Talk:Melanie Phillips

NPOV

I think the Wikipedia article for Melanie Phillips is far from neutral and is plagued with personal opinions rather than facts. It also focuses on the negative rather than having a balance of facts about her. I have put a marker on the page for that reason as I believe it goes against the main Wikipdedia principle of being factual rather than opinionated.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.170.50.98 (talk • contribs)

can you highlight particular areas of bias or NPOV? It seems relatively even handed to me. Magic Pickle 23:43, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Id agree with the above sentiment, any specific areas of concern should be highlighted, putting the POV label on an article in 'general terms' isn't the way it should be used. The article seems fine to me. I've removed the tag, i don't mind anyone objecting, as long as a proper discussion or reasoning is attempted.

New Society (magazine)

I don't want to abuse my admin powers by editing a protected page, so when the time comes that it might be unprotected, New Society should probably be changed to New Society (magazine), or some such, even though there doesn't seem to be such an article yet. --John Owens (talk) 08:18, 2005 Mar 16 (UTC)

If you do that, a brief piece on the magazine would be good. The entry for left wing magazine New Stateman says of that magazine: "The Statesman acquired the weekly New Society in 1988 and merged with it, becoming New Statesman and Society for the next eight years."

There is a tiny bit more at that New Statesman website. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 16:02, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

If it's any use, I recall that when New Society first came out (c.1960), it was mooted as being simliar to New Scientist, only for social science and social policy (tho' Ithink the term had not been invented then).

A quick look at Issue 1 will clarify this I trust.

Some leads:

"On 10 June 1988, as the magazine celebrated its 75th anniversary, New Statesman merged with New Society, a magazine covering the field of the social sciences, to form the New Statesman and Society. (The suffix was dropped in 1996). However, despite the merger generally being seen as a takeover by the New Statesman, the first two editors of the combined magazine, Stuart Weir and Steve Platt, both came from the editorial team of the New Society. Another title, Marxism Today, was acquired in December 1991." [1]

Johnbibby 18:55, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

New Society was started by the same people who launched New Scientist. At one time New Society was the more commercially successful of the two, thanks to creaming in plenty of job ads. That's about the when "Mel" was on board. She was sane then.

Unfortunately, New Society wrote mostly about general social issues rather than those aimed specifically at social workers, the target of the ads. When rivals turned up and wrote about social work rather than society, the market collapsed. Then then owner, IPC Magazines, pulled the plug after the losses got "out of hand".

--MK 19:30, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Unprotecting

This has been protected against vandalism for about a week now. I'm unprotecting to give editors (like the above) a chance. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 15:53, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

References needed

Hi, I added the OR tag to the article and various {{Fact}} tags throughout the article were appropriate. I added this because the large majority of claims in the article, both descriptive, positive and critical are unsupported. I do not doubt the truthfulness of the various claims but for this to be a proper article these claims need proper support. --64.230.126.90 15:38, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

The citation request regarding Phillips' attitude to [illegal] drugs policy is satisfied by her article "The international drugs fifth column", published in the Daily Mail on January 14 2003, as reprinted at <http://www.melaniephillips.com/articles-new/?p=94>. 81.78.101.179 14:09, 22 April 2007 (UTC)PJB(UK)

Regarding this quote on the "polital views" section "She says the Palestinians are an "artificial" people...a national project" That cite only points to an article _about_ Phillips which in many parts has just one or a few words from her without cite. I don't know that she said them or didn't say them but is this considered an "authoritative source" by Wikipedia standards? . The author of the source article is clearly a harsh critic of Phillips and he does not source his quotes of her. Now they are being quoted on Wikipedia. Wouldn't it be better to have a direct source of her writing? I'll try to find some if I have time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blueblackwhitered (talk • contribs) 14:34, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Recent removals

Please note that the following was removed from the article for being unsourced:

"In 2003, she won an award as "Most Islamophobic Media Personality of the Year" from the controversial Islamic Human Rights Commission for their readings of her criticisms of Islam. She did not attend the awards ceremony and denies that her views are in any way Islamophobic. In 2004, her profile was raised further at the awards by being nominated for "Islamophobe of the Year" along with George Carey and George W. Bush."

"Melanie Phillips is generally seen as being right-wing, although she herself has rejected the 'right-wing' label, defining herself as a progressive, and a defender of liberal democracy. "

"Her political views include the following: She is socially conservative, She is dismissive of progressive teaching methods, She claims that the danger of global warming has been exaggerated, She is a Euro-sceptic, She supported the 2003 invasion of Iraq, She is a critic of news outlets such as the BBC and the liberal Guardian newspaper, Her views on foreign policy are Neoconservative"

"She is also a stern critic of Anti-Americanism, and a staunch supporter of Israel."

