Talk:Dirty Politics

John Key's views on the subject

Hi! I noticed that GHSinclair has removed the stuff about John Key. I'm of the view that is relevant and forms part of the reaction to the book's publication. And it's much better to have it here rather than on John Key's page.. --Ballofstring (talk) 04:12, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree that it should remain since Key is implicated in the book. I think the fact that the comments were made prior to the release of the book should also be mentioned. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 03:35, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Picture of Hager talking at the book launch

I'm sorry, I just don't see how that picture helps readers to understand Hager's book. It doesn't add anything meaningful to the article. ImprovingWiki (talk) 02:20, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Well, for me, the picture helps a reader of the article to know of the intense media interest in the release of the book. After all, the article is about more than just the contents of the book, but also about the reaction of the media etc to the book. Also I think it's interesting to see the author. — Ballofstring (talk) 02:26, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Well, no. It's just a picture. If there was intense media interest in the release of the book, then the article can just say that, in the text. A picture does nothing to properly explain the issue. If anyone cares what Nicky Hager looks like, then they can look at the article about him. His appearance just isn't relevant to this article. Why not add a picture of John Key too? That might also be "interesting" to someone. ImprovingWiki (talk) 02:29, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Hmm I don't think we're going to agree on this - maybe we need to wait for others to chip in. The Manual of Style says (WP:Image relevance): "Images must be relevant to the article that they appear in and be significantly and directly related to the article's topic." From my interpretation of that, an image visually representing the subject is enough - ie an image can be visually complementary rather than replacing/adding something to the text. MOS also says this: "Effort should therefore be made to improve quality and choice of images or captions in articles rather than favoring their removal, especially on pages which have few visuals." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ballofstring (talk • contribs)

That just avoids responding to my points. You could argue that a picture of John Key would be relevant in some sense, since the article quotes him, but would that really be a good reason for adding one? I don't think a picture of an author at a book launching is "significantly and directly" related to the topic of this article, since the article is about the book not about the book launch. ImprovingWiki (talk) 08:03, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

I think there is a slight advantage in having it in the article. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 05:43, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

What advantage? ImprovingWiki (talk) 08:01, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Images improve the aesthetics of articles (although in this case less so since it is jammed at the bottom) and it is illustrative of the media attention the book is getting. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 08:44, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

"Images improve the aesthetics of articles" isn't a justification for adding an image that is only marginally relevant to the subject of an article, and there is no need to include that image to explain that the book has received media attention. Just say so, in words. The picture explains nothing. The book isn't even clearly visible in the picture, so how can it possibly show that the book has received media attention? ImprovingWiki (talk) 09:02, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

The picture is of relevance and should thus be kept. Schwede66 15:24, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

What an empty and meaningless statement. ImprovingWiki (talk) 09:29, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

It is a statement of opinion from an experienced editor. And that counts for something here. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 20:02, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Granted, the picture may not explain anything but it is relevant and adds visual content - something that some readers may want. I don't care much whether the image is added or not - expanding the text and ensuring accuracy are more important factors for me. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 20:01, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

When did making unsupported statements come to count for anything? If Schwede66 is an experienced editor, he should use his experience to help him provide a reason for his views. It's not enough for an image to be "relevant"; it needs to be "significantly and directly related to the article's topic". ImprovingWiki (talk) 07:55, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Who changed JC's picture on her wiki page

Hi! I'm a little bit confused about this whole changing of Collins' infobox picture. The Herald says JC provided Slater with a picture, but is there actually any proof that Slater himself uploaded it? Couldn't JC have provided Slater with an image, and then subsequently JC's press secretary uploaded a picture? Is there anything tying Slater to the press sec/polkadot account? I'm not trying to be difficult/finicky - just a bit confused sorry! — Ballofstring (talk) 04:39, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Further thoughts sorry: Oh I see you have said "appears to have" in the main text - that seems fine. I was just concerned that previously we were making an assertion that it was definitely Slater who changed it. This is the bit (in the note) that I'm unsure about: "The Herald reporting confirms that it was Slater who was acting for Collins." —Ballofstring (talk) 04:43, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Was reading chapter 4 of Dirty Politics last night and what should I come across? Exactly this story (page 45). Not sure whether you've ever had one of Hager's books in your hands, but they are extensively endnoted. And the relevant endnote doesn't align with the edit history of the JC article. The "unflattering photo" was added by User:XLerate on 21 September 2010 and that remained in place until it was changed by User:Jc press sec on 26 February 2013. Hager's endnote, however, talks of JC having passed the better photo on to Slater on 19 January 2011. I'll see whether I can find Hager's email and will ask him whether he's got the endnote details wrong. Schwede66 19:20, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

There seem to have been a couple of attempts to remove the photo of Collins back in 2011 as well [1] [2] but neither editor supplied a replacement. Daveosaurus (talk) 08:58, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

The section on John Key's credibility

Hi all! I'm a bit concerned about the section on John Key's credibility not having a neutral POV. "Credibility" is a very political characteristic, and one which is hard to assess objectively. Do people think the section is okay as it stands? Ballofstring (talk) 08:16, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Is there any particular reason this article is protected?

Considering it seems so scewed in it's in it's POV

As far as I can tell it isn't protected. I tried editing the article in a private session of my browser (ie logged out my account) and it seemed to let me. Are there any particular areas which you feel aren't neutral POV? — Ballofstring (talk) 00:36, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Mainly the fact that it doesn't mention that even though the writer calls him self an "investigative journalist" he didn't give any of the subjects in his book the right of reply, a lot of things in the book have been proven to be factually inaccurate and the entire content is based on conjecture. Apart from that it is perfectly unbiased. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.195.253.121 (talk) 00:17, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dirty Politics. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141020130442/https://freedom.press/bundle/nicky-hager-legal-defense to https://freedom.press/bundle/nicky-hager-legal-defense

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) 06:09, 11 September 2017 (UTC)