Jump to content

Talk:New Zealand Labour Party

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.
Former good article nomineeNew Zealand Labour Party was a Social sciences and society good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
June 2, 2008Good article nomineeNot listed
November 6, 2009Good article nomineeNot listed
Current status: Former good article nominee

Party metadata

This New Zealand article has some associated metadata templates to display political party colours and names in election candidate and results tables.

The table below shows the content of these metadata templates.

New Zealand Labour Party — political party metadata
Color Shortname
#D82A20 Labour

"non-native"

Question: It describes the leadership as mostly "non-native". What does "non-native" mean in this context?

Replaced "non-New-Zealand-born" with "British colonial immigrants". Also added Maori before Ratana
Technically there are no native New Zealanders, the oldest immigrants (Maori) all acknowledge that they migrated to New Zealand in their oral histories. They are the "First Peoples" in New Zealand. Hope this clarifies the issue. kiwiinapanic 10:50 Jan 29, 2003 (UTC)
The term indigenous people is a better term to describe the Maori people. -- Greaser 01:37, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Caucus listing

Would this be better split out into a separate article? It's certainly good information to have, but it overbalances the rest of the article, and every three years or less it will change significantly. I'd suggest splitting it into Labour Party caucus in the 48th New Zealand Parliament or similar, with links from this article and from 48th New Zealand Parliament. With such a title it becomes a permanent record. Similar caucus listings for the other major parties should be treated in the same way.-gadfium 22:53, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is a copy of the caucus sections of each NZ party at New Zealand Parliamentary Caucuses and MPs' responsibilities. I'll move this discussion to its talk page.-gadfium 03:36, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The image Image:DavidLange.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --20:57, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:New Zealand Labour Party/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review. I have quick failed this article for a near-total lack of sources. Almost nothing below the intro is sourced, which is a no-no, especially with potentially controversial content of this sort. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 01:16, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the quick response. So, time to get some books out of the library and start adding page refs to every line of the article. IdiotSavant (talk) 01:25, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Policies

This page would benefit from a section about the party's policies as with the pages for other parties New_Zealand_First, New_Zealand_National_Party, Green_Party_of_Aotearoa_New_Zealand etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drnonsense (talk • contribs) 08:55, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The logo you are using is a website banner. The official logo (as in, registered with the Electoral Commission on their register is much simpler. I suggest you change it. Further, Labour also has the website www.labour08.co.nz for their 2008 campaign. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.211.78.236 (talk) 22:45, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That makes sense, I've replaced the logo and added the link to the campaign website.--Sir Anon (talk) 23:21, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Helen Clark: Stood down.

Edit? If so, please place maybe a current event type tag? PoinDexta1 | Talk to Me | 10:34, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Labour Party Leadership

There is some dispute as to when Harry Holland assumed leadership of the Labour Party and this, in turn caused confusion as to when Helen Clark passed his record of longest serving Labour leader. The figures below show that Clark passed Holland's maximum possible term on 26 October 2008, and had passed his minimum term on 8 Feb. 2008.

The beginning of Holland's leadership is given variously as from the death of Alfred Hindmarsh (13 Nov. 1918) or upon his election as "chairman" of the party in August 1919.[1].

Harry Holland's 14 years, 68 days minimum term, 1 Aug. 1919 - 8 Oct. 1933
Harry Holland's 14 years, 329 days maximum term, 13 Nov. 1918 - 8 Oct. 1933
Helen Clark's 14 years, 346 days term, 1 Dec. 1993 - 11 Nov. 2008

Fanx (talk) 21:10, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Audrey Young (12 February 2008). "Clark beats record of longest-serving Labour leader - probably". The New Zealand Herald. Retrieved 2008-11-12.

Red Alert

I think their should be a section on the labour party blog: (blog.labour.org.nz). As I am currently blocked from commenting I shall remove myself from the writing of this section per WP:Conflict of interest (just in case anyone thinks I'm not neutral) Anyone agree and wants to do it?? kiwiteen123 (talk) 06:45, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree the blog should be added, and would be most appropriate in the external links section.
I trust you to be neutral in editing articles, even though you declare support for another party on your user page. You could look for other blogs by political parties - some are listed at New Zealand blogosphere - and make sure all such political party articles have suitable links.-gadfium 18:27, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:New Zealand Labour Party/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Steve Smith (talk) 00:22, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am baffled: in June 2008 this article was quick-failed for "a near-total lack of sources", with the reviewer noting that "almost nothing below the intro is sourced". Here we are, seventeen months later, and it's back up for GA status, and I am again failing it for a near-total lack of sources, noting that almost nothing below the intro is sourced. There's a lot to like about this article - the information is engaging and it's generally quite well-organized - but the good article criteria (to say nothing of the verifiability policy) are quite clear on this.

