Talk:New Zealand general election, 2005

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the New Zealand general election, 2005 article.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

	New Zealand general election, 2005 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 This article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

Previous discussion has been archived: Archive 2005

[edit] Neutrality of Controversies section

I added {{POV-section}} to the Controversies section because it is biased against Labour, not so much in its contents but in its lack of coverage of the alleged improprietries of the other parties. By including only the Labour ones it makes the other parties look clean. I just know that someone will reply, "so add the other cases" but I thought I would add the tag anyway and see what happens. The current content could do with better copyediting and sourcing as well. - Drstuey 13:14, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Key policy platforms section

I'm going to be bold and remove this section completely, I think it is unencyclopedic because:

• It is biased that this section only mentions the two major parties, rather than the others.
• None of the previous general elections pages has a section such as this.
• The section is almost original research.
• It is too arbritary, too long.

The article could do with a section on the key issues of the campaign instead - however this should be sourced from primary sources - if you can find a political analyst that lists what they thought were the key issues of the campaign then that should be included, not this fancruft! - Drstuey 13:34, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I propose boldly restoring this valuable section to remind posterity (in encyclopedic detail) what lay behind the iwi/kiwi election. -- If the mention of only two parties offends, npovise into handling more more parties. -- If articles on previous elections lack such details, include them there. -- "Almost original research" has more value than silence. -- One expects arbitrariness in a collaborative wiki, and length likewise. If length offends, fork. -- The Party documents and opinion polls provide the primary sources -- let's summarise them. Build the Web! -- 60.234.226.62 12:05, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] electorate image mistake

The two articles New Zealand general election, 2005 and New Zealand general election, 2005: in depth results each contain a separate image with a similar name. Both images seem to contain mistakes and one has the wrong party colours. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.173.221.5 (talk) 12:59, 5 December 2006 (UTC).