Talk:Deborah O'Neill

Elected?
This article was created within 24 hours of Anthony Green's announcement that, in all likelihood, she had won the seat. But she is yet to be declared the winner. Like John Alexander in Bennelong, the AEC hasn't actually declared a result (though his article has also be changed to reflect the assumed result).

It's not factually accurate to say she is a current Member of the House of Representatives when the AEC hasn't declared a result, she hasn't claimed victory and she hasn't been sworn in.

Though the article does reflect the most likely outcome of ongoing counting, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. I'm all for people being keen to update Wikipedia with information as it happens but that is not what has happened in this instance.

I'm in no way suggesting that without a formal result the subject of the article is not notable - my assumption would be that within days the article will have to be updated to reflect the formal announcement that she is an elected member. But prior to her swearing-in (which could be weeks while everything is sorted out) it is not accurate to include her in the list of House of Reps members or to say that she is.

Stalwart111 (talk) 03:03, 27 August 2010 (UTC)


 * For clarity, I've seen the discussion @ WT:AUP and my issue is not about whether or not they should be considered elected (as in 90% of cases it's a formality anyway) but whether or not they should be referred to as a sitting member of the House of Representatives. I understand the Parl Handbook considers them elected from polling day (as this was when the electors' votes were cast, even if it takes a week to count them) but are we simply letting the lack of a formal swearing in slide in the interim? I have no considerable objection if that is the case, as long as we are clear and consistent.


 * I suppose my issue with this article is that she (unlike others where the 2010 result has been listed) hasn't actually claimed victory - that is, she doesn't consider herself to have yet been elected. A good number of "new MPs" don't even have pages yet and that may well be what we should be focusing on instead. Thanks, Stalwart111 (talk) 03:27, 27 August 2010 (UTC).


 * We don't need her to claim victory, as it were; it is statistically impossible for her to lose. In fact we're only counting three seats as still in doubt (Denison, Hasluck and Brisbane), and we're being fairly generous with the first two. The fact is that if O'Neill died tomorrow, she would still be considered to have been an MP. Hopefully we are consistent with this across the board. (As far as I'm aware only two definite new MPs - Karen Andrews and Scott Buchholz - and three Senators - Matt Thistlethwaite, Anne Urquhart and Bridget McKenzie - are still without articles.) Frickeg (talk) 03:50, 27 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, it might be a long shot but to say it's statistically impossible for her to lose isn't quite right. Belinda Neal was well ahead on the night but after postal and absentee votes she only beat Jim Lloyd by a very small number of votes. In fact, the story has been covered in some of the media detailing O'Neill's current position. While the ABC might suggest only three seats are still in doubt, both major parties will keep scrutineers at Divisional Returning Offices until the result is declared, where the electorate's progressive margin is less than 2000-3000 votes. That's because some electorates can have up to 20% of the vote still to be counted (pre-poll, absentee, postal and institutional votes) after the close of polls at 6:00pm on polling day. Most electorates are "called" on the night after about 40% of the votes are counted. Some closer ones need to get to 80% before Anthony Green will call it. But in Robertson they had to count about 98% of the vote, last time, before a definitive result was known.


 * Anyway, I suppose this discussion is more comprehensive than any qualifying statement we could hope to include in the article itself. I might try and work on those missing five if I get time - and I think John Alexander's page needs work... and possible a move away from "John Alexander (tennis)". Keep up the good work! Stalwart111 (talk) 06:12, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Second Carr replacement - quirky questions
Please see Talk:Bob Carr which has remained unanswered since 10 July.

Any assistance would be appreciated. --  Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  11:38, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Deborah O'Neill. 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/20100820135348/http://www.alp.org.au/federal-government/labor-people/deborah-oneil/ to http://www.alp.org.au/federal-government/labor-people/deborah-oneil/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 20:11, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

2016 Senate electoral fraud controversy, and Australia's ongoing constitutional crisis
See discussion of similar edits on Talk:Derryn_Hinch. Hinch was the other 'victim senator' in the theft of two seats by the major parties. Oz freediver (talk) 08:24, 17 April 2019 (UTC)


 * It was neither fraud nor theft, and no reliable source calls it either. --Scott Davis Talk 07:08, 18 April 2019 (UTC)


 * It was the obtaining of goods or advantage unfairly by deception. By definition, fraud.
 * For convenience, I am discussing all four senators involved here: Talk:Derryn_Hinch
 * The two victim senators:
 * Derryn_Hinch
 * Lee_Rhiannon
 * The two senate thieves:
 * Deborah_O%27Neill
 * Scott_Ryan_(Australian_politician)
 * Also, I think we should link the two victims with each thief, so it is clear which seat went from which person and to who, as I do not think this is explicitly stated anywhere.
 * Oz freediver (talk) 04:21, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I have not noticed a source that says "thief" or "fraud", nor that O'Neill or Ryan were involved in the negotiations that led to the decision to adopt the first-elected method. I haven't seen any assertion of deception either. The place to discuss who received long and short terms and how it was done in my opinion is at Results of the 2016 Australian federal election (Senate). The controversy (but I couldn't even find a source that called it that!) relates to the election outcome. It is presently just above the table in Members of the Australian Senate, 2016–2019, which is OK. The four senator pages really only need to point to the detail as a piped link under "...allocated a {three,six}-year term." The point in their own articles is that they were (re-)elected. --Scott Davis Talk 05:34, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Have you ever seen a newspaper describe the controversial events it is covering as controversial, outside an op-ed, or do they just report what happened? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oz freediver (talk • contribs) 05:59, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes I have. We must follow the sources, and this event doesn't seem to have been described that way. --Scott Davis Talk 09:19, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Those are the exceptions that prove the rule. Oz freediver (talk) 09:22, 19 April 2019 (UTC)