Talk:Max Clifford/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Unoriginal material

BBC Profile of Max Clifford

Most of this is picked from the BBC profile and the author needs to be given due acknowledgement and their copyright respected. Jed keenan 20:49, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Gay clients

Any references to support the assertion that Clifford has helped gay players look straight? Regards, Notreallydavid 03:36, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Tagged article. Gay clients section and clients section require cleanup. If anything, to source allegations or to wikify language by someone interested in subject matter. ScMeGr 19:28, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

My change to the article was not vandalism, I was trying to put some point in his defense. He cannot be blamed by himself for the lack of gay players in british football

Photo?

I can't be the only person who finds it at least mildly amusing that the most famous publicist in Britain doesn't appear to have a photo we can use! 81.153.111.37 (talk) 04:02, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Weasel words

Someone re-write this article. It's totally one sided. And dire. Jbeckwith (talk) 15:17, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Freddiehamster.jpg

The image Image:Freddiehamster.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --09:58, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Prostate cancer

Does he still have the disease? Is he still undergoing treatment for it? If so, he should be added to the cancer patients category. Werdnawerdna (talk) 21:36, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Clifford and Theroux

"Reporter Louis Theroux followed Clifford in the BBC Two 2002 programme When Louis Met... Max Clifford. During filming Max, it appeared that Max was trying to set up Louis and Max was recorded lying."

This paragraph does not make much sense, in particular what does "During filming Max, it appeared that Max was trying to set up Louis and Max was recorded lying." How was Max trying to set up Lois and how was Max recorded lying? Franny-K (talk) 17:39, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

This writing is awful

This article is absolutely awfully written.

Please specify the faults you see in it. Nietzsche 2 (talk) 11:59, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Clifford sometimes works for free, but makes sure everyone knows about it.

Obviously the tabloid hacks that he works with have produced the copy on this page! This reads even worse than the Mirror or the Sun. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.203.201.92 (talk) 16:09, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok, the second part of the sentence was inserted as a one off edit. Therefore considering it vandalism, I've deleted it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.203.201.92 (talk) 16:18, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Clients

There isn't a source about some of the clients listed, I'm deleting some of them unless a source is found. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carmarec (talk • contribs) 17:57, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Image manipulation is his trade

And it looks as if someone has been manipulating his image on Wikipedia since his most recent arrest for 11 charges (the previous arrest, late last year, was related to two different charges) relating to sex with underage girls.

An 'enthusiastic' editor removed (28/May/2013) from the introduction anything that could present negative aspects of Clifford's image on the grounds of it being 'repeated information', i.e. information which was expanded upon in the body of the article. At the same time the editor chose to retain similarly repeated information which conveyed a positive image. The result is that only the positive aspects appear in the introduction whilst up-to-date information about two arrests and charges related to sex with underage girls has been excised. The information has been widely disseminated on national news outlets including television and newspapers.

Perhaps Clifford's publicity machine has a hand in turning the cogs of Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.21.196.69 (talk) 11:23, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

have added current arrest details to opening, as is the case with every other celebrity who has been arrested. Cant see why this article is different as its current news. Please dont revert, explain WHY you think it should be reverted?Dave006 (talk) 10:06, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

A common error, also found here - "Clifford's battle in representing de Sancha against the contrived post-spin story of the "family man Mellor" handled by counter PR Tim Bell ultimately derailed Major's 'Back to Basics' agenda"

That is false, the truth is more like this;

David Mellor's affair emerged in late 1992, it actually blew over (he belatedly resigned I seem to remember), and the just before Black Wednesday (September 1992) had done far more damage to Major.

Back To Basics came later, launched at the Tory Conference in October 1993 - therefore Nellor's affair couldn't have wrecked it since it didn't exist then - it came later.

(In fact the Sunday newspaper leaking the Mellor affair had difficulty justifying it at the time - and concocted the reason that the affair might keep Mellor away from his speech-writing! If Back To Basics had existed at the time or earlier, a justification for printing it would have been far easier)

i.e. despite seeing members of his own Cabinet having affairs (David Mellor), a year later Major astonishingly made `personal morality' a keystone of his govt, which inevitably then unraveled in the wake of subsequent inevitable affairs by his MP's.

David Mellor's affair didn't affect Back To Basics because Back To Basics, came after, not before - in fact Back To Basic was actually rather thriving as a policy until the Tim Yeo affair emerged in late December 1993, and other govt sex scandals followed in 1994 and wrecked it.

(In late 1993 the Back To Basics morality crusade by govt was even possibly forcing a frightened BBC in some new wildlife TV shows it had just made deface Science itself and falsely claim that all animals pair-bonded for life etc - these shows ran in late 1993 and then 1994 etc - Michaela Strachan was certainly in one such series. There were at least 2 `defaced' Horizon shows in that period too)

Can someone correct the chronology etc please?

