Talk:Kevin Rudd/Archive 3

IR section

"the restoration of unfair dismissal laws for companies with 15-100 employees"

Suggested change

"the restoration of unfair dismissal laws for companies with under 100 employees (probation extensions of 12 months for companies with less than 15 employees)"

Labor policy is, shown by the link in the article, to restore unfair dismissal laws for all employees. I don't seem to be able to edit the page (even after getting an account). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Richardflude (talk • contribs) 04:45, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I made the change, seems you have to wait a few days before you're allowed to edit —Preceding unsigned comment added by Richardflude (talk • contribs) 02:46, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Family section

Kudos to JRG. Timeshift 06:05, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Besides the earlier discussion (now archived) where I suggested a separate family section and was met with approval for it by several editors, I think there should be two separate sections for this. The information about Rudd's early life especially could be significantly expanded on, and I believe if we look hard enough (or wait till there's the inevitable unofficial biography) we'll find more information on Rudd's family. Let's encourage people to add more to this, not try and condense everything to as few sections as possible. JRG 10:20, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I should note there are no privacy issues as he's already been on TV a few times. Timeshift 15:35, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm always in favour of expansion of articles, rather than condensing them. Rudd will inevitably have a longer article than any previous prime minister, as he begins his term in the age of the internet where articles about everything he does will be easily accessible. Possibly separate articles for Rudd's personal doings and The Rudd Government would be useful in anticipation of this expansion. Lester 21:50, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

One reference I must remember to hunt up was an article in the Australian shortly before the election, where Rudd's uncle and cousin were saying they wouldn't vote Labor (largely over the dam plans from the Qld government, but there was the implication that they were more of a Nat-Lib bent anyway). Could add some interesting "flavour" to the article. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 22:17, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with the asserted necessity for a separate Family section. The career details of Rudd's children or their partners have little relevance to his BLP as a notable public figure, nor is their inclusion consistent with the style of other Aussie political BLPs. Therese Rein has her own BLP, so there is no need to expand upon who she is and what she does in the Rudd BLP, when all of her details are a mouse-click away. There is no need to create a separate section that clogs the flow of the article and is unlikely to grow beyond the very basic pertinent facts of who Rudd is married to, how they met, and who their children are. Placing a picture of Anna Bligh and another QLD pollie aside Kevin&Son in a section titled Family is contextually awkward. --Brendan [ contribs ] 04:17, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

The archived earlier discussion is here. It was a fairly quiet discussion. My view now remains as it was then. --Brendan [ contribs ] 04:41, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

It may not be consistent with other political biographies, but it is not consistent with other articles for world leaders. A person's family is a VERY relevant part of their life - they are not just about their Prime Ministership. If you disagree with the photo, then make a new one from a zoom of the original photo with just Rudd and his son. Don't change the article just because of that. JRG 08:05, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

This is the second time you've essentially mischaracterised my position on this issue. That will not achieve consensus. Please read the arguments that I actually make and please seek consensus on the talkpage for disputed changes. At no point did I claim that family is not a relevant part of Rudd's life. The issue here is how much information should be included and in what manner it should be presented. Apropos this, I repeat, from the archived earlier discussion, my comments that, at the time, were entirely uncontroversial and largely unremarked upon (and, for the most time since, Rudd's family information has sat in the "Early life and family" section without substantive objection, similiar to the inclusion of such information in BLPs for other Aussie politicians): 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". --Brendan [ contribs ] 11:03, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

The above does not matter. I suggested that the early life and family section be expanded so as to add more information on family and his early life so as to improve the article. This was agreed upon and met with positive and favourable comment, except by yourself, Brendan. Other editors, among them Timeshift, JPD and Sarah, and now I think also the persons above in addition (again other than yourself), agree with me that a separate family section is warranted. You are on your own here. Both sections can and should be expanded, so let us do that - and stop trying to stifle this article's development. I am getting mighty sick of this page being reverted every time I try to change it back. Please stop doing so and accept that other users do not support your view. JRG 11:55, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Someone please back me up here... JRG 12:10, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

JRG, let others speak for themselves. Consensus is disputed. Making demands, wild accusations ("tantamount to vandalism"? get a sense of perspective bud), sweeping claims, and attacking my difference of view will only ensure that absence of consensus continues. --Brendan [ contribs ] 12:10, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Simply reverting my changes without even bothering to comment is just rude and is definitely disruptive editing, if it is not vandalism. I asked you to stop and you just keep going. JRG 12:15, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

JRG, I have commented heavily and substantively. You've largely ignored what I've said, other than to impute "unreasonable" motives about my views and tell me that what I say "does not matter". That's rude. --Brendan [ contribs ] 12:24, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I made comments in reply to yours explaining my revert, yet you simply reverted my edits that I made without replying to them. I explained why I thought your views do not matter - so I ask that you stop misinterpreting me - read everything I say and not just taking a sentence out of context. JRG 11:49, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Time for formal consensus it would appear. Timeshift 13:23, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Read WP:CON and WP:POLL. A poll is not consensus, polling discourages consensus. Regardless of your poll, in which I decline to participate, I maintain my aforementioned views. --Brendan [ contribs ] 23:09, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I know you panic at polls cause they always rule against you, but seeing as we can't form consensus any other way, i'll be enforcing whatever the popular vote decides here. Kthx. Timeshift (talk) 23:41, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Do you go out of your way to be hysterical? Good for you, laddie. You obviously have a chip on your shoulder. So long as you do that, consensus will continue to prove elusive. --Brendan [ contribs ] 23:53, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I take extreme exception to your inability to recognise when consensus has been achieved in the past, especially when you are the only one to argue your viewpoint. Timeshift (talk) 23:59, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

You have a misconception of consensus. Please read WP:CON, particularly the section Consensus in practice ("Wikipedia is not a majoritarian democracy"). You will experience angst and difficultly around here if you keep intellectually assaulting the rationality of others according to your misconception. --Brendan [ contribs ] 00:05, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, we've resorted to polls as a last resort. Timeshift (talk) 00:10, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad you now implicitly acknowledge it is not my "inability to recognise when consensus" but that "we can't [seem to] form consensus" for a separate Family section. Excellent. It's great that you're finally starting to understand consensus. When you're ready to work on achieving it, let me know. --Brendan [ contribs ] 00:20, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Been there, done that, poll time. Timeshift (talk) 00:28, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I think information on children should be kept to a bare minimum: to respect their privacy, because it can change, and because it's not really our business. i.e. restrict to names, birth years, and spouses. As for photos: we should just have a couple of good photos of Rudd. If one of those photos happens to include family members, then so be it. But we shouldn't insist on keeping a photo because it contains family members, if there are better Rudd photos available. So I'm in basic agreement with Brendan. To those who object: why must his children's occupations and photos be in the article? (I've given 3 reasons why not above). Peter Ballard (talk) 01:21, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

The only child is their youngest, and there is no photo of him - apart from the fact he along with the rest of the family was with Rudd when he claimed victory. But that aside, I agree that anything more than a name of a minor is probably going too far. The photo is of three well known people and Rudd's son. I didn't upload it FOR Rudd's son. I uploaded it for the three and a half well-known people. Timeshift (talk) 01:32, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I guess the danger of a Family section is for it to be filled with trivia about Rudd's kids. I'm not in favour of adding any more information about Rudd's kids, unless they get themselves involved in a big news story over some incident. His daughter's marriage date seems trivial to me. His wife & brother were asked to sell their businesses to help Rudd's election chances, which may or may not be notable. There currently doesn't seem to be much information to fill a Family section. Lester 00:53, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

RfC : Separate "Family" section versus "Early life"

Do you prefer to have a separate "Family" section or include the family information in "Early life"

User:	I prefer the family version.	I prefer the non-family version.
Timeshift	Y
JRG	Y
Total people supporting:	2	0

Do you prefer to include the image of Rudd and his son in the above section in whatever form it takes?

User:	I prefer the additional image.	I don't prefer the additional image.
Timeshift	Y
JRG	Y
Total people supporting:	2	0

Prime Minister TopInfobox

Would somebody update the infobox, Rudd has been sworn in as the 26th Australian PM. GoodDay 23:08, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Good on Ya Kevin good to see you win the Election —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.209.69.26 (talk) 13:10, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Its going to be an interesting term of government, it seems KRUDD has styled himself on pretending to be the opposite of howard , where his policies are concerned... Pretty dumb considering the progress the liberals made, looks like a yet another reversal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.236.62.9 (talk) 10:33, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

It's a new era. It's not going to be all roses, but it's a shift from 11 years of unfettered industrialism, supression of human rights, and warmongering. Kudos to the Australian People!--Gazzster (talk) 10:41, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Swearing in and title

This morning the Governor-General signed the instrument appointing Rudd as Prime Minister and administered the Oath of Office. The Governor-General also administered the Oath of a Federal Executive Councillor, which brings with it the title of "The Honourable". 203.7.140.3 00:17, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

True. To be strictly correct, the Fed Exec Councillor oath came first, the swearing-in as PM second. -- JackofOz 00:24, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I realised that after I'd added it. I fixed it for the Julia Gillard entry and was about to update that here. 203.7.140.3 00:26, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Various elements of Infobox

Primarily, the exclusion of Queen Elizabeth Ii and Governor-General Michael Jeffery. I feel that at least Queen Elizabeth II should be on the page, as she is technically who Rudd answers to, and both do clutter the infobox. (Btw, Deus ex machina, what the Hell do SPA and climate atm mean? You do realise I'm not King Winston, right?) Therequiembellishere 02:16, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I think inclusion of the monarchy is completely unnecessary. It's not as if it is constantly changing and people need to reference who it is. It hasn't changed for 55 years!!!! Superfluous information clutter.Lester 04:54, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but they do change, it's not like she's immortal. It's not superfluous because he technically answers to her and her representative, but considering her representative has less power, it should show her. If one can't be there, the other should be. People need to know that Rudd isn't the sole power of Australia, and showing both in the infobox would be the est way to show it. Therequiembellishere 05:20, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

It is needless clutter, irrelevant information to the subject of the article. Yes, this is a constitutional monarchy, but the monarchy itself is irrelevant in modern Australian life, and the fact that Rudd is a republican at heart probably emphasises that. Monarch and GG are both things that, while they do perform the functions of the head of state, they do not belong in the Prime Minister's infobox - he technically answers to them but after the events of the Whitlam Dismissal, moods have changed and so have their roles. DEVS EX MACINA _pray 05:28, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

But just because Rudd is a republican, doesn't mean we exclude that fact that, for now at least, he answers to the two of them. If and when a constitutional reform is passed that makes Australia a republic, that is when the monarch and GG should be removed. Of course, I think that they should then be replaced by whomever fills the power vacuum as a president, assuming Rudd himself does not take on the role as conjuctive head of state and government (like some African countries and how the Americas generally do). Therequiembellishere 05:46, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and Deus, you haven't answered my questions. ;-) Therequiembellishere 05:46, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I must have missed them. I do realise you and King wiston are different, because at least you have the decency to post on talk and leave edit summaries. SPA means single purpose account, because the majority of King wiston's edits were to place and replace the Monarch and GG into the Prime Minister's infobox, a procedure that I and a few others reverted about a hundred times at least. Climate atm meaning "climate at the moment", as in, the current country's mood.

To your points about them belonging in the infobox, on a de facto basis at least, the Prime Minister of Australia is the country's ruler, and having the GG and/or the monarch on his infobox is inappropriate in that case. Yes, she's the country's monarch, but her powers are separate to his, hers being in a ceremonial fashion and his being in an actual fashion. DEVS EX MACINA _pray 06:46, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

But she does have reserve powers, or else I wouldn't want her there at all. Therequiembellishere 06:54, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

"... he [the PM] technically answers to her [the Queen] and her representative [the GG]".

• That's hardly true. The PM tells the GG what he's up to, as a courtesy, but in no sense does he answer to him. The government writes the GG's speech for the opening of Parliament, and the GG reads it out from a sheet of paper, which is deliberately done so as to avoid any impression that the GG has had any say in what the government is about to embark on legislatively. He refers to the government as "my government", but that is merely a reflection that he or one of his predecessors was the person who appointed the PM; it doesn't mean he's directed any of their actions or requires them to submit proof they've met his expectations. But that said, the Parliament does include the Queen, and all acts have to receive Royal Assent via the GG (or in rare cases, the Queen herself). There are precedents for an Australian GG to refuse to give Royal Assent because of what he considered serious flaws in the wording of the proposed act, and requested the PM to cause certain amendments to be made before he would sign it [1]. The PM had to go away and have the changes made. On 3 occasions, the GG has been known to have refused a PM’s request for a dissolution of the Parliament [2] (the last time being admittedly as long ago as 1909); and in 1987, Ninian Stephen asked Bob Hawke for more material before agreeing to a double dissolution, which Hawke had to provide. So, he’s not always just a rubber stamp. And of course there was Kerr/1975. Whatever we may say about what Kerr did, nobody, Gough included, ever challenged his action on the grounds of unconstitutionality, just on utter lack of precedent (and a precedent that in the eyes of most people should never have been set, regardless of whether the constitution permitted it). But at the end of the day, it's the constitution that is at the heart of the nation. I think the GG/monarch are important parts of the way our country is run, and they deserve a place. -- JackofOz 08:11, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Hopefully that'll change in the inevitable referendum. DEVS EX MACINA _pray 09:22, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

It's just bizarre that either the GG or the Monarch are listed. Who in their right mind would need to check the Monarch of the time? I think it is listed on these articles to promote the traditional monarch cause (as opposed to republic cause). It's pushing a point of view that has nothing to do with this subject. Yes, the Queen is Australia's head of state, but nobody needs to know! There are other pages that deal with monarchy issues which people can look up if they really forget who the monarch is! Completely bizarre. Lester 09:38, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Nobody needs to know?! Who are you to decide this? Personally I don't see what strong connection there is between QE2 and the man Kevin Rudd; as such she shouldn't be in the infobox. In other words I agree with you that it's irrelevant to the subject in hand - Mr Rudd - but you might want to check your tone next time :) --kingboyk 15:53, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, I should have said "nobody needs to be told", because everyone already knows who the monarch is.Lester 20:42, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Out of interest, it appears (after checking quickly through other prime minister infoboxes - ie/ UK, Belgium, Canada, NZ) that the Monarch appears. So it would appear that it's removal from Australian PMs is an stylistic abberation. Some of the arguements above don't seem to be interested in producing an encyclopedia but rather seem to be pushing a POV. Shot info 23:20, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Not everyone knows who the monarch of Australia is, or even that we have a monarch. Wikipedia readers come from all over. -- JackofOz 23:33, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

