Talk:Criticism of the BBC/Archive 2

message: Compare these two statements: "On the occasion of the birthday of the great prophet, and for the occasion of the passing of Christ, I say the Islamic Republic government and the Iranian people – with all powers and legal right to put the soldiers on trial – forgave those 15. This pardon is a gift to the British people."
From the BBC: "On the occasion of the birth anniversary of the great prophet of Islam, and on the occasion of Easter and Passover, I would like to announce that the great nation of Iran, while it is entitled to put the British military personnel on trial, has pardoned these 15 sailors and gives their release to the people of Britain as a gift."
<a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6526615.stm">See for yourself here. You will not find any other report that includes the word PASSOVER.</a>
The BBC is explicitly lying for Ahmadinejad - barefaced lying to cover up his genocidal anti-semitism. If Wikipedia values freedom and civilisation it ought to cover this. Maybe not on the BBC page as such but at least somewhere public.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.21.204.162 (talk • contribs) 2007-04-10
:See Talk:BBC. Pit-yacker 02:22, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The BBC is openly Anti-Semitic 

message: At the BBC main article, a new section Criticisms of the BBC has appeared. This quickly grew so large and was so disruptive to the flow of the article that editors - myself included - have removed it in the past.
Nevertheless, a small group of editors have spent considerable time defending the section, putting it back, expanding it and finding all manner of sources to support it.
With that level of intense support, removal of the section is not possible but creation (strictly, re-creation) of this article seems sensible, practical and useful. Certainly I can see no reason why not to do it. Be bold! is something of an important rule here at Wikipedia!
Your comments on this are welcome, of course (this is a wiki) and efforts to clean up the resulting article here are also most welcome (the sources need formatting; counter-opinions, which the creators of the section sadly haven't had time to include yet, need adding; a bit of wikification and a rewrite of my introductory paragraph are both needed). ➨ ЯEDVERS 21:02, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New article 

message: The article currently linked for Zimbabwe doesn't mention that the BBC is proscribed as a terrorist organisation - just that BBC News is no longer available in Zimbabwe due to an insistence by the government that it be censored. They may have proscribed it as a terrorist organisation, but we need a better citation for that given the severity of the statement. JohnGray 17:28, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Zimbabwe 

message: I have deleted the below paragraph the fabled impartiality summit is already mentioned.  The source given here appears to be a mis-report of the initial report in the Daily Mail:
According to articles in Yediot Aharonot in October 2006, "an internal memo, recently discovered by the British media, revealed what the BBC has been trying to hide.
Thats why the BBC streamed the meeting on the web.
Senior figures admitted in a recent 'impartiality' summit that the BBC was guilty of promoting Left-wing views and anti-Christian sentiment.
Not even the Mail twisted it that far.  Andrew Marr said the BBC was a socially liberal organisation (that dont have a problem with gay employees, etc, etc) , this is entirely different from being politically liberal (or Liberal) and a country mile from being left wing.  The implication that liberal/Liberal political views where then reported as part of an institutional bias is quite frankly on another planet.   The "anti-Christian sentiment" was a misreport of the Mail which itself was mis-reporting a exercise in a hypothetcial where executives discussed what they would do if Sacha Baron Cohen, a controversial Jewish comedian tried to put the Koran in to Room 101.
 ... One senior BBC executive admitted to the ‘Daily Express’,
AFAICT the Daliy Mail.
 "There was a widespread acknowledgement that we may have gone too far in the direction of political correctness. Unfortunately, much of it is so deeply embedded in the BBC's culture, that it is very hard to change it."BBC admits: We are biased on religion and politics by Hagit Klaiman (YNetNews, October 23, 2006) 
So what has political correctness got to do with the Israel-Palestine conflict? Whatever "Politcal Correctness" is, being the most abused term in the English language.  In my experience it is usually used by the tabloid press to describe anything they disagree with.
BBC seeks to suppress bias report. Network asks High Court to overturn decision that it publishes report into bias in coverage of Middle East conflict by Hagit Klaiman (YNetNews, October 24, 2006)
</
AFAICT Second report refers to the Balen Report, not this meeting.  The Balen Report is believed to criticse the BBC's reporting over the Israel-Palestine conflict.
Pit-yacker 14:07, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deleted Paragraph 

message: They are not reliable sources. That simple. Do not treat blogs as sources, or links. Some guy that has very obvious reasons to attack the BBC is not a reliable source. Neither is a random blogspot account set up to insult the company. An actual newspaper article is reliable. A reporter ranting in his free time is not. --Lucid 15:14, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A blog is simply a method for publishing content. The policy re blogs is to prevent personal websites from being used as sources. It needs to be interpreted with a bit of common sense. May I remind you of WP:3RR, which you have already exceeded. Iceage77 15:20, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (edit conf) Might I remind you that 3RR is content disputes, not vandalism reversions. Read WP:RS. Reliable sources are authors or publications regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. -- A journalist is NOT trustworthy or authoritative, even if the company he works for is. Reliable publications are those with an established structure for fact-checking and editorial oversight.  which a blog CLEARLY will not have, as it is a place for the person's PERSONAL opinions, interests, and etc. Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for fact-checking or with no editorial oversight. Questionable sources should only be used in articles about themselves. this is not an article about him, so his questionable reliability should NOT be used. Also see things questionable sources may not be, it is not contentious;-this clearly is- it is not unduly self-serving; I'd have to say that insulting a competitor is pretty self serving- it does not involve claims about third parties; it VERY CLEARLY involves claims about the BBC, a third party. Interpreting with common sense shows that they should not be used BECAUSE THEY ARE UNRELIABLE, the entire point of the RELIABLE SOURCES policy, not that people who only write for reliable publications are reliable by proxy. --Lucid 15:30, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There are clearly editors here who are trying to write this to a pro-BBC perspective. The example of the George Bush "walker" being changed to "wanker" was in the Times article but this keeps on getting removed. Equally, you can not argue a Telegraph blog as unreliable and then include a BBC blog defending the BBC. Blogs from official websites of a company are perfectly acceptable to use as first-hand sources of the blog-writers views. I would agree that they can not be used as basements for facts, but for opinions of the guy that writes the blog it can be.The Enlightened 15:35, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ( edit conf)The BBC blog is used to show their defense against multiple claims, and does not make potentially libelous comments against third parties. In addition, it explains their addition of text to their article. It also reflects the view of more than one person. List goes on like this. The reason I removed the comment about George Bush was because it's pretty much irrelevant, and does not serve any encyclopedic purpose. There are lots of examples of vandalism and the like from the BBC, and nobody is denying that. I would like to hear why I would write this to a 'pro-BBC perspective', though, it should be amusing.  I care about one thing, and that's making the internet not suck, and if the only things being added are anti-bbc, of course removing them is going to look pro-bbc. I'd remove a poorly sourced rebuttal just as quickly --Lucid 15:42, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If the "wanker" edit is important enough to be included in the article in the Times, it is important enough to be included on an article specifically on BBC criticism. It is notable because it shows that there were edits being made that were not in good faith. It is secondly important because most claims of BBC bias in the mainstream media in the UK are that the BBC is liberal-left and anti-American. The fact that this slur on the American President was edited by a BBC member is notable as it fits with this alleged bias. Secondly, from the wikipedia policy page you mentioned is this line "Some newspapers host interactive columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control", which the Telegraph 'blog' cleary is, written professionally on the website by a major correspondent. The Telegraph's view of the BBC is no more libellous than the Guardian's criticism of David Cameron, which IS included on wikipedia. The Enlightened 15:49, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

