Talk:John Howard/Archive 14

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)


 * 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 talk 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 talk 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)
 * No, that summary was purely designed to get people watching this article / recent additions to comment on the inclusion of that paragraph. More discussion is usually better. --Carbon Rodney (Talk but be nice) 13:54, 28 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I see the fast deletion code of conduct has returned to Howard related articles. There is considerable eminent legal opinion published by multiple reliable sources suggesting that Howard's strategy in Iraq violated international law. I have not seen a reasonable justification for it's deletion from the article. -0 Lester  12:23, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * See WP:BLP. There is nothing official. It's just allegations by Howard's political enemies. If charges eventuate, we should include it. --Pete (talk) 12:34, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Since when was it Howard's strategy and not Bush/the US? Timeshift (talk) 13:05, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Timeshift, It was Howard, not Bush, who chose to send Australian soldiers. --Carbon Rodney (Talk but be nice) 13:54, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Your point is? What does that have to do with the strategies used in Iraq? Howard just contributed Australian soldiers to the 'coalition of the willing'. You give Howard way too much credit to insinuate he assisted in the formulation of how to proceed. Timeshift (talk) 14:38, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Timeshift, I didn't give him any credit. I explained the brief filed against Howard, and I will do so further: Howard made the decision to send Australian troops to help the US invade Iraq. And, according to the brief, he should be tried for war crimes. It doesn't matter if he was involved in the scheme or not. Personally, I doubt either Howard or Bush contributed anything to "the strategies used in Iraq" --Carbon Rodney (Talk but be nice) 05:00, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

It's a notable piece of information, documented by multiple reputable sources. Howard's choice to involve Australia in the Iraq war was a fairly large aspect of his prime-ministership, which is a large portion of his notable life. I think not including it would be biased in favour of Howard. It's not slander because he has indeed been accused of war crimes. --Carbon Rodney (Talk but be nice) 13:54, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

The paragraph should be removed under WP:BLP ''Be careful not to give a disproportionate amount of space to particular viewpoints, to avoid the effect of representing a minority view as if it were the majority one. The views of a tiny minority have no place in the article., or as per Jimmy in WP:UNDUE If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article.'' Given that its a minority view unless charges are laid then it shouldnt be in the article Gnangarra 15:58, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Also I've only found one news story which it the one cited. Bidgee (talk) 16:04, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I am quite sure that a single short entry is not a BLP or UNDUE violation. UNDUE weight is designed to counter POV pushing, but the removal of this notable sourced content per BLP looks exactly like a POV push in of itself. It cannot be argued that an official legal petition to an international court is an action of a tiny insignificant minority, especially when one of the minority is someone of the profile of Lyn Allison. It should be self evident it is a political move and most probably won't result in proceedings, but that is not relevent to the merits of inclusion of the information. MickMacNee (talk) 17:00, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It's a political stunt aimed at labelling Howard a war criminal, even if nothing ever comes of it, which is the most likely outcome. It may be a Wikinews story, and if charges are ever laid it is certainly encyclopaedic, but as it stands, it's something that brings BLP into operation, and we shouldn't include it. Feel free to go through the wikiprocess, beginning with RFC, if you disagree, but it's not the sort of material we should include in a BLP without some fairly heavy-duty and high-level discussion. --Pete (talk) 17:54, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I think I might, because I don't believe this is a cast iron application of BLP/UNDUE at all, but instead a rather obvious POV removal. Your immediate reference to the words 'political stunt' in your justification above do not make me think otherwise. By definition, in all political issues, one side of a POV will always bethe one pulling 'stunts', wikipedia is required to be neutral and factual. MickMacNee (talk) 18:12, 28 July 2008 (UTC)


 * User:Carbonrodney (above) said that Howard joining the 'Coalition of the Willing' in the Iraq war was a "large aspect" of his prime-ministership. It could be argued that it is the largest event of his prime-ministership. Probably the biggest argument made by those opposing the war was that it would contravene international law (ie war crimes). This argument was made from the very beginning, by Mahartir from Malaysian, by Liberal John Valder, and countless other notable people. It has culminated recently in the submission to the International Criminal Court. Whether or not the court proceeds should not affect whether it is in the article or not, as it is pretty well impossible to get a case against a western head of state at the ICC. However, this notable criticism of Howard's Iraq policy should be in the article. We can see a precedent in the Donald Rumsfeld article, where similar criticism of his actions as war crimes were made.-- Lester  21:07, 28 July 2008 (UTC)


 * If we use CarbonRodney's reasoning above, no political (or commercial or artistic) figure could ever be subject to WP:BLP, because they are a public figure and opinions differ and what's scurrilous to one side is religious faith to the other. Looking at CarbonRodney's edit summary, it is clear how he views Howard. I reject his views. This is not a POV issue. This is a political stunt to label Howard a war criminal, and we need a very good reason to follow suit. News items on Howard's political enemies lodging spurious claims do not meet that criteria, though if the ICC decides to proceed, we should, as I have noted several times above, treat it as encyclopaedic.
 * It is clear from looking at the discussion above that opinion here is divided on this, and as I have noted previously, we should have a higher level of agreement, either in the form of consensus or some official wikiprocess outcome before including a contentious BLP matter. I ask those who support its inclusion to go through the appropriate wikiprocess rather than edit war over a BLP matter. --Pete (talk) 23:34, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Another furphy. I agree with Skyring that it is a stunt, rather than an event of note. If an international war crimes tribunal actually did try to charge him, that would be completely different and very noteworthy. However, I don’t agree that it’s a BLP issue – ie, we are simply reporting an established fact (ie, the protest). Hardly anything libellous in reporting (accurately) what others have openly done.
 * But, it still fails the notability test. A stunt, not an event of note. Possibly notable enough for the Howard Government article. --Merbabu (talk) 23:47, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * This whole thing's completely silly. I always was a huge opponent of the war and Australia's involvement in it, and the mass rally against it in Feb 2003 is one of only two times I've ever been motivated to hit the streets about anything, but this is almost a classic case of WP:SYN and WP:UNDUE (I disagree that it's a BLP issue, but believe it's unencyclopaedic for other reasons.) On a purely content front, going after Rumsfeld or Wolfowitz makes a lot of sense. Going after Howard doesn't - firstly, ANZUS was invoked, which provides a near automatic defence, secondly, our commitment was small (Poland and Spain were two countries with bigger commitments, not to mention the UK), and thirdly, our troops weren't involved in any Abu Ghraib, Halabja or Mahmoudiyah type incidents. Look at the sorts of people they get war crimes charges up against - Karadžić, Milošević, Gotovina, Taylor, Seromba etc. Oh, and Mahathir swings allegations against anyone he can get away with. Orderinchaos 23:48, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Hah – Mahatir. There’s a whitewashed article if there ever was one – I think we here can all agree on that!!! The man so quick to point out the “inherent” racism of “white people”. As if that’s not contradictory enough, he forgets the fact he’s enshrined racism in their constitution. Lol. --Merbabu (talk) 00:19, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * (deliberately unindented) I disagree that it fails the notability test, as the report states the leader of the Democrats endorsed the brief being sent to the ICC and this is supported by the ABC which will meet WP:RS. I also disagree it is part of the Howard Government article, this brief is against Howard the person after he has ceased to be PM.  There is no breach of WP:SYN as only one source has been used and I believe the material has not inadvertently be put together in a way that constitutes original research - the source substantiates 100% the text inserted into the article.  OIC's arguments that Australia was involved in some way less than other countries is not relevant - this is about whether somebody is trying to get Howard charged as a war criminal.  It is also original research to speculate as to whether the campaign for charging him is likely to be successful based on other precedents. Further it is original research to label the forwarding of the brief as a stunt - there is nothing in the source provided to substantiate that assertion which is merely the view of some wikipedia editors.--Matilda talk 00:07, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I've said before that Howard deserves criticism for the too-close position with the U.S., which has involved us in what turned out to be a war we can't win, and resulted in some poorly-considered defence purchases. But accusing a biographical subject of being a war criminal without good reason is going too far, regardless of one's political views. This is an encyclopaedia, not a daily newspaper. I've raised a report at Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard, and I suggest that the material be held aside until we have a more solid position on this, rather than edit-warring.--Pete (talk) 00:15, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Again, put it in the "Iraq War" section of Howard Government. The problem is not WP:BLP (it is perfectly sourced), but relevance. Tacked onto the 2008 section of Howard's biography, it has no context. Put it in with other reactions to the Iraq war, and there's no problem. Peter Ballard (talk) 00:56, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I went ahead and added it to the Howard Government article. You can add me to the list of admins that don't think BLP is implicated, but give the total absence of information about the Iraq War in the body of this artile, a short blurb in the government article is a more appropriate place for that material.--chaser - t 01:25, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * As I stated above, it is not the Government that is the subject of the brief. Furthermore it has happened after the time of the Government.  Hence I believe it belongs appropriately in this article.--Matilda talk 01:48, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * How about shortening to something like what I just did and then adding some context to place it here?--chaser - t 01:56, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I would be happy with that but for the time being I will give this topic a rest.--Matilda talk 01:58, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Peter and Chaser, the brief is against Howard personally, not the Howard Government. I think it belongs both there and here. --Carbon Rodney (Talk but be nice) 02:00, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Skyring, on your most recent edit it is clear that you've misunderstood somewhere. We are not accusing Howard of anything, we are documenting an accusation made by reliable sources. The paragraph was appropriately worded to be sure not to imply he is guilty of anything, merely to point out that an accusation has been made (a very, very noteworthy accusation - not many people have official complaints filed claiming they are war criminals) --Carbon Rodney (Talk but be nice) 01:59, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The point about noteworthiness is who is actually making it. Not the nature of it. Anyone can say he is a war criminal - that doesn't make it notable. A trivial stunt. --Merbabu (talk) 02:02, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Anyone can file legal papers at the ICC alleging a senior diplomat is a war criminal? I think you have mixed the who's, what's and wherefore's of this disputed sentence with some tabloid celebrity titbit. Repeatedly justifying removal purely because it is a "stunt" is quite simply plain old fashioned POV editing, and it's getting old, fast. MickMacNee (talk) 02:18, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) Former president of the Liberals, Democrat leader, ...other people notable enough to have wikipedia articles ... It is your original research that it is a trivial stunt --Matilda talk 02:20, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Original research warning one thing to question is that if this wasnt a political stunt then why no brief against Bush or members of his administration. The ICC can indite and has convicted people from countries who dont recognise it. Then in the piece about John Valder Greens Senator Kerry Nettle quoted as saying spent so far by the US on financing the war in Iraq could have halved world hunger. the senator doesnt say JH did anything wrong just that the money spent could have better spent elsewhere. That aside if this info is in the article then be clear the brief against Tony Blair wasnt the same as the one against Howard it was similar when talking in legal terms the difference in meaning of the two words is significant. Also the article doesnt say the US doesnt recognise the ICC it say its not a signatory to the ICC. Gnangarra 05:10, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the warning prefixing your OR. But, of course, Australia doesn't need to wait until the US's head of state has been accused of something before they make accusations against their own head of state. And, similarly, Wikipedia doesn't need to wait until accusations have been made against all involved heads of state before it stops excluding information from this occurrence. The only reason this information should not be included is if it is slanderous or not-notable:


