003 it was revealed that Howard had misled Parliament in September 2002, when he had been asked whether any comminication had occurred between the government and any representative of ethanol producers prior to a granting Manildra, a major Liberal Party donor, with more than $20 million a year in subsidies. Howard denied in the house that any communication had taken place but it was subsequently revealed that he had met with Dick Honan, the chairman of the Manildra Group of companies, on the 1st of August, 2002.
He/she also removed references to support this paragraph:
:* Margo Kingston (August 12, 2003), http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/08/12/1060588384214.html, Sydney Morning Herald
:* Mark Riley (August 14, 2003), http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/08/13/1060588464157.html, Sydney Morning Herald
There is no reason why the above facts cannot be included in the article. Please provide an explanation as to why you think these facts should be included. It is a significant event in Howard's Prime Ministership.
:i did not mean to remove those articles. but the paragraph promotes presumption based on speculation. Xtra/Xtra 03:47, 23 Dec 2004
::The paragraph is entirely factual. I also supplied references but you removed those also. The references contain extracts from Hansard which clearly support the paragraph. The facts are well known - Howard did deny in Parliament that he had had contact and it is know that he did in fact have a meeting. I can and will supply more references. Please re-instate the paragraph and its the supporting references. Please note that it is Wikipedia policy to Cite sources/cite sources "If you consult an external source while writing an article, citing it is basic intellectual honesty" Wm/Wm 04:20, 23 Dec 2004
You can only make the statement "Howard misled Parliament" if (a) he has admitted it, or (b) a court or equivalent body has found it proved. Otherwise it has to be described as an allegation. Adam Carr/Adam 04:35, 23 Dec 2004
::Is this a Wikipedia rule? If so, can you please provide a reference? Obviously, this would be a good guide in a ambiguous case. However there is no doubt whatsoever that Howard misled Parliament. Please note the following additional reference: http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/08/13/1060588461561.html Editorial (August 14, 2003) - Sydney Morning Herald Wm/Wm 04:46, 23 Dec 2004
::A further reference is facsimile of the http://www.smh.com.au/media/2003/08/12/1060588385678.html, Sydney Morning Herald that was obtained by FOI request - this records the meeting that contradicts Howard's claims. Wm/Wm 04:53, 23 Dec 2004
It doesn't matter how many people accuse him of misleading Parliament, or how eminent they are. If the allegation is contested, it can only be described as an allegation. Has Howard admitted misleading Parliament? Has he been censured by the House for doing so? Has a court found that he did so? No. Therefore, while ''you'' can say he misled Parliament, and I may agree with you, an encyclopaedia cannot say so. Adam Carr/Adam 05:04, 23 Dec 2004
::Let me repeat my questions. "Is this a Wikipedia rule? If so, can you please provide a reference?". It is a simple matter of fact that Howard misled Parliament. I have no doubt that the huge majority of facts presented in Wikipedia have never been proven in a court of law. If I say that the John Howard is Prime Minister of Australia, has that been proven in a court of law? Obviously not - the facts in this case are just as clear, Howard did mislead Parliament because he denied that he had had a contact when if fact he had. There can be no dispute.
::Let me put in another way: If the wording becomes:
:::In 2003 after Howard denied when he had been asked in Parliament whether any communication had occurred between the government and any representative of ethanol producers prior to a granting Manildra, a major Liberal Party donor, with more than $20 million a year in subsidies, it was subsequently revealed that in fact he had met with Dick Honan, the chairman of the Manildra Group of companies, on the 1st of August, 2002.
::In this (rough) re-wording, it is clear that Howard has misled Parliament, there are no mis-representations of fact. All that has happened is that the meaning has been buried by avoid using the M work (mislead) - but he did mislead Parliament, absolutely without any doubt. Note: there is a difference between '''lying''' and '''misled''', the first implies intent, but the second is neutral in that it does not imply intent. Wm/Wm 05:26, 23 Dec 2004
:::do you have actual evidence. if so present it. otherwise, say it was an accusation and shorten the paragraph - it is too long winded.
::::This seems a rather disingenous comment - I have already presented several references which include quotes from Parliamentary transcripts and a document facsimile and and editorial from the SMH that quite cleary states as its heading ''Howard Misled Parliament'' - the question is, can you provide any sources that deny that Howard misled Parliament? As to the length of the paragraph, I am quite happy to have other people edit (this is Wikipedia!) it if they can shorten it without removing any of the facts it contains Wm/Wm 06:20, 23 Dec 2004
:::::Well, my suggestion is to make it:
::::::In 2003 Howard denied when he had been asked in Parliament whether any communication had occurred between the government and any representative of ethanol producers prior to a granting Manildra, a major Liberal Party donor, with more than $20 million a year in subsidies. It was subsequently alleged by Margo Kingston in the Sydney Morning Herald [http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/08/12/1060588384214.html] that he had in fact met with Dick Honan, the chairman of the Manildra Group of companies, on the 1st of August, 2002.
