Talk:Kevin Rudd/Archive 5

Defense policy

Would anyone like to provide Kevin Rudd's view on Defense policy with regards to spending 100 billion dollars to turn Australia in a military superpower with 2 aircraft carriers, 18 subs and the like. According to articles in "The Australian" and the upcoming defense white paper, Kevin Rudd is worried by China and India, but mostly China. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.76.18.50 (talk) 12:44, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

What's the G-20?

Is the PM's alleged leaking of a conversation where President Bush exhibited ignorance of the G20 notable[2]? I don't think it is, but then again editors seemed very keen to include Howard's comments about Obama in that article... --Surturz (talk) 04:08, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Your second half of the comment appears quite the WP:SOAPBOX and WP:POINT. Howard stating that terrorists are praying for "a win not only for Obama, but also for the Democrats", in parliament, is far cry from allegations re G20 that from day one has been hammered by The Australian. Timeshift (talk) 04:29, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the article in today's Oz mentioned the Obama quote. But thanks for the personal attack, anyway ;-) --Surturz (talk) 04:53, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

All the media did, as it was a big deal, even bigger now that Obama is president. And no worries! Timeshift (talk) 05:03, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

If you think Obama is president, maybe you should get someone to check your contributions for accuracy. The Howard/Obama stuff is irrelevant here, but it looks like the leaking is fair dinkum - every paper, every news report on Rudd and Bush linked Bush's lack of warmth with the leaked conversation. To butter the bread on the other side, it is sourced and notable. --Pete (talk) 05:20, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah the ABC, SBS and SMH picked up the story, so it's not just a news.com.au beat-up. If we apply the same criteria to this sordid episode as was applied to the Obama quote, then the Bush-G20 quote should be included. (BTW check this URL out: [3]) --Surturz (talk) 05:32, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Except that one was in parliament and one was on a phone call that is still alleged; and one said terrorists prayed for an Obama/Democrat victory and one we don't even know exactly what was said, but nothing along the lines of partisan destroying politics. And President/President-elect, have fun playing the sematics game Pete. Timeshift (talk) 05:39, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I knew what you meant - an easy mistake to make. No offence intended! The leaked phone call is a valid story, well-sourced and affecting an important relationship. If the US president is pissed off at us, it's notable. --Pete (talk) 05:48, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Spokesmen for both sides said it was a non-event, nothing happened, water under the bridge, and there was no change in anything. If you want to go by media sensationalism that Bush wasn't warm to Rudd the other day, that's up to you. Timeshift (talk) 05:51, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

It's a valid and important front-page story, with reliable sources. Respected political commentators have made the link. While we should always take what the media says with a grain of salt, an entire salt shaker is required when dealing with political spin-doctors! They are very dubious sources. --Pete (talk) 05:59, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Since when does being a front-page story from reliable sources make an issue WP:NOTE and WP:V? Timeshift (talk) 06:01, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I'll throw your question over to Lester. --Pete (talk) 06:08, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Nice copout. The silence is deafening. Timeshift (talk) 06:14, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Can only speak for myself, but I have opposed most of the proposed inclusions from the other side as well on a similar basis to my opposition on this occasion. Orderinchaos 08:11, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

An excellent question indeed! --Surturz (talk) 06:23, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

What point are you trying to make? It's been said time and time again that news articles from reliable sources does not establish noteability. It does however form part of an argument to demonstrate noteability. The Obama issue was debated, and all things considered, it was added and is now there based upon the decisions of the collective wikipedia community. This issue pales in comparison to the Obama issue. Just one of many points, all of this current issue is based upon speculation and hearsay, regarding what Bush may or may not have said, as opposed to the Obama issue, where Howard, in parliament, said an Obama/Democrat win would be a win for the terrorists. Reliable sources form part of an argument, they are not a defining feature of noteability. Timeshift (talk) 07:45, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

The whole thing is basically the mother of all beatups - there *is* no reliable sources because noone on either side has confirmed the exchange even occurred? It's basically a headline looking for a story (and not finding one). I talked recently to an American editor about this matter who found it hilarious that for something making such headlines in Australia none of the major US papers had even mentioned it, especially looking at the New York Times, Washington Post etc which tend to report on international topics affecting the US. I also recall the sincere and strong opposition to the inclusion at all of the actual, televised, without-a-doubt comments by Howard about Obama by the very same editors pushing this one, and really have to wonder if partisanship has actually been left at the door. Orderinchaos 07:55, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

My concern is with the hypocrisy on display. It's a valid story, well-sourced, and given supporting credence by Bush snubbing Rudd. This is actual factual material about the relationship between two national leaders. Are we to believe the spin that nothing untoward happened and The Australian just made it up? Or, if we take everything at face value, we have Rudd untruthfully ascribing an ignorant comment to Bush and reporting it to The Australian, perhaps as a thoughtless jest. Now, I noted at the time that the Howard/Obama spat was notional, as Obama was a long way from the presidency. But this is real. There's a problem with the US/Australian relationship, and either it's caused by Rudd gleefully repeating an ignorant comment by Bush, or untruthfully alleging that Bush said it. Either way, Bush is rightfully upset. As Rudd makes much of his diplomatic experience, this is a gaffe of the first magnitude, and should be included in his biography. We don't have to speculate, because there are any number of respected commentators saying the same thing, and I'm merely summarising their comments. --Pete (talk) 09:12, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

It is not "actual factual material". Everyone involved, including the allegedly slighted party, has denied it. (Compare this with Obama where Obama actually responded to it). No-one witnessed it, or has been prepared to come forward and say they did. There's not even proof that it came from Rudd or was even political (it could have been journalists joking over a drink and someone assumed someone knew or had heard more than they had - I used to work at Channel 9, news can start that way.) There's no "problem with the US/Australian relationship" if the statements coming from the US, the sheer lack of statements in reliable American or international papers, and Rudd's ability to meet with VERY senior people in the US administration on this visit and etc is anything to go by. "Supporting credence by Bush snubbing Rudd" - he shook his hand, that's hardly a snub - and you wouldn't expect brotherly relations given Rudd pulled Australia out of Iraq and is not committing more to Afghanistan, and is not ideologically linked to Bush as were Sarkozy and Berlusconi, the two that Australian media have singled out as comparisons. There is no "facts", it's all speculation in a single newspaper which got a bit carried away and stuff Wikipedia would do well to stay away from. Orderinchaos 10:27, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually, smh has a fairly detailed account of how the telephone call was leaked. So that is at least two papers covering it, in addition to the ABC and SBS. --Surturz (talk) 12:15, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually, no it doesn't. It merely contains the *single line*: "Mr Rudd slipped into the adjacent study to take the call, of which a blow-by-blow account contends Mr Rudd was "stunned" when Mr Bush asked: "What's the G20?"" It doesn't even suggest how it was "leaked". The originator of the "blow-by-blow" account, or even the contents of it, have never come out or been disclosed. I would dismiss this as anonymous speculation being reported by the newspaper and being drummed into a story by the editor of The Australian. Orderinchaos 12:21, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

The facts are plain. The Australian reported, presumably with the authority of the editor-in-chief, who was present at Kirribilli, that "during the 30-minute conversation, Mr Rudd was stunned to hear Mr Bush say: "What's the G20?"" In an editorial, most certainly with the full approval of the senior staff, The Australian states, "We stand by the story with confidence."[4] That's one fact. The second fact is widely reported, with footage, that Bush's greeting of Rudd at the G20 summit was cool, in marked contrast to his enthusiastic public greeting of other leaders. We are used to Bush greeting John Howard with genuine warmth, but the Rudd/Bush relationship is widely reported as being frosty.[5]

We don't know what Rudd and Bush said to each other. I'm certainly not trying to present that as a fact. What we have is a widely-reported conversation in which Bush is supposed to have stunned Rudd with his ignorance of the G20. A third fact is that both Rudd and Bush have denied that Bush was ignorant of the G20, which, considering that Bush had convened the meeting two days earlier, has the ring of truth. So it seems that Rudd gave an untruthful account of the conversation, with the aim of ridiculing Bush, to his guests. Whether deliberate or as an idle jest, it was a gaffe that is all the more notable considering Rudd's diplomatic background. If the story was "journalists joking over a drink", then it is most unlikely that The Australian would state in an editorial, three weeks later, that it stands by the story with confidence.

It is worth looking at commentary from outside The Australian, such as Andrew Bolt's examination of Rudd's attempts to defend himself.[6]

We have reliable sources and we have notability in the heads-of-government relationship. The story and its effect on the relationship are the actual-factual material, not some high-level conversation we have no way of verifying, so I'd appreciate it if we could firmly bury that particular red herring and stick with verifiable facts as reported by reliable sources. --Pete (talk) 13:46, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Except that there are no verifiable facts or reliable sources. We have the word of a newspaper editor against both of the protagonists in the tale. The fact that an editor defends his own journalist merely demonstrates loyalty in the face of questioning, as one would expect in any situation where the facts are unclear at best, but it does not speak for the facts. Any of the evidence regarding "frostiness" is pure speculation and original research, especially given Rudd got to meet one-on-one with Bernanke, Paulson and one other whom I don't remember at this point during his visit, which contradicts any sort of notion of a diplomatic freeze over the incident. Also, The Australian has made plenty of errors in the past. I think the attempt to use Andrew Bolt as an independent source is the height of clutching at straws, unfortunately. Orderinchaos 18:27, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

If you could, perhaps, read what I wrote and respond to it, that might be helpful. My concern here is that I can't trust Wikipedia to be a useful source of information on Australian politics, because people keep on battling away to present their favoured political football team in as favorable a light as possible and to sink the boot into the other side. --Pete (talk) 20:19, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

But that just shows your bias Pete, that you believe the two issues hold the same WP:NOTE, and WP:V, which they do not. Have a great day! Timeshift (talk) 23:01, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I trust you can see the irony in your statement, Timeshift. Those words are exactly what Skyring could say about your position, but reversed.

