Talk:Kevin Rudd/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Informal poll - two Rudd articles or not?

There seems to be some conflicting views over whether or not we should have a Kevin Rudd and a Rudd Government article. So here is an informal poll to see whether or not the idea holds sufficient support. In my view, there is too much duplication when there are two pages, information on one roundabout subject is divided (with duplication) over two pages rather than one, and the average non-wikipedia user will not look at a Rudd government article, just the Kevin Rudd article. Timeshift (talk) 02:41, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

We should hav a) both articles or b) just a Kevin Rudd article

User:	A	B
Timeshift	N	Y
SurturZ	Y	N
Orderinchaos	Y	N
Nick-D	Y	N
ROxBo	Y	N
Miesianiacal	Y	N
Total people supporting:	5	1

I believe the split is necessary due to the strictures of our WP:BLP policy on biographies - also, much of what a government does has little to do with the prime minister, even if the government as a whole is perceived to be under their broad guidance. Orderinchaos 03:48, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

A possible compromise is to have a "Rudd Government" section in this article. If/when the section is sufficiently mature, it can be spun off into its own article. We can have a gentleman's (gentlepersons?) agreement that WP:BLP does not apply to the Rudd Government section. --Surturz (talk) 04:39, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, as a policy, it's non-optional. All it takes is one complaint from his office about something defamatory and we have to remove stuff. (As an OTRS volunteer I can't detail past incidences of this sort of thing, but I can say they have occurred on other articles.) Orderinchaos 04:42, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Defamatory material shouldn't be in any article. Peter Ballard (talk) 04:45, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. But something written about a person may be defamatory, whilst to say something happened within a particular era under an administration, so long as it's carefully done, diffuses responsibility for acts of the administration. Orderinchaos 04:53, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I responded to previous arguments about "duplication" but my response was not specifically replied to. If done properly, it's not duplication, rather a degree of overlap.

Alternatively, move the entire "Prime Minister" section to the Rudd Government article (leaving a "see main article" signpost in its place, and maybe a paragraph summary). I don't care which, but I strongly oppose duplication. Peter Ballard (talk) 04:44, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

BTW, I'm strongly in favour of rationalising the Rudd article and moving stuff to Rudd Government, although there will necessarily be low-level duplication, as there are things Rudd did which belong in a biography, while there are things his government did which belong in a political history article, and there's some overlap between the two. However this should not be to the extent of both articles sharing significant content. Orderinchaos 05:15, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

INdeed, case in point is Timeshift's detailed and quality addition to this page about the economic stimulus. But, i question whether the detail really needs to go here in a biography. Rather a brief mention here of the punchline or two, and the detail belongs in the govt article. Some overlap with different focus is not a mirror or duplication. --Merbabu (talk) 06:16, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Me? A quality addition? Impossible! Apparently I only edit wikipedia to add Labor bias and advance the Labor cause! Hehehe ;) Timeshift (talk) 06:36, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I didn't know votes on other pages were the way to delete articles. Further, I think it is poor form to suggest deletion of an article to which you are reverting any additions. If you keep doing that, then of course it will never get off the ground - which, is I suspect your aim. Better would be to allow say a month or so for the govt article to develop (preferably in isolation to this one) rather than arguing for it's deletion while simultaneously sabotaging any effort to develop it. --Merbabu (talk) 06:13, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I try and avoid polls - but you could add me, and the Rudd Govt talk page indicates Nick-D and Hamilton Stone support it too. --Merbabu (talk) 06:47, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

This seems like a false choice for three reasons:

• Firstly, how does the Rudd Government not qualify for an article? Both the government and the term 'Rudd Government' easily pass WP:N and WP:ORG so there's no reason to turn it into a redirect as I guess is being proposed here
• Secondly, why can't there be more than one article which discusses the government? Rudd's the head of the Government, but Australia is far from being a dictatorship, and the Ministers have real power. Ministers do things independent of Rudd, and this needs to be covered somewhere. For instance, sooner or later a Minister or a Government department is going to have a massive screw-up which has nothing at all to do with Kevin Rudd (eg, someone will get caught fiddling their travel allowances, a major program will go pear-shaped, etc) and material on this would have no real place on an article on Rudd (and including this material on an article on Rudd the person would be a breach of WP:UNDUE).
• Removing the Rudd Government article would risk more, not less duplication. If its decided that material on the government belongs on the articles for its major players, we'd end up with the same material being covered in Kevin Rudd, Julia Gillard, Wayne Swan, Penny Wong, etc (unless it's also being proposed to redirect these articles to Rudd as well... ;) ) When you take into account the fact that the key players will change ministries over time, material will end up all over the place.

As such, there seems to be no reason why the two articles shouldn't co-exist. Nick-D (talk) 06:59, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. I remember it being hammered into me in my public service training that we always refer to the office, not the holder of the office. This is because firstly the former holder then had the same authority as the previous (and very often, the same advice from their expert staff) and secondly as any acting person in the role also has the same authority. Orderinchaos 07:24, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I've pretty well withdrawn my objection to the split, and am concentrating on getting the split done right. So sorry TS, I see a consensus to split.

Now answering Merbabu above: the problem with building the RG article first over a month or so, and then paring back the KR article, is that edits from other people will happen during that month and the two will diverge. Then when we go back and trim the KR article, it will be hard to avoid removing good contributions. (As seemed to happen at John Howard). So instead: copy the whole lot from the "Prime Minister" section to RG, and leave a signpost, so nothing is lost. Anyone will be able to find the Rudd PM info so long as they know how to click a link - which is everyone. Then incrementally add things to the KR article which are specific to him. Seems to me such a cleaner way to go. Peter Ballard (talk) 09:07, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

The problem, IMO, about the JH split was that it was just that - a "split". It was either in one or the other. Thus, were these "good edits" you refer to actually relevant to the Howard bio or to the govt article? They could have been good, but not properly placed - or needed trimming in the bio and maintained as is in the govt article. I dont' think we should just remove all the info from the PMship to the govt - because they are different articles/subjects. related of course, but different. --Merbabu (talk) 09:31, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Wow the 3 such poll. Since Timeshift ignored the results of the past two, not expecting any change here either. - unsigned by IP 150.101.222.105.

Third? Timeshift (talk) 04:07, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Nick-D's arguement is persuasive and sums it up well. Less duplication with 2 articles.ROxBo (talk) 03:16, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

The Lodge

Concerning this sentence: "The next day, Rudd announced he and wife Thérèse Rein would live in The Lodge, the Prime Minister's official residence in Canberra, and only use Kirribilli House while on official business in Sydney". The issue here is not so much that Rudd decided to live in the Lodge, it is that Howard didn't. Should we add a rider 'return to custom' or something like that? Or perhaps the sentence could be deleted? It's odd that the John Howard article makes no mention of Kirribilli house... I think that is where this factoid belongs, if anywhere. I might be bold and try the move. --Surturz (talk) 23:40, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Done. I've moved mention of Kirribilli House to John Howard, where I think it belongs. --Surturz (talk) 23:48, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

personally I think it is a bit of irrelevant trivia. Having said that it's less bad in jh so I think your move was an improvement. --Merbabu (talk) 00:29, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. It was unusual and notable for Howard to have not lived in the Lodge (though he obviously spent a lot of time there during parliamentary sessions), but it's unremarkable that Rudd is living there - it's part of the job. Nick-D (talk) 00:36, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Agreed with the above opinions. Orderinchaos 09:20, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the support, all. Much appreciated. --Surturz (talk) 10:47, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Economics

I often see some economic rubbish written in wikipedia. It's not that these are done in bad faith, or to push the party line, etc. Rather, it just seems to be ignorance. While I'm not an economist, I have a sound understanding of the theory and practice - and, perhaps sadly, it enthralls me. I've long been constantly infuriated by both "sides" of politics for not having "the balls" to distinguish between the economics and politics in economic debates. I strongly urge all editors who want to contribute to Oz Pol and economics in Australia to read this article. No, I'm not suggesting it be used as an authoritative source, but it is insightful and I hope it is educational. --Merbabu (talk) 12:47, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Good article. I'd love to comment on this, but Wikipedia is not a soapbox. --Surturz (talk) 13:29, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I added it because it seemed to cut through the political bs by both sides (although I accept that the bs is not actually the pollies fault, rather the part of the system that we have generated and demand). I would not have added it if I saw it as supporting one side. Oh, did i say i thought it was insightful and educational? --Merbabu (talk) 13:34, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't being ironic or sarcastic in my comment btw, in case you were wondering. In a different forum I would be keen to discuss the article. --Surturz (talk) 13:58, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Nice little Gittens piece. I gather Merbabu's intent is not to discuss which party is better at economics than the other, but to show how it relates to political articles that deal with economics, such as the Rudd and Turnbull articles, which is on-topic enough. But, as I've said before with economics, there's always 2 sides to it. There's always one group that loves what the politician did, and another that hates it. Every economic decision benefits some, while disadvantages others. Both sides should always be included. Also with economics, you can't avoid opinion. Just include both in the article.--Lester 06:07, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

No, my intent was not discuss "political articles" and how they relate to economics. Rather, i thought it might be helpful background info on, well, "distinguish between the economics and politics" (as I said above. --Merbabu (talk) 06:16, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Alright, I'll say something. Economics is not a science. It's an art, and has just as much dogma and ideology as most things in life. I don't see such a stark difference between economics and politics. How do you set up experiments in economics? How do you prove or disprove a theorem? --Surturz (talk) 13:04, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Economics is a science. You prove or disprove a theorem using evidence. There have been plenty of experiments set up in economics, often to look at behaviour. No theorem in any science can ever be proved 100% correct, there is room for statistical error, etc. Just the same in economics. Theorem: Higher interest rates lower inflation. Proof: What happened when various central banks raised interest rates. My concern with this article is under economics. It states that the majority of the Rudd deficit came from falling revenue. That is blatantly untrue, because if you look at the Budget statistics, spending has increased by 4.6% of GDP from the last Howard budget, and the Rudd deficit was projected as 4.9% of GDP. Don't tell me it mostly comes from revenue loss. Matthew 05:55 11 May 2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.169.219.10 (talk) 21:55, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

If, as you say, it is possible to 'prove or disprove a therom using evidence' in economics, then that of itself demonstrates that the discpline is not a science. Go and read your Popper! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.83.129.37 (talk) 18:20, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Nation

Is there a citation somewhere to support the claim in the article that Rudd issued his apology to Aboriginal Australians on behalf of the nation? The speech itself contains no such reference, and it's difficult to understand how a politician who represents only his party's voters could claim to speak for the entire populace; not to mention that if he were apologising for the nation, Aboriginies would therefore be apologising to themselves.

Surely "on behalf of the government", or, as the apology was put to the house as a motion, "on behalf of the parliament" would be the more accurate statement. --Miesianiacal (talk) 06:20, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I would agree with User:Miesianiacal. Lester 00:26, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I think it is a bit legalistic to say that the apology was not on behalf of the nation. Part of the motion reads The time has now come for the nation to turn a new page in Australia's history by righting the wrongs of the past and so moving forward with confidence to the future. We apologise... (emphasis mine). This reference says that it was a national apology in its headline. --Surturz (talk) 00:38, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Legalistic or not, the truth is what's important here. There may be a common misconception that a prime minister is a differently titled president who was popularly elected and thus speaks on behalf of the nation. But that is simply an Americanised viewpoint that doesn't reflect reality. We can acknowledge that some took the apology as being on behalf of the nation, however it still needs to be clarified that it actually wasn't. It was either on behalf of the cabinet that drafted the words or the parliament that passed it as a motion. --Miesianiacal (talk) 17:07, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I am pleased to see your removal of "on behalf of the nation". I saw a little to much creative license in there for my liking. And, I couldn't see it reflected in the source. While the text appears to be more accurate, do we actually need it? Does it help to say what dfat called it? --Merbabu (talk) 22:21, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

PS - i've removed the "National apology" reference. However, perhaps the article doesn't fully express the notability of this - ie, it was a long time coming as the previous PM had resolutely refused to make the apology for about 10 years. --Merbabu (talk) 07:26, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

That's fair enough. I just didn't want to delete a referenced statement, and thought there was at least one other option thereafter: add other opinions about who or what the Prime Minister was speaking for. But, either way, singling out DFAT's take on the matter alone did give it rather undue weight. --Miesianiacal (talk) 07:38, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

It *was* a national apology. It was not simply a speech by the Prime Minister, he moved a motion in parliament that was passed unanimously through both houses of the national government. Only the Greens tried to amend it, but I think even they voted in favour at the end. The PM's website refers to it as a national apology, and calls it a 'day of national reconciliation'. If it wasn't a national apology, what pray tell would a national apology look like? --Surturz (talk) 23:50, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

What exactly is a "national" apology, and why is it so important that it be presented as such? --Merbabu (talk) 01:29, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

A good question. Further, the cite provided by Surturz did not support the claim made.

Even if the text of the apology passed both houses of parliament, as a motion it was non-binding, and would be taken only as an expression of the parliament in its present form, not the nation. Along the lines of what I stated earlier: if it was a national apology to Aboriginies, does that mean Aboriginies are not part of the nation? If some people called it a "national apology", so be it, and that can be acknowledged in the article. However, such informal terminology doesn't accurately reflect the process by which this apology was drafted and delivered. --Miesianiacal (talk) 01:31, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps it's like a "national" telethon or something. "National" Nine News? Or is it an even more specific context such as the "national debate" on [insert issue]. Seriously though, does the page perhaps need to say it was on behalf of the government or parliament? --Merbabu (talk) 01:36, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

• I don't see that the onus is on me to prove that it was a 'National Apology', I think the onus is on you guys to prove that it wasn't. I'm not even sure why you guys are so stridently opposing it being labelled as such. Type 'National apology' into Google.com.au and you'll find a vast number of WP:RS referring to it as such: aus government, newspaper, indigenous group websites. Mesianical, the ref I provided refers to it as a "National Apology" at the very bottom of the page. You guys seem to be saying that just because the phrases 'On behalf of the nation' or 'national apology' don't appear in the text of Rudd's motion, it is therefore not a 'national apology'. However, this is your WP:OR. There are a good deal of WP:RS refs that call it a national apology, and you have not provided any refs that say it is specifically not a national apology. That said, references detailing the legal status of the apology would be a big improvement to the article, so perhaps you guys could be useful and find some of them, rather than simply reverting or simon-saysing my edits (the DFAT simon-says edit was particularly pointy IMO, why would DFAT rate a mention in the text?). --Surturz (talk) 06:04, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Because it was DFAT that said the apology was a national one, and that was the only source you provided. Allow me to repeat myself: it's acceptably honest if we say something along the lines of "the apology was commonly referred to in the media and elsewhere as a 'national apology'." What we cannot do is pretend the apology was unequivicably one on behalf of every single Australian (minus, somehow, every Aboriginal one); to do so would be ascribing a meaning to a term that is, as Merbabu pointed out, vague at best. --Miesianiacal (talk) 06:24, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Who says we can't? I have many WP:RS that have done exactly that, including the Prime Minister's own official website. References please, not WP:OR argument. All I am seeing is a lot of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Your arguments are not verifiable. Furthermore, you are saying that the term national is 'vague' and then giving a fairly precise definition of it. I will respond to your WP:OR arguments on your talk page. --Surturz (talk) 07:14, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure how you can see the statement "[x] sources described [y] as [z]" as being OR. Some sources did call it a "national apology", did they not? --Miesianiacal (talk) 07:24, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

TO surturz, one doesn't need a source to say something isn't x, and failure to provide that source is *not* WP:OR. Rather, we need to provide sources to say something is x, and to not to so *is* WP:OR. A DFAT source with the word National apology is not for these purposes a reliable source as it doesn't explain what is meant by "national". As the proponent of the term "national" the onus is on *you* to show that it is not vague or meaningless, further it is up to you to define national *and* to say why it is so important to include (ie, assert notability). It is not up to us to say why it isn't - ie, the question on anything in wikipedia is "why" not "why not". --Merbabu (talk) 07:30, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

It's relatively easy to find other descriptions of the apology: it has been called an "official apology"[1], a "formal apology"[2], the "PM's apology"[3], and merely "an apology"[4]. Indeed, this source attributes a quote to Indigenous Affairs Minister Jenny Macklin wherein she explicitly said "The apology will be made on behalf of the Australian government and does not attribute guilt to the current generation of Australian people." Puts some doubt on how undoubtedly the apology was a "national" one. --Miesianiacal (talk) 07:38, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Firstly as to the definition of 'national' I agree with with you that in this context it means 'on behalf of every Australian'. Thank you for finding some references to back your arguments. You have convinced me that there is actually some doubt as to who made the apology. I was starting to think you and Merbabu were trolling me! :-) Now I think this is particularly important as to the title of the section, since this is a WP:BLP. To a reader who knows nothing of Kevin Rudd or the apology, the immediate inference of reading the title is that Kevin Rudd made a personal apology to the Stolen Generations. This is, of course, incorrect (I think we agree on this!!). So we need to be explicit that in the title who made the apology. From your refs:

• "official apology"[5] - This article also quotes Rudd: "The Parliament is today here assembled to deal with this unfinished business of the nation, to remove a great stain from the nation’s soul, and in a true spirit of reconciliation to open a new chapter in the history of this great land, Australia" which would seem to support it being a 'national' apology. I have doubts that the website is actually a WP:RS, but this article seems factual enough.
• "formal apology"[6] - "formal" does not say who apologised. The text would imply that the Australian govt apologised on behalf of itself and previous governments (does this include the Howard Government, one mischieviously asks :-)
• the "PM's apology"[7] - precis of a radio show that (for me anyway) is no longer available. Poor quality ref, I'm afraid, I think we can discount it
• "an apology"[8]. Interesting article that quotes experts in Indigenous health and welfare. Dr Gordon says the apology is from "their elected representatives" which implies a national apology. It is unclear who Prof Augoustinos and Ms MacGill think is making the apology. Rev Baird pretty clearly states it is "the government" that is apologising.
• Macklin's quote "does not attribute guilt to the current generation of Australian people". This is the best evidence so far that the apology was by the government on its own behalf, not as representatives of the nation. Searching on that phrase led to these WP:RS refs: [9], [10], [11], [12], which all say more-or-less the same thing.

So the ultimate question is: Was the government acting on its own behalf only, or as representatives of the people? If we assume that it was for the government only, then what should the heading now be? "Government apology to the 'Stolen Generations'" or "Parliamentary apology to the 'Stolen Generations'? --Surturz (talk) 13:58, 23 February 2009 (UTC) P.S. If Merbabu would like to continue discussing this topic, perhaps he/she would like to provide some references, since she/he has not done so yet in this discussion.

I think we have established that there is confusion as to who the apology was on behalf of, and it is therefore quite important that the heading reflect this to be more informative. --Surturz (talk) 01:56, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. Which makes me wonder why you think keeping the nature of the apology ambivalent is somehow more misleading than claiming, without concrete evidence, that it was a "parliamentary apology". --Miesianiacal (talk) 02:32, 2 March 2009 (UTC) To add to that: is this really the place to delve into the intricacies of the apology? Surely there's a main article somewhere that covers the topic in detail, and here should be a very brief, and not too specific, summary. --Miesianiacal (talk) 02:35, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

The heading is not unwieldy, and of a similar length to the existing shadow treasurer heading. I disagree that we should be keeping the nature of the apology ambivalent, as you suggest, but rather be factual and informative. There are copious references in this talk section that indicate the apology was an apology by the parliament, moved by Kevin Rudd, on behalf of successive parliaments and governments, and misreported by many WP:RS as an apology on behalf of the nation. We should either be clear as to the nature of the apology in the heading, or change it to something noncontroversial as 'Indigenous affairs' --Surturz (talk) 02:47, 2 March 2009 (UTC) And in reply to your postscript, I do not see us running out of paper any time soon on this article :-) We should say who made the apology, who it was on behalf of, who it was directed to, and what event the apology was for. A apologised to B on behalf of C for doing D. If we can't specify A, B, C and D, what kind of encyclopedia are we? --Surturz (talk) 02:55, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I simply feel that given the evident complexity of this issue, there won't be space in this article to cover the truths and the mistruths around it - yes, there isn't limited "paper space", but articles can still become unwieldy in length; the various interpretations of what the apology was, and what it meant (the A, B, C, D, & etc.), are worthy of coverage, but just not here, in my opinion. I'm not going to say the present header is excessively long; I just wonder with what authority we can say that the apology was on behalf of the parliament - and that includes the sentence in the section that says it was not only on behalf of the sitting parliament, but all those, plus all the governments, that came before. Did Rudd seriously take it upon himself to speak for so many people now long dead? --Miesianiacal (talk) 03:00, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Are you not familiar with the text of the apology? See here (click) - "We apologise for the laws and policies of successive Parliaments and governments that have inflicted profound grief, suffering and loss on these our fellow Australians." Yes Rudd seriously took it upon himself to speak for so many people now long dead. --Surturz (talk) 05:07, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

headings don't need to be informative and tge shorter the better. They are purely navigational. They don't have to do any more. That's the advantage of the origin "the apology" heading. This is symptomatic of oz pol articles whereby we seem to be mistaking accurcy and precision. In the ever persistent search for precision we lose accuracy and introduce potential errors be undue weight --Merbabu (talk) 02:58, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

While I agree in principle, the previous heading "Apology to the 'Stolen Generations'" was outright deceptive. Since it appears in his BLP, it implied that Kevin Rudd himself apologised to the Stolen Generations. As you two have established, this was not the case at all. The Parliament apologised to the 'stolen generations', on behalf of successive parliaments and governments for laws and policies that caused harm to indigenous people. Rudd merely proposed the motion. --Surturz (talk) 05:07, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Apology

I don't think this qualifies as any authoritative comment. It is Michael Mansell's point of view. He criticised Rudd at the time of the apology for not providing compensation. His views aren't of any particular significance. It should be removed. Timeshift (talk) 02:17, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

It is clearly indicated that it is Michael Mansell's view, Michael Mansell has a long history as a spokesman for aboriginal rights. We could replace it with the weaselly 'some aboriginal spokespeople ...' I suppose, but I don't like weasel words. It is WP:V from a WP:RS. On what basis are you saying his views are of no particular significance? Some coverage of the effect of the apology is obviously warranted. The apology was meant to be the beginning of reconciliation, not the end. --Surturz (talk) 07:08, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

The apology is the apology. It is meant to apologise for previous wrongdoings by successive governments. What does the apology on it's own have to do with lifting health and living standards? They are two seperate issues. Timeshift (talk) 07:20, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Two separate issues? Well, that's a POV - which doesn't sit too badly with me either - but, POV is POV. Having said that, I think Mansell's mention is a bit trivial and non-mainstream. Why can't we just write a middle ground article and not seek slippery notions of balance between opposing POV's. AT the end of the day, Rudd apologised, it was big news and no-one contends that. It already says most criticisms were centred around there being no-compensation. What's wrong with that? Seriously, sometimes not being specific is more factual, as it doesn't allow us to get details wrong or give details undue weight (ie, the recent argument about Hanson and "howard's critics"). --Merbabu (talk) 07:26, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

It's a Liberal POV to say that one year on from the apology, nothing has changed. Just like at the apology, eg Tuckey "I'm there to say hallelujah. Tomorrow there'll be no petrol sniffing, tomorrow little girls can sleep in their beds without any concern - it's all fixed. The Rudd spin will fix it all. I've read it, I'm convinced. I think it's wonderful."

Since when was the apology meant to resolve these issues? It was meant to apologise for previous wrongdoings. To say nothing has changed is just a way to denegrate the apology by those who were opposed to the apology from the beginning. Timeshift (talk) 07:35, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I agree with your last paragraph about the intent of the apology, but just because the criticisms may have been wrong, irrelevant, missed the point, bad faith, etc, that doesn't mean the criticisms weren't made, were not notable and therefore not to be included. I think the previous version before the addition of the tangential Mansell comments sums it up well. So, we could remove the Mansell comments, and add to the existing: "...for refusing to provide victims with monetary compensation, and that the apology would not improve the situation of Aboriginals'. As I said before, there is a lot to be said for not being too specific - it can actually mean one is more accurate (as opposed to more precise). --Merbabu (talk) 07:46, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

"As explained in the policy introduction, merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia." WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Timeshift (talk) 07:51, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, that is why I'm arguing against putting in the specific Mansell comments as they currently stand (and it's why I argued against the Howard-Obama scrap but I digress). However, the general criticism that it wouldn't improve the situation was made by a number of notable people and notable overall even if we don't mention the specific people in the article (and even if the criticism was incorrect, bad faith, politically motivated, or missed the point). And the policy of npov requires us to report on other notable POV's. --Merbabu (talk) 07:54, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Does that not extend to the POV of Malcolm Fraser? Timeshift (talk) 08:05, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what your point is, but I suspect it's off topic or even a little pointy. At the end of the day, it seems you are arguing that criticism of the apology is not notable. I can't see that it's a verifiability problem.--Merbabu (talk) 08:08, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Not at all, i'm arguing that linking the apology to aboriginal health outcomes is not noteable. Timeshift (talk) 08:15, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, since you agree that criticism was notable enough, perhaps we can word it saying something general like critics said it wouldn't help indigenous disadvantage (in addition to what's there). --Merbabu (talk) 11:28, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

• To say that Mansell's view is a Liberal POV is a bit strange. I'm pretty sure Mansell has no affiliation (or even sympathy) for the Liberal Party.
• The text of the apology included this: "We today take this first step by acknowledging the past and laying claim to ...a future where we harness the determination of all Australians, Indigenous and non-Indigenous, to close the gap that lies between us in life expectancy, educational achievement and economic opportunity." (emphasis mine). The parliament was clearly making an official promise that it would improve the situation of aboriginals. Whether or not that promise has legal standing is beside the point. It is relevant to assess how aboriginal health etc has improved (or not) after the apology. They are not two separate issues. The apology was not simply an apology, it was also a commitment to improve the future.
• Making an apology without also making reparations is seen by many as tantamount to saying "I took your bike. I'm sorry I took your bike, but I'm keeping your bike". This is a significant POV and deserves coverage.
• I'm no fan of Mansell and I am happy if we can replace the quote with something more factual. If someone can find a good source that says a year on (or however long after the apology) less aboriginals are living in poverty, or they are more educated, etc then let's put that in instead. However, in the absence of better information, I feel we need to take Mansell's word that aboriginals are not better off as a result of the apology.
• I think, ultimately, we should be aiming to replace the heading with 'Indigenous Affairs' or something similar. One hopes that the apology is not the only contribution Rudd makes in this arena. Timeshift9's arguments only really hold water with a very narrow focus on the apology.

--Surturz (talk) 10:37, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I think if you re-read the above, you'll see that no-one is saying that mansell and the Liberal party are somehow on the same page - I think on this specific issue there are "coincidentally" some similarities out of political expediency and no-one's pretending othewise. I still say the existing reference to the criticism is fine, but can be boosted by saying that critics also said it wouldn't improve indigenous disadvantage. Again, i think it's a bit more grown up of us to acknowledge that there was criticism and though not dominant to the overwhelming support, it was notable enough. i can't imagine that anyone here would say that this criticism didn't happened or is not notable. Ie, we don't need to list out exactly who said it, but there was enough. We certainly don't need to single out Mansell, which I think even Surturuz is acknowledging now in his last post. However, removing something that should be removed should not be on the condition of finding something better first. If it needs to go, it needs to go. As for the heading suggestion, a broader Indigenous Affairs section might be misplaced in this Rudd-specific article. The apology was something that will (a) almost certainly be one of the biggest events of this first term govt and (b) had a very strong Rudd focus so it can go in here (and the Rudd govt). However, the more mundane policy stuff most likely belongs in the Rudd Govt article. --Merbabu (talk) 11:26, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I'll go with Merbabu's suggestion. Care to edit Merbabu? Timeshift (talk) 11:51, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

So it's okay to record Rudd's promises, but not okay to measure them against delivery? The reason he is not a top quality ref is because there are no objective numbers. Mansell is WP:V and WP:RS. It should not be removed. Saying there was criticism at the time of the apology is one thing, my concern is comparing the promises made in the apology, with what actually transpired afterwards. Neither of you have addressed that. Have you got WP:RS refuting Mansell's claim that aboriginals are no better off, one year after the apology? If you haven't then the ref should stand. This is not about recording criticism, it is about recording outcomes. Criticisms are already documented in the article. --Surturz (talk) 12:29, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

No-one is saying his comments are not verifiable. We're saying notability is the issue. YOu added it, it got discussed, it wasn't agreed upon. You know the drill - one doesn't get their way by bullying edit warring. and we even modifed the original for you. --Merbabu (talk) 13:08, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

It would appear Surturz is at it again. Timeshift (talk) 02:55, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) ::::::I've added extra references. that have Amnesty International and stolen generations victim Marjorie Woodrow echoing Mansell's views. I think we can safely say that it is notable and that it *not* a 'Liberal POV' as Timeshift9 claims. When Rudd finally gives his 'annual report card' on the apology, perhaps that will crystallise things. --Surturz (talk) 03:01, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

This is getting ridiculous. Surturz, one doesn't force things into wikipedia by editing warring. Why is it so important that specifically Nigel Mansell get's his view in? Please note the following:

• Nigel Mansell, Amnesty are but two of the critics. What seems strange is that Surturz is keen to limit the criticism to specific and people/groups. Let me repeat - that article already makes very clear statements about general criticism - why do you want to whittle that away.
• Like much of the info in this article, this detail is better placed in the Rudd Government article (indeed, I moved your demanded version there a few days ago where it remains).
• There have been a number of compromises but in to accommodate your wishes. The existing sentence on criticism was expanded to specifically mention reparations, the Brining them Back Home report, and all the references you give us have been included. But, you have not acknowledged these, indeed, you have gone on to demand yet more.
• Yet still, you demand that you are correct and that you have a right to enforce by edit warring.
• Please stop putting inline cites mid-sentence.
• You need to start learning the art of compromise, negotiation and collaboration. When people try to compromise but the other party doesn't (ie, you), it gets very frustrating. Wikipedia is about collaboration and not digging bigger and deeper trenches which seems to be your modus operandi.

The article should be restored to it's existing state, you should consider the compromises you've already "won", and then convince us that you do need to specifically mention Mansell and Amnesty. --Merbabu (talk) 00:57, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

• I think we can ditch Nigel Mansell, Marjorie Woodrow is far more relevant as she is actually a stolen generations victim. I never said the Mansell ref was my ideal ref, only that it was adequate.
• OK, you've convinced me, indigenous outcomes are probably better off in Rudd government. I missed that point in your earlier talk.
• Your 'compromises' did not seem like such to me. At no point did variant edits of yours mention 'one year after'
• If you perceive me to be 'edit warring' then perhaps you should consider that in this, as in other, instances, you immediately change my edits to your preferred version. I am merely replying in kind. Generally, I try to make successive edits have more references and different text. If you don't want to 'edit war', then propose a version here on the talk page, and we can nut out a compromise.
• I use inline cites to show which clauses are supported by which refs. Is there a MOS guideline against inline cites? I don't claim to be wiki-omniscient. Links to WP policy pages make criticism constructive.
• RE:"You need to start learning the art of compromise..." Please re-read this entire talk section and see who are talking about the issue, and who are making comments about other editors. Not sure that sentence is grammatically correct but you get the idea --Surturz (talk) 12:44, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

(undent) I have a couple photos of the one-year anniversary if you want them. Quite sad photos actually. The concert in Federation Square was cut to only one hour, and I'm pretty sure no ministers attended. Ottre 12:33, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Apology 'speculation'

User:Mesianical removed the "speculation" that the apology was on behalf of successive parliaments and governments. This text is from the apology itself [13] and is not speculation. "We apologise for the laws and policies of successive Parliaments and governments that have inflicted profound grief, suffering and loss on these our fellow Australians." I have reverted accordingly --Surturz (talk) 00:48, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

"Apologise for the policies of" and "apologise on behalf of" are not the same thing. Please don't interpret the words of the apology, just present them as they are. --Miesianiacal (talk) 03:04, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Just because the words are different does not mean that the meaning is different. Please read the definition of apology, [14]. You can't apologise for something you are not responsible for. --Surturz (talk) 06:15, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, different words does not necessarily equal different meanings. That's hardly pertinent, however. In this case, the two phrases each mean something unique to the other. The key difference lies in the words "on behalf of"; to say you are speaking on behalf of a person means that you are speaking someone else's mind for them. I agree with you that it doesn't make sense for Rudd to apologise for something he didn't do (I felt the exact same thing about my country's Prime Minister's apology to natives); but, it's pretty safe to assume that no long dead ex-parliamentarians ever authorised Rudd to act as their mouthpiece in the future. The actual words used were: "apologise for the policies of", so it's probably best to simply use those, and not imbrue anything with our own personal interpretations. --Miesianiacal (talk) 06:45, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Surturz is no doubt acting in good faith here and for the benefit of the encyclopedia (as opposed the benefit of the views of the previous government), however, I have to agree with Miesianiacal here that the two meanings are very different, even though the word change is small. IN this case, we need strictly mention what is said, and not provide an alternate meaning - even if inadvertent. --Merbabu (talk) 08:55, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Certainly; I hope I didn't imply that Suturz was motivated by any bad faith. --Miesianiacal (talk) 13:08, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

My problem is that the apology was presented as, and accepted as, an apology on behalf of the nation. Yet here we are splitting hairs when the apology does not even have any legal ramifications. Can we at least get rid of the quotation marks? They look stupid. I don't think Wikipedia should be a collection of quotes. I think we are actually meant to edit the source text. If this wasn't an apology on behalf of the nation, or successive parliaments, why is it notable? It would simply be Rudd apologising for something he didn't do. Finally, I don't know why my motives are suddenly being speculated on... again. My arguments on this section have been polite and well referenced. Besides, my private opinion of the apology is totally different to the line I am proposing here. --Surturz (talk) 00:13, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

factual error

Kevin and Therese met through the ANU Evangelical Union, not the Student Christian Movement. Both were also residents at Burgmann College. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Justjennyp (talk • contribs) 13:11, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Bad mouthing air stewardess

How about including a section of the prime ministers allegedly bad temper, and the recent case where he was swearing at an air stewardess on a flight from Port Moresby to Canberra?

Vino —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.177.168.127 (talk) 11:39, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Is it noteable? Timeshift (talk) 12:52, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I do not agree that a 'section' should be added for this alone; I think that there could be a section on 'Controversies' (or a similar word) and this could include such matters as: the 'strip club' matter; Bill Henson comments; "naughty words"; discussion of Terese Raine's income from Government sources, as discussed openly with respect to KR's holding office; China and its influence on the Rudd cabinet; the RAAF air hostess matter; etc. - Peter Ellis - Talk 12:55, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I think the stewardess incident needs a whole article. Or it could go in Rudd Government. --Merbabu (talk) 12:56, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Some references I found, from well respected news outlets:

• Has Rudd's inner bogan been outed?, Canberra Times, by Rossyln Beeby on 3/04/2009 2:59:06 PM
• Mile-high meltdown, BBC Online, Nick Bryant's Australia (blog), Nick Bryant, 01:44 UK time, Friday, 3 April 2009
• RAAF flight attendant abused by Prime Minister Kevin Rudd after special meal request, NEWS.com.au, By Steve Lewis and Ian McPhedran, The Daily Telegraph (Australia), April 03, 2009 12:01am
• PM Kevin Rudd's flight rage at RAAF meal service, The Australian, April 03, 2009

There are more. I would support having an article for this, but warn that it might have to be made more general (eg "Kevin Rudd contoversies") unless there is more 'traction' for this story in coming days. - Peter Ellis - Talk 00:59, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

THere should be no "controversies" section. These sections are just big nets for laundry lists of rubbish. Ie, they remove the need for any discretion over what should go into and article because it provides an excuse for any bit of crap to go into the article. Further, this is an encyclopedia, not a new service. Come back in 6 months and see if this still has "traction" or any sense of notability. --Merbabu (talk) 01:10, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I also strongly oppose a 'controversies' section, and especially an article on the topic. While the hostess incident is trivial (not least because Rudd apologised to the aircrew shortly after he blew his fuse) it has been suggested in some reports that he's a cranky perfectionist, and that could be worth including if it can be properly sourced. Nick-D (talk) 05:24, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

"Laundry lists of rubbish" is a good description. I agree with Merbabu on this one - it's a quiet news week "story" which will probably be forgotten within a few weeks, let alone months. Orderinchaos 09:55, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Somehow, I can't see The Daily Telegraph (Australia) (that broke the story) allowing this to go away. See these two stories in the Sunday Telegraph's print and online editions:

• For Rudd, sorry seems to be the easiest word, The Daily Telegraph (Australia), by Piers Akerman, April 05, 2009 12:00am
• PM says adviser has his full trust, The Daily Telegraph (Australia), by Sharri Markson, April 05, 2009 12:00am

But, it might. Except, Ackerman says, "As soon as The Daily Telegraph broke the story of the latest incident of prime ministerial boorishness on Friday - his immature bullying of an RAAF stewardess over his failure to receive a red-meat-free meal on a VIP flight from Port Moresby in January - rusted-on Rudd supporters hit the Internet and the airwaves protesting that the ruckus was a minor distraction, and that, in any event, the Prime Minister had made an apology to the 23-year-old whom he had reduced to tears." And, where does that leave the comments here? - Peter Ellis - Talk 12:29, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

It is a trivial issue. We don't listen to partisan hacks like Piers. Timeshift (talk) 15:36, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Timeshift (ugh), it should be filed with the "What's the G20?" gaffe in the not notable bin. --Surturz (talk) 07:14, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

You guys are on the wrong track. It needs its own article. I think we can get it to FA status in no time - we all just to work together. It is wikipedia's credibility at stake. I think I will raise this on Jimbo's Talk page. Talk about "whitewash".--Merbabu (talk) 09:24, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm actually planning to establish Ruddipedia to provide totally comprehensive coverage of this and all other Rudd-related incidents. Nothing will go uncovered. Nick-D (talk) 10:03, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Fantastic idea. Whereas one wouldn't be necessary for John Howard as the John Howard article already contains all the inconsequential events. he he --Merbabu (talk) 10:08, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Timeshift may be a soothsayer but not today. Today, The Australian ran its Nicholson feature cartoon on this, with Rudd at the "G20 Farewell Dinner" saying to the (female) waitress, "I wanted the chicken not the steak!" (sic; no comma after chicken) Like a chicken, this story has 'legs'.- Peter Ellis - Talk 12:40, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

• Latest one of these. I'm not for a minute suggesting it goes in the article, but if the ABC thinks it is worth running a smear article like this, I'm guessing there are many journalists hungry to "out" Rudd as short-tempered. His high staff turnover has been mentioned in the press before. All smoke, no fire so far, but it bears watching. If his short fuse affects his job in a significant way I would say it is notable... it certainly goes to his management style. --Surturz (talk) 01:01, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Technocracy

