Talk:Kevin Rudd/Archive 1

I think the Mark Latham quote is very bilious. What is bilious? Full of bile. It shouldn't be part of this wiki entry.

Is the picture NPOV? It rather looks like a somewhat negative portrayl of Rudd --211.31.120.76 12:05, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

It's the only public domain photo of him anyone has managed to come up with. I'm waiting for an opportunity to take a better one. Adam 12:38, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm sure his electorate office would be happy to oblige with a more business-like one suitable for our purposes BigHaz 00:43, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

have you seen the picture his office has.... not very flattering

This is the only other one I have. Adam 7 July 2005 05:04 (UTC)


 * Do you have a higher-quality version of that? If so, send it to me; I'll Photoshop the red-eye out of the picture and replace the picture in the article with it. --Robert Merkel 7 July 2005 05:20 (UTC)

Nope, that's the only version I have. Adam 7 July 2005 05:52 (UTC)

I found another one. Adam 7 July 2005 06:15 (UTC)

Channel 7 interview
Adam Carr will have to discuss why he feels that Rudd's own comments, made in an interview with Channel 7, do not belong in the Rudd article. Cognition 13:58, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

All LaRouche cult edits to any article on my watchlist will be reverted. Adam 14:19, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
 * If you continue to ignore the policy against reverts and personal attacks, I will not hesitate to report you. Heed Everyking's warnings, or you'll be heading to arbitration soon. Now, are you ready to explain why Kevin Rudd's comments from the recent Channel 7 interview don't belong in this article. Cognition 14:25, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

He may be a LaRouche Cultist (and thus a moron), but I for one cant really see anything wrong with the edit. --203.17.44.84 12:24, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Mark Latham, as part of an attack on Rudd in today's Crikey, mentions this article. As it concerns an omission, I thought I'd post it here and see if anyone thinks we should change it accordingly. Ambi 04:47, 11 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Moreover, Hartcher has ignored the serious questions I posed in this particular entry regarding Rudd's credibility: "There are some missing periods in his CV and a general mystery about the guy. If he grew up in poverty in rural Queensland, where did the posh accent come from?" Part of the Rudd folklore (repeated once more in the Hartcher profile) is that after his father's death in the late 1960s, his family was evicted from their dairy farm and forced to live in abject poverty.


 * A possible answer to my question was, in fact, under Hartcher's nose but, yet again, he chose to ignore it. Hartcher writes that "after his father's death, (Rudd) spent two years boarding at Marist Brothers College in Brisbane's Ashgrove." Rudd himself has made no mention of his time at a private boarding college, either on his electorate website, in his Who's Who and Wikipedia entries or in his 1998 maiden speech to Parliament – a serious set of omissions. On each occasion, he has mentioned government schools (Eumundi Primary and Nambour High) but never Marist Brothers Ashgrove, and its fees of $16,000 pa (today's cost equivalent).


 * This is one of the gaps in Rudd's CV that worries members of the Labor Caucus and even some members of the general public. In response to the Hartcher profile, several people have contacted me this week asking: if the Rudd family was poverty stricken after their father's death, how did they afford to send Kevin to a private boarding college in Brisbane? If Rudd is not willing to tell the truth about his school education and financial circumstances, how can he be taken seriously as a candidate for the Labor leadership?


 * seriously though - trust latham? Danlibbo 23:56, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Religion
Is Rudd Catholic or Anglican? I'm guessing the former? The article says he attended Marist College Ashgrove, a Catholic school in Brisbane, but later says he is open about his Anglican faith. Cheers --- BrightLights 02:48, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Just to confirm, this article mentions his conversion, have added this to text. BrightLights 11:45, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


 * In the most recent issue of The Melbourne Anglican, it says he's Anglican. I'm finding the reference Leon 05:58, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Yesterdays (3/12/2006) Sunday Age says: "Rudd is Catholic, his entrepreneurial wife Therese Rein is Anglican." - not sure which source we can believe. Maybe we should mention both? Brendanfox 00:15, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I just read it, added it to the references, and changed the article to a generic "Christianity" Leon 01:05, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't believe anything I read in the Sunday Age. I'm fairly sure he's an Anglican. Adam 01:21, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * While he was brought up a Catholic, he has been attending Anglican services since he married his wife (who is Anglican). In practise, he is an Anglican. Jpeob 02:25, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * He has talked of Catholic social teaching as an influence. Jpeob 00:35, 5 December 2006 (UTC)



The reference to Tony Abbott as a "trainee Catholic priest" is way-off. The term is "seminarian". I have added the latter and deleted the former. I understand that many people might not understand the term "seminarian", but they can always follow the link; factually, there is no such thing as a "trainee Catholic priest", as one cannot be a Catholic Priest until one has received the sacrament of Ordination. Further, Catholics consider the "vocation" to the priesthood" as a "call from God", not a "traineeship".

Rudd was raised as a Catholic but converted to Anglicanism when he got married. His wife is Anglican. I've variously seen KR described as a lapsed Catholic and (probably more correctly) a non-denominational Christian (or words to that effect). I would suggest if anything Anglican is more correct than Catholic but I also suggest Christian covers the question of his religion!! - Tigerman2005 (2 May 07)

"Australian Diplomatic Service"?
I'm not sure there's any such thing as the "Australian Diplomatic Service". Google would also seem to agree. There is a Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, which runs embassies etc, and employs the bulk of the diplomats sent overseas. So perhaps this should be changed? (I didn't want to change it because perhaps it's actually correct -- historically perhaps? If it is historically correct, perhaps a bit should be added to say "now known as DFAT" or something.) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Etoastw (talk • contribs).

Referencing the earlier parts of the article
I just read WP:LIVING and decided that after a few more goes at looking for references, I'd like to cull anything contentious from the early sections of the article. I'm going to keep looking for references but if the person(s) who wrote the sections can find some that would be grouse! Leon 13:18, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

No doubt there will be a campaign biography soon. Adam 00:34, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

PLEASE STOP USING THIS HORRIBLE METHOD OF CITATION - IT MAKES IT TOTALLY IMPOSSIBLE TO EDIT THE TEXT. I AM GOING TO REMOVE THEM ALL. Adam 00:39, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Well maybe not, but they are very obtrusive and quite unnecessary. This article is heavily over-referenced. The only things that need citations are direct quotes and anything that might be disputed or controversial. It is ridiculous to provide a citation for his date of birth. Adam 00:46, 10 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree that the referencing style is obtrusive for editing, however I dispute that the article is over-referenced. Although articles like Rosa Parks or Daniel Boone may be referenced sparsely, I was taking my cues from living people's biographies e.g. Tony Blair, in which the birthdate, for example, is referenced. If you can change the referencing style so the article is easier to edit, fine. But given the stringent standards for living people, the likelihood of vandalism approaching election time, and not-quite-NPOV statements that have appeared here (e.g. regarding Israel), I think it's a great idea to reference every specific policy statement, and "particularly ... details of personal lives" (re WP:LIVING). Leon 01:46, 10 December 2006 (UTC)


 * P.S. From the horse's mouth, Jimmy Wales has said:


 * "'I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons.'" (emphasis mine) Leon 01:52, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Criticism section
I have removed this part. Never mind the fact it's a pathetic on-the-fly section, with only some nonsense from the latest press reports, why is it on there? Criticism sections shouldn't exist, facts should. We present facts, readers judge. michael talk 05:00, 10 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Hey, thanks for being nice about it to a new user. Firstly, I don't think anything in the section was not a "fact". Also, although lots of political biography articles lack such sections, Tony Blair has one and I thought it was good. Good criticism sections contain facts about criticisms. If you think the section was crap, that's fine. Leon 06:47, 10 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I wasn't targeting you, I was targeting the section itself. There's no such thing as a "good" criticism section, they're by nature off-balance and to attack / demean the personality at hand-not to provide a neutral view. Apologies if you take my comments badly, I just have little patience regarding these. michael talk 07:40, 10 December 2006 (UTC)


 * That's fine, I can see your perspective; I got the idea from another article. I think I prefer your approach Leon 23:15, 10 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I think a criticism section is in order when we have a man who for all intents and purposes seems like an ideal candidate for prime ministerialship yet turns around and condones Israels illegal invasion of Lebanon and their actions in the middle east just to hop on the pro-Israel bandwagon with Johnny boy and America as a whole. The reason I say this is, there's a lot of hypocracy illustrated between his POV and his actions.  I came here to find out more about the man after seeing an amazing interview on Sunrise this morning that made me think he's possibly the best candidate I've ever seen as far as making me -want- to vote for him, yet on seeing his words not matching his actions I'd definitely like to know more so I can make an intelligent choice on the matter. 211.30.71.59 21:00, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

