Talk:BBC/Archive 7

message: BBC was very popular in India till recently when cable T.V. revolution snatched a major chunk of audience and BBc too was reluctant to play an agressive role here.Mark Tully (BBC correspondent for India)is a household name here.However BBc gave up the territory after allegation of propagandism .It was charged with creating false news in indian context.The News story of Kashmir was concocted with many false video clippings which were actually footage of azarbaizan and Afghanistan,for which they apologised too.However people still refer to BBC in india for international news items.Holywarrior 15:28, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What do you mean?  A source on this would be great. I am interested to read about this. Seragenn 05:41, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

text: The channel you saw was likely the south Asian opt-out of BBC World. As such, it already has a mention and an article. Thanks! ➨ ЯEDVERS 13:15, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  BBC in India 

message: I think this needs a Mention: http://www.statistics.gov.uk/pdfdir/cpst0106.pdf
The Office for National Statistics has today (20 jan 2006) announced three classification
decisions, following a review of the National Accounts treatment of public
sector television:
• the television licence fee, previously classified as a service charge,
is being reclassified as a tax;
• the BBC remains in the public sector, but is being reclassified from
the public non-financial corporations sector to central government;
http://www.statistics.gov.uk/pdfdir/cpst0106.pdf
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by RichardLangford (talk • contribs) 20:29, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Classification of public sector television 

message: It seems that there are quite a few people on this discussion page who seem somewhat "unclear" as to the direction of the BBC's suppossed bias.  The bias does not in most cases come from both sides: it is almost exclusively pro-Palestine, anti-Israel.
:Thank you for settling that.--Daduzi talk 01:25, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The reason that it seems so to you, 84.67.25.50, is probably that you are so heavily anti-Palestine biased that any source striving to be neutral, seems to be biased in the opposite direction. PerDaniel 00:23, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Then why won't the BBC release the Balen report? What is it trying to hide? The Beeb is a Palestinian mouthpiece, everyone in the Middle East knows this. Why deny it?68.5.64.178 22:44, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Main direction of bias from BBC coverage of Israeli-Palestinian Conflict 

message: I've nominated this article for peer review in the hope that we can get it up to Featured Article status. --Daduzi talk 18:56, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I've sourced the statement in a round-about way (by comparing the BBC's operating expenditure with the main commercial broadcasters) but if anyone can find a more simple citation feel free to change it. --Daduzi talk 14:02, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Peer review

message: How does one change references?  '^ BBC Worldwide Annual Review 2001. Retrieved on 2006-07-06' is a dead link. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Thingiemajig (talk • contribs) 14:48 14 July 2006 (UTC).
:I've changed the link but for future reference the references in this article (though other articles may use different systems) are formatted to use  tags and the cite web (or cite book) template. This means that the references will look something like this:
<ref>
:To change the reference to point to a new page, just change the url= value to the new page's location. It's also a good idea to change the accessdate= value to the date you added the new page, and if the title of the page is different change the title= value. The pages for the cite web and cite book templates have more information on the different values. I hope I managed to explain that well enough, but if not ask any more questions you might have. Oh, and be sure to sign your messages by adding --~~~~ to the end. --Daduzi talk 21:00, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Reference Question

message: By presenting only the Palestinian justification for  terrorist activities and war crimes, and providing a propagandistic, selective version of events, the BBC is acting less like a news organization and more like a representative of Palestinian terrorists.
http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=3&x_outlet=12&x_article=1139
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by  SoCalJustice  (talk • contribs) .
Within the programmes made on the Israeli/Palestinian conflict there is an overwhelming bias against Israel. This is particularly worrying because it has been such a long running bias. The BBC cannot argue that it is a temporary discrepancy, which will be remedied over time. What has occurred amounts to a campaign of vilification of Israel, which has persisted for some three and half years.
http://www.bbcwatch.co.uk/july04.html SoCalJustice 00:00, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How interesting. Perhaps the editors at BBC News would welcome your insights. --Daduzi talk 00:26, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That is very interesting considering that a report recently came out saying that the BBC gave more coverage to attacks on Israel and less on attacks made by the Israeli military, so you are really quite wrong in your assumption. Arniep 19:29, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How interesting that you have absolutely no sources for what you're saying--FurnaceOfMonkl 22:16, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Independent Review Commissioned by the BBC Governors: http://www.bbcgovernors.co.uk/docs/reviews/israelipalestiniangovernors_statement.pdf  (FYI it is the duty of the BBC Governors to make sure that the BBC remains impartial.  Part of their job is to regulate the BBC)  User:Pit-yacker 12:13, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Represetative of Palestinian terrorists 

message: It seems Wikipedia seems to err on the side or formality when it comes to naming articles. Shouldn't this article be titled British Broadcasting Corporation, with BBC being the redirect? (If this has been discussed earlier, please excuse me - if you could indicate which Archive has the discussion that would be great). 23skidoo 01:24, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The brief discussion is at Talk:BBC/Archive4 (prior to that the article was indeed called British Broadcasting Corporation), but to answer your comment it's erroneous to state that Wikipedia errs on the side of formality, the key criteria for article names is what is the most common name of the subject (see: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names)). In this respect BBC is the obvious choice for the article name (see also CNN, CBS, NBC, NATO and so on). --Daduzi talk 02:33, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Article title

message: On the BBC comedy series The Two Ronnies, Ronnie Barker once explained that on-screen warnings would now appear on broadcasts in Britain.
Using a magnetic board and letters as a visual aid, Barker said that from now on a "V" would appear for violence, a "BB" for big bosoms, and "CT" for curvaceous thighs.
Barker further stated that while these warnings would appear singularly from time-to-time, they of course would NEVER all be used simultaneously.  While saying this, he was looking at the audience while inattentively attempting to clear the letters to the sides of the magnetic board, but accidently moving the letters into an arrangement that spelt out BBCTV.
72.82.208.18 14:55, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Classic! Gotta love them Ronnie Barker monologues. ~~ Peteb16 15:10, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Initials of BBC TV (Humour)

message: The BBCi Page 159 regarding Staff information contains info on emergency advise etc. I found it accidently, and have wondered if it ever changes etc. So was wondering if anyone from the BBC could tell me about this as it is 'hidden' because if you type 159 on BBCi it shows up, but put 101 and scroll up to 159 it is not there anyone know about BBCi --Oliver Davison 22:18, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't work for the BBC, although I have some really good mates that do/have. 159 is not secret or 'hidden', it's just denied the oxygen of publicity. The information is available on Ceefax, on LEfax, on BBCi, on bbc.co.uk, in Ariel and on Gateway. But, since the information is meant for staff, there is no need to advertise it to the public. The information is rarely updated because the general threat to the BBC is low anyway (although news of fires and floods have appeared there, I think). The general threat to the BBC is low because it makes no sense for a terrorist group to silence a news provider - thus silencing an outlet for themselves. 159 stems from the 'Real' IRA attack on Television Centre - considered by many to have been completely counterproductive. A good article on that is on the site Newsdesk. ➨ ЯEDVERS 19:58, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  BBCi 

message: I've just swapped the following ...
The BBC must display at least one of the following characteristics in all content:
*high quality
*challenging
*original
*innovative
*engaging.
for this.
The BBC must display at least one of the following characteristics in all content.
*high quality
*challengingness
*originality
*innovation
*engagingness
I'm not so fond of these ~ness words but I don't know whether I could be bothered recasting this most-likely-biased stuff into normal English.  Nor am I sure that I could do it well being that I'm none too familiar with the topic. Jimp 14:10, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How about:
BBC content must be at least one of the following:
*high quality
*challenging
*original
*innovative
*engaging.
--Daduzi talk 21:19, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In my defence, the original version is a direct quote. Whilst it reflects Birtian language - much beloved of this government, natch - it is what the semi-automated Ms Jowell (or her sub-droids) wrote. And the current version, without even bullet points, has drifted so far from English as to be so unreadable (at least my version didn't have made-up words in it) as to now require deletion from the article. ➨ ЯEDVERS 19:24, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Replacing shocking grammar with absurd vocabulary 

message: I'm quite surprised BBC canteen is a redlink. Isn't it something of a regular, easy target in comedy and associated nationally with bad food? An article on the history of the canteen and the humour surrounding it might be quite nice. --kingboyk 21:08, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[BBC canteen]] 

message: I have removed the "Essay examining the reasons for and against the licence fee" link from the external links section of the article, as I feel that Wikipedia should not be linking to essays written by students. However, some of the references in the essay may be useful, so I've decided to place a link to the essay here: . In addition, I've also removed the link to the Media Guardian article "Tories go to war over 'leftie' BBC", which now looks rather out of place. Maybe someone could find a new home for it? :-) --Marknew 11:08, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links section 

message: Would it be relevant if the article mentioned that the BBC spend well over £10,000,000 in hotel costs per year? Cєlαя∂σяєTalk 21:04, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hotel Costs 

message: I notice the article currently doesn't link BBC micro directly.  I think it would be good if we could cover that somewhere.  Am pondering having it in the 'internet' section (which would rename), so that the BBC micro and the BBC NC would be right next to each other.  Does this seem sensible?  15:50, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would add it the 'See also' section, it's one of countless bits of technology the BBC has developed over the years.  The main article should stick to explaining the complex nature/structure/funding and so on of the BBC. Escaper7 14:54, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  BBC Micro 

message: The corporate structure section is out of date, the new structure: BBC Vision, BBC Audio etc came into force on 20 November 2006, although some of the management roles are listed in the new format, in the article.  I do know the changes, but I'm waiting until I've got a source or chart to help better explain this. Escaper7 14:52, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: November 2006 re-organisation

message: The Radio service of BBC is so popular in Indian remote areas. There are lots of Road Show organised by BBC India in last five years. Now a days BBC India Team is roaming in Uttar Pradesh, Bihar and Jharkhand —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rajeshroshan (talk • contribs) 12:29, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  BBC Radio service in India 

message: The Radio service of BBC is so popular in Indian remote areas. There are lots of Road Show organised by BBC India in last five years. Now a days BBC India Team is roaming in Uttar Pradesh, Bihar and Jharkhand. Guddu 12:29, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  BBC Radio service in India 

message: Moved from top of page 
I would like to suggest making a link to the name MARCONI.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.107.70.41 (talk • contribs).
Where would you like this link to go and why? Let us know! Or you could do it yourself - we like that. 〈REDVEЯS〉 21:26, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggestion

message: The Andrew Marr quote about BBC bias comes from an article in the Daily Mail about an alleged "impartiality summit" at the corporation which no one but the Mail seems to believe actually took place.  Until someone can find another source backing this up I think we should leave it out. MFlet1 23:34, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Originally there was a reference to the Mail article (a slighlty more reliable source, but not much).  At some stage this appears to have been replaced with an even more right-wing site. Unfortunately, for the BBC the story has spread like Chinese Whispers and the story being reported in the right-wing/Christian fundamentalist press now bares no resemblence to even the story reported by the Mail.  The key point as I have pointed out in Talk:Criticism of the BBC, is taking a closer look at what Marr says, I'm guessing a lot of people missed the real meaning because it was placed in the context of the rest of the article.  He says the BBC is  a socially liberal organisation (meaning that its employee base is very diverse and it  doesnt have a problem with employees who are gay, single mums, foreigners, etc.) being socially liberal is completely different to being politically liberal or Liberal.  It is also entirely different to the BBC projecting such a bias over the air-ways. IMHO the passage about Marr shouldnt be included because the truth is it essentially meaningless in the correct context. Pit-yacker 00:02, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, although having said that I was wrong to suggest that the impartiality summit was fictional.  It did take place, but the way it was reported on the LifeSite website and the inclusion of ludicrous statements such as "BBC executives admitted the corporation is dominated by homosexuals" made it sound as if the whole thing was either the product of a Daily Mail reporter's diseased mind or something that Chris Morris had made up.  MFlet1 17:02, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Andrew Marr on BBC bias 

