Talk:Cheryl Kernot

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or if there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
Start	This article has been rated as start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
	This article is supported by the Politics and government work group.

	It is requested that a photograph or photographs be included in this article to improve its quality. Wikipedians in Australia may be able to help!
	The Free Image Search Tool (FIST) may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

Portal	Cheryl Kernot is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on the quality scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Australian politics.
Assessment comments This article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

Why are we losing the photograph? We've has been through this before. We can use the parliament photographs legally and the only impediments are zealots and puritans. Why can't one of these wikiwonks go and hunt up Cheryl and take a picture of her before demanding that we get rid of the only one we can legally use? Sheesh. --Pete 02:22, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Neutrality

I dispute the neutrality of this article: much of it seems to be a character attack on the subject, and there doesn't seem to be any references to back up the claims. Recurring dreams 05:20, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Please dispute whatever you like. But what bit exactly are you disputing? The references? The facts? Lao Wai 14:45, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Neutrality

As the author of recent potentially controversial material, I was partly acting in response to extant copy which one-sidedly idealised Kernot. There is nothing in my contribution which has not been widely reported in Australian news media or which cannot be sourced to documents including Senate Hansard. Cheryl Kernot and Meg Lees both demonstrably pursued inappropriate connections with the major political parties. Aeronian 04:54, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of the truth of your claims (and the claims already existing), Wikipedia is an encyclopædia with a strict policy of maintaining a neutral point of view. The threshold for inclusion is verifiability, not truth. We cannot accept personal criticisms; rather, such remarks must be attributed to reliable published sources and presented in a neutral tone.--cj | talk 05:55, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, cj, I appreciate the cited rules, also the special difficulties with biography of living persons, and will therefore gladly accept responsible editing of unverifiable material. This must apply equally to both "negative" and "positive" statements. I will rigorously support future contributions with verifying documentation and will expect to see the same standard adopted by all contributors. Aeronian 06:17, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I've removed most instances of bias and unsourced claims.--cj | talk 06:24, 1 April 2007 (UTC)