Talk:Gareth Ward

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I will take the blame[edit]

I have followed Alderman Ward's career with interest and collect infomation on him, as well as his follow Councillors. Ald. Ward is the most interesting of all and that's why I have written this article about him.

Sally

Great, but you still need to provide verifiable references. I'm reverting the page--schgooda 05:54, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously[edit]

Ego is the only reason this article exists. I recommend this article is marked for deletion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.202.144.223 (talk • contribs)

There were a few inaccuracies such as proper names (Greg Watson not John Watson etc.) I have rectified them. The issue on the tomato sauce is much more accurate. I was there.

There are 12 other councillors in this very minor country council, itself one of about 180 councils, in NSW Australia. There is no justification for this entry whatever. Don't waste any more time on it.202.139.23.101 05:04, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced "Sauce incident" should be removed[edit]

To editors of this article, I must bring to your attention a major problem with a paragraph of this article. This paragraph refers to an alleged 'Sauce Incident' involving the person which this article is about. This paragraph is of absolutely NO relevance to the person of this article's current career, his achievements, or his personal life. It is unverified and has the possibility of being career or reputation damaging to persons involved. (Which is against Wikipedia policy) It is also very childish that it is up there and it repeatedly comes back. I and others have attempted to remove this IRRELEVANT paragraph, however somebody whose obvious interests are to defame the persons involved in the alleged incident, keeps reverting the justified and necessary removal of the paragraph. It keeps coming back on the grounds that it is scourced material. THIS IS NOT TRUE! IT IS UNSOURCED MATERIAL!! The citation of the paragraph links to a NON-EXISTANT page, and from my large amount of time looking, there is absolutely no reputable sources (or any for that matter) which talk about the irrelevant, childish, alleged event. PLEASE DO NOT ADD THE PARAGRAPH TO THIS ARTICLE AGAIN!!!!

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Misterbrownstone (talk • contribs) 10:19, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The link is located here. Rangasyd (talk) 11:50, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Editor Misterbrownstone has again reverted, stating "Again, please take it to the talk page if you wish to add the unsourced content." Let me address as follows:
  1. Content is sourced, as per link located immediately above and cited in the article;
  2. I am not adding content, I am restoring content that this editor has removed without discussion;
  3. Unlike some editors, I am NOT shouting.
Thanks for your understanding. Rangasyd (talk) 09:52, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rangasyd (talk) and other editors of this article,

