Talk:Polly Toynbee

message: What was her A-level in? She comments a lot on and analyses economics. Does she actually have any qualifications in economics and maths?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.78.170.148 (talk) 02:06, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Education 

message: This article is a disgrace. It is undoubtedly censored in order to paint Ms Toynbee in as positive a light as it can possibly get away with. Criticism, cited or otherwise, is very quickly removed as is any reference, however subtle, to her particular brand of left wing, middle class hypocrisy. There is no doubt that a significant number of people in the UK do not hold her in high regard at all (and this is putting it mildly), in fact quite the opposite is true. Despite this being the case, there is no mention whatsoever of how widely discredited her opinions are amongst such a large section of British society and indeed how deeply disliked she is by that section as a result; if anyone says they need citations to be convinced of the veracity of the above statement then they truly are deluded. Much emphasis is placed throughout on the support and plaudits she receives from various quarters and whilst this is something which certainly cannot be denied - she does indeed have many supporters and admirers as well as detractors and critics - it is the unjustified concentration on the former which makes the article so unbalanced. Other than the briefest of references to what is made to appear as slight criticism, quickly associated with political opponents from the Conservative Party and Islamists who dislike her secularist beliefs, the article reads almost like a tribute page - not at all what one is entitled to expect from Wikipedia; it is shameful and very disappointing, yet not at all surprising unfortunately - those of Ms Toynbee’s ilk (by which I mean the 'intellectual' middle class hypocrites of the Liberal Left) simply cannot accept that criticism of them is in any way justified and believe it simply should not appear in print. I will not be at all surprised to find that even this discussion page entry is deleted within hours of being typed, if not sooner. For these reasons I would not even attempt to amend the article by adding anything remotely critical, cited or not. Sadly, in articles devoted to left wing individuals or organisations, it is all too often the case that such actions are futile - censorship is the order of the day.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.144.85.231 (talk) 13:56, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: You need to acquaint yourself with the basic Wikipedia policies of WP:V and WP:NPOV as well as WP:BLP. Rd232 talk 15:26, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Not to mention WP:NOTFORUM. —Tom Morris (talk) 18:03, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

text: Also, "I will not be at all surprised to find that even this discussion page entry is deleted within hours of being typed, if not sooner." It was: by 78.144.85.231. diff. That's pretty funny. When the evil liberal elite don't remove your comments, just remove them yourself and then your prophecy of OMG CENSORSHIP becomes magically true. —Tom Morris (talk) 18:06, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I have just reread this article for the first time in ages, and it seems balanced to me. It describes her as a left-leaning social democrat, which is plainly what she is and what she says she is. It would be remarkable if she were not criticised by people on the right, just as right-wing personalities are criticised by people on the left. If there were to be charges of hypocrisy made in the article, they would need to be cited as the opinions of a reliable source, and balanced with opposite opinions from another reliable source. Ranting about it on the talk page is just a waste of your and everyone else's time. -- Alarics (talk) 19:34, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  I tend to agree with the first editor above. The article is biased and so is this talk page. I added a critical section to this talk page and it has now been deleted. I asked two questions and so I repeat them here. 1. How does a woman with one A level win a scholarship to a prestigious institution  like Oxford? 2. How does a university dropout get such highly prized employment as a job working at The Observer? These remain valid questions which any thoughtful reader of this article could ask. There is nothing in BLP to prevent these question being asked here, only the bias of other editors. SmokeyTheCat 05:44, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

text:  You need to find a reliable source where these points are raised, otherwise they are liable to be deleted on the basis of POV or point scoring. Philip Cross (talk) 09:39, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  The source is the article itself! The questions naturally follow. SmokeyTheCat 05:33, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The exam was said to be stricter than A levels. She obviously was let in as a result of her relatives.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.117.79.55 (talk) 17:12, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Censorship 

message: This must be considered tenuous at present. Although another editor has added a reference to Toynbee saying she rejoined Labour after the SDP finally collapsed in 1992, she does not say she is currently a member. Indeed her rejection of political tribalism in 2010, and her advocacy of the LibDems in the 2009 European elections, suggest Toynbee has left again. She is better thought of as a floating voter. Philip Cross (talk) 07:28, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I attended a Fabian Society debate last summer in which she referred to her activities canvassing for Labour. That’s the kind of thing a member does, although not conclusive proof. Soundcloud recording — TrottieTrue (talk) 10:39, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Labour Party connection

