Revision as of 10:54, 28 July 2008 editSkyring (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users22,595 edits →Talk of war crimes← Previous edit | Revision as of 12:10, 28 July 2008 edit undoDeusMP (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users1,271 edits →Talk of war crimesNext edit → | ||
(3 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown) | |||
Line 34: | Line 34: | ||
I think this should definitely be included! At the moment, it is worded carefully enough to satisfy the cautionary conditions of a BLP. But I think it goes without saying we should continue to be very careful with the wording and references of this addition --<b>]</b> <small>(] ])</small> 10:08, 28 July 2008 (UTC) | I think this should definitely be included! At the moment, it is worded carefully enough to satisfy the cautionary conditions of a BLP. But I think it goes without saying we should continue to be very careful with the wording and references of this addition --<b>]</b> <small>(] ])</small> 10:08, 28 July 2008 (UTC) | ||
Calling for war crimes charges is one thing. Being called to answer charges another. If that were to happen, it would certainly be worthy of inclusion, but so far it's just speculation and slander by Howard's political enemies. including those here, judging by that last edit summary. No involvement by any official body. I'm removing this under ]. --] (]) 10:54, 28 July 2008 (UTC) | Calling for war crimes charges is one thing. Being called to answer charges another. If that were to happen, it would certainly be worthy of inclusion, but so far it's just speculation and slander by Howard's political enemies. including those here, judging by that . No involvement by any official body. I'm removing this under ]. --] (]) 10:54, 28 July 2008 (UTC) | ||
: As rarely as you'll get me and Pete to agree, this is one of those times. ] 11:00, 28 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
:: Same, per above. And Pete, ]. ] (]) 11:03, 28 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
:: Agreed. Should not be included. ] (]) 12:10, 28 July 2008 (UTC) |
Revision as of 12:10, 28 July 2008
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the John Howard article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18 |
This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
|
National Textiles
I'm surprised that Howard's bailing out of hi brother's company is not mentioned. I think it is notable enough. IIRC< it was quite a big topic at the time. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:20, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
- I recall also that it was a big issue - lots of sources too --Matilda 07:25, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
- Add it, Blnguyen. --Lester 08:12, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your suggestion. When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Misplaced Pages is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the edit this page link at the top. The Misplaced Pages community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes — they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). :D Timeshift (talk) 08:16, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Talk of war crimes
220.233.31.26 (talk) 04:04, 28 July 2008 (UTC)I don't understand why there is no mention of the potential for John Howard to be charged as a War Criminal in view of his illegal invasion of Iraq, a soverign state220.233.31.26 (talk) 04:04, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
- I guess the reason that such speculation is not in the article is because John Howard was never charged with such an offence, and nobody seems to be likely to charge him. For any article, we can't speculate about court trials when the person hasn't yet been charged. I think some people in Europe once moved to charge Donald Rumsfeld with warcrimes, which never succeeded. There was a newspaper article about the likelyhood of warcrimes charges against Howard - I think it may have been the Sydney Morning Herald - which basically said that the next government (ie Rudd) would have to move to charge him, and the standing protocol is that governments don't try to charge leaders of the previous government. Does that answer your question?--Lester 05:47, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
- I don't think we were meant to take that seriously... and even if we were, it's all WP:CRYSTAL and WP:OPINION anyway and would be very lacking in WP:RS. Timeshift (talk) 06:03, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
- Yep and this is WP:BLP exception material require exceptional sources. Gnangarra 06:09, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
- I don't think we were meant to take that seriously... and even if we were, it's all WP:CRYSTAL and WP:OPINION anyway and would be very lacking in WP:RS. Timeshift (talk) 06:03, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
- There are definitely reliable sources to support the speculation see google search. In particular ABC News of 2 June 2008 - legal brief sent to ICC and supported by, among others, Lyn Allison of the Democrats; SMH of 26 April 2008 reporting on Former Malaysian prime minister Mahathir Mohamad has called for Western leaders including Australia's former prime minister John Howard to be charged with war crimes over the war in Iraq. --Matilda 06:19, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, a Sydney Morning Herald search also comes out with oodles of stuff. Apart from Mahathir Mohamad of Malaysia (mentioned above), John Valder is another who called for Howard to be tried.--Lester 06:37, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
- Reliable sources to support the speculation eh? Indeed :) Timeshift (talk) 07:22, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
It was already mentioned in Howard Government. That split has created a horrible mess. Peter Ballard (talk) 08:47, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
- This is personal to Howard--Matilda 09:11, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
I think this should definitely be included! At the moment, it is worded carefully enough to satisfy the cautionary conditions of a BLP. But I think it goes without saying we should continue to be very careful with the wording and references of this addition --Carbon Rodney (Talk but be nice) 10:08, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Calling for war crimes charges is one thing. Being called to answer charges another. If that were to happen, it would certainly be worthy of inclusion, but so far it's just speculation and slander by Howard's political enemies. including those here, judging by that last edit summary. No involvement by any official body. I'm removing this under WP:BLP. --Pete (talk) 10:54, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
- As rarely as you'll get me and Pete to agree, this is one of those times. Orderinchaos 11:00, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
- Same, per above. And Pete, WP:AGF. Timeshift (talk) 11:03, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
- Agreed. Should not be included. Jmount (talk) 12:10, 28 July 2008 (UTC)