Talk:Maxine McKew/Archive 1

Archive 1

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)

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)

POV tag

An anonymous user has tagged the article as POV, without putting any specifics on the talk page. While I'm not modest enough to consider the possibility that I'm not the target, I think the editors who have worked on this page would appreciate the use of an inline pov tag (i.e. {{POV-statement}}) and accompanying text on this talk page. If this doesn't happen soon, I'll delete the POV tag at the top as an example of a nameless random with a score to settle. Joestella 09:35, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

The NPOV problems are well documented in the sections above. It's not suprising that you're trying to remove it since you're the defender of the NPOV. You also seemed convinced that anyone who doesn't have an account is a vandal by definition, which is sort of bigoted. Basically this article has been taken over by Liberal hacks who obviously want to portray Max McKew in a poor light becuase she's taking on Howard (and has a decent chance in winning the seat). People who come to the article need to be made aware of this. 212.91.115.107 09:20, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and if you think I'm some "nameless random with a score to settle" have a read of Joe's talk page where he's recently been thretened with banning for his NPOV edits and been critisied for unjustified use of the vandalism tag. What's common in alot of the discussion is Joe just doesn't get what the probem is with what he's doing. None so blind as he who will not see, huh. (I'll even set up an account when I get around to it) 212.91.115.107 09:52, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

For more examples of Joestella NPOV strategy, see the history of Australian federal election, 2007, where he uses a quote by Howard to introduce NPOV into the article. When are you going to stop trying to ruin WP for your own petty political ends, Joe? 212.91.113.128 13:05, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

little flags

I think the little flags should be removed completely. Cheers, WikiTownsvillian 09:37, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I strongly agree. CWC 14:57, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

...and I've now removed them. Cheers, CWC 12:36, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

What's the deal with the warning on the photo?

Is this really an misuse image? If it is not going to be replaced (warning date well past) then the warning label should be removed. The alternative is to remove the image.ROxBo 05:23, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Quotations

What's the point of this section? Who has decided which quotations are notable? I will delete if there are no objections. Recurring dreams 13:09, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Sotty but you misled, you deleted immediately, before there could be objections! I object. ROxBo 13:33, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Why? Recurring dreams 13:44, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

That was very quick - as was your deletion, done 6 hours after you wrote "I will delete if there are no objections". statement". Not sure what sort of timeframe you work within for deletions then. Quotations are common. Anyway you are probably very involved in editing Australian politics articles, and my experience has been there are certain highly motivated editors out there who are unbending in views.

But anyway. First - quotes are from Maxine's career as a reporter, NOT politician. Rest my case. She had a life before Labor! Second I agree most politicians are not quoteable - with some exceptions: Paul Keating, Mark Latham. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ROxBo (talk • contribs) 14:05, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Maxine McKew2.JPG

Image:Maxine McKew2.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 04:31, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

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)

It is irrelevent that the statement makes Wikipedia more entertaining. Wikipedia is a place for facts, not comment, and ideally it should not be 'entertaining'. The statement is not only unimportant to the article, it is possibly defamatory (and I am not sure if Wikipedia is covered by absolute privilidge). Therefore I vote that we remove it.Doktor Waterhouse (talk) 07:32, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

April 2007

I've changed the article to use the "In typically acerbic style, Latham wrote ..." wording I suggested above. Not everyone who reads the article will be aware that Latham lashed out at nearly everyone he knew, not just Ms McKew. Could we please not revert to any versions of this article with the Latham quote but no he-did-this-to-everyone explanation? Cheers, CWC 23:31, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Latham had a way with words, I'll grant. "Acerbic" even. I assume the fear shown by many editors towards this quote is down to its accuracy. Still, so long as the quote stays I'm happy for you to try and qualify it like that. Joestella 00:59, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

No it's just NPOV, look it up. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.15.179.74 (talk) 02:12, 8 April 2007 (UTC).

I will look up NPOV as soon as I get a chance. Joestella 12:41, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

As an ignorant newby, can someone pls explain NVOP and VOP? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.132.42.90 (talk) 08:37, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Has McKew won?

McKew has not yet won Bennelong for the Labor Party, although all counting and predictions show that she will. Wikipedia is best reserved for facts, not predictions or hopes.

