Talk:Erin Pizzey

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled[edit]

"Suppression" of her book? Perhaps it was simply unpopular. This is quite biased and needs rewriting.Zantastik 07:00, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I'll email her to try to find out what form this suppression might have taken, because in my searches there are several references to it elsewhere on the Internet, so there might be something in it. Matt Stan 13:56, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
There is no possible bias in a statement of simple fact. The article states that "some internet sources make the claim that ..." which is beyond dispute, as a brief Google search will reveal. Some internet sources do make that claim. Further, it cautiously notes that they do so on little evidence. This is more than sufficient to meet NPOV standards and does not require a rewrite. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.38.147.166 (talk) 21:21, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quote[edit]

"Men are gentle, honest and straightforward. Women are convoluted, deceptive and dangerous. -- Quoted in the London Daily Mail, 24 August 1988[1]" The links brings me to some website, not to the newspaper's site, so I fear the editor didn't check the accuracy of the quote. The fact that one finds the same quote in many other webpages is not a proof. Apokrif 13:53, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree this fear is not entirely without merit. As long as I am not staring at the very Daily Mail issue, I am not sure as well... This is however an unusual situation when somebody actually provides a reference for a quotation. That makes it quite unlikely in may eyes that it had not really been there.
"Apokrif is a nice guy" Daily Mail, 8 January 1987, page 16. Apokrif 13:48, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I guess the only way to check this is to pay a personal visit to the Daily Mail, or the British Library maybe? Myself, I don't plan on going to the UK in the near future. Even after such research, a question of accuracy of the journalist's account might be considered.

IMHO a second-hand quote is OK is the source is a "good" newspaper - and keeping in mind that, should anybody use this quote in any serious work, s/he should at the very least
* check if the quote is not inconsistent with known opinions of the author
* check if the quote has not been attributed to everybody and his brother, like "Eternity is long, especially towards the end"
In general, I prefer avoiding N-th hand sources, we don't need to increase the number of hoaxes and dubious claims that are found everywhere on the web. WP's reliability problems are already serious enough. Apokrif 13:48, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
In addition, it would be great to learn from Pizzey herself, what is her opinion regarding her alleged assertion from seventeen years ago.
Anyway, I think the quote should be merged into the text and I am going to do this in a moment. Conf 17:26, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
ME AGAIN: I have been thinking about some changes to this page, so now I have changed much more at once. I hope it's better now. Conf 18:23, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If you call a claim "highly controversial", please document the existence of the controversy[edit]

The previous wording was:

Some internet sources make the highly controversial claim that Prone to Violence was suppressed by feminists.

'High controversy' would require that notable sources claiming otherwise also exist. What are they? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.24.176.5 (talk) 01:45, 28 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Family[edit]

Is she related to the deceased Rhodesian author Daniel Carney? I read her CV and the personal information there made me think that this was the case. I sent her an e-mail inquiry some time ago, but never received a response. Anyone know for sure? Splatt (talk) 20:03, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Ashley[edit]

He never talked about violence against men. I suggest to modify the text: In 1975 MP Jack Ashley stated, limited aspect of violence against women, in the House of Commons that:....... [1] Thanks --Lungoleno (talk) 14:03, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chiswick Women's Aid and Refuge[edit]

User:Shakehandsman has pointed out, on my talk page, that our existing refs don't completely cover Pizzey as founder of Refuge. This is correct, and I've found another reference from Sandra Horley, Pizzey's successor at Chiswick Women's Aid, that suggests Pizzey had left before Refuge started up. This would only require a couple of tweaks to clarify—nothing major. Views? --Old Moonraker (talk) 09:01, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As the article states the name "Refuge" wasn't in use until 1993 and Horley is technically correct that Pizzey left before then as she'd moved to America by 1982. However, the change of name was simply a rebranding exercise, it's exactly the same organsation. It's blatantly obvious that Pizzey founded the organisation as even they themselves make a big song and dance about being founded in 1971 starting out as "a single house in Chiswick, West London,".[2] Unless someone else happened to open a shelter right next door to Pizzey's at exactly the same time then clearly she's the founder. iFeminist writer Wendy McElroy writes about the attempt by feminists to erase Pizzey from the history of the shelters (something which appears to have been rather successful)[3] and given the recent coi editing it's possible that this campaign may well be ongoing. Anyway I think it's important we're aware of the issues here, I'm going to reinsert a BBC ref for now as it's a reliable source and more neutral than anything from any of Pizzey's opponents (or organisations run by her opponents).--Shakehandsman (talk) 15:41, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I too wouldn't want to be taken in by a carefully laid scheme to "erase Pizzey from the history", but is it possible that relying on the rather weak source represented by BBC Weymouth explaining a local funding concern concedes just that? It's somewhat tangential to the matter in hand, being no more than a passing mention written thirty years or so after the event. It could leave the impression that "if that's the best there is" the sources supporting Pizzey's contribution are all equally as insubstantial.
Some recent edits do seem to be showing a taint of COI and this should be resisted by, as Shakehandsman points out, neutral, reliable sources. Let's have some strong ones, please!--Old Moonraker (talk) 16:26, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well yes, relying on less than perfect sources concedes there has been a campaign against her. If such a campaign was a success we're never going to be spoilt for choice, but surely the BBC is easily a reliable enough source?--Shakehandsman (talk) 16:49, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedian In Residence offer[edit]