Is that actually a word?... Anyway, Ottre, as your desired insertion is obviously contested, could you, at least per WP:BRD, discuss the matter here before reverting again? Cheers. --Miesianiacal (talk) 03:24, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I dunno. Guess you could ask is back-engineer a word? Ottre 03:58, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Reference seems legit, it provides insight into Rudd's character and methods. Can't see the problem except that Ottre was removing other material in the process. --Surturz (talk) 03:28, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I've no issue with anyone putting the sourced information in the article; however, there's a big difference between the "has been described as" wording you used, Surturz, and the "is best described as" prelude Ottre employed. The former is, obviously, much more NPOV. --Miesianiacal (talk) 03:35, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

And why are we putting the two (and only) sentences in the same para? Timeshift (talk) 03:43, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

What does it mean? Of what benefit is it to say that "he was described as"? Not at all encyclopedic. Removed until the phrases proponents can clarify to satisfaction of skeptics. --Merbabu (talk) 08:46, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Is it so hard to look up words that you don't understand? Technocracy, technocrat. Ignorance is no excuse for reverting good faith referenced edits. --Surturz (talk) 13:15, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

There is no excuse for edit warring. WP:BRD. I know exactly what a technocrat is, but I have no idea what it means in the context of Kevin RUdd - nor do you I suspect. Please be mindful of the civility policy otherwise I am happy to lodge a civility complaint as well as request page protection. --Merbabu (talk) 13:26, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

There is no consensus for this addition, but Surturz clearly once again believes he is special and can bully his way forward. This is an opinion piece. Why is this person's opinion more important than anyone else? It's pure commentary. --Merbabu (talk) 13:39, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Consensus does not mean majority rules. None of the dissenters have provided any refs to contradict the referenced text, according to WP:V it can be inserted. All I have seen in opposition is WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Either establish that the ref is not a WP:RS, or provide higher-quality references that contradict this ref's assertion. --Surturz (talk) 13:46, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

No, it's not i don't like it, it was weasel as you proposed written and someone's opinion. SInce I don't stoop to edit warring to get my way, I have at least clarified who's opinion it was. You clearly don't have consensus and providing a source does not mean you have. --Merbabu (talk) 13:52, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Er, I don't get the opposition to the phrase "has been described as". Could there perhaps be some clarification as to how the article that describes Rudd as a technocrat does not describe Rudd as a technocrat? --Miesianiacal (talk) 14:24, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

It's a WP:WEASEL phrase that seeks to add more weight to the claim than further inspection would likely find. If we have to add various opinions (afterall, everyone's got one), then at least we can say whose they are. In this case a "conservative" think tank. It's kinda link "people say". --Merbabu (talk) 14:28, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not going to argue much over this matter, but you didn't address my request at all. Either the author of the article described Rudd as a technocrat or he didn't. If he did, then Rudd has been described as a technocrat. The rest is just ancillary detail (which isn't to say detail is a bad thing). --Miesianiacal (talk) 14:53, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

That's a tad unfair - what do you mean I didn't address your request at all - you asked what was wrong with the phrase "is described as" and I explained. As for the second part, no one is disputing that the athor is using Rudd and technocrat. But that's beside the point - the point is that this is purely an overtly partisan opinion, it is relatively insignificant, and if we are going to allow this opinion in, what then is the new threshold? Ie, everyone's got an opinion and opinion is being expressed on Rudd everyday. If you support (presumably) this opinion, then you'd also be supporting the inclusion of hundreds of other opinions that have appeared in the media.

As for my initial request, you haven't addressed that. Why is it notable and how is it no pov to include only and opinion of a right wing think-tank? --Merbabu (talk) 22:07, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment: You are not making any sense here. How is Berg's opinion relatively insignificant? His pieces on regulation under Howard have been widely syndicated (specifically the article in Quadrant, June 2008, pp. 24-32). Secondly, you are aware of course that any and all serious commentary from the AFR is removed by User:Timeshift9 within days per "WP:V"? Ottre 01:43, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I am not arguing the significance of this specific opinion. Rather I am primarily arguing against the inclusion of opinion writers.--Merbabu (talk) 02:53, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

It was a personable comment, other people can challenge the actual vote. Ottre 04:03, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

huh? --Merbabu (talk) 04:23, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Responded at your talk page. Ottre 04:27, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

why? The discussion is here. --Merbabu (talk) 04:39, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

[outdent] Merbabu, I merely asked for proof that the sourced statement "Rudd has been described as a technocrat" is either false or misleading. Though naming the individual who authored this opinion about Rudd is probably preferrable, saying only that someone has offered the description is neither weasely nor false (as "some people have described Rudd as a technocrat" would be). Anyway, with the author now identified in the article, this string of the debate seems to be rendered moot. --Miesianiacal (talk) 21:37, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

your request was "moot" and off point from the start. No one argued the author didn't say it. Rather the question that no one has answered for me is why does it belong in an encyclopedia? --Merbabu (talk) 22:50, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

My request was made only because someone here was making accusations that the statement was misleading and weasely. It was not. Whether or not it belongs in an encyclopaedia had nothing to do with it. --Miesianiacal (talk) 00:58, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Summarising - I think the point being made (and I agree with Merbabu here) is essentially, to say that someone "has been described as" is not merely a factual statement but carries with it a weight. As it was not said who by, then we don't know whether it was a widely held view or a widely expressed view. While I tend to believe it doesn't belong there at all - it is simply some bloke's opinion that resonates little outside the commentariat - if it for whatever reason is there, it has to be in context of where it sits with regard to the debate. We're talking about a national prime minister, after all, not a forgotten 80s music star about whom some bloke's opinions are probably all anyone has to go on (I've been reading a few this morning :) Orderinchaos 00:23, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

nicely put. When I ask why it is now ok to include political commentary the reply has been the justification has been it's verified and he is respected. Well, there are many things that can be verified and many opinions that can claim at least a degree of respect in at least some circles. It is not about whethrr chris berg is redpected or valud but the broader principal of what qualifies for factual encyclopedic info. This foes not include cherry picking "commentators" opinions. If we include this one there are are hundreds that are equally valid (or equally invalid). I bet I could find 5 published this week alone. Stick to facts not "respected" opinions. --Merbabu (talk) 00:43, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

It is completely on-topic for the 'Prime Minister' section to describe the manner and style of his management of the country. Describing him as a technocrat is fairly tame compared to the various opinion articles in the quality print that have described him as a foul-mouthed bully. Perhaps better references can be found, but let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater. In the Bob Hawke article, we can read the following:

Accounts from ministers indicate that while Hawke was not usually the driving force for economic reform (that impetus coming from the Treasurer Paul Keating and Industry Minister John Button), he took the role of reaching consensus and providing political guidance on what was electorally feasible and how best to sell it to the public, at which he was highly successful.

All Ottre and I are pushing is that similar coverage is made of Rudd. It is definitely encyclopedic to cover this. --Surturz (talk) 01:13, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

saying something is not as bad as something else is not a justification. It is an acknowledgement that it is bad. At the end of the day it is still cherry picking opinion. It doesn't matter that worse exists. I don't get your baby/bathwater analogy. And, still no one advocating this incluision has suggested why this opinion is more important than countless others or suggested criteria and threshold to guide unfeterred inclusion of opinion. I bet there are 5 "tame" and "respected" opinions in this weeks papers alone. Which ones are we going to use???--Merbabu (talk) 01:53, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

ps, while I get that it could be a good idea in principle to describe his management style, given a choice between not mentioning it at all and doing it using one single but vague asprct of a partisan sources giving a non-neutral and partial coverage (like here) then I would rather not include it.--Merbabu (talk) 02:04, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

(od) This is a clear WP:NPOV violation and I've removed it. Its a quote from Chris Berg (whoever he is) which aparantly was only published in the newsletter of the partisan organisation he heads. There's no reason at all to give Mr Berg's opinion any particular emphasis like this, especially as it wasn't even published in a source independent of its author. Nick-D (talk) 07:16, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

NPOV dispute

Since Merbabu has seen fit to add an NPOV tag to the PM section, here are areas of the article that I think are a bit unbalanced:

1. Environment section - should discuss the effect of splitting the Environment portfolio into Environment and Climate Change.

2. Parliamentary apology to stolen generations - inverted commas around "Stolen Generations" and "of successive.." look stupid and express a POV

3. Parliamentary apology to stolen generations - does not discuss actual outcomes, nor legal status of apology. Nor the fact it was widely seen as a national apology on behalf of all Australians.

4. Industrial relations - should be re-written to reflect actual legislation passed, not the spin

5. Excessive quotation of handout amounts reads like ALP election material. Less numbers, more analysis of actual effect on economy is warranted.

6. 2020 summit - did this amount to anything? Did anything decided at the summit get implemented?

7. LGBT rights - undue WP:WEIGHT. Section should be deleted unless Rudd personally does something notable is done in this area like recognising gay marriage, or equalising adoption rights. Maybe could move this section to Rudd Government, I don't think it is relevant to Rudd himself in any case.

--Surturz (talk) 14:02, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Silence so far. I intend to move the LGBT section to Rudd Government. Any objections? I don't think the LGBT legislation mentioned in this article is particularly related to Rudd personally, as he has gone on record saying that he believes that marriage is only between a man and a woman. --Surturz (talk) 07:35, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not thrilled with the entire Prime Minister section - it's a poor summary of Rudd Government, and it fits in oddly with the section on his political views. Personally I'd like to see it rewritten along either chronological lines or as some sort of overarching summary; giving an overview of his time as Prime Minister than a mishmash of stances in particular areas. It's very short, and I'd envisage something a fair bit longer, but the summary of his presidency in Barack Obama is the sort of thing I'm thinking of here.

As to your specific suggestions:

1. I'm not sure what you mean by this, and I think implying motives for that particular decision verges on original research.

2. Agreed.

3. I'm not sure this article is the place for this sort of more detailed analysis: some of it should go in Rudd Government, some of it should go in more specific articles, but I'm not sure there's room for much more here.

4. I'm not sure what you mean here: where is the spin being quoted at the expense of summarising the actual legislation?

5. Again, we need to be wary about performing actual analysis ourselves - beware of original research.

6. I agree; this probably doesn't warrant its own section in hindsight. This is where it would be helpful to have a chronological summary, where it could be covered in one sentence with a link.

7. I tentatively agree, but if this article is to summarise the Rudd government's actions, it should say something about LGBT issues. Again, this might be better covered if we tossed the lot and started again. Rebecca (talk) 08:03, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

My own response (largely agreeing with Rebecca but perhaps from a different angle):

1. Don't agree - Departments split and merge all the time, and it often says very little about policy and simply reflects workload and focus. One particular WA government department of which I am aware changed its name every two or so years for most of the 90s and this decade. For us to analyse it would be POV.
2. Agreed.
3. The outcomes are unknown (it only happened a year ago - we're still trying to digest Mabo 17 years after the fact!) and the legal status is simply that of a motion or statement passed by Parliament.
4. Indeed, although getting to the bottom of that might be somewhat fun. There's very, very little reliable secondary analysis of this (I expect there'll be journal articles in due course but the law only just got passed.)
5. The numbers are verifiable, the analysis is not.
6. This was a case where a section got written at the time then did not get revisited as time went on. The GFC kind of overshadowed anything that came out of it planning-wise anyway.
7. Firstly, LGBT rights is not simply gay marriage. Rudd's stance goes beyond the above, to asserting that law reform of some kind was necessary and that the government led by him would do something about it. It then did. Led pretty much by Senator John Faulkner, it drove a significant and major change to a range of Commonwealth laws which in most cases discriminated against LGBT people, but in some isolated cases conferred a benefit not available to the rest of the population. The fact is that when the book is written on LGBT rights in Australia, Rudd will factor big in it, if only because the previous administration was so reactionary, and also because by far the bulk of all progress before this was at State level as that is where most laws governing society are to be found. The issue then is deciding which parts (or which summary) belong(s) here and putting the rest with the Rudd Government article. Orderinchaos 00:38, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I disagree that LGBT rights is a topic closely aligned to Kevin Rudd. None of the four references in the section mention Rudd at all. I don't see anything to back your claim that "Rudd's stance" is anything except that he has a fairly basic view that marriage is an institution between a man and a woman. Rudd didn't introduce the legislation himself. Why can't we move it to Rudd Government? I disagree that this article should summarise Rudd Government actions, it should only summarise actions/legislation closely related to Rudd himself, either personally or as the PM. I also disagree that we "have" to say anything about LGBT rights in this article. So, Apology - definitely; Kyoto- definitely; but LGBT rights? nah. --Surturz (talk) 01:37, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

• I have re-added the POV tag as the concerns I have raised here have not been fixed in the article. --Surturz (talk) 14:12, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Where's the POV dispute? Please define or remove tag.--Merbabu (talk) 14:25, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

PS, your justification for the *POV* tag is that it no longer represents "major viewpoints" and has "not been resolved" - what's the major viewpoint? Resolved to what criteria? --Merbabu (talk) 14:36, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

• I have moved the LGBT section to Rudd Government. If editors wish to reinstate it here, then they should find references that link Rudd personally to the legislation. (I think it can stay in RG in any case) --Surturz (talk) 14:20, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

2. Disagree. This is a politically tinged label (albeit widely accepted). If not the inverted commas, then another method needs to be used to show this.

