Talk:Julie Burchill

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Brighton, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use resource about Brighton and Hove. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page or the Portal.
Brighton To do:


and until 2003 wrote a weekly column in The Guardian. Her departure was caused by disagreements with the editorial staff caused by her pro-Israel views in the Israeli-Palestinian crisis?. She currently writes for The Times.

Jumping the gun a bit as she is still writing in the Grauniard at present until her contract finishes, but i read that she's gone to write for the times because they offered her more money than the guardian. Not that I'll miss her pro-war on iraq ranting. quercus robur 13:39, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Anti-German

Maybe it should be mentioned that she seems to be anti-German (which does not only include the third reich - a position which I can understand - , but also all Germans born after 1945) and to condemn every German living today for the second world war and the holocaust. In my opinion some of her articles in the Guardian leave no doubt in this matter. Because I don't want to violate the neutrality of this wikipedia article (well, I'm a German born in 1975), I won't add this aspect of Burchill's world view. But it might be worth a discussion. 84.60.233.141 10:25, 30 January 2007 (UTC) Even her biggest fans know that Julie can say some very hurtful and seemingly illogical things. Her anti-German stance is not something that I am particularly aware of - though it would make sense given her love of all things Jewish.

What the hell is then? http://www.guardian.co.uk/Columnists/Column/0,5673,556024,00.html

Here is a qoute "I initially started playing truant from school because I was given their pig of a language to learn"

Oh and let's not forget the Luftwaffe comment she maid.

[edit] Religion

I really don't think her Judaism is worth mentioning and certainly not in the first line. If it's relevent anywhere then it would be in the section on her Israel/Palestine views. If you can put it there in NPOV language then i could live with that.--Cherry blossom tree 23:47, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

I didnt even know she was jewish. Has somebody removed this important fact from the article? Naming a persons ideology is definitly "worth mentioning" and in this case, vital to explain her hatred of the palestinians. 80.195.202.232 15:56, 19 June 2006

Burchill is not Jewish. This claim was made by the user responsible for similar assertions concerning Mark Lawson, and others, a while ago. I added your IP/posting details, BTW. Philip Cross 07:44, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

This article was recently added to Category:Jews who converted to Christianity. In view of the above comment I removed it until a source can be cited - I looked and I could find references to her conversion to Christianity but not from Judaism. --Cherry blossom tree 22:53, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Where did this idea come from? Anyone who's read any of her columns would know Julie Burchill isn't Jewish. That's the whole point! She keeps talking about how much she loves Jews and wishes she was Jewish. Not so long ago, in response to his criticism of Israel, she wrote to the (Jewish) British MP Gerald Kaufman, "If life was fair, I'd be a Jew and you'd be me - a fat redneck with no teeth." Seanjw 18:41, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Note

I wouldn't really describe frenchay as an affluent part of bristol, its just subburbia really.

[edit] Neutrality

Given that practically the whole driving force of Burchill's career has been to foment controversy (but never without honest belief behind it, to be fair), I imagine it's going to be quite a challenge for even the very best writers to create an article about her that could ever find sufficient consensus as 'neutral' Martyn Smith 11:31, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't agree. There is only one paragraph which is problematic:
Although Burchill's views appeared to find some focus in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, they were evidently part of a wider, more open animosity that she had developed towards Muslims in general in the years preceding her departure from the paper. Burchill's arguments in this regard were characterised by their frequently incoherent and poorly developed nature - a principal cause of the controversy, rather than the opinions themselves. A number of wide-ranging, disparate topics such as the war in Iraq, the invasion of Afghanistan and the wearing of the hijab were seemingly confused, with Burchill's opinion pieces in her column on these matters appearing suddenly and without context, and commonly juxtaposed by starkly lighter subjects such Victoria Beckham's dress sense or the author's ruminations on her grocery shopping for that week.
I should think someone who has read the relevant columns could fix it. I haven't read her recently, and I don't agree with her support for Israel, but based on reading her many years ago, I expect there is an element of truth in the claim that "were characterised by their frequently incoherent and poorly developed nature." However the paragraph needs to be moderated somewhat. Chicheley 12:19, 18 July 2006 (UTC)


Hi there

Thanks for your comments.

I'd like to respond.

I recall writing most of that paragraph. Burchill's comments in her column, concerning a whole range of matters, carried a prolonged open and indiscriminate attack on just about anything she perceived as being to do with Muslims and Islam over a number of years/months, using a pretty offensive language and tone. Admittedly whilst like many people I'm no fan of hers I do feel that, if anything, the paragraph actually represents a significant understatement of her deeply provocative and (perhaps more importantly) idiotic comments. Rather than deleting or amending the paragraph, it might be worth finding some of her original columns and citing from them. I didn’t originally do this myself because, to be honest, I didn’t fancy depressing myself all over again by dredging through them. The problem is however, you’ll have a hard time finding them now, as it’s been a few years. Those articles of hers that you might find on the internet will offer a very poor reflection of her opinions both then and now, and will do the paragraph little justice.

I would also add that the paragraph in question has been in place, completely untouched, for quite a while now (despite what probably amounts to several thousand page views) – and that this, surely, indicates some vague kind of consensus in terms of the appropriateness of the comments.

Accordingly, I’m making a plea that the paragraph is left as it is. Furthermore, we should consider removal of the 'neutrality' box at the top of the page. Whilst her comments are usually of questionable neutrality, writing about them in an objective manner like this is neutral.

Hope I'm making some kind of sense!

--Labcoat 14:02, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

That paragraph is blatantly not neutral, I think it should be deleted from the article.--Johnbull 16:49, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but the paragraphy I removed is not at all neutral - it ridicules her at times. And it is also almost entirely original research. I'll explain in more detail.
"Burchill's departure from The Guardian was caused, in part, by disagreements with the readers over her anti-Palestinian, pro-Israel views in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict[citation needed], although she claimed that it came down to differences between her claimed working class origins and the middle class stance of the Guardian. In an interview in 2004, Burchill stated that she had left the Guardian because they refused to increase her salary."
The only things even approaching references directly contradict the first part of the sentence, which doesn't even explain how these views led to her leaving the paper. I know nothing about the incident and am confused about what point it is trying to make. If there was some press coverage at the time speculating that they were involved then it should be cited. At the moment it could just be that she received popular criticism for her views and people jumped to conclusions when she left in a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy.
"Although Burchill's views appeared to find some focus in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, they were evidently part of a wider, more open animosity that she had developed towards Muslims in general in the years preceding her departure from the paper. Burchill's arguments in this regard were characterised by their frequently incoherent and poorly developed nature - a principal cause of the controversy, rather than the opinions themselves."
This is accusing her of racism and also that her views lack weight. Either of these might be true, but if so they should be sourced to third parties and reported neutrally rather than the article making the accusations itself.
"A number of wide-ranging, disparate topics such as the war in Iraq, the invasion of Afghanistan and the wearing of the hijab were seemingly confused, with Burchill's opinion pieces in her column on these matters appearing suddenly and without context, and commonly juxtaposed by starkly lighter subjects such Victoria Beckham's dress sense or the author's ruminations on her grocery shopping for that week."
Again, this is just insulting her and I also struggle to follow it - the fact that she writes about a wide variety of topics means that her columns are confused? I might be missing something here, but if I am then it needs sourcing anyway.
I don't know much about her but I imagine that at least some of the paragraph could be rewritten and sourced into a worthwhile addition to the article but as it stands at the moment it shouldn't be there. I shall leave it a day or so for discussion and then remove it again.--Cherry blossom tree 19:33, 31 July 2006 (UTC)


Hello. I do find it a little dissapointing that this article has morphed over time in to one which presents Burchill as something of a lovable, cheeky little girl that, if anything, has herself been the victim of the cold-blooded nature of those surrounding her throughout her personal and professional life. This candy-coated image is, I'm afraid, one that is totally at odds with the reality - and I can only assume that recent edits to the article have been made by those who are fans of her. Whilst I do take on board that the the original paragraph (see above) would have benefitted from citations etc, I did hope that my comments on this page would go some way to explaining why that was not done originally. The plain fact is that Burchill has deliberately constructed and furthered her own career around delivering controversial, provocative remarks at every opportunity. This reached it's grim nadir during a protracted series of obnoxious, hate-filled rants against a range of targets (including random celebrities, men in general and, in particular, Muslims and Islam) during her time at the Guardian - and that this (quite rightly) contributed to her departure. Whilst I do not have the orginal articles to hand, I do certainly remember reading them - as I'm sure many people reading this will. As I'm sure you've guessed, I'm no fan of Burchill, but I did feel that the original paragraph reflected some degree of objectivity. Whilst we may find her comments objectionable, that is no reason to omit them altogether from autobiographical articles of this kind. Yes, I absolutely do think that she is a racist and sexist - and that we shouldn't shy away from saying so just because we find those beliefs offensive. I think a good example of a more accurate portrayal is that of Richard Littlejohn, who shares many of Burchill's viewpoints.

I do think that this article needs some work. If it is necessary, I will do some research to support the assertions made in my original paragraph. It shouldn't be too hard. And I encourage others to do the same.

--Labcoat 09:52, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I presume you are referring to me. I'm fairly sure I've already said the following, but: I have no particular opinion on Julie Burchill - if I've read a couple of her columns then that is all. I have no objection to critical material appearing in this article as long as it complies with our NPOV, verifiability and no original research policies. In particular, with regard to your last post, you should not be attempting to back up your assertions. We are not trying to determine any absolute truths about her (or anything else.) This article should describe the debates surrounding her without engaging in them. For example, we should say that 'she has received criticism for x from people such as y and z' but not that 'she is x'. She's been controversial enough that there should be plenty of material like this around; it just needs to be presented in accordance with our editing policies. --Cherry blossom tree 23:09, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Julie Burchill is *fuck all* like Richard Littlejohn. Littlejohn is a very, very, straightforward right-wing, homophobic, immigrant hating Tory bigot who despite his "gorblimey" despises the working-class in all its forms.

It is very possible however to strongly object to Julie Burchill, dislike, despise, hate her for her vitriol, but still note the obvious facts that she is very far removed from the straightforward right-wing bigotry of Littlejohn. Burchill is pro-Soviet Communist, anti-Islam, pro-hanging, anti-Europe, pro-working-class, anti-prudery, pro-abortion, anti-Europe, pro-Tony Benn, anti-Catholic........say what you like about her, call her contradictory, but lumping her in with tossers like Littlejohn, Bushell et al isn't on.

Julie Burchill agressively maintains a number of demonstratable prejudices, often in utter disregard to obvious fact or accepted truths. For example she agressively denies the existence of dyslexia "It's another word for thick" (Today Program, Radio 4, early May 2007), and also insists that only the "middle class" enter higher education, and that the "working class" are essentially supressed [1] This behviour is not merely "controversial" or "contradictory", rather it is poor journalism, lack of reason, misrepresentation of facts and borderline libel. On these grounds lumping her with "tossers" like Littlejohn, Bushell et al, would be to do them a considerable dis-service. Scruffy brit 13:22, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed removal of {{POV}}

The article has been stable for some time now, and so has this page. I'm proposing to delete the 'disputed neutrality' notice at the head of the article in a few days' time, unless someone objects. The banns have been read. Notreallydavid 03:08, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem with the article content as it stands - I can see nothing that doesn't fit with NPOV. --Cherry blossom tree 20:24, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks - it's good to be agreed with by someone with a brain. Notreallydavid 21:04, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Ha! --Cherry blossom tree 13:11, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Recent removal of paragraph

The paragraph that has been removed does not represent a neutral point of view and is almost entirely original research. Text such as this can be removed by anyone, especially if they discuss a living person. The onus on ensuring that text meets these core Wikipedia policies is on those who wish to include it. In this case, it is more or less the same paragraph (inserted by the same editor) that was discussed on this talk page about six months ago. The problems, which were clearly identified then, are the same and it will not be included in the article until they are fully addressed. --Cherry blossom tree 20:24, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