 * It's not slander: We have been careful not to imply guilt, only document what he has been officially accused of.
 * It is certainly notable: Howard's response to the invasion of Iraq and his continued stance on the Iraq war throughout his term are a major aspect of his prime-ministership. Like I said above, not including such an important repercussion of his actions would be POV-pushing.
 * --Carbon Rodney (Talk but be nice) 11:02, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Not a WP:BLP issue: Just to clarify one issue. The content, while disputed for other reasons, does not contravene WP:BLP. The content was well referenced. The facts are not in dispute (ie, that a group of eminent Australians submitted allegations to the International Criminal Court). Everyone here agrees that they made a submission to the ICC. OK, that much is beyond dispute. The disagreements are over whether or not the content is worthy of inclusion, which is different to a BLP issue. The disputed content is a small paragraph of the whole article. The disputed content appears to only state the facts. If someone thinks the facts are reproduced in a bias way, rewriting the paragraph is preferable to deletion of well cited facts. Rather than repeated instant deletion of the referenced paragraph, I would recommend following the Dispute resolution process instead.-- Lester  22:14, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Lester, I'm prepared to cut you quite a bit of slack, because you are psychologically incapable of admitting error, and trying to force you into an admission is too akin to torture for my liking. But don't push it. Accusing a public figure of being a war criminal is a very serious matter. The people who submitted the allegation to the ICC are not Australians of the first or even second order of importance. Not a government body. Not a professional body. Just a bunch of Howard's critics and political enemies and a "World Renowned & Foremost Ambassador of Classical Guitar". Very clearly a minority viewpoint. The mainstream Australian and international media have utterly ignored their stunt, except for a very brief mention on the ABC website, which was not otherwise printed or broadcast or published. You are stretching credibility to the breaking point with your remarks above. If the story had been spread widely in the mainstream media, and given the front-page prominence such an accusation would normally achieve if it had any merit, then you would have a point and I wouldn't have bothered making this into a BLP issue. But when even the sensationalist tabloids don't bother to run the story, you've surely got to wonder about whether we, as an encyclopaedia, should give it any space at all. --Pete (talk) 02:22, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Maybe this issue/event/item warrants inclusion on the War criminals page? Eyedubya (talk) 10:56, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Alternative
Please take five minutes and read; To me a way forward could be adopting a similar type section in this article which will give an NPOV coverage of the various criticisms that have been levelled at JH without all the revert warring. The reason is that its exactly what the section purpose where all criticism can be given fair treatment, that doesnt mean it's a free for all as each criticisms would still be subject to notability and WP:UNDUE. Gnangarra 14:25, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Movement to impeach George W. Bush since it's dealing with the US action surround the same event as John Howard, ask the question is the information on JH as notable.
 * 2) Now look at George_W._Bush.
 * An impeachment movement is hardly equivalent to an untried accusation of war crimes, which is a very emotionally charged claim. As for a "Criticism" section, those tend to be troll magnets and are highly discouraged. I'm frankly amazed that this debate hasn't been immediately shut down as a simple case of POV pushing. If Howard gets hauled before the ICC for war crimes (don't hold your breath), then add it by all means! But until then, I dare say it will be a case of ruthlessly reverting this madness. --Yeti Hunter (talk) 14:46, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

ICC Action Group
I have not used the ICC website as a source but I note it claims support from the following people
 * John Valder Liberal Party Former National President (& NSW State) President
 * Lyn Allison, Leader of the Australian Democrats, Former Victorian Senator
 * The Honorable Sandra Kanck, MLC Leader Australian Democrats (South Australia)
 * Robert Richter, Queen’s Counsel, The Victorian Bar Melbourne
 * Dr Sue Wareham, President, Medical Association for Prevention of War (Australia); Member, Australian Management Committee, International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons
 * John Williams (London), World Renowned & Foremost Ambassador of Classical Guitar
 * Ron Tandberg Political Cartoonist
 * Michael Leunig Cartoonist - www.iccaction.com/Leunig.jpg
 * David Bradbury Documentary Filmmaker
 * Criss Canning Australian Still Life Artist
 * Cindy Sheehan (USA) Congressional Candidate & Peace Activist
 * Stan Johnston, Past Chairman & Head of Criminology Department, Melbourne University & Former President, Australian and New Zealand Society of Criminology
 * Mike Salvaris Adjunct Professor Applied Human Rights and Community Wellbeing, School of Global Studies, Social Science and Planning, RMIT University
 * Dr. Tim Anderson Senior Lecturer Political Economy University of Sydney yes that Tim Anderson
 * Gill H Boehringer Hon. Associate Macquarie University (former Head, School of Law)
 * Dr. Robert Marr For Medical Association for Prevention of war

I don't think this group should be dismissed as a minority view. The viewpoint is that of a significant minority with prominent adherents. WP:UNDUE states that the prominence of the adherents has some bearing on the matter. Moreover I do not think there is an undue imbalance as a result of inserting this fact - the weighting is not inappropriate.

The website claims that as at 2008-07-14: ''Now that the ‘Brief Of Evidence’ has been acknowledged by the International Criminal Court, it is in being examined under the formal judicial process ... ''

In an article in The Telegraph (UK) reprinted by The AGE in March 2007 The court's chief prosecutor said at the weekend that he would be willing to launch an inquiry and could envisage a scenario in which the British Prime Minister and US President George Bush could one day face charges at The Hague. This would include Howard within its scope so it is not totally mere pie in the sky. --Matilda talk 01:32, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * One ex-liberal, two left wing politicians and an assortment of lawyers and artists. Woo. Peter Ballard (talk) 01:38, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * If ICC takes action, then it's encyclopaedic. But from where I sit, it's a political stunt, aimed more at self-glorification and empty moralising than any real concern that Howard is a fair dinkum war criminal. --Pete (talk) 01:50, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed. This is an activist thing rather than a justice thing. Orderinchaos 16:32, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Peter, don't be so quick to dismiss politicians of parties you don't support as not notable. Regardless, this list proves that it is hardly a minority viewpoint. Multiple politicians, professors, political reporters and cartoonists and local and international lawyers believe he broke international law. It is definitely worth including. --Carbon Rodney (Talk but be nice) 03:27, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Of course it's a minority viewpoint, otherwise they wouldn't have to rely on artists to make up the list. If it was "very very noteworthy" it would be all over the news. It's not.


 * Having said that, I'm happy for it to go under Howard Government as part of the reaction to the Iraq war (and in fact Valder's reaction has been there for yonks). But to put it in two articles just shows how badly the split has been done. Peter Ballard (talk) 03:37, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Dunno if you saw my comment above, but the brief is against ex Prime Minister Howard, not the Howard Government. If it should only be mentioned in one article, it should be this one.
 * "It's not [in the news]" - Are you joking? Since when do SMH, The Age and The Telegraph (and not aforementioned other media sources) not count as news? Seriously, this discussion is getting ridiculous. --Carbon Rodney (Talk but be nice) 04:53, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Calling, suggesting, or implying that Howard is a war criminal, when no such offical charges have been made, clearly violates WP:BLP. Just because it is in a newspaper, doesn't mean it should be in an encyclopedia. We aim for a standard higher than journalism here. --Surturz (talk) 05:07, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Good thing we didn't do that then. Please read my comments above, or the debated addition to the article. We called him no such thing, we documented a brief being filed against him. --Carbon Rodney (Talk but be nice) 09:35, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Many things are printed or aired in the news, even extensively, which do not and should not be on Wikipedia because they're in violation of our policies. This is why we have WP:BLP, WP:UNDUE and the like. As I've said before on this talk page, we have enough issues here with real things, like the structure and content of the article, without the need to balloon imaginary ones into existence. Orderinchaos 16:33, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * So they're imaginary court papers now. You're talking about 'real things' to deal with, after this POV push? MickMacNee (talk) 14:38, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It's actually beginning to look that way, to be honest. I've hunted the ICC site high and low and can't find a morsel, and Google isn't being terribly helpful. Orderinchaos 15:59, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * See Lester's text above for why this isnt a BLP issue. This is not UNDUE because it is a tiny paragraph of the article, and it is not a view held in the minority. Think of all the anti-war activists - and they were only the people who cared enough to skip work. You can't dismiss the people on that list who officially support the brief as being a minority. --Carbon Rodney 14:04, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Now we're getting to the WP:OR core of this. "it is not a view held in the minority" - so who is it held by? If you're trying to suggest anyone who opposed the war holds this view, or anyone on the left/Labor side of politics holds this view, this is drawing a very, very long bow indeed. Some of the other arguments being used above in support of this remind me of the Great Corey Debate back in January. Orderinchaos 14:33, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * So now it's an OR issue? When will we exhaust the list of reasons this paragraph should not be included? Has anyone said foreign language yet? It's obviously not OR: There was a brief filed to the ICC - and that's all that was said about it - oh and that there was one against Blair too. --Carbon Rodney 15:16, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I was arguing the reasons cited for keeping it were ranging into OR territory, and that the more arguments that are unveiled, the more obvious it becomes. Orderinchaos 16:00, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Then the claim that it is a minority opinion is also OR. It has been documented in multiple newspapers, I think such a serious allegation deserves its three sentences on the page of the person against whom the accusation was made --Carbon Rodney 16:16, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Stop wikilawyering, please. And while you're at it, fix your indenting and your signature. Orderinchaos 16:20, 30 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Don't misquote me. I didn't say it wasn't in the news, I said it wasn't "all over the news", in fact I don't think there's been a thing since it was covered briefly on June 2. As for which article it goes in, (a) it is a response to the government's role in the Iraq war; (b) clearly (IMHO) a political stunt so belongs in the political fallout to the government's actions. Peter Ballard (talk) 05:18, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * (a) Well then it should be included in both articles. It is a brief against him personally, how could it not be in his personal article? (b) when you say political stunt you mean the action is expected to fail but it is more to advance some other political motive right? - it is possible this is true but (a) why would it be? he isn't the prime minister, or even a mp anymore. (b) even if it is, the whole thing is an official matter and a very serious action - it should still be included. --Carbon Rodney (Talk but be nice) 09:35, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Interest to note that when the same issue was raised on the Tony Blair article it was ignored. Gnangarra 14:53, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Page protected
I've protected the article for a short time (2 days) due to the recent revert-warring. One piece of advice for all editors - try to avoid arguing with each other in edit summaries as this just encourages the next fellow to revert in order to debate your point. CIreland (talk) 14:18, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Only the serious defenders of the wiki have been using edit summaries of the form "no", "remove this rubbish" and lolrevert (from someone who clearly wasn't even reading the previous talk page or BLP notice board discussions making it quite clear removing this information has no grounds in BLP) Anyway, wrong version protected now, we can all sleep soundly that we have done no harm POV'd this article. The people now with some spare time might want to go and check out George Galloway and Tony Blair, there's tons of vioalting info over there, and nothing even rising to the level of filing an international court brief. You can't make this stuff up. 'Stunts' indeed, are they going on out there or in here? MickMacNee (talk) 14:32, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * How is removing the documentation of a choreographed stunt that has not received any significant mainstream attention supported by far-left activists and a few ex-politicians going to damage the encyclopaedia? I don't get that one. Like I said, some of the inclusionists in here remind me of some of the people we had to deal with during a debate involving a boy who chucked a party during a slow news week and inadvertently attracted brief worldwide publicity which faded the moment he tried to take advantage of it. Orderinchaos 14:49, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * "choreographed stunt" and "significant mainstream attention" ? mate, you need to tone down the POV. You aren't doing anything but adding flames to the flame war. --Carbon Rodney 16:11, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * If you were actually willing to help with content on this article - something I've been trying to get volunteers for for months - rather than rock up to edit war and pile wood on an already burning fire, I'd be a lot more inclined to take you seriously. We get this far too often on this talk page, either from the left (as in this case) or the right (the Obama case) every so often. Orderinchaos 16:19, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I've made non-reverting edits so you have no right to claim I'm not helping with the article. I think it should be included, and I haven't seen any reasonable argument so far except perhaps notability. And I believe it is notable enough. It would be helpful if people discussed the inclusion of the paragraph in the article instead of putting down the motives or notability of the people who were involved or, in your case, assume it is another case of temporary hype. -- Carbon Rodney 08:50, 31 July 2008 (UTC)


 * If you look here you'll see I'm perfectly aware of BLP1E and know when to apply it, just like I know when reverting is being done hand in hand with assertions that somehow wikipedia is the one directly accusing Howard of being a war criminal. That is the logic I'm not following here. Reverting, when your justification contains references to 'stunts' and 'tabloid' and 'left wing activist' is what completely weakens your position of trying to appear to be writing this article from an NPOV. If you actually sit down and think for a momnet, you might realise just how empty the pedia will be if filing of court papers at the ICC doesn't pass the bar of notability. MickMacNee (talk) 15:12, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I should note I am left wing myself, and the people I find myself agreeing with on this occasion I've opposed on several occasions in the past, as both they and neutral observers will attest. However, what is correct for Wikipedia to do requires a level of academic detachment from one's own views. Also, I might note that filing of such papers goes on all the time, on all sorts of improbable subjects (this is the third I know of involving Australia and the former Liberal government - probably the best known one was an Aboriginal group trying to take the Australian government there for genocide.). Also from : The ICC is a court of last resort. It will not act if a case is investigated or prosecuted by a national judicial system [...] In addition, the ICC only tries those accused of the gravest crimes. i.e. As the action has never been tried in an Australian court, the action is guaranteed to fail. On : Proceedings before the ICC may be initiated by a State Party, the Prosecutor or the United Nations Security Council. The list of people above, interesting as they may be, are not a state party, prosecutor or the United Nations Security Council. I would argue that a case presented by an unqualified party or parties with an absolute certainty of being rejected under the rules under which the venue in which the case is being presented is constituted is the definition of a stunt. Orderinchaos 15:41, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Check out the "violations" on those other pages? Just because WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS doesn't mean we should allow violations on this page. Your claim of notability is belied by the non-existence of any significant media coverage (200 word stories on abc.net.au notwithstanding). If this were considered a genuine accusation by a "majority viewpoint", then it would be HUGE news, and covered in saturation. I hadn't even heard about it until this wikifight.--Yeti Hunter (talk) 15:02, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * That's it settled then, you hadn't heard of it, that's me convinced then. Just go back to lolreverting somewhere else if that is your level of critical analysis. MickMacNee (talk) 15:12, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep your head on straight, mate.--Yeti Hunter (talk) 15:20, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I recall an AFD where an article on a non-notable student politician had a "claim of notability" in that she had been nominated for the Australian of the Year award. Very impressive, until someone pointed out that anyone can nominate anyone else for the AOY. This dispute is much the same. It's not the filing of papers that is notable, its the taking of action by the ICC. Until that happens, this is a case of WP:NOT--Yeti Hunter (talk) 15:33, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * You couldn't have picked a more irrelevant comparison. Realy. MickMacNee (talk) 15:40, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Anyone can file a petition to the ICC. It's perfectly analagous.--Yeti Hunter (talk) 16:02, 30 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Anyone can nominate someone for AoY, but that process isn't in the remotest way similar to a legal brief detailing why someone should be tried for war crimes. If the ICC brought Howard before court, no one would have a leg to stand on on whether it should be included. BUT, the fact that a large number of people (some quite prominent, who have political agendas but also public face to lose if they muck about) believe he should be tried as a war criminal. That's a pretty serious allegation.
 * And even if you disagree whether these people are pulling a 'stunt', or whether this thing will all blow over... Wikipedia has some pretty straightforward guidelines about notability. Whether it should be notable or not is irrelevant - it has been documented by newspapers, in Australia and internationally. It is absolutely notable. --Carbon Rodney 16:09, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * That's the thing - Wikipedia does have very clear guidelines about notability. The fact this fails every one of them is pretty much why a number of us are arguing the text should not be there. The very same arguments get raised every time someone wants to keep something with only a tenuous link to the topic. I kind of wish that the actual article development side of things attracted as much attention as this trivial dispute seems to have - I actually would appreciate help in getting this article moving and only two of us (both of us busy both offline and in other areas) have actually indicated a willingness to put in the work to do so. Orderinchaos 16:15, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * So not only does the start of the legal process for convicting someone of war crimes fail EVERY SINGLE CRITERION for not-notable, but John Howard's alleged war crimes have only a tenuous link to the topic of John Howard. Please. --Carbon Rodney 16:20, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * As you have chosen to ignore my argument (look for the ICC links) above on this very topic, and your unwillingness to put aside your strong POV for the good of the encyclopaedia and improving the article, I am ceasing to assume good faith with you - I believe you are simply here to troll. Further persistence on this matter will result in a report to appropriately uninvolved administrators. Orderinchaos 16:23, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * "The above user appears to be unaware that WP:AGF is policy." No. My personal opinion is Howard is not guilty of committing any war crime. But the only strong POV I have here is a very notable and important piece of information is trying to be removed by people who think it is defamatory. You can try to threaten away everyone whos opinion differs from yours but its not going to work. And yes, I did ignore your OR above. -- Carbon Rodney 08:50, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Came straight off the alleged source body's website - most definitely *not* OR. Suppositions about "majorities" and "official" proceedings (not documented anywhere official - and no, I don't count activist websites) without any factual basis whatsoever is OR. And most definitely not "notable and important", as my research below confirms. Orderinchaos 11:44, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Key word: Alleged. I could accuse you of inappropriate relations with a goat, but that doesn't make it true, notable, or likely to impress a judge, and you'd probably sue me for slander. If Howard gets called to stand trial by the ICC, then I will change my stance on this issue. But not before.--Yeti Hunter (talk) 16:35, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * How far do you think you would get filing an official document stating I had relations with a goat? The answer is 'not far' because it is not notable, true or likely to impress a judge. This brief is being processed by the ICC, he doesn't need to be a convicted war criminal to state he has been officially accused of war crimes. Carbon Rodney 07:46, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

What the media really said
This really proves what a furphy this all is.

Media release by Doctors Reform Society, 2 June 2008 (strangely not yet on their site, which only goes to May):


 * "The Medical Association for the Prevention of War(NSW) today welcomed the end of Australia's combat role in the illegal War in Iraq. They also called for an investigation into the possibility of referring the former PM John Howard to the International Criminal Court for his alleged actions in sending Australian troops to the illegal War in Iraq.


 * "Mr Howard committed Australian troops to the illegal Non-UN approved war in Iraq on the basis of misleading information about WMD ." Said Dr Robert Marr; spokesman for MAPW (NSW)


 * "As a result of the illegal War in Iraq over 650,000 Iraqi citizens have died unnecessarily." Said Dr Marr.


 * "We believe it is important that Australians not blame returning Australian soldiers for their involvement in the war but hold politicians like Mr Howard fully accountable for their decision to send Australian troops to the illegal war in Iraq." Said Dr Marr.


 * "We understand a legal brief has been prepared by ICCACTION Victoria to forward to the International Criminal Court . Said Dr Marr.


 * ''Contact: Dr Robert Marr (mobile number removed)
 *  Glen Floyd(Director ICCACTION) (mobile number removed)"

Events followed on in this order:
 * AAP reworks the press release a bit with a news story about the withdrawal of troops, and then republishes the DRS press release almost verbatim (2 June, 280 words)
 * ABC publishes a different story quoting Glen Floyd and Lyn Allison (232 words) (2 June)
 * BBC Monitoring Asia-Pacific registers the story, but does not publish it on its own news service. (2 June)
 * AFP picks up the ABC story almost verbatim. (2 June)
 * Record of ABC 774 and ABC Radio National airing it that evening.
 * SBS airs an article talking about the withdrawal, with one single line quoting Marr from MAPW completely violating Godwin's Law.
 * The Age (p.6, 3 June, 157 words) publishes a distillation of the DRS press release.
 * The Statesman of India (p.39, 4 June, 69 words) publishes a one line summary of the ABC article.

There has been nothing since. Contrary to claims made above, the SMH, the Australian and the Telegraph (UK) did not report on it. It's been bigger on blogosphere. The ICC contains no information about it. There is no evidence it has been submitted. Even if it did, the ICC's own guidelines preclude the case from being heard as a court of first instance, and none of the parties presenting appear to qualify as presenting parties. We are looking at a case of excitable media republishing press releases from activist organisations. That alone should be reasons not to document it here. Orderinchaos 17:03, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the research. Frankly that's a lot more coverage than I thought it had. The press release would have gone to most of the mainstream outlets, and it looks like actual journalistic involvement was limited to summarising it for a brief mention. If the media thought the thing had any merit at all, they would have put it on the front page and assigned a team of their best journalists to cover the story. We'd have the people who filed the brief leading the evening news, featured on the talk shows, Sixty Minutes would have a segment... The fact that none of this happened, not even a single journalist assigned to write a story, is good enough reason for us to omit it from a biographical article. We didn't include Kevin Rudd's strip club, which was an actual really big media story, so why should we fill up our Wikipedia with self-serving crap? --Pete (talk) 01:03, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Just correcting the above statement: Kevin Rudd's strip club escapade was later added to the article, because it was a notable event.-- Lester  01:09, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I would be relaxed and comfortable about removing the strip club item from Kevin Rudd. It was only notable at the time because of the election campaign; it is no longer notable IMHO --Surturz (talk) 01:21, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Typical Surturz. Removal of the strip incident would be just more typical right-wing bashing of Rudd. Inclusion is a necessary pro-Rudd POV that needs to be maintained. ;-) --Merbabu (talk) 01:33, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Grin. I don't think the strip club thing did him much harm anyway. Well, what about the earwax buffet? That was a huge story, well-sourced, global exposure, even some response from Rudd, and a lot of outrage coming out of Timeshiftland. We didn't include that. --Pete (talk) 01:43, 31 July 2008 (UTC)


 * If OIC's analysis is correct (I haven't checked), then the whole thing is NN. The media mostly ignored it. So should we. Peter Ballard (talk) 12:53, 1 August 2008 (UTC)


 * One place where it be should be covered is Opposition to the Iraq War and it isnt. Gnangarra 13:18, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

NEWS SOURCES - Some further news links below:

The Age (Australia)

The Sydney Morning Herald (Australia)

The West (Australia)

NineMSN (Australia)

Brisbane Times (Australia)

Herald Sun (Australia)

Radio Australia (Even their PNG international service ran it)

Antara News (Indonesia)

The Daily Star (Bangladesh)

The Statesman & Indopia News] (India)

Daily Times (Pakistan)

Financial services Dow Jones and Nasdaq

So, I note that every major news organisation in Australia ran the story in some form.-- Lester  23:46, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, I dunno. Looks like the same story is linked to various websites word for word. Hard to say whether the outlets ever gave it print space or airtime. Thanks for your research, but the point made by other editors stands - it was never a major news story, and mentioning it here in a BLP would give it undue weight. Should the ICC launch a prosecution, it will be a legitimate inclusion, simply because it will be all over the front pages and leading the news bulletins. Once the Olympics are done. --Pete (talk) 01:14, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * How do we judge what is or isn't a major story? Is it enough if the church gazette runs it? Or the local paper? Or the Green Left Weekly? At what point does it become major? Surely, when every single major media organisation in our country runs it, it's something the public wants to know. We are not saying that Howard is a war criminal. However, it is in the public interest to know that a group of eminent Australians accused Howard of being so, due to his involvement in the Iraq invasion, and that in the year 2008 those eminent Australians made an attempt to bring it before the ICC.-- Lester  10:48, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Given the nature of the allegations, that the ex-head of government of a Western liberal democracy is a war criminal to be tried by the International Criminal Court, you would expect a lot more media interest than a bare mention based on a press release. We're not talking about some lance-corporal prison camp guard - and look at the media frenzy that sparked - we're talking major major major front-page special edition colour supplement. The fact that there was so little media attention is a good indicator of the merits of the case. You can spruik it up here all you want, but out in the real world it's a whisper, not a shout. --Pete (talk) 11:00, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * We are making no allegations against Howard at all, let alone any extraordinary allegations. We are instead documenting the opposition to Howard's actions in Iraq, we are documenting the opinions of many luminaries in the legal hierarchy who considered Howard's actions in Iraq to constitute war crimes, and we are documenting a group of eminent Australians who in 2008 made an attempt to bring it to The Hague. I mean, you could have an article that is just a list of Howard's glorious achievements, but opposition and protest are an important part of the story, just as it was during the Vietnam war era.-- Lester  11:25, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I can confirm, by the way, it did not appear in the print editions of any newspapers other than the ones I highlighted. Orderinchaos 07:24, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

War Crimes accusation - possible compromise
What would editors think of having the war crimes allegation included in the pages of those people that made it (Valder, Leunig etc), but not on this page? Would that be a reasonable compromise? --Surturz (talk) 00:08, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * That'd be nice, so long as there was a follow-up describing the inevitable failure of their submission. May I suggest that we put this whole thing on hold until the ICC makes an announcement on the subject? --Pete (talk) 00:53, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Skyring: WP:CRYSTAL
 * Surturz: I greatly respect your eagerness to compromise. Personally, I am not happy with that one - I think that because it is against Howard it belongs here too. But I am also willing to compromise here - getting sick of this flame war. -- Carbon Rodney 08:53, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It's not crystal-balling. Look at OiC's comments above about the ICC. As JH hasn't been charged, let alone tried in Australia, and the ICC is a court of last resort, this action cannot possibly succeed. It's a stunt. --Pete (talk) 13:16, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * You're not helping the compromise by arguing with me here. -- Carbon Rodney 09:38, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Makes sense, primarily on Lyn Allison's page as she was the one who brought it forward (neither of the other two mentioned by media sources have articles or should) - and probably no more than a line there. Valder was merely an alleged signatory, I'm not entirely sure it belongs there. Orderinchaos 11:40, 31 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree it should be in Lyn Allison's article as she appears to be the key figure in its occuring, the filing is a notable part of her bio, but I also agree with Carbonrodney ultimately it doesnt resolve the issue here. I support it as a compromise solution to put time between recent events and let the process at ICC develop either it'll become unquestionably notable or vanish into the ether. Gnangarra 14:04, 31 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I think in all my posts above I have made my stance pretty clear, I don't think deleting this piece of information is the right thing to do. But, if (and only if) I'm faced with a clear majority of Wikipedians who believe otherwise then I will submit. However, I am perfectly happy to hear options of re-wording, extra references, extra clauses... suggest away. -- Carbon Rodney 09:38, 1 August 2008 (UTC)


