Talk:Kevin Rudd/Archive 2

Omissions

There are numerous interesting things that are missing from the article- onethat stands out is that Kevin Rudd actually supported the invasion of Iraq based on him thinking there were WMD's there,he did not even get the bad inteligence on the matter, it was his own thoughts. “I’ve said repeatedly that there is a significant threat of weapons of mass destruction from Iraq,” Rudd declared in September 2002. “Saddam Hussein possesses weapons of mass destruction—this is a matter of empirical fact,” he told the State Zionist Council of Victoria in October 2002. “Biological weapons is right in the middle of the sandwich when it comes to the critique currently, legitimate critique, of the Iraqi regime,” he added shortly before the invasion.

Why is this not mentioned? He later made a statement to channel 7 that convieniently forgot his previous stand. This quote that was not based on evidence puts into question his ability to tell the trutth and also his memory. His foreign policy is also questionable when he makes generalisations about a foreign country possibly having WMD's Liquor box 07 03:20, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Be bold and get editing then.--Yeti Hunter 10:15, 24 August 2007 (UTC) I dont know how! i think the page is locked —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.69.199.248 (talk) 06:30, August 25, 2007 (UTC)

Many people believed the evidence was irrefutable, then changed their view when they realised it wasn't - this was the case all over the world, and on both the left and right of politics. The fact it was borderline fraudulent only came out after extensive inquiries later on. Beazley as Opp Leader (and probably Rudd as opp foreign affairs spokesman) would have received briefings from the relevant departments showing them evidence that doesn't normally get seen by the public, and it would have been fair to assume that this evidence was reliable - keeping in mind that neither individual is an expert in logistics or intelligence, as with all but a very few politicians. Orderinchaos 15:35, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

The article glosses over Rudd's role in the Qld public service. He was well known and disliked as a result of his attitude toward cost cutting at the expense of: 1. Public service efficiency 2. Long term planning 3. The welfare of staff. It is significant that the result of these cuts are now being seen in the infrastructure failings on the Queensland executive. The parlous state of roads, schools, health and water are dirctly as a result of Rudds poor planning. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrbingley (talk • contribs) 07:23, August 25, 2007 (UTC)

Again, if you feel that there's an omission, be bold and add the relevant information - with sources, of course. I'll see what I can rustle up myself, but I'm a busy man. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 11:38, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Iraqi weapons of mass destrution is besides the point, he was silly enough to believe Bush, Blair and Howard pushing the cover story alot of people did not think they where lieing/miss informed by liars just like he did.

Howard etc also said the WMDs existed, Howard also said he would keep interest rates down but thats another lie--203.192.92.73 12:46, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure you will find numerous mentions to Howard, interest rates, WMD - this is the point people are trying to make here: Why is Rudd's position at the time of the invasion (more or less exactly the same) not mentioned? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.189.213.149 (talk) 01:54, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Because nobody's added it yet? BigHaz - Schreit mich an 05:58, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd bet a rather large sum of money that if someone was "bold" and added it, it would be promptly removed and explained away in the manner you have seen in the above comments. 70.189.213.149 18:43, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

If that happened, then (assuming the information was sourced reliably), you'd be within your rights to re-add it. If it's just added without a source or with an unreliable one, then yes it would be promptly removed. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 22:04, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

The WMD quotes should be in the article, if properly cited. It's important information on an important issue.--Lester2 05:36, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

inacuracy

I'm pretty sure that Labor were already in front in the polls before Keven Rudd won the leadership. However the article says that soon after he became leader they were in front. I think it would be better to say soon after Rudd won the leadership labors polling improved dramatically from 51% 2 party preferred to 56% 2 party preferred within X amount of weeks or by X date.(those figures are just examples not facts) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Muppet man67 (talk • contribs) 12:25, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

That's correct - this site graphs the polls (although can't be cited as a RS) and shows it was in Labor's favour for most of 2006, with occasional exceptions. Orderinchaos 15:32, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

why did this get changed back? I read that someone wanted a citation but I dont see why it needs to be cited any more then the statement as it stands currently which is factually incorrect. If you think a citation is needed then find one or remove that whole section. Its just dumb to revert back to a statement that has been established as inacurate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Muppet man67 (talk • contribs) 05:14, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Dr Death

completely misrepresents the Goss days.

No mention of his nickname "Dr Death"

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,20867254-601,00.html

No mention of the document shredding in the Heiner affair just " this position Rudd was arguably Queensland's most powerful bureaucrat."

Given the details on the John Howard page the omissions are quite surprising.

Or the Courier Mail investigation into his property tax avoidance (Dilkera Street)

http://www.gwb.com.au/gwb/goss/oneill.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.101.222.105 (talk) 03:03, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

The book sighted describes his Nickname: Dr Death. (Stirling Taylor 11:52, 23 September 2007 (UTC))

• If you feel factual relevant information is missing that could be incorporated consistent with neutral point of view and Biographies of living persons policy (noting that Wikipedia is not tabloid), then be bold and add it. To reduce the likelihood of being reverted, use meaningful Edit Summaries, seek consensus for disputed/controversial additions and/or justify them on the article talkpage. --Brendan Lloyd [ contribs ] 12:47, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Introductory Paragraph

I'm not sure if this is the case for articles on politicians, but the leading paragraph says that if "If Kevin Rudd wins a majority of the lower house... he will become the next PM". Fair enough that may be the case, but to an extent is not a certainty, and i personally think that it should be changed to something more simplistic such as he is contesting for the PM position in the upcoming election. Sir Jimmy 11:13, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

From memory, the paragraph was worded that way so that readers unfamiliar with the Westminster system would be able to understand precisely how he was contesting for the Prime Ministership. It's not the most elegant of sentences, although I'd say that if the ALP wins a majority then Rudd's chances of being PM are roughly around the 100% mark, and I'm certainly willing to hash out a better phrasing of things here if you're up for it. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 21:57, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Let's just keep it the way it is for a few months. Then it just has to be changed to "Kevin Rudd is the current Prime Minister of Australia." --BrianFG 23:25, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree. I think the article lead-in should stick with present facts. Introducing conditional "if" statements about hypothetical future events (regardless of their likelihood or not) is unencyclopedic. --Brendan Lloyd [ contribs ] 14:32, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Brendan, until the election he's officially recognised as leader of the opposition, what happens after the election is speculation. Additionally the lead is a summary of the article this isnt discussed anywhere in the article. Gnangarra 14:47, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Religious views

I take issue with this section having so much prominence. His TOC is 1 Early life, 2 Early career, 3 Federal politics, 4 Political views, and 5 Religious views. I'm thinking that maybe it would be better to put political views and religious views under federal politics as sub-headings? Timeshift 23:54, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

His religious views have been very prominent - they deserve the place that they have in the article. Let's just leave it as is. JRG 12:51, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

New image

Can someone confirm if the person next to Rudd is his son? Timeshift 08:40, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Second picture here - who thinks the older son is the same person? Timeshift 08:57, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure they're one and the same. The tall bloke in the white shirt in the second shot is definitely the elder son, so I think the caption for the first shot is correct in the article. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 09:41, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

But the first shot? Timeshift 09:46, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Like I said, I'm pretty sure he's the same one as the elder son in the second shot. So if the guy in the white shirt in the family-standing-in-hallway shot is the elder son, I'm going to go out on a limb and say the guy next to KR in the marching photo is his son as well. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 12:00, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

His son has a name - it is Nicholas - not sure of the spelling. JRG 12:50, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Crystal

"Should Labor win a majority of lower house seats at the upcoming 2007 federal election, Rudd will succeed John Howard and become the 26th Prime Minister of Australia."

This isn't a prediction, it's a fact of the current situation. Quoting from WP:CRYSTAL: "Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place" sounds like the situation we have here. Cheers, WikiTownsvillian 14:11, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

There are many facts of the current situation that we can predicate upon "if X happens, then Y will be the outcome". That doesn't make it encyclopedic. Are you arguing that the election outcome is "almost certain"? Moreover, what would happen to the certainty of the asserted "fact" if something happened to Rudd between the election and his (presently hypothetical) swearing-in as PM? Or any other event that invalidates the alleged "fact", for that matter?

