Jump to content

Talk:Van Badham

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by AiasBigAndLittle (talk | contribs) at 03:32, 11 January 2020 (→‎Time to talk). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Time to talk

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

@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)[reply]