Talk:Panorama (British TV programme)

message: As you may have noticed, I have given the section on the programme ‘Is Labour antisemitic?’ a POV tag. There has clearly been discussion before on this page about the section's neutrality (I notice Bobfrombrockley raised issues with weight; thanks Bob!), and I do not believe those concerns were properly resolved.
The issues I am concerned about:
# This section appeared to disproportionately give weight to the critics of the program with insufficient weight to its supporters (the section almost implied there was consensus that the programme was wrong/biased, which is not the case). Until I edited it just now, for example, there was no mention of the fact that the complaints to the BBC and Ofcom were dismissed and the programme was ruled by Ofcom to be sufficiently impartial. Those who made or supported the program and those who critique it are also not subject to the same level of scrutiny (see point 3). I believe it is relevant to mention both sides given the media coverage but the weighting needs to be addressed - Wikipedia should be neutral, see WP:NPOV and especially WP:WEIGHT
# A number of living individuals are named here and so this section must adhere to high standards. I have taken a number of non-notable names out as the previous article text rather implied these individuals were not all named in the programme, but am happy to reinstate if they are proven to be mentioned in reliable sources etc and sufficiently notable. Editors should not name/include people when they do not have to - Wikipedia has a presumption in favour of privacy. See: WP:BLP
# Much of this section uses sites such as The Canary and Electronic Intifada as sources. These sites are deemed unreliable and should be avoided. It is good that this section mentions inline that it is using these sources so that readers are aware of the text's questionable accuracy, but it is nevertheless Wikipedia policy that these sources should not be used except in exceptional circumstances. In particular, these sites should never be used when discussing living persons, as parts of this section are, and so they should be removed or replaced with better sources. Many of the other sources given are also quite niche and obviously political publications which might be ok if they are sufficiently reliable despite their bias but there should be appropriate in-text attribution to make this clear. See WP:GUNREL and WP:BIASED
As I mention, I have already attempted to take some steps to improve this myself, but assistance from others would be very helpful. Labour's response to the programme is the subject of ongoing legal action, both by many of the whistleblowers and by the reporter (Ware), as is the leaked report mentioned, so I think we must be particularly wary of POV given the situation (see WP:LIBEL). Good steps I think would be replacing Canary/EI references, ensuring all individuals who are named are either in the public eye or need to be named for some reason, making sure all sentences referring to living people have good sources (there are currently some which are Canary or citation needed), and addressing the overall weighting of opinions. Thanks for any assistance :) Annecremin (talk) 14:51, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks . Much better. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:36, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

text: What reliable sources are you proposing here? (This is one Panorama episode out of around 44 a year for 70 years now, so I really don't think any episode should get more than a brief paragraph in this article. I think we should be trimming the bloated entries not growing them.) BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:40, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: We'll the obvious answer is the Al Jazeera documentary. If we are having the positive spin about the exceptionally biased bin fire of a doc, we need the negative stuff as well. Boynamedsue (talk) 07:54, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV (and other) issues - 'Is Labour Anti-Semitic?' programme 

message: The BBC citation in the header claiming the show is the "world's longest-running news television programme" contradicts Wikipedia's own list of longest-running TV shows by category. Meet the Press more accurately would hold that title. see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_longest-running_television_shows_by_category  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.228.129.11 (talk) 15:43, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Longest Running?

message: I've added the number of episodes to the infobox as 1,233 as there are 1233 listed on the BFI. Unforturnately this only captures up to September 9 2019 and so is already outdated. It would be great if we could get a more up to date number. There are 2,019 episodes listed on IMDB but this seems like quite a large discrepency so not sure Carlinmack (talk) 11:48, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Number of episodes 

message: The author and editor Michael Barsley. It is mentioned in his obituary in The Times if anyone can access it. Spicemix (talk) 16:39, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  First producer