Talk:John Sweeney (journalist)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the John Sweeney (journalist) article.
Article policies
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
Mast at Alexandra Palace
 This article is within the scope of WikiProject BBC, an attempt to better organise information in articles related to the BBC. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join us as a member. You can also visit the BBC Portal.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale. (Assessment comments)
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale within the BBC WikiProject.
Tasks for WikiProject BBC:
The Arbitration Committee has placed all Scientology-related articles on probation (see relevant arbitration case). Editors making disruptive edits may be banned by an administrator from this and related articles, or other reasonably related pages.
Scientology Portal
This article is supported by WikiProject Scientology, a collaborative effort to help develop and improve Wikipedia's coverage of Scientology.
The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on Scientology-related topics.
See WikiProject Scientology and Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale. See comments

Contents

[edit] Barclays owned the Telegraph in 1996?

Hardly, they took over in 2004.

[edit] Shouting, not just arguing

I changed the article to say that John was shouting, but my edit was reverted. I think this is a critically important detail - the reason this episode was controversial and received so much press coverage was precisely because John lost his temper and shouted at the other man. To call it "arguing" completely loses this very important detail - reporters argue with people all the time without it being newsworthy.

he was shouting but so was davis, john sweeney was just louder —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.201.62.36 (talk) 19:19, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Useful links ...

Useful links:

http://www.bjr.org.uk/data/2005/no4_sweeney.htm - "Bucking the system", John Sweeney writing for British Journalism Review Vol. 16, No. 4, 2005, pages 47-53 concerning the Sally Clark / Roy Meadow case.

--Swillison 11:55, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I expect that fllowing the BBC Panorama programme on Scientology (and the YouTube video) there might be a lot of changes to this page in the next few days, some of it possibly vandalism. Jooler 12:17, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Exactly, this page needs to be watched for vandalism. Chrisp7 18:42, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
I'll join the growing chorus and also recommend pre-emptive protection for this article. I just cleaned up pro-CoS vandalism on the BBC Panorama entry. (71.194.196.149 22:50, 13 May 2007 (UTC))

Have read up on the Scientology documentary, Sweeny was apparently 'bull baited' to provoke a reaction, which obviously worked. Here is an example of this technnique in action: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pPol_m8wm8Y (Pretty sure this isnt hugley relevant, but is of vague interest to this case) Chrisp7 01:00, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Ah, Chrisp7 again :-) Is it needed to tell in the article that scientology uploaded a doctored video clip of this event on youtube? Or can this article live without it?--Keimzelle 11:41, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Hi there Keimzelle:) I think it might be relevant, Just added that info. Edit away if you can improve.:)Chrisp7 13:16, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Do we know for sure that the Scientologists doctored their version, or do we just know that the versions are different? James Richardson 15:50, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Md0zPchNeQ0 - this clip from BBC Breakfast has the same "British Citizen" version. Jooler 16:08, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
A significant different between the versions is that the CoS version doesn't have much of Tommy Davis' side of the shouting match. That could be due to editing, a directional mic, or merely that the CoS camera and mic were behind Mr. Davis. AndroidCat 23:15, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] This is Scientology's smear page on Panorama, the BBC and John Sweeney

[edit] Neutrality

Ryan1727 19:15, 19 May 2007 (UTC)


The article seems entirely neutral, it's describing the events as they occured, it's not biased to either side. ≈ Maurauth (09F9) 10:58, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

It's really too early to tell, but at this point, the article seems overweighted towards a smear campaign against a highly respected journalist that has received several awards for journalism. Smee 11:07, 16 May 2007 (UTC).
Well, it portrays both sides and what actually happened on 'Scientology and Me', including how they were digging up dirt on him and harrassing his family. ≈ Maurauth (nemesis) 11:13, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
True. More information needs to be added on the years and years of his career before May 14th... Smee 11:13, 16 May 2007 (UTC).
I've been bold and removed the tag - whilst the article is unfortunately light on his previous career, it covers both sides of the scientology incident and so is pretty much neutral. --163.1.165.116 14:31, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Removed smear campaign information - this made the article unfairly balanced towards smear. In addition the information removed was added by a non registered member. Chrisp7 03:39, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Second removal of smear campaign
  • I agree with User:Chrisp7, above. Smee 04:30, 17 May 2007 (UTC).

