Jump to content

Talk:Don Brash

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

POV rewrite for second to last paragraph (July 24, 2005)

[edit]

I had read the speech mentioned in the paragraph and even heard some of the response to it on TV and radio. Frankly, the adoption portion was mentioned only once and then to acknowledge adoption as an acceptable option for teenage girls. The second to last paragraph was a bit too POV without any Opposing POV to balance. Till that can be done, I have rewitten this very small section to show what was said in the speech and how it compared in proportion to the rest of the speech. I edited out the word "targeted," in reference to solo-mothers for obvious reasons. The paragraph still makes no mention of DB's support for DPB as a means to give aid and shelter for women subjected to domestic violence.

Thom Simmons, Kapiti Coast, New Zealand

Tax cuts funded through borrowing?

[edit]

An anonymous user has been adding "to be funded through borrowing" to the section about the tax cuts. According to the National Party tax cuts website[1]:

How will National's tax package be paid for?
We will cancel Labour's Kiwisaver programme, we will drop Labour's indexation of tax thresholds (no longer needed), we will make savings from Labour's waste and low quality spending, and we will increase the size of government spending at a lower rate than Labour.
Will you be borrowing to pay for tax cuts?
We will do some borrowing for capital expenditure, and that is completely normal practice. Tax cuts will not be funded by borrowing money. This is another of Labour's scare tactics.

So a statement to the contrary must be substantiated by evidence.

Ben Arnold 04:34, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Political poll results

[edit]

A couple of times people have tried to add political poll results to this page. Are they appropriate here? Please debate this at Talk:New_Zealand_general_election,_2005#Polls.-gadfium 23:39, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV tagging

[edit]

I've tagged this article with an NPOV warning. The early sections of this are really quite biased - it doesn't mention any of the controversy surrounding his term as Reserve Bank Governor, instead repeatedly praising him. The section surrounding his election and accession to the leadership are full of praise for him and scorn for his opponents. While it improves towards the end, it's still pretty bad - particularly considering that the election is tomorrow. Ambi 01:50, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. A few sentences are troubling. In particular: "The consensus opinion is that Brash was an excellent Governor". Who's opinion? A source, perhaps?--Cyberjunkie | Talk 04:38, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I've just attempted to re-word it to appear more npov. Is it looking any better? Izogi 07:37, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, it is better than it was. However, it still isn't entirely NPOV. There are many instances of weasel terms that compromise any claim of NPOV. Some sections remain a little partisan.--Cyberjunkie | Talk 08:09, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Biography and NPOV

[edit]

I've added Paul Goldsmith's biography of Brash to the bottom, with the proviso that there are no balancing critical biographies of the subject of that work currently in print. Note that this is not always the case*, however, when dealing with contentious political figures. Should one therefore post a caveat remark when editing such articles if one has come across an either friendly or unfriendly biographical account of its subject? It occurs to me that this would meet NPOV requirements. What do others think?

  • See, for example, my comments about the rival biographies on John Banks.

User: Calibanu 14:54, 09 April 2006

Relationships and "adultery"

[edit]

I'm no Don Brash fan but its a bit harsh to label his relationship "adultery" when there is a better, neutral way of expressing it. Also the Helen Clark comparison is gratuitous. I have decided to be brave and amend and delete, but what do others think? Kiwimw 19:43, 23 June 2006 (UTC) well Gadfium answered by editing just as I was writing the above!Kiwimw 19:45, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don Brash on leave

[edit]

