Talk:John Aimers

Important Note

This page is not for discussion about John Aimers. It is for discussion about the content of the Wikipedia article about John Aimers. Please note the difference. I have removed all posts that did not pertain to the Wikipedia article including fallacious legal advice.

It seems that the proper thing to do is to is, quite simply, not to discuss John Aimers.

With regards to all of the discussions below: the original point is well taken and subsequent comments seem to have missed the point. A statement in the talk page such as "Mr. Smith is/is not a child abuser" is not appropriate. Appropriate is: "It was reported in National Newspaper that Mr. Smith was a child molester, but I feel/do not feel this should be added to the article because ___________" - Abscissa 05:15, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Discussion of header: "Important Note"

Fine, but the way it was written was pretty biased, and made it seem as though he is guilty of these crimes. Nothing has been proven against Aimers yet. Unfortunately, his reputation is being dragged through the mud. A Wikipedia page should confine itself to the facts. (preceding was posted by an anon IP)

By definition a claim is unproven. Adding "unproven" as an adjective is redundant and belabours the point. Also there was a statement of claim so removing reference to the statement of claim is not an acceptable edit. Lastly, your claims about other schools issuing statements is unsources.Homey 22:42, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

There should be a reminder that the allegations have not yet been proven. Peoples lives can be ruined by false allegations. Its a point that needs to be made crystal clear.

I happened to go to both SJR and Appleby, I received both school's statements in the mail, they were very similar to the TFS one.

Lastly, the sentence doesn't say "the statement of claim says" it says "the statement claims". Saying the "plaintiff claims" is simply better writing, in my view. (anon)

1) Please sign your posts. 2) We need a verifiable source as to letters from SJR and Appleby - unfortunately an editor posting something based on his or her own personal knowlege is considered original research 3) A number of editors have gone over the article, including several who are supporters and friends of Aimers and the version you see is the outcome. 4) I have checked the history, you are wrong, the article said "The plaintiff's statement of claim alleges" - you have misread what was there. "Statement of claim" is the proper legal term and I have wikified it in case there is any doubt. Homey 22:56, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

See [1], the wording before you changed it was "The plaintiff's statement of claim" - this is the legally correct wording. Homey 22:58, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

No, no, no, we're talking about different sentences. But its not worth fighting about, you win. Here's a link to the SJR statement: [2]. I'll see if I can find the Appleby one. Interestingly, SJR's head, Dr. Howie, taught at Appleby too. My recollection was that he didn't like Mr. Aimers very much, because of the Monarchy thing. (anon)

Well, we're talking about the sentence *you* changed. see [3] but since you concede the point we'll leave it at that. Please sign your post by typing four tildas ie ~~~~. Feel free to add a reference to the SJR statement but include the link (don't say "here's a link" just include the link at the end of a sentence mentioning it). Homey 23:11, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

No longer at TFS

See letter:

http://www.netdirectories.com/~tfs/attach/heads_letter_to_parents_04feb06.pdf

LGBT rights opposition

Do we have a source for this "information"? --gbambino 20:46, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

That would be the little superscript number that comes at the end of the quote. Carolynparrishfan 21:03, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

So there is another conservative Anglican John Aimers in Toronto, Ontario? Carolynparrishfan 21:39, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Just to clarify, if you look at the email address provided by the John Aimers on Crew's guestbook, and the one he gives on the Monarchist League website, they are the same. Carolynparrishfan 21:43, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Therefore any imposter could insert said address. Unless John himself verifies that he wrote that, there's no evidence that they're actually his words. --gbambino 21:46, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

"Views on homosexuality"

