Talk:First Rudd ministry

message: Current Australian Commonwealth ministry needs updating. Timeshift 15:34, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  link in bottom template below PM's ministries 

message: Until Rudd has had multiple ministries, wouldn't the established convention require that "First" not be used? Other one-ministry leaders (such as Barton) don't show a "first" when there has not been a "second".  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.208.193.118 (talk) 08:18, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don’t know whether there’s anything official about the numbering in any event.  For example, Menzies' final ministry (his 9th, I think) is shown in the Parliamentary Handbook thus – no number, just dates.  The Rudd government’s official Ministry list  says just “Rudd Ministry”.  However, I think that numbers are useful for obvious reasons.  Even for the first of only one (so far), it may be helpful for our readers to know that it is indeed the first.  It doesn’t necessarily imply there will be a second, or that there won’t be.  It’s factual and NPOV.  I say leave it.  --  JackofOz (talk) 13:43, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  'First' 

message: I believe this article is incomplete without summarising the formation of government administration. Given that the legacy of the First Rudd Ministry is a return to the political culture of Keating Labor, you'd also want a redirect link to the Rudd Government#administration, detailing the controversies over a "new federalism" and the demands placed upon public servants (that is, unfamiliar bureaucracy). An editor, User:Timeshift9, has objected to the qualification "the administration's policy priorities being completed within a fortnight", stating that it has no real bearing on anything. He does not argue that it can't improve the encyclopedia, rather it could be taken as a subjective opinion on policy matching (with the previous government?) or style of leadership, which is a violation of WP:NPOV. That is highly inappropriate given the source, context, and importance of the article; his comment "deceptive edit summary, this is not the place for that" suggests that it is incorrectly attributed to the ministry, but there is more than enough evidence to the contrary. Ottre (talk) 06:39, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, your edit summary was 'added reference' when infact it was more than that. "Their transition to government was "astonishingly quick" according to political columnist Laurie Oakes, the administration's policy priorities being completed within a fortnight" does not belong in the intro, and I don't believe it belongs in the article either. Timeshift (talk) 06:51, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a blanket statement, please elaborate carefully on our previous discussion to help resolve this now. Do you (seriously) think the summary is in the wrong place because it is only useful for describing the government as a whole, or some aspect of that, and should not be attributed to the ministry/because it creates an unbalanced introduction (and the redirect link is probably going to be added regardless of what happens, once the liberal bias is removed from the Rudd Government article), or, more likely, because you disagree with Laurie Oakes? While a political columnist is never the most reliable source, you can't ignore the context of the introduction, and it is his objective opinion: he's writing a few weeks after the transition to government, getting his information from Labor ministers, uses very neutral language throughout the article, and has received wide acclaim for his fair coverage of the election. Ottre (talk) 13:52, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Comment: content withdrawn for the time being, want to focus on other lists. Ottre (talk) 14:04, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

text: "l"iberal bias on the Rudd article? Oh come off it. If that was the case we'd have the right-wing wikipedians all over it like a rash. Is it because Rudd's already done more in ~11 months than Howard has done in ~11 years perhaps? Take your POV somewhere else. Timeshift (talk) 02:51, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There is one sentence to describe his republicanism. Ottre (talk) 14:18, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Nobody is saying the article is perfect. I know the 2007-present section could be much better written and expanded upon. If you wish to expand on it, go for your life, this is the encyclopedia everyone can and does edit. Timeshift (talk) 15:22, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Introduction 

message: We've given 5 June as the date Faulker took over Defence, and 6 June for the other changes.  Afaik, these are all wrong.  These are merely the dates on which these appointments were announcedby the PM.  The reshuffle will actually take place when they're sworn in to the relevant portfolios by the G-G.  Anyone know when the swearing in will be happening?  Curiously, there's nothing in the press release about the G-G having any involvement whatsoever, which is pretty odd, even for a committed republican PM.  --  JackofOz (talk) 09:35, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not surprised that she's not mentioned - the public doesn't tend to care too much about the technical formalities; in a practical sense, Faulkner started being Defence Minister as soon as it was announced. The parliamentary biographies will be updated with the date of swearing in when they're appointed; I just checked Faulkner's, and there's no mention of Defence, so either it hasn't happened yet or they're a bit behind. Rebecca (talk) 07:11, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, Rebecca.  We know now that the swearing in took place yesterday (9 June), and I've changed some details.  But as for the G-G, my memory says that previous PMs (of all colours) have always talked in terms of "recommendations I will be making to the Governor-General" rather than "I have appointed these ministers".  Sure, in real terms the PM does appoint them and the G-G just rubber stamps the decision; but I'd have thought that attendance to the niceties and courtesies of protocol wouldn't go astray.  Anyway, that's just me.  --  JackofOz (talk) 08:45, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: June 2009 reshuffle - dates

message: Should we figure out some sort of merge or maintain three seperate lists of cabinet/ministers? Cabinet of Australia hasn't even been updated yet. Timeshift (talk) 06:15, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The current ministry article needs to be merged into Cabinet of Australia - I'd imagine it probably predates most of our content on ministries. The other two make sense: Cabinet of Australia refers to the Cabinet, and the Cabinet as it is now (thus no Fitzgibbon), where First Rudd Ministry contains the entire ministry (not just the Cabinet), and the historical changes (so it would include Fitzgibbon and Debus. Rebecca (talk) 07:03, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that Current Australian Commonwealth ministry should be redirect to First Rudd Ministry, though this will need to be updated after the next election. Nick-D (talk) 08:43, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I've put up an AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Current Australian Commonwealth ministry. I, and it seems others, forgot that Cabinet of Australia needed updating... it hasn't been updated since the reshuffle. Timeshift (talk) 13:45, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Cabinet of Australia]], [[First Rudd Ministry]], [[Current Australian Commonwealth ministry]] 

message: Some change to the Ministry apparently occured on 14 December 2009, but I can't see what it was.--Grahame (talk) 03:50, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed, it related to Duncan Kerr.--Grahame (talk) 14:01, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: 14 December 2009

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 7 external links on First Rudd Ministry. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101008070822/http://www.aph.gov.au/library/parl/42/ministry/ministry25Feb09-9Jun09.htm to http://www.aph.gov.au/library/parl/42/ministry/ministry25Feb09-9Jun09.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101008070749/http://www.aph.gov.au/library/parl/42/ministry/ministry9Jun09-14Dec09.htm to http://www.aph.gov.au/library/parl/42/ministry/ministry9Jun09-14Dec09.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101008070738/http://www.aph.gov.au/library/parl/42/ministry/ministry14Dec09-8Mar10.htm to http://www.aph.gov.au/library/parl/42/ministry/ministry14Dec09-8Mar10.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101008070720/http://www.aph.gov.au/library/parl/42/ministry/ministry8Mar10-1Apr10.htm to http://www.aph.gov.au/library/parl/42/ministry/ministry8Mar10-1Apr10.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101008070509/http://www.aph.gov.au/library/parl/42/ministry/ministry1Apr10-14Apr10.htm to http://www.aph.gov.au/library/parl/42/ministry/ministry1Apr10-14Apr10.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101008070445/http://www.aph.gov.au/library/parl/42/ministry/ministry14Apr10-24Jun10.htm to http://www.aph.gov.au/library/parl/42/ministry/ministry14Apr10-24Jun10.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101008070850/http://www.aph.gov.au/library/parl/42/ministry/ministry3Dec07-25Feb09.htm to http://www.aph.gov.au/library/parl/42/ministry/ministry3Dec07-25Feb09.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:06, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified