Talk:Howard Government

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Howard Government article.
Article policies
Flag
Portal
 Howard Government is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.
??? Not yet rated on quality scale
Mid Importance: Mid
This article is supported by WikiProject Australian history.
This article is supported by WikiProject Australian politics.
Assessment comments

Contents

[edit] Howard Government

I have decided to be bold and create the Howard Government article to resolve the BLP issues with the John Howard article and so there is a good article which gives an overview of the Howard Administration, a pretty significant period of continuous Government in Australia. I have not put any significant content into the article because I figured what ever I put in there would be considered POV by one editor or the other and that would be a distraction from the main game. I'd be happy to contribute to this article but I figured I'd leave the initial contributions to others to get the feel of how the article will pan out. I would suggest however that it take a very broad overview approach, whenever a certain section starts getting overly detailed it can be branched out to its own article, or content moved to a more appropriate article. Keeping with WP:NPOV the article should concentrate fairly evenly between what are considered to be the 'achievements' of the Howard Government and what are considered to be the 'controversies' of the administration. Would welcome all those who would like to contribute! Cheers, Alec ✉﹌ ۞ 09:36, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

This seems like an excellent idea to me. Good work :) Orderinchaos 10:15, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Great work. May I suggest a summary of each link on that article, so it reads less like a directory? Recurring dreams 11:39, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your comment Recurring dreams. RE more content, that's the idea :) it is currently the skeleton of an article, but I don't want to do a heaps of work on it and then have it torn to shreds, so I've just done the structure, the content should be a collaboration of all the editors who contribute regularly to the political articles. Cheers, Alec ✉﹌ ۞ 11:58, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm a bit cautious about this. I think there is a great potential for this to become an unwieldy, contentious mess, with little encyclopædic value. That's not a reason not to pursue it, I realise, but I think it ought to inform how we shape it. There seems little in the way of a precedent for such an article, the most similar I can find being Presidency of George W. Bush, Premiership of Tony Blair and (infelicitously) Stephen Harper as Prime Minister of Canada. I'm not particularly fond of the latter two articles as I think they inaccurately over-emphasise the 'presidentialisation' of Westminster systems (which, admittedly, is more pronounced in Australia than anywhere else), and my alternate suggestion would be to discuss the Howard Government in a unified Howard Ministry article, but I do think it beneficial do follow existing templates. How does this sound?--cj | talk 13:39, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi Alec. I thought about this also, but then wondered how you would separate Howard the man from Howard the government. What would go in which article? Would quotes go in the biography or the government? What about Howard's policies during the opposition years? He formed policies before he formed government. George W Bush has his policies in his biography article. Well, each policy gets a paragraph, which links to a larger article about that policy. But GW Bush had a lot more history than Howard before politics. Howard has been a politician all his life. Are there BLP issues in the Howard article? Sure, libelous stuff can't go in, but what about controversial policies? Cheers, Lester2 07:04, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

From WP:BLP:
We must get the article right.[1] Be very firm about the use of high quality references. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Wikipedia articles,[2] talk pages, user pages, and project space.
An important rule of thumb when writing biographical material about living persons is "do no harm". Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid; it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. Biographies of living persons (BLP)s must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy. Shot info 07:17, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

hi CJ, not that I mind, but I would have thought that that the title "Premiership of John Howard" would be more presidential then Howard Government, I like Premiership as well but the reason I used Howard Government was because that is the common title given in Australia. Cheers, Alec ✉﹌ ۞ 12:18, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I agree. I lamented that in my initial comment. I just think it's prudent, however, to follow the precedent we have in this case (even though, as aforementioned, I'd prefer it to be approached differently).--cj | talk 12:35, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough, looking at the precedents I think the UK ones are the most close to what we're looking at, although I was looking for a article which I would consider to be a bit more broad (less focusing on Howard and his decisions and more focussing on the Cabinet as a whole and the Government in Parliament as a whole) but whatever works, this is why I didn't want to get too far into it without discussion. looking at the Canadian article you used as an example; that looks more like a sub-article of the bio article, so even though political system wise Australia is very similar to Canada, I don't think that would be a good addition, although the John Howard article does emphasis a huge amount on his premiership and might benefit from some sub articles. I propose that further discussion take place on the article's talk page. Cheers, Alec ✉﹌ ۞ 13:04, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion was moved from WikiProject Australian politics and Australian Wikipedian's notice board.

[edit] Recreated after Prod

Following recent discussions at Talk:John Howard there seems to be interest in an article on the Government of Howard as distinct from the biography of the man.--Matilda talk 01:04, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

And this is why this page gets deleted. Because people create it filled with nothing and seems redundant. Timeshift (talk) 01:15, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
I've put in the headings I suggested over at John Howard. For the record, I really hate the title of this article; I prefer "Howard Government" which is how we normally refer to different govts in Oz. I'm happy to debate the title later though, lets get the content up to scratch first. --Surturz (talk) 02:55, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes, well, for what its worth, people in the UK generally referred to something known as 'The Blair Government', not 'The Premiership of Tony Blair', or for that matter 'The Major Government', 'The Thatcher Government'. And the US equivalent would be 'The Bush Administration', or 'The Bush Presidency'. So ... Eyedubya (talk) 12:26, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Fabulous to see this article created. Ultimately, perhaps we can have similar articles for all governments cross-ref'd from the Government of Australia page. But I agree with some other contributors - it should be called Howard Government, not Prime ministership of John Howard. It is not just about Howard's role in govt (which current title implies), but his cabinet with him at the helm. In other words, the current title is descriptively inaccurate. But still a fabulous leap forward. cheers hamiltonstone (talk) 12:24, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Over several talk pages over the last few months, the move proposal got a lot of support. The best bit was that for once editors from all political "sides" agreed. I think this will prove to be a big step forward particularly in the light of the editing disputes that have dogged the topic. It will take some time to bed these changes down. This page here is still in note form, and JH needs major work. But there have been some very capable volunteers putting there hands up. --Merbabu (talk) 12:29, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed re-structure (copied from Talk:John Howard)

[edit] John Howard BLP (this article)

  • Biography - born, elected, married etc
  • Treasurer
  • Opposition
    • Rivalry with Andrew Peacock
    • "Lazarus with a triple bypass"
  • Prime Minister
    • MAIN ARTICLE: Howard Government
    • Relationship with George Bush
    • Leadership and retirement doubts - Costello
    • Decline and fall
  • After politics
  • Honours

[edit] Howard Government (working title)

  • Terms
    • each term with start & finish dates, notable events e.g. ministers sacked etc.
  • Social Policy
    • Gun Control
    • Baby bonus
    • First Home owners grant
    • Euthanasia veto
    • Gay marriage veto
  • Economic reform
    • GST
      • Never-ever
    • Industrial Relations - workchoices
  • Nationhood
    • Republic referendum
    • Indigenous affairs - intervention
    • Immigration - Asian immigration comments, Tampa, Children overboard, rhetoric vs. skilled migration increased to record levels
    • Responses to Racism - Pauline Hanson, Cronulla, etc.
    • Citizenship - Testing and content of questions
    • National Security - border protection, Pacific Solution
  • Foreign Affairs
    • East Timor
      • Howard's letter
      • InterFET
    • Iraq war
    • US Alliance

The contents however may be a useful starting point:

  1. Overview
  2. Major issues of Presidency
    1. State of the Union Addresses
    2. Major acts as President
    3. Major treaties signed
    4. Major treaties withdrawn
  3. Major legislation
    1. Legislation signed
      1. 2001
      2. 2002 (etc to 2006)
    2. Legislation vetoed
  4. Administration and Cabinet
    1. Advisors and other officials
    2. Supreme Court nominations and appointments
    3. Federal Reserve appointment
  5. First term (2001-2005)
  6. Second term (2005-Present)
  7. Political philosophy
  8. Environmental Record

Obviously a presidency is not the same as leading a government but maybe this sort of topic list would raise it up a little.