I know Erin personally quite well and speak to her regularly. I also do a bi-weekly radio show with her, which this article mentions. Since I know her personally and work with her regularly I have a Conflict Of Interest, however, I also have direct access to ask her any questions or request any references from her. If desired I can be contacted to answer questions, if that's useful to anyone.Dean Esmay (talk) 19:23, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is a notable interview with Erin Pizzey which answers a lot of questions about her views and her past available at www.avoiceformen.com/mens-rights/domestic-violence-industry/refuting-40-years-of-lies-about-violence/ Dean Esmay (talk) 14:19, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Citations don't support the statement[edit]

Pizzey has been the subject of death threats and boycotts because of her stance that most domestic violence is reciprocal, and that women are equally as capable of violence as men.[4][5][6]

These citations make that statement, but don't quote primary sources of the death threats or boycotts. Which make them poor citations for this effect. It would be better to say:

Pizzey and her allies claim she has been the subject of death threats and boycotts because of her stance on domestic violence as equal between sexes.[4][5][6]

Because that's what the citations claim. The reason for the death threats would require a non-partisan view of the threats themselves; shouldn't wikipedia not make a stance or use one side's language over the other? 174.62.68.53 (talk) 00:24, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"These citations make that statement, but don't quote primary sources of ..." On wikipedia we don't rely on primary sources for supporting article content, we chiefly rely on secondary sources and report what they say if they are reliable. This is to avoid original research, Second Quantization (talk) 18:43, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There should be a "criticisms" section[edit]

One of the newspaper references (which I closed out of and can't find again, maybe someone can find it?) mentioned that a sociologist disagreed with her book's ideas on the reason women return to abusive situations. As someone with a formal education in psychology and sociology, I do recognize that her views are "fringe," and her statements elsewhere about emotional abuse not being equal to physical abuse are highly controversial. Although I do have the ability to perform research on the validity of her claims, I recognize this may not be what Wikipedia wants. Therefore, I mostly lack the ability to make such a section myself. (I also apologize for my confusing mixture of formal and informal language, which I am unable to see myself but have been frequently told exists.) Narky Sawtooth (talk) 08:25, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

'Current work' section[edit]

Removed refs containing blacklisted sites bounced through other sites as per this discussion. The content has been left in tact with "citation needed" templates added as appropriate. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 03:22, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Erin Pizzey. 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 03:48, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not new[edit]

Shelters for women avoiding drunken husbands appeared in Texas in the late 19th. century.

Seems[edit]

One of the web-sites mentioned under "External links" seems to be unrelated to the subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.52.216.69 (talk) 11:01, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed removal...[edit]

In the "Later Work" section, a passage reads:

"In 2013, she joined the editorial and advisory board of the men's rights organization A Voice for Men[citation needed] (serving as an Editor and DV Policy Advisor) and from January to August wrote thirteen articles for the group's web site. Only one was published 14 July the following year. None was published in the first half of 2015."

I see a number of issues here....

One, if there's no citation that she even was on the board of AVfM, it seems rather dubious that she's writing all of these articles that aren't being published. It also sounds odd that she would be an editor but only able to get one out of thirteen articles published on their website.

But who knows, it could be true, and not knowing her or any of the AVfM people personally, I don't know what issues may have transpired between them. Even if it is true though, I'm skeptical about its relevance to this article, and its presence here strikes me as a sort of WP:Coatracking - i.e. using her biography article as a springboard to suggest that AVfM is discriminating against her based on her gender.

