Jump to content

Talk:Hekia Parata

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

Name

[edit]

The article currently uses 'Parata' and 'Lady Gardiner' interchangably when talking about the subject. I suggest that we consistently use one name (apart from introducing and discussing the other name). She's known as Parata, so that would seem the logical choice. Schwede66 16:23, 6 January 2011 (UTC) She used to be called Patricia back at school on the coast. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.62.226.243 (talk) 09:57, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Controversy

[edit]

I think that the current wording is extremely whitewashed and really doesn't give a balanced view of how major the Novapay issues, as well as the significant other issues have been, and the depth of anger from the Teachers towards her. I do not know any other company where individuals remained unpaid for 4 months. Where other individuals were overpaid $10K per week etc. To say nothing of the Christchurch closure debacles, and the random increases to class sizes etc. I do not feel this article is balanced at all, but I haven't had a chance to build up adequate citations. Jaybest (talk) 08:50, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is an encyclopaedia, not a blog. If anything this article is over heavy on the various controversies, particularly when compared with Ministers of Education of comparable reputation. See for example Merv Wellington, which features not one single word on how widely he was loathed during his time as Minister. Daveosaurus (talk) 10:51, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It misses out the controversy where she wanted to slash money to all special school children over the age of seven if National won the 2017 election as well. House Tules (talk) 01:21, 25 June 2022 (UTC)HouseTules[reply]

Parata and the TPO controversy

[edit]

This has been covered extensively by every media type for months and is very well documented online as a 5 second look will verify. It has been raised in the house at least 3 times.The Sunday Star Times did a very large well researched article last Sunday . The edit does not cover any of the other unsubstantiated claims that will no doubt come to light when the SFO completes its investigation. Claudia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.62.226.243 (talk) 07:35, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. So why not add references with urls that make it easy for others to check? A reference does not have to have a url (web address) to be acceptable, but since this has been so extensively covered in recent times, it should be easy for you to find such refs.-gadfium 20:37, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mr Google makes it far easier to check than urls.I was able to locate 15 refs with Mr G in less than 1 second.Feel free to put in some urls if you wish. As you said an edit does not need an url. Thanks for your interest gadfium. Claudia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.62.226.243 (talk) 21:07, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A few salient points from Wikipedia:Verifiability:
  • In Wikipedia, verifiability means that people reading and editing the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source.
  • Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed. Please remove unsourced contentious material about living people immediately.
  • The burden of identifying a reliable source lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing any reliable source that directly supports the material.
Either abide by Wikipedia policies or stop editing here. BlackCab (talk) 21:44, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously living in Australia Parata is not of much interest to the media there. Be assured all the points(and far more) made have be by every media outlet in NZ. If an interested reader cant find at least 10 references on google in a few seconds then their is something wrong with them. Some of the cartoons mocking Parata have been priceless. Yes TVNZ is very reliable and has very high standards as do all mainstream newspapers in general . Parata has continued to discuss all this information. She has not challenged any of the information in the media as inaccurate since it was first exposed nearly 6 months ago. Being a feisty woman she would be the first to take umbrage if she saw errors of fact. In the last few days she has been under further attacks by her own tribal organization for bringing the iwi into disrepute. Kiwis have found her behaviour strange to say the least and there have been numerous calls for her resignation. Espiner in the SST gives the best coverage probably-up to about 4-5 days ago. This is a moving story. Key is keen to keep her in the run up to the elections it seems. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.62.226.243 (talk)

This has nothing to do with where I live or what the media in Australia does. You seem to have trouble comprehending that Wikipedia requires that articles properly cite their sources so all readers can check that it's true. BlackCab (talk) 21:33, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Several different sources were cited and then removed by another editor. This is why a reader could not locate the refs!See above Gadfium"an edit does not need an url to be acceptable'.You seem to think it is acceptable that an editor removed information which is referenced and says that the refs are "made up" which is totally untrue. Is removing edits that are referenced more acceptable to you? Is accusations of falsehood acceptable? There were no comments from you regarding this disruptive editing. Claudia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.62.226.243 (talk) 22:18, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Several different sources"? Really? On March 23-24 you did three edits [1][2][3], which contained just two citations: "Sunday Star Times 23/3/2014" and "TV1 News.22/3/2014". For any Wikipedia article that's clearly inadequate; for BLP it's more so. BlackCab (talk) 22:42, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Claudia I'm sorry that you took offence at my "made up" comment this was maybe unwisely intended to mean that there was no way I could verify your edit - although it also came with, to be honest, a little knowledge about your erratic referencing style.
Just to point out to you as I don't think you really understand that your edit had, as an example, the following in it "One of the alleged offenders is a convicted criminal who has previously been jailed for stealing from the BNZ in 1982. She has already been sacked from TPO and has asked for $400,000 compensation.<re> TV1 News.22/3/2014</ref>" Although the individual was not named it talks about a single, probably identifiable, person and as such needs a totally and absolutely reliable reference given the nature of the claim. I'm personally not so worried about Ms Parata but the same caution should also be applied to her. Andrewgprout (talk) 23:45, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Andrew. This imformatiom was in every main newspaper in NZ(they included the person's name). Several repeated the info over the course of several weeks. The original information came from the Oct 2013 Maori affairs programme which caused the NZ Parliament to take an interest. It was repeated ad nauseam on talk back for several days. A Sunday paper ran an in depth investigation which included details of the person and her mother ,the old offences, details of the jail time,her previous position, her iwi and a list of the more resent "offences" which she has not denied. The person and her mother claim they were entitled to spend money on a variety of personal things. Claudia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.62.226.243 (talk) 09:16, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"read my lips" and try to understand!. No one here is saying these things are not necessarily true - What is being said to you is this. If it is so obvious and so well known that these things happened, why oh why, do you not provide proper varifiable and understandable references to your additions - it is you that has to do this - it is no one else's job. Andrewgprout (talk) 01:17, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Hekia Parata. 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) 11:44, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hekia_Parata&oldid=1204530375"