The problem with making statements about the future is that you can never account for all the variables. That's one reason why encyclopedic articles avoid them. --Brendan Lloyd [ contribs ] 14:41, 12 September 2007 (UTC). Refer to discussion above at #Introductory Paragraph

Point well taken. However, I'd make two arguments against that. Firstly, should the ALP win the election, Rudd's chances of becoming Prime Minister are roughly 100%. Yes, there's a chance that something may occur in between election night and the swearing-in of a possible new government, but I don't subscribe to the view that that invalidates a sentence such as the one we have here. Secondly, the paragraph was written that way in order that someone unfamiliar with the Westminster system would understand what it means that Rudd is the Opposition Leader etc etc. If there's a good way of explaining that without being ambiguous, I'm all for changing it. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 21:44, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

General exposition of the Westminster system of government belong elsewhere, not in an article about Kevin Rudd. The material in question (as pointed out by Gnangarra) is not included anywhere else in the article. Predicating the inclusion of a self-contained statement (in the lead section) on one possible future outcome is generally against policy (WP:CRYSTAL), against guideline (WP:LEAD), non-factual, speculative and unencyclopedic. Articles are not horoscopes. --Brendan Lloyd [ contribs ] 23:32, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

How about making Leader of the Opposition (his primary claim to fame) more prominent, so the user can click to find out what that means. I've always been of the opinion that if someone doesn't know how to click a link to get more information, they shouldn't be using Wikipedia. So the intro reads something like this. Paragraph 1: Kevin Rudd (born whenever) is the Australian Federal Leader of the Opposition. (Paragraph break for emphasis). Paragraph 2: Rudd entered parliament in 1998, yada yada, and replaced Kim Beazley as ALP Leader and Leader of the Opposition in December 2006. He will lead Labor at the Australian federal election 2007. Peter Ballard 03:18, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the reasoning of Brendan and Peter here. I have long thought this particular passage has been "unique" to any other political article, and slants the article to much towards Rudd worship. It violates WP:CRYSTAL, doesn't read like an encyclopedic article, and doesn't deal with the here and now. Prester John ^{-(Talk to the Hand)} 03:28, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd have no objection to rewrite along the lines of what Peter Ballard's proposing either. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 05:36, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Peter B. --Brendan Lloyd [ contribs ] 10:06, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I've changed the article lead, in line with Peter's suggestion, to:

Kevin Michael Rudd (born 21 September 1957), is Leader of the Opposition in the Australian Parliament.

Rudd entered parliament in 1998, representing the Division of Griffith, Queensland, and replaced Kim Beazley as leader of the Australian Labor Party in December 2006. He will lead Labor at the 2007 federal election.

--Brendan Lloyd [ contribs ] 02:37, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Changed back. How you can achieve consensus yet I do not know. Please ask more widely. JRG 04:56, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

This discussion started here on the 6th, since then only User:BigHaz has participated saying it should be kept, but he has since said I'd have no objection to rewrite along the lines of what Peter Ballard's proposing either. that was on the 13th. From whats been said there is consensus, if you now wish to change it you should start a fresh discussion first. Gnangarra 05:16, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

_{you don't consider my opening this discussion as participating? WikiTownsvillian 05:28, 16 September 2007 (UTC)}

Even then, my earlier comments weren't saying that it should be kept so much as explaining why it was written the way it was written. If I wasn't so busy offline these days, I would probably have taken a more active role in addressing the concerns being raised and trying to come up with a suitable intro, so I'm very glad that Peter proposed something and got the ball rolling. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 05:20, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

What happened to my comments? I posted something here earlier... oh well. I don't think either of these are adequate, to be honest. Let's put this out to a wider audience - not just the talk page. JRG 05:24, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Controversey Section

I recently came across the following section on the article. This section casts very negative light on Mr. Rudd, and if unture presents amazing problems for WP:BLP. The text I removed is below. I suggest someone give s ource before it's added back in:

==Controversy== [[Image:Kevstrip.JPG|thumb|right|A 'Kevin Rudd' stripper that mocked the issue on [[The Chasers War on Everything]] ([[ABC]] program)]] Unfortunately for Mr.Rudd, it was recently discovered that, on one of his visits in [[New York]], he made his way into a [[strip club]] along with some of his male (and one female) friends.<br />Rudd claims that he never intended to be 'Captain Perfect' and tries to express that this is a mistake that many other [[Australian]] men would make.<br />Since the incident, there hasn't been much media attention to this issue, but the moment is constantly brought up on comical shows and performances.

--Ybbor^Talk 02:02, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

There's been discussion about whether to include this pretty much ever since the story broke, and consensus has (so far) been not to, so you did the right thing to remove it from the article. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 07:23, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Consensus already formed on strippergate. And I think it shows the user's POV that he takes a screenshot of a Chaser parody of women dancing in Kevin07 paraphanalia, and calls them "Kevin Rudd strippers on Chaser". May I take the chance to remind that the issue only helped to consolidate Rudd's lead in the polls, especially amongst males. Timeshift 09:39, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Not a unanimous consensus. As I indicated, "strippergate" is roughly on par with Fraser's trousers, Downer's heels and Latham and the taxi driver's arm, all of which are mentioned in their respective articles. I think the stripper incident needs a brief mention. Peter Ballard 05:20, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

To be fair, consensus need not be unanimous. That's why I said that "so far" consensus has been not to include it, since reasonable arguments in favour of including it will certainly be entertained. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 23:06, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

As above, consensus need not be unanimous. I continue to disagree that it's worth mentioning - do we really want this page to become a list of Liberal smears and wedges pre-election? Timeshift 23:08, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Consensus means rational arguments should be answered. Could someone please explain why Fraser's trousers, Downer's heels and Latham's taxi get a mention, but Rudd at the strip club does not. To me they are all roughly equivalent. Peter Ballard 00:44, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Consensus certainly does mean that and - at least AFAIK - this discussion is the first time that all of those incidents have been raised together. I can't speak to Fraser and Latham, but certainly Downer is still caricatured as wearing fishnets and heels in the press, which suggests that the incident has sort of "taken on a life of its own", if I can put it that way. With the exception of a press reaction right at the time, there doesn't seem to be any real "life of its own" sensibility to the strippers. I'm more than happy to be proven wrong here, since I'm the first to admit I'm not following the news as closely as I'd like to right now. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 06:09, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Well I've heard plenty of references to it. It is of course impossible to be certain that it will hang around Rudd forever; but judging by the examples I offered above, it is probable that it will. Peter Ballard 13:00, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm always wary of calls to censor politicians' history. I think it's better to bias towards inclusion rather than omission. The stripclub thing could always be included in a section about the 2007 election campaign, where various issues about Rudd's background were dredged up. We're not dredging up new information, we are just reflecting the media storm that was generated by it, and reflecting the general coverage of Kevin Rudd. Ask someone on the street what they know about Kevin Rudd, and more people will mention the strip club issue than anything else. Whether we think it should or shouldn't be in the public domain is not the point. We should be reflecting the outside media, and reflecting what Kevin Rudd is generally known for, and like it or not, the strip club is one of the more known aspects of him. I mean, I personally don't care if Alexander Downer chooses to wear fishnets, but that's what he's generally known for.--Lester2 02:45, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

• I agree with Lester2. It's a matter of getting the balance right -- include too much and the BLP becomes an tabloid piece, include too little and it becomes beige and sterile. On this issue, I support a minor inclusion, in the appropriate section, describing the "strippergate" revelation in its political context, in proportion to other included matters of similar relevance. --Brendan Lloyd [ contribs ] 15:27, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Aortic valve replacement section

I'm leaning towards a weak keep - assuming that we show the same level of interest in other party leaders. Starting this discussion now as to form a consensus and avoid another revert war. Timeshift 23:00, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I haven't been following the news as closely this week as I'd like to, so I might be barking up the wrong tree. As I understand it, the story only came up on something like Sept 17/18, so ideally I'd like to see it be talked about for a bit longer than it has been before it appears here. After all, it may turn out that it's an absolute non-issue now. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 23:08, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

BTW it's worth mentioning (if we are mentioning this) that Rudd did the Kokoda track last year. Is this wedge/smear number 124? Timeshift 23:17, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Maybe there's a question as to whether K.R's medical history should have been put into the public domain by the media (ie, Nine Network), but now that it's out there the issue can't be put back into its box. It's receiving significant media coverage, therefore it should be included in this article.--Lester2 02:20, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

• I support a minor inclusion, in an appropriate section, describing the heart-op news, in its correct context and in proportion to other included matters of similar relevance. Currently it appears chronologically (under Political provenance). I think it would fit better in its political context (ie. the contemporary political/media hype) as that, not the event itself, is what makes it notable/relevant. This would mean adding it onto the end of the Leader of the Opposition section, or in a new subsequent section about the 2007 election campaign (and its lead-up). --Brendan Lloyd [ contribs ] 17:06, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

• I support inclusion to the same extent as John Howard's hearing impediment is included. (Stirling Taylor 09:54, 23 September 2007 (UTC))

Rudd Quotes should be deleted

In accordance with the discussion on the John Howard Page:

