Talk:Kevin Rudd

Archives
Archive One Archive Two Archive Three

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

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

Where do you prefer government policies?

User:	On the Prime Minister of the day's page	On a seperate page such as (Prime Minister) Government	On the past election page	On the future election page
Timeshift	Y	Y	Y	Y
Deus Ex Machina	N	Y	Y	Y
Lester	N	Y	N	N
Orderinchaos	N	Y	Y	Y
52 Pickup	N	Y	N	N
Rebecca	N	Y	N	N
Duggy1138	N	Y	N	N
JackofOz	Y, but to a limited extent	Y	N	N, until closer to the election
Nick Dowling	Y, but only briefly	Y	N	N
Merbabu	N	Y	N	N
Jayvdb	N	Y	Y, only the important ones in context of election promises	N, who knows what politicians will believe in a year or more from now
Hamiltonstone	Y, but very limited	Y	N	N, until campaign underway
Total people supporting:	4	12	4	3

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Format?

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

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

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

Oath/affirmation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Publications

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

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

Old information on page

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

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

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

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

Thanks for your suggestion. When you believe an article needs improvement, please feel free to change it. You can edit almost any article on Wikipedia by just following the Edit link at the top of the page. We encourage you to be bold in updating pages, because wikis like ours develop faster when everybody edits. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. You can always preview your edits before you publish them or test them out in the sandbox. If you need additional help, check out our getting started page or ask the friendly folks at the Teahouse. --Nick Dowling (talk) 10:16, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Aussie PM infobox content

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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