Talk:Private Eye/Archive 1

message: Updated according to lots of into from The Private Eye Story. This book is around 20 years old now but I was careful not to include any info which is clearly out of date. Keir 20:42, 30 Nov 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: I've cleaned the above unsigned comment up a bit - can anyone confim, though? Stephenb (Talk) 13:59, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The Private Eye Story

message: I don't know if anyone wants to do anything with this, but "Ugandan relations" was originally "talking about Uganda": one female Ugandan diplomat's explanation some time in the mid-1970s of what she was doing with a man in an airplane lavatory. And, speaking of potentially confusing inside jokes, what about "Baillie Vass" for Lord Home (or is that too long ago to matter)? In any case, it might be worth adding a list of Private Eye's names for the various UK papers. "The Grauniad" has passed into the language, I suppose, but the "Daily Getsworse" deserves a gloss. It seems to me that this article could include (or be supplemented by) a useful reference for those trying to decipher Private Eye without reading it regularly. I don't sound too much like a retired military officer writing to The Times, but I don't want to wade into editing this particular article. -- Jmabel 08:16, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: Uganda

message: There is a quote in the Criticism section: "And first they visited upon the city of Jen-in in a terribel plague of fire and brimstone, so that many of the Araf-ites and Hamas-ites were slain, even men, women and children". I don't know if the "terribel" typo is intentional, if so perhaps it should be marked if so (with "[sic]" or something).
:Well spotted. My typo. Fixed. –Hajor
I've never seen anything anti-semetic in the Eye or anything which could be construed that way - as far as I can tell they make fun of anyone and everyone. OK, there's the KJV thing, but it's making fun of the whole Middle Eastern thing, not a particular religion. If Private Eye was anti-semitic I wouldn't read it, and it isn't, it's just funny. 
Also, maybe I've missed it but shouldn't this article have something about Pseuds Corner and the way the magazine prints all the misprints and "boobs" and stuff in the papers (I've actually got a book of these - i know, i know...) XYaAsehShalomX 20:12, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Pseuds Corner is already mentioned. Stephenb (Talk) 10:40, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Show me a gentile in the media industry who has not been accused of anti-semitism by Miller.  He's made a career of it. 86.7.208.240 00:51, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

text: It's the usual thing in my opinion: Private Eye satirises, attacks and/or ridicules pretty much everything.  Unfortunately however some members of society kick up more of a fuss than others, and some targets are less acceptable than most.  The magazine has always poked fun at religion, and in recent years has been less than complimentary to Islam (have you read any issue of the last five years?).  But of course attacking Judaism or Zionism is more serious, and it is that aspect on which most critics focus.  It's the good old false dichotomy of "you either support Israel or are a Nazi anti-semite" bullsh*t. Indeed, I'm always amazed when subsribers write in complaining about a particular aspect of PEs coverage, claiming they'll cancel.  Again, PE attacks pretty much everything: some people enjoy it only until something they like is the target and all of a sudden they're holier-than-thou even though they sniggered at the risky and possibly offensive content last issue.  Just see the Diana death coverage for example. What's good for the goose... 86.7.208.240 22:45, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  About Criticism 

message: I maybe wrong but doesn't Sindie refer to the Independent on Sunday, not the Independent itself. I presume it is also a play on the Sindy doll. Secretlondon 00:10, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right, I've fixed it. -- Avaragado 09:53, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Sindie

message: Likewise, I can't see 'The Curse of Gnome' listed.  I'll leave someone with better words than me to add it.
*I did add a brief description a while ago to the article on Lord Gnome which simply said the following:
The Eye also carries an occasional column called the 'curse of Gnome' which chronicles the subsequent misfortunes of those who have in the past taken legal action against the publication.
Luke Parks 22:20, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nit-Picking, Really 

message: I'd always been under the impression that the "anonymous asian female" in those photos was none other than Ms Dynamite, the RnB performer. Can anybody substantiate this?
No its most definately not Ms Dynamite-tee-hee.
I'm pretty sure that this is wrong: "The Eye frequently refers to Neil as "Neill", inspired by the unusual spelling of Pamella Bordes' name."
I have read (must find source) that the Eye spells his name wrongly because it annoys him. --Cunningham 17:39, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Andrew Neil

