Talk:Melanie Phillips

Irish independence as a ‘domestic issue’

It is wrong to have her views on Irish independence listed as a ‘domestic issue’. Irish independence and national sovereignty is no more a British ‘domestic issue’ than US, Italian, or Japanese sovereignty. 2A02:C7E:3338:BC00:9892:562:49BD:C9E6 (talk) 14:09, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

far-right political views

It is wrong to define Phillips as "far-right". 2A06:C701:4512:5A00:E4A0:F1B2:5E20:B9B3 (talk) 16:55, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

You're talking about far-right in the lead sentence? It was done on 16 March 2024 when 31.205.97.209 changed "journalist, author, and" to "far-right". Later Alexanderkowal reverted some of31.205.97.209's changes but left this one. Then 17 March 2024 86.30.221.122 changed "far-right" to "right-wing", but Lemonaka 3 minutes later reverted with an edit summary claiming that 86.30.221.122 was doing "Disruptive editing". Then today Athousandcuts2005 got rid of "far-right". I support. I'd favour restoring "journalist, author" too. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:36, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

@Peter Gulutzan you’d make a great historian! Alexanderkowal (talk) 18:25, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

@Peter Gulutzan, 2A06:C701:4512:5A00:E4A0:F1B2:5E20:B9B3, and Athousandcuts2005: my edit didn't say she was far right, it said she identified with some far right views which is evidenced by her support for Eurabia conspiracy theory, which says in the lead it is a far right conspiracy theory, and ultraconservatism, which says it usually refers to conservatives of the far right. This is not up for debate. I'm sorry but my edit was correct. For the record, Dear lots of numbers and 1000 cuts, if you like her and agree with her on some things, that doesn't make you far right, but if you agree with some of the far right ideas she espouses it does. Alexanderkowal (talk) 18:32, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm inclined to remove the "right" or "far-right" description if there is no reliable sources or further discussion. -Lemonaka‎ 00:15, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

@Lemonaka are the three sources given not sufficient? Alexanderkowal (talk) 00:32, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

@Lemonaka I mean I’m open to discussion, however the points I made above are concrete and the sentence is well cited so I don’t see how meaningful discussion can follow. I realise I’ve been too heavy handed and egotistical in my previous comment, I do owe an apology to @2A06:C701:4512:5A00:E4A0:F1B2:5E20:B9B3, Athousandcuts2005, and Peter Gulutzan: regarding how I have treated them. I just get frustrated at the sheer amount of corporate/PR editing there is on Wikipedia, however it was wrong to direct this at other users who showed no indication of this. If anyone has anything to add I’d be more than willing to hear it. Alexanderkowal (talk) 00:41, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Reference one is a book she wrote, discussing about far-right and phobia among them, how could that used to say the author is far-right?
The origin news of reference two is https://www.ft.com/content/1c825298-d8f7-11e0-aff1-00144feabdc0, while I cannot read it since I'm not a subscriber.
The reference three said they are a follower of "dhimmitude" thesis, I'm not sure is it right-wing or far-right.
I'm inclined to ring-wing, or remove far-right. The definition of far-right is usually vague, and may cause some further disruptions. -Lemonaka‎ 05:35, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

@Lemonaka in this article she is described as a proponent of the Eurabia conspiracy theory and as an ultraconservative, both of which are described as far-right in their leads. The term dhimmitude ‘’plays a key role in the Islamophobic conspiracy theory of Eurabia’’, again a far right conspiracy theory stated in its lead. Whilst not explicitly stated as far right in the Guardian and Opendemocracy articles, the whole premise of the article is far right ideology. Why would they label every mention with “this is far right” upon first mention?

The first is bogus, I thought it stated something it didn’t due to the small extract I could see in Google scholar.

I haven’t referenced the FT at all? The other two are free to read and are reliable sources? It links to an FT article as a reference for Phillips as a proponent of Eurabia.

I’ve added a third.

Remember, the sentence is that she associates with far right ideology. It is enough to be mentioned in an article about far right ideology as an example. Your personal opinion that the term far right is often vague is not relevant, nor is my opinion about corporate bots. Alexanderkowal (talk) 07:47, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

I disagree. The Wikipedia "definitions" of far-right don't matter, Wikipedia is not a dictionary, Oxford dictionary and Cambridge dictionary don't say anyone who purportedly mentioned Eurabia is far right. The ft source (by Simon Kuper) (I could access it) says "Breivik’s 1,518-page manifesto cites Eurabia authors such as Bruce Bawer, Bat Ye’or and Melanie Phillips. ... Phillips was too wacky. She blamed Islam’s conquest of Britain on British transsexuals, intellectuals, gays who adopt children, Antonio Gramsci, Phillips’s former employer The Guardian, etcetera." Your first source says ... the mainstream conservative writing of Oriana Fallaci, Niall Ferguson and Melanie Phillips .. and I stopped there because if we were taking this we'd have to accept it as support for "mainstream conservative" as well. Your second source (Sam Fowles on opendemocracy.net) says Melanie Phillips’s work promoting the ‘Eurabia’ conspiracy theory (a predecessor to the great replacement) was cited in Anders Breivik’s manifesto. Phillips certainly can’t be accused of antisemitism. Instead, she blames a host of other far-right targets: homosexuals, Guardian readers, intellectuals and trans people. -- but others including Muslims can be wary of some of those groups too. Your third source is indeed only saying The mainstream British writer Melanie Phillips has become an advocate of the “dhimmitude” thesis .... (Hmm, that word "mainstream" again.) You need a consensus and you don't have one, you added not enough that directly supports your claim. However, since there has been so much back-and-forth changing of this part in the last few days, I'm reluctant to jump into an edit war immediately. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:03, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

