Talk:Mackenzie Phillips

Further evidence

http://www.oprah.com/article/oprahshow/20090925-tows-mackenzie-chynna-phillips/8

This should be added to the family member's reactions at the bottom of the story. Jess Woods, daughter of Mama and the Papas bandmate Denny Doherty, contacted the Oprah show to back up Mackenzie's story. She said that her father told her about it many years ago, and that he was horrified by what John had done.

Plagiarism

This page appears to me to be plagiarized from the Bio page it references in the footnotes. (I say this as a college professor who has only swiftly perused the 'Bio' page -- what I mean is that, at first glance, I would be inclined to flunk the Wikipedia page author for plagiarism -- this should at least be investigated further.) GeneCallahan (talk) 05:31, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Please make any changes you feel are necessary, in keeping with the Wikipedia policy of being bold in making edits. Any contributions you provide in cleaning up this article would be very much appreciated by previous editors of this article (including, at the very least, by me!).
- idunno271828 (talk) 21:14, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Rape

I'm removing the rape allegation. Such things should not be posted without proof. FyreFiend 11:27, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I just checked -- the above comment about "the rape allegation" related to a 2006 allegation of rape by a man not her father, for which no relaiable source exists. The alleged rape by her father, which she went public about in 2009, is included in the article and should remain, as there are multiple relaiable sources that she has made this claim. 64.142.90.33 (talk) 07:48, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Name

"She was named in honor of her father's friend, songwriting collaborator and performing partner, Scott Mckenzie." -- Scott McKenzie's web site (http://www.scottmckenzie.info/story.html) says the opposite, that his stage name was derived from her name. --Skylax 20:49, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Removal of copyedit tag

I've removed the copyedit tag. It seems premature. The article does not yet meet the Copyedit criteria. Please feel free to call for copyedit assistance when the other tagged problems are fixed. Jim 14159 (talk) 11:05, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Modifications made to 'Personal Life'

Skullan (talk) 11:08, 11 September 2008 (UTC) I removed the 'Later' from the Personal Life title, it makes it sound like she is dead or at least ancient.

I also removed the following comment from the Personal Life section:

"Also to note that the above criminal act is a long time used ploy of Career Agents to raise waning stars career profile .. as they say the only bad publicity is no publicity."

This comment is unneeded, it does not enhance the Personal Life section, it also has no relevance to the fact she was arrested. If there is proof that she was arrested to try and gain publicity (like an admission from her) then I can see it being placed back in. Without such a reference, it just looks petty and out of place to leave it there.

"consensual"

I object to using the word consentual in the paragraph about the incest without quoting someone. The word consentual has a specific meaning, a meaning that cannot be gleaned from the misuse of the word by trash-mag People. I suggest that unless we can quote an individual saying that the relationship became consentual, we instead leave that info out. Hipocrite (talk) 13:52, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the first order of business would be spelling. It's consensual. You're welcome! Every news paper is saying it was eventually consensual.

Show me a few sources that aren't people and we can talk about including it. Hipocrite (talk) 16:25, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Disagree completely with it's removal. If reliable sources say it was "eventually consensual" than it can be included. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 18:59, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

People Magazine is not a reliable source for defining the "consensual" nature of sexual relationships between a parent and child. Hipocrite (talk) 19:11, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Still disagree, but here's an AP story that says the same thing. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 20:28, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

The AP is very clear in not describing the relationship as "consensual." Hipocrite (talk) 20:33, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

It's not our job to determine what the AP meant by the quotation marks. It's about verifiability, not truth. How is this not verifiable by a reliable source? Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 20:47, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Wait, are we reading the same article? It says it was consensual twice. Once in quotes, once not. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 20:51, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

We are reading the same article. They never say the relationship was consensual. They say "what she termed "consensual,"" they say ""she believes it eventually became consensual,"" and they say "Phillips said. "Someone needs to put a face on consensual incest."" Mrs. Philips is not a reliable source for the consensual nature, or lack there-of, of this relationship. The AP is very careful not to lend the fringe view that any incestual relationship begun out of rape when at least one of the parties was high out of their mind can, at any time, be consentual any credence. Hipocrite (talk) 20:55, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

← Once again, you're making your own judgment on what the AP meant with their wording. It's very clear that they are reporting that it's consensual. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 21:04, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

So...nobody else can interpret what was meant by "consensual" out of context but you? Get over yourself. --Mattbrown04 (talk) 22:58, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

First of all, lose the attitude. Secondly, I'm not interpreting anything. How much more clear does the sentence, "her sexual relationship with him later became what she termed 'consensual.'" Paraphrasing that sentence in the article is in no ways a BLP violation or a "misinterpretation" of a verifiable, reliable source. You can't have it both ways. On one hand, you acknowledge that the source states that it was consensual, but on the other say that it doesn't matter, because it came out of the subject's mouth, because she was a victim of rape and high? It doesn't work that way. You simply what the source says and leave it at that.Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 23:47, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I'll drop the attitude when you get over your own ego. Paraphrasing means you took what was aid and altered it. There is a huge difference between saying something is consensual and that the woman said she said it became consensual. Paraphrasing as if the author is taking credit for deducting a fact from what was said doesn't belong on a website devoted to true information. If she said it, it needs to be in the article that she said it. You're also deliberately ignoring the fact that she goes on to liken it to Stockholm Syndrome, which would make her, the victim of said syndrome, a shaky source for whether or not it was indeed consensual. People Magazine reporting what she said doesn't make it any more reliable than if she had said it on any other media outlet. Source it right or do us all a favor and stop editing.--Mattbrown04 (talk) 22:51, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me that you: 1. Haven't read the updated article with my edits, 2. Don't really understand what this discussion is about. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 13:57, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Say what the source says, and put it in quotes. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 01:43, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

didnt she say on oprah that it had been going on for 10 years? thats pretty consensual i reckon

