Talk:Van Badham

Highly dubious references

There are some obviously spurious references here.

There is a ref to [1] which has no date of capture, and no chance of being a link that lasts longer than a year.

The Courier article doesn't remotely support what it is implied to support.

Other links are dead - they were cached links in the first place.

In summary, clearly the whole article is under-referenced, what references there are don't support all that is claimed, and most references are dead because they were clearly transient in nature. The whole things seems to be self-promotion.

BenevolentUncle (talk) 06:12, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

LOL. you're damn right it's self promotion. Probably written by Workin' Class Van herself.

If this was the case a year ago, it seems to no longer be so. The links check out and there is nothing in the current tone that reads as promotional. Thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.127.170.158 (talk) 06:37, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Wow, someone has been hard at work. I'll take off the original research warning, but based on my checking the first 10 references, I will leave in the primary sources warning. The main problem is that most of what I checked relies on things like The Guardian articles that Van wrote herself describing her own history, or 1 on 1 interviews with journalists in local newspapers not exactly known for hard-hitting investigative journalism. (btw, any self-respecting playwright would press the flesh and instigate such interviews, so self-promotion remains entirely possible if not probable.) And there are a couple of weird references, e.g. atpedia.com (wtf?) that is based on a list now published in a wp talk page (presumably because it was original research). Or the indirect reference to a schools locator site that may or may not have actually listed Van as a notable alumna at the time it was accessed (please excuse my cynicism - given the crock a year ago I will remain suspicious). Personally I have no problem with leaving such info in wp so I'm not proposing its deletion (others might), but because using primary sources like these are open to manipulation, it remains appropriate to at least leave in a warning flag. Maybe one day Van will be so famous that academics will critically dissect her early years, and then other academics will provide scholarly review articles on those primary sources, and then someone can replace the primary sources with the secondary sources and remove the warning flag. But until such time, wp does have necessary standards. BenevolentUncle (talk) 08:22, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

I look forward to the day when serious academics will scrutinize her "works", preferably in the spirit of Alan Sokal and Karl Popper and their criticism of fashionable pseudo-science and "radical chic" lingo. 192.121.232.253 (talk) 07:08, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Book

ChangeTheRulesComrade, is there a reason you keep adding a book that doesn't actually say (or give evidence) that Badham co-authored it? Additionally, why make an edit implying that my removal (which was based on the above rationale) was "vandalism"? Primefac (talk) 17:25, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

I've removed it again. Badham has helped McManus with promoting the book, and it's reasonable to suppose that she gave assistance to McManus, but I see nowhere that Badham has claimed co-writing credit or that McManus has granted such credit. The Melbourne University Press credit that was cited doesn't mention Badham at all. I've warned ChangeTheRulesComrade on the vandalism accusations. Acroterion (talk) 18:55, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

I don't see anything "reasonable" about it. Promoting a book does not imply she had a hand in it. All ChangeTheRulesComrade's edits have been devoted to this issue, including one on the McManus page which I reverted a few days back. I don't understand the agenda behind this, but this is clearly a "single purpose account", with a name that echoes (and seems to mock) the ACTU slogan.--Jack Upland (talk) 20:32, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

I meant by "reasonable" that it's likely that Badham may have advised McManus, but that doesn't mean that she was a co-author, nor, in the absence of any sourcing, does the book have any reason to be mentioned in an article about Badham. There are no sources that indicate anything other than some promotional support of McManus and her book by Badham. Acroterion (talk) 20:35, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

I checked the book and McManus does in fact acknowledge that Badham assisted with the book. However, as you say that doesn't equate to co-authorship. I wouldn't object to this being mentioned here, if anyone thinks it's notable.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:18, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Time to talk

@AiasBigAndLittle, Jack Upland, and CatCafe: time to discuss the edit warring. Primefac (talk) 03:22, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

@Primefac, Jack Upland, and CatCafe: Hi folks. I have been removing the 'Controversy' section because its only reference is to a blatant hit-piece against the subject (a left-wing activist) in The Australian, a right-wing newspaper. This is clearly in contravention of the Biographies of Living People policy. --AiasBigAndLittle (talk) 03:32, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

It's a quote from the subject and a fact drawing criticism in the national press. It's RS being deleted by a SPA. Also Badham is a highly prickly and controversial figure and it's high irony to censor any critique of her. When unlocked I will be introducing another section called ==Activism== where Badham's activities can be added. It all will make the page more wholesome, less selective and truly reflective of the subject. The other alternative is to have the page deleted as fitting a POV puff piece. Thanks. CatCafe (talk) 03:38, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Also, the ref discussed says "Ms Badham, who runs a social media consulting business for unions, NGOs and charities.." and it would be helpful to add this detail and expand to help broaden and NPOV. CatCafe (talk) 04:05, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

