Talk:John Howard/Archive 15

Talk of war crimes (Part 2)
above title added later to facilitate refactoring of below sections into a grouping as a continuation of the previous "Talk of war crimes" section MickMacNee (talk) 13:35, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

How come...
Just a quickie for me. Could I ask those who contend that this war crimes material is notable to explain why we few Wikipedia editors have now spent more time and effort and words on this matter than the entirety of the world's media?

A telling point on exactly why I think Australian political articles need some attention. --Pete (talk) 22:13, 3 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Willfull and obstructive enforcement of personal opinions on the wiki I would say. For someone who wants to see improvement, from what I see you have spent an extrordinarily long time protecting both this and one other Australian article, and seem to be worryingly familiar with the editors who are of the same opinion as you, no matter what the merits in policy of any situation. The fact you still seek to turn this into an issue of how you perceive the event has been covered in the media only serves to further this tiresome dispute. MickMacNee (talk) 23:06, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * MickMacNee I would like to remind you of the policy WP:AGF. Claiming that editors are making edits based on POV is not helpful. Your complaints about bias are unsubstantiated, since many of the editors opposed to inserting the war crimes material are quite left-wing and certainly not sympathetic to JH. --Surturz (talk) 00:08, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * You are the person who reverts with edit summaries of "No" and "Revert this rubiish", so excuse me if I don;t take any pointers from you about anything. MickMacNee (talk) 00:23, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * At least one inclusion supporter has now said a number of times that exclusion is POV and the arguments against inclusion are tiring. I've let it go now, but it can be equally said that inclusion is POV and that arguments for inclusion are also tiring. I think we are now equal on that count and we can drop such argument. Since Surturz comments are null and void in the eyes of some editors, let me just say that I share his views about the AGF and that both "left and right wing" editors are arguing against inclusion which nulifies POV concerns. --Merbabu (talk) 02:47, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed - the majority of no identified political association within the group of people who regularly edit here has supported inclusion. Timeshift and I are left wing editors who have opposed from the beginning. I hate boxing people in or defining conflicts so starkly, but it's an observation that needed making. Orderinchaos 11:27, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I object to being labelled a "left wing editor". I am a centre-left in my beliefs not my edits. Timeshift (talk) 18:48, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I have no identified political association and, as far as I have read, no one else (except you) has declared their political stance either. Frankly your general political stance doesn't interest me, nor does it give you any greater right on whether we should include the paragraph in the article. Carbon Rodney  12:42, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Just as when you go to a new school or college or workplace and discover that there is a particular dynamic of internal politics which exists within it which is incomprehensible to outsiders, and which a knowledge of is essential in order to be able to negotiate within it, so this article and its talk page have very much their own dynamic, essentially a victim of some rather unfortunate history involving some rather nasty warring and pushing by people who aren't here any more (and haven't been for a long time), who drove a lot of moderates away leaving the environment here somewhat toxic and polarised. The stances and background of most members are, to one extent or another, shared knowledge here, as are a series of interrelations both positive and negative, such that in almost every debate, if X supports, you know Y and Z will support and A and B and C will oppose as a matter of course. If you sit here long enough you'll see that every 2 months, almost on the dot, some crazy out-of-nowhere fly (copra plantantions, Barack Obama and now war crimes!) lands on this thing and sets it off for several weeks on matters not even remotely related to improving the article, which give ground to these major battles. Some of us are really trying to fix that (and the fact this article is chronically deficient through this process of battle-and-neglect), although it's a hard slog and most of us have other areas of priority not only here but in real life. If you want to help us, fine. If you don't, please stop creating drama. Orderinchaos 16:42, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * You are the one who brought up political affiliations, and now you accuse him of creating drama by replying to you? You cannot be serious if you are claiming the comments of Paul in the OP of this section, and below about "pretty much having consensus", are aimed at fixing the tendency of discussion of these issues to become polarised and for it being achieved through stalemate as people are pushed off articles through sheer frustration, intimidation and bad faith. MickMacNee (talk) 17:03, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Political affiliations are an inevitable fact of life in this particular editing space. I'm open enough to acknowledge that. They lie just under every argument that has occurred here since last year. The situations that have unfolded over that time, one of which nearly went to ArbCom except that the Christmas holidays intervened to make it all go away, have largely brought out the held views of pretty much all of the main contenders. I'll clarify - most of what goes on here is utterly unhelpful. You can read the archives and see it for yourself. If you're trying to suggest that by focussing on the behaviour and actions of one person I am condoning those of another, that'd be incorrect. Merbabu and Gnangarra are pretty much the only people that have had no role in escalating this and have been helpful and neutral. But from my perspective, people with little prior experience of Wikipedia or of disputes on here arriving in here to fight on behalf of a clearly contestable notion which has not gained any kind of consensus, having not previously been involved in the article, there is serious questions as to whether that is inflaming drama or helping to resolve the broader issues with this article. I don't label it SPA because it's not, but it does raise questions. Orderinchaos 20:03, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Note that in response to people with little prior experience of Wikipedia or of disputes on here arriving in here to fight on behalf of a clearly contestable notion which has not gained any kind of consensus, having not previously been involved in the article, there is serious questions as to whether that is inflaming drama or helping to resolve the broader issues with this article. - Outside editors are in effect invited here by the lodgment of the RfC. To dismiss them as inexperienced is inappropriate.  The focus of the RfC was not content related, or even policies related to content - it was in the main conduct related - specifically my conduct was called into question.  I think it is unfortunate to focus on the people recently joining the debate as inflaming drama.  