It's not a prediction anymore. Let it go, mate.Doktor Waterhouse (talk) 12:54, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes it is a prediction. She hasn't won yet. Be patient. Facts, not predictions, however confidently made on Wikipedia please. Maxine McKew says the seat is on a knife-edge and isnt claiming victory yet, so Doktor probably ought not to either. Cardicam (talk) 23:17, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

As of 1100 Eastern Daylight Saving Time on Sunday, Maxine is 2600 votes ahead with over 22,000 absentee votes still to count (latest update from AEC website which at the time of this post was 2358 EDST Saturday). I suggest that on this basis the result wont be known for days. My two cents worth. YSSYguy (talk) 00:26, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I support YSSYguy on this. Even though Howard himself has conceded that McKew is in a strong position, until the AEC formally declare a winner (which is certain to be days away) then we must stay in line. I think it is acceptable to use the term "likely to win" until we have a result as that is consistent with opinions in the press and from both parties. (PS - I changed the heading of this section to something more meaningful) Manning (talk) 01:08, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Update: The AEC is listing Bennelong as "won" by McKew. see here. However, this is NOT final and their own disclaimer reads: An indication that a party has 'won' a seat is no guarantee that a different result will not be reached upon completion of the count of all votes. The most recent (3:48 PM AEDT) 2-party count is 37784 to 35205, giving McKew a margin of 2579.Manning (talk) 05:34, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I made the original entry in response to an edit done quite some time before Ms McKew made her "knife edge" speech in which even she did not claim victory. So this means someone gave her the seat well before the AEC, ABC or any other predictions started doing so. I don't care who wins the seat, Doktor Waterhouse. I haven't lived in Australia for 20 years and can't vote because I have been away so long. I just think that given the generally unwarranted attacks on Wikipedia it's best to stay totally accurate in real time. While it would take an unusual change in voting patterns from postals and absentees, given that preferences from the Greens and Democrats account for six percent of the vote, for her to lose, it's still going to be days before the seat is declared. Turnout is listed about 80 percent by the AEC, down 16+ percent, so there are a lot of outstanding votes. As I say, it's not about who you support, it's about accuracy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.132.42.90 (talk) 08:29, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough.Doktor Waterhouse (talk) 07:36, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm watching the AEC results, and will make sure that until there is an official declaration we'll keep it as "undecided". As you say, there are way too many outstanding votes to even make a prediction. Judging by the last shift in results (Howard took 70% of the newly counted votes) it is still a wide open contest. Manning (talk) 08:44, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Seems Maxine McKew is having a Clayton’s claim of victory. This says she "has declared that Bennelong is a Labor seat for the first time, in a press conference outside her campaign headquarters at Eastwood at midday. Ms McKew, who is 2500 votes ahead in the seat, declared: "The people of Bennelong have spoken for change. This is now a Labor seat for the first time," she said. "We feel we are comfortably ahead with a swing in every booth but one." But she said she was stopping short of officially declaring the seat hers." I really don’t quite know how the hell to interpret this. I guess anything short of a formal claim of victory, however worded, is not really a claim, just an expression of her strong belief. In any case, Howard has not yet conceded. -- JackofOz (talk) 04:06, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I had already added this into the article, phrasing it as "expressed the belief she has won", which is not the same as saying "claimed victory". Interestingly it has now been over 25 hours since the AEC updated the results for Bennelong.Manning (talk) 06:25, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Maxine has claimed victory

Yesterday (26 Nov 2007) Maxine claimed victory for the seat of Bennelong. (Sydney Morning Herald). I think it's time to cease calling her a "candidate" and call her "an Australian politician".Lester 22:40, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Not so fast. See my final post in the thread 2 above. Ultimately, she did not formally claim victory. But even if she had, Howard has not conceded. He apparently believes there's still a slim chance of him winning. We have to wait. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:51, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

What JackofOz said. To quote the very article you cited: "Yesterday there was an uncharacteristic glitch after Ms McKew told a news conference the seat of Bennelong "was now a Labor seat for the first time", only to correct herself to say that while the vote was encouraging, it was still too close to call."Manning (talk) 22:59, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Last I heard it was no longer being listed as 'in doubt'. And she's been made a Parliamentary Secretary...which necessitates her being a Member of Parliament. I agree with Lester, it's time to make the change and call her the Member for Bennelong.Doktor Waterhouse (talk) 07:07, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

