Jump to content

Talk:Kevin Rudd/Archive 8

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8

Political Positions section

I propose we delete the "Political Positions" section, or at least trim the section substantially. I don't think the other ex-PM articles have such sections. Rudd's views on the economy and social policy are no longer relevant to the article since he is no longer PM. Let's focus on what he actually did as PM, rather than what he might have done. Furthermore, his opinions may well change as time goes on, so to keep them here in perpetuity could well become misleading. --Surturz (talk) 11:56, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

There is a lot in there that is useful. His public personality is the key to understanding his private personality and hence his extraordinary career. The section on religion is particularly illuminating - he has no difficulty in being both an Anglican and a Roman Catholic. This shows the sort of "dollar each way" attitude that Christine Wallace described, and had the effect of alienating his colleagues when they found that he could not be relied on to stick to commitments. --Pete (talk) 18:24, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
I don't see how Rudd's personal views cease to be relevant because he's no longer the PM... He was the PM, and these shaped his government. If his views have in fact changed, we can update the text. Advocating removing this section because it's not in the articles on other PMs is a bit odd given that most of those articles are in even worse condition than this one. Nick-D (talk) 22:00, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
They could usefully be inserted. Gough Whitlam's drive for reform powered his Prime Ministership. And other qualities sped his downfall. John Howard's philosophical position was well-known and was the rock on which he built his house (or houses, in the final term). Not sure about Julia. --Pete (talk) 22:10, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Hmm. OK, well if not delete, then how about merge with the policy section? Why do we need an "Economic Policy" section as well as a "Economic position" section? We have a separate Rudd Government article, so there is no need to distinguish in this article what his government did and what he believes. It could even be a better narrative if you intersperse his beliefs with his actual policies. I think the large block quotes should go, they're not particularly famous tracts nor particularly illuminating. I'll have a go at trimming them. --Surturz (talk) 02:17, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Wealth

I think it is notable that Rudd was the wealthiest Prime Minister is Australia's history. This is particularly notable given his vast wealth is derived from his wife's business and entrepreneurial activities, yet he was leader of the "Labor" party. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.45.16.51 (talk) 01:51, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Indigenous report card

Nick-D re-added the motherhood statements on "bridging the gap". Rudd is no longer PM, so we should either put the policy and the outcome in, or not put in the policy at all. I have previously tried to insert text on the outcome [1] but as usual got reverted. Nick-D seems to agree that both parts should be included, so if he wants the claim added back, it is incumbent on him to put in the outcome as well. I do not care either way, as long as we do not cherry pick - for a former PM article, putting in policy announcements without reviewing the outcome during the PMs term is just puffery. Rudd made some fairly specific promises with delivery dates, so there should be a lot of reliable sources on whether he hit those targets. Many of the refs are already present in the big multi-ref ref. --Surturz (talk) 02:06, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Nick-D restored the material again, but this time with some text indicating the (lack of an) outcome of the Rudd Indigenous initiatives. In his edit summary he asked "why is that a valid reason to remove factual and cited content?". To be honest, I'm not sure exactly what policies cover it, but if we have text in the article that 1) states a problem (indigenous disadvantage), 2) states the government-of-the-day's response to it (budgeting x billion dollars towards the problem), and 3) says nothing more, then I believe there is an implication that the policy worked. Yes, such content would be factual and cited, but such content would also be misleading. To me this is the main problem with this article, and why the POV tag is justified. Various policies were initiated by Rudd and added to the article at the time, and now that he has lost the PM-ship, we should follow up and add text assessing the outcome of each policy (even if only to say "it is unknown if the policy worked"). --Surturz (talk) 09:06, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
I basically agree - though many programs are still in relatively early days and there isn't yet data on whether they've met or not met their goals. I'm not sure whether random news reports like the one added here are great sources though (this story is based around one guy whinging that his computer didn't magically remain up to date over two years...). Why not use the ANAO performance audit which is available here and actually assesses the program against its goals? More generally, I don't think that deleting OK content rather than updating it is a good idea. Nick-D (talk) 09:47, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Thoroughly concur. Rudd was good at making pretty speeches and promising action - everyone remember how he said there was a lot to do and after tea and a lamington the new government would get stuck in - but very poor about delivering. Sure he said "Sorry" and got some great moments on camera, but what happened? No progress whatsoever, apart from more public servants in Canberra. When the visions didn't pan out, we should say so. It adds more to the story of why he was dumped. The ALP has every right to be annoyed. Rudd began with a huge popular vote, every state and territory government was Labor, for a time he and the Opposition Leader were staunch republicans, but what happened? He pissed it all away. Whitlam seized the moment. Hawke exploited consensus. Keating got things done and up peoples noses. But for Rudd - nothing. Just some pretty words in public and ugly ones in private. I'm annoyed that our article doesn't tell the full story and leaves the reader unsatisfied as to why things went so wrong for Rudd. --~~
Skyring, can you please restrict your comments to how to develop this article? I'm no more interested in your political views than I imagine than you are in mine, and they're not at all relevant to what we're trying to do here. Nick-D (talk) 10:45, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
You want my political views, read my blog. I certainly haven't mentioned them here. This article is about providing information, and if we only tell one side of the story, it's as if the Leyland P76 article stopped at the "Car of the Year" award. If we list Rudd's announced initiatives, we should in fairness to our readers also say what happened afterwards, instead of leaving them to guess that maybe they all came true. Rudd wasn't dumped because the same people who made him party leader really wanted Gillard. He was dumped because he wasn't performing. --Pete (talk) 19:13, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Religion

Rudd's religion is cited as Anglican in the info box with a dead link ("Having faith in politics". canberratimes.com.au. 15 July 2010. Retrieved 21 July 2010.[dead link‍]). However, in a more detailed 2005 interview with Geraldine Doogue[1] on the ABCTV program Compass Rudd stated, interalia, that he was a Christian Socialist. It is widely known that Rudd's wife, Thérèse Rein, is an Anglican and that Rudd attends church with Rein. However, in 2009 Rudd claimed that as a baptised Catholic, he has "never resigned from Rome."[2] On this basis, I believe that the best description of Rudd is as a Christian. Rangasyd (talk) 09:06, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Date of resignation as Foreign Minister

