Talk:Jeremy Paxman/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Man of peace

Try as I might, I can't think of a valid way of mentioning the irony of his surname in the article. So I will mention it here, instead. -Ashley Pomeroy 11:14, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

It's taken a while, but it's in the article now.--Maarten1963 01:51, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Tonight programme

The article says "In 1977 Paxman moved to London to work on the BBC television programme Tonight". This information is in numerous places on the web including on the BBC web site.

However, the Cliff Michelmore Tonight programme finished in 1965. Was there another "Tonight" programe in 1977? The date can hardly be a mistake for 1965 or earlier when Paxman would have been too young. Newsnight didn't start until 1980 with Paxman joining in 1987 (according to the BBC). Thincat 13:21, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I've probably answered my own question. In the late 1970s there was a late night news programme also called "Tonight": Sue Lawley, Denis Tuohy, Donald MacCormack and people like that. I expect it was that programme that Paxman joined. I'll delete the reference because it it a bit lenghty (and unimportant) to explain. If anyone wants to go into the details, then good! Thincat 15:34, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Biased section

I removed the following:

"Paxman also once claimed that, as for East Timor, the presence of British Hawk jets was "not proved", parroting an official lie from Downing Street. How Britain Exports Weapons of Mass Destruction A few months later, Robin Cook revealed the truth, that they had existed.FO inquiry into use of Hawk jets by Jakarta"

Because as well as containing biased remarks (like "parrotted"), it didn't seem to fit in with the rest of the annecdotes. Paxman didn't claim that there were no Hawk jets, just that it was "not proved" a neutral line which newsreaders are expected to take. If Paxman had argued that there were no such aircraft then it would be justifiable to mention this, I feel. If anyone else saw the interview and it was not as neutral as it appears reading between the lines and can put this back with the bias removed (and the links done properly) then they're welcome to do so. - Zagrebo 19:21, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Salary

Edited to add details of salary: anyone know if there is a seperate wikipedia page detailing the BBC salary leaks? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.130.236.197 (talk) , at 19:39, 19 April 2006

• err...800,000 + 240,000 does not make a total salary of 1.24 million? (What am I missing here?!!) Badgerpatrol 22:07, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Its a good call - I've changed it.

Pity you didn't change it correctly. 800+240 is not 1040.

What? Badgerpatrol 23:37, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Get one of these. --Thoughtcat 12:51, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

To clarify for those less able to read betwen the lines, 800,000 + 240,000 is precisely 1,040,000. Nicholassharland 16:38, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

"Salary Apparently £1,040,000 (2006)" the proviso makes this look weak to my eyes. I removed it citing WP:WEASEL being minded of "When less-than-reliable publications print material they suspect is untrue, they often include weasel phrases. Look out for these. If the original publication doesn't believe its own story, why should we?" Wikipedia:Blp#Reliable_sources. My change was undone which I'm relaxed about, but the cited article is not available, and I'd like to know the reason for the proviso. Either the Sun saw the BBC documents first hand and reported without provisos, in which case no proviso is required in the article, or they didn't, in which case the case for keeping the info. needs to be made. -- John (Daytona2 · talk · contribs) 13:32, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Mispronouncing Words

In the edit at 12:44, 12 June 2006, RupertMillard removed:

"as well as a propensity for mispronouncing words."

from the description of paxman's presentation of university challenge.

It was previously removed on 21:40, 21 February 2006 by Martin S Taylor and replaced a day later by Flapdragon, who originally addded it at 20:20, 26 January 2005.

Paxman DOES mispronounce word which are critical to the understanding of the question on a fairly regular basis. (eg: this week he pronounced Adonis as "ah-dough-nis"). This was pointed out to me by a friend and it has bugged me ever since.

I thought it was pronounced "ah-dough-nis" (or perhaps "uh-doe-nis") (let's say, "Adōnis"). What is it? "Uh-don-is"? This is as in Lord Adonis? I think he is called "Adōnis". Unless I am mistaken the Greek is Αδωνις, which does indeed have a long "ō" sound. So I think Paxman is correct.--Oxonian2006 11:01, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Given that the BBC have a service that presenters can call to find out how to say words that they don't know, I'd say that his rate of mistakes is much higher than it should be.

This is relevant and should appear in this article, because Paxman likes to make out (when a wrong answer is given) that he is better educated than the contestants.

I've rewritten this into the article. If you agreee or disagree, please comment here. If you want more evidence, just watch the program!

TomViza 11:35, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Tom, The problem here is that biographies of living persons on Wikipedia are subject to certain rules. One of these is that all claims must be substantiated by references ("Verifiablity, Not Truth"). Therefore, unless we can link to a publication that states that Paxman mispronounces, this sentence will be constantly removed by the editors who pass by. Otherwise it would be what we call "original research", which we don't accept. Yandman 12:03, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree. It IS manifestly true, but that alone is not sufficient that it be included here. There needs to be a written reference of some kind to back it up. Badgerpatrol 13:02, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I think it a trivial point....Winterbottom

Who Do You Think You Are?

In a January 2006 episode of the BBC programme on genealogy, Who Do You Think You Are?, it was revealed that he descends from a 14th-century politician from Suffolk, Roger Packsman, who changed his name to Paxman ("man of peace") to impress the electorate.

The electorate? In the 14th century? Something not quite right here I suggest. Flapdragon 18:39, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

There might not have been universal suffrage but there were elections enough in that period and earlier for various offices Alci12 14:30, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Unsourced conjecture

"It should also be noted that Paxman only revealed the delay on the next item AFTER he had won the Royal Television Society award in 1998. Had he admitted this earlier, it is highly unlikely that he would have won the award."

I've changed this to:

"Paxman won the Royal Television Society award in 1998 for his interviewing style".

I see no source the say he wouldn't have won the award. In fact even if he had revealed the truth behind the intensive questionining, he may still have recieved the award - after all he was thinking on his feet. All questioning of politicians should be as rigourous as his. --JDnCoke 11:27, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

British or English?

UpDown recently amended this article to remove references to Paxman being a "British journalist", replacing them with "English journalist". He said that there was "common consensus" on the matter, and referred to the Featured Article "Charles Darwin". However, I couldn't find any advice in Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies) on this, and I believe reliance on the "Charles Darwin" article may contravene the "other stuff exists" rule. I've posted a query at "Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (biographies)#British, or English, Scottish, Welsh, (Northern) Irish?" on this. Please put any comments that you have on the matter there. Cheers, Jacklee 13:18, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Malvern College

On first inspection of the wiki page on Malvern College, Worcestershire, it appears that the school was for pupils from age 13 to 18 at that time that JP was pupil there. It would be interesting to to able to confirm at what age JP started at the school, but I am not aware of a reference for this. Snowman (talk) 20:17, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Where was JP brought up?

Reference four (from The Independent) indicates that JP was brought up in Yorkshire, and went to school in Worcestershire. The problem is that the "Early life" section currently states that he was brought in in Worcestershire. Snowman (talk) 13:21, 1 January 2008 (UTC) I suggest that it is changed to say something like: "JP was brought up in Yorkshire, and he went to an independent boarding school in Worcestershire". Snowman (talk) 13:51, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree. As far as possible, I think we should try to stick to written sources (in this case, the Independent article). The problem with relying on the episode of Who Do You Think You Are? as a source is that it's quite difficult to verify facts disclosed during the programme. Do go ahead and make the change. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 13:57, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Change made. Snowman (talk) 14:48, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Cheers for that. The article also needs a general beefing-up based on the numerous news articles and websites about Paxman that are available. I listed some of these in the "References" and "Further reading" section but haven't got round to incorporating some of them into the article yet. You might want to give it a go if you have time. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 15:15, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

• As you know, but for the benefit of others, this issue was raised by JP's comment on Who Do You Think You Are? that he was brought up in Worcestershire. I added this info. to the article, you removed it, we discussed - I asked you to provide a link back to our discussion to aid others, here it is - User_talk:Snowmanradio#Jeremy_Paxman. We both confirmed that he said that he was brought up in Worcestershire, that's not at issue. You made a pov interpretation that he was joking, I made no interpretation as I thought it was a serious comment and simply included it with the appropriate reference. Wikipedia:PRIMARY#Primary.2C_secondary.2C_and_tertiary_sources states that no interpretive claims about the information found in a primary source should be made. The Independent article says "he had grown up in Yorkshire". I said, and maintain -

• "As it is, we appear to have a conflict between a primary (Paxman) & secondary source (a journalist), given that, it is my contention that some highly accurate and credible evidence needs to be produced to override the former, which I don't believe you have produced."

  As such I think that your continued removal of this information breaches WP:NPOV "The policy requires that where multiple or conflicting perspectives exist within a topic each should be presented fairly. None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being judged as "the truth"" and WP:BLP "We must get the article right." -- John (Daytona2 · talk · contribs) 16:16, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Daytona2. Thanks for highlighting your discussion with Snowman on the matter, which I was unaware of. I watched the episode of Who Do You Think You Are? in question ages ago, and do not remember what was said about where Paxman was brought up. However, there doesn't seem to be any dispute between Snowman and yourself that Paxman himself said he was brought up in Worcestershire, so I will take your word for it. While it would be better to provide a reference to a written source such as a news article or a website, I agree that Paxman's own statement on the matter should be regarded as more reliable than the newspaper article. May I suggest that, until better evidence becomes available, that the article be amended to state that he was brought up in Worcestershire, citing the TV programme as a reference, but that a footnote be added stating that the Independent article claims he was brought up in Yorkshire? — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 16:29, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

My interpretation of the TV program in which JP said "I was brought up in Worcestershire" is that this was said in jest, without meaning this literally, and obviously tangential to the context of where his relatives came from. It is not only the words, JP was filmed saying this in conversation. He does this on Newsnight too as an interviewing technique, doesn't he? He was also persuaded in jest that he was a "Suffolk boy" in the TV program, and there is a reference to confirm this - the ref by Hayward. Even though he went to school in Worcestershire, by common scene and without Wikipedia:Gaming the system, I think that it can be assumed that he spent his preschool years in Yorkshire with his parents, and visited his parents in Yorkshire regularly in school holidays. I think that both the TV program and the reference are consistent with JP being brought up predominantly in Yorkshire when he was a small boy. I am sure that he is familiar with Worcestershire and the article can say this. Perhaps a form of words can be made to indicate that JP was bought up first in Yorkshire, and that he also know Worcestershire where he went to boarding school. It is disputed that he spent his preschool years in Yorkshire with his parents? Snowman (talk) 17:46, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Again, I'm hampered by the fact that I didn't watch the programme recently. It now seems there is a genuine difference of opinion as to what Paxman meant to convey in the show. Since the matter of where he was brought up is, relatively speaking, not so important, and what is known is where he was born (Yorkshire) and where he attended school (Worcestershire), I would suggest that the point not be mentioned in the main text at all. Instead, a footnote should be added at a suitable point setting out what the two different sources state, leaving the matter for the reader to judge. The issue can be revisited if more reliable sources come to light. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 18:15, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

