Jump to content

Talk:BBC News

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former good article nomineeBBC News was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
On this day... Article milestones
DateProcessResult
November 26, 2005Featured article candidateNot promoted
August 24, 2006Peer reviewReviewed
November 30, 2006Good article nomineeNot listed
December 3, 2008Good article nomineeNot listed
April 30, 2010Good article nomineeNot listed
On this day... A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on July 5, 2012.
Current status: Former good article nominee
[edit]

Is that the logo of the BBC News on the top of the article page. I watch it frequently and I don't think that's the logo as I have never seen it in use before. The image on the 2000s section looks far closer to the logo to me. Ross Rhodes (T C) Sign! 10:43, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you are comparing File:BBC_News.svg with File:BBC News at Ten.JPG, then the logos are correct and are the same, BBC News used either the linear or the boxed BBC News logo, since 2008 the box logo is in use on idents and promos. -- [[ axg ⁞⁞ talk ]] 11:11, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
This review is transcluded from Talk:BBC News/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:08, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To be perfectly frank, I can see multiple issues with this from just a quick glance. Another reviewer could easily quick fail this. However, I'm not that kind of reviewer. I'm sorry if the following sounds like a list of problems, but it;s difficult to fix issues you;re not aware of.

  • My gravest concern is the images. They are almost all non free and I'm sure that many of them violate at least one of the Non Free Content Criteria. The number of these images may need to be slashed so we're left with only the images that significantly contribute to the reader's understanding.
  • The lead needs expanding per WP:LEAD. It's currently ~130 words but the article as a whole is ~6,000. it should provide a concise summary of the article's contents
  • You don't need 2 hatnotes- the could be combined into one or the reader directed to the dab
  • Vast chunks of the article lack any references whatsoever. At minimum, you should be looking at one ref per paragraph and for every controversial fact or direct quote
  • Comment on above note: I don't think this is an issue anymore. I added some more references as well
  • The citations almost all lack information on work, author, publisher and publication date

Although it doesn't meet the GA criteria as it is, I'm happy to leave this review open for as long as it takes to bring it up to scratch provided that there is an effort to address my concerns. I'll watchlist this page and the article, but I canbe reached on my talk page or by email if you want my attention and I missed the edit here. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:08, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking the time to have a look at the article and complete your review. The issues you've raised will be worked on to help get this article to GA status. I'll start with the images - there's a few free images that could be used in place of the fair use. The reason the fair use images are there is that they illustrate the history of BBC News, though looking at it I think they could be used in their respective linked-to articles. Cloudbound (the new name for Wikiwoohoo) (talk) 20:15, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I like the images and I think may of them are useful. Unfortunately WP disagrees with me. I'd be happy if you left the ones that genuinely help the reader's understanding, but the NFCC say we have to keep them to a minimum. Let me know if you need anything from me (I'm more than happy to help if I can), otherwise I'll check back in a day or two. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:29, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I took a brief look at this article while waiting for my own Media and Journalism article to be GA reviewed, and agree that sourcing is a major issue in this article. There isn't a single reference in the section BBC_News#1950s, and there are a dozen or more additional paragraphs without any citations. This is a very worthy topic, though, and IMO it shouldn't be quick-failed unless work improving it stops. Firsfron of Ronchester 04:45, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My thoughts exactly. I much prefer to leave an article on hold for a long time to get it to GA status than to quick fail it. This is my 21st review and I've never failed one yet. I don;t intend to start here, especially since the topic undoubtedly is worthy. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 09:09, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've already changed many of the images in favour of freely available ones, and have just expanded the lead section and added an infobox. Next step really is finding additional citations. Cloudbound (talk) 21:30, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is progress being made here on both sides? It's been almost a month since any comments. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 19:23, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]


While I realise that some progress has been made since I initiated the review, I'm afraid I don't feel this could be brought up to GA standards in a reasonable time frame and so I feel I have no choice but to fail it. That said, at least you can work on the issues at leisure without having the pressure of a GAN and renominate it when it's ready. I'd be happy to offer my services as a reviewer again when this has been improved and I'd be happy to provide you with an informal review if towards eventual GA status to keep you focused if you want, but, much as I would like to I can't leave the review open indefinitely. My talk page is always open if you want any help or advice and I'll keep it on my watchlist. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:55, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Presenters

[edit]

Would it be a good idea to include a new section with a list of BBC News main presenters? It could include the main presenters of Breakfast, 1, 6, 10, Weekend etc as many of these are well respected journalists; it would be a good idea to indicate they work for the BBC. it may also be an idea to link in the BBC's correspondents, such as Robert Peston, Rory Cellan Jones, Nicholas Witchell, Nick Robinson, Will Gompertz, Stephanie Flanders, Hugh Pym etc. Some info is already available at List of BBC newsreaders and reporters so this should at least be linked into the article. Rafmarham (talk) 21:45, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Like a castlist of a film or TV show? