Talk:Kevin Rudd/Archive 2

message: There are numerous interesting things that are missing from the article- onethat stands out is that Kevin Rudd actually supported the invasion of Iraq based on him thinking there were WMD's there,he did not even get the bad inteligence on the matter, it was his own thoughts.
“I’ve said repeatedly that there is a significant threat of weapons of mass destruction from Iraq,” Rudd declared in September 2002. “Saddam Hussein possesses weapons of mass destruction—this is a matter of empirical fact,” he told the State Zionist Council of Victoria in October 2002. “Biological weapons is right in the middle of the sandwich when it comes to the critique currently, legitimate critique, of the Iraqi regime,” he added shortly before the invasion.
Why is this not mentioned? He later made a statement to channel 7 that convieniently forgot his previous stand. This quote that was not based on evidence puts into question his ability to tell the trutth and also his memory. His foreign policy is also questionable when he makes generalisations about a foreign country possibly having WMD's Liquor box 07 03:20, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Many people believed the evidence was irrefutable, then changed their view when they realised it wasn't - this was the case all over the world, and on both the left and right of politics. The fact it was borderline fraudulent only came out after extensive inquiries later on. Beazley as Opp Leader (and probably Rudd as opp foreign affairs spokesman) would have received briefings from the relevant departments showing them evidence that doesn't normally get seen by the public, and it would have been fair to assume that this evidence was reliable - keeping in mind that neither individual is an expert in logistics or intelligence, as with all but a very few politicians. Orderinchaos 15:35, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Again, if you feel that there's an omission, be bold and add the relevant information - with sources, of course. I'll see what I can rustle up myself, but I'm a busy man. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 11:38, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm sure you will find numerous mentions to Howard, interest rates, WMD - this is the point people are trying to make here: Why is Rudd's position at the time of the invasion (more or less exactly the same) not mentioned?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.189.213.149 (talk) 01:54, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Because nobody's added it yet? BigHaz - Schreit mich an 05:58, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd bet a rather large sum of money that if someone was "bold" and added it, it would be promptly removed and explained away in the manner you have seen in the above comments.  70.189.213.149 18:43, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If that happened, then (assuming the information was sourced reliably), you'd be within your rights to re-add it. If it's just added without a source or with an unreliable one, then yes it would be promptly removed. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 22:04, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

text: The WMD quotes should be in the article, if properly cited. It's important information on an important issue.--Lester2 05:36, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

text: That's correct - this site graphs the polls (although can't be cited as a RS) and shows it was in Labor's favour for most of 2006, with occasional exceptions. Orderinchaos 15:32, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

text: why did this get changed back? I read that someone wanted a citation but I dont see why it needs to be cited any more then the statement as it stands currently which is factually incorrect. If you think a citation is needed then find one or remove that whole section. Its just dumb to revert back to a statement that has been established as inacurate.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Muppet man67 (talk • contribs) 05:14, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Omissions 

message: I'm pretty sure that Labor were already in front in the polls before Keven Rudd won the leadership. However the article says that soon after he became leader they were in front. I think it would be better to say soon after Rudd won the leadership labors polling improved dramatically from 51% 2 party preferred to 56% 2 party preferred within X amount of weeks or by X date.(those figures are just examples not facts)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Muppet man67 (talk • contribs) 12:25, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's correct - this site graphs the polls (although can't be cited as a RS) and shows it was in Labor's favour for most of 2006, with occasional exceptions. Orderinchaos 15:32, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

text: why did this get changed back? I read that someone wanted a citation but I dont see why it needs to be cited any more then the statement as it stands currently which is factually incorrect. If you think a citation is needed then find one or remove that whole section. Its just dumb to revert back to a statement that has been established as inacurate.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Muppet man67 (talk • contribs) 05:14, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: inacuracy

message: completely misrepresents the Goss days.
No mention of his nickname "Dr Death"
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,20867254-601,00.html
No mention of the document shredding in the Heiner affair just " this position Rudd was arguably Queensland's most powerful bureaucrat."
Given the details on the John Howard page the omissions are quite surprising.
Or the Courier Mail investigation into his property tax avoidance (Dilkera Street)
http://www.gwb.com.au/gwb/goss/oneill.htm  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.101.222.105 (talk) 03:03, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dr Death 

