Talk:Nola Fraser

Quality of references and knowing their limitations

It is especially important on biographical pages to demonstrate due care when adding, removing or modifying text. Facts and opinions should not be muddled, and opinions should be qualified as such and used only when appropriate.

Any statements, especially any potentially contentious ones, must have proper referencing. Peer-reviewed independent sources are always to be preferred. News articles must be treated with some caution, particularly when they stray into opinion, and should generally not be relied on alone.

Caution must also be taken when citing reports and other secondary material in giving misleading or distorted claims, for example to ignore contradicting or qualifying information to favour just one POV. This is especially the case in political matters, where agendas can commonplace.

A wholistic view is to be preferred over a selective one. This article has suffered previously from heavy lack of balance, that has failed to properly cite quality references and has taken a narrow selective view rather than a generalist one. 101.176.26.217 (talk) 10:13, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

HCC Inquiry timing

Joe,

Is the reference to the handing down of the first HCCC inquiry three weeks prior to the election, an implication that the timing was politically motivated to assist the ALP? If so, this is a corruption allegation which has not to my knowledge been tested anywhere. I haven't removed it from the article as I'm interested in your view first, and you may well have evidence to hand that the allegation was tested by ICAC or similar.

I also haven't edited it directly as I think the political dimension of Nola Fraser's allegations was a cynical witch-hunt by a would-be politician and some hysterical headline-chasers in the SMH and Tele, so once I started making changes here I'd find it hard to stop. :).

So I'll leave the actual editing of this page to others, I think. Jeendan 01:22, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I didn't make the link, the SMH did. The (Wikipedia) article doesn't make any allegation of corruption, but I'd find any attempt to remove accurate, verifiable information from this article to be extremely concerning. The article makes clear the extent to which Fraser's allegations were shown to be true, shown to be untrue or left unresolved. I have recast the sentence relating to the '03 election in case others think it implies something it is not intended to. Joestella 09:58, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I still think the wording implies corruption in the timing of the HCCC report. But no one is talking about removing content - I was just interested in your view on the evidence to substantiate the claim. Like I said, I'm not making any changes.

I don't believe Nola Fraser is of sufficient notabiltiy to justify an article at all (a political candidate with no victories, most notable for making sensational and demonstrably false allegations of 'bullying' to incite a temporary media frenzy). But other people no doubt disagree with this assessment and as has often been said, Wikipedia is not paper. When the value of an article is disputed I think it is better to be more inclusive than less, so this one can stay exactly as is from my perspective. It joins the list of other pointless "political candidate" articles for people like you and I to argue over Jeendan 22:06, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

~~

It is disappointing that some of the views expressed above are clearly lacking in balance - there is nothing wrong with having an opinion, but Wikipedia is meant to provide objective information that is neither dominated by partiality or a single POV. It should reflect, as best possible, peer-reviewed independent sources (news articles do have some weight, but they are often opinion pieces, and should be treated with caution when straying into opinion) and be focussed on the specific facts, not long drawn inferences.

With respect to former user Jeedan, who sought to dismiss the notability of Nola Fraser, it has to be recognised that she was a major figure in a significant controversy that resulted in over five major inquiries and multiple resignations and terminations of senior executives within the NSW health system (as an unsuccessful political candidate I would agree that this alone would not be enough, but her role in a widely reported (at least at state level) scandal is of itself sufficient for an article entry.

The allegation that the NSW HCCC gave an interim comment designed to swing the then ALP government the election is an unsubstantiated one - this does not mean no influence was brought (it is not uncommon for state appointed ‘watchdogs’ to give some favour to those who appoint them), but even if it had been, it would have been very unlikely to have made any real difference to the state election, so it really doesn’t reach any level of significance. 101.176.26.217 (talk) 10:13, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Speculative claims in newspapers

As a general principle, just because a false allegation is made by someone and reported in a newspaper, doesn't in itself justify its appearance in a Wikipedia article. News of the World once claimed a B52 was found on the moon. Various US papers reported that Bill Clinton was a drug runner and murderer, or that Vince Foster was killed by a hitman hired by Hillary.

Nola Fraser claimed that doctors were routinely killing their patients, that incriminating documents had been hurriedly destroyed, that the then-Health Minister had threatened to have her sacked and take away her house, and that he had implied physical violence toward her by banging his hand on a table. All of these claims were reported in newspapers, but subsequently investigated by independent authorities and found to be false.

The question is - is it a form of 'weasel words' to devote this article to repeating these false claims, justifying their inclusion by sourcing newspaper articles, then adding a throwaway sentence at the end 'oh, by the way the claims weren't true'?

If so, should an article be created listing Bill Clinton's murder victims?Jeendan 06:43, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Fraser's more lurid claims, as listed by yourself above, are not detailed in the article. Since some of Fraser's claims were substantiated, and some others were/are treated by the media as (at the very least) credible, the gist of her concerns certainly merits inclusion. I think the article strikes a good balance. Richard Nixon was never convicted of any crime - should we expunge allegations of his misdeeds from his article? Joestella 11:52, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, almost all of the above "lurid" (read: deliberately false) claims are listed in the article. I haven't removed them as that would provoke the usual shrill outrage and reversions from the Liberal cheersquad that have been so busy on Wikipedia in recent weeks (can I smell an election in the air)?

And investigations into Nixon were trending towards finding him guilty. His recognition of this fact was the principal reason for his resignation. The investigation of Fraser's allegations proved them to be false. There's a difference. Jeendan 20:44, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I think you need to contain your outrage about Fraser's claims. The fact that some of her allegations were not proved does not, by extension, make her a liar. It just means that we have to make clear what was and was not upheld by the various inquiries. Wikipedia is not a court of law, we are entitled to record allegations as well as verdicts.

Allegations are much harder to disprove than prove, and whether you like them or not, Fraser's were a major issue that received a great deal of media attention: Fraser's actions arguably ended careers and improved standards of care. Joestella 06:12, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

If I was that outraged, I'd have edited the article. But I'm not.

I also can't be bothered arguing about it further. You obviously believe adding pro-Liberal edits to pages such as this, Michael Costa (Reserve Bank comments) and the 2007 election page (extra photos of Debnam) will assist your preferred party at the upcoming elections. I doubt it, but good luck to you. Let's hope we can return to less POV editing after March 24.Jeendan 03:00, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I'll let Peter know that our plan to win 19 seats though more favourable Wikipedia coverage has been uncovered by User:Jeendan. He'll be really disappointed. Joestella 03:05, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

News articles are a source of information, and can be used, but must be done so with appropriate caution - this is especially the case when one of the figures involved used a heavy weight public relations company (Wilkerson Media) to organise favourable stories by friendly journalists. As always, independent peer-reviewed references are to be preferred over news articles due to their higher quality. 101.176.26.217 (talk) 10:13, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Sources

The source for most of my edits is the first Herald article listed at the bottom of the page. Jeendan can replace the {{fact}}s with as many links to this as is necessary. And no, just because an edit is not pro-ALP does not make the editor a Fraser campaign worker. Joestella 04:53, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry if you were offended - it was supposed to be a joke. I have removed the fact tags (though I am still unaware of any doctors that lost their jobs, or any evidence that documents were shredded), and added a statement from the ICAC which is sourced from the article you listed at the bottom. Jeendan 06:40, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

News articles are a source of information, and can be used, but must be done so with appropriate caution - this is especially the case when one of the figures involved used a heavy weight public relations company (Wilkerson Media) to organise favourable stories by friendly journalists. As always, independent peer-reviewed references are to be preferred over news articles due to their higher quality. 101.176.26.217 (talk) 10:13, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

2014 - Fraser in trouble

Apparently Fraser is in danger of being banned from nursing http://www.goulburnpost.com.au/story/2218214/ban-for-nurse-who-used-dangerous-alternative-cancer-treatments/?cs=12. Should wait until it's done before adding to page, as some IP editors did, very poorly, in the previous Notes section. --220 of ^Borg 16:38, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Full text of Health Care Complaints Commission v Fraser (2014) NSWCATOD 29 (4 April 2014) --220 of ^Borg 17:14, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

The cancellation of Nola Fraser’s Nurse registration has been added to the article. 101.176.26.217 (talk) 10:13, 10 May 2020 (UTC)