As far as I can see they have steadfastly tried to focus on content issues as per WP:NPA. --Matilda talk 19:07, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Just out of interest, have either the Australian or Iraqi governments publicly supported the War Crimes allegations? If they had, that would be good criteria supporting inclusion; that official organisations are backing the allegation. Also, have any Australian military officers been named? UIANAL, but if JH had given illegal orders, then aren't the officers that carried out those illegal orders also culpable? If specific officers were named then it would build the case that the allegations are serious. --Surturz (talk) 03:05, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Indeed - that's the principle that has been applied in the special courts for Rwanda, Sierra Leone and the former Yugoslavia. Orderinchaos 11:27, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * This ins't a standard measure of merit in any article I know of. The act of filing papers at an official court is an official act. People are trying to imply all we are talking about is tabloid tittle tattle, we are not. MickMacNee (talk) 11:41, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Except that, firstly, there is no evidence that they have, and secondly, there is no evidence they have been accepted as a filed submission. Should be noted this is the third case "filed" at the ICC against members of the previous Howard government. Orderinchaos 16:43, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Sure, it never happened. Anyone sense the common theme here?. MickMacNee (talk) 16:57, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I have looked at the ICCAction website and I don't think it is credible. I can find no evidence that the eminent persons named on that website actually support or are even aware of the website. The brief contains "references" to wikipedia and YouTube, which I would have thought would not appear in a serious legal brief. The brief appears to be authored by the website owner, who does not seem to be a lawyer. Is there any reliable source that proves Valder et al *actually* support this "filing"? Maybe I'm completely wrong here, but I would love for other editors to have a look and say what they think. --Surturz (talk) 01:23, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * You know, I was thinking much the same thing about the "eminent people" listed, most of whom aren't eminent enough for Wikipedia. It's just a list, and their names don't appear on any of the supposed group's documents. I don't know what their criteria for inclusion on this very odd website is, but I'll bet that there's no registered association, no constitution, no membership dues. This "Senate Candidate Glenn Floyd", who runs the show, lives in California, according to a whois search. --Pete (talk) 02:57, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * From my searches he appeared to be a doctor in New South Wales (with one "n"). Orderinchaos 07:43, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I was referring to the act of filing, not the list posted, which was done with clear attribution to the site and reference to not using it as an RS in the article. Presumably if none of this was true, there would be counter action/comment from Howard/the press about this website. I also note that Pete uses facts taken from this site to attempt to refute the RS ABC article elsewhere. So which way do we want it? Use the site to support arguments made here, or don't. It cannot be both. MickMacNee (talk) 13:03, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Consensus
I would like to remind all editors that "consensus" is not the same as a majority view. Consensus is better defined as 'a lack of active opposition'. Please familiarise yourself with WP:CONS and realise that it is better for WP if you find uncontentious material to add to the article, rather than try to force in something that several editors are implacably opposed to inserting. Finally, consensus is required to insert material into an article. Consensus is not required to remove material (since by definition, if someone thinks it should be removed, then the material in question does not have consensus for inclusion). ---Surturz (talk) 00:22, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Consensus means nothing if it is not based in policy. Franky, a bunch of people sitting on an article and making POV statements and making long winded attack posts is not conducive to anything, least of all consensus. Anybody can label anything contentious if wording such as 'stunt' and 'smear' are tolerated as resembling a reasoned argument, it takes a bigger man to defend the other side and find a way of including contentious material in a neutral and objective manner, severely lacking here. MickMacNee (talk) 00:29, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid that consensus building requires you to convince editors such as Timeshift9, Skyring and myself that the material warrants inclusion. Accusing us of POV (whether or not those allegations are true) is unlikely to convince us. However, for myself, if the charges are actually laid by the ICC, or if an official government agency (of any country) makes those allegations, then I would support inclusion. IMO a confederation of Howard-haters sending a brief to the ICC does not warrant inclusion, unless the ICC actually acts on that brief. BTW the use of the words "stunt" and "smear" (and my use of the word "rubbish") were not aimed at editors, rather at the ICC coalition. --Surturz (talk) 04:11, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I can only reiterate that there is not much point trying to use rational argument to convince people who base their interpretation of policy on the fact that because they think the allegation is being done by "Howard-haters" it allows them to act accordingly. This is editing from a POV, no matter how you cut it, and doesn't convince me your are acting objectively, and I doubt it does for others too. MickMacNee (talk) 11:38, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Good, that's pretty much consensus then. The war crimes stuff stays out unless the ICC agrees to charge John Howard, at which point it becomes a real-world story and we can include it legitimately. --Pete (talk) 12:29, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Did I say that? Your attitude displayed here is becoming increasingly unhelpfull in the collaberative spirit of wikipedia, perhaps we need more admin eyes on this talk page. MickMacNee (talk) 14:44, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Consensus doesn't happen because you declare it. And the inclusion of any paragraph does not have to be run by every editor who casually watches a page. Carbon Rodney  12:37, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * You've said you've given up, Matilda has regrettably gone on wikileave, so I don't see a real lot of other views remaining. If the thing is fair dinkum, as you seem to think, then the ICC will pick it up, and we'll give it a run. You can't say fairer than that. --Pete (talk) 12:44, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, you did bully some of the editors into wikibreak. Did I say I gave up? Carbon Rodney  12:51, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I dont see any problem in including a reliably sourced relevant information. It is not wikipedia's job to find out whether it originates from Howard haters or lovers, though it can be mentioned if necessary(for the sake of objectivity). Docku Hi 13:09, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Whether the ICC "takes it up" is irrelevant, ad is not the standard of merit applied anywhere else. MickMacNee (talk) 14:44, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Unless, it is going to be used as a talking point for exclusion in this case. Docku Hi 14:47, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Are you arguing it is OK to include POV in a BLP so long as the POV is declared? Not sure where that fits into wikipolicy. As for notability or not (as seems to be the crux of this debate), I am firmly of the opinion that this is essentially no different from any other halfway-prominent political activist who randomly claims that Bush/Blair/Howard is a war criminal (which no-one seems to be arguing are notable or appropriate for BLP, despite a number of "reliable sources", , ). Having a reliable source does not alone warrant inclusion - it needs notability as well. A brief sent to a court is not notable. A brief acted upon by a court would be. So it should stay out until such time as Howard may or may not be called to answer. --Yeti Hunter (talk) 15:11, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I dont want to give the impression that I dont care about BLP issues. But my point is that it is not a POV in my opinion. We are not talking about a sleazy report reported in a shady source about some alleged sex affair. It is about a war everyone in the world knows about and many were opposed to. (reporting opposition to a war which so many people opposed is not a POV). By including reliably sourced opposition within Australia, the readers are educated about the opposition within Australia as well. I, in fact, tend to think it is a positive addition to the article. In short, it is not POV, it is about inclusion of a reliably sourced information or not. As per WP:PRESERVE, it can be mentioned. Docku Hi 15:27, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * So how come it's left for a bunch of self-appointed private citizens to make a submission? Proceedings in the ICC can only be launched by a State, by the UN, or by the ICC's own prosecutor. It's difficult to extract the truth from the bunch's hyperbolic website, - "A HORRIFIC WAR CRIME," it tells us - but one interpretation mentioned above is that their submission has been repeatedly rejected. "HOWARD’S HANDS ARE COVERED IN BLOOD," the group's head tells us, but perhaps the ICC requires higher standards than lying and ranting and SHOUTING, and this unique group of concerned citizens just haven't grasped the reality that they represent a tiny minority fringe viewpoint. Vocal and visible, to be sure, but a tiny minority nonetheless. --Pete (talk) 23:51, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


 * In your opinion. The legality or not of the Iraq Invasion is hardly a fringe topic, to suggest otherwise smacks of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. MickMacNee (talk) 00:34, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * To Pete:We are discussing about the inclusion of war crimes allegations submitted by an organisation to ICC based on a reliable source. It is off-topic to discuss about the ICC procedures, ranting and shouting (in your view) of the organisation. By distracting the conversation, you are setting up a strawman argument which I dont want to waste time defending. Besides, even your distracted argument is false as the fact says that individuals or organizations may submit to the Prosecutor information on crimes within the jurisdiction of the Court.
 * Finally, we are neither discussing about the legitimacy of the actions initiated against John Howard nor the chance of its success. We are merely debating about the inclusion of a reliably sourced information which shows opposition within Australia to one of the wars the country was engaged in. Why is there so much opposition against inclusion of the freedom of expression of people which was picked up and published by a reliable source. When the editors in that reliable source made up the decision based on its notability, what is the problem in including it in wikipedia? I would welcome pointed answers to my concerns here and my previous comment. Thanks.  Docku Hi 01:57, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * You are confusing the importance of the Iraq War with the importance of Lyn Allison's ICC accusation. No one is disputing that opposition to the Iraq War be in the Howard Government article. No one is even disputing that Lyn Allison's ICC complaint be in the Howard Government article. That is the appropriate place, in discussion of reaction to his decision to go to war. But the Iraq War was part of the actions of the Howard Government. Is the ICC accusation an important part of Howard's post-PM career? I'd say no. "shows opposition in Australia" you say. No, the hundreds of thousands in street protests showed that. Not Allison's loony ICC accusation. Allison couldn't get Bob Brown or any of the Greens to sign it. She couldn't even get any of her colleagues in her own party to sign it except for one South Australian MP; she had to rely on a bunch of artists. The media briefly mentioned it on June 2, then everyone dropped it. Wikipedia has briefly mentionded in Howard Government. That should be all. Peter Ballard (talk) 02:37, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Let me put it this way. Here, it's a ripple in an ocean. Take it over to the ICC Action Group teapot where it is a raging tempest. In this article, it's a flake of earwax, in the other, it's the very breath in their body. Most of these eminent people are so awesomely eminent that they don't even have Wikipedia articles. --Pete (talk) 02:45, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * war crime allegations and street protests arent the same. And I like the logic used by Pete to discredit the notability of ICC action group. Docku Hi 02:58, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks. See. Wikipedia is useful after all! --Pete (talk) 03:03, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * You are welcome. I however would have to remind you that you violated Talk page guidelines by editing my talk. Docku Hi 03:23, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Having a Wikipedia article is not a criterion for eminence, popularity or notoriety
 * Approximately half of those people do actually have wp articles Carbon Rodney  17:23, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Going to try to make argument clear as possible (Carbonrodney's summary)
Please add arguments as dot points with bold, then as sub-dot point write support or refute statement with clear and concise argument. Further argument is a sub-sub-dotpoint with rebuttal...

