Talk:Christopher Luxon/Archive 1

Semi-protected

I'd consider putting this article on semi-protected.

Several unregistered people have been trying to remove Christopher Luxon's link to the Royal Saudi Navy when he was CEO of Air New Zealand. This was a well-covered media controversy directly related to him, so it deserves to be mentioned.

Being a strong conservative and evangelical Christian who is often speculated to be the next leader of the National Party, he is a controversial and relevant figure in New Zealand politics who will likely continue to have his page subjected to vandalism and supporters trying to remove unfavourable information in future. Nexus000 (talk) 23:56, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I've had that thought, too. There seems to be some COI cleansing going on; I remember the same happening with the Judith Collins article many years ago (which was subsequently confirmed by Nicky Hager in his book Dirty Politics). I'd like to know what other Kiwi admins think: User:Gadfium, User:Moriori, User:Grutness. Schwede66 01:15, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea to me. Grutness...wha? 01:57, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

I have no strong opinion on whether this article should mention the Royal Saudi Navy issue, but the Air New Zealand article certainly should. I accept Luxon wouldn't have known about it at the time, and he commented in February that there should have been a process to keep him informed about military contracts.[1] I don't think the article currently suffers from the levels of persistent vandalism which would justify semi-protection, but more eyes on it are good.-gadfium 02:04, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Good idea. I did likely call it too soon, but I think as he rises the ranks of the National Party, it will become almost inevitable that this page gets put on semi-protection. I will put the page on my watch list for now.

I believe the Royal Saudi Navy scandal does deserve a mention on Luxon's page because many of the articles on the topic either give Luxon a significant mention or make him the main subject of the article. I believe the unregistered people who are trying to remove it have WP:COI. Nexus000 (talk) 05:54, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Agree with semi protection, and inclusion of Saudi navy contract which has had widespread publicity. Moriori (talk) 20:46, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm happy to concede to the other admins on the need for semi-protection.-gadfium 23:04, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Birthday source

I'm afraid I'm not bold enough to make this edit, but I can't find anywhere that supports his birthday. I'd be keen to remove the date until a source can be found to prove it. Nauseous Man (talk) 03:50, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Done --Pokelova (talk) 10:46, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

The source for 19 July 1970 is this 19 July 2021 thread on his Facebook page [2]. I think it's reliable but I'm not sure it meets the rules to be an officially "reliable source"?? Nurg (talk) 10:50, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

WP:FACEBOOK and WP:ABOUTSELF seem to suggest it's okay, so I've added it back. --Pokelova (talk) 10:55, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Cool. Thx. Nurg (talk) 10:57, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks everyone. :) Nauseous Man (talk) 19:29, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Infobox Image

I noticed the infobox image was changed. I reckon that other image used for his positions look a lot more professional (in a jacket and tie) than the current one used. What do you all think?

• 
• 

--Lord A.Nelson (talk) 03:36, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

I agree, the other image gave a much more professional look. Can we revert it? Kinetochores (talk) 09:29, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Why should we prefer a more professional look for him? Nurg (talk) 10:19, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Because he's the leader of the official opposition? Kinetochores (talk) 07:27, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Ultimately it doesn't matter, both images are perfectly fine, but someone's position does not entitle them to any particular treatment on Wikipedia. --Pokelova (talk) 07:44, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

That would mean it would be fine to change President Biden's image to something that is not in a suit wouldn't it? imo chris luxon is standing to be prime minister, that would warrant a more formal look surely Kinetochores (talk) 10:15, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

I have seen him in 4 media appearances since he became leader. In one he wore a jacket and tie; in three he wore a jacket and a shirt open at the neck (no tie). My impression is that he prefers to not wear a tie. Tie-wearing is declining in NZ society. We don't have a photo available of him in a jacket but no tie. I don't object to either photo. However, I don't find the argument that we should choose the one with jacket and tie because it is "more professional" to be compelling, as WP doesn't do PR for subjects. Perhaps someone can find a better argument than "more professional". Nurg (talk) 22:55, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

How tall is this man?

