Talk:Simon Hoggart

message: 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)
replies: text: The NQ anecdote is probably too incidental to be included in the main article. Keeping the basic details in the article is difficult enough, even though it's more than a "factoid", and included on very reputable news sites. Philip Cross 18:15, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Hoggart's affair with Quinn found its way into publications at the top end of the newspaper spectrum, not only the red tops, and thus meets the requirement to be derived from reputable sources. Its inclusion would therefore be valid. The double standard in this country as regards extra-marital affairs is fading, so the 'do no harm' argument does not apply. One more reference is different from OR. Philip Cross (talk) 17:29, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The affair is mentioned in the Kimberly Quinn article, and it is not sensationalist as it has been covered in reliable sources: the Daily Telegraph is cited in that article (and was also cited in this article), hardly a tabloid newspaper. An affair would not usually be notable, or appropriate content for a Wikipedia article (privacy would be an issue), but this was with a notable person, and had received coverage in the media. Also, the "do no harm" issue is not particularly important, as what little harm there is has already been done. I can understand, however, if it is omitted from the article, as it is uncertain of the impact, if it had any at all, either positive or negative, on Hoggart's career and notability. --Snigbrook (talk) 01:12, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

text: I'm well aware of Wikipedia guidelines. This point has already been through mediation, which is why I again reverted your changes. Flatterworld (talk) 19:06, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I can see that you are acting in good faith and with the best of intentions, however, my edits have assuredly not been through any mediation or discussion. I do not wish to get into a one on one edit war - if you are not happy with my edits then please either talk to me or get another opinion. I have explained my edit, and the reasons why I feel that it follows the guidelines, ethos and policy of Wikipedia. Please engage in discussion and explain the reasoning behind your position. A previous mediation was closed without any apparent discussion - though looking at the discussion above there is a consensus to include the "third man" material. I get the feeling that you dislike the material to be included because you feel it puts an unfair slur on the man. Yet he came forward with the information himself. It is now a matter of public record. He was a part of a significant public scandal that helped bring down a senior politician. He is referred to in newspapers of note as "the third man". If he comes to write up his biography the incident will appear in there. We do not whitewash articles on people - look at Jeffrey Archer, his prison sentence is mentioned in the lead. We attempt to be as balanced and fair as possible. This incident happened, and the man is known for it. It would be inappropriate for us to smother or censor that information. SilkTork *YES! 07:37, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

text: Your personal edits have not been through mediation, but the topic itself has. There's no reason for me to repeat everything that's happened before simply because someone different makes the same edits, nor is there any reason to ask for yet another third opinion (an oxymoron) simply because you happened on the scene. As I can see from your Talk page, this isn't the first time you've done something like this. Flatterworld (talk) 19:10, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Simon Hoggart's affair with [[Kimberley Quinn]]

message: 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)
thread_title: Personal life

message: I've asked WikiProject Biography for advice: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Biography#Simon_Hoggart SilkTork *YES! 10:45, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: WikiProject Biography

message: 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.
* The affair was a significant aspect of the subject's life. So far as I can find, this was the sole occasion on which Simon Hoggart has 'been the story', in other words prompted news coverage of his actions, rather than reporting or commenting on the news. It prompted considerable comment too: for this see Denise Robertson in the Newcastle Journal (28 December 2004), Tony Parsons in the Daily Mirror (27 December 2004), Peter McKay in the Daily Mail (27 December 2004), for starters. He was also namechecked in the Channel 4 film 'A Very Social Secretary' transmitted in October 2005. There are other press mentions throughout 2006 and into 2007.
* There are multiple independent reliable sources. The subject's statement issued on 19 December 2004 was reported in all newspapers the following morning, and significantly it was written up in the broadsheets by political correspondents: George Jones in the Daily Telegraph, David Hencke in The Guardian, Philip Webster in The Times, and Marie Woolf in The Independent.
* The essential facts are undisputed. Here we do not have a claim made by one and disputed by another; we have a statement issued by the subject himself on which to base what is written. That statement was exculpatory of Kimberly Quinn to the extent that it stated that the affair occurred prior to her marriage. So far as I can find there is no-one who has asserted that the reality was different. 
* The incident can be recorded in non-sensational language. In a biography we are not interested in News of the World style exposés; what is relevant is how events in the life of the subject brought him to public notice and affected the way others see him. We only need to record what the subject admitted doing.
* Biographies of living people policy does not require removal. The article is a biography of a living person, and the claim is contentious to the extent that it is potentially defamatory to accuse anyone in a marriage of infidelity, but in this case we have good sources to the subject himself putting out a statement confirming it. The policy only requires removal of poorly sourced or unsourced contentious material. It does not matter that the affair was short, and it is no part of the policy that any vicarious embarrassment to friends and relatives of the subject requires removal; I suppose an extreme interpretation might argue that Peter Sutcliffe or Dennis Nilsen's murderous escapades took a short part of their life and to dredge it up embarrasses their living relatives.
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)
replies: text: How self-righteous of you to use the excuse of 'initial dishonesty' about a purely personal matter. I was not aware he was under oath in a court of law at the time (end snark). Clue: anyone who asks a question which is none of their business doesn't deserve, nor should expect, a truthful answer. However, I expect you were were totally thrilled and rubbing your hands with glee at the possible impact your 'helpfulness' might have on both families, particularly the children. You must be very proud to have brought such Undue Weight to this article. Let's be honest, shall we? Based on the 'updates' I've seen made over the years, I would point out no one but me seems interested in updating such things as his list of books, presenting record, etc. Only this one particular point, often in conjunction with what I can only characterize as the attempted bullying of his children, particularly his son. I will always 'assume good faith', but I think the record speaks for itself. One can only hope you grow out of it as you approach adulthood. Flatterworld (talk) 21:35, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Consideration ''[[de novo]]'' 

message: I note that in 2005 he promised to write about his affair with Quinn.
:I will write about the events of two weeks ago some day, but right now it's all a bit raw, so I hope you'll excuse me. 
Did he ever do so? BrainyBabe (talk) 02:05, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Did he ever write about *that* affair? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Simon Hoggart. 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 http://web.archive.org/web/20110610151439/http://www.kingston.ac.uk/krf/events/2008/02-the-hands-of-history-parliamentary-sketches-1997-2007-simon-hoggart/ to http://www.kingston.ac.uk/krf/events/2008/02-the-hands-of-history-parliamentary-sketches-1997-2007-simon-hoggart/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:15, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140301171422/http://www.totalpolitics.com/articles/277577/top-100-political-journalists-2011.thtml to http://www.totalpolitics.com/articles/277577/top-100-political-journalists-2011.thtml
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:01, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified