Talk:Maureen Lipman

message: 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)
replies: text: I've appealed for help regarding this issue on the UK portal Bwithh 14:26, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The source quoted is not a reliable or neutral source. It is basically a blog. 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

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

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: Fully agree with Telsa; the fraction of the article devoted to this issue is disproportionate Chrisj1948 (talk) 15:21, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Controversy section

message: I have started a discussion at Template talk:The Apprentice UK proposing the removal of template  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)
thread_title:  Proposed removal of the The Apprentice UK template 

message: 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)
thread_title:  WikiProject class rating

message: 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)
replies: text: It's certainly clumsily phrased -- SteveCrook (talk) 00:57, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Personal life 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Maureen Lipman. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100117211317/http://www.jewishrenaissance.org.uk/who.htm to http://www.jewishrenaissance.org.uk/who.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060719031841/http://comment.independent.co.uk/columnists_a_l/yasmin_alibhai_brown/article1181666.ece to http://comment.independent.co.uk/columnists_a_l/yasmin_alibhai_brown/article1181666.ece
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060720171816/http://comment.independent.co.uk/letters/article1185316.ece to http://comment.independent.co.uk/letters/article1185316.ece
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150208031334/http://www.lbc.co.uk/listen-maureen-lipman-might-leave-uk-over-anti-semitism-103945 to http://www.lbc.co.uk/listen-maureen-lipman-might-leave-uk-over-anti-semitism-103945
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090817092209/http://www.filmhousecinema.com/showing/the-agent/ to http://www.filmhousecinema.com/showing/the-agent/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:18, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Maureen Lipman. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121125075517/http://www.thisishullandeastriding.co.uk/Maureen-Lipman-films-TV-doc-old-Hull-school/story-17084673-detail/story.html to http://www.thisishullandeastriding.co.uk/Maureen-Lipman-films-TV-doc-old-Hull-school/story-17084673-detail/story.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:13, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018) 

message: She says today in the Daily Mail: ""Don't call me an actor... I'm an ACTRESS and always will be!" Although we can't usually use that outlet as a source, perhaps in this case we could, as the piece is written by Lipman herself? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:16, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Actress not actor 

message: Ref: article in Daily Telegraph 29th May 2021
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/life/maureen-lipman-drama-taught-view-sides-empathy/amp/
News item 
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/05/24/dame-maureen-lipman-quits-actors-union-equity-president-calls/ Tonyj01 (talk) 08:26, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need to add ML’s resignation from Equity and the reasons behind this. 

message: Sorry, but this whole section should be simply deleted in my opinion, it is full of WP:POV issues and irrelevant snippets of views about her so-called political views on the Israel/Palestine conflict. It seems to be written mostly in bad faith in order to denigrate her, and is entirely unworthy of a Wikipedia entry about an actress.
Please consider deleting these. If no one can take action on this I will do so myself.
Jacker1968 (talk) 09:49, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Israel and the Palestinians

message: https://www.theguardian.com/film/2022/jan/05/maureen-lipman-attacks-casting-of-helen-mirren-as-former-israeli-pm
Shameful. 88.67.114.95 (talk) 21:10, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing 'Jewishness' of competing actors