Talk:Jacinta Nampijinpa Price

Quotes from maiden speech

I think that the long quotes from Price's maiden speech need cutting back. Wikipedia is not a mouthpiece for politicians, and I haven't seen long excerpts like this from speeches posted in any other articles about politicians. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 03:53, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

It was reported across the board as a significant speech (even called an "Australian Gettysburg Address by one experienced commentator) and it defines her political philosophy and agenda. That is more useful than paraphrasing. In fact, for the time being (until this article grows) it is one of the most useful sections for explain who she is. I see similar extended quotes on other significant political pages like Martin Luther King, Winston Churchill, Abraham Lincoln, Tony Abbott etc etc. Succinct articles are better - but this article is not overly long. There is not good reason to remove these useful sections. Observoz (talk) 09:19, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

I agree with Laterthanyouthink. It wasn't reported across the board as a "significant speech" anywhere other than perhaps in a very small, relatively fringe section of the conservative press which are open devoted fans of Price. The attempted comparisons above make it pretty obvious that the editor was trying to use the lengthy quotes to promote the subject in a way that couldn't be sustained by citing reliable third-party sources. The Drover's Wife (talk) 08:32, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Not many maiden speeches received the coverage Price's did. It was reported across the board, in media from all persuasions. The Guardian quoted a substantial part of it. That said, much of the quotes in the article are, let's say, not particularly pithy, and could be brought more to a point by paraphrasing/summarising. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 10:33, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Correct Michael Bednarek, it was a significant speech that received significant coverage. Meanwhile, The Drover's Wife claim above that it was only covered on the "fringe" is not accurate (though this is very revealing of the ideological attitude Drover brings to this page, so we should treat their contributions here with due caution as a partisan agenda). I still can't see any advantage in a significant trim of the maiden speech section, given this is not a long article. It is a better summary of her political philosophy than anything that was previously on this this page. However, I will review my text to see where some abbreviation can be made without losing either the essence of the rhythm of the rhetoric. I should add that this article was of a particularly low and partisan standard when I arrived at it a few days ago. It still needs work to be accurate, impartial and comprehensive. Observoz (talk) 23:40, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Observoz: It looks a lot as if you're verging on WP:OWN here, and I think that you need to slow down your editing and think about what you're writing, after having a good read of the guidelines such as WP:UNDUE. The article is not particularly short (especially considering she hasn't had a long career), and in any case a short article is not a reason to add content that doesn't follow the guidelines. Under that reasoning, one could add all kinds of dross. The maiden speech was covered in most news outlets because she has been a somewhat controversial figure, not necessarily because it was an outstanding piece of oratorical brilliance. It is not surprising that those in her party or of her persuasion would praise it in flowery terms, but it's certainly not necessary to use Greg Sheridan's over-the-top analogy (re Gettysburg address) in a quote - unless his comment was subsequently reported by other media. And all of that praise quoted by an Alice Springs News journalist is just irrelevant. I have had a go at rewriting to represent what I could get out of that article. Please try to retain some perspective. Also, note that you can improve your citations (and use the correct date format) by using this citer tool (however you always need to check the results because they quite often need slight adjustments). Laterthanyouthink (talk) 10:19, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Your POV assertions regarding the content of the speech are noted Laterthanyouthink, however, with respect, Greg Sheridan is rather more relevant judge as far as the general public are concerned. There is no good reason at all to hide his unusually high praise of the speech. Readers will bring their own judgement to bare on whether he is a reliable witness, but contrary to your assertions, it is not at all common for maiden speeches to be given such praise or column inches. They are usually dull, and unremarked. If anything, we want more quotes in that section. If you can find a negative assessment by a journalist from the opposite side of the fence like a Paul Bongiorno or a Laura Tingle, that would be more useful than seeking as you are to hide the rare praise offered by a national figure like Sheridan. Incidentally, your desire to remove Sheridan seems to be at odds with your decision to insert Kieran Finnane, though I actually agree that it is better to name him as the author of those assessments, than to leave it, as I had, merely attributing it to the Alice Springs News. I will review what you have deleted there to see if you have lost anything significant. Observoz (talk) 11:39, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

I don't do much editing on politicians, but when I look at any article, I look at the overall structure, readability, how relevant to the topic the content is, quality of its citations, and encyclopaedic tone, among other things. Biographies in encyclopaedias do not generally include long quotes, nor a lot of commentary on the worthiness or otherwise of their subjects by praisers and detractors. I don't care whether it's Jacinta Price, Dan Andrews or Pauline Hanson - we are looking at article quality here. Suggesting that I am trying to "hide" Sheridan's words is overreach. He writes a column in a limited-subscription newspaper which most readers of the article will not have access to. I have not had the time for a thorough analysis, and don't really have time nor interest in looking for a whole lot of views about Price. Let's give the facts about her career and a summary of the issues she focuses on. Opinions can be found by googling.

I added Kieran Finnane after finding she was the writer, only because you had quoted from the article and attributed it to the ASN. I have since removed this, since rewriting that paragraph, as who wrote it is now irrelevant. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 03:51, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Requested info

Any trivia on her “Celtic” father?

Why was he in Alice? What’s his expertise. Can he sing? MBG02 (talk) 13:55, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Yep, there is public domain material on her mother and her father. I will add. MatthewDalhousie (talk) 05:44, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Suggested info

Don’t need The Voice because;

• there are enough voices already; and they aren’t being heard
• it doesn’t represent all indigenous (viz many opponents - including groups - to the Uluru dialogue)
• it implies (by being in the constitution) that it means indigenous will always be “forever living in disadvantage” - and that the gap won’t close
• it’s no guarantee of a “be all and end all”

Source: 7:30 (abc tv, Australia, 6th Feb 2023). MBG02 (talk) 13:57, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

I would agree, but here isn't the right place for such a comment, which is intended for discussion on the article itself, not it's subject natter 60.227.136.36 (talk) 05:31, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

ot

Date of birth

Hi. Where does the information for her date of birth from? Neither of the sources provided in the article for her date of birth actually provide it; they simply say she was born in 1981, but not on what day. Aridd (talk) 11:19, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

I can't see a news article with a birth day, or birth month, only a birth year (which is 1981) from [1]. MatthewDalhousie (talk) 05:37, 21 October 2023 (UTC)