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.

• "Misogyny definition to change after Gillard speech", The Sydney Morning Herald, 17 October 2012, archived from the original on 18 October 2012, retrieved 5 September 2013
• Gillard's speech prompts misogyny definition rethink, Australian Broadcasting Corporation, 17 October 2012, archived from the original on 20 August 2013, retrieved 5 September 2013
• Jonathan Pearlman (17 October 2012), Australian misogyny row leads to dictionary definition change, The Telegraph (UK), archived from the original on 30 October 2012, retrieved 5 September 2013
• Lizzy Davies (17 October 2012), "Julia Gillard speech prompts dictionary to change 'misogyny' definition", The Guardian, retrieved 5 September 2013
• Bianca Hall (26 July 2013), "Julia Gillard surprised by impact of misogyny speech", The Sydney Morning Herald, Fairfax Media, archived from the original on 23 August 2013, retrieved 5 September 2013
• Katharine Murphy (26 July 2013), "Julia Gillard reveals what she thought when she gave the 'misogyny speech'", The Guardian, archived from the original on 23 August 2013, retrieved 5 September 2013
• Sid Maher (26 July 2013), "Emotional power of misogyny speech was lost on Gillard", The Australian, archived from the original on 27 July 2013, retrieved 5 September 2013
• Katherine Hepworth (14 October 2012), Gillard’s misogyny speech looks even better than it reads, The Conversation, archived from the original on 2 July 2013, retrieved 5 September 2013
• Bec Zajac (8 November 2012), Gillard’s “misogyny speech” ― one month on, Independent Australia, archived from the original on 3 July 2013, retrieved 5 September 2013
• Caitlin Welsh, What the Australian Media missed in Gillard's misogyny speech, Fairfax Media, retrieved 6 September 2013
• Athena Yenko (27 June 2013), The Irony: PM Julia Gillard Once Feminist Icon for Misogyny Speech, Now Ousted as First Female Prime Minister, International Business Times AU, retrieved 6 September 2013
• Alastair Jamieson (26 June 2013), Julia Gillard, hailed for 'misogyny' speech, dumped as Australia's first female PM, NBC News, retrieved 6 September 2013
• W H Chong (11 October 2012), A drawing a day: Redhead strikes, Crikey, archived from the original on 24 December 2013, retrieved 6 September 2013 {{citation}}: |archive-date= / |archive-url= timestamp mismatch; 24 December 2012 suggested (help)

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[@-@]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. --— 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.

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) 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)