Talk:Graham Phillips (journalist)

Misinformation re: Birthplace

Government sanctions identify his birthplace as Dundee, Scotland, which are based on birth records. Phillips' consistently stated a birthplace and upbringing of Nottingham, England has been progressively disproven by school records, and now by the government sanctions list. I believe this makes clear his attempts to falsify his personal biography, and this warrants comment on his positioning himself as a journalist "of the utmost integrity". Please discuss.

I'm very confused about an edit correctly citing government stated evidence of his birthplace was rolled back in favour of repeating what appears to be a deliberate act of misinformation?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a0d:3344:179:2410:8492:e5bb:4766:123f (talk) 21:55, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

I don't know much about the apparent controversy over his birthplace, but Nottingham is reported as his birthplace by many reliable secondary sources, so I find it unlikely that this is a "deliberate act of misinformation". I'm not sure what reason he would have to hide his birthplace, especially if both his claimed an actual birthplaces are within the same country. - ZLEA _T\^C 22:28, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Hello. Scotland and England are different countries, and critically (we'll come to this later), countries with different national football teams.

The reason i know he has falsified the information is because i objectively know it to be fact. I performed stand-up comedy with him in Scotland in the early 2000s at a venue called "the stand". He performed a show called "the road from dundee" that was all about his birthplace, and was very vocal about having been born and growing up there, offering multiple anecdotes about it as his birthplace.

While I cannot find an online source, the reason for the purposeful misinformation seems to have been an attempt to hide from his comedic failures in Scotland after he left, and reinvent himself with a new biography, and one that supported his new identity of a fervent english national football team supporter. Initially this involved him stating to news outlets that he was born and raised in Nottingham - leading them to take him on his word - though more recently Scottish outlets have correctly identified that he was schooled in Scotland, resulting in the only remaining portion of the lie being his actual birthplace - something now materially contradicted by both his birth certificate, and government sanction records.

I would highlight that his previous narrative was of having been born AND schooled in Nottingham, which has now proven to be at least partially false; Wikipedia has clearly been used as a source by media outlets creating a misinformation loop, and has resulted in said misinformation proliferating. This needs to be remedied. 148.252.141.229 (talk) 07:06, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

I have found mention of the comedy show here [1]The Road from Dundee. While it does not confirm his birthplace - only his birth certificate and government records confirm that - it provides yet more fodder to the idea that he is engaging in willful misinformation.

Also, please consider how un-wikipedia it is to state that anecdotal knowledge of an individual who has wrong information on their birth certificate warrants ignoring the validity of all other birth certificates that have not been contested - i note Graham has not mentioned once that the sanction information is incorrect, which given his vociferous protesting against the sanctions, would more than likely to have been the case. 148.252.141.229 (talk) 07:16, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Please consider how "un-wikipedia" it is to expect us to take your word over reliable secondary sources. Wikipedia prefers secondary sources over primary sources for a reason, and your claims of willful misinformation are original research. Believe it or not, changing his birthplace on Wikipedia will not change the way reliable sources report it. If you want to set the record straight, go to the sources directly. If what you say is true, then they should be able to verify your story and set the record straight.

And for the record, I was referring to the United Kingdom, not Scotland and England. Sure, they have different football teams (a weird way to define countries), but they share the same government. - ZLEA _T\^C 13:36, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

The mention of different football teams is relevant in that Graham's fervent support of the English National Team (see his reporting history, and request for FIFA press coverage for the world cup) resulted in a desire to falsify himself as an English person, rather than of Scottish birth and descent.

Phillips is clearly engaging in misinformation, and there is a real and valid interest in Wikipedia reporting this in the context of his wider reporting. I have not asked you to trust my word, i have asked you to trust official government census data above journalists who have clearly referenced this wikipedia article, likely informed by Phillips' personal description of his own biography to news outlets.

