Talk:Kevin Rudd

Lead image not available for use

The official portrait we have been using originates on the Parliament website here. If anybody thinks it might be sourced from some other body than Parliament please note where and why but it seems unlikely that another department would take an official portrait. That page has a link to site-wide copyright information which includes these words:

With the exception of the Commonwealth Coat of Arms and where otherwise noted, all material presented on this website is provided under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Australia licence.

This is not a licence we may use - see list here. --Pete (talk) 21:50, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

There's quite a few photos of diplomats and foreign affairs ministers on Commons sourced from the DFAT site, which is pretty unequivocal that content on the site is CC-BY "except where otherwise stated". This is in contrast to the NAA site whose statement is pretty vague and ambiguous, CC-BY unless supplied by a third party, but not clear what is from a third party. Presumably the parliament bio profile photos are taken/copyrighted by the Australian Government Photographic Service (AUSPIC), but it's not clear what the use and licensing arrangements are within government——can a government department commission photographs and then release them under an open licence? For example, DFAT has released numerous photos on Flickr which were taken by and credited to AUSPIC, but licensed as CC-BY 2.0 (this photo of Julia Gillard for example).--Canley (talk) 06:54, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

A better Rudd

I particularly detest the insipid official portrait we've been using. There is another one which appears to be from the same photo session which we can use. Comments? --Pete (talk) 07:11, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

I like that Rudd is smiling naturally in the proposed photo, but I prefer the 2023 one for the reasons stated below. If a photo from the time of his government is needed, this is probably the best option. Qwerty123M (talk) 08:05, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Julia Gillard official photo.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:10, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Mandarin

Someone should please remove the part claiming he is "fluent in mandarin". I've heard him speak chinese. He sucks. Not just bad, *awful*. Seriously, his chinese sounds exactly like you'd expect an australian to sound, TERRIBLE. 203.160.80.238 (talk) 11:33, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Don't think your tone matches Wikipedia's guidelines. I don't think that's true though, he has a fine accent, and it's debatable whether accent is even part of fluency. Commemorative1 (talk) 11:02, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

2023 portrait

Considering it's usual practice to have the lead image be from when the subject was most notable, shouldn't the lead image for this article be his Prime Ministerial portrait as opposed to the 2023 Ambassador one? RoadSmasher420 (talk) 00:55, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

He's not ceased being notable. Additionally the 2007 image is flat and horrible. TarnishedPath^talk 23:25, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Kevin Rudd/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: DTH89 (talk · contribs) 12:55, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: MatthewDalhousie (talk · contribs) 06:11, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

About the lead

It's a terrific article. But that lead is very, very long.

Thanks for the note, I've condensed the lede as best I can while retaining key info. Let me know what you think and let me know if you have any other notes you would like me to address. DTH89 (talk · contribs) 10:55, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Good stuff @DTH89. Keen to support you on the road to GA. Three things:

1. I believe there is only one former Aussie PM's article to achieve GA status, and that intro is about 550 words. I reckon you need to lose another 100. It really comes down to compressing stories. For example, mention the spill, but you don't need "His removal from office began a sequence of four subsequent prime ministers who would all be removed by their own parties before completing their full first term" - that can all go in the main body I reckon.

2. I like how you called it the lede. Old school.

3. Small thing, but I reckon the quality of the photos makes a big difference in making the leap to good. I would look at trimming some of the images, so it's much clearer who is in them.

That's plenty for now! Happy to join in and trim some time in the future. MatthewDalhousie (talk) 13:17, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

(I certainly [https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Australian_Prime_Minister_Anthony_Albanese_visits_Arlington_National_Cemetery_where_he_placed_a_wreath_at_the_Tomb_of_the_Unknown_Soldier_on_October_23,_2023_43_(cropped).jpg recommend using this image], tells a story about the crossover of the subject's career.) MatthewDalhousie (talk) 00:31, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Hey mate, all done. Thanks for the all the feedback, and keep me posted with the GA review. DTH89 (talk · contribs) 10:54, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Okay, so I think this is really improving. I'll just list some of the images that I think are on the better side, either because of their picture quality or because they they support the story in the article. The first four are shots that support the domestic politics material:

1. As Foreign Minister with Australian Army medical team in Pakistan, August 2010
2. With Kim Beazley in Melbourne and US diplomats, November 2010
3. Surprising shot with UK PM and Chancellor of Germany, February 2011
4. Campaigning in Brisbane in August 2013
5. PM again, in Balmain, having won reform to the leadership voting system, July 2013
6. With President Obama

MatthewDalhousie (talk) 01:09, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Hi, apologies for the delayed response. I have added some of the photos you have suggested where I could find an appropiate space for them. Let me know if there is anything else I can do, @MatthewDalhousie. DTH89 (talk) 07:48, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

I think those trimmed images look a whole lot better. I did remove one - from Chatham House - which I think is just a bad shot of the bloke. But that's compensated by the shots with Obama and others. Would be good to find an image of him early in his Parliamentary life, but I looked around and haven't found anything so far. Keep going! MatthewDalhousie (talk) 09:21, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

@DTH89, @MatthewDalhousie Just an observer here. I've noticed that this GA review has gone stagnant with no activity for over a month. I wouldn't want to see this article failed yet and think it's a perfect candidate for GA status, so here's a little bump as a reminder to hopefully get things back on track. I know there's no strict deadline for these reviews, but better safe than sorry! ThatRandomGuy1 (talk) 02:46, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping @ThatRandomGuy1. I have been busy with other things lately, but I definitely haven't forgotten about this! @MatthewDalhousie, I will add some additional pictures, let me know what you think. DTH89 (talk) 13:07, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes, thank you @ThatRandomGuy1. I guess I'm involved now! Any quick thoughts on what might improve the article overall? MatthewDalhousie (talk) 04:11, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

@DTH89 just tried to break up the sentences in the lede, to improve readability. See what you think. MatthewDalhousie (talk) 09:34, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

@DTH89, I realise the towering irony of what I'm about to say, but when you look at how readable the article on Julia Gillard is (and we must remember, that article is assessed as a Good Article already) some of it comes from the interesting variations in the writing. However, in the current state of the Kevin Rudd article features repeated patterns of language. For example, 20 of the paragraphs begin with the word Rudd. Might have been more. I lost count. My point is, I'd be happy to try and find ways of keeping the writing fresh throughout the pice. But let me know if I'm barking up the wrong tree here. MatthewDalhousie (talk) 00:30, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

@DTH89: The reviewer of this GAN has been blocked as a sockpuppet, so I'd recommend you to look for another one. You could ask someone to jump in and finish the review at Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 10:55, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know, I will reach out. DTH89 (talk) 11:14, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

@DTH89, do you mind if I close this as an unsuccessful review, given the sockpuppet problem? You can then immediately renominate the article. It will be eligible for next month's backlog drive, so I'm confident you'll get a review in the next month. -- asilvering (talk) 23:53, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Sure mate, that works. I was also unsure about this review process as the reviewer took a long time to clarify what they wanted done. DTH89 (talk) 12:42, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Semi-protected edit request on 21 October 2025

Change

In March 2024, Rudd was criticised by former US president Donald Trump, who labelled him "nasty" and indicated that he would be removed as US ambassador

to

In March 2024, Rudd was criticised by former US president Donald Trump, who labelled him "nasty" and indicated that he would be removed as ambassador to the US 2001:288:C212:0:19B0:49E7:C6D4:A756 (talk) 02:01, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

 Done. Qwerty123M (talk) 02:09, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

Why are we using the 2007 image again?

I thought there was a WP:CONSENSUS to use the newer ambassadorial image as there has been almost no discussion and the last time this topic was raised, the idea of changing Rudd's image was shot down. I think the 2023 portrait looks far better as it better represents Rudd as he is now and he is directly facing the camera which is not the case with the 2007 image, the 2023 image also has warmer colours which is more pleasing to look at. I don't have an objection to this old image being used elsewhere in the article though, in fact that would be quite useful. Just because he has ceased being ambassador, does not mean he looks younger! For now, I will revert to the previously-used ambassadorial image until any objections are raised. Qwerty123M (talk) 05:43, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

I agree that the 2023, forward facing image, is better. Pinging @Wikiuser4999 as the editor who made the previous change to the 2007 image. TarnishedPath^talk 07:13, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for pinging the user as required by WP:CANVASS, I should have remembered. Qwerty123M (talk) 08:01, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

i agree Wikiuser4999 (talk) 08:40, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

I would support reverting back to the 2007 portrait. I agree with the previous rationale brought up, but I see no reason this needed to be reverted per WP:BRD as it appeared to go unobjected to for nearly a month. At the end of the day, when is all set and done, he will be remembered as Prime Minister of Australia, rather than an ambassador. I have said it before, had this view for a long time, and stand by it. Just because the image of a person is newer, doesn't mean it is better. And while on the bright side, I do like how an official portrait is being used, I think the portrait that represents the office he is best known for holding should be used here. Servite et contribuere (talk) 18:26, 18 August 2026 (UTC)