Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

John "the penis" Howard?? It sounds wrong to me. Is this some kind of joke>

Feel free to snip it. Or better yet, roll it back. Obviously this is an encyclopaedia that anyone can edit, and while there's a few who scrawl graffiti on the wall, you are blessed with a magic rubber. --Pete 02:14, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I think that a paragraph or so about public perception and criticism of Howard is necessary for a NPOV, lets face it not everyone likes john howard. nasrmg 10:35, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

That's funny. I thought this article was already marginally anti-Howard. Xtra 02:45, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Is this suggeston a joke? Criticism sections actively engage in debate against the topic of the article, wholly against the neutral-point-of-view policy. michael ^talk 02:52, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

No seriously i got the idea when i was reading pages of other political leaders,ie george bush, maybe there should be an overall segment on criticism, just a thought u know, as this page is targeted so much for vandalism :p, i dunno. nasrmg 7:23pm, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

It's better not to have them as they are an invitational to everyone to threw in every random objection. The "Criticism of" articles are a terrible breach of NPOV. Chicheley 22:55, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, this is completely false. Most public or political figures have criticisms sections, including George W. Bush and other world leaders. A crticisms section, or at least a section denoting his popularity. Not adding any criticism or noting the failures of any leader or person would imply that everything that is covered of that particular person is a positive success, therefore not having a criticisms section or explicitly denoting public crticism of the figure in question is a breach of the NPOV since all it is that you have covered has been positive, and anything that favors, or doesn't favor a particular figure (and writing all positive materials and not explicitly stating criticisms does this). If we write both his shortcomings and his successes in equal light and equal explicitly, in my view this is most perfect execution of a neutral point of view. But.. nah, let's just go on writing wholly positive things in great explicity with little tid-bits of crticism and any such mentioned figure's shortcomings scattered implicity throughout the article. Not having a criticisms section, while wholly covering the success of this man's career, is a fine breach of NPOV if I have ever seen one.--Mofomojo 01:17, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Criticisms are entirely valid. NPOV REQUIRES the section to be present. "Every random objection" That statement and sentiment is false (and disingenuous). Wikipedia is against vandalism.-A101 (Beneaththelandslide has tried to remove this comment, calling it Vandalism) Note to Beneaththelandslide: This is a discussion area, this comment is on-topic, so gtfo or I will report you.

Quit being rude. There are boundaries for civility, and if you use that sort of language repeatedly, you're likely to wind up being blocked. Rebecca 05:22, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

it's rude to delete someone else's comments and call it vandalism, yet you are silent on that. Irony ftl.. Next time show some consistency (and civility) and look at the history of the comments first.

I agree. If other public figures get one then so should he. As someone who has faced a lot of criticism it is censorship if Wikipedia tries to cover that up. --59.167.218.7 16:12, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Disagree. If we're going to add a criticism section, then we'd have to add a praise section to maintain neutrality. The idea of a praise section for Howard disgusts me more than words can say.I elliot 16:40, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

michael (beneaththelandslide), you say "Is this suggeston (sic) a joke? Criticism sections actively engage in debate against the topic of the article, wholly against the neutral-point-of-view policy." I find it difficult to believe that you have actually read the NPOV policy. It states upfront that all Wikipedia articles must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly and without bias all significant views that have been published by a reliable source. AussieBoy 04:41, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh look, someone added that neutrality thing... Sid 15:09, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

well instead of critisims explicitly, why not add actions/reactions/results of his policies, a lot of people come to wikipedia to find out about this stuff, This would be nuetral and the results section can still be objective - it is history.

I agree, doing this WOULD definitely suit the article fine and would fit the NPOV standard perfectly.--Mofomojo 01:19, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

No, it would not. This would be a recipe for bias, which is why it isn't used on any other political article I've ever seen. The current article does a far better job of reflecting both sides of the issue, without an anti-section. Rebecca 05:22, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush#Criticism_and_public_perception http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tony_blair#Criticism Now you've seen 2 of current leaders. "This would be a recipe for bias" Criticism is not bias. "without an anti-section" That is a mischaracterisation. Rather than the section being biased, your comments are instead biased. Enjoy the criticism sections. -A101

And, as a flagrant violation of WP:NPOV, they will be duly reverted. The fact that Beneaththelandslide and I come from opposite sides of the political spectrum, yet are referring to your attempts as bias should tell you something. Rebecca 06:01, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

We have no intention of putting up criticism sections for the same reason we don't put up 'positives' sections. Howard's action are simply presented; people are free to interpret them as they like. michael ^talk 06:03, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Rebecca: You are mistaken. Beneaththelandslide has never "referred" to my "attempts" (???) as "bias" (how so?). @both: Criticism IS NOT bias..GG -_- I think you both need to look up the word and also think about the function of criticism. It is a democratic tradition and a historical reality. All leaders have criticism and documentation of it is informative and interesting about the time of their reign. Regardless, there is a lot of cleaning up to do in wikipedia, because there are political figures in whom opinions run as fact in the main body of articles, yet nothing has been done. @michael: Who is "we" in, "We have no intention"?-A101

Actually, this article looks pretty even-handed to me. There's not much to object to no matter where you stand on Howard. About the only problem I have seen so far is the unsupported claim that Howard most likely knew that children were not thrown overboard at the time that he made his original claims. I'm sure that claim is true, but it needs references as a negative point in a BLP. I'll see if I cann dig up a ref. Good job. Leeborkman 06:17, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I cant see the problem in having a criticism section. And i suggest that people do look up its meaning here (criticism). It doesnt provide views that are anti-something, it simply provides views that people have; views that are both positive or negative. It is obviously not POVed as these sections are prevalent in many major articles. A cirticism section would provide readers with many of the common views held by those for and against Howard, as long as it was monitered and those views (most likely provided through polls, prominent publications or research) were backed up with multiple credible sources. Jarryd Moore 05:03, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Tony Blair has a lenghty criticism section, as well as a separate page Criticism of Tony Blair. It aims to be a factual representation of criticisms that have been levelled at Blair. This seems a reasonable to me and there is no opposition to this on the relevant talk page. The John Howard page presently gives an account of his achievements in a NPOV, but I wonder if this is a balanced article without a factual record of criticisms. This is just my view though. I understand there are far more experienced editors who understand the NPOV policy better that I do. MrsPlum 09:12, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

A "criticism of person X" is a haphazard way of gathering information. For example, much of the stuff in criticism of Tony Blair is actually criticism of various policies, in which many people have played their part. Andjam 10:04, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I see what you're saying - and it does makes sense. I checked a few of the linked paged on specific policies and they do provide a factual account of criticisms. Thanks. MrsPlum 12:01, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

hey this page is vandalised an awful lot, i mean every second time i check this page, it has been vandalised,maybe it should be locked..maybe not the vandalism is pretty funnny lol nasrmg 20:30pm, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Everytime I come to this page there is a new picture of John Howard. I have just changed the picture to his official parliamentry image. People should just leave it alone.Mattrix18 04:16, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

You've got to wonder, what are the motivations of some editors? The replacement of a decent free image with a negative one, the replacement of a free image with one that isn't — really, what's going on here? michael ^talk 04:44, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I guess that the information that, "At 25, Howard was ineligible for conscription and Howard did not join either the permanent military or reserve forces during this period" is a reference to the Vietnam War, and Howard being above the minimum subscription age, but could someone familiar with the topic make the point of the comment clearer in the article please. Thank you. Chicheley 05:09, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

IMHO the whole sentence has no place in an encyclopedia article and should be removed. Rocksong 12:37, 10 July 2006 (UTC) p.s. I'm not saying it's an illegitimate point to make in a debate on Howard's attitude to war etc, I'm just pointing out that nearly everyone his age would not have enlisted and so to mention he didn't enlist is not noteworthy, just as it is not noteworthy that he didn't play cricket for Australia. Therefore it's out of place in an encyclopedia article, and serves no purpose here other than to put a POV slant on the article. Rocksong 12:46, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

This topic has been extensively canvassed some time ago and a consensus as to the wording reached. It is relevant for those interested in Howard's career to be aware that at a time that he was a prominent and vociferous supporter of both Australia's involvement in the Vietnam war and conscription - he was a prominent YL and a member of the party's state executive at the time he chose not to take what would have been an appropriate course of action ie. to join the colours as both his father and grandfather had done in WW1. It was a different time. Most males (but not Howard) did in fact do some military training in the 50s and 60s - even if it was "only" as a school cadet (in fact a reasonably rigorous training force which used live ammunition in training and issued members with fully functional weapons to take home). A great many male members of the YL did in fact join up to the part time reserve (some to avoid being conscripted to the full time forces for two years) or to the full time forces in order to take advantage of the choice of branch such volunteers were offered but mostly for the "right reason" ie. that it was appropriate for supporters of the government's policies to do so. Many such volunteers were considered (and were in fact) as "elite" and offered short term commissions. So there was no reason for Howard not to take up either of these options - other than what could be interpreted by an unbiased observer as a lack of moral fibre. As someone pointed out elesewhere here joining up voluntarily or being conscripted was not a lifestyle thing.

