Talk:Judith Collins

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

List Placing in 48th Parliament[edit]

In the article it says that Collins was placed 7th on the Party List in 2005 , but on John Key's article, it says he was placed 7th too. Can someone please help/fix?
Thanks
Adabow (talk) 04:07, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gadfium, thanks for updating.
Adabow (talk) 03:38, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV / COI[edit]

This page it seems to have been edited in such a way that it is now not encyclopedic and definitely not written from a neutral point of view. To me it seems that a lot of the material on the page is poorly sourced and contentious POV material, which has been edited by someone who appears that they might have a conflict of interest?

As this is a biography of a living person (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Help) it needs to be fair - which means a lot of the material which is negative, positive, or just questionable can be removed immediately. Much of the material in the achievements, controversies and reputation sections seems to fit into this - so how about we just delete those sections, removing the opportunities for various political fractions to soap box? Since these are major changes I'm thinking a post to the Biographies of living persons Noticeboard might be a good way to get things started? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clarke43 (talk • contribs) 06:32, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would be reluctant to see a wholesale removal of the material as it is generally well sourced. If you believe some sources are inadequate, it would help if you pointed them out. The New Zealand Herald, Dominion-Post and 3 News are generally regarded as reliable sources. I agree that some of the wording could be tightened up (eg "In March 2010 it was revealed that Collins ..." can be simplified to "In March 2010 Collins ...") or made more neutral (although "debacle" does not seem too strong a word for the ACC situation).
I think a reorganisation of the article would be appropriate, with the existing "Achievements" and "Controversies" headings removed and replaced with the headings "Corrections Minister", "Justice Minister" and "ACC Minister" (perhaps also "Police Minister"), with the relevant paragraphs moved under these headings in approximately chronological order. Much or all of the "Her reputation" section could also be moved under these headings.-gadfium 19:34, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is a good idea - it would make it easier to add some balance to the page.
It seems that Offender9000 (who it has been previously established as having a COI in the Justice/Corrections space) has been doing regular edits to remove balance from the page. e.g. a couple of days ago, he removed a new edit from NZFC13 about David Bain without any discussion
  • Right - because the article is about Judith Collins - not David Bain. Offender9000 04:37, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
On the other hand, NZ Herald Commentator Tapu Misa describes the suggestion that Collins should have accepted Justice Binnie's report without question as "ridiculous".[1] Misa says Collins seems to have been "driven by legitimate misgivings on the soundness of Binnie's conclusions". [2] Collins' decision to have the report peer reviewed by Hon Dr Robert Fisher QC has also been publicly supported by Otago University Law Professor Mark Henaghan who said Collins was "being responsible". [3]
was replaced with
After waiting 12 months for Justice Binnie to complete his report, Collins' decision to reject it meant a decision on compensation was no closer to being made.
This is another example of a comment on the page which is not NPOV and isn't referenced. I am going to remove this and reinstate the edit that NZFC13 made. I'll start doing some minor edits - anything large I will post on the talk page before making the changes. I will also give inserting the Minster headings a go.

I'd like to thank Clarke43 for reinstating my comments and agree with what's been said about re-organising this page to ensure it is as balanced as possible. I'm happy to help out and make sure the page remains excellently sourced and appropriately referenced. NZFC13 (talk) 03:29, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • What on earth are you talking about? The statement: "After waiting 12 months for Justice Binnie to complete his report, Collins' decision to reject it meant a decision on compensation was no closer to being made" is factual and entirely neutral. It does not contain anyone's opinion about anything and therefore does not reflect any point of view. Offender9000 04:37, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
If you can provide a good reference showing that it is factual then lets include it. I would think that no one except Collins and Cabinet knows how close a decision on compensation is? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clarke43 (talk • contribs) 02:51, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm curious why three brand new accounts and an anon all show up within a few days, interested only in this article, and all quite knowledgeable about wiki syntax and how Wikipedia operates. Is this one person who hasn't yet decided on what username to use? If so, that's fine, but do pick one name and stick with it. Is it a group of people who work together, perhaps in Collins' office or as part of her electoral organisation? That's potentially a problem; you need to read WP:COI. In any case, please read WP:SPA, and feel free to reassure me about your connections.-gadfium 03:43, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the links. I did a fair bit of background reading before putting my hand up to try and get this page edited, because as you noted it is my first time that I have attempted to edit, and it appears to be a fairly intimating community to start getting involved with. I can confirm that that I don't work for Collins or form part of her or the National party electoral organisation. I don't care for Collins one way or another - but want to see a balanced page with multiple contributors unlike it is currently. Hence posting on the talk page (as suggested in the beginners FAQs) to try and get people collaborate and move the page to become balanced like other political pages on Wikipedia. BTW the anon was me - I was somehow not logged in when I went to edit the talk page - I tried to go back and fix - but failed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clarke43 (talk • contribs) 02:22, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • I disagree with removing the section on her reputation. Collins is unique because of the aggressive way she goes about things - hence her reputation is a key feature of any biography about her. Offender9000 04:26, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
  • I have no strong feelings whether the content gets restructured as per Gadfium's suggestion, or whether the current structure is kept. I've just been through the article and added some content, quite a few references, and tidied things up a bit, but without doing any structural changes. If anybody wants to improve the article further, the existing references could be tidied up by using cite templates. Schwede66 08:22, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
this article is still in need of significant editing to bring it in line with editorial standards. The Reputation section is completely unsourced and unbalanced. The article should be a candidate for total deletion Jish (talk) 11:55, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
At the time I write, the Reputation section has 12 references, so it appears you are looking at something other than the current version of the article. We are unlikely to delete the article as Collins is certainly a notable figure. It would be helpful if you could point out specific phrases or sentences that you consider unbalanced, and suggest alternative wordings with links to new sources which support your version.-gadfium 21:41, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've just reverted this tagging. While I have no doubt at all that this section could be improved (along with the rest of the article), you haven't provided concrete examples of what you think should be done, and the complaint that it's unsourced obviously isn't correct. You could always be bold and jump in and improve this article. Nick-D (talk) 22:14, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I concur that the current Reputation section is well balanced and I believe that it reflects the coverage of her by mainstream outlets. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:47, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Tapu Misa: Second opinion on Binnie makes sense, NZ Herald 17 December 2012
  2. ^ Tapu Misa: Second opinion on Binnie makes sense, NZ Herald 17 December 2012
  3. ^ [1] TVNZ Breakfast 12 December 2012

