|↓||Skip to table of contents||↓|
|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Robert Menzies article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
|This article is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. Click [show] for further details.|
|This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot. Any threads with no replies in 30 days may be automatically moved. Sections without timestamps are not archived.|
|This is not a forum for general discussion about Robert Menzies. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Robert Menzies at the Reference desk, discuss relevant Wikipedia policy at the Village pump, or ask for help at the Help desk.|
Ahistorical nonsense by David Day
from http://www.thesydneyinstitute.com.au/wanted-dead-or-alive-confirmed-deductions-in-biographies/ an article about bollocks in biographies:
- Day has made a lot of false deductions in his career. In Menzies & Churchill at War (1986)), Day maintained that there was a serious move in 1941 for Australian prime minister Robert Menzies to replace Winston Churchill as leader of Britain. Yet Day cannot provide the name of one Churchill biographer or one historian of Britain in the 20th Century who holds this view.
The WP:OR (unfounded claims) and WP:RS (reliable sources) policies appear to be contravened in this article by anecdotal defense of Day's very strong but unsupported claims. ChrisPer (talk) 21:38, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
Political subterfuge of that calibre is just about impossible to prove. It's all done behind closed doors. Unfortunately to ignore such rumors is to ignore 90% of politics.188.8.131.52 (talk) 12:19, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
- It's a notable claim by a reputable historian.--Jack Upland (talk) 11:18, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
This pages portraits and photos have been deleted and so, will need replacements. Though I do not know why the external links were systematically deleted, but I motion that this biographical article is of significant importance to Australian politics and therefore requires images.
It is quite frustrating that no-one has discovered and fixed this yet. Despite my novice skills with Wikipedia, I will try when I have the spare time.
Lack WW1 Service
Ref 3 does *not* state that the family only wanted two sons at war. It states that as a "possibility" only, ie ref 3 is just speculation, not fact. Menzies studied law from 1913 on wards, and it was/is a 4-year degree. He graduated in early 1917. It was normal for students to finish university courses during WW1, as parental permission was always sought for students. It was also normal during ww2 if the degree was something useful, such as chemical engineering or medicine. I would like to see a ref to his brothers histories, rather than just digging up info at the AWM. Such records DO NOT tell the whole story. Menzies whips up deranged rage in leftist lunatics, and he gets blamed for everything form the Rise of Imperial Japan, to the Emperor of Antarctica invading the country with a fleet of invisible spaceships.184.108.40.206 (talk) 06:35, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
- The page isn't protected, so feel free to be bold and make any changes that you feel are appropriate. IgnorantArmies (talk) 08:57, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
I can do that, but i'll bet it gets changed back. Talk pages are better in that the guff can be exposed. Menzies never held a commission (under 21) as tertiary students then, and still do, have a rank of officer cadet. It would have been lost when he graduated in early 1917 and did not subsequently enlist. The article seems to deliberately leave out important dates. Refs 7 and 8, the brothers' enlistment papers, count as original research which Wikip strictly does not allow. They must be changed to reference a source, or include one, such as a Melb Uni mini biog (something at least internally reviewed), that references them. The article claims that enlistment was widely popular in WW1. Well, the two referenda for conscription were turned down at the time, so at least 1/3 of the population didn't like the war. In fact, as the war dragged on it became less popular. Keith Murdoch's press were wildly in favour, no doubt because he had invested millions of pounds in the 10%-compounding British war bonds being issued privately via JP Morgan & Stanley at the time. Hearst got a lot richer that way too.220.127.116.11 (talk) 00:17, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
- Well, I don't think Keith Murdoch owned any newspapers at that point. Then again, I don't think there's ever been an Emperor of Antarctica. More importantly, the conscription votes were "plebiscites" in the Australian parlance rather than referendum, so they were decided by simple majority. In the first one "No" got 51%. See Conscription in Australia. But being against conscription is not the same as being against the war. Certainly it is true that many young men joined up in the early days of the war. It is noteworthy that Menzies didn't, but we don't know why. It wasn't only or mainly leftists who attacked him about this. Earle Page refused to serve with him. But I agree with your main points, and I've edited the page accordingly.--Jack Upland (talk) 11:12, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
I will actually start the discussion regarding this edit that I made. I'm frankly astounded that this is being disputed by a serious editor - I removed what was the largest paragraph in the "early federal politics" section, which was entirely composed of what a Labor MP said about him decades after his death, and then what others said in response, which was a huge violation of WP:UNDUE - it made it seem like his pro-appeasement views are a huge deal in Menzies scholarship and they emphatically are not. If this belongs anywhere (it doesn't), it would be in the legacy section - it is completely inappropriate to include this kind of lengthy he-said-she-said in the main part of a biography, especially from partisan people so long after his death. Frickeg (talk) 19:40, 20 October 2016 (UTC)