Talk:Question Time British National Party controversy/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

'Panel view' section

I have revised the panel view section, putting most of the Griffin comments in some sort of logical order rather than respecting the strict chronological presentation. I feel that the exact timing of his various comments is relatively unimportant, as very little hinges on the timing. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 05:04, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Hardly. Some of the stuff is him speaking to the AP by telephone literally straight after the show. The rest comes the following day at an organised BNP press conference in Essex. That is detail that is ultimately relevant when considering what is being said. MickMacNee (talk) 05:14, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

The edit was made in view of your previous opposition. This time around, I tried not to destroy anything of temporal significance where it appeared important. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 05:34, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Questions - Dimbleby quote query

One par reads as follows:

After that fourth question Dimbleby announced "We're coming towards the end of the programme, we've only got a few minutes left, I want to go back to this programme itself, and whether this programme was the right programme for Question Time to put on", and introduced the fifth and final question, which was:

Because this quote contains four instances of the word 'programme', the remarkable repetition is the thing that jumps out. I'm in favour of removing the quote on the grounds that it's not really clear what it adds. If editors believe it has some function that is important, do you want to state that in a clear line here?

• I'm inclined to say 'Take it out'. I don't think any of this is directly relevant to the controversy anyhow. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 10:09, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
• I support removal, it is adding nothing, imo. Off2riorob (talk) 11:13, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

• Thank you both for this confirmation. I am therefore taking it out. Astral Highway (talk) 11:34, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

• It shows that Dimbleby quite clearly was aware of how long the programme had focused on the BNP, which is a central issue. Once again, if you actually read the sources, this is so obviously not an irrelevence of unclear importance. It is especially important as as far as I know he has made no other comments about the of the programme. As for his repetition of the word programme, you'd have to take that up with him. MickMacNee (talk) 14:01, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

  I don't think anyone needs this comment to understand that the program was about the BNP. The article needs to be concise and clear to read. Off2riorob (talk) 14:24, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

  It doesn't just simply serve to show that generally, it shows a specific aspect about the show's control, and Dimblebey's awareness. MickMacNee (talk) 15:04, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

  This comment is not required to show that, I don't think it would be possible to find a citation to support any other position. Off2riorob (talk) 15:08, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

  Now you've just lost me. I need a citation for what now? MickMacNee (talk) 15:22, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

  I support the removal of the comment, for that you won't be needing any citations. Off2riorob (talk) 15:28, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

'Recording' section

The following par has some potential issues:

• "After filming and before broadcast, a BBC spokesperson stated that a wide range of issues had been covered and that "the programme will demonstrate that the audience were able to provide strong scrutiny of all the panel members and what they stand for. A full audience attended the making of the programme and there were no protests in the studio,"^[27] although one audience member suggested that a "half dozen" BNP members in the studio shouted encouragement to Griffin."

The comment went out after recording but before broadcast. So it's a comment on the expected impact of the programme after broadcast. In the scheme of things, I'm not convinced that the inclusion of an anonymous BBC spokesperson speculating before the programme even went to air is adding anything to this article.

If any editors have any strong views on what this par adds, please would they clearly state them in a line. Otherwise I'll take it out per the above argument.Astral Highway (talk) 12:03, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

The no protests part is obviously relevant. The number of BNP supporters is also relevant, given the later allegations of audience composition. The spokesperson bit is one of the rare parts which can be removed as being no longer needed - but you need to understand that this is because it has been superceded, and not because it was never relevant to the article. The same absolutely cannot be said for things like the questions. MickMacNee (talk) 14:09, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I support removal of this content, it is weak and adds little or nothing, an anonymous comment and a audience member said half a dozen bnp members shouted encouragement...not very informative imo. Newsworthy perhaps if you were in the business of selling news, this is an article that should is required to stand the test of time. Off2riorob (talk) 14:30, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

This content has been replaced but I still support its removal. Off2riorob (talk) 14:32, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I think you have confused this with some other edit, this content was never removed in the first place (read the opening comment), so it cannot have been replaced yet. MickMacNee (talk) 15:00, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, your right, my comment is regarding the D Dimbleby program program program edit from above Off2riorob (talk) 15:12, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Well again, and this is not your fault, but despite what he said above that he was going to remove the programme programme programme bit [1], what he actually removed was the other part [2],The programme *3 bit has never been removed (which is confirmed by looking at all of Astral's changes [3] for that period). MickMacNee (talk) 15:34, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

So that's two editors in favour of removing it. I'm prepared to think let others come forward by leaving this overnight, but as things stand, we have enough support to cut it.Astral Highway (talk) 17:38, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I have now taken it out.Astral Highway (talk) 08:56, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Quotation v paraphrasing

Its something I don't have a strong opinion on, but Astral Highway and Ohconfucius, you are starting to make repeated changes of the same content from quotes to paraphrases and back to quotes. Recent examples:[4][5][6], but there are others.

The only thing I strongly object to about this, is a couple of times, this backward and forwards has resulted in a net loss of information that was originally in the full quoted, reduced in parahprase, and then not fully restored when going back to a quotatoin. If the intention is to remove information as well as simply switch styles, please make that clear, or be aware that what appears as a paraphrase in the article, might not have originated as one, and is very unlikely not to be totally unsourced.

Astral frequently makes references to best practice, but I personally don't think this is coming from a Wikipedia perspective. I certainly don't think that the likes of the fact that Gordon Brown's opinion came from Real Radio in Yorkshire needs to be noted, this is not what Wikipedia's version of attribution is all about to me. It may be best practice in the news, but we are not the news, not everything has to be written in this style. What that essay is actually about is what is already satisifed, it must be possible to attribute information, especially quotes, to a reliable source (or have I totally missed the point, and is it being claimd Real Radio are somehow not reliable)?.

But whatever, you two need to sort it out yourselves which approach is right, wor what needs paraphrasing and what needs direct quotes, and soon, before more information is lost without being clear that was the intention. For me, both approaches are fine, as long as what is being paraphrased or quoted, is in the actual supporting source, per WP:V. MickMacNee (talk) 14:57, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

• I agree with you there. On the whole, I'd say I prefer fewer rather than more direct quotes. There are no issues so long as the paraphrasing is done accurately. I guess the cause may be perceived inaccuracies in the/my paraphrasing. And no, where Brown's comment was carried is totally unimportant. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 15:12, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

• I don't have any problem with paraphrasing when it's accurate. But more than a couple of times when I've gone back to a source, I've picked up a different emphasis. The point of paraphrasing, surely, is to reduce a complicated point to a clearer one. So there's absolutely no point when you could make the point in the same number of words using direct speech. When this is the case, I've gone for the safer option, a direct quote. Accuracy is important in the context of a controversial subject. Astral Highway (talk) 16:47, 28 October 2009 (UTC)