Talk:John Key/Archive 1

Rt Hon v Hon

Has John Key been made a member of the Privy Council, like Helen Clark was? I'd assume, since Helen was made the Rt Hon, John would be too. Instead it says he is merely the Honourable. What is the story with this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.154.130.73 (talk) 10:32, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I think so too, aren't Prime Ministers addressed as "The Right Honourable", with them being first and all?

By the way, the person who made the changes to the page is awesome! -- 125.237.2.1 (talk) 11:32, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Key may well be appointed to the Privy Council, which is up to the British Prime Minister and the Queen, [1] but this has not happened yet. Dcxf (talk) 14:08, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

This is a decision for the New Zealand Prime Minister, not the UK one, so as soon as he asks the Queen to appoint him he will be Rt Hon. Helen Clark was made Rt Hon in 1989 or 1990 when she was deputy leader of the Opposition, but there have been no new 'Rt Hon' appointments since 1998 or 1999. Kiwimw (talk) 21:06, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

When Key announced the reinstatement of titular honours, it was stated "The Prime Minister has decided not to make any further recommendations to the British Prime Minister for appointments to the Council."[2] in other words, no-one will be called "The Right Honourable" anymore. --Lholden (talk) 06:07, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

PM

As of 8.11.08 John Key is now Prime Minister elect of NZ. If someone would be able to change this, it would be great..

AX Xianghua - 11:08 8.11.08

trivia & tone

Is John Key's use of the postal system noteworthy because he's the leader of the National Party? I don't know why him sending a rosette to his mother is much deserving of posterity. And is putting his address up less noteworthy and more an invasion of his privacy? And perhaps, more than anything, public figures, leaders of political parties and members of the House of Representatives don't need trivia sections, because they don't need to be trivialised - if it have to be included as loose change at the end of the article, was it noteworthy to begin with? This article needs to be fleshed out some more, and focused less on JK the private citizen and more on JK the public official. It's a bit directionless, is all. Kripto 21:22, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree, there is too much mindless trivia. What has his birthday presents to his mother got to do with anything? I added a fansite template to the trivia section.

NZ forever 02:54, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Citations and Sources

"John Key is believed to be NZ's richest..." is not fact, nor is there any proof of this. It is not Neutral POV. Stevee2 04:00, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Chill Palooka

• Thanks for the suggestion, but I think I shall pass. Stevee2 11:52, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Also the NBR Rich list has Bob Clarkson, MP for Tauranga, at $30 million, and no mention of Key. The NBR rich list is notoriously unreliable, but equally it is the best measure we have - especially compared to speculation. Ham21 13:24, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

There are numerous instances in this article where the citation either does not directly support the text or the cited news story lacks credibility. The allegation about John Key's wealth, for example, is an unsupported throw-away in a Scoop press release. Shouldn't an editor go through this article and remove a lot of this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.197.43.2 (talk) 02:44, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Citecheck template removed

The citecheck template flags a specific type of problem: inappropriate or misleading citations, such as quotations taken out of context. That does not appear to be the problem here. Please see Wikipedia:Cleanup resources if some other template is needed. Durova 03:00, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Role clarification

The articles needs to make clear that key will/is head the parlimentary cacus. Not the Whole National party. - SimonLyall 09:25, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

OK, I changed it to "Parliamentary leader". Dcxf (talk) 07:35, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Views

Could anyone tell me whether he is a republican or a monarchist.

I'd say republican. I don't think he's a hard-core one though, like most tories. --Lholden 22:12, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Since he's leader of the CONSERVATIVE party, it's safe to assume he's a conservative. Conservative doesn't equal republican.--202.74.203.122 16:54, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

How do you explain Jim Bolger then? --Lholden 20:45, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Ancestry

Under Trivia he would (if National won) be the THIRD Prime Minister of Jewish descent - after Julius Vogel & who else? Hugo999 13:18, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Francis Bell's mother was Jewish, which makes him Jewish under the traditional Jewish rules. However, I'm not certain whether he considered himself to be Jewish — I think his father was Anglican, and he apparently attended an Anglican school. So he was of partial Jewish descent, but may not have been practicing (unlike Vogel). -- Vardion 19:41, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Much like Key himself - he's Jewish by traditional (although not Israeli) rules. --Lholden 20:25, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Criticism

Should a section be added for criticism on John Key? Perhaps a bit about his credibility or political inexperience. Some say he plans on privatizing NZ public schools, perhaps a bit about the problems that will cause etc. He seems to have been given too much of a "dream ride" here. 203.173.137.174 09:32, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I would prefer that any criticism be incorporated in the body of the article rather than put in a separate section. Criticism, even more than other material, must be cited to a reliable source - it is not acceptable to add "Some say...". Care must also be taken that no one incident is blown out of proportion. See WP:BLP for some of the rules.-gadfium 19:37, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

How about his political inexperience? That doesn't even need to be cited.203.173.137.174 11:59, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

You would still need to refer to some well-respected political commentator writing about this. However, I see little point in doing so. Calling someone inexperienced is about the weakest criticism you can make. Key has as much experience as Brash, and more than Brash did when he became Leader of the Opposition. Adding such a criticism would seem to be looking for points to criticise for their own sake. You are welcome to add referenced material about any foot-in-mouth incidents, policy flip-flops, or similar genuinely political criticism.-gadfium 20:18, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Copy

Some of the Early Life and Family is a direct copy from http://johnkey.co.nz/index.php?/pages/profile.html

I've removed the one paragraph that was a copy. The rest looks fine to me. As the deleted paragraph was the only part which dealt with his family, I've changed the section heading.-gadfium 00:00, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

your country needs you

This article is pure angora. It's loose, and fluffy and a little too warm. It looks a bit like a fanbio in places, and there's no order or flow. It goes from the s.59 thing straight into how JK isn't religious. And it's full of junk clauses like 'is seen by many to' - probably is also 'not seen by many to' as well. And we tripped into the hole that says political polls are noteworthy. It's just a mess, and if this is the best we can do, then we should all just give up now and get myspace pages and talk about our favourite My Chemical Romance songs, because we're just so freakin' lightweight. Are we? Kripto 02:49, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

{{sofixit}}-gadfium 05:53, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah. I'll do some of it, but not all of it. But this comment is as much about articles not yet written as it is about this page. 06:40, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Polls aren't mentioned anywhere in this article, save for the 2005 election results. --Lholden 07:15, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

That's because I deleted them. Maybe I should have amended the above comments. Kripto 07:29, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh good. There was a minor edit war (well, skirmish) over that. All polls should be on the New Zealand general election 2008 article. --Lholden 09:10, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

my neck hurts.

I am way unhappy about the s.59 paragraph. I don't know how to broach politcal contrasts between Key and Dr B, and there's a source missing about the drinking age bill, and mention of hopes of co-operation with Labour. But I feel better about this article. Kripto 11:52, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Interesting Fact

He claims to be reading "From Third World to First World" by Lee Kuan Yew. He mentioned this in May of 2006 and mentioned in June of 2007 that this was the book he was currently reading. Slow reader perhaps? This is obviously a piece of political spin (the title of the book conveying a false message National are trying to push) but shouldn't it be included as some sort of "fun fact"? Bacta 13:53, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

what would be better if he cited Lee Kuan Yew as an influence, we could use that (somehow). Of course, that would be a bad idea for JK politically, it just wouldn't go down well - in politics, inference is as good as fact. But, trivia is really, really frowned on. People look down their noses, right down at it. But keep your eyes open anyway, he must have done some more stuff, and the page will always need updating. Kripto 23:38, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

My edits

Why was my controversies section deleted? Helen Clark has a controversies section. I think there is some biased editing going on here! Bactoid 11:36, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I didn't delete the content, just merged it into the previous section. I do suspect that the material you added is mostly too minor and will later be refactored out of the article, but I have no intention of doing that at the moment. I'm happy to let the article grow organically, and at this point it needs shaping rather than more drastic pruning.

In general, having a separate controversies section is not considered good for articles. I'd like to get rid of the controversies section in the Clark article as well, not by deleting the content but by merging it into various more balanced sections. This would be far more work, which is why I haven't done it yet.-gadfium 19:28, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Ah I see. My apologies. Thank you for the work. Bactoid 13:42, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Israel

Does anyone know his position on Zionism and the existence of Israel? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.74.203.76 (talk) 10:03, August 24, 2007 (UTC)

good luck on finding his position on anything. 218.101.69.237 22:42, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I fail to see how his view on Zoinism is at all important. The international influence of New Zealand is pretty limited after all. 210.50.144.39 (talk) 00:40, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Political Views

This section isn't neutral. It is a list of criticisms of Key, which are valid, but not a list of his political views by any measure. It's simply not correct that Key describes himself as a "centrist", when he leads a centre-right political party. The section then continues to attack Key on some fairly flimsy stuff that has little to do with whether Key's a centrist. I don't want to spark an edit war, because some of it is valid, but it's hardly balanced in context, but the tone does at least need to be neutral and wikified. Randomkiwi 08:50, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with these points, and you are welcome to edit the section. I have been resisting the attempts of anons to remove it without explanation however.-gadfium 09:13, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Great, thanks. I've had a go at it, and will add references shortly. Randomkiwi 10:03, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Article Quality

I think this article should be re-rated as "start class" at least, with a view to upgrading it to B class over time. Any thoughts on that? It's clearly no longer a stub. Randomkiwi 05:30, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Yep, I've seen a lot of start class articles and this is a fine example of one. Richard001 11:29, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Religion

I'm nominating religion in New Zealand for Did you know. Is it fair to describe Key as agnostic? I'm not sure if he even knows the word - he seems to me to be somewhat of an agnostic apatheist that would rather play golf than have a serious discussion about religion. He doesn't seem to want to say what he is though. We have a reference for Clark being agnostic, and Key has more or less said he is in less clear words, but is it acceptable to make a generalization like that? Would a footnote giving a more detailed quote be okay? Richard001 11:26, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

"Not stated" would be more correct than agnostic- if you follow the reference you'll see that his position is fairly complex (vis afterlife). --Lholden 20:25, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I've added a footnote explaining his position in the article if you take a look. He's more or less agnostic since he does say he's not really a big believer, and seems to limit his use of 'religion' to morality only, but it's necessary to point out the specifics as well. Trying to do that without interrupting the flow of the text is very difficult though. Richard001 01:49, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I wonder whether it's worth mentioning religion at all, given that he doesn't take much interest in it himself. What relevance does it have to his role as prime minister? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.240.61.2 (talk) 05:03, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Picture

I emailed the National Party about using one of the images from their flickr account, where they are licensed under CC-BY-NC-ND. Unfortunately they are not willing to make it available under a derivatives allowed license. This means we need someone to track down John Key and photograph him ourselves. Evil Monkey - Hello 03:30, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Family?

I wouldn't mind seeing something about John Key's family, at the very least just some bio information about his partner and children? --Logiboy123 (talk) 02:42, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I've added a little more. Too much/not enough? Dcxf (talk) 23:43, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Query: What is the point of naming his children? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.197.43.2 (talk) 11:26, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

The names people give their children can reveal a bit about their character and background, and it was in one of the articles I cited so it's in the public record anyway. But if people find it objectionable please take it out. Dcxf (talk) 20:49, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

The point of talking about John Key's family is that it reveals where he is at in life. Does he have young children; will this influence his policy towards lower level educational facilities? Information about John Key's family can give us insight into who he is as a person, not just as a political figure. --Logiboy123 (talk) 21:36, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Education

I have edited the description of his education as I beleive it is potentially misleading. Key, by his own admission, did not participate in any registered postgraduate study at Harvard but rather took short courses that are not a component of any formal degree qualification assocaited with the central university. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.67.137.64 (talk) 21:29, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Where is the reference for "the courses taken were not components of any formal degree course at Harvard"? Dcxf (talk) 21:41, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

This information was provided to me in an email from John Key's staff in response to questions about this Harvard issue. 129.67.137.64 (talk) 21:58, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but a private email is not a reliable source (WP:BLP#Sources). Dcxf (talk) 22:44, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, but you have no reference that states he did 'postgraduate' study, so that goes. 129.67.137.64 (talk) 22:52, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Any reference to Harvard is very misleading and dangerously partisan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.1.236.53 (talk) 11:59, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I have looked at the issue of Key's education. There are currently two references that support the statement that he "studied management at Harvard." However, I note that the existing link on the page to Key's parliamentary profile no longer works. The updated version ( http://www.parliament.nz/en-NZ/MPP/MPs/MPs/b/e/f/49MP78101-Key-John.htm ) makes no reference to Harvard, only his qualification at the University of Canterbury. The other reference from the NZ Herald asserts that Key studied management at Harvard, but this statement is unsupported by any details. There is a reference to studying management listed on Key's National Party site (http://www.johnkey.co.nz/index.php?/pages/profile.html) but with no futher details regarding the nature or duration of the study. I have been unable to find details of Key's time at Harvard. As such I suggest that this reference to his education be edited to reflect the lack of clarity about Key's association with Harvard. —Preceding unsigned comment added by NZ Kunckles (talk • contribs) 17:12, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the research. I've trimmed the sentence accordingly, and removed the dead ref.-gadfium 20:59, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

