Talk:Anton Du Beke

Tony Beak
The citation for his 'real name' Tony Beak is from a Daily Mail article dated after this article had the name. The way things are going I don't trust the DM not simply to have used this article as its 'source' for the 'information'. An older citation would be better - or one from a more reliable source (e.g. his website, an interview in which the name comes up explicitly). 88888 (talk) 16:39, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Still not adequately sourced and s far as I am concerned is mere gossip; removed. --kingboyk (talk) 20:57, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * It is relatively well known in the dance world, but I agree, needs an adequate source to be put in this article Gingernut1015 (talk) 08:19, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree the Daily Mail citation is dodgy - reading the article they clearly are looking to put a spin on things. And since we're listing his father's surname as Beke I'm going to alter the original name to Antony Beke which seems more neutral a statement. Andy Farrell (talk) 09:09, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

The name on his birth certificate is Anthony Paul Beke. The registration of his birth can be found in the Birth Index for England & Wales, in the third quarter of 1966. The name "Beke" is pronounced "Beck" but is often mispronounced "Beak". Therefore the name "Tony Beak" comes from shortening his first name and mispronouncing his surname. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.105.15.132 (talk) 19:46, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

If his name now and on his birth certificate is Beke (give or take a 'du'), why does this article start with 'Anton Burke (known professionally as Anton du Beke)'? Thomas Peardew (talk) 18:08, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

'Burke' seems to be wholly unsourced. I'll change it.Thomas Peardew (talk) 18:12, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Amateur?
"He left school at 16 to follow an amateur dancing career."

I know little about ballroom dancing, so I haven't amended it, but can someone with more extensive knowledge explain how one can have an amateur career? Tsuguya (talk) 14:00, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Competitive dancing is broadly split into "professional" and "amateur". Professionals are paid to dance in some form, generally by teaching and performing exhibitions. In theory amateurs aren't and also have a "day job" to fund their dancing. This is complicated a little though by different governing bodies allowing amateurs to earn money if they follow some specific criteria (EADA, the English Amateur Dance Association have a coaching scheme for instance). 213.143.18.224 (talk) 16:20, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Laila Rouass controversy
He's an idiot for bringing up the terrorist joke. That's way too silly nowadays. I can't trust him now with the 'paki' word. On the other hand, i don't know the context of the situation. By itself, the paki incident actually seemed funny. But how did anyone find out about it? Did it happen on the set? I'm half east-indian, by the way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.2.202.2 (talk) 10:57, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * All the info about it has been removed. The article should say something about it, as it has gained a large amount of media coverage. Wiki editor 6 (talk) 19:09, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Hello, I have researched, written and added the section.KarlBattery (talk) 19:33, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Karl, I liked your section but wanted to qualify that the reports and background are the result of unnamed sources and ubiquitous witnesses. It gives reporting of the controversy some context. Since we are quoting sensationalist media rather than hard news, I think the main text of a wiki page should reflect that. Otherwise, wiki might be seen as propogating (some) unsubstantiated gossip. I think generally this has to appear in this page no question. If wiki is anything it is about education, and my personal belief is that this will educate a lot of people about a word that, like it or not, is still common parlance (see below).

My own experience, born into and growing up in a very working class background is that the word paki is used everyday parlance. People speak of going round to the 'paki shop' (my family included) and I can assure you, it was never used in an insulting context. It was a way of not saying a four syllabled word when you could say two. Being a young reader, and with a liking for current affairs I became aware that the term paki was actually offensive to pakistani's, but there are an awful lot of people in Britain who really do not grasp the gravitas or depth of the offense it can cause.

What I hope is that good may come out of this and it can, because an awful lot of the public will have been seriously awakened (as well as Anton Du Beke), to the fact that to many people of pakistani origin who help constitute a modern Britain, the term is not welcome. Responsiballot (talk) 11:25, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

