Talk:Zac Goldsmith

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Policies section[edit]

Goldsmith's policies are split over two sections - Activism and investments and Policy Positions. They should be in one place imho. --h2g2bob (talk) 18:59, 16 February 2010 (UTC)


The edit by "" on 22 April 2010 was plainly vandalism.

"" made no attempt to contact those who had written the page.

Further, "" ought to have explained their changes in the discussion page.

Further, "" did not add anything, but only removed material.

Further, "" removed material that was a) supported by citations b) wholly true

Further "" changed the page anonymously.

Further "" has made no contribution to wikipedia prior to this one, apart from a related one to the SpinWatch page

Hence, I have reverted to the previous edit. Murray McDonald (talk) 16:39, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Please do not throw around "vandalism" allegations to describe edits made within policy, and in good faith, using edit summaries that explain the edit and identify the applicable policies.
You are mistaken on a number of points above, MM. No requirement to contact or seek editing permission from earlier authors of a page exists; in fact, the opposite is true. Even if there was, the primary contributor has not touched the article in over 3 years, or edited any pages for several months. Your first contribution to this article was today, to add in your "controversy" content.
It's certainly true I removed material in the edit, as the site's policies instruct contributors to do so in such circumstances. The threshold for inclusion is verifiability, not truth. As the edit summary detailed, the contentious material relied on poor sourcing, to a paywalled open-submissions community blogsite.
I'm not sure what's meant by changing the page anonymously; presumably it refers to your username being composed of a forename & surname. Anybody can edit with or without registration. This isn't an ethos of mine, but the Foundation's.
The related edit to the SpinWatch page was not prior to this one, but after. After reverting your addition here, I clicked through to your contributions and saw you'd also inserted the content elsewhere. There, you expanded the page by three times its original size by inserting not one but two sections ostensibly about funding comprised of content almost exclusively about a specific living person, one of which was titled "Criticisms". That's not just undue weight, that's a coatrack. The contentious material included the same poor sourcing as you inserted in this article (paywalled open-submissions blogsites) and conjectured interpretations of sources (e.g., sources that neither mention the named person, nor support ownership claims given in the added material). Despite the edit summary explaining my removal, you undid the revert using the same "vandalism" labelling.
I'm always happy to collaborate and discuss changes. However, please do not reinsert material about a living individual anywhere on-site that does not conform with non-negotiable requirements regarding reliable published sources and neutral point of view content policies, underpinned by the Biographies of living persons (BLP) Policy. From the BLP Policy: Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. I've reverted the edits accordingly. -- (talk) 21:20, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Active Cannabis Users?[edit]

Is this activity compatible with membership of the House of Commons? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:02, 23 July 2011 (UTC)


Checking the history of the article, I note that a claim that ZG was expelled from Eton for smoking cannabis was added. The addition was unsourced and therefore quite properly reverted, but it is sourceable, see [1] and [2]. I am not going to add it back myself as there may also be a notability issue; others can judge that. Viewfinder (talk) 20:52, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Indented line

I think it's entirely relevant - he is now an MP , and drugs policy may be on the Lib-Con agenda. It's also relevant to the fact that he didn't go to university despite such a privileged education, which is sometimes discussed when people talk about his qualifications to be an MP Oriana Naso (talk)21:49, 14 May 2010

Richmond Campaign[edit]

The Richmond campaign between Kramer and Goldsmith was thought to involve unusually bad blood on both sides. Goldsmith accused Kramer of being "an "attack dog" who told "the most appalling lies" about him. She attacked him for spending a chunk of his considerable fortune blanketing the constituency with posters. The intensity of the campaign was marked by the unusually boisterous celebration of Goldsmith's agent, David Newman, as the result was announced - normally candidates and campaigners are a little more 'sportsmanlike' in victory. See and

I'm not an authority on this subject, but maybe someone who is can include a section, and try to make it NPOV (again, something I'm not certain I'd get right myself). This is just a suggestion - am new to this page and don't want to impose. Oriana Naso (talk) 02:02, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Expenses Interview[edit]

Please do not remove "spurious" details from the expenses section. I watched this interview live and I watched recordings. I transcribed details of what was said for the article with time and care. Please do not delete them without thinking carefully what is being removed. To paraphrase what was said is removing primary facts that were recorded from the video. The interview is a significant feature of this issue. How the questions were dodged, denied, delayed and dismissed arguably says something beyond the allegations themselves. Those media tricks are clear to anyone who watched the interview. The article text is commenting on that and by including direct quotes from each side and links to the allegations and response from both sides it is trying fairly to put the facts of that event down. Watching-it (talk) 01:17, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

i recorded how the interview derailed and quotes of the two questions that were asked and the answers given. what was asked and what was answered are not spurious details. those answers are the public defence of the allegations. please can these details be kept? Watching-it (talk) 01:27, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

My instinct is that until there is an outcome to the process, it is best to keep things brief: i.e. C4 & co say that they have spotted irregularities relating to jackets used in the campaign; ZG denies there are irregularities; the electoral commission is investigating and hasn't yet come to a decision on whether there is anything in the allegations. The last is the most important point until the issue is resolved.--Peter cohen (talk) 12:55, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
I removed this text (my version here; Watching-it rolled back to this version).
I deleted a lot of the paragraph on the interview because it was quite long for what is (in my opinion) the minor part of this story compared to the election expenses story in general. I accept your point on the interview paragraph containing Goldsmith's defences to the allegations, and the arguments should be included. But these arguments are part of the the expenses story in general and not limited to the arguments in the interview. I'd probably take the defences from his blog post instead of the interview as that's easier to work with (it also removes the possibility of having "mis-spoken" in a live interview). If I re-apply my edit, I will do a better job at including the detailed arguments and defences.
I disagree that transcripts are better than second-hand reports – Wikipedia's guidelines suggest using secondary sources over primary sources to avoid a number of issues (eg: selecting which bits are important, giving a fair overview, etc).
In short, the interview is only important for the refusal to answer questions; the arguments in the interview are just the wider argument about the expenses in general and are not really part of the interview. --h2g2bob (talk) 18:07, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Reform Jewish?[edit]

Is this correct? I know his father, James Goldsmith, was Jewish, but does he identify as Jewish himself? City of Destruction 12:04, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Broken links in references[edit]


I noticed that references 48 and 49 referring to his tax statements lead to 404 pages on his personal web page. This is my first post to anything Wikipedia so I've no idea what to do about it other than raise it here.

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:53, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I found an archive of one of the dead links you mentioned at the Internet Archive Wayback Machine and added it to the reference in the article. Unfortunately, Wayback didn't have a working archive of the other link, so I tagged it as a dead link. AtticusX (talk) 11:41, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Electoral spending section[edit]

I am concerned about the style and language used in the electoral spending section. It reads like something out of Pravda. It seems very heavily biased towards Goldsmith, as does some elements of this article in general. AusLondonder (talk) 00:01, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Agreed, lots of passive voice and too many repetitions of Goldsmith being cleared. I've substantially trimmed, though I still think the section is a bit long. Dtellett (talk) 13:06, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Zac Goldsmith. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:39, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Zac Goldsmith. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:02, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

was a politician[edit]

he is not a politician now is he Govindaharihari (talk) 09:37, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't think he immediately stops being a politician the moment he loses an election - he may well run for something else. Indeed David Cameron is still listed as a politician over a month after the by-election. Let's wait and see what Goldsmith decides to do next. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 09:41, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
Govindaharihari is behaving very oddly about this. See their repeated messages on my talk page (most now removed), and my own reply on their talk page (now also removed). Mezigue (talk) 09:47, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
Get a grip - try to accept reality, Goldsmith is toast# the conservatives had him as a shoe in but it didn't work out Govindaharihari (talk) 09:50, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

One does not stop being a politician by losing an election. As one does not stop being a football player by losing a match. Support Mezigue. --Dans (talk) 09:54, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Z Goldsmith clearly does - he is not a politician he is a millionaire from a mega rich family attempting to join in politics - he has lost everything apart from the shoe in safe tory seat - Govindaharihari (talk) 09:56, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
You are just pushing your personal point of view by making controversial edits and starting revert-wars, without any consensus from other contributors. Please stop. --Dans (talk) 10:05, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

See WP:MOSBIO and section Tense. But I think that Goldsmith should rather be referred to as a politician than as a former politician, because he has recently been in a political office and hasn't announced his retirement from politics. --Editor FIN (talk) 04:46, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

