Talk:Kerryn Phelps/Archive 1

Legal threats
Deletion by 203.45.87.212 'Kerryn Phelps ‎ ("Bent Spoon" by the Australian Skeptics Association removed as it is currently the subject of court action. If anyone adds this into Kerryn Phelps' biography legal action will be taken against you.)'

This seems to be in relation to 'In 2008 Phelps was awarded the "Bent Spoon" by the Australian Skeptics Association, an award "presented to the perpetrator of the most preposterous piece of paranormal or pseudoscientific piffle", for "selling quackery and woowoo".'

Something seems wrong here. Mtpaley (talk) 01:22, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Is there any evidence that there are legal proceedings? I could not find any information about it on Google. I am not sure whether the above statement has a bit of a SLAPP-ish tinge to it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.64.139.207 (talk) 11:09, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I can't find any evidence of legal proceedings either. Regardless of that, however, censoring wikipedia as the person at the anonymous IP has done, is not acceptable behaviour. I've restored the material. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 13:41, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kerryn Phelps. 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/20100916212223/http://ama.com.au/node/208 to http://www.ama.com.au/node/208

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 19:34, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Possible copy vio
The edit of 21 January 2013 here, by, an apparent WP:SPA, introduces content that might come from http://www.celebrityspeakers.com.au/kerryn-phelps/.
 * Eg "... bringing messages about healthy lifestyle to the attention of the ...".

appears there, and on this page. 220  of  Borg 06:49, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kerryn Phelps. 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/20110206023523/http://www.samesame.com.au/25/2009/ to http://www.samesame.com.au/25/2009

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 15:20, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia protocol on Westminster politicians
Since some editors appear to be deaf and blind. I'll just repeat: STANDARD PROTOCOL FOR WESTMINSTER POLITICIANS IS TO STATE THEIR TERM OF OFFICE AS STARTING ON THE DAY OF ELECTION AND ENDING ON THE DATE OF THE DISSOLUTION OF PARLIAMENT (IF THEY RETIRE) OR ELECTION DAY)IF THEY ARE DEFEATED. Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 02:39, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

I am not arguing when the date of election is stated on Wikipedia, I am arguing she has not been elected to that position as yet because the AEC has not declared a Victor yet. The race is still being run and you are already declaring who the winner is. Sdavies68 (talk) 02:45, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

elected on the day of election
This isn't America, there is no "only becomes member with a swearing in ceremony", there is mo "member-elect". Phelps is considered to have started her term as the member for Wentworth from the day of the election. Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 00:49, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Correct. Onetwothreeip (talk) 00:51, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Seconded. --Canley (talk) 01:45, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Thirded. --  Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  01:51, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
 * The person is not giving up. The article needs to be protected. Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 02:14, 21 October 2018 (UTC)


 * No she is not elected on the day of the election, go study the law. She is only declared the winner by the AEC and the writs are then returned to the GG. When the GG swears in the winner they are then a member of parliament and the representative of the electorate.

FACT! By a person who has study law and politics!! Sdavies68 (talk) 02:26, 21 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Cite the actual law (which you can't). Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 02:27, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Furthermore, the counting is still continuing and no winner has even been declared. Claiming victory does not mean you are victorious.

Your comments that becomes a member from the day of election is factually incorrect. Sdavies68 (talk) 02:28, 21 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Again you fail to cite the actual law that supposedly says this (because you can't). You seem to be from the Abbott/Abetz wing of the LNP. Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 02:31, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Cite the actually law that says she is a member before declaring victory. You can't because there isn't one

https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/House_of_Representatives/Powers_practice_and_procedure/00_-_Infosheets/Infosheet_8_-_Elections_for_the_House_of_Representatives

The result of each election is announced (declared) as soon as possible after counting has been completed in the electoral division. Following a general election, when the results for all divisions have been declared the Electoral Commissioner certifies on each writ the name of the successful candidate for each division and returns the writs to the Governor-General, who in turn forwards them to the Clerk of the House of Representatives.

