Talk:Helen Clark/archive03

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

The current pic is quite old, and is completely unrealistic. I know we've been down this path before, but the current pic was unilaterally implemented. If you see a GDFL or public domain pic that looks good, then place it here and we can all pick one. --Midnighttonight 03:57, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Whattabout this one: [1]? Might actually be an older photo but is less heavily photoshopped. Armon 10:49, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

also just a note about the pic showen here it is photo shoped.

I don't think the new picture put on by Edward is suitable. It is a free picture as he says, but it presents her in an unfavourable light and looks as if it's been scanned straight from a tabloid. From a quick look at other political biographies, the pictures appear to be official and better-quality ones, and I think Helen Clark deserves one more in line with those. If you have complaints about photos being photoshopped, well, lots of political pictures appear to be photoshopped and to present their subjects in a favourable way. There's no reason for Helen's to be different, and I'm sure someone can find a free picture of more suitable quality. Cathryn 23:55, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I have changed the photo again here is the rational... This photo is of Helen Clark. Prime Minster of NZ. The photo is from http://www.primeminister.govt.nz/

The photo is copyright but specifically states that content at this site can be used for fair use purposes. (http://www.primeminister.govt.nz/disclaimer.html)

This photo qualifies for fair use under the following criteria.

"Fair use media can only be used on Wikipedia if it is not possible to replace such copyrighted work with a free work of acceptable quality."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Image_copyright_tags/Fair_use

I contend that the current photo is of unacceptable quality and therefore this photo may be used instead. I note that I am not the only one to think that.

Also there is precedent that other political leaders have official photo's on their profiles so this should be no different. Please discuss this before deleting again. Jughead 17:41, 7 Feb 2007

See also my talk page where Jughead asks why I removed the official photo and my reply.-gadfium 05:00, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I have contacted the department of Prime Minster and they have given permission for the use of this photo for wikipedia. contact: Antony Rhodes.

The Labour party has also given permission to use photo's from it's website for entries here. contact: Jenny Michie --Jughead78 23:17, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I hope that means they put the photos under a GFDL or Creative Commons licence. As I explained on my talk page, permission to use a photo on Wikipedia alone is not enough, since it prevents anyone else from using it. Please post exactly what these people have said, and I'll contact them directly. Email me if you'd prefer.-gadfium 01:23, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I have forwarded you the emails in question and added the following...

I appreciate your interest in this area and I hope that like you the quality of information in Wikipedia is of utmost importance. We have cleary got permission to use these images and like I said official photo's of political leaders are used in nearly all the entries on wikipedia. One of the most important things in any encyclopaedia is consistency. The use of templates, common design features and information is common through most political entries. The use of an official photograph is one such feature. The quality of the entry is clearly diminished by not using a high quality photograph. I also not that other pictures in the entry do not have clearly stated free copy rights either but are not removed. Finnally the pictures in question are distributed far and wide on leaftlets and bill boards through out the country, presumbly if I took a picture of a billboard with the same image being in a public space there would be no issue of copy right. At the end of the day this is quite a technical issue but the main photo of an entry is a very high impact part of the entry and it needs to be the right one.

--Jughead78 02:37, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

The picture uploaded by Jughead78 has been deleted as a fair use picture (not by me), so I've restored the previous picture again. I haven't heard back from my request for a picture under GFDL.-gadfium 18:38, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

The professional photo has now been placed under GFDL by the Office of the Prime Minister.-gadfium 02:12, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

This picture has been digitally changed, it is a false representation of what this person actually looks like & consequently I consider it to be fraud. This was used on the infamous pledge card as well.

It's the official portrait. Most official portraits are post-processed.-gadfium 02:39, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

That is completely irrelevant - this photograph has been digitally altered to misrepresent the actual image of this person, that is fraud in any language. This person does not actually look like this in real life therefore this photograph is a fraudulent misrepresentation. The public have a right to know the truth - someone who has never seen this person in real life will think that this photograph is actually her when it clearly is not. I do not believe it is right or even lawful to deceive people in this way.

