Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:13, 30 December 2011

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Kevin Rudd article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8Auto-archiving period: 3 months

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Kevin Rudd article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8Auto-archiving period: 3 months

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: Politics and Government 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 This article is supported by the politics and government work group (assessed as Top-importance). Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Australia: Brisbane / Queensland / 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 the Brisbane task force (assessed as Top-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject Queensland (assessed as High-importance). 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, or the State Library of Queensland. The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

Wealth

I've just removed this section as the material was sourced (and basically copied and pasted) from an opinion article. The article states that the $60 million figure is Rudd and Thérèse Rein's combined wealth, and I'm pretty sure that I've read that Rein earned most of this money. While it's likely that at least some of the money is shared, this is far from certain given that Rein is a very active businesswoman. As such, it seems a bit misleading to say that Rudd's the richest PM Australia has ever had. Nick-D (talk) 00:04, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Kevin Rudd's personal life

Just wondering regarding K Rudd's personal life. He's been dropping the f-bomb, saying that Chinese are "rat-f--kers". Not sure if that incident about him in the bar is included in here, couldn't find the keyword "bar" in the article, but then again didn't read through the entire article. Twigfan (talk) 14:00, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Readers coming here for details on any of the very many negative episodes in Rudd's life and career are going to be sorely disappointed. The article is biased to the extent that you wonder why Labor ever dropped him and all his problems were caused by others. The truth is that the Libs think he's their biggest asset, and if Rudd was run over by a bus tomorrow, pretty much anyone who has ever worked with him would line up to piss on his grave. But you won't get even a whiff of scandal here - he called the Chinese ratfuckers, sure enough, they hate him for that, but on Misplaced Pages, he's Mr Clean. --Pete (talk) 18:14, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

my opinion on npov (and WP:BLP agrees) is that when in doubt over whether to include negative then leave it out. That's how Pauline Hanson and John Howard have been written. If you want to read dirt on people/topics then you've got the rest of the Internet (in all it's quality). I'm not so familiar with this article but I'm not overly upset about the (apparent) omission of those specific factoids. --Merbabu (talk) 03:57, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

For Kevin Rudd, the negative is an essential part of his biography. He wasn't removed from high office because the voters elected someone else, now was he? Nor was he dumped because Julia Gillard took it into her lonely head to do it. The article should explain why, because as you say, to get the whole story people looking for information will be directed away from Misplaced Pages, and if we are writing an encyclopaedia, that's a sad attitude to have - telling readers to go away if they want the facts, because they won't find them here. --Pete (talk) 04:18, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Are you attempting to try your hand at the Abbott 101 rulebook? If you say something enough, people start to believe it? Honestly, if you're here to help improve wikipedia then this sort of language is not the way to go about it and you know it. Timeshift (talk) 05:06, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

No Skyring, I said people can go elsewhere if they want to read the "dirt", not the "facts". And, i was very clear that my context was any public figure. Not just Kevin Rudd. If you don't agree, then fine - I'm more than comfortable with that. Just don't misquote people. And, be consistent. Presumably, consistency would mean you would argue that the "negative" is also essential to Pauline Hanson's biography? --Merbabu (talk) 07:59, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, I would define Kevin Rudd's "personal life" as details of his family, his hobbies, his religion, etc. (keeping in mind privacy and other BLP issues). Not a list of so-called "gaffes", often beaten up by the media, which we're supposed to weave together into some kind of narrative to imply that they demonstrate such a pattern of poor judgement that Gillard and others in the ALP decided to remove him from high office. Pete/Skyring seems to pop up every few weeks to rail against some perceived cadre of editors conspiring to whitewash and protect articles on Rudd/Gillard/other ALP members against any negative portrayal or incidents. And as I've replied several times, if an incident had an effect (other than generating a few headlines) and that can be referenced and verified, it should absolutely be included. If it's a trivial gaffe like getting filmed eating his own earwax, or Abbott saying "shit happens" to a soldier, then leave it out. What the article does is spell out the facts: Rudd lost the support of ALP factional leaders. If Gillard comes out and says she challenged Rudd for the leadership because he called the Chinese a rude name or yelled at an RAAF hostie and made her cry, I'll be the first to add it to the article. -Canley (talk) 05:35, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Being booted out of the Prime Ministership is not a "trivial gaffe", we may presume that readers come here wanting the full story and they certainly don't get it here - just a sanitised whitewashed press release from the office of Kevin Rudd MP. Yup, Rudd lost the support of factional leaders, but why? We make it sound so ordinary and everyday, but really it's one of those peaks in Australian political history. Not quite up there with 1975, but definitely more sudden and exciting than Hawke being rolled by Keating in slo-mo. and no, Timeshift. This isn't about Tony Abbott - it's about Kevin Rudd. --Pete (talk) 05:59, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

What text and supporting reliable sources do you suggest adding to fix this issue? Nick-D (talk) 07:53, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it would be more constructive if there was something specific to which to respond. --Merbabu (talk) 08:05, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I find it hard to believe that the plane crashed, the media wants to know what happened and over at the scene of disaster the people tasked with making the official report are standing around in the wreckage saying to each other, "Geez, I dunno, let's just say the flight was delayed." The article speaks for itself - the last two years and there hasn't been one good thing said about Rudd in newspapers, magazines, books and the electronic media, but you wouldn't know it from our supposedly encyclopaedic article. --Pete (talk) 09:56, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

So, you've actually got nothing specific to offer as remedy to your general complaint? --Merbabu (talk) 10:42, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

POV

Kevin Rudd's government was a disaster. He ran a government elected with a landslide and huge personal and party popularity ratings down to the point where Tony Abbott had a good chance of victory. In a single term. Rudd was removed by his own party in a sudden coup. Rudd's problems were not caused by outside forces - he created his own disasters through an autocratic and erratic management style and a failure to deliver on promises, most notably the carbon tax scheme.

And yet the article provides little information to the reader on the details of Rudd's downfall. One is left with the impression that it all just kind of happened to a great leader and he was the innocent victim of circumstances. And yet the ALP's own internal report on the 2010 election is strongly critical of Rudd. The report, leaked to the media, has been widely reported and discussed:

ALP post-mortem damns Rudd
A SECRET Labor Party report has criticised the government led by Kevin Rudd as lacking purpose and being driven by spin and implies that the former prime minister or his supporters were behind the leaks that almost destroyed Julia Gillard's election campaign.

Both Coalition and ALP are now making the same strong criticisms of Rudd. I have placed the POV tag because the article reads like something approved by Rudd, highlighting his successes and glossing over his failures. One editor, in previous discussion, said that those seeking such information should look elsewhere. This is not what a supposedly neutral and objective encyclopaedia does. --Pete (talk) 16:45, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

we didn't request an aggressive tag and more complaining about the vibe, we requested a suggested fix that can be responded to. You cannot just demand that others do work for you - if you want to make a change, then make it or suggest it. Tags are lazy, ugly and boorish especially if u don't offer anything yourself. Poor form and not an all constructive. Indeed, disruptive. Put up or shut up I say. --Merbabu (talk) 20:16, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Glad I've got you talking. Instead of having a go at me, could you address the point raised about this article, please? --Pete (talk) 20:23, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

It's your point. You address it, as has been requested. No one works for anyone here. until then, there's not much more to talk about. --Merbabu (talk) 20:31, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I've made my statement above - to which you responded dismissively - and I am interested in the views of regular editors here. Not to mention others investigating the flagging of this article. There is a problem of bias with this article and it should be addressed. Making personal attacks on other editors will not resolve the problem. --Pete (talk) 21:02, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

You're here to put up or shut up (improve the article), correct? Timeshift (talk) 05:21, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