Once again, the paragraph is irrelevant, and has nothing to do with Gareth Ward's current profession.
It is also, potentially career damaging.
The linked article which in fact does exist, was not linked properly, giving the impression of being non-existant.
It is not a very well written article, (if ::you can call it an article) and talks about the incident being alleged, so therefore, the source for the paragraph doesn't actually state it happened, which doesn't back up the paragraph anyway.
You'll notice I have refrained from removing the paragraph again, as it seems useless.
I invite all discussuion about this.
The paragraphshould not be there.
Rangasyd, please read WP:AVOIDVICTIM and tell me what you think. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Misterbrownstone (talk • contribs) 10:52, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Did you actually read the introduction from the paragraph you cite? "When writing about a person noteworthy only for one or two events...". Mr Ward is not some minor celebrity of passing fame, he is an elected official. For all of your guideline-quoting and chest-thumping edit-warring you still haven't explain (with regard to WP:NOTCENSORED) why a perfectly well-sourced section of an article should be removed. Repeatedly removing it because you don't like it isn't reason enough. Prior to his being elected there is very little by way of coverage, to the point where an article was created and then deleted because as a councillor he wasn't notable enough. That incident, and others like it, raised his profile as a councillor and resulted in him being elected to higher office. The fact that it is childish and silly goes hand-in-hand with the fact that it's Australian local government. You're acting like editors here are the ones involved. We don't create coverage in reliable sources, we just reference it. Beyond everything else, you need to establish WP:CONSENSUS to remove perfectly ordinary and well-sourced material and your methodologies are about as far from effective as you could possibly get. If you don't stop edit-warring you'll likely be blocked. Stalwart111 04:52, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You should also read WP:QUACK with regard to User:Tydirious (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Sock-puppetry will also get you blocked, especially if you are using multiple accounts to edit-war. Stalwart111 04:59, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. I will try my best to address this. Yes I did in fact read the paragraph, however I did not notice that sentence. I also have not gone out "Guideline quoting" and simply asked Rangasyd to read avoidvictim and let me know what he thinks. I didn't use it as a reason the paragraph should be removed. I never made the claim Mr Ward was a "minor celebrity" and I do not dispute it. I have removed the paragraph twice, and then moved onto the talk page as instructed. I have not reverted the edit since posting here. I have not broken the "Three revert rule", so I am therefore not guilty of "edit warring" like you said I am. I mad no such claim that editors were involved. The paragraph is also not "well-sourced" as you say. The only source doesn't provide any evidence that the incident ever even happened. I have never edit warred. I have just started the discussion, and received responses mostly about my conduct, not about the article itself.
And in regards to your claim that I am running multiple accounts, I can assure you that I am not. I have, and have only ever had, one wikipedia account. I wish you do not suggest otherwise, as it is untrue.
Misterbrownstone (talk) 07:07, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
--update-- My apologies, I did in fact edit the article three times, not two. I probably shouldn't have the third time, however still stand by the rest of my claims. Please keep this talk page about the article and its content, and not about users conduct. Thanks you. PS: Edited this post's title to encourage discussion, rather than debate.
Misterbrownstone (talk) 07:16, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So a new account shows up and their only edit to Wikipedia outside this article just happens to be to Graeme Gilbert - one of the only other articles you've edited. Just someone who happens to have remarkably similar interests to you with the same writing style as you who stumbled on this article at exactly the same time as you to make the same edit as you. Right? We'll all assume good faith but we're not idiots. Anyway, just don't do it again.
WP:3RR is considered a "bright line" in that if you cross it, sanctions will likely ensue. But stopping just short of 3RR while trying to remove material which has previously been the subject of edit-warring is probably still going to be seen as edit-warring. It's about intent and attitude as much as some arbitrary line. Blindly reverting without discussion is edit warring and many controversial articles are subject to 1RR or even 0RR restrictions.
With regard to this article, WP:AVOIDVICTIM is completely irrelevant. It doesn't apply to the sort of person Mr Ward is or even the category of people Mr Ward is in. Again, reliable sources thought the incident important enough to report on it in a manner more comprehensive than really any other part of Mr Ward's pre-parliamentary local government career. You still haven't provided a policy-based reason for that section's removal beyond what was in your edit summary - that you think it is irrelevant and that it could somehow impact on his current career. Per WP:NOTCENSORED, that likely wouldn't be a matter for consideration anyway but I'd be interested to see any evidence you might have that maintaining coverage of a quirky and "silly" incident from years has an impact on someone's current capacity as a Member of Parliament. Stalwart111 10:02, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, Tydiriouss is not me. Thank you for assuming good faith, I never suggested you are idiots. I now see that Avoid Victim is irrelevant, I was not using it as a reason the paragraph should be removed, I simply asked Rangasyd to tell me what he thought of it in regards to this article. will again ask we keep this talk page about the article an not about me.

