Talk:Helen Clark/archive02

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Controversies

This whole section appears a touch lame. These are not controversies, they are petty criticisms. None of these appear to warrant enough importance to even be included in the profile of a World Leader. Perhaps the whole section should be removed, due to irrelevance. Wallie 17:57, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Well it does seem consistent with other world leaders. See George_W._Bush#Controversies_about_George_W._Bush_2 and Elizabeth_Bowes-Lyon#Criticisms for an example. It is a question though, whether they are warranted, and people should use their judgment. I'm no lover of Helen Clark, but the "paintergate" for example, is pretty minor. On the other hand when your limo driver is charged with dangerous driving for driving your motorcade, that is fairly serious. Ham21 09:33, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I've reached my limit with the criticisms section as well. I think the existence of a criticism section is valid, and each individual criticism is valid, but the section overall is out of proportion to the rest of the article. The section on Achievements is a single paragraph, but almost everyone would agree that her achievements exceed her faults (disagreement with her actual politics aside).
My feeling is that we should either expand the rest of the article significantly (which might also have the benefit of some or all the criticisms being absorbed into the main text), or we should consider splitting the criticisms out into one or more subarticles. See Category:George W. Bush to get an idea of how many criticisms have been split out there.
I would prefer the former course. I think Clark is one of the more significant leaders of New Zealand in recent decades, and the existing article is less than 10,000 characters without categories and interwiki links. It could be three times the length. I suggest adding sections on each of her three terms in office as a start, and folding the criticisms into each section. We'll need a collaborative effort. There's a biography of her: "Helen: Portrait of a Prime Minister" by Brian Edwards ISBN 0908988206, which I'll get from the library today. Interestingly, the article doesn't mention it.
Would it be worth making this article becomes a trial for a New Zealand collaboration of the fortnight or month, starting in February? Feedback welcome.-gadfium 18:54, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I think the reason no one mentions the Edwards bio is that like the terrible Brash biography it's just a hagiography :p 219.89.215.210 09:53, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

It's a useful source of information about her. I'm sure that there will be more biographies of her published over the years, and some may be more critical, but this is the only one available now that I know of.-gadfium 19:04, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Would it not be better making the "controversies" section a sub-page? It seems to take up half the page already - rather out of proportion don't you think? NickNZ 11:40, 19 March 2006 (NZ)

I agree with NickNZ the controversies section is totally out of control with every claim being dragged out and now it overwhelms and ruins and otherwise good article. At the least it should be moved to a subpage where those interested can wade through them at their leisure. Glen Stollery C T 00:42, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
I think the paragraphs about election overspending should be moved to New Zealand general election, 2005. I suggested this before but someone said it was more relevant here because the "Leader's fund" was involved. The paragraphs as they stand have little to do with Clark and much to do with the election. A single sentence should be left in this article referring to the appropriate section in the election article so the overspending criticisms can be found by anyone searching for them.-gadfium 00:43, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
yes, move the election related stuff to the election page, and yes the criticism section is out of control. It gets lots of petty stuff added and deleted, and fails to mention several things for which Clark really is criticised, most particularly innuendo surrounding her marriage and sexuality. It is more like a news article that an encycopedia article. Neil Leslie 09:40, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
Having looked at the wikipedia requirements re subpages, it would appear that to make the "controversies" section a subpage is not permitted. Does anyone have any other ideas about how the "controversies" section could be divided off or otherwise dealt with? NickNZ 15:51, 24 March 2006 (NZ)

Incumbent

Since there is no evidence that Helen Clark will remain leader until 2008, I'm goin to remove that part of the section. She has indicated that she will at some point appoint a successor, and is unlikely to lead the Labour Party through the next election.

Actually, yesterday she said on the radio she was going to lead up to (and possibly beyond) the next election. Onco_p53 21:30, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
I stand corrected. I was under a completely different impression based on things I had heard from within the party (admittedly in the period before the election...) Thank you Mostlyharmless 00:19, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Just because she wants to lead the party to the 2008 election, doesn't mean she will. The party has the say over that, not her (well, she can step down before that, but the party can force her out). --Midnighttonight 04:05, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Recent additions

Added by 203.173.137.168:

, although there is much debate about whether this was through Clark's policies or as a product of the extensive economic and social reforms in New Zealand throughout the 1990s. The theory that she inherited a revitalised and strong economy has gained much momentum due to the fact that long term indicators are starting to show that Clark's policies are pushing the NZ economy into recession.
. Again, these figures are under dispute, and many claim that this was only achieved by moving many unemployed onto other welfare benefits, such as Sickness Benefits

I believe that for the first, if the article is to suggest that "Clark's policies are pushing the NZ economy into recession" and such, more should be added to explain this in detail in stand of just presenting it in that manner. But, more importantly the second addition should definitely have references provided for it, IMO. --Loopy e 01:47, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Excise it. Mostly POV, and unreferenced. The second paragraph is bullshit. Figures given in parliament this week showed exactly the opposite -- something like (paraphrasing) an extra 100,000 jobs being created since 1999 and a fall in the number of people on benefits. (Oops, guess who forgot to sign a half hour or so ago?) Moriori 02:21, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
Some of the material should go into some article, but much is highly POV, some is unreferenced, and some is more relevant to the 2005 election than to the party leader. I've reverted it.-gadfium 02:06, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
Alright, I was considering reverting, but as some of it seemed reasonable I decided to err on the side of caution =). --Loopy e 02:32, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
I believe that you reverting all additions for reasons other than accuracy. Whilst the points above are possibly valid for the quoted text (above), my understanding is that a citation request would have been more appropriate than a straight out revert. Secondly, the "controversies" entry was entirely valid, was specifically about Clark (as it was in reference to a controversy surrounding her personally, as it was regarding the use of the Leader's Fund for personal gain), and contained citations. Please restore. --203.173.137.168 03:01, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
I've mentioned that Clark is the second female PM and the first elected female PM. 01:03, 3 May

2006 (UTC)

I see that someone got rid of it, and rightly so. We do not have Prime Ministerial elections. Clark was voted in as representative of the Mt Albert electorate and became PM per her role as Labor leader. Rense 03:00, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
I know you have but it's later in the article. If a kid is doing homework and wants to find that info quickly, I think it should be at the beginning. 02:59, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Looks like two posts were attempted at the same time, so just to make it clear, Clark is/was NOT elected to the position of PM. Rense 03:04, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Criticisms, or Controversies?

I propose renaming the "Criticisms" section to "Controversies", which is more in line with the content of the section. Any objections? --Nzwiki 00:27, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

As there did not appear to be any objection, I've gone ahead and changed this --Nzwiki 09:11, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

POV section label

I added this label as this section is getting a bit embarassing. Sorry, I know that this sounds like I'm not assuming good faith, but the stuff relating to "Helen Clark's Labour Party" sounds like it comes straight from an ACT party blog. It also ignores the very real possibility that "Helen Clark's Labour Party" may have crooks and fools in it who are not under the direct control of the Leader of Helen Clark's Labour Party. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia article, not a list of reasons to dislike Helen Clark, or a source for anti-Labour propaganda. Sadly, also omitted from this section are some of the things for which Helen Clark actually is criticised -- primarily the innuendo which surrounds her marriage and childlessness (see, for example, [1] and [2] and [3] and [4] -- the last is a Green party blog btw). Neil Leslie 10:24, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I see your point, however these really are valid controversies that have directly affected her as leader of the party. Whilst this section is getting larger as a proportion of the page, surely the answer would be to expand on the rest of the page? I don't see how this section could be labelled POV when there are cites, and all controversies specifically affect her. --Nzwiki 23:23, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I put the POV label on partly because of the tone, for example the use of phrases such as "Helen Clark's Labour Party", "taxpayers (sic) money". This really looks like it is taken from an ACT propaganda sheet. As I mentioned above this is supposed to be an encyclopedia article written from a neutral point of view -- using loaded phrases like these just blows that away. I put the POV label on partly for the content -- the first sentence makes it seem as if Helen Clark is permanently under attack for corruption. Very few opposition parties anywhere fail to criticise the Goverment, so saying that the opposition criticse her is jst saying that they are the opposition. Compare the scale of the attacks on Clark for corruption with those on, say Bernard Tapie or Silvio Berlusconi or even Tessa Jowell's husband. Now suppose you were a wikipedia reader from Italy and you read "Clark has received much criticism for her conduct while in office, with the opposition often accusing her and her party of corrupt practices." You might expect Clark to be prosecuted soon, as both Berlusconi and Tapie were. Somehow I don't think that that is going to happen. The stuff about election funding is certainly important, but is really about the (possible -- it is still under investigation AFAIK) misdeeds of the Labour party president, and mostly should be in the article on the 2005 election. Of course, one can argue that Clark may be accused of things which she did not do, and that these might still be controversial. But this is meant to be an encyclopedia article, not a news article or a propaganda sheet. Cheers Neil Leslie 03:05, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I have reworded the section to try to remove some of the more loaded phrases, and to make clearer where the Labour Party is being attacked, not Clark. I've also added a few more sources. I think it would also be good to cover some controversies over policy issues (e.g. Corngate, the foreshore and seabed row), as it currently focuses completely on matters of style and personal conduct. These are important matters for a Prime Minister, no doubt about that, but I believe this emphasis gives the section a shrill tone that we should avoid if possible. The section also seems to currently rely mainly on attacks from the right, so describing some left-wing criticisms would add balance. -- Avenue 08:55, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
You've done well, but more is still needed to be done to remove the NPOV tag. Also, the achievements section really needs to be expanded. --Midnighttonight 09:01, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Should the main photo be real or photoshopped?

I propose changing the main picture of Helen Clark to one that hasn't been photoshopped. For example, there is a photo here that is still flattering, but is actually real rather than modified. Thoughts? (Note that the intention would not be to negatively impact Helen Clark, who deserves respect being our Prime Minister, it's just that it seems wrong using an obviously modified picture in the main spot) --Nzwiki 00:47, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree. What's the licensing on the photo you linked to? I'd rather have the current photo than none at all.-gadfium 01:23, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

For consistency look at the pictures of other PM's. Shipley, Bolger and Lange look very like official portraits to me. Moore's picture looks like it was scanned in from a newpaper previously used to wrap chips. Palmer's looks like a scan from an authorised portrait. Holyoake's looks like the official protrait, Fraser's is of his statue, Savage's looks like the official portrait, as do those of Massey and Ballance. So the rule seems to be: use the official portrait. Rather than worry about which picture of Clark to use it might be a good idea to look for portraits of Muldoon etc Neil Leslie 07:46, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, good point, I guess. There does seem to be some consistency between world leaders too. I must say that I believe the point is valid, however would probably require a change of policy, rather than just this leader. --Nzwiki 09:08, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I'm still not convinced. Not even George W. Bush's image is so obviously manipulated as this one. Sure, portraits have been used for most other leaders, but there is a difference between a good portrait photo, possibly with minor touchups, and a completely manipulated image. Whilst there has always been an ongoing debate about where the line is between real and created, I really do think that this image has crossed that line, especially for Wikipedia, which is supposed to represent fact, not fiction. --Nzwiki 09:17, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

One option might be explicitly to label the picture as the official portrait.Neil Leslie 09:52, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I've added an earlier photo of her as well. --Midnighttonight 04:02, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
When did the photoshopped portrait come out? If there is an earlier "official" or "semi-official" portrait (posed, not just out of the paper -I see Neil Leslie's point) which wasn't so heavily altered, using that would solve the problem. Armon 12:56, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
I found what I consider to be a pretty much "perfect" option for the protrait -see here: [5]. But it's copyright, so I think we're stuck with the photoshopped one. Armon 00:11, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

POV tag

I've added the POV tag onto the page. Most of the reasons for this are above. Do not remove it, until there is a consensus. Current problems in my eyes:

  • The achievements section is practically non-existent
  • A large number of the controversies are party issues, or to do with other Ministers, rather than Helen Clark
  • The picture (photoshopped or a normal one?)
  • International relations is practically all POV

I'm sure other people will also have problems with this article's POV. I don't want to act unilaterally here in changing things though, as I also have a POV. --Midnighttonight 02:54, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

OK well I've chipped away a bit at the POV in the "achievements" section. I've clarified that stable MMP is a supporter's claim, but I've left in the weasel words "what some people regarded" -I can't think of a better phrase right now because "some people" included both supporters and critics.
Regarding the photo: I think we should use a normal one (not one that makes her look bad -just an unaltered one), the photoshopped version is POV because it's PR "spin".
As for "acting unilaterally", be bold, just set your POV aside and write neutrally. Armon 12:44, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Maybe a photo with another head of government? --Midnighttonight 08:27, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
In the body, sure, but I think we still need a portrait when it's about an individual. Armon 00:07, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

International relations

Hey do think the issue re: the Israelis caught committing passport fraud & the resulting "break" in diplomatic relations should be put in here? Armon 00:05, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

We have paragraphs about the incident at Mossad#Failed operations and Foreign relations of New Zealand. Niether mention Clark as playing a significant role. If she did, then the Foreign relations article should be updated, and a brief mention of the incident added to this article. Alternatively, a new article could be created if someone wants to write at least several paragraphs, and all three articles could include a brief mention of the incident linking to the new article.-gadfium 02:45, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Doonegate reversions

I edited the Doonegate bit in Controversies to improve the writing, remove inaccuracy and POV and add information germane to the incident. User:Armon reverted to a a pretty sloppy version, so I have reverted it back again and invite interested users to check the edit history. I can't believe that Armon insists on saying that it is unclear if Doonegate caused her any lasting political damage, when she has subsequently led her party to win two elections. I am also appalled that we say that Doone and a police officer denied something but my reference to Clark denying something is removed. Beats me too why anyone would remove the name of the driver who the cop wanted to breath test. And as for Clark being a passenger in Doone's car, all I can say is WOW. Moriori 00:32, 9 April 2006 (UTC);

I've no problem with his partner being named and have added that back in. As for "it is unclear if Doonegate caused her any lasting political damage" -this is a summary of the Herald link which presented various takes on the issue. It's a leap of logic to cite the fact her party won elections afterwards as evidence there was no damage -it's just as easily explained as the result of the disarray or incompetence of the opposition and, like anything in politics, it depends on who you ask. As for being in the car, I though this was how she was supposed to have known what had happened -I'll check it out, if I've made a factual error, I apologize. Armon 01:01, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
A Herald column parroting opinions from other news media is not a good source for Wikipedia. To recap, the article said "it is unclear if Doonegate caused her any lasting political damage". Doonegate happened five and a half years ago. Clark has won two elections since then. She is still leader of her party, and is still Prime Minister. Nothing unclear about that. It is patently obvious that five and a half years on, Doonegate is having little effect on Clark. The brouhaha pof the time has not evolved into lasting political damage. That is not a leap of logic. It is fact. When Clark eventually retires, will we say Doonegate caused her to go? Incidentally (1), tks for removing Clark as passenger in the car. Incidentally (2), I am not a labour supporter. Moriori 02:30, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
Given that it was a controversy which tended to split down ideological/party lines, I fail to see how a roundup of various opinions of the incident is a)irrelevant or b)POV. It's reasonable to suggest "Doonegate" plus the other controversies in aggregate led to the knife-edge election result we just had, so no, it's not a "fact" that there's been no "lasting political damage", that's simply your opinion. Armon 05:58, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
(after edit conflict) Let's debate it here rather than re-reverting the article. Here is "Moriori's version" (by which I mean this is the version he most recently edited; not that he wrote every word in it):
In 2000, the then Police Commissioner, Peter Doone, resigned after the Sunday Star-Times alleged he prevented the alcohol breath-testing of his partner Robyn who was driving a car in which he was a passenger. Doone and the officer involved denied this. Clark confirmed details put to her by the newspaper but denied doing so to force Doone's resignation. She was criticized for obfuscating answers she gave about her part in the affair which the media dubbed "Doonegate", [6] but as she has led her party to two subsequent election victories it has apparently not caused her lasting political damage.
and here is Armon's version (same disclaimer)
In 2000, the then Police Commissioner, Peter Doone, resigned after it was alleged in the Sunday Star-Times that he prevented the alcohol breath-testing of of his partner Robyn who was driving the car he and Clark were in. Doone and the officer involved denied this, and Clark was accused of improperly being the source of a false story in order to force Doone's resignation. She was also criticized for the obfuscating answers she gave about her part in releasing information to the media such as, "by definition I cannot leak." [7] This controversy was known as "Doonegate", [8] but it is unclear if it caused her any lasting political damage. [9]
I find Moriori's version much better. I've certainly heard no one allege before that Helen Clark was in the car at the time; I suspect this somehow crept into the paragraph by mistake. It also seems clear to me that while there may have been damage to Clark during the publicity of 2005, that hasn't lasted. Indeed, her role is much more clearly put as "Clark confirmed details put to her by the newspaper" that "Clark was accused of improperly being the source of a false story".-gadfium 01:04, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
(edit conflict) It was election night 1999, she was in Auckland. The incident occured on Dixon Street, Wellington. So, yeah, factual error, but nobody's perfect. I think the current version is much nicer and less POV. Take, for instance "Clark was accused of improperly being the source of a false story in order to force Doone's resignation" - who accused her? Was it improper? According to who? Was the story false? Did it force Doone's resignation?. Compare to "Clark confirmed details put to her by the newspaper but denied doing so to force Doone's resignation". --Midnighttonight 01:08, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm getting accused of "verbosity" by Moriori, and now I should have added more info about who accused her. I think you guys are missing the point a bit. It's the controversy section so ask yourselves, what was the fuss about? It was about accusations "of improperly being the source of a false story in order to force Doone's resignation." That was what it was about. Should I have added that the accusation came from Doone and her political enemies? Maybe I should have, but I felt that was obvious given the links. To present it as Clark simply "confirming details" makes no sense -why would there be a fuss about that? I only edited this section in the first place because it didn't tell you what the brouhaha was about, and the idea was to be succinct, not to unbalance the article with more than a short paragraph about it. Armon 05:58, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
The "confirming details" is significant because she had those details only due to being the PM. The PM gets lots of reports on what's happening, and to release those details selectively to her own advantage would be considered a breach of privilege. She apparently didn't "release" the details, but did say the account put to her by the newspaper was substantially correct. That seems to me to be only a minor breach of privilege, as the newspaper already had the story.-gadfium 06:12, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
Again, depends on who you ask -Rodney Hide, unsurprisingly, considered it a "major". In any case, your preferred version doesnt make any of that clear, so in effect, misrepresents what the fuss was about. I'll try and post a revised version here later tonight. Armon 06:30, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
Okay, my version. Not perfect (I haven't put in the links or anything)
In 2000, the then Police Commissioner, Peter Doone, resigned after the Sunday Star-Times alleged that he had prevented an officer from performing an alcohol blood-test on his partner Robyn the previous year. Both Doone and the officer involved denied this. Doone brought charges for defamation to the Sunday Star-Times, in 2005 they revealed their source to be Clark. Clark confirmed this but denied doing so to force Doone's resignation. Doone withdrew his defamation case against the Sunday Star-Times and threatened to bring a case against Clark, but it has yet to eventuate. Clark has been criticized by political opponents for giving obfuscating answers relating to the incident. It is unclear how the public reacted to this controversy, which has been labelled as "Doonegate".
There are problems, such as "political opponents" --Midnighttonight 07:18, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
Clark did not supply the information. She confirmed that information the Sunday Star-Times already had was correct (or perhaps, she claimed that false information the Sunday Star-Times had was correct). See the Act website, quoted above in both versions of the paragraph. The key passage is this:
On 14 January 2000 reporter Oskar Alley rang Prime Minister Helen Clark seeking confirmation for the claim that the “constable had a sniffer device in his hand as he approached the car to test for alcohol” and that Peter Doone said “that won’t be necessary.”
The Prime Minister confirmed that he was accurate and specifically said, “You’re not wrong”.
Clark had reports from Robinson and the Police Complaints Authority on the matter. I haven't seen those reports, but the ACT website claims they didn't say what Clark confirmed. Somehow, both the Sunday Star-Times and Clark heard the story that Doone had said "That won't be necessary" and that the officer he said it to had a sniffer device in his hand.-gadfium 07:57, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
How about this then (changes to my revision above in bold)
In 2000, the then Police Commissioner, Peter Doone, resigned after the Sunday Star-Times alleged that he had prevented an officer from performing an alcohol blood-test on his partner Robyn the previous year by telling the officer "that won't be necessary". Both Doone and the officer involved denied this had occured. Doone brought charges for defamation to the Sunday Star-Times, in 2005 they revealed that they had fact checked with Clark. Clark confirmed this but denied doing so to force Doone's resignation. Doone withdrew his defamation case against the Sunday Star-Times and threatened to bring a case against Clark, but it has yet to eventuate. Clark has been criticized by political opponents for giving obfuscating answers relating to the incident. It is unclear how the public reacted to this controversy, which has been labelled as "Doonegate".
Slowly getting there? --Midnighttonight 08:07, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
Looks good to me, but I'm not the one with the beef.-gadfium 08:24, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
OK with me. I suggest we just lose the phrase "It is unclear how the public reacted to this controversy" altogether, or change the last sentence to something like, "Opinion on the significance of what was termed "Doonegate" varied among political observers." -linked to the Herald opinion "roundup". Armon 09:34, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
What is it about people needing to add superfluity to Wikipedia. We are supposed to be informative, but concise. Why does someone insist on "performing an alcohol blood-test" instead of "breath testing? Also, if someone wants to write an article called Doonegate then fine, go to it. But this article is headed Helen Clark and is about her. I suggest the following amendment
In 2000, the then Police Commissioner, Peter Doone, resigned after the Sunday Star-Times alleged that he had prevented an officer from breath testing his partner Robyn the previous year. Both Doone and the officer involved denied this, and in 2005 Doone sued the Sunday Star-Times for defamation. They claimed they had checked with Clark who confirmed this, but she denied doing so to force Doone's resignation. Doone withdrew his action against the newspaper and threatened to bring a case against Clark, but it has not eventuated. Clark was also criticized for giving obfuscating answers relating to the incident which was dubbed "Doonegate". Moriori 10:12, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
Nah, now you're moaning about what, 20 words? If you really were worried about "superfluity" in WP, you wouldn't suggest an entire article to cover an issue directly involving her controverial actions which only needs a few extra words for clarity and to properly explain it. Also, if it was just about concision, you wouldn't be attempting to alter the meaning of what's written. For example, you'd remove "but it has not eventuated" (superfluious as the lawsuit was "threatened") instead of editing it such a way as to make Clark's role unclear -what she "confirmed" was the quote attributed to Doone that you removed. Also, lost in both versions is Clark's "I cannot leak" quote which was a key point she was taken to task for -and since no one raised an objection to it, I think it should go back in.
But yes, in any case, "blood-test" should be "breath-test". Armon 11:28, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
I am not talking about 20 words but inference and quality of writing. Also your comment re not suggesting an entire article to cover "her controverial actions which only needs a few extra words for clarity and to properly explain it", let me direct you to Richard Nixon and then Watergate. I don't suggest Doonegate is any more than a tiddler by comparison, but it illustrates my point that Helen Clark article is about Helen Clark, not Doonegate. I can tell you I got very close to blocking for your insulting posting on my talk page, so obviously I need to withdraw from Doonegate and accept that it will remain dumbed down. Moriori 02:42, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
As I'm not an Admin, don't worry yourself about your insulting comments. If you're done the edit war you started, great, us "dummies" can get on with it. Armon 03:08, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

CHILL. Have a cuppa tea? There is no need for either of you to get worked up. Just relax. --Midnighttonight 03:23, 10 April 2006 (UTC) OK here's my version based on what's been discussed here -tried to keep it as concise as possible. It's about the same length as the motorcade paragraph dealing with a more complicated story:

In 2000, the then Police Commissioner, Peter Doone, resigned after the Sunday Star-Times alleged he had prevented the breath testing of his partner Robyn, who was driving the car they were in, by telling the officer "that won't be necessary". Both Doone and the officer involved denied this happened. Doone sued the Sunday Star-Times for defamation but in 2005, the paper revealed they had checked the story with Clark. Clark confirmed this, but denied accusations she had done so to force Doone's resignation. [10] Doone withdrew his defamation case against the paper, and instead threatened to sue Clark. Clark was also attacked by the opposition for giving obfuscating answers relating to the incident such as, "by definition I cannot leak." [11] Opinion on the significance of what was termed "Doonegate" varied. [12]

Armon 15:39, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

I have to say, the "by definition I cannot leak" thing doesn't work in at the moment. Something more along the lines of Doone sued the Sunday Star-Times for defamation but in 2005, the paper revealed they had checked the story with Clark. Clark confirmed this, but denied doing so was improper as "by definition I cannot leak".. Thoughts on that rewrite? --Midnighttonight 02:25, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
The problem I see with that is there are two issues/accusations, a)whether her her confirmation was "improper" and b) whether she did it to make Doone jump. Maybe we should rewrite the "leak" sentense to make it clear it was about whether it was "improper". Armon 03:26, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, that was what I was trying to do and forgot about the Doone jumping point.
Doone sued the Sunday Star-Times for defamation but in 2005, the paper revealed they had checked the story with Clark. Clark confirmed that this was the case. Clark denied that she was trying to get Doone to resign and defended being the source as "by definition I cannot leak".
How's that? Messy still, I know. --Midnighttonight 03:37, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Just a slight rework to make it nicer to read:
Doone sued the Sunday Star-Times for defamation in 2005 but the paper revealed they had checked the story with Clark. She confirmed that this was the case, but denied that she was trying to get Doone to resign and defended being the source as "by definition I cannot leak".
However, that last bit line with the quote is still clunky. Maybe use a bit more of the whole quote ("It is a matter of judgment for the Prime Minister how I use information from official reports. By definition, I cannot leak.") or at least refer to her seeing it as a matter of her judgment which seems more relevant. And I rather think this Herald article - [13] would be better as a source for the quote than a brief mention of it in the middle of an opposition press release. --Loopy e 04:49, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

The changes have been made, it works, it sounds nice. Does anyone still think that the Doonegate section is POV? Otherwise, I think we should leave it alone and focus on other sections that are POV/not upto scratch. --Midnighttonight 09:37, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Works for me -I just wanted it to say what the fuss was about -it does that now. Reading over this page, there's been some concern the "controversies" section is too long -I disagree, I think the rest is too short. See below... Armon 23:15, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

The summary for the Doonegate incident is a complete joke and reads like it was written by one of Clark's PR people - all blanded out and missing the most important point. Clark confirmed via phone to the SST reporter and Editor multiple times that two confidential Police reports she held in her hands stated Police Commissioner Doone had interfered in a rookie Police Constables attempts to breath-test Doone's partner, when in fact the reports said no such thing and she was uttering lies (presumedly to ruin his public credibility, thus forcing him to resign). Even worse, her confirmation of these allegations followed various anonymous communcations which first brought the allegations to the SST's attention, which suggests there was in fact a conspiracy to spread these lies about Doone (this information was revealed in SST reporter Oskar Alley's brief of evidence, easily available on the Internet). Her Ministers also spread rumours Doone was drunk when stopped by the constable, when in fact the PCA Report said, based on expert advice, that neither Doone nor his partner would have been anywhere near the blood alcohol limit given the few little plastic cups of wine they'd had to drink over many hours (followed by dancing, a proper meal and non-alcoholic drinks). Doone's partner was a PR lady for a Drink Safety campaign, so she'd kind of know that sort of thing, and she was the nominated driver for that evening anyway. In 2005 after Doone sued the Sunday Star-Times for publishing the initial false stories, the Police constable admitted in a legal brief that he never set out to breath-test Doone's partner. This was corroborated by several eye witnesses in the first Police report (the Robinson Report), who said the constable made no attempt to perform a breath-test and that he turned away from Doone voluntarily rather than being ordered to go away. The evidence of these eye witnesses was never mentioned in the New Zealand media, presumedly because it was buried within a sub-page of the Robinson Report (lazy reporters, eh). There is also a Cabinet paper proving the timeline (of Clark having the reports before she lied to the SST people), and which contains advice from the Attorney General for other Ministers to consider the Police Complaints Authority report as the best summary of the Doonegate incident, rather than the Robinson Report which was 50% facts (witness statements etc) and 50% the rather negative and odd personal opinion of Rob Robinson, the man eventually appointed to replace Doone. The conclusion of the PCA Report was that Doone's faults were (1) getting out of his car in the first place (when it was stopped by the rookie constable), but it acknowldged this was his normal behaviour as Police Commissioner greeting the troops, and (2) not forcing the cop to follow proper procedure, which in most similar cases back then was to take a breath test. But after Clark spread lies to the SST, the story published in the media was that Doone intentionally interfered with a Police Officer trying to breath-test his drunker partner. Doone's public credibility was destroyed and he resigned only a couple of weeks later.

Excuse the long paragraph.

Here's the Wikipedia version of those events: 'the paper revealed they had checked the story with Clark. She confirmed that this was the case, but denied that she was trying to get Doone to resign and defended being the source as "by definition I cannot leak" '

Er...

Don't readers of Wikipedia deserve better?

-AL

Perhaps the problem here is that this is a very small incident in Helen Clark's life. While there has been debate on how much damage it may have caused her, it clearly hasn't been more than one of many incidents in her career. For Peter Doone, it was much more important. The appropriate action is for you to create an article on Peter Doone, where you can go into much greater detail. This incident should still only comprise a minority of that article, however.-gadfium 22:57, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
I agree, make an article on Peter Doone, however remember to keep it NPOV
I also agree. That would be in keeping with the discussion (below) about how to deal with the controversies section in general. If the controversy is included on the Clark page, then the focus has to be on Clark in my opinion - ie. detailed elaboration of the controversy belongs on a different page (eg. Doone, NZ Election, Labour Party, etc.). Nicknz 23:26, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Article Cleanup and removal of POV tag

Midnighttonight raised a good point about the rest of the article -if the GW Bush article can exist without a POV tag on it(OK it's protected from anons), we should be able to clean up this article for our PM. For example, the "achievements" section. I added in the Forbes top 100 thing a while back, and yesterday added that labour raised the minimum wage -but here's a problem- you could argue the min wage is a Labour policy, not her achievement. Here's where reading the Edwards book may be useful I guess. Armon 23:18, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Maybe we should merge the "PM" section into "Achievements" and expand it? Armon 00:20, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, they could work together quite easily. that way we could add in the major administration achievements (i.e. lets not write about how Kelburn Playcentre needed dosh to remove asbestos and the government gave it to them). --Midnighttonight 09:20, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Agree. -Are there any other views on this suggestion? Armon 00:12, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

