Wikipedia

Talk:Press TV controversies

Latest comment: 5 years ago by 83.218.151.178 in topic Jeremy Corbyn
Learn more about this page

Important Note

edit
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I have moved all the controversial content from the PressTV article. Even though i have created this article, i did NOT write any of its content. Please refer any comment to their ACTUAL authors. The idea was to do the same as for CNN or BBC by creating a separate article. SSZ (talk) 04:30, 14 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

anti-semitism???

edit
Latest comment: 6 years ago13 comments6 people in discussion

[1] What does a review of gas chambers in Auschwitz have to do with anti-semitism? 1. Jews were not the only ones there, and 2. if its controversy pertains to anti-semitism find a source that calls it anti-semitism. Wikipedia is not to promote POV and synthesis. And Holocaust denial does not constitute anti-semitism. if you think so, then provide a WP:RS that links it as anti-semitism. If anti-zionism is anti-semitism than find a WP:RS to say so. not the ADL or WJC, because that is as credible on this issue as Neturei Karta saying it does not.Lihaas (talk) 10:20, 25 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

So denying that jews were gassed in Auschwitz is no antisemitism? Man, you are hilarious!Jeff5102 (talk) 11:04, 18 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

Well, thats a thoroughly unproductive reponse which you should bear in mind that WP:NOTAFORUM. At any rate, other than the unrelated opinion you cite you have not shown anything to back your claims. If you feel your point is a fact then show how it is. Any sources to find that?(Lihaas (talk) 11:21, 22 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

Christopher R. Browning wrote an excellent book entitled "The Origins of the Final Solution." It won the National Jewish Book Award. The book bears the imprimatur of Yad Vashem On pp 397-8, the explicitly describes the gassing of Jews from Oganisation Schmelt at Auschwitz at the end of 1941. The book should be in the reference library of anyone wishing to discuss the Holocaust. As to the gassing of Jews by the German Nazi government, one must keep in mind that the German Nazi government gassed Germans, whose lives were viewed as not worth living.

Anyway I modified the anti-Semitism section to remove untruths and defamation directed towards me (Joachim Martillo). 76.118.229.13 (talk) 11:56, 15 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

If you are who you say you are, I suggest you review Wikipedia's policy on Autobiographies. Editing information about yourself is strongly discouraged. (Hyperionsteel (talk) 02:59, 15 October 2012 (UTC))Reply

I have never denied the Holocaust, during which most of my father's family died. The panel discussion on Iranian Press TV did not address the Holocaust in any way, shape, or form. 76.118.229.13 (talk) 11:56, 15 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

I made a small change to the preceding paragraph. See the edit summary for more info. I have to add that The Blaze is not a reliable source for anything, and its founder has been accused of antisemitism, but I guess citing The Blaze is okay when it attacks me even though I am fairly mainstream in Jewish studies. I believe that The Blaze has removed that prima facie defamatory article from its website because of my complaints. ThorsProvoni (talk) 12:37, 12 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

There is a long history of disconnect between historical fact and the claims or beliefs of many Jews or people, who like me have ancestry in European Jewish communities. See Cesarani's article for more discussion. ThorsProvoni (talk) 12:37, 12 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

The comment "Undid revision 517795753 by ThorsProvoni (talk) Reversal of POV vandalism by self-interested and biased editor; Martillo is indeed world-renowned for his Nazi-style Jew-bashing" speaks for itself with respect to self-interest, bias and vindictiveness. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.118.229.13 (talk) 12:17, 15 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

When I read this comment ":If you are who you say you are, I suggest you review Wikipedia's policy on Autobiographies. Editing information about yourself is strongly discouraged. (Hyperionsteel (talk) 02:59, 15 October 2012 (UTC))", I understand it as an assertion of the right to lie with impunity. ThorsProvoni (talk) 13:03, 15 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

Without sources, claims that Martillo is a Holocaust denier are in violation of the biographies of living persons policy. Please don't re-add them to the article. Yunshui 雲‍水 13:33, 15 October 2012 (UTC)Reply
Clarification: The statement I made above (regarding Wikipedia's policy on Autobiographies) was certainly not "an assertion of the right to lie with impunity" (I'm not sure how you came to this conclusion) - I was simply pointing out that adding/editing information about oneself on Wikipedia isn't encouraged (in particular, because of potential WP:COI issues). Please note that there are several avenues within Wikipedia (see: WP:Problems in an article about you) that you can pursue if you believe that libelous/incorrect information about yourself has been posted here. I'm sorry if you misunderstood me earlier.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 22:58, 15 October 2012 (UTC))Reply
We have this article of theBlaze, which shows a Facebook-link of Martillo to a Holocaust-denying website. Furthermore, to respond to a two-year-old question: off course reviewing the quality of gas chambers is part of an antisemitic[1] conspiracy theory.[2]Jeff5102 (talk) 17:01, 8 November 2012 (UTC)Reply
  1. ^ Antisemitic:
    • "Contemporary examples of antisemitism in public life, the media, schools, the workplace, and in the religious sphere could, taking into account the overall context, include ... denying the fact, scope, mechanisms (e.g. gas chambers) or intentionality of the genocide of the Jewish people at the hands of National Socialist Germany and its supporters and accomplices during World War II (the Holocaust)." "Working Definition of Antisemitism" (PDF). (33.8 KB), European Fundamental Rights Agency
    • "It would elevate their antisemitic ideology – which is what Holocaust denial is – to the level of responsible historiography – which it is not." Deborah Lipstadt, Denying the Holocaust, ISBN 0-14-024157-4, p. 11.
    • "The denial of the Holocaust is among the most insidious forms of anti-Semitism..." Roth, Stephen J. "Denial of the Holocaust as an Issue of Law" in the Israel Yearbook on Human Rights, Volume 23, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 1993, ISBN 0-7923-2581-8, p. 215.
    • "Contemporary Holocaust deniers are not revisionists – not even neo-revisionists. They are Deniers. Their motivations stem from their neo-nazi political goals and their rampant antisemitism." Austin, Ben S. "Deniers in Revisionists Clothing", The Holocaust\Shoah Page, Middle Tennessee State University. Retrieved March 29, 2007.
    • "Holocaust denial can be a particularly insidious form of antisemitism precisely because it often tries to disguise itself as something quite different: as genuine scholarly debate (in the pages, for example, of the innocuous-sounding Journal for Historical Review)." The nature of Holocaust denial: What is Holocaust denial?, JPR report No. 3, 2000. Retrieved May 16, 2007.
    • "This books treats several of the myths that have made antisemitism so lethal... In addition to these historic myths, we also treat the new, maliciously manufactured myth of Holocaust denial, another groundless belief that is used to stir up Jew-hatred." Schweitzer, Frederick M. & Perry, Marvin. Anti-Semitism: myth and hate from antiquity to the present, Palgrave Macmillan, 2002, ISBN 0-312-16561-7, p. 3.
    • "One predictable strand of Arab Islamic antisemitism is Holocaust denial..." Schweitzer, Frederick M. & Perry, Marvin. Anti-Semitism: myth and hate from antiquity to the present, Palgrave Macmillan, 2002, ISBN 0-312-16561-7, p. 10.
    • "In part III we directly address the three major foundations upon which Holocaust denial rests, including...the claim that gas chambers and crematoria were used not for mass extermination but rather for delousing clothing and disposing of people who died of disease and overwork; ... the claim that the six million figure is an exaggeration by an order of magnitude—that about six hundred thousand, not six million, died at the hands of the Nazis; ... the claim that there was no intention on the part of the Nazis to exterminate European Jewry and that the Holocaust was nothing more than the unfortunate by-product of the vicissitudes of war." Michael Shermer and Alex Grobman. Denying History: : who Says the Holocaust Never Happened and why Do They Say It?, University of California Press, 2000, ISBN 0-520-23469-3, p. 3."
    • "Anti-Semitism, in the form of Holocaust denial, had been experienced by just one teacher when working in a Catholic school with large numbers of Polish and Croatian students." Geoffrey Short, Carole Ann Reed. Issues in Holocaust Education, Ashgate Publishing, 2004, ISBN 0-7546-4211-9, p. 71.
    • "Indeed, the task of organized antisemitism in the last decade of the century has been the establishment of Holocaust Revisionism – the denial that the Holocaust occurred." Stephen Trombley, "antisemitism", The Norton Dictionary of Modern Thought, W. W. Norton & Company, 1999, ISBN 0-393-04696-6, p. 40.
    • "After the Yom Kippur War an apparent reappearance of antisemitism in France troubled the tranquility of the community; there were several notorious terrorist attacks on synagogues, Holocaust revisionism appeared, and a new antisemitic political right tried to achieve respectability." Howard K. Wettstein, Diasporas and Exiles: Varieties of Jewish Identity, University of California Press, 2002, ISBN 0-520-22864-2, p. 169.
