Jump to content

Talk:Dispatches (TV programme)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Palestine

[edit]

Nothing about the palestine episode? 195.137.110.134 (talk) 16:14, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing stopping you from adding it. Nick Cooper (talk) 12:39, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

# 1.8 Inside Britain's Israel Lobby

[edit]

The version of this section as of http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dispatches_(TV_series)&oldid=336926529 is correct in accordance with Wikipedia:Verifiability - I would politely ask the editor User:Wikieditorpro to stop edit warring. Thankyou Vexorg (talk) 03:13, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Noting down further edit warring by User:Wikieditorpro who has removed improvements to the article without discussion. Onve again I remind this editor of Wikipedia:Verifiability. Vexorg (talk) 14:38, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
User:Wikieditorpro you are continuing to edit war and go against Wikipedia:Verifiability even ni his/her edit comments i.e "You might want to learn the difference claims and facts." . What's more you simply remove additional improvements to the article without any rationale or discussion. for example: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dispatches_(TV_series)&oldid=336974854

More instances of edit warring

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dispatches_(TV_series)&oldid=334754479

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dispatches_(TV_series)&oldid=336598375

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dispatches_(TV_series)&oldid=336915880

This doesn't seem to be going very well. I assume that Vexorg is merely repeating details from the programme, but Wikieditorpro considers these to be violating BLP guidelines. I have a recording of the programme, so perhaps it would be helpful if Wkieditorpro could identify exactly which details they consider contentious, and I can check to confirm how they are presented in the broadcast? Nick Cooper (talk) 14:51, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there Nick. I watched the program and took extensive notes. I may have a recording of it too, I can't remember. Here's an example of http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dispatches_(TV_series)&oldid=336974854 where he simply removes sections of the article for no reasons whatsover ... like this section ( which you can easily verify by watching the program ) "Other groups featured in the program were the Jewish Leadership Council, the Zionist Federation, the Board of Deputies of British Jews and Camera." and as said User:Wikieditorpro is not adhering to Wikipedia:Verifiability Vexorg (talk) 14:55, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The entire paragraph is poorly written and in need of a major overhaul. As a stopgap measure, I nevertheless attempted to give some balance to a programme summary riddled with mistakes, inaccuracies and intense bias, without expending the time and effort necessary to correct all of them.

But User:Vexorg, You reverted my revisions several times and violated the 1RR restriction which was imposed on you for previously edit warring.

Firstly, as is discussed in WP:OR, conjectural interpretation of the source is not permitted. So your claims must be direct and accurate.

More central to the issue, let me cite from WP:BURDEN: "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material... and must clearly support the material as presented in the article." As such, the burden to prove the claims was on you. I fail to understand why you repeatedly mention Wikipedia:Verifiability when the burden of proof is on you when adding material, not on me when I removed false or improperly referenced claims.

The claims that I attempted to improve range from outright falsehoods, to acute POV:

"funding of ex Prime Minister Tony Blair to power" - Does the programme claim that a pro-Israel group funded Blair? Not at all. It simply points out that 'some' of the donors to the Labor Leader's office fund were also donors to some Israel advocacy groups. Furthermore, the claim itself is so ridiculous that no journalist would make it, as it implies that it was their funding that put him into power. Not only is this a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy, it is a practically unprovable.

"detailed the methods of donation and influence on" - Exactly what do you mean by 'methods' of donation? Is it a weasel word with which you are attempting to slip in innuendo? A donation is just that -- a donation. Political donations are rarely, if ever, altruistic. Further, by writing "methods of donation and influence" you are attempting to create a fallacious causal relationship from donations to influence. Practically everyone that gives money to politicians gives it to those that agree with them. But claiming the reverse is true, needs evidence which is why Oborne himself never made that claim. In addition to what I wrote above about all political donations, even if their intention are to influence the recipients, it is important to note that that is distinct from actually influencing.

" The CFI paid for 20 Parliamentary Candidates to visit Israel and upon return they received huge donations. " Was removed because it was a patently false claim. Firstly, it was claimed that 10 of them received donations. Secondly, what reference point are you using for a for an an adjective like "huge" in the context of political fund-raising in the UK? (see below...)

"Also covered was the Israel Lobby's influence in the BBC and other British Media and showed how many media outlets were frightened of broaching the lobby." Now this would have to be one of the best examples of outright bias possible. Bias in the BBC, and who influences it, is a hugely contested subject and a BBC report to examine it was thousands of pages long, and its results were not released.I think it shows poor judgment to assert such a controversial statement as fact. Once again I attempted to mitigate the bias but you continuously reverted it.

I would also remind you that the programme is in editorial style; written and produced by Peter Oborne. Thus the disputed claims (of which there are many) are his opinions and of those individuals who express them and this should be reflected in in the programme summary. This is what I tried to do but you repeatedly reverted these edits.

There are other incidental questions I can ask like why you believe it so important to include the cash for honours scandal in a short synopsis of the programme when it not directly relevant to the topic matter. Or your hackneying of "featured" where some organization are mentioned in passing. Normally I could make such minor adjustment without drama. But you insist on not allowing me to make changes without attempting to strong-arm and one-up me. I may have been a bit overzealous in removing the additional lines you added which were clearly not accurate, and I should have corrected them rather than deleted them. But I was skeptical it would make any difference as you seemed intent on undoing the edits I made.

Furthermore, Why did you add the superfluous, and politically charged (not to mention grammatically incorrect) line, "against the Israeli occupation of the Palestinian territories" in the previous progamme summary when it serves no useful purpose? Was it revenge that I changed Tom Hurndall's activities from "peace protester" to the more accurate "ISM activist? Was it simple browbeating or were you trying to one-up me? Either way, please enlighten me.

It is a pity that I have to write such a long and detailed refutation just to make a few corrections.

If you believe you are operating in good faith and that you are not POV pushing, can you explain why nearly every sentence you wrote originally, contained either logical fallacies, false claims or egregiously POV statements asserted as fact?

Wikieditorpro (talk) 13:52, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me but where was a 1RR restriction imposed upon me? Vexorg (talk) 14:59, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It seems a responder has now edited out "Other groups featured in the program were the Jewish Leadership Council, the Zionist Federation, the Board of Deputies of British Jews and Camera." from the article - If Nick Cooper is reading could you verify the featuring of these groups in teh program please. Vexorg (talk) 21:58, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The page is now protected. This is probably a good thing. In the next two weeks I shall watch the program again and make sure the section properly reflects the content of the program. I shall make notes in this talk page before editing. Vexorg (talk) 15:41, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What does 'broaching the lobby' mean ? Broaching the subject of the influence of the lobby ? I don't think what it means is clear. Sayerslle (talk) 20:14, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Equivocation is one of the dishonest tactics employed in writing this paragraph as I pointed out before..Wikieditorpro (talk) 09:31, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I just got hold of the video again after deleting it from my hard drive. I'll re-watch it when I get a chance and write up a summary.Wikieditorpro (talk) 09:34, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have the video as well. I shall do the same Vexorg (talk) 04:41, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is on youtube, everyone defending that episode should be deeply ashamed of themselves. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.242.17.127 (talk) 19:48, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Dispatches (TV series). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:56, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on Dispatches (TV series). 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}}).

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) 23:38, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dispatches (TV series). 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 10:50, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Dispatches (TV TV series)" listed at Redirects for discussion

[edit]

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Dispatches (TV TV series). The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 May 2#Dispatches (TV TV series) until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Regards, SONIC678 16:10, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Number of episodes

[edit]

I've added the number of episodes to the infobox as 843 as there are 843 listed on the BFI. Unforturnately this only captures up to June 3 2020 and so is already outdated. It would be great if we could get a more up to date number. There are 601 episodes listed on IMDB so maybe we could use that for the number of episodes since June 3 2020? Carlinmack (talk) 11:35, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dispatches_(TV_programme)&oldid=1206983717"