There is an article on Premiership of Tony Blair which perhaps is more analogous and I propose Premiership of John Howard as a title. Contents are:

  1. First term 1997 to 2001
    1. Independence for the Bank of England
    2. Domestic politics
    3. Foreign policy
  2. Second term 2001 to 2005
    1. Iraq war
    2. Domestic politics
    3. Health problems
    4. Connaught Square
  3. Third term 2005 to 2007
    1. G8 and EU presidencies
    2. London to host the 2012 Summer Olympics
    3. 2005 London bombings
    4. Education reforms 2006
    5. Local elections on 4 May 2006 and cabinet reshuffle
    6. Darfur
    7. Resignation as Labour Party leader and Prime Minister
    8. Debate over Muslim women wearing veils
    9. Cash for honours
  4. References

[edit] Page move

I think Howard government (1996-2007) would be a more appropriate working title because it is conceptually broader than Prime ministership of John Howard and would allow a more expansive consideration of government policy, achievements, etc as whole rather than from the prism of one man in one role. We should not be setting this article up to run into the criticism that certain content should be excluded for not being directly and exclusively relevant to Howard's Prime Ministership (eg. the views and decisions of Cabinet, the policies of the Government, etc). In other words, this article should be about the team as a whole, not just the captain. --Brendan [ contribs ] 09:25, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed - just drop the years - ie, Howard Government. --Merbabu (talk) 09:28, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm not welded to the idea of including the dates, except that I do think the title needs to better contextualise the article and avoid complication if someone else called Howard becomes a leader of a government somewhere. Remember, the US has two Bushes... --Brendan [ contribs ] 09:54, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
The main point is, the article is intended to be about the government, not specifically John Howard as prime minister, right? --Merbabu (talk) 09:58, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
I definitely agree this article should be about the team, not the captain. I like the dates: Howard government (1996-2007) or even Howard Government (Australia 1996-2007); we can have "Howard Government" (plain) redirect to the title with the dates. It might also be worth having Australian Government 1996, 1997 etc redirect too. Not sure if ppl would search for those. Perhaps a disambiguation page? --Surturz (talk) 13:13, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
I was personally of the opinion each term merited its own article, but at the risk of thematic duplication. I'm reasonably happy either way. Orderinchaos 09:41, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Suggestion: restructure Government of Australia first, then Howard Government becomes part of a series

Things here could be rationalised to work better all round: the article Government of Australia could be restructured so that it has a chronology of all Australian Parliaments since Federation, rather than only the current administration. This would provide an historical overview of the institution itself, and the current government page would be the one that gets updated instead. It seems to me that this would fill a gap in the current spectrum of articles and allow a set of articles to be created that dealt with governments rather than just their PMs.Eyedubya (talk) 14:09, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Agree - reasonable suggestion. I don't think we should wait with this one, but should proceed with that sort of reform firmly in mind. Orderinchaos 09:42, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Excellent idea. I concur, Eyedubya and OrderinChaos. --Brendan [ contribs ] 03:13, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Chronologically or by subject

Looking at the outline put forward (thanks!) it appears to be a mix of chonology (ie, by term) and also by subject (ie, Social Policy). I would have thought we should chose one or the other (i was leaning to chronologically), but are people suggesting we have both? --Merbabu (talk) 09:32, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I lean toward chronological as well. If we starting grouping things by themes, the article will too easily veer down the path of original research. Chronological may be dry but at least it is comprehensible, hopefully less subjective and lends itself well to representing a linear progression of verifiable events. --Brendan [ contribs ] 10:02, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
That's similar to what I was thinking, but I'd still like to hear any arguments for themes/subject order. I might be swayed. --Merbabu (talk) 10:06, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I'll argue for themes, because it will let us go in more detail. If we go chronological, each year will end up a series of disconnected dot points and people will need to read the whole article to get a sense of all the (say) immigration issues that occurred during Howard's tenure. Chronological makes it hard to argue about relative weight of events too, so people will add every little thing. Themes means related events are next to each other, making it easy to compare which are more worthy of inclusion. Also, themes will quarantine any edit warring "authorised use of edit" to sections of the article, rather than affecting the entire article. The choice of "themes" might be a bit subjective, so we could divide (roughly) on government departments if people are worried about POV/OR - although there hasn't been much controversy over headings so far. --Surturz (talk) 13:22, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
    • I agree strongly with those in favour of a thematic approach for all of the above reasons. If there is an issue with subjectivity, then use the names of Government departments, policies, programs, initiatives, etc. as headings for sections. This approach would enable comparison between articles of the same type on other Government of Australia articles (eg: Keating Government, Hawke Government, etc etc) making such articles a genuinely useful resource. The chronological approach is too hard to follow for all but the most dedicated users and is only readable when structured as a narrative, but then, as such, would open up the article to claims of POV, since a narrative is always perspectival. Stories are likely to be highly contested, because some will feel that certain threads have been emphasised over others and it will be very difficult to make the story read well without it. I feel that the chronological approach isn't very informative or useful in an encyclopedic context. However, such articles do have their place as sub-articles of thematic articles. It doesn't have to be either/or. We can have both, on the principle that different formats are useful for different purposes. Eyedubya (talk) 14:21, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
The Australian Political Chronicle tends towards very broad thematic but in a chronological way - there are often interruptions of later events into earlier ones and vice versa, but it's fairly easy to follow. As the academics have gone that way I don't see any major problem with following. Orderinchaos 09:43, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] List of Missing Events

