Talk:Kevin Rudd/Archive 4

Government/policy actions here, Rudd government, or where?

We need to nip this in the bud. We tried adding all policies of the Howard government to John Howard, we failed. We tried creating a Howard Government page, stayed there for a while gathering dust and failed. We need to come to a consensus. Select as many as you find acceptable, please don't just indicate your most preferred. Timeshift (talk) 08:58, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Where do you prefer government policies?

User:	On the Prime Minister of the day's page	On a seperate page such as (Prime Minister) Government	On the past election page	On the future election page
Timeshift	Y	Y	Y	Y
Deus Ex Machina	N	Y	Y	Y
Lester	N	Y	N	N
Orderinchaos	N	Y	Y	Y
52 Pickup	N	Y	N	N
Rebecca	N	Y	N	N
Duggy1138	N	Y	N	N
JackofOz	Y, but to a limited extent	Y	N	N, until closer to the election
Nick Dowling	Y, but only briefly	Y	N	N
Merbabu	N	Y	N	N
Jayvdb	N	Y	Y, only the important ones in context of election promises	N, who knows what politicians will believe in a year or more from now
Hamiltonstone	Y, but very limited	Y	N	N, until campaign underway
Eyedubya	N	Y	N	N
Euryalus	N	Y	N	N
User:Surturz	N	Y	Y	N
User:Tails5	N	Y	Y	N
Total people supporting:	4	16	6	3
JRG	Y - limited extent	Y	N	N

Hi all, this is probably better to be discussed at the various projects the article is attached to. Shot info (talk) 10:35, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Rudd is the current PM so it affects him most, wikiproject politics isn't viewed by as many as this is. However, i've added a note advising a vote is taking place. Timeshift (talk) 10:45, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Rudd needs 2 separate articles. One article for Rudd's family and life story, and a separate one for his government. It became too long with the Howard article, and Howard's government started before most people had internet, and before Wikipedia existed. Because Rudd's government started in the internet age, its Wiki article will grow enormous over the term of that government. It needs 2 articles. Thanks.Lester 11:18, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I in theory agree, but after the dismal failure of Howard's, i'm not so sure. Please add your vote though so it's counted. Timeshift (talk) 11:22, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I would agree with Lester - the reason it failed may well have been timing. A surprising number of our contributors are students, so near the end of a year is a bad time to put up anything. I agree with Timeshift that the previous and future elections (moreso the future) should contain information about policy as this often influences the direction of a poll. Although I have voted "no" to the first, I do think there should be some mention of it, with a "Main" link to the correct location. However, prime ministers are not necessarily responsible for the policies their government's generate - a good example is the Aboriginal intervention which was more the brainchild of two of the Cabinet ministers. Orderinchaos 11:31, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Howard's separate article didn't work because of the format that was chosen, and because a separate page was attempted right at the end of Howard's term. Now is the time to start a separate Rudd Government article, at the beginning of a term. It will be a massive article at the end of his government. Experience in using separate articles is showing it is a success with overseas politicians, so it can work. Lester 11:36, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I can see both of your points. I have amended my vote. Timeshift (talk) 11:49, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm with Lester. A separate page for policies is the more structured solution. This also keeps in line with separate pages for ministries (although i am not advocating separate policy pages for each ministry). It will be a big undertaking, but now with the start of Rudd's term as PM, the opportunity is there to figure out from scratch the right way to construct such articles - then the long slog back through previous PMs can begin. - 52 Pickup ^(deal) 11:58, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with 52 Pickup and Lester. Adding the policies to the person's page doesn't really work - unless it's a major personal issue, it's not necessarily relevant to them, and it's not even necessarily their work. Creating a seperate page for the government is a far better way of organising it. Rebecca (talk) 12:08, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

This issue leads to the question of what about opposition responses/policies? Brendan Nelson? Nelson opposition? Timeshift (talk) 08:10, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

My first impression is to put the policies of the opposition on the same page of the policies of the government of the day. Opposition policies aren't actually implemented so they IMO have less priority for a separate article than govt policies. - 52 Pickup ^(deal) 17:23, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Also, to a certain degree the policies relate, either the opposition follows or opposes the govt policy, or sometimes lead. Sure there are independant policies, too, I think that they'd be clearer as independant on a Govt policy page. Duggy 1138 (talk) 07:06, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

If this is a vote, then I go with a separate page for the "Rudd" Government (or similar) for all the policy/actions, etc, unless of course anything is particularly associated with the Prime Minister him/herself. --Merbabu (talk) 12:18, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

It's obvious where this is going. I just hope that previous PMs can have their policies expanded/merged in to new pages, and anons won't add policies to the PM rather than the PM govt page. It will be interesting once we finalise the consensus as to how it works in practicality. Timeshift (talk) 12:29, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I would prefer that the biography is not overrun with governmental issues. John Vandenberg (talk) 14:45, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Format?

As it looks like the consensus is heading towards a separate article for government actions, I guess it's time to start thinking of how to do it. To get things started, here are a few examples of how this is done for other governments:

• UK: Premiership of Gordon Brown, Premiership of Tony Blair - each term in a separate section, with each section sorted by theme (domestic policy, Iraq, etc.)
• US: George W. Bush's first term as president of the United States - similar to the UK version, only that each term is a separate article.
• US (2): Presidency of George W. Bush - looks more like a grand summary, includes links to separate terms, cabinet details, lists major legislations and treaties.
• Netherlands: First Balkenende cabinet - summary of policies on Cabinet page - that option hasn't been brought up here so far. I mean, although I mentioned it above, I wonder if it was worth having that as a possible option in the vote above.

Thoughts? - 52 Pickup ^(deal) 15:17, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

There should be a bit outlining how much of loser he is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.233.185.66 (talk) 09:37, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

In the interests of assuming good faith, I'll point out that the object of the exercise here is to write a balanced article on him, as is the case everywhere else. If there's criticism or negative information which can be sourced appropriately, then you're welcome to include it. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 10:05, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

And in the interests of accuracy, he certainly hasn't lost much of recent times. -- JackofOz (talk) 10:22, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

How about "Australian Government 1996-2007" for Howard, "Australian Government 2007-" (and also a redirect from "Current Australian Government") for Rudd, etc? That way we can have navigation between each successive government's policies. Also, Australia has a parliamentary, not a presidential, democracy, so identifying the government with the PM is somewhat inappropriate. "Howard Government", "Rudd Government" etc could redirect to the appropriate articles too. --Surturz (talk) 05:14, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Oath/affirmation

Unlike his Labor predecessors, Rudd did not swear allegiance to the Queen of Australia, but promised instead to "well and truly serve the Commonwealth of Australia and her people."

• This has been troubling me ever since it was put up, but I couldn't put my finger on why. The penny's finally dropped. There are 2 issues:
  • (a) it's not what he DIDN'T do/say that we should be giving the primary focus to, but what he DID do/say; and then, if appropriate, compare that with what his predecessors had done. Otherwise, it's written from the POV of someone who expected him to do X but was surprised when he actually did Y. That's certainly not a neutral POV.
  • (b) as I've stated elsewhere, all ministers are given a free choice when they're sworn in - oath or affirmation. If a person chooses an affirmation, the fact that they made that choice is what it might be appropriate to report, rather than quoting the actual text of the affirmation, as if it were somehow controversial, and almost suggesting that he chose his own words. Rudd uttered exactly the same words as other ministers (including in previous governments) did who chose an affirmation over an oath.
• My preferred wording would be something as simple as: Rudd was the first Labor Prime Minister who chose to make an affirmation rather than swear an oath. I'm not entirely sure that's accurate, though. It wasn't all that long ago that there was only an oath, and atheistic ministers had to cop it sweet. But I don't know exactly when the affirmation came along as an option. Possibly after - or during - Whitlam's time, but I'd bet it was certainly before Hawke, and he's also an atheist and would have made an affirmation if it were available. Thoughts, anyone? -- JackofOz (talk) 08:48, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, the text you quote has a republican slant: he didn't swear allegiance to the Queen. What you discuss is about not swearing on an oath on a bible. Does the affirmation remove the Queen or just God? Did he choose to make the affirmation for republican or religious reasons? These are all issues with wording and POV, as far as I can I see?

Duggy 1138 (talk) 10:01, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I believe an oath mentions God, an affirmation doesn't. But whether the Queen is mentioned in this affirmation or not, I'd need to do some more research to find out. However, it seems that this particular issue can be resolved by simply removing the offending sentence, because it's dead wrong. This tells us that Rudd swore an oath, while Gillard and some others chose an affirmation. -- JackofOz (talk) 14:35, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

That sounds right. It seems out of character for a man so publically religious to swear make an affirmation. Duggy 1138 (talk) 23:40, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

The point of the sentence is not whether a Oath or Affirmation was given? Its making the point that instead of the oath/affirmation made with reference to the Monarch, it was to the people of Australia. Its ultimate relevance is in the republic v monarchy debate. I don't see anything wrong with it although it could probally be reworded to make it clearer. 58.106.31.250 (talk) 22:17, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Or rewarded to make it correct. Duggy 1138 (talk) 23:40, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Excellent work picking up on the POV, Jack! A citation tag might be the go here. I don't know that your reference changes things necessarily though. Wouldn't the phrase 'swearing in' be used by the popular media even if there was only an affirmation? We do need a proper reference. --Gazzster (talk) 23:53, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll do some research on this and get back to you. @ 58.106.31.250, ministers have a choice whether to make an oath or affirmation, but have no choice about the words contained in either. What Rudd said, whatever it was, were not his own words, so it's crazy to make some sort of point about the absence of reference to the Monarch. Blame the writers of the oath, whoever they were, if you like; but don't make it cast any sort of reflection on the oath-taker. -- JackofOz (talk) 02:10, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually there is no prescribed executive oath/affirmation. There is only one for the legislature. The wording of the executive councillor and ministerial oaths are up to the executive (ultimately the PM). Under Howard the oath/affirmation included references to the Queen. Rudd removed such references. [1] 58.106.31.250 (talk) 02:28, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, that certainly confirms that the original line was wrong. "Unlike his Labor predecessors" isn't true if he is doing what Keating did. I've also found this if it is at all useful: [2] Duggy 1138 (talk) 03:51, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Publications

We dont have a list of publications by Rudd. I have found two journal articles that appear to be by the PM, OCLC 87606065 and OCLC 88568414, and one report [3]. Are there more? John Vandenberg (talk) 14:34, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

He wrote a rather large piece for the Monthly about a year ago. I actually probably have it somewhere. Orderinchaos 18:31, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Old information on page

$Insertformulahere$ There are several incorrect entries on this page.

First it says that Kevin Rudd would not interfer in the Australian Capital Territories Government intention to bring in Same-Sex Unions. He did announce this but five days later he interferred and stopped the government bringing the Unions ito legislation.

On 13 Feburary he formally apologised to the Australian Indiginous People for the stolen Generation.

Little things I know but they are a part of his political structure which is the slant of this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.223.187.153 (talk) 10:13, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion. When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the edit this page link at the top. The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes — they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). --Nick Dowling (talk) 10:16, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Aussie PM infobox content

Hello folks (I'm back). I feel we should try (again), to have all the PM infoboxes in sync. The best way IMHO, would be to remove Elections, Monarch & Governor General from all of them. This might be a good idea for all PM infoboxes across Wikipedia. GoodDay (talk) 20:33, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Admins have already stated regional variations for PM infoboxes is perfectly fine. Timeshift (talk) 22:33, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Ya mean, Kevin Rudd's infobox content can be different from John Howard's, can be different from Paul Keating's, etc? GoodDay (talk) 23:08, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Correct. Timeshift (talk) 23:14, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

And not only that, the consensus here (and elsewhere) concurs. Shot info (talk) 23:16, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Is there no possible way of getting these Infoboxes in sync, which the Admins would also allow? GoodDay (talk) 23:19, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

It's not really a matter for the admins to police given that it is a content issue rather than a conduct issue. Instead it's up to us (ie/ the Community) and in reality the Community doesn't have any real objections to articles broadly looking the same, but in detail being quite different. Rather than discuss here, it's probably better to start something over in MOS. --Shot info (talk) 23:28, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I must confess people, I'm bewildered by the 'acceptance' of inconsistancies. GoodDay (talk) 23:32, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Me too, but the overwhelming consensus is to accept it. But if a MOS (Manual of Style ie WP:MOS) is developed, that tends to drive consistancy across different but similar articles. Shot info (talk) 23:34, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Think of it this way, GoodDay. If the name of the HoS is in the infobox, is it erroneous or misleading? No. And if the name of the HoS is inserted, is it erroneous or misleading? No. So it becomes a matter of choice. The consensus on this page is to leave it out. But on another bio it might be kept. So what harm is done? I would say though, as I said on Harper's page, that the bio is about a person who wasn't always a HoG. So why should the HoS's name be there?--Gazzster (talk) 02:39, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I think you meant it isn't misleading if the head of state is or is not inserted. If there was a wide reaching guideline that specified what was to be included in all head of governmet infoboxes, then no, I'd say there wouldn't be any misleading. However, when some do, and some don't - or, worse, most do and a small few don't - it most certainly is misleading. To the casual observer looking at PM articles, the Prime Ministers of Australia, and two or three other countries, appear to operate as the pinnacle of the government structure, where as the other 98% are subordinate to a head of state. It's the inexplicable inconsistency that's confusing. --G2bambino (talk) 21:16, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I doubt such considerations would be important to the casual observer.--Gazzster (talk) 21:39, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

For the sake of this article (and the other Aussie PM bio articles), I withdraw my request for consistancy. GoodDay (talk) 16:22, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

But I think you make a good point, nevertheless. I always thought the consensus was to allow infobox content to vary between countries, but to keep consistency within a particular country. No? -- JackofOz (talk) 23:44, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I was just hoping to bring the Howard & Rudd articles back in line with the rest of the Aussie PM articles. GoodDay (talk) 23:47, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I still think elections should be a part of all PM infoboxes. Timeshift (talk) 00:15, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Not a problem, as it'll align all the Aussie PM articles. GoodDay (talk) 00:24, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

But some didn't want it on Howard's or Rudd's articles and kept removing it, thus the variation by consensus. Timeshift (talk) 00:25, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll back re-adding the Elections to those articles. GoodDay (talk) 00:33, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Whatever the consensus was (and they're not set in stone for time immemorial, in any case), there seems to be some confusion about what it is, so maybe we should revisit it and get clear on exactly what goes into Aussie PM's infoxes, what stays out, and have the same content for all of them. I cannot understand why 2 out of 26 should be different in any way. -- JackofOz (talk) 00:37, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the gesture, but I seriously doubt you'll get consensus from everyone on what to keep in there... Timeshift (talk) 00:38, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Maybe not, but we'll never know if the question isn't raised. Where would be the best place to raise it? -- JackofOz (talk) 00:41, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Exactly why does it matter if there is variation? They don't need to all be the exact same, this isn't wiki-obsessivecompulsive-pedia. Timeshift (talk) 00:42, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

(ignoring the impertinent parts of that post.) I'm coming at this from the angle that if one argues, for example, the Queen should form part of the infobox, then that would be a position that would apply to all Aussie PM infoboxes. Or none of them. I could live with either of those outcomes, but don't see any merit in having one group of users who argue successfully for, say, Keating's infobox to show the Queen, and another group arguing successfully for, say, Howard's to exclude the Queen. I'm talking about a standard set of inclusions; it's all in the name of consistency and professionalism. When it comes to infoboxes, surely it's more appropriate to deal with all Aussie PMs as a group rather than as individuals. -- JackofOz (talk) 06:12, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

That's all I seek, that all 26 be the same. GoodDay (talk) 15:15, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I haven't really been involved here, bu I was a part of this discussion at Talk:Stephen Harper so I figure a may as well throw in my 2 cents. While I don't think consistency per se is a bad thing, it must be within the context. The situation of the HoG's across wikipedia are very different, so if we were to be consistent it shouldn't be all PM's or even all aussie/canadian pm's. I think the only form of consistency we could hope to stride for would be, say, all elizabeth II-era PM's in australia. That being said, it also doesn't really bother me if you guys (those focussed on the aussie pm's) disagree. And for the record, my thoughts are no monarch, maybe the GG in the infobox.Random89 (talk) 18:31, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

May I restore Elections to this article & the Howard article? Please. GoodDay (talk) 17:47, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Someone appears to have already added it. I wonder how long it will last though... but I do hold a slim chance of hope that elections can be restored to Howard's, and that it stays for all of them. Timeshift (talk) 17:52, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Ah hah, so they have. I've made a request at the Howard article aswell. GoodDay (talk) 18:02, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Should we have "Elections: 2007, Next" or just "Elections: 2007"? Timeshift (talk) 13:00, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Just 2007. What's to say that Rudd or Nelson will definitely be around for the next election? A clear distinction between past and future events is necessary. - 52 Pickup ^(deal) 13:22, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Member of Parliament

This is difficult for me as I was the 3PR advisor referred to in the entry (I've never been my own Wikipedia reference - a very odd position to find myself in!) and accept Brisbane Airport's runway was a defining issue. However, Kevin was an extremely active constituency Member at this stage of his career and must have had some wins, alongside this somewhat questionable campaign. Do other editors have more information about this period to flesh the section out? Otherwise, it looks like he began with a failure alone - such politicians don't get to be Prime Minister.Pete (talk) 00:38, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I've made some comments on the talk page, including that Rudd's later career moves don't seem relevant to the article at all. -- JackofOz (talk) 01:19, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Nicholas Rudd

Apparently his son is in a new television series. Should perhaps an article be made for him? User:Australiania! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.166.109.89 (talk) 10:56, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Only if he becomes notable in his own right - which certainly hasn't happened yet - not merely because he's the PM's son. -- JackofOz (talk) 14:46, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Large PD images

http://www.dodmedia.osd.mil/ now has two images for 'kevin rudd' in very large resolution. Would a cropped one of them be better suited for Rudd's infobox image? Timeshift (talk) 14:37, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

There are also new photos of Rudd with President Bush at http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2008/03/20080328-3.html --Nick Dowling (talk) 05:23, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Invisage Australia controversy

I think we should mention it here, it was Kevin who failed to declare his conflict of interests not Theresa. It is him who would have to answer the questions from the Parliment and press. Alex Bakharev (talk) 00:30, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree it belongs in the Rudd article, BUT I'd like to give it a few days to see if the story has legs. Peter Ballard (talk) 00:57, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

What are you talking about? And is what you are talking about have anything to do with the article being protected? JayKeaton (talk) 09:41, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

The article has been protected for a long time due to vandals. We are talking about exactly what it says. Now, there hasn't been further media interest in to this most likely due to the fact that Rudd wasn't required to declare it on the register as it was an inactive company at the time and has/is closing shop. No legs. Removed. Timeshift (talk) 01:14, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Birthplace?

Can someone confirm Rudd's birthplace? This article lists it as Nambour, Qld. However, the Papua New Guinea media recently claimed Rudd was born in PNG (at Henganofi, Eastern Highlands Province (previously District), in what was the old Trust Territory of New Guinea). Which is right? MarcusCole12 (talk) 12:00, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

That seems an extraordinary and somewhat hyperbolic claim. I've never heard of any other birthplace than Nambour. -- JackofOz (talk) 14:45, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

His official biography states: "Born 21.9.1957, Nambour, Qld." He's mentioned he grew up at nearby Eumundi, but people are normally born in hospitals so I'd presume Nambour is more likely correct. Orderinchaos 08:41, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Infobox image

Why does this, without a size specified, now display really large? Timeshift (talk) 12:50, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Civil unions

It's not identifying every step in the process. It's identifying a Rudd Labor backflip. Here they were going to let the ACT govern theirselves, now they have backflipped and would veto like Howard did. Timeshift (talk) 08:19, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. Timeshift (talk) 09:42, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Added to modified text. Disagreeing with what is interpreted by Rudd here is WP:OR. Timeshift (talk) 00:58, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Removed image

I don't believe this image is good for the article for a few reasons. The quality is very bad, you can barely see Rudd, and even with a good photo there is no space (for now) to add an image anyway. Timeshift (talk) 23:50, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Promises made to the nation

I don't know if it is relevant, but it is a fact that Kevin Rudd promised that all student from year 9 up will have access to a computer. I am from a school who will be receiving laptops in June. And if this information is relevant in any way, it would make a great addition to the article. 220.239.56.174 (talk) 10:55, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually he originally stated that every student would receive a computer, then it was every high school student, now it's every high school student from year 9. Regardless, a single promise is hardly noteworthy or relevant in the long history of a politician such as Kevin Rudd, however his key policies, particularly those which are seemingly revolutionary (education revolution for example) may indeed be notable. Guycalledryan (talk) 10:14, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Care to cite that? Rudd always said ACCESS to a computer, not their own. And in the sense of the word, none of Labor's policies are "revolutionary". Timeshift (talk) 14:44, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

OK
www.alp.org.au/download/now/labors_ digital_education_revolution_campaign_launch.pdf
Page 10: "Students will have their own computer and access to the school’s extranet and classroom content – both from their desktop and remotely."
See you still haven't removed ALP policy from the page.

The first paragraph of that section makes clear the promise is for students in year 9 upward, not all secondary students. Is it revolutionary? It depends on your interpretation of the word - its called a 'digital revolution" so at least someone thinks it is. Euryalus (talk) 04:28, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

"Students will have their own computer and access to the school’s extranet and classroom content - both from their desktop and remotely." Does this mean students will have their own computer to use when at school, meaning there will always be free computers to use? Is there any better details on exactly what was offered? And as for education revolution, it's a buzzterm that was designed to attract attention. Labor investing money in to improving education is hardly anything new. The term 'revolution', in the sense of the word, would be the opposite of 'democratic'. Timeshift (talk) 13:55, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Views - economic

Why is there no mention of the fact that Rudd described himself (published in AFR 2003) as a "Christian Socialist".

Please refer to the wikipedia definition of a socialist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.165.180.53 (talk) 16:53, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I think the following Rudd quote[4] is good for the fact he rarely ventures in to Hawke and Keating vs Howard, and believe it should be added:

“ The Hawke and Keating governments delivered a massive program of economic reform, and they didn't shy away from taking on their own political base when they knew it was in the national interest. Think tariffs. Think cuts to the marginal tax rate. Think enterprise bargaining. Think how unpopular all of those were with the trade union movement of Australia. Mr Howard, on the other hand, never took on his own political base in the prosecution of any significant economic reform. His reform agenda never moved out of the ideological straitjacket of the 1970s and 1980s. Think industrial relations. Think consumption tax. And think also of the explosion in untargeted welfare... When the economic circumstances change, and the demands of a competitive economy change, Mr Howard never adjusted and never took the lead when it came to new ideas. Look at climate change. Look at infrastructure policy. Look at education policy. Look at early childhood education. There's a mountain of economic evidence about the importance of those policy domains to Australia's future. Mr Howard in 11 years never sustained an interest in any of those policies. All you have is the occasional reluctant capitulation when the political heat reaches boiling point — like the reluctant acceptance of emissions trading last year. ”

Timeshift (talk) 03:37, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

"Mr Howard, on the other hand, never took on his own political base in the prosecution of any significant economic reform."

Because he didn't have too, it wasn't the Liberals that had to be dragged into the modern economy. The Hawke/Keating policies highlighted were passed with the support of coalition controlled Sentate.

"Look at climate change"

Unsubstantiated group-think.

"Look at infrastructure policy. Look at education policy. Look at early childhood education"

State responsibilities neglected by LABOR States. Why not throw in health;-)

Wow Kevin talks about HIS political agenda before an election and points out JWH hasn't jumped on board. Yeap I can't think of any better quote from Timeshift;-)

Climate Change? How many questions did the Labor Opposition ask about Climate change between 1996 and 2006? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.165.180.53 (talk) 16:55, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

The quote is an interesting summary of Rudd's views but seems bit long for inclusion. Is this better placed in a piece about Rudd Government policies, instead of a biography of Rudd himself?

The anon response above isn't very helpful - you might not agree with Rudd's views but this is not an article about you. Please stay focused on the article content, not your own opinion of the article subject. Euryalus (talk) 03:33, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

The view expressed by Rudd is his political agenda in an election campaign. The only other conclusion could be the Rudd intends to deliberately upset his party faithful by announcing policies that are required upset them.

It was actually Malcolm Fraser that the Liberals unsuccessfully attempted to undergo economic reform. This was before economic rationalism took a stranglehold on both sides of politics, and during the time that classical liberalism died out. Not to mention your state not federal responsibilities attitude to education, health and infrastructure clearly identifies you as a non-investing Thatcherist "Liberal". And despite that, the state Liberals, when the public last had any confidence in them, didn't invest in education, health and infrastructure anyway. Timeshift (talk) 03:47, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Fraser didn't push reforms, Howard in opposition as Fraser's treasurer (Cambell Committe) was very supportive. Only if Hawke/Keating were complete fools (I've never said they were) would they have not continued the reforms. That sections of the organised labour movement were fools at the time doesn't make Hawke tougher.

Howard pushed Fraser for the reforms but Fraser wouldn't budge. So much for a cohesive Liberal Party (were they ever?). And you say 'continue the reforms'... what noteworthy economic reforms occurred under the Fraser govt? And if Labor is so economically irresposible as i'm sure you believe they are, they would have been complete fools and did what their "mates in the labour movement told them to do". At least that's what I keep hearing from the likes of people like Joe Hockey. *snigger* Timeshift (talk) 08:29, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Hawke pushed through the remainder of the Cambell Committee recommendations (after the Martin Group review). However the review and the reforms (e.g. tender system for selling treasury instruments - a huge reform) began during the Fraser government. After Hawke significant non-financial market reform was also undertaken (taxation reform, labour market reform, etc). I've not claimed Hawke/Keating was "economically irresposible". Clearly Timeshift has little knowledge of the financial reform process, which is why he believed Rudd's giddy claims as fact. Sadly this lack of knowledge is reflected in the Kevin Rudd article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.101.222.105 (talk) 00:57, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

This is not the place to push your POV, Timeshift9. Please keep discussion to the article. --Surturz (talk) 13:53, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I was responding to the anon IP on this talk page. I do not push POVs on articles (and most talk page issues, however this one I ate the bait on). I refer you to your response to an admin on your user talk page, "Thank you for your constructive criticism on my talk page. I respectfully disagree with you. The vast bulk of edits on political pages are from people pushing POVs. Mine are no exception." Pot, meet kettle. Timeshift (talk) 14:05, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

And in lack of any rationalised objection, I will add. Timeshift (talk) 14:15, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Added at Kevin Rudd#Economics with blockquote formatting. It doesn't seem to take up much space. Timeshift (talk) 14:22, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I removed the last sentence about Howard from the quote. This makes the quote more of an exposition of Rudd's ideas, rather than simply a reaction to Howard's ideas. This is an article about Rudd, so it should be mainly about him as his own man, rather than contrasting different points of view on an issue. --Surturz (talk) 00:30, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Considering you admit to actively POV-pushing, I would appreciate it if you discuss the issue here with others rather than disruptive reverts of good faith contributions. Timeshift (talk) 00:51, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I would have thought a Kevin fan would want him to be defined in his own terms, rather than as the Anti-Howard. If you want the anti-Howard part of the quote to remain, I am more than happy for it to be there :-) It's good to keep the great man's name alive. Leaving Howard in the article portrays Rudd as fighting yesterday's battles - a portrayal I am eager to facilitate --Surturz (talk) 01:03, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I pulled it out again. Might as well do it sooner rather than later. --Pete (talk) 01:16, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Sigh. More pointless edit warring without talk page discussion from the usual suspects. At least the evidence is collecting. Timeshift (talk) 01:20, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

The book and the newspaper article in The Age describe the quote as Rudd's "harshest criticisms" of Howard economics since gaining office. Rudd came to power on the back of his criticism of Howard economics, so it has some relevance to what Rudd stands for, just like opposition leader Brendon Nelson's criticism of Rudd forms the impression of what Nelson stands for. So both sides of politics are criticising each other, but this is how it goes.Lester 04:22, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Stop Edit Waring

Kevin Rudd criticised John Howard and Howard's economic policies (the previous government). However, it's disappointing to see an immediate edit war has broken out on this issue. See this deletion and this deletion. The issue of whether or not Rudd's quotation gets used should be made by the Wikipedia community. If that doesn't work you can ask for a Request for Comment to bring in uninvolved editors. But hovering over an article with fingers poised on the delete button is not the way to handle content disputes. Surely there are more sophisticated means of settling a content dispute than launching into yet another edit war.Lester 04:22, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

There is, vote for article prohibition. Shot info (talk) 04:27, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Lester, deleting text is not edit warring. Reverting changes is edit warring. There is such a thing as constructive deletion. --Surturz (talk) 01:13, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

To Peter, I believe Wikipedia:Coatrack refers to the issue of slabs or a majority of the article constructed in such a manner. It is one very small portion of text compared to the overall article. There is no reason to remove it as it clearly states his position in comparison to the last two changes of government - perfectly legitimate. Timeshift (talk) 04:04, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I was unaware of the debate on the issue. But from my point of view it's very, very clear that it has no place in the Kevin Rudd article. The paragraph is not about Rudd. It is about Howard, Hawke and Keating, so perhaps can be put in those articles. (As one of a range of views under "Assessment of Howard", "Assessment of Hawke" etc). But really it is totally non-notable in the Rudd article (as were the anti-Howard things in the Paul Keating article which we debated a while back). I mean, shock horror, Rudd critical of Howard? What a surprise! Peter Ballard (talk) 04:28, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

How cynical :) The para isnt about the three, it is about current PM Rudd and his positioning between the last three PMs. Timeshift (talk) 04:34, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

"Positioning"? Are you serious? In what way is he "positioning" himself as different from Hawke and Keating? There is not a single word about what Rudd says he will do (OK, by implication he will do the things he criticises Howard for not doing, but he doesn't actually say that). All he does is praise Hawke/Keating and criticise Howard. Peter Ballard (talk) 04:43, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I said he was positioning himself. Not positioning himself as different. He takes hawke/keating/howard and compares them suggesting what he by implication supports and what labor previously supported. Timeshift (talk) 06:24, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

And how is that notable? Peter Ballard (talk) 06:29, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

P.s. answering Lester above ("It's valid because it was part of Rudd's election spiel") I would say it wasn't. Rudd election mantra was "Dump Howard because Workchoices is bad and we need new leadership". The comments in the contentious para were not part of his election platform to any significant degree - in fact I can't remember him mentioning Hawke and Keating at all. Peter Ballard (talk) 04:32, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with "Peter" here. This paragraph appears to a "coatrack" on which is used to bash former PM's. Massive slabs of this quote don't seem to fit into the page. c.Marsh b.Lillee (talk) 06:33, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Well that argument seems to have just died, but not with any good reason for the paragraph staying. I still say it's a blatant coatrack paragraph, serves no purpose in a Rudd biography, and needs to go. (p.s. I'm not saying it's an intentional coatrack). Peter Ballard (talk) 12:14, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

It is a long bow to draw to say the para is a coatrack. As I said, it states Rudd's economic view, as part of his political view section, a Rudd quote from a published book, that despite having similar economic policy, he prefers the Hawke/Keating reformist way of handling the economy as opposed to the various ways Howard handled the economy and how it flowed on to schools/hospitals/infrastructure. This is a mainstay of his economic views. Perhaps some consider it a coatrack because of how he's convincingly worded it? Is this a coatrack? Timeshift (talk) 14:32, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

All the quote does is praise Hawke/Keating for "taking on their own political base", and criticise Howard for not taking on his. It has nothing to do with Rudd. If you want a quote on his economic views, find a better one, one which focuses on what Rudd believes, not on what Hawke/Keating/Howard did. "Perhaps some consider it a coatrack because of how he's convincingly worded it?" - perhaps some are defending it because they like the quote rather than it being relevant? "Is this a coatrack?" - what are you talking about, that is the ALP website, they can say what they want. Peter Ballard (talk) 23:55, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

The Rudd quote that criticises Howard is definitely not a 'coatrack'. You may be able to criticise the quote for other reasons, but coatrack is not the appropriate term in this case. The term 'Coatrack' refers to the entire article, not a single point or quote in the article. So, you can go and look for some other Wikipedia criteria to that the quote violates, but the above comments that cite the Coatrack rule are invalid. In response to those who say it is "constructive" to immediately delete the quote, I say it's not constructive. The quote is factual, not libel, and not vandalism, therefore revert deletions are not appropriate. Have the discussion out here on the talk page, and in the end the community will decide if the quote stays or goes.--Lester 01:05, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Economic views paragraph - off topic?

I've renamed the section because there is no edit warring now.

OK, I admit "coatrack" is not strictly correct. It was just convenient shorthand for "off topic paragraph which is more about criticising Howard than presenting Rudd's views". Now, I haven't seen any good defence that it is on topic. Lester argued that it summarised Rudd's election platform, but I've pointed out that Rudd (to my knowledge) never contrasted Howard to Hawke/Keating during the campaign, certainly not significantly. Timeshift said it was about "positioning" himself between Howard and Hawke/Keating, then conceded the "positioning" was about supporting Hawke/Keating policies and not Howard's. In the edit history I see 3 people saying delete (me, Skyring, C.Marsh b.Lillee), 2 saying keep (Timeshift, Lester). Surturz seems to argue for both :) To those who want to keep, you're in the minority, so I think you need better arguments or it's got to go. Can't you see that the paragraph is really just a criticism of Howard? Peter Ballard (talk) 01:37, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't necessarily want to keep it. An alternative possibility may be to paraphrase it. Or delete it. But because the information is cited and factual, the onus should be on those who want to delete it to provide the argument and the wikipedia rules. --Lester 01:45, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I think you'll struggle to find a WP rule that puts the onus on either side. In any case, I am calling for it to be deleted because it's off-topic (about Hawke/Keating/Howard not Rudd) and POV (attacks Howard without a balancing view). Peter Ballard (talk) 03:04, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

So essentially, neither can hide behind a WP: policy, and neither has made any point that the other considers to be relevant, be it right or wrong. So looks like more discussion rather than demanding it be removed. Since when can a PM not comment on the previous couple of governments and what he sees as important from it? Timeshift (talk) 03:53, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

FuelWatch

Not sure why, I'm having trouble editing the article. Could someone please put the following in in the "first term" section?

During the election campaign, Rudd promised to institute new government bodies to monitor, with the aim of reducing, fuel and grocery prices. In 2008 senior ministers in his government expressed concern that such measures would actually raise prices for those least able to pay. Rudd defended the program, saying that it would reduce prices by around 2 cents a litre.

Thanks. --Surturz (talk) 01:06, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:Recentism

Please be careful. It looks odd when his personal views have government issues spotted through them. I've moved them in to his 2007-present section. Timeshift (talk) 03:25, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

too many refs?

• Please see discussion I have raised at WP:AWNB#too many refs? concerning the recent challenge to an edit I have made on this article --Matilda ^talk 05:12, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Unsure of edits to the article (Rudd's chinese name)

I've cautiously reverted this re his chinese name, I had a hard time figuring out if it was subtle vandalism. Others' reversal of my revert would be appreciated if I am incorrect. Timeshift (talk) 14:01, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

While I admire the research that's gone into it, I'm unconvinced that Rudd's Chinese alias deserves mention in the article. Isn't it akin to a nickname? It's not a name he was born with, and I doubt we'd put his full name as Kevin Michael "Lù Kèwén" Rudd. OTOH I guess he does talk to high level chinese diplomats and politicians. Perhaps if one of those looked up this article, they'd like to know :) --Surturz (talk) 21:01, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Such names are not usually nicknames in the way the term is used within most western cultures, and need to be understood as arising through processes of inter-cultural contact and communication. I'd be careful about the argument that its not a name he was born with, since many people acquire names that stick as they go through life, and which are noted in WP articles - either as nicknames that are bestowed upon them, or names that they select for themselves for whatever reason. Sometimes the rationale for these names is contained in the article, sometimes not. In Rudd's case, his acceptance of his Chinese name would be an indicator of his relationship with aspects of Chinese culture and customs in this regard, and is a component of his character as a politician. To make the entry even more relevant, it would be interesting to include the meaning of Rudd's Chinese name as well, because this is an important part of the naming process - all Chinese names have explicit meanings in their own right, unlike most Western names whose affect lies mainly in their sound and any associations they may have with literary, theological, sporting, etc identities. If Rudd's Chinese name is used by people in China, then it becomes far more relevant. If it was only used as part of his Mandarin classes, then its value is mainly for curiosity sake. Eyedubya (talk) 00:53, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

While I see the relevance of "Lu Kewen" being included in the article, I don't see a need for digging into the phonetics. "Lu Kewen" is simply a well-crafted phonetic approximation of his "real" name in English (which happen to be three syllables--same as most Chinese names). Knowing the language, I don't see the need of the meaning either, as "Lu Kewen" doesn't have an explicit and unambiguous meaning. One could suspect "Ke" means "to overcome" and "Wen" means "the written (Chinese) language", but it may not have been his intention. The obvious and unambiguous explanation (if there even needs to be one) is the phonetic similarity. Generically "Kevin Rudd" would be translated to "Kaiwen Lade" (Lah-duh) in modern day Chinese, but "Lu Kewen" is one that he specifically chooses, just like many Chinese and Koreans choose (or are given) a Western first name. HkCaGu (talk) 17:19, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Speaking as a westerner with Chinese ancestry and a Chinese name, I think that the issue of meaning is interesting and relevant - there should be more of it, not less. The subtle differences between the tones will be indiscernable, giving several possibilities for names that phonetically sound the same to western ears, but conveying quite different meanings to those who speak Chinese. Eyedubya (talk) 01:31, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Wiktionary says 陸: land/army/six 克:overcome/gram 文: literature/culture/writing. "Overcome Literature with an Army" perhaps. Unless Kev wanted his name to mean "censorship", I would say that it is a phonetic representation of his English name :-) P.S. I've changed my mind, I think given the importance of his ability to speak Mandarin, it is worthy of inclusion. --Surturz (talk) 10:52, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, now try saying his name to a Mandarin-speaking person and watch their reaction! :) Eyedubya (talk) 10:56, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

External Links

How do I change a link? I'm slightly internet illiterate I'm afraid. I want to alter the domain given already to the new domain. http://www.kevinmichaelrudd.com Sorry I haven't looked over your website properly and done it all myself but I'm very busy at the moment trying to prepare for next months change in the senate. I've got about 5 minutes out of my lunchbreak to fix this up and then I'm catching a limousine to Kyoto Towers. It's a new domain. The page appears to be locked. Congratulations on such a successful website and thankyou for creating such a fair and balanced article on the new Australian leader. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.223.30.9 (talk) 03:13, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

• Guys, what we do about this? If I were Rudd I would not use an Internet address without au on the end (on the other hand, if I were Rudd I would not have done many things he did and would have done many things we would not). Also the site http://www.kevinmichaelrudd.com is apparently hosted on IP 4.79.81.151 that is in Colorado, USA. The anonim himself comes from a Telstra IP (one service said it is in QLD, one said it is in ACT both can be Rudd's office). The site itself does not appear to be an attack or an obvious hoax site, still I think we need a sort of confirmation that this is indeed Kevin Rudd's site and not a hoax Alex Bakharev (talk) 03:49, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Also neither http://www.pm.gov.au/ nor http://www.alp.org.au/people/qld/rudd_kevin.php (aka http://kevinrudd.com) list the site as the official Kevin Rudd's site Alex Bakharev (talk) 04:20, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

It appears (at least at present) to be a copy of the official Prime Minister's page here. There is no indication it is an official site and I wouldn't support its use in the article instead of www.pm.gov.au. At best it will be outdated every time the official site updates and at worst it might be used to post incorrect information masquerading as an "official statement". Euryalus (talk) 03:43, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

That's ok. I should have been more forthcoming with my intentions but I was running late for a flight. I'm just a minor figure in the labor party and it doesn't really matter which link you use. We won't be closing down the old domain as its part of the government website and already well listed in search engines. We don't go out of our way to confuse people. The new domain is simply easier to remember for our regular visitors. Thanks for your time. Peter Geoffreys. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.222.164.62 (talk) 08:45, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I can confirm for you that KevinMichaelRudd.Com is an official website of the PM and our internet boffin Greg is currently optimising it for search engines. Peter is a volunteer staffer and trainee assistant to Greg. Simply email me at julia@juliagillard.org or send a message addressed to me via our canberra website and I will happily verify its authenticity. Thankyou. Julia Gillard (talk) 03:01, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

You don't honestly expect us to think we're speaking to not just a staffer, but Julia Gillard herself? Oh please. Timeshift (talk) 03:11, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I suppose it must seem pretty fantastic to you but I work in the department next to hers. She's flesh and blood like anybody else. The subject of facebook came up over lunch and I mentioned how Kevin's new website couldn't be placed on his article page at wikipedia without official verification. She has a computer in her office. It isn't unheard of. She frequently talks to friends on her MySpace page. I suggest you email her and find out. Don't worry about the website becoming outdated every time the old site updates. Greg explained to me that it's a mirror site and both websites will update simultaneously. Regards Peter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.185.53.57 (talk) 07:26, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Are you aware of the history of oz govt editing on wikipedia? I am sure all MPs on all sides wouldn't contribute to articles or talk pages whatsoever (staffers excluded). Timeshift (talk) 08:36, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

It's a hoax everyone. Julia Gillard's real email address is Julia.Gillard.MP@aph.gov.au Peter Ballard (talk) 12:21, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, definately a hoax. But even it was genuine, there is no reason not to use the PM's offical government address. Jmount (talk) 13:07, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

What makes you think it's a hoax? Looks authentic to me! http://www.kevinmichaelrudd.com LOL! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.223.99.228 (talk) 22:07, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Spamlink only --Matilda ^talk 22:14, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I have blocked User:Julia Gillard as an inappopriate username. She can of course challenge the block --Matilda ^talk 22:18, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Social conservative

Rudd is widely regarded as a social conservative. However, the term appears nowhere in the article. Should the article state that he is widely regarded as a social conservative? There would be endless references available to support the view. For example, commentator Gerard Henderson recently made the comment in the Sydney Morning Herald (link) after artists were unhappy that Rudd condemned the photography of Bill Henson. It has been said many times before that Rudd is a social conservative, as opposed to Liberal leadership contender Malcolm Turnbull who is considered socially liberal. It kind of blurs the lines between the two parties somewhat. --Lester 01:54, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I think we need a sub-section under "Political views" called something like "Social views". (I'm a little wary of calling the heading "social conservative", because he's not a social conservative on all things (e.g. he voted for the abolition RU486 restrictions), but we could certainly see say within that section that he's widely called a social conservative). The Bill Henson issue should also be moved from the "First term: 2007–present" to that section, because it wasn't a big issue politically for Rudd (he was more of a commentating bystander), but it's an interesting and important illustration of his social views. Peter Ballard (talk) 02:03, 16 June 2008 (UTC), corrected Peter Ballard (talk) 03:46, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

He is in some ways social conservative, not so in other areas. Two things that comes to mind are the apology, and financial equality for LGBT persons. Timeshift (talk) 04:07, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but with the LGBT issue, notice how it was financial discrimination that was removed. He was very careful to keep the social barriers in place to LGBT marriage, IVF and adoption. So he retains his social conservatism on that issue. --Lester 04:28, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't say that was socially conservative, just not as socially liberal as it could have been. But that's my 2c. For the record, I am a homosexual. Timeshift (talk) 04:45, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

You say tomato, I say a red fruit :-) --Surturz (talk) 05:19, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Also, IIRC, Rudd hasn't changed any of the LGBT policies in the Labor platform. Did Labor ever support LGBT marriage, access to IVF and adoption? If not, you could hardly label him for going by the Labor Party platform. Was Whitlam a social conservative? Timeshift (talk) 08:27, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

How much of this is pragmatic politics and how much of it is personal views? Almost anything politicians say these days is put through a PR filter before it makes it to a wider audience and has to be viewed from both an electoral and intra-party context. I know personally of MPs who have had to support stances they disagree with because Labor's state office has ruled that to hold a contrary stance would unnecessarily give opportunities to the Liberals. There are exceptions - but most of them are backbench MPs. Orderinchaos 02:52, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

"Personal views" are unimportant. Any parliamentarian who is a member of an Aussie political party will at some point vote in favour (or against) legislation they don't (or do) like. Crossing the floor is very rare in Aussie politics now. --Surturz (talk) 12:29, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Correct. Which is why I find it so ignorant when people refer to federal elections as electing the candidate and not the PM/party, on both a theoretical and practical basis. Aussie elections have been defacto presidential campaigns for decades now. The sooner some realise the modern reality, the better. Timeshift (talk) 16:46, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Strip Club removal

I've removed the strip club paragraph. It was somewhat interesting at the time because it was during an election campaign, but it had no effect on the outcome of the election, and a bloke having a few drinks and going to a strip club is hardly notable. It can be re-added if something else crops up (e.g. if it is brought up during a debate on sexism or somesuch) --Surturz (talk) 01:58, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Kevin Rudd's strip club escapades were discussed endlessly in the past. A consensus was reached. However, that has now changed by this edit which deleted the content. So here we go again..... --Lester 02:00, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

It came up in the context of the alcopop debate UK Telegraph 3 June 2008 --Matilda ^talk 02:05, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Strong Keep - it was a notable event because it got huge media coverage and to a degree has defined his image. Like Fraser's trousers, Latham and the cab driver, Downer's heels, Hawke's drinking record etc. The paragraph avoids sensationalism - it's well referenced and NPOV. Peter Ballard (talk) 02:13, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it's still getting strong media coverage. Just this month: The Australian, , The Herald Sun. Rudd's boozey past is more notable now, due to his crack down on alcopops.--Lester 02:15, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, OK leave it in then. I still think it is a trivial inclusion. Why don't we just rename the article Kevin .07? jeez --Surturz (talk) 08:13, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

It provides an insight into Rudd's personality.--Lester 12:16, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

What insight, exactly? He drank a beer and saw a boob? I think most Australian males would fall into this group. It would be more notable if he HADN'T drank a beer, or had NEVER seen a boob! :-) --Surturz (talk) 12:24, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Ewww, boobs. This is one male that doesn't fall in to that group :) FWIW I don't care if the content stays or goes. Timeshift (talk) 16:38, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I am researching issues of public interest and came looking for details of the event with a view to questioning the media's definition of "public interest" is... I was hoping to find an NPOV account only to find the article sanitised. Wikipedia will loose credibility if such practises continue. Proberton (talk) 11:26, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

