Talk:BBC controversies/Archive 1

mmt
"...critical BBC television programme in the Panorama series called Maggie's Militant Tendency. It was about extreme right-wing MP's who were members of Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher's ruling Conservative Party. They were exposed as being members of fascist organisations. " -- If memory serves, didn't some or all of these MP's bring libel actions against the BBC, and win? Shouldn't this article say so? -- Arwel 00:50, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree with you. I originally created this page and by removing the critical stuff from the main BBC page to keep it as streamlined as possible, since there are specific articles about specific BBC topics. The section that this text was cut and pasted to was about the Secret Society series of which both the television and radio programs were a part. This text is not directly related to those programs.
 * I did quite a bit of checking to make sure that the facts I was posting were documented facts and before this text goes in it needs more than a "as memory serves me" type of reference. What was the date of this program? Who was named? What were they accused of and what was the final result? Finally, cite some source other than fuzzy memory. Here is the text in question which deserves its own sub-heading if true:

Panorama controversy
"Concurrent with these events was a critical BBC television programme in the Panorama serues called Maggie's Militant Tendency. It was about extreme right-wing MP's who were members of Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher's ruling Conservative Party. They were exposed as being members of fascist organisations." Let's have some facts so that this text can stand on its own and be reinserted under its own sub-heading. MPLX/MH 01:15, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

“Pro-Israel” bias?

 * In addition, it is often accused of being pro-Israel in its coverage and ignoring the suffering of the Palestinians. A recent survey by the BBC itself revealed extreme ignorance among its watchers of the history of the conflict, with some believing the Palestinians to be occupying Israeli lands, or even that the Palestinians are refugees from Afghanistan!


 * I beg to disagree. I've been a BBC fan (if you may call it that) for several years now, and almost never have I seen it being biased towards the Israeli position; quite the contrary in fact. Several media watchdogs (including http://www.honestreporting.com/) have even criticized the BBC for its clear pro-Arab stance on issues concerning, say, Israel and Palestine. When it comes to Israel, the BBC just can't be trusted—not at all. To them, Israel is almost always the wrong one and almost never the Palestinians.


 * What is this dialog between ghost writers? It took a moment for me to figure that these are two different comments by two different people.
 * OK, but you too appear to have ignored to sign your comment.Civilizededucation (talk) 15:41, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Why the NPOV tag?
What exactly is it that is disputed? Slapping a tag on an article without explaining WHY it has been slapped on it does not clean something up but makes things worse. MPLX/MH 17:44, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * If you believe that the tag SHOULD be placed on this article - then please explain WHY you believe that it should be on the ENTIRE article. The reason why this article was created was to clean up the main BBC article which is now an overview of the BBC. There are articles on just about every aspect of the BBC linking back to the main overview page. The entire idea behind this page is show where CONTROVERSY exists with regards to the BBC. Controversy can mean anything at all - it is not in and of itself POV, because with controversy it can report both sides of a dispute while the dispute itself may be controversial. The only prerequisite in Wikipedia terms is that the dispute is not original to Wikipedia but reported elsewhere so that its source of origination can be documented on Wikipedia. I will add a version of this text as a lead-in explanation to the article. MPLX/MH 17:56, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Duplicated text or text without sources
The following text had been included under World Opinion but it is more of a personal opinion by the writer that world opinion. It also duplicates existing text and it lacks any sources of reference. MPLX/MH 20:03, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Others however, perceive the BBC to be biased towards the official UK position, especially during the invasion of Iraq. Several statistics have shown the BBC to be the most likely of British media to accept the official UK statements as facts, while devoting the least time to anti-war opinions, and virtually ignoring Iraqi civilian casualties caused by the invasion.

In addition, it is often accused of being pro-Israel in its coverage and ignoring the suffering of the Palestinians. A recent survey by the BBC itself revealed extreme ignorance among its watchers of the history of the conflict, with some believing the Palestinians to be occupying Israeli lands, or even that the Palestinians are refugees from Afghanistan!


 * Hi there. Apologies if I get the formatting wrong for this edit;

but I think I can provide a source for the claim that the BBC was the most pro-war of surveyed broadcasters: it was the "Cardiff study": Cardiff University's School of Journalism's research looking at television news channels. I can't find the report online. I can find a Guardian report of it: Guardian report of 2003-07-04 I keep meaning to dig this report out or buy a copy, because it gets referred to a lot. telsa 19:40 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Since the original text above lacks a source, perhaps you would like to rewrite it with your source cited and then insert it in the article? MPLX/MH 20:11, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Persian bias section
The Persian bias section is extremely POV, probably just a viewpoint of one editor, added to that effect. +Hexagon1 (talk) 11:47, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Sassanjan's text was not POV
I checked Sassanjan's text, it was not POV, I guess one of nationalists changed Sasjan's text. I changed it, but I don't remove POV mark to allow others to express their ideas, IF they have info about these issues. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Maxee (talk • contribs).

Sassan text is OK
It's true. I have followed BBC's programs and I noted that Sassan is right. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.207.197.66 (talk • contribs).

The new text is still rather biased. What's the BBC's stance on that? Who believes the BBC is biased? If it's just Sasjan then that is original research. I've removed the entire thing for now, we should discuss how it should be presented, if it is to be presented at all. +Hexagon1 (talk) 06:22, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Hallo Hexagon, wie geht's? ... Are you acid? or something like mineral materials? What's your problem with my text? is it contains any lie or POV? we have no problem with BBC, in fact BBC have problems with us ... Arabs are very richer than Iranians.Sasanjan 16:11, 4 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Just because it uses non-standard names does not indicate any bias, and 'the gulf' is just a shortened version of the Persian Gulf. About 'Farsi', it may be a mistake on their part. Have you notified them regarding this? And if anything, wouldn't using the local term be local bias? And the entire paragraph is original research. If we get this confirmed from reputable sources, then we may include it. +Hexagon1 (talk) [[Image:Flag of Australia.svg|30px]] 07:24, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

When an Iranian reporter or weblogger (like Hussein Derakhshan) uses Persian Gulf or Persian in his\her articles, the editor (of BBC or any western media) replaces The Gulf and Farsi instead of them, when we call them on the phone, they only say "excuse me,Good-bye beeeeep" last year National Geography named "Arabian Gulf" our Persian Gulf and then Iranians around the world sent them 5000 of emails to correct their mistake, after it Arabs misused Iran's Nuclear crisis and wanted US state dep. to warn media to use the gulf instead Persian Gulf and uses Farsi instead of Persian, and BBC Have your say, always publishs religious Iranians' comment, when reformist univ. students write comments about reform and anything like that BBC ignores their comments. and about Khouzestan where only nearby 2 millions of 6 millon of its people are from Arab descents, BBC always uses Arabic-speaking province and for its cities Arabic-speaking city ... in fact britis are very angry about Mossadeq who made oil indus. national. and and and ... my text is true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sasanjan (talk • contribs)


 * First of all, please sign your posts. Four tildes do it ( ~ ). Now, about the Arabian/Persian Gulf? You have got to understand that most people don't care which they use, as long at it describes the place. Saying Arabian gulf is technically incorrect, but it accurately refers the the gulf. And understand that the BBC can't post anything too controversial, or Iran will be on their backs. I don't know about Khouzestan, so I can't comment on that. But even if your text is true, which is controversial at best, you can NOT post it under the No original research clause of Wikipedia rules. Also please note I am not explicity defying you, just discussing what would be best for the article. +Hexagon1 (talk) [[Image:Flag of Australia.svg|30px]] 23:52, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Revert Accusation of Pro-war Bias
IMHO this article should be kept as a reference of *real* controversies that the BBC has been involved in such as the Hutton Affair, sackings of DGs, etc. It shouldn't start degenerating (again) into a list of random isloted reports that some people have adopted as hobby-horses as examples of bias on a particular subject.

IMHO if such opinions of BBC News belong anywhere they belong in the BBC_News section. However, I feel that this already covers quite adquately the fact that some people accused the BBC of being anti-war, while some (at the same time) accuse it of being pro-war. Pit-yacker 00:55, 30 June 2006 (UTC)


 * EDIT: Looking back through the dscussion. This "addition" appears to be a carbon copy of a previous part that was removed. Pit-yacker 00:57, 30 June 2006 (UTC)


 * The BBCs reporting of the Iraq war was controversial. There were mass protests against the BBC. Also the deleted section gives the article balance. I had not seen any removed part.


 * The report I linked to was not some "random isloted reports that some people have adopted as hobby-horses" It was an objective academic report on media during the Iraq war. User:The Proffesor
 * Still this is an opinion of BBC news (that you have now carbon copied to two articles) as opposed to a major controversy such as the other ones listed in the article that the BBC has been involved in. There are a number of such reports down the years that have come from numerous sources that say the BBC is biased on issue X.


 * While IMHO it is debateable whether it should have mention in the BBC News article, IMHO it should be removed from this article, as all things being fair all of these should be included in this article (what counts as an accurate source? should anti-Isreal reporting measured by pro-Isreali organisations also be included? against evidence that the BBC is also anti-Palestianian). At which point the article will again become a little project of personal axe grindings.  IMHO there is a need to stop (and strongly police) this as it detracts from the value of the encyclopedia as a whole when every single article about the BBC contains why the BBC is biased articles.
 * As far as "balance" is concerned, IMHO, the article now reads that the BBC was found to be biased against and at the same time biased for the Iraq war. Which is impossible Pit-yacker 21:18, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

The War Game
Hi.

Am most suprised that in terms of BBC controversies, Peter Watkins film The War Game is not mentioned. ShakespeareFan00 23:52, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Divide and Add
In regards to the previous posts, I have a suggestion. First, we divide the sections up. One section would cover Radio-related controversies, one music-related controversies, one news-related controversies, one drama-related controversies (including the aforementioned "The War Game", to say nothing of controversies involving "Doctor Who"'s cancellation.) Any thoughts on these ideas?Orville Eastland 02:58, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Recent
Suspension of all competitions after a enquiry into faked phone-ins. T saston 16:30, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Notable omissions
Should the notorious recent incidents of Barbara Plett's tears, and the airing of the Jerry Springer Opera -- which firmly established in the minds of many that the BBC has a clear policy of singling Christianity out for defamation which it would not permit in the case of any other religion -- be added here or at Criticism of the BBC? AnonMoos 09:20, 22 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Ended up adding them to the other article... AnonMoos 16:39, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm surprised to see no mention of the the miners strike incident, when the BBC mixed up footage to push the governments agenda, It was a huge scandal at the time —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.92.207.111 (talk) 11:33, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Merge
the the criticisms of the BBC article should be merged it a poor heavily bias article written by people with a clear POV to push. The BBC is the tv station with a controversies and criticism so thematically it make more sense to keep the controversies article and loses the criticism particularly since they overlap extensively. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.26.101.230 (talk) 22:57, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, tagged for merging.--Ipatrol (talk) 00:31, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I have looked at the 'Criticism of the BBC' article, and agree that this should be merged the 'Controveriies' article. Both are somewhat of a mish-mash, though I think the 'Criticisms' one is rather worse.  It will be quite an exercise to do this!