It's been given virtually no focus in among all the drama, but Rudd did say he would ask Gillard to give effect to his resignation "48 hours after he returns to Australia". If he gets back on Friday 24 Feb, that means he will remain Foreign Minister until Sunday 26 Feb. Is that anyone else's reading of the matter? -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 09:41, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

It would be great if there was sources that corroborate that, provided (is there any?). His own speech mentions nothing whatsover of a 48 hour extension. Ehhh politics is so confusing :/ -- MST☆R (Chat Me!) 09:44, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
Precisely, we need a RS for that. At present, the two sources we have suggest that Rudd has already resigned. ISTB351 (talk) 09:46, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
He most certainly did say it in his speech. I just saw it on the 7:30 Report, which is the only way I know about it. As I said, it's received scant attention. That Youtube clip is obviously not his whole speech; you can tell it just fades out while he's still on the podium and he clearly has more to say. The bit about the date of his resignation came after that clip was abruptly foreshortened. Lesson: Don't believe everything you see in the media.
Also, see this AFR report: Mr Rudd said that in his letter of resignation to the Prime Minister, he had asked that it take effect 48 hours after his return to Australia so that transitional arrangements could be made for his staff.
So there. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 10:02, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
Okay true, however we can't just whitewash the majority of sources that state he has resigned - and go by one source that says he still has another 48 hours on top of a few days. We need more reliable sources - like that one you've provided. -- MST☆R (Chat Me!) 10:05, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
Here it is from the horse's mouth. OK?
If the media present only those juicy bits of the story that they figure are the most "dramatic", that's their call, but if there are more details they have generally chosen not to present, then bringing them out into the open is not my definition of whitewashing. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 10:30, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
You did not provide enough reliable sources prior to this finding. So obviously it was a 'no' to changing anything that has the majority of sources saying one thing, and hardly any sources saying something else. Glad the matter is solved ~ changes have already been made. OK? Thanks, -- MST☆R (Chat Me!) 10:35, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
Rudd's resignation speech is on his website here. The relevant bit seems to be "In my letter of resignation to the Prime Minister, I have asked her to give effect to my resignation 48 hours after my return to Australia, so that I can affect the best transition for my staff as possible under these circumstances." It's technically Gillard's call, but it's hugely unlikely that she'd insist on the resignation being effective sooner than that as it would (technically) involve sacking Rudd. Nick-D (talk) 11:01, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
@MST☆R: You're still seeing this in an adversarial light. It's not about denying a single word of what those other sources said. It's about providing information additional to what they had. I raised this matter here for discussion, and I don't believe editors are required to provide citations for everything they ever want to talk about on Talk pages. But since you've made an issue of it, you were the one who categorically denied Rudd made any such statement in his speech, when it was clear to blind Freddy that the clip you provided was not even the whole speech. As we can now tell from the full transcript, the Youtube clip was a sizeable chunk, but it fell a long way short of completeness. For example, he went on to talk about the first Aboriginal to be appointed as an Australian Ambassador, which similarly received zero coverage. So, please don't lecture me about reliance on sources. I strongly recommend the Big Picture to you. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 11:36, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
Oh please! "don't lecture me..." and what exactly are you doing now? Thought so. I said what I said, I told you it's been resolved. There's the "bigger picture" for you. -- MST☆R (Chat Me!) 11:39, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
Rudd's statement is the most reliable source in this instance and we should go by that unless we see anything to the contrary saying Gillard has rejected his request and sacked him effective a different date. Jmount (talk) 12:21, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
Here's the actual resignation letter: http://resources.news.com.au/files/2012/02/23/1226278/871125-120223-rudd-resignation.pdf Jmount (talk) 20:39, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
There's a brief piece in the Fairfax Saturday papers saying that Rudd is still Foreign Minister (reference at the Canberra Times). The exact time and date is not given in the Canberra Times online link, but The Age today says his resignation kicks in at 9 am on Monday. --Canley (talk) 06:13, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Ah, Sydney Morning Herald says his staff must "hand in their smart phones" at 9am but doesn't say what day. --Canley (talk) 06:17, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 3 August 2012

"After the Goss government lost office in 1995" is not correct. The Goss government did not lose office until 1996: [3] Howard Teems (talk) 08:05, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Well spotted - I've just made that correction. Welcome to Wikipedia by the way! Nick-D (talk) 09:24, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

26 Jun 2013 -- Current event tag?

With the current situation of Kevin Rudd possibly returning as PM tonight - would it be a good idea to add a tag regarding how facts will change during the next few hours? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Count of Tuscany (talk • contribs) 09:47, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

The page should be edited to reflect the leadership spill results. Rudd-Gillard 57-45. http://www.crikey.com.au/2013/06/26/gillard-v-rudd-alp-leadership-spill-liveblog/ 58.7.147.97 (talk) 10:07, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Prime Minister

He is not prime minister again yet. He is now leader of the Labor Party but the governor general has not yet appointed him prime minister. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.23.137.188 (talk) 10:20, 26 June 2013 (UTC) I agree -- until commissioned by the GG, which is not 100% certain, since he may not control a majority in the lower house, he is at best Prime Minister designate. Giles Martin (talk) 10:57, 26 June 2013 (UTC) Seconded. He should have Prime Minister Designate on his page — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.148.169.32 (talk) 11:40, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Given the minority government situation, I do not believe he is PM designate as it relies on crossbench support. Designate applies when someone will be PM but hasn't been sworn in yet. Flat Out let's discuss it 11:43, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
Are any reliable sources applying such a term to Rudd? I haven't seen it. Bear in mind that there's no constitutional or legal requirement for Australia to always have someone who is officially the PM in one sense or another - the position isn't even in the constitution. In the gap between the GG accepting Gillard's resignation and Rudd being sworn in there will - in strict legal terms - not be an Australian Prime Minister, and we don't need to bend over backwards to pretend that there is. Nick-D (talk) 11:48, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
Agreed. He becomes PM the moment the GG swears him in, and not one second before. -- Jack of Oz [Talk] 12:02, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
There is however a Deputy Prime Minister of Australia, who is probably acting as caretaker when there is no Prime Minister.Gerard von Hebel (talk) 14:07, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
There is no Deputy PM at this time, only a Deputy Leader of the Parliamentary ALP. Flat Out let's discuss it 14:15, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 26 June 2013

Please change

"Kevin Michael Rudd (born 21 September 1957) is an Australian politician who has been the Leader of the Labor Party since 26 June 2013. He was previously Prime Minister of Australia from 2007 to 2010 and Labor leader from 2006 to 2010. He was reinstated as leader of the party in June 2013, following a leadership challenge."

to

"Kevin Michael Rudd MP (born 21 September 1957) is the Australian Prime Minister Designate. He previously served as the 26th Prime Minster of Australia.

