Talk:John Howard

Latest comment: 1 year ago by 124.169.142.82 in topic Brothers

Anti-Islamic edit

Im adding a section taht details howards anti-Islamic nature. I have multiple references http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/pope-row-in-past-pm-tells-muslims/story-e6frg6nf-1111112238892, http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/11/14/1068674353583.html?from=storyrhs, http://www.anu.edu.au/polsci/mi/1/mi1kuhn.pdf, and many more. This little boy CLEARLY has something against the Islamic people and I am beyond anger that this is not mentioned on his page, perhaps some racism from other wikipedia editors?IraqiLion (talk) 07:28, 17 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

I AM SEEING RED I JUST PUNCHED A HOLE IN THE WALL WHY! CANT! I! EDIT! THIS! I! HAVE! AN! ACCOUNT!!!!! HOW FUCKING RACIST IS THIS FUCKING SITE?!?!??!?!?! YOU WANNA FUCK WITH ME!!!!
I'm not certain of the terminology, but I think reason you can't edit is that you're still seen as a new editor here. You'll note that your name still appears in red in article histories. You need to have made some minimum number of edits elsewhere before you can edit protected articles like this one. That applies to all new users.
As for your perspective on Howard, if you look carefully at those sources you will see that you could not use them to say that Howard was anti-Muslim. You could use them to say that many accused him of using anti-Muslim sentiment among parts of Australian society to improve his electoral chances. He was a clever politician. HiLo48 (talk) 07:38, 17 February 2012 (UTC)Reply
Listen to my words, you are not a clever person, howard was a stupid racist, this is all common knowledge, how can you say he was clever with his statements that you will see if you bothered to read the links my brother?? When does an accusation become reality? Does it take a european christian controlled newspaper to dicate what is real and what is speculation on wikipeida? Are you seriously saying that commentary from a Muslim only constitutes opinion whereas the herald sun and new york times constitute truth? if you somehow think I am mistaken do feel free to make an attempt to point this out but you will not be able toIraqiLion (talk) 07:59, 17 February 2012 (UTC)Reply
You make a personal attack and then state Yeti Hunter made a personal attack, right.... Yeti Hunter comment was off topic (per WP:TALK), however it wasn't attack but your comments have contained attacks. Also please read WP:OR, WP:NPOV, WP:BLP, WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. Bidgee (talk) 12:05, 17 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

http://www.theage.com.au/national/letters/howard-racist-exmalaysian-mp-20100701-zqif.html This is from the FORMER DEPUTY SPEAKER OF MALAYSIA!!! THIS IS NOT A NEWSPAPER THIS IS A COUNTRY A LEADER IN A COUNTRY TELL ME HOW YOU CAN DISCREDIT THAT!!!IraqiLion (talk) 08:04, 17 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

This should be good. *grabs popcorn* Yeti Hunter (talk) 09:26, 17 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

HiLo48, I am sorry, but this subject has me very passionate. And Yeti Hunter, that was hardly constructive, please refrain from making personal attacks. I intend to add this information to this article and I am willing to make a compromise in which the information is toned down to make him seem less bad, but I digress, he was most definetely anti-Islamic, and at the very least he was 100% racist. His handling of the Tampa boat affair proves this beyond a doubt. I am new to this website this is true, if I am breaking a rule could you please help me? Thankyou =)IraqiLion (talk) 09:46, 17 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

Well, I'll try a little more. What we write about people here can't be your own opinion. It has to reflect what the sources say. And they didn't say that Howard was anti-Muslim. They said that some people claimed that he made use of existing anti-Muslim feelings in society to enhance his electoral chances. That's the most extreme thing you could possibly get away with saying, and you would have to reference it back to those sources very clearly. I personally don't like Howard at all, and happen to agree with those sources, but that's irrelevant here. HiLo48 (talk) 11:42, 17 February 2012 (UTC)Reply
If you don't like howard either why are we fighting when we know the truth of his racism? Why would you not help me and hold me down? You are lying to encourage my behaviour and get me blocked, you are not the first to do this on this website. On the off chance you are on the side of truth and justice (I will not be pulled into little games) you must help me find sources. The ICC affair is very good as many world leaders openly stated that his racism stopped them from allowing him to be the chairman. If I find a source to do with this and I add it, as multiple world leaders opinions of him, not as truth but as important peoples opinions will you try to stop me? We must work together to stop some aussie from doing what he did again, what with statements that support a xenophobic popeIraqiLion (talk) 11:50, 17 February 2012 (UTC)Reply
I'm guessing that by ICC you mean the cricket body, not the criminal court. Yes, it would be interesting to see if there were precise quotes of what other countries' leaders said. Perhaps they could be used. See what you can find. (Right now I'm going to bed.) HiLo48 (talk) 11:55, 17 February 2012 (UTC)Reply
Hahaha, yes of course I forgot about the International Criminal Court =) Ironic, that Howard may get arrested in the future for his involvement in the Iraq war by one ICC and banished from being leader of another lol no I'm only joking =)IraqiLion (talk) 12:10, 17 February 2012 (UTC)Reply
If you think Wikipedia is all about the truth, you need to read Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 20:17, 17 February 2012 (UTC)Reply
Any attempt to load this article with (tiresome) "Howard is a racist" opinions will have to be carefully balanced against the record of Howard as the a PM who ran the (to that time) largest and most diverse immigration intakes in Australian history. Any attempt to suggest that supporting the wars against the Taliban and Saddam Hussein, or instigating new national security laws in the face of terrorist bomb threats in the aftermath of September 11 amounts to being "anti-Muslim" will struggle not to collapse under the weight of their own il-logic.Observoz (talk) 13:25, 17 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

This character has been (mercifully) indefinitely blocked. Can we now move on, and let's not waste any more time. cheers --Merbabu (talk) 19:23, 17 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

This thoroughly partisan biography does not acknowledge that Howard was a divisive and disingenuous character in Aust politics with only tiny legislative achievements given that he enjoyed the uncritical support and endorsements of all mainstream media throughout his career as well as a majority in both houses of Parliament. Worst of all, a substantial body of legal and public opinion holds that in committing Australia to the invasion of Iraq, knowingly on the basis of blatant lies and selective use and exaggeration of evidence, Howard committed a war crime entailing the deaths of many tens of thousands of Iraqis and which, consistent with the unethical journalistic support he still enjoys, has been covered up and never formally investigated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tom Falkingham (talkcontribs) 06:18, 5 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

Graduation edit

The year of graduation is conventionally defined as the year in which the degree was conferred, not final year, hence 1962 for John Howard, not 1961. Michael Kirby and Murray Gleeson graduated in the same year at Sydney Law School. See also https://www.hcourt.gov.au/assets/publications/speeches/former-justices/kirbyj/kirbyj_gleessu.htm. NB: Southern Hemisphere academic years tend to end in December. Pádraig Coogan (talk) 9:40, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Brothers edit

His brothers were Walter Lyall (1926-2019), Stanley Joseph (1930-2014) and Robert Falconer (1936). Stanley's death notice is at https://tributes.smh.com.au/obituaries/109646/stanley-howard/ and Walter's is at https://tributes.smh.com.au/obituaries/126958/walter-lyall-howard/.

I don't know how to get better sources but the current information (listing Stanley as older than Walter) is unsourced and wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.169.142.82 (talk) 14:48, 20 June 2022 (UTC)Reply