Talk:Miranda Devine

Exists or not

It's been theorised that Miranda Devine does not exist as such, but she is rather a front for the Herald staff to troll the opinion pages. Kewpid 10:02, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

That is a ridiculous notion. My friend is a student journalist and has met Miranda in person. 210.56.64.215 09:38, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

It's been theorised that your journalism student friend does not exist as such, but rather she is a front for the Wikipedia members to troll in the Discussion section. --131.202.151.37 05:14, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

That is a ridiculous notion. A friend of mine has actually met that journalism student. Adammarchant (talk) 23:56, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

The Mystique of Miranda Devine Continues

The entry on Miranda Devine says she was born in the 1960s. This would seem just a slight exaggeration.

The year of her birth is given by the National Library of Australia as 1948.

58.105.85.233 17:24, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

That would be an interesting addition given that the Bulletin (link at bottom) says she's in her early 40s (2004). But she just doesn't look 58! (Could they be using a very old photo or would that be too obvious?) Nick 17:51, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

She's married with a young family, so I think "early 40s" makes more sense. Kewpid 13:31, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Section about Criticism

Devine often attracts criticism for her views, as sometimes seen in the Letters page of the Sydney Morning Herald. Her views are sometimes seen as out of touch, for example, referring to Sarah Murdoch wife of one of Australia's richest men Lachlan Murdoch as being "plagued by the same doubts as any working mother". [1]

I want to delete this section. "Attracting criticism" - so do many columnists, if not all at some point or other. "Views are sometimes seen as out of touch" - where is the reference for this? The reference you provide is simply an opinion piece by Devine, and whether it is "out of touch" is a value statement that is being made.Recurring dreams 08:12, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

26 June 2007 Restored Controversy section, including criticism from Mike Carlton. Mike Carlton is a household name in Sydney, and the criticism was made in one of Australia's biggest selling papers (Sydney's Sun Herald), so it got major coverage at the time. It was properly cited. The facts of the matter (that Devine was on a government committee) was researched and verified, and a second reference from the government website was provided to show she actually was on that committee (so it is a fact, not "point of view"). 203.166.255.9 03:43, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Deleted again. One of the things Carlton is a household name for is over-the-top attacks on anybody to the right of Kim Il Carr, so this particular attack is not notable. Citing the Carlton attack and the dest.gov.au web page is an example of WP:SYNTH, which Wikipedia forbids. CWC 09:17, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

re: WP:SYNTH The criticism of Miranda Devine did not breach Wiki's 'WP:SYNTH' policy. Read the definition. 'Cite A' + 'Cite B' = Jumping to a 3rd conclusion, 'C', that may not be correct. In our case, Mike Carlton published 2 main points in his Sun Herald item: 1. That Miranda Devine is employed in a government Committee (fact), and (2) that it is a bad thing for commentators to be on the government payroll (his opinion/criticism). The 2nd reference to the government website purely confirmed what MC already said, that Devine is on that committee. It did not try to synthesise any other "fact". It's clearly not 'WP:SYNTH', so the deleted text should be resto"red. There were no unproven assertions in the text. Isn't it a relevant fact that a commentator who commentates on government policy is on the government payroll? Why is this revelation "over the top"? Why is it an "attack"? Who is "Kim Il Carr"? 203.214.155.23 21:19, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, I was wrong about WP:SYNTH, because I did not realise the .gov.au link was just backing up the Carlton article. But I still disagree with restoring the text.

You're saying that the key point here is that Mike Carlton says commentators shouldn't be on government payrolls? (Has he ever condemned Philip Adams, Anne Summers, etc, etc for the same thing?) Then the whole thing is Non-Notable, because Mike Carlton's opinion is Non-Notable here.

Side Point #1: To most people, "On the government payroll" means being a full-time employee. Taking a part-time consultancy like this is quite a different thing.

Side Point #2: Kim Il Carr is a famous nickname for Senator Kim Carr.

Cheers, CWC 00:17, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

"On the government payroll" means receiving money from the government, and in Miranda Devine's case, she was chosen by government officials to be a member of an official government policy making committee from which she has been paid renumeration from the government. It's not a right Vs left issue. I'd be happy for any commentator to be put under similar scrutiny. If you find something verifiable (with citations) about Philip Adams, please put that in the Wiki also. No commentator should have this sort of thing hidden. I believe all commentators should be under extra scrutiny. Radio announcers must list their sponsored incomes so the public can see if there's a conflict of interest, so that includes Jones, Laws, and Mike Carlton. Political parties must list who gives them money. MPs must list their income sources. They're allowed to have income, nobody is saying it's illegal, but the public should know. I think it's a reasonable comment to say that no commentators should be on the government payroll. Re: Mike Carlton: Of course, M.Carlton, by making that comment, must also be held to that same standard. The key point is that M.Devine is on the committee. M.Carlton is just the one who used his newspaper column to reveal it and bring it to public attention. Maybe he's too notable, is he? If someone less known had revealed Miranda Devine's income, then the lesser known person would have been more likely to be labelled non-notable. Anyway, the fact of M.Devine's involvement is noteworthy, regardless of who the messenger is. BTW, I just checked and Philip Adams already has a criticism section on his Wiki page, where (notable?) people have accused him of "left-wing bias" I'm shocked to find out :) 203.214.155.23 05:14, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, I'm restoring the criticism section. The fact that Devine is being paid to be on a government committee is undeniable, as the 2 citations prove beyond doubt. The fact of Devine's involvement is important and relevant, and it follows from the previous criticism from the "Silencing Dissent" book. The two paragraphs go together. The book alluded to it, Mike Carlton went ahead and said it, and the government website proves it. Case closed. 203.214.155.23 23:40, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Response:

1. I've just edited the article to fix a variety of problems.
2. Here's a better (shorter) URL for Carlton's hit job: http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2007/03/02/1172338881136.html. Note that it is from March 2007.
3. "Devine's involvement" is not important. The Inquiry is over. 18 months ago.
4. The government website proves only that Ms Devine was on the committee. It proves none of Carlton's other points.
5. That Carlton article attacks lots of people, calling them idiots, bloviators, etc. It only mentions Ms Devine in passing. That means we cannot cite it in this article. See WP:RS.
6. Wikipedia has rules about Biographies of living persons. AFAICT, they don't allow mentioning that Carlton article. We block people who persistently break those rules.