He was re-elected Leader of the Labor Party by the Labor Caucus on 26 June 2013. Upon swearing in by the Governor General, Quentin Alice Louise Bryce AC CVO, he will become the 28th Prime Minister of Australia.

In order to hold the office of Prime Minister, the Prime Minister designate, by convention, must hold the confidence of the House of Representatives. This, however, is not required by Australian Law, following the precedent set during the 1975 Australian constitutional crisis with appointment of Malcolm Fraser as caretaker Prime Minister, by the then Governor General, Sir John Kerr. Malcolm Fraser lost a no confidence motion in the House of Representatives and remained Caretaker Prime Minister holding only the confidence of the Senate, after the Governor General dismissed Gough Whitlam during an impasse between the Houses of Parliament which resulted in the blockage of budget supply bills. Malcolm Fraser won the subsequent Election.

Neither Labor nor the Opposition hold a majority in the House of Representatives. If Mr Rudd does not secure the confidence of the House of Representatives, the outcome is uncertain. The Governor General may request for confidence in the Prime Minister to be tested on the floor of the House of Representatives. In the event that the Prime Minister does not survive a no confidence motion, the Opposition will move a vote of confidence in the Leader of the Opposition, as Prime Minister, and Mr Tony Abbott MP will become Prime Minister Designate. Once sworn in, Mr Abbott would become the Prime Minister, and his party would assume government.

Under Australian Political Convention, Julia Gillard MP continues to hold the office of the 27th Australian Prime Minister until either Mr Kevin Rudd or Mr Tony Abbott are sworn in as a new 28th Prime Minister."

because

  • The implied stated reason for his reinstatement as leader of the party, as having occurred "following a leadership challenge" is not an objective fact. It may be held to be political, or false, because the leadership was in fact spilled by the Prime Minister herself, which Rudd then contested, after a petition for a leadership challenge for Thursday, which did not eventuate as a result of the spill.
  • The more generalised interpretation that the reinstatement was the result of a challenge, is a redundant editorialisation, because there is no other way to be elected to the leadership of a party without standing.
  • That he was reinstated in June 2013 restates a fact already established in the first sentence.
  • He was not elected to the leadership for the first time, but "re-elected" having had a previous incumbency.
  • That Kevin Rudd will assume the 27th Prime Ministership is not certain until events in the House of Representatives and Government House unfold, and may result in Tony Abbott becoming the 27th Prime Minister, or in either Mr Rudd or Mr Abbott becoming Caretaker Prime Minister only if writs are immediately issued for an election.

Stephanie currie (talk) 14:29, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Are there any objections to this? If not, I'm inclined to make the change per Stephanie's rationale. ~Adjwilley (talk) 22:59, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
It is already out of date, being sworn in this morning and numbers not likely to be tested on the floor of Parliament, so designate title is redundant.

Edit request on 26 June 2013

Please change "26th Prime Minister of Australia" in the infobox to "28th Prime Minister of Australia".

Reason:

  • Julia Gillard, not Kevin Rudd, is the 27th Prime Minister;
  • Julia Gillard resigned her commission as PM last night;
  • The Governor-General of Australia, Quentyn Bryce, swore in Kevin Rudd as PM this morning, making him the 28th PM;
  • He cannot be the 26th PM twice.

The previous edit request is also partly wrong. Malcolm Fraser lost a no confidence vote in the House of Representatives, that's correct. However, the Speaker of the House at the time went to see the Governor-General to request that Gough Whitlam be re-commissioned as Prime Minister - as a PM must have the confidence of the Lower House. The Speaker's request was ignored because Sir John Kerr had already dissolved Parliament by proclamation by the time the Speaker arrived. LudBob (talk) 00:24, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Prime Ministers are counted only once in the ordinal numbering of Prime Ministers, even if they serve more than one non-consectuive term. See List of Prime Ministers of Australia. Shadow007 (talk) 00:37, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
26th is correct. There are three other Prime Ministers (Menzies, Deakin and Fisher) who have served subsequent non-consecutive terms. If we count them as separate ordinals, then Rudd is the 33rd Prime Minister. If not, he is still the 26th person to hold the office. --Canley (talk) 00:51, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Kevin Rudd has been sworn in as the 33rd Prime Minister of Australia. This is the correct and logical order. How can a Prime Minister before him be numbered ahead? It is silly and will misinform those who turn to Wikipedia on educating themselves.

Grover Cleveland was SWORN IN twice in the U.S and he is recognised as both the 22nd and 24th President of the United States on Wikipedia and officially. It seems the Australian Wikipedia community has messed this up badly, which has extended the misinformation over a long period of time (as evidenced throughout all of the other PM articles). In an effort to stop spreading such illogical misinformation, this should be corrected sooner rather than later (as it already has been corrected in the List of Prime Ministers of Australia article accordingly). Jas315 (talk) 01:09, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

This is accepted practice in respect of Westminster systems. See further List of Prime Ministers of Canada. The ordinal numbering of Prime Ministers has long been accepted in this manner. There is no reason to change. Shadow007 (talk) 01:24, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
The Prime Minister of Australia is a completely different office to President of the United States, and we should abide by the conventions of that office, provided the numbering is consistently applied. Do you have any reliable references that refer to Julia Gillard as the 32nd Prime Minister? Australia's National Archives says "There have been 27 Prime Ministers of Australia" (it has not been updated but there will still be 27), and refers to Gillard as "Australia’s 27th Prime Minister". So do the Prime Minister's own site, the Parliament House website and Parliamentary Library, and so on. As Shadow007 says, the current numbering is the convention in Westminster parliamentary systems. --Canley (talk) 01:28, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia is a better and nicer place when people do not chuck their weight around while themselves in a state of ignorance. Comments, nay accusations, such as "It seems the Australian Wikipedia community has messed this up badly" do not make for a collegial editing atmosphere anyway, and when they are based on a misunderstanding of the situation they help even less. As for the "already corrected in the List article" bit, it is interesting to note that that change, made with the perhaps rather irrelevant edit summary "correct numerical order mirroring the article on the list of presidents of the united states", lasted for all of eleven minutes before being put back to how it always should have been. We get on better when we are polite; we edit better when we are polite. Best wishes DBaK (talk) 13:13, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

26th is correct, not 33rd. 101.168.85.62 (talk) 01:59, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

A first?

Is Rudd the first PM to be sworn in by a governor-general he himself had appointed. The only other possibilities are Menzies, Fisher and Deakin, but I'm disinclined to do the research. -- Jack of Oz [Talk] 09:42, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Good question, perhaps the first PM to be sworn in where not re-elected following general election and where the GG was appointed by said PM. Flat Out let's discuss it 11:27, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
The practice of the Prime Minister of the day advising the King/Queen on the appointment of the Governor-General was started with James Scullin in 1930 I believe, so Deakin and Fisher would not have done this—the monarch would presumably have been advised by the Colonial Secretary on the appointment. There was no overlap between the term of a Governor-General with Menzies' stints as PM—Lord Gowrie in his first term would have been appointed by Lyons anyway, and William McKell was G-G by the time Menzies returned to office. So I think you're right, it does seem to be a first. --Canley (talk) 11:30, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Agree, Gowrie was appointed by Joseph Lyons. Just checking to see if Hayden swore in Hawke after re-election. Flat Out let's discuss it 11:38, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
That also appears to be a no on Hawke. Flat Out let's discuss it 11:41, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Dux

I have marked for clarification the use of "dux" in the second paragraph. It may be obvious in some branches of English (or in some contexts?) but not in my particular one, so perhaps not in others too! A quick explanation or relevant link would be most useful, thanks. Is it is a specifically AusE term?? Cheers DBaK (talk) 12:52, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

A dux is the student who is the highest academic achiever in a school. Flat Out let's discuss it 12:54, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
Aha, thank you and thanks for the link and the very fast response. If only I spoke the English of Scotland, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa or (?)Iceland I'd have been fine! :) I hope you don't mind that I've refined the link to point to that particular place so people go straight there and/or see it in the pop-up link thingy if they get that. Much clearer now to those of us who needed the help. Cheers DBaK (talk) 13:19, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
The specific link is much better, cheers Flat Out let's discuss it 13:27, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Pov

Marriage equality is a biased term and should be replaced with same-sex marriage.

 Done Flat Out let's discuss it 13:24, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

No longer Leader of Labor

See; Talk:Australian Labor Party. Nford24 (Want to have a chat?) 12:34, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Article section Behaviour and personality

The section was cut, calling it a BLP violation. I mildly disagree, being more neutral on the question. I think published commentary on his behavior and personality is consistent and strong and deserves inclusion, at some level.

The cut text was:

During his political career, Kevin Rudd regularly attracted criticism for his autocratic leadership style, as well as accusations of a contemptuous manner in which he treated parliamentary colleagues and others he came into contact with in a working capacity, while out of the public eye.

It was referenced to: http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/nsw/kevin-rudd-hero-or-psychopath/story-fni0cx12-1226694584192 "Kevin Rudd - hero or psychopath?", The Daily Telegraph, August 10, 2013.

Similar reliable commentary is here: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/federal-election-2013/grandiose-narcissist-the-secret-diagnosis-that-helped-bring-down-kevin-rudd-20130909-2tfum.html

See also Kevin Rudd behavioural and personality related controversies; listed for deletion here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kevin Rudd behavioural and personality related controversies. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:27, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

I'd be very careful adding this sort of commentary. Firstly, given it's very public anti-ALP position, the Tele is an unacceptable source. Secondly, I haven't looked at the other articles, but they are likely to the opinion of just one writer. The best you could do would be to say "X wrote that rudd was....", but that only counts if X has some particular qualification to judge such things. HiLo48 (talk) 04:54, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
I second HiLo48's comment on the Daily Telegraph. The other source above, like the AFR article which was the previous reference for this "Rudd's behaviour and personality" section, was merely a recounting of the "report" offered by a Liberal-friendly psychologist to the party's campaign team and "leaked" to the Fin Review. This shouldn't be reported as "news", and its very origin is so steeped in bias and political enmity, that frankly it says more about the Liberal Party stopping very low than it does about Kevin Rudd's personality. I'm no fan of Rudd or Abbott, or their parties, for that matter, but as I said on the AfD, I would object just as strongly to this sort of pop-psych "assessment" or compliation of Tony Abbott or any Liberal's controversial statements or behaviour. Every politician, especially a leader, has political enemies who would be willing to criticise or psychoanalyse them, and it would be trivial to compile such an article for any Prime Minister from Barton onwards—doesn't mean it's appropriate for Wikipedia, or that objections are demonstrating bias to the subject. --Canley (talk) 05:59, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
The reported problems with Rudd's style of governing and how he treated his colleagues should be in the article, but I agree that these sources aren't good (especially the one where the Liberal Party is trying to push their assessment of Rudd's persona - I imagine that the ALP had a similar profile of Abbott's persona, and this also is about as far from being a reliable or useful source on the topic as it's possible to get). A more useful reference would be the final chapter of the ANU-published book The Rudd Government which provides a scholarly (eg, well-referencedand well-rounded) discussion of the topic. Nick-D (talk) 10:18, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Any material on this topic should also note the views of the people who defended Rudd - several ministers and MPs have said that he always worked well with them, and others have said that he learned from his downfall (from memory, Rudd has also said this). Nick-D (talk) 10:30, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Leading to defeat

