Talk:Kevin Rudd/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Apologies for the many many edits

Here is the diff. Timeshift (talk) 20:25, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

First incumbent Labor prime minister not to re-contest an election?

He was the first incumbent Labor prime minister not to re-contest an election. (lede)

Not sure what this is trying to say. Frank Forde never got the chance to lead his party into the next election either. But he hadn't lead the party into government from opposition, the way Rudd did, so there would have been no re-contesting in Forde's case. Is that the distinction we're making here? Of course, Rudd wasn't the incumbent PM till after the 2007 election, so the 2010 election would have been the first time he contested an election as incumbent PM, and in that sense it wouldn't have been a re-contest either. By the time it became the case that Rudd was not leading the party into the 2010 election, he was no longer the "incumbent Prime Minister".

Otherwise, it's virtually a contradiction in terms to talk about a person who's simultaneously the incumbent PM but also someone who is not re-contesting the next election. I suppose it's technically possible for a PM to announce he/she'll be retiring from politics at the election, but will still lead the party into the election. What the party would think of such a proposal is quite another thing, though. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 21:44, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I would suggest "the first elected Labor PM not to serve a full term in office", but that suffers from the weakness that PMs aren't "elected" (a point seemingly lost on Rudd himself).--Mkativerata (talk) 21:47, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I didn't know how to say it, that was the best I could think of, either way it's more correct than what was there... "He was the first Labor prime minister to be ousted from office before completing a first term". Timeshift (talk) 07:30, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

So, what's the claim? He was the first person to lead the Labor Party from Opposition to Government at a general election but who did not lead them at the following election. Is there a shorter way to say that? And is it something that needs to be said, anyway? There's no corresponding guy in the Libs: Menzies, Holt and Gorton all won elections as PM, but did not lead the party at the following election (Menzies retired; Holt drowned; Gorton relinquished the job in much the same way Rudd did, when it became clear he did not have his party's support - let's hope Gillard is not a latter-day McMahon, which would make Abbott a latter-day Whitlam - shudder). -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 08:54, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

It seems an editor has concerns with the wording. It is true that no other Labor PM has not re-contested an election. However there is the matter of Frank Forde... but should he really be counted? Perhaps the sentence should be removed? Timeshift (talk) 12:40, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Why?

Why did he "stand down"? Timeshift's Kevin Rudd was amazing —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.64.166.222 (talk) 10:28, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Issues, autocratic, lost factional support, resigned. The intro lays this out clearly with references. Can you elaborate on your concerns? I suppose when Rudd's journey is laid out as it is instead of a negative media sound-byte, it kind of rocks the foundations of a Liberal supporter's views :) But I spose this sort of short-term short-sighted and patently false criticism is easy fare for your typical Liberal :) Timeshift (talk) 10:58, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Unprecedented and stratospheric in the same phrase?

Timeshift has reverted my removal of the latter word. I removed it because "Rudd Labor enjoyed an unprecedented period of stratospheric popularity" seems to convey exactly the meaning required, whereas "stratospheric" risks being accused of puffery. This is particularly so because "unprecedented" is provable—a fact—whereas "stratospheric" is an "interpersonal epithet", i.e., subjective. I am removing the word again, since the case seems obvious. If anyone objects (apart from Timeshift), please say so here. Tony (talk) 09:00, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

The term "stratospheric" is used in refs and related news articles on the subject generally. Timeshift (talk) 09:01, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

That does make the use of "stratospheric" more reasonable, but there are two issues: it would be better not to bump it up against "unprecedented" in the same sentence (two amplifications at once); and if using it elsewhere, it would be more comfortable in terms of the POV policy if the word were sourced. Tony (talk) 09:04, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

It's used here and is sourced. And unprecedented and stratospheric are two different things, they are not redundant. Timeshift (talk) 09:14, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

One is provable, the other is a pollster's off-the-cuff opinion, without a clear notion of where the boundary lies between the stratospheric and the non-stratospheric. An unprecedented level of popularity would be pretty high, wouldn't it. Why is this additional term necessary in a highly neutral context? To me, it sticks out—and I am hardly an anti-Rudd person. Tony (talk) 09:29, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't find it to be an issue. Please gain consensus if you wish. Thanks. Timeshift (talk) 09:34, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Not necessarily, it could be an unprecedented low level of popularity. "Stratospheric" at least indicates it was high.--Canley (talk) 09:55, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

←For "unprecedented level" to mean "low", it would have to be marked as such. The default is "high". Tony (talk) 09:58, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Unprecedented simply means never happened before; new territory. Timeshift (talk) 10:00, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I disagree, Tony. For example, in this Peter Hartcher article in the Sydney Morning Herald, Neilsen pollster John Stirton uses the word "unprecedented" several times whilst referring to Malcolm Turnbull's approval ratings, without once marking the ratings as "low": "In many ways the situation is unprecedented because a leader with these ratings is staying around as leader. It's very hard to know what life looks like at this level because it's unprecedented for a leader with these sort of numbers to have a long period in the job." --Canley (talk) 11:27, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

At the very least, "stratospheric" will need to have quote-marks to make it clear that it is not WP's word. Others agree that the metaphor should not be used here at all. Tony (talk) 11:33, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Please gain consensus for it. They are by any measure stratospheric. We don't need to put quotes around every word or just because it's someone else's word. Timeshift (talk) 11:40, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I pretty much agree with you here though Tony. I think in cases like this, it's preferable to make clear when using superlatives that the source does use that term: "Rudd Labor enjoyed an unprecedented period of what Nielsen pollster John Stirton called "stratospheric" support. --Canley (talk) 11:42, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Agreed; the word stratospheric needs quotes at least, and an attribution isn't a bad idea either. WWGB (talk) 12:37, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Someone else chimes in. Tony (talk) 16:20, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Agreed: "stratospheric" is too "over the top" to use without attribution. Michael Glass (talk) 00:30, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

It's got "'s and is cited so it's attributed. But really, it's a mountain made out of a molehill, the word stratospheric has been in so many media articles when referring to Rudd's historical polling, because that's what it was - stratospheric. No leader had ever received such positive all-round polling before, let alone for a sustained period. Timeshift (talk) 03:44, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh for heaven's sake, why can't we use the occasional colourful adjective without quotes(cf). Agreeing with Timeshift9 is one of my least favourite pastimes, and even I think it is reasonable to use a superlative to describe Rudd's popularity. We are allowed to have an editorial voice in these articles. We should write in an interesting fashion to engage the reader. Rudd's soaring popularity is all the more interesting because of the manner of his demise - Rudd's ascent and fall is one of the great dramas of Australian political history and you guys want to suck all of the interest out of it!! Most popular PM of all time knocked off by the first woman PM. Marvellous story that should excite the reader. And you guys are quibbling over the word 'stratospheric'. Do you really think that boring writing equates to credibility? --Surturz (talk) 06:58, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Surturz, it's only unenjoyable because i'm never wrong :D Timeshift (talk) 07:17, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Really? You've joined me in the Right now? ;-) --Surturz (talk) 03:09, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Who's joined who where? :) Timeshift (talk) 04:08, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, if you're never wrong, you must always be Right, right? By corollary, you've left the Left... which, I'm guessing, isn't Right. (: --Surturz (talk) 04:20, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I suppose when you support right-wing ideals, you'll do anything to legitimise it's extremist ideologies, including non-sensical word plays that hold no significance except a play on the English language. But it follows the path that's always been... the right-wing not using anything of substance as a justification :) Timeshift (talk) 04:23, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

....ooookaaaay. (backs away slowly). What I want to know is whether Gillard has the same inspiration as Rudd, or not. In other words, did she inherit Rudd's copy of "The Howard Years", or buy her own? Have you decided which Liberal Party you are voting for yet, Shifty? --Surturz (talk) 11:24, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm voting for the party that doesn't use fears of minorities to win elections :) Timeshift (talk) 21:12, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Not too sure that describes any of the parties now. All minorities, no wins. Moving right along, this article is pathetic. The only apparent reason for his being booted out by his own party (and even the manner of his exit is sugar-coated) is that he was seen as being rude to his staff. His decline in the polls began around the time of the Copenhagen thing, it accelerated with the batts disaster, and what really sunk him was his cowardice in pursuing "the greatest moral challenge of our generation". He was dead in the water by the time Julia acted. This is a great story, but for some reason it's being whitewashed. For what? Are we afraid of telling the truth in our encyclopaedia? --Pete (talk) 11:01, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

"Are we afraid of telling the truth in our encyclopaedia?" - ha ha, another red flag to the bulls (and, excuse me mixing my metaphors here, but) who will bite first? --Merbabu (talk) 11:05, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Rudd in the early teens

According to the article, Rudd boarded, but according to this (it's now fascinating going over old articles like this 2003 doozy), he was passed between relatives. Can someone figure which is correct or if they both are in some way? Timeshift (talk) 16:32, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

There are some further references for that period which can maybe fill it out a bit more. David Marr's article in Quarterly Essay says: "After a brief stint at a local De La Salle school, the little boy [Rudd] turned up halfway through 1969 as a boarder at Marist College Ashgrove in the Brisbane hills." There's an article in the Bulletin in 2007 which says: "Not long after, Margaret Rudd decided to retrain as a nurse at Brisbane's Mater Hospital and Kevin moved schools again, joining his brother in Brisbane as a boarder..." Bernard Lagan's Loner: Inside a Labor Tragedy also mentions the relatives, the difference being it says he was shuffled between relatives until his mother began training as a nurse (Michael Gordon in The Age says he was shuffled between relatives while his mother was doing her training). Marr's article also mentions that he was lived with neighbours rather than relatives until he finished primary school at Eumundi, then followed his mother south to the De La Salle school. Finally, Rudd's schooling is covered in some detail in this article in the Brisbane Times: "It was here [Marist Brothers Ashgrove] that Kevin Rudd found himself six months after his father's death in 1969. ... Kevin was the last of the four Rudd children at home. The eldest, Malcolm, had joined the army, sister Loree had entered the novitiate, and Greg was in year 10 boarding at Ashgrove. Struggling to get by after her husband died, Margaret Rudd gratefully accepted the Marist Brothers' offer to waive the boarding fees for Greg and Kevin. This was a rare privilege. In those days Ashgrove had a four-year waiting list. It meant Kevin was looked after while Margaret went back to work as a live-in nurse at the Mater Hospital."

It looks from all these like Rudd was "shuffled around" for six months while he finished primary school, then joined his brother Greg who was already a boarder at Marist College in mid-1969, then started at Nambour High in mid-1971 at Year 9 level. --Canley (talk) 05:59, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

This really needs research and article expansion. Does anyone care to take up the challenge? Timeshift (talk) 06:17, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Wording improvement suggestion requested

"Among the Rudd government's first acts was"... is there a way I can make this can sound less awkward? Timeshift (talk) 03:59, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

"The Rudd Government's first acts included..." perhaps? Nick-D (talk) 10:05, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, changed. My functioning isn't brain all that well today. Timeshift (talk) 11:09, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Rudd first Labor PM to...

"becoming the first Labor prime minister not to re-contest an election as an incumbent prime minister" in the lead... it really isn't correct. Watson and Forde are two examples of Labor PMs who never contested an election. Any suggestions for a correct, more succinct way to express what is trying to be said? Maybe it shouldn't be in the lead at all? Timeshift (talk) 14:49, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, changing "first" to "third" would at least have the advantage of accuracy, but does it really need to be said? If we put Forde to one side (because it was never intended he be in the job for very long), that leaves Watson as the only other one. And that was over a century ago. We could say "Rudd became the first non-caretaker Labor prime minister since Chris Watson in 1904 not to lead his party into an election". Not sure it's anything notable, though. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 23:18, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Ok, i'm removing it. Timeshift (talk) 04:37, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Lead is too long.

Lead is too long. On an unrelated note, I prefer the US Dept of State image. --Surturz (talk) 04:15, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Why to both? Timeshift (talk) 04:28, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

The lead should summary of the important points of the article, not a reiteration of content of varying importance. Specific issues:

• "As the new leader, Rudd gave major announcements on areas such as industrial relations, climate change, an "education revolution", a National Broadband Network, and health.". This sentence should be removed, his achievements as PM trump his announcements as Opposition Leader.
• Someone has polluted the lead with numerical opinion poll figures. Description of his opinion polling in the lead should be qualitative, not quantitative, and a single sentence.
• The last para seems to want to explain why he resigned as PM, but doesn't actually do so. I think we should limit it to text saying that he lost the support of caucus to Julia Gillard and resigned. As to the various contributing reasons why he lost the support of caucus (squibbing the ETS, RSPT, autocratic style, drop in opinion polls), the reader will need to read the article for that detail. "Lost the support of the public" is pretty POV-laden, since it is the ALP caucus that removed him from power, not the electorate.
• Although there is no prohibition on references in the lead, I do think that references in the lead are ugly and imply a lack of consensus in its content. If the lead is a summary of the article, then the references in the body of the article should be enough to establish the verifiability of the lead. This is just my opinion, perhaps other editors feel differently, but I do think WP:LEADCITE implies that it is nicer not to have cites in the lead. So I would like to remove all the refs from the lead (or move them if they are not in the body of the article)

As for the photo, I simply prefer the Dept of State photo; he looks more "Prime Ministerial" and less "Kermit the Frog".

--Surturz (talk) 14:47, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I simply can't agree that the state photo is better, he looks way more plastic in it. The current photo gives a massive shot of just the face, excellent resolution. As for the lead, go and look at some other world leader articles. This lead is by no means too long. Timeshift (talk) 21:49, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

The quality of the current image is not 'excellent resolution' - it's colors are a bit off, it's blurry, and looks like an amateur photograph. The state photo (or the one below) is much better resolution, and has an overall better quality to it, and it should be used IMO. Connormah^talk 22:29, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with the length of the lead. It's a good size for a long article. The actual content of the lead is another matter. --Merbabu (talk) 15:19, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Image

The current image is has horrendous quality, and I think a more formal image is more suited for this purpose, eg, File:Kevin Rudd 23 Feb 08.jpg, which I can crop to suit a lead image. Connormah^talk 22:27, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Again, definitely disagree. Please don't change unless a new consensus is formed. Timeshift (talk) 22:34, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Where's the 'consensus' for the current one? Connormah^talk 23:00, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

The lead including the image had a major overhaul several weeks ago and a few commented on the improvement, including Tony who thought the image was much better. If contributions are not disputed in a reasonable time, implicit consensus is formed. Just like how if a user creates an article, if three years later someone comes along and changes text/a pic from the status quo but is disputed, then it is incumbent on the changer to form a new consensus. Timeshift (talk) 23:02, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Sure, I'd like a review of the image, then. I note that one person above agrees with me about the lead image, but, yes, it's probably best to form a consensus. Connormah^talk 23:09, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I think it's worth having a proper discussion about this. Below is a gallery of images I've taken from the category on the Commons to aid with comparisons (please add more if you feel they should be included).

Gallery of images of Kevin Rudd
Kevin Rudd 23 Feb 08.jpg Kevin Rudd 23 Feb 08 cropped.jpg Kevin Rudd by UNDP.jpg Kevin Rudd headshot.jpg KevinRuddZoom.JPG Rudd4-enhanced.JPG KevinRuddZoom2.jpg Australian PM Kevin Rudd meets with UNDP chief Helen Clark.jpg Kevin_Rudd_DOS.jpg Kevin Rudd DOS cropped.jpg

Of the images here, I have to agree with Connormah that Kevin Rudd 23 Feb 08.jpg (appropriately cropped) is the best available. I'm going to place notices on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Australian politics and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Australia to get some outside voices and form a proper consensus.  -- Lear's Fool 01:17, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comment The best photograph is File:KevinRuddZoom.JPG but the existing image is fine too. Both are much better than the proposed File:Kevin Rudd 23 Feb 08.jpg whose sole virtue appears to be that is shows Rudd in a suit! A nice, clear, well lit headshot should be the aim. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 01:27, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
• Comment I'm with Mattinbgn - File:KevinRuddZoom.JPG is the best. I'm not too keen on the current one - the resolution is terrible. I have to agree that File:Kevin Rudd 23 Feb 08.jpg is a bit distant for the main portrait. Frickeg (talk) 01:38, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

So we're not changing to the suit image that it was changed to earlier this morning. Very good. Timeshift (talk) 01:52, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I think we should probably let this discussion run a little longer than an hour before it's declared closed.  -- Lear's Fool 02:01, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comment I've cropped File:Kevin Rudd 23 Feb 08.jpg into a headshot and I still think its slightly better than File:KevinRuddZoom.JPG (check the gallery).  -- Lear's Fool 02:01, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

He has a rather awkward expression in that pic Lear. The currently used pic is still better. Timeshift (talk) 02:12, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comment I think headshot is the crisper pic, more in focus and is the best, I'm with Lear's Fool.CanberraBulldog (talk) 02:17, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Would your WP:COI have anything to do with it? Timeshift (talk) 02:23, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Unless I'm missing something, I don't think it's necessary to question motives here, Timeshift. CanberraBulldog is expressing an opinion, which he/she has every right to do.  -- Lear's Fool 02:34, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

My conflict of interest? I've lost you there? I do not have a WP:COI with the image or article? I'm lost? Please explain your comments, assertion TimeShift and I may be able to understand your meaning and answer your question? CheersCanberraBulldog (talk) 02:47, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not going to bother if you're going to deny. Timeshift (talk) 02:53, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Um, okay, but I'm still unsure what you are on about - If you just say what you think my COI is then I can answer/comment on your previous WP:COI question? CheersCanberraBulldog (talk) 03:08, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Timeshift, a COI would suggest either that he works for Kevin Rudd, the Labor Party or possibly the Liberal Party - I think it'd be hard to extend to "he uploaded the image therefore he has a COI". Orderinchaos 10:03, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comment In agreement with Mattinbgn that the "Zoom" shot is the best picture, although the 23Feb08 one is a better quality image. The other headshot from defense.gov isn't great at all. Perhaps this is an occasion where we should do a Colin Barnett and approach his office for one that will be better than either. :) Orderinchaos 02:38, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
• Comment I prefer "Kevin_Rudd_DOS"; more formal, not grinning like Kermit. UNDP, Rudd4Enhanced and the Helen Clarke one (provided we crop out the zombie woman) are my second choices. --Surturz (talk) 03:54, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
• Comment—The existing image seems the best to me. By number, top-left to right: Hands over dick; squinting; OK; (middle row) the most natural by far, even if the background is not so good; pursed lips; daydreaming; (bottom row) squinting again, worse; inappropriate with Clarke. Tony (talk) 03:58, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
• Comment — File:Kevin Rudd headshot.jpg:- out of focus, shiny forehead, messy background, bad hair day. I'd prefer File:Kevin Rudd 23 Feb 08 cropped.jpg. Melburnian (talk) 04:25, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
• Comment - File:Kevin Rudd 23 Feb 08 cropped.jpg would probably be best. While File:Kevin Rudd headshot.jpg and File:KevinRuddZoom.JPG are good headshots, the quality on both are nowhere near close to others (focus, background..etc). Connormah^talk 04:46, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
• Comment. I prefer File:Kevin Rudd 23 Feb 08 cropped.jpg. It's the best head shot with smile. The others are grumpy, fuzzy, distant or otherwise flawed. WWGB (talk) 04:56, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

You call that a smile? I call it an awkward shot. Timeshift (talk) 05:06, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Timeshift, there is no need to badger everyone who disagrees with your opinion.. Connormah^talk 05:09, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

To me, that comment in itself wasn't badgering, Connormah. I must say, I find myself wondering why anyone would take issue with the current pic. It's the only one that doesn't have a significant downside. The boring background we can live with, can't we? Tony (talk) 05:15, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't referring to specifically that comment, rather some of the others above. And if you wonder why anyone would take issue with the current image, just read some comments above - I find it a) blurry b) out of focus and c) it has a distracting background. To me, an encyclopedia should use images of the best quality for a subject, which I feel this is not. Connormah^talk 05:23, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I'd hate to think there's too much disagreement that a consensus can't be formed and thus we're left with the status quo... :) Timeshift (talk) 06:14, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Let me add to Connormah's list: shiny forehead, metal teeth, collar button showing, subject not engaging with camera. And that's just from a 30-second glance. WWGB (talk) 07:21, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

There was also no consensus to change TO the current image. It just appeared here one day [1]. WWGB (talk) 07:46, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

The lead including the image had a major overhaul several weeks ago and a few commented on the improvement, including Tony who thought the image was much better. If contributions are not disputed in a reasonable time, implicit consensus is formed. Just like how if a user creates an article, if three years later someone comes along and changes text/a pic from the status quo but is disputed, then it is incumbent on the changer to form a new consensus. Timeshift (talk) 10:09, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comment I originally uploaded File:Kevin Rudd 23 Feb 08.jpg, but agree that File:KevinRuddZoom.JPG is the best option (Rudd's head looks a bit compressed in File:Kevin Rudd 23 Feb 08.jpg for some reason). The current photo isn't of very good quality due to the combination of low resolution, orange background and bad hair. Nick-D (talk) 10:01, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment - I really don't see how File:KevinRuddZoom.JPG has any better quality, honestly. It's cropped out of a low resolution, amateurish photo. Although the pose, and background are excellent, I really see a downside in the quality and focus of the image. As I stated above - we should be using the best image available, and I feel strongly that Lear's cropped version of my suggestion is the best one. Connormah^talk 16:44, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I realise voting is evil, and I do not mean to imply that this has been a straight vote by what follows, but I have tabulated people's first choices as best I can. Please feel free to alter this table if you feel I have misrepresented your opinion, or you have changed your mind.

User	First Choice
Lear's Fool	Kevin Rudd 23 Feb 08 (cropped)
Timeshift9	Kevin Rudd headshot
Mattinbgn	KevinRuddZoom
Frickeg	KevinRuddZoom
CanberraBulldog	Kevin Rudd 23 Feb 08 (cropped)
Orderinchaos	KevinRuddZoom
Surturz	Kevin_Rudd_DOS
Tony	Kevin Rudd headshot
Melburnian	Kevin Rudd 23 Feb 08 (cropped)
Connormah	Kevin Rudd 23 Feb 08 (cropped)
WWGB	Kevin Rudd 23 Feb 08 (cropped)
Nick-D	KevinRuddZoom
Романов	Kevin_Rudd_DOS

Accordingly, I'm going to change the image to File:Kevin Rudd 23 Feb 08 cropped.jpg, but I think I agree with Orderinchaos that it may be worth sending an e-mail to his office to see whether they'll give us a better one.  -- Lear's Fool 03:51, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

WP:CONSENSUS has NOT been formed, do NOT change the image. As a side note, years ago I emailed Rudd's office, I was told I would be given a response but never was. I wonder if things have changed now. Note that we really can only have a big headshot and not one where his head is tiny, because on the article Australian Labor Party the small-head image would not suit and look weird compared to the rest, especially Whitlam Hawke and Keating. Maybe Surturz should reconsider their vote. Not that that alone would come close to a new consensus. It seems to me that people like the current image but don't like how clear the image is. The full image is here, it is a massive image which is why it looks a little grainy at 100%, maybe someone with photoshop type skills could shrink-a-little and enhance the photo and make it look better? Timeshift (talk) 03:55, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Per WP:CONSENSUS, "sometimes voluntary agreement of all interested editors proves impossible to achieve, and a majority decision must be taken." My concern is that we have not yet achieved even a simple majority. Perhaps we need preferential voting! WWGB (talk) 04:20, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

IMO the image is still not the best quality at original resolution (or whatever my browser renders it to be). Connormah^talk 04:20, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Browser renders, being the key term. Browsers render images for quantity not quality. Timeshift (talk) 04:27, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Of the four options that have garnered any support at all, I actually like the current one the least. It's painfully obvious that it's been cropped from something else, its quality isn't great, and it has a very amateurish look about it. The only thing it's got going for it is that it's the only one without an awkward expression; the expression in the "cropped" photo is awful. I actually don't mind Surturz's suggestion of the DOS image, but ultimately the "Zoom" one is the best of a bad lot. Frickeg (talk) 04:31, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

The DOS one would look very out of place on Australian Labor Party and other places where PM images are pretty much headshots, not half body shots. The DOS image is of too low resolution to get a decent closer-up crop. And compared to the awkward expression on 23 Fed 08 (cropped), if it came down to it I like Frickeg would support using KevinRuddZoom as well. It seems to hold more or less the same level of higher support. Note: Until new consensus is formed, the current one stays. Please follow the guideline Lear... Timeshift (talk) 04:33, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

My word, a new consensus because someone didn't get their way. So what, after the new, new consensus we have another consensus because someone else didn't get their way. I say just draw a stick person and be done with it. CanberraBulldog (talk) 04:42, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I was referring to the size that my browser renders it (which is considerably smaller than it's full res). I was always picky about KevinRuddZoom when it was in the article - the bad quality and fuzziness is even evident when scaled to the small resolution used in the infobox, which is, I find, troubling. Lear's cropped image would work the best still IMO. Connormah^talk 04:48, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

The DOS image doesn't look that bad when cropped, the resolution isn't that much of a problem, I'll upload a version of it to the gallery above to get some comments. Timeshift, there is a clear consensus here that the image you are advocating is not the best one, and I believe this situation (which, to be honest, is a storm in a teacup) would be made much less dramatic if you would participate through discussion and compromise. Nobody is going to get exactly what they want here, so let's try to find some common ground and put this incredibly minor issue to rest.  -- Lear's Fool 04:49, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

The new DOS one is a good compromise - looks very diplomatic - Foreign Affairs like. CanberraBulldog (talk) 04:53, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Added, and I think it's excellent: not grainy, nice expression, decent portrait crop. The only concern would be the slightly low resolution, but I think the lack of zoom artefacts makes up for that.  -- Lear's Fool 05:08, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Also no odd expression, which is particularly helpful. Frickeg (talk) 05:21, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I've been convinced. I now support Kevin Rudd DOS cropped. Does anyone object to changing this one? Please allow 24 hours to give contributors time to respond to see if a new consensus has been formed before changing it. Thankyou. Timeshift (talk) 05:44, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

In the meantime I've contacted Rudd's office - it seems promising so far. Orderinchaos 05:50, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

You'll have to forgive me if I'm bold and change it now: discussion should continue, but I don't think this is sufficently contentious or significant to warrant waiting to change it.  -- Lear's Fool 05:53, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I support DOS or DOS_cropped. "Kevin Rudd 23 Feb 08 cropped.jpg" is horrific. Profoundly fugly and genuinely scary. It should have a warning label to avoid terrifying small children and old ladies. I would prefer no image rather than that image. Shifty has obviously been traumatised by it too if he's asking for my support :-) --Surturz (talk) 07:05, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

As per Surturz, DOS or DOS_cropped are the best suited for this purpose. Романов (talk) 11:57, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Images as Foreign Minister

These [from the photostream of the US Embassy] in Canberra are released under CC-BY-ND. They may be useful in illustrating Rudd as Foreign Minister until other images come through. Mostlyharmless (talk) 06:40, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Reference accuracy

None of the references in footnote 147 seem to support the statement that cite 147 as evidence. I also think it's bad form to cite so many articles in one footnote. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.239.164.172 (talk) 00:14, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I think it does. Timeshift (talk) 01:01, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I think the point is that the references are supposed to be supporting the fact that Shorten cited those things as evidence, whereas they generally merely point to those being factors without reference to Shorten. On the other hand, the IP is definitely right about having so many articles in one footnote; I've separated them. Frickeg (talk) 01:19, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Has Rudd's media secretary authorised this?

he stood down in favour of Julia Gillard.. I think that the key part of Rudd's removal was that it wasn't voluntary. The only reason that he failed to contest the leadership ballot called by Gillard is that Rudd knew that the numbers would have humiliated him. Yet our wording suggests that it was a cosey, mutual, voluntary arrangement. Misleading the punters may be the nature of politics, but it isn't the business of an encyclopaedia. --Pete (talk) 00:21, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Your POV interpretation is the problem Pete. He did stand down in favour of Julia Gillard did he not? Later on but still in the lead, it says "Rudd stepped down as Prime Minister and party leader on 24 June 2010, when it became clear that he had lost the support of his party". Then there's the actual main body of the article. Your spin is your spin. Not wikipedia's. Timeshift (talk) 00:29, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

My point here isn't whether a statement is technically, grudgingly, preciously true. It's whether it leads the reader to the truth. My impression of the event is that Rudd was forced out. --Pete (talk) 01:03, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

You are taking a sentence out of context and choosing to spin it whilst at the same time disregarding the sentence I quoted that's also contained within the lead. Timeshift (talk) 01:15, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

No. I'm highlighting the misleading wording. I think that the article should state the truth - that Rudd was forced out of the job. --Pete (talk) 01:24, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

What part of "Rudd stepped down as Prime Minister and party leader on 24 June 2010, when it became clear that he had lost the support of his party" in the lead of the article do you fail to understand? Timeshift (talk) 01:35, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

We'll get to that later on. I'm starting from the top down. Do you have any suggestions for more accurate wording of the phrase I've indicated above? Butch and Sundance didn't jump into the river because they wanted a pleasant swim, for example, and Rudd didn't smile and step aside because he thought it was time someone else had a go. --Pete (talk) 01:48, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

(ec x 50) I removed the phrase, and not necessarily for POV concerns. Rather, it is unnecessary to state in the first paragraph of a long article the manner in which his PMship ended (and the 2nd or 3rd sentence of the whole article). It’s explained in more detail in the last paragraph of the lead. That first sentence now simply reads: "He was the 26th Prime Minister of Australia, from December 2007 until June 2010." - no POV concerns there i trust? And the (involuntary) nature of his resignation is explained in the final paragraph of the lead.

