| 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.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 Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.svg){kind=logo}
 | It is requested that an image or photograph of Jackie Kelly be included in this article to improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific media request template where possible. The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
What "first"?
editWe say that she "resigned from the ministry in 2001 to have a child, a first in Australian federal politics". What sort of "first" was this? She can’t be the first person to have a baby while a Minister, because by the time the baby was born she wasn’t a Minister any longer. And she wasn’t the first MP to give birth - in 1983, Ros Kelly was the first Australian Federal MP to give birth while in office. Are we saying that Jackie Kelly was the first Minister to resign in order to have a baby? Not much of a first, imo. -- JackofOz 07:18, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
- It did get a bit of press attention at the time for that reason, but I'm unfazed either way. Rebecca 00:19, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
- If the fact can be cited from a news article of the time, I'd say it's worth leaving in. If not, it should be removed as an unverified assertion... Cheers, Ian Rose 01:40, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
- It isn't an "unverified assertion" - it was reported plenty at the time, so to remove it on that basis is plain laziness. Whether or not to include it, however, is an editorial decision. Rebecca 01:46, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
- Not disagreeing with you from an editorial perspective, Rebecca, but if it's not cited then it's unverified as far as the article is concerned. Cheers, Ian Rose 01:54, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
- It isn't an "unverified assertion" - it was reported plenty at the time, so to remove it on that basis is plain laziness. Whether or not to include it, however, is an editorial decision. Rebecca 01:46, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
- If the fact can be cited from a news article of the time, I'd say it's worth leaving in. If not, it should be removed as an unverified assertion... Cheers, Ian Rose 01:40, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
I've done some research and learned that we have our facts confused. She did leave the Ministry in 2001 (I don't remember why), but her "first" was that in the previous year 2000 she had a child while a serving Minister. These refs are relevant - [1], [2], and [3].
That she was in the Ministry (as Minister for Sport and Tourism) in 2000 is evident from this page from the Parliamentary Handbook - [4]. I'm making the required changes. -- JackofOz 04:04, 5 October 2007 (UTC)