Talk:Polly Toynbee

Education

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)

Censorship

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)

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)

Not to mention WP:NOTFORUM. —Tom Morris (talk) 18:03, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

The source is the article itself! The questions naturally follow. SmokeyTheCat 05:33, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Smokey: Oxford had a separate entrance exam in those days, so you could in theory get to Oxford with no A-levels. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.78.170.148 (talk) 14:30, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

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)

Income

I have just removed details of Toynbee's reported income. Despite what I typed in the edit summary, it is illegitimate for it to be included here. Two partners or spouses with a high public profile and matching income are not unknown, why pick on Toynbee out of a few thousand candidates? Philip Cross (talk) 20:59, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree, and anyway the income as stated is nowhere near that of the fatcats she is criticising. Also the implication of hypocrisy is baseless because she has never claimed to be one of the poor herself. I have restored mention of her book, with as references, for balance, a favourable (Observer) review and an unfavourable (Telegraph) one. -- Alarics (talk) 21:34, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Polly disagrees[1]. I made no mention of hypocrisy, merely referenced publicly available facts. The readers can draw their own conclusions. We have yet to mention the villa in Tuscany, bizarrely absent from this article. Coldnorthwind (talk) 21:43, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't see what is bizarre about that. I should think quite a few senior media-industry people have a villa in Tuscany or similar, but it's not usually thought worth mentioning. If you think it is, add it, with a source. -- Alarics (talk)

Right, I have checked all the following WP articles about current national newspaper columnists variously of left, right and centre: David Aaronovitch, Terence Blacker, Madeleine Bunting, Camilla Cavendish, Nick Cohen, Jonathan Freedland, Timothy Garton Ash, Johann Hari, Simon Heffer, Peter Hitchens, Simon Hoggart, Will Hutton, Richard Ingrams, Simon Jenkins, Martin Kettle, Kelvin MacKenzie, George Monbiot, Peter Oborne, Matthew Parris, Allison Pearson, Peter Preston, Andrew Rawnsley, Steve Richards, Michael White, Andreas Whittam Smith. Of those 25 articles, not a single one sees fit to say anything about what these people are paid. Only one (Parris) makes any mention of ownership of a holiday home abroad, though I bet many of them do, just like a great many middle-class Brits today. So if you want to make an exception for Polly Toynbee, you will need to explain what makes her so special in this regard. -- Alarics (talk) 11:11, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

OK, but the issue was raised on Question Time [2] in the context of climate change. Regarding her income, in 2006 she called for all salaries to be made publicly available. She refused to disclose her own until cross-examined by a select committee in 2009. This disclosure was the subject of an EDM. Therefore it is notable and important to mention in the article. Coldnorthwind (talk) 11:59, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

What she was calling for, in the Guardian article that you cite, was for everybody's tax return to be public information, as in (according to her) Norway and Finland. "Let's see how the culture changes when we can all read each other's tax returns." Obviously she was not somehow excluding herself from that, if it should come to pass, but that is arguably a different matter from requiring her to volunteer the information in respect of her own income as long as nobody else is required to do so. As for the passing sideswipe by Littlejohn on Question Time about the Italian villa, she didn't get the chance to reply, though she did manage to point out that Daily Mail columnists are paid a great deal more than Guardian ones. But all this is to trivialise her main point both in that article and on that TV show, which was to make the case for a change in the culture. -- Alarics (talk) 13:18, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Also, I've now looked at the select committee hearing that you mention, at http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm200809/cmselect/cmpubadm/c304-i/c30402.htm . The information about her salary was not at all dragged out of her, she volunteered it, and the EDM that you mention was in fact congratulating her on doing so. Where does it say that she had refused to do so, as you allege? -- Alarics (talk) 13:35, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Returning to the original point, I agree of course that in most cases it would not be appropriate to mention a person's income in a Wiki article. Not least because we would not know it. But the context here is that she has called for incomes to be made public, and her Guardian salary has been disclosed as part of Parliamentary proceedings. So why exactly can we not mention it? It is clearly verifiable and notable enough. Coldnorthwind (talk) 14:11, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

It is verifiable all right, but why is it notable? When she was calling for incomes to be made public she was talking about a hypothetical national policy of everybody's tax return being put on the internet, she wasn't talking about any need for a person's income to be included in their Wikipedia article. And when you say "disclosed as part of Parliamentary proceedings", you makes it sound as if she was made to reveal the information under duress. In fact, she freely volunteered it, being under no obligation to do so. The fact that she said this to a parliamentary committee, as opposed to (say) in one of her articles, is neither here nor there. Either way it would be in the public domain and we could perfectly well quote it, but why is it of any interest, when we don't do the same for anyone else in a similar position? -- Alarics (talk) 14:32, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Fred Goodwin? Coldnorthwind (talk) 15:15, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh, come on. Bankers are paid millions, not £106,000, and this has been the subject of intense public debate and concern, especially when the banks in question are partly owned by the taxpayer. That is not remotely comparable with a senior journalist on a privately-owned newspaper whose pay is not out of line with that of other professionals and very much less than some. -- Alarics (talk) 16:24, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Alan Rusbridger more relevant then. Same employer, not sure if his salary has been debated in Parliament though. Coldnorthwind (talk) 16:48, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Polly Toynbee's salary hasn't been "debated" in Parliament. She merely volunteered the information, more or less in passing, at a meeting of a select committee. Rusbridger is on the board and is the editor, and also editor-in-chief of the Observer, and is paid nearly four times as much as Toynbee, and the Guardian has chosen to put the remuneration packages of its main executives (but not as far as I know its other employees like Toynbee) on its website. They're not comparable. Not that I really see why the information is in Rusbridger's article, for that matter. -- Alarics (talk) 17:16, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Labour Party connection

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)

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)

'Gap year'

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)

But is there a better term? Philip Cross (talk) 15:25, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Daisaku Ikeda

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)

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)

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))

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)

"Religion = None" vs. "Religion = Atheist" or "Religion = None (atheist)" in infoboxes.

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,[3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11] 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.[12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21]

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)

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)

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)

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)

Request for Comments

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)

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)

Oxford?

How was she allowed to attend Oxford University with only one A-Level? (165.120.184.147 (talk) 12:35, 5 July 2016 (UTC))

Presumably her father's and grandfather's educations had a hand in getting her a "scholarship". --Inops (talk) 15:27, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

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)

Political and other views, etc.

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)

Genealogy

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)

It could be prosified - but not removed entirely. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:42, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

It cannot be prosified. The only relevant information - the famous father and grandfather - are already given “in prose in” the background section. The identity of this person’s sister, mother, uncles etc, is of interest only to herself. There are many thousands of articles on many more famous people with more famous ancestors. None that I can find have a personal family tree: Not the Queen of England, Churchill, any US President, Film star or Roman Emperor. Please give an example for precident for this. Even if it were not already done, the fact that garbage content could be replaced by better content is not a reason not to delete the garbage. Wikipedia should not be a platform for personal vanity publishing by minor celebrities. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C4:3D14:FE00:856D:7B0:1E87:778 (talk) 23:48, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

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)

Political/Religious Views

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)

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)

Noted. I have trimmed only the content that is of no significance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C4:3D14:FE00:856D:7B0:1E87:778 (talk) 23:51, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

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)

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)

Residence

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)

Education St Anne's College, Oxford

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)

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)