Talk:BBC/Archive 6

Hutton et al.
Under the political independance section there is no mention of the David Kelly affairand the subsequent Hutton report. Seeing as this was the most seminal testing of the beeb's independance I really think it needs a mention... Bensonby 22:41, 12 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, especially as there's already a good analysis on WP of the Hutton Inquiry. All it needs is a few words and a wikilink. -- Puffball 10:37, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Poor Criticism Section
Whilst it is hard to write a criticism section in a NPOV encyclopedia, the current one seems a little odd. The Israel-Palestinian conflict coverage receives criticism from both sides, yet the link given as a reference is purely from the Israel side. The sentence about the USA criticisms is meaningless without references and seems rather defensive (what is the difference between journalism and criticism?). The Leftist claims again need a reference (their was a article by a ex-BBC correspondant recently that would do, can't remember who though). At the moment this reads like a rather anti-BBC section. -- Wombat 06:17, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

I have just had a go at writing a new criticism section. I noticed your comment here after I saved the change. -- Robert Byrne

A paragraph has been added to the criticism section which is more or less identical to the one Wombat complained about above and which I removed. I think the paragraph is unnecessary a and could be removed completely. Perhaps a comment could be added to the Weekly Standard link that its accusations of impartiality largely stem from an impression of "leftist" bias? But links to anti-BBC blogs and pro-Israeli websites don't seem appropriate for an NPOV encyclopedia. At least with The Weekly Standard and The Guardian the reader knows how to judge the views expressed. -- Robertbyrne 14:33, 2 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm still not happy with the "Criticism" section (even though I am almost completely responsible for the current version...).


 * The section seems out-of-place occupying an entire main section. Criticisms of the BBC as an overall organisation are not of equal importance to the structure of the corporation or the services provided, the two other main sections; the criticism section mostly addresses BBC News; nor does the section even cover the topic of criticisms comprehensively, e.g. the new paragraph under "Funding" outlines some licence fee controversy.


 * Another problem with this article at the moment is that it is possibly a bit too long. (Wikipedia gives a "31kb is a bit big" error when you hit edit.)


 * My proposal is: move a shorter version of the current main section to a new "Criticisms" subsection under the "Corporation" section; move the paragraph on the licence fee to this section (this is, after all, a corporation-wide issue); move the more specific criticisms of news coverage to the BBC News article. Robertbyrne 01:41, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, after nearly a month of intense debate (not!) on this matter, I have implemented something similar to what I described above. Instead of making a new Criticism section under the Corporation heading, I have moved material from the old Criticism section to relevant places. Specifically the Commerical/Political Independence section, and the BBC News article. Feel free, by the way, to add links to some positive reviews of BBC News to the section I've created in the BBC News article.

As for Criticism sections, on reflection I think they are silly. I agree that Wikipedia should be balanced and NPOV, but balancing elements should be integrated with their counterpoints as closely as possible, not separated in debate format. Also, having a Criticism section here implied that the BBC/BBC News has been significantly discredited, which is emphatically not the case. Robertbyrne 20:54, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Three things - 1. I have never heard of the 'Buggers Broadcasting Communism' epithet, but there is the regularly used 'Bolshevik Broadcasting Corporation. 2. Rob Byrne above states that it is "emphatically not the case" that BBC News has been significantly discredited, whereas this itself is not true. BBC News is regularly criticised and it is wrong that there is no criticism section. 3. No discussion of the iniquitous 'License Fee'? - a despicable regressive tax if ever there was one.88.105.116.228 09:32, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

The current Criticism section seems to contradict itself: it says that "The BBC's news coverage has been accused of systematic anti-Israel bias" and then that "The commission's report suggested that the BBC's news reporting was not sufficiently covering the suffering of Palestinian civilians, and was too focussed on the Israeli perspective of events."!

Also the sources for the first comment link to an extremely suspicious looking website - honestreporting.co.uk - which looks to be far from it!

I think this whole section should be removed as it adds no benefit to the article and I suspect much of what is written in it may have been by people with vested interests. Gizmoleeds 18:02, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

World Service radio only free press?
"in some areas the BBC World Service radio is the only available free press." Which areas, precisely? I understand it's a very important source, but where is there that you could pick up the BBC on shortwave but not, for instance, Deutsche Welle? Vashti 16:45, 2 August 2005 (UTC)


 * It should be modified slightly. The writer was most likley talking about places such as North Korea, Cuba, Zimbabwe and Iraq before the war where listeners could receive BBC World Service broadcasts, but as you say they most likley could pick up other broadcasts. keithgreer 18:02, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

The pro-Israeli website honestreporting.com
There are often claims, particularly on the internet, that the BBC is biased in its coverage of the Israeli-Palistinian conflict. The criticisms come from supporters of both sides, as can be seen, for example, here: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=BBC.

Many people may turn to the "Criticisms" section of the Wikipedia article on the BBC to find out if there is any substance to some of the claims, many of which can be quite extreme.

So I think it is a pity that when I removed a link to the pro-Israeli (and, as always in these cases, ironically, almost tragically biased) website honestreporting.com, it was put straight back in, along with a bizarre note that it is "not POV". (Don't readers of the Wikipedia assume that anyway?)

I invite any rational Wikipedia editors with an interest in the Wikipedia article on the BBC to look at honestreporting.com to see whether they think it is worthy to be referenced in a serious encyclopedia.

I think it isn't. By way of supporting my argument, here is a link to a Guardian investigation of honestreporting.com from early 2001 -- Media manipulators. Robertbyrne 21:41, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

(Note to readers: the user Sooted removed his comments from this discussion, so it probably looks a little odd now. Robertbyrne 22:57, 19 August 2005 (UTC))


 * You weren't "attacked" at all. You were told what wikipedia's rules are.  They apply to everyone.  You can edit the article, but you're not entitled to alter others' comments.  You'd object, after all, if someone changed your comment to say something entirely different to what you said.  By all means reply to the point you object to, but don't change what others said. -- Finlay McWalter |  Talk 22:16, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

(Note to readers: comment of Sooted also removed his comment from here...) Robertbyrne 22:57, 19 August 2005 (UTC)


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

(... and here. Robertbyrne 22:57, 19 August 2005 (UTC))


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

(Final note from Robertbyrne 22:57, 19 August 2005 (UTC) ... Sooted then added a comment out-of-sequence, which I will, slightly surreptiously, place here instead...)

here is one of the pages dealing with the biased media manipulators article you like: http://www.honestreporting.com/articles/critiques/Dishonest_Reporting_-Award-_for_2001.asp#guardian

Article size and picture


While editing, I realized that the article was longer than recommended, so I took out the blurred, tilted and unnescary picture that is ->.

Any objections?


 * No objection from me :) Robertbyrne 17:29, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

I think Robert Byrne is employed by the BBC to monitor this page.... and make sure any criticism of it is expunged ASAP. Am I wrong?88.105.118.158 23:57, 15 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, you are completely wrong. There are over a hundred people who are actively involved in the writing and development of this article.


 * Also, criticism of the BBC is most welcome in the article - but like all Wikipedia articles, that criticism must be fair and balanced. We will all expunge, ASAP, any criticism of the BBC that is unfair, groundless, represents a point of view or isn't backed up with citations. This applies to all Wikipedia articles - otherwise this wouldn't be an encyclopedia, it would be a giant slagging-off ground. And, to be honest, there are many thousands of those on the internet, so it's a crowded market we don't need to join.


 * Hope this helps clarify things for you! ➨ ❝ R E  DVERS ❞ 09:43, 16 February 2006 (UTC)


 * i would like rob byrne to confirm this - not one of the 'over 100 people' etc. In addition, why, if criticism is allowed, is the 'Biased BBC' blog link always expunged? This is a serious and popular blog that has been acknowledged by senior BBC people as performing a useful service. So, no, your drivel did not clarify anything. 88.105.114.97 19:18, 14 March 2006 (UTC)


 * 88.105.114.97 - Wikipedia has a policy of no personal attacks and of being civil to other editors. Your above reply is neither, so you would risk being blocked for violation of Wikipedia policy. But I am not offended, so no worries. However, you're not likely to get a reply answering your question - from me or from Rob - until you wind your neck in and start being polite to your fellow editors. It's really not too much to ask at all. When you can manage that, please get in touch with me on my talk page and I'll be happy to help you out and answer any questions you may have. But not until. Cheers! ➨ ❝ R  E  DVERS ❞ 20:12, 14 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I support the deletion of links to sites that fail to meet the fair and balanced policy, such as the BBC Bias blog (which is in itself immensely biased - the editor deletes any comments that don't reflect his personal opinion) Pickup Stix 16 March 2006

Forgive me, but I am clearly not as perspicacious as you, since I cannot work out where or how I have been rude to you. Methinks you must be a very sensitive chap. And still no confirmation as to the provenance of Mr Byrne (or indeed yourself) regarding relations with or of the BBC, although your tone and language suggest a strong affiliation with the corporation. I now suspect you of writing for Ariel!!!! As for being blocked for editing rights, my dear chap, it is not beyond the ken of even the least able web user to visit / log on under a variety of ISPs or mirrors if necessary. I am happy to sign my four tildas as I believe I have done nothing to infringe wikipedia policy, but even if I have, the very nature of the net means that your JCR / sophomoric descent into threats of using process and policy procedures against me means nothing. Cheers then!!!!88.105.126.225 00:17, 7 April 2006 (UTC)


 * The incivil wording was "your drivel", which is hardly has a place in serious debate. You are, of course, completely entitled to change ISPs or "use mirrors" in order to be incivil to your fellow Wikipedia editors. But the fact that you would have to go to all that trouble is, in part, be one of the reasons we use blocks. Although one would question just how obsessive and lonely someone who goes to all that trouble would be; fortunately I remain unoffended and you remain unblocked, so the question doesn't arise. ➨ ❝ R E  DVERS ❞ 18:37, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

'All that trouble' - It's no trouble at all. My mention of changing ISPs etc. was in relation to editing rights - not to do with being 'uncivil' towards editors. This is a non sequitur. Please concentrate. 'Obsessive'? Just how often do you check this page? Use of the word 'Drivel' is uncivil? You poor sensitive chap. You keep banging on about being unoffended yet you find the word 'drivel' uncivil? Make your mind up! 'Serious debate?' - the Biased BBC site (the link to which I note is regularly expunged) is as serious a website as any. Why the censorship? I asked a simple question and have still not got a reply - so the suspicion remains. 88.105.116.143 23:03, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Which Miller?
In the section on funding, there is a link to the Sunday Times journalist Jonathan Miller. However, the link actual connects to the theatre director of the same name, who I believe to be a different person (there's no mention in his entry of writing for the ST in the entry). Could someone check this? Jon Rob 14:40, 21 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Although Jonathan Miller is something of a polymath, I believe you're right that the journo is someone else, and has worked at Channel 4 News. I fear there may also be an American Jonathan Miller, also a journalist . -- Finlay McWalter |  Talk 14:52, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

It might be germane to point out that Miller's paper, the Sunday Times, is owned by Rupert Murdoch, who also owns (among other things) Sky TV, and who for commercial reasons opposes the licence-based funding system of the BBC. BTLizard 14:19, 31 October 2005 (UTC)


 * It would have to be done carefully, without insinuating that this is why Miller holds the opinions he does. The Times and Sunday Times actually take a fairly independent, often different, view to Murdoch's own and so this might be a little unfair. - Zagrebo 13:28, 2 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I have noticed in recent years that praise for the BBC programming is confined to the arts/tv sections, while Murdoch-a-like criticism appears in the main body of the paper (ie. The Times), often in Editorials. I think Murdoch's influence is a valid point; he's not going to let a paper that he owns support a rival operation, and the same goes for the owners of most of the other British newspapers, most of whom are rivals. It would not be unfair to call him rabidly anti-BBC. Fionnuala


 * I think that's a bit simplistic. News International/Sky may be quite happy with the status quo. The alternative to licence-funding for the BBC would probably be a model involving subscription and advertising, which would produce a rival to Sky. In fact the majority of mass-circulation newspapers in Britain seem content with the present system. Nowhere do I see any serious coverage of the arguments against the BBC, nor of the growing dissatifaction with the ever-increasing licence fee (now, apparently, officially classified as a tax). The licence fee offends against the Human Rights Act and is enforced by an unpleasant set of bullies called TV Licensing. BTW the "Jonathan Miller" in question is not the polymathic, Beyond-the-Fringe broadcaster and director of theatre and opera, but a journo who used to have a column in the Sunday Times. Now he is "rabidly anti-BBC"; he also appears to have been dropped! -- Puffball 16:05, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Paparazzi style
I request someone to enlarge upon BBC's recent slidings to paparazzi style, especially in its frantically Russophobic coverage of Eastern Europe (example). --Ghirla | talk 09:45, 17 January 2006 (UTC)


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

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

Having just had a little look at the article with a view to commenting here, I am not sure that the list of people currently in the BBC is very useful or important in this article (others may well disagree with this). The links in the See Also section seem a little odd, e.g. why is BBC Birmingham and BBC Asian Network there? I also think the section on unencrypted satellite doesn't sit very well with the rest of the article, and overall does not seem as important as it appears in the article. Could it go elsewhere? John 19:26, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

"I am not sure that ... is very useful or important". Since when is Wikipedia about these attributes? Each participant in the 1900 summer Olympics has his/her own entire page (see Lecomte: we only know that his surname appeared in a list as coming 8th in something; no forename, no dates, no nothing else. It was a men's event, so he's probably male). At some time somebody may want to look up someone in the BBC; here is the information. That's legitimate encyclpaedia fodder. It can be deleted when obsolete (but probably won't). Pol098 19:45, 9 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes -- Wikipedia is not paper -- Puffball 15:28, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Not public broadcasting system
I've been trying to make a point which is important for non-UK readers. This is probably better done by others who know the BBC better, if they agree.

The Wikipedia article is likely to have two main types of reader:

1. Brits who want to know who the current Chief Assistant to the Assistant Chief is, or when the changeover from 405 lines was.

2. People from other countries who want to know what the BBC _is_. As far as I know, it's a unique entity due to its history as a monopoly and to the very good people who ran it, so it needs explaining. In most countries Public Service Broadcasting means, I believe, a worthy, underfunded, system which transmits stuff not many people want to watch, and is likely to buy most of it in rather than make it.

So maybe contributors would like to bear this in mind. Or maybe not.

Hurry up, by the time the entry is finished the BBC will probably be something quite different, unfortunately.

Pol098 16:08, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
 * history as a monopoly? Excepting radio, it hasn't been a monopoly on TV since 1955. And its TV only started in earnest in 1946, so it never had much history as a monopoly on TV. As goes radio... well... it was over 50 years there, yes. --Kiand 17:17, 10 March 2006 (UTC)


 * The point is taken, though I think it has been somewhat over-laboured and I have edited the reference in consequence. In most countries Public Service Broadcasting means... = In the United States of America... (a common mistake). The PBS is not representative of public broadcasting as it is and has been practised in most countries around the world where the BBC model has been imitated. That model includes the provision of a full range of programmes, including all the most popular genres as well as those often neglected by commercial broadcasters. -- Picapica 08:54, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

World Service German section
I just finished a brief tidy up of the radio section and this section strikes me as somewhat out of place:

The German Service, created in 1938 and discontinued in 1999, played an important part in the propaganda war against Nazi Germany. The authoritative source on the BBC's German Service is Carl Brinitzer's book "Hier spricht London". Brinitzer, a German lawyer from Hamburg living in exile in London, was a founding member. Another famous member of staff was Egon Jameson (Egon Jacobsson), a former Ullstein journalist from Berlin.

Though somewhat interesting, I'm not sure that it's sufficiently relevant to BBC Radio as a whole. I have also never heard of "Egon Jameson", and a quick search on Google reveals little that would suggest he is a particularly noteworthy character. Perhaps a move to the World Service section, with the last sentence removed? Daduzi 19:55, 21 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Since nobody objected, the section has been moved to the World Service articleDaduzi 15:54, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Does Doctor Who work for the BBC?
"BBC News is the largest broadcast news gathering operation in the world and it produces almost 160 hours of news output every hour"

Now, I freely confess to not being an expert on the exact nature of the technical operations of the BBC but something strikes me as not quite right about that sentence. 160 hours every hour? How exactly does that work? Daduzi 01:54, 22 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm guessing that's a reference to over 160 distinct news programmes, on the various television and radio channels and on bbc.co.uk. (The latter isn't a "channel", of course, but does have a lot of original content.)  So in any given hour, "the BBC" as a whole is producing 160 hours' worth of news programming.  I guess.


 * And in answer to your question — of course he does. At the moment, he works for BBC Wales. :D —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:20, 22 March 2006 (UTC)


 * That seems a possible answer, however, even adding up every single UK national television channel (8), UK national stations (3), English regional TV stations (12), international TV channels (6), national radio stations (10), local radio stations (40) and world service languages (43) I still only get 122. So unless they all broadcast the news 24 hours a day, and some manage 2 hours of news every hour, it still doesn't add up. bbc.co.uk is hard to add into the mix since what constitutes an hour online? I don't know, I'm still baffled. Daduzi 06:53, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Hmmm... on closer examination this edit was made by an anonymous user, changing an earlier introductory sentence which was more plausible: "BBC News claims to be the largest broadcast news gathering operation in the world and it produces almost 100 hours of output every day". I'm tempted to put the old one back in. Daduzi 07:08, 22 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I'd certainly support such a reversion. Angmering 07:39, 22 March 2006 (UTC)


 * OK, done Daduzi 01:30, 23 March 2006 (UTC)


 * FYI News produces about 10 hours of Radio 4, 24 hours of radio 5, 24 hours of News24, about 15 Hours of World TV (although these last two are sometimes simulcast), a couple of hours of nationals, 3 hours of breakfast, and a couple hours of interactive loops, significantly less than 100 hours a day. On the other hand, theres arround 300 hours of video coming into news every day (more if you include bars) Paul Weaver 00:00, 8 April 2006 (UTC)


 * In light of this it may be better to just remove the sentence entirely until someone can come up with a sourced figure Daduzi 15:50, 12 April 2006 (UTC)


 * The sentence has been removed, pending a sourced figure. Daduzi 07:49, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Infobox for top of the page
I know the BBC isn't a company but I thought this, or something like it, would look better at the top of the page rather than the current logo on its own. Any thoughts? - the Keith  22:13, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I though about adding something similar to summarize information, but didn't know which type to use. I have added the number of employees from the 2005 annual report to the box shown. Mattbr30 12:39, 29 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I have now added the infobox to the page. --Marknew 13:51, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Nick Robinson
I think there is a danger of giving one example in terms of suggesting that the BBC is therefore representative of that example. If we must have them then it should menton that BBC ppl worked or became MPs for other parties (ie Labour MPs Chris Mullins and James Purnell and a number of Labour PR peopleAlci12 14:13, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
 * To be honest does Nick Robinson being a former young Tory add anything to the article? Is it any different to when the Tories kicked up a stink about Andrew Marr who came from the Independent?

Image:BBC.svg Replaced with Image:BBC.png
I thought the general move, on Wikipedia, was to use SVG wherever possible? the Keith  15:58, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
 * From :
 * It is believed that the use of low-resolution images of logos... qualifies as fair use under United States copyright law.
 * The file BBC.svg was not a low-resolution image of the logo: as a vector graphic, you could "indefinitely zoom in" on the logo without losing any quality.
 * Hope this answers your question! --Marknew 16:54, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Statistical Nonsense
I have reverted the addition about doing statistical searches to find BBC bias.

1. It did not contain any source, let alone a credible and exhaustive study.

2. The examples cited were arbitary and selective nonsense. Although it is true there is one result for "far left" as opposed to about 30 for "far right". There are also 27 results for "fascist" against 837 for communist.

pit-yacker 17:23, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

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


 * It's my image, but as it's on Commons, Wikipedia doesn't bring author information through with it. You can click the link in the box that reads "This image is from Wikimedia Commons. Its image description is taken from there" or something like that. The second link in the box takes you to the Commons page and that has the author information on it. You're right about there being a typo on the text descriptions. I've now corrected that. A shift+refresh will give you the new version. Hope this helps. ➨ ≡ Я Ξ  DVΞRS ≡ 12:17, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

During the WII
I read this sentence: "Television broadcasting was suspended from September 1, 1939 to June 7, 1946 during the Second World War." Maybe this doesn't belong in this article but does anyone know how did the british people lived this important period of war without the BBC? was there another company making broadcasting to the people during the WII in britain? thank you. Minako-Chan* 05:11, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Television broadcasting was suspended. Radio wasn't. Radio was the predominant mode of broadcasting at that time, with only a handful of television sets in use, so the average person probably didn't even notice the suspension of television. The BBC's radio services kept going. --Mike 08:04, 12 May 2006 (UTC)


 * It's incredible how something like television desapears from life for 7 years like it did in Britain...was the use of radio safe for london? (regarding why television was suspended).
 * I wish to know more about telecomunications and WII though this isn't the article for it ^^; i'm very curious for how the BBC operated during the war.
 * thank you for your information, Mike. Minako-Chan* 07:02, 13 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Television didn't disappear from most people’s lives in Britain as it wasn't in their lives to begin with. You have to understand TV was very much in it's infancy it had only been broadcasting a few years at the time and there was only one channel being broadcast to approximately 25% of the nation. However only ~23,000 homes actually had a TV set. The general opinion before the war was that it was just a gimmick and would never become a popular medium as apposed to radio or cinema. Such was the lack of importance of television, to the nation, it could easily be switched off. Added to that it was also considered a dangerous distraction; the government assumed people may be watching it when they should really be in their air raid shelters. The British government actually had another use for the transmitters anyway; although they never had to carry out the threat, they were modified to be able to jam German military communications if an invasion occurred.
 * To that end it's probably true to say no one actually really worried about the absence of television (as they probably would be today) as there were much more important things to worry about.
 * Peter Bowers 13:13, 13 May 2006 (UTC+1)


 * I understand that the Alexandra Palace Transmitter was used during the Battle of the beams to subvert German radio navigation aids. David Underdown 08:40, 15 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I believe so, it's mentioned on this webpage. Peter Bowers 11:50, 15 May 2006 (UTC+1)


 * May be the indenting's getting a little out of hand, but I was trying to expand on your comment on the transmitters being used to jam German comms in the event of invasion, rather than ask a new question. It wasn't straightforward jamming, but transmitters were used for what would now be called Electronic Counter Measures (I read it in R V Jones' book).David Underdown 11:01, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I want to thank everyone for your information...I was really curious and I wanted to know about history too. thank you again Minako-Chan* 04:19, 16 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the . Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

don't move. &mdash; Nightst a  llion  (?) 09:52, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Requested move
Doesn't seem to be a section for the requested move...

I oppose this on the grounds that its known the world over as the BBC, not the "British Broadcasting Corporation", and that its Wikipedia policy to use the most commonly used names over and above the official ones in cases such as this (see tens to hundreds of cities, Irish gaeltacht place names, etc) --Kiand 23:33, 17 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I oppose this on the grounds that not even the BBC refer to themselves as 'British Broadcasting Corporation' any more. They trade only as 'BBC'. There's already a divert in place incase anyone does type the full name 'British Broadcasting Corporation' (and why would they?) it automatically redirects to 'BBC'. So there really is no point in moving it. --Peteb16 23:37, 17 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I, too, oppose this; we renamed it ages ago because this is what people call it, including the organisation itself. I see no reason to reverse our position.
 * James F. (talk) 23:58, 17 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Here's the discussion: Talk:BBC/Archive4 --Marknew 19:13, 18 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I also oppose this on the grounds that, well, as above. Everyone's heard of the BBC, not everybody can tell you what it stands for, and changing BBC to a redirect would cause an awful lot of redirect traffic... --Mike 08:14, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Another oppose as per the comments above. mattbr30 15:34, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

oppose as per everyone else's comments David Underdown 15:40, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Oppose --Marknew 19:13, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Oppose, by far the most likely use for the acronym. Philip Cross 20:51, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose --Philip Baird Shearer 20:58, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose ~ trialsanderrors 23:25, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose - c.f. NBC, CNN etc Mnbf9rca 12:41, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose - unnecessary complication. British Broadcasting Corporation already redirects here, so there is no problem. DWaterson 16:52, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above. Computerjoe 's talk 18:59, 20 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Excessive Introduction?
IMO, the introduction seems a little too long. I have a feeling this would lower the odds of it becoming a WP:FA? Computerjoe 's talk 19:00, 20 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, I've given a shorter introduction a go, moving whatever I could to relevant parts of the rest of the article. There were a few sections (especially on the ramifications of the license fee) that I couldn't find a home for, but others are welcome to try. Daduzi 08:56, 28 May 2006 (UTC)


