Talk:Kevin Rudd

What's the G-20?

Is the PM's alleged leaking of a conversation where President Bush exhibited ignorance of the G20 notable[1]? I don't think it is, but then again editors seemed very keen to include Howard's comments about Obama in that article... --Surturz (talk) 04:08, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Your second half of the comment appears quite the WP:SOAPBOX and WP:POINT. Howard stating that terrorists are praying for "a win not only for Obama, but also for the Democrats", in parliament, is far cry from allegations re G20 that from day one has been hammered by The Australian. Timeshift (talk) 04:29, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the article in today's Oz mentioned the Obama quote. But thanks for the personal attack, anyway ;-) --Surturz (talk) 04:53, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

All the media did, as it was a big deal, even bigger now that Obama is president. And no worries! Timeshift (talk) 05:03, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

If you think Obama is president, maybe you should get someone to check your contributions for accuracy. The Howard/Obama stuff is irrelevant here, but it looks like the leaking is fair dinkum - every paper, every news report on Rudd and Bush linked Bush's lack of warmth with the leaked conversation. To butter the bread on the other side, it is sourced and notable. --Pete (talk) 05:20, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah the ABC, SBS and SMH picked up the story, so it's not just a news.com.au beat-up. If we apply the same criteria to this sordid episode as was applied to the Obama quote, then the Bush-G20 quote should be included. (BTW check this URL out: [2]) --Surturz (talk) 05:32, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Except that one was in parliament and one was on a phone call that is still alleged; and one said terrorists prayed for an Obama/Democrat victory and one we don't even know exactly what was said, but nothing along the lines of partisan destroying politics. And President/President-elect, have fun playing the sematics game Pete. Timeshift (talk) 05:39, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I knew what you meant - an easy mistake to make. No offence intended! The leaked phone call is a valid story, well-sourced and affecting an important relationship. If the US president is pissed off at us, it's notable. --Pete (talk) 05:48, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Spokesmen for both sides said it was a non-event, nothing happened, water under the bridge, and there was no change in anything. If you want to go by media sensationalism that Bush wasn't warm to Rudd the other day, that's up to you. Timeshift (talk) 05:51, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

It's a valid and important front-page story, with reliable sources. Respected political commentators have made the link. While we should always take what the media says with a grain of salt, an entire salt shaker is required when dealing with political spin-doctors! They are very dubious sources. --Pete (talk) 05:59, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Since when does being a front-page story from reliable sources make an issue WP:NOTE and WP:V? Timeshift (talk) 06:01, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I'll throw your question over to Lester. --Pete (talk) 06:08, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Nice copout. The silence is deafening. Timeshift (talk) 06:14, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Can only speak for myself, but I have opposed most of the proposed inclusions from the other side as well on a similar basis to my opposition on this occasion. Orderinchaos 08:11, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

An excellent question indeed! --Surturz (talk) 06:23, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

What point are you trying to make? It's been said time and time again that news articles from reliable sources does not establish noteability. It does however form part of an argument to demonstrate noteability. The Obama issue was debated, and all things considered, it was added and is now there based upon the decisions of the collective wikipedia community. This issue pales in comparison to the Obama issue. Just one of many points, all of this current issue is based upon speculation and hearsay, regarding what Bush may or may not have said, as opposed to the Obama issue, where Howard, in parliament, said an Obama/Democrat win would be a win for the terrorists. Reliable sources form part of an argument, they are not a defining feature of noteability. Timeshift (talk) 07:45, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

The whole thing is basically the mother of all beatups - there *is* no reliable sources because noone on either side has confirmed the exchange even occurred? It's basically a headline looking for a story (and not finding one). I talked recently to an American editor about this matter who found it hilarious that for something making such headlines in Australia none of the major US papers had even mentioned it, especially looking at the New York Times, Washington Post etc which tend to report on international topics affecting the US. I also recall the sincere and strong opposition to the inclusion at all of the actual, televised, without-a-doubt comments by Howard about Obama by the very same editors pushing this one, and really have to wonder if partisanship has actually been left at the door. Orderinchaos 07:55, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

