Talk:Christopher Luxon

What's relevant on the Prime Minister's page?

I posted: The construction industry has been especially hard hit due to high interest rates, high rates of unemployment, cutbacks in public spending and flat house prices - all of which discouraged new building projects. Under the coalition government, construction companies have struggled to stay afloat as orders dry up and the number of companies that have gone into liquidation has more than tripled. Overall, construction activity has declined 18% and manufacturing shrank 5.8% over the same period. Economists point out that policy shifts like tax cuts and public sector spending restraint implemented by Luxon's Government are prolonging the downturn.

Traumnovelle deleted this claiming: "None of these sources place any blame/fault on the government, let alone Christopher Luxon. It makes no sense for this information to be in this article because it isn't linked to Christopher Luxon in any way."

I reverted that stating: "He's the Prime Minister responsible for everything that happens on his watch."

Panamitsu deleted it again claiming that "The OCR is set by the Reserve Bank which operates independently of the government, meaning it has no relation at all to Luxon."

My response:

I think we need to find some consensus on what is appropriate to include on Chris Luxon's page. Obviously he is the Prime Minister, so from one perspective he is responsible for everything his government does. If the construction sector goes into recession under his watch and some of his government's policies have contributed to that, then that is clearly worthy of inclusion.

Traumnovelle claimed that "None of these sources (in the deleted para) place any blame/fault on the government." That is simply not true.

• Read the second sentence in the para which says: "Under the coalition government, construction companies have struggled to stay afloat as orders dry up and the number of companies that have gone into liquidation has more than tripled."

• Read the last sentence which says: "Economists point out that policy shifts like tax cuts and public sector spending restraint implemented by Luxon's Government are prolonging the downturn."

Here's more evidence: In November 2024, a group of 15 independent, union and university economists wrote an open letter to Luxon and Nicola Willis saying that 'sinking‑lid' cuts to the public service and cancellation of infrastructure projects are 'powerful contributors to the current severe and prolonged recession,' and that accelerating spending cuts while the economy is weak will 'needlessly exacerbate' the recession. The construction sector is a victim of this approach.

Panamitsu deleted the entire para based on one statement that the OCR is set by the Reserve Bank. That doesn't alter the fact that the Government is responsible for massive cutbacks in public spending and high rates of unemployment which have contributed to the economic malaise which has also affected the contruction industry. Deleting an entire para when you object to one small aspect of one sentence, is not constructive. Kiwimanic (talk) 03:58, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you mean this or whether you're just arguing for the sake of it. I will assume good faith and accept that you do mean what you say. It has been pointed out numerous times what is wrong with your edits and plenty of links to helpful wiki pages have been given. There comes a point when not much more can be said. For the third time, or is it the forth, I suggest you stick to basic edits while you try to learn what is right and what is wrong, and more importantly why they are right and why they are wrong. Please read WP:BLP. Happy New Year. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 09:10, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

So now we have a third reason attempting to justify the deletion of this paragraph. When three editors give three different reasons for deleting the same para, nothing that any of them say is helpful. Your explanation is the only one mentioning a wiki policy - although once again you do it in a condescending and arrogant manner. So I have to wade through your childish, personal comments before we get to the crux of your argument - WP:BLP. Unfortunately, even then you struggle to make your point. Please explain which sentence or section in WP:BLP applies to this deletion. I cannot see any relevance at all. Kiwimanic (talk) 18:46, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

If a reliable source has made the connection then it may suitable for inclusion, if no sources have made any connection it is not appropriate to include it. You've linked a different source here that doesn't mention the construction industry. Traumnovelle (talk) 19:12, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

So this has nothing to do with WP:BLP does it. Kiwimanic (talk) 19:16, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

It has to do with WP:SYNTH. The reliable sources say that the construction industry is being hit hard. The reliable sources also say that Luxon is the prime minister. However, the reliable sources do not say that the industry is being hit hard because of Luxon, but you're making that claim anyway by including the text in the article. ―Panamitsu (talk) 22:31, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

References

Reverting edits by Kiwimanic

Following Kiwimanic's block as a sockpuppet of a banned user I'm inclined to rollback his edits whilst manually retaining major constructive edits from unrelated users during the same period. If no one opposes I will do this in a few days. Traumnovelle (talk) 07:50, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

