# Talk:Question Time British National Party controversy

Please be reminded once again that this article is about the controversy surrounding Griffin's appearance, not the QT appearance itself. The scope of participants, therefore, is wider than those who merely took part in the broadcast debate. For example, it certainly includes the Welsh sec, the Home sec, the DG and DDG of the BBC as well as the trustees. Therefore the addition to the infobox is incorrect. Ohconfucius ¡digame! 03:42, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

In the section describing the South Pole joke repeated in the Guardian, there's a line that doesn't quite make sense.  

The journal said that after initial satisfaction with the outcome, "some senior [unnamed] BBC sources conceded that an overwhelmingly hostile panel and audience might have allowed Nick Griffin, the British National party leader, to burnish his credentials as an outsider who the political establishment would like to gag."[32]
My query is 'The journal.'  This clearly isn't the Guardian, which is a broadsheet newspaper. Can any editors shed any light on what 'The journal' means, please? 
In any case, looking at this par overall, I'm not sure what it adds. Per previous conversations, I think we've enough high-quality citations to be able to do without unnamed additions.
Would other editors state whether they're in support of leaving this or removing it, and briefly why. Thank you.Astral Highway (talk) 12:19, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

It's one of those BBC sources which is not treatable as a BBC source, because it's unattributed. As such, it could have been a comment by Joe Public as far as its importance/relevance goes. It can disappear. Ohconfucius ¡digame! 12:36, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
'The journal' refers to a 'journal of record' (i.e. a newspaper), not The Journal (note the lack of capitals). iirc this was done in a copyedit, to stop the repetition of 'The Gaurdian' (not by me). As for the material, I don't see how it can be read as representing the BBC officially (although iirc I did erroneuously place it first under BBC View, later moved). It is what it is, it is showing that after the controversy The Guardian found unnamed BBC sources who were prepared to say that it may not have gone as intended, albeit as unnamed sources. It might not merit inclusion , but I certainly don't see where it is rpelaced by other citations. MickMacNee (talk) 16:00, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Okay. The comment from an unnamed source doesn't add anything. So for that reason, I'm removing it. Astral Highway (talk 20:17, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Given that the article appears to be far better in every way compared to most WP pages on political issues, does it seem like this page is ready to be nominated as a good article (see WP:GA)? The Squicks (talk) 06:39, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

It's probably not 'stable' yet. But feel free if you want to nom. MickMacNee (talk) 07:04, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
It's probably not 'stable' yet. That's an excellent point that I need to think about. The Squicks (talk) 07:09, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
I agree. Give it another fortnight. Ohconfucius ¡digame! 08:16, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Yes, a good plan once it's settled down. Astral Highway (talk 09:27, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I really don't see the importance of the recently restored paragraph. Firstly, in the TV environment, it is common practice to stage-manage. Indeed, the success of a production depends on it. The mail's attempt to create controversy through lies and stirring to sell a few more copies is, unfortunately, equally common. Fortunately, the 'errors' were quickly debunked - in effect, cancelling out the controversy. While the Guardian comments may have been 'fair comment', the Mail's manipulation is but a tabloid side-show without great relevance to Griffin's appearance. Furthermore, as I attempted to point out with my inappropriate use of the {{unclear}} tag, the very much abbreviated phrase "which was challenged by The Guardian in their 'Media Monkey' blog" does not adequately describe what it was all about, and probably not worth the required words to explain either, IMHO, because it detracts from the main story. Ohconfucius ¡digame! 05:55, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Firstly, per WP:BRD, this was the stable version, so it stays until a consensus emerges otherwise. You simply making a comment here, does not give you the right to start edit warring over the material to have it excluded based on subjective grounds. Secondly, if your original concern was unclear wording, then it is hardly helpful when people start responding to that, to then switch tack and then simply say it doesn't belong here at all. As for the content, I happen to think it is relevant, considering all the allegations that the BBC had stage managed this particular show differently purely because Griffin was on it, which is what the Mail was alleging, and which is what the Guardian then debuncked. The fact they both expended whole articles on the issue hardly suggests it was unimportant or trivial, even if you thinking it being standard newspaper fair means it is unimportant. MickMacNee (talk) 15:22, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
Duh, I'm REALLY sorry I didn't spot it earlier. It seems that every time I come back to this article assertions of ownership rear their head again. The fact that nobody has touched this article for two weeks is in a way a good thing, but is not necessarily an endorsement of the status quo. Stepping away from an article and coming back to it at a later date gives 'strategic distance'; If I hadn't taken a fortnight off, I may never have realised how that small paragraph was not the lion-tamer, not the clowns, not the monkey, but the peanut the monkey was holding. The story you so badly want to keep was just an example of cheap tabloid journalism we see (unfortunately) every day, and not about stage-management at all. It was proven to be a lie, to boot. It's trivia and adds bog-all to the story and the Nick Griffin show. Ohconfucius ¡digame! 14:57, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
I couldn't give a toss about your personal attacks on me and your utter lack of good faith, the fact remains, your opinion on what is or is not trivia or relevant, is as valid as anybody else's, your egotistical opinion of your editorial competetence certainly doesn't give you carte blanche to impose changes by edit warring. Either discuss it like a normal editor and try and convince others with your strength of argument, or feel free to take another break and leave the article in the hands of the rest of us idiots, I honestly don't mind either way. MickMacNee (talk) 15:50, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Oh, look who's getting personal. I'm sure glad I didn't look back here before going to bed! I guess you would say I had it coming. I thank you for pointing out my 'egotism'. Ha! I've never ever claimed any editorial super-competence, thank you very much, nor did I claim any carte blanche to do anything. It takes two (or more) to edit war. And there seems to be only one person who has been 'warring' with me which a quick look in the edit history will reveal. I don't feel there is any indifference on your part for me to "leave the article in the hands of the rest of [you] idiots". Dream on! Ohconfucius ¡digame! 02:10, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
WP:BRD, NPA and consensus - these are very simple concepts. However much you want to try and blame me for the way you speak and act, that won't change the fact that I've done nothing wrong in the slightest, except of course, disagree with you. MickMacNee (talk) 03:41, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
You've done a lot for the article, I grant, but I think now you're trying to sidestep the fact that you appear to be showing ownership tendencies. I so much as suggest it, and you launch into a full-frontal attack on me, calling me arrogant and whatnot. I only reverted you once about the media monkey stuff, and only after I explained in a rationale which I posted on this page - it's quite different to leaving a perfunctory edit summary. Seems like your definition of edit-warring, just like my perception that you own the article, is a bit different to mine. Ohconfucius ¡digame! 05:57, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
I was on Kilroy about asylum-seekers and it was all stage managed -thats how these things are and it is naive to believe that it can be any other way. The BNPs gripe is that they thought the public would be interested in Griffin's opinions on the postal dispute, Afghanistan or the price of eggs, but none of the (allegedly) audience generated questions were about these things but rather about the nature of the BNP itself. The newspapers, especially nasty, small-minded papers like the Mail, like to attack the BBC simply because the BBC is a competitor.
--Streona (talk) 14:38, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Although highyl OR I have to agee about the Murdoch press's BBC Bashing. As to the point made, I think that it is very inportant to have a part about the alledged stage management, but it must be put in context.Slatersteven (talk) 14:45, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
It is in context - the Mail tried to say the programme had been specially stage managed for the BNP edition, the Guardian debunked it pointing out the 'stage management' was no different on this edition compared to any other. I think if by adding context you mean adding any commentary about what motive the Mail and Guardian might have for such stories, that would indeed pretty much be original research. The Mail isnt part of Murdoch's empire also. MickMacNee (talk) 15:50, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
II certainly do not support adding more context. The stuff is problematic enough without adding more OR, as you say. This little mini-sidewhow which both journals "expended whole articles on the issue" should really be seen in proper perspective - The Guardian piece was in some reporter's blog. Ohconfucius ¡digame! 02:03, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Ohconfucious has asked me to clarify; 1.I might be missing it but I cannot see that Ohconfucious has personally attacked anyone on this talkpage.
2. That the Daily Mail is a nasty small-minded rag is my own OR, but this is a talk page, so I would not post it in a substantive article. It does not have to be owned by Murdoch to be one.
3. The BNP complain of stage-management by way of special pleading because they do not understand the nature of how TV programmes are produced & directed, with the possible exception of "Triumph of the Will", but they cannot expect Leni Riefenstahl to direct the BBC. If their bleatings are to be reported, they have to be understood within the overall context of TV production.
In my own experience I was set up by Mr.Kilroy to explain why I thought asylum seekers ere allegedly being prioritised over a woman in the audience who said that they were when she was dying of cancer.
I did not complain to the BBC, I simply replied that the NHS triage people according to need and that clients of mine were also dying from cancer due to DU poisoning, being gassed by Saddam Hussein, gang-raped, kicked in the stomach until their kidney had to be removed & eletrocuted around the head to send them blind, so they probably were sicker.--Streona (talk) 17:27, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but how is this actually relevant to whether it belongs in the article? I think you think that the content being there is somehow an endorsement of the Daily Mail. It isn't, it is a mere documentation that allegations of special stage management were part of the controversy, and they were subsequently shown to be rubbish. I see no merit in not mentioning it simply because it was the Daily Mail, or that is was rubbish. I am sure if its really necessary this theme could be supported by better sources, but the Daily Mail was just the most obvious example I came across at the time. I realy am not seeing the problem here. We are certainly not going to start removing content simply because it comes from 'anti-BBC' sources, and I am extremely concerned that there even seems to be a subtext here that the Mail were acting as some sort of proxy for the BNP. This isn't the best way to decided what is and is not relevant to the article. MickMacNee (talk) 20:09, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Question Time British National Party controversy/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: HJMitchell  You rang?   04:33, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
[checklinks] is fine. HJMitchell  You rang?   05:56, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

