# Talk:John Key

on the john key page it mentions that he is the "third premier of New Zealand with Jewish ancestry" i think i'm right in saying that its supposed to be third prime minister of New Zealand with Jewish ancestry" although i could be wrong
cheers  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.36.179.66 (talk) 16:10, 21 October 2010 (UTC) 

I think at least one of the leaders with Jewish ancestry was a premier, not a PM, so I've changed it to "Key is the third prime minister or premier...".-gadfium 07:39, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
Is it possible for a Jew to be a Christian or an atheist? Key has been both.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.82.94.56 (talk) 06:20, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
I suppose so. Do you have a source that mentions Key's Christianity. Adabow (talk · contribs) 06:42, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Query the use of "scandal" in this para: 
Limousine scandal
In 2011, Key was caught up in a scandal over the purchase of government limousines which he denied knowledge of initially but later reports surfaced his office was aware. He was accused of being dishonest and eventually apologised, calling the deal sloppy.[33][34][35]
"scandal" is not neutral POV. More appropriate might be "controversy".
Also query the validity of using a political party press release as a factual basis for a claim (Labour Party media release in citations).  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adgjif (talk • contribs) 23:17, 17 April 2011 (UTC) 


#### Limousine controversy
In 2011, Key was caught up in a controversy over the purchase of government limousines which he denied knowledge of initially but later reports surfaced his office was aware. He was accused of being dishonest and eventually apologised, calling the deal sloppy.

Adgjif 09:49, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
Scoop references include an attack media release by the Labour Party, which generally seems to inform this addition to the bio. Line: "he was accused" is not referenced directly. Overall, this addition is not neutral POV. None of the cited articles show that he knew directly about the limo buys. He did not apolgise for dishonesty.

I've made the changes you suggested earlier: controversy rather than scandal, and rm the Labour Party press release. The paragraph could do with further editing. Perhaps you could give a suggested wording for it.-gadfium 20:50, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
Looks better but wonder if you can change the "scandal" in the headline to "controversy" as well. Will also try to come up with a neutral text for the entry. Adfjif  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adgjif (talk • contribs) 06:37, 20 April 2011 (UTC) 

Done. When you comment please sign with five tildes (~~~~~). Adabow (talk · contribs) 07:29, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

How come there is no mention of his donation to the Hadassah University Hospital in Jerusalem?
It is even mentioned in the nz herald here:
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10542186  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tarheal (talk • contribs) 07:07, 26 April 2011 (UTC) 

If I had the ability to edit this article, I would fix the syntax in this sentence:
"Key responded that National will set its own policy agenda and that there is adequate time before the next election for voters to digest National Party policy proposals"
which should read:
"Key responded that National would set its own policy agenda and that there was adequate time before the next election for voters to digest National Party policy proposals"
94.142.32.114 (talk) 11:18, 30 June 2011 (UTC)


### Inappropriate Description of Photo
If you hover your mouse over the photo, it should simply say "John Key", not the phrase that it currently comes up with. ObiterDictum.nz (talk) 05:32, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Please read WP:ALT – there is a difference between ALT text and captions. Adabow (talk · contribs) 06:30, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
Umm if you read WP:ALT it states that it should not be what it currently is. Unless it appears in an article on idk white men, the alt text should not be "A white man with brown eyes and greying brown hair in a suit, smiling at the camera".  So either ALT needs changing or this article needs changing Brian | (Talk) 00:45, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
As Brian points out, photo is still labeled incorrectly. I would suggest the ALT text read "Profile Photo of John Key". ObiterDictum.nz (talk) 07:32, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
Looking through the article's history, I see that the change suggested above was made, but was reverted. I can't see why; WP:ALT is pretty clear about this, e.g. the illustration to the right. I've changed the alt text to "Profile photo of John Key".  --Avenue (talk) 12:17, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Profile at National party
Profile at New Zealand Parliament
Releases and speeches at Beehive.govt.nz
Record in Parliament at TheyWorkForYou.co.nz  — Preceding unsigned comment added by NZparliament (talk • contribs) 19:45, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
Added all except the TheyWorkForYou, as I'm doubtful of its notability and reliability. —Andrewstalk 04:18, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I removed some sections of the article as being incredibly non-notable, such as Mubarak 'controversy', electoral office firebombing, and other things. If someone wants to re-add them, please do so under the 'Prime Minister' heading, not under their own headings. SamB135 TalkContribs 03:11, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

