Wikipedia

Talk:BBC/Archive 9

< Talk:BBC
Latest comment: 6 months ago by WiinterU in topic Divisions

POV at beginning of "History" "1939-2000" para 4

Latest comment: 9 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

Paragraph currently begins "Starting in 1964, a series of pirate radio stations (starting with Radio Caroline) came on the air and forced the British government finally to regulate radio services to permit nationally based advertising-financed services." This does not sound like a neutral POV, especially the use of the words "forced" and "finally", and suggests causation without citing supporting references.

How about "After the arrival of a series of pirate radio stations (starting, in 1964, with Radio Caroline), the British government regulated radio services to permit nationally based advertising-financed services."?

Any thoughts? InelegantSolution (talk) 10:50, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

It seems that an opening was created for Radio Luxembourg and pirate radio by the failure of official UK radio to regularly play music that a lot of people in the UK wanted to listen to, and that the UK government eventually realized that they would not really be able to get a handle on the problem of unauthorized broadcasts until they allowed authorized outlets which would cater to a broader variety of tastes than previously... AnonMoos (talk) 15:06, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
Apologies - took me a while to get back to this. It's not the detail I'm questioning here, but the way it was expressed - some people might think the change was a bad thing. If we're going to say things like "forced", we need to provide citations that demonstrate the UK Government saw it that way. Same for "failure" in your response if it was in the article (though it's fine here). Many will see it as a failure, and that the UK Government was finally forced, but some won't, and I believe my suggestion absolves us of accusations of POV and has a more encyclopeadic style.
Any further thoughts? InelegantSolution (talk) 12:45, 23 July 2014 (UTC)


I don't know that I have much more to say. It depends on how much detail you want the article to go into... AnonMoos (talk) 16:20, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Actually, what happened was that the offshore radio stations were outlawed in 1967 and the new BBC service, Radio 1, started broadcasting pop music the same year. The Light Programme, the Third Programme and the Home Service became Radios 2, 3 and 4 in the same year. Commercial radio, financed by advertising, did not start until 1973 so was not directly linked to the events of 1967. A more likely explanation was that independent radio was encouraged after the change of government from Labour to Conservative in 1970.193.105.48.20 (talk) 14:57, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Flawed and out of date

Latest comment: 9 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion

There seem to be some major problems with this article which is now out of date.

For instance the article starts by defining the BBC from a UK domestic perspective taking its definition from the BBC's UK website, bbc.co.uk. This fails to capture the fact that the BBC also includes the World Service and the BBC's commercial interests including BBC Global News Ltd. whose weekly audiences figures dwarf the domestic audience. For instance the BBC's largest TV audience is BBC World News which is a commercial offering claiming a weekly audience of 74million[1]. This is around 50% more than the total of 49 million weekly viewers for all of the BBC's domestic TV.

Also the third paragraph of the lead is out of date as from April 1st the World Service is funded from the domestic licence fee.

I would like to improve this article to more accurately reflect reality and would welcome any comments on these or related issues before I start Steve157 (talk) 16:27, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

OK then I will start. Please feel free to comment here. Steve157 (talk) 10:18, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

No comments yet so I am going to do some research then start on the history section soon. Steve157 (talk) 17:45, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Please feel free to comment on my part 1 revision to the history section here. Steve157 (talk) 14:05, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
OK no negative comments on the lead or one part 1 of the revision to the history section. I am researching part 2 up to the second world war which, as I am busy at the moment will take some time. Then I am looking forward to part 3 when I will try to give some account of the BBC's activities during the second world war. At the moment the only thing we are told the bbc got up to in WW2 was to suspend TV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steve157 (talk • contribs) 10:42, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, it was Kenny Everett who coined Auntie Beeb' He says so in his autobiographyThe Custard Stops at Hatfield...not just Beeb....And he knew a thing or two about the Beeb — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.243.62.77 (talk) 10:52, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Foreign BBC

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

There seems to be no mention of BBC programming outside the UK in this article, such as BBC America. Erinius (talk) 03:03, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Is it the same? This is about the British Broadcasting Cooperation not the Worldwide Arm. Wetter88 (talk) 15:42, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Revenue from Advertising

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Advertising may not be allowed in the UK, but overseas the BBC website certainly does contain advertising, e.g. 30 second adverts prior to 'video' news articles. Is there a figure for revenue from these sources? 89.144.204.49 (talk) 06:46, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Is it the same? This is about the British Broadcasting Cooperation not the Worldwide Arm. Wetter88 (talk) 15:43, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

How to best deal with Charter section

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

There is a separate page on the BBC Charter here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BBC_Charter

It is not much longer or more informative than the short section here. Do you think its best to expand and link, or reincorporate information into the main article?

QuakerActivist (talk) 15:17, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

What Should Happen is either:

  • The BBC Charter article is merged into that section of the BBC article and the original Article deleted.
  • The BBC Charter section is summarized to make it shorter and the BBC Charter article is kept and there is Main Article: bit at the top of the section in the main BBC article.


This is a Merge Recommendation and needs to be discussed

Wetter88 (talk) 15:53, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Contested deletion

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

This page is not unambiguously promotional, because the request seems to be vandalism --Kgfleischmann (talk) 06:49, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

I've removed the vandalism. It's surprising that the template was in place for over two hours. There may be a concerted campaign to vandalise the article, in which case we shall need to have it protected. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:43, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 September 2015

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Umar Amin 267 (talk) 08:24, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

  Not done: as you have not requested a change.
If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 08:40, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

BBC lying about Hungarian police as an immigrant throws his wife and kid on the tracks

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Sv3oXGLNVY — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.173.221.19 (talk) 07:33, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

No evidence of "lying", and not a matter for this page in any case. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:17, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Criticism and controversies

Latest comment: 8 years ago10 comments5 people in discussion

The "Criticism and controversies" section should really attempt to summarise the Criticism of the BBC and BBC controversies articles rather than being bulked out with "one journalist once made this provocative statement about political bias at the BBC, but another journalist, he wrote a provocative think piece that said the other thing". --McGeddon (talk) 13:26, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree with that in principle, so long as those other articles can be summarised to give the right balance. At the moment they are dominated by one-off incidents and controversies which it is difficult to summarise to give a brief but balanced overview - and we do not want, in the main BBC article, simply to have a long list of perceived instances of bias. Good quality academic articles which summarise discussions of institutionalised lack of balance would be the best sources. So far as this article is concerned, there is self-evidently a right-wing agenda to reform (some would use other words) the BBC, which has existed since at least the Thatcher era, and it does seem appropriate to mention that here. But, any quotes do need to be balanced. So, if criticisms by people like Andrew Marr are included here (as they have been for some time), I am not opposed to a balancing quote from someone like Owen Jones. Having said that, there is absolutely no justification for edit warring either to exclude the Marr quote, or to include an over-lengthy version of the Jones quote. WP:BALANCE, WP:NPOV, etc. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:35, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Fine. So I assume we can leave my comment below as it is on BBC page. I think it is balanced, factual and suitably referenced. I am opposed to individual editors simply deleting material without any visible explanation or justification whatsoever when edits are clearly enriching the page. This is unacceptable and contravenes the democratic spirit of Wikipedia etiquette. Putting the Marr quote in a prominent off line box gives emphasis to his position and introduces a subtle bias or "authority". Please end this practice. My edit below.

"Here is my contribution from the bottom of the BBC page which is being deleted : "Accusations of a bias against her government and the Conservative Party were often made against the Corporation by members of Margaret Thatcher's 1980s Conservative government. BBC presenter Andrew Marr has said that "The BBC is not impartial or neutral. It has a liberal bias, not so much a party-political bias. It is better expressed as a cultural liberal bias."[143][144] Conversely, the BBC has been criticised by Guardian columnist, Owen Jones, who has said that "the truth is the BBC is stacked full of rightwingers."[145] Paul Mason (former Newsnight Journalist) has also criticised the BBC as "unionist" and "neo-liberal" [146] The BBC has also been characterised as a Monarchist institution contrary to the fact that many licence fee payers are Republicans [147]" Greengauge121 (talk) 22:32, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Incidentally, I would like to thank Cordless Larry for informing me that, strictly speaking, "Controversies/Criticism" sections should not really exist on Wikipedia pages because they facilitate "drift" away from objectivity and facticity Greengauge121 (talk) 22:36, 13 October 2015 (UTC) For all concerned - Ghmyrtle, DVdm, McSly - I hope we can leave the matter as it is without any more unwarranted deletions, edits, etc Greengauge121 (talk) 22:41, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, it was TheRedPenOfDoom who explained that more than me. Anyway, I agree with Ghmyrtle that what is really needed here is a general overview of critical voices on the BBC, rather than a list of different commentators' views. That can of course include accusations of neo-liberal and monarchist bias, if those claims are supported by reliable sources. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:46, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
either there should be a general "reception" which includes all of the praise and the criticism, OR the contents should be incorporated into the "History" sections when they happened and given weight as they are appropriate to the rest of the materials of the section. By incorporating into the "history" sections you can generally get a good idea about how the particular views about the station match up to the importance of the rest of the events. In most cases, its going to be someone got his panties in a twist and no one cares but him that doesnt merit coverage in the overall history of the subject. Sometimes it will be one of the defining moments of the era and should absolutely be included. This is the overview article about the entire history of the BBC and will not cover everything, even some important things, but certainly not every minor chip on the shoulder. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:54, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
That sounds like a good suggestion, TheRedPenOfDoom. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:40, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
It seems to me that a good first step would be to merge the Criticism of the BBC and BBC controversies articles (discussed before, but never implemented), and contextualise the various topics mentioned in those articles - and then to summarise the key strands of those articles into this article. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:01, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

If we are to limit content to "general overview" and "academic" contribution, then we may ask why A. Marr's quote (the BBC as "liberal") was both present and boxed/emphasised on the page originally for so long. Marr is a loyal BBC insider. Not exactly a "general overview" or "academic" or even "impartial" to say the least

I do not agree with Cordless Larry here. Real vibrant, critique and comment arises out of the experience of real people and is not expressed in lifeless, disembodied, abstracts. Accusations - regardless of their nature - take different forms because of people's different experiences and, as such, their (i.e. the actual accusation itself and not its actual content as "objective") reportage as "objective" events is not only valid but should be included on pages in order to enrich content. Even in highly abstract areas such as Mathematics, there are contradictions which should be elaborated on a given page. Otherwise we end up with lifeless, tedious, "de-subjectivised" "abstract" pages without any real human content. It is important not to bury real living balanced critique under an avalanche of dead, meaningless abstractions.

By the way, the nature of the formatting of the original quote from Marr most certainly gave it a "preferentiality" within the section. It implied a certain bias (perhaps slightly "chippy-on-the shoulder"?), an attempt to convey "authority" in its form of formatting and, therefore, a certain implication of "political agenda". Sometimes the identification of subtlety is not a strong point with some Wikipedians.

Actually, in the real world, there is no such thing as an apolitical comment or judgement. To take an avowedly "apolitical" stance is itself a political act. If I had the time, I could (as could others) go through every sentence on many Wikipedia pages and deconstruct it politically according to content, context and the known political affiliations of contributors. So-called "objectivity" and "impartiality" in truth always contains its opposite either explicitly or hidden away somewhere within to be unearthed. Of course, under such conditions, getting "one's panties in a twist" is not particularly difficult. Even for the most "objective" and "knowledgeable" of individuals. Often those who insist on impartiality and objectivity are those who are the least so. In fact, so-called BBC impartiality is a living example of this.

In essence - regardless of "twisted panties" and "chippy shoulders" - the point is to come to a consensus and resolution through engagement and discussion. Which, of course, is human and does not descend from on high as "divine revelation". It is not a question of "authority" or imposition but of following the democratic spirit and etiquette for which Wikipedia is supposedly famed. This is not a BBC/ITN News Controllers desk. Greengauge121 (talk) 11:17, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

The answer to your question about the Marr quote is that no one was bothered to remove it. That's why it's good that we're now having this discussion. I think you might also be misinterpreting my position. Wikipedia articles should be writen in an objective voice, but that doesn't mean that we can't report different POVs - political or otherwise. I actually agree with you about the BBC in that I don't really believe claims about its supposed "liberal" bias, but more thought needs to go into how we present the various criticisms made of the corportation. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:05, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 12 external links on BBC. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:33, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

"State run"....?

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I'm sure this claim has been made and discussed before, but I can't track down the discussion. It can be claimed that the BBC is state-funded, but that is not at all the same as stating that it is state-run. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:14, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on BBC. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:48, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on BBC. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 22:38, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on BBC. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:07, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 13 April 2016

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on BBC. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit User:Cyberpower678/FaQs#InternetArchiveBot*this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:26, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Is there still a Management Board?

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This article contains a section listing the members of the "Managment Board". From what I can gather from the BBC website, there is no longer any such Board that can be referenced to. There used to be one, but things have presumably changed. I've left the section as it is for the moment (adding the Update template).Seaweed (talk) 19:49, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on BBC. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:41, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

The owner of BBC

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The owner of BBC has been changed to British public, while HS Government was listed as its owner before(https://web.archive.org/web/20170227222600/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BBC)。I did a little research and found following statement from The GOV.UK website:

The BBC (British Broadcasting Corporation) is a British public service broadcaster. Its main responsibility is to provide impartial public service broadcasting in the UK, Channel Islands and Isle of Man.

BBC is a public corporation of the Department for Culture, Media & Sport.

https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/bbc

And in the wiki article of Department for Culture, Media and Sport(DCMS), it also clearly lists that the BBC is sponsored by DCMS(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Department_for_Culture,_Media_and_Sport#Public_broadcasting_authorities) And The Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) is a department of the United Kingdom government(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Department_for_Culture,_Media_and_Sport)

So I suggest these facts should be taken into consideration, when the modification of the owner of BBC is to be made. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.208.73.162 (talk) 08:44, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Opening sentence - funding

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Do we need a partial and potentially misleading phrase like "funded by the British government" in the opening sentence of the article - like in this addition? I think not. Comments? Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:23, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on BBC. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:05, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on BBC. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:04, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Proposition 8

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The driver for proposition 8 was purely to prevent same sex couples from legally marrying in the state of California. It was not to innocuously define marriage within the California State Constitution as a union solely between a man and a woman. The fear from the Catholic Church was about giving any legal recognition to gay couples. Why would legislators have suddenly decided in 2008 to define something that had always been the case?! Let's cut the apologetics.Contaldo80 (talk) 08:54, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Contaldo80, did you mean to put this somewhere else? The word Proposition isn't mentioned anywhere in the BBC article. -mattbuck (Talk) 06:32, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Financial Statements 2014/15

The Full financial statements for 2014/15 are now out if anyone fancies updating the article.

http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/annualreport/pdf/2014-15/BBC-FS-2015.pdf

External links modified

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on BBC. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:57, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

"Awards and nominations" section

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This section is, er, quite ambitious I think, and seems to imply that in 95 years the BBC has only got one nomination for an award, which doesn't even seem to be cited. Bob talk 19:52, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Year Association Category Nominee(s) Result
2017 Diversity in Media Awards Broadcaster of the Year BBC Nominated

References

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The references on this article are shocking. WE have numerous examples of "supra", profoundly unhelpful given the dynamic state of Wikipedia articles. We also have cases of things like "Briggs" - while only one work by Briggs is listed in "Sources", at least two are in the references. DuncanHill (talk) 01:44, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Hello, I need assistance with reverts from EdRivers56

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

This user is consistently removing an area from the controversy section of this particular article, citing "neutralism", however they are ignoring all of the other controversies that are listed that are mostly opinionated. This event began in 2017, so it's not extremely recent. Also, it is not speculative ,because the events did happen and the reports were made by the BBC on television. Kb217 (talk) 12:19, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

the controversy is about the statement made by one of hundreds of people interviewed on BBC. The controversy belongs in the article on that person. This certainly is not an argument about BBC policy or behavior. Indeed anyone can say that XYZ lied on BBC yesterday-- that may or may not be true but it does not belong in the BBC article. Rjensen (talk) 12:47, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Department of media as owner

Latest comment: 5 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Hi there, the official UK government confirms that it is owned by the the department of media. The link is below: https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/bbc . If you think this is wrong please tell me why. Also if the BCC wasn't owned by that government department then why would it say on that link by the UK government that is. The same thing goes to channel 4. Thanks Pepper Gaming (talk) 19:35, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