So should we go for commonality of style in Wikipedia or allow a section to strike out on it's own? Personally I don't mind, if it improves the project. But it appears (based on the above comments that the reasoning for the style changes are not to make the article (and hence the project) better, but rather for POV purposes, which is fundamentally not what we do here in Wikiland :-). Shot info 23:51, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Hopefully that'll change in the inevitable referendum. DEVS EX MACINA _pray 09:22, 3 December 2007 (UTC) Hopefully it will, but until then, I don't think it's our place to declare Australia a republic. Lol. Therequiembellishere 00:42, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I've spent 20 years living in southeast Asia, south Asia/central Asia and the Caucasus -- I can tell you not everyone even knows where Australia is, let alone that it's head of state is the Queen of England or what her name is. What may be obvious to some, or in one part of the world, is not so everywhere. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.132.42.90 (talk) 06:08, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

So are they on or off? Therequiembellishere (talk) 00:09, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Off. They're irrelevant to the modern office. DEVS EX MACINA _pray 01:31, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Anyone else? No one seems to be taking the others' points into consideration. From the IP's comment, it's vital. And like I mentioned, Deus, it's not our place to decide what is relevant and irrelevant to Australia's political standpoint. Therequiembellishere (talk) 02:36, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Deus. Leave the Monarch and the GG out of the infobox. It is a contextual oddity. A BLP about the executive leader of the country is not the place to de facto advertise the current constitutional head of state and/or their representative. In the Kevin Rudd BLP (a biography about an individual person and his life, not an article about a formal office), the Governor-General is already noted in regards to Rudd's swearing in, which provides ample means for readers to locate and identify further information about Australia's current system of constitutional monarchy (without needing to further clutter the infobox). --Brendan [ contribs ] 04:10, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Um, the executive leader of Australia is the Queen of Australia; when's the last time some people here read the Australian constitution? It is she - or her viceroy - who the Prime Minister ministers.

I wonder how many here would put up such a stink if it was the hypothetical President of Australia being listed here. ;) --G2bambino (talk) 23:21, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Hang on, the stylistic form makes decribing the Prime Ministers of Australia different to that for other PMs. As pointed out above. Deus opinion of "irrelevent to the modern office" is irrelevent to the style and (as pointed out above) smacks of POV rather than encyclopedic editing. We don't edit out the information and make one topic of interest different, just because of personal preferences. Brenden's arguements perhaps apply for other PMs, but the fact is, they still include the pertinent information in their info-boxes. Articles on Australian PMs are the "Contextual Oddity" by excluding this information. If you don't believe me, look at UK, Belgium, Canada, NZ. Shot info (talk) 09:47, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I know, I had a look at them previously, and yes they've got the Monarch there. Maybe that's an error on their part, but in the context of an Australian Prime Minister (and I don't know about New Zealand specifically but we're not that different and I wouldn't be surprised), the inclusion of Monarch in the infobox as if it was important information is in fact irrelevant to the man himself, Kevin Rudd, and the office, despite its supposed inferiority to the Crown. DEVS EX MACINA _pray 23:08, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I have to say that there is either a strong misunderstanding on your part of the constitutional structure of Australia, or, as Shot info alludes to, some vigorous POV. How else could one explain the completely incorrect, and even illogical, statement that the monarch is of no importance in relation to the office of the Prime Minister? The Prime Minister's sole reason for existence is to advise - read: minister - the sovereign's representative on how to exercise the authority he's been granted by the monarch. It is the viceroy who appoints the PM, and the viceroy who can remove the PM. In other words, the office is indeed quite inferior to the Crown. --G2bambino (talk) 23:26, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Symbolically, not in practice. The GG very much rubber stamps the leader of the majority party/coalition. The same GG is very much chosen by the Prime Minister. But what of it? We can debate symbolism versus reality till the cows come home. It doesn't answer the question of of whether including the incumbent head of state or their representative in the infobox for a BLP of an executive leader of the government (being the Prime Minister, not the Queen) is due weight and suitably significant. What happens when that leader serves under two successive monarchs, do we list both? Or multiple governors-general? List 'em all? Should the infobox on Governor-General of Australia list all of the Prime Ministers with whose terms the incumbent GG coincided? The questions that need to be answered are how is the article best served, and where do we draw the line? --Brendan [ contribs ] 03:51, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Apologies for appearing pedantic and nitpicking, but:

The Constitution of Australia does not mention the word prime minister once. It names the Sovereign, represented by the Governor General, the Senate and the House of Representatives. The PM has no constitutionally defined role. The PMs role in Australia has evolved since 1901, within the broad limits of the Constitution. So I don't believe you can pin the PM's functions as narrowly as you have. And about the inferiority of the PM: he is, perhaps, not as inferior as you suppose. For he can advise the dismissal of the Queen's own representative. Likewise he can, by the consent of the people, advise the Sovereign to abdicate her Crown of Australia.--Gazzster (talk) 03:10, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Prime Minister Infobox

I decided to start this discussion here (I didn't know where else to go). I noticed the Australian monarch was added here (and at other Australina PM infoboxes) and then reverted. So here's the question - Should the Australian PM infoboxes have the Australian monarch in them or not? Please note, Elizabeth II is in the other Commonwealth realm PM infoboxes (example UK & Canada). GoodDay (talk) 23:04, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

IMHO, Elizabeth II belongs in the Australian PM infoboxes. GoodDay (talk) 23:07, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Based on examples of other countries PMs in Wikipedia, and the fact that it appears it's POV that's encouraging editors to remove the info, I concure and recommend inclusion. I also recommend following the practise used in these infoboxes and include the Governor and/or Governor-General (as pertinent). Shot info (talk) 23:09, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

There was a similar discussion about this for Canadian PMs (it took place predominantly at the present PM's talk page). A survey of PM articles found there's no consistency for listing the head of state, but most do, whether monarch or president. It was decided all Canadian PM articles should follow (as do all UK PM articles) and I see no reason why Aussie PMs should be treated any differently. --G2bambino (talk) 23:14, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Remove the monarch from the infobox. It's an unrelated issue. It's clutter. The monarch hasn't changed for 55 years. It's POV. People can get that information elsewhere in Wikipedia if they really want it.Lester 23:17, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, and it is an unrelated issue, republican or monarchist POV aside. DEVS EX MACINA _pray 23:19, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Assertions such as "it's clutter," "it's unrelated," etc., etc., are themselves simply POV. Please prove that the inclusion of the head of state - who's representative appointed Rudd as Prime Minister, who is the sole reason for the existence of the office of Prime Minister - is "clutter" and "unrelated," and thus why the Australian prime minister articles should be the lone anomoly amongst all others. What, indeed, makes Oz so special? --G2bambino (talk) 23:34, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

"Sole reason for the existence.."? Irrelevant waffle. We have a Prime Minister. He is also a person. He has a Wiki Biography of a Living Person. That bio is not the place for exposition on the constitutional monarchy, it's origins, or traditions. There are better articles for that. It doesn't matter how the office of Prime Minister came about, because this article is not about that, so that is not a meaningful argument to make in favour of including the Head of State/Monarch in the Aussie PM infobox. Are there any meaningful arguments, about the value of the information itself and how the article is improved by its inclusion, that don't centre on pointing out that "other stuff exists"? --Brendan [ contribs ] 23:18, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Interesting, the arguments for exclusion were the same on the Canadian PM infoboxes. GoodDay (talk) 23:36, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

And how exactly is it POV? Are you suggesting that form a different point of view, there is another monarch of Australia? Therequiembellishere (talk) 23:37, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Lester. Inclusion is unecessary and not relevant in context. Infoboxes in articles about the state premiers do not uniformly include the sovereign's name. And the point about cluttering the infobox is perfectly valid. Importantly, non-Australian editors should realise that the sovereign's role is simply not relevant in Australian political life. Australia is a republic with a queen. It's a mindset thing. We ought to think twice before making references to LIz wherever we possibly can. And with respect to everyone, we ought to listen carefully to what the Aussie editors say about it (that is not to say we let them dictate the article or accept ev erything without question).--Gazzster (talk) 00:02, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

This seems like more assertions without evidence. On one hand, Australia's constitution makes crystal clear the very central role the crown holds in Australia's political life. On the other, some personal (and strange) opinions on how relevant the monarch is in a "republic with a queen." Which should we hold more as more valid? --G2bambino (talk) 00:06, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

To answer Therequiembellishere's question - the Queen of Australia and the Queen of Canada are different crowns, and there's no technical reason why they couldn't be worn by different people - it's never going to happen in practice, of course. In relation to the inclusion of the Queen in the infobox, there's the constitutional view and the man-in-the-street view. Ask a man in the street what role, if any, the Queen plays in the process whereby Australia changes its Prime Ministers, and they'll probably say "None", or "Nothing of any consequence; just a rubber stamp, and it's not even her anyway, it's the G-G". Ask a constitutional lawyer the same question and they'll give a vastly different answer. Both would be in a sense right. As far as day-to-day government administration is concerned, the crown plays virtually no role; and as far as electing a government goes, whatever role the crown plays is dictated by the will of the people. But if we were discussing this same question in, say, December 1975, does anyone believe that the role of the GG would have been seen as just a rubber stamp, or that mention of the GG in the PM's infobox would be considered irrelevant? Hardly. There's no reason why the Dismissal couldn't be repeated if circumstances presented themselves. -- JackofOz (talk) 00:11, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I still am not seeing how it's POV. Also, did anyone see the above Asian editor who says that most of the people where he lives aren't aware of Australia's status as a constitutional monarchy. Therequiembellishere (talk) 00:22, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I certainly did. All the more reason to include the information and educate people about it. -- JackofOz (talk) 00:36, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Exactly point point, Jack. :) Therequiembellishere (talk) 00:52, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

The issue is not a debate on the importance of the monarch, or to question the monarch's power. The issue is that we don't need it pasted on every prime ministers' bio, because it's not a continually changing factor. Who was the monarch during Harold Holt's rule, or Gough Whitam's rule, or Billy MacMahon's? We can answer it from the top of our heads, because the monarch hasn't changed in 55 years. This is the reason it should not be on the PM's infobox. It's POV because it's exactly the same issue as those who wanted to paste the Australian flag all over PM's infoboxes. Monarchists would like these symbols appearing in as many places as possible. It's an issue of context, and so it's pushing a POV when the symbols appear in other articles about other topics (eg PM bios). As for the comment (above) about people in Asia who don't know what type of government Australia has, they can get that from the Australia article. It doesn't need to be on a PM's bio. Lester 01:03, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

This doesn't really explain why a large majority of PM articles have their appropriate Head of State on them, but Australia's shouldn't. It isn't an issue of "Monarchists..." but style. Wikipedia has used these style boxes which include the HoS. You (and others) argue that they "clutter" up the infoboxes and argue that "Monarchists..." do something....this is inherently a POV arguement. If you look closely you will find that the above arguements are discussing the style of the infobox, and why is it unusual that Australia's PMs are....different. Unfortunately the only answer at the moment seems to be POV, particularly when they keep need to resort to this "Monarchy/Republic" canard. Shot info (talk) 01:15, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I think JackofOz and Lester put it well. Of course there is no technical reason why we should not insert Liz's name in the infobox. Why not? But on the other hand, why? Her name is scattered the length of breadth of Wikipedia in places she technically could go but where often where is no compelling reason to place her. If we're going to talk about POV, this could be interpreted as monarchist POV. On the other hand, and in the context of what we're discussing, the opposite could also be interpreted as POV.

In answering this apparent dilema I'd like to remind that there is no such thing as politically neutral writing: not here in Wikipedia; not anywhere. This whole POV thing gets complicated. Simply because an editor has a POV (which we all do) doesn't mean we need to start shouting 'a witch!'We need to ask ourselves is the POV relevant? If we read Monarchy in Britain (or whatever we're calling it now) or Australia or Canada or whatever, it is obvious that it is written by and from the perspective of nationals of those countries. Is that a bad thing? No, if it is written in context. POV is unavoidable. But if it is in context the POV is clear and a reader can recognise it and interpret accordingly. Now, case in point: Liz plays no part in Australian political life; prime ministers do not attribute their authority to the Queen, or even the GG, but to the people. It is entirely appropriate to ommit the sovereign's name in the infobox. This does not deny that she is Australia's monarch. It is clear enough in a wider context that this is the case.--Gazzster (talk) 01:25, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Not everyone know how long Elizabeth has been Queen. People who research these would know she took the throne in 1952 (26 February, I believe) but I and some others are not the entire internet and Wikipedia Community! Therequiembellishere (talk) 01:29, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Based on examples of other countries PMs in Wikipedia (UK, Belgium, Canada, NZ), and the fact that it appears it's POV that's encouraging editors to remove the info (ie/ it's all a monarchist conspiracy), I concure and recommend inclusion. I also recommend following the practise used in these infoboxes and include the Governor and/or Governor-General (as pertinent). Shot info (talk) 01:36, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I feel you we need to first disarm the monarchist POV issue. For if a republican bias can levelled against exclusion, monarchist bias can equally be put on inclusion. Which is why my comment about conrtext is relevant.--Gazzster (talk) 01:42, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I have no feelings toward Elizabeth, I just feel that her inclusion in necessary. If Australia were a semi-presidential republic, like France, I'd want the President here. Therequiembellishere (talk) 01:48, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Apart from any other consideration, I don't think we realise the monumental task some are setting themselves up to do. If we're going to be consistent, the infoboxes for the state premiers (all appointed by the Crown), the governors, administrators, many prime ministers, past and present, need to be updated. In fact, many have no infoboxes at all. If some are serious about doing this, I believe they need to go to the project page. It will be far more involved than merely inserting a name in this article. Still, I have to ask, all this to conform to the practice in articles about another country?--Gazzster (talk) 02:03, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

We should be consistent, and yes, I do realise what we're undertaking and plan on fixing as much as possible. I have the right links on my computer to find out the past state leaders and the current leaders' deputies. I won't go as far to research every one of them to make sure they all have even GA status, and may make the articles as entire stubs, but I plan on making as many as possible. I think I'll start with Germany. Therequiembellishere (talk) 02:08, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Why not start with this article?--Gazzster (talk) 11:42, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

What's all this nonsense about "blatant POV" on talkpages? Talkpages exist to express a point of view. Live with it. Meanwhile, I see no benefit to the article to list, on a Biography of a Living Aussie Politician, who their Monarch(s), President(s), Governors-General, or ceremonial Heads-of-State were/are. The presence or otherwise of other stuff on other articles is neither here nor there. Where does it end? The infobox should be a concise snapshot of relevant, significant information. The fact that XYZ was Head of State (President, Monarch or otherwise) when ABC was the leader of an executive government under that Head of State just doesn't step up to the mark, in my view: it's trivia undeserving of such prominence. --Brendan [ contribs ] 02:48, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

People who want to find out about QEII may not be able to find her article so lets paste it on every Prime Minister, every State Premier, and every MP article ;) Quote: "we're undertaking and plan on fixing as much as possible". I'm glad there's a plan, and "we" indicates there's already a group formed to do it. Why don't we put it on every Mayoral candidate page while we're at it. And bring back the Australian flag too, and paste it into text whenever the word "Australia" comes up. Those Australians need to know where their heritage is!Lester 03:03, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Sometimes editors forget we are editing an encyclopedia see UK, Belgium, Canada, NZ. Shot info (talk) 03:17, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. --Brendan [ contribs ] 03:51, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

You possibly should read that article to find out it's application other than rely on it's title. Shot info (talk) 04:04, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

You possibly should stop assumptive hand-waving and instead make a substantive point. --Brendan [ contribs ] 06:44, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Whilst I don't agree with you're point here, Brendan, I will point out that even if I did believe it, It is by no means strict policy or even a rule, it's just a way to help. Just to make sure you don't go and turn this on me, I don't agree that the inclusion of QEII here follows that policy. Therequiembellishere (talk) 04:04, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're saying here. I pointed out WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS in response to Shot info's simplistic observation that indeed "other stuff exists". My point is that we need a more substantive basis, than that editors of articles about Gordon_Brown, Guy_Verhofstadt, Stephen_Harper and Helen_Clark have allowed this inclusion. Or is Shot info saying that we need to change those articles, or argue for consensus there first, or... what? It's a mystery. --Brendan [ contribs ] 06:44, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

It's called "Commonality of Style", ie/ articles on similar subjects should look vaguely similar. So, going back to what I pointed out earlier: Based on examples of other countries PMs in Wikipedia, and the fact that it appears it's POV that's encouraging editors to remove the info, I concure and recommend inclusion. It isn't my fault you are pointing to an article that says "Don't use the arguement not to delete an article by saying Other Stuff Exists" to override a discussion to include a piece of information into an article. Handwaving...indeed, watching it in action. Shot info (talk) 07:07, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

"Vaguely similar"? I didn't realise the Rudd infobox looked anything but already "vaguely similar" to WikiBios of other PMs of other countries. A suitable level of similitude does not hinge on whether or not we hitch the Head of State to the infobox on Rudd's personal WikiBio. It appears that an abstract compulsion for absolute consistency is encouraging some editors to include the info, whereas, given the weighty discussion thus far, misconstruing POV as the basis for exclusion on the part of all opposing editors is clearly a bridge too far. --Brendan [ contribs ] 23:11, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, and it's interesting that Brendan chooses such a limited list of precedents. Perhaps we should be honest and say that every British PM article lists the head of state, every Canadian PM article (from 1931) lists the head of state, every New Zealand PM article (from 1931) lists the head of state. Indeed, to dispel accusations of monarchist POV, French PM articles back to the early 1990s list the head of state, as do every Russian PM article to the establishment of the present republic. So, commonality of style certainly is a strong argument in favour of the inclusion of the Australian head of state in Australian PM articles, on top of the logistical arguments about the head of state being the ultimate authority the PM answers to. --G2bambino (talk) 16:28, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

G2bambino, my "choice" of "limited list of precedents" is quite unremarkable. I was simply commenting on the exact list provided by Shot info only a few entries prior. Whereas, commonality of style in and of itself is not a principle reason for including information of which other editors dispute the relevance/significance. Stylistic consensus on one area of Wikipedia does not automatically convey consensus on every other area of Wikipedia (hence WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS). Where contention exists, we need to look at the substance of the content and decide for ourselves. Does it make sense to put the name of someone's "symbolic boss" in a position of prominence on their BLP. Would you list the Chairman of the Board in the infobox of a CEO (eg. Ziggy_Switkowski, Sol Trujillo)? To me, it doesn't make a lot of sense: the article is first-and-foremost about a person, not a constitutional role; there are other articles for listing/explain/expanding upon the latter without needed to add trivial, contextually odd -- Kevin Rudd does not possess/belong to/associate with/inhere to the Monarch -- clutter to the BLP infobox. --Brendan [ contribs ] 23:11, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Both of you, then, provided a limited list. That doesn't change my point, and the more expanded list only proves Shot info's assertions to be more validated than yours. With that expanded list it seems you're saying a large number of Wikipedia editors are wrong to include heads of state in PM infoboxes, and you and a few others here are right to demand the heads of state be left out.

Trying to falsely elevate Rudd's position doesn't help you either. He is the Prime Minister to the Australian monarch, guiding her Governor General on how to exercise the Crown's prerogatives and executive powers every single day that he serves at the Queen's pleasure. So, he does indeed, whether he likes it or not, associate with the monarch, via a viceroy. This is an almost identical situation to most other Westminster parliamentary systems wherein the PM is appointed by, and advises the head of state, be they monarchical or presidential. And, hence, the head of state a particular PM served is placed in his or her infobox. --G2bambino (talk) 23:23, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't change your point, no, but your point is hardly convincing, so what of it? "Trying to falsely elevate.." - what?? And "it seems you're saying a large number of Wikipedia editors are wrong to include heads of state in PM infoboxes" - what relevance does that speculation have to the content discussion here? Read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS because that's largely what you're apparently arguing. We're not talking about other articles. We're talking about this article. This article is not an article about the Westminster system nor a catalogue of its incumbents. It is a Biography of a Living Person, whose current job is the Prime Minister of Australia. KISS: Keep Infoboxes Simple Stupid. --Brendan [ contribs ] 08:28, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

The conclusion doesn't follow: Kevin Rudd serves as minister of the crown; therefore, the monarch should be in the infobox. You can conclude nothing from that argument. The article is not about Elizabeth II. There is no compelling reason to insert her name. This is another storm in a teacup over one word. And it is extraordinary how this word is so often the name of the Monarch.--Gazzster (talk) 23:30, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

It is indeed a tempest in a teacup, and there must be something political afoot here, possibly revolving around anti-monarchical sentiments; I see no evidence of the same opposition towards the insertion of French presidents in French PM articles. --G2bambino (talk) 23:38, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Possibly because this is not the French site. If there are anti-monarchical feelings, there are also pro-monarchical feelings. I still hope editors would consider my comments about POV and context.--Gazzster (talk) 23:45, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, clearly it is not. They seem to have less issue with admitting who their head of state is and that their PM has a direct relationship with him. Certainly, everyone save for Aussies appears to be able to do this. --G2bambino (talk) 23:48, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

We're a very proud and parochial culture, I guess, and having the constitutional head of state someone who isn't even Australian grates against our nerves a little, and yes I'm using the unsourced, conjecture-filled "our", but you get what I mean. This is why I suggested the Governor-General be inserted instead of the Monarch, both based on practicality and applicability. DEVS EX MACINA _pray 00:03, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I've lived in Oz; my best "mate" (maite) here in Canada is Australian; so I know the Aussie culture relatively well. I was speaking with my tongue somewhat towards my cheek in my above comments. Hard to see, though, how the Australian monarch isn't Australian, or, even, how personal opinions on her nationality should drive the inclusion or exclusion of the Australian head of state from her PM's infobox. --G2bambino (talk) 16:22, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad the charge of Monarchist PoV has subsided - cause I support inclusion of Elizabeth II and I'm a republican. That should end those charges. GoodDay (talk) 17:22, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

In order to end the continous edit warring on this article over the PM infobox, I've requested page protection from the Administrators. GoodDay (talk) 20:12, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Compromise

May I suggest a compromise? I know it's not "standard" on all other Prime Minister articles, as pointed out above, but may I suggest replacing Monarch and the Monarch's name with the Governor-General's? The Governor-General is uniquely Australia's head of state, whereas the Monarch is the head of state of the Commonwealth, and the Commonwealth is more than one nation, not just Australia. It applies more to the article because it was the Governor-General, not the Queen herself, who appointed the Prime Minister, and while he was technically and constitutionally using "her" powers, it directly applies to Australia, and more specifically, the office of Prime Minister, more.

This I hope will satisfy both sides, cos it certainly satisfies me and I was all for getting rid of old Liz completely. But this makes more sense. DEVS EX MACINA _pray 23:51, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Good suggestion Deus. Well, how about it G2? And I don't think you've really grasped what the dispute is about.--Gazzster (talk) 23:59, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

The Governer General is not Australia's head of state. I don't think this article talk page is the appropriate place to discuss the issue, as those who wish to change it will change it for hundreds of articles. This should be taken up at Wikipedia:WikiProject Australian politics, as you're talking of a style change for all political articles. Also, because this is a major change, there is no "consensus" to add it, as some have claimed in the Kevin Rudd article edit summaries. It should be left out until a thorough, central discussion has taken place. There's no consensus for someone to go 'round adding these things to 25 articles at once, which is what happened recently. Otherwise, some poor soul must go back and pluck them out again, like burrs from a sock. Lester 00:11, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Why move it? And he is the head of state, or at least its Australian representative. Australian and tied to the monarchy. Perfect middle ground. But I know what you mean about changing all the articles, I was the one who had to delete Religion out of all 26 Prime Minister's infoboxes when someone blindly added them all in. DEVS EX MACINA _pray 00:23, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

On second thoughts, I have to agree with Lester: if we're going to establish a common style, we need to go to the project page. Personally I've never been a fan of conformity for the sake of conformity.--Gazzster (talk) 00:30, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Which is possibly why Wikipedia suffers. Personally I am a fan of conformity, not for "conformity's" sake, but to make this little encylopedia project thingyo called Wikipedia more professional. It's why WP has MOS'. Shot info (talk) 04:47, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I leave this great task to others. I don't know how Wikipedia 'suffers', but I would've thought the addition of Her Majesty's august name would add or subtract little professionalism to an article that has nothing to do with her.--Gazzster (talk) 08:09, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

This is very annoying. Why does Australia have to be given special treatment - I can't stand the fact that my country's (Canada) Head of State is a monarch who doesn't live in my country. Yet it's acceptable to have her on our PM infoboxes, because it's accurate with other PM articles (including Republican PMs). Until Australia becomes a republic, let's leave E2 in the Australian PM infoboxes. GoodDay (talk) 16:02, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Then you could challenge her being in Canadian infoboxes as well. Each article should be considered in its own context. The article is about Kevin Rudd, not E2. I notice that the recent edit put in her name, but not the Governor-General's. That makes no sense, and may suggest a monarchist bias, albeit unintended. If we need to rethink whether the Head of State has to be inserted in infoboxes related to a Head of Government- well, then, lets.--Gazzster (talk) 20:51, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I've already supported having Elizabeth II on the Canadian PM infoboxes. The question now? Does the 'Head of State' (monarch or president) have to be in every PM bio's Infobox. GoodDay (talk) 20:58, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

::This is tiresome, you guys/gals decide what you wish on inclusion/exclusion of Elizabeth II. GoodDay (talk) 21:23, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I vote to include Elizabeth II, but the other constitutional monarchy's PMS have the governor general there too. I'd like both, but if one has to be sacrificed, it should be the governor general. Therequiembellishere (talk) 01:59, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Here's something to 'scream about'. If commonality is called for, then check out the French Presidents bio infobox. According to them, Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom should have every Commonwealth realm PM listed in her infobox. If we continue to leave Head of State in PM infoboxes, then we must have PMs in HoS infoboxes. GoodDay (talk) 00:46, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

We should, and we generally do. Monarchs have something weird about their infoboxes that doesn't include a place for their HoGs, so that's the only reason I haven't started adding them to theirs, believe me. It's totally called for and I'd like to bring it up, but I'm working on this and a few others right now. Therequiembellishere (talk) 01:30, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

It's probably because they aren't necessarily politicians, so people thought they deserved a different infobox for some reason. I'd like all HoSs and HoGs to have the same infobox. Therequiembellishere (talk) 01:35, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Think of it though, every Commonwealth realm PM during her 55yr reign. It would dwarf her article. GoodDay (talk) 01:38, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

What is weird is that monarchs seem to be regarded as deserving special treatment. Are you really going to place the name of our every prime minister of every realm who has served under Elizabeth II in her infobox? Pardon me, but that is just anal. Let's have some perspective, people.--Gazzster (talk) 01:37, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

They don't deserve special treatment, that's why the HoGs should be there and that's why royals have their own kind of infobox. We might have to make a page to fit them all though, I'll admit ;-) but they should be there. Therequiembellishere (talk) 01:46, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Be my guest. But I think it won't be a case of 'we might have to', but you might have to. I doubt anyone will share your enthusiasm.--Gazzster (talk) 01:50, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Erm, can't take a joke, can we? And it doesn't matter. She's no different than any other person in the world. Therequiembellishere (talk) 01:53, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, couldn't see your wry smile as you were writing. Must get my glasses checked.--Gazzster (talk) 02:03, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Don't get charged too much! :-P Therequiembellishere (talk) 02:09, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Let's clean house baby - Remove Head of State and Elections from all PM bio infoboxes. GoodDay (talk) 16:57, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Numbered Prime Ministership

Second is the inclusion of the order of him being Prime Minister. It's horribly confusing to include these due to officeholders in an acting capacity, the incumbent having held the office more than once and actors holding the office more than once. It make the box confusing and cluttered. Therequiembellishere 02:16, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

The system used in Australia is to number PMs from the time of their first appointment. They never get another number, regardless of how many separate terms they may serve (unlike US Presidents, who, if their terms are separated by a period out of office, get a new number on the 2nd go). Acting PMs are not numbered. -- JackofOz 02:22, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Alright, I'll leave it, but I still think it clutters the box. Therequiembellishere

Not my Queen

Can we have it added to the article, Rudd has refused to swear alligience to Elizabeth II? GoodDay (talk) 17:45, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Interesting. Do you have a reference we can look at it? Is it that he refused the oath, or that the swearing in ceremony no klonger requires him to do do?--Gazzster (talk) 20:47, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

The website Royalty News. GoodDay (talk) 20:52, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Done.--Gazzster (talk) 22:32, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome Gazz. GoodDay (talk) 22:46, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

That website doesn't know what it's talking about, and being royalty-focussed it seems to have adopted a rather biased formulation. There was no "refusal"; there's a choice given to every person about to be sworn - some choose the oath, others choose the affirmation. From the Official Secretary's introductory remarks at the ceremony:

• After the initial welcome, the Governor-General will invite you to swear the Oath of an Executive Councillor. ... The Governor-General will then invite those taking the Affirmation as an Executive Councillor to stand in your places. As before I will read the Oath to all of you and you reply "I do." ...