 * The 'Criticisms' article is sorted by topic, whereas the 'Controversy' article lists them in temporal order. Would need to decide whether to do one or other, or both - perhaps have main topics in alphabeticla order, referencing to specific topics in time order.  (talk) 11:11, 27 January 2009 (UTC)epzcaw

See this discussion on the other talk page from a while back - a merge seems fairly well supported. Talk Islander 11:47, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Merge here, as the more neutral title for the issues. --Nate1481 10:36, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Tagged & linked both here. --Nate1481 10:51, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong support for the merge, that other article is clearly bias and poorly written. Almost everything on there is probably mentioned on this article already so a simple redirect is needed. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:45, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree it needs merging, and that this is the better of the two, although "Criticism of the BBC" would be my preferred title. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.13.161.114 (talk) 06:55, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge It makes sense to combine these two into one article.Historicist (talk) 19:40, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I concur, to go with the large set of "Criticism of.." pages.Historicist (talk) 15:47, 22 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Enough material from almost ninety years for two articles. The 'contoversies' page should concern incidents, the 'criticism' page issues/opinions. Sub-sections on the latter are likely to be spread over a longer period making certain an erratic chronology on a single page. A.P. Cross (talk) 12:47, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose. For the same reasons as stated above.Civilizededucation (talk) 15:50, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

BBC web-site references
There is a major problem with using references to the BBC web-site - they keep changing. Many of ther references in this article no longer contain the information for which they were the original source. Is there a Wikpedia policy - or is there some way round this that I have missed. Of course, all web references have an inherent transience, but BBC articles appear to get updated frequently in the days after they first appear.Epzcaw (talk) 11:12, 27 January 2009 (UTC)epzcaw

Too many short paragraphs
The Gaza appeal section needs to be restructured with material grouped by theme rather than date. The MOS has guidelines about avoiding short paras. For an encyclopaedia, we don't need everything in chronoogical order in this way and I don't think all the dates are necessary either.--Peter cohen (talk) 10:25, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

The article had slipped back into a format with short paragraphs and a chronological order that will not help future readersw understand the basic issues. I have reconstructed it with the same material.--Peter cohen (talk) 11:34, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Full protected on the Wrong Version for edit warring
Hi, this is an edit war, not a case where semi-protection is warranted. As such, I've put a 3 day hold on the article. Please sort it out on the talk page, or else the next Full Protection could be longer still. Edit warring is not an acceptable way to hash things out--talk it out, please. rootology ( C )( T ) 02:28, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Non-controversies?
It seems to me that the issue of commercial competition with the BBC, whether from European stations, offshore radio or ITV, does not constitute a controversy in the generally accepted sense. Furthermore, the statement that "In the 1970s pirate radio reappeared on a well financed offshore station only to be jammed by the British Government using high-powered military transmitters with the help of the BBC" is not proven (the station in question being Radio North Sea International, and the jamming transmitters being operated entirely on behalf of the government, although it seems one of the transmitters used had been obtained from the BBC World Service, and had originally been earmarked for use by Radio Caroline in the 1960s: see here, about 60% down the page). Lee M (talk) 22:53, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. 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. 

No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:00, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

BBC controversies → List of controversies involving the BBC — Just seems a better and more neutral title for this article. 84.92.117.93 (talk) 18:16, 13 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose. The current title seems accurate and clear. The proposed title seems vague as it might include events that only indirectly involve the BBC. Cjc13 (talk) 12:01, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose Why overcomplicate the title? Article titles should be clear and concise, and the old one already is. --WikiDonn (talk) 06:53, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Does the current title violate WP:LISTNAME? In my opinion, the title I'm proposing is clear, accurate and grammatical, whereas the rather ambiguous noun adject in "BBC controversies" is unclear. What is a "BBC controversy" anyway? Surely you mean a controversy involving the BBC. 84.92.117.93 (talk) 21:09, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * That applies to stand alone lists. Looking at the article, it is not, so adding "list of" implies that it is a stand alone list. So now there is even less of a reason to rename the page, because it would be inaccurate. --WikiDonn (talk) 04:00, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I follow. Currently, this article as it stands is just a list of controversies. 84.92.117.93 (talk) 22:41, 16 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose for the same reasons as stated above --km5 (talk) 21:26, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. 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.

Edits by 86.25.74.205
I have reverted these because: Pit-yacker (talk) 18:37, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) The Duncan Campbell comments really need sourcing.  The use of "extreme left wing" also probably invokes WP:BLP issues.
 * 2) Not sure what the comments about lack of controversy for the others is meant to add to the article.  Controversy (for example protests outside Television Centre) by its nature is generated amongst public opinion which disagreed with the BBC's decision to give air time to the BNP.  If it wasn't for the editor's insistence on adding the qualifiers of "far left" and "extreme left" to the people and organisations concerned, I might have thought he was trying to suggest the BBC was wrong to allow the BNP on Question Time and not follow what public opinion decided were acceptable guests.

