Talk:Jackie Kelly

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or if 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
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
	This article is supported by the Politics and government work group.

Portal	Jackie Kelly is within the scope of 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.
Start	This article has been rated as start-class on the quality scale.
Low	This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Australian politics.
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] What "first"?

We say that she "resigned from the ministry in 2001 to have a child, a first in Australian federal politics". What sort of "first" was this? She can’t be the first person to have a baby while a Minister, because by the time the baby was born she wasn’t a Minister any longer. And she wasn’t the first MP to give birth - in 1983, Ros Kelly was the first Australian Federal MP to give birth while in office. Are we saying that Jackie Kelly was the first Minister to resign in order to have a baby? Not much of a first, imo. -- JackofOz 07:18, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

It did get a bit of press attention at the time for that reason, but I'm unfazed either way. Rebecca 00:19, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

If the fact can be cited from a news article of the time, I'd say it's worth leaving in. If not, it should be removed as an unverified assertion... Cheers, Ian Rose 01:40, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

It isn't an "unverified assertion" - it was reported plenty at the time, so to remove it on that basis is plain laziness. Whether or not to include it, however, is an editorial decision. Rebecca 01:46, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Not disagreeing with you from an editorial perspective, Rebecca, but if it's not cited then it's unverified as far as the article is concerned. Cheers, Ian Rose 01:54, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I've done some research and learned that we have our facts confused. She did leave the Ministry in 2001 (I don't remember why), but her "first" was that in the previous year 2000 she had a child while a serving Minister. These refs are relevant - [1], [2], and [3].

That she was in the Ministry (as Minister for Sport and Tourism) in 2000 is evident from this page from the Parliamentary Handbook - [4]. I'm making the required changes. -- JackofOz 04:04, 5 October 2007 (UTC)