Jump to content

Talk:Guy Goma BBC interview

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

I just posted a transcript of the interview lifted from the Daily Mail site, but I'm not 100% sure it is not copyrighted. After all, the Daily Mail didn't write the text, though they did sort of type it out. If this is a possible CopyVio, someone please do their own transcription of the video, which will be remarkably similar to the Daily Mail's but unquestionably OK for Wikipedia. BeteNoir 19:55, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No date?

[edit]

Possible for anyone to add a date of when the original interview aired? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.4.35.25 (talk • contribs)

Why delete?

[edit]

I don't understand, what's the purpose in deleting such an article ? it's a great and funny...

Keep: It may well be great and funny, but that doesn't make it encyclopedic or notable, and I can understand it being a candidate for deletion. However, I think that a major mistake by a major broadcaster is important to record. There may be an article someone can suggest we should roll it into, but for now I say keep it. Ringbark 20:43, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - its too funny to go

Keep I dont believe in keeping the article out of comedic value, but for a different reason. When the BBC tells us that Keith Allen (Lilly Allen’s father) is a comedian, it can’t mean that the BBC understand what they choose to broadcast. It is like Mr. Bean becoming a sergeon, just because he is a doctor. Anyone attempting to understand who is who in that business must be seen as a waste of space. Why does ITV exist when the BBC is just as bad? I feel sorry that Guy Goma had to be a part of a such non-culture. --2A02:2121:6C2:7FC3:40FA:F056:3DDE:139D (talk) 10:16, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You are replying from a discussion that took place in 2006. This is not relevant currently. PhotographyEdits (talk) 11:04, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable websites

[edit]

The following websites have been removed per Wikipedia is not a web directory as non-notable:

Oppose deletion of these websites. Nobody knows what Alexa means anyway, except computer experts. In any case, these sites just went up a day or two ago, didn't you know? Badagnani 12:34, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please read the external link guidelines WP:EL. Wikipedia is not a web directory, and it is not the place for you to advertise blogs and/or fansites. -- MisterHand 13:21, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Guy Goma.com claims to be official, and then says if you're Guy Goma please get in touch! In no way is it an authorative website and in no way should it adorn an encyclopedia article. We'd do just as well to link to a Google/Google News search and be done with all sites. --kingboyk 13:26, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm taking this off my watchlist as I'm not willing to edit war over something so trivial, and Badagnani seems quite adamant. However, the fact remains that these are cashin sites (a person becomes famous, net entrepreneurs rush to register his name dot com at 5 bucks a throw - happens all the time), and imho they are not authorative or enyclopedic. --kingboyk 10:08, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's unfortunate that we lost a good editor on this article over this, and I hope we can work things out soon. -- MisterHand 13:31, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: neither pass Wikipedia:External links. SaltyWater 10:13, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, and I don't think the online petition passes either. I've invited the editor who added them back to the article, so hopefully we can work this out to everybody's satisfaction. -- MisterHand 13:31, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Read the "top story" on the Guy Goma site and tell me that this type of news is not valuable. Guy Goma appears to be communicating through this site now. Badagnani 19:27, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While this issue appears to have been resolved a while back, I wonder if some people here may be confused about the EL policy. The EL policy makes it clear that EL's about a person should link to an official site, if one exists. Therefore, it doesn't matter how notable or not-notable the site is, if it's an official site it should be linked --—Preceding unsigned comment added by Nil Einne (talk • contribs)

Did he get the job?

[edit]

Does any one know if he got the job as data support cleanser at the BBC?--Muchosucko 13:45, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Check the news. Last I heard he was too busy to take the job, and then the Immigration service have reportedly said he is an illegal immigrant. --kingboyk 13:56, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No he didn't get the job- check your local news for latest information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.108.202.241 (talk • contribs)

It's also mentioned in the article now. -- MisterHand 20:31, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Goma Wikipedia article mentioned on CNN

[edit]

CNN has just reported that Guy Goma has his own Wikipedia entry --Ancheta Wis 21:32, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Holy kamoly -- good job, people. As with many Wikipedia articles, I think our entry is the finest and most comprehensive English-language article anywhere on the Internet about this subject. Was this on CNN TV or website?Badagnani 21:35, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent! And to think that this article was put up for AFD shortly after creation! -- MisterHand 12:00, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's getting interesting: GuyGoma.com says he's going to report on the World Cup for Zoo magazine. Not much to go on yet, though. Badagnani 12:06, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

French accent not racist

[edit]

Don't understand why it's racist to say that a man has a thick, French accent. He had a thick, French accent. If he was from Scotland, he probably would have had a Scottish accent! Davidcohen75 04:58, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this assessment. It was yet another thing that made viewers (as well as the host of the program, and probably the entire crew) curious as to why this supposedly British Internet expert was speaking in this foreign accent. Badagnani 05:43, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Year of birth

[edit]

Do we or do we not know his year of birth? The article says born in 1969 right in the opening. Either he should be in the category 1969 births or that little fact should be taken out.--Thomas.macmillan 01:54, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please read it again. It says born "c. 1969." This is common when we know someone's age from a media account, but not the exact birthdate. It obviously should not be taken out because it's as specific as we can get, but it should not be misrepresented as the actual birthdate unless we have that. Badagnani 02:52, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Latest rumour

[edit]

I don't want to edit the mainpage as I don't feel comfortable with it yet, but I'd love to see the latest rumour about the potential film about him being added. Edit: Sorry, I saw it was added, however it should've been placed under the "aftermath" in my opinion.

Is article correct?

[edit]

The info I've seen including I believe from Guy Goma himself suggests wasn't in fact quite sure what was going on even after being introduced and indeed thought it may have been a joke. While he was clearly very shocked when introduced, his answer to the first question suggests he still thought it was part of a job interview since it appears he is answering as to whether he is shocked with what is happening to him rather then about the verdict... Yet the article appears to be suggesting he realised what was going on and that he was on live TV Nil Einne 20:32, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

French accent?

[edit]

I assume he speaks French as one of or his main native languages and I don't know much about French accents or most African accents. But is his accent really most accurately described as a French one? Or would it be more accurately described as a Congonese (is that the right word?) accent? Nil Einne 20:37, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]
Knowingly and intentionally directing others to a site that violates copyright has been considered a form of contributory infringement in the United States (Intellectual Reserve v. Utah Lighthouse Ministry). Also, linking to a page that illegally distributes someone else's work sheds a bad light on us. - WP:C#Linking_to_copyrighted_works
Sites which fail to provide licensing information or to respond to requests for licensing information should not be used. There are currently a large number of links to YouTube [1] and similar sites in violation of this principle. If a linked clip has no licensing information it should be removed or reverted. (Knowingly and intentionally directing others to a site that violates copyright has been considered a form of contributory infringement in the United States.) - WP:EL#Links_normally_to_be_avoided

I'll be reverting those YouTube links, again, based on the above principles. Feel free to contact me on my talk page if you have any further objection. ---J.S (t|c) 19:34, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the YouTube link -again- for the above reasons. ---J.S (t|c) 16:53, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting, but then where was the transcript sourced from. Firstly, I believe it's not the complete one because I'm sure I heard "poor people" in his speech. Surely then using a reference to his actual video would be fair use in this case. After all the video is the issue on which he became famous. So linking it as a fair use reference should be fine i think. Idleguy 18:41, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Don't even try arguing with these people. You will never win, even if your reasoning and logic is entirely sound. Badagnani 18:54, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have watched the video again and he doesn't say "poor people." Where in the text did you think he said that? Badagnani 18:59, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
First of all Badagnani, your response is highly insulting. Comment on content, not the contributor.
The publisher, YouTube, did not publish the clip within the guidelines of Fair Use. Wikipedia linking to it does not suddenly bring YouTube into copyright compliance. ---J.S (t|c) 19:16, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Badagani, he said "poor people" after "development". I quote him "development and poor people..." In the link i gave it is at around 49 - 55 seconds. I think it should be cited as fair use given the extraordinary nature of this article and to avoid such confusions. let people hear it for themselves. Idleguy 19:23, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's Badagnani. I'll listen again. In regard to the video, when an outlet has a problem with a link to their content they will issue a cease and desist order first off, which I haven't heard about in this case; the video has been up on YouTube for months. Badagnani 19:41, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Policy dosn't say "link to copyvio matterial only untill we get a cease and desist notice." ---J.S (t|c) 19:43, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're right: it does sound like he says "poor people," not "inform people." It's clearly a "p," not an "f." But the word before it is confusing. It sounds like "better for the development, and too-ing poor people what they want." Maybe he's saying "doing"? Badagnani 19:44, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The BBC news article has the video, could it not just be noted somewhere (maybe in the link text?) that you can view a copy of the clip at the BBC website? I think we all agree that people should be able to view it, and the BBC have a copy of it available to view on their website, so it would seem natural to me that their site be promoted as the place to view it? Icemotoboy 00:26, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If I'm not mistaken, I don't believe these people will let you do that. I know, it doesn't make any logical sense since it is the primary source. As far as I know, the BBC hasn't made a cease and desist request to YouTube. Badagnani 00:35, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to link to the official BBC clip. Badagnani, I'm getting tired of your tone. ---J.S (t|c) 06:15, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Dmcdevit's removal of primary source reference

[edit]

User:Dmcdevit's removal of a reference to the primary source in which Goma speaks about his first BBC interview and replacement of this by a "fact" tag is illogical. The quote being referenced is "Twenty minutes after the interview, Goma was given his job interview, which lasted ten minutes," and the mention of the source removed is THE source for this information. Please correct this immediately! Badagnani 21:46, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have edited out the copyright infringement that you chose to add once more here. We cannot link to this source because it is a clear copyright infringement. The link you repeatedly added (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zG9hZ66TA4E) goes to a recording of a TV show, which owns the copyright to the clip. This is non-negotiable policy, and a blockable offense. The quality, content, and usefulness of the media is not at issue, but Wikipedia cannot knowingly link to ciopyright infringements. Dmcdevit·t 21:59, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Altho it's not the prefered method... you can refrence the TV interview without actualy linking to a copy of it. I'd use a format like this:
"Interview with Guy Goma and blah blah," Date, [[TV Shows name]], [[Stations/network name]].
---J.S (t|c) 07:53, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear J. Smith, thank you for rethinking your original removal of the proper citation and substitution of "fact" tag. Yes, please do what you specify above. Badagnani 22:17, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't re-thought the removal of the YouTube link and the original citation was not proper. I don't have the information to fill out the citation, so I am unable. If you have the information, feel free to add a citation. ---J.S (t|c) 23:08, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I said nothing in my post above about a link. I simply said that you removed a proper citation and substituted a "fact" tag. That was improper and I am glad you have reconsidered this. In fact, my last edit had no link, but simply a description of the program from which the information was quoted. Thus, the onus really is on you to replace this information, as per my last edit which had the information about the program, but no link. Thank you; it will probably take only a few minutes away from your other editing projects, and is much superior to simply deleting a proper citation, then adding a "fact" tag (no good). Badagnani 23:11, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

<ref>Guy Goma interview on GMTV, which may be found on the [http://www.youtube.com/ YouTube] website.</ref>
1. That is NOT a proper citation. 2. That looks like a link to YouTube to me 3. I didn't remove it. 4. Stop insulting the other editors here. ---J.S (t|c) 23:27, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No insult intended, but the removal of a citation and replacement with a "fact" tag, then a reply saying that one is too busy with other editing projects to remove the "fact" tag and implement the proper citation, is not proper. Badagnani 23:33, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"I don't have the information to fill out the citation, so I am unable." ← My Words.
I haven't said I was too busy, I've said I don't have the information. Your welcome to fill out the citation, but please use an acceptable citation format and a proper source. ---J.S (t|c) 23:40, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The new citation looks fine. I removed the HTML comment however. ---J.S (t|c) 23:50, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Guy Goma clarifications and additional info

[edit]

This is a discussion, via e-mail, between two Guy Goma contributors:

From David Cohen to David Badagnani:

Hi, there. How are you? Hope you don't mind my getting in touch.

I'm afraid it's getting a little exhausting correcting Mr Goma's entry. But I was there on the day it took place. Kewney was indeed in a different reception area (Stage Door). The point I was trying to make was that the receptionist, when called on the phone from the News24 area, said that Kewney was in the Main Reception area. The producer went there as directed - as your version stands it suggests the producer foolishly went to the "wrong" reception area, when it wasn't his fault at all. When asked which one was Guy Kewney, the receptionist specifically pointed to Guy Goma. She was asked if she was sure. She said she was. With five minutes to go before "Kewney" was due on air (at 1040 - the business news slot), the producer didn't hang around to chat. He asked Goma if he was Guy Kewney. He said yes. The producer and "Kewney" ( i.e. Goma) ran up the two flights of stairs (rather than taking the lift, which was slower); the producer handed "Kewney" over to the floor manager and got on with his job.

I appreciate none of this is verifiable in the press. But not everything you read in the press is true or has all the facts, not least because no-one who wrote the story was there. I know more about this than anyone on Earth (much as I wish I didn't). I knew from the start that "Kewney" ( i.e. Goma) wasn't a cabbie because when he arrived the back of his suit was soaked from the pouring rain, and because he got the tube home. How can I prove it? Well, unless you get Mr Goma to identify me in a line-up, which aint gonna happen, then you can't. So you can either trust me, or, if that's not enough for you or Wikipedia, you'll have to keep an entry which is inaccurate. Either way, I shall leave it there (unless you have any more questions).

Anyway, excuse my being anal. I think you and all the Wikipedia people do a phenomenal job.

Cheers

DC

P.S My scepticism about the film is simply that the report first appearaed in the UK's Sun newspaper (a notorious tabloid) in August (aka "The Silly Season"). I asked a friend in the industry what he knew, but all he could refer me to was a follow-up article in Variety or Hollywood Reporter (I forget which).

Badagnani replies: Hi David,

Thanks for writing, and giving such detail and background. So you were there yourself! And there were only a few minutes until air time. Of course, it makes perfect sense now. I think you should post this to the "discussion" page and I think it would satisfy me and the other editors who regularly edit "Guy Goma." To be honest, because the edit summary said "I know this producer" (which we can't be sure of in the first place) the edits seemed as if the producer, months after the fact, didn't want to look bad and asked you to alter some facts that had already been reported differently to make him look better. But I trust you -- we want to have the most factual and complete article possible and you're working to do that.

I just wonder why there's not a standard waiting area for the program Kewney was to appear on (at the Cleveland radio station I've been on, there's only one such designated place), and why the real Kewney wasn't in that area. That still doesn't make sense.

If it was reported only in the Sun the supposed film may very well be bogus. It could be qualified with "as reported in the Sun, a UK tabloid,..."

Thanks again,

David Badagnani

David Cohen replies: Hey, David. Thanks for getting back to me and for being so trusting.

I must confess to being a little inept at getting to grips with Wikipedia, discussions etc. But I shall try to post this up there later on.

In terms of the BBC - for which I no longer work - there are two reception areas (as we now know) at Television Centre. Following the IRA bomb of a few years back, cars are no longer allowed to drop guests off at the "Main Reception" area, which is diagonally opposite White City underground station. Instead, they must go through security a little further down Wood Lane and drive through the "Horseshoe" (the driveway shaped like a horseshoe). Sometimes guests still come in through Main Reception - they may come with their own car or take the tube. It can be pot luck. Had the receptionist in Main Reception said "no" when the producer phoned down to ask if Guy Kewney was there, the producer would have immediately called the other reception area (Stage Door) to see if he was there.

As it happens, Guy Kewney was already waiting at Stage Door and the receptionist there had indeed alerted News24 that Kewney was there - just that no-one had bothered passing on the message to the Business Producer. It was a concert of cock-ups!

Regards

DC


Did someone remove the link to the video (i.e. the primary source for this incident) from the BBC site? If so, it should be replaced. However, many Wikipedia editors, I've found, enjoy removing things from articles, but don't take the time to replace the things they've removed; they simply move on to other articles. Badagnani 07:34, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The 2006 Big Fat Quiz of the Year

[edit]

Minor quibble W/R/T the quote:

After a commercial break, he took Jimmy Carr's place as host for a few seconds, welcoming the audience back to the show. Everyone on the quiz agreed that Goma was a better host than Carr, eventually leading to the audience and contestants heckling Carr and insulting his ability as a presenter, and chanting "We want Guy, we want Guy," much to the apparent displeasure of the presenter himself.

I viewed a clip of the show in question on YouTube @ http://youtube.com/watch?v=DXrGa3NIUZs

It is apparent to me The host was obviously not upset and playing along with the heckling, (which was clearly done in jest). In fact, he even made several quips about Guy Goma later in the broadcast. Perhaps "apparent should be replaced with "feigned" or something of the like. But as it stands, one gets the impression that the host may have actually been upset, which clearly is not the case. AJC3 70.118.247.5 20:36, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Transcription revisited

[edit]

I noticed some edits around the transcription in this article. This was discussed some time ago, but no consensus was reached. I am still of the opinion that it should be removed entirely, as it's a copyright violation of the BBC, and not encyclopedic. -- MisterHand (Talk to the Hand|Contribs) 13:35, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Given that it is a transcription of a unscripted spontaneous conversation, I doubt whether any claim to copyright would be valid. The actual recording, yes, but not the words spoken. Nick Cooper (talk) 12:25, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notability

[edit]

Is this still notable? Nothing has been seen or heard of this matter for years. Uksam88 (talk) 00:06, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not temporary -- OboePianist (talk) 00:22, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In fact it's being covered on a show called The Golden Rules of TV right now. –anemoneprojectors– 17:49, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just in case there was still any doubt, the interview is still being shown on TV. It was on Channel 5's Funniest Ever TV Cock Ups a month ago. — 🌼📽️AnemoneProjectors💬 15:09, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

When is an article about Guy Goma not "an article about Guy Goma"?

[edit]

This article is about BBC's mistake, not Goma. If the event is notable, Goma is not necessarily notable by extension. "Being in the news does not in itself mean that someone should be the subject of a Wikipedia article. We should generally avoid having an article on a person when each of three conditions is met:

  • If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event.
  • If that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual. Biographies in these cases can give undue weight to the event and conflict with neutral point of view. In such cases, it is usually better to merge the information and redirect the person's name to the event article.
  • If the event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented. John Hinckley, Jr., for example, has a separate article because the single event he was associated with, the Reagan assassination attempt, was significant and his role was both substantial and well documented." WP:BLP1E

Goma is covered only in the context of this event, has otherwise remained low-profile and his role was merely being in the right/wrong place at the right/wrong time. This article should be merged with another appropriate article or, at the very least, renamed for the event. - SummerPhD (talk) 14:16, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think this article should be renamed for the event but I'm struggling to come up with a suitable title. Does anyone else have any suggestions? January (talk) 20:50, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There is perhaps a case to be made for it being a (proportionately sized!) section in Apple Corps v Apple Computer? --kingboyk (talk) 16:58, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Interviewer became aware

[edit]

This isn't stated in the article (at least not that I noticed), but my impression is the interviewer became aware (perhaps prompted by someone on the editorial team) that she was interviewing the wrong person and probably cut the interview short. At least she appeared to having problems when introducing the next guest. I had a brief search but couldn't find any sources, can anyone else? Nil Einne (talk) 18:33, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The citations in Karen Bowerman's article shed some light on what happened. Bowerman apparently warned her editor just before they went on air that Goma was "very breathless and nervious" [1]. In [2] the editor describes how they "scrambled to get the next guest lined up" so they did cut the interview short and went to the next guest early although it seems this was due to concerns about the interviewee's performance, the editor's account doesn't indicate they had realised he wasn't Kewney. January (talk) 21:02, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment comment

[edit]

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Guy Goma BBC interview/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

It's well sourced, which is good, and has a well written account of his interview, however after that, it just drops off in quality. It would be best improved to brush up the rest with a bit more depth.

Last edited at 14:30, 24 August 2006 (UTC). Substituted at 16:53, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Guy Goma. 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) 14:38, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

data support cleanser

[edit]

What is that? Sounds an odd job title -- is this for real? If so add an explaino maybe? Is it a janitorial job? Does he wash the machines, or bathe the date support personnel? Does he "cleanse" the data somehow -- take out artifacts in the code or databases? Keep the machine room free of dust? Clean up the department's image? What? Herostratus (talk) 23:47, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Herostratus There's an article about this type of work, which I added: data cleansing. PhotographyEdits (talk) 14:23, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, thank you. --Herostratus (talk) 21:20, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Guy_Goma_BBC_interview&oldid=1195366191"