Talk:Aaron Gilmore

Untitled

How could Gilmore cease to be an MP one day, and a committee member the next day? Only MP's can be members of parliamentary committees!203.184.41.226 (talk) 00:53, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

allegations in a BLP

The "drunken name calling allegation" fails, IMO, to rise to an important enough level to get prominence in a BLP. No crime of any sort appears to have occurred or even been "alleged", and, frankly, if calling a waiter a name were important, I suspect we would have similar "allegations" even in articles on Popes <g>. Collect (talk) 12:45, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

It's not an allegation given that he apologised for his actions. It's relevant to the article because it cost him his seat in Parliament. Schwede66 04:09, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree that the section is relevant, because his leaving parliament makes no sense without this background. This is much more relevant to his overall career than the slightly longer paragraph about MBIE emails, which are only notable as possibly establishing a pattern of behaviour, and could be reduced in size as being of under weight.-gadfium 06:59, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

His leaving parliment is attributed to emails earlier in the year. Additionally, "facts" that were in the article, are not mentioned in the sources. Have a care please.Two kinds of pork (talk) 07:43, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

I would be very happy to remove the suggestion of "a bottle and a half of wine" which is not supported by the source, and replace it with "grossly intoxicated", which is.-gadfium 09:48, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Hmm. I do see multiple independent sources including the inebriation incident in the causes of his resignation. That is not trivial, nor merely anecdotal. What continues to concern me is weight and recentism. Do the reasons for his resignation really warrant multiple paragraphs of detail, or can they be summarized, encyclopedically and reliably, in a shorter form with a more appropriate weight. I'm thinking that two paragraphs devoted to one of two listed causes for the resignation seems undue and unduly focused on recent events. I would imagine that alleged failures regarding his work (MBIE) were more relevant to the resignation than personal failings, and should probably be trimmed/summarized to indicate that, rather than allowing the inebriation to overwhelmingly dominate the discussion of the resignation. --j⚛e decker^talk 18:49, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

I thank Joe for digging into this further, and trust his analysis that the resignation was in part, due to the alcoholic beverage incident. I completely agree with the focus of this being undue, but am not opposed to including this as long as it follows BLP policy and is not dominating the rest of the article. I'm particularly incensed about the "bottle and a half of wine" text, and am suspicious about the rest of the text on this topic area, perhaps rightfully so. When an editor has a grudge against a person (and I'm not saying there is in this case) smoke is usually indicative of fire.Two kinds of pork (talk) 03:32, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't object to the amount of alcohol/drunkeness being dropped entirely - that's not the reason why he was forced out of Parliament. If we dropped MPs for drunkenness the house would be a lot smaller! However, the reference to "a bottle and a half" can be supported by reliable sources. See for example [1] and [2]. It appears the phrase was used by Gilmore himself to explain why he couldn't clearly recall what happened.-gadfium 07:56, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

All of which ignores the intrinsically UNDUE nature of the "allegations". Where no evidence is provided, the material is anecdotal, period. And anecdotes != facts about anyone. Collect (talk) 12:22, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

I've had a quick look at both versions of this article. While I don't see anything undue about including mention of the Hanmer Springs incident (Hooton - a writer from the same political 'tribe' as Gilmore - in the NBR is about as reliable as analysis gets in this context), I don't see any harm in leaving it out either. If not for Gilmore having been elected to Parliament, I doubt this article would survive an AFD anyway per WP:BLP1E - about the only thing notable about Gilmore's entire political career is his leaving of it. There are a bunch of other BLPs about politicians in NZ that could well do with a quick eye over from an experienced overseas editor though. David Benson-Pope, Judith Collins, Hekia Parata and David Parker are all BLPs which have had issues with anecdotes, rumours and allegations in the past (in fact, while looking at them, the first still contains a large section dealing with unsubstantiated rumours ultimately sourced to a self-published journal). Cheers. Daveosaurus (talk) 05:46, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

All examined - though I did not see a big problem with Parker on quick perusal. Collect (talk) 11:37, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Many thanks for the fixes. I didn't word that too well sorry - I meant that the articles had regular problems in the past up to now rather than right at that moment. The issue with Parker's page had been that allegations made about his business dealings (which had been not just denied but disproven, as much as anyone can disprove a political allegation) had been treated as fact until I did a quick and dirty prune of them a while back. Cheers. Daveosaurus (talk) 05:44, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Aaron Gilmore. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080309003838/http://www.aarongilmore.org.nz/ to http://www.aarongilmore.org.nz/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:00, 24 June 2017 (UTC)