• After all the formalities relating to your role as an Executive Councillor have concluded, the Governor-General will administer the Oath or Affirmation of Office to each of you individually. For those wishing to take the Oath, as you are called, please come to the table and stand in front of the Governor-General, take your Bible in your right hand, remain standing and swear the Oath of Office that will be handed to you. After taking the Oath, please be seated at the table and sign firstly the Oath of Office, and then the Executive Councillor’s Oath and pass both to the Governor-General who will counter-sign them. For those making the Affirmation, it is a similar procedure. ... [3]. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:37, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Showing Election clutters PM Infoboxes

In order to avoid edit wars, I've opened this discussion. Is it really necessary to show the Australian Election(s) on the PM's infobox. They do clutter the infobox IMHO. GoodDay (talk) 23:26, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

They really do, especially in cases like John Howard's. If you guys think that the monarch and GG is clutter, I don't why this isn't. Therequiembellishere (talk) 23:33, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I think it's a fair swap.--Gazzster (talk) 23:47, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

What? The addition of the monarch and GG in place of the elections? Therequiembellishere (talk) 00:10, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

No. Dropping GG and monarch for dropping elections. Sounds fair. But let's keep talkin' if you want.--Gazzster (talk) 00:15, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, the discussion above is not clear. But, firstly I don't think the lack of such info on other articles means we must therefore remove it from Australian PM articles. To be honest, in the past I have found election links quite useful for navigation - and let's face it, info boxes are in themselves "clutter" and thus are only there for usefulness, not for good looks. So, I'd suggest keeping them for usefulness, if they are clutter, then get rid of the whole info box.

However, if I hear a good argument for there removal, I might change my mind. --Merbabu (talk) 00:21, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

IMHO, it's a part of a bigger question - should the Australian PM infoboxes be different from the other PM infoboxes on Wikipedia. Is commonality necessary? GoodDay (talk) 00:27, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Not necessarily. If something is a reasonably complete subject in its own right, it can look to others for guidance but does not need to follow on every detail. Orderinchaos 02:28, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

OMG... EVERY SINGLE PRIME MINISTER has each of the elections they contested near the top of their infobox. This has been the way for all PMs for ages. This is DIRECTLY relevant to the PM in question. Far more relevant than stupid bloody UK remnants that mean nothing in the 21st century. I will very very strongly defend the listing of elections in PM infoboxes. Timeshift (talk) 00:35, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the 'Election(s)', HoS & GG should be removed from 'all' PM infoboxes at Wikipedia. Gazz is correct, what's next? do we add the Popes for every infobox at 'cardinal' & 'bishop' articles? GoodDay (talk) 00:58, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

And why should elections be removed? Because other infoboxes don't have them? Well I say they serve much purpose. For some Australian PMs, the only link for an election is in the infobox and not in the article. Even if they were, you'd need to find them, there's no easy quick place to look to see which elections that PM contested. They have been there for a long time now and other people in the past have commented on what a good idea they were. There is absolutely no need for the removal of these. This is the one thing I hate about election time... Timeshift (talk) 01:07, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

The elections should be incorporated into the article, not the infobox. WE should directly mention each one in the article, just not the infobox. And no, not every single infobox, only the Aussie ones. People have actually gotten used to not seeing them there because of the others. The worst thing about these is that they haven't won all of the elections mentioned in the box. Cardinals and bishops aren't politicians. It is directly relevant, just not is such a glaring place. Btw, we aren't discussing the HoS and GG here, so don't mention the. Therequiembellishere (talk) 01:12, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, all six 26 Australian PMs, and for quite a while. And with compliments toward me. The worst thing is they havent won all of those elections? Of course not, you don't win all elections you contest! I will be defending these heavily. Timeshift (talk) 01:14, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

The point I was making is that the infobox is for a summary of information about a person in public office. So reference to other persons, or events like elections which the person didn't win, would not seem to be appropriate. And what is it about a politician that makes the case different from a prelate or other official appointed by a head of state?--Gazzster (talk) 01:23, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Exactly, the Aussie PMs. Commonality is not a flimsy argument, that's like ignoring protocol and calling Howard the current PM. And it is entirely ridiculous to include losing elections! Should we put a greengrocer who ran for PM on the list? It's not like the other Australian politicians have their elections on their box, only the PMs. You can run for election for sixty years, that doesn't mean we should mention every election you enter as notable! And we can see that you're "defending these heavily", thanks We're not in our first year of school. Therequiembellishere (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 01:24, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Howabout adding 'elections' to the Members of Parliament bio infoboxes. GoodDay (talk) 01:29, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Are MPs images on those election pages? Didn't think so. Are the PM's? Thought so. Timeshift (talk) 01:32, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I happen to think 1987 is an important election to include on Howard's page. It's not just the wins that make a PM, it's the losses too. It's been there for ages, and there has been no argument of substance to remove them. Timeshift (talk) 01:31, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Because they could have been in office since the 60s! Are you really going to put every single election they contested in, even the ones they didn't win?! And "ages" in Wikipedia is, what, two years? Hardly. And I'm sorry, but the last I chequed, but you only take a political office if you win. Therequiembellishere (talk) 01:33, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Are you seriously saying that the picture makes the person? Therequiembellishere (talk) 01:34, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

It shows elections that the PM has contested as the leader of their party, vying to be PM or retain the PMship. I have received compliments on it, they are on all 26 Australian PMs, and have been there for ages. Why do you only take issue now - ah i've just found out why. The ones objecting aren't from Australia and they think because some of the infobox is different from global PMs, it shouldn't be on ours. Well, there is no such thing as a need for the same infobox for all countries. It's simple, I will be defending these strongly. Timeshift (talk) 01:37, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I've notised your defence, thanks, that's been addressed. I don't mean to be offensive, but Hitler also received compliments, but even if his actions had been well-intentioned, that wouldn't make them right, especially not due to compliments. You're being repetitive; the 26 lovely PMs of Australia have done wonderful job, but so have the thousand or so others who don't have them, and haven't been there for the five-year existence of Wikipedia, which you seem to think is a long time. And what sort of question is, "Why do you only take the issue now"? Perhaps because it's only come up to me now? Therequiembellishere (talk) 01:44, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not confortable with that loose suggestion - Australian PM articles belong to Australian editors. Did I misunderstand things, folks? GoodDay (talk) 01:47, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Given that we are the ones who create them, maintain them, defend them from often excessive levels of vandalism etc, I do think that the Australian politics editors do merit more of a say in how they are presented than those outside, no matter how good-intentioned. That isn't ownership by any stretch, that's just plain common sense. We have the same situation over at Australian places and roads with some of the templates. Orderinchaos 02:27, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Which suggestion, now? Therequiembellishere (talk) 01:48, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

And nobody owns any articles, that's part of the essence of Wikipedia. Therequiembellishere (talk) 01:49, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Did I say anyone owned it? I stated why you've decided to come along now and dictate to us that we shouldn't have non-standard things in our PM infoboxes. Australians edit this article most, so naturally we will have a consensus for the Australian rather than the non-Australian way (the editors who edit this most, and not just at election time, get the articles good to what we think is best, rather than having it dictated to us by others (who are in the minority) about how things should and shouldn't be and basing it on other countries infoboxes). Timeshift (talk) 01:55, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying Timeshift (with Majority vs Minority example). GoodDay (talk) 01:58, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't talking to you, Timeshift. You'll see the GoodDay was the one who said that, so you're clarifying something that you hadn't even alluded to up until now. Australians will naturally edit Australian articles most, but you should remember that the world looks at it and don't know as much as you. Seeing the other countries with a difference to this one is extremely strange. It they want to find out the information on the election the politician has participated in, they should be incorporated in and be read in article. I can help you put these in at least Howard and Rudd's pages, because, as you have rudely pointed out on my page, I'm not Australian and don't know what happened in all of your elections, but if I can find information here, I'll try. Even for Austrlians, remembering 100+ years of Prime Ministers is nigh impossible. Therequiembellishere (talk) 02:16, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

You've still given no substance for justification of removal of elections, except a bunch of waft. GoodDay gave a succinct clarification of things though. He said he's leaning toward advocating removing HoS and elections from 'all PM infoboxes (constitutional monarchies & republican PMs) on Wikipedia'. Clarification - wikipedia does not work like this, it cannot be dictated to all countries as to how they have their pages and cannot dictate that all countries have the same one design. Wikipedia does not and will not work like that. Timeshift (talk) 02:23, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

That's what hoping to find out tommorrow (concerning PM bio infoboxes), does Wikipedia work that way or not. It doesn't hurt to ask. GoodDay (talk) 03:00, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

This entire dispute is a bit silly. I've noticed on Wikipedia that ephemera tend to attract more discussion than content, and it's often done in a loud manner - most of the 24 hour blocks, AN/I reports, reverts etc that occur come basically from somebody barging in, demanding something be changed, and fighting an entire roomful of people to get their way, usually on something that when everyone stands back and thinks about it really doesn't matter. I tend to think infoboxes should be used to summarise key information, and for a Prime Minister or a State Premier, that does include the elections they contested, which go some way to defining their Prime Ministership. I don't know what we would do about Menzies, though. As for the Monarch/GG - what relevance has that to a Prime Minister article? John Howard served under at least three, and they, unlike the elections, did nothing to define his tenure and only serve to clutter an infobox - that information should be in the text. Orderinchaos 02:27, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I've already implemented what I believe is the most practical solution. Individual listings for PMs, with John Howard listing each but cutting off the first two numbers, and Robert Menzies you can view. Bob Hawke just fits. Timeshift (talk) 02:30, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

It is not waft that they get in the way. I suggested that we should implement them into the article itself, which makes perfect sense as we can go in more detail there than the actual election's page can. The HoS and GG are pertinent because they are legally his equal (in a general sense people, I don't need constitutional references) and should be recognised as such. Therequiembellishere (talk) 03:14, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

See here. In Australia, it is the the election/electors, not the HoS, that in practicality chooses who will govern. Timeshift (talk) 04:15, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

In Australia the GG is a figurehead only - it's not like France, Russia or Pakistan to name a few where the PM is basically the appointee - in Australia it's almost the other way around, and due to the bipartisan nature of the appointments of GGs, they usually have no bearing on the character of the PM appointing them either. Orderinchaos 04:44, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Well put. And often in these biographies, editors get so precious about the infobox, forgetting that it is intended as a short and succinct summary of a person's life and an attention-grabber. Details belong to the article itself. Stuff like election details, heads of states, what he had for the breakfast the norning after he was elected, etc, is simply unecessary there.--Gazzster (talk) 05:10, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

OiC has stated he supports keeping elections contested there, but not HoS, for the record. Timeshift (talk) 05:15, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

KISS (Keep Infoboxes Simple Stupid). I agree, Gazzster, and (partly) Orderinchaos. I support removing Heads of State and Elections lists from the PM infobox. That sort of content belongs in the article body, where it can be covered appropriately and in context as needed. --Brendan [ contribs ] 08:12, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Brendan, I'll bite. I change to remove HoS, GG and Elections. Therequiembellishere (talk) 16:58, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, let's clean house. Also, I've raised question at Wikipedia: WikiProject Biography, to what their views our on all PM bio infoboxes. Take a peek. GoodDay (talk) 17:02, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, the idead that PM infoboxes need to be exactly the same in different countries (even in different Commonwealth realms) is complete garbage. Wikipedia doesn't work like that, and there is no reason why an Aussie PM box must look like a UK PM box or so on. As for this particular issue, clearly the elections contested are important to the life of a PM, and are useful links. The question is whether these are well suited for display in an infobox, or should simply be covered in the article. To some extent this is a matter of taste. I am not convinced either way, even though I generally prefer smaller infoboxes. I would suggest, however, that if lost elections belong in the PM's box, they probably belong in the infobox for opposition leaders who never became PM, as well. JPD (talk) 11:27, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't disagree, but taking that the next step, should infoboxes between any Australian PM be the same? If so, why? If not, why not? Shot info (talk) 11:51, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I find the elections addition a useful addition. I didn't actually know, for example, that Howard had contested the 87 election until I read it there. But Head of State should definitely go. I'm happy to ditch the elections too, as long as it's made very clear (possibly in section headings) that a leader contested a particular election - e.g. Howardin 1987. I also think the addition of degrees and titles should go in the lead paragraph as is done with everyone else on Wikipedia. Infobox should be confined to a few simple details - DOB, former profession, spouse, religion (if relevant (and given that Rudd has made his Christian faith a very prominent part of his life (as someone like George Bush or Tony Blair also did) it IS relevant here, but I'd argue it's not for most former Australian Prime Ministers)), Deputy, predecessors and successors. (GoodDay, let's not ask WikiProject Biography - they have nothing to do with this page. Let's sort it out ourselves. JRG (talk) 12:15, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Lack of consistency does not equal lack of professionalism

I take issue with the idea that because a certain template is not uniformly used across a broad range of articles, professionalism is compromised. Professionalism is about editorial conduct, not the observance of formats. On the contrary, to consider each case in its own context is professional. It reflects creativity, analytical skills and the ability to relate different concepts. We already do this. Have a look, for example, at the infoboxes in monarch biographies. Compare say, Juan Carlos I and Elizabeth II. Very different.--Gazzster (talk) 12:05, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Its a long road, but I do believe that people that are editors rather than Wikipedians would disagree with you. Examining an encyclopedia (ie/ Encyclopedia Britannica) is a case in point. But since the argument seems to be not only can infoboxes within Australian PMs be different to other country's PMs, it can be different between PMs in a given country. So if that's the consensus, hey I'm cool with that. Shot info (talk) 12:14, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

If lack of consistancy is preferred, then theoretically the Aussi PM bio infoboxes can be inconsistant. If consistancy among articles is not Wikipedia way? Why do we have WikiProjects & Manual of Styles pages? GoodDay (talk) 18:06, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Of course there must be some general consistency. But we ought to beflexible enough not to try and stuff everything in the same box when we know they won't fit. With the monarch biographies there is this general consistency, but also a broad range ofg differences.--Gazzster (talk) 21:04, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Then again, let's remove Head of State, Governor General and Elections from all the PM infoxes. That won't necessarily make them all identical. GoodDay (talk) 21:08, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Why not the Governor-General?