Broadcast ban
Just wondering how relevant this issue is to this article? The broadcast ban, as I remember, applied to all broadcasters and all broadcasters sought to circumvent it in the same way.

In the first instance I have removed the last edit relating to bans implemented by the IBA and lifting (or otherwise) by its successor organisations (ITC and RA) as the their remit related solely to commercial broadcasters.

I note there doesn't seem to be an article on the Broadcast ban itself. Surely shouldn't there be one? The ban itself to my mind is one of the most notable aspects of news reporting in the 1980s and early 1990s. Pit-yacker (talk) 14:33, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Lede edit
This sentence is informal and should be removed: "The reporting of the controversy does not imply either agreement or disagreement with any aspect of the controversy itself, merely that the controversy has taken place and that it has been widely reported and previously documented." Sw mmr1928  talk  04:35, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Inadequacy of "2009: Gaza DEC Appeal" section
It's fairly obvious that the BBC leadership recognized that they already had very severe credibility problems with a large segment of the Israeli public (which to some degree negatively affected the BBC's ability to report from Israel), and therefore made a calculated decision not to broadcast -- since broadcasting it would have convinced many Israelis that the BBC were plain and simple Hamas shills and propagandists. However, there isn't really anything about this in the article, and it's a little odd that Criticism of the BBC -- which has a shorter discussion of the incident -- explains this more clearly. AnonMoos (talk) 14:16, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Other than my personal mantra is the duplication is always a bad thing (because it leads to inconsistencies, making it hard to work out what is correct) and should be avoided. I really have to ask if you have a reliable source for any of your assertions. Whilst, it may be that you have phrased your edit in unfortunately "loose terms", if their arent any sources it absolutely stinks of being a personal opinion. For what its worth, what you state has little basis in the coverage of the incident I saw here in the UK. Without extremely strong sources (not a bit of synthesis cobbled together from leaders in various outlets that have an interest in proving bias one way or the other), there is a fair chance it could also be libelous. Pit-yacker (talk) 21:52, 10 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Obviously, the exact phrasing of my comments above is based on my personal overall assessment of the situation, and the BBC is unlikely to come right out and say "Due to our own past actions, we have a tremendous credibility gap in Israel, and we have made a strategic decision to avoid exacerbating this." However, the Caroline Thomson quote comes to much the same thing in the end.  I remember reading in 2005 or 2006 a BBC reporter's account of stopping random Israelis on the street to ask them questions -- and as soon as he identified himself as a BBC reporter, then almost every single individual wanted to talk with him about bias in BBC coverage of the middle east, rather than answer his questions...  In any case, regardless of our personal opinions, it's still somewhat unsatisfactory that the account of the incident here is twice as long as in "Criticism of the BBC", but there's less explanation here of why the BBC made the decision that it did.  I really don't know what libel law(??) has to do with anything, but I'm pretty sure that fear of being "libelous"[sic] is not any legitimate block to improving the article... AnonMoos (talk) 06:21, 11 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Whilst I agree this article should state why this happened, we MUST stick to a verifiable version of the story. I have not even seen any reliable source that the DEC move had anything to do with placating opinion in Israel because of the BBC's reputation there.
 * Personally, I'm not sure at all about the assertion that the BBC’s reputation had made it difficult to operate in Israel. Let’s remember that this is an organisation that manages to operate in some of the most dangerous locations in the world as well as a number of countries (e.g. Iran) where all BBC employees are banned.
 * As for libel, it isn’t a block to improving the article as long as we stick to verifiable facts. Libel is the reason we have things like WP:BLP. The on-going attempts to reform English libel law speak for themselves. It is notoriously easy to prove. So much so that I believe it has led to “legal tourism” of overseas nationals using the English courts for actions against websites based overseas. I believe, it has also led to a number of websites choosing to restrict access to users in the UK.
 * With regards to the particular assertions you make, we would need to be very careful. Saying that the decision not to broadcast was a calculated decision to prop up an already shot opinion in Israel as opposed to the official position of not wanting to appear (I interpret this as been largely within the UK – especially as this was to be broadcast on domestic channels) to take sides and compromise the legal obligation to impartiality that all domestic broadcasters in the UK are held to, is actually quite a big leap.
 * I am yet to see anyone other than yourself suggest the former was the reason, as opposed to a badly handled attempt at the latter. The former may or may not be actionable, however, I certainly wouldn’t put my neck on the line to put it to the test and I don’t think we should be putting Wikipedia’s neck on the line either.Pit-yacker (talk) 08:17, 11 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry that the particular form of words I chose to use got up your nose; however, if you have to bend over backwards to avoid the slightest appearance of violating neutrality, it's generally because a sensitive situation already exists, so that the substantive difference seems to me to be rather slight. In any case, it's still the case that the article does not really offer an adequate explanation as to why the BBC made the decision that it did (and I really don't think that your particular personal interpretation of libel law offers the slightest obstacle to improving the article). AnonMoos (talk) 08:01, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Reverse chronological order + Saville section
What's the rationale behind the "reverse chronological order"? I must say it's pretty unorthodox, and I've never seen such a pattern in any other articles. For example, timelines of historical events and biographical information are consistently displayed "old-to-new", descending. Why should this page be an exception? I get the feeling that this arrangement is a recent alteration, perhaps with convenience as its intent (for access to the Saville article?). But I'm probably wrong. Either way, I cannot conceive of any possible justification to keep the article this way, so I think I'm going to be WP:BOLD and change it. I've yet to create a new account, but you can contact me via the talk page of my old account (no, I'm not banned! :P) - User:Psychonavigation.

