Jump to content

Talk:Michael Redman (politician)

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

Requested move

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was page moved — ækTalk 05:14, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Michael Redman (New Zealand) → Michael Redman (politician) — I think using the disambiguator "politician" is preferable to using the name of an entire country. The only other Michael Redman is an American singer. —84.92.117.93 (talk) 01:12, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 1

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Jenks24 (talk) 08:41, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Michael Redman (politician) → Michael G Redman – The term (Politician) no longer applies - he isn't one. The middle initial G achieves the necessary disambiguation. The middle initial G is his own only middle initial so is not controversial. There is no page with that name. Michael G Redman seeks this change and has requested I pursue it writing "I am not a politician. I have spent less than 10% of my 30-year career in a political role." Thanks. Deliberate Conscience (talk) 19:55, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Opposed I think you will have to read up on naming conventions, and in particular naming people and precision. What it comes down to is that Mr Redman is not known by his middle initial, but he is known as Michael Redman (type ["Michael G Redman" site:nz] into Google, without the square brackets, and see how many hits you get, and compare that to ["Michael Redman" site:nz]). Hence, it needs a disambiguator in brackets, as is the convention for biographies. What made Mr Redman notable in the first place was his appointment as Mayor of Hamilton, so to use 'politician' as disambiguator is not inappropriate. Alternatively, he could have had 'mayor' as a dab. Given his significant media exposure since his mayoralty, what you could suggest is a different disambiguator ('businessman' might be appropriate). Given that it's not clear cut what makes him most notable, I could even support 'New Zealand' as a dab, although I usually move pages with that dab on sight (given that this doesn't state what achieves notability), but this might be a justifiable exception. I'm open to your suggestions. As for the other Michael Redman, that one is certainly not the primary topic and I shall deal with that. Schwede66 05:16, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. 'New Zealand' is true so let's go for that. Deliberate Conscience (talk) 22:04, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 2

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. No prejudice against a new RM with something like "businessman" or "administrator" as the proposed disambiguation. Jenks24 (talk) 11:14, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Michael Redman (politician) → Michael Redman (New Zealand) – The term (Politician) no longer applies - he isn't one. The middle initial G would achieve the necessary disambiguation but is not the notable name. There is no page with the proposed new name. Michael (G) Redman seeks this change and has requested I pursue it writing "I am not a politician. I have spent less than 10% of my 30-year career in a political role." Thanks. 86.141.94.41 (talk) 10:22, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose. At this point, being a politician is what he is notable for. "(New Zealand)" to disambiguate does not seem make sense. Not sure how closely this skates the self promotion issue.--Education does not equal common sense. 我不在乎 00:24, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. As I outline above, Redman has had significant media exposure since his days as a politician. In 2011, he got the most intensive exposure for past actions as CEO as Hamilton City (i.e. the exposure was after he finished being a politician, for actions carried out before he became a politician), so using 'New Zealand' as a disambiguator would certainly not be inappropriate. Schwede66 06:00, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. He may not be a politician, but he's certainly not a New Zealand! Disambiguators for individuals are meant to reflect what the subject is. What Redman himself wants is irrelevant to Wikipedia. What is relevant is what he is best-known for. Not being a New Zealander, I have no idea what this is, but if the article is moved then the disambiguator should reflect an activity, position or occupation, not a country of origin. See WP:NCP#Disambiguating: "The disambiguator is usually a noun indicating what the person is noted for being." -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:10, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi (1) As Schwede66 notes CEO at Hamilton CC is not a political role, nor is CEO at ATEED in Auckland. They are entrepreneurial business administration roles and that is what he has done throughout - except for the couple of years as Mayor (of which the Article says next to nothing). I'm afraid that the suggestion that his notability is for being a politician just doesn't fit the facts for me. We all agree that Wikipedia's most important ingredient is truth and 'politician' here looks simply untrue and misleading. (2) Wikipedia needs immaculate disambiguation practice and as it grows disambiguation will become harder. Given the point about 'noun', perhaps allowing a two or more level convention could help. For example in this case 'New Zealand' could differentiate this 'entrepreneur' from one in another country by the same name. Please comment on 'New Zealand entrepreneur' or 'New Zealand business administrator' as Title (before I try requesting one). (3) Re self promotion yes care is needed - and once a person has an Article there is a shared responsibility to present a rounded and fair impression. (4) Yes, absolutely agreed that what a Subject wants is irrelevant - I quoted it for clarity and because it's true and I think relevant that he doesn't see himself as a politician. Thank you. Deliberate Conscience (talk) 16:20, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"before I try requesting one" - please do us a favour and don't open a third parallel move request. Let the two above settle first. Note that I have corrected the spelling of 'entrepreneur' in your latest contribution. Schwede66 21:39, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever disambiguator we use, it doesn't need "New Zealand" in it, as the only other Michael Redman for whom we have an article is an American singer. Nationalities should only be added to disambiguators if necessary to disambiguate between two individuals of different nationalities with the same profession. Disambiguating to allow for possible future articles is not necessary and not usual practice (otherwise we'd disambiguate every article). -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:31, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Right yes thanks I understand that. Just (Entrepeneur)? It's true and short. Deliberate Conscience (talk) 11:03, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I would go with "(businessman)", which is the usual disambiguator for someone best known for being in business. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:09, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose this request, he shouldn't be disambiguated by country. What about (administrator)? His work for Hamilton and Auckland Councils seem to fit that title, otherwise I'd go for the very generic "business". Mattlore (talk) 12:20, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 3

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not Moved, move protected 30 days) Mike Cline (talk) 15:44, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Michael Redman (politician) → Michael Redman (businessman) – The disambiguator (politician) is incorrect and needs correction. The disambiguators (businessman) and (administrator) are both broadly valid and (business administrator) doesn't look like an option. It might be relevant that his role as a businessman involved in the founding of the NZ Breakers basketball team was notable, also that the later administrator roles were based on business skills and had significant business development components. Other points made in earlier discussions point towards (businessman) rather than (administrator) too. So on balance (businessman) seems to be more accurate and durable than (administrator). No page of that name exists. Deliberate Conscience (talk) 06:54, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

His only role as a politician was as Mayor. That role is referred to in his article by the single short sentence that simply notes it. None of the other material in the article refers to his actions as a politician or in a political role. What is the basis for the statement "What he appears to be notable for is being a politician". Thank you. Deliberate Conscience (talk) 19:40, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What is meant by this is that the primary reason for Redman having an article on Wikipedia is that he was Mayor of Hamilton. Schwede66 19:49, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Should there not be some connection between the article content and the disambiguator? There is nothing at all in the article about his time or role as mayor. Is he really best known as mayor in the broader community? Not for the Breakers, or the V8s or ATEED? Deliberate Conscience (talk) 22:17, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It might also be relevant that Redman's biggest advertising career move was noted in media in February 2001 here http://www.archivesearch.co.nz/?webid=ADM&articleid=1939 Deliberate Conscience (talk) 04:27, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

History shows his initial Wikipedia article (2 June 2007) describes him as a former mayor and current CEO. Is he not best known and most notable for his HCC CEO activities? Is his Wikipedia article making him into something he's not? Deliberate Conscience (talk) 04:35, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stuart as an experienced Wikipedian please can you respond to some of the points that stand against yours above? Wikipedia seems to be forcing a notability onto his name. Is that reasonable? He doesn't appear in any of the various Wikipedia lists of NZ politicians or mayors (except 'Mayor of Hamilton, New Zealand'). I won't repeat what's above but please appreciate that this amounts to artificially remodelling someone's identity (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Prisoner). The disambiguator is not what he's best-known and most notable for now - that is probably something V8 related (ie post-Mayor). Nor is it (mayor therefore politician) what first made him notable (see above) as others have argued - he had no article while mayor. He's a businessman who was mayor for a while. There are plenty of people on Wikipedia who were mayors for a while but are not lumbered with it for life. Please may I respectfully suggest that this deserves more reasoned consideration than opposing one liners. Deliberate Conscience (talk) 20:01, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you want a response from a specific wikipedian, you usually have to ping their talk page. Michael Redman (politician) appears to be the policy-compliant name for this article, even bearing in mind the points you make above. The connection to the V8's is, as you describe, a Controversy and wikipedia requires balance in coverage of living people; disambiguating someone based on their involvement in a controversy is entirely unacceptable because of the way it frames the entire article. Even as it stands now, the V8 controversy takes up far too high a proportion of the article and either the other sections need to be expanded or the V8 section needs to be trimmed. Getting material on the life after politics of politicians who have fallen from grace is notoriously hard, but we need to make an effort to do that too. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:07, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(: Thank you. Be certain that I'm not suggesting disambiguation based on V8s at all - rather I'm suggesting that being a (politician) isn't what he's best known for. I agree that there is too much on the controversy. I have added to it to balance the reportage, fearful of just deleting the lot! This controversy is a complicated matter with many players. The information supplied to the authors of the report is disputed. I have cited the report itself just to out some of the casual slurs, and aired some other perspectives. I do agree that it overshadows the rest. Personally I think it could all be removed. Be assured that this Wikipedia entry (as it stood) has already had a severely detrimental effect on its subject - far more so than the report and so far as I can see completely unwarranted and possibly not motivated entirely by the best encyclopedic practice.

