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)

Biggs using page as a promotion site for utterly amateur anti-father campaign

I have placed a POV-section tag on the entry to bring attention to the utterly non-notable amateur opinions Biggs is inserting about her anti-father family law campaign. Biggs has no notable papers nor qualifications whatsoever. Here are her unsubstantiated original-research campaign POV's:

1. 1 Regarding abuse victims, Biggs writes and speaks about the much-misunderstood phenomenon of emotional attachment to the abuser.[original research?][3]

1. 2 In February 2009 Biggs, responding to parents ordered to send their children to contact visits with abusive exes by the Family Court[original research?], started the Safer Family Law Campaign [9].[4]

1. 3 In the week leading up to the rallies, a series of Youtube videos were posted showing actors telling parents and children's stories, journalists calling for a repeal of the gagging laws in the FLA and professionals telling how they routinely see in their work how the Family Court is failing to keep children safe from abusive parents.[original research?][5]

58.165.69.67 (talk) 05:13, 6 July 2009 (UTC) Response from Anonymums What a load of rubbish! Its more apparent that the Angry mens movement that DO NOT represent a majority of fathers have participated in wiki graffiti. I have also noted the garbage of self promotion on the fathers rights movement and the bias lies on the PAS page. Expect that you will no longer are able to continue your propaganda and whilst Barbara and other advocates have been incredibly polite and considerate of your needs and thoughts - We are not! Lies and propaganda will NOT be tolerated. You have been warned. Expect us —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anonymum (talk • contribs) 01:01, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Removed false insinuation that Biggs influenced Attorney General's behaviour

Someone has to stop Biggs editing this article either as herself or as puppet. There is much original research in this new Biggs 'identity'.

I removed the following from the article as it insinuates that Biggs influenced the Australian Attorney General through the Cheif Justice Dianna Bryant, which is original research and peacocking:

Following the campaign, the Chief Justice said she had written to the Attorney Generalsaying urgent changes were needed to the Family Law Act. There had been a 'misunderstanding' of the shared parenting laws which were discouraging parents from reporting abuse to the Family Court.

Someone needs to attend to the ongoing problems in this article.

123.211.186.53 (talk) 22:03, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

The only edits I have made to this article are to address the problems flagged.

For objections to lack of citing, I have added citations only.

For objections to lack of objectivity, I have have removed wording that was objected to, even though this original entry was written by somebody other than myself.

I am curious why a credible source, such as a metropolitan newspaper article, has been removed as not a credible source? Although the article does not say the Chief Justice did a complete turn around because of the campaign I started, I have cited a speech in which she says the protest we were planning were 'shrill' and that there were no problems with the Family Law Act. Two weeks later she wrote to the Attorney General saying 'urgent' changes were needed. Nothing had happened in the public domain regarding the Family Law Act apart from the Youtube videos and a national protest rally, both of which received enormous media coverage, some of the many print and only a couple of the many radio interviews, which can be seen on www.saferfamilylaw.org.au website

I am concerned that men's rights groups, who have vilified me on their websites, are causing this entry to appear not credible. I identify the previous poster to the discussion board as a men's rights group member, therefore biased against the entry, by the assertion that I am an anti-father activist. I am not but am labelled as such on the vilifying entries made about me on the father's rights websites. The Safer Family Law Campaign, and the National Council for Children Post Separation includes fathers and grandfathers. One of the Youtube videos produced by myself is a father's story.

As for the Youtube video citation, they are posted by myself on Youtube, which can be verified by the name of the poster and reference to the videos being made by myself is on the NCCPS and saferfamilylaw.org.au websites, which both cite me as being the convenor of both groups, which is also disputed. There are also newspaper articles which identify the Youtube videos as being made by the Safer Family Law Campaign, which was created by myself.

Could somebody please attend to the biased and unfounded objections being made about this entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.72.150.217 (talk) 22:35, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

________________________________________________________________________________________________

Are we meant to edit our own articles?

Barbara, I notice you have been editing this article as Barbbiggs 11:09, 12 December 2006 11:54, 12 December 2006 11:55, 12 December 2006 12:11, 12 December 2006 12:19, 12 December 2006 12:30, 12 December 2006 12:34, 12 December 2006 13:09, 12 December 2006 13:13, 12 December 2006 13:16, 12 December 2006 13:39, 12 December 2006 14:25, 12 December 2006 14:27, 12 December 2006 14:31, 12 December 2006 14:32, 12 December 2006 14:38, 12 December 2006 14:39, 12 December 2006 15:33, 12 December 2006 23:51, 12 December 2006 23:51, 27 June 2009 23:57, 27 June 2009 00:06, 28 June 2009 00:07, 28 June 2009 00:10, 28 June 2009 00:16, 28 June 2009 00:18, 28 June 2009 00:21, 28 June 2009 00:29, 28 June 2009

and at other times as IP 114.72

12:17, 28 July 2009 12:24, 28 July 2009 12:28, 28 July 2009 12:34, 28 July 2009 12:44, 28 July 2009 12:49, 28 July 2009 12:59, 28 July 2009 13:01, 28 July 2009 13:02, 28 July 2009 04:25, 3 August 2009 04:45, 3 August 2009 22:48, 5 August 2009

I also notice your 'Anonymums' thugs [6] and Singlemum [7] have turned out on your behalf. (see also 'Anonymums' Singlemum)

Did you not take notice of the good advice given to you in 2006? [8]Don't edit your own article 123.211.186.53 (talk) 13:08, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

The fact the you know anonymums and singlemum are part of the Safer Family Law Campaign flags you as a father's rights group member. Nobody in the States would know this.

