Talk:The Great British Bake Off series 4

	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
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Inclusion of poorly sourced gossip in the controversy section

I have removed poorly sourced (The Mail, Twitter) gossip from the controversy section (per WP:BLP). "Avoid repeating gossip. Ask yourself whether the source is reliable; whether the material is being presented as true; and whether, even if true, it is relevant to a disinterested article about the subject. Be wary of sources that use weasel words and that attribute material to anonymous sources". Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a gossip site, and we should be very careful about including material about living people that could be defamatory, especially when the subjects have denied the allegations. and the allegations can only be sourced to questionable sources and not to multiple reliable sources. Harry the Dog WOOF 18:46, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are multiple reliable sources, and it is a misunderstanding of WP:BLP to suggest that something needs to be presented as true to be included. What's more important is that something needs to have been reported in multiple reliable sources, and even if it is only an allegation it can be included when relevant per WP:PUBLICFIGURE. We are writing on controversy, and often something is controversial because it is hard to show it to be true one way or another, but the controversy still needs to be noted. Hzh (talk) 21:00, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When it is not mentioned on either of the protagonists pages, and when it has in fact been denied by one of them, we are on very thin ice BLP-wise. Truth is important. Even if it has been reported in a few (in some cases questionable) sources, if it's not true, it's still a BLP violation. This is simply gossip that does not need to be repeated here, Harry the Dog WOOF 15:51, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you are referring to Wikipedia pages, then you have seriously misunderstood what Wikipedia pages are. Entries in any Wikipedia pages are not definitive, and will only contain what editors choose to put in or kept in, sometimes that is purely because no one has bothered to put anything new in. Check the edit history of Marcela Vallodolid for instance, only 10 edits in the last six months, not that different for Paul Hollywood since the reports of the affair appeared in the press. Sometimes fans also delete embarrassing (and demonstrably true) details of the life of their favorite personalities from Wikipedia pages, I've seen that happened many times. You make edits according to what's written in the guidelines, not what's written in other pages. You also appear not to understand WP:BLP, I would suggest you read again what WP:PUBLICFIGURE says. Hzh (talk) 16:14, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's you who doesn't understand the guidelines. We don't add defamatory gossip (especially when it has been denied). Things sourced to tabloids like the News and the Mail need to be treated with extreme caution. Sources have to be reliable, not gossip/scandal sheets. The reliability of sources comes before what it says in WP:PUBLICFIGURE. I can find no sources apart from tabloids that mention the alleged affair. That is the reason it has not been added to either her or Hollywood's page (and why it should not be added here). I repeat (with added emphasis): "Avoid repeating gossip. Ask yourself whether the source is reliable; whether the material is being presented as true; and whether, even if true, it is relevant to a disinterested article about the subject. Be wary of sources that use weasel words and that attribute material to anonymous sources". The bottom line is that there is no evidence that they are/were romantically involved and even if they were it adds nothing to a disinterested article about the Bake Off. Harry the Dog WOOF 16:31, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Times article I gave mentioned an extramarital affair. If someone has made a denial, you write that it has been denied, but you don't ignored that it was reported to have happened. In this case, no one has denied anything, they are apparently getting a divorce due to adultery which Paul Hollywood is not going to contest as reported in an interview with Hollywood's wife here (there are later reports that they are considering getting back together again). I have no idea what you are arguing because what you say simply don't apply here. Hzh (talk) 16:41, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Again with the Mail! The Times is the only reliable source and even it is repeating anonymous gossip, which WP:BLP urges us to avoid, especially when it is contentious. If it is contentious, and it had been denied, and there is no solid evidence to support the claim, repeating the allegation is very risky. It is true that he is getting divorced. It may even be true he had an affair. If so, the identity of the person involved may well come out in the divorce proceedings. If and when it does it can be added to the relevant article. But I continue to ask, even if true, is it relevant to a disinterested article about the Bake Off? 16:58, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

It is relevant to this show because of the rumours that BBC intended to sack Paul Hollywood over the affair, so much so that they felt the need to issue a denial that he was not getting the sack. To explain that, you have to explain the background, which is the extra-marital affair Paul Hollwood had (and which no one has denied, and which Paul Hollywood himself appeared to accept as true since he didn't contest the divorce proceedings started by his wife. There is nothing contentious here.)

I am also not sure why you have problem with the Mail here. In this case, it is an interview with Hollywood's wife, it would be her words that they have split up, unless you think the Mail invented the interview, what would be your point here? Hzh (talk) 17:05, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And reports of that story in reputable sources (e.g. in the Telegraph [1] make no mention of any affair, or if they do it is reported as gossip. It is perfectly OK to say the BBC denied he was being fired following his marriage break up. Reliable sources support that. It is the alleged affair that is the problem. There is only anonymous gossip to support that claim. If Wikipedia really wants to sink to the lowest common denominator of the tabloids rather than produce a factual, informative encyclopedia, then sobeit I guess. Harry the Dog WOOF 17:16, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm tired of this discussion, it looks to me you are arguing for the sake of arguing, nothing to do with facts. One moment you are talking about not "attributing material to anonymous sources", next you are adding something from anonymous source itself (friends of Marcella) when Marcella herself did not deny it. There are plenty of other sources of the alleged affair: Daily Telegraph, Guardian, Independent. None of your points sticks. It's end of the discussion for me. Hzh (talk) 17:23, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

None of those three (reputable, reliable) sources use the word "affair" because they know it would be defamatory with no concrete evidence. They may hint at it, but they don't use the word. "Relationship" can mean anything. Are they close, platonic friends and Hollywood's wife didn't like that? I only added the denial sourced to friends for the necessary balance. The new version looks a lot better though. Harry the Dog WOOF 17:29, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've cut this section down to avoid mentioning the name of the person Hollywood was rumoured to have had an affair with. It may have been mentioned by the papers, but we hold ourselves to higher standards. It's best to just stick to the undisputed facts - that his marriage broke down - rather than including dubiously sourced speculation about the personal lives of living people. Robofish (talk) 15:59, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ratings

I would say it is preferable to include overall ranking because there are normally fewer viewers on BBC2, so it does not tell us much how the show is doing compared to the other shows. Note also that the show will move to BBC1 next year, and you will see an apparent drop in ranking when it may not be true. We need something to compare across all series. Hzh (talk) 19:59, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

First name vs full name

@ Drmargi - Please note that discussion is open at Talk:The Great British Bake Off (series 7)#First names. Given that your edit summary indicates that this is something to be discuss - [2], especially that you revert something that has actually been there for years, while falsely claiming that your edit is the long-standing one, I would strongly urge that you explain your edit there. Hzh (talk) 12:32, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Updates on contestants

Please give a valid reason before removing any update. The information is sourced and accurate, and it is misleading to leave outdated information in the article. Hzh (talk) 00:55, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]