Talk:Kim Beazley

"Rove" gaffe
I noticed in this article: 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
The section "2006 Leadership speculation" is out of order per WP:NOT. 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. 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 21:20, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

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

Full Spill
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)

Infobox
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
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. - (see also )

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." -

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?
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?
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
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?
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 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
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
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
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
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)