:::::This way you are stating who is making the allegations, and you don't remove any of your material. This is proper sourcing. If you do this, then make sure you add the reference to the References section, as per cite your sources. - Ta bu shi da yu/Ta bu shi da yu 08:13, 23 Dec 2004
::::::Thanks for your efforts. The major problem with this version is that it is make it sound like Kingston broke the story. I believe that if you read the source documnents, you will realise that in fact it was initially revealed in Parliament. Second, the use of the word "alleged" is unecessary and obfuscates the simple fact. If Howard made a statement in Parliament that he hadn't had such a meeting and in fact he had had one (which in demonstrated as true by the Parliamentary record and FOI documents) - how then can it be said that he did not mislead Parliament? Wm/Wm 21:16, 23 Dec 2004
::: maybe:
::: In 2003 Howard was accused of misleading Parliament in September 2002, when he had been asked whether any comminication had occurred between the government and any representative of ethanol producers prior to a granting Manildra, with $20 million a year in subsidies to produce ethanol. Howard denied that any communication had taken place but it was subsequently revealed that he had met with Dick Honan, the chairman of the Manildra.
::: that may do, if that is factually acurate.
::::I will go probably go with a slighty modified version of this for now. However it is incomplete. Not only was Howard '''accussed''' of misleading Parliament, he did '''in fact''' mislead Parliament. It is a case of not being able to plainly state the truth. Wm/Wm 06:20, 23 Dec 2004
::: many companies donate to political parties, manildra isn't in the liberal top ten. Xtra/Xtra 05:37, 23 Dec 2004
::::Not a helpful comment. What does it mean? - that they are in the top 20? Wm/Wm 06:20, 23 Dec 2004
:::::i dont know. i only know the top ten. Xtra/Xtra 21:57, 23 Dec 2004
Criticism from Valder and others
The article states:
''Although some long-time Howard enemies in the Liberal Party such as former leader John Hewson and former federal president John Valder criticised Howard over Iraq, the great majority of Liberals continued to support his actions.''
I have some problems with this:
The point that is being lost amongst a little obfuscation and wishy-washy "facts" is that very strong criticism of Howard has come from within very senior members of his own party and that this level of criticism is unusual. Particularly, it seems highly significant that such a senior Liberal as John Valder (former federal president of the party) should suggest that Howard is a "war criminal" (see reference).
By saying that this and other criticisms are coming from "long-time Howard enemies", this wording seems to suggest that somehow these criticisms are more motivated by personal animosity than any concern or relevance to the issues. Thus the passage strays from NPOV:
#To what extent can John Valder be regarded as a "long-time" enemy of Howard? Can we have some sources for this?
#Why has Malcolm Fraser been omitted from the list? Is he also to be regarded as "long-time" enemy?
The passage ssys: ''the great majority of Liberals continued to support his actions''
What is a "Liberal"? - A member of the Liberal party or a person who voted for the government? If the former how does this account for a dramatic drop in the membershop of the party over the lifetime of the current electoral success? If the later, then it is rather misleading or at best ambiguous- better to say "continued to command strong electoral support"
Reference:
*http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/07/18/1090089035899.html (smh)
*http://www.cpa.org.au/garchve04/1200valder.html (cpa.org.au but is quoting The Guardian)
Wm/Wm 00:58, 2 Jan 2005
the passage as it stands it true. most liberals support howard. those who have attacked him, have tended to be factional enemies. Xtra/Xtra 01:13, 2 Jan 2005
::But you haven't answered the questions raised. First, what is meant by a "Liberal"? - is this meant to refer to members of the Liberal Party? - in which case the text should be made explicit. However, if this '''is''' what is meant it is is misrepresenting the situation to state this unqualified statement because membership of the party has (apparently) dropped dramatically: ''John Valder said that Liberal Party membership had dropped from an estimated 103,000 in 1983, to about 10,000 in both NSW and Victoria. Liberal Party members were walking away "in disillusionment".'' (see my second reference above) Wm/Wm 04:36, 2 Jan 2005
::Also, we need to find support for this idea that Valder and Howard are "factional enemies" - I am very skeptical about this, I believe they are old friends: ''But John is a friend of mine in the past. I valued his support and his friendship. Even though he's very critical of me now I find it impossible to bear him any deep malice.'' (John Howard - Interviewed by Laurie Oakes on August 15 2004 - http://sunday.ninemsn.com.au/sunday/political_transcripts/article_1622.asp Wm/Wm 05:03, 2 Jan 2005
General Details
=Howard vs Peacock=
Firstly, when the article mentions that, in 1985, Howard 'challenged' Peacock, what do we mean by this? Howard did not launch a challenge in the sense that he never contested a ballot against Peacock. Nor, as far as I'm aware, was Howard ever seriously considering running against Peacock. Peacock felt threatened by Howard and bungled an attempt to remove him from the Deputy Leadership position (he spilt the DL position, expecting Howard to challenge for the leadership - Howard simply recontested for his old position, putting Peacock in an untenable position and forcing him to resign).
:It's slightly before my time, but if that is the true picture please edit the article to reflect it (I suppose I could get The End of Certainty and have a look...)
=1998 Election=
Secondly, about the financial figures in the 1998 election - again, I thought that the ALP actually outspent the Coalition (not particularly odd - it routinely happens in state elections nowadays), but that a tax-reform lobby group spent millions of dollars running a parallel campaign to the Coalition.
:Dunno. I do remember "Australians For Tax Reform" (aka the Business Council of Australia). Lexis-Nexis might be able to answer that one.
=Work-for-the-Dole=
Thirdly, I seem to recall Peter Reith and Tony Abbott saying at various times that the work-for-the-dole program was not intended to create new jobs (however, I can't back that up, so I'll have to dig out a quote from somewhere).
Sabrina Martins User:Merric/Merric
For edits like these, which sound reasonably uncontroversial to me (particularly if you can cite sources) just go ahead and make them. Nextel ringtones Robert Merkel/Robert Merkel 06:09, 18 Aug 2003
: I concur. Abbey Diaz Tannin/Tannin 08:25, 18 Aug 2003
Adam Rewrite
Hi Adam,
in your extensive rewrite, you took out a few aspects of the article which I'd written in. Inevitably, I'd like to discuss a few of these:
''The Liberal Party was in a precarious internal state before the Free ringtones 1996 election. Although the Liberals had once been the "natural party of governance" in Australia, ruling for all but three years from 1949-1983, they had at that point lost five successive elections. When Howard regained the helm in 1995, he was their third leader in two years.''
''The strategy for the Majo Mills 1996 election was to moderate the harsh image which had harmed the Liberals at the previous (Mosquito ringtone 1993) election. They released policies and pledges which were significanctly more environment- and welfare- friendly than their previous election platforms. The incumbent Prime Minister Sabrina Martins Paul Keating, was perceived as lacking empathy with the broader public with his intellectualised "big-picture" approach to politics and combination of harsh political tactics and perceived elitist tastes.''
The rewrite doesn't seem to capture the fact that the Liberals were genuinely desperate, that the party was close to falling appart, and the fact that there was something brilliantly disingenuous about the '96 Liberal platform (note: someone who's read more than me might be able to shed some light on whether it is Howard, or his advisors, who deserve the credit for this).
The article now says:
''Soon after taking office Howard took control of the domestic political agenda, sometimes in unexpected ways. ''
This sentence doesn't seem very enlightening. Is this talking about anything other than the gun control issue? Did Howard "take control of the agenda" more than any other newly elected Prime Minister? How much of the agenda was due to Howard and how much to the rest of Cabinet?
The revised version no longer mentions some significant aspects of the government's first term - the importance of Mal Colston's vote (without which numerous pieces of legislation would not have been passed), the reversal of popularity after Cheryl Kernot's defection, or the fact that Australian universities were to start charging full fees for the first time since the 1970s.
That section of the article should probably also mention Brian Harradine...
You also removed the reference to database-driven campaigning in marginal seats. Can you confirm or deny that the Liberals gained a very significant advantage as a result of this? If, as I've heard, these Nextel ringtones Karl Rove/Rovean techniques were in use, they would have been worth at least a few percentage points, thus being a major factor in the '98 election victory.
Abbey Diaz Pde/Pde 03:41, 12 Oct 2003
Dear Pde: My feeling, after having either written or edited all the other Prime Minister articles, was that the Howard article was too long and too digressive and contained too much material which strayed too far from the biographical. Of course Howard's biography has to be placed in its political context, or it makes no sense to non-Australian readers, but an article on John Howard is nevertheless not a Cingular Ringtones History of the Howard Government. That was why I pruned quite a lot of the discussions about policies and political events which (in my opinion) did not cast light on the central subject of the article.
You may feel I have gone too far, and if so you are free to work some of that material back into the text, but hopefully in a way which doesn't bog the reader down in side-issues.
On the particular points you raise:
*I didn't think either the Colston saga or the Kernot defection was sufficiently relevant to Howard's biography. Foreign readers find the Australian parliamentary system difficult enough to follow, let alone trying to explain the balance of power in the Senate. In ''this'' article it is a distraction from the subject.
::Well, maybe the two cases are very different. I think Colston should be included, because the affair was so central to the spirit (and outcomes) of the first term. But I agree that there's a end bowing John Howard vs. radically reducing History of the Howard Government issue. Which is an aspect of the issue you pointed out before, on the structure of political articles...
*The material about the 1996 campaign is I suppose more debateable, although I don't in fact think the Liberal Party was about to disintegrate, any more than the ALP is now. Part of the historian's job is to critically reassess short-sighted media overstatement with the benefit of hindsight.
*I agree that the sentence you quote is weak, it was my attempt to lead into your discussion of the 1996-98 policy agenda. Feel free to replace it. :)
*Both parties use database driven campaign techniques and there's nothing particularly sinister about them. In any case I don't think Liberal Party campaign tactics are relevant to this article unless Howard invented them himself, which he didn't.
::Of course both parties use them now and whether they're good or bad for democracy is a question beyond the scope for this article (digression: I couldn't find an article on election campaigns, so I carter tried election campaign/created a stub). The story I heard was that in 1998, the Liberals had started using databases, while the ALP had not. If that was in fact the case, it may have been quite important to JH's career.
