Talk:Kevin Rudd/Archive 3

message: "the restoration of unfair dismissal laws for companies with 15-100 employees"
Suggested change
"the restoration of unfair dismissal laws for companies with under 100 employees (probation extensions of 12 months for companies with less than 15 employees)"
Labor policy is, shown by the link in the article, to restore unfair dismissal laws for all employees. I don't seem to be able to edit the page (even after getting an account).  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Richardflude (talk • contribs) 04:45, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I made the change, seems you have to wait a few days before you're allowed to edit  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Richardflude (talk • contribs) 02:46, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  IR section 

message: Kudos to JRG. Timeshift 06:05, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Besides the earlier discussion (now archived) where I suggested a separate family section and was met with approval for it by several editors, I think there should be two separate sections for this. The information about Rudd's early life especially could be significantly expanded on, and I believe if we look hard enough (or wait till there's the inevitable unofficial biography) we'll find more information on Rudd's family. Let's encourage people to add more to this, not try and condense everything to as few sections as possible. JRG 10:20, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I should note there are no privacy issues as he's already been on TV a few times. Timeshift 15:35, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm always in favour of expansion of articles, rather than condensing them. Rudd will inevitably have a longer article than any previous prime minister, as he begins his term in the age of the internet where articles about everything he does will be easily accessible. Possibly separate articles for Rudd's personal doings and The Rudd Government would be useful in anticipation of this expansion. Lester 21:50, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: One reference I must remember to hunt up was an article in the Australian shortly before the election, where Rudd's uncle and cousin were saying they wouldn't vote Labor (largely over the dam plans from the Qld government, but there was the implication that they were more of a Nat-Lib bent anyway). Could add some interesting "flavour" to the article. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 22:17, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

text: It may not be consistent with other political biographies, but it is not consistent with other articles for world leaders. A person's family is a VERY relevant part of their life - they are not just about their Prime Ministership. If you disagree with the photo, then make a new one from a zoom of the original photo with just Rudd and his son. Don't change the article just because of that. JRG 08:05, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is the second time you've essentially mischaracterised my position on this issue. That will not achieve consensus. Please read the arguments that I actually make and please seek consensus on the talkpage for disputed changes. At no point did I claim that family is not a relevant part of Rudd's life. The issue here is how much information should be included and in what manner it should be presented. Apropos this, I repeat, from the archived earlier discussion, my comments that, at the time, were entirely uncontroversial and largely unremarked upon (and, for the most time since, Rudd's family information has sat in the "Early life and family" section without substantive objection, similiar to the inclusion of such information in BLPs for other Aussie politicians): I agree that a moderate amount of family information should be included, consistent with the amount of family information, where available and reasonable, described in the BLPs of other Australian politicians. I don't think a separate Family section is needed. We shouldn't be using Kev's BLP to track, in great detail, the lives of his family members (unless they become independantly notable, in which case they get their own article for that, like Therese Rein already has). The John Howard BLP has his family info mostly incorporated into the Early Life section, so I have tried to match that on Kev's BLP, but renamed the section to "Early life and family". --Brendan [ contribs ] 11:03, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

text: The above does not matter. I suggested that the early life and family section be expanded so as to add more information on family and his early life so as to improve the article. This was agreed upon and met with positive and favourable comment, except by yourself, Brendan. Other editors, among them Timeshift, JPD and Sarah, and now I think also the persons above in addition (again other than yourself), agree with me that a separate family section is warranted. You are on your own here. Both sections can and should be expanded, so let us do that - and stop trying to stifle this article's development. I am getting mighty sick of this page being reverted every time I try to change it back. Please stop doing so and accept that other users do not support your view. JRG 11:55, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Someone please back me up here... JRG 12:10, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Simply reverting my changes without even bothering to comment is just rude and is definitely disruptive editing, if it is not vandalism. I asked you to stop and you just keep going. JRG 12:15, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I made comments in reply to yours explaining my revert, yet you simply reverted my edits that I made without replying to them. I explained why I thought your views do not matter - so I ask that you stop misinterpreting me - read everything I say and not just taking a sentence out of context. JRG 11:49, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Read WP:CON and WP:POLL. A poll is not consensus, polling discourages consensus. Regardless of your poll, in which I decline to participate, I maintain my aforementioned views. --Brendan [ contribs ] 23:09, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I know you panic at polls cause they always rule against you, but seeing as we can't form consensus any other way, i'll be enforcing whatever the popular vote decides here. Kthx. Timeshift (talk) 23:41, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Do you go out of your way to be hysterical? Good for you, laddie. You obviously have a chip on your shoulder. So long as you do that, consensus will continue to prove elusive. --Brendan [ contribs ] 23:53, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I take extreme exception to your inability to recognise when consensus has been achieved in the past, especially when you are the only one to argue your viewpoint. Timeshift (talk) 23:59, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You have a misconception of consensus. Please read WP:CON, particularly the section Consensus in practice ("Wikipedia is not a majoritarian democracy"). You will experience angst and difficultly around here if you keep intellectually assaulting the rationality of others according to your misconception. --Brendan [ contribs ] 00:05, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, we've resorted to polls as a last resort. Timeshift (talk) 00:10, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm glad you now implicitly acknowledge it is not my "inability to recognise when consensus" but that "we can't [seem to] form consensus" for a separate Family section. Excellent. It's great that you're finally starting to understand consensus. When you're ready to work on achieving it, let me know. --Brendan [ contribs ] 00:20, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Been there, done that, poll time. Timeshift (talk) 00:28, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

