Talk:Kerryn Phelps

same editor under different handles?

It seems rather obvious that the same vexatious editor is posting under different usernames and IPs to back up their own position. Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 02:48, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

It's almost certainly that, or two editors organised together. The former is more likely, both are against policy. Onetwothreeip (talk) 02:51, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Incorrect. I'd also draw your attention to previous WP consensus on this issue –– see the talk page for Maxine McKew where the same debate was had and she ultimately was not listed as an MP on the article until such a time as the AEC declared that fact. What you are arguing for is contrary to previous WP precedent, to the law, and to basic arithmetic. She's not the MP. Stop pretending that she is. --Jvvvck (talk) 02:57, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Assuming what you're saying about this 2007 election is true, that's contrary to every by-election article this year. Onetwothreeip (talk) 03:00, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Well I would suggest that those changes were incorrect, then. I would probably assume that those changes were made because the incumbent was, each time, comfortably re-elected. In this case, there is no incumbent re-contesting and the result is not yet known. Marking Phelps as the MP on this article is incorrect, and not even consistent with the other article documenting the outcome of this election, Wentworth by-election, 2018, which states there is no winner as of yet. This is a matter for the AEC and the DRO, and I would strongly suggest that we await the return of the writs before stating that she is the MP. --Jvvvck (talk) 03:13, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

The results in Batman, Braddon and Longman were close, but reliable sources reported the winners on the night, and the articles were subsequently updated to reflect those reports. Same with state by-elections. Onetwothreeip (talk) 03:24, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Even if I agreed with that argument –– which I don't, for the numerous reasons I have already outlined –– this election is fundamentally different because no reliable source has certainly called the election for Phelps. Antony Green has since walked back his prediction and has noted that Sharma could still win. Again, as a matter of law and logic, only the DRO can declare someone duly elected. With there only being a few hundred votes in it at the moment, we should await the DRO's declaration before making an encyclopaedic edit. A concession does not mean that Phelps has won, her saying that she thinks she's won does not make it so. The only way an MP is declared is through the AEC. That's just how the law works. --Jvvvck (talk) 03:35, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Technically we should not be adding MP suffixes, updating succession boxes, and so on until at least the result declaration by the AEC—even in obvious cases (huge unbeatable margins). I actually don't disagree with that. I think article creation for new MPs and results tables should proceed in clearer cases, but with prose outlining the state of the results with reliable references of their probability of election, and then when results are finalised, these items can be completed (with the start term as the date of election). The editors who concurred with the originating comment are very experienced and knowledgable on electoral matters, and don't deserve unhelpful invective from an editor who made assertions all over the shop with some pretty big errors (like "When the GG swears in the winner they are then a member of parliament"). Even then, the comment was that we shouldn't be listing candidates as "Member-elect" or "Member-designate", and that the start term was backdated to the date of election, not when sworn in as a sitting member—neither of these have been disproven by the "legal arguments", in fact the first one is backed up by them. --Canley (talk) 05:39, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm not certain whether your comments are directed at me, but I never made the assertion you quoted. I've maintained through this that the eventual MP's term begins on the date of the election. For clarity – and apologies if it wasn't clear – my only criticism was the use of the elected official infobox. That should, in my opinion, not be added for any candidate until the result is declared by the AEC – regardless of how close the result is. --Jvvvck (talk) 08:07, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Nop not same editor different handles, two different people with the correct legal opinion who have done their research rather than guessing Sdavies68 (talk) 03:10, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

First LGBT president of AMA

I noticed this removal: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kerryn_Phelps&diff=865069899&oldid=865041315

While this information was not properly referenced, it may be worth keeping in with the correct tag, rather than just deleting. Thoughts? shtrom (talk) 22:42, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

She's probably the first gay person to do a lot of things, that does not mean we need to report them. WWGB (talk) 05:40, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Of course we report things that are of relevance to readers and researchers. Being female is a known block to holding high office in many countries, and being LGBT is a block in many more, if not most countries. If being the first LGBT person to be elected president of the AMA is not notable in your view, then why is Phelps being the first woman to be be elected president of the AMA likewise not insignificant? Both are innate attributes, and both are protected classes. Extrapolating your reasoning: Phelps "is probably the first female person to do a lot of things". However, if it is agreed that someone being the first woman to be elected President of the AMA is notable, then being the first LGBT person to be elected President of the AMA is surely even more so. Being LGBT was, and still is, a block to holding certain positions in Australia, e.g. teaching in a private school. If Phelps were to apply to lecture at the Australian Catholic University for example, or to teach at a religious school, she would almost certainly not make it as far as interview unless she agreed to sequester from her wife and renounce her homosexuality. Moreover, there remains a prejudice in society that LGBT people are a danger to children, so should not occupy positions in education or medical practice that puts them in close proximity, so I think it is notable, both on the grounds of gender, and the grounds of sexuality, that Phelps fought through societal sexism, homophobia and antisemitism to rise to the level she did. It is also of significance that Phelps was a key resource commenting on human sexuality on the Nine Network series Sex , before her own homosexuality became public knowledge. I have for now reinstated the information, this time including a citation indicating that Professor Phelps herself considers this information important enough to incorporate it into the profile page of her medical practice at Cooper Street Clinic. Chrisdevelop (talk) 01:13, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Photo

No photo would be better than that photo.--Jack Upland (talk) 19:13, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

In fact, it is a breach of guidelines: Poor-quality images—dark or blurry; showing the subject too small, hidden in clutter, or ambiguous; and so on—should not be used. WWGB (talk) 22:48, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Agreed! RJ4 (talk) 08:21, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Just regarding the new photo (which is a screenshot from a Deborah Hutton video)—the original video on Vimeo is indeed released under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported (CC BY 3.0) licence. To verify, click on More under the title next to the "6 years ago" date. --Canley (talk) 01:28, 15 November 2018 (UTC)