Talk:Helen Clark

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.
Flag Helen Clark 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.
Top This article has been rated as top-importance on the importance scale.
Assessment comments
Archive
Archives
Archive 1 - Mar 2004 - Feb 2006
Archive 2 - Nov 2005 - May 2006
Archive 3 - May 2006 - Feb 2008


Contents

[edit] Pictures

I don't understand why we are using this awful picture in the infobox. It makes perfect sense to me that we should use the official picture to depict the Prime Minister. What is the motive? —Preceding unsigned comment added by MasterRegal (talk • contribs) 00:54, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

See /archive03#Pic and /archive03#Pictures. See also /archive02#Should the main photo be real or photoshopped?. The official portrait has been repeatedly criticised because it doesn't look very much like her. Most editors so far have much preferred the new picture (User:Avala does not). If you have taken better photos yourself, you are welcome to upload them under a suitable licence.-gadfium 02:48, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
That's all very well, but the photo with shrubbery looks like it was deliberately taken to make the subject look silly, but softening the background would help. The subject of an image should illustrate the theme of the article. This article is not about shrubbery growing out of someone's head. 222.153.65.1 (talk) 21:21, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
The photo is in the public domain. Why don't you crop out the background, and upload your improved version as a new photo? (You'll need to register an account to upload an image).-gadfium 05:49, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Another picture - more feedback wanted

2005

2007

2008

improved 2008
I'm interested in feedback on the above three (now four) pictures which have recently been in the infobox. I think all three pictures should appear somewhere in the article, but which is most appropriate in the infobox? (There are other free pictures at commons:Helen Clark, but none are portraits of suitable quality.)-gadfium 07:57, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, the 2005 is a bit precious, but the 2008 one is just as bad although it's a nice sharp illustration of shrubbery. If I took a photo of something for wikipedia, I would try to get a decent background. If that wasn't possible, but I got a reasonable representation of the subject, I'd deal to the background (not removing it, just making it less obtrusive). That isn't silk pursing a sow's ear, it's doing a proper job of illustrating an article. I think the 2007 image should be in the infobox. 222.153.65.218 (talk) 02:31, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
I've added User:SueBabySue's improved version of the 2008 photo. Thanks Sue.-gadfium 02:13, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Controversy?

I have removed a paragraph from the Controversy section, which includes a bit that says "The police stated they had acted on a threat to the New Zealand public's safety, and on a specific threat to Helen Clark. The police evaluated the threat to Helen Clark's safety as "significant" ".[1] Nowhere does the reference say anything about the police saying they acted on a specific threat to Clark, or that they evaluated such a threat as significant. The whole section I removed seemed totally irrelevant to Clark in the context of controversy. If there was any controversy, it was the way in which the raids were carried out, which she was hardly responsible for. Neither was John Key, and he had been briefed about it. Incidentally Key was specified as an assassination target, according to the affidavit, but Helen Clark was not. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 22:48, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Controversy #2

I have removed another paragraph which inferred that Clark/Labour govt was responsible for a controversial clause in the National Statement on Religious Diversity. The statement was prepared by the Victoria University Religious Studies Programme as part of a national process of public consultation coordinated by the Human Rights Commission. It was endorsed by the National Interfaith Forum in Hamilton, and Clark later presented the statement to the third Asia-Pacific Dialogue on Interfaith Cooperation at Waitangi. Tamaki and his followers objected to the statement that "New Zealand has no official or established religion". Clark didn't author that statement, but delivered it. Our article was indicating the controversy was about the messenger, not the message. Have a look here where it is fairly reported. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 22:37, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Semiprotection

This article gets vandalised at least more than three times a day, and semi-protection could help.. just a though. Metagraph (talk) 04:19, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I suspect the vandalism will become more frequent as the election draws closer. A long-term semi-protection (6 months) may be necessary. Any objections?-gadfium 06:25, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
No objection. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 07:54, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Further reading

Is this useful? It significantly increases the article size, and the majority of readers aren't going to be interested. I think this may come under the policy of WP:DIRECTORY although it doesn't quite fit the examples given there. Wikipedia is not a repository for lists of everything published about a subject, even though the subject itself is clearly notable. I'd appreciate some feedback on this.-gadfium 06:07, 15 April 2008 (UTC) If the list is available somewhere else online, we should link to it rather than duplicating it (quite apart from any copyright issues).-gadfium 06:13, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I think that a lot of it can be culled things like Helen Clark wrote the Foreword for this title and Helen Clark was Minister of Conservation at this time are not either major works (if at all) by Clark or provide further information about her. - SimonLyall (talk) 10:20, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I think its usefulness lies in the fact that it illustrates the various periods of Clark's political career, and some of her interests within the various portfolioes she has held. For example, the forewords in the books published by the Ministry of Culture and Heritage. It also illustrates what her opponents (e.g. F. E. N. Wright) think of her, and also chronicles her place in popular culture (e.g. Bro'Town, and the poem by Das). Simon Lyall is probably right in saying that some of these are not major works, and he is definitely correct that some of the italicised notes may be superfluous. While I take Gadfium's point that not all readers may be interested, I would contend that a list of works such as this has its uses - e.g. as a list that can be printed off and used as a resource (not that all of these works are widely available). An encyclopaedia, to my mind, has to be encyclopaedic, and I think its contents shouldn't be confined to what could be readily found by Google. People need a reason to use Wikipedia, and I think thoroughness is one reason why it is used. I think the truth is somewhere in a middle ground between the three of us :) Boethius65 (talk) 10:55, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I take your point, and perhaps all of this could find a home in a List of works by or about Helen Clark, which we could list in a "See also" section here. But I think most of this list isn't appropriate for a "Further reading" section in this article. That should be for items that go into more detail about Helen Clark than we care to, not for everything she has written a polite foreword in. -- Avenue (talk) 12:12, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Further on Further reading

