Talk:Brass Eye

message: *Where is this to be found in the series? Dafyddyoung
:*"Moral Decline".  
::*chocolateboy 04:27, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: *I believe the actual text is simply "Grade is a cunt" Chris 05:18, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: *Yes, the actual text only uses Grade's surname. --Jacj 10:07, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: *And more specifically, in terms of location, it's overlayed on the bit where Morris is pulling the guts out of a sick Britain. If I remember correctly. Which I may not be. --bodnotbod 10:19, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's only seen in the original CUT broadcast version. Not on the DVD.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by ThunderPeel2001 (talk • contribs) 16:16, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: As stated, it's only viewable on the original broadcast version, and even then it's very hard to see even if you know where to look. It's usually referred to as a "flash-frame", but in fact it's a "flash-field" that is only visible on screen for 1/50 of a second, half the duration of a frame. Because it was placed on a shot change and only lasts for half a frame, it's effectively invisible unless you can freeze on exactly the right field.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.131.175.197 (talk) 21:27, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Michael Grade is a cunt 

message: *Isn't nonce also a word for head?
**I've never heard it used for peadophile before (though that is neither here nor there), though it does make sense with that definition.
***But when Collins says "Nonce" doesn't he point at his head?
****I've never heard "nonce" used to mean head, but "bonce" can be. Tim Ivorson 08:43, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re: Nonce in "Nonce Sense" 

message: I'm inclined to think that the lists of celebs merely mentioned is overly enthusiastic, However, I know some people like such things. But I wondered if anyone had the nous to put all that info in a table of some sort. It would look a lot better if it used the width of the page a bit more. Perhaps the 6 episodes in a 3 column by 2 row grid (or four rows if you have a divide between featured and mentioned)?  Anyone know how to do it? --bodnotbod 10:32, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it needs removing (the lists, altogether) and each episode perhaps having its own article. This would reduce the huge list on this page and be able to focus the article more on 'Brass Eye' than the episodes individually. I haven't seen any other tv show which has this format on Wikipedia so think it would be best to change it and make it more like other shows.-Localzuk (talk) 18:17, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The lists of celebs featured and mentioned

message: Well-done article, congratulations to the editors. Made me laugh, too. Herostratus 20:18, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Good job 

message: It seems un-encyclopedic to mention that the articles in the Daily Star and Daily Mail ran next to stories that might be seen as pedophilic (I know that's not a word), it seems like an extension of the "some people say" routine that is also used in that section to interject the author's personal opinion while maintaining the illusion of objectivity. It all seems very Fox News to me.
:I see your point, and in most cases I would agree. 
:However, the Observer article cited in that area of this article actually includes mention of those two juxtapositions (the two other papers putting harsh condemnations of the special next to things that one could potentially regard as borderline-pedophilic [which is a word]) and the Telegraph mentions one of them. So this is Wikipedia reporting on a secondary source's editorializing, rather than Wikipedia doing its own editorializing. As such, I personally feel that it is both acceptable in and beneficial to the article. 
:But upon reading the section again in light of your criticism, I realised that this article did not make it clear enough that this is just Wikipedia reporting on the Observer's voice, rather than Wikipedia's voice directly. Additionally, I noticed that the description of the Star's adjacent piece was inaccurate (this article described that piece as being about her breasts, which is only true to some extent; it contained quite obvious innuendo regarding her breasts but it wasn't explicit and that wasn't the entire point of the piece). 
:I've edited the section to account for these things and to remove/minimise these problems. I personally think that the new version is fine. Thanks for pointing out the problem.
:And on one thing we can definitely agree: We must NEVER let Wikipedia resemble Fox News. Never. BreakfastJr (talk) 11:28, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Editorializing on paedogeddon section 

message: The part about about the series being postponed because of the pulp/myra hindly sketch is wrong. The show was actually postponed because of legal issues surrounding the cake fiasco.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ben the mighty (talk • contribs) 12:14, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, the main problem was the Sutcliffe musical (IMO one of the tamer items in the series), which was eventually cut and only restored when the series was repeated in 2001. -212.139.65.164 (talk) 15:17, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Myra Hindley 

message: I've cut this line, which was sitting on its own at the end of the section without any context:
"It is noted that the word "Reconstruction" appears over five times, often for the same scene."
Noted by whom? Appears where? Over five times? It sounds like this might be true and possibly even relevant, but I've frankly got no idea what it's on about. If you understand it, could you work it into the article somewhere that flows and makes sense? 81.107.32.231 (talk) 15:15, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Paedogeddon 

message: The transcript link gives a 403 for me. If the link isn't going to be usable for anyone, should we just remove it? D4g0thur 16:33, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Try webarchive first or a similar service. If it's irrecoverably dead, baleet it.--ZayZayEM (talk) 08:00, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Brass Eye Special (Paedogeddon) transcript 

message: Above someone has already brought up the "none of the celebrities realised tehy were being lampooned" statement, but there are several more statements-of-fact which are presented without any qualification or attempt to attribute them to a reliable source.
Please bear in mind Pillars of Wikipedia.
For me references to the ironic nature of the tabloids reporting of pedogeddon are an issue. Ironic is an opinion. We need to state ironic according to whom, and provide a citation to statements of their ironic-nature - not links to page-scans and assume the reader is astute or like-minded enough to reach the same conclusion as yourself.--ZayZayEM (talk) 07:57, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please cite and qualify 

message: The Daily Mail article itself was probably:
*
the date matches, although the Highbeam mirror is without photographs for confirmation.  —Sladen (talk) 13:48, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''Daily Mail'' 

message: I have recently moved the brief passage on the paedophile and convicted child murderer Sidney Cooke from his own article. As there has been a minor, slow, edit war on this issue for a while, I have added an extended explanation of my reasoning on that article's talk page. As those who consider it  legitimate to add a reference to Brass Eye to Cooke's article are more likely to be watching this page, I invite them to contribute to the discussion on the other talk page. Philip Cross (talk) 17:03, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Sidney Cooke

message: I have left this here because it's not that relevant to the episodes, as they are self explanatory. Who was in them, is not. 81.141.61.191 (talk) 13:24, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moved from article to here: "Celebrity appearances"