Talk:List of prime ministers of New Zealand

Sortable table

Is there any value in the table being sortable? The only field for which I can see any value to sorting it at the moment is by party, since dates don't sort correctly without a bit of work reformatting them, and names would have to be reorganised to get them to sort by surname.-gadfium 03:44, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Not really. The new format is better. --Lholden (talk) 06:00, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Pictures

I have sent an email to the office of the Prime Minister asking about the copyright status of all the pictures on the Former Prime Ministers section of the website, and requesting that all photos still under copyright be released under a GFDL-compatible license. --superioridad ^(discusión) 05:04, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

You're awesome. --Lholden (talk) 06:00, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I just realised that this is completely unnecessary. The official website of the New Zealand government says that:

Material on New Zealand government web sites is subject to Crown copyright protection or is licensed to the Crown. This material may be used, copied and re-distributed free of charge in any format or media. Where the material is used, the source and copyright status must be acknowledged (eg © Crown copyright). This permission does not extend to material on web sites linked to from newzealand.govt.nz. That material may only be used in accordance with the copyright notice on the web site concerned.

When I first read this, I misunderstood this to mean something else, but it applies to everything on govt.nz. So while I can't upload the pictures right now, since my internet doesn't work during primetime hours, I'll get started on that in a few hours. --superioridad ^(discusión) 06:43, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't really understand why not, but this licence is not considered free enough for Wikipedia, so you will need to create a fair use rationale for each such image you upload (unless you get a GFDL or similar licence granted by the govt). Make sure to include the names of articles in which the image is used in your rationale.-gadfium 07:43, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Could you direct me to the source of that claim, gadfium? I sent an email to the relevant address asking for clarification on the status of derivative works and on using material for commerical purposes, which are the only things I could think of that might be objectionable, and there's still the request I made for the pictures to be released under one of the GFDL-compatible licenses, so I'll see how both of those avenues pan out. --superioridad ^(discusión) 09:51, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

See {{NZCrownCopyright}}, which clearly states a fair use rationale is required. See also the history of the talk page, which once listed those sites which used a permissive version of the licence, and those which did not. I would have thought that might be a good reason to split out a new template for those images which were free use, but instead the discussion was deleted. The template itself was nominated for deletion, but kept. None of this makes any sense to me, I just gave up uploading images to Wikipedia when licences like the permissive version of this became unacceptable.-gadfium 18:31, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

NZ Govt lawyers said the licence above was not intended to allow wholesale commercial exploitation. The Prime Minister's office still hasn't responded; I'm going to resend that email. --superioridad ^(discusión) 07:46, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Parliament

I want to add which parliament each PM presided over to the list, but I don't have the dates of formation/dissolution of each parliament. Could anyone direct me to a source that does? --superioridad ^(discusión) 10:17, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Here dude http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliament_of_New_Zealand#Terms_of_Parliament118.93.172.68 (talk) 06:03, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

The two non-Premiers

The article is currently silent on James FitzGerald and Thomas Forsaith, who have led the first two ministries. I'm thinking of doing the following:

• discussing their roles in the text, pointing out that they are generally not considered Premiers,
• adding an additional table over the existing table, calling them something like 'Leader of the first/second Ministry' or some such,
• counting them as 'a' and 'b', so that the subsequent numbering doesn't change

Alternatively, they could go into the same table; see for example Mayor of Wellington where both chairmen and mayors are listed in the same table. Any thoughts? Schwede66 18:48, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Colours

Hi The Celestial City, good work tidying this up. Rather than referring to colours by their hex number, are you aware of Wikipedia:Index of New Zealand political party meta attributes? For the National Party for example, bgcolor={{New Zealand National Party/meta/color}} should achieve the same thing, but without the risk of the shading being different compared to other pages, as it uses the template. Schwede66 22:51, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:DavidLange.jpg

The image File:DavidLange.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --08:02, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

