Talk:Brooke Magnanti

message: There is much speculation as to who Belle in fact is. On April 1st (yes, I know) last year http://erotic-review-coterie.blogspot.com/ was created, which claimed to explain the backstory to the blog and belle's success, and had notable features like a shared rss feed with belledejour-uk.blogspot.com. It was later deleted though. It is now back up, posted by 'Darren' according to the RSS feed - who I assume is someone who kept a copy of the original blog and decided to recreate it. Worth mentionning? Or at least some of the news stories about how belle might not be the person she claims to be? Tommy-Chivs 12:50, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blog 

message: I've changed the opening paragraph from "someone who claims to be a former call girl" to "a former call girl". Although there are people in the media who believe that Belle is entirely fictitious, I think WP:BLP means we can't infer she is a liar without some evidence to that effect. The "Real identity" section still covers the question mark over her identity, although it requires a citation. Marwood (talk) 13:48, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  More on her identity 

message: connections, maybe?
how to have an affair in palo alto
chloe bancroft
it seems awfully familiar if you've seen any of the "Secret Diary of a Call Girl" series.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.47.150.126 (talk) 01:09, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chloe Bancroft 

message: Not just Deneuve's, but Weaver's, too.
(How come nobody seems to have mentioned "Half Moon Street" yet in this context?)
—141.150.24.105 (talk) 04:52, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Life imitates art... again 

message: There has been rather a lot of discussion about this author in the British press since this revelation came out. Is this deliberately not included, or could a section on this be included if I typed something up? Random name (talk) 09:57, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: note that some of it is actually already included, other details will follow soon (see below).--Kmhkmh (talk) 14:53, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

text: Perhaps "criticism" is a better word. I certainly don't see any discussion in the article as it stands regarding the perception within some parts of the press that her work might serve to glamorize prostitution. Please note that I'm saying this criticism exists without agreeing / disagreeing with it; it's just clearly there, so I was surprised to not see it in the article. Random name (talk) 16:59, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  The criticism regarding glamorizing prostitution should be in the article, it is however not new or recent, that criticism has been around since the blog appeared in 2003. Aprominent critic would be the bishop of york and various journalists, interestingly including india Knight which published the coming out story. She was rather critical in 2004 and considered the whole thing a hoax with male publishing male fantasies (promoting prostitution) under the pseudonym of an alleged callgirl. Ironically that turned out to be wrong. The German article already has a small section on the criticism and i can add somthing similar to this one in the future. Currently i'm still reviewing the press material on belle de jour that's still available online. There are a lot of older articles which are interesting and funny in retrospective (partially because they turned out to be so off in their guess work), but unfortunately not all of those can be accessed online at the moment. I also aspect some follow up reports over the next 1-2 weeks which I'd like to review as well first. At least in my case i see no reason for hastily edits right, but i rather go for a bigger overhaul after I reviewed all the material and did some internal consistency and fact checking.--Kmhkmh (talk) 17:32, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversy? 

message: Not sure about the timeline in first paragraph. PhD supposedly awarded in ?end of 2003. End of Call girl carrier ? Sept. 2004 (according to blog at least). So 2004 callgirlism didn't fund PhD studies. (Imfbuch)  —Preceding undated comment added 16:23, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Timeline 

message: Since I saw conflicting opinions in the history list, a short comment on that subject. Of course is the hair color in connection with the revelation of her identity not really important, however you still can make somewhat of an argument, why that information might be interesting to readers (which might be also the reason why some sources mention the hair color explicitly). The reason is simply the connection to her alias. Since the famous movie character (chatherine Deneuve as belle de jour) to which the alias allures had blond hair as well.--Kmhkmh (talk) 01:34, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Hair color

message: Is it inappropriate to have this on the page? Seems apparent the person filing the suit is an attention seeker. As it's not a criminal case and is not yet set to appear in court (and may never do), I don't think this is noteworthy yet. Writers get threats all the time by people looking for money or attention and there are other nonsense lawsuits being threatened against Belle du Jour (see adalbertlallier.blog.com/), do we need to be giving this particular one more oxygen than it's worth?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.208.58.57 (talk) 10:59, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably true. I don't think it needs to mentioned, however since the plaintiff is so closely related to the author's biography and the belle de jour story line it is imho not completely inappropriate to mention it shortly either. However continuing detailed updates or gossip of the suit are definitely not appropriate. It should just be mentioned in one or two lines.--Kmhkmh (talk) 11:33, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess my point that unless it goes to court, it isn't clear if the person bringing this suit really is the ex in question. She hasn't commented on it that I can find. 46.208.58.57 (talk) 08:35, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Well the section cites 2 sources, if they can be considered reliable enough, we do know that such a suit exists and we do know who the plaintiff is, even without Magnanti commenting herself. However if we do not consider them as reliable enough the section should be removed, at first glance i can't assess that myself.--Kmhkmh (talk) 13:42, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Libel Case ect. 

message: Whilst it's fun, adding speculations about Magnanti 's current degrees of removal from Bacon and Erdos is at best temporary and trivial. Darrenbeniston has made a noble attempt at referencing, but adding the cites for Magnanti's academic papers and TV appearances doesn't ref the Bacon and Erdos figures given. This is original research that's worth publishing on a blog, for sure. Best wishes Span (talk) 12:53, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree there is no need for this addition. In the case of biography of mathematician it might make sense to mentioned a low erdös number, but adding an Erdös number to somewhat arbitrary biographies makes little sense. Moreover without being properly sourced it is no-go anyhow.--Kmhkmh (talk) 13:54, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I commented on this below not noticing the discussion was already here but further to my comment adding relevant tweet link https://twitter.com/#!/bmagnanti/status/152529709106868224 again, think your decision in view of lightheartedness of Erdos Bacon and criteria used for others on that page aribtrary, but whatever! You don't have to be a mathematician to have an Erdos Bacon number but Colin Firth has one for example and this is noted in wikipedia Darrenbeniston (talk) 14:39, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure why this keeps being reverted? re-edited because thought the initial removal was lack of references but was removed again. It is relevant on an entry about someone who is equal parts in science and in media. Both science references and media references in question were already linked on the wiki. Is 'trivial and temporary' a  judgment on the scientific work or the writer or both? The comment on the second removal reads a touch judgmental. Not wanting to start a fight but a lot of the entries on Erdos Bacon numbers are no less trivial and arguably more so (Colin Firth wrote a neuroscience paper? Really?) Im Just saying. Darrenbeniston (talk) 14:27, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry posted this without noting the entry above. Re: "doesn't ref the Bacon and Erdos figures given" on the second try I followed the way it was done on the Bacon Erdos page (using Natalie Portmans entry as a template for instance). Still confused how it is original research she has tweeted it before and almost all the entries on Bacon Erdos numbers are original research using your criteria. Decision seems arbitrary Darrenbeniston (talk) 14:31, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The article on the Erdős–Bacon number has repeatedly nominated for deletion. Most of the references the article gives are either dead or do not actually cite any research into the Erdős–Bacon number. Measuring connection to Kevin Bacon is a game, that's why I say it's fun. Connection to Erdős and Bacon change constantly given new films made and new papers written, which is why I say the figures are temporary. These are not comments about you as an editor, but about the edits. Wikipedia editing does not work by precedent. Just because other articles are terribly written does not mean any articles should emulate them. In the article on the Erdős–Bacon number, Colin Firth is said to have a Erdős–Bacon number of 7 but the ref given merely links to the scientific paper he wrote: "Political Orientations Are Correlated with Brain Structure in Young Adults". The cite mentions nothing about an Erdős–Bacon number of 7. Likewise you state that "Magnanti has an Erdős number of 5" and give the ref for her paper "Sex-specific incidence and temporal trends in solid tumours in young people from Northern England, 1968–2000" but this cite says nothing about her Erdős–Bacon number. Twitter is not regarded here as a reliable source. Your edits present themselves as original research because your sources do not specifically support your claims. Your conclusions are your own. I hope that helps clarify the reverts. Best wishes Span (talk) 00:45, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Degrees of removal from Kevin Bacon and Paul Erdos

message: I understand there is a medical cause for the condition of Ms Magnanti's facial skin but I'm unable to find online informatio for that. Or is this an off-limits subject, for any person? Thanks in advance for any input. -The Gnome (talk) 18:50, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Facial skin

message: There has been a wrangling between 2 different dates (5th and 9th of November) in the past, both somehow insufficiently sourced with not particularly reliable sources. The version history has:
*https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Belle_de_Jour_%28writer%29&diff=460856606&oldid=460792155
*https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Belle_de_Jour_%28writer%29&diff=462287283&oldid=462284569
Assuming the IP was indeed Magnanti the date should be the 5th. However we cannot simply take the IP's word for granted and the cited blog got discontinued not that long after the change and seems unavailable currently. In short we need better/new sources and verification of the sources by other editors. Also it might be worth considering to set the date of birth to November 1975 or just 1975 until the issue is resolved.--Kmhkmh (talk) 07:24, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Now the date is sourced by a discontinued blog of Magnanti (gyst of it), fortunately it is still available on archive.org. Imho this provides sufficient proof for the 5th as the correct date.--Kmhkmh (talk) 11:17, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: date of birth?