As for me, “beat up” indeed. Keep it out. When are editors going to get serious and quit “barracking for their team”, and contribute in a manner than earns them, and wikipedia’s Oz political articles some cred? With reference to the Howard-Obama drama, the double standards here are appalling. --Merbabu (talk) 23:21, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Orderinchaos sums it up best. This issue is all speculation and not WP:V. The comments Howard made about Obama are completely WP:V, it was said in parliament! But that aside, this issue pales in comparison to Howard saying a party and their presidential nominees success would be a win for terrorists. Timeshift (talk) 23:34, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

(remove indent)While the *events* may not be verifiable, the *issue* certainly is and I’d argue that since it has had an impact already at G20 amongst two actual leaders (as opposed to a candidate and now former leader) it is *marginally more* worthy of inclusion than the Howard-Obama drama. But, this is irrelevant – neither point is worthy of inclusion in either article, and IMO those arguing for the inclusion of either need to seriously think about what sort of an encyclopaedia they want. Both these suggest an articles that are trivial, recentish and laundry list of “barracking for ones’ team”. Very interesting to once again see consistency in the supporters. --Merbabu (talk) 23:44, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm quite disappointed in your lack of WP:AGF Merbabu. Each issue is taken on its merits, one is WP:NOTE and WP:V, one isn't. If you call that “barracking for ones’ team”, I pity you. Timeshift (talk) 23:57, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

As I am actually in *agreement* with you on the worthiness of the “G20 issue” inclusion (aleit for not completely identical reasoning), I will not further request anyone addresses my distinction between the verifiability of the *events* and the *issue*. And thanks for both the links to the most fundamental of wikipedia policy and for the “pity”. As a long standing wikipedia editor, I need both. ;-) --Merbabu (talk) 00:31, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

And again, news articles from reliable sources in itself does not establish either WP:NOTE, or WP:V, each issue must be judged on its merits. Howard addressed parliament, and stated a victory for one of the major parties, and their potential President, would be a victory for terrorists. Tell me, what did Rudd say? Kgo. Timeshift (talk) 09:43, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

• Oh look, Timeshift seems happy to trust an anonymous reporter when they quote mysterious, unnamed Liberal MPs. However, if a named senior reporter quotes a named MP, that's unreliable. You've been caught red-handed, Timeshift9. --Surturz (talk) 14:41, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Your lack of WP:AGF is disturbing. It is one thing to claim Rudd said something about Bush/G20 without knowing who is claiming it, what was said, the context, etc etc, it is another when Liberal MPs are accusing other Liberal MPs of plagiarising (fact) and not being up to their cabinet position, regardless of which Liberal MP said it, with other Liberal MPs telling those de-stabilising Liberal MPs to pull their heads in. Right from the beginning of the G20 debate, you agreed it was not noteable, but used the Obama/Howard issue (which was included in the Howard article after much discussion by many contributors) in a WP:POINTy fashion. I respectfully request you improve your attitude to the encyclopedia, it is not cohesive nor constructive. Timeshift (talk) 13:26, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

To be frankly honest - 1. Disputes on other pages' edits should be brought up either on that article's talk page or on the user's. Using this page as a laundry list of grievances against editors is really not acceptable - it's for discussions on how to improve Kevin Rudd. 2. This incident, like the G20 situation, shows us once again how reporters sometimes make the news rather than report it, and we should stick to the facts and avoid speculation or partisan commentary, whether reported in a supposedly reliable source such as a newspaper or not. A good story needs only the facts to tell it, readers can read the source articles and the facts as presented and reach their own conclusions. Orderinchaos 14:16, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

"John Howard generates a lot of media attention every day of the week, merely by being Prime Minister. Looking at today's papers, I find only peripheral mentions of this particular story. I doubt that there is any media frenzy in US papers over the issue. The fact is that it is no big deal and does not belong in a biographical article. As I said, if it still has legs in a month's time, then by all means include it. in the meantime, write it up in WikiNews. --Pete 02:03, 15 February 2007 (UTC)" -- Peter Ballard (talk) 22:51, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Precisely. It's an issue in a way that the Howard/Obama thing never was and never will be. Front page news, with pictures and footage of Rudd smiling and Bush not, and every journalist making the connection. It's a sock in the teeth for Rudd's diplomatic credentials to have made such a cock-up with a major ally. And yet we have editors anxious to keep Rudd's article free from anything that reflects badly on him. Why? Not because of Rudd himself, who is a mere human being like everyone else, capable of errors and misjudgments, wins and losses, bad days and good. Oh no. It's because Rudd belongs to their chosen political football team and they must sing the team song. We're supposed to be writing an encyclopaedia, not trying to put a gloss on the facts. --Pete (talk) 01:23, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

The telephone leak issue is certainly notable, it was covered internationally (The Times London, BBC etc etc), so on that basis I'd support the inclusion of a brief sentence on it, with the proviso that it is verifiable, or else carries the word "alleged".--Lester 03:28, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Well spotted Lester for this reference you found over at James Bidgood (Australian politician). --Surturz (talk) 04:12, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I've added a brief mention of the affair, carefully phrased. The reports of the indiscretion were widespread, as were reprts of Bush's reaction at the G20 summit itself, but in line with comments above, I think "alleged" is the best wording to use for the actual leak. --Pete (talk) 00:44, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

And i've removed it. It's already been widely discussed here. Non-verifiable, non-noteable, and the rest. Timeshift (talk) 00:51, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually the issue is highly notable. That the *events* as opposed to the *issue* are verifiable or not is actually irrelevant – if it was, we’d get rid of any mention to Schapelle Corby’s (alleged) drug smuggling or OJ’s murder accusations. The distinction between the notability of the issue vs. the verifiability of events is not acknowledged by those denying notability. This is symptomatic of the arguing over oz pol – arguing “sides” often don’t specifically acknowledge the other’s points. ie, acknowledgement is not the same as agreement – we should be at pains to show that we understand each other’s argument, even if we don’t agree. Perhaps you don’t agree with my distinction between notability of issue and verifiability of events, but it would help “cohesion” if it this was acknowledged. But I digress…

The notability that I am asserting is not enough, or more to the point, it is of the wrong kind. I don’t believe it should go in the article. I’m just making the point that it is no less notable (as opposed to verifiable), than the Obama drama (indeed, I’d argue it was more notable) and hence I’m suggesting double standards. Further, no-one should think I’m saying that if we include Obama drama, then we must include G20 issue. On the contrary, if people don’t want G20 here, then I’m happy and don’t believe in trading between articles – I’m just not happy with their reasoning for exclusion! lol. --Merbabu (talk) 01:13, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Timeshift's insistence that any mention of the incident must be founded on the words of the conversation itself misses the point. We have no way of verifying what was actually said, but we know that the incident created a lot of comment in the media, in Parliament, in diplomatic circles. Bush's frosty reception of Rudd at the G20 summit, in marked contrast to his behaviour to other world leaders and to John Howard, was also widely reported. One wonders just how far into his mouth Rudd has to shove his foot before certain editors grudgingly consent to inclusion! --Pete (talk) 08:18, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

(remove indent) Just make it smaller, and include only basic observations. It is a fact that the issue was present in the media, even if it didn’t happen, so perhaps it warrants inclusion in one of the more vocal commentator’s articles (e.g. Bolt)? Or it could be included in the Australian Media page as part of a broader trend analysis.

If conservative editors want it in the Rudd article, it could be placed on a separate page with no direct link to Rudd, where it could endure an extended cycle of drafting and improvement. Then the debate could move on to whether it should be combined with Rudd, as issues of verifiability and notability would have already been addressed within the article.

You could even mention it in the Malcolm Turnbull or Liberal Party articles (e.g. “During question time in parliament, Turnbull has asked Rudd about a leak in his department, relating to private conversations with US President George W. Bush. On the 2nd of November, 2008, Turnbull asked for a Federal Police investigation on this matter.”). This transforms the issue into a mention of accusations from the Liberal Party that there is a leak in Rudd’s department. When viewed and reported that way, notability is more supportable. I don’t want to misrepresent him here, but Timeshift does seem to value things said in parliament (he’s got ubermicro). Since the liberal party’s demands are validated by parliamentary record, perhaps he’ll be more receptive to their inclusion in the forms I highlighted. Martin0001 (talk) 11:22, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

LGBT rights

How is it that LGBT rights gets such extensive coverage compared to, say, a very short sentence on the Iraq war? Isn't this undue WP:WEIGHT? --Surturz (talk) 02:27, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome to expand on the Iraq War. We don't remove to compensate for others with lesser, we improve the lesser to bring it up to pace. Timeshift (talk) 02:54, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, Timeshift. On the other hand, we don’t hold back from expanding one so as not to make it too big in comparison to another. Wikipedia is a work in progress. And hence we should trim where sections waffle on with detail such that the main point is obscured. This is a biography of a person, not the intricacies of LGBT and federal/state politics. --Merbabu (talk) 02:59, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

edit conflict

I think comparing word counts of various sections or points is a dubious method of assessing article neutrality – wikipedia is afterall always a work in progress. However, considering these two sections in isolation, then indeed the Iraq section seems a bit short, while the LGBT section does seem to waffle on a bit. Purely from an editing point of view, I’d recommend expanding the former, and trimming the latter. I don’t really think this has anything to do with undue weight nor in turn nopv/neutrality.

The length and excessive detail of the LGBT section on the other hand brings me to another point: this level of detail would fit very well in a timeline-style Rudd Government article. ;-) --Merbabu (talk) 02:56, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Surturz, you're welcome to start expanding the Iraq War section. The LGBT section is too brief, and shouldn't be shortened. Rudd has said he is personally opposed to LGBT marriage. I'm against splitting this article like the Howard one, but if it were done, it would be the Iraq War that would get moved to the 'Government' article. Because LGBT marriage is a personal issue for Rudd, it should stay in the 'Kevin Rudd' article.--Lester 03:04, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Again, word count is not the sole criteria for measuring “due weight” - in fct, I think it's a poor way to judge. You don’t need 20 sentences to assert notability – depending on the circumstance, 1 well-written sentence is more than adequate.That’s a very poor way to write an article. There are 2 whole articles (that I know of) for LGBT details. The article waffling on about the ACT’s disappointment with the situation does *nothing* to assert notions of “due weight”. Yet, now your proposing expanding it?

If, for example, LGBT issues are indeed a "personal issue for Rudd", then just say that in the article - we then clearly assert notability to Rudd in a few words (without the details), writing 20 sentences as Lester seems to sugggest, doesn't assert notability of the issue.