My concern is with the hypocrisy on display. It's a valid story, well-sourced, and given supporting credence by Bush snubbing Rudd. This is actual factual material about the relationship between two national leaders. Are we to believe the spin that nothing untoward happened and The Australian just made it up? Or, if we take everything at face value, we have Rudd untruthfully ascribing an ignorant comment to Bush and reporting it to The Australian, perhaps as a thoughtless jest. Now, I noted at the time that the Howard/Obama spat was notional, as Obama was a long way from the presidency. But this is real. There's a problem with the US/Australian relationship, and either it's caused by Rudd gleefully repeating an ignorant comment by Bush, or untruthfully alleging that Bush said it. Either way, Bush is rightfully upset. As Rudd makes much of his diplomatic experience, this is a gaffe of the first magnitude, and should be included in his biography. We don't have to speculate, because there are any number of respected commentators saying the same thing, and I'm merely summarising their comments. --Pete (talk) 09:12, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

It is not "actual factual material". Everyone involved, including the allegedly slighted party, has denied it. (Compare this with Obama where Obama actually responded to it). No-one witnessed it, or has been prepared to come forward and say they did. There's not even proof that it came from Rudd or was even political (it could have been journalists joking over a drink and someone assumed someone knew or had heard more than they had - I used to work at Channel 9, news can start that way.) There's no "problem with the US/Australian relationship" if the statements coming from the US, the sheer lack of statements in reliable American or international papers, and Rudd's ability to meet with VERY senior people in the US administration on this visit and etc is anything to go by. "Supporting credence by Bush snubbing Rudd" - he shook his hand, that's hardly a snub - and you wouldn't expect brotherly relations given Rudd pulled Australia out of Iraq and is not committing more to Afghanistan, and is not ideologically linked to Bush as were Sarkozy and Berlusconi, the two that Australian media have singled out as comparisons. There is no "facts", it's all speculation in a single newspaper which got a bit carried away and stuff Wikipedia would do well to stay away from. Orderinchaos 10:27, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually, smh has a fairly detailed account of how the telephone call was leaked. So that is at least two papers covering it, in addition to the ABC and SBS. --Surturz (talk) 12:15, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually, no it doesn't. It merely contains the *single line*: "Mr Rudd slipped into the adjacent study to take the call, of which a blow-by-blow account contends Mr Rudd was "stunned" when Mr Bush asked: "What's the G20?"" It doesn't even suggest how it was "leaked". The originator of the "blow-by-blow" account, or even the contents of it, have never come out or been disclosed. I would dismiss this as anonymous speculation being reported by the newspaper and being drummed into a story by the editor of The Australian. Orderinchaos 12:21, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

The facts are plain. The Australian reported, presumably with the authority of the editor-in-chief, who was present at Kirribilli, that "during the 30-minute conversation, Mr Rudd was stunned to hear Mr Bush say: "What's the G20?"" In an editorial, most certainly with the full approval of the senior staff, The Australian states, "We stand by the story with confidence."[3] That's one fact. The second fact is widely reported, with footage, that Bush's greeting of Rudd at the G20 summit was cool, in marked contrast to his enthusiastic public greeting of other leaders. We are used to Bush greeting John Howard with genuine warmth, but the Rudd/Bush relationship is widely reported as being frosty.[4]

We don't know what Rudd and Bush said to each other. I'm certainly not trying to present that as a fact. What we have is a widely-reported conversation in which Bush is supposed to have stunned Rudd with his ignorance of the G20. A third fact is that both Rudd and Bush have denied that Bush was ignorant of the G20, which, considering that Bush had convened the meeting two days earlier, has the ring of truth. So it seems that Rudd gave an untruthful account of the conversation, with the aim of ridiculing Bush, to his guests. Whether deliberate or as an idle jest, it was a gaffe that is all the more notable considering Rudd's diplomatic background. If the story was "journalists joking over a drink", then it is most unlikely that The Australian would state in an editorial, three weeks later, that it stands by the story with confidence.

It is worth looking at commentary from outside The Australian, such as Andrew Bolt's examination of Rudd's attempts to defend himself.[5]

We have reliable sources and we have notability in the heads-of-government relationship. The story and its effect on the relationship are the actual-factual material, not some high-level conversation we have no way of verifying, so I'd appreciate it if we could firmly bury that particular red herring and stick with verifiable facts as reported by reliable sources. --Pete (talk) 13:46, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Except that there are no verifiable facts or reliable sources. We have the word of a newspaper editor against both of the protagonists in the tale. The fact that an editor defends his own journalist merely demonstrates loyalty in the face of questioning, as one would expect in any situation where the facts are unclear at best, but it does not speak for the facts. Any of the evidence regarding "frostiness" is pure speculation and original research, especially given Rudd got to meet one-on-one with Bernanke, Paulson and one other whom I don't remember at this point during his visit, which contradicts any sort of notion of a diplomatic freeze over the incident. Also, The Australian has made plenty of errors in the past. I think the attempt to use Andrew Bolt as an independent source is the height of clutching at straws, unfortunately. Orderinchaos 18:27, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

If you could, perhaps, read what I wrote and respond to it, that might be helpful. My concern here is that I can't trust Wikipedia to be a useful source of information on Australian politics, because people keep on battling away to present their favoured political football team in as favorable a light as possible and to sink the boot into the other side. --Pete (talk) 20:19, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

But that just shows your bias Pete, that you believe the two issues hold the same WP:NOTE, and WP:V, which they do not. Have a great day! Timeshift (talk) 23:01, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I trust you can see the irony in your statement, Timeshift. Those words are exactly what Skyring could say about your position, but reversed.

As for me, “beat up” indeed. Keep it out. When are editors going to get serious and quit “barracking for their team”, and contribute in a manner than earns them, and wikipedia’s Oz political articles some cred? With reference to the Howard-Obama drama, the double standards here are appalling. --Merbabu (talk) 23:21, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Orderinchaos sums it up best. This issue is all speculation and not WP:V. The comments Howard made about Obama are completely WP:V, it was said in parliament! But that aside, this issue pales in comparison to Howard saying a party and their presidential nominees success would be a win for terrorists. Timeshift (talk) 23:34, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

(remove indent)While the *events* may not be verifiable, the *issue* certainly is and I’d argue that since it has had an impact already at G20 amongst two actual leaders (as opposed to a candidate and now former leader) it is *marginally more* worthy of inclusion than the Howard-Obama drama. But, this is irrelevant – neither point is worthy of inclusion in either article, and IMO those arguing for the inclusion of either need to seriously think about what sort of an encyclopaedia they want. Both these suggest an articles that are trivial, recentish and laundry list of “barracking for ones’ team”. Very interesting to once again see consistency in the supporters. --Merbabu (talk) 23:44, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm quite disappointed in your lack of WP:AGF Merbabu. Each issue is taken on its merits, one is WP:NOTE and WP:V, one isn't. If you call that “barracking for ones’ team”, I pity you. Timeshift (talk) 23:57, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

As I am actually in *agreement* with you on the worthiness of the “G20 issue” inclusion (aleit for not completely identical reasoning), I will not further request anyone addresses my distinction between the verifiability of the *events* and the *issue*. And thanks for both the links to the most fundamental of wikipedia policy and for the “pity”. As a long standing wikipedia editor, I need both. ;-) --Merbabu (talk) 00:31, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

And again, news articles from reliable sources in itself does not establish either WP:NOTE, or WP:V, each issue must be judged on its merits. Howard addressed parliament, and stated a victory for one of the major parties, and their potential President, would be a victory for terrorists. Tell me, what did Rudd say? Kgo. Timeshift (talk) 09:43, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

• Oh look, Timeshift seems happy to trust an anonymous reporter when they quote mysterious, unnamed Liberal MPs. However, if a named senior reporter quotes a named MP, that's unreliable. You've been caught red-handed, Timeshift9. --Surturz (talk) 14:41, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Your lack of WP:AGF is disturbing. It is one thing to claim Rudd said something about Bush/G20 without knowing who is claiming it, what was said, the context, etc etc, it is another when Liberal MPs are accusing other Liberal MPs of plagiarising (fact) and not being up to their cabinet position, regardless of which Liberal MP said it, with other Liberal MPs telling those de-stabilising Liberal MPs to pull their heads in. Right from the beginning of the G20 debate, you agreed it was not noteable, but used the Obama/Howard issue (which was included in the Howard article after much discussion by many contributors) in a WP:POINTy fashion. I respectfully request you improve your attitude to the encyclopedia, it is not cohesive nor constructive. Timeshift (talk) 13:26, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

To be frankly honest - 1. Disputes on other pages' edits should be brought up either on that article's talk page or on the user's. Using this page as a laundry list of grievances against editors is really not acceptable - it's for discussions on how to improve Kevin Rudd. 2. This incident, like the G20 situation, shows us once again how reporters sometimes make the news rather than report it, and we should stick to the facts and avoid speculation or partisan commentary, whether reported in a supposedly reliable source such as a newspaper or not. A good story needs only the facts to tell it, readers can read the source articles and the facts as presented and reach their own conclusions. Orderinchaos 14:16, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

"John Howard generates a lot of media attention every day of the week, merely by being Prime Minister. Looking at today's papers, I find only peripheral mentions of this particular story. I doubt that there is any media frenzy in US papers over the issue. The fact is that it is no big deal and does not belong in a biographical article. As I said, if it still has legs in a month's time, then by all means include it. in the meantime, write it up in WikiNews. --Pete 02:03, 15 February 2007 (UTC)" -- Peter Ballard (talk) 22:51, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Precisely. It's an issue in a way that the Howard/Obama thing never was and never will be. Front page news, with pictures and footage of Rudd smiling and Bush not, and every journalist making the connection. It's a sock in the teeth for Rudd's diplomatic credentials to have made such a cock-up with a major ally. And yet we have editors anxious to keep Rudd's article free from anything that reflects badly on him. Why? Not because of Rudd himself, who is a mere human being like everyone else, capable of errors and misjudgments, wins and losses, bad days and good. Oh no. It's because Rudd belongs to their chosen political football team and they must sing the team song. We're supposed to be writing an encyclopaedia, not trying to put a gloss on the facts. --Pete (talk) 01:23, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

The telephone leak issue is certainly notable, it was covered internationally (The Times London, BBC etc etc), so on that basis I'd support the inclusion of a brief sentence on it, with the proviso that it is verifiable, or else carries the word "alleged".--Lester 03:28, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Well spotted Lester for this reference you found over at James Bidgood (Australian politician). --Surturz (talk) 04:12, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

LGBT rights

How is it that LGBT rights gets such extensive coverage compared to, say, a very short sentence on the Iraq war? Isn't this undue WP:WEIGHT? --Surturz (talk) 02:27, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome to expand on the Iraq War. We don't remove to compensate for others with lesser, we improve the lesser to bring it up to pace. Timeshift (talk) 02:54, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, Timeshift. On the other hand, we don’t hold back from expanding one so as not to make it too big in comparison to another. Wikipedia is a work in progress. And hence we should trim where sections waffle on with detail such that the main point is obscured. This is a biography of a person, not the intricacies of LGBT and federal/state politics. --Merbabu (talk) 02:59, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

edit conflict

I think comparing word counts of various sections or points is a dubious method of assessing article neutrality – wikipedia is afterall always a work in progress. However, considering these two sections in isolation, then indeed the Iraq section seems a bit short, while the LGBT section does seem to waffle on a bit. Purely from an editing point of view, I’d recommend expanding the former, and trimming the latter. I don’t really think this has anything to do with undue weight nor in turn nopv/neutrality.

