Talk:Robert Muldoon/Archive 1

1969 election

"Muldoon established a considerable national profile rapidly; many historians credit his image, rather than that of the Prime Minister, Holyoake, or his deputy, Jack Marshall, for the National Party's surprise victory in the 1969 election."

I hope by historians this paragraph doesn't refer to the book by Bob Jones. This is the only place I know of such a claim has been made, in any case, I don't think its correct. Marshall had just scored a trade concession from the EEC, and Holyoake was still seen as the elder statesman of the Nats. --Lholden 21:48, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Tried and Emotional

Should the phrase "tried and emotional" in the body of the article link to Tired and emotional? I think that would make it clearer to non-UK (including NZ readers, as the phrase, while known, is not common-place). —This unsigned comment was added by 202.169.209.104 (talk • contribs) 15:07, 29 March 2006.

Euphemisms aren't appropriate for Wikipedia articles (ref), so I replaced the phrase with its direct meaning. --Muchness 04:31, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

NPOV?

While I agree with many of the sentiments in this article, it does seem to be written in a somewhat coloured way - references to being obstinate and autocratic etc -these are clearly value judgments (though you would be hard pressed to find anyone who disagreed with them. On balance, I think they should remain in - while they'd be difficult to source, they're spot on. ElectricRay 22:26, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

... "(Why the term piggy was applied to him has never been identified reliably.)" Oh, really? It's pretty obviously a reference to his physical appearance, isn't it?

I agree. It would help if this article cited a few more sources. NZ forever 09:13, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

TV interview

I see the following sentence has reappeared: " His abrasive personality was vividly demonstrated in a notable TV interview with TVNZ journalist Simon Walker in 1976, during a routine debate on the potential threat of Soviet warships. Before then, most people were openly afraid of confronting Muldoon."

I removed a shorter version of this about a week ago. I don't wish to get into an edit war, but I don't see what point it actually makes that couldn't be made equally well by saying "he had an abrasive personality": we don't have any indication of what the interview said, or in what way he was abrasive. Unless a transcript of the interview, or a clip of it, or some such thing, can be included, I don't think this sentence adds anything to the encylcopaedia, and should be removed. ElectricRay 18:56, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

http://www.teara.govt.nz/NewZealanders/NewZealandPeoples/SouthAfricans/2/ENZ-Resources/Standard/2/en check that out, comrade :). Cheers, Hauser 12:56, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Revert by SimonLyall

"Please discuss wording on talk page"? That was an extremely infuriating and unnecessary revert. Why did you revert every single one of my edits? I am sure one or two of them would be contentious, but you removed everything including ones based around improving the syntax of sentences and clarifiying issues (e.g. the poorly written sentence regarding Holyoake becoming Prime Minister that implies that he was a member of the Labour Party), removing the clarifications of what Cabinet lists are, removing the comment that Muldoon sat his accounting exams whilst in Italy (which I thought was an interesting and valid note), added back the blatantly incorrect statement that National Superannuation was reforming a '19th century' pension structure (it was reforming the Labour Government's newly established provident fund scheme, which was nothing to do with the 19th century!!!!), added back the incorrect statement that none of the Think Big projects yielded a profit (Maui and Marsden Point's expansion being cases in point), left the NPOV and highly narrative comment 'His autocratic style eventually undid him', deleted the clarification that explained Muldoon's personal rationale for not lowering the value of the New Zealand dollar and numerous other things that were simply not POV at all. Interestingly, Quigley and Richardson (along with Dail Jones) voted against the government during parts of the 1983 Budget (specifically over the finance elements), and this is directly referenced in the biography of Philip Burdon (Burdon: A Man Of Our Time by Edmund Bohhan) on page 95 in the Chapter 'Party Ructions And Election Dramas'. Thus, I am reverting this back, and will make the reference to Burdon's book, and will find academic references for other edits of mine which you could potentially be critical of :). Please can you be a little more fair and 'targeted' next time in your criticisms? Cheers, Hauser 07:43, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, there we're many changes at once and it wa hard to revert the controveral and not the more NPOV ones so I did the whole thing. Like I said you edit swung the article from one side to the other in a single go whereas we need to find something a bit more in the middle. - SimonLyall 08:22, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

