Talk:Cheryl Kernot

Untitled

Why are we losing the photograph? We've has been through this before. We can use the parliament photographs legally and the only impediments are zealots and puritans. Why can't one of these wikiwonks go and hunt up Cheryl and take a picture of her before demanding that we get rid of the only one we can legally use? Sheesh. --Pete 02:22, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Neutrality

I dispute the neutrality of this article: much of it seems to be a character attack on the subject, and there doesn't seem to be any references to back up the claims. Recurring dreams 05:20, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Please dispute whatever you like. But what bit exactly are you disputing? The references? The facts? Lao Wai 14:45, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality

As the author of recent potentially controversial material, I was partly acting in response to extant copy which one-sidedly idealised Kernot. There is nothing in my contribution which has not been widely reported in Australian news media or which cannot be sourced to documents including Senate Hansard. Cheryl Kernot and Meg Lees both demonstrably pursued inappropriate connections with the major political parties. Aeronian 04:54, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of the truth of your claims (and the claims already existing), Wikipedia is an encyclopædia with a strict policy of maintaining a neutral point of view. The threshold for inclusion is verifiability, not truth. We cannot accept personal criticisms; rather, such remarks must be attributed to reliable published sources and presented in a neutral tone.--cj | talk 05:55, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, cj, I appreciate the cited rules, also the special difficulties with biography of living persons, and will therefore gladly accept responsible editing of unverifiable material. This must apply equally to both "negative" and "positive" statements. I will rigorously support future contributions with verifying documentation and will expect to see the same standard adopted by all contributors. Aeronian 06:17, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I've removed most instances of bias and unsourced claims.--cj | talk 06:24, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Affair with student

Hi does anyone have a good reference for her affair with a (ex?) student? I've done a bit of googling but I can't find a good reliable source. --Surturz (talk) 06:30, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Wollumbinmountain (talk) 10:58, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I was a student at Church of England Grammar and always will regret not getting private tuition from Cheryl, who taught me. Cheryl was hot and the inspiration for many boys lust.

Wollumbinmountain (talk) 10:58, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Family, Maiden name, Personal life

There seems to be a lot missing from this article, there's nothing on her daughter (Sian from memory, not sure of spelling), or her marriages (at least two, not sure if she's still with her second husband), her maiden name (Paton/Paten from memory, it's been a while since I read her biography), where she grew up, her grandfather who was a member of the Labor Party, her brother who was jailed for rape etc. Should there be a section on her personal life? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.253.140.245 (talk) 09:09, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Full and Frank

I've Reverted the Bold change here. This strikes me as editorialising and unsourced whitewashing.

Kernot didn't "move" from the Democrats to Labor, as if it were some routine transfer. She defected in one of the most controversial political stories of that year.[1][2]

Kernot's interview with Oakes in which he challenged her over the five year long affair with Gareth Evans was because she had omitted this story from her "full and frank" autobiography. Oakes, like the rest of the Press Gallery, had known of the affair but kept quiet about it as standard practice. It was only when she demonstrated hypocrisy by purporting to tell all in her book that Oakes felt it was now a legitimate story. I have not seen any source alleging that the interview rather than the book was "full and frank"

Kernot's win in Dickson was indeed narrow. In fact, she thought at first that she had lost the seat, leading to her live election night dummy spit. She had a 50.12% share of the 2PP vote.[3]

Wikipedia is a full and frank encyclopaedia, and this sort of whitewashing does us no favours. --Pete (talk) 02:53, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi Pete. Sorry for the flood of writing which is to follow; there's a lot going on here.

I actually now fully agree about the "narrow" thing. I had checked that table to see if the term "narrow" was worth including, and I overlooked the two-party preferred vote part, instead looking at 40.60% vs 34.79% and thinking that that wasn't particularly narrow. That was my mistake. It's still the case that "narrow" doesn't need saying because it's not dishonest to simply say that she won, but I now agree that it should be included because that is a significant fact. Sorry for that part of my edit.

I'm conflicted on the matter of the term "defected". I know the story, recognize that the move was very controversial and unusual, and am aware that it was described as a "defection" in many sources. I also don't think that "defection" is an inaccurate term for it, necessarily.

However, that term is most commonly used for things like someone switching from one country to a country at war with the first, and as such it has very strong negative connotations. I'm not saying that her move wasn't shocking or traitorous or things like that—I have no particular opinion of Kernot—but it wasn't to a warring faction. Consider that definitions of "defection" usually include the idea that the faction being moved to is an opposing faction, whereas Democrats and Labor are less opposing than competing; they aren't at war; they aren't opposite ends of a spectrum. They have significant differences and they run against each other, but they also have strong similarities and would co-operate more than Labor would with Liberals, for example.

And it is not editorializing to merely present the facts. It may be true that using the term "defect" isn't editorializing due to being justified and it may be true that the truth is slightly better conveyed with that term than without it, but a neutrally phrased, accurate presentation of the facts is not editorialization. "Move" is not inaccurate; it may have quite as fitting connotations as "defect", but it is accurate.

I definitely think that this article is fine without the term "defect", since the lead explains the nature of the move and thus the article doesn't pretend that it was routine or hide that it was unusual and abrupt (and I kept it as "abruptly moved" rather than just "moved" because I think that the term "abruptly" is definitely fair there). However, I'm open to the idea that "defect" could be acceptable, and would be interested in what other editors think.