--LuckyLittleGrasshopper 14:10, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

There were a number of reasons that these passages were removed. In the case of the Islamophobe comment, it was removed because it was "bestowed" by a fringe group that did not warrant inclusion in the article. The comment that she was seen as right-wing was unreferenced and basically amounted to a weasel comment.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 07:34, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the Islamophobe remark, the "fringe group" actually has its own Wikipedia page. Hardly a ringing endorsement of notability, but a start at least. As for the other remarks, it's mostly stating the obvious. Citing just about any of her own articles on any random subject lends support to the "right wing" statement. And what's wrong with that anyway? Is there any reason to complain at being labelled right wing? I suppose, it's not a self-label, but if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, etc. I particularly object to the pulling of the stuff on global warming - she's made noises this way, and her reputation on scientific matters isn't good. That's the sort of thing a comprehensive article should contain - this isn't hagiography after all. Cheers, --Plumbago 08:41, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid we can't rely on stating the obvious. Also just because the organization has its own wikipedia article doesn't mean its accusations against people belong in any other article. Have you seen some of the articles here on wikipedia? There are probably about 20 different articles about different people who launch frivolous lawsuits against people and don't do much else, hell some of these are some of the longest articles on wikipedia (see Jeffrey Vernon Merkey).- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 08:51, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I know we can't rely on stating the obvious, but a cite of her own articles next to the right wing remark might suffice. More generally, two points occur to me :

1. unless someone actually says "I am right/left wing", what sort of source counts as a description of their views? Any source that says "this person is right/left wing" is surely open to as much doubt as you or I saying it. Unless there are some unreproachable sources on political affiliation ...
2. what's wrong with being labelled right/left wing? If one's view can be characterised by these crude terms, why should you object? I'm being a bit rhetorical here, but I am interested to know why someone should be afraid of being labelled in (a degree of) accordance with their self-professed views.

Anyway, I am interested to know what sort of source you think would be appropriate to back up the deleted items. Cheers, --Plumbago 09:04, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Most of what I deleted had no source, or was simply an example of poisoning the well so it is irrelevant anyways. Sometimes sombody's political affialiation is both relevent and capable of being sourced to the person themselves, in this case neither of these conditions are met.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 09:08, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate that most of what was deleted had no source, but what sort of sources would you like provided to have them back in there? Are her own words good enough? That seems to be sufficient for the other items (on progressive education and on The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy). And what's the line on what can, and cannot, be added from the items deleted? I'm not clear. Cheers, --Plumbago 16:55, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

There are WP:NOR and WP:RS -- but in my long experience here interpreting them is highly subjective and resolutions are regularly found based on the degree of aggression used, debating skills (especially in writing for busy outsiders that may be called in to judicate on ones merits), and useful appeal to Wikipedia rules. I find that the principle of reciprocality across multiple Wikipedia articles works best -- it is one of the more optimal and simple solutions to the iterated prisoner's dilemma. --LuckyLittleGrasshopper 17:13, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I think mentioning these awards of the IHRC article is fair game. Since they could be seem as a smear on Melanie I would want to find a mention of them in a reputable news source or Melanie's response before incorporating them into this page. --LuckyLittleGrasshopper 14:32, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I think in this case a reputable source wouldn't include counterpunch or even the guardian, since they would have an interest in smearing someone seen as conservative, so I somewhat doubt you could find a neutral source that mentions it.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 22:29, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Am I reading this right : we need to cite a respectable (non-liberal) source reporting the IMRC's award, or do you mean that a respectable (non-liberal) source has to actually award Phillips an Islamophobe-of-the-Year award? And I still haven't got an answer on the less objectionable items removed (e.g. Phillips anti-science views on climate change). Her words speak for themselves on these items, so is citing her directly good enough? If someone was coming to this site for a summary overview of Phillips and some idea whether to trust her views, I think it would be pertinent to make some of her more outlandish views known. Cheers, --Plumbago 08:37, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Philips own quotes would be allowed to be included as long as they aren't taken out of context and do not have any of your opinions or original research explaining your views on them. Although I believe in global warming, I think it is somewhat misinformed to suggest that her views are "anti-science", first of all she is not suggesting that global warming is not occuring, just that its not to the level that is sometimes claimed, and there is some scientific sources that support this. Also, I think you could just as easily say some people's understanding of global warming is even more "anti-science", since they believe in unrealistic situations like the ones that appear in "The Day After Tomorrow", and they believe in it with no understanding of the mechanics or the science, in fact they obsequiously believe in it only because they are told. Like I said before though, I completely believe in global warming and like to think I do so with an understanding of the theory that is somewhat beyond elementary.

And in reference to your other question, I'm saying that if you want to include reference to Philips winning "Islamophobe of the year" you have to do so with a neutral source. Something like that constitutes well-poisoning and the only way it could justifiably be included would be if it were particulary notable. And the only way it would be considered notable would be if a reasonably neutral source mentioned it. I'm not saying the source can't be liberal, if something like Haaretz (which is seen as leftist) mentioned it, it would be adequate, but this would be one of the situations where the Guardian or Counterpunch would not be enough.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 08:54, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Fine, thanks. I don't quite see why the Guardian and Counterpunch are equated however. One's a fairly moderate, if left-leaning, newspaper, the other's a political newsletter. Not having read Haaretz, it sounds rather like the Guardian judging by Wikipedia's overview. Certainly one might struggle to recognise anything faintly socialist in the Guardian's Money and Business sections. Anyway, thanks. --Plumbago 09:09, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

(Moving back indentation) I'm not exactly saying that the Guardian supports socialism or anything, I was just responding to your question about liberal sources. Few people however, would really suggest that the guardian is mainstream. They do not even create the illusion of neutrality. Where most papers limit their obvious positions to individual editorials, almost all of the the Guardian articles seem to take a position on what they are reporting. Haaretz takes a lot of positions as well, but they don't do it in normal articles, they do it in editorials like normal news organizations, and I usually wouldn't support sourcing their editorials anyways.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 09:15, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

(Whew - that indentation was getting silly - thanks) That might just be your POV, however. To return to the topic at hand, Phillips writes for a newspaper that's so rabidly right of centre (the Daily Mail), that the Guardian fades from dark pink to almost lily white by comparison. Of course, that's my POV.  :) Cheers, --Plumbago 09:30, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

The Guardian is a very valid source for the award -- it is not responsible to keep raising the bar. Although Melanie Phillips does response to getting the award on her blog -- thus that response should be included for NPOV. --LuckyLittleGrasshopper 15:30, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm argining that in this case the Guardian is not valid since it takes a blantant POV on these types of things, also I'm not even sure that the Guardian mentioned the Islamophobe thing. Are you also suggesting that just because Philips responded to getting the "award" it should be included?" I don't really understand that logic.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 23:26, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

What "type of things" are you thinking of? And can you clearly state what the Guardian's POV is? And how is this different from the POV of other newspaper sources? The Guardian really isn't any better/worse than other UK newspapers. The only distinguishing feature that I can deduce from your objections is that its viewpoint is contrary to that of Phillips' (and, I presume, your's). That's not a good objection - all newspaper sources have POV issues.

As for the issue at hand, if even Phillips herself responds to some award she receives from a "non-notable" source ( I can't find the source myself, but LuckyLittleGrasshopper seems to have), I think that's good enough to include it. As it happens, she was nominated for the award Polly Toynbee, another UK journalist with rather divergent views to Phillips (who went on to "win"). I note that there's a whole section in the article about Toynbee on this. Anyway, I can't see any reason to not include the award - I'm sure that many people would wear it as a badge of honour, as evidence of "political correctness gone mad" (in Daily Mail-speak). Cheers, --Plumbago 08:51, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Well my personal politics run quite counter to phillips on all but a few issues. However I guess I tend to find myself defending quite a few other people like her because I guess I see them corrollary to other issues. Anyways like I said earlier its not so much that the guardian is so much more liberal than other british news organizations its just that they do not tend to carry the pretense of neutrality on many issues. While the BBC is usually seen as liberal they can be trusted to at least bury their position in all but a few editorial articles. In other words, the BBC would never report that the "Islamophobe of the year" happens to be a conservative journalist unless it was truly notable, the guardian however, very well may. Do you understand my argument? Anyways this is all irrelvent unless we actually know that the Guardian reported it.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 08:59, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Coverage of various more recent Islamophobe awards:

• Reuters via Yahoo News: http://in.news.yahoo.com/040626/137/2emrx.html
• Al-Jazeera: http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/6AAA43FD-D8BE-4188-BE72-B2D5D64799BA.htm
• Guardian: http://www.guardian.co.uk/race/story/0,11374,1285293,00.html
• Front Page Magazine: http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=15138

More recent Islamophobe awards have been widely covered -- Reuters is about as mainstream as it gets. --LuckyLittleGrasshopper 05:16, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

They are talking about it mainly for the trivia value of notable people winning a silly prize. None of those newspapers mentioned philips.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 05:32, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Erm, are you sure? The Reuters report doesn't look that way at all. It even refers to the IHRC as a "leading" group, and reports (positive) remarks by the UK's CRE head. I don't think the argument that this is some sort of comedy, filler item for Reuters is sustainable at all. I really can't see any reason not to reinstate the removed text to the article (with all of the sources; well done LuckyLittleGrasshopper). Cheers, --Plumbago 09:01, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Well *you* never saw any reason it shouldn't be there in the first place. And like I said before none of those new articles mentioned Melanie philips so I don't understand how they change anything.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 09:49, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Prospect Magazine

Pecher just removed: "Prospect describes her as 'an ardent British supporter of Israel'. " in edit [2] because as he claimed in the edit summary it was "that's just an opinion of a non-notable source". I disagree in that this is how she is summarized by her editors in her own article in Prospect. It isn't opinion but just plain fact.

But unfortunately, the current lead of the article contains another claim from the same Prospect magazine (no citation provided though, but I checked and it is correct) that "In June 2004 she was named one of the world's top 100 intellectuals by the magazine Prospect."

If Prospect is, as Pecher claims, non-notable, then Pecher should remove the other claim from Prospect. I would prefer to keep both in though -- I feel that Prospect is a notable source.

Pecher can you explain your rational for your removal? I have reverted it for now based on my believe that Prospect is notable. Thanks.