Avenue - I think that a separate section such as you suggest (with a See also link) is the way forward. I don't have the expertise yet to build such a thing from the ground up - but I'd be happy if you or one of the other folks who've posted in this thread (or anyone else) could set me up with a stub, and I'd then be happy to organise and properly annotate the content within it. Anyone else got any comments? Boethius65 (talk) 14:33, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

On reflection, I think that Gadfium is probably right when he says this material could violate the policy that Wikipedia is not a directory. This means that the list I suggested creating might well be deleted. So if you do try it (which is easy - just click on the red link above, and paste it in), I'd suggest keeping a backup copy on your computer. It might be better to find another home for the material instead - maybe Archiveopedia? -- Avenue (talk) 04:14, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Boethius, did you create this list yourself from multiple sources, or did you copy it from somewhere else (which may not be online)? If you created it, then finding another place on the web such as archivopedia would be great and we can include a link from this article. If you copied it, we can link to the place you took the copy from.-gadfium 04:27, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

The list was created from an amalgam of authoritative sources - both print and online. However, it has now been removed by me. A more appropriate and focused bibliography may be constructed by someone else, in a format which may be deemed more acceptable by the editors. Am I angry? No. I simply think that putting the bibliography on another site and linking to it from here defeats the whole Wikipedia purpose. Why would anyone bother clicking on yet another link when the information could be right there in front of them? I think, though, that in this case there has been a fundamental confusion between what constitutes a directory, and what is meant by being encyclopaedic. An encyclopaedia article should be able to note the resources used in its construction, and to point beyond itself to authoritative works by others in the field (to extend subject coverage). A directory is just a list of resources with no necessarily intrinsic relation to content. I would contend that what I contributed was an example of the former, and what Gadfium and others are arguing I have done is actually the latter. By all means revert the bibliography back if you want to - but I think there's a philosophical issue at stake here :) Boethius65 (talk) 12:43, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Sources actually used to write the article are cited in the references section. While you did some formatting of the article in Feb, I am not aware that you have added content to it apart from this list of sources, so these are not sources that you have used to write the article and the references section is not appropriate.
Many articles also have an external links or similar section containing a small number of links to either readily accessible (online) or detailed material about the subject. In this case, we have a link to the Prime Minister's and Labour Party websites, both of which contain biographies and can be used to check some of the basic facts of the article. This is a poor substitute for inline references but clearly useful. We also have a link to the only published biography of her, which is useful for more detailed fact checking, although it is not online. Should we add more links? Sure, but a small number, and highly focussed. They should be, in your own words, "authoritative works by others in the field". Few if any of the resources you listed can reasonably be described this way.-gadfium 19:41, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

First, I think my response looked and sounded angrier than I intended it to. You have an apology for that. Second, I will revert the bibliography - but it will be probably be chopped by more than 75%. In lieu of the Parliamentary material, the reader will simply be referred to the website(s) where this kind of material can be accessed (e.g. Ministerial websites, etc.). I will make mention of the "Ministry war books" in a note, but will refer to the MCH website for folks who may be interested in following them up. In short, that should then leave little (if any) more than the Wright pamphlets, the book on the fourth Labour Government, and essays contributed by her to academic (as opposed to popular) books, or articles in that kind of book about her. I think I'll leave the childrens' book in too. That will cut out the clutter - and still leave something for folk to chew on :) Boethius65 (talk) 21:03, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I have no problem with content of the trimmed down list. I've changed the indentation style to something that makes more sense to me, but revert if you hate it.-gadfium 21:42, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I like the new formatting... Any hatchets well and truly buried :) Boethius65 (talk) 22:55, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

In Biography, time to add 'Absolute Power: The Helen Clark Years' Ian Wishart (Howling At The Moon Publishing - ISBN 978-0-9582401-3-0) Cyrano68 (talk) 07:18, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Controversies

Is anyone planning on merging the controversies section in with the rest of the article? Definitely drags the article into bias territory. Bactoid (talk) 10:59, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] correct title

PM Helen Clark is the only world leader that is sometiems a Miss and othertimes a MRS. At Sir Edmund Hilary's memorial service in UK she was refeered to as Mrs Helen Calrk and her husband accompanied her. In other stories such as news about USA passport controls she is referred to as Miss Clark. Why is this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thegleaner (talk • contribs) 09:40, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

The correct title is probably Ms. Miss is certainly wrong, as she is married. Mrs is probably not correct either, as she has kept her own name. The article does not use any of these, so if you wish to pursue the matter further, please ask at the Reference Desk.-gadfium 09:49, 3 June 2008 (UTC)