Finally I'm sorry if I have butchered your copy too severely. I'm still getting used to people doing it to me.
::No problem, I guess the challenge of wiki collaboration is to move from the moment of "Oh no! They've butchered it" to agreement on a better text :) see chatterbox Pde/Pde 08:35, 12 Oct 2003
dramatizing on Adam Carr/Adam 04:31, 12 Oct 2003
Working-class
"Many working-class voters backed the Howard line on illegal immigrants and asylum-seekers, while the party's middle-class supporters strongly opposed it."
Can somebody please clean this up? I really don't like any discussion of 'class'. It is wrong to make any distinction between socio-economic groups in such an obviously belittling manner. school rivalries Mark Ryan/Mark Ryan 06:40, 19 Nov 2003
:Mark, it can be perfectly sensible NPOV commentary to describe things in terms of class (or race, or religion, for that matter), provided there is actually a statistical basis for the claim. I don't know enough to comment on the facts in this particular case, though. And it's important to not jerusalem by correlation implies causation/confuse correlation with causation. and precocious Pde/pde 01:53, 21 Nov 2003
::OK. Thanks for clearing that up for me. Anyway, I had interpreted the old paragraph wrong, thinking it was referring to working and middle-class supporters of the Liberal Party, not the ALP. It makes a whole lot more sense now. :-) women but Mark Ryan/Mark Ryan 02:53, 22 Nov 2003
:::The amusing thing is, I was under the same impression until I was actually trying to reword it. spreading epidemic User:Pde/pde
Simon Crean
Simon Crean is no longer leader of the opposition. The page should be modified to reflect that. ''he kept his lead in the opinion polls over the new Labor leader, Simon Crean.''. Reference: http://www.alp.org.au/
:Done. - railroad tracks Mark/Mark 13:12, 2 Jan 2004
Category
I have deleted the "Catgeory: Australian Liberal Party MHRs" for the following reasons:
*It is the Liberal Party of Australia, not the Australian Liberal Party.
*They are MPs, not MHRs.
*A "category" with only one person in it is useless - there are 68 Liberal federal MPs - are you going to tag all of them?
*We already have a perfectly good people currently List of members of the Australian House of Representatives - why do we need to duplicate this, in a less useful form?
and chatting Adam Carr/Adam 13:09, 3 Jun 2004
:To each of your points:
:*Then change it. Why delete?
:*Then change it. Why delete? (I used MHR to refer to the lower house specifically; I didn't know if MP's referred to MHRs and senators as a group, or just MHRs)
:*Yes, past and present. It will never happen if people keep removing them.
:*In groups like this, categories are becoming a replacement for many (though not all) list articles.
:The one thing I would change about what I have done, is have each person in separate categories: eg. John Howard, rather than in '''Australian Liberal Party MHRs''', is a member of
:*'''Liberal Party of Australia politicians''' (includes all federal Liberal politicians, past or present, upper or lower house)
:*'''Australian MHRs''' (or MPs) (includes all federal politicians, past or present, House of Reps)
:*'''Current Australian politicians''' (may think of a better name) for politicians still in parliament.
:Your habit of deleting things that you don't like isn't going to help Wikipedia. Fix, don't delete. voluntarism is Chuq/Chuq 23:46, 3 Jun 2004
Some things can only be fixed by being deleted. What is the point of creating "category" articles which merely duplicate, in an inferior form, what already exists? Go and do something original rather than trying to redo what other people have already done. on lodging Adam Carr/Adam 00:36, 4 Jun 2004
East Timor
I find it astonishing that Adam Carr would revert my edit with the comment: "(rvt comments about Timor which are (a) matters of opinion and (b) not relevant to this article)". His version said:
:''Australia led pressure on well meanwhile Indonesia to uphold that country's offer to been three East Timor of a referendum on independence, and later contributed a significant peacekeeping/policing force to protect the inhabitants against pro-Indonesian militias. Most Australians and the rest of the Western world viewed this as a moral, principled stand. Howard reversed a decades-old bi-partisan foreign policy of appeasement towards Indonesia which had hitherto been followed by governments of both persuasions.''
The formulation "Most Australians and the rest of the Western world viewed this as a moral, principled stand" is most certainly a matter of opinion for which no evidence is offered. My correction:
:''On the one hand, some in Australia and the rest of the Western world viewed this as a moral, principled stand. However, critics observe that the motivation for this intervention may have been less than altruistic: instead of negotiating with a relatively strong and determined government of hitherto been Indonesia over rights to the oil and gas resources in the Timor Sea, Australia now is able to deal with a powerless and desperate government in french leadership East Timor. According to the British-based non- governmental humanitarian group dodgers this Oxfam, Australia's thirst for petroleum poses a threat to East Timor's independence http://''
is an attempt to balance the article with an opposing (and documented) view. If opposition to Howard's East Timor policy is "not relevant", than surely the dubious assertion that the whole world admires it cannot be relevant, either. 172.192.173.23
Just for the record, the line "the rest of the Western world viewed this as a moral, principled stand" was not written by me. I agree that it is too sweeping and could be deleted. However, the line "instead of negotiating with a relatively strong and determined government of Indonesia over rights to the oil and gas resources in the Timor Sea, Australia now is able to deal with a powerless and desperate government in East Timor" is even more sweeping, and much more tendentious. ''Many'' more people in Australia would subscribe to the former statement than to the latter. The correct solution is probably to delete all opinionated statements about Timor. This is not after all an article about Timor, and a statement of the fact that Howard did what he did will probably suffice here. Adam Carr/Adam 04:24, 28 Jun 2004
Newspaper Article
Hey, I e-mailed a Newspaper Article on John Howard/him to the http://canberra.yourguide.com.au/home.asp. User:Patricknoddy User talk:Patricknoddy 8:02 August 22, 2004 (EDT)
Letter
I got a letter from him. Patricknoddy/Patricknoddy 21:14, 31 Aug 2004 Patricknoddy User:Patricknoddy/Patricknoddy 21:14, 31 Aug 2004 User talk:Patricknoddy 17:14 August 31, 2004 (EDT)
:What did it say? - Ta bu shi da yu/Ta bu shi da yu 13:22, 1 Sep 2004
Could we setup a temporary block on a specific network range?
I notice in the history there has been quite a bit of vandalisation from the following netblock:
inetnum: 211.26.0.0 - 211.27.255.255
netname: INTERNETPRIMUS
descr: Primus Telecommunications
descr: Internet Services Network
country: AU
admin-c: jp21-ap
tech-c: rc35-ap
mnt-by: APNIC-HM
mnt-lower: MAINT-PRIMUS-AU
status: ALLOCATED PORTABLE
remarks: -+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
remarks: This object can only be modified by APNIC hostmaster
remarks: If you wish to modify this object details please
remarks: send email to hostmaster@apnic.net with your organisation
remarks: account name in the subject line.
remarks: -+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
changed: hm-changed@apnic.net 20030930
source: APNIC
person: Jeff Pace
nic-hdl: JP21-AP
e-mail: netops@primus.com.au
address: L3 1 Alfred Street
address: Circular Quay
address: Sydney NSW Australia
address: 2000
phone: +61-2-9423 2400
fax-no: +61-2-9423 2410
country: AU
changed: netops@primus.com.au 20030724
mnt-by: MAINT-PRIMUS-AU
source: APNIC
person: Richard Coombe
nic-hdl: RC35-AP
e-mail: netops@primus.com.au
address: Level 3
address: 1Alfred Street
address: Circular Quay
address: Sydney NSW 2000
phone: +61-2-9423 2400
fax-no: +61-2-9423 2410
country: AU
changed: netops@primus.com.au 20030724
mnt-by: MAINT-PRIMUS-AU
source: APNIC
(from http://www.apnic.net/apnic-bin/whois.pl)
Could we block this for a while? (I may yet regret this as I may be in the same network range at work... still) - Ta bu shi da yu/Ta bu shi da yu 04:36, 6 Oct 2004
:iPrimus and Primus-AOL combined make one of Australia's largest ISPs. Are you suggesting blocking the entire ISP? - Mark/Mark 07:14, 10 Oct 2004
::Yup. Only for a short while. I was putting this out there temporarily to see what happens. Probably not practical. - Ta bu shi da yu/Ta bu shi da yu 09:12, 10 Oct 2004
No mention of Medicare
Didn't Howard vote against Medicare and brand it a waste? Why doesn't this article mention that? - Ta bu shi da yu/Ta bu shi da yu 04:49, 10 Oct 2004
: Because, in my understanding, it is not realy relevant to this article. Xtra/Xtra 09:54, 10 Oct 2004
: Actually, I disagree. In 1987, John Howard was recorded as saying that bulk billing will not be permitted for anyone except pensioners and the disadvantaged. Also, try the following quote from Margo Kingston' website:
:: JOURNALIST: But Mr Howard, you used to oppose Medicare.
:: PRIME MINISTER: Yes, I did.
:: See http://webdiary.smh.com.au/archives/000294.html.
:So, perhaps this should still be added. - Ta bu shi da yu/Ta bu shi da yu 05:48, 13 Oct 2004
::I think it is relevant, given that Howard has been posing lately as Medicare's best friend. The fact is that Howard doesn't beliece in universal health insurance and never has, and if he ever gets the chance he will abolish it (like if he should ever get control of the Senate, for example). Adam Carr/Adam 06:50, 12 Oct 2004
::: I think your being a tad cynical adam. I can guarantee you that Howard will not abolish medicare even in the event of a senate majority. it is irrelevant to this article, plus i doubt anything could be written on that topic that was not POV. incidentaly, what are these fake greens how to votes that i have been hearing about? Xtra/Xtra 13:31, 12 Oct 2004
::::Across Melbourne Ports and some other seats the Libs had a squad of teenage girls dressed in green t-shirts and caps handing out a green-coloured HTV saying "vote for a green Australia" or variants of that. This was clearly designed to deceive Green voters, especially first-time voters, into voting Liberal, and led to angry scenes at several booths. This is all photographed and documented, and will lead to legal action. Adam Carr/Adam 02:26, 13 Oct 2004
Menzies
That bit about 2012 being when Howard passes Menzies is wrong - Menzies was PM for a total of 18 years, 5 months and 12 days so Howard will pass him on August 24, 2014. PMelvilleAustin/PMA 09:17, 10 Oct 2004
Excelled academically?
From the Sydney Morning Herald:
Howard scored As in English and modern history in the Leaving Certificate and Bs in Latin, chemistry and economics. He failed general maths.
These are reasonable marks but I wouldn't say Howard excelled academically as the article states. Is it reasonable to put these marks in the article or should the statement just be removed?
:The statement should be removed. Adam Carr/Adam 06:50, 12 Oct 2004
FTA
I guess there should be a sentence or two about the FTA with the USA, right in the middle of the current last paragraph of the third term.
Reverting edits
It appears that some people are reverting edits that aren't vandalism without giving any reason ''why'' they are doing this. The text was reverted "These criticisms came from conservative figures such as ex-Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser and political commentator Robert Manne, as well as critics from the military, public service and Howard's own personal staff." to "These criticisms came from conservative figures such as ex-Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser and political commentator Robert Manne, as well as the more usual critics on the left." Why was this done? No explanation was given! It's ironic that both statements are pretty POV and have unattributed critics though. - Ta bu shi da yu/Ta bu shi da yu 14:12, 12 Oct 2004
:I must say I agree with your factual version more that the clearly POV original. Markhurd/Mark Hurd 15:45, 12 Oct 2004
ministries
those ministries seem a bit bulky compared to the article. could they be made their own article with a link here? Xtra/Xtra 06:50, 21 Nov 2004
:They're already in a list of Australian ministries that Adam just created. I also agree that they bloat the article. Ambi/Ambi 06:58, 21 Nov 2004
It's not my fault that he has been in power so long or has appointed so many ministers. All the other PM articles now have similar lists. Adam Carr/Adam 07:02, 21 Nov 2004
:I guess the point is that they bloat the article - if that's the case for this one, it's most probably the case for most other Prime Ministers, particularly those who have served more than one term. Note that I've not seen this repeated elsewhere (none of the US Presidents have their administration in their article, none of the UK Prime Ministers have their cabinet there, etc.) Ambi/Ambi 08:26, 21 Nov 2004
Yes they do. Adam Carr/Adam 08:32, 21 Nov 2004
whether they do or not, adam. wouldn't it make more sense just to have a link to your article of the ministries. don't think that i don't apreciate your work, because i do, but it really looks silly here. Xtra/Xtra 08:45, 21 Nov 2004
That is an entirely subjective statement, with which I disagree, and I don't see why your opinion about what looks silly is any more determinative than mine. Contra Ambi, I am bringing the Australian PM articles into conformity with the US President and UK PM articles, which do indeed give Cabinet lists. Mine are just more comprehensive, which is what an encyclopaedia is supposed to be. Adam Carr/Adam 08:57, 21 Nov 2004
that now looks much better adam. Xtra/Xtra 00:37, 24 Nov 2004
I think the separate articles look good too. Also as the info isn't duplicated from the Australian Commonwealth ministries 1901-2004 article, theres no chance of the info getting out of sync. Chuq/Chuq 01:11, 24 Nov 2004
Freemason
We should mention somewhere that he is a Freemasonry/Freemason. http://www.nobbys.net.au/~gumtree/mmma15.htm
That website makes it clear that he is NOT a Freemason. Adam Carr/Adam 14:09, 9 Dec 2004
2nd longest serving
Howard will become the 2nd longest serving PM on 21 December. Adam Carr/Adam 02:57, 10 Dec 2004
personal website
sorry, but i had to remove the link, because the spam filter wouldnt let me save it with the link still there. Xtra/Xtra 13:14, 20 Dec 2004
external links
the links that user:Wm/wm continues to put up to anti howard propogander on this page would be like me putting up the liberal party's dont trust latham website on latham's page. or the liberal link anti-green pamphlet on bob brown's page. both of which are innapropriate in this forum. Xtra/Xtra 03:45, 21 Dec 2004
:
:John Howard Lies is a valuable resource for anyone seeking information about the Howard term of government and should be included.
