Talk:Sarah Hanson-Young

Article needs work
This reads more like a press release than an encyclopedia article. Peter Ballard 10:49, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

It could also use to be updated. I believe she won her election. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.125.250.105 (talk) 22:39, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Free-use image
If someone could message the user of this photo to remove 'nc' out of his cc-sa license, that would be a freely useable image on wikipedia rather than use the non-free image currently being used. Timeshift (talk) 10:09, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

What got SHY elected?
Considering the lack of movement in the primary vote in the Greens in SA, whose preferences were the main contributor? Xenophon? Labor? Timeshift (talk) 16:48, 19 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I know you found a reference attributing it to Nick Xenophon preferences, but I believe the reference is wrong. Xenophon got 1.0346 quotas, so only 0.0346 of a quota (at most) flowed on to Hanson-Young. So the Xenophon preferences were a small (I would suggest insignificant) part of the equation. I did some analysis suggesting the biggest factor was the Democrats, who preferenced Family First ahead of the Greens in 2004. I'll post something later. Peter Ballard (talk) 02:32, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Sarah Hanson-Young was elected on Labor preferences. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Karmapoliceman (talk • contribs) 06:33, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I've corrected the information and added the ABC site as a more authoritative reference. ajdlinux | utc 22:42, 4 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Yeah but why is it that in 2004 Greens preferences elected the 3rd Labor member, but in 2007 Labor preferences elected the Greens member? Especially since the Greens and Labor primary vote was virtually unchanged since 2004? The answer is that Greens did better in preference flows than in 2004, while Labor did worse. Peter Ballard (talk) 02:21, 5 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I reckon the Greens would have got a member elected in 2004 if Labor didn't preference FFP above the Greens. Timeshift (talk) 02:27, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Here we have it. ''A mid-campaign poll conducted by Adelaide University for ABC Adelaide suggests Xenophon will carry over his support into this election, enough to deliver a big surplus to the Greens as preferences. There is a very very high chance that this will put Hanson-Young ahead of one of the major parties' third candidates, and then on to a quota with their preferences.'' When the % falls 35, 35, 15, 6, and the rest, there really is no other way to split it apart from 2/2/1/1. So I do think it is misleading to say the Labor Party got them there. Timeshift (talk) 16:22, 30 June 2008 (UTC)


 * But that Adelaide Uni assumption was wrong. Xenophon polled over 20% in the state election but "only" polled 14.78%, which is 1.03 quotas. So Xenophon had 0.03 of a quota left over, and he split his preferences: half went to the Greens, half to Family First. On the other hand Labor got 2.49 quotas, and that remaining 0.49 went to the Greens. So Sarah got 0.49 quota from Labor, less than 0.02 from Xenophon. So it was overwhelming Labor preferences (plus of course the Greens primary vote) which got Sarah in. Peter Ballard (talk) 00:01, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * "When the % falls 35, 35, 15, 6, and the rest, there really is no other way to split it apart from 2/2/1/1." - not at all, there easily could have been a 3rd Labor or Liberal. But the Greens got enough preferences from micro-parties that they got ahead of the 3rd Labor, despite being behind on primary vote (2.49 quotas versus 0.45). Then 3rd Labor got knocked out, their 0.49 quota went to the Greens, and Sarah got elected. So while it was primarily primary vote + Labor preferences, the micro-party preferences played a small but significant part. Peter Ballard (talk) 01:45, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Exactly, she only got the Labor prefs by getting a high enough primary vote + prefs to be able to overtake the 3rd Labor candidate. Timeshift (talk) 02:05, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

birthplace
The editor who put in her birthplace was User:Zzymurgy, who I'm pretty sure is her husband Zane. So in the absence of other evidence I'd suggest we leave her birthplace as Melbourne. (Or omit it, because it hardly matters). Peter Ballard (talk) 12:53, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Per this, "The new Greens Senator grew up in East Gippsland and attended Orbost Secondary College." She was not born in Melbourne. To leave it as such is false and non-encyclopedic. Per this, "Leaving home to attend high school in the nearby timber town of Orbost was Sarah’s first encounter with the world outside Martins Creek." So it looks like it is infact Martins Creek (or Gippsland). It must be changed. Timeshift (talk) 12:55, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I have removed the place of birth, the onus is on the person inserting the information to WP:PROVEIT, none of the sources supplied above state where she was born Fasach Nua (talk) 15:01, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I would agree with removing any reference to where she was born, not least of all because wikipedia requires a source for all its information. Knowing how small Orbost is, I doubt it even has a hospital and so there is a pretty good chance that if she did grow up there she was born in another larger city with a hospital.--Senor Freebie (talk) 02:39, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

