Talk:Kevin Rudd

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

This page is about an active politician who is running for office, is in office and campaigning for re-election, or is involved in some political conflict or controversy. Because of this, this article is at risk of biased editing, talk-page trolling, and simple vandalism.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ] (If you rated the article, please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
	This article is supported by the Politics and government work group.

Portal	Kevin Rudd is maintained by WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.
B	This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Australian politics.
Assessment comments This article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

I think the Mark Latham quote is very bilious. What is bilious? Full of bile. It shouldn't be part of this wiki entry.

Is the picture NPOV? It rather looks like a somewhat negative portrayl of Rudd --211.31.120.76 12:05, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

It's the only public domain photo of him anyone has managed to come up with. I'm waiting for an opportunity to take a better one. Adam 12:38, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm sure his electorate office would be happy to oblige with a more business-like one suitable for our purposes BigHaz 00:43, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

have you seen the picture his office has.... not very flattering

---

This is the only other one I have. Adam 7 July 2005 05:04 (UTC)

Do you have a higher-quality version of that? If so, send it to me; I'll Photoshop the red-eye out of the picture and replace the picture in the article with it. --Robert Merkel 7 July 2005 05:20 (UTC)

Nope, that's the only version I have. Adam 7 July 2005 05:52 (UTC)

---

I found another one. Adam 7 July 2005 06:15 (UTC)

Contents 1 Channel 7 interview 2 Religion 3 "Australian Diplomatic Service"? 4 Referencing the earlier parts of the article 5 Criticism section 6 Photos 6.1 Question 7 Stance on gun politics 8 Disputed eviction 9 Meetings withg Burke 10 Early Career

[edit] Channel 7 interview

Adam Carr will have to discuss why he feels that Rudd's own comments, made in an interview with Channel 7, do not belong in the Rudd article. Cognition 13:58, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

All LaRouche cult edits to any article on my watchlist will be reverted. Adam 14:19, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

If you continue to ignore the policy against reverts and personal attacks, I will not hesitate to report you. Heed Everyking's warnings, or you'll be heading to arbitration soon. Now, are you ready to explain why Kevin Rudd's comments from the recent Channel 7 interview don't belong in this article. Cognition 14:25, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

He may be a LaRouche Cultist (and thus a moron), but I for one cant really see anything wrong with the edit. --203.17.44.84 12:24, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

---

Mark Latham, as part of an attack on Rudd in today's Crikey, mentions this article. As it concerns an omission, I thought I'd post it here and see if anyone thinks we should change it accordingly. Ambi 04:47, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Moreover, Hartcher has ignored the serious questions I posed in this particular entry regarding Rudd's credibility: "There are some missing periods in his CV and a general mystery about the guy. If he grew up in poverty in rural Queensland, where did the posh accent come from?" Part of the Rudd folklore (repeated once more in the Hartcher profile) is that after his father's death in the late 1960s, his family was evicted from their dairy farm and forced to live in abject poverty.

A possible answer to my question was, in fact, under Hartcher's nose but, yet again, he chose to ignore it. Hartcher writes that "after his father's death, (Rudd) spent two years boarding at Marist Brothers College in Brisbane's Ashgrove." Rudd himself has made no mention of his time at a private boarding college, either on his electorate website, in his Who's Who and Wikipedia entries or in his 1998 maiden speech to Parliament – a serious set of omissions. On each occasion, he has mentioned government schools (Eumundi Primary and Nambour High) but never Marist Brothers Ashgrove, and its fees of $16,000 pa (today's cost equivalent).

