Talk:New Zealand National Party/Archive 1

Making The Page More Useful
Just added an infobox and removed reference to the Nats as 'tories', the term is now used rarely in New Zealand. I've also changed the logo to National's alternate, more visually pleasing logo. --Ed- 05:00, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Unremarkable resignation?
Doesn't it strike anyone else as slightly POV that there is no hint, in this article, of the controversy surrounding Brash's resignation? --AGoon 05:45, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * IMO that should be, and is covered in Dr Brashes article, not here Brian | (Talk) 05:57, 11 December 2006 (UTC)  That should be "Dr Brash's article" Brian.  Tsk tsk. --Midnighttonight (rendezvous) 06:38, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree with Brian predominately, however a small coverage is okay on the National party's article. Along the lines of "Don Brash resigned as links to insular Christian sects and undisclosed business links were being uncovered by Nicky Hager".  I think that should do it --Midnighttonight (rendezvous) 06:38, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * "National party's article" yes it does read a bit as though it is their article, rather than about them ;-) --AGoon 09:26, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I would edge for the "...and undisclosed business links were allegedly being uncovered by Nicky Hager" with a link to the section in Dr Brash's article Brian | (Talk) 07:24, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * How about "Don Brash resigned immediately before a Nicky Hager book, containing allegedly damaging revelations obtained from leaked emails, was released." --AGoon 09:26, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Looks okay, however that brings up the question: where they "leaked" or Stolen... Brian | (Talk) 11:14, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I disagree. The "allegedly" part relates to the nature of the accusations (primarily because Dr Brash denies the allegations made in Hager's book) not whether or not they damaged Brash's standing as leader. That's something I'm sure we may never find out about and can only speculate on - which of course means we can't verify anything. --Lholden 22:11, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Replace 'leaked' with 'private'. I said 'allegedly' because Don denied they were the reason for his resignation (and hence can't have been damaging :-).  This sentence is just meant to put the timing of the resignation into context, rather than having it sound as though it was a quiet day and he just thought it was time to stand aside.  Hager alledged the book was damaging to Brash, Brash coincidentally resigned.  Going into whether the content was true/false, damaging/irrelevant, stolen/leaked isn't the point here. --AGoon 00:29, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok I'm happy with that. --Lholden 01:42, 12 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok, discussion seems to have concluded, so its done. --AGoon 09:07, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Wooly policy section?
Is it just me or are the "policies" under this section incredibly vague and wooly? Is this the fault of this page, or the party? I've been trying to find out what their actual policies are (eg if they will impose interest back onto Student Loans) and I'm buggered if I could find it anywhere. NZ forever 03:01, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Nat logo main.gif
Image:Nat logo main.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 16:56, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

fascist?

 * No, not even close. Right wing, certainly, but within the mainstream of New Zealand politics (and more frequently in Government than out of it, until 1999). You may have confused the New Zealand National Party with the New Zealand National Front.-gadfium 10:12, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
 * National are clearly not fascist. They met none of the criteria above. --Midnighttonight 10:21, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Interestingly, Talk:Māori Party also has a question on whether they are fascist, although it was put on a while ago. --Midnighttonight 10:22, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the question box asking whether the party is fascist. The question was answered in the negative more than two years ago.- gadfium 19:48, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Coalition, Prime Minister, etc
I have reverted the changes saying that the National party is the head of the "ruling coalition". It is not yet. There are two problems: --Anon 12:10, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) We still have a Labour government until the official transition.
 * 2) The results announced tonight are not yet the official results. There are still over 200,000 special votes left to be counted. While this is unlikely to change the fact that National will form the next government, we cannot say that there will be 59 seats for National and 5 for Act.

NPOV
Why does this article read like a National Party election leaflet? 121.73.7.84 (talk) 05:44, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

First Leader
The page lists Forbes as the first party leader. He is not recognised as such in the official 50 year history of the party or by the party historian whom I have checked with. He has never been acknowledged by the Party as a Leader. He led in Parliament the combined United and Reform Caucus as Opposition Leader but he was never Leader of the NZ National Party itself.

