Jump to content

Talk:Danny Baker

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Andysmith248 (talk | contribs) at 15:12, 14 February 2024 (Added talk header). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Untitled

"in 1999 Baker walked out of Talk Radio after station management wanted to move his show to a Saturday morning"

Actually, Baker had already been presenting a lunchtime show as well as his evening programme for about a year for the station but at the start of 1999 moved to a four hour slot starting at 8am on Saturdays which lasted two weeks before he was sacked supposedly for not talking about football enough (something they'd not previously been that bothered about, if anyone remembers those shows) News piece: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,323823,00.html

No citation provided for "Big Spud" epithet.--Westminsterboy 07:45, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

err..This article seems like it was written by the subject.

Bob Marley

I have never heard this Bob Marley story before, and can find no factual sources on the interweb - from where did it come? --kylet 14:27, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

— baker has told this story a few times on his shows over the years. --81.77.131.137 08:22, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
-It is definitely something that should be included on the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.61.30.118 (talk) 17:15, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
He does mention it now and again and generally points out that it is completely false but, as he said on his show on 28th January 2009, "it is good to lie sometimes." His point being that sometimes "life needs a little bit of colour added" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.13.98.90 (talk) 09:33, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, but hardly appropriate for an encyclopedia. --Ged UK (talk) 13:37, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No but a perfect anecdote for Wikipedia where it demonstrates the personality of Danny Baker by using words he actually said. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.13.98.90 (talk) 10:22, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brain floss

was danny baker ever used in an advertising campaign for a joke product named "brain floss"? i remember it from my childhood, and looking at some google image searches of the product, it looks possible but not certain. If anyone could clear up this confusion i'd be very grateful...

Proposed removal of the The Apprentice UK template

I have started a discussion at Template talk:The Apprentice UK proposing the removal of template {{The Apprentice UK}} from this article (and the articles on other celebrities having appeared in the show). Please contribute your opinions to a discussion there. └ UkPaolo/talk┐ 10:04, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Doctor Who

Does anyone have a source for the Doctor Who casting? It appears to be unsubstantiated rumor, as far as I can tell. I'm removing it, but feel free to put it back with an appropriate attribution. -Shadowsong 20:05, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Margaret Rutherford

Does anyone know why Baker uses Margaret Rutherford as his BBC email address? If they do then I'm sure it's worthy of a mention in the article. --JimmyTheWig 15:10, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because he loves her work, as far as i can tell. He's had it for a long time, through various BBC incarnations. I have no citable source for this though, so i'm not sure it ought to go in, yet, anyway. Ged UK (talk) 12:49, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Danny Baker gives nicknames to the people he works with and also to celebrities and also on e-mails. The point is that they are created "in the moment" and then he prides himself on never mentioning again why the name was given - "you had to be there at the time". They rarely have any great meaning and were just a bit if fun. He often refers to his current show as "The Star And Garters Show - the Worlds least successful branding" as this nickname did not stick. He had originally introduced it as he announced the retirement of "the Candy Man". He then forgot he had retired the Candy Man the next day and was reminded about thirty minutes into the next show and the change to Star and Garters was cancelled.
He was lord.reith@bbc.co.uk on 606. Pollythewasp (talk) 12:12, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Danny, The Turmoil Years

Could someone more skilled than me please re-place the paragraph connected to Radio 5/606 that tells us that Danny Kelly came in to do the papers, the one with Univ of Turmoil in it? The info is categorically incorrect. The Turmoil Years were part of the Radio 1 Saturday Morning shows and had nothing at all with any programmes Danny B. on football. 88.110.252.149 (talk) 13:50, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moving new comment to the bottom Ged UK (talk) 18:44, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Football videos

The football videos didn't lead to his presenting 606 - quite the opposite. He was already well-known as 606's presenter when the videos first came out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.185.144.120 (talk) 00:07, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He left school at the age 14 ?

Aye he were saying this on the radio this mornin' - Desert Island Discs - "the last year it was possible" he said (or words to that effect). That sounded odd to me 'cos I'm ten years older than Mr. Baker and I don't remember pupils leaving school at 14.

In my day you could leave at the end of the term in which you became 15 - so there were pupils who left before Easter and Christmas. In Mr Baker's case as he was born in June that would still have meant his leaving school at the end of the academic year. Maybe he was allowed to leave a few weeks before the end of the summer term - a few weeks, that is, before his 15th birthday.

He mentioned that the year he left school was the last year one could leave at 14.

1972, when Mr. Baker became 15, was the year in which the school leaving age was raised from 15 to 16.

