Talk:Jeremy Bowen

message: I am concerned that this article is going off topic in connection with the ESC report. While I agree that it is correct to include both sides of the debate over a report that was (slightly) critical of Bowen, this is an article about Bowen himself, not about the report. The negative comments that have been added refer to Bowen, and now an excellent quote from Lyons has been added which supports Bowen, as does one of the quotes from the Independent editorial. 
I wonder, however, if it would be best to find a comment from Fisk which supports Bowen directly rather than which does so indirectly by deriding the report itself. I think Fisk's comments about the BBC Trust might find a better home on the BBC Trust article rather than here. 
In some respects, there has arguably been enough coverage of this report for it to have its own article, but I think that would be overkill and wonder if we could instead divide the material better between the existing articles. GDallimore (Talk) 14:23, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: (edit conflict - was about to post on same issue!) I realise we're in the throes of WP:RECENTISM since this is all in the news, but still, WP:NOT#NEWS and at present there are substantial WP:UNDUE issues given how essentially minor the criticism is (it comes down to one source not mentioned and a few phrases carelessly written), with the ESC report taking up half the career section. I would suggest that this should be transwikied to Wikinews, leaving a short mention here. Rd232 talk 14:24, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I think wikinews is a good idea as it would give breathing room to actually discuss the report properly rather than just pulling the odd quote from the emotional sources on both sides of the divide. Sadly, I've never edited there so don't know the rules. You got any experience/experienced contacts? GDallimore (Talk) 14:34, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope. And my one attempt to do a wikinews article a couple of months ago ended in failure for reasons I don't understand. I just asked for some help over there though; we'll see if anything comes of it. Rd232 talk 19:15, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi. I saw your message on Wikinews. Wikinews can't accept content under the gfdl, thus transwiki isn't really an option (unless someone wants to get individual permission from each editor - which isn't much fun). Bawolff (talk) 01:53, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh........... I wasn't aware of that. I guess it may be an option in future if WP does change licence to Creative Commons? Rd232 talk 02:30, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately still no, as we are CC-BY-2.5, and it is proposed to switch Wikipedia to CC-BY-SA which are incompatible (or at least incompatible to go from wikipedia->wikinews. we can go wikinews->wikipedia) . (However switching to cc will still help a lot of other things. GFDL is really not suited to wikipedia at all imho, cc-by-sa is a much better fit for 'pedia). Bawolff (talk) 02:56, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure the license is an issue as I personally do not think that copying the material that's here to WikiNews would be the best way to report the story and there are lots of details that are not worth printing here (like exactly what it was that Bowen said which was criticised and to what extent) which definitely should go into a news article. Is there anyone who might be interested in picking this story up? I could help out but I don't want to lead it. GDallimore (Talk) 10:55, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Keeping the article on topic 

message: This page is now fully protected, again. I suggest that if you cannot reach agreement on the content that you seek a 3rd opinion, or try some other form of dispute resolution. Kevin (talk) 11:49, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protected 

message: Proposal below based on comments above. Avoiding all commentary and just reporting the facts of the report and brief details of the successful allegations. GDallimore (Talk) 18:31, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I can get behind that. I think that really addresses the meat of what occurred. I guess the major issue is whether or not there is any place for the criticism of the ESC Report/The BBC and the BBC Trust's handling of it itself. Perhaps a new article?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.40.153.43 (talk) 19:42, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I have asked for the article to be unprotected so that this text can be introduced. As for criticism of the report, I have said from the beginning that that belongs in the articles on the BBC Trust or BBC News. This is an article about Bowen. GDallimore (Talk) 19:50, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems to cover it concisely and accurately, and with relatively due weight (in proportion to the rest of the article, which could probably still be expanded in other areas), as far as I can tell. Cheers for that. Although at the risk of being overly pessimistic, it will no doubt gradually be built up by others, so that it reads like a hatchet job again. I doubt very much as well that a completely new article is needed to air all the opinions on this issue, 138.etc. WP is of course meant to be an encyclopedia, not a forum for extended debate about every single piece of minor or trivial controversy, with editors arguing their corner through the selection and insertion of whatever comment or quotations they can find online that they happen to prefer. You can sign your talk page comments btw with the four tildes, or via the signature tab above the editing window. --Nickhh (talk) 20:20, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal 

message: I am not a registered user, so can't make this edit myself, but the sentence 'This inaccurate reporting was a key trigger in riots and protests around the world against Israel.' (in the last paragraph of the 'career' section) isn't supported at all in the cited NBC article, which makes no mention of the BBC's reporting or of Bowen. It also doesn't describe any of the demonstrations as a 'riot' or violent or similar. This sentence should be removed. 92.22.58.202 (talk) 00:08, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I've deleted it.  Thanks for pointing this out. Rwendland (talk) 11:35, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  unsupported claim