Talk:Robert Menzies
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
Robert Menzies is part of the Cold War WikiProject, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to the Cold War on the Wikipedia. This includes but is not limited to the people, places, things, and events, and anything else associated with the Cold War. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. |
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. | ||
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ] | ||
 |
This article is supported by the Politics and government work group. | ||
 |
Robert Menzies is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page. | ||
| B | This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale. | ||
| Top | This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale. | ||
 |
This article is supported by WikiProject Victoria. | ||
 |
This article is supported by WikiProject Australian politics. | ||
|
Assessment comments
|
|||
Contents |
[edit] Early comments
Menzies did not have a record 17 year term. His second term in office was from December 1949 to January 1966, in all about 16 years and slightly less than a month. If you include his first term, it becomes about 18 and a half years.
Merric
Anyone who has read the article will understand what the sentence means. (Save us from pedants.) Adam
Its not pedantic, it's accurate.
Merric
About the Menzies'es decision not to enrol in World War I :
Ithe statement you made to me in which you said : "You have twice inserted this: "Since the family has made enough of a sacrifice to the war with the enlistment of these brothers..." Firstly, many families lost three or more sons in the war without complaining, as Menzies' opponents pointed out. neither Menzies nor his family ever put this forward as the reason why Menzies had not enlisted - in fact Menzies never gave a public explanation at all, he merely said it was for "private reasons." So this excuse is your opinion, not a fact. It is not "NPOV" to insert your idea about why he didn't enlist."
Whilst I cannot recall the precise source in which this "enough of a sacrifice" line was made, (it wasn't mine) I have come up with the following.
"World War I broke out during the years when Menzies was pursuing the law course at Melbourne University. It was considered at the time a fair thing if two boys out of a family of four went to the war. Menzies's two elder brothers enlisted and went overseas after a family conference in which it was agreed that Menzies should not enlist but should complete his law course. Compulsory military training within Australia was then in operation and Menzies had become a lieutenant in the Citizen Forces. He continued to hold this commission until his period of compulsory service ended on his attaining the age limit." Sir Percy Joske, Sir Robert Menzies, 1894-1978 - a new, informal memoir, 1978 p 18.
It is not NPOV to use that same old just-barely-short-of "Menzies was a coward" line as a statement of fact. It is NPOV to allow the family's version, or some suitable statement in defence of it all, to go in.
I cannot understand your other problems with what I added. Possibly it was influenced by this issue. It is not necessary to have multiple links to the same year - you must have had 1941 in that article about three or four times. The 36 faceless men issue did exist - are you saying that is false?
I am willing to discuss these matters with you, but simply deleting them without discussion or explanation is not on. Arno 04:21, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- I didn't say Menzies was a coward - I quoted what Page said. If you want to quote Joske as giving the explanation he gives, that is fine. My objection is not to the opinion, but to you simply inserting into the text as an unsourced opinion.
(Having said that, my opinion is that Joske is wrong: it was not considered a "fair thing" for third sons not to enlist. Otherwise there would not have been the widespread anger against Menzies among ex-servicemen that there was when he entered politics in the 1920s, and again in 1939. Perhaps you are unaware that Joske was a Liberal MP and an old friend of Menzies, or that he also was a law student who didn't serve in the war, despite being of military age.)
On the other matters
- It is WP policy to wikify all dates. I used to find it annoying but now I do it automatically. I suggest you get used to it, because if you don't the WP pedants will come along behind you and do it anyway.
- The details of the 36 faceless men episode belong in ALP history, not in a biography of Menzies. It is sufficient to say that he used the issue to win the 1963 election. Adam 04:32, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC)
---
- I'll check the wp policy. It does seem absurd.
- But as far as Joske is concerned - we have a conservative opinion (Page's) that argues in favour of Menzies having enlisted, and one against. I feel this is sufficiently NPOV.
- The 36 faceless men are a part of Menzies's history in that it did contribute to his 1963 victory. Otherwise, you'll need to remove the Petrov Affair from this article on similar grounds. Arno 04:54, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC)
---
By reverting my changes you have re-inserted several ungrammatical sentences and at least one clear error of fact into the article. Since you won't let me correct them, you can now figure them out for yourself. Adam 04:48, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC)
---
- This came when I was replying to your first answer. Look - do feel free to correct the grammar or to point it out to me , I'll correct it. I don't mind that at all. Arno 04:54, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC)
-
- I can't see why people want to deny Menzies' extraordinary record at the outbreak of WWI. The family decision thing is a furphy - compare and contrast with the [Handcock family of Myrrhee, Victoria]. Albatross2147 12:53, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] 1963 royal tour
what's the source for the widespread contemporary embarrassment at Menzies's "did but see her" line? or for the indifference at HM's 1963 tour?
Look, If Menzies said this - and I beleive that he did - then leave it in. But write about it neutrally. References to "Australia cringing" is NOT NPOV. Arno 09:58, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Brisbane Line
- In 1943 after claims from Labor minister Eddie Ward that Menzies had left Australia open to invasion with the infamous Brisbane Line strategy and a resulting royal commission into the affair, Curtin won a huge election victory.
I notice someone cut this bit out after I added it, perhaps I am missing something here but this was a big part of Menzies' political life in 1943. The Brisbane Line controversy dogged Menzies right up until anti-communist motives moved to the forefront in Australian politics and I think needs to be mentioned. --kudz75 02:04, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I cut it out because it's innaccurate and POV. There was no "Brisbane Line strategy," infamous or otherwise, it was all a beat-up by Ward and the anti-Menzies press. It was an issue at the 1943 election but in no way decisive, since Ward was widely and rightly regarded as a ratbag. Adam 14:58, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Many people thought there was such a strategy. Some people still do.
Regards, BenAveling 07:33, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
I think it's commonly accepted that belief in this was widespread. Menzies certainly claimed he'd never devised or approved of such a strategy, and that indeed, it never existed, but it pursued him all the same. It was a decisive issue, and one he felt strongly enough about to again try to clear his name in his memoirs. It's definately relevant to any comprehensive article on Menzies, even if it's simply mentioned that many did (and do) believe it existed, and that he strenuously denied that it did. El Castro 03:34, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Ming
It was also because of the way he pronounced his surname; it was phonetically closer to Mingzies than to Menzies.
Regards, BenAveling 07:35, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
This is an old and tiresome argument. It is true that the original Scots pronunciation of Menzies is "Mingus," but the Australian Menzieses never pronounced it that way, and that is not the origin of the nickname Ming, which derives from Ming the Merciless, who was popularised by a film in 1936 just as Menzies was rising to prominence. It was probably reinforced by people pointing out the similarity to the Scots name. Adam 10:23, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Pronunciation
Is his name pronounced "Mingis" oder "Menzess". See http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/4595228.stm 84.61.196.226 16:42, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
- Refer to above. It is pronounced "Men-zeez" Kewpid 19:32, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Ming the Merciless
This edit removed the ref to "Ming the Merciless" with the comment "undoubtedly, you need a source for that". The correct way to ask for sources is to annotate with {{fact}} or a similar template. Or to discuss on the talk page. Please review WP:Bold, which says "please note: 'be bold in updating pages' does not mean that you should make large changes or deletions to long articles on complex, controversial subjects with long histories" and suggests some ways to proceed.
One source is Tasmanian Federation online which says "Known as Ming the Merciless because of brilliant legal mind". I can't find the reference to Flash Gordon quickly and do not have access here to the two biographies quoted but they should be checked before the comment is removed. Hence I have rolled back.--A Y Arktos\talk 21:31, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Replacing Churchill
The Australian historian David Day has suggested that Menzies hoped to replace Churchill as British Prime [sic], and that he had some support in Britain for this. Other Australian writers, such as Gerard Henderson, have rejected this theory.
I don't see how this is relevant to our article on Menzies. This is a theory that apparently only one historian has. I could dream up any wacko theory about Menzies (or any plausible one, for that matter), but surely the mere existence of my theory does not mean it merits mention here. Does it? JackofOz 06:49, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
He didn't invent the theory, many have suggested it previously, and I for one think it has some substance to it. Read Judith Brett on Menzies attitudes to Britain and his jealousy of Churchill. As to relevance, Menzies' long stay in Britain, and his belief that he needed to go back to Britain, led directly to his fall as PM. Adam 06:53, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
- If many have suggested it previously, why is David Day getting all the credit for it, and why aren't the others mentioned at all? JackofOz 07:08, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Because's he's now the leading historian of the period and has done the most work on it. Adam 07:23, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Any suggested reading where Day brings up the topic? If it's "true" it's very interesting and should stay in the topic.Jockmonkey 09:20, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Numbering
I know we follow an official government site on this, but still, why isn't he numbered 12th and 17th? Biruitorul 02:21, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
The convention is to number each PM once only. It means he was the 12th man to be PM, not that his was the 12th ministry - ministries have a separate numbering system. Adam 02:41, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
- Thank you. Biruitorul 01:34, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Months in London
I think that saying Menzies "did his best" during the early years of world war II is biased reading of his actions. His unwarranted months is the UK "meeting" with officials is unmentioned here, (well, removed) without explanation or justification. mangonorth
- The months in London are mentioned in the next paragraph. We could say more, but the deleted phrase "under the pretence of 'meeting' with the British cabinet" is way too POV. Peter Ballard 02:16, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Images
Why is it that there seems to be absolutely zero pictures of Ming anywhere at all before 1939? pictureaustralia.org has 109 pages but do you think there's any before 1939? It really is a pity. The collection of images of PMs is getting pretty good now. A youthful picture of Australia's longest serving PM sure wouldn't go astray. Timeshift 01:37, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
- A possible source might be the Parliamentary library of Victoria, or the Supreme Court of Victoria. Menzies was a barrister and a Victorian state MP in the 20s and early 30s. These will not be online sources, it would require someone to actually do the legwork, and there may or may not be copyright issues, but public interest should override any issues around the use of an 80-year-old photo owned by a government institution. Darcyj (talk) 23:38, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Shire of Menzies
I don't believe this could be considered an institution, but I don't particularly care enough to fight to have it removed. Timeshift (talk) 01:30, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
