Talk:Robert Bropho

message: Did they give a reason for rejecting the DNA evidence?24.131.12.228 04:15, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: earlier comment

message: Bropho bail application rejected, ABC News Feb 06: "The Supreme Court has rejected a bail application by Aboriginal activist Robert Bropho. Bropho is serving a 12-month sentence for indecently dealing with a young girl while he was the head of the now defunct Swan Valley Noongah Community. His legal counsel today applied for bail pending the outcome of an appeal against the convictions, but the application was refused..."
Bropho denies these claims: 
Aboriginal elder denies sex abuse allegations. ABC Radio, 31 Oct 2001
Robert Bropho reveals Aboriginal community to leave Swan Valley camp
ABC Stateline, June 6, 2003
Indigenous DNA testing in doubt: ABC 7.30 Report, 26/08/2004
Perth community closure. PM, 14 May, 2003
Controversy over WA govt closure of Swan Valley Camp: The World Today, 19 November , 2004
BELLA BROPHO v STATE OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA & ORS: September 5, 2006 [http://www.perth.indymedia.org.au/index.php?action=newswire&parentview=7402 Radio Interview: 
Bella Bropho From Swan Valley Nooynga Community December 2004 ]
--ErnMalley 17:31, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Updated information:

message: I started to review this article, but have given up because it is just too deeply flawed. The three final straws for me were:
# The final paragraph of the article, which reads "According to Perth QC Tom Percy, Western Australia has 'possibly the worst record in Australia for wrongful convictions,' Western Australia also has possibly the worst record in Australia for convicting Aboriginal people. In 2007 Richard Harding, the State’s Inspector of Prisons, said: 'Our Aboriginal imprisonment rate, 43 percent of our total population, is a standing reproach to the way we have handled relations with the Aboriginal population of Western Australia'." True though this may be, it has nothing to do with Bropho, except that the writer of this article is peddling the opinion that Bropho has been wrongly convicted.
#The assertion that the Gordon Report made only one recommendation regarding the Swan Valley Nyungah Community. The SVNC may have been specifically mentioned in only one recommendation, but it found that family violence and child abuse occur in Aboriginal communities at a rate that is much higher than that of non-Aboriginal communities, and made 197 recommendations on how to respond to this problem. Any moron will tell you that a great many of these recommendations would have impacted on the SVNC, if it had not been shut down. This ridiculous assertion that the Gordon Report made only one recommendation may be literally true, but it is a deliberately misleading statement that can be traced back to the SVNC itself.
# The worst example of all regards Susan Taylor. To say that "the police reported that the death was not suspicious" and that the cause of death was "ligature compression of the neck", but to neglect to report the coroner's finding that the girl had encountered "sexual violation, violence, and the ravages of alcohol and substance abuse. In desperation, and despite contact with several Government agencies, she died in tragic circumstances at the age of 15." is so grossly biased that it is impossible to accept that the bias isn't deliberate. No-one who wasn't setting out to whitewash this tragic event could report such minor findings yet fail to report the most significant finding of all.
As far as I am concerned this article is so horribly biased that it is unsalvageable, and I intend to revert it to the version of 21 March unless someone can give me just cause why I should not.
Hesperian 07:36, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hesperian, I don't think there is any doubt that the article is now a terribly one-sided attempt to whitewash (bad pun not intended) the facts.  It has selectively included and omitted certain events in order to portray a particular point of view in violation of Wikipedia policies, particularly WP:NPOV and the section relating to undue weight. I also cannot imagine how it can be salvaged as a lot of new material to balance the current content would need to be introduced.    Moondyne 08:11, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

text: I support reverting the article. I was asked to review this article last night and I spent hours on Factiva trying to find sources and rewriting sections off-site but it is so horribly biased and inaccurate that I'm forced to agree that it is unsalvageable and should be reverted. The section on Susan Taylor seems like a deliberate whitewash that is not a NPOV description of what reliable sources have reported and the selective quoting of the Coroner and others gives a very dishonest perception of what was said and what happened. I didn't know very much about these people or this subject and I was really quite shocked when I started looking at articles on Factiva and discovered how inaccurate and horribly biased the material is and it is going to reflect poorly on Wikipedia if it stays here. I also think the related articles need to be checked by someone more knowledgeable on this subject than me as some of the material posted here has been replicated in other articles as well. This seems like biased POV activist material and so I must support removing it from Wikipedia. Sarah 10:10, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

text: Reverted per this discussion. Hesperian 01:55, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Notice of intention to revert

message: Hesperian has reverted me  with an edit comment of "He was convicted of child sex offenses not paedophilia; paedophilia is a sexual orientation."   To be clear, I do agree with that statement, but don't see how it conflicts with saying "... is an indigenous Australian and activist and convicted serial paedophile from ...".  By definition, he is a paedophile, by virtue of his convictions.   Is the word "conviction" troublesome in the context it was used?  Note that The Australian was incorrect in stating that he "... has again been jailed for pedophilia" which is nonsense of course—there's no crime of paedophilia (that I'm aware of), only certain acts which constitute paedophilia. Moondyne 05:04, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've reverted myself for now. I don't feel particularly strongly about it. I won't bother expanding on my reasoning because I have just discovered that it is largely refuted by pedophilia#Prevalence among child sex offenders. Hesperian 05:20, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks and noted.  Reading that has got me thinking about it a bit more broadly.  I think I'll ponder on it for a while. Moondyne 05:26, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll revert back to your version in the interests of WP:NPOV.  Despite what the above cited article says, the term is, I think possibly misused in this context, or at least there's no evidence that it has been used correctly.  It is also slightly pejorative and that of course has no place in Wikipedia. Moondyne 14:32, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

text: Its patently offensive to homosexual and bisexual people to lump pedophilia in as sexual orientations. its not a sexual orientation, its a paraphilia. Whilst arguably pedophilia might be something wired in, sexual orientation is a natural part of human sexual diversity, whilst pedophilia is a sick and fucked up criminal disposition. Please do not do this again 121.45.226.80 (talk) 02:02, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Paedophile

message: I thought the introductory paragraphs were well written and referenced and should be included back into the article without some of the biased language included. I'll edit them and reinclude them for the perusal of other editors. Hope this is agreeable to all.
--Hughesdarren (talk) 14:17, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Deleted Introductory paragraphs

message: Is the infobox OK - A bit sanitised IMHO 
Would anyone find occupation - Aboriginal elder objectionable?
--Hughesdarren (talk) 14:28, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No problems, but I have given it another copyedit and removed some not-so-relevant stuff.   Good work.  The major problem is of course, the early bio stuff and ancestry  is autobiographical and really can't be here.  Moondyne 15:03, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

text: Thats good. Moondyne 00:46, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Aboriginal Elder isnt an occupation, its the recognition cultural respect for comparison John Howards occupation would be Politican/Lawyer not Prime Minister. IMHO Aboriginal Activist/Political Activist would be a better description of Bropho's occupation.  Gnangarra 02:35, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That works for me. Moondyne 02:39, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

text: Its both an occupation and a mark of respect. All aboriginal people upon reaching a certain level of seniority become Elders. The youngest elder I knew was Clarrie Isaacs(RIP) who was only in his 40s when he passed away, but he was a very senior lawman/loreman. However regarding the competing claims, it is true Mr Bropho had some claims to seniority that perhaps where disputed in some quarters, however amongst the pyreton swan-valley nyungah (remember Nyungah isnt a single tribe, but rather a *language group* of tribes.) his leadership was not disputed, he was the big man in that mob. I'm not sure if leadership has passed onto one of his sons, or his daughter. Sometimes the term "uncle" and "auntie" is used for elders, and its a slightly differnt use to western useage to reflect the communal nature of indigenous kinship. So even as a white person I would generally address Mr Bropho as "Uncle bob" or "Uncle bropho", and this was perfectly acceptable (its like how you would address a close friend or respected comrade as "brother" or "sister"). So since his work as a leader of the pyreton nyungah was his life work, Aboriginal elder is in fact an apropriate term, since its what he did 9-5. Aboriginal Leader and Aboriginal activist are both appropriate as well. I should also note something about cultural respect. It is true there are many competing factions in aboriginal society, but these are largely outside the scope of wikipedia, as they are considered by aboriginal people to be "blackfulla business", and generally aboriginal people do not enjoy or want these ruptures being public business. Sometimes, in the case of legal disputes over land title, this is unavoidable, and its in these cases where it becomes noteworthy in a wikipedia sense, but out of respect for indigenous people noting it is a bit like having a section of a biography of "People who disliked this person" or "enemies" section. Its petty and unnecessary and of relevence only to the aboriginal friends and family of said person. 121.45.226.80 (talk) 02:21, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Infobox