This list is wrong

Why are the colonial Premiers listed on here as Prime Ministers? The two positions are not linked in any way and should have its own separate article. The first New Zealand Prime Minister was only in 1906 so that's where the list should start from.--101.165.174.13 (talk) 21:31, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

The list is correct, because it includes all the people who were heads of government of New Zealand since the introduction of responsible government (in 1856), not only since New Zealand was granted the status of a Dominion (in 1907). Thereby, it shows officeholders from both period at the same place. It is much better option than to split this list and separate officeholders into two lists (one for pre-1907 and one for post-1907 officeholders). --Sundostund (talk) 22:18, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Winston Peters

There have been several attempts to add Winston Peters to this list which have resulted in abrupt reverts. I think it would pertinent to start a discussion here about the inclusivity issues surrounding Peters and hopefully avoid edit wars. What are peoples thoughts for/against Peters inclusion in the list? Kiwichris (talk) 04:24, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Acting PM

Various editors have, over time, added Winston Peters as acting prime minister. These edits have all been reverted. Here's a list of those edits: 22 June 2018, 25 June 2018, and 30 September 2018‎. Watt is different because Kirk died in office; that used to be explained in the prose but that background info has gone missing. Katya2017, if you want to change the practise of what we are doing on this page, I suggest you obtain consensus on the talk page first. Note that lots of deputies have acted as PMs as this happens commonly when the PM itself is overseas (Ardern was, of course, absent for a different reason). Schwede66 02:15, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

@Schwede66: Thank you. In your first revert summary you said that there was a consensus that acting PMs are not included in the list which I found found confusing because the list you reverted to already included an acting PM. Would I be correct in assuming that what you meant is that there is consensus for exclusion in the case of Peters' specifically? As for the list, I understand why Watt's included (and agree with the rationale) but don't understand why Peters is not. My line of thought is: This is a list of NZ PMs, Peters acted as PM, therefore he belongs on this list. What's the hole in my logic? Thanks. Katya2017 (talk) 03:01, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

@Katya2017: The hole is that there have been lots of acting PMs. As I said above. If you were to include Peters, you'd need to include them all. And there is no consensus for that and given how often this happens, it doesn't make any sense. Schwede66 03:23, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

@Schwede66: "If you were to include Peters, you'd need to include them all." No we wouldn't. We could include Peters and not include all the other acting PMs (such as the deputies acting every time the PM is abroad) in exactly the same way we have included Watt and not included all the other acting PMs. I can't help but feel I must have missed your point? Katya2017 (talk) 03:52, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

I don't see why adding Peters is important. Some of the earlier acting PMs would have served for longer periods, for example when Savage went to Britain for the 1937 Coronation I think he must have been away for several months. Was Fraser the acting PM for that time?-gadfium 04:18, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

@Gadfium: Adding Peters is important because: "This is a list of NZ PMs, Peters acted as PM, therefore he belongs on this list." As for Savage/Fraser, the office of the deputy PM only came into existence in it's current form in 1954 and the concept of an "acting PM" is a relatively modern idea too thanks to the Cold War. In earlier years, there wasn't a need for a designated alternative PM which is why the deaths of Ballance, Seddon, Massey and Savage are followed by brief vacancies. Katya2017 (talk) 05:07, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

You may think that it's important, Katya2017. But you need to have other editors say the same. Thus far, you are a lone voice. Schwede66 20:46, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

@Schwede66: I think the issue we seem to have here is that we're working from different defaults as illustrated by the "why Peters?, why not?" edit summaries. You seem to hold the default position is that acting PMs are excluded so their inclusion must be justified (such as the reasonable basis for including Watt). I hold the default position is that everyone is included because Wikipedia is a comprehensive encyclopaedia so it is the exclusion of acting PMs that must be justified (such as the reasonable exclusion of acting PMs when the PM is overseas due to the ordinary duties of their office). I have asked why Peters is excluded. All I have been offered as explanation so far is a falsehood (that including Peters somehow demands that we include everyone), the observation that the circumstances of Watt's acting PMship is different from that of Peters (which is a non sequitur that does not assess Peters' case at all) and the repeated assertion that there's a pre-existing consensus (I don't care if I'm the lone voice, this isn't a democracy). Not being given a reason for his exclusion naturally this leads me to the conclusion that there isn't a reason for his exclusion. Please engage with me constructively. Katya2017 (talk) 05:14, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