In addition, the Saville section (which, as I speculate above, seems to be situated for attention purposes, LOOK AT ME!!) is basically an afterthought and, while intended to summarize, scarcely does so at all. Evidently it is very out-of-date (you know how it is these days, bloody globalisation... awful thing). Anyway, I lack the confidence in my writing skills to compose any kind of replacement, but I will re-order the sections (citing style and consistency). 101.170.85.77 (talk) 00:25, 2 November 2012 (UTC) (aka User:Psychonavigation)

Ok, I went ahead and made those changes. I think the article may be a little overstuffed... but as I said, I'm not especially confident in my writing abilities. However I did make some slight improvements to the Savile section, based purely on my knowledge of the BBC's direct participation in the investigation as an ORGANISATION. I believe the article looks a lot better now, but could still use some work. 101.170.85.77 (talk) 00:52, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Savile and Newsnight Entries
I have gone ahead and removed the falsely accused person's name from the article as that just helps promote the falsity, the cites remain in place for the viewer. I have also updated the facts of both cases including details of the Entwistle's 'salary' crisis and the pressure under Patten for authorising same. Twobells (talk) 15:21, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Your edits contained numerous errors. Boaden has not resigned.  The Conservative politician is not an "ex-Tory", or an "ex-MP" - he is a peer.  He has been named elsewhere, and the wording I've put in is based on that for which we are approaching consensus in other articles.  I've also replaced unreliable sources (such as www.davidicke.com ... !!!!!) with reliable ones, and improved the grammar, spelling and style.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:33, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, a Icke cite was used? Those 'ex-Tory' or 'ex-MP' were not my edits, sorry. I am removing the accused's name from all articles associated with the falsity, it does Wikipedia's reputation no good to be associated with such false accusations. Twobells (talk) 15:42, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Your view about removing his name is not necessarily shared by everyone. There has already been a discussion at WP:BLPN (which may need to be reopened), and there is a current discussion at his own article talk page, where there is a clear consensus that a section should be added to the article (but discussion continuing on the detailed wording).  I didn't check who was responsible for which edits, so I apologise - but it's always good practice to check other editors' contributions before adding your own.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:54, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Removed sections
In these edits I removed the sections "1940s: American Armed Forces controversy" and "1960s: Offshore radio controversy". Not only do both sections entirely lack citations, as they relate to the BBC, these subjects are really criticisms about programming policy, rather than proper controversies. Unlike much of the article no individuals, groups, other sections of the media or the government are identified as finding objections to the BBC on the grounds suggested.

As far offshore radio in the 1960s, the problems for the BBC in modernising and expanding the range of its music broadcasts were the Musicians' Union's insistence on needle time and the shortage of frequencies as a result of international agreements. These issues were outside its control. So where is the BBC controversy. Philip Cross (talk) 16:37, 19 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Many people at the time perceived that fusty BBC mandarins were refusing to give regular airplay to music that a lot of people wanted to listen to, a discrepancy which existed as early as the pre-War Radio Luxembourg days, and greatly increased in importance during the 1960s, until the introduction of commercial radio. Not sure what your definition of a "controversy" is, but it seems that for many years a significant number of people were annoyed by the fact that the BBC monopoly relegated to minor timeslots the music that they wanted to hear, and showed their dissatisfaction by choosing the available alternatives over BBC... AnonMoos (talk) 14:30, 4 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Sections which are entirely uncited, as were the two sections I removed last month, are liable to be considered original research. In the main, my definition of 'BBC controversies' refers to clashes between the government/opposition or (other) media and the corporation or scandals within it. So Yesterday's Men, the 1971 documentary is an example of the former while the Blue Peter cat naming scandal in September 2007 is an example of the latter.


 * The corporation's music policy might be better discussed in Criticism of the BBC. Many of the issues discussed in this article are really incidents which dominated the news for a while and then subsided, whereas many of the sections in 'Criticism' are more long term. Granted this distinction is rather vague, some of the sections in the other article might be best included here, but this problem is difficult to resolve.


 * Properly legal UK commercial radio did not exist until the 1970s. Having just removed the '1970: Jamming controversy' section, on much the same grounds as before, it is worth mentioning that stopping illegal practices, as in this case, is not really a controversy. If you check Hansard from the mid-1960s the action against the pirates had cross party support while in the literature on the subject, it tends to be the Wilson government which is targeted by the pirates' defenders - rather than the BBC. Philip Cross (talk) 17:14, 4 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Some things you say have merit, but the fact that Radio Luxembourg and "pirate" radio thrived for a time is an objective factual indicator that a number of people were dissatisfied with what the BBC was offering. I don't know that the controversy is over measures taken against illegal radio broadcasting as much as it is over BBC senior leadership deciding that they knew what the people wanted better than the people themselves knew what they wanted... AnonMoos (talk) 17:45, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Richard Bacon
I can understand why Richard Bacon is listed in the article, but in my opinion his cocaine use was far more a Richard Bacon controversy than a BBC controversy. There was no suggestion that the BBC tried to cover it up, and unlike the other incidents in the article it didn't seem to have any lasting impact on the organisation. It stands out as unusually trivial compared to e.g. the Hutton Enquiry, the Zircon affair etc. If anything, John Leslie belongs in that spot, but he's not listed in the article at all. -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 19:10, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