If we are going to put Liz's name in the infobox, as a recent reverted edit has done, why not the Governor-General's name as well? It would certainly be appropriate, seeing as the GG is the de facto Head of State. We must either exclude both or include both. --Gazzster (talk) 11:31, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I would prefer the GG instead of old Liz, because he is uniquely Australia's head of state representative, and she is all the Commonwealth's. DEVS EX MACINA _pray 11:48, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

The GG is not Australia's Head of State, he's the Head of State's represenative. GoodDay (talk) 16:11, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

If he's good enough to sign documents in place of her, he's sure as hell good enough to replace her in a Wikipedia article infobox. DEVS EX MACINA _pray 08:26, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Why not, because other PM info boxes have the HoS, not somebody else. For what it is worth, I am an avocate for both (why not...it's only infomation) but following the practise at the other PM articles, it's HoS that appears. All the above discussion, while interesting, doesn't really address the issue of following a stylistic format implemented at many other locations in Wikipedia. Shot info (talk) 09:21, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but having it implemented in all other locations in Wikipedia is simply not a be-all and end-all reason for adding something. There must be a clear reason. Head of state should go on there, but the Governor-General applies more to Australia than Elizabeth II. This is something perhaps they overlooked on the other pages, but for the sake of Australian articles, if we're going to have to have the Head of State, it might as well actually apply in this instance. Michael Jeffrey swore Rudd in, the same as the hated Kerr dissolved Parliament, with the Queen's power, but she is the Head of State of all the Commonwealth, and does not apply specifically here. Things change on Wikipedia, Shot info, whereby changing consensus, changing attitudes or second thoughts. Let's not blindly follow tradition here. DEVS EX MACINA _pray 11:18, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

A correction. Queen Elizabeth II is the Head of the Commonwealth, not the Head of State of the Commonwealth. The Commonwealth has no head of state as it is not a sovereign entity. The Commonwealth argument is irrelevant to this discussion, as it purely a convention, and not a particularly long-established one, that the Head of the Commonwealth is the monarch. The first Head was George VI, the queen's father, and he only got the role in 1949, less than 4 years before he died. There's nothing in the charter of the Commonwealth that says the head must always be the monarch. It certainly makes a lot of sense, but it's by no means mandatory. -- JackofOz (talk) 12:24, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I just think it'd be more applicable, that's all. More country-specific. If we're going to have to have something representing the monarchy in the infobox, it might as well be ours. DEVS EX MACINA _pray 12:36, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I think a lot of the discussion of the infobox has overlapped into a debate on who our head of state is - the queen or the GG. This is not the place for that debate. Since we can't seem to come to any consensus about whether to have the queen or the GG, or neither, in the infobox, why not have both? To varying degrees they're both relevant to our constitutional arrangements. The GG does most of the work, but his job wouldn't exist without the queen. I've long since stopped caring what actually goes in the infobox; not that it's unimportant per se, but in the overall scheme of things it's not worth such protracted debates. Infoboxes play their part, but I'm more interested in the guts of the article. I'll leave you good folk to battle it out. (But I reserve the right to pipe up again if I think comment is called for). -- JackofOz (talk) 12:54, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Apart from unresolved contention over context and relevance, the question also remains of "where does it end"? If it is decided that both GG & Monarch should be on the PM's infobox, why not put it in the infobox for every Member of the federal Cabinet? Or all Members of Parliament. Or all politicians: federal, state and local? What is the principle here? What exactly are we trying to achieve by labelling infoboxes on politician BLPs with trivia about incumbent constitutional figureheads (when such info is better suited to other pages or noted in the article body, where relevant)? --Brendan [ contribs ] 07:50, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I went this route before, and I'm wondering if people here should do so again: go to Template:Infobox Officeholder and ask why the monarch/president/governor/governor-general sections were even included in the template. If the articles aren't to mention heads of state, why have a section for such people at all?

Further, if the monarch or GG is not to be included, why on earth is the deputy PM (a virtually non-existent position) currently there? --G2bambino (talk) 04:05, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

WP:Consensus. Moreover, read the comments of others below. This discussion is getting incredibly tautologist. --Brendan [ contribs ] 03:02, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm hoping Head of State, Governor General, Elections will be removed from all PM bio infoboxes. GoodDay (talk) 23:52, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

It should all be removed. It's a bit sad that so many people incorrectly think the Governor General is Australia's head of state. Australia's head of state is the Queen. Interesting fact, but should not be in the infobox. Lester 04:10, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

All? The deputy PM as well? And Rudd's predecessor? That information is, after all, repeated in no less than two infoboxes at the foot of the article. --G2bambino (talk) 04:14, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

The only reason I suggested the G-G be added in the first place is that he is relevant more to Kevin Rudd than the Queen, but the HoS nor the GG is relevant, truly. The deputy and predecessor are relevant information as he and the Labor Party elected her deputy leader of the party and as a consequence she is the Deputy Prime Minister, a position that has considerable more relevance than a monarch thousands of miles away, and the predecessor goes without saying, just for quick reference purposes. DEVS EX MACINA _pray 04:19, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

If the sovereign or viceroy are not relevant to Kevin Rudd, then nor are a deputy PM or predecessors. The former, if elected by the Labor Party, belongs at the Labor Party page and/or the Australian prime minister page. The predecessors aren't necessary because, as I already just said, they're listed in two infoboxes at the base of the article. It seems like POV at best, hypocricy at worst, to claim that the deputy PM belongs, but the person whom Rudd directly advises - whether that be sovereign, viceroy, or both - does not. --G2bambino (talk) 04:25, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

"POV or hypocricy[sic!]"? Spare the histrionics please, and keep it real. This is not a hot air question of moral or political POV but simply one of "how much info belongs in an infobox?". Everyone will have a Point Of View on that; bemoaning that fact is mere distraction. An infobox should not be an exhaustive catalogue of trivia but a snapshot of the most notable, relevant details about the article subject. In the Australian context at least, the Deputy Prime Minister is exquisitely relevant and notable here (even aside from the considerable coverage that Gillard has received as the first female deputy PM). Where do you get the idea that Rudd "directly advises" the Crown (what were your earlier words, "on a daily basis"?) and why do you conclude that this misconception is relevant? --Brendan [ contribs ] 09:03, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

My, my. Settle down.

Those who argue the deputy PM belongs, and predecessors need be in three separate infoboxes, but the monarch and/or viceroy need not be in any infobox at all are indeed turning this into a nationalistic and/or political argument. Those who do so dismiss constitutional reality - where Rudd advises the Governor-General and/or sovereign on the exercise of the Crown powers, as is the purpose of his job - in favour of a warped view wherein Rudd is some kind of presidential figure at the apex of the constitutional pyramid and Gillard the vice-president. I know enough of the Australain system to realise that is not the case; and reliable sources will support me.

So, it's somewhat of an all or nothing situation. If the infobox is to be about Rudd, and Rudd alone, then Gillard and Howard don't belong; not that they aren't each relevant in some way somewhere, but not in this infobox. But, if those two are to remain because they are related to Rudd's position as PM, then so too should the monarch and/or GG for their relation to Rudd's position as PM. Trying to weasel some in-between scenario means making arbitrary and personal choices as to what matters and what doesn't, and that would be POV editing. --G2bambino (talk) 17:11, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Please don't instruct me to "settle down" when you are the one making gruff claims of POV and hypocrisy. This is not a debate over factuality of content, so claims of POV (on all sides) hold little weight. The material issues for me are: "how much info in an infobox is enough?", "what can be better expressed within the article body instead?". Adamant "all or nothing" (compulsory consistency) arguments hold little weight and do not override consensus policy. --Brendan [ contribs ] 11:34, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I'll instruct you to settle down as long as you go into hysterics over opposition to your arguments. If you're so sensitive as to view the pointing out of an unfounded statement as POV then, well, I'm afraid that's your problem, not mine.

I'll actually agree with you on the issues of focus in this discussion; however, if you see my comments below, you'll see why I believe statements such as "Gillard is more important to Rudd than the Queen" to be pure POV. --G2bambino (talk) 16:13, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Ahem. Who went into hysterics? Your position looks pretty weak when the most you can say to rational disagreement is that your interlocutor is engaging in hysterics (even though you have now since belatedly agreed with my observation about what the focus of the discussion actually is -- good for you, how about now finally discussing that?). But you will do what you will do. Just understand that doesn't make your carry-on rational, reasonable or consensus-forming. Don't expect anyone to obey your juvenile instructions either. It remains extraordinary, you telling me to settle down when you were spraying hysterical accusations of "hipocrisy" ("hypocrisy" is having a double standard, is "hipocrisy" having a double hip?) and "POV". You are the one who needs to settle down, actually listen to the comments of others and avoid use of absolutist phrases like "there is no logical reason..." (etc, below), which do not add any particular value to your arguments, the discussion or the article. --Brendan [ contribs ] 03:00, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I do believe you take things far too personally and try to make everything personal. A good attempt at belittling me; but, sorry, you fail. --G2bambino (talk) 16:24, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Rudd does not advise the Crown. The Queen is not consulted on ny aspect of Australian politics. She is simply informed of developments as every other head of state is. But such considerations aren't relevant. The sovereign isn't pertinent to the life of KR. Julian Gillard, however, is. That is the point.--Gazzster (talk) 21:11, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

POV, Gazzster, I'm afraid. It is merely your opinion that Gillard is more pertinent, not fact. If the deputy PM stays, the sovereign and/or viceroy stays (which or both can be decided later). If the sovereign and/or viceroy goes, the deputy PM goes. No arbitrary picking and choosing that which pleases us most, thanks. --G2bambino (talk) 23:14, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Yet another inconsistancy among the PM infoboxes. The Canadian PM infoboxes (for example) don't includ their DPMs (note: only Trudeau, Turner, Mulroney, Campbell, Chretien, Martin had them). Meanwhile the British PM infoboxes do. GoodDay (talk) 23:28, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Of course it's POV. Everyone who comes to Wikipedia has a POV, including you, I might add. I really object to the sort of finger pointing that cries, 'you've got a POV, you're a witch!' as if it were a taint or poison. And both those last words are used quite a bit. If we didn't have points of view we wouldn't be here, would we? The question is, is the point of view relevant? Is it valid? My point of view here is that the infobox is for stuff relevant to the person in question. My opinion is that Julian Gillard, the dep PM is more relevant to the life of Kevin Rudd than the monarch. It is a perfectly valid point of view worthy of consideration.--Gazzster (talk) 23:27, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Finger pointing? If one makes an assertion that is unsupported by verifiable sources then it is POV; I'm certainly not making any personal criticisms here, just pointing out the nature of the arguments put forward. Saying "Gillard is more important than the Queen" is just a personal POV, which one is entitled to have, but it should not be the basis on which we edit any articles.

I think the first questions that must be answered are the following: Are we to put in who we think more relevant to Rudd personally, or is it those more relevant to the office he holds? If it is the latter, does his deputy really hold more pertinence than his boss? If it is the former, does his deputy really have more meaning to him than his family? If we decide on what the infobox is meant to put forward then it should become much easier to know what to include and what not to. --G2bambino (talk) 23:51, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

No gentlemen, edit warring won't do. GoodDay (talk) 23:58, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

'Gillard is more important than the Queen'? I didn't say anything even remotely similar to that. I said that inserting JG's name in an infobox about KR is more relevant than inserting the name of ER. You may object to me having that opinion and you obviously do, but you cannot possibly claim that it's an unworthy opinion deminised by the dreaded POV. And if were taling about POVs, you might want to ask yourself why you think E2 is more relevant than Julian Gillard. Could it bear that you are polluted by your own POV? --Gazzster (talk) 00:01, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

More important to Rudd, then.

I do not object to your having an opinion, nor to the fact that it doesn't directly parallel my own. However, I do object to someone saying "my opinion is more right than yours" without evidence to prove it so. It is the lack of evidence that makes something the "dreaded" POV, and I see little to support the assertion that a deputy PM is more relevant to a PM than the PM's boss.