Reasons to not include the paragraph

Violated BLP because sources unreliable

 * Not extensively covered in the news
 * Refute: Covered in almost every national newspaper, and some international papers
 * Rebuttal: Sources are not reliable
 * Rebuttal: Multiple newspapers covered this, not just extremist papers.

Violates UNDUE because minority POV statement is given undue attention

 * Paragraph does not document an opinion, it documents the filing of a legal brief
 * Support: Written in neutral tone, with no suggestion that Howard is guilty of anything.


 * Undue attention not given to paragraph
 * Support: It is a small paragraph in a large article
 * Refute: Supported by Democrat party leader and ex-Liberal
 * Rebuttal: Their support is not means for exclusion
 * Rebuttal: Not supported by other strongly anti-Iraq-war politicians, specifically any other Federal Democrats or the Australian Greens
 * Refute: Supported by Artists
 * Rebuttal: Their support is not means for exclusion
 * Rebuttal: They have only been included because there are not enough politicians
 * Rebuttal: They have probably been included because they are popular figures

Event is not NOTABLE

 * Howard's dedication to the Iraq war was a major part of his career, and this is a follow up to that dedication
 * Support: Even when polls suggested the war was unpopular Howard stuck to his stance of support for Bush
 * Support: Howard received extensive praise and criticism for his response to Iraq war.


 * An official accusation of war crimes against a prior head of state is notable
 * Refute: Process was not followed correctly (Howard not tried locally) therefore it cannot succeed
 * Rebuttal: Howard can not be subject to a Court Martial
 * Rebuttal: Subject does not need to be tried locally
 * Rebuttal: Cannot predict the future per WP:CRYSTAL
 * Refute: Filing a brief to the ICC is not an official process
 * Support: Anyone can do it
 * Rebuttal: Doesn't matter: the process is still official
 * Support: It is as official as it gets for requesting the ICC conduct war crime tribunal
 * Refute: Filing a brief to the ICC does not satisfy notability
 * Rebuttal: Formal allegation of war crimes is noteworthy
 * Rebuttal: Reported in multiple news sources, evidently they deem it noteworthy

Paragraph is fine, but belongs in another article

 * The brief requests Howard personally be brought before court, therefore it should be in his personal article
 * Support: Howard did not put it to Government, which is unusual when going to war.
 * Refute: Actually he did put it to government. It was passed in the house of reps (where the Coalition had the numbers) and of course was also supported by Cabinet and the party room. It did not pass the Senate, but (so it seems) he did not need the support of the Senate to go to war. Peter Ballard (talk) 11:58, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Support Not having passed the senate is not a criteria for exclusion??? Docku Hi 12:05, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Comments on above argumentation
I tried to get a few arguments from the viewpoint opposing mine, but I'm sure I've left stuff out - on both sides. Carbon Rodney 07:24, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Notes re above
Not presented in format which anyone can dispute, and the use of "refute" and "rebuttal" do not correspond with any Wikipedia policy, nor are they attributed so it is impossible to know or determine what this user deigns to achieve by this convoluted and bureaucratic process when there is already an RfC on the very same subject which he has already engaged extensively. I suggest it be dismissed out of hand as drama created by a user intent on seeing through a particular outcome at the expense of clear consensus opinion in opposition. Orderinchaos 08:34, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree it is not a helpfull addition beyond an attempt at giving a personal summary of the debate so far (which is perfectly allowed on talk pages). I had difficulty unsderstanding it beyond that purpose. However, would please stop making statements such as "dismissed out of hand as drama", which, when taken with Pete's comments elsewhere, is starting to make this look like a concerted effort on the part of multiple editors to enforce consensus through insulting and attacking one side, rather than presenting good arguments, which doesn't tie in with your comments further above about trying to prevent that. MickMacNee (talk) 12:34, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * If the above format suggests any particular outcome it is that the paragraph be removed (i.e. the opposite of my opinion). I have no doubt that the current arguments presented there are argued with bias toward my opinion - because I wrote them! Please rebut/refute any of the points, once we can see the structure of the full argument it should be clear whether we should keep it or discard it. This is not a wikipedia process, rather it is similar in structure to how argumentative essays are constructed. But thank you for responding instead of deleting it. Carbon Rodney  08:54, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I commend Carbonrodney's effort to put out a clearer picture of the discussion happened so far. Docku Hi 09:34, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Everyone's put the same points several times. We don't need to argue on and on and on. If anything new comes up, we can talk about it. --Pete (talk) 10:38, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * There's no consensus for inclusion.
 * Matilda has made herself scarce, so there's probably little point pursuing her for starting and mismanaging this farce.
 * The only productive area is working together to find a way of avoiding these counterproductive arguments over contentious trivia. We can probably talk about that elsewhere.
 * Not that scarce. I have absented myself on the basis of relentless personal attacks.  Note that they are still continuing - feel free to continue to pursue me.  WP:AGF anyone ?  No obviously not. --Matilda talk 11:14, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree that second point Pete made is a personal attack. This is in addition to editing my talk violating wikipedia guidelines. Docku Hi 11:33, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * To Pete:So, you dont care even if all the arguments for exclusion were refuted including the factually erroneous statement you presented? It is your way or highway???? Is that right???  Docku Hi 10:47, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * " Refute: Covered in almost every national newspaper, and some international papers". What national and international newspapers? Really this hasn't been widely covered nor can the sources be claimed to be reliable until such time the ICC releases something to say that it got th breif and will take action inwhich the ICC hasn't just a group who claims that they have handed a breif to the ICC which out anything to back it up. Bidgee (talk) 11:06, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, When ICC says it receives, we will add that additional information. Submission and acceptance are two separate events. Why talking about acceptance when we are talking about submission?  Docku Hi 11:20, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Understand it is a little hard to follow but look at the bottom of the sub section above for refs to other news sources which covered it. --Matilda talk 11:16, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Covered once then dropped. No follow-up stories, either on the news or in current affairs. I've checked the archives of the ABC radio programs AM, PM and The World Today - none of them bothered with it. AM even had Iraq War stories on June 2nd and 3rd, but still ignored it. IOW, very minor media coverage. Peter Ballard (talk) 11:54, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Could you please point to a wikipedia policy which prevents inclusion of a source based on the point you just made. Docku Hi 11:56, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * WP:UNDUE and WP:Notability come to mind. Peter Ballard (talk) 12:00, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * (interjection) Notability deals with article topics, it does not directly limit the content of articles. As for UNDUE, one line about being brought to the attention of an international court for making arguably the biggest decision in his career, is hardly giving undue weight. For the sake of continual repetition, we are not talking about inclusion of tabloid tittle tattle here. MickMacNee (talk) 12:39, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * WP:RS comes into play. Based on which way you read the website of the action "group", either
 * 1) the news stories say that the submission was made, when in fact it wasn't, so the source is incorrect, or
 * 2) the submission was made, but rejected by the ICC.