This is one of the gaps in Rudd's CV that worries members of the Labor Caucus and even some members of the general public. In response to the Hartcher profile, several people have contacted me this week asking: if the Rudd family was poverty stricken after their father's death, how did they afford to send Kevin to a private boarding college in Brisbane? If Rudd is not willing to tell the truth about his school education and financial circumstances, how can he be taken seriously as a candidate for the Labor leadership?

seriously though - trust latham? Danlibbo 23:56, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Religion

Is Rudd Catholic or Anglican? I'm guessing the former? The article says he attended Marist College Ashgrove, a Catholic school in Brisbane, but later says he is open about his Anglican faith. Cheers --- BrightLights 02:48, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Just to confirm, this article mentions his conversion, have added this to text. BrightLights 11:45, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

In the most recent issue of The Melbourne Anglican, it says he's Anglican. I'm finding the reference Leon 05:58, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Yesterdays (3/12/2006) Sunday Age says: "Rudd is Catholic, his entrepreneurial wife Therese Rein is Anglican." - not sure which source we can believe. Maybe we should mention both? Brendanfox 00:15, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I just read it, added it to the references, and changed the article to a generic "Christianity" Leon 01:05, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't believe anything I read in the Sunday Age. I'm fairly sure he's an Anglican. Adam 01:21, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

While he was brought up a Catholic, he has been attending Anglican services since he married his wife (who is Anglican). In practise, he is an Anglican. Jpeob 02:25, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

He has talked of Catholic social teaching as an influence. Jpeob 00:35, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

The reference to Tony Abbott as a "trainee Catholic priest" is way-off. The term is "seminarian". I have added the latter and deleted the former. I understand that many people might not understand the term "seminarian", but they can always follow the link; factually, there is no such thing as a "trainee Catholic priest", as one cannot be a Catholic Priest until one has received the sacrament of Ordination. Further, Catholics consider the "vocation" to the priesthood" as a "call from God", not a "traineeship".

[edit] "Australian Diplomatic Service"?

I'm not sure there's any such thing as the "Australian Diplomatic Service". Google would also seem to agree. There is a Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, which runs embassies etc, and employs the bulk of the diplomats sent overseas. So perhaps this should be changed? (I didn't want to change it because perhaps it's actually correct -- historically perhaps? If it is historically correct, perhaps a bit should be added to say "now known as DFAT" or something.) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Etoastw (talk • contribs) 12:41, 4 December 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Referencing the earlier parts of the article

I just read WP:LIVING and decided that after a few more goes at looking for references, I'd like to cull anything contentious from the early sections of the article. I'm going to keep looking for references but if the person(s) who wrote the sections can find some that would be grouse! Leon 13:18, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

No doubt there will be a campaign biography soon. Adam 00:34, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

PLEASE STOP USING THIS HORRIBLE METHOD OF CITATION - IT MAKES IT TOTALLY IMPOSSIBLE TO EDIT THE TEXT. I AM GOING TO REMOVE THEM ALL. Adam 00:39, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Well maybe not, but they are very obtrusive and quite unnecessary. This article is heavily over-referenced. The only things that need citations are direct quotes and anything that might be disputed or controversial. It is ridiculous to provide a citation for his date of birth. Adam 00:46, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the referencing style is obtrusive for editing, however I dispute that the article is over-referenced. Although articles like Rosa Parks or Daniel Boone may be referenced sparsely, I was taking my cues from living people's biographies e.g. Tony Blair, in which the birthdate, for example, is referenced. If you can change the referencing style so the article is easier to edit, fine. But given the stringent standards for living people, the likelihood of vandalism approaching election time, and not-quite-NPOV statements that have appeared here (e.g. regarding Israel), I think it's a great idea to reference every specific policy statement, and "particularly ... details of personal lives" (re WP:LIVING). Leon 01:46, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

P.S. From the horse's mouth, Jimmy Wales has said:

"I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons."

(emphasis mine) Leon 01:52, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism section

I have removed this part. Never mind the fact it's a pathetic on-the-fly section, with only some nonsense from the latest press reports, why is it on there? Criticism sections shouldn't exist, facts should. We present facts, readers judge. michael ^talk 05:00, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for being nice about it to a new user. Firstly, I don't think anything in the section was not a "fact". Also, although lots of political biography articles lack such sections, Tony Blair has one and I thought it was good. Good criticism sections contain facts about criticisms. If you think the section was crap, that's fine. Leon 06:47, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't targeting you, I was targeting the section itself. There's no such thing as a "good" criticism section, they're by nature off-balance and to attack / demean the personality at hand-not to provide a neutral view. Apologies if you take my comments badly, I just have little patience regarding these. michael ^talk 07:40, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