The validity of an election may be challenged by a petition addressed to the Court of Disputed Returns (the High Court acting in a special capacity). This may occur if it is alleged that a candidate was not eligible to become a Member for one of the reasons listed earlier in this Infosheet or if it is claimed that there has been some irregularity in the election process. Sdavies68 (talk) 02:32, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Note the use of the word successful candidate. So u til that process is all completed she is not elected, she is not the member of parliament, period.

Thanks for doing your research. Sdavies68 (talk) 02:34, 21 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Furthermore, the Governor General doesn't swear in members of parliament. Now I've heard of people saying they aren't the MP on the date of the election (which is wrong), but you're saying "she is not elected on the day of the election"? Obviously people are elected... at elections. Onetwothreeip (talk) 02:36, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

So now comes the personal attacks because you lack the knowledge to effectively debate an argument. No I am not a conservative and have never supported Abbot or Abetz.

Still waiting on your reference to the law which states the candidate who first declares victory is the winner. Sdavies68 (talk) 02:36, 21 October 2018 (UTC)


 * The combined editing experience of at least four editors who have participated on this talk page says so. If you have evidence to the contrary, do show us. Otherwise you're just wasting your own time. Onetwothreeip (talk) 02:39, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Your are correct, the GG swears in ministers of the crown, the parliament swears in members. Until the process I provided above which involves the return of writs to the GG and his/her approval of those writs and the presentation back to clerk of the house. Sdavies68 (talk) 02:40, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Oh I am sorry, I didn't realise the law was determined by Wikipedia editors.

Please read the article from Australian Parliament house website which says the four of you are wrong. Sdavies68 (talk) 02:42, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

She is absolutely not the Member yet. The infobox should be changed to reflect this. Declaring victory does not a victor make, especially where the results are so close. If Phelps is elected, she will assume office from the date of the election. She is, however, not as yet declared the victor of the election. That will only happen when the AEC returns the writs. And, in fact, she is not even entitled to sit in Parliament until she has been sworn in –– see section 42 of the Constitution. For further information, consult the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918, especially s 284 about the return of the writs. Long story short, she's not the Member yet. The infobox really should be changed to remove any reference to her being the Member for Wentworth or the Member-elect. --Jvvvck (talk) 02:44, 21 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Being the member of parliament and being a sitting member are different things. Onetwothreeip (talk) 02:45, 21 October 2018 (UTC)


 * I don't contest that. However, it really needs to be made clear that she cannot, under the law, be the Member of Parliament until the writs are returned. The Electoral Act is clear enough about this. After the writs are returned, and the Divisional Returning Officer declares her the winner, the article should be changed to reflect that she is the Member for Wentworth and assumed office on the date of the election. Until that time, this article should not state that she is the Member for Wentworth, when she is clearly not. She has not been declared by the AEC (and counting is close and still occurring). --Jvvvck (talk) 02:48, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

There are two issues being argued here. One is whether Phelps should be noted as the MP for Wentworth when it is mathematically possible for the other candidate to win (on postal votes or otherwise). As someone who "called" a previous by-election a little early (although ultimately correctly due to counting errors) that ended up in a newspaper, I am indeed inclined to exercise some caution here, and I also commented out the MP designations and succession boxes last night when I saw how close the pre-polls and postals were getting. The other issue is the date of the start of the MP's term—our convention has always been to list this as the date of election, not declaration or swearing-in. The Parliamentary Library does this too in their parliamentary handbook. Our self-proclaimed legal expert above is all over the place and citing all sorts of different events. While I agree we should be cautious about declaring Phelps' election, when that is beyond doubt, she should be listed as the MP starting from 20 October. --Canley (talk) 03:26, 21 October 2018 (UTC)


 * There are strong suggestions that this possibility of Sharma making a comeback is seriously exaggerated, but caution could still be warranted depending on how risk-averse editors here see fit to be. Onetwothreeip (talk) 03:37, 21 October 2018 (UTC)