Talk:Radio 4 UK Theme

Dispute

Hi Bardcom, just looking over the BI issue again, and as usual some of your edits are valid, some we could argue about, but there is one that stands out a mile as being, IMHO, completely wrong. I refer to the Radio 4 UK Theme. How do you know that Irish fishermen use RTE for the shipping forecast? I don't know if RTE provides a shipping forecast (I expect they do) but the BBC shipping forecast is for all, regardless of nationality, and if I was a betting man, I'd put money on the likelihood of a large number of Irish fishermen listening to it (and other nationalities undoubtedly do as well), but that would be OR if included here, a bit like your assertion. In the context of shipping areas the British Isles is admirably suited to describe the extent of their relevance. We're talking geography here, and the shipping areas completely surround all parts of the BI. If there's any subject where BI is correct that the Shipping Forecast must surely be it. I'll revert to BI in the article unless you can come up with a much better reason why it shouldn't be used. CarterBar (talk) 14:28, 28 June 2008 (UTC) (Move this to the relevant Talk page if you want). CarterBar (talk) 14:33, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi CarterBar - I know that Irish fishermen use the RTE forecast because I grew up in this environment. The assertion that the BBC forecast is for all of the British Isles is incorrect. The BBC provides a service for it's license holders - British license holders, and as such the forecast is for areas where these fishermen are likely to be fishing. Most definitely not off the coast of Ireland as this would be illegal (and they're not Spanish fishermen). I'm not about to revert until we've discussed this edit - and thank you for discussing. --Bardcom (talk) 08:02, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi Bardcom, I note that RTE do provide a shipping forecast but only for the waters around Ireland. As for the BBC, they not only provide services to the British licence payer but to others as well. Think of the BBC World Service, and the international element of the BBC website. Another point to bear in mind is how the "gale warning" Shipping Forecast is introduced: "Attention all shipping...", not "Attention British shipping...". The Shipping Forecast, broadcast on LW, has a range covering all of the sea areas around the British Isles and is clearly aimed at all mariners - not just fishermen - in all those sea areas, Irish ones included. The sea areas completely surround all of the islands and are of a geographic nature, so the use of British Isles seems highly appropriate. CarterBar (talk) 17:52, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

The BBC World Service is funded differently - not from license payers. The BBC Radio 4 is funded through British license payers. From the BBC article, it states As part of the BBC Charter, the Corporation cannot show commercial advertising on any services in the United Kingdom (television, radio, or internet). Outside the United Kingdom the BBC broadcasts commercially funded channels such as BBC America, BBC Canada, and BBC World News. In order to justify the licence fee, the BBC is expected to produce a number of high-rating shows[citation needed] in addition to programmes that commercial broadcasters would not normally broadcast. Please note the use of the term United Kingdom and not British Isles, as this is the correct broadcasting area coverage. Also please note the article BBC Radio 4 which has the opening line BBC Radio 4 is a domestic UK radio station. Again the use of the term domestic UK is accurate and correct. Please also note the frequencies section - it doesn't "broadcast" into Ireland's radio spectrum (officially...). One of the tenets of Wikipedia is consistency throughout the articles, therefore can you please revert the article? --Bardcom (talk) 09:19, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually you are both wrong:-)This Daily Torygraph article sort of explains that the extent is much, much farther than the BI. I've picked it up off Portugal on a good night. What does any reference to the possible geographical location of some phantom listeners possibly add to the encyclopaedicness (or is that encyclopaedicity?) of the article. Wherever the listeners are they will receive the broadcast, otherwise they are not the listeners are they? Crispness (talk) 14:19, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

And from the BBC site, this one is probably the most authoritative. Northwest Europe again. Crispness (talk) 14:22, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Many of the issues being raised here are irrelevant, but for the record the BBC broadcasts the Shipping Forecast on behalf of the UK Maritime and Coastguard Agency and it is obviously aimed at any mariner who cares to listen while in the vicinity of the British Isles, particularly in the sea areas that completely surround the islands - Man and Jersey included. I suggest the article is left in its current state - which is how it's been for some time - and if you're set on making a change to remove British Isles (why anyone would want to do so is quite beyond me in this particluar case) we should engage the services of a disinterested editor who could arbitrate in this matter. I'll accept any decision from an independent editor and I'm sure you would as well. Have you any suggestions as to the identity of a suitable person, if you want to follow this course of action? CarterBar (talk) 17:13, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Any editor can edit any page on WP so long as they are not restricted from doing so by a disciplinary ruling. Asking for an 'independent' editor should never be necessary. You don't seem to understand how things work. BTW, have you any reference for your assertions about the BI? For what its worth, if someone can receive a radio signal in Jersey, it is highly likely they can also receive it in France. The reason why the reference to the BI should be removed is that it is unencyclopaedic. That you don't understand that says more about you, I'd say. Crispness (talk) 21:56, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi, it seems there are a number of issues - let's see if we can separate them out. My point is consistency across Wikipedia articles, and references for claims made. My claims and edits are referencable to the existing Wikipedia articles. In addition, (and as a litmus test for using the term British Isles) what would happen if you introduces a phrase into the Radio 4 article stating that it broadcasts all over the British Isles?