 * So it's either a violation of wikipolicy, or a non-story. --Pete (talk) 12:06, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Could you pls point to a wikipolicy it violates. I would appreciate a point by point explanation of such violation not just mentioning the policy. Thanks. Docku Hi 12:12, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * You mean I could find the same lines you mentioned in these guidelines. I would be glad if you help me find those lines. Thank you. Docku Hi 12:08, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Exactly, that is exactly needs to be included that the submission was made, when we know it was rejected we will include that or make some other decision based on the consensus. Docku Hi 12:10, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

next move
Vague off-topic distractions and citing of policy without sufficient explanation are in the way of reaching consensus. Though I personally think there is a factual consensus (based on wp policies) to include the text in the article, it is just going to be reverted because the editors are not ready to accept it. Therefore, I am doubtful that it is in any way going to be easy to bring out a consensus in this discussion. I am not sure how much BLP notice boards and RFC will help in resolving this issue (may be they also have been attempted before). I would suggest taking it to Mediation. However, enlisting the dispute for mediation requires exhaustion of all other modes of dispute resolution. Docku Hi 12:30, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Proposal for formal mediation
header inserted by MickMacNee (talk) 13:46, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Support taking to (formal) mediation. The issue is in serious need of control and direction through the application of an impartial mediation, without obfuscation from personal attacks and personal opinions expressed as fact. There are also just some basic misapplications of policy here that need to be clarified, not least the application of BLP re. instant removal of unsourced/unsubstatiated smears, and the most recent being the belief that WP:NOTE limits the content of articles. MickMacNee (talk) 12:54, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * As noted above, there is no consensus for inclusion, and continuing the arguments by restating the same points is unlikely to change anyone's mind. Mediation will fail, because I see no need to participate. --Pete (talk) 12:58, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * You provided link to wikipedia policies but failed to mention how those policies are related to this discussion. Your inflexibility even to attempt disrupt resolution and your prejudgement of the outcome of such a procedure is not helpful. I dont know if there is a wikipedia policy which warrants the posting of comments of someone who is not interested in dispute resolution procedures. Let us also not forget there is one final step which is Arbitration.  Docku Hi 13:15, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * (e/c)Your personal opinion that consensus exists is related to your personal opinon that you would not need to participate, and your personal opinon that good and proper arguments have been made and are discernible from the long and rambling discussion above. I don't even think it can be said there is an agreement on the primary reason why the text should be removed, after a long discussion we even got back to the "Did this actually happen?" Question. Mediation does not require your presence, and would clearly be helpful, given its raison d'etre. Answering the "Did this actually happen?" question would be an obvious start. If you refused to particiapate, and then subsequently went against any outcome, then I think there is enough evidence here for a formal request for arbitration on your conduct in this topic area, likely supported by a number of people. (I am assuming there are no socks/bad hand accounts present here and that every account is legit). MickMacNee (talk) 13:22, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Note WP:RFM says The Mediation Committee considers requests to open new cases only where all parties to the dispute indicate willingness to take part in mediation; parties are given seven days from the time of the initial request to indicate their acceptance. If an editor refuses to participate in the RFM its not opened there has already been a few with this article none have ever commenced. Now given your threat to Skyring "If you refused to participate, ..." when clearly he has the right to refuse as does all other parties you just destroyed any point in commencing an RFM for clearly as I would also be a party I state that I will not participate in an RFM where a party has been threatened if they dont.... Gnangarra 16:02, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The key phrase was "and then subsequently went against any outcome". That is not a threat, that is a statement of being willing to respect any mediatied solution by acting against those who don't, with the perfectly legitimate step of arbitration to comment on an editor's actions. I actually understood the formal mediation comittee could proceed with some particiaption (obviously not with just one side present), whereas the med cabal was more voluntary and thus required full ageement. Basically, if you, Paul, timeshift and Order don't want to mediate, and I think so far it is reasonable to suggest 3-4 editors do, then where does that leave us? We can't all edit war until the heat death of the universe. I would have thought a mediation, if you are confident in your position re. the content dispute, would have been the best and most good faith, collaberative way to proceed, if you wanted to solidify your position. Anyway, my idea is to start a straw poll below, (I know I know), but read it first. MickMacNee (talk) 18:40, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Also, in my opinion, there is nothing to mediate. There's a saying about beating a dead horse, this appears to be a perfect illustration of it. Orderinchaos 16:04, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I didn't read it as a threat, it sounded more like he was stating that if Skyring does not partake in the mediation then he should not reject the outcome of the mediation - which may stem from a slight misunderstanding of the process for starting mediation: that mediation is volunteered for individually. As Gnan said: all involved editors need to support resorting to mediation for it to occur for anyone. Carbon Rodney  17:42, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Support as per the previous "next move" header. I guess MickMacNee made it clear. It is anyone's prerogative to participate in the mediation procedure. But, failing to do so might automatically prevent them involving in this topic related discussion in the future. Pls correct me if i am wrong. Docku Hi 14:04, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Yep your wrong This is a Wiki that anyone can edit, declining to participate in mediation doesnt exclude the editor from discussing anything on the talk page. Gnangarra 04:49, 6 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks Gnagarra for clearing it up. It is interetsting though how you failed to answer my questions regarding policy interpretations and user behaviour related to this talk page. Well, let me assume good faith that you didnt notice and I will leave it on your talk page. Thanks. Docku Hi 10:15, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

