![]() | This 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. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 |
Here is the diff. Timeshift ( talk) 20:25, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
He was the first incumbent Labor prime minister not to re-contest an election. (lede)
I didn't know how to say it, that was the best I could think of, either way it's more correct than what was there... "He was the first Labor prime minister to be ousted from office before completing a first term". Timeshift ( talk) 07:30, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
It seems an editor has concerns with the wording. It is true that no other Labor PM has not re-contested an election. However there is the matter of Frank Forde... but should he really be counted? Perhaps the sentence should be removed? Timeshift ( talk) 12:40, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
Why did he "stand down"? Timeshift's Kevin Rudd was amazing —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.64.166.222 ( talk) 10:28, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
Timeshift has reverted my removal of the latter word. I removed it because "Rudd Labor enjoyed an unprecedented period of stratospheric popularity" seems to convey exactly the meaning required, whereas "stratospheric" risks being accused of puffery. This is particularly so because "unprecedented" is provable—a fact—whereas "stratospheric" is an "interpersonal epithet", i.e., subjective. I am removing the word again, since the case seems obvious. If anyone objects (apart from Timeshift), please say so here. Tony (talk) 09:00, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
←For "unprecedented level" to mean "low", it would have to be marked as such. The default is "high". Tony (talk) 09:58, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
According to the article, Rudd boarded, but according to this (it's now fascinating going over old articles like this 2003 doozy), he was passed between relatives. Can someone figure which is correct or if they both are in some way? Timeshift ( talk) 16:32, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
"Among the Rudd government's first acts was"... is there a way I can make this can sound less awkward? Timeshift ( talk) 03:59, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
"becoming the first Labor prime minister not to re-contest an election as an incumbent prime minister" in the lead... it really isn't correct. Watson and Forde are two examples of Labor PMs who never contested an election. Any suggestions for a correct, more succinct way to express what is trying to be said? Maybe it shouldn't be in the lead at all? Timeshift ( talk) 14:49, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
Lead is too long. On an unrelated note, I prefer the US Dept of State image. -- Surturz ( talk) 04:15, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
There is nothing wrong with the length of the lead. It's a good size for a long article. The actual content of the lead is another matter. -- Merbabu ( talk) 15:19, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
The current image is has horrendous quality, and I think a more formal image is more suited for this purpose, eg, File:Kevin Rudd 23 Feb 08.jpg, which I can crop to suit a lead image. Connormah talk 22:27, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
Okay, I think it's worth having a proper discussion about this. Below is a gallery of images I've taken from the category on the Commons to aid with comparisons (please add more if you feel they should be included).
Gallery of images of Kevin Rudd
|
---|
Of the images here, I have to agree with Connormah that Kevin Rudd 23 Feb 08.jpg (appropriately cropped) is the best available. I'm going to place notices on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Australian politics and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Australia to get some outside voices and form a proper consensus. -- Lear's Fool 01:17, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
So we're not changing to the suit image that it was changed to earlier this morning. Very good. Timeshift ( talk) 01:52, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
Okay, I realise voting is evil, and I do not mean to imply that this has been a straight vote by what follows, but I have tabulated people's first choices as best I can. Please feel free to alter this table if you feel I have misrepresented your opinion, or you have changed your mind.
User | First Choice |
---|---|
Lear's Fool | Kevin Rudd 23 Feb 08 (cropped) |
Timeshift9 | Kevin Rudd headshot |
Mattinbgn | KevinRuddZoom |
Frickeg | KevinRuddZoom |
CanberraBulldog | Kevin Rudd 23 Feb 08 (cropped) |
Orderinchaos | KevinRuddZoom |
Surturz | Kevin_Rudd_DOS |
Tony | Kevin Rudd headshot |
Melburnian | Kevin Rudd 23 Feb 08 (cropped) |
Connormah | Kevin Rudd 23 Feb 08 (cropped) |
WWGB | Kevin Rudd 23 Feb 08 (cropped) |
Nick-D | KevinRuddZoom |
Романов | Kevin_Rudd_DOS |
Accordingly, I'm going to change the image to File:Kevin Rudd 23 Feb 08 cropped.jpg, but I think I agree with Orderinchaos that it may be worth sending an e-mail to his office to see whether they'll give us a better one. -- Lear's Fool 03:51, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
I was referring to the size that my browser renders it (which is considerably smaller than it's full res). I was always picky about KevinRuddZoom when it was in the article - the bad quality and fuzziness is even evident when scaled to the small resolution used in the infobox, which is, I find, troubling. Lear's cropped image would work the best still IMO. Connormah talk 04:48, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
I've been convinced. I now support Kevin Rudd DOS cropped. Does anyone object to changing this one? Please allow 24 hours to give contributors time to respond to see if a new consensus has been formed before changing it. Thankyou. Timeshift ( talk) 05:44, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
These [ from the photostream of the US Embassy] in Canberra are released under CC-BY-ND. They may be useful in illustrating Rudd as Foreign Minister until other images come through. Mostlyharmless ( talk) 06:40, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
None of the references in footnote 147 seem to support the statement that cite 147 as evidence. I also think it's bad form to cite so many articles in one footnote. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.239.164.172 ( talk) 00:14, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
he stood down in favour of Julia Gillard.. I think that the key part of Rudd's removal was that it wasn't voluntary. The only reason that he failed to contest the leadership ballot called by Gillard is that Rudd knew that the numbers would have humiliated him. Yet our wording suggests that it was a cosey, mutual, voluntary arrangement. Misleading the punters may be the nature of politics, but it isn't the business of an encyclopaedia. -- Pete ( talk) 00:21, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
(ec x 50) I removed the phrase, and not necessarily for POV concerns. Rather, it is unnecessary to state in the first paragraph of a long article the manner in which his PMship ended (and the 2nd or 3rd sentence of the whole article). It’s explained in more detail in the last paragraph of the lead. That first sentence now simply reads: "He was the 26th Prime Minister of Australia, from December 2007 until June 2010." - no POV concerns there i trust? And the (involuntary) nature of his resignation is explained in the final paragraph of the lead.
While there's room for tweaking, I think the lead is a nicely ordered/structure introduction and summary to the subject, and as per WP:LEAD, stands alone as an article in itself.
And please try and be less provocative to each other in your discussion. Stick to the facts. No need for "Has Rudd's media secretary authorised this" and "what part of….don’t you understand". Cut it out for the rest of us, if not for yourselves. cheers - -- Merbabu ( talk) 01:58, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
As a night cabbie in Canberra, mainly working the Airport, Manuka/Kingston, Parliamentary Triangle runs, I get a LOT of political folk - staffers, media, public servants, even the occasional politician - in my cab. They talk. To the cabbie, to their fellow-passengers, on the phone. I had a couple of Rudd's staffers, drunk and emotional, on the night he was rolled. I hear a lot of things. Some of it is nonsense, of course, but with a lot of passengers, you get a feel for what's going on. You hear different versions of the same story. Cabbies tend to be good judges of character, always asking the three questions of each passenger. As well as that, I'm married to a senior public servant, who tells her own tales of long hours wasted away from her real work spent researching information for the PM that was never used. The public service despised Rudd, and I got that story night and day.
I knew Rudd was in trouble before he did, I reckon. Surrounded by yes-men, full of himself, no effective opposition until Abbott stepped up, Rudd was way out of touch.
Now, that's just my opinion. But I also get the Press Gallery in my cab. I could drop a few names, I could mention the recent weekend in the country house of one of the big names, I could mention years of personal contact. I know who's got the goods, who's spinning a line, who is always on one side of the fence.
There are books in the works. Some of the heavy hitters are writing the history of the Rudd downfall. Paul Kelly's is the one I'm hanging out for, but Barrie Cassidy has one out, to be published shortly, and the extracts I've read hit the spot. Let me just say this. Our article on Kevin Rudd misses the mark. In the months ahead, we are going to get a string of solid sources giving the good guff on a toxic Prime Minister. The story that the top political journalists are telling isn't what Wikipedia is saying.