text: (deinfent) Not really, although I wouldn't object to a comment saying "including insults and obscenities" or something to that effect, which covers a much more broad range of edits without being too US-centric. And anyway, WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is not an excuse to libel someone, and I see nothing on the page that suggests the post was written professionally, and certainly nothing to say it was by a major correspondent. If we did quote it, we would have to identify it as the Telegraph, which would be inaccurate as it is not a proper article, and certainly not written by a professional, as there are no professionals for Wikipedia Studies --Lucid 15:56, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is outrageous. You're claming that accusing the BBC of being biased is libellous, thus we can't ever include accusations of bias. How convenient! You're being deliberately obfuscating here. You don't need to be a professional for wikipedia studies, just a professional journalist. The blog article was in the "UK Correspondent blog", which is contributed to by numerous Telegraph journalists. Damian Thompson regularly writes for the Telegraph. If you're going to keep doing this obstinacy I want to take this to an admin. The Enlightened 16:08, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I'm saying that a single person who is also in extremely obvious competition with the BBC is potentially libelous, but more so just plain biased themselves and unreliable. Working in journalism does not reliability make. Our options here are cite the source as the Telegraph (wrong, as it is not edit/fact checked and cleared for publication), or cite the source as the author of the blog (correct, but almost certainly unreliable using selfpub/questionable sources guidelines, not to mention probably not notable) --Lucid 16:12, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Telegraph is a broadsheet newspaper. The BBC is a broadcast company. They are not in direct competition and even if they were thats not a reason for ignoring it. It's not up to wikipedia editors to assume others motives and not include criticism on that basis. You're really on the dregs of your argument now aren't you? Libelous? Criticism of another organisation is perfectly fine and not libellous in the slightest. You clearly don't know anything about UK libel law if you think otherwise. The Enlightened 16:33, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Normally it's the person who has to start insulting the argument instead of actually arguing that's wearing thin. That is the case here --Lucid 17:19, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

text:  I would have thought that this Daily Telegraph blogpost would be a good ref link regarding the BBC editing of Wikipedia, even if it is in competition with the BBC. I would have thought that both sides of the argument should be referred to in order to comply with Wikipedias NPOV policy? Joflaitheamhain 16:23, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That is not how NPOV works. From the policy, representing fairly and without bias all significant views (that have been published by reliable sources)-- a single blog post from a source of questionable reliability at best is not a significant view. NPOV is not giving "every side of the story" either, in most cases it is "give the facts and don't distort them". Very rarely are interpretations of fact important. --Lucid 17:19, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes it would be. We should include the criticism, including precisely what was said and a reference, and then the BBC response, how they defended it, with a refernce. Thats NPOV. Not just containing the BBC response and not a single item of the criticism! The Enlightened 16:33, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it isn't. I highly recommend you read WP:NPOV, as you are grossly misinterpreting it. As I said above, NPOV is representing the facts without distortion, and then fairly representing all significant views-- a single person, writing in a blog, from a competing company (and yes, they are competitors in news media) is NOT a significant reliable source that meets NPOV. All that needs to be said is that there's criticism, which the BBC states themselves, we don't need to go around listing every little person with an axe to grind against the BBC to establish a fact we already have, and we don't need to show their opinion as it is already obvious, and most of the time would break WP:UNDUE in showing their personal opinions -Lucid 17:19, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, and the view in that article IS a significant view, as is proven by the fact the BBC felt they had to respond to it. The guy regularly writes for the Telegraph. The blog is NOT a personal blog, but a general Telegraph UK "Correspondents" blog. It is NOT of questionable reliability outside of your mind. It is an online column from one of the largest newspapers in the UK. There is NOTHING ok wikipedia policy that says competitors criticism of each other should not be included, and besides, the two organisations fufill entirely different sections of the media market. 195.137.85.173 18:51, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

