This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Simon Hoggart article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
What distinguishes Private Eye from the tabloids is that it doesn't break sex scandals, but will cover those already reported. I hope that Wikipedia will do the same. Talking of Private Eye, it reported that Simon Hoggart escaped Angus Deaton's fate (being mercilessly mocked about an affair on a topical comedy quiz show that he chaired) by putting his family in the audience. Should there be some mention of this? Tim Ivorson 08:37, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
Wikipedia's arbitration list is backed up, and shouldn't be necessary when the guideline is already in place: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons Biographies of living persons (BLPs) must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid; it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. An important rule of thumb when writing biographical material about living persons is "do no harm". Flatterworld ( talk) 18:01, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Message left on Flatterworld's talkpage after this revert :"I'm not clear what your thinking was when you reverted my recent edits, but you removed an important citation from a reliable source, and you undid some WP:MOS guideline amendments. I suspect that you have some issue with the inclusion of the factual detail that "In December 2004 he confessed that he was the "third man" in the Kimberly Quinn affair[1] - the political sex scandal that contributed to David Blunkett's resignation." This is not a fact that is open to debate. Simon Hoggart gave out this information himself in the reference from the Newspaper of record Telegraph, as given in the cite: [1]. In building an article on Wikipedia we strive to give a full, balanced and unbiased view with all the facts. We do not blackened someone's name with slurs from their private life, but a public revelation of that importance, which the subject of the article has given himself, has to go into the article to make sense of a newspaper report like this, in which he is referred to as "the third man". By not including that detail we would be whitewashing that incident, which would be a POV activity which is against one of the very few official policies we have on Wikipedia: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. If you have any issues regarding this then you may discuss it with me, or you may take the matter up with any of the dispute resolution methods we have on Wikipedia. Wikipedia:Editor assistance or Wikipedia:Third opinion are good starting places. I will copy this to the Simon Hoggart talkpage as a matter of record. Please do not remove the third man material from the article or revert my edit until you have discussed it with someone else. Regards" SilkTork * YES! 18:52, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
What discussions have you been through - the only discussions I can see have been in favour of keeping the material in the article. It would be interesting to see the consensus on this. Regards SilkTork * YES! 18:21, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
I can understand why the details of the Hoggart-Kimberley Quinn affair are in the public interest, and it's already been exhaustively detailed in the public domain. But do we really need to give so much detail about his children? Surely it's enough to say that he has two children, and maybe to add that they're of university age? I certainly don't think it's in the public interest, or that there's anything to be gained, by adding their names, university courses, and extra-curricular interests, and I'd feel a bit more comfortable if these were removed. Any thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Debonairchap ( talk • contribs) 14:03, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
I have been asked by SilkTork to clarify my involvement. In my understanding the case wasn't mediated because Philip Cross stopped editing the article. My view is that according to the Biographies of living persons policy, we should "insist on reliable third-party published sources and a clear demonstration of relevance to the person's notability." While I accept The Daily Telegraph is a reliable third-party published source, in my opinion there isn't a clear demonstration of relevance to the person's notability. However, there is a clear demonstration to Kimberly Quinn's notability, so the content should be included in the Kimberly Quinn article, but not this article. PhilKnight ( talk) 01:23, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
References
I've asked WikiProject Biography for advice: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Biography#Simon_Hoggart SilkTork * YES! 10:45, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
There is a dispute about the inclusion of a sentence related to Hoggart's involvement in the Kimberly Quinn affair. Full details to the background to this dispute and steps taken so far can be read at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Biography#Simon_Hoggart. SilkTork * YES! 14:52, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Flatterworld, I think you should check who exactly you are accusing of not knowing about Wikipedia dispute resolution procedures. In this case, where BLP is not brought in (because the content is adequately sourced and neutrally phrased), the governing principle is consensus and I see no-one supporting your view that any and all mentions of Simon Hoggart's statement of December 2004 should be removed from the article. Sam Blacketer ( talk) 16:14, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Reading back on what I previously commented to Flatterworld, it seemed to me that he might reasonably interpret a challenge to state objections as coming over as slghtly passive aggressive. As it is for the people arguing for inclusion to make the case for disputed content, here is the case as I see it.
One final thing to mention is that I overstated the link to the News Quiz earlier; the affair was revealed in December 2004 and Hoggart left the News Quiz in summer 2006, so that was 18 months after rather than the next series. However, it remains true that some comment linked the two, and that there was some comment comparing Hoggart's treatment on the first News Quiz recorded after the revalation to that endured by Angus Deayton on Have I Got News For You after the stories about him. Sam Blacketer ( talk) 20:21, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
I didn't want to stir things up all over again but it seemed to me that the really significant thing about Hoggart's involvement in the Quinn affair was his initial dishonesty about it, so I've slightly amended the mention of it to reflect this. Alistair Stevenson ( talk) 20:44, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
I note that in 2005 he promised to write about his affair with Quinn.
Did he ever do so? BrainyBabe ( talk) 02:05, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
References
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Simon Hoggart. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{ Sourcecheck}}).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 09:15, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Simon Hoggart. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 19:01, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Simon Hoggart article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
What distinguishes Private Eye from the tabloids is that it doesn't break sex scandals, but will cover those already reported. I hope that Wikipedia will do the same. Talking of Private Eye, it reported that Simon Hoggart escaped Angus Deaton's fate (being mercilessly mocked about an affair on a topical comedy quiz show that he chaired) by putting his family in the audience. Should there be some mention of this? Tim Ivorson 08:37, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
Wikipedia's arbitration list is backed up, and shouldn't be necessary when the guideline is already in place: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons Biographies of living persons (BLPs) must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid; it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. An important rule of thumb when writing biographical material about living persons is "do no harm". Flatterworld ( talk) 18:01, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Message left on Flatterworld's talkpage after this revert :"I'm not clear what your thinking was when you reverted my recent edits, but you removed an important citation from a reliable source, and you undid some WP:MOS guideline amendments. I suspect that you have some issue with the inclusion of the factual detail that "In December 2004 he confessed that he was the "third man" in the Kimberly Quinn affair[1] - the political sex scandal that contributed to David Blunkett's resignation." This is not a fact that is open to debate. Simon Hoggart gave out this information himself in the reference from the Newspaper of record Telegraph, as given in the cite: [1]. In building an article on Wikipedia we strive to give a full, balanced and unbiased view with all the facts. We do not blackened someone's name with slurs from their private life, but a public revelation of that importance, which the subject of the article has given himself, has to go into the article to make sense of a newspaper report like this, in which he is referred to as "the third man". By not including that detail we would be whitewashing that incident, which would be a POV activity which is against one of the very few official policies we have on Wikipedia: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. If you have any issues regarding this then you may discuss it with me, or you may take the matter up with any of the dispute resolution methods we have on Wikipedia. Wikipedia:Editor assistance or Wikipedia:Third opinion are good starting places. I will copy this to the Simon Hoggart talkpage as a matter of record. Please do not remove the third man material from the article or revert my edit until you have discussed it with someone else. Regards" SilkTork * YES! 18:52, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
What discussions have you been through - the only discussions I can see have been in favour of keeping the material in the article. It would be interesting to see the consensus on this. Regards SilkTork * YES! 18:21, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
I can understand why the details of the Hoggart-Kimberley Quinn affair are in the public interest, and it's already been exhaustively detailed in the public domain. But do we really need to give so much detail about his children? Surely it's enough to say that he has two children, and maybe to add that they're of university age? I certainly don't think it's in the public interest, or that there's anything to be gained, by adding their names, university courses, and extra-curricular interests, and I'd feel a bit more comfortable if these were removed. Any thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Debonairchap ( talk • contribs) 14:03, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
I have been asked by SilkTork to clarify my involvement. In my understanding the case wasn't mediated because Philip Cross stopped editing the article. My view is that according to the Biographies of living persons policy, we should "insist on reliable third-party published sources and a clear demonstration of relevance to the person's notability." While I accept The Daily Telegraph is a reliable third-party published source, in my opinion there isn't a clear demonstration of relevance to the person's notability. However, there is a clear demonstration to Kimberly Quinn's notability, so the content should be included in the Kimberly Quinn article, but not this article. PhilKnight ( talk) 01:23, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
References
I've asked WikiProject Biography for advice: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Biography#Simon_Hoggart SilkTork * YES! 10:45, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
There is a dispute about the inclusion of a sentence related to Hoggart's involvement in the Kimberly Quinn affair. Full details to the background to this dispute and steps taken so far can be read at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Biography#Simon_Hoggart. SilkTork * YES! 14:52, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Flatterworld, I think you should check who exactly you are accusing of not knowing about Wikipedia dispute resolution procedures. In this case, where BLP is not brought in (because the content is adequately sourced and neutrally phrased), the governing principle is consensus and I see no-one supporting your view that any and all mentions of Simon Hoggart's statement of December 2004 should be removed from the article. Sam Blacketer ( talk) 16:14, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Reading back on what I previously commented to Flatterworld, it seemed to me that he might reasonably interpret a challenge to state objections as coming over as slghtly passive aggressive. As it is for the people arguing for inclusion to make the case for disputed content, here is the case as I see it.
One final thing to mention is that I overstated the link to the News Quiz earlier; the affair was revealed in December 2004 and Hoggart left the News Quiz in summer 2006, so that was 18 months after rather than the next series. However, it remains true that some comment linked the two, and that there was some comment comparing Hoggart's treatment on the first News Quiz recorded after the revalation to that endured by Angus Deayton on Have I Got News For You after the stories about him. Sam Blacketer ( talk) 20:21, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
I didn't want to stir things up all over again but it seemed to me that the really significant thing about Hoggart's involvement in the Quinn affair was his initial dishonesty about it, so I've slightly amended the mention of it to reflect this. Alistair Stevenson ( talk) 20:44, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
I note that in 2005 he promised to write about his affair with Quinn.
Did he ever do so? BrainyBabe ( talk) 02:05, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
References
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Simon Hoggart. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{ Sourcecheck}}).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 09:15, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Simon Hoggart. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 19:01, 9 November 2016 (UTC)