Talk:BBC/Archive 9

This is an archive of past discussions about BBC. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This edit request to BBC has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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

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

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

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: 5 June 2024).

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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:33, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

"State run"....?

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

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: 5 June 2024).

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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:48, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

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: 5 June 2024).

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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:38, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111107024637/http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/2009/07/digitallicense/ to http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/?p=64654

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: 5 June 2024).

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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:07, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 13 April 2016

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.

BBC → British Broadcasting CorporationBritish Broadcasting Corporation
BBC (disambiguation) → BBC There is a lot of different BBCs around the world 94.10.2.229 (talk) 16:27, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090922041955/http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/about/who_we_are/trustees/index.shtml to http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/about/who_we_are/trustees/index.shtml
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110715004020/http://www.bbc.co.uk/aboutthebbc/running/bbcstructure/ to http://www.bbc.co.uk/aboutthebbc/running/bbcstructure/
Added archive {newarchive} to http://www.radioacademy.org/about/patrons/

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: 5 June 2024).

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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:26, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Is there still a Management Board?

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

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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060718223433/http://www.transdiffusion.org/emc/baird/tvoff.php to http://www.transdiffusion.org/emc/baird/tvoff.php
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.bbc.co.uk/heritage/more/pdfs/committees_of_enquiry.pdf
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.bbc.co.uk/foi/docs/freedom_of_information/selected_requests_and_responses/2006/SR2006000476_TV_Licence_Search_Warrants.pdf
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p01b4npp
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.bbc.co.uk/feedback/07July_Statistics.shtml
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/news/press_releases/14_03_2007.html
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.radiorewind.co.uk/kenny_everett_page.htm

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: 5 June 2024).

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

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

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

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:

Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.telegraph.co.uk/arts/main.jhtml?xml=%2Farts%2F2007%2F09%2F27%2Fbvradio127.xml&page=1
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080224233404/http://www.meldrum.co.uk/mhp/continuity/guestroom.html to http://www.meldrum.co.uk/mhp/continuity/guestroom.html
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.bbc.co.uk/aboutthebbc/bbcnorth/index.shtml
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p01b4npp
Replaced archive link x with https://web.archive.org/web/20100107234239/http://www.radioacademy.org/about/patrons/ on http://www.radioacademy.org/about/patrons/

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: 5 June 2024).

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

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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140626234806/http://www.itvplc.com/sites/itvplc/files/ITV%20Annual%20Report%202013_0.pdf to http://www.itvplc.com/sites/itvplc/files/ITV%20Annual%20Report%202013_0.pdf

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: 5 June 2024).

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

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

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: 5 June 2024).

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

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)

More information Year, Association ...

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

Close

References

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

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

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 ) 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

This edit request to BBC has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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

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

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

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

This edit request to BBC has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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

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

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

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. TheAwesome Hwyh 19:45, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

The History section only goes up to 2017

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

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

This edit request to BBC has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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)

Date of 1970s logo

Any space for an awards/honors section?

Initial founding principles

Remove "used" from logo caption?

images available

Semi-protected edit request on 10 June 2021

Semi-protected edit request on 4 October 2021

Infobox motto

Regional "accents"

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

Independence

Tories vison for the BBC 2022

BBC 100 in 2022

Miscellaneous

"Britain" vs. "UK"

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

Operating expenditures

Semi-protected edit request on 18 October 2022

Semi-protected edit request on 25 October 2022

Semi-protected edit request on 4 November 2022

Error in text

Issues with lede

Semi-protected edit request on 4 March 2023

Origin of the nickname "Auntie"

Error

Nationally Funded State Broadcaster

Why is BBC not called state controlled propaganda?

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

Semi-protected edit request on 23 August 2023

Andrew Tate Update

Semi-protected edit request on 4 September 2023

Semi-protected edit request on 18 September 2023

Semi-protected edit request on 14 October 2023

Divisions

RfC on sectioning of the Charter

Bbc gaza and tasnim

6.9 BritBox & 'Project Kangaroo'

Semi-protected edit request on 19 April 2024

Section on BBC being accused of right wing bias makes no sense

Including the Dana Najjar and Jan Lietava study in the right-wing bias section

Media bias regarding the Israel-Hamas war

This middle east conflict is obviously a contentious issue. This proposed edit asserting "Anti-Israel bias and antisemitism" of the BBC is contentious in itself. John Simpson, the World Affairs editor for the BBC, commented on the BBC's approach to conflict, "We don't take sides. We don't use loaded words like "evil" or "cowardly". We don't talk about "terrorists". And we're not the only ones to follow this line. Some of the world's most respected news organisations have exactly the same policy. But the BBC gets particular attention, partly because we've got strong critics in politics and in the press, and partly because we're rightly held to an especially high standard. But part of keeping to that high standard is to be as objective as it's possible to be." The proposed edit and its loaded accusation is non neutral, and also overlooks complaints from the other side that for the BBC, and western media, "Israeli life is deemed to be worth more than a Palestinian life". Inserting material that furthers the agenda of either side or discredits a news source, and the BBC is one of the more reliable news sources on the conflict, is a breach of neutrality. It is also a subject that belongs on the talk page of the conflict article itself, rather than singling out just one media source (BBC in the case here), in how the media is critiqued on its reporting. Gabriella MNT (talk) 13:37, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Extensive external sources have singled out BBC for antisemitism. It is misleading to censure the referenced claims. Certainly, one can add other referenced claims that disagree, but our job is to work with sources. Minden500 (talk) 13:47, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

I've broadend this discussion out to the Israel-Hamas war talk page. Gabriella MNT (talk) 14:24, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_451#informational_report:_BBC_according_to_Telegraph Selfstudier (talk) 14:42, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. The extensive and well documented evidence of antisemitism and anti-Israel bias at the BBC should not have been censured, especially since someone has added alleged evidence of the reverse (pro-Israel bias).

The deletions should be reverted. CuriousViperGarage (talk) 03:06, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

Despite most government’s in the western world declaring Hamas a terrorist organization, BBC refuses to use that label. They defend it. This shows their bias. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-67083432

They call Hamas terrorist activities “atrocities”. Helpingtoclarify (talk) 01:27, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

They call Israel’s attacks on civilians as…nothing, they barely report it

what’s your point? 2806:2F0:A0C1:FCC3:225D:DFF:FE1B:5350 (talk) 16:02, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

CBBC and CBeebies are part of the BBC

Related Articles