Jump to content

Talk:Emma Husar

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


The Lede & disendorsement

[edit]
User:Gråbergs Gråa Sång: You have written "Following media reports regarding staff complaints and a subsequent investigation, she was disendorsed by her party." This could be viewed as contentious. From the body of the article (under 'Investigation'), it is clear that the internal investigation started before there were any media reports. Under 'Endorsement': Two days BEFORE the finding was handed down in August 2018, Husar announced that she would NOT recontest her marginal seat. Labor accepted her decision. A few months later, she changed her mind but the Party had already found another candidate for the 2019 federal election. Yes, Husar was disendorsed but that was not until December 2018. She chose not to nominate for the ALP preselection ballot after she chose not to recontest while still under investigation. Sampajanna (talk) 20:03, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. So "Following an investigation and media reports regarding staff complaints, she was disendorsed by her party." would be chronologically correct? It lacks detail, but the WP:LEAD is supposed to lack detail. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:17, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
User:Gråbergs Gråa Sång: The NSW Labor Party reported that there was no basis for Husar to resign from parliament. Her announcement that she would NOT recontest her marginal seat prompted the ALP to find another candidate. Stating "she was disendorsed by her party" tends to place responsibility for the outcome on the political party rather than the individual member. Sampajanna (talk) 21:14, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Per my reading, it places the responsibility for the outcome on the investigation and media reports. And there's details in the body. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:59, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In office?

[edit]

Do Australian MP:s leave office on election day? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:29, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If they are not re-contesting, they leave office on the day parliament is dissolved. If they are recontesting, but are defeated, they leave office on the day of the election. (This does not necessarily apply in state elections.) Frickeg (talk) 04:48, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, live and learn. Is there then an unmanned "gap" or is the successor assumed to take the office instantly? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:31, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Also, should the infobox at Division of Lindsay say "vacant"? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:48, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Where the member is retiring, there is a "gap", yes - all new members take office on the date of the election. (I have always wondered what happens when someone intends to retire, but then changes their mind at the very last minute - after the parliament is dissolved but before nominations close - but have never been able to find out.) Lindsay should technically be "vacant", yes, but generally people don't bother updating those since we'll just need to update them again in a few weeks (and it could theoretically be useful if someone is looking up the "sitting" member). Fine if you want to, though. Frickeg (talk) 09:27, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I see now that 2016 Australian federal election was on 2 july which matches the article. Thanks again. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:40, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Second lead-sentence

[edit]

"Following an internal investigation and media reports regarding staff complaints, she was disendorsed by the ALP.[1]"

References

  1. ^ https://www.sbs.com.au/news/husar-dumped-as-alp-candidate-for-lindsay

This was removed at some point (here's an older version[1]), I still think it's a reasonable inclusion and would like to re-add it. Opinions? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:33, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Gråbergs Gråa Sång: Since Ms Husar has now settled her court case with the media and is no longer in parliament, her notability for Wikipedia purposes is probably fairly minimal as the next federal and state elections are not scheduled for another 3 - 4 years. Her disendorsement appears to be adequately covered in the existing article and associated source references Sampajanna (talk) 14:48, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have no problem with the coverage in the article-body, it seems good enough. But per WP:LEAD, the sentence is a fair coverage of a significant part of the article. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:28, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alice Workman, name the name?

[edit]
Image of a process flowchart. The start symbol is labeled "Previous consensus" with an arrow pointing to "Edit", then to a decision symbol labeled "Was the article edited further?". From this first decision, "no" points to an end symbol labeled "New consensus". "Yes" points to another decision symbol labeled "Do you agree?". From this second decision, "yes" points to the "New Consensus" end symbol. "No" points to "Seek a compromise", then back to the previously mentioned "Edit", thus making a loop.
A simplified diagram of how consensus is reached. When an edit is made, other editors may either accept it, change it, or revert it. Seek a compromise means "attempt to find a generally acceptable solution", either through continued editing or through discussion.

[2][3][4][5] Per WP:BLPNAME this seems to be up to consensus, and it's not a big issue. It's in sources. IMO we should drop it from the article, "doing so does not result in a significant loss of context", and there is also a lack of "publication in secondary sources other than news media". Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:54, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gråbergs Gråa Sång : Agreed. Sources are enough. Leave it out. Sampajanna (talk) 11:07, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Emma_Husar&oldid=1234696441"