message: The text says:  'During her gap year,...' This is anachronistic. It gives the impression that taking a gap year in the 1960s was routine (as it is now). In fact people would have found the idea strange, and the term 'gap year' wouldn't have been known. However, people going to Oxford or Cambridge would generally have been selected on the basis of an entrance exam taken in the autumn after their A levels. Between taking the entrance exam and entering the university, the student would have about a year to kill. It wasn't a gap year as we now understand it, which is a year taken voluntarily out of formal education between school and university.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.229.112.246 (talk) 14:48, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: But is there a better term? Philip Cross (talk) 15:25, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: 'Gap year'

message: Lately there have been some edits about Polly Toynbee's article on Soka Gakkai and Daisaku Ikeda. Would it not be possible to list the article at least in the references or external links section? Polly Toynbee was one of the first to report critical views on a person that some perceive to be a cult leader, a cult or organisation that is also active in the western hemisphere. Thanks. --Catflap08 (talk) 22:02, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: In a career in journalism going back to the late 1960s, in which Toynbee will have written a few thousand articles by now, there is no great reason to retrieve this one from thirty years ago. Somewhat outside the usual  range of subjects for which she is best known, apart from Islam her writings about religion seldom extent to non-western faiths, a third-party source noting its significance appears to be lacking.Therefore I cannot see why it should be included in any form. Philip Cross (talk) 04:56, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  So the source of Polly Tonybee can be considered not an important source in the wikipedia? So I will the remove her article from the wikipedia as you said that her article "appears to be lacking". (Kelvintjy (talk) 02:30, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you really this stupid? Philip is saying that the article on Soka Gakkai is not significant in an article on Toynbee. How the hell could this be inferred to mean that Toynbee, as a source, "can be considered not an important source in Wikipedia"..? Kiruning (talk) 06:51, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Daisaku Ikeda]] 