Complexity of character

I note the edit=removal of the "Background" section by 88.106.211.247 (a first edit on Wiki for this person), a section which tried to note the contrast in Clifford's character. I think it would be far too easy to write a highly negative article on Clifford, and miss the contrast bought about by his (contrasting) motivations: business and personal/his daughter. The bulk of the article still focus's on his publicity activty, much of which is negative - but removing the Background section as exists removes NPOV position or understanding to become highly POV. I have hence reverted this section to the article. Rgds, - Trident13 22:08, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Are you kidding? This article is unbelievably POV in favour of Clifford already added by user Tubect on 23:34, 12 July 2006

Absolutely the case that the article is strongly pro-Clifford. It almost reads as if some publicity magnate had a hand its sanitising. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.118.56.232 (talk) 16:26, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Sources

Just as a reminder, we cannot use tabloid sources in this article. --John (talk) 19:03, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 April 2014

For the sake of his victums, please condense this down to his crimes - everything else is irrelevant. Lets not build a shrine to another narcisstic preditor useing charity work as a screen - please delete. As a victum myself - shame on wiki for advertising this man. I note his own website has been taken down - how can we take wiki down ? 87.113.205.238 (talk) 12:08, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Wikipedia advertises nothing, it merely collects information. We do not delete the accomplishments of people when they are convicted of crimes, we simply add on the information about convictions as has been done with this article Cannolis (talk) 13:22, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 April 2014

Please add after the information on his conviction that as of the day after his conviction his website for Max Clifford Associates with e-mail and telephone contact number and all other information www.maxclifford.com now is suspended. 90.210.45.94 (talk) 12:04, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. I also fail to see why this information merits mention in an encyclopedia. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 14:25, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 April 2014

Quotes relating to sexual assault charges should be clarified with quotation marks in addition to an indent – "Max Clifford has rightly been unmasked as a ruthless and manipulative sex offender" currently reads as part of the article

82.152.191.155 (talk) 08:28, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

 Not done as this would contravene our Manual of Style. These are "block quotations" indented from both margins, coming immediately after the name of the person quoted
Wikipedia's Manual of Style (See MOS:Blockquote) states "Do not enclose block quotations in quotation marks" - Arjayay (talk) 09:06, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

As of today the blockquote was in quotation marks - I've removed them per MOS:Blockquote Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 16:15, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Misquote of source following conviction

The article currently says: "One of Clifford's victims explained to the court that Clifford's assault on her (at age 15) had prevented her from having a relationship with a partner her own age,"

However the source which is referenced says the victim: "... revealed how she had missed out on having her first sexual relationship with someone her own age"

There is a clear difference between Clifford having prevented her from having a relationship with a partner her own age and preventing her from having her first sexual experience with someone her own age. The article should be corrected accordingly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.168.78.33 (talk) 17:30, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

 Done Amended to "One of Clifford's victims explained to the court that Clifford's assault on her (at age 15) had prevented her from having her first sexual relationship with a partner her own age" Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 19:15, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Residence

The infobox says that Clifford's residence is Hersham, Surrey, should this be removed or amended now that he is in jail?Dingowasher (talk) 20:02, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

 Done Jim Michael (talk) 10:32, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Verb tense of first paragraph

This is currently a bit muddled. It begins with "[Clifford] is an English publicist" (present simple), then—without establishing that he is no longer working—slips into "although his client range was varied" (past simple), then we have "he has been a controversial figure" (present perfect) before returning to "he often represented unpopular clients" (past simple again). Can we establish whether he is a publicist, or was a publicist, or is a former publicist? PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 22:31, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that struck me too. Coat of Many Colours (talk)

Is a former publicist is correct. We do not describe a living person as was. His website has been taken down and no-one who is seeking to improve his/her image is going to hire a convicted sex offender for that purpose. His career was permanently stopped by his convictions and imprisonment, so we cannot describe him as retired. Jim Michael (talk) 14:55, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree that "is a former publicist" is probably correct, though no doubt he will appeal, could win, and could resume his career. We may think that's unlikely, but that would be original research and crystal ball gazing. We can't say that he "was" a controversial figure - he's still alive, and still "is" a controversial figure, even more so now than he was before the conviction. He was a controversial figure in his (now, presumably, former) career - which is why I used "has been". Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:06, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

WP:CRYSTAL applies here. Media reports are suggesting that it is the end of the road for Clifford's PR firm, but it is too early to say.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:12, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Nope. WP:Crystal refers to editor's unvarified specuculation. If RS specify that his career is over that should be reflected by wikipedia.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dlv999 (talk • contribs) 15:28, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

It is too early to say whether his career is over, media speculation or otherwise. The article should not bang nails into Clifford's coffin simply because it is the fashionable thing to do at the moment.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:36, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, I don't think the wording can flip about as it was doing, so I've tried to reword it so it's basically describing him as inactive, which means his career is in the past tense, while keeping options open for the future. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 09:43, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Page protection

Not possible to add links to main article. Why not I wonder? Likewise David Beckham. Frozen. And Gary Glitter. Frozen. And Jonathan King. Frozen. Yet the mainstream media seems able to print what it likes about Clifford. I'll add link to very interesting story but King's article is obviously previously edited either by him or by those that hate him. Censorship in Wikipedia? Why and, more important, who by? http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/max-clifford-played-a-crucial-role-in-the-conviction-of--jonathan-king-now-the-roles-have-been-reversed-9322804.html 178.79.143.195 (talk) 09:54, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

We've had a long discussion about this at Talk:Jonathan_King#Can.27t_add_link and Clifford's role in the Jonathan King saga is somewhat sketchy. It is primarily King and Clifford who have made this claim.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 12:21, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

One Google search found this. Clearly several different versions. http://google-law.blogspot.co.uk/2013/08/the-walton-hop-max-clifford-chris.html 178.79.143.195 (talk) 13:59, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I've already seen this. It is a blog source and it refers to "Jewish Multi millionaire Max Clifford" and other people as Jewish, which immediately leads to doubts about its neutrality. There is a load of stuff about the Walton Hop in the blogs making wild and potentially libellous claims that would not go within a mile of Wikipedia. One potential libel action in the making is the pop star who "lived about two miles down the road". Really? And what does this prove? This is classic blog material and cannot be used as a source on Wikipedia.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 14:24, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Agreed loony stuff but accidentally backs up other sources by confirming Clifford started it, though interestingly the man didn't mention King at first. Why not? 178.79.143.195 (talk) 17:16, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

It is scraping the barrel to look at sources like this. "Clifford started it" is something that JK has said repeatedly, but at best Clifford was a catalyst and not the Mr Big in the affair. As stated at Talk:Jonathan_King#Can.27t_add_link, it would be interesting to know whether KM or R's allegations led to any convictions, but the combination of poor sourcing and anonymity prevents this. JK's Stuart Hall-esque denials in the media brought forward further accusers, and this is also a key factor in the case.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:44, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

"though interestingly the man didn't mention King at first. Why not?" That's WP:NOTFORUM territory. It's not our job to ask questions like that. We just reflect what the reliable sources say. "Wikipedia is behind the ball – that is we don't lead, we follow – let reliable sources make the novel connections and statements". DeCausa (talk) 20:11, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Anonymity. It strikes me that those who abandon it (often for a large fee) are less believable than those, like Clifford's victims, who choose to remain nameless. But it's not hard to find reliable sources these days thanks to Google. http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/105230/Victim-confronts-King.html 178.79.143.195 (talk) 07:16, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

You seriously think The Sun is a reliable source... ??!!!!! Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:21, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, King used to write a column called Bizarre for The Sun. Further reply at User talk:Ianmacm.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:09, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Latest entries in this Wikipedia article

I protest very strongly at whoever thought it was acceptable to insert a description of Clifford's court case and the subsequent judgment against him right at the beginning of this Wikipedia article. I thought Wikipedia prized impartiality. Having it at the beginning predisposes any reader to take against him from the start, which is not fair. Why repeat it here anyway when it is already covered in the section on indecent assault convictions? What is Wikipedia, a newspaper? That is how it is behaving here. Many people will be looking up Max Clifford in Wikipedia now and it will hit them in the face that Wikipedia must be biased against him, simply from the positioning of this latest piece of news at the start of the article. They would be forgiven for wondering whether they were reading an encyclopaedia or a newspaper. I am no supporter of Max Clifford but I believe in justice. More importantly, Wikipedia's reputation as an unbiased encyclopedia is at stake here. --P123cat1 (talk) 14:47, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

The article is neutral and the material about his sex crimes are very relevant to his life. Therefore, they are relevant enough to his biography to include it in the lead. He is Britain's best known publicist and has been convicted of eight sexual assaults. This is not a minor side issue - his career is over and he will almost certainly be imprisoned. Jim Michael (talk) 18:54, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

"... he will almost certainly be imprisoned." You are jumping the gun. Why not wait until the outcome? That would be more responsible. This isn't the first time I have been bothered about some of Wikipedia's stances and actions. --P123cat1 (talk) 22:40, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

An article's lead is supposed to summarise pertinent points from within the body of the article. Considering that Clifford has been convicted of eight criminal offences which were committed during a prolonged period of his career, it would be contravening impartiality if the lead did not describe the court case and outcome. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 23:12, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I see. His sexual misconduct is as important as his achievements in life, as with Gary Glitter, going by the leads in their Wikipedia articles. Wikipedia has got the balance about right. A man's achievements must never be allowed to overshadow his misdemeanours. --P123cat1 (talk) 15:24, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Indecent assault is a lot more than a misdemeanour; he's just been jailed for 8 years. "The judge said some of the offences would be charged as rape if they had happened today". As in the case of Gary Glitter, the crimes vastly overshadow any achievements of his. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 16:04, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

A biography is an account of a person's life, not merely his career. It is very relevant to Clifford's life that, because of what you euphemistically call his misconduct and misdemeanours, his career as a publicist is over and he is in prison. He does not have many achievements - he used his dishonesty to make money for himself and enable him access to and influence over his many victims. He was a sexual predator for about twenty years - this is not a parking ticket or a speeding fine. Likewise for Glitter - he also led a double life, misusing his fame and position of influence to gain access to his many victims. His career was also ended for the same reasons. Jim Michael (talk) 17:34, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Problems accessing main page?109.146.48.66 (talk) 09:32, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

First, if anyone thinks I was not already aware of the points made in the comments above before I read them (bar those on how a Wiki article is structured), they are mistaken. To use the vernacular, do me a favour. Re my own comments:

(1) I did not realise that a Wikipedia article's lead is supposed to give a brief summary of someone's whole life before going into it in detail later, so my mistake. That left egg on my face.

(2) I must have been mad to use the word "misdemeanour"; I meant "gross misconduct", even before I heard what the judge said. Again, my mistake and a misleading one.

(3) Jim Michael: to say that Clifford does not have many achievements is a huge understatement. Whatever else he may be, he is a self-made multimillionaire who started from nothing, with little education, to become a household name as a successful (albeit much hated) public relations man. In anyone's book that is surely a big achievement. (Sorry, couldn't let that one pass.) However, to remove any doubt, let me stress that whatever else I said, I abhor Clifford for what he did in his private life as much as the next person, believe it or not. --P123cat1 (talk) 01:23, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

I meant that he doesn't have notable, landmark achievements - he was more successful than other British publicists because he would represent almost anybody. The lead states that he was Britain's most well-known and successful publicist, so it cannot be reasonably argued that it fails to show his past prominence or success. Clifford went from rags to riches, but it is difficult to respect a highly dishonest, sexual predator. He was never admired my the general public, because he represented some very unsavoury charaters, including O.J. Simpson. Even prior to his sexual offending being discovered, he was infamous/notorious, not someone who was looked up to. Imagine if he'd died instead of having been unmasked as a sexual predator and imprisoned - he would not have receive gushing tributes from lots of celebrities, other than his own clients. In addition, his career and personal life were not separate as you imply; he misused his position, fame, success etc. to lure and prey on his victims, similar to what Jimmy Savile did. He arrogantly, wrongly assumed that he would escape the consequences. Jim Michael (talk) 10:56, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

I am not sure one can ever separate a person's private life from their public one, though I suppose that is a philosophical question, but I agree that in the case of Clifford, Glitter and Savile they are heavily intertwined and obviously none of them deserves respect as people. However, and I know this is stating the blimmin' obvious, it is not for an encylopaedia to make character judgments, that is more a biographer's domain, and in the end the important thing is that Wikipedia maintains strict impartiality about him in the article and keeps to the bare bones of his life, i.e. the facts alone. It will be interesting to see what shape the article takes as the saga trundles on when his appeal goes through the courts! --P123cat1 (talk) 13:11, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

"it is not for an encylopaedia to make character judgments...Wikipedia maintains strict impartiality about him in the article and keeps to the bare bones of his life, i.e. the facts alone". Not necessarily - although it depends exactly how you meant that. The objective is not "impartiality about him" but to represent "fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources" about him. It's not quite the same thing. And "bare bones" sounds like something different to me. So, if reliable sources are in unison saying (and I'm not saying they are) that he was a lying, self-serving dishonest SOB - then the article should reflect that, albeit using encyclopedic language with excellent high grade citations (because it's a WP:BLP and because of the seriousness of the negative description). DeCausa (talk) 14:21, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Again, my ignorance of what Wikipedia is really about is being shown up (see beginning of thread), but I don't mind, I'm here to learn. I was not aware of those "neutral point of view" pages and take your word as read. I can't see anything wrong in Wikipedia representing the varying views of a person as long as it is made quite plain that that is what is being done and sources are given. I would call that impartiality, about him. --P123cat1 (talk) 15:20, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Didn't realise you were new: really WP:NPOV, together with WP:V and WP:OR, are pretty much essential reading before doing any heavy duty editing. DeCausa (talk) 15:45, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I am new, but my editing is fairly basic, restricted mainly to copy-editing. However, I really ought to know more about Wikipedia editing, so I will read those pages. Thanks very much for the references. --P123cat1 (talk) 16:09, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Dubious source used many times

The book Max Clifford: Read All About it! by Max Clifford and Angela Levin. Given that Max Clifford is a contributor to this book, surely it should be questioned if it counts as a WP:RS? This item confirms that his coauthor is the Mail journalist and raises questions about how truthful Clifford is, calling him to an unreliable narrator (literary modernism rather than postmodernism as the writer claims).

Some places where the source in question is used:

• As the youngest and the only trained journalist in a team of four, Clifford claims he was given the job of promoting an unknown and unwanted group called the Beatles early in their career, including on their first tour of the United States - granted, this is phrased as a claim that Clifford has made, but as it is based on a book he co-authored, it seems very slight to base this claim on.
• Based in the offices of Joe Cocker's manager, he started off by representing Sinatra, Cocker, Paul and Barry Ryan, Don Partridge, and Marvin Gaye. He later also represented Muhammad Ali and Marlon Brando. - some very big names mentioned, but the source seems to be Clifford himself.
• Clifford claims Bordes was never his client, and that he earned his fee for "writing" the story, which ultimately served the purpose of saving the madam from any adverse publicity or court case. - claim regarding a third party (living).
• Clifford also helped to expose Jeffrey Archer's perjury in the 1980s during his candidacy for the post of Mayor of London. - a big claim, but needs more support than that given by this source.
• Clifford has since represented various clients, including former Liverpool left-wing politician Derek Hatton, for whom Clifford created an affair in order to change his image; - makes a claim relating to a third party (living).
• This brought him into contact with various madams and prostitutes, a connection which still serves him well in his business to satisfy the often bizarre needs of his clients, as well as an early warning system of interesting behaviour of various persons. - following mention of sex parties in the previous sentence. However, the claim of links with madams and prostitutes, their usefulness in his business and the "early warning system" are sourced to Clifford. Autarch (talk) 02:00, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

If you think it's bad now, you should've seen it a week ago before Dlv999 went through and removed a bulk of the content sourced only to Clifford's memoirs. I've tried to replace the source, or at least reword what's left of it. Clearly there's more work to be done.LM2000 (talk) 02:22, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Corrections

Surely it's Angela LEVIN not Levine in references? Can't seem to edit/change main article.Schofield1990 (talk) 08:11, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

• Done, it is indeed Levin.[1]--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:34, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Any relation to Bernard Levin? Peter Levene would seem a stretch. Si Trew (talk) 22:55, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Missing crucial details

At this time, Clifford's part in Gary Glitter's downfall and the Judge's censure of both him and his partners News of the World should surely be mentioned. Likewise his claims to have started the Jonathan King investigation and the letter from police framed on his office wall, thanking him for initiating the enquiry? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.157.17.216 (talk) 08:22, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Reading coverage of the Glitter trial it is very intriguing. Clearly the judge felt very strongly about the News of the World and Clifford. Rather explains future events. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.157.17.216 (talk) 08:48, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Some published facts from trial need to be added.109.154.26.114 (talk) 08:55, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Extraordinary that there's no mention of Simon Cowell, his most famous client. In the trial his lengthy defence regarding both Glitter and King are neither mentioned here or in their Wiki entries. It seems Wikipedia is only edited by supporters or enemies of the subjects with no attention to the facts.109.154.26.114 (talk) 07:22, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Topics of particular interest to, for instance, Jonathan King isn't a criterion for inclusion. Besides, reliable sources are needed. DeCausa (talk) 08:09, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Cowell is mentioned somewhere in RS, I forget where, I flew back to the UK in late March but then back here in early April but only picked up The Times and that is a bit of a hack rag these days. But Clifford did manage Cowell. Cowell of course now completely disowns it – and I know I am sailing close to the wind but he does like to have teenage girls on his talent shows. I stress, sincerely, that is no implication Cowell has been kiddy fiddling – I don't like his style but he is very successful and all good luck to him each to their own and I am sure he is as sound as a pound in how he treats his clients – but he is mentioned in connexion and we should maybe tie it together a bit. Si Trew (talk) 23:01, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Mealy mouthed

To say in the lede he is "currently inactive" is being mealy mouthed. He was sentenced by twelve good men and women and true to eight years in prison, and the facts and references support that. So I changed it from "being inactive" to being in prison. I've had brushes with the law too, not for kiddy fiddling little girls though, but just too much booze; you can look it up and find it in the Cambridge Evening News if you really want. I paid my price and got on with my life; but I will not have it with these mealy-mouthed words. Si Trew (talk) 22:49, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

That was my doing, a result of trying to rationalise the verb tenses (see thread above) while also not causing disagreement over how much weight was given to the court case in the lead (also see threads above). But I wasn't completely happy with the phrasing I came up with, and prefer the newer version. It is a fact, after all. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 23:02, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

I've just made a minor tweak to it. Also, looking at the 2nd paragraph, it feels like too much detail for the lead. I suggest slimming it down to:

"As a result of Operation Yew Tree, Clifford was charged with 11 counts of indecent assault on girls and women aged 14–19 from 1966 to 1985. In April 2014, he was found guilty of 8 of the 11 counts and was subsequently sentenced to eight years in prison.[4]"

DeCausa (talk) 07:02, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

I disagree with shortening the sex offences paragraph in the lead. The lead has two paragraphs, each four lines long. The first is about his career, the second about his sexual predation. This is balanced, because they are of roughly equal prominence - in fact the latter is more relevant now. If this were a case such as Naomi Campbell or Boy George, where their crimes and sentences did not end their careers but merely disrupted it, then half the lead being about it would be excessive, but we are talking about someone who was a prolific sexual predator for two decades. Clifford is in the same category Jimmy Savile, Gary Glitter and Stuart Hall. It is not a side issue in any of their cases. The only way that Clifford could continue his career is in the highly unlikely event that all his convictions are quashed. Even in that eventuality, he would find it difficult - all his clients have disavowed their links with him and no longer want to be associated with him. Jim Michael (talk) 11:32, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

It's simplistic and incorrect to equate the number of lines with "prominence" and importance. It's what it says and how it is said that delivers impact. At the moment the essential point is somewhat made woolly by clutter about when he was arrested, when the trial began etc. That was important then, but not now. It obscures and distracts from the essential point of his conviction. IMHO (and with all due modesty!) my wording would be more impactful and would starkly make the point much more effectively. DeCausa (talk) 18:43, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

The lead has now become very lop-sided: five lines on his professional life, eight-and-a-half on his crimes. I agree with DeCausa's suggested amendment above. Those lines can be and are expanded upon in the appropriate section of the article. --P123cat1 (talk) 13:11, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

I’m as glad as Si Trew probably is that “currently inactive” has now been changed to let us know where the former PR guru actually is at the moment. “Currently inactive” struck me as not just “mealy mouthed” – it seemed the sort of Orwellian euphemism worthy of the spokespeople of particularly secretive regimes. Other than that, I agree that contributors ought to proceed slowly, or not at all. Personally, I do not feel that anybody who has read the sentencing remarks is still thinking of Mr Clifford as a “publicist” or “PR guru” - but then what I think is irrelevant. Wikipedia can only reflect the most recent published material, which does still invariably refer to him as a publicist. If and when he becomes a “former publicist” in the literature, Wikipedia will reflect that, just as I note that Gary Glitter is now described as a “former glam rock singer-songwriter and musician.”

I am glad to see the sentencing remarks cited. They are the most credible source that we have. Perhaps they could be quoted in slightly greater depth in the text? Once common public criticism of the less credible sources – the media – has been that much of the media has not described the offences (e.g. the assault on the seventeen-year-old ) in any detail, giving readers the impression that the sentence is excessive until they find the sentencing remarks online.Alrewas (talk) 13:35, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Actually, the citation of the Sentencing Remarks is sufficient on WP, but perhaps a sentence about criticism of the media’s coverage could be added, as it is a point of some significance which has been raised by some commentators in relation to the Clifford trial reporting. E.g.:

Martin Robbins, New Statesman, 3rd May: ‘There are those who may find it upsetting, but if people aren’t upset and shocked by the crimes of Max Clifford then journalists aren’t doing their jobs properly. I appreciate that there are arguments for restraint, for not causing additional distress or using lurid prose to attract page views; but the problem is this nearly always benefits the abusers more than anybody else.’ http://www.newstatesman.com/media/2014/05/we-must-not-hide-max-cliffords-crimes-behind-veil-euphemisms (accessed 15th May 2014).

Eva Wiseman, The Observer, 11th May: ‘Last week, Judge Anthony Leonard's sentencing remarks (including shocking and upsetting details of the things Clifford did to a 12- and a 15-year-old girl) were published in full but reported upon scantly. Partly, I'm sure, this was because they're extremely distressing, but also because there's an awkwardness in writing about this kind of violence – there are words you can't say, images you don't want to draw. But until coverage of these powerful men veers away from language that paints them as simply "sleazy", and instead details the assault, the manipulation, the hand forced down a child's swimming costume in a jacuzzi in Puerto Cabopino, can much really change?’ http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2014/may/11/bloated-whale-max-clifford-abuse-eva-wiseman (accessed 15th May 2014).

Those working in the field of sexual abuse have long been familiar with concerns such as those raised in relation to the Clifford trial by Robbins and Wiseman. Media reinforcement of stereotypes often features in panel discussions at conferences (e. g. in 2012 St Mary’s Sexual Assault Referral Centre in Machester UK hosted a panel discussion on the issue, attended by Julie Bindel, Hollyoaks writer Suhayla Bushra and Coronation Street producer Phil Collinson). Chloe Emmott of the Merseyside Women’s Movement wrote last year of the tendency to use “minimising language” when reporting rape, something which the press does not do when reporting a burglary (http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/chloe-emmott/rape-culture-uk-media_b_2789756.html). Certainly, in a burglary case we’re generally allowed to know exactly what was stolen from the victim.

Perhaps that debate merits one additional sentence in the WP article? Of course, some will protest that such concerns belong in an entirely different WP article (Rape, perhaps), yet it may be relevant to the Clifford case as this is the first time that I’ve (personally) noticed columnists in popular organs making that point so forcefully. Something has just hit the proverbial fan.

There will be no edit from me, I edit non-contentious WP topics only as I don’t have the energy to defend an edit against dogged opposition. If my suggestion is deemed irrelevant there are other places in which we can draw attention to such debates. I just leave my suggestion in the air.Alrewas (talk) 16:39, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Simply, keep it simple and to the facts. If we are going into the realms of "a sentence about criticism of the media’s coverage", then we would just have articles full of tit-for-tat counter political views. And if we don't trust the Daily Mail as a WP:RS, then the New Statesman and the Huffington Post also fall into the same secondary level position, in the context of this article at least. "Mealy Mouthed" was the right summary - he is a convicted fellon on a list of charges, and "inactive" sounded like from beyond the court house manipulation. But commentary beyond the facts? Rgds --Trident13 (talk) 17:37, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

I’ll readily accept that, because if the facts are more important, then perhaps we might after all detail in the text the assault upon the seventeen-year-old, and the assault upon the fifteen-year-old? That would save us having to try to point people to the facts indirectly by waffling about debates about media coverage taking place amongst obscure columnists, right? We have a link to the Sentencing Remarks, which represents some progress when men are in control of the edits, but it is rather hidden amongst the citations – few will open it over the years . Whether we trust the New Statesman as a WP:RS seems irrelevant to the substantive point which one New Statesman columnist has made which is that most of the trial coverage was mealy mouthed. Something else which Robbins said in his article was:

‘editors happy to report the bloody details of war are suddenly squeamish at the prospect of documenting sexual assault . . . Not a single mainstream report that I’ve seen has given any real hint as to the true nature of Clifford’s crimes, even as many of his supporters have sought to minimise them.’

I recall one exception to that in the trial coverage, and I followed the case reporting in several newspapers (I have three delivered daily). If Robbins saw not one report, and I saw one, there clearly weren’t many.

The WP article, likewise, refers only to “indecent assault” which is a legal term which is wide open to the reader’s interpretation, and unfortunately male readers especially prefer not to confront themselves with what it might actually entail and will dismiss it as, in all likelihood, a hand on a breast in an age when that was perhaps par for the course. The judge went to great effort in his Sentencing Remarks to detail the facts of the assaults because he wanted them in the public domain so that people would know that the sentence was commensurate. By shying away from recording the facts, as detailed in the Sentencing Remarks (the only really WP:RS we have), aren’t people on here really just parroting the press, which in this case has been a source of incomplete information?Alrewas (talk) 18:43, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, written from a neutral viewpoint - see WP:5P - where (sic): "We avoid advocacy and we characterize information and issues rather than debate them." The specific problem here - much like many medical subjects - is that either Clifford in his professional capacity was either placing articles in the said press (that we rely on for WP:RS); or was hated - vehemently - by the other sources of WP:RS, who saw it as blatant manipulation (or, may have known about certain other issues). Are we hence "parroting the press"? No, we must avoid advocacy and characterise the issue/s. So hence, is your point that we should add more in re (1) the convictions (generally we would summarise, and link to conviction for full facts. In this case the judge made a point of how Clifford used his position to suppress information. Hence, is that proportionally reflected?) , or (2) the post-conviction debate (within the press that he professionally manipulated)? Or is there anything else that we haven't covered/needs more or less coverage? These talkpages are the place where we Wikipedians debate and agree the key issues, use the supporting sources, and agree the words that reflect the issues and their proportionality. Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 11:00, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

User:Alrewas/User:Trident13, I think you're both wrong! Are we "parroting the press"? Yes, if that press conforms to our WP:RS requirements that's what we should be doing. "These talkpages are the place where we Wikipedians debate and agree the key issues." Not exactly. We should be agreeing what the WP:RS consider the key issues to be, not what we assess them to be (that's WP:OR). The "proportionality" requirement (per WP:NPOV) is about proportionately reflecting "all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic". If we chose to not reflect any debate in the press then I think the ground for doing so is excluding them from being WP:RS (or that it is a small unrepresentative section of the RS are having the debate per WP:UNDUE). That's a slightly different discussion. NPOV is not about the article itself being "neutral" as such but our reflection and summation of the sources has to be neutral. WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS is about editor's advocacy, not the sources. DeCausa (talk) 13:03, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

“generally we would summarise, and link to conviction for full facts.” Incorrect. That only applies when men are attempting to write about sexual offences without having to think about the offences too hard. Doesn’t apply when you’re recording other categories of offending. For example, if you go to Jonathan Aitken, and read the sections “Libel Action” and “Perjury Conviction and Imprisonment” you will see that we’re told in considerable detail how he committed perjury. The text doesn’t keep referring to “perjury” without any indication as to precisely what it was he did that constituted perjury.