    • "Holocaust denial is a convenient polemical substitute for anti-semitism." Igounet, Valérie. "Holocaust denial is part of a strategy", Le Monde diplomatique, May 1998.
    • "Holocaust denial is a contemporary form of the classic anti-Semitic doctrine of the evil, manipulative and threatening world Jewish conspiracy." Introduction: Denial as Anti-Semitism, "Holocaust Denial: An Online Guide to Exposing and Combating Anti-Semitic Propaganda", Anti-Defamation League, 2001. Retrieved June 12, 2007.
    • "In a number of countries, in Europe as well as in the United States, the negation or gross minimization of the Nazi genocide of Jews has been the subject of books, essay and articles. Should their authors be protected by freedom of speech? The European answer has been in the negative: such writings are not only a perverse form of anti-semitism but also an aggression against the dead, their families, the survivors and society at large." Roger Errera, "Freedom of speech in Europe", in Georg Nolte, European and US Constitutionalism, Cambridge University Press, 2005, ISBN 0-521-85401-6, pp. 39–40.
    • "Particularly popular in Syria is Holocaust denial, another staple of Arab anti-Semitism that is sometimes coupled with overt sympathy for Nazi Germany." Efraim Karsh, Rethinking the Middle East, Routledge, 2003, ISBN 0-7146-5418-3, p. 104.
    • "Holocaust denial is a new form of anti-Semitism, but one that hinges on age-old motifs." Dinah Shelton, Encyclopedia of Genocide and Crimes Against Humanity, Macmillan Reference, 2005, p. 45.
    • "The stress on Holocaust revisionism underscored the new anti-Semitic agenda gaining ground within the Klan movement. Holocaust denial refurbished conspiratorial anti-Semitism. Who else but the Jews had the media power to hoodwink unsuspecting masses with one of the greatest hoaxes in history? And for what motive? To promote the claims of the illegitimate state of Israel by making non-Jews feel guilty, of course." Lawrence N. Powell, Troubled Memory: Anne Levy, the Holocaust, and David Duke's Louisiana, University of North Carolina Press, 2000, ISBN 0-8078-5374-7, p. 445.
    • "Since its inception...the Institute for Historical Review (IHR), a California-based Holocaust denial organization founded by Willis Carto of Liberty Lobby, has promoted the antisemitic conspiracy theory that Jews fabricated tales of their own genocide to manipulate the sympathies of the non-Jewish world." Antisemitism and Racism Country Reports: United States, Stephen Roth Institute, 2000. Retrieved May 17, 2007.
    • "The primary motivation for most deniers is anti-Semitism, and for them the Holocaust is an infuriatingly inconvenient fact of history. After all, the Holocaust has generally been recognized as one of the most terrible crimes that ever took place, and surely the very emblem of evil in the modern age. If that crime was a direct result of anti-Semitism taken to its logical end, then anti-Semitism itself, even when expressed in private conversation, is inevitably discredited among most people. What better way to rehabilitate anti-Semitism, make anti-Semitic arguments seem once again respectable in civilized discourse and even make it acceptable for governments to pursue anti-Semitic policies than by convincing the world that the great crime for which anti-Semitism was blamed simply never happened – indeed, that it was nothing more than a frame-up invented by the Jews, and propagated by them through their control of the media? What better way, in short, to make the world safe again for anti-Semitism than by denying the Holocaust?" Reich, Walter. "Erasing the Holocaust", The New York Times, July 11, 1993.
    • "There is now a creeping, nasty wave of anti-Semitism ... insinuating itself into our political thought and rhetoric ... The history of the Arab world ... is disfigured ... by a whole series of outmoded and discredited ideas, of which the notion that the Jews never suffered and that the Holocaust is an obfuscatory confection created by the elders of Zion is one that is acquiring too much, far too much, currency." Edward Said, "A Desolation, and They Called it Peace" in Those who forget the past, Ron Rosenbaum (ed), Random House 2004, p. 518.
  2. ^ Conspiracy theory:
    • "While appearing on the surface as a rather arcane pseudo-scholarly challenge to the well-established record of Nazi genocide during the Second World War, Holocaust denial serves as a powerful conspiracy theory uniting otherwise disparate fringe groups..." Introduction: Denial as Anti-Semitism, "Holocaust Denial: An Online Guide to Exposing and Combating Anti-Semitic Propaganda", Anti-Defamation League, 2001. Retrieved June 12, 2007.
    • "Before discussing how Holocaust denial constitutes a conspiracy theory, and how the theory is distinctly American, it is important to understand what is meant by the term 'Holocaust denial.'" Mathis, Andrew E. Holocaust Denial, a Definition, The Holocaust History Project, July 2, 2004. Retrieved December 18, 2006.
    • "Since its inception...the Institute for Historical Review (IHR), a California-based Holocaust denial organization founded by Willis Carto of Liberty Lobby, has promoted the antisemitic conspiracy theory that Jews fabricated tales of their own genocide to manipulate the sympathies of the non-Jewish world." Antisemitism and Racism Country Reports: United States, Stephen Roth Institute, 2000. Retrieved May 17, 2007.

