Talk:Private Eye/Archive 1

Initial messages

What does this mean? The popular strip cartoon "The Yobs" is definitely not drawn by Mark Bennett!!, and what does it have to do with the article? -- Zoe

Yobs is a cartoon in Private Eye, if that helps... :) Martin 00:14 15 Jun 2003 (UTC)

• • somebody could do with putting a list of cartoons/regular cartoonists into the entry for Private Eye Keir

Looking at the current issue of Private Eye "The Yobs" is by "Husband".

As someone asked the other cartoons are:

{snip - they list provided has been added-in to the main article}

I hope this of use to someone ;) Secretlondon 22:34, Nov 14, 2003 (UTC)

---

We need actual details on the anti-semitism claims and on the Goldsmith libel case. I will find both these details and post them as soon as I can track down the book I have which discusses them (it's in the loft) :) This book also lists who owns the Eye which makes interesting reading (can't confirm but I'm sure one of The Beatles was involved) Keir

The Private Eye Story

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 This book is around 20 years old now but I was careful not to include any info which is clearly out of date.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)

It is now a lot more accurate but two points remain.

1. The original funding was by Andrew Osmond, not Peter Usborne.
2. Peter Cook did not buy an off-the-shelf company called Pressdram. Andrew Osmond did.

Finally, The Private Eye Story does contain errors as, indeed, any history must. Gareth Powell gp@mail.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.151.180.231 (talk • contribs)

I've cleaned the above unsigned comment up a bit - can anyone confim, though? Stephenb (Talk) 13:59, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Uganda

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)

About Criticism

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)

Pseuds Corner is already mentioned. Stephenb (Talk) 10:40, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Further to XYaAsehShalomX's comments, I would say that the article's argument that racist attitudes "still occasionally surface" in the magazine and then using a cover from 1971 to illustrate this point seems a touch unfair on the current management. I've only ever read the magazine under Ian Hislop's editorship but would say that while it may have been a problem in the past, it isn't one I've noticed while I've been a reader. Or I don't think I would read it. So shall I change that?

It should perhaps also be mentioned in the article that Jonathan Miller and Private Eye have had a long-running spat, discussed with Sue Lawley on Desert Island Discs a couple of years ago. I don't know the circumstances, but presumably Miller understandably felt hard done by if the magazine had taken a negative stance towards him. All the same, I might add, unless anybody objects, that Miller may not be the most objective of critics. Incidentally I think I've read one reference to Miller in the magazine in the last three years. I may not be particularly observant though.

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)

Would be interested to know others' opinions on the racism thing though - I'd be sad if there was some inherent racism there and because I'm not the subject of it I don't see it. HilJackson 11:42, 24 May 2006 (UTC) (Talk)

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)

Baillie Vass

The reference to Sir Alec Douglas Home arose from a wrongly captioned photograph in a Scotch local paper. A Baillie is a minor official and one such, Mr Vass, was in the news. Unfortunately his caption appeared under the picture of Sir Alec.

Sindie

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)

You're right, I've fixed it. -- Avaragado 09:53, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Page 94

Can anyone explain why 94 in particular was chosen as an arbitrary large number in practically every issue of the magazine? Is there a story behind it? -Sewing - talk 20:08, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

It refers to the practice with glossy magazines, where the priority is to set the advertisements in place. The editorial content is then poured into the gaps. This means that major articles come to a sudden and often arbitrary hiatus, and are continued much later on in the magazine. It was not unknown in some publications for articles thus curtailed failing to re-appear later, presumably for lack of space or because somebody forgot. sweetalkinguy 17 Apr 06

On the specific use of 94, it may be a reference to Joseph Haydn's Symphony No94, known as the "Surprise" symphony; Richard Ingrams is a classical music buff - and organist. Only conjecture, no evidence for this.Philip Cross 12:00, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Explaining every joke in sufficient detail to kill it utterly

There must be a better way to do this, including all the tediously detailed explanations to the last dot of every single joke. Just removing said explanations makes this a much better-written article. Just because someone put them in doesn't obligate us to perpetuate them - David Gerard 16:59, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Point taken. However, most Wikipedia readers live outside the U.K., so a little background isn't out of order. 134.174.140.40 21:06, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I think David Gerard and 134.174.140.40 are pulling our leg: it isn't funny!Phase4 22:28, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Er, we disagree. We can't *both* be pulling your leg.