That's fine, I can see your perspective; I got the idea from another article. I think I prefer your approach Leon 23:15, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I think a criticism section is in order when we have a man who for all intents and purposes seems like an ideal candidate for prime ministerialship yet turns around and condones Israels illegal invasion of Lebanon and their actions in the middle east just to hop on the pro-Israel bandwagon with Johnny boy and America as a whole. The reason I say this is, there's a lot of hypocracy illustrated between his POV and his actions. I came here to find out more about the man after seeing an amazing interview on Sunrise this morning that made me think he's possibly the best candidate I've ever seen as far as making me -want- to vote for him, yet on seeing his words not matching his actions I'd definitely like to know more so I can make an intelligent choice on the matter. 211.30.71.59 21:00, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

For the record, there are criticism sections for the amjority fo Australian politicians on Wikipedia. Shouldnt Kevin Rudd be treated the same way? As for its structure, public criticism, particularly those he has headed must surely be worthy of mention. Jampire1 05:31, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

A majority? Which ones? I don't see a criticism section for John Howard or Kim Beazley, for instance. Nor should there be. I agree that Criticism (and Praise) sections are A Bad Thing. Better to raise quote their critics (and admirers) on an issue by issue basis. Grouping criticism and praise together gives better balance. Rocksong 05:40, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I understand your point and hope that such a section isnt introduced. Jampire1 06:02, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Photos

Wow. It's really hard to get a decent photo of the guy isn't it... Timeshift 16:11, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I emailed his office requesting a photo but I doubt much will come of it - at the lecture at Melbourne Uni yesterday, he didn't even take audience questions, and he and the gang rushed through the halls unceremoniously -- they must really be hitting the matresses, so to speak... Leon 12:06, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Question

I was given a great, official photo by someone from parliament. However, it would have to be fair use. Do people think it's justified? Leon 00:41, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Auspic photos don't pass. In 2005 I got written permission from Auspic to use their photos here, and the photonazis still won't allow them. I still think my screenshot (above) is the best photo we have. Adam 01:11, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

You can always give it a try - the most they can do is delete it. You might want to copy what I used here - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Bob.hawke.jpg (thanks to Adam C) Timeshift 05:10, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this one isn't historical; it's just uncluttered and gives a better impression of what he looks like, as well as being "official" Leon 08:04, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

It's official so you can still use the rationale, just edit out the historical bits :P Timeshift 08:05, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Stance on gun politics

According to this article from 2001, Kevin Rudd has been a long-standing supporter of shooters' rights. This is a stark contrast from the incumbent Prime Minister of Australia, John Howard, who is well-known for his strict stance on private firearms ownership. Should his stance on Australian gun politics be noted in the political views section of the article? CeeWhy2 07:05, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Disputed eviction

The "dispute" is not substantiated by the citation. The article title is provocatively worded, but the only dispute to be found on careful reading is heresay:

Daphne Greer knew Aubrey Low most of her life and regularly socialised with the Rudds. "The Aubrey Low I knew - and the Aubrey Low everyone else around here knew - would never have evicted Margaret Rudd," she said.

The reliable quotes in the article go to the niceness of the landlord, which is not something that Rudd is reported as asserting. SmokeyJoe 11:30, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps it is appropriate to remove the comment about the eviction, "Rudd has often claimed that his family was evicted from the farm shortly after the death of his father.[3]" as it is essentialy Hearsay, albiet from Rudd himself. My concern is that it serves no purpose in the narrative. Its, to me, the same as letting Kevin Rudd write the article and attribute it everyone else here. Frankly I think removing the sentence would be a lot better than trying to explain it in detail whilst trying to keep NPOV. Jampire1 05:38, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Far more irritating to see on wikipedia is that when someone makes a comment about their life it is referred to as a "claim", setting up the possibility that it is a false claim. From all sources cited there is no contention about whether or not the family was forced to move, so why is the word "claim" used when no-one has "claimed" otherwise? NPOV RIP.