The second issue is from CarterBar who states that the broadcast can be picked up further away than just the UK, and that because it is broadcast on "behalf of the UK Maritime and Coastguard Agency, it should reference the British Isles. I've read this article and it uses the term UK throughout - not the British Isles.

The third issue comes from Crispness who correctly states that if the argument is about the areas the broadcast can be picked up, then the term British Isles is not appropriate, and provides a reference to "Northwest Europe". He also asks CarterBar for a reference for using the term British Isles which we don't have to date. The personal comments are irrelevant.

I still maintain that the UK is the most appropriate term with the "most" references, and the most obvious references. But in the absence of a reference for the term "British Isles", the claim is OR. CarterBar, can you find/provide a suitable reference? --Bardcom (talk) 23:14, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi Bardcom, do a Google search of "Radio 4 UK Theme" and "British Isles" and you'll see plenty of examples that could be used as references, mainly to state that the tune comes from the "four corners of the BI" or words to that effect. It would therefore be possible to justify inclusion of the term on the basis of some of these. However, we are NEVER going to agree on this, nor obtain a general consensus, and there's no point on an edit war, so I say again, get an impartial view on the matter. I don't see any other way forward. CarterBar (talk) 17:13, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

CarterBar, you were asked for references to justify the usage. I take it that there are none. You are now trying to come up with some other way of introducing the term in a different context. I had hoped that we had developed a challenge-response mechanism of addressing our different opinions, and that it appeared to have been working. I would like to continue to believe that either of us can accept a reasonable request for a reference, or a reasonable argument (as we have done in the past). --Bardcom (talk) 15:21, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh dear, I've forgotten what the basic argument is about here. I think the reference you request is to confirm that the sea areas "surround the British Isles" or that the LW broadcast is "heard around the British Isles". Well here's a few -

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

Now don't tell me they also mention "sea areas around Britain", and other variations; I know they do, but each of them also categorically gives a reference to the British Isles in this context. Take your pick from them, and there are many more out there. From the last of the above references we have this quote; "The reason for choosing BBC Radio 4 for the Shipping Forecast is not simply because it is a speech-based channel, but also because it broadcasts via longwave as well as FM, and the longwave signal can be received clearly at sea all around the British Isles. [my emphasis]" I hope this will do, because I feel we should be debating more important BI and related issues. I am reverting the change made by Crispness, since the debate was clearly ongoing and edits of this nature shouldn't be made when the subject is still being discussed. Likewise I'm reverting your Radio 4 edit because it is a related issue and we need (agreed) consistency. Anyway,why didn't you change the Shipping Forecast article to match that of Radio 4. Radio 4 is higher up the article hierarchy, so to speak. Incidentally, I've twice offered a way out of this impasse, by the use of some form of arbitration. What is your objection to this? CarterBar (talk) 17:14, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

<outdent>Lets take those refs one-by-one. The first one (Met Office) is unfortunately an educational page, simplified for its target audience, secondary school pupils. It takes about the coastal waters forecast around the BI, but this includes North and South Uitsire, Southeast Iceland, Biscay, Fitzroy and Trafalgar, none of which would come anywhere close to the WP definition of BI. The Met Office may consider Biscay to be 'around the BI', but unfortunately it doesn't wash on WP.

The second page is a user home page quick reference, rather than an academic treatise. Unfortunately, given the weight of other evidence available, it wouldn't stand up to the requirements of WP:V. It is very close to being a self published source as the last 2 blogs most definitely are. But the page is more of an eclectic collection of useful met sources covering the British Isles. But it goes much further than that, including met charts for the Caribbean and North Atlantic. Not a definitive sources.

Sorry but blogs 3 and 4 don't count. I made a factual edit to the Radio 4 Theme article. I removed any reference to an assumed range for the broadcasts. It is silly to contend that listeners need to be in a particular geographical location. The propogation of radio waves does not follow fixed rules. Anyone who can hear the forecast can use the information.Crispness (talk) 19:33, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

CarterBar, I agree with Crispness. These "references" are not adequate and don't stand up, especially in the face of the official pages I've already referenced. I'm deliberately not trying to edit war, but at this point I feel that you are entrenching in your view. If you believe arbitration is required, by all means seek it. --Bardcom (talk) 19:49, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

You are talking absolute rubbish! What a surprise, you agree with Crispness. Yes, I am going to take this to arbitration if you or Crispness revert the article again. CarterBar (talk) 20:04, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Great argument. I'll consider your comment to mean that you have nothing more to add, and I will revert your changes as uncited and unreferenced. You are free to take whatever actions you like. --Bardcom (talk) 20:19, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Will you agree to mediation in this matter? CarterBar (talk) 21:31, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

As a measure of the respect for our previous conversations and for you, then for this case - yes, I will. --Bardcom (talk) 08:29, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

(outdent)I've just seen the comment left by CarterBar Removal of the term "British Isles" for what appear to be political reasons.. Nothing in the argument above can be taken to suggest a political reason, and I object strongly to his insinuation. Ad hominen attacks are usually the last bastion of desperate editors pushing POV - attempting to distract attention from the edit onto the editor. --Bardcom (talk) 16:28, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Third opinion

I am responding to a request for a third opinion.

British Isles is a geographical designation, while United Kingdom is a political one. In the context of gale warnings, the geographical designation seems obviously most pertinent. That broadcasts can be picked up farther away is known to most anyone who uses radio for such purposes, but there's no harm in mentioning it specifically.

If I missed any essential element in the dispute above, please respond here where the issue is being discussed rather than on my user talk page. Thanks. — Athaenara ✉ 20:40, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

The current wording ("fishermen and sailors within range" in Radio 4 UK Theme#Context and usage) seems exactly right. — Athaenara ✉ 21:50, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Hi, thank you for responding, but you are incorrect to simply state that the term should be used because "the geographical designation seems most pertinent". It would be helpful if you could elaborate a little on why you stated this - why is it most pertinent? You can also follow the discussions to date on my talk page. You may not be aware, but we have requested CarterBar (several times) to provide references, which he has been unable to do. The best he could provide was a reference which used Wikipedia as a reference - a circular reference if you will - that relied on the original incorrect usage of the term. I and another editor have provided references from numerous sources (including the BBC's own website, Radio 4's website, and the other relevant Wikipedia articles) that all use the term "United Kingdom". In addition, the range of the broadcasts, and the areas reported on, encompass the coastlines of Northern Europe Link to Met Office areas. --Bardcom (talk) 22:15, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comment: Nowhere in my post does the phrase "should be used" appear. In responding to other editors' posts, please refer to what was actually posted. — Athaenara ✉ 01:44, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

(Addendum)I also agree that the wording chosen by User:Crispness is less contentious while still remaining more accurate than the previous entry. I'm happy to leave it at that wording. --Bardcom (talk) 22:15, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I didn't know at first what you meant, but I found the "within range" diff. — Athaenara ✉ 01:51, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Date

So it was commissioned in 1973 but first broadcast in 1978? Could someone clarify this? Drutt (talk) 19:06, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, it is a bit confusing at the moment. The UK Theme was commissioned and first broadcast in 1978, but the 2006 BBC Press release got it wrong because its information was taken off here (!) The 1973 date refers to an earlier piece called the "Skipping Tune", also by Spiegl, which is where the confusion arose from. Rob (talk) 20:24, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Shipping Forecast

It's easy to misunderstand the statement that the Radio 4 Theme was used before the morning Shipping Forecast. You might want to add something to make it clear to readers that the late night Shipping Forecast has a different preceding theme which is called 'Sailing By', which was written by Ronald Binge, in 1963. [ en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sailing_By ] — Preceding unsigned comment added by G0mrb (talk • contribs) 00:24, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

It is also the case that when first introduced in 1978 the Radio 4 UK Theme did NOT immediately precede the first shipping forecast of the broadcast day. From 23 November 1978 the shipping forecasts were transmitted on Radio 4 UK (LW only) at 6.25, 13.55, 17.55, and 0.15. The Radio 4 UK Theme was played as an extended tuning-signal (some 5 minutes long) before the start of the day's programmes, the first of which was News Briefing at 6.00 on weekdays – thus half an hour before the shipping forecast.

It was only later, as the Radio 4 day was extended to include an earlier start and finish, and the overnight relay of World Service programming was added, that the Radio 4 UK Theme came to be a kind of "buffer" between the end of the World Service relay at 5.30 and the start of the first shipping forecast at (by then) just after 5.35.

Incidentally, before November 1978, Radio 4 had opened each day with a different, shorter tuning-signal/theme – also written and arranged by Fritz Spiegl – which was based on the traditional skipping-song She is handsome she is pretty, she is the girl of the golden city. --Picapica (talk) 11:44, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

"Lists of links"

External links modified 1 Hello fellow Wikipedians, I have just added archive links to one external link on Radio 4 UK Theme. 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: Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/graphics/2006/01/26/matt.gif 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 10:55, 12 January 2016 (UTC) External links modified 2 Hello fellow Wikipedians, I have just added archive links to one external link on Radio 4 UK Theme. 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: Added archive https://web.archive.org/20160112105512/https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RbHowse53uk to http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RbHowse53uk 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 00:12, 14 February 2016 (UTC) External links modified 3 Hello fellow Wikipedians, I have just added archive links to one external link on Radio 4 UK Theme. 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: Added archive {newarchive} to http://www.publications.parliament.uk/cgi-bin/newhtml 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 10:57, 29 February 2016 (UTC) External links modified 4 Hello fellow Wikipedians, I have just added archive links to one external link on Radio 4 UK Theme. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes: Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20160304101527/http://www.publications.parliament.uk/cgi-bin/newhtml to http://www.publications.parliament.uk/cgi-bin/newhtml 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 05:29, 31 March 2016 (UTC)