At the risk of explaining this in sufficient detail to kill it utterly, that's not logically sound, because there is only one true version of any given fact but there can be more than one false version. I know that no-one cares about this point, and nor do I really, but I felt strangely obliged to point it out anyway. Garrick92 10:33, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

While some of the explanations are long and tedious, I think this is the most useful Wiki page I have ever read! The reason is that despite living in the UK for the past 8 years, I couldn't understand most of the inside jokes and references in Private Eye. Now I know that checking the Wiki page will almost always provide the answer. Noam bergman 15:19, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Polly Filler

I notice that from the newspaper parodies section, Polly Filler is missing. I added it, but don't really know how to describe it, so left it blank for someone who reads the paper more often.

Does anyone know the real-life original of PF? (or at least some of the originals this section draws on?)

I suggest you read Alison Pearson. Only once, mind you

I have no proof but surely Polly-Filler is somewhat loosely based on Polly Toynbee or the Guardian? I don't know how long that (or she) have been going so it may be total tripe, but that's what my assumption always was. ny156uk 04:14, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Polly Toynbee is a respected political commentator rather than a lifestyle columnist. Do not be confused by the name. The Guardian has had plenty of Polly Filler-style columnists (currently Lucy Mangan and Michele Hanson) but Toynbee is not one of them. ChrisM

I've always assumed that the term is a play on that well-known parrot food Polyfilla. --A bit iffy 09:15, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

More likely the much more well-known Polyfilla. The column is obviously a play on the lifestyle articles found in several newspapers, usually written by women, and usually denigrated as simple filler material (rather than, err, news!). Stephenb (Talk) 10:21, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Quite right. The article first appeared when D-I-Y was very popular, and this was a very popular brand of D-I-Y products. The sources too vary. For example, a couple of years ago Polly Filler repeated verbatim a "how does one cope with such a busy life" rant by Jane Moore in her column in The Sun (itself almost a Polly Filler parody). She often mentions her husband in a "the useless Simon" way. It has moved beyond a parody of the "lifestyle" columns in the broadsheets and now often lifts pieces from more downmarket sources, such as the Sun/Express/Mail/Mirror. The column has not appeared very often recently. Guy 14:27, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone know who the "Polly" photo is of in real life? 129.12.98.76 12:27, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Nit-Picking, Really

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)

Andrew Neil

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)

Sex!

I've been reading the magazine since the late seventies, on and off. The article suggests that the magazine has always had a diffident attitude towards revealing extramarital affairs. My (probably exaggerated) recollection of the Ingrams era was that half the "news" section was filled with startling revelations about the deputy manager of Borsetshire council highway maintenance department shagging his secretary, or some minor civil servant's brother-in-law being a "poove". A lot of the journalists left when Hislop was appointed editor, and took those attitudes with them - I seem to remember Hislop saying at the time that shagging was no longer news unless there was an extra dimension, and the Great Homosexual Conspiracy was now a dead issue (Simon Regan had a real bee in his bonnet about that). I don't have any sources for any of this, but it's worth digging out. The magazine was occasionally quite uncomfortable reading for a Thatcher-era leftie teenager. --Andrew Norman 13:07, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Andrew, these would have been non-speaking parts:

the deputy manager of Borsetshire council highway maintenance department shagging his secretary.

Unless your an Archers Anarchist and know better! Philip Cross 20:27, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Porn link spam

I've removed many links to a pron link that clogged up the top of the page. Begone, spammer of porn!

Idi Amin, and privacy

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: [1]; 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)

Glenda Slagg

For some reason I thought Glenda Slagg was based on (the now defunct) Lynda Lee-Potter - correct me if I'm wrong.

I would'nt be surprised if it was based on Lynda-Lee Potter - the similarities are uncanny.

I believe that it first applied to Jean Rook who wrote in similar style for the Express although Lynda Lee-Potter certainly inherited the role.

Have I Got News For You

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)

Mirror obsession with house prices

Am pretty sure it should be Daily Mail, but an edit earlier by User:Tasc switched it to the Mirror [2] - I've asked the contributer to clarify this change. --Oscarthecat 22:34, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

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)

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

Criticism?

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)

Ah, have just read this having made a comment further up - apologies for running over well-trodden ground HilJackson 11:46, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

LGBT to gay rights

As I comment on the articles history page, the term LGBT is contemporary usage and "gay rights" was the then contemporary umbrella term for the movement. It is not usual in conventional texts to use obviously anachronistic terms.Philip Cross 18:38, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Basically you are right, Philip. It is always difficult to explain past events and the contemporary reasons behind them to a today audience, and today usage often gets in the way. As far as Private Eye was concerned, many public figures (for example, Noël Coward, Benjamin Britten) were known to be homosexual at a time when you could be locked up for it. Sometimes they mentioned it in their "coded" language (a job for somebody to ferret in the back-numbers and winkle it out) sometimes the language was not coded. Even after it was "legalised", the Private Eye crew still had the sniggering public schoolboy attitude, especially over the Jeremy Thorpe trial. When "gay rights" became an issue, it took most people with that attitude completely by surprise, the intensity and passion of it, and indeed the violence. Today's anti-discrimination industry, which includes "gay rights", is not particularly relevant to the issue back then, the language used, and the manner in which the jolly japes brigade (Private Eye, Monty Python too, if you look) handled it and how inappropriate their outpourings were. It was the same with anti-semitism, and they used to call Lord Constantine, the West Indies cricketer, lawyer and High Commissioner for Trinidad and Tobago "Learie Constantine, the former black man" (the nearest current equivalent of Lord Constantine is probably his fellow-Trinidadian Sir Trevor McDonald).

Guy 23:49, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

The Classifieds

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)

Pop Scene

Private Eye had lampooned press coverage of popular culture in general and pop music in particular right from its earliest days. What they were getting at was the culture itself, not so much the coverage of it. Maureen Cleave was part of the whole Swinging London thing, along with Ready Steady Go!, mini skirts, Carnaby Street, Mods and Rockers, etc. The pretentiousness of the "heavy" papers in what had hitherto been "tabloid" territory (though few papers were tabloid size in those days) can be dated from the troubles of the Rolling Stones, and the celebrated William Rees-Mogg leading article Who breaks a butterfly on a wheel?, which appeared in The Times in July 1967. You can read about it in The Pendulum Years by Bernard Levin, Revolt into Style by George Melly and, if you can find it as it has long been out of print, Bomb Culture by Jeff Nuttall. Basically, Private Eye was commenting upon Spiggy Topes and The Turds long before the heavy press were, and the article is more accurate as I originally wrote it.

Guy 00:36, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

User:81.79.178.196 seems to disagree with this edit (numerous reverts etc), I've invited him/her to discuss the problem here on the talk page. --Oscarthecat 09:50, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I am that user, now logged in. I suppose I think it is POV to refer to a more serious approach to popular culture as "pretentious"; closer to Wikipedia's NPOV policy to simply say that the Eye gang *considered* the approach to be pretentious. I thoroughly agree with Guy's point that they were ridiculing the culture rather than the coverage per se; the Eye gang had no inherent feeling for popular culture, those being the days when most public school people didn't (insert "and if you listen to James Blunt / Dido / Coldplay / Keane it's obvious that they still don't" joke here). RobinCarmody

Robin, I write as one who was reading Private Eye in those days, not to mention the music press and the heavier newspapers. PE coverage of popular culture predated any qualitative assessment of coverage elsewhere. Your edit says they thought the coverage was pretentious and reacted accordingly. In fact their take had been going on before that. Your edit is inaccurate and misleading and an assumption made from hindsight. You can see what I mean if you contrast Pop Scene with the ongoing discredited coverage that the Eye later gave to the internal affairs of the L.S.O. and the man they dubbed the "Ayatollah" Camden. Media discussion of the music scene evolved as "rock" music split away from the "pop" mainstream, and demanded that it be taken more seriously, on a par with classical music and other "arts". Fair enough for a while, but then coverage got engulfed by the same hyperbole as the music. It is a widely held view that coverage became more pretentious as the music did. Most people would agree that there was a gulf between Melody Maker and New Musical Express on the one hand as opposed to Record Mirror and Smash Hits with Sounds in the middle, and the difference paralleled that between the heavies and the tabloids. Late-Sixties Rolling Stone magazine (hard to get outside London) could be very heavy and serious, but not pretentious. On the other hand, in certain circles the very thought that any music that could shift millions of album copies had any right to be considered seriously was considered pretentious in itself. POVs sure enough, but valid ones to the many people who shared one of them.

