Jump to content

Talk:Brooke Magnanti

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 198.182.37.200 (talk) at 13:45, 14 January 2013. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


Blog

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

The news stories are probably worth mentioning. Much as I like the blogosphere an un-corroborated blog is probably not worth mentioning. She is deliberately anonymous so various things can be alleged & she will not respond to protect that anonymity. She may even have posted an april fools spoof herself, it is not particularly out of character. MGSpiller 23:32, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More on her identity

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

Chloe Bancroft

connections, maybe? how to have an affair in palo alto chloe bancroft

it seems awfully familiar if you've seen any of the "Secret Diary of a Call Girl" series. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.47.150.126 (talk) 01:09, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Life imitates art... again

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

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was not moved GrooveDog FOREVER 01:44, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Belle de Jour (writer) → Brooke Magnanti — This article was created when her identity was unknown, now that she has gone public we can move it. --PatGallacher (talk) 11:24, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral She is still quite obviously commonly known as Belle de Jour, but moving to the real name would at least mean we don't have to have the rather odd (writer) disambiguator. MickMacNee (talk) 13:30, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would be inclined to oppose. This requested move implies some speculation about whether people will now refer to the subject by her real name or her established literary pseudonym, but at the moment, the main press sources are still starting stories along the lines 'Belle de Jour, whose real name is Dr Brooke Magnanti'. If she becomes better known under her real name then the time may come to reconsider. Sam Blacketer (talk) 12:49, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral both solutions are ok - however that alss means that there is no reason really requiring a move.--Kmhkmh (talk) 14:25, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Soft oppose Belle de Jour on the grounds the nom-de plume that is more famous. 213.249.187.154 (talk) 17:14, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Controversy?

There has been rather a lot of discussion about this author in the British press since this revelation came out. Is this deliberately not included, or could a section on this be included if I typed something up? Random name (talk) 09:57, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

note that some of it is actually already included, other details will follow soon (see below).--Kmhkmh (talk) 14:53, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It might be an idea, if the coverage in the British press was to be included, that the names of the papers involved would be a good idea. She gave the interview to the Sunday Times, but according to her blog, the Daily Mail (as usual...) was threatening to blow her cover. Mcgruffalo (talk) 13:53, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

After reviweing most of the recently published stuff, I'm not really aware of any real new "controversy". The new biographical information and details should be added, if nobody else does i will do it over the next couple of days. you can also take a look at the new German version which already compiled a large portion of the recent publications. However since much of the current publications are from the yellow press/tabloid papers, we need to perform a sanity check on the information and compare the various sources to get a better idea of what information seems to be reliable and what not. --Kmhkmh (talk) 14:53, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Timeline

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

Hair color

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

call girl/prostitute/sex worker

@IP: I'm getting the impression that you are trying to push some innuendo here. The term "call girl" was used in the article all the time and it is an accurate description. That means there is no real need to change the current wording. Apparently several editors were not convinced of your change, so if you insist on a different choice of words, please make sure you achieve an editorial consent here first, before you change it in the article.


From my perspective each of the terms (call girl, prostitute, sex worker) is somewhat accurate. However "call girl" is a bit less generic than prostitute or sex worker, since the latter terms comprise anything from street prostitution, brothels to escort agencies whereas the first is mostly refering to escorts/escort agencies offering sexual services. Also the books and tv series are called "diaries of a call girl" and not "diaries of a prostitute/sex worker". This means the term call girl is slightly more accurate than the other two and matches her self description (as well as that in many media outlets), hence it is the term the article should use.--Kmhkmh (talk) 16:33, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since I'm at it anyhow, I'd like to correct 2 misconceptions raised/claimed by the IP in version history:

  • call a spade a spade:
    "Call girl" is a spade or at least it should be to anybody familiar with current English terms. And even in the (rare) case that is not familiar with the term, he just has to click in the wikilink (note that call girl and sex worker have separate articles).
  • the current introduction implies that she was chiefly a scientist/writer and an incidental prostitute, which is inaccurate
    The introduction did correctly so, since she was a call girl for less then 2 years while she has been scientist and blogger/writer for more than 10 years, so obviously her chief occupation is the latter and not the former. Moreover she became famous as blogger/writer for writing about sex and call girl experiences rather than for her call girl activity itself. That means her wikipedia notability stems not directly from her job as a call girl, but from her writing about it. This somewhat different from a case where the notability is primarily derived being a call girl or from the sex service offered like Ashley Alexandra Dupré.

--Kmhkmh (talk) 17:07, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Kmhkmh: most lucid. yet i see that Ashley Alexandra Dupré is also introduced in her opening sentence as "an American sex columnist for the New York Post and singer" and not as a call girl. I hope you havent been spreading your sweetness and light there too. The books and tv series are called "diaries of a call girl" simply because calling it "diaries of a prostitute" doesnt sell as many copies. Thats why the name of her book shouldnt stand as a guide to what she should be called. unless youre worried about marketability on Wikipedia too. Miss Magnanti was a prostitute. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.231.59.166 (talk) 09:03, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It seems you misunderstood the argument above. Of course was Magnanti a prostitute, since every call girl is a prostitute. The point is that call girl is better term since it provides a more accurate description, i.e. call girl is special type of prostitute. To provide an analogon, that might help to understand this point. If you look at the lead of the article Lion you will see that it is described as a cat not as mammal, though it is mammal nevertheless. Why? Because cat is more specific term (i.e. carrying more information for the reader) and people usually know anyhow that cat are mammals (and if not they can click on the link). So the argument above is not about picking a "nicer" or "sweeter" term, but a more accurate/specific one.
As far as as blog, book ot TV-series is concerned, what matters here is the name they use and not the reasoning for that you me or any editor might assume. Our private interpretations have no meaning in WP (see WP:OR and WP:NPOV).
Lastly, if you are concerned that the overall tone/content article is "too nice", then write the still missing "criticism section" as was already suggest earlier (like in German interwiki for instance). There was enough public criticism of her blog & books in reputable sources, that charge her for glamourizing prostitution. But please refrain from "proxy wars" about the wording in the lead about the term "call girl".
Also if you nevertheless insist on a different wording seek editorial consent first and moreover provide a proper argument, why the term prostitute or sex worker would be more appropriate. So far your argument merely seems to be "call girl sounds too nice to me" and that frankly is not cutting it. Meaning, we are not going to replace a more accurate term, which has been fine with other editors so far, by a less accurate one, just because it sounds "too nice" to you personally.--Kmhkmh (talk) 09:57, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Brooke Magnanti study and sourcing

The following paragraph reads this way:

"In 2011 Brooke Magnanti published a statistical re-analysis criticizing the Report on Lap Dancing and Striptease in the Borough of Camden, a study which had found that sexual crimes have increased after the opening of four lap dancing venues in the area. Magnati concluded in her paper that the study had significant methodological errors.[37] According to Magnanti's paper, in the decade since lap dancing became legal in London the rate of rape in Camden has fallen, is lower than areas of London without the clubs, and is in line with national averages.[38]"

I have removed this part "According to Magnanti's paper, in the decade since lap dancing became legal in London the rate of rape in Camden has fallen, is lower than areas of London without the clubs, and is in line with national averages" because, unlike the phrase above, which is sourced to the study itself (ref 37), this paragraph is sourced to a press article (in a minor non-scientific newspaper). The conclusion of a study must be sourced to the study itself, and clearly explained with quotes or close paraphrasing from the study itself. This paragraph consists merely of the words of the journalist and his interpretation of the study. You don't present the conclusion of a study as the explanation given by an obscure journalist in an obscure newspaper.

For those unfamiliar with all this, the Report on Lap Dancing and Striptease in the Borough of Camden found that "Since 1999 rape of women in Camden has increased by 50%" and "Since 1999 indecent assault of women in Camden has increased by 57%" and "Camden’s female rape rate per 1000 for 2001 was three times the national average". In short that study found that the opening of strip clubs in Cameden has led to an increase of sex crimes in that area, while Magnanti disputed this in her paper claiming that the methodology of that study was flawed.

So:

If all this is going to be presented here:

1. both these studies are going to be clearly explained and presented in a neutral way (i.e without giving Magnanti the last word and implying that her paper is the one that has it right)

2. keep the press out of it. There's a policy on WP about this: because what a journalist says about the conclusion of a study can often be different than what the study itself says, the press is not to be used to explain what a study says. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.25.174.120 (talk) 23:36, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Imho you're getting that somewhat wrong. This is an article about magnanati and her work and not about sex crimes in Camden. As such we simply describe/shortly summarize Magnanti's work and not that of other studies. If some sources explicitly criticizes Magnanti's work that can be mentioned of course.
As far as the press is concerned it can be used here within reason. Yes, journalists can get things wrong but so WP editors. Of course it is preferable to use the original papers instead and nobody is kkeping you from adding it. But not citing the original paper doesn't necessarily justify to delete the content. Furthermore for reason stated above a detailed discussion of both articles is not appropriate here. You can however explicity qualify her criticism to make sure that all readers realize, that it is merely her opinion rather than factual (though imho this implicitly obvious anyhow).--Kmhkmh (talk) 00:16, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. Intererstingly enough the line sourced with the Camden Journal was indeed not correct. This was however not a problem of the Camden Journal, but the WP editor of that line who did not cite The Camden Journal correctly. In other words the incorrect description was not created by the journalist of the Camden Journal but by a WP editor.--Kmhkmh (talk) 00:40, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I was not in any way suggesting that this article be turned into a place to discuss sex crimes in Cameden or the relation between strip clubs and crime. But if Magnanti's study is to be presented, then the other study Report on Lap Dancing and Striptease in the Borough of Camden has to be explained too (very short paragraph, nothing else) for 2 reasons: 1. Magnanti's study itself consists of criticizing that study - i.e her study is a direct response to the Report on Lap Dancing and Striptease in the Borough of Camden - she attacks the methodology and conclusions of that study and 2. just because this is an article about Magnanti doesn't mean that it can be used to present potentially misleading information about something else (i.e, a reader may come here and read "Magnanti's study found this..." and if nothing more is said the reader may be lead to believe that what Magnanti asserts is correct/widely accepted.
"Of course it is preferable to use the original papers instead and nobody is kkeping you from adding it. But not citing the original paper doesn't necessarily justify to delete the content." The original paper IS here, and there is a paragraph linking to it - this one "In 2011 Brooke Magnanti published a statistical re-analysis criticizing the Report on Lap Dancing and Striptease in the Borough of Camden, a study which had found that sexual crimes have increased after the opening of four lap dancing venues in the area. Magnati concluded in her paper that the study had significant methodological errors". I haven't removed that paragraph, only the second one which was linked to the press.188.25.174.120 (talk) 01:02, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Libel Case ect.

Is it inappropriate to have this on the page? Seems apparent the person filing the suit is an attention seeker. As it's not a criminal case and is not yet set to appear in court (and may never do), I don't think this is noteworthy yet. Writers get threats all the time by people looking for money or attention and there are other nonsense lawsuits being threatened against Belle du Jour (see adalbertlallier.blog.com/), do we need to be giving this particular one more oxygen than it's worth? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.208.58.57 (talk) 10:59, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Probably true. I don't think it needs to mentioned, however since the plaintiff is so closely related to the author's biography and the belle de jour story line it is imho not completely inappropriate to mention it shortly either. However continuing detailed updates or gossip of the suit are definitely not appropriate. It should just be mentioned in one or two lines.--Kmhkmh (talk) 11:33, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I guess my point that unless it goes to court, it isn't clear if the person bringing this suit really is the ex in question. She hasn't commented on it that I can find. 46.208.58.57 (talk) 08:35, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well the section cites 2 sources, if they can be considered reliable enough, we do know that such a suit exists and we do know who the plaintiff is, even without Magnanti commenting herself. However if we do not consider them as reliable enough the section should be removed, at first glance i can't assess that myself.--Kmhkmh (talk) 13:42, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Degrees of removal from Kevin Bacon and Paul Erdos

Whilst it's fun, adding speculations about Magnanti 's current degrees of removal from Bacon and Erdos is at best temporary and trivial. Darrenbeniston has made a noble attempt at referencing, but adding the cites for Magnanti's academic papers and TV appearances doesn't ref the Bacon and Erdos figures given. This is original research that's worth publishing on a blog, for sure. Best wishes Span (talk) 12:53, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Facial skin

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

She blogs about it herself http://www.guardian.co.uk/fashion/2012/apr/20/brooke-magnanti-belle-jour-mirror 198.182.37.200 (talk) 13:45, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Brooke_Magnanti&oldid=533031155"