Talk:Nova Peris

Controversy on Senate Selection
There is no mention of the controversy over Gillard's "Captain's pick". For one thing, when Gillard announced that Nova Peris was to be preselected over the sitting Senator for the NT, Peris wasn't even a member of the ALP! This fact, at least, should be mentioned, to give some indication as to why there was controversy over her selection. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.161.78.193 (talk) 01:23, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
 * In the lede section, there is actually a mention that Peris was Gillard's "captain's pick" for preselection, and in the Politics section that she was "invited to join the party". --Canley (talk) 02:45, 5 November 2014 (UTC)


 * It does, but it glosses over the controversial nature of it. It should read that Gillard announced that Peris was her "Captain's Pick" to be imposed over the head of a sitting senator despite not even being a member of the ALP.  This was the most significant aspect of Nova Peris's selection at the time, and the prime source of the controversy.  Gillard had in her previous "Captain's pick" imposed ex-Premier Bob Carr on the NSW branch instead of Warren Mundine (who was not only an ALP member, but had been the Party's President).  The motive was widely seen as a reaction to the recent loss of many aboriginal votes in the NT election - although that was likely due to certain unpopular policies of the Territory Government.  The controversy is at least as significant as Nova Peris being the first female aboriginal to be a member of Federal Parliament, and it should be appropriately noted.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.161.78.193 (talk) 05:49, 6 November 2014 (UTC)


 * OK. What wording, and what sourcing, would you recommend? HiLo48 (talk) 07:54, 6 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't think this is nearly as significant as anon is making it out to be. Gillard picked Peris. Crossin had a big whinge, the press cared for five seconds, and then they moved on. I don't think Labor voters anywhere cared too much that Labor didn't preselect Tony Abbott's future advisor and spokesperson for a safe Labor seat. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 11:09, 6 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Drover's Wife seems to be obsessed by Mundine's "treachery", and ignores the fact that "Abbott's advisor and spokesperson" was actually the ALP's Federal President, and was not, at the time, working for Abbott. I only mentioned him to make the point that if Gillard was that concerned about having an Aboriginal Senator, she could have backed Mundine (who was a long term Party member and Party President) instead of a superannuated Premier!  As for the press not caring after 5 minutes, well it was overtaken by other aspects of the slow death of Gillard's Prime Ministership - remember she was dumped by the partyroom in favour of Rudd several months later.  The Peris appointment was only a minor part of the slow end of Gillard's political career.  I do not think the Mundine issue belongs here.  However as an article on Nova Peris, the two most notable aspects of her political career were a) being parachuted into the Labor No 1 position when she wasn't even a Party member and b) the so-called "scandal" of these e-mails.  The only other notable feature is being the first aboriginal woman in Federal Parliament (some 42 years after the first Aboriginal senator) and the first federal ALP member.  She is a new MP and has not made much of a mark otherwise.  In terms of wording, I would suggest something like the following:

"She was nominated by the then Prime Minister Julia Gillard as her "Captain's Pick" somewhat controversially due to the fact that she was not only imposed on top of a sitting senator, but wasn't even a member of the ALP at the time." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.100.137.234 (talk) 05:44, 11 November 2014 (UTC)


 * No, that is definitely not displaying a neutral point of view. And who are you anyway. You write there as if you have posted before. But because you have not registered, all we see is an IP address from which no prior contributions have been made, and cannot tell which were your earlier posts. Please register, so these conversations become more coherent. HiLo48 (talk) 06:05, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
 * HiLo48, I don't intend to become an editor. I do not regularly make changes to articles.  I prefer to simply raise issues and allow actual editors, such as yourself, to consider if they warrant modification of the said articles.  I have made some changes (and by this IP address) to the Hutt River Province article, simply because it repeated assertions about "Prince Leonard" (such has him being a Physicist and Mathematician who'd worked for NASA) as if they were fact rather than claims.  I only did this because registered editors refused to do anything and dared me to make the change, on the basis if it was no NPOV they'd change it.  Now regarding Nova Peris, at the time of her appointment as the candidate, the fact that she wasn't even a Party member who'd been imposed upon a Sitting Senator was a major feature of the discussion of the event.  To not mention there was some controversy is surely to violate NPOV.  The criticism, BTW, was of Gillard rather than Peris herself.  It is not normal to declare someone who isn't a party member to be the said party's candidate, particularly when it means unseating a sitting member - and one who is known to be a "sympathizer" of Kevin Rudd.  The Peris appointment was widely seen as political skullduggery: it removed from Parliament a supporter of the leader's rival; it was a warning to others who had the same leanings; it used Nova Peris's aboriginality and sporting profile to smother opposition; it overlooked many thousands of actual ALP members who were Aboriginal for one who wasn't a member, but who was a "celebrity".  Finally, Peris is only a new senator, and has, so far, little impact.  To not mention that her appointment was controversial, and why, is surely not NPOV.


 * Who wrote that? HiLo48 (talk) 22:06, 12 November 2014 (UTC)


 * This is all speculation. There are numerous historical examples of people being parachuted in who hadn't previously been members of the party, usually in cases where they have a significant profile or reputation for other things in public life. The Rudd claims were a negligible if that part of the two-day-story there actually was. The suggestion that she has had "little impact" after being in office for barely a year is your opinion: I dare say she's gotten a lot more media attention (excluding the Bolden debacle) for her speeches and political work than Crossin did in years. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 08:07, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Removing rubbish
I propose the entire Controversy section be removed. The Avoiding Harm principle seems extremely good and "Avoid gossip and feedback loops" is actually part of the Biographies of living persons policy. And yet this section contains nothing but reported conjecture. If the subject had committed a crime, or there was something unethical that had been proven, then perhaps that could be part a BLP; but there has been no crime, nor the accusation of a crime, nor has there been something unethical. There are no established facts to report either. MatthewDalhousie (talk) 07:50, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I think it should remain - I remember the coverage at the time was pretty substantial (not just tabloid muckraking, there was international coverage e.g. ) and it arguably contributed to the end of her political career. However it looks like the article was never updated to reflect that the AFP discontinued its investigation and found no evidence of wrongdoing (per ). Possibly this would strike more a balance with the BLP issues. ITBF (talk) 03:52, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
 * You're a much more experienced editor than I am, so I'm happy to take direction here @ITBF.
 * Here I'm trying to follow the principles of NOTSCANDAL and BLPGOSSIP. It costs an attacker nothing to announce they are going to sue someone or accuse someone. Should that go in a BLP just because it gets reported? I'm not convinced. My sense is that if something is proven in court, then of course it should go in the article.
 * I'm going to take your suggestion of adding a sentence about the AFP initiating an investigation, which was discontinued. Sound fair?
 * MatthewDalhousie (talk) 07:19, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Turns out it needed three sentences! MatthewDalhousie (talk) 07:43, 22 May 2024 (UTC)