Talk:Ian Wishart (journalist)

Absolute Power
Perhaps something on his latest book Absolute Power? Apparently it's not selling very well. Has this always been the norm with Wishart books? Bactoid (talk) 23:22, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

no. Paradise Conspiracy was a number one best seller. --Dmt10 (talk) 00:53, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Winebox
Bit surprising to see the founding chapters of Wishart's life left out entirely.

His work as a TVNZ journalist exposing multimillion scammery, at the top of the corporate pile, led to the historic Winebox inquiry. And that was just one series of "transactions."

I would be interested to see what happened to a man once famous nationwide for exposing corporate corruption, now seems to be hand-in-glove, politically at least, with the same kinds of interests. I would be interested, foremost, in hearing more from the man himself.

A cautionary tale, perhaps, of the personal costs of messing with multinationals? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Avaiki (talk • contribs) 22:56, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Have rectified this oversight.--222.152.161.71 (talk) 12:17, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

This has no place in an encyclopedia
Ian Wishart (born 1964) is a New Zealand journalist, author, fundamentalist born-again Christian, women-hater and the editor of Investigate magazine.

Wishart claims that his book Eve's Bite (2007) is the most politically incorrect book ever published in New Zealand. Which, of course, he would say.

His many failed relationships may be one of the reasons that he is so judgmental about how other people live their lives.

Comeon man, don't drop to the level of Conservapedian standards just because you don't like him (neither do I) -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.150.122.70 (talk • contribs) 10:02, 28 February 2009
 * Reverted. Feel free to revert other vandalism as you find it. Cheers, --Ropata (talk) 10:27, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Does anyone think "Ian Wishart has no formal education as a scientist or climate change researcher." is unnecessary and negative? While climate change is certainly one of his more argued subjects, it already states that he is a investigative journalist by profession. I believe this was put in to discredit his views on climate change. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.74.201.152 (talk) 03:59, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, removing 202.74.201.152 (talk) 02:19, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Dialling down the overly promotional tone - some suggestions
I think restructuring this article a fair bit would help with the promotional tone of the piece - currently it's got big sections for the issues that were current when it was being edited, but little overarching vision that puts it into context. The Career and Publishing Operations sections seem to do the same job, and there's a lot of self-published material in the citations. I'd argue it's not particularly notable where Mr Wishart worked as a journalist or the business with the bank robbery, but more relevant where his work has touched on national issues. Paragraphs on Winebox, Investigate's role in John Tamihere's departure from Cabinet, critiques of the fifth Labour government, engagement in climate change, alternative health and various criminal cases, plus the defamation case. Eve's Bite might have been self-described as the most politically incorrect book ever (Nigel Latta might argue with that), but it's not had the media attention of the books about Macsyna King or the Crewe murders, and The Great Divide is only notable because David Rankin talked about it, and he's got his own credibility issues. The business about sales rankings and 29th on the Listener power list are the sort of thing that would be more important to the subject of the article than the audience. The page on Nicky Hager seems like a fair template in terms of content and tone. --Tirana (talk) 08:33, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Ian Wishart (journalist). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100821030808/http://www.nzfilm.co.nz:80/FilmCatalogue/Films/Spooked.aspx?detail=About to http://www.nzfilm.co.nz/FilmCatalogue/Films/Spooked.aspx?detail=About

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 22:13, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Prima facie fraudulent
I've tagged the prima facie fraudulent part here "" as needing verification [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ian_Wishart_(journalist)&diff=818193325&oldid=788973268] [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ian_Wishart_(journalist)&diff=818194876&oldid=818193325].

The source is offline and I'm lazy to dig it up, but can someone confirm it actually makes the claim and in the editorial voice of the article (rather than simply repeating what someone else said of the court's judgement). If it is confirmed, there appears to be dispute over this point. Our Winebox Inquiry quotes the court as specifically saying they are not intending to suggest "that there has been fraud or incompetence", which while not the same thing, does call into question that they found prima facie evidence.

Maybe more to the point, the source used by the inquiry article appears to be a copy of the judgement itself and while we should generally use secondary sources rather than trying to intepret primary sources ourselves, I'd note that it doesn't seem to use the words prima facie anywhere. I only skimmed through the rest, but it appears to be what I would expect, the court specifically noted they aren't there to rehear or rule on the evidence, but only the legal processes followed (although they can rule on whether something is allowed under law where relevant). It only appears to say that the commission made errors in their findings which lead to their conclusion their was no evidence (failing to consider things they should have and coming to conclusions they shouldn't have from what they did look at) of fraud, rather than saying there was any evidence of fraud which is what you might expect.

Again I'm not suggesting we use such intepretation of the primary source, but I think this highlights the problem with that part even if it turns out is it supported by the Listener. Given the quality of most media, but especially NZ media, when it comes to legal issues, it may be better if rely on more reputable analyses by legal experts, given the signifcant of this inquiry I presume there is something that could be found.

Nil Einne (talk) 04:53, 2 January 2018 (UTC)