While there's room for tweaking, I think the lead is a nicely ordered/structure introduction and summary to the subject, and as per WP:LEAD, stands alone as an article in itself.

And please try and be less provocative to each other in your discussion. Stick to the facts. No need for "Has Rudd's media secretary authorised this" and "what part of….don’t you understand". Cut it out for the rest of us, if not for yourselves. cheers - --Merbabu (talk) 01:58, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. My reason for the title - and yes, it is intended to stimulate discussion - is to highlight the fact that the article is not what we should expect from an encyclopaedia in the way it glosses and spins over Rudd's career, polishing up the good bits and hiding the bad.--Pete (talk) 02:07, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Point taken, but Oz pol articles can be sensitive at the best of times without Discussion Stimulus packages. :-) On the other hand, such a package may be excellent to get people interested in the very title of the Mataram Kingdom. sigh --Merbabu (talk) 02:19, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

As a night cabbie in Canberra, mainly working the Airport, Manuka/Kingston, Parliamentary Triangle runs, I get a LOT of political folk - staffers, media, public servants, even the occasional politician - in my cab. They talk. To the cabbie, to their fellow-passengers, on the phone. I had a couple of Rudd's staffers, drunk and emotional, on the night he was rolled. I hear a lot of things. Some of it is nonsense, of course, but with a lot of passengers, you get a feel for what's going on. You hear different versions of the same story. Cabbies tend to be good judges of character, always asking the three questions of each passenger. As well as that, I'm married to a senior public servant, who tells her own tales of long hours wasted away from her real work spent researching information for the PM that was never used. The public service despised Rudd, and I got that story night and day.

I knew Rudd was in trouble before he did, I reckon. Surrounded by yes-men, full of himself, no effective opposition until Abbott stepped up, Rudd was way out of touch.

Now, that's just my opinion. But I also get the Press Gallery in my cab. I could drop a few names, I could mention the recent weekend in the country house of one of the big names, I could mention years of personal contact. I know who's got the goods, who's spinning a line, who is always on one side of the fence.

There are books in the works. Some of the heavy hitters are writing the history of the Rudd downfall. Paul Kelly's is the one I'm hanging out for, but Barrie Cassidy has one out, to be published shortly, and the extracts I've read hit the spot. Let me just say this. Our article on Kevin Rudd misses the mark. In the months ahead, we are going to get a string of solid sources giving the good guff on a toxic Prime Minister. The story that the top political journalists are telling isn't what Wikipedia is saying.

Yes, I know Australian politics is a sensitive area. I don't want to upset other editors, but I want Wikipedia to reflect reality rather than spin. --Pete (talk) 22:25, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi, would you please keep your opining tethered a bit please, if you can't cite it don't say it, remember WP:BLP applies just as much on article talkpages, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 22:49, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Point taken. I've removed the comment about McMahon. --Pete (talk) 23:41, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

It certainly appears that one man's "reality" is another man's spin! I have to hand it to you Pete for always trying to go for the jugular in a way that no other does in quite the same way. It seems you're far more interested in opinions and commentary which is a shame for the article. Timeshift (talk) 22:44, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Let's just stick to reliable sources, and give personal opinions no credit in the article, and personal attacks no daylight in the discussion, shall we? --Pete (talk) 22:51, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good - so no more opinions of cabbies with self-declared good connections and networks? lol - let's remove the spin and replace it with opinion. --Merbabu (talk) 00:30, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

It's always amusing when someone claims their job gives them the pulse of the nation ;) Timeshift (talk) 00:36, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

As a former Canberra cabbie (inter alia) myself, I know exactly what he's saying. But this whole "forcing" language is the media at work, believing its own rhetoric, always a bad thing. How often have we been told that so-and-so "was forced to defend his party's policy"? Well, no. They chose to defend it. The consequences had they not defended it might have been undesirable, but it was still their choice. Same with Rudd. He knew that, had he stayed in the ring on 24 June, he would have lost to Gillard. He could still have had the ballot anyway. But he chose not to. If he'd been told "we will rape your wife and kill your children unless you withdraw", then yes, that would justify "he was forced to withdraw". Otherwise, no. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 00:59, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Just saying why I find the article at odds with the reality: the people who had to deal with Rudd didn't regard him in the same light he is portrayed here. I'll stand by my observation that Rudd was forced out, in exactly the same way that Göring was forced to the end of his life. The manner in which they acted at the precipice does not alter the fact that they did not wish to be in that position, and they were made to go there by others. --Pete (talk) 02:08, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Awkward progression

in 1988, he was appointed Chief of Staff to the Labor Opposition Leader in Queensland, Wayne Goss. He was then Chief of Staff to the Premier.

This flows poorly. I suggest from 1988 he was Chief of Staff to the Queensland Labor Opposition Leader and later Premier, Wayne Goss. The next sentence implies that he staid on until Goss lost office, but I don't think we need to make it explicit. --Pete (talk) 02:16, 5 October 2010 (UTC) Box ticked. --Pete (talk) 03:09, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Major announcements?

As the new leader, Rudd gave major announcements on areas such as industrial relations, climate change, an "education revolution", a National Broadband Network, and health.

For the lead, this seems to be excessive, especially as it is phrased as retrospective opinionating. Do we have a contemporary source for this selective list? --Pete (talk) 15:06, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

It doesn’t appear to be a sourcing problem. This is all mentioned in further detail-*with citations*-in the body of the article (see opposition leader section). It’s perfectly legitimate, indeed superior, to not have the citations in the lead of an article if it’s cited in article body – numerous examples of good and feature articles adhere to this.

As for suitability for the lead, hmmm, they were important parts of his time as opposition leader. What else could be said in its place for this period? It already mentions that he and the Labor party were trouncing their opponents in the opinion polls from once he assumed leadership.

I’m not saying there is no room for improvement, just suggesting that it’s not bad and there is no alternative yet suggested. --Merbabu (talk) 21:59, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

There are no problems with sourcing individual statements made by Rudd during this period, and of course they are all sourced in the body. But, do we have a source from that time saying that these statements - as opposed to others from the period - were seen as major? Or is it a case of pulling out speeches made in Opposition and retrospectively declaring them to be important because they later had some impact?

It is quite rare for an Opposition Leader to flag speeches as major or important - John Howards' "Headland Speeches" are examples, the contents of which do not seem now to be particularly important. I am asking for a contemporary source for "major", not "announcements. --Pete (talk) 22:23, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I removed the word "major". It now says "policy announcements". If this is not appropriate, please suggest an alternative. --Merbabu (talk) 23:43, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

That's fine. I'm intending to go through the article top to bottom as time permits, highlighting elements that I see as unsatisfactory. I would like to discuss changes before making them (or not, often I'll be persuaded by discussion), so if I raise a point, it means I'm not going to make an edit for a day or so. If you can see where my line of thinking is going and you can find wording that removes my objections, then I'll be very happy. --Pete (talk) 00:10, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Sick

the federal government's role in healthcare funding was increased. This unsourced statement in the lead is not mentioned at all in the main body. I propose to remove it. --Pete (talk) 03:08, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Or, you could source it or propose an alternative - surely we can't suggest that health, and its funding in particular, wasn't a significant issue for the government. --Merbabu (talk) 09:09, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I could, but I'm working my way down he article methodically, and my time is limited for major research - at the moment I'm sitting in my cab at Canberra airport and I'll be offline in a minute or two. Looking at cleanup, rather than rewrite. --Pete (talk) 09:16, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Later, at leisure. I'm unsure as to exactly what is being referred to here. I know Rudd wanted to pretty much take over all health, but he wanted a lot of things and not many of them went beyond the planning phase, despite all the lovely speeches. Was there some major Rudd health initiative which was actually implemented? --Pete (talk) 21:44, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

The sole source for healthcare reform in the article says this: 'There is no doubt that reforming the health system has been one of the major achievements of the last two-and-a-half years'.

Well, I'm doubting. Rudd outlined a vision earlier this year, but I'm unaware of any action. Issuing a media release does not constitute "a major achievement" Not in my book. Could someone please enlighten me as to any implementation of Rudd's grand plan, or has it, like the Kingswood, been quietly dropped? If it hasn't happened, it's not an achievement and we're not going to list it as one in our article. --Pete (talk) 23:03, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Lead polls

Beginning with Rudd's election to the Labor leadership, the party enjoyed a period of popularity unprecedented in magnitude and length in the opinion polls. In mid-2010, however, the polls showed a sharp drop in both the Labor party's and Rudd's personal electoral standing.

The first sentence is unsupported in the main body of the text, and should therefore be removed. The second sentence is inaccurate - the fatal drop in Rudd's support began in late 2009 and accelerated downhill. The end wasn't as sudden as the article implies - Rudd had a pretty rough six months beginning with Copenhagen. The bad news stories kept coming, Rudd's responses were ineffective, and Tony Abbott kept scoring goals. --Pete (talk) 22:03, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh, Pete's back! Labor stuffed themselves up, Abbott didn't do anything, just look at his satisfaction ratings. It started in late 2009 and then there was a sudden dip in mid-2010. This was all there and ref supported. It's not my fault people decided to come along and redo the entire lead and get rid of the supporting refs in the process. I certainly didn't support bastardising the lead as some have done. Timeshift (talk) 22:11, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Looking at the polls as graphed in the article, it looks more like a steady decline if you exclude local peaks and valleys. The trend is continually downhill. I think we can list a series of setbacks from late 2009 - Copnhagen, the "batts are burning" affair, the failure on ETS etc. - as responsible for this. Abbott, as Opposition Leader, didn't initiate Rudd's troubles, but was able to highlight them effectively, holding Rudd up to ridicule in a way that Turnbull had been unable to do. However, I'm not proposing to include Abbott in the lead, merely to be more accurate about the timing of Rudd's decline in the polls. --Pete (talk) 01:56, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Ahh, always gotta love Pete interpretations :) This is what actually happened. Read the lead and refs for yourself. I repeat, it started in late 2009, and collapsed suddenly in mid-2010. Read. Unfortunately, others came in and changed it to the garbled uninterpretable mess that it is in today, so I can't say I blame you completely. Timeshift (talk) 04:07, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, let's make the lead less garbled, then. These things happen with a varied college of editors. One of the results is flat and lifeless prose and a lack of any distinctive "voice". Merbabu reminded me about WP:LEAD, which deals with sources, and a heap of other stuff. So long as the main article is well sourced, and the lead follows the main text, we don't need to show sources in the lead. The poll graphic doesn't really show a sudden collapse. Rudd had a spike in popularity and the immediately following dip took him back to the trendline, which was all down. --Pete (talk) 04:20, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Again, try reading the link I provided - the lead and the refs. There are refs to support the sudden mid 2010 collapse. And - when the mining attack ads started, Rudd's satisfaction-dissatisfaction went fron 50-40 to 40-50 IN A SINGLE POLL... at no point prior to then had Rudd's sat-dissat been anything less than about 50-40... his approval collapsed in two weeks and didn't recover. You and the coalition can continue to attempt to say Labor is the devil all day every day but the facts speak for themselves. Timeshift (talk) 04:26, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

The facts - as shown in the poll graphic in this article - show a steady trend downwards since late 2009. The poll results for the ALP were crucial to Rudd's remaining in office. Nobody doubted that he could hold his seat, but backbenchers were understandably nervous about their own seats, and ministers looked at the prospect of losing government and therefore their positions. I don't think that the Parliamentary ALP decided to switch support away from a sitting PM on the strength of a single adverse poll result - do you? The lead needs to be summarise and be supported by the main text, and the figures given in the body show a decline beginning in late 2009, and I propose to alter the lead to reflect the facts given in the article. --Pete (talk) 09:06, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Are you deaf or blind? I repeat. It started in late 2009, and collapsed in mid 2010, as supported by cites and polls. Timeshift (talk) 19:58, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

At the moment, I'm discussing the lead, and it must be supported by the main text. Which includes the poll figures. Please refer to the graphic included in the body, (link above), which graphs the results of 2PP figures during the 42nd Parliament. The blue (Neilsen) line shows a steady trend downwards, admittedly sinking faster in June 2010. However, more pronounced collapses are visible in April 2009, and August 2010. The red (Newpoll) line is less trendier, showing more jags and dips, but still the June collapse is not as large nor as sudden as others such as a seven (07) point fall in November 2009. The green (Morgan) line is the most volatile of the three, but again, the November 09 drop (of nine points) is the largest on the chart. All three show brief dips below party parity in May or June 2010, but a drop below a given point, even a significant one, cannot be said to be a sudden collapse - the speed and magnitude of the drop are important, rather than the point on the graph.

What all three graphs show is a trend downwards, dropping more sharply towards the end of Rudd's tenancy. It might also be noted that the Himalaya-like appearance of the graph is a result of the vertical scale encompassing twenty points (out of the hundred available) and the time span across the breadth covering three years.

Moving along, my initial points above are that the period of popularity unprecedented in magnitude and length statement is unsupported by any text in the main an should be either removed or modified to a wording which may be supported ungaspingly. Merbabu's changes to the second sentence are fine for the time being. --Pete (talk) 21:17, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm sick of these unfounded accusations. Again read what i've written above. Period of popularity unprecedented in magnitute and length - are you seriously disputing this? You really need to stop the POV pushing. Timeshift (talk) 23:43, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

My reason for removal was that the claim was unsourced and unmentioned in the main body of the text. If the statement is true, sourced and mentioned in the main text, then I am more than happy for it to stand. If you have any concerns about changes flagged, then please raise them before they are made, rather than revert. Or add the necessary sources, text or corrections. We are working as a team here, and your input is valued. --Pete (talk) 00:02, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

A painless transition

Rudd stepped down as Prime Minister and party leader on 24 June 2010, when it became clear that he had lost the support of his party.

To me, this is not a good explanation of the situation. He only "stepped down" because if he had actually contested the leadership ballot won by Gillard, he would have been crushed. We should also briefly explain why he failed after such early promise. Rudd's removal was a rare and puzzling event, especially for overseas observers, who were saying that it seemed very like a coup. --Pete (talk) 17:19, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

To my mind, the key point about Rudd's removal is that it was a removal. Left to his own, he would have staid. But, like Hermann Göring at the end, he chose to jump rather than be pushed.

he stood down for Julia Gillard. Let's contrast that with the wording for Göring, the final sentence of a brightlywritten two paragraph lead: He was sentenced to death by hanging, but committed suicide by cyanide ingestion the night before he was due to be hanged. We need to tell the whole story, and while the lengthy final para here goes some way towards that end, I think that by blandly saying that Rudd "stood down", we are misrepresenting the situation. It is like saying that Göring committed suicide without explaining why.

I also note that we are now revisiting the same material with which I commenced my project. Are we going to go around in circles on this, in effect having a long, draining and disruptive edit war? Surely we can sort out acceptable wording and stick to it. --Pete (talk) 15:19, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Hardship case

The family was compelled to leave the farm under hardship. This does not seem to tell the complete story. While the fatherless Rudd family was required to leave the farm, it seems that they were not immediately evicted, not until six months after the death of Albert Rudd, contrary to Rudd's recollection of being put on the street the following day.

Kevin Rudd: I think my father's death was difficult at an early age, being evicted actually was the harder bit because we were share farmers, we didn't own the property so bury Dad one day and get tossed off the property virtually the next with nowhere to go and no assets because you don't own a house if you're a share farmer either. My mother had been a nurse during the war in Brisbane and then in the early 70's had to retrain as a nurse to bring us up so she has semi-hero status in my life having done all of that.

Julia Baird: No wonder. You've said that you were very angry about that eviction, I mean how did that anger show itself at the time?

Kevin Rudd: In so far as you can reflect back on how you felt as a kid, as opposed to what you thought you might have felt as a kid, I suppose I'd call it this, that I had the earliest flickering of a sense of justice and injustice and I just thought it was plain wrong that that could happen to anybody or that you didn't have anywhere there to go and stay and that was really tough. It was a deep sense of loss of dignity which I felt vicariously through my mother but I think growing up in a strong country party environment and therefore no sort of Labor views within Cooee I think it actually caused early gestation of an idea of justice and injustice. --ABC

However, this is contrary to the story told by the landlord's daughter in an interview:

When Bert died our father had no choice but to employ a new farmer. It was the biggest dairy farm on the Sunshine Coast and there were more than 120 cows that needed milking morning and night. Margaret would always have known at some point, inevitably, an incoming farmer would have to occupy the farmhouse. But provisions were put in place by our father for Margaret. He explained to her she could remain on the farm, at no cost whatsoever, until such time as the new farmer arrived. What Kevin has always failed to state is that the new farmer didn't even arrive until July - that's almost six months after his father's death. During that entire time, our family continued to run the farm. There was absolutely no reason for them to have left until the new farmer arrived in July. To continuously say he was evicted immediately after his dad's funeral is quite an unbelievable statement. Not only does he blame our father for the so-called eviction, he subsequently mentions having to sleep rough in a car --SMH

Here we have Kevin Rudd finding the roots of his ALP career in an injustice that never happened. I don't think Wikipedia should be a party to this. --Pete (talk) 23:25, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Why is the landlord's daughters side of the story more credible than Rudd's? Nick-D (talk) 23:40, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

In this case, I think we should either remove the statement, or give both sides of the story. --Pete (talk) 23:54, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

But the statement you removed doesn't say anything about eviction. In what way were they not compelled to move? Rather than just delete, perhaps you could improve it. --Merbabu (talk) 00:24, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I didn't remove it entirely, I rephrased it in a neutral fashion. Being "compelled to leave" sounds very like "evicted", wouldn't you agree? But I'm happy to expand rather than shorten the statement, so long as clarity is achieved and no bias is shown either to Rudd's juvenile memory or that of the owner. --Pete (talk) 00:41, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

You removed the mention of "hardship". why? --Merbabu (talk) 01:25, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

It was too general. I like your addition - if the family breadwinner dies, then the bread dries up as well. That's fine. --Pete (talk) 02:11, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

It would help if we knew exactly when the Rudds left the farm. Rudd doesn't say, nor does the spokesperson for the Low family. --Pete (talk) 02:20, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I've been reading Barrie Cassidy's book "The Party Thieves" and he provides more details on this story. Briefly, Rudd was rising to prominence and using the death of his father and the eviction of his family as a way to explain the anger he felt and his joining the ALP to set things straight. He described being evicted within days or weeks of his father's death. The children of the now deceased landowner spoke up, feeling that their father had been slandered, that Rudd's widowed mother had been told she could stay on, rent-free, for as long as it took to find a replacement share-farmer, which happened to be six months. It was not just the length of time in dispute, but also the language used.

Now, recollections of events forty years ago may differ, especially when the participants were children at the time. What is really interesting, as Cassidy explains, is that Rudd the adult politician went to extraordinary lengths to attempt to prevent any statements contradicting his own from being published. Rudd lies - as does any politician - but there's something in him that doesn't want to admit it - or be found out. I've met people like this, usually somewhere along the OCD or autistic spectrum. They tend to be hard, focussed workers. Tireless and detail-oriented. They make great sub-editors. But they are difficult to work with, because they don't have that emotional ability to get along with others if there is any conflict. They can't laugh away an error. They go to pieces when painted into a corner.

I'm not saying Rudd is one of these people. But the bells are ringing for me. The celebrated "rat-fuckers" tirade in Copenhagen when the Chinese wouldn't play ball. Before Abbott opposed Rudd's ETS and the Chinese sank Copenhagen, Rudd saw himself as the man who was going to save the world by drawing up the compact that would reduce emissions and lead the kings and presidents into signing it. After Copenhagen, he was a broken man.

David Marr, a man of the Left, found Rudd an interesting case, full of contradictions, and "driven by rage". His essay made it possible to others to criticise Rudd, and the stories of rage behind closed doors, of ridiculous levels of micro-management, of important matters left hanging for weeks or months began to surface.

I say this, not because I want to have a go at Rudd, but because I think that his psychological makeup is key to understanding the man, and consequently must be a key plank in our article. The decline and defeat of Rudd is one of the great political stories of the past half century, but we seem to brush over it as poor polls and factional leaders. Yet Barrie Cassidy pours scorn on this notion, noting that no factional heavies could muster up the votes needed in a matter of minutes - which was all the time available on the night. Rudd's back isn't full of knives wielded by party colleagues - they came from the front and Rudd never saw them coming until too late.

I urge my fellow editors to read Cassidy's book - and the others that will surely follow.

I'm going to start work on a sub-article based on Rudd's downfall. It's a big story, we don't do it justice, there are plentiful sources around. --Pete (talk) 18:58, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Disputed changes

I have been going through this article, top to bottom, highlighting material that seems to be contrary to our policies, mainly through being misleading or unsupported. I quote the material, state why I find it problematic, and indicate my intentions. If after a day or two no objection has been raised, I make the changes as flagged.

Looking at this diff, labelled reverting disputed changes made without consensus, I find that my edits, announced days earlier, have been reverted by an editor who apparently missed his chance to comment. May I ask Timeshift to comment on this, please? In both cases the material was unsourced, and unreferenced in the main body of the article. It was removed in accordance with WP:SOURCE and WP:LEAD and the only objection raised in discussion was minor.

• Healthcare. Flagged here and implemented here. Time for discussion: 62 hours.
• Unprecedented polling. Flagged here and implemented here. Time for discussion: 43 hours.--Pete (talk) 23:37, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I've commented in the lead poll section above. Timeshift (talk) 23:44, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

To make the statement "unprecedented in magnitude and length" in the lead requires both those adjectives to be supported by the body of the article, in turn supported by reliable sources. At the moment, the article says "During their first two years in office, Rudd and the ALP government set records for popularity in Newspoll polling." The sources on which that statement is used refer to "magnitude" (ie the height of Rudd's poll numbers) but not length.[2][3] I don't even know how "length" can properly be measured. I think more work is needed with the sourcing and in the body of the article to make "unprecedented in magnitude and length" not an OR statement. I know it's probably true, but verifiability is more important that truth. Additionally, the statement can't cover the 70 odd years of Australian politics before polling began, which is another problem with making such a sweeping statement in the lede.--Mkativerata (talk) 23:51, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I already posted a link for it above - see here. It is also supported by refs in the article diff links, again above. If you have concerns about government popularity prior to polls then you could qualify it somewhat. Timeshift (talk) 23:54, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry to use that as a source for "length" (the article currently doesn't) requires an improper level of analysis (ie OR). For example, according to the graph, Hawkey's period of +50 is longer than Rudd's, making his popularity of arguably more enduring length if of lower magnitude. Also, polling goes back before 1985, IIRC so the graph isn't comprehensive. --Mkativerata (talk) 23:55, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

According to the source given, both Hawke and Howard had longer periods of positive 2PP than Rudd. If we make statements, we need to source them correctly. WP:BLP applies as well here. --Pete (talk) 00:12, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

To say that health funding was not a significant issue for Rudd is frankly bs. That however does not mean that the current coverage in the article is good or that there is no problem. And, it's not mentioned in the Rudd Government article either (why on earth not?). While i don't support Skyring's suggestion that it's not notable, he is correct in saying that it's (a) not cited and (b) not mentioned in the article. It needs work, and while technically justified (read wikilawyer's point of view) the recent removal from the article, I don't support at this stage. There are far more constructive solutions. Why not cite it, re-word it, and/or provide info in the article proper??? --Merbabu (talk) 00:07, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm certainly not saying that healthcare isn't notable. In fact, Rudd's grand healthcare proposal was something I supported at the time. My objection, is as stated. I couldn't find any material in the main body to be summarised in the lead. --Pete (talk) 00:12, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I'll wait another day for discussion, and if the material remains unsourced, remove it. --Pete (talk) 01:31, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Fixed. It's a pity those that want to remove things seem to have little to no interest in doing the footwork needed. Timeshift (talk) 13:23, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, heaps! I knew you'd come to the aid of the party! Just a few quick points.

• According to WP:LEAD, The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article. The reason for the topic being noteworthy should be established early on in the lead. It is even more important here than for the rest of the article that the text be accessible. Consideration should be given to creating interest in reading the whole article. (See news style and summary style.) This allows editors to avoid lengthy paragraphs and over-specific descriptions, because the reader will know that greater detail is saved for the body of the article. Some of the material you've added is not mentioned at all in the main body of the article. Do you think you could add it to the appropriate sections?
• Drilling down, we have in WP:LEADCITE, The lead must conform to verifiability and other policies. The verifiability policy advises that material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and quotations, should be cited. Because the lead will usually repeat information also in the body, editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material. Leads are usually written at a greater level of generality than the body, and information in the lead section of non-controversial subjects is less likely to be challenged and less likely to require a source; there is not, however, an exception to citation requirements specific to leads. The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus. Complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations; others, few or none. Contentious material about living persons must be cited every time, regardless of the level of generality. My own feeling is that keeping references out of the lead makes it more accessible to the "above the fold" reader, and so long as the main text is adequately sourced, we don't need to duplicate every reference in the lead.
• We're writing an encyclopaedia, not a media release. We don't have to "sell the product", just inform the readers. I had to chuckle over the phrase stratospheric popularity - that's the language of the breathless journalist, not the sober editor.
• Specific wordings I'll examine on a case by case basis.

Again, thanks for the research. My main interest in editing Wikipedia lies in nit-picking away at details, rather than writing slabs of text, and if you want to call me Pete the Pedantic, feel free! --Pete (talk) 14:54, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Call a spade a spade... i'm not going to play your games. You didn't accept the diff and refs. It's now there. Refs, polls, and all. Surely there are better ways to spend time on here. Timeshift (talk) 15:36, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

No worries! I'll work through the material and we can all talk about it a chunk at a time. No hurry. Rudd's not going anywhere. --Pete (talk) 16:32, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Timeshift's revert is just back to his preferred version that he created in July. Hardly consensus. And it's a poor lead. Nothing happened to Rudd between 1957 and 2001? Every change I made to the lead I made carefully and explained - in light of that such a hard revert is pure vandalism and WP:OWN. There's clearly no consensus for his July version if both myself and Skyring are trying to change it. Perhaps we could go back to the pre-TImeshift version? Or would it be more constructive to work on a lead that covers his whole life and career, rather than one that spends 3 paragraphs on his time as Labor leader.

I'm taking Timeshift's hard revert has Revert 1. More than happy to get admins in. --Merbabu (talk) 01:45, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Moving on - Skyring, if there is something in the lead that is not mentioned in the body of the article, with cites, then please bring it up here before removing it. Give it 7 days. Then if it is not there, then it can be removed. Please don't go over old ground that's been resolved - ie "stratospheric". We all got the point, it was fixed, and we moved on. I'd like to think that I've been reasonable enough about accommodating your requests so far. cheers --Merbabu (talk) 01:58, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

UPDATE: I've started a health care section in the article. Only a small sentence so far. But it has a cite - the one from Timeshift's lead. Needs expansion. I've also added a few words back into the lead - it seems that Skyring agrees that health was significant to Rudd's PMship (and we can presume that Timeshift does too!) --Merbabu (talk) 02:05, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm trying to be positive, avoid criticism of other editors and so on. But I think you know where I'm going with this - the article doesn't tell the whole story of a fascinating but deeply flawed leader, and therefore sells our readers short. Politicians dissemble, mislead, edit the truth and outright lie if they can do it with a smile. That's just the way it is and the party machines are geared that way. But that is no reason for a political article to read as if it were written by politicians. The facts, the full story, warts and all. We only reflect the real world, we don't define it. --Pete (talk) 02:31, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

But if the warts are missing, the answer is not to remove what may be perceived as the more positive stuff, right? The (newly created) health section needs expansion (at least to match the other sections - hmmmm) and might be a good place to put both the warts and the spin. --Merbabu (talk) 02:36, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

If the lead has gone backward without consensus, then how about we return to the version we were working on and continue from there? We can use the references Timeshift has supplied. I don't want to remove good honest material, but nor do I want to keep rubbish. I'm puzzled about the healthcare though - so far as I know it never got anywhere concrete. --Pete (talk) 04:22, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Later, after looking at the text. OK, it looks like you are ahead of me! I'm happy with this version, apart from the wording on removal, which I'll have to think about. I don't want to raise too many hackles, but nor do I want our article to give a wrong impression. If there's one thing Rudd will be remembered for, it is the manner of his leaving. --Pete (talk) 04:35, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

The previous lead (Timeshifts changes in July) was full of cites that were unnecessary. it was unbalanced in its coverage - the majority of his life was not mentioned, and a partiuclar week was given a whole paragraph. It also started explaining a few of the policies (ie, the resource tax) - such explanation of another topic is irrelevant to the lead.

