Talk:Kevin Rudd

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Kevin Rudd article.
Article policies
Archives: 1, 2, 3
Archives

Contents


[edit] Government/policy actions here, Rudd government, or where?

We need to nip this in the bud. We tried adding all policies of the Howard government to John Howard, we failed. We tried creating a Howard Government page, stayed there for a while gathering dust and failed. We need to come to a consensus. Select as many as you find acceptable, please don't just indicate your most preferred. Timeshift (talk) 08:58, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Where do you prefer government policies?
User: On the Prime Minister of the day's page On a seperate page such as (Prime Minister) Government On the past election page On the future election page
Timeshift
Deus Ex Machina
Lester
Orderinchaos
52 Pickup
Rebecca
Duggy1138
JackofOz , but to a limited extent , until closer to the election
Nick Dowling , but only briefly
Merbabu
Jayvdb , only the important ones in context of election promises , who knows what politicians will believe in a year or more from now
Hamiltonstone , but very limited , until campaign underway
Eyedubya
Euryalus
User:Surturz
User:Tails5
Total people supporting: 4 16 6 3
JRG - limited extent

Hi all, this is probably better to be discussed at the various projects the article is attached to. Shot info (talk) 10:35, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Rudd is the current PM so it affects him most, wikiproject politics isn't viewed by as many as this is. However, i've added a note advising a vote is taking place. Timeshift (talk) 10:45, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Rudd needs 2 separate articles. One article for Rudd's family and life story, and a separate one for his government. It became too long with the Howard article, and Howard's government started before most people had internet, and before Wikipedia existed. Because Rudd's government started in the internet age, its Wiki article will grow enormous over the term of that government. It needs 2 articles. Thanks.Lester 11:18, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
I in theory agree, but after the dismal failure of Howard's, i'm not so sure. Please add your vote though so it's counted. Timeshift (talk) 11:22, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
I would agree with Lester - the reason it failed may well have been timing. A surprising number of our contributors are students, so near the end of a year is a bad time to put up anything. I agree with Timeshift that the previous and future elections (moreso the future) should contain information about policy as this often influences the direction of a poll. Although I have voted "no" to the first, I do think there should be some mention of it, with a "Main" link to the correct location. However, prime ministers are not necessarily responsible for the policies their government's generate - a good example is the Aboriginal intervention which was more the brainchild of two of the Cabinet ministers. Orderinchaos 11:31, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Howard's separate article didn't work because of the format that was chosen, and because a separate page was attempted right at the end of Howard's term. Now is the time to start a separate Rudd Government article, at the beginning of a term. It will be a massive article at the end of his government. Experience in using separate articles is showing it is a success with overseas politicians, so it can work. Lester 11:36, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Ok, I can see both of your points. I have amended my vote. Timeshift (talk) 11:49, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm with Lester. A separate page for policies is the more structured solution. This also keeps in line with separate pages for ministries (although i am not advocating separate policy pages for each ministry). It will be a big undertaking, but now with the start of Rudd's term as PM, the opportunity is there to figure out from scratch the right way to construct such articles - then the long slog back through previous PMs can begin. - 52 Pickup (deal) 11:58, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree with 52 Pickup and Lester. Adding the policies to the person's page doesn't really work - unless it's a major personal issue, it's not necessarily relevant to them, and it's not even necessarily their work. Creating a seperate page for the government is a far better way of organising it. Rebecca (talk) 12:08, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

This issue leads to the question of what about opposition responses/policies? Brendan Nelson? Nelson opposition? Timeshift (talk) 08:10, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

My first impression is to put the policies of the opposition on the same page of the policies of the government of the day. Opposition policies aren't actually implemented so they IMO have less priority for a separate article than govt policies. - 52 Pickup (deal) 17:23, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Also, to a certain degree the policies relate, either the opposition follows or opposes the govt policy, or sometimes lead. Sure there are independant policies, too, I think that they'd be clearer as independant on a Govt policy page. Duggy 1138 (talk) 07:06, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

If this is a vote, then I go with a separate page for the "Rudd" Government (or similar) for all the policy/actions, etc, unless of course anything is particularly associated with the Prime Minister him/herself. --Merbabu (talk) 12:18, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

It's obvious where this is going. I just hope that previous PMs can have their policies expanded/merged in to new pages, and anons won't add policies to the PM rather than the PM govt page. It will be interesting once we finalise the consensus as to how it works in practicality. Timeshift (talk) 12:29, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I would prefer that the biography is not overrun with governmental issues. John Vandenberg (talk) 14:45, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Format?