I think you're more concerned with form than content (and that's fine with me, form is more my field as it happens) but here's one last thing on content. You'll see quotes from Simcock the mayor who followed Redman. His 26 October 2011 release to media is cited only where excerpts were published; it is not online in full original form so can't be cited in full so far as I can see. I suppose this isn't the place to share it so please delete as soon as you like - but I do have a copy and it does read very differently from the hatchet job that has previously been published here. ---starts--- Press Release, 26 October 2011, Former Hamilton Mayor Bob Simcock has the following comments to make after the [sic] reading the Council sponsored V8 report.

“Council’s V8 report was always intended to find a scapegoat to blame for the outcome of the V8 event. By placing an unjustified level of blame on staff, and on Michael Redman in particular, the report has achieved council’s shameful goal. While I agree with a number of the recommendations the report has around process, there is nothing in this report that would have led to a different outcome for the event, and many of the report’s conclusions are factually incorrect. I have therefore requested an urgent meeting to correct these inaccuracies before the report is released.

“The story of the V8 event is quite simple. When the opportunity was announced the overwhelming majority of Hamiltonians were delighted. After the very successful first year, pride in the event grew even further. Then the recession hit, revenues fell, losses built up, the operators went broke, and the new operators could not drive sufficient sales to achieve success.

“For more than four years every significant decision relating to the event was supported by the unanimous vote of thirteen councillors. I cannot think of another matter that held such clear and consistent council support. At the time, and given the information that was available to council, councillors made responsible decisions. If, with the knowledge of hindsight, the community believes we got it wrong, we all share that responsibility. That’s the nature of elected office.

“For politicians to now blame their decisions on staff is cowardly and morally reprehensible.” ---ends--- I suppose anyone can just say that's nonsense, but apart from trying to get the incorrect (politician) yoke of this man's back I believe also that he is due a break in terms of article content that has spun this controversy thing way out of line. I'll pause on this for a month. I respect the ability of real Wikipedia editors and there's a lot going on. It does seem to me that the office or term of a mayor should be the titular focus for material on any particular elected mayor, rather then the individual. It's as if this article should be 'Mayor of Hamilton (Michael Redman)' if only just to limit the content creep and increase focus on content that matches the title. In fact his term was extremely successful in uniting a disordered and dysfunctional council (can't easily reference that though). Please delete as much as you like (including this over long Talk posting for which I apologise) but be fair - this person doesn't deserve the rack. Deliberate Conscience (talk) 05:28, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Adding more content to the controversy section is not helping. Stuartyeates (talk) 00:23, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What is helping? In your previous comment (I let it pass for the sake of harmony) you wrote "...politicians who have fallen from grace..." which is just the casual failure to apply the necessary and policy-compliant "high degree of sensitivity" that isn't helping. As a politician (mayor) he was lauded. He has not fallen from grace. Also you didn't address the opposing points. As a staunch supporter of Wikipedia for over ten years and of its principles for several decades I find all this pretty depressing. When character, reputation and reality are threatened by "policy-compliance" there's a problem. Now for my month. Deliberate Conscience (talk) 05:47, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As a staunch supporter of Wikipedia for over ten years and of its principles for several decades, what's your take on partisan WP:SPAs? Stuartyeates (talk) 06:39, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

More sources

[edit]

There are some solid sources for dates of holding of offices at http://www.business.govt.nz/companies/ and http://www.register.charities.govt.nz/ Stuartyeates (talk) 21:31, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Michael_Redman_(politician)&oldid=1201266341"