Jump to content

Talk:Think Big

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


Synfuel is a noun derived from "Synthetic Fuel" although it has a more specific meaning.

MSN Encarta defines it as:

"a liquid fuel synthesized from a nonpetroleum source such as coal, oil shale, or waste plastics, and used as a substitute for a petroleum product
[Late 20th century. A blend of synthetic and fuel.]"

Sendervictorius 08:49, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Quite right but our Synfuel article talks about deriving it from coal exclusively. I'm going to change the aricle to refer to synthetic petrol as Motonui converted Natural Gas rather than coal and mention this in the article. On another note does anyone have a free picture of Motonui or Tiwai point to add to the article? Lisiate 02:09, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't have any opinion of the synfuel term, one way or the other. I remember in the 1980s the term was in frequent use when applied to the think big projects. There is a picture of the clyde dam already in wikipedia.
    The Clyde Dam
    Sendervictorius 09:24, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Very nice, Vanderdecken. Did you actually edit that photo using touchups or simply found/took a newer one? Cheers, Hauser 06:22, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • Most of this article lacks appropriate citation. I removed one sentence that was uncited and false (at present, and the situation was the same in 2007, the the Waitara Valley methanol plant is running, and the motunui plant may be restarted, but has for many years only produced methanol for export. The capacity to produce synthetic fuel was removed when the plant was shut down in 2004). Hydroksyde (talk) 08:11, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Does anyone disagree that "Even much of the National Party subsequently came to perceive that Think Big sank New Zealand into huge debt without any significant return, accompanied by a generational repudiation of Muldoon's entire legacy" is unreferenced, emotive and POV, and should be deleted?Royalcourtier (talk) 04:44, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think that parts of the statement can be defended. There was substantial opposition within National to Think Big even at the time, with Minogue and Quigley expressing doubts in December 1980[1] and June 1982[2] respectively. By February 1986 it would appear that the majority view in caucus was against Think Big, as Birch's continued defense of Think Big was the cause for his demotion from the front bench.[3]
So the first part of the sentence, "Even much of the National Party ... came to perceive that Think Big [was a failure]" seems to be justified. I did however remove the work "subsequently" from that quote. I think the "generational repudiation of Muldoon's entire legacy" is also justifiable; shall I search for sources on that? That leaves "sank New Zealand into huge debt without any significant return", which I agree is more negative than the overall tone of the article and should be made more neutral.-gadfium 00:40, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ His Way: A biography of Robert Muldoon by Barry Gustafson, 2001 edition, pp 287-88
  2. ^ The First 50 Years: A History of the New Zealand National Party, Barry Gustafson, 1986, p 147
  3. ^ His Way, p 421
Notably most of the projects were not paid for by the government at all, and the level of private and public debt which resulted from the projects as a whole was actually very small. The political legacy in NZ is that "think big" is a derogatory term, but that has more to do with politics than economic reality. The article ought to refer to political opposition, and the extent to which the projects were either private or strategic government projects (and therefore justified state expenditure)Royalcourtier (talk) 23:39, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]