Talk:Catherine Deveny

message: 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)
thread_title:  Point of View 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Vandalism 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Need for Rewrite? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Personal life 

message: 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.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:19, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Criticism of Anzac day 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Self-proclaimed