I made a number of edits to the lead on 30 August. This appears to have been the most significant whereby I added a paragraph on the few years between 1957 and 2001. The version before had no mention. A lead is meant to summarise the whole article, not just the most recent 9%. I also pushed cites down into the body of the article. If I missed any (I doubt there's many if any at all), then my apologies - cites can be added to the article. And, I also cut down on a lot of detail about a few events - for example the end of his PMship. Every topic remains - I just chose to say them in 1 sentence, rather than a whole paragraph. --Merbabu (talk) 07:27, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I must admit I sighed when I saw Timeshift's major edit. I'm coming in cold so it looked like a total rewrite, rather than a reversion to a previous state. Let's hang onto it. As it is, there's nothing hugely wrong and it reads well. I'll continue working my way down the article, and when changes are made in the body they may be reflected in the head. --Pete (talk) 07:47, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Bronze sculpture

I would like to propose an award, for inspired image placement, regarding this edit. --Pete (talk) 22:14, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

For some reason it's standard to include the PMs' sculptures in the Bendigo Prime Minister's Avenue in their articles. It is an awful sculpture though (though the others seem to be equally bad), and photos of Rudd as a foreign minister will soon become available for that section. Nick-D (talk) 22:40, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Maybe there needs to be a discussion on whether we include the busts across all PM articles. No doubt the argument to keep will be "crappy pictures are better than no pictures", which I don't agree with. --Merbabu (talk) 22:48, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I think they're suitable for inclusion... "you ain't a PM till you've been Ballarat busted!" :P Timeshift (talk) 01:16, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Rudd's insulation

I have removed this bit from the article due to myself reading this piece which I was quite surprised at. With this new evidence to light, one has to question the reliability and noteability of WP:RS pieces used. Discussion most welcome. Timeshift (talk) 01:02, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

This is the text you removed:

As part of its economic stimulus program, the government offered householders a rebate for ceiling insulation. Rudd demoted Peter Garrett, the minister responsible for the program, before abandoning the program altogether in 2010 after 4 deaths and multiple housefires were linked to inadequate oversight of the scheme.[87]

This is notable and factually correct. It was part of the stimulus program, they did offer rebates, Rudd did demote Garrett who was the minister responsible, they did abandon the program in 2010, and 4 deaths and housefires were indeed linked to the program. Those last few words could indeed be improved, but that doesn't mean we remove all mention of what was easily a top 5 issue for the government. Should be reinserted and improved as required ASAP. --Merbabu (talk)

The whole bit needs an overhaul which is why I removed it for discussion. One can't just chop the sentence off at "altogether in 2010" without explaining why, and in doing so then having to explain that the hype at the time wasn't as correct as it was put to us, etc etc etc. Timeshift (talk) 01:52, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

The only bit up for debate is the last 8 or so words. Everything else happend. You can't just "cut-off" a whole section (which is well documented) because you would like to question something. If you don't like it, fix it. You know deletion is poor form. --Merbabu (talk) 01:55, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Let me again state my position as you seem to have issues understanding it - the whole bit needs a temporary removal while attempts are made to fix it. Lacking that, i've removed the offending words. But now it doesn't make sense. Bravo. Timeshift (talk) 01:59, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Let me explain my position clearer: it doesn't need removal. the scheme happened, Garrett was "demoted", the scheme was stopped. Which part of that are you arguing is incorrect or not-notable and thus requiring blanked removal? You need to offer a suggestion for positive improvement. Otherwise, it's going to look like you are trying to whitewash the article. The only reason it doesn't make sense is that you first you try to pretend a top 5 issue for the government didn't happen, and now are trying to chop it up rather than improve it - "Bravo" back. Quit trying to pretend things didn't happen. --Merbabu (talk) 02:03, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

The bit I have concern with and the bit you continue to re-add is "blamed for housefires and 4 deaths", despite:

What we found was that under every possible scenario, the government insulation program – far from increasing the rates of fire occurring from installing insulation – actually reduced the rate of fires and likely reduced the rate in a quite substantial manner.

So you allow the myth to remain that the scheme caused deaths when it quite clearly didn't. Explain. Timeshift (talk) 02:09, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Explain what? Are you suggesting the scheme was not blamed for the housefires and deaths? If you have new additional information, then that is, well, new and additional. It doesn't mean we re-write political history. So far you have offered no suggestion for how to handle new and additional information (apart from deleting all mention of the scheme). --Merbabu (talk) 02:15, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I am suggesting that if something is found to be proven to be a myth/misleading/incorrect then we should not propagate it. I removed the section so it could be discussed here on how we could reword it, bearing in mind we need WP:RS. Stop being fixated on it's removal and explain why you think the current version is acceptable as it stands? To say the scheme was blamed for housefires and deaths, with nothing else, after reading the linked article, is completely and utterly bereft of any honesty whatsoever. I need help to improve it but that can only work if there's good faith. Timeshift (talk) 02:20, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

"To say the scheme was blamed for housefires and deaths, with nothing else, after reading the linked article, is completely and utterly bereft of any honesty whatsoever" - maybe, maybe not. But why is that my problem, but not yours? It's new and additional, so as I said, you should suggest something new and additional. Otherwise, it's hard to consider it as anything more than an attempt to whitewash by blanking. --Merbabu (talk) 02:32, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Temporary removal of "blamed for the housefires and 4 deaths" while talkpage discussion occurs for how to incorporate new information, is what it is. Can you help out? Will you allow that bit to be removed until such time a consensus is formed on new wording? Timeshift (talk) 02:35, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

(outdent): I’ve been clear enough about my position on temporary removal that is doesn’t need repeating, again. As for new wording, I can help out: ie, you propose a change in either main space (be bold) and/or talk page, and I will edit and/or comment respectively as required. But, I have suggested you propose something a number of times already. You can guess what my response would be if it involves removal (as opposed to copy editing) of any of the current info. --Merbabu (talk) 02:47, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

So you're allowing "blamed for the housefires and 4 deaths" to stay because I myself cannot fix the problem. I give up. Timeshift (talk) 02:53, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I'll take that as a (strawman) comment. In the time you've spent arguing for removal, you could have improved it instead. --Merbabu (talk) 03:10, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Not a good response. Timeshift (talk) 03:19, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I can understand this discussion but I can't understand the blanking? Shouldn't the information STAY until new wording is created? Also, wasn't the four deaths and fires related to HIP because the householders only took up the insulation and the workers were only installing BECAUSE of the HIP program?

With Garrett's page - I'm putting this part back in - It was revealed in May 2010 that Mr Garrett had written to the then Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, on four separate occasions raising concerns about safety. as it is fact.

This part - I can understand why it is POV - maybe it should be placed in Rudd's page but I still think it explains the demotion of Garrett under the HIP program so can you please inform me why you think it is POV and should be deleted?

And with the above discussion - I guess the agreed wording for Rudd's page should be included on Garrett's page Cheers CanberraBulldog (talk) 02:56, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I think the entire paragraph in this article explaining the insulation situation needs a proper overhaul, and can then be applied to Garrett's page. What I don't like seeing is continuing the News Ltd lie that the scheme caused deaths and fires - it had the opposite effect of saving lives and reducing fires. Timeshift (talk) 02:59, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Timeshift, thanks for posting the Crikey analysis, though I agree with Merbabu's assessment of your original deletion and I don't think you should be accusing him of bad faith. It seems the Crikey editorial offers no new info on the deaths (which related to inexperienced installation workers) but does say that the percentage of house-fires per installation decreased overall. This data seems to me a little inconclusive however for two reasons: it is not clear how long it would take for a poor installation to result in a fire BUT since February or so the government has been re-inspecting all of the installations done under the initial program, and one hopes this would mean a general reduction in fire hazzard across the board. Also, crikey says the government increased regulation, but other literature says the problem was that there were insufficient officials to oversee the regulation. So my feeling is, our original text covers the politics and impact of the scheme at the height of the affair. Additional text could state that the government ordered a re-inspection of all the installations, and then reference the crikey analysis (named as Crikey analysis, as I don't think we can call it conclusive at this stage?). Going down this path could easily get a little POV however and we must be careful to be comprehensive: the housefires is only one of the issues described as mismanagement of the scheme. There were also disgruntled installation companies waiting for compensations, the family of a dead worker waiting for Rudd on Election Day, accusation of "industrial manslaughter" in Parliament and even a condemnation from Malcolm Fraser on the ABC - so to call it a New Ltd beat up is a bit off the mark.Observoz (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:59, 15 November 2010 (UTC).

Shifty's Crikey piece [4] is a opinion piece blog, not an WP:RS. If he wants to put in an alternate viewpoint, then he can do so according to WP:NPOV. A mainstream opinion should not be removed from the article on the basis of one shaky source. --Surturz (talk) 03:15, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Surtz, that's a very poor argument to make when you know something is true. Even Greg Hunt was unable to counterargue the piece. Timeshift (talk) 06:10, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Still now suggestions from you Timeshift? (apart from delete of course). If you can provide a suggestion, please address the concerns about the reliability of your offered source. --Merbabu (talk) 06:24, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not changing anything - there is only a tag there, whilst discussions are had for ways to balance out the paragraph, whilst conforming to WP:RS. The current situation is utterly misleading and dishonest. Would you be happy for it to remain as it is? Why not actually come to the table rather than criticise and offer no positive help of your own Merbabu?? Timeshift (talk) 06:28, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

What, that this ALP govt is the most incompetent ever and can't even manage to install pink batts without killing people? As for your crikey ref, all I see is a bunch of lies, damned lies and statistics. Your Crikey article can fiddle around with numbers all it wants, it doesn't change the fact that Matthew Fuller et al were killed installing insulation under the scheme, and that the deaths could have been avoided with even a skerrick of good governance. --Surturz (talk) 06:29, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps we should quote the WP:RS that the crikey ref uses? :) You can keep your Coalition rhetoric rulebook to yourself thanks - even Greg Hunt, the Liberal shadow minister who chased Labor over this, resorted to the waste and mismanagement as his figleaf for what has been shown up for what it is - lies. Timeshift (talk) 06:34, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps we should review Hunt's words... he only says what he "thinks" of the article and then moves to his figleaf politican talk: "I made it clear that I think the article is bunkum. There is a large uptake of solar hot water, some changed practices and changed building standards. In Short you would not pay a million dollars for a Commodore…you would want a lot more for your million. The Auditor general found that the program conspicuously failed to met its 50 million tones target. By definition only 405 of promised installations were achieved and 29% of those have been found to be defective. That is definitionally less than 30% of the saving promised." - yes, what a strong defense of his safety accusations!

In essence, if you think the crikey ref and it's WP:RS refs used are wrong - please, very much, point out to us where it falls over. If you cannot fault it like others including Greg Hunt can't, then please, take the spirit of wikipedia in and do what is right - the truth, and do everything you can to include the truth within wikipedia guidelines. I repeat - we need to expand on the insulation para to include everything, not just the Coalition handbook points. Timeshift (talk) 06:47, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

(outdent)There are no WP:RS quoted in the Crikey article. Any of the links in the article would be considered WP:OR if used here in WP. Now, if the article was subject to the editorial process of a newspaper, then perhaps you'd have an WP:RS to stand on. But it's a blog entry, and there is no evidence of change to the mainstream opinion that the scheme was linked to the deaths, and that Garrett lost part of his portfolio as a result. Now perhaps you believe that the Oz is lying about the scheme and that Matt Fuller would have died anyway and more people besides, but this is not the forum to push that view. It is a matter of public record (and WP:RS refs) that people died and houses caught on fire as a direct result of the program. No statistical black magic is going to change that. --Surturz (talk) 07:06, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Also, the Crikey article is talking about 2009-2010, long after the period we are covering in this WP article. --Surturz (talk) 07:09, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Resignation/ Defeat/ Fall/ Undermining/ Downfall

What was it? Clearly it was a brutally forced resignation after weeks of underming from his 'loyal' deputy and factional 'allies'. Frankly 'The end of Rudd's prime ministership' doesn't cut it and 'Undermining and fall' is to straight forward for the honourable leaders article. Possibly User:Timeshift9 would like to give Head Office a call and see what best disguises it for us? Романов (talk) 07:04, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I rather like the change Surturz did :) I suggest you re-read WP:NPOV again especially after your long sock trail history. Your addition of "social undermining" as a link in a header on Rudd's page is not WP:NPOV by any stretch of the imagination. You're playing up again lately, and after a massive string of sock history. Pull your head in please. Timeshift (talk) 07:10, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Why is there a need to come up with a single term/word to describe what "it" is? We should factually describe what happened (Gillard told Rudd she would challenge him and he stood down as leader), and readers/journalists/historians can come up with their own conclusions or terms to summarise. To use a metaphor like "fall", which also has a more literal meaning, is confusing and just silly. And please stop the snide comments about Timeshift's neutrality and "contacting head office", he's not the one insisting on re-instating loaded terms into article headings and insisting they're neutral. --Canley (talk) 22:22, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I wish I had more time to devote to this. The article is unsatisfactory, precisely because it gives a misleading impression - that Rudd voluntarily stepped aside for Gillard because the polls happened to suddenly turn against him. The reality is that Rudd has a long history of creating enemies due to his peculiar personality and leadership style. He is the very reverse of a duck - furious action visible everywhere if you read the press releases, but above the surface, nothing ever happens. The few actual achievements of the Rudd government turned out to be empty rhetoric or embarrassing disasters, but nothing was ever Rudd's fault. The big issue was climate change, and when Rudd went to water following his failure at Copenhagen - sparked by Tony Abbott's rejection of Rudd's carbon tax - the wheels progressively fell off the Ruddwagen with criticism from within the ALP rising to the point where only a handful of the staunchest defenders remained.

