Talk:Melanie Phillips

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)

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)

Concur. Collect (talk) 16:37, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

- 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Except that "Best Actor in a Supporting Role" etc/ etc. don't raise serious BLP violations. Jprw (talk) 16:49, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

[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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

I don't think that argument holds water. If we are keeping mention of the award off this article because it violates BLP, then to ensure consistency it has to be removed from the Stonewall Award article. As well as all other awards listed there as being given to living people. Alternatively if we retain the names on the Stonewall Award article then this signals that it is fine to make reference under the Phillips article. And again you are using awards like "attacking". Can I urge you not to over-identify with the article subject and improve the article on the basis of dispassionate objectivity please. Contaldo80 (talk) 13:16, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

That a BLP violation may exist elsewhere is not an argument to allow it here. The source is the organization itself (I.e. not RS by definition as a primary source at best), is "contentious" as a claim for her being anti-gay, and the Diva editorial piece is not strong enough to stand as a source about Phillips being anti-gay per WP:BLP. This would apply to all content on Wikipedia - but it is not up to us to "fix" every violation on WP - only those we find. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:15, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Equally one can draw the conclusion that a BLP violation does not exist elsewhere and so it is spurious grounds to apply it here. I have still not had a compelling argument as to why inclusion of the award would constitute a BLP violation. What exactly is the issue with sources? Are we concerned that the award might not have been made? The Stonewall Awards have received attention in the past in mainsteam UK media (Guardian, Times etc). So they patently do exist. Why are we also being inconsistent in including the anti-muslim award, but not this one (is the former not contentious)? Finally, who has said that she's anti-gay? We are just saying that the UK's biggest charity has given her a public award (in a ceremony at the V&A) called 'bigot of the year'. I can't see what that's got to do with describing her in the article as anti-gay or not. As I understand it we are just reporting the facts. Contaldo80 (talk) 15:07, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that the editors who are familiar with WP:BLP find it to be a BLP violation here. See WP:CONSENSUS as well. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:28, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

I am familiar with WP:BLP, thanks, and I don't see any violation of that policy in reporting, citing Diva, that Stonewall gave MP that award. I am also familiar with people trying to remove anything that reflects badly on their heros/heroines by saying 'ooh, BLP vio' and hoping that's enough. It isn't. Please say how BLP would be violated by reporting, citing Diva, that Stonewall gave MP that award. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 16:47, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

(od) As I have nothing in connection with Phillips, I find the implicit claim that those who wish to abide by WP:BLP have any POV other than to uniformly use WP:BLP on all BLPs. Contentious claims must have strong sourcing, and not from primary sources. See the discussions at BLP/N and at RS/N for current and prior dscussions. Cheers. Collect (talk) 17:01, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

I apologise if you took offence at my last comment, it was meant as a criticism of a general failing to apply BLP properly, not aimed at any individuals. (further back in this section I've written longer comments on this misapplication of BLP, if you're interested).

Now, could you please say how BLP would be violated by reporting, citing Diva (a secondary source), that Stonewall gave MP that award. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 17:30, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

First of all, as others have pointed out, this isn't a genuine award; it's a device to publicize criticism/condemnation of the subject's sociopolitical opinions by dressing it up as a mock-award. Second, it's not general practice here (for good reason) to report public reaction to the political positions of prominent persons; otherwise every such article would be littered by boilerplate reports that, say, "American commentator Paul(a) Politico's stance on abortion/gay marriage/tax rates/capital punishment was applauded by those who agree with it and criticized by those who disagree with it." Third, if the reaction to a specific position went beyond the routine and was particularly noteworthy, both sides (or a full spectrum) of the response need to be presented, not simply what is little more than a publicity stunt from one side of the controversy. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 03:20, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Rather oddly Hullaballoo Wolfowitz has topped his contribution above by deleting any mention of the Stonewall Bigot of the Year award from the articles about A. A. Gill, Jan Moir and Anthony Priddis, using the edit summary for each to link back to this discussion as if the final word has been said here and a precedent set. The advantage of this approach is that a consideration of those articles demonstrates the range of sources available for other years in which the award has been made. It is clearly notable. Exok (talk) 05:17, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

I'd say it's rather odd that you would call my edits rather odd. From WP:BLP: "To ensure that material about living people is written neutrally to a high standard, and based on high-quality reliable sources, the burden of proof is on those who wish to retain, restore, or undelete the disputed material. When material about living persons has been deleted on good-faith BLP objections, any editor wishing to add, restore, or undelete it must ensure it complies with Wikipedia's content policies. If it is to be restored without significant change, consensus must be obtained first." That's the principle involved, and the issue is the same across all the articles. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 01:11, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Except that Phillips is a "prominet person" precisely because she is a commentator on political and social issues. To not include direct public third party reaction to such comments on her part, because certain editors don't like it, is simply censorship. Nick Cooper (talk) 02:02, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

The section of WP:BLP Hullaballoo Wolfowitz quotes above is WP:BLPDELETE which is headed "Deletion" and refers to the WP:DELETION process in which a page is removed from Wikipedia by a WP:SYSOP. The principle he's depending upon has no relevance to this discussion which is about a simple WP:EDIT. Exok (talk) 17:27, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

No it clearly isn't. It is a mock award which has the added disadvantage of being potentially defamatory. Therefore any reference to it should be removed from all BLP articles. Again, this is merely upholding a basic tenet of WP:BLP. Jprw (talk) 06:54, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

It isn't good enough to just announce that something isn't 'genuine' or 'real' - if it's covered in reliable secondary sources, that's what matters, and your opinion of its genuineness has nothing to do with whether it should be included. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 08:48, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Nope. WP:BLP requires strong sourcing for contentious claims. The organization itself is "primary" and is a "weak source." "Diva" is a special interest magazine, and is not a strong source as required by WP:BLP. Lastly, even consensus can not abrogate WP:BLP which is an absolute policy. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:09, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

A rather ludicrous hand-waving dismissal of Diva there. Would you similarly exclude a Motor Cycle News reference in relation to a motorcycling issue, because it's "a special interest magazine"? Clearly, though, you don't have a problem marginalising and excluding a gay publication reporting on a gay issue. Nick Cooper (talk) 02:09, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I find it rather staggering how certain editors have gone out of their way to whitewash this article. Phillips's "Bigot of the Year" award (and yes, it is one, no matter how some editors don't like the fact) has also been reported by Pink News (4 November), but no doubt someone will come up with a borderline homophobic excuse to ignore that, as well. Nick Cooper (talk) 01:56, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

If Motorcycling News were used for an opinion that a person is irrationally biased against motorcyclists and does their best to destroy motorcyclists - yes. Wikipedia BLPs are best served by relying on facts and not on opinions, especially where the source of the opinion might reasonably be seen to have an ax to grind. The ideal is a "neutral point of view" not "include every scinitilla of criticism we can find" in any BLP. As for accusing editors of finding "borderline homophobic excuses" - that unfortunately belies a POV opposed to the Wikipedia policies. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:36, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Do you think it is a fact or an opinion that MP was declared Stonewall's Bigot of the Year? Looks like a fact to me. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 15:27, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Read the "Diva" article and tell me whether it expresses opinions about Phililips. The "award" was given as a statement of disapproval of her, described as such, and nothing more. It was not "accepted" by her, and has no standing as an "award" at all. There is plenty of criticism of Phillips in the BLP, but, amazingly enough, this article must follow the policy of WP:BLP conscerning contentious material. Cheers. Collect (talk) 17:18, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

WP:BLP#Public figures states "If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it." Stonewall Bigot of the Year is notable (as indicated by its coverage by sources such as national newspapers and the BBC), it's relevant because it is a unique and particular response to Phillips' views and it's well-documented and verifiable as demonstrated by reliable sources. So it belongs in the article. Exok (talk) 17:28, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

A negative award not accepted by the awardee is not intrinsically notable. It is specifically not relevant to a BLP. And the documentation is minimal - relying heavily on a press release from the organization presenting the mock award. Mock awards, by the way, are commonplace in this world, and are generally not used in BLPs. Lastly, as noted, stonewall.org is an SPS and is not WP:RS for its own press releases. Cheers. `Collect (talk)

Can you show any evidence that it is called a "mock award" anywhere other than on this page? Or where WP:BLP excludes such a thing? Exok (talk) 18:29, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

It's notable because it's been covered in a reliable source, the Diva article. There is no basis for saying that it relies on a press release - you're just making stuff up - and it wouldn't be relevant even if true because of the secondary coverage. I'm restoring the text. Please don't delete it again, there is no reason in any of the policies we've discussed to do so. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 10:40, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Find actual strong sources - "Diva" is insufficient for this. As for it being a "mock award" I suggest that this is sufficiently obvious - calling someone a "Bigot" is a contentious claim, ab initio. As such, it falls under WP:BLP - and since there is no consensus for the edit in the first place here, there is no reason to then violate that policy. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:22, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

WP:RS defines questionable sources as "those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or with no editorial oversight." Diva (magazine) is a reliable source as is Pink News. There is no dispute that the award was made, you are confusing what is contentious as an edit with what is critical of an individual. Exok (talk) 13:45, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Oh? Considering "Pink News" to be sufficiently without any bias in making a contentious claim (labelling a person as "Bigot of the YEar" is intrinsically contentious) does not compute. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:10, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

What "contentious claim" to you think Pink News was "making"? They reported the fact that Stonewall had assigned the award to MP. As to Diva, presumably you - being, it seems, American - are completely unaware that it is a mainstream magazine with a ciruclation of 150,000 that can be found in just about every newsagent's shop in the UK, not just some sort of specialist "gay" ones. Nick Cooper (talk) 13:03, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I haven't read all this, so forgive me if these are already known, but: here are some additional sources: [10], [11], [12]. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:23, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

"Pinkpaper" is likely to be a special interest source, and not a strong WP:RS. Digitaljournal is a blog site - specifically encouraging amateur journalism, and not showing editorial controls per WP:RS, and "ATVToday" appears to be a strange animal not related to ATV Today -- their "about us" section is remarkably uncertain as to whether it could be considered RS to be sure. Try for a mainstream news source if you wish to pursue this ""Bigot" award. Cheers. Collect (talk) 17:39, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Collect, rather alarmingly you're writing as if you are the arbiter here. You need to advance an argument not pretend to sit in judgement. We already have strong sources and your characterisation of them as "special interest" does not reflect any part of either WP:BLP or WP:RS, where the only requirement for a source is reliability as regards fact-checking and editorial oversight. As a model for the edit we're supporting, consider this profile of Iris Robinson: it shows the BBC neutrally reporting Stonewall awarding Robinson the same title as it gave Phillips in 2011,"Following the scandal, gay rights group Stonewall voted her the UK Bigot of the Year 2008 while the gay news service Pink News landed her with the nickname "wicked witch of the north"" The award was made, it is notable, it is relevant, it is sourced and its inclusion does not call for subjective judgements of taste from editors who cannot support their position through reference to specific Wikipedia policy. Exok (talk) 17:56, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

It is required that BLPs adhere scrupulousy to WP:BLP. Tha policy is all I am pointing at, and it is inane for you to claim that I am trying to be an "arbiter" here - I am trying to be a proper Wikipedia editor who wishes to abide by official Wikipedia policies. That a mock award exists does not mean that it is not contentious, and Wikipedia requires strong sources for contentious material. In the case of calling a person a "Bigot" that standard is not met by the sources offered. Cheers. Collect (talk) 03:07, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, again, Collect is merely pointing out a fundamental BLP criterion. It's unfair and disingenuous for editors to make claims that he is being an "arbiter" or "identifying with the subject". Jprw (talk) 06:53, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree on the "special interest" point. I put it differently at WP:BLPN, where Collect started a thread on Phillips and Stonewall. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:33, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm really not convinced by the argument that this is a violation of WP:BLP - it seems very heavy-handed, and only has the effect of leaving articles stripped of any wider context. Presumably if we extend the argument then we should have concerns with the sentence in the article "Phillips argues that Barack Obama believes in "revolutionary Marxism". Would that also not be classifie as a WP:BLP violation on Barrack Obama? Contaldo80 (talk)

Nope. It would, however, be a BLP violation to state in the Obama article "Obama was awarded 'Bigot of the Year' by some-anti-Obama-group or other" based on their own press releases. Saying someone "believes in Marxism" is a far cry from calliing that person a "Bigot." We have plenty of anti-Phillips material in this article, adding charges which are specifically contentious per WP:BLP does not improve the BLP one whit. The recent ArbCom BLP case strengthens this position to be sure. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:43, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I really can't see your reasoning on this point. Nevertheless it might be helpful if we all took a step back to consider how we can reach broad agreement on the Stonewall issue. In my view the article as written is currently very poor. It basically summarises Phillips' views on everything under the sun. But gives them no context nor suggests how they were received. This might be fine for some articles, but looks very odd in an article that deals with a commentator who is delibarately controversial and provocative (that is indeed what she is chiefly known for). Some editors have suggested that inclusion of the award would violate BLP. Please could someone therefore clarify specifically what aspect of BLP would be violated. Is it verifiability or poor sourcing (and if so, why? Presumably because the main source is self-published. But what about secondary sources?); Is it victimisation (and if so, why? Some editors have spoken about "nastiness" for example); Or is it a question of notability? (as a reminder - an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it). The clearer we can be on what aspect of BLP could be violated, then the easier it will be to determine how we can present any new material while remaining compliant with policy. Also, if you are going to refer the case to the BLP noticeboard in search of advice then it would have been more helpful to have also flagged it here so that others were aware that a separate disussion is underway. Cheers. Contaldo80 (talk) 09:47, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

It's a combination of the material being potentially libellous and the source not being cast-iron. Jprw (talk) 11:40, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

we're proposing to add a simple statement of fact, which isn't remotely libellous, and no-one has come up with any valid reason to cast doubt on Diva as a source. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 11:48, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Add to that the fact that, after four days, the contention the sources are dubious has found no support whatsoever at WP:BLPN Exok (talk) 11:59, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

And the fact is that consensus on the other discussions is that "bigot" is intrinsically an attacking word - thus no consensus infavor of promoting a "Bigot of the Year" award in a BLP. The most that would be supportedper those discussions is a single sentence saying that a major gay organization cited her as being anti-gay. "Bigot" failed. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:39, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

That truly is a bizarre claim since nowhere at WP:BLPN#Melanie Phillips is the phrase "attacking word" used nor does anyone - not even you - suggest that "bigot" is a word forbidden in BLPs. Exok (talk) 13:06, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Collect, given that Stonewall is the "major gay organisation" in question, why do you think it's somehow OK to include a vague paraphrase, but not the factual and adequately-sourced detail that they awarded her Bigot of the Year, as a tranche of a series of awards that get extensive media coverage as a whole? Perhaps we should counter you extremely questionable appeals to BLP with WP:UNCENSORED, because that's the policy that you and others seem to be seeking to violate. Nick Cooper (talk) 10:01, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Because of WP:BLP Name-calling does not benefit any BLP, and this is a prime example thereof. For example, calling another editor a "bigot" is a blockable offense on Wikipedia - perhaps you would prefer that it be allowed? Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:29, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

With the principal opponents of the edit no longer advancing arguments based on policy, with no support for objections to the sources at WP:BLPN#Melanie Phillips and with the majority of editors here in favour of inclusion the time has surely come to note Collect's unhappiness but to put it aside in favour of consensus. Exok (talk) 13:53, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Um -- the SPECIFIC POLICY is still there. The Earth still moves. Attacking other editors is still absurd. And consensus can never trump WP:BLP in any article. This is not a matter of my "unhappiness" but a matter of Wikipedia fundamental policies. And those can not be abrogated by any assertions that editors only invoke them from "unhappiness". Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:58, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

You've been repeatedly asked how this edit violates BLP policy, and you have yet to come up with an answer. Please stop making mere assertions that it does, and say how you think BLP would be violated by reporting, citing Diva, that Stonewall gave MP that award.Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 14:13, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

1. It is a "contentious claim" per WP:BLP. 2. "Name-calling" is also a matter of WP:UNDUE concern (see the BLP/N discussions). 3. There is also a current discussion on BLP/N concerning calling a person a "liar" which I suggest is parallel to calling a person a "Bigot." The consensus there appears to be that calling a person a "liar" in a BLP runs specifically afoul of WP:BLP. [13] is ample precedent from the Climate Change case: Plimer makes serious accusations (criminal) against living persons thus it is not allowed. In addition, labelling people as "homophobic" has also achieved BLP/N distaste. Cheers - I trust this answers that straw man issue for the eighteenth time <g>. Collect (talk) 15:58, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

1. It is not remotely contentious that Stonewall made this award to MP - no-one is contending that it didn't happen, and we have sources that say it did. 2. No-one is proposing that wikipedia states that MP is a bigot or a homophobe - the suggested edit is to record a factual matter of Stonewall's doing. 3. Calling someone a liar is not a good parallel, since lying may constitute an illegal act - fraud, deception, or perjury. Bigotry is 100% legal. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 16:22, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it seems that JPRW has chosen to unilaterally take a leaf out of Thomas Bowdler's book. Clearly there is no point in objecting anymore, if certain editors are just going to go ahead with their whitewashes, anyway. Nick Cooper (talk) 14:56, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree. Frankly I've found the level of debate quite discouraging. All that has been proposed is inclusion of a fact. Not only is the Phillips award covered in Diva but also in Attitude magazine. Previous winners of 'bigot of the year' have received coverage in the Guardian, the Telegraph, and the Times. Or the UK "mainstream" national press. Suggestions of libel are spurious. If there was a libel action confronting the courts then we might give it consideration, but there isn't. The article would benefit greatly from allowing critical viewpoints. ie "Phillips says x, y and z about gay rights etc. This led to a response from the UK's biggest charity supporting gay rights saying x, y and z". That would create a more useful and informative article. Incidentally can we have a better source for the Orwell Prize please. It seems to be self-sourced. How odd that some of our more vigilant editors overlooked that? Contaldo80 (talk) 09:52, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Collect established a thread at WP:BLPN#Melanie Phillips to seek guidance in this case but having failed to solicit the response he anticipated his argument (as he advances it above) now relies solely on his own opinion about supposedly parallel cases and his individual interpretation of discussion confined to talkpages. None of this holds any weight balanced against what policy actually states which is that "If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it." Exok (talk) 12:16, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

You say that BLP/N shows consensus that the word "liar" is a BLP violation, but I only see this thread disapproving of a Wikipedia editor calling someone a "liar" on a talk page. It's fine to report accusations of lying if we have sources. Your "ample precedent" is to someone removing accusations which were only sourced to a blog, which would be inappropriate per WP:SPS - those same comments would, as I understand BLP policy, be acceptable from a sufficiently strong source. --McGeddon (talk) 13:26, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

(od) See WP:NPA and also note that the opinions at BLP/N were not as you state here. And note also, for example, Scott Mac's statement that calling a person a "Bigot" is, in fact, a "term of abuse". And Will BeBack's views also. When one makes such gross misstatements about the discussions which were held on the proper noticeboards, one risks having others consider the statements made by you may be of little value. Cheers. Now continue on, and do not try this sort of tendentious wrongful argumentation further. Collect (talk) 12:28, 5 December 2011 (UTC

Hmm. As I have stated elsewhere, can I point out that the wiki article on Bigotry defines a bigot as "a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices, especially one exhibiting intolerance, and animosity toward those of differing beliefs. The predominant usage in modern English refers to persons hostile to those of differing sex, race, ethnicity, religion or spirituality, nationality, language, inter-regional prejudice, gender and sexual orientation, age, homelessness, various medical disorders particularly behavioral disorders and addictive disorders." Nowhere in the article does it refer to it as a term of abuse. So can I clarify please firstly why we ourselves must consider it as a term of abuse in this context? And secondly, why has the reference to the Orwell Prize yet to be removed? Contaldo80 (talk) 13:25, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

And Wikipedia articles do not make for good references. It was Scott Mac who characterized the word "bigot" and I would like to point out that editors who call other editors by that word are routinely blocked for incivility. As for the Orwell Prize - if you find it a contentious claim, then raise it up at WP:RS/N or WP:BLP/N. It appears on its face to be a major award, but if it is a minor award it likely does not belong here and should be removed. Do yo consider it a non-notable award? Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:19, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

But nor can I find a dictionary that describes it as a term of abuse. Does Scott Mac have some sort of expertise in this area? Why should we give his opinion weight? All very puzzling. Could you clarify? Likewise I'm sure that editors calling each other "bastards" would indeed be blocked for incivility, but would that mean that we should shy away from references to "Guilliame le batard" when editing the article on William the Conqueror? Please can we keep to identifying where specific WP rules may be breached. Finally, you misunderstand my point on the Orwell prize. I'm not challenging it because it's contentious or non-notable. Simply that it is self-sourced. Odd that you and others should not have noticed the glaring inconsistency. Contaldo80 (talk) 15:00, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

And if you find the Orwell Prize to be contentious in your opinion, please remove it and see what others say. And I rather think Billy the Conqueror is not a "living person" so that analogy seems rather odd indeed. Collect (talk) 16:49, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Then imagine an article about a living person that included an equivalent piece of sourced incivility. (Off the top of my head, Frankie_Boyle#Controversy.) Where is the policy that would prevent us from reporting such information? If there's a policy that discourages direct quotation of incivil language (and WP:PROFANE is the closest I can find), we could easily summarise the Stonewall award without naming it, instead of avoiding any mention of it. --McGeddon (talk) 18:11, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

(od) Wikipedia practice has been to avoid such words in BLPs. And I am surprised you dod not delete the Orwell Prize from the article. Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:23, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Obviously it wouldn't fit the neutral, encyclopedic tone we aim for to describe MP as a bigot in wikipedia's own "voice", but there is no support in policy to censor the fact that an external organisation has applied that label to her. Various people have made this distinction already. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 19:47, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

About your request for a Third Opinion: Your request has been removed due to the fact that more than two editors are involved in this dispute and the instructions of the Third Opinion project limit its use to situations in which two editors have reached stalemate on an issue. If you feel that you still need dispute resolution you might consider the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard or, perhaps more suited to this particular dispute and the length at which it has already been discussed, a request for comments. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 20:17, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Ok if we accept the (questionable IMO) view that "bigot" is a term of abuse and should not be used in a BLP. Then perhaps we can say: "In November 2011, Phillips received the Stonewall Award for the individual who has gone out of their way to harm, hurt or snub lesbian, gay and bisexual people in the last year." We can cite Pink News, Diva, and Attitude as sources. As well as the Guardian as a support that the event took place. Contaldo80 (talk) 09:57, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Even if you put the BLP concerns entirely to one side, you are still left with major issues connected with recentism and undue weight. It's slightly worrying that there is now a group of editors on this discussion page who are actively trying to include such a problematic reference into this BLP. Jprw (talk) 10:13, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

WP:RECENT is an essay, not policy and it deals with "Articles overburdened with documenting controversy as it happens"; we are proposing that the article acknowledge the award was made, nothing more. WP:UNDUE excludes views "held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority." Stonewall is the largest gay campaigning group in Europe, it is regularly consulted by government, has helped draft legislation and its activities are reported widely in mainstream media. Its view is notable, most especially in an article which you yourself, Jprw, have opined lacks commentary from secondary sources. Exok (talk) 10:45, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree. "Recentivism" does not provide a basis for keeping out the award - indeed the essay talks about the inevitability of later edits that will put earlier information in its proper place. The award is notable on the basis that Phillips has attracted a lot of attention for her forthright views on gay and lesbian rights, and Stonewall is the main gay rights voice in the UK. Can I also urge editors to be perhaps a little more constructive in finding a way to deal with this issue? At the moment all I can perceive is a constant "shifting of the goalposts" to ensure that nothing critical of Phillips appears in the article. I hope I'm wrong, as this is not the best way to approach things. Contaldo80 (talk) 13:09, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

1. There is currently a great deal of criticism in the article - that argument fails. 2. I suggested a compromise sentence covering the gist of the claim - why not look at it? Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:36, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Your proposal, "Stonewall, a gay group in the UK, says that Phillips is anti-gay in its opinion", is vaguer than the statement of the award, and involves interpreting what Stonewall means by giving it, which is undesirable in my opinion. All this to avoid just naming the award, for which there is no reason in policy. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 16:37, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Collect - thank you for stating your views. Can I point out that the bigot of the year award is actually based on a public vote put out to all members of the Stonewall charity nationally. I've suggested that we add a line to the article to say "In November 2011, Phillips received the Stonewall Award for the individual who has gone out of their way to harm, hurt or snub lesbian, gay and bisexual people in the last year." That will not please everyone, but I think there is enough broad support otherwise to run with this compromise. The award is certainly more notable (IMO) than the Orwell Prize given over 20 years ago and awarded by committee (particularly as Phillips is so well known for her views on gay rights); but there is room for both. Contaldo80 (talk) 10:37, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

In my opinion "Bigot of the Year" is sufficiently well known as an award that if we don't use that specific title there is likely to be some confusion. But if using this wording is what it takes to end this long and unnecessary debate, I'd be happy to accept Contaldo80's compromise. Exok (talk) 11:02, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

That long-winded new wording is still far too contentious for a BLP. It is also almost certain that Phillips would cite this as a classic example of how her views on certain issues are misrepresented, and then used as a basis to launch quite vicious and unpleasant personal attacks against her. Jprw (talk) 11:39, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

The "harm, hurt or snub" wording is taken from Stonewall's definition of the award, and it's quoted in the Pink News coverage (although I'm not sure if this meets WP:RS). --McGeddon (talk) 11:46, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Can anyone please shed some light on how exactly she is meant to have done that? If there is no justification, then it would appear that it this organisation itself which is showing intolerance – to Phillips. I think we should not be touching this sort of material – nasty and poorly sourced – with a bargepole. Jprw (talk) 12:04, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

It is not for editors to judge the merit of the award or the morals of the organisation making it. The sources are reliable; not one editor raised any objection to them at WP:BLPN#Melanie Phillips. To stand against this edit because you personally have decided it is "nasty" indicates the subjective, opinionated and specious nature of your argument. If you cannot support your stance with reference to specific Wikipedia policy it is time to step back. You have made your point, your objection is noted, but the view you have advanced holds no weight. Exok (talk) 12:26, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

To be clear, I am trying to make an absolutely basic point: if this organisation is unjustified in calling Phillips a "bigot" then it fails the test of being a RS. Jprw (talk) 12:32, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

The Stonewall link includes their explanation of why she was given the award. --McGeddon (talk) 12:37, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

And WP:RS specifically rules out that SPS/ primary source as a reference. Collect (talk) 13

06, 7 December 2011 (UTC)b

And the Pink News coverage prints Phillips's reply to the accusations here. Does the language Phillips use, or the position she outlines, tally with [own definition] of bigot? Jprw (talk) 12:57, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

The article you're citing was written ten months before the award was made, how could it be a reply to it? The very first line of WP:VERIFIABILITY is, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true." Exok (talk) 13:12, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

(od)I'd accept Contaldo80's compromise (although I still prefer the original proposed edit.) Jprw's arguments about whether Stonewall were justified in making the award are irrelevant - they did make it, and the opinions of individual wikipedians about whether they should have doesn't change that. Collect's invocation of SPS doesn't cut any ice because we aren't using them as a source for any information about MP, but as a source for the criteria they use for making their own award. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 09:18, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Just because a RS makes a claim about a BLP doesn't automatically justify inclusion. We have to consider WP:NPF and WP:REDFLAG. These policies require the use of secondary, and high-quality sources for this type of contentious content. The current sourcing satisfies neither and the award must be excluded. – Lionel ^(talk) 09:46, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

If you want to be helpful then explain what aspect of WP:NPF and WP:REDFLAG we have to consider. Do not use this simply as another stalling tactic please. Can I again urge editors to be neutral in the way they approach this issue. We are not here to speak up for Melanie Phillips. We are here to create an encyclopaedia article on Melanie Phillips to help readers who like her/hate her/have no knowledge of her at all. We are no being asked to judge whether the Stonewall award was justified/unjustified/hurtful/deserved. We just need to consider the facts and present them in an objective and balanced way with the aim of creating a fully informative article.Contaldo80 (talk) 09:55, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Lionel, could you please explain why you dispute the "quality" of the "current sourcing." As already noted, Diva has a circulation of 150,000 - double that of The Spectator (for which Phillips writes), and six times that of New Statesman (for which Phillips used to write). Nick Cooper (talk) 12:07, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

The award is also mentioned in Attitude magazine which has a circulation of 75,000 and a readership of over 225,000. Contaldo80 (talk) 12:57, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Circulation != argument for anything being a "reliable source." In fact many tabloids have very large circulations and are specifically disallowed as reliable sources. The query is whether the editorial nature of the publication uses fact-checking, or whether it publishes rumour etc. without doing so. "Pink Paper" was, in fact, a "tabloid" before it went to the web for financial reasons and stopped publiscation. In fact it proudly states it covers "from politics to the latest celebrity gossip." [14] which pretty much erases it as a WP:RS. "Diva" makes no claim as to being a news magazine in any way: "DIVA aims to deliver the best information, inspiration and online shopping to lesbians everywhere! We aim to provide excellence in innovation, information and entertainment for all our customers, and to make them feel individually special, and connected to our wider community. We provide the highest-quality magazine, retail experience and web presence possible for gay women and are dedicated to creating and evolving a magazine and a community to be proud of." seems also not to indicate any attempt to be a relaible source. [15]. "Attitude" is also questionable as an RS - " Teeming with style, irreverent wit and exclusive celebrity content," is absolutely a tabloid attitude [16]. Again -- WP:RS excludes sources which engages in rumours as all of thse appear to do. Cheers. Now find a proper outised reliable source for claims. Collect (talk) 13:12, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

You are assuming that "tabloid" means "tabloid journalism", rather than the UK Tabloid (newspaper format) - which, of course, Phillips's Daily Mail uses - as well as overlooking the more strict libel laws in the UK. Not sure you can say that Diva, "makes no claim as to being a news magazine in any way," on the basis of reading the "About" section on the wbesite, when the very same website clearly features selected serious news stories from the print edition. Diva is a lifestyle magazine which includes news, but also covers relevent social and political issues. For you to try to suggest otherwise is preposterous. Nick Cooper (talk) 23:41, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

In the case at hand, I suggest that celebrity gossip is, in fact, part and parcel of what defines "tabloid" for the purposes of Wikipedia, and not just a newspaper format. "Diva" et al do not cover general news. So much for that silly cavil. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:05, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Nonsense. Just because a publication contains "celebrity gossip" does not automatically make it a "tabloid" in the American meaning of the term. en.wikipedia is international, and as such pages reflect the language conventions of the subject, in this case British-English. The meaning of "tabloid" in the UK simply is not solely the narrow one you claim. Even The Sun is not the National Inquirer.

Diva clearly does carry serious news stories relevent to the readership, and that fact won't change, no matter how many times you defy reality by claiming otehrwise. Nick Cooper (talk) 01:58, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

WP:NPF - as its acronym implies - is relevant to non-public figures, Phillips is a prominent public figure. WP:REDFLAG is about "exceptional claims" that represent WP:FRINGE theories and seeks to exclude WP:OR. Neither of the policies Lionel cites applies in this case, which in any event is supported by high quality sources as indicated by the community at WP:BLPN#Melanie Phillips, where not one editor queried the strength of the references. So, even if the policy objections Lionel raises were relevant - which they are not - they still would not be an obstacle to mentioning the award. Exok (talk) 12:24, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Collect sought support for his contention that the sources for the award were not reliable at WP:BLPN#Melanie Phillips. Nobody supported his view. Exok (talk) 13:21, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Try again and try to be accurate BLP/N is not RS/N. The issue at BLP/N was use of the word "bigot" which was not supported by the others there, including Scott Mac etc. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:44, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Should we give special weight to Scott Mac? What is RS/N? Contaldo80 (talk) 13:56, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Collect, the question you asked at WP:BLPN#Melanie Phillips was, "Is sourcing this to Diva magazine sufficient (clearly the orgnaization which gave the award is a primary source)?" to which you received the answers:

"Don't have an answer..."

"There are other sources for this..."

"I don't think it's a question of reliability..."

"The claim is controversial or contentious but the fact that such claim has been made much less so..."

Nobody supported your view that there was an issue with Diva as a source. Exok (talk) 14:15, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

And the issue there was WP:BLP in case you missed that elision. Try "I think it turns on whether or not the award by Stonewall was widely reported", " so much as WP:UNDUE" (which you managed to elide!), " At any rate, "bigot" is simply a term of abuse", "I'd question why we have a huge "Political views" section in the bio. Most of it doesn't have any secondary sources - it's just issues that Wikipedia editors have chosen to spotlight. I'll bring it up on the talk page, but I think most of it should be deleted unless sources can be found to show that her views on these issues are notable." Cheers -- but eliding material makes folks look what is hiden by an ellipsis! Collect (talk) 14:33, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

There is too much wriggling on this. We've agreed through the compromise that we won't use the term "bigot" so that solves the BLP issue. On RS, we've established that the Phillips award was specifically covered in areas of the press (Diva, Attitude, Pink News); but that the stonewall awards have been covered in the Guardian, Independent, Times. That leaves UNDUE where all I would say is that Phillips has devoted a great deal of energy over several years in presenting her views on gay rights. That the public membership of Europe's largest organisation representing gay and lesbian people has voted to give Phillips an award suggesting she is the public figure whose views have caused most harm to gay and lesbian people over the past year is not insignificant. One sentence in an article of this size is not UNDUE. All I can say is Melanie Phillips certainly has her admirers!Contaldo80 (talk) 14:51, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Um -- I do not "admire" her and it was I who suggested the single sentence - which seemed to have not been accepted by Exok for sure. The Times etc. mentions are en passant and do not appear to have been more than listing type mentions in any case. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:59, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

"The sentence I am referring to is "In November 2011, Phillips received the Stonewall Award for the individual who has gone out of their way to harm, hurt or snub lesbian, gay and bisexual people in the last year." The sentence you suggested was poorly drafted in my view and was not neutral. The coverage in the Times, Guardian etc in previous years is not "en passant" and even if it was then so what! I've taken this discussion as far as I reasonably can. I am not obliged to seek your consent for adding to the article. All I need to do is satisfy myself and the majority of others that I have abided by WP policy as far as is possible. I am content that this is the case. "Cheers". Contaldo80 (talk) 15:42, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

By the way, I was struggling to summarise how I am feeling. Then I happened to find this on your user page which I found very helpful: "People have differing opinions. Sometimes people will try bullying everyoine else by doing an editorial equivalent of "holding their breath." Sometimes they will use the old schoolroom tactic of calling in the principal on you. Fortunately on WP, the principal is other editors who have seen most of it all before. Unfortunately, most of them will not bother to read the whole story. The only problem is that you have to keep up with, sometimes, dozens of delaying tactics aimed at grinding you down." Grinding you down indeed. Contaldo80 (talk) 15:47, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

As a result of the claims here about RS, see WP:RSN. Collect (talk) 21:48, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Which lucky noticeboard will be next on your WP:FORUMSHOP? At present I see one editor excluding the award on BLP grounds, one unsure and one in agreement with the first that the Stonewall website alone is an acceptable source. Exok (talk) 22:21, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Try WP:NPA. It is not wrong to use the proper noticeboards on Wikipedia, and your accusation doies nothing to further the use of this talk page. And it is not just "one editor" if you read the edit history of this article and the comments on the noticeboards. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:05, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Collect's contention over the reliability of the sources having been resolved decisively, the issue now seems to be whether we use the wording proposed by Contaldo80, "In November 2011, Phillips received the Stonewall Award for the individual who has gone out of their way to harm, hurt or snub lesbian, gay and bisexual people in the last year." or whether directly naming the award is preferable? Exok (talk) 13:41, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Strange - you have a far different noticeboard discussion on your screen than I see on mine. And I proposed a sentence which does not have the gratuitous statement of obvious opinion - and sticks to just "anti-gay' as being quite sufficient. Also the organization should be identified as a gay advocacy organization, lest readers see undue weight for the claim. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:54, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Unsurprisingly, you seem to be trying to move the goalposts yet again. First you object to the factual name of the award, then you dispute the sources, and now you object to the criteria under which the award what voted on. "Anti-gay" does not reflect the very specific reasons why the award went to Phillips, i.e. she was judged by the national membership of Stonewall (i.e. not just a small committee) to be the "individual who has gone out of their way to harm, hurt or snub lesbian, gay and bisexual people in the last year."

You also now seem to want to add your own spin on Stonewall as an organisation, despite the fact that, as has been noted, it is the largest of its kind in Europe, is regularly consulted by the media and UK governments, has been intrumental in drafting new laws here, etc., etc. Nick Cooper (talk) 02:34, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Is a reference to the award of Stonewall's "Bigot of the Year" acceptable in the BLP article, Melanie Phillips? 20:34, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Collect - let's address a few things here. I direct this at you, because you are the one with the trigger-happy revert finger, but the points are generally worth note.

1. This does not violate WP:BLP - I know you think it does, as does jprw, but the consensus, on this talk page, is that it does not. Your dissent is noted, but overruled by majority.

2. This is well sourced - The source I provided was the BBC.

3. This is due - Stonewall are the largest gay rights advocate organisation in the UK. They do not lobby Parliament, Parliament asks their opinion. Their awards are issued by public vote of their rather large member base. Hence, their viewpoint is clearly significant. To provide a NPOV, we must include "all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources", ergo this ought be included. Consensus on this talk page agrees.

I have no desire to become part of some edit war, but I have reverted your undo based on these grounds. If you intend to continue to remove all reference to the 'award', kindly produce solid rebuttals to the above first. ReidE96 (talk) 15:50, 8 November 2012 (UTC) Why get so worked up about a crank who is wheeled out on a regular basis by the BBC to spice up their ratings. We get a laugh out of her 'opinion on everything, expert about nowt' pontifications, and she makes a packet out of it. Everyone is happy. Inclusion of this article in the Wikipedia 'comedians' category is highly overdue;)1812ahill (talk) 22:47, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

comments

There is another current discussion regarding this issue at WP:BLP/Noticeboard#Stonewall Awards - Bigot of the year "award"

• Nope. The award is not sufficiently notable to be listed as an award, and there is a possibility that it was not intended as an award, but as an opportunity to call someone a "bigot." WP:UNDUE applies fully here as well. Thus WP:BLP applies with regard to using opinions in an article which are not clearly stated to be opinions. In addition, the sources which are reliable sources do not make any mention of this "award" other than in a single sentence based on the "awarding organization's" press release - that is, there is no independent reliable source (major news organization) reportage thereon. With reliable sources, the most that could stand would be "Stonewall, a gay group in the UK, says that Phillips is anti-gay in its opinion." Single sentence, stating that it is an opinion of a specific group. Collect (talk) 02:38, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

The most that could be said is more than just "Stonewall claims she is anti-gay", it's that Stonewall considers her of all British public figures to have "gone [furthest] out of their way to harm, hurt or snub lesbian, gay and bisexual people" in 2011. It would help the reader to frame this in the context of an "award", rather than presenting it as an arbitrary standalone statement from Stonewall. If we're squeamish about using the word "bigot", we can mention that it was part of Stonewall's yearly awards ceremony without naming the trophy. --McGeddon (talk) 16:43, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

And they find a new "worstest person" each year -- seems to me that negates the claim you appear to make. The "award" is an editorial opinion of Stonewall, and is not actually an "award" as most people use the word. Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:03, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Not sure what you think has been negated there, it's clearly "in 2011" rather than "of all time". If you feel it's important to distinguish an award assigned by a panel from one determined by public vote, that's fine. --McGeddon (talk) 10:24, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

• Yes. The award is one of a group of LGBT-related awards given yearly by Stonewall, the largest LGBT rights organisation in the UK, at an award ceremony held at the V&A. This isn't a press-release-only award by a fringe group. The proposed edit is to add a neutral, factual statement that the award was made, using Diva (magazine) (a printed-on-paper, news-stand magazine) as the source: [17]. WP:UNDUE says that "Neutrality requires that each article ... fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint." Stonewall is prominent, and we have a reliable source. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 08:37, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
• Comment. The article in its current state doesn't say anything obvious (other than that she's a conservative pundit of some sort, and over here we have plenty of our own and do not need to import more) about what she said or did that attracted the attention of Stonewall or the Pink Paper. I'd want to see information about that, and preferably from a neutral or at least other-POV source, before adding this "award" to the article, first. We're dealing with a person who's obviously not shy of controversy. But the article now doesn't go into detail about what the controversy is. The article mentions opinions about Israel and Islam, but squat about gays. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 21:09, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

It used to, but this edit by JPRW last week removed the entire section covering her views on the subject. Nick Cooper (talk) 02:43, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

In that case, I'd say restore/add them both. "Text before commentary", and I suppose the Daily Mail is a reliable source to attribute inflammatory opinion if she writes for it. But without context, adding the "award" would come out of nowhere. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 04:37, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

• No It is not an "award," it is a political attack statement. This article is currently suffering from WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE -- a single summary sentence about Phillips views on homosexuality would suffice, not a laundry list of "what a bad anti-gay she is." Nobody Ent (Gerardw) 12:13, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

As noted above, it was an award voted on by the thousands who comprise the national membership of the organisation, the same as all the other awards made that years. It is also ludicrous to say that Phillips views on a number of specific subjects relating to the gay community can be collectively summarised in a single sentence. Nick Cooper (talk) 13:22, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes. We have to face facts that Melanie Phillips has based her career on being controversial (she is not just a conventional journalist). It would therefore be odd not to try to summarise some of her more controversial views - those that have been given a public airing - and then to flag what response this has received. Otherwise what is the point of having an article about her. Why else is she notable? The award is hardly a "political attack" - this is very emotive language.Contaldo80 (talk) 14:19, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

• Let's start from first principles. The purpose of a biographical article is to describe the subject's contribution to the world. This particular subject is primarily a journalist who contributes through expressing her opinions. Therefore the article should seek to describe the opinions; however the contribution is also in the sense of the effect those opinions had. Therefore the article must also describe significant reactions, both positive and negative. In essence, Stonewall has chosen to express a negative reaction to this particular subject by giving her an unwanted award with an insulting title. (We clearly have adequate sources for the fact.) It is no part of the function of writing a neutral encyclopaedia to judge whether they were right or wrong to do so. The only issue is whether it is significant enough as a response to merit inclusion. Given that Stonewall is the leading gay rights organisation in the UK, and the shortlists and winners of the award have frequently been mentioned in the national press (list available if desired), I would say that the balance clearly favours inclusion. If the award is worthy of mention then it should be under its actual title. Sam Blacketer (talk) 19:23, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

