Talk:Catherine Deveny

Point of View

This article seems to gush a bit about its subject, which is odd, considering it claims that her writing is very controversial. There's plenty of evidence to say that her work is controversial, but for this article to have a neutral point of view, it probably shouldn't gush about how great Catherine is. Trevar (talk) 03:38, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

There is constant vandalism of this page manifest by insertions of unsourced assertions of Deveny's high standing within the Australian media. Unsourced passages such as "Deveny is widely considered one of the most gifted, versatile and prolific writers in Australia. Her voice ranges from polemic to compassionate, stand up to sermon, joke writer to speech writer and from cultural terrorist to cultural therapist." are constantly reinserted, while sourced passages questioning Deveny's worth and credibility as a writer are deleted. The administrators need to look at this, as it seems Deveny and/or her supporters are engaged in trying to write a fictional account of Deveny's life. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.11.1.200 (talk) 17:21, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism

There is on-going vandalism on the page, with unsourced material being repeatedly inserted. Quoting from Wikipedia guidelines "Material about living persons must be sourced very carefully. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons should be removed immediately." I have removed this unsourced material as per guidelines. As the guidelines further state; "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material." No such proof for reverting the changes has ever been given.

Much is made of Deveny being "controversial" and the article contains a quote from Deveny describing herself as "a serial pest and professional pain in the arse". Obviously this means that criticism of her is relevant, if not central, to her notability. Such criticism has been inserted and sourced to reliable secondary sources, as distinct from the praise removed which is not sourced.This too is in keeping with the guidelines; "Criticism and praise of the subject should be represented if it is relevant to the subject's notability and can be sourced to reliable secondary sources.". The praise constantly inserted into the article is never sourced to any sources, let alone reliable secondary sources.

As the guidelines make abundantly clear, the burden of evidence lies with those that are adding and restoring unsourced material to the article. The guidelines again; "If someone appears to be promoting a biased point of view, insist on reliable third-party published sources and a clear demonstration of relevance to the person's notability." Again, the sycophantic passages which are repeatedly inserted are never sourced and seem to be Deveny's and/or her supporter's opinion and nothing more. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.11.25.41 (talk) 13:52, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Need for Rewrite?

For the reasons given above, this is a very poor article. CD does seem to warrant an entry but one whose tone is much more neutral. One suspects that this might have been written by her or someone very close to her. I am not familiar with CD's work but suggest that someone who is do a rewrite.wycombe (talk) 07:34, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, mate, how much space she warrants as comedian is one thing, as journo quite another. Tasteless as a comedian and reprehensible as a "journalist", she's been sacked from The Age. http://www.smh.com.au/entertainment/tv-and-radio/deveny-dropped-as-columnist-for-the-age-20100504-u6si.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.213.215.56 (talk) 09:36, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

That was disgusting. If a bloke wrote that sort of thing about an 11 year old, he'd be branded a pedophile and up on charges. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.209.163.94 (talk) 11:30, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Personal life

Several mini-bios about Deveny say "She lives in atheist kibbutz with her partner, three sons and gay husband". Her own web site says "She lives in an atheist kibbutz with three men, a teenager and two little boys". She has Tweeted that she is polyamorous and about her "husbands". Should this be explained? ShipFan (talk) 01:41, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Catherine Deveny. 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/20090321083818/http://www.crikey.com.au/Media-Arts-and-Sports/20090318-Media-briefs.html to http://www.crikey.com.au/Media-Arts-and-Sports/20090318-Media-briefs.html

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) 06:19, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Criticism of Anzac day

Given her criticism of Anzac day, both on twitter and facebook, and its reporting in the press (and considering it has been going on for some years) - I have included a section to deal with the arguments she makes, and the counter arguments. Please do not remove without discussion. Deathlibrarian (talk) 12:47, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

It needs to be edited back to comply with WP:BLP and copyedited. Personally, I feel that a section based on "comedian said offense things" is undue, but for the moment I'm more worried about BLP compliance. - Bilby (talk) 12:55, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Self-proclaimed

I removed "self-proclaimed". Another user put it back in saying an outsider can use the phrase. My POV is that we are not an "outsider"; we are an encyclopedia and describing someone as "self-proclaimed" is both redundant and casts a negative light. Kelly222 (talk) 08:20, 3 May 2018 (UTC)