VANDALISM

MOST of what i wrote was just a bit of fun at key's expense and you are welcome to Delete it

HOWEVER the bit about his socially conservative voting record is entirely valid

thanks - philu —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.57.62.181 (talk) 00:05, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

You have removed sourced information indicating that his voting on some issues is conservative and on others more liberal, and substituted only the conservative votes. Combined with your childish insults, it is clear that you are not a neutral party, and should not edit Wikipedia on such subjects. I will continue to block you without further warning.-gadfium 01:42, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Religion mark 2

I noted that the religion has been changed to Jewish. I think it was a mistake. What I know is he is half-Jew (race), but not Jewish (religion). I noted some people, including myself sometimes, often misused those two. He also does not believe in afterlife. w_tanoto (talk) 13:29, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree, reverted it. Dcxf (talk) 19:39, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Worth noting there is no Jewish race, Key is half Ashkenazi but there are Sephardi jews, black jews etc. Also the afterlife is no where near as important in judaism than christiany. YeshuaDavid (talk) 20:14, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Reverted again - the link given (Herald article where he was badgered into stating "Well if you're asking me if I'm religious it depends how you define religion. ..... my mother was Jewish which technically makes me Jewish" is not a claim of religious affiliation, it is all about a cultural heritage. While the (presumably Jewish) Jerusalem Post may wish to claim him as one of their own, that is not the basis for a claim of his religion as opposed to his ancestry. Fanx (talk) 00:11, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Looking at the quotes it seems he considers himself both Jewish and Christian and therefore in the infobox I'm putting both. Does anyone know what denomination he affiliates with? Valley2city^‽ 16:31, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree that his 'Jewishness' is not religious. His 'Christianity' appears to be occasional visits to unspecified churches. ^rossnixon 02:10, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Whether or not he is religious or practicing is not a factor within this box. He readily admits to being Jewish, as was presented in the quote. This quote is notable enough to include Jewishness as well as Christianity. Valley2city^‽ 06:00, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Fine, I'm not going to make any further changes or reversions (one is enough for me) as consensus seems to be against my reading of the text. However, I do wish to continue the discussion. I do admit that my link should have directed to Judaism and not Jew, so as to refer to the religion and not the ethnicity (completely unintentional), but the article is riddled with references to his Jewishness so I don't know how we can weigh one religion over the other in this situation when he acknowledges he is both and that by both Jewish law and by his own admission is Jewish. Valley2city^‽ 07:26, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

There seems to be no record of him having any involvement with Judaism other than his mother being Jewish. Would we be having this discussion if his mother was Catholic or Hindi? . I notice the the article for George W. Bush lists his currently religion not the one he had for the first 30 years of his life. - SimonLyall (talk) 10:59, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I suggest all editors read the references and sources previously cited on Key's religious views. He's fairly agnostic, although not an atheist.--Lholden (talk) 22:49, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

The references suggest that Key isn't very interested in religion. I suggest we remove religion from the article entirely, as it isn't relevant to him or his role as prime minister. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.240.61.2 (talk) 05:06, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Leader of the Opposition

Is it really correct to list Clark as succeeding Key in this role? She is still Prime Minister now, and it seems unlikely that by the time Key takes office she will serve as Leader of the Opposition, even for a brief period. John Howard, who similarly resigned as leader as soon as his defeat was known, is not listed as following Kevin Rudd as Leader of the Opposition in Australia - it goes straight to Brendan Nelson, the new Liberal leader. It seems a reasonable precedent.125.239.177.143 (talk) 20:19, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Helen Clark is Leader of the Opposition by virtue of her being leader of the largest party not in government, and she will hold that position from the time she conceded defeat until the Labour Party elects a new leader. Being Leader of the Opposition does not require leadership of the parliamentary opposition (which in turn requires the new parliament to assemble). Nor does it follow that New Zealand follows Australia's manner of doing things. What is unusual is that Helen has taken the unprecedented step of falling on her sword immediately after her party's defeat. I believe the shortest time a party leader remained as Opposition Leader was 4 months Robert Muldoon served in 1984 - and he had to be forced out. It was normal for a defeated PM to remain as Opposition Leader for a year or more after their electoral defeat - Bill Rowling stayed as Labour (and Opposition) Leader for over six years after losing to Muldoon in 1975. Generally parties were more forgiving of unelected ex-PMs than the elected ones. See Leader of the Opposition (New Zealand) Fanx (talk) 00:50, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Note: John Howard was 23^rd Australian Leader of the Opposition from 1985 to 1989, and again during 1995 - 1996. The reason he wasn't Opposition Leader after the 2007 election was because he'd lost his Bennelong seat, and he'd've needed to actually be elected to Parliament to be leader. Fanx (talk) 01:44, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

It just seems odd. By this reasoning, she is simultaneously Prime Minister and Leader of the Opposition.125.239.177.143 (talk) 05:20, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I see she has been replaced in the infobox by Phil Goff, which seems much more appropriate. I really don't see any sense in considering her Leader of the Opposition for three days, while still Prime Minister.125.239.177.143 (talk) 06:17, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Technically the post of Leader of the Opposition is currently vacant. Parliament is dissolved and the country is being run by the Executive Council until the new Parliament is sworn in -> No opposition to be led yet. As with the PM category below, we are crystalballing. dramatic (talk) 23:57, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Category:Prime Ministers of New Zealand

Is it just that nobody has added this yet, or are we waiting for a reason? Richard001 (talk) 03:37, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I was bold & added it in, as it is clear to all he will be the next PM Mathmo ^Talk 04:01, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Well I've reverted it. While he is almost definitely going to be PM, he isn't now nor has he ever been so putting him in the category now is silly. Remember this is wikipedia, an encylopaedia and we don't just go adding stuff because it is almost definitely going to happen in the future when it hasn't happened yet. Nil Einne (talk) 17:11, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

And it should go back - as PM-designate it is fair to say he is a type of NZPM and his period of office will be backdated to 8 November anyway. We achieve nothing by leaving him out - apart from confusing anyone trying to find his page indirectly. Fanx (talk) 11:50, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

If he gets run over by a bus today then he'll have never have been PM. Hence he should not be listed as one until he is PM. Bush is still listed as president of the US and his replacement has actually been elected directly to the position. In Keys place right now he is just the leader of the largest party in the provisional election results. - SimonLyall (talk) 18:12, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. All the media are usually clear that he is PM-designate, PM-elect or presumptive PM which basically whether you like the terms or not all mean one thing. He isn't actually the PM yet! As SL says, there is a tiny chance (even less now then when above obviously) he will never be PM and as such, it's rather dumb for an encylopaedia to say he's a PM when he may never even be PM. Note that Fanx's claims tha the period of office will be backdated is also likely inaccurate. I'm not an expert on constitionally matters like this but note that the Helen Clark article and the PM of NZ article say she has been PM since December 5th 1999. I believe this is the date she was sworn in (the election was the 27th) and this makes sense since she wasn't PM until she was sworn in, just as JK won't be PM until he's sworn in (and can then attend APEC as PM of NZ). In other words, this isn't nitpicking but simply reflective of the reality of the situation as supported by multiple reliable sources Nil Einne (talk) 10:10, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

PM Elect or Designate?

Does anyone have a ref on which is the correct term for NZ, Prime Minister-elect or Prime Minister-designate? The media have been using both, the Cabinet Manual uses "designate", and editors here seem intent on changing it to "elect". Who's right? Dcxf (talk) 10:27, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

It should be "designate", the American term "elect" creeps in - possibly from American editors who can't imagine another term for the status of an incoming leader. I heard Mark Sainsbury use Prime Minister elect this evening on Close Up and I wanted to throw rocks at my TV - he should know better. Fanx (talk) 11:43, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

in westminster parliamentary system, prime minister is not elected. a party is elected, and its leader would be the prime minister. change of leader means change of PM. remember tony blair and gordon brown? so the term designate is more appropriate. w_tanoto (talk) 18:47, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

The Cabinet Manual is a constitutionally authoritative document, so I'd go with Prime Minister-Designate. From a legal view point, we don't directly elect the Prime Minister, they're appointed by the Governor-General, based on their view whether the leader of a party(s) has the confidence of Parliament... so I'd go with designate on that basis also. --Lholden (talk) 19:49, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

It's water under the bridge now, but I just thought I'd mention that "Prime Minister-elect" is throughly entrenched in Australia, which has many similarities with NZ in these respects. Everyone knows that a PM in a Westminster system is not directly elected by the people, but the term is understood for what it is, because a person goes to the people as the leader of a party, and people vote because of that leader as much as they vote for the party. They say "I'm voting for Key/Rudd/whoever" as much as they say "I'm voting for the <name of party> Party", or "I'm voting for Joe Bloggs, the <name of party> candidate in my electorate". -- JackofOz (talk) 21:19, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Half-British

His father is british, and john key have 2 half-brothers, one in UK and one in Canada. [3] maybe he should be categorised as english-new zealander w_tanoto (talk) 13:57, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Heh, thanks for that, I never knew. --Lholden (talk) 19:50, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

'Suceeded by' section

Um... that's the Helen Clark article. hE hasn't been succeeded by anyone yet :-) Fairweather01 (talk) 00:59, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Needs semiprotection?

