![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
Can find no reference in the media anywhere that she has been sacked by Ch 10 - the noted reference only refers to Negus's show being axed and replaced which happened in 2011 and is not relevant to the current controversy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.53.222.20 ( talk) 05:30, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
Shouldn't Polish, Jewish, and (presumably) Anglo-Saxon and Celtic be added to her ethnicity? Eligius ( talk) 03:06, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Yumi Stynes also made the comment,'He must be a dud root', referring to Ben Roberts Smith IVF conception of twin girls.
210.9.189.54 ( talk) 01:02, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
Not done: please provide
reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Thanks,
Celestra (
talk)
14:32, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Yumi Stynes. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 13:04, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
Hi Onetwothreeip, I urge you to rethink your objections to the inclusion of notable comments by a senior cabinet minister that were widely covered by the full spectrum of Australia's media, condemning an indefensible remark the Stynes herself was forced to appologiesed for. Additionally, you have reverted this on three occasions within the last 24 hours, I believe you must leave it for some time now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.6.69.2 ( talk) 04:20, 1 February 2019 (UTC) - The ministers comments should be ignored, given they were based on widespread misreporting of critical facts (namely references to a war heroe's virility), as demonstrated by the cited apology of broadsheet newspaper publisher, Fairfax. . There is no need to slander Ms Stynes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8003:2724:500:11AD:22B1:E6A6:2F8A ( talk) 04:25, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
Do you have any sources that back that statement up? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.6.69.2 ( talk) 04:28, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
Yes, the apology is cited in the previous text. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8003:2724:500:11AD:22B1:E6A6:2F8A ( talk) 04:52, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
Do you have sources linking Stephen Smith's condemnation of Stynes' indefensible comments (she never retracted her apology, so she remains contrite) to the incorrect reporting or the actual comments? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.6.69.2 ( talk) 05:03, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
I take from the lack of a response that the answer to my above question is no. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.6.69.2 ( talk) 22:41, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
Yumi made these comments. No one else used these words besides her. Yes, George Negus started this topic but she chose to continue with this comment. This comment was very controversial. If you think the condemnation wasn't at her, why did you not object to the inclusion of the condemnation at all. It bears to reason, does it not?, that it does not belong here at all in such a case. It's really simple: either it was her comments, or the ministerial condemnation of these comments does not belong in an entry about her. But you, very tellingly, did not try to remove the ministerial condemnation, only to change the word "her [comments]" to "such". It was her comments, and it should not be deliberately disguised.
P.S. The fact that George Negus started this discussion is entirely irrelevant. She chose to pick it up and take it to a new level using the above colourful words. Had she left it alone, so should have we. She didn't, so neither should we. 1.129.111.167 ( talk) 11:51, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
And don't you and Onetwothreeip tell me to "get consensus". I do have consensus. You two don't. 1.129.111.167 ( talk) 12:07, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
Many living people have controversies sections in their Wikipedia entry. In my opinion, the general rule of thumb should be that if a person is most known for being involved in controversies, rather than a person of notable fame who (like most if not all people) from time to time was criticised for something they did/said, then a separate section of controversies is appropriate. Also in my opinion, Yumi Stynes falls into the former category, namely people of generally very limited fame, whom most mentions in the public domain refer to controversial things they said. You will find, I think, that her wider fame came to Yumi due to her ability to "stir the pot" in a big way. In any case, many celebrities probably have such a section in their Wikipedia entry. I also believe that this entry had this section for quite a while and most didn't mind at all, until a recent removal. I therefore propose to re-instate this section for her. I welcome submissions from editors on the topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.129.109.53 ( talk) 13:37, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
If she is "most known for being involved in controversies" there would be a lot more than two instances to draw from, where the notable part of one of those is that Fairfax published an apology two and a half years after the incident. Compare how long the controversies described in Alan Jones (radio broadcaster) which only has the word "controversy" in one section title near the end, summarising another article by that name. -- Scott Davis Talk 00:00, 5 February 2019 (UTC),
Stynes accused KAK of racism for KAK's comments. Many (admittedly, prominently on the conservative side, but still), including Aboriginal activists, disputed that. It has been widely pointed out that the comments made by KAK re Aboriginals were often made by Aboriginals themselves, so what's the problem with that comment? Why is it racist? By making her comment above, Stynes exposes herself as belong to a school of thought, definitely not uncommon among the Left, that *all* Whites are racists because they have "White Privilege", which means Whites enjoy racist attitudes inherent in society which Whites may not even be aware of. In other words, if you are White, you are racist, whether you know it or not. The best chance you have, as a White person, is to simply avoid discussing racism-related issues as well. This school of thought basically says that Whites are not allowed to discuss racism issues such as problem in Aboriginal communities (which was what KAK said), due to their inherent unconscious racism. Stynes comment exposes her as belonging to that school of thought, and would, in my opinion, fully explain why she took such passionate issue with a comment that many would find acceptable, including many Aboriginal activists. In any case, her comment is relevant as it exposes her attitudes and is very relevant into who she is, which is what this topic is all about. Suggestions that it is not relevant or me trying to shift the debate from a relevant facts to making an opinion about non-relevant issues are dismissed. It is all about who Stynes is. She went on national TV and made the comments she made, then went on national radio and made the further comments she did. It was her, not me, who chose to raise the issue of racism and (indirectly) White Privilege. Therefore, it is relevant. It is not about me as just another Wikipedia editor, but about her, as the subject of a Wikipedia entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.144.109.84 ( talk) 01:06, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
I think I'm sitting on my own little island here: I see no value in the Stephen Smith quote, but the reference for it is a better reference for the Fairfax apology except for not saying how long they took to issue it. I am OK with keeping the white people talking about racism quote as it shows that despite growing up in rural Australia with an Australian father, she identifies as Asian (probably because she was in the only family in the town with an Asian parent - see the first reference about her early life). I think that most adults have a bit of racism, no matter how hard we try to suppress it. Neither KAK nor YS is completely above racism in the encounter, which is probably exactly what the producers wanted. -- Scott Davis Talk 03:23, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
It explains that Stynes does not view herself as a White person, but a coloured one.It doesn't, but if it did, that is something we would be saying first and then bringing a quote like that in to accompany it.