The length and excessive detail of the LGBT section on the other hand brings me to another point: this level of detail would fit very well in a timeline-style Rudd Government article. ;-) --Merbabu (talk) 02:56, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Surturz, you're welcome to start expanding the Iraq War section. The LGBT section is too brief, and shouldn't be shortened. Rudd has said he is personally opposed to LGBT marriage. I'm against splitting this article like the Howard one, but if it were done, it would be the Iraq War that would get moved to the 'Government' article. Because LGBT marriage is a personal issue for Rudd, it should stay in the 'Kevin Rudd' article.--Lester 03:04, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Again, word count is not the sole criteria for measuring “due weight” - in fct, I think it's a poor way to judge. You don’t need 20 sentences to assert notability – depending on the circumstance, 1 well-written sentence is more than adequate.That’s a very poor way to write an article. There are 2 whole articles (that I know of) for LGBT details. The article waffling on about the ACT’s disappointment with the situation does *nothing* to assert notions of “due weight”. Yet, now your proposing expanding it?

If, for example, LGBT issues are indeed a "personal issue for Rudd", then just say that in the article - we then clearly assert notability to Rudd in a few words (without the details), writing 20 sentences as Lester seems to sugggest, doesn't assert notability of the issue.

An exercise: Imagine that the 20-odd 1st term issues already here were expanded to the same size as the LGBT section (or larger still as Lester proposes), then multiply this by 3 as we are one year through a 3-year term, then times this by 2 as the Govt will likely win at least another term, and you have the mother-of-all-messes. Please see WP:SUMMARY. --Merbabu (talk) 03:16, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflic)PS, a constructive suggestion (would one expect anything less from me?): Keep the punchline/s here in this article, shift the all the details here or LGBT rights in Australia. --Merbabu (talk) 03:05, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree, I think the section waffles too much, so we would be better with a two sentence paragraph summarising 1) What views Rudd has expressed 2) What Rudd has actually done wrt LGBT rights. I'm far from informed on this issue; is the only notable issue gay marriage? Or is child adoption an issue too? Uniform national LGBT laws is all fine and well, but I don't think the issue is interesting or notable enough for this article. I'd like to see the article trimmed down to something like "Rudd has expressed his belief that marriage is only a relationship between a man and a woman(ref). Rudd has passed laws enshrining common-law property rights for gay couples(ref)". --Surturz (talk) 04:32, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the second half which goes in to the comparisons and disputes with the ACT legislation, as it really does not relate to what the government has implemented, rather, it is debating the issue with something not related to the federal government. Timeshift (talk) 14:39, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

thanks. --Merbabu (talk) 21:27, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks--Merbabu (talk) 21:30, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

First term 20 headings

There are twenty headings under Rudd's first term. Many are but a single sentence. If we fleshed them out to the same scale as the LGBT section (as some are suggesting we do) the article would be ridiculously long. Can we delete any sections? I suggest the first one we consider deleting is the following:

'New Governor-General
Rudd announced that Quentin Bryce would become the first female Governor-General of Australia.

Reasoning: becoming the first female G-G is Bryce's achievement, not Rudd's. Lauding a male PM selecting a female G-G kinda defeats the notability. One assumes Rudd picked her because she was the best person for the job, not as some affirmative action stunt. --Surturz (talk) 04:24, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

You have a point. Given that we are now 1 year thru a three year term, we can reasonably project 60 subsection headings in two year’s time. Make that 120 in 5 years time if they serve a second 3 year term. While I admit it is difficult to write on topics that are so recent, I think we can all see the folly of 120 sub-sections

Certainly some rationalisation is needed. It may surprise some to hear that I rarely advocate the removal of any info from wikipedia, rather I suggest info can be dispersed from these over-arching broad articles. While I am reluctant to endorse deleting sections/info, I would certainly favour removing some section headings. Also, perhaps we can consider re-ordering by broader topic areas, rather than the apparent chronological method.