The only thing that has lost credibility, especially with a spiel like that, is you. Strip club removal was never removed, it is mentioned here. Now run along. Timeshift (talk) 20:50, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I would like to apologise unreservedly for my self-righteous indignation, I didn't read the article closely enough. Proberton (talk) 23:51, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

A serious issue

I have received a flickr message from the author of the sorry image that Dr R Marika (the woman with "Thanks" on her T-shirt) has died. He goes on to say 'It is customary that her image should not be shown publicly for a period of time - usually a year. I think the photo should probably be removed from Wikipedia as a mark of respect'. I'm torn between the two. Comments/discussion very much appreciated. Timeshift (talk) 05:24, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

can you forward the email to OTRS at info-en@wikimedia.org and let the person know that you have done so. The request will be done by someone from outside australia and they'll be able to make an independent judgement. Gnangarra 16:08, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

It's not an email. It's a flickr message. I have advised the author to email that address themselves. Timeshift (talk) 16:33, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is full of stuff that offends people. Fundamentalist Christians probably hate the Evolution article. The photograph is an excellent one, capturing the mood of the moment perfectly, and I would be sorry to lose it from our encyclopaedia. --Pete (talk) 22:31, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Adapted from original post at Wikipedia:Australian Wikipedians' notice board FWIW, I'd be bold and remove the image from this article as a courtesy to the original creator of the image, who I presume is the complainant since you're being contacted via flickr. The media is encouraged to respect indigenous beliefs in this area (eg Advisory Note: The Portrayal of Aboriginal and Torres Straight Islander Peoples) and it does not seem to unnecessarily compromise the Kevin Rudd article to remove it since it already has several images. On the other hand, Wikipedia is not censored and I wouldn't be removing the image from the Commons itself. My suggestion would be to <!--- comment out the image !--->with an in comment note to reinstate it this time next year. Debate 木 23:11, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

It does seem rather a double standard to blank the photograph when a similar custom applies to publishing the deceased's name, yet she has an article here. To be consistent, surely the article would have to be blanked as well? (I support neither.) BTW, the same photo appears at Stolen Generations. WWGB (talk) 23:28, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Generally I'd agree that the article shouldn't be removed due to a marginal email complaint by a random individual. It seems to me, however, that the main issue is how to deal with the preferences of the original creator of the image, if indeed that is the person who's making the request. Although the creator of the image has waived some of their rights to the image, as a general rule we want to encourage more people to release images under appropriate licenses. In my view an argument can be made that, as a courtesy to the original creator of the image and following their request, we might consider restricting use of the image for a brief period on articles with a high profile such as this one. Debate 木 23:37, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I recognise that a concern of cultural impact by using the image has been raise but this is a freely licensed and available image in respect to that culture, its also visual commentary on an aspect that had significant effect on the culture. Without direct contact by the author to the foundation via OTRS, I'm reluctant to remove an image based solely on a reported note. There are precedents against such types of image removal across many articles I'd hate to this used to force censorship on them, this discussion needs to go where the broader community can discuss it and OTRS can do that with the necessary sensitivity. Gnangarra 01:17, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

It appears that image has been removed from Flickr. The link on the Wikipedia image page (i.e. this link [5]) no longer works; and I cannot find it on the Flickr user's page, despite other Sorry Day images here [6] . Therefore I think it's reasonable to say that the original author has withdrawn permission to use the picture, and while perhaps legally we can keep it, I think we should remove it. Peter Ballard (talk) 01:35, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

It's still there for me, even after reloading a couple of times. Perhaps one of us is special? --Pete (talk) 02:33, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I now get "The photo you were looking for has been deleted. You might like to ask jthommo101 about it!". I think you need to refresh your cache. Oops I just saw you said you reloaded. But try again now. I think something has changed since my last (1.35 WP time) post. Peter Ballard (talk) 02:47, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Getting the same message now. Possibly there's a few caches between Flickr and I that take time to clear out. If the photographer has withdrawn the image, I don't feel comfortable continuing to use it. A pity, as it's an excellent photo for the article(s). --Pete (talk) 02:55, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Just to clarify as some people don't seem to be aware (and this is not in support of keeping or deleting the image, just clarifying image policies) that once you have a flickr image uploaded to wikipedia, and it has been reviewed with the green tick as meeting the licensing requirements, from that point on it does not matter if the image license has been changed, or the image has been completely removed. All that matters is that at one point, it was verified to be available on flickr, under the stated license. Thanks. Timeshift (talk) 03:21, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I wasn't sure on that point. I'm torn. It's an excellent image and an asset to Wikipedia, but, cultural considerations aside, if the photographer doesn't want us to use it, then we should bear that in mind. Put me down as neutral. --Pete (talk) 03:29, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

As a guide on how to handle this, did anyone ever try to upload the Mohommed cartoons to wikipedia that caused mass protests by Muslims? If so how was it handled? Timeshift (talk) 03:51, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

They are here. WWGB (talk) 04:14, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

If I remember correctly, there was a discussion of a similar matter a while ago at the Australian Wikipedians' notice board. The example at the time was that an editor was, in good-faith, adding disclaimers to articles on Indigenous Australians stating that they might contain material relating to deceased Indigenous Australians - Wikipedia's Wikipedia:General disclaimer was judged to sufficiently cover this and these specific disclaimers were removed. There was also a campaign against Wikipedia by some Muslim groups earlier this year protesting at articles which contain images of Mohommed - they were refered to WP:NOT#CENSORED and the images remained in the article. Nick Dowling (talk) 10:33, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Is there any other image available that would be an adequate replacement for this image? I'm not that keen on removing the picture just because someone on Flickr told us to do so, but if we can put up an equivalent image in its place and please everyone instead, then why not? Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:54, 4 August 2008 (UTC).

Free images don't appear out of thin air. Timeshift (talk) 10:58, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm aware of that, but if one is available that would seem to be the best solution, no? Obviously the chances of an exact image without the person in question being available are slim, but surely there are other images covering the same topic that we could consider using. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:05, 4 August 2008 (UTC).

Obvious troll is obvious, but I am wondering why you are worried about this issue when you were perfectly happy to put an unflattering caricature of Joe Hockey on his page? I personally think we should be polite and not use the image, but I am just wondering why there is a double standard? --Surturz (talk) 11:03, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Because we're displaying the image of a recently deceased indigenous person? What ignorance. Timeshift (talk) 11:20, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

So it's not okay to include a photo that indigenous people might find offensive, but it is okay to include a pic that a politician may find offensive? Is that the situation? --Surturz (talk) 11:52, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

100% correct! Timeshift (talk) 11:57, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Why? --Surturz (talk) 12:04, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Part of the indigenous culture is that displaying images of recently deceased images is culturally insensitive, and an insult. When the ABC shows something on indigenous culture, there's always a warning saying that the program may contain images of deceased indigenous people. I can't believe I even need to explain this. You deserve no further response. Timeshift (talk) 12:12, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I didn't think you'd be able to explain why politicans don't deserve the same courtesy on WP. "It's obvious" isn't a reason. I'm all for caricatures and making fun of pollies in other fora, but I can't see how caricatures deserve a place in a WP BLP. If you can't believe that you need to explain this, consider the fact that you and I think very differently; perhaps what is obvious to you is not quite so obvious to me. --Surturz (talk) 13:27, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I think you're being insensitive to Surturz. There does seem to be a double standard here. The custom doesn't seem to be a widespread part of Aboriginal culture. As I've pointed out below I've been able to find very little on it and what I have found seems to be written from a non-Aboriginal perspective. Traditional Aboriginal art seems to be significantly lacking in images of Aboriginal people, especially individuals, so one tends to wonder when exactly this custom arose and how many Aboriginal people actually follow the custom. Why should displaying an image that one person (or group of people) finds offensive be insensitive while at the same time displaying an image that another person (or group of people) finds offensive not be insensitive? --AussieLegend (talk) 12:43, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

When there is a television program on with deceased indigenous people, there is always a warning before the program. Do we see the same before a news bulletin? The comparison is completely invalid. Timeshift (talk) 12:50, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Do we see caricatures of politicians in news bulletins? --Surturz (talk) 13:27, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

This is a cultural issue Surturz. Politicians have nothing to do with this. I'll leave others to judge your inane rantings. Timeshift (talk) 13:37, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

The warning is really completely irrelevant. When TV programs with graphic medical procedures are shown there is generally a warning included. There's always somebody who will be upset or offended about something no matter how inoffensive it might be to most people. Remember "Where the bloody hell are you?" --AussieLegend (talk) 17:23, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think comparisons to the Mohammad cartoons, or aboriginal spirituality, hold water. In those cases, the article is hopelessly compromised if we self-censor out the "offensive" bits. But in this case, the photo is really just peripheral to the article, and in any case we can just find another one. To Lankiveil: it's not just "someone on Flickr" who asked for the photo to be removed, the actual photographer has removed it. Peter Ballard (talk) 11:11, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Having failed to find anything on Google, other than this broad overview, regarding the custom of not displaying images of deceased Aboriginals, I approached a local Aboriginal man for advice but he couldn't shed any light on it either. Does anyone have any specific information on this custom, preferably from an Aboriginal source? While I tend to side with those saying the image should not be deleted, I was going to suggest that, as a compromise, if it really concerns anyone perhaps the image could be edited to blank out her face. As for the suggestion about commenting out the image and not displaying it until this time next year, I should point out that she died almost 3 months ago, not recently. --AussieLegend (talk) 12:03, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

A note on referring to deceased Aboriginal people WWGB (talk) 12:08, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately that too is a broad overview and really doesn't address any specifics such as the origins of the custom and other issues such as whether blanking out the face in an image is sufficient. --AussieLegend (talk) 12:18, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

"perhaps the image could be edited to blank out her face..." We could put a yellow smiley face on her. Maybe pixellate her face like the accused. Maybe a big red X. I don't think there's any way to do it sensitively without having a note to explain why, which kinda defeats the purpose. --Pete (talk) 12:55, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Given the colour of her face in the image it would have been quite easy, and not intrusive, to black it out and a simple note could have been added to the image page. It's moot now. --AussieLegend (talk) 17:23, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Thinking back to the John Howard article, we had a lot of trouble getting good free images. The best - in the Parliamentary handbook - we couldn't use, even though it was offered freely. Good free images of public figures are scarce. We can get any number of soft focus phone camera shots in poor light through digital zoom at a fundraiser, but they aren't much use. This photograph is a pearler, it's free, it sums up an important moment in Rudd's career as PM. On reflection, it would be a wikicrime to lose it. I doubt we'll see anything else quite so good in the rest of Rudd's term. --Pete (talk) 18:05, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Removal of image

Can I just say to the two editors who have come along to stolen generations to remove the image that I will continue to revert the removal of the image. The author is in contact with wikimedia. The removal of the image is a proposed change from the status quo, thus consensus must be reached. Timeshift (talk) 13:42, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

What happened in the end? The image doesn't seem to exist whatsoever. This amounts to censorship of what is otherwise a free image if it has been deleted. I hope you have a copy to upload again Timeshift. JRG (talk) 13:10, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Has anyone considered the moral rights of the author? I don't know if publishing a person's photo in contravention of customary beliefs against the preference of the author would be derogatory etc treatment, but it could be. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 01:49, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

The author contacted wikimedia to have it removed, and it was done. It's a pity, because once an image is released under cc-by-sa licensing, that's it, it cannot be taken back. That said, wikimedia have the right to remove it from their end, and if the flickr page has removed the right, it's no longer useable on wikipedia in the future as it cannot be verified as once free. I'm still both ways over it. As much as I respect the wishes of the aboriginal culture not to show recently deceased people (and debatedly any deceased people), did anyone see the Southpark Mohammad episode? Either everything is ok to show and talk about, or nothing is. Once you pick and choose what you can and cannot show to appease certain persons, you begin to slide down a very slippery slope. Somebody think of the manatees! Timeshift (talk) 03:48, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Bias

Why would you write "following in the footsteps of Pauline Hanson"? This is a clear case of bias; whether or not the school was a good idea, Wikipedia is meant to give an unbiased account of what happened. If you must say that you believe he is racist (which is clearly not true with his interactions with China as well as many other countries that Howard only visited when he absolutely felt obliged to, then please say something more like this: His opposition of the school was viewed by some as being racist or anti-islamic. Many people read this article, and I do not want people to get a misleading view of Mr. Rudd. I'm not asking you to write an article flattering Mr. Rudd as he, or any other leader, does not deserve flattery but I simply ask that you do not demean him.Japadict (talk) 14:29, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Very few of us have the time to police every instance of bias (and there's certainly no shortage of editors adding bias any particular point in time). That's why we rely on good editors such as yourself to correct things. Thanks! Debate 木 11:58, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

No worries... I wrote this on the talk page because at the time I did not seem to have editing privileges for this article, but now it seems that I do. Japadict (talk) 03:06, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Rudd image

I emailed the PM's office to ask them about Kim Carr'ising the PM image (cc-by-2.5/similar licensing). Encouraging response:

Many thanks for your email

We recently received the same request concerning the use of the official photo of the Prime Minister on the Wikipedia website from another party.

