Talk:Sarah Hanson-Young

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Free-use image 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: I've corrected the information and added the ABC site as a more authoritative reference. ajdlinux | utc 22:42, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: "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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  What got SHY elected? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  birthplace 

message: 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)
thread_title: "Independent" president of Adelaide Uni Students' Association

message: 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)
replies: text: Not recommended. I have removed this. See WP:CREDENTIAL. Donama (talk) 04:22, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Post-nominals 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Pretty much why I changed it Frickeg. The former contrib was full of waffle and POV. Timeshift (talk) 04:06, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Stop your strawman arguments please. It was reworded to remove your sensationalisms. It was not removed. Timeshift (talk) 06:18, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recentism or relevance? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  February 2011 tidy up 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  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 IITalk to my owner:Online 16:42, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Not knowing Greens' superannuation policy - and asking Chief of staff 

message: 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)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Rumours