Talk:Cory Bernardi

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Article compromised by MP staffers

Per the well known issue, this is another article that has been compromised by a staffer, see here, and needs monitoring. Timeshift (talk) 03:20, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article you cite has nothing to do with Bernardi on there 101.183.21.131 (talk) 22:47, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Controversial" head of state comments

I am removing as I cannot find a cite. Bernardi was a speaker at the Thirteenth National Schools' Constitutional Convention and in that context addressed The case against Australia becoming a republic. [1] It may have been in that context he made the remark. The controversy didn't spill over into the news it would appear. His comments were not notably controversial. --Matilda talk 01:24, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I found the cite, but it's definitely not notable. He wrote it in an email to a constituent on 28 April and it made the comments section of a blog. Orderinchaos 10:01, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Political career

Could do with a bit of a cleanup. Also, he recently came out against the mandatory internet filtering proposal. TRS-80 (talk) 06:26, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Parliamentary Secretary not Shadow Minister

"fellow Liberal Shadow Minister Christopher Pyne" I removed the word "fellow" since Senator Bernardi was a parliamentary secretary not a shadow minister. A shadow minister is a frontbencher while a parliamentary secretary is a backbencher who has frontbench responsibilities. --The Shadow Treasurer (talk) 18:20, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Conservative Christian" in lead.

Should we have the phrase "Conservative Christian" in the lead? I think not, but it's been re-added by 120.20.57.34 here.  -- Lear's Fool 06:35, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you - and have removed it. He's primarily a Liberal Party politician. Nick-D (talk) 07:37, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]


"critic of Islam"

Challenge of the wording was started by a user who has been blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet. No other editors shared his position.

Misleading wording. He qualifies his own statement - which is quoted and cited immediately below - by saying "fundamentalist" Islam. The websites the user added to support his argument that he means "Islam", in fact state the opposite. Cursesonabauumy (talk) 18:46, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The title is correct. Critics of fundamentalist Christians are still critics of Christianity. Criticising isn't a black and white area, like most things in life, it's a grey area. You don't need to be 100% against something to be a critic of it. I would suggest your view means you are ideologically aligned to Bernardi's views. Not to break good faith or anything :) Timeshift (talk) 00:03, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I'm a Muslim, who is also a critic of "fundamentalist" Islam. So if that means I am "ideologically aligned" to this Bernardi character (who I had never heard of until yesterday), then so be it. :)
And no, a critic of "fundamentalist Christians" is not a critic of Christianity - because most Christians are, by definition, critical of fundamentalism. That's why we have the term "fundamentalist", so distinguish them from the mainstream. And then you say it "isn't back and white", while arguing that we should state "in black and white", Islam, as opposed to radical/extremist/fundamentalist Islam???? Please explain??? Cursesonabauumy (talk) 00:15, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'll take your word for it :) Anyway... if I have criticisms of something, then I am a critic of it. If I also support parts of that something, I can also be a supporter of it. Now, what is 99% of what Cory Bernardi has to say on Islam? What he criticises or what he supports? Are you more against "critic of islam" than, say, "criticisms of islam"? If that is the issue here and is fixed that easily, then i'm sure nobody will argue. Timeshift (talk) 00:23, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I honestly have no idea what argument you are trying to make here. Whatever it is, it's irrelevant anyway, you can call him whatever you like according to your own bizarre rubric, but he clearly states, in no uncertain terms, he is a critic of "fundamentalist" Islam (a term I don't like, incidentally, but it's the term he uses). Cursesonabauumy (talk) 00:49, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You don't? Then tell me, what are/were you trying to change in the article with your first comment in this talkpage section? Timeshift (talk) 01:20, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I was trying to ensure his own words were used, not those of Wiki users providing their own reading of what he was saying. I thought I had made that abundantly clear.... (FYI, I prefer "radical" Islam, not "fundamentalist", because modern, politicized Islam, is a recent development, a bidda, we call it. It is not about going back to the fundamentals at all, as the Wahhabis/Salafis would have you believe, it is about creating a rival political system to democracy/fascism/communism, etc) Cursesonabauumy (talk) 01:31, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So, what text needs changing, and what do you propose to replace it with? Timeshift (talk) 02:28, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Why are you asking this question, when you know full well what changes I made in the first place? Cursesonabauumy (talk) 20:06, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the word "fundamentalist" belongs. It is appropriate that we include Bernardi's own qualification, of course, but the sources just say "Islam". StAnselm (talk) 01:18, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for finally joining the discussion instead of just clicking "undo" and harassing me on my on Talk page. The "sources" are two tabloids, which, correct me if I'm wrong, aren't generally considered appropriate sources for an encyclopedia. And surely for an article on an actual living human being, we should preference his own words over that of tabloid newspapers? No? Cursesonabauumy (talk) 01:21, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I guess you prefer to click "undo" again for the fifth time rather than engage. Very constructive. Cursesonabauumy (talk) 01:29, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The reality is that you need to find a reliable source for what you want to add. The
Sydney Morning Herald isn't a tabloid, and I'm comfortable using it here (I'd like to hear others perspectives). I've already changed it from "is a critic of Islam" to "has been critical of", but I believe your problem is with the difference between "fundamentalist" Islam and Islam. If so, you'd need to find a source where Bernardi differentiates between the two.  -- Lear's Fool 01:47, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
Ummm... have you read what's already there? Immediately below there is a source quoting Bernardi as differentiating between the two. And in the Sydney Morning Herald he is quoted as specifically using the term "fundamentalist". Twice. Cursesonabauumy (talk) 01:52, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's probably worthwhile noting that Bernardi believes same-sex marriage is comparable to bestiality. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jun/18/cory-bernardi-same-sex-bestiality — Preceding unsigned comment added by Digitalstyle (talk • contribs) 11:02, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested Edits to Political Views Removed due to lack of objectivity