That's ok. You and Merbabu can relax. I wasn't suggesting that either of you correct the bias by yourself. I am glad, however, that you acknowledge that there's work needs to be done. --Pete (talk) 06:58, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Something got lost in translation somewhere it would appear. Were you a day early? Timeshift (talk) 08:06, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Kevin Rudd was the only Prime Minister in Australia's history to be disposed of by his own party in his first term. If that does not mean he was an utter and complete failure as a Prime Minister then what does? His government's two greatest claims for glory - the success in avoiding a (technical) recession and supposedly healing a decades-old rift between white and black Australia with his apology were certainly repeated ad-nauseam by the Kevin Rudd camp. If it was true - why was he such a failure? Why did his Treasurer - The-Man-That-Saved-Australia-from-the-Recession™ - almost lost his Seat in the subsequent elections (getting in only with Greenie preferences, and likely to lose the next elections even with those) if the stimulus package worked so hanky-dory? Because the electorate knows very well that this stimulus package "success" was largely Rudd-spin, I suggest. Other governments (such as the US gov't) who used stimulus found this measure to be largely useless, and plunged into recession anyway. Australia was enjoying a booming Chinese economy which invested billions into the Australian economy and to a significant degree isolated it from the economic problems in U.S. and Europe. That is the certaintly the position of the Opposition (now well ahead in opinion polls, by the way), on the record as making these claims (i.e. that Australia avoiding recession was due to the Chinese-related boom rather than the stimulus package). That debate was repeated by both sides of politics - each pushing their own side (the stimulus package was a success/not) during the last election campaign in 2010. So, by claiming that the stimulus package worked one is taking only one side of politics (now clearly behind in opinion polls) and ignoring the other side's claims. So, who is the POV-pusher? Rtmcrrctr (talk) 00:16, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

The article states that "the government provided economic stimulus packages, and Australia was one of the few western countries to avoid the late-2000s recession", which seems fairly neutrally worded - both elements of the sentence are clearly true. There's also a solid body of research that the stimulus did have a very positive economic effect. This includes analysis from the IMF () and the OECD (, , ) as well as lots of stuff from the Treasury (for instance, ). Your highly partisan post hardly bolsters your case. Nick-D (talk) 00:40, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

I suppose that my comment fails to disguise the fact that I am not necessarily the biggest Rudd fan on the land, but to be honest I didn't really expect it to. Leaving politics aside, you write: "The article states that "the government provided economic stimulus packages, and Australia was one of the few western countries to avoid the late-2000s recession", which seems fairly neutrally worded - both elements of the sentence are clearly true". To your knowledge, when you include two facts (such as "Rudd implemented a stimulus package economic policy" and "Australia avoided recession") in the same sentence, what you do in effect is suggesting a certain causality relation between the two facts. You will never hear anyone from Rudd's (numerous) critics saying such, ummm, "neutral" sentence... Rtmcrrctr (talk) 00:54, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

The sooner you realise that Labor kept Australia out of recession, the better. :) Timeshift (talk) 01:27, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Not helpful Timeshift - no different to Skyring style of comment - just from a different "team". If people don't have specific suggestions for improvement then they shouldn't comment (if I was King of wikipedia, I'd remove such comments, but alas I'm not). Talk pages are not for discussing one's opinions, or making general complaints about the vibe of an article.

Oh? What "team" am I on? On this point, the single major fact that makes me detest political behaviour is the untruthfulness. Every statement is an exercise in spin. Every answer in Question Time is a chance to avoid the truth. Every positive is lauded to the skies, every negative buried away. This is not the sort of example we wish to follow in Misplaced Pages, and I resent the involvement of editors anxious to polish the rings of their team champions. --Pete (talk) 03:39, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Not to go off on a rant, but what else do you expect with 21st century media? The media mesh objective journalism and subjective opinion in to 24 hour rolling media coverage, where anything that could potentially be considered a "weakness" is shown as a disaster. In many countries including Australia, politicians who don't spin always fail, it is the sad truth of politics. A successful politician however, doesn't overuse spin. Remember, the public are not as dumb as some people make them out to be. I think anyone who cares about politics is able to read between the spin lines. It's just such a shame that general public disengagement grows ever larger, so many don't care. It's always interesting seeing the odd poll that stacks up public figures - the media and politicians always rate poor scores. Moreso the right-wing media organisations and individuals. The media ruined truthful politics. Timeshift (talk) 05:25, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

The point I make is that we, as encyclopaedia editors, don't need to pick sides. We try to present a neutral point of view, providing all well-held and reliably-sourced opinions. Playing politics - and then spinning your views - is missing the whole point of Misplaced Pages, no matter how much you feel your image of the world is the one that really matters. --Pete (talk) 11:06, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree with most of what you say, it's a pity you can't stick by it. One thing I don't agree with is the way you phrase "all well-held and reliably-sourced views". The two don't go together. We include well-held and reliably-sourced views. All is a useless apendage which some take to mean "any and all views". But on another level again, just because a view is reliably sourced, does not make it automatically suitable for inclusion. Well-held tends to be subjective opinion more than objective fact. Timeshift (talk) 08:21, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Of course, you are the epitome of "objective fact", as anyone may discern in your even-handed treatment of Australian politicians, regardless of party. Opinions are certainly well-held and Misplaced Pages's policy of NPOV handles this well. We have articles on the religions of the world, which happen to contradict each other but we report on them anyway. Political articles - like this one - quote opinion polls. The opinion of whoever picks up the phone, rather than the views of political scientists. As you pointed out above, in your attack on the media, that's the way it is. We don't hunt down unbiased sources of "objective fact" to present a neutral and objective truth - we find all well-held opinions. Minority or extreme views we present as such, but if a view is widely held and reliably sourced, such as that Kevin Rudd made a complete hash of his time as PM, did very little of substance and was booted out by his own party and has since devoted his time to sabotaging Julia Gillard, we should include it. Of course, in the eyes of some, Kevin Rudd and Kim Jong Il were saints and legends and their articles should reflect their eternal glory, but we are not North Misplaced Pages and those who consider their own rose-coloured opinions as objective fact should consider spending their time in a different fashion. --Pete (talk) 21:26, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Since when is my userpage an article? I am very even handed, my 5 years of edits prove that to be true. If I wasn't, I simply wouldn't be adding a lot of what I add. Later in your post, you hit the nail on the argument's head. You believe all views, if sourced and "well-held", need to be included by default. This is simply not correct. There are many reasons why a view that is sourced and "well-held" is decided not to be included in an article, which admins across the wikipedia spectrum will testify. I and many others think Howard was a failure, it is a well-held view and can be reliably sourced. Should we include it just because it's an opinion? Failure is utterly subjective. And we don't say either Howard or Rudd was a success either. We give the facts, not opinion. Your 100-years-war anti-Rudd crusade got old and transparent a long time ago. Timeshift (talk) 05:11, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Not anti-Rudd, but pro-NPOV. Go read it. My own opinions are immaterial and unimportant here, but the report prepared by the ALP referred to above and leaked to the media, supposedly by Gillard, is pretty devastating. I think our article should tell the full story of Rudd's career, in line with NPOV, a fundamental wikipolicy. But you apparently disagree. Your user page makes interesting reading, especially when read in conjunction with your many edits on political subjects. Nobody requires editors to be neutral and even-handed in everything, but NPOV is a way of keeping balance in our encyclopaedia. I commend it to you. --Pete (talk) 05:34, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Funny how you'll take an ALP document on it's word all of a sudden - that must be a first! One could also say it is not a reliable source because it is considered a primary source - too many opportunities in the report for personalities over truth. My edits are often commented on as positive - I stand by all my edits, anti-this or pro-that, it's all there. I'm not going to play the silly circular games and take this talk page off-topic any further, i've had my 2c. Timeshift (talk) 06:29, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Just go and read WP:NPOV. Clearly you don't understand one of Misplaced Pages's key policies. The ALP report is there for the reading whether you or I agree with it and it represents a pertinent body of opinion - that of the organisation that dumped Rudd as PM. You're wildly off base with your personal attacks BTW - every time I see Abbott and Hockey making statements on the economy I shudder at the thought of them getting their hands on the levers. I don't have preferred political sports team to barrack for and I find your cheerleader approach to Misplaced Pages inappropriate. --Pete (talk) 07:28, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Bias is better declared. See my userpage. Timeshift (talk) 07:39, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

I didn't need to look at your user page to work out which team you cheer for. Your edits here detract from the article's usefulness as source of information. Leaving out important aspects of Rudd's career damages the article, and your keen work to suppress any but the mildest criticism is one of the factors leading to this discussion on the neutrality - or lack of it - here. Rudd wasn't dumped because of any outside factors - it was his own failings that killed his career as PM, and that part of the story needs to be told. --Pete (talk) 08:28, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Please supply my last diff of substantial revert. Timeshift (talk) 09:10, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Timsehift, I agree that bias is better declared than undeclared. Better still, though, is a Neutral Point of View. Agree? -- Jack of Oz 09:42, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

On the stimulus/lack of recession, I can understand Rtmcrrctr's concerns, but the two points are both individually valid. Perhaps, we could say something like "in response to a looming global slowdown, the govt implement stimulus packages to support demand in the economy" (yes, needs word-smithing). This is factual, and doesn't provide credit or criticism. A lead should always, well, "take its lead", from the article proper, and I note that the stimulus package and the avoidance of recession are mentioned separately. Just saying. --Merbabu (talk) 05:46, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

On the Apology content, I find the following - praise and criticism - somewhat nauseous...

was publicly well received; most criticisms were of Labor for refusing to provide victims with monetary compensation as recommended in the Bringing them Home report, and that the apology would not alleviate disadvantage amongst Indigenous Australians.

...and I'd remove both. Both statements are vague and peacockish. The reference is a compilation list of opinion pieces. This is not an objective measure of opinion - it's OR and doesn't provide a NPOV. Misplaced Pages is often made better by what it doesn't include. --Merbabu (talk) 05:55, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

I think that technically it is impossible to avoid WP:SYNTH in saying that the Rudd stimulus package averted a GFC recession in Australia. However, I think there is enough verifiable opinion to assert that it is a commonly held view. However, I do think it is relevant to include the fact that the Howard government paid off the government debt and had large public savings (and public surplus) which enabled the stimulus package - cf. the US which had to borrow to provide stimulus. --Surturz (talk) 11:48, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Political Positions section

I propose we delete the "Political Positions" section, or at least trim the section substantially. I don't think the other ex-PM articles have such sections. Rudd's views on the economy and social policy are no longer relevant to the article since he is no longer PM. Let's focus on what he actually did as PM, rather than what he might have done. Furthermore, his opinions may well change as time goes on, so to keep them here in perpetuity could well become misleading. --Surturz (talk) 11:56, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

There is a lot in there that is useful. His public personality is the key to understanding his private personality and hence his extraordinary career. The section on religion is particularly illuminating - he has no difficulty in being both an Anglican and a Roman Catholic. This shows the sort of "dollar each way" attitude that Christine Wallace described, and had the effect of alienating his colleagues when they found that he could not be relied on to stick to commitments. --Pete (talk) 18:24, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't see how Rudd's personal views cease to be relevant because he's no longer the PM... He was the PM, and these shaped his government. If his views have in fact changed, we can update the text. Advocating removing this section because it's not in the articles on other PMs is a bit odd given that most of those articles are in even worse condition than this one. Nick-D (talk) 22:00, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

They could usefully be inserted. Gough Whitlam's drive for reform powered his Prime Ministership. And other qualities sped his downfall. John Howard's philosophical position was well-known and was the rock on which he built his house (or houses, in the final term). Not sure about Julia. --Pete (talk) 22:10, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Hmm. OK, well if not delete, then how about merge with the policy section? Why do we need an "Economic Policy" section as well as a "Economic position" section? We have a separate Rudd Government article, so there is no need to distinguish in this article what his government did and what he believes. It could even be a better narrative if you intersperse his beliefs with his actual policies. I think the large block quotes should go, they're not particularly famous tracts nor particularly illuminating. I'll have a go at trimming them. --Surturz (talk) 02:17, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Indigenous report card

Nick-D re-added the motherhood statements on "bridging the gap". Rudd is no longer PM, so we should either put the policy and the outcome in, or not put in the policy at all. I have previously tried to insert text on the outcome but as usual got reverted. Nick-D seems to agree that both parts should be included, so if he wants the claim added back, it is incumbent on him to put in the outcome as well. I do not care either way, as long as we do not cherry pick - for a former PM article, putting in policy announcements without reviewing the outcome during the PMs term is just puffery. Rudd made some fairly specific promises with delivery dates, so there should be a lot of reliable sources on whether he hit those targets. Many of the refs are already present in the big multi-ref ref. --Surturz (talk) 02:06, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Nick-D restored the material again, but this time with some text indicating the (lack of an) outcome of the Rudd Indigenous initiatives. In his edit summary he asked "why is that a valid reason to remove factual and cited content?". To be honest, I'm not sure exactly what policies cover it, but if we have text in the article that 1) states a problem (indigenous disadvantage), 2) states the government-of-the-day's response to it (budgeting x billion dollars towards the problem), and 3) says nothing more, then I believe there is an implication that the policy worked. Yes, such content would be factual and cited, but such content would also be misleading. To me this is the main problem with this article, and why the POV tag is justified. Various policies were initiated by Rudd and added to the article at the time, and now that he has lost the PM-ship, we should follow up and add text assessing the outcome of each policy (even if only to say "it is unknown if the policy worked"). --Surturz (talk) 09:06, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I basically agree - though many programs are still in relatively early days and there isn't yet data on whether they've met or not met their goals. I'm not sure whether random news reports like the one added here are great sources though (this story is based around one guy whinging that his computer didn't magically remain up to date over two years...). Why not use the ANAO performance audit which is available here and actually assesses the program against its goals? More generally, I don't think that deleting OK content rather than updating it is a good idea. Nick-D (talk) 09:47, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Thoroughly concur. Rudd was good at making pretty speeches and promising action - everyone remember how he said there was a lot to do and after tea and a lamington the new government would get stuck in - but very poor about delivering. Sure he said "Sorry" and got some great moments on camera, but what happened? No progress whatsoever, apart from more public servants in Canberra. When the visions didn't pan out, we should say so. It adds more to the story of why he was dumped. The ALP has every right to be annoyed. Rudd began with a huge popular vote, every state and territory government was Labor, for a time he and the Opposition Leader were staunch republicans, but what happened? He pissed it all away. Whitlam seized the moment. Hawke exploited consensus. Keating got things done and up peoples noses. But for Rudd - nothing. Just some pretty words in public and ugly ones in private. I'm annoyed that our article doesn't tell the full story and leaves the reader unsatisfied as to why things went so wrong for Rudd. --~~

Skyring, can you please restrict your comments to how to develop this article? I'm no more interested in your political views than I imagine than you are in mine, and they're not at all relevant to what we're trying to do here. Nick-D (talk) 10:45, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

You want my political views, read my blog. I certainly haven't mentioned them here. This article is about providing information, and if we only tell one side of the story, it's as if the Leyland P-76 article stopped at the "Car of the Year" award. If we list Rudd's announced initiatives, we should in fairness to our readers also say what happened afterwards, instead of leaving them to guess that maybe they all came true. Rudd wasn't dumped because the same people who made him party leader really wanted Gillard. He was dumped because he wasn't performing. --Pete (talk) 19:13, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

• Biography articles of living people
• All unassessed articles
• B-Class biography articles
• B-Class biography (politics and government) articles
• Top-importance biography (politics and government) articles
• Politics and government work group articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• B-Class Australia articles
• Top-importance Australia articles
• B-Class Brisbane articles
• Top-importance Brisbane articles
• WikiProject Brisbane articles
• B-Class Queensland articles
• High-importance Queensland articles
• WikiProject Queensland articles
• B-Class Australian politics articles
• Top-importance Australian politics articles
• WikiProject Australian politics articles
• WikiProject Australia articles