Looking at this diff, WWGB wants to remove any suggestion of blame indicated by the phrase Rudd led Labor to defeat. Given that Labor was facing a massive defeat under Gillard's leadership, and Rudd was called back to to the leadership after three rejections to "save the furniture", this seems a reasonable summary. He was seen as leading Labor to a less severe defeat. Few reliable sources looked on him as winning, and his concession speech implicitly accepted this. --Pete (talk) 07:22, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Can you please give your tiresome POV pushing a rest? Saying that Rudd "led Labor to defeat" pins the blame on him, and is not needed given what "was defeated" exists as a neutral and clearer alternative. Nick-D (talk) 07:33, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
I'm sorry? I didn't come up with the phrase "saving the furniture". Rudd was drafted to lead the ALP to defeat. Simple as that. Mainstream view. If you can find a political commentator with an alternate view, please advise. --Pete (talk) 08:30, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

2007 Ruddslide

I think it's appropriate to describe Rudd's 2007 victory as a landslide. WP:IDIOM seems to refer to popular terms which are inappropriate for the topic, and "landslide" is a very common one in election talk. However, in List of landslide victories, the 2007 result is not included, and I think the criteria for inclusion there is flawed, as per my note on the talk page. I'd like more input and opinions, please? --Pete (talk) 23:18, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

It's obviously an emotive, loaded, POV word. As an encyclopaedia we should simply give the numbers, showing comparisons where appropriate, and let readers draw their own conclusions based on facts, and not be led by journalistic language. There is no need to use the word "landslide" at all in political articles. HiLo48 (talk) 01:09, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
A quick search on the term finds several thousand references for political landslide within Wikipedia. As noted, we have a list of such events numbering well over a hundred from 32 different nations. It seems customary, commonplace amongst the sources we use and the only question is how much of a swing makes it a landslide? Other fields have their own accepted jargon terms, such as hat trick in cricket, bugs in computing, bugs in espionage. "Landslide" is commonplace in Australian political articles - I'd like to see a consensus develop before we start blanketly editing all these articles.--Pete (talk) 03:16, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
We can very accurately define a hat trick or a bug. They aren't terms used sloppily by attention seeking journalists, as "landslide" is. Without a precise definition, it's a poor choice of word for an encyclopaedia. As for justifying it's use in Rudd's article because it's used a lot elsewhere, I'm sure you already know about OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. It's not a strong argument. And political articles tend be be written and edited by excited semi-participants in the process, who tend not to have the most objective perspectives. They certainly aren't good at using non-emotive language, which is what we should be always aiming for here. HiLo48 (talk) 03:50, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
Well, you're certainly entitled to your opinion, and as the term is used widely within political articles, it would be good to get a likewise wider input, wouldn't you agree? --Pete (talk) 04:03, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
I've just been reminded of why I get cranky discussing things with you. I make a thoughtful response to your post, with background and reasons, which you then dismiss it as simply my opinion, and then seek input from others (who you no doubt hope will agree with you). I don't think you've ever said anything like "Yes, I see your point. It's a good one." It happens a lot for me on other articles. Sometimes I'm able to be convinced that I'm wrong, but never with simply "That's just your opinion." That will never work, and makes me pretty confident I'm right here. HiLo48 (talk) 04:13, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
I'm with HiLo on this one. The issue is not that the term "landslide" is widely used, it's that it's impossible to define. At what point do we cut it off? To use a somewhat comparable journalistic term, Thomson and Slipper will no doubt be referred to as "disgraced ex-politicians" now, a term that is used by the media all the time whenever someone left office with any degree of controversy. It's a loaded term and a useless one in encyclopaedic terms. That list article is utterly absurd and should be deleted. (Federal 1946, 1958? WA 2013? Please.) Frickeg (talk) 04:50, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
Is "disgraced ex-politician" widely used on Wikipedia? Only three times, twice on this page, so it's not really a comparable term. Feel free to suggest the list for deletion. Your point about definition is valid. Just as we define a hat trick as three wickets in a row, we can likewise agree on a numerical threshold for the term landslide. I would say it's bigger than a five percent swing, just looking at the examples already used. HiLo would say it would have to be 100%, so it's probably within those two bounds. --Pete (talk) 05:28, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
I don't know, I was just using it as an example. But yes, I've AfDed the page. Frickeg (talk) 05:33, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
HiLo, when I say "you are entitled to your opinion", I'm not trying to belittle you. Obviously I have my opinion too, and I trust that you accept that I am likewise entitled to it and that I am not belittling my own opinion by saying so. I've backed up my opinion with facts and sources, showing that the term is widespread in Wikipedia. I can hunt through the reliable sources we have already used for this article, and I make no doubt that I would come up with many uses of the term to describe both the 2007 and 2013 election results. If we are using these sources to support our article, then what is your objection to the use of the terms used in these sources? --Pete (talk) 05:39, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS negates other usage as a valid argument. That journalists use the word is also of no significance. This is an encyclopaedia, not the Daily Telegraph. Of course, I already made those points, and you failed to respond last time, so I'll ignore you from now on, again, because you are so rude, and obsessed with proving me wrong! (Or maybe it's just incompetence?) HiLo48 (talk) 06:08, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
Naturally I am aware of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but as I noted above, that other stuff includes several thousand Wikipedia articles, so obviously we can look to a wider audience of editors for input; this is not just a handful of editors misusing a term. I disagree about your opinion on journalists: we use them for our reliable sources and the term "landslide" is a very common one amongst reputable Australian sources. It is not just a small gutter press subset. It is the ABC, The Age, The SMH… All in all it's a huge list. I am sorry if I am seen as rude - this is not my intention and if you would indicate where this has occurred I will attempt to soothe your ruffled feathers. Nor do I see this as something where you or I are right or wrong - I'm looking for wider input on how the term could be used and a useful definition seems to be essential to avoid misuse. Your opinion is valued, as are any facts or sources you may bring to the discussion. --Pete (talk) 06:22, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
For the info of others, nobody was agreeing with Pete/Skyring here, so he's gone forum shopping with it to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Australian politics. HiLo48 (talk) 08:58, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
Sigh. Every time with you two. Just state your point and then stop - it's not that hard. It doesn't have to become a big drama. FWIW I would think WT:AUP is a perfectly logical place to raise this issue, and I should really have done it myself when I nominated the landslides page for deletion. We've had three people involved in this discussion so far; it could do with further input. Frickeg (talk) 10:05, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
That would all be fine if this had been a rational discussion. It wasn't. Pete simply ignores the points I make. He is one of the most uncivil editors here. HiLo48 (talk) 11:11, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
Frickeg makes a very good point, and we are beginning(!) to sound like an old married couple comfortably squabbling away. However, I will do you the courtesy of addressing - one by one - the issues you raise and which I may not have addressed. Other editors, please bear with me, or protest, privately if need be. I really don't want to be too tedious.
  • an emotive, loaded, POV word. The image of the landslide exactly parallels the image of votes or seats moving from one pile to another. The political landscape shifts, the previous balance tilts, there is a new reality. There are degrees of political victory and it is unremarkable to refer to them in terms which aid comprehension. A narrow win, a thumping victory, a "hung parliament". You can't get much more vivid than the last, but it was in all the papers on a daily basis over the past three years. We use the term in a non-POV or non-partisan fashion to describe victories by both sides. The only way it could be used in a POV fashion is to describe a narrow win as a landslide win, and we have our reliable sources to fall back on. If the ABC describes an election result as a landslide - and it did in at least one of the sources we use for this article - then where is the problem? We have to use sources for our material. Are you saying the ABC has a distinct political bias in its reporting and we should not use it? --Pete (talk) 20:45, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Asylum Seeker Boat Graph