Guy 21:24, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Right, I've re-edited to reflect your views on this matter. I can't speak for the Telegraph (though I suspect they were the most resistant of all) or the Guardian, but you are right that the Eye's coverage of popular culture, even if it only goes back to 1964 (and *certainly* if it goes back to the very start of the Eye in 1961) would predate any substantial coverage in the Times (the only newspaper of any description to be available online for those of us who weren't around at the time). Apart from the famous high-flown analysis of the Beatles' melodic structures in December 1963 (anonymous at the time, as virtually all Times articles were, but widely acknowledged to have been written by William Mann) there is little of substance before William Rees-Mogg became editor, lifted the anonymity rule, and changed the ethos somewhat (January 1967). In 1964/65, still under William Haley's editorship, they still had adverts on the front page and would have given more time to obscure country funerals of brigadiers and dowagers you'd never heard of than to the Rolling Stones. RobinCarmody

Lord Goodman

What evidence is there to support the nickname "Two Dinners"? There is no mention of this in the Arnold Goodman article, but then that is just a list of birth, death, posts held and honours given. John Prescott is generally known as "Two Jags", or latterly, "Two Shags", but I cannot recall Lord Goodman being similarly nicknamed. Indeed this style of nickname has the hallmarks of a post-Prescott invention, and Goodman had been long dead by then. Although he was prominent in public life, particularly as Chairman of the Arts Council, he was not far enough into the general public eye to warrant a nickname, affectionate or otherwise. True enough he was not very tall and disproportionately wide across the shoulders and was well-known in high-class eateries. Did Private Eye call him "Two Dinners" at all, let alone often?

Guy 16:47, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

.... Indeed Private Eye called Goodman "Two Dinners" many times. As to the evidence for this sobriquet, I shall now have to drag all my back copies down from the loft. I may be some time. Wish me luck. --Cunningham 18:24, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Cunningham is quite correct here - I refer the hon. Guy to the quiz in Eye 500 (page 16): "Who are: .. (i) Two dinners;". The answers are in Eye 502 (page 9): "3. .. i) Lord Goodman.". David | Talk 19:56, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I thought I remembered him being on the cover one week, but I had a quick look here: http://ugandandiscussions.co.uk/ and could not spot it. If you are sure, I defer, by all means reinstate it in the article. I suggest "Solicitor-to-the-rich Lord Goodman, a member of Harold Wilson's circle, was a favourite Private Eye target during the Sixties and Seventies. He was famous as a bon viveur, hence the nickname "Two Dinners", but his alleged reputation for shady dealings meant that he was usually referred to as Lord Badman."

I encountered him in the (substantial) flesh once or twice, and a friend of a friend who worked in his office told us one or two things that even Private Eye would never dare to publish. Guy 20:25, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I have put back in the reference to 'Two Dinners' as someone <narrows eyes> edited it out. Goodman was indeed known as 'two dinners', and often referred to in the Eye as such. <blunt> I think people who don't know what they're talking about shouldn't remove references that they don't recognise. </blunt>

OK, Private Eye is a set of injokes, but if you're going to insist on sources for all of its insults and nicknames, you're just going to prevent them being aired. Most of them were pretty silly personal insults (why else, for example, did Derek Jameson get called 'Sid Yobbo'?).

That's the whole thing about injokes: they're injokes. Like it or lump it. --Garrick92 13:03, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough : if we agree that PE did occasionally refer to him as 2 dinners, then it should remain in there. --Oscarthecat 20:38, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Anti-semitism

I think too much is made of the accusation of anti-semitism; other than in references to Private Eye of the distant past (e.g. by Jonathan Miller). The Telavivagraph joke was only made once or twice and clearly in reference to Barbara Amiel's frequent support for Israel in her column). And why is Private Eye's spoofing of Middle East politics to be regarded as specifically anti-semitic rather than, say, anti-Arab? Ben Finn 23:13, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Because of the good old false dichotomy of "either you support Israel or you are an anti-Semite", constantly used with great effect by the far right Jewish and Zionist lobbies. 86.7.208.240 22:48, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

There was a spell during the Seventies when Private Eye was indeed anti-semitic and right wing. In keeping with the times it often made comments which nowadays would be considered derogatory and racist. For example, they used to describe the distinguished Trinidad cricketer, lawyer and diplomat Lord Constantine as "Sir Learie Constantine, the former black man...... Guy 20:00, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd suggest that in this instance they were satirising how non-whites so rarely became establishment figures that they had to drop any "ethnic identity" (sorry) to do so. More generally they targeted anyone and everyone and were keen to cause offense so were/are probably considered racist, sexist, anti-semitic, etc. as a consequence.--Mongreilf 12:56, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

"Snipcock and Tweed", anyone? Rhinoracer 16:37, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Blimey! that is an obscure bit of anti-semitism if ever I saw it.. but it explains a lot. I'd always wondered why the title characters in that cartoon are creepy, scary bogeymen.. And not at all the observant, entertaining, and amusingly sarcastic characters they may otherwise have turned out to be.

I guess this also explains why contemporary Protestant White English culture is glorified in strips like 'Yobs', and it's actions and politics reported in such glowing terms on almost every page.. EasyTarget 12:49, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Private Eye has often been accused of anti-semitism (recently at least) because of its attacks on Barbara Amiel, and by association Black and the Telegraph itself. Of course, these attacks had nothing to do with the fact that Amiel was frequently quoted attacking, slandering and insulting Arabs, Muslims, Palestinians - including in print - etc etc. Funny how things work, ain't it? Attack a racist who happens to be Jewish?, you must be anti-semitic; Happen to be Jewish and attack Arabs and Muslims?, well that's just free speech! C'est la vie. 86.7.208.240 00:49, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

C'est la vie indeed

Private Lies

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)

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)

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)

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)

Peter Cook told that story on Channel 4's 'The Last Resort with Jonathan Ross' in 1988 bingo99 16:20, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

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)

Too long?

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)

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)

Time to start breaking up the article

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)

As the contributor of 'Recordings', I commend your efforts. It gives the whole a much better appearance.

Lord Gnome

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)

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)

Poetry parodies

Don't the John Betjeperson/William MacGonagle parodies deserve a mention? if so where?Ros Power 08:28, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

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)

Writing Style

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)

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)

About one of the pictures

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)

Portakabin

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)

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)

Well yes it was a gag. Sorry I don't understand your point. Dr Spam (MD) 08:12, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

It was treated, via the letters page, rather humorously, in order (one suspects) to highlight the pomposity - but I wouldn't call it a gag, nor would I call it "long running". The letters page is one of the best bits of the magazine - the number of correspondants who cancel their subscription after some article or cartoon they find offensive is rather wonderful! Stephenb (Talk) 13:19, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I seem to recall the Eye doing something similar with Biro. The word appeared with a lower-case 'b' in one issue, and the Eye received a letter from some representative demanding that 'Biro' be treated as a copyrighted word. The editors published the letter, with the words "What a pathetic way to make a living." User:Wozocoxonoy 14:40, 12 December 2006 (GMT)

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)

Please explain I still don't follow. What was your contribution to pedants' corner? (or pedants corner as you have it)

Auberon Waugh's Diary

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)

Ian Hislop Getting Sued

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)

Facts and opinions

This is a very entertaining article, but it is absolutely riddled with personal opinions and unsourced statements. It is also far too long. It certainly doesn't pass Wikipedia's current standard of verifiability. Those who love this article need to do some remedial work on it before the razor-gang arrives. Adam 02:42, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Well considering the enormous disparity between the real-world importance of a subject, and the length of articles on wikipedia; I hardly think this article is out of place. Futhermore, we're talking about a well known, respected bi-weekly magazine here. I could name plenty of articles for unpublished webcomics and websites that are a great deal longer than this one.--Jonathan793 02:36, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Elsewhere on Wikipedia are individual articles about each single episode of long-running American television drama series, many of those are little but personal opinion, also articles about films, books and plays. Private Eye is not a journal of record, if you want one of those try The Economist or National Geographic, PE is entertainment with a harder edge, its objective is to be entertaining, thereby drawing attention to the issues raised in the more serious articles. Guy 12:35, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

OK OK so it isn't too long. My first criticism, however, is more important, and has not been answered. Adam 08:52, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Adam, your comment that the article is too long is perfectly valid. The point has been made elsewhere on this discussion page. It is time for a more skeletal central article with the bulk of the material in subsidiary articles. However, if you start to do this (as I have), you quickly find the inadequacies elsewhere. The main articles about many of the characters mentioned, satirised and piss-taken in Private Eye are often very thin, Mohammad Fayed for example, some are virtually non-existent (eg Jim Slater), so if one sets about doing it properly, it quickly becomes a major task.

Your comment about personal opinions and unsourced comments are valid too. Personally, I do not think this is a problem in this particular article, but then I have been reading the magazine regularly on and off for over forty years. I think most readers will be aware that it can be a little subjective, but this would be taken care of were the article to be broken up and sectionalised. The coverage of the Sixties, when it was particularly influential, is very thin. The article relies on the memories of the various editors which are subjective, and not uniform across the whole life of the magazine (not a derogatory comment). Most of the articles which review creative works and notable people include a certain amount of subjective comment, the difference with this article is that there are so many different little bits to be discursive about. I tend to agree it has been done to death here, but again, this would be not unacceptable in a subsidiary article. There is far worse elsewhere on Wikipedia, look at the article and discussion about George Galloway and the edits for example, or those on most subjects of ongoing political discussion. Then there are the articles about rock stars and the music, and other "showbiz" topics. Perhaps this article does diverge from strict Wikipedia guidelines, but it is, as you say, entertaining, and keeps many people amused, a contrast to the many grim and humourless articles elsewhere.

My apologies for breaking the Wikipedia guidelines on brevity. Guy 14:27, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Police log - Neasden Central Police Station

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)

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)

Is it really the job of this article to describe and analyse the contents of each week's issue of PE? Why not just scan-and-paste the whole magazine? Adam 08:52, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

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)

A way to reduce article length

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)

• I support this idea, generally speaking, but the spin-off articles should be far more general: List of fictional journalistic parodies in Private Eye, List of regular Prime Ministerial parodies in Private Eye, List of regular news sections in Private Eye etc. Furthermore, they should probably be broken off one by one as and when the article becomes too big again, in order of how uneasily they sit in the parent article, since my experience on other articles, such as Labour Party (UK) leadership elections, 2007, is that if all the component sections of an article are broken out, the parent article is left with very little content. Also, there is no need for the broken out articles to be stubs, so I would oppose individual articles for every separate aspect of Eye humour (Neasden etc). Keeping the content in a smaller number of articles means that we could have a template which can be unobtrusive and at the side, rather than sprawling, hard to maintain and at the bottom. I think that would be nicer. Though naturally I am in favour of cross-party consensus throughout the house, with open debate on these issues. Thoughts? Jdcooper 17:18, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Including Nicolas Soames in the "Frequent targets" section.

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)

Journalists

Perhaps a mention of the John Cole saga here?Pn25 14:16, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

"Undaubtaably" a good idea. Philip Cross 14:02, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Circulation

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)

Eye Advertise claims a readership of 760,000. And cites the National Readership Survey November 2006. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.159.98.68 (talk) 10:33, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Splitting project, list of regular mini-sections

• 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)

Breaking out in-jokes section

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)

• Oh, and plus, lots of the stuff in that section wasn't supposed to be in that section, I will likely merge some of it back across upon sorting. Jdcooper 16:26, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Regular columns

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)

(Lack of) Editorial Position

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)

• I agree, and I think that is probably such a central tenet of Private Eye that someone somewhere must have written about it. If we can find such a person and place then I think some comment on this issue would be a good addition, but without a source it is totally WP:OR, and although you are right about other OR in the article, two wrongs don't make a right! Jdcooper 06:19, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Prime Ministerial Decree

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)

• If/when it does the redlink can surely be filled. A redlink seems fine for the moment. I agree regarding the Broon-ites. Jdcooper 06:17, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Jammy Fishpaste

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)

I've got back issues of the Eye, back to 1992 or so. Would some issue numbers suffice as a citation? Would it help / be allowed to quote some Eye content, including the use of this nickname? Djce 09:39, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

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)

NP TrulyBlue, I'll try to dig them out. They're a bit buried, it might take a while to reach them :-) Djce 12:43, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

• Eye 907 (20 Sep 1996). P5 (Colour Section). "Now that the victory of Sir Jammy Fishpaste's Referendum party is assured by the addition of zoo-keeper John Aspinall to its candidates' list, Jammy is checking his members more carefully."
• Eye 908 (4 Oct 1996). P6, "Referendum Party News. Sir Jammy Goldsmith's briefing session for more than 100 Referendum party faithful ...".
• Eye 909 (18 Oct 1996). P11, "Referendum Party Special": "[Robert Shrimsley of the Daily Telegraph] forgot to mention that his late father, Anthony Shrimsley, was editor of Now! magazine (prop: Sir J. Fishpaste)".

Djce 11:11, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

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

Francis Wheen and Hypocrisy

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)

• The article needs thinning, and there are many unsourced statements hidden in there that we need to weed out. Be as brutally ruthless as you want, I'm in support! Jdcooper 08:32, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

• In any case, who is the "they" referred to in the text? ("where they claim he smears anyone") - Djce 21:10, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Frequent targets for parody and satire

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)

Template

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)

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)

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)

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)

My template has been greeted with resounding silence, so I've added it to the article, in hopes that it will stimulate some debate/improvements. TrulyBlue (talk) 10:17, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Anti-semitism?

