Talk:BBC controversies

I think there are things missing from the article
What about:

1) The Sophie Duker "kill all whities" remark? 2) The clear and demonstrated bias of the BBC towards "Remain" during the Brexit process? 3) The support for BLM in "The Vicar of Dibley"?

These things are "controversial" enough to motivate me to comment here, and I'm sure I'm not alone in this view. I think they should be considered for inclusion in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.14.41.37 (talk) 11:58, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Then try adding them - with references to reliable sources - and see what happens, or maybe doesn't happen and it just stays up? Romomusicfan (talk) 22:44, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. If you can post here than you can edit the article. DistasteForUsernames (talk) 00:55, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

2021:Coverage of antisemitic incident in Oxford St
There has been a discussion on my Talkpage about whether the people on the bus should be described as ‘victims’ and whether the title of the subsection should be changed to show that the incident is allegedly antisemitic, bearing in mind that there has not been any report of any convictions for a hate crime. I think this discussion would be better pursued here. I await comments. Sweet6970 (talk) 11:25, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Since no indiciduals have been publicly identified as suspects, none are named in the article, therefore there is no BLP issue. Neither Sweet6970 nor any one else has come up with any actual counterarguuments to the incident being antisemitc and I would suggest it is WP:SKYBLUE that it is indeed antisemitic - unless, like I said on Sweet6970's talkpage, anyone wants to put the case that one of the assailants was only pointing his arm in the air like that because he was waving to a friend.Romomusicfan (talk) 21:45, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
 * We should not be ‘putting the case’ regarding this incident, but reporting what the sources say. No-one has so far been convicted of a hate crime. Therefore, we should refer to an ‘alleged’ antisemitic incident, and in order to be neutral, we should avoid referring to the people on the bus as ‘victims’. Sweet6970 (talk) 12:48, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Where in Wikipedia's policies does it say that we should do any such thing, especially when no suspects have been publicly identified?
 * The antisemitic character of the perpetrators' behaviour (making Nazi salutes at a group of obviously Orthodox Jewish minors) is beyond reasonable dispute. The only issue is the said perpetrators' identities.
 * Anyone, on any side of the debate, please flag up Wikipedia's written policies on this kind of thing.Romomusicfan (talk) 18:00, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
 * User: in the Teahouse has suggested that we should go with what the reliable sources say. The Jewish Chronicle and the Daily Telegraph (both listed as green:Reliable on WP:RSPSOURCES are both unambiguous in labelling the incident as "antisemitic" and the bus passengers as "victims".  The BBC does use alleged in the same way Sweet6970 - but in the same controversial article which contains the suggestion, refuted by the police, that passengers shouted anti-muslim slurs - the very article which, through the BBC's refusal to retract the said statement, has led to this issue's inclusion in this article.
 * I would suggest there is therfore a 2-1 majority consensus among Reliable Sources that this incident were undisputedly anitsemitic in character and that the passengers consitituted victims. Even if we overlook that the one minority voter is an article which still contains allegations which the police have long since thrown out, and continue to treat it with equal weight to the other two sources. Romomusicfan (talk) 19:43, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The only thing I'd add is that when, in the TeaHouse, I said that we should go with what the Guardian, Times and BBC say, I was wrong to include the BBC in this particular instance. Since the article is about controversial BBC reporting, in this instance the BBC is directly involved, and at loggerheads with the normal reliable sources (otherwise the story wouldn't be in this article at all). A NeoNazi would probably also condemn the Jewish Chronicle as involved, but even if we stretch our ethics far enough to accept this, there are plenty of other sources out there. I think this is the same incident, in the Metro: . If so, note that the Metro is also prepared to use the words anti-semitic (albeit in quotation marks), and also that the police urge anyone with information to contact them at a Hate-crime unit address. This is a clear indication that the incident is being treated as a hate-crime. I think it's completely spurious to argue that it isn't a hate crime until someone has been convicted of a hate crime. In many situations, for instance the appearance of anonymous graffiti in the dead of night with no CCTV, there is no hope whatsoever of a conviction, or even anyone getting charged, but nevertheless a hate crime very obviously took place. Elemimele (talk) 20:59, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your input. I originally included the disputed BBC story as a primary source relating to what claims the BBC made. It is also worth mentioning that any questioning in their article of the victim status of the bus passengers is done in the context of the allegation of anti-Muslim slurs, an allegation rejected by the Police.  As of present the text remains unaltered and the BBC are sticking to their guns, possibly hoping that it will all blow over, but it will be interesting to see if, in the event they concede on this issue, they change the status of the passengers to undisputed victims.Romomusicfan (talk) 23:24, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Please refer to Wikipedia reliable sources
 * 1) It is Wikipedia which says There is consensus that The Jewish Chronicle is generally reliable for news, particularly in its pre-2010 reporting. There is no consensus on whether The Jewish Chronicle is reliable for topics related to the British Left, Muslims, Islam, and Palestine/Palestinians; there is also a rough consensus it is biased in these topics. Where used, in-text attribution is recommended for its coverage of these topics [my emphasis] Your comment could be interpreted to suggest that those editors who contributed to this consensus, and how follow it, are Neo-Nazi. I invite you to clarify your comment.
 * 2) You have referred to the Metro as an additional source. But this is considered unreliable, and is compared to the Daily Mail, which is deprecated as a source. The reliability of Metro has been compared to that of the Daily Mail and other British tabloids. Articles published in the print newspaper (accessible via metro.news domain) are considered more reliable than articles published only on the metro.co.uk website.
 * Sweet6970 (talk) 10:47, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
 * a) The policy in question is the general policy WP:NPOV.
 * b) You have added to the article and in one case making a Nazi salute. I don’t see this in any of the sources – though I don’t have access to the Telegraph article. Please explain which source supports your edit.
 * Sweet6970 (talk) 10:49, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Sweet6970 (talk) 10:49, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