Perhaps 6foot and 4 inches according to Alexa. Other sources (after seeing him at the airport) would suggest he is rather a “shorty”. Any confirmation would be greatly appreciated. Cheers 2404:4404:1748:D500:D927:F492:E9B4:A692 (talk) 08:21, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Ram raids section

@Aubernas This edit. Please attach a source that supports Luxon saying "that ram-raids have been increasing in New Zealand" and “one every eleven hours” statements. I think if we are to keep this on here we also add "533 per cent increase in ram raids between the year to August 2018 and the year to August 2023" from the same source to add some WP:BALANCE. Kiwiz1338 (talk) 07:36, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

What is going on here

The intro is far too strong - I haven't seen this kind of political analysis on any other party leader in their intro. Was almost certainly put together by someone who has quite strong views on him. Can this be changed? Republicofmars (talk) 13:04, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

@Republicofmars It's not at all clear what you find "far too strong" and what you want changed. Please be specific. -- Jmc (talk) 18:58, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Don't worry, Fix-It Felix is on patrol. But in all seriousness I have neutralised the political views part from the lead and moved it into it's own section. Kiwiz1338 (talk) 17:18, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

It's not out of strong views. They're all things he's actually said. There's similar analysis of political views on Chris Hipkins' page. Aubernas (talk) 23:50, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Removing unnecessary paragraph

"While National has risen in the polls under his leadership, Luxon has struggled in personal approval ratings. He has been perceived by critics and potential voters as "out of touch" or inexperienced."

First of all, this first sentence about Luxon stuggling in Approval ratings isn't true any more. Luxon and Hipkins have both tied consecutively as preferred prime minister twice now, so this 'struggled' thing needs to go. The perceived by critics part, which if you look at the reference to that, it's WP:NOTNEWS. Hipkins has tons of critics e.g. Groundswell, TPU, and Hobson's Pledge that publish attacks on Hipkins and Labour all the time but that doesn't end up being on Wikipedia. The potential voters part has a reference that dates back to 14 May 2023 4 months ago. Long time in the political world. Also, this reference is 10 months old. Stuff like this has been deleted from the Chris Hipkins page as well. If there is no oppostion to this I will remove it tommorow. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid. Kiwiz1338 (talk) 07:28, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Funny enough, more people approve Luxon than Hipkins in the lastest 1 news poll Kiwiz1338 (talk) 22:08, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for removing the paragraph, as you point out it's no longer factually correct. However, I'm unsure why you've taken this combative tone. It was true when it was written and per WP:AFG people probably just forgot to take it out. I'd also point to WP:SOAP your actions on this Talk page. Nauseous Man (talk) 22:28, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

I disclaim that I was combative, just facts. I just stand by the importance of WP:LIVE. I'd like you to clarify what you mean by WP:SOAP relating to my actions on this talk page? Kiwiz1338 (talk) 00:37, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

It's certainly true he's struggled in personal approval ratings. It's improved recently, but only in two polls has he achieved parity with Hipkins - the overall trend is that he's been unpopular / has underperformed, and it would be wrong to cherry-pick two equal results and claim he's polling well. Hipkins and Luxon having "tied consecutively as preferred prime minister twice now" doesn't make any sense - twice isn't enough to indicate a meritable trend. This is especially so with one of the sources being Taxpayer's Union / Curia, a National Party pollster which is notoriously unreliable and basically never taken seriously. The media consensus at the moment, as per Matthew Hooton and several other commentators, is that after the media circus last weekend and that interview with Jack Tame, his ratings will probably go down again. Aubernas (talk) 08:25, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Again you have added this content back with a poll that is a month old news and which is not factual anymore. You have magically claimed that the two consecutive polls were TPU and something else, which is wrong. It is Newshub–Reid Research and 1 News–Verian. Which both have a left leaning. Both polls show Luxon and Hipkins tied consecutively and were both done in the last 13 days. TPU was never involved here. Is it up to you to choose who is unreliable? Is it up to you who is to never be taken seriously? This is WP:NOTNEWS. I can now say your comment is WP:NOTADVOCACY, unlike mine was referred to. You're using WP:OR with "his ratings will probably go down" and " notoriously unreliable and basically never taken seriously". The recent 1News poll had Luxon on +9 in approval rating and Chris Hipkins at -1. Please don't add this back after my removal. Kiwiz1338 (talk) 12:07, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

I think you've won this argument. I was speaking more broadly of reflecting the results of the entire year. I won't add this back. Aubernas (talk) 23:54, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Political views section