3. Disagree or at least vary wary. In addition to Rebecca and OiC your suggestion is dangerous WP:SYNTH and WP:OR territory.

The rest - largely agree with Rebecca and OiC--Merbabu (talk) 14:31, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Consensus at the moment is to remove the quotes, which I have done again. --Surturz (talk) 14:45, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Yesterday you claimed that consensus did not mean majority vote. Now you are implying it is majority. Which one is it in your mind? Whatever suits you on the day? Further, could you suggest another method to represent the political nature of the name (as I requested)?--Merbabu (talk) 14:48, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

My rule of thumb is if there is only a single dissenter then consensus has been achieved. Besides, we are talking about formatting here, not content. --Surturz (talk) 15:30, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Introduction

Per this edit, such trivia is unuseful for readers of the encyclopedia. No prejudice against an analysis of the government's initial popularity at Rudd Government, however, WP:SUMMARYSTYLE dictates that we say something of the policy sections which follow, and I have very good reason to believe that will be how well the next budget is received. Ottre 02:15, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Removal of pov dispute tag

I see Merbabu has removed the POV dispute tag. The original point of contention - the description of Rudd as a 'technocrat' - has not been resolved IMO. Now, I'm not wedded to the term 'technocrat' but I do think that we should have some indication of Rudd's management style as PM. This isn't a very good reference, but it is an example of several articles I have seen on Rudd's management style (I don't think the RAAF incident should be included, it is indicative of his style). Bob Hawke's consensual style is mentioned in his article, Paul Keating's article mentions his role as a driving force in policy, and scarcely a paragraph in John Howard's article fails to allude to his 'conviction politician' style. Yet this article mentions nothing about how Kevin Rudd manages the country. This article is simply an indiscriminate list of his promises, actions and beliefs - we see the shadow, but not the shape of the man. --Surturz (talk) 08:28, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that it's possible to assess the 'style' of someone who's only been the PM for a year and a half. Every political journalist and political science academic has their own take on how Rudd does things (including several who've written that he's still a bit of a mystery or has contradictory tendencies) at the moment so it would be impossible to write anything authoritative or sensible on this topic. Keating has been out of office for over a decade and Howard is a very well known-quantity and an ex-PM so they're obviously different to Rudd. Nick-D (talk) 08:51, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I added the tag - hastily in retrospect and perhaps regrettably i admit - in response to the poorly sourcing "technocrat" opinion inserted. I removed it once it was resolved. Surturz re-added the tag citing a list of 7(?) points of contention. This list did not include the "technocrat" info. All items in that list have now either been "fixed" to what was requested, removed, or Surturz is the "sole dissenter". I agree that any article on an incumbent (18 months) is harder to write than a former leader (say, of 11 years). Indeed, all that we can safely write is a list of promises and actions. Anything further is dangerous - I don't think this group of editors (as a group) can handle it. --Merbabu (talk) 08:58, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, as long as there is consensus to cover this at some point in the future, I'll keep quiet on this subject for now. But if Rudd turns out to be a one term wonder (unlikely, I admit) I don't think that is an excuse not to cover his style. Admittedly, once he's out of office, maybe there will be more behind-the-scenes info. --Surturz (talk) 10:29, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Paul Keating on Stimulus

Keating's view on the stimulus packages is highly notable, because he is a former Labor treasurer and PM. Rudd's policies are distinguished from previous Labor policies. --Surturz (talk) 15:12, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

You still haven't explained from above why we need to quote people's opinion. --Merbabu (talk) 15:14, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

So quoting Labor party policies (all the cash handout amounts) is fine and NPOV, but quoting any sort of analysis or criticism of them is WP:POV? Quoting facts such as unemployment levels and illegal immigrant numbers is WP:SYNTH? I doubt your intention is to whitewash the article, but that is what is happening. I can't put eminent opinions in the article, and I can't put facts in the article. How do I add anything to the article that isn't verbatim quotation of Labor party policy? --Surturz (talk) 15:22, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

PJK (just like Berg above) is but one person who has provided many opinions. Do we put in any "eminent" person's opinion on anything? That would be a long article. Even more difficult would be to allow some, but not others. How do you propose to do that? What criteria for inclusion. "Criticism and analysis" is missing? Sure, PJK's quote could be a criticism (tick for you) but is it analysis? As for the listing of policy, you will note I had already started whittling down the long descriptions of fiscal stimulus.

You "can't put facts in the article"??? Yup that's right, that's what I said. Never ever ever. No facts allowed in article. --Merbabu (talk) 15:33, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict x 2) Perhaps a more constructive question to you is this: If Labor implements a policy, what sort of references would an editor need to justify text that commented on the effectiveness, or lack of effectiveness, of that policy? I can't see that it would be possible under your rules, as either someone is expressing an opinion that the policy did or did not work, or the editor is violating WP:SYNTH or WP:OR by placing bare facts in the article. --Surturz (talk) 15:42, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate your attempts to be more constructive in your questioning. So, you're looking for references that justify your (presumably negative) commentary/opinion on Labor policy effectiveness? And you believe that a PJK opinion is good analysis on the effectiveness of Labor policy?

I don't know what you think "my rules" are. I also (still) don't understand why you feel it is OK to cherry pick opinion. I also don't understand the apparent pressing need for you to find criticism and controversy (in the same way I don't get how your opponents do the same over at JH). What's wrong with just being uncontroversial - there's plenty of glowing or disparaging criticism on any politician out there. Why not just let wikipedia be straight up and down? It's not an "analysis" or "commentary" piece. --Merbabu (talk) 15:50, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Implicit in all your argument here is that I am trying to force through some particular POV. I think that belief drives you to revert almost all my edits on political articles, even though I only insert well-referenced text that is within WP Policy. I'm not "cherry picking opinion". Keating's view is highly notable because he is the immediate Labor predecessor of Rudd as PM. Keating's view is particularly relevant since he set the course of the Labor party towards a deregulated, internationally competitive economic philosophy. Rudd is shaping a new economic philosophy for the Labor party and this article should highlight the changes. Finally, you have not answered my question: what sort of references would be acceptable to you to insert text that commented upon the effectiveness (or lack of effectiveness) of any particular policy of Rudd's? An publication by an academic? Rudd himself saying that a policy did or did not work? Something from the commentariat? Books? Newspaper articles? Your rhetoric is of collaboration, but this is the latest in a string of revert wars that you've sparked. Given the free reign you enjoy from the other editors when it comes to the copious editing of these articles you do to fit your POV, I find it a bit inconsistent that you do not seek to improve or assist other editors' changes, but revert changes without any discussion. --Surturz (talk) 04:05, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

"The vast bulk of edits on political pages are from people pushing POVs. Mine are no exception." - Surturz.[15] Timeshift (talk) 04:10, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

"I only edit wikipedia to add Labor bias and advance the Labor cause" - Timeshift9. [16] --Surturz (talk) 04:26, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Now now Surturz. As the cite you give shows, it was said tongue in cheek. Yours was not said tongue in cheek. The cite I gave shows you believe in a synthesis of all contributors POVs, including yours, which you seem(ed) to think is an excuse for POV edits, which you admit you were doing. Timeshift (talk) 04:31, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Whatever, dude. The rest of us are having a reasonably constructive discussion on how to improve the article and you are here to try and provoke a flame war. If you can't add something useful to the discussion, go away. --Surturz (talk) 22:55, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Recentism

In everyone's defence (yes, everyone), writing good articles about stuff that is happening now and about incumbents is very difficult. That's no excuse though to write anything or to list daily news without second thought. --Merbabu (talk) 15:38, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Economics section

1. I think this section should mention Rudd's 7000 word essay as the source of most of the verbatim quotes. The publication of the essay is in itself a notable part of the Rudd story

2. I don't like the excessive quotation of the essay, this isn't Rudd's propaganda page. The essay can be summarised rather than quoted. I think the essay can be summarised as "advocating more financial regulation and more government intervention in the economy", and we can restrict ourselves to a single interesting quote.

3. The narrative is a bit inconsistent. We have Rudd saying he supports Keating's deregulation and is an economic conservative, but the essay heralds a new era of re-regulation and government intervention.

--Surturz (talk) 04:24, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

What's that line about when the circumstances change? Rudd continues to maintain that you adapt less capitalistic policies during downturns and go in to debt, and return to surplus during boom times. Timeshift (talk) 04:34, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I think we need to be wary of trying to give a bad cliff notes on the Rudd government's economic stance. The stances Suturz notes are not necessarily inconsistent; Wayne Swan wrote an interesting book when Labor was in opposition which largely sets this out. Rebecca (talk) 09:18, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not saying that Rudd's views on economics are necessarily inconsistent, just that the article text is. I think part of the problem is the phrase 'economic conservative' which is meaningless. John Howard was an economic radical but became an economic conservative.. not because his views changed (they didn't), but because the orthodoxy changed! Better would be a coherent elucidation of Rudd's views on protectionism, market regulation, size of government etc. --Surturz (talk) 23:09, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

The Henry Tax review is notable enough for a mention, especially since it's become and uproar in the Western Australian resource sector. --[[[User:Bavcevic|Bavcevic]] (talk) 09:37, 7 May 2010 (UTC)]--

Once again this page definitely needs to consider the mining tax for 'super profits' imposed by Kevin Rudd, the massive media coverage over Australia and especially in Western Australia, Queensland and even Sth Australia is demanding notice on this page. The stock market has been in decline for Australia and investments by major mining corporations plus independent small businesses are being withdrawn, this tax imposed inevitably could become a 2010/11 election loser for Rudd as there is significant swings in polls around Australia. [[[User:Bavcevic|Bavcevic]] (talk) 13:58, 25 May 2010 (UTC)]

Building the Education Revolution

Can someone who understands political bullshit more than I do read this link and update the education section? --Surturz (talk) 10:36, 18 April 2009 (UTC) this link also indicates that there is now a funding agreement for the laptops. If anyone can find some independent (rather than govt) links that would be great too. --Surturz (talk) 10:39, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do tomorrow afternoon. Ottre 11:32, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Just read yesterday's Age. There was an article on the social inclusion aspect:

“ In a bid to address some of these long-standing gaps, the Council of Australian Governments last year signed off on a $1.1 billion national partnership for disadvantaged schools. Over the next five years, about 1500 schools in the poorest communities will get access to extra funding if they agree to implement new reforms that lift underachievement.

Julia Gillard says schools could establish a range of reforms, such as financial incentives to lure top teachers and principals, partnerships with local businesses and community groups for breakfast clubs or after-school homework programs, or schemes to reduce absenteeism.

Every school, public and private, will also have to publish information on their finances and results under new funding arrangements. Each can then be compared with schools with similar socioeconomic backgrounds, which Gillard argues will enable resources to be better targeted.

In Victoria, a lot of the groundwork has already been lain. A five-year education reform agenda has paved the way for a dramatic shake-up of the state's school system.

So-called "strike teams" of education bureaucrats are being sent in to schools to identify weaknesses. Severely struggling schools are undergoing diagnostic reviews to examine what interventions are needed: more coaching, more teachers, more literacy and numeracy support, and so on.

A range of strategies is being developed behind the scenes: a homeless-students strategy, a vulnerable youth strategy, a refugee strategy — in recognition, as Victorian Education Minister Bronwyn Pike says, that when it comes to disadvantage, "it's not a one-size-fits-all approach".

”

Tomazin, Farrah; Nader, Carol (2009-04-18). "Behind the learning curve". The Age. p. Insight (p. 3). Retrieved 2009-04-19.

