Talk:Feminism in Australia

Australian Feminism

Preface 1: The last significant contribution to this 'Feminism in Australia' article was Revision as of 05:37, 30 April 2014 (hardly 'recent')

Preface 2: The contribution to this 'Feminism in Australia' article "Gillard is perhaps best known, internationally, for the Misogyny Speech", where the majority of the Wikipedia citations regarding that 9 October 2012 speech were accessed within days of that speech. (eg accessdate=[early to mid] October 2012)

A section was added regarding an Australian Islamic leader who said Islam "is the most feminist" of all religions. Clearly a statement concerning 'Feminism in Australia'. Another article added related to the justification for men to strike women. There were hundreds of RSs articles in support of Australian women in response. All providing information about a very significant aspect of 'Feminism in Australia' in 2017.

I do not agree that this section should be removed as "recentism" and "wikipedia is not the news". Daily there are thousands of "recent" news articles added to Wikipedia. ( also refer Main Page > In the news > PICK ANY ONE > View history ) The removed sections should be reinstated.

PS There is similar issue at Tony Abbott and Islam Speedrailsm (talk) 01:16, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for starting this discussion.

The contribution about Gillard's speech is quite different as she was Prime Minister at the time, and the speech received massive news coverage worldwide.

I pointed to WP:NOTNEWS because it talks about "enduring notability". There are probably newspaper articles and various community leaders who make statements in Australia about feminism every day; the question is whether they have the same kind of enduring notability that makes them worth noting in an article whose various sections cover periods of 30-50 years. This article is a summary of feminism as a broad movement in Australia, it doesn't (and I believe shouldn't) contain details about everything said by everyone in Australia about feminism. (So the test for inclusion is not, as above, that it is "clearly a statement concerning 'Feminism in Australia' - it as to be more than that)

I think the question would be whether these kind of comments present an enduring and representative perspective regarding feminism in Australia, which I don't think they do. (Perhaps if the topic was Islam and feminism in Australia, it would be different. Or, for example, if these particular comments and their responses are picked up by a huge number of media outlets and reported on as a significant moment in history like the Gillard speech was, then they might be worth including).

But at the moment, I think it is too soon to say that these belong in a summary of feminism (as a broad movement) in Australia (over hundreds of years) and unlikely that they ever will.

Note: it'd be great to hear from some other editors rather than just the people who included and reverted the addition of this content! Melcous (talk) 22:06, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Re: "I think it is too soon to say that these belong in a summary of feminism (as a broad movement) in Australia (over hundreds of years) and unlikely that they ever will."

Trad's marital advice has been current for 1,400 years. Trad was simply quoting the 4:23 instructions from the 'immutable' Quran.

• "But those [wives] from whom you fear arrogance - [first] advise them; [then if they persist], forsake them in bed; and [finally], strike them". An-Nisa,_34

In relation to Trad saying you can beat your wife:

• Peter Dutton says, Where are the feminists? Where is the ABC on this?
• Paul Barry says, This was not on the 7 o’clock News. Not on 7.30. Not on Lateline. Not on The Drum. Not on the big radio current affairs shows, AM, PM, The World Today and RN Breakfast. Not in The Guardian. Not in the Fairfax papers. "they were all very busy looking the other way" Media Watch
• we are told, "the ABC was investigating the matter" ABC ‘not good enough’ reporting on Keysar Trad violence against women comments We await the outcome of this ABC investigation.Speedrailsm (talk) 01:52, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

There being no response to the above request to, "hear from some other editors" the article-wording has been modified to incorporate the above issues. Speedrailsm (talk) 02:54, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Feminism in Australia. 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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:02, 29 September 2017 (UTC)