gadfium deleted my entry about Air New Zealand's alleged preferential treatment towards John Key by diverting a Nelson-Auckland flight to make a stop at New Plymouth in order to pick him up with his entourage. Whilst admittedly this hasn't exactly turned into an ongoing 'scandal' as such, it nonetheless merits inclusion in this article in the 'Controversial topics' section. The Wiktionary entry for 'controversy' defines it as 'a debate, discussion of opposing opinions'. The mere fact that the allegations relating to this incident made by Sue Bradford were reported in the national media (such as TVNZ [1]), leading to opposing statements being expressed by Air New Zealand and John Key, shows that this topic satisfies the threshold for 'controversy'. Bonus bon (talk) 10:07, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Just to add, this incident appeared on the main 'Politics News' page on TVNZ [2], the NZ Herald [3], 3 News [4] to name just a few media sources. It definitely seems to have generated controversy, even if it hasn't erupted into a scandal as such! Bonus bon (talk) 10:18, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
I agree with the deletion of that content, "once a plane diverted to pick up passengers including John Key from a cancelled flight, " doesn't warrant inclusion in my opinion. Trying to talk it up and make it look like a scandal is against WP:NPOV. XLerate (talk) 10:50, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your post, XLerate. My entry was entirely neutral. I included both the claims made by Sue Bradford (plus Phil Goff's comments) and the responses given by Air New Zealand and John Key. Again, I wish to re-emphasise the point I made in the first post on this page - I do not believe the incident is a 'scandal', but it certainly has generated 'controversy', given that it has been reported in many significant and reliable media sources (as I have listed above, such as TVNZ and the New Zealand Herald). In fact, as the national broadcaster, TVNZ is obliged to be politically non-partisan and neutral, and is widely accepted as a reliable source of news! Best wishes, Bonus bon (talk) 12:07, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
I agree with its deletion, or at least a pretty severe editing as it is currently treated in far greater detail than any of the other, arguably more significant, controversies listed here.  Contrast this, for example, with the teacup saga which is unmentioned that launched a police investigation and resulted in a high court judge declining to rule on whether a conversation was private.  If that doesn't rise to the level of notability, I don't see how this could at this stage. Also, see WP:NOTNEWSPAPER UnofficialBusiness (talk) 13:34, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
The post fails NPOV because it exaggerates an otherwise routine event in air travel, but I appreciate the sources may have led you astray on this Bonus bon. Every editor has biases, I wouldn't try to claim otherwise. The post also fails NPOV because it states an accusation as a fact - the heading "Preferential treatment by Air New Zealand". Addition of that content has been resisted by multiple editors albeit one a new account, kindly leave it out until the matter is resolved on the talk page. XLerate (talk) 19:21, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
This is now election day, and New Zealanders are not allowed to campaign or attempt to influence voting today until the polls close at 7 pm. I suggest this discussion be put on hold, and no further edits or reverts be made to this section of either article, until that time. Since New Zealanders are constrained by law, I request that out of fairness non-New Zealanders also not contribute to the debate until then.-gadfium 19:22, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Ok, the time when campaigning is outlawed is over. Feel free to resume the debate.-118.93.67.72 (talk) 06:12, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Most of this information here still seems to read like it was from a 2009 perspective, one of the sentences in the political views section has serious  WP:SYNTH.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.92.71.252 (talk) 01:24, 4 December 2011 (UTC) 

Which sentence do you think needs updating, and you are welcome to suggest a new wording for it.-gadfium 02:42, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
There is also heavy bias evident in the article - e.g. the "Policial Views" section - which basically lists a bunch of conflicting quotes.  I'd argue that an encyclopedia is not the place for this sort of thing - and would suggest that the section be either removed or re-written in a more NPOV manner.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.89.95.50 (talk) 02:32, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

In the introductory paragraph a lot of prominence is given to Key’s attendance at Harvard.  It is given equal prominence as his bachelor’s qualification from three years at the University of Canterbury. However, having looked into this issue further there are only vague references to attending courses hosted at the university, not actually being enrolled as a student.  It appears that his courses did not award qualifications, and were only very short in duration. I suggest therefore that by the opening section should be reedited to avoid misrepresenting Key’s association with Harvard, in effect overstating his academic credentials.
202.72.109.7 (talk) 05:33, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree with this, grossly over-represented. It's inclusion into alma mater is also unnecessary as the "usual" definition is the school of graduation. It smells of politics in light of its editing date, around the same time opposition MP's David Cunliffe Harvard credentials were generating media attention.
Thoughts/confirmation to edit second paragraph, introduction section. "Born in Auckland before moving to Christchurch when he was a child, Key attended the University of Canterbury and graduated in 1981 with a bachelor of commerce, also later undertaking management studies at Harvard University in Boston." To "Born in Auckland before moving to Christchurch when he was a child, Key attended the University of Canterbury and graduated in 1981 with a bachelor of commerce."
I think if every notable figure had every institution at which they studied 2 papers we would have a very messy encyclopedia. I feel it has been added only to add some form of bias to his credentials to the lesser of us quickly browsing over the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.72.202.225 (talk • contribs) 14 May 2013

 Partly done: mainly because the sentence in the lead section as worded does not entirely agree with the way this aspect of his life is described in the CV on his personal website as well as that of his political party. I have not touched the mention of Harvard in the "Personal life" section as that seems to align more closely with the aforementioned CVs I looked at. I also have not removed Harvard as his alma mater in the infobox for now because different people have different definitions of alma mater, so I believe there should be a consensus for such a removal. —KuyaBriBriTalk 14:33, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
Oops! Didn't read this before editing, but I removed Harvard from the infobox, and glad to see some consensus here on that. I thought the same thing when I was reading his page; if everyone taking a course here or there will have that institution listed as alma mater, then before you know it infoboxes might run for pages (think about professors or academics!). Cheers, Λuα (Operibus anteire) 17:10, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

"a position he would hold for six years" should be 'a position he held for six years'. Passive voice isn't appropriate for an encyclopedia.

Please add at end of PERSONAL LIFE
The Keys own a vacation home in Hawaii and, on January 3rd, 2014, while vacationing there, Key and his son played a round of golf with President Obama.
  
Cialdarmo (talk) 20:52, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

I'll leave it to someone else to decide whether a day golfing with the US president is noteworthy enough to include in his biography. Wbm1058 (talk) 03:45, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
Withdrawn by requester. Not an unreasonable request, but no regular editor chose to add this to the article.-gadfium 08:59, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

It's worth mentioning that he is not a reptilian from space. http://www.3news.co.nz/John-Key-Im-not-a-reptile/tabid/1607/articleID/331979/Default.aspx  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.77.222.81 (talk) 18:59, 24 February 2014 (UTC) 

That is silly trivia. Adabow (talk) 21:47, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

The Wikipedia articles states "He was a member of the Foreign Exchange Committee of the New York Federal Reserve Bank from 1999 to 2001." However on their website it states that he only served in 2001 and definitely not in 1999 nor 2000 - http://www.newyorkfed.org/fxc/members/members_past.html. In addition the article implies that he was serving as an employee of the NYFed, however as described on the webpage this is an external advisory group for members sponsored by their employer. See http://www.newyorkfed.org/fxc/ and http://www.newyorkfed.org/aboutthefed/external_committees.html as evidence of this.

Funny to see no mention at all of the dirty politics saga. Come to think of it though the pager does seem a bit outdated.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.43.79.150 (talk) 02:22, 8 September 2014 (UTC) 

It's a wiki. Go write that part! Schwede66 04:05, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
You are both right. It ought to be mentioned. But there is already a perfectly good page. All someone need do is create a link to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirty_Politics. I would do it but I'm just not skilled enough (sorry) and probably don't have sufficient authority. Poly Styrene (talk) 10:16, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Is it relevant to note his general attitude towards public engagements? As an example, in an interview he gave to Radio New Zealand on the 26th November 2014 regarding the official SIS report which investigated, and confirmed, his offices involvement in instigating the IOA request which gave Cameron Slater ammo with which to attack Keys then arch enemy Phil Goff, he simply denied denied denied and stated that it was "highly contested" - which is a complete lie. Its only contested by those involved! This is just one example of how he has manipulated his voter base by sticking to his guns that he is spotless, and I think it should be noted, not due to any political motivation on my part, but because I think its a vital part of showing his true nature.122.58.70.122 (talk) 20:34, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 14:42, 18 March 2015 (UTC)