An exercise: Imagine that the 20-odd 1st term issues already here were expanded to the same size as the LGBT section (or larger still as Lester proposes), then multiply this by 3 as we are one year through a 3-year term, then times this by 2 as the Govt will likely win at least another term, and you have the mother-of-all-messes. Please see WP:SUMMARY. --Merbabu (talk) 03:16, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflic)PS, a constructive suggestion (would one expect anything less from me?): Keep the punchline/s here in this article, shift the all the details here or LGBT rights in Australia. --Merbabu (talk) 03:05, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree, I think the section waffles too much, so we would be better with a two sentence paragraph summarising 1) What views Rudd has expressed 2) What Rudd has actually done wrt LGBT rights. I'm far from informed on this issue; is the only notable issue gay marriage? Or is child adoption an issue too? Uniform national LGBT laws is all fine and well, but I don't think the issue is interesting or notable enough for this article. I'd like to see the article trimmed down to something like "Rudd has expressed his belief that marriage is only a relationship between a man and a woman(ref). Rudd has passed laws enshrining common-law property rights for gay couples(ref)". --Surturz (talk) 04:32, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the second half which goes in to the comparisons and disputes with the ACT legislation, as it really does not relate to what the government has implemented, rather, it is debating the issue with something not related to the federal government. Timeshift (talk) 14:39, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

thanks. --Merbabu (talk) 21:27, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks--Merbabu (talk) 21:30, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I understand that LGBT is a significant shortening, but it would probably be a good idea to write it out in full where it appears first in the article. Unexplained acronyms are not such a good in an encyclopaedia article for any people who have no idea what it stands for. Fincle (talk) 23:29, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Fixt for u :-) --Surturz (talk) 00:04, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

First term 20 headings

There are twenty headings under Rudd's first term. Many are but a single sentence. If we fleshed them out to the same scale as the LGBT section (as some are suggesting we do) the article would be ridiculously long. Can we delete any sections? I suggest the first one we consider deleting is the following:

'New Governor-General
Rudd announced that Quentin Bryce would become the first female Governor-General of Australia.

Reasoning: becoming the first female G-G is Bryce's achievement, not Rudd's. Lauding a male PM selecting a female G-G kinda defeats the notability. One assumes Rudd picked her because she was the best person for the job, not as some affirmative action stunt. --Surturz (talk) 04:24, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

You have a point. Given that we are now 1 year thru a three year term, we can reasonably project 60 subsection headings in two year’s time. Make that 120 in 5 years time if they serve a second 3 year term. While I admit it is difficult to write on topics that are so recent, I think we can all see the folly of 120 sub-sections

Certainly some rationalisation is needed. It may surprise some to hear that I rarely advocate the removal of any info from wikipedia, rather I suggest info can be dispersed from these over-arching broad articles. While I am reluctant to endorse deleting sections/info, I would certainly favour removing some section headings. Also, perhaps we can consider re-ordering by broader topic areas, rather than the apparent chronological method.

As for Bryce, I think it is relevant enough – it was afterall Rudd’s decision (correct?). But, it doesn’t need to have its own section – it needs to be more smartly integrated into the article. Perhaps remove the “first female” bit for starters. --Merbabu (talk) 04:37, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I was thinking it could be merged with the appointment of high court judges. I think you are right, if we aren't getting rid of sections, then we should at least get rid of the headings. Chronological organisation would be easiest to maintain (that way we can combine disparate items into the same paragraph). Now Rudd has been in government for a while, we can also concentrate on actual achievements, rather than policy announcements (unless failure to deliver is important). --Surturz (talk) 04:53, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Except that "High Court judges" section is completely non-notable for the Rudd article and is another obvious deletion candidate. Peter Ballard (talk) 06:37, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

An obvious delete is "international tour". If we mention every trip Kevin does then the article length will be riduculous. The only thing of note is Gillard being Australia's first female acting PM in his absence, but that can be integrated elsewhere. Peter Ballard (talk) 04:57, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Agreed --Merbabu (talk) 05:17, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

"controversial artwork" section can be removed by moving the text to Rudd's personal views section. Rudd was expressing a personal opinion, it was not a policy. Peter Ballard (talk) 05:09, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm - it's not the most significant thing on the page, but whether his emphatic (and apparently off the cuff) opinion is trivial worthy of removal I don't know. Is putting it into the personal views section an improvement? I was going to suggest we look at re-casting and updating that whole “views” section as it appears to have been written before he was PM. Undecided. I will see what others suggest. --Merbabu (talk) 05:17, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

• Would people tolerate merging the LGBT rights and Torture sections under a common heading 'Human Rights'? --Surturz (talk) 00:04, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I say remove the Torture section. I didn't notice any significant press on it, and we can't list every piece of legislation Rudd brings in. Peter Ballard (talk) 01:34, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Even better. done. --Surturz (talk) 02:26, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

• Next on the chopping block: Homelessness? Can it be removed? --Surturz (talk) 02:27, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I say yes, though maybe wait for other voices. Peter Ballard (talk) 11:07, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

It's gone, as per WP:BRD. If anyone feels strongly about keeping it, please revert. --Surturz (talk) 23:52, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

• Also, section 5 ("Politicial views") looks like it was mainly written before he was PM - saying what he said he'd do, and a lot of that can now be merged with what he actual has done. The "Economics" section (minus the anti-Howard quote which I've complained about previously) and "Society and religion" sections are OK, but the other three: "Nationhood and Foreign policy", "Industrial relations" and "Environment" should be merged into section 4. Peter Ballard (talk) 11:07, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
• Next on the chopping block: First Rudd/Swan budget. I think we need to keep the hatnote in the article, but this section repeats a lot of what is said in the prior 'Economic policies' section. Perhaps the education funding can be moved to education? Other than that, should anything else be kept? --Surturz (talk) 23:52, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Election promises delivered

Where is the most appropriate section in the article to add this cite that of the 2007 election campaign promises by Labor, 29 have been delivered, with four underway, and eight yet to be delivered? Timeshift (talk) 12:13, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I am surprised that it was only 43 promises. I also read this exact list in the smh and my understanding was that it was provided verbatim by the govt. While some points are very notable, the articleS patchy scope and partial sourcing render the above info less than encyclopedic - such a scorecard approach should remain in the Saturday papers.--Merbabu (talk) 01:54, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Merbabu. I think a scorecard of promises delivered is a bit meaningless. Better to limit ourselves to the discussion of each notable promise and whether it was delivered. --Surturz (talk) 05:10, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

"Extra computers for schools - Delivered" - my year 9 child doesn't have one yet. It might be coming, but I agree it looks like government spin. Peter Ballard (talk) 22:34, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I've changed the Islamic school section to "Education" and included some recent info on the issue. --Surturz (talk) 09:07, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Don't you think the mishmash of two completely seperate issues in the one section looks bizarre? Timeshift (talk) 09:20, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Two points. First, I agree with with TS, the Islamic school issue doesn't belong in "education"; maybe under race relations, but it's primarily not an education issue. Second, Rudd was only involved peripherally, and I question whether it needs to be in the article at all. Peter Ballard (talk) 11:34, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I also question the lead sentence, "The planning and placement of Islamic schools has also been an issue, especially in Camden.". Has the placement of Islamic schools been an issue anywhere else except Camden? Though an unsavoury sounding issue (smacks of Hansonism, though I don't know the all the issues) I get the impression it's a one-off. Perhaps it's better placed in Islam in Australia. Peter Ballard (talk) 11:50, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Peter Ballard. Should we remove it? Timeshift (talk) 11:53, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Removed. Timeshift (talk) 06:22, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

• Thinking about this, I do think it is fair for the article to mention that Rudd made a strong effort in his first year to deliver on his election promises. Can we use this as a way of merging the sections on Kyoto, and the apology? Something like: In his first term Rudd made it a priority to deliver on his election promises. His first acts as Prime Minister were to fulfil key symbolic promises such as ratifying the Kyoto protocol and apologising to the indigenous "stolen generations". --Surturz (talk) 00:01, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

hmm this is a valid point. But I don't agree with your first sentence. To me It sounds a bit naff - at worst it sounds like something you'd get in the letter box from your local alp member. The rest would be ok with tweaking.

Delete Controversial artwork section

Leading from previous discussion, I propose we delete the following section:

Controversial artwork

In May 2008, Rudd was drawn into the controversy over photographic artist Bill Henson and his work depicting unclothed adolescents as part of a show due to open at an inner-city gallery in Sydney. In a televised interview, Rudd stated that he found the images "absolutely revolting" and that they had "no artistic merit". These views swiftly drew censure from members of the 'creative stream' who attended the recent 2020 Summit convened by Rudd, led by actor Cate Blanchett.

Some of the text and references can be moved to the Bill Henson article. --Surturz (talk) 06:05, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

While I would agree that this event is more notable to Henson than it is to Rudd, I am always reluctant to see information deleted. While I don't like all the details of he govt appearing on this page, I would love to see a Timeline of the Rudd Government Page. It's like the saying, "weeds are only plants in the wrong place". Ie, kinda like the difference between articles I largely wrote Indonesian National Revolution and Timeline of the Indonesian National Revolution. Ie, there is a lot in the second that doesn't make sense to include in the first.

As for the comments on the artist, perhaps like the Gov Gen section it needs to be shortened to one sentence with an appropriate link and incorporated into another section. --Merbabu (talk) 06:48, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

As I've said before, it belongs under his personal views, because it was a personal view not a government or executive decision. I'm happy to shorten it but I wouldn't like it deleted. Peter Ballard (talk) 22:32, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Cate Blanchett is an actress and not an actor, although I may be wrong... 58.173.3.193 (talk) 12:36, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

You're not wrong, but you're not completely correct either, many chose not to make a gender distinction when refering to actors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.128.14.41 (talk) 06:46, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

One sentence sections

Either implement the table of contents limitation like the one used in other articles with many sections like George W. Bush or get rid of sections with no expansion future like "New Governor-General".--Avala (talk) 15:35, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

• Agreed, I think we should have the toclimit until the number of headings has been adequately reduced. --Surturz (talk) 23:17, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Sourcing

I strongly suggest to those editing this article that WP:QS be adhered to. Some of the recent edits, which have been reverted, pointed back to a blog at The Australian, which is basically some bloke's opinion that happens to make the papers, but is not in any sense a reliable source. This is often a problem in political topics and especially with BLPs. Orderinchaos 06:30, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Surturz labels Rudd economically 'clueless' in his edit summary. That, and the attached edit referencing a blog, is as blatently POV as Surturz saying "The vast bulk of edits on political pages are from people pushing POVs. Mine are no exception. This is a good thing because people without POV are unlikely to contribute to those pages. NPOV is achieved from a synthesis from all these POVs".[7] Timeshift (talk) 06:33, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Far from a 'blog' this article appears on the front page of today's printed copy of the Australian. It is therefore WP:V and the Australian is a WP:RS, so the article is hardly a WP:QS. The 'blog' is actually the collection of comments below the article. I am therefore restoring the text. My text is actually NPOV - the article text says they were ignorant - I have toned this down to 'inexperienced'. Timeshift's user page has lots of POV stuff on it, and he has recently been caught out pushing his POV (strongly support Howard's quotes about Obama, yet strongly opposed Rudd's comments about GWB). I don't think that edit summaries need to be NPOV --Surturz (talk) 07:17, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm surprised this is an issue. "Economically inexperienced" or "clueless" are indeed POV nightmares, further, it's not what an encyclopedia is. This is blog content, where it may be a perfectly valid opinion, not encyclopedic content - important distinction.--Merbabu (talk) 07:44, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Indeed Merbabu. It's a shame others cannot see it. As for my userpage Surturz, see my userbox pointing out POV. And you may claim I was caught out, you can also claim the sun is blue, but you never replied to my reply. Who was caught out exactly? And, I again refer to you saying: "The vast bulk of edits on political pages are from people pushing POVs. Mine are no exception"[8] Timeshift (talk) 09:35, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm surprised it is an issue too. I also note the irony of the "pot calling the kettle black" in Surturz's comments above. Incidentally, people have been blocked in the past for edit summaries which stray too far from Wikipedia's policies, it is considered disruptive behaviour or disruptive editing in a general sense. Orderinchaos 09:40, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't get it. Timeshift and I obviously have opposing political views. He has clearly pushed his POV in his edits. I edit with a view to balancing out his edits. How is this bad? If Timeshift's edits were NPOV, then my edits would not need to seem so POV.

A bit of context. this rather dry and factual article was on the front page of The Australian. This article by Megalogenis is the related article that provides the analysis. So... is it WP:V? Yes, it is a front-page article in a reliable newspaper. Is it notable? Certainly! The Rudd government campaigned on being as good economic managers as the Coalition, and one of the major events of 2008 was the financial crisis. So all we are left with is WP:NPOV. Now, I'm happy to tone down the edit summaries if people want. But I can't see how my original text was not NPOV. It's not like the Rudd government could possibly be called experienced, they've only just got in. It is clear from both these articles that the 'inflation fighting' measures introduced early in the year by Rudd made the problem worse. Anyone with a car and a mortgage at the beginning of the year knew the govt + RBA were doing the wrong thing raising interest rates and cutting govt expenditure. The Daily Telegraph made quite unorthodox attacks on the RBA governer in April, and it is clear that Rudd was overly affected by the RBA governer's advice during the year (as borne out in my ref). This issue needs to be included. Rudd has stuffed it twice now, once with the fiscal tightening, and once with the bank guarantee. I don't think NPOV means we have to present the two facts 1) That he initially planned to cut expenditure, and 2) he changed to a massively stimulatory budget, without any form of editorialising. I think we should be able to say that the reason he changed tack is because he got it badly wrong in the first place. --Surturz (talk) 12:24, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Dry and factual... umm, yeah. While I will agree it's fairer than a lot of blog posts and weighs up many of the issues (and in fact your use of its wording is somewhat misrepresentative of its character) it is still most definitely not an RS. Your OR/SYN-laced narrative above (i.e. "It is clear... Anyone with... it is clear...") demonstrates the problems in the approach you are taking to this - it's not an encyclopaedic one, it's an interpretative one, and it needs to stop right at about the page notice informing us all that we are working in a BLP space and need to write responsibly. Orderinchaos 19:53, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Please read my comment again. I was not referring to the megalonis article but this one. If you are going to knock that article out, you may as well knock out all newspaper articles because it is typical of all newspaper articles. --Surturz (talk) 00:44, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

What did that article have to do with the points you were trying to make? I note you carefully avoided the obvious problems I highlighted re interpretation. Orderinchaos 04:57, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

P.S. Merbabu seems to doubt the article appeared on the front page. See the front page here, and a close up here. Please do not call it a 'blog entry' any more. --Surturz (talk) 12:37, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Blog, article, or whatever – that’s not the point. There are bigger problems. Orderinchaos explains them well, and I’ve add more below. --Merbabu (talk) 22:21, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

See the "Comment" in big letters above it? It's not an article, nor does it claim to be. As someone with a moderate, though not extensive academic background, I am really disappointed when I see people try to pull this sort of stuff (and much of the rest I see above). Intellectual dishonesty will be the death of the Wiki if we let it take hold, and I don't care if it's the socialists trying to add "right-wing" and their economic commentary to articles in coordinated attacks based on misuse of sources as I saw (and stopped) elsewhere two weeks ago, or the Liberal supporters trying to add theirs here misusing and mischaracterising different types of sources, both have missed the point entirely of why we're here - especially when they have to (and do) rely on distortions of the truth and twisting of words. That is not "one POV vs another POV". It is a case of, if a person is honest and represents honestly, I and other Wikipedians can trust them, no matter how similar or different our views or how divergent our stances or arguments, but if they play games with words and misrepresent and distort, then we cannot. In fact, such behaviour actually undermines the entire basis for argument as we can no longer proceed in good faith, and those opposed come to a view that the person cannot be trusted on other issues on which they may be entirely correct. And that is the most disappointing part. Orderinchaos 19:53, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the sourcing is a side issue. As I said, it’s not poor quality opinion as such – it’s prominently placed in a well-regarded newspaper and appears to be carefully written and informed. But all that’s off the point - the real problem, as Orderinchaos alludes to, is the opinionated and interpretative and analytical nature of the *edits*. Some things just don’t go into encyclopedias. We state the dry hard facts, not cherry picked interpretation – particularly such heavily synthesised editing. That the editor’s justification is so interpretative and based on WP:SYN clearly highlights the problems.

Also, it’s not a matter of balancing out perceived poor editing habits of other editors – particularly ones that show editing bias opposite ones own – that’s a separate issue. Ie, two wrongs, etc, etc,. If this is a response to issues with the edits of other contributors, then it needs to stop now and be taken off the article pages. I don’t care how valid the said POV issues are, this is not the way to respond.

I endorse Orderinchaos’ comments on “intellectual dishonesty” and undermining the very fundamentals of wikipedia.

Again, I’m really surprised and disappointed that this actually needs discussion – if we are talking about new editors, that would have been OK. I trust that all us otherwise sensible editors can all learn from it, move on, and get back to improving the encyclopedia. --Merbabu (talk) 22:21, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Could you clarify that statement? Are you calling me an intellectually dishonest editor that isn't sensible? --Surturz (talk) 00:44, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

An editor engaging in intellectual dishonesty is different to an intellectually dishonest editor. One is an observation of behaviour, the other would be a character smear. Basically, saying a source says something it does not say, or saying a source is something it is not, would qualify as clear examples of the former. Orderinchaos 04:53, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Is it possible for an honest editor to make a dishonest edit? What was 'dishonest' about my original edit? All I have seen so far is attacks on my motives, rather than any real NPOV complaints about the text I inserted. Where did I insert text that said something that the source did not say? You know, I quite like Timeshift9's philosophy: This user believes that only articles need reflect a NPOV, and that displaying political, religious, or other beliefs on user and talk pages should be encouraged. Bias is better declared.. If anything, I have been very up-front about my POV, because I know it might bias my text. However, because I have been honest about my POV, people seem overly willing to revert my addition with out actually pointing out where it is in error. My main mistake was exhibiting my POV in the edit summary. --Surturz (talk) 05:23, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe people are honest or dishonest, or good or evil, or any of that. People are people, they're a complex mix of everything, only what they do and their actions is what can be judged. Re Timeshift: I don't think anyone on these pages or viewers of his user page would be left in any doubt as to his particular take on federal politics. I don't think he really goes to any length to obscure it. I also state my particular political position on my user page, but I take a view that political writing should take a strict academic approach and reflect the facts and people can judge for themselves - ideology is personal. I don't think there's any benefit in jamming the airwaves with ideological crap (either mine or anyone else's), there's already plenty of people doing that and Wikipedia should be above it. One of the fundamental problems of the state of politics in Australia is the poor level of civic education of the population at large and indeed even of many of the key players, who know or perceive very little beyond their own immediate reality. Additionally the level of media commentary is tarnished chronically by the lack of genuinely knowledgeable political journalists and commentators and the expediency of editors and media owners, with many publications treating politics in a trashy, sensationalist fashion rather than seeking to educate or inform. What we are getting is simply the POV of the editor or writer concerned - if you want one example of that, look at the Daily Telegraph before and after the recent change in editor, and I'm not the only person who's noticed the change.

I think your claims that your POV is a factor in this are disingenuous. I have never taken an issue with you before, and I hope I don't have to again - I do have respect for your position and your willingness on most occasions to deal appropriately. However your recent edits smack of attempting to achieve a motive by stealth. I could take apart every response you've placed under this section and highlight the issues as you've requested, but I actually have a busy offline life and prefer to spend my time here contributing content rather than arguing with people who wish to waste editors' time and insult their collective intelligence rather than engage. I would much prefer that the crusade be abandoned and we get back to what we should be doing here. Orderinchaos 06:02, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

• In a similar vein, could everyone please check my edit over at Glenn Stevens for NPOV. We definitely need something in that article as to his response to the Economic crisis of 2008 --Surturz (talk) 04:19, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I can't see any problem with it. Orderinchaos 06:02, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Jet Set Rudd?

Is this notable: [9]? I'm not so much interested in the allegations of "too much international travel". I'm more interested in the narrative that as a career diplomat, Rudd emphasised international relations early in his term. The side-effect of Gillard frequently being acting PM in his absence is also interesting IMO (since Gillard is the first female to act as PM). Perhaps a less critical ref can be found? --Surturz (talk) 04:30, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

"This sort of reckless spending must stop"

In my memory, one of the big turning points of the election campaign was the ALP campaign launch where Kevin Rudd said

Today, I am saying loud and clear that this sort of reckless spending must stop.

I think it is easy to make the case that it is a notable quote - here are some WP:RS references where the quote is part of the headline: Canberra Times, Lateline transcript, Daily Telegraph, The Age. Also, Wayne Swan as Treasurer repeated the quote in an interview with Laurie Oakes - transcript on Treasury website. Would anyone object to the quote being inserted into this article? --Surturz (talk) 10:58, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Looking at it, to what end is the quote of note? Where within this article are you saying it should be an in what context? Gnangarra 14:38, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Something like:

Kevin Rudd launched the ALP election campaign with a policy of fiscal restraint, usually considered the electoral strength of the opposing Liberal party. Rudd contrasted Labor spending measures totalling only $2.3 billion compared to $9.4 billion promised by the Liberals, declaring:

"Today, I am saying loud and clear that this sort of reckless spending must stop."

--Surturz (talk) 10:16, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Two points. First, bear in mind that the Liberals disputed those figures (see the Canberra Times or Lateline links above). So we can't go putting Labor claims as fact. Second, I dispute that it was a major catchcry of the election. Yes, it made headlines for a day or two, but there were all sorts of headlines and statements in the election, it's not clear to me that this one stands out. It barely figured when editors were putting together Australian federal election, 2007. Peter Ballard (talk) 10:45, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Peter - this was one of many statements made in an election campaign and probably doesn't rate star billing. I'm also not seeing the context - what's the sentence after the proposed paragraph above? Euryalus (talk) 11:53, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, I think it is notable because up until that point, the Coalition looked like they had a chance because they were arguing that they were better economic managers than the ALP, while simultaneously making large spending promises to get votes. The ALP knackered both those strategies in their launch. While it might not have been a major catchcry of the ALP campaign, it did directly relate to the Liberal "Go for Growth" slogan. It neutered it. The exact numbers can be turfed if you don't think they are reliable. Rudd's spent something like 36 billion so far in his first term anyway, so the numbers are moot. --Surturz (talk) 11:55, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

If you can show that it was a turning point of the election campaign - at, say, the (electoral) importance of children overboard (2001) or the Latham handshake in 2004 - then it belongs, because it's an important part of the Kevin Rudd story. Otherwise it just belongs in the election article. But I doubt it was a turning point anyway - the polls were rock solid for a Labor win for months before. I think you'll struggle to find a commentator who said the spending promise made much difference. Peter Ballard (talk) 12:28, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

• The critical turning point in the campaign came when Rudd declined to match Howard dollar for dollar on spending promises to the Australian people

• Former Labor Senator Stephen Looseley’s assessment—that Kevin Rudd’s decision at his campaign launch to stop matching Howard’s spending promises marked the turning point of the campaign—now reads as writ.

Good enough for you? --Surturz (talk) 06:55, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Not the second, which is an opinion piece from Christian Kerr pushing a POV. The first one is OK - that's one source saying it was the most important moment of the campaign - but it focuses not on the quote but on the fact that Rudd didn't (or claimed to not) outspend Howard. Though I still say (and I suspect most sources say) that it wasn't a major factor in Rudd being elected, and the polls were solid for a Labor win both before and after that moment. Peter Ballard (talk) 09:45, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. The polls were always in Labor's favour, there was no turning point in the campaign, despite what some journalists might like us to believe. Timeshift (talk) 10:01, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, I feel I have six WP:RS's establishing WP:V and WP:N. Both implicit (where the quote is the headline), explicit, plus a quote from Treasurer Swan after the election saying the "most important thing we've got to do from a national level is to show some leadership by the national Government which is to get rid of reckless spending". I've seen a whole lot of WP:OR argument saying that it was not a notable event in the election campaign, but I think it is time for you guys to find a few reliable sources to back up your claims. --Surturz (talk) 15:58, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

(Answer below). Peter Ballard (talk) 12:06, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

The coalition look like they had a chance? They never looked like they had a chance since December 2006! That'll keep me laughing for ages, thanks! More seriously, I could talk about my suspicions of the addition of the text at this point in time, but i'll stick to WP:AGF as i'm sure everyone knows what those suspicions are. Timeshift (talk) 13:45, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, probably only The Australian's opinion writers believed they had more than a slim chance. The Newspolls had been in the stratosphere all year, Liberal disunity had been in the press, WorkChoices was dominating the press all year as was government spending on advertising, the interest rate kept going up and up despite Howard's promises in 2004 to keep it down (in doing so breaking the unwritten rule that one should never promise what one cannot deliver especially if it involves money). Howard admitted he had no rabbits left in the hat, anything he tried to do to counter Labor's approach either shot a blank or backfired (mainly because Rudd was a very different type of enemy to those he had fought previously), and Howard held off as long as possible declaring the election to try and give himself the most chance. There was one poll like 2 days before that was a bit of a scare for Labor but it was an outlier, and even it had Labor ahead. Orderinchaos 13:55, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

He said he'd keep interest rates at record lows, both in print and in verbal word, in 2004, and has repeatedly said that interest rates will always remain lower under a coalition government. Wrong on both counts it seems. Which poll are you referring to btw? When one looks at 2PP and Preferred PM graphs, at what point was the result not a foregone conclusion? Especially when one compares it to a historical 2PP graph. Timeshift (talk) 13:59, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

There was one which came out a day or two before the election indicating 52% 2PP, but most experts regarded it as a "blip" rather than a trend. Orderinchaos 15:37, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

A natural narrowing occurred when the election was called, but as the graph shows, it was never in doubt. Both Newspoll and Galaxy's last poll before the election had it narrowed down to 52%, but that's only 0.7% off what the election 2PP was, so one can hardly call it a blip. It was closer than Roy Morgan's 53.5%, and way closer than ACNielsen's 57%. Timeshift (talk) 15:42, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

(Unindent, answering -Surturz (talk) 15:58, 15 December 2008) You say you have 6 references saying the "reckless spending" quote was the turning point in the election. No you don't. News coverage on the day doesn't count - what is needed is coverage after the event indicating its significance. There is only one: this one from the UK Times. Now I spent a little time googling for analysis after the election, for reasons for the result, and came up with this:

• Mark Kenny in the Advertiser http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,22606,22819443-5014076,00.html - (1) Voters were tired of Howard, (2) Rudd seemed viable (unlike Latham or Beazley) and ran a disciplined "me-too" campaign; (3) Workchoices

• Glenn Milne, The Australian - http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22819422-7583,00.html - policies were similar, but voters wanted someone new.

• Malcolm Farr, The Daily Telegraph - http://blogs.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/malcolmfarr/index.php/dailytelegraph/comments/times_will_suit_kevin_rudd_a_lot_like_the_did_howard/ - Australia wanted a right-leaning Labor government, Rudd was the first viable Labor leader in a while. Also Workchoices.

• Various Liberals - http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/11/25/2100526.htm - Workchoices

• Tim Gartrell, Labor Strategist - http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2007/s2100441.htm - Workchoices, Liberals arrogant/out-of-touch

• David Barnett, Howard biograher + supporter - http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2007/s2100447.htm - Rudd appealed more than Beazley/Crean/Latham

• Pru Goward, Liberal MP - http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2007/s2100447.htm - people wanted a change

• post-mortem by ABC PM program, cites unnamed "experts" - http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2007/s2101830.htm - Workchoices

• Various Liberal MPs in same PM analysis - http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2007/s2101830.htm - people wanted a change

So, from a variety of sources across the political spectrum, I see two main reasons: Workchoices, and the need for a change (and Labor had a leader people were happy to change to). None of these sources say Labor won because they wouldn't match spending in a certain area, or even that it made a significant difference. p.s. I'd like to put an analysis like this (with the sources of course) into Australian federal election 2007. Peter Ballard (talk) 12:06, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks heaps for looking all that up! I'd say if you can word something from the above for the AFE article it would be a solid addition. Exactly the sort of stuff I'd love to do if I didn't have a clogged priority list and had more time :| Orderinchaos 12:06, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Why are these opinion pieces acceptable? In particular, why is Megalogenis' opinion in Peter Ballard's ref here acceptable, when my Megalogenis article here was rejected as a WP:RS? --Surturz (talk) 13:39, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Look, I'm happy to agree that the quote may not have been a turning point in the election (my POV is that it was, there is at least the timesonline article which agrees, but it obviously depends on who you ask, there is a lot of revisionism with such things). However, I do think that the quote is notable. The main evidence of this is Treasurer Swan's use of the word 'reckless' in the Laurie Oakes interview:

TREASURER: Well, the most important thing we've got to do from a national level is to show some leadership by the national Government which is to get rid of reckless spending. That's why we said during the campaign, we would make savings of $10 billion and that's why we've set ourselves the objective of making further savings through this budget process. You see, we are seeing almost daily evidence of reckless spending from the former government. Only yesterday Mr Turnbull admitted that he increased a grant to a friend, five times, originally recommended to him at $2 million, and given to the recipient at $10 million. That era of reckless spending is over. We need a new era of fiscal discipline and that is what the Rudd Government is determined to put in place so we can play our role in tackling inflation and taking some of the pressure off the Reserve Bank.

(emphasis mine). This was an interview three months after the election, it is clear that the quote informed their immediate post-election policy; it was not a throw-away line. Swann says getting rid of reckless spending is "the most important thing" they had to do. (Actually, this might also be worth including in the Wayne Swan article). --Surturz (talk) 18:11, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

But nobody believes it is noteworthy enough to the point of adding the quote to the article. Timeshift (talk) 01:39, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, I have reliable references that have not yet been refuted. I believe it is noteworthy enough to add, and intend on doing so. I have not added it yet because I would prefer consensus to WP:BRD. --Surturz (talk) 02:39, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I am well aware that voting is not meant to be the decision making tool, so I offer this to help get the consensus surturz is admirably seeking: sorry, but I haven't been convinced of its relevance or of any appropriate context for inclusion. - by Merbabu

You might intend on doing so, but nobody believes it is noteworthy for the article, thus any attempts will come under concerted resistance. Timeshift (talk) 03:38, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. Surturz has half won me over. I don't think the quote is that important, nor do I think it really helped him get elected, or that it was a very important part of the campaign... but I think it's important to somewhere mention that Labor said (both before and after the election, even before the economic crisis really kicked in) that they were fiscal conservatives and would deliver balanced budgets. They've taken a fair bit of criticism from the opposition (and support from other quarters) recently for suggesting they might run a deficit this year (or is it next year?), and they've been at pains to emphasise that this does not mean constant deficits. Peter Ballard (talk) 04:27, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

ah --now the fiscal conservative quote is somrthing different. I might support a well-worded proposal on that. And some context linked to the current debate - only needs 1 or 2 sentences.--Merbabu (talk) 06:00, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

relevant article on 'fiscal conservative' - I might note it also has the reckless spending quote :-) --Surturz (talk) 06:32, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

All the above really proves is that Labor see "being on message" as important. Both Coalition and Labor ministers when dealing with the media seem to choose two or three preferred turns of phrase before the interview and hammer them to death. Anyway, an interview for these purposes is a primary source as nobody's analysed it - i.e. no independent secondary source has asserted what we're trying to assert, so we can't make that assertion. In response to Peter, I don't see what the actions of the Government or praise or criticism of it have to do with Rudd - this article should be about him, we really do need to create a Rudd Government article (I was stunned a few months ago to discover nobody already had.) Orderinchaos 12:09, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Now wait a second, OIC, the interview is but one of the six (now seven) references I have provided wrt WP:N. Which part of the WP:N policy have I not fulfilled? I've seen a lot of personal opinion but Peter Ballard is the only one that is making any serious researched argument. I would also suggest that if the Libs didn't know enough about the electorate to win the election, it is a bit of a stretch to suggest that they knew enough about the electorate to correctly state why they lost. Now, I'm happy to discuss "economic conservative Labor" or "Howard-lite Labor" text if people are going to revert the addition of the quote, but:

• The election campaign was notable
• The campaign launches were a notable part of the election campaign
• The quote was a notable part of the ALP campaign launch
• The quote was echoed three months later and stated to be the "most important" thing by the new Treasurer.