@Peter Gulutzan do you expect Cambridge dictionary to list every far right ideology/conspiracy theory? Are you seriously saying Eurabia isn't a far right conspiracy theory? Pure gaslighting. Again for the record, it does not say she is far right, it says she associates with far right ideas. I've included citations of her association with far right ideas, which includes her as an example of dissemination of far right ideas. In the lead of Eurabia conspiracy theory it says it is far right and provides two conclusive citations. If you want, I can include a citation which calls Eurabia far right and we can all continue on with our days. Also, I haven't cited FT, I don't know why you're talking about that, it is included in the Open Democracy article as a reference/firther information, not a source/main article. As for mainstream, that doesn't imply anything. Far right doesn't have to be fringe, that is your perception of it. See [1] and [2]. Alexanderkowal (talk) 16:01, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Cambridge says gaslighting is "the action of tricking or controlling someone by making them believe things that are not true, especially by suggesting that they may be mentally ill: ..." I'm not sure what part of that you're accusing me of. A source using an argument that she says something and some group says that thing is like a "nudge nudge, know what I mean" skit from Monty Python, which is where it belongs. If the author who says far-right doesn't go beyond the nudging, and if Wikipedians come to the conclusion that hasn't been directly stated, then I worry about WP:SYNTH and about the WP:V uses of the word "directly" e.g. as in "Sources must support the material clearly and directly ...". As for the mention of FT, Lemonaka brought it up and you responded mentioning it so I'm baffled that you don't know why I talked about it too to say what's in it. Now, folks who might be watching this page have seen what the IP and I and Lemonaka and you think. Let's see whether anybody else steps in to support or oppose your edits. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:27, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

@Peter Gulutzan This is so clear cut I can't believe it's a discussion. The sentence "she came to identify with ideas more associated with right-wing politics and the far-right" is supported by articles about far right ideology that uses her as an example. To be clear I am not calling her far-right.

The references stated she is a proponent of the Eurabia conspiracy theory which is a far right conspiracy theory, as stated in that articles lead supported by two comprehensive citations. This is indisputable regardless of what you think of my first point. This point alone is enough and is what you should focus on rather than picking apart the weaker point above. I have added further citations that, if you want the sentence removed you have to debunk all citations/be left with a couple flimsy ones.

Is the point of contention with the first point that you don't believe she has been included in these articles as an example of the subject? If so, can you propose another reason why she is included. Alexanderkowal (talk) 17:46, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

@Peter Gulutzan Also, we don't know what Lemonaka and IP think of my main point, we don't even know what you think about my main point because you won't address it. Alexanderkowal (talk) 18:37, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Lemonaka: Alexanderkowal says "we don't know what Lemonaka and IP think of my main point". Can you respond? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 20:23, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

@Peter Gulutzan can you please address my main point if you can find the time, or I will assume you disagree with the sentiment but that you can't find fault with it. Alexanderkowal (talk) 20:30, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Lemonaka and the IP haven't responded. Does anyone watching this have an opinion supporting or opposing far-right in the lead and/or Alexanderkowal's insertions? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:23, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

@Peter Gulutzan I think the only way you could refute this is if you found multiple reliable sources that label Eurabia conspiracy theory as right-wing (or anywhere else on the spectrum) that numbered greater than the ones I could find that say it’s far-right Alexanderkowal (talk) 15:45, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm with Alexander on this one. If you support Eurabia, you're expressing a far-right (and crazy conspiracy) view. Her other views might be merely odious rather than specifically far-right, but Eurabia (and its backers) is. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:01, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Wait.... Anyway, is there any source for this idea is far-right? We don't need a source for MP herself, but sources for Eurabia theory as far-right. -Lemonaka‎ 12:38, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

@Lemonaka yeah, if you look at the Eurabia conspiracy theory page, there’s multiple citations for describing it as far right. If you want I can add a credible one to this page? Alexanderkowal (talk) 13:26, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Actually you should have a source for Melanie Phillips herself, i.e. proof that she uses the word, as well as proof that only far-right people use it as this is their defining characteristic. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:53, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

@Peter Gulutzan The sentence is that she associates with far-right ideas. Secondary reliable sources are sufficient. See WP:No original research#Primary, secondary and tertiary sources Alexanderkowal. Primary sources are generally not permitted because they induce OR (talk) 15:13, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Herself is associated with A idea, A idea is a far-right idea. Then they are associated with far-right idea. -Lemonaka‎ 05:05, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

I've failed to persuade. I'll say no more in this thread. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 13:50, 1 April 2024 (UTC)