 * To me, the war crimes accusations were much more than the latest submission to the International Criminal Court, thought that is still a big part of it. War crimes accusations have been emerging ever since the Iraq war began in 2003 (and maybe before). The accusations were made by eminent people in the legal field, as well as some public figures. I think it was a big part of the argument made by those who opposed Australia's involvement in the Iraq War - that Australia's actions there would constitute war crimes. Don't forget, Howard was not just a follower of Bush into Iraq. Howard was busy encouraging the Bush administration to get involved. -- Lester  10:30, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Maybe its better to have a section that gives a coverage of Howards action in the leadup 2003 plus the WMD stance and then close with this 2-3 para all up with see template to the article on the 2003 invasion. This puts all in context rather than a throw pov state in post politics which it isnt it a foot note on the events of 2003...Gnangarra 12:43, 1 August 2008 (UTC)


 * It is interesting to note how lightly the decision to go to war which culminates in the death of thousands of innocent people is taken. If a leader's decision to go to war is reported in a article, I dont see any problem in reporting allegations of war crimes by peace activists if it can be reliably sourced. Dock Hi 03:38, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with you - but please don't reinsert the contentious paragraph until it has ben sorted on this talk page. --Matilda talk 04:27, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:BLP extraordinary claims require extraordinary sources, one ABC source which is just giving bare details from a press release by the activists isnt. As per WP:UNDUE WP:NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each this is a minority group view point and all commercial media outlets havent given it any coverage, its current method of inclusion in this article is giving it prominence out of proportion to its significance. Gnangarra 04:45, 2 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, I dont think it is an extraordinary claim. It is only natural to be accused of war crimes (if there are crimes in the war) for going to a war not sanctioned by the United Nations. Furthermore, do you contend that the report may be false because it was not reported in many sources? Dock Hi 04:54, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Its insignificant given the type and volume of coverage, hence WP:UNDUE accusations of War crimes are an extraordinary claim and should have sourcing to match, the sourcing is nothing more than the groups media release. Gnangarra 12:13, 2 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I disagree that it is an extraordinary claim. I also diagree that WP:UNDUE plays any role in this current discussion, since the policy deals with providing equal weightage to contradictory or conflicting reports or opinions. Is there a conflicting report in any reliable source whichs claims that the war crime allegations were not raised? If so, I dont object including it to satisfy WP:UNDUE. Dock Hi 17:59, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Undue is not about giving all views equal weight its about giving the various views weight in proportion, this is minority view without adequate sourcing and should be treated accordingly. One media report(release) compared to thousands of media reports on the event. Gnangarra 23:45, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

An extraordinary claim in this article would be "John Howard is a war criminal". That is absolutely not what the removed text says, and no amount of protestation on here can change that. The facts around the accusation are easily obtained and conveyed to the reader if written from a neutral point of view by neutral editors. MickMacNee (talk) 03:45, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

War crimes accusations incorrect.

 * This claim has been proven false: see my comment in the RfC section below Carbon Rodney 17:25, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Those relying on a reliable source for seeking to include this material should do some more checking. The ABC article is factually incorrect in a way that means it cannot be used as a reliable source. I'll be posting an RfC later on today with more details, and I'd appreciate it if editors could just hold fire until then, given some of the impassioned comments I've noticed recently. --Pete (talk) 23:59, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * If you want to challenge the factuality of an Australian Broadcasting Corporation article, wouldn't it be better to list your reasons here on the discussion page first, so the involved editors can comment, before requesting a wider RfC? State your reasons here first, then if that doesn't work you may then wish to ask for an RfC.-- Lester  00:54, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I should request comments before making a Request for Comments? I'll do the job properly, thank you. As for exactly why the ABC article is incorrect, ask Matilda. She knows the details. --Pete (talk) 01:12, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, actually, you should request discussion here first, among the regular editors, before requesting an RfC. Can I assume your challenge of the accuracy of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation's information is the reason you reverted the article? But this has been going on for a week, now, and I can't find your reasons as to why the ABC is an unreliable source. I shouldn't have to ask Matilda why the ABC is wrong, as you are the one challenging the ABC's information, so it's up to you to state those reasons on this discussion page for all to see, before requesting an RfC on the matter.-- Lester  06:59, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry - I don't know the details - not sure why Skyring suggests asking me. --Matilda talk 00:14, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Because you got an advance peek as I drafted the RfC above, which included the fact that the news article you used as a source stated that the submission had been made, when the group's own website gave a date of twelve days later. --Pete (talk) 00:30, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I didn't read your draft RfC I merely satisfied myself you were drafting it. I was actually very shocked to find that User:Skyring/Sandbox existed with my name linked to it because you hadn't been editing it and I therefore assumed that you had been planning an attack on me for a long time.  I discovered that was not the case.  I disputed your use of sockpuppetry to progress the issue and left you to it - not least because I was keen that you get your accusations concerning my behaviour out there.  I have briefly glanced at the material you have inserted above (here - not the drafts) - anybody else can read it if they wish to find the answer to the question - I cannot say I am any the wiser as to how the ABC  is not a reliable source ...  I really have to get out of here - I will not reply here or anywhere else.  I am now on a wikibreak - leave me alone - stop attacking me - accusing me of stalking and all the rest of it - I am truly truly sick of it --Matilda talk 01:25, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry that this trivial thing got to this stage. If admins are withdrawing from the project, then it's a sign that we need to fix the way things get done here. --Pete (talk) 01:35, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Of course the ABC is a reliable source. But have a look at what the source actually says. The ABC source claims only that Lyn Allison et al have accused Howard, not that these accusations have been taken seriously. By anyone. It is a fringe theory. To claim otherwise is OR. This POV statement fails inclusion on so many grounds. We've got WP:OR, WP:BLP, WP:UNDUE, WP:POV, WP:FRINGE, WP:CRYSTAL, WP:N... on the other hand, the argument for inclusion seems to go along the lines of "I have a WP:RS that mentioned it once, therefore you can't touch me. Give us all a break.--Yeti Hunter (talk) 08:40, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Fringe? no, that would be something like the flat Earth lobby. Stating the Iraq invasion was an illegal war is far from a fringe theory.
 * OR? Where? Who has made any conclusions not supported by the source? In fact, who, bar the removers, are making any conclusion at all?
 * BLP? Consistently rejected as a BLP issue by everyone except the few wishing to remove it without cause
 * UNDUE? It's barely a sentence. This is a red-herring. Correctly worded in good faith would easily aswage UNDUE concerns, but this requires cooperation form the removers.
 * POV? How? Where? The only POV is the one stating that inclusion is not needed and is being pushed as a stunt/smear/conspiracy rather than a desire to reflect all opinions
 * CRYSTAL? The only crystal ballery being done is the prediction that nothing will come of the filing, therefore it is not notable. That is the very definition of crystal, defining the merit of content based on the future.
 * WP:NOTE? A prominent politician filing to an international court, I said elsewhere, if this isn't notable, then we have a problem with 99% of content per WP:N MickMacNee (talk) 23:17, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * How come your idea of notability is so far out of whack with that of the real world's news outlets? --Pete (talk) 23:35, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Because you can't use Google? My google-fu is strong Carbon Rodney 07:32, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The ABC put a lot of things through their newswire that aren't verified to their usual standards. I catch errors there regularly, they're usually very responsive to email though when I contact them. If Lateline or 7:30 Report do a story on it, that's another matter - that would suggest it's been through the processes and checks. Orderinchaos 14:12, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * What errors are being alleged here? MickMacNee (talk) 23:17, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

AusPol contentious edits (Rfc on war crimes debate and related issues)
✅

This is really a request for comment on three things:
 * 1) The addition by Matilda of a paragraph describing a submission to the ICC alleging that John Howard has committed war crimes.
 * 2) Matilda's actions in restoring the material when it was repeatedly removed quoting WP:BLP concerns.
 * 3) The war crimes that break out here and on other Australian political discussion pages over trivia.

Background
On 14 June 2008 a group of seminal thinkers, calling themselves the ICC Action Group, filed a brief with the ICC, alleging that John Howard, then Australian Prime Minister, had committed war crimes by bombing cities in Iraq in 2003.

The ICC operates to prosecute the perpetrators of extremely serious crimes. Its jurisdiction is limited, being intended as a court of last resort, unable to proceed where
 * (a) The case is being investigated or prosecuted by a State which has jurisdiction over it, unless the State is unwilling or unable genuinely to carry out the investigation or prosecution;
 * (b) The case has been investigated by a State which has jurisdiction over it and the State has decided not to prosecute the person concerned, unless the decision resulted from the unwillingness or inability of the State genuinely to prosecute;

As there has been no criminal action in Australian courts involving John Howard charged with war crimes the ICC does not have jurisdiction.

Additionally, proceedings may only be initiated by a State Party, the Prosecutor or the United Nations Security Council. . The ICC Action Group are none of the above.

Media coverage of this incident was minor, mostly limited to republishing the group's press release, or summarising it. Less than a thousand words over several media outlets, no record of any follow-up. The group's press release was dated 2 June 2008, and their submission to the ICC was made on 14 June 2008 (according to their colourful site), so there is no actual reliable source of the submission, merely that the submission was being prepared.

As the group's own website states, "WE AWAIT THE ICC PROSECUTOR’S ANALYS AND REPLY". Indeed.

Mention in Wikipedia
Early morning on 28 July 2008, an IP-anonymous editor added the following to Talk:John Howard:
 * 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 state

I immediately deleted an obvious troll, with a comment about the poster's inability to understand. It seemed straightforward enough to me. No war crimes, hence no war crimes charges. User:Lester helpfully restored the trolling, saying:
 * 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.

User:Timeshift9 added:
 * 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.

Although Lester doesn't mention the policy explicitly, speculation about court proceedings, when the person has not been charged, is a clear breach of our Biography of Living People policy, which states:
 * 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. The possibility of harm to living subjects is one of the important factors to be considered when exercising editorial judgement.

User:Gnangarra, a Wikipedia administrator, noted:
 * Yep and this is WP:BLP exception material require exceptional sources.

At this point, there is input from four different editors, including an admin, with a consensus that the material not be included for various good reasons, along with references to the appropriate wikipolicies. End of story. Decision made, no conflict, all to policy. For this article, with a long history of partisan debates, personal attacks and interminable wrangling over trivial points, this is indeed a happy outcome. All the better for the input from editors of diverse political views.

Then Matilda makes her first appearance on the topic, saying:
 * 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. (Edit summary: there are reliable sources and it isn't mere speculation)

Following down that google search, there is not a single link that isn't mere speculation. John Howard hasn't been charged with war crimes. Wishing, hoping, speculating, guessing, petitioning are all a long way from legal process. The ABC article, dated 2 June 2008, begins by saying: A legal brief has been sent to the International Criminal Court (ICC) alleging former prime minister John Howard committed a war crime by sending troops to Iraq. However, the group's own website states:
 * **** STOP PRESS JULY 11 2008 ****We wish to advise the 62 page ‘Brief of Evidence’ document to the ICC Chief Prosecutor, which we feel builds the prima facie case ‘alleging’ that John Winston Howard has committed war crimes; was sent to The Hague 14 June 2008.

Clearly, at the time of the ABC article, no such brief had been submitted. However, I note that this assumes that the group's website is correct, and a glance at their website gives no great assurance of professional standards in their reporting. Interestingly, this extremely long page shows frequent references to Wikipedia, and cross-checking IP addresses might lead to some revelations. However, this is mere speculation.

Matilda then added a new paragraph to the John Howard biographical article:
 * In June 2008 a legal brief was sent to the International Criminal Court (ICC) alleging Howard committed a war crime while Prime Minister by sending troops to Iraq. The brief was prepared by an alliance of Australian peace activists, lawyers, academics and politicians, including the leader of the Democrats, Lyn Allison.(Cite reference)

The cited source incorrectly stated that the brief had been sent, an event which did not occur until later. It is therefore unsatisfactory as a reliable source, especially for a paragraph in a biographical article alleging that John Howard is a war criminal. Granted, the text does not say this directly, but the implication is there, and given credence by its inclusion in Wikipedia.

A new editor appeared to support Matilda's addition. With an edit summary of "howard the war criminal", User:Carbonrodney said:
 * 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 

Edit-warring over BLP material
I noticed Matilda's edit when I next checked into Wikipedia and removed it., after saying on the webpage:
 * 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.

The edit summary I referred to was CarbonRodney's "howard the war criminal" in the previous edit on the talk page. That seemed to me extremely POV in a very negative sense, especially when the editor referred to our BLP policy in the same breath.

Looking at WP:BLP, we see in the lead:
 * Be very firm about the use of high quality references. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons — whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable — should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion, from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, user pages, and project space.

This is amplified further down:
 * Editors should remove any contentious material about living persons that is unsourced, relies upon sources that do not meet standards specified in Wikipedia:Verifiability, or is a conjectural interpretation of a source (see Wikipedia:No original research). The three-revert rule does not apply to such removals, though editors are advised to seek help from an administrator or at the BLP noticeboard if they find themselves violating 3RR, rather than dealing with the situation alone. Content may be re-inserted only if it conforms to this policy. ... Editors who re-insert the material may be warned and blocked.

I checked Matilda's quoted source, noting that it did not refer to any actual charges, instead referring to a submission from a private group which appeared to have been formed for this sole purpose. I could not find any other news articles on this matter. In fact, a Google News search returned zero results. Obviously any linking of Howard and war crimes, not just the action taken by the ICCAction group, was not deemed worthy of coverage by mainstream media. In my opinion, if there had been any substance to the possibility of laying charges against a recent head of government, then it would have been front page news throughout the world, and Australian media outlets would be devoting teams of journalists to cover the story.

Five more editors added their agreement with my view that the material should not be included.. The comment by admin Gnangarra is worth quoting in full:
 * The paragraph should be removed under WP:BLP Be careful not to give a disproportionate amount of space to particular viewpoints, to avoid the effect of representing a minority view as if it were the majority one. The views of a tiny minority have no place in the article., or as per Jimmy in WP:UNDUE If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article. Given that its a minority view unless charges are laid then it shouldnt be in the article.

Returning to WP:BLP, the policy page talks about restoring content removed on cited BLP grounds:
 * In order to ensure that biographical material of living people is always policy-compliant, written neutrally to a high standard, and based on good quality reliable sources, the burden of proof is on those who wish to retain, restore, or undelete disputed material.
 * If the material is to be restored without significant change, then consensus must be obtained first, and wherever possible, disputed deletions should be discussed with the administrator who deleted the article. ... In any event if the matter becomes disputed it should not be added back without discussion and consensus-seeking.

User:Carbonrodney added back the disputed material, despite it having been labelled a BLP violation by multiple editors. His edit summary read, notable, does not violate WP:BLP as alleged in talk - clearly his own personal opinion, unsupported by the facts.

I raised a BLP Noticeboard issue, as per the advice mentioned above.

Edit-warring continued:
 * 17:59 Skyring remove: "WP:BLP violation removed''
 * 20:26 Matilda reinsert: Undid revision 228435030 by Skyring - it is referenced; I disagree it is undue weight; notable others are involved; disagree BLP violation
 * 23:18 Skyring remove: Repeated BLP vio
 * 23:23 Matilda reinsert: Undid revision 228495116 by Skyring (talk) - disagree it is a BLP vio and so do others on the talk page
 * 00:20 Skyring remove: Leave out contentious BLP material. Report raised on WP:BLPN - let's follow the process, ok?
 * 03:23 Carbonrodney reinsert: Undid revision 228504504 by Skyring (talk) admin confirmed not BLP. Do not violate WP:3RR again.
 * 03:32 Skyring remove: WP:BLPN discussion ongoing. Please wait for due wikiprocess before including contentious material
 * 10:36 MickMacNee reinsert: Undid revision 228531666 by Skyring (talk) multiple admins have stated this is not a BLP issue, listen to them

I was following BLP, which allows for poorly-sourced material to be removed immediately, WP:3RR not applicable, and that consensus should be obtained before reinsertion, with a posting on the BLP Noticeboard for assistance.

Matilda's actions
It is worth quoting Matilda's summary on the John Howard talk page in full:
 * I disagree that it fails the notability test, as the report states the leader of the Democrats endorsed the brief being sent to the ICC and this is supported by the ABC which will meet WP:RS. I also disagree it is part of the Howard Government article, this brief is against Howard the person after he has ceased to be PM. There is no breach of WP:SYN as only one source has been used and I believe the material has not inadvertently be put together in a way that constitutes original research - the source substantiates 100% the text inserted into the article. OIC's arguments that Australia was involved in some way less than other countries is not relevant - this is about whether somebody is trying to get Howard charged as a war criminal. It is also original research to speculate as to whether the campaign for charging him is likely to be successful based on other precedents. Further it is original research to label the forwarding of the brief as a stunt - there is nothing in the source provided to substantiate that assertion which is merely the view of some wikipedia editors.

The problem here is that although the source substantiates the included text, it is incorrect, as noted above. Yes, there is only one source, but that in itself is a clear sign that this is not notable. The mainstream media all but ignored this story. At this stage of the discussion, several editors, including admins, had noted that even if the material did not breach WP:BLP, it failed the notability test, and was clearly a stunt.

Nevertheless, ignoring due wikiprocess that recommends discussion on WP:BLPN, BLP-contested material requires consensus before reinsertion, and WP:BLP removals are not subject to WP:3RR, not to mention significant opposition from other editors, including fellow admins, Matilda edit-warred on this material and then raised a 3RR report against me:
 * Skyring claims that the edits breach BLP. The content has been discussed on the article talk page and editors (other than myself) disagree with him. He has now escalated to Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. I do not believe that his assertion of breaches of BLP justifies his breaking of the 3RR when this is a much watched article with other people in the debate. I do not believe thus that the exceptions to the rule apply.

This is a misrepresentation of the situation, intended to mislead other administrators into taking action against me. The case should have been discussed on the BLP Noticeboard, but Matilda's comments there show that he thinks this inappropriate:
 * This is being discussed quite adequately on the article talk page with reference to policies including BLP - I see no reason to have multiple discussions in multiple places.

