The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that a coroner's inquest into the death of Ms Dhu found that she suffered "unprofessional and inhumane" treatment by police and "deficient" treatment by hospital staff?
A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on August 4, 2024.
Current status: Featured article
This article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Death of Ms Dhu is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WomenWikipedia:WikiProject WomenTemplate:WikiProject WomenWikiProject Women
@The Drover's Wife: Well, since you reverted the move, and since contrary to your edit summary there are comments here about it, can you at least justify your reversion? And can you please point out where the "previous agreement" that you mentioned in your edit summary about this is located?
I understand it's culturally insensitive to use the first name's of deceased Aboriginal's in general. However, Dhu's family explicitly gave permission to the media to use her full name "in order to attract maximum publicity to her story" [1], which, incidentally, is the exact same reason I've been working so hard on expanding the article. And even if they hadn't, we don't have to respect cultural sensitivity. It's culturally insensitive to make depictions of Muhammad, however, Wikipedia's article on him includes depictions; there was actually a big debate on this that basically ruled in favour of maintaining a neutral encyclopedia rather than a politically correct one. Please justify your action. Freikorp (talk) 01:29, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The source you referred to stated that they had given permission to SBS. If I do a Google search for "Ms Dhu" versus her full name, while it returns marginally more results for the latter, it seems that a) many more reliable sources use Ms Dhu (I'm on page 4 of a "Julieka Dhu" search and it's already blog central; there are many more pages of media coverage at "Ms Dhu"), and b) even a substantial number of the reliable sources that do refer to her full name (such that they show up in a Google search) still primarily refer to her as "Ms Dhu". So, if the WP:COMMONNAME by which she is referred to in reliable sources is Ms Dhu, then per our policies, we should use Ms Dhu. The Drover's Wife (talk) 02:53, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Why would they want maximum publicity from SBS but not from everyone else? I can't help but think the reason they gave permission to SBS is because SBS, having an obvious reputation for being culturally inclusive, were probably the only agency to have the decency to ask for it. But I'm actually not too fussed about this if it's going to cause controversy. I just saw the one person suggesting the move on the talk page and personally agreed with the suggestion; the fact that no-one objected in well over a year led me to believe there was no reason to discuss the matter further. For the record my vote is to move the page but I'll wait for further opinions (which are unlikely to be given considering the lack of apparent interest in this article overall) before trying to do anything else about it. Freikorp (talk) 05:33, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Damien Linnane: Would you consider adding page numbers to refs for the Coroner's report? As it stands we have several citations for smallish items to a 165-page PDF. Not very helpful for verifiability. Triptothecottage (talk) 08:16, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Great, thank you. Nice to see something that's both Australian and worth writing about on the front page, as opposed to the usual stream of video game promos and obscure military topics :) Triptothecottage (talk) 01:10, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