message: :Per WP:BRD and WP:TALKDONTREVERT, This comment concerns this edit and this revert. 
:(Please note that nobody has a problem with the use of "Atheist" in the article text. This only concerns infoxoxes.)
:"Atheism is a religion like not collecting stamps is a hobby." --Penn Jillette 
:"Atheism is a religion like abstinence is a sex position." --Bill Maher 
:There are many reasons for not saying "Religion = Atheist" or "Religion = None (atheist)" in Wikipedia infoboxes. They include:
:It implies something that is not true
::Saying "Religion = Atheist" in Wikipedia infoboxes implies that atheism is a religion. It is like saying "Hair color = Bald", "TV Channel = Off" or "Type of shoe = Barefoot". "Religion = None (atheist)" is better -- it can be read two different ways, only one of which implies that atheism is a religion -- but "Religion = None" is unambiguous. 
:It is highly objectionable to many atheists.
::Many atheists strongly object to calling atheism a religion, and arguments such as "atheism is just another religion: it takes faith to not believe in God" are a standard argument used by religious apologists.
:It goes against consensus
::This was discussed at length at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 142#Changing "Religion = none" to "Religion = Atheist" on BLP infoboxes. Opinions were mixed, but the two positions with the most support were "Religion = None" or removing the Religion entry entirely.
::More recently, it was discussed at Template talk:Infobox person#Religion means what?, and again the consensus was for "Religion = None".
::On article talk pages and counting the multiple "thank you" notifications I have recieved, there are roughly ten editors favoring "Religion = None" for every editor who opposes it. Of course anyone is free to post an WP:RFC on the subject (I suggest posting it at Wikipedia:Centralized discussion) to get an official count. 
:It is unsourced
::If anyone insists on keeping "Religion = Atheist" or "Religion = None (Atheist)" in any Wikipedia infobox, they must first provide a citation to a reliable source that established that the individual is [A] An atheist, and [B] considers atheism to be a religion. There is at least one page that does have such a source: Ian McKellen. Because we have a reliable source that establishes that Ian McKellen considers atheism to be a religion, his infobox correctly says "Religion: Atheist". In all other cases, the assertion that atheism is a religion is an unsourced claim.
:It attempts to shoehorn too much information into a one-word infobox entry
::In the article, there is room for nuance and explanation, but in the infobox, we are limited to concise summaries of non-disputed material. Terms such as "atheist", "agnostic", "humanist", "areligious", and "anti-religion" mean different things to different people, but "Religion = None" is perfectly clear to all readers, and they can and should go to the article text to find out which of the subtly different variations of not belonging to a religion applies.
:It violates the principle of least astonishment.
::Consider what would happen if Lady Gaga decided to list "Banana" as her birth date. We would document that fact in the main article with a citation to a reliable source (along with other sources that disagree and say she was born on March 28, 1986). We would not put "Birth date = Banana" in the infobox, because that would cause some readers to stop and say "wait...what? Banana is not a birth date...". Likewise we should not put anything in an infobox that would cause some readers to stop and say "wait...what? Atheism is not a religion..."
:In many cases, it technically correct, but incomplete to the point of being misleading.
::When this came up on Teller (magician), who strongly self-identifies as an atheist, nobody had the slightest problem with saying that Teller is an atheist. It was the claim that atheism is a religion that multiple editors objected to. Penn Jillette wrote "Atheism is a religion like not collecting stamps is a hobby", so we know that Penn objects to having atheism identified as a religion.
::In the case of Penn, Teller and many others, they are atheists who reject all theistic religions, but they also reject all non-theistic religions, and a large number of non-religious beliefs. See List of Penn & Teller: Bullshit! episodes for an incomplete list. Atheism just skims the surface of Penn & Teller's unbelief. 
:In my opinion, "Religion = None" is the best choice for represents the data accurately and without bias. I also have no objection to removing the religion entry entirely. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:28, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: In my opinion, you're wrong - and also becoming extremely irritating by cut and pasting the same messages everywhere.  I agree with 95% of what you say, but not with your opinion that "Religion: None (atheist)" is either wrong or unencyclopedic.  It does not purport to claim that atheism is a religion - which it clearly isn't - but it does provide the reader with the additional information that the subject identifies as an atheist.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:34, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: The only reason you saw the message that annoyed you is because you are WP:WIKISTALKING; going through my edit history and reverting/commenting on edits to pages that you have never shown the slightest interest in before I edited them. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:44, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Please don't personally attack editors in this way.  You cannot possibly know what pages are on my watchlist (currently numbering 8,980), and I have edited and indeed created many pages on secularists and atheists, as shown on my homepage.   See this.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:28, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Religion = None" vs. "Religion = Atheist" or "Religion = None (atheist)" in infoboxes. 

message: There is an RfC on the question of using "Religion: None" vs. "Religion: None (atheist)" in the infobox on this and other similar pages. 
The RfC is at Template talk:Infobox person#RfC: Religion infobox entries for individuals that have no religion. 
Please help us determine consensus on this issue. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:16, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: To be honest I find this discussion to be somewhat useless. The religious affiliation is a matter that is not decided by editor’s vote but by the individual an article is about. The term “Humanist” actually does reflect the persons own chosen description. I believe that term not to be uncommon in the UK vs atheist (which by some definitions would acknowledge the existence of a god) and or agnostic. Having said that I cannot influence the current debate but do fear that we might press our own religious or non-religious moulds on other people. I do acknowledge the fact that at times we all edit in ways that may result in disrespectful disputes, but in terms of religious or non-religious affiliation we should refer to the individuals (dead or still alive) own description or documented affiliation - if available - and respect them. If that description cannot be linked so be it. My own personal beliefs are complex and I doubt that I would allow anyone else to categorise them unless I state so. --Catflap08 (talk) 19:12, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:    [[Template talk:Infobox person#RfC: Religion infobox entries for individuals that have no religion|Request for Comments]] 

message: How was she allowed to attend Oxford University with only one A-Level? (165.120.184.147 (talk) 12:35, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Presumably her father's and grandfather's educations had a hand in getting her a "scholarship". --Inops (talk) 15:27, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Oxbridge selection was much more opaque and nepotistic in the 60s than it is now, and it was normal for candidates with a family connection with a college to be offered a place on the nod. Prince Charles spent 3 years at Cambridge despite poor A levels and no obvious signs of great intelligence. A generation later this had become unacceptable practice, and Prince William was bundled off to the much lower profile St Andrews. In any case, the fact that PT irritates a lot of people doesn't make her stupid - maybe she did really well in the entrance exam, though it's not unreasonable to feel sceptical. --Ef80 (talk) 17:20, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oxford? 

