Talk:Robert Gillam
 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | It is requested that an image or photograph of Robert Gillam be included in this article to improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific media request template where possible.
Wikipedians in Anchorage, Alaska may be able to help! The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
Another suitably perfunctory exercise here. Gillam is fairly controversial in Alaska for throwing his money around to political causes, lately the Pebble Mine debate. Not too different from Wally Hickel in years past, which brings to mind another issue. The appearance of this article makes it appear as though we're only concerned about the current wealthiest person in every U.S. state. Here in Alaska, we also have Hickel and Cap Lathrop and whomever else previously held that title. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 01:50, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
- You are welcome to add in-line referenced info about his political contributions.Zigzig20s (talk) 03:34, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
- "In-line referenced" meaning what exactly? The article I'm looking at right now contains very little in the way of useful prose, simply to lead to a cherry-picked, narrow list of sources, "sanitized for your protection". Sources are supposed to back up prose, not the other way around; it's disgusting to see that Wikipedia has headed so far off in the latter direction. Without a willingness to even consider the breadth of sources, the cherry-picked sources are tantamount to linkspam. "The individual who happens to be the wealthiest person in a particular U.S. state at a particular point in time" is such a narrow definition for creating an encyclopedia entry, the idea nearly borders on trivia. Attempting to vigorously maintain the article at that level only raises suspicions. "No context/explanation"? Lessee, Alaska Clean Water Initiative contains the following:
Let me guess, "Bob Gillam" couldn't possibly be the same person as "Robert Gillam", right? Judging from the narrow scope of the aforementioned cherry-picked sources, it's probably a waste of time to bring forward what the New York Times had to say during the campaign. Allow me to quote the pertinent passage:the largest publicly reported personal expenditure, over $800,000 dollars, was by Bob Gillam, an investment professional and owner of a private lodge a few dozen miles from the Pebble site, who helps lead opposition to Pebble.
A lot better than a dead link from a smaller newspaper's blog, doncha think? Especially considering that other editors in other articles are always willing to bludgeon readers with NYT sources whenever available, plus this particular NYT source is generally in agreement with the initiative article and the fact that we're talking about one and the same person. While we're at it, here's another NYT story which mentions Gillam's role in the Pebble debate in somewhat greater detail. Speaking of the smaller newspaper, searching their archives for "Bob Gillam" combined with "Pebble" comes up with 89 hits between 2006 and 2014, many of which appear to cover aspects of his career apart from his political activism. So what exactly is the problem here with trying to build an encyclopedia, anyway? RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 14:44, 15 January 2016 (UTC)Opponents criticize supporters, led by the groups Renewable Resources Coalition and Alaskans for Clean Water, for relying on money from national political groups and other big donors, including Robert B. Gillam, a wealthy Republican investor who owns a 10,000-square-foot fishing and hunting getaway about 30 miles from the proposed mine.
- "In-line referenced" meaning what exactly? The article I'm looking at right now contains very little in the way of useful prose, simply to lead to a cherry-picked, narrow list of sources, "sanitized for your protection". Sources are supposed to back up prose, not the other way around; it's disgusting to see that Wikipedia has headed so far off in the latter direction. Without a willingness to even consider the breadth of sources, the cherry-picked sources are tantamount to linkspam. "The individual who happens to be the wealthiest person in a particular U.S. state at a particular point in time" is such a narrow definition for creating an encyclopedia entry, the idea nearly borders on trivia. Attempting to vigorously maintain the article at that level only raises suspicions. "No context/explanation"? Lessee, Alaska Clean Water Initiative contains the following:
- You're just going to have to expect a tone of condescension from this editor. Anyway, I'd like to see the article expanded, but notability has been established.Juneau Mike (talk) 23:25, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
Assets Under Management
editThe assets under management figure for McKinley Capital Management, which is listed in this article as $7 billion, is wildly out of date -- if it was even accurate in the first place. The firm's ADV shows $3.562 billion (let's say $3.6 billion for short) in assets under management including both discretionary and non-discretionary. This figure should be undated here. Would do so myself, but I don't seem to have access to updating the references and I don't want to add without a citation. ask123 (talk) 20:31, 4 October 2022 (UTC)