Again, I don't know what the actual truth of the matter is, but unless there's some substantiation of all of this (e.g. if she's written about the issue or if reporters interviewing her have covered it) then I don't think it makes sense to include all that. -2003:CA:83C3:F100:A853:595B:E9D6:CD10 (talk) 22:02, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Awards: Proposed removal...[edit]

I suggest removing this chapter completely, because none of these awards can be found independently ,i.e. without a reference to Pizzey, so it is safe to assume that they are all fakes: The sources given - two rather obscure Encyclodias of Women - have apparently just taken their information from the Wikipedia entry, and the SAFE award from 2022 cannot be found with the link given. I would erase the chapter if no independent sources for the existence of the awards are presented by April 1, 2023.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Redmund17 (talk • contribs) 18:11, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's not how things work here. In the first instance, The World Who's who of Women dates from 1990, while the Encyclopedia of Women Social Reformers was published in 2001, and therefore neither can "have apparently just taken their information from the Wikipedia entry" as you claim. Secondly, the Nancy Astor Award certainly existed, as I see a reference to it having previously been award to the journalist Ann Hills in the Daily Mirror of 30 January 1997, as well as references to the 1990 presentation in two local newspapers of 19 October 1990. It therefore cannot be dismissed as "fake," as you falsely claim. Thirdly, the SAFE URL has simply changed, so I have updated it. Nick Cooper (talk) 18:53, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comment. The only recent reference to a Nancy Astor award is from the Conservative Women's Organisation which states it took over the reward in 2019, but a reference to Pizzey can still not be found on any website run by any organisation that might have run an award of that name in the past. I would also appreciate if you could find any substantial information on the other "awards" that you have put back on the entry. I would also like to point out, that I had asked (see above) the community to provide hard info on the existence of the other awards - and the organisations supposedly behind them - a week before removing them. As long as there is no substantial info on any of these awards I stick to my judgement that the existence of these awards is highly questionable and thus cannot be part of the wikipedia entry on Pizzey. The quality of the Pizzey entry on Wikipedia could definitely profit from your efforts to prove that Pizzey really got these rewards and from whom. PS I found the new SAFE Website. Redmund17 (talk) 14:46, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not a reply but an addition to my remarks above:
I checked the "Encyclopedia of Women Social Reformers" (which is given as a source for the pre 2000 awards for Pizzey) in the local University library: It mentions as its source an entry on Pizzey on a website by a German-Canadian men's right activist named Walter H.Schneider, "Fathers for Life" (set up in 2000 and non-existent after February 2001) and this website contains the list of pre 2000 awards Pizzey was supposedly given. The following two quotes (accessed through the Wayback Machine) give an impression of the nature of this short-lived website: "For more than two decades we have been exposed to never-ceasing and ever-increasing propaganda to create sympathy for battered wives." “Massive, government-sponsored hate propaganda that demonizes all Canadian men at the Canadian National Clearing House on Family Violence, a Health Canada web site.“ http://www.forever.freeshell.org/pizzey.htm . The "organisation" SAFE, which claims to have given Pizzey an award in 2023 is simply a website which does not list any activity by the organisation with a concrete date and place, and presents a number of people as "Speakers" on its website - but these speakters do not mention their relationship to SAFE on their own websites. Therefore I would strongly urge Nick Cooper to either provide reputable sources for the awards presented on the Wikipedia entry on Pizzey or to stop putting these non-existent awards back on the Wikipedia article on Pizzey. Redmund17 (talk) 12:15, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure why you think I should have to "prove" anything. We have sources, but you - for some reason - seem to think you are in a position to question them to destruction. Again, that's not how things work here. Nick Cooper (talk) 13:35, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your reply, you don't say who the "we" are, when you write "we have sources" - it sounds like a royal we or majestic plural,and that would be a rather weak argument against my request to present reputable sources for the mere existence of the listed awards and of Pizzey being the recipient. And I made my request not for "some" reason as you write, but because I had checked the purported sources for Pizzey's awards and explained why they are not really sources. Every individual can nowadays put up a website on which he or she can claim things which are not true or non-existent, and can also invent an award and a recipient of such an award on his/her website - but I think most users of Wikipedia would neither want nor expext Wikipedia to use such websites as sources for its articles. I would therefore repeat my request that you present real sources for the existence of the rewards and of Pizzey being the recipient instead of putting these clearly fake awards back on Wikipedia. Redmund17 (talk) 12:59, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Those sources are present in the article as inline citations, and all of them are reliable third-party sources. Nothing further is needed, in my opinion. If you have doubts on the reliability of the sources in the article, you can raise that on the Reliable sources noticeboard for further input. Ciridae (talk) 11:41, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Erin_Pizzey&oldid=1209774201"