Ottre 16:54, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Unintelligible - once again

Would Ottre please explain why it is preferred to say that "Labor's 2008 plan to withdraw from the Iraq War " rather than "Labor's 2008 plan to withdraw Australian armed forces from the Iraq War ". Who exactly from Labor is in Iraq? Ie, this edit initially explained with the words "g". Coudl he also explain how the word "personnel" is a "fringe view by gov". thanks. he would also be well-advised to read WP:BRD. Oh, and to make his editing experience smoother, assume that we require very basic and direct english, because it is difficult to understand both his in-article writing and his edit summaries. --Merbabu (talk) 14:25, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Decline to comment. Trolling. Ottre 16:32, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

As I noted in my edit summary, I agree at least that Ottre's wording is misleading; is Labor in Iraq? I think "teams" works fine, but I don't know why "personnel" is a "fringe view" of any sort. --Miesianiacal (talk) 17:16, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Merbabu and Miesianiacal. Timeshift (talk) 17:26, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. If Ottre or anyone else can see deficiencies in the section then please improve - but don't make it worse. When it has been pointed out that it's worse, then don't edit war and try to prevent discussion by calling it trolling. One doesn't get their way simply by reverting. Indeed, it's not about getting one's way. --Merbabu (talk) 00:50, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Aha. Ottre 01:08, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

@Miesianiacal: In case you aren't aware, the Iraqi government almost kicked SECDET out of the country after their last mishap. The current Baghdad deployment consists of standard military personnel, sniper and intelligence units, and ASLAV cavalry conducting 'sustainment runs' to the airport and back -- ie almost certainly not just 'personnel' manning the Embassy Security Office. Ottre 17:49, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I still don't see your point; it is hardly a "finge view" to believe the term "personnel" can be used as a synonym for more than simply "embassy staff". I mean, what are "diplomatic security teams" made up of if not security personnel? --Miesianiacal (talk) 17:59, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

No, it is a fringe view to use "diplomatic security personnel" to refer to anything more than "close protection teams and logistics". Combat troops who regularly operate outside of the green zone are not security personnel but a support group. End of story, this is basic terminology people. Ottre 18:25, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

The 'Iraq War' section needs a lot of work. The following are problematical:

• 'Labor's plan' was developed long before 2008 - the ALP has always opposed the Iraq War (eg, since 2002), and Mark Latham came up with the policy of withdrawing forces from Iraq which was then refined under Kim Beazley and Rudd
• What 'transferral' does Rudd need to sign off on?
• Overwatch Battle Group (West) (the vaguely worded 'combat forces') was never 'ordered' to leave Iraq and return to Australia. The battle group simply wasn't replaced when its six month tour of duty ended. This decision was made well before June 2008 - presumably it was put into effect by Defence on the night of the 2007 election.
• There were a lot less than 800 Australians in Iraq after the battle group left. The RAAF detachments have always been based in Qatar and the UAE and the frigate in the Persian Gulf obviously isn't in Iraq! Nick-D (talk) 22:26, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

• In regards to your second point: the RAN's role in the North Arabian Gulf "finished in December when the HMAS Paramatta transferred from Iraq's inshore waters to the central and southern Arabian Gulf." Somebody would have to sign off on that.
• In regards to your third point: Haven't checked the news articles against Rudd's speech to the parliament yet, but I'm pretty sure the wording was in fact 'combat forces in southern Iraq' (Tallil presumably). Do you have any actual suggestions RE the switch in military focus? Ottre 23:55, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
• In regards to your fourth point: I was only quoting the article RE remaining numbers in Iraq as of the moment. Now that I've actually read it though, the total in mid-2008 was prob more like 200-205 onshore, plus however many on board the frigate.

Ottre 00:34, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Ottre, how does a 'slight reword' include removing 'ended a year ahead of schedule'? Timeshift (talk) 17:02, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

It's my own original research, and it really needs a ref to speeches from the hanson index. There are several other crucial facts (ie officers still apparently stationed in Basra) which aren't in the article yet. Ottre 17:29, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Is it really necessary to go into so much detail about military manoeuvres on a page about an individual man? Should such information not go in the Rudd government page? --Miesianiacal (talk) 18:17, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree. It was already off focus before we started adding to it in the last few days. But, I do acknowledge it is very difficult to write about an incumbent. --Merbabu (talk) 01:02, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree - this belongs in the Rudd Government article. Rudd inherited the policy of withdrawing from Iraq and hasn't been prominent in its implementation, and the ADF reports to the Minister for Defence and the National Security Cabinet, not the PM directly. Nick-D (talk) 08:05, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree in part. The ambiguity of language is not unique to the Rudd Government, although the PM was a diplomat for many years, and many of the details shouldn't be attributed directly to its policy. But there's also a point to be made about the lack of media coverage after Nelson attacked far too hard on the issue on June 2. Can we afford to give a broad overview to readers right now? Ottre 09:26, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Seems to be rough consensus to move the section to Rudd Government, so I have done so. We are able to go into more detail there. I haven't seen Rudd holding any ticker tape parades bringing the troops home, so I can't see how this is a particularly personal issue for Rudd. --Surturz (talk) 11:19, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

No such consensus exists. As you pointed out yourself above, consensus is not majority. While I'd support summarising it right down, there is certainly scope to put a mention of the Iraq troop withdrawals in this article as it was a major aspect of the opposition and now government led by the subject of this article.--Merbabu (talk) 11:45, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

No worries, put back as much as you think is necessary. --Surturz (talk) 11:52, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, i had a go at trimming, but maybe it's not that focussed on Rudd. Ultimately, I'd envisage all those PM sections trimmed to no longer needing sub-headings. Some aspects may only need a sentence or two. But, that's all just my opinion. --Merbabu (talk) 11:54, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

remove industrial relations?

I've copied the 'Industrial Relations' section to Rudd Government. What would people think about deleting the section from this article? I feel it is more closely linked to Julia Gillard than Rudd. --Surturz (talk) 11:23, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

It can be summarised heavily, but no reason to be removed in full. While there might be some agreement to trim the detail and strictly focus coverage on Rudd, there was no consensus to completely remove things that are fundamental to the Government Rudd leads. Ditto for John Howard. --Merbabu (talk) 11:43, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree; a summary here and fuller coverage at the Government article would be the best option. Nick-D (talk) 11:45, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Perhaps we don't need the headings? --Surturz (talk) 12:17, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Criticism of his Religious Views

I think this should be mencioned, like it was previously in the article. The fact that he claims to be so religiously inspired it´s contradictory to his support of the abort pill, which is comdemned by the Anglican Church and the Catholic Church.85.243.70.120 (talk) 22:21, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Effigy burning

Fair shake of the sauce bottle, editors. The effigy-burning of Rudd is borderline notable and deserves more than simple reversion. It has happened in India as well as locally. I don't think it is worthy of inclusion yet, but the issue (Indian Student bashing) is starting to become a serious international issue with Amit Dasgupta, the Consul General of India (Sydney) becoming involved (see today's The Australian). That the protesters are burning Rudd's image makes it personally relevant to Rudd and I fail to see any WP:BLP issues. --Surturz (talk) 04:28, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any blp issues either. But it's just not notable to K Rudd's biography - its a fleeting news item. Just like obama drama and what's the g20. Where it is notable is 2009 attacks on Indian students in Australia. --Merbabu (talk) 05:02, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Merbabu - it belongs in the 2009 attacks on Indian students in Australia article. Like every PM before him, I'm sure that Rudd is denounced dozens of times a day by protesters, media commentators, etc, and this doesn't need to be covered. Nick-D (talk) 10:30, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I too would like to see these multiple incidents mentioned on this article, especially as numerous sources around the world have commented on it. Philwalker87 (talk) 17:52, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't belong in this article. Timeshift (talk) 20:41, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Totally nn. In India, cricket captains get burnt and their houses sometimes vandalised regularly. Totally routine YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 03:14, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

"Utegate"

So editors, is 'Utegate' notable? Should it be covered here or at Rudd Government? --Surturz (talk) 04:18, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

No, not yet. It most probably will be though. Why not wait until something comes out of it? Otherwise, we'll get what normally happens - something is written on the run and it hangs around in poor form for years. Wikipedia is not news per WP:CHILL and WP:NOTNEWS. --Merbabu (talk) 07:52, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Merbabu. Wait for it to play out and let the dust settle before we analyse whether it is noteable. It seems the heat is now on Turnbull rather than Rudd after it was revealed the email was a fake. Timeshift (talk) 07:55, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I also agree with Merbabu. As this story is changing on an hourly basis at the moment, nothing productive can be written about it. The same obviously goes for the Malcolm Turnbull and Wayne Swan articles. Nick-D (talk) 07:57, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

He he - in the meantime shall we wager bets on who out of Rudd, Swan and Turnbull will most likely fall? Just kidding. --Merbabu (talk) 08:06, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, that's my opinion too, wait until the dust settles then include it. I think there is more than just Grech's email to the story, too. I vaguely remember Rudd's links with John Grant were discussed in the media prior to Grech's testimony[17]. I reckon even if Turnbull's got it wrong on the email, the damage is done for Rudd. His association with a second-hand car dealer has now been established. Swan's emails aren't exactly a smoking gun, but they're circumstantial evidence enough for the electorate. Rudd's honeymoon is now well and truly over (The Australian for some reason has gone feral on him ever since his 'fair shake of the sauce bottle' comments). --Surturz (talk) 08:22, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

John Grant is a good friend of Rudd. But unless it can be proven that Rudd did him any favours, Rudd has done nothing wrong and there's no damage done. As shown by no swing in the Essential poll. Sorry bub. Timeshift (talk) 14:43, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

What is it with you and opinion polls? They're generally crap and unencyclopedic. The one you've quoted is an online poll. All that proves is that Young Labor know how to log on to teh interweb. If you are going to quote polls, at least quote quality ones. --Surturz (talk) 02:16, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Your Source has a self managed consumer online panel of 109 500. The majority of panel members have been recruited using off line methodologies, effectively ruling out concerns associated with online self selection. Your Source has validation methods in place that prevent panelist over use and ensure member authenticity. Your Source randomly selects 18+ males and females (with the aim of targeting 50/50 males/females) from its Australia wide panel. An invitation is sent out to approximately 7000 – 8000 of their panel members. The response rate varies each week, but usually delivers 1000 + responses.[18] Timeshift (talk) 02:25, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

> too late < --Merbabu (talk) 12:21, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Sigh, is it really worth an article? Can't we just distil the whole thing down to a sentence or two here? --Surturz (talk) 02:16, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I created the article because I overheard someone at work mocking Wikipedia for not having anything about the subject. Hardly rigorous procedure, but it was enough to get me writing. (I hate it when WP comes up short). This event may turn into a huge upheaval in Australian politics... or it may fizzle into nothing. Time will tell, and the future of the Utegate article will be decided by that as well. Also, at the moment I do not see any easy well of distilling this event into a single page, as it concerns Rudd, Swan, the Rudd Government and Turnbull. Manning (talk) 03:28, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

A section in Rudd Government, perhaps? Also, WP ain't a newspaper. --Surturz (talk) 04:12, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

This article completely fits the requirements of WP:NOTNEWS as far as I can see it. So far NOTNEWS has been referenced twice in this discussion. With respect, I think you guys should go back and read WP:NOTNEWS because I think you are failing to understand the policy. The primary purpose of NOTNEWS is to keep trivial events out, and to ensure that diverse trees of articles are not created for each person involved in an event (qv. the recently deleted Godwin Grech article). NOTNEWS does not preclude the coverage of current events - we have a Current Events portal after all. This is clearly a major current event, judging by the vast amounts in international media coverage. Manning (talk) 05:44, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Similar scandals overseas have had their own articles, and it's basically impossible to successfully AfD articles on topics like this while they're running, so we're stuck with it for now I fear. The article should be revisited in a month or so when we're able to assess whether this went beyond NOTNEWS and its possible to conduct a sensible AfD debate. Nick-D (talk) 08:07, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Just for the record, I've changed my mind and now think it is notable and worth its own article. --Surturz (talk) 02:11, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

High-impact Mungo MacCallum editorial

MacCallum makes some very interesting claims in his recent guest editorial for The Monthly. I believe most of it is useful. We definitely should mention that people are saying Rudd's politics have become more "serious", how he is now considered "protective of his image as a sincere prime minister". Possibly, we could also mention that he attacked not only the editors of The Australian but several of its press gallery journos--"the entire Murdoch press".

The full ref is as follows:

MacCallum, Mungo (September 2009). "Comment: Rudd and the Murdoch Press". The Monthly. No. 49. pp. 8–11.

Notes:

• Screaming headline? Check. Story appeared on the front page as "Rudd's media war"
• Historically notable? Check. An editorial in The Week magazine called it part of the "the legacy wars" between Howard and Rudd over economic management

Ottre 13:13, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Can you guess why I disagree with such an addition? And why I think others will too? A hint would be for all the same reasons that are based on the need for NPOV. --Merbabu (talk) 13:17, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Op-eds and the like are not reliable sources for anything other than their author's views. Please see Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Statements of opinion. Rudd's comments on the Murdoch press were widely reported in straight news articles anyway. Nick-D (talk) 23:00, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I realise that stories published by The Monthly don't meet WP:RS. The magazine is not known for its news coverage. However, it is certainly considered mainstream and is stocked by maybe 1 out of 3 libraries. There is no reason not to quote obviously true statements from the more important stories (which have been highlighted by the editors, and appeared on the front page).

Why do you consider these specific quotes to be "statements of opinion"? A statement is not rendered opinion until somebody disagrees with it. Newsbank turns up 31 results for "Rudd + Murdoch press", 46 results for "Rudd + Murdoch papers", 43 results for "Rudd + Murdoch newspapers" and 9 results for "Rudd + Murdoch columnists", which is quite low. And none of it suggests there have been any significant disagreements in the media over the allegation that Rudd's comments amount to an attack against the entire Murdoch press. Ottre 05:17, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Oceanic Viking

The Oceanic Viking 78 was very much an issue associated with Kevin Rudd personally. It deserves to be in this article. I am sure it fulfils the same criteria as the apology. --Surturz (talk) 11:05, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Who says that it was "an issue associated with Kevin Rudd personally" and is of equal significance to his Prime Ministership as the apology to the Stolen Generation other than you? I think that this belongs in the Rudd Government article as it didn't have much to do with Rudd personally, and he seems to have tried to keep clear of the whole mess (Chris Evans is the relevant minister). Nick-D (talk) 11:09, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Are you serious? Two words: "infinite patience". --Surturz (talk) 11:16, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Another one: "non-extraordinary" --Surturz (talk) 11:18, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Oceanic Viking stand-off puts pressure on PM --Surturz (talk) 11:20, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Rudd ready to sit out boat crisis (not Chris Evans in the headline) --Surturz (talk) 11:22, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Jakarta losing patience over asylum seekers - Indonesia contradicts Rudd's assertion that Jakarta has infinite patience. --Surturz (talk) 11:23, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

And if you have a spare 4 mins 12 seconds, watch this clip from ABC Insiders: Oceanic Viking fallout --Surturz (talk) 11:44, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

In summary, to assert that the Oceanic Viking was not personally linked with Rudd is ignorance bordering on delusion. --Surturz (talk) 11:46, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

This belongs in Rudd Government, not here. Surturz, considering you're usually in the minority opinion and yet again you are, please discuss your changes here rather than going against majority view and imposing what you think is correct. Thankyou. Timeshift (talk) 11:47, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I have provided several references above that clearly indicate that the issue was extremely relevant to Rudd personally (e.g. "Oceanic Viking puts pressure on PM".) It does not matter that I am (currently) in a minority opinion, because my view is WP:V and yours are not. --Surturz (talk) 11:52, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

The issue is relevant... somewhere. The usual problem, since the splitting of articles, is the confusion about which issue goes where. But it's nonetheless an important issue.--Lester 11:57, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Since when does an issue not put pressure on a PM? It's his job. You're doing a bit of WP:SYN by linking the two. Timeshift (talk) 11:59, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Hardly WP:SYN. "Oceanic Viking puts pressure on PM". Where's the SYN?? Now, if I'd gone and dug out the opinion polls for that period and linked a slump in Rudd's popularity with the Oceanic Viking, that would be SYN. But what sort of malcontent editor would do something like that? --Surturz (talk) 12:17, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

The SYN is that you're connecting pressure on Rudd over an issue, to the man himself as if it's somehow biographically important. Timeshift (talk) 21:03, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Lead is not too short

I think the lead is succinct, it's lasted this long so there's implicit consensus, and there's no debate as to why an ugly box should take up the top of the Australian PM's page because an editor thinks the lead is too short. It's been there for a little while, so i'm removing it. Timeshift (talk) 11:09, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree the template should go, but think the lead could also be expanded. WP:LEAD can offer guidance. Not saying that it has to be as long as this GA article, but we can aim for at least part way there. Unless there isn't much worth summarising. ;-P. --Merbabu (talk) 11:19, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

What do you propose? Timeshift (talk) 12:38, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Um, expansion? ;-) --Merbabu (talk) 12:44, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Seriously though, read the lead of, well, WP:LEAD - i think it's clear. Only problem is that because this is the incumbent, it's inherently difficult. But, not impossible. In fact, that lead is very plain and matter of fact - a good thing.--Merbabu (talk) 12:49, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree that it is too short. I think we should give a brief outline of the achievements of Rudd's Prime Ministership. Below is my attempt. It probably suffers a bit from POV (perhaps even factual errors?). I apologise if it reads like an ALP press release. But hey, it's just a rough first draft.

Rudd's two years as prime minister have been notable on a number of fronts. On economic policy, his government has taken an interventionist role, chiefly by enacting successive stimulus packages which his government claims kept Australia out of recession in the face of the global financial crisis, and also by initiating the building of a national fibre-to-the-home optical broadband network. On social policy, Rudd has sought to atone for the wrongs of past governments by delivering public apologies to the Stolen Generations and the Forgotten Australians. His government has pursued reforms in education as well winding back the unpopular industrial relations changes of the previous Howard government. Rudd has also been a strong advocate of tackling climate change, however his attempts to introduce an emissions trading scheme have repeatedly been blocked by a hostile Senate. Throughout his time in office, Rudd and his government have maintained consistently high levels of support in major published opinion polls.

Thoughts?

Digestible (talk) 15:07, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Consensus - Or not

It has been argued against me on my recent edits that I am in somehow in violation of some consensus formed on this talk page over the use of a hatnote linking to Rudd Government. I am unaware of such a consensus at all, and to be clear to the current scenario it is irrelevant if such a consensus does exist. Talk page consensus on style can not overrule wikipedia style, and using things for purposes that explicitly are not to be used for is against wikipedia style conformity and universality. Hatnotes are only for disambiguation of article titles or redirects. That is their use in their entirety, using them as a "See also" section is explicitly invalid in the style guide. For example you do not see the article for Barack Obama possess a hatnote of Presidency of Barack Obama as to do so would contravene style.

This is not a "view" that I hold as on some abstract concept as some are making it out to be and I realise that the hatnote has been there for some time, but longetivity does not make something that was originally illegitimate to be legitimate. It could've been there since the article was created, which would be unlikely as the Rudd Government occurred several years after the article creation but I digress, it is still to be removed. –– Lid^(Talk) 11:31, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

"Talk page consensus on style can not overrule wikipedia style" - who says? It's not policy, and what is best for the article should be what is included. Please explain how this is actually detrimental to the article. (Incidentally, the link has been here since the article was created). --Merbabu (talk) 11:37, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

It is disingenuous to say that the hatnote has been in place since the article was created. In this 8 January 2009 edit by Nick-D, he added the link to Rudd Government to the article text under the section heading "Prime Minister", as is fitting. Nick-D had just begun the Rudd Government article as a stub. The very next edit to this article is your doubling of the link up top as a hatnote. You added the hatnote, you should admit it, rather than the passive voice "the link has been here..." You also are the one who went and added this same sort of hatnote to two other PM articles on 12 September 2009. For the record... Binksternet (talk) 16:37, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

It is not what is best for the article, it is a misappropriation of the article as a politics article when it is a biography article. The "consensus" here is an isolated situation with no consensus from outside when the fact is tsuch a change is the domain fo the consensus of wikipedia, not a closed circuit community. Your view is akin to that it's harmless and I am here for some reason to bully some form of change when the fact is the change shouldn't have happenrmlessthe first place - and that is harmful not harmless.

Also the essay Wikipedia:Don't revert due to "no consensus" is of some interest to this current situation. –– Lid^(Talk) 11:49, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

You case hinges on "rules" (although essays are more like personal opinions than policies). My case is not that "it's harmless", rather it is that it improves the article - you haven't even discussed how it might improve the article (or otherwise). If you're just going to take the prescriptive approach, rather than the judicious approach, and continue to quote style *guides* and personal essays without actually discussing the item and it's effect on the article, then let's not waste anymore time. --Merbabu (talk) 11:55, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Outright dismissing the style guides with a flick of the IAR wrist is a deft move. Your contention dangles on the provision that it "improves the article" actually it does not nothing for the article, all it does is provide a link to another article in a place it has no place being. The consensus I am attempting to overturn here (speaking of which can I grab a link to that?) is that the hatnote is a necessary addition to the article that is of utmost importance that IAR needs to be invoked or its maintainance in the article at all costs. The reason I have not discussed how it might "improve" the article is because that is not for me to decide, I could even agree that it is helpful in some way shape or form but that is not my call as WP:CONSENSUS has dictated that hatnotes are not to be used in this way. I am just the messenger, please stop shooting me. –– Lid^(Talk) 12:07, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

(Edit conflict)This is the judicious course of action, not prescriptive, except that you have dismissed me for citing "rules" and you haven't any except for the one that is incorrectly used for style anarchy. These articles are the only ones that have these, they are the ones that are falling on the wrong side of consensus. –– Lid^(Talk) 12:07, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

"Outright dismissing the style guides with a flick of the IAR wrist is a deft move." is not a fair statement and shows that it's pointless debating it further. it's a very helpful link (are you actually familiar with the two articles or do you just base your comments around blind adherence to a tiny part of the style *guide*. "Style anarchy" - give us a break, and try and be reasonable - you've given yourself no where else to go. ciao --Merbabu (talk) 12:18, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

In what way have I been unreasonable? You keep chanting the pointlessness of it all, ala the sky is falling, but that is because you have yet to provide an argument of strength other than "no consensus" (not an argument), IAR (without upport that of detriment) and the IAR thus allows it because the link is helpful (which is not actually true, it is relevant but it is only as helpful as any other link up there. If I were to put "See also: Julia Gillard" in the hatnote it would be as helpful in that it provides a link to a related article on Australian politics). The "Rudd Government" is already linked, correctly, under the Prime Minister subsection, which I have made no objection to or attempt to remove as it is perfectly in line with every other BLP article on wikiepdia. The hatnote is not. Why is it of such utmost importance that it must remain as the only one of its king (wait scratch that, I will be counterered with why not and we go back in a circle). –– Lid^(Talk) 12:28, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

By trying to pass off a link to Julia Gillard as a comparable example shows you are not being reasonable. It is linking to an article that is lead and dominated by the subject of the article. Rudd Govt is undoubtedly the most useful article to go hand in hand with this one. It is inherently useful (while J Gillard is not) and it's usefulness more than overrides petty implementation about a tiny part of a guide. It's nuisance value as you see it is more than over ridden by it's helpfulness. --Merbabu (talk) 12:35, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

It's helpfulness is already there where it is linked in the correct section, it is not magically more helpful from being in a hatnote unless you think readers would be unable to find Rudd's Government in Kevin Rudd's biographical article. It is not inherently useful in anyway, and if the article is dominated by Rudd's government rather than a biogrphy of Kevin Rudd then the article needs an overhaul to become a biography, I against suggest featured article Barack Obama as an article to aspire to. –– Lid^(Talk) 12:41, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Lid, you're the only one to argue for your change. The rest of us don't. Please respect that. Timeshift (talk) 12:15, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Two things: WP:CCC and "the rest of us" is two people in a debate over the total span of three hours. Although referring to it as a debate would be a bit disingenuous on my part. While you may not like what I am proposing there has been no evidence given it is anything other than an outlier editting choice independent of wikipedia, where the whole community consensus is built. –– Lid^(Talk) 12:21, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

More "rules"? But still no comment on how it might effect the article actually at hand. --Merbabu (talk) 12:26, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

As you are so sure handed in referring to pointlessness I will note that no matter what I say or note you appear to have a walled garden thing going on here, especially in regards to how its removal its actually detrimental to the article, this is going to get a whole lot longer before it gets a whole lot closer to an agreement. –– Lid^(Talk) 12:32, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, since you declare it intractable, I see no point in continuing the conversation. --Merbabu (talk) 12:45, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

There was no point to begin with, you were placing an impossible burden on me which you had no intention of ever agreeing with by rejecting any argument with support as needless "rules" thus leaving me with no way in any way to possibly change your mind of your article ownership. –– Lid^(Talk) 12:48, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Ahh, I love these fly-byers who think they can singlehandedly dictate how articles should appear. They appear every so often and it does provide some amusement, at least for a while, until they realise they're on a path to nowhere. Timeshift (talk) 12:39, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes let's berate the new editor with no experience and no idea by then relegating their arguments to a version of WP:OWN. Nice to have a comment that violates OWN and CIVIL in one fell swoop while also stating "they're on a path to nowhere" hence showing every reference to consensus was a sham because, despite your claims of arguing with me being pointless, you have admitted to have no interest at all to bringing the article in lines with wikipedia standards because hey, it's your article. –– Lid^(Talk) 12:48, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't own the page. Simply saying how fly-byers think they can sindlehandedly dictate/ride roughshod how articles should appear, then realise they can't because they don't manage to convince anyone. And who said anything about new editors? You aren't new, and the fly-byers I refer to are typically long-standing editors from the US who think they know what's best and attempt to impose their views on us. Timeshift (talk) 12:51, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Singlehandedly roughshod? My points aren't some up on high be bold attempt at change, they are black letter clear as day and until this debate I thought it would be an uncontroversial change to make Kevin Rudd in line with other wikipedia articles so that hey maybe one day it too could be a featured article. The reason I said new editors was to make sure because up until this point my entire arguments have been treated as someone with absolutely no idea and being passed off as well a "fky byer" in your own words. –– Lid^(Talk) 12:58, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Clearly you're not understanding what i'm saying. I give up. Gain consensus for your changes, but until then, no. Thankyou and goodnight. Timeshift (talk) 13:01, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm clearly not, I cannot understand how this is so controversial at all - if it stays in the article is outside of wikipedia style and policy, if it's gone the article isn't damages and isn't "less helpful" and is line with wikipedia. Why is this such a difficulty? –– Lid^(Talk) 13:05, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Suggest editors keep all their comments to the talk page, and stop adding little tid-bits in edit summaries. --Merbabu (talk) 13:00, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Always provide an edit summary. Who says that the edit summaries need not be quips or observances? –– Lid^(Talk) 13:02, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

"Avoid using edit summaries to carry on debates or negotiation over the content or to express opinions of the other users involved." - Goodnight! Timeshift (talk) 13:05, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Hey, all content of edit summaries is entirely fictional. Any likness to any people living or deceased is entire coincidental. –– Lid^(Talk) 13:08, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

This is a great example - I didn't even know that ""Avoid using edit summaries to carry on debates or negotiation over the content or to express opinions of the other users involved." was even a "rule". It just seemed like reasonable common sense. Lid shows no sign of following my (reasonable common-sense) suggestion until presented with a rule he has no retort but silly humour. --Merbabu (talk) 13:19, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I could've claimed IAR but that would've been a bit too meh. That and the only comment I've made in any violation of that was the one in regards to attaking those damn American editors. The rest is summaries that are as decent as using a full stop to summarise, which actually is less summarising than mine. –– Lid^(Talk) 13:24, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