Because I am quick failing the article, I am not going to review this with my usual level of detail, but I noticed a few things besides the references that you'll want to address before blue-linking Talk:New Zealand Labour Party/GA3:

  • I do not believe that File:NewZealandLabourPartyOldLogo.png and File:Labour logo.png pass our non-free content criteria (specifically, criterion 8 in both cases and criterion 3a in the second).
  • The article is strong on the party's history, but includes virtually nothing about its present situation and policies. I note that the creation of a "policy" section was suggested on the talk page in September 2008; I would echo that suggestion.
  • The section headings, and to a lesser extent the sections themselves, are biased towards the party's time in government, when its history also includes large chunks of time spent in opposition. These should be given their due weight.
  • The lead does not summarize the article as required by WP:LEAD.

Again, this is not a bad article (at a glance, the prose looks far better than for most Good Article nominees), but I really have no choice but to quick fail it. Sorry. Steve Smith (talk) 00:22, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deputy leaders

The article contains a list of party leaders. I suggest that a list of deputy leaders be added, too. Alternatively, leaders and deputy leaders could become a standalone article. Helen Clark was deputy leader 1990–93 and her predecessor is missing from the succession box. Schwede66 06:59, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nice to now have a list of deputy leaders. But why not combine the leaders and deputy leaders lists into one? Schwede66 04:47, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

New MPs

If things go the way the opinion polls predict it, the Labour Party will have a number of new MPs in the 50th New Zealand Parliament. The NZ politics task force has decided that the creation of biographies prior to the election can be assisted in the project space. Wikipedians with an interest in possible new MPs are most welcome to work on those draft biographies, which can be found here. Please note the rules that are listed on that page. Happy editing! And if you have questions on how to go about it, simply post on an article's talk page, and somebody with more experience will come and help. Schwede66 04:40, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If anybody is interested in contributing to new MP pages, this collaboration might interest you. Hurry – this must be finished by this Friday. Schwede66 19:43, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dubious Source

Recently, I flagged a statement in the top section, which read as follows. "The New Zealand Labour Party ... is a New Zealand centre-left[4][dubious – discuss] political party..." Normally, I would have ignored this. But, the source listed is the Labour Party's website. That, to me, indicates some bias. Keep in mind that bias is "Prejudice in favor of or against one thing, person, or group compared with another, usually in a way considered to be unfair,"[1] as described by the Merriam-Webster Dictionary.Kude90 (talk) 18:36, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Center-left isn't a prejudicial term though or rather it is simultaneously positive and negative depending where you are personally on the spectrum. An alternative reference - [2] Monkey228017 (talk) 04:58, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bias
  2. ^ http://www.nzs.com/new-zealand-articles/education/the-political-parties.html

List of presidents

I've added to the list of presidents in the party template, but not in the article itself. I've added names whenever I came across another one. Surely, somebody must have a book that lists them all? Schwede66 22:19, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Added to article from p224 of Bruce Brown's 1962 book, so have noted the list as complete. So after "Big Jim" Roberts it is Arnold Nordmeyer 1950 to 1955 then Michael Moohan 1955 to 1960. This also means Martyn Finlay started in 1960 (acc. to Brown) not 1958. Hugo999 (talk) 12:30, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Good stuff, Hugo. The list shows a four-year break in the early 1970s; I appreciate that Brown's book won't cover that period. Did the Labour Party not have presidents during that time? If so, that should definitely be explained in the text above the table. Or else, the table isn't complete after all. Schwede66 18:24, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Just acquired a Labour Party Journal from their 50th jubilee which has a list of Presidents, VP's and secretaries up until 1966. The list matches what we have now.Kiwichris (talk) 07:05, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Good work! Schwede66 07:29, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"While the formal ties between unions and the party have dwindled, there are still six unions that are directly affiliated to the party and pay affiliation fees."

I believe this is an outdated statement, if somewhat misleading seeing as Unions now have a pretty major stake in leadership contests and are major donators. Could do with a change. Benner9 (talk) 02:00, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hager influenced Labour leader turn-over?

"Labour has had a relatively high turnover of four leaders during this term in opposition, attributed in part to changes within public media and the political environment.[34]"

Unless I hear otherwise in the next few days, I will edit this out. They all resigned after either election loses or in-fighting within the party

Thanks

--Chris Wellington (talk) 03:28, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, what does Hager have to do with this? Schwede66 06:03, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hager's book Dirty Politics is the reference. Since there isn't a page number, I'm not inclined to re-read the book to determine how appropriate it is.-gadfium 06:14, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on New Zealand Labour Party. 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:

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) 16:52, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

'Social liberalism' revisited

I would like to reopen the issue of describing the Labour Party as 'social liberal' party. Making New Zealand's Pop Renaissance: State, Markets, Musicians is a somewhat spurious source (grasping at straws?), since it's not a political commentary; it makes references to Labour's "social liberal aspirations" and is very much a contextual piece, describing the policies of the fourth Labour government. Neither of the two sources comprehensively assess the Labour Party as a whole. Neither source suggest that the party is inherently liberal, or that it might be described as social liberal as it stands today.

@Jay942942: I am inclined to agree that we can describe the party as having "embraced social liberal policies" (the exact wording we might use can be discussed; this description can be placed in the 'Ideology' section), but I know I'm not alone in objecting to the label 'social liberal' in the infobox, which implies that the ideological make-up of the contemporary party is significantly influenced by social liberalism. It is too prominent a location. We are falsely stating that Labour is a liberal party, not a party rooted in socialism and social democracy.--Hazhk (talk) 15:29, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not too keen on having social liberalism listed in the Infobox. While the party – like most social-democratic parties – has been influenced by social liberalism, the party's history and international affiliation(s) describe a social-democratic party, not a liberal party. (Also, we should look at the referenced texts again to see if they refer to social liberalism as described in the en.wiki article, and not accidentally using the term as a synonym for cultural liberalism or progressivism.)--Autospark (talk) 22:05, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This seems fair, I am fine with social liberalism being left out of the infobox but kept elsewhere on the page.--Jay942942 (talk) 23:52, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:52, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Serious Fraud Office investigation

I'm not sure whether to add the following sentence to the Sixth Labour Government sub-section of the history section. Before I do it, I wanted to check if it is appropriate. Here it is:

In mid-July, the Serious Fraud Office announced that it was investigating donations made to the Labour Party by two Chinese businessmen named Shijia (Colin) Zheng and Hengjia (Joe) Zheng during the 2017 general election. Labour Party President Claire Szabo announced that the Party would be cooperating with the investigation.[1][2]

References

  1. ^ Devlin, Collette (13 July 2020). "Serious Fraud Office investigation into donations made to Labour Party in 2017". Stuff. Archived from the original on 14 July 2020. Retrieved 14 July 2020.
  2. ^ Hurley, Sam (13 July 2020). "Serious Fraud Office launches investigation into Labour Party donations from 2017". New Zealand Herald. Archived from the original on 14 July 2020. Retrieved 14 July 2020.

It relates to current affairs and may be useful historically. Wasn't sure so I thought I'll ask on the talk page. Andykatib 09:57, July 14, 2020 (UTC)

Seems good to me. Its notable and referenced.--IdiotSavant (talk) 11:24, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I would not name the individuals if they are not notable. Don’t link to disambiguation pages. Schwede66 19:25, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, won't name the individuals since they are not notable and will fix the disambiguation links. Will add it in soon. Andykatib 04:20, 15 July, 2020 (UTC)

Rainbow Labour

The Rainbow Labour article has many problems, and I wonder if it would be better to delete it, and merge the contents into New Zealand Labour Party#Organisation. What is everyone's thoughts? Nauseous Man (talk) 03:25, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please note the conversation has now moved to Wikipedia:New Zealand Wikipedians' notice board#Rainbow_Labour_into_New_Zealand_Labour_Party. Nauseous Man (talk) 06:52, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:New_Zealand_Labour_Party&oldid=1207189271"