Jump to content

Talk:Brooke Magnanti

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

Blog

[edit]

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

[edit]

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

[edit]

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

[edit]

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

[edit]
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?

[edit]

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

[edit]

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

[edit]

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

[edit]

@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]
I thought euphemisms were deprecated in Wikipedia. We say "He died" rather than "He passed away." "He has gone to a better place," or "He is no more." Probably "whore" is too crude a term for a sex worker. "Prostitute" seems encyclopedic and non-pejorative to describe those who perform sex acts for money (and who are not "porn stars."). Edison (talk) 01:01, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Brooke Magnanti study and sourcing

[edit]

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.

[edit]

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

[edit]

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

[edit]

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]

Moving this page to Brooke Magnanti; reexamining this issue, wanting to move it

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. 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 proposal was no consensus. This may be worth revisiting in the future, however, as usage may change. --BDD (talk) 00:43, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Belle de Jour (writer) → Brooke Magnanti – Hi ladies & gents.

I think it's time to move this page to Brooke Magnanti, reasoning as follows:

  • The last discussion was in 2009 when she'd just "come out" as Belle.
  • She currently uses the name Brooke Magnanti to write in The Daily Telegraph [1] and in The Guardian[2], and in her book The Sex Myth and on Twitter [3] not [4].
  • When someone uses both their real name and a penname, I understand it is customary to use their real name as the title and indicate the penname as such.
  • The article discusses Dr Brooke Magnanti and her life rather than just the separate works by "Belle"
  • WP:BLP means we need to respectfully use the name with which individuals self-identify.
  • The title of the article is thereafter sans parentheses, which makes it more elegant.

Can we get consensus on this please? Relisted. Rushton2010 (talk) 23:42, 27 January 2014 (UTC) Barney the barney barney (talk) 18:05, 14 January 2014 (UTC) Relisted. Rushton2010 (talk) 23:53, 27 January 2014 (UTC) Barney the barney barney (talk) 15:32, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mind a move.--Kmhkmh (talk) 08:02, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

thanks Rushton2010 (talk · contribs)
I do indeed question the "unquestionable" question as to whether she is still "more well known" by pen-name given that she's writing in national newspapers under her real one. Barney the barney barney (talk) 11:44, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Who's heard of Brooke Magnanti? I certainly haven't and I'm a regular reader of the Guardian, and occasional reader of the Telegraph. However, who's ever heard of Belle de Jour...? -A hugely wider selection of people. Even if they don't know in detail, a much wider range of people will know the name. And don't forget wikipedia has to have a world view; two UK newspapers (neither of which use her name alone btw - both have to add BDJ to it so people know who she actually is) pail into insignificance compared to the worldwide attention of the original blog, books, tv show and the new-stories that surrounded them all, which are what the name Belle De Jour famous.
She is famous as BDJ, her real name is still relatively unknown and even when used, has to have the BDJ added on so people know who she actually is - it cannot be used alone because it wont be recognized. All the "big" international things - books, TV show Secret Diary of a Call Girl etc. are all of course BDJ (and the character in the TV show has a completely different name to her real one). Her own website/Blog address is BDJ belledejour-uk, and again, she has to quantify who she is with the title "Dr Brooke Magnanti | Belle De Jour" - The Guardian has to use "Brooke Magnanti (Belle de Jour)" because her real name is not widely recognized www.theguardian.com/books/brooke-magnanti-belle-de-jour - the Telegraph have to do the same: "By Dr Brooke Magnanti, formerly known as Belle de Jour" - even when she's mentioned in other news outlets, shes's not recognized by the real name, so the BDJ has to be added: eg BBC. And if we go to our old friend Mr. Google - 2,910,000 results for Belle de Jour; 40,900 Dr Brooke Magnanti (or 69,500 if you drop the "dr").
The pen-name is more famous than her real name, as it is for many other authors and celebrities - hence their pen-names or pseudonyms are used for their article names: George Eliot not Mary Ann Evans, E. L. James not Erika Leonard, Dr. Seuss not Theodor Seuss Geisel, George Orwell not Eric Arthur Blair, Lewis Carroll not Charles Lutwidge Dodgson, Mark Twain not Samuel Langhorne Clemens; in the more celebrity world: Woody Allen not Allen Stewart Konigsberg, Coco Chanel not Gabrielle Bonheur Chanel. And hundreds more at List of pen names, List of stage names and List of pseudonyms.
The policies require "Recognizability" and "Consistency", which a move would be against. I can see no reason to break wikipedia's naming policies, common name policy, and the precedents started by the hundreds of other articles when all the move would achieve is to make this article less recognizable and thus more obscure and harder to find.--Rushton2010 (talk) 16:53, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your feedback and for proving my point. As indicated above, the suggested move which has broad consensus is in line with naming guidelines and (more importantly) WP:BLP. Barney the barney barney (talk) 19:51, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Don't make yourself look ridiculous. There is clearly no broad consensus, especially considering none of your reasons given above are not grounded in Wikipedia's policies, and all your "points" have been brought into question -several cases completely disproved. If we go through them in order:

  • She currently uses the name for newspapers and twitter

Yes, but, as mentioned above, she also uses BDJ in all of these mediums as well; Her continued use of BDJ illustrates she has not stepped away or abandoned its use; and your narrow selection of "evidence" does not represent a world view.

  • It is customary to use the real name and not the pen name

As shown above, the complete opposite is true. As per wikipedia policy WP:COMMONNAME, the most recognisable name is used, and this is near universally the pen name.

  • The article discusses Dr Brooke Magnanti and her life rather than just the separate works by "Belle".

A fair point, but this is no different to any of the other individual's listed above. The article naming policies are clear that it is their most commonly recognized name is used. Dr. Seuss, for example had a wide ranging career yet, as per policy, the pen-name used for the children's books is used as the article name as it is the most easily recognized.

You don't quote the line of the BLP policy you are trying to refer to, but a quick search shows no such rule. -And it is a hollow argument anyway given that she continues to use BLD in her website, newspaper articles and it is mentioned on her twitter account.

  • The change would be more elegant

Unsurprisingly, there is no such policy.

With all of that out of the way, shall we turn to the actual wikipedia policies, which are Wikipedia:Article titles and WP:COMMONNAME. Article title policy requires the 5 things:

  • Recognizability – The title is a name or description of the subject that someone familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in, the subject will recognize.
  • Naturalness – The title is one that readers are likely to look or search for and that editors would naturally use to link to the article from other articles. Such titles usually convey what the subject is actually called in English.
  • Precision – The title is sufficiently precise to unambiguously identify the article's subject and distinguish it from other subjects.
  • Conciseness – The title is no longer than necessary to identify the article's subject and distinguish it from other subjects.
  • Consistency – The title is consistent with the pattern of similar articles' titles. Many of these patterns are listed (and linked) in the box of Topic-specific conventions on article titles.

Recognisability

As noted above, BDJ is clearly the most recognizable name. She continues to use it in addition to her name in all of her other works - newspapers for example - because without it, no one recognises who she is. It is also very telling that google finds 2,910,000 results for Belle de Jour; but only 40,900 Dr Brooke Magnanti (or 69,500 if you drop the "dr"). This is a situation which repeats itself here at Wikipedia. There were 8937 hits last month for the BDJ; compared to only 1056 for "Brooke Magnanti" and a measly 27 for "Dr Brooke Magnanti". It is clearly demonstrated that the existing title is that which people are most familiar with - you need to be far more familiar with her career (the "expert" mentioned in the policy wording) to know her real name.

Naturalness

As illustrated in the statistics above from both wikipedia and google, the current title is the people are "likely to look or search for". Almost 3million vs. 69,500; and almost 9,000 vs. just over 1,000. Wikipedia:Search engine test suggests the use of Ngram Viewer: Which shows up plenty of use of BDJ but shows up NO use of Brooke Magnanti: (see [5]). The other suggested tool is Google Trends, which shows BDJ continues to be used more than Brooke Magnanti. It assigns an average score of 13 vs. 2. If we look to the most recent data Oct2013-Jan2014, we see it is 8 or 9 to 1, BDJ vs. BM. (See [6]). In every test usually used in Wikipedia, it is overwhelmingly clear that the WP:COMMONNAME is still BDJ.

Precision

The use of the "writer" in brackets makes the title precise enough to differentiate from other uses of BDJ.

Conciseness

The title is concise whilst still distinguishing from other uses.

Consistency

As noted above, the current title is in line with the many hundreds of other writers and celebrities who are known by their pen or stage names rather than their real name. This of course links with the policy WP:COMMONNAME, which states "Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title", "Wikipedia prefers the name that is most commonly used as such names will be the most recognizable and the most natural". With the statistics above, drawn from the suggested tools for discerning a common name, it is overwhelming that BDJ is the most frequently used.

The current name is clearly the one which is in line with Wikipedia's policies. The proposed name change is clearly not, and any change would just spur attempts to change it back and bring it back in line with wikipedia's policies.

The grounds for moving given by the nominator are at best weak - many have been proved blatantly false - but a move is clearly in contravention of the Wikipedia:Article titles and WP:COMMONNAME policies.

I also question the motives behind this move. The user concerned cannot be a fan of the individual -is some personal vendetta behind it?. When BDJ brings up almost 3million vs. 69,500; and on wikipedia almost 9,000 are searching for BDJ vs. just over 1,000; and google trends clearly demonstrates even today, people are searching at a ratio of 8 or 9 to 1 in favour of BDJ.... To move the article is to move it away from what people are searching for - to make it harder to find and more obscure. Is that what the nominator wants? --Rushton2010 (talk) 23:36, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose The proposer makes perfectly legitimate points, so I don't see why Rushton has to turn this into a battleground with accusations of "personal vendettas". What vendettas? Against whom? However, I think that she is still very much better known as Belle de Jour than as Brooke Magnanti. That may change in future. Paul B (talk) 17:22, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
One of the key reasons for wikipedia's policy regarding assuming good faith is the differences between individual's internal monologues. My own - being a level headed, relaxed person - is a very soft internal monologue. Other's obviously are not... I assume the proposer is a fan of the individual here concerned, as they know her real name and are familiar with her work; My questions to the proposer was entirely legitimate attempt to get him or her to examine their reasoning behind the suggested move, and what consequences (potentially unintended) it may have. And as the user seems unfamiliar with wikipedia's article naming policies, spelling out the key points of the policy is far clearer than providing wikilinks to long pieces of text. So it's hardly a battle ground....
But on the flip side, I've seen plenty attempts across wikipedia of editors who dislike individuals - a vast amount of vandalism on wikipedia is to articles of celebrities, politicians or controversial figures by people who have a strong dislike of them. The proposer in their last comment seemed very willing to overlook both wikipedia policy (I presumed good faith and that the individual had either not followed the wikilink to the article naming policy, or had been intimidated by, and thus not read, the large amount of text that met them there -hence spelling out the key points), and the external statistics which favour the existing name being the most used and recognised; the consequences of that being potentially detrimental to the article. Although I hadn't meant it in such a hard fashion, it would be perfectly legitimate to question those actions for those reasons. And it would be naive to believe personal likes and dislikes do not come onto wikipedia.
Moral of the story: Good faith, my dear. Good faith. --Rushton2010 (talk) 14:59, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I can understand your getting angry with this remark: "thanks for your feedback and for proving my point. As indicated above, the suggested move which has broad consensus". It just indicates that the editor had not even bothered to look at your arguments; and since there has been one supporter of the name change, the claim of "broad consensus" is laughable. Still, the following multi-paragraph rant didn't help much to produce an atmosphere of open discussion. Paul B (talk) 18:10, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. 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.

date of birth?

[edit]

There has been a wrangling between 2 different dates (5th and 9th of November) in the past, both somehow insufficiently sourced with not particularly reliable sources. The version history has:

Assuming the IP was indeed Magnanti the date should be the 5th. However we cannot simply take the IP's word for granted and the cited blog got discontinued not that long after the change and seems unavailable currently. In short we need better/new sources and verification of the sources by other editors. Also it might be worth considering to set the date of birth to November 1975 or just 1975 until the issue is resolved.--Kmhkmh (talk) 07:24, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Now the date is sourced by a discontinued blog of Magnanti (gyst of it), fortunately it is still available on archive.org. Imho this provides sufficient proof for the 5th as the correct date.--Kmhkmh (talk) 11:17, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

edits in pseudonym section and use of the citation

[edit]

There is no citation required for describing obviously correct content and when paraphrasing or describing the content of a citation, you're not restricted to verbatim copy. Instead you retell in the information in your own words and contextualize it.

We don't necessarily need a specific citation that literally establishes that there is a book "Belle de Jour" by Kessel and Bunuels film is after the book, since that is an information which you can find in almost any article on tat book or the film and it is of course contained in the linked article in WP as well. All what is neededs from Sydney Morning Herald here is to connect the nome de plume to the figure of the movie or the book (they are identical). After having said, I'm seeing now that the article by Jacqueline Vickery used as a source a bit later names explicitly book and film together anyhow.

As far as "belle de nuit" and prostitute is concerned. Yes, Herald does not state "prostitute" literally but "lady of the night" is a euphemism for it (can be looked in standard dictionaries and such), so of course when paraphrase the information in the Herald you can use the term prostitute as well. Moreover it makes no sense to state only the literal term from the Herald but then link it to prostitution anyway. Because that kind linking establishes the same fact (prostitute) rather than sticking only to the literal term but is nevertheless clearly unfriendly to readers, who forced to follow link, when they are not familiar with euphemism. Adding the explanatory prostitute directly in this article saves the reader from such a round trip.

Now if you have any other issues with the original formulation please discuss them here first.--Kmhkmh (talk) 20:59, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

my primary issue concerns statements that are not properly cited as per WP:OR, we appear to differ in our approach to this matter, it's a mistake to "logically conclude" that something is a statement of fact because an article exits on the topic - even when we "logically" know that a statement is most likely true - not to mention that Wikipedia should never reference itself. Semitransgenic talk. 21:25, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I guess see where you're coming from and we may indeed somewhat differ with regard to how WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, WP:V are to be understood (in particular context).
I agree that Wikipedia cannot serve as a source for itself. However is that is only the case for information or knowledge that clearly requires sourcing and that is where might differ slightly in the assessment which content requires what detail of explicit sourcing. This is a bit of grey area and I admit I'm probably on the side of those who in doubt prefer to restrict the sourcing to the required minimum for verification and that have disliking for "overciting". For WP articles you certainly may have to cite more than you would in a scholarly article as you can/should assume less domain knowledge. Nevertheless to produce readable and intelligent writing you need to assume some context knowledge for the primary target audience and that determines to a degree what and how much you need to source (at least). Another thing is that for good encyclopedic writing you often need to reformulate and contextualize the information given in a source. Which admittingly is a balancing act. If you do that too freely, there is a danger that you cross over the threshold to WP:OR or WP:SYNTH. However if you don't do it all, you tend to produce horrible writing, which often is at best only a step away from a copyright violation or plagiarism.
Anyhow this is all very general. As far as the paragraph in question is concerned, as I tried to outline above, there is imho no real WP:OR or WP:SYNTH problem. Writing prostitute in addition or instead "lady of the night" for instance is imho exactly the kind of contextualizing we need in WP.--Kmhkmh (talk) 22:18, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I'm easy, but in the context of BLP articles, sourcing should be more thorough, so "overciting" can be a good thing, unless of course the cites do not actually support the content. Semitransgenic talk. 12:39, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with regard to BLP-issues sourcing has to be more stringent and in doubt it is better to "overcite" to be on the safe side.--Kmhkmh (talk) 14:06, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Accusations of sockpuppetry and plagiarism

[edit]

A few days ago, an exhaustive analysis by Anyabike ([7], cited by Milo Yiannopoulos [8]) conclusively demonstrated, beyond reasonable doubt, the use of a sockpuppet to abuse female journalists. As Anyabike has noted in her Twitter timeline since, much of the most egregious abuse was removed from her evidence because it concerned personal and damaging information.

Wikipedia is one of the organisations most familiar with the problems of sockpuppets, and the general failure to call them out publicly and in mainstream print media (e.g. Johann Hari) - exacerbated by, in Britain's case, libel laws and extremely risk-averse lawyers ("how can we prove that computer was used by x on y occasion? etc) means that they generally get away with it. Whereupon others see very little cost to pursuing similar agendas by these means.

Nevertheless, in this case, the use of a 5 word phrase, which has only appeared online ever twice - once on Magnenti's and once on her sockpuppet account - would seem proof positive "beyond reasonable doubt".

Furthermore, given her pseudonymous history, and its essentially unverifiable content, as Jeremy Duns (a distinguished sockpuppet hunter in his own right) has noted on Twitter, this behaviour - beyond being abusive - by a public figure with a public platform (articles in The Telegraph) is not unimportant.

