Talk:James Ball (journalist)

Awards

@Mramoeba: If Ball was a member of a team of journalists whose work resulted in their paper winning a prize/award, then it's an overstatement to claim that he won the prize, particularly where he has been an ancilliary member of the team. If the relevant awards are to be included then his role needs to be stated fairly. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 06:55, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

I am unsure which sentence you are referring to, the awards as a team are prefaced by ‘Ball has been a member of investigative journalism teams which were awarded...’. The other awards are listed individually. The lede refers simply to him being the recipient of several awards. If I have overstated elsewhere then please indicate where or edit it accordingly. Thanks. Edit: sorry I saw you already have, I have adjusted the wording to make it more clear he was part of the Guardian team.Mramoeba (talk) 09:22, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Fake News

Should we add something about how despite writing a book about Fake News he often falls for it himself (see Traingate and Jewdas)? 83.218.151.178 (talk) 13:26, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

That would be neither encyclopedic nor notable. Mramoeba (talk) 21:46, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

If the author of "How Not To Crash Your Car" crashed their car every other week that would be notable, so why not falling for Fake News every week when you wrote a book about Fake News? This is supposed to be an accurate portrayal of the person, not a hagiography. You wouldn't omit Johann Hari's plagiarism for example. So why omit a history of inaccurate reporting? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.4.129.165 (talk) 08:17, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Because it's not notable. Notable does not equal interesting, or newsworthy. 'Notability' has a specific meaning on wikipedia. See the relevant policy WP:N. Mramoeba (talk) 01:35, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. I have read the relevant policy and have come to the reasonable conclusion that a journalists history of inaccurate reporting is notable when their page is mainly about their journalism. If you disagree or think I have misinterpreted the policy please quote which part you believe this is in contravention of. Otherwise I'll be adding a controversies section. Thanks 83.218.151.178 (talk) 08:42, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

If you have reliable news sources discussing it rather than original research then feel free. Mramoeba (talk) 08:55, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm more than happy to link his tweets about Jewdas (a Jewish Group) being anti-Semetic, Corbyn receiving £20,000 from Iran (a claim that has been disproven), and Ian Lavery skimming off the top of compensation funds from the money award to miners (again, also easily disproven). If you have any serious objections to this please let me know. Thanks 92.4.129.165 (talk) 21:00, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

If an editor has reliable sources WP:RS and it does not constitute original research WP:OR then he or she is free to add information to improve the article, provided it is encyclopedic, neutral and relevant. Other editors will copyedit or remove it if necessary. However I strongly suggest you read wikipedia's policy on biography of living persons WP:BLP to see if what you intend to add is permissable. Nb Twitter in itself is not a reliable source, you need sources from reputable journalists or experts in the field which discuss any tweets Ball has made. It is not for me to object in advance unless you have declared a conflict of interest WP:COI which may prevent you from taking a neutral point of view and wish to submit it first to an independent editor. Mramoeba (talk) 01:39, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, I have read the rules and will be adding a controversies section regarding James Ball's claims that Jewdas is an anti-Semitic organisation, Jeremy Corbyn was paid £20,000 by Press TV, and that Ian Laverly MP was inappropriately using funds that should have gone to miners. For all of these I will be linking Jame Ball's tweets where he made these claims and sources showing that his claims were factually inaccurate. If you feel this is against any of the rules please quote which part it would be in breach of. 83.218.151.178 (talk) 11:10, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

No, that is original research. Read the policy again. Twitter isn't RS, you cannot use it as a source, and your linking it to other sources showing they are incorrect is exactly what you cannot do. As i've said several times, you need an article in the press such as New York Times, Telegraph etc in which the named author discusses Ball's tweets and where that author has evaluated their veracity, not you. You then ideally need a second source discussing it from a different perspective. Wikipedia isn't journalism. Mramoeba (talk) 14:33, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

I've read the policies and nothing I have suggested is in breach of them. Please cite which exact part of the policies state that a journalists factually inaccurate claims cannot be added to their article just because they were made via twitter. If you can't then it is reasonable for me to assume you are unable to and have an ulterior motive for wishing to protect this article. Let me set this out logically and you can let me know if you disagree with any of my premises or if any of the conclusions don't follow:

Argument A

a) If you are unable to cite which exact part of the wikipedia policies this would be in breach of then it is reasonable to assume you can't b) You are unable to cite which exact part of the wikipedia policies this would be in breach of c) Therefore it is reasonable to assume you can't cite which the exact wikipedia policy this would be in breach of

Argument B

a) If you are unable to cite which part of wikipedia policy I would be breaching it is reasonable to assume that your objections are based on things other than breach of policy b) You are unable to cite which part of wikipedia policy I would be breaching (Argument A) c) Therefore it is reasonable to assume that your objections are based on things other than breach of policy

Thank you

83.218.151.178 (talk) 10:21, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

This is getting boring. If you read the policies you would by now understand that the issue is not twitter but your interpretation and synthesis of it rather than using reliable sources independent of it. But as you seem to be wilfully ignoring all the advice given the relevant sections are summarised below:

Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as the following criteria are met: 1. The material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim. 2. It does not involve claims about third parties (such as people, organizations, or other entities). 3. It does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject. 4. There is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity. 5. The article is not based primarily on such sources. These requirements also apply to pages from social networking websites

Any analysis or interpretation of the quoted material, however, should rely on a secondary source (see WP:No original research). Mramoeba (talk) 18:14, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. My interpretation is that quoting James Balls tweets where he makes claims and then linking to sources showing those claims are false does not breach any of those rules. 83.218.151.178 (talk) 08:17, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Your interpretation is wrong, but whatever. Mramoeba (talk) 14:35, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Can you logically and rationally explain how my interpretation is wrong and yours is correct, or is that just your opinion? 83.218.151.178 (talk) 08:20, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

If you cannot explain how your interpretation of the rules is the only correct one I will be adding a section detailing some of the many factual inaccuracies in Mr Balls reporting. 83.218.151.178 (talk) 16:01, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

As 'Twitter isn't RS', as noted above, should the claim, 'Ball is gay,' sourced to Ball's own Twitter, be in there? Ball himself -- according to his Twitter, which, of course, isn't reliable for Wiki purposes -- seems to find it quite funny, but that isn't really the point, especially as it has no bearing on his work and isn't in itself notable. Incidentally, there are easily-found reliable sources to support the claims that Jeremy Corbyn took up to £20,000 for five appearances on Press TV (the Times of Israel), that Ian Lavery took £165,000 from a miners' benevolent fund (the BBC) and that the chief rabbi has described Jewdas as promoting anti-Semitism (the Jewish Chronicle). Khamba Tendal (talk) 13:06, 15 August 2020 (UTC)