I haven't seen the merit of 2 Howard articles, but nonetheless, here are some parts of the Howard story that are currently not covered in either of the two Howard articles:

  • Howard family New Guinea interests (previously deleted from article)
  • Howard's use of alcohol in the 1980s due to his despair over losing leadership to Peacock (deleted from article)
  • Commencement of mining at Kakadu
  • Ban on public taking photos of parliament
  • Immigration -initially reduced, family reunion reduce - skilled migration for business increased in last term
  • Claims of ABC bias, and inquiries into it
  • Australian Federal Police office running in Indonesia to stop boat people
  • Details of the use of outback detention centres, controversy, conditions, riots etc
  • Temporary Protection Visas (TPV) given to refugees
  • Internal revolt over refugees - Petro Georgio et al
  • Semi-automatic pistols not subject gun control (deleted from article)
  • Howard fronts gun lobby wearing a flak jacket -consensus is that it does not deserve inclusion --Surturz (talk) 16:02, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
  • SIEV-X saga
  • Waterfront - Patricks Stevedores
  • Howard's ongoing, continuous, close relationship with GWBush
  • Howard's continual denial of Iraq war plans through 2002 and early 2003
  • Tough talk about Weapons of Mass Destruction
  • AWB scandal
  • Telstra sale
  • Claims that Howard government shut down Senate inquiries and debates (eg for Telstra sale)
  • Howard's promotion of nuclear energy
  • Term 4 - falling popularity in 2007 - meetings by colleagues to overthrow him