I'll assume we know that the infobox is to list that which is pertinent to Rudd's positions in life. That said, when it comes to his station as Prime Minister, I'm willing to accept the removal of the HoS or viceroy; as long as the same logic is applied to the deputy PM. Conversely, if the deputy PM is to stay, then it must follow that the HoS and/or viceroy do so also. No POV as to who is more relevant to Rudd than whom (which includes a pro-HoS stance), just a logical decision on whether the peripherals to the office of PM - both above and below - are to be included or not. --G2bambino (talk) 00:15, 11 December 2007 (UTC)\

And how, pray tell, do you suggest I reference the opinion that JG is more relevant to the life of KR than ER? It is a fact of Australian politic life. How would you reference the converse?--Gazzster (talk) 00:20, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

If it is a fact it should be citable. --G2bambino (talk) 16:08, 11 December 2007 (UTC) Okay, sorry; that last comment wasn't really fair. You've admitted that your stance really is just an opinion with no way to reliably source it. Perhaps you are even right that the deputy PM is an important office in relation to that of the Prime Minister. But, because you cannot prove that it is more important than the office of, at least Governor General, then there's no logical reason to keep Michael Jeffrey out of Rudd's infobox. --G2bambino (talk) 16:27, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, because I never like to say such things, but your comments are becoming quite absurd. I have not admitted that there is no way to source my opinion. In fact, a demand for a source is just too ridiculous! And no-one would rationally require it. I have heard of demands for facts being sourced, but never opinions. How do I source an opinion? An opinion is based on a fact, and these are the facts: She is the deputy PM. When KR is out of Australia she governs the country; she is a cabinet colleague with multiple portfolios; she works with the PM, speaks with him on almost a daily basis. How could you possibly demand my opinion be sourced? Yet if you do persist in this anal demand I refer you to Julia Gillard, where, I might add, the monarch's name does not appear in the infobox either, despite her also being appointed by the GG in the name of the Queen. But I could equally ask you to source your own opinion. But I won't, because it is patently obvious your opinion requires no justification and I understand the facts upon which they are based. I simply disagree on the application of those facts in thnis case. --Gazzster (talk) 20:54, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I think you've missed what I actually said, Gazzster.

As for the deputy PM: I've no doubt it's a position with certain relevance to the PM; but, then, so is the monarch and/or viceroy. Either all the directly related positions are there, or none are. It's just that simple. --G2bambino (talk) 21:19, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I think the majority of editors at these Aussie PM articles will accept the Governor General in the infobox, but the'll never accept Elizabeth II. GoodDay (talk) 21:23, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, of course the Queen and the GG have a certain relevance to the PM in Australia. But I am arguing that the DP has more. At least, that is my understanding of what we have been discussing. Because she is more relevant she has more claim to a place in the infobox than the sovereign. You asked me to source my opinion that she is more reklevant. I have spent much time doing so already.--Gazzster (talk) 21:29, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Gazzster, I revoked my request that you provide a source; you're quite right, an opinion is merely that: an opinion. That's what I conveyed above.

But, again, it's actually not important which of the two offices we're discussing here - one above and one below - is "more relevant" to Rudd. The point is: they both just are relevant, each for different reasons. Gillard is Rudd's second in command; EIIR, or at least Jeffrey, is Rudd's commander. Thus, if one stays, so should the other, and vice versa. --G2bambino (talk) 21:39, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Officeholder currently calls for full inclusion - in this case Monarch, Governor General & Deputy Prime Minister. Now what? GoodDay (talk) 21:36, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't see that stipulation. Where is it? --G2bambino (talk) 21:45, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

It's under the Template General Office sub-section. GoodDay (talk) 21:57, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I see all the sections are there, but I don't see where there's a call for full inclusion. --G2bambino (talk) 16:26, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I misunderstood the Template; it's merely showing all the options for a infobox. Anyways, are we going agree to add Governor General to these PM infoboxes inplace of Monarch? GoodDay (talk) 17:13, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

At the Risk of Inflicting Terminal Boredom

Look at the infobox. It is headed: The Hon. Kevin Michael Rudd, 26th Prime Minister of Australia. Incumbent. The format simply doesn't allow a place for the monarch's name. It is clear that the information relates directly to Rudd. Any mention of the sovereign is quite simply out of place in the context of the format. There is no convenient place for her, unless we care to make a place.--Gazzster (talk) 02:27, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Some implemented examples for you UK, Belgium, Canada, NZ. Shot info (talk) 09:22, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

You're not addressing my point. The infobox is not formatted to give the monarch's name. It is formatted to give detail about the person who is the subject of the article. Even in the examples you referred me to, the name of the monarch is incongrous in the context of the format. That is my point.--Gazzster (talk) 10:24, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, if I don't understand your point, then of course I'm not addressing it. The template PM is rather clear so I cannot understand what you are trying to say. Shot info (talk) 13:01, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

There is no convenient place to put the sovereign's name. If you read all the headings in the infobox, they are expecting personal information about the person's life in office. What sovereign he serves under has no bearing. --Gazzster (talk) 20:52, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

And if we're going to cite predecent, let's be really consistent. Every minister of state in a constitutional monarchy is appointed by the Crown. So should every minister have E2 or whatever monarch in their infobox? Likewise every governor and Governor-General. But let's not stop there. Should every cardinal's infobox have the name of the Pope he serves under? Should every infobox of a Church of England bishop have the name of the sovereign, as Supreme Governor, who appointed him? Etc, etc, etc. Simply to cite precedent solves nothing.--Gazzster (talk) 23:32, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Ya know something Gazz, you got good points there. I'm actually starting to have second thoughts about the Canadian PM infoboxes. GoodDay (talk) 23:41, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I just checked up on French President bio infoboxes, according to them Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom should have every Commonwealth realm PM that ever served under her, listed in here Infobox. Since there's arguing for inclusion HoS in PM infoboxes? Whatabout HoG in Monarch/President infoboxes? Now that's a mega headache, eh? GoodDay (talk) 00:36, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Even Togo is in on the act :-) Shot info (talk) 00:38, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Gazzster: I too don't know what you're getting at. Template:Infobox Officeholder clearly has a dedicated space for monarchs, viceroys and presidents. If it didn't, the text wouldn't appear here. Wherever this template is used, the head of state can be inserted if appropriate.

GoodDay: Elizabeth II has a whole article dedicated to her prime ministers. That can be linked from her infobox, if need be. --G2bambino (talk) 04:20, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

It's irrelevant what other countries do. Togo, Canada, Denmark etc all have different relationships with their monarchy and their flags, and different attitudes towards these things. Just because they put flags and monarchies over their articles doesn't mean Australia must follow. Lester 04:25, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Togo is a republic. --G2bambino (talk) 04:28, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

The Australian Nationalists here seem to be missing the point about having a common style across Wikipedia. It allows for this thing called Wikipedia to appear more professional, which is a problem with it at the moment. Sure it may be irrelevant what other countries do, but it is 100% relevant what appears in other articles of similar ilk as the current Prime Ministers of many and various countries within this thing called Wikipedia. Jeeze, call yourselves editors... Shot info (talk) 05:19, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I suggest playing the argument and not the man - characterising anyone who disagrees with you with epithets and adopting a condescending tone is not going to get us anywhere and is just going to lead to more drama, something we really don't need more of on Wiki right now. The fact is that different countries have different circumstances and, strangely enough, different consensuses - I fully support the right of Pakistani editors, for instance, to determine a consensus that best meets their needs on a PM article just as I do that of Australia, or Britain, or Canada, or anywhere else. A Prime Minister in some countries is leader of the government, in some is appointed by a president, in yet others is rotated across a Cabinet and has no real power, in others is chosen by parliament in countries where parties are not strong and coalitions more resemble a seething snake pit than a sense of ordered direction. It is a misreading of consensus policy to dictate to Wikipedians that everyone, regardless of circumstances, must reach an international binding agreement - heck, even the UN can't do that, and they're paid to do it - we're just volunteers. Orderinchaos 05:31, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I find the arguement that "Just because they put flags and monarchies over their articles doesn't mean Australia must follow." odd in the extreme and (frankly) a bit overtly nationalistic, something completely at odds with the internationalism of Wikipedia. Particularly when it's used to defend what appears to be a poor edit for what appears to be POV reasons. I'm arguing for some sort of consistancy, either here or there, either way doesn't matter. To allow nationalistic POV to poison an article....for whatever reason...will only be yet another nail in the coffin of WP (much to the delight of many I'm sure). It would be nice to nip this one in the bud, if admins would help that is.... Shot info (talk) 05:37, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

How is insisting on accuracy POV or nationalistic? Just because I and others believe Australia's articles do not need head of state in the infobox does not mean I think the head of state is irrelevant to our country. I am strongly supportive of infoboxes, and I believe that only necessary information should be in them. I have argued this point with other Australians at other infoboxes. What is necessary information here and what is necessary information in Togo do actually differ - I listen to BBC World Service and am aware of the situation there with Gnassingbe. This debate is going nowhere when we have people throwing allegations and rhetoric around like the above post. Orderinchaos 06:18, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

As Orderinchaos, a wiki admin pointed out, there is no need for any sort of rigid consistency amongst infoboxes for various countries. Regional differences are fine assuming they follow wikipedia guidelines. Timeshift (talk) 05:26, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Whoooo, a wiki admin --- To reiterate, the lack of consistency (lets forget the adjective for the moment) makes the project less professional. Hence the long procedural aspect associated with FA status. Shot info (talk) 05:32, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Is not every Prime Ministership of a country unique? Last I checked, there wasn't a Universal Board of Prime Minister Standards that made sure every single Prime Minister has exactly the same power, the same ambitions, the same focus on monarchy and republicanism. The powers both written down in legislation and in the minds of the Australian people given to the Prime Minister of Australia are different to those of the Prime Minister of Togo, Belgium, France, Canada and Fairy Floss Candy Land. Just because they both hold that title does not mean that they are equal, or that Wikipedia should enforce some sort of wide "standard" over a position whose place and standing in one respective country may be radically different to their similarly-titled brethren in others. DEVS EX MACINA _pray 06:06, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Your opinions about professionalism and mine about efficiency seem to be clashing here. I believe infobox clutter makes Wikipedia look unprofessional, as does the use or misuse of fields/names in contexts to which they don't and shouldn't apply. I've seen the same problems over at schools, where different terminology in different countries hampers consistency, and to insist on consistency is basically to say that the vast differences between national standards in different nations and different dialects of English are irrelevant. Furthermore, I challenge you to find one average-educated person anywhere in the world outside Australia (and indeed even many inside it) who knows who Michael Jeffery is. Then do the same for Nicolas Sarkozy. There *is* a difference. Internationalism requires diversity of approaches, not blind conformism for its own sake. Orderinchaos 06:18, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Firstly to Deux, you are correct, there are lots of different PMs, but the style of the article about the PMs should be very similar, granted they cannot be the same and I am not arguing for that. Please keep it in perspective, we are discussing a couple of lines in a infobox. I am arguing for it, using other articles in WP as an example. Others are arguing against it, using a lot of emotions, spurious arguments and canards. Now I find it odd that we don't seem to want to make similar articles appear similar in appearance to make articles more professional. Granted it is difficult to achieve this, especially given the lack of sources for some, and the overwhelming number of sources for others. But we should do our best.

To Order, fine, if you feel that consistency of style doesn't apply to Wikipedia, then it doesn't apply, after all, there is no policy we are arguing over. In which case, why bother with the PM infobox at all? After all, there appears to be an arguement that there is no need for consistency? As for the other argument about the GG of Australia versus the President of France, how about I challenge you to find one average-educated person anywhere in the world outside Australia (and indeed even many inside it) who knows who Queen of Australia is? This is just as (ir)relevant as your argument? Shot info (talk) 06:40, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually it's just proven my point that she's not relevant given that the situation is such in Australia that when they refer to the Queen they usually do so not as their sovereign monarch but as some English royal, Queen of England but not Queen of them. DEVS EX MACINA _pray 06:45, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Being a bit of a devil's advocate here , Deux, I personally agree with you BUT for the purposes of editing Wikipedia under the rules we have, I have to disagree with my editors hat on FWIW. After all, the Constitution and the various Australia Acts qualify as WP:RS? However this is any aside to the discussion of a couple of lines in a infobox. Tell you what, us Wikipedians can write a lot of stuff about really nothing :-) Shot info (talk) 06:56, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

For the record Shot, I don't think the UK relics should be in the infobox, I never advocated that. I advocate the quick-ref listing of elections in the infobox as has been the style for ages, and is far more relevant to gaining or retaining office than UK relics. Timeshift (talk) 07:37, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Again, don't you think that "UK Relic" to describe what RS's call the Queen of Australia (I'm assuming this is what you mean, please correct me if I am wrong) is kindof POV? Also this argument to "relevance" doesn't really agree with arguments articulated above. FWIW I have no problem with any information appearing in the infobox, but the "style for ages" doesn't mesh with the majority of "styles eslewhere". So either we accept an unconventional (and IMO unprofessional) style for Australian WP articles or we don't. So far it seems to be learning towards "stuff the rest of WP, we Ozzies are doing it our way" :-) Shot info (talk) 08:32, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Do you realise that the single thing most likely to cause people to oppose your point of view, if (as you say) they are arguing based on "emotion", is to mock and deride them? Food for thought. --Brendan [ contribs ] 09:19, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Sometimes beauty is in the eye of the beholder. If editors think, in their opinion, that I am mocking and deriding them, I won't stop them, after all, it's their opinion? Now that's a quick snack for thought Obi-Wan :-) Shot info (talk) 11:29, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

The purpose of the PM infobox is to present a snapshot of the PM and his term(s). While we Australian editors might all know in our bones that yeah, KR won the 2007 election and the Queen was QEII and the GG MJ, but this is an encyclopaedia used around the world, and our readers might be interested in easily accessed facts. Looking at previous PMs, we see that they had other monarchs and other elections. Menzies is a good example of a PM with multiple terms and monarchs. Why should KR be any different to other PMs in the way we present information? --Pete (talk) 12:31, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

For those who argue the infoboxes should not be consistant? That might mean Kevin Rudd different from John Howard from Paul Keating from Bob Hawke etc, etc. GoodDay (talk) 16:03, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

So, what have we decided? Are we gonna exclude Monarch and the Governor General from the Australian PM infoboxes? Or just use keep Governor General? GoodDay (talk) 18:46, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

We've talked ourselves to a standstill. I don't think the contents of the infobox is gonna change without a dispute.--Gazzster (talk) 22:26, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Also, we've not decided on the inclusion/exclusion of Elections, a situation wich currently has left the recent Aussie PM infoboxes different from the other Aussie PM infoboxes. GoodDay (talk) 22:30, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

OK, a few days ago i mentioned on the stephen harper talk page (where a similar discussion occurred) that i would come by here and put in my two cents worth. I am personally against including the monarch in infoboxes (and also against, to a lesser extent including the GG). However i think that Gazzster is right that we've talked ourselves to a standstill. However, i also believe that this issue needs to be decided and applied to all commonwealth PMs. But this is probably not the place to make a decision that will affect a large number of subjects. I would suggest that this discussion be transplanted to somewhere (maybe at WP:PLT?) as a final consensus should be reached.Random89 (talk) 07:31, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the issue needs to be decided at all. I think its a case of creating an issue rather than responding to one. But, if we do want to, I suppose we could have a vote. I find votes tiresome and frequently just protract things, because of the fuss over what makes a consensus. But don't mind me.--Gazzster (talk) 10:43, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Snapshot of views versus chronological narrative

The article seems to be evolving in two different directions that have resulted (and may increasingly so) in tautology (eg. Kyoto mentioned twice, once under 'First term', another under 'Environmental views'). What do others think about consolidating the various "views" sections back into their chronological context (ie. comments/speeches/views made as a Member of Parliament go in that section, similar for Leader of the Opposition, and so too for Prime Minister). A benefit of this approach is that the article may better document changes in views/policy/direction relative to other coincident events (remembering that political views are apt to change depending on the issue, the context, and so forth). I didn't want to go making edits yet because it is a hefty structural/stylistic change, wanted to hear others' thoughts. --Brendan [ contribs ] 12:57, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Go for it. If editors disagree, they can always edit :-) Shot info 23:52, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

It's better to have different views listed by view at least until there's enough of an article (including Rudd's prime ministership) to constitute a chronological article. At the moment with just his opposition years and recent leadership elevation I don't think the article is sufficient to warrant a complete rewriting of the views sections. JRG 12:04, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Web Address in Infobox

The link, although pointing to the right address, reads "www.pm.com.au" instead of "www.pm.gov.au". I'd change this but the page is protected —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.208.109.169 (talk) 02:26, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Environment

I've removed the bit about the US being the final country (i think i added it in). Is this relevant to Kevin Rudd's environmental stance? Ps i appreciate the grammatical fixes made earlier Blumph 06:08, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

it is good too see a goverment doing somthing positive about Environmental issues. like global warming, what about deforestation, what plans will be put into place concerning planting trees to reduce salinity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.209.69.26 (talk) 13:17, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

What ever happened to the mention of Rudd's Aortic valve replacement?

