Talk:Maxine McKew

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ]

Portal	Maxine McKew is maintained by 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.
B	This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Australian television.
Assessment comments This article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

[edit] Pierre Esber

Mr Esber was never actually endorsed as the ALP candidate for Bennelong for the 2007 election. It is a self-assumed mantle given he was the canddiate in 2004. This is a minor point which doesn't change the overall point being made. Any objections to changing the wording? Jeendan 03:14, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Nicole Campbell was the last candidate. Esber was the only person to put himself forward thus far. Joestella 22:35, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

In that case, what is the importance of Esber's mention in the article? He is not the previous candidate, he is not the current candidate, he is just some guy who might have liked to be the candidate but has decided not to?

I wouldn't mind being the candidate for Bennelong either, but I have also decided not to. Do I get a mention in the main page? :) Jeendan 00:00, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Joe is right - the 2004 candidate was Nicole Campbell. As nominations had not been called for Bennelong at the time of McKew's announcement, Esber was not the current candidate either. So - not the previous candidate, not the current candidate, not anyone except a local Councillor. No offense to him, but that's not notable enough to get a mention. Jeendan 01:28, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Esber evidently had the status of heir apparent (as a former member of Labor in Bennelong, I can confirm the candidate pool is never large) - both the ABC and the Telegraph saw fit, on the basis of their research, to identify him as such. Jeendan, my suggestion would be to contact the media next time you decide not to run in Bennelong. :) Joestella 04:36, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Ha! A good idea - maybe if I decline to run in Bennelong often enough I'll get offered a Senate seat or something to reward me for my forbearance. Jeendan 09:00, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Latham quote

The quote from former Labor leader Mark Latham is obviously controversial. Since he is notable, his quote has the status of published work and (since he's from her side of politics) the quote is more than the usual political mud-slinging, I would think that there'd need to be a strong reason not to include it. And no, the fact that The Latham Diaries is not NPOV does not count as a strong reason. Joestella 04:36, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, I for one feel that including Latham's attack does not sit well with WP:BLP, but at the moment I haven't got a convincing argument for removing it. Anyone else? CWC(talk) 08:11, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

No, that's completely wrong. It doesn't matter how notable Latham is, or how published his quote is, he's obviously making a biased, personal remark reflecting his disappointment at McKew's actions. It's NPOV by proxy. Here, I'll make it simple for you - why doesn't Howard's article include the "lying rodent" remarks made by members of his own party? 221.16.44.42 16:33, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, anonymous editor, you can't strike out quotes from notable people about notable people simply on the basis that they are "biased" and "personal". What quote from a politician is not biased, I wonder. What quote about a person is not personal? If you would like to edit the John Howard article, go right ahead. Joestella 05:46, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes I can, Joestella. Lets do a little analysis of this "important quote", which is so sadly lacking in this discussion. What information is there in it? There's an imputation that McKew did not take a seat in western Sydney because she found the company of Labour voters offensive. What's the factual basis for this? Is it the only conclusion you can draw from her action? Here's something plausible: it wasn't practical for her to travel to her established base in eastern Sydney every day or her social group to do the reverse. Is this true? We don't know, there's no evidence for either. Did he include any discussion or evidence to support his remark in his diary? If so, lets include that. Now Latham still made the remark in his book. On the evidence (the remark itself) we can draw conclusions about Latham's personality and state of mind. Great! Lets put the remark on Latham's page. Because someone notable publishes a personal, ill considered remark it doesn't mean you can include speculation and personal slurs on this site. 221.16.44.42 07:46, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Your analysis of whether Latham's words are fair or justified is irrelevant, and I certainly don't need to justify their content. The fact remains that McKew was actively considering/being considered for a western Sydney seat, but ultimately rejected a move from Mosman to the Labor heartland. This is significant for two reasons: one, it's part of the story of McKew the politician. Two, it is emblematic of the tensions in the Labor camp between the so-called 'chardonnay socialists' and the working classes. Readers can judge Latham's comments for themselves. Joestella 09:08, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Your ideas about what the quote represents shows that it's just speculation and a matter of opinion, devoid of fact. This isn't a place to develop your ideas about Labor politics and then "let the readers decide". Have you read the policy on original research? Do you understand it? 221.16.44.42 15:26, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Are you accusing Latham of conducting original research? Face it, anonymous, you've lost this argument. Joestella 04:02, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I suspect s/he is referring to undue weight, as defined in WP:NPOV, and arguing that Latham's view being one held by a tiny minority (ie one person), it may not have a place in Wikipedia. The counter argument beign that while Latham might be one person, he is a significant person and his view is more important than some random stranger.

I don't personally care either way, though if we included every nasty thing Latham said about people, we'd have some very long articles involving every major Liberal or Labor politicians for the last 30 years. Jeendan 06:57, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

• I would be keen to include as much of Latham's bile in Wikipedia as possible, solely for the sake of making the encyclopaedia more entertaining. Joestella 07:06, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Here's an idea (almost explicitly suggested by the preceding comments): we include the quote, but explain that The Latham Diaries have acerbic statements about lots of people, to put the quote in context. So I've just added "Latham wrote in his famously acerbic style" after the words "Latham wrote". I'm sure someone else can make the same point with better wording. Cheers, CWC 09:34, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I can see where you're going with this and I'm not necessarily opposed to it, but I removed your edit on the basis that the quote's "acerbic style" is clear to the reader. Perhaps apply an adjective or two to "The Latham Diaries"..? Joestella 12:28, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

The important word in my edit was "famously" not "acerbic", but I agree that my wording sucked. How about

In typically acerbic style, Latham wrote "So Maxine [...], hey?"

(This also avoids some awkward punctuation at the end of the quote.) Cheers, CWC 13:19, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV Edits by Joestella

The following comment was convientely archived after about one day from Joestella's talk page, along with other complaints about his NPOV editing. He seems intent on keeping bias in this artcile, seemingly for polictical reaons, as his history shows. Now he's taken to calling my edits vandalism, becuase I disagree with his NPOV edits. Making inaccurate claims about other's edits and specious arguments justifying your case doesn't help you. 221.16.44.42 20:51, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Can I suggest you stop editing while you find out what vandalism means? Maybe then you could join a discussion about the article in question instead of casting baseless allegations against people who disagree with you. Your edits are transparently NPOV, and your user page makes it abuntantly clear why. It also seems I'm not alone in my view. You can push your political cart as much as you like, but people interested in any semblance of balance in Wikipedia won't stand for it. 221.16.44.42 22:14, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Thankyou. I try to be NPOV wherever possible. Joestella 05:11, 26 March 2007 (UTC)