Talk:Mark Thompson (media executive)

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

Removed sentence[edit]

'Mark Thompson travelled to Israel in 2005 with his wife Jane Blumberg who is Jewish.'

The above sentence comes up in search but is missing in the article. Why was it removed, is it factually incorrect? --Wool Bridge (talk) 09:18, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Can anybody verify this?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:03, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

It can be verified, it's just not particularly germane to the article - it was being added to the "Controversies" section with nothing to support the assertion that it was controversial. It's probably better suited to the main BBC article, where it can be read in context (e.g. he also travelled to the Palestinian Territories and met Mahmoud Abbas). There's more detail below. Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 13:25, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Political interference??[edit]

A very large amount of relevant material has been removed from the section of the article dealing with the refusal of Mark Thompson to broadcast the DEC appeal for Gaza. While it is obviously not acceptable to put in personal opinions, it should be possible to add factual information, backed up by references, which is relevant to the story. The intereference would appear to be political, and is very unfortunate, but presumably unavoidable in Wikipedia. I assume the only way to deal with this is to be as vigilant as the other side in reverting to older editions. Epzcaw (talk) 10:00, 25 January 2009 (UTC)epzcaw

Needs compacting/reorganising/wikifying[edit]

I agree that Thompson's stance on the DEC appeal needs to be covered. However in the rush to do so we have got rather a disorganised and unencyclopedic article. Different people have been adding material in different places when the relevant stuff needs to be grouped together. Formatting is not inline with the WP:Manual of Style with excessive use of bold, links to articles direct in the text rather tham from footnotes etc. Can the active authors here perhaps get togetehr and work out what are the key points?--Peter cohen (talk) 17:24, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree, and have made a start, though more needs to be done.Epzcaw (talk) 20:44, 25 January 2009 (UTC)epzcaw

Gaza section[edit]

There are problems with the tone, wording and extensive use of quoting. I have tried to clean it up as best as I can, but there are still significant issues. This section really needs sorting out. J Milburn (talk) 22:33, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I have created a separate article about the decision by the BBC not to broadcast the appeal. It needs a lot of tidying up, but it should be free from the constant political interference which occured on this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Epzcaw (talkcontribs) 23:55, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
And I've redirected it back to the BBC controversies page, which is the place it should be in at the moment. Black Kite 00:00, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Information which keeps getting removed[edit]

He has had talks with Ariel Sharon - in order to 'build bridges with the BBC'. His wife is an Israeli. - NominalActor (talk) 00:58, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Can you provide a source that says she's an Israeli? - I've looked and the best I can find is that she's an American. As for having talks, it's the slanting is the problem - the claims "with his wife" isn't backed up with the source, neither is the odd omission from the same article that he spoke also with the leader of Abbas. --Cameron Scott (talk) 01:01, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
His wife is an American. Roregan (talk) 02:23, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm not for sure where some POV-pushers can get an "Israeli" wife from the article... when it doesn't even mention it. seicer | talk | contribs 02:25, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Why is mention of his talks with Sharon being constantly removed? - NominalActor (talk) 10:26, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Is it relevant to his biography here on Wikipedia? Are the talks nothing more than a single unimportant event? Are there third party, reliable sources for the talks having taken place and having been substantive? Are the talks to be mentioned because they're important or because they say or insinuate something about the subject of the article? Do the sources available tell us about all the talks this gentleman has had or just this particular conversation? What conclusions are being drawn from these talks? What conclusions are we seeking for others to make from Wikipedia's mention of these talks? ➨ ЯEDVERS dedicated to making a happy man very old 10:33, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
given his attitude on gaza, the talks are extremely relevant . -NominalActor (talk) 11:34, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
You have to understand how this looks - I came here via the BLP board where this article was raised as a problem. What do I find when I get here - copyright violations (70% of an newspaper article cut and paste into this article) and downright lies (Wife is an Israeli - false, went with him to talks - flase). Then you have the fact that the people wishing to add it want to quote half of the story and give a POV version of events. Even when the problems are corrected, most of it belongs on the BBC article not this summary article. --Cameron Scott (talk) 11:55, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Edit - indeed, looking at the history, *you* are still trying to add that he visited the middle east with his wife - something the source *does not say* - you are attempting to add lies to an article - we can't allow it. --Cameron Scott (talk) 11:57, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
The visit is sourced by a reputable source and It is entirely relevant to have something about the visit as the article say's it was "This was the first visit of its kind by any serving director general, so it's clearly a significant development,". No other director general has met with a foreign nations PM. Given his stand on the Gaza aid it is entirely relevant. What possible objection is their to including the infromation?(Fted (talk) 12:34, 26 January 2009 (UTC))
It's already included further down - however what's not acceptable is a rant about Sharon and his war crimes - it doesn't belong here. --Cameron Scott (talk) 12:36, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Mark Thompson meeting with a alleged war criminal is relevant. The text on sharon comes from his Wikipedia page if you think it is a rant feel free to change that page also. You have listed it under "Broadcasting career" which is obviously not the correct place. It is a controversy hence should be under the section called "controversy". How is a visit relevant to "broadcasting career"? The correct place is the section on controversy. The fact that he met with Sharon which was the first act of it's type ever is entirely relevant and should be included as it is linked to the Gaza episode. (Fted (talk) 12:45, 26 January 2009 (UTC))
For it to be a "controversy" - a reliable source has to *report* it as a such - we can't make that judgement - can you provide a source that says the visit was a controversial visit? The original source doesn't say that. Also *how" is it linked to the Gaza incident - where are the reliable sources that link the two? --Cameron Scott (talk) 12:49, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Cameron is right, Fted. That paragraph is never going to fly, and in general, there has been a day of POV pushing on this article. Enough. --Tagishsimon (talk) 12:52, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Well maybe someone should put together a better worded paragraph that can be acceptable.It doesn't mean that we should NOT have a paragraph on the subject. The article needs a clear part that addresses that his actions where UNPRECEDENTED as the article says "This was the first visit of its kind by any serving director general, so it's clearly a significant development," Hiding it away under Broadcasting career in the hope no one notices isn't acceptable. As the article says it was the first act of it's type ever.. in the history of the BBC. The article also says that his visit was seen in "Israel as evidence that Thompson, who took office in 2004, intends to build bridges with the country's political class. Now how exactly is this not relevant??? If you don't like the paragraphs rewrite them - Do not however bury them in some unrelated section in the hopes no one notices them. (Fted (talk) 13:56, 26 January 2009 (UTC))
What is your suggested wording? --Cameron Scott (talk) 14:15, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

FWIW Sky News has also decided not to show the advert. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:47, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Can someone please remove the israeli-american wife tag? the references provided dont include anything about anything israeli. More probable that they are just using her surname as a reference.-- (talk) 16:03, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Removed Original Synthesis[edit]

I've removed the below because they are original synthesis, i.e. a Wikipedia editor has sourced information from two sources and put them together to put forward a new argument not in either cite.

  • Labour MP Gerald Kaufman - the fact he is a member of the Jewish Labour Movement is not in the BBC cite, an editor has added this in order to suggest this should give his statement extra significance.
  • "It should be noted that Palmer at the same time praised other BBC departments." - the fact that this should be "noted" is not in the cite and has been added to enhance the significance, in the editor's POV, of the preceeding criticism.
  • Israeli Prime Minister - I see this has been covered before in the section above. Bottom line is that unless good cites can be found calling this controversial, or particularly significant, it is no more important than any other official engagement by the Director General, of which I'm sure he has had many. As it stands it is no more than a transparent attempt at original synthesis by attempting to suggest there is connection between this visit and later events. Unless we have a cites saying there is (and not just opinion pieces), then it doesn't belong on Wikipedia.--Escape Orbit (Talk) 16:53, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

My last edit re "committed" catholic[edit]

Sorry, I garbled the explanation of my edit. I meant to say that it is not clear how his children are being brough up religiously given the parents are from different backgrounds. Traditionally it would go with the mother who is Jewish.--Peter cohen (talk) 19:17, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

One can't be a committed Catholic and have Jewish children? (If he does)--Scott Mac (Doc) 19:28, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
There's no verified evidence that his wife is Jewish. It looks like more of the anti-Israeli crap we've been getting all day.--Scott Mac (Doc) 19:32, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Please read WP:AGF which you clearly are not doing. And on her being Jewish, Google is your friend.[1] confirms that she is Jewish. However it also confirms that the children are being brought up Catholic and substantiates that MT is devout.--Peter cohen (talk) 22:11, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Well, I'm afraid the crap this article has been getting recently, determined to paint him as an Israeli sympathiser, it is pretty hard to assume good faith when we suddenly get references to his Jewish wife. But sorry if this just coincidental. (Side note, he could have been a devote Catholic with Jewish children?)--Scott Mac (Doc) 14:24, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Mark Thompson's talks with Ariel Sharon[edit]

Mention of his talks with Ariel Sharon - - in order to 'build bridges with the BBC' seems to have been banished from this article. Is there any reason for that? The talks with Sharon, came a couple of years after the BBC capitulated in other ways: [quote]In November 2003, the then director of the BBC World Service, Mark Byford, paid a visit to Israel which culminated in “a joint declaration on a commitment to objective coverage of Middle East events” and the appointment by the corporation of a special adviser on Middle East affairs, Mark Balen, to insure that Israel’s viewpoint was always represented, if not given primacy, in news and current affairs coverage. In return, and to save the BBC’s face, Israel agreed to lift a boycott it had instituted after the corporation screened the programme "Israel's Secret Weapon," about Israel's un-inspected nuclear, biological and chemical weapons capabilities.[/quote] ( from ) —Preceding unsigned comment added by NominalActor (talkcontribs) 12:32, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

There were repeated attempts to place it in the "Controversies" section, but the cited reference made no mention of any controversy. Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 12:39, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
The problem is with inserting this material is a way that may give a loaded impression. We'd need the context: that Israel believed that the BBC was biased against it. We'd need to know if the BBC had communications with other regimes that made simmilar claims. Using it to show that the BBC "capitulated" would not be neutral. Furthermore, the relationship between the BBC and Israel would be a matter for an article on the neutrality of the BBC, which could but it in context of the corporations policy in sensitive international area (and criticism of this) rather than using it on a bio. Frankly liking this with Thompson's Jewish wife, as we've had recently, is just unacceptable attacks.--Scott Mac (Doc) 12:45, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
And also every attempt to include it always seems to miss off that he used the same visit to visit the leader of the PLO Mahmoud Abbas, that's the other problem - it's an attempt to present a slanted view of the visit. I guess the truth doesn't have the right political message. --Cameron Scott (talk) 12:48, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
I have put this back in the section about his appointment as DG. Have included reference to meeting with Abbas. However, all this might be more appropriate in the 'BBC controversies' or 'BBC criticisms' sections which I believe are to be merged. Epzcaw (talk) 14:01, 27 January 2009 (UTC)epzcaw
Alas, someone has removed it 'because he might have met with other people'. Difficult to see how you can add anything, since it will always be incomplete. But I give up for the moment - I am too busy.Epzcaw (talk) 14:15, 27 January 2009 (UTC)epzcaw

Gregg Dykes letter[edit] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wool Bridge (talkcontribs) 14:17, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Rename to Mark Thompson (media executive)[edit]

In light of his being named CEO of the NY Times today, this article should be renamed Mark Thompson (media executive). Americasroof (talk) 22:38, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Support - I was myself about to suggest this! TV and newspapers fall under the umbrella of media. He will still be known as the ex-director of the BBC in the UK, but now will be know as CEO of the NY Times in North America. "media executive" will cover both of these.Gaia Octavia Agrippa Talk 23:31, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Support - seems like a sensible suggestion to me. Robofish (talk) 12:56, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Support. Agreed to all above, though the transition across the Atlantic and to print et al. is not yet accomplished. Wait until 15 Nov.+-? Prob. best to, at this point. Swliv (talk) 16:19, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Mark Thompson (media executive). 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.

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:25, 7 January 2016 (UTC)


Why is this structured like a political position? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:04, 2 December 2016 (UTC)