As someone who has stayed out of this debate, and someone who hates Howard (but doesn't let it get in the way of his editting), this is a entire waste of time. Until he is charged with war crimes, it should not be in this article. Who are these fly-bys anyway? People with an axe to grind I suspect... Timeshift (talk) 16:17, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I think, when we two agree on something, that's about as close to consensus as this article gets! --Pete (talk) 17:35, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Let me thank Timeshift for assuming good faith by decribing me as someone holding an axe to grind. Well, I was a fly by and was impressed by the opposition to include a reliable sourced information and became a little involved afterwards.(you know how it is)


 * To Gnangarra:The outcome of the discussion here is going to be of less importance than knowing a few pointed answers to my questions. Some policy questions none of the editors who are taking your position were able to answer in a convincing way. As a person who has a focused interest on keeping the conversation around policies, I would like you to cite the wikipedia policies and explain how those policies, which you think are the reasons why this reliable source can not be included in the article. As an administrator, I would also like to know what your reactions are to personal attacks like this against fellow editors and talk page guideline violations like this to make a point. Docku Hi 18:06, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * You have to admit that it does look suspicious to regular editors when a group of people who have never edited the article before swing past and suddenly start pushing, hard, a particular obscure POV not based on reliable sources but on appeals to emotion. Orderinchaos 00:23, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * As per my comments above to the same point being made to Orderinchaos, it is not suspicious when a group of people who have never edited the article before swing past ... when they have effectively been invited to by the lodgment of an RfC plus the alert on the BLP noticeboard - that is why we have RfCs and noticeboard alerts. I find Orderinchaos's views and suggestions that people might not understand this article and associated disputes quite extraordinary - please review the policy Ownership of articles. --Matilda talk 00:38, 8 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Are you going to be vague and not define what your suspicions are? I hope we will be able to focus on content soon . Docku Hi 01:02, 8 August 2008 (UTC)