As for Bryce, I think it is relevant enough – it was afterall Rudd’s decision (correct?). But, it doesn’t need to have its own section – it needs to be more smartly integrated into the article. Perhaps remove the “first female” bit for starters. --Merbabu (talk) 04:37, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I was thinking it could be merged with the appointment of high court judges. I think you are right, if we aren't getting rid of sections, then we should at least get rid of the headings. Chronological organisation would be easiest to maintain (that way we can combine disparate items into the same paragraph). Now Rudd has been in government for a while, we can also concentrate on actual achievements, rather than policy announcements (unless failure to deliver is important). --Surturz (talk) 04:53, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Except that "High Court judges" section is completely non-notable for the Rudd article and is another obvious deletion candidate. Peter Ballard (talk) 06:37, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

An obvious delete is "international tour". If we mention every trip Kevin does then the article length will be riduculous. The only thing of note is Gillard being Australia's first female acting PM in his absence, but that can be integrated elsewhere. Peter Ballard (talk) 04:57, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Agreed --Merbabu (talk) 05:17, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

"controversial artwork" section can be removed by moving the text to Rudd's personal views section. Rudd was expressing a personal opinion, it was not a policy. Peter Ballard (talk) 05:09, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm - it's not the most significant thing on the page, but whether his emphatic (and apparently off the cuff) opinion is trivial worthy of removal I don't know. Is putting it into the personal views section an improvement? I was going to suggest we look at re-casting and updating that whole “views” section as it appears to have been written before he was PM. Undecided. I will see what others suggest. --Merbabu (talk) 05:17, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

• Would people tolerate merging the LGBT rights and Torture sections under a common heading 'Human Rights'? --Surturz (talk) 00:04, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I say remove the Torture section. I didn't notice any significant press on it, and we can't list every piece of legislation Rudd brings in. Peter Ballard (talk) 01:34, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Even better. done. --Surturz (talk) 02:26, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

• Next on the chopping block: Homelessness? Can it be removed? --Surturz (talk) 02:27, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I say yes, though maybe wait for other voices. Peter Ballard (talk) 11:07, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

It's gone, as per WP:BRD. If anyone feels strongly about keeping it, please revert. --Surturz (talk) 23:52, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

• Also, section 5 ("Politicial views") looks like it was mainly written before he was PM - saying what he said he'd do, and a lot of that can now be merged with what he actual has done. The "Economics" section (minus the anti-Howard quote which I've complained about previously) and "Society and religion" sections are OK, but the other three: "Nationhood and Foreign policy", "Industrial relations" and "Environment" should be merged into section 4. Peter Ballard (talk) 11:07, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
• Next on the chopping block: First Rudd/Swan budget. I think we need to keep the hatnote in the article, but this section repeats a lot of what is said in the prior 'Economic policies' section. Perhaps the education funding can be moved to education? Other than that, should anything else be kept? --Surturz (talk) 23:52, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Election promises delivered

Where is the most appropriate section in the article to add this cite that of the 2007 election campaign promises by Labor, 29 have been delivered, with four underway, and eight yet to be delivered? Timeshift (talk) 12:13, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I am surprised that it was only 43 promises. I also read this exact list in the smh and my understanding was that it was provided verbatim by the govt. While some points are very notable, the articleS patchy scope and partial sourcing render the above info less than encyclopedic - such a scorecard approach should remain in the Saturday papers.--Merbabu (talk) 01:54, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Merbabu. I think a scorecard of promises delivered is a bit meaningless. Better to limit ourselves to the discussion of each notable promise and whether it was delivered. --Surturz (talk) 05:10, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

