Talk:Jan Moir

Observer

She didn't write for the Guardian, she wrote for the Observer —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.221.41.111 (talk) 16:19, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Agreed - the reference link provided clearly shows that all articles she wrote were for the Observer or Observer Food Monthly. Corrected Doctorbob (talk) 10:20, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

For the record, removed this error again. Added note for editors which should reduce the likelihood of this confusion reoccurring. Philip Cross (talk) 11:05, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Ads

Section needed on M&S and Nestle pulling adverts from Daily Mail as a result of the Gately article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.66.39.80 (talk) 17:32, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Undue weight

If you think it has undue weight, then feel free to contribute more information about the rest of her life, for the other sections. Mdwh (talk) 23:17, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Of course it isn't undue weight. Let's be realistic here - most people had never heard of her before the Gately fiasco. She was notable, as Daily Mail readers came across her, but it was the Gately article that made her a household name, so naturally that episode will dominate the article. Timothy Titus ^{Talk To TT} 23:54, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

This woman is almost solely notable solely for the column which she wrote about Gately, and the resulting disrepute she brought on her publication. It's not really given undue weight in the article. - Mark 08:28, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd not call it undue weight, it's a current event and now the thing the journalist is best known in this country for. Wokstation (talk) 08:44, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Let's try not to confuse notability and fame here. She is notable for many years of journalistic work. She is currently famous (or rather notorious) to a wider audience for the Gately piece, but that is not a reason for this incidence to completely dominate the article; Wikipedia strives to avoid presentism and sensationalism.

On a related note, the Gately article suffers the same problem. It is a sad state of affairs if half of what there is to be said about a person relates to his death. Lampman (talk) 08:52, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Well as it stands right now, her notable achievements are her award, and her earning apparent-notoriety for something that's been roundly condemned as a disgraceful piece of journalism by many professional sources. Given the large number of complaints to the IPCC and the fact that the advertisers saw fit to pull out of that page, as well as the the press-coverage this has received, I think it qualifies as notable. Wokstation (talk) 09:06, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the Brooker quote in full should go. There is enough information without it detailing the controversy her article has caused. Petepetepetepete (talk) 09:56, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the quote itself seems somewhat superfluous. My previous comments referred to the mentioning of the "controversy". I'll remove the quote; if there's a big enough objection it can always be reverted. Wokstation (talk) 10:01, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

"she wrote that the death of Boyzone singer Stephen Gately was possibly related to his homosexuality." - I'm not sure this is particularly objective, certainly she would argue (and has done so in her response to the criticism) that this is not what she wrote. Perhaps this statement should be changed, or replaced with a direct quote from her article. Petepetepetepete (talk) 11:40, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Janet Street Porter, writing in Mail today, has said that La Moir said Gately died of gay (I paraphrase). So that's her own newspaper now saying she said it. I think that's a good enough reference, although your mileage may differ. ➜Redvers^{talk  ❝It's bona to vada your dolly old eek❞} 10:27, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I think the article reads better by including both the accusation (referenced) and the denial she made later that day (also referenced). With luck, that balances the opening sentence. Again, others' mileage may vary. ➜Redvers^{talk  ❝It's bona to vada your dolly old eek❞} 10:33, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

No, I still dont think it reads right at all. The sentence: "in which she wrote that the death of Boyzone singer Stephen Gately was possibly related to his homosexuality" is still wholly subjective; the fact that Janet Street Porter may or may not share this opinion with you (and admittedly others), does not make it any less subjective. It certainly isn't a good enough citation to prove the statement. Petepetepetepete (talk) 15:14, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

<-Ah, no, please don't even try to think you know my offline opinions by what I write on Wikipedia (including on talk pages) coz you're on a hiding to nowhere there! :o) No, really. I suppose the issue here is that the article without the accusation - made by many including her own newspaper - makes little sense if you don't know the circumstances. Since this isn't Wikinews, we have to assume the reader doesn't know the circumstances. Without the sentence saying what the problem is, the article won't make sense in a month or a year. And this is an encyclopedia, not the news. So your choices are to remove it and make the article make no sense or to find a source that agrees (I say there is one now, but your mileage differs), or to rephrase the sentence in question so it says what the issue is without being 'subjective'. Whatever you choose, slapping a {{fact}} tag on the passage in question is literally the last thing you should consider on a BLP. ➜Redvers^{talk  ❝It's bona to vada your dolly old eek❞} 19:39, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

better? i tried to use respected 3rd party news coverage as a guide as to how they were refering to the incident and found this article a useful guide http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8311499.stm I think it certainly removes what was something of a inference and replaces it with direct quotations from Moir's article. I think her quote "strange, lonely and troubelsome' conveys all the aspects of the article that led to people taking offence, such as the insenitivity and factual inaccuracy rather than solely the perceived homophobia Petepetepetepete (talk) 21:20, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I had to revert the censorship of the edit before yours. Will you reinstate your edit based on the uncensored article, with my apologies for removing you contribution? ➜Redvers^{talk  ❝It's bona to vada your dolly old eek❞} 21:57, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Noting the newspaper article's change of name?

Interestingly, not long after the public reaction to the article began to become known, the title of the article in question was changed, from "Why there was nothing "natural" about Stephen Gately's death" to "A strange, lonely and troubling death". This is a significant change of tone and context, and in reporting the event should really at least be mentioned. It's also verifiable, reported as it is over here: http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2009/10/16/twitter-storm-over-vile-daily-mail-column-on-gay-singer-stephen-gately/ I'd have edited it in myself, but the article's semi-protected and I don't appear to have made enough edits to allow me to work on semi-protected articles yet. Wokstation (talk) 09:07, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

 Done ➜Redvers^{talk  ❝It's bona to vada your dolly old eek❞} 09:25, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree - and shouldn't the original reference we give also refer to the original text? After all, the article is talking about when it was first written, but currently we refer to the article title it was given later. Mdwh (talk) 16:27, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Tabloid journalist

Is it accurate to describe her as a Tabloid Journalist, certainly she writes for a Tabloid currently, but since the other previous papers she has written for are broadsheets, i'm not sure it's a fair description. Certainly other Mail journalists who have written for a wide range of publishers, such as Amanda Platell are not currently described as tabloid journalists in their opening paragraphs. What do you think? Petepetepetepete (talk) 12:14, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. I removed it. ➜Redvers^{talk  ❝It's bona to vada your dolly old eek❞} 12:30, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

You have redacted the article because although you concur it is "accurate", you do not think it is "fair"? I cannot see the logic. Either she currently writes for a tabloid newspaper, or she doesn't. Biographical articles should accurately describe their subject's profession, not amend that description because some editor deems their profession is not well regarded.--feline1 (talk) 15:36, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Is this a case of WP:BLP1E?

At the moment, this article looks to me a lot like someone notable for one event. While there is some information about her not relating to the recent controversy - e.g., she was the Society of Women Writers' journalist of the year in 2005 - I think it's dubious to claim this is really a biographical article as opposed to an article about something else. I'd suggest this article be renamed to 2009 Daily Mail Stephen Gately controversy, or perhaps simply merged into the existing section at Stephen Gately#Jan Moir controversy. I'm not convinced she's really notable enough for a biography, and that's supported by the fact that we didn't have an article on her until yesterday. Robofish (talk) 13:10, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

As the original author, and someone with a standard of notability that is higher than the community's woefully broad definition of the word, I'd be pretty sure that the delightful Ms Moir - as a columnist in the UK's second-biggest selling newspaper, formerly of the UK's biggest selling broadsheet and of the UK's biggest selling left-wing newspaper, a winner of (admittedly backslapping) awards and someone thus known at least vaguely to some three million people is indeed notable under Wikipedia's rules. She's certainly more notable than 70% of the actors, singers and entertainers we have copious keystrokes about. The age of the article is irrelevant, as Wikipedia is not paper and because that argument would make it impossible to start any article. ➜Redvers^{talk  ❝It's bona to vada your dolly old eek❞} 13:17, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Incidentally, if you see the article as it was before the Gately stuff was added [1] you've got a perfectly serviceable, well-referenced stub with notability already asserted. Conversely, 2009 Daily Mail Stephen Gately controversy would be an article about a single event that will, alas, be forgotten this time next month (La Moir will not be so forgotten, whether she keeps her column or moves on) and I'd like as not propose it [the controversy article] for deletion for lacking notability! :o) ➜Redvers^{talk  ❝It's bona to vada your dolly old eek❞} 13:24, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

