Talk:Te Pūnaha Matatini

A new page

Feel free to comment on or ask questions about this new article, and sensible edits would be appreciated. I think it needs an info box, and more categories. Have a look at the name in the lede - is it ok to put the translation of the name like that without referring to te reo Maori? Realitylink (talk) 22:27, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Possible new sub-section

Kia ora I am looking to create a new section: Reception. I think there are some well-referenced responses to the modelling offered during COVID-19 and with a bit of careful editing, could be entered in line with the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.

The following information - some of which is already in the article - could be unpacked and re-presented to make the case for a new section:

• May 2020, peer review panel was establishedNIWA reference

• When funding was reconfirmed in 2021, Dawn Freshwater acknowledged the work Reference 1

• 22 September 2021, [https://www.bloomberg.com/profile/company/0483436D:NZ Andy Shenk said that the modelling was part of the effective use of big data.

Reference 2

• Ardern also noted that the model had not been peer reviewed and did not represent an inevitable outcome for NZ. Reference 3

• Robert Jones said the model was implausible - no need to scare NZers into getting vaccinated. Reference 4

• 11 October 2021, New Zealand Taxpayers' Union posted a press release calling for more transparency on how the funding was received. Reference 6

• 27 October 2021, after Te Pūnaha Matatini suggested putting Auckland into into a level 4 circuit-breaking lockdown to avoid the high levels of deaths and hospitalisations that their modelling had predicted, Ardern ruled the idea out. Chris Hipkins said that particular modelling did not take compliance into account "We have to bear in mind that it's a theoretical model based on a high degree of compliance with alert level 4, which we already weren't seeing by the time we made the decision to step down."Reference X

• 4 February 2022 Chris Hipkins was sceptical about the modelling, Jones added further critcism.Reference 5

Feedback is most welcome and if somebody else wants to pull it all together, come in here and share your thinking. I do reckon that the responses above cover a range of sources that warrant mention. I hope my personal bias doesn't show through! If it is, let me know! I don't believe in controversy for controversy's sake; this may be a chance to present neutral information and provide a balanced picture. If I do go ahead and set the section up, as indicated it will involve moving some of what is already there and adding the other information. Relatively straight forward to do. Look forward to hearing back from other interested editors. Realitylink (talk) 22:04, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Following the link on the last bullet point, it appears Hipkins and Jones were criticising modelling by someone else not TPM. 125.238.160.96 (talk) 09:21, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Fair point, no problem with the deletion Realitylink (talk) 19:16, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Also, following the link to your second to last bullet point, it doesn’t say TPM suggested a circuit breaker, it says they released modelling showing what a circuit breaker might achieve. 125.238.160.96 (talk) 09:28, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Again, ok with this deletion. Realitylink (talk) 19:17, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

And third to last (should have started at the top) it’s not clear from the article what funding the TPU is referring to? The same funding that Freshwater mentions? Totally not clear from the links provided. 125.238.160.96 (talk) 09:39, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I was not that happy with this reference orginally, so it can go. Realitylink (talk) 19:17, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Undecided whether the Hendy-Jones stoush is relevant. The article notes he was not Director at this point. 125.238.160.96 (talk) 09:42, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

I think this discussion is ok and valid to leave it in the section.Realitylink (talk) 20:21, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Also, take care when deleting references because, as in the case for this page, they are entered in a template format which means they can only be fully deleted in source editing mode. So, if you see one that can be justifiably deleted - and thanks for letting me know your thinking around the ones you did recently - go to the reference list and check that the one you want to delete has only been used once. Then go back to article in source editing mode and locate the one you want to delete - it will be in R|name format. So if you delete it from the body, you then need to go into references, again in source edit mode, scroll down and find the reference with that name and delete it from the list. It is not that difficult as they are pretty much in order. If that is not clear let me know. You added a very good journal reference which I re-entered using the journal citation format. This gives a more secure reference and being archived reduces the chance of link rot. Most Wikipedia editors don't use the single url as the reference. Realitylink (talk) 20:34, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Clarifying the status of some of the standalone programmes

Hi folks, it has been drawn to my attention that some of the research programmes - Covid-19 Modelling Aotearoa and The Disinformation Project - are now standalone. I have moved the page around a bit to show these programmes and will work on getting clarification of language and check the sources. I acknowledge that some of the media items just talk about them as Te Pūnaha Matatini which is not strictly true. Keep an eye of what I do here over the next few days - it could change as I get more information. Realitylink (talk) 04:44, 24 November 2022 (UTC)