Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:58, 20 October 2010

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Biography This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Australia: Politics Top‑importance Kevin Rudd is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Australian politics (assessed as Top-importance). Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian at the National Library of Australia. The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

Archives

Index Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8

Apologies for the many many edits

Here is the diff. Timeshift (talk) 20:25, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

First incumbent Labor prime minister not to re-contest an election?

He was the first incumbent Labor prime minister not to re-contest an election. (lede)

Not sure what this is trying to say. Frank Forde never got the chance to lead his party into the next election either. But he hadn't lead the party into government from opposition, the way Rudd did, so there would have been no re-contesting in Forde's case. Is that the distinction we're making here? Of course, Rudd wasn't the incumbent PM till after the 2007 election, so the 2010 election would have been the first time he contested an election as incumbent PM, and in that sense it wouldn't have been a re-contest either. By the time it became the case that Rudd was not leading the party into the 2010 election, he was no longer the "incumbent Prime Minister".

Otherwise, it's virtually a contradiction in terms to talk about a person who's simultaneously the incumbent PM but also someone who is not re-contesting the next election. I suppose it's technically possible for a PM to announce he/she'll be retiring from politics at the election, but will still lead the party into the election. What the party would think of such a proposal is quite another thing, though. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 21:44, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I would suggest "the first elected Labor PM not to serve a full term in office", but that suffers from the weakness that PMs aren't "elected" (a point seemingly lost on Rudd himself).--Mkativerata (talk) 21:47, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I didn't know how to say it, that was the best I could think of, either way it's more correct than what was there... "He was the first Labor prime minister to be ousted from office before completing a first term". Timeshift (talk) 07:30, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

So, what's the claim? He was the first person to lead the Labor Party from Opposition to Government at a general election but who did not lead them at the following election. Is there a shorter way to say that? And is it something that needs to be said, anyway? There's no corresponding guy in the Libs: Menzies, Holt and Gorton all won elections as PM, but did not lead the party at the following election (Menzies retired; Holt drowned; Gorton relinquished the job in much the same way Rudd did, when it became clear he did not have his party's support - let's hope Gillard is not a latter-day McMahon, which would make Abbott a latter-day Whitlam - shudder). -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 08:54, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

It seems an editor has concerns with the wording. It is true that no other Labor PM has not re-contested an election. However there is the matter of Frank Forde... but should he really be counted? Perhaps the sentence should be removed? Timeshift (talk) 12:40, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Why?

Why did he "stand down"? Timeshift's Kevin Rudd was amazing —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.64.166.222 (talk) 10:28, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Issues, autocratic, lost factional support, resigned. The intro lays this out clearly with references. Can you elaborate on your concerns? I suppose when Rudd's journey is laid out as it is instead of a negative media sound-byte, it kind of rocks the foundations of a Liberal supporter's views :) But I spose this sort of short-term short-sighted and patently false criticism is easy fare for your typical Liberal :) Timeshift (talk) 10:58, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Unprecedented and stratospheric in the same phrase?

Timeshift has reverted my removal of the latter word. I removed it because "Rudd Labor enjoyed an unprecedented period of stratospheric popularity" seems to convey exactly the meaning required, whereas "stratospheric" risks being accused of puffery. This is particularly so because "unprecedented" is provable—a fact—whereas "stratospheric" is an "interpersonal epithet", i.e., subjective. I am removing the word again, since the case seems obvious. If anyone objects (apart from Timeshift), please say so here. Tony (talk) 09:00, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

The term "stratospheric" is used in refs and related news articles on the subject generally. Timeshift (talk) 09:01, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

That does make the use of "stratospheric" more reasonable, but there are two issues: it would be better not to bump it up against "unprecedented" in the same sentence (two amplifications at once); and if using it elsewhere, it would be more comfortable in terms of the POV policy if the word were sourced. Tony (talk) 09:04, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

It's used here and is sourced. And unprecedented and stratospheric are two different things, they are not redundant. Timeshift (talk) 09:14, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

One is provable, the other is a pollster's off-the-cuff opinion, without a clear notion of where the boundary lies between the stratospheric and the non-stratospheric. An unprecedented level of popularity would be pretty high, wouldn't it. Why is this additional term necessary in a highly neutral context? To me, it sticks out—and I am hardly an anti-Rudd person. Tony (talk) 09:29, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't find it to be an issue. Please gain consensus if you wish. Thanks. Timeshift (talk) 09:34, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Not necessarily, it could be an unprecedented low level of popularity. "Stratospheric" at least indicates it was high.--Canley (talk) 09:55, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

←For "unprecedented level" to mean "low", it would have to be marked as such. The default is "high". Tony (talk) 09:58, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Unprecedented simply means never happened before; new territory. Timeshift (talk) 10:00, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I disagree, Tony. For example, in this Peter Hartcher article in the Sydney Morning Herald, Neilsen pollster John Stirton uses the word "unprecedented" several times whilst referring to Malcolm Turnbull's approval ratings, without once marking the ratings as "low": "In many ways the situation is unprecedented because a leader with these ratings is staying around as leader. It's very hard to know what life looks like at this level because it's unprecedented for a leader with these sort of numbers to have a long period in the job." --Canley (talk) 11:27, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

At the very least, "stratospheric" will need to have quote-marks to make it clear that it is not WP's word. Others agree that the metaphor should not be used here at all. Tony (talk) 11:33, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Please gain consensus for it. They are by any measure stratospheric. We don't need to put quotes around every word or just because it's someone else's word. Timeshift (talk) 11:40, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I pretty much agree with you here though Tony. I think in cases like this, it's preferable to make clear when using superlatives that the source does use that term: "Rudd Labor enjoyed an unprecedented period of what Nielsen pollster John Stirton called "stratospheric" support. --Canley (talk) 11:42, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Agreed; the word stratospheric needs quotes at least, and an attribution isn't a bad idea either. WWGB (talk) 12:37, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Someone else chimes in. Tony (talk) 16:20, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Agreed: "stratospheric" is too "over the top" to use without attribution. Michael Glass (talk) 00:30, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

It's got "'s and is cited so it's attributed. But really, it's a mountain made out of a molehill, the word stratospheric has been in so many media articles when referring to Rudd's historical polling, because that's what it was - stratospheric. No leader had ever received such positive all-round polling before, let alone for a sustained period. Timeshift (talk) 03:44, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh for heaven's sake, why can't we use the occasional colourful adjective without quotes(cf). Agreeing with Timeshift9 is one of my least favourite pastimes, and even I think it is reasonable to use a superlative to describe Rudd's popularity. We are allowed to have an editorial voice in these articles. We should write in an interesting fashion to engage the reader. Rudd's soaring popularity is all the more interesting because of the manner of his demise - Rudd's ascent and fall is one of the great dramas of Australian political history and you guys want to suck all of the interest out of it!! Most popular PM of all time knocked off by the first woman PM. Marvellous story that should excite the reader. And you guys are quibbling over the word 'stratospheric'. Do you really think that boring writing equates to credibility? --Surturz (talk) 06:58, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Surturz, it's only unenjoyable because i'm never wrong :D Timeshift (talk) 07:17, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Really? You've joined me in the Right now? ;-) --Surturz (talk) 03:09, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Who's joined who where? :) Timeshift (talk) 04:08, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, if you're never wrong, you must always be Right, right? By corollary, you've left the Left... which, I'm guessing, isn't Right. (: --Surturz (talk) 04:20, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I suppose when you support right-wing ideals, you'll do anything to legitimise it's extremist ideologies, including non-sensical word plays that hold no significance except a play on the English language. But it follows the path that's always been... the right-wing not using anything of substance as a justification :) Timeshift (talk) 04:23, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

....ooookaaaay. (backs away slowly). What I want to know is whether Gillard has the same inspiration as Rudd, or not. In other words, did she inherit Rudd's copy of "The Howard Years", or buy her own? Have you decided which Liberal Party you are voting for yet, Shifty? --Surturz (talk) 11:24, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm voting for the party that doesn't use fears of minorities to win elections :) Timeshift (talk) 21:12, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Not too sure that describes any of the parties now. All minorities, no wins. Moving right along, this article is pathetic. The only apparent reason for his being booted out by his own party (and even the manner of his exit is sugar-coated) is that he was seen as being rude to his staff. His decline in the polls began around the time of the Copenhagen thing, it accelerated with the batts disaster, and what really sunk him was his cowardice in pursuing "the greatest moral challenge of our generation". He was dead in the water by the time Julia acted. This is a great story, but for some reason it's being whitewashed. For what? Are we afraid of telling the truth in our encyclopaedia? --Pete (talk) 11:01, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

"Are we afraid of telling the truth in our encyclopaedia?" - ha ha, another red flag to the bulls (and, excuse me mixing my metaphors here, but) who will bite first? --Merbabu (talk) 11:05, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Rudd in the early teens

According to the article, Rudd boarded, but according to this (it's now fascinating going over old articles like this 2003 doozy), he was passed between relatives. Can someone figure which is correct or if they both are in some way? Timeshift (talk) 16:32, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

There are some further references for that period which can maybe fill it out a bit more. David Marr's article in Quarterly Essay says: "After a brief stint at a local De La Salle school, the little boy turned up halfway through 1969 as a boarder at Marist College Ashgrove in the Brisbane hills." There's an article in the Bulletin in 2007 which says: "Not long after, Margaret Rudd decided to retrain as a nurse at Brisbane's Mater Hospital and Kevin moved schools again, joining his brother in Brisbane as a boarder..." Bernard Lagan's Loner: Inside a Labor Tragedy also mentions the relatives, the difference being it says he was shuffled between relatives until his mother began training as a nurse (Michael Gordon in The Age says he was shuffled between relatives while his mother was doing her training). Marr's article also mentions that he was lived with neighbours rather than relatives until he finished primary school at Eumundi, then followed his mother south to the De La Salle school. Finally, Rudd's schooling is covered in some detail in this article in the Brisbane Times: "It was here that Kevin Rudd found himself six months after his father's death in 1969. ... Kevin was the last of the four Rudd children at home. The eldest, Malcolm, had joined the army, sister Loree had entered the novitiate, and Greg was in year 10 boarding at Ashgrove. Struggling to get by after her husband died, Margaret Rudd gratefully accepted the Marist Brothers' offer to waive the boarding fees for Greg and Kevin. This was a rare privilege. In those days Ashgrove had a four-year waiting list. It meant Kevin was looked after while Margaret went back to work as a live-in nurse at the Mater Hospital."

It looks from all these like Rudd was "shuffled around" for six months while he finished primary school, then joined his brother Greg who was already a boarder at Marist College in mid-1969, then started at Nambour High in mid-1971 at Year 9 level. --Canley (talk) 05:59, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

This really needs research and article expansion. Does anyone care to take up the challenge? Timeshift (talk) 06:17, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Wording improvement suggestion requested

"Among the Rudd government's first acts was"... is there a way I can make this can sound less awkward? Timeshift (talk) 03:59, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

"The Rudd Government's first acts included..." perhaps? Nick-D (talk) 10:05, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, changed. My functioning isn't brain all that well today. Timeshift (talk) 11:09, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Rudd first Labor PM to...

"becoming the first Labor prime minister not to re-contest an election as an incumbent prime minister" in the lead... it really isn't correct. Watson and Forde are two examples of Labor PMs who never contested an election. Any suggestions for a correct, more succinct way to express what is trying to be said? Maybe it shouldn't be in the lead at all? Timeshift (talk) 14:49, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, changing "first" to "third" would at least have the advantage of accuracy, but does it really need to be said? If we put Forde to one side (because it was never intended he be in the job for very long), that leaves Watson as the only other one. And that was over a century ago. We could say "Rudd became the first non-caretaker Labor prime minister since Chris Watson in 1904 not to lead his party into an election". Not sure it's anything notable, though. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 23:18, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Ok, i'm removing it. Timeshift (talk) 04:37, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Lead is too long.

Lead is too long. On an unrelated note, I prefer the US Dept of State image. --Surturz (talk) 04:15, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Why to both? Timeshift (talk) 04:28, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

The lead should summary of the important points of the article, not a reiteration of content of varying importance. Specific issues:

• "As the new leader, Rudd gave major announcements on areas such as industrial relations, climate change, an "education revolution", a National Broadband Network, and health.". This sentence should be removed, his achievements as PM trump his announcements as Opposition Leader.
• Someone has polluted the lead with numerical opinion poll figures. Description of his opinion polling in the lead should be qualitative, not quantitative, and a single sentence.
• The last para seems to want to explain why he resigned as PM, but doesn't actually do so. I think we should limit it to text saying that he lost the support of caucus to Julia Gillard and resigned. As to the various contributing reasons why he lost the support of caucus (squibbing the ETS, RSPT, autocratic style, drop in opinion polls), the reader will need to read the article for that detail. "Lost the support of the public" is pretty POV-laden, since it is the ALP caucus that removed him from power, not the electorate.
• Although there is no prohibition on references in the lead, I do think that references in the lead are ugly and imply a lack of consensus in its content. If the lead is a summary of the article, then the references in the body of the article should be enough to establish the verifiability of the lead. This is just my opinion, perhaps other editors feel differently, but I do think WP:LEADCITE implies that it is nicer not to have cites in the lead. So I would like to remove all the refs from the lead (or move them if they are not in the body of the article)

As for the photo, I simply prefer the Dept of State photo; he looks more "Prime Ministerial" and less "Kermit the Frog".

--Surturz (talk) 14:47, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I simply can't agree that the state photo is better, he looks way more plastic in it. The current photo gives a massive shot of just the face, excellent resolution. As for the lead, go and look at some other world leader articles. This lead is by no means too long. Timeshift (talk) 21:49, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

The quality of the current image is not 'excellent resolution' - it's colors are a bit off, it's blurry, and looks like an amateur photograph. The state photo (or the one below) is much better resolution, and has an overall better quality to it, and it should be used IMO. Connormah 22:29, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with the length of the lead. It's a good size for a long article. The actual content of the lead is another matter. --Merbabu (talk) 15:19, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Image

The current image is has horrendous quality, and I think a more formal image is more suited for this purpose, eg, File:Kevin Rudd 23 Feb 08.jpg, which I can crop to suit a lead image. Connormah 22:27, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Again, definitely disagree. Please don't change unless a new consensus is formed. Timeshift (talk) 22:34, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Where's the 'consensus' for the current one? Connormah 23:00, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

The lead including the image had a major overhaul several weeks ago and a few commented on the improvement, including Tony who thought the image was much better. If contributions are not disputed in a reasonable time, implicit consensus is formed. Just like how if a user creates an article, if three years later someone comes along and changes text/a pic from the status quo but is disputed, then it is incumbent on the changer to form a new consensus. Timeshift (talk) 23:02, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Sure, I'd like a review of the image, then. I note that one person above agrees with me about the lead image, but, yes, it's probably best to form a consensus. Connormah 23:09, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I think it's worth having a proper discussion about this. Below is a gallery of images I've taken from the category on the Commons to aid with comparisons (please add more if you feel they should be included).

Of the images here, I have to agree with Connormah that Kevin Rudd 23 Feb 08.jpg (appropriately cropped) is the best available. I'm going to place notices on Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Australian politics and Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Australia to get some outside voices and form a proper consensus.  -- Lear's Fool 01:17, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comment The best photograph is File:KevinRuddZoom.JPG but the existing image is fine too. Both are much better than the proposed File:Kevin Rudd 23 Feb 08.jpg whose sole virtue appears to be that is shows Rudd in a suit! A nice, clear, well lit headshot should be the aim. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 01:27, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
• Comment I'm with Mattinbgn - File:KevinRuddZoom.JPG is the best. I'm not too keen on the current one - the resolution is terrible. I have to agree that File:Kevin Rudd 23 Feb 08.jpg is a bit distant for the main portrait. Frickeg (talk) 01:38, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

So we're not changing to the suit image that it was changed to earlier this morning. Very good. Timeshift (talk) 01:52, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I think we should probably let this discussion run a little longer than an hour before it's declared closed.  -- Lear's Fool 02:01, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comment I've cropped File:Kevin Rudd 23 Feb 08.jpg into a headshot and I still think its slightly better than File:KevinRuddZoom.JPG (check the gallery).  -- Lear's Fool 02:01, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

He has a rather awkward expression in that pic Lear. The currently used pic is still better. Timeshift (talk) 02:12, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comment I think headshot is the crisper pic, more in focus and is the best, I'm with Lear's Fool.CanberraBulldog (talk) 02:17, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Would your WP:COI have anything to do with it? Timeshift (talk) 02:23, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Unless I'm missing something, I don't think it's necessary to question motives here, Timeshift. CanberraBulldog is expressing an opinion, which he/she has every right to do.  -- Lear's Fool 02:34, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

My conflict of interest? I've lost you there? I do not have a WP:COI with the image or article? I'm lost? Please explain your comments, assertion TimeShift and I may be able to understand your meaning and answer your question? CheersCanberraBulldog (talk) 02:47, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not going to bother if you're going to deny. Timeshift (talk) 02:53, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Um, okay, but I'm still unsure what you are on about - If you just say what you think my COI is then I can answer/comment on your previous WP:COI question? CheersCanberraBulldog (talk) 03:08, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Timeshift, a COI would suggest either that he works for Kevin Rudd, the Labor Party or possibly the Liberal Party - I think it'd be hard to extend to "he uploaded the image therefore he has a COI". Orderinchaos 10:03, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comment In agreement with Mattinbgn that the "Zoom" shot is the best picture, although the 23Feb08 one is a better quality image. The other headshot from defense.gov isn't great at all. Perhaps this is an occasion where we should do a Colin Barnett and approach his office for one that will be better than either. :) Orderinchaos 02:38, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
• Comment I prefer "Kevin_Rudd_DOS"; more formal, not grinning like Kermit. UNDP, Rudd4Enhanced and the Helen Clarke one (provided we crop out the zombie woman) are my second choices. --Surturz (talk) 03:54, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
• Comment—The existing image seems the best to me. By number, top-left to right: Hands over dick; squinting; OK; (middle row) the most natural by far, even if the background is not so good; pursed lips; daydreaming; (bottom row) squinting again, worse; inappropriate with Clarke. Tony (talk) 03:58, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
• Comment — File:Kevin Rudd headshot.jpg:- out of focus, shiny forehead, messy background, bad hair day. I'd prefer File:Kevin Rudd 23 Feb 08 cropped.jpg. Melburnian (talk) 04:25, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
• Comment - File:Kevin Rudd 23 Feb 08 cropped.jpg would probably be best. While File:Kevin Rudd headshot.jpg and File:KevinRuddZoom.JPG are good headshots, the quality on both are nowhere near close to others (focus, background..etc). Connormah 04:46, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
• Comment. I prefer File:Kevin Rudd 23 Feb 08 cropped.jpg. It's the best head shot with smile. The others are grumpy, fuzzy, distant or otherwise flawed. WWGB (talk) 04:56, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

You call that a smile? I call it an awkward shot. Timeshift (talk) 05:06, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Timeshift, there is no need to badger everyone who disagrees with your opinion.. Connormah 05:09, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

To me, that comment in itself wasn't badgering, Connormah. I must say, I find myself wondering why anyone would take issue with the current pic. It's the only one that doesn't have a significant downside. The boring background we can live with, can't we? Tony (talk) 05:15, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't referring to specifically that comment, rather some of the others above. And if you wonder why anyone would take issue with the current image, just read some comments above - I find it a) blurry b) out of focus and c) it has a distracting background. To me, an encyclopedia should use images of the best quality for a subject, which I feel this is not. Connormah 05:23, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I'd hate to think there's too much disagreement that a consensus can't be formed and thus we're left with the status quo... :) Timeshift (talk) 06:14, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Let me add to Connormah's list: shiny forehead, metal teeth, collar button showing, subject not engaging with camera. And that's just from a 30-second glance. WWGB (talk) 07:21, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

There was also no consensus to change TO the current image. It just appeared here one day . WWGB (talk) 07:46, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

The lead including the image had a major overhaul several weeks ago and a few commented on the improvement, including Tony who thought the image was much better. If contributions are not disputed in a reasonable time, implicit consensus is formed. Just like how if a user creates an article, if three years later someone comes along and changes text/a pic from the status quo but is disputed, then it is incumbent on the changer to form a new consensus. Timeshift (talk) 10:09, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comment I originally uploaded File:Kevin Rudd 23 Feb 08.jpg, but agree that File:KevinRuddZoom.JPG is the best option (Rudd's head looks a bit compressed in File:Kevin Rudd 23 Feb 08.jpg for some reason). The current photo isn't of very good quality due to the combination of low resolution, orange background and bad hair. Nick-D (talk) 10:01, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment - I really don't see how File:KevinRuddZoom.JPG has any better quality, honestly. It's cropped out of a low resolution, amateurish photo. Although the pose, and background are excellent, I really see a downside in the quality and focus of the image. As I stated above - we should be using the best image available, and I feel strongly that Lear's cropped version of my suggestion is the best one. Connormah 16:44, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I realise voting is evil, and I do not mean to imply that this has been a straight vote by what follows, but I have tabulated people's first choices as best I can. Please feel free to alter this table if you feel I have misrepresented your opinion, or you have changed your mind.

User	First Choice
Lear's Fool	Kevin Rudd 23 Feb 08 (cropped)
Timeshift9	Kevin Rudd headshot
Mattinbgn	KevinRuddZoom
Frickeg	KevinRuddZoom
CanberraBulldog	Kevin Rudd 23 Feb 08 (cropped)
Orderinchaos	KevinRuddZoom
Surturz	Kevin_Rudd_DOS
Tony	Kevin Rudd headshot
Melburnian	Kevin Rudd 23 Feb 08 (cropped)
Connormah	Kevin Rudd 23 Feb 08 (cropped)
WWGB	Kevin Rudd 23 Feb 08 (cropped)
Nick-D	KevinRuddZoom
Романов	Kevin_Rudd_DOS

Accordingly, I'm going to change the image to File:Kevin Rudd 23 Feb 08 cropped.jpg, but I think I agree with Orderinchaos that it may be worth sending an e-mail to his office to see whether they'll give us a better one.  -- Lear's Fool 03:51, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

WP:CONSENSUS has NOT been formed, do NOT change the image. As a side note, years ago I emailed Rudd's office, I was told I would be given a response but never was. I wonder if things have changed now. Note that we really can only have a big headshot and not one where his head is tiny, because on the article Australian Labor Party the small-head image would not suit and look weird compared to the rest, especially Whitlam Hawke and Keating. Maybe Surturz should reconsider their vote. Not that that alone would come close to a new consensus. It seems to me that people like the current image but don't like how clear the image is. The full image is here, it is a massive image which is why it looks a little grainy at 100%, maybe someone with photoshop type skills could shrink-a-little and enhance the photo and make it look better? Timeshift (talk) 03:55, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Per WP:CONSENSUS, "sometimes voluntary agreement of all interested editors proves impossible to achieve, and a majority decision must be taken." My concern is that we have not yet achieved even a simple majority. Perhaps we need preferential voting! WWGB (talk) 04:20, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

IMO the image is still not the best quality at original resolution (or whatever my browser renders it to be). Connormah 04:20, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Browser renders, being the key term. Browsers render images for quantity not quality. Timeshift (talk) 04:27, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Of the four options that have garnered any support at all, I actually like the current one the least. It's painfully obvious that it's been cropped from something else, its quality isn't great, and it has a very amateurish look about it. The only thing it's got going for it is that it's the only one without an awkward expression; the expression in the "cropped" photo is awful. I actually don't mind Surturz's suggestion of the DOS image, but ultimately the "Zoom" one is the best of a bad lot. Frickeg (talk) 04:31, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

The DOS one would look very out of place on Australian Labor Party and other places where PM images are pretty much headshots, not half body shots. The DOS image is of too low resolution to get a decent closer-up crop. And compared to the awkward expression on 23 Fed 08 (cropped), if it came down to it I like Frickeg would support using KevinRuddZoom as well. It seems to hold more or less the same level of higher support. Note: Until new consensus is formed, the current one stays. Please follow the guideline Lear... Timeshift (talk) 04:33, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

My word, a new consensus because someone didn't get their way. So what, after the new, new consensus we have another consensus because someone else didn't get their way. I say just draw a stick person and be done with it. CanberraBulldog (talk) 04:42, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I was referring to the size that my browser renders it (which is considerably smaller than it's full res). I was always picky about KevinRuddZoom when it was in the article - the bad quality and fuzziness is even evident when scaled to the small resolution used in the infobox, which is, I find, troubling. Lear's cropped image would work the best still IMO. Connormah 04:48, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

The DOS image doesn't look that bad when cropped, the resolution isn't that much of a problem, I'll upload a version of it to the gallery above to get some comments. Timeshift, there is a clear consensus here that the image you are advocating is not the best one, and I believe this situation (which, to be honest, is a storm in a teacup) would be made much less dramatic if you would participate through discussion and compromise. Nobody is going to get exactly what they want here, so let's try to find some common ground and put this incredibly minor issue to rest.  -- Lear's Fool 04:49, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

The new DOS one is a good compromise - looks very diplomatic - Foreign Affairs like. CanberraBulldog (talk) 04:53, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Added, and I think it's excellent: not grainy, nice expression, decent portrait crop. The only concern would be the slightly low resolution, but I think the lack of zoom artefacts makes up for that.  -- Lear's Fool 05:08, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Also no odd expression, which is particularly helpful. Frickeg (talk) 05:21, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I've been convinced. I now support Kevin Rudd DOS cropped. Does anyone object to changing this one? Please allow 24 hours to give contributors time to respond to see if a new consensus has been formed before changing it. Thankyou. Timeshift (talk) 05:44, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

In the meantime I've contacted Rudd's office - it seems promising so far. Orderinchaos 05:50, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

You'll have to forgive me if I'm bold and change it now: discussion should continue, but I don't think this is sufficently contentious or significant to warrant waiting to change it.  -- Lear's Fool 05:53, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I support DOS or DOS_cropped. "Kevin Rudd 23 Feb 08 cropped.jpg" is horrific. Profoundly fugly and genuinely scary. It should have a warning label to avoid terrifying small children and old ladies. I would prefer no image rather than that image. Shifty has obviously been traumatised by it too if he's asking for my support :-) --Surturz (talk) 07:05, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

As per Surturz, DOS or DOS_cropped are the best suited for this purpose. Романов (talk) 11:57, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Images as Foreign Minister

These in Canberra are released under CC-BY-ND. They may be useful in illustrating Rudd as Foreign Minister until other images come through. Mostlyharmless (talk) 06:40, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Reference accuracy

None of the references in footnote 147 seem to support the statement that cite 147 as evidence. I also think it's bad form to cite so many articles in one footnote. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.239.164.172 (talk) 00:14, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I think it does. Timeshift (talk) 01:01, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I think the point is that the references are supposed to be supporting the fact that Shorten cited those things as evidence, whereas they generally merely point to those being factors without reference to Shorten. On the other hand, the IP is definitely right about having so many articles in one footnote; I've separated them. Frickeg (talk) 01:19, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Has Rudd's media secretary authorised this?

he stood down in favour of Julia Gillard.. I think that the key part of Rudd's removal was that it wasn't voluntary. The only reason that he failed to contest the leadership ballot called by Gillard is that Rudd knew that the numbers would have humiliated him. Yet our wording suggests that it was a cosey, mutual, voluntary arrangement. Misleading the punters may be the nature of politics, but it isn't the business of an encyclopaedia. --Pete (talk) 00:21, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Your POV interpretation is the problem Pete. He did stand down in favour of Julia Gillard did he not? Later on but still in the lead, it says "Rudd stepped down as Prime Minister and party leader on 24 June 2010, when it became clear that he had lost the support of his party". Then there's the actual main body of the article. Your spin is your spin. Not wikipedia's. Timeshift (talk) 00:29, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

My point here isn't whether a statement is technically, grudgingly, preciously true. It's whether it leads the reader to the truth. My impression of the event is that Rudd was forced out. --Pete (talk) 01:03, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

You are taking a sentence out of context and choosing to spin it whilst at the same time disregarding the sentence I quoted that's also contained within the lead. Timeshift (talk) 01:15, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

No. I'm highlighting the misleading wording. I think that the article should state the truth - that Rudd was forced out of the job. --Pete (talk) 01:24, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

What part of "Rudd stepped down as Prime Minister and party leader on 24 June 2010, when it became clear that he had lost the support of his party" in the lead of the article do you fail to understand? Timeshift (talk) 01:35, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

We'll get to that later on. I'm starting from the top down. Do you have any suggestions for more accurate wording of the phrase I've indicated above? Butch and Sundance didn't jump into the river because they wanted a pleasant swim, for example, and Rudd didn't smile and step aside because he thought it was time someone else had a go. --Pete (talk) 01:48, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

(ec x 50) I removed the phrase, and not necessarily for POV concerns. Rather, it is unnecessary to state in the first paragraph of a long article the manner in which his PMship ended (and the 2nd or 3rd sentence of the whole article). It’s explained in more detail in the last paragraph of the lead. That first sentence now simply reads: "He was the 26th Prime Minister of Australia, from December 2007 until June 2010." - no POV concerns there i trust? And the (involuntary) nature of his resignation is explained in the final paragraph of the lead.

While there's room for tweaking, I think the lead is a nicely ordered/structure introduction and summary to the subject, and as per WP:LEAD, stands alone as an article in itself.

And please try and be less provocative to each other in your discussion. Stick to the facts. No need for "Has Rudd's media secretary authorised this" and "what part of….don’t you understand". Cut it out for the rest of us, if not for yourselves. cheers - --Merbabu (talk) 01:58, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. My reason for the title - and yes, it is intended to stimulate discussion - is to highlight the fact that the article is not what we should expect from an encyclopaedia in the way it glosses and spins over Rudd's career, polishing up the good bits and hiding the bad.--Pete (talk) 02:07, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Point taken, but Oz pol articles can be sensitive at the best of times without Discussion Stimulus packages. :-) On the other hand, such a package may be excellent to get people interested in the very title of the Mataram Kingdom. sigh --Merbabu (talk) 02:19, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

As a night cabbie in Canberra, mainly working the Airport, Manuka/Kingston, Parliamentary Triangle runs, I get a LOT of political folk - staffers, media, public servants, even the occasional politician - in my cab. They talk. To the cabbie, to their fellow-passengers, on the phone. I had a couple of Rudd's staffers, drunk and emotional, on the night he was rolled. I hear a lot of things. Some of it is nonsense, of course, but with a lot of passengers, you get a feel for what's going on. You hear different versions of the same story. Cabbies tend to be good judges of character, always asking the three questions of each passenger. As well as that, I'm married to a senior public servant, who tells her own tales of long hours wasted away from her real work spent researching information for the PM that was never used. The public service despised Rudd, and I got that story night and day.

I knew Rudd was in trouble before he did, I reckon. Surrounded by yes-men, full of himself, no effective opposition until Abbott stepped up, Rudd was way out of touch.

Now, that's just my opinion. But I also get the Press Gallery in my cab. I could drop a few names, I could mention the recent weekend in the country house of one of the big names, I could mention years of personal contact. I know who's got the goods, who's spinning a line, who is always on one side of the fence.

There are books in the works. Some of the heavy hitters are writing the history of the Rudd downfall. Paul Kelly's is the one I'm hanging out for, but Barrie Cassidy has one out, to be published shortly, and the extracts I've read hit the spot. Let me just say this. Our article on Kevin Rudd misses the mark. In the months ahead, we are going to get a string of solid sources giving the good guff on a toxic Prime Minister. The story that the top political journalists are telling isn't what Misplaced Pages is saying.

Yes, I know Australian politics is a sensitive area. I don't want to upset other editors, but I want Misplaced Pages to reflect reality rather than spin. --Pete (talk) 22:25, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi, would you please keep your opining tethered a bit please, if you can't cite it don't say it, remember WP:BLP applies just as much on article talkpages, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 22:49, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Point taken. I've removed the comment about McMahon. --Pete (talk) 23:41, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

It certainly appears that one man's "reality" is another man's spin! I have to hand it to you Pete for always trying to go for the jugular in a way that no other does in quite the same way. It seems you're far more interested in opinions and commentary which is a shame for the article. Timeshift (talk) 22:44, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Let's just stick to reliable sources, and give personal opinions no credit in the article, and personal attacks no daylight in the discussion, shall we? --Pete (talk) 22:51, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good - so no more opinions of cabbies with self-declared good connections and networks? lol - let's remove the spin and replace it with opinion. --Merbabu (talk) 00:30, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

It's always amusing when someone claims their job gives them the pulse of the nation ;) Timeshift (talk) 00:36, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

As a former Canberra cabbie (inter alia) myself, I know exactly what he's saying. But this whole "forcing" language is the media at work, believing its own rhetoric, always a bad thing. How often have we been told that so-and-so "was forced to defend his party's policy"? Well, no. They chose to defend it. The consequences had they not defended it might have been undesirable, but it was still their choice. Same with Rudd. He knew that, had he stayed in the ring on 24 June, he would have lost to Gillard. He could still have had the ballot anyway. But he chose not to. If he'd been told "we will rape your wife and kill your children unless you withdraw", then yes, that would justify "he was forced to withdraw". Otherwise, no. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 00:59, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Just saying why I find the article at odds with the reality: the people who had to deal with Rudd didn't regard him in the same light he is portrayed here. I'll stand by my observation that Rudd was forced out, in exactly the same way that Göring was forced to the end of his life. The manner in which they acted at the precipice does not alter the fact that they did not wish to be in that position, and they were made to go there by others. --Pete (talk) 02:08, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Awkward progression

in 1988, he was appointed Chief of Staff to the Labor Opposition Leader in Queensland, Wayne Goss. He was then Chief of Staff to the Premier.

This flows poorly. I suggest from 1988 he was Chief of Staff to the Queensland Labor Opposition Leader and later Premier, Wayne Goss. The next sentence implies that he staid on until Goss lost office, but I don't think we need to make it explicit. --Pete (talk) 02:16, 5 October 2010 (UTC) Box ticked. --Pete (talk) 03:09, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Major announcements?

As the new leader, Rudd gave major announcements on areas such as industrial relations, climate change, an "education revolution", a National Broadband Network, and health.

For the lead, this seems to be excessive, especially as it is phrased as retrospective opinionating. Do we have a contemporary source for this selective list? --Pete (talk) 15:06, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

It doesn’t appear to be a sourcing problem. This is all mentioned in further detail-*with citations*-in the body of the article (see opposition leader section). It’s perfectly legitimate, indeed superior, to not have the citations in the lead of an article if it’s cited in article body – numerous examples of good and feature articles adhere to this.

As for suitability for the lead, hmmm, they were important parts of his time as opposition leader. What else could be said in its place for this period? It already mentions that he and the Labor party were trouncing their opponents in the opinion polls from once he assumed leadership.

I’m not saying there is no room for improvement, just suggesting that it’s not bad and there is no alternative yet suggested. --Merbabu (talk) 21:59, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

There are no problems with sourcing individual statements made by Rudd during this period, and of course they are all sourced in the body. But, do we have a source from that time saying that these statements - as opposed to others from the period - were seen as major? Or is it a case of pulling out speeches made in Opposition and retrospectively declaring them to be important because they later had some impact?

It is quite rare for an Opposition Leader to flag speeches as major or important - John Howards' "Headland Speeches" are examples, the contents of which do not seem now to be particularly important. I am asking for a contemporary source for "major", not "announcements. --Pete (talk) 22:23, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I removed the word "major". It now says "policy announcements". If this is not appropriate, please suggest an alternative. --Merbabu (talk) 23:43, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

That's fine. I'm intending to go through the article top to bottom as time permits, highlighting elements that I see as unsatisfactory. I would like to discuss changes before making them (or not, often I'll be persuaded by discussion), so if I raise a point, it means I'm not going to make an edit for a day or so. If you can see where my line of thinking is going and you can find wording that removes my objections, then I'll be very happy. --Pete (talk) 00:10, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Sick

the federal government's role in healthcare funding was increased. This unsourced statement in the lead is not mentioned at all in the main body. I propose to remove it. --Pete (talk) 03:08, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Or, you could source it or propose an alternative - surely we can't suggest that health, and its funding in particular, wasn't a significant issue for the government. --Merbabu (talk) 09:09, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I could, but I'm working my way down he article methodically, and my time is limited for major research - at the moment I'm sitting in my cab at Canberra airport and I'll be offline in a minute or two. Looking at cleanup, rather than rewrite. --Pete (talk) 09:16, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Later, at leisure. I'm unsure as to exactly what is being referred to here. I know Rudd wanted to pretty much take over all health, but he wanted a lot of things and not many of them went beyond the planning phase, despite all the lovely speeches. Was there some major Rudd health initiative which was actually implemented? --Pete (talk) 21:44, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

The sole source for healthcare reform in the article says this: 'There is no doubt that reforming the health system has been one of the major achievements of the last two-and-a-half years'.

Well, I'm doubting. Rudd outlined a vision earlier this year, but I'm unaware of any action. Issuing a media release does not constitute "a major achievement" Not in my book. Could someone please enlighten me as to any implementation of Rudd's grand plan, or has it, like the Kingswood, been quietly dropped? If it hasn't happened, it's not an achievement and we're not going to list it as one in our article. --Pete (talk) 23:03, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Lead polls

Beginning with Rudd's election to the Labor leadership, the party enjoyed a period of popularity unprecedented in magnitude and length in the opinion polls. In mid-2010, however, the polls showed a sharp drop in both the Labor party's and Rudd's personal electoral standing.

The first sentence is unsupported in the main body of the text, and should therefore be removed. The second sentence is inaccurate - the fatal drop in Rudd's support began in late 2009 and accelerated downhill. The end wasn't as sudden as the article implies - Rudd had a pretty rough six months beginning with Copenhagen. The bad news stories kept coming, Rudd's responses were ineffective, and Tony Abbott kept scoring goals. --Pete (talk) 22:03, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh, Pete's back! Labor stuffed themselves up, Abbott didn't do anything, just look at his satisfaction ratings. It started in late 2009 and then there was a sudden dip in mid-2010. This was all there and ref supported. It's not my fault people decided to come along and redo the entire lead and get rid of the supporting refs in the process. I certainly didn't support bastardising the lead as some have done. Timeshift (talk) 22:11, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Looking at the polls as graphed in the article, it looks more like a steady decline if you exclude local peaks and valleys. The trend is continually downhill. I think we can list a series of setbacks from late 2009 - Copnhagen, the "batts are burning" affair, the failure on ETS etc. - as responsible for this. Abbott, as Opposition Leader, didn't initiate Rudd's troubles, but was able to highlight them effectively, holding Rudd up to ridicule in a way that Turnbull had been unable to do. However, I'm not proposing to include Abbott in the lead, merely to be more accurate about the timing of Rudd's decline in the polls. --Pete (talk) 01:56, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Ahh, always gotta love Pete interpretations :) This is what actually happened. Read the lead and refs for yourself. I repeat, it started in late 2009, and collapsed suddenly in mid-2010. Read. Unfortunately, others came in and changed it to the garbled uninterpretable mess that it is in today, so I can't say I blame you completely. Timeshift (talk) 04:07, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, let's make the lead less garbled, then. These things happen with a varied college of editors. One of the results is flat and lifeless prose and a lack of any distinctive "voice". Merbabu reminded me about WP:LEAD, which deals with sources, and a heap of other stuff. So long as the main article is well sourced, and the lead follows the main text, we don't need to show sources in the lead. The poll graphic doesn't really show a sudden collapse. Rudd had a spike in popularity and the immediately following dip took him back to the trendline, which was all down. --Pete (talk) 04:20, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Again, try reading the link I provided - the lead and the refs. There are refs to support the sudden mid 2010 collapse. And - when the mining attack ads started, Rudd's satisfaction-dissatisfaction went fron 50-40 to 40-50 IN A SINGLE POLL... at no point prior to then had Rudd's sat-dissat been anything less than about 50-40... his approval collapsed in two weeks and didn't recover. You and the coalition can continue to attempt to say Labor is the devil all day every day but the facts speak for themselves. Timeshift (talk) 04:26, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

The facts - as shown in the poll graphic in this article - show a steady trend downwards since late 2009. The poll results for the ALP were crucial to Rudd's remaining in office. Nobody doubted that he could hold his seat, but backbenchers were understandably nervous about their own seats, and ministers looked at the prospect of losing government and therefore their positions. I don't think that the Parliamentary ALP decided to switch support away from a sitting PM on the strength of a single adverse poll result - do you? The lead needs to be summarise and be supported by the main text, and the figures given in the body show a decline beginning in late 2009, and I propose to alter the lead to reflect the facts given in the article. --Pete (talk) 09:06, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Are you deaf or blind? I repeat. It started in late 2009, and collapsed in mid 2010, as supported by cites and polls. Timeshift (talk) 19:58, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

At the moment, I'm discussing the lead, and it must be supported by the main text. Which includes the poll figures. Please refer to the graphic included in the body, (link above), which graphs the results of 2PP figures during the 42nd Parliament. The blue (Neilsen) line shows a steady trend downwards, admittedly sinking faster in June 2010. However, more pronounced collapses are visible in April 2009, and August 2010. The red (Newpoll) line is less trendier, showing more jags and dips, but still the June collapse is not as large nor as sudden as others such as a seven (07) point fall in November 2009. The green (Morgan) line is the most volatile of the three, but again, the November 09 drop (of nine points) is the largest on the chart. All three show brief dips below party parity in May or June 2010, but a drop below a given point, even a significant one, cannot be said to be a sudden collapse - the speed and magnitude of the drop are important, rather than the point on the graph.

What all three graphs show is a trend downwards, dropping more sharply towards the end of Rudd's tenancy. It might also be noted that the Himalaya-like appearance of the graph is a result of the vertical scale encompassing twenty points (out of the hundred available) and the time span across the breadth covering three years.

Moving along, my initial points above are that the period of popularity unprecedented in magnitude and length statement is unsupported by any text in the main an should be either removed or modified to a wording which may be supported ungaspingly. Merbabu's changes to the second sentence are fine for the time being. --Pete (talk) 21:17, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm sick of these unfounded accusations. Again read what i've written above. Period of popularity unprecedented in magnitute and length - are you seriously disputing this? You really need to stop the POV pushing. Timeshift (talk) 23:43, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

My reason for removal was that the claim was unsourced and unmentioned in the main body of the text. If the statement is true, sourced and mentioned in the main text, then I am more than happy for it to stand. If you have any concerns about changes flagged, then please raise them before they are made, rather than revert. Or add the necessary sources, text or corrections. We are working as a team here, and your input is valued. --Pete (talk) 00:02, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

A painless transition

Rudd stepped down as Prime Minister and party leader on 24 June 2010, when it became clear that he had lost the support of his party.

To me, this is not a good explanation of the situation. He only "stepped down" because if he had actually contested the leadership ballot won by Gillard, he would have been crushed. We should also briefly explain why he failed after such early promise. Rudd's removal was a rare and puzzling event, especially for overseas observers, who were saying that it seemed very like a coup. --Pete (talk) 17:19, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

To my mind, the key point about Rudd's removal is that it was a removal. Left to his own, he would have staid. But, like Hermann Göring at the end, he chose to jump rather than be pushed.

he stood down for Julia Gillard. Let's contrast that with the wording for Göring, the final sentence of a brightlywritten two paragraph lead: He was sentenced to death by hanging, but committed suicide by cyanide ingestion the night before he was due to be hanged. We need to tell the whole story, and while the lengthy final para here goes some way towards that end, I think that by blandly saying that Rudd "stood down", we are misrepresenting the situation. It is like saying that Göring committed suicide without explaining why.

I also note that we are now revisiting the same material with which I commenced my project. Are we going to go around in circles on this, in effect having a long, draining and disruptive edit war? Surely we can sort out acceptable wording and stick to it. --Pete (talk) 15:19, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Hardship case

The family was compelled to leave the farm under hardship. This does not seem to tell the complete story. While the fatherless Rudd family was required to leave the farm, it seems that they were not immediately evicted, not until six months after the death of Albert Rudd, contrary to Rudd's recollection of being put on the street the following day.

Kevin Rudd: I think my father's death was difficult at an early age, being evicted actually was the harder bit because we were share farmers, we didn't own the property so bury Dad one day and get tossed off the property virtually the next with nowhere to go and no assets because you don't own a house if you're a share farmer either. My mother had been a nurse during the war in Brisbane and then in the early 70's had to retrain as a nurse to bring us up so she has semi-hero status in my life having done all of that.

Julia Baird: No wonder. You've said that you were very angry about that eviction, I mean how did that anger show itself at the time?

Kevin Rudd: In so far as you can reflect back on how you felt as a kid, as opposed to what you thought you might have felt as a kid, I suppose I'd call it this, that I had the earliest flickering of a sense of justice and injustice and I just thought it was plain wrong that that could happen to anybody or that you didn't have anywhere there to go and stay and that was really tough. It was a deep sense of loss of dignity which I felt vicariously through my mother but I think growing up in a strong country party environment and therefore no sort of Labor views within Cooee I think it actually caused early gestation of an idea of justice and injustice. --ABC

However, this is contrary to the story told by the landlord's daughter in an interview:

When Bert died our father had no choice but to employ a new farmer. It was the biggest dairy farm on the Sunshine Coast and there were more than 120 cows that needed milking morning and night. Margaret would always have known at some point, inevitably, an incoming farmer would have to occupy the farmhouse. But provisions were put in place by our father for Margaret. He explained to her she could remain on the farm, at no cost whatsoever, until such time as the new farmer arrived. What Kevin has always failed to state is that the new farmer didn't even arrive until July - that's almost six months after his father's death. During that entire time, our family continued to run the farm. There was absolutely no reason for them to have left until the new farmer arrived in July. To continuously say he was evicted immediately after his dad's funeral is quite an unbelievable statement. Not only does he blame our father for the so-called eviction, he subsequently mentions having to sleep rough in a car --SMH

Here we have Kevin Rudd finding the roots of his ALP career in an injustice that never happened. I don't think Misplaced Pages should be a party to this. --Pete (talk) 23:25, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Why is the landlord's daughters side of the story more credible than Rudd's? Nick-D (talk) 23:40, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

In this case, I think we should either remove the statement, or give both sides of the story. --Pete (talk) 23:54, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

But the statement you removed doesn't say anything about eviction. In what way were they not compelled to move? Rather than just delete, perhaps you could improve it. --Merbabu (talk) 00:24, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I didn't remove it entirely, I rephrased it in a neutral fashion. Being "compelled to leave" sounds very like "evicted", wouldn't you agree? But I'm happy to expand rather than shorten the statement, so long as clarity is achieved and no bias is shown either to Rudd's juvenile memory or that of the owner. --Pete (talk) 00:41, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

You removed the mention of "hardship". why? --Merbabu (talk) 01:25, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

It was too general. I like your addition - if the family breadwinner dies, then the bread dries up as well. That's fine. --Pete (talk) 02:11, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

It would help if we knew exactly when the Rudds left the farm. Rudd doesn't say, nor does the spokesperson for the Low family. --Pete (talk) 02:20, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I've been reading Barrie Cassidy's book "The Party Thieves" and he provides more details on this story. Briefly, Rudd was rising to prominence and using the death of his father and the eviction of his family as a way to explain the anger he felt and his joining the ALP to set things straight. He described being evicted within days or weeks of his father's death. The children of the now deceased landowner spoke up, feeling that their father had been slandered, that Rudd's widowed mother had been told she could stay on, rent-free, for as long as it took to find a replacement share-farmer, which happened to be six months. It was not just the length of time in dispute, but also the language used.

Now, recollections of events forty years ago may differ, especially when the participants were children at the time. What is really interesting, as Cassidy explains, is that Rudd the adult politician went to extraordinary lengths to attempt to prevent any statements contradicting his own from being published. Rudd lies - as does any politician - but there's something in him that doesn't want to admit it - or be found out. I've met people like this, usually somewhere along the OCD or autistic spectrum. They tend to be hard, focussed workers. Tireless and detail-oriented. They make great sub-editors. But they are difficult to work with, because they don't have that emotional ability to get along with others if there is any conflict. They can't laugh away an error. They go to pieces when painted into a corner.

I'm not saying Rudd is one of these people. But the bells are ringing for me. The celebrated "rat-fuckers" tirade in Copenhagen when the Chinese wouldn't play ball. Before Abbott opposed Rudd's ETS and the Chinese sank Copenhagen, Rudd saw himself as the man who was going to save the world by drawing up the compact that would reduce emissions and lead the kings and presidents into signing it. After Copenhagen, he was a broken man.

David Marr, a man of the Left, found Rudd an interesting case, full of contradictions, and "driven by rage". His essay made it possible to others to criticise Rudd, and the stories of rage behind closed doors, of ridiculous levels of micro-management, of important matters left hanging for weeks or months began to surface.

I saw this, not because I want to have a go at Rudd, but because I think that his psychological makeup is key to understanding the man, and consequently must be a key plank in our article. The decline and defeat of Rudd is one of the great political stories of the past half century, but we seem to brush over it as poor polls and factional leaders. Yet Barrie Cassidy pours scorn on this notion, noting that no factional heavies could muster up the votes needed in a matter of minutes - which was all the time available on the night. Rudd's back isn't full of knives wielded by party colleagues - they came from the front and Rudd never saw them coming until too late.

I urge my fellow editors to read Cassidy's book - and the others that will surely follow.

I'm going to start work on a sub-article based on Rudd's downfall. It's a big story, we don't do it justice, there are plentiful sources around. --Pete (talk) 18:58, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Disputed changes

I have been going through this article, top to bottom, highlighting material that seems to be contrary to our policies, mainly through being misleading or unsupported. I quote the material, state why I find it problematic, and indicate my intentions. If after a day or two no objection has been raised, I make the changes as flagged.

Looking at this diff, labelled reverting disputed changes made without consensus, I find that my edits, announced days earlier, have been reverted by an editor who apparently missed his chance to comment. May I ask Timeshift to comment on this, please? In both cases the material was unsourced, and unreferenced in the main body of the article. It was removed in accordance with WP:SOURCE and WP:LEAD and the only objection raised in discussion was minor.

• Healthcare. Flagged here and implemented here. Time for discussion: 62 hours.
• Unprecedented polling. Flagged here and implemented here. Time for discussion: 43 hours.--Pete (talk) 23:37, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I've commented in the lead poll section above. Timeshift (talk) 23:44, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

To make the statement "unprecedented in magnitude and length" in the lead requires both those adjectives to be supported by the body of the article, in turn supported by reliable sources. At the moment, the article says "During their first two years in office, Rudd and the ALP government set records for popularity in Newspoll polling." The sources on which that statement is used refer to "magnitude" (ie the height of Rudd's poll numbers) but not length. I don't even know how "length" can properly be measured. I think more work is needed with the sourcing and in the body of the article to make "unprecedented in magnitude and length" not an OR statement. I know it's probably true, but verifiability is more important that truth. Additionally, the statement can't cover the 70 odd years of Australian politics before polling began, which is another problem with making such a sweeping statement in the lede.--Mkativerata (talk) 23:51, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I already posted a link for it above - see here. It is also supported by refs in the article diff links, again above. If you have concerns about government popularity prior to polls then you could qualify it somewhat. Timeshift (talk) 23:54, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry to use that as a source for "length" (the article currently doesn't) requires an improper level of analysis (ie OR). For example, according to the graph, Hawkey's period of +50 is longer than Rudd's, making his popularity of arguably more enduring length if of lower magnitude. Also, polling goes back before 1985, IIRC so the graph isn't comprehensive. --Mkativerata (talk) 23:55, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

According to the source given, both Hawke and Howard had longer periods of positive 2PP than Rudd. If we make statements, we need to source them correctly. WP:BLP applies as well here. --Pete (talk) 00:12, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

To say that health funding was not a significant issue for Rudd is frankly bs. That however does not mean that the current coverage in the article is good or that there is no problem. And, it's not mentioned in the Rudd Government article either (why on earth not?). While i don't support Skyring's suggestion that it's not notable, he is correct in saying that it's (a) not cited and (b) not mentioned in the article. It needs work, and while technically justified (read wikilawyer's point of view) the recent removal from the article, I don't support at this stage. There are far more constructive solutions. Why not cite it, re-word it, and/or provide info in the article proper??? --Merbabu (talk) 00:07, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm certainly not saying that healthcare isn't notable. In fact, Rudd's grand healthcare proposal was something I supported at the time. My objection, is as stated. I couldn't find any material in the main body to be summarised in the lead. --Pete (talk) 00:12, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I'll wait another day for discussion, and if the material remains unsourced, remove it. --Pete (talk) 01:31, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Fixed. It's a pity those that want to remove things seem to have little to no interest in doing the footwork needed. Timeshift (talk) 13:23, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, heaps! I knew you'd come to the aid of the party! Just a few quick points.

• According to WP:LEAD, The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article. The reason for the topic being noteworthy should be established early on in the lead. It is even more important here than for the rest of the article that the text be accessible. Consideration should be given to creating interest in reading the whole article. (See news style and summary style.) This allows editors to avoid lengthy paragraphs and over-specific descriptions, because the reader will know that greater detail is saved for the body of the article. Some of the material you've added is not mentioned at all in the main body of the article. Do you think you could add it to the appropriate sections?
• Drilling down, we have in WP:LEADCITE, The lead must conform to verifiability and other policies. The verifiability policy advises that material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and quotations, should be cited. Because the lead will usually repeat information also in the body, editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material. Leads are usually written at a greater level of generality than the body, and information in the lead section of non-controversial subjects is less likely to be challenged and less likely to require a source; there is not, however, an exception to citation requirements specific to leads. The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus. Complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations; others, few or none. Contentious material about living persons must be cited every time, regardless of the level of generality. My own feeling is that keeping references out of the lead makes it more accessible to the "above the fold" reader, and so long as the main text is adequately sourced, we don't need to duplicate every reference in the lead.
• We're writing an encyclopaedia, not a media release. We don't have to "sell the product", just inform the readers. I had to chuckle over the phrase stratospheric popularity - that's the language of the breathless journalist, not the sober editor.
• Specific wordings I'll examine on a case by case basis.

Again, thanks for the research. My main interest in editing Misplaced Pages lies in nit-picking away at details, rather than writing slabs of text, and if you want to call me Pete the Pedantic, feel free! --Pete (talk) 14:54, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Call a spade a spade... i'm not going to play your games. You didn't accept the diff and refs. It's now there. Refs, polls, and all. Surely there are better ways to spend time on here. Timeshift (talk) 15:36, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

No worries! I'll work through the material and we can all talk about it a chunk at a time. No hurry. Rudd's not going anywhere. --Pete (talk) 16:32, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Timeshift's revert is just back to his preferred version that he created in July. Hardly consensus. And it's a poor lead. Nothing happened to Rudd between 1957 and 2001? Every change I made to the lead I made carefully and explained - in light of that such a hard revert is pure vandalism and WP:OWN. There's clearly no consensus for his July version if both myself and Skyring are trying to change it. Perhaps we could go back to the pre-TImeshift version? Or would it be more constructive to work on a lead that covers his whole life and career, rather than one that spends 3 paragraphs on his time as Labor leader.

I'm taking Timeshift's hard revert has Revert 1. More than happy to get admins in. --Merbabu (talk) 01:45, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Moving on - Skyring, if there is something in the lead that is not mentioned in the body of the article, with cites, then please bring it up here before removing it. Give it 7 days. Then if it is not there, then it can be removed. Please don't go over old ground that's been resolved - ie "stratospheric". We all got the point, it was fixed, and we moved on. I'd like to think that I've been reasonable enough about accommodating your requests so far. cheers --Merbabu (talk) 01:58, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

UPDATE: I've started a health care section in the article. Only a small sentence so far. But it has a cite - the one from Timeshift's lead. Needs expansion. I've also added a few words back into the lead - it seems that Skyring agrees that health was significant to Rudd's PMship (and we can presume that Timeshift does too!) --Merbabu (talk) 02:05, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm trying to be positive, avoid criticism of other editors and so on. But I think you know where I'm going with this - the article doesn't tell the whole story of a fascinating but deeply flawed leader, and therefore sells our readers short. Politicians dissemble, mislead, edit the truth and outright lie if they can do it with a smile. That's just the way it is and the party machines are geared that way. But that is no reason for a political article to read as if it were written by politicians. The facts, the full story, warts and all. We only reflect the real world, we don't define it. --Pete (talk) 02:31, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

But if the warts are missing, the answer is not to remove what may be perceived as the more positive stuff, right? The (newly created) health section needs expansion (at least to match the other sections - hmmmm) and might be a good place to put both the warts and the spin. --Merbabu (talk) 02:36, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

If the lead has gone backward without consensus, then how about we return to the version we were working on and continue from there? We can use the references Timeshift has supplied. I don't want to remove good honest material, but nor do I want to keep rubbish. I'm puzzled about the healthcare though - so far as I know it never got anywhere concrete. --Pete (talk) 04:22, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Later, after looking at the text. OK, it looks like you are ahead of me! I'm happy with this version, apart from the wording on removal, which I'll have to think about. I don't want to raise too many hackles, but nor do I want our article to give a wrong impression. If there's one thing Rudd will be remembered for, it is the manner of his leaving. --Pete (talk) 04:35, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

The previous lead (Timeshifts changes in July) was full of cites that were unnecessary. it was unbalanced in its coverage - the majority of his life was not mentioned, and a partiuclar week was given a whole paragraph. It also started explaining a few of the policies (ie, the resource tax) - such explanation of another topic is irrelevant to the lead.

I made a number of edits to the lead on 30 August. This appears to have been the most significant whereby I added a paragraph on the few years between 1957 and 2001. The version before had no mention. A lead is meant to summarise the whole article, not just the most recent 9%. I also pushed cites down into the body of the article. If I missed any (I doubt there's many if any at all), then my apologies - cites can be added to the article. And, I also cut down on a lot of detail about a few events - for example the end of his PMship. Every topic remains - I just chose to say them in 1 sentence, rather than a whole paragraph. --Merbabu (talk) 07:27, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I must admit I sighed when I saw Timeshift's major edit. I'm coming in cold so it looked like a total rewrite, rather than a reversion to a previous state. Let's hang onto it. As it is, there's nothing hugely wrong and it reads well. I'll continue working my way down the article, and when changes are made in the body they may be reflected in the head. --Pete (talk) 07:47, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Bronze sculpture

I would like to propose an award, for inspired image placement, regarding this edit. --Pete (talk) 22:14, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

For some reason it's standard to include the PMs' sculptures in the Bendigo Prime Minister's Avenue in their articles. It is an awful sculpture though (though the others seem to be equally bad), and photos of Rudd as a foreign minister will soon become available for that section. Nick-D (talk) 22:40, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Maybe there needs to be a discussion on whether we include the busts across all PM articles. No doubt the argument to keep will be "crappy pictures are better than no pictures", which I don't agree with. --Merbabu (talk) 22:48, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I think they're suitable for inclusion... "you ain't a PM till you've been Ballarat busted!" :P Timeshift (talk) 01:16, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

• Biography articles of living people
• All unassessed articles
• B-Class biography articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• B-Class Australia articles
• Top-importance Australia articles
• B-Class Australian politics articles
• Top-importance Australian politics articles
• WikiProject Australian politics articles
• WikiProject Australia articles