Talk:Virginia Trioli/Archive 1

Archive 1

Untitled

An anonymous user disputed the neutrality of this article, but failed to actually point out any problems with it. Every fact in it is sourced and more details can be provided as necessary. Reithy 14:41, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I put these notes on the page, because I don't know enough about the subject to edit this entry myself, but based on basic sentence you put down in here like

"Virginia Trioli was awarded a Walkley Award for independent journalism excellence after attacking Peter Reith, then Australian Minister for Defence and a member of the Liberal Party" "She hosts a low-rating programme that is consistently beaten by well known controversial journalist Derryn Hinch. She has used the profile given to her through the promotions of the ABC to attract other paying work, such as a regular column in The Age and hosting functions for a variety of private organisations. Her critics say it is unethical for her to use the ABC for personal profit." "is known to comment on planning applications and property proposals from many developers in Melbourne and fails to disclose her own interests with industry organisations."

etc... you obviouslly have neaturily problems, and I want somebody who knows more on the subject to hopefully come and even out the article. basically the entire page is an attack on her without telling me who she really is. Plus with what other edits you have made on Badnarik I'm suspicous of you as an editor anyway 203.112.19.195

The above is entirely true and neutral. Cease your anonymity and I'll have a discussion, otherwise buzz off. You are just an annoyed promoter of the obscure joker Badnarik and you've sought to obtain revenge by attacking my article. That reveals the true nature of your credibility. Reithy 23:01, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

OK then, here is a non-anonymous user commenting on your article: you have some very, very clear NPOV problems here. Adding the phrase "Her critics say.." to the start of a sentence where you bash someone does not get around these problems.

• "She has used the profile given to her through the promotions of the ABC to attract other paying work" - POV.
• "Her critics say it is unethical for her to use the ABC for personal profit" - cite a critic, please.
• "Trioli applied to attend the University of Melbourne and was rejected." - relevant?
• "In one of her books, she mentions only her graduation from the University of Melbourne yet omits LaTrobe University." - relevant?
• "Her ABC biography mentions both but does not disclose she only spent one year at the University of Melbourne but spent four at LaTrobe." - relevant?
• "Trioli is believed to be interested in a political career herself." - believed by whom?
• "At the Age newspaper, she has used her column to settle personal scores" - POV, needs cite
• "In addition to her ABC salary, Virginia Trioli also receives money from organisations like the Urban Development Institute, an organisation funded by some of Australia's leading property developers" - needs cite
• "She is known to comment on planning applications and property proposals from many developers in Melbourne and fails to disclose her own interests with industry organisations." - needs cite
• "She owns property in Howard Street, North Melbourne and has been criticised for demanding local and state funding for nearby parks and other nearby facilities without disclosing her financial interest in her demands." - criticised by whom?

Frankly, there is hardly a sentence in the article which does not have POV problems. I have restored the disputed tag, please do not remove it again without responding here. —Stormie 01:33, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)

NPOV Tag

The Rhobite version seems well written and uncontentious. I have removed the NPOV tag. Once an article is fixed it should be removed otherwise it makes the Wiki articles look pretty silly. If this concerns you, please list below why the NPOV tag should remain. --Maustrauser 00:55, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This article is obviously skewed against Trioli. I wanted to get some info about her career, and got far too much opinion on this page. It would be better to not create a page at all if you have an agenda other than furthering knowledge. 137.111.47.182 04:24, 28 July 2007 (UTC)Nina

VT is surely NN

VT is not-notable. The following journalists with much greater standing and impact do NOT have wikipedia entries.

Mark Davis - 5 Walkleys

Jenny Brockie - 3

Bruce Belsham - 2

Norman Swan - 2

Janet Hawley - 2

Chris Masters - 3

or, multiple winners like:

Paul McGeough - 5 Walkleys including Journalistic Leadership

Evan Whitton - at least 3

Gay Alcorn - 3

Sally Neighbor - 3

Peter Cave - 4

Bruce Begg - 4

Arthur Hudson - 3

Paul Rigby - 3

Craig McGregor - 3

There are numerous journalists - too numerous to mention - who have won 2 Walkleys that do not have Wiki entries.

Also one of the Walkleys won by VT was accepted on behalf of the 774 drive team - this is made explicit on the Walkleys site - though T has always claimed it as her own.

Also, since when does less than 8% of a radio audience constitute 'prominent and highly notable'.

I suggest that Wiki should steer clear of potted biographies provided by radio stations or individual 'subjects' as being source material for its entries. We are wasting our time on this non-entity. Melbob 03:57, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

All of these people are notable. Trioli is just the first one to get an article. There are plenty of sources for information on Trioli - while the station biography is a good place to start, one could also try one of the 132,000 Google hits or 2000 Factiva hits. Please take your issues with the subject of the article somewhere else. Rebecca 06:16, 17 May

2006 (UTC)

Well, could you please take YOUR obsession with this subject somewhere else. Google is a long way from being a comprehensive reference source on anything, and is of almost no use at all in determining the "notability" of subjects although I know how difficult it is for most people under the age of 30 to come to grips with such a crazy notion. Melbob 02:05, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

The main problem with the Wikipedia that it is not complete yet. All the people mentioned by Melbob are notable and deserve an article each. I urge both of you (Rebecca and Melbob) to stop edit warring and write articles about other Australia Radio personalities. You seems to know a lot about them. Happy wikiing abakharev 06:24, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

The page now reads accurately. Virginia Frances T (born August 12, 1964) is an Australian journalist and author. She was a prominent ??? prominent - is this verifiable???

journalist at Melbourne newspaper throughout the 1990s, and won a Walkley Award

(the Australian equivalent of the Pulitzer Prize) since when do prizes have 'equivalents' - what is the relevance of this qualification -the Walkley is NOT an equivalent to the Pulitzer

for her business reporting. she won it for a business story - not her business reporting

She subsequently moved into radio, and currently hosts the (a) morning show on Sydney station 702 ABC,

a role in which she won a second Walkley Award in 2001.

She did not win it in this particular role

The Walkey page specifically says she collected 'on behalf of the 774 drive team' - you might want to reference the website ie she was part of the 774 drive team that won a Walkley awardMelbob 03:38, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Why do I have to repeat everything? We need evidence she was 'prominent'. She did not win WA for her business reporting. Her team did. No one could compare WA to Pulitzer. And is it possible to 'compare'prizes from different places and cultures. She did not win 2nd WA at 2bl.Melbob 05:11, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Great edits both of you. We now have a completely accurate, helpful article. :) Rebecca 06:55, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

After the Barnaby Joyce scandal, she is prominent enough now. I ahve added details of this incident today. BTW - to her many supporters sitting on Wikipedia at Australian taxpayer's expense, don't remove this section or I will just add it again. --121.209.160.121 (talk) 20:51, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Controversies

I restored the text and sources. Let's talk about it if you like. Other sources can be found. Please don't accuse other good faith editors of POV. That is offensive and is not civil. I will refrain from accusing you of the same. These controversies are very well covered in reliable sources. I do not wish to edit war. So perhaps you could consider taking a different less aggressive approach toward me please. Thanks.Birdy1234 (talk) 09:57, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

The sources are poor. The 1st (news.com.au) doesn't support any of the preceding phrasing (hypocrisy, taxpayers, gender pay gap, exactly the same job); the 2nd, the opinionated returnofkings.com, fails as a reliable and reputable source. WP:BLP says that the paragraph should be deleted. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 11:09, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi Michael Bednarek, the News.com.au is a very reliable and reputable source as per [[WP:BLP] http://www.news.com.au/finance/money/leaked-document-shows-abc-stars-salaries/news-story/b72f0c8c107e72bababfe4e182e398d9 This source states word for word: "ABCTV Breakfast host Virginia Trioli earns $235,664, while her co-host Michael Rowland is lagging behind by $84,000, earning just $151,006." This wage differential certainly is a controversy.Birdy1234 (talk) 11:39, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

It is not acceptable to delete the whole paragraph. I would be open to rewording it.Birdy1234 (talk) 11:41, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Please read what I wrote: the 2nd source is not WP:RS. The 1st source doesn't support the phrasing that's used in the paragraph, nor "controversy". WP:BLP says:

Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.

(Their emphasis) -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:02, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree we need to change some of the wording and delete the second source. But I don't agree the source does not support inclusion under the controversy section. Have you read the news.com.au source? Please read it again if not. It certainly qualifies as a controversy to me. "ABCTV Breakfast host Virginia Trioli earns $235,664, while her co-host Michael Rowland is lagging behind by $84,000, earning just $151,006." They do exactly the same job. They are co-hosts and should be on the same wage. It is a tax payer, Commonwealth government, public servant position. Are you willing to compromise here?Birdy1234 (talk) 13:26, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

The current source is better than the previous one, but I'm still not convinced this factoid is worth including. To be included in 'controversies', there needs to be evidence from a reliable source (i.e. not a partisan blog) that there is an actual controversy here. An article merely stating people's salaries isn't sufficient: it begs the response 'so what?'. It seems clear that the intention here is to push a particular point of view, that she is overpaid compared with her co-host; but a quick comparison of her article with his suggests that may be just because she's a more experienced and significant media figure. Robofish (talk) 20:16, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

News.com.au seems like an ultra conservative, reliable and reputable source. And this reliable source are not just saying, Trioli earns this much. Period. By saying "ABCTV Breakfast host Virginia Trioli earns $235,664, while her co-host Michael Rowland is lagging behind by $84,000, earning just $151,006." they are stressing the fact of hey, for two exactly the same public servant position, with the same job description Trioli earns 40% more than her co-host. That's controversial.Birdy1234 (talk) 00:35, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Robofish, assume good faith and stop being so offensive. I'm showing only what the news.com.au source says. Stop accusing other good faith editors just because they disagree with you. I've asked you twice now.Birdy1234 (talk) 00:38, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

WP:AGF right back at you, Birdy1234. What in Robofish's text above is "offensive"?