This is clear and egregious misinformation. You discredit wikipedia if you ignore government census data in favour of poor journalism. 145.224.65.225 (talk) 14:13, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Your inability or refusal to understand WP:OR has become disruptive. Unless you have a reliable secondary source covering the discrepancy, please do not waste any more of our time. - ZLEA _T\^C 15:32, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

On a side note, I know someone who has incorrect information on their birth certificate, and while I'm not saying that his birth records are indeed incorrect, I know that it is not impossible (at least in the US, I don't how UK birth records are kept). If his birth records are incorrect, it's likely that any other government documents would also be incorrect, since they likely would get that information directly from his birth records. - ZLEA _T\^C 22:28, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Please consider how un-wikipedia it is to state that anecdotal knowledge of an individual who has wrong information on their birth certificate warrants ignoring the validity of all other birth certificates - i note Graham has not mentioned once that the sanction information is incorrect, which given his vociferous protesting against the sanctions, would more than likely to have been the case. In the absence of any alternative explanation, we should consider official government records above the validity of journalism - which were it accurate would have used those very records to confirm their information. 148.252.141.229 (talk) 07:18, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Again, i would proffer here the importance of primary sources over secondary sources - this is history 101. 145.224.65.225 (talk) 08:09, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm not saying we should question his birth records, I'm just pointing out an alternate explanation for the inconsistency as an example of why original research is not allowed on Wikipedia. - ZLEA _T\^C 13:42, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

In light of new reporting

Please see this edit (based on the following from the Guardian: This article was amended on 8 May 2023. An earlier version stated that Graham Phillips was born in Nottingham. Text has been changed to clarify that this is what Phillips has said, but that the sanctions list published by the UK government says he was born in Dundee. and this edit by Luganchanka. Don't feel strongly but wanted to get views. BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:31, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Brothels / use of prostitutes

This has been a contentious issue on the article, most recently by @Mr Wiki Orinoco in (this diff, saying it was non-neutral and the subject wrote about "Kyiv brothel River Palace, and his own experience with prostitutes").
But we have two sources which mention his use brothels and it is not appropriate for users to use their own personal description not supported by reliable secondary sources. The Telegraph: He became a blogger, documenting – in now-deleted posts – events such as him sleeping with a Russian prostitute whilst high on drugs in Amsterdam and recounting the history of a notorious Odesa brothel.[2]
The Times: He subsequently moved to Kyiv and then Odesa, where he wrote a blog reviewing nightclubs and brothels.[3] Solipsism 101 (talk) 09:55, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

=== Noted - I included all of this information in my edit. But despite searching extensively, I have only found one 'brothel review' of his, of River Palace, which was also included in my edit. Thank you for your notes on this. Remember this is wikipedia, not the News of the World Mr Wiki Orinoco (talk) 09:59, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

His exploits have been well-reported by two newspapers of record in the UK (not the defunct News of the World), in part, because it explains how he happened to be a journalist and what type of journalism he has done/started with, putting his current journalistic activities in much-needed context to the reader who doesn't have a clue who this person is. It will be useful to get consensus here to avoid constant removal/re-adding that will likely happen in the future. Best wishes, Solipsism 101 (talk) 10:13, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Well, I've read them all, and ok he went a bit further than your beloved Theroux, but it was clearly all done from a journalistic perspective, and actually if you read the second part of his article 'Prostitutes and Me', he strongly critiques the sex industry, and his own earlier actions. As for the newspapers of record, well one of them states he reviewed a 'notorious Odesa brothel' - the actual brothel review was a Kyiv brothel. And the second implies that he reviewed multiple brothels, when there is only record of one brothel review. Facts, neutrality. We are Wikipedia. Mr Wiki Orinoco (talk) 10:18, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

And I spoke too soon. To @Unbh who removed it in this diff on account of lack of RSs, the wording adding again makes it sound like he was describing brothel culture rather than having sex with prostitutes for money, both The Times and The Telegraph are reliable sources and listed in WP:RSP. Solipsism 101 (talk) 10:23, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

@Mr Wiki Orinoco: there is a danger of WP:OR. Let reliable secondary sources tell us what happened (in since deleted blog posts), rather than our own reading of primary sources, which the reader ultimately has no reason to trust. Solipsism 101 (talk) 10:29, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Respectfully disagree, these 'secondary sources' can also make mistakes, errors, and there is no need for us to carry their mistakes, errors over to Wikipedia. Information must be confirmed, fact-checked, and then included in the article.Mr Wiki Orinoco (talk) 10:35, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

I would remind you to look at WP:PRIMARY, Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so.

That issue aside, regarding the re-draft, it is clear he did not merely describe the sex industry but discussed using prostitutes; this should be included in the article as context for his journalistic work. Solipsism 101 (talk) 10:47, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Confirming, fact checking a blog and then including it in an article using his blog for this stuff is text book WP:OR. What there's reliable sourcing for is that the blog discussed brothels. There's one reported statement about sleeping with a prostitute in the Telegraph. I think gonig beyond the references discussion of reviewing brothels is WP:UNDUE. I don't see what context it adds to his journalistic work to say he uses prostitutes.

There is only one example of him 'reviewing a brothel' in Ukraine, and that is here - http://www.kyivpost.com/guide/about-kyiv/remembering-river-palace-314970.html - so the current article is factually incorrect in listing 'brothels'. Mr Wiki Orinoco (talk) 11:39, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

@Mr Wiki Orinoco. I don't want to edit war and break 3RR, so please revert your last edit. You need to wait for consensus. you edits rely on OR and sources which are not WP:RS. The big block quote you're adding is particularly problematic.Unbh (talk) 13:01, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

@Unbh Absolutely agreed, no edit war here! The Buzzfeed description of Phillips' blog is by far the most comprehensive, in scope and description, of his writings there, and Buzzfeed is definitely a WP:RS. So, let's find a consensus here if we are to change that, and agree how. I note your point, and will make another edit to reflect content previously deleted which should be there. Thank you Mr Wiki Orinoco (talk) 13:51, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

WP:BUZZFEED is not WP:RS. And that quote is undue weight to theis whole brothel review/ sextourism thing which is clearly only getting reported for salciousness anyway, even in better sources like the Times, and (sadly debatabley these days) the Telegraph.Unbh (talk) 13:59, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Good points, the issue with the Times and Telegraph is the inaccuracy of their claims there - that he reviewed a 'notorious Odesa brothel', when that brothel is actually in Kyiv, and reference to 'multiple brothel reviews', when there is only one. The Buzzfeed quote may be weighty, but at least it is factually accurate, and not overly salacious. Mr Wiki Orinoco (talk) 14:31, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

To me, that Buzzfeed article is fine, and it's been referenced plenty by other sources throughout time. It's written by Max Seddon, who is fairly well regarded in the English-speaking press of all things Russia (he's the Moscow bureau chief of Financial Times now). The article seems to give good early career context. Cononsense (talk) 16:12, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Current set up works for me. The problem on the accuracy front is it assumes that because he published one review in the Kyiv Post about a certain brothel that means there was only one brothel he reviewed. Obviously, it only means he once reviewed a specific brothel, not that there were not others. Both RSs mention his using prostitutes in Odesa, so they clearly aware of and added information beyond beyond Kyiv.
I didn't find the mentions overly salacious; they provide information about his journalistic tendencies. If you had an article about Hunter S. Thompson and omitted any references to his "salacious" exploits, which he did as part of his journalism, the article would not be comprehensive or informative. Solipsism 101 (talk) 17:58, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

thats a ridiculous straw man argument. this isn't an article about Hunter S. Thompson is it. it says nothing about journalistic tendencies, and everything about wanting to point out the man sleeps with hookers. blog posts are not automatically "his journalism,". for what it's worth both sources do not say he used profits in odessa.Unbh (talk) 18:16, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

I'd remind you to assume good faith and not cast aspersions by suggesting I have a POV and wish to "point out" that he once slept with hookers. I am here, like you, to build an encyclopedia and to improve this article, ensuring it is both informative and comprehensive.
Both The Times and The Telegraph note it as part of his background, as the link between his time in the UK working for the Civil Service as a clerk to his working for RT in 2013 as a correspondent. Even if it were not part of his journalism, it is part of his background just as his time as a clerk is.
Lastly, both your objection and my support for inclusion have been noted; we should wait for others to add their comments. Solipsism 101 (talk) 18:48, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

I'm not in principle against the inclusion, but without proper context it risks downgrading the article, which is starting to look pretty decent. And with proper context - he wrote about his own experience with prostitutes in the context of his doing an interview with a prostitute for his blog, ultimately denouncing his own use of prostitutes - it puts way too much weight on something which has little real relevance in his overall career. I propose we leave it for now, let's see if consensus builds here, and go from there. As I say, the article is starting to look pretty good now, after really a lot of work, and it would be a shame for it to be downgraded by salaciousness, etc. Mr Wiki Orinoco (talk) 19:17, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

I don't think it's overly salacious myself. He's been described in sources as delivering gonzo-style takes later on, and describing this era helps contextualize that. He even appeared on bbc describing the psychology of being a john, and this first person point of view characteristics that style of reporting. Cononsense (talk) 21:08, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Problematic job title of a journalist in the title of the article

The evidence in the article itself seems to point to Phillips being first and foremost a propagandist in service of Russian interests, with very little evidence that Phillips is interested in delivering fair and accurate information to his audience according to any journalistic code of ethics. I would therefore suggest removing the title of 'journalist' from the title of the article, as I do not feel Phillips has earned it (and granting it to him seems to me an implicit endorsement of his propaganda work by Wikipedia). If a professional title is required, I would suggest 'vlogger', as it has no connotations of following a code of ethics. Is there not a problem here that someone who Phillips may be trying to interview would take a quick look at this article and determine that it's safe to talk to him, without realizing what he's really about? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dokkari22 (talk • contribs) 07:08, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

ultimately, we need to describe him how reliable sources describe him as. i've seen both personally. Cononsense (talk) 14:16, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't really make naming decisions based on whether an individual abides to the journalistic code of ethics or not, nor does it particularly care about what an individual itself would prefer to be called. I would argue though that his journalistic activities seem to have ceased after 2015, when newspapers/magazines (What's On, Kyiv Post, New Statesman and others) stopped publishing his articles and his job contracts with Russian television networks (RT and Zvezda) expired. The newest sources published in 2022 first and foremost seem to almost exclusively refer to Philips as a "YouTuber". –Turaids (talk) 10:03, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

This is an interesting debate for the talk page, but not really any more than that. If we go back to before Russia's invasion of Ukraine, Phillips was referred to as a journalist / reporter in all, or almost all publications -

2014 - journalist, BBC

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-27506545

2016 - reporter, RFEL

https://www.rferl.org/a/ukraine-graham-graham-phillips-reporter-/28008922.html

2019 - journalist, Balkaninsight

https://balkaninsight.com/2019/03/11/uk-journalist-banned-from-twitter-angers-some-in-kosovo/

Fast-forward to 2022, and it's a very mixed bag -

Nottingham Post - journalist -

https://www.nottinghampost.com/news/nottingham-news/aiden-aslin-journalist-accused-spreading-7002425

The Times - film-maker

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/graham-phillips-briton-banned-from-ukraine-is-back-doing-kremlins-bidding-6szjqg9sc

The Sun - 'journalist'

https://www.the-sun.com/news/5166881/graham-phillips-strip-uk-passport/

The Guardian - YouTuber, but mentions 'reinvented himself as a journalist'

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/apr/20/who-is-graham-phillips-the-youtuber-accused-of-war-crimes

Daily Mail - film-maker

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10656207/British-film-maker-reporting-Ukraine-Russian-troops-positive-work.html

Referring to Phillips as a 'journalist' does not imply any endorsement of him, or his work. As Turaids mentions, that is not what wikipedia does. Journalist is a broad term, which encompasses many different spheres, which many different elements can be incorporated under - including 'film-maker', and 'YouTuber'.

In Phillips' case, there are enough solid references to him as a journalist, in respected publications, to justify that description. Very problematic if we now start to try to move away from that, as apart from 'journalist', there is no given consensus as to what he does - reporter, YouTuber, 'journalist', film-maker, etc. There is also the possibility that YouTube deletes his channel, and then where would that leave us. Messy, to say the least.

So, for me, it's a solid stay at 'journalist', albeit without that implying any endorsement of him or his activities. Mr Wiki Orinoco (talk) 14:50, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Well, most if not all of his recent (2015 onwards) journalism, film-making, reporting, vlogging, you name it is on YouTube and should YouTube ever delete his channel Philips would lose almost all of his audience. His 2018 Crimea film was at least reportedly shown in some theaters in Russia. –Turaids (talk) 17:30, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

I agree, there should be no doubt whatsoever that he clearly has worked as a journalist. Mathmo ^Talk 14:56, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

As flawed as the initial argumentation was, I think, this discussion is still about the descriptor we put in the brackets. Philips also worked as a civil servant, but there's a reason we don't call this page Graham Phillips (civil servant). Can any YouTuber call themselves a journalist nowadays? –Turaids (talk) 17:02, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

The referred Guardian article starts "Who is Graham Phillips, the YouTuber accused of ‘war crimes’?