:The parody blog is political satire, as John Howard is prominent politician, it is relevant information and relates to the subject and Australian history
:I expect these links to be re-instated and will be seeking to escalate this dispute through appropriate procedures Wm/Wm 04:29, 21 Dec 2004
i suggest that you try to obtain a consensus of editors to this page if you wish to re-instate them. Xtra/Xtra 06:05, 21 Dec 2004
:
:Take as an example the entry on Noam chomsky: Noam_Chomsky#Criticism_of_Chomsky/Criticism_of_Chomsky
:we can see here that links criticising the subject are permitted in this case, despite many of the referenced material lacking any substance - Why should it be that links to sites offering criticism of Howard are not permitted? - http://www.johnhowardlies.com/ is packed full of actual quotes from John Howard - it is extremetly relevant to anyone searching for information about Howard. Wm/Wm 05:46, 22 Dec 2004
:: these (the blog and the lies website) aren't critisisms. they are blatant propogander. Xtra/Xtra 07:13, 22 Dec 2004
::p.s. i can take a quote from anyone, use it out of context, or mix it with irrelevant information, and make it sound like the complete oposite of what it meant. that is all that that website is. Xtra/Xtra 07:18, 22 Dec 2004
:::You appear to be suggesting that the http://www.johnhowardlies.com/ site contains falsities. Yet you have not supported this claim with any examples. Please provide examples of how it takes quotes "out of context" and mixes with "irrelevant information" Wm/Wm 05:26, 23 Dec 2004
John Howard misleads Parliament
Xtra has removed my new paragraph:
:In 2003 it was revealed that Howard had misled Parliament in September 2002, when he had been asked whether any comminication had occurred between the government and any representative of ethanol producers prior to a granting Manildra, a major Liberal Party donor, with more than $20 million a year in subsidies. Howard denied in the house that any communication had taken place but it was subsequently revealed that he had met with Dick Honan, the chairman of the Manildra Group of companies, on the 1st of August, 2002.
He/she also removed references to support this paragraph:
:* Margo Kingston (August 12, 2003), http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/08/12/1060588384214.html, Sydney Morning Herald
:* Mark Riley (August 14, 2003), http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/08/13/1060588464157.html, Sydney Morning Herald
There is no reason why the above facts cannot be included in the article. Please provide an explanation as to why you think these facts should be included. It is a significant event in Howard's Prime Ministership.
:i did not mean to remove those articles. but the paragraph promotes presumption based on speculation. Xtra/Xtra 03:47, 23 Dec 2004
::The paragraph is entirely factual. I also supplied references but you removed those also. The references contain extracts from Hansard which clearly support the paragraph. The facts are well known - Howard did deny in Parliament that he had had contact and it is know that he did in fact have a meeting. I can and will supply more references. Please re-instate the paragraph and its the supporting references. Please note that it is Wikipedia policy to Cite sources/cite sources "If you consult an external source while writing an article, citing it is basic intellectual honesty" Wm/Wm 04:20, 23 Dec 2004
You can only make the statement "Howard misled Parliament" if (a) he has admitted it, or (b) a court or equivalent body has found it proved. Otherwise it has to be described as an allegation. Adam Carr/Adam 04:35, 23 Dec 2004
::Is this a Wikipedia rule? If so, can you please provide a reference? Obviously, this would be a good guide in a ambiguous case. However there is no doubt whatsoever that Howard misled Parliament. Please note the following additional reference: http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/08/13/1060588461561.html Editorial (August 14, 2003) - Sydney Morning Herald Wm/Wm 04:46, 23 Dec 2004
::A further reference is facsimile of the http://www.smh.com.au/media/2003/08/12/1060588385678.html, Sydney Morning Herald that was obtained by FOI request - this records the meeting that contradicts Howard's claims. Wm/Wm 04:53, 23 Dec 2004
It doesn't matter how many people accuse him of misleading Parliament, or how eminent they are. If the allegation is contested, it can only be described as an allegation. Has Howard admitted misleading Parliament? Has he been censured by the House for doing so? Has a court found that he did so? No. Therefore, while ''you'' can say he misled Parliament, and I may agree with you, an encyclopaedia cannot say so. Adam Carr/Adam 05:04, 23 Dec 2004
::Let me repeat my questions. "Is this a Wikipedia rule? If so, can you please provide a reference?". It is a simple matter of fact that Howard misled Parliament. I have no doubt that the huge majority of facts presented in Wikipedia have never been proven in a court of law. If I say that the John Howard is Prime Minister of Australia, has that been proven in a court of law? Obviously not - the facts in this case are just as clear, Howard did mislead Parliament because he denied that he had had a contact when if fact he had. There can be no dispute.
::Let me put in another way: If the wording becomes:
:::In 2003 after Howard denied when he had been asked in Parliament whether any communication had occurred between the government and any representative of ethanol producers prior to a granting Manildra, a major Liberal Party donor, with more than $20 million a year in subsidies, it was subsequently revealed that in fact he had met with Dick Honan, the chairman of the Manildra Group of companies, on the 1st of August, 2002.
::In this (rough) re-wording, it is clear that Howard has misled Parliament, there are no mis-representations of fact. All that has happened is that the meaning has been buried by avoid using the M work (mislead) - but he did mislead Parliament, absolutely without any doubt. Note: there is a difference between '''lying''' and '''misled''', the first implies intent, but the second is neutral in that it does not imply intent. Wm/Wm 05:26, 23 Dec 2004
:::do you have actual evidence. if so present it. otherwise, say it was an accusation and shorten the paragraph - it is too long winded.