KarlBattery, it would be good for you to discuss your rationale for changes in the controversy edit, when you make such a change. Wiki must be as truthful as possible, and present as much context, especially in controversial areas, such as accusations of racism.Responsiballot (talk) 12:48, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Why has the 'Paki' controversy been removed from this page? I think it should be restored.
 * Hello Responsiballot, thank you for your comments. I did not realise this issue was not already active on Talk before making my last edit. My apologies for this. I appreciate your POV on the matter. Being a Londoner from a middle class background I do have a very different experience of the use of the word, but hopefully neither of our POVs influence the section. The rationale behind my alteration of your edit was simply this: that none of the material in the most recent edit constitutes in any way 'unsubstantiated allegations' as I will demonstrate. I consider that i) the 'terrorist' incident, having been reported by the News of the World, and then repeated as an assertion in the Daily Mail and with no denials from any party, needn't be couched in terms that make it look like an unsubstantiated allegation. It can be re-reported as fact here on Wiki: quoting from the DM article: 'However, two weeks ago it was revealed that when first introduced to his series partner, Du Beke had joked, 'You're not a terrorist, are you?' on learning of Miss Rouass's background.' The Daily Mail would not, regardless of our opinions on the newspaper itself, make such an 'unsubstantiated allegation'. Similarly ii) the 'Paki' incident. I don't think anyone would consider it to be hearsay, libellous or in any way 'unsubstantiated', it having been acknowledged by the BBC themselves. Were it not to have happened, no apologies would be forthcoming. Hence the direct reporting of it. The sources are cited and can be referred to by the reader. Regarding the multifarious quotes from various parties these are again embedded in citations and given the material facts don't, I believe, need to be repeated. I think the BBC's quote is relevant to this page, and concludes the whole incident. I think you're right, it is bringing the issue to the fore so it can be debated. I believe the version I presented is the most expedient, streamlined and neutral version of events thus far. KarlBattery (talk) 22:41, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

KarlBattery, thank you for taking time to respond. As you will note I have reinstated the edit that I feel best fits into the wiki remit. As you will have gathered by now, I feel very strongly that wiki should not be used as a tool for propogating anything other than fact (i am positive you will concur with this statement). I like strictly come dancing, but I care about wiki. At the risk of extra text, I would rather have the full story than what I read in your edit. I'm afraid to say without any reference, the text appeared rather a priori, statements rather than allegations.

here is my point,

re the terrorist incident

It is not a fact that Du Beke called Rouass a terrorist

It is a fact that the News of the World asserted this as fact, on Sepember 2 but could not verify this story.

It is a fact that the Daily Mail referenced this report in their article October 8th, 2009, whilst offering no new public name to substantiate the incident

Therefore, why can we not agree to quote the Daily Mail and News of the world, but at least context that this was alleged.

re the paki incident

I think you may misunderstand me. I am fully aware that by offering a full apology, both Du Beke and the BBC have corroborated the fact that Du Beke caused offense to Rouass.

re quotes from Du Beke, Rouass and the BBC

If we were to take your rationale, KB, then we need not write any text, but in fact list all relevent references and let the public research. That is not what wiki is about. You know that. That said, the quotes are justifiable context as Du Beke, Rouass and the BBC are the main players in the incident/s.

What we are left with is a toss up between;

your slimline version and someone reading it and not following the quotes, therefore the risk of the reader assuming this was substantiated 'news'.

my moderately extended version which contexts the veracity of the sources, and the developments in terms of responses from the main players, leaving the wiki reader more informed.

I certainly agree that the version you presented is the most streamlined, but it is economy of words that plays very closely to a sensationalist agenda. I know and appreciate that it s not your intention, but I find it very hard to appreciate why you are so averse to contexting the controversy.

My question to you is

what harm to wiki is caused by my edit?

Have I lied or misled in any way the wiki readership by researching and summarising the citations for a more full appreciation by the fleeting reader?

Final thought is that life is short, and I don't have the time to come back here and keep re-editing. But if you remove it, and I have a hunch you will, I think that will be a great shame. In truth, I don't really care that much about it all....but I am at least I am hoping that this discussion will remain unedited, and that my points are here for those that are prepared to read them. all the bestSpecial:Contributions/Responsiballot (talk) 02:36, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Just to add, neither I nor the section as it is written accuses Anton of racism - potentially racially offensive language yes, but not racism. KarlBattery (talk) 22:45, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
 * This section of the article should state where and when the offending comments were spoken, and it should be stated that it was off-air. Wiki editor 6 (talk) 18:42, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

This section doesn't read as very neutral, it tastes of sensationalist media. I'm going to tone down some of the language and remove the initial "are you a terrorist?" bit as that part hasn't (to the best of my knowledge) been acknowledged by Du Beke or Rouass, whereas the "Paki" part has. Feel free to re-edit me if you can improve it, but I hope we can keep the tone higher than that of the News of the World. Andy Farrell (talk) 09:26, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I think AF's edit is a sum greater than the parts KB or myself could offer. I think it reads as balanced, and is wiki-aligned. For me, if no more developments occur, it reads like a representative section.86.175.45.27 (talk) 19:36, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Why has the 'paki' controversy been removed from this page? It needs to be restored.MajorDude (talk) 09:49, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Place of birth
This vital piece of biographical info is not present in the article. Wiki editor 6 (talk) 18:43, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Boxing
As far as I can see, this was added without reference and looks to me like a touch of vandalism...does anyone else agree? 109.151.5.72 (talk) 20:45, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * removed. unsourced, BLP. Chienlit (talk) 22:55, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Music Hall Guild
I can't see Anton mentioned in the Music Hall Guild's website. Certainly not in the !about" page which lists patrons, and is given here as a reference... http://www.themusichallguild.com/about.php — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.40.214.250 (talk) 14:17, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians, I have just modified 1 one external link on Anton du Beke. 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 ).
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091007015855/http://www.thisislondon.co.uk:80/showbiz/article-23517967-strictly-good-friends-anton-du-beke-reveals-what-really-went-on-with-kate-garraway.do to http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/showbiz/article-23517967-strictly-good-friends-anton-du-beke-reveals-what-really-went-on-with-kate-garraway.do

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 21:26, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 18 December 2020

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: Moved to Anton Du Beke. The nominator's and Roman Spinner's appeal to MOS:IDENTITY seems well-founded. The surname is only a stage name and not of French origin, so French conventions do not apply. No such user (talk) 15:24, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Anton du Beke → Anton Du Beke – Bold move contested by. Anton calls himself 'Du Beke' on own websites and social media and so do most reliable sources. Laun chba ller 00:34, 18 December 2020 (UTC) —Relisted.  P.I. Ellsworth    ed.  put'r there 03:32, 29 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose His surname is written as ‘Du Beke’ only when it is written alone per MOS:SURNAME Here on the BBC website, his name is written as ‘Anton du Beke’ in his biography and has been referred to this name on the show. Messinwithbruce (talk) 00:40, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose. This is a tough one because of the mixed usage, but the Google Ngram (see Google Ngram Viewer) gives the edge to the lower case d. It doesn't help that similar names are mixed about upper-casing too: W. E. B. Du Bois and Allen B. Du Mont, but Daphne du Maurier and Antoine du Verdier. I'd expect that if the name was supposed to be upper case, it would almost always be in upper case, but not so with lower case because title case and start a sentence with an upper-case letter when using last name only. advises that pages should only be moved without discussion when "It seems unlikely that anyone would reasonably disagree with the move." The nominator showed poor judgement in assuming that nobody would reasonably disagree. – wbm1058 (talk) 02:09, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Withdrawing my oppose per arguments by Roman Spinner, but can't fully support due to curious situation of the BBC Strictly Twitter still using lower case as recently as last month. – wbm1058 (talk) 21:59, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support per nomination. Since there is inconsistency among reliable sources, preference should be given to the form used by subject himself. There are two official websites — his own and the partnership's. Both use "Du Beke" as the form of his professional name and, since he would certainly have a say over how his pen name appears within his books, here are the titles in all of which it is "Du Beke", not "du Beke". Here is his name on the copyright page of A Christmas to Remember [same as with all of his books] and here is his standard signature, with the "D" clearly uppercased. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 07:05, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Tend to see the French usage ("du" = contraction of "de" and "le", or in English "of the"), so this subject's name is more like "Anton of the Beke". In that, we would probably not title an article "(Given) Of The (Surname)", but moreso like John of the Cross, Helen of the Troy, and so on. Also compelling is this article's longstanding title, because when it was created back in 2006 its title was as it is now, Anton du Beke, and was first changed to "Anton Du Beke" this past November. So for nearly 15 years, this article has been titled as it is now titled. Makes no sense to change it. We see his name on several works in all upper case letters, and yet even then we see the form ANTON BEKE, which denotes that "DU" is really for "du", or the upper-lower-case form. So I agree with Mw/b (Mwb, MwB, Mw/B? or so on) that "Du Beke" should only be used to refer to this subject when "Anton" does not precede it, and sparingly even then. Since sources seem less helpful than usual in this case, we should follow the Naming conventions guideline and keep "du" lower-cased.  P.I. Ellsworth    ed.  put'r there 01:22, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment. A couple of additional points regarding subject's use of his own name — Anthony Paul Beke is English, not French and the name "Anton Du Beke" is both his stage name and his pen name. It is the name he uses on his Twitter account, the name he uses on his Facebook page, the name he uses on both of his official professional websites: and  and the name he uses in his books — although the book covers stylize the name in uppercase and lowercase caps — "ANTON DU BEKE" — the copyright pages on all of the books indicate the name as "Anton Du Beke". Even his signature uppercases the "D". —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 09:04, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Not so sure about that sig. I can't tell if it's a uc or lc "d". How this article title is stylized by anybody, to include this article's subject, does not override Wikipedia's naming convention. The only thing that can override that guideline is consistency in reliable sources, which does not appear to be the case.  P.I. Ellsworth   ed.  put'r there 11:05, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia naming conventions for French names are, of course, applicable to those who are French. However, as we know, Anton Du Beke is not French, but English, and capitalizes his invented stage name / pen name in the manner used by Americans Allen B. DuMont or W. E. B. Du Bois (pronounced "Doo Boys"), rather than in the manner of Englishwoman Daphne du Maurier, using examples supplied by Wbm1058, above. As for reliable sources — there is no consensus. Some assume (incorrectly) that subject uses French name stylization, while others accept, as should Wikipedians, subject's capitalization of his own adopted name. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 01:07, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Almost makes me change my mind; however, can't help reminding myself that this article has been titled with lc "du" for a long, long time, and none of the arguments I've read thus far can alter that fact. I have to ask why should consensus change on this one? The Long-Term Consensus has been to title this article "Anton du Beke". If consensus changes, I'll go along with it, of course, but I see no reason for it to change now. So why now, and why hasn't it been changed since 2006 until now? I still think the title should stay just as it is and has been for about 15 years.  P.I. Ellsworth   ed.  put'r there 03:34, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your misgivings about moving a stable title. However, if we take a wider view and consider that as of this writing Wikipedia has 6,218,459 articles and that it ultimately remains a personal project for those who care to devote the time to it and that each article is a matter of individual initiative, then we realize that things change only when someone decides that they should be submitted for change. At various RMs, one or another participant highlights WP:ASTONISH regarding problematic article titles that have lasted a long time until some user finally decides to nominate one of them for RM. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 10:06, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Understood. I myself would be astonished by seeing "Anton Du Beke" and would only acquiesce if there were consistency in reliable sources, which is not the case here.  P.I. Ellsworth   ed.  put'r there 15:45, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
 * When there is inconsistency in reliable sources, as is indeed the case here, it would seem that, rather than applying a general rule for French names to an Englishman's adopted stage name/pen name, we should resolve the dilemma by taking the side of his own form of his own adopted name which, in this case, is "Anton Du Beke", not "Anton du Beke". —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 03:30, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
 * As can be seen above, your position is argumentative. The subject's "own form" of his pseudonym could be a lower case "d" in his signature, and his works are often stylized as ANTON BEKE. So the general rule, that is, Wikipedia's own naming convention, should be applied in this case. With regret and a Happy New Year, I'm still opposed to a page move.  P.I. Ellsworth    ed.  put'r there 12:50, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I am not challenging French name guidelines and your opposition is respectfully accepted, but my position in this individual case, argumentative such as it is, is based primarily on this specific Englishman's own two professional websites, and, his Twitter account, , as well as his Facebook page, , in all of which he consistently uses "Du", rather than "du", to depict his own adopted stage/pen name. Also, while his signature is admittedly overly stylized to determine conclusively whether it is an uppercase "D" or lowercase "d", there is no uncertainty on the copyright page of all of his books,  where his name is consistently "Du Beke". My thanks and Best New Year's Wishes. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 18:56, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Those links have all been seen before and have been refuted as inconsistent. Sometimes seen are "ANTON BEKE", Anton Du Beke, @AntonDuBeke and Anton du Beke. And those links are either primary sources or considered by Wikipedia as social media and therefore unreliable sources. The inconsistencies are found also in reliable independent secondary sources, which says to me that we treat a French name as we're guided by Wikipedia naming conventions, regardless of whether or not it is the name of a Frenchman or the pseudonym of a non-Frenchman. The title of this article should remain what it has been since its inception, "Anton du Beke".  P.I. Ellsworth    ed.  put'r there 11:29, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Having devoted time to changing Ukrainian and Belarusian human names and place names from their Russian transliterations to their Ukrainian and Belarusian forms, I am greatly thankful to you for accepting that the main title header of the article delineating Ukrainian political prisoner in Russia, Oleh Sentsov, should appear in its Ukrainian form, "Oleh", rather than in its Russian form, "Oleg".
 * In this nomination, I likewise believe that the article subject should be permitted to decide how his own name should appear in print. Although Wikipedia considers the content of social media sites to be unreliable, the name of the subject is still his own chosen name and it remains as "Anton Du Beke" consistently throughout: 1) Facebook, 2) Instagram and 3) Twitter, in all of which he has posted videos of himself. Then, of course, there are his two professional websites — 4) and 5) as well as 6), 7), 8) the copyright pages of his three novels.
 * How could all eight of the above sources have been refuted as inconsistent when all of them are entirely consistent in displaying "Du Beke"? Surely he must know the form of his own stage and pen name. It would seem that a subject, especially a living one, should not be shoehorned into a generic French names guideline when he clearly indicates, without any inconsistency, how he types his name.
 * Although various reliable sources, such as Radio Times, The Guardian or Express do indicate his name as "Du Beke", there is always inconsistency in the wild and Wikipedia usually defers to subject's own preference, such as in the case of writer bell hooks who uses lowercase letters. So it should be for Anton Du Beke who, short of contacting Wikipedia, has unequivocally demonstrated how he depicts his own stage name. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 11:46, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Already asked, answered and refuted. Please, no more circles and Happiest of New Years to You and Yours!  P.I. Ellsworth   ed.  put'r there 01:28, 9 January 2021 (UTC)


 * 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.