Talk:Clementine Ford (writer)

What the sources say

I restored 3 edits made by one editor recently without any discussion why and just reverted an attempt to undo my edits again with no discussion why. The way it is worded now is objective and how the sources describe it. The changes made recently seem to be an attempt to cast a positive light on this individual instead of what the reliable sources say and leaving it at that. So instead of edit warring I ask why?Brownlife (talk) 12:48, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi Brownlife, the subject of this article is obviously a polarizing person. Editors here will need to be very aware of the need to be objective and factual and to avoid anything which may be slanderous. There can't be attempts to cast either a positive or negative light on the subject. MurielMary (talk) 13:20, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Yeah I agree but how is removing the bit about the man having disabilities justified? We also need to report what the reliable sources say. Can you put that bit back in please.Brownlife (talk) 13:24, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

It's already there in the next sentence - "sources claim he was autistic". MurielMary (talk) 13:29, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

But the sources all use the word disabled. I'm also concerned the parts some editors have picked to leave in paint Ford in a positive light and in no way are we just reflecting what all the sources say about the situation nor are we being objective. I removed the part about the disabled man's magistrate appearances too as it was not relevant and is slanderous.Brownlife (talk) 13:34, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Question over source validity

In 2017, Ford allegedly refused to answer questions from male students during a school presentation, only wishing to receive questions from female students. A move which apparently angered female students, some of whom got up and left in protest over Ford’s discrimination. The only issue is that Ford herself claims this isn't the case.

The two sources are from DailyMail , News.com.au and Ford's personal Twitter .

Would these sources along with Ford's own Twitter be considered enough for a segment like her bullying of the autistic man, or would these sources be considered too flimsy to use, even with the acknowledgment and citation of Ford's dismissal of the events?

I don't want to post something which is considered vandalism, that is not my intent, so I figured I should ask here first just to make sure if it should or shouldn't go ahead at present with the currently available citations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jack pipsam (talk • contribs) 12:15, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

References

I'm having a fair bit of difficulty with this one. The only source is a single parent, who wasn't there, and rang a talk back radio show to complain about Ford when they were discussing feminism. The school hasn't commented as far as I am aware, Ford has denied it, and it has had very limited coverage. Given that it seems to be a strong claim that is very poorly supported, I'm not sure that it is worth including. - Bilby (talk) 06:16, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree. There is consensus that the Daily Mail is not a reliable source. News.com.au is part of Newscorp, and would be considered a reliable source; but the article is in the "lifestyle" section, not the "news" section. Without stronger, and broader, coverage, I'm not convinced that this is worthy of inclusion. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 13:02, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

It has been over a week with no other opinions offered, so I'll pull it and see how we go. - Bilby (talk) 05:57, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

I agree with removing the section on the above argument of flimsy/unreliable sources. MurielMary (talk) 06:02, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Killing men comment

I have added this section to the article, although it has been reverted with no explanation -

At a book signing for her book "Fight Like a Girl", Ford signed her book and added "Have you killed any men today, and if not, why not?", sparking outrage. Ford defended her comment, writing that it was a "sardonic joke written in a friend and fellow feminist's copy of my book"

The sources used are The Sydney morning herald, the Daily Mail, and the local Cairns Post. --2001:8003:54DA:E600:4D63:99B:887:A5F2 (talk) 05:08, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Please familiarise yourself with Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. The Daily Mail is not a reliable source for BLP articles, nor are opinion pieces acceptable sources. The Drover's Wife (talk) 05:34, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Ford herself acknowledges having written it in the Sydney herald source above. --2001:8003:54DA:E600:B43A:FD47:86DF:5F0 (talk) 06:49, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Opinion pieces are not reliable sources. This is not negotiable, especially on a biography of a living person. The Drover's Wife (talk) 07:00, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

clementine ford has stated in a piece written by herself that she wrote on a book, asking if someone has killed any men lately, and if not, why not. I believe this to be notable, and there were several news articles on it, so it should be on the page. --1.152.108.49 (talk) 03:33, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Don't have a problem with using the The Sydney morning herald source in the article, but do have a problem with cherry picking a part of it, taking it out of context and adding it to a WP:BLP article. The proposed addition is WP:Undue as the article currently stands. AIRcorn (talk) 08:50, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

What Ford is saying in that article is that she wrote a sardonic and private joke in a friends book, and that this has been taken out of context to portray her as a threat. Then in this article, we see attempts to use her description of what happened to take part of it out of context and use it to portray her as a threat. The irony is almost overpowering. Fundamentally, a private joke that is clearly satire is simply not noteworthy, although arguably her treatment is. Perhaps we should be less focused on pulling things she has said out of context, and more focused on mentioning the abuse that she has been receiving. - Bilby (talk) 09:22, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