Personally, I think that the best option would be to make the sentence something like "On 15 October 1997, Kernot abruptly moved to the Australian Labor Party, resigning her Senate seat and leaving the leadership of the Democrats to her deputy, Meg Lees, in what was described by Monica Attard as a 'defection [that] took the country by storm'" (and then a reference to http://www.abc.net.au/sundayprofile/stories/s609528.htm). That way Wikipedia is fully presenting that viewpoint, while also not itself making judgments (justified or otherwise). What do you think of that?

Regarding the term "full and frank", as I said in my edit summary, that simply was a description of the interview rather than the autobiography. My removal of that phrase is in no way whitewashing or editorializing or anything like that; it is simply fixing an inaccurate representation of the source. "full and frank" comes from http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/07/19/1026898908974.html, and is Attard talking about the interview that she conducted and which was then soon to be aired. The book is not even mentioned until later in that source. My edit was not at all based on an opinion that Kernot was not dishonest or that she wouldn't have described her book as "full and frank"—again, I don't have any particular opinions on Kernot—it's just that that particular quote was simply not about the book (and was not from Kernot, which I think the way it was used implied it was), so the way it was used was a misrepresentation of the source.

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/07/03/1025667007922.html contains a quote from the publishing director of the book's publishing company which is: "I would like to state that I am totally confident that all relevant information pertaining to Cheryl's move from the Democrats to the Labor Party has been fully and accurately covered in her book." I would have no problem whatsoever with that quote being used or made mention of in some way in this article. My problem was merely with the misrepresentation of a source.

Also, my other major change was, as I say in my edit description, simply the removal of plagiarism; the cited source contained the words "The book purported to accurately portray political history", while this article had the sentence "The book purported to accurately portray Kernot's political history".

So would you be fine if my edit is revived, but with "narrow" returned (you were definitely right about that), something like "in what was described by Monica Attard as a 'defection [that] took the country by storm'" inserted in the "abruptly moved" sentence, and—if you want—some replacement for the "full and frank" thing based on that publisher's quote? BreakfastJr (talk) 04:56, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks.

• "Narrow win" looks to have consensus.
• The reliable sources I have checked, including the SMH article you mention above, describe the move as a "defection". That was the way it was presented at the time, and a politician moving from one party to another (PUP shenanigans aside) is a pretty rare event, especially when it is a party leader. This is more than an "abrupt move". It's extraordinary.
• OK. "Full and frank" seems to refer to an interview rather than the book. However, Kernot's declaration that there was nothing she had omitted from the book.[4] is what gave Oakes the incentive to act on the story he says he had known for years and had proof for two months. It wasn't Oakes being an opportunistic bastard, it was Kernot being a hypocrite. Of course the affair had a huge impact on her decision to abandon the party she led. --Pete (talk) 06:37, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I definitely agree on "narrow win".

As for the second point, I know that it's extraordinary, but it is still an abrupt move. It's not not an abrupt move, so it is an abrupt move. It can be more than just an abrupt move and yet still be an abrupt move, and this article presents the other facts of the case (such as that she was the leader of the Democrats) such that it does not imply that it was just an abrupt move and such that the reader understands exactly what it was.

It may be that other terms describe it better, but "abrupt move" does describe it accurately. The question becomes whether or not "defection" describes it better, and I just don't think Wikipedia itself should answer that question (instead it should present other people's answers), which is why I am in favour of featuring a quote describing it as a defection so that Wikipedia itself doesn't have to weigh in but the viewpoint are still presented. However, I only see Wikipedia using the term "defection" in its own voice as slightly non-neutral, so I won't fight that term, although I do think that that sort of option of sidestepping the problem by using a quote would be optimal.

Thirdly, at no point and in no way did I imply that Kernot did not make that declaration, that Oakes shouldn't have done what he did, that Oakes was an opportunistic bastard, that Kernot was a hypocrite, or that the affair had a huge impact on her decision to abandon her party. There's no need for us to discuss who is in the right and who is in wrong in this story. My edits were not at all based on sympathy for Kernot or antipathy for Oakes; nor on the inverse. I would have no problem with mention being made of her denying that she omitted anything from the book. And nothing in this article has been made to suggest that Oakes acted badly or that the affair was not part of what caused her decision.

My problem with "full and frank" was simply that it was a quote being used for something that it did not actually mean, because that is misrepresentation of a source. That is all. I don't care how critical this is of Kernot—or how much it counters criticism of her or makes her sound good—as long as everything in it is just a neutrally phrased, accurate representation of noteworthy facts from reliable sources. BreakfastJr (talk) 08:45, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll restore your version. Maybe you'll want to make some changes, maybe someone else will weigh in. I'm not averse to correcting mistakes, but I do wonder about motives when a moderately ancient political episode is revisited. --Pete (talk) 11:30, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Pete. I've added in the Attard quote describing the move as a "defection", just to ensure that that view is adequately represented. And I'm glad that you fixed my mistake in deleting the word "narrow".

I do understand why you'd be vigilant for politically/commercially motivated edits, as I have also seen many edits of that sort on articles about politicians or companies, but "Wikipedia:Assume good faith until given a good reason not to" is a good practice, and I can assure you that the only bias underlying my edits was a pro-improving-Wikipedia one.

Anyway, I'm glad we resolved this so civilly, and I think that the article is better now both than it was before my edit and than it was before your reversion of that edit. BreakfastJr (talk) 09:55, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cheryl Kernot. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070315233348/http://www.australianpolitics.com/parties/democrats/97-10-15kernot-resigns.shtml to http://www.australianpolitics.com/parties/democrats/97-10-15kernot-resigns.shtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:19, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cheryl Kernot. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140914184733/http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/stories/s599161.htm to http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/stories/s599161.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:21, 14 December 2017 (UTC)