The story as you've given it seems to me to be far too trivial to add to an encyclopedia article. There may be some much more major story hidden beneath, but that story is primarily about the infighting in Parliament which looks to be getting out of control. The 2005 New Zealand election funding controversy is the underlying cause of that infighting, and probably needs a paragraph about the threats to play dirty which have been made in the last month or so.-gadfium 02:30, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. Although I only think it should take up a line or so, it is quite relevant to Don Brash the man (as opposed to Don Brash the politician). Given that there isn't a section dedicated to his personal life, the 2006 and beyond section seems like the best place for it to be at the moment. Tell me to get back to work! 04:09, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper. If his marital difficulties result in divorce, then we'll include that in the article. That he takes a few days off to sort out some personal problems is trivial. Think of this from a long term perspective. In a year's time (or ten), will anyone remember this, or care, assuming he goes back to work on Monday and nothing further comes of it? If something further does come of it, then we add it to the article. As I said above (although it was intended for a user talk page, not an article talk page), there's something major bubbling underneath the surface here, and I'm not privy to the details. Let's wait for those details to emerge.-gadfium 04:44, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fair call. I'm generally for keeping personal lives of politicians off an article unless noteworthy, and this probably falls outside that category at the moment. Tell me to get back to work! 05:19, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I now know a lot more details, and it is a big deal, but it's still speculation. TV3 News covered it in detail, but TVNZ, the Herald, and Radio NZ have chosen not to cover it. I've put a comment into the article asking people not to add it at this point. I have to admit I'm perversely rather pleased that so many people are thinking of updating Wikipedia when such a major story breaks, but I still think it's premature. Perhaps we should add a brief mention with a link to the National Party press release [2] (as User:Midnighttonight did in the first place) to prevent others from adding the story.-gadfium 06:32, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
While I'm not going to re-add I personally don't agree with your view. IMHO, while wikipedia is not a news service, there is nothing wrong with adding brief mention of highly notable events about a subject even if these events could easily be no longer notable in 2-5 years. Obviously the mention should only be brief, we should not speculate and we should remeve this mention when it no longer merits inclusion in the article, but IMHO anyway we don't have to consider whether the issue will merit inclusion in a biography or 'normal' encyclopedia, simply whether it merits inclusion in wikipedia which isn't quite the same thing as a normal encyclopedia... Nil Einne 06:45, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There have now been three logged in editors, plus three anons, who have added these details or suggested that it is appropriate to do so. There has also been a fourth anon who added information to another article. Consensus is clearly against me, so I've added a minimal mention with a link to the National Party press release. I think this is a good compromise.-gadfium 08:19, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed my comment asking people not to add details. The issue is now widely publicised, and Wikipedia is no longer in danger of leading the news.-gadfium 01:45, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on race relations

[edit]

One of the things Don Brash is most widely reported on is his various comments on race relations, beginning in the Orewa speech and continuing to his recent comments on Justice Baragwanath's indigenous law paper (which a recent contribitor had a very POV attempt at mentioning). Surely there's some room in this article for some NPOV discussion of Mr Brash's various statements on race relations. A brief mention in the section on Orewa and a link to the article on racial separatism (which is the phrase he uses, but it's well and truly debatable whether NZ race relations is comparable to the examples in the linked article) don't do the issue justice. --Tirana 23:18, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I've had a stab at including some quotes and references. Now I'm thinking the structure's kind of ugly - the chronological approach (National Party Leader, Orewa Speech, 2005 election, 2006 and beyond) doesn't give much scope to pick out overarching issues like race relations, economic policy, leadership style, popularity and so on. There must be some political leader template we can draw upon. --Tirana 00:12, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nicky Hager

[edit]

I don't want to let the NH bit get out of control but I feel it does need to be covered in some detail. Although Brash denies this issue had anything to do with his resignation, obviously not everyone is going to agree. Coming just before his resignation, it's likely to be perceived as the straw that broke the camel's back so to speak. Also, I think the section needs to mention the injunction because it was IMHO quite a significant part of the whole controversy. Whatever you believe and whatever Brash intended, it was potrayed by various parties as if Brash was trying to cover things up. IMHO this was perceived as quite damaging to Brash. It's not just the book either since the media are going to be actively fighting the injuctions. I'm not going to actively fight removal of what I added if anyone disagrees but I do think we need to go into a resonable amount of detail even if it is repetition. I'm trying to debate any of this be added, just trying to explain why I think the NH bit is important in the article Nil Einne 12:24, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I purchased a copy of Hager's book last week, I think I might devise an entry based on the Hollow Men myself. Incidentally, one point. As Brash is no longer even a New Zealand Member of Parliament as from last Thursday, can we therefore indicate this on his political ratings sidebar, somehow? It might be confusing to others who aren't familiar with contemporary New Zealand politics.

User: Calibanu 11.44, 02 December 2006

Advertising Strategy - winning the centre?

[edit]

I'm not sure how much evidence there is that winning the centre formed the main thrust of Brash/National's advertising campaign, either in intention or effect. The billboards were the most notable feature, and they didn't say a thing about washing his own smalls or being a conscientious objector. If anything, the advertising strategy exaggerated relatively small policy differences between the two parties and ate into the territory previously occupied by Act. I'm sure Hager's not the only commentator on this issue, so there's a good chance the subject can be described in a balanced way. As it stands (without citations) it bears little resemblance to reality. --Tirana 04:14, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Respectfully, I disagree, even though I am no National Party supporter. The television ads which were aired on all television channels, introducing Brash (and surely, one can agree that such a first wave of ads is quite important in any election campaign, particularly one that hinges on winning the same constituency as the governing party, like Labour) emphasised these aspects of his life. After Bill English's term, many voters had the image of a hapless and hopelessly conservative party. The ad series' aim was to present a "softer" image and win enough centre-ground voters in the urban areas to overtake Labour and form a coalition with ACT and/or United Future. Prqc 18:16, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Conscientious Objector?

[edit]

I suppose he has been classed as a Conscientious Objector as a joke? Hugo999 (talk) 04:03, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He claimed to be one. I've added a ref to the article.-gadfium 05:16, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Don Brash. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 06:34, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Don Brash. 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) 01:09, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Don Brash. 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) 13:49, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Only 21st century past NZ Nat leader who did not become PM

[edit]

As examples - Edward Blake: “He is one of only three federal permanent Liberal leaders never to become Prime Minister of Canada, the others being Stéphane Dion and the latter's immediate successor Michael Ignatieff.”

Yōhei Kōno: “He was once President of the LDP from 1993 to 1995, and to date is the only LDP leader except for Sadakazu Tanigaki to have never served as Prime Minister of Japan.”

With these examples there should have been no difficulty in accepting and understanding that Don Brash is the only past NZ National leader of the 21st century who did not become NZ Prime Minister. Like the aforementioned Liberal Party of Canada and Japan’s LDP, with few exceptions, the NZ Nationals has a good record in seeing their leaders become Prime Minister. Along with Brash, Adam Hamilton and Jim McLay are the only other past NZ National leaders who did not become Prime Minister but Brash is the only one in the 21st century category. You don’t need a source to prove what 2 and 2 equals to.

I have interpreted the lock with this article because I made that fact about Brash as an attack on me. 110.33.0.155 (talk) 14:11, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article is semi-protected to stop IP users from adding unreferenced content (which is also false, as Bridges has not been prime minister). Schwede66 18:39, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I meant past NZ Nat leader which Bridges is not. Such a fact does not apply to the current leader who whilst as the current leader leading the party in opposition still has the chance to make his case to become prime minister. To view this any other way is a mere technicality.

It is not unreferenced content. It is fair comment. It was what I have said about putting 2 and 2 together.

This hasn't changed my view that the lock was an attack on me and you Schwede have misrepresented my intentions on this and have deliberately ignored the examples that I presented.

I like to ask that you Schwede to stay away from me. 110.33.0.155 (talk) 14:06, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing notable about this. You could just as well be arguing that he's the only National Party leader of the period 200--2010 to never become PM. I suggest you wait until the end of the century, and if what you say is still true, then perhaps it will be of sufficient interest for a reliable source to have noted it.
Incidentally, asking multiple other editors to stay away from you suggests only that you are incapable of working with others.-gadfium 23:33, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Race Relations

[edit]

Yes, Brash made those comments about British immigrants. How is this relevant to race relations? He's clearly talking about an ethno-cultural connection. It is possible to be racially black or Asian or anything really and have been raised in the United Kingdom and be completely culturally British even if they're not indigenous to Britain or of ethnic British identity. I question the use of the comment in race relations. 175.36.241.64 (talk) 10:44, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Don Brash's Performance as Reserve Bank Governor

[edit]

Is the last paragraph of that section on him really fair at all? It gives equal weighting (well, it isn't equal actually, one takes up a much more significant proportion than the other) to both what the The New Zealand Association of Economists says about Brash, and what some non-expert documentary filmmaker says about Brash. Mathmo Talk 09:57, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Don_Brash&oldid=1206417933"