Talk:Kim Beazley

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Disambiguation[edit]

Since father and son have different middle names, can't they be disambiguated that way? Kim Edward Beazley vs. Kim Christian Beazley or Kim E Beazley vs. Kim C Beazley? --Jiang 01:20, 23 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Yes they can, and the Australian press does sometimes refer to the current Kim as Kim C Beazley, but I know he dislikes it. The current formula was created by PMelvilleAustin. I prefered senior and junior (NOT Sr and Jr for reasons we have discussed elsewhere), but I didn't feel it was worth arguing about so I let him do as he pleased. Adam

I'l vote for Kim Edward Beazley and Kim Christian Beazley as a compromise then.

PMA 07:00, Nov 23, 2003 (UTC)

Fine. I don't think it matters much since interested people will just search for "Beazley" and soon find both. Adam

Kim Beazley redirects here. Does that always refer to the younger? If not, it should be made into a disambiguation page. --Jiang

Done, per msg on my talk page from PMA. --Jiang

His only opponent was the party's economic spokesperson, Mark Latham.

I thought Mark Latham was the Shadow Treasurer? Isn't that a more significant title than "economic spokesperson"? - Mark Ryan 03:53, 1 Dec 2003 (UTC)

No-one outside Australia is familiar with the expression "shadow Treasurer" - either shadow or Treasurer. So I avoid both words in all my Australian politics articles. Adam 04:29, 1 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Fair enough. On another note, shouldn't Kim Beazley (and Mark Latham) be on the Wikipedia Main Page under "in the news", rather than Simon Crean? - Mark Ryan 04:49, 1 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I suggested Simon Crean when he resigned, and I am surprised he has lasted as long as he has on the main page. At the moment Beazley and Latham are only candidates and I doubt they are really world news. I will suggest that whoever wins tomorrow's ballot be listed when we know the result. Adam 05:08, 1 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I would venture that people could cope with the term shadow treasurer just as Australians cope with shdow chancellor when used in a UK context Tmothyh 04:07, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Couldn't we replace "economic spokesperson" with "Shadow Treasurer"? DonkeyKong the mathematician (in training) 06:01, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


One of the most useful and sensible, but also most-often ignored rules of page-naming on Wikipedia is use the best-known common name. Or, to put much the same thing another way, cause the reader the least possible surprise. In modern Australian political life, if you say Kim Beazley without any qualification, you always mean the son. (Except, perhaps, if you are writing a biography of Lance Barnard and the reader can then be assumed to know that—seeing as this is 1969 you are talking about—you will mean the father.) If you want to talk about the father, you make that clear, by adding the elder or senior or something similar.

As it is in everyday life, so it is on the Wikipedia. That Beazley the son is the "natural" primary meaning of "Kim Beazley" is obvious. But, just in case further evidence is required, we can look at what the various editors have actually done. In adjusting the links just now, I saw that, roughly 9 times out of 10, Wikipedia editors linked to Kim Beazley in the form <<Kim Beazley, junior|Kim Beazley>>. That is as clear a case for making Kim Beazley the primary page as you can get.

Two other things to note in this context:

  • (a) Australians do not use, and often actively dislike, American-style names. Both Fred M. Bloggs and Fred Bloggs, junior are forms that almost never appear in Australian English, and should not be used in Wikipedia articles about Australians. (And the reverse applies, of course—if Fred Bloggs is American, then we should write his name American-style.)
  • (b) I am unsure of the best place to put Kim Beazley the father. I moved the page (as comma, senior is un-Australian), then had second thoughts and moved it again, as disambiguating terms in parenthesis are best avoided unless there is no other sensible choice), and wound up with him under his full name. I suppose that is no worse a place than any other.

Tannin 08:04, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

No mention of "The Bomber"[edit]

No mention of Beazley being known as "The Bomber" (because he always goes down in the polls)? Now if this was just a Crikey thing, it might not bear mentioning. But it's pretty widespread beyond there.