He was certainly in the last cohort that could leave school at 15. If there were fellow pupils in his year born in August they might well have been working at the age of 14 having legally left school a few weeks beforehand.

If Mr. Baker was working at 14 he seems to have left school earlier than he should have done.

Ned

5th August 2011 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.155.193.205 (talk) 19:47, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Danny Baker/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.

Good biographical information, but could use more external references. Needs an infobox and photograph └ UkPaolo/talk┐ 10:19, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Last edited at 10:19, 11 March 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 12:48, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Danny Baker. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 13:52, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hospital

The article at present claims that the controversial picture, which Baker claims is his 'go-to photograph when posh people walk out or have kids' (how dare they), shows 'a chimpanzee in a top hat leaving a hospital'. This is mistaken. Baker claims the chimp is wearing a top hat, for class-hate reasons, but the hat is clearly a bowler. Nor does the picture have anything to do with hospitals. It shows a well-dressed couple c.1930 holding hands with a chimp which is sadly and rather disgracefully dressed in an overcoat and a bowler and carrying a cane. The three are standing on the entrance steps of a building, but there's nothing to suggest it's a hospital.

Baker has stated to Sky News that 'I'm well aware of the centuries-old trope linking race and primates.' His excuse, however, despite his admission that he knew the royal baby's name was Archie, is that he did not know who the mother was. 'I had no idea, until after about eight minutes somebody said, "That's Meghan Whatsit's baby" -- Ooh! Down, down, down! Anyone... People say you *must* know she was... I know *she* is... but the House of Windsor these days, apart from the Old Firm... I genuinely didn't! ...I did it because I didn't know it was Princess Howsyourfather.' Notice, again, that he admits knowing the baby's name, then says he didn't know the mother's identity, then says he knows who Meghan is and that she's mixed-race (though he can't bring himself to utter the term), then pretends he's forgotten her name again. https://news.sky.com/story/danny-baker-sorry-over-stupid-chimp-tweet-about-royal-baby-archie-11715152

Baker repeated the extraordinary claim that, despite knowing the baby's name, he had no idea who the mother was (even though he admits to being perfectly well aware of Meghan, and of her mixed-race heritage), on James O'Brien's LBC radio show. https://www.lbc.co.uk/radio/presenters/james-obrien/danny-bakers-first-interview-since-being-sacked-by/

On Twitter, he claimed, 'Would have used same stupid pic for any other Royal birth,' but as far as anyone knows he did not in fact do so for the births of any of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge's three children, nor has he claimed that he did. (Nor did he tweet that picture to mark the births of his friend Chris Evans's children, even though Evans is super-rich showbiz royalty and owns one of the world's best-known Ferrari collections, which would count as 'posh' by any realistic measure.) The BBC, whom Baker has criticised for 'faux-gravity' in sacking him, made this observation: 'It's the second time Baker has been axed by 5 Live and is the third time he has left the BBC.

In 1997, he was fired for encouraging football fans to make a referee's life hell after the official had awarded a controversial penalty in an FA Cup tie.

He later claimed he had never incited fans to attack the referee, only that he would have understood if they had.' https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-48212693

It's of some interest that one or two other rich media celebrities, namely Dara O'Briain and Jon Ronson (and these people are a lot richer than you think they are, you know -- don't be fooled just because they don't wear top hats), have lined up on Twitter to defend Baker's conduct and deplore his inevitable sacking. Khamba Tendal (talk) 18:15, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Interestingly, to indicate the hotness of the topic and the potential damage to celebrity careers, shortly after I posted the above, Jon Ronson tactically deleted everything he had tweeted in support of Baker's inexcusable conduct. 'I just deleted every tweet about the incident in question, because I’m going to be off twitter for the rest of the evening and I don’t want to be worrying about anything bad happening / being misconstrued/ whatever. Like fireflies they burned brightly and are gone.' https://twitter.com/jonronson/status/1126523722280648705 Khamba Tendal (talk) 19:10, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

'In 2019 Baker was fired by the BBC after posting a Tweet that compared a mixed race baby to a chimpanzee' should be changed to 'In 2019 Baker was fired by the BBC after posting a Tweet that appeared to compare the mixed race baby to a chimpanzee.'. His intentions are in dispute.