I'm unable to to check sources (blocked from accessing Murdoch publications) but have re-written the subjective text to remove opinion. If anyone wants to check sources and re-insert, please go ahead:

Political Alignment - heading

Cory Bernadi's views have been described as conservative. In January 2014 he published a book setting out his five founding pillars for a "conservative revolution", further confirming his political alignment to the right. ABC reports on Bernardi

Women's Rights/ Abortion - heading

Barnardi accused some women of using abortion as "an abhorrent form of birth control" and labelled those who advocate pro-choice as "pro-death".ABC reports on Bernardi

Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Views - heading

In 2012, Bernardi has stated his belief of a link between gay marriage and bestiality.[2] Later in 2013, Bernadi tried to silence other Liberals and in particular Malcolm Turnbull from publicly supporting gay marriage.[3]

Martin.danger (talk) 03:53, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, australianmarriageequality.com is certainly not a
reliable source. Secondly, we would something more than just one-sentence statements about his views. I think it would be good to have something about political alignment - perhaps naming the five pillars that he talks about. It sounds like describes himself as conservative, so we don't need the "have been described as" bit. But is "conservative" the same as "on the political right", I wonder? I think we need stuff on abortion and gay marriage, but I'm sure his statements are a bit more nuanced than the way the appear in the ABC. It sounds like he wouldn't be much different to other conservative Christians on those issues. StAnselm (talk) 04:05, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

"Christian fundamentalist"

An anon was recently reverted trying to remove this article from the Category:Christian fundamentalists. I think it's highly debatable whether Bernardi is suitable for this category, and I highly doubt there are many reliable, neutral sources that describe him as such. It should go. Frickeg (talk) 11:48, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cory's words have put himself in that category [4], [5].
talk) 11:53, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
(After Edit conflict) It's an interesting issue. He's certainly more extreme in his views than most mainstream Catholics. I think he would even agree with that himself. But of course we do need good, neutral, secondary sources for anything we include. And in the combined areas of party politics and religion, they may be hard to find. HiLo48 (talk) 11:56, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(Replying to Alan) Neither of those sources feature Bernardi identifying himself as a fundamentalist. Frickeg (talk) 20:37, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I guess if we don't have a good source saying he's a Christian fundamentalist, then we don't say so. But the article has a weird perspective. He is one of the few Australian Senators well known outside his home state, and that's primarily because of his extreme views based on his religion. However, we don't see that in the lead. It's not mentioned until halfway through the article. Why is that?. HiLo48 (talk) 20:51, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Probably because the article has practically no lead anyway. If there was a proper one I'm sure mention of his views would be made. Frickeg (talk) 03:23, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed it again per
WP:BLPREMOVE. It needs a citation before it can be added back in. But I don't think the Mike Seccombe article qualifies. All that means is that Mike Seccombe believes that Bernardi is a fundamentalist. Of course, in the U.S. many, many people self-identify as fundamentalists and wear the label with pride. If Bernardi doesn't self identify, then we can't include him in the category. StAnselm (talk) 22:06, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Catholic?

His religion is given as "Roman Catholicism" but with no source. He should probably listed simply as "Christian" unless there is a source showing something more specific. Adpete (talk) 00:05, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Given how big a part of his public persona this is, I was shocked at how difficult it was to find an RS for it. I've gone with a Miranda Devine opinion piece for now, but obviously it's far from ideal. Frickeg (talk) 01:29, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I found a personal-type interview which might be a useful addition to the article[6]. But even that only mentions "Christianity" and "church". His public persona is certainly Christian, but it seems he avoids clearly identifying with any denomination. That said, there are a few mentions here and there and it sounds like it's no secret he's Catholic, so the offhand comment by a reputable journalist like Miranda Devine is probably good enough. Adpete (talk) 03:26, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's certainly common knowledge. I'd still prefer something better than an openly partisan opinion piece, but since Devine isn't using it as an argumentative point (and is generally supportive of Bernardi anyway), it'll do. Frickeg (talk) 03:33, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Is this one better? "Prominent Liberal Catholic Cory Bernardi said he wished the new Pope "every success"[7] Adpete (talk) 03:37, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ooh, yes, I think so. Good find. Frickeg (talk) 03:39, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Australian Rowing rep in 1988

We're told he represented Australia in rowing in 1988 but only given details of his appearance in a Mercantile VIII who won at Henley - a club crew not a representative crew. Now he didn't go to Seoul in our Olympic VIII, quad or 2- and World Champs are only held for lightweights in Olympic years (and Bernadi didn't go to those Championships in Milan). So did he really represent for Australia in 1988 and therefore is the claim about him being the youngest heavyweight Aust rep true ?-Sticks66 12:08, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So at the Austn National Championships in 1988 he's in the South Aust Youth VIII making it hard to believe that he made it into an Austn rep boat that same year (since he's not even seated in an SA senior boat). I'm thinking the editor who wrote about the Henley crew in 1988 mistakenly thinks it was a nat rep crew.-Sticks66 12:31, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Safe Schools Coalition review

Countless online news articles report that a review was conducted after Bernardi made statements about the Safe School Program. These statements (or some of them) were made under Parliamentary privilege and so they deserve extra scrutiny. The main conclusion of the review is therefore relevant and could easily be concisely written into one sentence so as to avoid undue weight. It is especially relevant if Bernardi's claims have been denied by the program's developers and have subsequently been proven false.

No evidence of indoctrination was revealed after an independent review. The review was asked to answer the following question "Are the resources suitable, educationally sound, age-appropriate and aligned with the Australian Curriculum?

Did

synthesis
because this conclusion is not being drawn from multiple sources.

Bernardi was concerned with the "appropriateness of materials presented", however the review found all materials presented were appropriate. Your claim that indoctrination wasn't addressed in the summary of my revert is therefore false. Also notice how Bernardi only claimed the terms of reference were too narrow after a briefing from the report author, when he realised the program was unlikely to be axed. Its important for us to distinguish between claims and what is proven. I think our readers would appreciate the clarification. - Shiftchange (talk) 07:56, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is synthesis, and is inappropriate for a BLP. The report does not address the complaint of indoctrination. "Consistent with the intent and objectives of the programme" is certainly not incompatible with indoctrination. Nor does "aligned with the Australian Curriculum" mean that the program does not go beyond the national curriculum. In fact, the report says of one aspect of the program, "They are not teaching and learning resources so they would not be expected to relate directly to the Australian Curriculum..." StAnselm (talk) 09:07, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You do realise Bernardi is alleging a conspiracy to take over and destroy Western society? I think what Bernardi describes as indoctrination I would call education and that he has trouble understanding the difference because he was taught not to affirm diversity. Our educators understand that our curriculum needs to be designed to meet the needs of all students, including LGBTIQ ones and their social needs. It would therefore need to include education about various differences so that all students felt safe to engage in learning. That is why the report mentions an alignment with the curriculum. I find it ironic that you would prefer to leave an outrageous, unfounded claim by him and insist a more accurate explanation regarding his claims does not belong here. However, I will leave it to your better judgement as I don't edit pages of politicians that often. - Shiftchange (talk) 12:01, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Party membership

The Senate website lists Bernardi as an independent. I assume this is because his new group is not officially registered as a party. I think the infobox should acknowledge this, listing him as an independent until the official position changes. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 05:05, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Trim

This article needs a trim. Its too strange to have a list of things someone said in the lead section of an article.

Why does the article contain this sentence? "Bernardi agrees that the ABC provides useful services to regional areas often under-serviced by commercial operators; however, he suggests that the scale of the ABC's funding should be reviewed". This is a direct statement made by the subject of the article written in Wikipedia voice. This is Wikipedia providing a platform for Bernadi's speech. This is a clear violation of our policy on neutrality. Its very wrong.

The last half of this article is a mish-mash of trivial statements, beliefs, allegations and gossip. "He states that "Same-sex relationships are not ...., "The MP involved was thought to be", "Abbott rejected suggestions", "Wilders stated in an interview", "Bernardi claimed", "declaring it was "wrong".

"The event received protests who called the event "racist"." Who cares that some people described an event Bernadi attended as? This is not noteworthy or of enduring significance. This is all trivial nonsense and should be removed. Please write about Bernardi rather than what was said. - Shiftchange (talk) 11:12, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Free publicity given to Bill Shorten

In the criticism section, why does it outline "Labor Opposition Leader Bill Shorten", and what he says. Do we insert what Bernardi or even Turnbull says into Shorten's article? No. This is just free publicity given to Bill Shorten, which is unwarranted, and partial 101.183.21.131 (talk) 22:43, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Intention to Resign

Sets Departure Date

https://amp.adelaidenow.com.au/news/south-australia/south-australian-senator-cory-bernardi-to-quit-politics-in-december/news-story/cae032676e5ca1d35238d36be61e7b65

Also several other articles other sources

220.253.88.96 (talk) 11:30, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The information has been added to the lead of the article by another editor, with a better source. (Newscorp sources have paywalls - IMHO opinion making them very poor sources for anything in Wikipedia.) HiLo48 (talk) 01:20, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Has Bernardi actually officially/formally resigned yet? Senate President Scott Ryan (@SenatorRyan) usually tweets announcing the receipt of the letter of resignation. The Parliament website has been pretty quick about updating their database too, but still lists him as a current senator. --Canley (talk) 07:23, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering about that too, looked at the same sources as you. I think we should wait until the date is 100% confirmed.
talk) 08:02, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

National Right

James1221911 has inserted that Cory Bernardi was a member of the National Right. I reverted, James1221911 re-inserted. My claim is that the sentence's cited source says nothing about National Right, so it's unsourced. Any other opinions? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:09, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. A search finds no sources describing Bernardi as a member of the "National Right". While clearly our coverage of factionalism in both major parties could be better, I have found a lot of the recent stuff to be attempting to impose a level of formality on Liberal factions that simply doesn't exist. Most factions in both parties are better dealt with at the more complex but factual state level rather than trying to impose a national unity that doesn't even exist. The whole National Right grouping is based on a single SMH article, and it's far from clear that it is even a semi-official term and not just a useful moniker used by the journalist to describe a general tendency. Frickeg (talk) 21:05, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Everyone, my apologies for the confusion. In the Liberal Party of Australia there is the 3 main factions. The Moderates, Centre-Right and National Right. The National Right is commonly called the right wing conservative faction. There is no separate faction of that it is just under the National right. I understand there is no source of this so I am more than happy to keep it as not National Right. Thank you so much!!! --JamesJ (talk) 22:55, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I undid James1221911's edit. I saw that La lopi had earlier (February 14) added "National Right" in nearly the same place, I believe it is covered by what's in this talk page thread as well, so I undid it too. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:45, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
... James1221911: I see that you re-inserted La lopi's edit. There's still no source for National Front, and I claim it's contentious material that was removed on good faith BLP grounds. Do you dispute any of that? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:21, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think you understand. The Right-wing faction is the National Right. JamesJ (talk) 00:34, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You didn't answer my question. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 18:53, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
After waiting two weeks for a reply, and knowing that this is poorly sourced, and knowing that consensus is required for re-inserting contentious material in a BLP if it's been removed on good faith BLP grounds, and seeing that two editors in this thread support removal while only one supports insertion and re-insertion, I have removed. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 18:01, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And today JamesJ re-inserted yet again. I won't react quickly; maybe others will notice. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:34, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sky News

I think his work for Sky News should be included in his bio? He has a podcast, and maybe also does TV? 175.39.77.193 (talk) 13:43, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. It would be good to do so. I went looking. It was hard to find an objective source that tells us about his work with Sky. Plenty from Sky itself. I have just used one of them for now to add a simple sentence to the Career section of the article. Feel free to elaborate on that. HiLo48 (talk) 23:53, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cory_Bernardi&oldid=1206262049"