1) Regarding Nazi salutes - "Shocking video footage of a group of men giving Nazi salutes and spitting at Jewish teenagers as the celebrated the first night of Chanukah stunned the Jewish community and prompted a police hunt for the perpetrators." 2) Metro is not one of the cited sources in the article. Elemimele merely remarked as an aside that (he/she/they/etc) had seen Metro's own coverage of the incident. Metro's relevance to this debate stops right there. 3) I can't see anything in NPOV that demands putting in "alleged" in front of unsolved crimes. If anything, giving voice to the fringe idea that the pepretrators'  behaviour was not blatantly antisemitic in character would be an example of giving undue weight. 4) All three sources used in the section - the JC, the Telegraph and the Beeb - are listed as Green: Reliable under Perennial Sources (although in the case of this specific BBC item is tainted inasmuch as it continues to contain claims thrown out by no less an authority than the Metropolitan Police - it is nonetheless useful as a primary source of the content of the said claims.) 5) No claim is made in any source that the perpetrators were Muslims, Palestinians or left-wingers or frankly anything else (other than antisemitic), therefore the impeachment on the JC is irrelevant in this case. It remains listed as a Green Reliable source.Romomusicfan (talk) 11:23, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
 * to Romomusicfan – Thank you for pointing me to the ‘Nazi salute’ reference. I’m sorry, I thought I had checked all the sources for the article, and couldn’t find it. I abandon my objection to the wording. Sweet6970 (talk) 11:41, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. Since it's the BBC article that specifies one person giving the salute, I shall put it some more precise pointing to references around that sentence.Romomusicfan (talk) 14:03, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ - The existing wording is the best accurate description of what can be seen on images of the incident (three perpetrators, one of whom performs the salute) but more precise deployment of source tags was needed to perfectly verify this. Have now sorted this - hopefully to the satisfaction of everybody.Romomusicfan (talk) 14:14, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I think this is the same incident from the evening standard, on which we have no particular opinion of reliability. It describes the incident as anti-semitic. This is a local news source, I have no idea how reliable:  which adds the word 'appalling'. This  is the Times on the subject, I think still the same incident? Or ITV:, or the Independent . Although I am not Jewish and have no particular feelings in that direction, I really find that ethically I cannot be associated with a project that uses a blanket of pretended neutrality to normalise hate crime, and this discussion has made me wonder whether Wikipedia is the right place for me, personally. I apologise for the comment that could reflect badly on those who believe the Jewish Chronical to be biased. Elemimele (talk) 14:40, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Well the word "alleged" still hasn't become part of the article in the end, so things worked out healthily enough. Unless there are any further developments with either the police investigation or the BBC's stance, I think the section is best left as it is indefinitely.  It has more than enough reliable sources already. As for normalisation, I think there is far worse such normalisation in the MSM than there is in Wikipedia which in any case has the mechanisms for one to challenge such things when one comes across them. All one can really do in assume good faith and present ones improvements to Wikipedia in the same spirit of good faith.Romomusicfan (talk) 22:54, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Flat Earth comment
The paragraph added to the article does not really explain what the controversy is, and I'm not sure how a collection of Guardian newspaper letters to the editor can be a valid source. AnonMoos (talk) 05:18, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Early years 1926 Strike - who is "Reith"?
"Reith". This person - in surname only - is referenced several times but we are not told who they are. DistasteForUsernames (talk) 00:52, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Good point! I have added a lilnk for John Reith, 1st Baron Reith. Sweet6970 (talk) 13:07, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Newspaper Reports Called Rubbish!
Now that The Sun's lame defence of its' allegations are starting to look more than a little dodgy, should not the Wikipedia section in question be adjusted to better reflect such information? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.27.2.62 (talk) 19:55, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
 * We do mention the "no truth" claim, so you're going to have to be specific about what you want changing. This is a fast changing story and I think it's fair to say that no one really knows what's going on, so at this time it does remain a controversy with two sides to it, and it will probably be updated when something new comes out. -- zzuuzz (talk) 20:12, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Okay, fair enough. Then again, perhaps the truth will come out and this article will have someone interesting to record about The Sun? Perhaps time will tell. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.166.218 (talk) 18:47, 12 July 2023 (UTC)


 * The initial report in The Sun here said "The well-known presenter is accused of giving the teen more than £35,000 since they were 17 in return for sordid images." This implied that the images were obtained while the person was 17. This turned out to be a lie. 86.187.173.18 (talk) 12:05, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Huw Edwards
Two complainants are mentioned, but there were (at least) four. Also on 11 July a 23-year-old accused Edwards of breaking COVID lockdown rules in February 2021. And a fourth, now aged 22 was reported as having complained of "creepy messages" while still at school: SkyNews source. The Sky News report also says that Edwards was facing further allegations of "inappropriate behaviour" towards colleagues. But perhaps these do not warrant any mention in this summary. 86.187.173.18 (talk) 12:12, 13 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Was it a boy or a girl? This source asks the question but it looks a bit tabloidy and may not be reliable. All other news sources seem very reluctant to even speculate. Speaking purely theoretically, if the gender of the teenager was known, would it be acceptable to mention this? Or is it contrary to the privacy laws? I wanted to ask this question at Talk:Huw Edwards but that page is locked. 86.187.227.123 (talk) 11:41, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
 * See Betteridge's law of headlines. I don't believe this information has been made public. Theoretically, if the gender was known and reliably sourced, I don't see why it couldn't be mentioned. -- zzuuzz (talk) 11:53, 20 July 2023 (UTC)