Well, Baker's claim is that, despite knowing the baby's name and knowing that Meghan was mixed-race, and despite the fact that he was supposedly satirising 'the news cycle' and 'the media circus', he literally did not know that Meghan was baby Archie's mother. More likely he did, but, due to what people of colour call 'white privilege' -- i.e. he just doesn't recognise or care about the hostility that people of colour face, because it doesn't affect him personally -- he just complacently failed to see that his tweet was going to look like KKK racist propaganda. As a result, someone has filed a complaint with the Met and there is now a police investigation. That 'white working class' schtick will only get you so far. Possibly into court, although that appears unlikely. My neighbour, the black actor Vas Blackwood, is extremely angry, as you can see on his Twitter feed, and he's not alone. https://www.itv.com/news/2019-05-10/danny-baker-being-investigated-over-racist-royal-baby-tweet/ Khamba Tendal (talk) 20:13, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Recent Deletions of Recent Information

User:Abductive, I'm concerned about your repeated removal of referenced information from this article. Three times now you have removed text, not because it lacks Reliable Sources, but because it makes note of opinions with which you disagree. Specifically, on three occasions you've removed mention of the fact that some people, including a number of comparatively high-profile figures in British social life, have criticised the BBC for sacking Baker. On two occasions you've also removed mention of the fact that the BBC sacked Baker to start with (which I assume is simply an error on your part, but correct me if I am wrong). It seems clear from your edit summaries that you regard those who believe the BBC over-reacted to the incident to be engaged in "Whitewashing apologetics" and feel that theirs is a "racist response". Now, that's fine. I'm not criticising you for your opinion. But that does not mean that you can just remove information because you think that these people's viewpoints suddenly become un-notable or don't matter. That's not how Wikipedia works.

Moreover, you've also accused me of sharing those views and of trying to "whitewash" this article and of trying to "POV-push" to defend Baker. Respectfully, I think it very clear that the POV issue lies with you. Let's be clear: it's not up to you—or me, or anyone else—to censor certain opinions, which have received coverage in the press, because we may perceive them to be racist or otherwise bigoted, immoral, or just plain wrong. I ask that you allow the information that you have repeatedly removed to be restored. If you would like to see it augmented with reference to high-profile figures who defend the BBC's decision then I would be perfectly happy with that. If, however, you continue to want to remove this information then we shall have to take the issue to RfC. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:24, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see what point you are making: this is just a list of Reliable Sources. Why do you take issue with them? Midnightblueowl (talk) 09:29, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Editorials are not Reliable Sources. Abductive (reasoning) 18:11, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Even if that were true (it isn't), only two of those four sources are editorials. As stated at Wikipedia:Reliable sources, "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author." Are you going to continue to oppose the sentences in question or shall I take this to RfC? User:Micheledisaveriosp, what do you think? Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:18, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You assembled a selection of mitigating material. How is it not WP:OR? Abductive (reasoning) 00:17, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That's not what "Original Research" means at Wikipedia. Original research would mean me going out, asking people's opinions, and then writing it up directly at Wikipedia. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:30, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, now this is a case of WP:ICANTHEARYOU. Abductive (reasoning) 00:53, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You're the only editor opposing these inclusions, have misrepresented policy to back your case, and haven't responded to my suggestion to an RfC. This conversation isn't proving very constructive. That being the case, I'm going to take this to an RfC. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:09, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Why not integrate this opinion source? Abductive (reasoning) 00:27, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Shola Mos-Shogbamimu is not a public figure in the way that Janet Street-Porter or Dara Ó Briain are, but that being said I have no problem whatsoever with the addition of this source into the article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:30, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that BBC "controversial" departures are a particular blatant. That is someone's opinion, but the comparison has been sourced (Wikipedia:OR#Reliable sources) by authoritative press. It concerns a list of consensual resignations or sackings about historical personalities of the BBC radio channel. If a comparison with Danny Baker's sacking seems to be WP:OR, this kind of informations may be hopefully moved in the future to another WP article, like the BBC:history. I am sorry if my edit on 10 May has produced something similar to an edit war in this article.Micheledisaveriosp (talk) 08:39, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: Should this article include the following referenced sentences on the BBC's sacking of Baker and its aftermath?

The consensus is that this article should not include the proposed referenced sentences on the BBC's sacking of Baker and its aftermath.

Cunard (talk) 23:49, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Basic question: Should the article include the following referenced text at the end of the paragraph in the "Sacking by the BBC (2019)" sub-section? Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:18, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That day, the BBC fired him,[1] a decision Baker described as "a masterclass of pompous faux-gravity".[1] The corporation faced criticism from those accusing it of over-reacting,[2] including by the broadcaster Janet Street-Porter,[3] and comedian Dara Ó Briain.[4]

References

  1. ^ a b "Baker fired over 'stupid' royal baby tweet". BBC News. 9 May 2019. Retrieved 9 May 2019.
  2. ^ "Danny Baker's naivety has cost him his job – and, after 40 years at the BBC, rightly so". The Independent. 9 May 2019. Retrieved 9 May 2019.
  3. ^ Street Porter, Janet (10 May 2019). "I've known Danny Baker for 40 years – he's not a racist, but he is now a victim of our hypersensitive age". The Independent. Retrieved 10 May 2019.
  4. ^ Loughrey, Clarisse (10 May 2019). "Dara Ó Briain criticises BBC for firing Danny Baker over 'racist' royal baby tweet". The Independent. Retrieved 10 May 2019.

