Talk:Kelvin MacKenzie

POV

We all know just as he knows himself that Mackenzie is worse than all the filthy bits of dirt that anyone has ever stood in and is somewhere in the middle of the pack of the lowest people in society....Justice for the 96....May the Sun forever be banished from the homes of people who understand what a low life pile of crap it is and always will be!!

Despite Kelvin being an undeniable c**t, Wikipedia is not the place for the kind of POV language currently used in this article Beeromatic 09:29, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

From the article - "Murdoch has a reputation for bullying his editors Mackenzie is reported to have been on the recieving end more than most. Mackenzie was a willing puppet, for political and financial reasons." 82.4.39.59 (talk) 01:07, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

The reason for that is that some anonymous contributer decided a few days ago to add a whole bunch of weird statements to the article, including the one above, as well as deleting whole paragraphs from the article which he had a problem with for some reason. Another user did delete some of his contributions but others remain. In fact, a few months back some other anonymous user deleted a whole bunch of sourced material from the Hillsborough section without any explanation, although in this case it was in order to make MacKenzie and The Sun look better. When I get the chance later this week, I'll comb through the article and remove all the strange POV stuff added in the last few days and restore all the other material that was mysteriously deleted a while back. MarkB79 (talk) 03:13, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Having read the entire article, it seems all of the POV material has now gone. Also, I can only conclude that there is not a more negative and genuinely miserable individual living today than Kelvin MacKenzie. Guv2006 (talk) 12:46, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Expansion

I have expanded the article because MacKenzie is a very significant figure in the history of British newspapers and his period at The Sun, the reason why he is significant, was hardly covered here at all. However it looks somewhat slanted because of all the controversies and criticism but this is difficult to avoid since that is what MacKenzie and The Sun in the 80s are cheifly remembered for. I have tried to balance the article by including his success at increasing sales and the praise from Murdoch but if would be handy if somebody could add some more positive info about his career.

With regard to Hillsborough, the amount of material may be excessive and if someone feels it should be reduced then I'm willing to compromise, but I feel a lot of it needs to be there because out of everything, this is what MacKenzie is most remembered for. Also, some editors appear to be insisting now that The Sun's coverage of the disaster be described only as 'controversial' and not as 'inaccurate', apparently because Kelvin now says it was true. Well Kelvin wasn't at Hillsborough, perhaps he still believes the tales he was told by the Tory MP who wasn't actually at the game either. Considering the conclusions of the official inquiry, the press council's denouncement and the subsequent conclusive discrediting of the more specific allegations made against fans, not calling the coverage 'inaccurate' is not maintaining NPOV, it is giving credence to wild allegations on the specious basis that MacKenzie, with no evidence in his favour and in the face of compelling evidence to the contaray, asserts that his story was true. Wikipedia should not be used to further unsubstantianed and largely disproven claims about sensitive issues. Perhaps Kelvin still thinks Freddie Starr ate that hamster or that Elton John hires rentboys, that dosen't mean that Wikipedia should give credence to his claims by describing them as 'controversial' instead of 'discredited'. --MarkB79 02:36, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Pilger

Pilger is hardly a very neutral source for the article to depend on so heavily. Can we have a bit of balance from other authors? DWaterson 21:31, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

The question is whether his material is accurate as it is the article which is meant to be neutral. Philip Cross 19:46, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Transfer to the article on The Sun?

I have standardized all the citations to the same format, in line with the Wikipedia policies. Much of the section on The Sun newspaper is superior to the content in the newspaper's article, and might be better there. On the other hand, McKenzie is quoted in the aericle to a greater extent than would be acceptable in that article. Philip Cross 19:57, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Cheers for doing that, it certainly needed doing. A lot of the stuff added since is still unsourced but I'll list the references when I get around to it. I do agree that this page is probably now superior to the Sun article but I think most of the material should stay on MacKenzie's page as it is very relevant to him personally and perhaps a little too detailed and specific for the Sun page, but perhaps there is some information that should be copied over to The Sun article, such as stuff that deals with the more significant controversies in the 1980's especially. MarkB79 16:43, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Mark Hirst quote