Yes, I know Australian politics is a sensitive area. I don't want to upset other editors, but I want Wikipedia to reflect reality rather than spin. -- Pete ( talk) 22:25, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
in 1988, he was appointed Chief of Staff to the Labor Opposition Leader in Queensland, Wayne Goss. He was then Chief of Staff to the Premier.
This flows poorly. I suggest from 1988 he was Chief of Staff to the Queensland Labor Opposition Leader and later Premier, Wayne Goss. The next sentence implies that he staid on until Goss lost office, but I don't think we need to make it explicit. -- Pete ( talk) 02:16, 5 October 2010 (UTC) Box ticked. -- Pete ( talk) 03:09, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
As the new leader, Rudd gave major announcements on areas such as industrial relations, climate change, an "education revolution", a National Broadband Network, and health.
For the lead, this seems to be excessive, especially as it is phrased as retrospective opinionating. Do we have a contemporary source for this selective list? -- Pete ( talk) 15:06, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
the federal government's role in healthcare funding was increased. This unsourced statement in the lead is not mentioned at all in the main body. I propose to remove it. -- Pete ( talk) 03:08, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
The sole source for healthcare reform in the article says this: 'There is no doubt that reforming the health system has been one of the major achievements of the last two-and-a-half years'.
Well, I'm doubting. Rudd outlined a vision earlier this year, but I'm unaware of any action. Issuing a media release does not constitute "a major achievement" Not in my book. Could someone please enlighten me as to any implementation of Rudd's grand plan, or has it, like the Kingswood, been quietly dropped? If it hasn't happened, it's not an achievement and we're not going to list it as one in our article. -- Pete ( talk) 23:03, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Beginning with Rudd's election to the Labor leadership, the party enjoyed a period of popularity unprecedented in magnitude and length in the opinion polls. In mid-2010, however, the polls showed a sharp drop in both the Labor party's and Rudd's personal electoral standing.
The first sentence is unsupported in the main body of the text, and should therefore be removed. The second sentence is inaccurate - the fatal drop in Rudd's support began in late 2009 and accelerated downhill. The end wasn't as sudden as the article implies - Rudd had a pretty rough six months beginning with Copenhagen. The bad news stories kept coming, Rudd's responses were ineffective, and Tony Abbott kept scoring goals. -- Pete ( talk) 22:03, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Rudd stepped down as Prime Minister and party leader on 24 June 2010, when it became clear that he had lost the support of his party.
To me, this is not a good explanation of the situation. He only "stepped down" because if he had actually contested the leadership ballot won by Gillard, he would have been crushed. We should also briefly explain why he failed after such early promise. Rudd's removal was a rare and puzzling event, especially for overseas observers, who were saying that it seemed very like a coup. -- Pete ( talk) 17:19, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
To my mind, the key point about Rudd's removal is that it was a removal. Left to his own, he would have staid. But, like Hermann Göring at the end, he chose to jump rather than be pushed.
he stood down for Julia Gillard. Let's contrast that with the wording for Göring, the final sentence of a brightlywritten two paragraph lead: He was sentenced to death by hanging, but committed suicide by cyanide ingestion the night before he was due to be hanged. We need to tell the whole story, and while the lengthy final para here goes some way towards that end, I think that by blandly saying that Rudd "stood down", we are misrepresenting the situation. It is like saying that Göring committed suicide without explaining why.
I also note that we are now revisiting the same material with which I commenced my project. Are we going to go around in circles on this, in effect having a long, draining and disruptive edit war? Surely we can sort out acceptable wording and stick to it. -- Pete ( talk) 15:19, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
The family was compelled to leave the farm under hardship. This does not seem to tell the complete story. While the fatherless Rudd family was required to leave the farm, it seems that they were not immediately evicted, not until six months after the death of Albert Rudd, contrary to Rudd's recollection of being put on the street the following day.
Kevin Rudd: I think my father's death was difficult at an early age, being evicted actually was the harder bit because we were share farmers, we didn't own the property so bury Dad one day and get tossed off the property virtually the next with nowhere to go and no assets because you don't own a house if you're a share farmer either. My mother had been a nurse during the war in Brisbane and then in the early 70's had to retrain as a nurse to bring us up so she has semi-hero status in my life having done all of that.
Julia Baird: No wonder. You've said that you were very angry about that eviction, I mean how did that anger show itself at the time?
Kevin Rudd: In so far as you can reflect back on how you felt as a kid, as opposed to what you thought you might have felt as a kid, I suppose I'd call it this, that I had the earliest flickering of a sense of justice and injustice and I just thought it was plain wrong that that could happen to anybody or that you didn't have anywhere there to go and stay and that was really tough. It was a deep sense of loss of dignity which I felt vicariously through my mother but I think growing up in a strong country party environment and therefore no sort of Labor views within Cooee I think it actually caused early gestation of an idea of justice and injustice. -- ABC
However, this is contrary to the story told by the landlord's daughter in an interview:
When Bert died our father had no choice but to employ a new farmer. It was the biggest dairy farm on the Sunshine Coast and there were more than 120 cows that needed milking morning and night. Margaret would always have known at some point, inevitably, an incoming farmer would have to occupy the farmhouse. But provisions were put in place by our father for Margaret. He explained to her she could remain on the farm, at no cost whatsoever, until such time as the new farmer arrived. What Kevin has always failed to state is that the new farmer didn't even arrive until July - that's almost six months after his father's death. During that entire time, our family continued to run the farm. There was absolutely no reason for them to have left until the new farmer arrived in July. To continuously say he was evicted immediately after his dad's funeral is quite an unbelievable statement. Not only does he blame our father for the so-called eviction, he subsequently mentions having to sleep rough in a car -- SMH
Here we have Kevin Rudd finding the roots of his ALP career in an injustice that never happened. I don't think Wikipedia should be a party to this. -- Pete ( talk) 23:25, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
I've been reading Barrie Cassidy's book "The Party Thieves" and he provides more details on this story. Briefly, Rudd was rising to prominence and using the death of his father and the eviction of his family as a way to explain the anger he felt and his joining the ALP to set things straight. He described being evicted within days or weeks of his father's death. The children of the now deceased landowner spoke up, feeling that their father had been slandered, that Rudd's widowed mother had been told she could stay on, rent-free, for as long as it took to find a replacement share-farmer, which happened to be six months. It was not just the length of time in dispute, but also the language used.
Now, recollections of events forty years ago may differ, especially when the participants were children at the time. What is really interesting, as Cassidy explains, is that Rudd the adult politician went to extraordinary lengths to attempt to prevent any statements contradicting his own from being published. Rudd lies - as does any politician - but there's something in him that doesn't want to admit it - or be found out. I've met people like this, usually somewhere along the OCD or autistic spectrum. They tend to be hard, focussed workers. Tireless and detail-oriented. They make great sub-editors. But they are difficult to work with, because they don't have that emotional ability to get along with others if there is any conflict. They can't laugh away an error. They go to pieces when painted into a corner.
I'm not saying Rudd is one of these people. But the bells are ringing for me. The celebrated "rat-fuckers" tirade in Copenhagen when the Chinese wouldn't play ball. Before Abbott opposed Rudd's ETS and the Chinese sank Copenhagen, Rudd saw himself as the man who was going to save the world by drawing up the compact that would reduce emissions and lead the kings and presidents into signing it. After Copenhagen, he was a broken man.
David Marr, a man of the Left, found Rudd an interesting case, full of contradictions, and "driven by rage". His essay made it possible to others to criticise Rudd, and the stories of rage behind closed doors, of ridiculous levels of micro-management, of important matters left hanging for weeks or months began to surface.
I say this, not because I want to have a go at Rudd, but because I think that his psychological makeup is key to understanding the man, and consequently must be a key plank in our article. The decline and defeat of Rudd is one of the great political stories of the past half century, but we seem to brush over it as poor polls and factional leaders. Yet Barrie Cassidy pours scorn on this notion, noting that no factional heavies could muster up the votes needed in a matter of minutes - which was all the time available on the night. Rudd's back isn't full of knives wielded by party colleagues - they came from the front and Rudd never saw them coming until too late.
