Wikipedia

Talk:Question Time British National Party controversy/Archive 1

< Talk:Question Time British National Party controversy
Latest comment: 15 years ago by Furtled in topic The Poppy Issue
Archive 1Archive 2

Structural and other problems

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

There are still problems with this piece.

  • I've slapped a POV query on the questions section. I had already suggested that questions should appear with their answers, or not at all. I'm in favour of not at all, but it's not neutral POV to include a question and not the answer given.
  • There are two section heads entitled 'reaction.' To those familiar with the piece, it's clear that one relates to reaction before the show, and one to reactions to the content of the show. But looking through this for the first time, that wouldn't be clear and is offputting.
  • The level of focus is still too detailed. Even for a highly motivated reader, there are just too many examples and the writing is not sufficiently engaging to carry a reader.


The complexity of the article makes it hard to see the woods for the trees. At the highest level, the story could be stated like this:

  • the BBC controversially invited the BNP leader to be a guest on Question Time.
  • recently increased levels of electoral support for the BNP were the BBC's justification for this.
  • rhe BBC argued that it was for parliament to keep Griffin off air, not the BBC.
  • hence, the broadcast revitalised a debate on censorship and the respective roles of government and the BBC.

This is a summary, obviously, but I think the story as it stands isn't clear. It's an obsessively detailed account of every turn, but the essential clarity just isn't there.

I've made inroads here. For example, I've shortened descriptions of the BNP and Question Time. Both are adequately dealt with using Wikilinks. But there's a lot of work ahead if this article is to reach anything like the desired standard.Astral Highway (talk) 19:29, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Controversy

Latest comment: 15 years ago12 comments4 people in discussion

The title is pov and controversy should be avoided in the title, article requires remaming. Off2riorob (talk) 09:19, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

How is it POV? I don't think you will have a problem sourcing the fact that the appearance is controversial, it is hardly a fringe view. MickMacNee (talk) 11:10, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
As far as I know it is a weasel word in the tiitle,
and what is the controversy? Off2riorob (talk) 11:48, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I would say that the controversy in this case is in fact the controversy..? I suggest that a better title would be .... Reactions to the BNP appearing on Question time. or something along that line, I have added a remplate until this issue is resolved. Off2riorob (talk) 11:56, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I am totally bemused how anybody could ask 'Where is the controversy?' if they actually read the article. But anyway, if you want to add tags to what will be a high traffic article, please get better consensus for doing so than just your own opinion, because I for one don't see how it is needed. MickMacNee (talk) 12:49, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
It is recommended that controversial is not used in the names of articles, it is leading, tabloidy, well, just not very encyclopediac. It is the reaction the is the story. Off2riorob (talk) 15:41, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
That's all well and good (and given the amount of controversy articles, not accurate), but you won't find a single tabloid source in this article, and as you can see already, nobody yet shares your opinion that it is not appropriate in this case. MickMacNee (talk) 17:28, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Even though this issue is controversial would it not be better to use a neutral title e.g. BNP appearance on Question Time? As Off2riorob has pointed out using controversy is immediately POV and should be avoided. Smartse (talk) 19:06, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Oh come on. What's the first thing you think of when you read a title like BNP appearance on Question Time? You immediately think, ooh, why is there an article on this on Wikipedia? - because it was controversial! There is no blanket ban on the use of 'controversy' in titles, it can be used if it is so obviously appropriate to describe why the article exists, which is plain as day if you read it. Look anywhere for other articles if you don't believe me. The suggested renames are not an improvement, they certainly wouldn't do anything to make the article more neutral. MickMacNee (talk) 19:24, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
If something was controversial you would not need to add it to the title to explain why it exists, the controversy surrounding it will already be enough without adding controversy to the title, reaction to the appearance is actually exactly what the article is about, read it and as you do ask yourself when you read all the comments in it, what is this comment? It is the reaction to the appearance of Griffin on the tv show, that is exactly what the article is, adding controversy to a title is leading and tabloidy, it is in this case not pov but is still not good to have it in the title, imo. Off2riorob (talk) 13:12, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
I can't see what is objectionable or POV about the title of this article. Its factually correct to say that Griffin's invitation and appearance on the programme is controversial. I think my only concern really is use of 'far-right' to describe the BNP. Most of their policies are distinctly socialist. I'm not sure you can reasonably pigeon-hole such a party with this title. Parrot of Doom 13:29, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Talk:British National Party has this FAQ:
Q: Is the BNP a far-right party? Is the BNP a fascist party?
A: In almost all academic literature, including that leading up to the present day, the BNP's policies are classified as far-right, and its ideologies as fascist or neo-fascist. The BNP do deny aspects of both of these labels – citing in particular a left-wing or socialist approach to certain aspects of social policy, and rejection of certain tenets of fascism such as the single-party state. These caveats to such labels must be acknowledged in the article, but appropriate weight should be assigned to the fact that many academics find these to be the most suitable labels to use even when taking the BNP's response to them into account.
Therefore using far-right in the lead is probably the simplest and most succinct way of describing them. Smartse (talk) 14:19, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Is this the only ever edition of Question Time that has had no questions based on actual news events? Worth a mention. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.165.123.230 (talk • contribs) 20:58, October 22, 2009 

==

Undue

Latest comment: 15 years ago7 comments5 people in discussion

Is this really needed as a seperate artciel, this is one event. this should be merged with tghe BNP page.Slatersteven (talk) 14:38, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Bit long already isn't it?--Streona (talk) 20:56, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

It's a good job there's no paper shortage then eh?. It's easier to start big and trim it down later, than trying to expand articles after the event. MickMacNee (talk) 21:06, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
The article looks like a clear example of articles we shouldn't have per WP:NOTNEWS. Notability unlikely in the grand scheme of things and something that could be covered just as well in the BNP page. Valenciano (talk) 21:48, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
This controversy was in no way shape or form 'routine news coverage'. WP:NOT#NEWS is barely relevant. You might be thinking of Wikipedia:Recentism, but that is just an essay, and can be freely ignored by anybody. MickMacNee (talk) 23:37, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Agreed. It was the main story all of yesterday, every British paper is running with it on its front page, has made headlines around the world, and in the hours around the programme, the following were all trending on twitter: "bbcqt", "BBC", "KKK", "Bonnie Greer", "Jack Straw", "Dick Griffin", and "Jan Moir". There was also a protest, which involved people breaking into the BBC. Not to mention that it covers a wide variety of important topics, such as "free speech", "impartiality", "censorship", "racism" etc etc. Hardly just "news". This was far more important than balloon boy. 86.165.7.83 (talk) 06:36, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
I was not aware that being more important then something else thats unimportant (very much a news of today affair that will fade into obscurity) was a criteria for something not being undue. WP:NOTNEWS seems to be fairly appropriate, whilst its true that many subjects are coverd they are also coverd by the BNP secion or the sections on "free speech", "impartiality", "censorship", "racism" ect ect ect. This does not represent some change or mile stone in these debates (beyond the fact Mr Griffi appeared, that is the proper place for this on his page). Is this program historicaly notable? I do not belive so. By the way how much coverage has this recived outside the UK? can we have some links?Slatersteven (talk) 18:54, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Current event

Latest comment: 15 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

I've added a current event tag to the article, this seems sensible as the first sentence states it is "ongoing" Smartse (talk) 14:16, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I've removed it. This is a common mistake, but the template usage instructions are quite clear, it is only to be used in the event that an article is getting hundreds of edits, such as a celebrity death, it is not merely a 'this is an article about a current event' tag - that is depreciated by the very fact the opening line does say ongoing. It may be needed when the show airs, but we'll see. MickMacNee (talk) 14:21, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
So the current event template should not be used for current events? Shouldn't the template be redefined then rather than our use of the English language? Besides how many edits exactly does it take to make a current event by your definition? Majts (talk) 23:19, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
The guidelines for the template are here. Read them. This has got nothing to do with my interpretation of the English language. MickMacNee (talk) 23:35, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
It should not be used on an article of a recently deceased person, there is a recent death tag for that. Okmjuhb (talk) 23:28, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Possible sources

Latest comment: 15 years ago8 comments2 people in discussion

APK say that you love me 18:24, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Good finds, but they are probably all just picking up the AP wires saying the same things. I will look for any specific cases of international reactions/opinions in them though. Another one:

MickMacNee (talk) 19:12, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

The news.com.au article is the same as the Agence France-Presse link. You're probably right regarding AP wires; I'm just trying to provide examples of international coverage. I'll keep looking, but in the meantime, here's another BBC link - "Cardiff protest at BNP appearance". APK say that you love me 20:04, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

APK say that you love me 20:33, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

The Guardian News blog published a timeline for today, up to 9.50pm see here.(archive) MickMacNee (talk) 21:11, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

APK say that you love me 03:01, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

More, inc some early sunday column opinons

MickMacNee (talk) 22:52, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

APK because, he says, it's true 15:01, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Violence of protest

Latest comment: 15 years ago10 comments3 people in discussion

Should the fact the organisers have mainted the protests will be non violent be removed. I bases this on what i have gleened from watching the news. Protestors broke past police cordon. 3 protestors have been arested. 3 police officers have been injured. Sounds violent to me. Please do not think I am a BNP supporter I find them disgusting. Stupidstudent (talk) 19:01, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

no. The article is hopefully clear on who said what when, and what happened when. No need to start changing history. MickMacNee (talk) 19:08, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

It's not changing history I am watching news coverage just now. It looks pretty violent to me. And am sure the 3 police officers didn't get injured in a non violent way. Some inapropriatley placed banna skins perhaps Stupidstudent (talk) 19:15, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

If you go and erase what people said in the past based on what happens later, you are changing history. MickMacNee (talk) 19:25, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok ok. Perhaps erase was the wrong word but if somebody has said something that has been proven to be lies we should rightly point this out. Stupidstudent (talk) 19:28, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

6 arrested including ABH & assault PC but the footage I saw indicated much more brute force applied to the demonstrators. Whether those arrested will be charged is another matter & if they are will be sub judice.--Streona (talk) 20:59, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I think your points been disproved by the fact 3 police officers have been injured and some protestors broke in to the BBC. Stupidstudent (talk) 22:09, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I truly am not sure what you want changed/added. The article is clear on what was said, and what happened, regarding the (non) violence of planned protests. MickMacNee (talk) 23:51, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
thats fair it does now. It didnt at the origional time of my first comment. Am happy the article now reflects this and will let it drop. Stupidstudent (talk) 02:37, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

One of the arrests was on a warrant not directly connected with the protest and none of the three police officers "injured" required hospital treatment.--Streona (talk) 08:46, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

The Poppy Issue

Latest comment: 15 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

I noticed Nick Griffin was wearing a poppy on the programme despite an open appeal from the royal British Legion asking him to cease wearing them - should this be mentioned?

"An open letter to Nick Griffin, Chairman of the BNP and MEP for North West England" Furtled! (talk) 00:38, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't really follow the RBL's logic. They claim that "It is vital that everyone ... know that we will not allow our independence to be undermined or our reputation impaired by being closely associated with any one political party", then turn around and pick on a single party. Everyone on Question Time was wearing the poppy.F (talk) 01:43, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
I think they were more objecting to his wearing it durring his election campaign at a time of year popies arent ussually worn. Thats what could undermine there reputation and might even be taken by some to be an endorsment. I don't think the letter is suggesting he completly cease wearing it just not when campaigning for election. On a more frivolous note what was with Baroness Warsi's redicoulously masive poppy? Stupidstudent (talk) 02:43, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Okay that makes sense. And you can actually buy those enormous poppies from the RBL guys! Furtled! (talk) 12:41, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

The fact of the RBL's appeal to the BNP is quite separate to the reasoning behind their making it. It appears that the RBL simply find the BNP offensive.--Streona (talk) 10:05, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Rename

Latest comment: 15 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion

This article quite clearly needs a rename. At the moment it reads like a tabloid news headline. And as far as I'm aware, articles should be titled similarly to what the subject was called in the media. A better name would be something like Appearance of Nick Griffin on Question Time. 86.165.7.83 (talk) 06:27, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I should also point out that I also disagree with the use of the word "controversy" in the title, like some above. If the subject of an article truly is controversial, then a read of the article will make that clear. The reader should not be told that a subject is "controversial". That is for them to decide. 86.165.7.83 (talk) 07:42, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
On the use of controversy in the title -- the broadsheets are virtually all leading in this way. It would be difficult to find support for the argument that there was no controversy. Hence controversy is neutral POV.--77.101.165.126 (talk) 11:20, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Appearance of Nick Griffin on Question Time would be a better title, I think. Parrot of Doom 15:08, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Its nonsensical. Where have you ever seen a similarly worded title around the pedia? It is a total misconception that a rename is required under any policy, and not liking the word 'controversy' is not going to fly as a justification. MickMacNee (talk) 15:10, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
No need to be quite so dramatic, I wasn't having a go :) The title does however restrict the article to the controversy. That's fine if that's what you want, but this is a developing story and a name change may be necessary at some point. Good work on the article though. Parrot of Doom 09:02, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Ref in the article

Latest comment: 15 years ago22 comments5 people in discussion

this comment in the lede..

Due to the party's fringe policies and its discriminatory membership conditions which are based on ethnicity, it is not universally considered to be a legitimate party.

Where is it ref,d, could you show me the link please, Off2riorob (talk) 13:40, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

To me it looks a bit opinionated and vague, expressions like the parties fringe policy and membership conditions based on ethnicity this is no longer true, and not universally is very vague. and the BNP is a legitimate party, it should be specified who says that and if it is correct and if the people saying it have any true understanding of what a legitamate party is, to explain this whole vague sentence would take a lot of detail, add it would be excessive for the lede, it is opinionated and does not belong in the lede. Off2riorob (talk) 13:46, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
The issue of its legality under the Race Relations Act (which is still an issue at the current time), and their fringe views, is central to the whole controversy. It would not exist otherwise. This is basically self-evident in practically all of the references in the article, and will be supported by any one picked at random, so demanding a single quote before these aspects can be mentioned in the lede is a red herring (and would actually be a distortion by promoting one person's views over everybody elses). It is a perfectly accurate summary, per wp:lede. The only thing I would countenance is a rewording of 'it is not universally considered to be a legitimate party', to something along the lines of 'therefore it is disputed whether the party merits equal coverage', which is again self evident. MickMacNee (talk) 14:00, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Fringe...it is not needed.and pushes an opinion.take it out and you have Due to the parties policies...it is not considered to be a legitamate party...it is so rubbish, who says it is not a legitamte party, it 100 per cent is a legitimate party, the bnp has seats and everything, the comment is awful opiniated and unexplained and should be toned down or removed. Off2riorob (talk) 14:07, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
What is a fringe policy? Off2riorob (talk) 14:09, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Who says the party is not legitimate? How about the Courts a few days ago? Which other party do you know that has had to suspend taking on new members while it rewrites its illegal constitution? 'Fringe' is supported by all the sources, it pushes nothing. What is a fringe policy? A policy that is not supported by the mainstream parties. You won't find any other party supporting the idea of a British aboriginial race, upon which idea policy decisions should be made, for a very good reason, because it is an utterly fringe view. MickMacNee (talk) 14:15, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
As I see it, there is no contradiction. It is a political party which has members, and an organisation, has fought elections in the past and will continue to do so (in all likelihood) and two seats in a supra-national parliament. It has a constitution, albeit one with membership clauses which have been ruled illegal. Ohconfucius ¡digame! 06:15, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
The bnp is legitimate, it was asked by the equalities people to change its membership conditions, this was due to either a chellange or a change in the law, the party is legitamate and was legitimate. Fringe is a matter of opinion, the green party and the liberal could equally be described as fringe, it is also 2 plus 2 equals 4, due to this the party is considered this. I also want to say to you, that if another good faith editor wants a small change in an article, discussion is not the process of telling him he is wrong and that you are right, it is editors with different opinions as regards content and looking for a solution that is acceptable to both parties. Off2riorob (talk) 15:16, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
A poor comment, especially in the lede is a comment that will cause unstability in the article as it will a constant bone of contention and a comment that will be repeatedly removed. Off2riorob (talk) 15:18, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
You are the one making assumptions about what constitutes legitimacy while ignoring the sources, and you are the one who is trying to impose your own opinion of what is a fringe party while again ignoring the sources. But anyway, you already have my opinion, if you think you are right, then please seek a third opionion, or wait for further comment. I won't do what I would normaly do in such a dispute and ask you to find any contrary reliable sources to support the fact that the BNP is universally believed to be a legitimate party, or does not have fringe views, because I know it would be a waste of your time. MickMacNee (talk) 17:12, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
I am supporting the removal of this content after it was removed by an ip, your reverted the ip, I removed the content again supplying a reason and you reverted again as you disagree with me and you disagree with the ip. I agree with that ip. I asked you to supply a citation for this comment in the lede and you said it is in the article, I am still waiting to see the citation and when you present it, I can add a rebuttal to balance the comment. Please provide your citation that supports this comment in the lede. Supporting a good well balanced article is in no way a waste of my time. The comment in the lede is opinionated and given no opportunity for rebuttal. Off2riorob (talk) 17:23, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Please review the comment again...Due to the party's fringe policies and its discriminatory membership conditions which are based on ethnicity, it is not universally considered to be a legitimate party. and consider rewriting it in a less opinionated way. Off2riorob (talk) 17:26, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
I reverted an unexplained removal of valid content, I do not consider that a valid expression of a third opinion, beyond 'I don't like it', so no dice. I've already replied about sources backing up the text, you are now deliberately ignoring me by repeating yourself. If you have contrary sources, by all means add them to the main body of the article, and then, if they represent the opinion of significant reliable sources, you can counterbalance the summary in the lede. If it is going to come from a biased or unrelaible source/s, you can pretty much forget it. MickMacNee (talk) 17:32, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Please provide a cite for this comment in the lede. Off2riorob (talk) 17:35, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
It is uncited and unsupported, opinionated and a poor comment that in no way belongs in the lede, again..who? says they are not legitimate? Are these people that say that respected commentators? and who exactly are they? Off2riorob (talk) 17:38, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Have a look at the results of this google search for who says the bnp are not legitimate party [1] you will find there no one of any substance. Off2riorob (talk) 17:59, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Here also a search..are the bnp a legitimate party [2] nothing..a hairdresser from birmingham and a milkman from ipswish, no one of any notability, please provide citations to support this comment from the lede. Off2riorob (talk) 18:02, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
I have added a fact tag and a npov template and a rewrite the lede template until this is resolved, I hope you will be able to respect my good faith standpoint and not revert. Off2riorob (talk) 18:10, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
I am minded to remove the npv template. The discussion on neutrality centres on the statement discussing whether or not the BNP is a legitimate party / a fringe party. The article as a whole, which accurately describes the lead up to as well as the consequences of Nick Griffin's appearnance on Question time, seems to a decent factual account. I propose, therefore, to eliminate the troublesome line, which, it seeems to me, is editorialising somewhat. The article stands perfectly well without it. Guys, keep fighting over this issue and the article will become next to useless.Astral Highway (talk) 18:17, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for commenting, if the troublesome line is removed the templates can go, they are only there is respect of the disputed comment. Off2riorob (talk) 18:23, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

better

this is better but this...

This was the first time the BNP had been represented on the programme. The decision to include Griffin - the public figure most associated with racism in Britain[citation needed]- sparked public and political debate in the United Kingdom. At the heart of the matter was the BBC's public broadcasting mandate,

is still a small issue..look at it again... this he public figure most associated with racism in Britain is dodgy opinion and if you remove it you are left with a quality encyclopedic comment ....this....


This was the first time the BNP had been represented on the programme. The decision to include Griffin sparked public and political debate in the United Kingdom. At the heart of the matter was the BBC's public broadcasting mandate, ....

that is a simple clear encyclopedic addition. Off2riorob (talk) 18:33, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

And even better, I've now included a direct quotation at length from Mark Thompson, director general of the BBC. This explains the official line without speculation.77.101.165.126 (talk) 11:15, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

The top 5 paper picture

Latest comment: 15 years ago17 comments3 people in discussion

Is this normal? To add headlines front page pictures to represent something like this? Off2riorob (talk) 18:43, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

This image is non free and adds nothing of value to the article imo. I would say it is a mistake to add this, add the previous picture was more neutral. ::All of these papers are opinionated, why we should add this picture is beyond me. Is anyone watching experienced in media images and copyright positions, please comment regarding this image. Off2riorob (talk) 18:57, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
The headline reactions to the appearance are discussed in the article, as is the more general issue of the public image of the BNP in general as a result of this appearance, making the image the subject of critical commentary, satisfying the non-free rules. Would you remove article text describing the headline reaction based on the fact it is reflecting an opinion? I sincerely hope not. MickMacNee (talk) 19:08, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your comment, as you have created and uploaded and added this picture to the artice I am looking for uninvolved opinion. Off2riorob (talk) 19:10, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I've opened this then. MickMacNee (talk) 19:16, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, thanks, perhaps in the wrong place as the images non free status is not my only issue, or perhaps not even my major issue, but better than nothing, I was going to and still reserve the opportunity to take the picture to another board without accusations of forum shopping, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 19:23, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
To make my position clear, please see my original comment that opened this thread.....Is this normal? To add headlines front page pictures to represent something like this? Off2riorob (talk) 19:24, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
To simply discuss its merits rather than nfcc, feel free to raise it wherever you like to achieve consensus in the normal way, that would not be forum shopping by any means. As long as you provide a link here to those other places, and ideally, direct people here to discuss it rather than distributing the debate, there's no problem that I can see. MickMacNee (talk) 19:36, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, I have an edit sum of...requesting comments in regard to image change perhaps this will help attract comments, I myself have no desperate desire to revert your alteration and although I disagree with it, it is not a desperate thing that requires immediate reverting. Off2riorob (talk) 19:42, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
It's not normal & it lowers the tone. Rothorpe (talk) 19:44, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
I agree with you, adding the front pages of what are maybe that highest selling papers in England does not make those front pages any more encyclopedic. Or, any less opinionated, they are not encyclopedic in any way, the front pages of these newspapers are designed to attract peoples eye to sell more of their papers, and you are right, a picture of them all together like that has no place in an encyclopedia, that is what this wikipedia is. Off2riorob (talk) 19:52, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
I wasn't aware Wikipedia had a 'tone'. MickMacNee (talk) 19:59, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps that is the issue, wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Off2riorob (talk) 20:01, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I've moved the paper image down to 'Reception', and restored Griffin to his former position, maybe that will make the image appear more relevant. MickMacNee (talk) 20:25, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Ah, yes, much better. Rothorpe (talk) 20:29, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
yes, good edit. Off2riorob (talk) 20:33, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
The picture that is used is still not much better, it is not really reflective of the title of the article, a shot from the show would be best, for me I would also remove the picture that is there now, no picture is better than a wrong un. Off2riorob (talk) 20:44, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Media/politician bias

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Maybe a section should be added about the reaction to the far-right Nick Griffin appearance vs the non-reaction to the appearance of far left/Muslim hate preachers and how this shows an obvious bias amongst newspapers and politicians —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.20.123.101 (talk) 23:48, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Relevance of membership suspension

Latest comment: 15 years ago9 comments5 people in discussion

OK, we're edit warring, so regarding this, I cannot see how the fact that the membership of the party was suspended, and the illegality of the constitution had not been resolved at the time of QT, even though it had been ruled illegal (Griffen had a 10 day ultimatum, and the deadline to meet that was to come after QT), is not relevant. All of this would have been totally relevant to the audience and viewers (infact there were comments about it many times during the programme), and not only that, it is mentioned by the the BNP when they claim to have registered 3,000 new members thanks to QT (but, until it is actually resolved, they cannot sign anybody up). If its left out, you are simply leaving a massive piece of background out of the article. MickMacNee (talk) 05:55, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Its certainly relevant and should be used, especially as questions about this were asked during the programme. Parrot of Doom 09:06, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
There seems to be an admission that the BNP with deliberately given a hard time by the BBC on the show, where Griffin had to deal with more than the usual share of BNP issues. We should not be discussing all the issues, as they are not directly related to this controversy, otherwise we would want to develop the BNP's Holocaust denial, opinions of Winston Churchill, Jack Straw's father's wartime imprisonment as a conscientious objector, racism and anti-Semitism, comments on Islam, the BNP relationship with American white nationalist David Duke... That some clauses of the BNP constitution were declared illegal a couple of days before Griffin's appearance is just a chance fluke, a coincidence, and it would be improper to make anything of it beyond a very brief mention of the simple fact of that illegality. Ohconfucius ¡digame! 14:35, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
You missed the point. Without knowing the basic facts over this central issue, you leave the reader wondering, especially if they are watching the show wondering at the vaious times it is mentioned. For example, your version simply implies the party was illegal, and that related to all the arguments about legitimacy. This is not the same as wanting to add context for everything that was discussed such as nick griffins dad's wartime service etc. For exmaple. I for one have no clue what happens if they don't change it after the deadline (seems an awfully short time to do it if they are going to consult members), or if there is an avanue of appeal for the bnp. MickMacNee (talk) 17:19, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
There is no real avenue of appeal, the bnp did not even resist the case and publically accepted the decision and closed membership until the new legal document is written and presented for the members, the leaders will clearly be recommending the new constitution to the members and they will vote to accept, if they vote against the new constitution, the possibility of an extension of time to re-present it the party will be possible, ultimately if it is not accepted the party will be declared illegal and more than likely cease to exist. Off2riorob (talk) 17:29, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

In truth you can not continue to call them a whites only party, as they are no longer accepting members under that policy and have removed the constitution and complied with the ruling, to call them still under these conditions is wrong and accuses them of breaking the ruling that they have publicaly accepted. They used to be a whites only party but after a ruling by the ..equality commision they have removed and rejected this condition of membership and are in the process of writing a new constitution in line with legal responsibilities.. Off2riorob (talk) 17:34, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Presumably they will retain their existing membership (unless some leave) until the lifting of the freeze on recruitment which will be after the recalled court hearing in January 2010. Whether or not an organisation is legally constituted has not been an issue as to whether an individual should or should not be invited to QT until now. It is relevent as a point of controversy raised by Peter Hain, although the merits of the issue may be quite limited - as I would suggest is the whole issue of the rights of aspiring black members of the BNP. Judge Collins commented that he could not see a long queue forming as yet.--Streona (talk) 10:00, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Straw poll

Ohconfucius is determined to have this detail removed, and has removed it again here. Clearly given the past edits of the article, and comments here, people other than me think it is relevant and should be in, so in the interests of settling it once and for all, I ask people here and now, to simply state yes or no as to whether they think that the fact that after it was ruled to be illegal on Oct 15, it is relevant to this article to state that the BNP accepted this ruling, and at the time Question Time was recorded, the membership was suspended, pending the drawing up and approval of a new constitution. MickMacNee (talk) 02:44, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Let's shorten this, please

Latest comment: 15 years ago26 comments4 people in discussion

The article in its present form is far too long. Compare the article, for example, an event of recognised, enduring global significance - the bay of pigs invasion/ cuban missile crisis:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bay_of_Pigs_Invasion

This is much shorter. The BNP leader appearing one British terrestrial TV one evening in 2009 is nowhere near as historically significant and will, after a few weeks, become relatively less interesting. Indeed, the issues behind the story (role of BBC vs parliament, censorship) have already come to the fore, and the story itself has already receded as a focus.

I think we really need to pull back the focus and make this far more encyclopaedic. The level of detail here is unmanageable at present.

I propose starting to deal with this over the next few days. Comments, in the meantime, please?

Astral Highway (talk) 13:38, 24 October 2009 (UTC)


You really shouldn't use other articles as a guide for length. Let's face it, there is very little enduring significance in, oh, let's say the TV show Lost, but that doesn't mean we should start cutting out vast chunks of the article to make it shorter than an article on French Gothic architcecture in the 1600s. Maybe instead you should concentrate on expanding the Bay of Pigs article? -mattbuck (Talk) 14:54, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks Matt. Please don't get me wrong, but I find this a deliberately egregious argument. Lost is a TV drama with a complicated plot. Readers might look for some of that detail. It's not comparable to a current event where the significance isn't in the detail at all. The BNP leader's appearance was highly significant, but ephemeral, and there are rather straightforward ways of saying what was important about it. I strongly doubt that ther current length fits at all well with an encylopaedia entry. Please don't waste your energy counselling me on which articles to edit, as I already have a clear idea of how best to use my time. Thanks.Astral Highway (talk) 16:24, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
I strongly object to any shortening of the article based on size alone, or any subjective ideas of how 'relatively important' it is/was. WP:NOTPAPER is a top level policy for a reason. The summary lead section is fine for any reader who really isn't interested in the detail, either now or in five years time, but do not presume to know what other people might or might not think is worthy of inclusion. Frankly, there is not a settled community view of this sort of thing, it is part of the general screw up that Wikipedia doesn't know what to do with current events generally, and the failure of wikinews to take on this role properly, meaning that it is literally more like AP, if and when people can be bothered to contribute, all they are allowed is a few hours to run off a simple story. This article certainly can't be reduced to a simple AP report without being totally useless to any serious researcher in the future, wanting to know frankly why this took over the british media for weeks. It is almost certainly going to be considered a 'precedent' for future issues surrounding the bbc charter. MickMacNee (talk) 17:32, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
We're in agreement over the fact that size alone is a poor reason for shortening. But apart from the lead, much of the current article is not written in a particularly engaging way.Effective, clear writing is often a lot more useful than meandering pieces that are rather over-wrought, and I've made my living out of shortening pieces for just this reason. There's a strong argument for substantially reducing all the sections after the lead. I'm not going to get drawn into the adequacy or otherwise of existing Wikipeida policy on current events reporting.Astral Highway (talk) 18:29, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
Well again, I'm not going to support any shortening on simple subjective ideas of what is and isn't a good article or what people might think looks good or not. This is a collaborration, and already the article has undergone much change for the better through collaborative copy editting. But in Wikipedia, what you do to earn a living is frankly irrelevant, the only thing that matters is consensus (and by extension, policy). Anything being removed without a clear policy based reason, or a large consensus, won't work here. MickMacNee (talk) 18:53, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
Also, you are not following wp:lede with a lot of your recent changes at all, you have removed large chunks of the lede for it being unreferenced, when in actual fact it was all a summary of main body text and as such does not normally require referencing, then you've removed a huge chunk of main body text in favour of a quote in the lede (the wp:mos implications of which are a separate issue), thereby causing the confusion you see below about where some of that information has gone. The arguments for shortening the article is one issue, but please abide by the policy that in any reasonably large article such as this, the lede is only ever a summary, and should contain nothing not supported or expanded upon in the main text, and detail in the lede most certainly should not be viewed as a replacement for any of the main body text thereby justifying its removal. MickMacNee (talk) 19:45, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
You are digging yourself into a very large hole. You say I removed large chunks of unreferenced lead. You say this was a summary of body text that does not require referencing. Problem is, the body text itself was not adequately referenced. Further, I created the first referenced opinion in the lead (Mark Thompson's) and in doing so, substantially raised the credibility of the entire piece. If it's the cae that the main body text should support the lead, then by all means remove the entire body text. Or, as I'm, suggesting, let's just rewrite it in a shorter form. We obviously in agreement about this, just from slightly differing perpectives.Astral Highway (talk) 01:15, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

(deindent)The body text is not adequately referenced? How so? The following is a list of all the references supporting the section you seem to think was not supported by references, and decided to remove wholesale, on the basis that it could be replaced by a single quote from Thompson just dumped in the lede, despite the fact half of that removed main body text had nothing to do with the BBC at all.

  • Telegraph, 21 October 2009
  • BBC News, 8 June 2009
  • The Daily Telegraph, 22 October 2009
  • The Guardian, 11 October 2009
  • BBC News, 27 September 2009
  • The Daily Telegraph, 21 October 2009
  • BBC News, 6 September 2009
  • The Times, 21 October 2009
  • The Guardian, 21 October 2009

So, please, just give me a single example of text that was in that main section you removed and replaced with a quote, that was not tracebale to one or more of those sources. I will be happy to correct any unsourced text you can find.

However, and I hate to step on your ego here, but I am afraid that adding a single large quote in the lede supported by a footnote that only gives you a name and date of an article, with no url provided, that a reader may or may not be able to find on the net, and if so it may or may not have the same content that you claim it did when you read it, is absolutely categorically totally and completely nowhere in a million years anywhere near to resembling "substantially raising the credibility of the entire piece."

