Talk:BBC Persian Television

Satelite Jamming dispute

 * The source states that the satellite operator (i.e. Eutelsat, NOT the BBC) confirmed that the jamming was originating from Iran. Rapido (talk) 16:48, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Here are the 2 sources you are using: http://blogs.rnw.nl/medianetwork/bbc-adds-more-satellites-for-its-persian-tv-service ; http://blogs.rnw.nl/medianetwork/bbc-says-its-satellite-broadcasts-being-disrupted-from-iran. They both mention BBC's view, and I am being kind not attacking the credibility of your sourcing, but you should always source the original, in this case the originals come from AFP and BBC Press release which I have checked.

Never the less, out of the sources you provided, only 1 part mentions or concerns an accusation of signal jamming origination.

"The BBC said today that the satellites it uses to broadcast in Persian were being jammed from Iran, disrupting its reports on the hotly-disputed presidential election. The corporation said television and radio services had been affected from 1245 UTC Friday onwards by “heavy electronic jamming” which had become “progressively worse”. Satellite technicians had traced the interference to Iran, it said.

The satellites its uses in the Middle East to broadcast BBC Persian television to Iran were being affected, meaning that audiences in Iran, the Middle East and Europe would likely experience disruption. BBC Arabic television and other language services had also experienced transmission problems, the corporation said."

My editing is concise and adherent to the NPOV, as i've written that the BBC's technicians believe the jamming signal to originate from Iran, not only concurrent with your 3rd class sources, but also the original BBC Press release. Unless you can cite a scientific document, or a valid source independent of the BBC (since this article concerns BBC, Wikipedia encourages non-BBC sources to adhere to NPOV) proving the Satelite signal to be from Iran. Such accusation are serious and Iran could face fines and trials if it is found to be jamming signal as it is illegal, so if you have prove, send it to the U.N. they will be more than willing to accept. --94.193.135.142 (talk) 11:10, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

And if you believe so much Eutelsat mentioned this, then write "Eutelsat stated the satelite jamming to originate from Iran but provided no technical data that could be verified". If you have technical evidence or proof, then you have remove the latter part of the phrase. Look in the mirror, be a human editor, not a Political activist lurking around Wikipedia, be professional for Gods sake. --94.193.135.142 (talk) 11:14, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Screenshot date verification of no participation by Rapido following revert. --94.193.135.142 (talk) 12:05, 21 January 2010 (UTC) < Date and time


 * I agree on the sourcing issue. The references say "blog" in the url, so without any further investigation I would toss them as reputable sources for anything. Cuñado  ☼ -  Talk  07:59, 22 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree with Cunando too, though the blog it self sources are from AFP and the BBC Press Release, the original sources need to be cited here, and any claims need to state in the article by Who. Rapido's revert does not state who, and most importantly, whether the source provided evidence to back their claim or not. --94.193.135.142 (talk) 17:28, 22 January 2010 (UTC)


 * It's not difficult to find non blog sources eg [guardian.co.uk http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/jun/15/iran-bbc-persian-service] [lefigaro http://www.lefigaro.fr/flash-actu/2009/06/14/01011-20090614FILWWW00124-iran-les-satellites-de-la-bbc-brouilles.php] [bbc.co.uk http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pressreleases/stories/2009/12_december/21/persian.shtml] or just use google eg search "BBC Persian jamming".Shortfatlad (talk) 16:10, 23 January 2010 (UTC)


 * From Eutelsat [...] concluded that the jamming signals were coming from Iranian territory and much information from a Eutelsat official. Rapido (talk) 16:52, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * That's a good in depth report - I think it should be used as a reference, along with the BBC's own press release.Shortfatlad (talk) 16:55, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Cunando
Please refrain from wiping out the discussion page, if you have concerns please reply here, if you are accusing my objection with "same unverified claims" please explain why they are unverified, are you suggesting Iran's media is not to see a voice on an international Wikipedia? Have you even bothered to read all of Wikipedia's guidelines? Are suggesting those guys protesting calling the BBC "Bahai Broadcasting Corp." as some photoshopped picture and those protests never happened? Or are you being dictatorial with your wikipedia actions?

You may only archive, and only when all parties in a discussion agree that the discussion is over, so do not undo or attempt to wipeout active discussions. I will report you, I have reported many of your kind successfully before and have no problem following the same routes again. ˄˅ --94.193.135.142 (talk) 11:10, 21 January 2010 (UTC)


 * If you think my raised discussion is of a "soap talk" nature, please provide details as I beleive it is very concise, raises a valid issue concerning BBC and I can put forth countless daily newspapers in Iran not only raising the issue, but also citing journals and research done in Iran of academic levels. I'm Jewish myself and we are very close with Bahai's, however, some thing as part of a plan needs to be recorded accurately, and this is one. The article needs mentioning of Iran's official, journalistic, and academic view. #