Some references: http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/bombers-nosedive-lets-coalition-off-the-hook/2005/10/24/1130006061403.html http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,16910059%255E17301,00.html http://www.ajn.com.au/pages/archives/feature/feature-2005-20.html http://www.crikey.com.au/articles/2005/04/14-1646-537.html

Shermozle 14:37, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't think it was anything to do with polls. I thought it had more to do with his playing Rugby union. Slac speak up! 06:07, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

It dates from his time as Defence Minister, because of his gung-ho attitude and boyish delight in military hardware. Adam 07:20, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

ok, added note about that Astrokey44 08:28, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Why is the Bomber explanation being repeated reverted? Disagree if you like with the origin of the nickname (I believe the military explanation is correct) but at least provide justification for yanking the explanation. Cheers.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.208.13.221 (talkcontribs)

I always thought the term "Bomber" was weight related.--Greasysteve13 03:37, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
I believe it's based on his time as Minister for Defence, as atated above, but I don't have a good source for this handy. Metamagician3000 04:10, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
In fact, exactly this was said on the ABC News tonight, but I still don't have a good written source at hand. Metamagician3000 13:11, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Love the bias[edit]

'Opposition Leader Kim Beazley says that Labor will oppose the Howard Government's legislation "in every respect, at every stage" until the next election, Parliament House Canberra, 2 November 2005' - I don't ever recall Beazley saying all legislation will be opposed... perhaps just the IR reforms? Gotta love the way pro-Howard people word their claims. They should be promoting the IR reforms on TV too.Timeshift 22 May 2006 (UTC)

This is directed to the person who made the change - Lacrimosus. I'm not saying it's hard to make that change, i'm simply pointing out how bias it is :-) Beazley opposing all legislation.. what an utter crock of s.Timeshift 13:37, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Fairly obviously, the context indicates we're talking about "all" the IR legislation - not all legislation of the Howard government in general. Slac speak up! 02:03, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Where's the quote from?[edit]

Beazley's adamant that the 2007 election will be a "referendum on the Howard Government's unfair industrial relations laws." Has anyone got a reference for this? --134.159.131.34 01:29, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

This article has it verbatim: [1]. Rintrah 11:44, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Election debate[edit]

In the 1998 election debate (hosted by Ray Martin), Beazley said he had eaten "humble pie" three times. Rintrah 19:54, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Indeed he did. He also mentioned this several times during his media appearances in the lead-up to the election. Predictably Australian comedians and newspaper cartoonists took great delight in highlighting Beazley's affinity to pie-eating with respect to his... husky figure at the time.;-) 10:41, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
His husky figure? - no! you can't be suggesting that... well, maybe he is a little overweight. This consideration is, of course, subjective.
In my opinion, Amanda Vanstone has on occasion eaten humble pie on immigration issues. Rintrah 15:31, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Here's the source: ([2])--Greasysteve13 07:18, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
Could you also find a source of him eating it? — preferably a picture. Rintrah 14:43, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
No. Maybe we just gotta take Beazley's word for it.--Greasysteve13 09:57, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Per WP:V, we cannot add this to the article. Surely, though, he must have had one in the press gallery; and there must be one journalist or photographer who can verify this. Rintrah 17:12, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
So the trascript of the debate isn't good enough?--Greasysteve13 05:16, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
He asserts he ate humble pie, but if we are really to say his obesity was caused by humble pie consumption, we need better evidence and some kind of verifiction. He might have just got fat on meat pies. Rintrah 17:40, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Well, let's look at the evidence. Beazley's lost 17 kilos since the last election, and, between promising to tear up IR laws and bringing the troops home, he hasn't had time to eat much humble pie.I elliot 05:13, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Good point. But if he wins the next election, he will eat a pie to celebrate (not of the humble variety). Rintrah 11:33, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Indeed. That pie, I suspect, will be the sweetest pie of all; a pie for the true believers.I elliot 15:01, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
"Hanc tortam consumo, quod hic populus prosperat." He could use this in his victory speech to make it lofty — not that he needs much help. Rintrah 15:53, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Uh-huh. Is anyone going to address what I wrote below?--Greasysteve13 06:07, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
I am just an observer, and I have a headache, so not I. Anyone can address it. There is nothing inhibiting anyone from incorportating the information and references into the article. Maybe you want to. Maybe I will when I can be bothered. Maybe someone else will. However, I am harbouring petty feelings to someone outside wikipedia, so I will leave it for a while, if everyone is waiting on me. Rintrah 09:54, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Nah, I'm also incapacited.--Greasysteve13 04:19, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
Ok. Rintrah 09:34, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Shouldn't we add:[edit]

This [3], that [4] and then these [5]?--Greasysteve13 05:17, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

"Rove" gaffe[edit]

I noticed in this article: [6] that they mention one of Beazley's mistakes was calling Michelle Leslie Michelle Lee; correct me if I'm wrong but isn't she known by this name particularly in Asia?

Dunno. But talk about a storm in a teacup - if Tim Fischer got this level of publicity every time he managed to mangle the English language there'd be nothing else on the news. --Robert Merkel 07:31, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Removed Leadership Speculation section[edit]

The section "2006 Leadership speculation" is out of order per WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_crystal_ball. Jpeob 02:11, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

agree completely. it's *speculation*. plus the presence of words like
unkind;
ignited;
taken a hit;
Speculation is rife;
it is almost universally believed, and ;
Speculation about an alternative leader has centered;
pretty well indicate the unsuitability of the content.
But this is all from news sources. The language is a separate issue. Xtra 09:16, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Agree too. Editors should not dump content of current media events onto a biographical article. It is in the style of journalism, not of an encyclopedia. Rintrah 12:55, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Feel free to edit the tone and wording of my additions, but since the material is verifiable, I don't see the point in a blanket deletion.Draffa 21:07, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
the point is explained here - WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_crystal_ball. verifiable sources including newspaper speculation about other speculation? when a challenge is *announced*, then i'd put it in. otherwise we're putting hazy reports of bluster and hurly burly in an encyclopaedia. Dibo T | C 21:20, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh the ironies of Wikipedia... --RaiderAspect 02:24, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Full Spill[edit]

Is there anywhere on wikipedia that defines what a "full spill" means? It would be handy to link to from the 2006 leadership challenge section. I understand that it means that it's not just a leadership vote, but the entire front bench. Does it affect the ALP members of the Senate too? --Stewartjohnson 12:19, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

In the context of this issue, "full spill" appears to mean every cabinet position is open to nomination (i.e., there is a potential for a complete cabinet reshuffle.) There do not seem to be any wikipedia articles which define "full spill." Web searches yield parliamentary documents and technical documents on dams. The parliamentary documents indicate "full spill" is parliamentary jargon — the media do not use the term often. Rintrah 13:16, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Edits[edit]

To all - Please make sure that if you make any edits to any wikipedia article (including the Kim Beazley):

When editing an article on Wikipedia there is a small field labeled "Edit summary" under the main edit-box. It looks like this:

Edit summary text box

The text written here will appear on the Recent changes page, in the page revision history, on the diff page, and in the watchlists of users who are watching that article. See m:Help:Edit summary for full information on this feature.

Filling in the edit summary field greatly helps your fellow contributors in understanding what you changed, so please always fill in the edit summary field, especially for big edits or when you are making subtle but important changes, like changing dates or numbers. Thank you.

Remember to mark your edits as minor only when they genuinely are (see Wikipedia:Minor edit). "The rule of thumb is that an edit of a page that is spelling corrections, formatting, and minor rearranging of text should be flagged as a 'minor edit'." --Mikecraig 00:25, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Infobox[edit]

The info box does not state that he was also opposition leader from 1996 to 2001. I tried to fix it so that it look like:

Leader of the Opposition 
In office 
1996 – 2001 
2005 – 2006 

This should be fixed. But I don’t know how. regards --Merbabu 00:37, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

done. Cheers, Jpeob 02:17, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Lazarus[edit]

I think it would be worth mentioning the "Lazarus" comment and the history behind it.

About John Howard: After losing the Liberal leadership in 1989 he had written off his chances as akin to "Lazarus with a triple bypass", but he is now likely to be Australia's second-longest-serving prime minister after Robert Menzies. - [7] (see also [8])

Dec '06, after Beazley lost the Labor leadership: Asked about his political future, Mr Beazley said: "For me to do anything further in the Australian Labor Party I would say is Lazarus with a quadruple bypass." - [9]

Does Beazley's reference to Howard mean that he's really not giving up after all, and hopes to come back again like Howard did? Of course, speculation like that definately doesn't belong in a wikipedia article, but I think it would be worth mentioning the quote. DonkeyKong the mathematician (in training) 06:34, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Beazley isn't contesting for a seat in Rudd's Shadow Ministry, and I heard one one of the nightly news reports that he wouldn't be contesting the 07 election. We'll see. :) Draffa 21:30, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
I don't understand the relevance of the quote; and, of course, speculation is speculation. Rintrah 09:58, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
For those who didn't see him say this on television, he said it with comic timing and put a strong emphasis on the word quadruple, and everyone in the audience laughed (being, of course, political reporters who were well aware of the original "triple bypass" quote). I'd say that he was distinguishing his situation from that of Howard, saying it is more extreme than Howard's was back in 1989, rather than hinting that he can still come back like Howard did. Of course, I'm not suggesting that this kind of interpretation go in the article, but it might help non-Australians or those not old enough to remember political events from the 80s. Metamagician3000 22:24, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Archive?[edit]

Some of the discussion on this page is three years old. Maybe we should archive it?Draffa 22:22, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but the page is still short. There is no need to archive it yet. Rintrah 02:14, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

This deserves a mention, no?[edit]

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22455197-11949,00.html

Apparently, when he was defence minister, he had Australia spy on the US Military and extract code from their fighters so that Australia's own fighters could be enhanced. I think this is worth a mention. CeeWhy2 13:12, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Maybe under Australian Defence article, but I doubt it. Certainly not notable for the Beazley article, unless it blows up into a diplomatic row. Peter Ballard 03:40, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

New image[edit]

I've spoken to the creator of this image in regards to usage on wikipedia, in particular the license. Their response was:

I'm more happy to grant you permission to use the image [on Wikipedia], but I really don't to change the license.
The CC license says that "Any of the above conditions can be waived if you get permission from the copyright holder." ... so does that do enough for you to be able to use it, without me having to change the license for everybody else as well?

I have replied with:

If you can state on a page comment that you exclude Wikipedia and all it's associated mirrors from the non-commercial portion, that will be just as good.

Can someone confirm if this is correct? Thanks! Timeshift 02:05, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Unsourced quote?[edit]

Hi all, Just read through the article (good stuff) and noticed this

Conservative political commentator, Piers Akerman, suggested in the Sunday Telegraph on October 11 2006, that his poor performance in leadership polls was to do with alleged inconsistencies in policy and judgement, particularly with regard to the Iraq war.

The main problem with that is... Sunday wasn't on October 11 last year. I had a look through the archives briefly [10] but couldn't find the right article. Anyway, just something I picked up, someone else might like to find the right source before the blogs expire (I think his articles & blogs stay online for twelve months or so before being removed.) GreenGopher 23:05, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

A BELATED REPLY: This appears to be directly quoted from this review of Peter FitzSimons's very penetrating biography of Beazley.

However, polls concerning preferred leader still positioned Kim Beazley well below John Howard. Conservative political commentator, Piers Akerman, suggested in the Sunday Telegraph on 11 October 2006, that Beazley's poor performance in leadership polls was to do with alleged inconsistencies in policy and judgement, particularly with regard to the Iraq war.

And, yes, 11 October 2006 was a Wednesday. However, when Sunday-newspaper content is posted on a website, it often carries the date of the writer's filing the story, or when it may have been updated. For instance in quoting a recent article published in the Perth Sunday Times, 15 Nov, I added for the convenience of distant readers a short-term URL which carries not only a different date--(Sat) 14 Nov--but also a different heading to the printed story (Johnston's $12m debt). Cheers Bjenks (talk) 08:28, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism[edit]

Can somebody please fix the vandalism, many uncouth references to anal warts had been added by some idiot--- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.233.229.140 (talk) 12:54, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. Hut 8.5 12:57, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

ANU Chancellorship[edit]

Just received this in my ANU staff mail - "Professor Kim Beazley has been appointed Chancellor of The Australian National University by the University Council today"... "Professor Beazley will take up his appointment on January 1, 2009." I'll update the article when it's published in a reliable source. Mostlyharmless (talk) 05:27, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Brand 2004[edit]

I'm rather uncomfortable with the latest edit by Bjenks. A seat with a margin of 10+% is not normally considered vulnerable, particularly for a party in opposition. Beazley may have expressed concern about losing his seat, but it's not obvious how sincere (or if sincere, how rational) that concern was. It's common for MPs to say that sort of thing - they want it known that they plan to work hard, that they're not taking their electorate for granted, etc. A news outlet - particularly an around the clock one like the ABC website - may echo this sort of spin, but I think an encyclopedic entry should be more discerning.

Additionally, the reference provided doesn't mention anything about his foreign policy positions or his place of residence. And by highlighting the name of the Greens candidate, it's implying that she was his main opponent. Digestible (talk) 01:13, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I tend to agree. Timeshift (talk) 01:42, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
There was some interesting information in there. I don't think the whole lot needed to be deleted. Just reworded. Maybe using quotes rather than subjective descriptions.--Lester 03:31, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Hmmm. Here, a user's pov countermanded a direct statement by the article's subject! Tsk, tsk! I see it as quite incorrect to imply that "Australian public opinion" supported the Howard-Beazley concerns not to "put the U.S.-Australian alliance at risk". I gave evidence and a citation to say that a significant portion of Brand opinion was very critical of Australia's subservience to the Dubya Bush regime, and very disappointed about Beazley's support for it. It is also local public knowledge that Beazley abandoned Swan in quest of a safer seat, and that he declined to consider residing in the Brand electorate. (The ALP has since parachuted another distant non-resident into Brand.) There will be no difficulty in citing such things from the public record. I understand that the ALP and Beazley have passionate supporters around, but WP:NPOV surely requires that we refrain from excising well-founded critical and factual material. I also accept that rewording might make the content more palatable as well as explicit and succinct, and will now undertake to do same, while also reviewing the whole article in support of the truly encyclopedic approach favoured by Digestible and Timeshift Cheers Bjenks (talk) 04:20, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
The jist of your edit was that Beazley was vulnerable to defeat. The sole supporting claim for which was Beazley himself, in whose self-interest it is to play down his own chances. Secondly I made no claims one way or the other about the popularity of the Iraq war. I simply pointed out that any claims must be sourced. But let's deal with your logic here. First of all, whatever his private views, I don't recall Beazley particularly outspoken about Australia's involvement in the Iraq war. Secondly, during this time he was subordinate to two successive Labor leaders who were anti-war. At the time in question - the 2004 election - Beazley was a member of the shadow cabinet of the vociferously anti-war Mark Latham. Finally, his main opponent was a member of Howard's party. Any anti-war feeling would have worked in Labor's, and therefore Beazley's, favour not detriment. Digestible (talk) 05:33, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
No, you misrepresent the gist of my edit, as well as my "logic" though I've admitted the edit can be improved. I'm busy at present but will get round again to this article soon. Cheers Bjenks (talk) 07:10, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Policy[edit]

Quite a lot here about politics, but not very much about policy at all. What about his infrastucture audit? And the NBN? There was a Labor party policy document released early in the run up to the election, before he was replaced. Also, I think that the cheap politics documented here takes the Labor party at their own description: I think a more balanced description, including policies, would have more long-term interest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.206.162.148 (talk) 23:53, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Kim Beazley. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:40, 5 May 2017 (UTC)