No worries, that's fine, sorry for overreacting, I was just a bit frustrated about everything changing back. I agree with you that some of what I said may come across as somewhat pro-Muldoon, but this was just an attempt at counterpointing what was down there which was anti-Muldoon. I agree with you that we need to change a lot of it around, and sorry for being a pain in the arse. I've stated some resources as I said above, and I thought it was good to clearly explain what Gustafson and Easton had said. Cheers for understanding :D! Regards, Hauser 10:13, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Gustafson

I think the further reading list really should include Barry Gustafson, His Way, but I don't get wikipedia programming and made a pigs ear of adding it. Perhaps you could?125.238.79.212 03:33, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I've added it. I used the ISBN I found at the National Library, which is for the hardback edition. I don't know which edition your ISBN might refer to.-gadfium 03:45, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Crossing the floor on capital punishment

This was around 1961 - yet it is listed under the Minister of Finance heading - achieved in 1967. No time to fic it now - some reorganisation required.. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Herne nz (talk • contribs) 08:39, 30 January 2007 (UTC).

Patron of the mongrel mob?

Curiously, he was also patron of the Mongrel Mob gang, members of which paid him solemn respect... Googling "robert muldoon" patron "mongrel mob" seems to result in a list of web pages which all report this in words identical to those used here. The word patron implies that he gave them some notable form of public support, and that he consented to their giving him this honour. Is this what is meant? Or is the word being used in a sense like that of "patron saint", implying merely great reverence on gang members' part? Koro Neil (talk) 12:32, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I have corrected this entry on the main page by referencing Barry Gustafson page 426 of His Way: A Biography of Robert Muldoon which says he was patron of Black Power and that he remained in his role of patron and adviser up until his death. Gustafson describes in detail the informal meetings Muldoon had with Black Power on pages 206-207. Bob Jones, a Wellington businessman and former friend of Muldoon has also talked and written about these gang connections. Muldoon got to know them when organising work schemes in the 1970's. According to Jones, Muldoon closely identified with those he saw as the underdog. ( Jones, Bob. Memories of Muldoon. Canterbury University Press. 1997 ) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.155.215.63 (talk) 12:29, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Father spent 20 years in hospital before dying

Does not look right. If true or false, please clarify in the article and remove this talk section. TransControl (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:54, 30 October 2009 (UTC).

We don't ever remove talk sections except for vandalism. Closed discussions remain in place in perpetuity for newcomers to see what's been discussed before. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:07, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

It's true and mentioned in various biographys - SimonLyall (talk) 03:42, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I also can confirm that the figure of 20 years is true. For example, in Muldoon's 1974 autobiography, The Rise and Fall of a Young Turk, p 8, he says "He was in hospital permanently until he died nearly twenty years later". This is repeated in Spiro Zavos' The Real Muldoon, 1978, p 58. Barry Gustafson goes into more detail in His Way - A Biography of Robert Muldoon, 2000, p 20-21: "Jim Muldoon spent almost 20 years in the psychiatric hospital at Pt Chevalier until his death in 1946".-gadfium 20:55, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Gustafson adds that James Muldoon was suffering from syphilis, which may partly account for his mental illness. Muzilon (talk) 09:40, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Falklands War

The article implies that support of Britain in the Falkands War was somehow controversial. It was not. Almost all western countries strongly supported the UK.124.197.15.138 (talk) 08:00, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Article title

Now that he article is in fine shape (thanks, LJ Holden!), I thought I'd put up the question whether its title should use Rob or Robert. Any thoughts? Schwede66 18:56, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Schwede. According to Ye Olde Google test, there's 1/2 a million hits for Robert Muldoon and 377,000 for Rob Muldoon, although that is probably because of all the references to the Jurassic Park character. Robert Muldoon New Zealand gives 240,000 results, while Rob Muldoon New Zealand gives 259,000 results. So my vote would be with Rob Muldoon. It's pretty common to hear him referred to as such. --LJ Holden 01:51, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Just my thinking and what I would have expected; thanks for doing the research. Shall we wait for other page watchers to comment and then move the article if they support this, too, or go through the formal process? Schwede66 06:24, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Never mind the google hits, his name was Robert Muldoon. "Rob" was used informally, but most of the news reports of the time used his proper name. Compare: [1] and [2]. Please don't be too influenced by google hits, otherwise every lame viral video will suddenly become "notable". MaxBrowne (talk) 10:12, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

I guess it's a reflection of the people I'm around, but it is very rare to hear Muldoon referred to as "Robert Muldoon", he was always known as Rob; even with the Knighthood appended (i.e. "Sir Rob Muldoon"). And of course "Rob's Mob" were his ardent supporters. Having a read of WP:NAME the main principle is precision:- "The page name uses preferably the most commonly used version of the name of that person, other variants can be included as redirects, and if needed clarified in the body of the article.". The Google searches, while not perfect, indicate that Rob Muldoon was more common. --LJ Holden 19:28, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

I suggest the following:

1. move the article back to Rob Muldoon as per the consensus from the discussion above (where everybody watching this page could have said something about, and that counts for a lot more than a single editor coming along later and disagreeing), and
2. start a formal move request where we test whether Rob Muldoon is the right article name, or whether it should be something else.

Thoughts? Schwede66 19:45, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Copy of a tectchy exchange on the Schwede 66 talkpage:

Hi Schwede66. Are you going to change "Norman Kirk" to "Norm Kirk"? I don't think that would be appropriate. My recollection is that he was only called "Norm" by his friends and followers. My recollection is also that Robert Muldoon was only called "Rob" by his friends and followers (cf. "Rob's Mob" a group of his closest supporters). I think it would be better, and more objective and less offensive, to just name them by their formal first names. Norman for Kirk and Robert for Muldoon.Rick570 (talk) 19:34, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

I have no intention of moving Norman Kirk. As far as Muldoon is concerned, it would be better if we kept the discussion about him in one place. Schwede66 19:47, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Where is that?Rick570 (talk) 19:49, 4 March 2015 (UTC) My point is that to change Norman to Norm is just as justified as changing Robert to Rob. Rob should be reverted to Robert. Please!Rick570 (talk) 19:51, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

It's a real secret-squirrel location: Talk:Robert Muldoon#Article title :) Schwede66 19:53, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

I believe this is the correct process. This will shop up in WP:RM, then we can get more people involved in the discussion and develop a concensus. We should probably notify the New Zealand politics WikiProject too.

Requested move 5 March 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Not unanimous but clear and well argued consensus to keep the current name. Andrewa (talk) 16:04, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

---

Robert Muldoon → Rob Muldoon – Personally opposed, but requested by other editors. Supporters argue that he was universally known as "Rob Muldoon", I contend that in newspaper reports of the time he was usually "Robert Muldoon". MaxBrowne (talk) 03:13, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Robert - I've been reviewing my print sources.

• Bateman New Zealand Encyclopedia 5th edition 2000 - main entry is "MULDOON, Sir Robert David". Under the entries for Sir Wallace Edward Rowling and Sir John Ross Marshall he is named as "Robert Muldoon".
  
• Penguin History of New Zealand, Michael King - index has "Muldoon, Robert". Mentions on pages 450, 453 and 462 are all "Robert Muldoon".
  
• New Zealand in the Twentieth Century, Paul Moon - index has "Muldoon, Robert". Mentions on pages 407, 424 (and probably others) have "Robert Muldoon".
  
• Te Ara (encylopedia or New Zealand) http://www.teara.govt.nz/en/biographies/6m1/muldoon-robert-david

- mentions the name "Rob", Uses both "Rob" and "Robert" in the text but the main article title is "Muldoon, Robert David"

• NZ History http://www.nzhistory.net.nz/people/robert-muldoon - article title is "Robert Muldoon" but uses the name "Rob Muldoon" in first sentence.
  