::::This seems a rather disingenous comment - I have already presented several references which include quotes from Parliamentary transcripts and a document facsimile and and editorial from the SMH that quite cleary states as its heading ''Howard Misled Parliament'' - the question is, can you provide any sources that deny that Howard misled Parliament? As to the length of the paragraph, I am quite happy to have other people edit (this is Wikipedia!) it if they can shorten it without removing any of the facts it contains Wm/Wm 06:20, 23 Dec 2004
:::::Well, my suggestion is to make it:
::::::In 2003 Howard denied when he had been asked in Parliament whether any communication had occurred between the government and any representative of ethanol producers prior to a granting Manildra, a major Liberal Party donor, with more than $20 million a year in subsidies. It was subsequently alleged by Margo Kingston in the Sydney Morning Herald [http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/08/12/1060588384214.html] that he had in fact met with Dick Honan, the chairman of the Manildra Group of companies, on the 1st of August, 2002.
:::::This way you are stating who is making the allegations, and you don't remove any of your material. This is proper sourcing. If you do this, then make sure you add the reference to the References section, as per cite your sources. - Ta bu shi da yu/Ta bu shi da yu 08:13, 23 Dec 2004
::::::Thanks for your efforts. The major problem with this version is that it is make it sound like Kingston broke the story. I believe that if you read the source documnents, you will realise that in fact it was initially revealed in Parliament. Second, the use of the word "alleged" is unecessary and obfuscates the simple fact. If Howard made a statement in Parliament that he hadn't had such a meeting and in fact he had had one (which in demonstrated as true by the Parliamentary record and FOI documents) - how then can it be said that he did not mislead Parliament? Wm/Wm 21:16, 23 Dec 2004
::: maybe:
::: In 2003 Howard was accused of misleading Parliament in September 2002, when he had been asked whether any comminication had occurred between the government and any representative of ethanol producers prior to a granting Manildra, with $20 million a year in subsidies to produce ethanol. Howard denied that any communication had taken place but it was subsequently revealed that he had met with Dick Honan, the chairman of the Manildra.
::: that may do, if that is factually acurate.
::::I will go probably go with a slighty modified version of this for now. However it is incomplete. Not only was Howard '''accussed''' of misleading Parliament, he did '''in fact''' mislead Parliament. It is a case of not being able to plainly state the truth. Wm/Wm 06:20, 23 Dec 2004
::: many companies donate to political parties, manildra isn't in the liberal top ten. Xtra/Xtra 05:37, 23 Dec 2004
::::Not a helpful comment. What does it mean? - that they are in the top 20? Wm/Wm 06:20, 23 Dec 2004
:::::i dont know. i only know the top ten. Xtra/Xtra 21:57, 23 Dec 2004
Criticism from Valder and others
The article states:
''Although some long-time Howard enemies in the Liberal Party such as former leader John Hewson and former federal president John Valder criticised Howard over Iraq, the great majority of Liberals continued to support his actions.''
I have some problems with this:
The point that is being lost amongst a little obfuscation and wishy-washy "facts" is that very strong criticism of Howard has come from within very senior members of his own party and that this level of criticism is unusual. Particularly, it seems highly significant that such a senior Liberal as John Valder (former federal president of the party) should suggest that Howard is a "war criminal" (see reference).
By saying that this and other criticisms are coming from "long-time Howard enemies", this wording seems to suggest that somehow these criticisms are more motivated by personal animosity than any concern or relevance to the issues. Thus the passage strays from NPOV:
#To what extent can John Valder be regarded as a "long-time" enemy of Howard? Can we have some sources for this?
#Why has Malcolm Fraser been omitted from the list? Is he also to be regarded as "long-time" enemy?
The passage ssys: ''the great majority of Liberals continued to support his actions''
What is a "Liberal"? - A member of the Liberal party or a person who voted for the government? If the former how does this account for a dramatic drop in the membershop of the party over the lifetime of the current electoral success? If the later, then it is rather misleading or at best ambiguous- better to say "continued to command strong electoral support"
Reference:
*http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/07/18/1090089035899.html (smh)
*http://www.cpa.org.au/garchve04/1200valder.html (cpa.org.au but is quoting The Guardian)
Wm/Wm 00:58, 2 Jan 2005
the passage as it stands it true. most liberals support howard. those who have attacked him, have tended to be factional enemies. Xtra/Xtra 01:13, 2 Jan 2005
::But you haven't answered the questions raised. First, what is meant by a "Liberal"? - is this meant to refer to members of the Liberal Party? - in which case the text should be made explicit. However, if this '''is''' what is meant it is is misrepresenting the situation to state this unqualified statement because membership of the party has (apparently) dropped dramatically: ''John Valder said that Liberal Party membership had dropped from an estimated 103,000 in 1983, to about 10,000 in both NSW and Victoria. Liberal Party members were walking away "in disillusionment".'' (see my second reference above) Wm/Wm 04:36, 2 Jan 2005
::Also, we need to find support for this idea that Valder and Howard are "factional enemies" - I am very skeptical about this, I believe they are old friends: ''But John is a friend of mine in the past. I valued his support and his friendship. Even though he's very critical of me now I find it impossible to bear him any deep malice.'' (John Howard - Interviewed by Laurie Oakes on August 15 2004 - http://sunday.ninemsn.com.au/sunday/political_transcripts/article_1622.asp Wm/Wm 05:03, 2 Jan 2005
posted @ 8:26 PM
0 comments