I have cross-posted this list to Talk:John Howard. Please don't cross out or delete any points, as there is space in the next section (below) to discuss them. --Lester 01:43, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Economics section. Would be good to discuss the unique economic performance, interest rates, fiscal circumstances, housing booms, etc - it was afterall one of the, if not the, main reason he kept getting elected. Needs to be developed. --Merbabu (talk) 03:30, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Whatever the reasons Howard kept getting re-elected, we need to cite the views of reliable, verifiable sources, not the opinons of editors. Eyedubya (talk) 08:47, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
I have struck out 3 items - 2 aren't relevant to the Gov't though they may be to the article about Howard the person. One is actually mentioned by the Howard article at present - please review --Matilda talk 02:16, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
They are relevant to the BLP. Eyedubya (talk) 08:47, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Comments by me:
  • Not sufficiently relevant: PNG (about his father not him, we've been over this before), photos in parliament, mining in Kakadu. SIEV-X (this was a terrible tragedy and I'm very pro refugees, but I honestly don't see how this fits into a Howard article)
I think there's a book about this that could provide material to demonstrate relevance. Meanwhile here's something to be going on with and something else that lists a wide variety of sources. Eyedubya (talk) 08:47, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
OK, it looks like I'm wrong on SIEV-X; the others I still think are not sufficiently relevant. Peter Ballard (talk) 12:13, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
In broad agreement here. Orderinchaos 20:14, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Minor, borderline: alcohol (maybe in personal page), nuclear energy, ABC bias.
The alcohol is interesting in the BLP, not under Howard Govt. Nuclear energy is relevant, and the issue of ABC bias is highly relevant to the Howard Govt article.Eyedubya (talk) 08:47, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Gun control / Flak jacket: the big controversy at the time was how he took on Conservatives who were anti-gun control. I've no problem with article containing complaints by a few that it didn't go far enough, so long as the emphasis is on him battling those who wanted less gun control.
I agree.Eyedubya (talk) 08:47, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Immigration - as I've mentioned elsewhere, skilled/family migration was a pretty minor issue politically so I'm not sure there's much to say without straying into POV/OR.
We need to find some sources on this one, as it seems to me that it could be more significant than first appears, given the relationship that it has in a structural sense to issues of education and training in Australia. There will be some issues that are sensational politically, others that are important from a policy view that maybe pass unremarked by the media, but both may be worthy of inclusion in the Howard Govt article.Eyedubya (talk) 08:47, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Things that definitely belong, but with a balanced treatment: AWB, Telstra sale, Refugees, Iraq War, Terms 4 troubles.
Peter Ballard (talk) 02:39, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Peter, I could agree with these depending to which article you are saying they are relevant. Could you clarify please? thanks --Merbabu (talk) 03:12, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
The ones I'm saying yes to could go in one or the other, the ones I'm saying no to should go in neither. Generally they go in the Howard Government article. I've stayed out of the split discussion, though the way I'd do it is take nearly everything on Howard 1996-2007 and put it in the government article. Peter Ballard (talk) 03:45, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
I disagree, see above. Eyedubya (talk) 08:47, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

More battlefronts, Lester? Do you intend to take each of these through the dispute process if "necessary"? My reluctant feedback. Feel free to add you comments and name under each point like I did.

In summary, almost all of it needs to go into [[Howard Govt], if at all. thanks --Merbabu (talk) 02:54, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion, its all relevant, and just needs to be sorted between the two articles and rendered in a NPOV way. Eyedubya (talk) 08:47, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
I just presented a list of points about Howard's history that are not currently in the article. It shouldn't automatically be received described as a "battle", which may discourage other editors from the discussion.--Lester 04:01, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Lester makes a good point. I think we should find ways of including everything on the list. Eyedubya (talk) 08:47, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
You've got to be kidding. Do the other editors truly believe this is an NPOV list? --Surturz (talk) 15:47, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion of particular points