I urge my fellow editors to read Cassidy's book - and the others that will surely follow.
I'm going to start work on a sub-article based on Rudd's downfall. It's a big story, we don't do it justice, there are plentiful sources around. -- Pete ( talk) 18:58, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
I have been going through this article, top to bottom, highlighting material that seems to be contrary to our policies, mainly through being misleading or unsupported. I quote the material, state why I find it problematic, and indicate my intentions. If after a day or two no objection has been raised, I make the changes as flagged.
Looking at this diff, labelled reverting disputed changes made without consensus, I find that my edits, announced days earlier, have been reverted by an editor who apparently missed his chance to comment. May I ask Timeshift to comment on this, please? In both cases the material was unsourced, and unreferenced in the main body of the article. It was removed in accordance with WP:SOURCE and WP:LEAD and the only objection raised in discussion was minor.
To make the statement "unprecedented in magnitude and length" in the lead requires both those adjectives to be supported by the body of the article, in turn supported by reliable sources. At the moment, the article says "During their first two years in office, Rudd and the ALP government set records for popularity in Newspoll polling." The sources on which that statement is used refer to "magnitude" (ie the height of Rudd's poll numbers) but not length. [2] [3] I don't even know how "length" can properly be measured. I think more work is needed with the sourcing and in the body of the article to make "unprecedented in magnitude and length" not an OR statement. I know it's probably true, but verifiability is more important that truth. Additionally, the statement can't cover the 70 odd years of Australian politics before polling began, which is another problem with making such a sweeping statement in the lede.-- Mkativerata ( talk) 23:51, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
To say that health funding was not a significant issue for Rudd is frankly bs. That however does not mean that the current coverage in the article is good or that there is no problem. And, it's not mentioned in the Rudd Government article either (why on earth not?). While i don't support Skyring's suggestion that it's not notable, he is correct in saying that it's (a) not cited and (b) not mentioned in the article. It needs work, and while technically justified (read wikilawyer's point of view) the recent removal from the article, I don't support at this stage. There are far more constructive solutions. Why not cite it, re-word it, and/or provide info in the article proper??? -- Merbabu ( talk) 00:07, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
I'll wait another day for discussion, and if the material remains unsourced, remove it. -- Pete ( talk) 01:31, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
Timeshift's revert is just back to his preferred version that he created in July. Hardly consensus. And it's a poor lead. Nothing happened to Rudd between 1957 and 2001? Every change I made to the lead I made carefully and explained - in light of that such a hard revert is pure vandalism and WP:OWN. There's clearly no consensus for his July version if both myself and Skyring are trying to change it. Perhaps we could go back to the pre-TImeshift version? Or would it be more constructive to work on a lead that covers his whole life and career, rather than one that spends 3 paragraphs on his time as Labor leader.
I'm taking Timeshift's hard revert has Revert 1. More than happy to get admins in. -- Merbabu ( talk) 01:45, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
Moving on - Skyring, if there is something in the lead that is not mentioned in the body of the article, with cites, then please bring it up here before removing it. Give it 7 days. Then if it is not there, then it can be removed. Please don't go over old ground that's been resolved - ie "stratospheric". We all got the point, it was fixed, and we moved on. I'd like to think that I've been reasonable enough about accommodating your requests so far. cheers -- Merbabu ( talk) 01:58, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
UPDATE: I've started a health care section in the article. Only a small sentence so far. But it has a cite - the one from Timeshift's lead. Needs expansion. I've also added a few words back into the lead - it seems that Skyring agrees that health was significant to Rudd's PMship (and we can presume that Timeshift does too!) -- Merbabu ( talk) 02:05, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
I would like to propose an award, for inspired image placement, regarding this edit. -- Pete ( talk) 22:14, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
I have removed this bit from the article due to myself reading this piece which I was quite surprised at. With this new evidence to light, one has to question the reliability and noteability of WP:RS pieces used. Discussion most welcome. Timeshift ( talk) 01:02, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
What we found was that under every possible scenario, the government insulation program – far from increasing the rates of fire occurring from installing insulation – actually reduced the rate of fires and likely reduced the rate in a quite substantial manner.
(outdent): I’ve been clear enough about my position on temporary removal that is doesn’t need repeating, again. As for new wording, I can help out: ie, you propose a change in either main space (be bold) and/or talk page, and I will edit and/or comment respectively as required. But, I have suggested you propose something a number of times already. You can guess what my response would be if it involves removal (as opposed to copy editing) of any of the current info. -- Merbabu ( talk) 02:47, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
I can understand this discussion but I can't understand the blanking? Shouldn't the information STAY until new wording is created? Also, wasn't the four deaths and fires related to HIP because the householders only took up the insulation and the workers were only installing BECAUSE of the HIP program?
With Garrett's page - I'm putting this part back in - It was revealed in May 2010 that Mr Garrett had written to the then Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, on four separate occasions raising concerns about safety. [1] as it is fact.
This part - I can understand why it is POV - maybe it should be placed in Rudd's page but I still think it explains the demotion of Garrett under the HIP program so can you please inform me why you think it is POV and should be deleted?
And with the above discussion - I guess the agreed wording for Rudd's page should be included on Garrett's page Cheers CanberraBulldog ( talk) 02:56, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
What was it? Clearly it was a brutally forced resignation after weeks of underming from his 'loyal' deputy and factional 'allies'. Frankly 'The end of Rudd's prime ministership' doesn't cut it and 'Undermining and fall' is to straight forward for the honourable leaders article. Possibly User:Timeshift9 would like to give Head Office a call and see what best disguises it for us? Романов ( talk) 07:04, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
The lead's description of the 23-24 June events looked like a whitewash to me so I've just changed it. -- Mkativerata ( talk) 05:35, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
I don't think that these are really all that significant. US Ambassador Robert McCallum's assessment of Rudd is sort-of interesting, but not very important in comparison to the fact that Rudd's colleagues also developed this view and removed him from office as a result. I've just re-removed the uncited claim that Rudd's comments about China will damage his position as foreign minister (the comments are broadly in line with the Australian Government's published Defence White Paper, so are unlikely to come as much of a shock to the Chinese). Nick-D ( talk) 07:50, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
I disagree - the comments are hugely significant coming from the US ambassador. Furthermore, the current news coverage supports the (referenced) comment on the damage to Rudd's position as foreign minister. His comments on China are not 'broadly in line with the ... White Paper' and are especially significant given they were made to Australia's most important military ally about its (currently) most important trading partner. Rudd's comments to al-Arabiya television support the importance of the leak ("Therefore we in Australia condemn the release of this material. It helps nobody. In fact, it is a real problem for us all."). If it was ‘unlikely to come as much of a shock to the Chinese’ then why would Rudd himself consider it a ‘real problem’? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maturescence ( talk • contribs) 08:56, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
Re my last 'undo' – it seems we are working from the same page/political viewpoint, but I believe it discredits Wiki if it is seen to avoid/cover up uncomfortable facts for political expedience. Maturescence 11:05, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
Firstly, please stop implying that those of us who don't agree with this material being included are doing so to conceal inconvenient information: Everyone here is participating in this discussion in good faith. I must reiterate Nick-D's analysis, which I (and others) find convincing. His comments are broadly in line with the implications of the white paper, and the fact that he was less diplomatic with his phrasing in public does not make the remarks exceptional. Regarding international coverage, it is common for individuals such as this to receive broad coverage for one-off news items that have little or no bearing on that which makes them notable. It is incumbent on us, the editors of an encyclopaedia, to give appropriate weight to each of these events. -- Lear's Fool 03:19, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Under the section of Foreign Affairs Minister, there is only a miniscule amount of writing when we have the Wikileaks leak of what Kevin Rudd thinks about China to talk about. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaitwith ( talk • contribs) 05:20, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
I queried the listing of healthcare reform as one of Rudd's achievements some time back. The only cite we had was a grab from Rudd's exit speech, where he stated his accomplishments, many of which never got beyond the media release stage. It's time to look at what was actually achieved, and that isn't a real lot. The healthcare thing never got past signing of agreements. Not one dollar changed hands on this. Gillard is yet to introduce legislation, and the word is that if she ever does, it's going to be significantly scaled back.
