Talk:Barbara Biggs

Untitled

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.[7][8] (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?][9]

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].[10]

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?][11]

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 [12] and Singlemum [13] have turned out on your behalf. (see also 'Anonymums' Singlemum)

Did you not take notice of the good advice given to you in 2006? [14]Don't edit your own article 123.211.186.53 (talk) 13:08, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

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 or others 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. [15] Media coverage resulted in a U-turn {{"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.

• 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 [16] that confirms or verifies your claim. 58.164.138.101 (talk) 01:43, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.74.220.39 (talk) 22:57, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

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)

In reply to editor who posted the question at 2:43 24 August 2009 above regarding the Family Court website, if you scroll down the statistics page, you will see a pie chart which shows the reasons why fathers were awarded less than 30 percent care, and further down, another pie chart which shows why mothers were given less than 30 percent care. In the case of fathers, the most common reason given, in 29 percent of cases, was because of 'abuse and violence'. In the case of mothers awarded less than 30 percent care, 'abuse and violence' was the reason in 16 percent of cases. Barbbiggs (talk) 04:30, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

• 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)

Refs

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)

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)

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)

I appreciate any help that can be given with citations. I'm not a savvy or experienced wiki user and I don't know about the complexities of them.

I'm not even sure what the above means regarding the Hollingworth citation. I gather it's been removed for some reason. I leave it to those more experienced to do with them as they see fit. If any help is required from me, please let me know. But you'll have to be very specific because I'm not as familiar with wiki language and terms as you are :) Barbbiggs (talk) 04:40, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Clarification. Take a look at WP:CITE#HOW.Cptnono (talk) 05:15, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Identity forgery conviction?

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Sources sources sources :) Cptnono (talk) 06:53, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but the documentation. i.e. the false papers, were made earlier. I was not charged until I was 21. The entire story is in my autobiography. So it was 30 odd not 35 years ago. And the point of that is? I cite this as an example of nitpicking by people who seek to discredit me. 114.74.217.91 (talk) 08:38, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

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)

BTW, for those who seek to find material they may think damaging - the false passport is small fry - everything is in my books. The relevance is that someone who came from the kind of dysfunctional background I did often end up the same way. I didn't, which is the point of the entry. 114.74.217.91 (talk) 09:47, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

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)

Safer Family Law website

Would the line be better as: In February 2009, Biggs helped create the Safer Family Law Campaign[22], an organisation created to seek changes to the Australian Family Law Act and other court practice that the group believes will benefit children and families.[23] This is a simple and uncontentious enough summary of the group. I threw the page in the External links section since a link to their site could be viewed as facilitating. We also have a proper unbiased secondary source used in the previous line. I'm not a fan of using quoted mission statements or about us pages but have not seen a guideline prohibiting it. From what I have seen, opinion is divided on use. An comment <!--xxx--> could prevent confusion while editing after the line.Cptnono (talk) 03:38, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Your proposed change would be fine. Just a side note, is it preferable in Australian English to use the singular of "practice"? In any event, feel free to implement your revision. user:J aka justen (talk) 03:48, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Now I'm confused. I'm going to do "practice" since the website says it and I don't know the rules on Australian grammar. If it is an error it is minor and I hope someone will catch it.Cptnono (talk)

I'm not sure how to create a new topic, however, "smalltalk" suggested I say on this talk page what I would like to have looked at so that the editors on the page have a starting point.

The main concerns are about the flags. There were no flags for three years before the entry about the Safer Family Law Campaign. I'm not too fussed about what ends up being said under the "Child Protection Campaigner" section. I'm more concerned that all the flags are removed.

However, these are my concerns about the objections so far:

1) The comments by the Chief Justice have been removed as have the citations. There was a citation, in pdf format, of a speech the Chief Justice made in Queensland two weeks before the national rallies organized by the Safer Family Law Campaign, in which she dismisses the proposed protesters' concerns (i.e. makes repeated references to the people involved in the Safer Family Law Campaign and the upcoming protests) , calling the parents 'shrill'. In the speech, she defended the Family Law Act as it stood, not acknowledging any problems with it. Just a couple of weeks later, she wrote to the Attorney General saying 'urgent' changes were needed. Nothing had occured in the interim, no child deaths, no sensational news items, no reports or review findings released. The only thing that had occured was extensive media coverage of the Safer Family Law campaign, which involved one Youtube video a day being posted for five days leading up to the national rally in five states around the country. These rallies were reported on 3-4 news channels in five capital cities - with the exception of Sydney where other news overshadowed it on the day. There were also feature articles in every city where the rallies were held. I don't consider, with the volume of media coverage the campaign generated, that it is grandstanding to presume that political change/shift occurred as a result of this public media attention. This is how most public shifts and political action occurs. It is how the Family LAw Act amendments of 2006 were effected and is now the instrument of its review.

2) In response to an objection, I removed the statement 'in response to the campaign' Chief Justice did a 'U-turn' and wrote to the Attorney General and simply stated, with citations, what the Chief Justice had said on April 12 and what she then said in a letter to the Attorney General two weeks later about the need for urgent changes, leaving the public to draw their own conclusions. This expression 'U-turn' has repeatedly been put back in and then objected to as grandstanding - as if I somehow wrote it or continually put it back in, neither of which is the case. What is happening here? Who is doing this and why has it been allowed to continue to occur?

3) A description of the Youtube videos I think is highly relevant to the above. One of the journalists calling for change to the gagging laws is a Walkley Award-winning journalist whose opinion carries significant weight with media, the public and politicians (Ross Coulthart). There is no way to indicate the relevance and effect of the Youtube videos without describing their content. Youtube videos are not considered research or factual, but they serve a social media purpose. The way the videos were referred to in the article was not citing them to prove anything factual, but referring to them as a tool for social change - which they, apparently, turned out to be. If, once this discussion takes place, about the justification of describing Youtube videos as a tool for social change, and anyone wants me to put back the description, I'm happy to do so. I'm not sure if things removed can be seen in this talk page. Perhaps there is a version of it somewhere, but I can't see it. Another relevant point about the videos, is that they involved 47 professional - actors, editors, directors, film studio owners - in five states donating their time and expertise, which is another indication of the level of widespread public support for campaign.

4) In citing my work giving free talks to community groups and professionals, I've given links to community websites which invited me to speak, where they have promoted the talks. These have been removed. I have given several hundred talks from country towns to major conferences. These are not usually reported in newspapers, but on these kinds of websites. These have been objected to as not credible sources for citation. How else can one prove the work that is being referred to in a single passing claim of being a child protection campaigner and raising awareness about the issues of child sexual abuse?

5) I would also ask that the father's rights groups who have been editing this page be stopped from doing so if it is found that they are the ones continually adding back wording (such as U-turn) and removing legitimate citations. I also consider their claim about me or the organization I created being 'anti-father' when all the evidence is to the contrary - that we are pro-child - misrepresenting. The citiations I refer to are the pdf of the Chief Justice's speech, the newspaper article referring to her writing to the Attorney General seeking urgent changes to the Act and the Family Court website link with the pie chart about the number of abusive and violence parents given some access to their children.

However, as I said, I'm not fussed about what appears in the 'Child Protection Campaigner" section as long as the flags are dealt with and removed in order to restore the integrity of the page, which had extensive discussion in 2006 and was deemed at that time to be resolved. Barbbiggs (talk) 05:19, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

1:Ripped out a bunch of flags since so much text was removed. Inline citaitons are still relevant

2:The whole section needed improvement. The text has been cut down. Reliable secondary sources needed for inclusion.

3:Youtube videos are typically frowned upon due to potential copyright infringement. This link in particular is a concern due to personal promotion concerns again since it is your complete channel.