Matilda is happy to initiate multiple discussions on the 3RR noticeboard, as well as various user talk pages, but apparently not on the page that wikipolicy recommends! Comments on the 3RR page oppose Matilda's views:
 * I will give you my opinion. I'd be disinclined to block under these circumstances because I think Pete really did believe BLP to be implicated and was acting in good faith. Beyond that, I've recently shortened the bit in question and added it to the Howard Government article. Is that an OK compromise? If not, can we discuss it on the talk page civilly instead of reverting back and forth? If the edit-war continues, one either article, then perhaps a block or page protection is necessary.
 * BLP overrides 3RR. However there is a clique of editors who are ignoring the basic tenets of BLP to push through their POV (which is over a rather trivial point) on the article without consensus. These particular editors (and admin) need to review their own actions prior to handing out warnings and probably should be sanctioned over it.

An admin, User:EdJohnston, favoured Matilda's version of events, saying: This disputed passage is the report of a brief that has actually been filed with a court, as was very reliably reported in a mainstream source, the Australian Broadcasting Corporation.

As shown above, this was not the case. The sole news report was incorrect. EdJohnston offered me a chance to self-revert, which I found deeply offensive, and then blocked me for twelve hours. This pretty much coincided with my regular twelve hour night shift, so I didn't bother requesting a review of the block. Matilda had repeatedly noted that other editors had not removed the contentious material, and that this indicated a lack of support for my view. I couldn't help but notice that with me out of the picture, edit-warring broke out again, to the extent that the article had to be protected.

Matilda's actions violate established wikipolicy in several respects. Perhaps the worst wikicrime is edit-warring over BLP-contentious material and then misrepresenting the situation to other admins for the purpose of blocking me from editing.

Bumfighting
I have summarised the conflict and I refer other editors to the lengthy discussions at
 * Talk:John Howard
 * Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard
 * Administrators' noticeboard/3RR

Personal attacks, incivility, edit-warring and ignorance or evasion of wikipolicy abound. The various discussions ramble on and on, and the one thing that they are missing is consensus. Yet consensus is required for Wikipedia to work.

Discussion on the John Howard article is an excellent example of the situation that obtains in other Australian politics articles. It is a mess. Admins understandably steer clear of wading into the cesspit, and many new editors must surely be scared away from participation. Activists from different sides of politics routinely press their POVs, attempting to turn encyclopaedic articles into political polemic. As can be seen in the war crimes discussion, misrepresentation is commonplace, with facts being distorted, enhanced or downplayed according to the immediate needs of the participants. I repeatedly pressed Matilda to acknowledge the significance of the dearth of media coverage in what she portrayed as a notable event, but she preferred to evade this point in favour of personal accusations.

This is not the way that Wikipedia is supposed to work. Honesty, transparency, co-operation and polite discourse should be the norm, especially for articles which are contentious.

Short of a full-on, hands-on oversighting of Australian political articles by senior admins, I propose a way of de-stressing discussion. Contentious edits should be discussed and consensus gained before insertion (or reinsertion, for the all too frequent edit-wars). In the words of WP:BLP, if the matter becomes disputed it should not be added back without discussion and consensus-seeking.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Skyring (talk • contribs) 3 August 2008

The above section is misleading and biased
You are trying to represent Matilda's viewpoint as a clear minority, when it is held by many editors.
 * In your summary, item 2 states "Matilda's actions in restoring the material when it was repeatedly removed quoting WP:BLP concerns", you suggest it is Matilda acting out here. Many editors have restored it, including myself, and many editors removed it without BLP concerns, and stating BLP despite that being discussed on the talk page.


 * In the second paragraph in Background:
 * "(a) The case is being investigated or prosecuted by a State which has jurisdiction over it, unless the State is unwilling or unable genuinely to carry out the investigation or prosecution;"
 * As there has been no criminal action in Australian courts involving John Howard charged with war crimes the ICC does not have jurisdiction.
 * This is wrong. John Howard is not a member of the military, so he can not face a court martial. Australian court can not charge someone with a war crime at this level because they do not have juristiction and thus does not satisfy item (a). Similarly, an Australian court cannot charge someone for entering Burma through Thailand without a valid passport; they simply cannot charge them with an offence - even if one was committed (and with that sentence I am not suggesting that Howard did or did not commit a war crime).
 * You quote multiple times, but fail to quote the section: "On 28 July 2008, the ICC advises the Brief ... [is] now under analysis". i.e. it has not been rejected as you said it certainly would be.
 * Even if it was going to fail, as you say, Wikipedia does not predict future events (see the Olympics example)

This shows your personal bias, and selective editing not only while writing the above comment but throughout the entire discussion.


 * You, and another, were very happy to say I was making POV statements because of the edit summary I gave for this edit:, but my statements were not POV only my edit summary suggested they might be. I then explained, onto deaf ears, here:
 * No, that summary was purely designed to get people watching this article / recent additions to comment on the inclusion of that paragraph. More discussion is usually better. --Carbon Rodney (Talk but be nice) 13:54, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I now regret this, because this discussion has become so overly bloated, we now have a discussion of the discussion which requests more discussion.
 * "clearly [my] own personal opinion, unsupported by the facts." but multiple people contend on the talk page this was not a BLP vio. In fact you quote someone saying that yourself just below there in the edit war log. So how is that my personal opinion or against "the facts"?
 * This comment is representative of numerous squirmy, underhanded attempts by you and others at belittling and misrepresenting the people who oppose your opinion (on whether the article should be included).
 * It is also worth stating, that multiple people were involved against you in that edit war. And simply claiming BLP vio when it may not be (I think it was not a BLP vio, but there was an unresolved discussion in progress at that time) is not sufficient to grossly breach 3RR. This is one of many examples of you abusing and misquoting Wikipedia guidelines to push your own POV edits.

Bad Original Research and attacking the ABC

 * This was the final straw for me (in deciding whether to comment on this). I took the weekend off wiki so I didn't see your lengthly, biased and incorrect comments above earlier. In the brief, the first line says:
 * "Dear Mr. Moreno-Ocampo, pursuant to the initial report to you of 22 November 2007, and subsequent revisions of 30 May 2008 and 5 June 2008"
 * The brief has been revised. The site says the most recent revision has been accepted for analysis by the ICC and the article in the ABC was presumably talking about one of the other revisions since late last year.
 * This really is just representative of what you and others have been doing this entire discussion. You take the information you want, ignoring the rest, and make a POV conclusion and then claim a bunch of Wikipedia guidelines to try and get your way.
 * It is also an excellent example why Wikipedia doesn't accept original research.

You cannot simply cut and select the paragraphs you want from the above discussion, add in your own POV (and sometimes incorrect) statements and draw conclusions from them and then form an argument which you try to represent as neutral and unbiased. The fact that you assert this so strongly in your final paragraph, claiming that you have been doing the right thing when it is an outright lie truly shows how you have manipulated Wikipedia guidelines and process to push your own agenda.
 * Carbon Rodney 15:55, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Responses from others
What was the point of this farce? It seems to have been to attack an admin rather than address the content dispute, not that anybody expected otherwise. We already knew 'Paul' is deperate to do anything to exclude this information, despite repeated opinions it isn't even a BLP issue, but this Rfc that proposed to do something along these lines has done nothing of the sort, rather it seems just a long winded personal attack. He has done nothing to discredit the source as he implied he would do, and his statements to that effect should be judged in such a manner. MickMacNee (talk) 18:29, 3 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I, too, am saddened by the form of the "RfC" above. I was expecting it would be a discussion about the reliability of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation as a source. Instead it is full of personal criticism of fellow editors. In that atmosphere, I find it impossible to comment on the content issues that I was hoping to comment on. -- Lester  21:15, 3 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I am choosing not to respond and to extend my wikibreak indefinitely. I am not prepared to tolerate any longer a poisonous environment where personal attacks are tolerated, edit warring in clear contravention of the 3RR rule is condoned, etc I don't think Skyring has mounted a useful argument or added anything to the debate but I will leave that for others to decide. --Matilda talk 22:33, 3 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Endorse I endorse Skyrings reasonings as laid out, the BLP issues are justified and his action were within the guidelines of BLP. The admin that blocked him for 24 hours should have applied that to all edit warring parties equally, even in blocking the admin was aware of a BLP discussion but didnt respond there until asked, even then said If I can venture my own opinion on the content, I agree that the war-crimes brief doesn't belong in the article. Wikipedia is not a blog, and not all comments on a politician are important enough to include that statement on the BLP noticeboard shows thats it has BLP issues WP:UNDUE and then theres WP:NOT Matilda as an admin should never have reverted Skyring twice she has experience(community trust) to realise that it was inflamming the situation. The correct course of action would have been to request the article be protected until the issue was resolved on the talk page, WP:RFPP not WP:3RR. Skyring is not the sole editor to disagree with the inclusion of the material and he has shown that the sources are questionable, they are from a minority group and are a minority opinion. The onus is on those wishing to include material to provide sources that compelling to assert inclusion, that hasnt happened to date. The personal attacks have been flowing thick and fast on this page so I propose a 1R restirction to all editors for 12 months.... Gnangarra 02:17, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Conditional endorse I agree fully with Gnangarra's statements above (with the sole exception that I don't personally think it was BLP, but more UNDUE). I accept Skyring's facts and reasoning, and I think that there has been a lapse of judgement on Matilda's part in this instance. In terms of where to go from here, however, I think it is fanning drama to do anything about it at this juncture. The content is not being added. Matilda knows how her actions were seen by a reasonable number of her peers. Rubbing that in right now will not achieve anything. I think the matter should be closed as resolved with no further action required on the specifics. In the more general case, we all know about the endemic problems with the editing culture surrounding this article and I agree with Gnangarra's 1R proposal. Contentious things should be hammered out here, not in edit summaries on mainspace. Orderinchaos 11:19, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I can see that both sides could be at fault but why attack the editors? It's not going to solve the content dispute. If the Brendan Nelson article can have media speculation about his leadership why can't we have the speculation about the war crimes in this article? Bidgee (talk) 12:00, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Reply to RfC by Matilda

 * Reply to RfC by Matilda - A policy or guideline RfC is for requesting comment on proposed policies and guidelines, proposed revisions to existing policies and guidelines, or article issues which concern a policy or guideline. It appears to me that the RfC does not fall into this space.  However, it could hardly be said to be a and RfC on page content and the preconditions for an RfCU had not been met.  It is my contention that existing policies and guidelines are adequate, however, I have some suggestions which may assist avoiding some of the deadlocks in the future.