Additionally as PM Howard has taken (and some would say even manufactured) every opportunity to be associated with the military and has cleared enjoyed such occasions. I am sure that many members of the public observing his cameraderie with serving members of the military would assume that like a large ppn of his age cohort would have had some military experience. Albatross2147 23:23, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Care to provide a citation that he was a "prominent and vociferous" supporter of the war and conscription? Andjam 01:37, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

As you are aware the books on Howard are few and far between and because, for want of a better word, the blandness of his early life not much in the way of documentation. But there is in the Fairfax photo archive a shot of a besuited, bespectacled and short haired Howard berating some long haired hippy anti-conscription demonstrators in Martin Place. The bust up with bro Bob came at about this time - as you know Bob was a pretty left activist whereas Alan and Jack weren't. There have been letters in the SMH about this - especcially about 4 yrs ago in the run up to Iraq. Plus if you must know I was there. He was notorious as a pro Conscription advocate among those who opposed to it. He was always skulking around demos getting into slanging matches and sleazing with the Spl Branch. For heaven's sake what would you expect - he was presnit of the YL, pally with the most right wing of the Libs like Darby, Cramer (a relo of Parker's) etc.? Have you got any evidence to the contrary? Albatross2147 14:11, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm aware of the photo, but I'm not aware that the photo is of him debating Vietnam. Do you have a citation for that? Andjam 10:01, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I did not put in an unsigned comment. It happens when one puts in a hard return in an indent. Like this:

- so for someone who says that they are against personal attacks to accuse another wkp of not signing comments in such a heated arena is very bad form. (And you're not such an expert as you think you are.)

Albatross2147 08:23, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Just repeat the indent for the next paragraph

like this. And no, I don't regard myself as "such an expert". That's why I ask for citations of reliable sources rather than magically knowing something to be the truth. And to avoid being seen as engaging in original research. Andjam 10:01, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd suggest that if a 1960's-era photograph shows Howard confronting a hippy at an anti-Vietnam War demonstration, he probably wasn't merely sharing his mother's recipe for scones. Context provides more than adequate verification in cases such as this. --Centauri 23:43, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Care to provide a citation that the photo is of him confronting a hippy at an anti-Vietnam War demonstration? Andjam 12:18, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Sure. Your own comment above, dated 17 July. --Centauri 13:47, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

The comment where I ask Albatross for a citation that the photo is of Howard debating hippies? (Besides, I am not a reliable source, though I thank you for the compliment) Andjam 14:10, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

You seem to be suffering a logical disconnect here. Albatross2147 described the content of the photograph, and you stated you were aware of it. If you're aware of it, one might reasonably assume that you've seen it. If so, the content described by Albatross2147 would appear to have been verified by both he and you. It then follows that a third party (ie me) might comment on that content. --Centauri 06:47, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

All I've seen is the photo itself. Ive not seen anything on where or when it was taken, or what Howard was talking about in it, or to whom, from a reliable source. Andjam 08:28, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I think we can be confident that he wasn't passing on your recipe for tripe :-) Albatross2147 09:25, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

If I thought he was going to do that, I'd have to deafen him in his one good ear. It's a family secret! :-) Andjam 13:34, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I thought his hearing was going in both ears? I wish I could provide a citable source for this, but I am reliably told that he's had the party room miked because he couldn't hear the back rows. Regards, Ben Aveling 11:21, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Can we please get a lock on the article, with it's daily vandalisms, it's quite obvious he is the man people love to hate, even online. Timeshift 06:15, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Are you referring to semi-protection? Andjam 09:33, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I've only been wikipeding for a few months so i'm not familiar with the term, but the one where only established members can edit the article.Timeshift 13:27, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Semi-protection policy Banno 21:22, 13 July 2006 (UTC) From a quick look at the history page, it would appear that the vandalism here is under control, though annoying. Banno 21:24, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

My reading of the page - including the footnoted email by Jimbo Wales - is that John Howard is a very good candidate for semi-protection Rocksong 08:40, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Then list it at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. If another admin chooses to semi-protect, I won't object. Banno 10:50, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Can't we just ban Peter Costello's IP? Albatross2147 13:55, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately not; he is an experienced sock-puppet. Banno 23:33, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I notice all the references that politically damage the government were mystereriously slipped out during the last vandalism raid. A cynic would be suspicious of so called operatives. This page needs a vandalism lock. Timeshift 16:02, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

So request one. Banno 19:56, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

According to Stay in Touch in the SMH recently, Howard's family actually owned a chain of at least 2 petrol stations. Does anyone still have the article? Regards, Ben Aveling 09:03, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I changed "has been subsequently re-elected in the elections of 1998, 2001 and 2004, making Howard the most electorally successful Prime Minister since Sir Robert Menzies" to "has been subsequently re-elected in the elections of 1998, 2001 and 2004, making Howard the longest serving Prime Minister since Sir Robert Menzies". As of 2006, Howard has won four consecutive elections. Bob Hawke also won four consecutive elections, in 1983, 1984, 1987 and 1990. John Howard has spent more time in the top job, so I changed the line to reflect this. If he wins in 2007, then he'll be the most electorally successful. I elliot 11:55, 23 July 2006 (UTC) –— Bob Hawke won four consecutive elections in his own right. John Howard has never won nor will he ever win an election without the help of the National Party.220.253.99.185 08:51, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't see the point of this observation. The Liberals have outnumbered the ALP in terms of parliamentary seats in their own right for a while. The victories of Howard have emphatically *not* been won by the National Party - a party whose electoral clout is on the level of the Greens or thereabouts. Slac speak up! 09:42, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I can't believe this news story has been undeleted not once but twice. As an overview of JWH's life it is totally out of place. Being in the news is not sufficient for a story to be included in Wikipedia: Howard is in the news every single day. Delete it, I say. Rocksong 06:33, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

A kid hugged Howard. That's it? That's all? Thirty two years in parliament, and ten of those in the top job, and this is all you can come up with as far as Noteworthy events and incidents go? Howard is Australia's second longest serving PM, and that was all you could find? That's not encyclopedic, that's a disgrace. Does anyone else recognise the absurdity of this? This should be deleted right away. I elliot 06:09, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I deleted the following: "his government delivering in the last 10 years better living conditions than at any time in Australian history, largely due to his government's strong economic policy". Now, I am no Professor of Economics (i.e. not Hewson), but an equally convincing argument exists, that the strong economic growth shown by the Australian economy was due to a significant increase in economic activity and associated infrastructure building in China, which in turn increased the demand for energy and mining exports. I elliot 08:15, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I recently listed the ACT Civil Unions Act under the heading "overruled legislation" and it was promptly removed. The person who removed it left the message "take activism elsewhere." Admittedly, the topic was about same-sex civil rights, but I do not consider my contribution to be politically licentious. It is a fact that the civil unions were overruled, and I feel that it should be included in this article as this overruling was significant historically. Only two pieces of legislation have been overruled in this way, and I don't believe that I was acting erroneously in contributing this pivotal event in Prime Minister Howard's fourth term. Thank you.

This article is already far too long. You say it was a pivotal event in Howard's fourth term, but I don't think many outside the LGBT community would agree. In actuality it only affects a minute proportion of the population, i.e. same-sex couples within the ACT. If anything, all it does is show his views on the topic, which, incidentally, are shared by Federal Labor. If you think its significant, it should be added to an article about the struggle for gay rights in Australia, but not here. I elliot 11:38, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I think the overruling was significant because he has not often used the federal power to overrule territory decisions, most notably before that being the NT euthanasia bill. I am reverting because of this. Using a "length" of article excuse for deleting one sentence is not really that convincing in my view. Ansell 21:54, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

It was not one sentence, it was a paragraph. And yes, this article is far too long. Furthermore, to claim notability because of similarity to something not notable enough to be mentioned in the article (the euthanasia bill) is not convincing IMHO. Hence I have removed the section. We need to face the fact that Howard has spent a lot of time in a very important position, so he's going to make many decisions that are notable to minute numbers of people. But, its very important we ensure that, content-wise, the article is as accurate a reflection of his time as possible, in the context of his entire life. Naturally the greater emphasis will be on his Prime Ministership, but that does not give us licence to add every single thing that makes it into the news.I elliot 05:15, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

IMHO, it warrants mentioning somewhere, perhaps as a footnote to a paragraph of the Marriage Act amendment. Leaving out this entire area of policy on the grounds of a bogus claim of "being notable to minute numbers of people" is, well, bogus. Rebecca 05:18, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

It is already mentioned as part of the over-turned legislation.I elliot 06:21, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Where? I can't see any mention of the overturning of the ACT laws. Rebecca 06:23, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Within the section "Fourth Term: 2004 to present", the 12th line down. I elliot 07:08, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

It's in list form, which is pretty cruddy. That needs to be converted to prose. Rebecca 07:15, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I elliot, just stfu. You are acting like a censor. A criticism section would fit perfectly. you should be working with people here to document this honestly. Calling it activism is inaccurate and outrageous. It's a shame this article is so one sided. It needs a criticism section like any other political figure. Are you people so parochial and afraid of one? -A101

Downplaying the impact of the overturn of that legislation is not justified on the basis of it being gay activism is so wrong. Many Australians are extremely concerned about the Howard Government's track record with regard to State Rights. Johnpf 21:47, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I gave you the wrong idea Johnpf, but noone in this debate, 'especially me said that "gay activism is so wrong". I really do apologise if I gave you that idea. It is definitely not an opinion I hold.I elliot 14:18, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

That's OK I elliot. I'm getting a bit edgy on this issue, as I see everyone jumnping up and down on the various views about LGBT aspects, and ignoring the issues of State Rights and Government by Prejudice. I believe that history will see the arrogance of the Federal Govt over-ruling state laws that don't actually impact on the Feds job, but that do have strong political value as a real low point in our democracy. If you read our constitution, it's pretty much a document that spells out the Federal govt's economic powers and responsibility, and leaves the morality issues to the States. I wasn't meaning to accuss you of villification, I was just trying to point out that the issue shouldnt be about gay marriage. I guess I didnt do the best job of making myself clear. Johnpf 11:32, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Speaking of article length, the section "For as long as the party wants me or two terms in office?" can (IMHO) be substantially shortened now he's made his position clear. I also think the section title should be changed to something less cryptic and less POV, like "Retirement Speculation". Rocksong 07:03, 9 August 2006 (UTC); or "Retirement Plans". Rocksong 07:30, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I think this section could be deleted altogether. Sid 15:09, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

"This has seen Australia with low inflation, low interest rates, low unemployment, higher wages and a total elimination of government debt [18](Australia now being only one of four nations that can boast this). As proof of Australia's economic credentials fostered under Howard, Australian Treasurer Peter Costello was asked in June 2006 to be the special guest of the G8 Finance Minister's Summit in St. Petersberg, Russia - an organisation Australia is not a part of - to advise these nations on good economic policy."

This is not an entirely objective assessment. Australia currently suffers from some of the highest interest rates in the OECD, high levels of household debt, a skills shortage, major infrastructure constraints, a large current account deficit, stagnant export growth, a declining manufacturing sector, and foreign debt totaling nearly $500 billion - more than half of GDP. Why aren't these mentioned? ZwickauDeluxe

Because it's quite a biased article. It mentions all of the positives (some exagerated) with none of the negatives... quite like the person :-) Please add your contribution as per above though, i'm sure many would appreciate it. Timeshift 16:26, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

With citations please :) darkliight^[πalk] 22:12, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Whilst anyone should always use citations and I expect he will, you're not actually trying to deny it's the not the case are you? Just watch parliament question time... :P Timeshift 04:16, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Re Timeshift: Not at all :) In fact, I wouldn't have a clue either way. Just being cautious in case the OP was to copy and paste the text they gave here. Cheers, darkliight^[πalk] 08:17, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Sadly, parliament question time is not really an effective arena for real debate. Most of the time the opposition is forced to act as reluctant spectators as government frontbenchers strut around like self-adulating peacocks. :( My point is that an economy which borrows more than half of GDP to finance consumption is not an economy built on solid foundations. Howard and co. have been more than willing to take credit for the recent commodities boom, but they have done very little in terms of productive investment. Hence, the reason why Australia continues to live beyond its means, running up billions in foreign debt, with a current account deficit of 6% of GDP. If somebody could suggest a way to present a more objective assessment of John Howard's economic legacy, then I'd be prepared to make the amendments. I'd rather a consensus-driven approach rather than sparking a crude edit war. :P ZwickauDeluxe 06:57, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

It's quite obvious if you watch. Howard and co just go off on a tangent and answer an unasked question when challenged on the aforementioned issues. They know it's there but won't admit it. Timeshift 08:30, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Ah, yes. Is it just me, or does every question from a Gvt backbencher to Costello end up being answered with a smirky tirade about "Labor's debt"?I elliot 10:45, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

You are confusing debt owed by the government, and debt owed by private individuals [for the most part]/companies. The Federal net debt was $96 billion dollars, and now federal net debt has been eliminated. Hence the reference to the Howard governments cuts to public spending on election to office in 1996. The result is no "crowding out" in the financial debt markets (i.e. lower demand for credit which translates to lower interest rates [the interest rate being a measure of demand for debt among other things). The "Current Account deficit" really refers in the most part to private individuals see: http://www.treasury.gov.au/documents/987/RTF/05_links.rtf

In 1939 (when John Howard was born, and presumably named) Winston Churchill was a backbencher with an extremely spotty political career behind him. He did not become Prime Minister until Chamberlain resigned and Lord Halifax declined the position in May 1940, at which time John Howard was several months old. Do we have a reliable source for the reason behind this name or is it ill-founded supposition? --Jumbo 23:45, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Interesting. Churchill was quite a major politician, even if he had not been PM yet (think John Howard in 1994 or Bob Hawke in 1982, perhaps?). Still, the idea that he was named after Churchill can easily morph from "educated guess" to "fact". So I say remove it in the absence of a citation. Rocksong 00:35, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Winston is a family name that was historically peculiar to the Churchill family. When Howard was born there were no other famous Winston's from that family - or any other family - that his parents are likely to been aware of. Winston Churchill had already enjoyed a distinguished 40+ year political career before becoming Britain's wartime PM, and as the author of the Gallipolli campaign in WW1 was well known in Australia. All of this points very strongly to his being the inspiration for the choice of Howard's middle name - but short of asking Howard's parents themselves it's impossible to be 100% certain. --Centauri 12:19, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

We must have a reliable source before we can state something as a fact. Perhaps the source of the name is available in a biography? --Jumbo 16:10, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I changed "The Senate blocked or delayed much of the Government's legislation" to "The Senate blocked or delayed much of the Government's more controversial legislation". Before the Government gained control of the Senate Labor and the minor parties only rejected just over 2% of proposed bills. --Daniel 15:53, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't know why the vandal block is removed a few days after being added, expecting the vandalism to decrease. It's quite obvious that not a day will go by without Howard's page being vandalised until he is no longer prime minister... and even then I'm sure it will continue for some time. IMHO we need the vandal lock to be permanent. Timeshift 05:49, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Seconded.I elliot 10:39, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Thirded. It is very hard to track changes, when most changes are just vandalism + reverts. According to Wikipedia:Requests for page protection, permanent semi-protection is rarely granted. But we can ask. Rocksong 01:32, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I've requested permanent semi-protection at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. Rocksong 23:59, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Request was denied. Rocksong 02:24, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

To me it seems that the problem really isn't that serious. Given that Wikipedia is vulnerable to this type of vandalism, therein also lies its great strength, of being open and accessible. Yes, there are regular vandals but apart from needing to revert, something which is normally attended to by some astute Wikipedian very quickly, it hardly seems that there is any lingering consequence. The time of exposure for the vanalised material is only a very small fraction of total time really. --Wm 02:52, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

The time to exposure is not the problem to me. The biggest problem is that in my experience articles do not develop when the only activity on them is vandalism and reversion. The time for vandalism on Steve Irwin is low yet it is still protected because people actually want to improve Wikipedia without nuisance edits. Ansell 03:00, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Arguments on both sides of course. Howard is a difficult subject anyway. The vandalism maybe relates to this inherent difficuly, i.e. controversial nature of the subject. The article, is probably a little too big and sprawls all over the place. Probably few are happy with it but also probably it does develop, although not as fast as we would like sometimes. --Wm 03:39, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

• Heh, request was granted after all. No idea for how long. Rocksong 04:36, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Semi protection has been requested again at this stage, let's see what happens --Mikecraig 03:20, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Does anyone know whether Howard said Australia could be the U.S. deputy sheriff in the region in 2000 or whether he was misquoted or lead into the remark? The term has dogged him for years and came up in the news again on Sept. 7. If true, it seems like a telling detail that belongs in this article.