How a former civil servant from Nottingham became pro-Kremlin voice in Ukraine". This is more important than the words you quote. Xx236 (talk) 12:33, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

War Crime

Phillips interviewed Aiden Aslin and placed the interview on youtube, Aiden is a prisoner of war and not a mercenary nor a terrorist. This constitutes a war crime as reported in many places including the Guardian https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/apr/20/who-is-graham-phillips-the-youtuber-accused-of-war-crimes He is also wanted for crimes against the Ukranian state. HuttonIT (talk) 09:42, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Accused of is not the same as guilty of. And of course the Ukrainian Government doesn't allow free press either, and calls criminals whoever they don't like. You've got to take their "neutrality" with a grain of salt. Mathmo ^Talk 14:57, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

The previous president and administration. Solipsism 101 (talk) 17:52, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Vandalism

Wiki editors should use common sense in citing sources. I can't read the body of the source but the title does not mention vandalism. I've no dispute that the Munich police opened an investigation but there's no record that they found he had done anything wrong, so it's smearing and innuendo to suggest otherwise. I was once quizzed as a rape suspect, along with hundreds of others. Does that make me a rapist? Nine-and-fifty swans (talk) 14:08, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

I found the source article. The first paragraph makes it clear that it is a Ukrainian government claim. It should be reported as such. I'd no idea that the Ukrainian government held Stephan Bandera in such esteem. Thank you for drawing my attention to this. Nine-and-fifty swans (talk) 14:43, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Not the only British born person to be sanctioned.

[4]https://docs.fcdo.gov.uk/docs/UK-Sanctions-List.html

9 Others as of 2023-02-27. E.g. Unique ID: AQD0145 - Individual was put on there in 2015.

Where Nationalities: United Kingdom there are 11 others. 80.1.92.32 (talk) 13:57, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Life dot ru, rambler, TV 5

Re [5]. I know for certain that Life.ru is not a reliable source [6]. I'm pretty sure that Rambler (portal) (owned by Russian government bank Sberbank) is also not reliable, as is 5TV (Russian TV channel) (basically run by RT). That edit still has Life.ru as a source too. Volunteer Marek 21:27, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Have replaced Life.ru link, will have a look at the others, thanks for your input! Anna Luganchanka (talk) 04:52, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Late to the party, but I removed the Rambler News sources, which, interestingly, all depict Phillips as some great humanitarian. Cortador (talk) 12:06, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Fair enough about Rambler, but as a matter of protocol, in the first place there should be a notice given to find a better citation for the statement. If this citation is not then found, then the statement is deleted. Luganchanka (talk) 19:20, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

@User:Luganchanka Re [7] - Zvezda is not a reliable source. Volunteer Marek 07:27, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

I see that the source was there earlier - still not reliable. Also not too sure about “the critic”. Volunteer Marek 07:28, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Ok, thank you Market, let me work on this! Luganchanka (talk) 07:39, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Surely Zvezda is an ok source when it directly refers to Phillips' work at Zvezda? At this time, Phillips was working for Russian state channel Zvezda, as a freelancer, having parted company with RT following his second deportation from Ukraine, along with uploading videos to his YouTube channel. Luganchanka (talk) 07:55, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

References

Article length

This is an insanely long article for a journalist. Sure, he is known for interviewing Aiden Aslin, but otherwise, what is he so notable of that the article should be almost as long as Albert Einstein's? AncientWalrus (talk) 00:04, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Among other things, Phillips is noted for -

• Being the first British person to be sanctioned by the UK Government
• Being one of the most notable pro-Russian westerners covering Ukraine since 2014
• Multiple controversial incidents, POW interviews
• Connection to prominent Donbas figures - notably Givi
• Multiple medals awarded to him by separatist republics

Also, Phillips has repeatedly stated that he is appealing the sanctions on him in the High Court of Justice, meaning notability is likely to increase. Luganchanka (talk) 07:26, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Is his text RS? This is crazy.