Back on topic, reading WP:PUBLICFIGURE it states that multiple sources be cited for something like this, or else the paragraph be removed. As far as I am aware, there is only one vague source about the incident. Please provide an explanation of this for me. Thank you. Misterbrownstone (talk) 00:41, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

BLP applies to all people in all articles. An allegation made by the subject of this article against another living person is not acceptable to include in this article, even if a reliable source has reported that Ward made such allegations. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:36, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And even if the reliable source were stating the incident as a fact and not allegation, it is soooooooo fucking trivial as to not merit any mention anyway. (unless Ward had popularly become known as "the Soup Guy", which doesnt appear to be the case, he hardly appears to have been noted at all) -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:46, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Gareth Ward. 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 01:27, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Residence[edit]

My addition of Ward's residence as Meroo Meadow was reverted because the "source does not indicate that he resides there". The source is an official New South Wales Electoral Commission page that lists it as being his enrolled locality. This is a sufficient source to indicate that it is where he resides. DilatoryRevolution (talk) 07:15, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That is the locality where he is enrolled to vote. It says nothing about his residence. WWGB (talk) 08:21, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Electoral Act 2017 (NSW) unambiguosly states that a voter's enrolled address must match their residential address. DilatoryRevolution is correct in this case, Ward's residential address must be Meroo Meadow. 5225C (talk • contributions) 08:59, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That is WP:SYNTH. The source does NOT state where he lives, only where he is enrolled to vote. I know many people whose residence is different to the place whey they are enrolled to vote, notwithstanding the requirements of the Electoral Act. Use of an electoral record for this purpose may also be a breach of WP:BLPPRIMARY. WWGB (talk) 10:25, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's not synthesis, the source states his electoral address is in Meroo Meadow, and electoral address is a term we know is synonymous with place of residence in this context. If every word had to be defined in the source, we'd be unable to cite anything at all. That you know of people who commit offences under the Act doesn't mean Ward is one, that's a flimsy argument. 5225C (talk • contributions) 10:48, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that it's SYNTH. Note also that the source is listing candidates not voters, so even if the Electoral Act says a voter's enrolled address must match their residential address, that does not necessarily apply to a candidate.
@5225C: a link to the relevant section of the Act would be helpful. Mitch Ames (talk) 12:25, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The source clearly states "Locality as enrolled". The relevant sections of the act are ss 4(2), 4(3), and 30(1). The language is plain and unambiguous, and with all due respect you are both objectively wrong on this matter. The source states his enrolled address is in Meroo Meadow and enrolled address has a specific definition (that being the address the person resides at). Whether or not it is included in the article for other reasons (e.g. privacy, primary source, etc.), the source is clear and indisputable. 5225C (talk • contributions) 12:41, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To further address the claim that for some bizarre reason there would be a difference between a candidate and a voter address, the NSW Electoral Commission states that the column being referred to includes "the suburb, town or other locality of the candidate’s place of residence (including for silent electors)". 5225C (talk • contributions) 12:43, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The relevant sections of the act are ss 4(2), 4(3), and 30(1). — Sections 4(2) and 30(1) of the Act are explicitly about the elector, not the candiate. This issue at hand is about a candidate.
Ignoring the Electoral Act, I think we can treat the NSW Electoral Commission website as a single reliable source in this case - even if it is two different pages - if the two pages are clearly a single context. We have:
  • Nomination: "... candidate details will be displayed on the NSW Electoral Commission website ... suburb, town or other locality of the candidate’s place of residence, Child Protection Declaration, contact details"
  • Candiates for Kiama: "... Locality"
The Nomination page says "candidate details will be displayed on the NSW Electoral Commission website", but the Candidates page does not show Child Protection Declaration, contact details (or any placeholder for them if not supplied), so is there an Electoral Commission page that does show those details? If we used that as a source (perhaps with a footnote citing Nomination page) then it would be a clear "single source" (Electoral Commission). It's not clear at the moment, because the Nomination page and the Candidates page are not consistent, which throws doubt onto the "single source" theory. Mitch Ames (talk) 02:29, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Updates[edit]

Afternoon Wikipedians,

Do have we some updates to enter into this page after having court bids to be charged separately in Sydney and Nowra denied?

https://amp.theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/apr/13/nsw-mp-gareth-ward-loses-bid-for-separate-sexual-assault-trials 2001:8003:3A11:9800:18B7:BF6E:E534:7EB2 (talk) 00:59, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gareth_Ward&oldid=1205984295"