I've added the Asylum Seeker Boat Graph to this article as Rudd was the one who originally tinkered with the Pacific Solution which is shown on the graph. Also as this issue is very important to the current upcoming election it should help clarify the time period that the policy was changed.Crocodile2009 (talk) 03:04, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

I went to the website to check the figures on this graph, and the do not seem to be correct. Am I misunderstanding something in your diagram? Here is a link if anyone else wants to check: http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/BN/2011-2012/BoatArrivals#_Toc285178607 Roy Scherer (talk) 11:50, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Resignation

The article says "On 13 October 2013 Rudd announced that he would retire from the parliament at the end of the week.[14]". Shouldn't it say November? 121.216.206.40 (talk) 09:46, 13 November 2013 (UTC)Random person

Yep. Fixed. Thanks. HiLo48 (talk) 10:01, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
As for the effective date, we're saying 16 November, which was yesterday Saturday. Surely "the end of the week" would have meant the last day of the working week, Friday 15 November. No? Actually he said "by the end of week", not "at the end of the week", and that could have meant Thursday 14th. Actually (x2), it makes no difference what he said on Wednesday night, as members cannot resign with any notice at all. The only time a resignation is ever given serious attention by the Speaker is when it is delivered to her in writing; and it becomes effective immediately she receives it. Do we know when Rudd actually delivered a resignation letter to her or sent her an an email or whatever? -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 00:58, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
Well, I'm glad I asked, because as of right now (evening, Monday 18th), he has still not resigned and may not for a few days yet - [2]. I've edited the article to remove the "former politican" stuff and the (completely unsourced and made up out of thin air) term end date. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 06:27, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
According to The Sydney Morning Herald, Rudd resigned in writing to the Speaker on Thursday night (21 November) [3]. --Canley (talk) 04:38, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
According to the ABC, the Speaker received his letter of resignation today, and the Parliament House website gives the resignation date as 22 November. --Canley (talk) 05:57, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Boat arrivals graph needs updating or removing

Can someone please update the boat arrivals graph to include 2013. If it doesn't get updated i'll be removing it in due course, as obviously, the current time period of data used in the graph is unbalanced and selective. An updated but copyrighted graph can be seen here. Timeshift (talk) 01:53, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

I'd turf it anyway, to be honest. Maybe useful in an article on immigration, not in Rudd's bio. Frickeg (talk) 02:54, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
It's in several articles actually. Timeshift (talk) 02:58, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
Even less reason for it to stay here, then. Frickeg (talk) 03:15, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
I'd agree with it to be in the government article as it currently is and remove it from the bio page, but the main point is that it needs updating. If it was a choice between only updating or only removing... updating. I almost want to remove it from all articles until it's updated. I may just do that... thoughts? Timeshift (talk) 03:23, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
Definitely get rid of it from here. I agree in principle with it appearing in all of the other articles where it currently does. How long does this kind of thing typically take to update? There may be a case for temporary removal from the others. Definitely worth waiting for further input, though. Frickeg (talk) 04:02, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
Yes, not important enough to be here. I wish we could skip forward ten or twenty years and see how this boat arrival thing looked in retrospect. I suspect history will downgrade its real importance a lot. HiLo48 (talk) 04:14, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
Done. As for the graph needing updating and the other articles the graph is still in... Timeshift (talk) 04:59, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

I have updated the graph as requested, and therefore restored it in the articles where it was used. --Surturz (talk) 06:00, 28 January 2014 (UTC) P.S. Except this article, since consensus seems against the graph's inclusion here. --Surturz (talk) 06:05, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

On a year by year basis? LOL! Nice way to skew the data there. Too scared for a month by month breakdown? I bet you are. Timeshift (talk) 07:07, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
Actually I would like a monthly series if you can find one going back to 1992 when mandatory detention started. We've been using the yearly series up until now because that is all that was available. --Surturz (talk) 09:31, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
Shouldn't it be either amended or removed as it doesn't even begin to demonstrate what numbers when? You'd think numbers are still going up based on the current graph! Timeshift (talk) 23:05, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
The dramatic change in policy means that numbers now aren't as meaningful or available as they were in the past. I'm not sure whether the numbers under the current Government will be directly comparable to those under past Governments, which might limit the graph's usefulness into the future. - Bilby (talk) 23:36, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
The graph is mainly used in historical articles that cover several years or decades. I think yearly numbers are fine for those (though as I said before, monthly numbers for the same span would be better). I'm not sure which article Timeshift9 is worried about. Operation Sovereign Borders does not use the graph, opting for a table of monthly numbers from a different source, which I agree is more appropriate there given it is more recent.
If someone can find a monthly data series (for more than just the last few months), I'd be happy to update the graph. Or even make a second graph. --Surturz (talk) 01:54, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
These are the articles the current and misleading graph are used in. Timeshift (talk) 01:56, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Howard govt, Pacific Solution, Rudd Govt, Gillard govt are all historical articles, so the graph is not "misleading" in those articles. I do not agree that the graph is used misleadingly in the Asylum in Australia article, but I have removed it from there - for now - to assuage your concerns.

I think we should also be careful to avoid WP:RECENTISM. It is early days yet for the new policy/policies, we can't say definitively that the boats have stopped. It's only been a month or so without any boat arrivals. This graph takes a long-term, historical view. --03:11, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

The few hundred boat arrivals per week that were arriving in the final weeks under Rudd are significantly higher than the average of around 60 boat arrivals PER YEAR under the Pacific Solution. Boat arrivals were actually lower in Jan 2013 and Feb 2013 then after the introduction of the PNG Solution, but before the introduction of Operation Sovereign Borders. What we do know however is that July 2013, the first month of Rudd 2.0 resulted in the highest monthly boat arrivals in Australian history with 4236 Arrivals. The ABC makes the mistake therefore of only starting their graph at the peak month(not sure why they did this, leave it to your imagination) and showed numbers coming down from a peak number but only to a "5 Month low". Current numbers under Operation Sovereign Borders? 5 YEAR Lows. Without a crystal ball we can only speculate on what the PNG Solution might have achieved, but Wikipedia is not a psychic medium.RandomUsername765 (talk) 03:22, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
I still can't see how data from 1989 is relevant to this article. Why 1989? Was that a good year? Why not 1959? To give global context to these numbers should UNHCR data be used? Asylum seekers is not a uniquely Australian issue. CamV8 (talk) 23:29, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps 1989 is a good place to start, unless we want to include the wave of Vietnamese arrivals from the Whitlam/Fraser years. Perhaps we could have data from (say) 2006-2014, which would show the numbers of arrivals during the Rudd years in a limited context. Something to get consensus on before any major change, I think. --Pete (talk) 23:47, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Member of Parliament for Griffith

Please comment out Terri Butler as succeeding member for Griffith. Regardless of the likely outcome, votes are still being counted and seat has not yet been declared. She will not be a Member of Parliament until she is sworn in. This is not politically motivated, this is entirely about factual accuracy. 203.9.185.136 (talk) 05:28, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Just a technical note. Newly elected MPs are members of parliament and fully entitled to use the postnominal MP from election day. The result is not always clear on election night, but they get to use MP as soon as it becomes clear (which always precedes their swearing in, BTW). Their salary is backdated to election day, and their service to the parliament is deemed to have commenced on election day. Same with senators-elect. They usually have to wait till 1 July for their service to commence, but they're entitled to be called senator-elect from the moment the result is clear. When 1 July does roll around, their status instantly changes from senators-elect to senators, despite the fact that the parliament is rarely or ever sitting on that day and they can't be sworn in till August. Swearing in is required for senators and members to take their physical seats in the chamber and participate in the business of the house; but a member who has a stroke the day after election day and is in a coma when parliament resumes, is just as much an MP as their colleagues who turned up to parliament to be sworn in. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 18:55, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Alex Elliot-Sharp

I'm wondering why the page Alex Elliot-Sharp redirects here. It was created back in 2009, but there's no reference to it in the article, and a quick Google search isn't generating much. Can someone shed some light on this? Paul MacDermott (talk) 18:13, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Looking at the creator's other "contributions", I'd recommend it be deleted. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 19:00, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
Definitely agree. :) I'll {{db-redirect}} it. Paul MacDermott (talk) 20:16, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

adj former misplaced; He remains an Australian and a former politician

needs to be changedTaikomochiyarichin (talk) 00:44, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Rudd and UN Sec-Gen

For starters the original source for this is The Guardian (http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/apr/19/bob-carr-believes-kevin-rudd-ideal-for-top-job-at-united-nations) not Whale Oil dot co dot nz. Secondly the article very faintly suggests there has been some speculation about this (let's hope it's a bit more concrete than Gareth Evans supposed run for the same job) but really offers no evidence. The rest of the article is just Bob Carr talking him up. Does any of this really warrant the suggestion Rudd really wants the job? Tigerman2005 (talk) 03:37, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Agree completely. I've removed it. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:46, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Residence

The Rudd's home at Norman Park has been vacant for a while and now its been sold. This suggests he has moved to Noosa but something more definite would be better. - Shiftchange (talk) 06:12, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 February 2015

  • Please add the following to the end of the opening paragraph:

In 2015, he became the first President of the Asia Society Policy Institute, based at the Asia Society's New York City headquarters. [4]


  • Please add the following to the end of the fourth paragraph:

In October 2014, he was named the President of the Asia Society Policy Institute in New York City.

Tlauasiasoc (talk) 20:31, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Rudd, Kevin (8 May 2005). "Kevin Rudd: The God Factor" (Interview). Interviewed by Gerald Doogue. I come from a long history of people who have spoken about the relevance of their faith to their political beliefs, on our side of politics going back. I mean here in Queensland Andrew Fisher was the Labor Prime Minister from this State. Andrew Fisher was a Christian Socialist. He taught Presbyterian Sunday School. He in turn came out of the stable of Keir Hardie who was himself a Presbyterian Sunday School teacher who founded the British Labour Party in the 1890's and was the first British Labour member of parliament. There's a long tradition associated with this; currently called the Christian Socialist Movement. And it's a worldwide network of people. The fact that you don't often hear from us in this country, well it's open for others to answer. I'm a relatively recent arrival. But I think, I think given what's happening on the political right in this country, what's happening on the political right in America, it's important that people on the centre-left of politics begin to argue a different perspective from within the Christian tradition. {{cite interview}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help); Cite has empty unknown parameters: |subjectlink= and |city= (help); Unknown parameter |callsign= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |program= ignored (help)
  2. ^ Maiden, Samantha (16 December 2009). "Rudd's decision to take holy communion at Catholic mass causes debate". Retrieved 18 February 2012. {{cite news}}: Text "work-The Australian" ignored (help)
  3. ^ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mundingburra_state_by-election,_1996
  4. ^ http://asiasociety.org/policy-institute/kevin-rudd-former-australian-pm-head-asia-society-policy-institute
Already done in Kevin Rudd#United States. Stickee (talk) 23:13, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it's already done in the US section, but the header section should indicate current employment. Could you add accordingly? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tlauasiasoc (talk • contribs) 16:52, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Criticism