The controversy could be argued to be notable already on it's own due to tehre being a record number of press complaints and a great deal of coverage in secondary media sources. Also I expect there will be a great deal of coverage of the controversy as a whole, rather than the death of steven gateley, or the article itself in the coming days, so maybe an article, either for the death of Steven Gateley, or as you suggest 2009 Daily Mail Stephen Gateley controversy would be better suited to do this then the current blurb on the biog pages of the two. Petepetepetepete (talk) 15:09, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

How about we have articles for both her, and this controversy? So she still has her own article, which isn't dominated by details of this one event, but it allows us to still keep the information about the event. And the debate about whether each is notable can be debated separately for each article.

I think that this event easily meets notability (just because an event only receives publicity for a short period of time doesn't stop it being notable - we have articles on plenty of issues that received publicity at the time, but are now not covered by the media). Mdwh (talk) 13:41, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Shes obviously notable as a journalist. In a week or so when the Politically Correct Inquisition against freedom of conscience has died down, then the recentism can be purged so its a more even coverage of her career. Unless the article is completely protected for a week to keep recentism down. IMO it isn't encyclopedic enough to have an article specifically dedicated to the liberal witch hunt against her. - Yorkshirian (talk) 14:38, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh, so it's the old 'freedom of speech' line again is it? The people who have died for the right to freedom of speech would be turning in their graves if they knew people like you had hijacked the principle to defend hateful sub-humans like Moir and their judgmental, baseless rants. You make me sick. Smurfmeister (talk) 15:04, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Mdwh that there should be two articles, this article should have a brief mention with a link to the article detailing the controversy. That would also serve the purpose of the undue weight given to the controvery on the Stephen Gateley page. Petepetepetepete (talk) 14:51, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

She is only notable for being a second rate writer with homophobic views. She is a spiteful person with no real talent or skill, unlike the man she slated. Sack her. 82.6.12.212 (talk) 15:12, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree that there is scope for 2 articles - this one, and a separate one about the event. Would also prevent duplication of content on the Stephen Gateley page. NRTurner (talk) 15:17, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

There is nothing politically correct here, and I would oppose removing information simply because time has past. There is plenty of precedence on Wikipedia for events that have a surge in news coverage, but only for a short period - e.g., Internet Watch Foundation and Wikipedia; the fact that it's no longer in the news doesn't mean we purge the information. What on earth does being liberal have to do with this? Trying to hide the information because you disagree with it would be POV. It's not up to us to take sides, we should be reporting what happened - whether it was 5 minutes ago, or 5 years ago. Mdwh (talk) 16:31, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Needs a reference to similar Jan Moir articles as evidence of homophobia.

A quick search on telegraph.co.uk uncover this Jan Moir article http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/janmoir/3557794/Is-a-Fritzl-horror-happening-in-Britain.html in which she writes on notorious examples (Fritzl, West) of adults abusing, imprisoning and murdering their own children. No mention is made of the fact that these deprived individuals were infact heterosexual.

This I think is evidence of the true homophobic nature of Moir's Stephen Gateley article as it shows her ignoring sexuality as an issue when it is heterosexuals 'behaving in a debased manner' re: threesome. So a reference to this article would show that she is undoubtedly homophobic despite her denials? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stevexyg (talk • contribs) 22:02, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Wouldn't that count as original research though? Even if not, a single article doesn't prove the case, merely suggests it (and even that could be considered a bit of a stretch). If you can find and reference a mainstream media outlet making this observation, you might be right, but even then it'd be pretty debatable as suitable content imo. Wokstation (talk) 22:15, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

How is having a three debase? I'd love a crack at one! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.241.223.94 (talk) 20:43, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Nesting levels of quotation

"Why there was nothing "natural" about Stephen Gately's death" to "A strange, lonely and troubling death" 

Hope it's OK to talk about grammar in the discussion page.