As both his parents lived in Yorkshire (and at the time of TV program his mother still lived in Yorkshire and his father lived in Australia), it would be odd to say that he was brought up in Worcestershire. It is my opinion the two sources are consistent with JP spending his preschool years in Yorkshire as a small boy and that he was educated at a boarding school in Worcestershire. We can not have a footnote to say that he is a "Suffolk boy" as well. I do not have a reference to say at what age he started boarding school or if he started infant or junior education in Yorkshire, before being sent to boarding school. With the limited information available would it be correct to say: "JP spent his early years in Yorkshire in a wealthy household, until his parents sent him to a boarding school in Worcestershire". Nevertheless, I think that the current article wording is satisfactory. Snowman (talk) 18:39, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

You may well be right, and if Daytona2 agrees with your view on the matter then I'm fine with it too. But it is nonetheless a surmise on your part, so if there's disagreement it may be better just to leave the point out of the main text of the article and put it in a footnote, particularly since it's not a very important point anyway. And there's no reason why the footnote can't also mention Paxman's remark that he was a "Suffolk boy". — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 19:02, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Information from "The Independent" is not a surmise on my part. I think that it is not unimportant, because JP thinks of himself as from Yorkshire, as far as I am aware. If the text was detailed enough then the jest that he was a Suffolk boy, could be included, but at the present time the text needs elaborating in order to put it in context. The TV program may be repeated, or it may be out on BBC DVD. Perhaps soon, we might gather more interpretations from anyone who saw the comment made by JP jesting that "he was brought up in Worcestershire" on BBC TV in the program "Who do you think you are?". Snowman (talk) 20:04, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Two more sources - "Although Paxman was brought up in Leeds and Worcestershire" - The Independent

"Jeremy Paxman was born in 1950 and brought up in Worcestershire" - The Observer

Nothing said above changes my opinion that it was a wholly unreasonable removal, performed in breach of WP:NPOV & WP:BLP and that the current statement "Paxman was brought up in Yorkshire" is incorrect and/or misleading given the accumulated evidence of his own words and 2 secondary sources. I'd be happy with "Paxman was brought up in Yorkshire and Worcestershire" -- John (Daytona2 · talk · contribs) 14:45, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

My sourced edit saying that JP was brought up in Yorkshire was entirely logical and reasonable. Snowman (talk) 10:32, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

The two sources above from 2002 & 2005 raise questions about that, heightened in 2006 when Paxman himself contradicted it, prompting my sourced change, which you removed. As I said and maintain, a breach of WP:NPOV & WP:BLP. I'm not happy about your behaviour over this. -- John (Daytona2 · talk · contribs) 13:18, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I repeat, my edit was entirely logical and reasonable. Snowman (talk) 13:29, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Paxman and George Galloway

Paxman and Galloway are two strong characters, and knowing Wikipedia, people could clash here as badly as they have. In my opinion, the notorious interview was clearly not Paxmans finest moment - just as Big Brother was hardly Galloways. I hope that any future editors can take this into account, and not try to make the incident favour (or unfairly disfavour) one or the other. I have included words to the effect that Galloway did not consider Paxman's 'Big Brother tape' asking him to return to Newsnight ("with or without the leotard") a serious offer. Of course this information should hardly be needed(!), but someone is suggesting that Galloway is refusing to meet the "challenge", so I feel that for the time being that Galloway's position needs to be stated - daft as it sounds to even consider that Newsnight would make a serious offer in this way! (and Galloway, of course, rarely backs out of a genuine opportunity to appear in the media anyway!). --Matt Lewis 18:36, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

'Celebrity' Paxman was clearly making a guest appearance on Big Brother himself (via the taped "leotard" message), so I have made that more clear! --Matt Lewis (talk) 13:08, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Criticism section

I'm not sure the latest addition about Paxman's staff is particularly balanced or reliable given it comes from the NotW. The other article then looks like it has been based entirely on the NotW one. I don't know what the law is regarding payslips, contracts etc but presumably the articles would have mentioned if this was actually illegal so therefore the main substance of the story seems to be that someone who was employed by Paxman for a while didn't particularly like him. Doesn't seem very worth mentioning to me. JMiall₰ 19:31, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, from what I read about it online, he didn't actually do anything illegal. He was just a jackass to some more people besides politicians and reality TV folks. And these particular insultees were so wounded, they decided to engage the ever-reliable services of NotW... Bangdrum (talk) 21:51, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, from the point of view of potential libel, the section should probably be removed. News of the World is hardly a very reliable source: see "News of the World#Libel actions brought against the News of the World". I note that the article does not mention anything about an attempt to ask Paxman for his side of the story for some balance. On the other hand, the Evening Standard did pick up the story (possibly from the News of the World? I can't tell because the article on the NotW website is undated) and tried to verify it with Paxman but he was "unavailable for comment". In any case, the information is marginal to the article. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 23:16, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

An anonymous editor has taken the initiative to remove the section. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 12:00, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

This is all wrong. I put it on there and it has also been reported by the in the Guardian.1) The "information is marginal to the article" - fair enough the tone is slightly out, but wikipedia is a "work in progress" works, and so excluding something because it doesn't quite create a perfect article isnt reason to exclude sourced information (beef up the other parts!).2) The reason why I put it up and the reason why it is relevant it this: Paxman is an influential social/political pundit, paid with public money. These criticisms of his employment practices highlight hypocrisy on his part, which should be considered when listening to his shows/opinions/bias etc. To make it totally clear: when watching a Paxman report on Romanian immigrants undertaking menial jobs and then hearing/receiving Paxmans wise words/steering questions, at the very least it would then be of reverence that he is an employee of Romanian immigrants. I will focus the paragraph seeing as it caused this much resistance, but i cannot accept there is no relevance/validity to this sourced information.Chendy (talk) 12:13, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

It's certainly a good example of someone using the word 'Paxmanesque'! If she didn't have a contract either it's actually a scandal. It could use another cite or two though, if it only had the one.

Seriously, Paxman has clearly gone down hill since his heyday in the 80's and 90's - and people are starting to get cynical about how right wing he's become: New labour, pro-royalty, backing the BBC (since it was bloodily made the Bush and Blair corporation). His interviewing style must be getting under some criticism too - I saw Newsnight once last year where he just didn't bother asking the obvious (and needed) questions on a contentious Newsnight report on how the public see Labour PM candidates, and just started waffling to the report-maker about John Reed not wanting the PM job! He had far too much power on that show - the Spitting Image joke back in the 80's was him having his feet on up Newsnight desk - but he irritated the Tories, so nobody minded. --Matt Lewis (talk) 12:39, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Chendy. Well, the Guardian article wasn't included as a reference, perhaps because it had yet to be published when you inserted the information. It may be possible to restore the information (perhaps in slightly less detail) if the Guardian article makes the points that you made about possible hypocrisy on Paxman's part. Otherwise, if this is just your own conclusion, it may be "original research or thought" which contravenes Wikipedia policy. Is there, for instance, evidence that Paxman ever did a report on immigrants at all, Romanian or otherwise? People in the public eye do many things that get reported in the press, but not all of them are worthy of mention in an encyclopedia article. We haven't mentioned Paxman's letter to Marks & Sparks about the alleged poor quality of their underpants, for example! — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 18:31, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Hope you're signed-up with all those Wikiprojects, Jack! --Matt Lewis (talk) 20:01, 15 February 2008 (UTC)\

Sorry, Matt, I don't follow. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 16:03, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Having looked it up there is no need to have a written contract link therefore this aspect is neither a scandal or noteworthy. Secondly Paxman is normally an interviewer / presenter not a pundit. If he actually has actually been criticising immigrant employment practices as a pundit i.e. making the news himself, then fair enough leave this section in, preferably with a citation for his original statements. If all he has been doing is asking questions about this when it is already in the news then he has not been hypocritical, he's just been doing his job. And is it our job to report hypocrisy anyway? JMiall₰ 18:39, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to all the comments. I guess i have a different vision of wikipedia to some of you. 1) "Paxman is normally an interviewer / presenter not a pundit" - surely it must be clear that the opinions/biases of an interviewer are as relevant as those of a pundit: if the interviewers hardball or softball, or where the interviewer probes etc. 2) "And is it our job to report hypocrisy anyway?" - yes for political pundits, politicians etc. 3) Its not original research: the hypocrisy bit is from the newspapers. 4) Also I am of the opinion that the much disliked trivia sections should be on wikipedia generally (ie M&S pants) - The more information (correctly (un)emphasized) the better, if correctly sourced etc. 5) Finally viva wikipedia! - for this unique consensus based media experience, and good day to all!Chendy (talk) 12:06, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

If hypocrisy has been alleged in the press, why don't you rewrite the paragraph that you think should be reinserted with appropriate references and post it here so we can all have a look and comment on it? I reserve opinion on Paxman's saggy pants ;-) — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 16:06, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Criticism

Paxman has been criticised for his treatment of two immigrants formerly employed as servants for one of his Oxford homes, largely due to his reputation as a renowned socio-political television presenter and interviewer. Paxman employs staff at his two Oxford homes and London flat. Romanians Daniela Savin and Robert Laslau criticised the low pay they received, working 40-hour weeks for £5 an hour. The national minimum wage of £5.52 was not applicable, as live-in servants do not qualify. Paxman was allegedly rude and disrespectful to his staff. Paxman's employment practices have been criticised in the light of his highly paid roles on University Challenge and Newsnight, the latter often entailing discussion of workers' rights and immigration.

Well, I fixed the typos and grammar problems in that. If the author (or anyone else) agrees it should go in the article (as opposed to the talk page), go for it. Bangdrum (talk) 16:07, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I think the quote by Savin can be omitted. It's salacious but doesn't add much to what is already stated in the paragraph. Also, can another reference be found for the statement about Paxman having discussed workers' rights and immigration on Newsnight? As we mentioned above, News of the World is not really the most reliable of sources. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 16:33, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

How about this under Personal life (It could come under 'In the Media'. 'In poular culture' could then come under that (as a parag rather than a list),

"Paxman has come under criticism for the way he has employed his household staff (NOTW cite). He advertised for help on a Romanian website and paid two employees below the minimum wage, without a contract. This is not illegal for live-in employees in the UK, but the appropriateness given Paxman’s status has been questioned. (guardian, Standard etc?)"

I thought of adding the line “He was reportedly an uncivil employee.” But one article in the NOTW is not enough for me – It is notorious for collecting comments people make into inflammatory short paragraphs. --Matt Lewis (talk) 18:17, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm uncomfortable with the current wording of the paragraph and its location in the "Personal life" section. I thought the whole point of including the information was to show that Paxman might be hypocritical in appearing to champion workers' rights in his work but nonetheless had a different standard for his own employees, in which case it should be in the "Journalism" section. If there's no mention of that in the paragraph because no adequate reference can be found for it, then I'm not sure the information deserves to be in the article. The reference to Paxman's "status" is vague. The implication is that Paxman, as a wealthy man, should have paid his employees more. I'm not sure that's noteworthy enough. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 18:57, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