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

Quotes from the Telegraph
I have reverted part of the criticism that was cut and paste from a three year old article in the Telegraph. 1. AFAICT this has dubious copyright 2. It is not balanced 3. It is rubbish anyway. The BBC is regularly accused of having a particular party bias.

Huge splat o'logos
It seems to me that the pile o'logos in the History section is unnecessarily obtrusive and takes up a lot of space in an already fairly dense article like this. The history of the BBC's typography and graphic identity could probably make an article by itself which this could be moved to, but it just seems... unnecessary to have it in such a prominent position -- especially as the changes in logo are more subtle refinements than revolutionary. Who would sulk if I removed it? --Mike 23:26, 27 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I noticed the exact same thing upon returning to the article. The selection of logos is a nice addition, but seems completely out of place. If there were some way to move the logos to a less obtrusive place (either within or outside of the article) I'd definitely support it. Daduzi 07:51, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
 * They could also easily take up a lot less room by getting rid of the emense borders around the logos. PeteB16 12:22, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I think the new version by User:Marknew is a considerable improvement and seems much less obtrusive. Daduzi 17:40, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Infobox change
I really like the new infobox, but was wondering if it wouldn't be better to follow the format of other broadcasters (for example CNN, NBC or CBS. The only parts I was left puzzling about is availability (is it worth adding nearby countries that can receive BBC transmissions?), the owner section and the slogan section (is there an advertising slogan that would be more apporpriate to use?). Daduzi 09:24, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I think you're right, it should be in keeping with other broadcasters, however I think some of the details need to be ammended such as it being publically owned (which it isn't) it in fact has no ownership as it's run under a Royal Charter. It also needs to include information that it doesn't just broadcast Television and Radio but also Online and Interactive data services. PeteB16 12:18, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
 * As far as the ownership goes, I'll fully admit I was at a loss as to exactly how to phrase it, so a more accurate formation would be welcome. As regards the online broadcast, with the other networks only television and radio are listed as network types while online services are listed under "available", so it's probably best to stick to that pattern, even given the BBC's unique online presence. This all reminds me that I scandalously neglected to include the World Service in the available section, I'll add it now. Daduzi 13:00, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
 * You could use "This is what we do" as the advertising slogan, rather than the motto which isn't generally used for promotion. For availability what about something like "Internationally available via Television, Radio, Internet, and Print" (Ceefax and BBCi could be considered as part of its TV output)? the Keith  [[Image:Flag of Northern Ireland2.svg|30px]] 14:32, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the feedback. The slogan has been changed. I've also taken on your suggestion for the availability field since it seems more in line with the other broadcast networks using the infobox (I based mine off of CNN, but it seems cable networks have a different format), though I still think it's useful to differentiate the national from the international due to the different channels and content. I'm going to leave print out, though, since that gets away from the broadcasting side and is really a strictly BBC Worldwide deal. I've also decided to leave out the "owner" section entirely since I've managed to establish who doesn't own the BBC and that appears to have cover pretty much everyone; as far as I can tell nobody owns the BBC. If anyone can correct me feel free because I'm somewhat baffled at the moment. Daduzi 17:36, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

If nobody has any objections I'll go ahead and put the new infobox in after 24 hours. --Daduzi 10:17, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
 * OK, the new box is up. --Daduzi 13:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

The 'Slogan' is not an official BBC-wide promotion or value, the 'Motto' is. MOre information on the BBC 'About the BBC' webpages. 'This is what we do' is just one particular strand of branding promotion. 132.185.240.121 16:06, 16 June 2006 (UTC)


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