*Howard family New Guinea interests (previously deleted from article)
Like the Obama issue, this has been discussed to death, all avenues were tested, and people moved on. It does no good to bring it up over and over.
It was one of the issues solved by a mega edit war, not consensus.--Lester 03:43, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
If relevant, and I don't believe it is in the ocntext of a wikipedia length article, it should be in the article on Howard the person.--Matilda talk 04:05, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
I agree, its personal to Howard. Eyedubya (talk) 08:47, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
I still believe this issue belongs in the Lyall Howard article as it had no relation (or likely major impact) to JH. Orderinchaos 09:31, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
*Howard's use of alcohol in the 1980s due to his despair over losing leadership to Peacock (deleted from article)
source? Reliability of info? --Merbabu (talk) 02:54, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
It was widely covered in the news media and JWHoward biography, and previously existed in the article. It shows his despair at that point in his life.Lester 03:43, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
If relevant, and I don't believe it is in the ocntext of a wikipedia length article, it should be in the article on Howard the person. I don't beleive it was very widely covered - unlike say Hawke's use of alcohol.--Matilda talk 04:05, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
I didn't know about it, but now that I do, I support its inlcusion in the Howard BLP, not the Howard Govt article. It helps demonstrate his tenacity. Eyedubya (talk) 08:47, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
If we have reliable sources (eg in one of his two biographies, which would be likely to contain such), yes, it could go in the JH article. Orderinchaos 09:31, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
*Commencement of mining at Kakadu
Howard government but in broader context of energy policy probably --Matilda talk 04:05, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Howard Govt.Eyedubya (talk) 08:47, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
HG. (but didn't it start under the previous govt?) Orderinchaos 09:31, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
*Ban on public taking photos of parliament
significance? Certainly not John Howard article--Merbabu (talk) 02:54, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
It was sparked by a photo of an MP sleeping in parliament. Relevant to the control of government image.--Lester 03:48, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
can't see its significance--Matilda talk 04:05, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Howard Govt, not the BLP. Eyedubya (talk) 08:47, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Not sure it's relevant to either. Orderinchaos 09:31, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
who cares? Trivial - photos/video of parliament is a new thing. --Surturz (talk) 16:01, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
There was also a big issue against using photos, or even official news footage of parliamentarians for the purpose of ridicule. You could not buy archival footage from the ABC if it was determined you were going to use the footage for "ridicule". Previously, anyone could go to the visiting gallery of Parliament House and snap as many photos of the pollies as they wanted.--Lester 22:55, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
It's certainly an issue, but it's not actually related to HG, more to the power of the executive generally, and possibly related to (likely trumped up) security concerns which have seen similar clampdowns all over the Western world. Orderinchaos 01:35, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
*Immigration -initially reduced, family reunion reduce - skilled migration for business increased in last term
Howard government article not Howard the person unless can show some good reason--Matilda talk 04:05, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Howard Govt, agree. Eyedubya (talk) 08:47, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
HG. Only his statements on immigration relate to JH. Orderinchaos 09:31, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
HG if factual and NPOV. --Surturz (talk) 16:01, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
*Claims of ABC bias, and inquiries into it
  • Howard govt maybe – not John Howard, unless it can be proven to be a howard specific issue--Merbabu (talk) 02:54, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Howard government article not Howard the person unless can show some good reason--Matilda talk 04:05, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Howard Govt. Agree. Eyedubya (talk) 08:47, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
HG - it was more an Alston hobbyhorse than a Howard one, although he certainly wasn't being stopped. Orderinchaos 09:31, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes, it was mainly Alston, though that is part of the Howard government.--Lester 22:55, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
*Australian Federal Police office running in Indonesia to stop boat people
relevance to either? --Merbabu (talk) 02:54, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
It is part of the extraordinary story of border protection. There have been TV programs on this. I believe the Sunday program also ran a multi-week feature on the AFP Indonesia issue.--Lester 03:48, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Howard government article not Howard the person --Matilda talk 04:05, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Yup, Howard Govt. Eyedubya (talk) 08:47, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
HG. Orderinchaos 09:31, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
*Details of the use of outback detention centres, controversy, conditions, riots etc
  • Howard govt maybe – not John Howard. And what is it with this obsession with expressing the “controversy” into the articles? --Merbabu (talk) 02:54, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Howard government article not Howard the person --Matilda talk 04:05, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Howard Govt. Agree. Eyedubya (talk) 08:47, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
HG. (Howard didn't run them himself, and to be fair part of the issue was the privatisation of immigration detention, and the government lost control of large bits of the enterprise. I have a book about it somewhere. That privatisation should be in as it's a key plank of HG ideology.) Orderinchaos 09:31, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
*Temporary Protection Visas (TPV) given to refugees
Howard government article not Howard the person --Matilda talk 04:05, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Howard Govt. Agree. Eyedubya (talk) 08:47, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
HG. Orderinchaos 09:31, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
