Talk:Bettina Arndt/Archive 1

Archive 1

OTRS & BLP Concerns

Following a complaint at OTRS [1] I have reviewed this article. I have removed specific sections as the subject asserts that the statements as they stand do not reflect a fully rounded discussion of the issues and therefore represent undue emphasis. I have to say that I tend to agree. With regard to being anti-feminist the subject asserts that the article needs to discuss the fact that she has written in favour of women's rights for many years. They also assert that the Media Watch pieces were biased and themselves did not represent the full facts. In either event, I think it is reasonable to say that picking out a couple of issues concerning a prominent writer who has been active for over 30 years is demonstrating undue emphasis. Please can editors ensure that before the material is reinserted that it is done so in a way consistent with a fully rounded discussion of this persons career. Thanks Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:24, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

De-personalising; Best Seller?; Media Watch

1. I have de-personalised the article by altering "she", "her", and "Bettina" to "Arndt" in several places.

2. There was no reference given for claiming "International best seller", so I removed it. At present the Kindle Edition is not available on Amazon ("This book is currently unavailable because there are significant quality issues with the source file supplied by the publisher"); the paperback edition links to a book by another author; and the book ranks at #1,157,321. Hardly an international bestseller.

3. I have added a reference to Media Watch's story about plagiarism.

4. Removed "highly successful" when describing her newspaper column as there was no reference.

Order of Australia

I find it surprising that the article doesn't say that Bettina Arndt is a member of the Order of Australia (OAM or AM). She has educated the Australian public on sex and relationship issues since the 1970's, and has also served as an advisor to the government. Someone should submit a nomination form. http://www.gg.gov.au/australian-honours-and-awards/nomination-forms — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.210.11.215 (talk) 08:28, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Possible WP:CONFLICT

There is a possible WP:COI issue with the editor Dan arndt (talk) and the subject Bettina Arndt. For a number of years editor Dan arndt has been a major contributor to the this page [2] and then placed warning tags on the page in January 2020 [3]. I suggest that those tags be removed until this issue is resolved. FYI most of my additions have not been displayed text, rather maintenance work in non-visible text, expanding cites and their archives etc.CatCafe (talk) 05:23, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

I have no conflict of interest in the subject, whilst I share the same surname I have no family relationship or any relationship with the subject. I am just an interested Australian editor. Dan arndt (talk) 05:38, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Theory on the demonisation of sexuality

Is this really a theory warranting its own sub section? As far as I can tell, this is just an opinion expressed in an article, rather than a published theory as such. - Bilby (talk) 04:49, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

It could probably be removed, there doesn't seem any particular reason why it is there - it's a long quote on one of her opinions. MurielMary (talk) 04:52, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

I think it's probably notable in that it's an extremely controversial thesis that runs through basically all of her work but I'm not sure it warrants its own section without more sources (which almost definitely exist given how much she's espoused this stuff over the decades). The Drover's Wife (talk) 08:48, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

I removed it for now. If consensus forms for inclusion, feel free to add it back. --Malerooster (talk) 17:23, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Controversy section

As per WP:CRITICISM, we shouldn't have a miscellaneous "Controversy" section. Most of these controversies actually relate to her Order of Australia award. The other things should be mentioned chronologically. They are not separate from her career; they are part of it. Her Campus Tour has been listed in the "Controversy" section, but the tour has been cited in her AM award. While clearly it was controversial, the government has chosen to celebrate it. Neutrally, we should note both praise and blame. And I am sure her early career was controversial as well. --Jack Upland (talk) 05:19, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

I wouldn't actually say that most of these controversies actually relate to her Order of Australia award. I would put it more-like most of these controversies have been rediscovered/republished due to the granting of her Order of Australia award. CatCafe (talk) 06:08, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

In any case, they should not be a separate section.--Jack Upland (talk) 06:54, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm with Jack. Controversy sections are ugly. They look like a pile-on of people who don't like the subject. HiLo48 (talk) 07:09, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

umm Jack Upland, you're wrong, she doesn't have a psychology degree (thats the issue here). She has a Science degree with a psychology masters appended to it (ie from a different school). I have no prob with trimming, but continuing the misnomer is wrong and inaccurate. Will try and revert your edit based on this misunderstanding later.CatCafe (talk) 07:50, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

A psychology masters allows one to practice as a psychologist. Or at least that's what I'm told by a close relative who currently studying towards one. HiLo48 (talk) 08:23, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Your close relative is not one of the sources in the article - I do believe. Arndt doesn't have a psychology degree, she's not a registered physcologist (you can't practice without rego) or is or was ever a clinical physcologist. Thus the deception. That's the point of the New Matilda article investigation. I suggest you get yourself up to speed with the sources. CatCafe (talk) 09:04, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

A "masters" IS a degree. And maybe you need to look again at what that section of the article says. It's not the same as the somewhat aggressive complaints you're making here. Remember, this is a biography of a living person. HiLo48 (talk) 09:12, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Not you again? Making these ridiculous accusatory claims again. Don't converse with me again. CatCafe (talk) 09:17, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

I love you too. HiLo48 (talk) 09:20, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

A psychology masters is a psychology degree. Master's degrees are degrees. It is not relevant that she attended different universities. The issue is that she's not a registered psychologist. By the same token, a law degree doesn't make you a lawyer, a medical degree doesn't make you a medical practitioner, and a trade certificate in motor mechanics doesn't make you a motor mechanic. But a lot of people, including journalists and publishers, don't understand that. There is no evidence that she was practising as a psychologist. She been a writer for decades, and you don't need any registration or qualification for that. This is a minor issue that has come up with her being awarded the AM. We should keep it in proportion. If the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency makes a finding against her that would elevate the issue. But at the moment it's just a pretty standard case of qualifications being misreported.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:33, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Point taken Jack Upland - appreciated. And HiLo48 do not ever converse with me again with your personal accusations and provocations. You're not here to build an encyclopaedia, just to accuse and provoke, and I ain't got time for that. CatCafe (talk) 09:38, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

It's a big claim to credibility in her line of work, and it's one that she's herself touted over many years (as seen in that exchange with Virginia Trioli on radio where Trioli read to Arndt from her own book cover). It's not a case of casual errors by media outlets, hence the APRHA investigation and critical media coverage. I've got no particular issue with merging the controversy section into the main body of the article, but you're never going to have an article on someone who's entire career for at least the past two decades has been spouting extremely controversial views about domestic and sexual violence that plays that down without sounding like her PR agent. The Drover's Wife (talk) 10:36, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

I think the point of the quals made by the NewMatilda and Trioli etc is that she has a bit of a problem with the truth (or at least correcting such when she has the opportunity to do so). And whether that's becoming of an AM. CatCafe (talk) 10:42, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

"HiLo48 do not ever converse with me again" My earlier comments that upset you so much included telling you something you have now accepted, about a Masters degree. I await you saying "Sorry. I was wrong. You were right." HiLo48 (talk) 21:23, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

As I said, Arndt is an author. She doesn't need any qualification or registration for that. She does have a Masters in Psychology. Authors don't write the blurbs for their books: publishers do that. Ironically, in the interview, Trioli wrongly describes Arndt as a "sex therapist". And I don't believe there is a duty to correct other people's mistakes.--Jack Upland (talk) 22:17, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

It's ridiculous to suggest that someone being referred to by a protected title that they aren't eligible to be called hundreds of times over the years, including in their own own publications, never happened with any help from the subject. And the sources treat it with the level of scrutiny that you'd expect. Your personal feelings about the subject seem to be colouring your view of things here. The Drover's Wife (talk) 23:32, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

What do you mean personal feelings?--Jack Upland (talk) 03:38, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Do you think Arndt hypnotised Trioli to make her say "sex therapist"? These misstatements are normal. The main source on this issue is an article from the activist website, New Matilda, co-written by Nina Funnell, who apparently has been a long-term opponent of Arndt. Given this is a BLP we should be careful to not to imply that Arndt has committed an offence.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:20, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Do you honestly think Arndt has never had any say into the main way she's been described in media appearances for the span of her entire career over decades, including in her own books? It's not appropriate to dismiss the publication who broke the story as an "activist website" when it's been picked up by the newspapers. We don't need to imply (or otherwise) as to whether as she's committed as an offence when we can say that it's the subject of an APHRA investigation, which is undisputed fact. The Drover's Wife (talk) 07:24, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

I re-added the date to her statement about not having practised as a sex therapist for 45 years, not least because she clearly forgot to change the About page on her website before making that claim. The Drover's Wife (talk) 07:51, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

I don't think we should put too much weight on a comment made in the heat of the moment in a radio interview. This 1995 article supports the fact that she gave up sex therapy around 1981, when her first husband died, which would be closer to 41 years. This is also what is indicated by her CV. Her statements on this have been consistent for decades. I don't see the point of adding in her CV. It is original research, and doesn't really prove anything. She has said that she didn't need to be registered as a psychologist back then, and no one has contradicted that.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:42, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

The 1995 article doesn't mention anything whatsoever about giving up sex therapy around 1981; that's a figure we've only got from her website. I think quoting someone's website about what they have and haven't said about their life story hardly counts as original research. The Drover's Wife (talk) 09:10, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

The 1995 article says that after 1981 she was "writing for women's magazines in general". It doesn't sound like she was a sex therapist.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:31, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

There's absolutely nothing to suggest from that article that she wasn't doing both. The Drover's Wife (talk) 09:57, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Just two minor things. I'm a bit lost on this issue about her homepage - it says "By the 1980s she’d had enough of a good thing. She gave up sex – professionally speaking – and moved onto writing and talking about broader social issues and particularly the changing relationships between men and women." Does that say that she stoped being a sex therapist approximately 40 years ago? I'm not seeing a major inconsistency, but I may be missing something. Anyway, just in regard to formal registration of clinical psychologists, that wasn't required in NSW until the passing of the Psychologists Act some years after she stopped (1989, I think). The first such act was passed in WA in 1975. - Bilby (talk) 11:54, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes, the Psychologist Act was in 1989.[4]--Jack Upland (talk) 21:11, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