As I said in my edit summary I believe you have misinterpreted the source you have used. Your source says 'BBC is a public corporation of the Department for Digital, Culture, Media & Sport' That does not say the BBC is owned by the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport just that that is the government department that deals with the issues between the BBC and the government. Have you gone to the source I provided and placed in the article (link http://www.bbc.co.uk/corporate2/insidethebbc/managementstructure/bbccharterandagreement]) to read the BBC Charter and Agreement which outlines that the BBC is an independent incorporated public organisation. The stable version of the article states it is publicly owned so you would need a consensus from other editors to change this to what you wanted.Robynthehode (talk) 22:04, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
Well why does the page for Channel 4 say that 'it is a public corporation of The department of media' then? (Link [1]) Pepper Gaming (talk) 22:18, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
For the same reason the BBC is listed as such and I tried to explain why that doesn't make it 'owned' by the government. Find some other sources that say the BBC and C4 are owned by the government through that department and your argument may have some traction. Or you can, of course, ask for an Rfc from other editors.Robynthehode (talk) 22:30, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

I note Robynthehode that you state,"BBC is an independent incorporated public organisation". Can you please explain why you think the BBC is independent when it is governed by the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (DDCMS)? I can understand Pepper Gaming's inclination that it is 'owned' when there is such heavy influence regarding direction and funding through the Communications Act, etc. I believe, that your stating it is not 'owned' by the DDCMS is based on the premise that there are no shareholders?

Semi-protected edit request on 21 February 2019

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

My request is that the line under YouTube content from the BBC should say that the BBC is effectively the State Broadcaster of Britain and is funded by a license fee that has to be paid if you have a T.V wether you watch or listen to BBC or not , and you could go to prison if you do not pay! 82.20.202.160 (talk) 18:28, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

  Not done The licence fee is already covered under the revenue section - that mentions that it's a criminal offence. No need to repeat ourselves.-- 5 albert square (talk) 18:59, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Portal:BBC is suggested for deletion

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Portal:BBC is suggested for deletion as part of a group nomination, see: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Mixed bag of group portals. The portal is linked from this page. It is is in need of a maintainer, if anyone is interested, though this is not the rationale for deletion. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:39, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Broadcasting House location

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The opening sentence places Broadcasting House in Westminster, London. This is somewhat misleading. It is actually located in the Marylebone neighbourhood in the City of Westminster, London. It is about two miles from the Westminster locale. 147.147.169.92 (talk) 10:43, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Audience size/share section needed, please

Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I'd love to know about how big the audiences are compared to Sky, ITV, etc — Preceding unsigned comment added by 42.3.6.90 (talk) 06:14, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

BBC One 21.3%, Sky1 0.9%, ITV 16.9% If you group all of the channels under their parent flag so to speak, it's: BBC 30.09%, Sky 8.2%. ITV 23.2%. The source is BARB' Annual Viewing Report (May 2019) (Link) - X201 (talk) 07:46, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Edit request

Latest comment: 4 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Can someone modify MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist to add bbcnewsv2vjtpsuy[period]onion? Thanks. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 15:53, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

  Not done. @Koavf: this isn't the place or way to request that; see WP:SPB for instructions. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 18:14, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

And why would we need to add that, we have bbc.com listed, there is no need for the darkweb link to be there. --Dirk Beetstra T C 19:33, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

  • So users can access the content via Tor. These are both official links, just for two different networks. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:45, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Left-wing agenda

Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Even when BBC is funded by tax payer's money, they do nothing to conceal a conspicuous left-wing bias. This is something that the article needs to address with examples and quotes.--Charrua85 (talk) 18:31, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

See the article on BBC controversies, and please try to back up your assertions with reliable sources. Thanks. Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:46, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Quote with strange ellipsis

Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

This article currently contains the following quote:

All that is best in every department of human knowledge, endeavour and achievement.... The preservation of a high moral tone is obviously of paramount importance.

Notice the strange four-period ellipsis (a normal ellipsis consists of three periods). Is this extra period present in the original source, or is it a typo in this Wikipedia article? --Andreas Rejbrand (talk) 09:43, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Not strange...three periods = words omitted....Four = omitted words also include a sentence-ending period. Rjensen (talk) 10:18, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

"10 Things You Need to Know About Losing Weight" listed at Redirects for discussion

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect 10 Things You Need to Know About Losing Weight. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 May 9#10 Things You Need to Know About Losing Weight until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. TheAwesomeHwyh 19:45, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

The History section only goes up to 2017

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I think we need to update the article's History section as it only goes up to 2017, and a lot has happened since then, from the over-75s having to pay license fees, how it responded to pandemic, new director-general. I'm more than happy to help in any way I can. --Animal28 (talk) 11:33, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

BBC Meaning

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

BBC means British Broadcasting Centre, a channel which has shows and news BBC News, also owning other company’s known as CBeebies CBBC and obviously BBC CBeebies and CBBC are both children channels in which CBeebies is a toddler channel...

CBBC and CBeebies are part of the BBC

CBBC and CBeebies are not separate companies at all. They are part of the BBC, sharing resources with other channels and services. --Animal28 (talk) 12:23, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 June 2020

Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

In the section "Technology (Atos service)" it states "BBC technology systems (including the BBC website) are now managed by Atos". This is inaccurate - the BBC website is developed and managed in-house by BBC Design + Engineering - see https://www.bbc.com/backstage/design-engineering. Atos provide and manage hardware (e.g. laptops for staff) but do not manage the BBC website. This press release from Atos confirms the services they provide - "The new contract covers a range of core technology and services staff use in their everyday work, including laptops, phones, business applications, hosting services and a technology helpdesk." https://atos.net/en/2017/press-release/general-press-releases_2017_05_11/atos-signs-new-contract-bbc-technology-services Richardpaddon (talk) 16:06, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

  Done @Richardpaddon: See diff. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 15:20, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I have no intention of editing the article, but the source cited says that the "rounded, spaced" logo was used from 1972 to 1988, not 1971 to 1991. While it may be that it was used together with others until 1991, as an edit summary suggests, Wikipedia is supposed to use sourced information. The article was just edited to change 1988 to 1991.

The dates, according to the source, should be:
File:BBC logo (80s).svg|BBC's third three-box logo used from 1972 until 1988.[2]

  1. ^ http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-radio-and-tv-12957296
  2. ^ Hayden Walker, History of BBC corporate logos Archived 4 March 2012 at the Wayback Machine. TV ARK. Retrieved 20 November 2010.

Best wishes, Pol098 (talk) 21:15, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Any space for an awards/honors section?

Latest comment: 3 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Hm, there is a clear criticism section, and per WP:NIF, there should also be some sort of praise to balance it out. Finding sources that indicate the BBC is a respected outlet is hardly difficult. And a brief google search already brings up a handful of awards: https://events.wan-ifra.org/events/south-asian-digital-media-awards-2018/content/2944 https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/24/arts/peabody-awards-news.html https://www.ibc.org/trends/bbc-dominates-rts-tv-journalism-awards/5515.article https://www.amnesty.org.uk/press-releases/amnesty-media-awards-2020-sama-itv-daily-mirror-sunday-telegraph-and-bbc-news-arabic https://www.digitalspy.com/tech/a342383/bbc-news-website-scoops-international-award/ https://www.campaignlive.co.uk/article/bbc-wins-big-broadcasting-guild-press-awards/1579233. Donkey Hot-day (talk) 11:58, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

@Donkey Hot-day:I agree 100%, Its an important and widely respected news outlet, I plan to balance some of this article by atleast 2021 and I am doing some drafts in word. --Chariotsacha (talk) 14:37, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Certainly, the first thing I'll be adding if I am to edit the page is at least this 2019 survey from the Reuters Institute, which suggest the outlet is highly trusted in the UK, Ireland, & Singapore. I don't know whether that bit of info should go in the lede or body of the article, though. Donkey Hot-day (talk) 05:41, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Initial founding principles

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Why isn't there a section about the initial founding principles of the BBC as per https://www.cufi.org.uk/news/the-bbcs-biblical-foundation-that-many-are-unaware-of/

The plaque in latin still stands inside the broadcasting house after the entrance, and reads: "This Temple of the Arts and Muses is dedicated to Almighty God by the first Governors of Broadcasting in the year 1931, Sir John Reith being Director-General. It is their prayer that good seed sown may bring forth a good harvest, that all things hostile to peace or purity may be banished from this house, and that the people, inclining their ear to whatsoever things are beautiful and honest and of good report, may tread the path of wisdom and uprightness."

I'd add it in but I don't like creating a wikipedia account. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.122.251.65 (talk) 11:13, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Remove "used" from logo caption?

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

From my point of view, the word "used" in the logo caption in the infobox is completely redundant as it does not contain any further information and the caption would be equally understandable without the word. I am in favour of removing it per MOS:CAPSUCCINCT. What do you think?-- Maxeto0910 (talk) 19:19, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

images available

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

In the case that someone would like to add them to the page, here are images of the BBC Studio London:

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:20191017_BBC_Studios_London,_BBC_Radio_Theatre,_New_Broadcasting_House_vertical_photo_by_Amy_Karle.jpg

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:20191017_BBC_Studios_London,_BBC_Radio_Theatre,_New_Broadcasting_House_vertical_photo_by_Amy_Karle.jpg

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:20191017_BBC_Studios_London,_BBC_Radio_Theatre,_New_Broadcasting_House_photo_by_Amy_Karle.jpg


Here are images of BBC 100 Women and the BBC Broadcast Theater https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:20191017_BBC_100_Women_2019_img30.jpg https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:20191017_BBC_100_Women_2019_img13._audience.jpg https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:20191017_BBC_100_Women_2019_img07_Lisa_Campo-Engelstein_PhD.jpg https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:20191017_BBC_100_Women_2019_img01.jpg https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:20191017_BBC_100_Women_2019_img25_Artist_Amy_Karle.jpg

Igbofur (talk) 18:05, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 June 2021

Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Change the page name from BBC Sports to BBC Sport (without s) in infobox, because it is the actual name of the division. 36.77.95.63 (talk) 00:48, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

  Done RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:00, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 October 2021

Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Should we add this motto "Nation shall speak peace unto Nation" in the infobox? 49.150.100.127 (talk) 01:02, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

  Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. —Sirdog (talk) 01:30, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Infobox motto

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

What should we add "Nation shall speak peace unto Nation" motto in the infobox, but there is consensus (1, 2) over motto parameter two times before. --49.150.100.127 (talk) 02:05, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Regional "accents"

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

It is claimed, rightly, that the BBC nowadays includes more regional accents than previously when one had to have a "BBC accent" to work at the corporation. However, this only includes certain accents. I have never heard a Norfolk or a West Country accent on the BBC. Yorkshire and Geordie, as well as Welsh and particularly Scottish pronunciations are definitely "in". 82.40.43.135 (talk) 20:38, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

  This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 5 October 2018 and 12 December 2018. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Ianbohn761. Peer reviewers: Lpwarner.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 15:08, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Independence

Latest comment: 2 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

Xx236 (talk) 08:45, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

@Xx236 ? Renat 09:02, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
Is the BBC independent? How has did the independence changed historically?Xx236 (talk) 09:25, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
Perhaps it's better if you could propose some text for us to discuss? I'm not sure the selection of opinion/editorial pieces above show due weight by themselves – even though the authors of the bottom two are academics, they're writing in a personal capacity and I'd prefer to see more reliably published sources. I suspect there may be more sources, though, perhaps the actual book Tom Mills is promoting in the Open Democracy article? The separation of any public service broadcaster from political influence is a likely relevant topic for its article, not that I'm keen to join in the current BBC bashing. Jr8825 • Talk 12:33, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
I am sorry, I am asking for such text only, I am unable to write it. Xx236 (talk) 12:43, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Tories vison for the BBC 2022

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

January 2022: The Tories initially want to freeze the license fee for two years, then increase it slightly again and scrap it completely in 2027. In 2027 the "Royal Charter" will be renewed. Please add this to the articel. Thnx. --Barehoppers (talk) 17:55, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

BBC 100 in 2022

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The BBC have announced events and programmes to mark 100 years since formation, the article should mention the centenary. John a s (talk) 17:37, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Miscellaneous

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

How interesting that this article is locked. I wonder why.

By the way, the following sentence is ridiculous and needs rewording: "A BBC World Service newsreader who presented a daily show produced for Kyrgyzstan ..." A WS newsreader cannot present a show, as a show cannot be seen on radio. It would be better replaced by programme or series or even slot.

You are being far too literal-minded. Radio programmes have for decades been called "shows". E.g. "the Radio 1 Breakfast Show", etc. See these examples:

"Britain" vs. "UK"

Latest comment: 2 years ago6 comments5 people in discussion

I noticed that YouTube has started marking BBC videos with "BBC is a British public broadcast service" linking to this article. I thought that a bit odd since Britain isn't a country, the UK is. That leads me to wonder why this article sometimes refers to Britain rather than the UK. I get it, Britain is in the name BBC, but in reality it's a UK service. When the article says "Britain's first live public broadcast... blah", raises the question, was there an earlier one in Northern Island? Just like if it said "Scotland's first..." it would raise the question, what about England? -- Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.69.216.200 (talk) 23:24, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Sorry but you are mistaken. "Britain" and "UK" mean the same thing in this context and can be used interchangeably. Britain is indeed a country. -- 08:46, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
They often mean the same thing informally, but the name of the country is "The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland", so that most correctly Northern Ireland is not part of Britain (though of course it is often considered to be part of the "British Isles")... AnonMoos (talk) 09:07, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
No, Northern Ireland is definitely part of "Britain". What it isn't part of is "Great Britain". -- Alarics (talk) 17:10, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
The whole of the island of Ireland is part of the British Isles. The problems with discussions about Britain, UK, British, British Isles etc is that its a huge mix of geographic, legal and general designations that cause discussions to rapidly veer-off course. There used to be a great diagram in one of the WikiProjects that went a long way to explaining it all in a clear manner. - X201 (talk) 09:30, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
The diagram at Terminology of the British Isles, perhaps? Northern Ireland is part of "Britain" (= the UK), but not part of "Great Britain" (the island). Not confusing, surely... !! Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:24, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
Ghmyrtle is correct. -- Alarics (talk) 17:15, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Recent revert

Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion

JustTheT - I reverted your change, in part because of the WP:EDITORIALISING in your prose, but also because your assertion seemed to be WP:OR (specifically WP:SYNTH) based on the source you used, which seems to be about specific challenges the BBC faced in dealing with a broadcasting ban imposed on all British broadcasters by the British government in the 80s and 90s. I don't see how such a source can support sweeping generalisation of the sort you introduced. Please also see MOS:CURLY. Best Girth Summit (blether) 10:20, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Operating expenditures

Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The figures in the Finances section for operating expenditures are coming up on ten years out of date. I'm not able to edit the page, but the BBC's 2021 total spend was 4.799 billion, with Sky coming in at 9.128 billion in 2020 and 2.425 for ITV. Thanks in advance if someone is able to put this in. Alexwaolson (talk) 10:21, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 October 2022

Latest comment: 1 year ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Want to edit about the special shows that are being shown for the 100th year of the bbc and the new logo Trainenthuaist (talk) 15:02, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

The above template isn't a way to grant you access. It's a request for someone else who has access to change something specific for you. You need to tell them what you want changed or added and actually provide the text yourself. - X201 (talk) 15:41, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
  Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone may add them for you, or if you have an account, you can wait until you are autoconfirmed and edit the page yourself. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:06, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 October 2022

Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Change "Reith left a legacy of cultural influence across the empire of Great Britain with his departure from the corporation in 1938" to "Reith left a legacy of cultural influence across the empire of the United Kingdom with his departure from the corporation in 1938", as the country is the United Kingdom and not Great Britain, which is only one part of it. Alternatively, "British Empire" could be used. 2.121.19.60 (talk) 20:41, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

  Not done for now: Per the sources on the article for Great Britian, the term is used interchangeably. BlueNoise (Désorienté? It's just purple) 21:39, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 November 2022

Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Add a small paragaph in section 1.6 about the 2005 BBC strike, as it was quite significant and mentioning it can de-orphan the article about it. 157.26.68.252 (talk) 09:48, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

  Done - X201 (talk) 10:18, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Error in text

Latest comment: 1 year ago3 comments3 people in discussion

The BBC finance page says

According to the BBC's 2018/19 Annual Report, its total income was £4.8 billion (£4,889 billion) a ...

Should read

`was £4.8 billion (£4,889 million) ...'

Obviously £4.8 billion can't also be £4,889 billion unless they meant £4.889 billion... in which case rounding up it should be £4.9 billion. Its all in the commas! Mlmhcks (talk) 19:38, 23 January 2023 (UTC)


Probably just inconsistent decimal-point separator characters... AnonMoos (talk) 19:45, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
Changed to '£4.889 billion' the same format as other numbers in that section, as the source says '£4,889 million'. -- AxG / ✉  19:06, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Issues with lede

Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion

In the fourth paragraph of the lede, it states: "From its inception, through the Second World War (where its broadcasts helped to unite the nation), to the popularisation of television in the post-WW2 era and the internet in the late 20th and early 21st centuries, the BBC has played a prominent role in British life and culture."

The stated source for that states the following:

"In her foreword to the Green Paper, Tessa Jowell, the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport states that 'Government recognises the enormous contribution that the BBC has made to British life and culture, both at home and abroad. We also agree with the majority of British people who want to see that contribution maintained into the multi-channel future'."

First off, I take issue with citing the British government...on the cultural importance of the BBC, but the source also doesn't state that! (Nor is the idea repeated anywhere in the main article) The publication of parliament doesn't state that "its broadcasts helped to unite the nation" (and phrasing it like that borders on WP:POV) nor does it mention any specifics about time periods. Freedom4U (talk) 06:46, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 March 2023

Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Please update the information about the executive committee. The names listed are old and do not reflect critical information. Please update all names of executive committee members. Here is the proof: nhttps://www.bbc.com/aboutthebbc/whoweare/exco Wikiinput2023 (talk) 08:24, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

  Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. The listed names are not old. M.Bitton (talk) 13:43, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Origin of the nickname "Auntie"

Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion

A possible origin of the "Auntie" nickname is from Scottish music-hall artiste Tommy Lorne's song, "Auntie Aggie of the BBC", from the 1920s: "Put on your earphones, turn on your set, listen-in at half-past three; Sit well back, we're going to have a crack from Auntie Aggie of the BBC". The recording appears on the BBC 50th Anniversary disc set, "BBC 1922-1972", track 7 on disc 1. At the very least this indicates that "Auntie" as a nickname for the BBC goes back to the 20s. See Discogs, BBC 1922-1972 Label: BBC Records – BBC 50 Format: 2 x Vinyl, LP, Compilation (There is a minor error in the Discogs track listing: "Aggie" is spelled "Aggy", but the former spelling appears on the sleeve notes.) Richard E (talk) 15:46, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Error

Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Chair, Richard Sharp has rightfully resigned 2A02:C7C:7271:6D00:ACAA:DB93:C445:D2A1 (talk) 10:28, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

  Done 10mmsocket (talk) 15:47, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Nationally Funded State Broadcaster

Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Since it is clear from this article that the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) is "the national broadcaster of the United Kingdom", might not some text be added to highlight the point that the BBC is a state funded media outlet? If people are hostile to this clear amendment, can they state full reasons WHY they do not agree with it?

PS: Some elements of the BBC Royal Charter (2017) include:

OFCOM to be the external independent regulator of the BBC.

The government to provide "guidance" to OFCOM on "content requirements" for the BBC.

A new "unitary board" consisting of four government appointed members and a Chair, and nine BBC appointed members, to consider any "issues or complaints that arise post-transmission". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.27.2.95 (talk) 10:45, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Why is BBC not called state controlled propaganda?

Latest comment: 10 months ago11 comments8 people in discussion

bcc is and was throughout its existence a propaganda outlet of british regime. on record justifying multiple atrocities including killing of millions in colonies by british empire, to more recent invasions of multiple countries to loot resources under leadership of usa regime, indirect violations of international law. wikipedia is naming other such outlets in other regimes, as propaganda, so why the double standard for such a blatant example of propaganda outlet 2402:4000:2280:C250:685E:E358:42AF:C7F4 (talk) 01:00, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

"State-controlled propaganda" means that an outlet echoes exactly and only official government positions, and no meaningful criticism of anything done by the government is allowed. Whatever the past failings of the BBC, it hasn't been that... AnonMoos (talk) 19:48, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
"State-controlled propaganda" means that an outlet echoes exactly and only official government positions, and no meaningful criticism of anything done by the government is allowed." Yet that is exactly the case and no meaningful criticism is provided either, and any journalist who speak of things as they are goes to jail.
If RT is to be considered "propaganda" then BBC that provides even less valuable information SHOULD be changed to propaganda as well IMEDIATLY! If not then RT should not be considered propaganda either.
Wikipedia is the place where people are supposed to LEARN about topics. Not to listen to western biases and hypocrisy! All articles regarding Russia, China and all the UK political enemies today are extremely manipulated by such biases and provide nothing but misinformation! Fotppd (talk) 09:55, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
This is a childish rant.
The BBC started in 1922; hardly the days of Empire.. and as for `under leadership of usa regime!'
Its not even literate. -- Preceding unsigned comment added by Mlmhcks (talk o contribs) 17:29, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
I don't think that the remarks of 2402:4000:2280:C250:685E:E358:42AF:C7F4 above have much validity, but in 1922 Ireland had been given quasi-independence, and there were discussions about devolving the "Old Commonwealth" (not fully achieved until the Statute of Westminster 1931), but otherwise the British Empire was very much intact -- and George V had "Emperor of India" as one of his official titles... AnonMoos (talk) 16:45, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

