Talk:Julia Gillard's Misogyny Speech

Other potential sources
The below sources may be useful for if someone wants to expand the article in future (just decided to do some reading on the speech and thought I'd put together sources here as I did it). Didn't know if putting these in as additional external sources would be useful/a good wiki idea, so thought I'd put them here instead for now.



Clare. (talk) 14:26, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Neutrality Issues
"in reaction to sexism from opposition leader Tony Abbott"

Is that an established unchallenged fact? I don't think so. Clearly biased. Should have "alleged" at the front. 203.42.255.242 (talk) 05:32, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Agreed. It was there, and was removed with this edit. But I was wondering, perhaps "perceived" might be better. StAnselm (talk) 05:55, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Are there any sources which dispute the sexism of his comments? If so, please present them.  All the sources I've reviewed do not take issue or add qualifications when referring to his actions. aprock (talk) 16:35, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I've gone ahead and used phrasing supported by a source, and added the corresponding ref. aprock (talk) 16:41, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Aprock, thanks for discussing this on the talk page. I see the SMH source refers to Abbott's "record of sexism", but that doesn't seem enough to call Abbott "sexist" in WP voice. This ABC article refers to "The campaign to paint Mr Abbott as sexist". StAnselm (talk) 20:17, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
 * There has been no dispute anywhere that his record is sexist. The sources characterize it as sexist.  I will restore the sourced content with further citations in due course.  If you have a BLP issue, I suggest you bring it up at WP:BLPN. aprock (talk) 22:16, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
 * The link you post is not a news piece, but an opinion piece, and cannot be used for anything beyond establishing the views of Annabel Crabb. It's not a reliable source suitable for anything but describing her opinion. aprock (talk) 22:18, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Quite frankly, I don't think the SMH is a reliable source on this point - it's also an opinion. Actually, I don't think "Gillard has lashed out at Opposition Leader Tony Abbott's record on sexism" is the same as saying "Abbott is sexist". In any case, BLP policy requires a much higher standard. This is perhaps the eminent source I can find, and it uses the phrase "sexist offences charged against" Abbott. StAnselm (talk) 23:11, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Again, if you think this is a BLP issue, I suggest you take it to WP:BLPN. As you agree that the sourced content is not calling Abbott a sexist, I'll go ahead and restore it. aprock (talk) 00:23, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Your edit is still not an improvement on what was originally in the article, and the onus is on you to gain consensus for your proposed edit. Please stop your edit warring. StAnselm (talk) 00:44, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Preferring sourced content to editor synthesis is wikipedia policy. If you can find a source which uses the phrasing you support, by all means present it. For now, I'll restore the sourced characterization. aprock (talk) 00:19, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
 * The problem with "record of sexism" is that it is ambiguous. It could easily be interpreted as saying that Abbott was actually sexist. StAnselm (talk) 02:52, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
 * You've lost me here. Our job is not to interpret sources, but to use sourced material.  Restoring. aprock (talk) 03:01, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
 * See also WP:BLPN aprock (talk) 03:16, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

The current article does not give the full context in terms of the Speaker no confidence motion It implies that the speech was just because of a history of sexism, when that was only a part. The opposition leader echoing criticism, made by a shock jock,that Julia Gillard's recently dead father was also very important according to newspaper articles I will expand and add additional sources Wakelamp d&#91;@-@&#93;b (talk) 04:52, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

capitalization
Since I don't think it will be controversial, I'm going to go ahead and move/rename this article "Misogyny Speech." "misogyny speech" could be any speech about misogyny or a kind of speech that happens to be misogynistic, but this refers to a particular speech (e.g. Gettysburg Address). Since it seems to have been reported on according to this name, it seems to make sense rather than something more wordy that mentions Gillard and the occasion. If I'm missing something or someone disagrees, of course don't hesitate to undo. --&mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  |  05:41, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Why was the revert done?
This page is about a speech by Julia Gillard & due to the revert now only quotes 5 words from her. It doesn't quote her two famous lines. It has more about Tony Abbott & any controversy than it does about Gillard and positive reactions. Cgregoric (talk) 08:46, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree that "I will not be lectured about sexism and misogyny by this man; I will not" is the most famous part of the speech - they are, in fact, in a quote box at the side. (And yes, it appears in the mobile version, too.) StAnselm (talk) 11:32, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Ahh. Yes. The main quote is there eventually.... under Responses, and then under Abbott's response. It makes no sense under this heading and I think it should be moved to the top of the article. I also think the article should include, at least, the other main quote. Such as "if he [Abbott] wants to know what misogyny looks like in modern Australia, he doesn't need a motion in the House of Representatives, he needs a mirror. That's what he needs."

I also think it should include other quotes from the speech along with background information. Especially when Abbott gets an 80 word quote under the heading Abbott's response; there should be more than 20 words total quoting Gillard (albeit with 15 of them buried under an obscure heading). As I stated above the article (in its current edit) seems to be more about Abbott than Gillard.

As no-one has commented I am assuming moving the main quote to the top of the article is not controversial Cgregoric (talk) 23:26, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

As no-one has commented I am assuming moving the main quote to the top of the article is not controversial Cgregoric (talk) 23:26, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Misogyny Speech. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131021105724/http://www.australiantimes.co.uk/news/news-from-australia/australia-world-news/world-leaders-praise-gillard-sexism-speech.htm to http://www.australiantimes.co.uk/news/news-from-australia/australia-world-news/world-leaders-praise-gillard-sexism-speech.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 06:20, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

The editing of this article is sexist.. the irony
As Ive written before in Talk when questioning a revert... I think this article should include other quotes from the speech along with background information. Especially when Abbott gets an 80 word quote under the heading Abbott's response; there should be more than 20 words total quoting Gillard (albeit with 15 of them buried under an obscure heading). As I stated above the article (in its current edit) seems to be more about Abbott than Gillard.

As no-one has commented on my prior discussion I am adding one main quote from the speech to the top of the page. I can’t see any reason for this to be reverted but expect a detailed explanation from anyone removing a quote from a speech when the article is about said speech. Cgregoric (talk) 09:22, 12 November 2017 (UTC)