This article is within the scope of WikiProject New Zealand, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New Zealand and New Zealand-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New ZealandWikipedia:WikiProject New ZealandTemplate:WikiProject New ZealandNew Zealand articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Companies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of companies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CompaniesWikipedia:WikiProject CompaniesTemplate:WikiProject Companiescompany articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BusinessWikipedia:WikiProject BusinessTemplate:WikiProject BusinessWikiProject Business articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Home Living, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of home-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Home LivingWikipedia:WikiProject Home LivingTemplate:WikiProject Home Livinghome articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disaster management, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Disaster management on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Disaster managementWikipedia:WikiProject Disaster managementTemplate:WikiProject Disaster managementDisaster management articles
This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Earthquakes, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of earthquakes, seismology, plate tectonics, and related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EarthquakesWikipedia:WikiProject EarthquakesTemplate:WikiProject EarthquakesWikiProject Earthquakes articles
This article seemed to have become pretty stale so I have tried to spruce it up with better references and to give it some structure. Any constructive input or comments here from other editors would be useful. The post 2010 stories about EQC need to be kept as neutral as possible and not take over the whole article. Because there are so many of them, and because the EQC's stories are so interlinked with other issues, it might be worth starting a new article devoted to what someone has already labelled elsewhere as "The Insurance Fiasco". Alternatively, all these separate notable subjects could have their own article - Southern Response, Claims resolution people, advocates, lobby groups, the list goes on. Any ideas about how, or if, to proceed? Roger 8 Roger (talk) 06:34, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Kiwichris for your addition of ministers. I thought I'd throw in my thoughts. I am fairly neutral on its benefit though. I realise such lists are commonplace on WP and I can see their benefit at times but I think they often take up more space, and accordingly carry greater weight than they warrant, creating an imbalance within the article. One point here with this EQC list is that it is a little misleading, is that the EQC minister is legally the finance minister by default. That role can, I presume, be delegated which is the current position ever since Brownlee was appointed post 2011. As far as I recall, prior to that when EQC plodded along with twenty odd staff Bill English, the then Finance Minister had direct responsibility. The list here does not make that clear and hence is a little misleading. Your 1985 reference will refer to the earlier version of the EQC and not to the current post 1993 version. It could also be said that lists like this that rely on other lists as a reference, are often really only original research, because we are interpreting what those other lists mean. (I admit to not having seen your James Oakley Wilson source. There has been a lot of relevant and notable activity with the EQC since when this article sort of ends, around close 2017, not least of which is Dame Sylvia's report. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 09:03, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to add some clarification go ahead (for example if you have information about EQC's ministerial responsibility being defacto with the minister of finance). As to your last sentence about the article being in need of an update, that is immaterial to the list of ministers, but feel free to update the page with post 2017 events. Kiwichris (talk) 10:25, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
My thinking was not that the list was materially connected to the need an update but that time spent on the article would be better spent on an update of certain relevant and, in context, important detail, rather than on this sort of one size fits all generic list. Anything generic has the potential to be either wrong or ambiguous. I agree that I could add clarification to the list that is there but if I did that I would probably change other parts of the list too, and I am not sure that would be productive. If I do add anything, and if I had the time, I would probably focus on a post 2017 update. The eqc act refers to "the minister" throughout and s2 defines the minister as the finance minister. The appointment of another person responsible specifically for the eqc in 2011 was, due to the then circumstances, a not unexpected move. I assume that new role is a delegation by the finance minister seeing as the act cannot be changed by a PM. I have not checked on the detail of the earlier pre-1993 Earthquake and War Damage Commission. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 21:04, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Possible original research in "Results of EQC's claims handling" section
I think there is a bit of WP:SYNTHESIS going on here. The cited sources don't really support the following:
that throughout the process EQC praised itself and its staff
countless reports of EQC mismanagement
that the ODT editorial summed up opinions expressed elsewhere.
To be clear, I'm not saying that any of this is incorrect, but reliable sources need to be provided to support these conclusions, if they're available. Possibly this could best be addressed by updating the article with more recent sources and discussions of the outcome of the public inquiry. I'll add that to my (ever-growing) to-do list, but if someone else gets to it first, that'd be great too. Chocmilk03 (talk) 04:27, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is all true, but we work off sources, not the truth! I think the simplest option is to remove or re-word those phrases. I will do that with the ODT quote shortly, which I hope you are happy with. Readers can then make up their own mind without being lead in a certain direction by what I agree is original research. I totally agree the article needs an update. I was going to do it a while ago but my enthusiasm went so I let it be. I think the two obvious extensions would be around Dame Silvia Cartwright's report, here, and the 2016 Kaikora quake, where the main 'new' approach, I think, was allowing insurance companies to assess damage rather than EQC itself, thus avoiding much of the earlier shambles in Christchurch. Personally, I would remove the lengthy list of past ministers, that is unnecessary and out of place, but others might disagree. I wonder if point 2 "countless reports..." is original research? It could be a point of fact so obvious it doesn't need a source. But I can also see that a reader not familiar with what happen won't see it as obvious, so a source should be found to confirm it. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 06:19, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