We are currently investigating this request and we will respond to the requesting party shortly.

I will also advise you of the outcome of that request for your information.

Yours sincerely

Web Content Manager Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet

My guess of this 'other' party is the unofficial wikipedia entourage (if you have to ask, don't). Interesting. Timeshift (talk) 06:58, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

May I respectfully enquire as to the eventual outcome of that? Cheers, 64.209.16.204 (talk) 14:18, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

If it ever happens i'll let you know. Timeshift (talk) 15:03, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Mandatory detention

I draw peoples' attention to the discussion I tried to initiate at Talk:Mandatory detention in Australia. Peter Ballard (talk) 11:47, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Page protection

If Bush does and Howard did have semi-protection, then so should Rudd as current PM. I disagree with it's removal a couple of days ago. Timeshift (talk) 05:06, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

New article?

I suggest we split out the first term section into a Premiership of Kevin Rudd article, as the current section is too long. What do you all think? Brisvegas 12:01, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, I could definitely go with Rudd Government (as with Howard Government)...but Premiership would be more than a bit odd when he's not a Premier! Rebecca (talk) 14:12, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Please see Premiership of Tony Blair - there's no such word as "prime ministership". :) Brisvegas 06:43, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I would prefer one all-encompassing article, and then sub-articles about various topics that need expansion. The sub-topics would match the sub-headings in the main article. I think this is how many US politicians are handled. As could be seen from the Howard split, separating the man from the government is very difficult and confusing. Especially these two men (Howard and Rudd) who are not notable for anything outside of politics. The other advantage of this idea is that they can be split as you go. --Lester 21:42, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

It's beyond a good idea, it's a must. it was blindingly obvious to me yesterday as I tinkered with the article. For the same reasons as the Howard article split. This article is just a long list of what the government is doing. It's time we aimed for something higher, a well-written biography. --Merbabu (talk) 22:14, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I still support it all on the one page. John Howard just looks bizarre these days. Pity about the WP:BLP trolls that can make it difficult. Timeshift (talk) 00:07, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

The 'WP:BLP' issue was one of the reasons given to split the Howard article in to the man / and the government. I personally don't think the split solved any BLP issues. The BLP rules are mainly to stop people adding non-factual rumours to an article, untrue stuff that may cause undue hurt or even worse libel. Moving content to an article by another name, shall we call it a BLP split, doesn't solve any of the issues about factuality, truth and solid references.--Lester 00:35, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Thinking this through further (and logically!), there’s actually two parts to this issue:

• Firstly, I think there is no reason not to create a Rudd Government article – it’s notable and there is unarguably a mountain of potential info. That’s simple enough. (although, there might be a name change in the future – who knows? He he).
• The second part - that logically has no impact on the question of creating Rudd Government - is the question of what is put into Rudd-the-person’s *biography*, and what really belongs in the detailed Government article, and indeed what belongs in both. --Merbabu (talk) 00:46, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Strong Support - I believe the split over at John Howard (to Howard Government) has been very successful. We're still working out what goes where, but on the whole it is working much better than a single article. Rudd Government is my preferred title. --Surturz (talk) 06:16, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

With a split along Person/Government, there's the risk of a POV fork. Positive sounding things go to the original front Person article. Anything negative that happens goes to the rear Government article. That's why it's better for the front article to encompass everything, and point to more detail in other articles (eg Economy, War etc).--Lester 06:24, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I think the Howard split has been a disaster, with people arguing for stuff to go in both articles, and both articles still a mess several months after the split. Peter Ballard (talk) 08:40, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

That pretty much sums it up. Timeshift (talk) 13:31, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Timeshift removes other's posting on the Howard page discussing policy. Timeshift puts to an online vote Rudd policy inclusion on page, rejected yet here it is. Timeshift rejects factual based criticism from history of economic reform as none "rationalised objection" and publishes. What a place Wikipedia has become for the drooling left. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.101.222.105 (talk) 06:47, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

The talk page is for commenting on the article, not contributors. If you object to Timeshift's editing style, feel free to raise it on his talk page or failing everything else, start an RFC. If you object to his edits on this article, feel free to seek a consensus on this page to change the content. But either way please stop making what strongly appear to be personal attacks like calling people "drooling left'. Its unrelated to the point of this talk page, weakens the credibility of your argument and risks getting you blocked from editing altogether. Euryalus (talk) 06:53, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I am well within my rights to remove comments that don't refer to article improvements - read the top of the page, it is for discussion of the article, it is not so you can WP:SOAPBOX. I support a single page for both Howard and Rudd, I don't like the idea of a "Howard/Rudd government" page. Wikipedia has contributors with both left and right beliefs, and biased edits are picked up very quickly. Your edit history is very questionable in terms of neutrality, people in glass houses should not throw stones. As Euryalus says, if you have a problem with me, take it to my talk page, but my reputation is well known. I am after all a veteran editor with many awards. I stand by my contributions. Timeshift (talk) 07:13, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Don't expect any replies to that strawman. Ottre (talk) 09:02, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Rudd Government or perhaps better Australian Labour government 2007 to present is notable and potentially huge topic – as is Howard Government (which probably should be named something like Coalition Government 1996-2007). We can’t get around the fact they are separate topics. That there is discussion and disagreement on border/demarcation issues doesn’t mean that in principle the move was correct (much less a “disaster”).

Additionally, I’ve found that perhaps those few critics of the "split" are just sorry they can’t include every “negative” detail of the 96-07 government under John Howard. If that is what is meant by “POV fork”, then the “split” has been a roaring success.

And Peter, your disappointment surprises me. I thought you liked it. --Merbabu (talk) 22:25, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

• Strongly against. I agree that the Howard page split has been a disaster, and Peter is entitled to be against it Merbabu. JRG (talk) 13:03, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
• Strong support: the article is informatively useless. Ottre (talk) 09:02, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
• Strong against: Just so my position has been formalised :) Timeshift (talk) 10:05, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
• Strong support: the article has become like a list, and somewhat divorced from Rudd considered as individual but rather more about his government. Little biographical detail to give context to Rudd as a person. ROxBo (talk) 14:54, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Removal of 4k worth of material

Ottre please do not remove such large slabs without consensus. And how can a wiki article "lack direction"? It is not a story. Timeshift (talk) 04:50, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Timeshift9, do not throw warning messages at me. I've been here too long for that. What is the problem exactly? Before I go out the local library and rewrite that section, I want some guidelines in place. Ottre (talk) 04:58, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I didn't give you any template warning. What needs rewriting? What is the issue with what is currently there? State your issues and they can be addressed. Timeshift (talk) 05:07, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I fully intend to take the article to review once it gives a useful overview to the world, so there is no point arguing here. See you in a week? Ottre (talk) 05:15, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

It’s not an article, it’s a list. I support any move to re-write the article. Once I create the Rudd Government article, this may also help (and anyone else can create it if I take too long. --Merbabu (talk) 05:09, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the sentiment of the change, if not necessarily the details. Some stuff has to go. I mean, what on earth is Rudd's international tour doing in there? Seriously NN (non-notable). A number of other things are non-notable too. Of course change should be done by consensus, though consensus is extremely painful to achieve on the Howard and Rudd articles. Peter Ballard (talk) 06:04, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Society and religion

Earlier today I edited the part of this section in which part of Rudd's voting record is described as "liberal" in the context of his vote on legislation transferring regulatory authority over the drug RU-486 from the federal Minister For Health to the Therapeutic Goods Administration. My contribution may have been a bit wordy, but the proposed replacement was, in my opinion, less factual, so I've had another try. I don't want to start an edit-war, so I'm creating this section for discussion. From an NPOV point of view, I think it's better simply to give the facts about the vote rather than editorialising about it's possible significance. Frankly I think describing Rudd's vote as "liberal" (a very heavily freighted word) is already an editorial comment, but I've left that alone. RB1956 (talk) 06:23, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think we can avoid the fact that this was a heated and emotional issue. It was not simply a bereaucratic transfer from one authority to another. Otherwise why was it so debated, and why was it a conscience vote? The intention of the legislation was to loosen restrictions on RU486. Perhaps a better wording would be along the lines of "Rudd supported the removal of Health Minister's veto over the use of RU486".

That's pretty good. I could buy that. RB1956 (talk) 07:27, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

On the use of the word "liberal", perhaps we should remove all commentary, and simply describe how he voted. So long as the wording makes clear (in some way, like I suggest above) that it removed some restrictions on RU486, readers can then draw their own conclusions. Peter Ballard (talk) 06:39, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

This though I have a problem with. The vote did not in itself remove any restriction on the use of RU486. What it did do is change the terms on which the restrictions might be loosened in the future. As far as I am aware, RU486 remains illegal in Australia because nobody has applied to the TGA for approval to import or manufacture it. RB1956 (talk) 07:27, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Why the aversion to a footnote? The key word in this article, on the whole, is integrity. Quite frankly, nobody in Australia believes Mr Rudd to be conservative in regards to health care. Ottre 06:42, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

The new revision stuck out like a sore thumb, it failed to relate to why the section ends with that. So at the bare minimum, i've added the word 'however' to contrast it to the rest of the section. As the second comment says "...don't think we can avoid the fact that this was a heated and emotional issue. It was not simply a bereaucratic transfer from one authority to another. Otherwise why was it so debated, and why was it a conscience vote?" The social conservatives of parliament voted against it, while the more liberal (not Liberal) parliamentarians voted in favour of the bill. By adding the word 'However' it now contrasts to the rest of the section without specifically stating it was liberal or conservative. Timeshift (talk) 07:09, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Merbabu please participate in consensus discussion. Timeshift (talk) 07:22, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Timeshift, please review WP:SYN (and refresh yourself on WP:CIVIL). thanks --Merbabu (talk) 07:33, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

How is it WP:SYN? I think it is the best outcome. Without 'however', it looks like its just been stuck on the end by a fly-by editor, it's not SYN to add 'However,'. Timeshift (talk) 07:43, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I've fixed it by adding it up the top with the other 'specifics'. Timeshift (talk) 07:58, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