message: I'm not sure if this is the case for articles on politicians, but the leading paragraph says that if "If Kevin Rudd wins a majority of the lower house... he will become the next PM". Fair enough that may be the case, but to an extent is not a certainty, and i personally think that it should be changed to something more simplistic such as he is contesting for the PM position in the upcoming election. Sir Jimmy 11:13, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: From memory, the paragraph was worded that way so that readers unfamiliar with the Westminster system would be able to understand precisely how he was contesting for the Prime Ministership. It's not the most elegant of sentences, although I'd say that if the ALP wins a majority then Rudd's chances of being PM are roughly around the 100% mark, and I'm certainly willing to hash out a better phrasing of things here if you're up for it. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 21:57, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's just keep it the way it is for a few months. Then it just has to be changed to "Kevin Rudd is the current Prime Minister of Australia." --BrianFG 23:25, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Agree with Brendan, until the election he's officially recognised as leader of the opposition, what happens after the election is speculation. Additionally the lead is a summary of the article this isnt discussed anywhere in the article. Gnangarra 14:47, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Introductory Paragraph

message: I take issue with this section having so much prominence. His TOC is 1 Early life, 2 Early career, 3 Federal politics, 4 Political views, and 5 Religious views. I'm thinking that maybe it would be better to put political views and religious views under federal politics as sub-headings? Timeshift 23:54, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: His religious views have been very prominent - they deserve the place that they have in the article. Let's just leave it as is. JRG 12:51, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Religious views

message: Can someone confirm if the person next to Rudd is his son? Timeshift 08:40, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Second picture here - who thinks the older son is the same person? Timeshift 08:57, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm pretty sure they're one and the same. The tall bloke in the white shirt in the second shot is definitely the elder son, so I think the caption for the first shot is correct in the article. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 09:41, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But the first shot? Timeshift 09:46, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Like I said, I'm pretty sure he's the same one as the elder son in the second shot. So if the guy in the white shirt in the family-standing-in-hallway shot is the elder son, I'm going to go out on a limb and say the guy next to KR in the marching photo is his son as well. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 12:00, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

text: His son has a name - it is Nicholas - not sure of the spelling. JRG 12:50, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: New image

message: I recently came across the following section on the article. This section casts very negative light on Mr. Rudd, and if unture presents amazing problems for WP:BLP. The text I removed is below. I suggest someone give s ource before it's added back in:
==Controversy==
thumb|right|A 'Kevin Rudd' stripper that mocked the issue on The Chasers War on Everything (ABC program)
Unfortunately for Mr.Rudd, it was recently discovered that, on one of his visits in New York, he made his way into a strip club along with some of his male (and one female) friends.Rudd claims that he never intended to be 'Captain Perfect' and tries to express that this is a mistake that many other Australian men would make.Since the incident, there hasn't been much media attention to this issue, but the moment is constantly brought up on comical shows and performances.
--YbborTalk 02:02, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's been discussion about whether to include this pretty much ever since the story broke, and consensus has (so far) been not to, so you did the right thing to remove it from the article. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 07:23, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Not a unanimous consensus. As I indicated, "strippergate" is roughly on par with Fraser's trousers, Downer's heels and Latham and the taxi driver's arm, all of which are mentioned in their respective articles. I think the stripper incident needs a brief mention. Peter Ballard 05:20, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To be fair, consensus need not be unanimous. That's why I said that "so far" consensus has been not to include it, since reasonable arguments in favour of including it will certainly be entertained. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 23:06, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As above, consensus need not be unanimous. I continue to disagree that it's worth mentioning - do we really want this page to become a list of Liberal smears and wedges pre-election? Timeshift 23:08, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Consensus means rational arguments should be answered. Could someone please explain why Fraser's trousers, Downer's heels and Latham's taxi get a mention, but Rudd at the strip club does not. To me they are all roughly equivalent. Peter Ballard 00:44, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Consensus certainly does mean that and - at least AFAIK - this discussion is the first time that all of those incidents have been raised together. I can't speak to Fraser and Latham, but certainly Downer is still caricatured as wearing fishnets and heels in the press, which suggests that the incident has sort of "taken on a life of its own", if I can put it that way. With the exception of a press reaction right at the time, there doesn't seem to be any real "life of its own" sensibility to the strippers. I'm more than happy to be proven wrong here, since I'm the first to admit I'm not following the news as closely as I'd like to right now. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 06:09, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well I've heard plenty of references to it. It is of course impossible to be certain that it will hang around Rudd forever; but judging by the examples I offered above, it is probable that it will. Peter Ballard 13:00, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm always wary of calls to censor politicians' history. I think it's better to bias towards inclusion rather than omission. The stripclub thing could always be included in a section about the 2007 election campaign, where various issues about Rudd's background were dredged up. We're not dredging up new information, we are just reflecting the media storm that was generated by it, and reflecting the general coverage of Kevin Rudd. Ask someone on the street what they know about Kevin Rudd, and more people will mention the strip club issue than anything else. Whether we think it should or shouldn't be in the public domain is not the point. We should be reflecting the outside media, and reflecting what Kevin Rudd is generally known for, and like it or not, the strip club is one of the more known aspects of him. I mean, I personally don't care if Alexander Downer chooses to wear fishnets, but that's what he's generally known for.--Lester2 02:45, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Controversey Section

