Talk:Richard Desmond

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

Porn mags[edit]

I thought that Northern and Shell sold most of their pornographic magazines to Remnant Media at around the time Desmond was buying the Express, including specifically Asian Babes and Big Ones, the magazines mentioned in the article. There's no mention of this in the article. Cite: [1]. I think Northern and Shell continues to publish Forum, which wasn't part of the deal. -- Karada 09:10, 4 August 2005 (UTC). One of Northern and Shell publications reprint topless photos of the Duchess Of Cornwall http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2203868/Im-profoundly-dismayed-paper-published-Media-Baron-Richard-Desmonds-fury-Irish-Daily-Stars-decision-print-topless-pictures-Kate.html. Desmond's anger at that publication shows a certain amount of hypocrisy considering his history as a pornographer. I don't understand the "adult" euphemisms in the main page.[reply]

NPOV[edit]

The assertion that Desmond's success came about due to "his driving dynamism and determination" is unverifiable opinion, bordering on open flattery, not neutral. HAYFLAC (talk) 19:48, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think the main issue is this article portrays a sanitised version of Desmond. No mention that he made his fortune in pornography, no mention that his companies have made massive redundancies. Just lots of stuff about his charity work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.118.251.61 (talk) 15:57, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know much about this guy, but the first sentence of the article is enough to demonstrate a bias in the current version. The article begins "Richard Clive Desmond (born 8 December 1951) is a British pornographer, current owner of Express Newspapers and founder of Northern and Shell plc." The second half of that sentence shows that he's clearly a media businessman and possibly a journalist as well; but the first half solidly identifies him simply as a pornographer. This bias continues throughout the article, leaving the impression that it's written by somebody who thinks he's a sleazy guy even while they cite arguments to the contrary.

Maybe you shouldn't try to comment on items/people that you admit you know nothing about??? - you ended up saying that there was a bias, yet it turns out that you're wrong, because if you knew anything about the guy, you would know that pornography is what he is known for. Just read The Village Voice article. Stick to commenting on items that you are familiar with. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.143.158.108 (talk) 21:22, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly Desmond is a complex person, and a good article about him would presumably examine and acknowledge this complexity without pre-judgement. Somebody who knows more about Desmond than I do should have a serious look at this. Fang2415 (talk) 10:41, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First sentence was amended just before you added the NPOV tag. Prior to that it was publisher. Bertcocaine (talk) 13:34, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the "split image" of Richard Desmond arises from the fact that he made his money in pornography (not mainstream publications), and then once having made his money, he used those profits from pornography to try to buy his way into mainstream publishing. I think that can be stated as fact. Now as to whether he did the latter in an attempt to improve his soiled image . . . . well, that's up the reader to form an opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.143.159.186 (talk) 08:43, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think he has a "split image" - I think he is trying to create one, then, once the split image is created, he will try to erase the pornography side of his money. If you enquire in media circles, he is known as a pornographer, period. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.143.158.108 (talk) 21:24, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that line is a perfectly reasonable way of describing Richard Desmond; his portfolio consists of some of the most prominent pornographic magazines and television channels in the United Kingdom. "Pornographer" is not a value judgement, it is his business. If anything, there should be a disagreement with his statement as a "prominent philanthropist" since he isn't that prominent and his philanthropy work is not that well known. It would be fine to say he engages in philanthropy, but he is not a philanthropist. --90.216.166.118 (talk) 20:31, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject class rating[edit]

This article was automatically assessed because at least one article was rated and this bot brought all the other ratings up to at least that level. BetacommandBot 03:39, 28 August 2007 (UTC) this is so biassed, one look at Hugh Hefners entry shows you... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugh_Hefner —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.62.30.178 (talk) 00:13, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Desmond being Jewish[edit]

Please stop removing properly sourced information. A person's race/ethnicity, etc is not irrelevent. Wikipedia has whole categories for British Jews, English Jews, etc, etc. This is common wWikipedia encyclopedic content. I am restoring this info please do not edit war Vexorg (talk) 23:39, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Libel case involving "Private Eye"?[edit]

I understand there's been a libel case involving Richard Desmond and Private Eye magazine (no guesses as to who sued whom). Cannot find anything on the internet. Anyone knows if this is true? Cites? -The Gnome (talk) 12:12, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hack journalism[edit]

