Talk:Melanie Phillips/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Melanie Phillips. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:23, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Melanie Phillips. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:44, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Melanie Phillips. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:47, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Melanie Phillips. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:15, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Global warming views

There is no reason why the article should not cover Phillips' views on global warming. Accordingly, a section on it will be inserted. —Calisthenis (Talk) 20:14, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

I concur. Deleting this content solely because it was "removed on May 6 by Philip Cross" is unfounded. Surely Wikipedia editors can do better than that. KalHolmann (talk) 20:27, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
What actually happened is: Philip Cross removed some material on what appear to be good-faith BLP grounds. Calisthenis re-inserted, that is, reverted the editor who removed it without appropriately saying so in the edit summary. Now Calisthenis has re-inserted yet again, as if unaware that material removed on such grounds is not to be re-inserted without first getting consensus (read WP:BLP). So skip the pretence that the issue is whether the article should cover Phillips's views. But despite Calisthenis's behaviour I'm willing to see whether there's consensus for the particular wording that's in now. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 22:26, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
Just so that we are clear: removal of the material was not credited to BLP considerations, good-faith or otherwise; the comment suggests a simple UNDUE claim. The policy about consensus before reinsertion therefore does not apply. See also WP:CRYBLP. Newimpartial (talk) 20:50, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
I won't try to divine what the commenter "suggests" and I won't comment on essays. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:27, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
But you are content to construe a BLP rationale with no evidence? Interesting. Newimpartial (talk) 21:45, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
I strongly approve of the reinsertion of the content on global warming. The basis on which it was removed is unfounded, I can find many cases in which Melanie Phillips has spoken about this issue, so it deserves a mention. Andromedean (talk) 19:43, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
If so, why use something she said (i.e. didn't write) during a round table long ago, instead of something that she wrote recently? For example I notice her 2017 blog post saying "AGW" is a scam rather than "GW" is a scam, and saying temperature has "plateaued" rather than "gone down". I don't know whether the other editors who have removed the wording that Calisthenis prefers (i.e. Philip Cross and יניב_הורון) or re-inserted it (i.e. XenoRasta) would be open to compromise, but I'd be happier with: okay mention global warming, but use a more current and more carefully stated source. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:27, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
Update -- and I see that Hullaballoo Wolfowitz has joined the removers, to be quickly reverted by NewImpartial. Hope I'm not missing anybody. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 23:36, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
Yet more update: Now Gerrymorgan has put in a more current source. Not the one I suggested, but not flawed like the BBC stuff. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 13:00, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

From a policy standpoint, the notion that the BBC piece is not a RS is nonsense. I don't see any BLP issue here, either. Newimpartial (talk) 03:06, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

  • Your understanding of BLP requirements is deeply inadequate. At the very least, the disputed text violated the requirement that "All quotations . . . must be supported by an inline citation to a reliable, published source" (wrt the first quote), and used an editor's original interpretation of statements by the subject rather than relying on an independent, reliable source. Those are clear violations. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 20:26, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
How is the BBC piece not a "reliable, published source", o Hullabaloo? Newimpartial (talk) 21:20, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
It's a primary source, presented in terms of an editor's individual interpretation. It's fundamentally no different than an editor's personal analysis of song lyrics. Pay attention to what I said and to the actual issues involved. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 21:45, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Now Gerrymorgan has re-inserted the BBC-sourced material that has been disputed in this thread, and re-inserted some more material which I regard as misquoting. E.g. Phillips wrote "According to a new study, scientists’ claims that coral reefs are doomed by ocean acidification are overplayed." and Gerrymorgan insists that the article say she has written that "claims that coral reefs are doomed by ocean acidification are overplayed". I have not reverted again since I guess it would just be re-inserted again. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:07, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

It is reasonable to attribute to Phillips the view that ocean acidification is "overplayed". The ICES article she is referring to in that quote does not use the word "overplayed" at all. It is the word that she has chosen to characterize ocean acidification as described in the ICES article. Gerrymorgan (talk) 16:05, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Profile photo

The profile photo seems to be intended to be as unflattering as possible, is there not a more standard one that can be used. Jprw (talk) 11:49, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Jewish Chronicle article

The article, which she says was about the term Islamophobia and its use and not Muslims, was indeed criticised and not just by the Guardian. According to the JC " A number of people within the Jewish community, and friends of the community, have expressed their dismay – and anger – at its content." Two more articles are[1] The editor also said "Given our commitment to covering a range of legitimate views, we have also published a piece on the same subject by David Toube of the Quilliam Foundation. One by Shiraz Maher of King’s College, London will follow shortly. Both disagree with Melanie Phillips." So the JC didn't treat this as minor and there are other sources, eg this one which starts "Ex-Conservative chair Sayeeda Warsi has condemned an article by Times columnist Melanie Phillips."[2] My revert was of course an accident and I didn't even look at the edit carefully, but when I was alerted I took a look and disagree with the suggestion it doesn't belong in the article. Doug Weller talk 19:46, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Very well, then two editors (you and the IP) think that it belongs. Therefore I self-reverted. That does not mean that I agree, however, so if other editors notice this then I hope they will look at my original edit summary. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 20:19, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
I didn't mean to suggest it was a good edit, spelling and use of her first name shows that. Doug Weller talk 20:58, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Melanie_Phillips/Archive_4&oldid=1112587612"