This was deleted out at some stage or another, but is a major event is his personal story and has its own importance for Australian national leadership. While he is fit and well, he has an homograft heart valve and will need to remain under careful medical monitoring for the rest of his life. I think this warrants reinstatement in the article. Any objections? ROxBo 08:04, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

No objections here.Lester 02:49, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I didn't know that he has one! Bothsidesspin (talk) 00:05, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

So does Arnold Schwartzkopf (sic). Careful medical monitoring though? I don't like the wording of that, it has incorrect implications. And it was 10 years ago. I have no issues re-adding this, assuming it is factually correct. Timeshift (talk) 00:47, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Agreed with Timeshift. It's as a result of a genetic problem that some percentage of the population have from birth, most people with it once the operation has been conducted have normal, long and healthy lives, so this "careful medical monitoring" thing seems a bit odd (Disclosure: I know someone with the same problem, his was replaced at 31.) Orderinchaos 04:42, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

If consistancy among the PM infoboxes is rejected? Then it could be argued each individual infobox shouldn't be the same. Kevin Rudd could be different from John Howard from Paul Keating from Bob Hawke etc. GoodDay (talk) 16:00, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Chinese name

WWGB keeps removing Kevin Rudd's Chinese name. There is a citation about his Chinese name - that is his official name. I don't know why he could remove the useful information and said he is calling that as "just editing the article" without saying the truth that he removed useful information. Raymond Giggs 12:11, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

It's not his "official name", Kevin Rudd is his official name. His Chinese affiliation deserves mention in the article, but certainly not in the opening sentence. WWGB (talk) 12:22, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry. It is his official Chinese name. It is not a translated name in Chinese, but his official Chinese name. He gave this name himself. Please check the citation. Raymond Giggs 12:27, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

In the citation, the news article keep saying that his name is "Kevin Rudd", but also point out that he named himself as "陸克文", how come it is not his official Chinese name? For Howard, Howard had not given himself any Chinese name, so I won't add any Chinese translation name in Howard's article. But for Ruud's case, yes. Raymond Giggs 12:30, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

The fact is not disputed, putting it in the lead sentence is. Cheers, WikiTownsvillian 12:40, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

The purpose of giving a name in any language other than English in the lead is to indicate what the subject calls themself in their own first language. What they're called in other languages, whether the subject learned them at university or the language has some form of official status within their country or the language is just widely used, isn't really relevant. Since Rudd has presumably been to other countries and will no doubt go to more, do we need to list what names are put on the press releases/name plates and so forth wherever he goes? Timrollpickering (talk) 20:34, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't see the need for a Chinese name here either. The only use I can see for doing that would be for someone who is Chinese but known in the West by a different name - people like Jackie Chan or Donald Tsang, for example - not a Westerner who happens to be able to speak Chinese. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 22:16, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Including his Chinese name is entirely relevant, given his time spent working and studying in China as well as Taiwan (any one have a citation for his time studying at Taipei's National Taiwan Normal University?). Rudd, unlike other celebs say like Tom Cruise who is referred with a "fake" transliterated name, self identifies himself with 陸克文 when in a Chinese language context. Inclusion is highly appropriate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Panamajack (talk • contribs) 10:06, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

There's a considerable difference, though, between saying "Rudd refers to himself with this Chinese name" at the appropriate point in the article (which is what it reads right now and I have no problem with) and saying "Kevin Rudd (Chinese Name: X), is the..." in the lead sentence of the article, as it did when I made my initial comment. The latter is, as I said, only really appropriate for people who are of Chinese ancestry but known by Anglicised names. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 10:33, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

There seems to be consensus that the name doesn't belong in the intro, but can be put in later, in the section which discusses his education. Someone has removed it from there citing insufficient sources. There is no lack of sources; it should be restored.JaneGrey 17:51, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Either google "陸克文" or "Lu Kewen" would yield a lot of results. I agree there is no lack of sources. It should be restored. (I just don't know the techniques to do it.) HkCaGu 17:22, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I removed it citing lack of sufficient sources within the article. If there are plenty of sources, then the editor inserting the information should add them (rather than rely solely on one foreign-language source for what appears to be a somewhat obscure fact). Other than that, I totally agree that fact does not belong in the lead, and that the extent to which the Chinese name is discussed within the article should be appropriate to its significance (which doesn't appear major). --Brendan [ contribs ] 23:47, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Just to add my 2c. Kevin Rudd's Chinese name should be in the section refering to his time in China. Sure, Kevin Rudd may refer to himself as "陸克文" when dealing with the Chinese, but when dealing with, say, the Japanese, he would be "ラッド ケッビン", or any other variants depending on the country. As Prime Minister or Australia he will have dealings with all these countries, so if the Chinese name is relevent, so should other foreign names. But as the Chinese name is relevant to the section of the article about his time in China / relations to China only (where, say, the Japanese name is totally irrelevant), then thats where it should go. It really is only relevent within the Chinese context. Ka-ru (talk) 05:41, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

[outdent] Excellent point, Ka-ru. I have pared down the sentence to a basic mention that Rudd chose an alias Lu Kewen and I have linked in two recent SMH articles that suggest contemporary use of that alias. I would still like to see verification from more than one source (preferably including at least one English source) that clearly identifies the circumstances in which he took that alias. And while it feels appropriate to mention the Chinese alias in the context of the broader narrative on his academic, intellectual and cultural appreciation of China, I have removed the two Chinese-language translations, as I do not agree with clogging this article with multi-lingual or multi-dialect versions of Rudd's name. --Brendan [ contribs ] 06:10, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I have replaced the tone marks and identified the Chinese script used in accordance with Wikipedia norms.JaneGrey (talk) 17:17, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Alma Mater?

While we're complaining about the Infobox, can we get rid of the term "Alma Mater"? IMHO that is an American term and has no place in an Australian article. Peter Ballard (talk) 12:10, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

No takers? No opinions either way? Peter Ballard (talk) 12:03, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Get rid of it. I take a non-response as an OK. Slac speak up! 05:11, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

No, keep it. Wht the Hell do you mean by "American term"? It's used in a lot of places! Therequiembellishere (talk) 05:50, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I mean Americans use it widely, but Australians rarely do, so it has no place in an Australian article. (I note the above user is in the USA). Peter Ballard (talk) 06:43, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I note that the term appears in Gareth Evans's article. -- JackofOz (talk) 02:36, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

strip club?

I saw this article's link on the main page. The article barely mentions his strip club controversy. Did he really just walk out? I thought the controversy was that he stayed there longer. Spin? Or Wikipedia is correct and the news media is wrong? Bothsidesspin (talk) 00:04, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

There's conflicting news stories, who knows? Who cares? I'm sure it's going to affect how Australia operates in the future as a result of his becoming Prime Minister. Not. Timeshift (talk) 02:09, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any credible report that he stayed for more than a few minutes. Peter Ballard (talk) 10:46, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

It was a hard time for him. --Pete (talk) 12:23, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

The strip club owner said it was brief. However, the article is stating the strip club owner's version of events as fact. Really, we should attribute the brevity of the visit as a claim from the club owner.Lester 04:44, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I think a bare mention is appropriate. --Pete (talk) 18:01, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Love the dry humour. GoodDay (talk) 19:41, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Rudd copped an eyeful. --Pete (talk) 00:07, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Irish Roots

Kevin Rudd is half Irish (on his mother's side). Millbanks (talk) 14:42, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

• I haven't heard hime reference it - doesn't mean that he hasn't. However, this is only a significant fact if he himself or some significant commentator has suggested it is an influence.--Matilda ^talk 01:27, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Smile

SMH article referencing Mr Rudd's smile type and its influence on his electoral success.[4] : Rudd won the election by more than a nose; he won it by a smile. Rudd has a natural Duchenne smile (named after the French researcher who identified it), which involves the orbicularis oculi and the zygomaticus muscles - in other words, when he smiles, his eyes crinkle in a way that lights up the whole face. Since these muscles aren't under our voluntary control, this type of smile is difficult to fake and people tend to unconsciously imbue the smiler with positive traits such as being genuine and trustworthy. Studies have been done on people displaying a Duchenne smile in their senior class photos that showed they were more successful throughout their lives than their peers. Not sure how the fact fits in tot he article but it was certainly something I noticed during the campaign. --Matilda ^talk 01:27, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Swearing alliegiance

Dudd sweared alliegiance to HM they just had two oaths; one as an executive councillor and one for the office. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.131.178.81 (talk) 04:44, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

OK, but for each one there's a choice of swearing an oath (with reference to God) or making an affirmation (with no such reference). I don't know the exact words. See "Not my Queen" above for citation. I understand that, in both cases, he chose the affirmation rather than the oath. Not that any mention of this fact is encyclopedic, imo. -- JackofOz (talk) 05:11, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I was pretty sure he swore oaths each time, but Gillard made affirmations. At least, that's how I think it was reported in the media, but I might be just projecting the idea that he was sworn in back on the whole event. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 07:55, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

You may well be right. I don't focus on such things, I must say. I keep on saying this lately, but I honestly can't see what's encyclopedic about whether a minister chooses an oath over an affirmation, or vice-versa. I know some media people like to put a particular spin on it, such as referring to the choice of an affirmation as a "refusal to swear allegiance to the Queen" or whatever, but that just betrays an ignorance of our arrangements. All ministers have a free choice; some choose an oath, others an afirmation. The same with MPs and senators, I believe. It has no more import than choosing green underwear over pink underwear. If anyone can convince me otherwise, I'm prepared to be open-minded about it. -- JackofOz (talk) 12:18, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

In agreement JackOz, particularly when one considers all the hoopla (and IMHO foolishness) over the swearing-in of an Islamic American congressman ealier this year. GoodDay (talk) 18:32, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Ruddslide

There's a bit of genericism (sic) about this term... after all, the media went crazy calling Mike Ranns win a "Rannslide" last year in the state election. Timeshift (talk) 08:40, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Good point. I think Malcolm Mackerras even predicted a "Kerryslide" in the last US election (wrongly, of course), which doesn't exactly come trippingly off the tongue. I'm inclined to keep "Ruddslide" at present, since there'll be enough citations we can dig up if need be, but it definitely lends itself to everyone trying every single pun they can think of in this article. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 09:27, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Definitely needs a cite, as the silly use of "Kevalanche" illustrates. Peter Ballard (talk) 10:23, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Here and Here. But why does it need a cite? Kevalanche is just silly and rediculous and disproven easily and quickly with no results in news.google, and www.google only has forums and other non-reliable sources for the word. Timeshift (talk) 10:32, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Ideally, saying "the media said X" should always be cited - my inner academic always asks "what media?" on seeing something like that. This might be a case, though, where the lack of citations of, say, "Kevalanche" is enough to prevent it from being added, but we don't expressly need one for "Ruddslide". I wouldn't mind one bit if we didn't call it anything here, but I doubt we'll be able to stop people calling it something. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 12:48, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Queenslander PM

I notice the opening paragraph describes Rudd as "the second only Prime Minister from Queensland to have won office since Andrew Fisher in 1908." I see this as problematic.

The intended meaning of that sentence is not clear. Now I know that to mean that Fisher was the first ever and Rudd the second ever (of sorts, see next para). But it could easily be read to mean that Rudd was the second excluding Fisher and anyone before him.

The other problem I have is the "won office" bit. Certainly Rudd was the second Queenslander to lead his party to election victory, but there have been two other PMs from Queensland (Fadden & Forde) . Once again, I don't think the words "won office" really bring out the true meaning here. (Another point to consider: Fisher didn't actually win any election in 1908. That came later: in 1910 & 1914.)

Now normally I might simply edit the sentence to make these vague details more clear. But my real preference would be to simply scrap the sentence altogether. I don't think Rudd being the 4th Prime Minister from Queensland is any more notable than, say, Howard being the 11th PM from New South Wales.