The hypocrisy criticism didn't say enough I didn't think - and he's hardly a champion of the left any more, and only a journalist - not a politician. I think the story has minimal noteworthiness - where else than in personal life? - it's basically a character judgement against him by a personal employee. He's meant to be objective as a journalist anyway, so what does it matter what Newsnight has covered? As a very highly-paid 'celebrity' he will have a moral 'factor' and a status as a role model (these things can effect careers after all). That's the 'noteworthiness' imo. It would look more balanced if other more positive information was in the Personal life section too, though. Charity work, maybe - stuff like that. It think that needs to be found, more than this criticism moved somewhere else, developed into 'hypocracy', or removed. As the Guardian found it noteworthy, I can't argue against actually including it.--Matt Lewis (talk) 19:20, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I take your point, but would like to hear what other editors think about the matter. Again, not everything that appears in the press (even if in reputable newspapers) is worth reproducing here. I'm loath to mention this as an example, but here goes – Paxman's pants. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 22:12, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I have added the newly edited section, minus the personal quotes. I don,t Like the "in the media" heading either.Chendy (talk) 22:34, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

The 'socio-political' point is surely too tenuous - what difference does it make what his presenter job was? He covered what he covered - and all presenters are expected to be objective anyway. Remember WP:No Original Research (Policy) and WP:Wikipedia is not a News report (Policy) - it's not up to us to create the interest! The story has far too much WP:weight now. It's such a subjective thing, it doesn't warrant much on it. I'd love to write "Paxman is a git" across the page -but unfortunately I can't.

Does it need the kids' names or their wage details? That's News of the World style. People can follow the links for that.

'Servants' should clarify as 'Servant scandal' or something similar - but is that at all fair? Whether under personal life, or anywhere else? It's far too much 'weight' for a story like this, imo. Maybe a using sub-heading under a section like "In the media" will 'detach' using its own heading a little, and make it less prominent.

Remember, as it's a 'gutter press' News of the World story, so is probably mostly garbage anyway! (there is policy on decent sources too)--Matt Lewis (talk) 00:08, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Matt Lewis please note It has a guardian source. Also please read my previous comments in this discussion, which answer your points. 00:46, 20 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chendy (talk • contribs) 00:46, 20 February 2008

I've read and noted everything. What have I missed? The Guardian article is fully cited and was not source of the story - the News of the World was. I don't understand what more we can say without turning Wikipedia into a newspaper and ourselves into journalists.

WP:No Point of View - Undue Weight (Policy)

WP:Wikipedia is not a News report (Policy)

WP:Let the facts speak for themselves (Policy)

Above is the relevant policy imo.--Matt Lewis (talk) 14:20, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Further 'Criticism of...' sections?

I've added the sub-heading 'Criticism of interviewing style' under 'Career'. I think further 'criticism of...' sub-heads are the way to go. Having 'Criticism' as a sole section is frowned upon on Wikipedia (rightly so imo, as few people deserve a whole section dedicated to negative comments - the issues should come under the relevant areas). --Matt Lewis (talk) 18:17, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

That looks all right to me. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 18:57, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

An alternative could be a "Praise and Criticism" section (rather than just "Criticism")- but I still prefer using the relevant sections. --Matt Lewis (talk) 13:12, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, why single out the information in a subsection? Why not just integrate it into the main section? Is that what you mean when you talk about "using the relevant sections"? — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 14:11, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Works versus Bibliography

@ Jacklee: Thank you for disputing my replacement of the sub-head Works with Bibliography. By such scepticism does WP improve. The process of pee-er review , i.e. bullet-proofing against those who would piss, even, on a given subject - not that this applies in this case - is the factor which in due course will give WP the reliability edge over reference works which rely merely on peer review. However much a nuisance, the process is one which I, for what it's worth, heartily approve.

Made the change out of concern for WP, & what JP would likely think of WP as a consequence of such a solecism - in his own entry, of all places. (Paxo, unlike an lamentably increasing number of his Corporation colleagues, is a stickler, quite rightly, for such details. He also, as you may have noticed, holds, not so rightly in my view, much of what the internet stands for - in particular, its amateur aspects - in scarce-concealed contempt. He would scoff, I'm sure, at the use of Works to label a list of his own literary efforts: another instance of internet, in this case fanzine-like, semi-literateness, he might think.)

"Works," derived from the Latin opera is customarily used when referring to the works of a Cicero, a Descartes or a Tolstoy, not a Paxman. You say, "Doesn't 'bibliography' suggest that this is a list of books about Paxman, rather than books written by him?" No.

Since, I note, you're doing a Birmingham PhD & would thus be clued up on such details, thought I'd better double-check. My on-board Mac dictionary is quite clear: bibliography |ˈbɪblɪˌɒgrəfi| (abbr.: bibliog.) noun( pl.phies) • a list of the books of a specific author or publisher, or on a specific subject : a bibliography of his publications. This is given as the primary meaning.

The Compact Oxford Dictionary gives the following: 1 a list of books or documents on a particular subject or by a particular author. 2 the study of books in terms of their classification, printing, and publication. 3 a list of the books referred to in a scholarly work.

Works in the sense above is, by contrast, not easy to find even in a One Look Dictionary search: [1]

Forgive me for droning on at such length, but I suspect lack of certainty about the appropriate usage is commonplace on WP. The correct usage therefore deserves wider advertisement.

What do you think? Wingspeed (talk) 11:04, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for this interesting exegesis on the meaning of bibliography. I actually had a look at the Oxford English Dictionary definition of the word after you had made the change to the article. One of the meanings was given as "A list of the books of a particular author, printer, or country, or of those dealing with any particular theme; the literature of a subject." So I certainly agree with you that a bibliography can encompass a list of books by a particular author. However, my concern was that many people are more familiar with the use of the word to mean "[a] list of the books ... dealing with any particular theme; the literature of a subject" (OED) or "a list of the books referred to in a scholarly work" (Compact Oxford). Works, on the other hand, seems to suggest unambiguously (at least to me) that the books listed are works by a particular author. But if you feel that bibliography in the context of this article is appropriate, I have no strong objections to its use. If you would like to see wider use of the word as a section heading in articles about authors, you may want to initiate a discussion at "Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (biographies)" with the aim of having the guideline updated to mention the point. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 15:53, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

