Talk:Barbara Biggs

message: 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)
thread_title: Untitled

message: 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)
thread_title:  Keeping this article 

message: 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)
thread_title:  References to other living people 

message: 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)
thread_title: Blatant advertizing / status beat-up

message: 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 Regarding abuse victims, Biggs writes and speaks about the much-misunderstood phenomenon of emotional attachment to the abuser.[original research?]
:#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].
:#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?]
58.165.69.67 (talk) 05:13, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Biggs using page as a promotion site for utterly amateur anti-father campaign

message: :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  and Singlemum  have turned out on your behalf. (see also 'Anonymums' Singlemum)
Did you not take notice of the good advice given to you in 2006? Don't edit your own article 123.211.186.53 (talk) 13:08, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Are we meant to edit our own articles?

message: 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.  Media coverage resulted  in a U-turn  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Also, instead of linking here from your website that page could be updated.Cptnono (talk) 10:24, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: *It would help if you supplied the quote where the Family Court of Australia admits it is sending (as you claim) children to spend time with violent parents. I see absolutely nothing on that Australian Family Court website you provided  that confirms or verifies your claim. 58.164.138.101 (talk) 01:43, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

text: General questions can be done at the help desk I linked above. The recent discussion regarding you specifically is Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Barbara Biggs editing her own article again. Keep in mind the noticeboard is for discussion on COI only. Also, if you stopped focusing on one source being removed more efforts could go into improving a very poor article.Cptnono (talk) 23:56, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: *Sounds like you are extrapolating, which is Original Research. In passing I note that you conflate 'violent parents' with 'violent spouses'. Best leave the conclusions to the experts. 58.164.138.101 (talk) 05:22, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Original research

message: Citation guidelines need to be followed. The link is shown above. Removed the reference that should be used as an inline citation (I am sure it can be worked back in)
*|title= Hollingworth in 'journey of discovery' |url=http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/05/03/1083436541695.html?from=storyrhs |publisher= The Age| first= Damien |last= Murphy  |date= 2006-05-04 |accessdate= 2006-12-09
*Also removed duplicate ref, changed footnotes subsection to ref subsection, adding works section
*It looks like the plain links (not citations) were removed. Nice. Bare URLs still exist but that is an improvement. Cptnono (talk) 00:50, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: A lot of folks (like me) are awful about using the citation templates properly.  If I'm in a hurry, a bare URL ref is better than nothing, usually with a mental note to flesh it out later.  Mind you, track records on that follow-up are not great.  ;)  There's also a bot that will go around and fill in a title for bare URL refs, but that's still not great, as you know.  Since you're watching, I'll go back and fix that bare URL ref I just put in.  ;)  user:J aka justen (talk) 03:17, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: HA! I think everyone does it when in a hurry. One or two are aeasy to fix. I am more concerned with most of them not being good enough as seen in the References. I snailed my way through them on a larger page I was working on over the course of a week since it is so mind numbing!Cptnono (talk) 03:34, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Clarification. Take a look at WP:CITE#HOW.Cptnono (talk) 05:15, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Refs

message: Is the forgery conviction important or the tram dispute? Forgery and tram dispute could get a quick line in a personal life section. Tram dispute could also go under career. Needs clarification.Cptnono (talk)
The passport forgery being almost 35 years ago (when I was 17), and carrying a fine of $100, I consider the entry irrelevant, however I have no preference for where it goes. I doubt anyone else will care where it goes either but I leave it to editors to decide to change it or leave as they wish. Barbbiggs (talk) 04:35, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not clear to me that this event was/is notable per our guidelines?  I see it was covered by the newspapers due to some of your other activities at that time, but I'm not sure those activities would be particularly relevant to your notability today as per our policies (wp:note and potentially wp:1e).  In that case, it would just be a non-notable (according to our policies) event in your childhood (according to the law), both indications that would suggest it can simply be removed.  I'll await other responses here before immediately doing so, however, just to be sure I'm not missing anything.  user:J aka justen (talk) 04:43, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: There is coverage and not all inclusions in a biography need to assert notability. I'm not saying if she likes chocolate chips it is noteworthy enough of inclusion but this at leasts deserves a line in a section covering her personal life. It  doesn't deserve a complete section.Cptnono (talk) 05:08, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Would either of you have proposals for how and where it could be included in a wp:due manner?  user:J aka justen (talk) 05:11, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: There needs to be a "Personal life" seciton. The info on Japan and all of that is mentioned in the career section but these were defining enough moments that they should be summarized in a section devoted to general biographical text instead of career. This seciton could get a line on both events without giving it too much weight. I don't know that much about Ms. Biggs but it looks like she has come into some money and wrote about it so that could be interesting as well. Is she married? Kids? All of that stuff typically gets a mention in the infobox and a summary in a section.Cptnono (talk) 05:21, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

text: In Australia one must be 18 to apply for a passport, not 17. Your deportation and conviction clearly occured in 1977, making you 21 yrs of age at the time of your use of the false passport (as you were born in 1956). The newspaper article confirms you were 21 yrs of age when carrying/using the false passport, and 21 yrs of age at the time of your conviction. I simply wanted to confirm this fact as it did not correspond with the age of 17 stated above. Other than that clarification I have no interest in whether the conviction is recorded in this article or deleted. 58.164.138.101 (talk) 06:42, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Sources sources sources :) Cptnono (talk) 06:53, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

text: The whole seciton is too much weight. So time to fix it. Any obections to a small section on Personal stuff. If not, what should and should not be included.Cptnono (talk) 08:45, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

text: This is not a forum for general discussion. Does anyone have any input on a new section? I don't mind doing it on my own but thought it would be appropriate to give everyone a heads up and chance to participate.Cptnono (talk) 03:55, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Identity forgery conviction?

message: The section,"Identity forgery conviction", is very closely paraphrased from http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=4v8QAAAAIBAJ&sjid=W5IDAAAAIBAJ&pg=4304,4248818&dq=barbara-biggs - unfortunately, it will need to be rewritten to be included, as the wording is a little too close. I gather there was previously some dispute over due weight, given the minor nature of the conviction ($170 in fines, $45 in costs), but my main concern is the copyright problem. Perhaps it could be trimmed back to a sentence or two as part of rewording? - Bilby (talk) 21:56, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The only thing I can see is "Biggs pleaded guilty to making a false statement when applying for an Australian Passport, forging an application for a passport and uttering an application knowing it to be false." It would be inappropriate to adjust wording that is required to be perfect. The court made specific wording and changes to it lead to accuracy and maybe even BLP issues. I would recommend spending the 30 seconds to trim the first line a bit yourself instead of edit warring. I'm not sure exactly what you are looking for so will give you the chance to make the edit before I revert.Cptnono (talk) 22:06, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not edit warring - copyvio needs to be removed. :) More than that one line is overly close, and that line isn't the formal charges, so it needn't be a direct copy. It could become a quote, but the other lines need some work. - Bilby (talk) 22:22, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright violation 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Barbara Biggs. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070929102528/http://www.shinetv.co.nz/nzonepage.php?id=91 to http://www.shinetv.co.nz/nzonepage.php?id=91
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:37, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Barbara Biggs was also interviewed by Robyn Williams on the ABC "In Conversation" programme on 14 June 2006 (https://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/archived/inconversation/barbara-biggs/3319908). I am adding this on a mobile phone, which does not allow me to edit the "Barbara Biggs" page. Hedley 11:30, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  😒 interviews