Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Racial policy of John Howard

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep reworked and renamed article, One Australia policy. --Fang Aili ^talk 18:52, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Racial policy of John Howard

NOTICE: THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN RENAMED, AND IS NOW TITLED: One Australia policy.

An POV fork of John Howard that reflects a very narrow view of the subject. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Mattinbgn\^talk 00:42, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 00:43, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment To follow up from the nomination, the article title is grossly misleading as it barely mentions policy at all but is more a list of Howard's utterances on race and includes other's subjective opinions of Howard's views on race. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 00:47, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete: It's an obvious fork. Shot info (talk) 00:57, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Definite POV piece, and I cannot think of any neutral alternative. - Rjd0060 (talk) 00:58, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Blatant attack page which would make a fine entry on a partisan blog, but has no place in an encyclopedia. (Speedy delete if permitted). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:59, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wikipedia is not a soapbox, or a POV one at that. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 01:11, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Weak Keep ~~hopelessly POV~~ much improved, but is this one policy so notable as to have its own page? It started as a long complaint about Mr. Howard's policy...it's much more NPOV now, but I still wonder if it's being given undue weight. JJL (talk) 01:46, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. These are all things Johnny said, but it's not necessary to have this kind of article, implying certain conclusions to be drawn from the statements, when there's such a wealth of material out there in academia drawing those conclusions for us. Material about his views on these matters should be incorporated into the main article, drawing on such sources. --bainer (talk) 02:34, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep the reworked version as discussed below. --bainer (talk) 01:08, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this blatant piece of POV. If any of this is to be included in Wikipedia, it should be in John Howard and nowhere else. --Blanchardb-Me^MyEars_MyMouth-timed 02:48, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to lack of POV. A balanced discussion in the John Howard article may be appropriate but not this article. Capitalistroadster (talk) 02:58, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Although most of the article is factual, it is an obvious POV fork which only gives a negative view of Howard. Spawn Man (talk) 03:25, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(The following comment is from the founding editor)