If someone's biography is the subject of controversy and there is some confusion due to the subject having given conflicting details (saying on radio it had been 45 years then saying on her website she was still practising in the 1980s) then the best thing we can do is nail down the details with clear sourcing. I don't really see why there's issue on this point: the CV section of her website gives the key dates (which I don't think anyone here is suggesting are inaccurate), which avoids us having to speculate based on vague media coverage. The Drover's Wife (talk) 13:55, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

I guess I'm just a tad confused. I checked her website an it was consistent with not having practiced for 40+ years. As far as I can tell, the CV currently on her website is also consistent - while it says that "After her clinical psychology training Bettina started work as one of Australia’s first sex therapists, editor and then publisher of Forum Magazine" between 1973 and 1981, it doesn't say if she spent all eight years as a therapist, or did that for one year or so and then moved to editing Forum magazine. It seems like a bit of cherry picking - choosing one thing she claimed to be doing over an eight year period, but presenting it as if it was the only thing she was doing, or if it was for the entire eight years without that being stated in the CV. I'd be much happier with this if the CV simply stated "1973-1981: Worked as a sex therapist", without the suggestion that she only worked in that field for part of the time, but that's not the case. But then, this all seems minor - it is either 39 years since she worked as a sex therapist, 47 years, or something in between, and the only contradition seems to be a brief comment at the end of a radio interview where, perhaps, she didn't do her sums and work out that it (at worst) 39 years, not 45. The key point is that it was a long time ago. Does that difference of 5-6 years matter given the time scale we're talking about? - Bilby (talk) 14:33, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, Bilby. The 1995 article indicates that she worked in a clinic associated with Forum Magazine, as the same time as being editor.--Jack Upland (talk) 21:46, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes, the timeline seems to say that she did both concurrently in 1973. What I guess we don't know is how long she did both while with Forum, or if at some point she dropped the clinic and focused on the editing. I suspect, though, that as the story goes on this angle will be quietly dropped from the media - they have enough other issues to work with. - Bilby (talk) 22:49, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

I could care less if you wanted to remove these two sentences together ("Her CV from 2010 to 2012 states: "1973-1981... Part-time work as a Clinical Psychologist specialising in sex therapy."[1] In an interview she stated she had not been a sex-therapist for over 45 years") though I generally think it's helpful in reducing misinformation to clarify what the facts indeed are when there is controversy. The Drover's Wife (talk) 20:34, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

I've removed those sentences and added the information from the CV to the start of the "Career" section. Previously, the article said she was only a sex therapist in the early 1970s, based on the Trioli interview, which is fairly unbelievable, as she finished her Masters in 1973. There seem to be plenty of other sources which state she was a sex therapist up to the 1980s, but they are fairly vague. And I'm sure the wording could be improved.--Jack Upland (talk) 21:37, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

• The "Misstatement of qualifications" section begins, "From as early as 1982, the media and publishers have variously described Arndt as a 'psychologist' etc..." The citation for 1982 is from the Women's Weekly.[5] I don't think we should include this. As far as I can see no one in the controversy has gone this far back. New Matilda goes back to 2006. Before the Psychologist Act 1989 (NSW), there was no requirement for psychologists to register. Her time as a sex therapist was recent (if not continuing). There's really nothing wrong with what Women's Weekly says.--Jack Upland (talk) 06:02, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
  • I think it's probably unnecessarily to specify a time, given that it's consistently been the way she's been described but wasn't actually an issue until 1989 - you are correct that it wasn't an issue at that stage. It doesn't materially change the situation. The Drover's Wife (talk) 06:14, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Pell

I have removed the reference to Pell in the "Comments about sexual abuse" section. Firstly, Williamson and Hadley only mention this in passing. Secondly, many people have questioned the conviction of Pell, including Justice Weinberg of the Victorian Court of Appeal, and the case is still under appeal to the High Court. Thirdly, in this case Arndt is disputing his guilt, not minimising his offending. It doesn't fit with the rest of the section.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:01, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Feb 2020 Application for Dispute Resolution

I have filed this page for dispute resolution on the grounds of edit warring between multiple editors commencing on 28 January 2020. The request asks that the article revert to its original state prior to edit warring on 28 January 2020 (when Order of Australia was awarded). Article edits thereafter need to be moderated by unbiased and uninvolved parties. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Revamped83 (talk • contribs) 12:30, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

DRN closed due to incorrect filing Nightenbelle (talk) 20:05, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Heavily Biased article based on cherry-picked sources

This article has become so biased it is beyond ridiculous mainly by editor CatCafe. Traceybrow (talk) 01:26, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Creating new accounts almost every time you post is not subtle. The Drover's Wife (talk) 01:51, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Excuse me? Why is the article focusing on these incidents so heavily far outweighing any other aspects of her life? You seem bent on painting her as a demon and are obviously a angry feminist TheDrovers wife trying to skew the sources and choose quotes which make this person look bad and with no balance. Obviously you and the rest of the radical feminists are very very threatened by Bettina Arndt! Quite funny actually. Traceybrow (talk) 04:45, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Please don't make personal attacks. You are free to add extra information to balance the article.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:23, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

section on feminism

I tried adding these good reliable sources and text but Drovers Wife reverted it . Why exactly please Drovers Wife? Traceybrow (talk) 11:15, 14 February 2020 (UTC) Arndt has provoked her female critics by saying "Bring it on, ladies". She has pushed back against feminists stating they are "wicked witches" trying to "control our society". Arndt argues that "radical feminism, where men are presented as violent and sexist, is guilty of manshaming and destroying what should be a bond of mutual acceptance and respect between the sexes." </ref> Arndt says "radical feminists have a 'preserve' view of sexuality and want to dictate how the rest of society functions" and what started as a laudable movement has shown activists to be vindictive and obsessed with 'male bashing."

It's editorialising. The first sentence says nothing. The second says things you believe in Wikipedia voice ("pushed back against"). The rest of it is random quotes that don't add much because Arndt's definition of radical feminism and society's definition of radical feminism are not the same thing (I suspect everyone who is reverting you is not a fan of it either). I think CatCafe has a point in that you're citing all these primary source quotes of Arndt claiming she's being very provocative about things that you can't find sources for anyone else doing more than a bit of eye-rolling at. The Drover's Wife (talk) 11:34, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

How can you possibly say 'Arndt's definition of radical feminism and society's definition of radical feminism are not the same thing" radical feminism is radical feminism. Can you explain please where, how, why you personally hold that point of view? Traceybrow (talk) 11:44, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

The Drover's Wife is correct, any person who speaks against Arndt seems to get labelled a feminist or radical feminist, including shock jock Ray Hadley I believe in this instance. It's not inline with the standard definitions. CatCafe (talk) 11:55, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Radical feminism is a term with an actual definition, which is very different from Arndt's definition. More specifically, though, "controversy" requires multiple people to tango: you can't declare your views on an issue to be extremely controversial, shocking, or significant and have that be notable. "Controversy" requires citations that anyone actually cared what you said, and that's the case for Arndt on a great many things, but not, to my knowledge, on feminism: she's obviously opposed to it, but her thoughts on her imagined reactions of her opponents are not notable. Defining a straw-concept and then raging at it is the kind of thing that might make people sidle away from you at parties but, as the lack of sources demonstrates, not actually the sort of controversy that Arndt might imagine. The Drover's Wife (talk) 12:03, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Worth a read, even though not a RS for this page - https://www.theshovel.com.au/2020/01/26/credit-where-its-due-bettina-arndts-work-for-mens-rights-means-men-finally-have-influence-in-australia/ CatCafe (talk) 12:20, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure linking to a satire site is a helpful contribution here, CatCafe. The Drover's Wife (talk) 12:26, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Drovers wife you said "Radical feminism is a term with an actual definition, which is very different from Arndt's definition" Ahh No it isn't. You could not verify your subjective opinion that her version is diffderent. How does that matter anyway? Can you possibly explain this. It is radical feminists that is talked about in the sources which is exactly how it is defined in the radical feminist. Her views on feminism are controversial to be sure for every feminist including you obviously. Traceybrow (talk) 20:33, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

To claim that they're "controversial to be sure for every feminist", you need to cite sources - and the fact that you can't for a figure as controversial as Arndt is very telling. As for radical feminism: please actually read Radical feminism (not just the title), which at least gives an explanation of what that concept is. She's not attacking that, and most of the people she is attacking are equally opposed to that. (Ironically, some more modern actual radical feminists in the vein of Germaine Greer are closer to some of Arndt's positions than most mainstream feminists.) The Drover's Wife (talk) 10:51, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

The only repeated reference in sources to 'contraversy' or 'contraversial' is in relation to Arndt herself, not relating to others. CatCafe (talk) 23:25, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Paragraph about letter from Smith to Stone

This para is about a complaint from a politician to a gov body about having the award revoked, not a debate on excuses or rationale for extreme violence or whatever. Let's leave it as the original editor @The Drover's Wife: intended. I have changed it back to original text, but left the new quote from Ardnt: "But note the misplaced outrage..... CatCafe (talk) 23:36, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Good solution. This was another attempt by Traceybrow to try to frame controversy around Arndt in terms Arndt would like to fight it instead of the terms it actually was around: no one gave a rats about her comments about women who murder children (since no one actually disagrees that this is also bad) or her rants about criticism of the murderer "representing the evil violence that is in all men" because no one was actually suggesting that (and trying to frame Smith in particular as someone who would think the latter is extremely funny). The Drover's Wife (talk) 01:01, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