"Independent" president of Adelaide Uni Students' Association
I've removed the assertion that SHY is the first "independent" president of the SAUA (Students' Association of the University of Adelaide) since Natasha Stott-Despoja. "The Independents" was the name of NSD's faction in 1990 when NSD was elected. Unless SHY was a member of "The Independents" (if that faction still exists), claiming that she is the "only independent president since NSD" is meaningless.

123.200.225.68 (talk) 09:13, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Kid in parliament
Do others agree that the "furore" is a WP:RECENTism that has no long-term significance and as such should not be in the article? Timeshift (talk) 01:36, 22 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I am not from Australia -- nearly the other side of the globe -- yet I found interest in this; as will those in future researching factors deterring young female politicians, no matter where they are in the world. What also makes it noteworthy is the very fact that it dropped off newspaper radars so quickly; also that not one major news source suggested the father could equally well have been left in charge of the child -- although by emphasising so strongly the importance of her job while never mentioning his, all those involved imply just as strongly that his is less important. As in so many cases, a secondary element of noteworthiness is added by the reaction, especially in what is explicitly omitted. (Please note that I am not drawing any conclusions myself.)


 * Stunt or not, this incident was made into more by the demand and consequence of ejecting the child. The child care issue is actually secondary - related, but a consequence rather than a cause. - Tenebris —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.254.156.111 (talk) 18:16, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't think so -- it was one of the main things which popped up when I Googled her name, and this is three months on. I was wondering why WP had nothing on it. I think it's something which ought to be covered -- it's not like the two paragraphs are harming anything, at least now. Johnleemk | Talk 10:40, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Post-nominals
Is it acceptable to use post-nominals (her BSocSci degree) in the infobox? This article is rather "shiny". Freestyle-69 (talk) 10:52, 14 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Not recommended. I have removed this. See WP:CREDENTIAL. Donama (talk) 04:22, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Recentism or relevance?
Sarah Hanson-Young recently challenged for the deputy leadership of the Greens. They are Australia's third largest political party and a leadership challenge is something of note in my opinion particularly for such a young politician. This is the diff which resulted in me bringing this to the discussion page. I don't want to undo but I'm curious how people feel about this change. Is it valid? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sarah_Hanson-Young&action=historysubmit&diff=392942346&oldid=392916508 --Senor Freebie (talk) 11:29, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Of course it's notable, but as for the diff I think the second version expresses the same thing in fewer words, and is better. Frickeg (talk) 23:09, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Pretty much why I changed it Frickeg. The former contrib was full of waffle and POV. Timeshift (talk) 04:06, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Well I guess unless a horde of people come along with dissenting views on that I'm satisfied. If I remember right, I wrote that stuff in about the leadership challenge btw.--Senor Freebie (talk) 20:08, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Out of curiousity, why wouldn't you be satisfied? The latter edit says what the former edit says, nothing was removed of note, only sensationalism and recentisms. Timeshift (talk) 04:19, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I guess I just don't understand how a leadership challenge in Australia's 3rd largest political party is not relevant information for a politicians article.--Senor Freebie (talk) 08:32, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Stop your strawman arguments please. It was reworded to remove your sensationalisms. It was not removed. Timeshift (talk) 06:18, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

February 2011 tidy up
I have really tried to tighten this article up, especially with regard to her pre-politician activities (i.e. her childhood and early adulthood).

