Talk:Kevin Rudd

Views - economic

Why is there no mention of the fact that Rudd described himself (published in AFR 2003) as a "Christian Socialist".

Please refer to the wikipedia definition of a socialist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.165.180.53 (talk) 16:53, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I think the following Rudd quote[1] is good for the fact he rarely ventures in to Hawke and Keating vs Howard, and believe it should be added:

“ The Hawke and Keating governments delivered a massive program of economic reform, and they didn't shy away from taking on their own political base when they knew it was in the national interest. Think tariffs. Think cuts to the marginal tax rate. Think enterprise bargaining. Think how unpopular all of those were with the trade union movement of Australia. Mr Howard, on the other hand, never took on his own political base in the prosecution of any significant economic reform. His reform agenda never moved out of the ideological straitjacket of the 1970s and 1980s. Think industrial relations. Think consumption tax. And think also of the explosion in untargeted welfare... When the economic circumstances change, and the demands of a competitive economy change, Mr Howard never adjusted and never took the lead when it came to new ideas. Look at climate change. Look at infrastructure policy. Look at education policy. Look at early childhood education. There's a mountain of economic evidence about the importance of those policy domains to Australia's future. Mr Howard in 11 years never sustained an interest in any of those policies. All you have is the occasional reluctant capitulation when the political heat reaches boiling point — like the reluctant acceptance of emissions trading last year. ”

Timeshift (talk) 03:37, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

"Mr Howard, on the other hand, never took on his own political base in the prosecution of any significant economic reform."

Because he didn't have too, it wasn't the Liberals that had to be dragged into the modern economy. The Hawke/Keating policies highlighted were passed with the support of coalition controlled Sentate.

"Look at climate change"

Unsubstantiated group-think.

"Look at infrastructure policy. Look at education policy. Look at early childhood education"

State responsibilities neglected by LABOR States. Why not throw in health;-)

Wow Kevin talks about HIS political agenda before an election and points out JWH hasn't jumped on board. Yeap I can't think of any better quote from Timeshift;-)

Climate Change? How many questions did the Labor Opposition ask about Climate change between 1996 and 2006? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.165.180.53 (talk) 16:55, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

The quote is an interesting summary of Rudd's views but seems bit long for inclusion. Is this better placed in a piece about Rudd Government policies, instead of a biography of Rudd himself?

The anon response above isn't very helpful - you might not agree with Rudd's views but this is not an article about you. Please stay focused on the article content, not your own opinion of the article subject. Euryalus (talk) 03:33, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

The view expressed by Rudd is his political agenda in an election campaign. The only other conclusion could be the Rudd intends to deliberately upset his party faithful by announcing policies that are required upset them.

It was actually Malcolm Fraser that the Liberals unsuccessfully attempted to undergo economic reform. This was before economic rationalism took a stranglehold on both sides of politics, and during the time that classical liberalism died out. Not to mention your state not federal responsibilities attitude to education, health and infrastructure clearly identifies you as a non-investing Thatcherist "Liberal". And despite that, the state Liberals, when the public last had any confidence in them, didn't invest in education, health and infrastructure anyway. Timeshift (talk) 03:47, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Fraser didn't push reforms, Howard in opposition as Fraser's treasurer (Cambell Committe) was very supportive. Only if Hawke/Keating were complete fools (I've never said they were) would they have not continued the reforms. That sections of the organised labour movement were fools at the time doesn't make Hawke tougher.

Howard pushed Fraser for the reforms but Fraser wouldn't budge. So much for a cohesive Liberal Party (were they ever?). And you say 'continue the reforms'... what noteworthy economic reforms occurred under the Fraser govt? And if Labor is so economically irresposible as i'm sure you believe they are, they would have been complete fools and did what their "mates in the labour movement told them to do". At least that's what I keep hearing from the likes of people like Joe Hockey. *snigger* Timeshift (talk) 08:29, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Hawke pushed through the remainder of the Cambell Committee recommendations (after the Martin Group review). However the review and the reforms (e.g. tender system for selling treasury instruments - a huge reform) began during the Fraser government. After Hawke significant non-financial market reform was also undertaken (taxation reform, labour market reform, etc). I've not claimed Hawke/Keating was "economically irresposible". Clearly Timeshift has little knowledge of the financial reform process, which is why he believed Rudd's giddy claims as fact. Sadly this lack of knowledge is reflected in the Kevin Rudd article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.101.222.105 (talk) 00:57, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

This is not the place to push your POV, Timeshift9. Please keep discussion to the article. --Surturz (talk) 13:53, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I was responding to the anon IP on this talk page. I do not push POVs on articles (and most talk page issues, however this one I ate the bait on). I refer you to your response to an admin on your user talk page, "Thank you for your constructive criticism on my talk page. I respectfully disagree with you. The vast bulk of edits on political pages are from people pushing POVs. Mine are no exception." Pot, meet kettle. Timeshift (talk) 14:05, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

And in lack of any rationalised objection, I will add. Timeshift (talk) 14:15, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Added at Kevin Rudd#Economics with blockquote formatting. It doesn't seem to take up much space. Timeshift (talk) 14:22, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I removed the last sentence about Howard from the quote. This makes the quote more of an exposition of Rudd's ideas, rather than simply a reaction to Howard's ideas. This is an article about Rudd, so it should be mainly about him as his own man, rather than contrasting different points of view on an issue. --Surturz (talk) 00:30, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Considering you admit to actively POV-pushing, I would appreciate it if you discuss the issue here with others rather than disruptive reverts of good faith contributions. Timeshift (talk) 00:51, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I would have thought a Kevin fan would want him to be defined in his own terms, rather than as the Anti-Howard. If you want the anti-Howard part of the quote to remain, I am more than happy for it to be there :-) It's good to keep the great man's name alive. Leaving Howard in the article portrays Rudd as fighting yesterday's battles - a portrayal I am eager to facilitate --Surturz (talk) 01:03, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I pulled it out again. Might as well do it sooner rather than later. --Pete (talk) 01:16, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Sigh. More pointless edit warring without talk page discussion from the usual suspects. At least the evidence is collecting. Timeshift (talk) 01:20, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

The book and the newspaper article in The Age describe the quote as Rudd's "harshest criticisms" of Howard economics since gaining office. Rudd came to power on the back of his criticism of Howard economics, so it has some relevance to what Rudd stands for, just like opposition leader Brendon Nelson's criticism of Rudd forms the impression of what Nelson stands for. So both sides of politics are criticising each other, but this is how it goes.Lester 04:22, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Stop Edit Waring

Kevin Rudd criticised John Howard and Howard's economic policies (the previous government). However, it's disappointing to see an immediate edit war has broken out on this issue. See this deletion and this deletion. The issue of whether or not Rudd's quotation gets used should be made by the Wikipedia community. If that doesn't work you can ask for a Request for Comment to bring in uninvolved editors. But hovering over an article with fingers poised on the delete button is not the way to handle content disputes. Surely there are more sophisticated means of settling a content dispute than launching into yet another edit war.Lester 04:22, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

There is, vote for article prohibition. Shot info (talk) 04:27, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Lester, deleting text is not edit warring. Reverting changes is edit warring. There is such a thing as constructive deletion. --Surturz (talk) 01:13, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

To Peter, I believe Wikipedia:Coatrack refers to the issue of slabs or a majority of the article constructed in such a manner. It is one very small portion of text compared to the overall article. There is no reason to remove it as it clearly states his position in comparison to the last two changes of government - perfectly legitimate. Timeshift (talk) 04:04, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I was unaware of the debate on the issue. But from my point of view it's very, very clear that it has no place in the Kevin Rudd article. The paragraph is not about Rudd. It is about Howard, Hawke and Keating, so perhaps can be put in those articles. (As one of a range of views under "Assessment of Howard", "Assessment of Hawke" etc). But really it is totally non-notable in the Rudd article (as were the anti-Howard things in the Paul Keating article which we debated a while back). I mean, shock horror, Rudd critical of Howard? What a surprise! Peter Ballard (talk) 04:28, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

How cynical :) The para isnt about the three, it is about current PM Rudd and his positioning between the last three PMs. Timeshift (talk) 04:34, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

"Positioning"? Are you serious? In what way is he "positioning" himself as different from Hawke and Keating? There is not a single word about what Rudd says he will do (OK, by implication he will do the things he criticises Howard for not doing, but he doesn't actually say that). All he does is praise Hawke/Keating and criticise Howard. Peter Ballard (talk) 04:43, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I said he was positioning himself. Not positioning himself as different. He takes hawke/keating/howard and compares them suggesting what he by implication supports and what labor previously supported. Timeshift (talk) 06:24, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

And how is that notable? Peter Ballard (talk) 06:29, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

P.s. answering Lester above ("It's valid because it was part of Rudd's election spiel") I would say it wasn't. Rudd election mantra was "Dump Howard because Workchoices is bad and we need new leadership". The comments in the contentious para were not part of his election platform to any significant degree - in fact I can't remember him mentioning Hawke and Keating at all. Peter Ballard (talk) 04:32, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with "Peter" here. This paragraph appears to a "coatrack" on which is used to bash former PM's. Massive slabs of this quote don't seem to fit into the page. c.Marsh b.Lillee (talk) 06:33, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Well that argument seems to have just died, but not with any good reason for the paragraph staying. I still say it's a blatant coatrack paragraph, serves no purpose in a Rudd biography, and needs to go. (p.s. I'm not saying it's an intentional coatrack). Peter Ballard (talk) 12:14, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

It is a long bow to draw to say the para is a coatrack. As I said, it states Rudd's economic view, as part of his political view section, a Rudd quote from a published book, that despite having similar economic policy, he prefers the Hawke/Keating reformist way of handling the economy as opposed to the various ways Howard handled the economy and how it flowed on to schools/hospitals/infrastructure. This is a mainstay of his economic views. Perhaps some consider it a coatrack because of how he's convincingly worded it? Is this a coatrack? Timeshift (talk) 14:32, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

All the quote does is praise Hawke/Keating for "taking on their own political base", and criticise Howard for not taking on his. It has nothing to do with Rudd. If you want a quote on his economic views, find a better one, one which focuses on what Rudd believes, not on what Hawke/Keating/Howard did. "Perhaps some consider it a coatrack because of how he's convincingly worded it?" - perhaps some are defending it because they like the quote rather than it being relevant? "Is this a coatrack?" - what are you talking about, that is the ALP website, they can say what they want. Peter Ballard (talk) 23:55, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

The Rudd quote that criticises Howard is definitely not a 'coatrack'. You may be able to criticise the quote for other reasons, but coatrack is not the appropriate term in this case. The term 'Coatrack' refers to the entire article, not a single point or quote in the article. So, you can go and look for some other Wikipedia criteria to that the quote violates, but the above comments that cite the Coatrack rule are invalid. In response to those who say it is "constructive" to immediately delete the quote, I say it's not constructive. The quote is factual, not libel, and not vandalism, therefore revert deletions are not appropriate. Have the discussion out here on the talk page, and in the end the community will decide if the quote stays or goes.--Lester 01:05, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Economic views paragraph - off topic?

I've renamed the section because there is no edit warring now.

OK, I admit "coatrack" is not strictly correct. It was just convenient shorthand for "off topic paragraph which is more about criticising Howard than presenting Rudd's views". Now, I haven't seen any good defence that it is on topic. Lester argued that it summarised Rudd's election platform, but I've pointed out that Rudd (to my knowledge) never contrasted Howard to Hawke/Keating during the campaign, certainly not significantly. Timeshift said it was about "positioning" himself between Howard and Hawke/Keating, then conceded the "positioning" was about supporting Hawke/Keating policies and not Howard's. In the edit history I see 3 people saying delete (me, Skyring, C.Marsh b.Lillee), 2 saying keep (Timeshift, Lester). Surturz seems to argue for both :) To those who want to keep, you're in the minority, so I think you need better arguments or it's got to go. Can't you see that the paragraph is really just a criticism of Howard? Peter Ballard (talk) 01:37, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't necessarily want to keep it. An alternative possibility may be to paraphrase it. Or delete it. But because the information is cited and factual, the onus should be on those who want to delete it to provide the argument and the wikipedia rules. --Lester 01:45, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I think you'll struggle to find a WP rule that puts the onus on either side. In any case, I am calling for it to be deleted because it's off-topic (about Hawke/Keating/Howard not Rudd) and POV (attacks Howard without a balancing view). Peter Ballard (talk) 03:04, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

So essentially, neither can hide behind a WP: policy, and neither has made any point that the other considers to be relevant, be it right or wrong. So looks like more discussion rather than demanding it be removed. Since when can a PM not comment on the previous couple of governments and what he sees as important from it? Timeshift (talk) 03:53, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

FuelWatch

Not sure why, I'm having trouble editing the article. Could someone please put the following in in the "first term" section?

During the election campaign, Rudd promised to institute new government bodies to monitor, with the aim of reducing, fuel and grocery prices. In 2008 senior ministers in his government expressed concern that such measures would actually raise prices for those least able to pay. Rudd defended the program, saying that it would reduce prices by around 2 cents a litre.

Thanks. --Surturz (talk) 01:06, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:Recentism

Please be careful. It looks odd when his personal views have government issues spotted through them. I've moved them in to his 2007-present section. Timeshift (talk) 03:25, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

too many refs?

• Please see discussion I have raised at WP:AWNB#too many refs? concerning the recent challenge to an edit I have made on this article --Matilda ^talk 05:12, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Unsure of edits to the article (Rudd's chinese name)

I've cautiously reverted this re his chinese name, I had a hard time figuring out if it was subtle vandalism. Others' reversal of my revert would be appreciated if I am incorrect. Timeshift (talk) 14:01, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

While I admire the research that's gone into it, I'm unconvinced that Rudd's Chinese alias deserves mention in the article. Isn't it akin to a nickname? It's not a name he was born with, and I doubt we'd put his full name as Kevin Michael "Lù Kèwén" Rudd. OTOH I guess he does talk to high level chinese diplomats and politicians. Perhaps if one of those looked up this article, they'd like to know :) --Surturz (talk) 21:01, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Such names are not usually nicknames in the way the term is used within most western cultures, and need to be understood as arising through processes of inter-cultural contact and communication. I'd be careful about the argument that its not a name he was born with, since many people acquire names that stick as they go through life, and which are noted in WP articles - either as nicknames that are bestowed upon them, or names that they select for themselves for whatever reason. Sometimes the rationale for these names is contained in the article, sometimes not. In Rudd's case, his acceptance of his Chinese name would be an indicator of his relationship with aspects of Chinese culture and customs in this regard, and is a component of his character as a politician. To make the entry even more relevant, it would be interesting to include the meaning of Rudd's Chinese name as well, because this is an important part of the naming process - all Chinese names have explicit meanings in their own right, unlike most Western names whose affect lies mainly in their sound and any associations they may have with literary, theological, sporting, etc identities. If Rudd's Chinese name is used by people in China, then it becomes far more relevant. If it was only used as part of his Mandarin classes, then its value is mainly for curiosity sake. Eyedubya (talk) 00:53, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

While I see the relevance of "Lu Kewen" being included in the article, I don't see a need for digging into the phonetics. "Lu Kewen" is simply a well-crafted phonetic approximation of his "real" name in English (which happen to be three syllables--same as most Chinese names). Knowing the language, I don't see the need of the meaning either, as "Lu Kewen" doesn't have an explicit and unambiguous meaning. One could suspect "Ke" means "to overcome" and "Wen" means "the written (Chinese) language", but it may not have been his intention. The obvious and unambiguous explanation (if there even needs to be one) is the phonetic similarity. Generically "Kevin Rudd" would be translated to "Kaiwen Lade" (Lah-duh) in modern day Chinese, but "Lu Kewen" is one that he specifically chooses, just like many Chinese and Koreans choose (or are given) a Western first name. HkCaGu (talk) 17:19, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Speaking as a westerner with Chinese ancestry and a Chinese name, I think that the issue of meaning is interesting and relevant - there should be more of it, not less. The subtle differences between the tones will be indiscernable, giving several possibilities for names that phonetically sound the same to western ears, but conveying quite different meanings to those who speak Chinese. Eyedubya (talk) 01:31, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Wiktionary says 陸: land/army/six 克:overcome/gram 文: literature/culture/writing. "Overcome Literature with an Army" perhaps. Unless Kev wanted his name to mean "censorship", I would say that it is a phonetic representation of his English name :-) P.S. I've changed my mind, I think given the importance of his ability to speak Mandarin, it is worthy of inclusion. --Surturz (talk) 10:52, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, now try saying his name to a Mandarin-speaking person and watch their reaction! :) Eyedubya (talk) 10:56, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

External Links

How do I change a link? I'm slightly internet illiterate I'm afraid. I want to alter the domain given already to the new domain. http://www.kevinmichaelrudd.com Sorry I haven't looked over your website properly and done it all myself but I'm very busy at the moment trying to prepare for next months change in the senate. I've got about 5 minutes out of my lunchbreak to fix this up and then I'm catching a limousine to Kyoto Towers. It's a new domain. The page appears to be locked. Congratulations on such a successful website and thankyou for creating such a fair and balanced article on the new Australian leader. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.223.30.9 (talk) 03:13, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

• Guys, what we do about this? If I were Rudd I would not use an Internet address without au on the end (on the other hand, if I were Rudd I would not have done many things he did and would have done many things we would not). Also the site http://www.kevinmichaelrudd.com is apparently hosted on IP 4.79.81.151 that is in Colorado, USA. The anonim himself comes from a Telstra IP (one service said it is in QLD, one said it is in ACT both can be Rudd's office). The site itself does not appear to be an attack or an obvious hoax site, still I think we need a sort of confirmation that this is indeed Kevin Rudd's site and not a hoax Alex Bakharev (talk) 03:49, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Also neither http://www.pm.gov.au/ nor http://www.alp.org.au/people/qld/rudd_kevin.php (aka http://kevinrudd.com) list the site as the official Kevin Rudd's site Alex Bakharev (talk) 04:20, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

It appears (at least at present) to be a copy of the official Prime Minister's page here. There is no indication it is an official site and I wouldn't support its use in the article instead of www.pm.gov.au. At best it will be outdated every time the official site updates and at worst it might be used to post incorrect information masquerading as an "official statement". Euryalus (talk) 03:43, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

That's ok. I should have been more forthcoming with my intentions but I was running late for a flight. I'm just a minor figure in the labor party and it doesn't really matter which link you use. We won't be closing down the old domain as its part of the government website and already well listed in search engines. We don't go out of our way to confuse people. The new domain is simply easier to remember for our regular visitors. Thanks for your time. Peter Geoffreys. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.222.164.62 (talk) 08:45, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I can confirm for you that KevinMichaelRudd.Com is an official website of the PM and our internet boffin Greg is currently optimising it for search engines. Peter is a volunteer staffer and trainee assistant to Greg. Simply email me at julia@juliagillard.org or send a message addressed to me via our canberra website and I will happily verify its authenticity. Thankyou. Julia Gillard (talk) 03:01, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

You don't honestly expect us to think we're speaking to not just a staffer, but Julia Gillard herself? Oh please. Timeshift (talk) 03:11, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I suppose it must seem pretty fantastic to you but I work in the department next to hers. She's flesh and blood like anybody else. The subject of facebook came up over lunch and I mentioned how Kevin's new website couldn't be placed on his article page at wikipedia without official verification. She has a computer in her office. It isn't unheard of. She frequently talks to friends on her MySpace page. I suggest you email her and find out. Don't worry about the website becoming outdated every time the old site updates. Greg explained to me that it's a mirror site and both websites will update simultaneously. Regards Peter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.185.53.57 (talk) 07:26, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Are you aware of the history of oz govt editing on wikipedia? I am sure all MPs on all sides wouldn't contribute to articles or talk pages whatsoever (staffers excluded). Timeshift (talk) 08:36, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

It's a hoax everyone. Julia Gillard's real email address is Julia.Gillard.MP@aph.gov.au Peter Ballard (talk) 12:21, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, definately a hoax. But even it was genuine, there is no reason not to use the PM's offical government address. Jmount (talk) 13:07, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

What makes you think it's a hoax? Looks authentic to me! http://www.kevinmichaelrudd.com LOL! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.223.99.228 (talk) 22:07, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Spamlink only --Matilda ^talk 22:14, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I have blocked User:Julia Gillard as an inappopriate username. She can of course challenge the block --Matilda ^talk 22:18, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Social conservative

Rudd is widely regarded as a social conservative. However, the term appears nowhere in the article. Should the article state that he is widely regarded as a social conservative? There would be endless references available to support the view. For example, commentator Gerard Henderson recently made the comment in the Sydney Morning Herald (link) after artists were unhappy that Rudd condemned the photography of Bill Henson. It has been said many times before that Rudd is a social conservative, as opposed to Liberal leadership contender Malcolm Turnbull who is considered socially liberal. It kind of blurs the lines between the two parties somewhat. --Lester 01:54, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I think we need a sub-section under "Political views" called something like "Social views". (I'm a little wary of calling the heading "social conservative", because he's not a social conservative on all things (e.g. he voted for the abolition RU486 restrictions), but we could certainly see say within that section that he's widely called a social conservative). The Bill Henson issue should also be moved from the "First term: 2007–present" to that section, because it wasn't a big issue politically for Rudd (he was more of a commentating bystander), but it's an interesting and important illustration of his social views. Peter Ballard (talk) 02:03, 16 June 2008 (UTC), corrected Peter Ballard (talk) 03:46, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

He is in some ways social conservative, not so in other areas. Two things that comes to mind are the apology, and financial equality for LGBT persons. Timeshift (talk) 04:07, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but with the LGBT issue, notice how it was financial discrimination that was removed. He was very careful to keep the social barriers in place to LGBT marriage, IVF and adoption. So he retains his social conservatism on that issue. --Lester 04:28, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't say that was socially conservative, just not as socially liberal as it could have been. But that's my 2c. For the record, I am a homosexual. Timeshift (talk) 04:45, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

You say tomato, I say a red fruit :-) --Surturz (talk) 05:19, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Also, IIRC, Rudd hasn't changed any of the LGBT policies in the Labor platform. Did Labor ever support LGBT marriage, access to IVF and adoption? If not, you could hardly label him for going by the Labor Party platform. Was Whitlam a social conservative? Timeshift (talk) 08:27, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

How much of this is pragmatic politics and how much of it is personal views? Almost anything politicians say these days is put through a PR filter before it makes it to a wider audience and has to be viewed from both an electoral and intra-party context. I know personally of MPs who have had to support stances they disagree with because Labor's state office has ruled that to hold a contrary stance would unnecessarily give opportunities to the Liberals. There are exceptions - but most of them are backbench MPs. Orderinchaos 02:52, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

"Personal views" are unimportant. Any parliamentarian who is a member of an Aussie political party will at some point vote in favour (or against) legislation they don't (or do) like. Crossing the floor is very rare in Aussie politics now. --Surturz (talk) 12:29, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Correct. Which is why I find it so ignorant when people refer to federal elections as electing the candidate and not the PM/party, on both a theoretical and practical basis. Aussie elections have been defacto presidential campaigns for decades now. The sooner some realise the modern reality, the better. Timeshift (talk) 16:46, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Strip Club removal

I've removed the strip club paragraph. It was somewhat interesting at the time because it was during an election campaign, but it had no effect on the outcome of the election, and a bloke having a few drinks and going to a strip club is hardly notable. It can be re-added if something else crops up (e.g. if it is brought up during a debate on sexism or somesuch) --Surturz (talk) 01:58, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Kevin Rudd's strip club escapades were discussed endlessly in the past. A consensus was reached. However, that has now changed by this edit which deleted the content. So here we go again..... --Lester 02:00, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

It came up in the context of the alcopop debate UK Telegraph 3 June 2008 --Matilda ^talk 02:05, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Strong Keep - it was a notable event because it got huge media coverage and to a degree has defined his image. Like Fraser's trousers, Latham and the cab driver, Downer's heels, Hawke's drinking record etc. The paragraph avoids sensationalism - it's well referenced and NPOV. Peter Ballard (talk) 02:13, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it's still getting strong media coverage. Just this month: The Australian, , The Herald Sun. Rudd's boozey past is more notable now, due to his crack down on alcopops.--Lester 02:15, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, OK leave it in then. I still think it is a trivial inclusion. Why don't we just rename the article Kevin .07? jeez --Surturz (talk) 08:13, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

It provides an insight into Rudd's personality.--Lester 12:16, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

What insight, exactly? He drank a beer and saw a boob? I think most Australian males would fall into this group. It would be more notable if he HADN'T drank a beer, or had NEVER seen a boob! :-) --Surturz (talk) 12:24, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Ewww, boobs. This is one male that doesn't fall in to that group :) FWIW I don't care if the content stays or goes. Timeshift (talk) 16:38, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I am researching issues of public interest and came looking for details of the event with a view to questioning the media's definition of "public interest" is... I was hoping to find an NPOV account only to find the article sanitised. Wikipedia will loose credibility if such practises continue. Proberton (talk) 11:26, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

The only thing that has lost credibility, especially with a spiel like that, is you. Strip club removal was never removed, it is mentioned here. Now run along. Timeshift (talk) 20:50, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I would like to apologise unreservedly for my self-righteous indignation, I didn't read the article closely enough. Proberton (talk) 23:51, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

A serious issue

I have received a flickr message from the author of the sorry image that Dr R Marika (the woman with "Thanks" on her T-shirt) has died. He goes on to say 'It is customary that her image should not be shown publicly for a period of time - usually a year. I think the photo should probably be removed from Wikipedia as a mark of respect'. I'm torn between the two. Comments/discussion very much appreciated. Timeshift (talk) 05:24, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

can you forward the email to OTRS at info-en@wikimedia.org and let the person know that you have done so. The request will be done by someone from outside australia and they'll be able to make an independent judgement. Gnangarra 16:08, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

It's not an email. It's a flickr message. I have advised the author to email that address themselves. Timeshift (talk) 16:33, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is full of stuff that offends people. Fundamentalist Christians probably hate the Evolution article. The photograph is an excellent one, capturing the mood of the moment perfectly, and I would be sorry to lose it from our encyclopaedia. --Pete (talk) 22:31, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Adapted from original post at Wikipedia:Australian Wikipedians' notice board FWIW, I'd be bold and remove the image from this article as a courtesy to the original creator of the image, who I presume is the complainant since you're being contacted via flickr. The media is encouraged to respect indigenous beliefs in this area (eg Advisory Note: The Portrayal of Aboriginal and Torres Straight Islander Peoples) and it does not seem to unnecessarily compromise the Kevin Rudd article to remove it since it already has several images. On the other hand, Wikipedia is not censored and I wouldn't be removing the image from the Commons itself. My suggestion would be to <!--- comment out the image !--->with an in comment note to reinstate it this time next year. Debate 木 23:11, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

It does seem rather a double standard to blank the photograph when a similar custom applies to publishing the deceased's name, yet she has an article here. To be consistent, surely the article would have to be blanked as well? (I support neither.) BTW, the same photo appears at Stolen Generations. WWGB (talk) 23:28, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Generally I'd agree that the article shouldn't be removed due to a marginal email complaint by a random individual. It seems to me, however, that the main issue is how to deal with the preferences of the original creator of the image, if indeed that is the person who's making the request. Although the creator of the image has waived some of their rights to the image, as a general rule we want to encourage more people to release images under appropriate licenses. In my view an argument can be made that, as a courtesy to the original creator of the image and following their request, we might consider restricting use of the image for a brief period on articles with a high profile such as this one. Debate 木 23:37, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I recognise that a concern of cultural impact by using the image has been raise but this is a freely licensed and available image in respect to that culture, its also visual commentary on an aspect that had significant effect on the culture. Without direct contact by the author to the foundation via OTRS, I'm reluctant to remove an image based solely on a reported note. There are precedents against such types of image removal across many articles I'd hate to this used to force censorship on them, this discussion needs to go where the broader community can discuss it and OTRS can do that with the necessary sensitivity. Gnangarra 01:17, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

It appears that image has been removed from Flickr. The link on the Wikipedia image page (i.e. this link [2]) no longer works; and I cannot find it on the Flickr user's page, despite other Sorry Day images here [3] . Therefore I think it's reasonable to say that the original author has withdrawn permission to use the picture, and while perhaps legally we can keep it, I think we should remove it. Peter Ballard (talk) 01:35, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

It's still there for me, even after reloading a couple of times. Perhaps one of us is special? --Pete (talk) 02:33, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I now get "The photo you were looking for has been deleted. You might like to ask jthommo101 about it!". I think you need to refresh your cache. Oops I just saw you said you reloaded. But try again now. I think something has changed since my last (1.35 WP time) post. Peter Ballard (talk) 02:47, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Getting the same message now. Possibly there's a few caches between Flickr and I that take time to clear out. If the photographer has withdrawn the image, I don't feel comfortable continuing to use it. A pity, as it's an excellent photo for the article(s). --Pete (talk) 02:55, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Just to clarify as some people don't seem to be aware (and this is not in support of keeping or deleting the image, just clarifying image policies) that once you have a flickr image uploaded to wikipedia, and it has been reviewed with the green tick as meeting the licensing requirements, from that point on it does not matter if the image license has been changed, or the image has been completely removed. All that matters is that at one point, it was verified to be available on flickr, under the stated license. Thanks. Timeshift (talk) 03:21, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I wasn't sure on that point. I'm torn. It's an excellent image and an asset to Wikipedia, but, cultural considerations aside, if the photographer doesn't want us to use it, then we should bear that in mind. Put me down as neutral. --Pete (talk) 03:29, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

As a guide on how to handle this, did anyone ever try to upload the Mohommed cartoons to wikipedia that caused mass protests by Muslims? If so how was it handled? Timeshift (talk) 03:51, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

They are here. WWGB (talk) 04:14, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

If I remember correctly, there was a discussion of a similar matter a while ago at the Australian Wikipedians' notice board. The example at the time was that an editor was, in good-faith, adding disclaimers to articles on Indigenous Australians stating that they might contain material relating to deceased Indigenous Australians - Wikipedia's Wikipedia:General disclaimer was judged to sufficiently cover this and these specific disclaimers were removed. There was also a campaign against Wikipedia by some Muslim groups earlier this year protesting at articles which contain images of Mohommed - they were refered to WP:NOT#CENSORED and the images remained in the article. Nick Dowling (talk) 10:33, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Is there any other image available that would be an adequate replacement for this image? I'm not that keen on removing the picture just because someone on Flickr told us to do so, but if we can put up an equivalent image in its place and please everyone instead, then why not? Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:54, 4 August 2008 (UTC).

Free images don't appear out of thin air. Timeshift (talk) 10:58, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm aware of that, but if one is available that would seem to be the best solution, no? Obviously the chances of an exact image without the person in question being available are slim, but surely there are other images covering the same topic that we could consider using. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:05, 4 August 2008 (UTC).

Obvious troll is obvious, but I am wondering why you are worried about this issue when you were perfectly happy to put an unflattering caricature of Joe Hockey on his page? I personally think we should be polite and not use the image, but I am just wondering why there is a double standard? --Surturz (talk) 11:03, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Because we're displaying the image of a recently deceased indigenous person? What ignorance. Timeshift (talk) 11:20, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

So it's not okay to include a photo that indigenous people might find offensive, but it is okay to include a pic that a politician may find offensive? Is that the situation? --Surturz (talk) 11:52, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

100% correct! Timeshift (talk) 11:57, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Why? --Surturz (talk) 12:04, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Part of the indigenous culture is that displaying images of recently deceased images is culturally insensitive, and an insult. When the ABC shows something on indigenous culture, there's always a warning saying that the program may contain images of deceased indigenous people. I can't believe I even need to explain this. You deserve no further response. Timeshift (talk) 12:12, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I didn't think you'd be able to explain why politicans don't deserve the same courtesy on WP. "It's obvious" isn't a reason. I'm all for caricatures and making fun of pollies in other fora, but I can't see how caricatures deserve a place in a WP BLP. If you can't believe that you need to explain this, consider the fact that you and I think very differently; perhaps what is obvious to you is not quite so obvious to me. --Surturz (talk) 13:27, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I think you're being insensitive to Surturz. There does seem to be a double standard here. The custom doesn't seem to be a widespread part of Aboriginal culture. As I've pointed out below I've been able to find very little on it and what I have found seems to be written from a non-Aboriginal perspective. Traditional Aboriginal art seems to be significantly lacking in images of Aboriginal people, especially individuals, so one tends to wonder when exactly this custom arose and how many Aboriginal people actually follow the custom. Why should displaying an image that one person (or group of people) finds offensive be insensitive while at the same time displaying an image that another person (or group of people) finds offensive not be insensitive? --AussieLegend (talk) 12:43, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

When there is a television program on with deceased indigenous people, there is always a warning before the program. Do we see the same before a news bulletin? The comparison is completely invalid. Timeshift (talk) 12:50, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Do we see caricatures of politicians in news bulletins? --Surturz (talk) 13:27, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

This is a cultural issue Surturz. Politicians have nothing to do with this. I'll leave others to judge your inane rantings. Timeshift (talk) 13:37, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

The warning is really completely irrelevant. When TV programs with graphic medical procedures are shown there is generally a warning included. There's always somebody who will be upset or offended about something no matter how inoffensive it might be to most people. Remember "Where the bloody hell are you?" --AussieLegend (talk) 17:23, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think comparisons to the Mohammad cartoons, or aboriginal spirituality, hold water. In those cases, the article is hopelessly compromised if we self-censor out the "offensive" bits. But in this case, the photo is really just peripheral to the article, and in any case we can just find another one. To Lankiveil: it's not just "someone on Flickr" who asked for the photo to be removed, the actual photographer has removed it. Peter Ballard (talk) 11:11, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Having failed to find anything on Google, other than this broad overview, regarding the custom of not displaying images of deceased Aboriginals, I approached a local Aboriginal man for advice but he couldn't shed any light on it either. Does anyone have any specific information on this custom, preferably from an Aboriginal source? While I tend to side with those saying the image should not be deleted, I was going to suggest that, as a compromise, if it really concerns anyone perhaps the image could be edited to blank out her face. As for the suggestion about commenting out the image and not displaying it until this time next year, I should point out that she died almost 3 months ago, not recently. --AussieLegend (talk) 12:03, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

A note on referring to deceased Aboriginal people WWGB (talk) 12:08, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately that too is a broad overview and really doesn't address any specifics such as the origins of the custom and other issues such as whether blanking out the face in an image is sufficient. --AussieLegend (talk) 12:18, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

"perhaps the image could be edited to blank out her face..." We could put a yellow smiley face on her. Maybe pixellate her face like the accused. Maybe a big red X. I don't think there's any way to do it sensitively without having a note to explain why, which kinda defeats the purpose. --Pete (talk) 12:55, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Given the colour of her face in the image it would have been quite easy, and not intrusive, to black it out and a simple note could have been added to the image page. It's moot now. --AussieLegend (talk) 17:23, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Thinking back to the John Howard article, we had a lot of trouble getting good free images. The best - in the Parliamentary handbook - we couldn't use, even though it was offered freely. Good free images of public figures are scarce. We can get any number of soft focus phone camera shots in poor light through digital zoom at a fundraiser, but they aren't much use. This photograph is a pearler, it's free, it sums up an important moment in Rudd's career as PM. On reflection, it would be a wikicrime to lose it. I doubt we'll see anything else quite so good in the rest of Rudd's term. --Pete (talk) 18:05, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Removal of image

Can I just say to the two editors who have come along to stolen generations to remove the image that I will continue to revert the removal of the image. The author is in contact with wikimedia. The removal of the image is a proposed change from the status quo, thus consensus must be reached. Timeshift (talk) 13:42, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

What happened in the end? The image doesn't seem to exist whatsoever. This amounts to censorship of what is otherwise a free image if it has been deleted. I hope you have a copy to upload again Timeshift. JRG (talk) 13:10, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Bias

Why would you write "following in the footsteps of Pauline Hanson"? This is a clear case of bias; whether or not the school was a good idea, Wikipedia is meant to give an unbiased account of what happened. If you must say that you believe he is racist (which is clearly not true with his interactions with China as well as many other countries that Howard only visited when he absolutely felt obliged to, then please say something more like this: His opposition of the school was viewed by some as being racist or anti-islamic. Many people read this article, and I do not want people to get a misleading view of Mr. Rudd. I'm not asking you to write an article flattering Mr. Rudd as he, or any other leader, does not deserve flattery but I simply ask that you do not demean him.Japadict (talk) 14:29, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Very few of us have the time to police every instance of bias (and there's certainly no shortage of editors adding bias any particular point in time). That's why we rely on good editors such as yourself to correct things. Thanks! Debate 木 11:58, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

No worries... I wrote this on the talk page because at the time I did not seem to have editing privileges for this article, but now it seems that I do. Japadict (talk) 03:06, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Rudd image

I emailed the PM's office to ask them about Kim Carr'ising the PM image (cc-by-2.5/similar licensing). Encouraging response:

Many thanks for your email

We recently received the same request concerning the use of the official photo of the Prime Minister on the Wikipedia website from another party.

We are currently investigating this request and we will respond to the requesting party shortly.

I will also advise you of the outcome of that request for your information.

Yours sincerely

Web Content Manager Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet

My guess of this 'other' party is the unofficial wikipedia entourage (if you have to ask, don't). Interesting. Timeshift (talk) 06:58, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Mandatory detention

I draw peoples' attention to the discussion I tried to initiate at Talk:Mandatory detention in Australia. Peter Ballard (talk) 11:47, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Page protection

If Bush does and Howard did have semi-protection, then so should Rudd as current PM. I disagree with it's removal a couple of days ago. Timeshift (talk) 05:06, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

New article?

I suggest we split out the first term section into a Premiership of Kevin Rudd article, as the current section is too long. What do you all think? Brisvegas 12:01, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, I could definitely go with Rudd Government (as with Howard Government)...but Premiership would be more than a bit odd when he's not a Premier! Rebecca (talk) 14:12, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Please see Premiership of Tony Blair - there's no such word as "prime ministership". :) Brisvegas 06:43, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I would prefer one all-encompassing article, and then sub-articles about various topics that need expansion. The sub-topics would match the sub-headings in the main article. I think this is how many US politicians are handled. As could be seen from the Howard split, separating the man from the government is very difficult and confusing. Especially these two men (Howard and Rudd) who are not notable for anything outside of politics. The other advantage of this idea is that they can be split as you go. --Lester 21:42, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

It's beyond a good idea, it's a must. it was blindingly obvious to me yesterday as I tinkered with the article. For the same reasons as the Howard article split. This article is just a long list of what the government is doing. It's time we aimed for something higher, a well-written biography. --Merbabu (talk) 22:14, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I still support it all on the one page. John Howard just looks bizarre these days. Pity about the WP:BLP trolls that can make it difficult. Timeshift (talk) 00:07, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

The 'WP:BLP' issue was one of the reasons given to split the Howard article in to the man / and the government. I personally don't think the split solved any BLP issues. The BLP rules are mainly to stop people adding non-factual rumours to an article, untrue stuff that may cause undue hurt or even worse libel. Moving content to an article by another name, shall we call it a BLP split, doesn't solve any of the issues about factuality, truth and solid references.--Lester 00:35, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Thinking this through further (and logically!), there’s actually two parts to this issue:

• Firstly, I think there is no reason not to create a Rudd Government article – it’s notable and there is unarguably a mountain of potential info. That’s simple enough. (although, there might be a name change in the future – who knows? He he).
• The second part - that logically has no impact on the question of creating Rudd Government - is the question of what is put into Rudd-the-person’s *biography*, and what really belongs in the detailed Government article, and indeed what belongs in both. --Merbabu (talk) 00:46, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Strong Support - I believe the split over at John Howard (to Howard Government) has been very successful. We're still working out what goes where, but on the whole it is working much better than a single article. Rudd Government is my preferred title. --Surturz (talk) 06:16, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

With a split along Person/Government, there's the risk of a POV fork. Positive sounding things go to the original front Person article. Anything negative that happens goes to the rear Government article. That's why it's better for the front article to encompass everything, and point to more detail in other articles (eg Economy, War etc).--Lester 06:24, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I think the Howard split has been a disaster, with people arguing for stuff to go in both articles, and both articles still a mess several months after the split. Peter Ballard (talk) 08:40, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

That pretty much sums it up. Timeshift (talk) 13:31, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Timeshift removes other's posting on the Howard page discussing policy. Timeshift puts to an online vote Rudd policy inclusion on page, rejected yet here it is. Timeshift rejects factual based criticism from history of economic reform as none "rationalised objection" and publishes. What a place Wikipedia has become for the drooling left. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.101.222.105 (talk) 06:47, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

The talk page is for commenting on the article, not contributors. If you object to Timeshift's editing style, feel free to raise it on his talk page or failing everything else, start an RFC. If you object to his edits on this article, feel free to seek a consensus on this page to change the content. But either way please stop making what strongly appear to be personal attacks like calling people "drooling left'. Its unrelated to the point of this talk page, weakens the credibility of your argument and risks getting you blocked from editing altogether. Euryalus (talk) 06:53, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I am well within my rights to remove comments that don't refer to article improvements - read the top of the page, it is for discussion of the article, it is not so you can WP:SOAPBOX. I support a single page for both Howard and Rudd, I don't like the idea of a "Howard/Rudd government" page. Wikipedia has contributors with both left and right beliefs, and biased edits are picked up very quickly. Your edit history is very questionable in terms of neutrality, people in glass houses should not throw stones. As Euryalus says, if you have a problem with me, take it to my talk page, but my reputation is well known. I am after all a veteran editor with many awards. I stand by my contributions. Timeshift (talk) 07:13, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Don't expect any replies to that strawman. Ottre (talk) 09:02, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Rudd Government or perhaps better Australian Labour government 2007 to present is notable and potentially huge topic – as is Howard Government (which probably should be named something like Coalition Government 1996-2007). We can’t get around the fact they are separate topics. That there is discussion and disagreement on border/demarcation issues doesn’t mean that in principle the move was correct (much less a “disaster”).

Additionally, I’ve found that perhaps those few critics of the "split" are just sorry they can’t include every “negative” detail of the 96-07 government under John Howard. If that is what is meant by “POV fork”, then the “split” has been a roaring success.

And Peter, your disappointment surprises me. I thought you liked it. --Merbabu (talk) 22:25, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

• Strongly against. I agree that the Howard page split has been a disaster, and Peter is entitled to be against it Merbabu. JRG (talk) 13:03, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
• Strong support: the article is informatively useless. Ottre (talk) 09:02, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
• Strong against: Just so my position has been formalised :) Timeshift (talk) 10:05, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
• Strong support: the article has become like a list, and somewhat divorced from Rudd considered as individual but rather more about his government. Little biographical detail to give context to Rudd as a person. ROxBo (talk) 14:54, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Removal of 4k worth of material

Ottre please do not remove such large slabs without consensus. And how can a wiki article "lack direction"? It is not a story. Timeshift (talk) 04:50, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Timeshift9, do not throw warning messages at me. I've been here too long for that. What is the problem exactly? Before I go out the local library and rewrite that section, I want some guidelines in place. Ottre (talk) 04:58, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I didn't give you any template warning. What needs rewriting? What is the issue with what is currently there? State your issues and they can be addressed. Timeshift (talk) 05:07, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I fully intend to take the article to review once it gives a useful overview to the world, so there is no point arguing here. See you in a week? Ottre (talk) 05:15, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

It’s not an article, it’s a list. I support any move to re-write the article. Once I create the Rudd Government article, this may also help (and anyone else can create it if I take too long. --Merbabu (talk) 05:09, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the sentiment of the change, if not necessarily the details. Some stuff has to go. I mean, what on earth is Rudd's international tour doing in there? Seriously NN (non-notable). A number of other things are non-notable too. Of course change should be done by consensus, though consensus is extremely painful to achieve on the Howard and Rudd articles. Peter Ballard (talk) 06:04, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Society and religion

Earlier today I edited the part of this section in which part of Rudd's voting record is described as "liberal" in the context of his vote on legislation transferring regulatory authority over the drug RU-486 from the federal Minister For Health to the Therapeutic Goods Administration. My contribution may have been a bit wordy, but the proposed replacement was, in my opinion, less factual, so I've had another try. I don't want to start an edit-war, so I'm creating this section for discussion. From an NPOV point of view, I think it's better simply to give the facts about the vote rather than editorialising about it's possible significance. Frankly I think describing Rudd's vote as "liberal" (a very heavily freighted word) is already an editorial comment, but I've left that alone. RB1956 (talk) 06:23, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think we can avoid the fact that this was a heated and emotional issue. It was not simply a bereaucratic transfer from one authority to another. Otherwise why was it so debated, and why was it a conscience vote? The intention of the legislation was to loosen restrictions on RU486. Perhaps a better wording would be along the lines of "Rudd supported the removal of Health Minister's veto over the use of RU486".

That's pretty good. I could buy that. RB1956 (talk) 07:27, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

On the use of the word "liberal", perhaps we should remove all commentary, and simply describe how he voted. So long as the wording makes clear (in some way, like I suggest above) that it removed some restrictions on RU486, readers can then draw their own conclusions. Peter Ballard (talk) 06:39, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

This though I have a problem with. The vote did not in itself remove any restriction on the use of RU486. What it did do is change the terms on which the restrictions might be loosened in the future. As far as I am aware, RU486 remains illegal in Australia because nobody has applied to the TGA for approval to import or manufacture it. RB1956 (talk) 07:27, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Why the aversion to a footnote? The key word in this article, on the whole, is integrity. Quite frankly, nobody in Australia believes Mr Rudd to be conservative in regards to health care. Ottre 06:42, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

The new revision stuck out like a sore thumb, it failed to relate to why the section ends with that. So at the bare minimum, i've added the word 'however' to contrast it to the rest of the section. As the second comment says "...don't think we can avoid the fact that this was a heated and emotional issue. It was not simply a bereaucratic transfer from one authority to another. Otherwise why was it so debated, and why was it a conscience vote?" The social conservatives of parliament voted against it, while the more liberal (not Liberal) parliamentarians voted in favour of the bill. By adding the word 'However' it now contrasts to the rest of the section without specifically stating it was liberal or conservative. Timeshift (talk) 07:09, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Merbabu please participate in consensus discussion. Timeshift (talk) 07:22, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Timeshift, please review WP:SYN (and refresh yourself on WP:CIVIL). thanks --Merbabu (talk) 07:33, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

How is it WP:SYN? I think it is the best outcome. Without 'however', it looks like its just been stuck on the end by a fly-by editor, it's not SYN to add 'However,'. Timeshift (talk) 07:43, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I've fixed it by adding it up the top with the other 'specifics'. Timeshift (talk) 07:58, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

We need some degree of explanation (whether it's Timeshift's "However", or something else), to indicate that the effect of the bill was to make RU486 more accessible. Any number of sources will tell you that. Here's one:[4]. Peter Ballard (talk) 07:50, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

That "source" just offers more editorialising. Somebody says: "Its expected the abortion pill RU486 will be available in Australia within a year after Parliament today voted to strip the Health Minister of his veto over the drug." That's pure opinion (expressed in passive-voiced weasel-words). By whom was it expected? The world, Australia or just that particular commentator? Whoever expected it must have been disappointed. RU486 is (as far as I know:[5]) no more legally available today in Australia as an abortificant than it was when the legislation was passed, so whatever the intentions of those who supported it may have been, it is hard to argue that its effect was to make RU486 more accessible. RB1956 (talk) 07:14, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

You're wrong. This took me about 1 minute to find:[6] Peter Ballard (talk) 07:19, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. I wonder why the Victorian government's page (Last updated in June 2007) is incorrect. I also visited the TGA's database of approved medications and couldn't find RU486 or Mifepristone listed.RB1956 (talk) 07:44, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Heart condition

Why does this article not mention he underwent heart valve transplant surgery some years ago? It may be just a line and reference, but this is an ongoing medical condition likely to impact on his future health and therefore potentially his ability to govern. ROxBo (talk) 14:27, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

It was during the 2007 election that Rudd confirmed he had underwent aortic valve replacement for rheumatic heart disease. ROxBo (talk) 14:51, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

It looks like he had the Ross procedure, which fits with his description of receiving a transplanted organ (from a cadaver)[7] and is also the same operation Arnold Schwarzenegger had.ROxBo (talk) 14:46, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Yawn. Timeshift (talk) 14:36, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Rudd states it is under annual review. [8] ROxBo (talk) 14:51, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

And? Timeshift (talk) 20:42, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

(deindent)If you can find a way to add it to the article without giving it undue weight, go right ahead. However its a pretty minor issue - I'm not aware of any mainstream view that this ancient operation will "impact on his future health" or "affect his ability to govern." The eating of the earwax on the other hand ... Euryalus (talk) 00:58, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

There was no consensus to add it per my first reply above. And we've been over earwax a million times... Timeshift (talk) 06:14, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

There's two parts to this: (1) I say include that he had the operation - needs 1 sentence only. Notable, factual. (2) If there was to be any inclusion of comment on "future health", let alone ability to govern, it must be scrupulusly referenced and notability proven - thus I suggest inclusion of the second part is dubious to say the least. --Merbabu (talk) 06:23, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Is it relevant and noteable? I note it gets a mention on Arnold Schwarzenegger because of his steroid use, it joins in to the same sentence. Timeshift (talk) 06:28, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

My earwax mention was a joke in relation to things "affecting his ability to govern." I'm not suggesting it be included in the article. The heart condition discussion you linked to [9] does appear to show a consensus for inclusion provided it is not overblown with suggestions of a serious medical issue. Rudd's personal information is fairly thin in the article, so some more background detail would be an improvement. However I stand by my earlier comment - in the absence of reliable sources to the contrary, the heart issue is a minor factoid, not a major medical crisis. Avoiding undue weight for minor issues would be important in expanding the section on Rudd's pre-political life. Euryalus (talk) 06:29, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

How on earth does it show consensus? Two for, two against, with one neutral comment. Exactly how is that consensus...? EDIT - I now note the difference between the two discussions. There I agreed for a factual inclusion, strange how now I do not. Perhaps it is due to the way Roxbo is trying to beat this issue up, via that old discussion, then re-hashing via a new discussion, without mentioning the old discussion, and both times trying to give the impression this is somehow a danger to government and the country. Timeshift (talk) 06:35, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I think we're all in some kind of agreement here. The fact of Rudd's heart operation can be referenced from reliable sources. However the sources do not suggest the operation was or is a big deal. The article is not a repository of indiscriminate information, no matter how well sourced. So any inclusion would need to avoid giving undue weight to a minor matter.

Undue weight is relative to the size of the article and the other material in it, so avoiding undue weight for this minor issue would require constructing a detailed section on Rudd's personal life and background. This might be a worthwhile project as the article is heavy on Rudd's political views but has little about his pre-politics or personal life. But its a major job just to put a heart operation in context. Euryalus (talk) 06:44, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Just because there is WP:RS does not make something automatically noteable. By what you have said, it is automatically noteable, the only thing up for debate is how much weight it gets in an article. Timeshift (talk) 07:10, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I mustn't have made myself clear - sorry about that. What I was trying to say is that undue weight is relative to the amount of other material in the article. If the article was a single line saying "Kevin Rudd is Prime Minister", then changing it to "Kevin Rudd is Prime Minister and once had a heart operation" would be undue weight. On the other hand if the article was dozens of pages long and included a detailed life history of Rudd from birth to the present day, it would not be undue weight to mention the operation ten years ago (or whenever it was). The article currently falls somewhere in between these two examples, hence the mixed views on the issue.

Just because something has RS certainly doesn't mean it must be included - as above, Wikipedia isn't an indiscriminate mass of information, sourced or otherwise. I'd support inclusion only if it was part of a much expanded section detailing Rudd's pre-political and personal life (to give the operation context) and' the inclusion was neutrally presented and didn't give the operation a health status unsupported by the sources. Euryalus (talk) 22:13, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) I don't see any need to include it, but I'm not very opposed to its inclusion either. I don't think we'd think surgery for haemarroids (sp?) would be notable... so inclusion of a heart operation might imply that it is life threatening or affects his ability to govern. --Surturz (talk) 07:58, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Without that operation, would he have died (IANAD btw)? I think it's worthy of inclusion, albeit a one-liner mention. -- Longhair\^talk 08:02, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Surturz makes a good point. Timeshift (talk) 11:59, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Like Longhair, I think a one-line mention is appropriate. I think the version that was put in was pretty right[10] - no conclusions were drawn, just a factual statement. I disagree with TS's revert - I think it should go back in. Peter Ballard (talk) 23:15, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Genealogy

Anyone have any information on Kevin Rudd's forebears? He is being claimed in Wales, which would give the PM the same "ethnicity" as the Deputy PM. Pete (talk) 00:00, 2 October 2008 (UTC)