message: This page seems to be getting vandalised on a daily basis.  Is there anything we can do about this?  Like make it only editable by registered users?  --Eamonnca1 02:13, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The level of vandalism is far too low - it would probably need in the tens of edits per day to be protected - when lots of people watch a page (as you can tell I do :P) there isnt a particular need for protection as long as revertion is manageable. RHB Talk - Edits 02:16, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Vandalism

message: In writing a Wikipedia article about the BBC, it is easy to find ample material for an article on criticism but it is harder to find 'referenceable' positive aspects to illustrate its immense cultural significance. The BBC television and radio are a fundamental part of the fabric of the nation and the cause of much that is good in British society.(We can imagine what British broadcasting would be like without it by watching Sky One.) I hope someone can find some acceptable material to include in the section on cultural signifance. As it is, this section is awful. JMcC 18:41, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What's awful about it?  Seems fine to me, apart from a lack of citations. 
--Eamonnca1 00:40, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

text: The section says three things: the BBC has changed to include more regional and fewer plummy accents (irrelevant), two sentences about cultural impact and then goes on to say that other counties get to see our news.  In other words only two sentences describe the immense effect that the BBC has had and continues to have. For example comparison with the BBC used to keep ITV up to the mark.  Without the BBC we would have missed not only I Claudius but also Brideshead Revisited. Now think about Attenborough, Radio 4, Newsnight, Python, Dennis Potter, Horizon (before it lost its way), Timewatch..... Just count the BBC's entries in 100 Greatest British Television Programmes. JMcC 08:07, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The accent thing is not irrelevant.  Regional accents used to be considered almost taboo by some people, the BBC's use of more down-to-earth accents and reporters from the regions on the national network has helped to make them more acceptable - and understandable.  As for the other things you mention, if you're upset about them being missing then be bold and add them in. It's not like I wrote this section as if it was going to be complete right from the start, this is a wiki after all and nobody's stopping you from improving the section. --Eamonnca1 18:32, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Cultural significance of the BBC

message: Shouldn't the fact that the BBC's domestic services are entirely advertising-free be emphasized more, possibly in the lead? The article does state that the BBC's charter requires the BBC to be free from "commercial influence," but readers may not realize that the charter prohibits the BBC's UK services (both radio and television) from showing any commercials or sponsorship messages. Mentioning this is particularly important because the vast majority of similar public service broadcasters in other countries, even those that are funded by license fees, do air advertising to supplement their incomes. WorldWide Update 21:26, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Advertising 

message: I just corrected this to 1973 (from 1967); both these years are memorable to me, because 1967 was the year I started secondary school, and 1973 was the year before I left there.
I suspect that whoever put "1967" is confusing the year commercial radio in Britain became legal (1973) with the year commercial radio to Britain from international waters (pirate radio) became illegal. 193.122.47.162 20:31, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Advent of commercial radio 

message: With 24 launched, revenues took the 1991-1996 crown away.  Is it just me?  That sentences does not seem to make a lot of sense.  --jmb 13:27, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It was added today by , which I've now removed. --h2g2bob (talk) 14:03, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: What does this mean?

message: Domestic audiences often affectionately refer to the BBC as "the Beeb", a nickname coined by Kenny Everett.[4]   
:The use of the name Beeb predates Kenny Everett, the Wiki page on him says it goes back to the 1950s and the OED gives a 1967 date for the first recorded use.  --jmb 15:39, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Beeb