Talk:The Jeremy Kyle Show

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Peer review The Jeremy Kyle Show has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.
The Jeremy Kyle Show was a good article nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Reviewed version: December 9, 2007

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the The Jeremy Kyle Show article.
Article policies
TV
Television Portal
This article is part of WikiProject Television, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to television programs and related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as mid-Importance on the importance scale.
Assessment comments
TV This article is part of WikiProject British TV shows, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to British TV shows on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project British TV shows, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Votes for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 26 August 2006. The result of the discussion was keep. An archived record of this discussion can be found here.
Maintained The following user(s) are actively involved with this article and may be able to help with questions about verification and sources:
HisSpaceResearch (talk · contribs)
This in no way implies article ownership; all editors are encouraged to contribute.

Is there any userbox useing one of his qouts? ♥Eternal Pink-ready for love♥ 17:29, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] This might be difficult to verify, but does anyone think that...

in general, Jeremy is biased towards the females that come on the show and against the males that come on the show?-h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 13:46, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] matt tearle was one of the first guests to experience this

The parodying of Kyle on Dead Ringers is included on the Jeremy Kyle page.

[edit] The Bias Towards Woman

This is listed under the examples of why people think that this show is right wing.

I was always under the impression that right-wingers were more concerned with males and didn't care much for woman. Example: Abortion. Surely a bias towards woman is a more left-wing issue. JAStewart 09:13, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Usage of Slang

I've deleted the following passage, which appeared under the heading of "Usage of Slang": "Jeremy Kyle is known for using a few Cockney rhyming slang terms on his show such a Bonce to describe a Head, Huffy to describe someone in a mood and Barney to describe an argument."

Neither "bonce", "huffy" nor "barney" are cockney rhyming slang, nor are they derived from it.

Martan 18:14, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Crappy writing

ITV stockpiled its outstanding Trisha episodes until January 2005 and used them to spoil the launch of Trisha's new show, Trisha Goddard.

Is this opinion? What on earth does it mean?! Get this tabloidy writing out of Wikipedia! (I'm not an expert on this topic so I can't do it myself.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.243.195.136 (talk) 13:28, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Libel?

I've removed "bear-baiting sociopath", on the basis that the Wikipedia Foundation would be able neither to resist, nor afford, a defamation action based on those words. Unless and until there is a reliable source justifying that Kyle himself has described himself thus, those words must go. --Rodhullandemu (talk - contribs) 21:47, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

And I note that the show is cited as "bear-baiting" by the Daily Mirror, but the DM, being a major newspaper, has libel lawyers on tap. The WP Foundation, being largely a voluntarily funded organisation, does not. Let's minimise the damage, hey? The "sociopath" remains not even vaguely justified. --Rodhullandemu (talk - contribs) 21:53, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I want to try to get this to good article status

Eventually, I'd love to see this as a featured article. It'll be difficult, but I'll start just now.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 23:38, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Can't see it happening because I think you'll spend a lot of time fighting vandalism. Also, I don;t see the Yanks seeing ts importance. Or the Brits, come to that. But best of luck --Rodhullandemu (talk - contribs) 23:40, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
If the vandals show up again I'll get it semi-protected. But yeah, this article has a lot of WP:OR at the moment and material that is difficult/impossible to verify. I'll see what I can do.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 00:08, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Fine, go ahead, it could use some work; but I've previously reverted "bear-baiting" as unsourced, so you will need a ref to that one, at least. I also took out "sociopath" on libel grounds. --Rodhullandemu (talk - contribs) 00:16, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
I can get you a source for "bear-baiting". It was in The Guardian, among other newspapers. I'm going for general cleanup just now and improvement of the poor tone and structure that the article has currently, then I'll try to find sources and root out the unverifiable material that remains.-h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 00:19, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
105 Google News results for Jeremy Kyle. I'll be careful not to use the News of the World as a source, though, as it has been known to make shit up.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 00:51, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
You're totally right now, it's going to be hard to get an NPOV article here that's free of original research and verifiable.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 01:01, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Probably better a short sourced NPOV article than the ramshackle hulk it was before you started. My experience is that it does tend to attract the nutters, and if it's short, there may well be a tendency for them to re-add what's "missing". Vigilance is the key here. It's on my watch list precisely because of vandalism. --Rodhullandemu (talk - contribs) 01:09, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Google News results here.-h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 02:02, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
OK - I have improved the article somewhat. It still needs a fair bit of work before good article status can be acheived, but I think it's slowly progressing towards that. One problem is that most of the media coverage I can find came into play after the headbutting controversy and the judge's "bear-baiting" description, which may present POV problems.-h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 11:06, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
I wouldn't worry too much about the flurry of media coverage, after all Alan Berg's comments made the BBC News 24 reports. I know him of old, BTW, he was a Liverpool solicitor when I practised there. I think he knew full well what the effect of his comments would be and might even be on a retainer from Granada (I didn't say that, BTW). Meanwhile, the article is looking a lot better. --Rodhullandemu (talk - contribs) 11:27, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, thanks - and I think it's looking a lot better too. There isn't that much more that needs to be done before I make it a good article nominee.-h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 12:55, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The original spoken word article here is obsolete

I may, at some point, create another one.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 13:55, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationales for images

I will try to do these later.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 14:37, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA Review

Just made some minor changes; you may want to look at the diffs since some of them are subtle. Also the FairUse for the headbutting image really should say something better than "Portion: Not a lot". For screencaps I usually work on the basis of 25 frames/sec, 60, secs/mins x minutes shown, which gives 1/875,000 for this programme. That forestalls anyone saying it's a "substantial" extract. --Rodhullandemu (talk - contribs) 18:38, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Made those changes as you suggested, and thanks for the help.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 20:21, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Special editions of the show

I know that there have been episodes of the Jeremy Kyle Show with people from the US talking about Westboro Baptist Church and a survivor of the Virginia Tech massacre, and that there was a special dedicated to the Pride of Britain Awards. However, I am having trouble finding a reliable source for this information, although it is quite obviously true as it was broadcast on television. How does that work with WP:V? I'd appreciate a comment.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 12:28, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

There are YouTube-style videos of this online, but nothing which actually mentions the appearance as a source.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 19:21, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Is there anything in the linked articles which mention this? I've had a look at WP:CITE but there is no guidance on citing TV or radio programmes. I've done it myself, and seen it done but not sure there is any guidance on this. --Rodhullandemu (talk - contribs) 19:25, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I've seen it done too, but that further complicates things.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 18:39, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
There was an edition of the show broadcast this afternoon on ITV2 in which Kyle played the good guy, talking to kids with illnesses and doing things like telling them they were going to Disneyland Paris. How predictable - I would have visited Jim Morrison's grave if I was in the area, but I guess that wouldn't be too appealing for a five-year-old girl with leukemia (sp?). Anyway, I still don't see any way of verifiably entering this information about special Jeremy Kyle editions...--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 00:35, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
I would guess if it's such a big deal it would have been given coverage in a newspaper or website somewhere- more so if these trips have actually occurred & been credited to Kyle. I've cited TV programmes as inline citations to, e.g. <ref>"The Jeremy Kyle Show", [[ITV2]], 16 November 2007</ref> without complaint (yet). And "leukemia" is OK; used to be "leukaemia" but that style of spelling has been going out of style for a while now. Meanwhile, you might like to keep an eye on Jeremy Kyle itself as someone seems keen on adding links to Orchard FM and I may not be around to catch them. Cheers --Rodhullandemu (please reply here - contribs) 00:44, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Well, I would like to add other references to special shows, but I don't know the exact dates of broadcast, making them unverifiable. Also, there's issues with WP:RELEVANCE. I've waited a long time for a GA reviewer to come along, but I guess I deserve it considering I didn't choose to review a GA for someone else when I nominated it.-h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 06:18, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
<---

There's currently a deletion discussion going on re a useful template: Template:Cite episode which at least would give a vehicle for citation. It presently looks as if it might survive. That doesn't address the verifiability issue. You might want to keep an eye on it at WP:TFD#November 18. --Rodhullandemu (please reply here - contribs) 12:52, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA hold

I have never seen this particular show, but I have seen others like it. :) The article reads well. I do have a few concerns about sources and comprehensiveness:

I started looking at your sources and I'm a bit concerned that they aren't as reliable as they could be. First off, you need to list the authors in the notes - many of these articles have authors that you haven't listed. Second, a lot of these articles are opinion pieces and are therefore not held to the same journalistic standards as other articles. I think they can only be used as evidence of their authors' opinions. You must find more reliable sources for the factual material. I have done an analysis of the first third or so of the sources:

  • It is my understanding that IMDB is not a reliable source because it relies on user contributions.
  • This is an advertisement by the network for the show. It cannot be considered a reliable source.
  • This is an opinion piece that you are using to cite facts. I don't think that is very kosher, as the writer is using the piece to voice her own views and is not adopting a journalistic stance.
  • This link does not go to the specific material you mention in the article.
  • The Sun is not a reputable paper. Surely there must be a more reliable source for the fact that: "The show was given a new logo and on-screen identity in April 2006, and in 2007 the show was nominated for the "Most Popular Factual Programme" award at the National Television Awards."
  • This and this are opinion pieces, so the statement that you make in the article would need to be qualified: "The guests typically include couples, families and friends who are concerned about a person or people close to them with a problem that they would like to be resolved. Guests on the show have been stereotyped as representing an ignorant underclass." - Who is stereotyping them?
  • This is an opinion piece - I am not entirely sure, then, that you can source facts such as this to it: "With other guests, lie detectors and DNA tests are frequently used to determine whether an individual has been lying, or to reveal whether a man is the biological father of a child."