I am a bit mystified as to why people are insisting it is not notable for any reason except WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Rudd tackled Howard on his strength - economic management - and prevailed. The quote is as succinct a method of conveying this to the reader as you will find. Can Timeshift9 and Merbabu actually back up their claims with a bit of research, or are we going to accept statements such as "you haven't convinced me" --Surturz (talk) 13:39, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Merbabu, we already have something in the article: "Rudd describes himself as "basically a conservative when it comes to questions of public financial management". Perhaps it needs rewording? But the point remains, nobody thinks the proposed Surturz quote is of any particular noteworthy relevance. Timeshift (talk) 06:41, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

yes, i noted this a few posts back. The discussion has moved on. --Merbabu (talk) 07:45, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I know it's the under "Economic views", but it'd be good to have something in the "The Economy" section, giving a background to what he's actually done.

As a meta-comment, I think the "Political Views" section was largely written before Rudd came to power, and most of it (IMHO) can now be deleted or merged into what he's actually done. Much of it duplicates material in the section on what he's done (e.g. the article says twice that he ratified Kyoto). Peter Ballard (talk) 06:58, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I think political views are an important distinction compared to policital actions, and should be kept. Timeshift (talk) 07:15, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I am also questioning the status of that section but I shall read it closer and listen here further first. --Merbabu (talk) 07:45, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Political views are OK (especially when it goes further back to his roots), but much of it is just policy, incuding pretty well of sections 5.2 Nationhood and Foreign policy. 5.3 Industrial relations, 5.4 Environment Peter Ballard (talk) 09:17, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

ideally it would be nice if most of the viewpoints were consolidated into the pmship section. I think such bigger picture style writing gets hard though when the topic is current and there is pressure for listy tid bits as they happen.--Merbabu (talk) 11:10, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

"Reckless" round two

Since I have a bit of WP:SILENCE now, here is what I am proposing. I've also made significant changes to the structure:

OLD VERSION

link to version

Click 'show' to view

Leader of the Opposition A November 2006 Newspoll opinion poll indicated voter support for Rudd was double that for Beazley. In December 2006, Beazley declared open the positions of Leader and Deputy leader of the Labor Party, and Rudd announced his candidacy for the leadership. Fellow Labor MP Julia Gillard ran alongside Rudd for Deputy Leader. The vote took place on 4 December 2006. Rudd was elected Leader with 49 votes to Beazley's 39, and Gillard was elected unopposed as Deputy Leader. Kevin Rudd (right) and Julia Gillard (left) at their first press conference as Leader and Deputy Leader of the Australian Labor Party, 4 December 2006 At his first press conference as leader, having thanked Beazley and former deputy leader Jenny Macklin, Rudd said he would offer a "new style of leadership", and would be an "alternative, not just an echo" of the Howard government. He outlined the areas of industrial relations, the war in Iraq, climate change, Australian federalism, social justice, and the future of Australia's manufacturing industry as major policy concerns. Rudd also stressed his long experience in state government, as a diplomat and also in business before entering federal politics. Rudd and the ALP soon overtook the government in both party and leadership polling. The new leader maintained a high media profile with major announcements on an "education revolution", federalism, climate change, a National Broadband Network and the domestic car industry. Since 2002, Rudd appeared regularly in interviews and topical discussions on the popular breakfast television program Sunrise, along with federal Liberal MP Joe Hockey. This was credited with helping raise Rudd's public profile. Rudd and Hockey ended these appearances in April 2007 citing the increasing political pressures of an election year. On 21 October 2007 Rudd presented strongly in a televised debate against incumbent prime minister John Howard. On 19 August 2007, it was revealed that Rudd, with New York Post editor Col Allan and Labor backbencher Warren Snowdon, had briefly visited a strip club in New York in September 2003. When he realised it was a strip club, he left. The incident generated a lot of media coverage, but made no impact on Rudd's popularity in the polls. Indeed, some people believe that the incident may have enabled Rudd to appear "more human" and lifted his popularity. Prime Minister 2007 election Kevin Rudd campaigning with Kerry Rea in Bonner on 21 September 2007 Main article: Australian federal election, 2007 An election was held on 24 November 2007. That evening, John Howard conceded that the Coalition had lost the election to the Labor Party. Shortly afterwards, Rudd made his victory speech as Prime Minister-elect, saying he would "be a Prime Minister for all Australians." Labor's win was coined a 'Ruddslide' by the media and was underpinned by the considerable support from Rudd's home state of Queensland, with the state result recording a two party preferred swing of 7.53 percent. The nationwide swing was 5.44 percent to Labor, the 3rd largest swing at a federal election since two party estimates began in 1949. 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. As foreshadowed during the election campaign, on 29 November Rudd directly chose his frontbench, breaking with more than a century of Labor tradition whereby the frontbench was chosen by party factions. Kevin Rudd is only the second Queenslander to lead his party to a federal election victory, the first being Andrew Fisher almost a century earlier, in 1910 (although Fisher had first become Prime Minister in 1908 when the Alfred Deakin government resigned). Queenslanders Arthur Fadden (1941) and Frank Forde (1945) were also Prime Ministers, but only for a short period between elections - in Fadden's case the incumbent Robert Menzies resigned; in Forde's case the incumbent John Curtin died. Rudd is also the first Prime Minister since World War II not to come from either New South Wales or Victoria; the last were Curtin (Western Australia) and Forde (Queensland) in 1945. Kevin Rudd is soon expected to be added to the Prime Minister's Avenue, a collection of busts of all Prime Ministers of Australia, located at the Ballarat Botanical Gardens in Ballarat, Victoria. On 3 December 2007, Rudd was sworn in as Prime Minister by the Governor-General, Major General Michael Jeffery. Rudd is the first Prime Minister to make no mention of the Queen in his oath of office. Ratification of the Kyoto Protocol

PROPOSED VERSION

Click 'show' to view

Leader of the Opposition A November 2006 Newspoll opinion poll indicated voter support for Rudd was double that for Beazley. In December 2006, Beazley declared open the positions of Leader and Deputy leader of the Labor Party, and Rudd announced his candidacy for the leadership. Fellow Labor MP Julia Gillard ran alongside Rudd for Deputy Leader. The vote took place on 4 December 2006. Rudd was elected Leader with 49 votes to Beazley's 39, and Gillard was elected unopposed as Deputy Leader. Kevin Rudd (right) and Julia Gillard (left) at their first press conference as Leader and Deputy Leader of the Australian Labor Party, 4 December 2006 At his first press conference as leader, having thanked Beazley and former deputy leader Jenny Macklin, Rudd said he would offer a "new style of leadership", and would be an "alternative, not just an echo" of the Howard government. He outlined the areas of industrial relations, the war in Iraq, climate change, Australian federalism, social justice, and the future of Australia's manufacturing industry as major policy concerns. Rudd also stressed his long experience in state government, as a diplomat and also in business before entering federal politics. Rudd and the ALP soon overtook the government in both party and leadership polling. The new leader maintained a high media profile with major announcements on an "education revolution", federalism, climate change, a National Broadband Network and the domestic car industry. Since 2002, Rudd appeared regularly in interviews and topical discussions on the popular breakfast television program Sunrise, along with federal Liberal MP Joe Hockey. This was credited with helping raise Rudd's public profile. Rudd and Hockey ended these appearances in April 2007 citing the increasing political pressures of an election year. On 19 August 2007, it was revealed that Rudd, with New York Post editor Col Allan and Labor backbencher Warren Snowdon, had briefly visited a strip club in New York in September 2003. When he realised it was a strip club, he left. The incident generated a lot of media coverage, but made no impact on Rudd's popularity in the polls. Indeed, some people believe that the incident may have enabled Rudd to appear "more human" and lifted his popularity. 2007 election Main article: Australian federal election, 2007 An Australian federal election was called on 17 October 2007. On 21 October 2007 Rudd presented strongly in the single televised debate against incumbent prime minister John Howard. On 14 November 2007, Kevin Rudd officially launched the ALP election campaign with a policy of fiscal restraint, usually considered the electoral strength of the opposing Liberal party. Rudd proposed Labor spending measures totalling $2.3 billion, contrasting them to $9.4 billion Rudd claimed the Liberals had promised, declaring: "Today, I am saying loud and clear that this sort of reckless spending must stop." Kevin Rudd campaigning with Kerry Rea in Bonner on 21 September 2007 On the evening of 24 November 2007, some fifty weeks since Rudd became Labor leader, John Howard held a late night press conference conceding that the Coalition had lost the right to govern. Shortly afterwards, Rudd made his victory speech as Prime Minister-elect, saying he would "be a Prime Minister for all Australians." Labor's win was coined a 'Ruddslide' by the media and was underpinned by the considerable support from Rudd's home state of Queensland, with the state result recording a two party preferred swing of 7.53 percent. The nationwide swing was 5.44 percent to Labor, the 3rd largest swing at a federal election since two party estimates began in 1949. 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. As foreshadowed during the election campaign, on 29 November Rudd directly chose his frontbench, breaking with more than a century of Labor tradition whereby the frontbench was chosen by party factions. Kevin Rudd is only the second Queenslander to lead his party to a federal election victory, the first being Andrew Fisher almost a century earlier, in 1910 (although Fisher had first become Prime Minister in 1908 when the Alfred Deakin government resigned). Queenslanders Arthur Fadden (1941) and Frank Forde (1945) were also Prime Ministers, but only for a short period between elections - in Fadden's case the incumbent Robert Menzies resigned; in Forde's case the incumbent John Curtin died. Rudd is also the first Prime Minister since World War II not to come from either New South Wales or Victoria; the last were Curtin (Western Australia) and Forde (Queensland) in 1945. Kevin Rudd is soon expected to be added to the Prime Minister's Avenue, a collection of busts of all Prime Ministers of Australia, located at the Ballarat Botanical Gardens in Ballarat, Victoria. Prime Minister On 3 December 2007, Rudd was sworn in as Prime Minister by the Governor-General, Major General Michael Jeffery. Rudd is the first Prime Minister to make no mention of the Queen in his oath of office. Ratification of the Kyoto Protocol

Here is a diff of what I propose. Comments would be appreciated. (Sorry for stuffing up the talkpage table of contents with level 1 headings, but it formats better that way). --Surturz (talk) 22:14, 28 December 2008 (UTC) P.S. Sorry, my version was based on an older version of the article, so I lost the improvements to the sentence describing Howard's concession to Rudd. I will incorporate the newer text when I have time. --Surturz (talk) 22:24, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Am I okay to put these changes in? In particular, the "reckless spending" quote? (here is a link where Laurie Oakes writes it was "the defining moment of last year's election campaign." --Surturz (talk) 07:07, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Speak now or be WP:SILENT? Hah. Considering you just said silence does not equal consensus, how rich can one be? This has already been discussed, the community does not agree it has any particular context/is noteable. Timeshift (talk) 07:49, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

At least I put my proposed text here on the talk page first rather than try to edit-war it in. Which part of WP:N have I not met? --Surturz (talk) 12:42, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Forgive me, but what the changes are is not clear to me. --Merbabu (talk) 07:51, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, I am at a bit of a loss how to make it any clearer as to what I am proposing, I have given a "before" and "after" version and also a sample diff from my sandbox. The key points are the reorganisation of the headings, and the addition of the "reckless spending must stop" quote, which Laurie Oakes (no less) has said was the "defining moment" of the election... one year after the election. --Surturz (talk) 12:42, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I guess there is a lot text to compare (much of it seemed similar) so the changes seemed obscured - i was just hoping to be directed to specific points, which you now have. cheers --Merbabu (talk) 12:49, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

For starters, i agree that the election is part of opposition leader section. Can't imagine why this isn't so already. --Merbabu (talk) 12:51, 12 January 2009 (UTC).

Who removed the indefinite semi-protection?

Timeshift (talk) 09:45, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Well? Timeshift (talk) 08:56, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

When the article was semi-protected again in September after a trial of unprotecting it in August the protection was set to automatically expire on 28 December 2008. Nick-D (talk) 11:25, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I've just restored the indefinite semi protection. Nick-D (talk) 06:44, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Thankyou. Timeshift (talk) 06:54, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

bust

I removed mention of his bust being put in PM avenue in Ballarat. Seems non-notable to me, because every PM gets one. Peter Ballard (talk) 07:49, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I removed the bit about its preparation and left the fact that he'd get one. Perhaps on further reflection, it's not that notable at all. --Merbabu (talk) 07:58, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, not notable. --Surturz (talk) 18:12, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Rudd Government article created

I just created an article on the Rudd Government as a stub - it seemed better to have a short and very, very unsatisfactory article on the current government rather than no article at all. As per the John Howard article when the Howard Government article was created, it would probably be appropriate to move some of the non-Rudd specific material on his prime ministership from this article to the article on the government, and if no-one beats me too it I'll do this on the weekend (discussing any marginal issues first, of course). Nick-D (talk) 11:23, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Bad move. An overwhelming consensus should be sought from other editors before such a radical article change is put into effect. That consensus has not been achieved, therefore the Rudd Government article should be deleted. If you haven't got consensus, don't do it.--Lester 12:30, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

No one needs consensus to create an article on a notable topic. Please note my suggestion on Talk:Rudd Government for a Timeline style article. It will cater well to recentism editing habits around here, and actually produce a nice result. There has been no radical article change. --Merbabu (talk) 12:34, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Rather than be a cowboy as I dumbly suggested last night, I'll discuss everything first rather than remove material from this article without prior discusssion. I probably deserved to be whacked with a trout for the above post. Nick-D (talk) 21:35, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

the new article creation is good in principal but it will be hard as it is the incumbent. My suggestion is to just go ahead and develop the govt article. If u wait for consensus first u will get nowhere. You already have detractors. Get it up then justify. But make if quality. As for the rudd article my suggestion is not to move info from it till you have a strong govt article.Merbabu (talk) 22:15, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I am opposed to the split because the question of where to put material becomes another thing to argue about. But if we're going to split (which is more or less inevitable because it's easier to create an article than delete one), it should be a SPLIT not a FORK. In other words, duplucation should be avoided. Which means (pretty well) chopping the entire "Prime Minister" section and moving it to Rudd Government, leaving behind a short summary. Otherwise, material needs to get added twice or (worse) gets haphazardly added to one article or the other. Peter Ballard (talk) 08:40, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with overlap - it's inevitable with any article on wikipedia, to some extent. And articles do need to stand on their own to some extent without a reader being dependent on clicking to another page. By this I mean one article could have two sentences or 1 paragraph summary of info on a topic that is given, say, 10 paragraphs in a related article. Look at Bono & U2, and Indonesian National Revolution & Battle of Surabaya. To say anything must be in one or the other is a little simplistic. But of course I have a problem with a mirror. As for a "fork" if you mean *some* of the same info but with a different focus (in accordance with the article titles), then I can't see anything wrong with that either. --Merbabu (talk) 11:16, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

The "inevitable" creation of overlap shows a 'government' article creates confusion as to where to find the information. These 'government' articles create appalling confusion, as when it inevitably expands to 'Rudd Government Term 1' and 'Term 2' articles, you are left digging down multiple layers to find the content. A single 'Kevin Rudd' article acts as the sole encompassing article that links to daughter articles about particular expanded subjects, such as 'Term 1' and 'Term 2' expanded articles. You've gotta have that single article on top. I've now deleted the link on this article to the 'Rudd Government' article. There's no point linking to it before it's in a reasonable state, and before consensus has been achieved.--Lester 22:21, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

lester, i did not see your latest comments here before I reverted your removal of the link. A link icreases the chances of the expansion u request, and is not the way to deal with an article you don't like. Further the article creation has enough well reasoned support for it's existence - no point trying to suffocate it (sorry that was not your intent was).

The difficulties with developing it while it's about the incumbent have been acknowledged - but that doesn't mean it shouldn't exist. Perhaps it might be consolation to you that I don't support any so called "split" changes to the kr article until r govt is in good shape. While you said overlap was confusing (I agree if not addressed well), I note you didn't really address the inherent inevitability of overlap. In fact, if we focus on semantics, I actually don't support "overlap" either - I support well-*focussed* discussion of the same topic articles including over more than one article - but focussed to article topic. The key is making it not overly repetitive.

Further, lets not make the mistake that because the implementation of Howard Govt was less than ideal, this meant that it was a bad idea. Far from it. Great ideas are often poorly executed, but rather than continue to just defend what has been termed “the split” (which is becoming a repetitive discussion I’m sure you will agree), you may have noticed I’ve done some hard work trying to improve on the implementation. There’s a lot more to do yet, but I believe I’m making slowing making the split work better. --Merbabu (talk) 23:15, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I notice now that, after a discussion over at Talk:John Howard, the "non-core promises" bit has been inserted both into John Howard and Howard Government. That a recent example of unnecessary duplication. It's twice the work and twice the maintenance. Peter Ballard (talk) 04:36, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand why a degree of "duplication" is not acceptable - it's inevitable. THis my U2/Bono. Are you saying that FA article Indonesia should have it's history section removed because it duplicates the much larger History of Indonesia? But I'm talking myself blue in the face on this one. None of the three opponents to the govt articles has addressed me specifically on this.--Merbabu (talk) 07:47, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

But if we have half the arguments over BLP content, we are ahead. We have much more time available to actually edit articles and we waste less time arguing unproductively on the talk pages. IMHO the split has dramatically reduced the discontent at Talk:John Howard. Coverage of controversial subjects such as "Children Overboard" can be inserted into WP without constantly worrying about WP:BLP issues. --Surturz (talk) 04:52, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Some people tend to throw WP:BLP around like a hot potato. I notice the Americans will include all issues in their presidential artices and expand on them in other articles. To say that an issue shouldn't be in an article because it doesn't directly relate to them is quite frankly silly. Timeshift (talk) 05:00, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I've noticed the Americans have less deletionism in their political articles, and less argument over facts. If the fact is true, they add it and keep expanding the articles into sub-articles. Each sub-article is linked directly to the main article. Everything is one click away. You don't have to delve down 2 or more levels to find sub-articles. This is how it should be. Arranged into subjects, people can click on the daughter articles that are of interest to them.--Lester 05:17, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I put our troubles in oz down to a few select editors. Timeshift (talk) 05:27, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Who exactly? --Merbabu (talk) 07:47, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Removing "PM for all Australians"

I propose removing the bit about Rudd promising to be a "PM for all Australians", because pretty well all incoming PMs say that: Fraser[10], Hawke[11], and of course for Howard it was his election slogan.[12] Peter Ballard (talk) 06:03, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Keating didn't??? lol. Gotta admire him for not stooping to that level and trying to do it all on his own terms. On a more serious note, when Howard said it, it seemed to be intended to contrast with Keating's govt, ie, it came across as part of this whole anti-"PC", anti interest group thing that he had - ie, for "normal" australians. Don't know if or how that could be reported. --Merbabu (talk) 06:39, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

PS, as for your initial reason for posting, I agree it should go. (on the other hand, there's nothing like a long out of context and inconsequential quotation to fight over) --Merbabu (talk) 06:47, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Agree, nothing notable about the quote and it should go. Keating quite memorably said: 'Well, this is the sweetest victory of all ... This is the victory for the true believers' link :-) A politically imprudent line, but far more noteworthy. (KR's victory speech was a bit of a dud IMHO) --Surturz (talk) 07:10, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I remember recently the pedia stating that the sweetest victory of all was one of Australia's greatest (?!?). I'm sure it was sweet, but many say that the seeds of the 96 defeat were sown with that speech. SOmetimes you gotta just play the game. sigh. --Merbabu (talk) 07:22, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

It was a very Keating speech. But when he unexpectedly won, a lot of people vowed to make sure the mistake was corrected next time around. Keating could have turned that around, but that wasn't his style. One of the things I like about Rudd is that he's not Keating. He's not anyone but himself, I guess. --Pete (talk) 00:32, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I think there was a recently (last year or so) book of speeches published and I *think* 'True Believers' was included, along with Russell Crowe's Oscar acceptance speech and others. This might be the source of assertion that it is one of the great Australian speeches. The sad fact is that there aren't many good Aussie speeches; 'True Believers' is a good speech, not a great one, but it still might be considered one of the greatest since it doesn't have much competition... --Surturz (talk) 01:26, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Enough of promises

Looking at our article, we don't seem to have listed any actual concrete achievements of this government, now into its third year. Speeches are all very well, but has he done anything we can highlight? Can we organise a project team to list Rudd's overseas trips, maybe? --Pete (talk) 00:28, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I think we have Kyoto, the apology to indigenous Australia, and the pump priming. Is there anything else notable? His overseas trips are borderline - has he signed any treaties or trade agreements? He's had some minor criticism of being overseas too much, but that is about it. Anything else? Workchoices lite?