How can "Females in BBC Panel Shows" be a controversy?
Okay, the page "females in BBC shows" may not need exist, but it can only be a controversy if it goes against something, and this seems to be opening up a particular opportunity for females, or this is the idea. Slightnostalgia (talk) 20:44, 26 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Women were previously often absent from panel games, and the change in BBC policy still means that parity with men will not be achieved. It is still tokenistic as Deborah Orr says. More generally, this is still a live issue, and it has a longer history than is currently implied in this article. Frankly though, the "2007–2011: Accusations of ageism and sexism" section should be merged into the later "2007–2011: Accusations of ageism and sexism" passage.


 * It has also been an issue with the proportion of female castaways on Desert Island Discs and the male/female ratio of presenters on the Today programme on Radio 4. Decades ago, in the 1980s, there was the issue of the Newsnight 'wife.' The show had two presenters n this era; the secondary presenter, for several years, was invariably female. Incidentally, Victoria Wood was not the first person to raise the issue, as the same point was certainly made about Have I Got News for You long before 2009. I have no idea if the absence of female newsreaders before 1974 on both the BBC's radio and television networks was ever an issue, although I suspect it was. Philip Cross (talk) 22:33, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Scandals too serious to be called controversies?
A controversy is defined as "a heated discussion or a prolonged public discussion". Surely the Jimmy Saville scandal is more than a controversy, though it did lead to debate? Specifically, if you were a victim of his. Slightnostalgia (talk) 12:42, 30 December 2014 (UTC)


 * It is true that describing the abuse perpetuated by Jimmy Savile merely as a controversy is an understatement, but Wikipedia avoids using sensationalist language. The nature of what is now thought to have been criminal behaviour by Savile is not being concealed. Euphemisms, in any case, are explicitly forbidden from being included in the text of Wikipedia articles.


 * As there is already a Criticism of the BBC, deciding which incident or issue counts as a controversy or a criticism is already a problem. A BBC scandals page would make matters worse. Philip Cross (talk) 13:17, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Antipolonism at the BBC
There is too little material on the BBC's institutionalised discrimination against Poland and the Polish communities around the world in this article. What about the BBC incorrectly using the term "Polish concentration camps" on numerous occasions (the camps were German), BBC continues to use Giles Coren, e.g. Question Time, 60 Second Interview, despite his published polonophobic views (e.g. see his piece "Two waves of immigration, Poles apart" in The Times of London), and virtually no BBC News coverage of the 2010 floods in Poland. Refer to sources such as "Polish camps German victims" by Jan Niechwiadowicz for information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.4.63.73 (talk) 13:54, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Where are the reliable sources accusing the BBC of bias against Poland and the Polish? If it is a subject of significant discussion in the outside world, it can be considered for inclusion; if it is simply your opinion, it can't.  Please don't place the same message on different talk pages, and please sign your messages using four of these: ~   Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:16, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Only a Polish immigrant (and specifically a Polish immigrant) in England would accuse the BBC of being anti-Polish. The BBC has done nothing but brainwash the British public to let Polish immigrants walk all over them, hiding a stack of documents the height of Mount Everest that, in fact, thoroughly justify "Anti-Polish" sentiment from the people of the country that youre stealing from while complaining about your victims. And I have the right to say that,, because as a foreigner in England, you should have no rights of political expression what-so-ever. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.110.239.227 (talk) 01:13, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Top Gear in Argentina?
Is it worth adding a mention of the "Falklands" row which erupted after Top Gear's filming in Argentina? Grutness...wha?  11:27, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Real Housewives of ISIS anyone...?
anyone...? — Preceding unsigned comment added by CapnZapp (talk • contribs) 08:55, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on BBC controversies. 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/20081013035628/http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/legal/article2398870.ece to http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/legal/article2398870.ece
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110716083758/http://blogs.news.sky.com/skyinvestigates/Post%3Ac47823b3-60d6-44b1-86c4-e5e6debde3d6 to http://blogs.news.sky.com/skyinvestigates/Post%3Ac47823b3-60d6-44b1-86c4-e5e6debde3d6
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100308135922/http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/UK-News/Sir-Bob-Geldof-To-Report-BBC-To-Ofcom-Over-Ethiopia-Weapons-Claims/Article/201003115568290?f=rss to http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/UK-News/Sir-Bob-Geldof-To-Report-BBC-To-Ofcom-Over-Ethiopia-Weapons-Claims/Article/201003115568290?f=rss
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110206033926/http://mdn.mainichi.jp/mdnnews/news/20110204p2g00m0dm109000c.html to http://mdn.mainichi.jp/mdnnews/news/20110204p2g00m0dm109000c.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110925064310/http://www.thekennelclub.org.uk/item/3943/23/5/3 to http://www.thekennelclub.org.uk/item/3943/23/5/3
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110928011841/http://www.dogstrust.org.uk/mediacentre/newsreleases/pr11jordanshelleystatement.aspx to http://www.dogstrust.org.uk/mediacentre/newsreleases/pr11jordanshelleystatement.aspx
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121201153444/http://www.hindustantimes.com/sports-news/Football/Unfair-say-organisers/Article1-863192.aspx to http://www.hindustantimes.com/sports-news/Football/Unfair-say-organisers/Article1-863192.aspx
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/9652824/BBCs-Newsnight-airs-claims-of-child-abuse-against-leading-Tory-politician.html

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) 19:31, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Rename to attack page??
I'm not aware of any other organisation in any other country that has a separate page dedicated to 'controversies.' This appears to be a WP:EUPHEMISM for attack page so perhaps we should delete it or rename it. JRPG (talk) 11:18, 19 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Anything which has been a publicly-funded daily presence in millions of households in an economically-developed democracy for close to 100 years is just about mathematically certain to have accumulated significant public discontent and questioning over that period of time. Having a separate page is greatly preferable to trying to merge it into the general BBC page (which is already quite lengthy)... AnonMoos (talk) 04:30, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Emily Maitlis...?
Newsnight - Dominic Cummings - BBC News apology? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.157.53.90 (talk) 22:55, 2 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Yes I was surprised this wasn't here too, so I've just added it.WisDom-UK (talk) 21:05, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

"We’re being pressured into sex by some trans women"
There are 2 sources for this section – the Guardian and the i. Neither of them describe the BBC article as ‘transphobic’. I don’t know why you have said in your edit summary that they do. The main article has the title: "We’re being pressured into sex by some trans women". I would accept that as the title of this section. But I think it would be long and messy, and gives one side of the question. The title ‘Article on trans women and lesbians’ is shorter, more informative, and neutral. Sweet6970 (talk) 19:42, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
 * "Article on trans women and lesbians" is the BBC's framing of the article and the controversy surrounding it. That is not neutral, it is somewhere between WP:UNDUE and WP:FALSEBALANCE by framing it in the BBC's terms. You're also incorrect about The Guardian source #243. The very first sentence says The BBC has been forced to edit an article condemned as transphobic. The i piece, while it doesn't describe the article as transphobic in their voice, does mention the open letter that described the BBC piece as a “dangerous article, and the negative, transphobic light”. If you follow through the wikilink to the main article on it, there are more sources there that state in their own voice that it is transphobic. Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:13, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Also, in terms of phrasing for that section, there has been three used. 2021: Anti-transgender article controversy, which remained about a day before getting replaced by 2021: Transphobic article controversy. That remained present for four days until 2021: Transgender article controversy, which was reverted within 25 mins, before being replaced with 2021: Article on trans women and lesbians. At the very least, the WP:STATUSQUO version, by benefit of remaining longest was "Transphobic article controversy". I would be happiest with this, but I would also accept the "Anti-transgender" because either of those two options more accurately describes the controversy surrounding that article as represented by reliable sources, and without the false balance issues of "Article on trans women and lesbians" phrasing. Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:20, 11 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Neither of the quotes you refer to in your post above says that the BBC article is transphobic. Your quote from the Guardian includes ‘condemned as transphobic’. This does not mean that the Guardian condemns the BBC article as transphobic – in fact, it implies the opposite. You have not provided any sources saying that the article is transphobic.


 * There is no established version for the title of this section, and in any event, I have started a discussion on how this section should be titled. This is more orderly than what was going on before, which was in danger of becoming an edit war.


 * You have not said whether you would accept as a title We’re being pressured into sex by some trans women. What is your attitude to this possibility?


 * Or how about Allegations of transphobia arising from article about trans women and lesbians ?


