Talk:New Zealand First

message: Is "non-white" really correct?  I'm not from NZ, but I seriously doubt it.  I'm guessing these probable racists wouldn't want Russians or French jews coming over either, all of whome are quite clearly white.  Even if they are ambivalent about europeans, I bet they'd oppose Turkish immigration.. you may find a non-white Israeli, but you won't find a non-white Turk.
Now if they really do just oppose immigrtion from *specific* places, that should be made more clear, since opposing specific migration patterns usually just means you don't support multi-culturalism but that your also not a racist.  But, as it stands, this article basically says this is an abnormally inclusive racist party.  JeffBurdges 05:55, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The party tends to aggravate racial and social tensions in order to appeal to popular support- it's not directly racist as such. The phrase non-white was evidently false as the party's figurehead leader is half-asian, half-maori. The issue as Winston Peters and the party claimed it was that immigration was "out of control" and was "eroding New Zealand's Culture". I edited it closer to NPOV and it's hopefully satisfactory now. --54x 15:39, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow, this really needs updating to reflect the party's current situation now I look more deeply into it. Maybe I'll have to find some free time for it- they're now in coalition with Labour. --54x 15:59, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non-white? 

message: The article presently states:
:Much of the New Zealand media[attribution needed] criticised this move [to take the Foreign Minister position] as a withdrawal from Peter's earlier position (outlined in his "Rotorua speech"[1]) that his party would sit on the crossbenches and thus stay out of government, eschewing "the baubles of office".
I think the [attribution needed] can be removed. I doubt that anyone would argue that there wasn't widespread criticism in the media (regardless of whether they think it was deserved). It is not difficult to provide lots of examples, for example NZ Herald, NZ Herald, Scoop (ACT press release), Dominion Post, Sunday Star Times. Not all of these are from the time of Peters' appointment, because it's harder to find stories from 2005, but all refer to the criticism. Would the article gain much if we added all these references to it? It would way overbalance the referencing of the article - that is the only sentence to have a reference now, and adding several more to it is just emphasizing this one moment of Peter's career. Would adding a single reference as an example be sufficient? Or should we reword the sentence to be more specific, saying "X criticised Peters, saying 'blah'[2], and Y joined in with 'blah'[3]..."-gadfium 18:47, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  One or two references would establish the fact -- I wouldn't worry about unbalancing anything by providing good references. I reacted to the "Much of the media..." formulation, which sounds like weasel-words at the best of times, even when referenced. So I endorse your last suggestion -- we could say something like" "X reacted[1] to Peters' becoming Minister of Foreign Affairs, seeing a change in attitude towards "the baubles of office" since the delivery of the Rotorua speech." -- 60.234.226.62 (talk) 21:07, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok. Can you have a go at drafting that?-gadfium 18:40, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  We could say:
Some reaction
For example: section "Baublewatch" in Audrey Young: "PM marks Peters' report with 'pretty good effort'" in The New Zealand Herald, 26 November 2005, retrieved 2008-02-06.
to Peters' becoming Minister of Foreign Affairs detected a change in his attitude since the "Rotorua speech",
"WHO WILL NEW ZEALAND FIRST GO WITH?": An address by Rt Hon Winston Peters to a public meeting in Rotorua, Wednesday 07 September 2005, at the Rotorua Convention Centre, Concert Chambers, Lake end of Fenton Street, Rotorua, 12:30pm. http://www.nzfirst.org.nz/content/display_item.php?t=1&i=2092, retrieved 2008-02-06
which had spoken of sitting on the  cross-benches (and thus staying out of government) and eschewing "the baubles of office".
-- 60.234.226.62 (talk) 04:24, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

text: I think that's pretty good. Put it in the article.-gadfium 05:25, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Media criticism

message: If anybody is interested in contributing to new MP pages, this collaboration might interest you. Hurry – this must be finished by this Friday. Schwede66 19:45, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: New MP pages

message: “The party's platform is characterised by its strongly restrictive immigration policies, as well as its emphasis on law and order and on popular referenda. New Zealand First takes a centrist position on economic issues, and a social conservative position on social issues.”
Surely that places NZF in the centre-right or right-wing political position. The party isn’t in the centre for sure. Social conservatism, New Zealand nationalism, “law and order” agenda, restricted immigration. It’s clearly right-wing and similar to European right-wing parties such as Law and Justice.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2406:E006:ADB:1001:D426:A5FC:B163:1334 (talk) 09:10, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Political position  

message: Would be great if someone could expand on the events of the party's foundation. I just expanded the lead of Ian Peters a little (diff), but seeking more info on the Nat -> NZF transition I saw that Ian (nor the other brother, Ron) was not mentioned at all on this article. It would be worth mentioning any other members who followed Winston too, but my knowledge of those events is... sparse. — HTGS (talk) 02:45, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Expand {{slink|New_Zealand_First|Foundation}} 

message: what sources say they use black and dark blue? Helper201 (talk) 11:52, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: This one from the parliament come to mind. See the gallery at the bottom.--Aréat (talk) 12:01, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Well it doesn't actually "say" this is the party's official colour but it’s obviously better than nothing. We still have no sources that state dark blue, nor is it used at all in the party's logo. Dark blue should absolutely be removed from the infobox as its purely original research. Helper201 (talk) 12:21, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with the removal of dark blue. I don't recall ever seeing it used. We could also use the mention (customary) next to black. It is very frequent on wiki pages about party to do so. Do note also that some others NZ party pages such as New Zealand National Party have their logo differ somewhat in shade. But it would be very impractical to change dozen of maps, diagrams and polls graphs over many decades of election everytime the logo slightly change the color used. --Aréat (talk) 22:28, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I have to say I was surprised to see the dark blue in the infobox. I think it would be fine to list just black, without sourcing for grey of any sort. Black is how they have always been represented, and although I have no problem with shifting infobox or template colours to grey, I don’t think we can justify saying it out loud without sources. — HTGS (talk) 00:11, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Party colours

message: The lead length is huge after a recent IP edit... and will certainly be uncomfotrable to read for a general reader. There also shouldn't be citations in the lead if it's already covered in the body. I  prefer to focus on other articles at the momment, but someone may want to trim the lead to make it easier to read. Alexeyevitch(talk) 03:10, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Im sure we can trim it down but i felt that Māori conservatism and anti-co governance should have been mentioned in the lead. 222.152.26.228 (talk) 03:12, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. Alexeyevitch(talk) 03:15, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

text: Actually, while we're on the subject, can anyone find a citation for "syncretic" for the party's political position? There seems to have been so much debate in recent years about which label fits, so much that there isn't even one in the box. But syncretic would describe the economic nationalism and right wing populism 222.152.26.228 (talk) 03:16, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead