Talk:Benefits Street

needs redoing

all my changes have been reverted, cant see why? I will redo when I have the time, but can we discuss it before you just decide that you dont want a different point of view in the article please? I am readding the amil quote now, its relevant and sourced.Honest-john (talk) 21:05, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

one example: actual quote says: Some residents became irritated, saying they felt the meeting was being used as an opportunity to preach a political agenda. WHAT you keep putting article: BBC journalist David Lumb said that many felt the area had been misrepresented, and that the series was being used to "preach a political agenda. Trying to push a npov approach. I just want the quotes to be correct? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Honest-john (talk • contribs) 21:19, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

I have asked a senior editor/admin to look at the reverts as you keep ignoring my request for talk first. I will leave the article alone now.Honest-john (talk) 21:24, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

I think this article needs a major overhaul, something I've had in mind for a few days and which I'm in the process of doing, but I feel it may take me a few days to complete as there's quite a lot to get through. The media have spent a lot of column inches in debating the pros and cons of this series, an overview of which needs to be reflected here. Also, we need an episode summary, balanced critical reaction and updates for viewing figures. More needs to be said on the issues of twitter (bearing in mind any criminal investigations), the accusations of "poverty porn" and issues surrounding whether or not the residents were misrepresented. Therefore, I'd appreciate a bit of time to bring it all together. Paul MacDermott (talk) 22:27, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Paul, no offence was meant at all mate, sorry if it came across that way. I just hate articles with mistakes in! I will leave it till you are finished and then have a look. I will then put on the talk pages any changes that I think may be needed and we can discuss them, is that a plan?Honest-john (talk) 10:09, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Just another thought on this. Directly lifting sentences or paragraphs from a source without doing so for quotation purposes can cause copyright violation issues, so changing the wording is appropriate. Paraphrasing is also discouraged, so you might want to bare those two points in mind when editing. Once the series ends I'll send this to WP:GOCE so a seasoned copyeditor can do some work on it. Finally, as you've mentioned this across two or three different threads, I'd advise you to please refrain from making accusations of political bias. I do not bring my politics to Wikipedia and neither should anyone else. Paul MacDermott (talk) 19:23, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Stuff removed

Rev. Steve Chalke, director of the company that runs the school said that residents he spoke to at the meeting wanted an apology from Channel 4 for misrepresenting them, or they would refuse to take part in a live debate scheduled to be aired after the final programme on 10 February. Chalke asked Channel 4 for an apology, but the broadcaster responded by issuing a statement in which it said it was proud of its "fair and balanced observational documentary". Chalke subsequently called the programme "an old Victorian freak show".

The footballer Joey Barton attracted criticism from users of the social media site twitter when he suggested that the documentary's participants should be subject to a breeding license.

Ten days later, that figure had collectively risen to 877.

Source that gives the number of properties as 137. There are conflicting reports of the number.

A spare ref. Telegraph article used in the lede to source the shoplifting demo, but not used elsewhere, could be useful though.

More from lede. Hundreds of complaints. Mislead by the documentary makers.

Naming participants

In writing the synopses for each episode, I've deliberately left out the names of those featured because I wasn't sure whether the information would be encyclopedic. It might make better sense to add them though as it could make future additions easier (e.g, White Dee's ambition to stand for Parliament and SB's modelling career, both of which may eventually require a mention). I'll add them for now, but if anyone disagrees then please feel free to revert, and of course, add any thoughts here on this. Paul MacDermott (talk) 20:27, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Getting ready for Benefits Street 2

Collecting refs for an article about the next series. This is Paul (talk) 13:43, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

• Bloomer, Natalie (11 March 2015). "Exploiting poor people's difficult lives for the sake of entertainment risks doing long-term damage to the Stockton-on-Tees community filmed for Channel 4, say local leaders". The Guardian. Guardian Media Group. Retrieved 11 March 2015.

Benefits Street 2 - a suggestion

I'm proposing to start a new article for Benefits Street 2, since it takes place in a different part of the country, and appears to be about to unleash its own controversies, not least drawing the interest of the local constabulary. Any thoughts? This is Paul (talk) 21:15, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Be bold, man. Though I would suggest that what seems normal for TV series is for the basic article to be more of a brief overview of all seasons/series, and then for there to be separate articles for each season. This will require a bit of an overhaul, though. Arianna~enwiki (talk) 14:26, 3 June 2015 (UTC) (p.s. I hate my new username, damn you global name policy).

Academic analysis of Benefits Street (European Journal of Cultural Studies)

I've written an article analysing Benefits Street, I thought I would put it here in case you think it would be useful to reference in the article. The version of record is here: http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1367549416682968 And an open access version is here: http://irep.ntu.ac.uk/id/eprint/29155/ --TomVickers (talk) 13:44, 24 March 2017 (UTC)