We should only make the change when it is confirmed by a reliable source such as this --Melburnian (talk) 07:32, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

To clarify, she may have been "named" a Parliamentary Secretary, but she has not been formally appointed to that role. This will happen on Monday, along with all the other ministers named today. It seems extremely unlikely, but counting in Bennelong is not yet complete and it is still afaik possible that she will lose. In that unlikely scenario, her appointment as Parl Sec would not proceed as planned. Obviously Rudd included her in the ministry on the very reasonable assumption that she's been elected to Parliament. But however reasonable it might be, it's still an assumption. -- JackofOz (talk) 08:33, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Vote Updates

Vote Updates: This is turning into a little adventure by itself. Howard is closing the gap though probably not by enough to win. Here's the link to the AEC

2007-11-25 3:48 PM AEDT: McKew - 37784 Howard - 35205, Margin 2579
2007-11-25 4:30 PM AEDT: McKew - 37913 Howard - 35474 Margin 2439
2007-11-26 7:34 PM AEDT: McKew - 37871 Howard - 35435 Margin 2436
2007-11-26 7:42 PM AEDT: McKew - 37865 Howard - 35434 Margin 2431
2007-11-27 7:24 PM AEDT: McKew - 37754 Howard - 35308 Margin 2446
2007-11-28 4:31 PM AEDT: McKew - 38937 Howard - 36481 Margin 2456
2007-11-29 8:15 PM AEDT: McKew - 41763 Howard - 39579 Margin 2184
2007-11-30 6:51 PM AEDT: McKew - 43272 Howard - 41159 Margin 2113

There was a 27 hour wait for the latest update, and all that has happened is that tallies for both have gone backwards. Eight minutes later another update moved them both backwards again. No idea why. Manning (talk) 05:58, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

28/11 update - finally they counted some votes. No real change otherwise. Manning (talk) 07:36, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

29/11 update - 81342 votes have been counted and 4269 remain. In order to win, Howard needs 3128 of these remaining 4269 votes (73.26%). Since I began recording these stats Howard has taken 52.4% of the votes. (4374/8353). Hence it is certain that McKew has won. Why neither Howard has conceded or McKew claimed victory is beyond me (but they haven't). Manning (talk) 10:43, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

30/11 Update - 84431 votes counted and 2736 remain. (And yes if you add up my votes counted/votes remaining figures they don't add up to what I reported last time. Another 1500 uncounted votes appear to have turned up from somewhere). Howard needs 2425 out of the remaining 2736 votes (88.6%). But as it is "theoretically possible", we wait... Manning (talk) 11:23, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

It looks like pretty much all the postal, etc votes have been counted. Maxine has been given a position as parliamentary secretary, it's all over bar the shouting, I think you could safely give it to her now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.128.12.105 (talk) 10:16, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Sadly it's not up to us. Manning (talk) 10:43, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Maybe we just say she's in an unassailable position, which is true. We could be here forever if we wait for Howard to bite the bullet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.128.12.105 (talk) 23:06, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I just spoke to McKew's campaign office and they confirmed that Maxine has still not yet "officially" called it. I pleaded with them to do it so that we can all move on with our lives. They said there will be a discussion about it this morning. Manning (talk) 23:09, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Looks like Maxine just called it (see link at the bottom)

Date she assumed office

I am just curious. Did she actually assume office on the day of the election? Shouldn't that date be when she actually assumes her seat in parliament? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.53.224.15 (talk) 01:35, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Did she actually assume office on the day of the election?

• Yes

Shouldn't that date be when she actually assumes her seat in parliament?

• No.

The term of office of a member starts on the day of the election at which they were elected. She has been an MP since 24 November, even if that didn't become clear till a week or so later. Similarly, John Howard's term as member for Bennelong ended on 24 November (despite continuing as PM till 3 December). -- JackofOz 01:54, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok...I just was not sure as to what electoral procedure was in Australia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.53.224.15 (talk) 02:22, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Why is it taking so long to declare?