Hmm.. it does seem relevant to the article that he was successfully sued for criminal libel, and if it's referenced I don't see a problem with including it. If the argument is that it makes him look bad, that's not our concern, I think. --Ty580 06:40, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

  • The question becomes, is it notable enough to include, or does it overweight the article to make it look like a smear campaign against a living individual? Smee 06:41, 17 May 2007 (UTC).
A search of recent news articles on Google News doesn't yield any results for "Sweeney" and "Libel," so, until CoS' criticism is reported on, it doesn't seem noteworthy to include in the Scientology section of this article. However, news sources have certainly reported on Sweeney's libel in the past, so it seems legitimate to include a single sentence in the rest of the article.
The policy in Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons directs us to require statements are verifiable, NPOV, and NOR, but does not direct us to avoid sourced statements that potentially make the subject look bad.--Ty580 09:10, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Removed again - why do you continue to add this? It makes the whole article unbalanced, considering there is very little else about him. Please discuss before adding again. Chrisp7 12:03, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
I wouldn't see a problem this being re-added provided it included a bit more context. The really interesting thing about that story is that John was sued under French libel law (which is much easier to break) because the radio interview in question was broadcast in Guernsey, but could be received in parts of Northern France. This is unusual and hence notable - but I agree that the way it was presented before came across as a smear. --Swillison 12:58, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
I have restored the information on the libel case. It is certainly notable and relevant in an article about a journalist; as one editor noted on WP:BLP it is well-sourced and quite neutral, just reporting the facts. 'Balance' is not about 'weighing up' information on a scale, as if to say "a little more good stuff here, a little less bad stuff there". Using that logic we should be truncating articles on Hitler and Charles Manson because they are 'too heavily weighted' with negative information. Balance is about putting information in context and making sure that a variety of viewpoints are reflected on controversial topics.
If what you are trying to say is that John Sweeney is a good journalist and the libel case is an unfortunate mark on an otherwise distinguished career, the thing to do is expand the article with that information, not censor it. -- Really Spooky 13:38, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
I dont really appreciate somebody coming in and adding information that is under discussion without discussing this with anyone else - why do this? Particularly as it seems a lot of your previous editing on other pages has a pro Scientology slant. At any rate I find the 'libel' section takes up a large part of a small page and is very clumsily written - I feel if it is to be kept in (still up for discussion) it should be at the very least edited. Chrisp7 15:25, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
But as Really Spooky said, if it seems disproportionate, the rest of the page should try to be expanded. If I imagined the "perfect" Sweeney article, it would certainly mention the libel trial. I can't see what's clumsy about "In 1997, Sweeney was sued for criminal libel by the Barclay brothers under French libel law and was ordered to pay £2,200 by the appeal court in Rennes, France." The second sentence isn't strictly necessary (although fairly interesting) so I'm not opposed to its removal. Debate is (obviously) welcome, but I support it's inclusion. Trebor 15:35, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Ok, accepted re proportionality, I agree then it should be kept in. I have edited the libel section, kept in all the facts as before (corrected the date to 1996) now I feel it reads better.Chrisp7 16:30, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Chrisp7, sorry if this caught you off guard, I didn't add the information, I only restored it. I have no problem with a constructive approach; I initially came across this on the BLP noticeboard and so made my comments there. Just for the record, I am neither pro-Scientology nor anti-Sweeney, nor do I have any experience with Scientology itself. Most everthing I know about Scientology (not very much) I learned through the Wikipedia articles. I only got involved in editing some of them because I enjoy the challenge of trying to achieve objectivity on what is a very polarising topic. So if it seems my editing history has a pro-Scientology slant, it is only because (at least until recently) the articles have been dominated mostly by its opponents. -- Really Spooky 