Comment was sought on:
 * 1. The addition by Matilda of a paragraph describing a submission to the ICC alleging that John Howard has committed war crimes.
 * 2. Matilda's actions in restoring the material when it was repeatedly removed quoting WP:BLP concerns.
 * 3. The war crimes that break out here and on other Australian political discussion pages over trivia.


 * 1) In relation to 1 - addition is at the very least allowed under WP:Bold. I maintain it was not reckless.  I also maintain it was not politically motivated.
 * 2) Restoration of the material (twice) was within the scope of WP:3RR. I maintain I was not trying to "goad" Skyring into a 3RR breach. Moreover when I reported Skyring for breaching 3RR and independent administrator who frequently actions 3RR reports blocked Skyring and would of course have reviewed the reporting editor's actions. Reviewing the reporting (or nominating) editor's actions is commonplace at 3RRN and there are templates to record the blocking of both editors - refer to parameters of Template:AN3. In this case the blocking admin reviewed the discussion on this page and came to a conclusion that the defence offered by Skyring that he was removing a BLP violation was not valid . The blocking admin's actions were criticised  and also clarification sought .  Clarification that the blocking admin did not think BLP concerns were material was provided
 * 3) on his talk page
 * 4) at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#John Howard inviting review of his admin action and commenting Whether it should be kept in the article or not is a content matter that should be addressed by normal dispute resolution. Repeating part of the argument here: After checking the discussion at Talk:John Howard I do not find that this material violates BLP. Some of Howard's opponents are choosing to characterize some of his known official actions as war crimes. The fact that his opponents hold this view may or may not be worthy of inclusion, but that is a matter for a Talk page consensus or an RFC. If this were considered BLP, any material critical of a politician might be excluded on supposed BLP grounds. My admin action is open to review by others, since obviously the proper definition of WP:BLP is a matter of general consensus.
 * 5) He later commented on the content again at BLPN that in his view the material did not belong there but he did not in any way go so far as to say it was BLP.
 * 6) In response to what to do about the war crimes that break out here and on other Australian political discussion pages over trivia I have several suggestions.
 * 7) Firstly a strict adherence to Civility. Moreover, watching editors and admins should promptly and emphatically notify offending editors of breaches of civility  - templating the regulars if necessary.  I read Don't template the regulars as a suggestion to stay away from the templates but that doesn't mean the warning should not be given - if you see bad behaviour - raise it with the offender, perhaps using your own phrasing and providing the diff for clarity.  Those notifications should occur on the talk pages of the editors not on the article talk page.
 * 8) Talk page guidelines are quite clear - The prime values of the talk page are communication, courtesy and consideration. Adherence to the points made at How to use article talk pages does not require innovation or evolution - just back to basics.
 * 9) Conduct issues should be discussed of the talk page with the involved editors. While Barneca suggested below at  the idea of reformatting such comments, the proposal has unfortunately been exposed as unworkable as it makes the comments illegible to some readers.  I suggest any editor should be bold and refactor them off the article talk page on to the user talk pages where they belong.
 * 10) In a related note, comments about unspecified editors are unhelpful - they have occurred several times and breach civility as much as comments targeted at particular editors. To be clear as to what I am referring to an example is: A more obvious matter is that some useless editors need to be booted off
 * 11) Gnangarra suggested using WP:1RR - there seems no consensus to do so. I am happy to support the proposal and I think interactions using the proposal avoided a repeat of the edit war: see  and .  It of course has to be opt in and there are those by their recent editing behaviour have clearly chosen not to opt in - in which case 3RR is policy and applies.
 * 12) When it comes to keeping on topic and getting bogged down in trivia I suggest using sub-pages. We create a sub-page dedicated to the topic being discussed.  For example there could have been a sub-page (or pages) devoted to the Obama comment and similarly to this one.  Such pages would be named something like Talk:John Howard/ICC issue.  The main talk page would clearly point to or refer people on to the subsidiary discussion elsewhere.  Those who wished to hammer it out to the death could do so.  Those who wished to focus on other issues to do with the article's development could continue to do so on the article talk page which would not be paralysed by the trivial discussion.  Similarly new editors who arrived would neither be drawn into existing discussions unless they wanted to but would also find the page free enough to add new comment about the article.  I can imagine if any editor came here right now they would leave rapidly and without leaving a comment; hardly the purpose of this page. When the discussion over the trivia was finally resolved, the page could be renamed to be the latest in the numbered archived pages.
 * Matilda talk 00:45, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Proposal
That all editors to this article are restricted to one revert rather than the customary 3 reverts WP:3RR in any 24 hour period until 1 August 2009.


 * Support Gnangarra 02:17, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose: The recent article reverts show that tag-teams form for the purposes of reverting. A better solution would be to determine exactly how the Wikipedia rules apply to reverts, as nobody seems to know. One group thinks that fast reverts shouldn't occur for referenced new content. The other group thinks that editors should ask permission on the talk page before adding new content. My own feeling is that new well referenced content should stay until there has been time for the communnity to come to a decision as to whether it stays or goes, which would probably take at least a week. So, new content should stay for at least a week, and then live or die by community decision.-- Lester  03:57, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose Not trying to be unhelpful, I understand the motive, but the underlying problem is that there are two groups that are quite steadfast in their view of whether the material should be included or excluded. Trying to change the rules from 3RR down to 1RR will not solve the underlying difference of opinion, and the article will continue flip-flopping whilst that difference of opinion exists. --Surturz (talk) 04:15, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Support for reasons already given. Orderinchaos 11:20, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose I fail to see what this will do since it doesn't address the current issue and is rather unhelpful for those who have been source and reliable content that could be removed by other editors that use their POV's which will mean that we will be back on the talk page. Bidgee (talk) 11:44, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose. This isn't the answer. The steps in WP:dispute resolution need to be followed in good faith, rather than lock down a battle.
 * Neutral I'm wondering how such a scheme would work in practice. How would it be enforced? How many articles would it cover? We'd have to make this into actual wikipolicy, otherwise wikilawyers and editors such as Lester who need a firm framework of rules will feel no obligation to participate. There's a lot to chew over. --Pete (talk) 12:36, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose Let's not change policy for an article. Neither 'side' seem to have edited since the protection anyway. --Carbonrodney added by Carbonrodney 00:32, 5 August 2008 (AEST)
 * A more obvious matter is that some useless editors need to be booted off. Blnguyen  (bananabucket ) 02:32, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * What would you call useless editors? Bidgee (talk) 10:57, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * A member of the Arbitration Committee (above) has stated that "useless editors need to be booted off". If that is the case, those "obvious" editors who require "booting off" should be brought before the appropriate Wikipedia tribunal for that to happen. However, I don't see the reason why it was stated here on the article discussion page, as we don't know which editors are being referred to, we don't know what behaviour is being referred to, and it will likely dissuade people from partaking in this discussion.-- Lester  00:51, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I too find Blnguyen's comment very disconcerting and breach of WP:NPA - Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor. Personal attacks will not help you make a point; they hurt the Wikipedia community and deter users from helping to create a good encyclopedia. failing to specify which editors in fact makes it worse as Bidgee observes, who are we? or they? The matter should be taken up elsewhere as per Lester.  I suggest starting with an RfC/U if the matter is a strongly held belief and those users have been previously advised of their inappropriate editing on wikipedia. --Matilda talk 01:03, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Blnguyen. Docku Hi 09:37, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, I guess I got to be stupid enough not to understand that he was referring to me (if he was). Docku Hi

Let's draft a paragraph everyone is happy with here...

In June 2008 a legal brief was sent to the International Criminal Court (ICC) alleging Howard committed a war crime while Prime Minister by sending troops to Iraq. A similar brief was also submitted by a UK based group against Tony Blair. The Australian brief was prepared by an alliance of peace activists, lawyers, academics and politicians, including the leader of the Australian Democrats, Lyn Allison.

same ref at the end of a section on the 2003 invasion of Iraq; Gnangarra 14:44, 4 August 2008 (UTC) In June 2008 a legal brief was sent to the International Criminal Court (ICC) alleging Howard committed a war crime while Prime Minister by sending troops to Iraq in 2003.