Talk:Sophie Mirabella

message: Your edits were reverted because they made the paragraph as anti-Georgiou as possible - they weren't threatening negative publicity, they were threatening to break with the government's line and effectively cross the floor. You also added lots of unreferenced material about what a hard-working and popular member Panopoulos is. Thus these edits were reverted, as with Julian Barendse and Melbourne University Student Union. Ambi 10:32, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I dislike her politics probably more than you do, but it's difficult to argue with her popularity in the electorate. She got nearly a 5.5% swing to her in 2004, leaving the Libs with 66% of the two-party preferred vote.  She may be in the Genghis Khan faction of the Libs, but that's just how they like it up Indi way. --Robert Merkel 00:18, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Makes sense - adding in evidence of electoral swings is how you show with evidence that a member is popular within their electorate, which this guy wasn't doing. Ambi 01:13, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Some have said that she has never left student politics, given her behaviour.
:While I have a certain sympathy for such a view, unattributed slurs like this have no place in an NPOV encyclopedia article.  --Robert Merkel 22:15, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed sentence

message: *The photo caption needs to be changed
*It is anachronistic to call her Mirabella when discussing events before her marriage. These references should be changed back to Panopoulos, with a comment in the opening paragraph that she has now changed her name.
Adam 01:19, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Panopoulos to Mirabella

message: 'MP tied to secret tobacco fund' - The Age
http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/mp-tied-to-secret-tobacco-fund/2007/02/09/1170524282964.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 220.253.31.132 (talk) 05:23, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I propose that the information be put back in the article, including AEC findings (after 10 month inquiry) on this issue: . David Woodward ☮ ♡♢☞☽ 08:41, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  'MP tied to secret tobacco fund' - The Age 

message: This article was automatically  assessed because at least one article was rated and this bot brought all the other ratings up to at least that level. BetacommandBot 04:31, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject class rating

message: My understanding is that part of her absence and disavowal of the stolen generations apology is her belief that there is no evidence that the Stolen Generations ever happened in victoria
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/02/14/2162399.htm
should this be added?Spamburgler (talk) 05:37, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Certainly the rationale is significant here. ABC is a reliable source so we should add that reference straight away. It would be even better if we could get a direct quote from Mirabella where she denies the stolen generations happened. This article quotes her directly but she's been quoting some "taskforce". I'd love to know what taskforce that was, which was unable to come up with a stolen child. Nick (talk) 14:27, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I clarified this section as it didn't satisfy my understanding of NPOV by only quoting her and not another source on the issue. We can't have someone coming to Wikipedia and reading that a representative believes the stolen generation never happened, especially in Victoria when that was the first place it started, according to other wikipedia articles. Will drop in a reference in a second.--Senor Freebie (talk) 06:57, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Apology 

message: This article was poorly formatted, or rather just a slab of text when I came along so I divided up the sections. However there may still need to be work done to the article. For example, I labelled the majority of the content as part of her "political career" and 2 incidents, just like in the Belinda Neal article as "Controversial". Often, articles such as these seem to have a sub-section under Political career for "Policy" which could include the bulk of her political career, including the controversial incidents, such as denying the existence of the Stolen Generation, while keeping election results under the general heading. However, I wasn't sure if there was a 'standard' for Australian politicians.
:Additionally there is no brief lead and I don't know enough about her to write one. Some parts of this article sound rather striking for a lead but I don't know if they have stayed relevant in the eyes of electorate or media so to put them in the lead might seem ignorant to some.--Senor Freebie (talk) 07:09, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I've moved the opening couple of sentences to be the lead as they sum up pretty well her background and current occupation. I've also added a little bit about her connection to the electorate prior to being preselected. Blarneytherinosaur gabby? 08:24, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  General Updates 

message: I suggest removing the 'attack on former Liberal leader' paragraph. Fraser is no longer a Liberal Member and has been publicly condemned by other Liberal MP's. This is a negative BLP issue. It is not a 'controversial' incident. If there is any objection to this change, please advise why. Thanks, Jarrodaus11 (talk) 08:47, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Support. This is not a serious character issue. Malcolm Fraser betrayed his friends and party supporters. 144.136.101.108 (talk) 11:26, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

text: Oppose long standing and has implicit approval of incumbent editors. He is doing something a Liberal PM is not known to do - openly criticise his party, and his party criticise him. Fraser didn't leave the Liberal Party, the Liberal Party left him. Timeshift (talk) 13:12, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Comment. 'Fraser didn't leave the Liberal Party, the Liberal Party left him'. Nonsense. That is your personal opinion. Not fact worthy of wikipedia content. Keep your obvious party political bias out of this. This may be relevant on Malcolm Fraser's page but not here. Jarrodaus11 (talk) 13:18, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

text: Oppose: Properly referenced, reputable newspaper article entirely about the issue: WP:VERIFY, WP:NOR. Fraser has had a significant and public life tackling public issues since his Liberal Party career. Further: neither current party membership, nor public condemnation by Lib MPs (which BTW is what the para is an example of, so that would suggest that the issue is controversial), nor seriousness of "character issue", nor that Fraser is claimed here to have "betrayed his friends and party supporters", are valid arguments to remove. Please note that "negative BLP issue" is only relevant if unsourced, please see WP:PUBLICFIGURE "BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well-documented, it belongs in the article – even if it is negative" (my emphasis) David Woodward ☮ ♡♢☞☽ 03:31, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

