Talk:Esther Rantzen

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Esther Rantzen article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles

University of Oxford Low‑importance

	University of Oxford portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject University of Oxford, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the University of Oxford on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.University of OxfordWikipedia:WikiProject University of OxfordTemplate:WikiProject University of OxfordUniversity of Oxford articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool because one or more other projects use this class. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the `\|auto=` parameter.

Journalism Low‑importance

	Journalism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of journalism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JournalismWikipedia:WikiProject JournalismTemplate:WikiProject JournalismJournalism articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Hertfordshire (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hertfordshire, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.HertfordshireWikipedia:WikiProject HertfordshireTemplate:WikiProject HertfordshireHertfordshire articles

Alice Beer scandal[edit]

Should we mention the Alice Beer scandal?

I know Alice was a sec/asst on "That's Life!" but I don't know the dirt. Please enlighten us. El Ingles 20:24, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As Wikipedia is neither a blog or forum, it's not really appropriate to use the discussion pages or the main article for "enlightening" others about scandals - see the box above if you're not sure. Escaper7 12:01, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense, Escaper. I'm an editor of the article, interested in new information. I can't tell if "the Alice Beer scandal" is sourced or not until I know what it is. There's no entry for Alice in the index to the autobiography so its sourcing is prima facie dodgy, but neither you nor I can know the extent of the anonymous informant's citations. El Ingles 13:39, 7 August 2006 (UTC)yo dude![reply]

I just think there's a lot more to say about Esther's career - the article as it stands is very short, there's no picture, little mention of ChildLine etc, and since both she and Alice Beer are still alive I can't really see the relevance of it in a biog. I'm not sure what the above unsigned contributor is referring to, and there's no username. The fact that the biog boilerplate is now in place might entice other editors to contribute. Whatever the scandal was, it hasn't exactly led to some massive change in television journalism. Her contribution to ChildLine, has however drawn a lot of attention to an extremely worthy cause. I'm sorry if you feel my opinion (above) is nonsense. Escaper7 14:24, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alice Beer was once a member of the That's Life! team although she never worked directly for Esther Rantzen. No scandal has been attached to her name either during that time, or later when she became a tv reporter. Marjorie morningstar (talk) 10:48, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Scandal[edit]

I don't get this whole "scandal" thing. I've a mind to rewrite the whole "scandal" thing to preserve the facts but remove this word "scandal". One sentence I read in the article seems to suggest that being arrested for being a bit naughty in the street is a "scandal". Show me something Esther Rantzen couldn't write off with a shrug, a toothy grin, and a "That's Life", and possibly we might have the makings of the germ of something that might one day be described by particularly impressionable people as a scandal. --82.18.14.143 (talk) 20:49, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How about screwing her head of department who was married to her best friend? How about being ostracised by the majority of her colleagues as a consequence of that? How about getting accidentally pregnant? How about a rather public miscarriage? I see no shrug, no toothy grin to mitigate those events. Her autobiography is clear that they made her miserable and frantic. If the epithet "scandal" can't be applied to that, what can it be applied to? --El Ingles (talk) 21:06, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is this what Wikipedia regard as a debate? None of the facts is in dispute, it seems only to be a matter of interpretation which is up to any reader to agree with, or disagree with. A pointless discussion. Marjorie morningstar (talk) 10:48, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I quite agree, anonymous, that "...being arrested for being a bit naughty in the street" does not really fit here at all. But, in 1960s and even 1970s Britain, Rahtzen's affair with her boss certainly did constitute a scandal for the, still wholly conservative, BBC. What you say, StuHarris, also seems fair. But a re-write of this section would certainly not go amiss, toothy grin or not. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:16, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Fell"?[edit]

Patsy Wilcox always refused to divorce her husband, but was forced to agree when Rantzen fell pregnant. I've often wondered about the origins of babies, but i never realised it had anything to do with falling. Does this strike anyone else as a curious turn of phrase? Cheers, Lindsay^Hi 19:13, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

'Falling pregnant' is a common turn of phrase. Kunchan (talk) 19:29, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Bat Stew"?[edit]

"bat stew"? I've no idea where it came from but I assume it's vandalism. JohnHarris (talk) 12:02, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is no scandal involving the lovely Alice Beer. Nor was Patsy "forced" to allow Rantzen and Wilcox to marry. The Bat Stew was obtained from Fortnum and Mason's and all details in this entry are verifiable from Rantzen's autobiography which is certainly not a "hagiography". ( Astrideahorse). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Astrideahorse (talk • contribs) 03:17, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality dispute?[edit]

At the top of this article it states: "The neutrality of this article is disputed. Relevant discussion may be found on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until conditions to do so are met. (December 2014)" May I ask who disputes the neutrality of this article and why? --Maarten1963 (talk) 17:21, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Surname?[edit]

I'm currently listening to Esther being interviewed by Victoria Coren Mitchell on Women Talking About Cars and she's admitted that surname as per her passport is "Wilcox": is this worth mentioning? ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 17:56, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Time in New York[edit]

"She attended Buckley Country Day School in New York leaving in 1950."

This is unsourced, and sounded odd to me, but there's evidence of sorts for her time somewhere in New York state (and for other things too) here although the timing seems a bit out. Harfarhs (talk) 02:41, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's Life - and Death![edit]

"Society should value older people more" Esther Rantzen

Given Rantzen's support for the rights of older people, might not this article ask if her recent support for "Assisted Dying" is in conflict with the above statement? Then again, instead wanting to kill off older people, might not Rantzen campaign for greater investment in decent end of life care? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.24.196.44 (talk) 13:40, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's rather clear that Rantzen is not advocating "killing off older people", but rather allowing people to more easily end their own lives when they have become unbearable. It's not necessarily about old age? Martinevans123 (talk) 09:42, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edits[edit]

Galagalen, you recently made this edit, with the edit summary, "restored last good version. add your books section if you want, but restoring vandal-added crap and uncited claims is not acceptable." This is the now the fifth time you have removed the book section, which I recently took care to restore fully with online links. Why do you regard a version with no book section as a "good version"? I'm sure all eight books could also all be supported with secondary sources, if required. Also, I'm not sure that Rantzen's appearance on Strictly Come Dancing can be usefully described as "vandal-added crap". Could you kindly explain why you think it is? Regarding "Other guest appearances", some of these are already sourced and the items which are not sourced could very easily either be supported with citations or marked as "citation needed". You have also removed various details about Rantzen's honours and awards. Could you possibly make more selective edits, so that the merits of each detailed change can be individually assessed and discussed? Your repeated wholesale reverts, for reasons which do not seem entirely convincing, are really not very helpful. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:00, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As I already said, put the books section back if you want. Do not restore the vandal-added crap that you have repeatedly restored. If you cannot distinguish between the vandal-added crap and valid content, then leave the article alone. And if you start by reverting someone's edit in its entirety, don't complain when they do the same to you. Galagalen (talk) 09:06, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Galadalen. I wonder could you list here all those items that you think constitute "vandal-added crap"? Many thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:24, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And all the "uncited claims" that you mention in your edit summary? Thanks Martinevans123 (talk) 09:26, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It might be useful if we could get an opinion from User:Augmented Seventh. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:33, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just read through the text that you restored. It is not hard to spot the nonsensical uncited claims, and if you look at the article history, it's also not hard to identify the vandal who added them. I'm not going to waste time identifying obvious problems word by word or sentence by sentence. Galagalen (talk) 10:01, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just as a brief list of "vandal-added crap" and "uncited claims" will suffice. Then at least we will all know what we are discussing. Thanks Martinevans123 (talk) 10:10, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]