Talk:Cornelia Rau

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]

Please rate the article and, if you wish, leave comments here regarding your assessment or the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
Flag
Portal
 Cornelia Rau 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.
B This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale.
Assessment comments

Contents

[edit] Introductory talk

I really wanted to get this article underway. There's a lot of work that needs to be done, obviously, but I don't have time this afternoon. I'm hoping that this will get fleshed out pretty quickly. Cnwb 03:23, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Oh, if only I knew how to use the timeline templates. Alphax (t) (c) (e) 01:47, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)

I am genuinely puzzled as to why this article would be encyclopedic. I'd rather have thought it was a topic for WikiNews. To me, this looks like an absolutely minor incident in Australian politics. Furthermore, the article is mistitled: it is not about Cornelia Rau (who, herself, seems to be utterly unnoteworthy). Instead, the article deals with some unfortunate inabilities of officials of different Australian states to communicate and the consequences of an apparent lack of a nation-wide register for missing persons. So what? Also, this is not a {{bio-stub}} (because it isn't a biography). Let's transwiki this to Wikinews. Lupo 10:03, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Lupo, I think the case of Cornelia Rau is just a part of the bigger picture of how my (Australian) government treats asylum seekers and other illegal imigrants entering the country. If one of our own citizens can be locked up for almost a year, what hope does a real foreigner have? And now it's been revealed that a Phillipine-born Australian was deported back in 2001. This is an important and on-going issue for Australia, not simply a passing event. It forms a continuum with the MV Tampa incident, Children overboard affair, and other incidents.
At the moment, this article is rather long and at least needs better formatting. There's a lot of unnecessary details and quotes included from newspaper articles. If these newspaper articles are available online, then that information should be mostly removed (except for the key points) and a link provided at the end. Perhaps later some of the information can be moved to another page(s). Imroy 09:27, 2005 May 8 (UTC)
It's also notable as triggering an inquiry by a Senate Select Committee into Mental Health in Australia. Relatively micro political movements, but it adds up to macros sociological consequences.

The article claims that she is "Australian", ie a citizen of the country. It also says that she arrived in Australia when she was 18 months old. Various government ministers including the Prime Minister are on record saying that she is a "resident" and this has not been modified by the media or the family. The legal status is different in each case. I intend to clarify this point when it has been researched further. Peter Ellis 15:10, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

She describes herself as "a German citizen and a permanent Australian resident...". interview transcript Monday 23 May 2005 Peter Ellis 06:19, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Rewrite

Now that the Palmer Report is out, I've completely rewritten the article to only include correct information, and remove all the unsourced quotes from various people. I'll be putting quotes back in over the next few days as I find the sources for them, but now that almost all the facts are out there's no excuse for not backing up any content without sources. --bainer (talk) 05:12, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] John Howard article; Rau an Australian citizen?

The John Howard article states she is an Australian citizen.--220.238.245.138 12:11, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

I think she is now - I think she was naturalised this January on Australia day (ie 26 Jan 2006) but maybe I'm thinking of someone else. Does anyone remember? Donama 01:33, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reference links broken

Viewing the article as an anonymous viewer, all the numbered reference links point to unnumbered Notes. This appears contrary to Wikipedia formatting standards, and furthermore makes the references nigh on unusable. Could someone fix this please? -213.219.187.234 11:13, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

These are in the process of being fixed. I got up to the "detention" section. The first few sections are using the new reference formatting standard. I'll finish them later or someone else will - hopefully with a bot to do it automatically. Donama 01:32, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fuss over categories

I'm going to write a note about this right here on the Oz Wikipedian's talk page. — Donama 01:46, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kenja

Is the comment "after her unstable behaviour probably brought on by a Kenja "Eisteddfod"" verifiable? I think it might be true myself, but is it stating an opinion rather than a fact? - Wikipeterproject 13:57, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Date of diagnosis

Do we have a source for when Rau was first diagnosed with schizophrenia? The article is unclear. --Pete 01:43, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sunday report

This edit Immigration officials repeatedly failed to diagnose her schizophrenia. is actually not supported by the source supplied. Is there a better source than this? Also, it probably doesn't deserve to be in the lede. A better sourced note in the mental illness section is probably more appropriate. Shot info 00:18, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