text: That's a good point Lear's Fool. I am sorry if what I said was taken the wrong way. I just feel too much weight in this article is given to negative and quite irrelevant comments. I agree with your comments in regards to previous consesus. I also note that this issue hasn't been discussed on this talk page before. Jarrodaus11 (talk) 14:43, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed removal of irrelevant paragraph 

message: As Mirabella had significant support from Colin Howard through her early years, why is there little reference to this in the article? http://www.theage.com.au/national/power-love-and-money-20110922-1knb7.html . 
Ethikos (talk) 14:44, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Currently there is 1 entire paragraph which is referenced by the exact link you have given above, giving people the opportunity to read further themselves. Mirabella is known for her political career, not for having had a relationship with Howard (this is not what makes her notable) and as such not a highly relevant area for more detail. David Woodward ☮ ♡♢☞☽ 07:29, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Relationship to Colin Howard 

message: I've removed the section:
:On 2 July 2012 Mirabella appeared as a panelist on the ABC panelist TV talkback show Q&A. In an incident where a fellow panelist (GetUp! director Simon Sheikh) fainted live on air, Mirabella has been criticised for her apparent lack of caring. Twitter users criticised the opposition MP for her failure to react to Mr Sheikh's collapse. "Watching Simon Sheikh passing out is horrible. But worse is seeing Sophie Mirabella recoil in horror, rather than help," tweeted one in response.http://www.theaustralian.com.au/media/mirabella-reaction-awakens-twitterati/story-e6frg996-1226415259739 "Mirabella Reaction Awakens Twitterati" Joe Hildebrand from the The Daily Telegraph tweeted "... if I'm ever in need of first aid I really hope the first person on the scene isn't Sophie Mirabella."http://www.heraldsun.com.au/entertainment/tv-radio/sheikh-says-tv-collapse-a-great-irony/story-e6frf9ho-1226417912609 A spokesperson for Mirabella said she was unaware that it was a medical emergency. Mirabella later said she, "thought that Simon was having a laugh or having a go at Greg Combet." http://www.news.com.au/breaking-news/national/flu-downs-getup-boss-on-live-tv/story-e6frfku9-1226415134807
I've got no problems with the sourcing, but I have some weight concerns. The problem is that this seems like a non-event that was beaten up by various sources well beyond what it should have been. My understanding is that Mirabella wasn't seen to act when Simon Sheikh fainted, but given that most people on the panel didn't as well that doesn't seem like a particularly significant response. Especially given that there was confusion about what was happening. If she was a medical professional then I can understand her response being an issue - but as she has no particular background in healthcare, it seems a bit of an odd focus in the article, especially given the amount of weight given to this issue. - Bilby (talk) 16:00, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it should get a run. Certainly, she is as well-known (at least amongst average punters with little interest in politics) for this as she is for any of her other "controversial" incidents. However, I do feel the quoting of tweets does give undue weight to what was a minor incident. Doctorhawkes (talk) 00:17, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough. :) I put it back but trimmed the opinions. Hopefully that's ok. The original wording was a tad inaccurate as well, as there weren't any claims that she "didn't care", just that she didn't react. - Bilby (talk) 07:22, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Media section 

message: I've removed for discussion the section:
:On 22 September 2011, the Melbourne Age newspaper reported that Mirabella may have potentially breached electoral laws by failing to disclose $100,000 in financial support received from Colin Howard QC, her partner at the time.
It is sourced well enough, to The Age, but the problem is that I can find little coverage outside of that article. Looking through Newsbank, it turns up in Souter's "Will to Power", but there Mirabella denies it. Otherwise, there doesn't seem to have been a mention of it since The Age article, and even then there's only one or two articles in Newsbank that mention it at all. Given Mirabella's denial, and the lack of any substantial coverage, it seemed better to remove it for now, but I'm happy to defer to consensus on how to approach things. - Bilby (talk) 12:32, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Political controversy section 

message: The sentence:
:Mirabella was granted power of attorney over Howard's estate and was named the sole beneficiary.
is still not correct.  I initially removed it because it incorrectly claimed that she had made herself a beneficiary, which was not not supported by the source.  The revised sentence still confuses the power of attorney with the will when they are very different documents both in nature and timing.  The IS article suggests the will dated to 1997, while the power of attorney dates to around 2007, per The Age article.  Further, a power of attorney has nothing to do with an estate - it applies during the life of the grantor and ceases on death.  I suggest:
:Mirabella held power of attorney over Howard's affairs from approximately 2007, and pursuant to his 1997 will was executor and sole beneficiary of his estate following his death in 2011.
If there's a way to put it more succinctly without concatenating the two documents, I'm happy for suggestions. - Alaric004 (talk) 05:58, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds like a good edit to me. The Drover's Wife (talk) 08:21, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Me, too. Doctorhawkes (talk) 22:27, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Edit made.Alaric004 (talk) 06:47, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sentence regarding Howard power of attorney and will