 * You can choose to help me with this issue and include a brief 2/3 sentence mention in the article, I may budge on the picture, or we can argue and spend a long time verbally fighting, when in the end, Wikipedia warrants the mention of the afore mentioned criticisms. You have to understand, soap talk or trolling is "arguing" or spreading rumours, the Bahai domination criticism made was indirectly official of the Iranian government, and a significant number of people in Iran including academics have written and talked about the issue. Now the Nazi way forward would be to not include them, the right way would be to voice their view, especially when there are tons of sources. Even reuters picked up on the claim. Now if its false or not is another story, exactly just like BBC claiming the signal jamming to originate from Iran, its just someones, some organisations or some countries and governments view which needs inclusion for encyclopedic reasons. We ought to mention the criticisms made agains the BBC, proving their validity is not our job unless a scientific source has independently validated the claim. --94.193.135.142 (talk) 02:10, 22 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Here's an example of you using the talk page as a soap box: "For anyone wanting to do a bit of self research, you can research the names of the administrative, editing and presenting team on BBC Persian and realize the majority are self-declared Bahai's. Off wikipedia, I am also reporting via direct.gov.uk the BBC for discriminative employment practices, and will also request the governments view on this matter." You were using the talk page to promote information, not to talk about article content. You've already been blocked from editing once and if you continue adding your conspiracy theory to the page without verifiable and reliable references, it will continue to be removed and you will be blocked again. So far you have not provided any such references. Have a good day. Cuñado  ☼ -  Talk  07:54, 22 January 2010 (UTC)


 * So because of two senteces, you suggest all the other raised points should be discarded? This is not a conspiracy theory, its Iran's theory. The definitions for a conspiracy theory is wide, America's accusation of Iranian Nuclear Weapons programme is equally a conspiracy theory, but see's no discrimination in its additions to Wikipedia. Remember Wikipedia does not agree to double standards. Also remember, Wikipedia does allow conspiracy theories to be added provided they are added in context.


 * Yes, I was blocked for reverting (3RR) what I beleive was non-sense and inaccurate editing and sourcing by Rapido who engaged in a edit war. How is that relevant to our dispute? You are making an invalid analogy.


 * And Promoting Informaiton? Isn't providing sources, also providing information? Isn't raising an issue, providing information? What is your definition of "providing information", since I provide information all day long talking to my friends, in meetings, at work, at home. The mouth provides information. I think your soap box claim is disputable, and could easily umbrella many other valid discussions and is a good excuse to use to garbage something you do not like. Its the type of information provided that is important here, and I do agree, the personal actions I mentioned to were personal though in action relevant for I am planning to use BBC's official replies as sources, therefore letting people know here, to not be surprised in the future of such moves.--94.193.135.142 (talk) 17:31, 22 January 2010 (UTC)


 * If you do not want to have an input on the issue, thats fine, I will push for the inclusion of the criticism made by Iran and Iranian journalists, and will detail the progress and proposed addition her before editing once the protection is removed. --94.193.135.142 (talk) 18:04, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You need third party sources (reliable) for what you wish to add. Part of what you are describing yourself as doing counts original research (see WP:OR) (ie the Bahia bias at BBC Persia) and probably won't be suitable for inclusion in this encyclopedia. As you are interested in the Iranian goverment's side of the argument I recommend you look at official Iranian news sources for verification.Shortfatlad (talk) 16:05, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Controversies
The controversies section needs a better and more descriptive title - on that relates to the content. (who can edit this? - not me)Shortfatlad (talk) 16:00, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Content dispute
To avoid any accusations of weasel words, puffery or other misleading or exaggerated use of grammar I propose changing:

"...other BBC services, and those of other broadcasters were experiencing interference due to a jamming signal, confirmed to originate from within Iran"

to

"...other BBC services, and those of other broadcasters using the Hotbird satellite were experiencing interference due to a jamming signal originating from within Iran"

and or  give examples of other broadcasters affected - the jamming seems to have affected all or many on the hotbird satellite.

If there is any counterclaim or refutation this should be in thenext sentence, and of course - referenced.Shortfatlad (talk) 16:48, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The only thing I would mention is that Hot Bird is already mentioned earlier in the sentence, so it needn't be repeated later. Rapido (talk) 20:49, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

"For External Consumption"?
I know this means it's made in the UK for viewing oversees, but I'm just wondering if it could be re-phrased? Or is that the term used by the BBC? Bob talk 16:42, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on BBC Persian Television. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20091123144420/http://www.hollywoodreporter.com:80/hr/content_display/world/news/e3ied5661580e6e68a1de0af3144e35832b to http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/content_display/world/news/e3ied5661580e6e68a1de0af3144e35832b

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

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 09:25, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on BBC Persian Television. 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/20101203071450/http://www.aib.org.uk/newsContent.asp?node_id=8%2C95&content_id=2047 to http://www.aib.org.uk/newsContent.asp?node_id=8%2C95&content_id=2047

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 03:22, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

BBC Persian Service is much older than BBC Persian TV
Dear friends, when we type "BBC Persian Service" on Wiki, we will be redirected to BBC Persian TV page and the "history" section of the page only covers the history of BBC Persian TV, not the whole service. The history of BBC Persian Service is much older than the TV. Therefore I believe "BBC Persian TV" page needs to be rename to "BBC Persian Service" and then in different sections we present the information about Persian Service's website, TV and radio. Now this page has created some confusion about the history of the Persian Service which goes back to more than half a century ago, not 2009 (when the TV was launched). Please check out this SOAS link too. Thanks. --Malekfarugh (talk) 18:13, 27 October 2017 (UTC)