Talk:Melanie Phillips

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Off2riorob (talk | contribs) at 11:38, 24 November 2011 (→‎Stonewall Award). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Breivik content - compromise

Looking at the pingpong of reversion and re-insertion that's going on over the Breivik content, I've attempted a (perhaps temporary) compromise solution. If other editors (from either standpoint) disagree with the way in which I've tried to strike a middle ground, how about we all discuss the subject here? I'm more than happy to mediate if anyone wants me to. SP-KP (talk) 16:08, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It should be discussed here, but during that discussion contentious materials ought to stay out, as this is a BLP. Please refrain from adding any text about Breveik back until this has been discussed.Griswaldo (talk) 16:34, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Concur. Collect (talk) 16:37, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thanks both of you for engaging in the discussion. I don't have a firm view on whether this should be included: my edit was simply an attempt to find a middle ground between two groups of editors who at the moment, don't seem to be seeing eye to eye on this. Perhaps you could explain in a little more detail why you think this content shouldn't be in the article, so that others who hold a different view can then discuss this with you and we can attempt to find a solution which all are comfortable with? SP-KP (talk) 16:39, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SP-KP, how on earth are you describing a reinstatement of the exact same material as a "compromise?" Here's the comparison - [1]. No change except where you placed it. You also added the heading "Influences" which is, if anything, worse than before since it implies a causal connection between Phillips statements to Breveik's actions.Griswaldo (talk) 16:40, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for replying on this so quickly. Could you explain what you don't like about the material? SP-KP (talk) 16:45, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is not something that is presented as a meaningful part of her biography by sources by reliable sources actually discussing her. By adding the information we suggest a link ... that her words influenced him to do what he did. Since this is a WP:BLP we should be very cautious with such a suggestion, relying only on extremely reliable sources that discuss this when they discuss her, not Breveik. Now can you explain your use of the word compromise? It seems disingenuous to me as you used it.Griswaldo (talk) 17:11, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. . I've answered the question at Griswaldo's talk page to try to ensure that we focus on content here rather than on my mediation skills. SP-KP (talk) 17:14, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I flat out reject your role as a mediator. If you wish to engage in discussion then please do, but you are not mediating when you simply revert back to the version of one side. Can you please refrain from calling this mediation, and talking about compromise when it isn't. It is disingenuous.Griswaldo (talk) 17:17, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Collect has kindly pointed me to the discussion at WP:BLP/N where the general question of how & where topics which Breivik has written about should be referenced. According to my reading (Collect, please correct me if you think this is a misreading), the consensus there is that Breivik's manifesto refers to a multitude of different subjects, and that because of that, particularly in the case of BLP articles, we should have a very high threshold when deciding on the relevance of inclusion in the article on the subject, rather than just the article on Breivik. On the face of it, that seems a reasonable position. Perhaps those editors who wish to see the content added here could say why they feel Phillips crosses that threshold? SP-KP (talk) 17:39, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Griswaldo posted the following above and I think it may have got a little lost in amongst his comments on whether I'm an appropriate person to mediate this discussion, so I'm reposting it here to give it more prominence. "This is not something that is presented as a meaningful part of her biography by sources by reliable sources actually discussing her. By adding the information we suggest a link ... that her words influenced him to do what he did. Since this is a WP:BLP we should be very cautious with such a suggestion, relying only on extremely reliable sources that discuss this when they discuss her, not Breveik." SP-KP (talk) 17:46, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why do we need a mediator and one that added the disputed content is not a correct person. This detail is only notable in the mass murderers article not at this BLP, its undue association here when this person had no connection or involvement in the mass murder at all. - not here at all. Off2riorob (talk) 21:24, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stonewall Award

I understand concerns have been expressed about inclusion of the 'Bigot of the Year' award presented to Phillips at the Annual Stonewall Awards. However, this has received media coverage and is a fairly well established award. I don't accept this has anything to do with "nastiness" or "maliciousness". Comments such as this are not helpul. All we do on wikipedia is report the facts, and I'm afraid they can't all be nice. What's important is that we don't violate BLP and I don't believe inclusion would have an impact on those grounds. Nor can I see why the Stonewall award should not be included while we have reference to the 2003 "Most Islamophobic Media Personality of the Year" award? Contaldo80 (talk) 11:31, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Its an demeaning attack award that was not accepted. Awarded by an activist group that is using the award to demean a living person. - Bigot of the Year' award presented to Phillips at theAnnual Stonewall Awards - Please provide diffs/reliable sources for you assertions such as " this has received media coverage and is a fairly well established award" , thanks Off2riorob (talk) 11:43, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- the content in our article hardly asserts any degree of independant notability - this is our coverage of the event. - Stonewall (UK) (section) Event - Stonewall holds a number of high profile events including the Stonewall Awards, the Stonewall Equality Dinner and the Brighton Equality Walk. - http://www.stonewall.org.uk/what_you_can_do/events/default.asp - Off2riorob (talk) 11:52, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The awards are covered by the BBC. Stonewall give a 'Sports award of the year', 'Entertainer of the year', 'Writer of the year' and others. It's in its sixth year and is not an attack or spoof award ceremony and is not violating BLP. Span (talk) 11:56, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, a minor blog post. No mention of the bigot of the year I notice. Do you have a list of the previous winners? Ah here they are -Stonewall Awards (which needs updating with the 2011 winners) - no mention at the Chris Grayling article but the others have a mention - Lets wait for the other users that have edited the content to comment. note -I notified User:Jprw about this discussion - he is the other user that edited this content. If included it shouldn't be in the award section and if included I support her rebuttal position being included to remove the attack aspect without any defence or explanatory detail. - as in this diff - Off2riorob (talk) 12:22, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that this organisation is interpreting her behaviour as bigoted. As long as there is a shadow or a doubt that this is not the case, then under BLP guidelines, the ref should be given a wide berth. It would also appear that it is not a particulary notable event in the context of her life and career, and perhaps smacks of recentism as well. Jprw (talk) 13:32, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Except by that crietria we wouldn't be able to include any awards results, since they're always someone else's "interpretation" of someone or something. Nick Cooper (talk) 15:15, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Except that "Best Actor in a Supporting Role" etc/ etc. don't raise serious BLP violations. Jprw (talk) 16:49, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it raises BLP issues at all. You said yourself that 'this organisation is interpreting her behaviour as bigoted' and that's all that was said in the article. It isn't remotely libellous, and it's sourced. Your argument, IMHO, is typical of a common misuse of BLP policy which all too often means that articles about controversial and polarizing figures are written in a mealy-mouthed way. This fails to inform the reader of the broad range of reactions to whatever figure the article is about. In this case, it does the reader a disservice if they aren't aware of the vitriol with which MP is treated.
I'm on the fence as to whether this particular criticism is WP:UNDUE - I rather think it may be. But it irritates me a lot to see BLP misused as a justification for removing anything nasty said by anyone, about anyone. That results in lame, wishy-washy articles about colourful figures. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 18:48, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[2] this ref looks problematic as well. Jprw (talk) 13:44, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, apart from this BLP it is only linked from two others on the en wikipedia , Azzam Tamimi and Yisroel Dovid Weiss. Off2riorob (talk) 13:53, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
When you say this isn't 'notable' in her career and a negative award crosses WP:BLP which aspects of the guidelines are you thinking of? How is this different from a criticism? Span (talk) 21:47, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think that is close to the point - its not an award at all - it is a strongly opinionated criticism from an activist organization disguised as an award. If its a criticism then it does not belong in the award section and the rebuttal is required and secondary reporting on the opinionated groups criticism is required to independently assert its notability - in this persons life story it is of clear minimal notability. Off2riorob (talk) 21:55, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. It also looks incongruous alongside her Orwell Prize award. Jprw (talk) 05:38, 9 November 2011 (UTC

It belongs in the award section because it's an award, just as Writer of the year is an award. This is smacking very much of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. No guidelines have been infringed.Span (talk) 18:19, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's clearly not an award in the normal understanding of such. Its like the republican party awarding the democrat party the worst political party award. I would be prepared to consider its inclusion with the rebuttal in the homosexuality section. Off2riorob (talk) 18:26, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Putting BLP concerns to one side, the reference still infringes a number of basic WP criteria related to notability, weight, and neutrality. WP:IDONTLIKEIT here shouldn't come into it. The reference to Islamaphobe of the Year is also contentious and looks to be a violation of basic BLP criteria (as well as looking utterly ridiculous alongside the description of her being awarded the Orwell Prize). Jprw (talk) 05:52, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Could you explain why you think mention of the Islamophobe award 'looks to be a violation of basic BLP criteria'? Bear in mind that the BLP policy explicitly allows criticism:
"Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, so long as the material is presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone."
Again, this could be undue, but I can't see how it violates BLP. I agree with Off2riorob, that the stonewall award could go in the homosexuality section, and similarly the islamophobe award could be mentioned in the Britain and Islam section - which currently has absolutely no mention of how her commentary on Islam has been recieved. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 07:54, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Could you explain why you think mention of the Islamophobe award 'looks to be a violation of basic BLP criteria'? Bear in mind that the BLP policy explicitly allows criticism

Yes.

  • It looks like a non-reliable source
  • The material is obviously not presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone.

