Talk:Peter Dunne

PoV

This is a page that could easily get PoV or result in a edit war, so good to get some disscussion going here. I would agree with the last revision that "supposed" common sense was PoV and should have been removed, but I question the change from tobacco industry to Taiwan so I put tobacco industry back in, but left Taiwan. Personally I have never heard of Peter Dunne supporting Taiwan, but I could be wrong.

Certainly IMHO one of the first things I would think of when considering Peter Dunne is his support for the tobbaco industry (for example he infamously described Smokefree legislation tobacco control officers as "Health Nazis").

I also added "opposition to drug law reform" since that is another well known policy (indeed United Future made it one of their three non-negoiatable conditions of ageeing to support the current government, that there would be no changes in the drugs laws).

I also wanted to make clear that the family values and common sense tags are controversial. Definately this is the first two things that you think about when considering Peter Dunne, family values and common sense, but it should be recognised that these are only claims that he makes - many people agree that his policies are common sense, but others completely disagree. The way I attempted to do this is rather clumsy and could be changed: "(self-described) family values and common sense."

cheers 203.167.245.16 03:14, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Hey fantastic re-write Vardion. However, I'm not entirely sure that "Today, Dunne generally describes his policies as being based on common sense, and his supporters promote him as sensible and reasonable. Opponents are more inclined to criticise him as a right-wing conservative, pointing to his opposition to drug law reform, his support for the tobacco industry, and his party's emphasis on family values. His history in Parliament is also subject to debate — supporters say that his willingness to work with either side of the House is a sign of reasonableness, while critics accuse him of being opportunistic, and of doing deals with anyone who can offer him something." is really an accurate reflection of the situation. In particular I don't feel that any of drug law reform, tobacco industry, family values or opposition to civil union bill which I'm about to add can really be seen as a defining a party on the left to right wing continuium so can't really say "criticise him as a right-wing conservative, pointing to" ... the point I was trying to get across above was that his opponents think he is lacking common-sense in his policies and unreasonable in the way he deals with other politicians and parties. - Drstuey 11:16, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Photo

This REALY needs a photo. Is anyone going to a campaign stop if they can take and upload a picture it would be great. He is one of the only NZ Party leaders not to have one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tshiels1 (talk • contribs) 05:41, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Policies etc

It's good that people are paying attention to what Dunne's saying, however citing a Victoria University lecture goes against the confidentiality promise of MP addresses. Sorry. You'll have to verify Dunne's support for civil unions from somewhere else. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.73.75.243 (talk • contribs) 09:39 am, 17 May 2010

Criticisms

I have started off a section for criticisms of Mr. Dunne. This is a valid section and most people in his type of political position have a section like this in their WP bios. I can see that some people would like to just delete it wholesale, but I hope by putting this on the talk page first, I can convince people to work to improve the section rather than removing it. Just being pre-emptive here, but any wholesale deletion without an attempt to improve will be considered a malicious edit if not discussed here, hopefully this will resolve any edit wars before they start.118.90.33.176 (talk) 23:52, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I always prefer to see criticisms in the main body of text rather than as a separate section. To some extent, this is the case in the section "Fifth Labour Government".

The current criticisms section is purely about Dunne's policies on drug law reform and would be better entitled that. It uses far too much emotive language - words such as "oppressive", "undemocratically", and "obtuse". Overall, the section is trying to explain that Dunne's policies are wrong, but this is not appropriate for Wikipedia. To some extent, this could be improved by quoting specific organisations as criticising Dunne, rather than repeating their views as fact.-gadfium 20:48, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Peter Dunne has served as Associate Minister of Health (with particular responsibility for Drugs, Mental Health and Suicide Prevention) by both Labour-led and National-led governments, which demonstrates that the policies implemented in these areas have majority support across the political spectrum. Accordingly the current personal criticisms are the frustration of an extra-parliamentary fringe that no government gives weight to their views, which have no place in this section. P N Quinn (talk) 06:21, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Independent politician?

I see that the Speaker is now regarding Dunne as an Independent. To me, that is a technicality that ought to be discussed in the article, but I don't believe that it should be shown as such in the parlbox. He's still a member of United Future and the parlbox showing a change of allegiance is somewhat misleading. Yes, United Future has been de-registered, but it still exists as such, and Dunne is still a member of it (he's even its leader). So my suggestion is that the parlbox should be restored to what it was, and it should be the text that gives the full story. There will, of course, be dissenting views, and I for one won't start an edit war over this. I would like those who believe that a change in allegiance should be shown in the parlbox to explain on this talk page why they believe that it's the most appropriate course of action, though. Schwede66 05:41, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree. Dunne was elected to Parliament by standing for his seat on behalf of United Future, and he still represents this party. That the party has been deregistered in the meantime does not affect this. He could have stood without ever registering the party, and he would (assuming that made no difference to voters) have been elected as UF's MP. The registration only allows the party to appear on the party list, and Dunne is an electorate MP, not a list MP.-gadfium 06:09, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Also agree that he should still be recognised as a UF politician - if he had been elected as a non-registered party politician in the first place then the party name would have been accepted, and if he is re-elected as an unregistered UF politician next year the same would apply. If he had left United Future then he would be an Independent, but it appears United Future (as a viable registered party) has left him. And I agree with gadfium, Dunne's electorate status is the most important aspect - in 2011 he was on the ballot and elected as United Future. FanN | talk 06:59, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

I made a custom parlbox line reflecting change of status (and removing list position) instead of the change of allegiance as recently added to article. FanN | talk 07:11, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree with the above; the parlbox doesn't need to reflect the change in how parliament recognises him because he is still a part of UF and they are still a functioning party. Good work on the custom parlbox line Fanx, while personally I'd not have anything there I do think the custom line will stop anon's adding in other lines. Perhaps when/if UF is reregistered we can remove it altogether. Mattlore (talk) 07:20, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Good work, Fanx (as usual). I agree with you, Mattlore, regarding re-registration. Thanks for your input, Gadfium. Schwede66 07:36, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks: I agree that if the party is reregistered then the custom parlbox can be disposed of, and yes, its purpose is to be a compromise between those that see no change and those that wish to cast Dunne into the fringes, whether in parliament or in wikipedia. FanN | talk 10:01, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Peter Dunne. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090209051141/http://2008.electionresults.govt.nz:80/partystatus.html to http://2008.electionresults.govt.nz/partystatus.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:01, 5 May 2016 (UTC)