Regards, CWC 14:39, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

re: Wiki Whitewash: Dear Chris Chittleborough (CWC). You removed the Criticism section, citing Wiki rules, but there are no Wiki rules banning the mention of criticism or controversy in biographies of living persons. The Wiki rules and guidelines are focused on avoiding law suits and liability, as someone could sue if libelous material is published about them. I believe you have misinterpreted the Wiki rules. Reporting the facts in a neutral way does not mean you have to clean the article of controversial facts. The material we had in the Controversy section was reproduced in an uncontroversial and unbiased manner, even if the facts themselves may be controversial. That's the critical difference. There was no elaboration of the facts in the Controversy section. Quotation of passages from a book, or from other newspaper columnists, is not libelous, as we are citing exactly what was published in books and major newspapers. We are not adding or embellishing what was already said by those other sources. Miranda Devine is a highly controversial figure (just like Philip Adams), so let the Wiki article reflect the controversy that surrounds her. To remove the Controversy section is whitewashing the article. We don't need to eliminate controversy from a controversial public figure, when all the facts are verified, cited, and in no way libelous. Also, to threaten to block other Wikipedians who add verified controversial points to the Miranda Devine article is not the best. 203.214.155.23 00:06, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

restored Controversy, again. I've put the critical paragraphs about Miranda Devine back in the article. Before anyone vandalises it or deletes it, or claims that you can't mention controversial things about living people, ask yourselves this: Are there any incorrect facts in it? No. Is there anything libelous in it? No. Is there any criticism that is uncited? No. In fact, the citations I provide are the only citations in the entire article. If people were genuinely concerned about facts/citation/rules... if they were really genuine, they would have rewritten the Biography section, which breaches Wiki rules because it is self researched opinion. The Controversy section is the best researched & cited part of the whole article.203.214.155.23 03:45, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Uh, no.

1. I removed the "Controversies" heading, but not the content. We still cite and quote from Silencing Dissent.
2. There is no rule about not having a "Controversies" section, but experience teaches that articles are generally better off with the controversies covered in amongst related stuff, not split off into their own section.
3. The word "vandalism" has a specific meaning here. What I did was not vandalism. Please do not falsely label good-faith edits as vandalism ever again.
4. I'm not an admin and cannot block people.
5. But I have seen editors be blocked (or even banned) for trying to use Wikipedia to discredit people.
6. Carlton was attacking lots of people in that article. Sources used in articles here should cover the subject of each article in detail; one mention is not enough.
7. See the "undue weight" provisions of WP:NPOV.

Currently, Carlton's statement about Devine gets undue weight, so I plan to delete it, unless someone rewrites it to comply with WP:UNDUE. Incidentally, this is how Wikipedia's core policies are meant to work: if person A says something bad about notable person B, people who don't like person B can only add it to the article if that attack got notable, reliable, independent coverage.

Some background information not directly relevant to this discussion: Naturally, Wikipedia forbids libellous content. But the WP:BLP policy goes a lot further. In fact we are explicitly required to "clean [every] article of controversial facts" about any living person, unless those "facts" are cited. For an example of this in operation, see my recent edits to Marcus Einfeld. (Yeah, I know I left the "Controversies" heading alone there. That was laziness/prudence/cowardice on my part.)

Cheers, CWC 10:55, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Once again, the Silencing Dissent book and Mike Carlton are referring to the same thing. The same small group of commentators, of which Miranda Devine is one, that continually write favourable press about the Howard Government, and that each of them has received some financial reward in some form, that is, being appointed to a government role or committee. So Mike Carlton's comment adds notability to the previous book reference about the same thing. There is even more criticism along these lines from other sources. Would you like me to expand the Controversy section and add the others to it also (I thought 2 would be enough)? There's a second book on it (by authors Niall Lucy & Steve Mickler) which apparently devotes an entire chapter to Miranda Devine, but I haven't yet read it. No doubt it's full of all sorts of interesting quotes. I wasn't going to bother to read it, but if you'd like me to read it and add quotations to the wiki article, then I will. My point is that Mike Carlton wasn't the only one who said it, but his was easier to quote because it was written in the Sydney Morning Herald, and citable in electronic form. The criticism or controversy in Miranda Devine's wiki article is currently not over proportionate for such a controversial person.. she is famous as a commentator who deliberately writes controversial things in an inflammatory style, to get a reaction from her readers. If anything, that description should be in the opening lines (with citations). At the moment, the Controversy section is too small, considering the enormous amount of controversy the subject (M.Devine) is generating. Chris Chittleborough: The criticism of this Criticism/Controversy section seems a bit contradictory. Like: Mike Carlton is famous for criticising people, so he is not notable. You also said Mike Carlton's POV is not representative, but your other comment was that the Controversy section is too large (when adding further similar comments from other sources would expand the section). By including a Controversy section (like so many other Wiki Bios on living people have), it keeps the controversy to the bottom of the article. If the heading is removed, I would then argue that those points should be moved to the top of the article, as they are more relevant to what Miranda Devine is famous for (her controversial writings) rather than what school she attended. Some commentators (like M.Devine) are a bit like "shock-jock" radio announcers, in that they create controversy in their critiques of others. 203.214.155.23 20:16, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

As foretold above, I've brought the article into compliance with WP:UNDUE/WP:NPOV by deleting the Mike Carlton stuff. I did some related copyediting, too. Cheers, CWC 10:00, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

We're going to need to call an arbitrator on this one. I've requested someone to resolve this. I believe that a controversial living figure can have a Controversy section, as long as it is fully cited from reputable sources. I believe it does not contrevine Neutral Point of View, as the criticism (by Mike Carlton) came from a major figure, was printed in a major newspaper, and its citing in the Wiki article was done in a neutral way without exaggerating the criticism of Mike Carlton 203.214.155.23 04:31, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

In response to your request for a third opinion, while Wikipedia has a strong policy against libel in biographies of living people, well cited criticisms are in no way discouraged. For your benefit I'll try to solve your problems individually:

1. Firstly, there seems to be a disagreement on whether or not Mike Carlton is a notable source.

   As he is a well-known columnist writing for a well-known newspaper, in a word: yes. His opinions on the subject have no bearing on whether or not he is a notable source.

2. Secondly, there seems to be disagreement over whether or not there should be a "Controversy" section.

   This is less clear cut. The article would be of higher quality without the section; however, the information in the section would have to be well merged into the rest of the article. On the other hand, if the information is not going to be merged with the body adequately (as in this version where it is just tacked onto the end), then it should be left in its own section.

3. Thirdly, there seems to be a dispute over whether the criticisms are being given undue weight.

   This does not seem to be the case; three sentences is not an overwhelming amount of information and the fact that it is a large proportion of the article simply shows that the rest of the article needs significant expansion (remember Wikipedia is a work in progress).

4. And, the major issue, is this unsourced libel?

   Wikipedia's policy on libel asks that all potentially libellous material be "referenced through the citation of reliable published sources"; Since this material is properly referenced to reliable sources, it is not in violation of Wikipedia's libel policy.

Lastly, and perhaps most importantly, please remember one of the core ideas of Wikipedia: civility. Remember that the Wikipedia community thrives on assuming good faith (also remember the importance of assuming the assumption of good faith; see Wikipedia:Wiki spirit for further reading). Veiled threats are not helpful in making Wikipedia a friendly place. Maybe you would like to have a nice cup of tea and a sit down. Also, it would be nice if you created a user account, 203.214.155.23, as Wikipedia always needs new editors. Happy editing! D4g0thur 08:35, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Thankyou, 'D4g0thur', for taking the time and effort to look into this. Your reply is detailed and considered. I take your point about creating a user account.//EDIT// just created account 'Pigmypossum' 203.214.155.23 11:13, 5 July 2007 (UTC) Pigmypossum 11:27, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

3 Months Later: To User:Chris Chittleborough, this issue was settled 3 months ago. I'm not sure why you've decided to delete it again. Nothing has changed since then.--Pigmypossum 01:45, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Devine's appointment to Literacy committee

We know she had a job on the Australian Government's National Inquiry into the Teaching of Literacy in 2004 and 2005. However, I suspect it continued into 2006. The report was tabled in March 2006. BTW, her involvement in this committee was always controversial, having been criticised by a wide range of groups, from education groups (who didn't believe she was qualified) at least 2 books and commentators (eg Mike Carlton) who saw the appointment as a reward for Devine's good press.203.214.155.23 02:03, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Quadrant Magazine: Conservative or Right Wing?

Someone changed the text on Quadrant magazine, deleting "Right Wing" and replacing it with the word "Conservative". Quadrant is full of radical opinion from the political right. It's right-wing, but I don't think it's accurate to describe it as conservative. 203.214.155.23 02:08, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Radical opinion from the political right like this?. No, I didn't think so. The problem is that "Right Wing", like "Left Wing", covers a very wide range of people. "Conservative" is much narrower and much more useful. It's also the description used in our Quadrant (magazine) article, which is where I took it from. Cheers, CWC 09:44, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Post-script: The relevant bits of Quadrant (magazine) have been edited since I looked at it. See also Talk:Quadrant (magazine)#Allegiance. CWC 10:37, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

re: the line "right wing", "pro America", "Pro Bush", "polarising" etc

Hello. Someone sent a message that this is not neutral. These short descriptions were made by some heavy weight Australians. Frank Sartor the former Lord Mayor of Sydney & current NSW government minister; TV presenter & UN Peace Prize winner Geradine Doogue; and Australia's most famous and prestigious political journalist Laurie Oakes. The "polarising" comment was made by Devine herself. Pigmypossum 06:11, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

This issue has been stable for many months, but recently there seem to be edit wars brewing over it. I will list it for Third Opinion. --Pigmypossum 21:56, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Here's the original version] that has been stable for many months. Here is User:Chris Chittleborough's new version.

Earlier in the year there were disputes on how to describe Miranda Devine and her style. Rather than leave it to Wiki users' opinions, we settled on using the descriptions provided by prominent Australians, who were cited in the media. All the people listed were very prominent Australians, including Laurie Oakes, Australia's most famous political reporter.--Pigmypossum 22:09, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia's core rules forbid "using the descriptions provided by prominent Australians". They require WP:Verifiable, cited claims from Reliable Sources. Neither Sartor nor Oakes are reliable sources in this case, IMO; certainly not for a WP:BLP. Cheers, CWC 21:56, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Sure, claims about anyone need to be verifiable. However, we are not claiming anything about her, beyond the opinions of those prominent Australians. Using the opinions of prominent Australians is a way around describing her ourselves. If we have missed any prominent Australians who have given an opinion about Miranda Devine in an online newspaper article, you are free to add it to the group if you can find a reference. I've sought an official 3rd Opinion to help sort this out.--Pigmypossum 01:34, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Third opinion: It is my opinion that "right wing", "Pro-bush", and so forth could be called contentious statements by some or many. Therefore, according to WP:BLP,

"The views of critics should be represented if they are relevant to the subject's notability and can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, and so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to side with the critics."

Thus, if the comments by the famous Australians can be properly sourced by reliable secondary sources, they can be included, so long as they are not given undue weight over anything positive. Also, with regards to removing contentious statements in biographies of living persons articles, WP:BLP states that

"Editors should remove any contentious material about living persons that is unsourced, relies upon sources that do not meet standards specified in Wikipedia:Verifiability, or is a conjectural interpretation of a source (see Wikipedia:No original research). If the material is derogatory and unsourced or poorly sourced, the three-revert rule does not apply to its removal. Content may be re-inserted when it conforms to this policy."

Hope that helps out this discussion a bit, and happy editing, ( arky ) 09:47, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

"You've got hate mail: It's her job to have opinions, but does saying what they really think make female columnists particularly vulnerable?" is an article about hate mail received by female columnists. Published in The Australian in April 2007, it said “Every one of the female opinion writers surveyed by Media has had a similar frenzied response to a column, some of them to just about every column.”

The columnists interviewed for the article included:

• Jane Fraser (The Weekend Australian)
• Miranda Devine
• Sushi Das (The Age)
• Sandra Lee (The Daily Telegraph)
• Maureen Dowd (The New York Times)
• Janet Albrechtsen (The Australian)
• Anita Quigley (The Daily Telegraph)
• Angela Shanahan (The Australian, The Daily Telegraph, The Canberra Times)
• Andrew Bolt (Herald Sun).

That article was used as a citation for the line, "She [Devine] writes "in a polarising way", often provoking hundreds of fiery emails from readers." The implication that the amount of hate mail received by Devine is unusually large is belied by the actual content of the article. I attempted in this edit to situate the quote in a neutral way, neither giving it undue weight nor violating the policy of no original research (see Synthesis of published material serving to advance a position). — Athaenara ✉ 01:34, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Seems fine to me The quote is presented in a neutral way, and it is simply a quote, not a statement that is made based on a quote (which, as you said, would violate WP:SYNTH). Finally, I believe we can safely assume that The Australian is a reliable source for the quote, as it has it's own article on Wikipedia that meets our notability guidelines. Cheers, ( arky ) 19:32, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Looking more closely later at the diffs which are linked in the article's page history, I found that it had been even worse than I knew. — Athaenara ✉ 00:03, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh, dear :) ( arky ) 00:44, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

That was superb work, Athaenara. (I keep asking myself why I didn't think of doing something like that, but I don't want to hear the answer.) Thanks also to Pigmypossum and Arknascar44 for their contributions to improving this article. Cheers, CWC 01:23, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

What is wrong with the original line about her writing in a polarising way? Her quote, in the newspaper article says: "You are contesting ideas and you have to do it in a polarising way. When you write a column, you can't sit on the fence." So she said it herself, and gave "polarising" as if it was her job description. The opinions about Miranda Devine from the other famous Australians were conveyed in an accurate way, accurately representing those original opinions, as quoted in major news sources. Controversial newspaper columnists, like shock-jock talk-back radio announcers, are opinionated people who generate controversy by their political commentaries. BLP rules don't imply that the controversial nature of controversial people should be eliminated from Wikipedia articles.--Pigmypossum 02:11, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

The problem with saying "Miranda Devine writes articles in a polarizing way" and using the newspaper article as a source is that it is synthesis of material to advance a position; in other words, using a source about one thing to imply another and then state it as a fact in an article. This would qualify as original research. Cheers, and happy editing, ( arky ) 02:29, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

To Chris Chittleborough: Just a question. I ask, do you have any connection to Miranda Devine? Have you met her? Are your friends close to her? Just curious.--Pigmypossum 02:11, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't the one you asked, but I have a response anyway. Elementary school level "do you like her?" questions are extremely inappropriate here. In writing an encyclopedia, which is what we're doing here (not a blog), it is best when editors maintain high standards of neutrality and even scholarly accuracy. You don't seem to be doing that. — Athaenara ✉ 02:54, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Hello Athaenara. It wasn't a matter of "do you like her". It's about the product she puts out, her controversial writings. Not a lot is publicly known about Miranda Devine, apart from her controversial writings (we don't even know her age). For most biographies, you wouldn't care which way the person is politically oriented (eg right-wing / left-wing etc). But in this case, what most people know about Miranda Devine is what she writes, which is highly politically motivated and continually praising of the current Australian government of John Howard. She also is condemning of Clinton/Obama, and full of praise for GW Bush, not just once, but whenever she writes about them. On top of that, she is polarising (as she admits herself) and will have no hesitation in taking sides in a debate (and offending the other side in that debate). Which brings us back to our intro. Do we brush over all that and not get into her writing style or her strong political affiliations? I'm not saying that the original version could not have been tweaked or improved, but the quotes from prominent Australians have been deleted completely... shouldn't they have been retained somewhere in the article? If you didn't think those quotes were representative, you could have found more from others. Her political POV and writings are what Miranda Devine is mostly known for in Australia, therefore that gives the Wiki article reason to reflect that.--Pigmypossum 09:55, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I have no connection whatsoever with Ms Devine, other than occasionally (1) reading one of her columns on-line and (2) wanting this article, like all Wikipedia articles, to conform to WP:BLP (because I regard that policy as crucial to the mission of Wikipedia, and — more importantly — a moral good in itself). When I came across this article last June (for the first time, IIRC), I spotted a blatant violation of WP:BLP and an obvious factual error, so I fixed them.