40 of the last 50 edits on this page were either vandalism or reversion thereof. Most of the vandalism came from IPs. Possibly its time to semiprotect the page for a few weeks? dramatic (talk) 20:17, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Sounds fair. Call the Diplomatic Protection Squad. ^rossnixon 00:50, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

'twas done soon after I posted: I put it on WP:RFP. John is safe for 7 days. dramatic (talk) 02:06, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

The Diplomatic Protection Squad can stand down now. Why don't we have an article about them?--118.93.185.25 (talk) 02:24, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

It could even have a photo of their campervan in John Key's driveway :-) dramatic (talk) 08:47, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Officially becoming Prime Minister

John Key is to be sworn in as Prime Minister of New Zealand on Wednesday, 19 November, 2008 (NZ Herald). Thenceforth he should be refered to as such in this article, as well as all other articles mentioning him. --B. Jankuloski (talk) 01:57, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

pls add 1 IW link, thanks !

[[John Key]]

Done, assumed it was for Wu Chinese. XLerate (talk) 04:48, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

YES !! THANK YOU !! NOW NAME TRANSLATED: wuu: 约翰·菲利普·凯伊

 

203.35.135.133 (talk) 09:18, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

List Placing in 48^th Parliament

In the article it says that Key was placed 7^th on the Party List in 2005 , but on Judith Collins' article, it says she was placed 7^th too. Can someone please help/fix?
Thanks
Adabow (talk) 07:35, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Judith Collin's article appears to have been in error. I've corrected it to the position given in Party lists in the New Zealand general election 2005.-gadfium 08:46, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

National Cycleway Project

Seeing that this was/is his "pet project" (not saying that in a derogarory sense), would people consider it appropriate to have a link to that article from here? I'm only asking in the first place because there doesn't seem much on the focus of his political work since becoming prime minister. Ingolfson (talk) 09:21, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I think so, six references in that article have "Key" and "cycleway/bike/track". XLerate (talk) 11:31, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

done. (thanks to Ingolfson) singlish_speaker♫ (talk) 04:32, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Richard Worth

The Richard Worth saga and Key's handling thereof is shaping up as a point of some significance in Key's term as PM, evidently both positive and negative depending on the eye of the beholder. Does this deserve a section with some brief, factual, points and a link? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaplan73 (talk • contribs) 01:35, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't see it as a major issue for Key. If he'd handled it really badly eg by trying to cover it up then it would certainly be appropriate to mention it. It might be possible to have a paragraph on his leadership style, which would also include how he handled the recent comments by Melissa Lee, but it would need to be careful not to veer into original research.-gadfium 03:51, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

The media coverage is now more about Key's handling of the case. The following two paragraphs from Richard Worth are perhaps more relevant to this article than to that one:

Goff questioned why the Prime Minister refused to meet with the woman alleged to be at the centre of this controversy. In response, Prime Minister Key stated that if there are texts that implicate Worth further, that would be enough to have Worth expelled from the National Party parliamentary caucus. After meeting with the National Party board, the Prime Minister noted that Dr Worth would remain a National Party caucus member until the matter was resolved, whether through acquittal after the current police investigation, or laying of formal charges. Goff has requested a meeting that would involve the Prime Minister, himself and the woman at the centre of this controversy, which the Prime Minister has allegedly refused to grant

The Prime Minister has not in fact refused to meet with the woman, having offered to meet her after she showed the allegedly vulgar texts to Wayne Eagleson, his chief of staff. She has not done so.

Accordingly, I retract my above comment that this is not a major issue for Key. A suitably-worded and referenced paragraph which includes this material could be added to the "Prime Minister" section.-gadfium 06:45, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Photo

I think this article could do with a new photograph of John Key. Is there not an official portrait that could be used? --New Zealand Knights of the Ku Klux Klan (talk) 03:07, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Any photo we use much be at least as free as the current ones. Last time I asked (about a year) John Key's staff could not release a photo under a license that we could use. - SimonLyall (talk) 10:52, 11 June 2009 (UTC)