"Exclusive use of, and sole reliance upon, Howard's quote"

All of Kevin Rudd's quotation's require deletion if they cannot be substatiated by someone other than Kevin Rudd, or someone who is not relying on Kevin Rudd. (Stirling Taylor 09:53, 23 September 2007 (UTC))

No, don't agree at all. The discussion on the Howard page was over the quotes in that page, and did not agree upon a wiki-wide consensus.Recurring dreams 09:55, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

You can't have it both ways. Either exlusive reliance on a quote from the subject of a wiki page is permissable for reference on that page or it isn't. (Stirling Taylor 10:20, 23 September 2007 (UTC))

• I agree with Recurring dreams. Stirling Taylor, please seek consensus for your views. Your interpretation of what justifies inclusion of quotes are not reflected in Wiki policy. Consensus on the removal of one quote in another article for specific agreed reasons does not imply that all quotes, everywhere, should also be removed. --Brendan Lloyd [ contribs ] 10:43, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Brendan: Please clarify: Is text based on "Exclusive use of, and sole reliance upon," the subject of a wiki page acceptable"? (Stirling Taylor 11:11, 23 September 2007 (UTC))

• I don't understand the question. Please see my earlier response. Try to phrase your editorial views in terms of Wikipedia policy and/or how your proposed changes will improve the article/encyclopedia. If you disagree with the inclusion/exclusion of content on the John Howard article, go the Howard talkpage and start/participate in a discussion about that. --Brendan Lloyd [ contribs ] 11:47, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Addition of Mark Latham quotes regarding Rudd

If on the John Howard page Peter Costello quotes from a book are relevant, then I see no reason why Mark Latham quotes from his book aren't relevant to Kevin Rudd. (Stirling Taylor 09:53, 23 September 2007 (UTC))

Need to be sourced. And also have to consider their relevance in this context. Recurring dreams 09:54, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

He was the Shadow Minister and the comments of the Labor party Leader at that time about his performance are relevant. I will type the entire quote out if you prefer? (Stirling Taylor 10:20, 23 September 2007 (UTC))

Is the material you're seeking to include reliable. Does it give rise to a neutral point of view? Does it have weight or is it trivial? Please elaborate and seek consensus before re-adding the disputed material. Please avoid 3RR. --Brendan Lloyd [ contribs ] 10:51, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

The point of view is from the previous Leader of the Australian Labor Party. Surely you are not suggestion previous leaders of political parties cannot provide a point of view on a current member of that party? If that's the case, quotations from *all* previous members should be removed. Would you like the page references from Latham's Diary?

The material has weight as it has been reported from the FIRST PERSON. It is reported by someone who was at the meeting and one of the main players of the meeting. I trust you are not suggesting all first person material should be removed. It is indeed factual. No libel case has been raised regarding the written material.

It can be considered neutral as it has been published (without challange) by someone who no longer has any political interest or benefit to be gained from it's publication.

(Stirling Taylor 11:08, 23 September 2007 (UTC))

I don't agree with the suggestion that Mark Latham's allegation about Kevin Rudd "burst into tears" has weight in an encyclopedic biography. It's not relevant. --Brendan Lloyd [ contribs ] 11:47, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Images

Photo should be removed

The photo of Rudd and his son should be removed - there must be tens of thousands of photos available of Kevin Rudd, why should one of him with his son be up there? The family of politicians should not be included, they did not run for public office. Sad mouse 17:36, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

feel free to upload one of these tens of thousands of available photos, I think you will find it harder than you think. Cheers, WikiTownsvillian 10:22, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

find me three (or even two or one) other images with similar permissions to use freely. kgo. Timeshift 10:36, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Sad mouse. Rudd's son is not a public figure and entitled to privacy here. The picture should be removed. --Brendan [ contribs ] 13:40, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

A person's family, I would have thought, is a legitimate thing to include in their biographical article. The article is not "Kevin Rudd's role in the 2007 election", it's on him generally. I don't care if his son is running for public office or not, the photo is fine. Please stop deleting content. JRG 13:54, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

And yet it continues. Honestly, some people. Timeshift 06:20, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Latest image

I think for duplication's sake, it's a good idea to have the latest image on Rudd's page with the crop of the last image on Rudd's page on the 2007 election page. My 2c. Timeshift 12:30, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

May i say thank you to whoever uploaded the new kevin rudd image. Its much nicer! (58.107.165.52 04:33, 9 October 2007 (UTC))

Thanks to the anon IP below, but a certain user wants to get rid of it, as well as other Rudd images. Images do NOT need to be an image of an event within the text, the images on Rudd's page are completely suitable. You are reverting good faith edits for no good reason. Stop now. Timeshift 13:21, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Timeshift, in your first comment above, you seem to be saying the 2007 election page and the Rudd page should have the same image. I agree with that and made what I thought was the uncontroversial change to effect this. Then you undo my changes telling me "hands off the pics". Can I ask why, and also what is the value-add to the article by having numerous biographical photos of Rudd that show nothing specific of historical interest (other than what Rudd looks like, for which his main bio pic already serves that purpose)? Can I also ask why a picture of his son must be included? What about provisions of WP:BLP having due regard for the privacy of the subject (in this case, his children, who are not public figures)? --Brendan [ contribs ] 13:29, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

How you managed to interpret that from my first comment, i'll never know. In regards to his son, it also contains the Qld Premier and a Qld MP. Please stop making mountains out of molehills. Timeshift 13:31, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Please don't be condescending. I dispute the inclusion of those images, particularly the one with his son. Sad mouse also objected to the inclusion of that latter image. Please acknowledge the views of others and state your rational reasons for retaining them, in response to the questions asked. Please also explain why you insist on the left-alignment of the Rudd&Gillard pic when it looks better right-aligned? --Brendan [ contribs ] 13:40, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

In my revert I may have changed back the alignment. In my view this is of no consequence. Feel free to align whatever pic where. Just make sure left and right aligns are balanced. JRG 13:57, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Which policy is that exactly? --Brendan [ contribs ] 13:58, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

It's not a policy, it's common sense. JRG 14:01, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

So by "common sense" you actually refer to your opinion. I beg to differ. For web-based bios, right-floating images generally look tidier as the text is uninterrupted by a chunky left-aligned imagebox. I also think that the images should be demonstrably relevant to the section in which they appear. Littering the article with multiple generic bio-type photos does the article no benefit. Nor does the photo including Rudd, QLD Premier Bligh, and candidate Grace Grace -- what is that picture meant to convey relative to the content it appears beside? This is an encyclopedia, not a blog, vanity page or web gallery. --Brendan [ contribs ] 14:09, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I still haven't received any answer as to why we should have this redundant image which is just a zoom of the one further down which purpose is for the 2007 election page, when we can use this image which is from another photo all together. It's very rare to find such free use photos of major party leaders in Australia. Timeshift 16:03, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Can I offer a compromise? It seems there are two images for the top of page: 1. Smiley image (preferred by Timeshift), and 2.Non-smiley image (preferred by Brendan). The first thing I did was look at the licences for both images. The Smiley image seems to have the freer licence, so I would support using the one with the freest license.

The other issue seems to be the image of Rudd+Son+QLD premier, in the Religious Views section, preferred by Timeshift, and the omission of this image, preferred by Brendan. As the image doesn't seem to have much relevance to the religious views, I would support its omission. However, if it was an image of Rudd addressing the pentacostal Hillsong Church, that might be different. Cheers, --Lester 01:16, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

If the "smiley" photo is "more free", why is it the preferred image on Australian federal election, 2007? Consistency is the desired outcome. Per Lester and Sad mouse, I agree the photo including Rudd's son -- and advertising Grace Grace and Anna Bligh, at a non-descript event, highlights nothing in the accompanying text other than that KR knows these people and was at non-notable event with them at some point -- should be removed. This also resolves Timeshift's concern that the "non-smiley" was a crop from that son picture; with the latter gone, there is no need to fret. --Brendan [ contribs ] 03:58, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Huh? They have the exact same license! Timeshift 05:27, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Same license? OK. When I clicked on the images, they seemed to have different license text underneath them. But I will accept your advice that both images are equally unrestricted. --Lester 06:45, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Ah. One was transferred to commons, one wasn't, because it wasn't on the Kevin Rudd page at the time. Commons and wikipedia templates are slightly different in layout/wording but they are for the same license and have no difference in terms of permission. Timeshift 06:50, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