text:  I'm sorry , but you are participating in what amounts to blatant censorship in favour of the BBC. That this is occuring on the "Criticism of the BBC" page is laughable and brings the reputation of Wikipedia into disrepute. You dismiss a reputable journalist with a major UK national newspaper as having a "axe to grind" - therefore you yourself are showing a point of view and a bias. I was merely trying to be even handed.  Joflaitheamhain 17:46, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Uh-huh. Again, why would I be censoring anything in the BBC's favor? If you haven't got a very good rational for making a serious accusation, you should avoid it in the future-- I could very well say you're setting out to discredit the BBC, but it doesn't mean crap. I would like to know how recognizing a person's bias when it slaps you across the face is 'bias'-- and again, I'd like to ask for a reason I would be acting in favor of either party in this discussion. If I did have an opinion here, it would be anti-BBC if anything for wasting tax payer money, but that isn't the case, and if I wanted to have an opinion about things I'd get a blag. If you cannot provide evidence that this is a significant and reliable source of criticism, it should not be mentioned. In addition, it accomplishes NO encyclopedic value whatsoever, unless you'd like to give a very good rationale for that. There's no need to show sides of the story here, we already have all the fact we need from the sources we've got -- someone notices the BBC is inappropriately editing their content, and some people are vandalizing, the BBC publishes a story about it and doesn't mention their own activities, people criticize the BBC for it, the BBC apologizes. That's all there is to it, for now anyway, and linking to the criticism is unencyclopedic, unreliable, and just plain unneeded --Lucid 17:55, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  There is new information in that blog not covered by your edits, as there are two pieces of criticism here. The first is that the BBC was criticised for BBC employees editing wikipedia, including this page. That is covered by your edits. The second is that the BBC was criticised for failing to report on its role in the story. The BBC reaction to this criticism is included but the original criticism has not been. It needs to be added. 195.137.85.173 18:51, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

text:  Since it appears that you take Wikipedia's integrity very seriously, and do appear to have good intentions,  I do apologise for accusing you of bias, and I wholeheartedly take back my comments if they have offended you. The point is , is that Damian Thompson was criticising the BBC for not mentioning it's own wiki edits in the original news story about CIA edits that it ran. It was after Thompson's article appeared that we then saw corrections to the CIA edit news story (belatedly mentioning BBC edits) and later, we saw the mea culpa article on the BBC Editor's blog, so it is a important part of the narrative of the "wiki edit" section on this page. He's the only journalist (to the best of my knowledge) in a major newspaper to have picked up on the story and to have published on it. To leave it out is,  in itself unencyclopedic and unreliable.  Joflaitheamhain 18:22, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

text: (deindent) and now we're getting somewhere. Now it's really a debate on if it's an important event or not. Personally, I'd say that his specific criticism isn't, especially given the rather unprofessional nature of it and rudeness make it somewhat inappropriate. I suppose a sentence like "After criticisms from it's own readers(BBCSOURCE) and outspoken journalist Damian Thompson(BLOGSOURCE), the BBC did etc." would be alright, although not perfect, it's a compromise --Lucid 18:34, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's the Telegraph's blog, not Damian Thompson's! And what he has done to qualify as "outspoken" now? That's an opinion and is unnecessarily trying to discredit him. Besides, the phrasing should directly refer to the criticism and what was said, not as passing "After da da da, the BBC said this..." 195.137.85.173 18:51, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

text:  now i really am confused. Are you reading the same article as me?  How is Thompson's article  "unprofessional" and also contain "rudeness"?  Sure , it has a POV, but rude? I just don't see it. Please enlighten me if you can.  Joflaitheamhain 19:08, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Lu is right.  Bigglove 15:25, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Again, this is used to show that the BBC did recognize the complaints and repaired it thusly, it can be considered at least reliable enough for this purpose if not others because it does not make contentious claims about third parties, or personal attacks, and has a direct effect on the article which is definitely a reliable source. If it was just someone from the BBC going "Well screw him, he's competition, whadda he know! Look at the telegraph talk about vandalizing the page at the end of tehir own article!" (which is actually probably the case here) it would be just as inappropriate. --Lucid 15:58, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ah yes , I see what you are on about. The blogpost critical of the BBC Wiki editing does indeed use personal attack language (quote: "Of course the real joke is that we telly-taxpayers are paying these morons to sit on their backsides..") , whereas the BBC editors blogpost is is more polite in tone. However, the Daily Telegraph blogpost might be worth considering to counterbalance the ref link to that editors blog perhaps? Joflaitheamhain 16:12, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: NPOV is not 'a balancing act', it's not showing an opinion either way. There is no need for the insults, we are better off without them. It's not about rudeness or politeness, it's about not hosting personal attacks and unreliable comment. Seeing as this comment was reflected in the BBC's article, it's highly likely that it's the opinion of more than just the one editor, and as they seem to speak on behalf of the BBC it's safe to say that it is a company statement (or that he is on the way to being fired!) and that is a reliable enough source to give their defenses as a primary source --Lucid 16:18, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  You've lost me there.  Damian Thompson of the Telegraph is trading personal insults in this article?? Joflaitheamhain 16:27, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I think the place to discuss this is at WP:RS talk page rather than here.  The current policy is no blogs and we need to stick to that.  Bigglove 20:43, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  you make a fair enough point.  come to think of it, the narrative i described above is actually more suited to a historical or wikinews type of entry rather than a pure wikipedia entry. maybe it should be placed in a "history of the bbc" or "news about the bbc" page perhaps. this of course would then cover the controversies such as the hutton inquiry , the balen report and such like, rather than just having a specific "criticism" page. by its nature, a "criticism" page is always a very difficult one to have a NPOV on because of the differing viewpoints. Joflaitheamhain 21:10, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've posted some comments on here as Bigglove has suggested.   Please do add your comments and opinions on this, as I think this is becoming a weakness in Wikipedia's coverage  - especially in light of , for example, the rise of blogs in the U.S. in the political sphere, and how blogs are now breaking stories which the "reliable source" MSM are then afterwards picking up on.  Then again, maybe this is not suited to wikipedia itself - maybe a historical record wikipedia is required?  Joflaitheamhain 21:26, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blogs 

message: This needs to be discussed. For example, ITN News closed down because they simply couldn't compete against the telly-tax funded News 24. I believe Sky News also operates at a loss. Iceage77 14:55, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Effect on private sector 

message: This article doesn't even mention some of the most prominent controversies of recent years, such as Barbara Plett's tears, and the airing of the Jerry Springer Opera -- which firmly established in the mind of many that the BBC has a clear policy of singling Christianity out for defamation which it would not permit in the case of any other religion. AnonMoos 00:25, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you can cite it with reliable submissions, go ahead and include it. TheIslander 00:28, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not an "it", it was several distinct incidents -- and they were covered on the BBC site itself.  However, if it's left up to me to add them, then it might not get done soon... AnonMoos 00:31, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Not our fault. If it's broke, fix it --Lucid 14:06, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notable omissions 

