Talk:Celebrity Big Brother 2007 (UK)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article was nominated for deletion on 2006-12-07. The result of the discussion was keep. |
 |
The Big Brother WikiProject aims to improve articles relating to Big Brother, and Celebrity Big Brother 2007 (UK) 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. |
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. |
| High | This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale. |
/archive 1 - January 2007
Contents |
[edit] Protect Page
It is an absolute nightmare keeping this page vandal free, people delete things and add abusive things all the time. I think this page should be protected from any newly registered or not registered users. Jezabelda 01:41, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
- You can consider registering a request for semi-protection at WP:RFP. I've already done so for Shilpa Shetty which I've been working on for the last coupla weeks or so. Ekantik talk 02:11, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
-
- I have requested a semi-protect on the CBB article due to the incidences of page vandalism Munta 08:33, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Jermaine racism
As such, the only definitely racist comment has been Jermaine Jackson referring to Jade, Jackiey, Jack, Jo and Dannielle as "white trash". Don't you think this needs mentionning? 82.37.156.217 17:40, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
- That's not racist. It's offensive but it's much more to do with class or social stature than race.--Ukdan999 17:44, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
- Not that I really want to be involved in this debate, but if Jackiey had referred to Jermaine as "Black trash", would this have been considered racist? Discuss... Guinness 17:53, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
- Big difference. White trash is a term commonly used by people, white or black, to describe a certain type of person. As far as I'm aware, "black trash" is not such a term. --Ukdan999 17:56, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
- He said American people would call her white trash but he wouldn't because she's a human being. This is not "definately racist," it is the American equivalent of chav.Fay06 23:21, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
- I've never known a non-white person to be refered to as "white trash". — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 23:37, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
- And what's your point? Who said they had been?--Ukdan999 19:04, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
- I've never known a non-white person to be refered to as "white trash". — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 23:37, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
- He said American people would call her white trash but he wouldn't because she's a human being. This is not "definately racist," it is the American equivalent of chav.Fay06 23:21, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
- Big difference. White trash is a term commonly used by people, white or black, to describe a certain type of person. As far as I'm aware, "black trash" is not such a term. --Ukdan999 17:56, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
- Not that I really want to be involved in this debate, but if Jackiey had referred to Jermaine as "Black trash", would this have been considered racist? Discuss... Guinness 17:53, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
- We need to be very careful with this accusation. It is a matter of record that JJ did not directly call anyone "White Trash". He was in fact refering to how others would describe Jackie. The full quote is something along the lines of “She's a star [Jade], so she has a following and a fan base her mother doesn't. She does not care and I don't want to go like this, it was referred to her, they bought up the word white trash and I don't want to bring that up, and I wouldn't call her that because she's a human being. But the fact is, she doesn't care.”. I believe that there is a copy of this conversation on Youtube. Unfortuanately this accusation has become something of a meme and has be repeated by news papers such as The Independent. I do not feel that any comment about "white trash" should be included in this Wiki page. However, if someone does see fit to include it, please make sure that the full quote is citedMunta 10:44, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Despite my request above, 87.127.118.61 has entered an entry repeating this accusation based upon a Daily Star Article and no quote has been forthcoming. I have reworded the entry so it refers to the accusation as reported by the Daily Star and then gives correct details of Jermaines comment. I would normally hesitate to include a link to You Tube as a citation, however, since this is a serious allegation - it is important that the full and correct quote is available. Unless anyone can give evidence that backs up the allegation, I shall continue to remove un-cited entries in this section. Munta 20:30, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
- I have removed both the "reference" and the claim. Unless we can properly reference this we must not include it (per WP:BLP). We cannot link to clips we know are copyright violations (see WP:C). Thanks/wangi 10:34, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
-
- I have reverted this claim and added a verified news link to back up this claim Munta 13:05, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
"We need to be very careful with this accusation. It is a matter of record that JJ did not directly call anyone "White Trash". " It is also a matter of record that Jade Goody did not directly say anything racist to Shilpa Shetty. If I were Jade I'd sue everyone who has called her racist. I notice the general media have always been careful to use the word "alleged".Vee2007 22:19, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
She might not have said anything racist TO Shetty, but she definitely did say racist things ABOUT her. For example, it is hard to categorise saying "I don't know what her name is....Shilpa Poppadom" as anything other than racist. Goody wouldn't have used the term had Shetty not been Indian. You seem to be very keen to defend Goody. Obviously a bit of a role model for you.
[edit] Separate Article
I think that the whole racism controversy deserves its own separate article due to its international political ramifications. Although the section on this article is good, I don't think it is anywhere near describing everything that happened as a news event in itself. I would strongly support the creation of a separate article (for example, Big Brother racism controversy (2007) where the whole story can be described in full. As far as I am aware there is precedence for this in Wikipedia and it shouldn't be too hard for editors who are willing to put the work in.
I've been inserting, organising and maintaining the information at Shilpa_Shetty#Racism_controversy which is understandably far too large and will be significantly pruned once the controversy is over, but it's a shame to see all of that go to waste. There are plenty of references there for use and other developments haven't been discussed, for example, Cameron's and Livingstone's comments as well as comments from the Indian politicians.
So there it is: A separate article? Ekantik talk 06:30, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
- Agree whole-heartedly. Tone down the words on this page, stick to the main points, and take the details to the new page. And if someone can think of a better title to this, we will take that. Thanks. Tragicomedian 06:33, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
-
- I vote in favour of the article, since it has sparked a row over Channel 4's public subsidy and the integrity of the television broadcasters' executives. The racism controversy goes well beyond the programme itself.--Conjoiner 14:30, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
- Celebrity Big Brother 2007 racism controversy (UK) might be a better title, but I don't think the stuff should get its own article until the season is over and whether the section actually needs one can be looked at. J Di 20:28, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
-
- It's SO long and desperate to be split into its own article. You can't really cut it down without losing all sides of the story. It's even made the news over here in New Zealand. Triangle e 09:48, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
- I know this has made news in other parts of the world, but I don't think that should be used as a reason to move this text to a new page. Long articles don't have to be split and putting this text somewhere else means splitting the story into two pages, where we have text on the housemates and what happened on the show on one page and a load of text about racism on some show on another. J Di 11:55, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
- It's SO long and desperate to be split into its own article. You can't really cut it down without losing all sides of the story. It's even made the news over here in New Zealand. Triangle e 09:48, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
- Channel 4's licence has now been called into question over this racism row and it also had an impact on British-Indian relations, race relations in the UK and Gordon Brown's official visit to India (which was meant to be an important part of his attempt to prove his leadership credentials ahead of Tony Blair's resignation later this year), so the issue goes well beyond Celebrity Big Brother. Consequently, there should be a separate article.--Conjoiner 12:22, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
- The fact that this has affected so many people doesn't change the fact that Big Brother is the cause. Should we split other articles just because events related to their subjects have reached news broadcasts worldwide? J Di 13:18, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
- No, but the CBB racism controversy has gone beyond CBB, in particular leading to calls for the resignation of Channel 4's board of directors and political pressure to withdraw the station's licence. The handling of the racism row and its aftermath are separate from the content of the programme itself. So a separate article is justified for this reason.--Conjoiner 21:16, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
- I still don't think that's a good reason for moving the text to a new article. Discussion on this should probably wait until the season is over so that a better decision can be made. J Di 12:34, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
- OK, that's fine with me - it's probably best to wait until Ofcom and C4 have come to some judgements before deciding whether it is worthy of a separate article, or whether it is just a bit of media hysteria.--Conjoiner 12:48, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
- I still don't think that's a good reason for moving the text to a new article. Discussion on this should probably wait until the season is over so that a better decision can be made. J Di 12:34, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
- No, but the CBB racism controversy has gone beyond CBB, in particular leading to calls for the resignation of Channel 4's board of directors and political pressure to withdraw the station's licence. The handling of the racism row and its aftermath are separate from the content of the programme itself. So a separate article is justified for this reason.--Conjoiner 21:16, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
- The fact that this has affected so many people doesn't change the fact that Big Brother is the cause. Should we split other articles just because events related to their subjects have reached news broadcasts worldwide? J Di 13:18, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
- Channel 4's licence has now been called into question over this racism row and it also had an impact on British-Indian relations, race relations in the UK and Gordon Brown's official visit to India (which was meant to be an important part of his attempt to prove his leadership credentials ahead of Tony Blair's resignation later this year), so the issue goes well beyond Celebrity Big Brother. Consequently, there should be a separate article.--Conjoiner 12:22, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
-
-
Fantastic, the racism section has been split with what appears to be total disregard for what's on this talk page and the agreement to wait until the season has ended. Can some sort of consensus to redirect or delete Big Brother Racism Row and re-add the text to this article be formed? J Di 22:17, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, we should revert the changes and redirect/delete the other page. And I don't really think it should be split anyway. — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 22:19, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
And now another reason for not splitting the article -- information is being copied from one article to another, which would increase the amount of work needed when updating a piece of information, when it would be fine in one place. J Di 23:33, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
- Since only one person gave a f*** about this since the section was put on its own article, I've moved the text that was in Celebrity Big Brother 2007 racism controversy to this article (yay, more f***ing mess to clean up). Before splitting this section again, there should be more discussion and everybody should wait for consensus. J Di 18:30, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
My view on the matter.
- This was no concensus as far as I can tell on the split of this article. The edit war going on in Celebrity Big Brother 2007 racism controversy is therefore rather pointless (at least at the moment).
- However, the article size is very large at 69K. Wikipedia:Article size suggests that any pages of this size should be considered (but not must be) split in to stubs.
- In keeping with the other CBB articles, perhaps this page should concentrate upon the program as shown on TV. A stub would then remain to discuss the detail and the aftermath.
- A single paragraph summarizing the controversy would remain on this page with a link to the additional content.
- This would A) prevent the needs for edits on this page, B) meet Wiki guidelines as per Wikipedia:Article size and C) give a logical split between the program and the media reaction.
Munta 13:38, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
I personally don't see a good reason to separate out this section into it's own article, and am in favour of keeping the text where it is. Regardless, please do not move the text into a separate article again until consensus has been reached here. └ UkPaolo/talk┐ 10:09, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Racism
Since you basically copy\pasted everything from the 2007 racism incident article the length of the racism section isn't proportional to the rest of the article. I suggest trimming it or moving it back to the other page as the article size is quite big as it is. Yonatan (contribs/talk) 11:27, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
- Not sure who you're addressing with this comment as this is a communal talk page. However, the page was both split and merged without discussion, so if you feel the information was better seperate, I'd get a general concensus of opinion on the issue first and then you'd know for a fact whether or not it's disputable if someone were to move it back. If you wish to discuss it directly with person responsible, it'd be easier to find the relevant user in the history and message them directly about the issue. ~~ Peteb16 11:58, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
- That'd be me. My reasons for putting the stuff back on this article are in this section, as is a discussion and what I thought was an agreement to wait until the season has finished before discussing a split. J Di 12:02, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
- Fair enough. Sorry, I'd not seen that. This page is getting a bit hard to navigate, it probably needs some of the closed topics archiving. ~~ Peteb16 12:52, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
- That'd be me. My reasons for putting the stuff back on this article are in this section, as is a discussion and what I thought was an agreement to wait until the season has finished before discussing a split. J Di 12:02, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
There is precedent in Wikipedia for separate articles on a particular issue, and it helps Wikipedia to maintain consistency. I do not agree with the merge of the information into this article because the scale of the incident (international ramifications etc) was certainly massive and thus deserving of a separate article in order to log all pertinent information. I'll vote for brief or reduced information on this page with expanded information in a new article providing, of course, that WP:MOS is followed. Ekantik talk 05:07, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
New development from Guardian: [1]. Ekantik talk 03:03, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
- I still don't see a good reason for splitting it, this article has information on controversy caused by its subject and reactions from various groups, as do many others. The fact that this particular controversy has been on news programs worldwide is not a reason to split the article; most of the section, as far as I can see, is about things that have happened in direct response to the show's broadcast and much of it is closely related to the article's subject. Splitting it would deprive people of content they need to be able to easily get a full picture. J Di 14:45, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
-
- That goes against generally-accepted Wikipedia practice. In light of the issue still going on vis-a-vis police investigations, Danielle Lloyd's police questioning, Jermaine Jackson's police questioning etc etc., this incident has become too big to be contained in a seasonal Big Brother article and deserves it's own article, especially to document continuing events and log those which have not been documented. This article can contain pertinent information of course, but it will remain static and it is not appropriate to log new events as it is more of a current affairs thing. For an example of what I am thinking of re he split article, see: 2006 Ipswich murder investigation. Ekantik talk 03:09, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- Are you seriously trying to compare this article with one detailing the murder of five women? I don't even see how the comparison works - 2006 Ipswich murder investigation was never split from another article. Yes, the racism controversy deserves a mention - it's got one here └ UkPaolo/talk┐ 10:06, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- Move to seperate article; categories are quite different, and has attracted much wider international attention than the series as a whole Johnbod 04:28, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- Support per Johnbod and other reasons mentioned above. This issue is to be treated the same as any other issue on Wikipedia; separate articles for major issues. Plus, further developments not included in this article can be adequately documented in a separate article. Ekantik talk 04:38, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
-
[edit] Danielle's Percentage
She was evicted at the same as Jack. So surely her percentage is out of 6?
- This is true —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.3.120.27 (talk) 01:25, 29 January 2007 (UTC).
[edit] Conestant's Table
This table makes no sense. Why not copy the style from the other BB Wikipedia pages. I've been staring at it for a while and the columns don't make any sense, particularly the names in the grey boxes. You can argue that it does make sense, but if it is really that complicated there has to be a better way. - "All things being equal, the simplest explanation tends to be the correct one" - Occham's Razor. NinjaKid 09:34, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, there does need to be some standardisation of the housemate summary tables. Here are the differences between them:
-
Aspect Celebrity Big Brother 2007 Other Celebrity Big Brother Normal Big Brother Comments/Opinions Placement In the article Separate page I think this can stay as it is Heading Housemate summary table Nominations table (Page title) Big Brother 200n nominations table (UK) The title for the normal Big Brother nominations tables can stay, but the Celebrity Big Brother tables need the titles standardised. Maybe 'Nominations table' would be better, as the table is more about nominations than the housemates themselves. Time divisions Days Weeks I think this can stay as it is Housemates down left hand column Not linked Mostly not linked, but the table for series 2006 has them linked to their section in the housemate list Links in BB7 should be de-linked Final column (column heading) Contains the word 'Final' Does not contain the word 'Final' Should contain the word 'Final' Final column (top half of table) Coloured green and blue for 1st and 2nd place; yellow for other finalists; 'place' not capitalised. Coloured yellow for all finalists; 'Place' spelt with capital letter All finalists should be coloured yellow, 'place' should be de-captalised. Final column, evictions section Each housemate has their own cell, coloured green, blue or red all housemates in 1 cell, no shading, winner not listed. Having them all share a cell looks neater, but there's less information Individual nominations Each name is separated by a new line. each name is separated by a comma and a new line. I think it should be with the comma. Walked/Evicted/Ejected rows Each row is shaded with appropriate colour, when no housemates apply, it's marked 'None'. No shading, when no housemates apply, it's left blank Change all blank cells to say 'None', remove shading. Evicted row 'to evict' or 'to save' added for all cells Only 'to save' added when necessary 'to evict' can be removed, as it's the default voting system
- So... would it be a good idea to make these changes across all of the nominations tables? I'm still not 100% sure about how the evictions section for the final day should be set out. Does anyone have any ideas? Tra (Talk) 23:08, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
-
- Here's how the bottom row of the table could look.
- Current version:
-
-
Evicted Jackiey 4.6%
to saveCarole 77.4%
to evictJade 82.0%
to evictJo 48.4%
to evict
Cleo
27.9%
to evictJack
3.15%
(out of 6)Dirk
16%
(out of 3)Danielle
3.3%
(out of 6)Jermaine
37%
(out of 2)Ian
5.3%
(out of 4)Shilpa
67%
to win
-
-
- Version with my suggestions above implemented:
-
-
Evicted Jackiey 4.6%
to saveCarole 77.4%
Jade 82.0%
Jo 48.4%
Cleo
27.9%Jack
3.15%
(out of 6)Dirk
16%
(out of 3)Danielle
3.3%
(out of 6)Jermaine
37%
(out of 2)Ian
5.3%
(out of 4)Shilpa
67%
to win
-
-
- With unnecessary cells removed:
-
-
Evicted Jackiey 4.6%
to saveCarole 77.4%
Jade 82.0%
Jo
48.4%
Cleo
27.9%Jack
3.15%
(out of 6)
Danielle
3.3%
(out of 6)
Ian
5.3%
(out of 4)
Dirk
16%
(out of 3)
Jermaine
37%
(out of 2)
Shilpa
67%
to win
-
-
- Tidied up slightly:
-
-
Evicted Jackiey 4.6%
to saveCarole 77.4%
Jade 82.0%
Jo
48.4%
Cleo
27.9%Jack
3.15% (out of 6)
Danielle
3.3% (out of 6)
Ian
5.3% (out of 4)
Dirk
16% (out of 3)
Jermaine
37% (out of 2)
Shilpa
67% to win
-
-
-
- I think I'll probably leave the final week/eviction part of the table for now, as neither myself nor anyone else has any ideas on what would work best. As for the other changes I suggested, if nobody has any objections, I'll update the tables for all the series. If there are any objections, please make them soon as it would be much easier to decide the format of the nominations tables before they are all edited than after. Tra (Talk) 00:12, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
- In my opinion I believe the current version looks best out of the above. ~~ Peteb16 01:07, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for commenting! So should all the other nominations tables be changed to use that style at the bottom (with the shading and everything)? The problem is that for the main Big Brother series, where there are lots of evictions, the columns can get quite narrow so adding all of the shading etc could make the table look a bit cramped. Tra (Talk) 01:19, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
- I don't think I'm going to get far with this any time soon. Therefore, I will leave the evicted row for now and only make the following changes:
- Title the tables for Celebrity and Teen Big Brother as 'Nominations table'
- De-link housemate names
- Add the word 'Final' to the heading for the final column
- For the housemates in the final column, de-capitalise 'place' and change the shading to yellow
- Include the comma for individual housemate names for each nomination
- For rows where no housemates leave the house, mark the cell as None
- Tra (Talk) 01:12, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
- I don't think I'm going to get far with this any time soon. Therefore, I will leave the evicted row for now and only make the following changes:
- Thanks for commenting! So should all the other nominations tables be changed to use that style at the bottom (with the shading and everything)? The problem is that for the main Big Brother series, where there are lots of evictions, the columns can get quite narrow so adding all of the shading etc could make the table look a bit cramped. Tra (Talk) 01:19, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
- In my opinion I believe the current version looks best out of the above. ~~ Peteb16 01:07, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
- I think I'll probably leave the final week/eviction part of the table for now, as neither myself nor anyone else has any ideas on what would work best. As for the other changes I suggested, if nobody has any objections, I'll update the tables for all the series. If there are any objections, please make them soon as it would be much easier to decide the format of the nominations tables before they are all edited than after. Tra (Talk) 00:12, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
-
[edit] BIG OOPS!!!
i accidentally deleted the references, can sum 1 fix this...i see the old version, i just have no idea how to revert to it SORRY —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Moultie (talk • contribs) 20:35, 8 February 2007 (UTC).
[edit] its better now...im really sorry....
[edit] Is it worth mentioning...
That two of the contestants on this year's programme made the 100 Worst Britons list? I found that rather amusing. FireSpike 22:33, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
- It could possibly go on the housemates' individual articles but I don't think the list is relevant to the series itself. Tra (Talk) 22:59, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
- It's already mentioned (on his article) that Ian got a good reception on entering the house dispite being high on the 100 Worst Britons list. — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 12:23, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Jack Tweed
Iwas wondering that since he has had quite alot of media coverage himself might he be worthy of his own page? He's done more than Jackie don't you think?--Hiltonhampton 21:24, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image neutrality?
See discussion here. -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 01:37, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Jack, Jackiey and Carole? Where are they?
Hola guys, I think somebody deleted Jack, Jackiey's and Carole's Nomination "Panel/Column" beacuse they are not there. --BigOz22 (talk) 12:41, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
