Talk:Roger Award

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Roger Award article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

This article was nominated for deletion on 25 May 2008. The result of the discussion was keep.

Awards

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Awards, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of awards and prizes on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AwardsWikipedia:WikiProject AwardsTemplate:WikiProject Awardsawards articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

New Zealand Low‑importance

	New Zealand portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject New Zealand, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New Zealand and New Zealand-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New ZealandWikipedia:WikiProject New ZealandTemplate:WikiProject New ZealandNew Zealand articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Comments[edit]

Joke awards don't have to be NPOV - edits to Wikipedia do. A comment that the judging was politically driven and not indedendantly audited has been removed as:

- it is already clear from the article that the selection of judges tend to create a left wing publicity stunt, but there is no evidence or attribution to show voting is rigged, which is what was implied.

- the awards are not independently audited in the same way that they do not have an approved plimsol line - they are joke awards, not juken Nissho annual reports. Even in non-joke awards independent audit for the voting of a small judging panel is pointless and simply not done. The implication that the awards should be audited is presumably done to cast an unnecessary aspersion of bias - ridiculous when the awards don't hide the fact they are biased. Winstonwolfe 06:17, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Recent Edits[edit]

Wow! Market economic religious adulation has just rewritten this article - and NZ economic history - caution someones let the fanatics out!!!! 125.236.149.196 03:11, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Which fanatics are those, the majority of New Zealanders who elected the Lange, Bolger and Shipley governments? Here's a tip for Alliance, Green and New Zealand First supporters who have a problem with how history played out in Aotearoa: fight your battles at the ballot box, not on Wikipedia. Joestella 03:37, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Um, okay, I think the language here is getting a little extreme. 125.236.149.196, Yes Joestella's rewrite introduced a lot of POV commentary and I am opposed to his rv of what I felt was a compromise from my own original, but there is no need for silly name calling.

Nor Joe, is there a need for hollow deception. If NZ voters did vote to support liberal economics, ACT would be in government, not relying on Rodney Hide's electoral seat to have any MPs in Parliament. Joe, if you are remotely familar with NZ economic history, you'll know opinion polls showed economic deregulation was consistently opposed by the majority of New Zealanders. Those election results were because other issues were more important than economics - well that and the main political parties were entrenched and except for the 1984 election, when the majority of the left didn't look to see what Roger Douglas beliefs were they just blindly opposed National. A better argument for your position would be the experts in both main political parties supported market economics - um, so is government social engineering against the will of the people really a bad thing? :-)

Regarding rewrites to other related articles, naturally the left wingers behind the Roiger Awards pick on dirt bag companies. Could I suggest a more useful approach than defending the dodgy ones (especially when they are monopolistic anti-market beasties), would be to write articles about some of the great commerical success stores that somehow the Roger Awards don't feature?

Back to this article. Joe, would you care to go through and come up with what you feel is a reasonable compromise, less weasel words like "open", when "de-regulated" was both more accurate and more widely used outside ACT voting circles. Or should I ask for some sort of arbitration? (P.S. Please remember, just because the award is organised by a bunch of left wing people does not mean an article about it, pointing out it was orgnaised by a bunch of left wing people is a left wing article. As it happens, I am conservative, like a good laugh, and contribute accordingly - but if you'd looked at my page before accusing me of left wing bias, , you might have worked that out). Winstonwolfe 01:47, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Openness and deregulation are separate concepts. New Zealand is open to foreign capital but still regulates its business activities. By focussing on multinationals, the Roger Awards critique the degree of openness to foreign capital. Sure "open" is a hurrah word, but then "privatisation" is a boo word. It's a case of swings and roundabouts, as far as I'm concerned. And as for your 'conservative' label - what does that mean in a country with a socialist inheritance? :) Joestella 07:43, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]