I have re-added and expanded this text, which is reported in a balanced way, is factual and an action has occurred. e.g. Removal as speaker by her comments. Added to the statements made above, consensus agrees with this POV. It does not "taking it out of context and adding it to a WP:BLP article." as stated above, as the context is re-enforced by the banned action. The comments in the last two references meet WP:Neutrality "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." Text also contrasts alternate views, so it should stay. Arianewiki1 (talk)

I'll simply quote the About page of one of the sources you used:

"The Red Menace was once defeated, but its back in a new form. And this time, it’s stronger and much more pervasive. Not stronger in terms of military power, but stronger when it comes to infiltrating people’s minds, possessing people’s hearts and breaking their souls. The Western world, once the great beacon of freedom and liberty, is now facing an apocalyptic revolution. Its enemies go by many names: the progressive left, social justice warriors and the bearers of politician correctness and identity and victim politics. It is set to undermine what our civilization has worked for, from above and below, inside and out. Formed in the Holy Year 2016 (aka the Current Year), The Unshackled aims to uphold and protect what made western civilization great, those ideas from conservative and libertarian and various other centre-right schools of thought. We will expose the activities of the various enemies and fightback against the advance against their ideas in the media, in politics and popular culture. Whether the issues are economic, social or cultural the Unshackled will fight to expose the truth and protect free thinking and free markets. We will not just expose the various arms of the left, we will tackle the corrupt ideologies within the right-wing that have led to parasitic institutions such as crony capitalism which has ruined the reputation and meaning of the original free market capitalism."

There's no debate to be had if you're reliant on sources that fringe. The Drover's Wife (talk) 08:27, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Wow, just one objectionable reference (quoted out of context) and you remove the lot without any consensus. OK. If you want to apply these rules absolutely, then much of this text in this section must be removed too. The source quoted above here is where? All the text validated is there is a divergent range of views, and the reference cite matched the stated text. Arianewiki1 (talk) 09:01, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

WP:Dailymail blogs and other unreliable sourcs. The only decent one in there is the SMH which is self published and has been mentioned above already. This is a no go in most articles, and is certainly one BLPs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aircorn (talk • contribs)

Primary sources are a no-no, and the SMH is a primary source and is her employer. This [1] is a reliable source, that plainly destroys your weak argument. Furthermore, if you apply this rules, the same applies to the other text I deleted. It is plainly biassed. You can't have it both ways. I caution you for WP:Bias. RfC likely to follow. Arianewiki1 (talk) 10:25, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I went through the proposed sources, and only one of the new sources mentioned the book signing (with that one only in passing), and none mentioned it as a factor in the decision to cancel the speaking event. They do talk about tweets she has made being why people claimed they were opposing her talk, but the book signing wasn't raised. - Bilby (talk) 13:02, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Fully protected

As a fair amount of edit warring has been going on, I've fully protected the article for 24 hours to allow for dispute resolution. Nick-D (talk) 10:20, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Actually, this seems to be an editor conduct issue, and I'll respond accordingly. I've lifted the protection. Nick-D (talk) 10:31, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Lifeline cancellation of clementine ford's speech

clementine ford has had her speech for Lifeline cancelled. Sources listed here: [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]. --1.136.108.5 (talk) 08:15, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

All considered unreliable sources for biographies of living people. The Drover's Wife (talk) 08:27, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

@The Drover's Wife: I totally disagree. The IP(s) are right. Dailymail and The Spectator (below) is a legitimate source (as does[8] and [9]) and the others have legitimate verifiable evidence. Rather than bickering about this, I will be using a series of request for comment RfC (biographies), the first being is this story legitimate. In the meantime please advise which instead are among "reliable sources for biographies of living people." of all those so far mentioned? Thanks. Arianewiki1 (talk) 00:01, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

The Daily Mail is not a legitimate source, and its use is prohibited. See Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 220. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:15, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

The Spectator article referred to here is also an opinion article, which aren't suitable sources for facts in any articles, and especially not BLP articles. The article is very hostile to the subject. Please read WP:BLP. Starting a series of RfCs will get you absolutely no-where given that what you want to include clearly breaches core Wikipedia policies. Nick-D (talk) 01:34, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

@Nick-D: Actually, the IP request (below) was ignored, and I do thank Hawkeye7 for the link (I looked but could not find it nor seemingly could the IP.) As for "Starting a series of RfCs will get you absolutely no-where given that what you want to include clearly breaches core Wikipedia policies." The exact opposite is true.