It should be written in, that her Government has had quite a few prima facie cases of wrongdoing now. Brian | (Talk) 08:56, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Isn't that adequately covered in the "Controversies" section? Armon 02:27, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Absolutely. A few people have spent time trying to make the controversies section more in proportion with the page as a whole. I can't see how it will help to repeat information already covered. Nicknz 05:41, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
It is not the content of the controversies section that I am worried about. I am pointing out a fact, Her Government has had (is it 10?) prima facie cases since it was elected to power in 1999. IMO this is a important fact. Brian | (Talk) 06:13, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
I think that Armon is suggesting that there is no need to do that given that these incidents have already been outlined (?). Nicknz 06:19, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I am. I don't know what 10 cases Brian is specifically referring to, but if it's a case like Benson-Pope, I don't see how that's relevant to Helen Clark's article. Perhaps that should go into the New Zealand Labour Party article. Armon 11:46, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
When I think about it, your right, the Labour party article will be the better place. Brian | (Talk) 22:36, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
I attempted to do that with the material relating to the 2005 general election. I am concerned, as you are Armon, to make sure that any criticisms/controversies that appear on the Helen Clark page are actually about Helen Clark and not better suited to alternative pages. I note that the New Zealand Labour Party page seems to run dry after the entry about the Fourth Labour Government. Perhaps there is scope to expand that page to discuss the current government? Then issues to do with specific ministers (who are not Clark) can be located there and elaborated upon more appropriately. Nicknz 22:44, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
I agree, the only Controversies that should be on the article IMO, are Controversies that she has done/been behind/part of (eg the painting, the speeding motorcade etc) Brian | (Talk) 23:03, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
I agree as well.-gadfium 23:57, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

OK so everyone agrees that Clark-only controversies on the Clark page -so how about the suggestion to merge the "PM" section into "Achievements" as per Midnighttonight and my suggestion? Armon 04:38, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Changes to achievements section

Among my edits to this section is the correction of the statement "Currently she is by far New Zealand's most preferred Prime Minister." She is the person most preferred to be current PM but that's not what the statement said. It could have been interpreted as (1) she is preferred over the other current PMs (who obviously don't exist, or (2) she is more preferred than all previous PMs. Hence the rewrite.Moriori 05:55, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Why we need to get this article to be better

Cause it's being cited. Read it!!! (I removed the extract as that would breach copyright --Midnighttonight 04:50, 26 April 2006 (UTC))

We need to get this up to scratch. --Midnighttonight 04:48, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I totally agree with you on this and it is a pity that this article had suffered various idiotic acts of vandalism. --Siva1979Talk to me 04:50, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Like about 2 mins ago, an anon removed all her achicements. Yes we need to get this article good, there should not be a NPOV tag in it, Does Bushes, or Blairs article have a tag.
(I'll try and keep out of editing, as I am not her biggest fan :) Brian | (Talk) 05:27, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Brian, you know better than that. Keep editing here, your point of view is valuable.-gadfium 06:14, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

NPOV Tag

What needs to be done, for the tag to be removed? Other Heads of Governments are not tagged, so I suggest we try and get this sorted :) Brian | (Talk) 00:47, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps the Listener will tell us! );- Moriori 00:53, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
The Listener article is now out (but not yet online), and doesn't deal with this article at all. (I have no idea what the emoticon above means).-gadfium 01:38, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
I expected Russell Brown to have a shot at our Helen Clark article, as he did in the blog. Moriori 01:48, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
It seems that he is willing to criticise it, but not offer any alternatives or solutions. He might have been just trying to get more people to read his blog and column, hehe. --Midnighttonight 02:09, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Section by section review (from my perspective)
  • Lead - NPOV
  • Early life - NPOV although needs references
  • Labour party involvement - NPOV
  • Member of Parliament - NPOV but need a clean up. Also ends in 1993 and the next section starts in 1999. No mention of her time as Leader of the Opposition
  • Prime Minister - POV exists in this section - for instance the coalition with the Alliance didn't collapse, the Alliance split itself up. Doesn't go into much detail on coalitions, and misses out quite a bit.
  • Achievements - POV due to weight. Needs to be expanded. Should merge with Prime Minister, in the first place, then include the administrations achievements alongside person
  • International relations - Needs expansion. IR has been a big focus of Helen Clark's, so having very little there is, kinda, POVish.
  • Controversies - reasonable good. Where did the 172km/h figure come from though?
Summary from me - It is pretty much getting there, with a few bits and bobs to sort through. One thing it needs is more references throughout. I think once we've felt its NPOV, we get a peer review of the article. --Midnighttonight 01:23, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
The achievements section looks like it was written by a Labour Party hack. Is it necessary? I note there is no section about Robert Muldoon's achivements in the article about him. Political bias? I propose that this section goes. Maybe some of the contents can go elsewhere in the article (doubtful). As it stands, it appears as though Clark has been responsible for the achievements referred to and not anybody else in the country. 01:15, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
That would mean there would be absolutely nothing positive about Clark in the article, which would clearly be POV. --Midnighttonight 01:57, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
I thought the article was supposed to be informative, not necessarily positive or negative. Besides, I think some of the "positive" info could be put elsewhere in the article (if re-written).

Suggestions for Additions/Restructuring

In line with what Midnighttonight has proposed above about improving the article, I suggest some thought is given to whether some additions could be made to the page, and how the page might be better structured. Below is a (slightly edited) breakdown of what appears on the George W Bush, Tony Blair, and John Howard pages for comparison. I'm not suggesting we write on any of these other topics in particular, but I thought I'd put the idea out there. Nicknz 04:40, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

George W Bush Tony Blair John Howard
  • Life before presidency
  • Religious beliefs and practices
  • Presidential campaigns
  • First term
  • Second term
  • Political ideology
  • Administration
  • Foreign policy
  • Domestic policy
  • Public perception and assessments
  • Major legislation signed
  • Family background
  • Early political career
  • In oppsotion
  • First term
  • Second term
  • Third term
  • Common criticisms of Blair
  • Trivia
  • Early Life
  • The Rising Politician
  • Success, failure, success
  • Howard as Prime Minister
  • The 1996 election campaign
  • First term: 1996–1998
  • The 1998 election campaign
  • Second term: 1998–2001
  • The 2001 election campaign
  • Third term: 2001–2004
  • The 2004 election campaign
  • Fourth term: 2004–present
  • Unfinished business
  • For as long as the party wants me

Cheers Nick. From that, I would say our structure should be on the lines of:

  • Early Life
  • Ideology
  • Early Political Career
  • Leader of the Opposition
  • First term
  • Second term
  • Third term
  • Criticisms of Helen Clark

To me, that would allow for everything that needs to be covered. International relations could be either incorporated into each term or given another section altogther (although that would mean one area of policy is seperated out while others are not). --Midnighttonight 04:49, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good to me, except that I would prefer that the criticisms section gets split up into the various other sections. The Peter Yelich and Peter Doone paragraphs would go under First term, and the motorcade under the second term. I can't remember in which year the painting signature fell. This does have the drawback that when a controversy applies to something which actually occured in one year, but only came to public attention much later, it isn't clear where to put it. I'm suggesting it go according to the earlier date.
I would support International relations being incorporated into each term as well.
I'm surprised to see no mention of the GM corn issue, which I think used to be in this article. We have an article about it: corngate, so all this article needs is a sentence or two with a link there. We're agreed that many criticisms can best be dealt with in other articles, but they still need to be briefly mentioned here when Clark played a major role.-gadfium 05:12, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
"Paintergate" was at the same time roughly as "Corngate", both in the lead up to the 2002 election. You make a fair point about the criticisms. Although would there be a need for general criticisms and praises? For instance, the Helengrad criticism doesn't go with a specific term, neither does the percieved inconsistency with the handling of troublesome Ministers (and there are of course praises which go between terms). --Midnighttonight 05:16, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Helengrad is also not mentioned in the article at all at present. It may be worth having a final section on "management style" or similar, which would include the handling of troubled Ministers, and possibly also Helengrad, although a case could be made for putting that into the "Ideology" section. The management style section might not initially contain much, but I imagine someone could write a book about it.-gadfium 05:27, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Rather than management style, I think there needs to be a more general title, as not all of the universal (time, not people) criticism is to do with Management style. Furthermore, a section also dealing with universal (as above) praise would be a balance. Personally, if Helengrad came up for deletion again, I would vote to delete it (indeed, it's last AfD result was merge, and this would be the article to merge it into). --Midnighttonight 05:37, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
I feel that the Helengrad article should be keeped serprate, btw the result was keep, and maybe merge in the last AfD. Brian | (Talk) 05:04, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Photo

I have removed the photo of Helen as a child, as it is plain stupid. Have a look at the article of Bill Clinton. He is a politican of similar standing. There are lots of photos, but not one like this. Wallie 22:22, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Image:Helenclark2.jpg
Helen Clark at the University of Auckland
I disagree. We have only two other photos of Clark in the article, and this one shows her at a period in her life before she was well known. (I assume that we're talking about the same photo here, showing her at University. I wouldn't describe someone of that age as a child. I've put it here so people can view it while we discuss the matter.) One criticism I do have of this photo is that there is no date that it was taken. She would have been at the University of Auckland both as a student in the late 1960s, and as a lecturer from 1973-1981.
The Clinton article has many photos (perhaps due to the lack of copyright on US Government publications), but nothing of Clinton prior to his becoming President. I think that's a shame.
The Clark article is long enough to justify not only this photo, but at least a couple more if we could only get decent quality pictures. Ideally, I'd like to see a current high-quality photo of her, non-airbrushed, and maybe one of her when she was first elected as an MP.
If anyone else agrees that this photo is worth having in the article, I suggest they restore it.-gadfium 23:27, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
I agree completely. I've restored the photo to the article. -- Avenue 00:28, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Me too. From the looks of the car in the background, the photo was taken at 3.37 pm on June 31 1969 ):- Moriori 00:34, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
No other world leader has this sort of photo associated with them. I think that the true reason it is in, is to minimize Helen's credibility. It the fact that she is a woman mean that she has to be subjected to this sort of stuff too? Wallie 04:55, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

How does the photo minimise her credibility? I just showed the photo in the article to my partner and she immediately said "How gorgeous", meaning that we had such a photo and not necessarily commenting on Clark's appearance.-gadfium 06:27, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Because of Helen Clark's position. This is an encyclopedia after all. I sometimes wonder, though. Some of the articles, especially on women, are very strange. You must agree that the whole article is very POV. Aren't you New Zealanders proud of her? You should be.Wallie 18:18, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps there is a cultural difference here. New Zealand is a fairly small country, and I think Kiwis still like their leaders to be accessible and not overly formal. I personally approve of Helen Clark as PM and (as far as I can tell) as a person, and I don't see why the photo would detract from her credibility (which doesn't really stem from how she looks). I find the photo charming and perfectly appropriate, being placed in the section on her early life. Maybe it comes across differently to other audiences. -- Avenue 00:05, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
Yes, the article has major problems with POV, and in my opinion is biased against Clark rather than for her. However, the points raised in the controversies section are all valid (even if I quibble over the wording of some of them), and there is a great deal more to say, both positive and negative, about her.
I find the suggestion that we should be proud of her bizarre. As Avenue says, it's probably a cultural difference. Some kiwi Wikipedians like her politics and personality; some think she's too radical, others that she's too conservative. Most have views of her more complex than this. I'm proud of my country although I don't consider myself particularly patriotic. If I was Clark's father I'd feel proud of her. As it is, she's my Prime Minister, and if I bump in to her on the street I'll probably ignore her, or maybe ask if I can take a photo for Wikipedia.-gadfium 04:19, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Marriage

That Clark was reluctant to get married is covered in some detail in the Edwards biography. I'll have to get it out of the library again and cite the appropriate page numbers. While I have it, I thought it might be worth addressing the persistent smear campaign about her sexuality, which is also covered by the biography.-gadfium 06:45, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

You call it a smear campaign, and then are trying to prove it right. Why mention it at all? By the way, this whole article looks very unstructured, especially for a world leader. You could get some ideas from this one: Hillary Clinton. This is the way a Wikipedia article about a prominent person should be presented, with professional photos!!! Remember that Helen Clark is rated as a more powerful person than Hillary Clinton in Forbes Magazine, which I believe is the the most widely quoted. Wallie 21:39, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
(Apologies for crossposting.) I see the coverage of controversy over her marriage as useful background on the compromises she may have made to become a politician, and on how conservative the NZ public was in those days. -- Avenue 00:55, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
You call her world famous. Well, she might be world famous in Wellington but elsewhere is another story. I don't think the photos are the issue. The amount of information seems to be slight compared with other leaders. But maybe that is not a bad thing. 00:54, 10 May 2006 (UTC) NZ Researcher

