![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
There are numerous interesting things that are missing from the article- onethat stands out is that Kevin Rudd actually supported the invasion of Iraq based on him thinking there were WMD's there,he did not even get the bad inteligence on the matter, it was his own thoughts. “I’ve said repeatedly that there is a significant threat of weapons of mass destruction from Iraq,” Rudd declared in September 2002. “Saddam Hussein possesses weapons of mass destruction—this is a matter of empirical fact,” he told the State Zionist Council of Victoria in October 2002. “Biological weapons is right in the middle of the sandwich when it comes to the critique currently, legitimate critique, of the Iraqi regime,” he added shortly before the invasion.
Why is this not mentioned? He later made a statement to channel 7 that convieniently forgot his previous stand. This quote that was not based on evidence puts into question his ability to tell the trutth and also his memory. His foreign policy is also questionable when he makes generalisations about a foreign country possibly having WMD's Liquor box 07 03:20, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Be bold and get editing then.-- Yeti Hunter 10:15, 24 August 2007 (UTC) I dont know how! i think the page is locked —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.69.199.248 ( talk) 06:30, August 25, 2007 (UTC)
The article glosses over Rudd's role in the Qld public service. He was well known and disliked as a result of his attitude toward cost cutting at the expense of: 1. Public service efficiency 2. Long term planning 3. The welfare of staff. It is significant that the result of these cuts are now being seen in the infrastructure failings on the Queensland executive. The parlous state of roads, schools, health and water are dirctly as a result of Rudds poor planning. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrbingley ( talk • contribs) 07:23, August 25, 2007 (UTC)
Iraqi weapons of mass destrution is besides the point, he was silly enough to believe Bush, Blair and Howard pushing the cover story alot of people did not think they where lieing/miss informed by liars just like he did.
Howard etc also said the WMDs existed, Howard also said he would keep interest rates down but thats another lie-- 203.192.92.73 12:46, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure that Labor were already in front in the polls before Keven Rudd won the leadership. However the article says that soon after he became leader they were in front. I think it would be better to say soon after Rudd won the leadership labors polling improved dramatically from 51% 2 party preferred to 56% 2 party preferred within X amount of weeks or by X date.(those figures are just examples not facts) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Muppet man67 ( talk • contribs) 12:25, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
why did this get changed back? I read that someone wanted a citation but I dont see why it needs to be cited any more then the statement as it stands currently which is factually incorrect. If you think a citation is needed then find one or remove that whole section. Its just dumb to revert back to a statement that has been established as inacurate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Muppet man67 ( talk • contribs) 05:14, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
completely misrepresents the Goss days.
No mention of his nickname "Dr Death"
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,20867254-601,00.html
No mention of the document shredding in the Heiner affair just " this position Rudd was arguably Queensland's most powerful bureaucrat."
Given the details on the John Howard page the omissions are quite surprising.
Or the Courier Mail investigation into his property tax avoidance (Dilkera Street)
http://www.gwb.com.au/gwb/goss/oneill.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.101.222.105 ( talk) 03:03, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
The book sighted describes his Nickname: Dr Death. ( Stirling Taylor 11:52, 23 September 2007 (UTC))
I'm not sure if this is the case for articles on politicians, but the leading paragraph says that if "If Kevin Rudd wins a majority of the lower house... he will become the next PM". Fair enough that may be the case, but to an extent is not a certainty, and i personally think that it should be changed to something more simplistic such as he is contesting for the PM position in the upcoming election. Sir Jimmy 11:13, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't agree. I think the article lead-in should stick with present facts. Introducing conditional "if" statements about hypothetical future events (regardless of their likelihood or not) is unencyclopedic. -- Brendan Lloyd [ contribs ] 14:32, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
I take issue with this section having so much prominence. His TOC is 1 Early life, 2 Early career, 3 Federal politics, 4 Political views, and 5 Religious views. I'm thinking that maybe it would be better to put political views and religious views under federal politics as sub-headings? Timeshift 23:54, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Can someone confirm if the person next to Rudd is his son? Timeshift 08:40, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
"Should Labor win a majority of lower house seats at the upcoming 2007 federal election, Rudd will succeed John Howard and become the 26th Prime Minister of Australia."
This isn't a prediction, it's a fact of the current situation. Quoting from WP:CRYSTAL: "Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place" sounds like the situation we have here. Cheers, Wiki Townsvillia n 14:11, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
There are many facts of the current situation that we can predicate upon "if X happens, then Y will be the outcome". That doesn't make it encyclopedic. Are you arguing that the election outcome is "almost certain"? Moreover, what would happen to the certainty of the asserted "fact" if something happened to Rudd between the election and his (presently hypothetical) swearing-in as PM? Or any other event that invalidates the alleged "fact", for that matter?
The problem with making statements about the future is that you can never account for all the variables. That's one reason why encyclopedic articles avoid them. -- Brendan Lloyd [ contribs ] 14:41, 12 September 2007 (UTC). Refer to discussion above at #Introductory Paragraph
General exposition of the Westminster system of government belong elsewhere, not in an article about Kevin Rudd. The material in question (as pointed out by Gnangarra) is not included anywhere else in the article. Predicating the inclusion of a self-contained statement (in the lead section) on one possible future outcome is generally against policy ( WP:CRYSTAL), against guideline ( WP:LEAD), non-factual, speculative and unencyclopedic. Articles are not horoscopes. -- Brendan Lloyd [ contribs ] 23:32, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
How about making Leader of the Opposition (his primary claim to fame) more prominent, so the user can click to find out what that means. I've always been of the opinion that if someone doesn't know how to click a link to get more information, they shouldn't be using Wikipedia. So the intro reads something like this. Paragraph 1: Kevin Rudd (born whenever) is the Australian Federal Leader of the Opposition. (Paragraph break for emphasis). Paragraph 2: Rudd entered parliament in 1998, yada yada, and replaced Kim Beazley as ALP Leader and Leader of the Opposition in December 2006. He will lead Labor at the Australian federal election 2007. Peter Ballard 03:18, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree with the reasoning of Brendan and Peter here. I have long thought this particular passage has been "unique" to any other political article, and slants the article to much towards Rudd worship. It violates WP:CRYSTAL, doesn't read like an encyclopedic article, and doesn't deal with the here and now. Prester John -( Talk to the Hand) 03:28, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Peter B. -- Brendan Lloyd [ contribs ] 10:06, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
you don't consider my opening this discussion as participating? Wiki Townsvillia n 05:28, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
I recently came across the following section on the article. This section casts very negative light on Mr. Rudd, and if unture presents amazing problems for WP:BLP. The text I removed is below. I suggest someone give s ource before it's added back in:
==Controversy== [[Image:Kevstrip.JPG|thumb|right|A 'Kevin Rudd' stripper that mocked the issue on [[The Chasers War on Everything]] ([[ABC]] program)]] Unfortunately for Mr.Rudd, it was recently discovered that, on one of his visits in [[New York]], he made his way into a [[strip club]] along with some of his male (and one female) friends.<br />Rudd claims that he never intended to be 'Captain Perfect' and tries to express that this is a mistake that many other [[Australian]] men would make.<br />Since the incident, there hasn't been much media attention to this issue, but the moment is constantly brought up on comical shows and performances.
-- Ybbor Talk 02:02, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Consensus already formed on strippergate. And I think it shows the user's POV that he takes a screenshot of a Chaser parody of women dancing in Kevin07 paraphanalia, and calls them "Kevin Rudd strippers on Chaser". May I take the chance to remind that the issue only helped to consolidate Rudd's lead in the polls, especially amongst males. Timeshift 09:39, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm leaning towards a weak keep - assuming that we show the same level of interest in other party leaders. Starting this discussion now as to form a consensus and avoid another revert war. Timeshift 23:00, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
In accordance with the discussion on the John Howard Page:
"Exclusive use of, and sole reliance upon, Howard's quote"
All of Kevin Rudd's quotation's require deletion if they cannot be substatiated by someone other than Kevin Rudd, or someone who is not relying on Kevin Rudd. ( Stirling Taylor 09:53, 23 September 2007 (UTC))
You can't have it both ways. Either exlusive reliance on a quote from the subject of a wiki page is permissable for reference on that page or it isn't. ( Stirling Taylor 10:20, 23 September 2007 (UTC))
Brendan: Please clarify: Is text based on "Exclusive use of, and sole reliance upon," the subject of a wiki page acceptable"? ( Stirling Taylor 11:11, 23 September 2007 (UTC))
If on the John Howard page Peter Costello quotes from a book are relevant, then I see no reason why Mark Latham quotes from his book aren't relevant to Kevin Rudd. ( Stirling Taylor 09:53, 23 September 2007 (UTC))
He was the Shadow Minister and the comments of the Labor party Leader at that time about his performance are relevant. I will type the entire quote out if you prefer? ( Stirling Taylor 10:20, 23 September 2007 (UTC))
Is the material you're seeking to include reliable. Does it give rise to a neutral point of view? Does it have weight or is it trivial? Please elaborate and seek consensus before re-adding the disputed material. Please avoid 3RR. -- Brendan Lloyd [ contribs ] 10:51, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
The point of view is from the previous Leader of the Australian Labor Party. Surely you are not suggestion previous leaders of political parties cannot provide a point of view on a current member of that party? If that's the case, quotations from *all* previous members should be removed. Would you like the page references from Latham's Diary?
The material has weight as it has been reported from the FIRST PERSON. It is reported by someone who was at the meeting and one of the main players of the meeting. I trust you are not suggesting all first person material should be removed. It is indeed factual. No libel case has been raised regarding the written material.
It can be considered neutral as it has been published (without challange) by someone who no longer has any political interest or benefit to be gained from it's publication.
( Stirling Taylor 11:08, 23 September 2007 (UTC))
I don't agree with the suggestion that Mark Latham's allegation about Kevin Rudd "burst into tears" has weight in an encyclopedic biography. It's not relevant. -- Brendan Lloyd [ contribs ] 11:47, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
The photo of Rudd and his son should be removed - there must be tens of thousands of photos available of Kevin Rudd, why should one of him with his son be up there? The family of politicians should not be included, they did not run for public office. Sad mouse 17:36, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Sad mouse. Rudd's son is not a public figure and entitled to privacy here. The picture should be removed. -- Brendan [ contribs ] 13:40, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
I think for duplication's sake, it's a good idea to have the latest image on Rudd's page with the crop of the last image on Rudd's page on the 2007 election page. My 2c. Timeshift 12:30, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
May i say thank you to whoever uploaded the new kevin rudd image. Its much nicer! ( 58.107.165.52 04:33, 9 October 2007 (UTC))
Timeshift, in your first comment above, you seem to be saying the 2007 election page and the Rudd page should have the same image. I agree with that and made what I thought was the uncontroversial change to effect this. Then you undo my changes telling me "hands off the pics". Can I ask why, and also what is the value-add to the article by having numerous biographical photos of Rudd that show nothing specific of historical interest (other than what Rudd looks like, for which his main bio pic already serves that purpose)? Can I also ask why a picture of his son must be included? What about provisions of WP:BLP having due regard for the privacy of the subject (in this case, his children, who are not public figures)? -- Brendan [ contribs ] 13:29, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Please don't be condescending. I dispute the inclusion of those images, particularly the one with his son. Sad mouse also objected to the inclusion of that latter image. Please acknowledge the views of others and state your rational reasons for retaining them, in response to the questions asked. Please also explain why you insist on the left-alignment of the Rudd&Gillard pic when it looks better right-aligned? -- Brendan [ contribs ] 13:40, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Which policy is that exactly? -- Brendan [ contribs ] 13:58, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
So by "common sense" you actually refer to your opinion. I beg to differ. For web-based bios, right-floating images generally look tidier as the text is uninterrupted by a chunky left-aligned imagebox. I also think that the images should be demonstrably relevant to the section in which they appear. Littering the article with multiple generic bio-type photos does the article no benefit. Nor does the photo including Rudd, QLD Premier Bligh, and candidate Grace Grace -- what is that picture meant to convey relative to the content it appears beside? This is an encyclopedia, not a blog, vanity page or web gallery. -- Brendan [ contribs ] 14:09, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
I still haven't received any answer as to why we should have this redundant image which is just a zoom of the one further down which purpose is for the 2007 election page, when we can use this image which is from another photo all together. It's very rare to find such free use photos of major party leaders in Australia. Timeshift 16:03, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
If the "smiley" photo is "more free", why is it the preferred image on Australian federal election, 2007? Consistency is the desired outcome. Per Lester and Sad mouse, I agree the photo including Rudd's son -- and advertising Grace Grace and Anna Bligh, at a non-descript event, highlights nothing in the accompanying text other than that KR knows these people and was at non-notable event with them at some point -- should be removed. This also resolves Timeshift's concern that the "non-smiley" was a crop from that son picture; with the latter gone, there is no need to fret. -- Brendan [ contribs ] 03:58, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Huh? They have the exact same license! Timeshift 05:27, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Timeshift, asserting that I am "wrong" is not an adequate explanation of why you insist on having a picture of Kevin Rudd's son on his Wiki biography. You say this is par for the course but that is not the apparent case. The question you have yet to answer is what is the relevance of that picture to the article/section content such that its inclusion justifies a perceived breach of privacy of Rudd junior and free advertising for candidate in the upcoming election, Grace Grace? You do not have consensus for the inclusion of that photograph. Please seek consensus before reinserting disputed content. -- Brendan [ contribs ] 07:11, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Disputed material requires consensus for inclusion. Please seek consensus. Privacy for the purposes and spirit of WP:BLP is not determined by whether or not a photo can be snapped in public, Timeshift. In writing an encyclopedic article, we need to adopt a higher standard than the tabloid paparazzi. The question you again ignore is relevance: how is it relevant/necessary to include a non-contextual picture of Rudd with his son, other than to show that Rudd has a son (which could easily be stated in the text) and identify what his son looks like (why would you want to do that?). We already know what Kevin Rudd looks like, so the addition of more pictures to demonstrate what Rudd looks like are clearly superfluous. This is not a photo gallery, it's an encyclopedic biography. Why are you so adamant that a picture of Rudd's son must appear on Rudd's biography? -- Brendan [ contribs ] 07:23, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Exactly. You fail to see. That is the precisely the problem here. Consensus is not required for the removal of material violating privacy and lacking relevance per WP:BLP. It's not a photo gallery, it's an encyclopedic biography. What are you claiming is the unique relevance of the disputed picture? -- Brendan [ contribs ] 07:37, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Please point me to the Wikipedia policy that requires consensus for removing disputed material/images as per your insistence. WP:BLP makes reference to privacy, the spirit of which I have already mentioned. Good faith is not a basis for justifying content. But do keep on handwaving, won't you. -- Brendan [ contribs ] 07:45, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Again, there is more to privacy than whether someone is legally an adult. Where are all these other BLPs of current Aussie politicians that include random glory shots of their family members? You really are hooked on including K Rudd's son, eh? -- Brendan [ contribs ] 07:51, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Andrew Fisher. From 1928. They are not living, that is not a Biography of a LIVING Person. Where are all these other BLPs of current Aussie politicians that include random glory shots of their living family members? -- Brendan [ contribs ] 07:56, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Gee, that's good faith right there. Have a read of WP:IMAGE#Pertinence_and_encyclopedicity then please return here and justify that photo in those terms. PIctures of wives are not the same as pictures of son + miscellaneous followers. -- Brendan [ contribs ] 08:04, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
That's hardly a justification. Keep reading WP:IMAGE#Pertinence_and_encyclopedicity. It mentions notability of the image content. What is uniquely notable about that Rudd&Son image, that makes it necessary to include it despite the presence of other Kevin Rudd images in the article that largely serve the same purpose (to show us what Kevin Rudd looks like)? -- Brendan [ contribs ] 08:10, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Which "matter at hand" are you referring to? Where does the article refer to Labour Day? The photo is relevant to Kevin Rudd because he is the article subject, but not to the article to the extent of being a notable image with regards to the content besides which it appeared (or anything else in the article for that matter). And that's before we consider the perceived privacy issue regarding posting a picture of his young living (non-politican, non-public figure) son on this encyclopedia. Exactly how many pictures of Kevin Rudd do you think are necessary to show the reader what Kevin Rudd looks like? -- Brendan [ contribs ] 08:25, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Can I ask, firstly, how was his son identified in this image? Last time I saw this image being discussed, there seemed to be some confusion about who was who and other family images were being compared. Secondly, I think there are possible privacy issues. We do default to privacy in cases of not notable, not public people, regardless of whether they are minors or not. I'm not saying I think there are privacy issues at play here, only that there might be (I actually haven't formed an opinion either way yet). Sarah 08:32, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm glad common sense is prevailing. Timeshift 13:51, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
And another issue alltogether is the fact that not only is the dispute over that image, but Brendan insists on adding the zoom from the son shot instead of this image. This version of Rudd's page is far superior and no legitimate argument can be put up to argue against it. Timeshift 14:06, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
User:Sad mouse and I were concerned (see top of this talk topic) about including pictures of Rudd's family, who, as far as a Bio of a Living Person goes, should be generally entitled to privacy in the spirit of WP:BLP. I never claimed a breach but a divergence from the spirit of the privacy provisions of that policy, and the need to edit conservatively with due regard for the subject's (but particularly his family's) privacy (which I take to include image content). I maintain the view that this concern is valid. Timeshift claims his preferred version for the main Rudd bio pic is objectively better than the one on the Australian federal election, 2007 page, but still hasn't explained why he thinks so. If other editors think it is preferable, my argument all along has been to use the same picture on both pages (ie. the election page too). I don't understand what is objectionable about having image consistency across these articles. I would have thought that was common sense. How many pictures showing us non-specific non-notable events of "what Rudd looks like" does the article need before the article starts to resemble a flavour of what WIkipedia is not, considering the need for images to be pertinent and encyclopedic in respect of the article content it depicts. -- Brendan [ contribs ] 14:55, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
That is part of the argument I've been putting forward all along, in my comments here and Edit Summaries. I'm staggered that it has taken this long to reach that understanding (although you still sidestep the pertinence and encylopedicity question in regards to the Rudd & Son picture). If you had engaged with the substance of my comments rather than ignoring them, handwaving, and jumping on revert yourself, the marathon would not have started, and your bad faith reversion of my own talkpage would not have occurred either. -- Brendan [ contribs ] 15:41, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Talk about jumping the gun. Please read Sarah's response to you, per WP:CON, above? Consensus should be sought before re-inserting disputed material. Consensus has not been achieved. I maintain my disagreement with the inclusion of that image, and you've put forward no valid argument yet that would lead me to abide by its inclusion, regardless of who is ambivalent about it. The image ought to serve a more notable purpose to the article -- other than just being yet another picture of Kevin Rudd -- in order to be pertinent and encyclopedic and thus warrant inclusion. In that respect, like myself, both Sarah and JPD pondered the distinct contextual relevance/suitability of that image. In its current form and placement, it lacks these things in my view, and moreover, now makes the article look messy. -- Brendan [ contribs ] 18:56, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
a) Point me to the wiki page which says wives can but adult age sons can't appear in someone's photo, let alone with the Labor Premier from Rudd's home state and another MP. b) Note how my posts use logic rather than throwing WP:PAGES around with little to no relevance. c) Your posts continue to make no sense or rational argument for the merits of reverting except for your own invalid perception. "It doesn't look right to me" especially when you aren't getting consensus on your part for your reverts, is quite frankly, pathetic, arrogant and desperate of you. You continue to have fun removing content from wikipedia that is noted by admins to be legit content. I'm not going to bother anymore. Timeshift 13:50, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
And to top it off, you can't comprehend that three admins sided with me that the image did not violate any WP:PAGES. And I already demonstrated the validity, and admins agreed that it was valid, such as Sarah's comments, and she also made further suggestions as to the placement of said image. Read her comments :-) At least now all your weird and unexplainable actions now make sense. Just because you invalidly, and simply, don't like it, no reason to remove it. Nobody complaining but you, and everyone else has accepted by rationale. You're just an arse. Timeshift 04:39, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
I invite anyone to read the admin comments and decide which side they thought was more correct. Timeshift 23:13, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Everyone involved in the edit war should use this time to work something out. It would be a shame for the edit war to resume again as soon as the article gets unlocked again.-- Lester 12:42, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm going to ask again, why don't we have a family section? Other world leaders like Bush, Blair, etc. all have a similar thing. Rudd's children have been mentioned and revealed by name in the general media; Rudd has done it himself and I believe that his eldest son has sometimes been with him in some of his campaigning - so I don't think there are any real privacy issues at stake in writing a little about them, or adding a photo of him with one of his children- we're not already adding information which isn't already in the public domain. There isn't anything that would be libelous or slanderous of his family that wouldn't be appropriate to add that I could find, although this article on his family's shares isn't all that relevant for a biographical article. On the other hand, this article might be relevant for something that happened last year in terms of his family (his daughter's marriage). Maybe one of the biographies of him that mentions a little about his family might be good to get some expansion on this. And we can include a little about his wife and her business, with a "more info" link to Therese Rein's article. What do others think? JRG 13:13, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
JRG, if "one" were not saying that, then why did "one" effectively say it anyway? I agree that your suspicion is "not appropriate". <yoda> Cynicism, the shadow of bad faith that is </yoda>. If you think there is enough information on Rudd's family to warrant its own section, then be bold and introduce it. There is no hidden motive here on my part. I have stated my position frankly, thoroughly and honestly. -- Brendan [ contribs ] 14:56, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Much as I'm loathe to agree with Andrew Bolt, this article really looks like a whitewash to me. The only criticism I can see is from Tony Abbott over RU486. How about some of the other criticisms: Dr. Death, [1] glass jaw, [2] strip club, questionable decisions to avoid wedge politics, [3] wife's (alleged) business conduct [4]? Peter Ballard 05:19, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
The article currently says Rudd would launch a staged withdrawal of Australia's combat troops from Iraq. Technically correct, but my understanding is that most of the Australian troops in Iraq are not combat troops. So the Rudd troop withdrawal would only result in one third of the Australian troops in Iraq coming home. The other two thirds would stay there. Shouldn't we say this?
The article also currently states that Rudd has consistently opposed Howard's Workchoice policy. My understanding is that Rudd would leave some aspects of Workchoice in place. -- Lester 13:05, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
The 'Political views' section should include an 'Environment' category. Environment is one of the issues people are most concerned about. Let's see what Rudd's views and policies are on this important issue. -- Lester 14:58, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
The article currently states that Rudd's support of the Road Map For Peace is a step towards mending relations following the comments of several backbenchers. I was curious to find out who these backbenchers were. Googling on the subject, I found Isreal comments from Labor MP Tanya Plibersek, and Labor MP Julia Irwin initiated a parliamentary debate on the subject. I will add these specific names to the article, as it allows readers to pursue more detail. -- Lester 21:12, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
The ABC has just put online a video interview between Kevin Rudd and Kyle Sandilands on the subject of same-sex marriage. I thought it was interesting to see and hear Rudd speak his views on the issue, so I placed it in the External Links. This Sandilands interview generated a lot of news coverage and commentary. If you Google, there's a plethora of articles published about it.-- Lester 01:19, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
There seems to be a "don't mention the earwax" attitude hanging over this page. As Mr Rudd's first real incursion into the mass consciousness of the English speaking world at large, doesn't the meal in question deserve a mention?
Jaguarjaguar 17:06, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Taken from the Wiki page on Internet trolls:
The term troll is highly subjective. Some readers may characterize a post as trolling, while others may regard the same post as a legitimate contribution to the discussion, even if controversial. The term is often used to discredit an opposing position, or its proponent, by argument fallacy ad hominem.
Nota bene... Jaguarjaguar 10:30, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't know about evening news, but I (as an ignorant pom, admittedly) hadn't heard of Mr Rudd until it. It seems to me peculiar to mention debacles like William Hague and the baseball cap but to leave this alone. I suppose it's fair in that the electoral impact has yet to be proven, but I wouldn't be surprised if it had more major image effects than you're anticipating. I wouldn't gladly vote for the star of that video.
I hadn't heard about any strip club incident, by the way, but don't see why it hasn't been included, especially with the candidate taking such a trenchant, traditional family line on gay marriage, apparently. Hope this makes some sense
Jaguarjaguar 02:23, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
If I were a cynical person, i'd be suspicious of your user, talk, and edit histories Jaguar. Timeshift 02:57, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Rudd waxing lyrical. Timeshift 06:09, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Oh how cute. All I need say is, refer to what the admins are saying, in that it is non-noteable. Then refer to what the admins are saying about the photo of Rudd and son. Read it, and weep. I know it hurts, but them's the facts ;-) Timeshift 11:17, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Per Rebecca, it is completely related to the article and is legitimate. What is with your strange agenda lately Skyring? You aren't usually this blatently bias. Timeshift 01:59, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Also, I removed that comment "in an attempt to", because it is POV to portray it as fact that his motivation is votes. We don't know this. Nobody can know this. Blnguyen ( bananabucket) 03:37, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Skyring, you can't take a journalist's opinionated descriptive phrasing, and then pass it off without a source as a neutral introduction. If it isn't cited as an opinion of that particular journalist, it's both POV and plagiarism. Rebecca 03:41, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
"unfair dismissal laws applying to businesses with more than 10 employees rather than the current 101" when the link states:
"small businesses with fewer then 15 employees will not face an unfair dismissal claim from any employee who has been employed for less than a year."
The two are very different. Coincidence or just another example of the bias in the entry? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.101.222.105 ( talk) 02:57, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
As stated in a previous discussion, I will rework the Industrial Relations section. Objectives are:
There are serious errors in the section on Rudd' position on IR, and I cannot correct them as this page is locked. Citing: [6], the phrase "Rudd has opposed some aspects of the Howard government's WorkChoices industrial relations legislation, but indicated plans to retain significant elements of it during his election campaign" is incorrect as he clearly details his plan to abolish the package entirely. -- HoveroundED ( talk) 15:49, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Just a question, do people in the political parties directly monitor this page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.209.53.87 ( talk) 14:35, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Noteworthy? Lol.
how come theres no mention of kevin been found in a strip club in new york i think someones been editing this to make him sound good. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.82.121.38 ( talk) 11:13, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
I added the information that Rudd is supportive of the Tasmanian pulp mill, and against reserving more old growth forests from development. Some editors may consider it controversial to mention this, but we can't escape from the fact that this is what Rudd has said, this his is policy, like it or not, it should be mentioned. The information is referenced from the Sydney Morning Herald.-- Lester 20:29, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
"and the restoration of unfair dismissal laws for companies with less than 100 employees but more than 15 employees"
The dishonesty continues, I can't help but think this is orchestrated. This has been repeatedly corrected yet continues to return despite the referenced link to. Labor's policy is to restore unfair dismissal laws all employees, there is no exemption for employers less than 15. Employers with < 15 employees will have the probation period extended from 6 to 12 months. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.101.222.105 ( talk) 04:14, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
There are numerous interesting things that are missing from the article- onethat stands out is that Kevin Rudd actually supported the invasion of Iraq based on him thinking there were WMD's there,he did not even get the bad inteligence on the matter, it was his own thoughts. “I’ve said repeatedly that there is a significant threat of weapons of mass destruction from Iraq,” Rudd declared in September 2002. “Saddam Hussein possesses weapons of mass destruction—this is a matter of empirical fact,” he told the State Zionist Council of Victoria in October 2002. “Biological weapons is right in the middle of the sandwich when it comes to the critique currently, legitimate critique, of the Iraqi regime,” he added shortly before the invasion.
Why is this not mentioned? He later made a statement to channel 7 that convieniently forgot his previous stand. This quote that was not based on evidence puts into question his ability to tell the trutth and also his memory. His foreign policy is also questionable when he makes generalisations about a foreign country possibly having WMD's Liquor box 07 03:20, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Be bold and get editing then.-- Yeti Hunter 10:15, 24 August 2007 (UTC) I dont know how! i think the page is locked —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.69.199.248 ( talk) 06:30, August 25, 2007 (UTC)
The article glosses over Rudd's role in the Qld public service. He was well known and disliked as a result of his attitude toward cost cutting at the expense of: 1. Public service efficiency 2. Long term planning 3. The welfare of staff. It is significant that the result of these cuts are now being seen in the infrastructure failings on the Queensland executive. The parlous state of roads, schools, health and water are dirctly as a result of Rudds poor planning. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrbingley ( talk • contribs) 07:23, August 25, 2007 (UTC)
Iraqi weapons of mass destrution is besides the point, he was silly enough to believe Bush, Blair and Howard pushing the cover story alot of people did not think they where lieing/miss informed by liars just like he did.
Howard etc also said the WMDs existed, Howard also said he would keep interest rates down but thats another lie-- 203.192.92.73 12:46, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure that Labor were already in front in the polls before Keven Rudd won the leadership. However the article says that soon after he became leader they were in front. I think it would be better to say soon after Rudd won the leadership labors polling improved dramatically from 51% 2 party preferred to 56% 2 party preferred within X amount of weeks or by X date.(those figures are just examples not facts) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Muppet man67 ( talk • contribs) 12:25, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
why did this get changed back? I read that someone wanted a citation but I dont see why it needs to be cited any more then the statement as it stands currently which is factually incorrect. If you think a citation is needed then find one or remove that whole section. Its just dumb to revert back to a statement that has been established as inacurate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Muppet man67 ( talk • contribs) 05:14, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
completely misrepresents the Goss days.
No mention of his nickname "Dr Death"
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,20867254-601,00.html
No mention of the document shredding in the Heiner affair just " this position Rudd was arguably Queensland's most powerful bureaucrat."
Given the details on the John Howard page the omissions are quite surprising.
Or the Courier Mail investigation into his property tax avoidance (Dilkera Street)
http://www.gwb.com.au/gwb/goss/oneill.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.101.222.105 ( talk) 03:03, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
The book sighted describes his Nickname: Dr Death. ( Stirling Taylor 11:52, 23 September 2007 (UTC))
I'm not sure if this is the case for articles on politicians, but the leading paragraph says that if "If Kevin Rudd wins a majority of the lower house... he will become the next PM". Fair enough that may be the case, but to an extent is not a certainty, and i personally think that it should be changed to something more simplistic such as he is contesting for the PM position in the upcoming election. Sir Jimmy 11:13, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't agree. I think the article lead-in should stick with present facts. Introducing conditional "if" statements about hypothetical future events (regardless of their likelihood or not) is unencyclopedic. -- Brendan Lloyd [ contribs ] 14:32, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
I take issue with this section having so much prominence. His TOC is 1 Early life, 2 Early career, 3 Federal politics, 4 Political views, and 5 Religious views. I'm thinking that maybe it would be better to put political views and religious views under federal politics as sub-headings? Timeshift 23:54, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Can someone confirm if the person next to Rudd is his son? Timeshift 08:40, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
"Should Labor win a majority of lower house seats at the upcoming 2007 federal election, Rudd will succeed John Howard and become the 26th Prime Minister of Australia."
This isn't a prediction, it's a fact of the current situation. Quoting from WP:CRYSTAL: "Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place" sounds like the situation we have here. Cheers, Wiki Townsvillia n 14:11, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
There are many facts of the current situation that we can predicate upon "if X happens, then Y will be the outcome". That doesn't make it encyclopedic. Are you arguing that the election outcome is "almost certain"? Moreover, what would happen to the certainty of the asserted "fact" if something happened to Rudd between the election and his (presently hypothetical) swearing-in as PM? Or any other event that invalidates the alleged "fact", for that matter?
The problem with making statements about the future is that you can never account for all the variables. That's one reason why encyclopedic articles avoid them. -- Brendan Lloyd [ contribs ] 14:41, 12 September 2007 (UTC). Refer to discussion above at #Introductory Paragraph
General exposition of the Westminster system of government belong elsewhere, not in an article about Kevin Rudd. The material in question (as pointed out by Gnangarra) is not included anywhere else in the article. Predicating the inclusion of a self-contained statement (in the lead section) on one possible future outcome is generally against policy ( WP:CRYSTAL), against guideline ( WP:LEAD), non-factual, speculative and unencyclopedic. Articles are not horoscopes. -- Brendan Lloyd [ contribs ] 23:32, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
How about making Leader of the Opposition (his primary claim to fame) more prominent, so the user can click to find out what that means. I've always been of the opinion that if someone doesn't know how to click a link to get more information, they shouldn't be using Wikipedia. So the intro reads something like this. Paragraph 1: Kevin Rudd (born whenever) is the Australian Federal Leader of the Opposition. (Paragraph break for emphasis). Paragraph 2: Rudd entered parliament in 1998, yada yada, and replaced Kim Beazley as ALP Leader and Leader of the Opposition in December 2006. He will lead Labor at the Australian federal election 2007. Peter Ballard 03:18, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree with the reasoning of Brendan and Peter here. I have long thought this particular passage has been "unique" to any other political article, and slants the article to much towards Rudd worship. It violates WP:CRYSTAL, doesn't read like an encyclopedic article, and doesn't deal with the here and now. Prester John -( Talk to the Hand) 03:28, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Peter B. -- Brendan Lloyd [ contribs ] 10:06, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
you don't consider my opening this discussion as participating? Wiki Townsvillia n 05:28, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
I recently came across the following section on the article. This section casts very negative light on Mr. Rudd, and if unture presents amazing problems for WP:BLP. The text I removed is below. I suggest someone give s ource before it's added back in:
==Controversy== [[Image:Kevstrip.JPG|thumb|right|A 'Kevin Rudd' stripper that mocked the issue on [[The Chasers War on Everything]] ([[ABC]] program)]] Unfortunately for Mr.Rudd, it was recently discovered that, on one of his visits in [[New York]], he made his way into a [[strip club]] along with some of his male (and one female) friends.<br />Rudd claims that he never intended to be 'Captain Perfect' and tries to express that this is a mistake that many other [[Australian]] men would make.<br />Since the incident, there hasn't been much media attention to this issue, but the moment is constantly brought up on comical shows and performances.
-- Ybbor Talk 02:02, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Consensus already formed on strippergate. And I think it shows the user's POV that he takes a screenshot of a Chaser parody of women dancing in Kevin07 paraphanalia, and calls them "Kevin Rudd strippers on Chaser". May I take the chance to remind that the issue only helped to consolidate Rudd's lead in the polls, especially amongst males. Timeshift 09:39, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm leaning towards a weak keep - assuming that we show the same level of interest in other party leaders. Starting this discussion now as to form a consensus and avoid another revert war. Timeshift 23:00, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
In accordance with the discussion on the John Howard Page:
"Exclusive use of, and sole reliance upon, Howard's quote"
All of Kevin Rudd's quotation's require deletion if they cannot be substatiated by someone other than Kevin Rudd, or someone who is not relying on Kevin Rudd. ( Stirling Taylor 09:53, 23 September 2007 (UTC))
You can't have it both ways. Either exlusive reliance on a quote from the subject of a wiki page is permissable for reference on that page or it isn't. ( Stirling Taylor 10:20, 23 September 2007 (UTC))
Brendan: Please clarify: Is text based on "Exclusive use of, and sole reliance upon," the subject of a wiki page acceptable"? ( Stirling Taylor 11:11, 23 September 2007 (UTC))
If on the John Howard page Peter Costello quotes from a book are relevant, then I see no reason why Mark Latham quotes from his book aren't relevant to Kevin Rudd. ( Stirling Taylor 09:53, 23 September 2007 (UTC))
He was the Shadow Minister and the comments of the Labor party Leader at that time about his performance are relevant. I will type the entire quote out if you prefer? ( Stirling Taylor 10:20, 23 September 2007 (UTC))
Is the material you're seeking to include reliable. Does it give rise to a neutral point of view? Does it have weight or is it trivial? Please elaborate and seek consensus before re-adding the disputed material. Please avoid 3RR. -- Brendan Lloyd [ contribs ] 10:51, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
The point of view is from the previous Leader of the Australian Labor Party. Surely you are not suggestion previous leaders of political parties cannot provide a point of view on a current member of that party? If that's the case, quotations from *all* previous members should be removed. Would you like the page references from Latham's Diary?
The material has weight as it has been reported from the FIRST PERSON. It is reported by someone who was at the meeting and one of the main players of the meeting. I trust you are not suggesting all first person material should be removed. It is indeed factual. No libel case has been raised regarding the written material.
It can be considered neutral as it has been published (without challange) by someone who no longer has any political interest or benefit to be gained from it's publication.
( Stirling Taylor 11:08, 23 September 2007 (UTC))
I don't agree with the suggestion that Mark Latham's allegation about Kevin Rudd "burst into tears" has weight in an encyclopedic biography. It's not relevant. -- Brendan Lloyd [ contribs ] 11:47, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
The photo of Rudd and his son should be removed - there must be tens of thousands of photos available of Kevin Rudd, why should one of him with his son be up there? The family of politicians should not be included, they did not run for public office. Sad mouse 17:36, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Sad mouse. Rudd's son is not a public figure and entitled to privacy here. The picture should be removed. -- Brendan [ contribs ] 13:40, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
I think for duplication's sake, it's a good idea to have the latest image on Rudd's page with the crop of the last image on Rudd's page on the 2007 election page. My 2c. Timeshift 12:30, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
May i say thank you to whoever uploaded the new kevin rudd image. Its much nicer! ( 58.107.165.52 04:33, 9 October 2007 (UTC))
Timeshift, in your first comment above, you seem to be saying the 2007 election page and the Rudd page should have the same image. I agree with that and made what I thought was the uncontroversial change to effect this. Then you undo my changes telling me "hands off the pics". Can I ask why, and also what is the value-add to the article by having numerous biographical photos of Rudd that show nothing specific of historical interest (other than what Rudd looks like, for which his main bio pic already serves that purpose)? Can I also ask why a picture of his son must be included? What about provisions of WP:BLP having due regard for the privacy of the subject (in this case, his children, who are not public figures)? -- Brendan [ contribs ] 13:29, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Please don't be condescending. I dispute the inclusion of those images, particularly the one with his son. Sad mouse also objected to the inclusion of that latter image. Please acknowledge the views of others and state your rational reasons for retaining them, in response to the questions asked. Please also explain why you insist on the left-alignment of the Rudd&Gillard pic when it looks better right-aligned? -- Brendan [ contribs ] 13:40, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Which policy is that exactly? -- Brendan [ contribs ] 13:58, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
So by "common sense" you actually refer to your opinion. I beg to differ. For web-based bios, right-floating images generally look tidier as the text is uninterrupted by a chunky left-aligned imagebox. I also think that the images should be demonstrably relevant to the section in which they appear. Littering the article with multiple generic bio-type photos does the article no benefit. Nor does the photo including Rudd, QLD Premier Bligh, and candidate Grace Grace -- what is that picture meant to convey relative to the content it appears beside? This is an encyclopedia, not a blog, vanity page or web gallery. -- Brendan [ contribs ] 14:09, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
I still haven't received any answer as to why we should have this redundant image which is just a zoom of the one further down which purpose is for the 2007 election page, when we can use this image which is from another photo all together. It's very rare to find such free use photos of major party leaders in Australia. Timeshift 16:03, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
If the "smiley" photo is "more free", why is it the preferred image on Australian federal election, 2007? Consistency is the desired outcome. Per Lester and Sad mouse, I agree the photo including Rudd's son -- and advertising Grace Grace and Anna Bligh, at a non-descript event, highlights nothing in the accompanying text other than that KR knows these people and was at non-notable event with them at some point -- should be removed. This also resolves Timeshift's concern that the "non-smiley" was a crop from that son picture; with the latter gone, there is no need to fret. -- Brendan [ contribs ] 03:58, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Huh? They have the exact same license! Timeshift 05:27, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Timeshift, asserting that I am "wrong" is not an adequate explanation of why you insist on having a picture of Kevin Rudd's son on his Wiki biography. You say this is par for the course but that is not the apparent case. The question you have yet to answer is what is the relevance of that picture to the article/section content such that its inclusion justifies a perceived breach of privacy of Rudd junior and free advertising for candidate in the upcoming election, Grace Grace? You do not have consensus for the inclusion of that photograph. Please seek consensus before reinserting disputed content. -- Brendan [ contribs ] 07:11, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Disputed material requires consensus for inclusion. Please seek consensus. Privacy for the purposes and spirit of WP:BLP is not determined by whether or not a photo can be snapped in public, Timeshift. In writing an encyclopedic article, we need to adopt a higher standard than the tabloid paparazzi. The question you again ignore is relevance: how is it relevant/necessary to include a non-contextual picture of Rudd with his son, other than to show that Rudd has a son (which could easily be stated in the text) and identify what his son looks like (why would you want to do that?). We already know what Kevin Rudd looks like, so the addition of more pictures to demonstrate what Rudd looks like are clearly superfluous. This is not a photo gallery, it's an encyclopedic biography. Why are you so adamant that a picture of Rudd's son must appear on Rudd's biography? -- Brendan [ contribs ] 07:23, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Exactly. You fail to see. That is the precisely the problem here. Consensus is not required for the removal of material violating privacy and lacking relevance per WP:BLP. It's not a photo gallery, it's an encyclopedic biography. What are you claiming is the unique relevance of the disputed picture? -- Brendan [ contribs ] 07:37, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Please point me to the Wikipedia policy that requires consensus for removing disputed material/images as per your insistence. WP:BLP makes reference to privacy, the spirit of which I have already mentioned. Good faith is not a basis for justifying content. But do keep on handwaving, won't you. -- Brendan [ contribs ] 07:45, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Again, there is more to privacy than whether someone is legally an adult. Where are all these other BLPs of current Aussie politicians that include random glory shots of their family members? You really are hooked on including K Rudd's son, eh? -- Brendan [ contribs ] 07:51, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Andrew Fisher. From 1928. They are not living, that is not a Biography of a LIVING Person. Where are all these other BLPs of current Aussie politicians that include random glory shots of their living family members? -- Brendan [ contribs ] 07:56, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Gee, that's good faith right there. Have a read of WP:IMAGE#Pertinence_and_encyclopedicity then please return here and justify that photo in those terms. PIctures of wives are not the same as pictures of son + miscellaneous followers. -- Brendan [ contribs ] 08:04, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
That's hardly a justification. Keep reading WP:IMAGE#Pertinence_and_encyclopedicity. It mentions notability of the image content. What is uniquely notable about that Rudd&Son image, that makes it necessary to include it despite the presence of other Kevin Rudd images in the article that largely serve the same purpose (to show us what Kevin Rudd looks like)? -- Brendan [ contribs ] 08:10, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Which "matter at hand" are you referring to? Where does the article refer to Labour Day? The photo is relevant to Kevin Rudd because he is the article subject, but not to the article to the extent of being a notable image with regards to the content besides which it appeared (or anything else in the article for that matter). And that's before we consider the perceived privacy issue regarding posting a picture of his young living (non-politican, non-public figure) son on this encyclopedia. Exactly how many pictures of Kevin Rudd do you think are necessary to show the reader what Kevin Rudd looks like? -- Brendan [ contribs ] 08:25, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Can I ask, firstly, how was his son identified in this image? Last time I saw this image being discussed, there seemed to be some confusion about who was who and other family images were being compared. Secondly, I think there are possible privacy issues. We do default to privacy in cases of not notable, not public people, regardless of whether they are minors or not. I'm not saying I think there are privacy issues at play here, only that there might be (I actually haven't formed an opinion either way yet). Sarah 08:32, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm glad common sense is prevailing. Timeshift 13:51, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
And another issue alltogether is the fact that not only is the dispute over that image, but Brendan insists on adding the zoom from the son shot instead of this image. This version of Rudd's page is far superior and no legitimate argument can be put up to argue against it. Timeshift 14:06, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
User:Sad mouse and I were concerned (see top of this talk topic) about including pictures of Rudd's family, who, as far as a Bio of a Living Person goes, should be generally entitled to privacy in the spirit of WP:BLP. I never claimed a breach but a divergence from the spirit of the privacy provisions of that policy, and the need to edit conservatively with due regard for the subject's (but particularly his family's) privacy (which I take to include image content). I maintain the view that this concern is valid. Timeshift claims his preferred version for the main Rudd bio pic is objectively better than the one on the Australian federal election, 2007 page, but still hasn't explained why he thinks so. If other editors think it is preferable, my argument all along has been to use the same picture on both pages (ie. the election page too). I don't understand what is objectionable about having image consistency across these articles. I would have thought that was common sense. How many pictures showing us non-specific non-notable events of "what Rudd looks like" does the article need before the article starts to resemble a flavour of what WIkipedia is not, considering the need for images to be pertinent and encyclopedic in respect of the article content it depicts. -- Brendan [ contribs ] 14:55, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
That is part of the argument I've been putting forward all along, in my comments here and Edit Summaries. I'm staggered that it has taken this long to reach that understanding (although you still sidestep the pertinence and encylopedicity question in regards to the Rudd & Son picture). If you had engaged with the substance of my comments rather than ignoring them, handwaving, and jumping on revert yourself, the marathon would not have started, and your bad faith reversion of my own talkpage would not have occurred either. -- Brendan [ contribs ] 15:41, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Talk about jumping the gun. Please read Sarah's response to you, per WP:CON, above? Consensus should be sought before re-inserting disputed material. Consensus has not been achieved. I maintain my disagreement with the inclusion of that image, and you've put forward no valid argument yet that would lead me to abide by its inclusion, regardless of who is ambivalent about it. The image ought to serve a more notable purpose to the article -- other than just being yet another picture of Kevin Rudd -- in order to be pertinent and encyclopedic and thus warrant inclusion. In that respect, like myself, both Sarah and JPD pondered the distinct contextual relevance/suitability of that image. In its current form and placement, it lacks these things in my view, and moreover, now makes the article look messy. -- Brendan [ contribs ] 18:56, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
a) Point me to the wiki page which says wives can but adult age sons can't appear in someone's photo, let alone with the Labor Premier from Rudd's home state and another MP. b) Note how my posts use logic rather than throwing WP:PAGES around with little to no relevance. c) Your posts continue to make no sense or rational argument for the merits of reverting except for your own invalid perception. "It doesn't look right to me" especially when you aren't getting consensus on your part for your reverts, is quite frankly, pathetic, arrogant and desperate of you. You continue to have fun removing content from wikipedia that is noted by admins to be legit content. I'm not going to bother anymore. Timeshift 13:50, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
And to top it off, you can't comprehend that three admins sided with me that the image did not violate any WP:PAGES. And I already demonstrated the validity, and admins agreed that it was valid, such as Sarah's comments, and she also made further suggestions as to the placement of said image. Read her comments :-) At least now all your weird and unexplainable actions now make sense. Just because you invalidly, and simply, don't like it, no reason to remove it. Nobody complaining but you, and everyone else has accepted by rationale. You're just an arse. Timeshift 04:39, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
I invite anyone to read the admin comments and decide which side they thought was more correct. Timeshift 23:13, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Everyone involved in the edit war should use this time to work something out. It would be a shame for the edit war to resume again as soon as the article gets unlocked again.-- Lester 12:42, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm going to ask again, why don't we have a family section? Other world leaders like Bush, Blair, etc. all have a similar thing. Rudd's children have been mentioned and revealed by name in the general media; Rudd has done it himself and I believe that his eldest son has sometimes been with him in some of his campaigning - so I don't think there are any real privacy issues at stake in writing a little about them, or adding a photo of him with one of his children- we're not already adding information which isn't already in the public domain. There isn't anything that would be libelous or slanderous of his family that wouldn't be appropriate to add that I could find, although this article on his family's shares isn't all that relevant for a biographical article. On the other hand, this article might be relevant for something that happened last year in terms of his family (his daughter's marriage). Maybe one of the biographies of him that mentions a little about his family might be good to get some expansion on this. And we can include a little about his wife and her business, with a "more info" link to Therese Rein's article. What do others think? JRG 13:13, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
JRG, if "one" were not saying that, then why did "one" effectively say it anyway? I agree that your suspicion is "not appropriate". <yoda> Cynicism, the shadow of bad faith that is </yoda>. If you think there is enough information on Rudd's family to warrant its own section, then be bold and introduce it. There is no hidden motive here on my part. I have stated my position frankly, thoroughly and honestly. -- Brendan [ contribs ] 14:56, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Much as I'm loathe to agree with Andrew Bolt, this article really looks like a whitewash to me. The only criticism I can see is from Tony Abbott over RU486. How about some of the other criticisms: Dr. Death, [1] glass jaw, [2] strip club, questionable decisions to avoid wedge politics, [3] wife's (alleged) business conduct [4]? Peter Ballard 05:19, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
The article currently says Rudd would launch a staged withdrawal of Australia's combat troops from Iraq. Technically correct, but my understanding is that most of the Australian troops in Iraq are not combat troops. So the Rudd troop withdrawal would only result in one third of the Australian troops in Iraq coming home. The other two thirds would stay there. Shouldn't we say this?