You want to change things. You need to build consensus. Get others to support your view and then all will be good. So far, you are the lone voice; Gadfium and I are both saying what we've got is fine. In addition, I've given you three diffs above. The first one of those was reverted by Yarrowworks. The second one was reverted by Hazhk. The third one was reverted by Gadfium (sorry, posted wrong diff; go back two edits to see it). Don't argue with me; gain consensus. Schwede66 05:21, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

@Schwede66: What do you mean don't argue with you? Wikipedia establishes consensus through debate. I have presented my case on the grounds of comprehensiveness and no counter-argument has been offered. I have asked for the rationale for Peters' exclusion so that I can present a counter-argument against it but all I've received back is a falsehood, a non sequitur and some sort of running vote count as though Wikipedia a democracy. It isn't. Now if you'd like to engage with me constructively, present the argument for Peters' exclusion or a counter-argument to my case, you're welcome to do so but it's difficult to assume good faith on your part if all you do is stonewall discussion while repeating that there's no consensus for what would be the fifth time as though I didn't understand the first. Katya2017 (talk) 23:18, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

I don't feel you answered the question of "Why Peters?". Even if the concept of acting prime ministers has only been around since the office of deputy PM in 1954, there will have been many instances of acting PMs. Do you have a list? If so, please add it here so we know how many extra entries we are considering. If there is no way to get a list of acting PMs, then adding some to this list is to degrade it from a complete list of NZ PMs into an incomplete list, and I oppose that.-gadfium 01:03, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

@Gadfium: I do not have a list. I don't believe there is a list. In fact, in most cases, there aren't even sources. There are sources for Peters and a great many sources at that. I'll try to word my rationale another way. The list as it currently stands is not a complete list of NZ PMs because, as you have pointed out, there have been a great many instances of acting PMs who are not included here. The list as it stands is a select list of NZ PMs (that naturally includes all constitutional PMs). The inclusion of Peters would not degrade the list or make it incomplete. It would improve the list from a select but less comprehensive list of NZ PMs to a select but more comprehensive list of NZ PMs. The ease of sourcing the fact of Peters' acting PMship and the lack of any practical disadvantage to including him is my rationale for his inclusion over the countless other occasions acting PMs have chaired government. Katya2017 (talk) 03:50, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Could a compromise be to add a footnote to Ardern's box adding the detail that Peters was Acting Prime Minister for the specific dates? I lean more towards the logic that Peters was not the head of the Sixth Labour Government, and was not "Prime Minister", and was rather "Acting Prime Minister" (as Ardern was still "Prime Minister" while on maternity leave), but agree some sort of note that she did not exercise that responsibility for that period of time might be appropriate. I would also note that on other equivalent pages such as List of prime ministers of Australia or List of presidents of the United States, no details of Acting PMs or Presidents are given. In my opinion having the extra detail on Ardern', Peter' and the Government's individual articles is enough. Nt1192 (talk) 10:16, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

If you did that, you'd logically have to identify the other acting PM occasions to add equivalent footnotes. That would produce a lot of clutter. I am not in favour of that. Schwede66 07:02, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Jacinda Ardern

Can I suggest changing the image of Ardern in the table from

This to

This?