message: Ugandan Discussions did, indeed, become part of the language for more than two decades, but it's still not clear that the woman concerned was not telling the truth.
The background to the incident in the plane was the dictator, Idi Amin. He ruthlessly executed, tortured or simply imprisoned all who showed opposition to his rule, and anybody who was in any way critical of him was likely to receive the same treatment. Even occasional attempts at flattery could be mis-interpreted as insurrection, with cruel punishment the result.
So it is perfectly feasible that if someone (the woman was, I believe, a suspected dissident) wanted to discuss his rule in an airplane, they would seek more privacy than you can find in the public seating area. That doesn't mean they were not having sex! - but it does mean that she would have seen the excuse as plausible, not risible.
I discovered this entry while trying to find out where Ugandan Internet cafes are located - specifically, http://www.newswireless.net/index.cfm/article/2308 wireless hotspots. 
Intriguingly, I had no success. Amin, it may be remembered, purged Uganda of all its Asian citizens at the time, and most of them came to Britain. A great many Internet Cafes, in the UK, are owned by ethnic Asians... coincidence?
--Guy Kewney 10:33, 05 Jul 2005
:The story I remember involved a British journalist and an African diplomat at a party in London, not on an aircraft.  As described in the article, in fact.  If I recall correctly the diplomat was not himself Ugandan, and had a reputation for inviting attractive young journalists to discuss African politics with him in private.  There's an alternative explanation I found on the web about Idi Amin accusing one of his ministers of having had illicit sex in a cupboard, but it doesn't seem plausible to me. --Andrew Norman 5 July 2005 11:47 (UTC)
::A post to alt.usage.english a few years back provides more context: ; this roughly coincides with the story as I recall it. I vaguely recall a gloss mentioned by the Eye once, which was the "incident at party" explanation. Shimgray 5 July 2005 14:06 (UTC)
As a very long-time reader of the Eye, I'm absolutely certain that the London party version is correct (at the BBC, I believe). The original quote was "We were discussing Uganda". The airplane story might have come about (or been invented) because Idi Amin actually did divorce a wife for shagging an englishman in a toilet at Orly airport. That's today's juicy gossip for you...
El Ingles 19:42, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Idi Amin, and privacy 

message: Should this be linked somewhere? Maybe it's just the Hislop thing, but I always get the idea it's (or was) an on-screen continuation of Private Eye.
I don't agree. It is indeed "just the Hislop thing" and also the fact that they make fun of people in current affairs, but they aren't unique in that. Many national newspapers, for example, carry cartoons and articles satirising people in the news. GeraldH 10:00, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Have I Got News For You

message: Am pretty sure it should be Daily Mail, but an edit earlier by User:Tasc switched it to the Mirror  - I've asked the contributer to clarify this change. --Oscarthecat 22:34, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Contributor has replied "most probably just a mechanical mistake. sorry.". I also am pretty sure the the parody is of the Mail. I'll wait till the morning before reverting (unless someone else does or contributor responds). (Am not competent right now.) --A bit iffy 22:56, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Now resolved, it's the Mail, bless 'em and their house price obsessions. --Oscarthecat 20:39, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mirror obsession with house prices 

message: About the Jonathan Miller quote (or is it two separate quotes); it seems self-contradictory. If you don't have a point of view I'm not sure you can have as decided a point of view as the one suggested.  I'm aware Mr Miller is a smart man and maybe it's consistent to him, or maybe he's remembering his own schooldays, I don't know.  Anyway it's not clear to me that he's characterising the magazine rather than English public schoolboys of the period.  
Also re the Hirohito cartoon, it is indeed deplorable by modern tastes, but it is now over 30 years old and attacks a wartime enemy and that country's wartime leader at a time when the war was very much remembered, indeed it appeared at a time when there were demonstrations in the UK denouncing that leader as a war criminal.  So I think a little context is lacking in the article.  A reader of the modern magazine would soon discover that police or other official racism is given the same 'wet towel' treatment as other (not always) defenceless targets.
And back to Miller, is the 'point of view' charge an extract from the same letter that reportedly hung framed on a wall behind the editor's desk, the one that began: "You stupid irresponsible C***S" ?  
Maybe that would be a better starting point(?)  Seems to better reflect the kind of criticism the magazine gets from those (many and various people) it offends.
Hakluyt bean 17:20, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism? 