Note I have removed the followin text: ''Hanson-Young has also mentored young people through The Smith Family Tertiary Mentor Program. ref Smith Family Tertiary Mentor Program'' /ref

I'm keen to see a proper reference before that goes back. It is probably factual but needs to be more acceptably cited in my opinion. Donama (talk) 04:21, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Youngest woman
The article states that Hanson-Young is the youngest woman elected to the Australian parliament. I haven't removed this claim, as it is technically true, but I think it requires clarification. Hanson-Young was 26 years and 6 months old when she assumed her seat; she had been 25 years 11 months when elected. Natasha Stott Despoja was elected to a casual vacancy and assumed her seat at 26 years 2 months; she was re-elected in the 1996 election at 26 years 5 months. It should really be clarified that the age at election and actually assuming her seat are two different things, and that SHY holds only one of those records.

SHY is certainly not the youngest senator elected; that was Bill O'Chee, elected to a casual vacancy at the age of 24 years 10 months. Again, SHY may be the youngest person elected at a general election, but the wording previously in the article clearly implied that she was also the youngest senator; this needs to be clarified if included. (Technically "appointments" are also elections, as they must be elected by the state parliament.) Frickeg (talk) 23:42, 6 January 2016 (UTC)


 * My apologies Frickeg, I didn't get a chance to add a comment before I clicked undo. In terms of the youngest woman elected, I stand by that edit as it is still technically true as you say. We aren't talking about assuming a seat, we're talking about actually being elected.
 * Your second point about being 'elected to a casual vacancy' doesn't ring true with me. I have never seen the appointment to a casual Senate vacancy being referred to as an 'election'. Do you have a link to show this? In section 15 of the Constitution of Australia, it uses the words 'chosen' and 'appointed' but never the word 'election'.
 * If you really think it necessary, we could use your words 'at a general election' but 'elected at an election' sounds a bit clumsy. PabloZ (talk) 06:08, 7 January 2016 (UTC)


 * How about "popularly elected"? (Although "election" is rarely used for the appointment process, that is in essence what it is - the Constitution says parliaments "sitting and voting together ... shall choose", which is an election if I've ever seen one.) I am more concerned about the clear implication in the current wording that SHY was the youngest senator - I know that's not technically what it's saying but if you weren't familiar with the Australian electoral system it would be a logical conclusion to draw. All it really needs is a caveat, along the lines of: "Hanson-Young was the youngest person popularly elected to the Senate at the time of the 2007 election, although she was not the youngest person to sit in that chamber." Probably the lead is not the best place for this, though. Frickeg (talk) 07:27, 7 January 2016 (UTC)


 * State parliaments do not "elect" replacement senators. By the time it gets to them, there's usually only one name left, so no "election" is necessary.  What they vote on is a motion to appoint the person as a senator.  There is no motion to elect anyone.  The only issue is whether this person is acceptable as a senator, or not.  If the motion fails, the premier would have to start the process all over again by seeking a new name from the party concerned.  Or at least moving a new motion to appoint a different person.  --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  08:10, 7 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I think this is a semantic issue that would be lost on most readers, who would assume it meant youngest Senator. It really needs to specify general election. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 08:44, 7 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Just because the election is generally uncontested does not mean that it isn't an election. Of course, before 1977 there was routinely more than one candidate; in fact the alleged pretext for appointing Albert Field was that the ALP did not give the Queensland parliament a choice of Labor candidates to vote for. In 1987 the Gray Liberal government in Tasmania had the cheek to try and pull the same thing again with the replacement for Don Grimes; Labor nominated John Devereux but the Libs didn't like him and demanded a choice, and the standoff continued until the vacancy was eventually filled at the election. As seen here (search for "Deborah Mary O'Neill"), the option is given for people to nominate alternative candidates. When no one does, then the motion is put. It's essentially an uncontested election. It's the same as the election for Speaker; very often these are not contested, but that doesn't mean they aren't elections or that the Speaker has not been "elected".


 * But this is a point of pedantry. I am much more concerned about the implications of the wording with regards to youngest senator, etc. Frickeg (talk) 10:23, 7 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Perhaps WP:FN is what you're looking for to keep the lead neat. There's no denying that the current wording is snappy, admittedly perhaps at the cost of full clarity. Another possible option could be 'youngest woman ever elected to the Australian Parliament, and the youngest person ever to be popularly elected to the Senate.' Doesn't quite 'pop' as much, but does it do what you need?