I would like to amend the list of leaders so Hamilton is the first leader. --Dpf 01:35, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Go ahead ;-) --Lholden 02:01, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the background information regarding Forbes is correct. It's clear that Barry's opinion (as relayed by Dpf) about whether Forbes was the parliamentary party leader is contradictory to that published by some earlier prominent historians, and as also published in a number of earlier records of the era. It's worth remembering that by convention the Leader of Opposition (and there is no issue regarding Forbes on this point) is the parliamentary leader of the largest party not in government. And it would also be improbable (if not impossible) that the parliamentary wing of the opposition party would be completely leaderless for nearly half a year while parliament was in session (i.e. after its formation and prior to Hamilton's election).

Dpf is correct that Forbes led in Parliament the combined United and Reform Caucus as Opposition leader; but this occured after the 1935 defeat to Labour and up to May 1936 only. The New Zealand National Party existed in the place of the United and Reform parties from May 1936.

NZHIST (talk) 09:26, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I think Wikipedia should reflect the consensus, and there is no consensus that Hamilton was not the first leader - just an assertion. The party's official history book, official historian, gallery of leaders at party HQ all cite Hamilton as the first leader and that Forbes was merely a temporary leader of a caucus while they selected the leader. I am removing Forbes as first leader unless someone can cite a historical source better than the party's own official 50 year history book which was based on the original documents of the time --Dpf —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.45.166.179 (talk) 02:00, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

New MPs
If things go the way the opinion polls predict it, the National Party will have a number of new MPs in the 50th New Zealand Parliament. The NZ politics task force has decided that the creation of biographies prior to the election can be assisted in the project space. Wikipedians with an interest in possible new MPs are most welcome to work on those draft biographies, which can be found here. Please note the rules that are listed on that page. Happy editing! And if you have questions on how to go about it, simply post on an article's talk page, and somebody with more experience will come and help.  Schwede 66  08:20, 9 November 2011 (UTC)


 * If anybody is interested in contributing to new MP pages, this collaboration might interest you. Hurry – this must be finished by this Friday.  Schwede 66  19:43, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

support
I'm curious about the sentence: "National appeals consistently to country and upper middle class voters." It isn't cited and seems to fly in the face of what I understand National's support base to be. Upper middle class voters (which usually means university educated) usually have stronger left-wing voting tendencies than the general population. National's urban base is clearly with groups such as tradespeople and sole traders. I can't think of a single tradesperson I know who doesn't voite National. I think you'll find a higher number of so-called upper middle class voters support the Greens than the Greens' 11% of the general electorate would suggest. You see this reflected in poll results such as the Wellington Central electorate where the Greens were the second largest party vote. Of the urban middle class professionals I know - i.e. doctors, lawyers, etc - almost all of them vote Green or Labour. I recognise that my own circle of acquaintances is not a scientific sample however. 121.73.7.84 (talk) 11:18, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Infobox
I find the infobox's description of National as Centre or Centre-right implausible. It is absolutely not a centre party and even centre-right is a stretch. It is clearly a right-wing party as evidenced by this more objective survey: http://www.politicalcompass.org/nz2011. The article cited as evidence of National's so-called centrist locale doesn't really prove that. It is also outdated and simply the opinion of a NZ Herald journalist. I will edit the infobox in a few days. Any feedback add here now 121.73.7.84 (talk) 09:08, 1 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Conservatism and neoliberalism are hardly centrist political ideologies 121.73.7.84 (talk) 09:10, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
 * By the standards of the political compass you link to, Labour is also a right-wing party. In terms of New Zealand politics, the centre is between National and Labour, with some other parties further from that centre in each direction (and some parties hard to classify in these terms). I have no problems with dropping the "centre" from the infobox, leaving "centre-right". Ideally, we should find some respected third-party's characterisation of New Zealand party positions (in the New Zealand context) to quote.


 * You are welcome to add a line referenced from politicalcompass.org to the article, but to be fair you should also add a similar line to the article on Labour.- gadfium 20:05, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Try any New Zealand based political science academic article for a quote. For example Page 52 of Party Politics in New Zealand by Raymond Miller discusses National as centre-right. The same applies to Labour. Mattlore (talk) 22:06, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
 * political compass doesn't appear to give any details as to their method in the New Zealand case and as is pointed out above Labour might be classified as a right-wing party. Also have a look at Q22 and 23 of their FAQ which explicitly states they don't take account of how the "centre" has moved. I think both parties are fairly close to the centre and even of major differentiating issues like asset sales are much closer than 20 years ago ( National is just selling <50% of a couple of SOEs, Labour won't say if their reverse it, nothing like huge sell-offs and re-nationalisations that used to happen last century) - SimonLyall (talk) 09:58, 2 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I think National is clearly a party on the Right. I'd happily accept National being designated as centre-right in the article, however to describe its ideology as centrism without the Right designation is a stretch too far and should be deleted. The article on Labour should be changed also if its designations are flawed. 121.73.7.84 (talk) 09:43, 11 April 2013 (UTC)


 * p.s. I think the best designations would be Greens: centre-left, Labour: centre (not centre-left, and potentially centre-right - although that designation would create confusion), National: right-wing. I don't think an ideology stops being left-wing or right-wing just because of where the majority of voters sit. The centre of the electorate is not the same thing as the ideological centre. 121.73.7.84 (talk) 09:53, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm happy with changing National from "Centre to centre-right" to just plain "centre-right". It seems more accurate. Anyone else? - SimonLyall (talk) 11:26, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * A plain "centre-right" finds my support.  Schwede 66  19:09, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The wikiarticle about the Greens describes them as "Left" in the infobox, despite them being much closer to the centre of the political compass than National. I'm curious as to why people are so keen to avoid calling National right-wing. I can't imagine the Greens opposing the label of left-wing. If you take an extremely broad definition of the centre, and were to draw a circle stretching half way out from the mid-point on each arm of the compass, National still wouldn't be in the centre-right. So "centre-right to right" would be a compromise designation, whereas plain "right" would be the most accurate. 121.73.7.84 (talk) 00:39, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Neoliberal?
The infobox states that they are a neoliberal party. However, no reference supports this assertion, and given the disputed, primarily pejorative meaning of this term, it is hard to see how the party could conclusively be stated to be "neoliberal". At the very least, the party website claims that they are "New Zealand's largest Centre-Right political Party, led by John Key. National primarily targets conservative and classic liberal voters." FOARP (talk) 11:39, 5 August 2013 (UTC)


 * The only person who is disputing the use of neoliberalism as the party ideology is you. It happily remained in the infobox for years without controversy. Even worse, your reference on "Liberal conservatism" is highly misleading. According to your reference, the party ideology would be "Conservatism" and "Classical Liberalism" not whatever you decided to put there. So you might consider reverting your changes before you revert others. Ordinary69 (talk) 08:40, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Simple fact is that there's no source for saying that they are 'neoliberal'. That's the bottom line - unless you can find one, that is. FOARP (talk) 12:42, 19 August 2013 (UTC)


 * This article is fast becoming a farce because of a few bigoted vandals. The party is a neoliberal party, as seen the party's many recent policies and legislation. Many political parties wiki articles don't have references for the party ideology, because it is just too broad to reference. Besides the reference you have added is an absolute lie and plain misleading. According to that reference the party ideology is "Classical liberalism" and "Conservatism". There is no justification as to why my edit was reverted. Ordinary69 (talk) 09:17, 21 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Well I just read the Neoliberal article and it doesn't seem a good fit, unless you mean the bit that says: The term neoliberal is now used mainly by those who are critical of legislative market reforms such as free trade, deregulation, privatization, and reducing government control of the economy? Seriously it just seems to be a generally abusive political term rather than an accurate description of policies. Like I said in the previous conversation in terms, both Labour and National are fairly close to the centre and just wiggle the country back and forth a bit rather than the major lurches we had 20+ years ago. So if we can rule Neoliberal out what are the alternatives? - SimonLyall (talk) 11:01, 21 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I have no problem with changing "Liberal Conservative" to "Classical Liberal and Conservative" - both add up to pretty much the same thing, so making the change in reality changes nothing. "Neoliberalism", though, is not supported by any reference, which is no suprise because, as the wiki article on Neoliberalism explains, nowadays it's become pretty much just a meaningless term of abuse that those on the left fling at anyone they don't like. The only thing I would ask for is a bit of civility - calling those who point out that there is no support for calling the National Party "neoliberal" "bigoted vandals" and "dumbass idiots" does nothing to prove your case, in fact it just creates the impression that you aren't editing in good faith FOARP (talk) 13:20, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

"Right wing"?
Is the characterization of the party as right wing appropriate? john k 03:42, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Well, "right wing" is always a contestable term, but is there any specific point that makes you question the designation? The party generally favours things such as reduced taxation, privatisation of state assets, and free trade, and is usually conservative in its social policy (opposing "political correctness", attacking the NZ version of affirmative action, etc). In New Zealand, at least, these things are generally considered to be right-wing rather than left-wing. The party is widely referred to as "right" or "centre-right" in New Zealand, both by politicians and by commentators. - Vardion 04:33, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

"Right" and "centre-right" seem fine to me - I was certainly not disputing that the National Party is the main party of the right, or of the centre-right, in New Zealand. But I tend to think that "right-wing" and "left-wing" should be reserved for parties that are actually out on the wings. For instance, in France, I'd say that only the Trots and the Communists should be described as "left wing", and only Le Pen, et al, as "right wing". The socialists are on the left and the Gaullists on the right, but the "wing" term implies a degree of extremism, I think. john k 05:09, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Ah, I see what you mean. I think the New Zealand usage might be a bit different, but there's certainly no problem referring to it as "centre-right" rather than "right-wing" if that makes things clearer. I've reworked the article accordingly - does that seem suitable? -- Vardion 07:46, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I would point out that at an internal National Party meeting not long ago, Chris Findlayson (who is a new MP for National, but a long established member and activist) was happy to describe National as liberal-conservative, reflecting the fact that while National's roots are conservative, the understanding of conservatism in New Zealand is more liberal than the political application of conservatism in other nations. [[User:Barzini|Barzini}} 11:05, 24 Mar 2006


 * I would add the when you look at the historic roots of the party, National is a coalition of the two anti-socialist parties, one representing the urban liberal/bourgeoise, the other the rural conservatives. --Midnighttonight 00:42, 24 March 2006 (UTC)


 * An objective analysis of where political parties in NZ sit is not necessary a reflection of how they describe themselves. Labour is actually more centre-right than centre-left, but that isn't a familiar designation for the party. National does not sit in the centre-right of the political compass, but further out: http://www.politicalcompass.org/nz2011 121.73.7.84 (talk) 22:55, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

"Centre-right"? Hardly. https://www.politicalcompass.org/nz2014 If this page is to be believed, National is far right, especially given its activities over the past three terms, since 2006. It would also be a good idea to update most of the NZ political parties, not just National. Although Labour might like to believe itself as centre-left, it's more centre-right, with National far right.

If you're going to suggest Labour is centre-left, you would end up with the Conservatives being centre-right, and I'm not sure that would be agreed on. --Tayruu (talk) 06:17, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Liberal Conservative?
Considering the amount of changes to welfare including, free fruit, free milk, and now the proposals for free breakfasts in decile schools. Shouldn't it be appropriate to label the National Party as "Liberal Conservative"? --122.62.77.250 08:05, 16 May 2017‎
 * Are there any reliable sources which label the party "liberal conservative"? --Hazhk (talk) 15:33, 16 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Many sources indicate that the National Party is Liberal Conservative, such as the implementation of socially liberal policies. Along with increasing funding for state healthcare. Both Classical Liberalism and Liberal Conservative fit the policies that have been implemented. But its hardly Classically Liberal, in the traditional sense. --Walkerbull 01:22, 17 May 2017‎


 * Also, you are using a very old source. --122.62.77.250 11:27, 17 May 2017‎

Antisemitism
I see that the "Antisemitism" section has been fought over in the past. This is not surprising. I have no idea who added the section or why, but it obviously could be understood as an attempt to smear a major New Zealand political party by accusing it of antisemitism. The IP editor who removed it in the past was quite correct to do so, and should not have been reverted.

A relevant rule is WP:PROPORTION: "An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject." In other words, simply because information can be cited, that does not automatically mean that it is included in an article. Everything in the "Antisemitism" section counts as a "minor aspect"; it is not the kind of information the article should contain. In response to Schwede66's comment, "why not trim it so that it's better", my response is that I did not "trim" the section because the section is inappropriate and needs to be removed altogether.

The results of the "August 2019 poll conducted by Curia" are trivia of no enduring importance. The remaining material in the section ("Following the Christchurch Mosque shootings, the party hurriedly removed content from their website which indicated opposition to the UN Migration Compact; a position also espoused by the terrorist in his manifesto") is both trivial and has no obvious connection with antisemitism, leaving one to wonder why it was included. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 00:47, 26 May 2020 (UTC)


 * I agree - it's a ridiculous section. Are you going to remove it? I don't see what this has to do with the National Party given it was a poll of voters rather than party members, and has nothing to do with the policies of the National Party. --Sxologist (talk) 02:34, 26 May 2020 (UTC)


 * I wonder whether the issue is partially what this section is called; it might not be the most appropriate. As far as I'm concerned, the Curia poll stuff is not justifiable. The other sentence, though, is of encyclopedic interest: "Following the Christchurch Mosque shootings, the party hurriedly removed content from their website which indicated opposition to the UN Migration Compact; a position also espoused by the terrorist in his manifesto." That caused a big stink at the time. I remember Bridges blaming a "junior staffer" at the time for the whole affair. It was widely reported and the two references provided (Newshup and RNZ) are reliable sources. We should discuss how (not whether) that content is presented.  Schwede 66  03:33, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Schwede66, if you do not consider the mention of the Curia poll justifiable, please remove it. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 04:20, 26 May 2020 (UTC)


 * I would say the mention of the removal of the UN Migration pact should be moved up into the opposition government 2017-present section? --Sxologist (talk) 11:56, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

"National Party(New Zealand)" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect National Party(New Zealand) and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 April 6 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 19:13, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Party ideology
has added two ideologies to the infobox: Christian right and Social conservatism. He has supported these with two opinion pieces: Dunne and Hooton. Neither of these sources support the labels directly, with the gist of both being a concern for the future of the party, and concern for potential takeover by evangelical Christians and or far/alt-right attitudes similar to Trump in the US. Nor does either piece suggest that National has already adopted either of the ideologies in question, but they do gesture at the idea that National may be "showing sympathy from time to time for the evangelical line". It is my opinion that these sources are not enough support for the labels in the infobox. For the record, I am less concerned about “Social conservatism” than “Christian right”, which feels fundamentally untrue of the party's politics, but neither label is supported by sufficiently strong sources at this point.

I came to this article after these labels were added to List of political parties in New Zealand, though I see SjShane has used the infobox to support changes on other pages including Social conservatism and Christian right. Although I started discussion at the list's talk page, I expect here is the best place to evaluate all of these changes collectively. — HTGS (talk) 03:17, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Both of these quotes are taken directly from the articles to confirm the party’s position currently. “The National Party seems to be playing to an ever-decreasing base of European New Zealanders and evangelical Christians”

“The current leader, president and MPs must pander to that group, dubbed ‘the Taliban’ by the party’s remaining centrists.”

Further reading confirms the party holds positions that are listed directly under the ideology of “Social conservative” and “Christian right”.

The entire party had initially opposed a ban on Conversion Therapy on first reading: https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2021/08/national-mps-defend-vote-against-conversion-therapy-bill-despite-saying-they-support-a-ban.amp.html Before public backlash from their own liberal faction, which resulted in them allowing a conscience vote on the on the second and third reading: https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/460761/national-party-to-allow-conscience-vote-on-conversion-therapy-ban-bill - Which resulted in eight National ministers being the only opposition against the bill. https://www.parliament.nz/en/pb/bills-and-laws/bills-proposed-laws/document/BILL_113397/conversion-practices-prohibition-legislation-bill

In 2020, multiple National MPs made several attempts to make amendments to abortion law to make it more restrictive, however none of them made it to reading. https://www.legislation.govt.nz/sop/members/2020/0460/latest/whole.html https://www.legislation.govt.nz/sop/members/2020/0466/latest/whole.html https://www.legislation.govt.nz/sop/members/2020/0467/latest/whole.html https://www.legislation.govt.nz/sop/members/2020/0479/latest/whole.html https://www.legislation.govt.nz/sop/members/2020/0480/latest/whole.html https://www.legislation.govt.nz/sop/members/2020/0463/latest/whole.html https://www.legislation.govt.nz/bill/government/2019/0164/30.0/d1647369e2.html

When questioned on his own position on abortion, current leader Christopher Luxon stated that he was “Pro-Life” and declined to comment whether he thought abortion was “murder”. Luxon was one out of 15 MPs that voted against a member’s bill to establish safe areas around abortion clinics. Despite this, Luxon voted in favor of safe areas in second and third readings, but with nine of the twelve votes in opposition to the bill still coming from the National party. https://i.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/300467250/christopher-luxon-says-he-will-vote-for-safe-zones-outside-abortion-clinics-at-second-reading https://www.parliament.nz/en/pb/bills-and-laws/bills-proposed-laws/document/BILL_99649/contraception-sterilisation-and-abortion-safe-areashttps://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/463463/safe-areas-abortion-bill-passes-with-large-majority-in-parliament

In June 2022, after the United States of America overturned Roe v Rade, National MP Simon O’Conner made a controversial tweet in support of the change, which caused distress among the remaining liberal wing of National. https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/469788/national-mp-removes-post-following-roe-v-wade-decision  When questioned on further changes to abortion law in New Zealand, National minister, and spokesperson for health, Shane Reti, “that would always be a decision for caucus, and so I'm not going to offer a position here now, but we are mindful in watching what happens with Roe vs Wade".  https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/roe-v-wade-abortion-decision-former-national-mp-alfred-ngaro-criticises-christopher-luxons-gagging-order/HB6B5FOKD22K67EIF53QNOMEZM/ Former MP Amy Adams warned the party that attempted to change to New Zealand abortion law would find themselves in a “very dangerous position politically” https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/469919/ex-senior-nat-amy-adams-warns-caucus-over-abortion-issue-position

Following the media response, Christopher Luxon stated that the National party would not be revisiting abortion law, and that O’Conner’s post was “insensitive”, while also stating the MP was entitled to his views on other subjects that were brought up, such as a post stating the belief that marriage should be stated to just be “between a man and woman”. https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/national-party-leader-christopher-luxon-said-simon-oconnors-anti-abortion-post-was-wrongly-interpreted-as-a-party-view/UKCSZWDUNOA2KWYR74B3U2IKDA/

Former National MP Alfred Ngaro accused party leader Christopher Luxon of “gagging” ministers over their views on the topic after O’Connors post was taken down. https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/roe-v-wade-abortion-decision-former-national-mp-alfred-ngaro-criticises-christopher-luxons-gagging-order/HB6B5FOKD22K67EIF53QNOMEZM/ O’Connor responded saying he had not been silenced, and confirmed he still believed the decision of Roe v Wade overturning was “a good day”. https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/national-mp-simon-oconnor-speaks-about-removing-anti-abortion-social-media-post-at-chris-luxons-request/FAJVOLLX6V5CTMB3H4IZ5QPKN4/

My concerns over the edits on List of political parties in New Zealand were the fact you made edits only to change the National Party, and not the other parties which were by your own standards, not sourced either.

As far as I can see, there are no sources to suggest these ideologies don’t fit the party, but plenty that suggest they currently do. I also advise reading No original research. SjShane (talk) 03:44, 7 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Also, upon further reading.  I would also like to note that the source for Economic liberalism does not state The National Party’s position on this ideology in any shape or form.   I suggest a new source for this, as it is in fact true.   However wish to note this, as it seems odd that sourced articles are being brought into question before this oversight. SjShane (talk) 04:28, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Do you not see any problem with the fact that these "sourced articles" are opinion pieces from biased parties? I'm also not sure why a party accused of "gagging" their ministers for Christian or socially conservative viewpoints should be labelled so decisively with those very labels as ideologies. Various claims within an article like this one demand different levels of sourcing, and I just don't see the articles provided as adequate for an infobox label as final as "ideology". You need good sources, and you don't have good sources.
 * As far as my not-reverting other edits on other parties, I did point out at the list page: don't see those labels as so clearly erroneous. Frankly, if you'd only added the label "socially conservative" I probably wouldn't have said anything (or even noticed) about the infobox here; but your own list of sources above seem to very clearly refute the label of "Christian right". At no point does the party espouse a pro-life ideology—Luxon says they aren't going to go after abortion every chance he gets—let alone "Christian right". And if the party did have a clear and explicit Christian motive, wouldn't these liberals have left? At most it sounds like there just isn't a party line on abortion and religion... which would suggest we shouldn't put one in the infobox. (And honestly, this list of yours does look like its own attempt at WP:OR from here.) — HTGS (talk) 05:16, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Biased to who?   Peter Dunn previously worked with the last National government in a coalition between National and United Future.   Hooten worked directly with the party at the last election.
 * You’re only responding to the articles that support your claim, please read the others, I’m gathering all evidence for a balanced look so others can determine what should be done. In the scope of the party’s actions, they appear to attempt a Christian right approach until public opinion forces them to step down from this views.   The party itself is still defined by them however.
 * As far as Liberals leaving the party, please refer to outgoing ministers in 2020 New Zealand general election.
 * The party members attempted to push policy that would seriously restrict abortion in 2020, as I already linked above. This is more recent that any policy they pushed for in the 1970’s for looser restrictions.
 * I suggest carefully viewing the evidence provided as it seems you may be making quite a few assumptions.  I am yet to find a recent report or policy that says the National party is taking a liberal approach on these issues. SjShane (talk) 05:54, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Honestly, this is original research. A whole bunch of articles on attitudes to abortion law (and the rest) do not a party ideology make. — HTGS (talk) 20:42, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Going forward
I have restored the ideology parameter to how it appeared prior to SjShane’s edits. While it doesn’t have to remain in its current state forever, it’s clear we will need consensus before changes are made to such a contentious part of the page. — HTGS (talk) 02:25, 9 July 2022 (UTC)


 * I will be restoring it again as you have not made a compelling argument on why it should be removed, and the sources you have restored are far more topical and outdated than the ones I listed.   It’s decisions like these that make me question your intents over this article, as you are not willing to discuss the actual content before irrationally making decisions you feel are right.   Again, if you can discuss this further I’m happy to listen, but deciding to wipe sourced content that you personally don’t like is not helpful to the Wiki project.   SjShane (talk) 05:37, 9 July 2022 (UTC)


 * I have requested protection of the article to prevent edit warring, whether or not this is done is up to more informed decisions to decide.  Also at the recommendation of an admin, I will not be reverting the edit until further notice, I will expect user:HTGS to remain in good faith and do the same while this is in the middle of discussion and have lacked replies to key points I’ve made, and at times, whole responses.


 * But either way, during this time, I would like to see recent articles within the last three years that state this is not the position of the party, as we currently have the two sources I provided that state this, but none that have countered these claims or offer differing views.   If this cannot be done, then I would also like to see a more valid argument against the sources provided other than “I don’t personally like it”, which is all I’ve really been offered so far, as it’s been a Wikipedia user’s opinion vs two sourced articles by a former politician that worked in a coalition with this party (See Peter Dunne), and Matthew Hooton, who worked directly with The National Party as a staffer. https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/422543/political-lobbyist-matthew-hooton-resigns-as-national-party-staffer


 * If neither of these can be done in two days I’ll change it back to the more accurate version once more, and hope there will be no more edit warring over this issue.  :)


 * SjShane (talk) 16:38, 9 July 2022 (UTC)


 * You can't seriously be asking for articles that list what positions the party does not have. As the user adding material, it is your responsibility to provide reliable sources for your claims, and neither of your sources actually describe the party as christian right or socially conservative. — HTGS (talk) 09:54, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
 * My sources list their position by definition, not name. If you feel this is problematic, again, you should not be reverting to those previous sources that suffer from the exact same issue, I am happy to call into question where the definitions are listed so directly by name in those articles.   by your own standard, you should instead be removing the all of the currently listed ideology for suffering from the same problem.  I’m aware you have established you have a bias with your edits on this page when attempting to have your preferred version brought back when the page was protected.  (See User talk: Mifter).    “Pandering to an ever growing Christian base” by definition, is, “Christian right”.  The party positions that those articles list, by definition, is “socially conservative”.   Perhaps read those pages and the articles, and you will agree by definition, they describe the party and their positions at present.
 * I have even included government webpages in the discussion here, that show the party has been socially conservative on issues like abortion and conversion therapy. If you’re unable to trust the .govt webpages I provided as well, I don’t believe you’re acting in good faith, and are simply attempting vandalism.
 * It is okay to feel that way, but you have been extremely unhelpful on this talk page, by only citing that you do not like something, proclaiming that the sources aren’t verifiable, until I mention that they are written by Peter Dunne and a former National party staffer, which results in you playing ignorant to what my sources state and claiming they are not reliable. I an happy to start quoting the article again, which I have already done, but but do not expect it to achieve anything. This discussion has, for the most part, been a waste of time.
 * I’m simply asking for you to provide sources from the last two years that state what the current party ideology is, and perhaps it will counter what is currently listed, if you can find such a source, as I cannot with the exception of what I have provided (and other articles that allude to it)..   This is an attempt to find mutual ground, as the version you are reverting to was literally six National leaders ago.
 * I request you do not revert the page until you can do this, or attempt to establish some mutual ground on the article and facts, rather than stating I am wrong without providing anything substantial to go on.  Otherwise I will be seeking further action, and suggest once again you read  No original research.
 * Have a nice day. SjShane (talk) 12:55, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't want to get into this, but if you're going to include the claims that a party is "christian right" you obviously need a source which says this. You cannot claim this because a source says '“The National Party seems to be playing to an ever-decreasing base of European New Zealanders and evangelical Christians'. And you definitely cannot say this because you feel their positions tally with what is normal for a christian right party. Both of these are clearly WP:OR and completely unacceptable in any article. If you see it happening in some other article, then fix it in the other article rather than trying to duplicate it here. (And sorry as much as I despise Luxon, and dislike the National Party, I have no idea WTF Luxon's personal views have to do with the position of the National Party. Where and if Luxon's personal views are now represented in the position of the National Party, we should be showing sources which demonstrate this official position not talking about his personal views.) Nil Einne (talk) 23:55, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
 * The previous reversion for ideologies, and the current sources for “economic liberalism” neither directly state the positions either.  The articles clearly demonstrate the oarty follows the same philosophy as Christian right and Social conservatism.    This is not about Luxon's personal views, but rather the party's position in 2020 to make abortion services restricted, and position to vote against conversion therapy until the party was put into a corner by public opinion. SjShane (talk) 13:08, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Upon further reading, I have noticed most parties (foreign and local) listed as Christian right do not have sources that listing them directly as “Christian right”, but rather source them based on their positions and favoring christian politics, which is exactly what my sources provided have listed. I am happy to provide many (many) external links if need be, but it is apparent most parties do not directly use this ideology label, but is rather attached through their actions, like the ones I’ve previously listed on this talk page.
 * If there is an issue with my edits, this may result in most parties currently listed as “Christian right” to also be looked at further.  The “if the shoe fits”  criteria is currently in place for many, many articles, whether correct or incorrect is beyond me. SjShane (talk) 14:00, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
 * See WP:OTHERCONTENT. That things are poorly sourced elsewhere is not reason to continue to add poorly-sourced content here as well. Your goal should be to fix those other pages, not use them to hold up argument here. Believe it or not, I would like to see those problematic Christian right parties looked at and addressed. “If the shoe fits” is not a good approach to content on Wikipedia. — HTGS (talk) 05:26, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Based on the content of the Te Ara article, I would be happy to list the ideologies as Liberalism and Conservatism. Would you be happy with those two well-sourced items, ? — HTGS (talk) 05:29, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
 * @SjShane, given feedback, if Christian right and social conservatism are removed, will you reverse this? I’m looking to avoid edit warring here. — HTGS (talk) 09:39, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I've dropped 'economic' because the Te Ara reference does not use this term. (I have no interest in discussing the sources used but if we're citing a single source then the text should reflect it.) --Hazhk (talk) 13:20, 25 July 2022 (UTC)