Googling the ABC site can be useful. It seems that an interviewer, rather than Howard himself, used the phrase in 1999. 7.30 Report, 27-9-99; 7.30 Report, 28-9-99 Rocksong 05:48, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Gerard Henderson states that the term "deputy sheriff" was inserted into a story by a subeditor in 1999. However, Bush did call Australia a "sheriff" (not a "deputy sheriff") in 2003[1] AussieBoy 05:57, 25 November 2006 (UTC) The Gerard Henderson ref is [2]

What happened to it? Timeshift 17:58, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

A puzzle. Adam Carr went to some trouble a while back to allow use of images from the parliamentary site. It should be easy enough to upload another copy, using the same sort of permissions. Unless someone has gone through and deleted every similar image, that is, in which case we may have a problem. I'll look into it. --Jumbo 22:58, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm still puzzled. I uploaded a pic from AUSPIC and used the {{ParliamentofAustralia}} template, gave it the right name, and the article now has another image of John Howard. Click on the photo in the article and you'll see what I mean! Oh well, it's a good photograph of the right guy, so WP is saved for another day. --Jumbo 23:12, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Now the PM/opp leader pictures look unbalanced on Australian federal election, 2007 :-\ Timeshift 03:38, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I've uploaded a new version of "johnhoward.jpg". For some reason the Reps photo "Johnhoward.jpg" which I uploaded this morning over-rides the other one, even if I carefully type the name in without capitals. So the new picture is "John_Howard_with_Flag.jpg". This fixes up the election article. --Jumbo 05:46, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm taking down the replacement lead photograph. Petaholmes, you surely cannot be serious! It's not that good a photograph, it shows him in front of a U.S. flag, and it's a U.S. government photograph. We should be using an Australian government photograph. --Jumbo 06:03, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I've replaced the "US Flag" image with another free image from the same source. I don't like it much, compared with AUSTPIC and fair use images, but it's better than the previous one, which might be seen as POV. --Jumbo 06:24, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

John Howard in front of the US flag? Why not? It accurately sums up his foreign, environmental and economic policies. --Centauri 06:13, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Latham also appeared with some US flags in the background once. That wasn't a very good indication of his attitude towards the "legacy of the White Australia policy". Andjam 09:40, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

The current picture is awful. He's the Prime Minister, surely there's a better picture than that. MickBarnes 13:23, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree, even though I happen to find it amusing :-) Timeshift 13:51, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

The current picture: John_Howard_official12354.jpg is his official picture according to the PRIME MINISTERS website: http://www.pm.gov.au/news/photo_gallery/index.html , people are changing it to pictures that are unflattering. It isn't very NPOV Mattrix18 11:29, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I've removed this template: {{1996 Leaders of the Asia Pacific Economic Co-operation Leaders’ Forum}} If we add it, we should also add all the other years, and I don't think that's appropriate. Regards, Ben Aveling 06:02, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok... We don't have to add it to his profile... its all good! - peads 00:14, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I was just wondering whether or not it is worth making mention of the fact that Howard is a self-described cricket tragic. Given that he has made it clear, on a great many occasions that his only passion outside of politics is cricket, I think it is definitely worth mentioning, as a way of providing more background information about and to humanise the man.

I recall him saying during his interview that his one dream was to captain the Australian cricket team, and although that won't happen, he visits cricket matches whenever possible, and has even done a spot of commentating on several occasions.

What do you think?

There's a story from a Nine reporter which mentions Howard's fanaticism for cricket here. [3]

Deleted the fact Howard is an Australian politician. This should be explicitly obvious as he is Prime Minister. This is the same reason why it says that Ricky Ponting is Australian captain, and doesn't mention he's a cricketer.I elliot 08:42, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

The word warhammer redirects to this page. It obviously should not. I, being a wiki-noob, do not know how to change this. I suspect it might be linked to all the vandalism that has happened to this article.--TylerXKJ 04:42, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

thanks - fixed. Banno 05:05, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I think you didn't. "warhammer" is still redirecting me to this.

Indeed. Perhaps a problem with the cache. Should be OK now. Banno

Something needs to be added regarding the republic debate. It was a huge issue at the time.

There's already a whole article at Australian republic referendum, 1999, though I agree there should be some mention, and a link, in the JH article, Rocksong 12:20, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I've never heard this term in my life in a non-satirical reference - suggest the Prime Minister's wife etc - comments? Danlibbo 11:09, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

It's an Americanisation that has never caught on here. Prime Minister's wife is far more common, and should be used here. Rebecca 11:15, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Agree totally. Until such time as we have a female PM, whose husband (if she had one) would be "the Prime Minister's husband". JackofOz 11:25, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

(Or the PM is bi/homosexual, unmarried, or plurally married) Why list spouse at all in an infobox about a prime minister? We'd be describing someone based on what their spouse is. That may be the norm in some countries but it is fairly uncommon in Australia. Andjam 09:04, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

It's definately the norm in encyclopediae Danlibbo 23:08, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

While the recently reverted anon's edits were POV, it is probably time to update the issues of the day. I've had a first cut at it. Please to refactor mercilessly. Thanks, Ben Aveling 08:42, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I believe a small bit of the article should cover this issue.

Here are some reasons why:

• Global warming / Climate Change is the number one concern of Australians today as shown in recent polls (see recent Reports on The ABC's Lateline program).

• JH's coalition has (against the wishes of the majority of the public and importantly all other political parties) significantly affected the global momentum on dealing with climate change by preventing the USA from becoming isolated as the only nation in the world to reject Kyoto. Had he not chosen this action the pressure on USA politicians as well as the public debate there would probably have been significantly affected. "We are the only nation not to..." focuses the media's attention much better than "We are one of the two nations in the world the other one being..." and the power of the media in modern western societies can not be overstated. An issue's media friendliness can make the difference between decades of neglect and instant action by the entire world community (see: slow developing African famines vs. Indian ocean tsunami with video footage to boot!)

• JH is an expert politician even his opponents (me included) find it difficult not to succumb to his ability to present himself as a perfect centrist who understands both sides while all the time pushing essentially the right's agenda. the reason I mention this is that it is quite a rare talent among his colleagues and few others would have succeeded in going against public sentiment on global warming. thus it is possible that his abilities may have afforded him the power to make decisions which others in his place would have been unable to make. In this sense this may be one of the greatest differences his existence in the world has upon that world, as few of his other stances and policies were as distant from the mainstream of public sentiment or as potentially significant.

• It is possible, though unlikely, but still possible that the small difference which he has personally made and will continue to make in slowing the international reaction to climate change causes huge amount of suffering and death in the next few decades across the world. There is even a tiny tiny chance that global warming passes a critical point and a runaway greenhouse effect is caused during the time in which his influence on world affairs could have prevented such a catastrophe. The chance of this scenario is miniscule but its consequence is (to put it mildly) unpleasant.

Ok so lets put it all together:

A politician’s place in history and his own personal abilities have put him in a position to wager the lives of all human-beings on a 9999999/10000000 bet that global warming wont reach a critical point, with the prize being the support of his nation's coal mining industry and the cost the possible fate of civilization.

If this fact is not mentioned in his biography (even as a passing reference) then that biography is less than complete

That's how it seems to me anyway  :)

Burnt-sienna 03:04, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

maybe - but either it has to be deleted in a short while anyway or there should be a section on all those previous 'attitudes' that he's masterfully navigated his way through eg 'sorry', asylum seekers, gst etc (but yeah - your second last point is worthy - he is an amazing politician) Danlibbo 23:29, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

oh well. i presented my case for global warming being exceptionally significant, and by the unanoumous decision (1:0) it was rejected  ;) i guess it wasn't a worthy idea after all.Burnt-sienna 05:09, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with your arguments that John Howard's role in obstructing real change in the area of human responses to global warming is exceptionally significant and should be mentioned. Only some very dodgy "global warming skeptics" now oppose the scientific consensus on the human contribution to global climate change. In my view as a scientist, they are in the same class as those who think that HIV does not cause AIDS, that CFCs don't affect the ozone layer, or flat Earthers (yes, there are still some of them around!). The potential damage from global warming is truly staggering as pointed out recently in the Stern Report. Why don't you try drafting a short section on it so that people can see how it might look in context in the article. Remember, it is best to be bold! If you do make a contribution, don't be put off by certain people jumping in and immediately accusing you of "vandalism" or "vexatiousness" with no real discussion, as happened to me recently when I made some changes to this article. Danlibbo, "maybe" is rather fence-sitting, don't you think? And I am not sure what you mean by "either it has to be deleted in a short while anyway or there should be a section on all those previous 'attitudes' that he's masterfully navigated his way through eg.....". Why would it have to be deleted in a short while? If anything, doesn't the evidence indicate that it will increase in importance as time passes? And if Howard's role in this is indeed exceptionally significant, doesn't that mean that it is worth mentioning, as opposed to, say, the GST, which I don't think anyone could argue is in the same league of importance as global warming? I would like to see some more NPOV discussion of this. AussieBoy 06:53, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

No, no, a thousand times no. Issue-based sections in articles on politicians, especially those with as long and varied a career as Howard, are downright POV. By all means cover it fairly in a couple of sentences in the proper position, but there's no excuse for messing up the article on the strength of ones own opinion (albeit one I agree with). Rebecca 07:15, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I have added a paragraph at the bottom of the section on the PM's fourth term which describes some of his policies and actions relating to global warming and energy issues in 2006. We can keep discussions of environmental issues NPOV; it is just a matter of listing properly referenced facts, which can speak for themselves - people can then form their own opinions. Woood 02:47, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I have amended the material concerning the recording of Howard's appearance on this show to make it more NPOV. I added this material previously but it was removed as "vandalism". I argue that it is POV to say that Howard "delights" the audience, but NPOV to say that he "amuses" the audience, since we can hear the audience laughing, but have no other relevant information. The previous version also gives the markedly POV impression that Howard's appearance was an unqualified success. In fact, Howard got all of the answers wrong, and this needs to be stated to make the material more NPOV. Indeed, it appears to be the case that Howard's succession of wrong answers is part of what amuses the audience. Here is full transcript of the recording:

Davey: John Buchan wrote a book about some steps. How many steps? Howard: Seven. Davey: Seven. Seven. He must have skipped a few. Thirty-nine it is. Goodbye, John. Nice knowing you.

Davey: What do you do for a living? Howard: Oh, I still go to school, Canterbury Boys’ High School. Davey: Allright. That’s your last year is it? [boos from audience]. Who are they? Howard: That’s just me (sic) brother. He went to Canterbury too and… Davey: Oh he did, eh? Howard: He’s got a wife down there with him too. She didn’t go to Canterbury. Davey: She didn’t, ah…

Davey: In botany, a tree whose leaves fall in autumn is called a what-sort-of tree? Howard: A shedding tree. Davey: I could not look you straight in the face, John, and say that it was not a shedding tree, because there it is busily shedding. So therefore it is. It’s called a deciduous tree, but you’ve got the right idea

Davey: What is a mezzanine floor? Howard: A what? Davey: Well, where do you find a mezzanine floor? Howard: Aw, on the floor of a a house in an, aw, in an Eastern country. Davey: You mean a, a harem. Howard: How do you know?

Davey: What is a loch? Howard: Oh, it’s the name of a mountain in Scotland. Davey: Yes, well it is actually. If they hadn’t dug out the loch, there wouldn’t be a mountain. That’s thirty packets you’ve got now.

Davey: Er, mimosa, what’s mimosa? Howard: Oh, it’s the name of a..a sort of native tribal dance. Davey: This fella would have the most colossal imagination I have ever heard! A tribal dance! I don’t know whether he’s right or wrong, but if he’s making these up, he’s not bad. It’s another name for wattle.

Davey: How many people , ah, does it take to make a tête-à-tête? Howard: Tête-à-tête? (Howard sounds very puzzled).

Davey: What is the unusual characteristic of a Kiwi? Howard: It’s got a..a… Davey: No it hasn’t! Howard: Ah, ah, it’s on the face of a tin of boot polish.

Davey: Remember, plenty of work and not too much tête-à-tête and everything will be fine.

AussieBoy 00:49, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

he's surely improved his debating style since eh? Danlibbo 01:01, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I'd amend the section further. Howard doesn't trade unscripted humour - the host throws unscripted humour at him and makes him sound like a bit of a fool. Interesting historically, but not very flattering for Howard, contrary to what the article says. I'd just say that a recording of a young JWH exists, give the link, and leave it at that. Rocksong 01:25, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

It was me, a rabid Howard hater, that added the Davey show reference originally, which I did without any intention of irony (really). When I heard the recording being played (several times) on Richard Glover's show I thought the way JWH conducted himself was OK hence the "delights". It is only when you read the transcript so thoughtfully provided above that you realise what a twerp he is being. Then as now, he is clearly out of touch. (Memo to self - stop trying to be fair) Albatross2147 02:12, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Where did the bit about the landholdings in PNG come from? Is there any evidence for this? I have known a fair few blokes who did fight in PNG (one who won an MC) and they didn't get granted any land. Albatross2147 02:20, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

It's all true and all fact. However, its inclusion is vexatious; why would the small business dealings of Howard's parents have any impact on his life or career? They are non-notable and irrelevant to the man himself. michael ^talk 03:49, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Having read Marr's article, my response is "Huh?". Marr himself even concedes it's not clear whether Howard's parents benefited from the investment. Is Wikipedia going to document every dodgy investment by every famous person's parents? Delete it, I say. Rocksong 05:27, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm a left wing voter and I even think it's not relevant..unless there can be evidence found that he has land interest in PNG and some correlation to policy regarding PNG (area where land is situated)..if not..then remove the reference --Mikecraig 05:31, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Albatross, the bit about the landholdings is correct. It appears that you did not read the reference I supplied. This section already existed but needed correction (the matter related to World War I, not II as previously stated) and clarification, and required a reference. I happened to be aware that the Marr article is the original source of this information. Howard's father and grandfather did not fight in New Guinea-that was World War II. And it wasn't a land grant. Again, please read the Marr article. The point was that as former soldiers, the Howards were able to buy the land on 15% deposit, with the reminder paid off over 20 years, whereas W.R. Carpenter and Co.would have required 30% deposit with the remainder paid off over only 10 years. Thus, it was in their interest to get people like the Howards to act for them for payment. The article makes it clear that the Howards did not have the large sums of money required. Michael, please do not accuse me of being vexatious, nor of vandalism, as you have done previously. Please give adequate and NPOV consideration to other people's work. Rocksong, Marr does indeed provide some evidence that the Howards received at least some money from the arrangement, although it is unclear how much in total. It appears reasonable to infer that it was quite a lot, given that the dealings themselves involved very large sums at that time (if you think not, I would like to know what your reasons are). The land dealings came to a formal end in 1962, long after Howard's father and grandfather had died, so Howard would have been aware of them. As Marr says "Strangely, these plantations never seem to feature in the Prime Minister's repertoire of stories about the ethos of his family. In February this year, launching a book that celebrates his 10 years in office, John Howard once more harked back to the role of the garage in forming his fundamental values. He was myth-making again. "The whole idea of doing something with your life was about personal achievement, and starting a business. That has influenced my attitude, because my father had a garage … I guess working for yourself, working for private enterprise, and not working for the government, was something I was brought up to believe in." That's one version, but as always in politics, real life is more human, more complex and more interesting than myth." I personally think that Marr has shed important light on matters related to the values of the Howard family, which John Howard himself has opened up to critique by talking about them publicly. I believe that this section should stand. If my arguments above cannot adequately be met, I believe it would be reasonable to reinsert this section. I look forward to further talk on this subject. 202.161.9.214 09:02, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

it still lacks any real relevance to the article - put it in an article about his folks Danlibbo 23:29, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Besides I fail to see how it means Howard is mythmaking. It's still true that his father ran a garage. The PNG deal reads to me like a dodgy but legal arrangement (made years before John was even born) which made the Howards a little money. So what? Rocksong 23:56, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I am new to this, so perhaps I am missing something. This section was previously present in the article, but contained an error and lacked the appropriate reference. No one had objected to its presence at that point. I corrected it, amended it, and added the original reference. Then suddenly, it "lacks relevance" and I am accused, inappropriately in my view, of being "vexatious" by a person who had previously accused me of "vandalism", again without basis. Those who criticized the new version made a number of specific errors, which I pointed out above in detail. Surely the nature of these errors vitiates the criticisms-wouldn't it be necessary to actually read the reference to be able to make an informed judgement? I also advanced a specific argument about the relevance of the material. I do not see how this can be countered by simply restating that it lacks relevance, without actually dealing in detail with the argument I advanced--isn't that what one should do? I do believe that this material is relevant, and that many people of a variety of political persuasions would be interested in this aspect of the Howard family business dealings. How come the family petrol station and mechanical workshop business is "relevant" but the family's perhaps slightly dubious business dealings in another area are not? I cannot help feeling that some people might prefer that what some may think of as slightly awkward truths about a political figure like Howard are best omitted. Personally, I don't think that this is good enough. AussieBoy 00:07, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

One thing that we should all keep in mind is the following from the WP policy regarding biographies "Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous". I think that this topic is proabably good for the article but needs to ensure that a reference needs to be sourced and if there is any link to any political related matter then it should be worthy enough..what does everyone think? --Mikecraig 00:11, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

(Answering AussieBoy) It's not about covering awkward truths, it's about being relevant. The deals were done by his parents, not him, and mostly before he was even born. All the article needs (if anything) is a brief description of his family background. Their occupation is a central part of this; details of their investments I would suggest are not. And I've answered the mythmaking charge: it's not a myth that his dad owned a garage, and besides (contrary to what Marr says) I don't think Howard goes out of his way to mention it much anyway. But I can't be bothered arguing this so I'll just go with the consensus. Rocksong 11:30, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I think there's a consensus and there's no point wasting any more time on this silly issue. The original article was simply a dirt peice of no relevance to Howard himself (how can minor business investments of someone's parents be notable in an article about them?). AussieBoy, please use paragraphs for easy reading. michael ^talk 13:43, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

There is no consensus, unless you call the agreement of two apparently rather political, right-wing people (based on your own self-descriptions) a "consensus". Many people would not agree with you that David Marr's article is "a dirt peice (sic)". To me, that description appears to be strongly POV, wouldn't everyone agree? It does nothing to counter the facts and interpretation that Marr presents. I myself have never been a member of any political party, nor have I ever been actively engaged in politics.