What the actual.... Drovers wife?? The ABC source says so. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-02-23/tim-smith-calls-for-bettina-arndt-to-be-stripped-of-am/11992082 The source very clkearly shoiws it was precisely Arndt's comments which led to his calling for her award revocation. Seriously are you kidding Droverswife? Traceybrow (talk) 10:21, 23 February 2020 (UTC)— Traceybrow (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

It was Arndt's comments about Rowan Baxter's motives or otherwise for murdering Hannah Baxter that led to Tim Smith's letter, and he was not ambiguous in any way about that. The idea that Tim Smith - a senior male conservative politician - was actually mad about the notion that women who murder children should also be taken seriously, or that he believed Baxter's behaviour was "representing the evil violence that is in all men" (and was mad at Arndt about that) is ludicrous. Including irrelevant bits of Arndt's comments from around the same time in the hope of confusing why she was being criticised merely serves to attempt to misrepresent Smith and other critics. The Drover's Wife (talk) 10:26, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

True, The Drover's Wife, when you say "It was Arndt's comments about Rowan Baxter's motives or otherwise for murdering Hannah Baxter that led to Tim Smith's letter..." And I note that in Traceybrow's edits she deletes that part of the quote, clearly whitewashing and POV pushing. I also suspect that Traceybrow may live on a different continent (as per her US spelling correction edits) and therefore may have a poor grasp on depth of this specific recent topic. CatCafe (talk) 10:33, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Today's Age

The Age is reporting today that Arndt's OAM is being reviewed, but I'm a bit dubious about that story. The response from the Governor-General's office in this case seems to me to be basically identical to their response to every other notable figure who's contacted them: "if we get correspondence we forward it to the Council for the Order of Australia", with the only different thing the mention of "...for advice and action". It's possible they know something we don't about this response being distinct from the others, but the article is pretty vague about it. Thoughts? The Drover's Wife (talk) 02:08, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

The ABC has the same story. I think you're right. This is nothing new.--Jack Upland (talk) 03:28, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Ellis, --- 2018 "fake rape crisis" campus tour

The following sentence about Arndt vs Ellis was deleted - as apparently not relevant or notable to the "fake rape crisis" section - I disagree and think it should be returned, She's the ex minister for women. What do others think? - "Former Federal Minister for Women Kate Ellis had advocated for victims on campus. Of Ellis, Arndt said: "My campus work poses a direct threat to Ellis' longtime advocacy for victims of sexual assault."" -- CatCafe (talk) 06:23, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

I think the language certainly needs work, but it was a widely circulated comment that's also playing into the backlash around her Rowan Baxter comments and is more significant than some of the other quotes we reference, and the resulting spat with David Penberthy is probably significant in terms of the falling away of some of her conservative support in the last couple of weeks. I'm not sure how to do a better job of it. I think that, given that Arndt has become a larger media story than it was when the SPA first appeared, there's a need to rein in some of the less significant content as new stuff is added lest the stuff about controversies just sprawls. I feel like this quote probably needs another sentence or two for context but some other stuff probably needs to start to make way. The Drover's Wife (talk) 06:37, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

I think it's worth mentioning briefly, particularly as the "campus tour" was noted in the Honours List.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:09, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

I attempted to straighten out that paragraph a little based on the above comments. CatCafe (talk) 08:45, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Recentism bias

I have no problem with this article describing the fact that many people find Arndt's recent proclamations in the men's rights area unacceptable, or worse, but pretty much half the article now seems to be about that. Arndt has been in public life for at least 45 years. The men's rights issues seem to have only arisen in the last ten or so years. It's time to stop adding more content on the latter issue, refine what we've got, and find some more material on her earlier life. HiLo48 (talk) 01:24, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

It's actually about 25 years since she became involved in M.R. activism that the article half focuses on, ie "During the first half of her career Arndt was considered a feminist. But Gleeson says that since the mid 1990s Arndt has rejected feminism, instead promoting "men's rights, as well as her critique of feminist..." Much of the refs may have been recent, but many of the topics they cover are from Arndt's past. CatCafe (talk) 01:35, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia follows the sources: a figure who was not so controversial for the first half of her career, a bit controversial for the next quarter, and then an extremely controversial figure in the last quarter is inevitably going to have much, much more coverage in reliable sources documenting the extremely controversial bit. She's arguably gained more non-primary-source media attention in the last six months for her recent actions than she did in the entire 1990s, and the article is obviously going to reflect that. Coverage of the earlier bits is very welcome but much more difficult to dig up given that it's far less well-documented in reliable sources.

I also think it's not accurate to see this as recentism, given that a) her comments about Hannah Baxter were extremely controversial even by the standards of Arndt's past statements and are unlikely to be a passing story where Arndt is concerned, and b) the building pressure - with support from members of both parties - for the revocation of a just-given Order of Australia is completely unprecedented to my knowledge. Neither of these things have attention in the article for the reason that they're relatively recent: the former is because she's become one of the most controversial voices in the country on issues of domestic violence in the last few months (with the coverage that very much comes with that), and the second is because the heavyweight OAM revocation calls is a genuinely unique situation. The Drover's Wife (talk) 01:42, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

"a figure who was not so controversial for the first half of her career" Actually, she was very controversial. But it wasn't in the days of the Internet, so there won't be much in the way of online sources. HiLo48 (talk) 01:50, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Controversial how? If so, it's not something that's ever referenced these days, but if you've got sources for it, I'm all ears. The Drover's Wife (talk) 09:59, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

A "noted and effervescent sex therapist" in 1978. Anyhow here's a few old articles from Trove someone may want to use to expand upon in the article if they feel it needs more earlier content: 1978, 1993 and 1994. CatCafe (talk) 10:13, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly that this recent news about Arndt and you both droverswife and Catrcafe jumping on daily stories and frantically writing them up choosing sections which demonise the woman on this living person's biography is sickeningly averse to Wikipedia policy. The controversies section expands and expands every hour with you two haters of the woman and is not what policy on biographies of living persons tells us to do. Traceybrow (talk) 10:27, 23 February 2020 (UTC)— Traceybrow (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

It's expanding regularly because she's regularly making headline news: Smith's letter yesterday was the top story on The Age website, and it may well expand again very soon if someone does an update because a whole bunch of senior politicians from all parties came out endorsing Smith's letter on social media. No one objects to including more information about her earlier career if anyone can find sources for it. The Drover's Wife (talk) 10:32, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

"It's expanding regularly because she's regularly making headline news..." See my earlier comment about recentism. How popular do you think a sex therapist was in the conservative media back in the 1970s? HiLo48 (talk) 22:57, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

It's a question of sources. Absolutely no one here is against you adding more detail about that if you can find the sources, and anyone who's tried to research Australian biographies knows that the 1970s and 1980s are a bit of a bastard to write about due to a huge gap in digitised sources, so I'm not saying that they don't exist. But ultimately we can't add what we can't find sources for. The Drover's Wife (talk) 00:09, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Well, apparently there were police raids against Forum magazine.[6]--Jack Upland (talk) 23:41, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Great find. That has a bunch of stuff that should go into the article beyond talking about Forum (that she was a journo for The Age beforehand and has some more details about what she did in the early to mid 80s). It also strongly suggests that Forum is notable enough for its own article, and gives a good basis for giving it some more context here - calling it an "adult sex education magazine" (as it does now) doesn't tell us very much. The Drover's Wife (talk) 00:09, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

By the way, that is already being used as a source in the article. I think Forum is notable. The problem is getting sources.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:31, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

I think some of these edits concerning her earlier career are falling into the trap of just adding early controversy to the later controversies. There's quite a bit of potential for fleshing out the not-so-controversial parts of her earlier career (in terms of her various journalistic roles) and to provide a better explanation about what Forum was, since that's critical to the early story. I'm not sure that just mentioning that it was a "Australian adult sex education magazine" and then including an intense quote from some arch-conservative state backbencher in Queensland is the most relevant thing there: it might warrant mentioning in an article about Forum, but it's not really about Arndt. The Drover's Wife (talk) 05:53, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Well, I think it's OK. Arndt was the editor.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:12, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

The edits HiLo48 (talk) was wanting and for some reason unable to add himself regarding controversy and her early career, I have now added. No, you're welcome! CatCafe (talk) 12:36, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

One of my favourite parts of Wikipedia is the bit where we assume good faith. Thank you for you efforts. HiLo48 (talk) 21:32, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

What or who is “Gleeson”?

One result of the drive-by editing that has embroidered the body of this article is its three mentions of the name “Gleeson” without a clue to what or who Gleeson is or was. If it really is Wikipedia’s “official” policy to expect the reader to wonder about such lack of elucidation till he or she tries ransacking the footnotes then perhaps the policy should be changed so that at least in this one respect the website is made to emulate the best dead-trees encyclopedias of old. — Leigh Oats (talk) 00:15, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

I did the edit and solved the problem you noted, it was pretty easy. Thank you, CatCafe (talk) 00:35, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

“Radical” feminists

Even the suffragists of the late 19th and early 20th centuries were regarded by reactionaries as “radical”. Today’s “radical” is often tomorrow’s mainstream. It’s called the march of history. — Leigh Oats (talk) 02:28, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

That's a particularly unhelpful contribution to discussion. If we knew who you were talking about, it would be an obvious breach of WP:NPA. Without that information it's just a breach of WP:AGF. HiLo48 (talk) 02:31, 28 February 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Traceybrow (talk • contribs)

'Feminism' or 'Radical Feminism' in lede

In the major reliable sources Arndt clearly states RADICAL feminism. It is not up to us Droverswife to be making subjective personal interpretations. We include what the sources say only. Nothing more. The major reliable sources say radical feminism. Can you speak to precisely this point drovers wife, catcafe? Traceybrow (talk) 04:05, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

https://www.smh.com.au/national/i-know-all-about-toxic-masculinity-toxic-feminism-isn-t-the-answer-20190117-p50ryg.html Traceybrow (talk contribs) 04:09, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

I removed the sources not used in the article.CatCafe (talk) 07:07, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

The vast majority of sources in article refer to feminism and women she is against. As discussed by Drover, Bettina uses radical feminism as a misnomer. We do not include such errors. CatCafe (talk) 07:13, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

CatCafe put it nicely, but all of these edits you've tried to add still have the problem that there's no non-Arndt sources for the alleged controversy. Wikipedia articles are not a place for "quotes the subject's fans like" - that would be for Wikiquote. The Drover's Wife (talk) 07:34, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

I know you are trying to demonise this woman, but you need sources to say she is against women. She hates feminism particularly radical feminism but hey so do the overwhelming majority of humans if you haven't heard the news! Can you provide any sources apart from raging feminist websites which state she is against women in general? And no its not a misnomer. We need to state she is against radical feminism. You both have no idea what she means by radical feminism. The point is the sources say she is against radical feminism, not other types of feminism. She uses the word radical feminism throughout her book mentoo. Maybe we can get some help with this from someone neutral who can apply policy cos you too are clearly not answering my question. Anyway the sources stating that she hates all women would be helpful catCafe? Got any? Traceybrow (talk) 09:49, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Hey stop this time wasting Traceybrow. Re your demands that the lede should change from saying she "opposed feminism" to "opposed radical feminism". The lede should be general in terms you know. I've gone to the trouble of counting the sources you didn't:

• 1. The vast majority of sources (16 at last count) refer to her opposition to "feminism" and not mentioning the word "radical" in any form. And they're not from 'raging feminist' websites as you claim - i.e. News Corp, ABC, SMH, Courier Mail, etc.
• 2. Two sources say she dislikes or is hostile toward women (5AA and The Age). You seem to have not read the article.
• 3. One source (the one that you already quoted in paragraph 16 - the Donnelly ref) refers to "radical feminism" and you've already included that.
• 4. And, as you have stated Traceybrow She hates feminism - yes you're correct in the general statement - and therefore have proven my point re the lede.
• 5. And you're also correct when you say no-one has any idea what she means by radical feminism, because she doesn't, and neither does anyone else. So it's a misnomer and we don't include her misnomers in the lede. ---- CatCafe (talk) 11:58, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Two sources say she dislikes or is hostile toward women (5AA and The Age). You seem to have not read the article. what are the sources you are talking about? And of course arndt knows precisely what radical feminism is. Read the article! Inform yourself. Traceybrow (talk) 21:41, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Traceybrow your actions now are considered harassment. You obviously find it difficult to read the article and refer and read the attached refs. I am not in a position to assist you with your reading or ongoing need for badgering. CatCafe (talk) 22:06, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Haha harrassment! You gotta be kidding. You just have no good quality sources that say that she dislikes women. She hates radical feminists. Hasve you got any sources or not?! Traceybrow (talk) 22:16, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

You've produced no sources whatsoever apart from the posts of Arndt herself, which is a problem to use in this context for the reasons CatCafe articulated. The Drover's Wife (talk) 23:04, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

I am talking about Arndt being against "women" droverswife. I am saying the sources don't say that. Arndt hates feminists like the majority of people do I suppose not women in general. Funny how you don't question that. Have you got any good sources that say she is against women? Apart from raging feminist sites like womens agenda? Any at all Drovers wife? Traceybrow (talk) 00:10, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Sorry Traceybrow, I guess you can't read or count or understand basic instructions, or alternatively you're just playing the SPA troll - again, here's what you can't see: "Arndt has been accused of being hostile towards women.[22] Fellow author Susan Maushart says Arndt "seems, for whatever reason, to not like women very much."[4]". That's ref 22 and 4. Now stop your rubbish. CatCafe (talk) 01:05, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

You are the TROLL You are the SPA. Stop putting in feminist sources who obviously hate Arndt as Arndt hates feminists. Find sources. Quality sources. Have you actually gotb any sources that are not written by radical feminists???Any at all??? Traceybrow (talk) 01:29, 20 February 2020 (UTC)— Traceybrow (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

David Penberthy is not a feminist in any sense, let alone a radical feminist. He's a conservative-leaning/straight-conservative newspaper editor. This is why including Arndt's attacks on anyone she doesn't like as "radical feminists" is not notable, and those attacks being so confused as to who or what she's referring to as "radical feminists" is why you're never going to find actual feminists who are outraged at the sorts of quotes from her you want to include. The Drover's Wife (talk) 12:26, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

No Droverswife David Penberthy is a male feminist to be sure. He is married to self described radical feminist and Labor pollie Kate Ellis! Please don't try and state he is in any way neutral. Traceybrow (talk) 10:57, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Kate Ellis is not a "self-described radical feminist" (and isn't one at all) and Penberthy is the editor of the country's most widely-read conservative news website, so there's some allegations that are gonna need some sources. The Drover's Wife (talk) 11:41, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Are you actually saying Ellis is not a self described feminist the drovers wife or she's not a radical feminist? Traceybrow (talk) 12:53, 29 February 2020 (UTC) — Traceybrow (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Kate Ellis here is the ex politician, Traceybrow is mixing her up with Kate Ellis the US academic https://womens-studies.rutgers.edu/faculty/67/590-ellis-katherine . CatCafe (talk) 19:39, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

LOL. No you are very WRONG once again. I definitely mean Kate Ellis former MP and raging feminist. Are you kidding Catcafe??? Anyway read the actual hansard https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Hansard/Hansard_Display?bid=chamber/hansardr/c1561753-a807-47fe-adfb-c33f47305e94/&sid=0282. Also Arndt has directly attacked Kate Ellis for years. It is pretty frocking obvious why her NEW HUBBY David Penberthy defends his feminist wife. Sorry to prove you and your associate droverswife sooooo wrong again Catcafe. LOL. Traceybrow (talk) 21:54, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Please, editors on both sides of the debate, stop the personal attacks and concentrate on improving the article.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:14, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Hey Traceybrow, thanks for your efforts but this section is called "'Feminism' or 'Radical Feminism' in lede". But in the Hansard ref you linked to has no reference to "radical feminism" or "Bettina Arndt" in it, so I don't see how it can be used in the lede!! But I'll be sure to use it next chance I have when updating the Kate Ellis page. CatCafe (talk) 05:13, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

NPOV

I would like to add this source to the biased section on the Senate voting to support the motion. This source. https://www.theaustralian.com.au/commentary/senate-overstepped-its-position-with-attack-on-bettina-arndt/news-story/eb4eaf5e1dc023e462d194194e589511 Droverswife and Catcafe seem to have entirely written this horribly skewed article and not allowed anyone else with good quality sources to add to it. Let's discuss it then. Any reasons the two of you oppose this source for a little NPOV before I add it? Traceybrow (talk) 11:18, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure how you'd concisely summarise that article: he makes a lengthy and complex argument about process but repeatedly describes Arndt's conduct as "appalling" in no uncertain terms. The article is tightly paywalled (I had to use a subscription service to read it), which makes me wonder if you've actually read the article and haven't just posted here on the basis that the headline sounded like something you'd agree with. I don't necessarily see a reason not to include it if someone can actually accurately summarise his argument, but including only his (fairly unique) take and not any other responses would be a bit of an WP:UNDUE issue. The Drover's Wife (talk) 11:36, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Wow! The two of you have carefully picked and chosen sweet little cherry quotes through this whole f'ed up article the two of you have written and pushed anyone else out of the way. I certainly did read the article too. And the source is The australian not the journo who wrote the article droverswife. Traceybrow (talk) 12:58, 29 February 2020 (UTC) — Traceybrow (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

The article is about and a critique of the Senate, using the Arndt vote as a introduction to make broad ranging comments about the Senate being outdated. Is that pretty much it? What is suggested we add from this source? Alternatively it would make a good cite for the Australian Senate page. CatCafe (talk) 20:35, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Have you read the article? It sounds like a completely different article you are talking about. Traceybrow (talk) 21:57, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

He doesn't even say that Arndt shouldn't be stripped of the honour, just that the Senate shouldn't have moved in support of it as much as he disagrees with her actions because he views that vote as equivalent to a bill of attainder and because he generally disagrees with the Senate voting to condemn opinions. This is yet another case where Traceybrow has attempted to read into sources what she wants them to say instead of what they actually say. The Drover's Wife (talk) 22:15, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Droverswife. The way you have worded the section implies to our readers that the impromptu on the spot decision of the senate to vote for the motion was wrong. And then outlines all of the reasons why it was wrong. Are you cool with adding a sentence directly after the section about the senate motion to reflect this major reliable source? Also glad you now how understood how completely wrong your comments were about Ellis and her new hubby David pentrerberry and understand that raging feminist Kate Ellis has always attacked by Arndt. Obviously Penterberry is defending his feminist wife by attacking Arndt in his article. Traceybrow (talk) 22:34, 29 February 2020 (UTC)— Traceybrow (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

https://twitter.com/kateellis22?lang=en — Preceding unsigned comment added by Traceybrow (talk • contribs) 22:36, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

I don't understand what you mean there: I haven't worded anything to that extent. What, exactly, do you want to add about the The Australian source? He's not defending Arndt, he's attacking the Senate vote; misrepresenting him as if he's defending Arndt (when he explicitly says otherwise on multiple occasions) would require seriously twisting his words. Your personal dislike of Ellis and Penberthy is neither here nor there: Ellis still has never identified as a "radical feminist" despite your assertions above, and Penberthy's still the editor of the most influential conservative news website in the country. You can't make up your own facts when they don't suit the argument you want to make. The Drover's Wife (talk) 03:07, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Here is yet another very reliable source https://www.news.com.au/national/senate-motion-condemning-bettina-arndt-a-complete-freedom-of-speech-violation/video/0881b94ec4642ba20cc1896d03a28d6a talking about how the Senate abused their powers. Making an absolute joke of your comment droverswife that it is just one article! Still an WP:UNDUE issue droverswife??? You two keep trying to exclude any other editors who try to bring some NPOV to this horribly biased article the two of you have created together. Please don't go reverting again if you do not want to [participate in discussing this edit and these very reliable sources. Traceybrow (talk) 02:18, 1 March 2020 (UTC)— Traceybrow (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

I have no particular objection to noting that Rowan Dean defended her (I'm sure Pauline Hanson and Malcolm Roberts did too) as long as it isn't used to make any grand broader claims in Wikipedia-voice, but if we're going to include a "reaction" paragraph it needs to include both sides. The article currently doesn't really mention anything about Arndt's defenders in the OAM situation, being that they're relatively few at this point in time, so it's not an unhelpful thing to include. The Drover's Wife (talk) 03:07, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

I think that 'Rowan Dean says' article might make a good cite for the Australian Senate page. Is he an academic? CatCafe (talk) 06:00, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

You're confusing two different sources I think? The Drover's Wife (talk) 09:14, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes my mistake. - CatCafe

Cash cow edit

This article is getting to a size that I find really frustrating to work with because there's so much material that we need to get a bit more selective about what to actually include, and that's really not my forte. It isn't feasible to list every controversial thing Arndt has ever said - it's our role to summarise the most important stuff, and try and coherently explain what her views are and where the most significant controversies lie. Our domestic violence section in this article is a bit haphazard as it is, but if there's another controversial comment, the question needs to be asked: "why, of all the comments she has made, is this one significant?"

I think there's a danger of recency bias issues here - Arndt has been saying this stuff for years, but it's only making daily news this month because of the controversy surrounding the AO, and I think we should limit the extent to which her views section turns into "specific controversial comments since 26 January 2020" beyond the really obvious ones.

I think the most obvious place to start with this is media reporting: the broad Arndt AO issue is a major and ongoing current story that's making almost daily broadsheet news, and if news sources generally pick up a piece of that story and consider it significant, then probably so should we. Jill Hennessy's stance on Arndt was significant as the first heavyweight politician to take a stance and reported as such. Tim Smith's was even more significant given that he was the first Liberal MP and basically started an immediate flood of conservatives away from Arndt (and was reported as such). Is Speakman's? The fact that we're currently citing a Twitter post says perhaps not. Given the media interest in the broader story, it's entirely possible that Speakman is a major story in the Sydney Morning Herald in the next couple of days, and we could then include it in that context - but until then, it seems like a good candidate for trying to keep a lid on the size of this thing. The Drover's Wife (talk) 12:33, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

All points taken, but I think you're off target with the Speakman ref. The ref is of official correspondence between the AG of NSW to the GG. It's original carriage service is irrelevant and it's nitpicking to use that he posted it also on twitter to devalue the reliability of the source. CatCafe (talk)

I'm not questioning the reliability so much as the significance. If Speakman had done that two weeks ago, it almost certainly would have been a major news story: he'd have probably replaced Tim Smith in how this played out and been a key figure. Does it have the same significance after every single Liberal and National in the Senate, several of whom had previously supported Arndt, voted to support revoking her AO? I'm not sure that it does. We're really at the stage where we need to get picky about what to include and, if we're going to keep adding significant amounts of stuff, start to think about what we might be able to remove so this doesn't completely sprawl regarding events post-January 26 2020. I feel like a good place to start is to wait and see: if the sources think it's significant to write about (which they well might, as I said above), then we should, but given the amount we already have, if they don't, then I feel like we probably shouldn't. The Drover's Wife (talk) 12:56, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

All points taken. Jo Haylen and Trish Doyle spoke about it in NSW parl and wrote to Speakman back in Feb, and this was overlooked by the media until now until the AG acted[7]. And theres also similar movement in the Tas parl currently as well[8]. I respect what youre saying, it's pretty much a situation now of an overload of Arndt-induced-political-backlash. CatCafe (talk) 13:12, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

I think that summarises the situation pretty damned well at this point. The Drover's Wife (talk) 13:21, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

The Australian newspaper article referencing the 1700 studies on DV

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/nation/inquirer/domestic-violence-data-shows-women-are-not-the-only-victims/news-story/2749c4517a57c33aca8bc2da9a40e2f9 https://domesticviolenceresearch.org/ Arndt references the 1700 studies on DV much much more than the 1 in 3. Why are you censoring this??? You two don't own the article. Stop deleting excellent sources and well sourced material. Let's discuss it here! Traceybrow (talk) 11:28, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Drovers wife you said "we already cite what Arndt believes; what Arndt believes the sources say is neither here nor there, especially when the reliable sources say otherwise" Well The Australian newspaper and the other paid articles Andrt has written in other major Australian newspapers all point to her belief in equal DV and she uses PASK often. Including on her own website. That is what she believes. If we include what Arndt believes and we obviously should) then she believes it is equal or close to equal between the genders. It just doesn't fit the rest of the POV crap and cherry picked references talking against the one in 3 campaign. Arndt rarely quotes this but uses the PASk and close to equal Dv between the genders. Don't misrepresent a living person in her Wiki bio with one source you've cherry picked when the majority of sources state differently. Lets discuss droverswife. I don't want an edit war. But the article is disgustingly biased to the point of it needing to be reviewed by the rest of the community. Let's discuss drovers wife. Please don't edit war. Traceybrow (talk) 11:36, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

The link, to be clear, is an opinion piece by Arndt. Arndt is a reliable source about her own views. She is a not a reliable source for the truth or validity of any particular claims that she makes. I have no objection to including that she "believes it is equal or close to equal between the genders" in those specific terms (obviously, it's what she believes, and I've already stated that there's a need to get away from structuring the parts around Arndt's controversial views solely in terms of 'controversial comments she has made since January 26) and better explain her views in a broader context. I also don't particularly object to something about what she views as the basis for her claims, as long as it's neutrally worded: it's certainly not unreasonable that we explain where her figures come from given that we already include why they're crap. The problems on this talk page and in the article have tended to arise when you've tried to include Arndt editorialising about things that are not her views (such as what people criticise her for, or about journal research into domestic violence, each of which we can report reliable sources instead of Arndt's editorialising). The contextless "over 1700 articles" comment is exactly the kind of thing that won't fly. The Drover's Wife (talk) 12:40, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

You say "Arndt is a reliable source about her own views" Exactly droverswife! As it currently stands the section we are talking about is precisely Arndt views. It is her view that DV is EQUAL between genders. That is what the sentence says in the article. We are not verifying the claim. To be clear. Her mentoo and bettinaarndt.com.au website is the very best source for what this living person actually believes. We should use her website and her words for what she believes. Can you see that point. What are you saying droverswife? your argument seems irrational with all due respect? Traceybrow (talk) 13:08, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

If you just included that she believes that DV is equal between genders, you wouldn't be getting reverted - because that would be a correct and reliably-cited summary of her views. It is your attempt to explain the evidence through editorialising in her voice that is the problem: we can talk about the sources she relies on to support her claims in neutral language, we cannot talk about them editorialising through Arndt's eyes with this contextless "1700 sources" rubbish. Revert warring is pointless, unhelpful, and like the other 100 times you've tried it, does not result in you getting your way. The only way forward is actual talk page discussion. The Drover's Wife (talk) 13:25, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

You are edit warring as much as I am. You just reverted thrice within a half hour. And yes you got it exactly droverswife, that's all I am doing. Read the sentence ion the article. I just said that~! And Arndt's website is the best source we can possibly use with the woman's opinion. That's it. Nuthin else. So why are you opposing/censoring it! Just like you have tried to take ownership of the article and block any attempts to bring NPOV to this crap. The woman has not lost her @$%^^&$ Award drovers wife but you two have bloated the article about her award to gastronomical proportions. This is not policy. This makes for a really really biased and really crap article for our readers. Why is her own site not best for her belief about DV? Please don't keep purposely avoiding the question I'm asking?? Traceybrow (talk) 13:59, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

We can say what Arndt believes. We can say where she gets her sources from - as long as they're neutrally described. These things are good and helpful. What we can't do is frame the way the article approaches those sources like it's an Arndt column or speech with her spin on them: we need to be neutral about them. This is not difficult. The Drover's Wife (talk) 14:08, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

If we are to include this statement that Arndt stands by these fantastic claims it will need to come from a reliable secondary source, not primary. CatCafe (talk) 14:34, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Can you answer the question rather than revert and then not discuss. Arndt's own website is the very best source for her view. And she relies on PASK. 1700 research studies. domesticviolenceresearch.org. Why is this not acceptable for inclusion. She doesn't rely on 1 in 3. She relies on the 1700 research studies. If you don't actually engage here I will need to put the edit back into the article as there is no reason not to include it. So? Have you got any reasons based on policy it can't be included? Either of you? Traceybrow (talk) 22:10, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Stop the crazy accusations. Your edits also contain deletion of content you don't like, so it's disruptive editing. With regards your additions, you are now talking of a different topic, the sources say she refers the 1in3 theory, we go with the secondary sources - not your conspiracy theory that the sources got it wrong. CatCafe (talk) 22:48, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Lol. Where is the source which says "She bases this campaign on a statistic that "one in three" male victims have been abused by women" ? Arndt bases her opinion on the PASK project which is 1700 research studies. You have synthesised this statement. I cannot find anywhere in the sources that actually say Arndt "bases this campaign on a statistic that "one in three" male victims have been abused by women" Traceybrow (talk) 23:05, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

If you are unable to read then I can't help you. The sources are the other publications what links from the little number in brackets next to the content in question - ie "[41]". I suggest you read them rather than coming here attempting to insult people. You are still an SPA for all intents and purposes. CatCafe (talk) 23:24, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