### Food in schools controversy
On 18 March 2015 in consortium with his fellow National Party members, he voted against the "Education (Food in Schools) Amendment Bill". 
NZ4Life (talk) 14:29, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

John Key is usually referred to as Jewish, so it does not make much sense to say that he attends church often. Surely it is the synagogue he attends. Or is he a [nominal] Christian rather than an agnostic jew?Royalcourtier (talk) 06:03, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Please update this page to mention his scandalous re-election in 2014 and specifically his proven dishonesty - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eKSDmwKcFQA
110.175.40.234 (talk) 14:32, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. --ElHef (Meep?) 14:43, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

It's pretty clear that (even if it's been picked up my international media),  this is still a breaking story of he-said she-said finger pointing. See for example https://tvnz.co.nz/national-news/ponytail-saga-herald-admits-confusion-but-denies-deception-over-waitress-approach-6297557 As such, we should wait for news-review style coverage. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:03, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Predictably, some Wikipedians ain't gonna wait: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hair_fetishism#Notable_Hair_Fetishists Muzilon (talk) 13:29, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

If this was ever a “he-said she-said story”, then I think that time is past. I don't recall Mr Key denying that he DID pull her ponytail. There are three issues that I think are problematic about this entry and the cumulative effect of these issues is that the entry is misleading. 

(1) "In April 2015 a waitress claimed that Key had pulled her ponytail multiple times over several months." The use of the word "claim" gives the impression that this matter is open to debate. If there is debate, then reference that debate. But I think there is no debate about it – Mr Key did pull her ponytail multiple times over several months.
(2) “she said she thought it "playful and jolly" at first.” No, she did not think that. What she wrote was this: “the first time he pulled on my hair, I remember thinking to myself he’s probably just trying to be playful and jolly...” There is a subtle but important distinction. She did not think his behaviour was “playful and jolly”; she merely thought he was trying to be “playful and jolly”. The entry gives the impression that the waitress tolerated, even condoned Mr Key’s behaviour. Her blog post makes it very clear she did not: “I didn’t respond positively to his ‘gesture’, in fact I didn’t address his behaviour at all, besides an unimpressed expression... The next time he came up behind me and pulled my hair I was annoyed. Great, I thought, this wasn’t just a one off.”
(3) The entry references a newspaper article in the Irish Examiner to support this statement. I’m sure the Irish Examiner is a fine newspaper but this particular article is perhaps not its finest. To me, it looks as if this newspaper article has been cherry-picked for its inaccuracy. For more accurate reporting, try the New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2015/04/21/world/asia/ap-as-new-zealand-ponytail-pulling-.html?_r=0), CNN (http://edition.cnn.com/2015/04/22/asia/john-key-new-zealand-hair-pulling/) or the BBC (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-32408411). Or even better, just reference the blog post itself (http://thedailyblog.co.nz/2015/04/22/exclusive-the-prime-minister-and-the-waitress/). Why not? That was the source quoted by all these newspapers, so why not just reference it directly. Indeed the BBC did just that, as did other newspapers.
The second sentence of the entry is fine. I suggest the first sentence of the entry be amended to

“In April 2015 a waitress complained in a blog that Key had pulled her ponytail multiple times over several months; when Key learnt she had taken offence, he apologised.”

