Talk:Private Eye

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Private Eye article.
Article policies
Archives: 1
Comedy Portal
This article is within the scope of the Comedy WikiProject, which collaborates on articles related to comedy, comics, comedians, comedy movies, and the like. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale.
Archive
Archives
/Archive 1


Contents

[edit] Splitting project, list of regular mini-sections

  • I have commenced what will probably be a rather large and time-consuming project of splitting this article to manageable size with child articles of worthwhile size, by splitting out the list of mini-sections, which appeared the most self-contained and logical. It is not sufficient, when splitting an article, to simply duplicate all the information across dozens of different articles. In the case of this article so far it has merely created a persistently long main article surrounded by several stubs. Lists of separate bits seems to me to make far more sense, as in the section I have just split. Does anybody support or oppose the continuation of a project like this, and for what reasons? Jdcooper 17:32, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Breaking out in-jokes section

Hi everyone, I have just broken out the section about "other jokes". Bear with me on the tidying up and formatting, I know there is lots of tweaking to be done, but basically I think the article is better for that, that section was very long, and contained a lot of repetition and confusing formatting. We are going to have some problems finding reliable and independent sources to back up some of the information, but the parent article was far too long anyway, and it would all have had to have been sourced eventually whichever the case. Jdcooper 16:25, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Oh, and plus, lots of the stuff in that section wasn't supposed to be in that section, I will likely merge some of it back across upon sorting. Jdcooper 16:26, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] (Lack of) Editorial Position

My assumption has always been that when presenting extreme positions on various issues (the Hirohito visit, for example) PE is actually satirising the position of various newspapers. By satirising left and right wing papers as they see fit, the magazine appears to swing violently left and right. I'm reluctant to add this view to the article since it's assumption/original research (though to be honest I see much of the current article to be on the same lines already!). Anyone else think that this is the case? TrulyBlue 09:04, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

  • I agree, and I think that is probably such a central tenet of Private Eye that someone somewhere must have written about it. If we can find such a person and place then I think some comment on this issue would be a good addition, but without a source it is totally WP:OR, and although you are right about other OR in the article, two wrongs don't make a right! Jdcooper 06:19, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Prime Ministerial Decree

I had a go over the (brief) description of the Prime Ministerial Decree column, which has apparently become this premiership's incarnation of the St Albions/Secret Diary/Dear Bill column. The Broon-ites, as a comic strip, doesn't seem to be in the same vein, so I moved it down to the comics section. I left Prime Ministerial Decree as a redlink, but don't think it has got enough media attention yet to warrant its own article. Robin Johnson (talk) 12:34, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

  • If/when it does the redlink can surely be filled. A redlink seems fine for the moment. I agree regarding the Broon-ites. Jdcooper 06:17, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jammy Fishpaste

This was certainly used as a nickname for the late James Goldsmith, though there's no reliable quotable source on the internet and I don't have an old enough copy of PE to hand to reference. I'm going to add this back in with a citation request. Here are a couple of less reputable, but independent, sources to be getting on with: A blogger and another blogger. TrulyBlue 12:24, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I've got back issues of the Eye, back to 1992 or so. Would some issue numbers suffice as a citation? Would it help / be allowed to quote some Eye content, including the use of this nickname? Djce 09:39, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Djce for the offer. I'm not an expert on wiki rules about quoting a publication to show evidence of this kind of thing, but a couple of Issue numbers and page numbers would do it for me. If you've got issues from the build-up and aftermath of the 1997 (May 1) election they are proabably full of his European referendum campaign. BTW, the nickname is in Goldsmith's own wiki TrulyBlue 12:24, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

NP TrulyBlue, I'll try to dig them out. They're a bit buried, it might take a while to reach them :-) Djce 12:43, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Eye 907 (20 Sep 1996). P5 (Colour Section). "Now that the victory of Sir Jammy Fishpaste's Referendum party is assured by the addition of zoo-keeper John Aspinall to its candidates' list, Jammy is checking his members more carefully."
  • Eye 908 (4 Oct 1996). P6, "Referendum Party News. Sir Jammy Goldsmith's briefing session for more than 100 Referendum party faithful ...".
  • Eye 909 (18 Oct 1996). P11, "Referendum Party Special": "[Robert Shrimsley of the Daily Telegraph] forgot to mention that his late father, Anthony Shrimsley, was editor of Now! magazine (prop: Sir J. Fishpaste)".

Djce 11:11, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Cheers Djce, have added these in. Now probably the best-cited statement in the whole article! TrulyBlue 21:13, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Francis Wheen and Hypocrisy

This section seemed a bit odd to me, so I whittled it down a little. I was going to delete it completely, but thought I should canvass other opinions first. I've got two worries. First, that the charge of hypocrisy doesn't really fit Private Eye as it is not known for pushing any one political perspective (and this is actually noted as a 'criticism' in the entry. Second, the 'Street of Shame' section, as well as all the others in the first two thirds of the 'eye' are anonymous. There is no way of verifing whether Wheen wrote one particular column or the several particular columns you'd need to verify any charge of hypocrisy. If nobody objects, i'll delete the section in the next couple of days. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.229.6.171 (talk) 20:11, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

  • The article needs thinning, and there are many unsourced statements hidden in there that we need to weed out. Be as brutally ruthless as you want, I'm in support! Jdcooper 08:32, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
  • In any case, who is the "they" referred to in the text? ("where they claim he smears anyone") - Djce 21:10, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Frequent targets for parody and satire

I broke this section out, hope everyone is okay with that. It was getting slightly unmanageable, and had the potential for (and was slightly) becoming a huge target for almost infinite growth. More trimming will be needed at some point, because this article is still hugely overlong. Jdcooper 16:04, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Template

Does anyone have the necessary skills (which I quite thoroughly lack) to create a template for the series of Private Eye articles, as we now have quite a few. I was thinking one of those long thin top right ones would be best, a top section for the main article and the long ones that have been split out, then a section listing links to main contributors and a section for the associated miscellanea. Jdcooper 16:29, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

If you give me a link to an article with something similar to what you have in mind, I'm willing to have a bash.TrulyBlue (talk) 16:09, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
A template such as the one at the right hand side of Libertarianism is an option, or the one at the bottom of Radiohead. The former is better for navigating, in my opinion, but the latter allows for more links. Jdcooper (talk) 19:22, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
I've created this template which could go in any PE-related article. I'm a template virgin so I just used the Radiohead format, which needs to be sorted. Was this the kind of thing you had in mind? Comment here or on the template's discussion page - I'll watch both. Cheers. TrulyBlue (talk) 10:53, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

My template has been greeted with resounding silence, so I've added it to the article, in hopes that it will stimulate some debate/improvements. TrulyBlue (talk) 10:17, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, yes, must have missed that. Good work, but is there a precedent for having lists of non-linked items in a template? I thought these sorts of templates were meant purely for navigation between articles, rather than listing other information. (There are a few more articles at Category:Private Eye that could be linked in, anyway.) --McGeddon (talk) 10:50, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi yeah, sorry about that, I've been on a half wiki-break. The format seems fine, but as McGeddon says we should use it to collate the existing articles as a navigation aid. Shouldn't be difficult now we've got the template, good work. Jdcooper (talk) 16:19, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
I've incorporated the articles from the category, if you guys take a look see what you reckon? Someone more knowledgeable than me will have to give some semblance of order to the "important people" section. Jdcooper (talk) 16:39, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Anti-semitism?

The current version of the article claims that "Critics of the magazine have in the past suggested it has an antisemitic tone". To my mind this sounds awfully like weasel words and would seem to require verification or removal. I've been looking for citable references to claims of anti-semitism, but it's hard going. The nearest I've been able to find are:

1. this piece by Richard Ingrams in the Observer in 2003, which was criticised in a blog here as being anti-semitic. Personally I'm not convinced it is anti-semitic, and in any case Richard Ingrams had ceased editing Private Eye 17 years before he wrote this article.

2. this rant against Paul Foot - but, again, not for anything written in Private Eye.

3. this interview where Clive James mentions “a licensed anti-semitism, particularly among the Private Eye crowd.”

(And of course there were the allegations by Robert Maxwell that Private Eye's persecution of him was anti-semitic, but I don't think we need take them very seriously.)

This all seems rather baffling. It's almost as the fact that Private Eye is anti-semitic is received wisdom - whether or not it's true - so much so that it's not even worth remarking on. But it leaves us with an awkward lack of evidence to cite.

Views, anyone? Stewart Robertson (talk) 17:05, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Well researched. Suggested answers:

1. Richard Ingrams has a wikipedia page of his own, so evidence of his political attitudes should appear there, if anywhere.

2. Paul Foot has a wikipedia page of his own, so evidence of his political attitudes should appear there, if anywhere.

3. The Clive James reference does back up the statement that "Critics of the magazine have in the past suggested it has an antisemitic tone", but it's a bit thin. The Robert Maxwell allegations are perhaps worth including, since the statement is that the allegation has been made, and including him helps to counter any belief that the allegation is true.

4. The paragraph in which this sentence appears could with benefit be revised so as to distinguish more clearly between anti-Semitism, for which there is no evidence, and criticism of Israel, which is a perfectly respectable attitude. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 15:18, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Agreed regarding 1., that is more deserving of mention on the Ingrams page. I think we possibly could include 2., given the little sly mention of Private Eye implying that PE is institutionally anti-Semitic, but both 2. and 3. seem to endorse only the "received wisdom" view. While this would be okay for supplementary references, it would be nice to have either something more specific to certain content (like 1. but about the Eye not the Observer) or more explicit (like 2. but about Private Eye not Paul Foot). What form did Maxwell's anti-semitism criticisms take? (I admit to being too young to know about any of this stuff first hand!). I would support a re-writing of the section as well, but I think that is maybe best done when we have some more concrete sources. Jdcooper (talk) 19:35, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
The allegation really is complete cock. If there's one readily discernible thing about Private Eye it's that it despises chauvinistic self-importance, attacking it is a raison d'être. That may explain some of the criticism. Meanwhile to have a heading 'racism' takes the biscuit; the paper frequently mocks right-wing duffers (usually Tories of an old-fashioned kind) who say silly things about foreigners and minorities and gives ample space to allegations of racism made against, for example, the police. But of course the mud is here so here it apparently sticks. Hakluyt bean (talk) 22:38, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Speaking purely personally, old bean, I actually inhale with amazement every time I see they are *still* running a strip called "Snipcock & Tweed". But maybe I'm oversensitive. (By the way, you don't actually work for that weird Hakluyt company, do you? Ooh er...) Testbed (talk) 06:41, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
You're oversensitive. If you're looking for evidence of racism, you'll find it in EUphemisms, unless anti-French racism somehow doesn't count? SamuelTheGhost (talk) 08:16, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Er, anti-French racism doesn't quite count as anti-semitism, which is the heading of this section. Also, how old are you? Maybe you don't remember when Jews were called snipcocks? Or maybe you do and you thought it was just fine. In which case it is hard to take you seriously.
The Eye publishing company's name in the strip is (of course) a play on the large number of post-war British book publishers who were founded by central European Jews fleeing Hitler in partnership with "traditional" (therefore tweedy) Englishmen (e.g. Weidenfeld & Nicholson). Nowadays they all seem to be owned by mid-Atlantic brewers or Rupert Murdoch, so the joke also seems well out of date apart from anything else. IMHO. Testbed (talk) 14:47, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
P.S. As Wikipedia editors like things which they can find online, here's a reference: [1] Testbed (talk) 17:29, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Authorship of "Letter from ..."

Does anyone have any information on the authorship of the "Letter from ... " column? The letters are obviously, on stylistic grounds, all written by the same rather sour individual, but it would be really good to have direct evidence of that, and to expose who he is. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 12:06, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think they are all written by the same person, as they frequently use phrases like "our President" or whatever, no matter what country they're written from. Robin Johnson (talk) 15:26, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I hope you're not offended if I suggest that you are being a tiny bit naive about this. I'm aware that the letters are written in a way that purports to be from a resident of each of the countries in question. I'm saying that this is just a pretence. Otherwise we are being asked to believe that Private Eye has many dozens of correspondents all over the world, all anonymous, all with exactly the same prose syle and political viewpoint. I find that quite impossible to believe, so, to put it more bluntly, I think that in this matter Private Eye are being rather dishonest. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 18:50, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