This article does its best to avoid stating one key fact: the BBC is a government funded organisation, and the article should state so directly in the lede. 182.239.145.186 (talk) 12:28, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Incorrect. The BBC is funded by a licence fee. Only the rate of that fee is determined by the government. In all other respects the BBC is independent of the UK governemnt. If you disagree provide a reliable source that states your 'fact' Robynthehode (talk) 21:47, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
Pray tell, who imposed the license fee in the first place? Answer: The British Government. Ergo, it is government funded through the imposition and setting of a license fee, as opposed to annual Treasury budget funding. This article simply describes a mechanism without stating the obvious. As for RS, simply go to Google Books and key in "BBC government funding", where you will find that it also receives direct government grants. (About 79 percent of the BBC's revenues come from the taxpayers, either through a special levy (the equivalent of $225 per household per year in 2010) or through direct government grants (BBC, 2012))Understanding the Social Economy of the United States - Page 122. There are many more. The article needs to reflect a neutral point of view by reflecting all points of view. 182.239.145.186 (talk) 09:08, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
Further, the UK Office for National Statistics classifies the license fee in the National Accounts as a tax, and the BBC is included under reporting for the Central Government Sector, and has done so since 2006.Broadcasting: how ONS will classify public sector broadcasters. The entire BBC World Service is funded directly by the government, in 2022 to the tune of 90 million pounds.Twitter: BBC objects to 'government funded media' label. Wikipedia is just not keeping up with events. 182.239.145.186 (talk) 07:55, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
I'm not sure it's Wikipedia that isn't keeping up with events, given that Twitter removed that label. Regardless, this discussion is a waste of time - we don't discuss what to call subjects based on our own interpretation primary sources or of the subects' intrinsic nature, we follow what published secondary sources call things. You are wasting your time unless you can demonstrate that the BBC is generally referred to as 'state controlled propaganda' or 'government-controlled media' or whatever in reliable sources - which you won't be able to, because it isn't. It is generally referred to as 'publicly funded media' or 'public service media' or similar such terms. Girth Summit (blether) 10:58, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
Also the ONS Tax thing clearly states that the change is solely to keep ONS reporting in line with international standards. "These National Accounts classifications are consistent with international guidelines and are solely for the purpose of producing National Accounts and the statistical products based on them. They have no implications for the independence of these broadcasters. - X201 (talk) 11:29, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 July 2023

Latest comment: 9 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion

You’ve restricted the editing for the BBC page, presumably this is out of fear of someone correcting the page and explaining what the company (bbc) is really about. I’m giving you the chance to change it & explain to the people how the BBC only has a 12% success rate with their published stories. that means out of 100% only 12% of their stories are true. the rest is propaganda and lies, which isn’t hard to acknowledge as the BBC is a government run news outlet. I mean, you can change it or I will. I’m sending this to give you the option, if you don’t change it then I’ll take the option away from you and do it myself. thanks. 86.31.91.230 (talk) 14:58, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

  Not done It is not clear what change you want to make. You also provided no source to backup any change. Please provide specific request in the form "Please change X to Y" followed with the source justifying the change. Thanks --McSly (talk) 15:20, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 August 2023

Latest comment: 8 months ago3 comments3 people in discussion

81.103.14.230 (talk) 06:39, 23 August 2023 (UTC)please can I get permission it's for school

Permission can't be granted on a user-by-user basis. The article is currently Semi-protected and can only be edited by registered users that have confirmed or auto-confirmed accounts. Also, please ask your tutor if they have read and used WP:WEP to design your assignment or project. - X201 (talk) 06:48, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
The template you used is supposed to be for requesting specific edits to the article. To be able to edit the article, create a Wikipedia account, log in to it, and wait for four days, and then you'll be able to edit the article. However, I hope you'll be editing it to improve it, and not just for the sake of making an edit. AnonMoos (talk) 06:53, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Andrew Tate Update

Latest comment: 8 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion

It is a well known fact what happend and why it happend. this should be on the BBC wiki page. 94.109.60.143 (talk) 19:17, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

More suitable for BBC controversies or Criticism of the BBC than for this article... AnonMoos (talk) 07:02, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 September 2023

Latest comment: 8 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Please change the sentence from "Chairman" to "Chairwoman" because the current BBC Chair Elan Closs Stephens is female. 36.77.81.243 (talk) 13:19, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

  Done M.Bitton (talk) 14:59, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 September 2023

Latest comment: 7 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Add "List of BBC podcasts" under the "See also" section. Agnes Oshiro (talk) 20:14, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

  Done. Millows! | 🪧 01:18, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 October 2023

Latest comment: 6 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I would like to request to edit this page because there are a few mistakes that need fixing, on the section where it says Headquarters, Broadcasting House, London, next to it says England when the country is actually called the United Kingdom. Meridians00 (talk) 15:42, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

  Not done: It already includes United Kingdom in the location. I see no reason to additionally remove England. Tollens (talk) 07:27, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Divisions

Latest comment: 6 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion

There is a major issue with the infobox. Many of the companies are listed as Divisions. However, they are shown as Subsidiaries. A better way to describe it is with this image: imgflip.com/i/843xnu WiinterU (talk) 22:32, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:BBC/Archive_9&oldid=1219764304"