I strongly suspect this is fake. As loathsome as MacKenzie is, I have very strong doubts that a serious public figure would compare him with Myra Hindley and Mussolini, which is more than a little ridiculous. The whole quote actually sounds suspiciously fake. Furthermore, the user who added the "racial hatred" section and the Hirst quote has only contributed vandalism to other pages. If the quote is real, it should be sourced quickly, say by tommorrow when it may have appeared in newspapers, otherwise I think it should be deleted to be on the safe side, otherwise Hirst might have something to say on the matter, if it's brought to his attention. Actually I can't find anything at all about the whole "incitement to racial hatred" story on the Sunday Times website, although the story probably is true (the MacKenzie quote sounds very characteristic and genuine), but it all needs to be cited over the next few days in any case, it should appear in newspapers tomorrow. The dubious Hirst quote however should go within the next 24 hours unless it can be sourced quickly. MarkB79 18:45, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I think you're right, it does seem fake. The BBC and Guardian websites have nothing about the incitement to racial hatred thing either, it would be a big story, and so I have deleted it until it can be sourced. Even if MacKenzie really is being charged with incitement to racial hatred, I suppose we don't really need the Mark Hirst quote. It is ridiculous, and Mark Hirst isn't much of a public figure anyway - he's only vaguely famous for calling the Union Jack the "butcher's apron" and then getting sacked. Atoms4peace 20:11, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Funnily enough the only other contributions the user who added the racial hatred stuff has made has been to repeatedly edit the Union Jack article to insert the information that the the flag is "also known as the Butcher's apron"...is it Mark Hirst himself?! I doubt it somehow, but maybe it's an admirer of his. Actually I'm not sure what he did was strictly vandalism, if "Butcher's apron" is a reasonably common derogatory nickname of the Union Flag used by nationalists in Scotland, it could be worth mentioning somewhere in that article, but if it highly obscure or invented by Hirst then obviously it isn't worth a mention. In any case, his other contributions have been adjudged to be vandalism, fairly or otherwise, and he also removed the information from here that MacKenzie has prominent Scottish ancestry, presumably because he personally objects to MacKenzie being considered in any way Scottish, which is understandable but hardly an excuse to remove accurate, relevant information from the page, so it probably would be wise to be sceptical about the poster's contributions. I think you're right that the Hirst Hindley/Mussolini quote dosen't need to be there even if genuine, if Alex Salmond or Charles Kennedy has said it it would be notable, but not Hirst if he's a fairly obsure figure. As for the racial hatred story, it sounds plausible and the MacKenzie quote sounds very much like the sort of thing he would say, and the Guardian website does not usually update during Sunday, unlike on other days of the week, which could have explained its absence from there (I don't know about the Times website). However there appears to be no mention of it on there this morning either and it has now been updated, and it is unlikely that the BBC website would not have featured the story yesterday, let alone by this morning. MacKenzie getting investigated for racial hatred would be widely reported in the media as you say so I strongly suspect you are right and the story may have been a clever invention, ruined by the silly Hirst quote. If the story turns up on the Guardian, the BBC or the Times website later then fair enough it should be put back in, but otherwise any attempts by the poster to reinsert the story should obviously be quickly reverted unless he can source it.MarkB79 07:03, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Biography

Saying that little is known of his early life except that he was educated at Alleyn's School seems to make him too much of a man-of-mystery. His parents were Ian and Mary Mackenzie both journalists on The South London Observer. When their paper was taken over by The South London Press Mary became Press Chief for the then Tory leader of the Greater London Council, Sir Horace Cutler. Ian Mackenzie continued in journalism in S London and Kent. He died in 2004 and a Press Gazette obituary can be found on google. Kelvin has two brothers, Craig and Drew. Saintmesmin (talk) 16:45, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I think this section is somewhat missing the point, or at least a large part of it: " Like most stereotypes, the image of the "average Sun reader" may be somewhat unfair and misleading to at least some extent – polls have consistently shown that a majority of Sun readers claim not to take what they read in the paper seriously, and approximately the same number of Sun readers voted Labour in 1992 as voted Conservative..." That stereotype is only partially right. The typical Sun reader is not only regarded as Conservative with a capital C; from the outside looking in, they are also regarded as racist, homophobic and stupid. One can, after all, vote Labour and still be a racist and a homophobe. Why would anyone of a decent intellect and of progressive values read it? Surely not for a love of bizarre language ("It's The Sun Wot Won It"), bad puns, and hastily cobbled together (and short) football articles? Guv2006 (talk) 11:39, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Charity Work

I think his Charitable work is minimal and should be removed. He was equally generating self-publicity appearing on Television during the hugely high rating-slot of Comic relief, as helping a charity and if that's all his charity work it doesn't merit an entire section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.18.178.71 (talk) 20:01, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree. It would be hugely misleading to have such a section for someone as renowned for being odious as Littlejohn. Does Hitler have a "Charity Work" section? Guv2006 (talk) 11:41, 3 June 2010 (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.

The following images also have this problem:

• Image:The Sun (Gotcha).png
• Image:Hillsborough disaster Sun.jpg

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)

MacKenzie

The man that had the gut to tell the truth. Support him.85.220.99.70 (talk) 13:29, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

About what? Hillsborough? Elton John? Freddie Starr eating hamsters? 92.10.50.145 (talk) 13:50, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Anonymous user, 85.220.99.70. This isn't a message board, so how about keeping your stupid opinions to yourself? Guv2006 (talk) 12:04, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Apology from Kelvin?

