Talk:Jackie Kelly

Latest comment: 17 years ago by JackofOz in topic What "first"?

What "first"?

edit

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)Reply

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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply

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)Reply