text: The only child is their youngest, and there is no photo of him - apart from the fact he along with the rest of the family was with Rudd when he claimed victory. But that aside, I agree that anything more than a name of a minor is probably going too far. The photo is of three well known people and Rudd's son. I didn't upload it FOR Rudd's son. I uploaded it for the three and a half well-known people. Timeshift (talk) 01:32, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess the danger of a Family section is for it to be filled with trivia about Rudd's kids. I'm not in favour of adding any more information about Rudd's kids, unless they get themselves involved in a big news story over some incident. His daughter's marriage date seems trivial to me. His wife & brother were asked to sell their businesses to help Rudd's election chances, which may or may not be notable. There currently doesn't seem to be much information to fill a Family section. Lester 00:53, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Family section 

message: Would somebody update the infobox, Rudd has been sworn in as the 26th Australian PM. GoodDay 23:08, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Prime Minister TopInfobox

message: This morning the Governor-General signed the instrument appointing Rudd as Prime Minister and administered the Oath of Office. The Governor-General also administered the Oath of a Federal Executive Councillor, which brings with it the title of "The Honourable". 203.7.140.3 00:17, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: True.  To be strictly correct, the Fed Exec Councillor oath came first, the swearing-in as PM second.  --  JackofOz 00:24, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I realised that after I'd added it. I fixed it for the Julia Gillard entry and was about to update that here. 203.7.140.3 00:26, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Swearing in and title 

message: May I suggest a compromise?  I know it's not "standard" on all other Prime Minister articles, as pointed out above, but may I suggest replacing Monarch and the Monarch's name with the Governor-General's?  The Governor-General is uniquely Australia's head of state, whereas the Monarch is the head of state of the Commonwealth, and the Commonwealth is more than one nation, not just Australia.  It applies more to the article because it was the Governor-General, not the Queen herself, who appointed the Prime Minister, and while he was technically and constitutionally using "her" powers, it directly applies to Australia, and more specifically, the office of Prime Minister, more.
This I hope will satisfy both sides, cos it certainly satisfies me and I was all for getting rid of old Liz completely.  But this makes more sense.  DEVS EX MACINA pray 23:51, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Governer General is not Australia's head of state. I don't think this article talk page is the appropriate place to discuss the issue, as those who wish to change it will change it for hundreds of articles. This should be taken up at Wikipedia:WikiProject Australian politics, as you're talking of a style change for all political articles. Also, because this is a major change, there is no "consensus" to add it, as some have claimed in the Kevin Rudd article edit summaries. It should be left out until a thorough, central discussion has taken place. There's no consensus for someone to go 'round adding these things to 25 articles at once, which is what happened recently. Otherwise, some poor soul must go back and pluck them out again, like burrs from a sock. Lester 00:11, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why move it?  And he is the head of state, or at least its Australian representative.  Australian and tied to the monarchy.  Perfect middle ground.  But I know what you mean about changing all the articles, I was the one who had to delete Religion out of all 26 Prime Minister's infoboxes when someone blindly added them all in.  DEVS EX MACINA pray 00:23, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Which is possibly why Wikipedia suffers.  Personally I am a fan of conformity, not for "conformity's" sake, but to make this little encylopedia project thingyo called Wikipedia more professional.  It's why WP has MOS'.   Shot info (talk) 04:47, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is very annoying. Why does Australia have to be given special treatment - I can't stand the fact that my country's (Canada) Head of State is a monarch who doesn't live in my country. Yet it's acceptable to have her on our PM infoboxes, because it's accurate with other PM articles (including Republican PMs). Until Australia becomes a republic, let's leave E2 in the Australian PM infoboxes. GoodDay (talk) 16:02, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I've already supported having Elizabeth II on the Canadian PM infoboxes. The question now? Does the 'Head of State' (monarch or president) have to be in every PM bio's Infobox. GoodDay (talk) 20:58, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