Rocksong, you said: "Besides I fail to see how it means Howard is mythmaking. It's still true that his father ran a garage. The PNG deal reads to me like a dodgy but legal arrangement (made years before John was even born) which made the Howards a little money. So what?". It is clear that you simply don't appear to understand what we mean by mythmaking here. To spell it out even more clearly, the mythmaking lies in Howard's publicly constructing a view of his family's financial success which revolves around the hard work involved in the family business, when, in reality, they made significant money out of these dodgy land deals. There are a couple of specific points here. There is no evidence these land deals were legal. In fact, they were probably illegal. The fact that the matter was not pursued by the authorities does not make them legal (and certainly not moral). In 1927, the Commonwealth auditor-general denounced the "dummying evil". Secondly, the amounts of money involved were not "small". It seems clear that the Howards made at least 540 pounds out of one single deal in 1927, as documented by Marr, and very likely, a lot more. In 1927, the basic wage was a mere 4 pounds 5 shillings per week. And the Howards did not own the garage in 1927-they were renting it for 4 pounds a week. So 540 pounds was actually a very large sum at that time, and would have made a huge difference to the Howards' finances.

The PM's own website (http://www.pm.gov.au/aus_in_focus/kids/bio.html) states: "His parents left school at 14 and his father, Lyall, who fought in France during World War I was the owner of a garage in the Sydney suburb of Earlwood. As a boy John used to work selling petrol, cleaning windscreens and changing oil after school and at weekends." The evidence indicates that ownership of the garage was achieved at least in part through these land deals, and that Howard would have known about the land deals as they came to a formal end as late as 1962, after his father had died, and when Howard, a young solicitor, was still living at home.

I look forward to further NPOV, talk on this issue. AussieBoy 06:14, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't consider myself right-wing, and I'm no Howard supporter. The quote at the PM's website is under the heading "Did you know??", and contains little-known facts, such as some of his school achievements. So it actually illustrates the opposite to what you say - that his petrol station heritage is little known. So I still dispute that it is an often-propagated Howard myth. So I think it's off-topic, but as indicated above I'm happy to go with the consensus. Rocksong 06:05, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Yebbut Howards servo heritage is well known and often referred to. What may not be so well known is that he actually did some work about the place. My info is that as a rather spoilt after thought he did not often front for duty. Albatross2147 06:45, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

In view of all the preceding, I have added the section on the New Guinea land dealings back. I believe that it is quite balanced (mild, even), if one looks at what actually took place in the dealings. And, like it or not, many people are interested in this, and do think that it sheds important light on Howard's mythmaking about his background. Note that "Wikipedia's editorial policy is the "neutral point of view," often abbreviated "NPOV." This policy says that we accept all the significant viewpoints on an issue. Instead of simply stating one perspective, we try to present all relevant viewpoints without judging them. Our aim is to be informative, not persuasive. Our policy does NOT mean that our articles are expected to be 100% "objective," since in any dispute all sides believe their view to be "true."" AussieBoy 02:40, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure the GST was never justified as a non-core promise. Non-core promises refered to promises they broke after the 1996 election, because they were supposedly "minor" or "non-core" issues. The GST was justified in an entirely different way: seeking a mandate at the 1998 election. Rather than sticking a {{Fact}} tag on it, I think the comment in the article should be removed until proven. Rocksong 00:32, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

These news articles from 1998-2000 support what I said: http://www.abc.net.au/news/fed98/fed98/fe98-31aug1998-7.htm http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/stories/s24886.htm http://www.abc.net.au/am/stories/s126038.htm Rocksong 00:39, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Around 4-Nov, the detail was put in that interest rates were 22% in 1982 when Howard was treasuer. I'm no economist, but it looks to me like the reference cited ( http://www.rba.gov.au/Statistics/Bulletin/F01Dhist.xls ) may be misleading. The reference shows the 90 day bank bill rate. Usually "Interest Rate" is taken to mean the official RBA cash rate. But the tables of cash rate at http://www.rba.gov.au/MonetaryPolicy/ appear to only go back to 1990. Can someone economically literate check to see whether the reference is correct? I'd ask the person who put it in, except it was an anonymous user. Rocksong 02:27, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

You are correct. The home loan interest rate in 1982 was 13.5%. The 90 day bank bill rate was at it's highest point 21.39% in 1982. The mortgagee was not paying ~22% interest, they were paying 13.5% variable rate. If you wish to quote the 90 day bank bill rate include the definition of the 90 day bank bill rate (The rate at which companies and banks lend / borrow money for 90 days - it is not the HOME LENDING RATE) The citation is factually incorrect from an economic stand-point and should be removed. If you wish to infer that the home lending rate was 21.39% please provide an exact quotation from a source other than a journalist. It is just not the case. User:Anonymous 31 Jan 07.

You will need to provide a source for the mortgage rate in 1982. In any regard, the article needs to convey the general level of interest rates in Australia whilst Howard was treasurer. That is going to be difficult (and contentious) because there were various rates for different sectors of the economy at the time. While 22% may be at the top end of estimates for the period, the 13.5% you claim is certainly at the low end. Kewpid 08:53, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

It is the indisputable home lending rate. The "interest rate" used in the modern context refers to the rate that a private citizen borrows money from a lending institution for the purcase of a home. The rate of 22% you quote, has only ever been quoted in reference to home lending rates (in response to the home lending rate under Keating). Check the Reserve Bank of Australia source cited. It is not in dispute. Regardless, correct mathimatical rounding would be 21% (for the 90 day bank bill rate). Please cite a reference for a home lending rate of 22%. It simply did not happen and you have fallen for someone deliberately quoting one statistic whilst trying to imply another. There is not shame in admitting you were misled. If you wish to rollback to 22% please provide a source showing (as you put it) a mortgage rate of 22%. To be quite frank I'm surprised the 22% statement has remained incorrect for so long.

The source you provided only shows a small graph of the period in question, which can't be read precisely, but whatever, I'm not going to quibble. My concern was that focusing in on only the home lending rate was deliberately deceptive, considering the context of the paragraph was economic conditions and management whilst Howard was treasurer (home lending being a comparative minor part of the economy at the time). Now I was going to assume good faith on your behalf, but considering your unrelenting desire to be patronising, and your other edits to the article, I'm just going to assume bias. Let's see what others think. Kewpid 09:17, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not attempting to be patronising. It's simply a fact that many have been misled for so long. The 22% rate has only ever been quoted in response to the Keating 17%+ rate statement. I apologise if I offended you. The other two edits (Unfair - reasoning being that making an already strapped for cash student pay for services they don't necessarily use, and perceived - implies that people claim something yet the claim is not deserved) were made but not discussed. Perhaps another section is better to discuss those. Back to the graph, many other sources state the explicit rate of 13.5%

Thanks. The sentence as it was before was "As Federal Treasurer, John Howard presided over a period of very high interest rates, peaking at 22% on 8 April 1982". Now, it's only been relatively recently that there's been such a high convergence of the various rates that interest rate/mortgage rate have become synonymous. I think that to be on the safe side of NPOV, the paragraph should mention the levels of the various applicable interest rates at the time. Kewpid 09:26, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Your quote "Now, it's only been relatively recently that there's been such a high convergence of the various rates that interest rate/mortgage rate have become synonymous" hits the nail on the head. The Bank Bill rate at the time was not relevant. There was no parity at that level. As treasurer policies would have been made with the knowledge they did not produce such a large adverse effect on home-lending rates, as opposed to 1997 when the link was clear and known. It's a little like claiming the first producers of coal fired power-plants made a decision to increase the chances of global warming despite no link at the time. Additionally, the term "interest rate" implies the home lending rate (Home Loan Interest Rate), not the 90 day bank bill rate - it's known as the 90 day bank bill rate.

