Talk:Nick Smith (New Zealand politician)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Nick Smith (New Zealand politician). 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/20110724191935/http://www.bluegreens.co.nz/index.php?%2Farchives%2F19-Taking-agriculture-forward-with-the-Emissions-Trading-Scheme.html to http://www.bluegreens.co.nz/index.php?%2Farchives%2F19-Taking-agriculture-forward-with-the-Emissions-Trading-Scheme.html

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) 01:59, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Parliamentary Misconduct

Hi,

Noting that my revision was undid, and then reverted, I thought it might be useful to have a discussion about whether to include Smith's most recent escorting out of Parliament by the Serjeant-at-Arms. I included because it's noteworthy, and hasn't happened in 40 years.

( Nauseous Man (talk) 04:09, 26 June 2020 (UTC) )

I think it is entirely appropriate to include this information, as it is indeed noteworthy and has received considerable attention, as demonstrated by the three separate media outlets cited. The user who keeps removing it asks why it is encyclopedic. This seems a very vague criteria. Why would it not be encyclopedic to note that Smith was involved in a very unusual Parliamentary event that received a large degree of media coverage? Just looking over the article, it has apparently been encyclopedic for the last six years to mention that some of Smith's relatives are in the crane hire business, which seems to be of very little notability or relevance to anything else in the article. I very much doubt that that detail will be mentioned when Smith's career ends and is summarised or when his obituary is written. I imagine that it will almost certainly be mentioned that he was the first MP in decades to be escorted out of the House, among his other controversies. Frankly, I can't understand where the user wanting to keep this out is coming from. 2406:E003:18CE:D701:241C:12D6:A4FB:3E80 (talk) 05:07, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

because tomorrow and into the future no one will care that a has been polititian seeking attention engineered a situation. This sort of thing happens all the time and rightfully mostly it is ignored (Winston's (Peters not Churchill) article would be most of Wikipedia if we did this). Wikipedia is NOT a newspaper nor is it "everything" it needs to be an encyclopaedia. Yes if someone writes an indepth piece on this as the defining moment in Nick Smith's career then so be it it is encyclopaedic. But that will not happen the day after the event, just wait and see if the situation has any permanence or lasting significance. Because at the momnet any significance is very questionable. Andrewgprout (talk) 05:19, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

I would respond that the whole point is that is not something that happens all the time. This is receiving attention because it is the first time an incident of this nature has occurred in decades. Nick Smith gets kicked out of the House every few months, which we don't note, because it's not an event unusual or significant enough to receive media coverage. This is not something that has ever happened to him before, and hasn't happened to anyone for a very long time. 2406:E003:18CE:D701:C177:26A8:A6A:C54F (talk) 07:44, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Andrewgprout I think you'd be right if you wanted to remove daily notes about his Parliamentary conduct/misconduct. However, as this is the first time that it has happened in forty years, I think it is an important part of our Parliamentary history, and I think will have an impact on standing orders moving forward. In the scheme of things, this is only a footnote in Parliamentary history, but nevertheless I think it is notable enough to dedicate two sentences to. I wonder if we can get some sort of consensus on this so we can put the issue to bed. Nauseous Man (talk) 01:36, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

I think the mention is appropriate, as he has some form with at least three previous "namings", and this is a more significant incident than those.-gadfium 05:33, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Career in Opposition or a Seperate Heading for Resignation?

Kia ora. I think it might be useful if we could get consensus on whether or not his resignation should be under the Opposition heading, or under a seperate 'Resignation' heading? The risk of keeping it where it is means that his work in opposition becomes unbalanced by his resignation. Conversely, it could be appear to be unbalanced if there is a seperate Resignation heading. Thanks in advance! Nauseous Man (talk) 02:05, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for raising this - apologies for not responding earlier. I see that another user has created a separate section for the resignation, which I think was the best move given how long it's become (which I say as the person who wrote most of it). The size of the section has bothered me (again, my own fault!), and I've just made it even longer with some new info, but I can't find anything obvious to cut. The trouble is that something noteworthy clearly happened here, but the people involved have said very little directly, so we're left with a lot of media reporting of things that they were told anonymously, crossing over at times into outright rumour and speculation. All of this has built up into a lot of words. I would certainly encourage any user who thinks they can trim it down a bit to do so. MW691 (talk) 05:46, 20 June 2021 (UTC)