We need some degree of explanation (whether it's Timeshift's "However", or something else), to indicate that the effect of the bill was to make RU486 more accessible. Any number of sources will tell you that. Here's one:[7]. Peter Ballard (talk) 07:50, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

That "source" just offers more editorialising. Somebody says: "Its expected the abortion pill RU486 will be available in Australia within a year after Parliament today voted to strip the Health Minister of his veto over the drug." That's pure opinion (expressed in passive-voiced weasel-words). By whom was it expected? The world, Australia or just that particular commentator? Whoever expected it must have been disappointed. RU486 is (as far as I know:[8]) no more legally available today in Australia as an abortificant than it was when the legislation was passed, so whatever the intentions of those who supported it may have been, it is hard to argue that its effect was to make RU486 more accessible. RB1956 (talk) 07:14, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

You're wrong. This took me about 1 minute to find:[9] Peter Ballard (talk) 07:19, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. I wonder why the Victorian government's page (Last updated in June 2007) is incorrect. I also visited the TGA's database of approved medications and couldn't find RU486 or Mifepristone listed.RB1956 (talk) 07:44, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Heart condition

Why does this article not mention he underwent heart valve transplant surgery some years ago? It may be just a line and reference, but this is an ongoing medical condition likely to impact on his future health and therefore potentially his ability to govern. ROxBo (talk) 14:27, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

It was during the 2007 election that Rudd confirmed he had underwent aortic valve replacement for rheumatic heart disease. ROxBo (talk) 14:51, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

It looks like he had the Ross procedure, which fits with his description of receiving a transplanted organ (from a cadaver)[10] and is also the same operation Arnold Schwarzenegger had.ROxBo (talk) 14:46, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Yawn. Timeshift (talk) 14:36, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Rudd states it is under annual review. [11] ROxBo (talk) 14:51, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

And? Timeshift (talk) 20:42, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

(deindent)If you can find a way to add it to the article without giving it undue weight, go right ahead. However its a pretty minor issue - I'm not aware of any mainstream view that this ancient operation will "impact on his future health" or "affect his ability to govern." The eating of the earwax on the other hand ... Euryalus (talk) 00:58, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

There was no consensus to add it per my first reply above. And we've been over earwax a million times... Timeshift (talk) 06:14, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

There's two parts to this: (1) I say include that he had the operation - needs 1 sentence only. Notable, factual. (2) If there was to be any inclusion of comment on "future health", let alone ability to govern, it must be scrupulusly referenced and notability proven - thus I suggest inclusion of the second part is dubious to say the least. --Merbabu (talk) 06:23, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Is it relevant and noteable? I note it gets a mention on Arnold Schwarzenegger because of his steroid use, it joins in to the same sentence. Timeshift (talk) 06:28, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

My earwax mention was a joke in relation to things "affecting his ability to govern." I'm not suggesting it be included in the article. The heart condition discussion you linked to [12] does appear to show a consensus for inclusion provided it is not overblown with suggestions of a serious medical issue. Rudd's personal information is fairly thin in the article, so some more background detail would be an improvement. However I stand by my earlier comment - in the absence of reliable sources to the contrary, the heart issue is a minor factoid, not a major medical crisis. Avoiding undue weight for minor issues would be important in expanding the section on Rudd's pre-political life. Euryalus (talk) 06:29, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

How on earth does it show consensus? Two for, two against, with one neutral comment. Exactly how is that consensus...? EDIT - I now note the difference between the two discussions. There I agreed for a factual inclusion, strange how now I do not. Perhaps it is due to the way Roxbo is trying to beat this issue up, via that old discussion, then re-hashing via a new discussion, without mentioning the old discussion, and both times trying to give the impression this is somehow a danger to government and the country. Timeshift (talk) 06:35, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I think we're all in some kind of agreement here. The fact of Rudd's heart operation can be referenced from reliable sources. However the sources do not suggest the operation was or is a big deal. The article is not a repository of indiscriminate information, no matter how well sourced. So any inclusion would need to avoid giving undue weight to a minor matter.

Undue weight is relative to the size of the article and the other material in it, so avoiding undue weight for this minor issue would require constructing a detailed section on Rudd's personal life and background. This might be a worthwhile project as the article is heavy on Rudd's political views but has little about his pre-politics or personal life. But its a major job just to put a heart operation in context. Euryalus (talk) 06:44, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Just because there is WP:RS does not make something automatically noteable. By what you have said, it is automatically noteable, the only thing up for debate is how much weight it gets in an article. Timeshift (talk) 07:10, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I mustn't have made myself clear - sorry about that. What I was trying to say is that undue weight is relative to the amount of other material in the article. If the article was a single line saying "Kevin Rudd is Prime Minister", then changing it to "Kevin Rudd is Prime Minister and once had a heart operation" would be undue weight. On the other hand if the article was dozens of pages long and included a detailed life history of Rudd from birth to the present day, it would not be undue weight to mention the operation ten years ago (or whenever it was). The article currently falls somewhere in between these two examples, hence the mixed views on the issue.

Just because something has RS certainly doesn't mean it must be included - as above, Wikipedia isn't an indiscriminate mass of information, sourced or otherwise. I'd support inclusion only if it was part of a much expanded section detailing Rudd's pre-political and personal life (to give the operation context) and' the inclusion was neutrally presented and didn't give the operation a health status unsupported by the sources. Euryalus (talk) 22:13, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) I don't see any need to include it, but I'm not very opposed to its inclusion either. I don't think we'd think surgery for haemarroids (sp?) would be notable... so inclusion of a heart operation might imply that it is life threatening or affects his ability to govern. --Surturz (talk) 07:58, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Without that operation, would he have died (IANAD btw)? I think it's worthy of inclusion, albeit a one-liner mention. -- Longhair\^talk 08:02, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Surturz makes a good point. Timeshift (talk) 11:59, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Like Longhair, I think a one-line mention is appropriate. I think the version that was put in was pretty right[13] - no conclusions were drawn, just a factual statement. I disagree with TS's revert - I think it should go back in. Peter Ballard (talk) 23:15, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Euryalus comment above: "But its a major job just to put a heart operation in context." The issue is it's placement. It sticks out like a sore thumb. It needs integration to flow correctly, it looked plain wrong where it was. Timeshift (talk) 23:25, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

It’s interesting to compare to the “Obama” issue some weeks (months?) back on the John Howard page. My understanding was that many supported inclusion saying that notability was irrelevant as long as it was well-cited and not a BLP issue. Using the same logic, Rudd's operation is well-cited, not a BLP issue, thus if notability is irrelevant, it should go in.

Inclusion or exclusion won’t make or break the article, but on balance, I cannot see reason not to include it. --Merbabu (talk) 23:30, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Again, per Euryalus. Timeshift (talk) 06:13, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I believe it is reasonable to important details like health in a biography, and braodly I think the above discussion supports this point of view. Unfortunately my edit to this effect [14] was deleted bhy Timeshift as he/she did not agree with its location in the article. To avoid an edit war could Timeshift please state where it would be more appropriate rather than simply deleting. Thanks ROxBo (talk) 12:18, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

See... my... comment... above... read what Euryalus has said. You cannot just "find a place to stick it in". It needs context. Put a proposal here so we can agree on it. Timeshift (talk) 12:22, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Hey, do not need to be rude with the impatient "See... my... comment... above...." Euralus wrote "if the article was dozens of pages long and included a detailed life history of Rudd from birth to the present day, it would not be undue weight to mention the operation ten years ago". Clearly no wikipedia article is dozens of pages long! So this is in fact impossible!

I think it is an important fact about his life, and similar to the equally "contextually supported" inclusion of facts such as his childhood school, number of children etc. all included in an already fairly detailed section "detailing Rudd's pre-political and personal life". Also I would think at no time would I consider an operation to replace a part my heart to be minor or trivial, but a rather important and unique event in my healthy life. ROxBo (talk) 12:53, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I really wish you would stop skewing everything that you type. You raise it here and again now as if it is the first time you have mentioned it, then proceed to defend what you want to add, rather than where to add it. As Euryalus says, it is a reasonable job to include this somewhere and in the process re-write the section to put it in to context with his pre-political life. Take the time to make a draft and then come back to us. Thankyou. Timeshift (talk) 05:48, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Please stop automatically removing my edit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ROxBo (talk • contribs)

I've tried to tidy it up and put it in a more appropriate place. Peter Ballard (talk) 10:52, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Peter. I agree it is better there.ROxBo (talk) 22:02, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Please stop insisting on your way or the highway - others agree the placement and context is poor, it needs to be fixed. That said, Ballard has improved it somewhat, but I still have concerns over the way it is placed in it's own paragraph without context. Timeshift (talk) 15:19, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Genealogy

Anyone have any information on Kevin Rudd's forebears? He is being claimed in Wales, which would give the PM the same "ethnicity" as the Deputy PM. Pete (talk) 00:00, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Some time after he became Opposition Leader (or it may even have been after he became PM), there was a major piece in The Age about his family background. I normally keep cuttings of that sort of info, but this one seems to have slipped thru my fingers. I remember seeing a lot of connections to Wagga Wagga, but I can't remember anything about Wales. But then, my memory these days .... That's not much to go on, but it might be a place to start searching. -- JackofOz (talk) 08:29, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Might be this one but I'm not sure. Orderinchaos 07:42, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Praise of Gough

Just in case this meets resistance, I'll point out that I've removed a quote praising Gough Whitlam because it's not about Rudd. Peter Ballard (talk) 10:26, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

It is placed completely in to context - it follows Rudd's university information, which goes on to give Rudd's view of Whitlam's reforms, a former PM of his party, and how he believed it allowed him to achieve what he did, and eventually become PM, which disputedly he wouldn't have been able to (as he states) without Whitlam's said reforms. Timeshift (talk) 15:17, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Chinese name, mark 2

I've trimmed down the treatise on Rudd's Chinese name. The claim about "Kewen" being an "existing Chinese name" is either misrepresenting, or written in ignorance, of Chinese naming practices. Any combination of characters can be a given name, and while there are some which are relatively more common than others, nobody would bat an eyelid at a novel combination (unless it spelled a swearword, I guess). I would prefer to see the whole analysis about "Lu" and "Rudd" "sharing" a "U" sound trimmed as well - it looks like original research; or if not, it should be self-evident to any reader who can read. Just mentioning that Lu Kewen is his Chinese name, and that Lu is an existing surname, should be enough, IMO. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 08:13, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Agree. If you go back the history, I'd prefer the whole "explanation" not being there. Rudd Kevin sounds like Lu Kewen, and that's it. HkCaGu (talk) 13:18, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

• Agreed, how about trimming it to this?

He majored in Chinese language and Chinese history, became proficient in Mandarin. Rudd's Chinese alias, Lù Kèwén (Chinese: 陸克文 or in Chinese: 陆克文), is a transliteration of his English name.

--Surturz (talk) 00:06, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm okay with that version. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 22:55, 24 October 2008 (UTC) from omer.s.

Medvedev image, remove it?