Ignorant American question--when will the count be completed, and at what point would the AEC officially declare McKew the winner? I was wondering because here in the States, we've declared people elected with fewer returns in. I can understand the AEC's caution in throwing the seat of a sitting prime minister over the fence, but it seems that Howard would need lightning to strike for him to keep this seat. Blueboy96 21:47, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

It's far from ignorant - we're all wondering the same thing. By my analysis Howard needs an unthinkable 73% of the uncounted votes. But as you say this is an (almost) unprecedented situation. Manning (talk) 22:52, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Agreed ... from what I'm reading, it's been 78 years (if not longer) since a sitting prime minister's seat was even threatened. I can understand the AEC's caution, but at the same time, this would have long since been over had this been in the States. Blueboy96 23:58, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I can't think of any other situation ever where the two candidates or the AEC took so long to make a call. I can only speculate on reasons. Conventional protocol dictates that the losing PM will concede overall election defeat before the victorious leader claims victory, so maybe McKew is applying that overall convention in this case where a PM has lost his seat as well. Mathematically there is no reason not to claim victory.Manning (talk) 00:19, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Without wanting to sound like a Howard acolyte, I think the mathematics say something different. Mathematically, it is possible, albeit extremely improbable, that the mail-in votes etc could all go his way. The AEC cannot be in the position of declaring a winner if there is even the remotest, slimmest chance they could be wrong. And that is the very reason that Howard himself has still not conceded defeat. -- JackofOz (talk) 03:19, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough - it's a talk page and I was being a bit loose with my choice of words. For Howard to take 73% of the remaining votes would be stupefying, but it is not mathematically impossible.Manning (talk) 03:33, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

That was my hunch as well ... that the AEC is being extra cautious since this isn't just any other MP--this is a sitting prime minister. JackofOz nailed it, though--it's statistically possible at this point, but highly unlikely (especially now, with 92.3 percent of the vote in). Still, here in the States seats have long since been thrown over the fence at this stage. I do wonder, though--is it too soon to state where the preferences went? From what little I know of Australian politics, it's almost a slam dunk that the Democrats' and Greens' preferences all went McKew's way. Blueboy96 14:18, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

One possibility that occurs to me is that, come Monday, the AEC will still not have declared the outcome (we're told it'll take up to 2 weeks), but given that Rudd has announced McKew as a Parl Sec, he might go ahead with her swearing-in anyway. I presume she would be "the Hon Maxine McKew" at this stage (the Hon coming from her appointment to the Federal Executive Council, a precondition for any ministers or parl secs), and would only become "the Hon Maxine McKew MP" once it is officially declared that she's won Bennelong. There's no constitutional problem with doing this - s. 64 of the Constitution allows anyone at all to be appointed as a Minister, but if they don't become a Member or Senator within 3 months, they cease to hold the office. The provision has never been used in these circumstances, so it would be quite something. If it turns out (very unlikely) that she hasn't won Bennelong, she can still remain a Parl Sec until 3 March. The Parliament will be meeting prior to then (February I think), so she could quite validly do government business in her role as Parl Sec up till 3 March, but could not sit as a member of the House of Reps. Stranger things have happened. -- JackofOz (talk) 04:01, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Looks like it's over now ... McKew has claimed victory. Blueboy96 00:25, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