The best way to solve this is to write a "Family" section where the photo with his son will fit nicely until we can get one with everyone in his family - which may not happen for some time. Every other major politician in other countries have a section like this, so there's no reason why Rudd shouldn't have one. His family is part of his life. JRG 05:49, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Made a change - is it the simplest way? Btw I meant JRG not JPG, my fingers went too fast and i've only just woken up :P Timeshift —Preceding comment was added at 05:54, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Not exactly - I was thinking a separate section altogether. You can put Therese Rein as a more information article at the top of it. Stuff like he has three kids and the first one got married earlier in the year; maybe a summary of what his wife does, etc. We'll have to differentiate this section from the mentions in the religious views section about his wife. JRG 06:35, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Timeshift, asserting that I am "wrong" is not an adequate explanation of why you insist on having a picture of Kevin Rudd's son on his Wiki biography. You say this is par for the course but that is not the apparent case. The question you have yet to answer is what is the relevance of that picture to the article/section content such that its inclusion justifies a perceived breach of privacy of Rudd junior and free advertising for candidate in the upcoming election, Grace Grace? You do not have consensus for the inclusion of that photograph. Please seek consensus before reinserting disputed content. --Brendan [ contribs ] 07:11, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but the photo is a fully legitimate image with fully legitimate permissions, which contains the current federal Labor opposition leader, the current Labor QLD Premier, the Labor MP for Brisbane Central, and Kevin Rudd's son. The by-election has passed so there is no advertising, there is no breach of privacy as the photo was taken in the open and he's over 18, and there is no consensus to remove this legit edit. I do not need consensus. You need it, along with a valid rationale, to remove. Timeshift 07:13, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Disputed material requires consensus for inclusion. Please seek consensus. Privacy for the purposes and spirit of WP:BLP is not determined by whether or not a photo can be snapped in public, Timeshift. In writing an encyclopedic article, we need to adopt a higher standard than the tabloid paparazzi. The question you again ignore is relevance: how is it relevant/necessary to include a non-contextual picture of Rudd with his son, other than to show that Rudd has a son (which could easily be stated in the text) and identify what his son looks like (why would you want to do that?). We already know what Kevin Rudd looks like, so the addition of more pictures to demonstrate what Rudd looks like are clearly superfluous. This is not a photo gallery, it's an encyclopedic biography. Why are you so adamant that a picture of Rudd's son must appear on Rudd's biography? --Brendan [ contribs ] 07:23, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not. I just want the five different images of Rudd, all relevant in one way or another to the article in question. I fail to see any consensus to remove the images with full permission and no violations of privacy. Timeshift 07:31, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. You fail to see. That is the precisely the problem here. Consensus is not required for the removal of material violating privacy and lacking relevance per WP:BLP. It's not a photo gallery, it's an encyclopedic biography. What are you claiming is the unique relevance of the disputed picture? --Brendan [ contribs ] 07:37, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I fail to see any consensus for your insistence on it's removal. Consensus is required to remove an image relevant to the article with no permission issues. It does not violate privacy as he is in public and over 18, and the image is of three people of whom Rudd, the person in question in the article, knows well, at Labour Day 2007. You have absolutely no grounds to remove the image, and until you begin to get others agreeing with you, you should not be taking any grounds to consistently revert the good faith edits. Throwing around BLP doesn't mean anything either:

Neutral point of view (NPOV)

Verifiability

No original research

and a search of "photo" or "image" on the BLP page does nothing. You were mentioning relevance? Timeshift 07:39, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Please point me to the Wikipedia policy that requires consensus for removing disputed material/images as per your insistence. WP:BLP makes reference to privacy, the spirit of which I have already mentioned. Good faith is not a basis for justifying content. But do keep on handwaving, won't you. --Brendan [ contribs ] 07:45, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

You have yet to make any argument that it breaches privacy - it is out in the open and he is over 18. And it is only you who is disputing this, it is no consensus to revert the OK image whatsoever. Timeshift 07:47, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Again, there is more to privacy than whether someone is legally an adult. Where are all these other BLPs of current Aussie politicians that include random glory shots of their family members? You really are hooked on including K Rudd's son, eh? --Brendan [ contribs ] 07:51, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh come off it. Look at Andrew Fisher, my GA article, that has his wife and children, and was approved for GA with the photo included? Timeshift 07:53, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Andrew Fisher. From 1928. They are not living, that is not a Biography of a LIVING Person. Where are all these other BLPs of current Aussie politicians that include random glory shots of their living family members? --Brendan [ contribs ] 07:56, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Are such images available is the question, and if they were I would have found them and added them by now. All the living PMs have their wives as images in their articles. You are being pedantic and you know it. Timeshift 07:59, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Gee, that's good faith right there. Have a read of WP:IMAGE#Pertinence_and_encyclopedicity then please return here and justify that photo in those terms. PIctures of wives are not the same as pictures of son + miscellaneous followers. --Brendan [ contribs ] 08:04, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Explain how that relates to the image - does the image contain information about the article, in this case, Kevin Rudd? Overwhelmingly, yes. I will revert no further as i've already far gone past 3RR, this has now been listed at AN/I. Timeshift 08:06, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

That's hardly a justification. Keep reading WP:IMAGE#Pertinence_and_encyclopedicity. It mentions notability of the image content. What is uniquely notable about that Rudd&Son image, that makes it necessary to include it despite the presence of other Kevin Rudd images in the article that largely serve the same purpose (to show us what Kevin Rudd looks like)? --Brendan [ contribs ] 08:10, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

From left to right: Labor Premier of Queensland Anna Bligh, Nicholas Rudd, federal Labor leader Kevin Rudd, and Grace Grace, Labor MP for Brisbane Central, at Labour Day 2007. You tell me how that is not relevant to the matter at hand, Kevin Rudd? Timeshift 08:15, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Which "matter at hand" are you referring to? Where does the article refer to Labour Day? The photo is relevant to Kevin Rudd because he is the article subject, but not to the article to the extent of being a notable image with regards to the content besides which it appeared (or anything else in the article for that matter). And that's before we consider the perceived privacy issue regarding posting a picture of his young living (non-politican, non-public figure) son on this encyclopedia. Exactly how many pictures of Kevin Rudd do you think are necessary to show the reader what Kevin Rudd looks like? --Brendan [ contribs ] 08:25, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I was very happy with where the article had gotten to. Two from Adam Carr, two from Labour Day (one being the smiley portrait), and the fair-use one of Rudd at 17. Then you came along and decided to tear it all down despite the community having no objection to them. Well done in improving wikipedia. Timeshift 08:29, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Can I ask, firstly, how was his son identified in this image? Last time I saw this image being discussed, there seemed to be some confusion about who was who and other family images were being compared. Secondly, I think there are possible privacy issues. We do default to privacy in cases of not notable, not public people, regardless of whether they are minors or not. I'm not saying I think there are privacy issues at play here, only that there might be (I actually haven't formed an opinion either way yet). Sarah 08:32, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

We formed a 'consensus' that it was his son based on a prior image that was removed as it was fair-use from kevin07.com despite permission to use it. How valid the consensus is I don't know. But the point is, it's not there for his son, it's there for Rudd, with three people he knows. I'm glad admins are now on to this to judge the issue and image on it's merits, I would appreciate continued discussion here especially once opinions are formed. Timeshift 08:35, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. I was just looking at the history of the article and I'm rather shocked by the edit warring. Do you guys realise how many times you both reverted? I'm not going to block anyone myself but you guys will be lucky if another admin doesn't decide to block you both. Sarah 08:39, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I stopped reverting a while ago now and started Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Kevin Rudd. Timeshift 08:41, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, I don't really have a problem with the image myself as long as we're sure about the identification but I would like to see what other more image orientated admins think about it. I think it would probably be better if there was some mention of his family in the section you want to include it in so there is more relevance. Can't we say where it says he is married that he has three children and their names? Sarah 08:58, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

So in your opinion it doesn't violate BLP and is relevant to the article at hand? Excellent :-) Timeshift 09:06, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Nice try, Timeshift.:) I don't have a problem with the image myself, but I would like to hear more from other people. As things stand right now, though, no, I do not have any problems with it. WRT the rv war, if someone has a genuine objection to content, it really should be left out and brought here while it is discussed and some sort of consensus reached. Then others will support you and you won't get sucked into that kind of craziness on your own. That is how the CON policy works. As for the image's relevance to the article, I think it would be better if it were relevant to the section it is in, either by using it in a section where the text is discussing campaigning, say, as a depiction of him on the campaign trail (or whatever they were doing), or by adding more about his family. As it is, it looks a bit odd having a campaign image of him albeit with his son in a section discussing religion. Sarah 16:35, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Good enough for me. Glad to see the image doesn't violate any wikipedia policies. Tis getting late, g'nite. Timeshift 16:41, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm of the belief that there is no problems with the image. His son turned 21 in September, as is available publicly (see here for instance). He was on the Sunrise coverage of the Kakadu walk last year, as he walked it with his father. The photo is in the public domain and is published elsewhere, not just on Wikipedia. Therefore I have no problems with it being on Wikipedia. Orderinchaos 12:58, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Thre is no BLP issue, as no harm is done to anyone by including the image. There will always be the editorial question of whether it is the best picture to inlude in any part of the article, but pictures of family are hardly unusual in biographies. JPD (talk) 13:15, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad common sense is prevailing. Timeshift 13:51, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