It's not a fact drawing criticism in the national press - it's one column in a very conservative newspaper having a rant about a pretty prominent public figure. Badham is a plenty controversial figure, but these attempts to shoehorn random bits of opinion into the article just make for a POV mess. (The only remotely notable thing about it might be the fact she actually apologised for something!) The Drover's Wife (talk) 04:51, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

There seems to be arguments on both sides. 1.The Australian is a major newspaper in Australia, and would be hard to describe it as an unreliable source in Wikipedia terms. 2. Though it might sound like an opinion piece, or indeed a rant, the article is presented as a report by "reporters". 3. It is not very notable that she made an offensive tweet when she was a student. However, this has come to the intention of a Senator. 4. We shouldn't have a criticism section. See WP:CRITS.--Jack Upland (talk) 05:15, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Backbench senators criticise people they don't like all the time, especially when asked for comment by The Australian. It doesn't make it notable. Hell, even The Australian didn't think it was very notable if they only mentioned it once ever. The Drover's Wife (talk) 06:23, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

@Jack, Thats a good point, and perhaps the critical sentence should be rolled into the ==Activism == section later. And yes it drew the attention of a political representative, in federal parliament, that's a notable deal. CatCafe (talk) 05:21, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

@drover, We need to challenge your provocative and silly claim "It's not a fact". I think all will find it is a fact and a non disputed quote that she said that stuff. She didn't deny it and even apologised for it. Its a future waste of space to debate your "It's not a fact" claim. CatCafe (talk) 05:16, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

I didn't say it wasn't a fact, I said it wasn't a fact drawing criticism in the national press. It's one report on a mean tweet she made as a student in the arch-conservative The Australian - which, more than even the tabloids, is known for teeing off on people their columnists don't like for spurious reasons (to the point where people not irregularly argue that it should be given the Daily Mail treatment and banned as a source entirely). If even the other Murdoch papers didn't bother with it, and The Australian never bothered bringing it back, it's hardly notable. Badham is quite a controversial figure and has said and done so many things worthy of controversy that I don't understand the enthusiasm for adding this insignificant one-source beat-up. The Drover's Wife (talk) 06:32, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

@drover, thanks for your 'left v right', 'The Australian is a right-wing rag and should be banned' debate. Can you please go and argue your want for this newspaper to be banned from WP somewhere else, this is not the forum. There are people out there who want The Age, CNN and the BBC banned from WP as well, but their arguments are also pointless. I have no interest the bias you espouse here, it doesn't help.

Well @drover, why did you say "It's not a fact drawing criticism in the national press"? I will break your sentence down for you. 1."It's not a fact", sorry yes it is as explained above. 2.[It’s not] "drawing criticism" sorry yes it is drawing criticism, by at least one journalist and Senator the Hon Jane Hume – Parliament of Australia. 3.[It’s not] "in the national press", sorry yes it is The Australian and whether I like it or not it's a The National broadsheet newspaper, (and not classified as tabloid on WP - but maybe it is in Van's household).

And I dispute your opinion that's it's not notable when it's commented on by a pollie Van doesn't like, and in response think we should add to the article "Senator Hume said of Badham: “It’s disappointing that someone with a public platform would use a person’s political beliefs as a basis for personal attacks. The Leader of the Opposition should call out this vile discourse and online bullying,”" Or @drover and @AiasBigAndLittle, is that not allowed because The Hon Senator Hume is a conservative pollie talking to a journalist who may have once voted conservative?

And @drover it wasn't written 'when she was a student' (as you invented), It was in 2013, 11 years after she started her career in journalism, read the page, i.e. "active 2002 - current[1]"

@drover, it's not about 1 tweet as you say, (read the article). It's about 3 tweets (one even about her leader Shorten) and a pattern of online 'vile' 'bullying' as they have said. Please get your facts right. CatCafe (talk) 06:52, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

@drover @CatCafe @Primefac I think it's worth referring back to the Biographies of Living Persons policy. This explicitly bans information based solely on Tabloid journalism. Note that the definition of Tabloid journalism in the policy doesn't merely include gossip and sensationalism but also 'political views and opinions from one perspective'. The fact that the article cited contains overtly emotive and prejudicial language ('foulmouthed'), quite aside from the aforementioned ingrained political bias of The Australian, puts it squarely in the realm of Tabloid journalism as defined. At very least, surely this information should not be presented without a balancing perspective? I am also worried about the presence of a second-hand quotation, rather than citing Badham directly. Referring to the issue generally, and noting that Badham has been criticised for aggressive tweets, might be okay, but reproducing the quote produces a POV mess, as @drover has noted. I am also in agreement with @drover as to the relative importance of this matter compared to Badham's writing and journalistic career - in which it is at most a trivial (or indeed, petty) footnote and not deserving of an entire section in the page. Its relative prominence unbalances the page. --AiasBigAndLittle (talk) 23:34, 11 January 2020 (UTC)