His edits to this and any article should be scrutinised to see whether they were improvements, and reverted if they don't stand up to scrutiny. But if they do stand up to scrutiny, I don't think they should be reverted just because they were done by a sock of a banned user. However, I haven't followed all his edits here closely, certainly not as closely as you, and I am just making an assumption that maybe some edits or parts of them may have been an improvement. Nurg (talk) 10:18, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

I think if we let his edits stand we are rewarding him for his sockpuppetry and behaviour, and that a lot of his edits are about pushing a POV their inclusion can lead to a non-neutral article. Although I think I will simply manually reverse his edits instead of reverting to an old version. Traumnovelle (talk) 19:56, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

It is not about rewarding him, nor the converse, of punishing him (although I understand the impulse regarding these). Sanctions should be preventative, not punitive, per Wikipedia:Sanctions against editors should not be punitive and WP:BLOCKNOTPUNITIVE. The sock has been blocked – that is the appropriate preventative action. And being vigilant in case he returns as a new sock is also appropriate preventative action. Re POV pushing and non-neutrality, I absolutely agree, and that's part of what I mean about scrutinising his edits. Such content should be removed. However, if anything he has added stands up to scrutiny against the usual standards as being appropriate, WP is not improved by deleting it. Nurg (talk) 23:17, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

I agree with Nurg on not rewarding and vigilance as reasons not to rollback wholesale
It is a shame about the NZDF article, which seems to have been deleted because of its creator but seems to me to be a notable (although biased) organization. I might re-draft it if anyone has access to the previous version. Drew Stanley (talk) 23:28, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

New Zealand Drug Foundation? See WP:DELACCESS re asking an administrator for a copy of the page. Just explain why you want it. I did that once – I emailed one of the Wikipedia administrators willing to provide copies of deleted articles and they emailed it to me no problem. I suggest re-drafting it offline before you put it back up. Nurg (talk) 01:00, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

You could also just request undeletion at WP:UDP, although if you don't wish to retain any specific written prose from the previous version Nurg's suggestion may be better. Traumnovelle (talk) 05:35, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

I don't think WP:G5 and WP:BRV are meant to be punitive -- I believe they exist to discourage further socking. Traumnovelle (talk) 05:35, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

My view of G5 has always been that it's a shortcut so that administrators don't have to waste time reviewing submissions from a blocked or banned editor: they can be safely presumed to be problematic since the user is banned, unless someone else wants to take responsibility for the banned user's contributions. Deleting a sock's work definitely has a deterrent element but I don't think that's the intent. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:47, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

AlNahyan has just removed quite a bit of text due to concerns about a lack of neutrality. I haven't had a proper look but using the Who Wrote That? tool the text in question appears to have been written by the now-blocked user Kiwimanic. Using the same tool we see that 16% of the remaining text in the article was written by Kiwimanic (the tool allows you to highlight the text written by him). I've had a brief look and don't seem to see many obvious remaining problems, but with politics not being my thing, I encourage others to take a look. The text that stands out to me the most as possibly having issues is in the communication style section. Panamitsu ✨ 11:50, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

Thanks both for this. I've removed the op ed-citing content from Communication style. I feel the Law and order bullet points are not encyclopedic or helpful either Drew Stanley (talk) 14:27, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

Correct name and consistency across Wikipedia

Note that we have articles about Susuga Laʻaulialemalietoa Leuatea Polataivao Fosi Schmidt and Afioga Fiamē Naomi Mataʻafa, therefore the bolded name at the top of this article should read Tuisinavemaulumoto'otua Christopher Mark Luxon, as appears in RS like Radio Samoa, thank you.~2026-21073-16 (talk) 05:40, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

On the contrary, for consistency we should not do that because we don't do it for other non-Samoan NZ politicians who have honorary matai titles, such as Bill English, David Lange, John Key, Robert Muldoon and Winston Peters. Nurg (talk) 09:04, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

New Section under Prime Minister - Leadership Challenges

Perhaps, especially given tomorrow's conference about Luxon's leadership, it may be worth adding a section about the leadership challenges he has faced, given that it's now a recurring event. Is this worth pursuing? End (talk) 02:07, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Depending on what happens it might be a completely new article. Kiwichris (talk) 10:12, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

I don't see why it needs a section to itself. The article already suffers from everything being crammed into a section making it disjointed and poor to read as a whole article.

Compare this article to Thomas White (Australian politician) or George Washington, the latter of which has a lot of sections but they are chronological and coherent. Traumnovelle (talk) 21:05, 11 August 2026 (UTC)