Talk:Quiz show scandals in the United Kingdom

	Television portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Television stations task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

Media Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Media, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Media on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MediaWikipedia:WikiProject MediaTemplate:WikiProject MediaMedia articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Media To-do List:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : Mackay Radio
Cleanup : Media influence, Video game culture, Sound bite
NPOV : Content (media and publishing)
Verify : Multimedia, Alternative media, Alternative newspaper
Other :
- Answer requests for comments

On 5 September 2023, it was proposed that this article be moved from Quiz channel to Quiz show scandals in the United Kingdom. The result of the discussion was moved.

Criticism - Merge

Looking at the sections regarding the controversy of quiz shows and channels, these points could be levelled at a number of quiz shows/channels. Rather than repeat everything in every article, would it be better to place everything here with a brief explaination in the quiz show/channel articles about the controversy of these shows/channels specific to the article? Any general criticism/controversy that isn't relevant to the article should be merged here. --tgheretford (talk) 18:00, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All the sections concerned have been merged --tgheretford (talk) 13:44, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

4TV Win

4TV Win has no relevant Google hits [1] and smells like to me as a violation of WP:HOAX. It sounds suspiciously simliar to the "4TV produced QuizLive" that kept being added to the Ftn article (until I requested an investigation into it) Can it please stop being added to the article. --tgheretford (talk) 20:40, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute

And so again, without checking what I wrote in the history or the discussion page, someone has added it back, stating that it is on Sky without a verifiable source. In regards to this misinformation, I wish to quote what Jimbo Wales said from [2]:

“

I can NOT emphasize this enough.

There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative "I heard it somewhere" pseudo information is to be tagged with a "needs a cite" tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons.

”

See WP:VERIFY for more and sources. --tgheretford (talk) 21:40, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~I also wish to add "I'm In It To Win It" which was also added, and has no relevant Google hits either [3] --tgheretford (talk) 21:47, 24 November 2006 (UTC)~~[reply]

Source finally found for I'm In It To Win It, which is here: [4]. Still standby the dispute for 4TV Win. --tgheretford (talk) 18:29, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The history says that 4TV Win broadcasts on Life 24, yet a check on the website shows nothing [5]. I'm still dubious unless a reliable source can be found. As for the personal attack I removed from here, don't do it. Read WP:NPA, because you can be blocked for repeatedly attacking someone. "Comment on content, not on contributors" --tgheretford (talk) 19:51, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Like I written on your discussion page it was not a personal attack, it was a comment about the way your deletion and hoax labelling was done. It was rather rude of you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.108.137.205 (talk) 20:06, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I disagree. WP:VERIFY policy states that "editors should provide a reliable source for material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or it may be removed." I've never heard of 4TV Win, it kept being added to the Ftn article (which is clearly untrue), until I requested an investigation into its constant addition without verifiable sources, it then suddenly stopped. As I said above, the Life TV website makes no mention of 4TV Win, and until a verifiable source can be found, I will not back down. Labelling a hoax as a hoax is standard practice as per WP:HOAX. --tgheretford (talk) 20:15, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't talking about 4TV Win. I was talking about I'm In It To Win It which IS a quiz show, and you did not gather enough research and just labelled it a hoax. I just felt that it should not have been removed straight away as I could and did provide a source for the information. - 88.108.137.205

I'm going to butt in here.

First things first. 88.108.137.205, please sign your posts on talk pages with four tildes at the end of your comment: ~~~~ . Also, I heavily recommend getting a username.

While I am stepping in halfway through this argument, and don't even know what the hoax was, I do know that 88.108.137.205's calling Tghe-reford 'rude' is a personal attack, and I will take it into my hands to bring it up on WP:ANI if he or she continues. Marking something as a hoax is not being rude. This is a wiki, this is Wikipedia, where anyone can edit. If we let everyone get away with putting false or possibly false information here, we would be a complete jumble. "Wikipedia is a collection of verifiable, previously written facts."

88.108.137.205, by the sounds of things, Tghe's is more knowledgeable in our Wikipedia policies than yourself and probably would be willing to help you.

I help this helps you to resolve this conflict. If you've any queries, contact me on my talk page.

Cheers, Yuser31415^@?#& 23:13, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was talking anbout "I'm In It To Win It" which IS NOT a hoax and it was labelled as one. I could and did provide a source for the information and I thought it was rather rude in its deletion straight away. Yuser31415 I do not think this dispute has anything to do with you at all. - 88.108.137.205

2007 British television phone-in scandal merge proposal and move proposal

I am suggesting that the information from 2007 British television phone-in scandal should be merged into this section. I don't personally think the current situation in participation television needs have its own article, especially as most of what is coming out is already covered in this article. As a consequence, would it be better to rename this article participation television so as to not only embrace quiz channels, but premium rate phone ins, psychic and adult call-in shows? --tgheretford (talk) 18:49, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge done (for some reason, I got the warning template, even though I didn't start the article..?) but it needs a lot doing to it. I would do it, but I am busy at the moment, so I have tagged that section accordingly. --tgheretford (talk) 07:46, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was No consensus. —Wknight94 (talk) 17:11, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

Quiz channel → Participation television — The quiz channel genre, for years incorporated into the title of participation television by the UK communications regulator Ofcom[6]. At the moment, although quiz shows still run, channels and shows are moving towards casino and bingo programming. I feel that to cover these changes and as per Ofcom, it would be better to incorporate everything into an article named participation television with quiz channel as a redirect. —--tgheretford (talk) 16:03, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

Discussion

Any additional comments:

Comment - this seems to be a very UK-centric view to take, a clear breach of WP:CSB. Unless you can show other regulators are moving to a similar view. Perhaps the best option would be a general PT article, which links to this article to expand further on this particular genre of PT? FlagSteward (talk) 14:14, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Quiz channel. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:00, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 5 September 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. Uncontested RM (closed by non-admin page mover) ❯❯❯ Raydann ^(Talk) 21:50, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Quiz channel → Quiz show scandals in the United Kingdom – The article has, for a long time, only talked about quiz show scandals over 15 years ago, and does not cover anything like a proper encyclopedia topic. So I think it's better to re-appropriate this article for what it does do, and turn the article title into a redirect to whatever the most appropriate list article is. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:27, 5 September 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. House Blaster^talk 17:09, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.