• Agree with Sam Blacketer. The purpose of WP:BLP is not to insulate public figures from public criticism, including public attacks (although a troubling trend of attempting to repurpose it for such ends is increasingly evident in an abundance of articles, especially when LGBT-related content is involved). In the case of Ms. Phillips, it seems clear enough that her "winning" the award was a notable event worthy of inclusion in her article. It is not up to us to place value judgments on such an event—only to decide if it is notable and verifiable and, if it is, to include it, using as neutral language as possible and providing a reliable source. Excluding notable, verifiable content because it may constitute a "political attack" is just silly; political attacks are part of the world we're describing in our encyclopedia. Let's not try to sanitize that description. Rivertorch (talk) 22:52, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

No, the "award" is of insufficient notability and its inclusion is POV in an article of this size. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 17:51, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Views

The article features two sections, " Political views" and "Views on science", the former comprising over 2000 words. Most of the entries appear to be without secondary sources to show they are notable. In other words Wikipedia editors decided on their own that these are noteworthy while omitting other views. That's a form of NOR. I propose removing all of the "views" which don't have secondary sources to establish their importance.   Will Beback  talk  01:06, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

A complete overhaul of the article has been long overdue, it is a mess. Your suggestion would be an important first step in sorting it out. Jprw (talk) 10:45, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I would oppose wholesale deletion. Any biography of a journalist - or any creative figure - is certain to involve editors making subjective judgements about what part of their output to include as representative of their work. Julie Burchill and Jeremy Clarkson would be examples of contrarian columnists whose articles also contain a very high proportion of sources to their own work. The fact a person's opinions are published by a national newspaper indicates notability in and of itself; whether such articles are primary sources is arguable but, in any case, WP:PRIMARY and WP:BLPPRIMARY make clear that it is only interpretation of primary sources which is deprecated, not their use altogether. Exok (talk) 11:55, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

If every thing the subject has written is equally notable then why are we just reporting these views? What ends up happening with lists like this, drawn purely from a pundits own writings, is that they end up reflecting the interests of Wikipedia editors rather than the views for which the subject is particularly known. If some other source has hfound the view worthy of comment then ther's no problem with using the subject's columns as a primary source. But we should not just be cherry-picking views shich no one else has found interesting.   Will Beback  talk  23:04, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I've had a go at reducing the number of sections and getting rid of excessive detail. There is still the issue of the majority of refs being primary sources, however. The article probably needs overhauling in this respect, with the primary sources being replaced by secondary ones as far as possible, and sections condensed together even more to form a coherent overview of her career and work. Jprw (talk) 02:14, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

My, what an excellent whitewash of the subject you have carried out. The justification that "she is not na scientist" is especially ludicrous, given that you have retained her views on education and politics, despite her being neither a teacher/educationalist or politician. Nick Cooper (talk) 14:48, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

WP:BLP is the policy involved. The editors who suggest that there is WP:UNDUE also involved are not "whitewashing" anything - they are following Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:02, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I would be very interested to know to what extent this new edit - undertaken without notice mid-discussion - meets the concerns raised by the editor who began this topic, Will Beback Exok (talk) 22:18, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Looks to me as if significant baby has been thrown out with the bathwater. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 01:04, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

If any of her views are controversial, the controversies will be due to outside sources. Any of her views which aren't controversial, or otherwise discussed in outside sources, aren't of interest. If any "babies" have been thrown out, then just find secondary sources which establish their importance and put them back.   Will Beback  talk  03:00, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Which doesn't really mean anything anymore, given some editors' propensity for spuriously dismissing multiple sources when they're identified. Maybe we should just delete the page and have done with it, because some people clearly don't want Phillips and her views to be properly documented here? Nick Cooper (talk) 15:27, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Precisely! That the self same editors who are decrying the lack of secondary sources are also disqualifying the most notable and well sourced response to Phillips' views is beyond comical. Exok (talk) 15:39, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

@Nick Cooper: What are the best independent sources for the subject's views, or for the controversies about them, which have been disqualified? (Sorry for asking, but I'm new to this topic.)   Will Beback  talk  16:27, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Let's try to make some progress

I've restored some of the sub-sections removed when Jprw took out the whole of the 'views' section - those with secondary sources about reaction to MP's journalism. I've also put back the homosexuality section, which previously was just MP's opinions, and added the compromise wording about the stonewall award. This seemed to have most support above. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 10:02, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

That's a strong, thoughtful edit that embraces talkpage consensus, views expressed through WP:RFC and the opinion given at two noticeboards. Hopefully it draws a line under this long discussion, thanks Squiddy. Exok (talk) 10:51, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Unfprtunately representing one and only one side of the discussions. Cheers - but there are now real and significant POV problems in this BLP. Collect (talk) 12:59, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Your claim does not make sense. Both sections cover Phillips's own clearly-stated views, as well as some of the responses countering them. I am therefore removing your POV tags. Nick Cooper (talk) 14:54, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Um -- it is against Wikipedia policy to remove tags while a discussion is occurring. Your removasl is highly improper. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:13, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps you could explain your specific objections, so that discussion can occur? Is this related to the Stonewall award, or are we ready to move onto general NPOV issues? --McGeddon (talk) 15:30, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Collect, given that the sections quote Phillips's own views, are you seriously suggesting that she either didn't say what she did, or that her position on the subjects has radically changed? Either Phillips holds such views, or she doesn't, but stating that she holds them when there is clear evidence that she does is not in itself POV. Nick Cooper (talk) 16:07, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

The entire "Homosexuality" bit is WP:UNDUE and POV. It should be no more than one sentence, and not be used to make charges against Phillips for which no counterweight is provided. The Israel section is clearly POV. It also seems to seek to make specific charges about her position, without any counterweight. See WP:NPOV. Just saying "she holds these views" is a classic example of why POV is so common on Wikiopedia. Collect (talk) 16:13, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

On what grounds do you claim this imbalance? Are you suggesting that the quotes attributed to Phillips are not her own words, or that she had made other statements on the issues which are radically different from the ones quoted? It seems to me that you have failed to garner support for your view on the Stonewall Bigot of the Year Award, and are now seeking to achieve its omission by dispute the whole section it should be properly placed in. Just how far do you want to move those goal-posts?

There are certain subjects Phillips comes back to again and again, and these are the ones represented on the page. To pretend that she does not have such views would be misleading and POV in itself. Nick Cooper (talk) 18:19, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Read WP:NPOV. Using selected quotes by a person can still end up with a very POV section (as noted by other editors here). And the use of "bigot" was decided not to be utile. Recall? Where such a POV problem exists, it is normal to tag it - which is what I did. Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:03, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Where is your proof that the current quotes are "selected" in the way you claim? If you think the current quotes are unfairly slanted, then surely the onus is on you to provide evidence that they are, not to simply object on the grounds that you think they don't sound flattering.

And despite your proestations, the official name of the award is the "Bigot of the Year Award" and I will continue to refer to as such, no matter how you dislike the reality of it. Nick Cooper (talk) 20:34, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

And WP:BLP still applies. When a section is as specifically slanted as the ones I noted as POV are slanted, I suspect that your best bet is to ask on the NPOV/N noticeboard if you wish to pursue this. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:17, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

It's a disappointing tactic when - in response to editors appealing to you to be specific about what the problem is - your answer is to point at noticeboards. Especially when, as we've seen, they don't clarify your argument in the way you seem to expect. Either you can elucidate your point in specific terms yourself or it's just a gut feeling and we can all move on. Exok (talk) 22:37, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Collect, "pursue" what? Please clarify what you mean. Nick Cooper (talk) 23:14, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Pursue your apparent claim that balance is not needed in an article. Try ---> WP:NPOV/N. Collect (talk) 02:48, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Your case is not helped by trying to dishonestly misrepresent other editors. I have said that the page already reflects Phillips's views and some of those opposing them. It is up to you to prove with specific examples where you think imbalance exists. No-one is beholden to you to keep consulting various noticeboards until it produces the result you want (if it ever can). Nick Cooper (talk) 14:23, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

(OD_ See WP:NPA Nick -- your absurd charge is not borne out at all. and would seem more intended to deliberately poison a civil discussion than anything else. I ask that you redact your charge post haste. And I suggest you examine just why Wikipedia has noticeboards before trying to make charges about people using them. Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:53, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, right. So it's somehow OK for you to suggest - without a shred of evidence - that I "claim that balance is not needed in an article" but not for me to rightly say that such a claim, being false, is dishonest misrepresentation on your part? Me calling your false claims dishonest is a "personal attack" on you? How does that work?

You have been repeatedly asked to clarify exactly what constitutes the "imbalance" you claim is in the article. You have repeatedly failed to even acknowledge that you have been asked for such clarification, let alone actually provided it. This discussion will go nowhere until you do. Nick Cooper (talk) 01:52, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Nick: had you refreshed yourself at NPA you would've read, "Comment on content, not on the contributor." (emph. mine) – Lionel ^(talk) 08:03, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Collect misrepresenting me is dishonest (itself a "personal attack"), and me saying it is dishonest is a fact, not a "personal attack." Still, nice that you saw fit not to offer the same "advice" to Collect. What's up, do his "personal attacks" not count? Nick Cooper (talk) 13:40, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Um -- I suggest that the next time such an attack by you is posted that I shall, indeed, go to WP:WQA. Meanwhile, I strongly urege you to redact the personal attacks. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:57, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

This conversation really has nothing to do with improving the article. If it has any further to run, it would be better located on the talkpage of whichever editor wishes to pursue it. Exok (talk) 14:03, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

No, it hasn't, but this page is where Collect has sought to personally attack me by grossly misrepresenting what I have said. Nick Cooper (talk) 15:04, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Collect, why do you think it is OK to personally attack me, but not for me to identify such a disruptive tactic by you? It is clear that you have no intention of playing fair on this page, and are instead now attempting to smear those who disagree with you. Nick Cooper (talk) 15:00, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Your personal attacks are now mentioned at WP:WQA. I request you not address me by name at this point whatsoever, on this or any other page where you seem to desire to make personal charges. Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:19, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Hatchet job

I've removed the not very subtle section on homosexuality which resembles a carefully orchestrated attack piece. Jprw (talk) 17:01, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

To overturn a very carefully established consensus your argument has be based on more than blunt assertion. What - specifically - is it that you object to? And what part of Wikipedia policy supports your view? Exok (talk) 17:13, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