--LuckyLittleGrasshopper 19:07, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

A description of someone as an ardent supporter of something is by definition an opinion; I'm bewildered why anyone could describe it as "fact". So, here is the difference: being named among 100 top intellectuals of the world is a fact (think of it as about getting a prize), while calling someone "an ardent supporter" is an opinion. Speaking about consistency, this is the position I pursue across many articles: Wikipedia is not a collection of people's opinions about each other and notable individuals, just by virtue of their being notable, attract hundreds of diverse opinions, so including all of them into the article will ruin their encyclopedic value. Let facts speak for themselves and leave it up to the reader to decide. Pecher ^Talk 19:17, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

In principle I agree with you. You just said that "Speaking about consistency, this is the position I pursue across many articles." Hmm... It puzzles me then why you were then part of the group that was in support of including in the IRmep article's lead that the group was an "anti-Israeli website" or "anti-Zionist website", a claim for which you did offer any supporting sources but was opinion and OR? Here were your inclusions of this material in the IRmep page if you can't remember: [3], [4]. --LuckyLittleGrasshopper 19:32, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

It's a totally unrelated issue; on IRmep, the problem is and was that we never had any reliable sources them, as their website does not count as a reliable source either. So, whatever you include in that article has about the same level of credibility. Pecher ^Talk 20:16, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

It is an unrelated issue, but it was introduced by you into the debate when you made the claim of your edit consistency across articles. In response to your claim that only their (IRmep's) website was available as a source you seem to forget the RfC summary that was put together with all the third party sources, seeTalk:Institute_for_Research:_Middle_Eastern_Policy#RfC_Summary. Thankfully, the IRmep article eventually was fixed when some neutral administrators came in and removed the OR you and the others insisted had to be in the lead.

One must admit that it is a strange contrast: When you suspected without any WP:RS that IRmep might not be in favor of strong US support for Israel you had to clearly state so in the lead -- a type of poisoning the well. Althought, in the case of Melanie Phillips, who her own editor describes as an ardent supporter of Israel (and which is pretty accurate if you have followed Melanie's work), can't be described thusly, even in the part of her article where it describes her other political views, since to you it is just opinion. --64.230.127.182 20:59, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

It is generally frowned upon to reference other wikipedia articles in order to prove a point. Different articles have different situations and context, the IRmep's website made it clear that that was their view, and in fact it directly related to their aims. The claim that Philips is pro-Israel only serves to discount the conclusions in what she has written that otherwise should be totally unrelated to her actual views.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 07:32, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

With regards to IRmep, the neutral administrators that came in and fixed the article found that the claim of "anti-Israel" and "anti-Zionist" where unsourced on the IRmep article and removed them. It should be noted that you Moshe also insisted on adding these two term in a total of 9 times over 4 days (see [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12]) -- thus while its cute that you and Pecher like to contribute to Wikipedia together that doesn't make you two right. Also Pecher first brought up his consistency across articles, not I. --LuckyLittleGrasshopper 16:06, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

You only mention the "admins" that agreed with you as being neutral, however there were also other respected and well-established admins that agreed with me in that article. In fact the "admin" who you are referring to on that article, Bastique, was not even an admin, just a volunteer for the foundation that was answering a complaint from someone claiming to represent IRmep itself.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 22:33, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Haaretz

How is Haaretz's description of Melanie Phillips so different from the Prospect's opinion discussed above that it merits inclusion into the article? Pecher ^Talk 07:22, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I think your classification of it as "opinion" would be valid if it was coming from non-neutral commentators. So far the people that have made this claim are (1) her editor at a newspaper that is clearly supportive of her and knows her well and (b) an Israeli newspaper that is a reliable source on knowing who is tends to "unstinting Israel". If you could find a claim anywhere in a reputable source or from herself that she is not a strong supporter of Israel then I could understand that we have a battle of opinion here. Currently I feel we have a fact of reality being classified by as opinion by you for reasons unknown. If I were to just quote IHRC saying that she is an islamophobe that would be more opinion from less reliable sources but this is her own editor in the introduction to her own article at the magazine that classified her at one of the top 100 intellectuals. It really feels as if you are cherrying picking what you consider to be opinion and what you consider to be a fact. A list of 100 intellectuals produced by Prospect is at its core really just an opinion as well since it exists only in the field of intellectualism and not in the real of empirically demonstrated science. And even then all results in experimental science are considered theories liable to be proved wrong if further evidence arises. In essense, I feel as if this argument based on the classification of unwanted information as "opinion" is a unique invention which only appears to have logical underpinings if you do not apply it in a consistent fashion. --LuckyLittleGrasshopper 14:40, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

If you argued that there are no facts, just opinions, then this sort of argumentation would not be entirely without merit, even though not universally accepted. However, you're attempting to push through something quite the opposite, i.e. a totally bizarre idea that opinions, if voiced by certain individuals, become facts. You're claiming that is an Israeli newspaper describes someone as "pro-Israel", then this person is pro-Israel. This is certainly not true; Haaretz's opinion is just Haaretz's opinion, nothing more. On top of that, the phrase itself is utterly inane: what, after all, does "pro-Israel" imparts to the reader? That she recognizes Israel's right to exist? That she supports all actions of the Israeli government? We don't know, as this statement does not describe any position taken by Melanie Phillips on specific issues. Had you written that she supported the withdrawal from Gaza, I would have taken your edits more seriously, but inserting the phrase "unstintingly pro-Israel" smells too much of a pigeonholing attempt. Pecher ^Talk 15:02, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Dude! You added twice into the lead sentence of IRmep the term "anti-Israeli" [13] and "anti-Zionism" [14] and now you are arguing that "pro-Israel", the clear converse of the term you clearly insisted on in the IRmep article, is an unacceptable pigeonholing attempt? I don't know how to continue debating with you given that you exhibit clear double standards in Wikipedia. I am going to do some research on how to resolve this issue. --LuckyLittleGrasshopper 15:44, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