"Extra computers for schools - Delivered" - my year 9 child doesn't have one yet. It might be coming, but I agree it looks like government spin. Peter Ballard (talk) 22:34, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I've changed the Islamic school section to "Education" and included some recent info on the issue. --Surturz (talk) 09:07, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Don't you think the mishmash of two completely seperate issues in the one section looks bizarre? Timeshift (talk) 09:20, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Two points. First, I agree with with TS, the Islamic school issue doesn't belong in "education"; maybe under race relations, but it's primarily not an education issue. Second, Rudd was only involved peripherally, and I question whether it needs to be in the article at all. Peter Ballard (talk) 11:34, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I also question the lead sentence, "The planning and placement of Islamic schools has also been an issue, especially in Camden.". Has the placement of Islamic schools been an issue anywhere else except Camden? Though an unsavoury sounding issue (smacks of Hansonism, though I don't know the all the issues) I get the impression it's a one-off. Perhaps it's better placed in Islam in Australia. Peter Ballard (talk) 11:50, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Peter Ballard. Should we remove it? Timeshift (talk) 11:53, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Removed. Timeshift (talk) 06:22, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

• Thinking about this, I do think it is fair for the article to mention that Rudd made a strong effort in his first year to deliver on his election promises. Can we use this as a way of merging the sections on Kyoto, and the apology? Something like: In his first term Rudd made it a priority to deliver on his election promises. His first acts as Prime Minister were to fulfil key symbolic promises such as ratifying the Kyoto protocol and apologising to the indigenous "stolen generations". --Surturz (talk) 00:01, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

hmm this is a valid point. But I don't agree with your first sentence. To me It sounds a bit naff - at worst it sounds like something you'd get in the letter box from your local alp member. The rest would be ok with tweaking.

Delete Controversial artwork section

Leading from previous discussion, I propose we delete the following section:

Controversial artwork

In May 2008, Rudd was drawn into the controversy over photographic artist Bill Henson and his work depicting unclothed adolescents as part of a show due to open at an inner-city gallery in Sydney. In a televised interview, Rudd stated that he found the images "absolutely revolting" and that they had "no artistic merit". These views swiftly drew censure from members of the 'creative stream' who attended the recent 2020 Summit convened by Rudd, led by actor Cate Blanchett.

Some of the text and references can be moved to the Bill Henson article. --Surturz (talk) 06:05, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

While I would agree that this event is more notable to Henson than it is to Rudd, I am always reluctant to see information deleted. While I don't like all the details of he govt appearing on this page, I would love to see a Timeline of the Rudd Government Page. It's like the saying, "weeds are only plants in the wrong place". Ie, kinda like the difference between articles I largely wrote Indonesian National Revolution and Timeline of the Indonesian National Revolution. Ie, there is a lot in the second that doesn't make sense to include in the first.

As for the comments on the artist, perhaps like the Gov Gen section it needs to be shortened to one sentence with an appropriate link and incorporated into another section. --Merbabu (talk) 06:48, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

As I've said before, it belongs under his personal views, because it was a personal view not a government or executive decision. I'm happy to shorten it but I wouldn't like it deleted. Peter Ballard (talk) 22:32, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

One sentence sections

Either implement the table of contents limitation like the one used in other articles with many sections like George W. Bush or get rid of sections with no expansion future like "New Governor-General".--Avala (talk) 15:35, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

• Agreed, I think we should have the toclimit until the number of headings has been adequately reduced. --Surturz (talk) 23:17, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Sourcing