However, there are hundreds of active members of the Safer Family Law Campaign who may want to edit or add to this entry since it is of great interest to them. I cannot be responsible for what they write or edit, nor do I even know what they write or edit. Thankyou for telling me they have joined the discussion.

Since somebody did add this Family Law entry, and father's rights groups appear to be corrupting citations and word changes I myself have made to satisify objections to the lack of citations, I feel it is up to me to cite and address the concerns since its my own name under discussion here. If I don't take responsibility for answering the objections, I can't leave it to others to do that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Barbbiggs (talk • contribs) 10:35, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Original research

I do not dispute the info but reliable sources are needed. It has been flagged since last month. For your convenience in reincluding when found, the following has been removed:

"In the week leading up to the rallies, a series of Youtube videos were posted showing actors telling parents and children's stories, journalists calling for a repeal of the gagging laws in the FLA and professionals telling how they routinely see in their work how the Family Court is failing to keep children safe from abusive parents. [9] Media coverage resulted in a U-turn Template:"U-Turn" Says who? by the Chief Justice of the Family Court of Australia Diana Bryant. Two weeks before the rallies, on April 21, 2009 Bryant repeatedly referred to the campaign in a Queensland speechsaying the would-be protesters were 'shrill' and taking isolated child murder cases, sensationalizing and generalizing them." Cptnono (talk) 09:34, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by reliable sourcing of a Youtube video. Could you please explain what would be considered a reliable source for a Youtube video other than the link to the video itself?

Also, I changed the second part of the above removed slab of text earlier today to say: "The day after one Youtube video a day was posted for five days, the Chief Justice of the Family Court, Diana Bryant, wrote to the Attorney General saying 'urgent consideration' should be given to repealing the Act." This is sourced by a newspaper article, which appears to be the most common citation for proof of fact. If not, what other citation is required?

Somebody keeps replacing it with an earlier wording and objecting to it. The wording has been changed at least twice but somebody keeps putting back the old working to legitimize removal of it.

Similarly, a pdf citation of a speech the Chief Justice made in Queensland two weeks before her letter was also provided. What other kind of proof is required that she made these comments?

It appears that these are being removed by fathers rights groups who seek to discredit me and minimize the effectiveness of this campaign. There are now three reviews underway of the Family Law Act, two since this campaign began. I understand this means the 'editors' of this post are threatened by the campaign, but feel that the moderators should monitor the types of objections, which have all been addressed and then the same objections have been continually made. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Barbbiggs (talk • contribs) 10:09, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

No. You simply need to read the following guidelines again: Wikipedia:Reliable sources and Wikipedia:Citing sources since I will not play any games with you as other editors have let you get away with too much. This is also not a battleground to see who wins or a soapbox for you to make a point. I also don't appreciate your accusation. You are currently being discussed on the conflict of interest noticeboard and I rill request that you be blocked from editing this particular article if you make any additional changes. Please feel free to voice any thoughts on improvement on this discussion page but your lack of adhering to standards has left a huge mess. Please let me know if you have any additional concerns after reading the guidelines.Cptnono (talk) 10:15, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Also, instead of linking here from your website that page could be updated.Cptnono (talk) 10:24, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Thankyou for your level comments. This has given me hope that there are more people, other than father's rights groups, editing this listing.

I would like to argue my case and participate in, and welcome, this discussion being opened out to a wider editorship and discussion board.

Could you please tell me where I might request help or participate in this discussion?

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Barbbiggs (talk • contribs) 10:28, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

You can certainly provide any comments on this talk page that may improve the article. If you run into a situation where you need immediate assistance and no one is on here (or you want other opinions) you can check out the Wikipedia:Help desk and make requests on any formatting, guidelines, directions to other pages on Wiki, etc. A first step is getting a us a good link to your stats (birthplace and such) so we can improve the infobox. Cptnono (talk) 10:39, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Very good. So what would be considered a good link to prove my date of birth? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Barbbiggs (talk • contribs) 10:50, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Also, can you tell me on what grounds a citation link to the Family Court website was removed which states that of parents given less than 30 percent care of their children, i.e. given some access to their children, 29 percent were violent and abusive in the case of fathers and 16% were violent and abusive in the case of mothers?

This is an Australian Federal Government website of latest statistics about the Family Court. Is this a credible source? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Barbbiggs (talk • contribs) 11:13, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I have a tendancy to lean towards keeping out sources that do not specifically discuss the subject. A source discussing you and federal law (such as a feature in a newspaper that discusses your work) would be great. Child protection or something similar might be a better place to bring up these concerns if you are not mentioned in the cited info. This will precent concerns over WP:SYNTH.Cptnono (talk) 11:20, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

This source was quoted not in relation to the subject, but in relation to verifying the claim the subject has made that parents do have to hand over children to access visits with parents who are violent. There are many examples on wikipedia where claims in a certain subject matter are verified by citation that are not directly concerned with the subject but tangential to it.

I can find examples of this if you wish. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Barbbiggs (talk • contribs) 12:18, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Other editor's lack of diligence is not an excuse to fall into bad habits here. Also, this article has already had WP:SOAPBOX concerns (whether intended or not) so we are going to have to really focus on getting it better. With the work being one if not the highlight of the career there should be good reliable and professional sources describing you and the work together.Cptnono (talk) 14:41, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't talking about lack of diligence. I was talking about evidence of claims made. For example, "In response to parents writing to Biggs about having to send children on access with violent parents..." was changed to 'rumours of'. It was for this reason I cited the Family Court website which indicates that this scenario is not a rumour, but a fact evidenced by statistics on the government website showing this is a routine occurrence.

Also, I asked where I can participate and argue my case on a wider forum than this talk page. You mentioned that the entry was under discussion elsewhere on the wikipedia site. Can you let me know where I can find that?

Thanks.