Collins handling of David Bain compensation[edit]

In my opinion the comments by Tapu Misa about Binnie's report may be appropriate in an article about David Bain (and whether he should receive compensation) - but are not particularly relevant in this article which is about Judith Collins and her high handed behaviour. However since a number of editors seem to want to include Misa's comments - which are supportive of Collins handling of the case - then they need to be balanced by comments from other commentators which are not. Offender9000 22:29, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

This article isn't about 'high handed behaviour' - it is meant to be a balanced article on Judith Collins, so I think it is great that you have sourced some material to balance the existing content in that paragraph. Clarke43 (talk) 01:49, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Offender9000 posted a further comment here showing his biased views on Collins - referring to her being unbalanced. It seems he has now removed it - but is visible in his edit of 20:46, 29 December 2012. Clarke43 (talk) 01:50, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Replace photo[edit]

Great that folk are keen to try and tidy this page up as IMHO it has become greatly less balanced over time and now includes material which have no relevance or have been added with bias to take shots at Collins. My initial two cents worth is to replace that photo - surely there is a photo of Collins that at least shows her face? Are the official photos of her released with suitable terms and conditions so that we can be put it up on here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Truebluenz (talk • contribs) 21:10, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately the official photos are not released with suitable licences. You can see reports of various attempts to request that photos be released under Creative Commons licences at Wikipedia:WikiProject New Zealand/Content task force. We have tended to focus on those politicians for whom we have no photos at all. Note that we cannot accept photos with a "no commercial use" tag.-gadfium 23:07, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am really surprised at this since it results in some MP's not even having photos! I wonder if the actual individual PR reps are aware? I would have thought they would be keen to sort this if they knew. I'll bring this to the attention of some contacts to see if they can do anything to rectify the situation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Truebluenz (talk • contribs) 21:05, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are not the only one who is surprised. There's a huge amount of background to this on the Content task force page, and there's more on the respective talk page. Would be great if you could help. Schwede66 08:51, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am Judith's press secretary. Happy to help out by providing a more recent photo for use. As I have a clear COI and in line with the WP:COI policy I won't be editing content on the page but I may suggest changes which you can choose to take up or not and can provide further background material etc as requested.Jc press sec (talk) 23:35, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much for the photo. It's of rather low resolution at just 19 kB; would you by chance have a higher resolution photo? If yes, click on the 'Upload a new version of this file' link on this page and replace what's already there; no changes needed on Wikipedia itself. Please feel free to suggest changes here and I'm sure somebody will attend to it. Great to have you on board. Schwede66 07:58, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As suggested I have uploaded a higher-res image Jc press sec (talk) 01:21, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Photo is getting old - would be good to have something more recent as what we have is at least 10 years old now. She doesn't really look much like this anymore. Anyone got any ideas? CoronaryKea (talk) 09:14, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Achievements - 'tighted up on security measures' - Offender9000 COI[edit]

The first paragraph of the 'Achievements' section discusses an increase the availability of alcohol and drug treatment in prison. The paragraph ends with the sentence: Collins also increased the availability of work programmes in prison[6] but tightened up on security measures as well allowing very few prisoners to actually work in the community.[7]

I originally edited the 2nd half of this section off as it didn't have a reference - however I see that Offender9000 has included it again, this time with a reference - to his own book. There has already been considerable discussion about Offender9000's COI in the Justice/Corrections space see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Babakathy/coispace

As a result - I'm going to remove the second half of this sentence again since self-referencing isn't helping get this article back to a balanced NPOV. If someone can provide another reference then we can reinstate it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clarke43 (talk • contribs) 02:22, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Offender9000 has just reverted and put the comment plus reference back to his own book. As per WP guidelines the community should decide on this. Comments please? Clarke43 (talk) 07:17, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Offender9000, I'd be keen to read your book. Do you have a copy that you could make available for free, by any chance? I'm sure that there must be stuff ups that happen during the printing process - that'll be good enough for me. Contact me via Wiki email for my postal address if you can help in that way. Once I've read the book, I would be happy to put the reference into the article, assuming that the book backs up the content. Are other editors ok with that suggestion? Schwede66 08:56, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The page stages that the Judges "...refused to express their view on Flying Blind..." - so perhaps you might like to amend above? How about you make it available as an e-book - then we can all have access to it? I find it amusing that in that article you call for drug courts to be established - which it seems Collins has done (http://www.beehive.govt.nz/release/nz039s-first-alcohol-and-drug-court-launched) - yet you seem to be very quiet about this in Collins achievements section? Clarke43 (talk) 21:22, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • I should add that free copies of Flying Blind were made available to MP's of all political parties. Representatives of each Party accepted - except National - after Judith Collins declined on National's behalf... Now Clarke43 is trying to prevent any quotes being made from the book. What does that suggest about Clarke43....? Offender9000 20:59, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
Offender9000, you've just demonstrated again my main objection to you contributing to this article. You have a clear COI. Even the press release you cited immediately above is a press release that you issued. And on reading the press release, it doesn't mention Judith Collins declining. The effect of you consistently loading your own bias into this article is not to change people's views about Judith Collins, which is clearly your intention, but to diminish the authority and credibility of Wikipedia as a neutral encyclopaedic tool. VNTrav (talk) 10:37, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That article (and the one linked off it) states that Chester Borrows declined - not Collins? The issue about you and quotes from your book has come up on a number of other WP discussion boards. If I self-published a book saying that the Justice sector was doing a fantastic job and then went around quoting from it on here I'm sure people would be complaining. I have no issue with quotes from the book being used here - if others who have read the book feel it is relevant. I do have issue with you quoting from your own book on here. Clarke43 (talk) 21:22, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Because you have only recently started editing, you have missed much of the background. Chester Borrow initially agreed to accept copies of Flying Blind on behalf of National but then declined after discussing it with Collins. You are correct that Flying Blind has come up on other discussion boards and the matter was resolved long ago. Other editors are happy for it to be cited as long as the citation does not point to a promotional website. Offender9000 20:17, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Can you post the links to the pages where this has been discussed please? I say again that I have no problem with the book being used as a reference, except where it is used by its author as a reference... Clarke43 (talk) 01:37, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ACC Privacy[edit]

After looking at the paragraphs on the ACC privacy issues - I feel that the majority of the current material should be moved off Collins page since a lot of the material relates to ACC actions - e.g. claimants, ACC going to Police, sending out client details etc rather than the actions/involvement of Collins e.g. requesting incident reports from ACC, appointing new board members, defamation action, initiating culture change via new S&P agreement, issues of confidence in Minister, speculation about her office leaking etc.

I was surprised to see that there is nothing on the ACC page itself about any of these issues - so I'm thinking of moving the non-Collins material over there, perhaps starting a new section... any objections? --Clarke43 (talk) 04:10, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • The ACC privacy issue is the biggest scandal in an agency for which Collins holds a portfolio. She was actively involved in getting rid of the Chairman and a couple of other Board members - and then took a defamation case. The fact that it is not mentioned on the ACC page is no reason to remove it from here. Offender9000 07:21, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

So you agree then that we remove the non-Collins material over to the ACC page, so we can focus on Collins activities relating to the saga on this page? Clarke43 (talk) 07:41, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As Minister, Collins is ultimately responsible (compare with Kate Wilkinson as Labour Minister and the Pike River Mine disaster), and as such, big scandals do belong to biographies. There's no reason why content couldn't be copied (rather than moved) from this page to others. Schwede66 09:06, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for Clarke43 - COI[edit]

In response to a question from Gadfium, you wrote: "I did a fair bit of background reading before putting my hand up to try and get this page edited, because as you noted it is my first time that I have attempted to edit, and it appears to be a fairly intimating community to start getting involved with. I can confirm that that I don't work for Collins or form part of her or the National party electoral organisation. I don't care for Collins one way or another - but want to see a balanced page with multiple contributors unlike it is currently."

What is your interest in Judith Collins? Do you have any COI to declare? You have no edits on any other page on Wikipedia.

What is the relationship between you and NZFC13? Is that one of the three user names mentioned by Gadfium? Offender9000 07:31, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

  • I think I have already answered the question you pose when I replied to Gadfium. What is your interest in Collins which leads you to put unbalanced edits on this page? Clarke43 (talk) 07:40, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • If I look at your edit history and see that your first 39 edits are all on the Collins article or its talk page, then I also have my doubts. Have a look at the duck test. Schwede66 09:13, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The fact that you don't work for Collins or form part of her electoral organisation does not mean you don't have a COI. You might be an active member of the National Party, you might be her husband - you might even be Collins herself under a pseudonym - your aggressive approach to editing this page (and no other page on wikipedia) is very similar to her way of doing things. And you haven't answered the question about NZFC13... ? Is that another of your pseudonyms? Offender9000 18:50, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure what is wrong with having my first 25 (rather than 39?) edits as being on one page? I've already said that I am new and only started editing after seeing just how unbalanced this page is. You will see now that I have started, that I have already started to make some contributions to other pages. I have no COI. My only relationship with NZFC13 is the fact the removal of the edits was the catalyst to getting me involved here.
  • Clarke43: Assuming good faith on the part of other editors is a fundamental requirement of wikipedia policy. See WP:AGF Your recent comments have been removed because you made personal attacks. See WP:NPA.Offender9000 20:26, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
    • Could I please request other editors to review the comments and decide whether they are personal attacks, as I don't believe what I wrote is considered to be such. I note Offender9000 has deleted comments he put up also - including one which he declares he has bias... Clarke43 (talk) 01:37, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Copyviolation[edit]

Clarke43, it appears that you will have to read up on Wikipedia's policy on copyright violations, but in short, you cannot just copy and paste material from other websites into Wikipedia. I'll try and fix it for you, as it would appear to be relevant to the article. I could have just removed the copyviolation, but it would have left the rest of the paragraph without context. Here's what the problem is:

Article: "... Collins pushed for an enquiry into the exposure of New Zealand troops to Agent Orange during the Vietnam War."

Source: "A committee of MPs decided today to carry out an inquiry into the exposure of New Zealand troops to Agent Orange during the Vietnam War."

I hope this is useful for you to know. Schwede66 04:52, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Having now read the two sources, I'm struggling how to fix it. It says that the National Party pushed for the inquiry; it doesn't say that it was Collins. She is quoted quite a bit in the article, but it is a bit of a leap to infer from that that it was indeed her who "pushed" for it. The last sentence talks about her having received the "Ex-Vietnam Services Association Pin" for this, but I can't find the fact in the given reference. I shall remove that paragraph for now and I'd be more than happy for you to put the paragraph back, but without copyvio and suitably referenced. Also, have a look how to repeat a reference following the 'referencing for beginners' link that I have given you. Schwede66 05:06, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback. I'm a bit confused about the referencing, so will do some reading up on it. With regards to the Agent Orange - I think the best thing to do is use that last ref to support the first paragraph scrapping the current paragraph. The various bios for her about the place include it (and she is held in high regard in the Veterans community due to it) - but I wanted to find something from the media (http://tvnz.co.nz/content/2263155/484445/article.html):

A lawyer, she was elected to the constituency seat of Clevedon in 2002. Her other shadow portfolios are Veterans Affairs and Pacific Island Affairs. She campaigned to force an inquiry into the effect of Agent Orange on Vietnam war veterans and was awarded the Ex-Vietnam Services Association Pin in 2004. Collins has also called for recognition of New Zealand war heroine Nancy Wake. The National contender is deputy chair of parliament's Social Services Select Committee.

I'm trying to figure some 'better' words for the first sentence - I'm struggling as it is a accurate report of what happened, but lets see how I go. How does that sound to you? Clarke43 (talk) 05:26, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wiri Prison[edit]

I've just move the paragraph about the Government awarding a 25 year contact to Serco to build a 960 bed prison at Wiri to Anne Tolleys page. All the references I could find name Anne Tolley as Minister of Corrections who signed off the arrangement and turned the first sod. (http://www.corrections.govt.nz/news-and-publications/wiri_project/related_media_releases.html). Clarke43 (talk) 05:07, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ongoing NPOV[edit]

I think this article needs considerable clean-up. There is a lot of comment in here that is poorly sourced and not NPOV. As it stands it is not a biography, but a thinly-disguised attempt to document in detail every controversy that Collins has been associated with. I am uncomfortable with the assertion that Collins is on "the extreme right". I accept that statement was made by Nicky Hager, but that source is not neutral. Nor is Tapu Misa, who is an opinion columnist, rather than a news reporter. Even the nickname "Crusher Collins", as far as I know, is only used by a far right-wing blog to praise her, and a left-wing blog to attack her. I doubt that she is known widely as "Crusher Collins" by the New Zealand public.

Offender9000 has a clear COI issue in adding citations to self-published works that he has written. VNTrav (talk) 08:08, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but I largely disagree with you. I've spent a considerable amount of time working towards a balanced and well-sourced article. If you feel that a particularly source is 'thin', please look up the most appropriate template and tag it accordingly, as we can then meaningfully work towards resolving those issues. You state that the article focusses too much on controversies caused by Collins, but I would maintain that it merely reflects that she causes a lot of controversies. If you feel that this is unbalanced, may I respectfully suggest that you research her achievements and add them to the article? I for one would be all for making the article much more substantial than it already is. Also, please identify specifically what is, in your opinion, not NPOV. Having had another look at the article, the "extreme right" statement may well need to be more closely associated with Hager, or the claim needs to be more solidly sourced. I don't know of Tapu Misa and can't comment on that. I watch news almost exclusively on TV3 and I have heard to Collins being referred as "Crusher Collins" numerous times by their political commentators, so your claim that she would not be widely known by that name is thus incorrect. That said, it may well be that TV1 avoids that term, and that you watch news on that channel only, which could thus explain why you make such a statement. The possible parallel I'm thinking of is TV3's frequent use of "Beast of Blenheim"; I wasn't aware that Stewart Murray Wilson isn't referred to by his nickname on TV1 until I read of the complaint that had been made to the ombudsman about TV3's use of that term. Schwede66 17:53, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Schwede66, I should say that my principal concerns with the article, on reflection, are the edits made by Offender9000. The balance of my concerns are that, as you've clarified, the weight given to controversies, the claims made by controversial sources, and whether the fact that a commentator from either the Left or Right makes a claim about a politician is a notable event.
I agree that it's not constructive for me to simply assert a general concern with the tone of the article. So I will start with being specific. "After 15 years of Labour Party membership, she changed her allegiance to the National Party in 1990, and is now regarded as being on the extreme right of National." Is it sufficiently critical to Collins' biography or character that she was a Labour Party member, that this should be included in the summary? As far as I know, she wasn't a Labour Party activist or prominent in the Labour Party. It would be useful to include in a section on her early life, but in my view it is not a sufficiently prominent event in her life to be included in the first paragraph. And the claim that she is on "the extreme right" of National is completely subjective. I'm quite sure if you were to ask Nicky Hager who else was on the "extreme right" of National, he would list half of the National Party caucus. Just because you may agree with Hager's view in this respect doesn't make it an objective statement. In my view, it is fair to say that Collins is on the right in National's caucus, as opposed to, for example, Nick Smith, or even John Key, but I believe that most mainstream, neutral political commentators would dispute that there even is an "extreme Right" within the National Party caucus.
On the issue of "Crusher Collins", on reflection I agree that the nickname is notable, as she is referred to as such by both her closest supporters and most ardent detractors, but in my view it is not sufficiently notable to be included in the summary.
"She has a reputation for tough talking and stands out for the confidence that she has in herself." In my view, this is an entirely subjective statement, particularly the latter half of the statement. In my view that she "stands out for the confidence that she has in herself" has pejorative intent. VNTrav (talk) 01:41, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've checked the references and these don't state Collins was a member of the Labour party - merely a supporter, as a result I've edited out those details which claim she was a member. I agree about the Hager "far right" reference - and have removed it from the the opening paragraph - as other than the Hager reference I can't find anything which says she is "far right" - it seems very subjective? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clarke43 (talk • contribs) 07:44, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Flying Blind[edit]

I'm currently reading this book and it doesn't talk on page 72 about Collins having "tightened up on security measures as well, allowing very few prisoners to actually work in the community". Do I have a different edition (no edition number is stated, so I'm assuming my version is first edition)? Or was the page number wrong, and I should have to look somewhere else? Either way, I've removed Flying Blind as a reference for the time being. Schwede66 08:46, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Schwede, not sure how that happened - try page 129. Offender9000 06:46, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
I'm not quite that far with the book, but will tend to it when I get there. Schwede66 18:29, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

COI tag[edit]

I've invited User:FreeRangeFrog to outline here why he or she has placed this tag. I don't think it's justified, but rather than remove it again, I'd be interested to hear the rationale for this first. Schwede66 20:52, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jc press sec (talk · contribs) has extensively edited this article, as well as attempting to scrub other articles of criticism about Collins. Until we determine what exactly "jc press sec" means (not that it requires much imagination) and the user's edits to this and other related topics are scrutinized, we need to maintain the COI tag. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 20:58, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
User:Jc press sec has made exactly four edits to the article, and they were all related to changing the profile photo and amending the caption. This was asked for; see above. See in the same location a COI declaration. Leaving aside what this user has done to other articles, why exactly do you see a need to place a COI tag with this article? Schwede66 21:18, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We place tags first, then we figure out what's going on. Looking at the contributions, I see they are harmless so I'll remove the tag. However, WP:COI is clear about how this works: They request the edits, and we perform them if appropriate. Allowing this politician's press secretary to edit the page is inappropriate at best, no matter how harmless the changes. As for the person's chosen username, that's entirely another matter and irrelevant to the COI issue, and not at all something they can ignore just because they've told us who they are. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 21:35, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the removal of the COI tag. I agree that it's best for Jc press sec not to edit this page at all, however harmless the edits may be. To that end, Jc press sec, please post any edit requests on the talk page. Schwede66 02:32, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the guidance. In my defence, the actions of the editor who placed the COI tag are totally uncalled for and very damaging for no reason. He or she has stated that I "extensively edited this article..." without checking either the edits or my clearly declared COI, and despite this editor knowing about edits I made to the David Bain page and why I made them (removal of defamatory (not harmless) material in accordance with Wikipedia's own policy) as I clearly posted on the WP:BLP noticeboard and asked for help there, he or she has also said "...as well as attempting to scrub other articles of criticism about Collins". This is completely incorrect and untrue. Making such accusations where there is no evidence to support it is hardly the action I would expect of an editor. I fully understand that it is inappropriate for me to edit this page due to my already fully declared COI, and I have been very clear about this. Generally it's better to establish the facts first. As for the username issue, I am happy to change it, as I have stated elsewhere, but I will create another account so as to avoid this username being misused. Jc press sec (talk) 02:13, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, don't create another user name. Follow the link that I posted onto your talk page; that will lead you to the page where you request a change of user name. You cannot (and should not) create more than one user name. Nobody will be able to "misuse" your existing name because that will continue to exist on the system. Schwede66 02:20, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't plan to have more than one user name. I was planning to retire this user name and create another account, because the guidance on the WP:CHU page says "Once you have been renamed, your old account name will no longer exist and could be recreated by a third party. To guard against impersonation, you may wish to recreate the old account yourself and make redirects." I thought I could avoid that potential by retiring this one and creating another account? Jc press sec (talk) 02:43, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, you apply to have your user name changed. Once that's done, you can then redirect your old user name (I didn't know that detail). Schwede66 06:57, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Minister of Corrections Section[edit]

I've edited the paragraph about Mount Eden down as it isn't accurate in relation to a biography on Collins. Collins wasn't Minister of Corrections at the time the prison was designed, but did oversee its completion and appoint private management. There was no reference for Collins believing the viability of the prison has a deterrent effect and the quote about the belief of getting caught and punished looks to be taken out of context because she also makes many more comments in the same speech about breaking the cycle of offending and not locking people up as being the answer.

Likewise with the detail that people seem to keep wanting to add on the smoking ban. What is important is that she announced it and that it has been legally challenged but the department kept the ban in place. The detail of those legal challenges, who is doing the challenges and other goings on in present time to keep the ban in place don't warrant mention on the Collins page - it is meant to be encyclopaedic biographical entry on her. It should go either on the Corrections page or perhaps the current Corrections Minister if they are directly involved. Clarke43 (talk) 18:45, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Robert KEE[edit]

After reviewing the referenced article (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10861503) about this paragraph I've removed it. The NZ Herald article states while he was not the preferred candidate, that none-the-less Kee was one of two candidates recommended to Collins for the job by an independent panel, and confirms that while they were known to each other, they were all lawyers in a small community, so this is not unusual. As a result, there doesn't seem to be anything particularly striking in this ministerial appointment. Clarke43 (talk)

Its called cronyism - and is a form of political corruption. Offender9000 (talk) 12:14, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Concerns were also raised about Ms Collins' judgement when it was revealed that she had appointed Auckland barrister Robert Kee to the position of Director of Human Rights Proceedings - with a salary of $200,000 a year. Mr Kee is a friend of her husband's. Ms Collins chose Mr Kee for the job against the advice of officials who had recommended someone else.[35]"

I see Offender9000 has restored the above paragraph, with no changes or edits to improve the quality, therefore I plan on removing it again as it seems completely inaccurate and not worthy on an encyclopaedic entry on Collins due to the following reasons:
  • Concerns were raised. By whom? One journalist, with the story quickly dying.
  • The salary isn't relevant on a page about Collins.
  • How can it be cronyism when an independent panel recommended him as one of two possible candidates and it was never proven that Collins and KEE socialise? Also it is a ministerial appointment. As I understand there is no process that must be followed - Ministers from all parties when making such appointments can and do appoint whoever they see fit.
  • Just because it has a reference doesn't mean it is worthy of a place on a page.

Clarke43 (talk) 04:21, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Since no one has come back with any objections I have removed it for reasons presented above. Clarke43 (talk) 05:20, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This material was an obvious, and very serious, violation of the core policy WP:BLP. The article given as a reference did not note anyone as raising concerns about Ms Collins' judgement at all. One person was identified as saying only that he thought that the relationship between the two people should be public knowledge. Nick-D (talk) 07:57, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reputation[edit]

I've removed this sentence from the reputation section: Following her decision to peer review Judge Binnie's compensation report on David Bain, businessman Sir Bob Jones commented that Collins' behaviour displayed "breath-taking arrogance without precedence" and suggested she was unfit to be Minister of Justice.[1]

This is an exception claim which should therefore be backed up with exceptional sources (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Attribution#Exceptional_claims_require_exceptional_sources). It has been up here for sometime now, yet the only basis for the sentence is one primary source opinion piece, which really doesn't stack up when making the serious suggestion that she is unfit to be Min Justice. Clarke43 (talk) 21:40, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is hardly an exceptional claim. Its fits her entirely. Offender9000 (talk) 19:59, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll ignore the obvious bias you are showing here - and ask why have you not been able to provide stronger references for it over and above one op-ed piece when you restored the sentence? Source isn't strong enough for the claims being made, therefore has been removed again. Clarke43 (talk) 21:21, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That needs to stay off the article, since it's nothing more than an opinion piece. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 21:52, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This appears to be an accurate representation of the opinion article, so the question is whether the views of this commentator on this topic deserve to be noted in the article (eg, is he regarded as a influential commentator on New Zealand political and/or legal matters, and did these comments attract coverage in secondary sources or lead to any significant reactions?). The views of a guy with a newspaper column on individual politicians aren't automatically worth including in their articles, unless there's a very good reason for doing so. I'm not familiar with this commentator, but a quick review of some of his other articles suggests that he often takes provocative positions in his articles (eg, that the entire NZDF should be disbanded, people shouldn't save much and street protests are totally worthless over the last few months alone), and as such a strongly worded article like the one in question here probably doesn't have as much significance as a similar article written by a commentator who typically takes a moderate approach. The first two sections of WP:BLPSTYLE are relevant here. Nick-D (talk) 02:14, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Unless the commentator in question is supremely notable and universally considered to be neutral (and that would be a judgement call in any case), the only condition under which a negative opinion piece can be used in a BLP is if the opinion itself is notable - meaning it received widespread coverage by secondary sources. An opinion piece is in a sense a primary source. Again, I don't know if that is the case here, it very well might be. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 19:13, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think the claim by Nicky Hager also needs to be considered for removal. Hager is not merely an "investigative journalist". He is a notable left-wing campaigning investigative journalist. He is not regarded as a neutral commentator. I'm not convinced that his opinion of Judith Collins' position on the political spectrum, as opposed to an assertion of fact by Hager regarding Collins' actions, is worthy of inclusion in this article, any more than, for example, a column by Rodney Hide on the reputation of Russel Norman. I seek the guidance of other editors on this point.VNTrav (talk) 18:09, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Bryce Edwards is a political scientist and a more neutral source than Hager. He is reported in the New Zealand Herald:
I suggest we replace Hager's opinion with this.-gadfium 21:05, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea - Edwards looks to be fairly neutral on his views. Clarke43 (talk) 21:59, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I just re-read this article and was trying to work out how we fit this in to the article. What shall we say? Simply that Collins is further to the right politically than Joyce? How much further? It doesn't really give a lot of context. Clarke43 (talk) 09:53, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • How about we use this instead?
An expert assessment of Collins political position would be much more useful than her own assessment (though this should go in the article). Most politicians like to portray themselves as a pragmatic and in the centre of whatever political movement they're part of, even when they're not. Nick-D (talk) 06:17, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I did some digging and located the Haydon Dewes article which was referenced for the next sentence after the Hager one. It didn't really tie up as the only mention of welfare hard line is in the headline. However the article does say that she is seen to be on the right. Since this is early on in her political career, and we have another ref that is recent, I feel it supports the fact she is viewed as being right wing across her career. Hopefully a political expert will write a definitive guide to Collins political leaning piece sometime soon and we can use that! Clarke43 (talk) 20:44, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Jones, Bob (18 December 2012). "Collins' arrogance in Bain case unprecedented". The New Zealand Herald. Retrieved 8 January 2013.