Poly Styrene (talk) 23:43, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

 Done, but I have used the NY Times source rather than the blog, per WP:BLPPRIMARY. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:47, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

There is an RfC on the question of using "Religion: None" vs. "Religion: None (atheist)" in the infobox on this and other similar pages. 
The RfC is at Template talk:Infobox person#RfC: Religion infobox entries for individuals that have no religion. 
Please help us determine consensus on this issue. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:17, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

A recent edit drew attention to the fact that there is a lot of trivia at John Key#Controversies. If someone who understands NZ topics wants to remove half of that section (the whole section??), please go for it. Johnuniq (talk) 22:59, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Your fine establishment states, on the biography page of John Key, and I quote "John Phillip Key (born 9 August 1961) is the 38th Prime Minister of New Zealand, in office since 2008. He has led the New Zealand National Party since 2006." 
John Key however, resigned as of yesterday thus leaving your page incorrect. This has caused me great distress and I would appreciate an immediate amendment to your evident failure.
Many thanks,
a distressed politician. BobDole4President (talk) 10:58, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

 Not done - our page is correct, and your distress will last a bit longer, as he has NOT resigned, just announced that he intends to.  According to the BBC here "He set a date of 12 December for the formal resignation." - Arjayay (talk) 11:02, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

John key is no longer prime minister of new zealand bill english is Bonnietaianz (talk) 05:36, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: The article does not say he is the current prime minsiter. It's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. DRAGON BOOSTER  ★ 05:43, 12 December 2016 (UTC).

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 7 external links on John Key. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5WQHSoSeA?url=http://www.stuff.co.nz/sundaystartimes/4384966a6619.html to http://www.stuff.co.nz/sundaystartimes/4384966a6619.html
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.metrolive.co.nz/metroarchives/metroarchivesarticle/tabid/230/Default.aspx/mid/1416/dnnprintmode/true/?ArticleID=1178&SkinSrc=%5BG%5DSkins%2FMetro+Live%2FPrinterFrendlySkin&ContainerSrc=%5BG%5DContainers%2F_default%2FNo+Container
Corrected formatting/usage for http://tvnz.co.nz/national-news/christchurch-s-aorangi-school-close-3178523
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.parliament.nz/en-NZ/MPP/MPs/MPs/2/a/0/50MP78101-Key-John.htm
Corrected formatting/usage for http://tvnz.co.nz/entertainment-news/john-key-david-letterman-s-late-show-3019658
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.lawcom.govt.nz/project/review-regulatory-framework-sale-and-supply-liquor?quicktabs_23=report
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.parliament.nz/en-NZ/MPP/MPs/MPs/2/a/0/50MP78101-Key-John.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:01, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on John Key. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090621103912/http://2008.electionresults.govt.nz/electionresults_2008/electorate-15.html to http://2008.electionresults.govt.nz/electionresults_2008/electorate-15.html
Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/5WQHEq1k4?url=http://www.stuff.co.nz/sundaystartimes/4385003a6442.html to http://www.stuff.co.nz/sundaystartimes/4385003a6442.html
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071004223202/http://www.national.org.nz/Article.aspx?ArticleID=8778 to http://www.national.org.nz/Article.aspx?ArticleID=8778
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081014074351/http://www.agendatv.co.nz/Site/agenda/transcripts/2007/Episode-01.aspx to http://www.agendatv.co.nz/Site/agenda/transcripts/2007/Episode-01.aspx
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100526132054/http://johnkey.co.nz/archives/743-Speech-Federated-Farmers-National-Conference.html to http://www.johnkey.co.nz/archives/743-Speech-Federated-Farmers-National-Conference.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:44, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello all,
In reading about John Key I notice there is NO mention of the NZDF defamation case that involved the journalist Jon Stephenson. By way of example, the NZ Herald ( see here ) mentions it here. 
Did the PM lie or was he lied to by the NZDF?  This was significant in that the then the Governor General , the head of the NZDF and the PM all made claims about a journalist which were found to be untrue. NZ should have rocked on its heels but....hey this is NZ. 
Anyone wiki guru want to add that to the entry?

I'm not certain that the matter was ever settled. Sometime in the past 5 days I've seen a news site reporting that the incoming government is going to ask some serious questions. I'm out and about on cellphone right now and copying and pasting links is difficult. Akld guy (talk) 23:07, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

ok, sounds interesting.    Edwina Jones (talk) 23:11, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Two different issues now that I look at it. I am start here trying to write this now. Once up I am sure someone will be able to critique it. Wish me luck.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edwina Jones (talk • contribs) 23:15, 14 November 2017 (UTC) 

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on John Key. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20041222224120/http://national.org.nz/MP.aspx?Id=28 to http://www.national.org.nz/MP.aspx?Id=28
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:43, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

I have request a review of this article's GA status here. Any contribution would be appreciated. --Hazhk (talk) 11:59, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

In 2014 Key caused controversy by openly commenting that New Zealand was 'peacefully settled.' This caused controversal debate where he was challenged as rewriting history by the Green Party. Maori academics and historians criticised these comments.

