Talk:Kay Burley/Archive 1

Archive 1

"decimated" quote

Thats quite a quote, a link to a source on that would be great Deiz 20:25, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

In fact if anyone has a video of that, upload to youtube and link it please. That would be quite something to see ! Or actually any other videos of her would be nice too, she's quite sexy ! -R.T. 4 October 2006

There is a video of her breaking the news of the September 11 attacks on the Sky News website here- but I think she said that line much later in the day. - Lee Stanley 09:30, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Beaten up by a co-presenter?

I don't remember the details (I came her to read them!) but this happened and the co-presenter got the sack. Anyone got a reference? 193.26.4.35 08:20, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Slapped seems to be a better word than beaten up. Occured in 2001 according to BBC News http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/beds/bucks/herts/3649829.stm.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 08:22, 14 February 2007‎ (talk • contribs) 08:22, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

This article has been seriously vandalised.

This page has been pretty badly vandalised through the last few months, its pretty much impossible to correct, as I am not sure which is real facts, and which is not. Can someone help here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Janahan (talk • contribs) 14:27, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, some joker changed her weight to 21st so I've reverted it. TheRetroGuy (talk) 20:27, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Rewrite

This article needs a serious rewrite I think. I've made one or two adjustments to the Criticism section, replacing the 'recent' Naomi Campbell case with a date and rewording the section in the past tense. Do we really need to mention how many people joineed a Facebook group to get her sacked? These things always seem a bit unencyclopedic to me unless they get some independent news coverage. Can we find a reference for it? TheRetroGuy (talk) 20:27, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Criticism

The following sections were removed as unsourced; to me they seem adequately referenced and I would like to restore them:

Burley was criticised following Sky News' coverage of the 11 September 2001 attacks when she said: "If you're just joining us, the entire eastern seaboard of the United States has been decimated by a terrorist attack". Although millions of people watched her say this live on air, Sky has never re-released footage of the incident and Burley herself says she 'does not know' if she ever did say it. - - She also received considerable criticism for trivialising a serious story after an interview in February 2008 in which she asked the wife of Suffolk serial killer Steve Wright: "Do you think if you'd had a better sex life he wouldn't have done this?". - - It was alleged that Burley was involved in a "small incident" outside Uxbridge Magistrates Court during a media scrum surrounding a court appearance by Naomi Campbell in 2008. There is some video footage of the alleged altercation showing a hand around the neck of Associated Press photographer Kirsty Wigglesworth, pinning her to the wall. There is also a photograph showing Burley's hand around Wriggleworth's neck. Burley refused to apologize. On 7 October 2010, Burley interviewed a nonagenarian Conservative Party activist named Harry Beckough for Sky News. Mr. Beckough had been referenced positively by David Cameron, the Conservative Party leader in a speech to the 2010 Conservative Party conference. In addition to apparently mistaking Beckough's date of joining the Conservative Party (1929) for his birth-year (1914), she asked, "And you fought for the Stafford Cripps? Is that right?" Stafford Cripps was, in fact, an early 20th Century British Labour Party Parliamentarian who had sat in Winston Churchill's war-time cabinet, opposition to whom had inspired Mr. Beckough to join the Conservative Party in 1929. References

Exok (talk) 10:04, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Some of it should definitely be included - e.g. the 9/11 comment as it's been mentioned in many many reliable sources: [1] [2] [3]. Interestingly though, she says "Don’t believe everything you read on Wikipedia" about the comment so before replacing it we should try to double check that all the "reliable" sources haven't just copied it from here when it was unreferenced in the past and then someone came along and used one of the articles as a reference. The tone is still wrong though, as the sources don't say she was criticised for it, more that it was just a bit of a stupid thing to say... not sure how to phrase it in a BLP compliant way. It would be better if the article was rewritten so that there was no criticism section though, and instead it be included in the career section alongside other information, as well as her comments on some of the incidents. Anything that is supposedly critical though must have secondary sources - the last part of the section above is lacking these at the moment, but they do exist: e.g. [4]. SmartSE (talk) 18:00, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

File:Kay Burley 2011.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Kay Burley 2011.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status What should I do? Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 00:58, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

April Jones incident

There seems to be an edit war / vandalism attack occurring in the Criticism section.

If you want to revert vandalism - fine. If you want to remove genuine content, please discuss it here first.Star-one (talk) 10:44, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

(there seems to be genuine confusion over whether one of the voluteers on air was the child's godmother, grandmother, or neither - clarity and citation appreciated)Star-one (talk) 11:19, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to remove the godmother info for now because it was added randomly by a drive-by IP, with no citation or source or edit summary. If the info is a fact then it will be reported in news media and that can be used to source it. Until then, there has been so much vandalism on the article, and all of this stuff borders on a WP:BLP violation, especially if it's not cited. Softlavender (talk) 11:31, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm fine with that; I'd read elsewhere other claims that it was the grandmother present rather than the godmother, but indeed neither have been adequately referenced. Star-one (talk) 11:34, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

I've removed this entirely until it has a better source than YouTube. Specifically, we need a reliable source describing criticism of Burley before this can be included, not just a clip of the interview. Robofish (talk) 14:01, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Couple of sources to the criticism: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/sky-news-presenter-kay-burley-accused-of-being-insensitive-bordering-on-cruel-in-interview-with-april-jones-volunteers-8199817.html http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/10/05/kay-burley-criticised-by-tom-watson-twitter_n_1941840.html?ncid=edlinkusaolp00000003 http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/media/news/a410577/kay-burley-criticised-for-cruel-april-jones-news-report.html http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/alex-hern/2012/10/crashing-insensitivity-kay-burley http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/oct/05/april-jones-kay-burley?CMP=twt_gu

And one last one, maybe a bit more balanced: http://www.thedrum.com/news/2012/10/05/sky-news-defends-kay-burley-over-april-jones-live-interview-having-been-inundated — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.154.192 (talk) 15:19, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

I've restored it with three of the references cited above. Star-one (talk) 15:35, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

• Note: Unless it can be stated (in the article) and proved (cited) that she was actually validly criticised for the incident and the criticism is published/aired in a major media source, then either (A) the sentence should be removed from this article/section or (B) the section should be re-titled "Controversy" instead of "Criticism". Softlavender (talk) 03:05, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 5 October 2012

On 5 October 2012 Burley broke the news of the probable death of the child April Jones live on air to volunteers who had been assisting with the search for her and who were still unaware of the arrest for murder of suspect Mark Bridger. This action has been criticsed by many of the UK's national newspapers.

Wpfib (talk) 15:38, 5 October 2012 (UTC) Are this links more reliaible than the actual footage of the incident on Youtube?

I have to admit that I was surprised myself to learn that Youtube video footage of somebody doing something isn't considered to be a reliable source of somebody having done something; I'd guess the rationale in this particular case might be that the existence of the Youtube footage just shows what occurred, not that she was actually criticised for it - so the links to the published news sources are the citations of the actual criticism. Star-one (talk) 16:03, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

This appears to be Already done though not in those exact words; if I have missed something please let me know. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 20:28, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

May 2010 protest on Sky News

There are several videos of this on YouTube, but they all have problems with WP:VIDEOLINK. Some have poor video and audio quality too. This one is probably the best, and the words of the protester are heard clearly in the background..--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:44, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Criticism (again)

Lots of people dislike KB and I'm no great fan myself, but the Criticism section completely dominates the article and violates WP:WEIGHT. We don't need a detailed description of every occasion when some journalist or pressure group has claimed KB has behaved unprofessionally. --Ef80 (talk) 11:07, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Criticism section

I have tagged this with Template:Criticism section because as a general rule, a BLP article should not have a section of this kind. It can easily become a coatrack for negative material. The section is also too long in relation to the rest of the article, which should read like a rounded biography, not Criticism of Kay Burley. If other editors do not object, I am going to trim and rewrite this section soon. See also the section above, which makes the same point. This has been a problem in the article for a good while.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:20, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

I understand the concern with the length of this section in comparison to the article as a whole, and indeed the existence of the section itself, but are we talking about relocating the content, or about trimming out some of it to try and present an article that appears less negative? If it's the latter, then as a (very) new editor I do have to ask the more experienced on this, how do we avoid violating WP:WEIGHT when we have several verifiable incidents of her being criticised, but nothing positive to balance this with? For example, 58,000 people signed a change.org petition to have her sacked, but we have no verifiable sources stating that others thought she should remain in her job? Surely we don't omit negative views of her professional behaviour because we don't have enough positive views to present as balance? --GravitasShortfall 16:38, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

BLP articles should not have criticism/controversy sections, as they would never reach GA/FA with one of these. Any critical material should be incorporated into the main body of the article.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:23, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Just noticed this discussion as the page is on my watchlist. What about something like Public image of Kay Burley? We have several such articles already, so it's perhaps worth consideration. This is Paul (talk) 18:47, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

I was thinking something along those lines, but would that not come under BLP as well, or does it not count because it's subject is her public image, not her person? If it has to stay in this article, perhaps it should be put under the broadcasting career section in line with Ian's suggestion? It's mainly neutral information in there, perhaps if it was merged with her noteworthy assignments it would present less of a balance problem, given that it seems a struggle to find verifiable public praise of her work. --GravitasShortfall 16:01, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Agree. It's her public image. Would be happy to see it in the broadcasting career section. I think a wholly separate article would be a bit over the top. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:14, 28 June 2015 (UTC)