As it looks like the consensus is heading towards a separate article for government actions, I guess it's time to start thinking of how to do it. To get things started, here are a few examples of how this is done for other governments:

Thoughts? - 52 Pickup (deal) 15:17, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


There should be a bit outlining how much of loser he is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.233.185.66 (talk) 09:37, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

In the interests of assuming good faith, I'll point out that the object of the exercise here is to write a balanced article on him, as is the case everywhere else. If there's criticism or negative information which can be sourced appropriately, then you're welcome to include it. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 10:05, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
And in the interests of accuracy, he certainly hasn't lost much of recent times. -- JackofOz (talk) 10:22, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
How about "Australian Government 1996-2007" for Howard, "Australian Government 2007-" (and also a redirect from "Current Australian Government") for Rudd, etc? That way we can have navigation between each successive government's policies. Also, Australia has a parliamentary, not a presidential, democracy, so identifying the government with the PM is somewhat inappropriate. "Howard Government", "Rudd Government" etc could redirect to the appropriate articles too. --Surturz (talk) 05:14, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Oath/affirmation

Unlike his Labor predecessors, Rudd did not swear allegiance to the Queen of Australia, but promised instead to "well and truly serve the Commonwealth of Australia and her people."

  • This has been troubling me ever since it was put up, but I couldn't put my finger on why. The penny's finally dropped. There are 2 issues:
    • (a) it's not what he DIDN'T do/say that we should be giving the primary focus to, but what he DID do/say; and then, if appropriate, compare that with what his predecessors had done. Otherwise, it's written from the POV of someone who expected him to do X but was surprised when he actually did Y. That's certainly not a neutral POV.
    • (b) as I've stated elsewhere, all ministers are given a free choice when they're sworn in - oath or affirmation. If a person chooses an affirmation, the fact that they made that choice is what it might be appropriate to report, rather than quoting the actual text of the affirmation, as if it were somehow controversial, and almost suggesting that he chose his own words. Rudd uttered exactly the same words as other ministers (including in previous governments) did who chose an affirmation over an oath.
  • My preferred wording would be something as simple as: Rudd was the first Labor Prime Minister who chose to make an affirmation rather than swear an oath. I'm not entirely sure that's accurate, though. It wasn't all that long ago that there was only an oath, and atheistic ministers had to cop it sweet. But I don't know exactly when the affirmation came along as an option. Possibly after - or during - Whitlam's time, but I'd bet it was certainly before Hawke, and he's also an atheist and would have made an affirmation if it were available. Thoughts, anyone? -- JackofOz (talk) 08:48, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
OK, the text you quote has a republican slant: he didn't swear allegiance to the Queen. What you discuss is about not swearing on an oath on a bible. Does the affirmation remove the Queen or just God? Did he choose to make the affirmation for republican or religious reasons? These are all issues with wording and POV, as far as I can I see?
Duggy 1138 (talk) 10:01, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
I believe an oath mentions God, an affirmation doesn't. But whether the Queen is mentioned in this affirmation or not, I'd need to do some more research to find out. However, it seems that this particular issue can be resolved by simply removing the offending sentence, because it's dead wrong. This tells us that Rudd swore an oath, while Gillard and some others chose an affirmation. -- JackofOz (talk) 14:35, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
That sounds right. It seems out of character for a man so publically religious to swear make an affirmation. Duggy 1138 (talk) 23:40, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
The point of the sentence is not whether a Oath or Affirmation was given? Its making the point that instead of the oath/affirmation made with reference to the Monarch, it was to the people of Australia. Its ultimate relevance is in the republic v monarchy debate. I don't see anything wrong with it although it could probally be reworded to make it clearer. 58.106.31.250 (talk) 22:17, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Or rewarded to make it correct. Duggy 1138 (talk) 23:40, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Excellent work picking up on the POV, Jack! A citation tag might be the go here. I don't know that your reference changes things necessarily though. Wouldn't the phrase 'swearing in' be used by the popular media even if there was only an affirmation? We do need a proper reference. --Gazzster (talk) 23:53, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. I'll do some research on this and get back to you. @ 58.106.31.250, ministers have a choice whether to make an oath or affirmation, but have no choice about the words contained in either. What Rudd said, whatever it was, were not his own words, so it's crazy to make some sort of point about the absence of reference to the Monarch. Blame the writers of the oath, whoever they were, if you like; but don't make it cast any sort of reflection on the oath-taker. -- JackofOz (talk) 02:10, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Actually there is no prescribed executive oath/affirmation. There is only one for the legislature. The wording of the executive councillor and ministerial oaths are up to the executive (ultimately the PM). Under Howard the oath/affirmation included references to the Queen. Rudd removed such references. [1] 58.106.31.250 (talk) 02:28, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, that certainly confirms that the original line was wrong. "Unlike his Labor predecessors" isn't true if he is doing what Keating did. I've also found this if it is at all useful: [2] Duggy 1138 (talk) 03:51, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Publications

