Talk:Melanie Phillips/Archive 2

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. 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 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)

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)

comments
There is another current discussion regarding this issue at WP:BLP/Noticeboard


 * 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: . 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
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)

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)

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)