One of whom is apparently a Wikipedia editor. --Pete (talk) 21:59, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

The article is fine. It states exactly what happened—Rudd stepped aside because a leadership spill was underway and he realised he didn't have the numbers, it does not say he stepped aside because "the polls were against him". Why did that leadership spill take place? Polls, climate change, resource super profits tax, being a control freak, who knows? By all means, if you have a reference in a reliable source where one or more of the key players state this, it should certainly be included. A good starting point is Peter Hartcher's article in the Fairfax papers, The call that rolled Rudd, but I suspect the full details/reasons/whatever won't come out for years. What you must not do is ascribe some event or decision such as Copenhagen which in your opinion contributed to Rudd's loss of support within the party or the electorate.

And please stop accusing fellow editors of bias, it's really impolite and unnecessary. The regular AusPol editors here that I have worked with for years would do the same for any politician from John Howard to Bob Brown—stick to the facts and reliable sources, or at least attribute prominent opinions to their author, rather than guessing that "oh, this was unpopular, that was why he was dumped, anyone who disagrees is a Rudd-lover". --Canley (talk) 23:40, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

One problem with the article is that it states exactly what happened - in the way that puts Rudd in the best possible light. It does not go into the details of one of the most important and controversial episodes in Australian federal politics. There are very few similar events, where a sitting Prime Minister is removed by his comrades - or by means other than an election loss. You say, "Why did that leadership spill take place? Polls, climate change, resource super profits tax, being a control freak, who knows?", Our function as an encyclopaedia is to supply the information, and if there are multiple views, to present them in an objective fashion. Our aim is to provide information, not to hide it, not to shrug our editorial shoulders and say "who knows?".

As for your assessment of my opinion and your imaginary quote about "Rudd-lovers", I suggest you do not attempt to make up what I am thinking. My opinion, on a talk page, is as valid as any other. It illuminates my thinking and my arguments, and others may make up their own minds. I don't expect other editors to be backward in pointing out bias one way or another, and by talking things over we may closer approach our goal of a good encyclopaedia, one that presents the facts in neutral POV fashion. I strongly disapprove of this article presenting the facts of Rudd's life and public career in the manner most favorable to the subject. That's bias, pure and simple. --Pete (talk) 00:00, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not saying your opinion is not valid or should not be expressed, and I applaud and thank you for doing so—I agree that robust discussion and disagreement is the cornerstone of both the encyclopedia and many a good article. Forgive me for exaggerating comments, and ascribing thoughts to you, but I don't think that is what I was doing (I know of course you never said "Rudd-lovers", I just meant that's what we—all editors—should not do). What you did say was that "[one of] Rudd's staunchest supporters...is apparently a Wikipedia editor". While not as objectionable or direct as Романов's suggestion for Timeshift to "call Head Office", I think this was an unnecessary and impolite embellishment to your comments and opinion, and not in keeping with a desire to work with other editors to improve the article. Possibly one of the reasons why many editors do make some effort to keep unreferenced negativity and speculation out of articles, about Rudd or anyone else, is Wikipedia's WP:BLP policy, not out of a desire to whitewash articles or present subjects in the best possible light. As I said above, by all means include negative opinions, reasons, information that is not dry factual material, etc. but just be careful to attribute quotes and opinions to their author or speaker and with plenty of reliable sources as references, and don't give it undue weight—a single referenced line or quote should suffice rather than a whole section. --Canley (talk) 00:25, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

When the whole thing reads like it was approved by Rudd's office, with only the faintest whiff of criticism, one might wonder why on earth the ALP kicked him out of the top job to replace him with someone who barely managed to form a government. After one term. The seeker of information will seek in vain for the answer. We don't need to point fingers at who is responsible or why, but the bias is apparent. --Pete (talk) 05:24, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

The lead's description of the 23-24 June events looked like a whitewash to me so I've just changed it. --Mkativerata (talk) 05:35, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Wikileaks cables

I don't think that these are really all that significant. US Ambassador Robert McCallum's assessment of Rudd is sort-of interesting, but not very important in comparison to the fact that Rudd's colleagues also developed this view and removed him from office as a result. I've just re-removed the uncited claim that Rudd's comments about China will damage his position as foreign minister (the comments are broadly in line with the Australian Government's published Defence White Paper, so are unlikely to come as much of a shock to the Chinese). Nick-D (talk) 07:50, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree completely.  -- Lear's Fool 07:56, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes it is undue weight, especially where it is in the article at the moment. --Mkativerata (talk) 08:34, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I disagree - the comments are hugely significant coming from the US ambassador. Furthermore, the current news coverage supports the (referenced) comment on the damage to Rudd's position as foreign minister. His comments on China are not 'broadly in line with the ... White Paper' and are especially significant given they were made to Australia's most important military ally about its (currently) most important trading partner. Rudd's comments to al-Arabiya television support the importance of the leak ("Therefore we in Australia condemn the release of this material. It helps nobody. In fact, it is a real problem for us all."). If it was ‘unlikely to come as much of a shock to the Chinese’ then why would Rudd himself consider it a ‘real problem’? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maturescence (talk • contribs) 08:56, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Re my last 'undo' – it seems we are working from the same page/political viewpoint, but I believe it discredits Wiki if it is seen to avoid/cover up uncomfortable facts for political expedience. Maturescence 11:05, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Consensus is clearly against the inclusion of this information, for the reasons eloquently articulated by Nick above. I can't speak for the others, but my reasons for opposing this inclusion have nothing to do with political expedience. I appreciate your efforts, but per the bold, revert, discuss cycle, consensus has been formed against this content, and so a new consensus must be formed before it is re-added.  -- Lear's Fool 11:37, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Consensus on the basis of so few voices is a big claim! Regarding the cables, I like the way that they are a risk to security, Assange's actions are condemned as illegal and tantamount to terrorism, their release could do untold harm, lives could be lost, etc. but when revelations embarrassing to the government are made, they are dismissed as speculation and gossip! Right.

We shouldn't follow (or swallow) the same line. We should report the facts honestly. In particular, we should NOT follow Rudd's anxious untruth that we don't care, that is water off a duck's back. We DO care when our leader urges our closest ally to use force against our biggest trading partner. If this information were closely held by the US, then fine, but when China reads the same information in the morning paper, and the man in question is now the Australian Foreign Minister, then I suggest that it is not something that is capable of being ignored. It is important, not just because it further damages Rudd's public image, but because it damages Australia.

To paraphrase Rudd, Wikipedia should not roll over and have its tummy tickled by the government. We should think about informing our readership rather than concealing information. We can always add a subarticle, source and develop that through established wikiprocedure, and then bring the essence of it back here. --Pete (talk) 22:23, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

You're conflating the importance and magnitude of the entire WikiLeaks cable release with the importance and magnitude of a single comment in one cable. That Rudd criticised the leaking and release of the cables does not make it contradictory for him to dismiss a comment about him as trivial. There are a quarter of a million of the things! There are going to be thousands of comments and "frank assessments" of hundreds of individuals in there. The personal opinion of an ambassador, regardless of the nature or importance of the Australian-U.S. relationship, is not going to affect that relationship, nor Rudd's life or career, one iota. Unless these cables unveil gross corruption, treachery, or other illegality on the part of Rudd or any other world leader/politician/diplomat, they're just gossip pure and simple and should not be included in a Wikipedia biography about that person. --Canley (talk) 23:05, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Please don't tell me what I think. I know what I think, and when you are incorrect it colours the rest of your comments. I disagree with your interpretation. I think that the official comments of the highest US official in Australia cannot be dismissed as "gossip, pure and simple". They are an official communication, intended to inform the US government. In exactly the same way we ask our ambassadors to report on foreign leaders. We don't expect ambassadors to send back useless rubbish unless it is clearly marked as such. We expect frank assessments, and the key to their frankness is that the reports are kept private - at least until Wikileaks shows up! The report on Rudd foreshadows later assessments made by people who knew him well - his fellow ALP members and MPs, respected political journalists and so on. As any number of commentators have said, there is nothing surprising in it, except that the report was made BEFORE similar assessments became commonplace over the past year or so. As I cautioned above, we should NOT follow Rudd's line and ignore anything embarrassing to him. We should treat the information objectively. As a service to our readers who come seeking information about a leading and controversial public figure. --Pete (talk) 23:41, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry about my "frank assessment"! I am well aware you disagree, but just adding my voice to the apparent consensus that inclusion of these ambassadorial opinions is trivial and irrelevant. I'm not "following the Rudd line", that is truly my honest opinion, and I would think the same if it were the ambassador's opinion of John Howard, Tony Abbott, or anyone else. --Canley (talk) 23:52, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

The argument that the ambassador’s opinions are ‘trivial and irrelevant’ is unconvincing given these were the subject of global reporting and comment by numerous media outlets. We should not discredit Wikipedia by concealing inconvenient information. Furthermore, I propose Rudd’s comments on China be reinstated. With respect, the ‘consensus’ (so called) on that point is based on incorrect information – the White Paper does not anticipate the use of force against China, as foreshadowed by Rudd in his comments to Hilary Clinton, indeed it says quite the opposite (although it must of course be read in the context that it was watered down at China’s insistence). Rudd's comments are extremely significant given his position and the Australia/China relationship (the international coverage given to his comments again reinforces the point). May we reinstate the section subject to tidying up the first sentence? Maturescence 02:46, 10 December 2010 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maturescence (talk • contribs)

Firstly, please stop implying that those of us who don't agree with this material being included are doing so to conceal inconvenient information: Everyone here is participating in this discussion in good faith. I must reiterate Nick-D's analysis, which I (and others) find convincing. His comments are broadly in line with the implications of the white paper, and the fact that he was less diplomatic with his phrasing in public does not make the remarks exceptional. Regarding international coverage, it is common for individuals such as this to receive broad coverage for one-off news items that have little or no bearing on that which makes them notable. It is incumbent on us, the editors of an encyclopaedia, to give appropriate weight to each of these events.  -- Lear's Fool 03:19, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Maturescence, certainly Rudd's comments on China are more relevant and appropriate for the article (sorry, I was more referring to the assessment of Rudd's character by the U.S. Ambassador in my comments about "trivial gossip"). My concern is it's difficult to ascertain the context, significance or effect of so many of these WikiLeaks at this time. What I'm saying is it's almost original research to assign an importance or significance to these comments, although they are undoubtedly relevant to Kevin Rudd's position both as Prime Minister and Foreign Affairs Minister. If we could say "Kevin Rudd said this and a Chinese official said so what?" or "Rudd said this and China recalled its Ambassador and severed diplomatic and trade ties with Australia". I guess at the very least we could say "Rudd said this and political analysts such as so-and-so[1] and whatsisname[2] expressed concern that his comments could damage the relationship between Australia and China." Just saying "Rudd said this" and leaving it as that makes it about as notable as him eating his own earwax, and we can't assume the Chinese have either been offended or indifferent unless there is any evidence to the contrary. As I said about the ambassador's comments, if it can be actually shown to have affected bilateral relations or Rudd's career at all, rather than just supposing it could, then it should be included. --Canley (talk) 03:33, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I think we should include only a general reference so far: but let's not copy the sensationalist and quite irresponsible coverage in some media (eg Keviin Rudd didn't just say "Prepare for war" with China, he also said "Let's work to draw China into the international community"). This is unfolding and recent material so we will not know the full story for quite some time. I suggest a brief outline be inserted into the subsection on "Foreign Affairs" saying:

Material relating to Kevin Rudd's term as prime minister was included in stolen US government diplomatic cables released en masse by Wikileaks in 2010. As foreign minister, Rudd denounced the publication of classified documents by wikileaks. The Australian media extensively reported purported references to Rudd in the cables - including frank discussions between Rudd and US officials regarding China and Afghanistan; and some negative assessments of some of Rudd's foreign policy and leadership style, written in confidence by the US Ambassador to Australia.Observoz (talk) 05:58, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

That sounds pretty good, thanks Observoz! As others have said, Rudd's statements about China from the leaked cables broadly concur with the Defence White Paper, including almost identical phrasing about enabling China to be a vital part of the world and regional communities. To extract the contentious statement, which was I believe "...and be ready to deploy force if it all goes wrong..." out of the context of peaceful engagement and encouragement is quite irresponsible. Good work! --Canley (talk) 06:23, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Reads ok. I think this change is fine regarding WP:NPOV; although remember to include references before adding the material(even though it is common knowledge in Australia); as a suggestion you might find sources in in news such as the SMH. - Aeonx (talk) 11:45, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Foreign Affairs expansion

Under the section of Foreign Affairs Minister, there is only a miniscule amount of writing when we have the Wikileaks leak of what Kevin Rudd thinks about China to talk about. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaitwith (talk • contribs) 05:20, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Six months on, Rudd's record of failure

I queried the listing of healthcare reform as one of Rudd's achievements some time back. The only cite we had was a grab from Rudd's exit speech, where he stated his accomplishments, many of which never got beyond the media release stage. It's time to look at what was actually achieved, and that isn't a real lot. The healthcare thing never got past signing of agreements. Not one dollar changed hands on this. Gillard is yet to introduce legislation, and the word is that if she ever does, it's going to be significantly scaled back.

Climate change was basically a series of grand ideas that never went anywhere, and Gillard is scrapping the non-grand schemes.

