Jump to content

Talk:Amanda Stoker

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Honestyisbest (talk | contribs) at 22:14, 14 September 2021 (Removal of statement by Australian of the Year: Dispute resolution needed.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Expanding this article in 2020

This recently installed Senator has now done several interviews and given a number of speeches, so we're starting to see an outline of her thought. I think that's the main thing that needs developing. The Early Life and the legal career sections are fine - unless someone can find something further that's particularly illuminating.

It's the political career and political positions that need some structure and expansion.

In the parliament, what are the topics where she has raised her voice in the very blokey party room? What committees is she already on? What legislation is she trying to shape?

As to political positions, we just need the themes to emerge. There must be an article or two that has already created the buckets that her thoughts are going into.

@CatCafe: @Chalk001: @Ivar the Boneful: @Sammyrice: @StAnselm: An interesting, fresh subject already. Worth expanding. Am keen to have other collaborators involved.The Little Platoon (talk) 09:14, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Before I start the edits, can I just re-iterate what's on my user page, that I do work in the Australian Parliament, but I get moved around a lot. I contribute to articles on figures in the ALP and the coalition. I have made this disclosure to the Conflict of Interest Notice board [1] I don't take instructions and I don't get approvals. I don't disclose any further because if I did people would work out who I am, and they would start trying to exert pressure on me to write certain things or remove certain things. This way I can better ensure I'm being balanced.The Little Platoon (talk) 01:36, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Noted. BTW, have you got a secondary source for the the following sentence? *While most media reporting covers Stoker's socially conservative views on gender and religious freedom, her first speech put a premium on restoring trust "across the four sectors of the economy—government, media, corporate and non-government organisations*. CatCafe (talk) 04:44, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@CatCafe: best I can find is the [2]!

August 2021

@CatCafe: Hello. Apologies, I didn't use the correct talk page before. Happy to discuss appropriate changes. I've elaborated on content already in the article and expanded on the sources used. It's currently not a balanced article, and adding the extra information improves that. What do you see as the issues with what I've added? I continue to re-add my additions because I'm confused on what the problem may be. Thanks 120.17.135.86 (talk) 10:16, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

IP, do you have any relationship to Stoker? CatCafe (talk) 05:46, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I really am not sure if that approach is helpful catcafe? Please remember to be respectful of other editors you disagree with and not intimidate them or bully them as you attempt to do to this editor above. I think this editor above has a very valid point in my opinion. Honestyisbest (talk) 03:30, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please retract your accusations Honestyisbest. The above IP editor made a claim that the article was defamatory, that's not on. So you concur with them that the article is defamatory? And you've also just deleted a bunch of edits the IP editor made, so you're contradicting yourself. CatCafe (talk) 04:56, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of statement by Australian of the Year

Dear Honestyisbest, what is your rationale behind removing the statement by Aust of the Year Tame? The PM said something positive, and Tame, a respected advocate, disagreed and criticised it. Only putting one side of the story is not NPOV. And in case you forgot, Stoker is a Federal Senator. CatCafe (talk) 06:44, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am positive there would be many persons who would discredit the Coalition government and LNP Senators. This is a BIO about a living person and we need to strictly follow policy. I have certainly made other concessions on the edits over the past couple of days. I am hoping you can compromise rather than edit war and bully only your version into this article. Honestyisbest (talk) 09:40, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
1. From what I can see you have not been making "edits over the past couple of days", only today. The only other editor making "edits over the past couple of days" is the IP editor referred to above. If you are saying you were logged out when editing, then I apologise that I did not realise you were one in the same.
2. What policy are you referring to that says WP cannot critique a decision made by the PM in reference to the Senator? And what policy says WP can't include such from another prominent Australian in order to offer NPOV?
3. Please stop the name calling. CatCafe (talk) 11:26, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No I am not the IP editor. Also there is no basis fort your edit inserting Grace Tame in there in a BIO about this living person. You need to familiarise yourself with the policy on living person's BIOs catcafe and stop edit warring. Honestyisbest (talk) 21:55, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think we need some dispute resolution. Would that be good for you catcafe? We are not getting anywhere over this edit. Honestyisbest (talk) 22:14, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]