I accept that, according to wiki mos is seems we still need to call him a politician even though he isn't anymore, but it's over for him in politics, he is a failed London mayor candidate, a lost independent candidacy, he has nowhere to go in politics, he can and will earn so much more in the business world especially with the goodwill created by honoring his promise. Govindaharihari (talk) 06:02, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
Please spare us your views on ZG, Govindaharihari. This is not a forum. I'm glad you understand the MoS well enough to know that this subject is now closed. --Tagishsimon (talk) 06:09, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
Yes, not a forum, I agree also, but it is so hard not to laugh laugh laugh at the biased editors here, well, all over wikipedia actually, wp:npov is a joke also . Govindaharihari (talk) 18:43, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

he is not an active politician now[edit]

he has no political purpose, or job or anything. I changed active from yes to no but someone thinks he is an active politician - User:Absolutelypuremilk Govindaharihari (talk) 19:04, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

I hereby state my intention to again list Goldsmith as not active as a politician - please post policy objections here. I also want to downgrade his importance level to a C which is his importance level imo Govindaharihari (talk) 19:16, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

I think this has already been discussed adequately in the section above, with consensus to leave it as is for the time being. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 19:30, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
He is not active as a politician and unless you show me that he is active I will change it to inactive Govindaharihari (talk) 19:35, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
  • To be classed as active as a politician you need a position , a post, a job, if you have none of that you are not an active politician. David Cameron is not an active politician , he has no political position or job, just like Goldsmith.Govindaharihari (talk) 19:51, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
Goldsmith has been out of a job for less than 48 hours - he may well decide to run for another post. As per the consensus above, I will undo your changes to this article unless the consensus changes. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 19:49, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
He is inactive, has no job , if you revert I will raise it to see policy. regards Govindaharihari (talk) 19:51, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
Feel free to take this higher, but you should note that there is already a clear consensus for the status quo. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 20:00, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
Tend to agree with Govindaharihari. Unless there's another by-election lined up where he could stand (which there certainly isn't), there is really no prospect of him remaining in politics. Or is there an agreed criterion for him leaving? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:03, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
"This page is about an active politician who is running for office, is in office and campaigning for re-election, or is involved in some current political conflict or controversy. Because of this, this article is at increased risk of biased editing, talk-page trolling, and simple vandalism." Clearly this should remain until traffic has died down to normal. NPalgan2 (talk) 20:35, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
Omg Palgan - I had given you good faith but but your post here is so wrong that I cant continue Govindaharihari (talk) 20:38, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
Govindaharihari, why are you so against that nice man Zac when he just wanted to help you keep your family jewelry? Seriously, the whole point of the active politician tag is to help deal with the surge of traffic that continues even *after* a politician you dont like has conceded defeat. NPalgan2 (talk) 20:45, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
Not that, tbh, I give a flying fuck whether or not Zac is marked as active or inactive, do you have any evidence by way of reliable sources, Govindaharihari, that he ceased to be a politician upon losing an election? You talked with scorn, above, about the state of npov on wikipedia, but seem unable to apply that concept to yourself. You have shown considerable antipathy to Zac and/or the concept of Zac beng a politician. You clearly have strong and non-neutral views about the matter. What the rest of us know is that a few nights ago, he was absolutely a politician. Right now, I think none of us - perhaps including Zac - know whether or not he is a politician. And we know that right now there is only one person wasting bandwidth arguing for the active parameter to be changed. Might I venture to suggest that you give it a rest for a few days, let the dust settle and, perhaps, let the man speak for himself ... rather than trying to force your unsourced and easily disputable personal view on the rest of us. thank you. And also, you know, look in the mirror every now and again. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:08, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
-yes , thanks User:Tagishsimon That is the don't care about it - I am asking only, is he an active politician when he has no political job at all - David Cameron is not an active politician for example, neither is Ed Milliband or Gordon Brown or Hillary Clinton, none of then have a active political job. As for your other comments, I like and respect Goldsmith and yes until a few nights ago he was indeed a working, active politician Govindaharihari (talk) 00:25, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

no consensus that he is an active politician[edit]

there is no consensus here that he is an active politician, I intend to change the parameter from yes to no, he has no political job at all and has no campaign at all to attempt to win any political position,. please tell me if he has any campaigns or political jobs that I am unaware of? Govindaharihari (talk) 00:44, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Govindaharihari, I have asked an administrator to change the active politician template to "or has recently run for office", and the admin has done this. Goldsmith now indisputably qualifies for the parameter as he has recently run for office. It's just like BLP applying to the recently deceased. NPalgan2 (talk) 03:33, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
Well, that's ok , but there has been no real discussion about that change - yes, I agree blp applies to the recent dead but this is a simple talk page parameter - it is not a article content concern Govindaharihari (talk) 03:45, 4 December 2016 (UTC)