@Aubernas This edit . None of those references claim that the New Zealand National party is moving towards right-wing populism. It mentions European Parliaments nationalist bloc and refers to nz minor parties that are populist, but nothing to do with National. I will be deleting this. Kiwiz1338 (talk) 13:07, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

:An evangelical Christian who is recognised as a social conservative, under Luxon's leadership observers have stated National has drifted further to the right. Luxon supports low taxes for the wealthy, establishing military-style boot camps for young offenders, and introducing stringent anti-gang legislation, and has criticised welfare dependency and co-governance with Māori. Despite announcing National will not contest the Abortion Legislation Act 2020, Luxon is opposed to abortion and has compared it to murder. He is the second-wealthiest Leader of the National Party in history, after John Key, with his combined property portfolio valued at more than $21 million.

This is important for the lead because it shows his political views. These are good, quality sources from Newshub, the Herald, 1 news, RNZ, The Guardian and others. Luxon supports tax cuts for the wealthy - if you don't believe me, read their fiscal plan. I've removed the comments about the Ministry of Social Development, but Luxon has vocally supported the military-style boot camps idea - he introduced it - and has criticised those on welfare ("and if you want to have a go and you want to make something of yourself, we don't just do bottom feeding and just focus on the bottom"). We can lose that last line if you like - it is sort of implicit. Regardless, the views against co-governance are well-sourced - he wants to remove Māori seats, ditch 3 waters and end the Māori health authority. His views against abortion are well-documented, and frankly unprecedented for any major New Zealand political leader since Norman Kirk. His wealth is similarly unusual; this interview with Jack Tame reveals he owns more property than any other MP .

Why should we have this in the lead? Well, because it's notable. Despite calling himself a centrist on occasion, Luxon is a social conserative; his policies are the most right-wing of any National party leader since Don Brash. And if current polling is right, the government he could lead, as the New York Times has put it, will be "the most conservative in a generation". Say what you will about Luxon - but you can't accuse me of using weasel words or whatever by putting on his page things he's actually said. The real question is its relevancy - and I think, in an election as divisive as this one, these views are relevant.

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/09/22/world/asia/jacinda-ardern-new-zealand-election.html

https://theconversation.com/after-the-election-christopher-luxons-real-test-could-come-from-his-right-not-the-left-209393 Aubernas (talk) 23:42, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

"National has drifted further to the right" Your references don't support that. Both references have no mention of National moving more right-wing, it does state the premise of ACT and National being a conservative government though. low taxes for the wealthy? I mean you could say that, but he supports low taxes for all classes, so I don't think it's quite fair to just say that. Co-governance doesn't have its own page so don't wikilink it. The networth section is already in the personal life section. His political views already have a section. There is no other NZ politician that has their political views in the lead. I mean just look at Hipkins, full of Labour promises, no political views there. Luxon deserves the same. Kiwiz1338 (talk) 02:53, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

You say RNZ, the Guardian, NZ Herald and TVNZ are quality sources, I agree, but you just can't write whatever you want and slap a quality source on it. I have reverted many, many edits from you like that. Kiwiz1338 (talk) 04:08, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

References

Last line in welfare section is a mis-quote?

The last line of the welfare section seems like a misquote ; in particular, "poverty" ; the quote in the references section below, is of a DIFFERENTIATION between those who abuse and misuse the welfare system, not paying rent, etc.

I'm an aussie who's barely even heard of him, but fair's fair - that comment was not about ALL those on welfare, let-alone everyone in poverty. That's two widenings of what he actualy said,

One from the targeted SUB-group of welfare recipients, to-all welfare, and then from all-welfare-recipients, to all-poverty!

One's too many for wikipedia, two's maybe even getting suspicious. 101.119.139.221 (talk) 05:52, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 October 2023

82.42.119.14 (talk) 10:32, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Change the date under prime minister elect to assumed office october 14th, 2023 and assuming office october 16th 2023

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 10:51, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

[3]https://www.1news.co.nz/2023/10/15/election-live-nats-win-labour-shattered-nz-first-waits-in-the-wings/

[4]https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/500190/analysis-christopher-luxon-gets-the-job-as-pm-and-deal-making-headache

both of these sources support the statement of prime minister elect

Ellarii (talk) 03:04, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Alternatively, use {{TextDiff}} to mention the specific changes. Neither "October 14" or "October 16" or "14 October" or "16 October" exists in the article. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 14:48, 15 October 2023 (UTC)