Context: This text was added to the article in the aftermath of Baker's sacking on 9 May. It was removed by another editor who suggested that it gave attention to racist viewpoints [1] and was critical of the fact that it cited two op-eds, which they believed were not Reliable Sources [2]. A Talk Page discussion ensued (above) but led nowhere. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:18, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yes: Baker's sacking, including the public criticism of the BBC that followed, were important parts of this incident and how it was perceived in British public life. We have ample Reliable Sources published in the mainstream UK press to demonstrate this. As to the concerns raised by the editor who removed the text, Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED: believing that a certain opinion is racist does not mean it should be omitted from Wikipedia. Moreover, as per WP:Reliable Sources, op-eds published in respected media outlets are considered reliable sources. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:37, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, the carefully curated material that User:Midnightblueowl inserted in the article gives WP:UNDUE weight to, as other sources put it, Whitesplaining of his racism. The apologetics mentioned in a few op-eds do not represent the mainstream media view of the incident, rather they state that basic fact that the man was fired for his racism, and/or his judgement problem. Abductive (reasoning) 01:26, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Weak)No The information is verifiably true, so the question is just whether it gives WP:UNDUE weight. I skimmed at least a dozen articles on Baker's firing (and the aftermath), and none of them mentioned a backlash against the firing. That suggests to me that this is not an important aspect of the story, as reported in mainstream sources. The proposed text does have three citations, but they're all from the same publication (the Independent). I'd be more inclined to keep the text if there were another RS publication cited. I think I'd also be more inclined to keep it if the wording was changed slightly from "The BBC faced criticism from those accusing it of over-reacting, including X and Y", to "X and Y criticized the firing, accusing the BBC of over-reacting". (i.e. just identifying the two specific critics, not creating a potential implication of widespread criticism) Colin M (talk) 19:01, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be happy with the alternate wording you propose, Colin. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:01, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I also agree with Colin on that a small tweaking of the sentence can go a long way towards removing the undue weight issue. There were a couple of prominent voices that criticized the BBC, and they are well sourced and documented, but it was in no way a wave of outrage or something of the sort. PraiseVivec (talk) 12:37, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • No but tweak is ok, as Colin suggested. Barca (talk) 18:38, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was going to say the same thing as Colin, it's even better if you just say 'X' criticized without mentioning 'Y'. Opatachibueze (talk) 01:25, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, I agree in part with Colin argument. I don't think there are necessarily three references to a sentence. It would be better to include other references related to the sentence. Chominkook (talk) 17:30, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, not as written. I agree with others here, the criticism of the firing does not appear to be the main story. The BBC story referenced includes several people who support the firing and are not represented at all in the proposed sentence. I would structure the section something like:

"In May 2019, Baker posted an image on Twitter of a couple holding hands with a chimpanzee dressed in clothes with the caption: "Royal Baby leaves hospital," referring to the recent birth of Archie Mountbatten-Windsor, son of Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex and Meghan, Duchess of Sussex.[23] Baker was subject to a backlash on social media, accused of mocking the Duchess of Sussex's African American heritage with the tweet.[23] Baker deleted the tweet and apologized, stating that he had made a mistake tweeting the image, that it was "ill advised, ill thought-out and stupid, but racist? No..." [23][24] Baker was sacked by the BBC (do we have a date for the sacking?), which said he showed a "serious error of judgement" over his tweet. Baker did not agree with the BBC's decision to sack him for his "enormous mistake"; he did have some support for his position from media personalities such as the broadcaster Janet Street-Porter and comedian Dara Ó Briain.

Cynistrategus (talk) 06:19, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Millionaires Row

Danny Baker lives in one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.196.159.89 (talk) 16:31, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result of this discussion was an uncontroversial merge. TipsyElephant (talk) 15:25, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I propose merging All Day Breakfast Show into Danny_Baker#All_Day_Breakfast_Show_podcasts_(2007). I think the content in All Day Breakfast Show can easily be explained in the context of Danny Baker, and a merger would not cause any article-size or weighting problems in Danny Baker considering it already has a section. I also don't think All Day Breakfast Show is notable and merging seems like a preferable WP:ATD. TipsyElephant (talk) 17:53, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Danny_Baker&oldid=1207333320"