It's time to go through the article and scale back the praise. He actually did very little, though he talked a real lot. --Pete (talk) 10:54, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Can you please stop using opinion articles as references for this kind of claim? This online academic book would be an excellent source. Nick-D (talk) 11:18, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Dennis Shanahan is the chief political editor for The Australian. He's not some biased blogger. Feel free to supply more sources, but the equation is RUDD + CLIMATE CHANGE = FAILURE, and trying to sugar-coat his most public failure makes us look like we're trying to hide something. Far better to stick with the facts. --Pete (talk) 11:23, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Dennis Shanahan isn't biased towards the conservatives? That's an unusual view ;) More generally, opinion articles aren't reliable sources for anything other than their author's views (see WP:RS#Statements of opinion). Nick-D (talk) 11:30, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

It would be an extremely blatantly biased source that said that Rudd's climate change strategy was anything but a failure. I see about a quarter of a million hits on Rudd, Climate, Failure. when I go through them they all seem to come up with the same answer, despite a diversity of opinion. The Greens, for example, aren't reticent about sinking the boot into Rudd, and they are hardly singing from the same songbook at the Libs. --Pete (talk) 11:42, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Exactly - so there's no need to use opinion articles from newspapers to cite this. Nick-D (talk) 21:57, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

If there's any proof needed that Skyring is biased, it's this pearler! "Dennis Shanahan is the chief political editor for The Australian. He's not some biased blogger." - true gold. Timeshift (talk) 22:55, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

"Rudd's record of failure" So, Skyring has a position (and argued with flowery language) that he would like wikipedia to emulate, and he now needs endorsement for his chosen sources. Last time I looked, that's not how I understand it works.--Merbabu (talk) 04:06, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Can't follow your logic there. Looking at the article, I think it is important that we don't mislead readers into believing that (for example) Rudd's climate change or healthcare programs were actually implemented. Let's provide accurate information to our readers. --Pete (talk) 05:26, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

If you want people to take your suggestions seriously... based on what's been said here, perhaps you're going the wrong way about it? Timeshift (talk) 06:19, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps you could help improve the article? Now, I know you regard Rudd in a positive light. I'm looking at Rudd's healthcare and climate change achievements at the moment, and all I can find are sources that are critical. I believe that this is the general view, and my opinion is in line. Can you find any good sources that say otherwise? --Pete (talk) 06:28, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

If you want assistance to improve the article then you're going the wrong way about it. Timeshift (talk) 06:32, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

If I've gotten your nose out of joint, then I apologise. My policy is to present facts to inform readers, and if I'm blunt about pointing out errors, it's because I care about accuracy, not in presenting every politician in the best possible light. --Pete (talk) 07:02, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

That whole debacle about his attitude to support staff on plane trips?

Sorry, dunno how else to really address the question.

I remember a while back the whole debacle that came about over Kevin Rudd verbally attacking his support staff on a couple of flights, both domestic and international. On one occasion he made a stewardess break down and cry because they couldn't offer Rudd a specific meal he wanted. On a couple other occasions, I believe one of which was on a military charted flight, he did something similar to the ladies in the Air Force running his flight.

It wasn't just one or two incidents either, he had a reputation of being a general douche to his support staff throughout his entire career.

Now you're probably sitting there scrtaching your head wondering why I'm even writing this. Fair point. I have nothing against Rudd, and I care little for politics. It's just I've seen a lot less severe actions being listed against a figure within their personal wikipedia article. I just found it odd that something like this is no where to be seen on his article, since I do believe it's noteworthy.

If anyone is interested, I could most likely find relevant articles to back up the above. If I recall correctly, it was covered quite a bit by all the News stations (Not just Nine or Ten, but SBS and ABC too) and most newspapers, such as the Sydney Morning Herald, and a few others, carried it too.

Anyone feel like weighing in on this? I mean it was in the news for a period of weeks, and IMO It's fairly noteworthy if a leading political figure had a reputation for verbally abusing his support staff. Akaricloud (talk) 08:15, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Can you provide any references about him having had this reputation? (rather than one or two incidents). I've heard the same thing, but am not sure that I've seen it in print. Lots of accounts of Rudd's downfall say that the way he treated the other Labor MPs was a big factor in why there was a sudden push to get rid of him, so this seems relevant if it can be reliably sourced. Nick-D (talk) 08:19, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Sure, I'll start having a look sometime tomorrow. On 0 bars of 3G reception right now, so it means even wikipedia pages take about 5 minutes to load :P Akaricloud (talk) 13:40, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Your suggestion is walking a very fine line on the POV/bias ridge. You will need to be very careful and scrupulous to ensure any addition is not just parroting partisan lines pushed by people who don't like Rudd. The fact is that all politicians have a high turn over of staff. You'll need to establish that Rudd's was higher. We can't just throw in a Liberal party member's opinion (for example). In terms of neutrality, there’s always something very dubious about retrospectively finding a (reliable) source to back up one’s beliefs/opinion. One is meant to have a source and find something to add. Not add something then find a source. Personally, I'm quite sceptical about the suggested change, but I’m happy to see what you find. --Merbabu (talk) 22:30, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I'll say what I have said whenever it is suggested that some media beat-up of a supposed "meltdown", "gaffe", "blunder" or "debacle" be mentioned in an article in the interests of "balance"—we have to be very careful not to interpret events or statements, or draw conclusions on character based on those things. We should report the facts, properly referenced, but should not thread them together to form a conclusion as to the subject's character, or effects on their lives or career. Closer to the line, but opinion by journalists or political commentators could be used, but the subject's response (or denial) should be included, and I would be very wary of including comments or statements from the opposing side of politics and perhaps clearly biased commentators.

The trouble with mentioning "incidents" like this alleged upbraiding of an flight attendant, is that in the long run it didn't have any discernible effect on Rudd's career or life apart from a couple of newspaper headlines, or even if it did there's no way we or the media or the opposition could justifiably draw such a conclusion. We can guess there were all sorts of factors which led Gillard to challenge Rudd for the leadership, which may have included his treatment of staff and MPs, but I'll bet you'll never find a usable reference which does more than guess or suppose—unless of course Rudd or Gillard or other major players make a firm statement of the reasons for their actions.

The talk page of this article is full of suggestions that this article is a "hagiography" and that mentions of Rudd's "failures" or "attitude" should be included in the interest of balance. I will oppose this most times, and would do so for John Howard, Tony Abbott, Bob Brown, Julia Gillard or anyone from any part of the political spectrum, lest I be accused of bias. While I agree articles shouldn't be hagiographies, neither should we be peddling opinion, rumours, original research, and supposition in a living person's biography, or trying to inject a false "balance". --Canley (talk) 00:25, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Akaricloud, might I suggest if you've seen "much less severe" incidents included in other subjects' articles (and please, give us some examples when making such a statement), that you remove those incidents if they are not referenced or make suppositions, rather than adding mentions of rumours and reputation to other articles such as this one? --Canley (talk) 00:33, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

• Public service is tough life: Rudd "Mr Rudd said one of his staff had commented recently that one year with him was akin to a "dog year", equal to seven "human years"."
• Rudd appoints another Queenslander "Before Jordan, a University of Queensland graduate, Rudd had a reputation for turning over his staff."
• Kevin Rudd shrugs off 'toughest boss in Australia' tag "Some former staff are privately seething at his management style, claiming he can fly off the handle at a moment's notice."
• Rudd draws on benefit of experience "...and for putting up with the demands of a boss who has a meticulous eye for detail, does not suffer fools gladly and seems not to need as much sleep as other mortals."
• Anxious overture "he was a man in the Labor Party but somehow not of the party. He sought to defy its culture; he made little attempt to be inclusive and consultative. He sought to impose a Führer-prinzip on the party."

I think we would be doing a great disservice to the article if we don't at least touch on the reports that his (lack of) personal relationships with the ALP caucus members contributed to his downfall. Subject to WP:BLP, I think it would also be worth covering how poorly he treated his staff. --Surturz (talk) 03:14, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Hey Surturz, I'm not sure I understand the first half of your comment. I really don't edit anymore, I used to do a fair bit of writing and editing 3 years ago on another account, but I basically retired a long time ago and treat Wikipedia as a book to read these days, as opposed to a book being written. Actually, I wonder now why I'm even bothering with this :P

Anyway! RAAF flight attendant abused by Prime Minister Kevin Rudd This article lists the specific occurrence I was talking about, as well as listing another encounter earlier on in another flight. My question becomes, is this sort of behaviour worth mentioning in the article? Should I start researching it and dig into how he treated his support staff on a day to day basis? As I said, I personally do not care much for politics, so I'm not prejudiced against Kevin Rudd in any way. I've just heard over time that he had a huge reputation for being a general douche bag to everyone around him.

I'll judge the general consensus in a couple of days, and if I feel people are interested, I'll actually write something up on it and let you guys decide if it's worth putting in.

Cheers

Akaricloud (talk) 06:52, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

(ec) One thing that is not mentioned is Rudd’s lack of factional support. Initially trumpeted as something new and refreshing – ie, a positive – it is now cited as the reason for his downfall. Ie, lack of factional support was fine as long as the polls were good, but as soon as the polls went south, there was no one or no faction sticking out their neck for him. --Merbabu (talk) 03:25, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Delete healthcare section?

Rudd announced a significant and far-reaching strategic reform to Australian healthcare in 2010.[118] However, this was not pursued beyond in-principle agreements with Labor State and Territory governments, and was scrapped by Julia Gillard during her first year in office.[119][120]

This section is tagged as "needing expansion". Since nothing really changed in the healthcare system under Rudd's PM-ship, I propose that we delete the section entirely. Rudd promised something and then was ousted before he could deliver. The ETS, not healthcare, was the main political topic associated with his downfall. I don't think the topic warrants inclusion. --Surturz (talk) 03:33, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Much was placed on the reaching agreement with the states and at the time was considered a major breakthrough. It is thus notable. Ie, in the same vein, we’re not about to delete mention of workchoices from Howard articles because much of that policy/system was removed later. We're not going to delete the WW2 article just because it's over. What came or didn’t come later has no bearing on whether to delete this section as it happened and that is notable. And, whether something contributed to Rudd’s downfall is not the criteria for inclusion (if that’s what is being suggested).

Expansion tags in general are meaningless and redundant – wikipedia editing implies expansion. The tag should be removed. --Merbabu (talk) 03:43, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Rudd's healthcare reforms were never implemented. Still haven't. Gillard's agreement is considerably different, but again, nothing has happened yet. The language we use should reflect the reality, not some crystal-ball future. If and when it happens, we can revise the article to reflect Rudd's contribution, but we don't want to mislead readers into thinking he did something when it never happened. SFAIK, all he did was announce a scheme. He announced a lot of things and very few of them ever happened. --Pete (talk)

Former 26th

The line "is the former 26th prime minister" should be changed to "was the 26th prime minister". Saying "former 26th prime minister" implies there is a current 26th prime minister. - unsigned by 202.124.72.36.

A mistake made all too often unfortunately, fixed. Timeshift (talk) 06:17, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I think the intro would be better phrased thus: "Kevin Michael Rudd (born 21 September 1957) is an Australian politician. He served from 2007 to 2010 as the 26th Prime Minister of Australia, and is currently the Minister for Foreign Affairs." --Surturz (talk) 15:10, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Wealth

I've just removed this section as the material was sourced (and basically copied and pasted) from an opinion article. The article states that the $60 million figure is Rudd and Thérèse Rein's combined wealth, and I'm pretty sure that I've read that Rein earned most of this money. While it's likely that at least some of the money is shared, this is far from certain given that Rein is a very active businesswoman. As such, it seems a bit misleading to say that Rudd's the richest PM Australia has ever had. Nick-D (talk) 00:04, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Kevin Rudd's personal life

Just wondering regarding K Rudd's personal life. He's been dropping the f-bomb, saying that Chinese are "rat-f--kers". Not sure if that incident about him in the bar is included in here, couldn't find the keyword "bar" in the article, but then again didn't read through the entire article. Twigfan (talk) 14:00, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Readers coming here for details on any of the very many negative episodes in Rudd's life and career are going to be sorely disappointed. The article is biased to the extent that you wonder why Labor ever dropped him and all his problems were caused by others. The truth is that the Libs think he's their biggest asset, and if Rudd was run over by a bus tomorrow, pretty much anyone who has ever worked with him would line up to piss on his grave. But you won't get even a whiff of scandal here - he called the Chinese ratfuckers, sure enough, they hate him for that, but on Wikipedia, he's Mr Clean. --Pete (talk) 18:14, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

my opinion on npov (and WP:BLP agrees) is that when in doubt over whether to include negative then leave it out. That's how Pauline Hanson and John Howard have been written. If you want to read dirt on people/topics then you've got the rest of the Internet (in all it's quality). I'm not so familiar with this article but I'm not overly upset about the (apparent) omission of those specific factoids. --Merbabu (talk) 03:57, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

For Kevin Rudd, the negative is an essential part of his biography. He wasn't removed from high office because the voters elected someone else, now was he? Nor was he dumped because Julia Gillard took it into her lonely head to do it. The article should explain why, because as you say, to get the whole story people looking for information will be directed away from Wikipedia, and if we are writing an encyclopaedia, that's a sad attitude to have - telling readers to go away if they want the facts, because they won't find them here. --Pete (talk) 04:18, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Are you attempting to try your hand at the Abbott 101 rulebook? If you say something enough, people start to believe it? Honestly, if you're here to help improve wikipedia then this sort of language is not the way to go about it and you know it. Timeshift (talk) 05:06, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

No Skyring, I said people can go elsewhere if they want to read the "dirt", not the "facts". And, i was very clear that my context was any public figure. Not just Kevin Rudd. If you don't agree, then fine - I'm more than comfortable with that. Just don't misquote people. And, be consistent. Presumably, consistency would mean you would argue that the "negative" is also essential to Pauline Hanson's biography? --Merbabu (talk) 07:59, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, I would define Kevin Rudd's "personal life" as details of his family, his hobbies, his religion, etc. (keeping in mind privacy and other BLP issues). Not a list of so-called "gaffes", often beaten up by the media, which we're supposed to weave together into some kind of narrative to imply that they demonstrate such a pattern of poor judgement that Gillard and others in the ALP decided to remove him from high office. Pete/Skyring seems to pop up every few weeks to rail against some perceived cadre of editors conspiring to whitewash and protect articles on Rudd/Gillard/other ALP members against any negative portrayal or incidents. And as I've replied several times, if an incident had an effect (other than generating a few headlines) and that can be referenced and verified, it should absolutely be included. If it's a trivial gaffe like getting filmed eating his own earwax, or Abbott saying "shit happens" to a soldier, then leave it out. What the article does is spell out the facts: Rudd lost the support of ALP factional leaders. If Gillard comes out and says she challenged Rudd for the leadership because he called the Chinese a rude name or yelled at an RAAF hostie and made her cry, I'll be the first to add it to the article. -Canley (talk) 05:35, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Being booted out of the Prime Ministership is not a "trivial gaffe", we may presume that readers come here wanting the full story and they certainly don't get it here - just a sanitised whitewashed press release from the office of Kevin Rudd MP. Yup, Rudd lost the support of factional leaders, but why? We make it sound so ordinary and everyday, but really it's one of those peaks in Australian political history. Not quite up there with 1975, but definitely more sudden and exciting than Hawke being rolled by Keating in slo-mo. and no, Timeshift. This isn't about Tony Abbott - it's about Kevin Rudd. --Pete (talk) 05:59, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

What text and supporting reliable sources do you suggest adding to fix this issue? Nick-D (talk) 07:53, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it would be more constructive if there was something specific to which to respond. --Merbabu (talk) 08:05, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I find it hard to believe that the plane crashed, the media wants to know what happened and over at the scene of disaster the people tasked with making the official report are standing around in the wreckage saying to each other, "Geez, I dunno, let's just say the flight was delayed." The article speaks for itself - the last two years and there hasn't been one good thing said about Rudd in newspapers, magazines, books and the electronic media, but you wouldn't know it from our supposedly encyclopaedic article. --Pete (talk) 09:56, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

So, you've actually got nothing specific to offer as remedy to your general complaint? --Merbabu (talk) 10:42, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

POV

Kevin Rudd's government was a disaster. He ran a government elected with a landslide and huge personal and party popularity ratings down to the point where Tony Abbott had a good chance of victory. In a single term. Rudd was removed by his own party in a sudden coup. Rudd's problems were not caused by outside forces - he created his own disasters through an autocratic and erratic management style and a failure to deliver on promises, most notably the carbon tax scheme.

And yet the article provides little information to the reader on the details of Rudd's downfall. One is left with the impression that it all just kind of happened to a great leader and he was the innocent victim of circumstances. And yet the ALP's own internal report on the 2010 election is strongly critical of Rudd. The report, leaked to the media, has been widely reported and discussed:

ALP post-mortem damns Rudd
A SECRET Labor Party report has criticised the government led by Kevin Rudd as lacking purpose and being driven by spin and implies that the former prime minister or his supporters were behind the leaks that almost destroyed Julia Gillard's election campaign.

Both Coalition and ALP are now making the same strong criticisms of Rudd. I have placed the POV tag because the article reads like something approved by Rudd, highlighting his successes and glossing over his failures. One editor, in previous discussion, said that those seeking such information should look elsewhere. This is not what a supposedly neutral and objective encyclopaedia does. --Pete (talk) 16:45, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

we didn't request an aggressive tag and more complaining about the vibe, we requested a suggested fix that can be responded to. You cannot just demand that others do work for you - if you want to make a change, then make it or suggest it. Tags are lazy, ugly and boorish especially if u don't offer anything yourself. Poor form and not an all constructive. Indeed, disruptive. Put up or shut up I say. --Merbabu (talk) 20:16, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Glad I've got you talking. Instead of having a go at me, could you address the point raised about this article, please? --Pete (talk) 20:23, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

It's your point. You address it, as has been requested. No one works for anyone here. until then, there's not much more to talk about. --Merbabu (talk) 20:31, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I've made my statement above - to which you responded dismissively - and I am interested in the views of regular editors here. Not to mention others investigating the flagging of this article. There is a problem of bias with this article and it should be addressed. Making personal attacks on other editors will not resolve the problem. --Pete (talk) 21:02, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

You're here to put up or shut up (improve the article), correct? Timeshift (talk) 05:21, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

That's ok. You and Merbabu can relax. I wasn't suggesting that either of you correct the bias by yourself. I am glad, however, that you acknowledge that there's work needs to be done. --Pete (talk) 06:58, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Something got lost in translation somewhere it would appear. Were you a day early? Timeshift (talk) 08:06, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Kevin Rudd was the only Prime Minister in Australia's history to be disposed of by his own party in his first term. If that does not mean he was an utter and complete failure as a Prime Minister then what does? His government's two greatest claims for glory - the success in avoiding a (technical) recession and supposedly healing a decades-old rift between white and black Australia with his apology were certainly repeated ad-nauseam by the Kevin Rudd camp. If it was true - why was he such a failure? Why did his Treasurer - The-Man-That-Saved-Australia-from-the-Recession™ - almost lost his Seat in the subsequent elections (getting in only with Greenie preferences, and likely to lose the next elections even with those) if the stimulus package worked so hanky-dory? Because the electorate knows very well that this stimulus package "success" was largely Rudd-spin, I suggest. Other governments (such as the US gov't) who used stimulus found this measure to be largely useless, and plunged into recession anyway. Australia was enjoying a booming Chinese economy which invested billions into the Australian economy and to a significant degree isolated it from the economic problems in U.S. and Europe. That is the certaintly the position of the Opposition (now well ahead in opinion polls, by the way), on the record as making these claims (i.e. that Australia avoiding recession was due to the Chinese-related boom rather than the stimulus package). That debate was repeated by both sides of politics - each pushing their own side (the stimulus package was a success/not) during the last election campaign in 2010. So, by claiming that the stimulus package worked one is taking only one side of politics (now clearly behind in opinion polls) and ignoring the other side's claims. So, who is the POV-pusher? Rtmcrrctr (talk) 00:16, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

The article states that "the government provided economic stimulus packages, and Australia was one of the few western countries to avoid the late-2000s recession", which seems fairly neutrally worded - both elements of the sentence are clearly true. There's also a solid body of research that the stimulus did have a very positive economic effect. This includes analysis from the IMF ([5]) and the OECD ([6], [7], [8]) as well as lots of stuff from the Treasury (for instance, [9]). Your highly partisan post hardly bolsters your case. Nick-D (talk) 00:40, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

I suppose that my comment fails to disguise the fact that I am not necessarily the biggest Rudd fan on the land, but to be honest I didn't really expect it to. Leaving politics aside, you write: "The article states that "the government provided economic stimulus packages, and Australia was one of the few western countries to avoid the late-2000s recession", which seems fairly neutrally worded - both elements of the sentence are clearly true". To your knowledge, when you include two facts (such as "Rudd implemented a stimulus package economic policy" and "Australia avoided recession") in the same sentence, what you do in effect is suggesting a certain causality relation between the two facts. You will never hear anyone from Rudd's (numerous) critics saying such, ummm, "neutral" sentence... Rtmcrrctr (talk) 00:54, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

The sooner you realise that Labor kept Australia out of recession, the better. :) Timeshift (talk) 01:27, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Not helpful Timeshift - no different to Skyring style of comment - just from a different "team". If people don't have specific suggestions for improvement then they shouldn't comment (if I was King of wikipedia, I'd remove such comments, but alas I'm not). Talk pages are not for discussing one's opinions, or making general complaints about the vibe of an article.

Oh? What "team" am I on? On this point, the single major fact that makes me detest political behaviour is the untruthfulness. Every statement is an exercise in spin. Every answer in Question Time is a chance to avoid the truth. Every positive is lauded to the skies, every negative buried away. This is not the sort of example we wish to follow in Wikipedia, and I resent the involvement of editors anxious to polish the rings of their team champions. --Pete (talk) 03:39, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Not to go off on a rant, but what else do you expect with 21st century media? The media mesh objective journalism and subjective opinion in to 24 hour rolling media coverage, where anything that could potentially be considered a "weakness" is shown as a disaster. In many countries including Australia, politicians who don't spin always fail, it is the sad truth of politics. A successful politician however, doesn't overuse spin. Remember, the public are not as dumb as some people make them out to be. I think anyone who cares about politics is able to read between the spin lines. It's just such a shame that general public disengagement grows ever larger, so many don't care. It's always interesting seeing the odd poll that stacks up public figures - the media and politicians always rate poor scores. Moreso the right-wing media organisations and individuals. The media ruined truthful politics. Timeshift (talk) 05:25, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

The point I make is that we, as encyclopaedia editors, don't need to pick sides. We try to present a neutral point of view, providing all well-held and reliably-sourced opinions. Playing politics - and then spinning your views - is missing the whole point of Wikipedia, no matter how much you feel your image of the world is the one that really matters. --Pete (talk) 11:06, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree with most of what you say, it's a pity you can't stick by it. One thing I don't agree with is the way you phrase "all well-held and reliably-sourced views". The two don't go together. We include well-held and reliably-sourced views. All is a useless apendage which some take to mean "any and all views". But on another level again, just because a view is reliably sourced, does not make it automatically suitable for inclusion. Well-held tends to be subjective opinion more than objective fact. Timeshift (talk) 08:21, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Of course, you are the epitome of "objective fact", as anyone may discern in your even-handed treatment of Australian politicians, regardless of party. Opinions are certainly well-held and Wikipedia's policy of NPOV handles this well. We have articles on the religions of the world, which happen to contradict each other but we report on them anyway. Political articles - like this one - quote opinion polls. The opinion of whoever picks up the phone, rather than the views of political scientists. As you pointed out above, in your attack on the media, that's the way it is. We don't hunt down unbiased sources of "objective fact" to present a neutral and objective truth - we find all well-held opinions. Minority or extreme views we present as such, but if a view is widely held and reliably sourced, such as that Kevin Rudd made a complete hash of his time as PM, did very little of substance and was booted out by his own party and has since devoted his time to sabotaging Julia Gillard, we should include it. Of course, in the eyes of some, Kevin Rudd and Kim Jong Il were saints and legends and their articles should reflect their eternal glory, but we are not North Wikipedia and those who consider their own rose-coloured opinions as objective fact should consider spending their time in a different fashion. --Pete (talk) 21:26, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Since when is my userpage an article? I am very even handed, my 5 years of edits prove that to be true. If I wasn't, I simply wouldn't be adding a lot of what I add. Later in your post, you hit the nail on the argument's head. You believe all views, if sourced and "well-held", need to be included by default. This is simply not correct. There are many reasons why a view that is sourced and "well-held" is decided not to be included in an article, which admins across the wikipedia spectrum will testify. I and many others think Howard was a failure, it is a well-held view and can be reliably sourced. Should we include it just because it's an opinion? Failure is utterly subjective. And we don't say either Howard or Rudd was a success either. We give the facts, not opinion. Your 100-years-war anti-Rudd crusade got old and transparent a long time ago. Timeshift (talk) 05:11, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Not anti-Rudd, but pro-NPOV. Go read it. My own opinions are immaterial and unimportant here, but the report prepared by the ALP referred to above and leaked to the media, supposedly by Gillard, is pretty devastating. I think our article should tell the full story of Rudd's career, in line with NPOV, a fundamental wikipolicy. But you apparently disagree. Your user page makes interesting reading, especially when read in conjunction with your many edits on political subjects. Nobody requires editors to be neutral and even-handed in everything, but NPOV is a way of keeping balance in our encyclopaedia. I commend it to you. --Pete (talk) 05:34, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Funny how you'll take an ALP document on it's word all of a sudden - that must be a first! One could also say it is not a reliable source because it is considered a primary source - too many opportunities in the report for personalities over truth. My edits are often commented on as positive - I stand by all my edits, anti-this or pro-that, it's all there. I'm not going to play the silly circular games and take this talk page off-topic any further, i've had my 2c. Timeshift (talk) 06:29, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Just go and read WP:NPOV. Clearly you don't understand one of Wikipedia's key policies. The ALP report is there for the reading whether you or I agree with it and it represents a pertinent body of opinion - that of the organisation that dumped Rudd as PM. You're wildly off base with your personal attacks BTW - every time I see Abbott and Hockey making statements on the economy I shudder at the thought of them getting their hands on the levers. I don't have preferred political sports team to barrack for and I find your cheerleader approach to Wikipedia inappropriate. --Pete (talk) 07:28, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Bias is better declared. See my userpage. Timeshift (talk) 07:39, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

I didn't need to look at your user page to work out which team you cheer for. Your edits here detract from the article's usefulness as source of information. Leaving out important aspects of Rudd's career damages the article, and your keen work to suppress any but the mildest criticism is one of the factors leading to this discussion on the neutrality - or lack of it - here. Rudd wasn't dumped because of any outside factors - it was his own failings that killed his career as PM, and that part of the story needs to be told. --Pete (talk) 08:28, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Please supply my last diff of substantial revert. Timeshift (talk) 09:10, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Timsehift, I agree that bias is better declared than undeclared. Better still, though, is a Neutral Point of View. Agree? -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 09:42, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I suggest that Timeshift, after having acknowledged that this article is biased and needs work he is unwilling to perform, and also having declared his own virulent bias - according to his talk page - leave the POV tag alone. According to the guidelines for use, as per the link on the tag, it should not be removed until the dispute is resolved, which clearly it is not. We can talk about it here or work on the article until it is satisfactory, but waging an edit war on the POV tag is not what Wikipedia expects. --Pete (talk) 22:57, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

The guidance at Template:POV doesn't support that position at all. It actually says that these tags can be removed by any editor if the discussion becomes dormant, which this clearly had given there'd been no posts here or edits to the article in relation to it for about two weeks. As all you're doing is complaining about Timeshift, I've removed the tag as the discussion about the article is still dormant. Nick-D (talk) 09:24, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

The tag was originally put there with the flimsiest of justifications. There was no dispute - there was an opinion of an editor about the article but NO action was taken by the editor to attempt at fixing said issue despite numerous requests to do so. Providing one's commentary on a political situation is not a POV dispute, much less when there is no "actionable" suggestion for improvement. There's even less justification to put it back there after this discussion has gone stale. If it is replaced, I suggest considering what advice or actions can be sought to manage WP:DISRUPTION. --Merbabu (talk) 09:32, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Per the above. And Pete, you know I never said what you claim i've said. Anyone can read what i've written. Timeshift (talk) 17:28, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

On the stimulus/lack of recession, I can understand Rtmcrrctr's concerns, but the two points are both individually valid. Perhaps, we could say something like "in response to a looming global slowdown, the govt implement stimulus packages to support demand in the economy" (yes, needs word-smithing). This is factual, and doesn't provide credit or criticism. A lead should always, well, "take its lead", from the article proper, and I note that the stimulus package and the avoidance of recession are mentioned separately. Just saying. --Merbabu (talk) 05:46, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

On the Apology content, I find the following - praise and criticism - somewhat nauseous...

[The apology] was publicly well received; most criticisms were of Labor for refusing to provide victims with monetary compensation as recommended in the Bringing them Home report, and that the apology would not alleviate disadvantage amongst Indigenous Australians.

...and I'd remove both. Both statements are vague and peacockish. The reference is a compilation list of opinion pieces. This is not an objective measure of opinion - it's OR and doesn't provide a NPOV. Wikipedia is often made better by what it doesn't include. --Merbabu (talk) 05:55, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

I think that technically it is impossible to avoid WP:SYNTH in saying that the Rudd stimulus package averted a GFC recession in Australia. However, I think there is enough verifiable opinion to assert that it is a commonly held view. However, I do think it is relevant to include the fact that the Howard government paid off the government debt and had large public savings (and public surplus) which enabled the stimulus package - cf. the US which had to borrow to provide stimulus. --Surturz (talk) 11:48, 29 December 2011 (UTC)