 * I really think there needs to be an explicit clarification about her not being the youngest senator or the youngest woman, but the youngest person elected. I appreciate that that is technically what it says above, but it's far from intuitive that that is what it means. But getting it out of the lead would solve a lot of these problems - there's less need to be "snappy", and I don't think this is worthy of being one of three sentences in the lead (it might have a place in a full-length lead, but that would require a major article expansion). Frickeg (talk) 00:17, 8 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I disagree. Being the youngest woman and youngest Senator ever elected are both major feats. By their very nature they are extremely difficult to achieve, especially as (unlike O'Chee or Stott Despoja) she was not already an incumbent when she was elected. PabloZ (talk) 00:49, 8 January 2016 (UTC)


 * She's now been a (fairly prominent) senator for almost eight years. Difficulty of achievement is irrelevant. It deserves a mention in the article proper (with proper clarification), and possibly a passing mention in a more substantial lead, but not as one of three sentences; that is undue. This is not even the tenth most significant thing about her. Frickeg (talk) 02:49, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Sarah Hanson-Young. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20101028042501/http://news.smh.com.au:80/breaking-news-national/brown-confirms-deputy-challenge-20101026-171m2.html to http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-national/brown-confirms-deputy-challenge-20101026-171m2.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 16:42, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 05:28, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Not knowing Greens' superannuation policy - and asking Chief of staff
Why is there nothing on this story? (http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/federal-election-2016/election-2016-sorry-what-senator-sarah-hansonyoung-stumbles-on-superannuation-policy-20160601-gp8r7z.html) This was one of the key Greens policy, and she deferred to her Chief of staff. Covered in all major newspapers. Censorship? 114.75.205.39 (talk) 05:34, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Do you seriously expect any politician to know the details of every single party policy? Adding to that, as the Greens don't have many seats, each has a large number of portfolios compared to the big two. (203.38.29.204 (talk) 10:18, 10 July 2018 (UTC))

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Sarah Hanson-Young. 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/20120501191411/http://greensmps.org.au/portfolios to http://greensmps.org.au/portfolios
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100505193225/http://www.aph.gov.au/Library/pubs/rp/2009-10/10rp09.pdf to http://www.aph.gov.au/Library/pubs/rp/2009-10/10rp09.pdf

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) 18:36, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Rumours
The article states "He later spread rumours about her sex life on national television and claimed he was responding appropriately to her statement that all men should stop raping women, which Senator Leyonhjelm said, was an identical statement to "All men are rapists" [25]"

This site gives a better rendition because it quotes him

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/jul/03/leyonhjelm-hanson-young-sky-australian-style-sexism Montalban (talk) 00:04, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

On this section, after correcting some (I'm fairly sure deliberate) errors, the whole piece reads like gossip and should probably be marked for deletion unless the issue somehow becomes relevant. Also, I'd recommend that on a site that so concerns itself with 'defamation' against living persons, people should avoid making claims that can be debunked by highlighting the passage and clicking on 'search google'. 45.126.25.67 (talk) 14:40, 10 July 2018 (UTC)


 * This edit was reverted by Bilby. Can Bilby provide where in the source it says his accusation of Hanson Young being a misandrist was made "with no evidence" He was accusing Hanson-Young of misandry based on many verified comments she has made in parliament over time and some of which are in Hansard. His accusation of misandry is not only based on the "all men are rapists" quote. As the other editor said by saying "with no evidence" is very subjective and is trying to paint him in a negative light.Merphee (talk) 23:53, 19 July 2018 (UTC)


 * It seems really silly and bordering on WP:weasel words to insert the phrase "without evidence". He is claiming that she said something. When someone claims that they heard another person make a statement, their testament that the statement was made is itself evidence. Whether you want to lend weight to that evidence or not is a different matter, but the way it reads here is patently absurd. He claims she said something. Noting that it's his claim is sufficient without adding in an addition phrase to increase the doubtfulness. 202.155.85.18 (talk) 01:08, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree with your argument. Given that Bilby has decided not to respond I would support removing the phrase "without evidence".Merphee (talk) 23:39, 23 July 2018 (UTC)