Does this really add anything to the article? It seems a bit WP:WEIGHTy to me, there is no Medvedev mention in this article. Timeshift (talk) 11:30, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Removed. Timeshift (talk) 11:57, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Removed again along with the sentence playing up any significance between Australia/Rudd and Russia/Medvedev. I watch and read news a fair bit and don't think i've ever heard Rudd utter the name Medvedev, and only mentioned Russia very briefly during the whole South Ossetia saga. Quoting the Russian government website to say that Russia/Australia relations are "developing dynamically in many spheres" is not from a WP:RS and to be honest is spin, and it does not mention Rudd/Medvedev who do not know each other by any means apart from diplomatic meetings where both leaders met a range of people. It is very undue WP:WEIGHT, so I have removed it. I notice you are from Russia so I cannot say i'm surprised (assuming the best of faith of course!). And as for the Bush/Rudd photos, last years photo was the first time they'd met, thus is of more significance than the 2008 photo, not to mention the fact that the 2007 photo is of better quality. Your changes from the status quo are disputed, therefore I respectfully request that you engage in talk page discussion. Timeshift (talk) 02:05, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

For goodness sake I am not from Russia nor am I Russian. Your edits are in violation of WP:NOTCENSORED. "Some Russian website" actually quotes Rudd, they didn't take the "developing dynamically in many spheres" quote out of their arse, they just wrote what Kevin Rudd said. If you are suffering from some form of anti-Russian sentiment it's your problem for as long as it doesn't cause you to violate Wikipedia rules. Your problem with image was that there was no mention of Medvedev in the article. When Medvedev was mentioned you removed it because you personally don't hear much about him in the media. Obviously you have the problem with Medvedev and/or Russia (considering your insinuation that I am Russian just because I added this piece of information I am even more worried) because you come up with new explanations for this image and text removal every time the last issue you came up with gets fixed, seemingly just for one purpose - to remove it from the article. And now we can see that it is your idea indeed, after all technical issues are solved you are now coming up with OR claims how Medvedev is not mentioned in the media and that somehow that can be a reason to remove information from the article. And not to mention that you removed some other information that if your IP would be matched to the office of the PM would cause significant problems, far worse than the controversial WP edits by John Howard cabinet.--Avala (talk) 14:03, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Removed again, WP:WEIGHT. You added something, anything, to get the Medvedev picture in. There is nothing inherantly noteworthy about the Medvedev/Rudd relationship (or lack of it) that warrants inclusion in this article. We should not be including an image and text of every single leader and country that Rudd/Australia has diplomatic relations with just because there are diplomatic relations - is there something noteable? No. As your changes from the status quo are disputed, you should be engaging in discussion rather than insisting on your changes. Timeshift (talk) 14:16, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Making bizarre allegations seems to be in season - Timeshift is a South Australian user. There is a weight issue, because it seems to stress a link between Rudd and Medvedev when it seems they met once and had a happy snap taken together. It's not anti-Russian to assert that several lines and a photo about such an incidental meeting is a bit disproportionate - this is an article about Kevin Rudd the man, not Australian-Russian relations or an article on Australian foreign policy. If it is free, I suggest uploading the image to Commons. Hvala lepo, imaj lep dan. Orderinchaos 14:22, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I do take back the tongue-in-cheek Russian comment, I didn't say anything in a derogatory manner however, unlike the tirade unleashed upon me, totally not WP:AGF. Timeshift (talk) 14:25, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Right, is that why you remove the table of contents fix that is used in other large articles like that on GWB or is that why you removed information on some protests against Kevin Rudd or is that why you remove the state visit photo all together despite the compromise attempt? I am afraid you are not saying the whole truth here. And there is no status quo policy on WP. Actually the whole idea of Wikipedia is to make new edits and expand the articles not stall them in status quo like paper encyclopedia. Not every edit has to go through consensus check. Please do not try to enforce status quo ie. article ownership and censorship on WP. Thank you.--Avala (talk) 15:07, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

No, but your edits are disputed, and as yet, are not supported by the wikipedia community. Why do we need two almost identical Rudd/Bush images? The 2007 image is of better quality. I've re-added the TOC fix. And what Rudd protests? Please engage in discussion rather than edit warring. Timeshift (talk) 15:13, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

You see, you are not the community. Second of all you are not showing any will for discussion. Basically you are pushing me to accept that you own this article and that there will be no new edits made. You are not trying to find the solution for the article, you are just attempting to bully me and anyone else who dares to edit this article. Not to mention that you keep on making some censorship edits which might be interpreted that you are either a huge fan of Kevin Rudd or that we are on a brink of a scandal.--Avala (talk) 15:20, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I (and another user, namely an admin) am giving reasons as to why the Medvedev image shouldn't be there. You are not. We should not be including an image and text of every single leader and country that Rudd/Australia has diplomatic relations with just because there are diplomatic relations - is there something noteable? No. And your counterclaim is? I am not pushing ownership of anything, that is the way you percieve it for whatever reason. The article is editted extensively by many, I don't revert them, only your edits which are disputed. Stop acting like I am not, it is deception. Timeshift (talk) 15:25, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

You are giving arguments like "I watch and read news a fair bit and don't think i've ever heard Rudd utter the name Medvedev" which are not arguments. For an example I have watched news and heard Rudd say the Medvedev name, not utter it. What now?--Avala (talk) 15:34, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

It's not just me saying it, see above, Orderinchaos, "There is a weight issue, because it seems to stress a link between Rudd and Medvedev when it seems they met once and had a happy snap taken together. It's not anti-Russian to assert that several lines and a photo about such an incidental meeting is a bit disproportionate". That's two Aussies, where Rudd resides, that say Medvedev is nothing more than an international leader who has no noteability above any other international leader that deserves mentioning. We should not be including an image and text of every single leader and country that Rudd/Australia has diplomatic relations with just because there are diplomatic relations - is there something noteable? No. Who argues otherwise, so far? Yourself. Timeshift (talk) 15:42, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

---

Both photos are from the White House and there is absolutely no difference in quality whatsoever as you claim.--Avala (talk) 15:20, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I disagree, I think the faces in the 2008 photo are not as clear as the 2007 image. Besides that, both images are practically the same, why have both? Having a second Rudd/Bush image, nearly identical, does not in any way add substance to the article. You do not engage in discussion, rather, you engage in edit wars and accusations. Timeshift (talk) 15:25, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

How are they clearer? The resolution of these two images is the same. I'd even say that the 2007 photo is worse because of the grimace made by Rudd. And tell me one more thing, if the APEC Medvedev-Rudd photo is a snapshot of "incidental meeting" why is the APEC Bush-Rudd photo not a snapshot of "incidental meeting" even more if we have the photo from the state visit which is strictly Australian-US meeting, not the international forum like APEC?--Avala (talk) 15:34, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

The resolution is the same, but that does not mean they are equally clear. The 2007 image has them both looking at the cameras, and their faces look clearer/sharper than in the 2008 photo. We should not be including an image and text of every single leader and country that Rudd/Australia has diplomatic relations with just because there are diplomatic relations - is there something noteable? No. We should have an image of Rudd and Bush, as Oz/US relations go back a long way and I dare say Rudd has met Bush more than any other world leader, and has far more of a discussion point than Rudd/Medvedev does. Timeshift (talk) 15:39, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

In 2007 photo Rudd is bursting in laughter, not lookin at camera. You are just coming up with more uncalled for and rather odd statements. For an example that Rudd met Bush more than any other world leader when I am pretty convinced that Bush has met Stephen Harper, Vladimir Putin, Silvio Berlusconi (out of incumbents, not to mention Howard with whom he met many times) far many more times.--Avala (talk) 15:56, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

And let me inform you that if you think you are doing Rudd a favor, you are not. He despised Howard Govt servants making doubtful WP edits and would certainly hate to hear that his employees and fans are doing it today on his behalf. See here for yourself.--Avala (talk) 15:36, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

At least you're no longer directly calling me a staffer, that is an improvement. But your continued accusations and lack of WP:AGF remains quite disappointing. Timeshift (talk) 15:39, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

How can I assume good faith if you are not discussing here to find a solution how to include some information in this article so that it is acceptable for all but discussing on how to convince me to go away from your article? One more point regarding what I wrote earlier is that I don't think that Rudd is ashamed of his meeting with Medvedev nor of his words on Russian-Australian relations so you don't need to remove it for that reason.--Avala (talk) 15:56, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't think there is a solution if a solution means including what you want to have included. Orderinchaos above: "There is a weight issue, because it seems to stress a link between Rudd and Medvedev when it seems they met once and had a happy snap taken together. It's not anti-Russian to assert that several lines and a photo about such an incidental meeting is a bit disproportionate". I say we should not be including an image and text of every single leader and country that Rudd/Australia has diplomatic relations with just because there are diplomatic relations - is there something noteable? No. I'm not convincing you to go away from the article, i'm convincing you that your (yes, your, not everyone's edits including your) edits are not appropriate for the reasons I just mentioned. You seem to think that just because you want something in the article, a compromise must be made, which is wrong, based on what I just mentioned. And again your lack of WP:AGF is disappointing. I am not doing this for Rudd and I don't think he is ashamed of Australian-Russian relations either, quite the opposite. But - for - the - last - time - we should not be including an image and text of every single leader and country that Rudd/Australia has diplomatic relations with just because there are diplomatic relations. Nobody apart from yourself is arguing otherwise. What is it about this that you struggle to comprehend? Timeshift (talk) 16:02, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

You are saying as if I added a portrait of Medvedev to the article when you say "we should not be including an image and text of every single leader and country that Rudd/Australia has diplomatic relations with just because there are diplomatic relations". I added the photo of the two of them, meeting after a series of phone calls and possibly even a G20 meeting (I might have been wrong about the first meeting, that shouldn't be included), where they discussed very important issues and where Kevin Rudd assessed the relations of Australia and Russia. That is notable. Not only US-Australia relations are notable especially after this.--Avala (talk) 16:23, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but Rudd has not interacted or been involved with Medvedev any more than any other country we have diplomatic relations with. They talked and met - your point? World leaders do this all the time. Two leaders discussing "very important issues and assessing relations" is not inherantly noteable. If it was, we'd have many images of world leaders qualifying for adding to this page. Oz/US relations are probably more noteable than any other relations especially since Howard. It comes down to this. Two people including myself disagree with you, nobody as yet seems to agree with you that Medvedev deserves his own section on Rudd's page. Let's leave this alone for the time being and await other opinions shall we? I dare say not one Australian will think Medvedev holds a higher significance than other world leaders and should have his own section in Rudd's article - and why? Because he doesn't. Timeshift (talk) 16:32, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

First of all I am not suggesting the addition of a whole section for Medvedev, just a paragraph and the photo. Secondly I have nothing against adding information in the section about foreign policy on Rudd's positions on other countries and his meetings with world leaders as well and if there are free images, to include them too. Wikipedia is not a poll, don't forget that. Even if 20 users now came (irrelevant of their nationality, you suggest some kind of higher value of an Australian opinion) and said that image and text should be included it wouldn't be of any benefit for me if they wouldn't back up their vote with valid arguments. The same goes for you and your objections.--Avala (talk) 16:37, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a poll, but we don't just add content because we can, we have to think about why we are doing it and how and in what way it makes the article better, given the intended purpose of a BLP. That is to say, think about it from a big picture point of view, as a reader who arrives here would read it. I actually think the entire approach on foreign affairs, while interesting and no doubt useful in a different context (eg. an exposition on foreign affairs and Australia), really doesn't answer the question, "This is a biography of a man who attained high office, not really an account of Australian politics at the time he attained it apart from to explain his positions and actions. What does this really add to the article?" Otherwise you're going to end up with an impossibly long, complicated and largely irrelevant article that nobody wants to read that wanders into every rabbit trail. We had the same problem at our last Prime Minister's article, which is a permanent dog's breakfast because not only did it wander into every rabbit trail but then everyone started fighting about the rabbit trails along partisan lines, which pretty much halted all serious development work on the article. That hasn't happened here and nobody wants it to. Orderinchaos 22:22, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

What Orderinchaos said. Timeshift (talk) 23:23, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

• Alright everyone, time to pull your heads in. Timeshift should not have speculated about Avala's nationality, and Avala should not have responded in kind. Timeshift originally did the right thing about proposing the deletion here on the talk page first. However, he shouldn't have reverted its restoration in contravention of WP:SILENCE and WP:BRD. --Surturz (talk) 23:38, 30 November 2008 (UTC)