I agree that the changed wording is much closer to the source and avoids the previously shown synthesis. But I also agree with Robofish's assessment that a mere comparison of their salaries doesn't tell the whole story. "La Trioli" is indeed a much more experienced and high-profile journalist than Rowland with a wider range of appearances, both past and present. That leads to the question" "So what?" It must be noted that the news.com.au article, which is from 2013, doesn't mention "controversy", nor does the original article in The Australian on which the news.com.au piece is based. Frankly, Birdy1234, it's your assessment that there is a controversy. The whole episode shows the ABC in a very unflattering light, and rightly so, but I don't think it should be listed here under "Controversies"; it ought to be removed. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 01:46, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

When you say "La Trioli" is indeed a much more experienced and high-profile journalist than Rowland with a wider range of appearances, both past and present." Have you got a source that says that Michael Bednarek ? Or is that your personal opinion. I'm just reporting the news.com.au and other reliable sources which are reporting on the very significant pay gap between the two co-hosts, in a public servant position, for exactly the same job role. I certainly don't agree it should be removed from the article. I'd be interested in your source saying triol is much better than Rowland and deserves such a massive difference in her pay?Birdy1234 (talk) 02:59, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

FCOL, have you read Trioli's and Rowland's articles? Have you watched her interviews on the ABC's arts programs? On Lateline or Q&A? Who won 2 Walkleys? Who published a book? Which one has an entry at the NLA? I have no opinion whether she deserves her salary, but you seem to think she doesn't – a point the cited sources don't make. Please remove the paragraph. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 04:52, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

They are doing exactly the same government, public servant position. They are co-hosts. They are both hosts. They both do exactly the same job. Trioli gets paid 30% more. It is controversial in the Australian context particularly. News.com.au believes this point to be significant enough to point the huge pay difference for the same job, that is TV host, saying "ABCTV Breakfast host Virginia Trioli earns $235,664, while her co-host Michael Rowland is lagging behind by $84,000, earning just $151,006." they are stressing the fact The ABC is not a private owned station where stars get paid more. They are just government workers. Two camera men would get the same wage for the same job description. No, I believe it is worth mentioning in the article. Are you even saying it shouldn't be anywhere in the article? I totally disagree.Birdy1234 (talk) 11:55, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

It is your assertion that both do the same job; the source you cite doesn't support that. Nor does it even support that there is a "controversy"; it only states a difference in remuneration. You have not presented a single argument that would justify mentioning this old tidbit in the "Controversies" section here. Just stamping your foot and repeating "such a difference is a controversy" is insufficient. Further, the difference in pay doesn't add anything to a reader's understanding of Trioli's background, biography, journalism, achievements, failures – which the other 2 entries in this section, Barnaby Joyce and Trump supporters, arguably do. The matter may cast an unfavourable light on the ABC, but Trioli has nothing to with it. Please remove the paragraph. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 00:44, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

The source states "co-host" meaning https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/co-host "Host (an event or broadcast) together with another or others." They co-host, take it in turns to read the news. They are just government public servants. In Australia doing the same level government job gets the same wage. They are referred to as Australian Public Service APS levels. It is a controversy in Australia that Trioli gets 30% more than her co-host for doing exactly the same job. That's why the very reputable and reliable news.com.au source states "ABCTV Breakfast host Virginia Trioli earns $235,664, while her co-host Michael Rowland is lagging behind by $84,000, earning just $151,006. And I'm certainly not "stamping my feet" that is what you are doing. Stop being so rude. Have you actually read what I've been saying or do you just want it your way or the highway? The other controversies don't need to be the same type of controversies. I totally disagree with you and your argument and do not see any reason to delete the paragraph. Sorry. I never watch the show personally and don't know anything about Trioli. But you seem like a fan of Trioli. Can I ask is it just not in the controversies section or is that you don't want this mentioned anywhere in the article?Birdy1234 (talk) 01:16, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

It is your interpretation that there is a controversy; the source doesn't call it that. We don't know why she's paid more; they may well have different duties. Which of my statements do you consider to be rude? I've been reading closely what you wrote, and your avoidance of addressing the points I raise strike me as "stamping your feet", or WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. I'm no "fan of Trioli", and f you inspect my contributions, you'll find that my interest are fairly wide, unlike yours which seem narrowly focused on this subject. Please remove the paragraph from the article. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 04:43, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Rude? Your "FCOL" comment, among others and sarcastic foot stamping". The source doesn't need to say controversy directly. The other two examples in the section are not labelled controversies by the sources either. These are all different types of controversies. Just because I haven't been here long doesn't mean anything. I plan on doing lots of editing if that's okay with you. And you certainly do sound like a fan of Trioli to me. Birdy1234 (talk) 10:03, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Hey we were in the middle of a discussion here. Maybe you could try some dispute resolution instead of just forcing your preferred changes. I don't care for an edit war with you. I've compromised but I don't agree with your logic or interpretation of policy. I'm open to a civil resolution of our differences but not you forcing your changes to text that had been there for a couple of months. Try being civil please and using proper channels of resolution.Birdy1234 (talk) 14:51, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

The text has reliable and reputable source in news.com.au. Our disagreement here is not that it is not sourced so you had no right to force your changes in the middle of our discussion.Birdy1234 (talk) 14:54, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Do you really think that "for crying out loud" and characterising your failure to address any of my policy-based arguments as "foot stamping" are "rude"? Which part of Robofish's contribution do you consider "offensive"? I suggest you read WP:AGF and WP:PA.

Yes, the source does have to say "controversy", or a synonym, to characterise the matter as such in a Wikipedia article; that's what WP:V is all about. At the same policy, you'll find that the burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material. So far, you haven't. I have now added a sourced mention of the pay gap in the article. Our disagreement is not whether the pay gap is sourced but whether it means what you think it means: a controversy. You might benefit from reading WP:CSECTION.

Your wholesale reversion of my improvements to the article constitute disruptive editing. You're welcome to raise this matter at WT:BLP or WP:BLP/N. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 03:34, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

I have once again compromised here. Two points. Firstly, many bios of living persons include names of their children, 'if' they are properly sourced. Secondly, I have included the news.com.au story which is separate to The Australian source and is just as reliable and reputable a source. I included what that source directly says. Now, if you want to get some independent opinions, I'm open to that. It's up to you? I don't want to edit war with you either. I believe my edits are good and should be left alone. However I am open to you discussing them with me here in a civil dialogue. What I am not open to is you going ahead and making such significant edits halfway through our talk page discussion. I don't care how experienced you are. You do not own the article and you must comply with policy.Birdy1234 (talk) 04:30, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

As an example and support for my inclusion of Trioli's child's name please see the David Letterman article under Marriages, relationships, and family heading. You will notice the name of his only child. This is very common. I'm surprised you said it was not relevant for the Trioli article and reverted my well sourced inclusion twice now when it is so common to include children's names in living person's bios.Birdy1234 (talk) 04:30, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Beware of WP:OTHERSHITEXISTS – Letterman mentioned his son Harry almost every week in his show; when did Trioli mention hers? A source for a child's name is necessary, but not sufficient. For guidance on this subject, please read WP:BLPNAME, especially the part, "The names of any immediate … family members … of the subject of a BLP may be part of an article, if reliably sourced, subject to editorial discretion that such information is relevant to a reader's complete understanding of the subject." How is the child's name relevant? Please remove it.

The news.com.au source is unnecessary because it explicitly is based on the article in the Oz; we can cut out the middleman – see WP:OVERCITE. Further, it doesn't use the words "significant" or "far exceeding" (nor does the Oz article). Those words are judgemental, and if they don't use them, Wikipedia can't either. You also made a grammatical mistake in your version (a possessive apostrophe is missing) and mentioning that Rowland is male is unnecessary – bad writing at best, tendentious at worst. In short, your changes do not add anything to improve the article. If you disagree, please state the information your version adds. The previous version should be restored. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 10:19, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

You don't own this article. I have compromised. I disagree that the news.com.au is overcite. And this extremely reliable and reputable source states - "ABCTV Breakfast host Virginia Trioli earns $235,664, while her co-host Michael Rowland is lagging behind by $84,000, earning just $151,006. I paraphrased that section in the article. We could include the whole quote instead? Everything is well sourced. Nothing in the article currently needs to be removed. As two equal editors, we just disagree. It is time we seek dispute resolution I think. You can do it if you like - as you are obviously more experienced than I. Or I will work it out if you give me some time please. I do not wish to edit war with you. Instead we should now seek completely independent opinions and official resolution for our differences. Birdy1234 (talk) 11:07, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

On-air gaffes

I just included my edit again given as a gaffe it is as notable as the other other on-air gaffes in the article under the on-air gaffes section and meets the definition of a gaffe pretty squarely. https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/gaffeBirdy1234 (talk) 07:23, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Television personalities sometimes make mistakes when they are live on air. Her mistakenly introducing herself as her co-star does not seem to me to be a notable or controversial event in her career. It seems rather trivial. Could you please explain why you think it should be included in the article? Melonkelon (talk) 08:43, 9 June 2017 (UTC)