Talk:Joanna Howe

@SIDAC SA: has just made a number of edits to this article. I have since made my own (restoring the removed mention of Howe's Labor membership and AWU affiliation, as well as removing an unsourced claim about a research integrity investigation towards Howe), but overall I'm concerned that SIDAC SA's edits have a biased point of view. For example, mention of Dennis Hood agreeing to pair Michelle Lensink is replaced by a claim that Jing Lee "was targeted by Joanna" (which is not a claim that Jing Lee has explicitly made, instead saying she had an "encounter with this external visitor" -- the ABC article cited pointedly does not mention Joanna Howe), Howe's response to being banned from the Parliament of South Australia is totally removed, and Howe's response to Mark Speakman's comments about her are replaced with a sentence that says both Speakman and Chris Minns accused her of threatening politicians and spreading misinformation. A mention of the scant opinion pieces in The Catholic Weekly that support Howe's viewpoint is also removed.

I think that overall, this makes this article much less balanced and fair to its subject. Joanna Howe is a pretty extreme anti-abortion activist, and I think this article (which, disclaimer, I am the primary author of), does a decent job at showing the views she advocates for, the things she has done and been criticised for, while providing due weight to both Howe and her many critics. Many of SIDAC SA's edits are duplicative of content that already exists in the article (for example, her ban from South Australia's parliament house is now mentioned three times in the article), and a section about Howe being fact-checked (which is not germane to a biography about her, I don't believe) is added to the lede.

I'm worried that these changes overall make this article less compliant with Wikipedia policy, and specifically the WP:Neutral point of view policy. The mention of accusations of threats, investigations against her (which to my knowledge have come to nothing so far) and her bans from Parliament House were previously given due weight, but as a result of SIDAC SA's edits, now have undue weight in the article and risk compromising this article's neutrality. LivelyRatification (talk) 03:40, 27 January 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

I included citations in all my edits beside the research integrity one as the citation for that is a personal letter and I was unable to add it as a source.

The descriptions of the behaviour you are alluding to all match how the issue was described in the media articles cited.

Your article quoted Joanna as a source many times which is also against Wikipedia policy as Joanna cannot be the source of information about Joanna. For example the only explanation given for Joanna being banned from Parliament was not the statement made in Parliament, but sourced originally from a social media post by Joanna describing the decision as she chose to, SIDAC SA (talk) 04:06, 27 January 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

The statement made in parliament was mentioned (see the previous revision), specifically stating that "members of the legislature had witnessed Howe using "threatening and intimidating tactics"". Howe's response to this is included because, for one, not including a response implies that there is nothing more to the situation, but also because it was mentioned in the ABC News article about the matter. Broadly you are correct that you can't cite someone as a source of information about themselves (although there are some exceptions as in WP:ABOUTSELF), but in this instance, where it is both stated that the information comes from Howe, the claim is mentioned in a news article about the topic, and the issue at hand is actions supposedly committed by Howe, her response to being banned seems quite relevant here.

It would be problematic if the article said "Joanna Howe supposedly did XYZ, but this is not true" and cited Howe's own statement as a source, or included myriad citations to Joanna Howe's social media as a rebuttal for every criticism made of her, but where media has seen fit to report on her response, and where it is clearly attributed as her own statement, it's not only within Wikipedia policy but improves the article's sense of balance to write, for example, "Following Speakman's comments, Howe stated in an online video "am I a bully or is Mark Speakman just a precious snowflake who can't handle the democratic process?"" -- the source for that is not the video in question, but the quotation included in an article from the ABC, and directly follows a claim from Mark Speakman about Joanna Howe. LivelyRatification (talk) 05:00, 27 January 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Thank you for demonstrating my point.