Jprw (talk) 12:25, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The organisation's own website is a reliable source for its own doings, but the problem is that it hasn't been picked up by secondary sources. That's why I think a mention is probably WP:UNDUE.
If you think that "The material is obviously not presented responsibly, etc", you have misunderstood BLP policy. The material is presented responsibly, conservatively, and disinterestedly - it simply states that the award was made. It doesn't endorse, or interpret, analyse, or describe it in any way. This is as it should be. It doesn't matter from a BLP point of view if the criticism made by some source is fair, reasonable, etc.
Going back to the Stonewall award, this has been picked up by a secondary source, Diva (magazine), here: [3].
Incidentally, the Danish Sappho award has the same shortcomings as the Islamophobe award - it's unsourced, and googling only turned up the organisation's own website and mentions in blogs.
So I think the Stonewall award should go into the homosexuality section, the Islamophobe and Sappho awards are undue (not picked up by secondary sources), and that only leaves the Orwell. That could be moved to the 'Personal life, education, and career' section, and the 'awards' section would disappear altogether. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 14:27, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[4] Any site that lumps together Polly Toynbee and Nicky Campbell as Islamophobes in my view cannot be taken seriously. It also looks like a cheap blog. I agree with the thrust of what you are saying re: the Sappho award though. Jprw (talk) 17:07, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree about taking out the awards section and putting the awards back in career and homosexuality. The Islamophobia Award has two mentions on Aljazeera [5] [6], a main stream news site. Span (talk) 18:20, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be bending over backwards to reference, by hook or by crook, this very obscure website in the article. Is it really so difficult to find more reliable sources to document what are perceived to be Phillips's more extreme stances on certain issues? Jprw (talk) 05:25, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was replying to Sqiddy who said s/he had not seen any secondary sources that had picked up the Islamophobe award. Span (talk) 12:08, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The first source does look OK, and confirms that MP got the award. The second isn't Aljazeera the news organisation, it's some other publication, and I personally don't think an opinion piece by Gilad Atzmon is worth much. Rather than spend a lot of effort on getting this award mentioned, I think a better way to balance the 'On Britain and Islam' section would be to quote some critical responses from mainstream UK news and current affairs publications. At the moment there's no mention at all of any criticism in that section, and since there's been quite a lot of it, that doesn't conform to NPOV. It didn't take long to find usable commentary by Ed Husain [7], Mehdi Hasan [8], and Kenan Malik [9].
(And I'm a 'he', BTW). Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 15:15, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am unsure what is desired to be added here the externals I viewed as presented above were highly opinioned and blogged by the authors themselves - if there is a desired addition behind this discussion would someone please present it so I can investigate it, thanks - Off2riorob (talk) 18:20, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid I've lost sight of what's been suggested/ agreed on the stonewall award? I can accept its inclusion under the homosexuality section but there needs to be inclusion in the same way as the other awards. Phillips is a polarizing figure - that's how she makes her money. So we should not be surprised if aspects f the article show how others disagree with her. Indeed it would be odd if it did not. Contaldo80 (talk) 10:12, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think there was a suggestion above to put the awards back under separate sections and add the Stonewall to the Homosexuality section. There seemed to be some compromise reached on this. Span (talk) 11:08, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest abandoning the Awards section as is, and from its current content retain only the reference to the Orwell Prize award, which can be added either to the career section or perhaps the lead. Jprw (talk) 12:41, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I'd rather go with the suggestion above that we put the stonewall award into the section on homosexuality. Don't have strong views on whether the rest of the awards should remain - but it does seem odd to me in just keeping the Orwell prize. Gives a rather skewed picture I fear. Contaldo80 (talk) 15:45, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The main reason is that the other awards are utterly obscure compared to the Orwell Prize. Re: the Stonewall Award, there are multiple problems with this: not only is it obscure, there are also issues with weight and recentism (leaving to one side that it is extremely nasty and potentially inaccurate). The fact that editors are so willing to include it is beginning to suggest that there is a trend of negative POV editing against the subject. I remind editors of the central BLP tenet: Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. Jprw (talk) 16:44, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Per WP:V and WP:RS primary sources from organizations which present awards are not RS for stating such in a WP:BLP. "Diva" is also a POV magazine, and it is not RS here for statements about any award which is contentious. Cheers. Collect (talk) 17:24, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sources do not have to be strictly NPOV (according to you) for them to be reliable. Diva is a printed-on-paper news-stand magazine, and it will have lawyers who prevent it saying that bigotry awards have been awarded when they have not. You appear to be twisting policy to keep out material critical of the subject. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 08:09, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually he seems to be pointing out a basic violation of WP: BLP. The important point is: if you want to include material that is potentially slanderous, at least make sure your sources are spot on. Jprw (talk) 08:16, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can you specify in what way this violates BLP policy? I don't think it does. You are waving the BLP policy (again) as if it said 'only nice things can be included'. It doesn't. This is a UK publication which will take care not to libel people, and is IMHO an RS. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 08:45, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is utterly odd. Using words like "nasty" suggests too much of an identification with the subject of the wiki article. It's not our job here to determine whether things are nasty or not. And the suggestion that this is "libellous" also has no foundation. Is Phillips' suing Stonewall for defamation? On what basis can you justify libel in this article? I am concerned that the neutrality of this article is being undermined, by only keeping in references to "nice" awards and "nice" events. Can I remind you that this is not a hagiography. And on what grounds do you make the arguments for poor sourcing? Contaldo80 (talk) 10:14, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Can I also flag an additional problem. We are debating on this page whether we should mention that Phillips has been given this award by Stonewall. But at the same time there is a wiki article called Stonewall Awards which lists the award as being given to Phillips. Surely wikipedia must be consistent?
I personally see that as a net gain and as a plus. The fact that they have given Phillips an award is at least, if not more notable about them than the person that have given the unaccepted and attacking award to. Coverage there allows us to cover it without adding the attacking so called award here - a win win. Off2riorob (talk) 11:37, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Melanie_Phillips&oldid=462247142"