To come out with something like that, I can only assume you have never read wp:lede, and are working from your own personal style guide or idea of what makes a good article, because I've never ever seen a policy or guideline ever support that opinion of sourcing and article layout. And please if you intend to disagree on that assesment by pointing out that yes, citations in ledes are not barred per se and you have every right to cite something in it you think is not supported in the main text, please remember that you are arguing for more than just that, a hell of a lot more. If you have any reasonable requests of what can be shortened, bearing in mind my comments above, I'm all ears, as ever. MickMacNee (talk) 02:04, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

By replacing the 'Change in BBC policy' you show yourself to be hell-bent on editorialising this piece.

There is not a single shred of evidence for the fact that the BBC changed its policy. The BBC policy that enable them to justify hosting the BNP leader is ages old - public broadcaster with a mandate to give equal prominence to all political parties. The best person to comment on the reason for the invitation is Mark Thompson. There's nothing more to say about the BBC's reasons for inviting Nick Griffin. There's no better person to say it than the senior person at the BBC. That's uncontroversial. For that reason, I am again removing this entire section. (Change of BBC policy). Astral Highway (talk) 10:26, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I will slap a neutral POV query or contested POV on this if you reinstate this section. It is your opinion, not a fact, that the BBC changed its policy. Please indent your replies, per Wikipedia guidelines.Astral Highway (talk) 10:11, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

You reverted my edit without comment. You are now edit warring. Stop this, or I'll take it as further evidence that you are hell-bent on trying to alter the facts. The BBC did not change its policy.Astral Highway (talk) 10:26, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I think the article definitely has some NPOV issues, but it's not simply down to the existence of that section. I'll keep attacking it. On of my gripes is that there is quite a lot of trivial or irrlevant stuff, which was frequently reinstated after I removed it. Ohconfucius ¡digame! 13:19, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Ohconfucius: totally with you. The trivial and irrelevant material is what's really pulling this piece down and I also noted that it was reinstated. Astral Highway (talk) 16:50, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I did comment. I commented that the change in policy is the change which allowed the BNP on air. I'm not saying that anyone took a rulebook and changed it, I'm saying that before the BNP were not allowed on, and now they are. That is a change. Possibly change in policy is a bad wording, but I can't think of a better one. -mattbuck (Talk) 10:32, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Change in BBC policy is very bad wording indeed. It baldly states that the BBC changed its policy. It didn't. There is no way that section head will remain. It is deliberately misleading and plain wrong. Wikipedia is about facts, first and foremost, not about wilful editors having it their way.Astral Highway (talk) 11:37, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

What Mattbuck said. There has been a change in the policy, as such, if it can be said that the BBC had a policy against the BNP appearing on one of its programmes. But if it's through the operation of simple electoral maths, then there is no policy change at all. I may have been the one to put that section head in, being under the impression the sources suggested it, and will look at the thing (including examining the sources) in a day or two. Ohconfucius ¡digame! 13:15, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Excellent. You'll see I've suggested a solution to the problem with a new section head. See what you think. Please can I urge editors to give prominence to and cite the exact words used by Mark Thompson. All other sources are second-best After all, MT is the one explaining the official BBC reasoning, and he's paid to know and to be publicly accountable. Very glad to have your involvement. I think we can knock this into much better shape together.Astral Highway (talk) 15:09, 25 October 2009 (UTC)


If you had an issue with the section title, then for the love of God why did you not just change it? Ignoring the fact that it was screamingly obvious in all the accompanying citations in that section that something had changed and that the BBC decision was totally obviously what the section title referred to, simply disagreeing with a section title is never ever going to be adequate justification for blanking the entire section, which is unsurprisingly why people are going to reinstate it. And please, everybody, enough of the whispering about 'trivia', I, and everybody else, are not mind readers. If anybdoy has an issue with specific content that has been removed and restored, then just raise it here. That is what this page is actually for. MickMacNee (talk) 01:48, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I did eventually change it. However, I see that you are now hell bent on edit warring. You have reverted the article to a much earlier version, reversing most of the work I did yesterday. You have also removed the 3RR note that I placed on your talk page. You have done this without the slightest justification and your sharp note about being a mind reader is out of place. I have taken great care to explain and document my reasoning. Astral Highway (talk) 07:09, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I removed it did I? Look again. As for your explanations, they include for example 'this doesn't need to here because it is in the BNP article', except that a) it isn't, and in some case, b) it never would be. There is no obligation on me or anybody else to simply accept your explanations and leave your changes, especially as many of are not gounrded in any policy. I am still scratching my my head over such things as 'having the questions without the answers is a violation of NPOV'. If you look, I have left many of your and other people's changes intact, let's not pretend I am blindly reverting you or anybody else, and lets not pretend that it is just me objecting to your edits, others have too. MickMacNee (talk) 12:56, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
yes, you did remove it, along with a whole string of my edits - several hours' worth. You are unilaterally edit warring. You removed the edit warring notice from your talk page, but it went on there for a reason. You don't engage with discussion of the problems at any but the most trivial level. To take one of your quibbles above, I still say there's absolutely no point explaining what the BNP is, or what Question Time is, within an encylopaedia page on a media storm. What are wikilinks for? Some of your reversions beggar belief. You query, for example, why I suggested that a Times quote needed attribution. I had asked if it was a by-lined piece, or a Times leader. You said there was no need for attribution beyond saying it was the Times. This is incredible. Of course we need to know whether it is a by-lined news item or a deliberately persuasive piece. By all means continue to be strongly opiniated, but I'm waiting to see some constuctive examples of this, rather than merely destructive obfuscation and edit-warring.Astral Highway (talk) 20:03, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
I have told you twice, and another person has also told you as well, but to hammer the point home: I did not remove your warning. I actually put it in the correct place on my page, per wp:talk. However, even if I had removed it, then per wp:talk I would have been perfectly within my rights to do so (but it just so happens that I have a personal policy of never deleting comments from my page, I actually think that is extremely bad form).
As for this idea that no background is needed because we have wikilinks to other articles, first off, you need to start reading these articles you seem to think cover the material you think is duplicated, because in a lot of cases, it isn't even there when you delete it from here. End result? A poorer article. And in a lot of cases, the material you have removed as background is not, because it never would be included in other articles. I have recently rearranged the sections, which in part has produced a single Background section, and the material that is ostensibly background should now look to most people, the right size. You are flat wrong if you think articles should never have any Background that can be found in other articles. Issues over how much is appropriate, can be decided in the normal way if disputed (which your ideas are) - i.e. by agreement on this talk page. I will reiterate - you thinking you are right and simply slapping warnings on me, is not how content disputes get settled on Wikipedia. If you want to start complaining about how many hours of your work are being undone, first off, effort is irrelevant in Wikipedia, and secondly, I created most of the content you are summarily removing, so if you have a case for being pissed by (what you perceive to be unjustified) reversion, then clearly, so have I.
As for this Times attribution issue, I presume you mean this. Well, I ask you here and know, what extra detail you want to see added to the phrase "The Times newspaper analysed the broadcast footage, determining that the cameras spent 38% of the screen time either on Griffin or a "two-shot" with him and another panellist, equating to "nearly 25 minutes" of the hour-long programme". I don't think anybody would have an issue with that over attribution except you, (and certainly you are the only one making these complaints), it is wholly obvious imo that the precise specifics of how the Times conducted the research, are irrelevent. It is research conducted for, and reported by, The Times. Once that basic point of attribution is included, which it is, anything else is pointless original research. MickMacNee (talk) 00:26, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
It's my personal view that we don't need to explain from first principles what the BNP is in this article. Chances are, if anyone is reading it, they'll already know. If they don't, they can Wikilink to the full BNP page. Exactly the same argument applies to Question Time. No rational person would be reading the page unless they had a clear idea about the two main references in the title. Astral Highway (talk) 09:37, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Pure and utter speculation, which does not resemble the content of any other decent article around. The ways people can get to this article are numerous, if you are assuming that the only people coming here do so with total understanding of the BNP/QT, and/or only ever arrive here from either the BNP or QT articles, you are just flat wrong. Infact all of your assumptions about readers here would never be supported at GA/FA. Very soon this article will be on the main page as a DYK, so it would be interesting to do a survey of all those extra visitors if they agree with your ideas. I had hoped it would have made ITN, but with all the time I have had to waste on your ideas of policy I have not been able to give adequate time to eidt it to demonstrate enough world interest for that to have succeeded. MickMacNee (talk) 13:31, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Steady on, Mick: civility? Your last line few lines have a distinct air of unpleasantness. Please could you drop the blaming tone and concentrate on the point, without getting personal about it or attempting to discredit me in order to undercut my viewpoint. I'm sure there's a wikipedia policy covering some of these points, and I only say this because you so seem very well versed in your policy. You may not share my view on the option of wikilinking to Question Time and BNP, but it seems sensible to assume that many readers will indeed come to the article with a very good understanding of each. Astral Highway (talk) 17:55, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Timeline

Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

An important element of the timeline seems to be missing. The earliest date mentioned is 27 September 2009, when it was announced Jack Straw would appear in QT with the Tories and the LDs. This article says that the Tories and the LDs had already accepted. Is there an earlier the public knew the invitation was issued? Whatever the key date is, it is not sufficiently prominent in the article. Ohconfucius ¡digame! 14:47, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

This might have something to do with a recent section removal. There was certainly a date for an early bbc confirmation they were considering an invitation in earlier versions. Note however that the actual candidates were announced pretty late (see refs in panel section), and that there is probably a separate announcement of a general intention to debate from the tories and lib dems well before this (although I never came across it). You only have to look beyond June though obviously..... MickMacNee (talk) 17:37, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

References

Latest comment: 15 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I'm sorry I may have made a mess with the references with my editing. But because the ref system used here is totally unfamiliar to me, I don't know how to fix it. Ohconfucius ¡digame! 15:20, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Its not serious, it only means references are left over no longer being used after their accompanying text was removed (because in this format, references are written outside of the article). Not an issue for readers. Its all backwards compatible as well if people use another method, it just looks a bit odd in the Footnotes section is all. MickMacNee (talk) 18:46, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
Infact an IP already fixed it [3]. MickMacNee (talk) 18:55, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Almost entirely bourgeoisie audience. Anti-working class bias?

Latest comment: 15 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Should this be mentioned as a bias? The show was based in a cosmopolitan part of London and the audience the BBC picked was made up of bourgeoisie left "activist" types, who are studying sociology and listen to Bill Bragg. Or otherwise people brought into the country to bolster Labour's votes. There didn't seem to be a general cross section of British society in the audience; everyday people, who the issues discussed most directly effect.[4] In the north where the BNP gained two MEPs, their base seems to be mostly working class-places like Burnley, Oldham, Keighley and Barnsley. The sort of areas where Islington Socialists would likely be violently accosted if they walked into a public house and presented their ideology. Seems to be the same for places like Barking and Dagenham, according to this article. - Yorkshirian (talk) 05:49, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

While it's more than likely that the BBC engaged in some shenanigans in where they picked the audience from, we need to see real evidence of this from reliable sources specifically addressing this issue before we can include it. The Squicks (talk) 05:54, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

My understanding was that the audience were selected from people who had previously applied to be on the programme before Griffin's presence was announced in order to prevent disruptions by anti-fascists (or even fascist supporters. I heard this from a radio report but if I can find a recorded source I will. I doubt that even Barking & Dagenham are quite as monolithic in their attitudes as suggested. In fact if you look at a distribution map of BNP membership (available at the guardian online) London constituencies have a very low BNP membership apart from the area where the BNP HQ is based and the Essex fringes.--Streona (talk) 09:47, 26 October 2009 (UTC)


Attribution in a controversial piece

Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Please could I remind editors of the need for proper attribution, especially with controversial material. I have seen evidence that some few editors are not acting as if they really understand this.

This isn't the same as adding a reference. The idea is that a reader can rely on and judge the facts in a piece without doing further work immediately. So, if a public figure is supposed to have said something important to a reader's understanding, it's no use just slapping on a reference, which requires a reader to stop reading and go and look something up.

That's necessary, but not an alternative to correct attribution. It's far better to have a citation with a note of where this was found. If it is a bylined news item, or an opinion piece in a newsaper, the name of the journalist or editor, as well as the paper, should be included. If it was a piece on the radio, the same applies. If it's a survey or a piece of research, the organisation commissioning the research, and the place where it can be read (on or offline) are important.

Correctly attributed material is about verifiability and being able to judge on sight the trustworthiness and potential bias of an opinion. And as we all know, that matters in Wikipedia.

As I say, sorry if this seems like a pointless lecture, but I have found several cases where this practice was clearly not being applied. It's certainly relevant if this piece is to be worth reading.Astral Highway (talk) 20:25, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

You are going to have to start raising specific examples, because I am quite sure you are mixing up different reverts and edit summaries here. I for one don't think I reverted any tag where you requested clarification of whether something came from a main story or comment piece, and the example you raised in the section above about research, has no issues that I can see regarding attribution. Despite your condescention here with this general waffling lecture which doesn't really help anybody improve the article (you could at least have linked to various policies and thereby made it clear this wasn't just a personal view), and was to serve merely as a thinly veiled attack on me I'm sure, I do know what the difference is between referencing and attribution. I am going to warn you now, not to assume anything about my knowledge of Wikipedia simply by the fact I choose not to create a user page detailing my accomplishments or efforts here. I find the practice very disturbing, and I personally don't give any weight to people's self written wiki-cv's anyway. The only thing I go on, is people's actual demonstrated experience, and on many examples already, such as wp:talk, wp:dnttr, wp:lede, etc, I am fast running out of confidence in your knowledge of policy or experience in writing articles or resolving disputes the right way, to justify you making lecturing posts like this to others who you think are not up to your standards. I should have seen this coming and thus mentioned it at the time, when you referred beforehand to making a living from reducing articles in this way (implying we should defer to your edits by virtue of your real life job), which came straight after you had just made a most serious and most obvious basic violation of wp:lede. I await, as ever, your attempt to use this talk page for what is actually for, resolving disputes, and improivng the article in line with our policies and guidelines, not your personal ideas of what makes a good article. MickMacNee (talk) 01:02, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

UK parliamentary parties

Latest comment: 15 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

The parties' views are bit conflated in the article. Ken Livingstone and Diana Abbot should arguably be included within that section – although Livingstone is not in the party as one of its MPs, he is nevertheless a prominent member of that party – I will relocate it there. However, I would note in doing so that the section will be thrown completely out of balance. While Brown's and Straw's comments are totally appropriate in tenor and quantity, I feel that the Home Sec, whilst entitled to his views, is merely expressing himself actually wearing a Labour hat - the cited rhetoric makes that partisan position clear, as his words are not "statesmanlike" -ie something I would expect more from a back-bencher than a front-bench spokesman. [edit - oh, yes, he was speaking as a QT panel guest, and was indeed partisan] However, it would not be possible to cite him without referring to his title. Ideally, we should have a citation from the chief whip or the deputy leader, whilst removing the Livingstone, Abbott and Johnson quotes. Ohconfucius ¡digame! 03:15, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

The Home Secretary appears on QT very much as 'The Home Secretary', so it is a very significant opinion effectively of the government, whether he sounds like a backbencher or not. As for Livingstone and Abbot, they are both very high profile people whose opinions are often sought, which is reflected by their frequency of quotation by the sources, so they have a pertinence, particularly Abbot with her analysis of this 'mainstream effect' which was picked up by most sources I saw. I would also point out that both Livingstone and Abbot cannot really be considered to be speaking for the Labour Party, Livingstone has no position anymore, while Abbot, while she is still a Labour MP, she is also well known for her independence of mind, and is effectively being quoted for this reputation, so it is probably not appropriate to have her included under 'UK parliamentary parties opinions' as if she were speaking for the party (and, if you take the party line as meaning No Platform is over wrt to BNP, then in terms of QT, she was firmly against it). I really don't see what the chief whip et al would bring, and I have never even seen a comment form hom or similar party official anyway, so its probably moot - however, you did actually remove something before that shows the opinions of the party as a whole, the proposing and passing of the Mann motion the day before QT, barring all MEPs from free entry to the House, simply to shut out Griffin. MickMacNee (talk) 03:59, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Also, I am not sure, but just who is the minister who would be responsible for any mooted broadcast ban? The Home Secretary, or Justice, or Media/Culture? MickMacNee (talk) 04:06, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Disputed changes

Latest comment: 15 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

Here are some recent changes which are now falling into the realm of edit warring, which need discussion:

  • See my comment in the talk page section above here, where the constition details are being removed, again.
    • I'm still waiting on that one. You're the only one who seems bothered by it. Nobody else has raised any objections. I already expressed my view that whilst it was relevant to the BNP, it was tangential to the appearance, so should be removed. AN Other removed it saying it was already in the BNP article, which you contested (as at 26 October). I can confirm for you that it was it was already in the BNP article on 15 October, which said "Nick Griffin would ask BNP members at accept the courts decision and allow non whites to join the party" Anyway, I'd say that whether or not it was in the BNP article is not relevant to why it belongs here (or not). Ohconfucius ¡digame! 04:39, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
      • iirc Off2riorob also objected to its removal at the time, and Streona has also stated it is relevant to Hain's point of appeal - which is why it was moved there by me. Anyway, as multiple people have supported and opposed it (by my reckoning 4-2), you should have held off and waited for opinion in that dedicated section, instead of simply returning to redo a contested edit. for the record regarding the latest version that you removed, it is not the same as what is in the BNP article, and I will repeat my opinion that your version simply leaves huge questions over the situation, which is relevant because it covers the time period of the QT appearance, and was directly referenced both during the programme, and by multiple sources afterwards. MickMacNee (talk) 13:16, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Seen here - I dispute the removal of the part of the quote from Andrew Slaughter where he says "The smugness index at this place [the BBC] – which is always very high – has gone through the roof today". I think it adds a significant balance to a quote where he seeks to otherwise comment on the BBC.
    • Yes, he's an MP whose day has come, the local MP so he probably warrants a quote, but I fail to see the 'balance' added, as it was merely more rhetoric from one among 600+ backbenchers, attacking the BBC. I substituted the rhetoric with a descriptive "scathing", which I was hoping would suffice without the verbatim quote. Again, I believe the entire Slaughter block of text was removed by AN Other, not me, but you saw fit to restoring the whole paragraph with this edit, and not just the line I deleted. I have now further shortened the quote, but have brought back the "smugness". Ohconfucius ¡digame! 04:39, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
      • His comments are slightly more relevant tot eh events than the average backbencher, because if it came down to it, he is the one who would have the right to take issue, if the basis of his comments were accurate, regarding his local constituency. However, it is quite obvious that if he is seeking to publicly comment on the BBC in their capacity as the local MP, then quite obviously if he lumps in with his comment, a basic general attack as he did, it needs to be included - that is balance. On the whole, leaving the word 'smugness' in is acceptable for this reason. MickMacNee (talk)
  • Is this comment by David Dimbleby truly 'insignificant' ? I think it adds a decent insight.

MickMacNee (talk) 03:43, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

>Does anyone else disagree that is is just pre-opening pre-talk by a veteran presenter, and should thus be treated as trivia?< Ohconfucius, I agree entirely and support this being treated as such. He is a celebrated vet broadcaster but more of a BBC icon than anything else.Astral Highway (talk) 09:20, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Independent article on Griffin's views

Latest comment: 15 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

This article's purpose and scope are the controversy surrounding his appearance, not Griffin's views and policy platforms of the BNP. As the paragraph and related citation to the Independent article deals with errors/details of what Griffin said during the show, rather than on details of the controversy itself, I have removed it due to the lack of direct pertinence. Ohconfucius ¡digame! 07:28, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Excellent. I agree with your reasoning and with the removalAstral Highway (talk) 09:22, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

If you have read any of the sources, reaction to and analysis of Griffins various comments during the show, are numerous, so of course it is relevant to the article. If anything, this should be expanded by balancing it with all these other analsyes. MickMacNee (talk) 13:19, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
The article isn't really about the content of the show. It's much more about the fact that it took place. With every day that passes, the content, whether Q, or A, becomes less important. Astral Highway (talk) 19:39, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I've read quite a few of the sources, and it only strengthened my opinion on the matter. AFAICT, this article is framed on the "Controversy" surrounding his appearance. There are precious few who don't know that the BNP's policies and views are controversial, and this is not the article in which to discuss those views. Another article could give this analysis a home, and I just don't feel it's this one. Ohconfucius ¡digame! 02:53, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

References format query

Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I'm no expert on Wikipedia referencing policy, but I noticed with interest that references in the text do not take the reader direct to a source (hyperlinks.) Instead, they take the reader to the whole reference section. On the other hand, I know that refs may easily be hyperlinked and lead direct to the source, so I'm wondering why a more complicated method has been chosen.

Further, references in the text are only partial. So, for example, under BNP reaction, a reference 37 -- 'Guardian23Oct09GriffinComplaint' -- takes us, as with other ref numbers, to the entire list of references. Here it is possible to see the full title of the reference, 'Nick Griffin to lodge formal complaint with BBC over Question Time.' Should this full title be in the reference tag? - otherwise, especially if there's no hyperlink to the source - how is an editor checking this list to quickly find the correct article?

Of course, this wouldn't matter if the refs were hyperlinked to the source. Very interested to hear what's best practice here, especially given the controversial nature of the article. Astral Highway (talk) 21:55, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

First of all, you aren't doing something right if you cannot navigate to a specific Reference from a number in the article. If you click on reference '37' in the article text, it takes you to the line of Footnote 37 in the Footnotes section:
  • "The Guardian, 23 October 2009"
That is also a blue hyperlink, which if you click it, takes you directly to the line in the References section to which it refers to:
  • "Nick Griffin to lodge formal complaint with BBC over Question Time". The Guardian. 2009-10-23. Archived from the original on 2009-10-23. Retrieved 2009-10-23.
There are absolutely no general References in this article. Every entry in the References section will have a corresponding incoming Footnote. Nothing in the article relies on general references.
Second of all, there is no standard Wikipedia referencing system, all that is required for Featured articles is numbered footnotes in a consistent style, which this article has.
The system actually used on this article combines a recent innovation of List specified references, together with a hyperlinked version of Footnotes. The advantages are twofold - you don't have article reference information dotted around inside the article text, it is all under the References section in date order. Secondly, by using short hyperlinked footnotes, any reader can at a glance assess the quality of all the referencing used on the article. This is perfectly fine, and it is all backward compatible with any other reference system should somebody come along and add something in a different way.
If you have concerns over the legitimacy of this system, instead of posing general questions here, you would be better off asking someone who works on Wikipedia:Featured articles, because rightly or wrongly, they are considered the best articles on the pedia. MickMacNee (talk) 23:20, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

'Questions' section

Latest comment: 15 years ago18 comments4 people in discussion

Per similar scope arguments, the questions section is rather superfluous because the whole focus is shifted away from the controversy itself and towards show content. I have pruned it back substantially, and integrated what's left into the 'Recording' section. Ohconfucius ¡digame! 04:30, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Totally disagree. Every single source demonstrates the importance being put on the nature of the questions, and the time spent on bnp topics (the first four). They are absolutely relevant. This is a time when you really must consider whether you are helping all readers of the article by removing such content, or are truly just exercising your own beliefs. I'm restoring it, because this is frankly too big a loss of information to be removed wholesale. Simply listing the five topic areas is not a replacemet, and as already said above, comes nowhere near the level of detail reflected in the sources. For now, the questions in full, no paraphrasing or interpretation, is the only fair way to give this information to the reader. Who for example is ever going to realise that the last question even addressed the nature of the show? That is as far as I know, totally unprecedented, and that is something that is lost in your version. MickMacNee (talk) 05:22, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Your disagreement is noted, but as I said earlier, this is a step outside of the scope of the article as it is currently titled. The questions are far from "central" to the controversy, but a mere result of his participation because the questions asked are inevitably shaped by the panel members present. The questions' existence is completely independent of Griffin's appearance on QT. One suggestion I have is that you should change the title of the article to Appearance of Nick Griffin on Question Time. If the article is not moved, I will continue to insist that the detailed list of questions be removed. Ohconfucius ¡digame! 05:28, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
  • I don't see the need for either. I think you are taking the title far too literally, and as I said, you will do more harm than benefit for readers if on balance, you are wrong, so I would expect to see a very large support for this kind of mass removal until I changed my mind. Take, for example, the reference in the last question back to Hain's original comment about Christmas present, or the reference to Churchill, or the use of Griffins own quote on Islam. You want to lose all of that sort of supporting information, which all ties into the rest of the article, and for what? Sorry, the loss is far too great, for in my eyes, little gain. What questions were asked is central, and any amount of watering down is just going to leave a big whole. MickMacNee (talk) 05:45, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
  • I agree with Ohconfucius and would like to see the questions removed. The content of the programme is not nearly as relevant as the fact that the broadcast took place. It wasn't relevant for much longer than few days, and with the passing of time, it becomes less so. The historic significance of the event is that it once again raised questions about censorship and the respective roles of government and the major public service broadcaster.Astral Highway (talk) 11:48, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
  • This is nothing other than a personal opinion that does not match standard practice. Notability is not temporary, we do not trim articles of content over time on the basis it's no longer relevant. It either is relevant, or it isn't. With your efforts to unduly trim this article, all you are doing is making it more and more irrelevant, as people will simply start to ignore the increasingly vague and unspecific text, and skip to the sources for the real information, which all gave due prominecne to the issue of the nature and duration of the questions, which should quite rightly be reflected in the article. MickMacNee (talk) 14:02, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Oh, come off it, Mick, it is and will always be relevant to his appearance on the show, but was never relevant to the article/controversy itself. Can't you see that the questions are just pollution in the article, clouding up the true subject and blurring the focus. It happens often enough in article development when there is a tendency of assembled editors to put in all the stuff they can find on the broad topic (growth phase), until such time as the information gets consolidated and trimmed (consolidation phase). Nothing wrong with that, but the trimming needs to continue. Ohconfucius ¡digame! 14:48, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Well, now we are going in circles, but to repeat one more time, a distinct part of the controversy IS both the content and the duration of the questions. Just pick any single source dated after the programme. If you think this is harmless trimming, then I want to see a large support, from people who have definitely read some if not most of the sources. If necessary, it may even require mediation, because I fear this is something that is not going to get a proper hearing with just drive by comments, and I hope I am quite clear in what I think is at risk from this idea that this is just routine trimming. I am well aware of the need for trimming, see comments elsewhere, but this, to me, is not it. this is not trimmable information, and we are not a news service. If they do not deserve to be in the article now, then they never should have been there in the first place, and I would suggest that the thousands of views they have had, and the comments from ITN/C, without such comment from others, that on balance, their innapproriateness is still an unproven view that will require stronger consensus. MickMacNee (talk) 15:19, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
  • I don't agree, Mick, with your assertion that if content is relevant at a given point, then it's good for all time. Even when this was a dominant British news story, the relevance of the content of the show declined as other issues came to the fore. There is nothing new or surprising about this, and I'm very much with Ohconfucius when he makes a similar point about the natural phases of an article. At the point of having this debate here today, the story is clearly not what it was when the article began. There's been time to stand back and think: 'Right, so what did this all boil down to?' Such distance brings the potential for greater clarity.Astral Highway (talk) 17:56, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Griffin, the BNP, and their policies have always been getting people all agitated and upset. The appearance on QT may have brought these into the public eye once again. It has zilch to do with whether or not Griffin should appear on QT per se. The controversy is about whether the Beeb was right or wrong to give Griffin platform for his views and surrounding actions and protests, and the reversal of the past establishment marginalisation of the BNP, and not WHY the BNP is controversial. It is not about the show content either. What is contained within the sources does not define what's in a WP article, it's the title and scope of the article which do that. Unfortunately, I did not get here until well after the questions got inserted, otherwise I would have fought it then, but now's as good a time as any to do away with it. The fact that it was not challenged before doesn't mean it has acquired a right to stay. Ohconfucius ¡digame! 09:56, 29 October 2009(UTC)
I think it's important to have the questions, as the controversy is not just limited to whether or not he should have appeared, but expanded to whether the show was biased against the BNP. -mattbuck (Talk) 12:13, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

As Mattbuck points out, this controversy is distinctly two-fold, and covers:

  • The BBC's decision to invite Griffin onto QT
  • The subsequent treatment of Griffin on it

Ohconfucius, if you have an issue with the name not reflecting the content, then per WP:PRESERVE, you do not fix this by removing the content. What you want is a proposed move. However, your proposed new title looks to me more like an argument for a split of this article into BBC invite to Nick Griffin and Nick Griffin on Question Time, which would just be pointless content forking. All this to fix the apparent issue of the title, that not everyone thinks does not adequately describe the content.

If people dispute the Question's very existence on Wikipedia under any title, then open a request for comment on it, because as ever, I dispute this opinion, and will not be swayed by simple continual restatements. It is certainly wrong to assert that they were important to the article, and now they aren't - we do not edit articles that way. We replace and update certain types of content as and when better sources are found, we do not simply declare parts of articles as 'time expired', and this information certainly doesn't fall under the title of 'growth phase' material. These are in my opinion, basic facts of Wikipedia, and as stated, I would expect to see a large consensus to demonstrate otherwise. MickMacNee (talk) 15:52, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________

With talk today of GA nomination, I think the questions still need further scrutiny. My view, for discussion and comment, please, is as follows:

1) The content of this broadcast QT is not especially relevant to this page. This is of course an existing debate (see above). I won't reiterate the arguments from both sides, as this is an ongoing debate.

2)The questions section is scrappy. By this I mean it contains factual elements (the Q in the form it was put) as well as editorialising explanations -- why the question arose. It's also scrappy because it contains information on programme timecodes, which is untidy and distracting information. I don't think these have any place here.

3)If the questions section is to include editorialising lines on the question background, then for NPOV reasons, it ought to include the guest's response, too. However, I wouldn't like to see editorialising explanations for those responses: these couldn't possibly be NPOV. For that reason, I'd like to see the pre-history of the questions removed if the questions are to remain.

So, pending resolution of whether the questions stay or go, I propose:

1) Remove explanation of the question's pre-history. 2) Remove timecode information.

Please could editors state their views in a clear line. Many thanks Astral Highway (talk 09:44, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

If you hadn't removed the Dimbleby quotes, the timings would still look relevant. And yet again - the time spent on each question has been part of the controversy. No reader is helped by the article simply stating, 'well, they also discussed Jan Moir'. The pre-history parts are not editorialisation, they explain the relevance of the question, how is that not pertinent? It shows all sorts of interlinks, such as Hain's role and influence, the issue raised by many sources of the use of wartime imagery by the BNP in the election campaigns (again, something previously explained as background but since removed). The PCC bit is again, simply coming from the view that people should not have to keep clicking backwards and forwards between articles to understand the relevance of each sentence of the article. (and the current state of the Jan Moir ariticle, it would be a total time wasting distractiion trying to gleen the equivalent information in the same time. Adding the guests comments is certainly not required by NPOV, its not like we are only listing Griffin's answers, or Straw's answers (although I have an issue with whether it should be made clear that the Islam quote was, unlike most others, one that Griffin did not deny he had said, and went on to answer as such). And besides, it would be nigh on impossible to record all responses equally and properly, and that would definitely be verging into creation of Question Time, 22 October 2009 territory. MickMacNee (talk) 15:23, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Then again, one could argue that if the pre-history of the questions needs to be spelled out, then they're not relevant for that reason alone. Astral Highway (talk 16:43, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Whoa, you've lost me completely there. Why would any reader simply be expected to know why these specific questions were asked? Wikipedia is for a general audience. WP:PCR: "Wikipedia is an international encyclopedia. People who read Wikipedia have different backgrounds, education and worldviews. Make your article accessible and understandable for as many readers as possible. Assume readers are reading the article to learn. It is possible that the reader knows nothing about the subject: the article needs to explain the subject fully." MickMacNee (talk) 17:35, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Well, if a reader knew nothing about the reasons behind the controversy (which is what the page declares itself to be about) a very high-level explanation would get them there pretty quickly. There would be no need to even reference the content of the programme to do this. The lead alone is exceptionally friendly and accessible to someone with little background. Astral Highway (talk 18:40, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Question_Time_British_National_Party_controversy/Archive_1&oldid=1137108254"