Climate change was basically a series of grand ideas that never went anywhere, and Gillard is scrapping the non-grand schemes.
It's time to go through the article and scale back the praise. He actually did very little, though he talked a real lot. -- Pete ( talk) 10:54, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
If there's any proof needed that Skyring is biased, it's this pearler! "Dennis Shanahan is the chief political editor for The Australian. He's not some biased blogger." - true gold. Timeshift ( talk) 22:55, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
"Rudd's record of failure" So, Skyring has a position (and argued with flowery language) that he would like wikipedia to emulate, and he now needs endorsement for his chosen sources. Last time I looked, that's not how I understand it works.-- Merbabu ( talk) 04:06, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, dunno how else to really address the question.
I remember a while back the whole debacle that came about over Kevin Rudd verbally attacking his support staff on a couple of flights, both domestic and international. On one occasion he made a stewardess break down and cry because they couldn't offer Rudd a specific meal he wanted. On a couple other occasions, I believe one of which was on a military charted flight, he did something similar to the ladies in the Air Force running his flight.
It wasn't just one or two incidents either, he had a reputation of being a general douche to his support staff throughout his entire career.
Now you're probably sitting there scrtaching your head wondering why I'm even writing this. Fair point. I have nothing against Rudd, and I care little for politics. It's just I've seen a lot less severe actions being listed against a figure within their personal wikipedia article. I just found it odd that something like this is no where to be seen on his article, since I do believe it's noteworthy.
If anyone is interested, I could most likely find relevant articles to back up the above. If I recall correctly, it was covered quite a bit by all the News stations (Not just Nine or Ten, but SBS and ABC too) and most newspapers, such as the Sydney Morning Herald, and a few others, carried it too.
Anyone feel like weighing in on this? I mean it was in the news for a period of weeks, and IMO It's fairly noteworthy if a leading political figure had a reputation for verbally abusing his support staff. Akaricloud ( talk) 08:15, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
(ec) One thing that is not mentioned is Rudd’s lack of factional support. Initially trumpeted as something new and refreshing – ie, a positive – it is now cited as the reason for his downfall. Ie, lack of factional support was fine as long as the polls were good, but as soon as the polls went south, there was no one or no faction sticking out their neck for him. -- Merbabu ( talk) 03:25, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Rudd announced a significant and far-reaching strategic reform to Australian healthcare in 2010.[118] However, this was not pursued beyond in-principle agreements with Labor State and Territory governments, and was scrapped by Julia Gillard during her first year in office.[119][120]
This section is tagged as "needing expansion". Since nothing really changed in the healthcare system under Rudd's PM-ship, I propose that we delete the section entirely. Rudd promised something and then was ousted before he could deliver. The ETS, not healthcare, was the main political topic associated with his downfall. I don't think the topic warrants inclusion. -- Surturz ( talk) 03:33, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
The line "is the former 26th prime minister" should be changed to "was the 26th prime minister". Saying "former 26th prime minister" implies there is a current 26th prime minister. - unsigned by 202.124.72.36.
I think the intro would be better phrased thus: "Kevin Michael Rudd (born 21 September 1957) is an Australian politician. He served from 2007 to 2010 as the 26th Prime Minister of Australia, and is currently the Minister for Foreign Affairs." -- Surturz ( talk) 15:10, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
I've just removed this section as the material was sourced (and basically copied and pasted) from an opinion article. The article states that the $60 million figure is Rudd and Thérèse Rein's combined wealth, and I'm pretty sure that I've read that Rein earned most of this money. While it's likely that at least some of the money is shared, this is far from certain given that Rein is a very active businesswoman. As such, it seems a bit misleading to say that Rudd's the richest PM Australia has ever had. Nick-D ( talk) 00:04, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
Just wondering regarding K Rudd's personal life. He's been dropping the f-bomb, saying that Chinese are "rat-f--kers". Not sure if that incident about him in the bar is included in here, couldn't find the keyword "bar" in the article, but then again didn't read through the entire article. Twigfan ( talk) 14:00, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
Kevin Rudd's government was a disaster. He ran a government elected with a landslide and huge personal and party popularity ratings down to the point where Tony Abbott had a good chance of victory. In a single term. Rudd was removed by his own party in a sudden coup. Rudd's problems were not caused by outside forces - he created his own disasters through an autocratic and erratic management style and a failure to deliver on promises, most notably the carbon tax scheme.
And yet the article provides little information to the reader on the details of Rudd's downfall. One is left with the impression that it all just kind of happened to a great leader and he was the innocent victim of circumstances. And yet the ALP's own internal report on the 2010 election is strongly critical of Rudd. The report, leaked to the media, has been widely reported and discussed:
ALP post-mortem damns Rudd
A SECRET Labor Party report has criticised the government led by Kevin Rudd as lacking purpose and being driven by spin and implies that the former prime minister or his supporters were behind the leaks that almost destroyed Julia Gillard's election campaign.
Both Coalition and ALP are now making the same strong criticisms of Rudd. I have placed the POV tag because the article reads like something approved by Rudd, highlighting his successes and glossing over his failures. One editor, in previous discussion, said that those seeking such information should look elsewhere. This is not what a supposedly neutral and objective encyclopaedia does. -- Pete ( talk) 16:45, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
Kevin Rudd was the only Prime Minister in Australia's history to be disposed of by his own party in his first term. If that does not mean he was an utter and complete failure as a Prime Minister then what does? His government's two greatest claims for glory - the success in avoiding a (technical) recession and supposedly healing a decades-old rift between white and black Australia with his apology were certainly repeated ad-nauseam by the Kevin Rudd camp. If it was true - why was he such a failure? Why did his Treasurer - The-Man-That-Saved-Australia-from-the-Recession™ - almost lost his Seat in the subsequent elections (getting in only with Greenie preferences, and likely to lose the next elections even with those) if the stimulus package worked so hanky-dory? Because the electorate knows very well that this stimulus package "success" was largely Rudd-spin, I suggest. Other governments (such as the US gov't) who used stimulus found this measure to be largely useless, and plunged into recession anyway. Australia was enjoying a booming Chinese economy which invested billions into the Australian economy and to a significant degree isolated it from the economic problems in U.S. and Europe. That is the certaintly the position of the Opposition (now well ahead in opinion polls, by the way), on the record as making these claims (i.e. that Australia avoiding recession was due to the Chinese-related boom rather than the stimulus package). That debate was repeated by both sides of politics - each pushing their own side (the stimulus package was a success/not) during the last election campaign in 2010. So, by claiming that the stimulus package worked one is taking only one side of politics (now clearly behind in opinion polls) and ignoring the other side's claims. So, who is the POV-pusher? Rtmcrrctr ( talk) 00:16, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
On the stimulus/lack of recession, I can understand Rtmcrrctr's concerns, but the two points are both individually valid. Perhaps, we could say something like "in response to a looming global slowdown, the govt implement stimulus packages to support demand in the economy" (yes, needs word-smithing). This is factual, and doesn't provide credit or criticism. A lead should always, well, "take its lead", from the article proper, and I note that the stimulus package and the avoidance of recession are mentioned separately. Just saying. -- Merbabu ( talk) 05:46, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
On the Apology content, I find the following - praise and criticism - somewhat nauseous...
...and I'd remove both. Both statements are vague and peacockish. The reference is a compilation list of opinion pieces. This is not an objective measure of opinion - it's OR and doesn't provide a NPOV. Wikipedia is often made better by what it doesn't include. -- Merbabu ( talk) 05:55, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This 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. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 |
Here is the diff. Timeshift ( talk) 20:25, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
He was the first incumbent Labor prime minister not to re-contest an election. (lede)
I didn't know how to say it, that was the best I could think of, either way it's more correct than what was there... "He was the first Labor prime minister to be ousted from office before completing a first term". Timeshift ( talk) 07:30, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
It seems an editor has concerns with the wording. It is true that no other Labor PM has not re-contested an election. However there is the matter of Frank Forde... but should he really be counted? Perhaps the sentence should be removed? Timeshift ( talk) 12:40, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
Why did he "stand down"? Timeshift's Kevin Rudd was amazing —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.64.166.222 ( talk) 10:28, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
Timeshift has reverted my removal of the latter word. I removed it because "Rudd Labor enjoyed an unprecedented period of stratospheric popularity" seems to convey exactly the meaning required, whereas "stratospheric" risks being accused of puffery. This is particularly so because "unprecedented" is provable—a fact—whereas "stratospheric" is an "interpersonal epithet", i.e., subjective. I am removing the word again, since the case seems obvious. If anyone objects (apart from Timeshift), please say so here. Tony (talk) 09:00, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
←For "unprecedented level" to mean "low", it would have to be marked as such. The default is "high". Tony (talk) 09:58, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
According to the article, Rudd boarded, but according to this (it's now fascinating going over old articles like this 2003 doozy), he was passed between relatives. Can someone figure which is correct or if they both are in some way? Timeshift ( talk) 16:32, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
"Among the Rudd government's first acts was"... is there a way I can make this can sound less awkward? Timeshift ( talk) 03:59, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
"becoming the first Labor prime minister not to re-contest an election as an incumbent prime minister" in the lead... it really isn't correct. Watson and Forde are two examples of Labor PMs who never contested an election. Any suggestions for a correct, more succinct way to express what is trying to be said? Maybe it shouldn't be in the lead at all? Timeshift ( talk) 14:49, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
Lead is too long. On an unrelated note, I prefer the US Dept of State image. -- Surturz ( talk) 04:15, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
There is nothing wrong with the length of the lead. It's a good size for a long article. The actual content of the lead is another matter. -- Merbabu ( talk) 15:19, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
The current image is has horrendous quality, and I think a more formal image is more suited for this purpose, eg, File:Kevin Rudd 23 Feb 08.jpg, which I can crop to suit a lead image. Connormah talk 22:27, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
Okay, I think it's worth having a proper discussion about this. Below is a gallery of images I've taken from the category on the Commons to aid with comparisons (please add more if you feel they should be included).
Gallery of images of Kevin Rudd
|
---|
Of the images here, I have to agree with Connormah that Kevin Rudd 23 Feb 08.jpg (appropriately cropped) is the best available. I'm going to place notices on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Australian politics and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Australia to get some outside voices and form a proper consensus. -- Lear's Fool 01:17, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
So we're not changing to the suit image that it was changed to earlier this morning. Very good. Timeshift ( talk) 01:52, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
Okay, I realise voting is evil, and I do not mean to imply that this has been a straight vote by what follows, but I have tabulated people's first choices as best I can. Please feel free to alter this table if you feel I have misrepresented your opinion, or you have changed your mind.
User | First Choice |
---|---|
Lear's Fool | Kevin Rudd 23 Feb 08 (cropped) |
Timeshift9 | Kevin Rudd headshot |
Mattinbgn | KevinRuddZoom |
Frickeg | KevinRuddZoom |
CanberraBulldog | Kevin Rudd 23 Feb 08 (cropped) |
Orderinchaos | KevinRuddZoom |
Surturz | Kevin_Rudd_DOS |
Tony | Kevin Rudd headshot |
Melburnian | Kevin Rudd 23 Feb 08 (cropped) |
Connormah | Kevin Rudd 23 Feb 08 (cropped) |
WWGB | Kevin Rudd 23 Feb 08 (cropped) |
Nick-D | KevinRuddZoom |
Романов | Kevin_Rudd_DOS |
Accordingly, I'm going to change the image to File:Kevin Rudd 23 Feb 08 cropped.jpg, but I think I agree with Orderinchaos that it may be worth sending an e-mail to his office to see whether they'll give us a better one. -- Lear's Fool 03:51, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
I was referring to the size that my browser renders it (which is considerably smaller than it's full res). I was always picky about KevinRuddZoom when it was in the article - the bad quality and fuzziness is even evident when scaled to the small resolution used in the infobox, which is, I find, troubling. Lear's cropped image would work the best still IMO. Connormah talk 04:48, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
I've been convinced. I now support Kevin Rudd DOS cropped. Does anyone object to changing this one? Please allow 24 hours to give contributors time to respond to see if a new consensus has been formed before changing it. Thankyou. Timeshift ( talk) 05:44, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
These [ from the photostream of the US Embassy] in Canberra are released under CC-BY-ND. They may be useful in illustrating Rudd as Foreign Minister until other images come through. Mostlyharmless ( talk) 06:40, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
None of the references in footnote 147 seem to support the statement that cite 147 as evidence. I also think it's bad form to cite so many articles in one footnote. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.239.164.172 ( talk) 00:14, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
he stood down in favour of Julia Gillard.. I think that the key part of Rudd's removal was that it wasn't voluntary. The only reason that he failed to contest the leadership ballot called by Gillard is that Rudd knew that the numbers would have humiliated him. Yet our wording suggests that it was a cosey, mutual, voluntary arrangement. Misleading the punters may be the nature of politics, but it isn't the business of an encyclopaedia. -- Pete ( talk) 00:21, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
(ec x 50) I removed the phrase, and not necessarily for POV concerns. Rather, it is unnecessary to state in the first paragraph of a long article the manner in which his PMship ended (and the 2nd or 3rd sentence of the whole article). It’s explained in more detail in the last paragraph of the lead. That first sentence now simply reads: "He was the 26th Prime Minister of Australia, from December 2007 until June 2010." - no POV concerns there i trust? And the (involuntary) nature of his resignation is explained in the final paragraph of the lead.
While there's room for tweaking, I think the lead is a nicely ordered/structure introduction and summary to the subject, and as per WP:LEAD, stands alone as an article in itself.
And please try and be less provocative to each other in your discussion. Stick to the facts. No need for "Has Rudd's media secretary authorised this" and "what part of….don’t you understand". Cut it out for the rest of us, if not for yourselves. cheers - -- Merbabu ( talk) 01:58, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
As a night cabbie in Canberra, mainly working the Airport, Manuka/Kingston, Parliamentary Triangle runs, I get a LOT of political folk - staffers, media, public servants, even the occasional politician - in my cab. They talk. To the cabbie, to their fellow-passengers, on the phone. I had a couple of Rudd's staffers, drunk and emotional, on the night he was rolled. I hear a lot of things. Some of it is nonsense, of course, but with a lot of passengers, you get a feel for what's going on. You hear different versions of the same story. Cabbies tend to be good judges of character, always asking the three questions of each passenger. As well as that, I'm married to a senior public servant, who tells her own tales of long hours wasted away from her real work spent researching information for the PM that was never used. The public service despised Rudd, and I got that story night and day.
I knew Rudd was in trouble before he did, I reckon. Surrounded by yes-men, full of himself, no effective opposition until Abbott stepped up, Rudd was way out of touch.
Now, that's just my opinion. But I also get the Press Gallery in my cab. I could drop a few names, I could mention the recent weekend in the country house of one of the big names, I could mention years of personal contact. I know who's got the goods, who's spinning a line, who is always on one side of the fence.
There are books in the works. Some of the heavy hitters are writing the history of the Rudd downfall. Paul Kelly's is the one I'm hanging out for, but Barrie Cassidy has one out, to be published shortly, and the extracts I've read hit the spot. Let me just say this. Our article on Kevin Rudd misses the mark. In the months ahead, we are going to get a string of solid sources giving the good guff on a toxic Prime Minister. The story that the top political journalists are telling isn't what Wikipedia is saying.