About 90% of divorces under English law are due to "unreasonable behaviour". This is entirely due to the fact that English law still perversely requires someone to be blamed for the divorce. It is entirely and utterly irrelevant. I don't give a hoot about Desmond but this trivia needs removed and I'm going to do it..JG17 (talk) 20:30, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Guardian: 'We don't want to give Marxists doe': texts between Desmond and Jenrick[edit]


John Cummings (talk) 13:49, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pornographer[edit]

Desmond is evidently not a fan of this classification but there are plenty of sources confirming widespread use of this term to describe Desmond:

  • Irish Times: he rejects at every turn the notion that he is a porn magnate. This is despite the fact that his company, Northern & Shell, continues to operate a number of adult television channels and still has Page Three in the Daily Star, even though the magazines are long gone. The pornographer description “irritates me”, he says
  • Campaign Live: In February 2004, Desmond sold his adult magazine portfolio to Remnant Media for an estimated £20m, in a move many interpreted as Desmond wishing to ditch the "pornographer in chief" tag the media had saddled him with
  • The Spectator: Of the home-grown suitors, the favourite remains the pornographer, Richard Desmond
  • John Sweeney at Byline Times: In 2001, I reported for BBC Radio Five Live on the then porn baron’s.... Desmond, then publisher of Asian Babes, Big Ones, Amateur Video, Fifty Plus, Eros, Forum, Readers’ Wives, Big and Black, Contact Girls, Double Sex A, Electric Blue, Horny Housewives, New Talent, Nude Readers’ Wives, Only 18, Private Lust, Red-hot Pack, X-treme and Mothers-in-Law, is a man of the upmost moral rectitude, some say. If, once, New Talent ran a ‘win a shag’ competition for readers, this – like his televisual offering The Fantasy Channel – was not pornography. It was ‘adult lifestyle’. Desmond sold the last bits of his porn empire four years ago.
  • Evening Standard Newspaper boss Richard Desmond today told a libel jury that he objected to being called a pornographer
  • inews: The then Daily Express editor Rosie Boycott and columnist Peter Hitchens quit over a buyout by a publisher whose portfolio then included porn titles, including Asian Babes and Horny Housewives. The Mail sent a mailshot asking Express readers if they wanted to read a paper owned by a pornographer.
  • Daily Sabah: The British billionaire is also, notoriously, a former pornographer. He also ran Television X. This part of his business portfolio earned him the name "Dirty Des" in local media.
  • Financial Times: While the former pornographer...

It seems as if we should add a section somewhere detailing Desmond's objections to being classified as a pornographer, but there is no doubt that this classification is WP:DUE as determined by the coverage in reliable sources and it should be present in the lead. SmartSE (talk) 14:55, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tried to make a pact with Viscount Rothermere to prevent the mail calling him a pornographer. info from mediaguardian about the PR campaign. SmartSE (talk) 08:57, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't used - was removed by here by an SPA. SmartSE (talk) 08:45, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Guardian: Richard Desmond, the billionaire former owner of adult television channels and top-shelf magazines, has spent years having his own Wikipedia edited in a failed attempt to remove any suggestion he is a “pornographer”. --Oscarthecat (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 13:10, 5 November 2021‎ (UTC)[reply]
No, keep the word Mhatopzz (talk) 14:10, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"The pornographer description “irritates me”, he says". Tough! Subject of articles do not get to dictate what goes in the article and what is kept out of the article. If reliable sources describe him as a pornographer, or as a publisher of pornographic magazines, then it is appropriate that the article reflects what these RSs say. Mjroots (talk) 14:54, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary break - some broader concerns[edit]

The article in The Guardian (also cited above) reports that Lawyers acting for the businessman this week asked Wikipedia administrators to investigate edits to the page, actively monitor it in case the word is reinstated, and keep “genuine, factually correct, edits by Mr Desmond” on the page. As a longtime anonymous contributor to Wikipedia (though not to this page or other closely-related topics) I find this sort of alleged legal pressure on Wikipedia's impartiality and independence troubling. As reported, this would appear to be an attempt to legitimize and enforce direct conflict-of-interest editing on Wikipedia, and to override Wikipedia's own strict rules on reliance on reliable sourcing (such as the reliable secondary sourcing listed above by Smartse). On the face of it, this would appear to be an attempt to undermine the independence and integrity of the largest freely available source of independent and impartial information on the internet, conceived for everyone's benefit. As such, I trust it will receive the reception it deserves. While I don't have any particular interest in the particular semantic question here (nor any connection to Desmond, or to other BLP-related legal issues), I do have a strong interest in the independence and reliability of Wikipedia, which I would hate to see undermined by legal pressures or other forms of lobbying. Hence this comment, which I hope may pinpoint some broader concerns. 86.177.202.135 (talk) 14:27, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There are many sources for the word in the article, with many well regarded publication applying this term to Desmond. I very much doubt he would have any legal success, a fact he likely knows. ActivelyDisinterested (talk) 14:55, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect that the article will be actively monitored, and the word reinstated if it gets removed. Mjroots (talk) 14:57, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
yee, I’m keeping an eye on it here myself. LakesideMinersCome Talk To Me! 15:09, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Someone should have told this guy about the Streisand effect. --Aradir (talk) 15:15, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Desmond’s lawyers’ assertion that the word pornographer can only be applied to “individuals who publish illegal and obscene material” is laughable. Any search of a dictionary will tell you otherwise. Kingbenny (talk) 15:39, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You would expect competent lawyers to do some basic research into how Wikipedia works before making demands and threats. Maybe they're just telling Desmond what he wants to hear. Streisand effect indeed. --Ef80 (talk) 16:12, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
By the 12 I hope he gets better lawyers that would tell him he has no case. LakesideMinersCome Talk To Me! 16:28, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wiktionary's definition seems clear enough. If the cap fits... Mjroots (talk) 19:23, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How to talk about this in the article.[edit]

I feel that it would be best to keep talk about how to write about his legal challenge in a subsection. So I’m creating that here, as there is bound to be more news outlets to pick this up. LakesideMinersCome Talk To Me! 16:28, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's still recentism, I wouldn't give it too much weight. We don't know even know whether it's real. Presumably the lawyers sent a strongly worded letter to someone, but we have no idea whom as "Wikipedia administrators" do not exist as a legal entity. The only known (and relevant) fact is that there is talk in the press about the matter. Nemo 20:58, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I just added the section so it would be here if we needed it. LakesideMinersCome Talk To Me! 16:47, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've trimmed it down quite a bit as the content was WP:UNDUE before. It is a single source about a very minor event in Desmond's life and it should be treated as such. SmartSE (talk) 17:45, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another point[edit]

Another point in the Guardian article is:

His lawyers claim that Wikipedia editors who describe Desmond as a pornographer may be commercial motivated as part of a “strategy by business competitors to harm his public image”.

-- Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:06, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lexico[edit]

I added a footnote, defining pornography, quoting Lexico (in other words, Oxford Dictionaries), and it has been removed with an edit summary "clearly inappropriate to use a primary source like this".

A dictionary is not a primary source; and it was used only to cite its own definition in a footnote not a statement in the article.

The footnote should be restored; as should the quote from the Guardian:

Lawyers acting for the businessman this week asked Wikipedia administrators to investigate edits to the page, actively monitor it in case the word is reinstated, and keep "genuine, factually correct, edits by Mr Desmond" on the page. "The use of the term ‘pornographer’ when applied to our client is at least factually wrong, gratuitous and insulting, and at most commercially damaging," they wrote.

which was removed in the same edit. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:23, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ok fair point about it not being a primary source, but it is definitely OR to include that. Why do you think that it is appropriate to cite a dictionary definition about pornography here? You're insinuating that Desmond's opinion is incorrect, when there are no RS saying that. If there are RS which mention the definition, that would be fine, but I don't think that there are. This should be dealt with above instead, but why should the Guardian source be given so much prominence? SmartSE (talk) 23:10, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not insinuating anything. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:10, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Streisand effect link[edit]

It’s clear Desmond has never heard of the Streisand Effect. I think this link needs to be added to a “see also” section. His very attempt to remove any reference to the obvious - that he spent years selling filth - only highlights this eefecvt in what he is trying to censure.

The fact he has launched a legal case makes this a prima facea example of the "streisand effect" and a link should be added to this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.75.10.106 (talk) 13:01, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not gonna happen. Primefac (talk) 14:31, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Signpost covers Desmond[edit]

The latest issue of The Signpost has an article about Desmond, and quotes The Guardian as saying:

(He) has now hired lawyers to demand Wikipedia permanently deletes any mentions of the word “pornographer” from his biography.

You can read the Signpost article at WP:Wikipedia Signpost/2021-11-29/In the media#Richard Desmond doesn't like being called a "former pornographer". The Guardian article is here. Mathglot (talk) 07:37, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Richard_Desmond&oldid=1206946040"