The article is very coy about mentioning the one thing about Kevin Rudd that marks him out from every other Australian Prime Minister: the sustained, savage, and very public criticism that he has incurred from members of his own party. To give our readers the impression that he resigned because he wanted to spend more time with his family (most of whom grew up and moved out during his career) is a nonsense. He resigned because he was told he was no longer welcome. I've added two recent sources - from Maxine Mckew and Nicola Roxon - and there are many, many more.[4] --Pete (talk) 21:11, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree with you wholeheartedly. I think there should be a section on the criticism he received and the controversy he courted, as well as the very public displays of disunity during that period of the ALP. I think that era is of tremendous importance and interest to historians and political analysts.203.110.235.136 (talk) 23:00, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

The article is getting too long with trivia, and has not enough solid fact. Rudd was only the second PM to serve in non-consecutive terms; needs more expansion. We don't need opinion poll graphs, and especially from the Howard govt. era. All leaders get criticised. It's only worth mentioning if causes some material outcome, such as Abbott being banned from appearances in the 2015 Qld election.220.244.77.22 (talk) 04:11, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Pete, the sustained public ostracisation from his party is not something unique to Kevin Rudd. Students of history will remember Jack Lang (expelled from the ALP in 1942) which was a far more fractious affair. A more mild case was Fraser who became estranged from his party over the years, eventually being publicly at odds with his own party. In Fraser's case the attack was not so direct but it is significant that the Liberal narrative is relatively mute about his legacy (as compared to common and frequency references to the Howard era). Politicians almost always site personal reasons for resigning, its even considered a euphemism in common parlance, readers usually read this context into this phrasing. I agree with need to cover the internal and external decent as an important factor in the politics of the times, but we need to be careful to place it in its historical context.Fincle (talk) 02:05, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Kevin Rudd. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:22, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Kevin Rudd. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:50, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Kevin Rudd. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 22:24, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 9 external links on Kevin Rudd. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:32, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Kevin Rudd. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:16, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Kevin Rudd. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:06, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Kevin Rudd. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:37, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Kevin Rudd. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:32, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Kevin Rudd. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:28, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Australian Industrial Relations Reforms during P.M. Rudd's tenure-the truth.

I am a new member of this Wikipedia page,everything I am putting up for discussion will be based on truth and evidence collected by myself over the last 6 years as a retirement research project.The area of research started out as just Industrial relations changes in the Australian landscape from around 2006 when momentous changes were being discussed by both major parties in the government.In 2006 labor was putting together new plans to fight the 2007 election on the changing conditions that were passed in govt. by the Lib/Nat govt in 2006.At the labor party Union conferences of 2006 & 2007 ,the plan was made quite clearly to put a completely new Industrial relations Landscape together that would favour the Union Movement primarily and the big unionised businesses that had Bargaining Agreements with the Unions.The conference speeches made it quite clear that the primary target of the new system would be the Non-Incorporated private sector of the Small Business world in all states.During the Election campaign however this fact was not mentioned and 'Forward with fairness was promoted as a level playing field for ALL employees in Australia.It was not mentioned either that ONLY the Private sector would come under the new System[fairwork] from the 1/1/2010 and that Western Austern Australia declined to join the new System although it was always touted as applying to ALL Australian Workers for their better good.A major problem for Labor was that as the States handed over their private sectors to the federal Govt.the coverage of the non-incorporated Businesses could not be obtained without a major change to the Australian federal Corporations Act.A change to this Act could not be achieved without alerting the public to the true reasons of why this change was required,to operate a small business under the same conditions a s company would put out of business most non-incorporated small businesses with the loss of Hundreds of thousands of non-union jobs.A decision was made in early 2008 to bring into parliament a Bill that did not mention the Non-Incorporated sector or that the Corporations Act did not give the federal Govt. jurisdiction over them from the 1/1/2010 when Fairwark was implemented.What this meant was that parliament passed a bill that was in herently unlawful on the 28/3/2008 and that the Ministers tabled Industrial Instrument directing the A.I.R.C.to implement the new system by demand was also unlawful as a Minister cannot demand he/she can only request the body in question to start the Modernisation process[this original vanished in strange circumstances from the national Parliamentary Archives in 2011 to be replaced by a cleansed version!.In early 2011 the federal govt. via very unethical Labor States Industrial contract agreements imposed the new fairwork System on the non-incorporated sector unlawfully and all states who signed up to participate in it-knew that.In 2010 P.M. Rudd was unseated and although he and the deputy P.M. were the driving forces behind this true account about what really happened,the union Movement continued with the plan implementation under the new leader.I feel that K.Rudd's page should be edited to include these 'truths'which are easily checked as they remain in force and the Corporations Act has not been changed since its inception over a 100 years ago.As stated previously I have evidence to support this truthful side to this industrial relations saga in K.Rudd's page.Sincerely Rockstone.Rockstone87 (talk) 17:47, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi Rockstone87, and welcome to Wikipedia. You're most welcome to contribute what you can to this or any article, but do remember that this policy indicates that Wikipedia's role is to present facts and information which have already been presented by reliable sources, rather than any previously-unpublished synthesis you may have conducted. This may well be entirely in accord with what you're intending to add to the article, but it's always an important point to make when recent political events - in any country - are being discussed, as even the most impartial of us frequently have a "horse in the race", whether we know it or not. Please feel free to click on the link pointing to my User Talk page if you have any questions about this, as you can ask them there (or here, for that matter). BigHaz - Schreit mich an 22:12, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kevin_Rudd/Archive_8&oldid=1136264934"