It shows that she thinks that White people, such as KAK, should not even discuss race matters with her.This isn't true either, but if it was then we would be establishing that and then adding a quote to demonstrate it. We don't just leave quotes lying around and then have the reader decide what this proves about the subject. The quote is just irrelevant given a complete lack of context. We might as well copy and paste an entire transcript of the interview. They can listen to the interview if they want. I wouldn't have to repeatedly remove anything if you weren't repeatedly adding them back in. The problem with what Stephen Smith said is that it's convoluted by being against George Negus as well as Stynes, and most likely regarding the accusation that they insulted Roberts-Smith's inability to reproduce which was retracted and apologised for. Most of all there's just no reason to add these quotes, at least in their current form. Onetwothreeip ( talk) 10:12, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
Could we all please use the talk page to discuss improving the content of the article, instead of throwing multi-line edit comments around when the effect of the edit is just a POV reversal?
My thoughts on what appear to be the hot issues at the moment:
-- Scott Davis Talk 02:26, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
All of that is undisputed and confirmed in a link to a solid source (The Perth Now). For an anonymous editor to dispute without explanation a fact widely reported in all newspapers in Australia, and remove in the name of that dispute not only that fact, but other, more important fact which is not even disputed by the editor and is actually the main point (a direct quote of the "cockroach" comment), is entirely unacceptable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.129.110.233 ( talk) 05:23, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
Can find no reference in the media anywhere that she has been sacked by Ch 10 - the noted reference only refers to Negus's show being axed and replaced which happened in 2011 and is not relevant to the current controversy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.53.222.20 ( talk) 05:30, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
Shouldn't Polish, Jewish, and (presumably) Anglo-Saxon and Celtic be added to her ethnicity? Eligius ( talk) 03:06, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Yumi Stynes also made the comment,'He must be a dud root', referring to Ben Roberts Smith IVF conception of twin girls.
210.9.189.54 ( talk) 01:02, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
Not done: please provide
reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Thanks,
Celestra (
talk)
14:32, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Yumi Stynes. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 13:04, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
Hi Onetwothreeip, I urge you to rethink your objections to the inclusion of notable comments by a senior cabinet minister that were widely covered by the full spectrum of Australia's media, condemning an indefensible remark the Stynes herself was forced to appologiesed for. Additionally, you have reverted this on three occasions within the last 24 hours, I believe you must leave it for some time now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.6.69.2 ( talk) 04:20, 1 February 2019 (UTC) - The ministers comments should be ignored, given they were based on widespread misreporting of critical facts (namely references to a war heroe's virility), as demonstrated by the cited apology of broadsheet newspaper publisher, Fairfax. . There is no need to slander Ms Stynes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8003:2724:500:11AD:22B1:E6A6:2F8A ( talk) 04:25, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
Do you have any sources that back that statement up? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.6.69.2 ( talk) 04:28, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
Yes, the apology is cited in the previous text. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8003:2724:500:11AD:22B1:E6A6:2F8A ( talk) 04:52, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
Do you have sources linking Stephen Smith's condemnation of Stynes' indefensible comments (she never retracted her apology, so she remains contrite) to the incorrect reporting or the actual comments? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.6.69.2 ( talk) 05:03, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
I take from the lack of a response that the answer to my above question is no. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.6.69.2 ( talk) 22:41, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
Yumi made these comments. No one else used these words besides her. Yes, George Negus started this topic but she chose to continue with this comment. This comment was very controversial. If you think the condemnation wasn't at her, why did you not object to the inclusion of the condemnation at all. It bears to reason, does it not?, that it does not belong here at all in such a case. It's really simple: either it was her comments, or the ministerial condemnation of these comments does not belong in an entry about her. But you, very tellingly, did not try to remove the ministerial condemnation, only to change the word "her [comments]" to "such". It was her comments, and it should not be deliberately disguised.
