Talk:Kathryn Campbell

Has she quit?

The lead describes her as a former senior Australian public servant and a former officer in the Australian Army Reserve, but nowhere does the article describe as actually having left or been sacked from either. It does say Albanese was giving her a new role. Is she really "former"? HiLo48 (talk) 00:56, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't think she was "former" public servant until today. Her DFAT biography says she was reservist from 1989 to July 2021 - not "non-wartime" nor "peacetime" considering it includes Kuwait, Rwanda, Iraq, and Afghanistan. -- Scott Davis ^Talk 11:44, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

She is former - she quit her job. See here: [1]. I'll update the article to clarify she is a former officer in the prose as well. Damien Linnane (talk) 11:48, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

"Disgraced"?

Just a heads up to editors that there is currently a discussion on the CPA Australia page as to the appropriateness of using the phrase "disgraced". I am of the view that this term is highly loaded and is likely against WP:BLP and WP:NPOV, but there are likely many reliable sources that could justify this terminology. In the absence of strong referencing for this term, I am of the view that is is better to be more dispassionate on the subject, at least in terminology. See Talk:CPA_Australia#Kathryn_Campbell and contribute if you're interested.Siegfried Nugent (talk) 07:03, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

@Siegfried Nugent: I completely agree with you. If you go through this article's history, you'll see IP editor(s) repeatedly engaged in edit warring to label her as 'disgraced' long before she was actually labelled as such by a media outlet, using their own original research to do so. I always presumed it was the same lone editor, who I presume is now the same person editing the CPA article. Anyway, I officially requested to have the page protected to make it stop, but was unsuccessful. I repeatedly removed the unreferenced addition of the 'disgraced' label, until the IP editor found a source to say that. While I'd prefer the label was presented in a less loaded manner, I don't have the energy to keep fighting off the IP edits myself, so once they found a source I just gave up. If you want to reword the article you are most welcome to, but prepare for an edit war with the IP editor who insists on this label being presented exactly as it is now. Damien Linnane (talk) 08:28, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

@Damien Linnane: Thanks for your input. My understanding is that if we allow loaded and emotive terms like "disgraced", it needs to be backed up with several reliable sources to prove that this term is clearly established and understood to be an accurate descriptor. If it's just one source, then in my view that would be insufficient. I am unafraid of removing this term until we establish a consensus on wording. Thoughts? Siegfried Nugent (talk) 09:13, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Completely agree. I'm happy for you to remove the term from the lead, but I do think it belongs somewhere. Perhaps place it in the body instead, presented as the opinion of that source alone rather than as a hard and widely accepted fact. Damien Linnane (talk) 09:17, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

@Damien Linnane WP:BLP supports that: if we're applying a loaded description like that, we must attribute who is making the description, rather than put it in Wikipedia's voice. (Speaking in regard to this administrator's interpretation of policy and how they are willing to apply it in this and related articles.) —C.Fred (talk) 13:54, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

@Damien Linnane and C.Fred: Given the most recent instance of edit warring from this IP editor, including throwing out accusations that I am somehow biased in the "protet [sic] campbell agenda" (a ridiculous assertion), and the risk of further edit warring, I have requested that this page be protected (see WP:RPP/I).Siegfried Nugent (talk) 01:44, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

I have semi-protected this article for a month. Cullen328 (talk) 01:46, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

I note that literally a day after the page protection has expired, an IP editor (likely the same as before) has tried to reinstate the contentious wording without trying to change or address the consensus clearly established above against using this wording. Clearly an ongoing refusal to engage on the talk page. I will request that page protection be sought once again.Siegfried Nugent (talk) 02:27, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Siegfried Nugent. Yes, I was anticipating this happening. Whoever this person is they have been absolutely relentless in both their desire to change the page to what they want, and their refusal to engage with others. I think they genuinely believe the edit is justified, and do not understand the concept that the source needs to be given due weight, and that the opinion of one journalist is not the same as hard fact. That doesn't justify their edit war or their refusal to engage of course, it's just an observation. Damien Linnane (talk) 02:57, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Hi. I have been following this topic for months now. So, I thought I would chip in my 2 cents worth.

Campbell is the responsible secretary for Robodebt and the RC was very clear on her roles and responsibiolities with Robodebt and were especially critical of her conduct including misfeasance. I am sure all agree on that.

The Royal Commissioner Catherine Holmes concluded by stating that the people behind robodebt caused extraordinary harm “through venality, incompetence and cowardice". That was in the RC Report.

Synonyms of venality (noun corruptness) dishonesty. sordidness. vendibility.

Merriam Webster Dictionary: “The meaning of COWARD is one who shows disgraceful fear or timidity.”

The pre-eminent former Canberra Times Editor, Jack Waterford wrote on twitter now X:

“The idea that this paranoid micromanaging disgrace did not know everything about robodebt is a lie. She is also the author of the culture of fear, terror and hatred of the poor that characterised her career, civil and military.”

https://twitter.com/WaterfordJack/status/1591725130082062337?fbclid=IwAR3nu_6KmnXDtQnLNrUzEXFOm0NorNDpOjFj0jbejtduyikGwd6zjnMRlls

OK, Waterford published this on X rather than mainstream media and can it be any stronger. But Jack Waterford is about as eminent a journo as there comes.

Perhaps, formalization of the disgrace tag will only come if and when Campbell has her AO revoked by the GG.

BTW, thanks again to Damien for his edit of 23 Sep of my recent contribution.

End of my rant.

Thanks again. Simon Appleby 60 (talk) 04:49, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

I think the difference comes from only one reliable source labelling her as "disgraced" from what I can see, being the Canberra Times article (self-published opinions from retired journalists on X don't really meet the threshold), and the use of "disgraced" as an unquoted descriptor in the lede, as if that is the only undisputed conclusion that could be drawn. While we all may have opinions on ms Campbell and her actions, we have an obligation to avoid allowing our biases/opinions to take hold, and maintain an unbiased dispassionate tone that reports the facts and avoids emotive language. Thanks. Siegfried Nugent (talk) 05:07, 5 October 2023 (UTC)