When using quotation marks, an author should always start with double quotations marks (e.g., "like these"). If quotation marks are then required within that quotation, you should use single quotation marks. So, just wanted to say: consider using single quotation marks around 'natural'? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.42.219.188 (talk) 13:15, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd agree normally, but in this case it's a direct quotation from the newspaper, which used double quotes. ➜Redvers^{talk  ❝It's bona to vada your dolly old eek❞} 13:25, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

IPCC complaints

According to the Telegraph, a record 21,000 complaints were received over Moir's article, so I have added it and cited a source. Hopefully I've done it OK as I'm still fairly new at this. Wokstation (talk) 19:51, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Ah well, someone rewrote the article and changed the source. C'la vis Wokstation (talk) 20:28, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I reverted the "rewrite", since all it did was remove vast amounts of sourced material and replace them with sentences that made little or no sense until you'd read most of the article. Such ideas do not a good article make. ➜Redvers^{talk  ❝It's bona to vada your dolly old eek❞} 21:53, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Stephen Gately article: wording

I rewrote this section at 20:16 on 19 October as the original was badly worded and didn't follow a chronological order. My rewrite has been reverted and, I feel, the article is now of a lesser quality. Compare the revision of 19 October at 20:16 with the current one: should the article be rewritten again? Why (not)? Any suggestions for what improvements could be made to the current article and my rewrite would be much appreciated. Sw258 (talk) 14:20, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Citation density

Too many numbers confuse me =[ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.7.236.236 (talk) 12:06, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Bizarrely a sentence was removed on the grounds that, quote "Stewart Lee is hardly unbiased, being a hard-left winger". On an article about a Daily Mail journalist, that's pretty highly ironic (it was also by somebody who described themselves on their profile according to their political affiliation, so by their own logic, was therefore unsuitable to contribute.

Can posters pay attention to the reasons for removal of any material - I don't know whether the opinion of somebody criticised by Moir criticising them back in a show is important enough to be included in her wiki, but such a farcical reason for removal suggests little attention is being paid to POV issues. Marty jar (talk) 19:30, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I removed it because the source 'Chortle' is not RS. It is a blog site, hardly a reputable journal. Yes I do hate Stewart Lee, I think he is a nasty, vile and hateful left-wing idiot but that is not relevant to this article. My political affiliation does not mean I am 'unsuitable' to contribute. I simply express my political stance as many other wikipedians do. I removed it rightly because the source is not reliable and Stewart Lee is biased. Christian1985 (talk) 23:48, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Crucially, as is now agreed, content can't be removed on the grounds that editors disagree with the political positions of a public figure. As I think you've probably noticed in the above, I said both you and Jan Moir wouldn't be able to contribute to Wikipedia, according to the grounds on which content was previously removed - not that I was against you contributing. Also, not sure I'd allow Chortle, but in this case it's an article by an individual talking in the first person, so is legit. As I mentioned above, I'm not sure if somebody coming back against a Jan Moir criticism is suitably relevant, and it's that point which may be looked at, particularly should there be any space limitations. Marty jar (talk) 19:26, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Notability

I removed the template because this article's subject is now clearly beyond WP:BLP1E status. The British Press Awards are a significant event for the domestic media industry. Moir's article about Katherine Jenkins gained plenty of coverage in reliable sources, though it is perhaps a little too repetitive for much of it to be included. There is little or nothing which can be used about Moir's comment concerning Marianne Vos in English, unfortunately. Philip Cross (talk) 10:49, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

I am madly in love

Mrs Jan could you help me to understand my love for someone in throne can be real. I love him how he is but I think it is just a dream . Who can't love someone who's nothing in this life just a pure heart.......

Ann.mpr (talk) 18:56, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jan Moir. 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/20120730134712/http://www.telegraaf.nl/telesport/olympische-spelen-2012/wielrennen-weg-programma/12653225/__Daily_Mail__Vos_is_een__bitch___.html to http://www.telegraaf.nl/telesport/olympische-spelen-2012/wielrennen-weg-programma/12653225/__Daily_Mail__Vos_is_een__bitch___.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:24, 18 April 2017 (UTC)