Talk:Tea tape scandal

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Elections and Referendums  
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Elections and Referendums, an ongoing effort to improve the quality of, expand upon and create new articles relating to elections, electoral reform and other aspects of democratic decision-making. For more information, visit our project page.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
WikiProject New Zealand / Politics  (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject New Zealand, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New Zealand and New Zealand-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the New Zealand politics task force (marked as Mid-importance).


The Prime Ministers comments in this section do not consititute analysis. I believe they are candidates for removal. (talk) 17:33, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Authoritative Sources[edit]

I have reinstated the legal opinion deleted earlier today.

My reasoning is as follows. I accept not all opinion is equally valid. However, I believe that we must pay regard to experts speaking in their area of expertise, and their opinion is authorative. By this I mean that within a legal framework their opinion carries weight. This does not mean such sources are infallible. It means that they must be respected as opinions supported with in depth knowledge of their subject area.

Within his area (as a lawyer speaking on matters of law) Stephen Price therefore speaks as an expert and so his opinion cannot be dismissed lightly. Furthermore by publishing a link to the tapes, he is saying "Go ahead - charge me, you don't have a case". There is a saying that actions speak louder than words and he is certainly by his actions showing confidence in his professional opinion. (talk) 07:07, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

It's slightly better worded this time around, but "some media commentators" is WP:WEASEL words, you should attribute it in the text to "barrister Steven Price" or similar. Dcxf (talk) 08:13, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

To begin with you misquote me. I did not say "some media commentators", I said "some legal commentators", and secondly it is more that just Mr Price, he quotes other opinions also. Let me quote:

And here’s the thing: I don’t know that it was an illegally intercepted private conversation. What I know is that several experts (like Dean Knight and Andrew Geddis) have argued that it can’t possibly have been.

If you had read the link you would have known this. (talk) 09:28, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I see what you mean, but he doesn't actually quote or link to Dean Knight's or Andrew Geddis' opinions so it's impossible to tell which aspect he thinks they were commenting on (the intentional recording or the expectation of being overheard). His blog is borderline acceptable for statements of his own opinion, but when he starts paraphrasing others without references it becomes unreliable IMHO. Dcxf (talk) 10:46, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

There is one thing in life that you do not do is misquote lawyers. If you do they will sue your arse off. I believe his comments can be taken at face value. (talk) 17:44, 14 February 2012 (UTC) I have since asked Steven Price for his sources and he has responded. I will supply the required references as I find them. One of the commentators, Nikky Hager believes that the teatapes brought NZ First into parliment. If he is right, then this farce, and that what the whole controversy is, has helped shaped parliment in a significant way.

The difficulty I have is that as a non lawyer reading the various opinions is that I really don't understand the arguments well as they are on matters of law, and this is why Steven Price seems to refer to others and us lay people have trouble following the connections. I will do my best to present their positions as well as I can. (talk) 10:05, 16 February 2012 (UTC)


My recent attempts to put the tea tapes into some sort of perspective by reference to the political situation seem has been removed in "good faith". Without a proper understanding of the electoral system and similar considerations the political nature of this event is not apparent. It is my opinion that removing such context is a disservice to the reader. I understand that the politics of others may not be the same as mine, but it seems to me that removing the context of this article is an act of bad faith. (talk) 04:28, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Linking to the tape?[edit]

Now that the tape has been leaked to various online repositories, and widespread media coverage appears to confirm that the leak is of the genuine article, Wikipedia needs to consider whether we include one or more links to the material. I am aware that several editors have already attempted to place such links or remove them.

Most media reports are not providing links, but there are some significant exceptions, including Russell Brown's Hard News [1], Scoop (website) [2], and an interesting legal analysis by Steven Price at [3]. Price is not worried that the police will prosecute him for publishing the link, however New Zealand-based editors may wish to exercise caution in updating the article.-gadfium 01:07, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't think we should avoid using articles as references simply because they link to the tape, however an otherwise useless link or an external link highlighting the fact that the tape may be located there is inappropriate. —Andrewstalk 05:36, 29 January 2012 (UTC)


Here's AP story RaqiwasSushi (talk) 05:41, 21 March 2016 (UTC)