I carefully added "alleged" in the edit, provided a news source by a reliable and recognised (if not always liked) journalist of standing, and a link to the original "allegations" which, as befitting a barrister, are forensic and detailed.

What more can one reasonably ask? Philip Cross, who reverted the edit, suggests an offence against NPOV - but again, I find this hard to substantiate. @Anyabike seems perfectly reasonable throughout: the behaviour she is identifying is nothing of the sort. So what exactly would constitute a satisfactorily "neutral" POV in this case?

Forgive the ramblings of an occasional editor over the years - I've lost and forgotten my earlier incarnations here, and they largely involved Oxford commas, but as therefore I am in effect, a 'newbie', please bear with me for this sockpuppetry - and the growing trend for it across the net, with which Wikipedia is no doubt wearily familiar - seems to me of self-evident interest and relevance in this case.

Thanks etc. PantophileDiderot (talk) 14:26, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The @anyabike Storify account of Brooke Magnanti's alleged activities on twitter in the now deleted @bea_attitude first appeared on 26 September (last Friday). Yet the Breitbart website is still the only site to report her claims. There is a problem with citing the Storify piece as it counts as a primary source and the claim at present is potentially libellous until the sockpuppeteer confesses. At the moment it counts as a "conjectural interpretation" (see WP:BLPREMOVE) however persuasive one considers @anyabike's work to be. It does not matter that Jeremy Duns has a good track record in outing sockpuppets, as he has not written about this case in a reliable source so far; his tweets and blog entry are irrelevant as far as Wikipedia is concerned because they are self-published. Breitbart itself may not be a sufficiently reliable source to use for the biography of a living person on Wikipedia which "must be written conservatively" (WP:BLP). Philip Cross (talk) 17:14, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am not convinced the storify is either "conclusive" or "beyond reasonable doubt".

It seems more like an example of apophenia. It compares two people, one a widely read writer, and one who is a fan of that writer. Apart from the comparisons where both were tweeting about things of interest to their common peer group or were newsworthy at the time (sex work, Scotland), or using slang common to Twitter and Tumblr (amirite), the 'serpent' phrase that seems most revealing could have been seen and used later by someone who read the original tweet. Look at Belle's tweet count, it is very low for someone who has been Twitter on that long. In other words she bulk deletes tweets periodically. Most likely she has used the phrase a number of times, only one of which is currently visible. It also reads as unusual and not original to her, something from a book, play or comic possibly? A vast amount of information is not yet textually searchable on the Web.

This is not the first time this has happened. Linked on this page is a reference to the Sarah Champion episode in 2004, where someone was identified as Belle in the Times based on the supposed "textual analysis" of a phrase unique to the two of them. It and most of the other conspiracy theories, some archived on this talk page, were wildly wrong.

That people believe the storify only indicates strong emotions are inspired by the subject. Anyabike's previous storifys and Twitter feed show she is no disinterested observer. The evidence is not there. We're talking about a person who is widely read and has a loyal fan base. You could probably make similar storifys about dozens or hundreds of people who follow Maganti. The accusation is at best circumstantial, and she has publicly denied any connection. Between the BLP and NPOV issues? Too much a defamation risk. 146.90.166.179 (talk) 08:39, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Now Breitbart has accused Magnanti of plagiarizing Wikipedia's entry on Valentine's Day. [9] Should this be added? Jinkinson talk to me 14:37, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, for much the same reasons as before, even though the evidence is convincing. Philip Cross (talk) 14:48, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What would be the point? For a writer who has produced hundreds of articles and a large number of books to have admitted to plagiarising a single article in that time (there being no suggestion anything else she has written is plagiarised, no doubt Jeremy Duns has done the extensive legwork as is his habit), it seems a misdemeanor compared to things that were in the mainstream press and are not logged here, like her accusations of hacking from the Times.87.115.113.138 (talk) 18:29, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You make some interesting points, '87.115.113.138'.
I'd agree with you that a single article might not be enough of a reliable source to add this information to this entry on Wikipedia. But several other things you say aren't true. Firstly, you say, 'For a writer who has produced hundreds of articles and a large number of books to have admitted to plagiarising a single article...' Well, she hasn't admitted it. If she had, I think it should absolutely go in the article, as that is rather an unimpeachable source!
Secondly, it is a single article, but there are several examples of plagiarism in it, some of them word-for-word lifts from this website. So that would suggest to me something rather serious. The first article on Johann Hari's plagiarism was only about a single article, but it *eventually* led to a whole range of people looking at his other articles. And they discovered he was a serial plagiarist.
In my view, submitting a feature article on Valentine's Day to a national newspaper that is largely barely rewritten chunks of the Wikipedia entry on Valentine's Day, unattributed, and some of it word-for-word, is textbook plagiarism and should be more than enough to trigger the newspaper in question to look at the rest of her work. That's standard practice in such cases, or used to be.
Finally, no, I haven't 'done the extensive legwork, as is my habit'. I've no idea how many articles Brooke Magnanti has written, but this is the only one I've looked at, and I only looked at it because I saw someone mention in on Twitter. So your assumption that I've looked at all of her work and only found this single plagiarised article is wrong. I just wanted to set that straight. Jeremy Duns (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 16:03, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The famous Jeremy Duns batsignal! (joke)
Most likely previous comment was mistyped regarding did/did not admit it. The sentence makes no sense otherwise.
Also most likely assumed since she's been on your radar for 18 months you would have gone through the rest. 37.203.130.34 (talk) 06:51, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, '37.203.130.34'. Okay, but I was simply pointing out that both assumptions are wrong. My feeling is that someone who's prepared to plagiarise a feature article in a national newspaper from the Wikipedia entry on the same topic is rather likely to have plagiarised elsewhere, so for me this is more than enough to make that obvious to those whose job it is to investigate her articles as a result, ie the Telegraph. The idea I've spent 18 months poring over hundreds of her articles is a bit silly, really - I've researched and written a novel in that time, and this has only cropped up again because someone accused her of another type of journalistic deception (creating a sockpuppet to attack her peers), not because I've been searching her articles and found nothing further. Indeed, I didn't spot the plagiarism in the first place, but saw it mentioned on Twitter. But if anyone is silly enough to make such false assumptions about my activities based on no actual evidence, I'm happy to correct them. I hope that clears this up now. Jeremy Duns — Preceding undated comment added 08:12, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if all the fuzz above is based on these two urls in the footnotes, then it imho clearly lacks grounds for inclusion into the article. That simply fails realibility and notability standards at this point. In addition I find it rather ironic to see an IP icluding material about alleged sockpuppetry and breitbart as a defender of feminism. --Kmhkmh (talk) 02:35, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Book reviews

[edit]

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

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Belle de Jour (writer). 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:

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: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 14:43, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Belle de Jour (writer). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:33, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Belle de Jour (writer). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:51, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Belle de Jour (writer). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:14, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Belle de Jour (writer). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:31, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 12 April 2018

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved as requested per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 00:36, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Belle de Jour (writer) → Brooke Magnanti – Since this move was last discussed in 2009 and 2014, Magnanti has become at least as active under her real name as she ever was as "Belle de Jour", publishing two works of nonfiction and two novels under that name, as well as numerous newspaper articles and op-eds, not to mention her many scientific papers. In my opinion, continuing to file her under "Belle de Jour" is now looking not just outdated, but maybe even a little patronising. Widsith (talk) 07:56, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

[edit]
Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.
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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Taro (given name)

[edit]

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

Move to the US/Patreon

[edit]

Here's a quote from Magnanti's patreon page:

[...]2018 is something of a fresh start for me, personally and professionally. I'm out of contract with my former publisher, working on exciting new projects, and have moved to the US. [...]'

I agree that official patreon page is not an optimal source, hence i didn't remove "citation needed" template. However an official patreon page is as good as an official website, facbook or twitter page, which we often do use as sources for undisputed and unproblematic information on persons (here Magnanti's move to the US). In addition it also better than having the information completely unsourced.--Kmhkmh (talk) 18:26, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

All right, I overlooked that it had that information. However, the source says 2018 while the article says 2016... Averell (talk) 18:38, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, strictly speaking the exact year of the move is not sourced (yet) and I don't know from where the original editor got that information (I just added the source). Maybe the text in the article should be rewritten along the line of "As of 2018 Magnanti resides in the US .." to be on the safe side or we just wait for a better more detailed source in the future.--Kmhkmh (talk) 19:39, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Brooke_Magnanti&oldid=1206232714"