Talk:BBC/Archive 6

message: Under the political independance section there is no mention of the David Kelly affairand the subsequent Hutton report. Seeing as this was the most seminal testing of the beeb's independance I  really think it needs a mention... Bensonby 22:41, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, especially as there's already a good analysis on WP of the Hutton Inquiry. All it needs is a few words and a wikilink. -- Puffball 10:37, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hutton et al. 

message: "in some areas the BBC World Service radio is the only available free press."  Which areas, precisely?  I understand it's a very important source, but where is there that you could pick up the BBC on shortwave but not, for instance, Deutsche Welle? Vashti 16:45, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It should be modified slightly. The writer was most likley talking about places such as North Korea, Cuba, Zimbabwe and Iraq before the war where listeners could receive BBC World Service broadcasts, but as you say they most likley could pick up other broadcasts. keithgreer 18:02, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: World Service radio only free press?

message: There are often claims, particularly on the internet, that the BBC is biased in its coverage of the Israeli-Palistinian conflict. The criticisms come from supporters of both sides, as can be seen, for example, here: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=BBC .
Many people may turn to the "Criticisms" section of the Wikipedia article on the BBC to find out if there is any substance to some of the claims, many of which can be quite extreme.
So I think it is a pity that when I removed a link to the pro-Israeli (and, as always in these cases, ironically, almost tragically biased) website honestreporting.com, it was put straight back in, along with a bizarre note that it is "not POV". (Don't readers of the Wikipedia assume that anyway?)
I invite any rational Wikipedia editors with an interest in the Wikipedia article on the BBC to look at honestreporting.com to see whether they think it is worthy to be referenced in a serious encyclopedia.
I think it isn't. By way of supporting my argument, here is a link to a Guardian investigation of honestreporting.com from early 2001 -- Media manipulators. Robertbyrne 21:41, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You weren't "attacked" at all.  You were told what wikipedia's rules are.  They apply to everyone.  You can edit the article, but you're not entitled to alter others' comments.  You'd object, after all, if someone changed your comment to say something entirely different to what you said.  By all means reply to the point you object to, but don't change what others said. -- Finlay McWalter |  Talk 22:16, August 19, 2005 (UTC)
(Note to readers: comment of Sooted also removed his comment from here...) Robertbyrne 22:57, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

text: People are allowed to express their POVs on talk pages; that's what they're for. -- Finlay McWalter |  Talk 22:22, August 19, 2005 (UTC)
(... and here. Robertbyrne 22:57, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

text: He's allowed to do that on a talk page. So are you. On the talk page you can claim the BBC is run by one-legged pirates and malevolent sea sponges. NPOV applies strictly to articles.  Incidentally, please sign your comments with four ~~~~, so everyone can keep tabs on who said what, please. -- Finlay McWalter |  Talk 22:28, August 19, 2005 (UTC)
(Final note from Robertbyrne 22:57, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  The pro-Israeli website honestreporting.com 

message: I request someone to enlarge upon BBC's recent slidings to paparazzi style, especially in its frantically Russophobic coverage of Eastern Europe (example). --Ghirla | talk 09:45, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, we'd have to be very careful about accusing anyone of "sliding to paparazzi style" (by which I think you mean what I'd call tabloid-style), as we have to maintain a neutral point of view, and report facts, not opinions. There's also the question of Wikipedia containing no original research, which means we could only report that somebody else (and somebody notable, or a notable number of somebodies) made the accusation, not simply state it ourselves. If you can find a reference to such a "significant somebody/somebodies", rather than just an article which you feel is an example of the phenomenon, that might be worth mentionning; note that BBC News has its own article, though, where this would be more relevant. - IMSoP 12:26, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Paparazzi style 

message: While looking at this page, I can't help but think it's becoming a bit of a mess - it needs a major edit and, in some parts, a wholesale recast to tidy it up. Lots of repeated facts (or, in some cases, "facts" - there's a bit of "some people say that.." POV stuff), unnecessarily long lists of factoids (do we really need to list all of the Governors in the headline article?), and generally just beginning to suffer from wikirot - death by a thousand minor edits. The References section mostly relates to the historical bits which are now in their own article. In short, time for a spring-clean. Any idea where we should start? --Mpk 17:49, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes -- Wikipedia is not paper -- Puffball 15:28, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Getting messy 

message: I've been trying to make a point which is important for non-UK readers. This is probably better done by others who know the BBC better, if they agree.
The Wikipedia article is likely to have two main types of reader:
1. Brits who want to know who the current Chief Assistant to the Assistant Chief is, or when the changeover from 405 lines was.
2. People from other countries who want to know what the BBC _is_. As far as  I know, it's a unique entity due to its history as a monopoly and to the very good people who ran it, so it needs explaining. In most countries Public Service Broadcasting means, I believe, a worthy, underfunded, system which transmits stuff not many people want to watch, and is likely to buy most of it in rather than make it.
So maybe contributors would like to bear this in mind. Or maybe not. 
Hurry up, by the time the entry is finished the BBC will probably be something quite different, unfortunately.
Pol098 16:08, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: history as a monopoly? Excepting radio, it hasn't been a monopoly on TV since 1955. And its TV only started in earnest in 1946, so it never had much history as a monopoly on TV. As goes radio... well... it was over 50 years there, yes. --Kiand 17:17, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The point is taken, though I think it has been somewhat over-laboured and I have edited the reference in consequence. In most countries Public Service Broadcasting means... = In the United States of America... (a common mistake). The PBS is not representative of public broadcasting as it is and has been practised in most countries around the world where the BBC model has been imitated. That model includes the provision of a full range of programmes, including all the most popular genres as well as those often neglected by commercial broadcasters. -- Picapica 08:54, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not public broadcasting system 

message: I just finished a brief tidy up of the radio section and this section strikes me as somewhat out of place:
The German Service, created in 1938 and discontinued in 1999, played an important part in the propaganda war against Nazi Germany. The authoritative source on the BBC's German Service is Carl Brinitzer's book "Hier spricht London". Brinitzer, a German lawyer from Hamburg living in exile in London, was a founding member. Another famous member of staff was Egon Jameson (Egon Jacobsson), a former Ullstein journalist from Berlin.
Though somewhat interesting, I'm not sure that it's sufficiently relevant to BBC Radio as a whole. I have also never heard of "Egon Jameson", and a quick search on Google reveals little that would suggest he is a particularly noteworthy character. Perhaps a move to the World Service section, with the last sentence removed?
Daduzi 19:55, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Since nobody objected, the section has been moved to the World Service articleDaduzi 15:54, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: World Service German section

message: I know the BBC isn't a company but I thought this, or something like it, would look better at the top of the page rather than the current logo on its own. Any thoughts? - theKeith  22:13, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have now added the infobox to the page. --Marknew 13:51, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox for top of the page 

message: I have reverted the addition about doing statistical searches to find BBC bias.
1.  It did not contain any source, let alone a credible and exhaustive study.
2.  The examples cited were arbitary and selective nonsense.  Although it is true there is one result for "far left" as opposed to about 30 for "far right".  There are also 27 results for "fascist" against 837 for communist.
pit-yacker 17:23, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statistical Nonsense 

message: The labels on the chart don't seem to match up with the figures listed.  I can't find who created the image, so not sure how best to remediate it.  82.36.110.118 11:41, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image: BBC expenditure pie chart 

message: IMO, the introduction seems a little too long. I have a feeling this would lower the odds of it becoming a WP:FA? Computerjoe's talk 19:00, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I've given a shorter introduction a go, moving whatever I could to relevant parts of the rest of the article. There were a few sections (especially on the ramifications of the license fee) that I couldn't find a home for, but others are welcome to try. Daduzi 08:56, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, I accidentally deleted huge swathes of the article first time arouund, but fortunately it was picked up upon. Anyway, the new shortened introduction (without half the article missing) is up. Oops. Daduzi 09:48, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Excessive Introduction? 

message: It seems to me that the pile o'logos in the History section is unnecessarily obtrusive and takes up a lot of space in an already fairly dense article like this. The history of the BBC's typography and graphic identity could probably make an article by itself which this could be moved to, but it just seems... unnecessary to have it in such a prominent position -- especially as the changes in logo are more subtle refinements than revolutionary. Who would sulk if I removed it? --Mike 23:26, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I noticed the exact same thing upon returning to the article. The selection of logos is a nice addition, but seems completely out of place. If there were some way to move the logos to a less obtrusive place (either within or outside of the article) I'd definitely support it. Daduzi 07:51, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They could also easily take up a lot less room by getting rid of the emense borders around the logos. PeteB16 12:22, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Huge splat o'logos 

message: I really like the new infobox, but was wondering if it wouldn't be better to follow the format of other broadcasters (for example CNN, NBC or CBS. The only parts I was left puzzling about is availability (is it worth adding nearby countries that can receive BBC transmissions?), the owner section and the slogan section (is there an advertising slogan that would be more apporpriate to use?). Daduzi 09:24, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you're right, it should be in keeping with other broadcasters, however I think some of the details need to be ammended such as it being publically owned (which it isn't) it in fact has no ownership as it's run under a Royal Charter. It also needs to include information that it doesn't just broadcast Television and Radio but also Online and Interactive data services. PeteB16 12:18, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as the ownership goes, I'll fully admit I was at a loss as to exactly how to phrase it, so a more accurate formation would be welcome. As regards the online broadcast, with the other networks only television and radio are listed as network types while online services are listed under "available", so it's probably best to stick to that pattern, even given the BBC's unique online presence. This all reminds me that I scandalously neglected to include the World Service in the available section, I'll add it now. Daduzi 13:00, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  You could use "This is what we do" as the advertising slogan, rather than the motto which isn't generally used for promotion. For availability  what about something like "Internationally available via Television, Radio, Internet, and Print" (Ceefax and BBCi could be considered as part of its TV output)? theKeith  14:32, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks for the feedback. The slogan has been changed. I've also taken on your suggestion for the availability field since it seems more in line with the other broadcast networks using the infobox (I based mine off of CNN, but it seems cable networks have a different format), though I still think it's useful to differentiate the national from the international due to the different channels and content. I'm going to leave print out, though, since that gets away from the broadcasting side and is really a strictly BBC Worldwide deal. I've also decided to leave out the "owner" section entirely since I've managed to establish who doesn't own the BBC and that appears to have cover pretty much everyone; as far as I can tell nobody owns the BBC. If anyone can correct me feel free because I'm somewhat baffled at the moment. Daduzi 17:36, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

text: OK, the new box is up. --Daduzi 13:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't think the motto has ever been used as a slogan?   theKeith  Talk to me   17:20, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Can't we put both on there? ~~ Peteb16 18:11, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I added a "motto" field to the template, how does it look now? --Daduzi talk 23:16, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Much better thanks! Seems a bit obvious now doesn't it? So much so I thought there may have been an incompatibility issue with the Infobox template. Glad it worked, thanks. ~~ Peteb16 23:33, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox change