Talk:Barbara Biggs

Previous AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/'Barbara Biggs', support was for delete, result was userfy. Basis: Subject of Article had written their own biography.Alan.ca 06:26, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Keeping this article

If you guys really want to keep this article about Barbara, she's going to have to keep her hands off it. It seems there are some citable references about her and it may be possible to write a usable article. I want to make certain we're getting a neutral point of view. Alan.ca 07:26, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Today I have very much been keeping my hands on it...before I'd seen your advise to keep them off. I have added sources and citations because I know them and have been able to find them because of this. If citations are the main objection to the now quite short version of what was there originally, then presumably they must be added by someone. I am the keeper of this information since what I've added doesn't necessarily come up on google searches. Anyone looking for them might not have found them. I have no objection to any part of the article being deleted if it contravenes Wiki's guidelines. On the other hand, I've asked elsewhere why the political candidacy reference was deleted since the Nitika Mansinghe article cited included this information. Barbbiggs 14:47, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I think you can best ensure the availability of your information by posting it on the talk page. It would probably be best if you allowed a neutral editor to decide if and how it should be integrated into the article. Alan.ca 22:32, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

References for consideration

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/05/03/1083436538102.html

References to other living people

Any accusations that this article contains about living persons must be fully supported by reliable sources. I would say that interviews with the accuser alone are not sufficient. If the accusation has been reprinted in multiple other media sources, then we can include it, but a single interview should not suffice, and even multiple interviews should be treated as doubtful. Robert A.West (Talk) 12:48, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Copied from AfD page

I've managed to find many articles and interviews which I've slotted in, but not the crucial Good Weekend one. It's too old I think. The Sydney Morning Herald archives only back back 12 months. Also, I've found a Japanese amazon.jp site and cited that for the Japanese publication (this is in Japanese, but the book, In Moral Danger and my name is written in English on the site) but amazon doesn't have websites in Greece or Sweden. Of course I cited Greek and Swedish sites before, but somebody has deleted them, presumably because they are in a foreign language. I'd certainly like to know how other people verify that their books have been translated into other languages. In any case, see how you go with the sources now cited and keep me posted Barbbiggs

Foreign-language sources are covered at WP:CITE. They are acceptable if no comparable english source exists. Translations are suggested, not required, unless the language has very few living speakers. I cannot fathom why anyone would remove a Greek or Swedish source used solely to prove foreign-language publication. Robert A.West (Talk) 12:31, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Me neither, but it's been done. Should I put it back or keep my hands of it as Alan suggests? Barbbiggs 14:49, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Don't edit your own article. Simões (^talk/_contribs) 01:12, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Editing one's own article is always a red flag. Done perfectly, it is still a social faux pas, like nominating yourself for the presidency of a local society. Although we have no policy mandating deletion of autobiography, many well-meaning and energetic editors feel that we should, and will look for any error, any hint of puffery, the slightest flaw in a citation as an excuse to remove material you have inserted. Others will presume that the article is pure PR, and will search diligently for verifiable negative material to balance the article. Wikipedia considers material reliable if contained in a publication that engages in normal journalistic fact-checking, so if (say) the barrister's PR man made an accusation that got published in a major newspaper, it will be considered proper to add it.

Barb, I ask you to imagine for a minute the number of articles that Wikipedia gets every day that are created by PR firms trying to promote their clients. We have had politicians delegate staffers to puff up their own bios with campaign literature, or to insert doubtful negative material into the bios of opponents. We routinely get grandiose bios from used car dealers, cosmetic surgeons and their ilk. We get a lot of out-and-out pranks. Editing your own biography will cause many Wikipedians to presume that it must be trash of that sort, and they will feel that they have a duty to the integrity of the project to intervene and correct.

Instead, I recommend that you trust that others will improve this article in time. In the meantime, please help improve Wikipedia by editing the other articles that you have found that are of interest to you. You can help identify doubtful claims and either remove them or include sourced material that will explain things more accurately and more fully. Meanwhile, keep this article on your watchlist. You can probably rely on others to revert any blatant vandalism, but you can watch out for subtle vandalism and well-meaning inaccuracies. If you see minor inaccuracies, mention them on the talk page, and rely on others to correct them. If someone inserts defamatory material, you can report it on Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard and others will look into the matter quickly. Robert A.West (Talk) 11:11, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Blatant advertizing / status beat-up

This Biggs entry appears to be blatant advertizing of her books, and a beat-up of her involvments and status based largely on what she herself wrote in her self authored books. There are some in the media who interviewed her about her books/deeds but these again rested on her own opinions about herself drawn from her self-authored books. There's no independent verification. Someone in Wikipedia management needs to rein this in. 58.165.69.67 (talk) 10:11, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

As far as I can tell the Child Protection Campaigner section of the article is a beat-up about her campaigning which was and is, in fact, an incredibly trivial social matter. Other than her own heckling of media outlets to run stories about her "rallies" (which were attended by only a small handful of her freinds), and posting a few U-TUBE videos, the only other independent reference to her campaign was that the Australian Chief Justice Dianna Bryant referred to an unnamed "shrill" voice (one assumes Biggs?) which had sensationalized and misrepresented some Family Law cases. I note that Biggs herself has added these remarks to the main article.[1][2] (etc) Biggs insinuates, completely without citation or verification, that Chief Justice Dianna Bryant has asked the Australian Attorney General Robert McClelland to change family law and that this is somehow the result of Biggs campaining. It is not! This reference should be deleted along with the overly generous elaborations/advertizing of Biggs books. From what I can tell Biggs is not a notable individual other than in her own exaggerated promotions of herself. 58.165.69.67 (talk) 11:13, 5 July 2009 (UTC)