Talk:Kim Beazley/Archive 1

Archive 1

Edits

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:

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)

Disambiguation

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"

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 (talk • contribs)

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

'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?

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

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:

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