Pigmypossum, you obviously have a very low opinion of Ms Devine and anyone else who consistently praises GW Bush. That is perfectly OK. But you are not allowed to use Wikipedia to carry your opinion of people. Just because some left-wing shock jock has expressed an opinion consistent with yours does not mean that opinion can be put into the article. See WP:BLP, WP:NPOV, WP:RS etc for the rules about this (and be warned that it takes some effort to completely understand those rules). If you want to discredit Ms Devine, you are perfectly free to do it somewhere else (there are lots of free blog hosts around), but not here.

Here's a example of how WP:BLP etc work: I've edited our article on David Duke, a man I despise. It would be easy to find lots of wonderfully nasty things people have written about Duke and put them in the article (and I'd enjoy doing so), but that would violate Wikipedia's rules, which apply even to ratbags. The key thing about Wikipedia is that we are trying to build a good encyclopedia, and good encyclopedias treat even the worst people with respect. (We should respect even those who don't respect common human decencies. That's not easy.)

So: the only opinions about Ms Devine that are allowed in this article are thoughtful, considered assessments by notable authorities. The comments by Carlton and Sartor don't meet any aspect of that standard. Please do not ever add them to this article again.

CWC 13:58, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

The claim (made by Chris) that I have a low opinion of anyone who praises GW Bush is not so. We didn't say there was anything lowly or bad about Miranda Devine praising GW Bush. We just quoted Laurie Oakes, Australia's most famous political journalist, who said that Devine's stance is "pro-Bush". Neither he, nor we, said there's anything wrong with being pro-Bush. This is not a criticism of Miranda Devine. Many people would regard it as praise, and something she could be commended for. Yes, it is Laurie Oakes' opinion that she is "pro-Bush", but we cited it as coming from him. Oakes' high-profile in the Australian political landscape makes his comment very noteworthy. Regarding other issues you mention, they were the subject of a 3rd opinion in July, covered further up on this page (see above).--Pigmypossum 01:41, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the claim that Miranda Devine is "right wing", hundreds of people have made that claim. Former Sydney Lord Mayor Frank Sartor was chosen because he had an easily accessible quote. But many many others have said the same thing. Devine is very often referred to in newspaper articles as "right-wing" so it's safe enough to reflect that general coverage here. Besides, is it libelous to call her "right-wing"? I don't think Miranda Devine would be too happy if she was referred to as "left-wing". When a commentator is highly political, I think it's fair enough to mention that political stance. If the mainstream media generally calls her "right-wing", then so should we.--Pigmypossum 04:59, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the claim that Miranda Devine is "polarising", it also appears in other references. Apart from the now deleted "You've got hate mail" reference, the current reference #1 "Who is Miranda Devine", which we've been using for other facts, also uses the word polarising to describe her. So, she's politically to the right, she's polarizing, and she's pro-Bush. It can be backed up by multiple references. I don't know why some people object to any description of her writing style, as this is what she is notable for. This is all she is notable for.--Pigmypossum 00:14, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

The National Library has a photo

The National Library of Australia has a photo of Miranda Devine here --> http://nla.gov.au/nla.pic-an20169234 I wonder how to get permission to use it for this article? Pigmypossum 13:21, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Repeated reversions

A claim of consensus is a bit odd when the editor making the claim in this edit summary (Pigmypossum, who has previously edited as 203.214.155.23 and 203.166.255.9) seems to be the only one who has been repeatedly adding contested material which has been removed by several other editors.

The third opinion mentioned in the same edit summary was part of an informal dispute resolution process, not a ruling. Other editors have continued to contest the material. — Athaenara ✉ 02:18, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Hello, Athaenara. The discussion about the Criticism section and Mike Carlton (Talk:Miranda_Devine#Section_about_Criticism) was lengthy, discussing whether Mike Carlton is notable enough etc etc. After the 3rd opinion was given, on 5 July 2007, the discussion immediately went quiet, and that part of the article went idle for months. You can reopen that discussion if you wish.--Pigmypossum 02:50, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

That was then, this is now, and the discussion is indeed open. Have you read the definition of disruptive editing and editors? — Athaenara ✉ 06:33, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

For an editor with the statement on your homepage that you are the one who "supports the civility and no personal attacks policies", you sure like to make this discussion personal :( --Pigmypossum 23:58, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Criticism section

I see about half the article was deleted recently, which is a pretty severe and sudden edit to occur without warning, so I feel it warrants discussion. The sections removed seem to be confined to criticism that public figures have made of Miranda Devine. I read through the third opinion given (earlier on this talk page) which states that the text is notable, and the criticism isn't of 'undue weight' compared to the rest of the article. I agree with the summary given by the third opinion that was earlier requested. The edit summary states that the text should have included Devine's responses. I'm not familiar as to whether Devine has issued responses to these issues. However, it appears to me that the deleting editor, who requested that the responses be added, actually adds those responses to the article, rather than deleting whole sections first, while waiting for others to add those said responses. Lester 01:56, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Chris isn't obligated to do that. The article wasn't about Devine and what she did anymore, it was just 50% about people's opinions of her, and all from the other side of the divide. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:10, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

In the edit summary, the reason given for the deletion of the criticism is that her response was not included. If that is the reason for the deletion, I think it puts some responsibility for the deleting editor to add the requested information before deleting other content. But if someone can point me towards where these responses from Ms Devine are, and if it comes from a reliable source, then I will add it. I'm not sure where to look. I'd be happy to expand the the section of the article about her life and history, if anyone knows of a reliable source where I can find such information. Possibly the problem is that not much is known about the subject, apart from her controversy, which is not a valid reason to delete the controversial aspects. I see there is already some rosy sentences of praise, which were left in the article, while only the criticism was removed. The other thing is that she is known to be right-of-centre, and other controversial commentators (such as Philip Adams and Mike Carlton) who are left-of-centre have articles which list those controversies. Lester 02:32, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

With respect, I support Binguyen and Chris on this issue.

If there is anything which is unclear about how the Wikipedia:Coatrack essay applies to this situation, please ask for clarification here. — Athaenara ✉ 02:30, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

For a start, launching into a revert war is not an appropriate method to resolve any content issue. A sudden deletion of all criticism of Miranda Devine, without the deleting party bothering to give the community prior notice or discussion of intent to delete at this time. The content appears to be well referenced. There was an ABC-TV Media Watch television program criticising Devine, as well as a published book and newspaper commentary. The revert war is also running against an older third party resolution (above). I suggest the deletors (who claim in the revert summary to have consensus), actually attempt to form real consensus first by informing the community before undertaking huge deletions, and then if they disagree they should follow standard Wikipedia dispute resolution processes, as listed at Wikipedia:Resolving_disputes. I don't see any attempt by the deletors to engage in those processes at this time. Lester 02:39, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

RfC: Criticism

Should criticism of newspaper columnist Miranda Devine be included? This edit shows the yellow section that was removed. In times past, there was a Third Opinion that took place on this discussion page (above) on the same subject, in which User:Arknascar44 "Arky" responded. --Lester 05:55, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. A "Criticism section" which accounts for more than half the length of an article (4355 out of 8371 bytes in this case) and more than two-thirds of which is about someone else (General Petraeus in this case) is not just "criticism"—it's both undue weight and off-topic. — Athaenara ✉ 06:22, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. I agree with Athaenara. Reading this about an Australian journalist from here in the UK on the other side of the world, the length of the deleted section seems disproportionate to the prominence of the journalist in question. I can see from the background material that she is one of those journalists whose deliberate brief from her newspaper is to provoke controversy so as to increase readership. To launch into an in-depth analysis of the merits of her position in an encyclopaedia, is somewhat naive and really just "takes the bait" of the SMH and its editors. Let's leave these sorts of arguments for the newspapers themselves and their myriad of weblogs - I can see no grounds for retaining the deleted section in WP if all Miranda Devine is doing is writing newspaper columns.Kind regards--Calabraxthis ^(talk) 11:02, 2 July 2008 (UTC) Refer new comment below

• Comment. The question is, should all criticism be forbidden from the article because it is a BLP, or just part of the criticism, or just the criticism section? In radio, they have "shock jocks" who bait their listners with cutting comment about others. Miranda Divine is like a shock jock, but she shocks her readers with polarised comment. She was highly praising of the previous conservative government of John Howard, and scaldingly critical of the left side of politics. Then it was revealed that she received money from the previous conservative government, which was criticised in both book and newspaper. Should that kind of controversy be included in the article? I think it's fair comment, as it is well sourced. Though possibly the other 'General Petraeus' section could go. Consider, also, that there is praise of Devine in the upper section of the article. It appears that not very much is known about Miranda Devine, apart from her shock newspaper columns. I believe that 'Miranda Devine' may not even be the name she uses in real life. Should controversy be allowed in BLPs, or should they only be full of praise? --Lester 13:07, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

• Keep deleted another coatrack without adding Devine's response to these accusations. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:29, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
• Keep first two lines only; Delete the rest. A controversy that is as long as the biography itself violates WP:UNDUE. However, it is noteworthy that she's seen as a conservative "journalist" (which some would not see as a criticism) and a sentence should be added as to how she is seen by Australians to give some context to the controversy. The sources for the first two sentences appear good (i.e., a book backed up by a mainstream newspaper source). As an aside, it should be noted that some of the second paragraph here borders on original research in that an article by Devine is given as evidence that she got special access to General Petraeous and the Media Watch source does not say anything about Devine being criticized (plus, the section is full of primary sources which do not meet Wikipedia standards of verifiability; secondary sources are needed). Following is a suggested criticism section. I have added a sentence sourced to a university press book in line with my suggestion above here and I have rephrased the last sentence to make it clear that it is Carlton who is making the claim. Renee (talk) 14:07, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

"Devine is a well-known conservative commentator in Australia who has been the focus of some criticism. In their 2007 book, Silencing Dissent, editors Clive Hamilton and Sarah Maddison included Miranda Devine among ten whom they said "form a sort of syndicate of right-wing commentators who receive favour from the Howard Government." Radio broadcaster and columnist Mike Carlton accused the same commentators (which included Miranda Devine) of accepting paid positions in the Howard government."

• Delete the whole mess but retain one sentence: I agree with Athaenara and Blnguyen on their preceding arguments but disagree respectfully with Lester. Reading this about an Australian journalist from here in the UK on the other side of the world, the length of the deleted section seems disproportionate to the prominence of the journalist in question. I can see from the background material that Ms. Devine is one of those journalists whose mandated brief from her newspaper is a commercial one, namely to provoke controversy so as to increase its readership. To launch into an in-depth analysis of the merits of her position in an encyclopaedia is somewhat naive and really just "takes the bait" of the SMH, its editors and its marketing team. Let's leave these sorts of arguments for the newspapers themselves and their myriad of weblogs - I can see no grounds for retaining the deleted section in WP if all Miranda Devine is doing is writing newspaper columns.

However I also think that Renee has raised a valid point which may be an avenue for compromise. I would suggest the retention of a single sentence which is an amalgam of Renee's first and third sentences, being:

"Devine has been identified as a conservative commentator in Australia and has been the focus of some criticism including an accusation from radio broadcaster and columnist Mike Carlton of having accepted a consulting role with the Federal government of John Howard. "--Calabraxthis ^(talk) 15:42, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

It's not an "accusation" she accepted a consulting role from the Howard government. That was proven, and is beyond question. What Mike Carlton did was publish commentary about it. And the book Silencing Dissent also published commentary about it, though I have not read it. Such commentary questions the integrity of the subject, Miranda Devine. In the paragraph formerly in this article, the criticism is attributed as coming from those who made it (ie, Carlton and the book). I think it's important to keep that first paragraph from the Criticism section. Not sure about the rest, though.--Lester 22:15, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Lester, I see that you have now decided to re-write the section by including the wording of Renee. I hope you are not seriously suggesting that the preceding discussion reflects a consensus decision to endorse Renee's words? By my reckoning, both Athaenara and Blnguyen favoured the complete deletion of the wording. I too opposed the general thrust of the wording particularly Renee's second sentence although may have taken a softer position than Athaenara or Blnguyen . I know that you initiated the RfC but the observable consensus is that the paragraph should go for the reasons set out above. Maybe you have acted in haste so I'll give you the opportunity to retract the wording before I do so at the end of my day. Kind regards --Calabraxthis ^(talk) 07:33, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

References

Bushfire Article Controversy

Greetings all, I realise I have not been here long. I also apologise for perhaps going slightly overboard on the value judgements in my previous edit attempts. I believe that including a section on Devine's controversial article about the Victorian bushfires is important as it an event that has occurred during her journalism career in Australia. It was even featured on MediaWatch, a reputable TV show in Australia. As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia should include this aspect of Devine's career in it's biography page concerning her. I am interested in all replies.

I also believe that the following wording is unbiased and encyclopedic in nature: On the 12th of February 2009, Devine caused a controversy when she published an article in response to the tragic events of the Victorian bushfires, or Black Saturday. She argued that 'Green Ideas Must Take Blame For Deaths', and that "If politicians are intent on whipping up a lynch mob to divert attention from their own culpability, it is not arsonists who should be hanging from lamp-posts but greenies."[3] The article was featured on ABC's MediaWatch.[4] To date, neither Devine, nor the Sydney Morning Herald, have issued an apology for attempting to incite hatred against a political minority in Australia. Rumours abound that an unknown group are soon to commence legal action. —Preceding unsigned comments added by Thendisnear (talk • contribs) 20:06-20:10, 19 February 2009 (UTC) and 59.100.198.234 (talk • contribs) 20:15, 19 February 2009 (UTC) (UTC) Is someone going to comment? I'm putting it up in 24 hours regardless, this needs to be on her Wikipedia page. Thendisnear (talk) 05:22, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

From what I can see in the web reports there is nothing particularly notable about this latest exploit of Ms Devine. To my mind it does not seem to satisfy WP:NOTABLE and seems to be specifically dealt with by WP:NOT#NEWS. I have only come across Ms Devine's views recently on this Talk Page and, after checking the source material on the web, it seems as though she is nothing more than a typical columnist who endeavours to increase the commercial returns of her newspaper by taking intentionally controversial positions that attract debate and hence increase readership. Wikipedia is not the place for this. I encourage Thendisnear to read some of the recent discussions on the Talk page where other editors trimmed down Ms Devine's article on just this basis.

Across here in the UK, journalists like Ms Devine are commonplace - and yes their stories do inflame the passions. That is their raison d'être. You also should note that whilst newspapers have their own guidelines, Wikipedia has WP:BLP and your language and disposition towards Ms Devine must be neutral at all times. What I recommend is to hold off making substantive edits until something notable arises. For instance, as you suggest, if legal action actually makes it into court, then this may just rate a mention. If, however, legal action is merely commenced and then is dismissed, this to me would still seem pretty thin. Kind regards--Calabraxthis ^(talk) 07:43, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

If there is commentary from other reliable sources, eg the ABC, then it is notable.--Lester 09:42, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Calabraxthis and Lester - this story has had media attention by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation on MediaWatch: http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/s2493015.htm . It is a very big issue in Australia at the moment. I am aware journalists in the UK may indulge in opinion writing, but a week after the most lethal bushfire in Australia's history, and laying blame on a political minority, this is highly notable in my opinion. It has caused quite a stir here. It is not really a substantial edit, simply a few neutral lines on the controversy. What is the process to attempt to have this mentioned in the article? As Lester seems to agree, but Calabraxthis does not. I definitely believe that the majority of Australian's would deem it fit to have this on Devina's Wikipedia biography page. Thanks for your help.Thendisnear (talk) 10:03, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Would it not make more sense to raise the matter here in the specific article devoted to the bushfires which includes sections on reactions to the fires from various members of the community?

Whilst it is clear you feel strongly about the subject matter, if there is a political angle (and I can't say from here whether there is) the proper place for it is once again the article about the Bushfires. If you do make such an edit, I would encourage you to refrain from using language which indicates your own POV on the matter such as "inciting hatred". This is a legal conclusion and until it is formally alleged in court papers (or proved in court) it is mere conjecture. Your observation that environmentalists constitute a political minority would also need to be supported in some way rather than merely asserted blindly.

You should also read WP:BLP before drafting your inclusion.

Finally I would once again observe that your reaction is the very sort of thing that journalists like Ms Devine seem to thrive on and you accord her a victory of sorts by adding hasty drafting to her Wikipedia entry. From what I can read, it appears as though Ms Devine is a right-leaning journalist who has been engaged by a left-leaning newspaper (the Sydney Morning Herald) to deliberately stir up and provoke its own readership thereby encouraging the sale of more newspapers (or an increased volume of website hits).

Good luck, and I hope these thoughts help. Kind regards--Calabraxthis ^(talk) 10:27, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your help. Yes I am aware of the cynical financial motivations behind the article, and also of Devine possibly luxuriating in this attention being given to her article. Surely I can quote media watch as alleging that she was 'hate-mongering'? Thanks again, I'll think about your suggestions, and decide whether posting the article is conducive to my motivations.Thendisnear (talk) 10:49, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I understand. Choosing your edits carefully is a good idea - on Wikipedia there is no need to hurry - you can take as long as you like to formulate your thoughts as this is not Wikinews.

I would have thought that if Ms Devine's personal views were notable, they would already have been discussed on one of the Bushfire Talk Pages. Maybe they have been but I am not seeing them. I am sceptical whether one journalist (Media Watch) quoting another journalist (Ms Devine) is enough to imbue notability, but am happy to be guided by consensus.

Also, as you note, acknowledging how you feel and your own POV is the first step to avoiding breaching the Wikipedia rules. My sense is that if you are using phrases like "cynical financial motivations" and "hate-mongering" on this Talk Page then it becomes a little more tricky to appear objective in the text of the article itself.

The Wikipedia articles are not intended to be a weblog or a substitute for an on-line forum or "Letters Column". From what I can see, the reactions caused by Ms Devine's remarks on this topic are no different to the reactions she has stirred up on a diverse range of other topics. She is just controversial for being controversial which is what she is paid to be. Perhaps canvass editors on the Talk Page of 2009 Victorian Bushfires and see whether the consensus there is that a section should be devoted to the impact of environmental policies in the causation of the bushfires and whether Ms Devine's views (and the reaction to her views) are notable in this context. Kind regards--Calabraxthis ^(talk) 12:46, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

More patter from Lester and a SPA. YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 02:13, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

• Unless she gets sacked, jailed and/or sued for her articles on the subject, it is hard to see how this controversy warrants inclusion in this article. They may be notable in the articles about the bushfires, though. --Surturz (talk) 05:34, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

After some thought and some time to cool off I've decided I agree with Calibraxthis - She is just a journalist who profits from being controversial, her opinion really is not important at all. I don't even think it warrants inclusion in the section concerning the bushfires - her opinion has been laid bare for what it is in many places. Thank you for this kind introduction to the community though, when I have time I might try my hand at improving the pages in my areas of interest... Thendisnear (talk) 12:15, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

"On Wikipedia, notability determines whether a topic merits its own article. " WP:NOTABLE is not a guideline for sections within articles. Calabraxthis, you are utterly wrong to argue for the exclusion of content from this article. —Pengo 05:20, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Not quite sure that you have picked up the thread of WP:NOTABLE. In some ways this is exemplified by the synchronising of your matching inclusions in the primary article. You may decide that you wishe to re-word those.......... it doesn't seem to me that the inclusions add greatly to the subject matter other than to disparage and facilitate a release of casual POV. I shall let your edits stand for a while, but maybe you want to think more deeply about the relevance of your inclusions.

Incidentally "Utterly wrong" is an odd evaluation for you to assert given the lack of dialogue on this subject matter since February 2009. In good faith I shall assume that you are not a reincarnation of my good friend Thendisnear (talk) Refer my comments above from 18 months ago. Kind regards--Calabraxthis ^(talk) 09:55, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Not sure what the time period has to do with it. I was unaware of this article while the discussion was happening previously. If you have an issue with my additions, can you be more specific about what they are? As I have said, your evaluation based on WP:NOTABLE is invalid. I do not know what you mean by "Not quite sure that you have picked up the thread of WP:NOTABLE." Note that what I have included is not my own new content, but merely a re-inclusion of what had been deleted previously. —Pengo 06:29, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

The Problems of a Fatherless Society

In regard to the section on The Problems of a Fatherless Society - I removed it for a couple of reasons, and I think we'd probably need to work them out before adding that much text back. The main one is undue weight - it was a nasty article that I'm strongly opposed to, but, at the same time, it was just one article. While it probably does reflect her views, providing too much focus on that is a problem, and as it stands about a quarter of the article about Miranda Devine was devoted to a single column that she wrote. It might be reasonable to dedicate that much space, but I'd like to see evidence that it was of significance beyond here - some sort of secondary coverage and criticism of the article that is sufficient to show that it is worth dedicated that much of her biography on the one topic. I also had a couple of other concerns, though, the main one being with "Devine also argued that children may be better of being abused by heterosexual parents than growing up in a fatherless family or with same-sex parents", which is an interpretation that is not necessarily supported by the article she wrote, (I find it very unlikely that she would believe that, and you need to go to a lot of effort to read the article that way). - Bilby (talk) 10:01, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I understand, Bilby, and thanks for directing me to this discussion section. However, it seems to me that the first two sentences of the section in question are actually a succinct summary of the article (amazing as that is!). The last sentence should be edited out, i agree there. But i feel the first two sentences only say what Divine said, without undue weight. Also, the article did generate a great deal of discussion in the media, which is saying something as Devine is a well known shock journalist that other journo's prefer to ignore. It generated a fair bit of attention. Perhaps a better solution would be to use just the first sentence: "In a Daily Telegraph article published on the 14th of August 2011 and entitled The Problems of a Fatherless Society, Devine argued that recent riots in England were the result of a 'fatherless society' - that is, a society that increasingly accepts children growing up in gay and single mother households." And edit out the references to Minister Wong and the 'abuse' line. I feel this, at least, should stand - as it really is an extraordinary claim to make, and she clearly makes it!Crapeblaser (talk) 10:48, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm happy to go with that. But if you don't mind, I'd like to grab one of the references commenting on her column as well, to give some contact when it is added. I'll see if I can dig one up. - Bilby (talk) 12:39, 24 August 2011 (UTC)