4:A quick line in a promotional PDF does not cut it. You have been provided with links a few times to brush up on what sources are appropriate and preferred. Start finding published nontrivial sources from uninvolved parties.

5:Any editors that are not editing in a neutral fashion can and should be blocked if their edits are disruptive.Cptnono (talk) 05:31, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Because I have strong suspicions that Cptnono is a member of the biased father's rights groups who have repeatedly sought to minimize the efforts of the Safer Family Law Campaign, in this forum and others, I would request that another editor respond to my detailed questions above. These suspicions are based on the fact that the other voices who started this discussion have become silent, as though somebody else has taken over their concerns for them, and that this editor has continued to follow the objectives of the previous editors who are clearly from father's rights groups who instigated the 2006 Family Law Act shared parenting amendments the Safer Family Law Campaign seeks to change. This agenda appear to be keeping the Chief Justice's citations and comments, and the Family Court website citations, out of the entry.

I would like an opinion from another moderator, on whether or not this entry below would follow wiki protocol and guidelines:

After becoming aware through the Family Court of Australia's website, that parents the Court itself had deemed violent and abusive, were given some access to their children under the shared parenting amendments of 2006, Biggs convened the Safer Family Law Campaign. (Here the website link to that page could be added, which shows that the reason 29% of fathers and 16% of mothers were given less than 30 percent care of their children - i.e. given some care/access - was because of abuse/violence)

The SFLC involved a petition calling for changes to the Family Law Act, garnering thousands of signatures (here a link to the online petiion website) and posting one Youtube video for each of five days leading up to a series of national rallies in five states. (Here I would like a ruling from a more independent moderator on whether or not the content of the videos could be described. I argue the content was instrumental in the media coverage the campaign receied and, more importantly, in influencing the Chief Justice altered opinions about the need for change as outline in the next two pars).

Two weeks before the rallies, the Chief Justice of the Family Court, in a Queensland speech, repeatedly referred to the proposed rallies in defending the Family Law Act and Court as it stood. (Here I'd like a ruling on whether or not the pdf of the Chief Justice's speech can be used).

The day before the rallies, and the day after the Youtube videos had been posted, media reported the Chief Justice had written to the Attorney General saying 'urgent' changes were required because under the current Act, parents were being deterred from raising abuse allegations. She did not identifiy the reason for her changed opinion.

The Attorney General's Department now has its own review into the Family Law Act and the 2006 shared parenting amendments. (Here there are newspaper articles flagging this)

I don't want to, again, go about finding these citations, only to have them removed or ruled against. If it is ruled, in principle, the above entry, or some altered form of it is allowed, I will again find the citations required. Barbbiggs (talk) 19:21, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Whether or not your Safer Family Law Website is anti-father is not the key issue, although a cursory reading shows that 100% of examples of child abuse cited on that webpage are of fathers/males as the perpetrators.[17][18] I don't see any editors questioning your chosen approach to family law matters and see no evidence that editors are from "biased/angry fathers rights groups" including Cptnono who is editing the entry in accordance with WP policies regarding use of reliable secondary sources (eg. articles which mention you rather than amateur POV or synthesis), criteria your previous references did not meet. I'm sure editors will help you determine which sources are reliable if you note them here. 58.164.138.101 (talk) 22:15, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

In other words whether or not people agree with your beliefs is not the issue, but that you need quality sources to back those beliefs. 58.164.138.101 (talk) 22:58, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

If you looked at the Queensland Youtube video you would see there is a father's story of the mother sexually abusing the children is one of the six parents' stories. This ratio reflects the link below which shows on the Family Court website that father's the Court itself found abusive/violent outnumber mothers found abusive/violent - when given less than 30 percent care - by a factor of 5.4 to 1. (scroll down to the pie charts on the link.)