Take it up with the office of the Prime Minister.-gadfium 08:41, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Most magazine images, especially of celebrities, are similarly altered, as are those of other NZ politicians of different persuasions. Further, you seem to think that somehow "digital" alteration is bad. In reality, no photographic process gives an objective depiction. You can change the tone of someone's skin by switching brands of film and photographic paper, use filters, different lighting, changes in focus etc. Perhaps the biggest difference between the old "art" of a good photograph and digital manipulation is that it took more money and skill in the past, but with very much the same outcome. It may be that this photograph was digitally altered, but it could just be a good make-up person and a smart photographer. Surely hair-dye is also fraud? What about dieting? Where do you draw the line? --Limegreen 09:26, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Where does one begin to point out the idiotic rubbish contained in this previous statement? My God you must have been brainwashed at an early age. A photograph is an accurate depiction of what the subject actually looks like - this photo of Helen Clark has been digitally ALTERED to show her in a nicer light, obviously because she's hideous in real life. Her teeth are crooked and brown in real life but are straight & white in this photo. Obviously to your distorted way of thinking that was probably caused by great lighting & makeup!!! If you can't make the most basic distinction between fact & fiction then you are in serious trouble in your life.

The photo should be replaced with one that hasn't been altered to make Helen look better. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.195.86.40 (talk) 02:45, August 25, 2007 (UTC)

What has to be done to change this picture? The picture looks nothing like Helen Clark and the argument that it needs to be a posed photograph doesn't make sense when you look at other leaders photographs (for example Gordon Brown's). Ignoring the obvious use of photoshop, the photograph is quite old now so should be replaced for that reason alone. And obviously the fact that it doesn't even resemble Helen Clark is a further reason to change. Who is actually defending the use of this picture and why? Please change the photo, it is an embarassment to any claims of objectivity by the encyclopedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mmcc08 (talk • contribs) 13:56, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

What has to be done? It's quite simple: find or take a high quality free alternative. Finding one is difficult, since most photos on the web are copyrighted, so I suggest you try taking one yourself. This is election year; ring her electorate office and see what public events in your area she is attending, and go along with your camera. At the moment, the best photo we have of her other than the portrait is the one from the US military, which is very grainy if enlarged to show only her. Just take a better photo than that.

I looked at Flickr to see if I could find a suitable photos, and there's one which would have been suitable except it's under a "no derivates" licence here. It's unlikely the author would be willing to change the licence to

CC-BY-SA, since it appears to be taken by a government office. Here's another decent photo, which is entirely copyrighted. I've emailed the author and asked them to release it under CC-BY-SA. If they change the licence on the flickr website, I'll upload it to commons and replace the photo here. You can search for other photos and make similar requests yourself.-gadfium

19:19, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Tirau Dan from Flickr has agreed to relicense the photo, and I've uploaded it and replaced it. I'm very pleased with this photo.-gadfium 22:51, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Very nice - and completely appropriate here. Thanks for finding it and getting it relicensed. -- Avenue (talk) 02:00, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Much better, it still shows her in a profile respectful of her position and now actually looks like her. Many thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mmcc08 (talk • contribs) 17:36, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

This business of whether the PM is appointed or elected is a bit silly. The PM is technically appointed by the GG as a "rubber stamp" exercise, but she is only in that position because her party is elected to government or because she can claim to have the numbers. It is misleading to suggest the PM is appointed by the GG because the latter has NO actual discretion - it is the person/leader who can dominate Parliament who becomes PM. Kiwimw 04:58, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

It's not a bit silly at all. She is appointed. Check here. The appointment may be rubber stamped, but it is still an appointment. Moriori 05:09, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

That page you cite is misleading in this context. The "rubber stamping" reference refers to the difference between the legal formalities and the actual reality and true nature of the "appointment", which is that it is the result of an election. That page you cite is discussing "entry" is a different context, a narrow legal context, as opposed to the wider view. Therefore since there is controversy, "became" which is correct on either view, is the better word. Kiwimw 05:18, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me. Since when did it become Wikipedia policy to not use words which accurately describe something? The GG appoints the PM. Yes or no? Moriori 05:21, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