And another issue alltogether is the fact that not only is the dispute over that image, but Brendan insists on adding the zoom from the son shot instead of this image. This version of Rudd's page is far superior and no legitimate argument can be put up to argue against it. Timeshift 14:06, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Sad mouse and I were concerned (see top of this talk topic) about including pictures of Rudd's family, who, as far as a Bio of a Living Person goes, should be generally entitled to privacy in the spirit of WP:BLP. I never claimed a breach but a divergence from the spirit of the privacy provisions of that policy, and the need to edit conservatively with due regard for the subject's (but particularly his family's) privacy (which I take to include image content). I maintain the view that this concern is valid. Timeshift claims his preferred version for the main Rudd bio pic is objectively better than the one on the Australian federal election, 2007 page, but still hasn't explained why he thinks so. If other editors think it is preferable, my argument all along has been to use the same picture on both pages (ie. the election page too). I don't understand what is objectionable about having image consistency across these articles. I would have thought that was common sense. How many pictures showing us non-specific non-notable events of "what Rudd looks like" does the article need before the article starts to resemble a flavour of what WIkipedia is not, considering the need for images to be pertinent and encyclopedic in respect of the article content it depicts. --Brendan [ contribs ] 14:55, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

See, now that's the argument you could have put forth, right at the start and without going through a marathon of reverts. That is what it comes down to. I support this version, Brendan supports this version, with the crop from the son photo used at Australian federal election, 2007. I thought that was the best way to use the photos freely available for use on wikipedia. Now is the time for others to decide which they prefer, and whichever it is, accept it. Timeshift 15:21, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

That is part of the argument I've been putting forward all along, in my comments here and Edit Summaries. I'm staggered that it has taken this long to reach that understanding (although you still sidestep the pertinence and encylopedicity question in regards to the Rudd & Son picture). If you had engaged with the substance of my comments rather than ignoring them, handwaving, and jumping on revert yourself, the marathon would not have started, and your bad faith reversion of my own talkpage would not have occurred either. --Brendan [ contribs ] 15:41, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I reverted your talk page once and did so to put my comment in to context. Whatever you want to do beyond that is up to you. As far as this image issue goes, you're making it Rudd and son, not me. It is Rudd, the person that is the subject of the article, two other Labor MPs, and his son. You're making the big deal about his son, not me, cause it's a non-issue. I didn't take the photo, and I don't choose who is in the rare ones that are available for use on the internet. As i've said above, the choice is now with wikipedians, noting that three admins have already stated that the image has no issues residing in the article (interpreting that as support for a keep is up to interpretation). Timeshift 15:51, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I'll take no objections as further indication that this is a non-issue. Assuming there are no objections, I will do as suggested and seperate family and religion sections. Unless serious discussion is had here and the majority don't want it, I expect that once I add it later on tonight when I have the time that the courtesy will be given not to continue the revert war. The image has no issues per above. Timeshift 03:24, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Talk about jumping the gun. Please read Sarah's response to you, per WP:CON, above? Consensus should be sought before re-inserting disputed material. Consensus has not been achieved. I maintain my disagreement with the inclusion of that image, and you've put forward no valid argument yet that would lead me to abide by its inclusion, regardless of who is ambivalent about it. The image ought to serve a more notable purpose to the article -- other than just being yet another picture of Kevin Rudd -- in order to be pertinent and encyclopedic and thus warrant inclusion. In that respect, like myself, both Sarah and JPD pondered the distinct contextual relevance/suitability of that image. In its current form and placement, it lacks these things in my view, and moreover, now makes the article look messy. --Brendan [ contribs ] 18:56, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

a) Point me to the wiki page which says wives can but adult age sons can't appear in someone's photo, let alone with the Labor Premier from Rudd's home state and another MP. b) Note how my posts use logic rather than throwing WP:PAGES around with little to no relevance. c) Your posts continue to make no sense or rational argument for the merits of reverting except for your own invalid perception. "It doesn't look right to me" especially when you aren't getting consensus on your part for your reverts, is quite frankly, pathetic, arrogant and desperate of you. You continue to have fun removing content from wikipedia that is noted by admins to be legit content. I'm not going to bother anymore. Timeshift 13:50, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Timeshift, as Sarah advised you, the onus of demonstrating consensus for disputed material is on the includer (in this instance, you). You criticise me and attack my so-called "invalid perception" but notice how no-one is rushing to defend your position or reversions and no-one, apart from you, is disagreeing with my position or removal of that material. I have not "thrown" WP:PAGES around, I have cited Wikipedia policies, guidelines and commentary that I believed apropros. If you invalidly perceive that to make "no sense or rational argument", then that's your comprehension and/or attitude problem. Your trolling on my talkpage, your snide attacks on my rationality, and your pointy broadcast across this and other pages that I removed comments from my own talkpage (as if I had somehow committed a wikicrime) do you no credit. Thanks for your input. --Brendan [ contribs ] 04:21, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

And to top it off, you can't comprehend that three admins sided with me that the image did not violate any WP:PAGES. And I already demonstrated the validity, and admins agreed that it was valid, such as Sarah's comments, and she also made further suggestions as to the placement of said image. Read her comments :-) At least now all your weird and unexplainable actions now make sense. Just because you invalidly, and simply, don't like it, no reason to remove it. Nobody complaining but you, and everyone else has accepted by rationale. You're just an arse. Timeshift 04:39, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Please be civil, Timeshift. Outright denigration of editors with whom you disagree obstructs consensus, diminishes your editorial character, is unreasonable, and does not improve Wikipedia one jot. Misrepresenting and polarising the situation won't achieve much either. The 3 admins did not "side with you" nor give a blanket endorsement of the image as irrefutably "valid". That is an extrapolation by you. They respectively expressed a general absence of concern about the suitability of the picture in specific regard to Rudd's son's privacy. Even so, that was only one of a number of points raised in relation to the appropriateness, notability and necessity of that picture. On all of those points, my view remains unchanged. Contrary to your untrue claim that there is "nobody complaining but [me]", Sad mouse objected to the Rudd&Son picture on privacy grounds and, later, Lester supported its removal on pertinence grounds. Moreover, two of the admins made comments, along the lines of WP:IMAGE#Pertinence and encyclopedicity, that "There will always be the editorial question of whether it is the best picture to include in any part of the article" (JPD) and "As for the image's relevance to the article, I think it would be better if it were relevant to the section it is in" (Sarah). The picture content is not distinctly relevant to any particular part of the article (as the article currently stands); on its own, the picture told the reader nothing new of note about Kevin Rudd or any specific notable event in his past, and did not highlight anything particularly relevant in the article content other than the minor fact that he has a son. --Brendan [ contribs ] 12:07, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I invite anyone to read the admin comments and decide which side they thought was more correct. Timeshift 23:13, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Article locked due to mass edit-warring

Everyone involved in the edit war should use this time to work something out. It would be a shame for the edit war to resume again as soon as the article gets unlocked again.--Lester 12:42, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Family section

I'm going to ask again, why don't we have a family section? Other world leaders like Bush, Blair, etc. all have a similar thing. Rudd's children have been mentioned and revealed by name in the general media; Rudd has done it himself and I believe that his eldest son has sometimes been with him in some of his campaigning - so I don't think there are any real privacy issues at stake in writing a little about them, or adding a photo of him with one of his children- we're not already adding information which isn't already in the public domain. There isn't anything that would be libelous or slanderous of his family that wouldn't be appropriate to add that I could find, although this article on his family's shares isn't all that relevant for a biographical article. On the other hand, this article might be relevant for something that happened last year in terms of his family (his daughter's marriage). Maybe one of the biographies of him that mentions a little about his family might be good to get some expansion on this. And we can include a little about his wife and her business, with a "more info" link to Therese Rein's article. What do others think? JRG 13:13, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree, JRG. I think if we can find some decent sources, it would be good to expand on that area. It seems reasonable to do so given that he presents a very family-orientated image. Sarah 16:39, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree that a moderate amount of family information should be included, consistent with the amount of family information, where available and reasonable, described in the BLPs of other Australian politicians. I don't think a separate Family section is needed. We shouldn't be using Kev's BLP to track, in great detail, the lives of his family members (unless they become independantly notable, in which case they get their own article for that, like Therese Rein already has). The John Howard BLP has his family info mostly incorporated into the Early Life section, so I have tried to match that on Kev's BLP, but renamed the section to "Early life and family". Thoughts? --Brendan [ contribs ] 19:30, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I think there's enough information for a separate section as I have already tried to show above - Rudd's family is a relevant part of his life and more than the current sentence on them is needed. If one were cynical, one might think you were trying to merge the sections here to avoid the addition of the other photo, which you've been trying so hard to keep off this page - I'm not saying you are, but you could be very suspicious that that was the case. That's not appropriate, so I think we should consider how we write this section properly. JRG 05:27, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

JRG, if "one" were not saying that, then why did "one" effectively say it anyway? I agree that your suspicion is "not appropriate". <yoda> Cynicism, the shadow of bad faith that is </yoda>. If you think there is enough information on Rudd's family to warrant its own section, then be bold and introduce it. There is no hidden motive here on my part. I have stated my position frankly, thoroughly and honestly. --Brendan [ contribs ] 14:56, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Whitewash?