There are two versions of events regarding this incident. Both deserve to be noted. One is Rudd's, which he has traded on (thus making the whole episode notable), and the other is the Low family's. Sadly, SmokeyJoe, just because Rudd says it happened doesn't make it true. As for your selective quote from the article, all I can suggest is that you read the whole thing, or at least to the second page. Joestella 17:57, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Meetings withg Burke

While I am extremely reluctant for the article to become a news article rather than a biography, I feel that excising any mention of Rudd's dealins with Brian Burke smacks too much of POV revisionism. In fact it may well emerge that the criticism of Rudd by the Government has backfired, resulting in still higher approval ratings (at historic high levels) for Rudd. Obviously this is of some significance. Perhaps we can gradually whittle it down if the matter turns out to be unimportant, but what we shouldn't do is lose it entirely without gaining consensus. --Pete 01:46, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Have moved the disputed section to discussion. While the controversy may well have relevance, inclusion of a long but highly seletive section of what is a wide-ranging media discussion is hardly encyclopeadic. If we start including that, then its difficult where to draw the line - do you go into Cambells resignation, look at Kelvin Thompson's resignation, Costello's speech? Effect on opinion polls? My personal view is that the controversy is already whiltling away - the significanc of events may not be seen until many months or years later - I think given the nature of politics its best to be minimalist in the treatment of current issues, rather than simply insert the flavour of the week in terms of controversy. Had a look at the Howard page too - including the day's story from the Courier mail is hardly a case of sourcing hard facts. Bottom line with this to me is - yes, KR met with TB - but whether it is significant to include in a biographical article depends on whether there is lasting significance hmette Section disputed:

In March 2007 it emerged that Rudd had met three times with Brian Burke, a disgraced former Labor Premier of Western Australia and convicted criminal in 2005. Graham Edwards, the Federal MP who had introduced the pair, stated that he "was pretty keen to push him (Mr Rudd) through a number of different areas in Western Australia, to get him to know the state and to get people to know him". The Howard Government accused Rudd of being morally compromised and suggested that the meeting had occured to enlist Burke's support in Rudd's future leadership challenge. John Howard himself stated that Edwards' statement was "code in politics for promoting him as a future leader". ^[1] Rudd has suggested that Howard is merely attempting to launch a smear campaign following Labor's success at the polls. ^[2]

Skyring - please don't keep re-inserting controvercial or disputed material - where a dispute arises as to such content, the appropriate forum for resolution is in the discussion forum - not the article itself. You may disagree with the edit, but that's no justification for re-insertion of material into an article about living persons. If you're unfamiliar with the policy on such pages, I suggest you read through the relevant page before continually re-inserting material Hmette.

Gaining consensus for a change means getting the input of other people. We already know your thoughts on the matter. Please don't edit war on the article. Discuss your changes here first. If they are seen as generally reasonable, I'll certainly have no objection, but for the moment your unsupported changes look like you are pushing a POV. --Pete 03:40, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Quite right - which is exactly why the section was removed fromt he article and put into discussion in the first place. My point was that the section was inaccurate and gave undue emphasis on a slanging match between politicians and doesn't really add anything of substance to the article, not to mention gives undue emphaisis to something that is quite trivial in a bigraphical sense relating to subject. Rather than add anything your response has been to simply reinsert the disputed paragraph. I'm happy to leave the editing of the main article to others in this aspect - I'd suggest you do likewise. --Hmette 07:08, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

You don't seem to get the point. Gaining consensus for a controversial change is something that others have to do. You can't do it all by yourself, no matter how strongly you feel about it. --Pete 09:08, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I've made a further edit that makes things a little clearer, and cleared up a serious factual error (with information contained in the second reference) Dibo ^{T | C} 05:25, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Early Career

Have tidied up this section slightly and added references to the "Rudd report". Seems to me that this section is probably not really just Rudd's "early career" particularly considering it takes in a period from 1981 to 1998 and includes Rudd's elevation to Qld's top public service position. Anyone have any thoughts on a better title? Still need to tidy up the citations a bit and reference them properly, but out of time at the moment. --Hmette 01:47, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

It's not a brilliant title particularly, but the heading could be said to cover his pre-federal (or pre-national) career. "Career Before Electoral Politics" sounds a bit clunky, but maybe someone can make it a bit zippier. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 01:57, 21 March 2007 (UTC)