Keep, because nobody above is questioning the factual accuracy of the article. It is all meticulously referenced, and historically accurate. So how can a fact in itself be POV? You could argue that the wording is POV, but not the fact itself. If the wording is POV, why not change the wording? I don't believe the wording of the article is adding editorial comment. If it is, then that can be fixed. If the title is worded badly, it can be reworded. It doesn't fit the definition of POV Fork, as it doesn't present existing information differently from the main John Howard article. Yes, it is an article split, because we all know there would not be enough room to add all this information to the already long John Howard article. The information and quotes presented in the article are historic, and an "article split" is the only way to expand on information that is already in the original article. Why would someone want to throw away such thoroughly referenced information that is not factually disputed? The decision about the future of this article should not be made from comments that say "POV" and nothing else. The decision should be made by debating specific issues such as factual accuracy and the way those facts are presented. Please read Wikipedia:Avoiding_common_mistakes#Deleting... about the deletion of useful content. Thanks, Lester 03:51, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the same section it says that although biased content can be useful, to keep it you need to remove the bias. To keep this article it needs to be renamed or have more content on his actual policies and needs to have all the biased content made NPOV. However, IMO, if you removed all the biased content from this article, there'd be none left. I stated above that the article was factual, but the article is by no means NPOV and definitely does fit the description of a POV fork and that is enough to delete the article. Spawn Man (talk) 03:56, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To follow on from Spawn Man, I think the response from BrownHairedGirl is a wise one. It would be a great blog entry but it does not even come close to meeting Wikipedia's Neutral point of view policy and is bordering on an attack page. If you want to write partisan political essays, start a blog; this is an encyclopaedia. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 04:56, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Partial Merge?, my initial reaction on looking at the article is that this is a page of facts, but presented in such a way as to give meaning to them that may not be in truth what they are. Some of this gave me the impression of being left incomplete, and was not necessarily based on racial policy. It almost borders on a form of original research. On the other hand, I am sure that some of this can be included in the article this was split off from. Some of it may be salvageable, and may be important enough to save, but not as a separate article LonelyBeacon (talk) 06:47, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Crude misleading politically motivated bile. It attempts to paint Howard as a racist which he clearly is not. Nick mallory (talk) 08:33, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sourced, and maybe even quite friendly view on the topic. It would be nice to balance this article with the JH's excuse to the Aboriginal people, but he took his sides. Leaving this aspect of his policies out is glossing over. As a lot of aspects that can be considered less glorious about JH are removed (out of space reasons) from the main article, where shall they go? Or is Wikipedia just about the nice things in life? --Lord Chao (talk) 10:21, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What is a racial policy exactly? What have sanctions against south africa, skilled immigration and aboriginal affairs got to do with each other? There is no racial policy of John Howard. It's nonsense. Nick mallory (talk) 13:13, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete none of these opinions of Howard's constitute a policy. RMHED (talk) 18:54, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It isn't a "policy" so much as a collection of comments and opinions that he expressed on various aspects of race relations in Australia and elsewhere, and designed to advance a particular POV. The odd one or two, particularly those after he came to power in '96, might be useful inclusions in his main article to illustrate particular positions he adopted, but if they aren't there already there's probably a good reason for it. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 01:29, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As much as I hate the guy for running Australia like a shonky business for the past 11 and a half years, having an article like this is a bit unfair to the bloke. Some portions of the article can be reinserted into the main article though, as they do have sources and some are relevant. DEVS EX MACINA _pray 06:04, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this is an attack page, and I don't think it's going to be possible to make it not an attack page without changing it into something different. BigHaz's suggestions above seem a sensible way to deal with the situation and I endorse them. Lankiveil (talk) 12:45, 28 November 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete Per BigHaz. Twenty Years 15:26, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note to moderator: Delete but please salvage anything useful - as an article it is completely POV and unacceptable, but some of this is surely salvageable as sentences to be put in another article where appropriate. I ask the moderator closing this debate to consider the fact that the article is referenced and some of these sources might be well used in other articles, though certainly not all together. JRG (talk) 05:38, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't like Howard, but this article is cherry-picking his record to push a POV. Anything notable should be included in its proper context in the John Howard entry. --Nick Dowling (talk) 11:15, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete, Salt and ban troll creator who has done nothing but disrupt the wikipedia project with badly written, badly sourced garbage. Prester John ^{-(Talk to the Hand)} 23:37, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think he had good intentions Prester, unlike your contributions page full of reverts. Timeshift 07:45, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree and see nothing to suggest Lester was acting in bad faith. Davewild 09:29, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article rework, renamed One Australia policyThe title has been changed to the less controversial One Australia policy, as this was the title of the policy chosen by John Howard himself. The article is a sincere attempt to document this policy from way back in 1988-1989, and the article has been limited to look at this period alone. Most of the politicians from that era are now out of politics, with the exception of Philip Ruddock, who was a major dissenter and voiced his objection to the policy. Some aspects of the article have previously existed in the John Howard biography, however, having a separate article allows for more scope and the inclusion of other Coalition members' involvement and quotes. Once again, all sentences are meticulously cited. I ask all editors to give the article a fresh appraisal, and to think of the historical importance of these events, almost 20 years ago. Thanks, Lester 00:19, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lester has moved the page in direct violation to the policies outlined in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Can an admin please move it back. Prester John ^{-(Talk to the Hand)} 00:16, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pages often move during deletion debates - often spelling corrections, or finding a more NPOV title. As long as the AfD tag points to the correct location and the article remains listed on AfD, there is really no problem. Orderinchaos 21:57, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I moved the article using this guideline: Wikipedia:Guide_to_deletion#You_may_edit_the_article_during_the_discussion, and placed a notification at the top of this AfD page, per that guideline. I think the notices make the title change clear to other editors. The change in title is vital to the reworking of this article in answer to some of the concerns listed in comments above. I ask the Admins to allow this AfD process to continue for some more days, to allow time for the editors to view the changes, including the title change, and to add their revised comments. Thank you, Lester 00:57, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lester asked me to comment on the article move to One Australia policy. He appears to have followed the Guide to deletion correctly and see no reason (in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion or elsewhere) for it to be moved back during this discussion (except if people think it was better under its previous title?). I am sure the closing admin will consider the whole discussion and any changes made to the article. Davewild 09:29, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article makes clear that it was an actual policy, and it had a significant effect on the political history of that era. Rebecca 12:54, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Rebecca - well referenced article on a specific policy on a specific time, much like our article on WorkChoices. Orderinchaos 21:56, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It may be neither here nor there, but at the time of One Australia, the Coalition was in opposition - unlike WorkChoices, which it was able to implement. It was before I was conscious of politics, so there could well be an argument that parts of One Australia survived into the Coalition's policies later on, but the impression from the article is that it died a rather unlamented death when Howard lost the leadership to Peacock. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 23:13, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, they were in opposition. However, it played a big role in the downfall of Howard at that time, and the electoral and political woes of the Liberal Party in that period. I don't think anyone's claiming that traces of the policy survived, but it was a significant policy in the political history of 1980s Australia. Rebecca 00:32, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Fair enough. Like I said, this all took place before my political memories began. What I was getting at, though, was the question of whether a short-lived policy put forward by a leader of the opposition 7 years or so before he was elected was entirely notable, even though the man would later become PM. I'm more than willing to grant that it could be, but I was just a a bit sceptical myself. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 02:09, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article is well referenced and describes an important government (of the day) policy and it's evolution well. —Moondyne 00:20, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The Coalition came to power in 1996, some 7 years after the events in this article. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 00:21, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - This is neither here nor there. Rebecca 00:32, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- [ec and then the doorbell rang] yep, my bad. Opposition policy. —Moondyne 00:40, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Opposition policies can still be notable. This one certainly is. --Brendan [ contribs ] 00:46, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Good move, now the article and its content fits. DEVS EX MACINA _pray 04:25, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not sure if anyone else noticed, but this article is inherently POV. There's almost no way in which this article can be constructed so that it does not criticise the Policy. _Jame§^ugrono 06:30, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Such a policy existed though, look at the sources. DEVS EX MACINA _pray 10:27, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.