Talk:Maureen Pugh

Controversy section

I don't quite understand what the issue is; the contribution is backed up with citations from The New Zealand Herald and Greymouth Star. Schwede66 19:11, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi Schwede66. No it's not. The newspapers articles are allegations brought about in the lawsuit. If and when the lawsuit is adjudicated, then it can be added to the article. I asked you to read WP:BLP before reverting again, and per WP:BRD, you should not have reverted at all. And the second citation no way represents that this was a cover-up. In both sections of your edit (partitioning them for each of the two sources), you interpret what is written in an unflattering light for Pugh. For your benefit, here are some of the relevant passages from BLP: "Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.[2] Users who persistently or egregiously violate this policy may be blocked from editing." "Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that: ...2.is a conjectural interpretation of a source." And since this is a public figure, "In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article – even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out."

So the issue with your edit is three-fold: First, you've drawn conclusions from the underlying citations; Second, you'll need more than a single source to insert allegations; Three, the edit should be done in a neutral tone, and clearly state that these are allegations, instead of stating them as facts, which the current edit does. Hope this helps. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:31, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether User:Onel5969 is suggesting that I added the content to this article or not. Well, I wasn't the original contributor; I simply reinstated what seemed to me appropriately referenced content. Be it as may, I've had a look at what happened to the case. It was settled out of court, WDC's insurance paid out (or will pay out) to the claimant, and "the Council's potential liability is $10,000, being the insurance excess" as reported in their 2 November 2015 extraordinary council agenda on page 79 (which is page number 86 of the PDF). That said, I don't really care enough about this article to engage with a rude American editor who claims on his user page that "it is incredibly important for all to be nice to everyone" but who lowers himself to the condescending remark "Discuss on talk page if you don't understand, but please read WP:BLP first" to a fellow editor with an edit count just short of 80,000. Schwede66 05:42, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi Schwede66 - Not sure how you believe that answering the question you posed in your edit summary, and pointing you to the appropriate policies/guidelines is "rude and condescending", but I guess to each his own. I don't tailor whether or not I follow the policies/guidelines by how many edits another has. But someone with "just short of 80,000" should certainly understand both BLP and BRD. But anyway, thanks for your civility and lack of personal attacks. Take it easy. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:43, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

BIAS There is a risk that removing sections are biased towards a specific political perspective, in the same way that including material could be viewed as biased. In this instance there is documented evidence, as per the newspaper reports indicating what the controversy was about. The suggestion that this could be libel is ludicrous!

Libel is a method of defamation expressed by print, writing, pictures, signs, effigies, or any communication embodied in physical form that is injurious to a person's reputation, exposes a person to public hatred, contempt or ridicule, or injures a person in his/her business or profession.

No contributor is saying Maureen Pugh is a good or bad person; they are stating fact, as reported in the media, therefore the original controversy section should be maintained. Ianguy (talk) 10:18, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi - actually the media did not report it. The media reported that an allegation was made, the article makes it seem as if the allegations are true. The section is making subjective comments unsupported in the sources. Statements such as "...failed to declare a serious conflict of interest", "...she had use her position as mayor to monopolise helicopter travel ..." and "... decision which breached numerous council resolutions..." are unsupported by the sources. The first, while taken from a quote in the first article, is an allegation, made by the plaintiffs in a lawsuit, and therefore inflammatory and unsubstantiated. The second, as far as I can tell, appears nowhere in either source, and is pure original research commentary. By definition, this second sentence, does make a subjective judgment, casting Pugh in a negative light, and might be construed as libel. The third is also only an unsubstantiated statement by the plaintiff.

The biggest issue is that these are allegations, and the negative perspective is solely that of the plaintiff, not an un-interested party is the dispute. Per blp guidelines, "Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." Since the source is biased, it is therefore not a reliable source.

The second citation, which is used to support the second alleged controversy, again, does not support the assertion made in the article. The text reads, "It has also since been revealed that Pugh had attempted to cover-up discussions by other councillors on Westland Holdings Ltd and council-controlled organisations." First, the clause at the beginning of the sentence, "It has also since been revealed..." seems to tie the two incidents together, while the newspaper article makes not mention of any connection. In addition, the Wikipedia article makes it appear that more than one councilor had issues with WHL, while again, the source does not indicate that: only one councilor had an issue with that particular topic, while the other "...has also expressed his annoyance with the Mayor editing his newsletter contribution, but declined to comment on the issue." It makes no mention of what the second councilor was annoyed about.

The second issue there is with the existing section is that it focuses the allegation of the COI on Pugh, making it appear that she was the only councilor who had a vested interest, while WHL was an organization "which is fully owned by the council". The entire council.

Finally, the helicopter suit began in 2013. Is there any other information about it? Has it been adjudicated? What were the results? Was it thrown out? Was the council found to be guilty of a COI? Were the results positive for the council? Or is it still pending. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:09, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

I am sorry, but I disagree completely with your revision removing the allegations; furthermore I find it ludicrous that someone living half a world away is making judgements on a page that would only really interest those living in NZ and in its parliamentary proceedings. Even more ironic when you page says this I know I still a lot I have to learn, so am open to criticism, both giving and receiving, as long as it is constructive and civil.

We have offered constructive criticism; this is NOT Arizona; we do not have a litigious legal system, nobody is going to sue any editor for statements made on Wikipedia; your removal of the text that was thereis verging on political censorship and is completely inappropriate Ianguy (talk) 09:40, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Editors are not restricted to working on articles on a geographical basis, and it is not appropriate to suggest that articles on New Zealanders should be subject to lower standards than articles on people from other countries. It also seems rather unlikely that @Onel5969: is exercising "political censorship" if they have no connection to New Zealand.

I suggest that you write a draft paragraph here on this talk page, taking into account the problems that onel5969 explained with the previous version in some detail above. If we can reach consensus on the suitability of the draft, it can be added to the article.-gadfium 20:18, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

First of all, thanks for the "ping", gadfium. Second, I was going to write a paragraph about the controversy myself, and was about halfway through it, when I realized that from an objective viewpoint, based upon the current sourcing, it was so trivial as to barely warrant mention. Be more than happy to work on a draft of a paragraph here on the talk page, or in some draft space, so that only facts are presented as facts. But please attempt to remain civil, and try not to take it personally. Per the blp guidelines, removal of that content was spot on. Now, if we can reach consensus on something to include, that would be a good thing. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:16, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

After reading the articles, I agree that the paragraph violated BLP and was correctly removed. The wording implied that the conflict of interest was for personal gain, when in fact she was a director of Westland Holdings Limited as part of her role as mayor (being a company that is fully owned by the council). The source also doesn't name the "report" that the newspaper is quoting from, only referring to "several third party reports" and the court papers (which aren't a report). I agree with gadfium in that the way forward is a draft paragraph should be proposed here and we work towards consensus. Mattlore (talk) 22:23, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

The phrase 'lower standard' is purely subjective. The USA is widely mocked for it's infamously litigious legal system, and New Zealanders are justifiably proud of their political and journalistic freedoms. Reports of Pugh's practices are factual, not libellous.Andy42W (talk) 04:12, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

I agree with you, New Zealand media is more liberal than that of America. Libellous usually means a published false statement that is damaging to a person's reputation; a written defamation, which means Simon Bridges may did on her. Sheldybett (talk) 04:53, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

I have radically reduced the coverage of this. If the lawsuit went anywhere there wouldhave been substantial coverage of it, particularly during the national election campaign, when it would have been very destructive. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:19, 18 October 2018 (UTC)