As for most of the cases being mothers stories of abuse by fathers, we also have many male relatives who have signed the petition, also cited below. As you rightly point out, that is not the issue, and nor should it be. The issue is about whether or not the citations are allowable in the opinion of a neutral editor. It is my contention that Cptnono is not neutral. Others may disagree with that assessment, as you do, however because I do believe that, I would welcome the opinion of other editors.

Cptnono has not been rude and made untrue claims on this editors page. The reason I responded to his posts. However those previously have, for example, saying that only my 'friends' attended the rally (as if anyone could have hundreds of friends spread over five states) and more comments that I wont' go into again - see above. I am also suspicious of Cptnono's dismissive comments to my detailed questions above. His response has been to remove slabs of text rather than assisting to reflect a true picture of the effectiveness of the SFLC - the point of mentioning it in the first place.

The sources I've cited before but are continually questioned are these:

- Australian Federal Government website: http://www.familycourt.gov.au/wps/wcm/connect/FCOA/home/about/Business/Statistics/FCOA_stats_SPR

- a pdf of the Chief Justice's Queensland speech, which I haven't been able to find online but which was sent to me. I don't know how to attach it here, although obviously I found a way when I first put it up. The question is, is a pdf of a Chief Justice's speech a reliable source of information. What is generally considered to be a reliable source of information, say, for example, if President Obama made a speech that was unable to be sourced through a URL link?

- a metropolitan mainstream newspaper article/s reporting that the Chief Justice had written to the Attorney General saying urgent changes were required to the Family Law Act because, as it stood, it was discouraging parents from reporting abuse.

- And I'd like another ruling on whether or not, in the context of explaining a social change campaign, it is withink wiki policy to describe the content of Youtube videos posted as part of that campaign.

Barbbiggs (talk) 23:33, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

• As I understand it the reason the Family Court citation [19] was removed is because (a). it didn't mention your name nor indirectly validate your view that children were forced into contact visits with violent parents by the Family Court. (b) the mention in that website of 'abuse and family violence' refers to any "family violence" including violence strictly between parents (woman against man, man against woman) with no violence directed at the children (children who may not have even witnessed the violence between the parents). Ie. One could argue that when many of these conflicting couples separate the abuse/violence is no longer witnessed by children (if it ever was), and that children are completely safe on visits with mum and dad seperately. Put simply it is not enough to use that citation to claim some couples are violent during thier relationship = violence also against children after separation = validation of Barbara Biggs child protection campaign. 58.164.138.101 (talk) 23:58, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I have asked for an independent evaluation from a moderator. I identify you as from a father's rights group member whose opinion is biased.

The wording I suggested is that violent parents have been given access to their children. I didn't specify violent toward the children. The current research indicates that children who witness violence suffer trauma whether or not they were a direct recipient of the violence. They often feel guilty they were unable to stop it, responsible for it in the first place and fear the perpetrator because what they have seen s/he is capable of. Regardless of who the parent was violent toward, it still makes them a violent parent. If somebody deals with conflict with violence, it says something about the way they deal with conflict. This is exactly the point and the reason for the campaign. Children role model on ways to deal with conflict, as with everything else. Also, if somebody is violent with one partner, they don't suddenly change (without treatment programs) in their responses to another. There is every chance the parent will continue their pattern in subsequent relationships. The SFLC advocates for the Court to recommend anger management or other treatment for such behaviour before custody or access is restored.

When stating trends, beliefs, what motivated one to action, citing statistics which back up your claim are of course not going to mention the person who has the belief. They are statistics. That is the reason they are being cited. These statistics came to my attention, along with a series of disturbing stories, which motivated the campaign. The statistics verifies that the stories are not 'rumours' as one of your colleagues claimed in an earlier edit post but routine fact.

I still await an independent response to my above queries. Barbbiggs (talk) 00:46, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Even if I was part of a conspiracy against you I gave you the accurate and concise answer. Just because another editor and I disagree with its inclusion doesn't mean you arguing more and more and waiting for "independent" opinions. I am leaving message on your talk page. Please stop accusing me of being against you when your edits simply were not OK.Cptnono (talk) 02:02, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea if other editors and Cptnono will agree or not. I'm simply waiting for opinions from the moderators who said they would mark this as a watch page. This is the only reason I went into so much detail, because I thought I could get what at least sounded to me like an independent opinion. I would not have done that if I thought Cptnono and the previous poster were the only two going to respond. Whether these editors are biased or not, the combative tone of the posts does not inspire confidence.

The person who referred to me as 'Ms Biggs' had more the tone of someone whose opinion I would consider neutral. I would appreciate a response from this poster and will not respond to the previous two posters again. Barbbiggs (talk) 03:17, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Please stop campaigning. I also have referred to you as Ms. Biggs at times, by the way.Cptnono (talk) 03:54, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Restoration of Bryant content

I want to apologize for my delay in responding. I was able to find sourcing that appears to support the gist of the content that was previously present in the article with regards to the Chief Justice's response(s) to the campaign. I believe the previous wording could be simplified somewhat for clarity and neutrality, though:

In February 2009, Biggs helped create the Safer Family Law Campaign, an organisation created to seek changes to the Family Law Act and other Australian court practices that the group believes will benefit children and families. With the support of a small group of parents and coordinators, Biggs organised rallies in five Australian cities for May 3, 2009. In the days leading up to the rallies, Family Court Chief Justice Diana Bryant was reported to have responded negatively to the campaign; it was reported that Bryant later decided to intervene in support of the concerns of the campaign and requested that Attorney General Robert McClelland give "urgent consideration" to repealing parts of the Family Law Act.

By no means is the wording of this proposal set in stone, although my reading of the sources clearly would indicate this content is reliably sourced and is clearly notable to this article. Thoughts? user:J aka justen (talk) 03:48, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Justin. It is my understanding that there is no evidence Chief Justice Diana Bryant "later decided to intervene in support of the concerns of the campaign" by Ms Biggs. There was already underway a push by numerous Australian academics to have Family Law reviewed. May I ask where is the evidence to show the Chief Justices' support for a review are inspired by Ms Biggs, her associates and her demonstrators' campaign? As mentioned there were (and are) many academics in Australia unrelated to Ms Biggs who had undertaken a campaign pushing for various kinds of reform, and i suggest it was these whom the Chief Justice spoke on behalf of; ie. that the Chief Justice responded negatively to the "shrill" behaviours of Ms Biggs and her associates seems proof enough that Bryant did not contact the Attorney General about concerns with Family Law because of anything Ms Biggs did. There are some baseless leaps being made here regarding the connections between Ms Biggs, Diana Bryant and Attorney General Robert McClelland. 58.164.138.101 (talk) 04:10, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

"Justice Bryant's public intervention comes amid a national campaign by women to highlight the alleged failure of the act to keep children safe from violent and abusive parents." That does not say she made the intervention due to the 3000 signatures, youtube videos, or rallies (they had not occurred yet per the source). It is noteworthy that a secondary source reported it while discussing the Justice. Let the facts speak for themselves and simply say the Justice interviened. The source discusses the situation and the subject and is good. We don't want to inadvertandtly get lead one way then do it to the reader of this article as well.

I would also like to add the youtube and petition to the 3rd line (organised rallies)Cptnono (talk) 04:20, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Cptnono provided the exact quote. The article states that the "intervention" came "admist" a "national campaign," and it directly mentions the organization Biggs set up. I did phrase the proposal so as to not directly imply a link between the two, hence "later decided," rather than the previous phrasing that implied a direct link. If there was sourcing for such a direct link, it should be considered. As it is, I believe the proposal matches the sourcing available, no? user:J aka justen (talk) 04:35, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Follow-up. This is per the sources and besides any minor cleanup I propose it go in ASAP.

