Talk:Bureau of Investigative Journalism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


The neutrality of the Bureau's work on Tory Party Donors has been questioned. If you look further up the list of stories on the Wikipage you can see that we have looked at excessive pay in the public sector. Doing this story we were accused of being 'Tories'.

Doing the story about Tory party funding we were accused of being 'left-leaning'.

The truth is that investigative journalism is primarily aimed at examining those in power.

At the time of writing, the Conservative Party holds the most power in the UK and has the most diverse funding network. Such funding has been the matter of considerable controversy, namely 'Cash for Access' as exposed by the Sunday Times.

The Bureau's work was politically impartial. We also reported on the funding of the liberal and labour parties but there was nothing significantly 'new' in our revelations.

Iain Overton Editor of the Bureau — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iainoverton (talkcontribs) 22:53, 7 April 2012

TBOIJ Editing It's Own Entry[edit]

The TBOIJ has been self-editing this article and the talk pages which breaks a leading Wikipedia tenet. An individual, individuals or company officers and/or employees should not be editing their own articles. They should most definitely not be personally addressing issues of bias, perceived negativity or criticism. Wikipedia is not some sort of cv, marketing pamphlet or ideological tool. Subsequently I have deleted the talk page section defending accusations of bias. There are also no cites to any published article where the TBOIG defends itself against bias. Very poor state of affairs when the people the article refers to start weighing in defensively. I have also noticed that the TBOIJ have self-cited, I am not sure that is in the best interests of Wikipedia and the site's need for neutrality and a NPOV.Twobells (talk) 21:53, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Botched Paedophilia Investigation[edit]

Although this is a story in progress, I think our coverage of the McAlpine smear story needs expanding. Hopefully we'll be able to guard against further cover-up edits by Bureau staff. MichaelPWSmith (talk) 16:08, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

@User:MichaelPWSmith They are at it again, check the Newsnight Scandal section, there is a bunch of self-cited quotes attempting to whitewash the scandal, and they call themselves 'journalists'? Twobells (talk) 14:10, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Deleting entry on Talk Page.[edit]

I'm not really sure under what policy this entry was deleted. I'd like to put it back, but I want to get some general comment first. WP:Talk page guidelines doesn't seem to allow this kind of editing. Yours, GeorgeLouis (talk) 06:39, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

  • It's called the Policy of Covering Up Bad Left-Wing Journalism, please put it back. Twobells (talk) 23:01, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Badly sourced information.[edit]

Much of the information is sourced to the bureau itself or to press releases. If there is no objection, I will be going through this article and removing all that stuff. There has been a tag requesting secondary sources since November 2012. GeorgeLouis (talk) 07:32, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

@User:GeorgeLouis They are self-citing again, check the Newsnight Scandal section, seems to be some sort of damage-limitation exercise going on. Twobells (talk) 14:07, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Note on move[edit]

I have moved the article to a title without the definite article according to rule #2 in WP:THE, that is don't use the article if it is not normally capitalised in running text. The website consistently refers to the organisation as "the Bureau" in running text, so I have moved it accordingly. --NSH001 (talk) 01:11, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Bureau of Investigative Journalism. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:26, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

"most citations originate from the BoIJ themselves, completely unacceptable"[edit]

There was a tag placed in November 2016 saying that the article is not neutral. The edit summary said "most citations originate from the BoIJ themselves, completely unacceptable" which doesn't seem to be true. 2 of the 39 references are to the BoIJ, the rest look like some of the best sources that Wikipedia provides, BBC, NY Times, etc. The tag also suggested that there was some discussion here on the topic, but I can't find anything at all new. I'll delete the tag for now. Smallbones(smalltalk) 18:06, 15 December 2016 (UTC)