Carolynparrishfan, you've provided a link to some comment page, but there's no proof that those are actually John Aimers' words, and not somebody trying to defame him by using his name. Though it's no verification that they're not his words, knowing the man personally those comments are not typical of his way of communicating, nor are silly spelling errors. Without proof either way it's best that they're left off the page - they really don't contribute much to the article anyway. --gbambino 21:45, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I have to concur. While I do not share gbambino's confidence that the comments could not have been posted by Aimers (and the "spelling error" was really just a typo that could have happened to anyone) we can't prove the comments are actually his. He is a public enough figure that someone could have just used his name out of spite or as a prank - and since he's a teach it could have just been a student prank.Homey 21:56, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I might buy the defamation argument if there was anything defamatory in the posting. If you really feel that this is credible possibility (personally, i think its a bit of a reach-some student with an axe to grind decided to write down Aimers' known views on the subject, attribute them to him, and discredit him by including a typo?), I can simply say omit the quote and leave the part about how the "allegations would are ironic considering that he belongs to Forward in Faith which opposes gay rights in the Anglican Church." Carolynparrishfan 22:19, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

How do you know he belogs to Forward in Faith. If you can provide evidence of his affiliation with the group then I have no problem. Homey 22:34, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

According to his 1977 Cdn Who's Who entry, he belongs to the "Episcopal Synod of America". Which is now the North American unit of FiF. Carolynparrishfan 22:53, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

It's a bit of a strecth between saying he's a member of an Anglican organization that doesn't believe in the ordination of homosexuals to claiming Aimers is personally against GBLT rights. --gbambino 05:06, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

"According to his 1977 Cdn Who's Who entry, he belongs to the "Episcopal Synod of America". Which is now the North American unit of FiF." Ordination of gays etc was not yet an issue in 1977 - also, just because someone belonged to a group in 1977 doesn't mean one belongs in 2006 or agrees with the stands that group has taken in the intervening period. If you can find an article or document Aimers has written or endorsed that takes a position against gay ordination etc that's one thing but the 1977 WW entry is quite tenuous. Homey 16:04, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm removing Aimers from the LGBT opposition cat. Even if the comments made in his name on a message board are his I think the category is for individuals who are public campaigners against LGBT rights. Simply making a single comment on a message board is insufficient IMHO. Homey 17:03, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. His comments about gays and lesbians are not complementary, though (and not just the ones on that message board, either). Carolynparrishfan 19:56, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Aimers statement in this article suggests that he's not exactly bursting at the seams with homophobic attitudes. Homey 21:02, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

police investigation

gbambino, what is your source for a1997 police investigation. The Globe & Mail article didn't provide a year. Homey 21:49, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

It's footnoted in the article now. --gbambino 21:52, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Ok. Sorry, I didn't see your edit note the second time I reverted. Homey 21:52, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Quotation from statement

I'm sorry gbambino but I don't see why the quotation from the statement carried in the Post should not be included given that a direct quotation from the statement is superior as sources go than paraphrasing from a news article that itself paraphrases the statement. Quoting a single line of the statement is not excessive and is a clearer depiction of the allegations than what was in the article previously (ie the reference to "attempting oral sex" does not make it clear that an actual physical assault was alleged as opposed to a suggestion being made). Homey 22:12, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

In combination with the other quote it seemed an unnecessary addition, there more for graphic shock value than actually adding any more information that wasn't already known. I mean, is it really relevant to list in the article so many times where the accuser said John touched him, or where and how often he tried to stick his penis somewhere? There are plenty of other sections of the Post article that could be pulled out and quoted; one has to wonder why that one in particular, and why that one when, as I already said, there was already a quoted paragraph stating some of the allegations put forward by the accuser that were graphic enough? Anyway, the section seems more moderate now. I'm okay with it as it stands. --gbambino 04:34, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

It's necessary for clarity. The paragraph that was previously in the article was vague for the reasons I explained. Homey 16:05, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Intro

I removed the recent claim from the intro, because it's an untested allegation. Either it shouldn't be in the lead, which is my preference, or else it must be written in a way that makes clear it is an untested claim. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:13, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't think Toronto French School will be too pleased with the new lead to the article. Gehockteh leber 05:39, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Do you have a source that says he resigned? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:29, 2 November 2006 (UTC)