It's simple maths. The AEC cannot declare this seat, or any other, until one candidate's lead exceeds the votes remaining to be counted, no matter how obvious the result already is. All seats are subject to the same rules. By the same token, she is STILL not yet the member for Bennelong. Member-elect would be an barely acceptable fudge. But is Wikipedia a newspaper or a place of reference? Kevin Rudd's entry -- listing him as prime minister is also wrong until he is formally sworn in by the governor-general (which may have happened today -- i am in a weird timezone). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.132.42.90 (talk) 06:01, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Rudd was sworn in at approx 2300 UTC on 2 Dec 07. (10 AM Aust EDT on 3 Dec 07 local time). Manning 06:30, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Apols for the bother. I'd mistakenly listened to yesterday's downloaded edition of AM. How dumb is that!? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.132.42.90 (talk) 06:55, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Just on this topic, I note that the conventional wisdom both here and in the media seems to be that MM has become the Member for Bennelong merely because she's claimed victory. I very much doubt the AEC sees it that way (at least not formally). And Howard has made no statement about it at all since election night afaik. If anyone deserves thanks for 33 years of supporting him, it's the people of Bennelong, yet they're still waiting. He's pretty keen on observing all the courtesies, so I can't imagine he's just forgotten about them. I can only interpret these things as Howard's reluctance to concede defeat. Claims and concessions are usually a very good indication that there's no realistic doubt left, but afaik they have no formal status whatsoever. So, I wonder if we should be making the link between a formal claim of victory and the claimant ipso facto becoming the member. I also note she's described as "the Hon Maxine McKew MP" in Rudd's Ministry List [1], so the government and the GG seem satisfied she's an MP; yet it's not the government or the GG who determine who's an MP, but the independent AEC, and they're still counting. -- JackofOz 13:12, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree, and the AEC website still lists Howard as the sitting member. To be honest I got just tired of arguing about it, and with the media universally declaring her the victor we either need to edit-protect the page or spend all day correcting the changes. If you are brave/energetic enough to make the changes I'll back you up. Manning 13:33, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not that brave. I'm fairly hard line about WP rules and guidelines, but I'm not an absolute purist. I accept that for all practical and realistic purposes, she's won - it's just not official yet. It will only be a few more days before what we've all known since election night will be official, so I really can't see much point in insisting on technical correctness for its own sake and appearing to be out of touch with political realities, given that since her swearing in on Monday the debate has in a sense moved on. I just wanted to raise the matter to see what others thought about it, mainly with an eye to future similar cases. I may have expressed myself a little unclearly. Thanks for the support anyway, Manning. -- JackofOz 14:17, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

on partner and status by caroline overington

McKew currently lives in the Sydney suburb of Epping with her partner, former ALP National Secretary Bob Hogg (they have chosen not to marry as McKew is Roman Catholic and Hogg is divorced).

In the light of the above and (http://blogs.theaustralian.news.com.au/letters/index.php/theaustralian/comments/an_astonishing_contrast/), can anyone reliably confirm what is written parenthetically is really contained in the taking-it-to-the-max article? (a piece of work by the journalist Caroline Overington) I have found an echo here(http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21124932-2702,00.html); if true, should the parentheses drop and should the poor behaviour of Overington over 2007 be mentioned somehow? in parenthesis? (http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21661400-22822,00.html) Vy0123 (talk) 12:15, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Joining the ALP

After resigning from the ABC in December 2006, McKew joined the Australian Labor Party in January 2007 as a special adviser on strategy to Labor leader Kevin Rudd.

That can be interpreted in various ways:

• "Joined" means "was employed by" (and her personal party membership is irrelevant to the point)
• "Joined" means "became a member of" - in which case there are 2 things: (a) she joined the party and (b) she was employed as a special adviser.

So, when did she join the party (it's not mentioned anywhere else in the article)? Was it is in December 2006, at the same time she became Rudd's special adviser; or some other time - if so, when? -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 11:07, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Centenary Medal

I've removed this reference. (a) It's self-sourced and not corroborated anywhere else. (b) The Centenary Medal was awarded on 1 January 2001, to celebrate the centenary of Federation. She claims she got one in 2003, which doesn't make any sense at all. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 11:16, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, not really. I've done some digging, and it seems that although the date of awarding is 2001, they weren't actually awarded until 2003, so that may not be so impossible. [2], [3] Meanwhile, the official fact sheet shows that the award wasn't even announced until 28 December 2001. The 1 January 2001 date seems to be backdated. As for independent sources, the SMH mentions the Centenary Medal here, as does her parliamentary biography. It doesn't come up in the It's an Honour database, but that is far from foolproof; I've encountered numerous errors there in the past. I can't find the smoking gun - an official list of recipients; it must exist somewhere, though - but I'd say on balance we're fairly safe assuming she was in fact awarded the medal. Frickeg (talk) 01:04, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Here's the SMH announcement in April 2003. Maxine McKew's name is listed here, so that's good enough for me.

What I don’t get is how it was established by Letters Patent on 14 February 2001, but not announced till 28 December 2001. Why the delay in telling the people? I thought the latter might be a typo for 2000, but every source says 2001. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 01:27, 5 May 2013 (UTC)