Talk:Melinda Messenger
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. | ||
| Start | This article has been rated as start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ] | ||
 |
The Big Brother WikiProject aims to improve articles relating to Big Brother, and Melinda Messenger has been identified as one of these articles. Anybody can help the WikiProject by trying to improve existing articles. Please add your name to the list of participants, if you are committed to helping out. |
| Start | This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale. |
| Mid | This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale. |
gruezi voll! we will give further references to this addition to melissas page as well as links to pages containing the records and dates of Trinity Biologicals notification to the ICC and american FBI with regards the international case of a "50 year cycle of crimes against humanity" from members of the american government and various american entities exemplified in some of the more illegitimate or questionably prosecuted, yet documented, wars it has engaged in...
- I'd like to take the above as additional justification for the removal of the big soapboxing paragraph from the article. Not only did it document a staggeringly trivial mention in the media, it flew off into some utterly bizarre conspiracy theory which has nothing to do with Melinda Messenger in the slightest. Sockatume 20:40, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
All mentions in the media are typically trivial...one can easily argue that the latest body counts from this or that conflict or the glamour stars latest love fling are absolutely irrelevant to anything and tell people absolutely nothing...will the intelligent people of the future utilizing this encyclopedia really care as to whether she had blue eyes and blond hair and her exact date of birth or would they rather be concerned with interesting positions she held and that drew her ire from the mass media or powerful interests? they will want pictures and what is of exceptional interest about her. TV stars are, and will continue to become even more so as time progresses, a dime a dozen and totally forgettable unless having exceptional performances and interesting and worth while real life personas. at least from some media mentions, humans have the potential to actually "evolve" to better levels of understanding and discussions...as to "soap boxing" it clearly was a part of melinda messengers character and person to protest against excessive levels of ecotoxic chemicals in her and her childrens habitat... and indeed the BBC or its particular articles writer even found her so much of some sort of threat despite her little recognition to thwart her stance and this is recorded on their website...and this was strange and of note especially as so often the BBC had presented web pages presenting the evidences of ecotoxic malady... and now one of her messages is recorded on her wikipedia page. As she herself presented the issue as a fundamental part of her person it was sensible to record her position on her wikipedia website. It seemed all the more worthy for inclusion as she had been tarnished even for this viewpoint. If this was monsantos wikipedia page you would perhaps be justified in removing any negative portrayl of novel chemicals...this is not monsantos page. As to the legal arm of Trinity Biologicals presenting a deposition to the ICC and threatening the FBI and american government with a law suit in the run up to the congressional elections, and then dismissing the action after satisfactory election returns, that is factual and can be referenced, yet we remove it from this page so as not to deflect from melindas page or draw more controversy than necessary...it is somewhat tangential we agree, this last, to her page...¨¨¨¨
- lol what Jack Hunter 01:22, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
we will continue to add many more references and documentations to the section concerning melindas stance concerning harmful chemicals and to the latter section of this factual article tomorrow morning...
- I hate to break it to you, but she carries two bags of potentially harmful man-made chemicals in her chest at all times, so clearly she's not that bothered about them. Jack Hunter 10:26, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
i like this last one mr hunter...you are an excellent edittor even if u wipe clean my efforts to state her positions on chemicals. i will look up the harmful ecotoxicological effects of "silicon" and its effect on her cemetary locations environmental integrity, i do think tho them likely to be somewhat minimal, yet carry out the assays on her bosom yourself to make sure i suggest, in any case her site is the place for her positions, those of the "sense about science" lobbyists are for their page, and it is indeed true that they are linked with "ex" communists and marxists...i will refernce that momentarilyBenjiwolf 16:12, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
- This is an encyclopedia! It's not Benjiwolf's Marxist Conspiracy Monthly! Please read the three pillars of Wikipedia policy, WP:NPOV, WP:OR and WP:V. Sockatume 18:08, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
- Please, please, please Benjiwolf, get yourself a writer or at least an editor. Your unpunctuated, unparagraphed streams of consciousness are likely to guarantee your message not getting through.83.170.105.48 (talk) 08:37, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] Versions for comparison
[edit] Opinions on matters of science
In January 2007 , Sense About Science, a UK-based charitable trust aimed at reducing misrepresentation of science in the public eye, quoted Melinda[1] as having said the following with regard to the man-made chemicals present in our everyday lives:
"Why should I allow my body or my children to be filled with man-made chemicals, when I don’t know what the health effects of these substances will be?"
This was responded to By Dr. John Hoskins, a toxicologist, with the following:
"Away from the high doses of occupational exposure a whole host of unwanted chemicals finds their way into our bodies all the time. Most leave quickly but some stay: asbestos and silica in our lungs, dioxins in our blood. Do they matter? No! The most important thing is dose: one aspirin cures a headache, a hundred kills. The chemical baggage we carry is very small. It is only because of the great advances in analytical chemistry that we are able to detect it’s there at all."
Anthony Dayan, another toxicologist, also responded with:
"Hazardous chemicals, be they man-made or naturally occurring, should not be ignored and they aren’t. The use and release of chemicals is subject to many regulations by governments and international bodies, and their stringent controls limit exposure to well below dangerous levels."
This was later mentioned in a BBC News Online article covering the campaign.
[edit] Controversy
 |
This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding reliable references. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (January 2007) |
 |
This article may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. Please improve this article if you can. (January 2007) |
Melinda was on january 3 2007 smeared on the BBC international website! as professing pseudoscientific viewpoints by the lobby of the "sense about science" people that have direct links to "communist sympathizers" and "living marxists" including the founder of the "revolutionary communist party" in the UK[1][2][3]it was after this link was discovered hard to say whether this organization actually was trying to discredit the biotech industry by linking themselves to its promotion or truly trying to aid it?...In any case her picture was placed up with a caption underneath saying "stars must check facts". They had quoted her expressing concern as to the effects of new and untested chemicals on her body and those of her children. The BBC had tried to dismiss this as a false concern and linked her with other stars having more dubious claims and beliefs as if carcinogenicity, teratogenesis, and endocrine disruption were "make believe" concepts. Perhaps the BBC should check its facts and remain current on the science from several perspectives and not just that of the "sense about science" lobby. Indeed the EU itself had come out with a new law to finally force the chemical industry to prove the non-toxicities of its new creations, [4]yet the BBC here had for some reason decided to strike a blow in the opposite direction and Melinda was in the line of fire. Melinda had decided to come out to have her say on the issue as a responsible mother and was promptly...silenced. [5] It was clearly a display of character defamation, and many would argue in the courts, of a blatant yet subtle advertising for chemicals one doesnt usually see so often on the BBC news, which has a penchant for ecological concern and responsible use of chemicals valuable to us[6]and a rather neutral rendering of the news in most cases. Yet Melinda was taken out of context with no opportunity to respond to the article or its presentation. The BBC scandal seemed from an episode of Erin Brockovich with Julia Roberts. However the quote from her actually was rather unassailable and in line with europes current stance [7][8][9]. This motivated Nicholas Yoho-Wikse and the legal apparatus of his swiss firm Trinity Biologicals to write the BBC notifying them of the possible pursuit of legal actions even...Melinda was also advised after this smear campaign to hit back twice as hard as they hit her, astutely and responsibly, with taste yet with the subtle ruthlessness in proportion to that which they used on herself, and to then more strongly attack or smear the chemical industry if they tarnished or attacked her image and opinions, to then bring up specific companies and cite specific study results of certain chemicals after consulting the legal affairs departments of Trinity Biologicals and her other private legal teams, as to which chemicals and companies that most deserved review to then bring up in a public medium merely by citing professional studies from scientific journals and forums. To simply bring to light published studies portraying the chemical in question in a negative light in a public forum by a star, renders the star invulnerable if the study is responsible and chosen wisely, and does incredible damage to the company or chemical you are referencing and forces the company producing the chemical to engage in an expensive campaign to redeem its chemical with its own privately funded studies, commercials, and friendly researchers, or else abandon the chemical alltogether if it is simply too difficult to successfully prove its worth and benign nature. This heavy handed tactic would be used more and more from time to time on the planet, after such smears on concerned thoughtful public figures, to then publicly discredit specific chemicals producing negative toxicity results in the studies... as the gauntlet had been thrown down...before Melinda Messengers bosom even...yet quite simply many in the scientific community were sick and tired of all the tales of breast cancer [10]and bladder and liver and stomach and prostate and lung and etc etc cancers inflicting our loved ones and striking them down...while it was a fact that not all cancers had a relationship or cause from untoward chemicals...many of them where in fact partly or even totally caused or triggered or precipitated by toxins [11]...this was not conspiracy...this was the sad well documented [12] and researched reality of biochemistry for any of those with a brain or that bothered to study it in depth and we struggled to make better sense of it all and regulate better and just use those chemicals of greatest value and least carcinogenicity, teratogenesis, endocrine disruption, etc etc. Melinda as a responsible literate mother informed as to contemporary modern science came out on the side of caution, especially as regards her children in a sensitive developmental stage!
[edit] Comments (RfC)
- I'm not sure 'controversy' is the right word. It sounds like BBC assumed Messenger's opinion was uninformed, which would be irresponsible journalism since it's apparently not the case (as a private citizen's opinion, not an expert's). But it's not clear that it represents a noteworthy event. Peter Grey 01:38, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
- It's not the BBC doing the assuming - they're just reprinting the comments of Sense About Science. I doubt it's relevant to Messenger's article as her involvement begins and ends with the quote in the Sense About Science press release. Sockatume 03:19, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
- This needs to be covered in, say, 4 or 5 short sentences. Or even 2 or 3 sentences.
F was reported on T as saying "W". B reported comments by F, D responded, "H". L points out that "comments were...". SmithBlue 05:40, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
- (Here via RfC). Erm, this is still on WP:RfC even though it's over a month since the disputed content was on the page. Should it still be an active RfC at all? With the wisdom of hindsight, it looks like a storm in a teacup. There's no need for any of it to go in the article. Telsa (talk) 23:29, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Separation
Melinda announced a trial separation from husband Wayne today (see www.swindonadvertiser.co.uk) Rob Burbidge (talk) 20:59, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Height
Also, more trivially, I've briefly met Ms. Messenger and I'd be very surprised if her height is 5'4" - I'd say closer to 4'11" or 5'0" - but this is not sourced. Rob Burbidge (talk) 20:59, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
