Talk:Recurring in-jokes in Private Eye

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] "The Eton of the West Midlands"

"The school is sometimes referred to as "the Eton of the West Midlands", the joke being that the West Midlands are not regarded as a place where such a school is likely to be located." Must be news to Rugby... — iridescent (talk to me!) 16:26, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

• Yeah, that bit could probably be worded better, I'll have a go. Jdcooper 16:42, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tired and Emotional

Under "Tired and Emotional" it is said a trio of Labour MPs including Bevan & Crossman sucessfully sued the "Spectator". Has the name of the third member of the trio been lost?? Hugo999 (talk) 12:29, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

• I'm sure it can be found somewhere. I'll have a look see. Jdcooper (talk) 15:39, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
• Sorted. Jdcooper (talk) 15:43, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Excessive detail and factual inaccuracies

Some of the recent expansions to some of the sections here have, in my opinion, excessive detail, examples of use and information, given the fact that we have wikilinks to further information on most of the events and people mentioned. I'll list some of the ones I mean here to illustrate:

- "The saying is often wrongly attributed to the antics of a female Cabinet minister in Idi Amin's government, who was caught having sex in a public lavatory at Heathrow Airport." - This needs a source, both for the statement that it is "often wrongly attributed" to this event, and to the event itself happening. If it is not often wrongly attributed to this event, then we need not include it at all, seeing as the real source of the phrase is already referenced.

- "The euphemism is spread further, for example, before his marriage a senior member of the Royal family allegedly went on holiday with an ageing ex-Page Three girl, whereupon Private Eye reported he had contracted a "Ugandan virus". - If we are going to include examples, we should probably make them less vague than this, it doesn't serve too well as an illustration.

- "In 1996, "Getting Back to Basics" was suggested as a replacement euphemism after the policy of that name adopted by John Major's government in an attempt to refute public perception of the party as riddled with financial and sexual impropriety (it later emerged that Major himself was having an affair at the time with his colleague Edwina Currie)." - The Back to Basics campaign was a set of social policies designed to refocus British life on the family unit and traditional social practices, which was only undermined afterwards when it emerged that they were all massive hypocrites. I'm going to change this back now, unless anyone wants to bring it back here for discussion.

- "Arkell v. Pressdram is a swift rebuttal of an allegation or accusation made without merit." - I was of the understanding that referring to this specific case was a reference to obscenity in print, if I'm not mistaken that's how it is presented in the main Private Eye article. Even if I'm mistaken, as it stands it requires some clarification.

- The section about Bufton Tufton contains some fairly blatant opinion prose about the Monday Club characters, and while they weren't particularly nice men, we owe it to wikipedia to keep it objective.

- "This is a reference both to castration (hence the word "knackered")" - Is this right? I understand that PE puns often work on several levels, but failing a source I don't think this is something we can safely say without drifting into Original research.

- "and also to policemen in British crime fiction of a certain era who were usually called "x of the Yard". The inspiration was Jack Slipper, the former senior Metropolitan Police officer responsible for the arrest of the Great Train Robbery gang in 1963 who was given the moniker "Slipper of the Yard" by the popular press." - I think we have gone into extraneous detail here, both regarding "x of the yard" and Slipper himself. They can follow links if they want to know more about Slipper, and since we've already mentioned Slipper's nickname, the stuff about crime fiction is largely redundant, IMHO.

- Re: Mr Justice Cocklecarrot, some bits of this feel slighly patronising to the readers, and I feel we could be slightly more concise here, but its not the end of the world, excepting the odd word of opinion or floral language.

- "by threatening to "go to the family solicitors, Rue, Grabbit and Son" (he was aggrieved at the implication that he was a homosexual)" - Was he really aggrieved? Notwithstanding the fact that he is actually gay, would he really have joked thus if he was aggrieved?

- "In addition to the photography, the Eye also frequently refers to Neil as "Neill", because it annoys him." - I was reading somewhere that the reason for that specific mis-spelling was to do with the unusual double-L in Pamella Bordes' name. Obviously this would need a source, and given the nature of such a claim I'm not overly hopeful of finding one, but we would also need a source to say that it annoys him.

- "It is believed that the reference "94" was originally to Haydn's Symphony 94, the "Surprise" and made by Richard Ingrams, a known music-lover and brother of Leonard Ingrams, founder of Garsington Opera." - Believed by who? This seems to me like unfeasible conjecture; the number 94 could have come from anywhere, and one of the Eye staff has, I'm fairly certain, been quoted on the "generic boringly large number" explanation.