Much as I'm loathe to agree with Andrew Bolt, this article really looks like a whitewash to me. The only criticism I can see is from Tony Abbott over RU486. How about some of the other criticisms: Dr. Death,[1] glass jaw,[2] strip club, questionable decisions to avoid wedge politics,[3] wife's (alleged) business conduct[4]? Peter Ballard 05:19, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Go for it... keeping in mind that the article has to comply with wikipedia policies not Bolt's righteous fantasy world. I don't think avoiding wedge politics could be considered questionable though considering how badly the ALP has been screwed by wedge politics in previous elections. I would also hesitate about the strip club/glass jaw stuff for notability reasons and if business conduct stuff is mentioned Rudd's wife has her own article. Cheers, WikiTownsvillian 06:43, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

^^^ I agree with every word of this. For the record, this page has been directly linked here, written 31 October (see here for revision). I can only assume this was what PB was referring to? Timeshift 08:55, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm planning to have a more thorough look at this page and what else could be gainfully added to it after I'm finished with uni for the year. That should be early November, by which point the election should be called and there'll be more traffic here anyway. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 09:05, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Here's someone with a vested interest doing some real whitewashing. Timeshift 01:04, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I ask people not to delete other's comments from this community talk page. Thank you --Lester 02:40, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

An accusation of "whitewash" is quite common on Wikipedia. It's better to agree or disagree by discussion on this page, rather than deletion or reverting. As John Howard and Kevin Rudd are opposing politicians going into an election, they are in many ways part of the same subject matter.--Lester 03:03, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Iraq / Industrial Relations

The article currently says Rudd would launch a staged withdrawal of Australia's combat troops from Iraq. Technically correct, but my understanding is that most of the Australian troops in Iraq are not combat troops. So the Rudd troop withdrawal would only result in one third of the Australian troops in Iraq coming home. The other two thirds would stay there. Shouldn't we say this?

The article also currently states that Rudd has consistently opposed Howard's Workchoice policy. My understanding is that Rudd would leave some aspects of Workchoice in place. --Lester 13:05, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure you're right about the troops in Iraq. There was something in the Australian within the last month (month-and-a-half?) which broke the policy down very well, and my feeling is that it was based on the idea that most of our contingent there is not combat troops. As far as WorkChoices go, I'm not sure about that. He certainly is making a fair bit of noise about it during the campaign to date, but I can't recall exactly where he stands on the issue. If nothing else, it should come up at the debate with Howard, whenever that will be. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 20:32, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

See bottom of WorkChoices for what Rudd Labor stands for on IR. Timeshift 20:54, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

This article says "Rudd has consistently opposed the Government's controversial WorkChoices industrial legislation.". But the reference doesn't say that. It seems to indicate unease from some union groups that Rudd won't "tear up" everything in Workchoices. As the Workchoices article pointed out by 'Timeshift' indicates, Rudd will ditch some parts of Workchoices, but there are numerous other parts of Workchoices that Rudd supports and wants to keep. --Lester 11:33, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't have the time right now to make the rewrite, but I'd support one to bring this article in line with the article on WorkChoices itself, since the claims there are cited to (unless I'm misreading it) the ALP's official site, which probably trumps a fair bit else. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 12:05, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Political views: Environment?

The 'Political views' section should include an 'Environment' category. Environment is one of the issues people are most concerned about. Let's see what Rudd's views and policies are on this important issue. --Lester 14:58, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Rudd doesn't have policies. The party does. Wrong article. Rebecca 06:37, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, he's enunciated views as if they are his own. Can we separate what Rudd has said he will do when in government, to what he believes himself? Do you think the two might be different? What about the other sections such as Industrial Relations? Is that the views of Rudd, or is that party policy (and different to his views)? Other political leaders, both in Australia and overseas have their stated political aims in their Wikipedia biographies. Rudd has said that Kyoto should be signed. Is that his view? --Lester 07:12, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree, Lester. If the info is relevant to Rudd and evidently his views, then don't ask, be bold and add that section/content. For example, this article from today makes Rudd's current views, especially on climate change and sustainable energy, very clear. --Brendan [ contribs ] 13:56, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that article, Brendan. I will add it to the article shortly.--Lester 02:44, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Foreign Policy: road map for peace

The article currently states that Rudd's support of the Road Map For Peace is a step towards mending relations following the comments of several backbenchers. I was curious to find out who these backbenchers were. Googling on the subject, I found Isreal comments from Labor MP Tanya Plibersek, and Labor MP Julia Irwin initiated a parliamentary debate on the subject. I will add these specific names to the article, as it allows readers to pursue more detail. --Lester 21:12, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

External links: Kyle Sandilands interview

The ABC has just put online a video interview between Kevin Rudd and Kyle Sandilands on the subject of same-sex marriage. I thought it was interesting to see and hear Rudd speak his views on the issue, so I placed it in the External Links. This Sandilands interview generated a lot of news coverage and commentary. If you Google, there's a plethora of articles published about it.--Lester 01:19, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Earwax

There seems to be a "don't mention the earwax" attitude hanging over this page. As Mr Rudd's first real incursion into the mass consciousness of the English speaking world at large, doesn't the meal in question deserve a mention?

Jaguarjaguar 17:06, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Let me just chew your ear on that for a moment. It's being reported around the world, usually with a link to the YouTube video, and this quote from Canada is typical: "Footage of Australian opposition Labor Party leader Kevin Rudd eating his own earwax is causing a stir in online and in political circles Down Under."[5].

Unless this assumes major personal status and it turns out that he has a medical condition requiring him to eat his own earwax, or there is footage of him recycling his own faeces or something, then we should treat it as we treated the strip club incident. i.e. not at all. It's just not important to his life. He's not going to lose (or win) the election over it. It's like the videos of candidates stumbling off a podium or forgetting the name of the local candidate. BFD.

Having said that, it looks like this story has legs as regards the campaign and as the number of hits on YouTube is bigger than the number of Rudd's Queensland constituents (but smaller than the Howard/Rudd debate audience), it might be included in the election article. --Pete 00:35, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I find that beyond hilarious considering the number of things you fight to keep out of the Howard article. And moving it to the election page, how does him in parliament in 1998 scratching his ear and biting his nail qualify as relevant to the election? Middle of the road my bum. Timeshift 01:25, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

This is nonsense. It barely made the evening news on one particular day. Talk about bias. Rebecca 01:31, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Nonsense it may be, but when Washington Post columnists talk about it, not to mention that the video has more hits than anything else connected with Howard or Rudd, it's noteworthy nonsense, and we shouldn't refrain from talking about it. I repeat that I don't think we need include it here in this biographical article, but if it gets more attention in the election campaign, then it should be included in that article. As for whether he was eating his own earwax or not, that's the way it's being reported, and the opinions of individual editors have no place in WP. --Pete 03:25, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

When has Australian media covered this story in any sort of detail or attention? Timeshift 03:31, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Yesterday, when I read about it in the Telegraph. I don't normally read the WAshington Post, you know. As for your scratch ear and bite nail theory, well I dunno. Look at the clip. He looks around for watchers, digs around in his ear until he plainly catches something, the hand goes instantly to his mouth and he chews. It's all there on the video. --Pete 03:39, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I didn't see it that way, you obviously do. Funny though how if it was Howard, you'd completely disregard it as irrelevant/POV. One Aus article does not turn it in to important or noteworthy news. Timeshift —Preceding comment was added at 03:58, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

You should read my comments again, more carefully this time. I haven't supported its inclusion in any article. However, I don't think you should have attempted to censor all discussion on the subject. As for whether he eats it, once again, your views and mine are irrelevant, but looking at the news reports (including Jay Leno showing the footage), it's all eaters and no scratchers. And what made you think that there was just the one article I mentioned? I'm kind of wondering why you're trying to downplay and suppress this, even on a discussion page! --Pete 23:10, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Is anyone else advocating the inclusion of this? I am downplaying it and suppressing it, because it is NOT NOTEWORTHY! And admins agree with me. Sorry Pete, you lose. Timeshift 23:16, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Why are you trying to censor any discussion? For a fourth time, I'm not advocating inclusion in the article. --Pete 23:20, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Because of the way it was written, it was obvious it was a troll. Now that sensible discussion is being had, do you see me reverting this topic, or adding to the discussion on this topic? Go away troll. Timeshift 23:24, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Taken from the Wiki page on Internet trolls:

The term troll is highly subjective. Some readers may characterize a post as trolling, while others may regard the same post as a legitimate contribution to the discussion, even if controversial. The term is often used to discredit an opposing position, or its proponent, by argument fallacy ad hominem.