• I read the AP article and it seems pretty clear she at first considered it non-consensual but then it became so. The article needs to reflect that, using the wording she used, which is the word "consensual", which is why AP put it in quotes - the quotes reflect Mackenzie Phillips own word: consensual. 71.191.36.210 (talk) 03:39, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

  If it was consensual or not can never be known and is really not important. We only report on what she says, and she characterized the relationship using the term "consensual" in her memoir (as reported by numerous reliable sources) - the article is now carefully worded to reflect her POV - it's how she saw it. Some people may argue that in truth it can never be consensual, maybe so, but that's irrelevant, we report on what she says, not interjecting how we think it actually is. Green Cardamom (talk) 04:00, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

"If it was consensual or not can never be known and is really not important" Technically, whether it ever happened or not can never be known, hence the use of the word alleges/alleged WookMuff (talk) 11:34, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree: we only have her word for it. She did say that the ongoing relationship was "consensual." But there is some cause to doubt that her story is in fact entirely true. The initial rape could be a false memory: she says she drifted out of a blackout 30 years ago to find her father raping her, and then she blacked out again. It could be a memory of a vivid dream, or just a bizarre fantasy. The later consensual relationship could also be a fantasy, which for whatever reason is now being reported as fact. Timothy Horrigan (talk) 13:25, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

This is so controversial, we should't do anything but use big quotes. No paraphrasing. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 15:04, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Just a few thoughts. I haven't taken the time to read through everyone's comments (I only skimmed them), so take this for what it's worth. In general, People is a reliable source. But in this particular instance, are they qualified to make the judgment that the incest was consensual? Shouldn't a psychologist or psychiatrist (or who ever studies these sorts of things) make that judgment? Also, are there any corroborating sources? Is People is the only one making this claim? Anyway, the current wording (quoting Oprah's interview of Phillips) seems to be a good solution. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:33, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Except, "Consensual" currently a well sourced claim.

Uh, the supplied source (an MSNBC article currently) for the claim clearly states (very near the article title, in fact) that the relationship became consensual. If many Wikipedia editors desire to suppress this claim due to their differing interpretation of the word's meaning, compared to the meaning apparently understood by the victim in question, one of two things needs to happen:

• A different source that does not so boldly repeat the claim that later encounters were consensual should be found

or

• Extremely solid sources explaining reasons why such a claim is a misinterpretation of the word "consent" should be added to the article.

As near as I can tell, everything in WP:BLP seems to indicate that in the absence of verifiable, solid reason not to, one is required to respect the opinions of a living person about the events that took place in their life, even if those opinions result in language that some may find to be extremely politically incorrect.

I recommend someone with a lot more free time on their hands research the legal limitations on providing consent; not just laws but actual cases, if they want to make the claim that the victim cannot state that later encounters were consensual. You'll probably find something, somewhere, that might meet your needs for the purposes of this article. Zaphraud (talk) 04:46, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Consensual is, to my knowledge, given to mean "undertaken with consent". Unless there is a dictionary that states otherwise, I feel like wiki-editors questioning the meaning is definitely OR. WookMuff (talk) 11:40, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Rape?

I don't see the word "rape" in the source.[1] - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 23:50, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

The word rape appears in the John Phillips article, with a ref. Perhaps that'll help? This whole thing is a writer's nightmare, and i agree with those who have said we should quote extensiveley and keep everything in quotes. -- cat Catherineyronwode (talk) 00:37, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't care if we say "rape", but it should be in quotes. Pretty much everything should until the dust settles. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 02:22, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I honestly don't know how much I believe about the whole case, but considering we have sources saying that a rape occured, and the alleged offender is quite dead so no WP:BLP violation, I think that rape is how it should be stated, sans quotes. WookMuff (talk) 11:43, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

"Consent", "rape", WP:VERIFY, and WP:NOR

I've been skimming the debates above, but what it comes down to is that editors judgment calls and points of view on what constitutes consent and what constitutes rape simply don't matter. WP:VERIFY and WP:NOR (not to mention WP:BLP) is very clear here – we go with what sources say, without injecting our own spin and interpretation on those sources. It seems to me that the ultimate source here is the Phillips autobiography High on Arrival itself. I'll note that so far, this book is not listed as a source and I think editors of this article have been remiss in not consulting it. Interviews with Phillips concerning the allegations in the book that she's made in valid publications are a valid secondary source. Ultimately, whether or not Phillips refers to any of the events as "rape" or any aspect of the relationship as "consensual" is what the article should go with. If there is any notable third-party publication contesting Phillips version of events or interpretation of them, that's also worth including, but it should clearly be noted that who is arguing this and in what context. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 01:15, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Red links

Ann Marie Montade when made to be an internal link turns red because there is no page for Ann Marie Montade. I did remove the brackets to remove the attempted link however the bad link was put back on the page. I will not bother to remove it again just will wait for the bot to come around and evetually do that for me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peacekeeper 1234 (talk • contribs) 17:49, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi, those kinds of red links are for reminders in case someone wants to write an article about them. This one looks notable enough to have an article too. No one's made one so it's a red link but hopefully in time someone will get interested in writing one. I hope that helps. --CrohnieGal^Talk 18:09, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Official Website

Clicking on the link takes one to a parked domain page for macphillips.net. It appears to have no relation to Mackenzie Phillips. I did not delete, but added a dead link notice. I have no idea if I were authorized to delete the link.

desertskies 22:39, 27 May 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Desertskies (talk • contribs)