Yes, I know Australian politics is a sensitive area. I don't want to upset other editors, but I want Wikipedia to reflect reality rather than spin. -- Pete ( talk) 22:25, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
in 1988, he was appointed Chief of Staff to the Labor Opposition Leader in Queensland, Wayne Goss. He was then Chief of Staff to the Premier.
This flows poorly. I suggest from 1988 he was Chief of Staff to the Queensland Labor Opposition Leader and later Premier, Wayne Goss. The next sentence implies that he staid on until Goss lost office, but I don't think we need to make it explicit. -- Pete ( talk) 02:16, 5 October 2010 (UTC) Box ticked. -- Pete ( talk) 03:09, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
As the new leader, Rudd gave major announcements on areas such as industrial relations, climate change, an "education revolution", a National Broadband Network, and health.
For the lead, this seems to be excessive, especially as it is phrased as retrospective opinionating. Do we have a contemporary source for this selective list? -- Pete ( talk) 15:06, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
the federal government's role in healthcare funding was increased. This unsourced statement in the lead is not mentioned at all in the main body. I propose to remove it. -- Pete ( talk) 03:08, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
The sole source for healthcare reform in the article says this: 'There is no doubt that reforming the health system has been one of the major achievements of the last two-and-a-half years'.
Well, I'm doubting. Rudd outlined a vision earlier this year, but I'm unaware of any action. Issuing a media release does not constitute "a major achievement" Not in my book. Could someone please enlighten me as to any implementation of Rudd's grand plan, or has it, like the Kingswood, been quietly dropped? If it hasn't happened, it's not an achievement and we're not going to list it as one in our article. -- Pete ( talk) 23:03, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Beginning with Rudd's election to the Labor leadership, the party enjoyed a period of popularity unprecedented in magnitude and length in the opinion polls. In mid-2010, however, the polls showed a sharp drop in both the Labor party's and Rudd's personal electoral standing.
The first sentence is unsupported in the main body of the text, and should therefore be removed. The second sentence is inaccurate - the fatal drop in Rudd's support began in late 2009 and accelerated downhill. The end wasn't as sudden as the article implies - Rudd had a pretty rough six months beginning with Copenhagen. The bad news stories kept coming, Rudd's responses were ineffective, and Tony Abbott kept scoring goals. -- Pete ( talk) 22:03, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Rudd stepped down as Prime Minister and party leader on 24 June 2010, when it became clear that he had lost the support of his party.
To me, this is not a good explanation of the situation. He only "stepped down" because if he had actually contested the leadership ballot won by Gillard, he would have been crushed. We should also briefly explain why he failed after such early promise. Rudd's removal was a rare and puzzling event, especially for overseas observers, who were saying that it seemed very like a coup. -- Pete ( talk) 17:19, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
To my mind, the key point about Rudd's removal is that it was a removal. Left to his own, he would have staid. But, like Hermann Göring at the end, he chose to jump rather than be pushed.
he stood down for Julia Gillard. Let's contrast that with the wording for Göring, the final sentence of a brightlywritten two paragraph lead: He was sentenced to death by hanging, but committed suicide by cyanide ingestion the night before he was due to be hanged. We need to tell the whole story, and while the lengthy final para here goes some way towards that end, I think that by blandly saying that Rudd "stood down", we are misrepresenting the situation. It is like saying that Göring committed suicide without explaining why.
I also note that we are now revisiting the same material with which I commenced my project. Are we going to go around in circles on this, in effect having a long, draining and disruptive edit war? Surely we can sort out acceptable wording and stick to it. -- Pete ( talk) 15:19, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
The family was compelled to leave the farm under hardship. This does not seem to tell the complete story. While the fatherless Rudd family was required to leave the farm, it seems that they were not immediately evicted, not until six months after the death of Albert Rudd, contrary to Rudd's recollection of being put on the street the following day.
Kevin Rudd: I think my father's death was difficult at an early age, being evicted actually was the harder bit because we were share farmers, we didn't own the property so bury Dad one day and get tossed off the property virtually the next with nowhere to go and no assets because you don't own a house if you're a share farmer either. My mother had been a nurse during the war in Brisbane and then in the early 70's had to retrain as a nurse to bring us up so she has semi-hero status in my life having done all of that.
Julia Baird: No wonder. You've said that you were very angry about that eviction, I mean how did that anger show itself at the time?
Kevin Rudd: In so far as you can reflect back on how you felt as a kid, as opposed to what you thought you might have felt as a kid, I suppose I'd call it this, that I had the earliest flickering of a sense of justice and injustice and I just thought it was plain wrong that that could happen to anybody or that you didn't have anywhere there to go and stay and that was really tough. It was a deep sense of loss of dignity which I felt vicariously through my mother but I think growing up in a strong country party environment and therefore no sort of Labor views within Cooee I think it actually caused early gestation of an idea of justice and injustice. -- ABC
However, this is contrary to the story told by the landlord's daughter in an interview:
When Bert died our father had no choice but to employ a new farmer. It was the biggest dairy farm on the Sunshine Coast and there were more than 120 cows that needed milking morning and night. Margaret would always have known at some point, inevitably, an incoming farmer would have to occupy the farmhouse. But provisions were put in place by our father for Margaret. He explained to her she could remain on the farm, at no cost whatsoever, until such time as the new farmer arrived. What Kevin has always failed to state is that the new farmer didn't even arrive until July - that's almost six months after his father's death. During that entire time, our family continued to run the farm. There was absolutely no reason for them to have left until the new farmer arrived in July. To continuously say he was evicted immediately after his dad's funeral is quite an unbelievable statement. Not only does he blame our father for the so-called eviction, he subsequently mentions having to sleep rough in a car -- SMH
Here we have Kevin Rudd finding the roots of his ALP career in an injustice that never happened. I don't think Wikipedia should be a party to this. -- Pete ( talk) 23:25, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
I've been reading Barrie Cassidy's book "The Party Thieves" and he provides more details on this story. Briefly, Rudd was rising to prominence and using the death of his father and the eviction of his family as a way to explain the anger he felt and his joining the ALP to set things straight. He described being evicted within days or weeks of his father's death. The children of the now deceased landowner spoke up, feeling that their father had been slandered, that Rudd's widowed mother had been told she could stay on, rent-free, for as long as it took to find a replacement share-farmer, which happened to be six months. It was not just the length of time in dispute, but also the language used.
Now, recollections of events forty years ago may differ, especially when the participants were children at the time. What is really interesting, as Cassidy explains, is that Rudd the adult politician went to extraordinary lengths to attempt to prevent any statements contradicting his own from being published. Rudd lies - as does any politician - but there's something in him that doesn't want to admit it - or be found out. I've met people like this, usually somewhere along the OCD or autistic spectrum. They tend to be hard, focussed workers. Tireless and detail-oriented. They make great sub-editors. But they are difficult to work with, because they don't have that emotional ability to get along with others if there is any conflict. They can't laugh away an error. They go to pieces when painted into a corner.
I'm not saying Rudd is one of these people. But the bells are ringing for me. The celebrated "rat-fuckers" tirade in Copenhagen when the Chinese wouldn't play ball. Before Abbott opposed Rudd's ETS and the Chinese sank Copenhagen, Rudd saw himself as the man who was going to save the world by drawing up the compact that would reduce emissions and lead the kings and presidents into signing it. After Copenhagen, he was a broken man.
David Marr, a man of the Left, found Rudd an interesting case, full of contradictions, and "driven by rage". His essay made it possible to others to criticise Rudd, and the stories of rage behind closed doors, of ridiculous levels of micro-management, of important matters left hanging for weeks or months began to surface.
I say this, not because I want to have a go at Rudd, but because I think that his psychological makeup is key to understanding the man, and consequently must be a key plank in our article. The decline and defeat of Rudd is one of the great political stories of the past half century, but we seem to brush over it as poor polls and factional leaders. Yet Barrie Cassidy pours scorn on this notion, noting that no factional heavies could muster up the votes needed in a matter of minutes - which was all the time available on the night. Rudd's back isn't full of knives wielded by party colleagues - they came from the front and Rudd never saw them coming until too late.
I urge my fellow editors to read Cassidy's book - and the others that will surely follow.
I'm going to start work on a sub-article based on Rudd's downfall. It's a big story, we don't do it justice, there are plentiful sources around. -- Pete ( talk) 18:58, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
I have been going through this article, top to bottom, highlighting material that seems to be contrary to our policies, mainly through being misleading or unsupported. I quote the material, state why I find it problematic, and indicate my intentions. If after a day or two no objection has been raised, I make the changes as flagged.
Looking at this diff, labelled reverting disputed changes made without consensus, I find that my edits, announced days earlier, have been reverted by an editor who apparently missed his chance to comment. May I ask Timeshift to comment on this, please? In both cases the material was unsourced, and unreferenced in the main body of the article. It was removed in accordance with WP:SOURCE and WP:LEAD and the only objection raised in discussion was minor.
To make the statement "unprecedented in magnitude and length" in the lead requires both those adjectives to be supported by the body of the article, in turn supported by reliable sources. At the moment, the article says "During their first two years in office, Rudd and the ALP government set records for popularity in Newspoll polling." The sources on which that statement is used refer to "magnitude" (ie the height of Rudd's poll numbers) but not length. [2] [3] I don't even know how "length" can properly be measured. I think more work is needed with the sourcing and in the body of the article to make "unprecedented in magnitude and length" not an OR statement. I know it's probably true, but verifiability is more important that truth. Additionally, the statement can't cover the 70 odd years of Australian politics before polling began, which is another problem with making such a sweeping statement in the lede.-- Mkativerata ( talk) 23:51, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
To say that health funding was not a significant issue for Rudd is frankly bs. That however does not mean that the current coverage in the article is good or that there is no problem. And, it's not mentioned in the Rudd Government article either (why on earth not?). While i don't support Skyring's suggestion that it's not notable, he is correct in saying that it's (a) not cited and (b) not mentioned in the article. It needs work, and while technically justified (read wikilawyer's point of view) the recent removal from the article, I don't support at this stage. There are far more constructive solutions. Why not cite it, re-word it, and/or provide info in the article proper??? -- Merbabu ( talk) 00:07, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
I'll wait another day for discussion, and if the material remains unsourced, remove it. -- Pete ( talk) 01:31, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
Timeshift's revert is just back to his preferred version that he created in July. Hardly consensus. And it's a poor lead. Nothing happened to Rudd between 1957 and 2001? Every change I made to the lead I made carefully and explained - in light of that such a hard revert is pure vandalism and WP:OWN. There's clearly no consensus for his July version if both myself and Skyring are trying to change it. Perhaps we could go back to the pre-TImeshift version? Or would it be more constructive to work on a lead that covers his whole life and career, rather than one that spends 3 paragraphs on his time as Labor leader.
I'm taking Timeshift's hard revert has Revert 1. More than happy to get admins in. -- Merbabu ( talk) 01:45, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
Moving on - Skyring, if there is something in the lead that is not mentioned in the body of the article, with cites, then please bring it up here before removing it. Give it 7 days. Then if it is not there, then it can be removed. Please don't go over old ground that's been resolved - ie "stratospheric". We all got the point, it was fixed, and we moved on. I'd like to think that I've been reasonable enough about accommodating your requests so far. cheers -- Merbabu ( talk) 01:58, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
UPDATE: I've started a health care section in the article. Only a small sentence so far. But it has a cite - the one from Timeshift's lead. Needs expansion. I've also added a few words back into the lead - it seems that Skyring agrees that health was significant to Rudd's PMship (and we can presume that Timeshift does too!) -- Merbabu ( talk) 02:05, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
I would like to propose an award, for inspired image placement, regarding this edit. -- Pete ( talk) 22:14, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
I have removed this bit from the article due to myself reading this piece which I was quite surprised at. With this new evidence to light, one has to question the reliability and noteability of WP:RS pieces used. Discussion most welcome. Timeshift ( talk) 01:02, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
What we found was that under every possible scenario, the government insulation program – far from increasing the rates of fire occurring from installing insulation – actually reduced the rate of fires and likely reduced the rate in a quite substantial manner.
(outdent): I’ve been clear enough about my position on temporary removal that is doesn’t need repeating, again. As for new wording, I can help out: ie, you propose a change in either main space (be bold) and/or talk page, and I will edit and/or comment respectively as required. But, I have suggested you propose something a number of times already. You can guess what my response would be if it involves removal (as opposed to copy editing) of any of the current info. -- Merbabu ( talk) 02:47, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
I can understand this discussion but I can't understand the blanking? Shouldn't the information STAY until new wording is created? Also, wasn't the four deaths and fires related to HIP because the householders only took up the insulation and the workers were only installing BECAUSE of the HIP program?
With Garrett's page - I'm putting this part back in - It was revealed in May 2010 that Mr Garrett had written to the then Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, on four separate occasions raising concerns about safety. [1] as it is fact.
This part - I can understand why it is POV - maybe it should be placed in Rudd's page but I still think it explains the demotion of Garrett under the HIP program so can you please inform me why you think it is POV and should be deleted?
And with the above discussion - I guess the agreed wording for Rudd's page should be included on Garrett's page Cheers CanberraBulldog ( talk) 02:56, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
What was it? Clearly it was a brutally forced resignation after weeks of underming from his 'loyal' deputy and factional 'allies'. Frankly 'The end of Rudd's prime ministership' doesn't cut it and 'Undermining and fall' is to straight forward for the honourable leaders article. Possibly User:Timeshift9 would like to give Head Office a call and see what best disguises it for us? Романов ( talk) 07:04, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
The lead's description of the 23-24 June events looked like a whitewash to me so I've just changed it. -- Mkativerata ( talk) 05:35, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
I don't think that these are really all that significant. US Ambassador Robert McCallum's assessment of Rudd is sort-of interesting, but not very important in comparison to the fact that Rudd's colleagues also developed this view and removed him from office as a result. I've just re-removed the uncited claim that Rudd's comments about China will damage his position as foreign minister (the comments are broadly in line with the Australian Government's published Defence White Paper, so are unlikely to come as much of a shock to the Chinese). Nick-D ( talk) 07:50, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
I disagree - the comments are hugely significant coming from the US ambassador. Furthermore, the current news coverage supports the (referenced) comment on the damage to Rudd's position as foreign minister. His comments on China are not 'broadly in line with the ... White Paper' and are especially significant given they were made to Australia's most important military ally about its (currently) most important trading partner. Rudd's comments to al-Arabiya television support the importance of the leak ("Therefore we in Australia condemn the release of this material. It helps nobody. In fact, it is a real problem for us all."). If it was ‘unlikely to come as much of a shock to the Chinese’ then why would Rudd himself consider it a ‘real problem’? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maturescence ( talk • contribs) 08:56, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
Re my last 'undo' – it seems we are working from the same page/political viewpoint, but I believe it discredits Wiki if it is seen to avoid/cover up uncomfortable facts for political expedience. Maturescence 11:05, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
Firstly, please stop implying that those of us who don't agree with this material being included are doing so to conceal inconvenient information: Everyone here is participating in this discussion in good faith. I must reiterate Nick-D's analysis, which I (and others) find convincing. His comments are broadly in line with the implications of the white paper, and the fact that he was less diplomatic with his phrasing in public does not make the remarks exceptional. Regarding international coverage, it is common for individuals such as this to receive broad coverage for one-off news items that have little or no bearing on that which makes them notable. It is incumbent on us, the editors of an encyclopaedia, to give appropriate weight to each of these events. -- Lear's Fool 03:19, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Under the section of Foreign Affairs Minister, there is only a miniscule amount of writing when we have the Wikileaks leak of what Kevin Rudd thinks about China to talk about. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaitwith ( talk • contribs) 05:20, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
I queried the listing of healthcare reform as one of Rudd's achievements some time back. The only cite we had was a grab from Rudd's exit speech, where he stated his accomplishments, many of which never got beyond the media release stage. It's time to look at what was actually achieved, and that isn't a real lot. The healthcare thing never got past signing of agreements. Not one dollar changed hands on this. Gillard is yet to introduce legislation, and the word is that if she ever does, it's going to be significantly scaled back.
