Talk:Harete Hipango

Born?

Born 1965? according to Index NZ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hugo999 (talk • contribs) 14:01, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

You might want to give a little more detail away. Perhaps a proper source even? Schwede66 08:09, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Conflict of interest editing

A an unregistered user has been editing this article, removing several paragraphs, and saying that they are a staff member of Harete Hipango. If this is you, then as a person employed by the subject of the article to edit it, you have a conflict of interest. This does not mean you cannot be involved in the article, but you must follow Wikipedia's Conflict of Interest guidelines which are at WP:COI. In particular:

• You must disclose your conflict of interest, and this should be done on your user page.
• As you are editing without an account, you do not have a user page. You will need to create an account.
• You should not edit the article directly. Instead, you should suggest changes, setting out your reasons, on the article's Talk page.

I see in a recent edit you wrote, "[Harete Hipango has]stated that much of the information in the "Controveries" section is false, and is causing a lot of distress to her family."

• False information: The information that you deleted is sourced from reliable sources including The New Zealand Herald, RNZ, and Stuff. If you feel that something presented in these sources is untrue, please provide evidence to support this. If you feel that the sources are correct but that Wikipedia's editors have misrepresented these sources, please explain where you think editors have gone wrong.
• Distress: Wikipedia has a policy on biographies of living persons (found at WP:BLP) which covers how to sensitively cover these subjects. Please read this policy and if you feel it has been broken, present this on the talk page for Hipango's article. Be aware though that simply causing distress is not enough to remove content; if information is reliably sourced and written from a neutral point of view, then it will most likely be kept.

The clearer you can explain, preferably with evidence, why information in the article is inaccurate or not neutral, the more likely it is that the article can be accurately updated. As your edits so far haven't followed these policies and guidelines, the IP address you work from has been blocked for two weeks, but you can edit Wikipedia again if you create an account. Yours, HenryCrun15 (talk) 05:38, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

For the record, I tagged this with neutrality, as the entire article feels like it's slanted negatively. However, everything in the article does look true to me. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 17:52, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, Skarmory. On Wikipedia, neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. How does the article need to be amended for this to be met? Because if there isn't anything that can or need to be amended, then the tag must go. Schwede66 18:16, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

@Schwede66: I pretty much don't see anything positive in this article. I'm not sure if that's related to just 0 sources being out there that portray her positively, or what, but it feels like the entire article is either neutral towards her or portraying her badly. In an article this short, having a controversies section feels somewhat undue (I'm not opposing it per the IP, and the info should probably be in other parts of the article, but it may be this is the best way to do it?). I did not thoroughly check for sources; I looked at a couple of pages of google results and didn't find much of anything, so it could very well be that there aren't really any positive sources. I don't feel that strongly about the tag, so you can remove it if you want. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 18:28, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Speaking as somebody who has added non-negative content to this article, there is not a lot. --Pokelova (talk) 22:23, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Just to provide my two cents - nothing here seems factually inaccurate, but there's some stuff that probably needs trimming in my view. The information on the false quote seems rather unnecessary, and could probably be removed without much harm. Not sure about the section for the Wikipedia page editing - not sure if it's relevant, I might err on the side of removing it personally. I'd also probably remove some of the information about her supposedly being not-well liked by fellow MPs (the paragraph beginning with "in a series of interviews given in 2021") - it all seems quite vague and not really relevant. The anti-vax stuff and the inappropriate spending allegations are, I think, quite relevant and should be kept, and are OK as is, albeit the latter could be somewhat trimmed. --LivelyRatification (talk) 22:48, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

I would suggest rather than shortening the article we expand other sections by looking for more sources on her life and the rest of her career – many of them will be in the Whanganui Chronicle or local publications, so that might take a bit more work. I've posted a message in the Wikipedia New Zealand Facebook group for anyone who might be able to help. —Giantflightlessbirds (talk) 23:52, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Conflict of Interest notice

I have added a {{COI editnotice}} to the top of the page and moved the {{Connected contributor |User1=202.22.30.101}} just below it, so that these notices are apparent at the top of the Talk page. However, upon reviewing the contributions from 202.22.30.101 I notice there are several other articles about MP's and other NZ parliamentary service related articles that have also been edited from this IP address since 2017. In a number of cases those edits have been quickly modified and sometimes promptly reverted. In one case, the editor seeks to make a correction to an article and in the process even admits to knowing of having a conflict of interest in the edit summary. So I am wondering if similar notices should also be added to other articles that anonymous editors sharing this IP address have previously contributed to. Those notices would serve as a reminder to related parties, or those with a conflict of interest, how to have an article modified and also alert other editors of an IP address that may generate Conflict of Interest edit requests. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 08:54, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Cameron Dewe Please see WP:TALKORDER for the correct layout of a talk page banner; I've moved the Connected contributor template accordingly. It would be great if you could identify articles where a wider group of editors needs to address issues; please note the place to post about it is our WPNZ noticeboard. Schwede66 18:12, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

@Schwede66: Thanks for drawing my attention to this layout advice. I have been wondering about the best talk page layout for some time but wasn't aware WP:TALKORDER existed. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 19:48, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

@Schwede66: Discussion moved to WPNZ noticeboard § COI edit notice - Cameron Dewe (talk) 23:05, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Controversies section

See WP:CSECTION. Wikipedia articles should generally not have sections headed Criticism/Controversy or similar. The material should be integrated into the main body of the article.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:09, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

I agree with that, but honestly it may be the best place to put it in this article. Per the above discussion, it seems like most coverage overall is negative, and I'm not sure how it would be integrated into the main body. However, it should be integrated into the main article if possible. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 18:45, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

It can be integrated into the main body very easily. This para (currently under Controversies)

In 2020, Hipango posted an image on Facebook of Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern overlayed text with quote marks of a quote Ardern did not make. Hipango denied any wrongdoing, telling the Whanganui Chronicle the image was "a construction of key words aligned with Jacinda Ardern."

could be placed under this para:

At the 2020 general election, Hipango was defeated in Whanganui by Labour's Steph Lewis by a margin of 8,191 votes.[20] Hipango was ranked 21st on National's party list, but this was not high enough to receive a seat at the election. Hipango was the highest-ranked list candidate who did not enter parliament after the 2020 election.

Similar moves can be made for the other material under Controversies that needs to be moved. Under the heading 2021 return to parliament, there is already a sentence describing how other National Party MP's don't like her - so the controversies that occurred post 2021 should fit comfortably under that sentence. Manifiscently (talk) 23:35, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 January 2022

Suggest change this sentence in the Intro: Hipango served as an MP from 2017 to 2020 but did not receive a seat in the 2020 general election. After National MP Nick Smith resigned, she re-entered Parliament in June 2021 as his replacement.

To: Hipango served as MP for Whanganui from 2017 to 2020 but was defeated in the 2020 general election. However, after National MP Nick Smith resigned in May 2021, she re-entered Parliament in June 2021 as a list MP. Manifiscently (talk) 09:08, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Done --IdiotSavant (talk) 09:20, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 January 2022 (2)

Break section in into two sections by changing this heading 2020 loss of seat, and subsequent return in 2021 into two headings as follows:

2020 loss of seat

At the 2020 general election, Hipango was defeated in Whanganui by Labour's Steph Lewis by a margin of 8,191 votes.[19] Hipango was ranked 21st on National's party list, but this was not high enough to receive a seat at the election. Hipango was the highest-ranked list candidate who did not enter parliament after the 2020 election.

2021 return as list MP

In May 2021, National list MP Nick Smith announced that he would resign. As the highest-ranked person on National's party list not in parliament, Hipango was automatically his replacement.[20] Hipango re-entered parliament on 11 June 2021.[21][22] She took on Smith's electoral reform and research and science portfolios, as well as the portfolio of Māori tourism that she had held previously, but other policy work for the party previously undertaken by Smith was taken on by a more senior MP.[23][15] .... Manifiscently (talk) 09:24, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure about that. Instead, I've edited the somewhat lengthy and clumsy sub-headings to refer to the YYYY general election. What do you think of that? Schwede66 18:49, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

All good. Manifiscently (talk) 23:54, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 January 2022 (3)

Add the following section to Controversies section, below 'Inappropriate spending allegations' but above 'Anti-vaccination campaign'

 Not done: This is WP:UNDUE. Please show there is significant coverage. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:08, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Congratulating herself on Facebook for a great speech

On 22 June 2021, a post stating "Great to see you back in the House Harete, and making a speech too!" appeared on Hipango's Facebook page from herself. . It has been alleged that she "forgot to use her fake account" when creating this post. 101.100.128.20 (talk) 21:28, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

 Not done Twitter is hardly a WP:RS. Schwede66 00:42, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

The requestor didn't just cite Twitter; this was covered on Newshub. HenryCrun15 (talk) 05:35, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 27 January 2022 (4)

Under 2020 general election, remove this sentence:

Hipango was the highest-ranked list candidate who did not enter parliament after the 2020 election.

It is rendered unnecessary (and repetitive) by the following sentence which occurs a little further down the page:

As the highest-ranked person on National's party list not in parliament, Hipango was automatically his replacement. Manifiscently (talk) 23:41, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

 Done I've removed the repetition, but in a different way. See also my edit summary. Schwede66 00:47, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 January 2022 (5)

Change this sentence:

On 27 January, Radio New Zealand reported that Hipango had asked a member of her staff to edit her Wikipedia biography to remove mention of her attendance at these rallies and that she now regretted this request

to read...

On 27 January, Radio New Zealand reported that Hipango had asked a member of her staff to edit her Wikipedia biography to remove any mention of negative or controversial issues Hipango was involved in, including her attendance at these rallies. The staff member deleted the Controversies section of her wikipedia page four times before Hipango publicly advised that she now regretted this request.

This wording clarifies that Hipango's attempt to edit her wikipedia page was actually carried out. Manifiscently (talk) 23:53, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

I oppose this proposal, that would be an undue amount of detail. tw^sabin 23:55, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

But it accurately describes her attempts to whitewash her image... I think that's important since she demonstrates a pattern of such behaviour. Manifiscently (talk) 00:08, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

I support it; it establishes the edit actually happened, and repeatedly, and makes it clear it wasn't just attendance at the rallies that was deleted. I actually don't think "Radio New Zealand reported that" is accurate or necessary; it's a fact reported in multiple sources. This is not undue detail – it's a couple more lines of text. —Giantflightlessbirds (talk) 02:24, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Support - there are clearly plenty of reliable sources for this, and its not trivial information.--IdiotSavant (talk) 06:13, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

 Done since consensus has been established casualdejekyll 12:50, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 January 2022

As per discussion on Talk page, move this para (currently under Controversies)...

In 2020, Hipango posted an image on Facebook of Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern overlayed text with quote marks of a quote Ardern did not make. Hipango denied any wrongdoing, telling the Whanganui Chronicle the image was "a construction of key words aligned with Jacinda Ardern."

and place it under this para:

At the 2020 general election, Hipango was defeated in Whanganui by Labour's Steph Lewis by a margin of 8,191 votes.[20] Hipango was ranked 21st on National's party list, but this was not high enough to receive a seat at the election. Hipango was the highest-ranked list candidate who did not enter parliament after the 2020 election. Manifiscently (talk) 00:03, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

 Done. (I'm wondering if the "controversies" section can be incorporated into the timeline better) --IdiotSavant (talk) 06:10, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Whakapapa Section

Hi team, last night I did a bit of an effort to bulk out the information in her early life and pre-Parliament section. A large part of her early and personal life section was her whakapapa. I think this is a good way to retain the information that was there, whilst also acknowledging the importance of whakapapa in te ao Māori. I'd love wider feedback on it, because I acted unilaterally on it. Nauseous Man (talk) 01:07, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

@Nauseous Man He tino pai. -- Jmc (talk) 06:12, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 January 2022 (2)

Replace this sentence:

In 2020, Hipango posted an image on Facebook of Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern overlaid with the text of a quote falsely attributed to Ardern. Hipango denied any wrongdoing, telling the Whanganui Chronicle "It is not a false quote ... It is a construction of key words aligned with Jacinda Ardern."

with this:

In September 2020, in the run-up to the election, Hipango posted an image on Facebook of Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern overlaid with the text of a quote falsely attributed to Ardern. Hipango denied any wrongdoing, telling the Whanganui Chronicle "It is not a false quote ... It is a construction of key words aligned with Jacinda Ardern." The post was subsequently removed from Facebook by independent fact-checkers. Manifiscently (talk) 23:16, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

 Partly done: I implemented the first part as "In September 2020, ahead of the election, ...". I have not done the second part; I haven't investigated that claim and don't really feel like it right now, but someone else may. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 21:42, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

All that is required to ascertain whether Hipango's post was removed by independent fact checkers is to click on the citation (see #3 under references at the bottom of the Talk page). It takes you directly to a blacked out post with the statement that it was removed by independent fact checkers. Manifiscently (talk) 01:49, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

You may have sent the wrong link? It takes me to a page showing the image on a post from "National Party's Meme Working Group". Skarmory (talk • contribs) 07:03, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. casualdejekyll 01:40, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 29 January 2022

Replace the heading Anti-vaccination campaign with Anti-vaccination stance.

She does not appear to be part of or belong to a campaign, but apparently supports the stance taken by anti-vaxxers. And the page is about her, not about a campaign she may support. Manifiscently (talk) 01:22, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

 Partly done: Changed the section header to Appearances at anti-vaccination protests. Hopefully that's good? Skarmory (talk • contribs) 21:42, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

That works for me.Manifiscently (talk) 06:49, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 January 2022 (2)

She is NOT the M.P. for Whanganui. She is a list M.P. 122.59.11.43 (talk) 23:41, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

 Not done I can't see anywhere in the article that claims her Whanganui MP status as current rather than former. If I am wrong, please point out exactly where it does. --Pokelova (talk) 01:03, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 January 2022

After this sentence in the Intro:

Hipango served as MP for Whanganui from 2017 to 2020 but was defeated in the 2020 general election. However, after National MP Nick Smith resigned in May 2021, she re-entered Parliament in June 2021 as a list MP.

Add the following summary of the article:

As a practicing Catholic, during her first term in parliament, she opposed the the End of Life Choice Act 2019 and the Abortion Legislation Act 2020. She also used the internet and social media to make public statements on other issues which put her offside with many of her National Party colleagues. Manifiscently (talk) 01:59, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't know if that's really lead material. --Pokelova (talk) 02:26, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Please see WP:MOS which says: The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents. The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies.

The sentence under discussion provides such a summary. Manifiscently (talk) 06:32, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

I understand that, I just don't really see that as being the "most important contents". --Pokelova (talk) 21:36, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

So what do you see as the most important - bearing in mind the lead should contain a concise overview of the article's topic? Manifiscently (talk) 01:12, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm someone else, but I also think this isn't lede-worthy. casualdejekyll 12:46, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: until an answer is received on what exactly the "most important contents" are casualdejekyll 01:54, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 01 February 2022

The line starting:

On 27 January, Hipango acknowledged she had asked a member of her staff to edit her Wikipedia biography ...

should have the year 2022 added to the date, to read On 27 January 2022, ...

Its existing position in the article, with this statement appears under a heading 2021 return to parliament suggests this event occurred in 2021, which is incorrect. This line probably needs to appear under a 2022 year heading, perhaps even appearing in a separate section, though this hardly seems worth having its own separate section heading. This would not be necessary if the headings for the earlier events were omitted and the events just listed in chronological order, though that might reduce the accessibility and readability of the article, as the article appears better with the headings it now has. Where the line is at the moment it is out of place, but it doesn't seem to fit comfortably elsewhere either. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 11:19, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

 Done --IdiotSavant (talk) 00:53, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 February 2022

In the second sentence of the introduction, "currently" is spelled "currrently", with three "r"s. Please fix the spelling. 122.150.71.249 (talk) 00:22, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

 Done --IdiotSavant (talk) 00:52, 2 February 2022 (UTC)