Talk:Van Badham

message: , 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Book 

message: What about Sen Jane Hume calling Badham out for online bullying, describing it; "vile discourse and online bullying", and Badham's own  desc of her words as "vulgar" in an apology, (see link ) Should that be eliminated up as well? And her online political past activities have also been commented on by the ACL (and I'm looking for a third source if anyone can help?): quote: "Badham is known for her foul 2013 tweets about John Howard’s mother, Tony Abbott and Health Minister Greg Hunt.
:a. - “I curse the earth beneath the c..t that spawned John Howard. I spit into the air he breathes,” she tweeted.[in The Aus & ACL]
:b. - Of Abbott she tweeted “Yep. A c..t with all the sex appeal of a corpse’s eyehole”[in The Aus & ACL] [necrophilia inference - nice!] 
:c. - and of Hunt: “Greg Hunt is an insult to the word “c..t.”,[in The Aus & ACL] But Badham says it’s okay, she has “matured” and wouldn’t do it again. But no apology."(see )
:d. - [and of the leader of the ALP she said:] “Look as far as careerist self-promoters with parroted neoliberal values that ultimately f . . k workers over go, I like Shorten,”[in The Aus]
BTW, is there a twitter archive site that we can get copies of her tweets? It would be helpful to have the original copies, Thanks. CatCafe (talk) 00:22, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Lots of senators say lots of things and we don't include them in Wikipedia unless reliable sources consider them notable (which is not being asked for comment by The Australian in one article). You're also quoting about the alleged significance of this from an article by Lyle Shelton on his blog entitled (literally) "Raising a glass to the killing of unborn babies", which says something all on its own. The Shorten comments are hardly notable, either: hell, I dare say there's a few Labor MPs who'd would've said the same in the same language - which is why even The Australian didn't bother with them as more than a footnote. The Drover's Wife (talk) 01:33, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: So The Drover's Wife rather than sit there and whine about a newspaper you can't stand, and make silly comments, can you please help by assisting and find archived copies of the tweets. You're extremely unhelpful and armchair-critic's do not improve WP, I have no time for your approach - go and create an article. CatCafe (talk) 01:37, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: That is not how this works. You need to get consensus to include this material (which finding original copies of tweets a majority of people are arguing are insignificant does not help you with) and being dismissive and rude towards people who haven't given answers you want to hear does not get you any closer to getting consensus. The Drover's Wife (talk) 01:53, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

text: I'm afraid you've read me very wrong if you think I'm an apologist for Badham. What I'm saying is that this stuff is weaksauce. A suggestion that she's known in any sense whatsoever for anything relating to some tweets in 2013 that The Australian wrote about once, most of which most people I know wouldn't even find offensive, is just a detractor being hopeful. She is fairly notorious for the way she engages people more broadly, though (esp on Twitter), and I would be surprised if there isn't sources out there that could support something more broad that wouldn't be a case of undue weight. The Drover's Wife (talk) 04:15, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think we need this in isolation. It's not a big story.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:05, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Senator calls out: "vile discourse and online bullying"