message: Don't suppose anyone can shed light on Capitaine and Sous-Fifre? Anyone with a lot of back issues able to tell when the messages started appearing? 172.213.227.225 01:08, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Classifieds 

message: Does anyone remember that in the ?late 1980s a one-off issue of a magazine called Private Lies, a critical parody of Private Eye, was widely distributed in the UK? (I bought a copy in a supermarket thinking it was the real Private Eye, as it had a very similar cover.) Oddly, I don't recall Private Eye (or any other media) making any reference to it at the time! I assume it must have been published by Murdoch or Maxwell to be able to get such widespread one-off distribution. Ben Finn 23:18, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you still have it hidden away amongst the family relics and heirlooms, it is worth about £5 to a collector, depending upon condition.  Guy 20:00, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Ben Finn should wait till the collector's in an extremely inebriated and/or just-won-the-lottery condition, in which case I bet he could get the price up to a tenner. At least.  Gardener of Geda 14:03, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: IIRC, the story behind this was that Maxwell's team made it, and Private Eye secured their copy when Peter Cook sent a crate of booze to the writers, who promptly became tired and emotional. The rough copy was then taken, and the office vandalised.
I just wish I had a source for that story. Elcondor 14:56, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

text: There's a reference to it in this week's Radio Times (for next week's TV & radio), which I haven't got to hand, though IIRC it wasn't called Private Lies but Not Private Eye. In the issue, Ian Hislop relates the history of Maxwell and Private Eye.  Stephenb (Talk) 07:39, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Private Lies

message: Though this article contains much excellent information, it is too long, and (as a result) a bit disorganised. However I have no particular suggestions as to how to shorten it. With some rework I think it could achieve Featured Article quality. Ben Finn 12:16, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The article is much too long.  It is also repetitive.  Various bits are too brief, they are written by PE regulars who seem to assume that all the readers are also PE regulars and know all about it, and it must be confusing for readers who are not fsmiliar with the magazine.  Ben is right, it does seem to be assembled at random in places, but I guess that is the price you pay for an open-access encyclopædia.  It is also patchy, the Sixties seem well covered, but there are gaps elsewhere.  If you download it for printing, it runs for about 16 pages, depending on how large you set the font.  It needs to be cut up into sections and converted into a suite of articles.  Some of the content from the discussion page should be there too.  I am capable of doing it, but I reckon it would take me several full-time days to do it properly, and I have a living to earn.  One big problem is that many of the articles to which it links are very patchy, the one about Mohamed Fayed for a random example.  That means I would be forever off at a tangent beefing up other articles and I reckon that would double the time needed at least.  However, by the same token, readers of articles about people and institutions who feature frequently in Private Eye might well find a useful alternative angle in moving on to the PE article to see what it says there.  Another point is that there is a great deal of scope for original research (proscribed under the rules) and you could end up with the definitive account of PE in any medium.  As a tangent, in the context of your post about Private Lies and also Mohamed Fayed, very little is in the article about PE's attitude to Punch, and nothing about Fayed buying it to run against PE as a spoiler at great expense, let alone discussion of Fayed's ambitions as a press baron.  Guy 20:00, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Too long?

message: The article is currently too long.  The most effective way to reduce the length is to have a short "master" article and several subsidiary articles.  As a first step, I have created a new article Private Eye (Recordings) and, unless there are violent objections, I will cut this section from here and paste it into the new article.  The section lends itself to a new article, it is self-contained, of little relevance to the bulk of the article, and is a relatively late addition.  On the other hand, it is a very useful piece, it collates together much information obtainable only with difficulty elsewhere, and is a good example of what Wikipedia is about.    Guy 13:07, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Time to start breaking up the article 

message: As I recall, the name of this organ's publisher came from a speech by Harold Wilson attacking the 'gnomes of Zurich', ie Swiss bankers supposedly behind a run on the pound Rhinoracer 16:37, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia being Wikipedia, we have an article on that - Gnomes of Zürich. I'm not sure if I've ever seen anything asserting a link between that and the "proprietor", though... Shimgray | talk | 20:00, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lord Gnome 

