Talk:Nicky Hager/Archive 1

Archive 1

Sources

• GOVERNMENT UPFRONT ON CORN SEED

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA0207/S00306.htm

• JUDGE RUBBISHES STORY SIS SPIED ON MAORI

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/index.cfm?c_id=1&ObjectID=10119987

• JUSTICE NEAZOR'S REPORT

[PDF, 69 pages, 6.11 MB] http://media.apn.co.nz/webcontent/document/pdf/sis_report.pdf

• DON BRASH RESIGNS

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10412124

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Khephre (talk • contribs)

Ok, I'll unprotect the page. Please use the ref tags and NPOV wording. Happy editing. ... al Seabhcán bin Baloney (Hows my driving?) 01:21, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Photo?

Anybody got a photo of this guy to upload? ... al Seabhcán bin Baloney (Hows my driving?) 11:58, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Weasel words

From the article: However on November 23, 2006, Brash announced his resignation from the leadership of the National Party. Although Brash claimed not to be doing so as a result of the book, contrary evidence has been present that suggests it is likely he did resign as he believed he was tainted by the allegations, or that the book would force his caucus to move against him.

So basically the author here is alluding to "contrary evidence" without actually saying what the evidence is. Sounds like Weasel Words. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.238.56.21 (talk • contribs)

More weasel words

Although not a member of any political party, he generally writes about issues of interest to the Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand. -- What the hell does that mean? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.238.56.21 (talk • contribs)

NPOV

Hagar is regarded by some commentators are being an activist-writer. NPOV tag added to reflect that.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.155.137.251 (talk • contribs)

Could you explain in more detail what it is that article says or doesn't say that you think is wrong? Is it that the article doesn't call him an activist? If so, feel free to add that, with an appropriate citation. This is not a reason to put the {{totallydisputed}} tag on the article, so I have removed it.-gadfium 20:09, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Hager cannot be classed as an activist. To be an activist implies some sort of physical activity (not simply writing) or pushing an agenda in a very vocal manner. Hager does none of this and is only known for his books and articles. It is interesting to note that the anon edit came after the news story about spying by a Solid Energy contractor on Save Happy Valley Campaign activities. It is not relevent to an encyclopedia article that "some" commentators call him an "activist-writer". Any person in the public eye, espectially those that put forward information who some would like to see supressed, will collect any number of labels that are used as ad hominem attacks. The article should refer to Hager as what is generally accepted as his stance and include notable references as to how he is regarded by notable commentators. Alan Liefting 22:42, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

The back cover of two of his books do say he was a "political campaigner" and "actively supporting public interest campaigns". I think this may have been prior to his career as a writer. This will need some research and added to the article. Alan Liefting 23:13, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

AFAIK, He has also taken part in the so-called "Campo Antiimperialista" in Northern Italy [1]. --Asterion^talk 20:50, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Activist does not imply physical activity! In any event writing a book is physical activity. I question whether Hager should be described as an author and investigative journalist. Although his works do involve research, he is more of a political campaigner, as he himself records.203.184.41.226 (talk) 06:05, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Start classification

I have reclassified this article as a start. It is quite extensive and sourced. Capitalistroadster 10:07, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Edit notes

There are three pieces of text that I have removed:

• One allegation in the book has been discredited , primarily as Hager did not have complete information about all the incidents described. This was that the National Party used its Parliamentary Funding for election advertising, which subsequently was found to be paid by the Party.

I have detailed both Brash's explicit statement from the primary source and Hagers response;

• This was a particularly relevant allegation as the main Government Party, the New Zealand Labour Party, had used over $800,000 of its Parliamentary budget in the 2005 New Zealand election funding controversy.

this is tangential to the discussion of Hager's book and Brash's specific criticisms

• The extent of the material obtained by Hagar has led to National Party officials to claim it must have been obtained using illegal electronic interception, hacking or burglary. The New Zealand Police launched an investigation into these claims which continues.

this it is unsourced.

I'll add some other material on other sections later.--Bob Burton 23:40, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Further edit notes

• there was no citation for the claimed apology by the SST; I can find no evidence that there was one.
• the previous posting did not include any mention of the letter to the editor by the SST's editor.--Bob Burton 05:44, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Material removed

Factually correct items such as a Broadcasting Standards Authority ruling and Nicky Hagars previous political involvement was removed from the article. This whole articel is not objective and just a vanity article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.86.68.230 (talk) 17:51, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

This article is a biased mess

This article needs EVERY statement and citation checked. I've already removed several bogus citation which were meant to promote Hager by his fans. Not cool. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.98.195.208 (talk) 11:50, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

'Print media articles section

What's this section supposed to be? It looks like original research in order to highlight particular articles. If so, it should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.98.195.208 (talk) 14:19, 13 August 2014 (UTC) To clarify, it looks like Synthesis, unless it's a complete list of his print work, but I doubt it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.98.195.208 (talk) 14:23, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

I took your tag off the section and labelled it as a "selection" but maybe we should just delete it. There is a lot of stuff that he has written in the print media. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 21:14, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Ah, I see that you have done just that. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 21:15, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with the rules around lists of articles, but it seems a shame to delete a useful section like that. -- Ballofstring (talk) 21:39, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it is always a shame to delete stuff but quality is more important than quantity. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 21:49, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

warning tags for factual info

From my talk page: Why do you insist on readding the self published sources and the warning tags for factual info? -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 21:33, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand your problem. Large chunks of the article are sourced to Hager's personal website, or to the primary source of his books. Please re-read WP:V — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.98.195.208 (talk) 21:47, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

The fact that a book is published is, well, a fact. It does not need a ref, especially not from Hager's personal website. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 21:51, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

If a given book is notable, there will be reliable third-party refs for it. In this case, I'm sure Hager's books are notable so there shouldn't be any problem to use proper sources. The lazy sourcing and biased writing in this article are major problems. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.98.195.208 (talk) 21:56, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree that notable books have third party refs for them but my argument is that there mere fact that a book exists does not need to be reffed. To actually write about the book would need third party refs. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 22:06, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Some People don't like cited cat

OK I know his fans don't like the cat Conspiracy_theorists and it'a a given that ANY Conspiracy theorist will object to the term, but how many cites would you like stating it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.98.195.208 (talk) 22:46, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

One cite from a credible source would be sufficient. A personal attack by Prime Minister John Key is not a credible source. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 22:52, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Actually no Alan, your opinion doesn't enter into it. It's a statement by a notable person which has been published in multiple mainstream publications. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.98.195.208 (talk) 22:57, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

If you look at Category:Conspiracy theorists it says this:

"For purposes of article inclusion, this category specifically only includes articles where the subject is mentioned in their article as actively defending one of the conspiracy theories listed in the articles under Category:Conspiracy theories. For example, the article Area 51 appears under Category:Conspiracy theories (C:CT), so anyone who actively defends conspiracy theories mentioned in that article would be classified here as a Conspiracy theorist. Theories without corresponding C:CT articles will not count for inclusion here. See also Category:Conspiracy theories.

Hager doesn't fit that definition. -- Ballofstring (talk) 23:07, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

OK well that's an extremely narrow definition but I'll concede the point. 101.98.195.208 (talk) 23:13, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Yes, it is a statement by a notable person but you will not that reporters and writers do not use the term to describe Hager. The PM is using as an attack on Hager and as editors here we have to recognise that. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 23:11, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

OK so noted NZ political historian Michael Bassett is somehow not OK as well? What bullshit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.98.195.208 (talk) 00:47, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

I think the point is, you can't just add in everything which is said about someone to their wikipedia page. In order to present a neutral picture of someone's life and actions you can't really include comments which are overtly negative and aren't backed up by widespread opinion? Also, if you are a regular editor of wikipedia, why don't you create an account and use it to edit the page instead of doing it anonymously? -- Ballofstring (talk) 00:56, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Sure but by omitting the mainstream view of the guy's work, you're violating NPOV by hiding that fact. 101.98.195.208 (talk) 01:02, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

I also note that none of you guys who are now jumping to his defense objected when the article was essentially a poorly cited hagiography. 101.98.195.208 (talk) 01:04, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

We're not jumping to his defence. we're merely enforcing the sourcing rules; and it can't have been a hagiography, since he's not dead yet (that I'm aware of). Stuartyeates (talk) 01:29, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

I wish you both a long life. Are you always so literal? 101.98.195.208 (talk) 02:32, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

The view the majority of the media and of academia is that Hager is an investigative journalist fullstop. A throwaway comment on talkback radio by a noted historian is not grounds for giving Hager a disparaging label. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 02:26, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

If that's true, then cite it -I did. 101.98.195.208 (talk) 02:28, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

There is no need to cite factual info. You had cherrypicked one of the few instances of what would be construed as derogatory labelling of Hager. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 02:42, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

So you simply assert while you and your mates continue to delete properly reference material. No, no bias here, Mr. failed green party candidate. 101.98.195.208 (talk) 02:49, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

An article needs more than having properly referenced material. It needs WP:BALANCE. Cheerypicking refs does not give balance. I would have liked to comment on your description of me as a "failed green party candidate" but this is not the place for it. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 03:38, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

WP:BALANCE is exactly why the disputed text (by Hager's fanclub) needs to be there. You are clearly only interested in having your own views/ideology represented.Edgespath24 (talk) 03:49, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

thoughts on the current sources and claims

• The http://www.presscouncil.org.nz source is a primary source and should never have been used (yes, it's been there for a while)
• The source <ref>{{cite web| url=http://tvnz.co.nz/politics-news/hager-book-claims-dirty-tricks-national-and-right-wing-blogger-6055878| title=Hager book contains leaked emails to 'obnoxious' blogger|author=Hosking, Rob | publisher=The National Business Review}}</ref> is completely broken and I can't find anything in either place to support the claims it's currently supporting.
• There seems to be a pretty much complete lack of sources prior to 1996 and a polarisation of sources after 1996. If would be great to have impartial sources on his early life, education and election attempt.
• I'd like to repeat that talk-radio shows during an election campaign are not reliable sources, even if the same person writing a book or article at their leisure might be. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:57, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Creating an archive of talk

Hello! Would anyone have any objections about starting an automated archive for this page (ie stuff older than 90 days gets archived)? -- Ballofstring (talk) 04:09, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Good idea. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 04:16, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

It would be more useful to discuss the content you guys are reflexively removing, than archiving the page. It could be interpreted as attempting to hide all the past objections to the bias in this article. 101.98.195.208 (talk) 07:07, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

It's not about attempting to hide the past objections to bias! I just thought this page was getting too unwieldy to navigate easily. Also the older discussions often relate to problems that have already been fixed/content which has been subsequently removed - people will be able to look at the archive of the talk easily too. I can increase the date at which stuff gets archived if you have an objection - to perhaps something like a year? -- Ballofstring (talk) 22:29, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Nicky Hager is a controversial figure

I just felt I needed to point that out to some of the other editors here. Just because you, and maybe your circle of friends, happen to hold Hager in high regard, doesn't mean that he is universally admired. NPOV means the article must reflect that. 101.98.195.208 (talk) 07:57, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Lots of people to horrid things, but those things don't make it into their wikipedia articles unless there are WP:reliable sources about them. I'd encourage you to read WP:BLP. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:43, 15 August 2014 (UTC)