The article says Key graduated from UC in 1981, only two years after finishing high school. The UC graduate search website says he graduated in 1983, meaning he studied for 3 years ('80-82) which is the usual time to complete a BCom - graduation occurs the following year (which is the tradition in NZ). Please amend the year to 1982 or 1983 ('82 complies with international standards of citation, '83 with the NZ form).  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.61.207.253 (talk) 11:33, 20 June 2019 (UTC) 

The dates in the article are inconsistent because they come from several sources. I've updated the reference link for his completing his degree in 1981. It says he started it in 1979, so a normal three-year degree. The same reference says he spent 1973-78 at Burnside, which seems a year too long as I don't think its likely he had to repeat a year. The article says he spent 1975-79 at Burnside, but I can't check the reference for that because it isn't online. Is it possible that he completed his degree in 1981 but didn't officially graduate until 1983?-gadfium 23:38, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Change: "Sir John Phillip Key GNZM AC (born 9 August 1961[2]) is a New Zealand former politician..."
to: "Sir John "the Smiling Assassin" Phillip Key GNZM AC (born 9 August 1961[2]) is a New Zealand former politician..." 
This nickname is an important part of the history of this politician, encapsulating his nature. It was given to him while he worked in the finance sector, prior to his political career. Thornblow (talk) 09:20, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. The nickname was used prior to his becoming notable as a politician.-gadfium 09:23, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

John Key has asked me to edit the preview to his Wikipedia page, which currently says “His resignation followed controversies over an extramarital affair, and over leaked internal National Party documents that were later published in the book The Hollow Men. After months of speculation, Key stood for leadership of the…”
This quote about “controversies and extramarital affairs” is about Don Brash, not John Key, and that is made clear in the page itself. However, the first wiki reference to Key reads as if it were Key responsible for above controversies 
We would be grateful if you would change to a para about Key as a preview.
Lesley Hamilton 2404:440C:1738:9C00:7D06:92F9:A7BA:8FD5 (talk) 12:05, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi Lesley.  I can only find one mention of the Brash resignation in the article, the bit I think you mention is OK in the body of the page itself (under the Finance spokesman heading), which appears to me to be hard to misinterpret.  What do you mean by preview?  Are you sure where you saw this was actually Wikipedia? Andrewgprout (talk) 06:13, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
I believe Lesley is seeing an erroneous preview from somewhere like Google. A search for "John Key resignation" reveals the following "snippet" feature [5], which fits with what she is describing. I have changed the text a little, to better reflect the situation, but I also recommend Lesley report this type of problem with Google using the "Feedback" button. — HTGS (talk) 01:38, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
I have reported the error with Google. — HTGS (talk) 01:40, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm suggesting we change the image in the infobox to: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:John_Key_February_2015.jpg. Thoughts? Alexeyevitch(talk) 11:26, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Since John Key isn't the Prime Minister anymore, so I think it's time that we remove the page protection from the page. 219.77.28.65 (talk) 03:43, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm amenable to removing protection, which I placed in 2009. Any objections?-Gadfium (talk) 05:16, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
Agreed. Schwede66 06:45, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
I totally agree. While the protection should have been removed on the date Key left office (12 December 2016), I think you should remove it since there is no longer any reason to have the protection. 219.77.28.65 (talk) 12:52, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 Done.-Gadfium (talk) 01:36, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Template:Infobox person and other similar templates state: "For privacy reasons, consider omitting the names of living children, unless notable."
Key has two children: Max and Stephie. Both are well known by name; Max much better than his sister, though. Would others agree with me that Max is notable? I suggest he achieved notability years ago. If so, the entry in the infobox could be:
children: Max Key and one daughter
The related question is that if it's not ok to mention his daughter by name in the infobox, her name should probably not be in the article either. But it does appear in the section "Family".
Thoughts? Schwede66 02:36, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

As nobody responded, I shall implement as per the above. Schwede66 03:57, 21 July 2025 (UTC)