Talk:Miranda Devine

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: That is a ridiculous notion.  A friend of mine has actually met that journalism student.  Adammarchant (talk) 23:56, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Exists or not

message: 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)
replies: text: She's married with a young family, so I think "early 40s" makes more sense. Kewpid 13:31, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Mystique of Miranda Devine Continues 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Devine's appointment to Literacy committee 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Quadrant Magazine: Conservative or Right Wing? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  The National Library has a photo 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Repeated reversions 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  The Problems of a Fatherless Society