 | This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.This page is about a politician who is running for office or has recently run for office, is in office and campaigning for re-election, or is involved in some current political conflict or controversy. For that reason, this article is at increased risk of biased editing, talk-page trolling, and simple vandalism.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.svg){kind=logo}
Family issue not relevant
editI have removed the section about the mother, because it is not relevant to the biography. We don't usually put family issues on Wikipedia. If you disagree please discuss here first. Travelmite (talk) 03:09, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
- Agreed. Note that "Le had to sell her family house" was ambiguous and potentially misleading. According to the ref [1] ,with my emphasis, "Le was forced to sell her mother’s ... house" - not here own. Mitch Ames (talk) 03:49, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
Eligibility Answer
editThere is an eligibility question and an answer. I guess the media may be asking all sorts of questions, but wikipedia is not a newspaper WP:NOTNP. No inquiry or court case happening. No further news. Perhaps best to hang back unless something actually happens as per WP:RECENT. Travelmite (talk) 09:20, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
- I think a brief mention is warranted given recent history of Section 44 disqualifications in Australian Parliament but given this is also an open and shut case it perhaps could be best summarised along the lines of "media asked questions due to recent constitutional crisis, arrived in Oz as stateless refugee, case closed". SeaplaneSilly (talk) 13:18, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
- The media say that someone else is asking questions, but don't say who. We cannot say case closed, because no case was opened. We cannot say she confirmed anything this week, because she did so at nomination along with everyone else. Travelmite (talk) 08:01, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
We cannot say she confirmed anything this week
— well we could say that (if we wanted to mention the matter at all, and I don't necessary think we should), because she literally said (as reported by SBS 25 May 2022) "I can confirm that ...". Mitch Ames (talk) 13:32, 28 May 2022 (UTC)- Sorry, I should be clearer. I meant "she didn't confirm anything unusual or different from nomination." Travelmite (talk) 22:02, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
- The media say that someone else is asking questions, but don't say who. We cannot say case closed, because no case was opened. We cannot say she confirmed anything this week, because she did so at nomination along with everyone else. Travelmite (talk) 08:01, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
- I think a brief mention might be warranted, but only if it states specifically who was questioning her eligibility, and if that questioner is anybody significant. Both refs just say, vaguely, that she was "facing questions" but don't say who was asking the questions. In the absence of a specific named questioner, it just sounds like media sensationalism to me. Mitch Ames (talk) 13:51, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
- As best I can work out from the articles, it's post-election background speculation. Travelmite (talk) 08:01, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
- Someone removed my tag, is debating the issue and ramping up the speculation. The comment is "by anyone who read her electoral document submission. it's a matter of constitutional law that was reported on, not a 'by whom' opinion"[2]. Are we not supposed to stay out of it? Travelmite (talk) 11:38, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
- Mitch is on the right track here. It's not being questioned by anybody significant, just a bit of ill-informed Twitter speculation that formed a one-day story in the tabloids. If it goes to the Court of Disputed Returns (which if there was anything to it would seem likely), that's when it becomes something for Wikipedia. The Drover's Wife (talk) 13:43, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
- Someone removed my tag, is debating the issue and ramping up the speculation. The comment is "by anyone who read her electoral document submission. it's a matter of constitutional law that was reported on, not a 'by whom' opinion"[2]. Are we not supposed to stay out of it? Travelmite (talk) 11:38, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
- As best I can work out from the articles, it's post-election background speculation. Travelmite (talk) 08:01, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for the advice so far. To help be consistent, I'm looking at Tony Abbott, Jason Falinski, Cory Bernardi, Doug Cameron (politician), Steve Georganas, Deborah O'Neill for whom there were questions asked as per an May 2018 ABC article, but no action taken and so its not on Wikipedia. Travelmite (talk) 22:07, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
- The view seems to be that unless someone makes a formal complaint, starts an inquiry or court proceedings, this is speculation and not notable or verifiable. There is also the claim Labor is smearing, which is also unproven. There are other speculative claims on Twitter. No news about this for a week. I have removed the section. Travelmite (talk) 00:37, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion
editThe following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:21, 28 May 2022 (UTC)