If anything at all is to be added from The Aus ref, I support Drover's Wife suggestion - ie "she "believes it is equal or close to equal between the genders", not Traceybrow's version. Please stop the disruptive editing Traceybrow. CatCafe (talk) 02:40, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

I deleted the sentence that was not sourced. This is exactly what we are told by Wikipedia to do. All of us. According to our policy on Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. I asked you multiple times to find a source for the sentence She bases this campaign on a statistic that "one in three" male victims have been abused by women. but you failed to do so leaving the sentence unsourced. It is untrue. There is no source which says she bases it on the one in three campaign, but instead uses PASK domesticviolenceresearch.org which reference 1700 empirical studies. You keep putting UNSOURCED masterial into the article on this woman's biography of a living person. That is disruptive. And reverting you is allowed I believe if it is for reversing disruptive editing otherwise I would never engage in edit warring. Disruptive editing which is what you are doing by keep putting UNSOURCED edits into this article. Wikipedia can get sued for Libel do you realise Catcafe in your SINGLE PURPOSE campaign to use Wikipedia to blacken and demonize this poor Australian woman. Read the policy. Find a source. Arndt does not say she bases her opinions on this single statistic that "one in three" male victims have been abused by women. She says "at least" a third of victims and based on metaanalyses of over 1700 research studies backs it up with science. Traceybrow (talk) 07:56, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Psychologist controversy

I know a bit about this issue and in Australia at the time Arndt studied psychology anyone who only completed a three-year bachelor's degree with a major in psychology could then call themselves a psychologist and legally practice as one. Therefore it is a fact that she could quite legitimately call herself a psychologist at that time. But it is also true that to do so now a person would need to be a legally registered psychologist. People regularly refer to me as a psychologist since I work as an educator in the psychology field but I don't ever call myself one even though I am arguably more professionally qualified to do so than many who are registered. The regulation of certain professions and protected professional titles creates these kinds of problems for some people. Afterwriting (talk) 03:20, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

"Doctors Against Violence Towards Women (DAVTW) also called for Arndt's award to be withdrawn. Karen Williams, a NSW psychiatrist from the group, said that "Being awarded this honour gives her credibility that she doesn't deserve on this subject - she's had some psychological training but never been registered as a health practitioner; she doesn't work or do research in this field."[27] And not since 1981 it seems. CatCafe (talk) 03:31, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

She apparently chose not to become a registered psychologist when this became a requirement in the late 1980s. This does not mean that she has never been a legitimate psychologist or a "health practitioner" during her professional career. Afterwriting (talk) 03:40, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes, we have discussed that above, under "Controversy section". Until the Psychologist Act of 1989, there was no requirement to register, so at the time she was practising (up to 1981), she could legally call herself a psychologist. It is equally true that many people don't understand this issue and call people "psychologists" etc because of their qualifications. I think we have probably exhausted all that can be said on this topic, unless there is new information.--Jack Upland (talk) 03:48, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

The current wording in the article is misleading as it falsely implies that Arndt has never had any legitimate recognition as a psychologist. Some rephrasing about this issue is needed. Afterwriting (talk) 04:21, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

It's a direct quote, and it's technically not wrong (she has never been registered, she doesn't work or do research (present tense) even if I agree it carries the implication you note. I have no objection to including something about the Psychologist Act 1989 if there's an issue. The Drover's Wife (talk) 04:28, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Except that it isn't a direct quote in the article. There is an issue and it needs fixing. Afterwriting (talk) 04:35, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

What? Dr William's quote is a quote and to change it would be Original Research. William's says "...never been registered as a health practitioner; she doesn't work or do research in this field." And Arndt has never said otherwise, even when quizzed about her quals. I thought all discusdion on this topic on talk was resolved by you good people? CatCafe (talk) 04:43, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Hey Afterwriting. Did you even read the section above prior to editing on this page and talk? Did you recognise the quotations ""? CatCafe (talk) 04:50, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

I think you're talking about two different sentences.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:59, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Regarding The Drover's Wife's comment, Arndt has been working in the field of psychology (sex education etc) and does do research (such as interviewing people). Let's not misrepresent the issue. With regard to registration, I think it would be good to briefly clarify this. Personally, I think the "New Matilda" article is just a witch-hunt. Some of the point made are childish, such as saying Arndt got her Masters before colour TV. As I have said before, it is normal for people's credentials to be misstated. What about Chris Brown (veterinarian) who is regularly billed as "Dr Chris", even though he's only got a Bachelor's degree in Veterinary Science?--Jack Upland (talk) 04:57, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

As I said, I've got no objection to clarifying the registration issue: one role Wikipedia can play in dealing with a controversy is documenting what the facts actually are. The New Matilda article was no more a "witch-hunt" than the Sydney Morning Herald article when they picked up the story. The Drover's Wife (talk) 05:06, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

I agree in full with Afterwriting. This is a biased article using cherry-picked sources. It needs to be improved and made more neutral. OIt is a living person's biography and we cannot just pile on the pulpable and blindingly obvious hate shown here by Catcafe. Traceybrow (talk) 04:11, 9 February 2020 (UTC)— Traceybrow (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

The New Matilda article is definitely a witch hunt. it is a radical feminist publication. It is obvious that it is skewed and in no way objective. Traceybrow (talk) 04:13, 9 February 2020 (UTC)— Traceybrow (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

It wasn't all a witch-hunt. She got a caution from AHPRA and was instructed to correct and remove her title misnomers. CatCafe (talk) 10:39, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

sentence in lede

The sentence "is an Australian writer and commentator who specialises in sex and intimate relationships" doesn't make sense and needs to be improved. She is also a blogger, media presenter and activist. Traceybrow (talk) 02:36, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

There has been much addition and subtraction going on with the lede - mainly with the word "controversial" and/or "controversy" - which are quite accurate IMHO. CatCafe (talk) 02:53, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Is it that Arndt stands up for mens and boys issues? How is that controversial? I'm confused what you mean please? Traceybrow (talk) 03:13, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

The sources say that. If you have a problem with that write to the media. And I do not support your proposed changes due to your accusatory tone. No need to reply to me again. CatCafe (talk) 03:37, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Don't be so abusive and aggressive and abide by the civility policy. Who do you think you are?? And the sources also say she is a blogger, activist and media presenter. If noone has any objections apart from your subjective opinion Catcafe then I will add these. Cheers. Traceybrow (talk) 03:59, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Bear in mind the lead is a summary. It doesn't need to include everything she's done. A blogger is a kind of writer.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:24, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

I guess. Traceybrow (talk) 01:26, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

The current lede has been subject to much to-and-fro by a number of editors and discussion here and seems to be now settled.[9] As it stands now it represents a good introduction to, and good reflection of the article as a whole, and should be left as is. CatCafe (talk) 23:02, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Sentence mentioning the GG will take advice from the Council

On another issue, apparently my following sentence is my POV and unacceptable to SPA Traceybrow: i.e. "David Hurley's secretary said the Governor-General "will not use his power to unilaterally strip" Arndt's AM, rather he will act on the advice and recommendations from The Council of the Order of Australia.[59]" This assertion and complaint is plainly ridiculous. CatCafe (talk) 21:39, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi SPA editor Catcafe. Look if you want to make this edit please base it on the source not what you want it to say. Also please adhere to NPOV as your edits on this article, which is the only article you've edited since joining Wikipedia, what's called POV. Traceybrow (talk) 22:46, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Traceybrow. You making false accusations about my edit history without looking up my edit history is counterproductive. And calling me an SPA is self-projection. Also the sentence I put in is true to the source, as the ref it's behind a paywall you cannot see it all. CatCafe (talk) 22:54, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

The edit you want to make is not in the source and we need to revert such unsourced edits on biographies of living persons immediately. Please ensure your edits are based on reliable sources CatCafe as further editing like that can be seen as vandalism and I am reverting on that basis. Also this is basically the only topic you have edited and are indicating that you are a single purpose editor (SPA) editing with a POV. Traceybrow (talk) 01:08, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

As per your request the sentence has been removed until resolved here on talk. Please stop the false claims about me, and attempted insults. Thank you. CatCafe (talk) 01:33, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Restored your vandalism. You call others SPAS but your editing is a classic SPA! Knock it off please and stop attacking other editors with your false and misleading claims and POV editor Catcafe. Traceybrow (talk) 02:39, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Now that you've settled down and ceased your Vandalism Traceybrow, tell us all why do you have a problem with the sentence ""David Hurley's secretary said the Governor-General "will not use his power to unilaterally strip" Arndt's AM, rather he will act on the advice and recommendations from The Council of the Order of Australia.[59]"? Is it because he is referring to advice and the decision to the Council? And please refer to The Age source as a whole, not just POV cherry-picking as you attempted to do. CatCafe (talk) 03:57, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Please grow up and stop trying to wedge your preferred version back into the article based on your obvious POV. Traceybrow (talk) 03:59, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

You didn't put forward a sensible argument or reply to the question. In your case you are objecting to the sentence and cite that the GG is taking advice from the Council, that's a fact, therefore you are using that you WP:JDLI, and that is not a legitimate rationale. CatCafe (talk) 04:05, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Traceybrow please stop returning the sentence in question until this is resolved. Why do you reject the inclusion of the cite that - the GG is taking advice from the OA Council on Arndt's misdeeds - in the paragraph? What is your rationale in excluding this cited fact? Your WP:JDLI actions and SPA status are akin to trolling. CatCafe (talk) 05:36, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

CatCafe you are a SPA. No doubt. Please stop edit warring, personal attacks, false accusations with no basis and reverting to your preferred version. We can work it out but you need to be civil and not such a bully. Traceybrow (talk) 07:13, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Stop your dramatics and talk to the content. Stop breaching BRD and returning the content. Are you able to discuss your concerns rationally? CatCafe (talk) 08:05, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