message: I wonder if "Criticism of the BBC" is the right title for it - seems a bit wooly, and implies that it will only show the criticism. Would "recent controversies about the BBC" be better?
18:27, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it is the right title. "Controversies" would not cover general criticism of the BBC that occurs outside of particular incidents. This has previously existed on this page but has been deleted at some point in the last year. It must be added back in again at some point. The Enlightened 00:39, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you thinking of BBC controversies? Pit-yacker 00:55, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Now I don't know whether the notorious recent incidents of Barbara Plett's tears, and the airing of the Jerry Springer Opera would belong on this page or that one... AnonMoos 10:27, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is a difficult line to draw. Would a merger be on the cards? Perhaps the dividing line for what should go in each article is that criticism of a particular action should go in the controversies, and criticism alleging that a particular action shows a more endemic problem should go here. Just a suggestion. The Enlightened 23:59, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I would personally suggest a merger. I've been thinking of doing so for quite a while, but was just never 100% sure that it was the best course of action. I see no harm in suggesting it, though, so I'll tag the two articles and guage people's responses. TheIslander 22:03, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should this page be called something else? 

message: Some years ago Charles Moore started up a column called Beebwatch in the Telegraph, documenting what the paper regarded as BBC bias. It didn't last long, but it was pretty prominent criticism for a while from a major paper. I believe there was some stuff on this page a year or so back, but I don't have time right now to find it. Could anyone retrieve what was missing or find other research on it. I think it shuold be included. The Enlightened 00:05, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Beebwatch 

message: This has been mentioned above a bit, but here's a proper section for this proposal. It seems to me that, though these two articles cover slightly different areas, the differences are too subtle to warrent separate articles. I would suggest a merger: something along the lines of creating an article with a 'Previous Controversies' section, and a 'Current controversies/Critisism' section. Thoughts? If the concencus is 'yes', then I'm happy to try and battle through doing it myself, though if someone knowledgeable in this subject could volunteer, that'd be great ;) TheIslander 22:09, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggested merger between this article and [[BBC controversies]] 

message: I think it should be included. Jeremy Paxman recently said that the license fee was something that belonged in the 1950s, and certainly not the 21st century...--h i s   s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 17:33, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A transcript of Paxman's MacTaggart lecture can be found at  but bear in mind that what he said about the licence fee was only a small part of it  Zir 22:15, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  No mention of the license fee in this article? 

message: Not only is disproportionate weight given to modern claims, But there is even a single section on the any of the accusations leveled by Irish Republicans of bias, which has to be the BBC's longest running allegation.
: By the way, several older or longstanding issues are in the BBC controversies article.  I'm not entirely sure what the intended division of labor is between BBC controversies and Criticism of the BBC (or why there has to be two articles), but this article seems to cover more of the recent or current issues... AnonMoos (talk) 17:44, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Irish

message: As above no mention is made of the Unions allegations in the 80s
:To be honest I have more or less give in trying to get any semblance of balance to this article.  Due to the persisant attempts by certain parties to make particular political points, it is IMHO all but unsalvagable.  I'm probably making these comments in vain, but perhaps someone might wake up and listen one day.
:FWIW, I find this article highly POV, I'll also repeat my point that I think this article is one of the worst written and researched on the entire project.  For example, in the Jerry Springer the Opera article describing showing the show as "defamation of Christianity" is a POV.  It is perhaps revealing (and typically missing from this article) that the ultimate result of the said private prosecution might be that the laws on blasphemy in the UK are repealed.  This isn't a move afoot by a leftie government (on the contrary, Gordon "son of a preacher man" Brown opposes the repeal) its a move which has even garnered the support of a former and quite conservative Arch-Bishop of Canterbury who said in a letter to the Telegraph "...the blasphemy offence serves no useful purpose. Yet it allows partisan organisations or well-funded individuals to try to censor broadcasters or intimidate small theatres, print media or publishers" Sound familiar at all?
:Equally, whilst not wanting to get into an Israel/Palestine debate and whilst I do acknowledge  Arafat was at one time undoubtly a terrorist, and putting aside the maxim of one man's freedom fighter.., if I take my typical approach of not assuming malice where incompetence will equally suffice, I would be inclined to believe that problems in his latter years were more down to incompetence, weakness, and lack of will to act than outright malice.
:In the same breath why not include references to Sinn Fein? Fine Martin McGuiness is a convicted terrorist, IIRC reputed at one time to be one of the bosses of the IRA, but he also happens to be education minister for Northern Ireland.  So what's the difference between him and Arafat?
:It is even more bizarre that Sinn Fein's (the second largest party - AND - member of the governing administration of Northern Ireland) gripes dont get a mention yet the far-right and extreme minority BNP do? So what is the difference there? (Other than of course Sinn Fein's accusations show a degree of conservativism on the part of the BBC - that would contradict the view that certain editors try to project from this article that the BBC is liberal, left leaning, etc.). FWIW, there have long been allegations (World in Action, ITV, for one IIRC) about links between the BNP and even less "pleasant" far right groups (if the BNP can be described as "pleasant") such as Combat 18 or the National Front.  You generally dont have to look far to find the odd BNP councillor (of the handful that exist) being convicted of various thuggery either.
:What is more, AFAICT, the sentiments of Sinn Fein probably more accurately reflect the whole of the Republican and wider catholic community in Northern Ireland, many of whom regard the British as occupiers.  Whilst you can argue that, given the dis-taste for being part of the UK in some quarters some in Northern Ireland would complain whatever, it is a credible argument that as a public service broadcaster the BBC should serve all - its an argument, whether the perception was real or not that was the ultimate downfall of the RUC, and saw UK soldiers being killed by UK nationals for 3 decades.
:Pit-yacker (talk) 19:47, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately, the anonymous IP person seems to be adding the Zimbabwe sentence for the specific purpose of blurring and obfuscating the difference between credible criticism and non-credible criticism.  If the anonymous IP person is not adding the Zimbabwe sentence in order to obscure the difference, then he or she has certainly been completely unable to articulate a coherent alternative explanation here on this talk page for his or her motivations.  Something could be added about outraged dictators and tyrants in the proper context and the proper place, but that place is not an unelaborated context-free sentence in the paragraph at the very top of the article.   Also, many people don't see as clear a difference between "criticism" and "controversies" as you do (as seen from the repeated article merge proposals).AnonMoos (talk) 15:27, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That seems fair enough. Is this repeated behaviour sufficient to warrant a request for the article to be semi-protected from anonymous contributors (that is does it meet the criteria) and if it is can someone who knows how to nominate it do so.  --Theo Pardilla 03:26, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't oppose the article being semi-protected, but in my experience, requesting such a change at WP:RFP is completely and utterly useless unless the article is being flooded with vandalism at the moment the request is being made. AnonMoos (talk) 16:17, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Trade Unions

message: don't you think there should be a section in the 'Criticism of the BBC' article regarding the fact that the BBC gets frequently criticized for alleged liberal left and pro labour bias by its users in the BBC 'Have Your Say' Section and the fact that a lot of the user names (in the BBC HYS section) gets named referring BBC bias or anti-labour eg. " NuLab's Clown for all seasons, BBC HQ - State enforced news agency for NuLab and Liberal Left Drivel, United Kingdom " . 
read some of the comments posted in this page : http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/nol/thread.jspa?sortBy=2&forumID=3181&edition=2&ttl=20080626070730&#paginator 
you'll find most users regard the BBC as a "left wing, politically correct and propaganda."  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xyn1 (talk • contribs) 06:44, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  BBC Have Your Say Criticisms 

message: I've started trying to pick through some of it but it's a little dispiriting, and a daunting prospect on top of that.  A lot of this article is just a harvest of quotes from one off editorials or op-eds in newspapers, or criticism from fringe/self-published or partisan sources, such as BBCWatch and CAMERA, relating to elements of BBC news reporting. How notable is most of this stuff, really? --Nickhh (talk) 17:36, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: BBC coverage of mid-east matters stirs passionate debate and accusations, and has done so for decades now.  If such debate spills over into protests, lawsuits, and publicity flaps which receive media coverage, then they can be included in this article - whether or not anyone agrees with everything that CAMERA says... AnonMoos (talk) 19:43, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I wasn't denying there isn't debate and controversy, nor did I say that I disagree with a lot of what CAMERA tends to say (although I do as it happens). The point is that a lot of the quotes and examples here are not notable or sustained criticisms, they're one-off comments buried in Telegraph comment pieces, or pressure group alerts about individual pieces of BBC reporting. This article - if it is too exist at all, and I'm always pretty sceptical about "Criticisms of .." articles - should really only focus on notable or significant criticisms. --Nickhh (talk) 20:34, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some of the stuff here seems pretty trivial and/or partisan 

message: On 30 July 2008 I inserted a paragraph on "Alleged pro-American bias".  This was quickly removed and replaced by "Alleged Anti-China bias and forgery".  I think there is a case to be made for "Alleged pro-American bias" and it provides balance to "Alleged anti-American bias".  Does anybody else agree? Biscuittin (talk) 11:44, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't remove the paragraph, but whoever did remove it probably did so because it mostly seemed to complain about a few vocabulary items ("truck" vs. "lorry"), and about the metric system -- which is by no means used to the exclusion of non-metric measurements in Britain itself. AnonMoos (talk) 21:41, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

text: No, I don't agree as this paragraph did not describe a Pro-American bias, but was complaining about style issues. As opposed to the section on an alleged anti-American bias, which is about the content and the slant of their news coverage. Furthermore, no citations are provided, making this section look more lik rant based on personal observations. Novidmarana (talk) 06:00, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alleged pro-American bias 

message: So a nationwide newspaper is "unreliable" while religious brochure like "Epoch times" sounds convincing, as you previously stated? Or is it simply because it's a chinese source? The BBC reports mentioned did not provide many other solid evidences besides this photo, so it's not a simple "general picture", but a central supporting material.  Helloterran (talk) 07:16, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It is not a as much a matter of reliable sources, but of notability. How does the criticm by a xenophobic and ultranationalistic website and a passing mention in a Chinese newspaper are notable? Especially as they criticise only a single BBC news report and not the general slant of the BBC news coverage. And this is even irrespective of that the newspaper article does not support the frivolous claim of an anti-chinese bias, let alone forgery. At most the newspaper article supports the claim that the BBC is using general pictures to illustrate articles. Novidmarana (talk) 13:13, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm afraid it's not up to you to judge the nature and POV of other sources/editors, none of us have that right. Oherwise you might have been blocked infinitely for your obvious sinophobia, with the consent of many editors. Helloterran (talk) 03:59, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ok, so I see you are unwilling to discuss the content, but apparently you are more than willing to make ad-hominem attacks and allegations of sinophobia. In fact, you are not even willing to read what I write what makes it very hard to discuss anything with you. Novidmarana (talk) 05:11, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alleged anit-China bias and forgery 

message: Can we provide some context in the opening paragraph. Some of the material on the BBC main page seems to be somewhat suited for that purpose. At the moment this is just a random collection of criticism. Голубое сало/Blue Salo (talk) 13:28, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: First of all throw out all the Wikipedia related stuff, as if Wikipedia is the center of the world.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.116.246.213 (talk) 02:35, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The edits of Wikipedia from BBC computers may not be of earth-shattering importance, but they made news and attracted criticism... AnonMoos (talk) 03:17, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Context 

message: I would like to add a section documenting the extraordinary amounts senior exectives pay themselves and so-called "stars" out of taxpayers' money and give an account of the recent widely reported criticisms of these grotesque amounts, both before and after the Russell Brand/Jonathon Ross scandal and the publicity involving David Cameron's comments about the millions being spent. Anyone willing to help? I believe that it is possible to keep this NPOV but am myself hardly a good volunteer for this task as I am so deeply disgusted at the revelations of corruption, cronyism and personal greed.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.105.29.230 (talk) 10:53, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Corporate greed and executives pay 