P.S. The fact that George Negus started this discussion is entirely irrelevant. She chose to pick it up and take it to a new level using the above colourful words. Had she left it alone, so should have we. She didn't, so neither should we. 1.129.111.167 ( talk) 11:51, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
And don't you and Onetwothreeip tell me to "get consensus". I do have consensus. You two don't. 1.129.111.167 ( talk) 12:07, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
Many living people have controversies sections in their Wikipedia entry. In my opinion, the general rule of thumb should be that if a person is most known for being involved in controversies, rather than a person of notable fame who (like most if not all people) from time to time was criticised for something they did/said, then a separate section of controversies is appropriate. Also in my opinion, Yumi Stynes falls into the former category, namely people of generally very limited fame, whom most mentions in the public domain refer to controversial things they said. You will find, I think, that her wider fame came to Yumi due to her ability to "stir the pot" in a big way. In any case, many celebrities probably have such a section in their Wikipedia entry. I also believe that this entry had this section for quite a while and most didn't mind at all, until a recent removal. I therefore propose to re-instate this section for her. I welcome submissions from editors on the topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.129.109.53 ( talk) 13:37, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
If she is "most known for being involved in controversies" there would be a lot more than two instances to draw from, where the notable part of one of those is that Fairfax published an apology two and a half years after the incident. Compare how long the controversies described in Alan Jones (radio broadcaster) which only has the word "controversy" in one section title near the end, summarising another article by that name. -- Scott Davis Talk 00:00, 5 February 2019 (UTC),
Stynes accused KAK of racism for KAK's comments. Many (admittedly, prominently on the conservative side, but still), including Aboriginal activists, disputed that. It has been widely pointed out that the comments made by KAK re Aboriginals were often made by Aboriginals themselves, so what's the problem with that comment? Why is it racist? By making her comment above, Stynes exposes herself as belong to a school of thought, definitely not uncommon among the Left, that *all* Whites are racists because they have "White Privilege", which means Whites enjoy racist attitudes inherent in society which Whites may not even be aware of. In other words, if you are White, you are racist, whether you know it or not. The best chance you have, as a White person, is to simply avoid discussing racism-related issues as well. This school of thought basically says that Whites are not allowed to discuss racism issues such as problem in Aboriginal communities (which was what KAK said), due to their inherent unconscious racism. Stynes comment exposes her as belonging to that school of thought, and would, in my opinion, fully explain why she took such passionate issue with a comment that many would find acceptable, including many Aboriginal activists. In any case, her comment is relevant as it exposes her attitudes and is very relevant into who she is, which is what this topic is all about. Suggestions that it is not relevant or me trying to shift the debate from a relevant facts to making an opinion about non-relevant issues are dismissed. It is all about who Stynes is. She went on national TV and made the comments she made, then went on national radio and made the further comments she did. It was her, not me, who chose to raise the issue of racism and (indirectly) White Privilege. Therefore, it is relevant. It is not about me as just another Wikipedia editor, but about her, as the subject of a Wikipedia entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.144.109.84 ( talk) 01:06, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
I think I'm sitting on my own little island here: I see no value in the Stephen Smith quote, but the reference for it is a better reference for the Fairfax apology except for not saying how long they took to issue it. I am OK with keeping the white people talking about racism quote as it shows that despite growing up in rural Australia with an Australian father, she identifies as Asian (probably because she was in the only family in the town with an Asian parent - see the first reference about her early life). I think that most adults have a bit of racism, no matter how hard we try to suppress it. Neither KAK nor YS is completely above racism in the encounter, which is probably exactly what the producers wanted. -- Scott Davis Talk 03:23, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
It explains that Stynes does not view herself as a White person, but a coloured one.It doesn't, but if it did, that is something we would be saying first and then bringing a quote like that in to accompany it.
It shows that she thinks that White people, such as KAK, should not even discuss race matters with her.This isn't true either, but if it was then we would be establishing that and then adding a quote to demonstrate it. We don't just leave quotes lying around and then have the reader decide what this proves about the subject. The quote is just irrelevant given a complete lack of context. We might as well copy and paste an entire transcript of the interview. They can listen to the interview if they want. I wouldn't have to repeatedly remove anything if you weren't repeatedly adding them back in. The problem with what Stephen Smith said is that it's convoluted by being against George Negus as well as Stynes, and most likely regarding the accusation that they insulted Roberts-Smith's inability to reproduce which was retracted and apologised for. Most of all there's just no reason to add these quotes, at least in their current form. Onetwothreeip ( talk) 10:12, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
Could we all please use the talk page to discuss improving the content of the article, instead of throwing multi-line edit comments around when the effect of the edit is just a POV reversal?
My thoughts on what appear to be the hot issues at the moment:
-- Scott Davis Talk 02:26, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
All of that is undisputed and confirmed in a link to a solid source (The Perth Now). For an anonymous editor to dispute without explanation a fact widely reported in all newspapers in Australia, and remove in the name of that dispute not only that fact, but other, more important fact which is not even disputed by the editor and is actually the main point (a direct quote of the "cockroach" comment), is entirely unacceptable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.129.110.233 ( talk) 05:23, 1 February 2019 (UTC)