Including the "22% interest rate" in the article is misleading, unless we go into a discussion on the various different interest rates, such as we see above, and this is quite inappropriate for a biographical article. However, it would make an excellent economic/banking article. --Pete 01:08, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't this section preceded the section on his time as PM, rather than appearing as a subsection of the PM part of the article? --Peta 03:27, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Deleted "He also promised to keep medicare". Medicare is still active. There are no plans to terminate it. Does the page need to list every single election promise?

I think the new addition somehow strange. There were many things he could do but did not. Yes he did not enlist to the Vietnam War. He also have chosen not to climb the mt. Everest, play professional tennis, emigrate to the United States, become a schoolteacher, social service worker, gangster, computer professional or a busker. Do we need to mention that he avoided this possibilities. I think the infinite possibilities that a person could choose are not notable, unlike what they actually do. Was it very common among the law graduates without previous military training to enlist to Army? Are many people around who believe he was a Vietnam hero and we need to stop this legend? I am removing the passages. Alex Bakharev 06:57, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Howard is defined by what he has not done. He didn't leave home until a very late age (at a time when most had left home by the time they were 25), he didn't keep his promises on ministerial propriety, he does not live in the PM's residence in Canberra unlike nearly every other PM, he was hopeless at cricket yet he loves the game, and although he takes every opportunity to associate himself with the services he was too gutless to join the Australian forces at a time Australia was involved in a war that he supported. In my opinion we should find a way to document this blank spot in his CV. I can't see why you tories find it so abhorrent to point out that Howard is a chickenhawk. Albatross2147 07:22, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

That is your point of view. Xtra 07:25, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

This was an attempt at a discussion about the topic. I have not made any unreferenced claims in the article. If you look at the history I have never put any unreferenced material in the article. That is the article and not the talk page where so far as I can see the to and fro can be less inhibited. I certainly don't enter in to revert wars here and in fact I have only reverted stupidity. Albatross2147 13:54, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Please stop making uncited claims about Howard, Albatross2147. Andjam 11:56, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Which uncited claim in the article are you referring to? Is that the one about how he "delighted" the audience in the 2GB show? Please be specific. If I have put in something in the article that you consider to be out of place just let me know or change it. Just don't accuse me without being reasonably specific. Albatross2147 13:54, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Your talk page comments about Vietnam. Andjam 03:42, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Alex Bakharev, in fact if you go back up this page you'll see I said almost the same thing. Rocksong 08:08, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough but why don't you address the point I was trying to make which was that some people would think that it is notable that a staunch supporter of the Vietnam involvement and a prominent member of the Liberal party at the time did not seek to serve in the full time forces or in the part time reserve (which is what a lot of other people of military age who did support the Vietnam commitment did in those years). I was just asking here if there was some possibility of reaching a consensus as to how this might be expressed in the article. Albatross2147 13:54, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Have you managed to get a reliable source stating that he was a staunch supporter of Vietnam involvement since the last time you sought to have a "very well crafted" "edit on Howards hypocrisy to national service"? Andjam 03:42, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes as a matter of fact I have - it is in his own words. To save you the bother of having to read through it: Q. When you say you were caught up in the Vietnam debate, you of course, supported Australia’s involvement in it... A. Yeah, yeah... Q. ...with hindsight, any rethinking of that position? A. No, I don’t... I don’t... I, I recognise that there may be aspects of it that could have been handled and explained differently, but it was a powerful debate at that time and... Q. And it was right for us to be there? A. Well, I supported the decision that was taken by the Government then, yes. Q. And now? A. Well, I, I have no reason to ... I mean I think the view I took at the time was correct. Yes. QED Albatross2147 07:31, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Was Howard physically fit for military service? Michael Leunig has said that the army didn't want him (Leunig) because he was deaf in one ear, and I've heard that Howard was partially deaf from an early age [4] . Andjam 08:02, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

In Howard's case he could have joined a unit that did not require him to be fully fit. As a student at Syd Uni he could have joined SUR, got a commission and been seconded to one of the support corps such as Royal Australian Army Pay Corp, Royal Australian Army Educational Corps, Australian Army Catering Corps, or possibly the Australian Army Legal Corps where he could have prepared briefs defending the treatment of Gunner O'Neill and Simon Townsend. Albatross2147 23:06, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

You're just getting petty mate. It honestly seems as if you're on a witchhunt. michael ^talk 01:04, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't know about petty sport. I am just trying to find out why some people here are so uncomfortable with the truth about this man. Howard used to turn up with mates at anti war/conscription meetings and try to create a bit of a stir and used to heckle demonstrators. These things are part of history and need to be documented especially as he is now cozying up to his new best friends, the Communist dictators and human rights violators in Hanoi. Albatross2147 02:11, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't work on truth(iness), it works on verifiability. Andjam 03:11, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

While everything you say is probably true, Albatross, it is completely irrelevant to writing an encyclopedia article about the man. Please pursue your grudge somewhere else. Rebecca 03:33, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Then why not just document the fact that he supported the Vietnam War? Rocksong 12:05, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

p.s. Andjam I believe it's inappropriate to edit Albatross2147's comments. So I'm removing the ^{[citation needed]}.

Is the myspace profile a joke, more suitable for uncyclopedia? Andjam 11:51, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, though quite a well done one. It snuck in on 8-nov. This is what happens when 90% of edits are undoing vandalism - subtle vandalism sometimes gets missed. Anyway, I'll delete it. Rocksong 03:14, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Is another round of semi-protection the way to go? Andjam 03:32, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I reckon so - way too much vandalism --Danlibbo 03:40, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

It is suggested that the subject's failure to enlist in the armed forces during time of war although a supporter of that war is relevant to an understanding of the subject's character and career. It is impossible to provide a citation for something that has not happened but some editors are insisting that that a note to the effect that the subject did not enlist must be backed by a citation. 12:33, 21 November 2006 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Albatross2147 (talk • contribs)

Do other Howard biographers note his non-enlistment? If yes, then cite that biographer. If no, then for Wikipedia to make a point of it is Original Research, IMHO. Rocksong 23:04, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Eric A. Warbuton wrote in the article history "if its good enough for bush and cheney on their entries to have it mentioned its good enough for howard". I disagree. For George W. Bush and Dick Cheney, Wikipedia is simply reflecting what is out there in mainstream journalism - criticism of their war (non) record. It should only go in the Howard article if his non-enlistment has generated discussion elsewhere. Otherwise it's Original Research. Rocksong 04:48, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Agree with Rocksong. If Wikipedia is the first to publish this point, then it is a novel synthesis i.e. WP:OR. If this point has been made elsewhere, then provide a citation. Hesperian 05:10, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Rocksong's contrast between Bush and Cheney vs Howard hits the nail on the head. Thanks, Andjam 07:28, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. It's not an issue here - perhaps because military service is less common among Australian political leaders. Whatever the reason, no credible source is making a big deal out of it, even while Howard is visiting Vietnam. Joestella 08:45, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

It has been interesting to see life imititating Wikipedia these past few days with the furore in the letters columns of the quality press (at least) over JWH's sticking to his guns on the Vietnam involvement. I notice at least one letter writer (not me) refers to his failure to enlist. It can only be matter of time before the question is raised in a verifiable source that youse can accept. Game and set I think. I'll close out the match shortly Albatross2147 22:56, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps, Albatross2147. But this wouldn't be the first time the Left counted its chickens a little early. Joestella 00:37, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

This is bizarre. WP is not the place to make POV points. If you can find a source for something that didn't happen, and it is relevant, then include it. Otherwise it's like saying that he never gained a pilot's licence, yet flies several times a week. BFD. Most young Australian men didn't join up for Vietnam. --Jumbo 02:10, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Most didn't support it either Albatross2147 21:56, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

It's completely irrelevant. Unless Howard evaded conscription (which is not the case), or unless there has been a major controversy in Australian politics over Howard's lack of military service (in which case there should be a separate article), then it's superfluous, not to mention a semi-violation of WP:NPOV and WP:NOR, to include this point. I don't know much about Australian politics but I do know what constitutes a reasonable article, and what constitutes obvious left-wing attempts at spreading their own POV. Walton monarchist89 12:18, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Many people will be interested in knowing Mr Howard’s matriculation results, and it seems very appropriate to include them here. AussieBoy 02:10, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Speaking for myself, I don't even care about Ian Frazer's high school results, let alone those of politicians. The most I know is usually what level they reached (eg school certificate, all the way to uni, etc.). I guess one exception would be where there's a reasonable amount of controversy that someone got into tertiary education when they were not qualified to do so (I've heard such allegations about George W Bush, though from a film-maker I regard as fairly unreliable). Andjam 02:19, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I would be interested in other views on this as well. Why on Earth wouldn't you include this? You may not "care", but, believe it or not, many people are interested in this. Wikipedia is not meant to cater only for people with one particular approach, is it? Howard got As in English and Modern History, Bs in Economics, Chemistry and Latin, and a fail in General Mathematics^[1]

AussieBoy, it isn't relevant in an encylopedia article on the man. The results didn't have a profound impact on his later life and are insignificant. It's about time you ended your little mission against Johnny boy. michael ^talk 03:37, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

How about the age he was toilet trained? This is just silly. My potential employers don't care about my Matriculation results. I don't even put them on my CV (even though they are very good). Rocksong 03:52, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

You are entitled to your views on John Howard. But please don't "target" me in the rude the way you persist in doing (e.g., “peddle your crap elsewhere, boy”). How do you know what impact not getting good enough results to get a Commonwealth Scholarship (and having to pay 200 pounds in fees for first year Law would have had on John Howard's life? Isn't that a matter open to interpretation? And wouldn't people therefore need the facts? It sometimes seems that you are not actually interested in facts that you may not like. Remember that "Wikipedia's editorial policy is the "neutral point of view," often abbreviated "NPOV." This policy says that we accept all the significant viewpoints on an issue. Instead of simply stating one perspective, we try to present all relevant viewpoints without judging them. Our aim is to be informative, not persuasive. Our policy does NOT mean that our articles are expected to be 100% "objective," since in any dispute all sides believe their view to be "true."" AussieBoy 03:57, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Aussieboy, judging from your user page you have tertiary qualifications (as I do). Do you put your matriculation results on your CV? Like I said, I don't. Potential employers don't care. Rocksong 04:30, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

As an additional note, web forums don't qualify as reliable sources. Andjam 04:44, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Rocksong, a CV is very different from a biography. Yes, I think I would like my secondary school results in my biography (if one were ever done!). In Howard's case, they may be relevant in a variety of ways, as I indicated. It may also account partially for Howard's anti-intellectualism, perhaps. Sorry about the web forum reference. Joanna Mendelssohn is a known academic, so I had assumed it would be OK. There are other suitable refs out there and I will use one of those if it goes back up again. AussieBoy 06:13, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

• Clearly Howard would have done much better in the Leaving Certificate if his parents had used those ill gotten gains from PNG to send him to private school Albatross2147 13:22, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Is this what the Left in Australia is reduced to? Two carping pseudonyms whose only platform is a Talk page on Wikipedia. Instead of trying to deface this article, why not try to achieve your political goals in the real world? And no, GetUp doesn't count. Joestella 17:32, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I find it mildly tragic that out of the seven edits in the last month by Eric A. Warbuton, five were John Howard related. Andjam 21:32, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

In case anyone is actually interested (I can hear the yawns now), a better reference for Howard's matriculation results is [5]. Joestella and Andjam, you are breaking Wikipedia's rules, including the assumption of good faith on the part of others, with these kinds of comments. AussieBoy 02:17, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

You're right. I'll do you a deal. I'll assume good faith and you try harder to show it. Joestella 07:44, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for admitting that you are breaking Wikipedia's rules. How can it be that the fact that Howard worked at his parents' garage as a boy is "relevant", but his matriculation results are not? I do not accept that this is reasonable, any more than I accept that ad hominem attacks are reasonable. AussieBoy 04:54, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

John Howard's youthful employment is relevant because it helps illustrate his character in a colourful way (or at least, as colourful as you can get with John Howard). Not every boy of his age had a family business to work in, and not every boy would have worked with the general public in hands-on sales and service in those days where you didn't pump your own petrol. In short, it's biographically interesting and we would be remiss if we did not include this information.

His matriculation results would only be interesting or relevant if they were wildly high or low, or the subjects he studied at high school were somehow out of the ordinary. Otherwise, the fact that he matriculated is of little interest; it's a given in that he went on to university. The fact that his results weren't high enough for a Commonwealth Scholarship is also boring. Only a small percentage of high school leavers gained these scholarships, and saying that the youthful John Howard was as one with 98% of his peers in the matter of matriculation results is scarcely something we need include in even the fullest biographical article.

Trying to imply that Howard's above-average results were poor is a violation of several WP guidelines. Please be careful, otherwise people may perceive you as a POV warrior. --Pete

Pete, I really find this quite strange. I did not imply any such thing in my original addition, which was "After gaining his Leaving Certificate with As in English and Modern History, Bs in Economics, Chemistry and Latin, and a fail in General Mathematics,[3] he studied law at the University of Sydney." This simply describes Howard's results, and is not in any way slanted.

One's personal opinion about Howard's results is an entirely different matter. I can see what your opinion is, and you are,of course, entitled to express it, although one would need evidence if one wished to include the claim in the article that his results were "above average" (and please note that I am not implying that they are not). I note that Howard's matriculation results were considered interesting enough by Fairfax editorial staff to be included in stories in The Age and The Sydney Morning Herald. As for your admonition to "be careful", thank you for that, but I have done nothing wrong, and so do not really appreciate this kind of veiled ad hominem threat, which, I am sorry to say, is how it appears to me. Could I ask that you carefully consider the history of matters of this type before making any further such comments? In my short time working on Wikipedia, I have found that shooting from the hip is frequently a hallmark of the true POV and reversion warriors. There are a few of them about, as I am sure you have noticed! AussieBoy 06:41, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

A couple of further points, Pete. You state "His matriculation results would only be interesting or relevant if they were wildly high or low". Isn't a fail in General Maths a low mark, and therefore, on your own argument, noteworthy? You also state "Only a small percentage of high school leavers gained these scholarships, and saying that the youthful John Howard was as one with 98% of his peers...". This is totally incorrect. In 1951, the first year of the scheme, 39% of commencing students received a Commonwealth Scholarship which payed their tuition fees and a means-tested living allowance [6]. This clearly negates another of your specific arguments for not including his results. Note, however, that I have never argued that Howard's failure to obtain a Commonwealth Scholarship should be included, although this is certainly something that could have been formative for his character, and for his views on, for example, the role of fee-paying places in Higher Education. AussieBoy 10:13, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

A newspaper opinion piece is one thing, an encyclopaedia another. Please do not hold up the dailies as an example of the quality to which we should aspire. I doubt that you know my opinion on John Howard's high school results, but my guess is that if you are trying to argue that the scholar's matriculation results of fifty years ago are useful in understanding the politician's current attitudes, you are pushing some kind of barrow. None of your arguments for including the results are at all convincing to me. If I misread your intentions and ruffled your feathers, then I apologise, but biographies of contemporary politicians are subject to POV distortion and again I stress that we must be careful. --Pete

Can people please stop putting finance minister in brackets after Treasurer? For a start it is factually inaccurate as they are not the same in Australia. When Howard was treasurer, the finance minister was Eric Robinson then Margaret Guilfoyle. If international Wikipedians need this "explained" then they can click on the shiny blue link to the Treasurer article. I elliot 11:16, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I totally agree. Rocksong 12:01, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree, so long as the relevant link is right there. Xtra 12:25, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

country-specific terms like Treasurer are completely incomprehensible in isolation to 99% of the non-country readership and should be banned from Wikipedia. Unfortunately Wikipedia is ruled by the 1% so I know that won't happen. PMA 13:40, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. Wikipedia should always use the correct title - but then explain it if necessary. In the introduction, a quick explanation is tricky, thanks to the confusion added by the fact that in Australia "Finance minister" is something else entirely; so the link to Treasurer of Australia will have to do. In the body of the article, I think an explanation of the importance of Treasurer is in order. Rocksong 23:59, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

OK with me. PMA 05:20, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

While the AWB's bribes in Iraq have significantly damaged the government's reputation, each other major election issue has a significant connection to the Opposition's primarily working-class support base through either providing political support through the Coalition or providing more employment opportunities primarily in the form of increased uranium mining.

Some very vague claims here. I don't know what they all mean, let alone if they are true. Regards, Ben Aveling 00:13, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

yeah - i guess the point is that the coalition is taking the fight to the alp - therefore reflects on howard's political talent --Danlibbo 05:26, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Should probably include citations for these claims, particularly if their accuracy is uncertain. Walton monarchist89 12:19, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

The whole sentence is POV garbage. The AWB thing isn't a major issue with the public, let alone any government connection. Increased uranium mining isn't a significant source of employment, now or in the future. Employment opportunities are a result of the booming economy, not any political decisions. (Though I am sure that Peter Costello would happily take the credit.) --Pete 13:18, 13 December 2006 (UTC)