Dlw22 (talk) 15:57, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

In relation to this matter, the following discussion took place on my talk page - duplicated here for general information:

I knew there were acting PMs from Queensland in between Fisher and Rudd. Somehow that knowledge just didn't get communicated to the part of my brain fixing up the article :P BigHaz - Schreit mich an 23:46, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Ah, no actually. Fadden and Forde might be described as "interim", "short-term" or "caretaker" Prime Ministers, but they were certainly not "acting" in a formal sense. They were both just as much Prime Minister as Bob Menzies was, albeit in office for a considerably shorter period. -- JackofOz (talk) 23:52, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I believe my edit should remain. I believe that it is important to note that he is the second only representative from Queensland to have won an election to BECOME Prime Minister NOT to win the Prime Ministership. It should also be mentioned that his landslide win was due to a huge win from Queensland which is traditionally a conservative state. Jobey (talk) 04:56, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi Jobey. I know what you're trying to achieve and I generally support the inclusion of something along these lines, as long as we can get the wording right. We can't even hint at suggesting that PMs are directly elected - and I think you've tried to avoid that - otherwise the wikibrigade will quickly make their views known. Your last edit was: He has become the second only Prime Minister from Queensland to have won office since Andrew Fisher in 1910, 1914. Another editor changed "second" to "first", which is correct since we wouldn't take Fisher into account if we're counting "since Fisher". If we were talking about all Queenslanders who've received a popular mandate as PM, then Rudd would be the second.

My concern is that by telling only this story, it tends to mask the facts that (a) there have been 4 Queensland PMs, not only 2, and (b) Fisher's first term was not a popular mandate either. People will see the name "Fisher" and assume that he only ever came to office following an election, which is not the case. Rather than just this sentence, I'd prefer to have a brief paragraph along the lines of:

Kevin Rudd is only the second Queenslander to receive a popular mandate as Prime Minister, the first being Andrew Fisher in 1910 (although Fisher had first become Prime Minister in 1908 when the Alfred Deakin government resigned). Arthur Fadden (1941) and Frank Forde (1945) were also Prime Ministers for short periods, but in neither case did they have a popular mandate - in Fadden's case the incumbent Robert Menzies resigned; in Forde's case the incumbent John Curtin died.

Any suggestions for improvement welcome. -- JackofOz (talk) 06:44, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment. Your suggestion is perfect. Could you also add something like "...his landslide win was due to a huge win from Queensland which is traditionally a conservative state (see Joh Bjelke-Petersen). Queensland had been a strong support base for ONE NATION, a far-right party." I believe this fact is importatnt too. Once again, thanks for your suggested paragraph. Jobey (talk) 09:00, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sold on that extra stuff. I think I'll reinsert the agreed words, and if you want to add other words, that's your call. Cheers. -- JackofOz (talk) 09:05, 17 December 2007 (UTC).

End of quote. I've since reinserted the above italicised para. I'm sure it can be improved. -- JackofOz (talk) 09:17, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I like the current inclusion, although I'm sure there's a slightly better way of explaining how Fadden and Forde got in at least (Fisher's explanation reads well and covers the bases it has to). I'm also with Jack in arguing that the extra information isn't a great thing to have - at least in this form - particularly given that One Nation as a whole has been pretty much a spent force in recent years (Rosa Lee Long aside). I'd even find it hard to call Queensland a "traditionally...conservative state", given the long history of ALP premiers here as well. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 09:43, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Yikes, I thought it was going to be removed altogether, as Dlw22 suggested! I strongly dislike the wording "popular mandate", though I would reluctanly allow it if a reliable source could be found that leaders at time of election have a "popular mandate" and others PMs don't. As mentioned above, technically we vote for local members, not PMS. I'd rather it said something more neutral like, "second Queenslander to lead his party to an election vicotry". And in any case, it does not belong in the lead. Peter Ballard (talk) 09:54, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

My two cents. I don't give a rats, but get it out of the lead. Timeshift (talk) 10:12, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Another point: I think it is far more significant that he is our first non NSW/Vic PM since 1945. But whatever goes in, it needs a WP:RS commenting on its significance. Peter Ballard (talk) 10:25, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. I've made the suggested edits and moved it lower down. -- JackofOz (talk) 12:53, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah that looks good. Except Forde was after Curtin. Peter Ballard (talk) 12:58, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeees ... not sure what you're getting at, Peter. It says that Forde came to office because of the death of Curtin - that can only mean Forde came after Curtin. -- JackofOz (talk) 01:10, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

But it also (wrongly) said that Curtin was the last non-NSW/Vic PM. I've corrected it to Forde (in fact I mentioned both, because Forde is an exceptional case). Peter Ballard (talk) 01:22, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

OK. I see now. Thanks for the fix. -- JackofOz (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 03:03, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I am now in agreement with the paragraph and it's location. But I have this feeling that maybe something short and sweet might suffice like: "Rudd is only the second Queenslander to lead his party to a federal election victory, and the first Prime Minister since WWII not to come from either New South Wales or Victoria." Short and to the point. It is just my opinion, since to me it seems to give an unwarranted history lesson. But at the same time, others may feel it's a history lesson that is worth mentioning. Maybe a source[5] included as well . Thanks. Jobey (talk) 04:27, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Controversies

Not even a month into a job and I think this page already needs this heading! Shall we start with the business of saying sorry to indigenous Australians and providing $1bn in handouts, only have have indigenous leaders reject the offer as 'too low'?143.92.1.121 (talk) 00:49, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest that if you're looking for a genuine response, try to be a bit more genuine yourself as at the moment you're coming off as a complete troll. Also, as per the precedence set at John Howard, if it doesn't involve Rudd directly then it doesn't belong on this page. Timeshift (talk) 01:14, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I've no problem with important things being on the page, but two points. (1) A "Controversy" section is almost always a bad idea for a major politician, because they have so many. Better to have headings by issues or time frames. (2) Let the dust settle. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a newspaper. I suggest stories on politics (aside from big stories like election results) wait at least a week, preferably longer, to see how they pan out. Peter Ballard (talk) 01:44, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

broken ref, any other sources?

Rudd, Kevin (November 16, 2006). What's Wrong with the Right. Retrieved on December 9, 2006. Timeshift (talk) 23:37, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

One Nation still registered federally?

I see the most recent edit that the One Nation party is still registered federally, and is not defunct. I did not know this. I note the same discussion taking place at the Talk: One Nation discussion page. Lester 21:24, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

The PM's Infobox (again)

Can we please reach an agreement for all Australian PM infoboxes? PS - If anybody can think of a better place to discuss this, please point it out. GoodDay (talk) 19:24, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Jeepers, I'm all alone on this one. GoodDay (talk) 23:35, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Trying to gain consensus? With Australian politics? It's not that you're alone, it's that everyone has tried and failed due to the stubborn few who shall remain nameless. Timeshift (talk) 23:47, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Why do they all need to be the same?--Gazzster (talk) 23:53, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think he's arguing that (perhaps he is) but things like monarchs and GGs and things like that, I would prefer consistency (ie: removing them). BTW, I've expanded Paul Keating's infobox to be more like Howard's. Timeshift (talk) 00:11, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

It's ironic that the inclusionist advocates the removal of obvious citable information? Stubborn...Oh dear. Shot info (talk) 02:19, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Inclusionism doesn't extend to putting the entire article in to the infobox. Timeshift (talk) 02:29, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Stubborn...Oh dear Shot info (talk) 02:32, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Are we discussing PM infoboxes or not? Timeshift (talk) 02:36, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

It seems that one of those stubborn editors has decided to discuss the contributors rather than the contributions, so more irony? Oh dear. Shot info (talk) 02:41, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll take that as a 'not'. Timeshift (talk) 02:45, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

As normal, you seem too forget that policy does apply to your edits. If you cannot contribute to the article, don't contribute. Shot info (talk) 03:33, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

What a laugh. I refer to Gazzster's comments below, and invite others to make their own judgements. I'm logging off for a while. Timeshift (talk) 03:39, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Please follow policy as you were requested on your talkpage. Otherwise, you run the risk of sanctions. Shot info (talk) 05:15, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Gentlemen, gentlemen!--Gazzster (talk) 02:48, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Don't remove comments. If you regret saying something, strike it out and apologise.--Gazzster (talk) 02:56, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

It's really quite simple.

FWIW, there was an arguement for a consistency but the exact consistancy was in dispute. One "side" argued for a consistancy across the project, the other "side(s)" argued for a consistency only for Australian articles (and couldn't arrive at a single consensus in that regard at anyrate). So the argument for consistancy seems to have no consensus - for or against. Personally I have swayed away from the consistancy arguement and now believe that articles should stand on their own merit (ie/ I agree with Gazzster). Shot info (talk) 03:08, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm suggesting for 'all' Australian PM infoboxes, we remove 'Head of State', 'Governor-General', 'Elections'. Simplify the infobox. GoodDay (talk) 15:53, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Ancestry Links to Mary Wade

Not sure if you wish to add Kevin Rudd's ancestry but i found information which states he is a descendant of Mary Wade (matriarch of one of the largest families in the world) who at 11 years of age is the youngest female convict transported to Australia. She had 21 children and had over 300 living descendants before her death and is therefore considered as one of 'the founding mothers' of the white Australia settlement. Some references are [6] [7] [8]. Details are also in the Australian National Library in the book, 'Mary Wade To Us - A Family History, 1778-1986' which was compiled by numerous Wade descendants. Boylo (talk) 07:32, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't see a huge need to mention it, since the majority of Anglo-Australians are descended from either convicts or soldiers in the early settlement years anyway. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 11:49, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

New Image - yes or no?

The flickr user had no issues changing the permissions for Wayne Swan's image for me, so i'm assuming he wouldn't take issue to doing the same for this image. That said, I don't want to get him to do the favour and for both of us to take the time to do it, for someone to come along and object for one reason or another (hint hint Rudd's adult son + father image). Any objections? Timeshift (talk) 02:19, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Isn't that a photo of a young John Howard? Shot info (talk) 02:47, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

That doesn't look like Howard to me. Therequiembellishere (talk) 00:34, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Really?? Shot info (talk) 01:01, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

This is an image discussion. There is no place for your misguided sarcasm and/or comedy. Review historic Labor leaders, then review Whitlam Hawke and Keating. It's called the Third Way. Perhaps you care to explain in which areas Keating and Rudd differ in their views? Timeshift (talk) 01:06, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Haha - glad somebody got it - after all, didn't the majority of your news media make the claim (or something similar) that he "was a younger Howard" etc. :-) Shot info (talk) 01:12, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Our media here is retarded and constantly make stupid claims. Howard did the same thing in 1996... he was very much "me-too" except for a few select issues, just like Rudd. Timeshift (talk) 01:14, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, sorry. Lmao. Therequiembellishere (talk) 01:13, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Heh, somebody can take a joke :-) Shot info (talk) 01:15, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Jokes are no longer funny when they've been recycled 10000 times. Also, this is an image discussion. Seeing as there are no apparent objections, i'll make the request to the flickr user. Timeshift (talk) 01:19, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Heh, and somebody cannot :-) Shot info (talk) 01:20, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

First term: 2007–present

Is there anything I have missed out on that anyone can think of? Timeshift (talk) 06:44, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Timeshift9 left this comment when reverting additions to John Howard article:

"00:48, 11 January 2008 Timeshift9 (Talk | contribs) (89,665 bytes) (revert, it's already well established that this page is about the person not the party policies)"

Clearly this doesn't apply to gushing praise of Rudd.

Kyoto, "plans" for an apology, "plans" for "combat" (sorry not mention) troop withdrawal (with 2/3rd remaining), "plans" to attack inflation, "plans" for skill shortages, etc.

Double standard?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.101.222.105 (talk) 15:02, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

First, the policies Rudd has introduced this far were his committments prior to Labor gaining government so are more "owned" by Rudd if you like, and second I always supported the whole of article approach where policy issues should be in detail on the Prime Minister of the time's page, but me and others were shouted down by the right minority who seem to have disappeared along with Howard. It might be time to see if we can review where this stands in the wider wikipedia community again. But sniping will get you nowhere. Timeshift (talk) 06:41, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Clearly "sniping" is under the double standard rules as well. What supporting evidence do you have that Labor policy highlighted "are more "owned" by Rudd"? The gushing praise of these policies "plans" are at complete odds with your reversions on the Howard article and they should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.101.222.105 (talk) 23:59, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Note John Howards first term section. Perhaps the lack of reform threw you off. Who are you exactly? Oh, not a wikipedia user. Next please. Timeshift (talk) 00:05, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

TS, while I nominally agree with your sentiments, I must encourage you not to bite the newbies. But in saying that, IP 150, we encourage you to get a User ID and feel free to join us to edit Wikipedia. Note that Wiki has a long list of policies that it helps to become familar with. However the most important ones are here. Shot info (talk) 01:13, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

It wasn't unprovoked. Timeshift (talk) 01:25, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Timeshift writes "Perhaps the lack of reform threw you off" - says a great deal. It's hard to beat the I've got plans to develop plans policies you've outlined. Seriously the positions you raised haven't even prepared legislation. How do you reconcile your removal of policy detail in one article with adding "Rudd has ideas" in another (apart from political allegiance)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.101.222.105 (talk) 01:56, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Reform - see Howard's first term which is still there and much like Rudd's: the partial privatisation of the government-owned telecommunications company, Telstra; the modification of industrial relations laws to promulgate individual contracts; increases in university fees; large funding cuts in the 1996 and 1997 budgets; a 30% private health insurance rebate; and the Wik 10 Point Plan, giving extinguishment of native title on pastoral leases. So thus why I said "perhaps the lack of reform threw you off". Now let's review what I reverted. Things that kept being added regarding policy kept being removed. I disagreed with this and me and others kept having additions reverted thanks to the right who kept proclaiming it is not about general policies (because if it were the average human would be horrified by the time they got to the end of Howard's page). So when I come along and see what's in that revision being added completely in the wrong areas in non-encyclopedic fashion, not put in to context and generally out of place and not well written, I removed it before another person came along to do so. And to extend, the fact you criticise Rudd for "planning" to shows a complete lack of understanding in that if parliament hasn't resumed, nothing can be acted upon. So getting back to the point, I don't approve of policy removal. I do however approve of positive policy removal when all traces of negative policy are completely scrubbed off by the right (note how not a single utterance of Bush appears in Howard's article?). Now how about growing some balls and getting an account rather than sniping from behind your computer on things you have no background comprehension of? Timeshift (talk) 02:04, 5 February 2008 (UTC)