The Sydney Morning Herald has more information about her schizophrenia here, however, due to a current edit war, I am unable to add it to the article. --Lester 02:39, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Thus, a good oppoturnity to present a proposal here on talk. Keep it well referenced, the interpretation tight, and let's not throw around allusions to less than "frank" agendas. And I'm sure the community will respond in good faith and collaboratively. :-) --Merbabu 04:27, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
The existing wording, Immigration officials repeatedly failed to diagnose her schizophrenia is about as brief as it can get. The SMH article (above) goes into much more detail about how poorly the prison treated her, how she wasn't given her schizophrenia medication for two months, and after the prison psychiatrist said there was no mental illness, she was disciplined and held in solitary confinement. The solitary bit is covered in the body of the article, referenced directly to the Palmer inquiry. Some people (in the edit comment boxes) have stated that the lack of a schizophrenia diagnosis is not relevant, but from what I can see, the schizophrenia is the reason Cornelia Rau was incarcerated, and the wrong diagnosis is why she was put in solitary (as the SMH says). I would support a brief mention of all those points in the intro, which can be covered in more detail in the body of the article.--Lester 05:25, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
The point as to when she was first diagnosed is key. Was it before or after she was examined after detention? Also, saying that immigration officials failed to diagnose her is meaningless. What were these officials? Clerks? --Pete 09:15, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Skyring(Pete), you are just proving to everyone that you don't even bother reading the content of what you revert in your edit waring. People painstakingly find information, just for you to come along and start a revert war, without even reading, understanding or knowing what you are reverting. Your poor explanations display your unwillingness to grasp the subject you are waring over.--Lester 21:43, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
On the contrary. You don't seem to have grasped the points being made:
  1. When was she first diagnosed? I haven't read every reference, but it seems logical that the date of first diagnosis is key. If she doesn't yet have a condition, then failure to diagnose it is unsurprising. When was she first diagnosed with schizophrenia? Before or after detention? This is not mentioned in our article.
  2. Why should "immigration officials" be lambasted for not diagnosing a psychiatric condition? Our readers, on seeing the term "immigration official" are presumably going to think of bureaucrats. I can't see that any of the specialists consulted on this were actually immigration officials.
Would it be too much for you to address these points, repeatedly raised, before abusing other editors for "just proving to everyone that you don't even bother reading the content "? --Pete 23:19, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Skyring(Pete), the Sunday story from 2005, which is the subject of this discussion, has this line:
"Diagnosed first with bi-polar disorder then schizophrenia 5 years ago, Cornelia had been in and out of psychiatric hospitals in Sydney."
The year 2005 - 5 = 2000. She was diagnosed with schizophrenia in 2000. This is the reference you deleted, before asking when was she diagnosed. --Lester 13:45, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for uncovering that. I think it's pretty weak and a shade ambiguous, but taken together with other sources referring to medication, I'll accept that she was first diagnosed before detention. --Pete 21:01, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
More importantly, the source doesn't support it. Sure there may be sources supporting that she has schizophrenia, but the source doesn't support the edit in the article. Shot info 10:03, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
What do you mean, 'Shot info'? The SMH article (linked a few posts above this) clearly shows how they failed to diagnose schizophrenia for some time, thought she was just a trouble maker and locked her up. It will be added as a second reference as soon as the edit waring stops. Click on the SMH story and use your browser to word search schizophrenia..--Lester 21:32, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

As the above concerns have already been addressed by the previous NineMSN story and the Sydney Morning Herald story, I will restore the original schizophrenia information to the article, with both those references.--Lester 22:31, 18 October 2007 (UTC) Someone questioned the notability of the issue. The countless news articles, feature articles, and of course the Palmer Report (all accessible by Googling) prove that notability is unquestionable.--Lester 22:43, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

As usual, 'Lester' reinserts contested material without even attempting to develop consensus. From the SHM article "Prisons everywhere face the problem of distinguishing bad behaviour from mental collapse. Anna's behaviour had been odd from the beginning. The first doctor to examine her at Wacol put this down to her being "a stranger in a strange land". By May, Anna had been two months without medication for schizophrenia and was showing distressing signs of what prison records called "unusual behaviour and poor hygiene". She paced; she stared; she hoarded food; her moods swung about; she wouldn't wash." So, please show us where in this source it says that the department failed to diagnose her, because your source says that she was in a prison ("Wacol") and that the prision failed to diagnose her. So 'Lester' please show us how the source backs up the article. Because how the article stands at the moment is OR, after all, it is just as accurate to say "Editor 'Lester' repeatedly failed to diagnose her schizophrenia.". Incidently, the "because" in the sentence is a bit of a redflag why it doesn't belong in the lede. It is appropriate to have in the detention section which (gasp) it is. Following 'Lesters' example, will proceed to make the changes. Shot info 23:05, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
First, please keep your posts non-personal. The immigration department is responsible for all that goes on within the detention centres, even though they outsource a lot of the work to private companies. It was the immigration department that had the responsibility of determining who the person they are locking up is. The immigration department has the ultimate responsibility of care for those they detain. To say the Immigration Department failed to detect Rau's schizophrenia is accurate, even though a subcontractor or doctor the Immigration Department paid for may have been the actual one who performed the misdiagnoses. The Sydney Morning Herald article details how doctors (who were paid for by the Department) failed to diagnose her schizophrenia. We don't need to say "Doctor XYZ failed", we need to say the Immigration Department (who's care Rau was in) failed to diagnose the condition.--Lester 03:42, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Your source still fails to back up your edit. You need to resort to WP:SYN to make it work. I strongly encourage you to review this policy before continuing to edit. Shot info 03:49, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
The SMH/David Marr article comes in 2 parts: Part 1 and Part 2. Actually, I think there is enough information here to justify much harder wording. We should say "The Immigration Department failed in its duty of care to diagnose Cornelia Rau's schizophrenia and failed to give her the appropriate medical treatment she required."--Lester 04:14, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Anytime now, you're going to read WP:OR, then comprehend that the expression "Duty of Care" does not appear in your sources. Then perhaps one day, you will comprehend that your edits have to be substanciated by your sources, rather than just, well...made up. I will leave it up to you to understand why your edits are then reverted with little explanation other than a reference to a Wikipedia Policy. Shot info 07:13, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Reversions like that should never have "little explanation".--Lester 13:56, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
I've re-added the schizophrenia info to the article, including that the Immigration Department was found to have failed its "duty of care". References back it up. --Lester 13:53, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Lester has again inserted bad prose which is better explained later in the article, he should read the {{WP:MOS|Manual of style]]. Prester John -(Talk to the Hand) 17:06, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

If "bad prose" was really the issue, why delete large swathes of referenced information? Why not just adjust the words considered "bad prose"?--Lester 11:33, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] LEDE

What does this Over fifty Australian citizens have been subsequently detained by Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs (DIMIA) in similar circumstances. have to do in the lede of this article? Shot info 23:11, 18 October 2007 (UTC)