• In any case, the article should be about what has happened, not what might happen.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:46, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Jack Upland, yes good point. So with that in mind that sentence should not be returned in any form as it's predictive, and we should wait until the OA Council makes any such decision and the GG makes any such announcement. CatCafe (talk) 10:55, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Traceybrow, are you going to discuss your edit concerns here, or continue to refuse to discuss and vandalise the article? CatCafe (talk) 12:21, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

I don't understand the dispute about this sentence either way. It's a reasonable thing to say: it specifically clarifies that (beyond the form letter responses earlier) that the Governor-General will not act on the issue without a determination from the Council of the Order of Australia, which is key clarification about where things go from here. I also think Singer's comments are arguably notable, although it's difficult to split his comments from The Age's editorialising: I think having the G-G's secretary, in conveying that, citing the (true) fact that OA removals have generally resulted to recipients receiving criminal convictions (I'm not aware of a situation ever happening that effectively amounts to a widespread belief that the Council fucked up in the first place, and evidently neither is he.) I dunno how to word it, but I think we need to stop arguing and expand it a bit. The Drover's Wife (talk) 14:19, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Well be my guest and please expand it Drover's Wife. I was unable to get a logical response to what was bothering Traceybrow's sensitivities when I tried to expand it. You do have access to the paywalled article, yes? CatCafe (talk) 14:45, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Traceybrow, I had to fix another revert you made in error. Are you going to discuss your concerns here? CatCafe (talk)

Can you both take it down a notch? This should be something easily resolved but your antipathy for each other is getting in the way. The Drover's Wife (talk) 21:41, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Drover's Wife, thanks for fixing the Paul Singer/GG section from The Age, I could not have put it better myself. CatCafe (talk) 12:39, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Thank you! The Drover's Wife (talk) 12:45, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

It's looking like her award will not be removed, so probably this section should be trimmed.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:37, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

You're possibly right. Maybe wait for the media to reach that conclusion first. CatCafe (talk) 09:54, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

I think that's still unclear at this stage given that it's only fallen out of the daily news in the last fortnight, and with the spotlight shifting to rather bigger news in that timeframe. I also think it's beside the point whether it does or doesn't happen: the section also isn't entirely about the calls to revoke her Order of Australia, as it overlaps with the controversy surrounding her comments on Hannah Clarke, and the two issues combined saw more, and more substantive, coverage about her (as opposed to by her) in six weeks than she'd received in most of the last decade combined. The Drover's Wife (talk) 10:00, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

In time there could be a new "comments on the Murder of Hannah Clarke" section, which in turn would slim down the "2020 Order of Australia award" section. CatCafe (talk) 10:39, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes, it's unclear. And it will always be possible that she will stripped of her award, even if Australia ceases to exist. Just as it's possible I will become a supermodel. But I don't think we should devote much space to what hasn't happened and still hasn't happened and, guess what, still hasn't happened. Suffice it to say that there was controversy. Nothing has eventuated so far. We can wait till hell freezes over, and Australia has a decent PM. But there is no point in rabbiting on about the issue. I don't believe there will ever be a front page headline saying that the Ardnt controversy is over. That suggestion is a bit silly. I think editors should step back, put down the dead rabbit, tidy up the article, and move on.--Jack Upland (talk) 11:07, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

We're devoting space to what has happened: two issues that, combined saw more, and more substantive, coverage about her (as opposed to by her) in six weeks than she'd received in most of the last decade combined. It's fundamentally one of the most notable things in her entire career by source coverage. Where that goes from here is fundamentally irrelevant to that consideration. The Drover's Wife (talk) 11:45, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

The media is and will pester the GG's office to get a yes or no for a story - It will be reported on in time whatever the outcome. CatCafe (talk) 12:14, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

I think that's unlikely given the coronavirus pandemic, unless something kicks off the story again after it's over (e.g. more controversial comments) - but to restate, whether or not it is ultimately removed is irrelevant to the issue here. The Drover's Wife (talk) 20:34, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Under Family: "predominantly lived in Woollahra..." ?

"Since graduating, Arndt has predominantly lived in Woollahra in the eastern-suburbs of Sydney New South Wales". This is very specific. The fourth reference doesn't mention Woollahra. The second and third are images of newspaper articles (non biographical), and I couldn't see "Woollahra" with a brief scan. The first reference can't be retrieved.

The previous biographical information mentions her move to Sydney for higher studies, and other movements are mentioned in this para.

Suggest delete this sentence, unless a source can be found.

Why delete when there is a source? Perhaps read the first reference? "On a sunny winter’s day in Sydney, Arndt and I are having morning tea at her house in Woollahra." https://web.archive.org/web/20130409234940/http://www.bettinaarndt.com.au/wp-content/uploads/The-Sex-Advocate-Good-Weekend.pdf She's also published her full address on the net "102 Fletcher St". https://web.archive.org/web/20120920132800/http://bettinaarndt.com.au/docs/cv.pdf CatCafe (talk) 10:26, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

"Perhaps read the first reference?". As I said, for me the first reference can't be retrieved. I've discovered that's a problem with my web service blocking web.archive. "Can't be found" or 404 often comes up with Wiki references which are outdated - so I assumed this happened here. In my para I clearly describe my attempts to read all references. --Javaman59 (talk) 00:56, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

I'll ask my service provider to unblock web.archive. In the meantime, ""On a sunny winter’s day in Sydney, Arndt and I are having morning tea at her house in Woollahra." is not sufficient to support the detail of "Since graduating, Arndt has predominantly lived in Woollahra ", so suggest delete, awaiting better sourced material summarising her various places of residence. --Javaman59 (talk) 00:56, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm with Javaman on this, I think - it's not an important detail and it's not clearly-sourced for the actual text that's in the article. The Drover's Wife (talk) 00:58, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

By saying that Javaman, I think you're more inlined to whitewash rather than correct sentences and add supporting references. So I'll fix it for you and your problematic archive.org block. CatCafe (talk) 00:59, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

CatCafe. I have been on Wikipedia for more than a decade, and have made numerous casual edits. This is the first time I've contributed to a controversial BLP. I slipped up the first time, saw your valid response, and since then have observed the process which seems to have been agreed for this article. I didn't even delete the problematic sentence - I just brought it to the talk page. I am not required to provide an alternative when suggesting a deletion. Nice if I do - but it's optional. It's also not "whitewashing". Further, in my recent round of edits I have corrected sentences, added material, and added supporting references. I thank your for the published correction of this particular sentence. --Javaman59 (talk) 02:30, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Editing contentious articles of this nature is often a bastard in practice, especially when - as this article was for a long time - people have to wrangle with a single-purpose account pushing an agenda in language that's often completely unsuitable. For what it's worth, I think you're doing a good job, Javaman - you're just walking into a situation where it initially wasn't clear if you were yet another SPA associated with the first one. The Drover's Wife (talk) 02:33, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Point taken, but seeing it's common knowledge that she lives in that suburb, it's something WP should articulate, not look to delete without looking for a better ref. I come from the position, and I think it would be a failure, if a reader came to WP wanting to confirm whether or not she lived in Woollahra and went away none the wiser. Basic info like that is important for WP. CatCafe (talk) 03:03, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

AM and Citation should be in the lede

The lede looks badly incomplete without a more detailed mention of her AM, as a separate sentence and preferably as a final para.

The article on Mary Crawford, another recipient of an AM in 2020, has this, and also Tim Minchin and Rosie Batty (not as a separate para).

I suggest the following (taken from the section in the article), and similar to the lede in Crawford and Batty articles.

Arndt was appointed a Member of the Order of Australia (AM) in the 2020 Australia Day Honours "for significant service to the community as a social commentator, and to gender equity through advocacy for men".[60] Javaman59 (talk) 10:54, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

I don't believe so. That is in the infobox and has its own section detailing that. And the other examples you gave generally received overwhelming praise for their awards according to RS's. It was the opposite for Arndt according to RS's. CatCafe (talk) 21:17, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

We don't omit a person's major milestone from the lede on the basis whether or not it met "ovewhelming praise". On that basis we could omit Rudd's second term (after ousting Julia Gillard) from his lede (it's in the first para), or even Donald Trump's election, Lindy Chamberlain's convictions, Pell's acquittal, Obama's Nobel prize, etc.. On the contrary, the widespread opposition to the award shows how significant it is. Our job is to present the information from sources from a neutral POV, and surely a neutral POV says that Arndt's AM is major biographical moment. The argument that the info is elsewhere in that article would apply to every sentence in the lede, such as "attracted controversy". Possibly it could have a follow up sentence mentioning that the award was controversial and the senate voted to have it rescinded - but keep it brief.

This is in the Pell lede, despite the acquittal being highly controversial -

In 2020, the High Court of Australia overturned[5][6] the County Court of Victoria's 2018 conviction of Pell on charges of sexual offences and set aside the orders of the Victorian Court of Appeal rejecting appeal.[7][8][9] Pell remains under separate investigation by the Holy See's Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith for these allegations of abuse.

And the Lindy Chamberlain lede, despite the convictions being both controversial and later shown to be unjust.

Chamberlain was convicted on 29 October 1982,[1] and her appeals to the Federal Court of Australia,[2] and High Court of Australia,[3] were dismissed.

As you rightly said about her place of residence (in the body), it's something visitors would expect to find. I argue that the AM in the lede is in the same category of "expected" information. Javaman59 (talk) 01:17, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

I think you have forgotten what your propsal is, that is to add to lede and present the award in a positive way leaving out the critique as reported in 95% of RS's that exist there. Also the lede is supposed to be brief and tight not rambling as you suggest, there is a section and a link already allocated that discusses the content you wish to repeat. The new other examples you give above support my case in opposing your proposal. Thank you. Shall I sort it? CatCafe (talk) 01:27, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

I can't keep up a high rate of debate on this. I'm standing by my original proposal to mention the AM in the lede, in the same style as other AM's (ie. dated, with the citation from the award itself, "for ...."). That's entirely NPOV, not "a positive" way as you allege. Willing to consider that NPOV would also include a brief mention of the criticism. That's not "rambling" any more than the rest of the lede is "rambling". The rest of the lede also duplicates information in the info-box and body of the article. That's an entirely spurious argument.

