Talk:Marina Hyde

Reference five

[which alludes to Hyde's interactions with Piers Morgan]

currently yields an impressively complete 4O4 with no archive.org rescue possible. This should be fixed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LaFolleCycliste (talk • contribs) 19:12, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Second child

She was on maternity leave between September 2012 and February 2013 and made reference on Twitter in September to a medical procedure that saved her baby's life. If anyone can find reference to this second child now being safe and well we could fill in the number of children box and remove some untidy ambiguity regarding her number of children that I just edited into this article. Hopefully the peerage site referenced with respect to the first child will be updated. --Persus-9 (talk) 09:35, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Untitled

Her celebrity column is called Lost in Showbiz, it appears every Friday... Perhaps you could also allude to her writing style which is notably dry to say the least... for instance look at the comments on just about any of her articles... Random article
Also last year (2006) one of her articles appeared in a published Guardian yearbook as it was one of the top reader voted articles of the year... It was this article (scroll down). Here is the book

Love the woman - disappointed to see her ancestry though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.186.38.229 (talk) 20:55, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

That's such a British thing to say. --203.219.92.152 (talk) 17:32, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Name

Should there be an explanation as to why she is Marina Hyde? Her husband is called Clifton and it's not her maiden name. A nom de plume? A first unmentioned husband?--The Totter 02:05, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Her LIS column of 28.04.2016 says it was because her "real name" was too long to fit across a single column at the Sun, "where I started out". 46.208.85.178 (talk) 07:39, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

I suspect she's worried about sounding posh and privileged, especially at the Graun. --Ef80 (talk) 15:21, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes, it's protective camouflage. Today she filed a column sneering at men who went to 'minor public schools'. Haileybury doesn't meet her standards, apparently. The men in question, Boris Johnson supporters, may be dodgy, but that's a ridiculously snobbish point to make, and she can only get away with it by pretending she isn't originally Miss Dudley-Williams, from a grand titled family -- Downe House and Christ Church, actually, don't you know -- and isn't presently Mrs Clifton, married to a grand panjandrum at the BBC. People who use false names, other than actors and novelists whose trade is fantasy and who use stage names and pen names for well-understood reasons, are usually up to something. (Incidentally, no one is invited to believe that my real name is that of a Tibetan character appearing in the Modesty Blaise comic strip 'The Black Pearl', published in the Evening Standard from 12 December 1966 to 22 April 1967, whereas people are very much invited to believe that Marina Hyde is Marina Hyde and not in fact Marina Clifton nee Dudley-Williams, with all that that implies.) Khamba Tendal (talk) 18:26, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

She's done the same when wading into this recent Laurence Fox thing- calling Harrow, of all places, a "minor public school" when it's obvious to anyone that it comes a close second to Eton in terms of status... clearly she has some strange ideas, or just wants to try and score some kind of cheap point by attacking the egos of what she (hilariously enough, given her own background) considers people (let's be honest, "men") who need taking down a peg. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.144.68.71 (talk) 01:38, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

I think she's attempting to appear waspishly witty like a sort of woke Dorothy Parker, but she actually comes across as a sneering snob. --Ef80 (talk) 11:09, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Marina Hyde/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Her celebrity column is called Lost in Showbiz, it appears every Friday... Perhaps you could also allude to her writing style which is notably dry to say the least... for instance look at the comments on just about any of her articles... Random article Also last year (2006) one of her articles appeared in a published Guardian yearbook as it was one of the top reader voted articles of the year... It was this article (scroll down). Here is the =olp_product_details/202-5459523-4705438?ie=UTF8&seller= book

Last edited at 00:41, 12 April 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 23:10, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Phillip Cross

Please note that Philip Cross is attempted to edit this page despite being banned from doing so topic ban 83.218.151.178 (talk) 11:27, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

No political content as such in this article (except for a passing comment using the 'p' word which is not determined by a nation), the passage deleted by the IP user applies to an award to Hyde for her sports coverage. The Geoffrey Boycott knighthood issue is possibly borderline, given the context, but it is not included. His knighthood would have been contentious if it had been in the New Year or Birthday honours. Philip Cross (talk) 11:47, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Marina Hyde comes under the criteria of pages you are banned from editing. 83.218.151.178 (talk) 12:36, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

That is the subject of a current ongoing dispute as I mention on your talk page, IP 83.218.151.178. I recommend you read it, and comment if you wish. Philip Cross (talk) 12:42, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

The dispute was concluded and the resolution was that you are not allowed to edit pages like this. I quote:

"This is a straightforward violation per WP:BROADLY. A topic ban is "broadly construed" by default, and straightforwardly prohibits making any edit, or editing any page, relating to the subject. The fact that the edits in question are purely uncontentious copyedits is not an exemption, though it is something that can be taken into account in terms of discretionarily sanctioning a violation. The user did violate their topic ban, yes, though given the nature of the edits, they probably warrant a warning as opposed to a block. If minor copyedits in violation of the topic ban continue, though, the topic ban should be enforced. BROADLY is policy, period, and the user should know better. ~Swarm~ {sting} 01:48, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Agree with the admin comment above. Philips has clearly violated the topic ban per WP:BROADLY.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 02:02, 18 February 2020 (UTC)"

83.218.151.178 (talk) 12:46, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

I looked over the material myself before reinstating. As it is adequately sourced, I reinstated it and thereby took ownership of the edit myself. I've also reinstated a bit that Phillip Cross self-reverted. IP, you are at 3RR, any further reverts will likely lead to a block. Mr rnddude (talk) 13:36, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but on the WP:EW it states that "Reverting actions performed by banned users in violation of their ban, and sockpuppets of banned or blocked users" is exempt from the edit-warring policy. It is not correct to say they're at 3RR as their reverting Philip Cross' edits would not count towards 3RR as it's covered under the exemption. 80.47.148.59 (talk) 18:59, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

This page is not on my watchlist. I've answered your question at my usertalk. Mr rnddude (talk) 04:54, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

you have not responded to my criticism adequately, therefore this is still adequate 80.47.148.59 (talk) 01:53, 15 March 2020 (UTC)