 * As Skyring has previously refused to participate in mediation on the grounds that
 * With so many participants there's no chance of getting everyone involved, especially the minor players, and even if we did, this would probably be a nightmare to mediate diff of deleted comment 28 May 2008 as RfM was deleted
 * My disagreement is solid. I'm not going to be a party to something that would turn out to be extremely difficult to mediate diff of comment made to subsequently deleted RfM on 29 May
 * Which you do not have, with equally due respect. Quite apart from my own decision not to participate, there are any number of other parties listed, who appear to have abstained. Even if I were to change my decision here (which I will not), then mediation could still not proceed. That's the way the rules work. in response to the comment: May I point out, the Committee's ability to mediate the dispute is not the concern of the parties, with all due respect. Leave the mediation to us; all we need is party agreement. :) by user:AGK (a member of the Wikipedia:Mediation Committee - ie a mediator) comment of 30 may to deleted RfM
 * Note there was one other person who declined mediation on that occasion (Surturz). Some of the discussion can be followed at Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/John Howard but the comments were moved there later hence the diffs are to deleted edits.
 * Skyring has made clear in his comments on the latest RfM in May 2008 and also in his comments above that he will not participate - he hasn't actually said he would refuse mediation but based on his comments to the last effort I would assume he would not. This mode of dispute resolution will clearly not work. I disagree that there is nothing to mediate but ... the process will not work with editors who will disagree to be parties. --Matilda talk 02:02, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I would vote against an RfM on this issue. Not even Timeshift thinks it should be in the article. A legal brief written by a management consultant that uses YouTube as a reference has no place in an encyclopaedic article. I have yet to be convinced that the 'eminent people' mentioned in the ABC article actually support the brief, and I think it is a case of sloppy journalism that it got any airplay at all. War Crimes are things like genocide, rape as a weapon, torture etc. To suggest that Howard and the Australian army engaged in any activities remotely approaching that level of evil insults our intelligence. I'm surprised that you are supporting this, Matilda, have you looked at the ICCAction website, or read the brief? --Surturz (talk) 02:59, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Excuse me? Can you not use me as an example? I dont take sides when it comes to article editing. Timeshift (talk) 18:52, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Why are you even considering whether including the allegation means that wikipedia itself is implying Australian soldiers committed rape? The allegation is clearly about the international legality of crossing the border. Why even mention this in this debate? MickMacNee (talk) 04:06, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * You probably need to start looking at things from a global perspective. I would like to invoke a fact here which is that there are Serbians who think Slobodan Milosevic has commited no war crime. Do you agree with that? Please dont get me wrong, I am not implying Howard has commited war crimes. It is not about your or my interpretation of war crimes, it is about war crime allegations alleged by relatively notable people in a reliable source. Besides, Is there any reason why we should support your contention that ABC is an unreliable source. If you could prove that, we probably have reached a consensus. Docku Hi 03:12, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It does not come down to what we think or believe, it comes down to what reliable sources say, taking account of undue weight provisions and the biography of living persons policy. Orderinchaos 02:22, 8 August 2008 (UTC)


 * That is discouraging. Docku Hi 02:50, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Wait until the ICC processes the brief
Can I just ask a question - why do we need to wait until Howard is brought before an international court to document multiple allegations of war crimes (The earliest article I can find (a 7:30 Report interview with Howard) is in 2001). If Howard was brought before a tribunal I would expect a reference to his war crimes in the introductory paragraph. But I certainly think allegations of violating international law deserve a sentence or two in his article. Carbon Rodney 18:09, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * No doubt (answer to your last sentence). Docku Hi 18:23, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Survey to judge current consensus
In light of the assertions from Paul, Order and others that consensus exists, I propose a straw poll to actually test this. I know that Polling is not a substitute for discussion, but currently:


 * We have had tons of discussion above (starting from "Talk of war crimes")
 * We have no readable summary of the points made and their proponents
 * Discussion has been dragged down the pyramid periodically
 * The consensus may in fact just be an uneasy truce (repeated protections have occured) leaving the issue unresolved
 * We have lurkers with opinions who have so far stayed away from the discussion

All of the above, combined with the statements that a mediation would be opposed, leaves a poll as the next sensible step of dispute resolution in my view. I believe it is worded in such a way so as to not leave any demonstrated result open to interpretion / dismissal, whatever the outcome. MickMacNee (talk) 19:55, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

So, in response to the statement: "The added text mentioning the filing of legal papers to the ICC alleging Howard has commited war crimes does not belong in this article", please indicate you Agree, Disagree or otherwise want to Comment. For readability, please keep any lengthy discussion to a new section. MickMacNee (talk) 19:55, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Disagree as of now. I could change my opinion if the questions I had asked are convincingly addressed. Docku Hi 20:07, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Disagree--Matilda talk 20:26, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Disagree MickMacNee (talk) 20:30, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Disagree Carbon Rodney
 * Agree Jmount (talk) 02:24, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree I don't think the item belongs in the article (side note: next time frame the poll in the positive i.e. 'The text should be added') --Surturz (talk) 02:39, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree --Merbabu (talk) 03:18, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree Not *another* self-confirmatory measure, but yeah. We already know who supports and who opposes, that can be ascertained by any of the discussions on the page. Orderinchaos 00:20, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree The material should not be included. A very poorly-framed and unnecessary survey - it's quite clear that there is no consensus for inclusion. --Pete (talk) 00:26, 8 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment:Any effort to assess the consensus needs not be criticised regardless of its merit. It was a good faith effort and no wikipedia policy was breached by doing this . Docku Hi 00:34, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * No effort was needed - any one of us could have written the above self-contributed list of disagrees and agrees ourselves based on who has said what. In addition, multiple surveys and other such things is possibly an exercise in gaming the system as not every editor is going to see every survey. I only happened to look, otherwise I wouldn't even have seen it. Knowing who agrees and who disagrees (given the positions are fairly entrenched) is I would say unhelpful to consensus (which is not being assessed here, more the "strength" of the opposing "teams".) The engaging in wikilawyering and bad faith conduct by one side in this dispute, all but one of whom are not regular editors on this article, is the actual problem here. Orderinchaos 02:17, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Once again WP:OWN applies - I have very real concerns that anything else should be suggested. I have concerns that you are attempting to keep people off this page (see this edit at WP:AN despite the RfC and the BLP notice which invite editors on to comment. If you have accusations about wikilawyering and bad faith - please be explicit. The general they that is getting bandied about is getting very wearing. --Matilda talk 02:26, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Can you please type in regular sized text? I have to use a magnifying class to read the above. I see no reason to negotiate with people who have already decided the end outcome and are merely trying to find ways to make it happen. Indulging in such is the definition of pointless. Orderinchaos 02:37, 8 August 2008 (UTC)


