Talk:Amanda Platell

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Biography / Politics and Government (Rated Stub-class)
WikiProject icon 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.
Stub-Class article Stub  This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the politics and government work group.
 
WikiProject Journalism  
WikiProject icon 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.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 

Private Eye story on this Wikipedia article[edit]

According to the current edition (31 August 2007) of Private Eye, the unsigned editor currently making major changes to this article originates in the Daily Mail which carries Platell's regular column. As this amounts to censorship, most of the changes are uncommented and they are by an unregistered user, I feel they should be reverted. If the editor making the changes would like to sign in and comment, that would also be welcome. LiberalViews 18:29, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I've reinstated these edits, cited a source (more still needed) and generally tidied up the article, adding an infobox, in this edit. --Oscarthecat 21:43, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
I have no connection with the Mail, but the reference to Platell being an "immigrant" obviously breaks NPOV, so I have changed it. The hypocrisy is still clear though, if one wishes to see it, and the introduction will now help users from outside the UK when they stumble over this article. Philip Cross 16:45, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
An anonymous user on the NTL ISP domain keeps adding POV edits. I've reverted multiple times and placed warnings on the user's page. If continues, I'll protect the page from anonymous edits for a spell. --Oscarthecat 06:11, 3 September 2007 (UTC)


Marital status[edit]

"Is unmarried and without children" that's a bit bitchy for encyclopedia, especially as she has written about being childless.--Pandaplodder (talk) 17:59, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Generally, that section should be rewritten. I've added the primary sources for the second article, but the tone needs to be dealt with.Hrcolyer (talk) 16:45, 29 January 2009 (UTC)


Malawian orphan[edit]

Online, I checked the veracity of the story formerly contained in the article. I found it completely wanting: Platell has not written about it and no other reference could be located. Philip Cross (talk) 17:07, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Daily Mail article[edit]

The Daily Mail article repeatedly being inserted under the heading "Child Pornography" is a piece written by Platell describing how easy it is to find child pornography on the Internet, and calling for Internet providers to institute greater restrictions on its availability and for increased law enforcement scrutiny of child pornographers. Under no circumstances can such an article be used to create the inference that she is at all linked with child pornography. That is a complete twisting of the facts and an unacceptable misrepresentation of the truth. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:15, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

No, she pretty clearly says she looked up child porn. Faulty (talk) 08:11, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Where in the article did she say anything about looking up on child porn? I haven't the time to look up on it as the article is blocked on my workplace's network. hmssolent\You rang? ship's log 08:23, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
"One video I watched ... It starts with a sweet-looking girl in her early teens," etc etc Faulty (talk) 08:51, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Then one might write a paragraph discussing the fact that she wrote an article critical of ISPs for failing to block child pornography, etc. and as part of her research, was able to easily find child pornography on the Internet - which she viewed only long enough to realize it was actually child pornography. One wouldn't write a misrepresentative section entitled "Child Pornography" that had the clear and unacceptable intent of sounding like she endorsed it, participated in it, viewed it for prurient purposes or anything remotely resembling that formulation.
If you think this particular story is encyclopedic (which probably requires that it have been reported on by more than a single source) I would invite you to draft a well-sourced and appropriately-toned rewrite of the section and gain consensus that it is appropriately placed in the article. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:58, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
No, I think "research purposes" sums it up pretty succinctly. If you want to expand on that go ahead, within reason of course! Faulty (talk) 09:00, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Per the biographies of living persons policy, that material stays out of this article until an editorial consensus is reached that it is encyclopedic, appropriately-represented and properly weighted. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 09:07, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
I am sorry that it causes you offence, but it is a good addition to the article and it meets all those criteria. Faulty (talk) 09:10, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
I suggest you read our biographies of living persons policy about due weight and proper representation of sources. The section you are inserting is none of those. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:34, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

I've semi-protected the article given the enormous potential for massive WP:BLP failure. I'd suggest that one important criteria for inclusion would be third party coverage. Has anyone else covered Platell's activities? —Tom Morris (talk) 10:16, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, besides the original Daily Mail article, we have http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/05/25/daily-mail-journalist-admits-viewing-child-porn_n_3335486.html Faulty (talk) 11:44, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
So we have a piece written in a tabloid and covered by a blog. That's pretty thin gruel. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:54, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

