This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
Hugh McDermott (politician) is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles
The following Wikipedia contributors may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view. Their edits to this article were last checked for neutrality on 14 May 2021 by Find bruce.
Latest comment: 4 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Every parliamentarian or government figure on earth has controversial moments. But I've noticed that the best articles in wikipedia don't have "Controversy" sections. (For example, the Julia Gillard article is excellent, and there were plenty of controversial points in that particular career story, but there's no "Controversies" section in the piece.) They treat the controversies as part of the unfolding biography, so a sentence here and a sentence there, as per the chronology. My view is that's how it should be done on this BLP. Also, when someone is accused of something, then found by whatever the relevant legal process is to be cleared, then it seems odd to me for there to be 200 words on the whole thing just to find that the accusation didn't stack up. All the more so if the original accusation is something reported by a defunct blog news site. MatthewDalhousie (talk) 02:54, 10 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
.svg){kind=logo}