message: Don't the John Betjeperson/William MacGonagle parodies deserve a mention? if so where?Ros Power 08:28, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They have never been more than one-offs in response to a particular story have they?  Possibly it is a job for you to go through the back-numbers to establish if there are enough to merit a mention in the article.  I seem to remember that the setting up of the Scottish Parliament was the occasion of a "McGonagall" eulogy.    Guy 12:15, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Poetry parodies 

message: The subtle implications made in this article might be lost on those who don't speak English well, don't read the Eye or just don't get the joke. I'm not sure whether rewording the article would help clarify things or simply make the whole page stodgy and bland.
User:Wozocoxonoy 14:20, 17th October 2006 (GMT)
This whole article is too long and is essentially an exhaustive list of sections of the magazine, with little cogent overview of the subject. It needs a radical overhaul - specifically angling the piece towards the general reader. For example, why mention the two collumns "Down on the Farm" and "Down on the Fish-farm"? Too much specific and overly detailed information with little context which does little to show the magazine's style and point of view. Fine to detail some of the collumns where they indicate the general thrust, but some (lots) of this stuff is unnecessary.
The historical info is interesting, but similarly, there is too much of it for a general encyclopedia article. Frankly, if one wanted to get into the nitty gritty, go read the mag, and/or the book referenced. 
A good example of structure and approach can be seen in the article on the economist newspaper. Major Bloodnok 10:59, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You are not comparing like with like.  The Economist is supposed to be a serious weekly newspaper, which is why it is so thick and costs what it does.  Similarly the Spectator, New Statesman etc.  Private Eye fulfils a different function.  The article is indeed oversized and badly organised.  The problem is how to split it up, given that if it were half a dozen articles, then zealous editors will reconstruct six times this article.  Also, if you split it (I have tried) the separate articles are a little bald, background has to be written and links joined, and you will find links badly written, so you have to fix those articles while you are at it, and there are links missing and hence further articles needed.  Also, much of it comes under the Wiki living persons guidelines.  It is much more easily said than done.    Guy 05:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Writing Style

message: This is actually a general problem I have with Wikipedia. What I see here in this article is just one specific instance of it. I intend to write a little recommendation about this issue.
Right. The article contains an image (Privateeyeposter.jpg) with the caption "Featuring in Rotten Boroughs can be of great local interest". This caption is also the alt text for users with text-only browsers and for the blind and visually impared. Useless.
Get this:
*The caption explains the image. It is optional, as there may be a good explanation in the text.
*The alt text describes the image. It is mandatory, as it is intended only for those who cannot see the image. The fact that some browsers display the alt text as a bubble on mouse hover is incidental to its actual purpose.
The alt text should explain that the image is of a poster on a pole, and should give the text of the poster. That's far to much to read in bubble text, but it's not intended for bubble text. That's just a quirk of IE and some other browsers.
TRiG 02:32, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: About one of the pictures

message: I think that the article on Private Eye is the best that I have read on Wikipedia (I have not read many).  But why is there no reference to the long running Portakabin gag?
Dr Spam (MD) 10:14, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It was not a gag.  The Portakabin Corporation manufactures mobile accommodation under its brand name, which it protects jealously.  It does not like mobile accommodation referred to as "Portakabin" ("k" or "c") as if this were a generic name, like vacuum cleaners are called "hoovers".  Private Eye did this in an item, and received one of those pompous letters from solicitors in response, which it published as it often does similar letters.  The senders felt this was failing to take the complaint seriously, and sent a further letter to say so, failing to see that their letters were having the opposite effect to that intended.  Needless to say, a perceived sensitivity was a good excuse for further teasing.    Guy 15:27, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Stephenb is correct.  Private Eye often gets letters of complaint, some of which it publishes as if they were "Letters to the Editor", for the humorous effect.  There have been occasions when this has got them into deeper water.  If I remember correctly, this was a part of the ongoing acrimonious dispute which the magazine had with James Goldsmith ("Sir Jams") which led to the award of punitive damages and receipt of a crawling apology.  Also, as Stevenb says, another feature of the "Eye"'s letters page is the comments from readers purporting to find some item offensive and announcing the cancellation of their subscription (or announcing that despite the provocation they will refrain from cancelling).  It is often difficult to tell if the writer is serious or in jest, which is part of appeal of the page to regular Eye readers.  The letters column has been used to debate certain topics, most recently the issue of ritual satanic abuse of children in the Scottish islands.  Recently it has featured a regular "pedants corner", to which, alas, I have contributed, in which readers take the editors to task about trivial errors of fact.  The letters page is one of the many aspects of the magazine which need to be written up fully in a separate article.    Guy 15:48, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Portakabin 