We dont have a list of publications by Rudd. I have found two journal articles that appear to be by the PM, OCLC 87606065 and OCLC 88568414, and one report [3]. Are there more? John Vandenberg (talk) 14:34, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

He wrote a rather large piece for the Monthly about a year ago. I actually probably have it somewhere. Orderinchaos 18:31, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Old information on page

Insertformulahere There are several incorrect entries on this page.

First it says that Kevin Rudd would not interfer in the Australian Capital Territories Government intention to bring in Same-Sex Unions. He did announce this but five days later he interferred and stopped the government bringing the Unions ito legislation.

On 13 Feburary he formally apologised to the Australian Indiginous People for the stolen Generation.

Little things I know but they are a part of his political structure which is the slant of this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.223.187.153 (talk) 10:13, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion. When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the edit this page link at the top. The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes — they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). --Nick Dowling (talk) 10:16, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Aussie PM infobox content

Hello folks (I'm back). I feel we should try (again), to have all the PM infoboxes in sync. The best way IMHO, would be to remove Elections, Monarch & Governor General from all of them. This might be a good idea for all PM infoboxes across Wikipedia. GoodDay (talk) 20:33, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Admins have already stated regional variations for PM infoboxes is perfectly fine. Timeshift (talk) 22:33, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Ya mean, Kevin Rudd's infobox content can be different from John Howard's, can be different from Paul Keating's, etc? GoodDay (talk) 23:08, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Correct. Timeshift (talk) 23:14, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
And not only that, the consensus here (and elsewhere) concurs. Shot info (talk) 23:16, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Is there no possible way of getting these Infoboxes in sync, which the Admins would also allow? GoodDay (talk) 23:19, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

It's not really a matter for the admins to police given that it is a content issue rather than a conduct issue. Instead it's up to us (ie/ the Community) and in reality the Community doesn't have any real objections to articles broadly looking the same, but in detail being quite different. Rather than discuss here, it's probably better to start something over in MOS. --Shot info (talk) 23:28, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I must confess people, I'm bewildered by the 'acceptance' of inconsistancies. GoodDay (talk) 23:32, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Me too, but the overwhelming consensus is to accept it. But if a MOS (Manual of Style ie WP:MOS) is developed, that tends to drive consistancy across different but similar articles. Shot info (talk) 23:34, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Think of it this way, GoodDay. If the name of the HoS is in the infobox, is it erroneous or misleading? No. And if the name of the HoS is inserted, is it erroneous or misleading? No. So it becomes a matter of choice. The consensus on this page is to leave it out. But on another bio it might be kept. So what harm is done? I would say though, as I said on Harper's page, that the bio is about a person who wasn't always a HoG. So why should the HoS's name be there?--Gazzster (talk) 02:39, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
I think you meant it isn't misleading if the head of state is or is not inserted. If there was a wide reaching guideline that specified what was to be included in all head of governmet infoboxes, then no, I'd say there wouldn't be any misleading. However, when some do, and some don't - or, worse, most do and a small few don't - it most certainly is misleading. To the casual observer looking at PM articles, the Prime Ministers of Australia, and two or three other countries, appear to operate as the pinnacle of the government structure, where as the other 98% are subordinate to a head of state. It's the inexplicable inconsistency that's confusing. --G2bambino (talk) 21:16, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
I doubt such considerations would be important to the casual observer.--Gazzster (talk) 21:39, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