message: None of the statements this "reference" is being added for on various BBC related articles are in anyway supported by the text on the linked webpage.  It appears the only reason for using this link is an attempt at linkspamming that wont be noticed as clearly on watchlists. I am also puzzled at the changing of the word "others" to "charities" when, AFAICT, according to the charities commission, this website is not a charity, does not claim to be, (nor IIUC could it ever be). 
On a second, but irrelevant to the current issue, point of quite whether this website, one that:
1.  What appears to be a personal site (given domain registration details).
2.  Starts out with the statement that the BBC has a left-wing bias and requests evidence to prove this rather than looking at all output across the board and drawing conclusions as whole.
3.  Immediately reveals that its real agenda is the abolition of the licence fee, saying this is the most important thing for people to do.
can ever be considered a reliable source on issues related to the BBC is an entirely different matter of debate.Pit-yacker (talk) 01:53, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not entirely sure what you are getting at here?  As a British based broadcaster, in particular the UK's PSB why shouldnt sources come from British based sources?  I can assure you that the British have little or no deference to anything and bringing those in positions of power/influence down a peg or ten is somewhat of a national sport.  The BBC is in no way an exception.  As for the use of the BBC as source for stories about itself.  Perhaps ironically, as one of the few UK based sites that provides large amounts of comprehensive news coverage with free access and the *highly* partisan nature of a number of members of the British press (both left and right wing), BBC News is often the best place to go to get a reliable reference for a story about the BBC.  Pit-yacker (talk) 00:30, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

text: I know, I'm agreeing with you.  Some people are accusing the article of being woefully biased, but a borderline majority of sources are BBC.  Is BBC biased against itself? 
And keep in mind, whenever referencing a focus or advocacy group; such as CAMERA, the article always denotes the organizations agenda.  Like the last paragraph in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_BBC#Alleged_Anti_.26_Pro_Israeli_Bias: "In 2008 the BBC was accused by the pro-Israel pressure group CAMERA of falsifying reports related to the aftermath of the Mercaz HaRav massacre. The BBC later apologised for incorrectly showing footage that they had said showed one of the perpetrator's houses being demolished. [27]"  
I think I might modify the term pressure group because it implies a negative connotation that isn't suitable.  CAMERA is media watchdog group, and even though they have demonstrated several pressure group-qualities, it would be unfair to label them as such, especially in this example. We don't label strong pro-Palestinian organizations that have comparable style of agenda to CAMERA as pressure groups on wikipedia, as far as I know at least. 
anyways.  Wikifan12345 (talk) 01:56, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Repeated adding of beebwatch site as a "reference" 

message: "The BBC is striving for 12.5% of its staff to be from a black and minority ethnic background[9]. This over 4 percent higher than the current percentage of ethnic minorities in the UK"
Does this mean '4 PERCENTAGE POINTS higher'??
Because that would make more sense.......
Eugene-elgato (talk) 23:20, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please clarify: 

message: This article seems to go to great lengths to "balance" the criticism of the BBC.  This seems to lend rather undue weight to certain sides of the argument.
For example, the consensus is much more in favour of the position that the BBC has a left-wing bias than a right-wing one.  Any attempt to equate these 2 claims looks suspiciously like an effort to "cancel out" accusations of bias by showing them to come from all sides. 86.151.79.160 (talk) 15:48, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  There's balance, and then there's balance... 

message: I have read claims that BBC has a liberal bias on religion (needs research) ; notably because it aired the episode Sex Crimes and the Vatican on the Panorama series. ADM (talk) 01:42, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Some (such as many of the Jerry Springer protesters) would claim that the BBC is liberal and boldly critical when it comes to Christianity, but delicately sensitive and timidly self-censoring when it comes to most other religions... AnonMoos (talk) 02:42, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Sex Crimes and the Vatican]] 

message: As requested, am bringing this to talk, but I don't see there's much to discuss. An anon editor added a story about some people complaining about a picture on a BBC article being attributed as a pro-one-party demonstration, when it was actually from a pro-other-party rally. The addition also included a link to a statement from the BBC apologising for the mistake, and confirming that it had been corrected and the correction acknowledged in the original article. In other words: simple mistake, quickly corrected, nothing worthy of note.
Even if it was worthy of note, the manner of its addition was entirely out of line, using phrases such as "despite anti-Israel bias" and "false reporting" and "found to mislead its audience". Removal of such POV and partial commentary does not require discussion.
The anon also immediately made bad faith accusations of vandalism and instructed me to take it to the talk page. I suggest reading WP:BRD. If you want to make a contentious edit, YOU need to discuss it once it has been reverted. GDallimore (Talk) 16:19, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Iran elections 

message: I've made a change in this area as Paxman's article was being misrepresented
This article is about criticism of the BBC.
The source article suggests that partiality may be necessary in the case of climate change just as the BBC shows partiality about racism, it is not a criticism of that partiality.
The selective use of the quote in this article implied that Paxman thought that the bbc was lacking impartiality and so exitbiting bias.  
These are two different things  
Also the rest of this section appears to be no more than a criticism of a campaign which never happened surley not worthy of inclusion? The BBC must have thousands of projects that never get off the drawing board.
Pete the pitiless (talk) 22:08, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  climate change 

message: Why is there no mention of the BBC right wing bias? it has always supported the establishment, was far heavy in its criticism of labour governments than tory ones, and has had always maintained a unionist position against republican and nationalist politicians. This article seems to bias it makes no mentions of the bush adminstration pro BBC stance as the only counter to Al Jazeri in the muslim world.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.44.19.153 (talk) 16:25, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Right Bias 

message: Nothing on secular criticism of the BBC using public money to produce religious programming? It's quite a big criticism.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.46.172.25 (talk) 15:40, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Secular criticism 

message: BBC claim to show impartiality in disputes between Palestinians and Israelis yet is never able to be critical of any Isreal's action including the latest act of piracy and murder on the high seas. However they nearly always support their TV reports of outrageous Israeli aggression against Palestinians with Israeli gathered TV news footage. We are often deceived into thinking the images that the BBC are leading with are impartial or neutral.  Israeli news footage should not be presented as if it is BBC's own news footage. In the 31 May 2010 incident where Israeli paratroopers boarded a Turkish vessel bring aid to Gaza they used Israeli footage of their troops coming under attack from passengers. Some footage was clearly produced in an Israeli studio showing troops beaten with iron bars. The standard practice in all such incidents would be to show seriously wounded soldiers to support the killing of 8 peace protesters as justification preventing loss of Israeli lives but of course there were no images to back-up this central Israeli propaganda claim that soldiers were taking a vicious beating. It is in this that the BBC can be seen to be lightly critical whilst remaining fundamentally loyal to the Israeli cause.
In this example from bbc.co.uk the Israeli accusations are given absolute prominence even as the alleged aggressors and counter claims by the victims dwindle off into insignificance. 
[Israel says its soldiers boarded the lead ship in the early hours but were attacked with axes, knives, bars and at least two guns. "Unfortunately this group were dead-set on confrontation," Israeli government spokesman Mark Regev told the BBC. "Live fire was used against our forces. They initiated the violence, that's 100% clear," he said. Organisers of the flotilla said at least 30 people were wounded in the incident. Israel says 10 of its soldiers were injured, one seriously. Deputy Speaker of Israeli parliament Danny Danon: "It was not a peaceful mission" A leader of Israel's Islamic Movement, Raed Salah, who was on board, was among those hurt. Contact with activists on the ships was lost after the raids and no first-hand accounts from them have yet emerged. Arafat Shoukri, of the Free Gaza Movement (FGM) which organised the convoy, said those on board one ship had told them by telephone that Israeli helicopters had arrived. "Then we started to hear screams, shouting, shooting everywhere," he said. "We heard some of them shouting 'we are raising the white flag, stop shooting at us'." He said Israeli claims that activists had pistols and other weapons were "cheap propaganda". Audrey Bomse, also of the FGM, told the BBC that the activists were "not going to pose any violent resistance". By midday Israel had towed three of the six boats to the port of Ashdod and says it will deport the passengers from there.] 
This demonstrates a clear case of taking the Israeli side while appearing impartial.
86.181.153.42 (talk) 10:00, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Whatever -- Auntie Beeb was merely reporting what it was that official Israeli government spokesmen said.  That doesn't remotely justify the ranting tirade that you previously added to the article.  If you think this is important, then you should find reliable sources expressing criticism of BBC coverage -- and not merely add an expression of your own personal opinions to the article. AnonMoos (talk) 14:47, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Whatever -- the original version of your comments above (as they stood when I originally replied to them) was pretty much a ranting tirade, and you followed it with a rather dense paragraph of unformatted condensed cuttings-and-pastings from the BBC site (without a supporting URL, by the way), which does not prove your point in any direct or obvious manner, because it says nothing about TV. In any case, my original point still stands -- if you're the only one who has noticed a certain claimed pattern, then general standing Wikipedia policies decree that in the great majority of cases such a pattern should not be mentioned in Wikipedia articles... AnonMoos (talk) 11:45, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

text: If anything, the BBC is regarded as rabidly anti-israeli. Just read through the article. This is also my personal opinion. But personal opinions do not count on Wikipedia because of WP:OR. We need reliable sources for anything that is put into an article.Civilizededucation (talk) 16:50, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  BBC news reports on Israeli aggression always lead with Israeli TV news footage 

message: Well, even if everything in this article is the truth, the whole thruth and nothing but the truth - is "Criticism of the BBC" really an encyclopedical article ? It would not accour in any other encyclopedia. What's next ? An article of "criticism of the gunners midfield " perhaps ? 83.249.42.14 (talk) 06:05, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: If there are significant protests or political controversies which are covered in mainstream news outlets (sometimes by the BBC itself, as you'll notice if you look at the footnotes), then I don't see why there can't be a Wikipedia article about it. AnonMoos (talk) 11:52, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Encyclopedical article ? 

message: Hi, I've just registered and this is my first point, so please go easy on me if I do something wrong. I won't change anything on the page itself.
I was arguing on a blog about the BBC and got pointed to the "Admission to Anti-Christian bias" section. The supporting link doesn't really seem to support the assertions in the section.
The section says: "The BBC has admitted (2006) of being biased, of cultural liberal bias,[32] biased on relgion and on politics[33] The internal memo, discovered by the British media, revealed that the BBC was guilty of promoting Left-wing views and anti-Christian sentiment."
The MailOnline article, however, attributes the "cultural liberal bias" quote to Andrew Marr, who is not "The BBC". The Mail's article is based upon a "leaked account" of a meeting. Is it OK to base parts of encyclopaedia articles on leaked memos? Is the memo genuine? How do we know it's genuine? Was the meeting of sufficient importance to be able to attribute anything said there to "The BBC"? A group of executives and high profile presenters isn't necessarily representative of "The BBC".
I also think "guilty of promoting Left-wing views" isn't very neutral. Being left-wing isn't a crime!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theresonator (talk • contribs) 18:44, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Deleted content was
The BBC has admitted (2006) of being biased, of cultural liberal bias, biased on religion and on politicshttp://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23371706-yes-we-are-biased-on-religion-and-politics-admit-bbc-executives.do  The internal memo, discovered by the British media, revealed that the BBC was guilty of promoting Left-wing views and anti-Christian sentiment.
BBC's admission to liberal bias in 2006, has highlighted what "The British Broadcasting Corporation has been struggling for several years against criticisms and claims of biased reporting concerning the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and distorted coverage of the global fight against terror," explained Ynet.http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3318582,00.html
 Not well attributed, but that can be changed, rather than deleted. Christopher Connor (talk) 04:37, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

text: The first paragraph is already covered in more detail elsewhere in the article.  It is under political correctness where it probably belongs if it is going to be in the article at all.  As for the second paragraph, there are already a number of sections on the Arab-Israeli conflict elsewhere in the article. Pit-yacker (talk) 11:09, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

text: For completeness, perhaps shows how hopeless this article is, can I throw in Greg Dyke's hideously white speech from only 5 years prior to the cultural liberal bias speech. Pit-yacker (talk) 11:22, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Admission to Anti-Christian bias 

message: The final para in this section (beginning Writing on western media bias regarding South Asia in the journal of the Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses, media analyst Ajai K. Rai strongly criticizes the BBC for anti-India bias) talks about a supposed BBC report that there was an attack by the Indian Army on the tomb of Hazrat Sheikh Noor-u-din Noorani in Charari Sharief, and only retracted the claim after strong criticism from the media in India for several weeks - there's only one problem. This is not what the BBC reported. The BBC story  was about a bombing at the shrine in January 2004 and was in the context of attacks against the British High Commisioner and members of the Awami League in Bangladesh. We can't access the reference for this paragraph as it is behind a paywall. I have searched for supporting evidence that the BBC ever said this, or independent confirmation of Rai's comments and can't find either. In the absence of further evidence, I propose this paragraph be removed. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 07:48, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I made some edits in that section today to sort out ref formating issues/flag dead links etc. I didn't look at the content/sources in any detail although much of the section seems to be pretty poorly sourced. Paywalls aren't a reason to remove material though per WP:PAYWALL. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:16, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but I'm not suggesting removing it because the source is paywalled, that is simply a supporting point - the simple fact is that the BBC did not make the alleged remarks and not only that, no other news source supports the allegation. The BBC often draws attacks from those who simply object to the truth being publicly stated - in this case, the BBC was reporting attacks against Muslims and one can draw one's own conclusions about the reaction of some to that.  Objectivity matters in Wikipedia and we shouldn't just be repeating incorrect material from uncheckable and unsupported sources. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 08:45, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, you aren't going to get any objections from me. If the information hasn't been published elsewhere it doesn't qualify via due weight anyway. The entire section does seem to be fairly typical of agenda driven criticism sections in Wikipedia. It could do with a bit of objectivity. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:11, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I realise this is the "criticism" page, so it's bound to contain criticism, but some items seem poorly sourced or unobjective. We also have blogs being used as sources at some points - I thought that was against policy? Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 09:14, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it depends on who they are written by, whether they are under editorial control, whether they are being used for facts or opinions and whether they are attributed to the author etc i.e. it seems to be on a case by case basis per WP:NEWSBLOG and WP:SPS. We shouldn't really need any blogs though. If it's notable criticism worthy of an encyclopedia it will have been reported in multiple sources. That's how I look at it anyway. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:24, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: How strange, two intelligent and reasonable editors in one place. I've always struggled to understand how "Criticism of .." articles are tolerated at all here, given that mere criticism sections within articles are frowned on. They're uniformly rubbish and little more than sloppily written list-style collaborative essays where people can come and dump random things they read in random op-eds the other day that they happen to agree with about something they don't like. Then, if people complain, they are told that the material is "well sourced" and must remain. Why not a "Praise of the BBC" article? I could dig up plenty of comment pieces and even academic works that could be used to write up such a page. And did you know that "Criticism of Barney & Friends" is a working redirect? Which kind of says it all. N-HH talk/edits 12:49, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Says you. I've often felt hostile towards Barney. It's that purple colour. Back here on the Beeb article though, I agree. I suppose what's happened is that over time people have injected all the various lines of attack until it reached a point that a seperate article was spawned as a placeholder. It does seem logical that if this exists, another article In Praise of Dear Old Aunty should be published. Seems to point in the direction of delete/merge? Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 14:25, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It appears it was put to bed a long time in the past. As you suggest, I suspect what happened then was that more and more criticism got added to the main BBC page over the following years, and that this article was then spun off again. I think putting it up for deletion or merger will just run into the objection noted above that "it's all sourced", as well as being opposed by people who - sensibly enough I suppose - see these sorts of articles as a way of at least keeping all this kind of rubbish out of the main one. Much as I think it should be junked, I can't see any consensus coming out of an AfD or a merge discussion. Plus, it's such a wide and fundamental problem, it probably needs approaching at a policy level. Having said all that, there is also a BBC controversies article, which is a) probably more justifiable as a title/concept for an encyclopedia, and b) suggests an easier merge target in this case (I think there was a proposal to that effect a while back, if I remember correctly). Next week, maybe .... N-HH talk/edits 14:54, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Allegations of Indophobia para 

message: I would like to get rid of that neutrality tag at the top of the article, but as discussions above illustrate, a more important issue is the name and format of the article altogether. The first point is that we shouldn't really have an article called "criticism of x" without a very good reason. It opens the door immediately to all kinds of POV-battling and presents the silly position of requiring an article called "praise of x".
I therefore suggest we move to something like BBC (views and controversies), which would also allow "positive" or "considered" views to be put about these issues. Let's discuss it and then I will call a vote on the more promising move name candidates. Thanks. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 14:57, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, sorry, I've just seen NN-H's comment above drawing attention to the existence of a controversies page already. So maybe what's needed is a merge with that. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 15:00, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: There have been several informal proposals to merge with BBC controversies (check on the archived talk pages of this article and the other one), but none of them seemed to gain too much support... AnonMoos (talk) 20:37, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move Proposal: BBC (views and controversies) 

message: The section title seems inaccurate to me. In the section, there are allegations that the BBC is biased towards the left and towards the right, so a more general "Political bias?" title would more accurately reflect the contents of the section.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theresonator (talk • contribs) 14:25, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Political bias to the left? 

message: Firstly, the section contains allegations of BBC bias towards both Israel and the Palestinians, so the section title needs to be reworded so that it more accurately reflects the content. Any suggestions for a better title?
Why does the section contain anything about Professor Steven Weinberg cancelling a speech because of a boycott of Israeli products? Did the BBC organise the boycott? I don't think so. It may have a place elsewhere, but not in a "Criticism of the BBC" article. I know there's a quote of Weinberg criticising the BBC. Is Weinberg so notable that his views demand inclusion in an article of this kind? Theresonator (talk) 15:18, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed about the title - have changed it. Checking out the Weinberg point.... Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 15:58, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

text: Yes, further to this, I have checked it out and removed that paragraph. The citation supplied did not lead to a story. Other news reports such as  on the Weinberg statement refer to general allegations of anti-Israeli and anti-semitic positions in Britain rather than the BBC specifically; it appears this para was spun up without evidence to support it. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 16:03, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

text: Sure, keep at it - feel free to try edits yourself - you did the right thing raising the issues on the talk page first. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 17:23, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  The "Anti-Israel bias" section