I thought the smear campaign might be worth mentioning, not because there's any truth to it, but it shows the sort of mud-slinging a woman in politics has to face. This article gets vandalised regularly with similar accusations. Any paragraph I write will make very clear that there is no basis for the accusations.-gadfium 04:09, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Pic of Prebble

The picture of Richard Prebble does not belong on the page. While he may be a critic, it doesn't deserve an image inclusion, furthermore, he has left Parliament. He left most of the scandal hunting to Rodney Hide. And are we to include pics of all Clark's critics? If not, why just Prebble? Why not Brash (as leader of the opposition)? --Midnighttonight 21:36, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I was about to say "are we to include pics of all Clark's critics" That would be most of the national party, Half (give or take) of NZ. So I don't think we should include them. However if they have a article we could put a part in "Joe Boggs is a critic of Helen Clark, Current PM" Brian | (Talk) 21:44, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, it is more appropiate on the Richard Prebble page than the Helen Clark page.--Midnighttonight 21:46, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
You clearly did not read the article on Helen Clark fully. In the controversies section, Mr. Prebble is mentioned. The other people who you mentioned are not. You cannot have lengthy criticism of people and not have their critics held to account too. The photo goes, but the slur remains. Nice! It is very clear that most contributors, and therefore the whole article, are very biassed. Wallie 21:52, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
On that basis the following should have pics on this page: Peter Davis, David Lange, Geoffrey Palmer, Mike Moore, Jim Bolger, Jenny Shipley, Jim Anderton, Jiang Zemin , Chris Carter, Dover Samuels, Peter Doone, Jim Sutton, David Benson-Pope, Lianne Dalziel, Taito Phillip Field. --Midnighttonight 22:14, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
Why? Are they all in the Controversies section? No, they are not. Prebble is though. Wallie 22:22, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
Carter, Samuels, Doone, Sutton, Benson-Pope, Dalziel, Field are all in the Controversies section. --Midnighttonight 22:24, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
So what? Prebble is making the accusations. Most of the others are not. Obviously you are a fan of Mr. Prebble. I doubt you would like to see his article with the heavy POV of this one. Wallie 22:29, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
I am not a fan of Prebble. I was a fan of Clark, but am not for a variety of reasons. Furthermore, I recognise that NPOV is of utmost importance. Sure Prebble made some allegations, but the National party would contend that they made most of those (and I'm sure Rodney Hide would too). Just having a pic of Prebble would lead to people assuming that he made all the allegations as it was solely his pic in that section. That would be POV. --Midnighttonight 23:10, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
Not really. You can have a single photo there, as a sample, just to show people what one of her critics looks like. No one would assume that he is the only one. As you mentioned, the so called Controversies section is probably politically motivated, ie, written by party opposition hacks. It is all too easy to put in a Controversies section, and then trawl all the tabloids etc for negative articles. Wallie 23:31, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I know. What we need to do is get the section on achievements to be up-to-scratch. I'm still worried about the pic. Prehaps we leave it for a while and see what other people think cause obviously we're not going to come to an agreement. I'll leave a note at the NZ Wikipedians notice board. Cool? --Midnighttonight 23:46, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
While it would be nice to have an illustration in the Controversies section (an image of the charity paÖinting would be good...) it seems very unusual and potentially misleading to include a photo of just one critic of Clark. The implication of such a photo would indeed be that the most important or most significant criticisms have come from only that individual. If there was a subsection that dealt with criticisms just from Prebble, an image may be appropriate, but in a general description? Precedent may be a good way to settle this: are there any other Wikipedia articles that illustrate one critic of many in such a section? I did a quick search and could find none. Ziggurat 23:58, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
I can't see any real justification for having an image of Prebble there. In the grand scheme of things this seems a relatively old allegation as well. And I agree that it would make more sense to have a picture relating to one of the controversies than a picture of a critic.--Limegreen 00:07, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
I had a look at the article on Richard Prebble. It has a nice photo, details his career, and does not have any Controversies section. Why can't Helen Clark's article be written similarly? I understand both politicians are similar, as leaders, even though they have slightly differing viewpoints. Wallie 23:24, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
That's more of a reason to expand the Prebble article by adding a controversy section. --Midnighttonight 22:30, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
I suggest merging the Controversies section into the rest of the article in a post near the top of this talk page on 24 January 2006 (see three paras down in the top section of this page). I made the suggestion again at "Suggestions for Additions/Restructuring" on 29 April. The article needs to be restructured and expanded before this is practical.-gadfium 02:19, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Please. Not another Controversies section. I hate these huge lists of negative points for anyone, Prebble, Clark. Can we not say some nice things about people. After all, life is meant to be a celebration. By the way, I am quite happy if Mr. Prebble's photo stays away from the article. Thanks. Wallie 05:30, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
The painting would be a nice idea. I have a pic of it, unfortunately it is on the cover of a book and wraps around the side, so it wouldn't scan well. (Indeed, it appears that there is an article Paintergate.) --Midnighttonight 00:31, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Love it

  • I like (in fact love) your new photo, Peta Holmes. Helen looks very nice indeed, and the red background is GREAT! If she wasn't married well.......
  • Also the idea of removing the POV tag is OK, but it will have to be put back if things don't improve "sofort".
  • Thanks for the tag to expand the Achievements section, Midnighttonight.

Wallie 12:24, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Wallie - "I like (in fact love) your new photo, Peta Holmes. Helen looks very nice indeed, and the red background is GREAT! If she wasn't married well......."

- You will find that Helen doesn't actually look like that. Such are the benefits of Photoshop. 203.184.53.222 23:20, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Personal Attack

Gadfium has attacked me directly on my user page, calling me a "troll". This is horrible and nasty attempt at character assassinaton. Instead of talking to me nicely, as I would to him, he waited, and then pounced with a whole series of half-truths or worse. I realise that I have made quite a few edits recently on this page, mainly as I thought the article is very biased against Helen. I have also had some disagreements over pictures with various contributors, as you know, which I did not pursue. Naturally I will not reply to Gadfium's attacks in kind out of respect for Wikipedia. Wallie 22:31, 13 May 2006 (UTC)