Talk:Amanda Stoker

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.

An interesting, fresh subject already. Worth expanding. Am keen to have other collaborators involved.The Little Platoon (talk) 09:14, 1 July 2020 (UTC)


 * 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 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)


 * 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)


 * best I can find is the !

August 2021
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)
 * IP, do you have any relationship to Stoker? CatCafe (talk) 05:46, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * 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)


 * 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)

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)
 * 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)
 * 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)


 * 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)
 * 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)
 * You still refer to no policy to support your removal of the NPOV content by Tame. You do not seem to understand NPOV policy. Putting in an opinion by the PM (as you did) is POV - putting back the deleted Grace Tame's alternative view on the matter (which you deleted from the original text) is introducing a Neutral Point of View (NPOV) to the article. WP aims for NPOV. CatCafe (talk) 22:25, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Please stop edit warring catcafe. Stop your offensive personal comments. We need to be careful with BIOs of living persons. Please read the policy carefully catcafe. I have major problems with the way this whole article has been skewed catcafe and it seems like you've used it as an opportunity to blacken and demean this living person. It is not right to use it as an attack page catcafe. Honestyisbest (talk) 23:54, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I also asked if you would like to use dispute resolution to help resolve our dispute. You chose to ignore my polite request for dispute resolution and only want to edit war and force your preferred version into the article. It looks like you've already been blocked multiple times for edit warring and abusive dialogue with fellow editors. Honestyisbest (talk) 23:56, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry, if the you insist on the comment by the PM, then the comment by Australian of the Year Grace Tame balances out to make it NPOV. This is not Stoker's CV, it is a WP article. Please stop editwarring and removing this text and please get consensus before you attempt it again. CatCafe (talk) 00:16, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Stop edit warring catcafe. We need dispute resolution as this is getting us nowhere. Would you participate in DR? Honestyisbest (talk) 00:18, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
 * It's not a matter of dispute you first need some consensus. You deleted text that had been supported by the article for a long time. Please get some consensus for your demand that the section including the opposing comments by Morrison and Tame need removing. In the meantime I have removed them for you. CatCafe (talk) 00:25, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
 * No this is a dispute alright. You have revertred me 12 times in 24 hours catcafe. stop edit warring. You've been blocked multiple times for edit warring before. Honestyisbest (talk) 00:30, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Please stop editwarring, get the consensus you demand before returning the text you have a problem with. Thanks. CatCafe (talk) 00:34, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Consensus

 * Will you participate in dispute resolution catcafe. You have refused to answer me? Honestyisbest (talk) 00:40, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
 * What is your dispute? I see it as you need to gain consensus for your suggested removals. Also please do not revert my BRD's when they needs to be discussed here first. CatCafe (talk) 01:38, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm trying to keep on top of this discussion/dispute but there's too many diffs, it would be appreciated if you could outline your concerns in detail on this talk page rather than continuing to edit war. CatCafe is right, see WP:BRD, you should get consensus for the removal of referenced content. I don't see the problem with the inclusion and it doesn't seem to be a violation of WP:BLP or WP:NPOV as you claim in the edit comments. It's not WP:UNDUE as it is one part of many in the article (as opposed to over 50% of the article consisting of the dreaded "Controversy" section). I would oppose the inclusion if it was an opposition MP making a critical statement, that is not notable, but that is not the case here with Tame's comments, or if it was a party colleague—those seem pretty notable and worth mentioning if they are properly referenced. Maybe for a little more balance it would be good to include a rebuttal to Tame's comment from Stoker or someone else (referenced of course), if you can find such a thing? --Canley (talk) 02:56, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks Canley here is the diff in question . I believe for NPOV the Prime Minister's and the Aust of the Year Grace Tame's comments should both be included. Tame's comments are notable as she's Aus of the Year and as one of the leading national advocates on women's issues. Editor Honestyisbest wants Tame's comments deleted and just the PM's glowing comments to be remain. CatCafe (talk) 03:13, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Also Canley, as you suggest I found a rebuttal as well as many RS discussing the Stoker v Tame dispute via simple google search - it's certainly notable. I suggest this abc cite. Thus as per your suggestion I propose the section to now read:
 * CatCafe (talk) 04:09, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Very interesting Canley that you did not comment on catcafe's edit warring. Honestyisbest (talk) 00:02, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * CatCafe: Suggested text looks good to me, more balanced. Honestyisbest: agree that there is edit-warring taking place on both sides, but as demonstrated above, CatCafe has shown far more willingness to compromise and improve the wording and referencing in general. Maybe you should do the same and discuss/compromise/reach consensus on the content and citations rather than just posting repeated complaints about another editor and doing flat reverts. Lastly, as I said above, I don't think criticism from the opposition is notable (par for the course in politics), and I think the same for the subject's party leader praising them (this is in reference to Morrison's "one of the most bright and intelligent people" comment). --Canley (talk) 01:17, 16 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Honestyisbest, can you please stop the WP:NPA. I conclude that no comment on the above paragraph proposal means consensus on it. CatCafe (talk) 00:32, 16 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Both Tame's and Morrisons comments are now removed. Probably good solution to resolve this dispute. Honestyisbest (talk) 01:27, 16 September 2021 (UTC)


 * It's not a dispute it's an issue of consensus. And currently Canley and I are on the way to reaching such consensus. You're the only one looking at creating disputes. CatCafe (talk) 02:14, 16 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Have now returned content as discussed above. CatCafe (talk) 03:46, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * One editor agreeing with you over a 24 hour period is not consensus. In fact, there is no direct time limit on discussion. I've seen some discussions take months. The information should not be re-added. @CatCafe, you made edits to the article. You are the Bold in WP:BRD. @Honestyisbest is the Revert in the policy. Now it is time for Discussion. It is precisely sourced edits that should be discussed as non-sourced information should not be added anyway. Re-adding the information that was reverted without first gaining consensus is against policy and has lead directly to this edit warring between the both of you. Please remain civil and make sure you fully understand what consensus truly is. -- A Rose Wolf  12:47, 16 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Is editor Honestyisbest still the only editor (or ex-editor) that opposes including comments from Aust of the Year Grace Tame in the article? Any opinions from other editors on the paragraph in green I propose above? CatCafe (talk) 07:49, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
 * , now that Honestyisbest has been found to be a sock following me, what is your opinion on returning the modified paragraph I proposed above? CatCafe (talk) 21:15, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
 * , I was mostly concerned with the edit warring taking place but I reviewed the paragraph and sources and it seems an accurate depiction. The wording is neutral and quotes are inside the quotation so as to show this is not the voice of Wikipedia but an accurate recounting of the words of the individuals involved. It offers a view of both sides where it is possible to do so without giving undue weight to either side. I would agree with the wording myself. -- A Rose Wolf  13:36, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Controversies
The controversies section in this article is nothing more than an attack in this BIO on a living person. Neither of the stories are in any way notable. I think the section needs to be deleted. Honestyisbest (talk) 00:07, 16 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Maybe re-titled but the text is notable and should remain. CatCafe (talk) 00:34, 16 September 2021 (UTC)


 * How is Stoker's facebook account anything of actual note? How is it a controversy? We do not have similar sections in ALP Senator's or Greens Senator's articles. Honestyisbest (talk) 01:31, 16 September 2021 (UTC)


 * It's notable in the fact that it's been reported in multiple RS. Your issue seems to be the title of the section. And I encourage you to introduce any RS, notable & controversial topics into the other "ALP Senator's or Greens Senator's articles" you speak of. WP is not party political. CatCafe (talk) 02:12, 16 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Just because it is reported in a couple of sources does not mean it is notable enough to be included here in a BIO of a living person and with its own Controversies section. We need to be careful giving undue weight to these types of minor incidents. Do you want to get some dispute resolution over here? Will you participate in dispute resolution as we are not getting anywhere. Canley? Catcafe? Honestyisbest (talk) 04:09, 16 September 2021 (UTC)


 * The 'Controversies' title has now been removed, and the content there condensed a little and included in the greater 'Political career' section. CatCafe (talk) 01:32, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Senate ticket
The RS surrounding Stoker being relegated to 3rd on ticket is notable and substantial - CatCafe (talk) 02:57, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Agree, it is notable and well-referenced. --Canley (talk) 00:56, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * would you please discuss your edit proposal here before doing further reversions. CatCafe (talk) 03:56, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

"'Knee on the throat'" & "'Mandy Jane'" sections removed - why?
would you please discuss your removal of these 2 sections here prior to further revisions. How have you interpreted NPOV policy? CatCafe (talk) 04:00, 24 September 2021 (UTC)