This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
According to the current edition (31 August 2007) of Private Eye, the unsigned editor currently making major changes to this article originates in the Daily Mail which carries Platell's regular column. As this amounts to censorship, most of the changes are uncommented and they are by an unregistered user, I feel they should be reverted. If the editor making the changes would like to sign in and comment, that would also be welcome. LiberalViews 18:29, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
"Is unmarried and without children" that's a bit bitchy for encyclopedia, especially as she has written about being childless.-- Pandaplodder ( talk) 17:59, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Online, I checked the veracity of the story formerly contained in the article. I found it completely wanting: Platell has not written about it and no other reference could be located. Philip Cross ( talk) 17:07, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
The Daily Mail article repeatedly being inserted under the heading "Child Pornography" is a piece written by Platell describing how easy it is to find child pornography on the Internet, and calling for Internet providers to institute greater restrictions on its availability and for increased law enforcement scrutiny of child pornographers. Under no circumstances can such an article be used to create the inference that she is at all linked with child pornography. That is a complete twisting of the facts and an unacceptable misrepresentation of the truth. NorthBySouthBaranof ( talk) 07:15, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
I've semi-protected the article given the enormous potential for massive WP:BLP failure. I'd suggest that one important criteria for inclusion would be third party coverage. Has anyone else covered Platell's activities? — Tom Morris ( talk) 10:16, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
The Piece was written by Amanda Platell. No where in the article does she say she "viewed only long enough to realize it was actually CP" In fact she describes in quite some detail the kidnapping and rape of a teenage girl. It's pretty clear that she, by her own admission sought out the material for the purpose of highlighting the lack of ISP control for research purposes, even though this is still breaking the law. Nothing about the removed line is factually incorrect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cabbage1233456 ( talk • contribs) 12:21, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Oh, The Mail have added the following to the end of the piece written by Amanda "The Daily Mail, which carried out its investigations in the public interest, is reporting these websites to the police. Readers must not access these websites as it is against the law." Another clear admission to accessing illegal material. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cabbage1233456 ( talk • contribs) 13:46, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Please point out to me why the subject of this entry writing about her own research into the world of child porn, where she graphically details the abduction and rape of a young girl is not reliable sourcing.
I'm still waiting and have asked you several times to do so but you refuse to engage.
This isn't some 3rd party claiming she did it; it's from the horses mouth so to speak, and confirmed by the Editor of The Daily Mail with their disclaimer at the end of the article.
PLEASE EXPLAIN TO ME HOW THIS IS MISREPRESENTITIVE
"On the 25th of May 2013 The Daily Mail published a piece written by Amanda Platell entitled "My journey into the hell that is internet child porn". As part of her research Platell accessed illegal sites containing various examples of child abuse. Platell describes a 24 minute video which she watched in which a "sweet-looking girl in her early teens" is abducted and raped "in every possible position, all captured in close-up".
I have not claimed she was arrested. Nothing I have written is factually incorrect according to Amanda's own writing.
Also nice that you're abusing Wikipedia's report system by accusing me of Sockpuppetry. You're not exactly engaging in good faith here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cabbage1233456 ( talk • contribs) 17:37, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Then tell me what is factually incorrect about this edit:
"On 24th May 2013 The Daily Mail published an article in which Platell admitted to having watched child pornography for research purposes." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cabbage1233456 ( talk • contribs) 19:09, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
I honestly don't know what the hell you're trying to prove with your rather childish exaggeration at the end there.
You are reading into things that are not there. Admitted? Well yes she does admit to watching Child pornography for research purposes and I would argue that The Daily Mail's disclaimer at the end highlights the fact that accessing these websites is illegal.
Anyway the edit above can be inserted when the article is unlocked.
You know that's more than a little hypocrisy and irony in criticizing an article for apparently insinuating wrong doing, while at the same time filing false reports against an editor you're having a disagreement with, then covering it up by removing a sentence calling you out on this from your talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.165.224.57 ( talk) 01:58, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Why is this even in the article? Was this that notable? It seems like undue weight for one article, especially given she is a journalist. -- Malerooster ( talk) 13:23, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
You are again ignoring the fact that the person who wrote The Daily Mail piece is Amanda Platell. I'm still waiting for you to explain how her own fucking words are not a reliable source.
I'm STILL waiting for you to explain to me why Amanda's own words are not a reliable source. It's been DAYS and you still trot out the same nonsense regarding the Huff post (who are also reporting on Amanda's very own words) instead of addressing my question. Cabbage1233456 ( talk) 08:56, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
You didn't answer my question. You just spurted out the same tired line again.
Cabbage1233456 ( talk) 19:46, 1 June 2013 (UTC) I also removed the other material about trangenders since that didn't seem to be that notable as well. Should the material about Hugh Grant hatchet job go as well? -- Malerooster ( talk) 13:29, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
You seem to be the only person who has a problem with it...and WTF are you on about with "Steward Hazell"?? I never said the Huff post article was written by him...whoever he is. Since You keep going on about this being "unsourced" here is the article. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2330640/My-journey-hell-internet-child-porn-We-asked-AMANDA-PLATELL-view-websites-twisted-mind-little-Tias-killer.html Note that the tagline says Amanda Platell? And that the article is on the daily mail website? I believe this is sufficient evidence for the inclusion on the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.4.160.7 ( talk) 14:46, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
I haven't edited Wikipedia for a while, so it's sad to see that editors are still abusing rules and processes to censor articles. The fact that she was briefly investigated by the police for viewing child porn, for the purposes of an article, is sourced everywhere. It was a well known story. My only question is, who does ":NorthBySouthBaranof" work for? The Daily Mail or Platell herself? Cjmooney9 ( talk) 17:12, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
How should this be determined? I would start by how wide the coverage from 3rd party sources is regarding any of her articles. If an article draws huge and detailed attention, then it should be discussed her with sources included. -- Malerooster ( talk) 13:32, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
Which of her article(s) should be included?:
" Like above - its not in dispute she wrote the article or what she had to do to research it. That is what journos have to do for a story. Its standard practice." I just want to make it clear that you're saying it's standard practice for a journalist to break the law to get a story? You don't find it in the slightest bit notable that a journalist did exactly the same thing that Pete Townshend did despite the fact that he was arrested and charged? Looking for and watching child pornography is not 'standard practice'. 89.165.224.57 ( talk) 19:12, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
How come there's no section on what she did when working for William Hague? Surely she did some notable stuff? 82.28.223.138 ( talk) 18:32, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
According to the current edition (31 August 2007) of Private Eye, the unsigned editor currently making major changes to this article originates in the Daily Mail which carries Platell's regular column. As this amounts to censorship, most of the changes are uncommented and they are by an unregistered user, I feel they should be reverted. If the editor making the changes would like to sign in and comment, that would also be welcome. LiberalViews 18:29, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
"Is unmarried and without children" that's a bit bitchy for encyclopedia, especially as she has written about being childless.-- Pandaplodder ( talk) 17:59, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Online, I checked the veracity of the story formerly contained in the article. I found it completely wanting: Platell has not written about it and no other reference could be located. Philip Cross ( talk) 17:07, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
The Daily Mail article repeatedly being inserted under the heading "Child Pornography" is a piece written by Platell describing how easy it is to find child pornography on the Internet, and calling for Internet providers to institute greater restrictions on its availability and for increased law enforcement scrutiny of child pornographers. Under no circumstances can such an article be used to create the inference that she is at all linked with child pornography. That is a complete twisting of the facts and an unacceptable misrepresentation of the truth. NorthBySouthBaranof ( talk) 07:15, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
I've semi-protected the article given the enormous potential for massive WP:BLP failure. I'd suggest that one important criteria for inclusion would be third party coverage. Has anyone else covered Platell's activities? — Tom Morris ( talk) 10:16, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
The Piece was written by Amanda Platell. No where in the article does she say she "viewed only long enough to realize it was actually CP" In fact she describes in quite some detail the kidnapping and rape of a teenage girl. It's pretty clear that she, by her own admission sought out the material for the purpose of highlighting the lack of ISP control for research purposes, even though this is still breaking the law. Nothing about the removed line is factually incorrect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cabbage1233456 ( talk • contribs) 12:21, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Oh, The Mail have added the following to the end of the piece written by Amanda "The Daily Mail, which carried out its investigations in the public interest, is reporting these websites to the police. Readers must not access these websites as it is against the law." Another clear admission to accessing illegal material. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cabbage1233456 ( talk • contribs) 13:46, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Please point out to me why the subject of this entry writing about her own research into the world of child porn, where she graphically details the abduction and rape of a young girl is not reliable sourcing.