--Surturz (talk) 01:16, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Lolwut. What do you think about this, then? Ian Lowe? Ottre 05:23, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Kyoto and the apology are just talk. The pump priming is an achievement, I guess, though I saw the happiest Australian a couple of weeks back. He was sitting on a bench in the middle of Northbourne Avenue laughing and he couldn't stop laughing. He'd got his fifteen hundred dollars, put it on a horse, and won.

There was the 2020 thing, but again, that was just talk. I can't think of anything much that Rudd has actually done. It seems to be just keeping on with the Howard policies for the main part. Maybe he's saving himself for a second term, I dunno. --Pete (talk) 04:16, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

National Broadband Network? It isn't finished, but they've started the process. I agree that Rudd hasn't done much but talk and hand out money so far. There's been nothing like Howard's gun buyback, waterfront showdown or anything like that. Here is a link to what the govt itself thought they'd done in their first 100 days. Might be worth a read. --Surturz (talk) 06:18, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

There is the little fact of being held hostage by a Senate effectively controlled by Opposition parties, and a bruised Opposition with no consistent strategy. The same situation has happened to both State and Federal governments of various political colours over time. I live in a state where the only thing the government have done *at all* in four months is change the state's administrative logo, and issue an endless volley of notices changing fish management regulations so they read "2009" instead of "2008", although they've already managed to have a conflict of interest crisis. Even the normally busy PerthNow politics section is basically dead as there's literally no news to report. Orderinchaos 10:35, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Kevin Rudd

--Stefan Uttam (talk) 03:24, 22 January 2009 (UTC) Monarch Elizabeth II Governor-General Quentin Bryce

No, we've been over this amongst the Australian editors, we don't believe Monarch/GG is relevant to a PM infobox. Timeshift (talk) 03:28, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Main photo

It appears User:Michaelbeckham has an issue with the main photo. First he tried uploading the official Rudd photo, then tried removing the current photo and replacing it with the first photo we had, Rudd in 2005. Now he insists that we still remove the current photo. As Skyring on my page points out, we've had a discussion on this, we settled on the current photo. There is nothing wrong with the current photo. The quality is fine unless you're using a 20-year-old monitor. Michaelbeckham wants another discussion, so here it is. Timeshift (talk) 10:05, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I like the current photo and think we should keep it, but if an alternative is needed could I (immodestly) suggest File:Kevin Rudd 23 Feb 08.jpg which I uploaded to Commons? It's a cropped US military photo of a Rudd looking formal and could be cropped further to get a decent portrait (though the lights behind him make his head look a bit odd). Nick-D (talk) 10:49, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I've seen that one, I don't think it's a very good shot of him. Timeshift (talk) 10:53, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, that one is awful. I think this one is the best of the three suggested. It's a bit grainy, but he looks more 'Prime-Ministerial'. He justs looks fat and smirky in the other two images. It might be better if we crop off the tribble that is trying to eat his tie though. --Surturz (talk) 23:09, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

He doesn't look fat in the current main image. As for smirky, I think his smile, or lack of, is rather modest. Timeshift (talk) 03:29, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

He should look happy. I think the current image is just fine, though of course I wish we could use the excellent official photographs. But if a better free image comes along, we should grab hold of it. --Pete (talk) 03:32, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I think the current image is not great and should be changed when a better one comes along. In fact, compared with the three discussed here, it is probably a very close (photo finish - he he) best with this one. Ie, Rudd4-enhanced is a better photo apart from the grainy image quality. --Merbabu (talk) 06:50, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

It might be worth writing to the PM's office and asking whether they would release a photo under a CC license. Kim Carr's office has done this: File:080040 - 015 Sen Kim Carr 24 Jan 08.jpg Nick-D (talk) 07:09, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Good idea. But ieuw! You'd think an officially realeased photo would at least be in focus. Having said that, it is better than any of the pics suggested here or on Howard's article. --Merbabu (talk) 07:19, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Me and another user requested this from the PMs office several months ago. They said they'd pass the request on. No reply to date. Timeshift (talk) 07:31, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that. How about a reminder to them? Point out how bad the alternatives are - and the page visit stats. :-) --Merbabu (talk) 07:34, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I had a quick flick through Flickr and found some possible alternate (CC license) photos: [13], [14], [15], [16]. None grab me as particularly better than the current options, though. --Surturz (talk) 10:44, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Not to mention that none have a valid license. Timeshift (talk) 10:54, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

WHo cares about the licenses? More damning are the choices of tie! ;-) --Merbabu (talk) 11:13, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Really? I thought all the ones I picked had "Creative Commons" licenses. That is the problem with communism... too many flavours :-) --Surturz (talk) 00:01, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

See here. Maybe now you'll appreciate how hard it is for a flickr image to be used on wikipedia. Timeshift (talk) 00:33, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that link. Dunno why the whole copyleft crowd don't just put everything in the public domain. It isn't like all those other restrictions are particularly enforceable; you are relying on the goodwill of the user. --Surturz (talk) 01:37, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

No, but it's enough to stop news agencies and other businesses from using them. Though it didn't stop livenews, but that's a whole other story... Timeshift (talk) 02:48, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Also enough to stop Wikipedia using them, unfortunately :-P --Surturz (talk) 04:08, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but it also shows those who are willing to embrace creative commons in the first place. Correctly worded, I find most are willing to change to cc-by-sa-2.0, there's a lot more pictures on oz pol articles thanks to them. My flickr inbox is flooded with old requests. Just give it a try. Though none of the Kevin Rudds are worthy. Timeshift (talk) 04:25, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Internet censorship?

I don't really know enough about this issue to feel confident making mention of it in this article. However, it is an extremely notable and controversial aspect of his governments policy which i think ought to be included here.

Yeah - the policy is a real worry if you ask me. --Merbabu (talk) 06:50, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

"Former" US President Bush

There seems to be a slow burning edit war on whether to relabel all mentions of "President Bush" to "Former President Bush" and back. Anyone know if there is a WP:MOS guideline on how the word 'former' is used? --Surturz (talk) 02:51, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

This was discussed at WP:AWNB last year about Howard etc, the same thing applies. It's simply incorrect grammar, especially in a photo caption written in teh present tense, which suggests that JH/GWB was out of office when the photo was taken. YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 03:01, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Australian_Wikipedians'_notice_board/Archive_28#.27Former_Prime_Minister_Howard.27 link provided. YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 03:04, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I think the label should be 43rd US President Bush rather than former US President Bush. Timeshift (talk) 10:51, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Just say "President Bush". I agree that saying "former" makes it look like he was former at the time, and putting a number in front of it just doesn't add value. Who needs to know in the context of Rudd that Bush was 43rd or, say, 41st. Having a number there doesn't make it clearer to the reader that he is no longer the President. --Merbabu (talk) 11:37, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I suggest then President Bush. Brisvegas 12:41, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Agreed with Merbabu. He was President Bush at the time. I've checked articles pertaining to other former US Presidents (i.e. not their own article but articles which refer to them) and they are simply referred to as they were at the time - even long-gone ones. Orderinchaos 04:58, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

• Putting a date on the photo might be a compromise e.g Kevin Rudd and U.S. President Bush at APEC in 2007. It depends a lot on the tense of the text that the reference appears in. --Surturz (talk) 09:11, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that anyone reading the article would be unaware that Bush is no longer the President, so references to him should be left as President Bush. Nick-D (talk) 09:15, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Kevin Rudd's Nickname

His nickname is 'Kevin 747', due to the fact he has travelled 20 times to 20 different countries within 12 months. Furthermore, he has spent $600,756 of taxpayer's money for travel within the first 7 months of being Prime Minister of Australia. He has also spent $181,064 on chauffeur-driven Commonwealth cars. [17] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.48.10.6 (talk) 22:45, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Talk pages are for discusisng proposed changes to the article, not sharing your personal opinions. Also, your website is not a reliable source. If you have any suggestions for actually changing the article text, please put them forward with an explanation of their relevance and context. If not, please don't use this page as a soapbox. Euryalus (talk) 22:58, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

agree with euryalys. he is our prime minister. The top dog of a country of 20million. I don't think we should begrudge him or any PM the cost of his office (as it appears the anon poster is implying). Personally i take comfort that the current and former 2 pms were so "engaged" in the restvofvthe world, afterall oz is very dependent on the rest of the world. Any cost associated with making this more effective gets my endorsement and is ultimately peanuts in the scheme of things why not complain about the $6bn being spent to protect jobs and profits in the car industry. That is actually signuficant money but is it fair of even fincially sensible?? Such complaints about politicians remuneration is Typical of this country's small-minded populist crap that can't see the bigger picture. A willingness to go into politics (on any team) should be applauded, not derided as we do in oz. --Merbabu (talk) 23:42, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

We should see this for what it is, promotion of the linked website by the original poster, and nothing more. All we're doing is feeding it. We'd have been much better off having just removed the original comment, after all it isn't intended for article improvement. Timeshift (talk) 00:14, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. Quite aside from the fact it's not a reliable source and, as it does not note its authorising agent, is in breach of Australian electoral disclosure laws. The fact that the IP which posted this message traces back to Boeing Australia is actually quite amusing. Orderinchaos 04:31, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Heheheee. And on every one of those trips, Rudd travelled on Boeing aircraft.--Lester 04:54, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

It isn't hard to find reliable sources. However, I don't think at this stage it is worth including. It's certainly not as notable as Wilson Tuckey's nickname ("Ironbar"). However, it should be noted that this all started with his "Kevin 07" election slogan. This became "Kevin .07" when the Scores strip club story broke, and now "Kevin 747". If "Kevin 07" doesn't deserve inclusion, "Kevin 747" certainly doesn't. --Surturz (talk) 07:09, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

He he - i liked "Kevin 08 mistake" (liked it for the wit, not as actual commentary). --Merbabu (talk) 07:36, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

At the risk of encouraging this troll, he's also been nick-named 'Kevin 24/7'. As article talk pages are only for discussion of the article, the troll's initial post should have been removed BTW. Nick-D (talk) 07:15, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't mind if it all gets removed now. --Merbabu (talk) 07:34, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I have reinstated this discussion, as per WP:BITE. Just because Rudd's jetsetting ways are not worthy of inclusion does not mean they are not worthy of discussion. The OP was not a 'troll', Rudd's travel expenses have been covered in WP:RS as I mentioned above (another example). Assuming the IP OP is a newbie, it is more helpful if they see their edit and understand why we haven't included the topic. --Surturz (talk) 08:53, 2 February 2009 (UTC)