Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Misplaced Pages. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.RussiaWikipedia:WikiProject RussiaTemplate:WikiProject RussiaRussia
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ukraine, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ukraine on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.UkraineWikipedia:WikiProject UkraineTemplate:WikiProject UkraineUkraine
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of journalism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JournalismWikipedia:WikiProject JournalismTemplate:WikiProject JournalismJournalism
This has been a contentious issue on the article, most recently by @Mr Wiki Orinoco in (this diff, saying it was non-neutral and the subject wrote about "Kyiv brothel River Palace, and his own experience with prostitutes"). But we have two sources which mention his use brothels and it is not appropriate for users to use their own personal description not supported by reliable secondary sources. The Telegraph: He became a blogger, documenting – in now-deleted posts – events such as him sleeping with a Russian prostitute whilst high on drugs in Amsterdam and recounting the history of a notorious Odesa brothel. The Times: He subsequently moved to Kyiv and then Odesa, where he wrote a blog reviewing nightclubs and brothels.Solipsism 101 (talk) 09:55, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
=== Noted - I included all of this information in my edit. But despite searching extensively, I have only found one 'brothel review' of his, of River Palace, which was also included in my edit. Thank you for your notes on this. Remember this is wikipedia, not the News of the WorldMr Wiki Orinoco (talk) 09:59, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
His exploits have been well-reported by two newspapers of record in the UK (not the defunct News of the World), in part, because it explains how he happened to be a journalist and what type of journalism he has done/started with, putting his current journalistic activities in much-needed context to the reader who doesn't have a clue who this person is. It will be useful to get consensus here to avoid constant removal/re-adding that will likely happen in the future. Best wishes, Solipsism 101 (talk) 10:13, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
Well, I've read them all, and ok he went a bit further than your beloved Theroux, but it was clearly all done from a journalistic perspective, and actually if you read the second part of his article 'Prostitutes and Me', he strongly critiques the sex industry, and his own earlier actions. As for the newspapers of record, well one of them states he reviewed a 'notorious Odesa brothel' - the actual brothel review was a Kyiv brothel. And the second implies that he reviewed multiple brothels, when there is only record of one brothel review. Facts, neutrality. We are Misplaced Pages. Mr Wiki Orinoco (talk) 10:18, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
@Mr Wiki Orinoco: there is a danger of WP:OR. Let reliable secondary sources tell us what happened (in since deleted blog posts), rather than our own reading of primary sources, which the reader ultimately has no reason to trust. Solipsism 101 (talk) 10:29, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
Respectfully disagree, these 'secondary sources' can also make mistakes, errors, and there is no need for us to carry their mistakes, errors over to Misplaced Pages. Information must be confirmed, fact-checked, and then included in the article.Mr Wiki Orinoco (talk) 10:35, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
I would remind you to look at WP:PRIMARY, Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so.
That issue aside, regarding the re-draft, it is clear he did not merely describe the sex industry but discussed using prostitutes; this should be included in the article as context for his journalistic work. Solipsism 101 (talk) 10:47, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
Confirming, fact checking a blog and then including it in an article using his blog for this stuff is text book WP:OR. What there's reliable sourcing for is that the blog discussed brothels. There's one reported statement about sleeping with a prostitute in the Telegraph. I think gonig beyond the references discussion of reviewing brothels is WP:UNDUE. I don't see what context it adds to his journalistic work to say he uses prostitutes.