Nota bene... Jaguarjaguar 10:30, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Err, you seem to have repeatedly added to the discussion on this topic. Perhaps your password has been compromised? --Pete 23:26, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

do you see me reverting this topic, or adding to the discussion on this topic? the latter. Timeshift 23:39, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Ah. Thanks. I thought you'd flipped your sanity bit there. Well, it looks like we're all pretty much of one mind, apart from whether we think he was eating his earwax or just scratching his chin to distract viewers while he adjusted his shorts. Can we move on now? It's NaNoWriMo time and I've got better things to do. --Pete 23:46, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

You're the one who made a big song and dance of this, this morning, and now you claim you've got better things to do... rofl. Timeshift 23:50, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Better, certainly. More entertaining? No. --Pete 00:38, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't know about evening news, but I (as an ignorant pom, admittedly) hadn't heard of Mr Rudd until it. It seems to me peculiar to mention debacles like William Hague and the baseball cap but to leave this alone. I suppose it's fair in that the electoral impact has yet to be proven, but I wouldn't be surprised if it had more major image effects than you're anticipating. I wouldn't gladly vote for the star of that video.

I hadn't heard about any strip club incident, by the way, but don't see why it hasn't been included, especially with the candidate taking such a trenchant, traditional family line on gay marriage, apparently. Hope this makes some sense

Jaguarjaguar 02:23, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

If I were a cynical person, i'd be suspicious of your user, talk, and edit histories Jaguar. Timeshift 02:57, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Seems to me analogous to the (in)famous Howard/Costello headjob photo. Funny, and reproduced all over the internet, but it's all due to a lucky camara angle. No one mentions it in serious political circle so neither should we. However if every comedian refers to Rudd the earwax eater (just like they all refer to Rudd and the strip club), then I'd change my mind. In short, it's all about how much coverage it gets. Currently, I'm inclined to say "not much". Peter Ballard 04:48, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Rudd waxing lyrical. Timeshift 06:09, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Patently not notable. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:10, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

What is it? Slander candidates with irrelevant nonsense week? Non notable. Michael ^talk 07:17, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

It would seem to be wouldn't it? The 'born to rule' crowd continue attacks on his character right from his takeover of the party show that loud and clear that they aren't interested in who has better policies. Not one credible wikipedian has argued that this is noteable for inclusion anywhere in wikipedia. Timeshift 23:18, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Well I watched SBS last night and they spent 5 minutes =300 seconds talking about the election. 10 seconds on teh earwax. About 1/30 th of the day was about earwax. There are 42 days in the campaign. So excluding the debate and the actual election, this is 1/1260 of the campaign. NN. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 23:27, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

It's a very minor story. The strip club thing got a lot more coverage and we didn't include that. However, I'm fascinated by Timeshift's sensitivity on this issue. Timeshift, you aren't really Kevin Rudd editing WP under a pseudonym? --Pete 23:34, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Troll. See above. I'm contributing to, not removing, the discussion. Timeshift 23:39, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

You're being offensive and aggressive, Timeshift, as has been your tone for the majority of this talk page, and you might do well to walk away from the article for some time to cool off, as you seem to have a personal attachment to it, rather than to the facts within. The earwax matter has been covered by the Washington Post, the London Daily Telegraph, news.com.au, Sydney Morning Herald, it featured airtime in the United States on Jay Leno's show and a number of news and morning programs in Australia, various copies of it have acquired over 500,000 views on YouTube, and whether or not it will affect the election is a matter of your personal opinion, not one of fact. That you can argue aggressively for the inclusion of a photo of his son, despite clear lack of consensus for inclusion, yet you arbitrarily declare an event that is possible to have a tangible impact on his image during the election campaign (particularly if comments available on YouTube pages are any indication) and has been covered by numerous reputable sources in both print and television, as minor and not worthy of inclusion is beyond my ability to understand. This video certainly seems notable enough to be mentioned if not here, then on the election page. 210.80.189.18 05:50, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh how cute. All I need say is, refer to what the admins are saying, in that it is non-noteable. Then refer to what the admins are saying about the photo of Rudd and son. Read it, and weep. I know it hurts, but them's the facts ;-) Timeshift 11:17, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Elegantly put. Indeed, if the Earwax thing goes into Kevin Rudd's article, the Howard-Costello headjob picture - of equal or at least similar notability - has the right to go in John Howard's article, as well as a whole pile of other allegations, and I'm sure none of us wants that. DEVS EX MACINA _pray 13:00, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I think the anon also shot himself in the foot with yet you arbitrarily declare an event that is possible to have a tangible impact on his image... as minor and not worthy of inclusion is beyond my ability to understand. Timeshift 14:00, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Your conduct and choice of words suggests that legitimate debate is the last thing you're inclined to engage in, and that you'd rather take an 'I'm right and the subtext I misread into admin posts proves it' approach. I read the admin comments, and they take (as they should) a neutral approach to the situation, they do not support your position. That's something you misread into it. In fact, they even suggested that the consensus process take its due course - a system that you bypassed because you are convinced you're right, despite quite a few people disagreeing with you. In that sense, there's no point in debating this matter with you. You're clearly not open to discussion and suggestion and in that context, dialogue is meaningless. 210.80.189.18 00:22, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, care to show me where any of the admins took a view that it is noteable and should be on wikipedia? Adding it clearly breaches wikipedia rules. I'm sorry if you can't understand that (not really). Go back to planning leadership tensions in the future federal opposition Liberal Party. Costello and Turnbull are looking ripe. Timeshift 00:27, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I think your comment here summarises your bias and intentions with the article quite clearly. Thanks for proving my point. 210.80.189.18 08:07, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

More interesting than the actual wax, is the process of how the video was uncovered, and distributed right in the middle of an election campaign. Who had the money and resources to trawl through 6 years of parliamentary footage to find some vision of Rudd looking silly? Which media organisation was the first to run with the story? (ie, who was it leaked to?) Like the strip club incident, it's the orchestrated campaign that's the interesting bit.--Lester 21:33, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

The Liberals were responsible for it if this article is anything to go by (they seem to have removed it now but see this... The video was circulated by Liberal staffers in recent weeks). And of course they would keep this until the campaign as to provide maximum denigration of the opposing party's leader, rather than their policies, as has been the Liberal trademark all year. Timeshift 22:41, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Looking at the video clip's upload information, it was first uploaded on 26 April 2007. I'm surprised that those voters who have declared an intention to vote for Kevin Rudd over the past year are seen by anyone as such shallow thinkers that their votes would be swayed by something like this, which is about the only way that it would have any impact on the 2004 result. Sure, it's not a good look for Kevin, but seriously guys, just what nitwit would base their electoral decision on whether he eats his own earwax or not? --Pete 01:29, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

If you were familiar with wikipedia rules, you'd realise that's not the issue. Timeshift 01:31, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Instead of bantering that statement around, why not quote the rule you're referring to for everyone's edification? I'd rather not respond to it while you hide behind vague assertions. If a rule applies to this, I'm genuinely interested to see it. 210.80.189.18 08:09, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Refer to the admins comments about non-noteability. The rules are somewhere. But I forgive you for your lack of knowledge anonymous IP. Timeshift 08:16, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

A shame I can't say the same for your arrogance. 210.80.189.18 05:58, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

• I agree with non-inclusion of the earwax snack. It's tabloid and just not notable for an encyclopedia. But Timeshift, it's also a fair comment that you do seem to be reacting in a highly sensitive way to this and other edits/issues on this article lately. I'm mean it in good faith when I say this approach can fuel the fire rather than achieve peaceable consensus. I know this because it has been a sometime bad habit of mine too. Often it's not what someone says but how they say it. All of us should keep that in mind and let discussions flow rather than become rapid-fire slanging matches that end up in contempt and mistrust, all over smalls things. For my part, I have email enabled on here, so when things seem to be turning into a one-on-one debate, I'm always happy for a user who disagrees with me to take it to email, thrash out issues without feeling the need to play to an audience, and then we return to the article talkpage with summaries of our respective views, to let the community weigh in. This would build trust between editors (by communicating more directly), avoid lengthy "intellectual pissing contests" on article/user talkpages, and enable such pages to maintain a stronger resemblance of good faith discussion. Food for thought. --Brendan [ contribs ] 05:55, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Latest revert

Per Rebecca, it is completely related to the article and is legitimate. What is with your strange agenda lately Skyring? You aren't usually this blatently bias. Timeshift 01:59, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

That's now two admins. Stop your pointless reverting of what you know to be legitimate. Timeshift 02:06, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

It's Lester's wording that's the problem. As ever. My point is that Rudd isn't the PM. He has no power to sign any national commitments. I don't mind if our article gives space to Rudd's views on various things, but we shouldn't mislead our readers into thinking he's more than he really is. Should he win the election, then rewrite the article, but we should wait until then. --Pete 02:11, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Then reword it rather than remove it. A novel idea, I do realise. Timeshift 02:15, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it currrently says pledged. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:37, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Also, I removed that comment "in an attempt to", because it is POV to portray it as fact that his motivation is votes. We don't know this. Nobody can know this. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:37, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Skyring, you can't take a journalist's opinionated descriptive phrasing, and then pass it off without a source as a neutral introduction. If it isn't cited as an opinion of that particular journalist, it's both POV and plagiarism. Rebecca 03:41, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

It's what the source article starts out with. Should we be using opinion pieces as sources? I think it's important to present this in context as part of the campaign, rather than any "headland" statement on environment. I'm not sure why a biographical article should focus heavily on current campaign issues, anyway. As for plagiarism, where, precisely? --Pete 03:45, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with having opinions and point of view in articles, as long as they are neutrally presented as opinion and point of view, and not presented as fact. The quote from the source that was added by Skyring was presented - unintentionally I accept - as fact. (Of course, such opinion or POV also needs to be notable, relevant and well-cited). Merbabu 03:59, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Error

"unfair dismissal laws applying to businesses with more than 10 employees rather than the current 101" when the link states:

"small businesses with fewer then 15 employees will not face an unfair dismissal claim from any employee who has been employed for less than a year."

The two are very different. Coincidence or just another example of the bias in the entry? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.101.222.105 (talk) 02:57, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Fixed. You could have done this yourself you know. It is an encyclopedia that anybody, even IPs, can edit if correct, which in your case you are. Timeshift 14:55, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

The new entry is better. I usually edit where I see inaccuracies, however I can't on this page. Maybe I have to register or something. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.101.222.105 (talk) 03:46, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Ah, indeed. The page is protected from anonymous IP editing due to vandalism. If you're a regular contributor, why don't you register? Timeshift 03:58, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Industrial Relations

As stated in a previous discussion, I will rework the Industrial Relations section. Objectives are:

• Bring it up to date, as the ALP released details of its policy at the end of August 2007.
• Remove pre-Aug 2007 references.
• Remove ALP references to be replaced by newspaper references (for longevity and objectivity)
• Change the black & white to shades of grey. Previously it said he opposed WorkChoices, when in fact it is a more complex situation, with some aspects being opposed, and some aspects being retained. --Lester 05:15, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I removed the ALP citations. I usually try to find a newspaper reference for content, if possible. They provide a time slice of how the policy was at that time. I removed the references from the Labor party website, as that website keeps changing. I'm also wary that a party website will put its spin on things. The Ross Gittins article (Sept. 2007) provides a pretty good summary of the differences between the 2 main parties on industrial relations. Thanks, Lester 19:42, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

There are serious errors in the section on Rudd' position on IR, and I cannot correct them as this page is locked. Citing: [6], the phrase "Rudd has opposed some aspects of the Howard government's WorkChoices industrial relations legislation, but indicated plans to retain significant elements of it during his election campaign" is incorrect as he clearly details his plan to abolish the package entirely. --HoveroundED (talk) 15:49, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Party monitoring

Just a question, do people in the political parties directly monitor this page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.209.53.87 (talk) 14:35, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Timeshift 14:38, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Monitor & edit. Those from conservative parties are usually more obvious with their edits.--Lester 19:33, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Rove

Noteworthy? Lol.

His appearance on the show? I wouldn't say so, unless something important happened in the first minute or so which I didn't see. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 22:34, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Well not specifically, but in general there have been some comments about Rudd using mass communication techniques targeted at youth - eg jokes on FM radio and Rove. That might be worth one sentence about general election technique. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 00:29, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair point. I'd taken the comment as suggesting that a section called "Appearance on Rove Live, November 18 2007" might be worthwhile. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 00:56, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Well that first coment was not by me. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 23:14, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I didn't say it was. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 23:43, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

strip club

how come theres no mention of kevin been found in a strip club in new york i think someones been editing this to make him sound good. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.82.121.38 (talk) 11:13, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

It did more good than bad for Rudd so hiding it would not make sense. As for it not being there, the community decided it was not noteworthy to a biography on an encyclopedia. Timeshift (talk) 11:28, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I thought that since then I'd convinced enough people that a brief mention was appropriate. In any case, I'm in no rush. I'm under no delusions that editing WP one way or another will influence the election outcome. Peter Ballard (talk) 23:00, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Bob Brown went to a strip club... so should we add it to his wiki page too? Timeshift (talk) 22:40, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Hehehe, Timeshift, that video was very funny!
If we include the strip club info in this article, we should also include on the Family First article those members who indulged in home-made porn production.--Lester 23:06, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Message repeats for the umpteenth time: it's all about media coverage. Like Mark Latham and the taxi driver, Alexander Downer and the high heels, and Malcolm Fraser and his trousers, it's a highly publicised off-the-wall event in his life that is constantly used by satirists. The Latham, Downer and Fraser pages all mention their respective "events" (and rightly so), so for consistency Rudd's should too. As for the FF member - to you mean Andrew Quah? - that's a party member, not an MP. Peter Ballard (talk) 23:15, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I still don't see how a strip club compares. There's strip clubs in Hindley St Peter. A lot of men enter those premises, especially on weekends. How many incidents occur each night of this? Hundreds? Thousands? Now, is there this many taxi drivers being assaulted? As for the high heels, where is it mentioned? For Malcolm Fraser, he was an ex-PM. Debate it on his page. I take each issue on its merits, and as far as this goes, nn. Timeshift (talk) 23:21, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh come now, you really don't think there's been significant media coverage of Kevin's strip club visit? Peter Ballard (talk) 23:24, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Though we use the media to cite, we still have wikipedia guidelines on things such as noteability. We don't go by significant media coverage, as we all know how shallow and superficial the media can be. As far as visiting a strip club goes, refer to my rationale above. If it were noteable, why is it consistently being stated as non-noteable by users on here? I happen to think consensus usually gets it right on wikipedia. Timeshift (talk) 23:35, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Pulp mill, forest policy

I added the information that Rudd is supportive of the Tasmanian pulp mill, and against reserving more old growth forests from development. Some editors may consider it controversial to mention this, but we can't escape from the fact that this is what Rudd has said, this his is policy, like it or not, it should be mentioned. The information is referenced from the Sydney Morning Herald.--Lester 20:29, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Industrial Relations

"and the restoration of unfair dismissal laws for companies with less than 100 employees but more than 15 employees"

The dishonesty continues, I can't help but think this is orchestrated. This has been repeatedly corrected yet continues to return despite the referenced link to. Labor's policy is to restore unfair dismissal laws all employees, there is no exemption for employers less than 15. Employers with < 15 employees will have the probation period extended from 6 to 12 months. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.101.222.105 (talk) 04:14, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

If it is incorrect that Labor will restore unfair dismissal laws for companies with less than 100 employees, then that is only because the newspapers are saying that. Are you saying the papers are wrong? The newspapers don't say "all employees". The references were recent. Where is your alternate source?--Lester 09:58, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

This link is to the ALP's official policy, Forward with Fairness, which says what the unregistered user has claimed - for those having between 15 and 100 employees, there is a 6 month period where unfair dismissal laws don't apply; for those with less than 15 employees there is a 12 month period. JRG (talk) 22:23, 22 November 2007 (UTC)