Talk:Helen Clark/archive02

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Incumbent

message: 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)
thread_title:  Criticisms, or Controversies? 

message: 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,  and  and   and  -- the last is a Green party blog btw). Neil Leslie 10:24, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  POV section label 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: I've added an earlier photo of her as well. --Midnighttonight 04:02, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: I found what I consider to be a pretty much "perfect" option for the protrait -see here: . But it's copyright, so I think we're stuck with the photoshopped one. Armon 00:11, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should the main photo be real or photoshopped? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Maybe a photo with another head of government?  --Midnighttonight 08:27, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  POV tag 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  International relations 

message: 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)
replies: text: Maybe we should merge the "PM" section into "Achievements" and expand it? Armon 00:20, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Agree. -Are there any other views on this suggestion? Armon 00:12, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Isn't that adequately covered in the "Controversies" section? Armon 02:27, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: When I think about it, your right, the Labour party article will be the better place. Brian | (Talk) 22:36, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: I agree as well.-gadfium 23:57, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article Cleanup and removal of POV tag 

message: 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)
thread_title: Changes to achievements section

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: (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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Marriage

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Yeah, it is more appropiate on the Richard Prebble page than the Helen Clark page.--Midnighttonight 21:46, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Why? Are they all in the Controversies section? No, they are not. Prebble is though. Wallie 22:22, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Carter, Samuels, Doone, Sutton, Benson-Pope, Dalziel, Field are all in the Controversies section. --Midnighttonight 22:24, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: That's more of a reason to expand the Prebble article by adding a controversy section. --Midnighttonight 22:30, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Pic of Prebble 

message: * 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)
thread_title:  Love it 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Personal Attack