For the record, there are criticism sections for the amjority fo Australian politicians on Wikipedia. Shouldnt Kevin Rudd be treated the same way? As for its structure, public criticism, particularly those he has headed must surely be worthy of mention. Jampire1 05:31, 26 March 2007 (UTC)


 * A majority? Which ones? I don't see a criticism section for John Howard or Kim Beazley, for instance. Nor should there be. I agree that Criticism (and Praise) sections are A Bad Thing. Better to raise quote their critics (and admirers) on an issue by issue basis. Grouping criticism and praise together gives better balance. Rocksong 05:40, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I understand your point and hope that such a section isnt introduced. Jampire1 06:02, 26 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Removing this section as per above.I elliot 07:42, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Photos
Wow. It's really hard to get a decent photo of the guy isn't it... Timeshift 16:11, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I emailed his office requesting a photo but I doubt much will come of it - at the lecture at Melbourne Uni yesterday, he didn't even take audience questions, and he and the gang rushed through the halls unceremoniously -- they must really be hitting the matresses, so to speak... Leon 12:06, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Question
I was given a great, official photo by someone from parliament. However, it would have to be fair use. Do people think it's justified? Leon 00:41, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Auspic photos don't pass. In 2005 I got written permission from Auspic to use their photos here, and the photonazis still won't allow them. I still think my screenshot (above) is the best photo we have. Adam 01:11, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


 * You can always give it a try - the most they can do is delete it. You might want to copy what I used here - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Bob.hawke.jpg (thanks to Adam C) Timeshift 05:10, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, this one isn't historical; it's just uncluttered and gives a better impression of what he looks like, as well as being "official" Leon 08:04, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


 * It's official so you can still use the rationale, just edit out the historical bits :P Timeshift 08:05, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Stance on gun politics
According to this article from 2001, Kevin Rudd has been a long-standing supporter of shooters' rights. This is a stark contrast from the incumbent Prime Minister of Australia, John Howard, who is well-known for his strict stance on private firearms ownership. Should his stance on Australian gun politics be noted in the political views section of the article? CeeWhy2 07:05, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong but the article (well special interest group newsletter is a more accurate description) concerns sporting shooting rather than ownership of guns. There is a difference. Its not really reasonable to say he supports shooters' rights based on this - he may like shooting at clay targets but he doesn't necessarily support people owning semi automatics at home. - Tigerman2005 2 May 2007

Disputed eviction
The "dispute" is not substantiated by the citation. The article title is provocatively worded, but the only dispute to be found on careful reading is heresay: Daphne Greer knew Aubrey Low most of her life and regularly socialised with the Rudds. "The Aubrey Low I knew - and the Aubrey Low everyone else around here knew - would never have evicted Margaret Rudd," she said. The reliable quotes in the article go to the niceness of the landlord, which is not something that Rudd is reported as asserting. SmokeyJoe 11:30, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps it is appropriate to remove the comment about the eviction, "Rudd has often claimed that his family was evicted from the farm shortly after the death of his father.[3]" as it is essentialy Hearsay, albiet from Rudd himself. My concern is that it serves no purpose in the narrative. Its, to me, the same as letting Kevin Rudd write the article and attribute it everyone else here. Frankly I think removing the sentence would be a lot better than trying to explain it in detail whilst trying to keep NPOV. Jampire1 05:38, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Far more irritating to see on wikipedia is that when someone makes a comment about their life it is referred to as a "claim", setting up the possibility that it is a false claim. From all sources cited there is no contention about whether or not the family was forced to move, so why is the word "claim" used when no-one has "claimed" otherwise? NPOV RIP.


 * There are two versions of events regarding this incident. Both deserve to be noted. One is Rudd's, which he has traded on (thus making the whole episode notable), and the other is the Low family's. Sadly, SmokeyJoe, just because Rudd says it happened doesn't make it true. As for your selective quote from the article, all I can suggest is that you read the whole thing, or at least to the second page. Joestella 17:57, 6 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Joestella, my quote is the closest thing I can find in the whole three pages that suggests dispute. Nothing on the second page says that an eviction didn’t happen.  I am having trouble seeing the conflict in the claims.  Rudd said the family was evicted.  The family said a long period of grace was allowed.  Where precisely is the dispute?   Is the “dispute” no more than media spin?   SmokeyJoe 02:14, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Meetings withg Burke
While I am extremely reluctant for the article to become a news article rather than a biography, I feel that excising any mention of Rudd's dealins with Brian Burke smacks too much of POV revisionism. In fact it may well emerge that the criticism of Rudd by the Government has backfired, resulting in still higher approval ratings (at historic high levels) for Rudd. Obviously this is of some significance. Perhaps we can gradually whittle it down if the matter turns out to be unimportant, but what we shouldn't do is lose it entirely without gaining consensus. --Pete 01:46, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Have moved the disputed section to discussion. While the controversy may well have relevance, inclusion of a long but highly seletive section of what is a wide-ranging media discussion is hardly encyclopeadic. If we start including that, then its difficult where to draw the line - do you go into Cambells resignation, look at Kelvin Thompson's resignation, Costello's speech? Effect on opinion polls? My personal view is that the controversy is already whiltling away - the significanc of events may not be seen until many months or years later - I think given the nature of politics its best to be minimalist in the treatment of current issues, rather than simply insert the flavour of the week in terms of controversy. Had a look at the Howard page too - including the day's story from the Courier mail is hardly a case of sourcing hard facts. Bottom line with this to me is - yes, KR met with TB - but whether it is significant to include in a biographical article depends on whether there is lasting significance hmette Section disputed: In March 2007 it emerged that Rudd had met three times with Brian Burke, a disgraced former Labor Premier of Western Australia and convicted criminal in 2005. Graham Edwards, the Federal MP who had introduced the pair, stated that he "was pretty keen to push him (Mr Rudd) through a number of different areas in Western Australia, to get him to know the state and to get people to know him". The Howard Government accused Rudd of being morally compromised and suggested that the meeting had occured to enlist Burke's support in Rudd's future leadership challenge. John Howard himself stated that Edwards' statement was "code in politics for promoting him as a future leader". Rudd has suggested that Howard is merely attempting to launch a smear campaign following Labor's success at the polls. Skyring - please don't keep re-inserting controvercial or disputed material - where a dispute arises as to such content, the appropriate forum for resolution is in the discussion forum - not the article itself. You may disagree with the edit, but that's no justification for re-insertion of material into an article about living persons. If you're unfamiliar with the policy on such pages, I suggest you read through the relevant page before continually re-inserting material Hmette.

Gaining consensus for a change means getting the input of other people. We already know your thoughts on the matter. Please don't edit war on the article. Discuss your changes here first. If they are seen as generally reasonable, I'll certainly have no objection, but for the moment your unsupported changes look like you are pushing a POV. --Pete 03:40, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Quite right - which is exactly why the section was removed fromt he article and put into discussion in the first place. My point was that the section was inaccurate and gave undue emphasis on a slanging match between politicians and doesn't really add anything of substance to the article, not to mention gives undue emphaisis to something that is quite trivial in a bigraphical sense relating to subject. Rather than add anything your response has been to simply reinsert the disputed paragraph. I'm happy to leave the editing of the main article to others in this aspect - I'd suggest you do likewise. --Hmette 07:08, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

You don't seem to get the point. Gaining consensus for a controversial change is something that others have to do. You can't do it all by yourself, no matter how strongly you feel about it. --Pete 09:08, 15 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I've made a further edit that makes things a little clearer, and cleared up a serious factual error (with information contained in the second reference) Dibo T 05:25, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Early Career
Have tidied up this section slightly and added references to the "Rudd report". Seems to me that this section is probably not really just Rudd's "early career" particularly considering it takes in a period from 1981 to 1998 and includes Rudd's elevation to Qld's top public service position. Anyone have any thoughts on a better title? Still need to tidy up the citations a bit and reference them properly, but out of time at the moment. --Hmette 01:47, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * It's not a brilliant title particularly, but the heading could be said to cover his pre-federal (or pre-national) career. "Career Before Electoral Politics" sounds a bit clunky, but maybe someone can make it a bit zippier. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 01:57, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Family
Jessica, Nicholas and Marcus (kids) -- from ABC 15-Apr-07 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Natebailey (talk • contribs) 10:22, 15 April 2007 (UTC).
 * Already there from long ago. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 10:30, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Whoops, only searched the main body, not the infobox :-) Natebailey 12:56, 15 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Do we really need to list them in the Infobox? I notice we don't for other political leaders. They're not really noteworthy, so I think their names should be buried in the article, rather than highlighted in the Infobox. Peter Ballard 01:37, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

News Poll
Hi, im not sure the news poll is relevant to a biography. It shows he has favourable opinion polling of a small sample of the population. That should be said, but the table of polling doesnt need to be there. Its not even a usefull piece of information about Kevin Rudd. And to be fair, many of these kinds of polls do not reflect the ultimate result come election time. What do others think? Jampire1 03:46, 16 April 2007 (UTC)


 * It's duplicating material at Australian federal election, 2007. I say delete it from here, and add a link to Australian federal election, 2007, where it's more relevant Rocksong 05:46, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Major Fix Up
I found this article in a bit of a mess. I structured the Federal politics section so it wasn't so long and meandering. The table seemed to have been screwed up. Anyway there is a debate as to the relevance of this table, and so I'll leave it out until matters are resolved. Recurring dreams 09:05, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I replace a picture which had been removed. If any justification can be given for its removal, I will do so. Recurring dreams 09:33, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Cousin's description of early family life?
Didn't he have an interview?

Recent edits by Centurianx100
I cannot see anything at http://www.nationallibrary.gov.au/archived01124a1/aargwwn9008a.html but my internet has been a bit slow lately, can someone else check it out. Even if correct, it would not be a reference for Rudd modelling his social policy after Hayden, and even if commentators of whatever kind did say that democratic socialism is contradictory, that would be a political observation, not a statement of facts. Can someone please check the link for me. Thanks, WikiTownsvillian 08:51, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I also question these edits. Timeshift 08:57, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The reference link is broke, it comes close to OR, the paragraph is more about Hayden than about Rudd. So yeah, I think it should go. Recurring dreams 09:39, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I've removed everything in that paragraph bar the claim that Rudd models his policies after Hayden, just for the sake of clarity if nothing else. Will check the citation now to see if any of this should stay. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 10:04, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Speculation on Future
This part of the introduction: 'Should Labor win a majority of lower house seats at the upcoming 2007 federal elections, Rudd will succeed John Howard and become the 26th Prime Minister of Australia.' Seems to me to be highly speculative. I mean, it is true that if he won he would be the next Prime Minister but it seems rather biased as if compelling people to see him in this light. (Don't get me wrong....I want him to win, but I feel neutrality should be upheld) What are your thoughts? I will leave it until there is further comment. Doktor Waterhouse 08:12, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * My take would be that something should be included, since while it makes perfect sense to anyone living under a Westminster system that Rudd would succeed Howard if the ALP wins a majority, not everyone in the world would understand that automatically. Whether or not those particular words should be there is another issue, though. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 22:51, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed it is speculative, but "highly speculative" and unneutrality (sic?), i don't quite agree with. Timeshift 00:32, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Isn't the link to "Leader of the Opposition" enough to provide the "something"? As it stands I think it borders on speculation, as well as stating the the obvious (it's fine to state the obvious, but not in the lead paragraph which needs to be succinct). I say remove it. Peter Ballard 03:00, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * It's hardly speculative. Not everyone is familiar with the Westminster system, and it's a really rather relevant one sentence. Rebecca 03:26, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * That's what the link to Leader of the Opposition is for. Peter Ballard 03:33, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I think the point Rebecca is making is that it's not a presidental election, but under the westminster system, Rudd as leader of the Labor Party will become the country's Prime Minister, based on the presumption that a majority of seats are held in the lower house. Timeshift 03:42, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I understand that, it's just that I just think the link to Leader of the Opposition is sufficient for the minority of readers who don't know what that means, and there's no need to spell it out for that minority in the lead paragraph. Having said that, I'm happy to let consensus rule (even when it's wrong :) ) and I don't care enough to start an argument or edit war over it. Peter Ballard 04:07, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think it is. Saying that someone is the Leader of the Opposition does not necessarily imply the above for someone not familiar with the Westminister system; indeed, in, say, an American context, it means completely different. If we're writing for a global audience, it is quite an important explanatory sentence to have in the lead. Rebecca 04:16, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, I will not attempt to change it then. Doktor Waterhouse 08:16, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Time in Beijing
Does anyone know the exact years Rudd spent in Beijing and what positions he held in DFAT? I think the time in Beijing is important as it formed part of what Rudd is to today...especially his knowledge of Chinese culture, language and foreign policy. LibStar 11:43, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Edit requested
editprotected Could someone please add in his MySpace page to the external links section? http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewprofile&friendid=200637520 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Museleading (talk • contribs) 3:20, July 13, 2007
 * ✅ Done Harryboyles 07:19, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Do you think someone could actually ensure there is some balance when in comes to the Kevin Rudd / John Howard pages. It really is embarressing for Wikipedia to have an elect rudd page here, and a I hate Howard page over at the John Howard page.

For example, Kevin Rudd become known as "Dr Death" for taking the hatchet to the QLD public service yet this doesn't even rate a mention. He has stated he will make "savings" from the public service in the current campaign and it doesn't rate a mention. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stirling Taylor (talk • contribs)

Image to be deleted
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:RuddFamily.JPG - can anyone else see why this should be deleted if kevin07.com copyright allows its use? Timeshift 18:19, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

good point, kevin07.com own it and allow free use? Whats the reason for it being deleted? and who authorised it needs to be asked?--203.192.92.73 12:48, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

The Strip Club Story
Since there's already been at least one addition and removal of the "Kevin in the strip club" story, I think it's a good idea to hash it out here so that a consensus can be established. Basically, what does everyone think about whether or not it belongs in this article? I can see a couple of different viewpoints, but you're welcome to have more:
 * 1) It's a significant piece of information and belongs in the article somewhere with appropriate sourcing etc (I should say here that "with appropriate sourcing etc" is non-negotiable).
 * 2) It's a storm in a teacup which people will have forgotten next week and therefore has no place here whatever.
 * 3) We won't know whether it has any bearing on his life until later, but we should keep it in just in case.
 * 4) We won't know whether it has any bearing on his life until later, in which case we can re-insert it when/if it becomes relevant.

My own view inclines towards the idea of re-inserting it if it becomes more relevant, but I'm only one man. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 11:27, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * When he has a nice, big, through article and this incident is clearly established as important to his life, then it should be included. While the article is small, its inclusion gives undue weight to the incident and this is not neutral. Michael talk 11:30, 19 August 2007 (UTC)


 * At the moment I would agree it is borderline one sentence and not more. The Liberals haven't really grabbed a hold of it at all.. Howard and Rudd are on the front pages on a regular basis anyway, so if this keeps on getting a solid coverage over an extended period, then it will be notable. Blnguyen  ( bananabucket ) 02:28, 20 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm inclined to wait a while (say weeks) before putting it in. It's too early to gauge the significance of it. Peter Ballard 12:03, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Just wait until tomorrow. You'll have your pick of front-page newspaper stories to cite. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Yeti Hunter (talk • contribs).

Normal tabloid garbage. The story might do the rounds tomorrow, but will be forgotten shortly afterwards. If the story becomes the target of a protracted smear campaign ala Mark Latham and the taxi driver, then perhaps it would be included. Recurring dreams 12:14, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Of course it should be included, don't wait until it's old news. If it becomes old news and irrelevant, take it down when the heat dies. Until then, put it up but give it a Current Events banner. It is already having an effect on Rudd's polls, which in itself worth a mention. Eedo Bee 14:48, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * A no-brainer to me- controversies and scandals are particularly relevant for political figures. This is not a disputed incident, and its importance ought to be self-evident for a national political leader.  Gordon Campbell has a section on his drunk-driving offense while vacationing; needless to say Bill Clinton includes discussion of his alleged personal peccadilloes.  While reasonable people may dispute the relevance of such things with respect to supporting these people politically, there is no doubt such information is highly relevant. Gabrielthursday 20:48, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I think there's a difference between Campbell and Clinton and Rudd. Campbell was actually convicted of a crime, and Clinton's dalliances dominated the news for months, nearly ending up with his impeachment. Additionally, both men led their particular places (BC and the USA). There's no whiff of crime or impeachment for Rudd, and he also isn't the Prime Minister. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 21:33, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/a-kiss-and-makeup-as-rudds-halo-slips/2007/08/19/1187462091914.html

68.255.236.21 18:17, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

It's a big story at the moment, sure, but realistically, just how many biographical articles mention that the subject was at a strip joint? If it has some major effect or it emerges he fathered a child in the brothel next door or something, sure, but until then, I'd leave it out. If the story grows legs and wings, maybe it will add some colour. Rudd's main problem is that he's as bland as a pair of old socks. --Pete 22:57, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

If this escalates in to a larger story or begins to tie in with another part of Rudd's campaign, then perhaps. But until then, i've had far more relevant material deleted, so there's no question over this one (for now at least). Timeshift 23:27, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Hey guy's, I would strongly recommend that the information about K.Rudds strip club story be inserted, but in an extremely small way. I would suggest the following sentence, and if people think it's good then I'd reccommend it be added under *religious views* or a new category. Submission follows: "On August 19 2007, Glenn Milne, a political journalist contributing to "The Sunday Telegraph", alledged that Kevin Rudd had visited the New York gentleman's club "Score's" while visiting the United States for a UN conference. Kevin Rudd confirmed the allegation, however cited that it was a mistake, caused by having "too much to drink" (ref, http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,,22268275-5001021,00.html). Following the admission, political commentators have called into question Kevin Rudd's discipline and personal credentials.(refs, http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,,22268275-5001021,00.html, http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/christian_socialist_found_in_strip_bar/desc/ )" :End Submission. I think this is the appropriate coverage of this issue, 2 sentences that adequately sum up the issue in a non pov way, well backed up with references. Responses welcome please! Will post if no issues are raised in the next day. Cheerio: --Brynic 03:18, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Let's not get ahead of ourselves here. The point about this discussion is that we're trying to work out a consensus, and saying "Will post if no issues are raised in the next day" is the opposite of that. There's a considerable body of opinion here arguing that it may well blow over into irrelevance, so I wouldn't simply go adding material tomorrow. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 03:26, 20 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I disagree with the wording proposed, though the references seem appropriate. There would appear, in my view, to be a little interpretation in the proposed wording, and certainly a report of a confirmed fact should not be described as an allegation.  Let's not forget WP:BOLD regarding making edits- proposing to add tomorrow is hardly inappropriate, but is rather entirely reasonable.  With respect to Pete's comment, very few politicians have been publicly identified as having gone to a strip club; and due to the nature of their occupation, this is important to a degree that is not present with respect to, for example, professional athletes.  This was a front page story in Australia.  Gabrielthursday 04:05, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * You're interpreting WP:BOLD in completely the wrong way. Timeshift 04:06, 20 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Hey Bighaz, sorry about the next day thing. I simply meant that if people were supporting, I would post it. Obviously, you are against it, and I won't post. *posting timeframe revoked*. I agree with Gabrielthursday, that this was large scale news in australia, and certainly should be reported. Speculation as to whether this will *blow over into irrelevance* is, in my opinion, irrelevant to this argument, as it is the responsibility of this resource to post information relevant at the time. If, in a months time, it is irrelevant, it can certainly be deleted. That's my opinion anyway, but as I said, I have decided not to post, but others can feel free to use my words. --137.219.189.218 04:41, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I take your point. What I can foresee happening, though, is a prolonged edit war if people were to start adding things before some kind of consensus is worked out here - and an edit/revert war is hardly what anyone wants, I trust. In an ideal world, if we end up deciding that it does merit an inclusion in the main article, we'd then be able to work out the best way to write it up. That may or may not happen, but I think we all owe it to each other to try here. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 04:57, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * If anybody inserts a strip club reference, I'll take it out immediately. It's not notable, simply because visiting a strip joint is something just about every man does at least once. You'll note that all Australian politicians are shying away from giving direct answers to similar questions - because for most of them the answer would be "Hell, yes!" It's like inserting a reference to a politician visting a bar and getting sozzled - so commonplace as not to be worth mentioning. If there is anything more to the story, which I strongly doubt, then the notability issue will become moot. --Pete 05:11, 20 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I think the strip club incident is trivial. However, the story is notable because of the huge issue that News Ltd papers are making it. Front page headline on every major paper in the country. With coverage like that, who are we to then say it is non-notable? I think it should be added to the Wiki, but worded to say something like "Newspapers made headlines of his visit to a strip club". It can always be modified as the story plays out. Also, in a week there should be opinion polls, which could be added, like "his popularity plummeted as a result", or "it didn't affect his popularity at all". Whether we like it or not, it has been made into a major news story. The story may also yet have more mileage as more info comes in. For example, he was asked to go to the club by a News Ltd journo. The one who broke the story was also a News Ltd journo, who himself has a reputation for bad behaviour while drunk. Same journo who destroyed Brogden. Who knows which way this story will go. Cheers, Lester2 06:23, 20 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I gave Glenn Milne a lift to the airport a few weeks back. He's just a journo, doing his job and getting stories. This story might be hot stuff in the papers now, but for a biographical article it's nothing. Lester2, you're big on current events, so why don't you go write up a story on Wikinews, where this is legitimate? --Pete 06:36, 20 August 2007 (UTC)


 * It seems though that most of the Australian public don't care. It seems the average Australian doesn't care about the personal lives of our politicians as much as we care about how they do their job.  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wdywtk (talk • contribs).

How come there's nothing on the strip club scandal in the article? Even if it is not a large incident it is still receiving front page nationwide coverage which makes it notable. Do I think that a person should be judged based on their completely legal actions? No. Does the Australian public care about it? Yes. To exclude it would be in violation of WP:NPOV. Guycalledryan 07:16, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Whether or not it is in fact important enough to turn up here is precisely what we're discussing here. It may yet turn into something like Mark Latham's altercation with a taxi driver, but the question of whether it is in fact significant enough to rate a mention is still an open one. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 07:23, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I stand by my earlier comments. This is tabloid garbage, and in fact got far less oxygen than I thought it would originally. The government even declined to comment about it. What's the political/ personal significance of this story? Just because something makes the news on one day doesn't make it notable; this is wikipedia, not wikinews. Recurring dreams 07:34, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree.  Daniel →♦  07:38, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

WHO CARES ABOUT IT (210.56.73.12 08:46, 20 August 2007 (UTC))

This is an Encyclopedia we have policies to deal with these types of events WP:BLP, WP:NPOV are good starting points. As such trivial sensationalized stories on Politicians about events that occurred four years ago shouldn't be included into any article, by all means feel free to write about these event on Wikinews thats where these types of stories belong. You can even link it to this article, unless it results in KR resigning the matter is most likely to be forgotten beyond the next few days. As a guide to its notability the news here in Perth has reported that John Howard declined to comment on the matter, something he didnt do with the events surrounding Mark Latham which were significant to end his career. Also remember that we are building to an election within the next six months so there will a host of irrelevant stories about all the politicians paraded through the media. Gnangarra 09:48, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

This is a massive story right now... It has been a front pager for two days and the lead story on ABC news (among others) two nights in a row. I fail to see how anyone could dispute this was worth a mention. Pure and absolute bias too the strongest degree. This is not just another media beat-up ala Brian Burke. It is a major story... yet wikipedia is rufusing to even MENTION it... is someone scared? 58.178.89.177 09:54, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * all this can be summed up in one Policy WP:NOT. Gnangarra 09:55, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Because Wikipedia has never had a recent news event mentioned on it... this is a joke 58.178.89.177 13:16, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia hasn't had every recent news event mentioned on it, for starters. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 05:09, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok - a full paragraph or subsection is certainly not warranted on this issue - but a fair argument could be put up for a simple one sentence on this issue such as "In mid-August 2007 there was brief controversy involving the attendance of Kevin Rudd at a New York 'gentleman's club' while he was posted there as a UN observer four years earlier." It could even be cut down more, but even more trivial matter have been covered on Wikipedia! Sound reasonable? ronan.evans 05:03, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Initially I said "wait", but I think we've seen enough to know it will be with us for a long time - like Malcolm Fraser's trousers, Latham breaking the taxi driver's arm and Alexander Downer in heels. I think it needs a short paragraph. Though I don't care if we wait a little longer before doing so. Peter Ballard 12:32, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

In my opinoion it deserves a mention has it shows that he doesn't adhere to his own policy. It will affect the publics opinion of him, and as such should be retained. Lukeluke112 09:15, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not quite sure which policy of the ALP conflicts with it, but perhaps I just haven't been following politics closely enough. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 11:15, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

You guys realise that this event occurred about 4 years ago? It was only brought up by the pro-liberal media for what seemed like one day, just to attack him. But it's really quite irrelevent now.

DarthSidious 10:04, 3 October 2007 (UTC)DarthSidious