This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Miranda Devine article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article.
This article is written in Australian English, which has its own spelling conventions (centre, colour, realise, program, travelled) and some terms may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
Miranda Devine is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of journalism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JournalismWikipedia:WikiProject JournalismTemplate:WikiProject JournalismJournalism
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism
This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York (state), a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of New York on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York (state)Wikipedia:WikiProject New York (state)Template:WikiProject New York (state)New York (state)
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women writers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women writers on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women writersWikipedia:WikiProject Women writersTemplate:WikiProject Women writersWomen writers
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WomenWikipedia:WikiProject WomenTemplate:WikiProject WomenWikiProject Women
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
In general, this is a poorly written article for a BLP. There are small entries in the header, a little about her Early life and education, a tiny section about her Career and then the rest of the article is nothing but biased criticism. So it's not an article at all. But it's a great location for finding the perceived controversy she's been involved in. Need to add sections like Personal Life, Honors, Bibliography, etc. Even the Infobox leaves much to be desired. Mkstokes (talk) 04:00, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The account states that "Australian television program Media Watch said in September 2024 that the Grenfell Tower Inquiry found "no evidence of ‘green ideas’ contributing to Grenfell Tower inferno that killed 72 people"
But the application of Aluminium Composite cladding was done in compliance with Minimum energy performance standards (MEPR) laid down by the European Union.
Directive 2018/844/EU Energy Performance Directive.
Had these directives not existed, it is highly unlikely that the building would have been cladded at all. The statement that "green ideas" contributed to the disaster, while sensationalistically worded, is therfore essentially correct ~2025-35045-38 (talk) 21:18, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
.svg){kind=small}
.svg){kind=logo}
.jpg){kind=small}