For the sake of this article (and the other Aussie PM bio articles), I withdraw my request for consistancy. GoodDay (talk) 16:22, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

But I think you make a good point, nevertheless. I always thought the consensus was to allow infobox content to vary between countries, but to keep consistency within a particular country. No? -- JackofOz (talk) 23:44, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I was just hoping to bring the Howard & Rudd articles back in line with the rest of the Aussie PM articles. GoodDay (talk) 23:47, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I still think elections should be a part of all PM infoboxes. Timeshift (talk) 00:15, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Not a problem, as it'll align all the Aussie PM articles. GoodDay (talk) 00:24, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
But some didn't want it on Howard's or Rudd's articles and kept removing it, thus the variation by consensus. Timeshift (talk) 00:25, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
I'll back re-adding the Elections to those articles. GoodDay (talk) 00:33, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Whatever the consensus was (and they're not set in stone for time immemorial, in any case), there seems to be some confusion about what it is, so maybe we should revisit it and get clear on exactly what goes into Aussie PM's infoxes, what stays out, and have the same content for all of them. I cannot understand why 2 out of 26 should be different in any way. -- JackofOz (talk) 00:37, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the gesture, but I seriously doubt you'll get consensus from everyone on what to keep in there... Timeshift (talk) 00:38, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Maybe not, but we'll never know if the question isn't raised. Where would be the best place to raise it? -- JackofOz (talk) 00:41, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Exactly why does it matter if there is variation? They don't need to all be the exact same, this isn't wiki-obsessivecompulsive-pedia. Timeshift (talk) 00:42, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
(ignoring the impertinent parts of that post.) I'm coming at this from the angle that if one argues, for example, the Queen should form part of the infobox, then that would be a position that would apply to all Aussie PM infoboxes. Or none of them. I could live with either of those outcomes, but don't see any merit in having one group of users who argue successfully for, say, Keating's infobox to show the Queen, and another group arguing successfully for, say, Howard's to exclude the Queen. I'm talking about a standard set of inclusions; it's all in the name of consistency and professionalism. When it comes to infoboxes, surely it's more appropriate to deal with all Aussie PMs as a group rather than as individuals. -- JackofOz (talk) 06:12, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
That's all I seek, that all 26 be the same. GoodDay (talk) 15:15, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
I haven't really been involved here, bu I was a part of this discussion at Talk:Stephen Harper so I figure a may as well throw in my 2 cents. While I don't think consistency per se is a bad thing, it must be within the context. The situation of the HoG's across wikipedia are very different, so if we were to be consistent it shouldn't be all PM's or even all aussie/canadian pm's. I think the only form of consistency we could hope to stride for would be, say, all elizabeth II-era PM's in australia. That being said, it also doesn't really bother me if you guys (those focussed on the aussie pm's) disagree. And for the record, my thoughts are no monarch, maybe the GG in the infobox.Random89 (talk) 18:31, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
May I restore Elections to this article & the Howard article? Please. GoodDay (talk) 17:47, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Someone appears to have already added it. I wonder how long it will last though... but I do hold a slim chance of hope that elections can be restored to Howard's, and that it stays for all of them. Timeshift (talk) 17:52, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Ah hah, so they have. I've made a request at the Howard article aswell. GoodDay (talk) 18:02, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Should we have "Elections: 2007, Next" or just "Elections: 2007"? Timeshift (talk) 13:00, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Just 2007. What's to say that Rudd or Nelson will definitely be around for the next election? A clear distinction between past and future events is necessary. - 52 Pickup (deal) 13:22, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Member of Parliament

This is difficult for me as I was the 3PR advisor referred to in the entry (I've never been my own Wikipedia reference - a very odd position to find myself in!) and accept Brisbane Airport's runway was a defining issue. However, Kevin was an extremely active constituency Member at this stage of his career and must have had some wins, alongside this somewhat questionable campaign. Do other editors have more information about this period to flesh the section out? Otherwise, it looks like he began with a failure alone - such politicians don't get to be Prime Minister.Pete (talk) 00:38, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I've made some comments on the talk page, including that Rudd's later career moves don't seem relevant to the article at all. -- JackofOz (talk) 01:19, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Nicholas Rudd