But I'll have to go at this slowly over the next days, even weeks.

A direct response to yours then for consideration in the meantime. "The new other examples you give above support my case in opposing your proposal. ". That is the opposite of what they support! I gave examples where controversial awards, career moments, etc. ARE in subject's lede. They support my proposal. The lede extracts the most significant moments in the career of a public figure. The only argument here is whether this is sufficiently "significant" - not whether it's popular. To contradict my proposalo you'd have to show subjects of similar public prominence who don't have these moments in the lede. I've shown you the one's who do!

I like the criteria you mentioned for place of residence - is it what a visitor to the page would expect? I think in this case a visitor would expect the AM and its citation in the lede.

Javaman59 (talk) 03:11, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm with @Javaman59: on this. To omit Arndt's AM from the lead is a blatant negative POV thing to do. Sure, she has said things recently that have upset a lot a of people). But those things are not relevant to whether we treat her AM the same as that for other recipients. HiLo48 (talk) 03:46, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! And just to clarify the point of my examples. They are to show that the AM is a sufficiently notable award to belong in the lede. NThis is not about promoting the person themselves but simply presenting relevant information from a NPOV. My other examples mention controversial and even unjust (Chamberlain) "notable moments" which are essential information about the subject. As you say, to omit it looks like negative POV. Javaman59 (talk) 04:30, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks @CatCafe: for two new changes in lede. That's progress. I think the summary of the award as "working for men" was inadequate. It omits the parts of the citation relating to her longer career as a commentator and is an interpretation of "gender equity through advocacy for men". Better to let the citation speak for itself than attempt to summarise it. It's not long, and is consistent with other recipients, as I've shown.

Granting of the award "caused considerable controversy" is better stated as "met considerable opposition". To say it "caused" the controversy suggests an unproven cause-and-effect. "Met ... opposition" is better NPOV IMO.

Suggest restructure of lede

The lede is looking much better, but now asks for some restructuring for a better timeline and grouping of related information.

Propose the following, which is just movement of text apart from adding "1983" to the the "the person most identified..." quote.

Bettina Mary Arndt AM (born 1 August 1949) is an Australian writer and commentator who specialises in sex and gender issues.

Starting as a sex therapist and feminist, she came to public prominence in the 1970s establishing a career in publishing and broadcasting as well as writing several books. In 1983 she was described as 'the person most strongly identified with Australia's sexual revolution'. In the last two decades she has abandoned feminism and attracted controversy with her social commentary and her views on sexual abuse, domestic violence and men's rights advocacy.

In 2020 Arndt received an Order of Australia award for "for significant service to the community as a social commentator, and to gender equity through advocacy for men". The granting of the award met considerable opposition and there were calls for it to be revoked. Javaman59 (talk) 02:53, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

No you're plain wrong Javaman59. I was adding content as you requested because you were unable to edit or lazy or whatever, now you have a problem with your suggestion. I am happy to return to the original lede if you're now unhappy with it and wish to editwar. Please keep your quotes and cites out of the lede. The lede is supposed to reflect the rest of the article, not your POV. CatCafe (talk) 02:57, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

And I hope you're aware that the lede was a cause of much editwaring and banning in the past. I suggest you go softly and in the future don't request other editors do your work for you. I have no more to add re your demands. CatCafe (talk) 03:03, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Personal abuse. I am able to edit. I left a proposal and was in no hurry to carry it through, as I have a job and travel. I never asked you to make the edit for me. Rather than making your own change to the article you should have continued the discussion here, where we were in disupute about whether the AM citation belonged in the lede.

And don't threaten me with a ban unless you have a reason.

Your comments here and previously give the impression that you see yourself as some particular supervisor of this article. Just stick to Wiki rules and respect for contributors, as I am doing. (And, when I slip up, I take correction). Javaman59 (talk) 03:23, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

As there is 2 of you operating under your account you need to refrain from editing as its confusing. This is maybe why you can't clarify. I have no idea of who John is but it is obvious he is directing your editing of this article here [10] CatCafe (talk) 04:21, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

There is only one of me and I have made all these edits myself. John and I discussed this some time ago, but since then haven't discussed this with anyone, after I learned about Wiki COI. Javaman59 (talk) 04:27, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

I also mentioned above that while the lede was under dispute that "But I'll have to go at this slowly over the next days, even weeks.". I never asked you to make the edits and we hadn't agreed on the changes in the talk page. Your changes were not what I had proposed, as I have never backed down from including the citation. When people make changes you don't like your revert and tell them to go to the talk page, but while we were still in the Talk page you've gone ahead and made your own edits and blamed them on me. Javaman59 (talk) 04:52, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Well seeing John was not prepared to create his own username then I am not convinced that he is still not directing edits through you - and I can't work with you in such situation. Never the less, I have reverted the lede 1st para back to the previous agreed compromise. And established a compromise for you in the 2nd that still portrays the tone you requested. We can always go back to removing reference to the award completely in the lede if this disagreement continues. CatCafe (talk) 04:57, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

I have worked from the Talk page, as you first told me months ago, and also in conformance with Wiki BRD convention. I see that you made your last change before discussing, and without discussing (your just told us what you had done). My changes have all been proposed in Talk before I made them. I got agreement from one person and silence from you. This behaviour suggests an attitude of "owning" the article - you can make changes directly, but others have to go via Talk and get agreement from you.

I'm not happy to "go back". The current version is good and consistent with other articles and NPOV, and is all as presented by myself in Talk with adequate chance for others to respond. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Javaman59 (talk • contribs) 05:13, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

John, I have discussed it here with you, but you were unable to compromise on the lede's 2nd para and refuse to respect previous settled agreements reached on the lede's 1st para. So I have reverted lede back to 6 June before trying to accomodate your demands. Do not revert again, you do not have support for your particular changes to the lede here. We have reached an impasse and it should remain as it was last week. Thank you.CatCafe (talk) 05:32, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Stop edit warring Javaman. It is now reverted back to 6 June. Get some consensus and compromise before you carry on. CatCafe (talk) 05:50, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

These changes have all been my own, and since I first touched this article in February my changes have all been signed by myself. It's hardly surprising that more than one person is interested in the signficant ommision of the AM from the lede. Javaman59 (talk) 06:09, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

CatCafe Re: Your summary of your last 'revert'. "Take it to talk. Get consensus first. ". For the last time, I was working in the Talk, and had left it for a few days, is as my right. This episode came about because YOU made the edit without concesus. You gave no notice of your intended edit or a chance for discussion. Once again, your behavior suggests an attitude of owning the page. Javaman59 (talk) 06:09, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Proposed Restructure of Lede - Second Time

We have had an edit war about the lede.

I propose the following (again) and can see no reason that it is not an improvement on the current.

Including the citation for the AM has been previously proposed with the argument that it is similar to other AM recipients as a notable biographical milestone. This was accepted by one other contributor but was rejected by CatCafe with no supporting evidence.

CatCafe has contributed the useful quote about Arndt's early career, and a reasonable presentation of the response to the award.

This means the lede has about doubled in size since previously agreed so deserves consideration for restructure.

I propose this restructure as:

1. More readable
2. Grouping career subjects and timeline more appropriately.
3. Giving suitable mention to the AM, its citation, and criticism.

---

Bettina Mary Arndt AM (born 1 August 1949) is an Australian writer and commentator who specialises in sex and gender issues.

Starting as a sex therapist and feminist, Arndt came to public prominence in the 1970s establishing a career in publishing and broadcasting as well as writing several books. In 1983 she was described as "the person most strongly identified with Australia's sexual revolution". In the last two decades she has abandoned feminism and attracted controversy with her social commentary and her views on sexual abuse, domestic violence and men's rights advocacy.

In 2020 Arndt received an Order of Australia award for "for significant service to the community as a social commentator, and to gender equity through advocacy for men". The granting of the award met considerable opposition and there were calls for it to be revoked.

---

Javaman59 (talk) 06:36, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Has John asked you to pursue this line of argy-bargy? As with before I request you should not put the quote in the lede "for significant service...", fo a number of reasons not least it's repeated below with a section link. But you have been unwilling to compromise on this, as I said I can't help you, you keep on ensuring we go around in circles here and I have better things to do than repeat my concerns to you again. CatCafe (talk) 06:40, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

"self-proclaimed feminist"

Why is Arndt a "self-proclaimed" feminist and not just a feminist.

That seems to be the random opinion of some random wiki "editor" and not any source of well-cited, well-argued position.

Given her age and her background, why do you take "feminist" away when she seems to be just as much a feminist as Betty Friedan who held similar views regarding feminism being antagonistic to men 107.3.134.101 (talk) 21:35, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

The first cited source seems to support the article language, saying "Arndt once described herself as a feminist". That said, if there are even a small handful of reliable sources describing Arndt as a feminist, or saying that she was a feminist at that point, I think we should switch to the simpler description. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:23, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

My preference would be to just remove those words from the lead. There has been considerable disagreement over the decades as to the meaning of the word "feminist". It's only used once more in the article, in a different context, so doesn't really belong in the lead. The additional "self-proclaimed" bit implies that she's not a real one, in some unidentified person's opinion. That's not compliant with WP:NPOV or WP:RS. HiLo48 (talk) 22:26, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes, remove.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:02, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

It's gone. HiLo48 (talk) 00:35, 28 February 2023 (UTC)