message: There seems no good reason to remove well-referenced details of her views from the article, and given her ancestry it also seems relevant to mention that. In any case, there needs to be discussion here to achieve a consensus, rather than simply blanking sections.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:14, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: It could be prosified - but not removed entirely.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:42, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

text: If you can show that the article subject has edited the article, as you suggest in stating that it is "a platform for personal vanity publishing by minor celebrities", you should provide the evidence.  I don't have a strong view for or against including a short family tree here.  The current text does refer to most of her notable ancestors, but not to her great-uncle Gilbert Murray, though that could be added to the text if there is a suitable reference.  What I object to is the blanking of whole sections, with false edit summaries, on the basis of a personal opinion that its inclusion is "ridiculous" or "garbage".  Please try to be more collegiate in your editing.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:50, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

text: Again, this could be trimmed - but not removed entirely.  She is a significant cultural and political commentator whose opinions carry weight and should be reported fairly in a biographical article.  Blanking sections of which you disapprove is not a constructive editorial practice.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:42, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

text: That is merely your own interpretation.  Virtually all the material you removed was referenced, and included because other editors thought it was relevant.   Perhaps the editors who originally added that material, and others, would like to comment so that we can develop a consensus on what content is of encyclopedic value.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:08, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems the IP is not aware that Toynbee's notability is based on her career as a journalist and political commentator. AusLondonder (talk) 22:24, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Political and other views, etc. 

message: This section is ridiculous. People who are far more notable, with interesting family histories including many ancestors famous in their own right, have not posted their personal family trees in their Wikipedia bio.
I checked Winston Chuchill's page - whose ancestors include Randolph Churchill and John Churchill Duke of Marlborough - and this does not include a family tree section.  
Toynbee has one historically noteworthy ancestor. This section is not relevant.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by User: 2a00:23c4:3d14:fe00:e873:fb57:387c:4de8 (talk • contribs) 22:26, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: It could be prosified - but not removed entirely.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:42, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

text: If you can show that the article subject has edited the article, as you suggest in stating that it is "a platform for personal vanity publishing by minor celebrities", you should provide the evidence.  I don't have a strong view for or against including a short family tree here.  The current text does refer to most of her notable ancestors, but not to her great-uncle Gilbert Murray, though that could be added to the text if there is a suitable reference.  What I object to is the blanking of whole sections, with false edit summaries, on the basis of a personal opinion that its inclusion is "ridiculous" or "garbage".  Please try to be more collegiate in your editing.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:50, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Genealogy 

message: Not of interest or importance.
Everyone has opinions about politics. Wikipedia should record actual events in a persons life and things they have done of note, not their personal opinions. It is of no interest what this person thinks of the Pope or what political party they voted for in the 2010 European elections. — Preceding unsigned comment added by User: 2a00:23c4:3d14:fe00:e873:fb57:387c:4de8 (talk • contribs) 22:26, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, this could be trimmed - but not removed entirely.  She is a significant cultural and political commentator whose opinions carry weight and should be reported fairly in a biographical article.  Blanking sections of which you disapprove is not a constructive editorial practice.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:42, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

text: That is merely your own interpretation.  Virtually all the material you removed was referenced, and included because other editors thought it was relevant.   Perhaps the editors who originally added that material, and others, would like to comment so that we can develop a consensus on what content is of encyclopedic value.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:08, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems the IP is not aware that Toynbee's notability is based on her career as a journalist and political commentator. AusLondonder (talk) 22:24, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Political/Religious Views 

message: Toynbee has previously mentioned being a Labour Party member in Camden in her column, so maybe she has another residence there, in addition to one in Lewes. — TrottieTrue (talk) 10:43, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Residence

message: That's what it says in the info box. Is it fair to claim this when she entered the University in dubious circumstances and dropped out after 18 months? 
86.144.228.53 (talk) 23:59, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, she did go there. Oxbridge admissions did involve plenty of string pulling in the 60s, which was not viewed as 'dubious' at the time though it would obviously be unacceptable today. Lots of people continue to drop out of university for various reasons. I don't think that even PT's admirers would claim she is a towering intellectual figure. --Ef80 (talk) 09:38, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Education	St Anne's College, Oxford