![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.
|
"This article has been nominated to be checked for its neutrality" - is accidentally amusing. 213.122.30.182 18:06, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
The basic problem with the "price tag" attached to the BBC's efforts to keep the report secret is that the Daily Mail clearly does not have proof of the £200,000 figure. Ultimately it stems from the following "evidence":
The report is very carefully worded to give the impression that the figure in question is £200,00 but the operative part of the above is "believed" - i.e. their source does not know for sure themself. All other mentions of £200k are effectively paraphrasing of - or commentary on - this putative figure. There is certainly nothing that justifies the recent change to the effect that, "the BBC has authorized £200,000 in an effort to withhold the report..." The Mail article simply does not make that claim. The reallity is that the BBC could have spent £20,000 or £2,000,000 on this, but there is no clear and unequivacal claim either way, only speculation. Nick Cooper ( talk) 20:48, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Sometimes things are so neutral as to lose their meaning (a comment in relation to the first comment on this page.) According to the BCC itself [1], says it [the BBC] "had been accused of biased reporting against Israel." This is not an irrelevant detail, yet it is addressed in this article as if it were. Tundrabuggy ( talk) 01:03, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
"to be published as part of the on-going public debate about alleged BBC bias against Israel." my italics. [2] If this is the on-going debate, it needs to be in here. Tundrabuggy ( talk) 01:21, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
"BBC fights to suppress internal report into allegations of bias against Israel" [3] From the Belfast Telegraph article:
The dispute is over a 20,000-page report commissioned four years ago, at a time when the Israeli government had announced that it was withdrawing all co-operation with the BBC staff stationed in the Middle East, including all the help BBC journalists could normally expect with issues such as passports and visas.
So clearly the report was actually and particularly commissioned over allegations of alleged BBC bias against Israel, yet to read the article, you would not know this. Tundrabuggy ( talk) 02:35, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Malcolm's article is a bit WP:ONEEVENT, which suggests at least considering this merge. What do you folks think? -- j⚛e decker talk 19:28, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
The BBC has won the HonestReporting annual award more times than any other media outlet thanks to its institutional anti-semitism and anti-Israel bias. Ask anyone who works for the BBC and they will tell you how it is there. The simplistic reason given is that it is to protect the BBCs reporters from the Arabs who would not cooperate/kidnap/murder/torture them if they critisised them or showed them in a bad light! Clearly, they have no fear of Jews or Israel; the worst they would get is a strongly worded letter of complaint! The BBC has lost its moral compass, if it ever had one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.30.20.138 ( talk) 12:49, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
Why was the section detailing Peter Oborne's findings that the report showed, if anything, a pro-Israel bias? Detailed here: http://www.opendemocracy.net/ourkingdom/peter-oborne-james-jones/pro-israel-lobby-in-britain-full-text#m9
The removal seems politically motivated — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.69.80.20 ( talk) 14:52, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Balen Report. 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).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 00:55, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 3 external links on
Balen Report. 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).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 12:11, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
At the risk of wading into some kind of politics war, I think lines like this -- 'Helen Boaden, Head of BBC News *hilariously* claimed to believe that this was "an editorial misjudgment".' -- are a fairly clear violation of NPOV. Karl au mu ( talk) 09:03, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
I see my edits addressing the above have been reverted. I would reiterate that none of the removed material was reliably cited, most of it post-dates the subject in question, and probably amounts to a sythesis, anyway. The Barbara Plett incident is - properly - dealt with on her page already. The accusation against Guerin is far too serious to be cited to nothign more than a blog, and doesn't belong here, either. Nick Cooper ( talk)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Balen Report. 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).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 08:22, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
The first paragraph is both extremely poorly written and gives a misleading impression.
The implication is that the report itself was - in the words of the Head of News quoted at the end of the introduction - an "editorial mistake" and so it's purported conclusions are specious. In reality that quotation refers to a specific incident where BBC News reporter Barbara Plett described her sympathetic reaction to seeing Yasser Arafat airlifted to hospital - detailed here: https://www.standard.co.uk/news/the-secret-report-at-heart-of-bbc-s-gaza-paranoia-6870301.html
The entire thing gives the impression of being the mangled remnants of an edit-war. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C5:E401:4600:2109:C0F2:E89B:E6C1 ( talk) 13:45, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.
|
"This article has been nominated to be checked for its neutrality" - is accidentally amusing. 213.122.30.182 18:06, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
The basic problem with the "price tag" attached to the BBC's efforts to keep the report secret is that the Daily Mail clearly does not have proof of the £200,000 figure. Ultimately it stems from the following "evidence":
The report is very carefully worded to give the impression that the figure in question is £200,00 but the operative part of the above is "believed" - i.e. their source does not know for sure themself. All other mentions of £200k are effectively paraphrasing of - or commentary on - this putative figure. There is certainly nothing that justifies the recent change to the effect that, "the BBC has authorized £200,000 in an effort to withhold the report..." The Mail article simply does not make that claim. The reallity is that the BBC could have spent £20,000 or £2,000,000 on this, but there is no clear and unequivacal claim either way, only speculation. Nick Cooper ( talk) 20:48, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Sometimes things are so neutral as to lose their meaning (a comment in relation to the first comment on this page.) According to the BCC itself [1], says it [the BBC] "had been accused of biased reporting against Israel." This is not an irrelevant detail, yet it is addressed in this article as if it were. Tundrabuggy ( talk) 01:03, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
"to be published as part of the on-going public debate about alleged BBC bias against Israel." my italics. [2] If this is the on-going debate, it needs to be in here. Tundrabuggy ( talk) 01:21, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
"BBC fights to suppress internal report into allegations of bias against Israel" [3] From the Belfast Telegraph article:
The dispute is over a 20,000-page report commissioned four years ago, at a time when the Israeli government had announced that it was withdrawing all co-operation with the BBC staff stationed in the Middle East, including all the help BBC journalists could normally expect with issues such as passports and visas.
So clearly the report was actually and particularly commissioned over allegations of alleged BBC bias against Israel, yet to read the article, you would not know this. Tundrabuggy ( talk) 02:35, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Malcolm's article is a bit WP:ONEEVENT, which suggests at least considering this merge. What do you folks think? -- j⚛e decker talk 19:28, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
The BBC has won the HonestReporting annual award more times than any other media outlet thanks to its institutional anti-semitism and anti-Israel bias. Ask anyone who works for the BBC and they will tell you how it is there. The simplistic reason given is that it is to protect the BBCs reporters from the Arabs who would not cooperate/kidnap/murder/torture them if they critisised them or showed them in a bad light! Clearly, they have no fear of Jews or Israel; the worst they would get is a strongly worded letter of complaint! The BBC has lost its moral compass, if it ever had one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.30.20.138 ( talk) 12:49, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
Why was the section detailing Peter Oborne's findings that the report showed, if anything, a pro-Israel bias? Detailed here: http://www.opendemocracy.net/ourkingdom/peter-oborne-james-jones/pro-israel-lobby-in-britain-full-text#m9
The removal seems politically motivated — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.69.80.20 ( talk) 14:52, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Balen Report. 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).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 00:55, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 3 external links on
Balen Report. 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).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 12:11, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
At the risk of wading into some kind of politics war, I think lines like this -- 'Helen Boaden, Head of BBC News *hilariously* claimed to believe that this was "an editorial misjudgment".' -- are a fairly clear violation of NPOV. Karl au mu ( talk) 09:03, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
I see my edits addressing the above have been reverted. I would reiterate that none of the removed material was reliably cited, most of it post-dates the subject in question, and probably amounts to a sythesis, anyway. The Barbara Plett incident is - properly - dealt with on her page already. The accusation against Guerin is far too serious to be cited to nothign more than a blog, and doesn't belong here, either. Nick Cooper ( talk)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Balen Report. 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).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 08:22, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
The first paragraph is both extremely poorly written and gives a misleading impression.
The implication is that the report itself was - in the words of the Head of News quoted at the end of the introduction - an "editorial mistake" and so it's purported conclusions are specious. In reality that quotation refers to a specific incident where BBC News reporter Barbara Plett described her sympathetic reaction to seeing Yasser Arafat airlifted to hospital - detailed here: https://www.standard.co.uk/news/the-secret-report-at-heart-of-bbc-s-gaza-paranoia-6870301.html
The entire thing gives the impression of being the mangled remnants of an edit-war. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C5:E401:4600:2109:C0F2:E89B:E6C1 ( talk) 13:45, 21 August 2018 (UTC)