Apparently his son is in a new television series. Should perhaps an article be made for him? User:Australiania! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.166.109.89 (talk) 10:56, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Only if he becomes notable in his own right - which certainly hasn't happened yet - not merely because he's the PM's son. -- JackofOz (talk) 14:46, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Large PD images

http://www.dodmedia.osd.mil/ now has two images for 'kevin rudd' in very large resolution. Would a cropped one of them be better suited for Rudd's infobox image? Timeshift (talk) 14:37, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

There are also new photos of Rudd with President Bush at http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2008/03/20080328-3.html --Nick Dowling (talk) 05:23, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Invisage Australia controversy

I think we should mention it here, it was Kevin who failed to declare his conflict of interests not Theresa. It is him who would have to answer the questions from the Parliment and press. Alex Bakharev (talk) 00:30, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree it belongs in the Rudd article, BUT I'd like to give it a few days to see if the story has legs. Peter Ballard (talk) 00:57, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
What are you talking about? And is what you are talking about have anything to do with the article being protected? JayKeaton (talk) 09:41, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

The article has been protected for a long time due to vandals. We are talking about exactly what it says. Now, there hasn't been further media interest in to this most likely due to the fact that Rudd wasn't required to declare it on the register as it was an inactive company at the time and has/is closing shop. No legs. Removed. Timeshift (talk) 01:14, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Birthplace?

Can someone confirm Rudd's birthplace? This article lists it as Nambour, Qld. However, the Papua New Guinea media recently claimed Rudd was born in PNG (at Henganofi, Eastern Highlands Province (previously District), in what was the old Trust Territory of New Guinea). Which is right? MarcusCole12 (talk) 12:00, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

That seems an extraordinary and somewhat hyperbolic claim. I've never heard of any other birthplace than Nambour. -- JackofOz (talk) 14:45, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
His official biography states: "Born 21.9.1957, Nambour, Qld." He's mentioned he grew up at nearby Eumundi, but people are normally born in hospitals so I'd presume Nambour is more likely correct. Orderinchaos 08:41, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Infobox image

Why does this, without a size specified, now display really large? Timeshift (talk) 12:50, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Civil unions

It's not identifying every step in the process. It's identifying a Rudd Labor backflip. Here they were going to let the ACT govern theirselves, now they have backflipped and would veto like Howard did. Timeshift (talk) 08:19, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. Timeshift (talk) 09:42, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Added to modified text. Disagreeing with what is interpreted by Rudd here is WP:OR. Timeshift (talk) 00:58, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Removed image

I don't believe this image is good for the article for a few reasons. The quality is very bad, you can barely see Rudd, and even with a good photo there is no space (for now) to add an image anyway. Timeshift (talk) 23:50, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Promises made to the nation

I don't know if it is relevant, but it is a fact that Kevin Rudd promised that all student from year 9 up will have access to a computer. I am from a school who will be receiving laptops in June. And if this information is relevant in any way, it would make a great addition to the article. 220.239.56.174 (talk) 10:55, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually he originally stated that every student would receive a computer, then it was every high school student, now it's every high school student from year 9. Regardless, a single promise is hardly noteworthy or relevant in the long history of a politician such as Kevin Rudd, however his key policies, particularly those which are seemingly revolutionary (education revolution for example) may indeed be notable. Guycalledryan (talk) 10:14, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Care to cite that? Rudd always said ACCESS to a computer, not their own. And in the sense of the word, none of Labor's policies are "revolutionary". Timeshift (talk) 14:44, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
OK
www.alp.org.au/download/now/labors_ digital_education_revolution_campaign_launch.pdf
Page 10: "Students will have their own computer and access to the school’s extranet and classroom content – both from their desktop and remotely."
See you still haven't removed ALP policy from the page.

The first paragraph of that section makes clear the promise is for students in year 9 upward, not all secondary students. Is it revolutionary? It depends on your interpretation of the word - its called a 'digital revolution" so at least someone thinks it is. Euryalus (talk) 04:28, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

"Students will have their own computer and access to the school’s extranet and classroom content - both from their desktop and remotely." Does this mean students will have their own computer to use when at school, meaning there will always be free computers to use? Is there any better details on exactly what was offered? And as for education revolution, it's a buzzterm that was designed to attract attention. Labor investing money in to improving education is hardly anything new. The term 'revolution', in the sense of the word, would be the opposite of 'democratic'. Timeshift (talk) 13:55, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Views - economic

I think the following Rudd quote[4] is good for the fact he rarely ventures in to Hawke and Keating vs Howard, and believe it should be added:

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

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

"Mr Howard, on the other hand, never took on his own political base in the prosecution of any significant economic reform."
Because he didn't have too, it wasn't the Liberals that had to be dragged into the modern economy. The Hawke/Keating policies highlighted were passed with the support of coalition controlled Sentate.
"Look at climate change"
Unsubstantiated group-think.
"Look at infrastructure policy. Look at education policy. Look at early childhood education"
State responsibilities neglected by LABOR States. Why not throw in health;-)
Wow Kevin talks about HIS political agenda before an election and points out JWH hasn't jumped on board. Yeap I can't think of any better quote from Timeshift;-)
The quote is an interesting summary of Rudd's views but seems bit long for inclusion. Is this better placed in a piece about Rudd Government policies, instead of a biography of Rudd himself?
The anon response above isn't very helpful - you might not agree with Rudd's views but this is not an article about you. Please stay focused on the article content, not your own opinion of the article subject. Euryalus (talk) 03:33, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
The view expressed by Rudd is his political agenda in an election campaign. The only other conclusion could be the Rudd intends to deliberately upset his party faithful by announcing policies that are required upset them.

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

Fraser didn't push reforms, Howard in opposition as Fraser's treasurer (Cambell Committe) was very supportive. Only if Hawke/Keating were complete fools (I've never said they were) would they have not continued the reforms. That sections of the organised labour movement were fools at the time doesn't make Hawke tougher.
Howard pushed Fraser for the reforms but Fraser wouldn't budge. So much for a cohesive Liberal Party (were they ever?). And you say 'continue the reforms'... what noteworthy economic reforms occurred under the Fraser govt? And if Labor is so economically irresposible as i'm sure you believe they are, they would have been complete fools and did what their "mates in the labour movement told them to do". At least that's what I keep hearing from the likes of people like Joe Hockey. *snigger* Timeshift (talk) 08:29, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Hawke pushed through the remainder of the Cambell Committee recommendations (after the Martin Group review). However the review and the reforms (e.g. tender system for selling treasury instruments - a huge reform) began during the Fraser government. After Hawke significant non-financial market reform was also undertaken (taxation reform, labour market reform, etc). I've not claimed Hawke/Keating was "economically irresposible". Clearly Timeshift has little knowledge of the financial reform process, which is why he believed Rudd's giddy claims as fact. Sadly this lack of knowledge is reflected in the Kevin Rudd article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.101.222.105 (talk) 00:57, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
This is not the place to push your POV, Timeshift9. Please keep discussion to the article. --Surturz (talk) 13:53, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
I was responding to the anon IP on this talk page. I do not push POVs on articles (and most talk page issues, however this one I ate the bait on). I refer you to your response to an admin on your user talk page, "Thank you for your constructive criticism on my talk page. I respectfully disagree with you. The vast bulk of edits on political pages are from people pushing POVs. Mine are no exception." Pot, meet kettle. Timeshift (talk) 14:05, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

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

Added at Kevin Rudd#Economics with blockquote formatting. It doesn't seem to take up much space. Timeshift (talk) 14:22, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
I removed the last sentence about Howard from the quote. This makes the quote more of an exposition of Rudd's ideas, rather than simply a reaction to Howard's ideas. This is an article about Rudd, so it should be mainly about him as his own man, rather than contrasting different points of view on an issue. --Surturz (talk) 00:30, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Considering you admit to actively POV-pushing, I would appreciate it if you discuss the issue here with others rather than disruptive reverts of good faith contributions. Timeshift (talk) 00:51, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
I would have thought a Kevin fan would want him to be defined in his own terms, rather than as the Anti-Howard. If you want the anti-Howard part of the quote to remain, I am more than happy for it to be there :-) It's good to keep the great man's name alive. Leaving Howard in the article portrays Rudd as fighting yesterday's battles - a portrayal I am eager to facilitate --Surturz (talk) 01:03, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
I pulled it out again. Might as well do it sooner rather than later. --Pete (talk) 01:16, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Sigh. More pointless edit warring without talk page discussion from the usual suspects. At least the evidence is collecting. Timeshift (talk) 01:20, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
The book and the newspaper article in The Age describe the quote as Rudd's "harshest criticisms" of Howard economics since gaining office. Rudd came to power on the back of his criticism of Howard economics, so it has some relevance to what Rudd stands for, just like opposition leader Brendon Nelson's criticism of Rudd forms the impression of what Nelson stands for. So both sides of politics are criticising each other, but this is how it goes.Lester 04:22, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Stop Edit Waring

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

There is, vote for article prohibition. Shot info (talk) 04:27, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Lester, deleting text is not edit warring. Reverting changes is edit warring. There is such a thing as constructive deletion. --Surturz (talk) 01:13, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] FuelWatch

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

During the election campaign, Rudd promised to institute new government bodies to monitor, with the aim of reducing, fuel and grocery prices. In 2008 senior ministers in his government expressed concern that such measures would actually raise prices for those least able to pay[1][2]. Rudd defended the program, saying that it would reduce prices by around 2 cents a litre.

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

[edit] WP:Recentism

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

[edit] too many refs?

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

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

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

While I admire the research that's gone into it, I'm unconvinced that Rudd's Chinese alias deserves mention in the article. Isn't it akin to a nickname? It's not a name he was born with, and I doubt we'd put his full name as Kevin Michael "Lù Kèwén" Rudd. OTOH I guess he does talk to high level chinese diplomats and politicians. Perhaps if one of those looked up this article, they'd like to know :) --Surturz (talk) 21:01, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Such names are not usually nicknames in the way the term is used within most western cultures, and need to be understood as arising through processes of inter-cultural contact and communication. I'd be careful about the argument that its not a name he was born with, since many people acquire names that stick as they go through life, and which are noted in WP articles - either as nicknames that are bestowed upon them, or names that they select for themselves for whatever reason. Sometimes the rationale for these names is contained in the article, sometimes not. In Rudd's case, his acceptance of his Chinese name would be an indicator of his relationship with aspects of Chinese culture and customs in this regard, and is a component of his character as a politician. To make the entry even more relevant, it would be interesting to include the meaning of Rudd's Chinese name as well, because this is an important part of the naming process - all Chinese names have explicit meanings in their own right, unlike most Western names whose affect lies mainly in their sound and any associations they may have with literary, theological, sporting, etc identities. If Rudd's Chinese name is used by people in China, then it becomes far more relevant. If it was only used as part of his Mandarin classes, then its value is mainly for curiosity sake. Eyedubya (talk) 00:53, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
While I see the relevance of "Lu Kewen" being included in the article, I don't see a need for digging into the phonetics. "Lu Kewen" is simply a well-crafted phonetic approximation of his "real" name in English (which happen to be three syllables--same as most Chinese names). Knowing the language, I don't see the need of the meaning either, as "Lu Kewen" doesn't have an explicit and unambiguous meaning. One could suspect "Ke" means "to overcome" and "Wen" means "the written (Chinese) language", but it may not have been his intention. The obvious and unambiguous explanation (if there even needs to be one) is the phonetic similarity. Generically "Kevin Rudd" would be translated to "Kaiwen Lade" (Lah-duh) in modern day Chinese, but "Lu Kewen" is one that he specifically chooses, just like many Chinese and Koreans choose (or are given) a Western first name. HkCaGu (talk) 17:19, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Speaking as a westerner with Chinese ancestry and a Chinese name, I think that the issue of meaning is interesting and relevant - there should be more of it, not less. The subtle differences between the tones will be indiscernable, giving several possibilities for names that phonetically sound the same to western ears, but conveying quite different meanings to those who speak Chinese. Eyedubya (talk) 01:31, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Wiktionary says 陸: land/army/six 克:overcome/gram 文: literature/culture/writing. "Overcome Literature with an Army" perhaps. Unless Kev wanted his name to mean "censorship", I would say that it is a phonetic representation of his English name :-) P.S. I've changed my mind, I think given the importance of his ability to speak Mandarin, it is worthy of inclusion. --Surturz (talk) 10:52, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
OK, now try saying his name to a Mandarin-speaking person and watch their reaction! :) Eyedubya (talk) 10:56, 9 June 2008 (UTC)