Cherry Blossom Tree, I assume you're referring to me - but thanks for disparagingly referring to me in the anonymous third person!
I'm sorry, but the "problems", to use your word, have been in no way identified or resolved. I gave up in absolute frustration during my initial edits since the entire paragraph was repeatedly deleted, and the nature of the discussion on this page at times bordered on the abusive. I do not feel that this article represents an objective account of Burchill career (perhaps deliberately so?) - and it makes no reference to the highly inflamatory nature of her opinion pieces in the Guardian a few years ago. For a great many people in the UK (perhaps the majority) it remains the key thing they associate her with, and remember her for. Repeatedly deleting the paragraph amounts to censorship of this key biographical aspect of her career, and I would argue that it amounts to vandalism.
Again, while the nature of subject may be uncomfortable for many, that's no reason to not address it.
Can I suggest that the para has it's own section, perhaps flagged with a neutrality tag?
Labcoat 05:36, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
I referred to you in the third person, though I didn't think I did it disparagingly. If you took offence then that wasn't my intention.
The problems have been identified very clearly. The fact that they have not been resolved is the reason that the paragraph cannot be included. I went through the paragraph and identified the what was wrong and explained how it could be rewritten in accordance with the neutral point of view policy. I have re-read my comments and I was certainly never remotely abusive to you.
I am aware that she has been a controversial figure and have no problem with including details of this in the article. In an ideal world it would contain critical material but that critical material has to be written according to Wikipedia policies. Deleting this paragraph amounts to applying Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. It does not amount to censorship and certainly not to vandalism.--Cherry blossom tree 13:11, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
The deleted paragraph is essay-like in tone. It doesn't sit well in what should be a terse encyclopaedia entry - it's baggy, and devotes a disproportionately large number of words to a single sub-theme. The NPOV violation matters as well.
The article tells you that JB has a lot of strongly held and controversial opinions that don't always seem to sit well with each other. It warns the reader that she doesn't like Islam, and includes an example of a time she was simply, objectively wrong (as opposed to in violation of the I-don't-like-what-she-wrote Act). That's all that's needed. Regards to all, Notreallydavid 01:44, 6 January 2007 (UTC)


Cheers for the replies. CBT, it wasn't you that was abusive, but if you read the unsigned response to my comparison of Burchill with Richard Littlejohn above I think you'll see what I mean. Additionally, whilst your comments have certainly been helpful - the tendency to crudely strike out the entire paragraph without the slightest attempt to mdediate a compromise of some kind has, I'm afraid, been entirely unhelpful. Please accept that I have no wish to intentionally breach the Wikepedia guidelines. The point I'm keen to get across is that Burchill has deliberately profited from the shamelessly vile, hate-filled rants she's proudly delivered throughout the course of her career. It's what she's famous for...and the article completely fails to reflect this. In particular, her appallingly ignorant and offensive attacks on Muslims and Islam in general in the months leading up to her 'departure' (sacking?) from The Guardian represent the worst of it. There's a reason she's ended up at The Daily Mail! Can we work on a compromise? Tell me what I need to do in order for the paragraph to be included, or make some suggestions? Labcoat 09:35, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Unfortunately, removing the paragraph is necessary according to the biographies of living persons policy, which strongly forbids unsourced criticism from appearing. I have previously explained on this page what is required - Wikipedia articles should not try to determine any absolute truth regarding controversial issues (which this is) but rather to describe that controversy by looking at what other people have said about it. To take an example from the paragraph in question, "Burchill's arguments in this regard were characterised by their frequently incoherent and poorly developed nature" would be "Burchill's arguments were criticised by [insert source] for being poorly developed." Ideally this would be contrasted by someone defending her, if any such person exists. There must be comments like these by other columnists who have disagreed/agreed with her.--Cherry blossom tree 22:46, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dates

To the best of my knowledge Burchill started at the NME with Tony Parsons in the summer of 76 - so that is where her writing career should begin. She was already a regular attender at the Roxy club January 77-March 77 so this would seem to make sense. Also as a bit of an anorak on this period, The Boy Looked at Johnny was published in 1978 by Pluto press, not 1977 - I have a copy. Goldgreen - April 2007.

[edit] Photo request

To whoever made the image request above: a photo of La Burchill would not improve the article, believe me. Or, if you are brave, do a google image search and convince yourself. 88888 18:09, 17 July 2007 (UTC)::Why shouldn't there be a photo of her? Whether you agree with her opinions or not, she was one of the most popular journalists in the NME;everyone looked forward to her scathing record reviews.Her books were funny too.Especially "Girls On Film".jeanne (talk) 16:16, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one article was rated and this bot brought all the other ratings up to at least that level. BetacommandBot 23:00, 27 August 2007 (UTC)