 * How does it matter if I am a regular editor or not??? Could you cite one policy which prevents irregular editor discussing in an uninvolved article. I may have to apologise for having had to go through some things again which may have been a little repetitious. Docku Hi 02:26, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It brings motives into question. Why all of a sudden are people who have never been here before coming here, not suggesting *any* improvements in the article (which is badly in need of improvements as we all accept), and spend 11 days trying to war in some out-of-left-field activist claim that nobody can verify on a single reliable source? If it wasn't so obviously activism, I would be a lot more sympathetic (a check of my contribs in many areas would show I've actively encouraged newcomers to edit in a range of areas where needs exist.) Orderinchaos 02:37, 8 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, arent we trying to work out a compromise here??? Well, this is the last warning to you. If you suspect motive, prove it. Question of motive without specifics or proof will be brought to the AN. Docku Hi 02:48, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I do not take your warning seriously. I do not need to "prove" anything - besides, motive cannot be proven, as it is entirely within the mind of the person who holds it. What I'd like to see you "prove" is one reliable source which, independently of the Doctors Reform Society and MPAW and ICC Action press releases, establishes any basis for this. I spend days in libraries finding reliable sources for the stuff I edit, not to mention the dozens of books I have borrowed out and which sit all over my floor - the onus is on you and those who support your cause to justify it. And I can tell you right now, it doesn't exist. Which is why I am opposing its inclusion - we do not need to open Wikipedia to any more ridicule than it already gets from the education community. Orderinchaos 02:53, 8 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I thought we were going to reach a consensus edit which would satisfy all the persons involved in the discussion. Well, if you say you suspect my motive to discredit me, you got to prove. That is serious breach of WP:AGF. I thought you know it already. Docku Hi 02:57, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I believe in your case that you are operating in good faith but completely outside of any interrogative academic process which could produce a consensus which would actually improve Wikipedia. Consensus is not always right, and policy, especially if clear as with UNDUE, SYN, OR, RS etc, trumps consensus. Orderinchaos 03:00, 8 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for assuming good faith finally. Everyone has a different way of getting a procedure move forward. If there was any flaws in my way, my apologies to you. If my way of getting consensus offended someone, it was not personally intended. apologies again. But, I would love to get a consensus which does not violate any wikipedia policy and which everyone (means everyone) agrees with. If we dont, well, we dont. Atleast I will be happy that I tried. Docku Hi 03:10, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Not sure where to put this; the talk page seems to have fragmented, and nothing is in chronological order anymore. This section looks like as good a place as any.

Just in case you're looking for an outside opinion, analogous to an admin closing an AFD: For reasons unrelated to this content decision, I spent last night looking at this entire talk page (not the archives, thank God). After reading it all, I figured I might as well put that to some use. It is my opinion that there is no consensus to add the war crimes information to the article in any form, and that achieving such a consensus is not going to happen at this time, and further discussion is going to amount to going around and around in circles, with no benefit. Since no consensus for controversial information defaults to "don't include", I think it should not be included, and you should all move on.

I note that "consensus" does not mean unanimity; there is no obligation to discuss this until everyone agrees. Otherwise, AFD's would last several years. I cannot imagine any possible compromise wording that would gain a consensus for inclusion. I actually have no strong opinion on the inclusion itself; just an outside take on how your consensus building is going.

Non-binding, of course, but to be honest, there's a 95% chance that that's what formal mediation would end up telling you anyway. Accept this, or ignore it, I don't care; just thought you'd like a completely uninvolved opinion. --barneca (talk) 21:15, 8 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I guess you are right. I also dont have so much time to waste here anymore. I actually thought we would somehow end up including the street protest by Australian people during the Iraq war as a compromise.(may be even Mahathir's comment) That may not be so controversial anyway. Docku Hi 21:26, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you barneca. And Docku, that much actually does belong on the encyclopaedia somewhere, but it has nothing to do with this biographical article - something like "Protests against the Iraq war" with a paragraph per country, based on reliable sources. Sources would exist for all of the major ones - one doesn't often get half a million people onto Swanston Street terribly easily, and even here in relatively apathetic Perth there was quite a strong protest movement. However, that doesn't even have much to do with the Howard Government, let alone John Howard the man himself - it was a spontaneous reaction to an international situation which mirrored reactions all over the Eastern and Western worlds. Orderinchaos 22:00, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Just took a quick look around : can't believe the article was exactly where I expected to find it (usually some sort of disambiguation or oddity applies!) Protests against the Iraq War does cover the protests, albeit in very very abbreviated form. Opposition to the Iraq War seems to cover the leaders who opposed it. Orderinchaos 22:03, 8 August 2008 (UTC)