<==Coming here from Wikipedia:Content noticeboard#Kevin_Rudd as an uninvolved party, I see no reason why a hatnote is necessary in this article. The guidelines at WP:HATNOTE are clear that hatnotes are meant to disambiguate between articles that can be confused with one another, not to expand the scope of an article. There appears to me no good reason to invoke WP:Ignore all rules in this case. Arguments in this thread about existing consensus have not been supported with a link to the discussion which supposedly established it. Binksternet (talk) 14:58, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I fully agree with Binksternet (and am here for the same reason). IAR is for overruling general rules in cases in which it is justified by unusual circumstances. Some editors' desire to abuse hatnotes as a more prominent variant of a "See also" link is not a sufficiently unusual circumstance. Hans Adler 16:16, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Nice to see that Lid has been shopping for more opinion. At the end of the day, it's not about rules, but improving the article. Rudd Government and Kevin Rudd are such closely-aligned articles (unlike say Julia Gillard) that it makes sense for the reader to see that there's another article. It's been there from the start, and there has never been a disagreement that this hatnote should not be there - sorry LId, I can't quote a rule on that one - just reasonableness and a wish to improve the encyclopedia. As for "abuse" of rules - come one... It's a guideline (and a fairly obscure one at that) which says "it's better". --Merbabu (talk) 20:09, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

PS - and now I see that we are using edit warring [19] and numbers to "resolve" and issue. This article is poorer for it - but, at least we're not "abusing" the rules. sheez --Merbabu (talk) 20:12, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

This was a good-faith effort by Merbabu to extend hatnote utility such that the hatnote becomes a more visible "See also" section. Since hatnotes aren't intended to do that, it is elementary to bring the Oz PM articles in line with standard Wikipedia usage by removing the hatnote. What Lid has done in "shopping" for other opinions is reasonable—there was no guarantee that people hanging around at Wikipedia:Content noticeboard would carry the same opinion as Lid. Binksternet (talk) 20:52, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Are you editors really arguing over a hatnote? --Surturz (talk) 07:37, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

No, not since Lid went looking for a vote and got the numbers. --Merbabu (talk) 07:45, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Hah! Y'all wikilawyers postin' in a troll thread. --Surturz (talk) 10:13, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Starting a discussion of a silly edit war six days after it concluded isn't perhaps the best use of time either ;) Nick-D (talk) 10:17, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I must admit my reaction was the same as Surturz's when I saw it. I think the hatnote should remain personally, but oh well. Orderinchaos 00:35, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Shame indeed. The vote, sorry "consensus" (cough, cough), was that rules are more important than article quality - particularly as it relates to useability. --Merbabu (talk) 02:59, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

2009 Kevin Rudd visit to Japan - not noteable for it's own page?

Timeshift (talk) 09:54, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it clearly fails WP:NOT#NEWS. Nick-D (talk) 09:57, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Internet Censorship

Just wondering if a sub heading should include the introduction of Internet Censorship (one of Rudd's pet projects) and will see Australia have censorship second only to China? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.211.145.193 (talk) 03:54, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Internet censorship could be mentioned, but not with biased opining such as that we would be second only to China. There are a lot of countries with a lot of different censorship regimes and the ALP's proposed filter fits somewhere within that scope, however they have been consistently narrowing down the areas they intend to censor due to senate pressure, mostly from the Greens and media pressure, mostly from internet groups. Additionally, its hard, given the nature of censorship to determine rankings without being opinionated.--Senor Freebie (talk) 03:12, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Awkward phrasing in lead

The Rudd Ministry of the Rudd Government ... is really awkward. Noone writes like this. 122.167.75.137 (talk) 07:21, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Health section

I think a section on Health would be a good addition. Can anyone find a good article on the outcome of the recent COAG meeting? I'm having trouble finding one. I think the major points for a section on health should be:

1. 2007 "buck stops with me" election pledge
2. Suggestion of a referendum for a federal takeover
3. COAG outcome - 30% of GST revenue mandated to health(?)

--Surturz (talk) 05:16, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Environment Section - CPRS Update

Update required - delayed status of CPRS, currently the entry states "On 4 May 2009 Rudd announced that the Government will delay implementing an emissions trading scheme until 2011". Update required to reflect delay to 2013

I believe this would benefit from an update from the wiki page Climate Change in Australia: National (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_in_Australia#National)

---

... on 27th April 2010 the Prime Minister announced that the Government has decided to delay the implementation of the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (CPRS), with implementation delayed until after the current commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol (which ends in 2012) [20]. The Government cites the lack of bipartisan support for the CPRS and slow international progress on climate action for the delay. The Prime Minister announced that the CPRS will be introduced only when there is greater clarity on the actions of other major economies including the US, China and India.

Delay on implementation of the CPRS has drawn strong criticism of the Prime Minister and the Labor Party from the Federal Opposition [21], as well as from the community and grassroots action groups such as GetUp [22].

---

The delay of the CPRS is notable and will be a big ticket item the forthcoming election. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PLRooks (talk • contribs) 05:54, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Kevin 24/7

we need to put a line with his alternative names, like there is on the Schwarzenegger page "Governmator". Kevin 24/7 and Kevin 747. Tri400 (talk) 08:21, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Politicians attract many nicknames over the course of their careers and IMO very few of them are encyclopedic. My view is that unless there is a notable story behind the name, it isn't worth including. Kevin 747 and Kevin 24/7 are simple insults and I don't think worthy of inclusion. "the governator" has a story behind it, so is worth including. Kevin07 is probably worth including on the grounds it was a campaign slogan, but personally I don't care if it is in or out. --Surturz (talk) 18:05, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Govt advertising "is a cancer on democracy" backflip

[23] [24] - worth including? --Surturz (talk) 01:31, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

unless there are objections, I'll put something in about this. --Surturz (talk) 19:29, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Strip Club

Do we really need to flesh out the strip club incident? it's almost as big as the section on climate change. I would see the whole incident deleted. A bloke has a few beers and goes to a strip club, hardly an uncommon occurrence. --Surturz (talk) 19:29, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

It could probably be cut back to a couple of sentences, but given the drama it caused and its positive overall effects on Rudd's image it's worth mentioning. Nick-D (talk) 23:37, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Removed Medvedev again

Per talk. Timeshift (talk) 13:23, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree - it's a poor quality image, better PD alternatives are available and there's nothing particularly notable about the event it depicts. Nick-D (talk) 08:05, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Not so much that, but Russia has next to zero importance compared to other countries around the world. It gives undue weight. Timeshift (talk) 08:15, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Addition of Rudd leadership collapse to "Prime Minister" section?

As of 23rd June 2010 10:10 PM Australian Eastern Standard Time. Rudd has announced that a leadership challenge will take place the following morning after senior ministers removed their support of him and instead placed it behind his deputy Julia Gillard. Blackwolf AU (talk) 12:48, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

The BBC isn't reporting it yet. I think this should go in. Seems inevitable after watching Lateline. Tony (talk) 13:04, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

An interesting test of the self appointed editors on wikipedia. I've printed the current page so I can revisit when history judges this man. Edits removed by the few have shown to be right (including some of mine). False application of different standards for Rudd and Howard shown for the bias it always was. A satisfying time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.101.222.105 (talk) 00:08, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

This morning

Just a note that assuming Rudd loses the spill, he will remain Prime Minister until the Governor-General accepts his resignation (probably later in the day). He should remain "Prime Minister" in this article until then. I'm just posting this because there were some problems with the Gordon Brown-David Cameron transition. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:22, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Don't worry, we've already had numerous attempts to wiki-unseat him and wiki-install Julia Gillard as PM - all such efforts have been reverted. The moment the story broke last night, numerous people felt they had immediate licence to say that Rudd had resigned or been dumped. Some of these editors no doubt thought they were doing the right thing. The world is such an impatient place these days. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 21:32, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Indeed! I just think we need to be extra careful this morning because even after he is unseated by the party, he is still Prime Minister for a short while.--Mkativerata (talk) 21:35, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely. Between the time the result of the ballot is announced and the time Gillard is actually sworn in, it's going to be a very, very busy time for both editors and reverters. The best we can do for her in that period is call her Prime Minister-elect. Let's hope it will be a mercifully short time. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 21:50, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Time to stop steamcleaning

I have to chuckle when looking at this article. So relentlessly whitewashed!

Remember all that fuss about whether to include the earwax eating incident? I thought it added interest and colour and personality to a dull article. It met all the criteria needed for inclusion, but some here felt it reflected poorly on the perfect Prime Minister.

Looks like while I've been doing other things, things that are a lot more fun than arguing with web spinsters, Rudd's article here has been relentlessly maintained to remove all but the most passing reference to anything negative. It might have been written by Rudd's office in the same way that his website is totally free of any hint of criticism.

The man's a dud as a leader. He's not a leader, he's a dictator, and just when did the position of "first among equals" turn into "god"? His faults and decline have been commonplace in the media for months, but not here. Here he's still divine. What a load of stinking old tripe!

This article does not reflect the reality of Rudd's career as Prime Minister. It is unbalanced and it presents a false image. Falsehoods and imbalance should not be included in an encyclopaedia. The regular editors of this article should hang their heads in shame. --Pete (talk) 22:43, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Spot on. I'm looking forward to the wikipedia record outing Rudd as the first Labor PM to be dumped in their first term (ouch)! You'd think reading the post he was some kind of Messiah. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.101.222.105 (talk) 00:15, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, Messiah to pariah. Why did the censors on this page go to all the personal trouble? Did they think it would make Rudd look better? It's not like there is no information available outside of wikipedia, ie, the media. Highvale (talk) 02:58, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Among the three of you, you have managed to mention one specific thing you think should be included: ear wax. When you are ready to be serious, come back with actual proposals for items to be included. -Rrius (talk) 03:34, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

What, are you suggesting wikipedia has no place for schadenfreude? Perish the thought! 203.217.150.68 (talk) 03:46, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Let me put it this way. The last paragraph of the lead mentions that he stepped aside for Julia Gillard after announcing a leadership ballot. The article does not answer the obvious question. Why on earth would a sitting prime minister do this?

The answer is found in newspaper editorials stretching back months, but apparently Wikipedia has less relevant information than last week's recycling. This sucks. --Pete (talk) 17:31, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

"Whitewashing" is always bad. But if you are against whitewashing on this article, you must also be against whitewashing on Liberal Party articles :) --Lester 23:48, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm against articles that don't provide the facts, don't give the full story, articles that don't serve our readers well. I've highlighted a problem here - according to our article, a near-perfect PM decided to stand aside. That's not what the papers are saying, and that's not what Australian voters know for themselves. It was the drop in support for Rudd amongst the voters with an election looming that precipitated the change in ALP leadership. That's all I'm going to say on the matter. We've been caught out cheating our readers, who come here looking for good information. Wikipedia deserves better. --Pete (talk) 00:36, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Catholic faith

The statement that currently contains the words "Catholic faith" needs to be changed to "Roman Catholic faith". See Catholic for the commonly understood meaning of the word "Catholic". 118.208.165.58 (talk) 23:42, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

No change is necessary, as "Catholic" is commonly understood to refer to the Roman Catholic Church. 124.185.6.208 (talk) 04:27, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

PM until 25th

Channel 9 is reporting that Julia will be sworn in at 12.30pm tomorrow (AEST), so Rudd will be PM until the 25th of June. I think the article should be changed to reflect this (if someone can find an online reference confirming this).--Forward Unto Dawn 02:01, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

She was already sworn in. I'm pretty sure you misunderstood as she was supposed to be sworn in at 12:30 p.m. today, but was delayed a little bit by Rudd's address and Gillard's press conference. -Rrius (talk) 03:44, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

When the last sitting of Parliament before the Winter recess was televised (at 1.00 pm EST 24/6) Gillard was PM, having just been sworn in by the Governor-General.Gazzster (talk) 03:05, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Please Wait

This morning and last night there has been alot of activity to this article due to the fact that overnight, Australia has had a change of leadership. While nothing can be done about it now, There have been alot of editors who have either wanted to be the first to change this information or have just not had any regard to the fact of time management.

My point is, Some editors need to be aware of when these changes are inplace as to when the information is correct, for example, This morning, alot of contributers have changed information to this article relating to the status of Kevin Rudd before the gentlemen (the now previous Australian Prime Minister) was actuly stood down. Although its not a long period of time, its not professional and is in fact at the end of the day, incorrect wheather or wheather its 2 hours or 5 hours or a day or even 1 minute. I personaly belive there are too many people jumping the gun here. James'ööders 06:36, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Speaking of professional, I'm always intrigued when someone pulls out the rule book and then posts using English that looks like chutney in a dog's bowl. Did you write this after a long lunch? Myles325a (talk) 03:00, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

And editors should not always rely on the first reports of the media. In this instance, ABC was the first to report the leadership challenge. But, according to Media Watch it subsequently lost track of the situation and reported that Rudd had decided on Wednesday not to fight the challenge. This was not correct until minutes before the Party assembled the following morning. So we should probably wait until media reports are confirmed before we edit.Gazzster (talk) 04:45, 29 June 2010 (UTC)