Talk:Zali Steggall

First on world championship podium?
No other Australian has ever come close to winning an Olympic or World Championship alpine skiing medal.

Malcolm Milne won a bronze at the World Championship at Val Gardena in 1970. Andjam 13:14, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

steven lee won the world cup in furano in 85 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.240.105.221 (talk) 01:23, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Steven Lee won the Super-G race on March 3rd, 1985; Mr. Milne won the mentioned bronze medal in the Downhill race (February 15th, 1970) but he was also victorious in the Word Cup Downhill race of Val d'Isère on December 14th, 1969.  --213.225.10.48 (talk) 19:57, 28 December 2016 (UTC).

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Zali Steggall. 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/20120323161526/http://www.ausport.gov.au/ais/history/awards/best_of_the_best to http://www.ausport.gov.au/ais/history/awards/best_of_the_best

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) 16:10, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

1994 Olympics overall standing?
There reads: ''At the 1994 Olympics in Lillehammer, the size of the field was scaled back. Steggall came 22nd out of 28 athletes in the slalom and 24th and last in the giant slalom. She withdrew from the super-G and was unplaced in the overall standings.[5]'' What overall standing? The article Alpine skiing at the 1994 Winter Olympics has nothing about an overall standing, and I have never seen such being used in other than World Cup (and other Cups). 85.76.71.5 (talk) 06:41, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Personal life
Is it acceptable to remove information from here?--Jack Upland (talk) 10:45, 27 February 2019 (UTC)


 * This is currently OK. I think we should mention her first marriage, as it has been recorded in reliable sources and it is not derogatory to anyone.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:26, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 March 2019
Please change Zali Steggall, OAM (born 16 April 1974) is an Australian lawyer, former Olympic athlete and Men's magazine model. It is incorrect and a piece of vandalism; please change to Zali Steggall, OAM (born 16 April 1974) is an Australian lawyer and former Olympic athlete.

Furthermore, please delete both her height and weight, as they are both incorrect. JackHislop (talk) 02:46, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * ✅ Ivar the Boneful (talk) 04:36, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Zali Steggall is a men's magazine model, here is a magazine scan of her doing lingerie modelling for a men's magazine: https://forums.auscelebs.net/acnet-files/image.php?id=969733&from=post

Your attempt at historical revisionism is factually incorrect. I did not add the Penthouse Black Label statement and accept this may be inaccurate --Martin.j.fox (talk) 07:43, 11 March 2019 (UTC)


 * She is not known for being a magazine model. Those sources are not good sources. The "Pear" source does not say she modelled nude. Inside Sport is not exactly a men's magazine, and I wouldn't exactly describe Steggall as wearing lingerie. If you found a reliable source that discussed this, you could put it in the article. But in no way does that belong in the lead.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:53, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

I have literally linked through to a picture of Zali Steggall in lingerie for the 1995 edition of Inside Sport --Martin.j.fox (talk) 07:55, 11 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Why is it a "Men's magazine"? Why the capital?--Jack Upland (talk) 07:59, 11 March 2019 (UTC)


 * I think given this is an election campaign we should be careful about putting such things in a person's article.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:57, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Height and weight
Her height and weight comes from Sports Reference. Is that a reliable source? 75 kg sounds a bit high. Adpete (talk) 10:11, 14 March 2019 (UTC)


 * I don't know. Weight at what point? I don't think these figures are necessarily here. Most pages don't have them. She retired as a skier in 2002. Let's get rid of them.--Jack Upland (talk) 06:23, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Inside Sport picture
has continued to insert this photo into the article, as the lead image. This was previously taken out as a copyright violation. Adding text to the picture doesn't change the fact that it is a copyright violation, though Martin asserts it is his own work. It is not a genuine "fan poster" as he claimed, but rather another attempt to get the picture into the article. Even if we could get round the copyright issue, which we can't, I don't think this is an appropriate picture to use for an aspiring politician, especially as a lead picture. As for the claims about her being a "model", we have no reliable source for this. She might have had a couple of glamorous shots taken at the height of her fame as a skier. That's not notable. She is far from "nude" in the photo provided, and only because her camisole (?) is revealed could it be said that she was in lingerie. However, as I said, this is not an appropriate image. She is known as a skier, a barrister, and a political candidate. This photo gives totally the wrong impression.--Jack Upland (talk) 06:15, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

This picture is notable in that there has been a great deal of controversy surrounding the sexist and demeaning treatment of women by Inside Sport. The picture proves beyond a doubt that Zali Steggall was complicit in the behavior of Inside Sport in using sportswomen in such a demeaning and degrading manner. It is clear Zali Steggall did this for monetary gain and it flies in the face of the correct treatment of women in the media. Zali Steggall's hypocritical positions here should be made known in an article that seeks to present an unbiased view of the candidate. --Martin.j.fox (talk) 06:20, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I thought you said you were a fan of Steggall, Mr Fox?--Jack Upland (talk) 06:24, 16 March 2019 (UTC)


 * It is definitely not appropriate as a picture for the article, because of issues of WP:UNDUE weight. As for whether to mention it at all: it's pretty common - and uncontroversial - for female athletes to do these sorts of "glamour shots". Unless we can find a reliable 3rd party source commenting about them: to include them is using WP:PRIMARY sources, and to pronounce them as controversial is WP:OR. So no, we do not mention them at all unless they get signficant coverage in reliable secondary sources. Adpete (talk) 07:38, 16 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Yes, and Martin's comment above reveals that his reason for inserting the picture in the article is to embarrass her as a political candidate. It is nothing to do with being a fan or documenting her supposed career as a model.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:48, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Martin.j.fox is pathetically trying to smear Zali under the guise of concern for "sexism" 203.38.29.204 (talk) 02:12, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Labor preferences
I have removed the suggestion that she won on Labor preferences. I can't see this is the source given. On my count she received an extra 13% on preferences. Labor was on 6.2% primary, Greens 5.6%. So she got more than the Labor preferences and the Green preferences combined. Labor preferences were a minor contribution to her preferences, on the figures given. She only needed 5.6% to win, so she was not dependent on Labor preferences at all.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:08, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
 * This has now been reinserted in a different form. While the statement might be accurate, it is not in the source given, and I don't see why we need to highlight the Labor preferences, or in fact go into such detail about the electoral count.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:42, 10 August 2019 (UTC)


 * What Antony Green says is: "Steggall's victory on first preferences was remarkable for a first time candidate. Steggall attracted roughly one in five 2016 Liberal voters, and swept up votes from most other parties, with Labor reduced to bit-player status on 6.6% and the Greens 6.1%. From a relatively small pool of 17.5% of votes for Labor, the Greens and other candidates, Steggall attracted 78.6% of preferences as shown by the chart of preferences below." Labor a "bit-player" is clearly not decisive in the win. Removed this unsourced statement again.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:31, 16 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Another point is that when an independent wins over the Liberals, Labor is likely to be third. Being third, its preferences will distributed last (as they were here). This is normal and not addressed by any source I have seen.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:20, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Wind farms
This has been added a few times:
 * Steggall advocates action on climate change. An online petition has been set up to assess support for the establishment of wind farms in Warringah. The petition, which calls for Steggall to show leadership on this matter, has been well supported.

We have already said that she advocates action on climate change. The reports on the petition on wind farms are from her opponents, and the petition seems to be a joke. There is no serious proposal for wind farms on the Northern Beaches, and I think they would be impractical. This is similar to the reports about nuclear power stations in the electorate of Bennelong a few years ago. In any case, since she hasn't taken a position on the issue, it doesn't seem relevant to this article.--Jack Upland (talk) 11:14, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Most of the skiing career part should be re-written.
There are lots of strange statements in the part covering Steggall's skiing career. References to World Cup, European Cup and World Championships are mixed as if they were of the same status. A World Championships in Sestrière in 1996 is mentioned in spite of there being no such competition. That part should be re-written. By somebody. :) Fomalhaut76 (talk) 14:17, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Modelling etc
Since this has come up again:
 * We have documentary evidence that she was featured in Inside Sport and Penthouse after her Olympic triumph, but we have no secondary sources discussing this — apart from discussing "trolls" editing this page. We also have a source which says she was involved in a promotion for Australian pears.
 * News.com.au categorically states that she did not appear in nude photoshoots. I have seen nothing to contradict this claim.
 * It is not unusual for sportspeople to take part in photoshoots, interviews, and advertising campaigns.
 * There is no evidence that her participation in these things was controversial, apart from here, at this page, since she edited politics.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:39, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

‎ Edits revised by suspected candidate campaign operative
The recently reversed 2 January 2022 edits added two primary sources that directly refuted the Wikipedia subject's obfuscation during a media interview, which was referenced directly in the preceding sentence. The edits cite primary sources that discredit the representations made on Steggall's behalf by Gardner. The fact the truth of this matter in all likelihood serves to discredit Steggall is in no way defamatory.

Editor --Jack Upland appears to be a campaign operative working on behalf of Steggall and repeatedly sought to sanitize her Wikipedia entry prior to the 2019 election, to such an extent that he removed primary sources and engaged in significant editorial. These edits do not appear to have been made in good faith. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zizek Rocks (talk • contribs) 12:32, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

There are several issues with the information you want to include in the article. 1. They do not use neutral language ('evasive', 'sympathetic') without any source to back those claims up 2. The edition of Penthouse clearly states that Steggall is categorised under Articles and not Pictoral, so unless you can find a source that shows otherwise this is as noteworthy as her being interviewed by the SMH or The Australian. 3. The idea of Gardner coming in to protect her is again not supported by the sources and is POV 4. You need to come up with a reason why posing in lingerie is noteworthy As far as I am concerned none of that paragraph is noteworthy, although I am open to being convinced if it is radically different to what exists at the moment. Playlet (talk) 13:06, 3 January 2022 (UTC)


 * I am not a campaign operative working for anyone.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:43, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

You're deleting primary sources that directly counter the misleading impression Steggall allowed to be presented on her behalf by Georgie Gardner in the media interview cited in the Wikipedia entry. The alterations to Steggall's Wikipedia page in 2019, referred to erroneously as an "online smear campaign", would appear to be factually correct. It should be of great concern that Jack Upland orchestrated these edits in 2019 and is again sanitizing her Wikipedia entry. The posing in lingerie is noteworthy because Steggall allowed Gardner to falsely claim on her behalf that she had never engaged in these activities, she then proceeded to claim that she was being unfairly victimized by the alterations to her Wikipedia profile. Zizek Rocks (talk) 02:10, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The comments you made on the TV interview is POV, the idea that Gardner was protecting Steggall is not part of the interview, it is your inference from the interview. So unless you can bring a reliable source that says that Gardner was protecting Steggall it is not something that belongs in the article
 * She was in a Penthouse article, not pictures, so you are free to say that she sat for an interview with Penthouse, but I am not sure that is noteworthy. Are you going to include every interview she ever had as an Olympian?
 * The 'lingerie' picture is no different to MPs having pictures in the many women's magazines. It was not particularly racy, she was mostly covered up. It is completely irrelevant
 * So this has nothing to do with who is a campaign person for which candidate, or what happened in 2019. It is down to the fact that these edits are not noteworthy and have no business being in a Wikipedia article. Playlet (talk) 04:06, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Why is she denying it then, or using her proxy in the press (Gardner) to deny it on her behalf? It's not just that she's denying it, or using her proxy to deny it, she's further claiming to have been victimized as a result of information being added to her Wikipedia entry, despite the fact that is factually correct. The magazine appearances (as you rightly point out, are not particularly controversial in and of themselves) are noteworthy because Steggall has made them controversial by denying them and claiming to have been victimized. Wikipedia has made them noteworthy by censoring them and allowing active censorship of the profile of an Australian Parliamentarian. 116.251.39.7 (talk) 06:16, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

It is using a magazine known for nude pictures, so when you take out the context that it was an article only, it looks bad for her. That is why this is a non-story and the inclusion of it in the article is at the same time factually correct, not notable and defamatory. This is why she had to address the issue because people were trying to defame her using problematic inferences. That is why it has no place in this article.Playlet (talk) 06:42, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