The current version of the article claims that "Critics of the magazine have in the past suggested it has an antisemitic tone". To my mind this sounds awfully like weasel words and would seem to require verification or removal. I've been looking for citable references to claims of anti-semitism, but it's hard going. The nearest I've been able to find are:

1. this piece by Richard Ingrams in the Observer in 2003, which was criticised in a blog here as being anti-semitic. Personally I'm not convinced it is anti-semitic, and in any case Richard Ingrams had ceased editing Private Eye 17 years before he wrote this article.

2. this rant against Paul Foot - but, again, not for anything written in Private Eye.

3. this interview where Clive James mentions “a licensed anti-semitism, particularly among the Private Eye crowd.”

(And of course there were the allegations by Robert Maxwell that Private Eye's persecution of him was anti-semitic, but I don't think we need take them very seriously.)

This all seems rather baffling. It's almost as the fact that Private Eye is anti-semitic is received wisdom - whether or not it's true - so much so that it's not even worth remarking on. But it leaves us with an awkward lack of evidence to cite.

Views, anyone? Stewart Robertson (talk) 17:05, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Well researched. Suggested answers:

1. Richard Ingrams has a wikipedia page of his own, so evidence of his political attitudes should appear there, if anywhere.

2. Paul Foot has a wikipedia page of his own, so evidence of his political attitudes should appear there, if anywhere.

3. The Clive James reference does back up the statement that "Critics of the magazine have in the past suggested it has an antisemitic tone", but it's a bit thin. The Robert Maxwell allegations are perhaps worth including, since the statement is that the allegation has been made, and including him helps to counter any belief that the allegation is true.

4. The paragraph in which this sentence appears could with benefit be revised so as to distinguish more clearly between anti-Semitism, for which there is no evidence, and criticism of Israel, which is a perfectly respectable attitude. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 15:18, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Agreed regarding 1., that is more deserving of mention on the Ingrams page. I think we possibly could include 2., given the little sly mention of Private Eye implying that PE is institutionally anti-Semitic, but both 2. and 3. seem to endorse only the "received wisdom" view. While this would be okay for supplementary references, it would be nice to have either something more specific to certain content (like 1. but about the Eye not the Observer) or more explicit (like 2. but about Private Eye not Paul Foot). What form did Maxwell's anti-semitism criticisms take? (I admit to being too young to know about any of this stuff first hand!). I would support a re-writing of the section as well, but I think that is maybe best done when we have some more concrete sources. Jdcooper (talk) 19:35, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

The allegation really is complete cock. If there's one readily discernible thing about Private Eye it's that it despises chauvinistic self-importance, attacking it is a raison d'être. That may explain some of the criticism. Meanwhile to have a heading 'racism' takes the biscuit; the paper frequently mocks right-wing duffers (usually Tories of an old-fashioned kind) who say silly things about foreigners and minorities and gives ample space to allegations of racism made against, for example, the police. But of course the mud is here so here it apparently sticks. Hakluyt bean (talk) 22:38, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Speaking purely personally, old bean, I actually inhale with amazement every time I see they are *still* running a strip called "Snipcock & Tweed". But maybe I'm oversensitive. (By the way, you don't actually work for that weird Hakluyt company, do you? Ooh er...) Testbed (talk) 06:41, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

You're oversensitive. If you're looking for evidence of racism, you'll find it in EUphemisms, unless anti-French racism somehow doesn't count? SamuelTheGhost (talk) 08:16, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Er, anti-French racism doesn't quite count as anti-semitism, which is the heading of this section. Also, how old are you? Maybe you don't remember when Jews were called snipcocks? Or maybe you do and you thought it was just fine. In which case it is hard to take you seriously.

The Eye publishing company's name in the strip is (of course) a play on the large number of post-war British book publishers who were founded by central European Jews fleeing Hitler in partnership with "traditional" (therefore tweedy) Englishmen (e.g. Weidenfeld & Nicholson). Nowadays they all seem to be owned by mid-Atlantic brewers or Rupert Murdoch, so the joke also seems well out of date apart from anything else. IMHO. Testbed (talk) 14:47, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

P.S. As Wikipedia editors like things which they can find online, here's a reference: [3] Testbed (talk) 17:29, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Authorship of "Letter from ..."

