Talk:Lidia Thorpe

King Charles

It's making headlines,[1][2][3] but does Thorpe's verbal protest to King Charles belong under the "Political career" section or the "Advocacy" section of this article? Come to think of it, why separate her politics from her advocacy at all when there's so much overlap? Neegzistuoja (talk) 05:02, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

I added her heckling of King Charles in the "Controversies" section, which already was created for such things. Moroike (talk) 06:29, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

'Give us our land back. Give us what you stole from us. Our bones, our skulls our babies, our people. You destroyed our land. Give us a treaty. We want a treaty.' - this should be addressed, what are the demands of the colonized people? Owen Jones: King Charles HUMILIATED By Indigenous Australian Senator Lidia Thorpe → "three cheers to Lydia Thorp for courageous and educational intervention".--93.211.221.221 (talk) 12:43, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

I didn't realise Charles had her skulls or babies. 2A0A:EF40:387:5F01:C07F:7134:EC17:AAEF (talk) 20:45, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Hmm, I wouldn't mind having a discussion around the potential bias embedded in terms like this. Who's to say a politician's deliberate statement is a controversy, and not a far-reaching piece of advocacy, or a disruptive form of politics? Sure, a controversy is something that attracts criticism, but I think that could be said for much of Thorpe's political career and advocacy as well. Calling it a controversy, rather than a type of politics or advocacy Thorpe is choosing to engage in, might suggest an undue focus on others' negative interpretation of her actions, rather than a neutral retelling of the events. As to the above anonymous comment, I hoped linking the Australian Indigenous sovereignty article in the lede would cover that? Neegzistuoja (talk) 20:09, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Not her political views, but that she shouted in the aftermath of Charles' speech, qualifies as controversy, also due to the setting of this event. If it was a regular shouting match between politicians in parliament, it might not be qualified as a controversy or as an event. Her political views and the condition of Aborigines are not the issue. Personally I am neutral and indifferent to those topics, like to any topic generally. I won't add any comments on the historical and political aspects of this topic. Moroike (talk) 07:41, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

I agree it should be counted in controversies as it has been condemned by indigenous leaders as disrespectful and not speaking for their peoples as well as one saying it causes more division. It has also been condemned by the Prime Minister as behaviour below the standard Australians expect of their parliamentarians, there have also been calls from senior politicians on both sides that she should resign for her conduct. she was also escorted out of the hall by Australian Federal Police, and was nearly arrested by police for a similar incident earlier in the day at the War Memorial. (using a war memorial to stage a political protest is very controversial) Because of all this I agree it should be in controversies. Knowledgework69 (talk) 23:24, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

That comment is far too full of your own thoughts on what Thorpe did. HiLo48 (talk) 00:53, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

please look at the sources my judgement was based solely on the evidence provided. Knowledgework69 (talk) 01:03, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

If something is causing both sides of the political sphere to condemn something, on top of leading ingenious leaders saying it was disrespectful and she "does not speak for my people", to me that shows clear controversy Knowledgework69 (talk) 01:07, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

That again is a personal opinion. Politicians condemn opponents. Both sides hate independents with a vengeance right now. Condemning Thorpe is also a populist position. HiLo48 (talk) 02:13, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

I see your point in regards to politicians condemn opponents, however the comments made by indigenous leaders on the matter in regard to them saying she was disrespectful, and another saying she was alienating people to their cause rather then bringing them in. It must also be acknowledged as @Moroike made reference to that she, a senator, shouting at the head of state in parliament during an official event, not a heated parliamentary debate, accusing him of genocide, while the past of colonialism is a dark one, as a senator it is controversial for her to accuse the head of state, of the most serious and heinous of international criminal offences is in of itself controversial. Knowledgework69 (talk) 02:44, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Still too much of your opinion.HiLo48 (talk) 02:46, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

I'll happily take a backseat for this discussion, but I would like to note there is an expected level of behaviour to be undertaken by senators in particular I would like to note Privilege Resolution 9, of the Senate - "enjoins senators to use their great power of freedom of speech responsibly and with regard to several factors including the rights of others and the damage that can be done to reputations and the institution of parliament by allegations made in parliament."

I would also just like to note @HiLo48 these are not my personal opinions, I don't particularly have an emotive stake in Senate politics, these are just evidence and points I am just adding fuel to the discussion from this side of the opinion Knowledgework69 (talk) 03:05, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

@HiLo48 @Knowledgework69, this discussion is moot as I have removed the controversies section altogether. Per WP:CSECTION, controversy sections are improper for BLPs anyway, so we should neutrally present events involving Thorpe by just listing them in the timeline of her time in Parliament. GraziePrego (talk) 03:22, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

I am completely fine with that Knowledgework69 (talk) 03:33, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

In regard to the incident the other day should we just add it to her parliament section? Knowledgework69 (talk) 03:34, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

wait disregard that I didn't read up a couple lines on the article my bad Knowledgework69 (talk) 03:35, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Nothing qualifies as a controversy unless reliable sources explicitly tell us it is a controversy. 08:49, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 October 2024

Fix misspelling: replace section header "Bankruptsy" with "Bankruptcy" Kman342 (talk) 13:07, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

 Already done M.Bitton (talk) 14:43, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Text without support by citations

Isn't it time to do away with text marked with "citation needed"? -The Gnome (talk) 20:14, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Most of that text seems very likely to be true, and relevant, and should not be all that hard to source, so no, find some sources instead.. HiLo48 (talk) 22:24, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Well, what "seems very likely to be true" is a rather lame mindset with which to create encyclopaedic text. Wikipedia is founded on sources; not opinions about "relevancy." So, no, whatever sources you may find, get them appended to the relevant text and then this goes away. And, while you're at it, get rid of the didactic tone. -The Gnome (talk)

I think WP:JUSTDOIT answers your question pretty well here, @The Gnome GraziePrego (talk) 11:17, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

The question I posed was not answered. I ask, yet I chose to invite opinions and input. The response was some inane remark ("most of the text seems likely to be true"), adequate only for idle talk. I acknowledge your suggestion. Grazie. -The Gnome (talk) 12:42, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

A good mindset with which to create encyclopaedic text is to aim to provide good sources where that's a simple task. Calling that suggestion inane is close to a personal attack. HiLo48 (talk) 01:15, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Well, I find the position "there must be sources" to be actually nonsensical, as the relevant text in Wikipedia actually describes it, but I chose to be kind. And not brusque as you were ("find some sources"!). Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 10:03, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Whom?

'On 14 June 2023, Thorpe gained media attention after she and Amanda Stoker accused Senator David Van of sexually assaulting her during parliament.'

Assaulting whom, Thorpe or Stoker? This needs to be specified in the section.

Also, the Senate section is composed almost entirely of what is usually called 'scandals'. Surely she must have done something else, too? 62.73.72.3 (talk) 17:56, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

• It seems you are fishing for gossip. Such input is unacceptable. -The Gnome (talk) 17:24, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

'She had misspoke'

Should be 'she had misspoken'. Somebody please correct this. 62.73.72.3 (talk) 18:03, 26 October 2024 (UTC)