1. To make this subject relevant to the article, we need to test whether it is WP:UNDUE. (From the history of edits this assumption is disputable via RfC.)
2. To make the subject valid (WP:V), and not defy WP:BLP, we need to determine what sources ARE valid. (We need to validate what sources can be used, so that the text is compliant. )

As you are seemingly unwilling to help create a compliant article addition, we have little choice than to follow the more difficult path of getting consensus step by step and yet still try and avoid the possible wrath of your discretionary powers in resolving this matter.

Q: If this were to become valid, how would you express the wording so that it is 100% compliant with the BLP rules? What reference sources are currently acceptable, assuming they complied with the wording? (That is what needs to be finally presented as an RfC to get past any presumed violation.

So far a few editors are just discounting every source, hiding behind an umbrella of difficult rules. Worst, the are not even one helping those (newbies too) who would like an item added, but then find restricting access and be accused of 'disruptive editing.'

Believe me, I will not be breaking any BLP rules here again, but will instead follow the path of following it to the letter. (If I make mistakes, then please assist me so this matter can be resolved.)

Thanks for the input, but you'll excuse me if I ignore "...RfCs will get you absolutely no-where...". You've forced the only path available. Arianewiki1 (talk) 04:08, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

How is The Spectator an unreliable source? --1.136.108.172 (talk) 09:57, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Where is the Wikipedia list for what is/is not a reliable source for biographies of living people? --1.136.108.172 (talk) 10:09, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

How is The Spectator an unreliable source? Arianewiki1 (talk) 08:11, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Removal: Unreliable sources for biographies of living people

The following links in the article all clearly fail as unreliable sources for biographies of living people.

• 1 Mamamia [10] (dead link, pro feminist site, tabloid journalism.) They claim, for example, "Mamamia is vibrant, warm, inclusive, exciting, dynamic, sometimes controversial and often irreverent place for women."[11]
• 2 Rightnow [12]
• 3 Sheilas [13] (dead link, pro feminist site under the Victorian Women’s Trust, tabloid journalism.)
• 4 Indaily [14] (tabloid journalism)
• 5 New matilda.com [15] (Plainly tabloid journalism)

Under WP:BLP, none of these are sufficient quality sources, and all suffer the same objections to the sources disqualified by #Question over source validity, #Killing men comment and #Lifeline cancellation of clementine ford's speech the WP:BLPRS, WP:BLPSPS and WP:GRAPEVINE. These links should be removed.

Q: Is there any objection placing BLP dispute and BLP sources templates on the Main article here?

@Nick-D: Also I request that Nick-D adds these two templates for me to avoid any possible BLP violations. I have also attached the BLP noticeboard template above. If I have violated BLP , it is not my intent, and I have been as meticulous as possible to do things by the book here. Thanks. Arianewiki1 (talk) 03:14, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

The reliability of a source is determined by the content it is sourcing. The more controversial the content, or in this case the more negative, the higher the sourcing standards are. Also can you please look at some of the policies you are quoting. From WP:BLPSPS] Never use self-published sources—including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and tweets—as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article (bolding in original). AIRcorn (talk) 04:57, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Not sure why you think whether the link is live or not is relevant, but the Mamamia link is not dead. It is a source written by the subject of this article, so it is acceptable as a source for information about the article. Right Now and Sheilas sources are similar. In Daily is used to support the fact that she worked at a student newspaper; hardly controversial stuff. Why do you think it is an insufficient source for that claim? The New Matilda piece is an opinion bit, but again the information supported in the article isn't particularly controversial and your claim of it being "tabloid journalism" is unsupported. Yes, I would object to a BLP dispute tag; I do not think it is warranted. VQuakr (talk) 02:09, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Deliberate Bias??? : Clementine Ford (writer)

{{helpme}}

The continuing behaviour of editors shown here is quite appalling, and the continued protection looks like deliberate WP:Bias. Notable: The Drover's Wife complaint and WP:PA here is not legitimate in that: "You are trying to cite an opinion column from a fringe conservative publication in article about a BLP. You have been *specifically* warned about doing this." This is false, because you reverted User:1.136.104.66 without any explanation here.[16] I've cited zero about this by this revert.

Q: How does this relevant and notable event actually be able to be added to this article. So far, no one here has provided what IS an acceptable sources? As multiple sources say similar things, suggests the desired item to be added is clearly factual.

So far,the negotiators have fail to guide how this item can be added, even though many editors have tried to add this item.

Does a RfC need to be implemented here to force consensus here or go through the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard?

I urgently request that an independent admin help resolve this continuing impasse, without the fear of being trapped by ruthless admin discretionary powers repelling changes. Any guidance would be appreciated. Thanks. Arianewiki1 (talk) 08:07, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Again: How is The Spectator an unreliable source? Arianewiki1 (talk) 08:13, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

You cannot cite opinion columns to back up controversial information in a biography of a living person. Please familarise yourself with that policy, and with Wikipedia:Reliable sources. If an alleged event that you wish to include in an article has zero reliable sources, you cannot include it. You have already been specifically warned about this - if you cannot familiarise yourself with these critical policies you need to stop editing BLPs or you will likely be blocked from editing. The Drover's Wife (talk) 08:18, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

To respond late to this, The Spectator is a reliable source and The Spectator source states (1) that activists petitioned to have Clementine Ford removed as a speaker from a Lifeline event and (2) that Clementine Ford was removed from the event; neither of which is an opinion. Miranda Devine stating that "Lifeline betrayed its (mainly male) suicidal clientele by inviting man-hater Clementine Ford as keynote speaker." is her opinion, and I think it relevant to the article because she is a writer and columnist who has written for many newspapers, and it backs up The Spectator. source 1source 2source 3 --1.136.105.180 (talk) 12:06, 7 July 2018 (UTC) (my IP was 1.136.104.203 but it has changed).

looking at nick-d and the drovers wife's edits to this page, I think they are both hyper partisan in favour of clementine ford, so I hope @Just Chilling: could arbitrate as a neutral observer. --1.136.105.180 (talk) 12:08, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Note: I just noticed Arianewiki1 (talk · contribs) has been indefinitely blocked. Donama (talk) 04:48, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Controversies and criticism section

I made an edit to the page with an additional section to the "life and career" section which contained absolute facts. This was reverted for no apparent reason. In this section, i included Clementine's history of controversies which included her comment "kill all men" and her false workplace sexism allegation. Both of these statements were backed up by reliable sources; 2gb and The Daily Telegraph. Surely this amount of political bias will undermine Wikipedia's reputation. Someone may need to elaborate on why the revert may have happened — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cement4802 (talk • contribs) 08:57, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Your edit had serious WP:BLP issues, including qualitative evaluation of the comments made in Wikipedia's voice as "sexist". It also added a section header about "criticism" against the advice at WP:CSECTION. As noted in the revert's edit summary, the content has already been extensively discussed in the talk sections above. VQuakr (talk) 09:08, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

The first line reads "Ford has attracted criticism for her sexist 'Kill all men' comment made on her personal Twitter account and subsequently had her speech at a charity/suicide prevention event run by Lifeline, cancelled." That was sourced to Chris Smith on 2GB, who I don't see as particularly reliable on this issue. Given that the tweet was presumably in 2015, and the presumed talk was three years later, drawing a connection between the two seems like a bit of reach, especially if we're using Chris Smith to do it. There may be more to make of the comment she made against Fordham, but I'd like to see where others sit, given that it comes down to Ford making a mistake in an implication she made about Fordham, then retracting it and apologizing. - Bilby (talk) 09:30, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Q: :Does this reliable source [17] now qualify?Arianewiki1 (talk) 05:18, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

@Arianewiki1: Qualify for what? VQuakr (talk) 17:06, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Authorship dates for the Drum/ABC

Currently the article mentions Ford commencing writing for the ABC's the Drum in 2007. I read/listened to citations 1 & 2. In the first citation (an interview), Ford highlights 2007 as the year she began writing a column in a newspaper, rather than mentioning the Drum. Not sure about online coverage, but her author profile page on ABC News page has articles from 2010–2015. https://www.abc.net.au/news/clementine-ford/35806?page=1 ...or, maybe there is a separate Drum page listing her other articles?

I think it would make more sense to separate the sentence about this, so it's demarcated from other column work. It could focus on her work for the Drum to show active column dates, but I'm not sure how to word it. Thanks in advance for suggestions or edits! SunnyBoi (talk) 12:12, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 March 2021

