Talk:BBC controversies

message: What about:
1) The Sophie Duker "kill all whities" remark?
2) The clear and demonstrated bias of the BBC towards "Remain" during the Brexit process?
3) The support for BLM in "The Vicar of Dibley"?
These things are "controversial" enough to motivate me to comment here, and I'm sure I'm not alone in this view. I think they should be considered for inclusion in the article.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.14.41.37 (talk) 11:58, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Then try adding them - with references to reliable sources - and see what happens, or maybe doesn't happen and it just stays up? Romomusicfan (talk) 22:44, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  I think there are things missing from the article 

message: The paragraph added to the article does not really explain what the controversy is, and I'm not sure how a collection of Guardian newspaper letters to the editor can be a valid source. AnonMoos (talk) 05:18, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flat Earth comment 

message: "Reith". This person - in surname only - is referenced several times but we are not told who they are. DistasteForUsernames (talk) 00:52, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point! I have added a lilnk for John Reith, 1st Baron Reith. Sweet6970 (talk) 13:07, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Early years 1926 Strike - who is "Reith"? 

message: Now that The Sun's lame defence of its' allegations are starting to look more than a little dodgy, should not the Wikipedia section in question be adjusted to better reflect such information?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.27.2.62 (talk) 19:55, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: We do mention the "no truth" claim, so you're going to have to be specific about what you want changing. This is a fast changing story and I think it's fair to say that no one really knows what's going on, so at this time it does remain a controversy with two sides to it, and it will probably be updated when something new comes out. -- zzuuzz (talk) 20:12, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

text: The initial report in The Sun here said "The well-known presenter is accused of giving the teen more than £35,000 since they were 17 in return for sordid images." This implied that the images were obtained while the person was 17. This turned out to be a lie. 86.187.173.18 (talk) 12:05, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Newspaper Reports Called Rubbish!

message: Two complainants are mentioned, but there were (at least) four. Also on 11 July a 23-year-old accused Edwards of breaking COVID lockdown rules in February 2021. And a fourth, now aged 22 was reported as having complained of "creepy messages" while still at school: SkyNews source. The Sky News report also says that Edwards was facing further allegations of "inappropriate behaviour" towards colleagues. But perhaps these do not warrant any mention in this summary. 86.187.173.18 (talk) 12:12, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Was it a boy or a girl? This source asks the question  but it looks a bit tabloidy and may not be reliable. All other news sources seem very reluctant to even speculate. Speaking purely theoretically, if the gender of the teenager was known, would it be acceptable to mention this? Or is it contrary to the privacy laws? I wanted to ask this question at Talk:Huw Edwards but that page is locked. 86.187.227.123 (talk) 11:41, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: See Betteridge's law of headlines. I don't believe this information has been made public. Theoretically, if the gender was known and reliably sourced, I don't see why it couldn't be mentioned. -- zzuuzz (talk) 11:53, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Huw Edwards]]