Talk:New Zealand First

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is part of WikiProject Political parties, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of political parties-related topics. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to "featured" and "good article" standards, or visit the WikiProject page for more details. [View this template]
Portal
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

[edit] Election box metadata

This article contains some sub-pages that hold metadata about this subject. This metadata is used by the Election box templates to display the color of the party and its name in Election candidate and results tables.

These links provide easy access to this meta data:

• Template:New Zealand First/meta/color Content:    
• Template:New Zealand First/meta/shortname Content: NZ First

	New Zealand First 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.

[edit] Non-white?

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)

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)

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)

[edit] Media criticism

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)

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)

Ok. Can you have a go at drafting that?-gadfium 18:40, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

We could say:

Some reaction^[1] to Peters' becoming Minister of Foreign Affairs detected a change in his attitude since the "Rotorua speech",^[2] 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)

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