The Piece was written by Amanda Platell. No where in the article does she say she "viewed only long enough to realize it was actually CP" In fact she describes in quite some detail the kidnapping and rape of a teenage girl. It's pretty clear that she, by her own admission sought out the material for the purpose of highlighting the lack of ISP control for research purposes, even though this is still breaking the law. Nothing about the removed line is factually incorrect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cabbage1233456 (talkcontribs) 12:21, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Oh, The Mail have added the following to the end of the piece written by Amanda "The Daily Mail, which carried out its investigations in the public interest, is reporting these websites to the police. Readers must not access these websites as it is against the law." Another clear admission to accessing illegal material. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cabbage1233456 (talkcontribs) 13:46, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

It is clearly misrepresentative and undue weight to describe the situation as it was. If she is actually arrested and formally accused of a crime, then some contextualized mention of it would be appropriate. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:54, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Please point out to me why the subject of this entry writing about her own research into the world of child porn, where she graphically details the abduction and rape of a young girl is not reliable sourcing.
I'm still waiting and have asked you several times to do so but you refuse to engage.
This isn't some 3rd party claiming she did it; it's from the horses mouth so to speak, and confirmed by the Editor of The Daily Mail with their disclaimer at the end of the article.

PLEASE EXPLAIN TO ME HOW THIS IS MISREPRESENTITIVE

"On the 25th of May 2013 The Daily Mail published a piece written by Amanda Platell entitled "My journey into the hell that is internet child porn". As part of her research Platell accessed illegal sites containing various examples of child abuse. Platell describes a 24 minute video which she watched in which a "sweet-looking girl in her early teens" is abducted and raped "in every possible position, all captured in close-up".

I have not claimed she was arrested. Nothing I have written is factually incorrect according to Amanda's own writing.

Also nice that you're abusing Wikipedia's report system by accusing me of Sockpuppetry. You're not exactly engaging in good faith here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cabbage1233456 (talkcontribs) 17:37, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

That is not the same text that you reverted into the article earlier. What you have proposed here is a reasonable starting point for discussion. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:53, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Then tell me what is factually incorrect about this edit:

"On 24th May 2013 The Daily Mail published an article in which Platell admitted to having watched child pornography for research purposes." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cabbage1233456 (talkcontribs) 19:09, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

It is entirely misrepresentative and out-of-context with the source material, and thus not in compliance with Wikipedia content policies.
Notably, the use of the word "admitted" implies some sort of criminal guilt or wrongdoing on her part, of which has not even been accused, much less convicted. Furthermore, omitting the context of her actions - an investigatory intent to document the ease of access to pedophilic material which she accuses Internet providers of not doing enough to prevent - unacceptably takes facts out of context and implies something wholly different than the truth.
It would be like writing "On 6 June 1944 American troops invaded France and killed 9,000 defending soldiers." Factually true, yet totally out of context and implies something wholly different than the truth. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:23, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

I honestly don't know what the hell you're trying to prove with your rather childish exaggeration at the end there.
You are reading into things that are not there. Admitted? Well yes she does admit to watching Child pornography for research purposes and I would argue that The Daily Mail's disclaimer at the end highlights the fact that accessing these websites is illegal. Anyway the edit above can be inserted when the article is unlocked.

You know that's more than a little hypocrisy and irony in criticizing an article for apparently insinuating wrong doing, while at the same time filing false reports against an editor you're having a disagreement with, then covering it up by removing a sentence calling you out on this from your talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.165.224.57 (talk) 01:58, 31 May 2013 (UTC) ──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Why is this even in the article? Was this that notable? It seems like undue weight for one article, especially given she is a journalist. --Malerooster (talk) 13:23, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

It clearly isn't every day that a journalist writes a story where they claim to have broken such a serious law and cultural taboo - that in itself satisfies any question of notability. The passage removed from the wiki article seemed to be to be a fair and reasonable reflection of the situation, although I do think that using the word 'admitted' is prejudicial, and perhaps it should say 'claimed to have watched' rather than 'admitted to having watched'. Nevertheless, the word 'admitted' is used in a number of reports on the issue, including "Daily Mail Journalist Amanda Platell Admits Viewing Child Porn For Article, Faces Possible Police Investigation" at the Huffington Post [[1]], quite a reasonable description of events and possibly of use as a reference. It clearly is a serious situation and it seems odd that it would not be seen as relevant to an article on the subject. Bonusballs (talk) 13:48, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Our verifiability policy requires reliable external sources to support all material, and the Biographies of Living Persons policy demands that when we write about living people, we do so using only the most reputable of sources and with a keen eye toward undue weight, neutrality and misrepresenting sources. The only source which has been cited as "reporting" on this issue is a short, unbylined, Huffington Post blog post. A Google News search finds zero other reliable sources mentioning this as an issue. An anonymously-written blog post on Huffington Post is, quite simply, not anywhere near reliable enough nor significant enough to justify the inclusion of material which may be construed in a significantly derogatory manner. Come back when this makes The Times and we'll have something to discuss. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:27, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

You are again ignoring the fact that the person who wrote The Daily Mail piece is Amanda Platell. I'm still waiting for you to explain how her own fucking words are not a reliable source.

I'm STILL waiting for you to explain to me why Amanda's own words are not a reliable source. It's been DAYS and you still trot out the same nonsense regarding the Huff post (who are also reporting on Amanda's very own words) instead of addressing my question.Cabbage1233456 (talk) 08:56, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

I have explained to you what I believe is required by our content policies. The mere fact of its publication is not necessarily encyclopedic - Platell has no doubt written many hundreds of articles, the vast majority of which are not mentioned here in any way. Mentioning one and only one of those articles in a manner that is completely out of context and supported by no external reliable sources is prohibited by, among others, WP:BLP, WP:UNDUE, WP:V and WP:RS. Until and unless an editorial consensus is developed that the content in question is encyclopedic and in keeping with fundamental policies, it is likely to stay out. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 09:12, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

You didn't answer my question. You just spurted out the same tired line again.

Cabbage1233456 (talk) 19:46, 1 June 2013 (UTC) I also removed the other material about trangenders since that didn't seem to be that notable as well. Should the material about Hugh Grant hatchet job go as well? --Malerooster (talk) 13:29, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

There exists no editorial consensus for the inclusion of any material related to the Daily Mail article in question, given the lack of any reliable sources discussing it. And no, an anonymously-written, unbylined blog post on Huffington Post is not a reliable source. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:26, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
And no, the blog post was not written by "Stuart Hazell" - showing a complete failure to actually analyze the source. Stuart Hazell is an admitted murderer, and obviously did not write anything for Huffington Post. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:30, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

You seem to be the only person who has a problem with it...and WTF are you on about with "Steward Hazell"?? I never said the Huff post article was written by him...whoever he is. Since You keep going on about this being "unsourced" here is the article. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2330640/My-journey-hell-internet-child-porn-We-asked-AMANDA-PLATELL-view-websites-twisted-mind-little-Tias-killer.html Note that the tagline says Amanda Platell? And that the article is on the daily mail website? I believe this is sufficient evidence for the inclusion on the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.4.160.7 (talk) 14:46, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Your belief is noted. I believe, however, that your belief is wrong. What we need is an independent reliable source which makes whatever point it is that you're trying to make about the piece written by Platell and published by the Daily Mail. Not us (or you) looking at the piece itself and saying "it says XYZ, and XYZ is worthy of mention". --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:26, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

I haven't edited Wikipedia for a while, so it's sad to see that editors are still abusing rules and processes to censor articles. The fact that she was briefly investigated by the police for viewing child porn, for the purposes of an article, is sourced everywhere. It was a well known story. My only question is, who does ":NorthBySouthBaranof" work for? The Daily Mail or Platell herself? Cjmooney9 (talk) 17:12, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Well, if you bothered to look at their userpage, it says they work for the U.S. federal government, which one would imagine doesn't have much to do with either the Daily Mail nor Platell. And if you looked at their contributions, you'd see that they mainly edit articles about things like national parks in the USA, and sports cars in the USA. This information could be useful in correcting assumptions you appear to be making about them. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:59, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Which of her articles rise to the level of inclusion in her bio?[edit]

How should this be determined? I would start by how wide the coverage from 3rd party sources is regarding any of her articles. If an article draws huge and detailed attention, then it should be discussed her with sources included. --Malerooster (talk) 13:32, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Which of her article(s) should be included?:

  • Hugh Grant hatch job:
  • Crack down on transgender crime:
  • Child porn viewing:


  • As a journo she writes many articles. Many many articles. There should be coverage of her work in 3rd party sources for it to merit inclusion. So taking the examples above -
The Hugh Grant 'hatchet job' was reported elsewhere, as well as mentioned in the Leveson enquiry. Clearly this is a notable story.
The 'crack down on transgender crime' piece has not been sourced to any third party coverage, it was a piece she wrote which may not have been properly research, but there are no sources (unlike the Hugh Grant story) commenting or raising this as an issue. 'Amanda Platell writes story on issue' with primary source for that, followed by a primary source backing up the claim she got info wrong smacks of synthesis & OR to me. I have taken that out pending reliable sourcing to support that story was notable.
The child porn issue. Like above - its not in dispute she wrote the article or what she had to do to research it. That is what journos have to do for a story. Its standard practice. There are no sources supporting that it has notability as a subject.
So to recap - articles can be included if there is coverage of them by other reliable sources. If there is not, its business as usual and so would be removed/disqualified by any number of policies. The BLP policy certainly applies to anything that would be seen as controversial. Only in death does duty end (talk) 07:43, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

" Like above - its not in dispute she wrote the article or what she had to do to research it. That is what journos have to do for a story. Its standard practice." I just want to make it clear that you're saying it's standard practice for a journalist to break the law to get a story? You don't find it in the slightest bit notable that a journalist did exactly the same thing that Pete Townshend did despite the fact that he was arrested and charged? Looking for and watching child pornography is not 'standard practice'.89.165.224.57 (talk) 19:12, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Well its a bit naive to think journos dont break the law for a story. If they can get away with it, they will and (attempt to) hide behind freedom of the press. Granted its *amazingly* stupid to do it with something like that. In the UK we are very strict about that sort of thing. But thats beside the point. Other reliable sources have not seen fit to comment on it, so it doesnt go in. Personally I wouldnt class the huffington post as unreliable, but lots of people on wikipedia do. Especially when it comes to BLPs. You may want to take that one to the Reliable sources noticeboard and see if it passes there. I have no objection to including it as long as it passes. Only in death does duty end (talk) 07:55, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
Usually I view the HuffPo as reliable, but the particular post in question is unbylined and hence entirely anonymous. That's not something we generally accept for a reliable source - not bylining something is a sign that someone editorially isn't really willing to stand behind it. Compare that post to, say, this post today - which is clearly bylined.
Furthermore, it has been over a week since the article was published and there has been not a single other piece of reliable reporting on the issue. The Huffington Post has not followed up on their original claims, they have presented no evidence of any official investigation, no evidence of criminal or civil wrongdoing, heck, no evidence that anyone else cares. At this point, the Huffington Post article appears to be nothing more than an attempt to manufacture controversy where there was none to be found. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:09, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Spin for William Hague[edit]

How come there's no section on what she did when working for William Hague? Surely she did some notable stuff? 82.28.223.138 (talk) 18:32, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

We could assume so. Have you been able to find any sources? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:37, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
How about the chapter here on 'Project Hague'? http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=t6tC1UnZtOwC&pg=RA1-PA32&lpg=RA1-PA32&dq=amanda+platell+william+hague&source=bl&ots=5SYAXTzvuS&sig=ERppPmtbIqbGvIyIixTpmZAwnKE&hl=en&sa=X&ei=LHIaU6DYMsqVhQf5q4DoAw&ved=0CC8Q6AEwATgK#v=onepage&q&f=false 82.28.223.138 (talk) 01:39, 8 March 2014 (UTC)