  The google ngram, reflecting what has appeared in print, is strongly in favour of "Robert Muldoon". MaxBrowne (talk) 04:07, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Robert is much more encyclopedic in my opinion. I think however we should rename the article "Piggy Muldoon" which was I think used much more than Rob. At least it was in 1970s suburban Wellington :-) Andrewgprout (talk) 04:35, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Robert - MaxBrowne's sources pretty well settle it. For what it's worth, my recollection is that Australian media at the time always used Robert, and the only instance I could quickly find (The Age, 1981) used Robert: http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1300&dat=19810507&id=DTRVAAAAIBAJ&sjid=w5QDAAAAIBAJ&pg=2551,3323712 Adpete (talk) 05:09, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Rob - this all started when I asked the question whether he is better known as Rob or Robert. This obviously refers to the Wikipedia concept of common name. Nobody disputes that his official name is Robert. And when MaxBrowne contends "that in newspaper reports of the time he was usually 'Robert Muldoon'", that may well be so, but the question we need to discuss is what his common name is these days. LJ Holden's look at Google hits is one way of establishing what the common name is, and it came out slightly in favour of Rob over Robert. MaxBrowne's look at reliable (book) sources is also useful. Of those, the one that I would consider the most authoritative is the Dictionary of New Zealand Biography (DNZB), referred to by MaxBrowne as Te Ara. There are by now over 3000 biographies contained in the DNZB, and what MaxBrowne is obviously not aware of is that each entry uses the official name of the person for the article title. Wallace Edward Rowling anybody? Yes, his official name is his article title, but everybody knows him as Bill, and many would not know the former finance minister any other way than Bill Rowling. One has to read a DNZB bio to figure out what the common name is, and sometimes DNZB is a bit subtle about it (because it starts with the official name, then refers to the subject by surname throughout the article, but in the last couple of sentences, the common name gets used). At other times, DNZB isn't so subtle, and in the case of Muldoon, the first sentence of his bio starts as such: "Robert David Muldoon (known as Rob or Bob) was ..." Muldoon's online bio is nine pages long, and in departure to convention, he is often referred to not just by surname, but by first and last name. Excluding article title (which is repeated at the top of every page), I count nine instances of Rob and four instances of Robert. I readily concede that overall, Muldoon is referred to in some reliable sources as Robert, in others as Rob, and many sources refer to him by both the long and short form. From what I've seen, Rob appears to be somewhat more frequent than Robert, and that is what matters for the common name concept that Wikipedia article titles are based on. Schwede66 18:12, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Robert: Muldoon was such a divisive figure. In many circles he is just called "Muldoon". Many feel that to dignify him with his ordinary proper name "Robert Muldoon" is almost too much of a concession and to use an affectionate diminutive like "Rob" is completely unacceptable. Really I do think it is much better to play safe on this one and just stick to "Robert Muldoon" . That wont offend anyone. A funny side issue relating to Bill Rowling. The only person, I recollect, who called Rowling "Wallace" was Muldoon and he did that as a calculated insult. Rowling was always known in every other context that I can recall as "Bill Rowling" Rick570 (talk) 19:44, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Robert - Google Scholar: "rob muldoon" zealand - 124; "robert muldoon" zealand - 1,240. WP:COMMONNAME repeatedly refers to "reliable sources". Using the ordinary Google for this discussion is inappropriate. Nurg (talk) 23:02, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Propose to close in favour of "Robert" - I think we have a clear consensus, and the weight of reliable sources (as opposed to raw google searches) supports this. MaxBrowne (talk) 02:39, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The Dawn Raids

Towards the end of this section is stated: "The majority of overstayers were from Great Britain, Australia, and South Africa.[36]"

This cannot be correct. Before 1994, Australians did not need a visa to reside and work in New Zealand (refer http://www.hobartlegal.org.au/tasmanian-law-handbook/community-and-environment/immigration-and-citizenship/australian-and-new) For an Australian to overstay a visa in the 1970s would have been impossible. afd (talk) 17:55, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Be bold - change this if it's wrong, and if the original writer reverts, we can fight it out here. Robert (talk) 22:56, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Issue with "Think Big" subsection

Someone with access to the sources used there (preferably the original writer) needs to fix some ambiguous wording in there. Robert (talk) 22:58, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Sure, which parts do you think are ambiguous? --LJ Holden 00:58, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

I noted the issues in brackets. Basically (a) it's not made clear whether wages "spiraling" up or down was the problem - that can have different meanings depending on whether it's an aviation analogy or not and (b) was his promise to erase the debt, or not to erase the debt? Regarding (a) I'd suggest using "speedily increasing/decreasing" or some such.

Robert (talk) 03:09, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Today's additions

user:Aunburnas, I changed the first sentence of your lengthy addition because a/ the first phrase was your opinion, that was not mentioned in the source and b/ it was irrelevant anyway. Whatever political persuasion two people have has no bearing on who well they get on at a personal level. From a very brief view of the rest of your posts, there appears to be similar slanted wording that may not be backed by the sources. You have to be careful inserting a tone that you think is in a script because it might be nothing more than what you think the tone should be. Also, if someone changes your post with a reason, please do not simply change it back, which amounts to edit war. See BRD. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 09:46, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

It seemed fine to me. I was basically paraphrasing what was said in those articles. But it is true that Fraser and Muldoon vehemently disliked one another- the sources prove that. I added quotes, too. I'll go back and remove any "tone" you mention, but furthermore you can edit things from the section on saving his life outside yourself Aubernas (talk) 11:06, 2 July 2022 (UTC)