Climate change was basically a series of grand ideas that never went anywhere, and Gillard is scrapping the non-grand schemes.
It's time to go through the article and scale back the praise. He actually did very little, though he talked a real lot. -- Pete ( talk) 10:54, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
If there's any proof needed that Skyring is biased, it's this pearler! "Dennis Shanahan is the chief political editor for The Australian. He's not some biased blogger." - true gold. Timeshift ( talk) 22:55, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
"Rudd's record of failure" So, Skyring has a position (and argued with flowery language) that he would like wikipedia to emulate, and he now needs endorsement for his chosen sources. Last time I looked, that's not how I understand it works.-- Merbabu ( talk) 04:06, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, dunno how else to really address the question.
I remember a while back the whole debacle that came about over Kevin Rudd verbally attacking his support staff on a couple of flights, both domestic and international. On one occasion he made a stewardess break down and cry because they couldn't offer Rudd a specific meal he wanted. On a couple other occasions, I believe one of which was on a military charted flight, he did something similar to the ladies in the Air Force running his flight.
It wasn't just one or two incidents either, he had a reputation of being a general douche to his support staff throughout his entire career.
Now you're probably sitting there scrtaching your head wondering why I'm even writing this. Fair point. I have nothing against Rudd, and I care little for politics. It's just I've seen a lot less severe actions being listed against a figure within their personal wikipedia article. I just found it odd that something like this is no where to be seen on his article, since I do believe it's noteworthy.
If anyone is interested, I could most likely find relevant articles to back up the above. If I recall correctly, it was covered quite a bit by all the News stations (Not just Nine or Ten, but SBS and ABC too) and most newspapers, such as the Sydney Morning Herald, and a few others, carried it too.
Anyone feel like weighing in on this? I mean it was in the news for a period of weeks, and IMO It's fairly noteworthy if a leading political figure had a reputation for verbally abusing his support staff. Akaricloud ( talk) 08:15, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
(ec) One thing that is not mentioned is Rudd’s lack of factional support. Initially trumpeted as something new and refreshing – ie, a positive – it is now cited as the reason for his downfall. Ie, lack of factional support was fine as long as the polls were good, but as soon as the polls went south, there was no one or no faction sticking out their neck for him. -- Merbabu ( talk) 03:25, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Rudd announced a significant and far-reaching strategic reform to Australian healthcare in 2010.[118] However, this was not pursued beyond in-principle agreements with Labor State and Territory governments, and was scrapped by Julia Gillard during her first year in office.[119][120]
This section is tagged as "needing expansion". Since nothing really changed in the healthcare system under Rudd's PM-ship, I propose that we delete the section entirely. Rudd promised something and then was ousted before he could deliver. The ETS, not healthcare, was the main political topic associated with his downfall. I don't think the topic warrants inclusion. -- Surturz ( talk) 03:33, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
The line "is the former 26th prime minister" should be changed to "was the 26th prime minister". Saying "former 26th prime minister" implies there is a current 26th prime minister. - unsigned by 202.124.72.36.
I think the intro would be better phrased thus: "Kevin Michael Rudd (born 21 September 1957) is an Australian politician. He served from 2007 to 2010 as the 26th Prime Minister of Australia, and is currently the Minister for Foreign Affairs." -- Surturz ( talk) 15:10, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
I've just removed this section as the material was sourced (and basically copied and pasted) from an opinion article. The article states that the $60 million figure is Rudd and Thérèse Rein's combined wealth, and I'm pretty sure that I've read that Rein earned most of this money. While it's likely that at least some of the money is shared, this is far from certain given that Rein is a very active businesswoman. As such, it seems a bit misleading to say that Rudd's the richest PM Australia has ever had. Nick-D ( talk) 00:04, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
Just wondering regarding K Rudd's personal life. He's been dropping the f-bomb, saying that Chinese are "rat-f--kers". Not sure if that incident about him in the bar is included in here, couldn't find the keyword "bar" in the article, but then again didn't read through the entire article. Twigfan ( talk) 14:00, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
Kevin Rudd's government was a disaster. He ran a government elected with a landslide and huge personal and party popularity ratings down to the point where Tony Abbott had a good chance of victory. In a single term. Rudd was removed by his own party in a sudden coup. Rudd's problems were not caused by outside forces - he created his own disasters through an autocratic and erratic management style and a failure to deliver on promises, most notably the carbon tax scheme.
And yet the article provides little information to the reader on the details of Rudd's downfall. One is left with the impression that it all just kind of happened to a great leader and he was the innocent victim of circumstances. And yet the ALP's own internal report on the 2010 election is strongly critical of Rudd. The report, leaked to the media, has been widely reported and discussed:
ALP post-mortem damns Rudd
A SECRET Labor Party report has criticised the government led by Kevin Rudd as lacking purpose and being driven by spin and implies that the former prime minister or his supporters were behind the leaks that almost destroyed Julia Gillard's election campaign.
Both Coalition and ALP are now making the same strong criticisms of Rudd. I have placed the POV tag because the article reads like something approved by Rudd, highlighting his successes and glossing over his failures. One editor, in previous discussion, said that those seeking such information should look elsewhere. This is not what a supposedly neutral and objective encyclopaedia does. -- Pete ( talk) 16:45, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
Kevin Rudd was the only Prime Minister in Australia's history to be disposed of by his own party in his first term. If that does not mean he was an utter and complete failure as a Prime Minister then what does? His government's two greatest claims for glory - the success in avoiding a (technical) recession and supposedly healing a decades-old rift between white and black Australia with his apology were certainly repeated ad-nauseam by the Kevin Rudd camp. If it was true - why was he such a failure? Why did his Treasurer - The-Man-That-Saved-Australia-from-the-Recession™ - almost lost his Seat in the subsequent elections (getting in only with Greenie preferences, and likely to lose the next elections even with those) if the stimulus package worked so hanky-dory? Because the electorate knows very well that this stimulus package "success" was largely Rudd-spin, I suggest. Other governments (such as the US gov't) who used stimulus found this measure to be largely useless, and plunged into recession anyway. Australia was enjoying a booming Chinese economy which invested billions into the Australian economy and to a significant degree isolated it from the economic problems in U.S. and Europe. That is the certaintly the position of the Opposition (now well ahead in opinion polls, by the way), on the record as making these claims (i.e. that Australia avoiding recession was due to the Chinese-related boom rather than the stimulus package). That debate was repeated by both sides of politics - each pushing their own side (the stimulus package was a success/not) during the last election campaign in 2010. So, by claiming that the stimulus package worked one is taking only one side of politics (now clearly behind in opinion polls) and ignoring the other side's claims. So, who is the POV-pusher? Rtmcrrctr ( talk) 00:16, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
On the stimulus/lack of recession, I can understand Rtmcrrctr's concerns, but the two points are both individually valid. Perhaps, we could say something like "in response to a looming global slowdown, the govt implement stimulus packages to support demand in the economy" (yes, needs word-smithing). This is factual, and doesn't provide credit or criticism. A lead should always, well, "take its lead", from the article proper, and I note that the stimulus package and the avoidance of recession are mentioned separately. Just saying. -- Merbabu ( talk) 05:46, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
On the Apology content, I find the following - praise and criticism - somewhat nauseous...
...and I'd remove both. Both statements are vague and peacockish. The reference is a compilation list of opinion pieces. This is not an objective measure of opinion - it's OR and doesn't provide a NPOV. Wikipedia is often made better by what it doesn't include. -- Merbabu ( talk) 05:55, 26 December 2011 (UTC)