1. Under "career:" University of Adelaide does not have her listed as a graduate. Source: private email from that university 4-3-2021 2. Ford chose not to accept grant monies from Melbourne City Council in 2020. Source: private email from MCC Councilor Rohan Leppert 3-3-2021 106.69.56.191 (talk) 06:58, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: Private correspondence is not independently verifiable, so cannot be used in biographies. - Bilby (talk) 07:12, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Social media claims

following the October 7th Hamas terrorism attack Clementine Ford blamed innocent Israeli deaths "primarily because of one imperialist government", in her next post relating to the conflict she discussed how how people had been calling her antisemetic and a holocausts denier. Furthermore, in another post she claims Zionism is a system of white supremacy clearly ignoring the fact not all Jewish people are white as well as white supremacists notoriously being very antisemetic. Dxasmith (talk) 21:51, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Countless people said the attack was prompted by decades of oppression by the Israeli government. You haven't made it clear what you want. Talk pages are not the place to vent your personal feelings about the subject of articles. If you're wanting the information you've mentioned to appear in the article, the first step to potentially including that would be finding reliable third-party sources commenting on what she said (and even then it may not be included due to issues including WP:NOTNEWS). Citing the social media posts themselves and drawing your own conclusions from them, as you have done above here, is not acceptable. Please read WP:OR. Based on what you've said, she's just pointing out she's been incorrectly called antisemitic and a holocaust denier by random people on social media, in response for criticising Israel. I think you'd have a hard time finding an experienced editor who thinks that should be mentioned in an encyclopedia article about someone, even if a source was available. Damien Linnane (talk) 05:15, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. If you read my post you'll notice I didn't put in my opinion, just discussed what she herself said, both about her recent controversy and doubling down on the rhetoric. I appreciate one may need a 3rd party source, but it seems odd the source can't be Clementine Ford herself.

Maybe the issue you took is me saying not all Jewish people are white? Or that white supremacist don't like Jewish people? As these facts are the only part of my firs post that could potentially be seen as an opinion.

From reading your post, and how you've edited the title of this one, it's quite easy to see where your opinion lies. Dxasmith (talk) 06:04, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

If you think it's odd Clementine can't be the source herself you need learn more about how referencing Wikipedia works, and what information belongs in an encyclopedia. See WP:Encyclopedic content. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. If there is no secondary coverage of something happening, that is evidence the information is not important enough to include in an encyclopedia, regardless of how strongly you feel about it.

Please read WP:SYNTH. You can't synthesis information together about what Clemintine said, and why you think her argument is wrong, even if you are correct. You can only consider adding that information if a reliable third party source has also made the connection regarding her exact comments. Again, and I cannot stress this strongly enough, please read WP:SYNTH if you do not understand this.

I edited the title because I was adhering to the policy set out at WP:BLP, which as you can read yourself, also applies to talk pages. I respect the policies of Wikipedia. You should too.

You've made your opinion clear from the outset, and it's quite easy to see you jump to conclusions about other people's as well. But what you need to understand is that both my and your opinions on the subject are irrelevant, because unless you find a third party source commenting on this, that also satisfies the standards set by Wikipedia:Reliable sources, there's nothing to discuss here. I don't intend to reply further unless you find such sources. Have a nice day. Damien Linnane (talk) 09:38, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Hi Damien,

Thank you for taking the time to explain the referencing and why the title was adjusted. Dxasmith (talk) 10:51, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Whitewash of antisemitism allegations

Editors should consider carefully if taking a hard line on removing content concerning Ford's antisemitism allegations are warranted. I.am.a.qwerty (talk) 19:55, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Biased removal of referenced content without explanation

In my opinion, the only editor who should carefully reconsider their actions is you. With this edit [18], among other things you removed the very relevant and well-sourced information that certain members of the group had discussed targeting Ford herself prior to her sharing the information about the group. Which of course is not to say that justified her actions, but it's undeniably extremely relevant information to the topic at hand. Most concerning, however, is that you provided no justification in the edit summary for removing this information. Your edits added heavy criticism to Ford (criticism of course is fine as long as WP:RS and WP:UNDUE are adhered to), but what is particularly interesting to note is that at the same time you removed multiple things in her favour, regardless of how well-sourced they were. That appears to show you have a very strong bias. That you removed an undeniable fact from the article without explanation or justification makes it pretty rich for you to now be complaining about well-explained edits that are adhering to established guidelines. It is an established practice that opinion pieces, such as the one that was removed by another editor, are considerably less reliable than factual news and should be avoided. I don't think anything has been whitewashed, but you appear to be trying to remove sources that don't align with your personal opinions. Don't do that please. As per Wikipedia:Advocacy, I suggest you avoid editing this article if you can't do so from a neutral point of view. Damien Linnane (talk) 23:10, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

COI issues with defence of Ford

A review of this page should determine if there are any editors with close connection with the subject. Nothing that the subject is a writer and the possibility of her involvement in editing the page should not be discounted. I.am.a.qwerty (talk) 06:45, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

The place to ask for a review of this article and the people who edit it would probably be WP:AIN. I'm sure the administrators there will take a particular interest in the edits you have made, so I look forward to the outcome of any such review. Damien Linnane (talk) 10:41, 5 March 2024 (UTC)