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)

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)

I hope you're not offended if I suggest that you are being a tiny bit naive about this. I'm aware that the letters are written in a way that purports to be from a resident of each of the countries in question. I'm saying that this is just a pretence. Otherwise we are being asked to believe that Private Eye has many dozens of correspondents all over the world, all anonymous, all with exactly the same prose syle and political viewpoint. I find that quite impossible to believe, so, to put it more bluntly, I think that in this matter Private Eye are being rather dishonest. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 18:50, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Merging Prime Minister parodies

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)

• I've done Mrs Wilson's Diary as well, since the info there was scant, and looking at it, St Albion and Dear Bill aren't as justified as separate articles after all, both of them contain long passages about Prime Minister parodies in general which are probably better kept in the parent article, and beyond that only have about as much info as Mrs Wilson's Diary.
• In addition, could someone/anyone have a look/rewrite at my introduction to that article, its horribly garbled! Jdcooper (talk) 19:49, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Rotten Boroughs

This column doesn't really merit its own article; it is a minor column tucked away fairly far into the magazine and is on no higher footing than any other regular news column. To have a separate article for this would mean that HP Sauce, Down on the Farm and Funny Old World also merit an article, which they certainly don't. This is evidenced by the fact that when the article existed previously it remained for ages and accumulated nothing but endless examples, which as well as adding no informational or encyclopaedic value, also pretty much constituted copyright violation. I've changed that article into a redirect to Rotten borough (which seems far more sensible to me) and reverted here. Jdcooper (talk) 20:32, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

In my view the abuses of power and disregard for democracy routinely covered in this column represent some of the most revelatory and important journalism in Britain. To say it is a minor column is pushing it. Stories are often first reported in Rotten Bouroughs and dilligently updated and revisited until they break in the national papers. I agree that Wikipedia is not a news site and so the 'endless examples' you mentioned would be inappropriate but something on past successes and the way in which the section is researched would be suitable.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.141.219.252 (talk • contribs) 11:46, 7 December 2008

My impression is that Rotten Boroughs gets much more attention than HP Sauce etc. I doubt though that merits its own article - there aren't the multiple, non-trivial accounts etc. to make it qualify. But...on the other hand...I think it gets a good acknowledgement in Nick Davies's excellent book Flat Earth News. If there's anything more in other publications etc. then it should qualify.--A bit iffy (talk) 14:21, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Newspaper parodies

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)

Neasden FC

"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)

Ron Knee is more likely based on Ron Greenwood, manager of West Ham United 1961-77 and England 1977-82. Bronxrichie (talk) 13:30, 26 September 2016 (UTC)Bronxrichie

The team is nowadays (and since the 1980s) known as AFC Neasden rather than Neasden United? Bronxrichie (talk) 13:30, 26 September 2016 (UTC)Bronxrichie

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)

Still being sued?

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)

Page move

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)

Richard Ingrams still at the Eye

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 [4]). Testbed (talk) 17:42, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

This was meant as a joke, the Eye's offices do not open on Mondays (and for that matter they close early on mid-winter Fridays for shabbat). Thecrystalcicero (talk) 05:12, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Interesting - can you cite a reliable source for this before we start editing the page? Testbed (talk) 17:14, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

When are you going to get a point of view?

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)

Sonia Sutcliffe - What Happened Next ?

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)

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)

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)

Talbot!

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)

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)

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)

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)

Yes, I remember thinking it (Now! --> Talbot!) was a very good, and appropriate, joke. Rothorpe (talk) 14:24, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

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)

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)

The Onion

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)

Arkell v. Pressdram

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)
* with the usual caveats concerning material quoted in the letters themselves, possible other causes of action, that it may not help a case, etc. I am not a lawyer, but have considerable experience with receiving legal threats, putting them up on line immediately and responding to threats about revealing the threats with John 3:20 rather than an Arkell v. Pressdram. This is not legal advice, your mileage may vary. Contents may settle over the years.

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)

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)

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)

See: Macqueen, Adam (2011), Private Eye the first 50 Years, London: Private Eye Productions, pp. 27, 28, ISBN 978-1-901-784-56-5 Where the story is given. I will add the citation to the article. --TedColes (talk) 09:36, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Gussetgraph?

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)

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)

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)

Bigotry ?

"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)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Private Eye. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} 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.

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:27, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

That Honorary Degree Citation in Full

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)

Cleaning up and merging

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)

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)

• Scratchpad for the minor stuff is Talk:Recurring themes and in-jokes in Private Eye/refactoring - all content is there with diff links to preserve attribution. I will now prune this article. Guy (Help!) 10:36, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

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)

Also in popular beat combo news

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)

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)