There has been a clear and concerted effort on the part of a cabal of editors on this page to smear and misrepresent the subject, to cherry-pick primary sources, and to not offer a balanced view (e.g. of her claims to be misrepresented, deliberately misunderstood, etc.) "a very carefully established consensus " is utterly laughable – as though what has been going on is somehow circumspect, responsible, balanced and judicious, when in fact it is nothing more than an expression of thinly veiled malice and blatant misrepresentation. Only user Collect has stood up for common sense, decency, and the fundamental tenets of WP:BLP. Jprw (talk) 17:17, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

If you have verifiable sources that indicate Phillips has said her views are misrepresented or have been deliberately misunderstood and that her feelings have changed or that her opinion is not what it seems, all you have to do is bring them up here or add them to the article, but to delete opinion she has expressed and is well known for would be to misrepresent her work. For my own part, I can promise you I have no interest in maligning Phillips. Exok (talk) 17:28, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Jprw for describing me as part of a cabal. As a reminder a cabal is "a group of people united in some close design together, usually to promote their private views and/or interests in a church, state, or other community, often by intrigue." Presumably the suggestion is that it's "the gays" together. But perhaps you'd like to clarify. Should I take this as a term of abuse? Should I find a noticeboard to complain on that I have been personally insulted? Any advice welcome. Incidentally we've oddly ended up in a position whereby Phillips' own views seem to cause too much embarassment to mention. Phillips silenced at last? On wikipedia at least. Contaldo80 (talk) 10:46, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

It's hard to say these are her views by reporting a couple of her comments but I think in the homosexual section she is almost primary soapboxing and that at least negates the stupid bigot award which is nothing but a bigoted attack award from a activist group. Where is all the consensus that is being claimed for these additions? Youreallycan (talk) 18:04, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

As already noted above, Stonewall is the largest gay rights organisation in the country. It is regularly consulted by successive governments, and has helped shape legilsation in the UK. The annual Awards are voted on by the entire membership, not a small committee. In short, it is not some tiny and obscure "activist group." Nick Cooper (talk) 23:29, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

It is still a gay right activist group. Self promotional of its strongly held POV. Any and all activist groups approach parliament and attempt to get their beliefs into law. Their bigoted award is self promotional and designed to attack their opponent. Their bigot award is a simple partisan attack. Could you please answer the question, Where is all the consensus that is being claimed for these additions? Youreallycan (talk) 23:38, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Consensus is built up through convincing argument. All you're expressing here is your opinion. If you want to do more than just troll, you need to advance a position, throw in something factual and refer to a policy or two. Exok (talk) 23:51, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, please don't be so attacking - I have a fair bit of input to this issue and I am not a troll and please do not refer to me as one again. The policy is WP:BLP with aspects of WP:WEIGHT and WP:NPOV. As I was saying just now, this activist, self promoting group is a partisan opponent of this living person and the award is an attack award and as such their are BLP considerations as to its inclusion. You say, There's a clear consensus for this addition. Make your case first - please point me to the consensus. If there is no consensus and the content is still disputed it should be removed. Thanks - Youreallycan (talk) 23:59, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I think you still fail to appreciate the nature of the organisation in question. It doesn't just hopefully "approach parliament," it gets consulted by Parliament/government, local government, industry, the education sector, etc. Simply being an activist group does not authomatically make their views - individually and collectively - worthless. By your definition, if a government passed legislation that had an impact on cyclists, any response by cyclist groups could not be included on the page detailing the issue.

If you actually look at Stonewall Awards you will see their scope, and also of course where they have been hosted of late, i.e. not some tiny back-street community centre. The Awards are a major social and culture event that gets reported in the mainstream UK media.

The "Bigot of the Year" award, along with the earlier "Bully of the Year" can be seen as a counterpoint to the "Hero of the Year". You say "attack" but one could be less POV and say "condemn". If someone advances views critical of a particular group, it is hardly surprising if representatives of that group come up with a rebuttal, and this quite democratic form of response from an organisation's membership is just as valid as any from an individual. Nick Cooper (talk) 00:06, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

The contention that the award is deprecated by WP:BLP has been expressed and tested both here and at WP:BLPN#Melanie Phillips. Exok (talk) 00:17, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

I think from my understanding you are over egging the pudding about this activist groups position, the government do not set laws because of their lobbying, have you got citations that assert that? Reporting of their bigot award seems fringe and not widespread. Youreallycan (talk) 00:25, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

The contention that the award is not sufficiently sourced has been expressed and tested both here and at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Multiple sources offered to label a person as being "Bigot of the Year" Exok (talk) 00:31, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

10,600 mentions of the organisation on .gov.uk domains certainly suggests that national and local government is a bit more interested in what they have to say/are doing than you seem to think. Nick Cooper (talk) 00:36, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

I am so fucking tired of editors arguing that certain groups are outside some sort of "mainstream" and therefore that makes them "special interests", with the conclusion that they can be ignored. If the award and related issues have been reported to a sufficient extent in news media then it can be included here, and it doesn't matter if the media organizations in question are perceived as "gay". If anyone has concerns about WP:RS, then there is a noticeboard for that. But the notion that the sources somehow don't count because they are "gay" is entirely irrelevant to any Wikipedia policy. No-one is arguing that these sources should count because they are gay, and so there is no merit in the argument that they shouldn't count because they are gay. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:20, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Read WP:NPOV please. Sources representing a single point of view ought to be balanced by other sources not having that point of view. In the case at hand, such has not been done. Collect (talk) 15:47, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

As WP:NPOV clearly says, a Wikipedia article should fairly represent "all significant views that have been published by reliable sources", so it depends what sources exist. We've got a very strong source for a negative reaction to her thoughts on gay rights; if a strong source also exists for a positive reaction, feel free to add that. But a lack of any sources on one side wouldn't mean that we should drop all mention of the other; it suggests that only one side is significant for the reader's understanding of the article subject. --McGeddon (talk) 20:43, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Thats just the point - as Jimbo said - yes, but its the gay press that is reporting this homosexual lobby groups award that is that they created to attack their opponents - to attack anyone that opposes their lobby POV and their self promotion. Youreallycan (talk) 23:09, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

At this point, no "consensus" exists on this talk page for inclusion of the Stonewall "award" and the NPOV violating material on Homosexuality. And since no "consensus" can ever abrogate WP:NPOV nor [[W{:BLP]], I suggest this affair is quite sufficiently ended. Collect (talk) 19:06, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

What is your concern regarding WP:BLP and WP:NPOV? Exok (talk) 19:11, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

They are Wikipedia policies and not abrogable by "consensus" in any article whatsoever. Are you asking why someone would actually wish to follow Wikipedia rules? Collect (talk) 19:33, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

No, I'm making a sincere attempt to understand your point of view. Which parts of the two policies apply in this case? Exok (talk) 19:37, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't see how either apply in the way that Collect is suggesting. WP:BLP is about the care that needs to be taken to ensure information about living people is accurate and verifiable; in this case no-one is disputing that Melanie Phillips was indeed given the ironic award of 'Bigot of the Year' by Stonewall in 2011. There is no question of privacy since it was a reaction to her published articles. WP:NPOV is about ensuring that articles report a balance of opinions and endorse none of them; it has more nuances where WP:BLP has hard lines, but I would have thought that the application of WP:NPOV is rather to support inclusion of the mention of the award: it adds an element of criticism which balances the article's report of the praiseworthy award of the Orwell Prize. Sam Blacketer (talk) 21:26, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Eh? The "Homosexuality" section was over 80% "criticism = and the rest of the article is about 75% negative (the Orwell Prize "praise" consists of a single short sentence

" She was awarded the Orwell Prize for Journalism in 1996.[2]".

Period. Yet you feel that single short sentence is so much "praise" that hundreds of words of criticism only barely balance it? ROFL! Collect (talk) 21:53, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Would you address the question I asked you Collect? Exok (talk) 21:59, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) We're not dealing with a static target here. I think the article could do with more information about how people have reacted to Melanie Phillips' writing generally, whether positive, negative or a balanced mix of opinions (the latter being a rarety which should be highly prized). There surely is more to say about the Orwell Prize. On Phillips' views on homosexuality in general, she wrote an interesting piece recently about the decision of the UK Government to stop aid to countries where homosexuals are persecuted which I thought was potentially significant and helpful in explaining her general position to readers unfamiliar with her work. Broadly speaking she supported the decision in principle but thought it was a cynical political move. Read it yourself here. Sam Blacketer (talk) 22:03, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for highlighting that article. It's interesting Phillips describes international aid and gay rights as "two politically correct doctrines." I'd guess an editor wishing to exclude the Stonewall award might agree with that view and want to defend Phillips for expressing it. An award declaring such a view bigoted would be offensive not only to Phillips but to that editor by effectively labelling him or her bigoted as well. The strange thing is the award is only Stonewall's view, it doesn't represent a conclusive judgement. I'd have thought the right-wing response would be "well they would say that, wouldn't they?" but I think I'm beginning to understand why views have become so polarised. Bringing that article forward certainly helps to explain the ferocity and determination of some views expressed here. Thanks Sam. Exok (talk) 22:34, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

I think your post above really highlights the problem here. I don't think the Stonewall award should be included here, but I certainly don't agree with the subject of this article, nor am I right wing. This type of judging editors based on what they think should go or stay out of a bio shows simple mindedness, and taking "sides",imho. --68.9.119.69 (talk) 00:30, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Why you should take an entirely hypothetical proposition so personally is puzzling but it has nothing to do with improving the article so let's forget it. Exok (talk) 01:24, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Covered these sources yet?

In regard to the Bigot of the Year award, have these two stories from ATV Today and Digital Journal been discussed yet?

And i'm quite surprised on how horrible the Homosexuality section is in the article, considering the myriad of sources that discuss her views and statements. Silverseren^C 22:41, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Johann Hari malicious sock has been active in editing this article

Editors should note that up until March of this year the now well-known malicious sock "David r from meth productions" was active in editing this article. The article therefore may need sanitising to take account of this. Data below.

David r from meth productions (c) 8 0 (0.00%) 02 August 2009, 12:13:09 21 March 2011, 23:13:12 (from here)

Jprw (talk) 06:01, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

There are 8 edits from "David r from meth productions".

• Seven consecutive edits on 21 March 2011, taken together, added the fact that Phillips disputes criticism, removed a section on Geert Wilders but added a paragraph dealing with views on Arabs and reporting investigations. None of the additions remains in the article and the deletion seems a reasonable one.
• A revert on 2 August 2009 reintroduced a claim that Phillips had accused Johann Hari of believing in the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. The article at present does not mention Johann Hari at all.

There seems no need for any further action, as the content has been removed anyway. Sam Blacketer (talk) 10:31, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying that re: David r from meth productions. However, as Hari was known to use multiple WP accounts for his sockpuppetry activities, it is possible that the article may still contain remnants of his handiwork. I suppose that there is no easy way of confirming this, but at least the issue has been flagged. Jprw (talk) 10:55, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Views

Why have we confined her views to Israel, education and drugs. Has she had personal experience of these things - is that why they are highlighted? Contaldo80 (talk) 13:33, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Find reliable sources for other sections. That is how Wikipedia works. Collect (talk) 14:10, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

What a thoroughly unhelpful and disingenuous comment. You know very well that views on other issues (that were well sourced) have been removed. If it's a simple as finding "reliable sources" as you say, then it seems I can add it all back again. Contaldo80 (talk) 11:54, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

To answer the question - ultimately we're just repeating what other journalists and sources have said about Phillips' writing. It's a good yardstick for judging which of her opinions are of genuine encyclopedic interest; if she's had a lot of attention for Subject X but zero reaction to Subject Y, then we write about X and skip over Y. Israel and education are both sourced to third parties who have written about Phillips' opinions - looking at it, though, the "drugs" section is only sourced to a couple of her articles, so unless someone can pull up a source that suggests Phillips' attitude to drugs is particularly interesting to the wider world, we should lose it. --McGeddon (talk) 15:59, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Collect and a few of his allies on here have a long history of removing content/censoring wikipedia articles related to either the Daily Mail, Daily Mail writers, or other right wing institutions. And the justification is nearly always "the source wasn't reliable".

They generally do this, to take advantage of Wikipedia dispute resolution rules (that greatly favour the deleters), and to retain control over pages they consider strategically important, politically.

They really should be banned from editing.

Cjmooney9 (talk) 13:07, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

CJmooney9, please refrain from coming on here and making spurious and unfounded allegations against other users. If sources are not reliable then they are not reliable, that is how Wikipedia works, sources have to be verfiable and reputable. It doesn't mean we are "biased" or "censoring the article". We should absolutely not be banned from editing simply for following the rules. Please retract that statement. Christian1985 (talk) 18:24, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

The views of Melanie Phillips on global warming, intelligent design etc.: missing

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crank_%28person%29 (citing http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2009/05/melanie_phillips_crank_magnetism_in_acti.php) says that Melanie Phillips "denies anthropogenic global warming and who has promoted Intelligent Design and the discredited view that the MMR vaccine causes autism in children."

These views are currently missing and it seems that they should be incorporated into the Melanie Phillips page. Otherwise, the Wiki page on her would be incomplete in my opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.170.196.53 (talk) 08:57, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Please read WP:BLP and WP:RS. Blogs, for example, are not considered "reliable sources" to start. Also read this talk page and archives as much of what you write of has been discussed here in the past. Lastly note that Wikipedia policies and guidelines also affect this article. Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:06, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Reverted edit of elimination of the words "overwhelming consensus" and the study that in fact verified that overwhelming consensus. Even George Mason U., heavily funded by the AGW denialist Koch brothers, came to that conclusion, probably much to their dismay. The words are a legitimate conclusion and the citation is the proof that it is a legitimate conclusion. If editor want to dispute this, it is appropriate to discuss it on talk pages rather than simply deleting the well sourced material and leaving a brief note on the title of the deletion, is it not? If Phillips contended that gravity did not exist, should that sort of a comment be left alone, otherwise in a vacuum, and would it be appropriate to delete a citation of a peer-reviewed, published study verifying the existence of gravity were posted by an editor but did not mention Phillips by name? Activist (talk) 01:02, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

I gave an explanation for my edit. What you say about the "overwhelming consensus" may be entirely true, but in the context of wikipedia it is entirely irrelevant without appropriate sources linked to Phillips. The purpose of wikipedia is to state Phillip's views in a neutral manner, not to try and discredit her. You are confusing what others have said about global warming (see global warming) with what she has actually said about it, or what others say she has said about it. Manbooferie (talk) 06:06, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Why the hell has all the stuff on her views been deleted?

Someone has removed all the stuff about her views on the Palestinians, Homesexuality, Global warming, MMR, the Iraq war, Obama, and everything else, even thought they were backed up by EVIDENCE FROM HER OWN WEBSITE. Downright idiotic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.26.61.108 (talk) 23:09, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Basically it's because certain editors weren't happy that anything that suggested that Phillips might have distasteful or bigoted views on certain subjects. Nick Cooper (talk) 10:45, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

I am a newcomer to this area of Wikipedia but I am shocked by what I read. The entire foregoing discussion is deeply damaging to Wikipedia's reputation. Melanie Phillips holds widely known, widely published and deeply controversial views on a wide range of subjects almost none of which are referred to in the article on her. There is no shortage of reference material for any of this in her own books and blog, in her numerous articles and in radio and television broadcasts. To ignore this is as great an injustice to her as it is to anyone who comes to Wikipedia for information. For a while I thought that Collect must be a nom-de-plume for Melanie Phillips but I quickly realised that she would make her case with far greater clarity and confidence (and actual argued content) than is found in the clumsy, dogged denials which appear above. Can we not simply have an article which states published and verifiable information about her? If not, then let us remove the article completely and simply place a link to her own website under her name so that thinking people can form their own opinion of her based on her own remarkable writings.Erwfaethlon (talk)

I agree. I find it utterly bizarre that there is a section on her views that covers drugs, israel, education and global warming but nothing on homosexuality is permitted. Contaldo80 (talk) 09:56, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but really it comes down to how much of a fight you are prepared to suffer with system-playing editors. Again. Ironically, Stonewall's "Bigot of the Year Award" is in the news again, with the BBC including the forbidden knowledge of Phillips being a past recipient.... Nick Cooper (talk) 11:58, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

And it begins.... Nick Cooper (talk) 14:18, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Amazing how revisionist/apologist white-washing "editors" have a hair-trigger response to any changes to the page they don't like, yet aren't prepared to engage in the existing discussion here. Nick Cooper (talk) 15:56, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

You find the use of "opinion" to be better than "said" when we already stress she writes opinion columns in the BLP? No need to deal with your diatribes about everyone "whitewashing" an article for grammatical reasons! Collect (talk) 16:58, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

I am not a Wikipedia-editing type of person, but I felt compelled to comment here. Recently I saw the box at the top of the site appealing for donations. I was actually considering donating... and then I happened across this discussion, which reminded me of everything I dislike about Wikipedia. It seems Collect and some others are acting like the Wikipedia barrack-room lawyer in order to suppress a simple statement of fact (the Stonewall award) from the page, among other things. It seems this supposedly encyclopaedic article is shaped by whichever editor is prepared to stick it out the longest in the edit war. 137.205.56.132 (talk) 15:04, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

In this instance, for whatever reasons the block titled "Accusations of racism and Islamophobia" was removed, it should stay removed. Her views on the subjects are already contained on the page, so unless notable individuals are personally calling her out on it, there's no need to put particular emphasis on such - indeed, it would be rather POV to do so. As for the Stonewall award, speaking as the editor who last updated that, it seems Collect et al have decided to accept the fact of the matter. Or, if not, they're at least respecting that there are solid arguments in favour that need refuting first, which are listed clearly and concisely further up this talk page. ReidE96 (talk) 00:49, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Whoops- I owe Wikipedia an apology here. I was really talking about the Stonewall award- when I made the post above I could have sworn there was no mention of it on the page, but now I can see that it clearly is there. I must have made a mistake before- sorry. I still think some of the discussion here shows that there are problems with the way Wikipedia deals with controversial figures. However, the specific objection I had was about the repeated removal of the Stonewall award... and now it has been put back, so I guess I don't have anything else to say. 137.205.56.132 (talk) 22:27, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Views on Barack Obama

Judging from this column[18], she apparently thinks President Obama is some sort of Islamist agent secretly trying to destroy America. Based on this and her views on other subjects (like global warming), would Category:Conspiracy theorists be appropriate? Robofish (talk) 18:06, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

The Obama comment is one comment covered by one paper - a stand alone section calling it out is WP:UNDUE coverage. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:01, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

:::So what do you suggest we do when she calls the President of the US as such, hide it under another section or find more reliable sources to back it up ? Kanatonian (talk) 15:00, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

I suggest that we cover actual encyclopedic content in an actual encyclopedic manner and not cover subjects as the gossip tabloids drooling over and hyping the most recent gaff rather than covering any actual significant impacts. There is still no sourcing to indicate this was any more than the "shocking-scandal-of-the-day" printed because of the drive to always have something new for the 24 hour news cycle. It is a comment/incident that has no legs, no impact and no lasting effect. It is not as if her opinion is in any way influencing government relationships between US and Britian or that Obama or anyone in America really has changed anything because of her views or even that it has had any impact on the way her constituents view her -its a fart in a windstorm. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:42, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

I added 2 more sources and expanded the section to cover her views about him prior to the re-election. So no longer one issue section. It is her overall reaction to the election of a left wing, African American to the US Presidency that she belives is Jew Bashing as well. Kanatonian (talk) 15:22, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree with the Category:Conspiracy theorists category to be added now that we have more than one reliable source. Kanatonian (talk) 15:25, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

No, none of the third party sources that I have seen labeled her a "conspiracy theorist" which is an absolute requirement of WP:BLP and WP:OR. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:17, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

I can't see a problem with this Obama section and why it's still attracting the 'undue weight' flag. MP has strong (negative) views on Obama that she has repeated before, after or during Obama's two presidencies, and her views are worth documenting (= noteworthy). There are plenty of sources both her own and from other commentators. A couple of short paragraphs on the topic seems perfectly reasonable. Manbooferie (talk) 06:03, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Apart from Manbooferie's comment saying the flag should be removed, there's been no discussion on this for over six months. TheRedPenOfDoom seemed concerned that it gave undue weight to a "shocking-scandal-of-the-day", but the article now references two sources discussing these views dated three years apart. Perhaps it would be possible to find further sources still, but I think then we really would be in danger of giving it too much weight. The point that these views haven't "in any way influenc[ed] government relationships between US and Britian" seems to me irrelevant, since if that's our standard of inclusion then most of the Wikipedia content mentioning Obama would be deleted. So, would there be objections if the flag were removed? --Camembert (talk) 08:34, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

No objection, so I've removed the flag. --Camembert (talk) 18:15, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Words to Avoid

Directed at Collect - you said "argued" is on Words to Avoid, but I can't see it anywhere there. Would there not be some instances in the text where it's more appropriate to use "argued" than "said", such as where Phillips has made or attempted to make a reasoned argument for something rather than simply making a statement? ReidE96 (talk) 13:37, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Said, stated, described, wrote, and according to are almost always neutral and accurate. Extra care is needed with more loaded terms. For example, to write that a person revealed, pointed out, exposed, explained, or found something can imply that it is true, where a neutral account might preclude such an endorsement. To write that someone noted, observed, insisted, speculated, or surmised can suggest the degree of the speaker's carefulness, resoluteness, or access to evidence when that is unverifiable.