By the way, I think the article is crying out for an overhaul. The various sections seem a little disjointed, and the lead section doesn't properly summarize the article's content. Perhaps this is something you'd like to take on? — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 15:56, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that, Jack. Shall change the sub-head accordingly. And thanks, too, for directing me to the appropriate place in which to raise the issue more widely (assuming it's not already covered): I had wondered. As you may have noticed, I've started broader subbing & clean-up of the page. I hope it doesn't meet with too many brickbats. Quite apart from anything else, Paxo needs to be persuaded to stop scoffing at the internet. Even he may in due course see Wikipedia for what it is: one of the wonders of the modern age :-D Wingspeed (talk) 16:50, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I note that "Wikipedia:Layout#Standard appendices and descriptions" already suggests the use of "Bibliography" for a list of books by the subject of a Wikipedia article. Therefore, it shouldn't be controversial for you to suggest over at "Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (biographies)" that the guideline be reproduced in "Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies)" so that it is brought to the attention of editors who work on biographical articles. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 23:37, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks again for that. Will do. Wingspeed (talk) 00:09, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Personal life (and recent changes)

RE the recent changes - many are I'm sure great, but I've seen a few that aren't quite in line with the Wikipedia Manual of Style. The parag on the Romanian help has got very 'weasel worded' (in the sense of Wikipedia:WEASEL), and now looks biased towards Paxman. Was there anything wrong with it as it stood? If it ain't broke... It was actually the work of debate and consensus. Also, 'Further Reading' is a standard heading, even if it does look "pompous"(!) - maybe that's a bit of projected personality from the subject himself! --Matt Lewis (talk) 18:25, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the change of heading from "Further reading" to "Paxman in the news", I agree. First, I'm not sure why "Further reading" is pompous – it seems a pretty neutral term to me. Secondly, "Further reading" is one of the standard appendices (see "Wikipedia:Layout#Standard appendices and descriptions"), and I don't see any warrant in this case for departing from that guideline. I've taken the initiative to revert that good-faith edit. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 18:35, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

@Matt Lewis: Please forgive me for not having read the earlier discussion re the JP Romanian scandal; and for not having read the WP Style Guide re weasel words. I've now read both.

Though you don't specify, the two possible weasel warts I diagnose in my copyedit are "allegedly" and "it was claimed that." Perhaps I'm missing something, but I see mention of neither in the style guide. What I do see is: "If a statement is true without weasel words, remove them. If they are needed for the statement to be true, consider removing the statement." I also read: " . . . it is easy to write a misinformative, slanted article composed of nothing but 'facts' like these, using Wikipedia to spread hearsay . . ." And: "As with any rule of thumb, this guideline should be balanced against other needs."

The News of the World allegations may be true in each & every respect, but we don't know that; and they've not been tested in court. (The discussion here above, I note, refers us to a list detailing the paper's libel record.) JP may be an utter shyster for all I know, yet there are numerous good reasons why someone may choose not to launch a libel action against a national newspaper. Allegedly & it was claimed that, far from being weasel words IMHO, merely serve to reflect these realities: they are precisely the terms usually & sensibly applied to statements potentially libelous or slanderous. Most crucially, the WP style section on weasel words has a sub-section headed Clear exceptions. First item on the list is: "When a style guideline has precedents in other manuals of style or disallowed evidence in a courtroom from gossip or hearsay." (my italics). I challenge you, mate, to establish that the NoW story, till tested in court, does not by its very nature fall into that category. Wingspeed (talk) 20:10, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

P.S. If this story does not concern JP's 'personal life,' I can't imagine what does. The label In the media, by contrast, seems otiose: a media personality's life is, by definiton, in the media. Also: you say that the earlier discussion arrived at consensus. Such consensus fails to jump out at me. Regards Wingspeed (talk) 20:18, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I've replied to the four points in bullets,

• Your change to "such behaviour by a highly paid TV celebrity would be seen as inappropriate" was also 'weasel worded', as it has been seen as inappropriate. It may have been 'alleged' he hired the Romanian girls, but it is also fact. Remember that fact outweighs any initial allegations. If Paxman contested any of it in any way, then that should be in here. We have made this as 'unincriminating' as we could, while avoiding weasel words...

• Paxman has many ways he can repudiate any element of the story. It is actually Original Research to provide for him reasons why he might not wish to repudiate it! It's also actually libelling the News of the World for us to suggest they are lying about the hard facts in the story! The parag was written in a way that excluded all the 'allegations' - as they are not material for an encyclopedia. It's a compomise between excluding it and saying too much. You can see his pants in the background set of the highly popular TV show Have I got news for you (which isn't mentioned funilly enough) - so I think it needs to be covered (if you excuse the phrase).

• On "In the media'" - it's a subheading of Personal life, so it means Personal life: in the media. If you can think of a better heading, please use one - but I think you'll agree that simple facts about his family and background etc are different to the media 'scandal' over the Romanian girls.

• On consensus: we had a clear consensus via WP standards (the parag was accepted by all) - I was merely pointing it out to you. I think it was actually a good example of one being argued toward, and being found. I'm not saying there is a still consensus (as I'm sure you know, WP is always flexible). Many articles only have a few people editing them at any one time - it only takes an accepted edit to be classed as a 'consensus' edit. And it's lasted some months. --Matt Lewis (talk) 00:40, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

In sequence:-

• Seems to me you've failed to respond to my crucial point: The NoW allegations may be true in each & every respect, but we don't know that; and they've not been tested in court. (I note that the original allegations appear to be no longer available at the paper's website; the Standard & The Guardian, as we know, merely reported the NoW story.) The "allegations" concern not whether JP hired the Romanians, as you imply, but the conditions under which he hired them.

I haven't failed to respond to you - I don't agree with you. --Matt Lewis (talk) 11:23, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

• I have not suggested for a moment that, as you put it, the NoW is "lying about the hard facts in the story." Quite the contrary. I repeat: their allegations may be true in each & every respect, but we don't know that. I have not, as you suggest, provided JP with reasons why he may he may not wish to repudiate it. I repeat: JP may be an utter shyster for all I know, yet there are numerous good reasons why someone may choose not to launch a libel action against a national newspaper. My specific point here concerns not repuduation but Britain's libel laws. You say: "The parag was written in a way that excluded all the 'allegations' - as they are not material for an encyclopedia." Yet you repeat them.

We have taken out the alleged stuff and have simply covered the event - and we've done it well, I think. No mention of his pants etc. --Matt Lewis (talk) 11:23, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

• I don't agree, as you assume, that "simple facts about his family and background etc are different to the media 'scandal' over the Romanian girls." You yourself have just insisted that the scandal consists in facts. You insist, unequivocally: "Remember that fact outweighs any initial allegations." Whether fact or allegations, they concern his private life and under that sub-head they should sit. A further sub-head is just bad writing & foggily redundant. You offer: "If you can think of a better heading, please use one." Would no further sub-head count?

I just simply disagree here - Paxman having a wife and 3 kids etc is different type of information to the 'scandal'. --Matt Lewis (talk) 11:23, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

• On consensus: I merely said that such consensus fails to jump out at me. Finally, I care insufficiently about Paxo's reputation, frankly, to labour this issue further. It would appear that you do. I do care, however, and greatly, about the reputation of Wikipedia. That is my sole motivation here. Regards Wingspeed (talk) 02:18, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

My appreciation of Paxman has long gone, but I do agree that Wikpedia comes first. --Matt Lewis (talk) 11:23, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

@ Jacklee: You say that "Further reading" is one of the standard appendices, and I don't see any warrant in this case for departing from that guideline." That's precisely the point. It reads: "Standard appendices and descriptions Bibliography (or Books or Further reading)." This is not a standard list, let alone a list of books. It is a pile of newspaper cuttings the length & like of which I've yet to encounter elsewhere in WP (though I can well believe they may exist). It is not neutral. That's why another label seemed to me appropriate. Further reading is customarily used, as the Style Guide implies, when referring a student to further study, i.e. books not clippings. Wingspeed (talk) 20:51, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

• "Wikipedia:Layout#Standard appendices and descriptions" describes a "Further reading" section in these terms: "This is a bulleted list, usually alphabetized, of any books, articles, web pages, etc that you recommend as further reading, useful background, or sources of further information to readers." It is not limited to books. Since a list of newspaper articles can provide useful background or be sources of further information to readers, I don't see any problem with them being included in a "Further reading" section.
• However, the number of newspaper reports in that section is admittedly quite large. I think I might be at fault here. Racking my brains, I recall that in order to improve the article I did a bit of online research to find information about Paxman. I then parked these press reports in the "Further reading" section, intending to gradually incorporate some of them into footnotes in the article. However, I must have got busy or turned to other projects, and forgotten that I had done so. If you are overhauling the article, you may want to pick up where I left off.
• I don't really see what neutrality has to do with a list of newspaper reports about the subject of the article. Can you explain?

— Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 23:31, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Suppose what I meant by not neutral was that the label Further Reading bestows upon newspaper stories by implication an aura of academic rigour they usually if inevitably lack. I've many times used Further Reading as a sub-head in programme support material for schools I've written & edited to accompany Channel Four science programmes. I just wouldn't use it in this instance, that's all. The guideline you cite refers to a list of "books, articles, web pages, etc," where it would be quite appropriate. This is a list solely of newspaper stories. A guideline is only a guideline, after all: Paxman in the news more accurately identifies the list for what it is. And carries the additional irony of recognising by implication that the newsman is himself constantly making news. Wingspeed (talk) 00:45, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

MA

"graduated with a Master of Arts (MA) degree"

As far as I'm aware every graduate of Oxford, Cambridge and Dublin Universities is entitled to a MA (Master of Arts) degree without further study. (See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Master_of_Arts_%28Oxbridge_and_Dublin%29.) Did J.P. receive one of these or undertake a separate postgraduate degree?

Is it worth clarifying this point? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lexicog (talk • contribs) 16:25, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Last time I noticed, an Oxbridge MA is available to a possessor of an Oxbridge BA on mere payment of a fee & maybe attending a dinner or two. So it signifies little. Even if this anachronism has been ironed out more recently, it would still have applied in Paxman's day. To labour the business of BA or MA in this or any such case would, therefore, seem to anyone in the know somewhat jejune & a mark of ignorance. Had JP engaged in further study to acquire a higher degree, then it would warrant mention. The phrase "read English at . . ." is otherwise customary & would here suffice. Wingspeed (talk) 15:13, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I can confirm that Cambridge still awards an MA to holders of the BA six years after they matriculate (become members of the university) as long as they do not owe money to the univereisty, are not in prison etc. Technically it is an 'MA (Cantab)' which makes everything clear to those in the know! Yuillop (talk) 21:12, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Links removed

These links were removed, I've posted them here so that they may be used in future: — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.64.138.190 (talk) 19:15, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

• "Spin Doctor and TV Host in Row". BBC News. 1998-07-02.
• "No More Mr Nice Guy for BBC Viewers". BBC News. 1998-09-14.
• "Paxman Slams 'Quiz Professionals'". BBC News. 1999-06-05.
• "Interrogators Get a Grilling". BBC News. 2001-10-24.
• "Charles Kennedy Interview". BBC News. 2002-07-18.
• "Paxman Sorry over Kennedy Interview". BBC News. 2002-07-18.
• "Paxman Ends Start the Week". BBC News. 2002-08-05.
• "Paxman Rapped over Kennedy Interview". BBC News. 2003-02-27.
• Paxman, Jeremy (2005-01-25). "A Day in the Life of Newsnight". BBC News.
• "Paxman Hits Out at BBC News Cuts". BBC News. 2005-01-31.
• "BBC Defends 'Adversarial' Paxman". BBC News. 2005-03-16.
• "'Hands Off' Paxman and Humphrys: Some Viewers and Listeners have Backed Jeremy Paxman and John Humphrys after their "Disparaging" Interview Techniques were Criticised by a House of Lords Committee". BBC News. 2005-03-17.
• "BBC Stands by Galloway Interview". BBC News. 2005-05-16.
• "Rude Voters 'are Copying Paxman': Voters are Becoming More Rude to Politicians — and the BBC's Jeremy Paxman is to Blame, a Senior Tory Says". BBC News. 2005-10-04.
• Gibson, Owen (2007-05-14). "Paxman to Raise Eyebrows at TV Festival Lecture". MediaGuardian.co.uk. Guardian News and Media.
• Brown, Maggie (2007-07-02). "MacTaggart Hooks a Big Fish". The Guardian. Guardian News and Media. p. 8 (MediaGuardian supplement).

HHGG, Paxman and Pacman

I can't deny that someone somewhere once made the joke, but is there really any notable section of humanity who call the HHGG "green blob" Jeremy Pacman? It seems unlikely, as where the blob is know (the U.S.) Jeremy Paxman isn't known, and where J.P. is known (the U.K.) the blob doesn't appear... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jock123 (talk • contribs) 16:38, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Was Paxo's dad in the US Navy?

At the moment the article says, under "Early life", this: "His father, Keith Paxman, served in the North Atlantic Fleet." North Atlantic Fleet diverts to North Atlantic Squadron which begins, "The North Atlantic Squadron was a section of the United States Navy operating in the North Atlantic." This connection seems perhaps unlikely - though clearly not impossible - and I did wonder whether there is not some mismatch between the editor's intended meaning (something more general perhaps??) and this specific meaning. Does anyone know? I notice that this fact is not referenced, which would help. Best wishes, DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered (talk) 20:54, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

The statement about and the link to the North Atlantic Fleet has been tagged with a "citation needed" reference since February 2009. If there is no support for the statement, it should come out at this time.--TGC55 (talk) 06:46, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Two things:

1. I believe, in Who Do You Think You Are? at least, Paxo says

his father lives in Australia. As such, this 1974 Sydney Morning Herald article

mentioning a "former Royal Navy officer" named Keith Paxman is

notable.

2. Could "North Atlantic Fleet" be that article writer's (I believe

that was the original source) botched way of referring to a general

sort of naval service in the Atlantic (for example, the Battle of the Atlantic)?

Newspapers often get exact descriptions wrong...

Bangdrum (talk) 14:33, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

No progress in finding a citation after another 18 months, so I'm removing that sentence. Qwfp (talk) 18:08, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Paxman & Charterhouse

Am troubled by the page's confident assertion that Paxo was at Charterhouse. Was aware that he went to Malvern but came as complete news to me that later in his school career he moved to Surrey. Am further troubled by the fact that he appears in the list of Malvern old boys but can't find him in the list of Old Carthusians. Find it difficult to imagine that present-day Charterhouse pupils would omit him from such a list. The explanation may be that in an Independent profile linked to in the relevant footnote the author (or maybe whoever subbed the piece) states JP as having gone to Charterhouse with no mention of Malvern. Jeremy Paxman: The outsider (My 1989 copy of Who's Who has no Paxman entry). I suspect a major inaccuracy by dint of a journalistic aberration. I may be wrong. If not, it would yet again go to show you can't always believe what you read in the newspapers. Anyone able to throw further light on this? Wingspeed (talk) 22:30, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, on closer inspection the Independent profile does mention Malvern but only Charterhouse in the sidebar. I infer from the piece that the Who Do You Think You Are programme identified JP as having later attended Charterhouse. If so, that would be a definitive source. And would make it even more strange that, as far as I can see, he isn't listed among Charterhouse alumni in the relevant WP article. Didn't see the genealogy show myself (though his great-grandfather, apparently & coincidentally, had the same name as me & his great-grandmother had the same name as my mother). Can anyone remember this aspect of the programme? Or able to check the current Who's Who? Would be interesting in itself to know why he changed schools. Wingspeed (talk) 22:51, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Have just double-checked the List of Old Carthusians. Of BBC men, both Dimblebys, David & Jonathan are there, and Gerald Priestland. And even the fictional Radio 4 character Giles Wemmbley-Hogg. But no Paxman. As Dame Edna Everage might put it: spooky. Wingspeed (talk) 03:01, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Finally got round to checking Who's Who. No mention of Charterhouse. (At least, not in the 2005 edition I've just bought for a fiver!) Since the entry would be the consequence of JP himself filling in a form, I take this to be definitive. Am, accordingly, removing it from the article. My strong suspicion (see above) appears to be confirmed: whoever did the sidebar to the Indie profile cocked things up - perhaps they were on work experience:) Find it hard to believe the man himself wasn't ribbed about this. May well have preferred to leave the error in place all this time as farcical evidence to justify further his ill-disguised contempt for the internet and, probably, WP in particular. This is exactly the sort of thing that gets WP a bad name. Wingspeed (talk) 16:16, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Looks like a mistake. I've deleted it. Ausseagull (talk) 21:29, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Somebody put it up again. According to this Guardian interview he "..never set foot in the place.". I'm deleting it. Lathrop1885 (talk) 19:25, 9 October 2011 (UTC)