Please go through the rest of the sources and be sure that they adhere to WP:RS. If they do not, as I feel these might not, we'll have to find others.

Other issues:

  • The lead has too much detail (e.g. the filming times) - it needs to be a summary of the entire article, which means it should have broad statements. See WP:BETTER#Lead section for help on writing leads.
  • The article is overlinked (I think all readers know what sex is, for example). See WP:MOS-L for advice on how to link.
  • I can't quite understand the first paragraph of the "Background" section - please explain a bit more why these other people like Trisha and Jerry Springer are important to understanding the history of the show.
  • The parodies need to be explained more clearly - what aspects of the show are they parodying? How does the parody work?
  • Do you think it would be possible to have a section on the "Host"? He is at the center of the show and could perhaps be described in more detail?
  • Is there any information available on the "Production and development" of the show?

Overall, I think this article is progressing well, but it needs to be buttressed by solid sources, particularly since we are dealing with a show is apparently controversial. Awadewit | talk 14:11, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Awadewit, I'm not involved in this article, so I'm speaking independently. I think you might be being a little harsh in your appraisal of RS.
  • The Sun meets RS, despite our cultural prejudices.
  • RS can be cited, regardless of the overall feel of the paper. Qualification, of course, should be given if opinion is cited (and who cares what some journalist thinks?). However, this serves to support a factual statement. The same is true of some the others you cite. I don't care much for some journalist's conclusions about "Why do we watch all these vile shows?" But if objective facts can be salvaged from such reductionist arrogance, then fair enough.
  • IMDB isn't ideal, but it's acceptable at GA for non-controversial statements. If it was used to support a statement about a LP, then fair enough.
  • Awadewit identifies several other issues, however, that I encourage editors to address. Cheers, The JPStalk to me 12:26, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I stand by my assessment of these sources. Sources are assessed independently of whether an article is going for GA or FA. We need to have WP:RSs for all wikipedia articles.
  • Opinion pieces in newspapers are not fact-checked like articles are, therefore they do not meet the requirements for a reliable source when it comes to factual material. Articles in newspaper have to have verification for their claims and are fact-checked. This is not the case for opinion pieces. This is why we cannot use opinion pieces as evidence for anything other than the writer's opinion.
  • IMDB is not a reliable site as anyone can add information to it. :) They are not even required to cite their sources.
  • I was under the impression that The Sun was a tabloid. I don't think wikipedia should be relying on tabloid journalism, do you? Awadewit | talk 12:52, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
The point is that these are reliable sources!
  • Facts in published articles are checked regardless of its overall tone. Do you think a judge in a libel action would dismiss a case on grounds that the rest of is just an opinion piece? It would still be subject to litigation.
  • Additionally, many reliable sources in television articles are opinion pieces, in the form of reviews.
  • The Sun meets Wikipedia:Verifiability#Sources as a "mainstream newspaper."
  • Many existing GA television articles reference IMDb. I agree with your concerns, but at GA level we can give some leeway. So long as it is not used to cite anything that is controversial. The first FA I check even uses it. If a more reliable source can be found, then great.
  • Similarly, the use of itv.com here is also acceptable per Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published_and_questionable_sources_in_articles_about_themselves.
The JPStalk to me 13:14, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
I will ask for another opinion, but I would like to point out that nowhere have I seen arguments for "leeway" in sourcing being made on wikipedia before. Awadewit | talk 13:34, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

They are not the ideal sources but let's look at what they are being used to reference and see if they have any authority on the statements. According to the inline citations:

  • IMDb
    • "The Jeremy Kyle Show is a daytime television talk show presented by Jeremy Kyle which has been broadcast in the United Kingdom on ITV since July 2005."
    • "The show is filmed at the Granada Television studios in Manchester, England"
    • "The Jeremy Kyle Show, which was first broadcast on 4 July 2005"
      • These little nuggets are often mentioned in newspapers. 'filmed at the Granada Television studios in Manchester'Guardian and we should be able to verify it other sources, regardless. The first point (and introductory sentence in the article) doesn't even need to be referenced as it should be explained and referenced elsewhere in the article.
  • The Sun
    • "In 2007 the show was nominated for the "Most Popular Factual Programme" award at the National Television Awards"
      • Results of the National Television Awards
        • (WP:RS does not identify tabloids as being unreliable. Remember it was The Times and The Guardian (Independent too, possibly?) that reported that Hazlehurst wrote "Reach!" I have a problem with making generalisations that "broadsheets" are more reliable: it doesn't really matter in a Wikipedia article, but in real life it is a very dangerous assumption. The JPStalk to me 15:41, 6 December 2007 (UTC))
  • ITV advert-style entry & The Press opinion piece
    • "The show is distinctive for its confrontational style, which sees guests attempt to resolve issues with others that are significant in their lives, such as family, relationship, sex, drug, alcohol and other issues."
      • The problem here is the "is distinctive for" part.
        • (Agree with that. If the ref is being used to support the second half, then it's OK. The JPStalk to me 15:41, 6 December 2007 (UTC))
  • BARB
    • "a transmission breakdown disrupted one of the first three showings."
      • Footnote requires an explanation on how to navigate from the link provided to access this info.
I'm not judging its GA-worthiness and I'm not trying to set any rules or precedents here, but these simple facts should be confirmed in something more reliable or official. Also, I think IMBD and the ITV profile belong in the External links section. --maclean 06:22, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Of course, all of this is academic if the other improvements are not enacted. The JPStalk to me 15:41, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
This article without a doubt fails the GA criteria in several instances in my opinion; the coverage is not broad enough, the neutrality of the article is questionable and the article is largely unfocussed (the style section frequently has bits that belong (and should belong only) to the criticism and controversy section.
IMDB is generally not a reliable source as such, however, in some instances is accepted. (This applies particularly to films whose existence is known, yet somehow manages to lack literature in certain relevant areas). So basically, it all depends on context, as with most other sources (including that of the tabloids and other discussed ones here!). Sometimes, the usage of these 'controversial' sources works in the article (particularly in the criticism and controversy section), and in certain minor details/facts about the show. However, in all other areas it would not work. But I would emphasise that this sources issue may be of secondary importance. The article needs to be improved and become more broad in its coverage. For these reasons and more, I am failing this article as I do not believe that such changes can be effectuated in a week (let alone a fortnight). My advice to editors of this article is to get future articles peer-reviewed before proceeding to this stage. Best wishes towards improving this article much further, as well as others - Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:02, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] So what do I have to do?

I could try acting on what people have said here, but I'm now slightly confused. There are some basic improvements I should make, and I will do these soon... but I'm not sure I can guarantee GA even with those improvements.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 13:06, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, that little discussion has made things confusing. I'd concentrate upon the comments marked as 'Other issues'. The JPStalk to me 14:01, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
OK could you hold on just a little bit longer per WP:IAR (believe me this will help to improve the encyclopedia by ignoring the time limit for GA on hold to stay) before removing the tags?-h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 12:58, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm ignoring the time limit, but I still feel the source issue needs to be addressed. What is confusing about the additional comments? Awadewit | talk 13:15, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
My advice to editors of this article is to make changes slowly (don't rush), and when you believe you have done all that you can to improve the article, get it peer-reviewed first before proceeding to this stage in the future. However, there is no point extending the time limit as it is going to be a long while before this article is ready to be re-assessed as a GA. Best wishes to all editors in improving this article. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:06, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
I don't think that it was actually helpful to fail this article. We were working out the issues and GAC now takes quite a long time (this article waited over a month to be reviewed). Awadewit | talk 08:50, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
FYI, the maximum an article can be put on hold is 7 days. To be fair, a slightly greater time was given. This was the second opinion; there are more subtle issues that need to be worked out before thinking about the reliability of sources that are used - please don't detract. If you feel that this article had what it took to pass, then check what I've said below for a reassessment. :) Any editors who have contributed significantly to this article who would like more feedback from me, and/or guidance on where to go from here, should feel free to drop an appropriate request on my talk page. :) Cheers - Ncmvocalist (talk) 11:46, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Agree with Awadewit. We could IARs when it comes to the 7 days. We have to adhere to time limits with more serious discussions, such as RFA, but this... Was(ere) the OR violation(s) ever explained? The JPStalk to me 12:49, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Failed "good article" nomination

This article failed good article nomination. This is how the article, as of June 14, 2008, compares against the good article criteria:

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:


When these issues are addressed, the article can be renominated. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it have it reassessed. Thank you for your work so far. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:30, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Drinking game

I think the effect of the Jeremy Kyle show on current social culture in the UK, could be shown in more depth, if only with a few lines (with references) about the drinking game [[1]] associated with the show (and the scripting of it's host), the drinking game also highlights the (often) repeatative nature of The Jeremy Kyle show, as well as it's host.  Doktor  Wilhelm  10:59, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

That doesn't look like a reliable source. If a reliable source confirming the existence of the drinking game is found, then we can consider mentioning it in the article. However I doubt that any such source exists.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 17:54, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Jeremy Kyle generation"

It's just another news story - don't know if it could be used as a source - but here it is anyway. [2] --h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 20:40, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Also, he's featured in Pick Me Up (magazine) with an agony aunt column written in the style of the show.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 20:41, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Yet another report about the show. Could potentially be used as a source. Seems like Kyle is back in the media again... [3]--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 23:54, 13 February 2008 (UTC)