Just as it’s slightly newer and it’s used in the infobox of Jacinda’a article. What does everyone think? Politicsnerd123 (talk) 23:56, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Mistake

Please undo my previous edit. I made this edit on mobile, thinking there was no reference list. However, it seems that the issue is actually that this page does not display properly on mobile (or at least on the Firefox app). Because of this issue it seems can't undo my edit myself. Sorry! 151.210.162.182 (talk) 05:46, 16 November 2022 (UTC) Just checked in Chrome and it also doesn't display properly in there either — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.210.162.182 (talk) 05:49, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Nevermind, I managed to sort it out myself by switching to desktop view — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.210.162.182 (talk) 05:53, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

RfC: Winston Peters' acting premiership

Should acting prime minister Winston Peters be incorporated into this list of prime ministers of New Zealand? Katya2017 (talk) 02:46, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

This RfC continues from a stalled discussion dating back to 2020 listed further up this talk page. An editor holds that Winston Peters does not belong on this list as he was the acting prime minister rather than the constitutional prime minister. I believe he does belong on this list for the following reasons:

• Peters' 43 day acting tenure exceeds the length of seven of the constitutional tenures already present on this list.
• The inclusion of acting prime ministers on lists of prime ministers is not unprecedented on Wikipedia generally and is not even unprecedented within THIS article which already includes the acting premiership of Hugh Watt.
• Meaningful information is lost through Peters' exclusion from this list. No meaningful information is lost through his inclusion: it creates a more comprehensive list of prime ministers. It is entirely reasonable to include a prime minister of New Zealand on a list of prime ministers of New Zealand.
• Ardern's maternity and Peters' acting premiership is historically unprecedented. We have never before had a world leader take postnatal maternity leave and delegate the duties of their office to a pre-specified individual. Ardern's maternity is a factor in her notability; it is included in the lead of her article. Peters' acting premiership is a factor in his notability; it is included in the lead of his article, as well as countless independent sources and his own parliamentary biography.
• The reason for opposition is weak. The only counter-argument presented in previous discussion is a sole editor's assertion that if we include Peters' circumstantially unprecedented tenure on the list then for some reason we must also necessarily include every trivial acting tenure from when the prime minister is on overseas business or away from the office with a cold. This an invented obligation and an inane position.

I welcome further comments on the matter. Thanks. Katya2017 (talk) 02:50, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose The above discussion did not stall; it went on for three weeks. You were the only editor in favour adding Peters to this list. Two editors were opposed (including me) and a third editor suggested a compromise, noting that they were of the view that Peters was not "Prime Minister", and was rather "Acting Prime Minister" (as Ardern was still "Prime Minister" while on maternity leave). The only thing that stalled was you not finding support from a single editor. All the arguments against this idea are laid out in the discussion above. I suggest you just let this idea go. I should add that the article has since gone through a featured list review and none of the reviewers brought up the issue that Peters is somehow missing from the list (and I assume that FL reviewers do look at an article's talk page as part of their review). Schwede66 04:41, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

The discussion did stall. I presented additional rationale in my comments on 21 and 22 October 2020 and no counter-argument to them was offered by any editor. Even now, in this RfC, you haven't presented a counter-argument to ANY of the reasons I raised in the RfC instead pointing to a running vote of editors in a stalled discussion as though this is some sort of democracy when it isn't. You have not previously addressed the length of Peters' tenure, or my point on list comprehensiveness or the novelty of the Ardern/Peters situation in prior argument. I've provided reasons against your earlier arguments in this RfC and again you haven't addressed them. We govern by debate here. Your last three replies you've sent to me (18 Oct 20/ 19 Oct 20/ 15 Feb 23) have been overly dismissive, have sought to stonewall constructive discussion and appear to be in bad faith. This is poor argument for an editor of your experience and standing. Katya2017 (talk) 11:03, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose per the above discussion. That neither Encylopedia Britannica (link) nor the NZ Parliament website (link) list him seems strong evidence to me against his inclusion. I am not opposed to footnotes including acting prime ministers. WhinyTheYounger (WtY)(talk, contribs) 04:46, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, WhinyTheYounger. Neither of those sources list Watt (acting Prime Minister of 1974) while this article has done without dispute for years. Would you use your same rationale to justify his exclusion from this list? Katya2017 (talk) 11:06, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

• Support inclusion. There is a misunderstanding here about the office. Some people make a distinction between an "acting" prime minister and a "constitutional" one. As a matter of fact, both persons hold the office of the prime minister on the basis of the constituion. They are both prime ministers and, moreover, their decisions, words, and actions carry the full weight of every other prime minister in history. We can easily imagine a situation where an acting prime minister signs off on a decision that turns out to be important: A very notable action without its prime minister in the list? At the very least, there should be notes in the list indicating whether each PM has been officially commissioned or was an acting PM. -The Gnome (talk) 20:11, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. We don't list all the times when there has been an acting prime minister when the prime minister is overseas, e.g. Grant Robertson in October 2022 when Jacinda Ardern was visiting Antarctica [1], Bill English in April 2015 when John Key was in Saudi Arabia [2], Brian Talboys in 1977 when Rob Muldoon was in the United States [3], Walter Nash for over four months in 1941 when Peter Fraser was in the UK [4], as just four occasions, and there are many, many more. The difference with Hugh Watt is that Prime Minister Kirk had died and was not merely overseas or on maternity leave. It's also worth noting that while Peters was the acting prime minister during Ardern's maternity leave he was not sworn in and he was still required to exercise the powers of prime minister in consultation with Ardern where appropriate, particularly where matters of significant political, strategic or public interest, or national security arose.[5] If we were to include Winston Peters in the list then we would also need to include the many tens of instances of other acting prime ministers, which would not only be an almost impossible task, but would make the list unwieldy and greatly reduce its clarity and efficacy. Paora (talk) 11:13, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
• (Summoned by bot) Oppose, largely per Paora; Peters wasn't the Prime Minister, he was the acting Prime Minister, and could be overruled by the actual Prime Minister if she chose to do so. BilledMammal (talk) 11:32, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. In response to Katya2017's points: 1st point - no reason to distinguish between acting tenures of different lengths. 2nd point - there could be an argument for excluding Watt too, but his case is qualitatively different because it was a interregnum, not just deputising while the regular PM was on parental leave or overseas, so I'm not sure I would support his exclusion. 4th point - the maternity leave aspect may be unprecedented, but not a convincing reason, and I can't imagine supporting future cases involving parental leave. 3rd & 5th points - Paora expressed my thoughts quite well. Lastly, I'm generally not in favour of including acting officeholders for any position - there may be exceptions, but this isn't one. Nurg (talk) 10:10, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. There's a distinction between acting officeholders who serve during a vacancy until a new holder of the office is confirmed, and those who act in an existing officeholder's stead while they are otherwise indisposed.2601:249:9301:D570:4D94:1251:EC72:DD8D (talk) 01:41, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose. Apologies if I have overlooked somebody’s contribution, but the only source-based argument that I can see is that of WhinyTheYounger, pointing out that sources don’t include acting PMs in their lists of PMs. This should make it an easy decision - we follow what the sources say. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 18:23, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Ancestry section

An ancestry section was added on 14 November 2022 by an IP editor and Barnards.tar.gz just removed this again. Good on you. I had somehow missed that; it's totally inappropriate to have an unreferenced section in an FL. Schwede66 01:36, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Visualisation

This viz could be embedded: https://public.tableau.com/app/profile/andrew.eberhard/viz/PMs/Dashboard1?publish=yes 130.216.96.107 (talk) 02:09, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

It's copyrighted. We can't use it.-gadfium 04:14, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Office held for more than one period

The article states that 9 PM's have held the position for more than one period, but I count only 8: Fox, Stafford, Whitaker, Vogel, Atkinson, Stout, Ward and Holyoake. Who am I missing?

Also since Luxon, there are now 42 individuals, not 41. 49.227.150.27 (talk) 21:48, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Non-Blue background image

it would be great to find a non-partisan image of Luxon. I will leave that up to the team but just a suggestion :p PlainBread2341 (talk) 07:40, 14 July 2024 (UTC)