That was clear from their own website, they considered themselves anti-zionist. And you really need to stop referencing other articles, since you started editing under that name almost every post you have made includes some reference to another article. Is that the only way you understand how to argue?- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 22:36, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Hmm... let's pretend that the "contradiction" don't exist in other to be productive here on Wikipedia. I will follow Pecher's advice and collect together examples of her positions on specific issues -- maybe that is what you could do on the IRmep page as well? --LuckyLittleGrasshopper 02:19, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I for one was very interested to read this woman had been nominated for an Islamphobia award whatever that is. Sometimes the talk page is more informative than the article. 82.153.136.173 20:47, 4 September 2006 (UTC)non

Controversy

I've reinstated the above section, removed by anon. user 4.131.14.219 on 13 August, without summary and apparently without discussion. All the information contained therein is fully referenced and verifiable, and virtually all other journalists have an equivalent section on their pages. Does anyone know why it was removed, or was it just a case of vandalism? It's seems odd that it wasn't picked up on before. FrFintonStack 17:50, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Monbiot mishap

User 160.252.41.103 (talk · contribs) recently added the following:

Most recently she has written a series of articles which (in the words of the President of the Royal Society) "misrepresent the science of climate change".

along with a with a <ref> to http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/george_monbiot/2006/09/post_399.html.

I've moved it here because the link is to a blog post and the sentence containing those words is:

In her sixth article in five months which misrepresents the science of climate change in the business pages of The Daily Telegraph, Ruth Lea erroneously asserts ...

Has Melanie Phillips written a series of articles about climate change? If so, are they notable enough to merit inclusion in the article? (If so, we need links or citations for those articles.) Cheers, CWC(talk) 03:19, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

She's written a whole series, effectively denying the phenomenon. There has been a long war of words with George Monbiot, carried out through the writers' respective columns, each accusing the other of 'scientific illiteracy'. That alone ought to make it significant. On top of that, she has demonstrated brilliantly her absolute lack of understanding of the science surrounding the issue, from engaging in logical fallacies such as taking evidence of possible non-human induced warming as a refutation of the possibility of any warming being the product of human activity, to such absolute howlers as claiming that the atmosphere consists 'mainly of water vapour'. That, coupled with Goldacre's criticisms, surely puts her at the forefront of the (depressingly large) club of journalists engaging in scientific debates they simply do not understand. That's also worthy of mention (though not, of course, in those terms, nor of those of the contributer above). I'll dig out the links.FrFintonStack 02:32, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Phillips vs Goldacre

The paragraph about the alleged dangers of the MMR vaccine leaves out some details which WP:BLP requires us to put in. I've produced two improved versions, a long version and a short version. (I'm sure someone else can improve on both.) I've left the short version in place. Does anyone think we should use the longer version (possibly edited) instead? Yours in indecision, CWC(talk) 04:56, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Erm, pass. I would add, however, that the long one is not NPOV in its citing of Ben Goldacre's joy at being "savaged" by Phillips. As an aside, I've appended a sentence on Phillips' remarks on other mainstream science topics. I've cited the appropriate articles. --Plumbago 08:02, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I was lazy and picked the "fun" part of that letter.

Thanks for those links to MP's columns about global warming and evolution. However, my reading of the last two is that she's not saying evolution is wrong, she's saying that evolution leaves lots of people unsatisfied. So I think it's wrong to call her a skeptic on evolution or say she "argu[es] in favour of intelligent design positions". Those articles are skeptical about scientism — or scientistic materialism, or whatever you want to call it — but not about science itself, as far as I can see. What do others think? Cheers, CWC(talk) 15:02, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Books

I've added a "Books by Melanie Phillips" section to the article, consisting of Londonistan plus the books listed on her website. Amazon.co.uk lists some other books by Melanie Phillips, including The Tails of Tudor the Cat. Does anyone know if this is the same Melanie Phillips? Cheers, CWC(talk) 04:56, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

It says 'Mel Phillips' on the cover, so it looks unlikely. I think Amazon have incorrectly tagged that one. 86.0.203.120

I would be incredibly surprised (and amused) if Melanie Phillips had written a book called The Tails of Tudor the Cat. Magic Pickle 00:40, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

How poisonous does it sound? That's usually the way to tell. --Plumbago 08:49, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

BNP

Hmmmm. After thinking about it for a while I still don't think the reference to Phillips being praised by Griffin should remain in the article. For all of her sins (and, let's not forget, there is no shortage of those) this smacks of a POV smear; completely unwarranted guilt by association. I'm sure that, if one were to put in the work, it would be possible to find all manner of unlikely compliments from the likes of Griffin. Tagging his name onto otherwise unrelated articles seems a simple attempt to discredit them. Far better, in this case, to let Phillips' own words do that for her, and to leave the article with only her own words and those of her rational critics. Sound like a plan? --Plumbago 10:46, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

The text needs to be put in context. As I understood it, the significance of Griffin's praise was seen by commentators as twofold:

1. Showed how the BNP has developed away from anti-Semitism to a new Islamophobic focus, pushing them increasingly into an unlikely alignment with radical Zionists like Phillips.
2. Showed that Phillips is now really on the far-right, having come from relatively left of centre origins years before.

