Talk:Nicky Hager

Need cite for Value Party

So far I can't find a citation for this statement in the lede "He stood as a Values Party candidate for Pahiatua in the 1978 general election." I'll keep looking but if I can't find one I'll remove it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.98.195.208 (talk) 11:34, 13 August 2014 (UTC) Found one in earlier version of article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.98.195.208 (talk) 12:02, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Hugo999 (talk · contribs), I believe you have a written source for pre-1985 election candidates. Can you help? Schwede66 04:35, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Now sourced. Schwede66 18:12, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Classic spin

Check this out: First we start with a mined quote from an opinion piece:

New Zealand Herald journalist John Armstrong said of the book: “While it is expected that attempts will be made to discredit the book and its author, the veracity of the findings of Hager's previous investigations, which include a landmark expose of New Zealand's security and intelligence organisations in the 1990s, has never come under serious challenge.”

Which of course is Armstrong's opinion, and doesn't necessarily make those claims true, AND says nothing about any of his new claims. But even so, the context is removed, such as the next bit:

His Seeds of Distrust, which covered Labour's political management of the vexed issue of genetic engineering, had a major bearing on the 2002 election campaign.

While both Labour and National may be embarrassed by Hager's findings, Other People's Wars is unlikely to have the same impact on this year's election."

...then uses another article to craft the narrative that Key and Mateparae DIDN'T READ THE BOOK but were reflexively discrediting the book...

A day later, Prime Minister John Key, who had not read the book, said it was a work of fiction. Jerry Mateparae, former head of the Defence Force, who was appointed as Governor General in the same week as the release of the book and who similarly had not read the book, said that the claims were abhorrent.

If you read the cited article, the two men were asked about specific claims in the book for which they didn't NEED to have read the book. Inaccurate, but great spin if you're pushing a barrow about how mendacious Key and Mateparae are.

What flagrant fanboy wrote this breech of NPOV?

I'll try and clean it up tomorrow.

'Dirty Politics' section

From User talk:Diannaa:

You recently changed the protection level on Nicky Hager, could you please take a look at the history since then and maybe consider raising the protection level? Stuartyeates (talk) 03:33, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Since there has been edit warring on Nicky Hager is should really have been protected with a {{disputed}} tag put it. The protected version of the page does not have a consensus. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 03:42, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure that's appropriate, as the tag mentions "factual accuracy". The content dispute is more about whether or not the sources are high enough quality. -- Diannaa (talk) 03:48, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

The Protected Version of Nicky_Hager in the ' Dirty Politics ' section contains an unsubstantiated opinion by one player. This unsubstantiated opinion [by J.Key] would be better posted onto john key's wiki page, if warranted. If unsubstantiated opinions are considered worthy of posting to Nicky_Hager's wiki page, shouldn't unsubstantiated opinions by other people also be posted to provide balance. — GHSinclair (talk • contribs) 03:56, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

You need to discuss this on the article talk page, not here. -- Diannaa (talk) 03:58, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

The "opinion", or rather assessment, is that of respected New Zealand political historian and ex-Labour MP Michael Bassett and the passage is perfectly referenced. The only possible BLP violation is in the minds of the POV pushers on this article. Here is the text they are wikilawyering about - by all means everyone should check it and the citations. You'll see that is a short and spare statement attributed directly to the historian:

New Zealand political historian and ex-Labour MP Michael Bassett characterises Hagar as a far left "plot theorist". [1][2]

Diannaa I request that you reinstate the text. Edgespath24 (talk) 04:40, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

There appears to be some confusion expressed here: The contentious material that was being repeatedly re-introduced by ' Edgespath24 ' was unsubstantiated opinion by J.Key. These opinions were redacted as Key's opinions are better placed on his own wiki page, if warranted at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GHSinclair (talk • contribs) 06:13, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

That's an idiotic objection. Key's opinion on the subject, belongs on the subject's article. Especially when it's a response to Hager's personal attacks on the PM. 101.98.195.208 (talk) 06:49, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

[ as an aside: describing Bassett solely as 'ex-Labour' is somewhat disingenuous; for instance, Prebble or Douglas could also be listed as 'ex-Labour ' - but less deceitfully as 'ACT founders'. Why not describe Bassett as an 'ex-Labour member, progressing through being a Rogernomics enthusiast, to ending up as a Don Brash adviser . . . ' (&, according to David Lange "[whilst] my father delivered him, it became plain in later days that he must have dropped him .... " ! ) ] — Preceding unsigned comment added by GHSinclair (talk • contribs) 06:13, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

What a hypocrite you are. Have you removed that Lange quote from the Michael Bassett article and placed it on the David Lange page? Nope. 101.98.195.208 (talk) 06:49, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Nothing 'idiotic', at all; I was clarifying that what was being redacted was the contentious material that was being repeatedly re-introduced by ' Edgespath24 ', [being] unsubstantiated opinion by J.Key, NOT 'an assessment by ... Michael Bassett ' — Preceding unsigned comment added by GHSinclair (talk • contribs) 07:00, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Yet you removed the other material as well...101.98.195.208 (talk) 07:09, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

OK let me attempt to get your argument straight. Hager produces a book accusing Key of being involved in political "dirty tricks" yet it is somehow "contentious" to include a quote from Key replying directly to Hager's accusations. If we do include a response from Key, it needs to be not on THIS page, which briefly discusses the book, but in the John Key article, which doesn't discuss the book (likely because Key didn't write the book and make the accusations, Hager did).

However, if it's someone you disagree with politically, such as Michael Bassett (what a turncoat!), then it's OK to include a quote from an ideologically proper PM, David Lange, stating that "My father had delivered him, and it became plain in later days that he must have dropped him".

Have I got that straight? What's that principle called again? 101.98.195.208 (talk) 07:50, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

It's about reliable sourcing. We have a policy on this at WP:reliable sources. I'd encourage you to read it. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:46, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Link to Dirty Politics site

A link to the preface of 'Dirty Politics': http://dirtypoliticsnz.com/ . Useful for those of us who haven't managed to get hold of a physical copy, yet. GHSinclair (talk) 10:23, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

It's a primary source for this article, so exactly what use is it here? Stuartyeates (talk) 10:30, 15 August 2014 (UTC)