The Prime Minister comes to that position because of an election. Yes or no. So in the end both are right and "became" is the better word. Wikipedia isn't about misleading people either. "Appointed" is misleading. Kiwimw 06:10, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I object to saying that she's elected to the position of Prime Minister because people vote for the party (through their party vote), not directly for the Prime Minister (as Americans do for their President). It's true that the leader of the party who wins the election automatically becomes PM, but they don't necessarily stay PM until the next election. It's also sometimes initially unclear which party is the winner of an election, since neither main party normally gets a majority of the votes, so it depends on which party can get support from the smaller parties. People will read this article with a widely diverse understanding of the NZ political process. Saying she was appointed might also lead to the wrong impression, so I would favour keeping "became" in the article until we reach a consensus for anything else here.-gadfium 08:28, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, "It's true that the leader of the party who wins the election automatically becomes PM" - given the last election where Brash could have concievably become the PM, that's not true. It is whomever can gain the support of the House of Representatives who wins the election. --Midnighttonight 23:54, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Technically the PM is appointed, that is right, but like most of the New Zealand "constitution", the technical differs from the actual. Technically, New Zealand is a monarchy - actually it is a democracy. Technically the Governor-General appoints people to all manner of official positions, but it would be ignoring reality to say that that is how the issue is decided. Actually the decisions are made by Cabinet, often times, or the Prime Minister (after consultation with Cabinet) and the Governor-General in all cases has NO discretion. The point I am making is that technical process and de facto reality sometimes diverge significantly, to the confusion of outsiders (and insiders too!!). Therefore it is inappropriate to say that the PM of NZ is appointed - that implies someone (the appointer) decides to appoint the person. She is "actually" elected, but that is probably inappropriate too. She isn't elected per se - members of Parliament who support her to be PM are elected and they (the numbers) decide. Under MMP this is more complex than before, but it is actually the same process as under FPP.

Thus, to make the point of when she started to be PM, it is better to use a neutral word, like "became", rather than a loaded word like either "elected" or "appointed" (they are "loaded" words in this context). In fact it would be fair comment to say she was PM from the date of the election (Nov 27 1999) but we have split hairs enough over this!!

I humbly submit my opinion  :) Kiwimw 09:06, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

It is not inappropiate due to MMP. It is not a directly elected position, but one in which the Gov-Gen appoints whomever will hold the confidence of the House. New Zealanders elect the House, the House then votes for whomever the Gov-Gen appoints. Of course, the GG is not going to appoint someone who will fail in the House. Furthermore, the PM does not need to be the leader of the largest party, or indeed the party leader (in 1997 Shipley became leader of the National party about one month before she became PM for instance, Bolger was PM yet not a party leader). It is an appointment. --Midnighttonight 23:54, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

The GG appoints the PM that is how our system works; it is the same in AU, CA, UK etc. Convention dictates who the GG appoints, but it is still an appointment, no matter what way you look at it. Brian | (Talk) 00:13, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

What we could do is actual write out what actually happens in the Prime Minister of New Zealand article, and then link to that. --Midnighttonight 00:20, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. Historically her Party's victory in 1999 was so great that there was no discretion whatsoever on the GG - he had to appoint her. Also the PM-elect (note the expression) is entitled to tell the defeated PM what to do until the former is offically "appointed". That was the whole point of the drama in 1984 when Muldoon refused to follow Lange's instructions at first, then capitulated. The GG appoints the PM on the advice of the PM-elect, ie that person advises that they should be appointed. "Became" is the better word, because to be correct you would need to say "appointed, but not at the discretion of the GG but on the advice of the PM-elect". Which is a rather clumsy sentence when one word will do. Kiwimw 08:57, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

^^^I don't think you're quite on the right track here. The Governor-General, in all cases, appoints as PM the person who can demonstrate that they have the support of the majority of the House of Representatives. This support is usually demonstrated through official statements, e.g. the announcements by NZ First and UF that they would support Labour on confidence and supply. If NO leader can demonstrate that they have the confidence of the House, then the GG will not appoint anyone as PM. Eventually, the House will have to sit, and there will be a confidence vote. If no leader has the support of a majority at this point, there would be another election.