@Mr Wiki Orinoco. I don't want to edit war and break 3RR, so please revert your last edit. You need to wait for consensus. you edits rely on OR and sources which are not WP:RS. The big block quote you're adding is particularly problematic.Unbh (talk) 13:01, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
@Unbh Absolutely agreed, no edit war here! The Buzzfeed description of Phillips' blog is by far the most comprehensive, in scope and description, of his writings there, and Buzzfeed is definitely a WP:RS. So, let's find a consensus here if we are to change that, and agree how. I note your point, and will make another edit to reflect content previously deleted which should be there. Thank you Mr Wiki Orinoco (talk) 13:51, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
WP:BUZZFEED is not WP:RS. And that quote is undue weight to theis whole brothel review/ sextourism thing which is clearly only getting reported for salciousness anyway, even in better sources like the Times, and (sadly debatabley these days) the Telegraph.Unbh (talk) 13:59, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
Good points, the issue with the Times and Telegraph is the inaccuracy of their claims there - that he reviewed a 'notorious Odesa brothel', when that brothel is actually in Kyiv, and reference to 'multiple brothel reviews', when there is only one. The Buzzfeed quote may be weighty, but at least it is factually accurate, and not overly salacious. Mr Wiki Orinoco (talk) 14:31, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
To me, that Buzzfeed article is fine, and it's been referenced plenty by other sources throughout time. It's written by Max Seddon, who is fairly well regarded in the English-speaking press of all things Russia (he's the Moscow bureau chief of Financial Times now). The article seems to give good early career context. Cononsense (talk) 16:12, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
Current set up works for me. The problem on the accuracy front is it assumes that because he published one review in the Kyiv Post about a certain brothel that means there was only one brothel he reviewed. Obviously, it only means he once reviewed a specific brothel, not that there were not others. Both RSs mention his using prostitutes in Odesa, so they clearly aware of and added information beyond beyond Kyiv. I didn't find the mentions overly salacious; they provide information about his journalistic tendencies. If you had an article about Hunter S. Thompson and omitted any references to his "salacious" exploits, which he did as part of his journalism, the article would not be comprehensive or informative. Solipsism 101 (talk) 17:58, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
thats a ridiculous straw man argument. this isn't an article about Hunter S. Thompson is it. it says nothing about journalistic tendencies, and everything about wanting to point out the man sleeps with hookers. blog posts are not automatically "his journalism,". for what it's worth both sources do not say he used profits in odessa.Unbh (talk) 18:16, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
I'd remind you to assume good faith and not cast aspersions by suggesting I have a POV and wish to "point out" that he once slept with hookers. I am here, like you, to build an encyclopedia and to improve this article, ensuring it is both informative and comprehensive. Both The Times and The Telegraph note it as part of his background, as the link between his time in the UK working for the Civil Service as a clerk to his working for RT in 2013 as a correspondent. Even if it were not part of his journalism, it is part of his background just as his time as a clerk is. Lastly, both your objection and my support for inclusion have been noted; we should wait for others to add their comments. Solipsism 101 (talk) 18:48, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
I'm not in principle against the inclusion, but without proper context it risks downgrading the article, which is starting to look pretty decent. And with proper context - he wrote about his own experience with prostitutes in the context of his doing an interview with a prostitute for his blog, ultimately denouncing his own use of prostitutes - it puts way too much weight on something which has little real relevance in his overall career. I propose we leave it for now, let's see if consensus builds here, and go from there. As I say, the article is starting to look pretty good now, after really a lot of work, and it would be a shame for it to be downgraded by salaciousness, etc. Mr Wiki Orinoco (talk) 19:17, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
I don't think it's overly salacious myself. He's been described in sources as delivering gonzo-style takes later on, and describing this era helps contextualize that. He even appeared on bbc describing the psychology of being a john, and this first person point of view characteristics that style of reporting. Cononsense (talk) 21:08, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
Problematic job title of a journalist in the title of the article
The evidence in the article itself seems to point to Phillips being first and foremost a propagandist in service of Russian interests, with very little evidence that Phillips is interested in delivering fair and accurate information to his audience according to any journalistic code of ethics. I would therefore suggest removing the title of 'journalist' from the title of the article, as I do not feel Phillips has earned it (and granting it to him seems to me an implicit endorsement of his propaganda work by Misplaced Pages). If a professional title is required, I would suggest 'vlogger', as it has no connotations of following a code of ethics. Is there not a problem here that someone who Phillips may be trying to interview would take a quick look at this article and determine that it's safe to talk to him, without realizing what he's really about? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dokkari22 (talk • contribs) 07:08, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
