Talk:John Birt, Baron Birt

message: My contribution to this article was more thorough than I intended, but it was not detailed enough before. Its neutrality may be disputable, although I tried to be factual rather than polemical. Still feel more can be said about Birt though. 
Please place any comments on my user talk page, if you wish. 
Philip Cross 9 July 2005 10:51 (UTC)
I'm not sure this page is NPOV. On News and Current Affairs, I have managed to give the impression of Birt as son, father and "pervasive" holy spirit. This might not be too far from the truth (arguably), but is it fair? I don't recall a bar on potentially sacrilegious comments in the style guide! 
Philip Cross 15:09, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: I have removed a passage added by User:Rodericksilly:
This information is only of relevance to hard-core followers of Doctor Who, and should only be included in articles about the series. It does not seem to have had wider circulation in more mainstream sources. The internal BBC's Christmas tape (which has been on YouTube) would have had limited circulation at the time. So unlike the Private Eye reference above, which is legitimate, this is not good enough evidence to suggest "Potter's joke persisted". So what if David Maloney "alluded" to this. To add this is self-indulgent and pretty irrelevant when there are so many better known opponents of Birt to cite. Maloney apparently heavily criticised Birt in his comments. 
I should add that Rodericksilly and myself have had a low level edit war over this passage for some time. Philip Cross (talk) 11:44, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  If I thought Maloney had some axe to grind based on his involvement in the production of the tape or being personally affected by Birt's changes as a member of staff, I'd agree. However, obituaries to Maloney confirm he had left the BBC by the time Birt became director-general, therefore would have had no involvement in the tape. That confirms that the tape became popular enough with people who weren't even at the BBC at the time to warrant a mention. Rodericksilly (talk) 16:18, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  My point is that Maloney's comment, which seems to be that Birt "succeeded where Davros failed and ruined the BBC", is not in any third-party reliable source; "The Genesis of the Daleks" release is not third party, and IMDb, where the quote is reproduced, is not admissible either. "Alluded to" seems to mean you are trying to make a connection where one has not been made in sources. Its original research. The internal BBC Christmas Tape has a similar  problem where one is hardly overwhelmed by sources establishing its notability. Philip Cross (talk) 17:11, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  The point is that the caricature of Birt as Davros stemmed from the tape, the "allusion" to the tape was made in the DVD commentary which portrayed Birt as Davros specifically, not a Dalek, but the tape stemmed from the initial comment by Potter. So Potter's initial comment was a popular caricature which then stuck to Birt through other references. Comments in DVD commentaries have been used in other articles, so I see no problem there. Rodericksilly (talk) 17:23, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: John Birt and the Daleks

message: It seems odd that there's no mention of his role in the airing of An Interview with HRH The Princess of Wales. 
He's mentioned in that article and it was a significant (perhaps the most significant) event in his time as BBC Director-General. It's especially relevant as he's recently been depicted in Season 5 of The Crown as playing a central role in it airing, and after the investigation into the unethical methods Martin Bashir used to convince Diana to do the interview.
Very strange not to mention it at all. WilliamTravis (talk) 06:41, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Role in Panorama Interview with the Princess of Wales