Not sure how that can be worked in, but I think its interesting and as long as it is worked into the article in a way that can't be shot down as just a smear, it should stay. --SandyDancer 10:52, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Remembering, of course, that the BNP quote in the article at present relates specifically to Phillips' crazy views on global warming. I think that there's something in the political points you raise, but we have no sources for that at present. --Plumbago 10:57, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

That's a good point. --SandyDancer 11:33, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

In the meantime, I've removed the BNP text. Here it is, should we decide to reinstate it ...

In October 2006, she was praised by British National Party leader Nick Griffin for her "rational, independent thought" on the issue.

Cheers, --Plumbago 16:10, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Guilt by association is exactly what it is. It's a depressingly common tactic on Wikipedia and should be rooted out. Palmiro | Talk 20:17, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

To be fair, it didn't last long in the article. The system does work, more or less. Besides, no real need in Phillips' case to use the words of others to damn her, she does a pretty good job of things herself. --Plumbago 21:00, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with your second point, but not your first - I've seen plenty of examples where this sort of thing has stuck. Palmiro | Talk 22:41, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Science

The reference to Dawkins that I removed was poorly sourced. I've read the source attributing the quote to Dawkins - first of all the source isn't a document by him, but an article by Phillips. And secondly he wasn't referring to evolution when he said the supposed quote.

The statement you removed was a direct quote by Melanie Phillips, in which she mischaracterises the views of Dawkins and other scientists.

Phillips claims that evolution "does not explain human self-consciousness; it does not explain altruism; it does not explain how existence began. Scientists like Dawkins say such questions are unanswerable and therefore should not be asked." At best, this is an incredibly stupid thing to say, demonstrating a complete ignorance of modern evolutionary biology. At worst, it's an outright lie. (Dawkins, for example, devoted two chapters of his most famous book, The Selfish Gene, to the evolution of altruism.)

The way the quote was included in the article without any explanation probably didn't make much sense to readers unfamiliar with evolution, but I think this quote is notable enough for inclusion, perhaps with a footnote pointing out that Dawkins and other biologists have written widely about human self-consciousness, altruism and the origins of life, and that no scientist says these questions should not be asked (although it might be difficult to get a source for that last bit).

Or maybe we should just leave it out.

Sideshow Bob Roberts 20:22, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

The section that has replaced it is hardly better. "She claims that it 'does not explain human self-consciousness; it does not explain altruism; it does not explain how existence began.'[16], ignoring the fact that the theory of evolution was never intended to explain any of those things.". Even if you don't agree with her - I don't - is it impossible to resist the urge to editorialise?

59.154.157.69 (talk) 03:23, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I've removed that last bit. I agree it was inappropriate but it was only added to the article a couple of days ago.

Please don't add the POV tag to an article without explaining clearly on the talk page how you think the article violates WP:NPOV and what should be done to improve it. Cheers, Sideshow Bob Roberts (talk) 06:10, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Is she Jewish?

[removed per BLP]

Yes. She is Jewish. Like you, many Jews find her views to be abhorrent. She regularly throws the "self hating Jew" accusation at anyone who suggests that Israel may be just a teeny weeny bit in the wrong in its treatment of Palestinians.

Indeed, this whole article reads like a whitewash job ... MK 19:22, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

MK, could you note, please, that WP:BLP applies to talk pages too? Many thanks, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:36, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Global warming

I note that the statement ""If the climate is indeed overheating, that does not mean that manmade emissions are necessarily to blame. Indeed, it is extremely unlikely that they would be since carbon dioxide forms a relatively small proportion of the atmosphere, most of which consists of water vapour" has been removed and replaced with "...in which the biggest greenhouse gas is water vapour.*"

It is true that this is what is now published in the article on Phillips' website. However, the previous statement was what was originally published in the Daily Mail, as the footnote on Phillips' page confirms. The article ought to reflect both forms. The claim may indicate a serious lack of understanding of the issue on the part of Phillips, or alternatively, an over-zealous or under attentive copy-editor (the footnote does not make clear which) and because it caused a significant amount of controversy (see the turnuptheheat link; in addition, the matter was raised on a television discussion programme) thus making it highly relevant for the controversy section. While I apppreciate that a piece by George Monbiot would not generally be appropriate for statements of fact regarding Phillips, here it is merely used to confirm the precise from of words: the substance of what the article originally claimed is confirmed by Phillips' own website.

