Talk:Natasha Stott Despoja

Biography assessment rating comment

WikiProject Biography Summer 2007 Assessment Drive

The article may be improved by following the WikiProject Biography 11 easy steps to producing at least a B article. -- Yamara 23:27, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Image

That image of her is not very good. She has lost weight recently, and now looks much, much better - a babe in fact. Someone please find a better picture!—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.122.201.86 (talk • contribs) 00:37, 3 December 2000.

Yeah! Although not as attractive as she was in her heyday, she's not bad for someone well into their fifth decade! --Jumbo 21:12, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

What are you talking about? My arithmetic makes her out to be 37.

She was born in the Sixties. --Surgeonsmate 02:25, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

And? 2006-1969=37, no matter what you try to do to the numbers. BigHaz 09:56, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I think you missed it. She's well into her fifth decade! And her second century. Jumbo 04:49, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Chronologically, yes, but Biologically only the 4th. - Quolnok 09:08, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

GUYS! get a better pic... this lady is seriously hot! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.107.41.87 (talk) 15:51, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Do you have a free and better pic? Timeshift (talk) 23:56, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Mediawatch

Whatshisface on mediawatch did a wondrful hatchet-job on NSD. "The only thing she has to offer to the public is her own carefully-managed fame." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 152.91.9.242 (talk • contribs) .

"elected in her own right"

I can see why this wording was chosen. She was appointed to a Senate casual vacancy (i.e. without being elected by the voters), but later won a seat at the next half-Senate election. It is wrong to say that she was elected in her own right because votes in Senate elections are overwhelmingly "above the line" for the party.

This is a point that NSD herself raised when Meg Lees resigned from the Democrats and became an independent. She claimed that Lees' seat belonged to the Democrats, not Lees. --Surgeonsmate 03:47, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

FYI She did get in on more than a quota, in a half-Senate election, and she received over 20,000 below-the-line votes. Source: http://www.natashastottdespoja.democrats.org.au/biography/biography_Oct2005.pdf

Mark Hurd 06:08, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

photograph

I've replaced Whywhywhy's rather distant shot with a cropped version which shows Tash as more than just a pixel or two but which retains the character of the gathering. It should go on the left so that the subject faces into the article. Luckily the original image had enough pixels that I could do this digital zoom. I have not tagged this image with any copyright information as it isn't my image. BTW, thanks YYY for adding a shot of Tash in action. This is more in character with her than the rather staid official shot lifted from the APh site. --Surgeonsmate 22:15, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

payout

Twice revisions have sought to include the following details. On both occassions, it has been reverted. ``When wrapping up her 12-year Senate career at age 38, she will be eligible for a lifetime pension of $73,000 a year - adjusted each year for inflation.

Two attempts I've made to seek clarification (on 1 and 10 November 2006) have gone unanswered. [[1]] As such, I now wish to raise for discussion here the proposed addition to the article.

The current edition of The Weekend Australia Magazine (November 18-19) carries a weekly column by Susan Maushart. It begins: "Natasha Stott Despoja ... has made history once again by securing a world-record maternity leave benefit: an indexed payout of $73,000 per year, for life." [[2]]

As the sum in question has been repeatedly reported in the media, I propose the figure be added. However as I'm relatively new here, I am interested to hear if there are reasons why it should not be added to the article. Thanks -- MirDoc 03:30, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

It is compeltely irrelevant on this page; every single parliamentarian receives a similar payout (size depending on seniority, length of service, etc). It's inclusion here is simply due to papers playing a class war card and heaping shit upon pollies for the amount of money they get. If you're going to include anything on payouts, don't choose 'Tash because the media made a big deal of it, put it in a more appropriate and general location. michael ^talk 03:34, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

(replying to message on my talk page) The payment is still calculated by the same means as any other parliamentarian and it is entirely possible that a larger payout will occur in the future. So there is nothing truly unique or special about Natasha's and it deserves no mention on her page. michael ^talk 04:01, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

It does not matter how it is calculated. It is entirely relevant. Class war? How can pointing out the legal entitlements of the very upper middle class NSD have anything to do with clas war? It does not matter if it is unique or special. It matters if it is true and encyclopedic. It is true and I happen to think it is worthy of inclusion. Why do you feel otherwise? Lao Wai 15:04, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Because it is nothing out of the ordinary, nothing unique, nothing peculiar, and only noted because the media made a deal out of it. Next year a whole bunch of senators will also retire with similar payments, are you going to put a irrelevant payout notice on their page? What about when some MP's retire? Or some state MLC's? Are you going to put their payout on their Wikipedia pages? It's silly. michael ^talk 01:29, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

The Australian article (hyperbolic or not) calls up "world-record" sum. So is it significant or not? Michael, you keep deleting the reference. Can you confirm/demonstrate how the payment fits within other payouts? 198.208.16.221 01:56, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Highest Personal Vote cite

[3] But it's a 1st person ref. Mark Hurd 18:56, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind. I found this article in the SMH.--cj | talk 04:43, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I've removed it, even though it's cited. It's rubbish. By what measure was her personal vote higher than that of, say, Labor/Liberal Senators with far more first preference votes? I think the article means the highest Democrat vote. Peter Ballard (talk) 06:03, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

But Liberal/Labor Senators don't get high personal votes. They get lots of "above the line" votes. Mark Hurd (talk) 07:59, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Even if WP:V, it is WP:UNDUE weight. It's trivia and I've removed it. --Surturz (talk) 11:05, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

It is trivia that the most "thinking voters" (who vote below the line) voted for a specific politician? Lots of WP:POINT opportunities there. Mark Hurd (talk) 18:22, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Participatory voting

I removed this sentence:

(In fact, the primacy of members' participatory voting power had effectively been ended during the leadership of Cheryl Kernot and Meg Lees in 1993-1997--and neither Stott Despoja nor any other AD senator had ever acted to remediate that very significant loss.)

There is no citation for it and I'm not aware of any justification for including it. When Stott Despoja resigned, Bartlett was directly elected as leader by the party membership, and the Democrats also frequently send out policy documents to their members for voting. If someone can find a reason for having the sentence back in they are welcome to clarify. Daniel 03:30, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Crikey

On the news website 'Crikey' Natasha Stott Despoja was covered heavily and often unfavourably. Could some one with more knowledge please add in the details.

Thank You. 124.171.137.127 (talk) 05:57, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Is Crikey a WP:RS? Timeshift (talk) 06:23, 14 November 2008 (UTC)