So the GG does not appoint the PM on the advice of the PM-elect. The GG appoints the person who can show that they have the support of the House. The situation in 1984 was that Lange had not been sworn in yet. So Muldoon was still PM. The convention is that the outgoing PM always does what the incoming PM asks him/her to do. Muldoon refused.

Anyway, long story short: PM is appointed by the GG.203.97.110.163 05:58, 18 August 2006 (UTC)Simon

Yes, that's correct - the Prime Minister is appointed by the G-G. --Lholden 00:02, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

How about: the elected Prime Minister is appointed by the GG... Tell me to get back to work! 00:58, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

No. How about: the Prime Minister is appointed by the G-G based upon election results. --Midnighttonight Remind me to do my uni work rather than procrastinate on the internet 03:25, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

You forget the GG has no discretion - s/he must (by convention) do what they are told, and if they are not sure who is in charge that is the closest to exercising a discretion s/he gets to. If anyone appoints the PM in any real sense it is Parliament. But we are talking about one word in Helen Clark's bio. If you say she was appointed PM it sounds like she is not elected. But an election is an integral part of it. Saying "elected" though is misleading also as pointed out above. Surely, if you say "became", then controversy is avoided? Kiwimw 19:23, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I'll support "became". --Midnighttonight Procrastinating on uni work... 22:48, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

The New Zealand Labour Party website has some good pics of Helen Clark, maybe we should bring in a few from there? the index starts here and there are a few good ones (for instance). While someone would have to contact the party [2], I'm sure they will easily allow the pics to be used. --Midnighttonight 05:31, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

While I'm with you that the photo illustration is not acceptable, I think her photo still needs to be a decent posed photograph. That's why I don't think the one you suggested cuts it. Armon 11:10, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

This vandalism has now been done twice [3] and [4]. It is Peter Yelish, as per this press release. Changing it is vandalism. --Midnighttonight please tell me off for procrastinating on my essay! 08:39, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Is it possible that Act got it wrong, and then Wikipedia's use of the name proliferated over the net? See [5], [6] and [7] for reputable sources which say the name is John Yelash. Or just google '"John Yelash" "Helen Clark"' and compare the results to googling '"Peter Yelich" "Helen Clark"', which returns mostly Wikipedia mirrors. You seem to have a compromise between the two names above: Peter Yelish, which returns no Google hits.-gadfium 09:11, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I was going by that source, but you may be right. Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear. Well, the source will need to be changed then! I blame ACT! --Midnighttonight please tell me off for procrastinating on my essay! 09:24, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I know John Yelash personally and I can attest to the fact that his name is definitely John Yelash (I'm an ex New Zealand Herald reporter). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Newzild (talk • contribs) 23:51, August 24, 2007 (UTC)

I can attest without a shadow of doubt that it is John Yelash who sued Clark for defamation. It appears that some cyber-commentators have used the "Peter Yelich" name after referring to Wikipedia. In the source referred to in backing up the "Yelich" claim, I see that Peter Williams QC was Yelash's lawyer. Confusion? —The preceding

) .

Do you know of any verifable sources which contain the entire story of the Yelash case? (when we mean verifable, we usually mean news sources and definately not blogs, forums and the like). But thank you and sorry for the reverts before. --Midnighttonight please tell me off for procrastinating on my essay! 09:47, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Reference to the Libertarianz case filed in the High Court as a stunt (I'm a lawyer - believe me, its a stunt) should be taken out, and if reference to the Labour Party issue about the pledge card is needed at all, it should be to the real parts of it. Personally, I'd say it isn't an issue about Helen Clark, its about the Labour Party. I thought I'd discuss before removing. Kiwimw 20:28, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

By all means remove it. I couldn't tell how serious it was. The same material is at Bernard Darnton, which you might like to contribute to.-gadfium 21:56, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

{{infobox polstyles| image=| name=Tony Blair,
British Prime Minister| prestyle=

(Rt.Hon.)| postnom=PC (not used when Rt.Hon. used), MP|}} Do we really need to point out the "Rt Hon." in her name? Not even Tony Blair has it on his article. We could use something along the lines of the Style Infobox (depicted) with the appropriate modifications for Helen Clark. Before someone replies with "because that's the way its always done in NZ" I'll say in advance that I think certain Kiwis get too obsessive about the styles and titles ("egailitarian nation", anyone?)---however this is not to say I am against titles. Mr Bluefin 10:15, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Blair does have it above his photo in the infobox, and I think twice here at the top of the page is overkill. I'd say one or other. The title is used often enough here to warrant its mention. --Limegreen 11:25, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

{{infobox polstyles|

image=| name=Helen Clark,
New Zealand Prime Minister| prestyle=

(Rt.Hon.)| postnom= MP|}}

If nobody objects in the next 2-3 days I will:

1. Change the first sentence to "Helen Elizabeth Clark (born February 26, 1950) is the Prime Minister of New Zealand", omitting the her style from the lead, but retaining it above the photo.
2. Add the infobox above with the post-nom sourced from the PI Forum Secretariat. (Could someone who knows exactly what titles she has add them?) PC not included because IIRC only peers use it, and for commoners the Rt Hon already indicates membership of the Privy Council.

Mr Bluefin 12:14, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I think this version should be put into

, anyone care to do so?

I don't think vandalism should be rewarded by being preserved.-gadfium 19:21, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Well apparently the rest of wikipedia does :P. I would have added it, but I didn't find it to be funny enough. --IvanKnight69 07:53, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

This article reads like it was written by the Labour Party! 210.86.41.110 19:50, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you could be more specific about what you object to? It's difficult to do anything productive from general criticism. Ziggurat 20:50, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

That's funny, I would have thought the most recent versions of this page were the most neutral thus far. --Lholden 21:40, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

If anything, I would say this article is too negative. At any rate, in the absense of specific criticisms, I'll remove the NPOV tag.-gadfium 01:58, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

This is probably the most neutral version of this article yet, and doesn't read much like either pro-or anti-(it's contained both) Labour propaganda. --Loopy ^e 05:19, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

It looks biased to me too. The viewpoint is right of the right. I still maintain that that picture is not in keeping with her, a Prime Minister. Compare this with the article John Howard. He is treated like a real Statesman. Wallie 21:40, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Someone has readded a paragraph on this. It was previously moved from this article to

09:41, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Clark and Israel

I believe this section is almost entirely POV. I'm moving it here for reference and debate.

My first time, so I don't know the protocol re answering, so please accept my apologies for any mistakes ....

I agree that some of it doesn't sound as unbiased as encyclopedia stuff should - but not all, some should stay, I think.

Critics find it difficult to believe Clark's antipathy toward Israel, which she has made no effort to hide, is due to any real moral considerations, given her cosy relationship with the Chinese leadership, whom many would consider a gross human rights violator, both domestically, and in their occupation of Tibet.

OK, this does sound a bit POV....

Clark stated she "found it hard to believe" that the Israeli bombing of a UN post in Lebanon was an accident,[8][9][10] effectively claiming Israel had targetted UN observers.

I think that this should stay. It's just facts.

Again critics cite the fact that Clark is ignoring the obvious evidence

OK, not neutral enough sounding...

[A] Canadian UN observer had reported prior to the bombing "We've got Hezbollah fighters running around in our positions, taking our positions here and then using us for shields and then engaging the (Israeli Defence Forces)." [11]

This is just facts & should stay. See article quoted.

The first paragraph certainly has no place in an encyclopedia. The first sentence of the second para is true enough, but many leaders have criticised Israel over this incident. That sentence can stay or go, I don't mind. The rest of the paragraph advances an extreme theory which not even the Israelis are currently putting forward. It is far from obvious evidence.

If we want to deal comprehensively with Clark's statements on Israel, we should also include her statement (over suspected Mossad agents trying to get NZ passports on false grounds) that Israel's behaviour was unacceptable internationally by any country. [12], and including any response Israel might make.

The article might get too long if all of Clark's statements (about anything)were put up. <g> I think that some of the above should be kept. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.152.73.254 (talk • contribs)

In fact, I think both these incidents are better dealt with at more appropriate articles: the first at

22:51, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I've reformatted the comments by 222.152.73.254 by indenting them and moving one to the end of the para it was replying to. It's probably easier if you place any further comments at the end of this section, rather than interspersing them, although both styles are commonly used on Wikipedia talk pages.

With regard to the Canadian UN observer, this is not what the observer said, but an interpretation of what he said, according to the article quoted. It might be reasonable to give a concise summary of Israel's response to the criticism, but this is a third party's interpretation. It also seems to me that Clark's statement (about the UN post bombing) was in the mainstream of world opinion, so we could have a similar discussion for the article of every person who criticised Israel over this matter. That would not be reasonable, which is why I suggest that a brief mention of Clark's statement be added to the article linked to above where Irish, Chinese and Austrian responses are also given.-gadfium 01:01, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, what Maj. Hess-von Kruedener wrote was "The closest artillery has landed within 2 meters (sic) of our position and the closest 1000 lb aerial bomb has landed 100 meters (sic) from our patrol base. This has not been deliberate targeting, but rather due to tactical necessity." (emphasis mine) Maj.Gen. Lewis MacKenzie's quote is more of a paraphrase rather than an interpretation: "What that means is, in plain English, 'We've got Hezbollah fighters running around in our positions, taking our positions here and then using us for shields and then engaging the (Israeli Defence Forces)" In any case, I think the anon's criticisms of the "Clark and Israel" section are valid, and gadfium's suggestions make sense, but I wonder how notable her anti-Israel position is. It seems like just the typical reaction of people of her ideological bent. If it's put back in, we should keep it short -like a couple of sentences. Armon 10:23, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and any extra info added to Foreign relations of New Zealand#post-ANZUS relations as gadfium suggested. Armon 10:24, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi, sorry don't know if this is right but on the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Secretary-General page it says that "There is also a strong feeling that it should be a female Secretary-General this time, because secretaries for the past 60 years have all been men. Current New Zealand Prime Minister Helen Clark, and former New Zealand Governor-General Dame Silvia Cartwright have been tipped as candidates after being promoted by international women's group Equality Now." Should that be included on this page or is that just rumour? Thanks

I think it's premature to add this to the article. Clark has not shown any overt interest in the position so far.[13] If she declares her candidacy, then it should go in the article.-gadfium 08:31, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I think you'll find that no potential candidate who has declared their interest has ever been made UN Secretary General, so perhaps it would be best not to use declaration to determine when this matter should be included. Nicknz 00:34, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Time Magazine has apparently indicated that she is being considered, and she has indicated that it is something that she would be interested in discussing, "if asked". Noting that might be an objective and neutral way of mentioning it. Kiwimw 02:22, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm surprised that there is no mention of Helen Clark's

12:37, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I would have thought this is more appropriately dealt with in the Air Force article. Do you suggest we have a paragraph in this article for every significant decision she's made? Even if you do think that would be appropriate, it would have been a cabinet decision, so should it not go under New Zealand Labour Party?

under early life the article states "graduated with a MA (Hons) in 1974. Her MA and PhD thesis research was on rural political behaviour and representation." It seems unclear as to if indeed she does have a PhD or an MA - can someone clarify for which degree the thesis was for? Goldfinger820 03:51, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

she has an MA. She started studying for a PhD, but was elected to Parliament and gave it up. --Midnighttonight Procrastinating on uni work... 03:54, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I've changed the text to reflect this, but should probably find a better ref to support this now

Goldfinger820 02:15, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately the changes are less clear than the (deliberately, I think) ambiguous original. The original sentences were copied verbatim *sigh* from http://www.primeminister.govt.nz/Biography-school.html. A clearer statement would be:

"...graduated with a MA (Hons) in 1974. Her MA and PhD thesis research was on rural political behaviour and representation. She was elected to parliament in xxxx and her PhD was never completed."

Neil Leslie 11:45, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

What do people think about including the recent controversy of the supposed "gay" photos of her husband? It had been conclusively proved that the embrace shown was innocent, and everything happened in the last week, so perhaps it will be forgotten fairly soon. Do you think we should wait until time proves it important, or write something now? Cathryn 08:46, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

There's some material at her husband's article,

Peter Davis (New Zealand). I see no advantage to including it here as well.-gadfium

08:50, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree, but someone has already added material and it should at least be neutral, so I have had a go at that. It should come off if the story goes nowhere else. Kiwimw 11:44, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

However, it should be noted that the allegations of excessive corporal punishment against Benson-Pope are incompatible with modern teaching practices, they were historical (1980's-1997) and some people claim they probably would not have been considered overly inappropriate for the time, however there is significant disagreement about that[18] . Field's allegations of using his position for personal reward mean Field is unlikely to be reappointed to Cabinet, given his palpable errors of judgement.

These comments seem chaotic and random to me. I would like to remove them, because they don't make a clear point, except to say, in Benson-Pope's case, there is more than one point of view, (adding nothing to the description of the issue); and in Philip Field's case, its a non-sequitur from the previous remarks about him. People might have other views though.

Kiwimw 08:03, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Remove them.-gadfium 08:33, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

02:06, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Your revert was entirely appropriate. For well-established and well cited articles, such as this one, anything added which is not cited should probably be removed, otherwise the quality of the article is reduced.-gadfium 02:09, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

We all have our opinions on PM Clark and her political stances, then never enter inaccurate or unsourced edits, and don't add your biases about Clark in the page. In her first few months as prime minister of a liberal country like New Zealand has been, Ms. Clark is innovative but the Labour party needs to improve their relations with the U.S. and the Bush administration. There's a whole big deal of pacifism and Clark has long objected NZ's participation in warfare. New Zealand should take a grave look at Australia's active role in Iraq, because the country itself was threatened by terrorism like the 2002 Bali, Indonesia nightclub bombing where 260 Australians were killed. I'm not here to debate terrorism issues, but PM Clark should decide if she's pro-American while she can maintain her nation's openly pacifist stance. -- G. Sageha

The crime statistics are perhaps a little misleading in that they are skewed by a fall in reported dishonesty offences (1999-2005 fall from 269,075 to 230,487) ^[1]. This drop of 39,000 is almost as large as the entire violent crime number. Things are not quite as rosy as the total figures suggest. Violent crime was static from 1996-1999 (from 39,866 to 39,688) but has risen 22% between 1999 and 2005 (from 39,688 to 48,337)^[1] while the total population rose only 7% over the same period.

If crime stats belong as part of this biographical page then I suggest that a little more light is shone on them. Violent crime is the worst category of offence and the fact that it is increasing significantly faster than the population growth shows that the rate per head of population is also increasing. The following sentence just seems a little economical with the truth:

Police statistics report a drop in the rate of recorded offences by population over the period of Clark's leadership

If nobody objects then I suggest adding a comment about the dishonesty vs. violent crime numbers and, of course, the references. Perhaps calculate a rate per 1000 population?

Metajam 15:02, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't really think great detail should be put into this page on the crime rate. It seems irrelevant to the article. Overall crime has fallen, and a small note that some categories have increased is fine, but nothing to complex. Ultimately that would be better dealt with somewhere else (we need an article on Crime in New Zealand) --Midnighttonight (rendezvous) 21:52, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the crime rate doesn't really belong here. So I suggest we either delete that section outright or add that violent crime is rising against the trend (plus reference). I'm not sure what the protocol is for deciding on these matters. I suggest removing the section unless any objections.

A Crime in New Zealand section would be a better place for this - I agree. Someone with less direct experience (with the impact of crime) would make a better author than me. Metajam 14:51, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

With regard to the box listing her as MP for Mt Albert since the beginning of her Parliamentary career: I can't access any resources that answer this definitively, but I'm fairly sure that her electorate was previously known as Mt Eden. Anyone? Jscottm 18:18, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

No, Mt Albert is the electorate she was initially elected to, and Mt Eden was a separate electorate (called Eden in 1981). See

New Zealand general election, 1981 which includes a list of results and a map (although the electorate names are not labelled on the map, you can see Eden in blue in the middle of the Auckland isthmus, and Mt Albert in red to the west of it).-gadfium

18:54, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

If you look at the similar map in

New Zealand general election, 1978 (before Clark was elected), the electorates are labelled.-gadfium

19:01, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I'm sure she has been in the same electorate of Mt Albert Brian | (Talk) 11:32, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

On the subject, the electorate she represented 1996-99 was Owairaka, not Mt Albert as stated.

Thanks, I've changed the table to show that.-gadfium 02:42, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Some of Helen Clark's forebears were from the

07:59, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure if that's very relevant. I don't have a copy of Portrait of a Prime Minister in front of me at the moment, but I seem to recall both her parents had roots going back a fair way in New Zealand. Any connection she has with the Shetland Islands therefore is probably no stronger than that with a dozen other places.-gadfium 08:56, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

She has identified in the past with her Shetland Island forebears in particular, and has visited the island for that reason. I shall find more information and sources and I will try to make an appropriate suggestion for an addition. Kiwimw 02:21, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Why? What was the vandalism? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.238.25.59 (talk • contribs)

You can see earlier revisions by using the page history tab. Since your IP address is similar to one of those making the vandalisms, and since the edit you made immediately before this one was a (very minor) vandalism, you may already know the answer.-gadfium 19:41, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Apparently it's come out that Helen Clark (or someone in the Labour Government) had the page protected after it emerged the Australian Government had cleaned up John Howard's page so unless it was done earlier, I would say Helen wanted to protect herself before next years election. 203.211.117.130 07:01, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

No, I protected the page after ongoing vandalism. Clark did not contact me about the matter, nor did anyone else.-gadfium 07:17, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

The formatting for the Edmund Hillary quote is quite messy, and I'm not sure how to fix it. To be honest, I think the quote is somewhat superfluous and would be better deleted entirely. Fors and against the edeltion of this quote would be appreciated. Otherwise some better formatting. For? Against? A.J.Chesswas 02:04, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

it's adoring and fluffly. And Ed Hillary can love the PM, and Ed Hillary can say stuff like that, but I'm stumped for a reason to print the PM's fanmail on wikipedia, I think AJ is right. It should go. Kripto 04:16, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I've moved the quotes around a bit; I think the formatting is better now.

I agree the Hillary quote is fluffy, but I rather like it. It isn't just fanmail, it gives an insight into her personality.-gadfium 04:50, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Is the real quote "But Helen as been particularly strong in this respect.", or "But Helen has been particularly strong in this respect."?141.30.217.10 (talk) 00:24, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

The original is no longer available online, but there appears to be a copy of it at [14]. It's obviously a typo, but it looks like it was there in the original.-gadfium 05:28, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

The source for the paragraph added doesn't mention Clark, and the Herald article only says that she was advised of the situation. What is the source for the statement that there was a concern for her safety?-gadfium 06:13, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I've added a the TVNZ quote which states the Police specifically think Clark was a target (albeit it sounds like speculation), by Wiki rules the paragraph can stay. --Lholden 09:05, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem now that the connection is referenced.-gadfium 18:06, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't think it was relevant enough without proper evidence, proof etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.195.86.40 (talk) 21:04, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

There's currently a disturbance at the current Canadian prime minister's article, Stephen Harper, regarding the inclusion of the head of state in the article's infobox, and, following that, on all previous Canadian prime ministers' articles; currently the Canadian series is the only one, as far as I can tell, where the relevant head of state is not listed in the infobox.

As this article, and all those for previous New Zealand prime ministers, list the head of state in the infobox, I'm wondering how the decision to do so was reached, and if this practice should or should not be the same for all PMs' articles. It seems odd to me that one series of PM articles would be different to all the rest.

Opinions are welcome; needed actually. The discussion is taking place at Talk:Stephen Harper#Infobox -- include GG and monarch?. --G2bambino 15:47, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't recall that there's ever been a debate about the inclusion of these fields in the Helen Clark infobox. The information was added at the beginning of June, and editors on both sides of the republican debate contributed.-gadfium 17:48, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I've been adding infoboxes for NZ Prime Minister articles with the Monarch tag for the sake of accuracy. The infobox_primeminister template included the tag, so I filled it in. --Lholden 20:23, 14 November 2007 (UTC)