I strongly suggest to those editing this article that WP:QS be adhered to. Some of the recent edits, which have been reverted, pointed back to a blog at The Australian, which is basically some bloke's opinion that happens to make the papers, but is not in any sense a reliable source. This is often a problem in political topics and especially with BLPs. Orderinchaos 06:30, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Surturz labels Rudd economically 'clueless' in his edit summary. That, and the attached edit referencing a blog, is as blatently POV as Surturz saying "The vast bulk of edits on political pages are from people pushing POVs. Mine are no exception. This is a good thing because people without POV are unlikely to contribute to those pages. NPOV is achieved from a synthesis from all these POVs".[6] Timeshift (talk) 06:33, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Far from a 'blog' this article appears on the front page of today's printed copy of the Australian. It is therefore WP:V and the Australian is a WP:RS, so the article is hardly a WP:QS. The 'blog' is actually the collection of comments below the article. I am therefore restoring the text. My text is actually NPOV - the article text says they were ignorant - I have toned this down to 'inexperienced'. Timeshift's user page has lots of POV stuff on it, and he has recently been caught out pushing his POV (strongly support Howard's quotes about Obama, yet strongly opposed Rudd's comments about GWB). I don't think that edit summaries need to be NPOV --Surturz (talk) 07:17, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm surprised this is an issue. "Economically inexperienced" or "clueless" are indeed POV nightmares, further, it's not what an encyclopedia is. This is blog content, where it may be a perfectly valid opinion, not encyclopedic content - important distinction.--Merbabu (talk) 07:44, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Indeed Merbabu. It's a shame others cannot see it. As for my userpage Surturz, see my userbox pointing out POV. And you may claim I was caught out, you can also claim the sun is blue, but you never replied to my reply. Who was caught out exactly? And, I again refer to you saying: "The vast bulk of edits on political pages are from people pushing POVs. Mine are no exception"[7] Timeshift (talk) 09:35, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm surprised it is an issue too. I also note the irony of the "pot calling the kettle black" in Surturz's comments above. Incidentally, people have been blocked in the past for edit summaries which stray too far from Wikipedia's policies, it is considered disruptive behaviour or disruptive editing in a general sense. Orderinchaos 09:40, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't get it. Timeshift and I obviously have opposing political views. He has clearly pushed his POV in his edits. I edit with a view to balancing out his edits. How is this bad? If Timeshift's edits were NPOV, then my edits would not need to seem so POV.

A bit of context. this rather dry and factual article was on the front page of The Australian. This article by Megalogenis is the related article that provides the analysis. So... is it WP:V? Yes, it is a front-page article in a reliable newspaper. Is it notable? Certainly! The Rudd government campaigned on being as good economic managers as the Coalition, and one of the major events of 2008 was the financial crisis. So all we are left with is WP:NPOV. Now, I'm happy to tone down the edit summaries if people want. But I can't see how my original text was not NPOV. It's not like the Rudd government could possibly be called experienced, they've only just got in. It is clear from both these articles that the 'inflation fighting' measures introduced early in the year by Rudd made the problem worse. Anyone with a car and a mortgage at the beginning of the year knew the govt + RBA were doing the wrong thing raising interest rates and cutting govt expenditure. The Daily Telegraph made quite unorthodox attacks on the RBA governer in April, and it is clear that Rudd was overly affected by the RBA governer's advice during the year (as borne out in my ref). This issue needs to be included. Rudd has stuffed it twice now, once with the fiscal tightening, and once with the bank guarantee. I don't think NPOV means we have to present the two facts 1) That he initially planned to cut expenditure, and 2) he changed to a massively stimulatory budget, without any form of editorialising. I think we should be able to say that the reason he changed tack is because he got it badly wrong in the first place. --Surturz (talk) 12:24, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Dry and factual... umm, yeah. While I will agree it's fairer than a lot of blog posts and weighs up many of the issues (and in fact your use of its wording is somewhat misrepresentative of its character) it is still most definitely not an RS. Your OR/SYN-laced narrative above (i.e. "It is clear... Anyone with... it is clear...") demonstrates the problems in the approach you are taking to this - it's not an encyclopaedic one, it's an interpretative one, and it needs to stop right at about the page notice informing us all that we are working in a BLP space and need to write responsibly. Orderinchaos 19:53, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

P.S. Merbabu seems to doubt the article appeared on the front page. See the front page here, and a close up here. Please do not call it a 'blog entry' any more. --Surturz (talk) 12:37, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

See the "Comment" in big letters above it? It's not an article, nor does it claim to be. As someone with a moderate, though not extensive academic background, I am really disappointed when I see people try to pull this sort of stuff. Orderinchaos 19:53, 4 December 2008 (UTC)