To write that someone claimed or asserted something can call their statement's credibility into question, by emphasizing any potential contradiction or implying a disregard for evidence. Similarly, be judicious in the use of admit, confess, and deny, particularly of living people, because these verbs can convey guilt when that is not a settled matter.

"Argued" is precisely in this vein. When "said" works, use it. Collect (talk) 15:00, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Views on Vaccination

I've just added this. Hopefully I've done this right. This is my first edit that wasn't fixing typos or grammar. I've tried to keep the section neutral using referrences to Wikipedia articles on the various topics covered. The citation is a post of her own that appears on the Daily Mail. If any edits are made to this could they be listed here citing the reason. I'd like to understand why changes were made to better write these in the future.--Citizen Gold (talk) 00:20, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

I just removed what you added. Your interpretation of what it "means" is WP:OR and cannot be included. Beyond that, this article is not a platform for every view she has on every subject. We end up being a Daily Mail/Phillips conduit. It's not worth including even if it were fixed. The same thing will probably be true of the "series".--Bbb23 (talk) 00:44, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

I wouldn't have considered it my interpretation of what it means, and thus not WP:OR, but more the interpretation of the scientific concensus on this particular topic. This was why I linked through to the articles on these points. If they were OR the articles would be blank, wouldn't they?--Citizen Gold (talk) 02:24, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

I've restored the non-OR portions of the entry. Its inclusion is in accord with the existing structure of the "Views" section, and is now appropriately brief. &#0151; JEREMY 01:08, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Putting aside the copy edits your version requires: (1) how is the "now discredited" not WP:OR or WP:SYNTHESIS? and (2) by your logic, we should include anything she publishes on a new subject, which is nonsense. The standard for these subsections - and I haven't looked at them all to see how many comply - should be to include her views when they are commented on by others. Otherwise, there's nothing noteworthy about her opinions. Just because she's generally notable doesn't mean that everything she says is noteworthy. I'm not going to remove it. I'm not even going to copy edit it because it might look like I agree with it. I'll see if others care to chime in.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:37, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

I didn't so much add this because it's yet another view she has expressed but more because the topic is an important one.--Citizen Gold (talk) 02:24, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

The issue is not whether the topic is important but whether her view on the topic is important, and what makes it important is if someone other than her at least comments on it.--Bbb23 (talk) 03:49, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

So her being a media personality (enough to have her own Wikipedia entry) with a column in a widely read publication, posting in the Health section of said publication, what amounts to an opinion piece (at least that's how I read it) in support of a dis-proven medical claim that is causing actual harm to actual kids isn't enough to get that position added to the section on her Views? I find that kind of counter intuitive. What form would this comment have to take?--Citizen Gold (talk) 06:39, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

It would be a third party reliable source that says something like "Her views on Vaccines became an important part of her political policy base as she ran for parliament and won with huge support from the anti-vaccine movement" or "Her opinions on vaccines show her to be an anti-science wingnut". But we have neither. Just her spouting yet another one of her views, which, as an opinonista, is what she does for a living, and we do not track every one of her opinions. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:14, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Now that explanation I grok. Thanks. :) With this in mind I would actually suggest the entry be removed. As it stands, from this explanation, it shouldn't be there. I'll remove the section for now. If I do see the sort of commentary mentioned I'll revisit this then.--Citizen Gold (talk) 00:56, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

I edited it to reflect what the article actually states, which is a wee bit different from the edit previously made. Collect (talk) 02:09, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

I still think it should not be included, but if it's going to remain, can someone at least copy edit it so it looks less ugly? I refuse on principle. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 03:49, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

As it currently stands I'd agree with Bbb23. As it stands it doesn't actually say anything about her views on the topic. That actual nugget was edited out.--Citizen Gold (talk) 06:39, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

that "nugget" was misstated in a manner which ill-served Wikipedia. Making claims that a person said what she did not actually say is wrong. I agree with Bbb23 that the matter is of minimal value in the first place. Collect (talk) 07:19, 8 April 2013 (UTC) Collect (talk) 07:19, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

What was it about it that "ill-served Wikipedia"? Is there somewhere I can read up on what it means for information to "serve" Wikipedia?--Citizen Gold (talk) 20:27, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

WP:NOT could be a start; and in this instance WP:UNDUE as well- as one looks at Phillips from a 10,000 foot view, and starts to zoom in, where does her view on vaccines become visible? Probably not before the 10ft view when you have covered all of the other things for which she is more noted and has had more impact. And then, look at WP:PSTS - here we are using a primary document, Phillips' article, rather than a secondary source analyzing the document and its meaning and impact.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:39, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

MMR controversy

Could the article add Ms. Phillip's role in encouraging mothers to be sceptical about the benefits of the MMR vaccine. This matter is now topical as there is a measles outbreak in Wales. Her use of question marks to encourage ignorance can be dangerous as lives are now being endangered. Regard the following from an article in the Daily Mail, headed: MMR The Truth:

'Now, with the Government still piling on the pressure for every child in the country to be vaccinated, parents need more than ever to know the truth about this whole affair.

Is it safe for their children to have the triple jab or not? Are single vaccines safer? Whom should they trust: the small group of researchers sounding the alarm, or the medical establishment?'Bold text'

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-171316/MMR--The-Truth.html#ixzz2RVn8TcvZ Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook She has been roundly criticised by the British Medical Journal and to my knowledge she has never apologised to the parents who have been misled or to those who have found their children's lives endangered.--Tomkirwan (talk) 21:21, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

 Not done see the section above.

Wikipedia is not here to be a part of your campaign to expose and pillory anti-vaccine campaigners. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:42, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, God forbid that a page about someone who earns their living by commenting on issues actually reflects those views and the harm they may have caused! In fact this British Medical Journal article criticising Phillips's views is as rock-solid a third party source as we could find, so there is no reason whatsoever that her wrong-headed views on MMR can't be covbered here. Nick Cooper (talk) 08:52, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

There are lots of reasons why something should not be included in an encyclopedia article. You would need to provide a valid rationale to show that it DOES belong and meets the various content policies such as WP:BLP / WP:RS / WP:NPOV and particularly its subsection WP:UNDUE / WP:NOT. We are not here to judge people and their actions. If you want to do that, you will need to go elsewhere. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:09, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

"Tabloid" career

• Note: Contrary to accepted posting protocols, the following comments were inserted in the middle of my comment of 01:58, 10 December 2011 in the Stonewall Award section above. New comments must not be inserted inside those made previously, especially by other editors, thus disrupting historic discussions. Nick Cooper (talk) 09:38, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments, advice and efforts at restructuring the thread. I felt that the discussion had become so far removed from the original "Stonewall" subject that it was unhelpful and turgid. Your edits are very helpful. I apologize for splitting your contributions on the original thread and my violation of a protocol which I was not aware existed. I gave it my best shot to sort it out given the late hour and my exhaustion after a busy eleven days, seven of which were sitting in a murder trial and four driving 3,400 miles or so. Your efforts are clearly superior than were mine and this has been educational for me. Activist (talk) 21:13, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia clearly defines what "tabloid journalism" is. For instance, the Daily Mail heavily features sensationalistic crime stories, a great many of which have little informative value but are rather meant to titillate, and many of which originate in the U.S. rather than Great Britain. Activist (talk) 04:51, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

we do not force readers to click through to other pages to get the understanding of a word that in itself adds nothing to the understanding of the actual subject of this article. If you have a reliable third party source that shows that it is important to understanding Phillips that the paper she works for has a particular format / slant, THEN we can include it - otherwise it is merely an activistic tar and feathering by association and not allowed by multiple policies. WP:BLP / WP:NPOV et al. and such activism is NOT allowed.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:20, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

There seems to be a definitional problem here, as above. I clearly was referring to the content of the Daily Mail rather than its size or format. You yourself distinguished between them when you wrote, "I suggest that we cover actual encyclopedic content in an actual encyclopedic manner and not cover subjects as the gossip tabloids drooling over and hyping the most recent gaff (sic) rather than covering any actual significant impacts." I watched the recent rebroadcast of Phillips on Book TV on C-Span twice and she made it clear that she writes at the Mail because of its politics rather than having been drawn by any professionalism or journalistic standards. She also alleged that she had done "research" into anthropogenic global warming and that "200 scientists" had supposedly effectively debunked the overwhelming consensus of climatologists who have come to a conclusion that is a polar opposite from what she believes. In fact I wrote her to ask what her sources were and have not received a response to date. In addition, by providing a link to what Wikipedia defines as tabloid journalism, I am certainly not forcing anyone to do anything. Activist (talk) 08:31, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

and again, if you have a reliable source that specifically connects phillips and her beliefs/approach to the publication and its beliefs/approach, then we can consider including it. otherwise it is completely improper content for this article breaching a wide variety of policies ranging from WP:BLP to WP:NPOV to WP:OR. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:19, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Though I'm extremely busy I've been searching for the proof you've requested. I've seen her making the claims, but since that's not sufficient, I'll look a bit more until I find it in print. Her rants fit comfortably in the current Mail. Meanwhile you might chew on this http://www.theguardian.com/media/2010/nov/25/spectator-apology-muslim-antisemitism?INTCMP=SRCH&guni=Article:in%20body%20link and this http://www.theguardian.com/media/2011/mar/18/pcc-melanie-phillips-spectator-blog and this http://www.theguardian.com/media/greenslade/2011/jun/28/the-spectator-blogging Phillips also complained because of criticism stemming from the Islamophobic manifesto of mass murderer Anders Brevik which quoted from her columns. I'm still looking, but I have other actual business that more urgently requires my attention. Thank you for your request for sourcing. Activist (talk) 21:13, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

I am afraid I do not get the connection of what her antics at the Spectator have to do with whether or not we include the adjective "tabloid" when describing the Mail. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:22, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Your comments were a bit broader than that, including what sort of a publication the mail was and how she came to feel so comfortable there. Her departure from the Spectator seems to indicate that she's painting herself into an increasingly diminishing corner. I still need to satisfy you with what you feel is an objective description of that corner and why she feels so at home there. Activist (talk) 22:10, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

I really need to get to those other patently more important things, but as I'm closing browser windows I came across this lovely exposition of Phillips' relationship with the Daily Mail, her pontificating in the hotbed of cognitive dissonance. http://www.newstatesman.com/alan-white/2012/11/open-letter-melanie-phillips Activist (talk) 22:36, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

interesting, but that piece actually points out that Phillips hold positions that are apparently in contravention of the positions of the hosting paper. i dont see how that can be used to support claims that she is a tabloidist in the manner of the Mail. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:22, 2 September 2013 (UTC)