I'm still waiting and have asked you several times to do so but you refuse to engage.
This isn't some 3rd party claiming she did it; it's from the horses mouth so to speak, and confirmed by the Editor of The Daily Mail with their disclaimer at the end of the article.
PLEASE EXPLAIN TO ME HOW THIS IS MISREPRESENTITIVE
"On the 25th of May 2013 The Daily Mail published a piece written by Amanda Platell entitled "My journey into the hell that is internet child porn". As part of her research Platell accessed illegal sites containing various examples of child abuse. Platell describes a 24 minute video which she watched in which a "sweet-looking girl in her early teens" is abducted and raped "in every possible position, all captured in close-up".
I have not claimed she was arrested. Nothing I have written is factually incorrect according to Amanda's own writing.
Also nice that you're abusing Wikipedia's report system by accusing me of Sockpuppetry. You're not exactly engaging in good faith here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cabbage1233456 ( talk • contribs) 17:37, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Then tell me what is factually incorrect about this edit:
"On 24th May 2013 The Daily Mail published an article in which Platell admitted to having watched child pornography for research purposes." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cabbage1233456 ( talk • contribs) 19:09, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
I honestly don't know what the hell you're trying to prove with your rather childish exaggeration at the end there.
You are reading into things that are not there. Admitted? Well yes she does admit to watching Child pornography for research purposes and I would argue that The Daily Mail's disclaimer at the end highlights the fact that accessing these websites is illegal.
Anyway the edit above can be inserted when the article is unlocked.
You know that's more than a little hypocrisy and irony in criticizing an article for apparently insinuating wrong doing, while at the same time filing false reports against an editor you're having a disagreement with, then covering it up by removing a sentence calling you out on this from your talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.165.224.57 ( talk) 01:58, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Why is this even in the article? Was this that notable? It seems like undue weight for one article, especially given she is a journalist. -- Malerooster ( talk) 13:23, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
You are again ignoring the fact that the person who wrote The Daily Mail piece is Amanda Platell. I'm still waiting for you to explain how her own fucking words are not a reliable source.
I'm STILL waiting for you to explain to me why Amanda's own words are not a reliable source. It's been DAYS and you still trot out the same nonsense regarding the Huff post (who are also reporting on Amanda's very own words) instead of addressing my question. Cabbage1233456 ( talk) 08:56, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
You didn't answer my question. You just spurted out the same tired line again.
Cabbage1233456 ( talk) 19:46, 1 June 2013 (UTC) I also removed the other material about trangenders since that didn't seem to be that notable as well. Should the material about Hugh Grant hatchet job go as well? -- Malerooster ( talk) 13:29, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
You seem to be the only person who has a problem with it...and WTF are you on about with "Steward Hazell"?? I never said the Huff post article was written by him...whoever he is. Since You keep going on about this being "unsourced" here is the article. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2330640/My-journey-hell-internet-child-porn-We-asked-AMANDA-PLATELL-view-websites-twisted-mind-little-Tias-killer.html Note that the tagline says Amanda Platell? And that the article is on the daily mail website? I believe this is sufficient evidence for the inclusion on the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.4.160.7 ( talk) 14:46, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
I haven't edited Wikipedia for a while, so it's sad to see that editors are still abusing rules and processes to censor articles. The fact that she was briefly investigated by the police for viewing child porn, for the purposes of an article, is sourced everywhere. It was a well known story. My only question is, who does ":NorthBySouthBaranof" work for? The Daily Mail or Platell herself? Cjmooney9 ( talk) 17:12, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
How should this be determined? I would start by how wide the coverage from 3rd party sources is regarding any of her articles. If an article draws huge and detailed attention, then it should be discussed her with sources included. -- Malerooster ( talk) 13:32, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
Which of her article(s) should be included?:
" Like above - its not in dispute she wrote the article or what she had to do to research it. That is what journos have to do for a story. Its standard practice." I just want to make it clear that you're saying it's standard practice for a journalist to break the law to get a story? You don't find it in the slightest bit notable that a journalist did exactly the same thing that Pete Townshend did despite the fact that he was arrested and charged? Looking for and watching child pornography is not 'standard practice'. 89.165.224.57 ( talk) 19:12, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
How come there's no section on what she did when working for William Hague? Surely she did some notable stuff? 82.28.223.138 ( talk) 18:32, 7 March 2014 (UTC)