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/03/crimea-diary-ukraine-104259/ Xx236 (talk) 11:28, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Is 5TV (Russian TV channel) «5 канал», АО Телерадиокомпания «Петербург» reliable? Kabayeva... Xx236 (talk) 12:12, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

"Speaking to Metro in August 2023, Phillips stated" - he obviously stated he was right, what was the value of such statement?Xx236 (talk) 12:23, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

He prizes Vladivostok. Is such opinion encyclopedic?Xx236 (talk) 12:27, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

The You Tube channel has been removed

Is such link useful? Xx236 (talk) 12:19, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Article title

Since a judge has now ruled that Graham Phillips is a Russian asset rather than a journalist, surely this article should be moved, so the article title no longer pretends that he's a journalist?

"For the reasons given above, however, he is not an independent journalist. He is, to all intents and purposes, a russian asset who has signed up to Russia's propaganda war"

This echoes user:Dokkari22's concerns above. bobrayner (talk) 13:29, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi Bob, not sure about this. One, it would be a debate anyway whether we accepted the ruling of one judge over all other sources, and two, the judge doesn't say Phillips is not a journalist, he says he is not an 'independent journalist'. Further more the judge doesn't say outright that Phillips is a 'Russian asset', but 'to all intents and purposes...' Thanks for your thoughts Luganchanka (talk) 20:21, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Having read the court judgement in full, I would strongly support a change of name to Graham Phillips (blogger). My reasoning is that he has not been a journalist since 2014, he produced no evidence to counter that fact. He does not display 'press' markings on his clothing, he has instead dressed in Russian military uniform and a Ukrainian uniform taken from a dead soldier. He did not benefit from the heightened protection afforded to journalistic content in article 10 of the UK sanctions law. His conduct is not that of a responsible journalist. He has displayed no actions of an objective, independent and fair-minded journalist. 'He has not shown any journalistic responsibility or ethics'. There is no mention of having a British Association of Journalists press card or belonging to any other press association or union. He had spent more of his working life and presumably earned more money from producing video blogs.Ânes-pur-sàng (talk) 10:33, 17 January 2024 (UTC) https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/Phillips-v-Secretary-of-State-for-Foreign-Commonwealth-and-Development-Affairs-Judgment.pdf

A name change now would be very problematic. Firstly, the judge indeed says that Phillips is not an 'independent' or 'objective' journalist, but he does not say he is not a journalist. Secondly, the judge's ruling cannot be taken as the last word for Wikipedia purposes, what if there is another court ruling, and a different judgement, it would get ridiculous to change the title of the article back and forth... it looks like WP:recentism. The BBC described him as a journalist in 2014 -

'British journalist'

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-27506545

In 2022, they still describe him as a journalist, but a 'pro-Russian UK journalist' -

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-nottinghamshire-62308528

I have my own personal views on Phillips, as we all do, but I've worked a lot on this article to ensure it is neutral, and balanced, as have other editors. It would be a shame now to start degrading the article with unnecessary, non-Wikipedia changes. Luganchanka (talk) 13:56, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

The article was created in March 2022, there was no discussion as to what it should be called and the creator says in his creating comment that he was acting as a blogger for RT .... and was doing YouTube videos, this is not the work of a journalist. Just because he spent a bit of time working for a newspaper over 10 year ago, and likes to describe himself as such, does not make him a journalist. (The creator 'LondonIP' only worked for 3 weeks on wikipedia and left an interesting talk page.)

The fact remains that the court was not to decide if he was or was not a journalist, however the court has decided that he does not qualify as a journalist to obtain the exemption under article 10. So it has decided his work does not qualify as journalism.

Calling someone a blogger is just a job description.... changing the name to propagandist would be controversial, I do not see blogger being controversial, it's been his job for 10 years. Lots of newspapers call him a blogger including the BBC in 2017 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-trending-40647061 I do not see a problem changing the article name, it does not change the article. What do others think ? Ânes-pur-sàng (talk) 18:54, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

War crimes

Re [8]. The source explicitly says he has been accused of war crimes. The title of the source is "Who is Graham Phillips, the YouTuber accused of ‘war crimes’?" In the source the relevant sentence is "the pro-Kremlin YouTuber finds himself accused in parliament of potential war crimes after interviewing a fellow Briton captured by the Russian army." and "MP Robert Jenrick went further, saying Phillips’ video showed his constituent “handcuffed, physically injured and being interviewed under duress for propaganda purposes”. He said it was a breach of the Geneva conventions on the treatment of prisoners of war and that “the interviewer Graham Phillips is in danger of prosecution for war crimes”."

In other words, removing any mention of the war crimes accusation is NOT "Better, more neutral wording". Rather it is a misrepresentation of a source (in this case The Guardian).

Please self revert. Volunteer Marek 20:01, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for this Marek! The 'war crimes' subject is extensively covered in the article already. What would the reason be now to bump this up to the intro, the top of the intro even? Especially, as to meet Wikipedia standards this would require a raft of other text - who accused him, Phillips' response to that (he denies the accusations), etc.

This not only makes for a very long, mess intro, but extensive duplication elsewhere in the article. What would the justification for this be? Luganchanka (talk) 20:11, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

If it’s “extensively covered in the article” then the lede should summarize that info since that’s what the lede does. That is *precisely* the reason you ask for. Volunteer Marek 00:38, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Also at the time, Phillips was 'accused', actually said to be 'in danger of prosecution for war crimes' by Robert Jenrick, who was at that time a senior Conservative MP. However, he is now, after resignation from post, simply a backbench Conservative MP. Neither then, or now, did he have the authority to accuse Phillips of 'war crimes' in an official capacity, basically, he was simply giving his opinion. There has been no follow-up on it, I can't even see Jenrick having mentioned it again. Wikipedia cannot leave itself open for libel here, need to be very careful and choose the words factually, and correctly. Luganchanka (talk) 21:10, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

"The 'war crimes' subject is extensively covered in the article already. What would the reason be now to bump this up to the intro" — that's exactly why it should be in the lead. It's meant to "summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies". Also the court judgment notes that the government itself accused him of breaching the Geneva Convention. – Asarlaí ^(talk) 21:35, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you Asarlai, as an editor who has worked quite a lot on the Phillips article, I'm always ready to listen to experienced editors when it comes to improving it. However, recent edits, and shifting around of information, bumping information up, etc had left it in a bit of a mess - references duplicated, referred to by different names, general duplication, etc. Also, as I have noted, notwithstanding our own feelings towards Phillips, the article on him has to continue to adhere to Wikipedia standards. Anyway, I'm happy to be working with you on this Luganchanka (talk) 21:44, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Mentioning this well sourced information did not leave anything in “a bit of mess”. If some reference was duplicated then it’s straightforward to fix THAT and is not a valid excuse for completely removing well sourced info. Volunteer Marek 00:40, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

And “adhering to Wikipedia standards” means “summarizing content in the lede” and “not removing well sourced info”. Which is the opposite of what you did. Volunteer Marek 00:41, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree with your assessment of my edits, however, the changes you wished to see have been made. Luganchanka (talk) 01:53, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

High Court criticism of Phillips

I had added this, because I felt it covered valid criticisms of Phillips' actions, and conduct -

"In his judgment, Justice Johnson also made multiple criticisms of Phillips' actions:

In October 2022, the claimant (Phillips) posted a video of himself wearing Russian military fatigues, bearing Russian insignia, and firing an automatic machine gun at an improvised firing range. He initially fires single shots. A man (who appears to be a Russian solider) then adjusts the weapon, and the claimant then fires it in automatic mode. The caption reads 'As Donbass goes into a war footing, I go to an improvised firing range, almost on the frontline itself, to brush up on my shooting skills.' The next caption reads 'From my side, this is really just symbolic, the ‘war footing’ doesn’t have a direct impact on myself, or my work…' He drives away in a Range Rover with a 'Z' insignia. (Justice Johnson)

"

I feel it was removed mistakenly, but with WP:Assume good faith. Is there any objection to re-adding it? Luganchanka (talk) 13:11, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Adding Graham Phillips into the Pro-Russian Traitors list

Is it possible if we can create a Pro-Russian Traitor list and add Graham Phillips in it? Because i definitely think that he betrayed the UK by siding with the Kremlin and Putin. Kremlin sellouts like him don't deserve a place Baltofan95 (talk) 13:18, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Doing so would violate NPOV and BLP because it is expressing a bias against this person. You should use objective language to describe any person you are covering and tie it to a reliable source. It is not a problem to utilize reliable sources to show that he has a link to Russia and Putin, but you cannot call him a traitor because of that. --Thebirdlover (talk) 13:31, 21 April 2024 (UTC)