You say it would be "good to expose who he is", but Wikipedia is not Private Eye! If we have a reliable secondary source to say who actually does write it (for the record i do agree with your reasoning about a single author) then by all means add it in, but there is surely enough existing information to collate to keep us busy without trying to create more? I think the "allegedly" clause there at the moment is fine for the time being. Jdcooper (talk) 04:00, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Small point, but 'alledgedly' implies that someone has alleged that the columns are written by natives, whereas I think 'purporting to be written by ...' would be a better way of putting it - i.e. that they are written as if by a native, regardles of their actual provenance. If anyone agrees, please do make the change. TrulyBlue (talk) 14:09, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
I would also point out that it is not uncommon for columns to be edited to conform to a particular style and political viewpoint even if the original authors are different each column. In this way, a 'house style' can be developed for the column. This is especially true in the case of columns with pseudonymous authors (where a number of different people might write under the same pseudonym); but there is no way to rule out that it is not the case here. Possibly, the reality is neither one extreme (one author) nor the other (a different author each time), but a combination of the two; with a 'primary' author who might write some columns and edit others from other journalists to conform to a house style. In any case, as JDCooper says we have no reliable sources on this and so nothing to put in the article. -- simxp (talk) 08:54, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merging Prime Minister parodies

I split out the bit here about Prime Minister parodies to Prime Minister parodies (Private Eye), because this article is still too long, and as it stood the information was triplicated (here, List of people and organisations frequently parodied by Private Eye and on separate pages). To what extent does anyone think the existing articles should be merged into the new article? I'm about to put the stuff on the frequent parodies article into the new Prime Minister parodies article, but should we leave the other articles? I guess there is a fair amount of information about Dear Bill and St Albion Parish News, which could justify separate articles but it would also be nice to have all the info in the same place, and the amount of information isn't that huge. What does anyone else reckon? Jdcooper (talk) 19:18, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

  • I've done Mrs Wilson's Diary as well, since the info there was scant, and looking at it, St Albion and Dear Bill aren't as justified as separate articles after all, both of them contain long passages about Prime Minister parodies in general which are probably better kept in the parent article, and beyond that only have about as much info as Mrs Wilson's Diary.
  • In addition, could someone/anyone have a look/rewrite at my introduction to that article, its horribly garbled! Jdcooper (talk) 19:49, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rotten Boroughs

  • This column doesn't really merit its own article; it is a minor column tucked away fairly far into the magazine and is on no higher footing than any other regular news column. To have a separate article for this would mean that HP Sauce, Down on the Farm and Funny Old World also merit an article, which they certainly don't. This is evidenced by the fact that when the article existed previously it remained for ages and accumulated nothing but endless examples, which as well as adding no informational or encyclopaedic value, also pretty much constituted copyright violation. I've changed that article into a redirect to Rotten borough (which seems far more sensible to me) and reverted here. Jdcooper (talk) 20:32, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Newspaper parodies

This section is very long, and is essentially just a list of frequent jokes in the back half of the magazine, most of which are already covered in the broken out articles. I propose that this section is the next to be broken out, since the article as a whole is still overlong. Does anyone object to this at all? Jdcooper (talk) 12:14, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Still being sued?

The article states that the magazine "is sued for libel on a regular basis", before noting this is not quite as common as it was due to the precautions/alternative resolutions. Is it even true to say that it is often being sued as of 2008? I can't think of any publicised cases, successful or not.Billwilson5060 (talk) 13:04, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Page move

Hi, regarding the page move, please see here for my motivations (the article currently at Private eye (disambiguation) was previously at Private eye. Whether or not this proposal ends up getting adopted or not, its logic is correct. Either way, it is fairly clear that, for most people in the world, "Private eye" doesn't necessarily mean "Private eye magazine", and while I imagine the "Private investigator" article title was presumed to solve that dichotomy, there were still a fair number of articles pointing both here and to Private eye that did not mean the magazine. I realise that there are now many articles which reach this article via a redirect page, and I will fix them (eventually), but redirection in itself is no evil. After all the fixes are made, Private Eye can be redirected to Private Eye (disambiguation) rather than Private Eye (magazine), though I have left it for the moment, pending clean-up, to avoid wholescale disruption. Jdcooper (talk) 14:47, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Richard Ingrams still at the Eye

I notice that some discussion on this page mistakenly assumes Richard Ingrams has nothing to do with the Eye any more ("hasn't edited for years" etc). Indeed the Ingrams biographical page made the same mistake. So I have just updated Richard Ingrams with the words (and reference):

He is still Chairman of Private Eye, working there every Monday (see the Richard Ingrams interview, Press Gazette 15th December 2005 [2]). Testbed (talk) 17:42, 27 April 2008 (UTC)