In February 2009, Biggs helped create the Safer Family Law Campaign, an organisation created to seek new provisions to the Family Law Act that the group believed would remove barriers that might prevent women from raising allegations of family violence. Biggs organized a campaign which included an online petition and a series of YouTube videos. Amidst the campaign, Family Court Chief Justice Diana Bryant said some changes were needed, but was critical of the group during a speech; on May 2, Bryant decided to intervene by requesting that Attorney General Robert McClelland give "urgent consideration" to repealing parts of the Family Law Act. Rallies, organised by Biggs in favour of the changes, took place in five Australian cities for May 3, 2009. The organisation continues to seek further changes to the Family Law Act and other Australian court practice that the group believes will benefit children and families.

I made a few changes to your text; feel free to revert if you disagree with them. If we're accepting that she was criticizing "the" campaign, we should also acknowledge that the source was saying the changes were "admist" that same campaign. The other changes were mainly stylistic, however. user:J aka justen (talk) 04:47, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I also changed the language in the first sentence, which was inaccurate as it was written. I'm not sure if that captures the whole scope of what that campaign was doing, but I'm not opposed to it if it is now indeed accurate. user:J aka justen (talk) 04:51, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Made minor change per chron(I think it is chron) guideline. Word things as if they might be changed without being updated, basically.

Amidst (used amid) in previous line. We can summarize the source without taking an exact quote there. I think the line needs a semi colon or some other adjustment, though.Cptnono (talk)

NOOOOO! I removed a source for the speech. I am going to try to retrieve it and clarify the run on sentence.Cptnono (talk) 04:57, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

A few additional small changes made. user:J aka justen (talk) 05:01, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Sources due not attribute any U-Turn and now we do not either. I like it. It needs to be clear that the group was active and I think we have done that.Cptnono (talk) 05:06, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

There is nothing in these articles which clearly states that Chief Justice Diana Byrant's discussion with the Attorney General was the result of Ms Biggs or her campaign. I firmly believe that is a false conclusion resulting from the co occurance of a mention of Byrant's seperate undertakings to reform Family Law appearing in the same article as Barbara Biggs rally is mentioned. Both issues were dealing with Family Law reform and are therefore compatible for a media article, but are seperate initiatives on the same front. 58.164.138.101 (talk) 04:43, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I believe the text, as proposed, appropriately presents the chronology as it can be sourced. We're not saying Ms. Biggs called up Ms. Bryant who then called up Mr. McClelland, but we are presenting them in the chronology the source clearly supports, given that the events were intertwined. user:J aka justen (talk) 05:13, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your arbitration on this matter Justen. Much appreciated. Barbbiggs (talk) 05:14, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I know that you and User:Cptnono have not always seen eye to eye, but I hope you'd agree he was able and willing to collaborate here. I'd love it if the two you would consider working more together, and I'd be happy to stick around to serve as a catalyst in that whenever possible. Is it fair to say that you support the text as proposed, though? If so, I believe it would be reasonable for User:Cptnono to go ahead and reinsert the proposed text. user:J aka justen (talk) 05:22, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I hadn't seen the draft you had both worked on above as we were editing simultaneously. Looking much more honest now the "U-turn" statement about the Chief Justice gone, and the omission of the Australian Family Law Website link and associated OR. Gets my vote. 58.164.138.101 (talk) 05:24, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

It is in the italicized text above. I'll copy and paste it in w/ refs.Cptnono (talk) 05:29, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

PS. I'm still wondering what Justice Bryant and AG McClelland have to do with Ms Biggs efforts. Seems like puffery to me. Nevertheless its in good enough shape to post, so i'll bow out. 58.164.138.101 (talk) 05:33, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I thought I'd already written this, but it didn't appear when I thought I'd posted it:

A couple of minor changes I would like to see before this entry is finalized. I would prefer it if the word 'women' was replaced with 'parents' failing to raise abuse allegations against 'former spouses'. The campaign has always tried to be gender neutral and represent the safety needs of children against violent mothers and fathers.

Also, in the first line, it says I 'helped set up' the SFLC. I would prefer the word 'convened'. The protest, petition, Youtubes and organization was instigated by myself. It was my energy, full-time work (16hr days 7 days/wk) attention, ideas and media contacts which drew the other parents together into a unified voice. I think this is reflected in the word 'convened'.

Otherwise, I'm happy with the posting as the various moderators have arbitrated it.

Thanks to all who helped clean up the sourcing and other matters, including Cptnono :) I too hope we are able to work on any future changes together. I hope the desire is mutual :) Barbbiggs (talk) 05:45, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

No worries.

BB: Let me go through the sources one more time on the quick word changes. Seems perfectly acceptable but want to get it right the first time.

"remove barriers that might prevent WOMEN/PARENTS from raising allegations of family violence.": The source says "women" for the event since that looks to be the specific concern with the provisions but we can certainly mention it is not gender specific anymore. I'm not terribly concerned if parents is preferred by the other editors, though.

I'll throw in "convened" but would also like "organized", "assisted in the creation", or "created".Cptnono (talk) 06:20, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

1. 58: The sources mention them together and it does give perspective. Go ahead and mention if any wording doesn't look neutral but they seem related enough for giving a clear picture.

Back into the fire now ;): I actually disagree with j's recent inclusion of refs after the rally line. This is primarily asthetic and I won't make any changes on those until he reviews my concerns:

• Sydney Herald "Anger at law..." is good
• The writer of the Age piece is biased since she is the "co-ordinator of the Mayday! Safer Family Law Campaign rally" as mentioned at the base of the article (I don't think she is staff and this is more of an opinionated submission. However, it is info (more data the better) and I assume it was vetted by the editor. I'm on the fence.
• Brisbane Times is a duplicate and not needed
• WA Today is an exact copy of Brisbane's. Both are a summary from the Age it looks like (source: The Age mentioned in both).Cptnono (talk) 06:04, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Cptnono. I prefer 'convened' but would not object to 'organized' or 'created'. Convened better describes it though since the political will and foot soldiers, so to speak, already existed - some had tried to organize rallies under the previous Liberal Government but none were successful - I simply mustered the energy to bring them together.

I leave it to one of the other neutral editors to rule on the other sourcing issues you raise.

Also, it is unfortunate that some media outlets have used the word 'mothers' despite our repeatedly saying we represent protecting children from either parent who is violent. If parent can be used instead of, or as well as, I'd appreciate that reflecting the goals on the SFLC website, which could also, perhaps, be used as a source. Or not :) Barbbiggs (talk) 07:59, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

From what I have read in both the media sources and on your Safer Family Law Campaign website there is a predominating focus on mothers and children as victims of father perpetrated abuse/violence, with predominately female campaigners. Whilst there are generic references to abusive "parents" all of your public examples of horror stories are about bad dads and males. I dont want to challenge your focus but do feel the newspaper reports focus on 'mothers' is acurate and representative. 58.164.138.101 (talk) 08:26, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

At work we call it "branding guidelines". Sometimes the media doesn't follow the press kits or quote it properly. My whole issue with this is the original Family Act campaign doesn't look like it was concerned with women beating men so women seems best. It does say "families" in the last line of the paragraph. I don't mind the inclusion of "parents" there.Cptnono (talk) 08:41, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

References

Copyright violation

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)

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)

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)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Barbara Biggs. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} 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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:37, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

I now see that Robyn Williams is already included as an interviewer. However, she was also interviewed by Andrew Rule in episode 117 of his "Life and Crimes with Andrew Rule" podcast series on 10 March 2020 [?] (http://www.radio-australia.org/podcasts/life-and-crimes-with-andrew-rule). Hedley 11:44, 10 March 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hfinger (talk • contribs)

😒 interviews

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)