message: I don't believe "ultra-right-wing country gentleman, a subtle exaggeration of his own personality" does justice to the complex persona that Waugh presents in his diary, the two volumes of which I have before me. The bon viveur, the bemused lecher, the beard wearer, the labour party member, all essential aspects of his character not described in this section.--Mongreilf 20:38, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Auberon Waugh's Diary 

message: The statement "As editor, Ian Hislop has become the most-sued man in Britain." is quite funny and may even be true in some form. Does anyone have a reference?--ScMeGr 18:49, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Ian Hislop Getting Sued

message: Can anyone remember the name given to the chief inspector of Neasden police station? I remember one recent issue names him, and has him congratulating his officers on their ‘prompt action’ (or something along those lines) after accidentally shooting someone. I ask because the obvious parody of Sir Ian Blair the de Menezes incident should probably be added. --Jonathan793 02:36, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it changes each week depending upon the story which they are satirising.  For example, this week (Number 1177 2 February 2007) it covers the story of the Islamic policewoman whose faith prevents her from contact with non-related males, her name is WPC Niqab-Burqa and the senior officer is her uncle Commander Niqab-Burqua of the Islamophobic Discrimination Squad.  The whole tone of the piece is that the police waste their time on the "politically correct" agenda rather than getting out on the streets nabbing real villains.  It could be a subtle satire on the Mail/Express attitude that the police are constrained along those lines while villains prosper and "bogus" asylum seekers flood in, and on those who share such views.  Guy 12:28, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Yeah! Only thing is, you'd have someone writing in saying "Is it really the job of this article to scan-and-paste the contents of each week's issue of PE? Why not just describe and analyse the whole magazine?". Would anyone want that? No. They damn well wouldn't. Gardener of Geda | Message Me.... 01:53, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Police log - Neasden Central Police Station 

message: Might it not be a good idea to have a collection of spin-off articles under various headings eg. one for Private Eye 'columnists' (such as Polly Filler, Glenda Slagg, Sally Jockstrap, Dave Spart, et al), one for references to Neasden, one for each of the PM parodies, maybe even one for the History of the Eye, with only a brief summary and a link in the main article? We already have Private Eye as a category; this way the main article becomes a more manageable length.
Luke Parks 14:56, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A way to reduce article length 

message: I'm afraid my wikipedia skills aren't up to much. Please can someone with more experience add Nicolas "Fatty" Soames MP to the Other Politicians part of the Frequent Targets section.
90.240.46.144 00:26, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Including Nicolas Soames in the "Frequent targets" section. 

message: Perhaps a mention of the John Cole saga here?Pn25 14:16, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Undaubtaably" a good idea. Philip Cross 14:02, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Journalists 

message: Any information on how many are sold? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.135.47.189 (talk • contribs) 
:Google says 1st July 2006 - 31st December 2006 (208,979) (same in html) which is up from the 2001 circulation figure of 174,656 82.11.41.163 09:51, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Circulation 

message: * 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)
thread_title:  Splitting project, list of regular mini-sections 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Breaking out in-jokes section 

message: I believe the medical section described here as "Doing the Rounds" is now called "Medicine Balls" which should not be confused with the various other ***balls covering verbal solecisms (currently "Commentatorballs") Dawright12 (talk) 08:52, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Regular columns

message: 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)
thread_title:  (Lack of) Editorial Position 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Prime Ministerial Decree 

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

message: 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)
thread_title: Francis Wheen and Hypocrisy

message: 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)
thread_title:  Frequent targets for parody and satire 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Template 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Authorship of "Letter from ..." 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Merging Prime Minister parodies 

message: 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)
replies: text: Surely such a nicety will have been wilfuly ignored by the Eye in the general cause of political incorrectness? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:09, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Newspaper parodies 

message: "Ashen-faced supremo Ron Knee" may be based on Ron Atkinson, but my own feeling is that this has been around too long, and he is most likely based on Ron Saunders (ex manager of W.B.A., Aston Villa, Birmingham City and, also, Norwich City and Manchester City), whose characteristic demeanour was on the glum side - Big Ron Atkinson is surely too cheery a chappy for this?  Can anybody find a first appearance date for Ron Knee?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cjb71 (talk • contribs) 20:17, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Surely such a nicety will have been wilfuly ignored by the Eye in the general cause of political incorrectness? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:09, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neasden FC 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Still being sued? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Page move 

message: 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 ). Testbed (talk) 17:42, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting - can you cite a reliable source for this before we start editing the page? Testbed (talk) 17:14, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Richard Ingrams still at the Eye 

message: attributed to Miller without citation. Just reading this book attributes it to Kenneth Tynan  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.86.177.67 (talk) 18:39, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  When are you going to get a point of view? 

message: The article states:
"Sonia Sutcliffe also sued after allegations that she used her connection to her husband, the Yorkshire Ripper, Peter Sutcliffe, to make money. She won £600,000 which was later reduced to £60,000 on appeal."
< snip... >
"Sonia Sutcliffe later acknowledged that she had indeed sold her story to the press."
erm... that wording implies that she and/or her legal team... erm... lied when under oath ? Is that correct ? And if so - were there any repercussions ?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.25.122.156 (talk) 11:40, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: If there were repercussions everytime a lawyer lied in court our entire legal system would have come crashing down years ago. Markb (talk) 11:58, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

text: A little while ago I did some research to try to find if there were any legal consequences for Sonia Sutcliffe but came up a blank. This could have been, of course, that I was looking in all the wrong places. SimonTrew (talk) 15:12, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sonia Sutcliffe - What Happened Next ? 

message: It's worth mentioning that the Eye lampooned Goldsmith's magazine Now! as "Talbot!" but I don't know why - can anyone contribute?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.53.69.150 (talk) 13:41, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Talbot was something of a joke at the time. Back in the 1970s, Chrysler decided to pull out of Europe. They sold their car ranges and manufacturing facilities in the UK and France to Peugeot, who did not want to apply the Peugeot branding to cars which they had not designed themselves - and Chrysler were (naturally enough) not going to allow their own name to continue. It so happened that among the various motor manufacturers who had come together under what eventually was the Chrysler Europe banner were two which both included the word "Talbot" in their names - one British (Sunbeam-Talbot), the other French (Talbot-Lago) - and so it was decided to apply the Talbot name to all the former Chrysler cars. Peugeot did nothing to improve these cars, and one by one they disappeared, being replaced by such cars as the Peugeot 309 and 405, which were of somewhat better quality. In this way, Peugeot gained two UK factories (although both are now closed), where previously they had none. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:19, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I once owned a Simca myself. I'm glad of the auto info, but it doesn't verify why the Eye referred to Now! as Talbot! The most obvious etymological explanation is not always the correct one.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.53.69.150 (talk) 16:46, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: As to why the Eye chose Talbot!, my own guess is that when Chrysler/Peugeot named their crummy little car ‘Talbot’ (and it was indeed crummy), they were doing what manufacturers of anything have done since time immemorial - bigging-up their clearly hopeless product du jour by giving it the name of something genuinely notable in their past that had some glory attached to it. In the public eye, never mind Private Eye, the word Talbot had become synonymous with rubbish puffed up as something meaningful but fooling no one. Paul Sanderson  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.20.171.117 (talk) 14:19, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I remember thinking it (Now! --> Talbot!) was a very good, and appropriate, joke. Rothorpe (talk) 14:24, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

text: I thought it was because Talbot spent so much on advertising in Now! that they were almost keeping it afloat. Kenneth Shabby (talk) 22:47, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

text: The other reason which occurred to me at the time was that Goldsmith was a notoriously thin-skinned individual, so writing about "Talbot!" offered them a fig leaf of plausible deniability in the event of another libel action. NRPanikker (talk) 00:33, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Talbot! 

message: The article currently lists The Onion as a currently operating US counterpart for Private Eye. I believe this to be an error; the two really don't have that much in common, and no source has been provided comparing them. (No sources are provided for any of the items on that list actually...)
Regardless, I have removed The Onion from the list for the time being, if the editor who added it wishes to reinsert it please explain here. 81.110.247.58 (talk) 09:01, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Onion 

message: I've put the missing sentence from the response to Arkell back in. There's no earthly reason for us not to quote the whole thing; it's very short, that a lawyer would deal with a legal threat so tersely is of educational note, reprinting the entirety of a lawyer's letter is pretty much always fair use and not actionable under copyright *, the entire text of the exchange is readily available and I'm quite sure Private Eye themselves would be most pleased - David Gerard (talk) 13:38, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The Arkell vs Pressdram story is a lovely one if true, but as it stands lacks any independent sourcing. Is there none available? Might the story be apocryphal? -- Hoary (talk) 23:36, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Not apocryphal. I don't know how one would find an "independent source" for a signed letter. Si Trew (talk) 04:28, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: A book or perhaps even a magazine article about the history of the Eye, of libel, of litigiousness, etc. -- Hoary (talk) 05:36, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: See:  Where the story is given. I will add the citation to the article. --TedColes (talk) 09:36, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arkell v. Pressdram 

message: My memory tells me the Torygraph used to be known as the Gussetgraph (or perhaps the Gussettgraph, as it's from Sir Herbert Gussett, whose name ends with two Ts), though I find only one online use of it (here, spelt 'Gussetgraph'), compared to 68600 for Torygraph. Does anybody know enough about Gussetgraph/Gussettgraph to be able to briefly mention it in the text, lest we risk not merely the Curse of Gnome but also a most disgusted letter from Sir Herbert? Tlhslobus (talk) 06:04, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm... In 30+ years of reading Lord Gnome's august organ I don't recall seeing Psycho's love child referred to as anything other than the Torygraph. I should get out more but I spend too much time editing Wikipedia ...  Philg88 ♦talk 06:42, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Which presumably explains why it only has one online reference. But the fact that two people recall it (me + the writer of the above link) implies that somebody must have used it at some stage. Of course 'somebody at some stage' might have been a single letter writer or columnist using it once but which somehow stuck in my mind. But I guess that's currently far too little to merit a mention. Sir Herbert will undoubtedly be disgusted. But thanks for your reply. Tlhslobus (talk) 06:52, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gussetgraph? 

message: "Bigotry" is bit harsh, surely? The reaction to Hirohito's visit (bearing in mind the proximity to World War 2) could be considered fairly tame and to suggest that poking fun at the gay rights movement makes them bigoted is to ignore the fact that they poke fun at everyone. Certainly in the context of the time neither of these attitudes was out of place in the mainstream press nor indeed (from my own memory) in day-to-day life in the late 70s.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gwinkless (talk • contribs) 15:58, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bigotry ? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Private Eye. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090530125915/http://www.private-eye.co.uk:80/news.php to http://www.private-eye.co.uk/news.php
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:27, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I've moved 'That Honorary Degree Citation in Full' back into 'Miscellaneous' from 'Former Sections'. There was one as recently as Eye 1445 (p31), dated 2 June 2017, so I don't think that section has gone anywhere.
Gurkha (talk) 22:07, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  That Honorary Degree Citation in Full 

message: It seems to me that this article has become bloated with poorly-sourced commentary on very short repeating joke segments, to the detriment of discussion of the more substantive recurrent features (Nooks And Corners, say, or the historical and very influential Mrs. Wilson's Diary). We already have Recurring in-jokes in Private Eye which is similarly poorly sourced and full of recentism. I think I will work on this. As a rule of thumb, anything that does not have a pseudonymous correspondent (M.D., Lunchtime O'Boulez, Muckspreader or whatever) probably wouldn't be considered a feature. Does that seem right? Guy (Help!) 16:14, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Even if it is a very long-repeating segment (as opposed to a very short repeating joke segment), we should not be mentioning anything in this article that does not have an independent third-party source which indicates its significance. Please do take out everything that does not have a pseudonymous correspondent, but there will also be further portions that need to be removed after that. MPS1992 (talk) 21:25, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

text: Following your wholesale pruning here, "Lunchtime O'Boulez" still redirects here with no explanation or mention. (Also don't see it anywhere over at Recurring jokes in Private Eye). Just sayin'. Did you check all the other possible re-directs? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:41, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleaning up and merging 

message: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Popular beat combo (2nd nomination) is back.
A merge to Private Eye (or some related article) has also been suggested. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:26, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Can anybody help by finding recent citations in Private Eye or HIGNFY for the term "Popular beat combo"? --Mervyn (talk) 07:23, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Also in [[popular beat combo]] news