Talk:William McMahon

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Image orientation[edit]

The Wikipedia Manual of Style says: "Articles with a single picture are encouraged to have that picture at the top of the article, right-aligned, but this is not a hard and fast rule. Portraits with the head looking to the right should be left-aligned (looking into the article)."

That's why I changed Billy to the left - it looks better. Pete 11:18, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Eric's edits[edit]

TIRED OF... Surely 'becomed disillusioned' is more accurate and felicitious 'tired of.'.

Further, Im not sure what 'a homosexual' is. As a noun its is too vague whilst 'homosexuality' is a direct and accurate description.

TIRED OF...2 As a fact, he had three children which clearly places him outside of the category of 'homosexual'. Thus I belive there were rumours of his 'homosexuality'. which is far more accurate And further the phrase 'tired of.' at the end of a sentence is ugly: 'grown disillusoned' is, as Ive stated before, more accurate and better language.

  • If you're not sure what a homosexual is, I suggest you get out more.
  • Oscar Wilde was married with children too. There is no necessary contradiction.
  • In any case, the article refers to the content of the rumours, not the facts. I have no idea if McMahon was homosexual. I do know that he was widely rumoured to be, and that's what the article says.
  • My main problem with your edits, however, is that that they are nearly always mis-spelled and ungrammatical, and add little of value. I suggest that you find a topic in which you have some expertise in and write about it, and leave other articles alone. Adam 06:08, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Moreover, Eric, the effect of your edits is to completely change the sentence meaning. By writing "his homosexuality" you are implying that he was, without doubt, homosexual. This was never substantiated. And I suggest you read the last sentence of the last paragraph properly, too.--Cyberjunkie | Talk 06:15, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I might add, however, that I am not opposed to changing "a government the electorate had grown tired of" to "a government the electorate had grown/become disillusioned (or some synonym) with".

"Disillusioned" is a dreadful journalist's cliche, and implies that the electorate was previously in a state of illusion, which is an opinion for which no evidence has been produced. The fact is that in 1972 the electorate was simply tired of the Liberals, and I used that phrase quite deliberately. Adam 06:38, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Then I relent. I am not fond of the word "disillusioned", but I did, to an extent, agree that "tired of" sounded infelicitous. Now I fear I've added fuel to the flame. Sorry, --Cyberjunkie | Talk 06:43, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Adam. - Aaron Hill 11:44, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

Then please rvt his last edit - I am over the limit. Adam 12:12, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I support a revert.--Cyberjunkie | Talk 12:15, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rumours again[edit]

The following ancedote is somewhat relevant to the discussion of McMahon's sexuality.

From The Bulletin magazine, 09/07/2005

The dishonorable member By Tony Wright

"Billy McMahon was much given to nakedness, too: former senior public servants recall McMahon when PM in the early 1970s would rove the men’s dressing rooms at the old squash courts in Manuka. Wearing not a stitch, he was in the habit of approaching other men and virtually demanding they engage in long, often meaningless conversations. He seemed not to know the meaning of private space, according to one who always felt there was a peculiar nature to the approaches. The only newspaper report was a picture of McMahon with a black eye, which he said occurred in a game when he was hit by an opponent’s racquet."

This is not the first time I've read stories of his behaviour at the courts. According to one old journo he used to hang back until most people were gone and then lurk round.

I will continue to revert vulgar gossip about dead people from disreputable rags like the (current) Bulletin. The article says all that needs to be said about the political relevance of McMahon's personal life. Adam 12:05, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Wright is a reputable journalist and The Bulletin is hardly a 'disreputable rag' -- as you, if you are an Australian, would well know. A extremely facile comment. (Where would that place Wikipedia -- below pond slime, I expect.) The quote is also hardly "vulgar gossip"! (Such sensitivity suggests either dowager prudery, or that it could be a little too close to home for you.) Homosexuality can be extremely difficult to substantiate in historical figures. Reports such as this of transgressive behavior can be the best one can do, and therefore have their place...especially when heterosexuality is taken as a given and sustantiation is never demanded. The Bulletin report is not gossip: it's reporting direct observations. Perhaps mention could be made of the Melbourne "Sunday Observor" tabloid's notorious front page of the 70s with its picture of McMahon in a white suit and the banner headline "Billy Is A Poof!" The jocularity certainly demonstrates the commonality of the rumor. -- TJ

I don't dispute the rumours - I wrote the original version of this article which mentioned the rumours and their political significance. There is however no direct evidence that McMahon was in fact homosexual or bisexual. These rumours were frequently circulated about Liberal politicians as a political tactic (this was at a period before the left had embraced gay rights). From the point of view of McMahon's political biography, the only relevant fact is that the rumours were circulated. The truth of the matter, even if it could be known (which it can't) is not relevant. The Sunday Observer headline, by the way, was in fact: "BILL'S NOT A POOF!" and was a report of Sonia McMahon's denial of the rumours. Anonymous editors should check their facts before skating on such thin ice. Adam 11:22, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was wrong, you're absolutely correct about the headline. And since it's probably the nadir of the media mockery that accompanied McMahon in his latter days, it's almost worthy of a mention. -- TJ (24 January 2006)

As some of the references to the matter are not online, I'll quote them here: "As a bachelor navy minister he was notorious for co-opting handsome young sailors in tight-fitting bell-bottom trousers to caddy for him at golf". Charlton, Peter. Australia's Prime Ministers in Birth Of Our Nation Special Supplement, The Courier-Mail, January 1, 2001; "former senior public servants recall McMahon when PM in the early 1970s would rove the men's dressing rooms at the old squash courts in Manuka. Wearing not a stitch, he was in the habit of approaching other men and virtually demanding they engage in long, often meaningless conversations.... The only newspaper report was a picture of McMahon with a black eye, which he said occurred in a game when he was hit by an opponent's racquet." Wright, Tony. The Dishonorable Member, The Bulletin, July 9, 2005. See also: Mitchell, Susan Stand By Your Man: Sonia, Tamie & Janette, Random House 2007, ISBN 9781741665680 and Lady McMahon's response to Mitchell in The truth about my marriage, The Australian Women's Weekly, November 2007. Vol. 77 Issue 11, p50. Oddly, this sentence had also been deleted: In 1965, aged 57, he married Sonia Rachel Hopkins, who was then aged 32. They had three children. Engleham (talk) 18:20, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ref 8 (Lady McMahon, WW) is in directly opposed to what is claimed in the article!!!! Doesn't anyone bother to check refs in crappipedia!!!220.244.74.245 (talk) 01:32, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

McMahon and free trade[edit]

It's important to note that while McMahon had "differences" with others over protectionism he was not a tarrif buster like Whitlam etc. PMA 11:40, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I think in private he was, but of course the Bush Socialist Party had the Liberals by the gonads, as they still do today, which is why we have no bananas in our shops. Adam 12:04, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is not accurate to call Whitlam a "tarrif buster". Yes, there was a one off 25% Tariff cut in 1973 - but that was seen as "anti-inflationary" at the time, as was the simultaneous revaluation of the Australian Dollar. Inflation was running at 13.5% in August 1973 (2 months BEFORE the Arab Oil Embargo), in no small account due to the massive increase in Federal spending Whitlam insisted upon. Frank Crean tried to curb inflation by making imported goods cheaper - hence the tariff cuts. Whitlam, as has been observed time and again, was not particularly interested in economics as such. His interests were international affairs, the arts, various social and legal issues (look at the focus of his government, and particularly those areas he personally directed). To cast Whitlam as some sort of "free trade" economic guru in the Keatingite mould is fanciful! I should point out that farmers tend to favour lower tariffs (certainly back then), and one of the biggest opponents to cutting tariffs were the manufacturing unions, who represented many, many more people than they do today, and were far more politically influential, especially within the ALP. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.83.157.139 (talk) 14:29, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gay haunting[edit]

We say McMahon was "haunted" by rumours about his sexuality. What exactly does this mean, and what is the source for this? I think the relevant fact is that there were rumours; whether he was personally haunted by them is not for a POV-free zone like Wikipedia to say.

On a slightly related matter, the late David Widdup campaigned against McMahon in Lowe in 1972 (I think). His slogan was "Vote for the acknowledged homosexual candidate!". JackofOz 13:21, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"haunted by rumours..." is, I think, just a figure of speech, in the sense that the rumours every now and then surfaced and (perhaps) caused him political damage. I agree it would be good if it was reworded. Rocksong 12:32, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ref 8 (Lady McMahon, WW) is in directly opposed to what is claimed in the article!!!! Doesn't anyone bother to check refs in crappipedia!!!220.244.74.245 (talk) 01:33, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

1969 leadership challenge?[edit]

This article says McMahon challenged Gorton for the leadership in 1969 but both John Gorton and David Fairbairn say that it was Fairbarin who challenged whilst McEwan was still maintaining a veto on McMahon. Which is correct? Timrollpickering (talk) 13:01, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently both: "A Nation at War" by P.G.Edwards and See John Anderson's speech here in Hansard Peter Ballard (talk) 01:23, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Main McMahon image[edit]

I can't seem to locate where discussion took place, but it was agreed that the image of what he looked like at the time was a better fit than a clearer image 20 years prior to. I'm happy for either to occur so long as both images remain, and the choice is agreed upon. Timeshift (talk) 05:33, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unencyclopaedic?[edit]

The following footnote, directly referenced to, perhaps, the most powerful newspaper in Australia at the time, has been removed on the basis that it is not "encyclopaedic". Given that his "perceived" homosexuality was a constant matter of public interest -- regardless of whether they were unsubstantiated "rumours" or unsubstantiated facts -- it is important that this matter appears in the Wiki; because it accurately reflects the mood of the times. The crass stupidity of McMahon agreeing to this photograph is precisely why, from then on, Sonia took such a controlling interest over every one of his photoshoots, such as the time that they attempted to photographed his "bald spot" in a swimming pool. The excised passage reads as follows:

In a satirical masterstroke, to the considerable amusement of his many detractors, on the day following his defeat of John Gorton, the front page of the Melbourne newspaper The Age had a photograph of the diminutive and widely-perceived-as-homosexual McMahon — who was often referred to pejoratively as "Pixie McMahon" ("Pixie" because "he has fairies at the bottom of his garden") — impishly perched upon a rock next to a water fountain at the bottom of his garden. The pixie at the bottom of this Canberra garden just happens to be the new Prime Minister, The Age, (Friday, 12 March, 1971), p.1.

I can see no reason for this pro-active, pro-McMahon censorship has any place in the Wiki.149.171.155.143 (talk) 05:09, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Before you go accusing me of pro-McMahon bias, perhaps I should mention that actually I consider him one of Australia's worst Prime Ministers. That doesn't stop this proposed passage being one of the worst cases of undue weight I've seen in a while. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of news reports, and any News Ltd-style scandalmongering has no place in a serious encyclopaedia. Frickeg (talk) 05:46, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Australia's Longest Serving Prime Minister Never To Have Won An Election?[edit]

It is questionable whether this is true. Julia Gillard could lay claim to the title. She remained in office after the 2010 election but her party won less seats than the coalition so did she really win the election? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chukk55 (talk • contribs) 00:13, 25 February 2012 (UTC) I should have said won an equal number of seats to the coalition if Tony Crook (The Nationals WA) is excluded. Chukk55 (talk) 00:31, 25 February 2012 (UTC)Chukk55[reply]

Well as Gillard has been the PM now for more than 2 years, it is not unreasonable to say that she "won" the 2010 election. And this is the article about William McMahon and not the place for nitpicking about the details of the 2010 election.Eregli bob (talk) 06:46, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The only threshold for government is a majority of seats on the floor of the house. Gillard doesn't win an election, no Prime Minister does. MPs win seats and an MP leads a government with a majority on the house floor. Gillard "won" the 2010 election as much as any PM did. Timeshift (talk) 08:32, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's the technical view. But if we're happy to say that Hawke and Howard each won 4 elections, then we have to accept that Gillard has won one so far. She might not have won as many seats as the coalition, but at the end of the day she won the main prize, the premiership. In no sense could we say that Abbott won the election; he won most seats, that's all. The point is that McMahon won nil elections, as his government was defeated at his one and only attempt with him as leader. -- Jack of Oz [Talk] 09:25, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Labor did win as many seats as the four conservative coalition parties - 72 each. Timeshift (talk) 22:15, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK; it's been a shifting carpet. But my point remains; just because it's a hung parliament and Gillard relies on the support of independents, does not mean she didn't win the election. -- Jack of Oz [Talk] 22:19, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Correct in the point you're trying to make, but i'll remain in semantics - PMs don't "win" elections despite the popular misconception :P Timeshift (talk) 22:27, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Image reversed[edit]

The one captioned "McMahon while visiting the White House in 1971" has his breast pocket handkerchief on his right (our left). They're always on the wearer's left, afaik. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 22:54, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright violation[edit]

Unfortunately large swathes of this article appear to have been copied directly (word for word) from the ADB entry. The sections "Under Menzies" and "Under Holt" seem to be almost 100% copyvio. I'll try to go through and rephrase/rewrite the problem sections at some point in future, but until then I've placed a tag. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 19:04, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:William_McMahon&oldid=1212785653"