lead
consistency:
Hain is referred to as Welsh Secretary but straw as Secretary of State for Justice- I'd suggest it should be Secretary of State for Wales or Justice Secretary, though the former would seem preferable.
Since we're giving people their titles, Warsi is, of course, a Baroness.
the list of representatives on the panel makes it unclear who is who- A semicolon would seem the simplest way of fixing it
Appeal to the BBC trust
The section relies heavily on one ref- it would be good to see more in there
other
the second to last paragraph needs a ref. I've out a{{fact}} tag on it.
protests
Probably worth lining the crimes stated in "offences including violent disorder, causing actual bodily harm, assault of a police officer and a person wanted on warrant"
Violent disorder (S2, Public Order Act) ABH (S47, Offences Against the Person Act 1861)
questions
Be very, very careful with the ""wicked and vicious" faith" quote- I believe Griffin denies saying it (my personal opinion on the man are too explicit to post on-wiki) and the article should probably reflect that, in accordance with the BLP policy.
other reactions...
what was "challenged by The Guardian in their 'Media Monkey' blog"? Its not entirely clear from the sentence.

Overall, it's a very well written and neutral article which deals with the controversy in an encyclopaedic manner without becoming a part of it. All the issues raised above are fairly minor and could be easily fixed. The references system is interesting, but it works and all (bar the one I marked with a fact tag) controversial, "counter-intuitive or disputed" statements of fact have a source. Very impressive. Once the above is addressed, I'll be more than happy to list this. HJMitchell  You rang?   05:56, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I've fixed the other points, but I need input from the others re the cites. Ohconfucius ¡digame! 07:09, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Griffin definitely did not deny making the quote on QT, as he went on to explain it in his answer, mentioning things like the treatment of women. If anything, it is the denial part that needs a cite. MickMacNee (talk) 19:55, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

The Newsnight info is accurate as written, but could probably just go anyway. MickMacNee (talk) 19:55, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Colleagues, a user has removed the link template to a Wikinews article of 8 June 2009. I believe this is appropriate for two reasons.
First, it appears to have been hurriedly written, and I believe is not up to the standard we would expect of a reliable source in its first meaning, with a question-mark over its second and third meanings. Let's first look at the quality of the writing. There are problems throughout:

Laborious headline. "BNP" would have been fine.
Bad grammar: "the abolition in postal ballots in this years elections", with a wrong "in" (repeated with a correct one), and a missing apostrophe.
Long winding snake: "Similarly, in the Yorkshire and the Humber regions, the number of votes cast for the party vote fell from 126,538 in the 2004 elections to 120,139 in the 2009 elections, but a lower turnout resulted in the party's percentage share in the popular vote rising from 8.0% to 9.8%.
Clumsy grammar: "the party's percentage share in the popular vote rising from 8.0% to 9.8%"
Bad grammar: "BNP voters are more enthusiastic on voting, so their votes wouldn't decline as much as other parties." Again, a wrong preposition, "on"; at the very least, it should be "in"; or reworded as "are more enthusiastic voters", although the meaning of the original source needs to be considered in fixing this. Even Fowler pointed to "false comparisons", and he was right: "as much as for other parties" (OK, here, you might not go the full way, "for those of other parties". It is a moot point as to whether the contraction "wouldn't" should be used in a formal narrative. Most news sources do not do this in straight news reports, although they are looser in other genres, such as op. eds.
Laboured sentence, which might be smoother if trimmed: "Nick Griffin, the party leader of the party, was elected Member of the European Parliament in the North West England region, and Andrew Brons was elected in the Yorkshire and the Humber region."
Awkward: "a €7,000 per month salary" -> "a monthly salary of €7,000". It is unclear why "formally" is required, and what it means.
Awkward repetition/redundancy: "They will also be entitled to employ personal staff, whose salaries are also paid from the EU budget."
"June the 7th"—is this really the way dates are still written?
Unwanted comma: after "speech".
Second, a comparison with the feeder sources for this reveals that our readers would be much better served by linking directly to them in the WP article. Compared with the Wikinews attempt, the BBC News article provides more focused information, direct quotations, a video, and a colour schematic showing the state of the parties in the chamber. The Guardian provides an interactive map showing party representation for each region. Almost every paragraph in The Times article contains a sharp, interesting fact that is absent from the Wikinews summary; indeed, they stand as much better summaries of the big picture. The European Parliament link gives the financial details about salaries and expenses that our readers would expect from an external link (so why bury them at the bottom of another external link?). There are three more external links at the Wikinews page to other pages published by these direct news sources and by the Parliament: each of them gives detailed, directly sourced news with authority. They are professionally written.
I ask what value is added to this Good Article by including a prominent template to a hastily cobbled together summary at a sister project. What does need to be done by WP editors, <clears throat>, is to select the most useful external links in the Wikinews page and to place them in our own "External links" section for easy access by our readers. They should not have to wade through to the bottom of another external link to discover them. Tony (talk) 11:20, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Retain. Given the choice between dumping that wikinews article's sources in here, and keeping the template in the relevant place, I see absolutely no reason to make the change. There is also no Wikipedia policy or guideline that mandates this exclusion, which really does look like a simple loathing of Wikinews, rather than concern for readers wants and needs. Including the template is not an endorsment or recommendation of the project or the news article, and justifying it's exclusion based on a quality review after tha fact is simply very very petty. And iirc, simple corrections like grammar are perfectly acceptable in old wikinews articles. MickMacNee (talk) 12:28, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Keep it there: I strongly believe this is just a vendetta from Tony1's part and company, because their proposed changes to Wikinews' style guide were rejected by our community, mostly because they, as newcomers and untrusted persons there wanted to do such controversial changes. They arrived there for that sole purpose, and now they are doing this: they want to remove the Wikinews links on articles because they're stale. So, there are articles for events from the 11th century (just an example), but they're so stale there are no newer sources/links but there are some documents from these years that support them, should we remove the old ones? Wikinews is specially known for keeping a historical perspective of events as they happened on a determinate date, we also have a 3-days-deadline, but that doesn't makes us unreliable in anyway. I have seen articles written worse here than the Wikinews one Tony pointed out, but well, why are we even discussing these changes here and not on the talk page of the article in question? Diego Grez (talk) 17:30, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Remove: I am the one who removed it. Here's why: WN is a poor source from a content standpoint. This 'Controversy' article is well-written, and sourced with all the necessary citations. More importantly, the WN link deals with only one facet of this article – Griffin's election as an MEP, which is background information. The section is already linked to a comprehensive {{main}} WP article. If the reader wants to read about his election, they can go straight to the relevant WP article; the value added by a poorly written and concise diversionary link from a 'sister project' is zero. Granted that the little WN box is quite attractively designed, but aesthetic reasons are not a sufficient for keeping it there.Now let's contrast the WN link which was in this 'Question Time' article to the one here. The latter link also deals with a peripheral subject and, writing quality aside, I believe it adds value because it brings a dimension which WP does not want to, and as such, it would be a digression, and breach of summary style for the main WP article --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 01:47, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Restore as per WP:SISTER - Amgine (talk) 03:12, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Comments:

MickMacNee, "There is also no Wikipedia policy or guideline that mandates this exclusion, which really does look like a simple loathing of Wikinews, rather than concern for readers wants and needs." On the contrary, my concern is for readers, not editors. My exposure to WN has, of course, caused me to scrutinise its mechanisms and the quality of its product, and its relevance, utility and appropriateness for WP's external links. We do apply certain standards here, as you know, and in this case, the template-link manifestly fails them. Please AGF. WP has a strict code called RS, which I referred to above. Please read WP:RS, in which there are three components. The WN article in question is poorly written and provides a much inferior account of the event than the sources it has attempted to summarise and paraphrase. Of significance is the fact that shoving the template in here actually buries those much better sources at the bottom of an external article our readers are unlikely to discover. That is a disservice to them.
Diego Grez, you must be aware that WP applies different standards and serves different aims and purpose from those of WN. Among the differences is that here, newcomers are not per se "untrusted persons", as you put it; and we do indeed try to avoid importing venomous cultures. You are otherwise welcome to contribute to whatever part of the project you choose. It's not that the WN article is "stale"; it's just poorly written, inferior to its sources, and buries those sources where our readers can't find them. I hope WN can improve the quality of its writing and perhaps re-examine its model for writing articles. But in the meantime, WP has an obligation to its own readers. Thank you for your interest. Tony (talk) 02:56, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, but I can't read either of these comments without believing that your objection is very much down to a simple personal dislike of Wikinews. RS is irrelevant, it is not being used as a source. If you want a blanket ban on inline templates to Wikinews, or even more extremely, you want to push the case that Wikinews fails WP:EL always, then that's a dispute to be had elsewhere. In my experience, there is nothing drastically worse about the 'quality' or use of this particular wikinews article, than any other they have. And as said, grammar fixes are allowed on stale wikinews articles, if it bothers you so much. But the fact remains, it serves a purpose that neither deletion, nor liking to the election article, does any better, for the impartial reader. MickMacNee (talk) 19:10, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I remember at the time somebody at the bbc saying the BNP would apear once a year.  That would make them about due.  any news on this? Stupidstudent (talk) 02:55, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

The current season of QT just started, but no mention as yet that I've seen. Just that Nigel Farage got bumped due to a perceived bias issue with the UKIP leadership election. MickMacNee (talk) 10:22, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Inclusion of Bonnie Greer's race in the top of the article saying that she is black I would say should be removed as if we include it for her we would have to include it for others for example it would have to say "White Liberal Democrat MP Chris Huhne" I would therefore suggest changing it to American Playwright.C. 22468   Talk to me 14:32, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Except she wasn't on the panel because she is American - her nationality IS irrelevant. In faireness, it ought perhaps to also say that Sayeeda Warsi is Asian, but the name is a bit of a giveaway. Emeraude (talk) 17:00, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
I don't think the BBC chose her simply because of her race, I think it would be just a person they picked and her name is not a give away to her being asian because a good example would be Yousef Islam who's name would suggest he is asian when he isn't I would therefore quite strongly suggest removing references to race in it and also as I said before we would have to include the race of everyone else on the panel if we include hers.C. 22468   Talk to me 18:00, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
On the contrary: it is unusual for blacks or Asians to appear on Question Time: for two to appear on the same panel is almost unprecedented (indeed, it may unprecedented). Greer and Warsi have appeared on this and other BBC panel shows in the past, but it is naive, given the nature of this particular episode, to think that they were both there entirely randomly and not because of their ethnic background. Emeraude (talk) 18:27, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
You may be right but you don't have nay evidence to back this up, also wouldn't it be better to use the term African American rather than Black as the term Black it rather general.C. 22468   Talk to me 20:07, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
Well, the BBC is unlikely to come out and say it put panellists on simply because of their ethnicity, but even if it's not the case, the fact that they were there to debate with a high profile racist is truly significant. "African American" is such an ugly construction though. Emeraude (talk) 09:15, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
Personally I would say the same about Black but as I said before if we have her race we would need it for every other person on the panel.C. 22468   Talk to me 13:22, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Question Time British National Party controversy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/6OF0eu4hv to http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/art.php?id=22373
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article6883032.ece
Corrected formatting/usage for http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/8320241.stm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:42, 16 July 2016 (UTC)