Talk:Don Brash

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
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.
Photo request It is requested that a picture or pictures of this person be included in this article to improve its quality.

Note: Wikipedia's non-free content use policy almost never permits the use of non-free images (such as promotional photos, press photos, screenshots, book covers and similar) to merely show what a living person looks like. Efforts should be made to take a free licensed photo during a public appearance, or obtaining a free content release of an existing photo instead.
Flag Don Brash is part of WikiProject New Zealand, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of New Zealand and New Zealand-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.
Mid This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale.
Assessment comments
It is requested that a photograph or photographs be included in this article to improve its quality, if possible.
Wikipedians in New Zealand may be able to help!

who thinks don brash is out of touch with New Zealanders?

The purpose of talk pages is to discuss what can be done to improve the entry, not as a general sounding board for opinions on it. 15:38, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] POV rewrite for second to last paragraph (July 24, 2005)

I had read the speech mentioned in the paragraph and even heard some of the response to it on TV and radio. Frankly, the adoption portion was mentioned only once and then to acknowledge adoption as an acceptable option for teenage girls. The second to last paragraph was a bit too POV without any Opposing POV to balance. Till that can be done, I have rewitten this very small section to show what was said in the speech and how it compared in proportion to the rest of the speech. I edited out the word "targeted," in reference to solo-mothers for obvious reasons. The paragraph still makes no mention of DB's support for DPB as a means to give aid and shelter for women subjected to domestic violence.

Thom Simmons, Kapiti Coast, New Zealand

[edit] Tax cuts funded through borrowing?

An anonymous user has been adding "to be funded through borrowing" to the section about the tax cuts. According to the National Party tax cuts website[1]:

How will National's tax package be paid for?
We will cancel Labour's Kiwisaver programme, we will drop Labour's indexation of tax thresholds (no longer needed), we will make savings from Labour's waste and low quality spending, and we will increase the size of government spending at a lower rate than Labour.
Will you be borrowing to pay for tax cuts?
We will do some borrowing for capital expenditure, and that is completely normal practice. Tax cuts will not be funded by borrowing money. This is another of Labour's scare tactics.

So a statement to the contrary must be substantiated by evidence.

Ben Arnold 04:34, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Political poll results

A couple of times people have tried to add political poll results to this page. Are they appropriate here? Please debate this at Talk:New_Zealand_general_election,_2005#Polls.-gadfium 23:39, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV tagging

I've tagged this article with an NPOV warning. The early sections of this are really quite biased - it doesn't mention any of the controversy surrounding his term as Reserve Bank Governor, instead repeatedly praising him. The section surrounding his election and accession to the leadership are full of praise for him and scorn for his opponents. While it improves towards the end, it's still pretty bad - particularly considering that the election is tomorrow. Ambi 01:50, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree. A few sentences are troubling. In particular: "The consensus opinion is that Brash was an excellent Governor". Who's opinion? A source, perhaps?--Cyberjunkie | Talk 04:38, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
I've just attempted to re-word it to appear more npov. Is it looking any better? Izogi 07:37, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
Indeed, it is better than it was. However, it still isn't entirely NPOV. There are many instances of weasel terms that compromise any claim of NPOV. Some sections remain a little partisan.--Cyberjunkie | Talk 08:09, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Biography and NPOV

I've added Paul Goldsmith's biography of Brash to the bottom, with the proviso that there are no balancing critical biographies of the subject of that work currently in print. Note that this is not always the case*, however, when dealing with contentious political figures. Should one therefore post a caveat remark when editing such articles if one has come across an either friendly or unfriendly biographical account of its subject? It occurs to me that this would meet NPOV requirements. What do others think?

  • See, for example, my comments about the rival biographies on John Banks.

User: Calibanu 14:54, 09 April 2006

[edit] Relationships and "adultery"

I'm no Don Brash fan but its a bit harsh to label his relationship "adultery" when there is a better, neutral way of expressing it. Also the Helen Clark comparison is gratuitous. I have decided to be brave and amend and delete, but what do others think? Kiwimw 19:43, 23 June 2006 (UTC) well Gadfium answered by editing just as I was writing the above!Kiwimw 19:45, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Don Brash on leave

The story as you've given it seems to me to be far too trivial to add to an encyclopedia article. There may be some much more major story hidden beneath, but that story is primarily about the infighting in Parliament which looks to be getting out of control. The 2005 New Zealand election funding controversy is the underlying cause of that infighting, and probably needs a paragraph about the threats to play dirty which have been made in the last month or so.-gadfium 02:30, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. Although I only think it should take up a line or so, it is quite relevant to Don Brash the man (as opposed to Don Brash the politician). Given that there isn't a section dedicated to his personal life, the 2006 and beyond section seems like the best place for it to be at the moment. Tell me to get back to work! 04:09, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
This is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper. If his marital difficulties result in divorce, then we'll include that in the article. That he takes a few days off to sort out some personal problems is trivial. Think of this from a long term perspective. In a year's time (or ten), will anyone remember this, or care, assuming he goes back to work on Monday and nothing further comes of it? If something further does come of it, then we add it to the article. As I said above (although it was intended for a user talk page, not an article talk page), there's something major bubbling underneath the surface here, and I'm not privy to the details. Let's wait for those details to emerge.-gadfium 04:44, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Fair call. I'm generally for keeping personal lives of politicians off an article unless noteworthy, and this probably falls outside that category at the moment. Tell me to get back to work! 05:19, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
I now know a lot more details, and it is a big deal, but it's still speculation. TV3 News covered it in detail, but TVNZ, the Herald, and Radio NZ have chosen not to cover it. I've put a comment into the article asking people not to add it at this point. I have to admit I'm perversely rather pleased that so many people are thinking of updating Wikipedia when such a major story breaks, but I still think it's premature. Perhaps we should add a brief mention with a link to the National Party press release [2] (as User:Midnighttonight did in the first place) to prevent others from adding the story.-gadfium 06:32, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
While I'm not going to re-add I personally don't agree with your view. IMHO, while wikipedia is not a news service, there is nothing wrong with adding brief mention of highly notable events about a subject even if these events could easily be no longer notable in 2-5 years. Obviously the mention should only be brief, we should not speculate and we should remeve this mention when it no longer merits inclusion in the article, but IMHO anyway we don't have to consider whether the issue will merit inclusion in a biography or 'normal' encyclopedia, simply whether it merits inclusion in wikipedia which isn't quite the same thing as a normal encyclopedia... Nil Einne 06:45, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
There have now been three logged in editors, plus three anons, who have added these details or suggested that it is appropriate to do so. There has also been a fourth anon who added information to another article. Consensus is clearly against me, so I've added a minimal mention with a link to the National Party press release. I think this is a good compromise.-gadfium 08:19, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
I've removed my comment asking people not to add details. The issue is now widely publicised, and Wikipedia is no longer in danger of leading the news.-gadfium 01:45, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comments on race relations

One of the things Don Brash is most widely reported on is his various comments on race relations, beginning in the Orewa speech and continuing to his recent comments on Justice Baragwanath's indigenous law paper (which a recent contribitor had a very POV attempt at mentioning). Surely there's some room in this article for some NPOV discussion of Mr Brash's various statements on race relations. A brief mention in the section on Orewa and a link to the article on racial separatism (which is the phrase he uses, but it's well and truly debatable whether NZ race relations is comparable to the examples in the linked article) don't do the issue justice. --Tirana 23:18, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, I've had a stab at including some quotes and references. Now I'm thinking the structure's kind of ugly - the chronological approach (National Party Leader, Orewa Speech, 2005 election, 2006 and beyond) doesn't give much scope to pick out overarching issues like race relations, economic policy, leadership style, popularity and so on. There must be some political leader template we can draw upon. --Tirana 00:12, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nicky Hager

I don't want to let the NH bit get out of control but I feel it does need to be covered in some detail. Although Brash denies this issue had anything to do with his resignation, obviously not everyone is going to agree. Coming just before his resignation, it's likely to be perceived as the straw that broke the camel's back so to speak. Also, I think the section needs to mention the injunction because it was IMHO quite a significant part of the whole controversy. Whatever you believe and whatever Brash intended, it was potrayed by various parties as if Brash was trying to cover things up. IMHO this was perceived as quite damaging to Brash. It's not just the book either since the media are going to be actively fighting the injuctions. I'm not going to actively fight removal of what I added if anyone disagrees but I do think we need to go into a resonable amount of detail even if it is repetition. I'm trying to debate any of this be added, just trying to explain why I think the NH bit is important in the article Nil Einne 12:24, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

As I purchased a copy of Hager's book last week, I think I might devise an entry based on the Hollow Men myself. Incidentally, one point. As Brash is no longer even a New Zealand Member of Parliament as from last Thursday, can we therefore indicate this on his political ratings sidebar, somehow? It might be confusing to others who aren't familiar with contemporary New Zealand politics.

User: Calibanu 11.44, 02 December 2006

[edit] Advertising Strategy - winning the centre?

I'm not sure how much evidence there is that winning the centre formed the main thrust of Brash/National's advertising campaign, either in intention or effect. The billboards were the most notable feature, and they didn't say a thing about washing his own smalls or being a conscientious objector. If anything, the advertising strategy exaggerated relatively small policy differences between the two parties and ate into the territory previously occupied by Act. I'm sure Hager's not the only commentator on this issue, so there's a good chance the subject can be described in a balanced way. As it stands (without citations) it bears little resemblance to reality. --Tirana 04:14, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Respectfully, I disagree, even though I am no National Party supporter. The television ads which were aired on all television channels, introducing Brash (and surely, one can agree that such a first wave of ads is quite important in any election campaign, particularly one that hinges on winning the same constituency as the governing party, like Labour) emphasised these aspects of his life. After Bill English's term, many voters had the image of a hapless and hopelessly conservative party. The ad series' aim was to present a "softer" image and win enough centre-ground voters in the urban areas to overtake Labour and form a coalition with ACT and/or United Future. Prqc 18:16, 24 December 2006 (UTC)