Each time a verified report about Howe's behaviour is included in the article, her words about herself take precedence regardless of what the media report included from others. Joanna Howe cannot inform on Joanna's behaviour, as per Wikipedia policy. SIDAC SA (talk) 05:11, 27 January 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

What policy exactly are you referring to? If this article only includes what other people have said about her -- Terry Stephens, Mark Speakman, Chris Minns, or whoever -- and does not mention her responses, it risks causing her harm and creating an unbalanced perspective. The reason I included quotes from Howe in this article is to ensure that it is properly balanced. You say that she can't be used as a source for herself, but she isn't -- the claim being made in the article is "Joanna Howe says this", and so the only question is whether that is factual (yes), verifiable (yes), and whether it constitutes due weight. I would say it does, because if you remove all the statements Howe has made defending herself, or the scant publications by people agreeing with Howe, the article is entirely negative towards its subject, and does not reflect the inclusion of her own statements and self-defence in media reports. It is, in a word, unbalanced. LivelyRatification (talk) 05:26, 27 January 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

What Joanna says about Joanna and her behaviour is demonstrably not "factual" or "verifiable" (given the numerous articles cited).

Articles reporting on Joanna's behaviour do not create "an unbalanced perspective" especially when there are more than more than half a dozen articles featuring more than a handful of other people describing this behaviour at different times.

If this were about "balance" like you claim, you would not have an issue with the cited mention of Joanna Howe being officially fact checked on her abortion activism claims. SIDAC SA (talk) 21:54, 27 January 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

I think that the two of us have reached an impasse here, so I have left a comment at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Australian politics asking for input. But for the record, the reason I think those fact-checks are not appropriate is because the primary purpose of this article is to be a biography of Joanna Howe. If the article addressed those claims, perhaps it would be a shortcoming, but to say "she has been fact-checked for making incorrect claims" just seems like trying to induce the reader to think a certain way about her and her honesty. After all, "this person has been fact-checked" is something you could put on a good chunk of articles about politicians. LivelyRatification (talk) 07:46, 28 January 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

I think in general the article needs a more rigorous approach to fact-checking, and is a bit of a mess. The article is all over the place about the earlier development of her involvement in conservative politics, with bits of the story scattered everywhere. SIDAC appears to be adding some claims that are competely unsourced. The sourcing of claims such as that she is a Labor member (present tense) are weak; the sources for that claim give few details about her supposed involvement and pre-date her high-profile controversies in 2025. The stuff about workshops and youth mission stuff seems to be fluff. The whole article needs a bit of a restructure. The Drover's Wife (talk) 10:16, 28 January 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

I have rolled back this article to the previous version prior to @SIDAC SA:'s edits, meaning I have removed all of SIDAC SA's edits from the article. I would have preferred to seek more feedback but I think the article as it stood simply has too much NPOV violations to stand. Feel free to discuss this below, I don't wish to start an edit war so I am trying to be as transparent about what I am doing here. --LivelyRatification (talk) 20:16, 11 February 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

I'm not a Wikipedia editor so bringing this to your attention for correction:
1. Article has two mentions of 'Howe is married with five children.'
2. The source cited for 'Among other religious beliefs, Joanna believes there are "no circumstances" where a termination of pregnancy should be permitted' does not include the 'no circumstances' quote. ~2026-85788-2 (talk) 19:10, 7 February 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

And:

3. The source cited for 'Joanna is a practicing Opus Dei Catholic' does not include that mention. ~2026-85788-2 (talk) 19:12, 7 February 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

I have removed these claims, thank you for pointing them out. LivelyRatification (talk) 21:45, 7 February 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

you're welcome! ~2026-85788-2 (talk) 20:46, 13 February 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

@SIDAC SA: and I have made a number of edits to this article in the past 24 hours.

• SIDAC SA's first edit mainly consisted of adding information on Howe's views sourced only to her YouTube, or to sources that did not support information that was added.
• I removed a number of these claims, including a sentence claiming that Howe believes abortion is murder, that Howe believes the goal of Islam is to establish a global caliphate through jihad, and that Islamic people should not migrate to Australia. These were all cited solely to self-published sources by Howe.
• I removed other claims, the first few stating that Howe opposed IDAHOBIT Day and encouraged her viewers to protest it at Reynella East Primary School. These were supported by citations to Howe's social media. Mention was also made of criticism of the Reynella East protest, cited to InDaily and Star Observer (an SA-based newspaper and an Australian-based LGBT-interest newspaper, respectively). Both reliable sources, but neither mentioned Howe or her support of the Reynella East protest, so I removed it.