message: Adding links to positive and negative book reviews is welcome on any page about a writer. However also adding what reads as personal approval or interpretation of the content of those reviews is beyond the scope of Wikipedia. Direct quotes and neutral descriptions are best in such instances so as to avoid BLP concerns. 87.112.166.131 (talk) 20:19, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Book reviews 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Belle de Jour (writer). 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:
*Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.geosex.nl/home_pages/html/a/d/f/adfde.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080512092313/http://www.orionbooks.co.uk/MP-42688/The-Intimate-Adventures-Of-A-London-Call-Girl.htm to http://www.orionbooks.co.uk/MP-42688/The-Intimate-Adventures-Of-A-London-Call-Girl.htm
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 14:43, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Belle de Jour (writer). 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/20121124042319/http://www.fleetingmagazine.com/the-six-word-story-prize/ to http://www.fleetingmagazine.com/the-six-word-story-prize/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:33, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Belle de Jour (writer). 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:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0%2C6903%2C1174520%2C00.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://technology.guardian.co.uk/online/weblogs/story/0%2C14024%2C1108883%2C00.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110410091136/http://www.childtrafficking.com/Docs/poppy_03_lap_dancing_0109.pdf to http://www.childtrafficking.com/Docs/poppy_03_lap_dancing_0109.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:51, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Belle de Jour (writer). 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/20111005203332/http://thebookshow.skyarts.co.uk/homepage/369662/brooke_magnanti_belle_de_jour.html to http://thebookshow.skyarts.co.uk/homepage/369662/brooke_magnanti_belle_de_jour.html
*Added  tag to ftp://ftp.nilu.no/pub/HENVINET_Supplement/Submission%20Files/04_SAUNDERS/Articles/Chlorpyrifos%20paper%20for%20EH%20publication%20211210_FINAL.doc
*Added  tag to ftp://ftp.nilu.no/pub/HENVINET_Supplement/Submission%20Files/20_ZIMMER%20et%20al/Articles/Zimmer_manuscript.doc
*Added  tag to ftp://ftp.nilu.no/pub/HENVINET_Supplement/Submission%20Files/21_RAVNUM/Articles/Article21_decaBDE%20and%20HBCD_FirstDraft_2302.doc
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110625105902/http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=1&storycode=47338&c=1 to http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=1&storycode=47338&c=1
*Added  tag to http://www.skyarts.co.uk/video/video-belle-de-jour-on-the-book-show1/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:14, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Belle de Jour (writer). 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/20110708114226/http://www.camdennewjournal.com/news/2011/feb/lilith-project-rape-lap-dance-link-%E2%80%98-flawed%E2%80%99-says-belle-du-jour-brooke-magnanti to http://www.camdennewjournal.com/news/2011/feb/lilith-project-rape-lap-dance-link-%E2%80%98-flawed%E2%80%99-says-belle-du-jour-brooke-magnanti
*Added  tag to http://www.ipadio.com/phlogs/WestminsterSkeptics/2010/06/08/Westminster-Skeptics-Brooke-Magnanti
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:31, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Why did she use a male Japanese name? Jim Michael (talk) 03:13, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Taro (given name)]]

message: Here's a quote from Magnanti's patreon page:
:[...]2018 is something of a fresh start for me, personally and professionally. I'm out of contract with my former publisher, working on exciting new projects, and have moved to the US. [...]'
I agree that official patreon page is not an optimal source, hence i didn't remove "citation needed" template. However an official patreon page is as good as an official website, facbook or twitter page, which we often do use as sources for undisputed and unproblematic information on persons (here Magnanti's move to the US). In addition it also better than having the information completely unsourced.--Kmhkmh (talk) 18:26, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: All right, I overlooked that it had that information. However, the source says 2018 while the article says 2016...  Averell (talk) 18:38, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, strictly speaking the exact year of the move is not sourced (yet) and I don't know from where the original editor got that information (I just added the source). Maybe the text in the article should be rewritten along the line of "As of 2018 Magnanti resides in the US .." to be on the safe side or we just wait for a better more detailed source in the future.--Kmhkmh (talk) 19:39, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Move to the US/Patreon