If you read my previous comment carefully, you will see that I’m not fussed whether or not WP records the debate about media coverage. I’m suggesting that we provide a little more detail on the offences than simply “indecent assault.” We don’t limit the detail of Aiken’s offence to “perjury”, and I doubt that the Mick Philpott page keeps talking about the “manslaughter of six children” without telling us what was manslaughter – the starting of the fire etc.Alrewas (talk) 18:56, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

So, why the discrepancy between our description of perjury or manslaughter, and our non-description of indecent assault? I'm still waiting for a male contributor to explain that! I've been unable to find any explanation in WP policies.Alrewas (talk) 23:58, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

"Successfully sued in 2001"

This has cropped up in the local press: Mother represented by max Clifford slams shamed former PR guru. Being slammed by a former client isn't exceptional in the context of Max Clifford, but the article states that the client in question "successfully sued Clifford in 2001." Is having been successfully sued perhaps a noteworthy life event for which a WP:RS should be found?Alrewas (talk) 23:42, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

This was in June 2001.[2][3] The judge called the case "petty" and said that "the case was motivated by personal animosity on both sides."--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:53, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. I'm still awaiting a response to my last two comments under 'Mealy Mouthed.' Perhaps you can help? As a woman, the issue is an important one, re: that in the case of perjury, manslaughter or murder we detail the offence rather than recording it simply as "the manslaughter of a fifteen-year-old" or "an act of perjury"; whereas in the case of indecent assault, the offence is not described, and is recorded simply as "indecent assault" against somebody of x age. What is the WP policy for that? I've been unable to locate it.Alrewas (talk) 06:40, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Indecent assault convictions - quotes

Should those two quotes be there?

All I know is nobody ever said anything about me at all before Jimmy Savile. This has been a nightmare for myself and my family and I'm totally innocent of these allegations. Since December I've been in the dark, and anonymous people have made accusations from a long, long time ago. They are without any foundation.

and

Max Clifford has rightly been unmasked as a ruthless and manipulative sex offender who preyed for decades on children and young women.

For the first, the fact that he pleaded not guilty should be enough, perhaps with a small addendum that Clifford said that the allegations were without foundation.

For the second, from the POV of an encyclopaedia, it's the facts that need to be stated (as they are) and not the opinions of people tangentially connected to the case. The article already includes everything that the this quote says. Bromley86 (talk) 23:22, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

convicted sex offender as a descriptor

As there is already detail in the lede about this - it is excessive to describe him as a sex offender primarily per wp:blp, references to a previous consensus have no weight. Govindaharihari (talk) 21:36, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

It's a matter of consensus because there is no blp infringement. This is long-standing part of the sentence removed an hour ago by an IP with the misleading edit summary "added content". If there is a new consensus to remove it, fair enough. But at present if you continue to remove it you are edit-warring with no blp justification. Wait till there are other comments from other editors. Also name the specific blp provision that justifies what you have done. DeCausa (talk) 21:44, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

It is indeed a living person infringement imo according to the advice given at WP:BLP, you are demanding to describe him like, Jonny is a convicted criminal that was a media personality - when it , that detail is already clearly well presented just below in the lede. Govindaharihari (talk) 21:58, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Be pleased if you link me to your claimed consensus for this Govindaharihari (talk) 22:00, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

You're barely making sense. Who is "Jonny"? There is nothing in WP:BLP that precludes him being described in the opening sentence of the lead as a "convicted sex offender". If you think there is, quote it in this thread. Whether he should or shouldn't be described in that way is purely a matter of consensus and you are edit-warring against current consensus (though consensus can change). Link to consensus? See WP:EDITCONSENSUS: it's been there a long time. DeCausa (talk) 22:06, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

For Jonny, add anyone you want - its a random name. Can you link to the consensus discussion for me? You need to edit conservatively - not to demand to describe him primarily as a convicted sex offender Govindaharihari (talk) 22:09, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Do you understand what WP:EDITCONSENSUS says? What specific part of WP:BLP entitles you to edit war against text subject to WP:EDITCONSENSUS? Answer those 2 questions. DeCausa (talk) 22:21, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Link me to the consensus - please note - it is hards to discuss with you when you are so angry - Govindaharihari (talk) 22:22, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

I have. For the third time WP:EDITCONSENSUS. Now answer my questions. (And yes I am angry because you have edit warred aggressively but clearly don't understand some very basic points of policy.) DeCausa (talk) 22:26, 9 September 2015 (UTC)