Material not supported by source removed[edit]

I've just removed two claims not supported by the sources given. The first was some editorializing claiming that "softer policing" may have caused the crime rate to drop rather than the "tough" approach Collins was attributing this to. The news story did not contain this contrast at all, and does not even mention the crime rate, so this was pure WP:SYNTH. I also tweaked some wording here which was presenting some of the views of one academic without proper attribution to him (they were being presented as a fact rather than an opinion), and which left out the fact that he was attributing the decline to changing demographics and better security measures, and not just demographics. In regards to the other claim, the article claimed that Collins "raised controversy" by appointing Dame Susan Devoy as the Race Relations Commissioner: the source provided for this does not note any controversy whatsoever, saying only that Ms Devoy's views "may raise eyebrows". As I noted above, this article falls under WP:BLP, and including negative material about a person based on misrepresenting sources or WP:SYNTH is a significant breach of this. Nick-D (talk) 08:21, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've also just re-written some material which claimed that Collins had "announced that Government had decided to ignore advice from the ACC Board and from the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment" - this is blatantly biased wording which misrepresents what Collins is attributed as stating and did not acknowledge her position. The claim that "if the cuts had been implemented, workers and businesses could have benefited by almost half a billion dollars" is dubious given that presumably the money raised through the higher levy will also be spent through payments to injured people, which in turn will flow to "workers and businesses"; I've replaced this with the criticism of the decision from the opposition. Nick-D (talk) 01:12, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In addition, I've also removed a sentence stating that "ACC had been reluctant to pay Pullar her entitlements and the picture that emerged was of an organisation that was more concerned with its public image than assisting claimants" as this was referenced to what's clearly marked as an opinion article, and was presenting this opinion as a fact. The article also hardly mentioned Collins. I'm having real trouble assuming good faith with this stuff given that there's a clear pattern of misrepresenting and cherry picking from sources to attack Collins. Nick-D (talk) 01:24, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Upon checking the source for the paragraph on "Collins trying to take credit for the drop in crime" - it turned out to be an opinion piece. So I went hunting for the actual announcement to confirm that Collins does indeed take credit for the drop. The actual announcement is here. Collins doesn't really seem to take credit for anything herself, with some undertones of perhaps "well-resourced" and "legislation that sends a strong message to criminals" - but seems to more lump praise on the Police. Due to the crime rate dropping for many years there are announcements from various people across the political spectrum that are similar. So unless anyone thinks there is anything special about this announcement - I plan on removing it. Clarke43 (talk) 22:37, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Minster for ACC[edit]

"Towards the end of 2012, Judith Collins announced that Government would not cut ACC levies for the 2013-2014 year. While the ACC Board and Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment had recommended reducing the levies by between 12 and 17 percent, Collins stated that the government's decision was motivated by the uncertain economic conditions and a desire to ensure that reductions to the levy were sustainable. Andrew Little, the Labour Party's ACC spokesman, criticised this decision, claiming that it was driven by the government's attempt to bring the budget into surplus and reducing the levy would provide a boost to the economy.[39] In the 2013 budget, Collins announced a $1.3 billion cut in ACC levies over the next two years. Ms Collins said the Earners and Workers accounts were now fully funded after the Corporation reduced the number of long term ACC claimants from 14,000 to less than 11,000.[40]"

I've been doing some tidying on the ACC page and copied some of the material over to here since it seemed to relate. However after putting the extra sentence in about cuts occurring in the 2013 budget, but not 2012, I did some searching and it seems that this decision is made every year. Some years they recommend putting it up, others dropping it - and the Minister for ACC (and Finance it seems) makes a decision, the opposition criticises and everyone moves on. So unless anyone thinks there is anything really special about these years (it doesn't seem to have come up again...) - I'm planning on removing the above paragraph. Clarke43 (talk) 10:19, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unless there's something unusual about this or it lead to a significant controversy about Collins' role, it doesn't seem worth including. Ministers have the authority to reject advice from their department(s) and advisory boards, and often do. Anyway, the NZ Herald reference refers to this as a decision made by "the government" rather than Collins personally (something I should have noticed earlier), which further reduces its relevance here - it's likely from that wording that this was the outcome of a cabinet meeting rather than a decision Collins made by herself. 23:26, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Alcohol Reform[edit]

I'm keen to cut down the size of the paragraph on Alcohol Reform. It is rather large and I feel in terms of the overall balance of the page it doesn't need to be that big. I originally removed the quote from Sellman as a start point while pondering further changes, but it has been restored. The quote from Sellman doesn't add any further value to the paragraph - it would be something that could be included on a page about Sellman or Alcohol Action, but this page is about Collins. I also propose removing the piece about the Commission also recommending a 50 per cent tax increase on alcohol, as it already states that it was dismissed immediately by "the Government" rather than Collins. The reference about the RTD ban also states that "The Government has decided...." rather than Collins herself making the call, so this could come out as well. Clarke43 (talk) 23:42, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Block of Offender9000[edit]

In case anyone comes here via the news stories or various blog posts and is wondering about the original block of this editor, I'm Australian and live in Australia, and have no connection with Ms Collins or her staff, or anyone in the NZ government or National Party in any shape or form. I'd never even heard of Ms Collins before following up on the edits from this account. Mr Brookings was blocked for violating core Wikipedia policies, and the material he added has been removed from various articles (in many cases by me) because much of it was unsourced or poorly sourced personal attacks on various people (which is a violation of the core policy Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons) or blatant attempts to push his personal views. Nick-D (talk) 10:17, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Honourable or not?[edit]

Taking it to the talk page per Schwede66. Today's shenanigans seem to be a result of this tempest in a teacup: [2]. I'm not going to bother doing anything to the article itself as it seems just about the most trivial thing possible, but if anyone cares to figure out what her actual title is, be my guest. Daveosaurus (talk) 08:46, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

She's not listed on the Roll of The Honourables on the Department of the Prime Minster and Cabinet website as holding the title of "The Honourable", unlike other former ministers in the previous government such as Pita Sharples and Chester Borrows, who were granted the title for life on 8 October 2014. Paora (talk) 09:03, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DATERANGE[edit]

@Paora: Where in WP:DATERANGE do you see that a spaced endash is to be used? Schwede66 22:47, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I guess my interpretation was that as it's not a pure year–year situation, a spaced endash should be used. I recall a long time ago having another editor change one of mine from non-spaced to spaced, so have followed this ever since. There seems to be no consistency, however: e.g. the succession boxes for Elizabeth II use spaced endashes in this situation, while those for John Key are non-spaced. I'm not particularly bothered either way. Paora (talk) 23:22, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have started a discussion on the relevant MOS talk page but won't hold my breath that it will result in an amendment to the style guide. But perhaps we may get some consensus out of that discussion regarding a preference for spaced or unspaced. Schwede66 00:45, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Just closing the loop on this one; it's been resolved at MOS:DATERANGE (and it's supposed to be used with an unspaced endash). Schwede66 18:40, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Honourable?[edit]

The infobox shows 'The Honourable Judith Collins' but she was not entitled to use that title after the 2014 General Election. Has the title been restored or is the infobox in error? Akld guy (talk) 16:57, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's explained and referenced in the body of the article. Schwede66 18:38, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Schwede66: You're quite right! I did read the 'After Cabinet' paragraph and missed the statement that she had been exonerated and allowed to resume the title. There was a grammatical error in that a full stop instead of a comma followed the exoneration, which I have corrected. Whether that was a factor in my missing it, I don't know. Akld guy (talk) 20:05, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Judith Collins. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 04:28, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Judith Collins. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 19:27, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Prime Minister in the Opposition Leader infobox[edit]

The first two sections of the infobox are for Leader of the Opposition and Leader of the National Party. They currently include "Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern" followed immediately by "Deputy Gerry Brownlee". This could be interpreted as meaning that Brownlee is the Deputy Prime Minister (he is actually the Deputy Leader of the Opposition and Deputy Leader of the National Party).

Why is "Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern" included in these two sections of the infobox? The Leader of the Opposition does not serve or come under the Prime Minister and nor does the Leader of the National Party (when in Opposition). It is appropriate for the Minister sections to have "Prime Minister Bill English", because she served under him.

This issue is not specific to this article, nor to NZ. The Keir Starmer infobox, for example, has "Prime Minister Boris Johnson". Starmer does not serve under Johnson, so I don't understand why it is included.

Just because Template:Infobox officeholder provides for a 'primeminister' parameter does not mean it should always be used. We don't use the 'taoiseach' parameter in this article, for example. Nurg (talk) 11:54, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Judith_Collins&oldid=1221951691"