message: I'm leaning towards a weak keep - assuming that we show the same level of interest in other party leaders. Starting this discussion now as to form a consensus and avoid another revert war. Timeshift 23:00, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I haven't been following the news as closely this week as I'd like to, so I might be barking up the wrong tree. As I understand it, the story only came up on something like Sept 17/18, so ideally I'd like to see it be talked about for a bit longer than it has been before it appears here. After all, it may turn out that it's an absolute non-issue now. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 23:08, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: BTW it's worth mentioning (if we are mentioning this) that Rudd did the Kokoda track last year. Is this wedge/smear number 124? Timeshift 23:17, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe there's a question as to whether K.R's medical history should have been put into the public domain by the media (ie, Nine Network), but now that it's out there the issue can't be put back into its box. It's receiving significant media coverage, therefore it should be included in this article.--Lester2 02:20, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Aortic valve replacement section

message: In accordance with the discussion on the John Howard Page:
"Exclusive use of, and sole reliance upon, Howard's quote"
All of Kevin Rudd's quotation's require deletion if they cannot be substatiated by someone other than Kevin Rudd, or someone who is not relying on Kevin Rudd.  (Stirling Taylor 09:53, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, don't agree at all. The discussion on the Howard page was over the quotes in that page, and did not agree upon a wiki-wide consensus.Recurring dreams 09:55, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rudd Quotes should be deleted 

message: If on the John Howard page Peter Costello quotes from a book are relevant, then I see no reason why Mark Latham quotes from his book aren't relevant to Kevin Rudd.
(Stirling Taylor 09:53, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Need to be sourced. And also have to consider their relevance in this context. Recurring dreams 09:54, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Addition of Mark Latham quotes regarding Rudd 

message: The photo of Rudd and his son should be removed - there must be tens of thousands of photos available of Kevin Rudd, why should one of him with his son be up there? The family of politicians should not be included, they did not run for public office. Sad mouse 17:36, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: feel free to upload one of these tens of thousands of available photos, I think you will find it harder than you think.  Cheers, WikiTownsvillian 10:22, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: find me three (or even two or one) other images with similar permissions to use freely. kgo. Timeshift 10:36, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

text: A person's family, I would have thought, is a legitimate thing to include in their biographical article. The article is not "Kevin Rudd's role in the 2007 election", it's on him generally. I don't care if his son is running for public office or not, the photo is fine. Please stop deleting content. JRG 13:54, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And yet it continues. Honestly, some people. Timeshift 06:20, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photo should be removed 

message: Everyone involved in the edit war should use this time to work something out. It would be a shame for the edit war to resume again as soon as the article gets unlocked again.--Lester 12:42, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Article locked due to mass edit-warring

message: I'm going to ask again, why don't we have a family section? Other world leaders like Bush, Blair, etc. all have a similar thing. Rudd's children have been mentioned and revealed by name in the general media; Rudd has done it himself and I believe that his eldest son has sometimes been with him in some of his campaigning - so I don't think there are any real privacy issues at stake in writing a little about them, or adding a photo of him with one of his children- we're not already adding information which isn't already in the public domain. There isn't anything that would be libelous or slanderous of his family that wouldn't be appropriate to add that I could find, although this article on his family's shares isn't all that relevant for a biographical article. On the other hand, this article might be relevant for something that happened last year in terms of his family (his daughter's marriage). Maybe one of the biographies of him that mentions a little about his family might be good to get some expansion on this. And we can include a little about his wife and her business, with a "more info" link to Therese Rein's article. What do others think? JRG 13:13, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, JRG. I think if we can find some decent sources, it would be good to expand on that area. It seems reasonable to do so given that he presents a very family-orientated image. Sarah 16:39, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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". Thoughts? --Brendan [ contribs ] 19:30, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think there's enough information for a separate section as I have already tried to show above - Rudd's family is a relevant part of his life and more than the current sentence on them is needed. If one were cynical, one might think you were trying to merge the sections here to avoid the addition of the other photo, which you've been trying so hard to keep off this page - I'm not saying you are, but you could be very suspicious that that was the case. That's not appropriate, so I think we should consider how we write this section properly. JRG 05:27, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Family section

message: Much as I'm loathe to agree with Andrew Bolt, this article really looks like a whitewash to me. The only criticism I can see is from Tony Abbott over RU486. How about some of the other criticisms: Dr. Death, glass jaw, strip club, questionable decisions to avoid wedge politics, wife's (alleged) business conduct? Peter Ballard 05:19, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Go for it... keeping in mind that the article has to comply with wikipedia policies not Bolt's righteous fantasy world.  I don't think avoiding wedge politics could be considered questionable though considering how badly the ALP has been screwed by wedge politics in previous elections.  I would also hesitate about the strip club/glass jaw stuff for notability reasons and if business conduct stuff is mentioned Rudd's wife has her own article.  Cheers, WikiTownsvillian 06:43, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ^^^ I agree with every word of this. For the record, this page has been directly linked here, written 31 October (see here for revision). I can only assume this was what PB was referring to? Timeshift 08:55, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm planning to have a more thorough look at this page and what else could be gainfully added to it after I'm finished with uni for the year. That should be early November, by which point the election should be called and there'll be more traffic here anyway. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 09:05, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's someone with a vested interest doing some real whitewashing. Timeshift 01:04, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I ask people not to delete other's comments from this community talk page. Thank you --Lester 02:40, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

text: An accusation of "whitewash" is quite common on Wikipedia. It's better to agree or disagree by discussion on this page, rather than deletion or reverting. As John Howard and Kevin Rudd are opposing politicians going into an election, they are in many ways part of the same subject matter.--Lester 03:03, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Whitewash? 

message: The article currently says Rudd would launch a staged withdrawal of Australia's combat troops from Iraq. Technically correct, but my understanding is that most of the Australian troops in Iraq are not combat troops. So the Rudd troop withdrawal would only result in one third of the Australian troops in Iraq coming home. The other two thirds would stay there. Shouldn't we say this?
The article also currently states that Rudd has consistently opposed Howard's Workchoice policy. My understanding is that Rudd would leave some aspects of Workchoice in place. --Lester 13:05, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm pretty sure you're right about the troops in Iraq. There was something in the Australian within the last month (month-and-a-half?) which broke the policy down very well, and my feeling is that it was based on the idea that most of our contingent there is not combat troops. As far as WorkChoices go, I'm not sure about that. He certainly is making a fair bit of noise about it during the campaign to date, but I can't recall exactly where he stands on the issue. If nothing else, it should come up at the debate with Howard, whenever that will be. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 20:32, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See bottom of WorkChoices for what Rudd Labor stands for on IR. Timeshift 20:54, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This article says "Rudd has consistently opposed the Government's controversial WorkChoices industrial legislation.". But the reference doesn't say that. It seems to indicate unease from some union groups that Rudd won't "tear up" everything in Workchoices. As the Workchoices article pointed out by 'Timeshift' indicates, Rudd will ditch some parts of Workchoices, but there are numerous other parts of Workchoices that Rudd supports and wants to keep. --Lester 11:33, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't have the time right now to make the rewrite, but I'd support one to bring this article in line with the article on WorkChoices itself, since the claims there are cited to (unless I'm misreading it) the ALP's official site, which probably trumps a fair bit else. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 12:05, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Iraq / Industrial Relations

message: The 'Political views' section should include an 'Environment' category. Environment is one of the issues people are most concerned about. Let's see what Rudd's views and policies are on this important issue. --Lester 14:58, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Rudd doesn't have policies. The party does. Wrong article. Rebecca 06:37, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, he's enunciated views as if they are his own. Can we separate what Rudd has said he will do when in government, to what he believes himself? Do you think the two might be different? What about the other sections such as Industrial Relations? Is that the views of Rudd, or is that party policy (and different to his views)? Other political leaders, both in Australia and overseas have their stated political aims in their Wikipedia biographies. Rudd has said that Kyoto should be signed. Is that his view? --Lester 07:12, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, Lester. If the info is relevant to Rudd and evidently his views, then don't ask, be bold and add that section/content. For example, this article from today makes Rudd's current views, especially on climate change and sustainable energy, very clear. --Brendan [ contribs ] 13:56, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Thanks for that article, Brendan. I will add it to the article shortly.--Lester 02:44, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Political views: Environment? 

message: The article currently states that Rudd's support of the Road Map For Peace is a step towards mending relations following the comments of several backbenchers.
I was curious to find out who these backbenchers were. Googling on the subject, I found Isreal comments from Labor MP Tanya Plibersek, and Labor MP Julia Irwin initiated a parliamentary debate on the subject. I will add these specific names to the article, as it allows readers to pursue more detail. --Lester 21:12, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Foreign Policy: road map for peace 

message: The ABC has just put online a video interview between Kevin Rudd and Kyle Sandilands on the subject of same-sex marriage. I thought it was interesting to see and hear Rudd speak his views on the issue, so I placed it in the External Links. This Sandilands interview generated a lot of news coverage and commentary. If you Google, there's a plethora of articles published about it.--Lester 01:19, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: External links: Kyle Sandilands interview

message: Per Rebecca, it is completely related to the article and is legitimate. What is with your strange agenda lately Skyring? You aren't usually this blatently bias. Timeshift 01:59, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's now two admins. Stop your pointless reverting of what you know to be legitimate. Timeshift 02:06, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's Lester's wording that's the problem. As ever. My point is that Rudd isn't the PM. He has no power to sign any national commitments. I don't mind if our article gives space to Rudd's views on various things, but we shouldn't mislead our readers into thinking he's more than he really is. Should he win the election, then rewrite the article, but we should wait until then. --Pete 02:11, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then reword it rather than remove it. A novel idea, I do realise. Timeshift 02:15, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it currrently says pledged. Blnguyen  (bananabucket) 03:37, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

text: It's what the source article starts out with. Should we be using opinion pieces as sources?  I think it's important to present this in context as part of the campaign, rather than any "headland" statement on environment. I'm not sure why a biographical article should focus heavily on current campaign issues, anyway. As for plagiarism, where, precisely? --Pete 03:45, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

text: There is nothing wrong with having opinions and point of view in articles, as long as they are neutrally presented as opinion and point of view, and not presented as fact. The quote from the source that was added by Skyring was presented - unintentionally I accept - as fact. (Of course, such opinion or POV also needs to be notable, relevant and well-cited). Merbabu 03:59, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Latest revert

message: "unfair dismissal laws applying to businesses with more than 10 employees rather than the current 101" when the link states:
"small businesses with fewer then 15 employees will not face an unfair dismissal claim from any employee who has been employed for less than a year."
The two are very different. Coincidence or just another example of the bias in the entry?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.101.222.105 (talk) 02:57, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed. You could have done this yourself you know. It is an encyclopedia that anybody, even IPs, can edit if correct, which in your case you are. Timeshift 14:55, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The new entry is better. I usually edit where I see inaccuracies, however I can't on this page. Maybe I have to register or something.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.101.222.105 (talk) 03:46, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, indeed. The page is protected from anonymous IP editing due to vandalism. If you're a regular contributor, why don't you register? Timeshift 03:58, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Error

message: As stated in a previous discussion, I will rework the Industrial Relations section. Objectives are:
*Bring it up to date, as the ALP released details of its policy at the end of August 2007.
*Remove pre-Aug 2007 references.
*Remove ALP references to be replaced by newspaper references (for longevity and objectivity)
*Change the black & white to shades of grey. Previously it said he opposed WorkChoices, when in fact it is a more complex situation, with some aspects being opposed, and some aspects being retained. --Lester 05:15, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed the ALP citations. I usually try to find a newspaper reference for content, if possible. They provide a time slice of how the policy was at that time. I removed the references from the Labor party website, as that website keeps changing. I'm also wary that a party website will put its spin on things. The Ross Gittins article (Sept. 2007) provides a pretty good summary of the differences between the 2 main parties on industrial relations. Thanks, Lester 19:42, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Industrial Relations 

message: Just a question, do people in the political parties directly monitor this page?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.209.53.87 (talk) 14:35, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. Timeshift 14:38, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Monitor & edit. Those from conservative parties are usually more obvious with their edits.--Lester 19:33, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Party monitoring

message: Noteworthy? Lol.
:His appearance on the show? I wouldn't say so, unless something important happened in the first minute or so which I didn't see. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 22:34, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well not specifically, but in general there have been some comments about Rudd using mass communication techniques targeted at youth - eg jokes on FM radio and Rove. That might be worth one sentence about general election technique. Blnguyen  (bananabucket) 00:29, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair point. I'd taken the comment as suggesting that a section called "Appearance on Rove Live, November 18 2007" might be worthwhile. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 00:56, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well that first coment was not by me. Blnguyen  (bananabucket) 23:14, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't say it was. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 23:43, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rove 

message: how come theres no mention of kevin been found in a strip club in new york i think someones been editing this to make him sound good.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.82.121.38 (talk) 11:13, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It did more good than bad for Rudd so hiding it would not make sense. As for it not being there, the community decided it was not noteworthy to a biography on an encyclopedia. Timeshift (talk) 11:28, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought that since then I'd convinced enough people that a brief mention was appropriate. In any case, I'm in no rush. I'm under no delusions that editing WP one way or another will influence the election outcome. Peter Ballard (talk) 23:00, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Bob Brown went to a strip club... so should we add it to his wiki page too? Timeshift (talk) 22:40, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hehehe, Timeshift, that video was very funny!If we include the strip club info in this article, we should also include on the Family First article those members who indulged in home-made porn production.--Lester 23:06, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Message repeats for the umpteenth time: it's all about media coverage. Like Mark Latham and the taxi driver, Alexander Downer and the high heels, and Malcolm Fraser and his trousers, it's a highly publicised off-the-wall event in his life that is constantly used by satirists. The Latham, Downer and Fraser pages all mention their respective "events" (and rightly so), so for consistency Rudd's should too. As for the FF member - to you mean Andrew Quah? - that's a party member, not an MP. Peter Ballard (talk) 23:15, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I still don't see how a strip club compares. There's strip clubs in Hindley St Peter. A lot of men enter those premises, especially on weekends. How many incidents occur each night of this? Hundreds? Thousands? Now, is there this many taxi drivers being assaulted? As for the high heels, where is it mentioned? For Malcolm Fraser, he was an ex-PM. Debate it on his page. I take each issue on its merits, and as far as this goes, nn. Timeshift (talk) 23:21, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh come now, you really don't think there's been significant media coverage of Kevin's strip club visit? Peter Ballard (talk) 23:24, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Though we use the media to cite, we still have wikipedia guidelines on things such as noteability. We don't go by significant media coverage, as we all know how shallow and superficial the media can be. As far as visiting a strip club goes, refer to my rationale above. If it were noteable, why is it consistently being stated as non-noteable by users on here? I happen to think consensus usually gets it right on wikipedia. Timeshift (talk) 23:35, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  strip club 

message: I added the information that Rudd is supportive of the Tasmanian pulp mill, and against reserving more old growth forests from development. Some editors may consider it controversial to mention this, but we can't escape from the fact that this is what Rudd has said, this his is policy, like it or not, it should be mentioned. The information is referenced from the Sydney Morning Herald.--Lester 20:29, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pulp mill, forest policy 

message: "and the restoration of unfair dismissal laws for companies with less than 100 employees but more than 15 employees"
The dishonesty continues, I can't help but think this is orchestrated. This has been repeatedly corrected yet continues to return despite the referenced link to. Labor's policy is to restore unfair dismissal laws all employees, there is no exemption for employers less than 15. Employers with < 15  employees will have the probation period extended from 6 to 12 months.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.101.222.105 (talk) 04:14, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If it is incorrect that Labor will restore unfair dismissal laws for companies with less than 100 employees, then that is only because the newspapers are saying that. Are you saying the papers are wrong? The newspapers don't say "all employees". The references were recent. Where is your alternate source?--Lester 09:58, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This link is to the ALP's official policy, Forward with Fairness, which says what the unregistered user has claimed - for those having between 15 and 100 employees, there is a 6 month period where unfair dismissal laws don't apply; for those with less than 15 employees there is a 12 month period. JRG (talk) 22:23, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Industrial Relations