This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Benefits Street article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
![]() | This page is not a forum for general discussion about Benefits Street. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Benefits Street at the Reference desk. |
![]() | Benefits Street has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
![]() | A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the " On this day..." column on January 6, 2024. | ||||||||||||
Current status: Good article |
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
all my changes have been reverted, cant see why? I will redo when I have the time, but can we discuss it before you just decide that you dont want a different point of view in the article please? I am readding the amil quote now, its relevant and sourced. Honest-john ( talk) 21:05, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
one example: actual quote says: Some residents became irritated, saying they felt the meeting was being used as an opportunity to preach a political agenda. WHAT you keep putting article: BBC journalist David Lumb said that many felt the area had been misrepresented, and that the series was being used to "preach a political agenda. Trying to push a npov approach. I just want the quotes to be correct? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Honest-john ( talk • contribs) 21:19, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
I have asked a senior editor/admin to look at the reverts as you keep ignoring my request for talk first. I will leave the article alone now. Honest-john ( talk) 21:24, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
Rev. Steve Chalke, director of the company that runs the school said that residents he spoke to at the meeting wanted an apology from Channel 4 for misrepresenting them, or they would refuse to take part in a live debate scheduled to be aired after the final programme on 10 February. [1] Chalke asked Channel 4 for an apology, but the broadcaster responded by issuing a statement in which it said it was proud of its "fair and balanced observational documentary". Chalke subsequently called the programme "an old Victorian freak show". [2]
The footballer Joey Barton attracted criticism from users of the social media site twitter when he suggested that the documentary's participants should be subject to a breeding license. [3]
Ten days later, that figure had collectively risen to 877. [4]
Source that gives the number of properties as 137. [5] There are conflicting reports of the number.
A spare ref. Telegraph article used in the lede to source the shoplifting demo, but not used elsewhere, could be useful though. [6]
More from lede. Hundreds of complaints. [7] Mislead by the documentary makers. [8]
In writing the synopses for each episode, I've deliberately left out the names of those featured because I wasn't sure whether the information would be encyclopedic. It might make better sense to add them though as it could make future additions easier (e.g, White Dee's ambition to stand for Parliament and SB's modelling career, both of which may eventually require a mention). I'll add them for now, but if anyone disagrees then please feel free to revert, and of course, add any thoughts here on this. Paul MacDermott ( talk) 20:27, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
Collecting refs for an article about the next series. This is Paul ( talk) 13:43, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
I'm proposing to start a new article for Benefits Street 2, since it takes place in a different part of the country, and appears to be about to unleash its own controversies, not least drawing the interest of the local constabulary. Any thoughts? This is Paul ( talk) 21:15, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
I've written an article analysing Benefits Street, I thought I would put it here in case you think it would be useful to reference in the article. The version of record is here: http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1367549416682968 And an open access version is here: http://irep.ntu.ac.uk/id/eprint/29155/ -- TomVickers ( talk) 13:44, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Benefits Street article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
![]() | This page is not a forum for general discussion about Benefits Street. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Benefits Street at the Reference desk. |
![]() | Benefits Street has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
![]() | A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the " On this day..." column on January 6, 2024. | ||||||||||||
Current status: Good article |
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
all my changes have been reverted, cant see why? I will redo when I have the time, but can we discuss it before you just decide that you dont want a different point of view in the article please? I am readding the amil quote now, its relevant and sourced. Honest-john ( talk) 21:05, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
one example: actual quote says: Some residents became irritated, saying they felt the meeting was being used as an opportunity to preach a political agenda. WHAT you keep putting article: BBC journalist David Lumb said that many felt the area had been misrepresented, and that the series was being used to "preach a political agenda. Trying to push a npov approach. I just want the quotes to be correct? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Honest-john ( talk • contribs) 21:19, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
I have asked a senior editor/admin to look at the reverts as you keep ignoring my request for talk first. I will leave the article alone now. Honest-john ( talk) 21:24, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
Rev. Steve Chalke, director of the company that runs the school said that residents he spoke to at the meeting wanted an apology from Channel 4 for misrepresenting them, or they would refuse to take part in a live debate scheduled to be aired after the final programme on 10 February. [1] Chalke asked Channel 4 for an apology, but the broadcaster responded by issuing a statement in which it said it was proud of its "fair and balanced observational documentary". Chalke subsequently called the programme "an old Victorian freak show". [2]
The footballer Joey Barton attracted criticism from users of the social media site twitter when he suggested that the documentary's participants should be subject to a breeding license. [3]
Ten days later, that figure had collectively risen to 877. [4]
Source that gives the number of properties as 137. [5] There are conflicting reports of the number.
A spare ref. Telegraph article used in the lede to source the shoplifting demo, but not used elsewhere, could be useful though. [6]
More from lede. Hundreds of complaints. [7] Mislead by the documentary makers. [8]
In writing the synopses for each episode, I've deliberately left out the names of those featured because I wasn't sure whether the information would be encyclopedic. It might make better sense to add them though as it could make future additions easier (e.g, White Dee's ambition to stand for Parliament and SB's modelling career, both of which may eventually require a mention). I'll add them for now, but if anyone disagrees then please feel free to revert, and of course, add any thoughts here on this. Paul MacDermott ( talk) 20:27, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
Collecting refs for an article about the next series. This is Paul ( talk) 13:43, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
I'm proposing to start a new article for Benefits Street 2, since it takes place in a different part of the country, and appears to be about to unleash its own controversies, not least drawing the interest of the local constabulary. Any thoughts? This is Paul ( talk) 21:15, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
I've written an article analysing Benefits Street, I thought I would put it here in case you think it would be useful to reference in the article. The version of record is here: http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1367549416682968 And an open access version is here: http://irep.ntu.ac.uk/id/eprint/29155/ -- TomVickers ( talk) 13:44, 24 March 2017 (UTC)