On the other hand, the article ought to point out that that is not the form of words that the article as it currently appears on Phillips' site takes, and that Phillips' has stated that it was made in error. I have edited the article to reflect this. Thus, readers are free to decide for themselves, if they so which, where the error lay. If readers will note, the form of words the article takes no position on this matter, nor even claim that Phillips ever believed or wrote such a thing, merely that it was once contained in an article authored by her. As the section is sourced, relevant and does not endorse a particular interpretation, it conforms fully with WP:BLP and WP:NPOV policies, and I would ask other contributors not to remove it without establishing consensus.FrFintonStack 20:52, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Greenhouse section

I've just removed the following paragraph from the article:

In 2006 a Daily Mail article authored by Phillips claimed that, "If the climate is indeed overheating, that does not mean that manmade emissions are necessarily to blame. Indeed, it is extremely unlikely that they would be since carbon dioxide forms a relatively small proportion of the atmosphere, most of which consists of water vapour". However, the version as published on Phillip' website states instead that "carbon dioxide forms a relatively small proportion of the atmosphere, in which the biggest greenhouse gas is water vapour" and that the previous statement was made "in error".

I don't believe it serves any useful purpose, as it clearly (to my mind) describes a typo rather than anything significant. Basically, all Phillips has done is latterly edit her (otherwise ignorant) text so that it correctly identifies water vapour as the atmosphere's primary greenhouse gas, rather than the atmosphere's primary constituent. Given that she breathes with lungs rather than gills (as far as we know!), she clearly never meant that water vapour formed the majority of the atmosphere.

Anyway, compared to the other howlers she's committed to print on greenhouse gases (c.f. existing cites), this is clearly trivial, so I've removed it. Cheers, --Plumbago 09:38, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I think it's a big stretch to accept this as a "typo". Nick Cooper 14:31, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I suppose what I meant was that the error in this statement is absurd (i.e. that the Earth's atmosphere is mostly water), rather than ignorant and/or wilfully misguided as in Phillips' other cited statements (i.e. "warm spell is well within the normal cyclical fluctuations in temperature"). To make her statement "correct", all one needs to do is substitute "greenhouse potential" for "atmospheric constituent". By contrast, no simple fix will correct her other pronouncements on greenhouse gases and climate change. Anyway, it seemed an obvious, uninteresting "typo" to me, but I'm clearly off the mark there. Does my second explanation make any more sense? I just don't think it helps the article to include, as if controversial, an absurd statement that some (me for instance) would simply read as a boring mis-statement. And certainly not when Phillips provides so much quality self-damning ammunition herself! As evidenced in the article already.  :-) Cheers, --Plumbago 15:31, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

While I agree that this mistake is probably more than a simple typo, I don't see how it could possibly be considered notable enough to warrant a mention in an encyclopedia biography. Phillips' columns are littered with controversial nonsense that reveals much more about her than this simple slip-up. Sideshow Bob Roberts 17:18, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

In reply to the undo of my revision. She very clearly implies that those scientists dispute global warming. The entire thesis of the article is that there is no scientific consensus, and the purpose of her cites is to document that thesis. After quoting those scientists, she says "If I were part of the man-made global warming ‘consensus’, right now I’d be fingering my professional collar." A straightforward suggestion that she has shown (via Wingham and Landsea) that there is no consensus. This is her lead-in to her cite of Duncan Wingham: "...more and more of the most distinguished names in climate science around the world are saying that the theory (global warming) is total junk — and ... have given devastating evidence of the way the global warmers have falsified the evidence to create an entirely spurious, anti-scientific and deeply dishonest panic." I am undoing the undo. Bsharvy 07:13, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I would concur with this. Phillips's piece is very carefully worded, but essentially she presents the disputing of certain claimed effects of GW as if it demolishes the concept of GW as a whole. It that context, it perhaps would be better to have the text reading, "She has misrepresented scientists on more than one occasion, implying that Duncan Wingham and Christopher Landsea are part of a body of experts who deny the existence of global warming as a whole, when they do not. " —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nick Cooper (talk • contribs). 07:29, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd also agree. It's a classic tactic of deniers, whether it be climate change, evolution or genetic engineering: trawl the literature for murmurings of discontent about details, then inflate these as if they constitute substantive issues. I think Nick's suggestion is a good one. We should just make sure we can support both sides of the proposed sentence with appropriate (and good) cites. Cheers, --Plumbago 08:07, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

The claim that she misrepresents these scientists is WP:OR as it's merely your opinion. Iceage77 09:32, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

We certainly need better citations for this, I agree. But she's definitely being somewhat disingenous in her representions of these scientists. As I noted above, it's a classic tactic for those in the denial business. Only show those bits of objective evidence that hint at supporting your argument; ignore the wider picture at all costs; above all else, create the impression that there's a real "debate" going on. Anyway, I'll see if I can trawl up better sources (The Register is quite pants really). Cheers, --Plumbago 09:41, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

This is a blog/op-ed column, obviously it's not going to be balanced. You're getting a bit desperate making an issue of this. Iceage77 09:47, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

The question isn't whether the blog is balanced. The question is whether she has misrepresented scientists on global warming, and considering we have a science subsection in this article, and a global warming section within that section, and information about what scientists say about her, it is consistent to have information about what she says about scientists. There is no original research, there is a citation backing up a claim. The fact that Landsea acknowledges GW is even in the Wikipedia entry for him. "Original research (OR) is a term used in Wikipedia to refer to unpublished facts, arguments, concepts, statements, or theories. The term also applies to any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position — or, in the words of Wikipedia's co-founder Jimmy Wales, would amount to a "novel narrative or historical interpretation." Nothing here is unpublished, nor does any of it advance anything novel. I think changing "claims" to "suggests" or "implies" is fine. Otherwise, everything is relevant and documented.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bsharvy (talk • contribs) 10:47, 28 June 2007 (UTC).

Sorry but the claim of misrepresentation needs to made by a reliable 3rd party source, not by editors on Wikipedia. Iceage77 11:22, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Iceage is right, we can't say anything negative about a living person unless it's explicitly backed up by a reliable source. Since we haven't found a reliable source who says "She has misrepresented scientists on more than one occasion", we can't make that claim in the article — even if we're 100% sure it's true. Nor can we say that Phillips "implies" something in her column: we can only report what she actually says and allow the reader to make up his or her own mind. We're never allowed to offer our own interpretation of a source, but it's especially inappropriate when that interpretation reflects poorly on a living person.

I've been frustrated by this before, when I believed Phillips had grossly distorted what scientists were saying about evolution but I couldn't find a reliable source who stated this explicitly so I couldn't say it in the article. Unfortunately, most scientists don't think Phillips' column is worth responding to in print, and this severely limits the criticisms we can make in the article. Sideshow Bob Roberts 12:24, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree. OTOH, we can write things like "George Monbiot has alleged that Phillips is an agent of Big Bunny." Per WP:BLP, we must cite such claims and should put them 'in the mouth' of whoever made them.

Please note that there are a wide variety of beliefs about global warming, not just "there's no such thing" and "OMG! We're all gunna fry!". For instance, many believe that global warming is happening and is largely man-made but is only a minor problem. Another group believes that it's real, minor and not caused by humans. ISTM that in her June 22, 2007 item, Phillips classifies Patterson in the real/minor/natural group, but does not classify anyone else, only point out specific areas of disagreement with "the consensus" (causes of hurricanes, malaria, Kilimanjaro, etc). I see no implication that anyone mentioned in the article denies "the existence of global warming as a whole". Cheers, CWC 12:28, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but that is not the claim the article makes. Are we reading the same article? She says: "...more and more of the most distinguished names in climate science around the world are saying that the theory (global warming) is total junk — and ... have given devastating evidence of the way the global warmers have falsified the evidence to create an entirely spurious, anti-scientific and deeply dishonest panic." And that is her introduction to a scientist who is documented saying "I'm not denying global warming...". Same for the other scientist, for whom the citation is Wikipedia. Everything is documented by a reliable source, and, ya'know, would stand up in court. The preceding incomplete comment was added by Bsharvy (talk · contribs) who had some sort of browser problem.

OK, I was wrong: it is possible to read the article as implying (but not stating outright) that some or all of the quoted scientists deny the existence of GW. I was reading the column as a political argument, not a scientific argument. I argue that the column should be read as a political op-ed, that inferring that she is labeling people as non-believers in GW is OR, and that we cannot claim that she is doing that without a WP:RS to cite. Cheers, CWC 09:56, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

British education system

was her book a critique of the British education system or the English and Welsh system? Northern Ireland (not geographically in "Britain", I know) has an eleven plus and Scotland studies and sits entirely different courses and exams. Benson85 01:32, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Allmusthaveprizes.jpg

Image:Allmusthaveprizes.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 06:10, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I've tried to write a FUR for the image. Cheers, CWC 10:34, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Polemic

So would the description polemical be appropriate to describe M Phillips' journalism? For example: "Jews in Britain are now attacked more frequently than any other minority group." (The Spectator 2008). That's to say the making of essentially unverifiable (if not downright untrue) statements for effect. The effect in this case an engendering of anti-Muslim sentiment. The U.S. has a number of such commentators/journalists, she may be unique in Britain. The above sample of her opinions is from her blog on the Spectator, does she write in this highly opinionated way in that context (like somebody's idea of a blogger indeed) and write differently elsewhere? I can't bear to do the field research myself. Hakluyt bean (talk) 14:07, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Twenty-eight Israelis have been killed by Gazan rockets since 2001

I would like to remove that part as it is totally irrelevant to the topic. What do you all think? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Enigmie (talk • contribs) 04:03, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I think it's highly relevant as it provides context for her 'genocide' remark.FrFintonStack (talk) 04:46, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Totally irrelevant to the topic? Eh? Did you read the preceding sentences? It is directly related to, and fully contextualises, Phillips' statement. 86.17.211.148 (talk)

Views on Iraq and WMD

I am surprised that there is absolutely nothing of Melanie's views on Saddam's WMD, and how the dictator secretly hid some while transferred others out of the country. She has had a lot to say about this matter. See WMD conjecture in the aftermath of the 2003 Iraq War. Dynablaster (talk) 04:37, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Location of birth

Which part of the UK was she born in? Nietzsche 2 (talk) 14:26, 25 February 2009 (UTC)