Talk:The State (British TV series)

Tabloid objections to The State
The purpose of the recent RfC on the Daily Mail was not to reduce clicks to the DMGT, or to try to tell our readers what they should read.

It was, more narrowly, that the Mail site could not be considered a reliable source on questions of fact.

Here we are not using the Mail reference to establish a fact. Rather, the reporting by the Mail and the other tabloids is the story itself. It is reasonable for our readers to want to check that for themselves, to see what the Mail itself said, and how it said it, in its own words. They may also want to check the exact words of what Richard Kemp was quoted as saying.

The situation is akin to WP:PSTS. Linking to primary souces (even generally unreliable primary sources) is encouraged, not to support facts, but where what the primary source itself said is the point of interest. Jheald (talk) 22:56, 26 August 2017 (UTC)


 * I agree it is not for WP or us to tell people what to read. However as far as citing the DM is concerned, there is no ambiguity.  The following are quotes from the decision:


 * "Consensus has determined that the Daily Mail (including its online version, dailymail.co.uk) is generally unreliable, and its use as a reference is to be generally prohibited"


 * "the Daily Mail should not be used for determining notability, nor should it be used as a source in articles"


 * "There are multiple thousands of existing citations to the Daily Mail. Volunteers are encouraged to review them, and remove/replace them as appropriate."


 * As far as the article is concerned, reference to general tabloid concern meets the point. There is no need to spam lots of tabloid citations into the article.  MapReader (talk) 06:06, 27 August 2017 (UTC)


 * We clearly disagree on this. In my view when the DM etc are not being used as the source for a fact, but its very position and language itself is what we are reporting, then it is helpful for readers to easily see for themselves exactly what the papers said.


 * Perhaps you can suggest where we could request a third-party view to resolve this? (Re eg this diff ?) Asking for input to this discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television and WP:RSN perhaps?  Jheald (talk) 08:16, 27 August 2017 (UTC)


 * We might also ping User:Yunshui, User:Primefac, User:Sunrise, User:Jo-Jo_Eumerus and User:Tazerdadog, who closed the Rfc. The decision does note that it can make sense to cite the DM as a primary source, when it itself is the subject of discussion.  One possible further issue is whether questions about balance arise, if we provide extensive links to broadly positive reviews, but none to the sector of the press that was most hostile to the series. Jheald (talk) 12:17, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
 * If you say "The Daily Mail said XYZ" then yes, clearly you are allowed to use a reference to the DM. However, it becomes a question of needing to use it. I think the diff provided above is a perfect example of a lack of need; rather than state "X, Y, and Z newspapers" you just say "several newspapers" (because what about newspaper W?). This avoids an undue weight on those particular papers while still giving the relevant information.
 * Your conclusion is (I think) what I was seeking to achieve, but taking your general point - I do not understand how you could reconcile your "clearly...." with the RfC? In both WP television and film MOS, editors are urged to rely only on opinions that are published in authoritative sources, and edits seeking to cite movie or TV commentary from unauthoritative sources, such as blogs or fan sites (including IMDb) are routinely reverted.  The RfC outcome that the DM is not considered authoritative appears to apply across the board, not just to certain categories of subject matter such as news, and the extracts I have posted above seem unambiguous to me MapReader (talk) 04:40, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
 * As for the exact wording (and whether to list specific publications), I think I would get WT:TV's thoughts on the matter. Primefac (talk) 16:07, 27 August 2017 (UTC)


 * I have no strong view on whether the Daily Mail review is inlcuded in this article but the RFC was motivated by the sentiment it was not reliable for relaying facts. I think it is misrepresenting the outcome somewhat to suggest it applies to authored opinion pieces. That would leave us in the somewhat perplexing situation where someone could publish their opinion in the Daily Mail and we can cite any publication that quotes the piece but not the article directly. Clearly if someone writes an article for the Daily Mail then the Daily Mail is reliable for their opinion, but not necessarily for any facts they relay. Again, I don't think it is necessary to include the review here but it should ideally be judged by the level of insight it offers and not excluded on the pretext of being unreliable. Betty Logan (talk) 02:42, 28 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Discussion raised at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Television Jheald (talk) 12:24, 28 August 2017 (UTC)


 * I would like to address a point above made by MapReader. The ruling from the Daily Mail consensus wasn't that it was not "authoritative" but rather it was "unreliable". Specifically it has misquoted people and fabricated stories. In other words it is not trusted to relay facts honestly and accurately. It is indisputably authoritative though: it is the largest selling newspaper in the UK and has run some hugely influential campaigns. The Stephen Lawrence murderers, for example, probably would not have been brought to justice without the efforts of the Daily Mail. I was involved in the debate and supported curbing its use for citing facts; I think most people in that debate who supported the sanction did so out of concern for the accuracy of its reporting. I honestly don't think the RFC consensus is applicable to opinion pieces and reviews because the concerns about the integrity of the reporting do not apply. If we are prohibiting its opinion purely because it is the Daily Mail then that is censorship, pure and simple, and I would never have supported such a sanction if I believed it was going to be used to suppress valid viewpoints. For the record I watched The State and thought it was the best piece of TV I have seen since The Wire and totally disagree with the Daily Mail's assertion it glamorised ISIS. There may be more appropriate and more insightful reviews with a negative view, but ultimately reviews should be chosen in such a way that best demonstrate the spectrum of opinion. Betty Logan (talk) 13:18, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Once widely accepted as unreliable, its authoritativeness or otherwise would appear to be academic? MapReader (talk) 12:45, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Cast List
The cast list omits Nana Agyeman-Bediako as Isaac Boothe (Information taken from IMDB).

51.6.80.71 (talk) 17:03, 25 September 2017 (UTC)