17:37, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Sorry if I came across a little harsh, there have been quite a few Scientology biases written in wikipedia since this latest controversy so was a little snappy. At any rate I believe the article to be better balanced now so all is good!Chrisp7 00:29, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't find this article at all neutral because I uploaded facts recently with sources and they were promptly removed from the page. In my opinion this page is here as a propaganda tool to make Scientology look like a brain washing cult. If I were to add something in favor of John Sweeney it would not be altered, or if I added something slamming Scientology it would also not be altered. I added that john Sweeney’s Panorama bit violated 153 BBC guidelines and it was promptly removed. That statement is negative but it isn't bias. It was removed because this article is meant to brain wash people into believing that Scientology is a brain washing cult. Brain washing in itself can be a bias term used to slander so Ill be more specific and define exactly what the term means here in this sense. Brain washing is a method of robbing someone of self determinism to implant your determinism by getting them to identify beyond reason. The identify beyond reason is the part you need to grasp. You see it all the time. A little mouse comes running through the kitchen and your mother knocks down the whole room trying to jump onto the table. To you and me its is a little mouse, that’s reason, to her it's a ferocious beast come to eat her, that’s identify. So to identify beyond reason you have to suppress someone’s ability to reason and give them something to identify with like cute little mouse’s = death. How would you go about this? Psychiatry uses drugs and straight jackets. Basically you have to ask what I have to do to beat this self determined individual into apathy so that all he can ever do is obey. What do you think it would take to achieve this? Man is very rebellious in his nature and it would take a considerably bit more than it would take lets say a horse or a dog. Now let’s say that you have this man bent on some purpose other than his after you have drugged him and beat him into submission, what would you say his intelligence is? Probably not very high as he can only identify and not reason. Brain washing has been around for thousands of years. It was used in the Middle East and is probably where it originated. Then they were called assisans. Basically what would happen is you a 17 year old pauper gets drugged with some opium and next thing you know you wake up in the middle of a castle or some such place with streams of milk and honey and a few dozen naked virgins who can’t seem to keep their hands off of you. Your there for a couple of days then they give you the sharpest dagger you've ever seen and tell you if you want to make it back into heaven you better go kill that "God Dammed King". You being this feeble looking 17 year old gets right past the kings guards in the through way and gladly cuts his head off knowing that your gonna get beamed right back up into heaven after his body guards gets done chopping you into bits. That’s one way of doing it. That’s still in use to this day. How do you convince a man to hijack a plane and fly it into a building let alone 2? That’s not a reasoning man. How many of yall know a Scientologist? If you know one then you know that they are not a bunch of feeble minded individuals that give their money to the church beyond reason. Ever get into an argument with one? They don't argue, just reason. Try to call me a brainwashed fool and Ill ask you to define brain washing and if you don’t know then your just brain washed into believing that what you believe is better than what I believe and that I should be proven wrong and stopped beyond all reason. Try looking at things for your self and stop believing what you hear or read in the news or in some blog. If I enter fact here and you delete it as soon as it is posted then it shows that you are a feeble minded fool bent on someone else’s ideas. Have your own purposes and ideas, look at things from your own perspective. Observe things for your self and stop believing what you’re expected to believe. Now on the other hand if you are bent on destroying Scientology’s good name and that is your purpose then good luck because you will need it. People have been trying to do just that for over 50 years. Basically all I’m saying is that anytime that there is someone trying to do good in the world you got 10 more people trying to bring him down. Scientology isn’t the only organization out there doing good in the world and dam sure isn’t the only group that is being attacked, we just know how and why people attack us.Ryan1727 20:35, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Whatever you say, Mr Scientologist :P —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.97.200.214 (talk) 15:35, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Doctored video clip

