Talk:Maureen Lipman

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]

Contents

[edit] Controversy section

I'm removing yet another bad faith attempt to insert this section. After repeatedly asking for sources and references from the editor or editors who repeatedly inserted non-neutral and unsourced text (with very skewed paraphrases and a deliberately incomplete quote) about the alleged controversy about Lipman on "This Week", it seems that I have to do it myself. Here's the context and the FULL quote from Lipman as reported in by a very pro-Arab/pro-Palestinian source:

Maureen Lipman commented in a debate on the 2006 Israel-Lebanon crisis on BBC 1's This Week programme (13 July 2006) that: "Human life is not cheap to the Israelis, and human life on the other side is quite cheap actually because they strap bombs to people and send them to blow themselves up"(External reference link - note this external source is clearly partisan, and does not have a neutral point of view, and is therefore unreliable).

This was the ONLY source covering this quote/so-called controversy on google news. I have yet to see evidence of a widespread controversy about what Lipman said. If evidence can be provided from mainstream sources, fine (has she been featured on Al-Jazeera yet? I think not). Also, the FULL QUOTE is to be addressed, not a deliberately twisted paraphrase or incomplete quote that suggests that Lipman considers Israeli lives more valuable than Palestianian/Lebanese ones, because clearly that's not what she's saying. Moreover, she's participating in a debate on the crisis on a political discussion program, so the media context is not outrageous. Bwithh 14:06, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I've appealed for help regarding this issue on the UK portal Bwithh 14:26, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
The source quoted is not a reliable or neutral source. It is basically a blog[1]. Furthermore there is no independent verification that there is any controversy, or that these comments, even if quoted properly, have any significance. If that were the case there would be more than one reference. I must conclude this section fails the policies of NPOV and Verifiability. -- zzuuzz (talk) 14:47, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Has anybody bothered to actually view the programme? It's available online at BBC This Week and will be available until 20 July. But note that it is hosted by Andrew Neil and gives the impression that it is always hoping to gain some notoriety (and some viewing figures) - SteveCrook 18:00, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for finding that - why don't you view it and report back, if you can be bothered to? Regardless of whether the quote's accurate, there also needs to be evidence of actual newsworthy public controversy for the section to stand. Bwithh 18:07, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
After struggling to stay awake through the programme up to that point, yes Maureen did say it. But it didn't provoke any response in the programme and I don't see any response anywhere else. Maureen was first saying how the rockets hitting Israel was buried away on page 23 but the rockets fired by Israel was always page one. Maureen was speaking in response to Diane Abbot talking about proportional response by Israel. Diane Abbot claimed that all of the Israeli response just just due to the kidnapping of three Israeli soldiers and appeared to be disproportionate. Maureen asked "What's proportion got to do with it though Diane? It's not about proportion is it? Human life is not cheap to the Israelis, and human life on the other side is quite cheap actually because they strap bombs to people and send them to blow themselves up". Abbot then asked if a Palestinian mother mourned her lost child any less than an Israeli mother and Maureen said "That's not what I meant". But then Andrew Neil took them onto another subject. -- SteveCrook 18:45, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for finding and verifying it. It appears no one can say it caused a controversy except for with one blogger. It is difficult to see how the quote could merit inclusion in the article, without it hitting the news, or causing some other reliably reported controversy. The POV issue remains. -- zzuuzz (talk) 18:55, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

The full quote is featured in the paper copy of the 16 July 2006 Independent on Sunday "Quotes of the Week" section (page 34). Unsigned comment by 82.11.197.49 20:19, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Is there any comment about it? -- SteveCrook 22:17, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Yasmin Alibhai-Brown has made a reference to Lipman's statement in her column in the Independent on 17 July 2006 [2] Linesman 12:02, 17 July 2006 (UTC)


CAABU Director has written to the BBC to condemn the comments on the BBC [3]. Linesman 11:58, 17 July 2006 (UTC)


  • Sorry, I've been fully engaged on work projects and havent had time to pay much attention to wiki issues. I still don't think that this Lipman story has been sufficiently established as an encyclopedically noteworthy controversy. It may have provoked letters from one or more organizations to the BBC, but I'm sure that is not an especially unusual action on their part, and there is still no evidence of a wider public controversy. One op-ed column is also not enough. I'm leaving the text in, but adding a tag. Bwithh 04:00, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Hiya. This is the first time I've seen this article, and my attention was drawn immediately by this section under discussion (a case of "undue weight", perhaps? 30 years of acting, and of the 25 sentences, 7 are about this: that's a quarter of the article). and The link to the telly programme itself has now expired. The Independent link is to a subscribers-only article. I don't have the paper copy so I can't see the full quote that the anonymous IP says is in the print edition. That leaves us with one press release and a bunch of blogs. I don't know how the press release stands under WP:Reliable sources, but I do know that blogs generally don't count. And for television, radio and film, I think it still has to be a published source, so an official transcript is okay, but again, I'm not sure about random webpages (yes, I realise that this should knock out about 90% of our film coverage). I think it might have to come out as currently unverifiable. Dunno if any of that helps. Telsa (talk) 16:57, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

It's a reasonably accurate transcription of what was in the programme. What is much less certain is if it counts as causing any controvosy. -- SteveCrook 20:13, 23 July 2006 (UTC)


This is getting ridiculous. Either someone should produce some articles by mainstream news sources establishing that a controversy does in fact exist, or the entire section should be removed. Wikipedia is not here to air personal disagreements. JF Mephisto 19:11, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
Adding the Pilger column which has a minor mention of this incident with the purpose of attacking the BBC does not prove the importance of this controversy - particularly since John Pilger is well-known for his agitprop journalism style. Also, putting in lengthy quotes from the two critics and then deliberately cutting short Lipman's quote to make it sound worse (a tactic which Pilger also uses) is basically the same as using the article as an POV attack page Bwithh 14:24, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Fully agree with Telsa; the fraction of the article devoted to this issue is disproportionate Chrisj1948 (talk) 15:21, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Totally Disputed tag and referral to RFC

I am adding the Totally Disputed tag and referring this matter to Requests For Comment.

  • I am doing this after another removal of the "importance has not been established" tag and the insertion of another deliberately skewed representation of Lipman's comments (this time out of context, pieced-together quotes from the Jewish Chronicle article) in order to present her in an especially negative light. This is, I think, the third or fourth time, anti-Lipman editors have placed deliberately skewed Lipman quotes in the article with a view of using the article as a political attack page. The anti-Lipman editors also seem not particularly interested in discussing this matter on the talk page. It's impossible for me to continue to assume any good faith.
  • At the same time, the anti-Lipman editors have yet to come up with sources which prove that there is an encyclopedically notable or even newsworthy controversy going on (at the moment, we have a couple of mentions (one which is fleeting) in two opinion columns) about Lipman's comments or any proof that Lipman is especially outspoken as they suggest.
  • I would emphasize that articles about living persons are taken especially seriously by Wikipedia administration.

RFC link to follow Scratch the RFC move for now. Apparently there has to be more discussion first. Bwithh 16:02, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm somewhat the cause of your anguish I guess, sorry.
There is controversy about the war, and she has chosen to take a very public position on the war.
The comments concerning freedom of the press (quoted from JC) were added by me; I think it is directly relevant to her role in the media that she should express the view that there is merit in censorship of the press (particularly relevant to Wikipedia contrbutors btw). If you think they're out of context, add the context.
Agreed some of the other quotes are odd; the reference to Pilger isn't a quote from her, its a quote from him about the way the someone else interviewed her. It would stand as a comment on the BBC and its ability to interview, but seems out of place here.
82.46.33.119 11:24, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Just reread the Independent quote... that too seems to quote someone elses words rather than ML own comments.
I have no reservation about quoting someone's own words directly (as in the JC article, add more if you think it makes for better context) but to quote someone elses opinion about ML seems to be less a primary source.
eg Soandso described soso as blah... doesn't see very impartial or informative. Soso said "I'm a blah" is fair game IMHO.
82.46.33.119 11:35, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Here's the solution (IMHO). Split into comments she makes ('quotes') comments others make about here ('in the press').
82.46.33.119 11:51, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
One other obs, if ML is an outspoken/controversial commentator on a topic - shouldn't those opinions be reflected in an article about her? Otherwise if one were to imply ML has not expressed any noteworthy public/political opinion would clearly be misleading.
Amazingly [to me] A search on google for '"maureen lipman' war israel' returns 14,300 results :) so that might suggest a rich vein of opinion Click here to run the same google search
Anyway ignore me. I'm just passing through... on the way to edit more interesting articles.
I've got an ology to consider you know. (Actually, I can't resist, if that quote's not one the page bagsy I get it on there first...)
82.46.33.119 20:21, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Maureen Lipman has replied to the article in the Independent explaining her comment - http://comment.independent.co.uk/letters/article1185316.ece

And, we have i think, to take the above link as evidence of controversy. Unlike most of the posters here, I did watch the programme at the time - and was stunned by both what she said and the really nasty tone in her voice when she said it. Diane Abbot immeadiately challenged her, and Lipman looked distressed and started mumbling a retraction. The host, Andrew Marr, then got her out of trouble by moving on to another subject. This Week isn't a hard political show, Lipman was there as a Labour party-supporting celebrity to give her views on a range of issues that week. She chose to talk about that particular subject. I think allowances were made that she wasn't a politician, and that Lipman was getting out of her depth on this issue. Marr is a journalist with a 'bulldog' reputation who could have ripped Lipman to shreds if he'd wanted to. He seemed to be protecting his guest, and not as suggested above, exploiting the incident for ratings. Indisciplined 23:05, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
I watched it - and I completely disagree with your summary of what happened. The comments didn't come "out of the blue" or red as you mention her being a Labour supporter. Diane Abbott (2 ts) is a Labour MP so I don't see what the relevence of Maureen Lipman's own politics is, it's not like she was there as the "voice of Labour". The comments were made after some particularly fatuous comments about Israeli over-reaction. Diane Abbott did challenge what Maureen Lipman said but Lipman didn't mumble a retraction, she backed up and clarified what she'd said. The host, Andrew Neil didn't seem to realise the significance of what had been said and moved on to another topic. Andrew Marr may be a journalist with a 'bulldog' reputation, but Andrew Neil certainly isn't. I have to query if you really saw the show. I did, see my comments about it above. -- SteveCrook 00:58, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, I cannot agree with that assesment. The programme is 'Politics-lite' if you like, with celebrity guests like Lipman as well as journalists and politicos. Lipman just got out of her depth on this issue (part of wide range of issues discussed in the space of about 5 minutes - from Tony Blair's future to the British Honours system). Before the discussion, Lipman had recorded a short piece - in her own home, I think, whilst flower-arranging (yes, Steve, I did see it, Thank you) - in which she briefly discussed the weeks main events as she saw it - this included (briefly) the worsening situation in the Middle East. My earlier post, If you would like to re-read it, says nothing about the subject coming 'out of the blue'. Far from it, the discussion took up the subjects from the recorded clip, so Lipman effectively chose the subject herself. Diane Abbott then challenged her intepretation of events, where Lipman had seen Israel's actions as justified, Abbott saw the as an over-reaction. Not 'fatuous', but just a different interpretation of the same current events. I wasn't argueing that Lipman's party affiliation is relevant to the debate, but rather relavent to why she was chosen to appear - they pick celebs with a variety of political views in order to have a lighter political debate that if you had a room full of MPs. (Her party afiliation was referred briefly whilst debating another topic - the Honours system). 'Backing up her comments' appears to mean mumbeling "No I didn't mean that, Diane" when she realised what she'd just said and how it could be interpreted (she didn't ACTUALLY say that human life was cheap to Arab people, but did clearly realise how her comments could be interpreted). My apologies for getting Andrew Neil's name wrong, by the way, (hopefully he won't see it as an insult!) but my interpretation of what i saw was that he got his of the obvious difficulty she was having by changing the subject. Neil was being gentlemanly, when, as I say, he could have easily torn her to shreds on this issue. Neil is many things, but not an idiot - he's been a journalist for a decades, and fully understood the significance of what had been said.
Now we have all that nonsense out of the way, back to the point I was actually trying to make. Lipman was out of her depth and lost her cool. It susbsequently blew up into a row in the newspapers. Her comments were offensive and pretty shocking, but probably don't have any deeper significance than words said in the heat of the moment, so should be given limited weight. It is relevant for inclusion in this article - because she said this stuff on the record. In the end far more column space has been given over to the issue in this discussion page than in the original article. Indisciplined 17:51, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


So all that proves is that different people can see the same thing and have different interpretations of what was the undercurrent of intentions by all concerned. I doubt if Andrew Neil will see it as an insult. He would probably like to be mistaken for a serious journalist :) I genuinely don't think that he did see any significance to what was said. I think he saw a row brewing which he didn't want that on what is usually regarded as a lightweight look at the news. So he steered it onto the next subject. But that's just my opinion. -- SteveCrook 18:25, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Er...Steve, I beleive that's what I've said in both my posts. However, she did say this on the record, so can be included in the Wikipedia article. What weight it is given is another question, and it may greatly help this debate if we all move on to discussing 'how' the incident is presented, rather than 'if'. By the way, I like Andrew Neil no more than you, but let's give the man his due. He's a liftime journalist, former editor of the Scotsman and Sunday Times, and a very experienced broadcaster. I'm no fan of his, but think he handled the incident well. Indisciplined 18:42, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
So what do you think is wrong with the way it's presented in the article at present? -- SteveCrook 20:01, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed removal of the The Apprentice UK template

I have started a discussion at Template talk:The Apprentice UK proposing the removal of template {{The Apprentice UK}} from this article (and the articles on other celebrities having appeared in the show). Please contribute your opinions to a discussion there. └ UkPaolo/talk┐ 10:08, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one article was rated and this bot brought all the other ratings up to at least that level. BetacommandBot 23:41, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Personal Life

Does anyone else agree that the first clause of the first sentence, regarding Jack Rosenthall, is ungrammatical. I have had no other input, so would someone else care to offer a correction, assuming you agree. Englehurst —Preceding unsigned comment added by Englehurst (talk • contribs) 23:44, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

It's certainly clumsily phrased -- SteveCrook (talk) 00:57, 3 February 2008 (UTC)