text: This is tiresome, you guys/gals decide what you wish on inclusion/exclusion of Elizabeth II. GoodDay (talk) 21:23, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I vote to include Elizabeth II, but the other constitutional monarchy's PMS have the governor general there too. I'd like both, but if one has to be sacrificed, it should be the governor general. Therequiembellishere (talk) 01:59, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Here's something to 'scream about'. If commonality is called for, then check out the French Presidents bio infobox. According to them, Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom should have every Commonwealth realm PM listed in her infobox. If we continue to leave Head of State in PM infoboxes, then we must have PMs in HoS infoboxes. GoodDay (talk) 00:46, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We should, and we generally do. Monarchs have something weird about their infoboxes that doesn't include a place for their HoGs, so that's the only reason I haven't started adding them to theirs, believe me. It's totally called for and I'd like to bring it up, but I'm working on this and a few others right now. Therequiembellishere (talk) 01:30, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

text: It's probably because they aren't necessarily politicians, so people thought they deserved a different infobox for some reason. I'd like all HoSs and HoGs to have the same infobox. Therequiembellishere (talk) 01:35, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Think of it though, every Commonwealth realm PM during her 55yr reign. It would dwarf her article. GoodDay (talk) 01:38, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

text: They don't deserve special treatment, that's why the HoGs should be there and that's why royals have their own kind of infobox. We might have to make a page to fit them all though, I'll admit ;-) but they should be there. Therequiembellishere (talk) 01:46, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Erm, can't take a joke, can we? And it doesn't matter. She's no different than any other person in the world. Therequiembellishere (talk) 01:53, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Don't get charged too much! :-P Therequiembellishere (talk) 02:09, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's clean house baby - Remove Head of State and Elections from all PM bio infoboxes. GoodDay (talk) 16:57, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Compromise

message: In order to avoid edit wars, I've opened this discussion. Is it really necessary to show the Australian Election(s) on the PM's infobox. They do clutter the infobox IMHO. GoodDay (talk) 23:26, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They really do, especially in cases like John Howard's. If you guys think that the monarch and GG is clutter, I don't why this isn't. Therequiembellishere (talk) 23:33, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What? The addition of the monarch and GG in place of the elections? Therequiembellishere (talk) 00:10, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

text: IMHO, it's a part of a bigger question - should the Australian PM infoboxes be different from the other PM infoboxes on Wikipedia. Is commonality necessary? GoodDay (talk) 00:27, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not necessarily. If something is a reasonably complete subject in its own right, it can look to others for guidance but does not need to follow on every detail. Orderinchaos 02:28, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Actually, the 'Election(s)', HoS & GG should be removed from 'all' PM infoboxes at Wikipedia. Gazz is correct, what's next? do we add the Popes for every infobox at 'cardinal' & 'bishop' articles? GoodDay (talk) 00:58, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And why should elections be removed? Because other infoboxes don't have them? Well I say they serve much purpose. For some Australian PMs, the only link for an election is in the infobox and not in the article. Even if they were, you'd need to find them, there's no easy quick place to look to see which elections that PM contested. They have been there for a long time now and other people in the past have commented on what a good idea they were. There is absolutely no need for the removal of these. This is the one thing I hate about election time... Timeshift (talk) 01:07, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, all six 26 Australian PMs, and for quite a while. And with compliments toward me. The worst thing is they havent won all of those elections? Of course not, you don't win all elections you contest! I will be defending these heavily. Timeshift (talk) 01:14, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Exactly, the Aussie PMs. Commonality is not a flimsy argument, that's like ignoring protocol and calling Howard the current PM. And it is entirely ridiculous to include losing elections! Should we put a greengrocer who ran for PM on the list? It's not like the other Australian politicians have their elections on their box, only the PMs. You can run for election for sixty years, that doesn't mean we should mention every election you enter as notable! And we can see that you're "defending these heavily", thanks We're not in our first year of school. Therequiembellishere (talk)  —Preceding comment was added at 01:24, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Howabout adding 'elections' to the Members of Parliament bio infoboxes. GoodDay (talk) 01:29, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Are MPs images on those election pages? Didn't think so. Are the PM's? Thought so. Timeshift (talk) 01:32, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I happen to think 1987 is an important election to include on Howard's page. It's not just the wins that make a PM, it's the losses too. It's been there for ages, and there has been no argument of substance to remove them. Timeshift (talk) 01:31, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Because they could have been in office since the 60s! Are you really going to put every single election they contested in, even the ones they didn't win?! And "ages" in Wikipedia is, what, two years? Hardly. And I'm sorry, but the last I chequed, but you only take a political office if you win. Therequiembellishere (talk) 01:33, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Are you seriously saying that the picture makes the person? Therequiembellishere (talk) 01:34, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It shows elections that the PM has contested as the leader of their party, vying to be PM or retain the PMship. I have received compliments on it, they are on all 26 Australian PMs, and have been there for ages. Why do you only take issue now - ah i've just found out why. The ones objecting aren't from Australia and they think because some of the infobox is different from global PMs, it shouldn't be on ours. Well, there is no such thing as a need for the same infobox for all countries. It's simple, I will be defending these strongly. Timeshift (talk) 01:37, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've notised your defence, thanks, that's been addressed. I don't mean to be offensive, but Hitler also received compliments, but even if his actions had been well-intentioned, that wouldn't make them right, especially not due to compliments. You're being repetitive; the 26 lovely PMs of Australia have done wonderful job, but so have the thousand or so others who don't have them, and haven't been there for the five-year existence of Wikipedia, which you seem to think is a long time. And what sort of question is, "Why do you only take the issue now"? Perhaps because it's only come up to me now? Therequiembellishere (talk) 01:44, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm not confortable with that loose suggestion - Australian PM articles belong to Australian editors. Did I misunderstand things, folks? GoodDay (talk) 01:47, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Given that we are the ones who create them, maintain them, defend them from often excessive levels of vandalism etc, I do think that the Australian politics editors do merit more of a say in how they are presented than those outside, no matter how good-intentioned. That isn't ownership by any stretch, that's just plain common sense. We have the same situation over at Australian places and roads with some of the templates. Orderinchaos 02:27, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Which suggestion, now? Therequiembellishere (talk) 01:48, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

text: And nobody owns any articles, that's part of the essence of Wikipedia. Therequiembellishere (talk) 01:49, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Did I say anyone owned it? I stated why you've decided to come along now and dictate to us that we shouldn't have non-standard things in our PM infoboxes. Australians edit this article most, so naturally we will have a consensus for the Australian rather than the non-Australian way (the editors who edit this most, and not just at election time, get the articles good to what we think is best, rather than having it dictated to us by others (who are in the minority) about how things should and shouldn't be and basing it on other countries infoboxes). Timeshift (talk) 01:55, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Thanks for clarifying Timeshift (with Majority vs Minority example). GoodDay (talk) 01:58, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I wasn't talking to you, Timeshift. You'll see the GoodDay was the one who said that, so you're clarifying something that you hadn't even alluded to up until now. Australians will naturally edit Australian articles most, but you should remember that the world looks at it and don't know as much as you. Seeing the other countries with a difference to this one is extremely strange. It they want to find out the information on the election the politician has participated in, they should be incorporated in and be read in article. I can help you put these in at least Howard and Rudd's pages, because, as you have rudely pointed out on my page, I'm not Australian and don't know what happened in all of your elections, but if I can find information here, I'll try. Even for Austrlians, remembering 100+ years of Prime Ministers is nigh impossible. Therequiembellishere (talk) 02:16, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You've still given no substance for justification of removal of elections, except a bunch of waft. GoodDay gave a succinct clarification of things though. He said he's leaning toward advocating removing HoS and elections from 'all PM infoboxes (constitutional monarchies & republican PMs) on Wikipedia'. Clarification - wikipedia does not work like this, it cannot be dictated to all countries as to how they have their pages and cannot dictate that all countries have the same one design. Wikipedia does not and will not work like that. Timeshift (talk) 02:23, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

text: That's what hoping to find out tommorrow (concerning PM bio infoboxes), does Wikipedia work that way or not. It doesn't hurt to ask. GoodDay (talk) 03:00, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I've already implemented what I believe is the most practical solution. Individual listings for PMs, with John Howard listing each but cutting off the first two numbers, and Robert Menzies you can view. Bob Hawke just fits. Timeshift (talk) 02:30, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is not waft that they get in the way. I suggested that we should implement them into the article itself, which makes perfect sense as we can go in more detail there than the actual election's page can. The HoS and GG are pertinent because they are legally his equal (in a general sense people, I don't need constitutional references) and should be recognised as such. Therequiembellishere (talk) 03:14, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See here. In Australia, it is the the election/electors, not the HoS, that in practicality chooses who will govern. Timeshift (talk) 04:15, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

text: In Australia the GG is a figurehead only - it's not like France, Russia or Pakistan to name a few where the PM is basically the appointee - in Australia it's almost the other way around, and due to the bipartisan nature of the appointments of GGs, they usually have no bearing on the character of the PM appointing them either. Orderinchaos 04:44, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Brendan, I'll bite. I change to remove HoS, GG and Elections. Therequiembellishere (talk) 16:58, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, let's clean house. Also, I've raised question at Wikipedia: WikiProject Biography, to what their views our on all PM bio infoboxes. Take a peek. GoodDay (talk) 17:02, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Firstly, the idead that PM infoboxes need to be exactly the same in different countries (even in different Commonwealth realms) is complete garbage. Wikipedia doesn't work like that, and there is no reason why an Aussie PM box must look like a UK PM box or so on. As for this particular issue, clearly the elections contested are important to the life of a PM, and are useful links. The question is whether these are well suited for display in an infobox, or should simply be covered in the article. To some extent this is a matter of taste. I am not convinced either way, even though I generally prefer smaller infoboxes. I would suggest, however, that if lost elections belong in the PM's box, they probably belong in the infobox for opposition leaders who never became PM, as well. JPD (talk) 11:27, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't disagree, but taking that the next step, should infoboxes between any Australian PM be the same?  If so, why?  If not, why not? Shot info (talk) 11:51, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I find the elections addition a useful addition. I didn't actually know, for example, that Howard had contested the 87 election until I read it there. But Head of State should definitely go. I'm happy to ditch the elections too, as long as it's made very clear (possibly in section headings) that a leader contested a particular election - e.g. Howardin 1987. I also think the addition of degrees and titles should go in the lead paragraph as is done with everyone else on Wikipedia. Infobox should be confined to a few simple details - DOB, former profession, spouse, religion (if relevant (and given that Rudd has made his Christian faith a very prominent part of his life (as someone like George Bush or Tony Blair also did) it IS relevant here, but I'd argue it's not for most former Australian Prime Ministers)), Deputy, predecessors and successors. (GoodDay, let's not ask WikiProject Biography - they have nothing to do with this page. Let's sort it out ourselves. JRG (talk) 12:15, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Showing Election clutters PM Infoboxes

message: The article seems to be evolving in two different directions that have resulted (and may increasingly so) in tautology (eg. Kyoto mentioned twice, once under 'First term', another under 'Environmental views'). What do others think about consolidating the various "views" sections back into their chronological context (ie. comments/speeches/views made as a Member of Parliament go in that section, similar for Leader of the Opposition, and so too for Prime Minister). A benefit of this approach is that the article may better document changes in views/policy/direction relative to other coincident events (remembering that political views are apt to change depending on the issue, the context, and so forth). I didn't want to go making edits yet because it is a hefty structural/stylistic change, wanted to hear others' thoughts. --Brendan [ contribs ] 12:57, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Go for it.  If editors disagree, they can always edit :-)  Shot info 23:52, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

text: It's better to have different views listed by view at least until there's enough of an article (including Rudd's prime ministership) to constitute a chronological article. At the moment with just his opposition years and recent leadership elevation I don't think the article is sufficient to warrant a complete rewriting of the views sections. JRG 12:04, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Snapshot of views versus chronological narrative

message: The link, although pointing to the right address, reads "www.pm.com.au" instead of "www.pm.gov.au". I'd change this but the page is protected  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.208.109.169 (talk) 02:26, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Web Address in Infobox 

message: I've removed the bit about the US being the final country (i think i added it in). Is this relevant to Kevin Rudd's environmental stance? Ps i appreciate the grammatical fixes made earlier Blumph 06:08, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Environment 

message: This was deleted out at some stage or another, but is a major event is his personal story and has its own importance for Australian national leadership. While he is fit and well, he has an homograft heart valve and will need to remain under careful medical monitoring for the rest of his life. I think this warrants reinstatement in the article. Any objections? ROxBo 08:04, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No objections here.Lester 02:49, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I didn't know that he has one! Bothsidesspin (talk) 00:05, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So does Arnold Schwartzkopf (sic). Careful medical monitoring though? I don't like the wording of that, it has incorrect implications. And it was 10 years ago. I have no issues re-adding this, assuming it is factually correct. Timeshift (talk) 00:47, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed with Timeshift. It's as a result of a genetic problem that some percentage of the population have from birth, most people with it once the operation has been conducted have normal, long and healthy lives, so this "careful medical monitoring" thing seems a bit odd (Disclosure: I know someone with the same problem, his was replaced at 31.) Orderinchaos 04:42, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: What ever happened to the mention of Rudd's Aortic valve replacement?

message: WWGB keeps removing Kevin Rudd's Chinese name. There is a citation about his Chinese name - that is his official name. I don't know why he could remove the useful information and said he is calling that as "just editing the article" without saying the truth that he removed useful information. Raymond Giggs 12:11, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not his "official name", Kevin Rudd is his official name. His Chinese affiliation deserves mention in the article, but certainly not in the opening sentence. WWGB (talk) 12:22, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry. It is his official Chinese name. It is not a translated name in Chinese, but his official Chinese name. He gave this name himself. Please check the citation. Raymond Giggs 12:27, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In the citation, the news article keep saying that his name is "Kevin Rudd", but also point out that he named himself as "陸克文", how come it is not his official Chinese name? For Howard, Howard had not given himself any Chinese name, so I won't add any Chinese translation name in Howard's article. But for Ruud's case, yes. Raymond Giggs 12:30, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The fact is not disputed, putting it in the lead sentence is. Cheers, WikiTownsvillian 12:40, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The purpose of giving a name in any language other than English in the lead is to indicate what the subject calls themself in their own first language. What they're called in other languages, whether the subject learned them at university or the language has some form of official status within their country or the language is just widely used, isn't really relevant. Since Rudd has presumably been to other countries and will no doubt go to more, do we need to list what names are put on the press releases/name plates and so forth wherever he goes? Timrollpickering (talk) 20:34, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see the need for a Chinese name here either. The only use I can see for doing that would be for someone who is Chinese but known in the West by a different name - people like Jackie Chan or Donald Tsang, for example - not a Westerner who happens to be able to speak Chinese. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 22:16, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Including his Chinese name is entirely relevant, given his time spent working and studying in China as well as Taiwan (any one have a citation for his time studying at Taipei's National Taiwan Normal University?). Rudd, unlike other celebs say like Tom Cruise who is referred with a "fake" transliterated name, self identifies himself with 陸克文 when in a Chinese language context. Inclusion is highly appropriate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Panamajack (talk • contribs) 10:06, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's a considerable difference, though, between saying "Rudd refers to himself with this Chinese name" at the appropriate point in the article (which is what it reads right now and I have no problem with) and saying "Kevin Rudd (Chinese Name: X), is the..." in the lead sentence of the article, as it did when I made my initial comment. The latter is, as I said, only really appropriate for people who are of Chinese ancestry but known by Anglicised names. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 10:33, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There seems to be consensus that the name doesn't belong in the intro, but can be put in later, in the section which discusses his education. Someone has removed it from there citing insufficient sources. There is no lack of sources; it should be restored.JaneGrey 17:51, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Either google "陸克文" or "Lu Kewen" would yield a lot of results. I agree there is no lack of sources. It should be restored. (I just don't know the techniques to do it.) HkCaGu 17:22, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed it citing lack of sufficient sources within the article. If there are plenty of sources, then the editor inserting the information should add them (rather than rely solely on one foreign-language source for what appears to be a somewhat obscure fact). Other than that, I totally agree that fact does not belong in the lead, and that the extent to which the Chinese name is discussed within the article should be appropriate to its significance (which doesn't appear major). --Brendan [ contribs ] 23:47, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just to add my 2c. Kevin Rudd's Chinese name should be in the section refering to his time in China. Sure, Kevin Rudd may refer to himself as "陸克文" when dealing with the Chinese, but when dealing with, say, the Japanese, he would be "ラッド ケッビン", or any other variants depending on the country. As Prime Minister or Australia he will have dealings with all these countries, so if the Chinese name is relevent, so should other foreign names. But as the Chinese name is relevant to the section of the article about his time in China / relations to China only (where, say, the Japanese name is totally irrelevant), then thats where it should go. It really is only relevent within the Chinese context. Ka-ru (talk) 05:41, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I have replaced the tone marks and identified the Chinese script used in accordance with Wikipedia norms.JaneGrey (talk) 17:17, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chinese name 