*Internal revolt over refugees - Petro Georgio et al
It's an important part of history that there was internal revolt over the asylum seeker issue. There were Liberal Party MPs on both sides of the debate, and it wasn't unanimous. --Lester 22:39, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
*Semi-automatic pistols not subject gun control (deleted from article)
Howard government article not Howard the person --Matilda talk 04:05, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Howard Govt. AgreeEyedubya (talk) 08:47, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Not entirely sure it's relevant (belongs more in a hypothetical Gun control in Australia article?) Orderinchaos 09:31, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Irrelevant - your point is that the laws regarding semi-automatic pistols were not changed? --Surturz (talk) 16:01, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
*Howard fronts gun lobby wearing a flak jacket
tedious.--Merbabu (talk) 02:54, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
trivial --Matilda talk 04:05, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Include in the section on gun control (whichever article that's in now) Eyedubya (talk) 08:47, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Trivial, but interesting and well-reported nonetheless. May belong in a separate subject article rather than one of these. Orderinchaos 09:31, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Trivial. --Surturz (talk) 16:01, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
*SIEV-X saga
Howard government article not Howard the person --Matilda talk 04:05, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Howard Govt. Agree. Eyedubya (talk) 08:47, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
HG. Orderinchaos 09:31, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
*Waterfront - Patricks Stevedores
Can't believe this is not included in Howard Government --Lester 22:59, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
A lot of this event type stuff I'll probably find when I hit the literature in a few days (being a student at two institutions plus having a computer at one of my locations go bung has slowed me down :() Orderinchaos 01:33, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
*Howard's ongoing, continuous, close relationship with GWBush
fair enough – I thought it was in the article. --Merbabu (talk) 02:54, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
covered in the Howard the person article--Matilda talk 04:05, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Howard BLP. Eyedubya (talk) 08:47, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Already in BLP --Surturz (talk) 16:01, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
There is only a minimal amount in the John Howard article. Needs expansion. --Lester 22:55, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
*Howard's continual denial of Iraq war plans through 2002 and early 2003
possible briefest of brief mentions
Significant, include in Iraq War section. Eyedubya (talk) 08:47, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
To some extent in both, to which extents they apply. HG for policy (free trade agreement, war in Iraq etc), JH for personal relations and "deputy sheriff" and etc.
*Tough talk about Weapons of Mass Destruction
Iraq War. Eyedubya (talk) 08:47, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
In terms of Australia's involvement, HG, but agree it's not dreadfully related. Orderinchaos 09:31, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
It's related, as it was an endlessly repeated reason our country went to war. There was even a daytime debate in parliament, it went on for hours, where MPs on all sides debated it.--Lester 22:55, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
*AWB scandal
Howard Govt. Agree. Eyedubya (talk) 08:47, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Own article with main link from HG. (I have a book on it and academic literature also exists.) Orderinchaos 09:31, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Worthy of its own article --Surturz (talk) 16:01, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
*Telstra sale
Howard Govt. Agree. Eyedubya (talk) 08:47, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
HG. Possibly important to a hypothetical Communications in Australia article too, in which case the coverage in HG can be limited to policy actions and statements made, with the main story going in the other article. Orderinchaos 09:31, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
HG. --Surturz (talk) 16:01, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
*Claims that Howard government shut down Senate inquiries and debates (eg for Telstra sale) --Merbabu (talk) 02:54, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Howard Govt. Eyedubya (talk) 08:47, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Howard didn't personally (not a senator). So HG. Orderinchaos 09:31, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Not worthy of inclusion. Governments of both persuasions (shock, horror) use their numbers in parliament to get their legislation through. Keating did the same thing and Rudd is doing it now (e.g. to force through Friday sittings without question time). Would only be notable if Howard had not used his numbers in the Senate to stifle debate. --Surturz (talk) 16:01, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
There was an issue about control of the Senate being used for this purpose, and no other government (including Rudd) has had senate control since Fraser.--Lester 23:03, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
*Howard's promotion of nuclear energy
Howard Govt. Agree. Eyedubya (talk) 08:47, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
HG, with mentions where appropriate in JH - it was a extra-governmental personal campaign to some extent. Orderinchaos 09:31, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
*Term 4 - falling popularity in 2007 - meetings by colleagues to overthrow him
Certainly should be in there. --Merbabu (talk) 02:54, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Both. Eyedubya (talk) 08:47, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Both, where they apply. Orderinchaos 09:31, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Howard's final year was plagued by stories leaking out about traitors (maybe that's too strong a word) in the ranks, and secret meatings of top MPs (wasn't there one in a Sydney apartment during APEC) where they would meet and decide who would tap Johnny on the shoulder and tell him its time to go etc etc. Costello and Turnbull seemed to be responsible for many of the leaks. --Lester 23:11, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Wow - again, the article split has created quite a bit of consensus here. Not full consensus, but good general agreement. Nice one. more to come no doubt. --Merbabu (talk) 09:15, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Definitely. I'll be paying a trip to the library either tomorrow or Friday for some very decent sources. Orderinchaos 09:34, 11 June 2008 (UTC)