 * Sweet6970 (talk) 21:42, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
 * That is a very strict interpretation of what counts as a source's voice, and one that I don't think is backed by policy. If it is, perhaps that could be shared? As we have both pointed out, The Guardian have said the article was condemned as transphobic, in their own voice. It is not subject to scare quotes or in the words of someone interviewed for the piece the Guardian put out.
 * I would not accept the title of the BBC piece as the title for that section, partially because we already have a full article on that by the same name, and also because it is not descriptive of the controversy surrounding the article. In an article titled "BBC Controversies", the subsections should be titled with respect to the scope of the controversy.
 * I'd also not be in favour of the second proposal. It is overly verbose and is not backed by any of the sources here nor in the main article for this subsection. While I have not read every piece about the BBC article, none of the ones I have read have said that it was allegedly transphobic. They have either only made reference to the BBC's response denying that it was transphobic, or have said similar to the lines of The Guardian that it has been condemned as transphobic.
 * Conversely I would ask, why are you opposed to either the current "Anti-transgender" phrasing, or the prior "Transphobic" phrasing? Either describes the controversy surrounding the article succinctly, and is supported by the sources here and in the main article. If we need more sources here to support that phrasing, we can take those from the main article. Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:12, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) The Guardian has not  said the article is transphobic. They have been very careful not to say this. This is a simple matter of interpretation of a text in the English language.
 * 2 ) I note that you don’t want the title of the section to be the same as the title of the main article. I agree that such a title would be unsatisfactory, although I think it would be better than the current title.
 * 3) If the BBC has denied that their article is transphobic, then they must be responding to allegations that the article is transphobic. I don’t understand why you appear to be denying that there have been allegations that the BBC article is transphobic.
 * 4) I object to titles for the section which are not supported by the sources.
 * Sweet6970 (talk) 23:16, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
 * With respect to point 1, I agree that The Guardian's choice of language is very specific but disagree completely with that interpretation of it. The BBC piece was condemned for being transphobic, it was not condemned for allegedly being transphobic. There is a very important distinction to make there, and I have not seen any reliable sources on this referring to the piece as allegedly being transphobic. This isn't a legal case, where until the verdict charges against the accused are alleged, and we would be diverging from the sources by adding the word alleged/allegedly.
 * With respect to point 3, I'd direct you to the essay WP:MANDY. By virtue of allowing a transphobic article to pass through their editorial process, the BBC are naturally going to deny that it is transphobic when that is pointed out to them.
 * With respect to point 4, as I said previously, The Guardian isn't the only source stating this. There are many linked in the main article on this, including several from PinkNews, rabble.ca, them.us, and The National. And we can adjust our sourcing here if necessary. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:08, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
 * WP:MANDY carries zero weight outside of those who personally like it, as it is an essay. The National does not call the BBC article transphobic in its own voice, just like the Guardian, and we should imitate their examples. Rabble.ca is an opinion piece and not reliable for claims of fact per WP:RSOPINION. PinkNews and Them are very much WP:BIASEDSOURCES, and as that link shows, that suggests in-text attribution would be appropriate for such labels.
 * Certain editors here need to brush up on WP:WIKIVOICE, as well as the difference between a source saying something in its own voice and being careful to attribute it to others. And be reminded of the distinction between fact and opinion. Due to the short time that section has been here, there has clearly never been a consensus to describe the BBC article as transphobic or anti-trans in wikivoice, something the full Wikipedia article about the BBC article does not even do. Such a description violates the WP:NPOV policy, while the substitute descriptions clearly violate no policy and are therefore to be preferred. Wikipedia is WP:NOT a place to launder personal opinions or those of a favored minority of biased sources into seemingly-agreed facts.
 * Here are more sources that discuss the BBC article and that take pains not to call it transphobic or anti-trans in its own voice: iNews, The Guardian again, The Times, NBC Out (an LGBT-focused outlet), Vice, The Independent. Crossroads -talk- 05:33, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
 * We compose article text according to the information published in the balance of reliable sources. The clarification about wordage has been made very clear in other discussions, in other articles. As far as LGBT media is concerned, some have “condemned” (not my wording) the BBC article — but not all of them, and non-LGBT media hasn’t either. So it would be factually incorrect  to state that the BBC has been “widely” condemned as transphobic.  Editors can editorialize and interpret subjects when they’re home, but not when they’re editing an article.  Pyxis Solitary   (yak) . L not Q. 06:49, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

thought I'd make you aware of this talk page section encase you weren't already per the back and forth reverts in the article, and I'd be interested in your thoughts on the discussion. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:48, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
 * leaving aside my disagreement with your analysis of those essays, as it is a long standing point of contention between ourselves, I wonder how we square the other problems here.
 * Using the title of the piece is not an acceptable title for this subheading because it does not describe the controversy surrounding the piece itself. Using "Article on trans women and lesbians" is WP:FALSEBALANCE because it only gives weight to the BBC's framing of the article, and leaves it very ambiguous as to why the article is controversial.
 * So the question is, how do we resolve this? If "anti-trans" or "transphobic" is unacceptable to your interpretation of WP:WIKIVOICE and WP:NPOV, and "Article on trans women and lesbians" is unacceptable to my interpretation of WP:NPOV and WP:FALSEBALANCE, is there a phrasing that satisfies both of or interpretations of the policies? Or do we need to take it to the NPOV noticeboard?
 * I would remind you to assume good faith and lay off those aspersions of biased editing or editorialising. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:53, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
 * My opinion is that the title "article on trans women and lesbians" is ridiculously vague and euphemistic. It downplays the nature of the article and doesn't adequately capture the controversy at hand. The controversy is not that the BBC wrote an article about trans women and lesbians. It's that the BBC repeated claims that transgender women are sexually predatory, and included poll data and claims from anti-transgender campaign groups and their prominent members, among other things. The adjective "anti-transgender" best summarizes that. If "anti-transgender" is too vague, then something more specific (such as "article condemned as transphobic", "article transphobia controversy", or the literal title of the article which summarizes the central claim it makes that is contested) would be fine. PBZE (talk) 20:20, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
 * The version that PBZE first created, and is currently present, which simply quotes the title of the article, is quite fine with me. If we go with this as a compromise, then good.
 * Regarding the claim that "Article on trans women and lesbians" is WP:FALSEBALANCE because it only gives weight to the BBC's framing of the article, no, doing that would be putting something like 'article about trans women pressuring lesbians into sex'. And to be clear, I would oppose such a wording all the same. "Trans women and lesbians" is factual. As for the idea that we need to name why the article is controversial in the heading, no, that is not correct. Look at the other headings on the page; most of them do not get into why something was controversial, just the basic topic of the controversy. One last thing: stating that article text is editorializing and hence inappropriate is quite fine because we do need to be able to name problems with text; we even have the link WP:Editorializing regarding certain kinds of problem text.
 * That is largely 'for the record', though, as we can just quote the title of the article, same as the main Wikipedia article on it does. Crossroads -talk- 05:14, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I prefer the title ‘Article on trans women and lesbians’ because it is short, neutral, and informative. But I would accept the current title ‘2021 “We’re being pressured into sex by some trans women” controversy’ as a compromise. Sweet6970 (talk) 12:18, 13 November 2021 (UTC)