The article also currently states that Rudd has consistently opposed Howard's Workchoice policy. My understanding is that Rudd would leave some aspects of Workchoice in place. -- Lester 13:05, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
The 'Political views' section should include an 'Environment' category. Environment is one of the issues people are most concerned about. Let's see what Rudd's views and policies are on this important issue. -- Lester 14:58, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
The article currently states that Rudd's support of the Road Map For Peace is a step towards mending relations following the comments of several backbenchers. I was curious to find out who these backbenchers were. Googling on the subject, I found Isreal comments from Labor MP Tanya Plibersek, and Labor MP Julia Irwin initiated a parliamentary debate on the subject. I will add these specific names to the article, as it allows readers to pursue more detail. -- Lester 21:12, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
The ABC has just put online a video interview between Kevin Rudd and Kyle Sandilands on the subject of same-sex marriage. I thought it was interesting to see and hear Rudd speak his views on the issue, so I placed it in the External Links. This Sandilands interview generated a lot of news coverage and commentary. If you Google, there's a plethora of articles published about it.-- Lester 01:19, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
There seems to be a "don't mention the earwax" attitude hanging over this page. As Mr Rudd's first real incursion into the mass consciousness of the English speaking world at large, doesn't the meal in question deserve a mention?
Jaguarjaguar 17:06, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Taken from the Wiki page on Internet trolls:
The term troll is highly subjective. Some readers may characterize a post as trolling, while others may regard the same post as a legitimate contribution to the discussion, even if controversial. The term is often used to discredit an opposing position, or its proponent, by argument fallacy ad hominem.
Nota bene... Jaguarjaguar 10:30, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't know about evening news, but I (as an ignorant pom, admittedly) hadn't heard of Mr Rudd until it. It seems to me peculiar to mention debacles like William Hague and the baseball cap but to leave this alone. I suppose it's fair in that the electoral impact has yet to be proven, but I wouldn't be surprised if it had more major image effects than you're anticipating. I wouldn't gladly vote for the star of that video.
I hadn't heard about any strip club incident, by the way, but don't see why it hasn't been included, especially with the candidate taking such a trenchant, traditional family line on gay marriage, apparently. Hope this makes some sense
Jaguarjaguar 02:23, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
If I were a cynical person, i'd be suspicious of your user, talk, and edit histories Jaguar. Timeshift 02:57, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Rudd waxing lyrical. Timeshift 06:09, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Oh how cute. All I need say is, refer to what the admins are saying, in that it is non-noteable. Then refer to what the admins are saying about the photo of Rudd and son. Read it, and weep. I know it hurts, but them's the facts ;-) Timeshift 11:17, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Per Rebecca, it is completely related to the article and is legitimate. What is with your strange agenda lately Skyring? You aren't usually this blatently bias. Timeshift 01:59, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Also, I removed that comment "in an attempt to", because it is POV to portray it as fact that his motivation is votes. We don't know this. Nobody can know this. Blnguyen ( bananabucket) 03:37, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Skyring, you can't take a journalist's opinionated descriptive phrasing, and then pass it off without a source as a neutral introduction. If it isn't cited as an opinion of that particular journalist, it's both POV and plagiarism. Rebecca 03:41, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
"unfair dismissal laws applying to businesses with more than 10 employees rather than the current 101" when the link states:
"small businesses with fewer then 15 employees will not face an unfair dismissal claim from any employee who has been employed for less than a year."
The two are very different. Coincidence or just another example of the bias in the entry? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.101.222.105 ( talk) 02:57, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
As stated in a previous discussion, I will rework the Industrial Relations section. Objectives are:
There are serious errors in the section on Rudd' position on IR, and I cannot correct them as this page is locked. Citing: [6], the phrase "Rudd has opposed some aspects of the Howard government's WorkChoices industrial relations legislation, but indicated plans to retain significant elements of it during his election campaign" is incorrect as he clearly details his plan to abolish the package entirely. -- HoveroundED ( talk) 15:49, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Just a question, do people in the political parties directly monitor this page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.209.53.87 ( talk) 14:35, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Noteworthy? Lol.
how come theres no mention of kevin been found in a strip club in new york i think someones been editing this to make him sound good. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.82.121.38 ( talk) 11:13, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
I added the information that Rudd is supportive of the Tasmanian pulp mill, and against reserving more old growth forests from development. Some editors may consider it controversial to mention this, but we can't escape from the fact that this is what Rudd has said, this his is policy, like it or not, it should be mentioned. The information is referenced from the Sydney Morning Herald.-- Lester 20:29, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
"and the restoration of unfair dismissal laws for companies with less than 100 employees but more than 15 employees"
The dishonesty continues, I can't help but think this is orchestrated. This has been repeatedly corrected yet continues to return despite the referenced link to. Labor's policy is to restore unfair dismissal laws all employees, there is no exemption for employers less than 15. Employers with < 15 employees will have the probation period extended from 6 to 12 months. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.101.222.105 ( talk) 04:14, 22 November 2007 (UTC)