message: While we're complaining about the Infobox, can we get rid of the term "Alma Mater"? IMHO that is an American term and has no place in an Australian article. Peter Ballard (talk) 12:10, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No takers? No opinions either way? Peter Ballard (talk) 12:03, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Get rid of it.  I take a non-response as an OK. Slac speak up! 05:11, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, keep it. Wht the Hell do you mean by "American term"? It's used in a lot of places! Therequiembellishere (talk) 05:50, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I mean Americans use it widely, but Australians rarely do, so it has no place in an Australian article. (I note the above user is in the USA). Peter Ballard (talk) 06:43, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I note that the term appears in Gareth Evans's article.  --  JackofOz (talk) 02:36, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alma Mater? 

message: I saw this article's link on the main page.  The article barely mentions his strip club controversy.  Did he really just walk out?  I thought the controversy was that he stayed there longer.  Spin?  Or Wikipedia is correct and the news media is wrong? Bothsidesspin (talk) 00:04, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's conflicting news stories, who knows? Who cares? I'm sure it's going to affect how Australia operates in the future as a result of his becoming Prime Minister. Not. Timeshift (talk) 02:09, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not aware of any credible report that he stayed for more than a few minutes. Peter Ballard (talk) 10:46, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It was a hard time for him. --Pete (talk) 12:23, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The strip club owner said it was brief. However, the article is stating the strip club owner's version of events as fact. Really, we should attribute the brevity of the visit as a claim from the club owner.Lester 04:44, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think a bare mention is appropriate. --Pete (talk) 18:01, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Rudd copped an eyeful. --Pete (talk) 00:07, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  strip club? 

message: Kevin Rudd is half Irish (on his mother's side).  Millbanks (talk) 14:42, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Irish Roots

message: SMH article referencing Mr Rudd's smile type and its influence on his electoral success. : Rudd won the election by more than a nose; he won it by a smile. Rudd has a natural Duchenne smile (named after the French researcher who identified it), which involves the orbicularis oculi and the zygomaticus muscles - in other words, when he smiles, his eyes crinkle in a way that lights up the whole face. Since these muscles aren't under our voluntary control, this type of smile is difficult to fake and people tend to unconsciously imbue the smiler with positive traits such as being genuine and trustworthy. Studies have been done on people displaying a Duchenne smile in their senior class photos that showed they were more successful throughout their lives than their peers.  Not sure how the fact fits in tot he article but it was certainly something I noticed during the campaign. --Matilda talk 01:27, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Smile 

message: Dudd sweared alliegiance to HM they just had two oaths; one as an executive councillor and one for the office.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.131.178.81 (talk) 04:44, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, but for each one there's a choice of swearing an oath (with reference to God) or making an affirmation (with no such reference).  I don't know the exact words.  See "Not my Queen" above for citation.  I understand that, in both cases, he chose the affirmation rather than the oath.  Not that any mention of this fact is encyclopedic, imo.  --  JackofOz (talk) 05:11, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was pretty sure he swore oaths each time, but Gillard made affirmations. At least, that's how I think it was reported in the media, but I might be just projecting the idea that he was sworn in back on the whole event. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 07:55, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You may well be right.  I don't focus on such things, I must say.  I keep on saying this lately, but I honestly can't see what's encyclopedic about whether a minister chooses an oath over an affirmation, or vice-versa.  I know some media people like to put a particular spin on it, such as referring to the choice of an affirmation as a "refusal to swear allegiance to the Queen" or whatever, but that just betrays an ignorance of our arrangements.  All ministers have a free choice; some choose an oath, others an afirmation.  The same with MPs and senators, I believe.  It has no more import than choosing green underwear over pink underwear.  If anyone can convince me otherwise, I'm prepared to be open-minded about it.   --  JackofOz (talk) 12:18, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In agreement JackOz, particularly when one considers all the hoopla (and IMHO foolishness) over the swearing-in of an Islamic American congressman ealier this year. GoodDay (talk) 18:32, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Swearing alliegiance 

message: There's a bit of genericism (sic) about this term... after all, the media went crazy calling Mike Ranns win a "Rannslide" last year in the state election. Timeshift (talk) 08:40, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point. I think Malcolm Mackerras even predicted a "Kerryslide" in the last US election (wrongly, of course), which doesn't exactly come trippingly off the tongue. I'm inclined to keep "Ruddslide" at present, since there'll be enough citations we can dig up if need be, but it definitely lends itself to everyone trying every single pun they can think of in this article. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 09:27, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Definitely needs a cite, as the silly use of "Kevalanche" illustrates. Peter Ballard (talk) 10:23, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Here and Here. But why does it need a cite? Kevalanche is just silly and rediculous and disproven easily and quickly with no results in news.google, and www.google only has forums and other non-reliable sources for the word. Timeshift (talk) 10:32, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ideally, saying "the media said X" should always be cited - my inner academic always asks "what media?" on seeing something like that. This might be a case, though, where the lack of citations of, say, "Kevalanche" is enough to prevent it from being added, but we don't expressly need one for "Ruddslide". I wouldn't mind one bit if we didn't call it anything here, but I doubt we'll be able to stop people calling it something. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 12:48, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ruddslide 

message: Not even a month into a job and I think this page already needs this heading! Shall we start with the business of saying sorry to indigenous Australians and providing $1bn in handouts, only have have indigenous leaders reject the offer as 'too low'?143.92.1.121 (talk) 00:49, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would suggest that if you're looking for a genuine response, try to be a bit more genuine yourself as at the moment you're coming off as a complete troll. Also, as per the precedence set at John Howard, if it doesn't involve Rudd directly then it doesn't belong on this page. Timeshift (talk) 01:14, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I've no problem with important things being on the page, but two points. (1) A "Controversy" section is almost always a bad idea for a major politician, because they have so many. Better to have headings by issues or time frames. (2) Let the dust settle. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a newspaper. I suggest stories on politics (aside from big stories like election results) wait at least a week, preferably longer, to see how they pan out. Peter Ballard (talk) 01:44, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Controversies

message: Rudd, Kevin (November 16, 2006). What's Wrong with the Right. Retrieved on December 9, 2006. Timeshift (talk) 23:37, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  broken ref, any other sources? 

message: I see the most recent edit that the One Nation party is still registered federally, and is not defunct. I did not know this. I note the same discussion taking place at the Talk: One Nation discussion page. Lester 21:24, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[One Nation]] still registered federally? 

message: Not sure if you wish to add Kevin Rudd's ancestry but i found information which states he is a descendant of Mary Wade (matriarch of one of the largest families in the world) who at 11 years of age is the youngest female convict transported to Australia. She had 21 children and had over 300 living descendants before her death and is therefore considered as one of 'the founding mothers' of the white Australia settlement. Some references are   . Details are also in the Australian National Library in the book, 'Mary Wade To Us - A Family History, 1778-1986' which was compiled by numerous Wade descendants. Boylo (talk) 07:32, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see a huge need to mention it, since the majority of Anglo-Australians are descended from either convicts or soldiers in the early settlement years anyway. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 11:49, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ancestry Links to Mary Wade 

message: The flickr user had no issues changing the permissions for Wayne Swan's image for me, so i'm assuming he wouldn't take issue to doing the same for this image. That said, I don't want to get him to do the favour and for both of us to take the time to do it, for someone to come along and object for one reason or another (hint hint Rudd's adult son + father image). Any objections? Timeshift (talk) 02:19, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Isn't that a photo of a young John Howard? Shot info (talk) 02:47, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That doesn't look like Howard to me. Therequiembellishere (talk) 00:34, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Really?? Shot info (talk) 01:01, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This is an image discussion. There is no place for your misguided sarcasm and/or comedy. Review historic Labor leaders, then review Whitlam Hawke and Keating. It's called the Third Way. Perhaps you care to explain in which areas Keating and Rudd differ in their views? Timeshift (talk) 01:06, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Haha - glad somebody got it - after all, didn't the majority of your news media make the claim (or something similar) that he "was a younger Howard" etc. :-) Shot info (talk) 01:12, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Our media here is retarded and constantly make stupid claims. Howard did the same thing in 1996... he was very much "me-too" except for a few select issues, just like Rudd. Timeshift (talk) 01:14, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Heh, somebody can take a joke :-)  Shot info (talk) 01:15, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Jokes are no longer funny when they've been recycled 10000 times. Also, this is an image discussion. Seeing as there are no apparent objections, i'll make the request to the flickr user. Timeshift (talk) 01:19, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Heh, and somebody cannot :-)  Shot info (talk) 01:20, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Image - yes or no?