The article currently states Video footage of the incident that some believe to be doctored[3] was distributed on YouTube[4] . Unless I'm missing something, the reference doesn't state that the video was doctored. --Duk 07:44, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

  • I took a more detailed look at the reputable secondary sourced citation, and adjusted material accordingly. Smee 07:48, 17 May 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Authored books...

... are we sure these books are by this John Sweeney? Smee 09:39, 17 May 2007 (UTC).

Yes - I e-mailed him and asked. --Swillison 13:02, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Alerted the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard...

... because of what some have referred to above as a "smear campaign", against a living person, which would be against WP:BLP. Smee 11:39, 17 May 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Awards

http://www.projectklebnikov.org/members/sweeney.html lists some awards won by John Sweeney; these should be included in the article. --Swillison 13:57, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Indeed they should. -- Really Spooky 14:04, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Include criticism from both sides?

It seems we'd be including criticism from one side and not the other to quote the media referring to the Scientology response clip as an "attack video," but to not quote the media calling Sweeney's actions a "full-fledged meltdown" (Anderson Cooper).[1]--Ty580 20:11, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

The article has only just been made neutral again as it was bordering on libel. ≈ Maurauth (nemesis) 20:28, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
I dont really see why someones opinion who isnt related to the situation in any way, should have any weight in the matter. I have been making an edit for another page what do you think of this in its place? (It may be too long/uneccessary as it its current form it seems to be quite concise.):

On 14th May 2007, an episode titled Scientology and Me was broadcast. It was written and presented by the Journalist John Sweeney showing how the Church reacted to his investigations. Prior to its broadcast video footage filmed by the Church of Scientology was released on YouTube[1] and distributed own "counter-documentary" DVD to lobby against, in its view, a one-sided view of the Church. [2] The clip showed Mr. Sweeney losing his temper with Scientologist representative Tommy Davis during a visit to the Church's anti-psychiatry exhibit, "Industry of Death". In response the BBC aired their own recording of the incident.[3] The BBC labeled the leaked video clips as "attack videos" and others say they were produced to discredit Mr.Sweeney and the documentary [4] however John Sweeney, according to Sandy Smith, editor of Panorama, "completely lost it in a way that I don't condone." Smith was "very disappointed with John, and he's very disappointed."[5] Mr. Sweeney says that this was a result of a weeklong campaign of harassment against himself and his family by Davis and the Church. [6] The edition attracted Panorama's highest audience of the current series so far.[7] Chrisp7 21:09, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

That looks goood to me. The point about Cooper's quote is it's representative of the other side that's present in the news commentary on this subject, which makes it relevant to this article. Its importance is that the media (including the BBC and Sweeney) regarded Sweeney's comments as being stronger than merely "getting upset."
Regarding the concern about libel, I believe that does not apply if the article merely quotes influential media figures, which is one of the reasons the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard concluded this article was fine. Figures who are the subject of articles are known to sometimes threaten Jimmy Whales with lawsuits when they don't like their Wiki article, but his position is that he supports the article if it conforms to Wiki policy.--Ty580 03:31, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Controversy" heading

How about removing the whole "Controversy" section? As it is about half the text of the article is about 2 small incidents in his whole life and career. Steve Dufour 05:53, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Because it's a very notable incident? More can be added to the other sections, dontchaknow. Finding some way to cut it down might not be bad, though. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 16:15, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Is getting into a slap fight with a Scientologist more important than a career in which he risked his life reporting on wars in over 60 couintries? If I went down to my local Scientology church and got into a fight would I have a WP article written about me? Steve Dufour 21:09, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
But at the same time his "notability" has rocketed as a result of the incident. It might not seem fair, but I expect a lot more people will know him for getting into a "slap fight" than for his reporting on wars. One measure would be to see how much more has been written about him since the incident. Trebor 21:20, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
I removed the "Controversy" heading so that the two incidents do not have a tendentious labelling. Philip Cross 16:32, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Useful links ...

The coverage of the actual Panorama episode itself is pretty weak. The main topic of the episode was how Scientology was keeping track of the team trying to make it - through following them, visiting their hotel, discrediting their witnesses and so on. This is hardly touched on at all, but is very relevant to understanding John's outburst (which does receive coverage). --Swillison 12:30, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Scientology Portal... really?

Is there a good reason why this article is in the Scientology portal? He was a well respected journalist before that incident - it seems that listing him in this group unnecessarily highlights a single controversial piece of his.--Vince | Talk 07:07, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I plan on removing this if no one has any objections.--Vince | Talk 07:00, 17 November 2007 (UTC)