POV

edit
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

As per this edit [2] some synthesis and bias were removed (the "propoganda aims removals were moved to the background of the main page as it sets up why it was founded, not really a controversy). Furthermore, every source on there for controversy is from a euro-centric viewpoint which is POV.

the passage sourcing al jazeera for its founding has no mention of press tv whatsoever.Lihaas (talk) 20:20, 23 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

Synthesis in edits

edit
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
  1. This edit [3] lists the said wikilink is not mentioned in the source, thus i have removed it
  2. [4] mentions the Press TV comment on the "walls of auschwitz" as an allegation of antisemitism -- the above post shows no affirmation that this antisemitism. However, maybe the posting of such an article can be mention in a "controversial articles" section.
  3. Finally [5] the edit summary "logical that a western encyclopedia uses western sources" doesnt not validate the addition because it is unencyclopaedic to show such biases (this is not some FDD/Heritage Foundation piece) and the said encyclopaedia's rules mention WP:Bias. Furthermore the 3 refs dont' correspond with what is written, except Harry's Place although what this credibility as an WP:RS?
I've put up the POV tag to indicate controversy so it can be discussed.Lihaas (talk) 11:29, 22 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

Move discussion in progress

edit
Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Criticisms of socialism which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RM bot 08:45, 23 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV

edit
Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:

This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:
  1. There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
  2. It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
  3. In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:15, 9 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

Article really needs improvement

edit
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

“For British journalist Nick Cohen the station is "a platform for the full fascist conspiracy theory of supernatural Jewish power" “...for commentator Douglas Murray it is the "Iranian government’s propaganda channel". Nick who? Douglas who? Somebody’s negative hostile viewpoint on Press TV does not, by itself, cast Press TV in a controversial light. Controversies should relate to specific acts of commission or omission carried out by Press TV itself that violate generally accepted standards. Citing hostile, third-party views and presenting them as grounds for controversy is highly inappropriate. If the Iranian government described CNN as being a US propaganda mouthpiece, would that automatically present a controversy for CNN? There has to be a clear distinction between third-party opinions and direct acts of commission and/or omission. A few of more of such irrelevant, hostile third-party opinions are given:

“The UK newspaper The Guardian described Press TV as "the controversial 24-hour news channel funded by the Iranian government." “A British-Iranian columnist for the Evening Standard has called for Press TV's London bureau to be shut down” Once again, personal opinions irrelevant to the subject matter i.e. press tv controversies

“Press TV allegedly promotes the development of the Iranian nuclear program” Use of the word “allegedly” renders this argument weak. Besides, what is so controversial about a state funded broadcaster reporting on the nuclear program of its government?

“Opposition political figures such as Mir-Hossein Mousavi and Mehdi Karroubi have not appeared on Press TV since the June 2009 presidential election” Agreed, a potential source of controversy. However, not appearing is not the same as being denied appearance. Besides, the source of this quote is the American-government funded VOA, hardly a non-hostile source.

“Press TV has been criticized for brazenly promoting Iran's line overseas, often at the expense of the truth” Media organizations have their biases and there is nothing wrong with that. Furthermore, the cited source says nothing that comes close to the above quotation. The source says “there’s lots of information, but remarkably little content”. Nowhere does it say “at the expense of truth”.

“In a post-election "information offensive," reports the Associated Press, Press TV and Al-Alam have "churned out a blitz of policy statements, negotiating points and news breaks as the main soapboxes for Iran's public diplomacy” And so what?

Allegations of bias and error. As stated, media outlets are entitled to their biases. In addition, they regularly make errors so why should an error in a report on Lebanon be an issue of controversy? The only real controversy in this section is the case involving Maziar Bahari.

Other problems with the article are quite hilarious: Amanda Lindhout, who had worked for press TV was kidnapped and somehow this is a controversy for press tv? Tariq Ramadan’s termination from his position at Rotterdam University was something that cast the university in a controversial light and not press TV. The Quran burning issue could be regarded as a genuine controversy but the section heading, titled “suppression”, is deceptive. As the article states, it is the Jammu and Kashmir Government that suppressed a Press TV footage, rather than Press TV suppressing anything.

“Press TV Afghanistan correspondent Fayez Khurshid alleged on Press TV in October 2007 that he was threatened by some armed men in Kabul” So??

"An editorial in The Spectator criticized Conway's decision to join Press TV, asking the rhetorical question, "What on earth possesses someone like Derek Conway to hook up with an outfit like Press TV?" Mr. A self righteously criticizes Mr. B for joining C. Yet somehow, a controversy around C erupts because of Mr.A’s criticism? --Campingtrip (talk) 17:59, 15 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Press TV controversies. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:01, 30 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Press TV controversies. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:06, 25 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Press TV controversies. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:01, 26 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Press TV controversies. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:03, 2 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

= Unnecessary POV fork =

edit

I see no reason for the content here to be separate from Press TV. Even a section within an article entitled "controversies" is difficult to regard as neutral; a whole article dedicated to negative aspects of a topic clearly doesn't meet the standard of a neutral point of view. The information here should be presented in a neutral way in the context provided by the main article. 51.7.34.203 (talk) 19:49, 29 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

Struck edit by long term sock. Doug Weller talk 17:51, 30 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

Jeremy Corbyn

edit
Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Below is a logical and sourced argument for why the line "Future Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn accepted up to £20,000 for appearances on Press TV, and was paid five times for appearances on Press TV 2009 and 2012" should not appear on the article. If anyone thinks any of my premises are incorrect or any of my conclusions don't follow please let me know:

  • a) the parliament.gov.uk website contains an accurate recording of what is in the Register of Members' Financial Interests (https://www.parliament.uk/mps-lords-and-offices/standards-and-financial-interests/parliamentary-commissioner-for-standards/registers-of-interests/register-of-members-financial-interests/)
  • b) if an item is in the parliament.gov.uk's record of the Register of Members' Financial Interests it is in the Register of Members' Financial Interests
  • c) if an item is not in the parliament.gov.uk's record of the Register of Members' Financial Interests it is not in the Register of Members' Financial Interests
  • d) if an item is highlighted in yellow in the parliament.gov.uk's record of the Register of Members' Financial Interests it is a new item
  • e) if an item is not highlighted in yellow in the parliament.gov.uk's record of the Register of Members' Financial Interests it is not a new item
  • f) there is only one item in parliament.gov.uk's record of the Register of Members' Financial Interests for Jeremy Corbyn working for Press TV highlighted in yellow (https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm/cmregmem/090902/090902.pdf)
  • g) the other items in parliament.gov.uk's record of the Register of Members' Financial Interests for Jeremy Corbyn working for Press TV are not in yellow and therefore they are not new items
  • h) the one item in parliament.gov.uk's record of the Register of Members' Financial Interests for Jeremy Corbyn working for Press TV highlighted in yellow states he was paid up to £5,000
  • i) there are no other items other items in parliament.gov.uk's record of the Register of Members' Financial Interests for Jeremy Corbyn working for Press TV that are in yellow
  • j) therefore there is only one record of Jeremy Corbyn receiving up to £5,000 from Press TV in the Register of Members' Financial Interests
  • k) if there there is only one record of Jeremy Corbyn receiving up to £5,000 from Press IV in the Register of Members' Financial Interests there is not a record of him receiving up to £20,000 from Press TV in the Register of Members' Financial Interests
  • l) therefore it is factually incorrect to say Jeremy Corbyn was "Future Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn accepted up to £20,000 for appearances on Press TV, and was paid five times for appearances on Press TV 2009 and 2012"
  • m) factually incorrect information should not be wikipedia pages
  • n) the line "Future Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn accepted up to £20,000 for appearances on Press TV, and was paid five times for appearances on Press TV 2009 and 2012" is factually incorrect
  • o) therefore the line "Future Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn accepted up to £20,000 for appearances on Press TV, and was paid five times for appearances on Press TV 2009 and 2012" should not be on this wikipedia page.
  • p) therefore I have removed the line "Future Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn accepted up to £20,000 for appearances on Press TV, and was paid five times for appearances on Press TV 2009 and 2012" from this wikipedia page.

Thank you 83.218.151.178 (talk) 10:38, 26 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Press_TV_controversies&oldid=1203181641"