It is not possible for something to be factually correct and defamatory, truth is a defence to defamation. Removing material because "it looks bad for her" is political censorship and undermines the mission of Wikipedia 'to present a neutrally written summary of existing mainstream knowledge in a fair and accurate manner with a straightforward, "just-the-facts style"'. Present the facts and allow people to make up their own minds. Do not remove primary sources because they look bad for Steggall. Zizek Rocks (talk) 22:09, 31 January 2022 (UTC)


 * I think this is a case of a loop of gossip. The mainstream sources we have discussing this issue are actually referring to this Wikipedia page. We should avoid creating loops like that.--Jack Upland (talk) 05:36, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Editor Playlet has been revealed to be a campaign operative for Zoe Daniel. We need a senior editor to investigate whether Jack Upland is one of his sock-puppet accounts. Zizek Rocks (talk) 06:29, 19 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Since I have been editing Wikipedia as Jack Upland since 2005, it is unlikely that I am a sock-puppet.Jack Upland (talk) 08:24, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

‎ Edits by candidate campaign operative Playlet confirmed, he also used multiple sock-puppet accounts
Editor Playlet has been confirmed to be a campaign operative for Zoe Daniel and is ideologically aligned with Teal candidates like Zali Steggall, his real name is Rabbi Yaron Gottlieb and he has been suspended for using multiple Wikipedia accounts. Full details are set out below in reporting by The Australian. These revelations bring into question the neutrality of Steggall's Wikipedia profile and unmask an obvious campaign by political operatives to censor and harass contributors. Wikipedia's higher level editors need to address this urgently to restore confidence in the site and the information it contains. This is scandalous and enormously damaging to the reputation of Wikipedia and its oversight processes, particularly as I brought these issues to light earlier and received a ban when I undid the censorship they had engaged in.

Wikipedia query on teal MP Zoe Daniel

REMY VARGA

NSW REPORTER

5:18AM JULY 12, 2022

The Wikipedia page of teal independent MP Zoe Daniel has been flagged as potentially being created or edited “in return for undisclosed payments”. The online encyclopaedia has added a note to Ms Daniel’s page warning readers that it may violate policies requiring content to represent views fairly, proportionately and without bias.

“This article may have been created or edited in return for undisclosed payments, a violation of Wikipedia’s terms of use,” said the note.

“It may require clean-up to comply with Wikipedia’s content policies, particularly neutral point of view.”

The note was added after The Australian reported the Victorian division of the federal Liberal Party had written to the Australian Electoral Commission about an account called Playlet, which created Ms Daniel’s Wikipedia page.

It was operated by Melbourne rabbi Yaron Gottlieb, who was involved in Ms Daniel’s campaign but has been suspended for the “misuse of multiple Wikipedia ­accounts”, a practice known as sock puppetry.

Mr Gottlieb said he had never been employed by Ms Daniel nor her campaign and had never made Wikipedia edits for money.

“I have never edited any Wikipedia pages for payment, whether disclosed or not,” he said.

“Suggestions that I have engaged in any nefarious conduct, such as editing Wikipedia for undisclosed payments or to propagate disinformation, are false and defamatory.”

The Australian is not suggesting anyone, Mr Gottlieb or otherwise, made edits to Ms Daniel’s Wikipedia page for money and is reporting only that a note was added. Mr Gottlieb – as Playlet – also created the Wikipedia pages of campaign fundraising vehicle ­Climate 200, independent candidate for Wentworth Allegra Spender and Greens candidate for Macnamara Steph Hodgins-May.

He also made about 70 edits in the past year to the page of then incumbent MP Tim Wilson, against whom Ms Daniel successfully ran in the Victorian seat of Goldstein, as well as edits to the pages of former treasurer Josh Frydenberg and Victorian Caulfield MP David Southwick.

Mr Wilson said Ms Daniel should prioritise her constituents, given the election was over.

“Zoe Daniel should focus on the people of Goldstein and call off her attack hounds who spread misinformation in the lead-up to the election and should definitely stop now it’s over,” he said. Wikipedia is maintained by online volunteers and anyone with an account is able to edit pages.

All changes are recorded and can be viewed by anyone.

A spokeswoman for Ms Daniel said Mr Gottlieb had never been paid by Ms Daniel or by her ­campaign.

Mr Gottlieb and his wife, Alex Fein, donated about $350 to Ms Daniel’s campaign in Goldstein, according to the teal MP’s ­website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zizek Rocks (talk • contribs) 01:30, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Long bow claiming this has anything to do with Zali Steggall. “Ideologically aligned” doesn’t cut the mustard. Ponyshine (talk) 07:48, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

No at all, the same editor Playlet has been vigorously editing Zali Steggall's page and it seems likely that he also used his sock-puppet accounts to nail down these edits. Steggall and Daniel are obviously ideologically aligned, they're even supported for the same financial backers, have similar policy platforms and broadly identical branding. This is scandalous for Wikipedia's reputation in the Australian political arena. A senior editor needs to examine the extent of the activity of this account and its sock-puppets on the pages of Australian politicians. Zizek Rocks (talk) 06:23, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

‎Resumption of censorship and editing by Playlet and potential sock-puppet accounts
Censorship and editing of this Wikipedia entry by a political operative and financial donor to Teal candidate MPs resumes unimpeded, despite Playlet's suspension for sock-puppetry. This is a sick joke and reflects poorly on the quality of the editorial oversight. Zizek Rocks (talk) 08:38, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Do you have any evidence of this?--Jack Upland (talk) 08:50, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

No lights no licra
Hi Zali, can you let us know if No Lights No Lycra is coming back to Manly? Thank you Leah 120.18.95.130 (talk) 13:11, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Discussion on the contents of Wikipedia 'See also'  sections
Jack Upland says, ”No reference to NIMBY in article” >> Sorry that is not the issue.

What is relevant here is MOS:ALSO >> A "See also" section is a useful way to organize internal links to related or comparable articles and build the web.

Further, many other articles (including those edited by Jack Upland) contain 'See also' sections breaking the 'Upland Requirement'. 'Including Zali Steggall' '==See also==' '* List of grassroots political engagement groups in Australia'

But let's not get into a discussion about WP:OTHERSTUFF

NIMBY - Australia, contains RS Steggall references.

Recommend that ==See also == include
 * NIMBY - Australia

Podestsedop (talk) 01:52, 23 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Ah, the windfarms again. But there was no proposal, and Steggal never said anything about it.--Jack Upland (talk) 02:30, 23 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Jack Upland says, "no proposal, and Steggal never said anything " >> Sorry that is not the issue. >> What is relevant here is . . . .  [refer above]

Podestsedop (talk) 03:16, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

I think this reference to NIMBY is irrelevant Playlet (talk) 04:02, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't think the Zali section of the NIMBY article is relevant, NIMBY is not mentioned in any of the sources and that section should probably be deleted
 * Even if it was, that is hardly a major issue that should be included in the See Also section. There are many other pages that should be ahead of that page
 * The NIBMY issue is not relevant or mentioned in this article (and nor should it be)
 * This was one incident with a small group that Steggall did not bother to respond to as far as I can tell, so it should not be referenced in the article


 * There seems to be a long-term effort to insert the windfarm issue etc into the article. Surely there are other negative issues which have some substance...?--Jack Upland (talk) 06:05, 23 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Jack Upland Agreed. I suggest the section about Steggall in the NIMBY article get deleted as it is clearly a red herringPlaylet (talk) 06:53, 23 June 2022 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is completely subjective. Podestsedop (talk) 07:15, 23 June 2022 (UTC)


 * There is clearly no evidence that Steggall is a NIMBY and we shouldn't suggest that there is.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:21, 23 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Note: both Playlet and Podestsedop have been blocked as socks.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:41, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
 * who apparently introduced the windfarm issue into the article has also been blocked as a sock.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:11, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

I have since found out that Steggall did comment about it, in this article: Ms Steggall has not proposed wind farms in Warringah but said: "The concept behind it, which is let's be sustainable and use renewables as much as possible - whichever form is appropriate for where you're living - is fine." "They think they're being funny but I don't have a problem with it. I certainly support the concept of [making] Warringah like California, as sustainable as possible," Ms Steggall said. The article describes the petition as "tongue-in-cheek" and "satirical", and says that Steggall's opponent Tony Abbott dismissed it.--Jack Upland (talk) 02:38, 25 October 2022 (UTC)