I will change some of the non-controversial things now, but does anyone have any thoughts on any of these passages? Jdcooper (talk) 16:13, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

• I have lined out the ones that I have changed already, for ease. Jdcooper (talk) 16:28, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Andrew Neil was called "Neill" long before Pamella Bordes appeared on the scene - he was Editor of the Sunday Times and already in the frame as a Private Eye target as a successful high-flying journalist - and at the time it did annoy him. As I recall it was a reference to "Brillo pad". Arkell v Pressdram came about when Arkell wrote to Private Eye threatening to sue if allegations were not withdrawn and an apology published, to which the magazine replied "Fuck off". No further correspondence was received. Hence the reply in Arkell v Pressdram is primarily a rebuttal of an accusation or allegation made without merit. If you remove the explanation of Sir Bufton Tufton, then there is very little point in having this section at all. It is the prime function of an encyclopaedia to provide detail, all in one place, else again, why bother? Why not just list biographies, newspaper articles and radio/television programmes instead? Indeed Danny La Rue was annoyed: he had not been "outed", and at the time being known as a homosexual was regarded as career disaster - look at all the fuss over allegations constantly being made about Cliff Richard's sexuality. Anyway, who said he was joking? It was more likely a misquote of the kind that the magazine always seizes upon avidly. The reference to "Slipper of the Yard" is totally relevant, as the events happened 45 years ago, times have changed so much that a full explanation is required. You have not indicated why "94" is the "generic boringly large number" selected, nor indicated which of the Eye staff proffered this explanation, let alone whether s/he was on the staff at the time and party to the decision. The fact that you are not aware of what went on in the magazine earlier on in its history does not give you licence to make such drastic and heavy-handed cuts and alterations to the article. The whole suite of Private Eye articles has many flaws and infelicities, but these are not among them. Guy (talk) 00:13, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I specifically did not change the areas of whose accuracy I was unsure, only those I knew to be wrong, asking rather for clarification on the former. In response to your response:

The place I had read that the double-L was a reference to Bordes was on Andrew Neil's wikipedia page. The information there is also unsourced, however, so although I cede to you, as someone who actually knows, in terms of truth, I cannot cede in terms of verifiability. You refer to me as someone "not aware of what went on in the magazine earlier on its history", and it is precisely for people like me, who don't know, but want to know, that all our information must be sourced. It is at least feasible, given the nature of the magazine, that either reason could be true or that both could be apocryphal. I doubt our chances of ever finding a definitive source of which is true, but in that case we cannot include either, per WP:V.

Similarly re: Arkell vs. Pressdram, the following appears in the parent Private Eye article: An unlikely piece of British legal history occurred in the case Arkell v. Pressdram. The plaintiff was the subject of an article relating to illicit payments, and the magazine had ample evidence to back up the article. Arkell's lawyers wrote a letter in which, unusually, they said: "Our client's attitude to damages will depend on the nature of your reply". The response consisted, in part, of the following: "We would be interested to know what your client's attitude to damages would be if the nature of our reply were as follows : Fuck off". This caused a stir in certain quarters. In the years following, the magazine would use this case as a euphemism for an obscene reply: In subsequent cases, instead of using the obscenity, Private Eye (and others) would say something like "We refer you to the reply given in the case of Arkell v Pressdram", or perhaps "His reply was similar to that given to the plaintiff in Arkell v. Pressdram ". The meaning of the phrase given here, as a euphemism for an obscene reply, is not mutually exclusive with your suggested meaning, but does give more context and detail. Again, a source would clear the whole issue up.

Which part of the explanation of Bufton Tufton did I remove? I made pains to keep the sense of the passage while removing references to things such as Gerald Nabarro's "oafishness", which is not encyclopaedic in style or content. If you have any issues with the text as it stands please mention them specifically and we can discuss them further. In general though, readers searching for greater detail regarding Tufton Beamish, or whoever, can always follow the blue link, otherwise parent articles ramble off-point in a chaos of subordinate clauses and parentheses.

Re: Danny La Rue, I guess I just assumed that anybody using a pun in their response would be in some way un-serious, but fair enough, I'm happy with that part as it is.

Re: "knacker of the yard", my point is that surely Slipper was by far the most famous of the "x of the yard" types, and by referring to him and the media's nickname for him we could dock the nickname in the real world, rather than crime fiction. I grant, though, that this is not an actual problem. What is more of concern to me is characterising "Knacker of the Yard" as a reference to castration rather than the policemen being out-of-touch and unfit for purpose. Not only would the latter explanation make more sense, with regards to the Eye's coverage of policemen and policing, but is by far a more standard use of the term.

I could not find a non-mirror source for the term "generic, boringly-large number", which leads me to believe that it was probably the license of some mystery wikipedian. At the same time, an explanation of its origin such as the Haydn one needs some kind of source, or it is again in violation of WP:V.

Aside from all that, please trust me when I say I have no interest in pre-discussion drastic and heavy-handed cuts on information that I have no better suggestion for. Jdcooper (talk) 14:17, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. Re. "Knacker" - this goes right back to the earliest days of the magazine. The "of the Yard" part would have come first, as fictional British police heroes in books, magazines (much more influential in popular culture then than now), in films, radio/television, comics even, were all "of the Yard" or "of Scotland Yard" (apart from Dixon of Dock Green - and that was part of the image of the police that the magazine was seeking to ridicule). It is then a short step to "Knacker" and the connotations of being broken-down and past it and impotent (due to castration - "knackers" is a synonym for "testicles" in some parts of the country). Slipper was not the first to be "of the Yard", the popular press coined this nickname in reference to an existing popular fictional character (research needed - possibly it was Gideon, possibly a creation of Edgar Wallace, Dorothy L. Sayers, A.A. Milne or somebody like that). Regarding "Ugandan discussions", the magazine has itself commented upon the mis-attribution more than once, which is made in a published book similar to Bewer's as well as having appeared in the press. The lady whose alleged misconduct gave rise to the mis-attribution was Foreign Minister in Idi Amin's government, and it happened at Heathrow Airport while she was in transit between Kampala and London. The story splashed in the popular press, as in those days, though overtly racist reporting and comedy were markedly in decline, Idi Amin was still fair game, and this story further ridiculed him and his government. Other articles in Wikipedia are not reliable as sources in this area. I have made that point before - part of the problem of the suite of Private Eye articles is that in order to correct them you would have to correct and expand lots of other articles to which they refer, look at the article on Mohammad Fayed for example, to say nothing of Jim Slater, who was frequently mentioned in the magazine in the late 60s and early 70s. The biggest problem is Wikipedia's own attitude to the use of cuttings, which is out of synch with the publishing world in general. The best way to resolve differences in interpretation is to post the cutting and let the reader decide, which I have done before, but the Wikipedia hierarchy has deleted the cutting. This is a side issue to the matter of which Jimmy Wales has been accused - tailoring Wikipedia entries to suit powerful and influential interests (and the similar activities of corporate PR departments and operators working on behalf of individuals to enhance their principals). However, cuttings is the real issue - if one had all the magazines to hand (now 1,206 of them), a scanner and permission to use cuttings, then there is much room to improve the articles, but it would be greatly time-consuming and probably not really worth the effort. Perhaps subtle changes in wording are in order - I am prepared to accept that for some people "right-wing" is not necessarily synonymous with "oafish". :-) Guy (talk) 16:38, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I have altered the wording slightly on the knacker bit to (attempt to) take into account all the levels of the pun. I feel rather like I am sucking the fun out of the joke/the magazine/life often when editing these articles, but hopefully its now acceptable to all. Regarding the Uganda bit, I am familiar with this problem. On the Peaches Geldof article, it is thoroughly sourced throughout the internet and the printed press that her name is what is written there, but it has emerged, or at least been alleged, that the original source for that information was vandalism to wikipedia itself, which was then copied by lazy reporters at, amongst other places, The Daily Mail. Relating that to here, if I understand you and the article properly there are two conflicting origins, one of which is wrong but has been mis-attributed in a "reliable source". Do you know the issue number in which the Eye refuted the alternate origin? Which origin is the real one? Jdcooper (talk) 18:16, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

No doubt that the Private Eye source is the correct one. Private Eye is a difficult source to scour for references, as it is not indexed, neither is it online. The publishers have a problem with putting it online, as many articles have been the subject of legal proceedings, and as they do not keep a list of these articles, they do not wish to run the risk of getting sued all over again. The other issue is that the suite of Wikipedia articles is far more extensive than their status in the order of things merits - like those programmes on Sunday morning television where people sit on a sofa reading out of newspapers, if you were that interested you would buy the paper and read it for yourself. Repeating in-jokes and explaining them to outsiders is a futile pastime - they cease to be either "in" or "jokes" - especially when the explanation is lengthier than the original comment. When the in-joke is used somewhere else totally unconnected and picked up by different readers with no inkling of the original source (like the use of the expression "Ugandan discussions" in popular media) then waters are muddied even further. This article is misleading too - it is headed "List of", when really it is not a list and therefore should be headed "Recurring phrases and "in-jokes" in Private Eye". Guy (talk) 18:45, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree, and have moved the article accordingly. So, just to clarify, which event first gave rise to the term Ugandan discussions, and was it the one listed in the article as correct (with the Brewer source)? Jdcooper (talk) 18:52, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I am researching alternative sources claimed for the expression "Ugandan discussions". Private Eye is the real source, and the origins are as stated in this article (behaviour of guests at a party). However, it has found its way into at least one book of quotes with the source mis-attributed (not necessarily Brewer's - I have to check that one out, which involves finding and looking at earlier editions of the book). I think that the original mis-attribution was made in an article in an authoritative newspaper or magazine (minister caught in flagrante), which then found its way into reference sources. I have looked back through the suite of articles, to assess how they fit together, and it is not good. Starting from the premise that the bulk is out of all proportion to the subject matter (compare with The Economist, The Spectator, New Statesman, even Punch), it is chaotic. Starting with the disambiguation. Private eye is a disambig, Private Eye is not. Both ought to link to the same article, and Private Eye (magazine) ought to link to a further disambig listing out the whole suite of articles. However, the task of revision is too big for just thee and me, it needs a "Private Eye" project group to agree on what needs to be there, how to divide it up into articles and how to cross-refer the articles. Guy (talk) 16:50, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I have been trying periodically to form such a group on Talk:Private Eye, and there are a handful of others who seem somewhat interested in Private Eye articles. I have been splitting out the most obviously splittable sections from Private Eye every now and again for a while now, due to the drastic over-length that the article had originally, but I agree that the suite as a whole could do with a re-evaluation and re-structure. In which case should we move this conversation to Talk:Private Eye? Jdcooper (talk) 17:44, 31 March 2008 (UTC)