SIDAC SA and I had a discussion at that user's talk page, where SIDAC SA alleged that I have a bias towards conservatism.

SIDAC SA later added a paragraph describing Howe as adversarial, and mentioning claims that Howe's rhetoric had manifested in "vitriolic, hateful, and threatening ways". These were cited to a news article and a source in a peer-reviewed journal, so I did not remove them. I did make an edit to incorporate these claims into the article in a way I thought was more natural, and which replaced weasel words with attributing claims, and SIDAC SA has now reverted this.

The lengthy discussion on SIDAC SA's talk page has resulted in no resolution between the two of us on this matter. I took this matter to WP:DRN but was advised instead to start a talk page discussion here instead. So I will say here that I think SIDAC SA's edits to this article indicate POV-pushing and have been disruptive. I think that there is no place for statements on Howe's political views sourced only to her social media on this article, and I think that my edits, that have taken the reliable sources SIDAC SA has added and more appropriately incorporated them into the article, should be restored. I would appreciate input from other uninvolved users on this matter, and will notify editors at WT:AUSPOL about this discussion also. --LivelyRatification (talk) 06:02, 20 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Friendly ping to @Laterthanyouthink:, who has now removed the journal source entirely. I agree its inclusion as is was inappropriate but would suggest it probably has a place in the article somewhere as per my addition that was reverted. I think their edits have been positive for the article but would also like their input here if possible. LivelyRatification (talk) 01:51, 28 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Hi LivelyRatification and SIDAC SA. I happened upon the article this morning and thought it needed a bit of restructuring per most biographical articles, although didn't get to review or finish it to my satisfaction, owing to having to go out (and had not looked at the talk page at that point). I'll have another look now - but which journal source did I remove? I shuffled things around a bit and trimmed here and there, but don't recall removing any sources deliberately. I'm catching up on a lot of stuff at the moment after being away, so don't want to have to wade through long discussions, but if you think I've removed something important, please let me know so that I am able to opine. (I am trying to be mindful of WP:BLP as well as the fact that we're writing an encyclopaedic article, not a magazine or newspaper article that includes who said what about her quoted verbatim.) Laterthanyouthink (talk) 04:58, 28 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Never mind, that was my brainfart. (You moved it down, it's the Baird et al source.) LivelyRatification (talk) 06:12, 28 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Okay, no worries. I've done a bit more work on it, but leaving it now, so feel free to ping me if you have any issues with what I've done. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 08:01, 28 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

A fresh & controversial bit of news here deserves a mention in this article. It looks like her "prime directive" to push anything that looks like efficient anti-abortion propaganda has tripped her up into embracing a hoax she could have avoided if she'd done some basic skeptical fact checking & wasn't so red-hot to win this political "forever war" at any cost, including that of honesty. Unfortunately, she's apparently chosen to become an exemplar of the anti-abortion push at some of its worst, doubling down on the propaganda dishonesty with a social media post that "Even if ... the picture of Ruth and Emma is sugar gliders, like, does it really even fucking matter?". So, any thoughts on how the article should incorporate this newly emerged news? Bluevista99 (talk) 03:33, 28 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

I think it probably warrants a mention. I would advise anyone who wants to add this to the article to be wary of WP:NPOV -- saying directly that Howe is lying or being dishonest would almost certainly be a violation of BLP policies, judging by my reading of the article. LivelyRatification (talk) 03:46, 28 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

I added it. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 08:02, 28 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

@Laterthanyouthink: I have removed the definite phrasing of the sugar glider thing as a hoax -- The Guardian uses the phrasing "alleged hoaxer" and "the person claiming to be Lynn", though it seems fairly likely the account is accurate. The wording is a bit clunkier as a result, unfortunately. LivelyRatification (talk) 08:28, 28 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

• Biography articles of living people
• B-Class biography articles
• B-Class biography (science and academia) articles
• Low-importance biography (science and academia) articles
• Science and academia work group articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• B-Class Australia articles
• Low-importance Australia articles
• WikiProject Australia articles
• B-Class WikiProject Women articles
• All WikiProject Women-related pages
• WikiProject Women articles

• Noindexed pages