Did Kelvin ever apologized for his attack on Scotland or does he still do that to this day. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.140.57.88 (talk) 09:27, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

This article desperately needs a neutral review as it is riddled with left-wing attacks and POV all over it. I am going to refer it for review. Christian1985 (talk) 21:18, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

How is the article "riddled" with left-wing attacks and POV? I can't see any. There is a section on MacKenzie's role in the 'Murdoch effect' in the 80s, but that states the arguments of his critics and then balances it with MacKenzie and Murdoch's responses. There are some dubious statements that border on vandalism that was never removed and some examples of negative language that implies bias but I can't see any left-wing attacks as such. Most of the article just states facts i.e. various things The Sun did and said while MacKenzie was editor. The only attack I can see is a quote from Duncan Bannatyne - I'd be amazed if he was left-wing. 92.8.168.119 (talk) 22:12, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Christian I reverted one of your changes because as far as I can see the change was pointless. That MacKenzie printed celebrity exposes that were "false or misleading" is a fact of reality that in many cases was proven in a court of law. Not only that, false and frequently ridiculous stories about celebrities was what The Sun was famous for in the 80s. This is not 'unsourced' - many such incidents are detailed throughout the article and in each case are very well sourced. If you doubt this, read the sections on Freddie Starr and Elton John for a start. Further, some of the sources are MacKenzie himself admitting that his stories turned out to be false and there is even a quote in the article from MacKenzie claiming that his stories were "not lies" but "good stories that later turned out to be untrue". The sentence does not claim that MacKenzie knowlingly printed lies, although there are actually well sourced examples of MacKenzie and/or his team at the newspaper deliberately making things up, such as the Simon Weston interview and the 'Benn on the Couch' story. If this is not satisfactory, I suggest adding some of the sources at the end of the disputed sentence to make clear the claim is sourced. As for the article consisting of 'left-wing attacks and POV', I can't really see that. As the poster above points out, it does contain material about the Murdoch effect and that is broadly a left of centre point of view, but MacKenzie and Murdochs own views are also included on the issue. I can't see anything else that can be construed as left-wing POV. Certainly the article requires some clean up and organisation and I think the above poster is right that there is some language used which could sound biased but I don't think the article in general sounds like a left-wing attack and aside from the Murdoch effect discussion, I can't actually see much POV of any description, just a bunch of facts. I did propose a long time ago that some more positive material about MacKenzie should be included if possible, the list of controversies have to be included because that it is what he is famous for and that will have the effect of giving a lot of people a negative impression of MacKenzie, that could be balanced with other material but nobody seems to have ever bothered to add any. MarkB79 (talk) 16:52, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

There definitely seem to be some POV issues here. The parts of the article devoted to "MacKenzie's Sun" (much of it criticism) should only be included where it can be shown via a reliable source that MacKenzie was directly, notably involved. The words "notorious" and "attack" are not NPOV language. Using the quote "love nest" seems ironically sensationalistic, and to say he ran an "extraordinary" mock editorial is clearly also POV. I only looked through the article briefly, but those bits stuck out to me; there may be more I'm missing. Keep in mind the BLP stance on this issue:

"Criticism and praise of the subject should be represented if it is relevant to the subject's notability and can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, and so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to take sides; it needs to be presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a neutral, encyclopedic tone." tktktk 05:14, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

The problem with right wingers is that they are so full of hatred and anger that anything clear-headed and/or balanced must be "left-wing and POV". Guv2006 (talk) 12:02, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Minimal non-free content usage

The images File:The Sun (Gotcha).png and File:Freddiehamster.jpg are being used in this article, but both of them serve the same function: ilustrate famous headlines designed by this man. According to Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria, 3º Aº, there must be minimal usage: "Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information." As such, only one of both images should be used, and the other removed from the article. MBelgrano (talk) 02:05, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

When will this page be unlocked?

I would like to make an edit or two. Nothing particularly controversial. I check the page from time to time but it appears to be locked for the duration. I am all for the prevention of pointless vandalism and crass remarks, but does Kelvin's reputation really need this long term protection? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.187.233.172 (talk) 14:32, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

nasty man id say

how dare he say stuff about the hillsbrough disaster if on of those 96 people had been my mum or dad or in this case any one of my family id have been furious with him i am furious with him because im from Sheffield and i don't expect comments about my home stadium hillsbrough or Liverpool fc fans or in this case the sheffield police of 1989 cause they didn't do anything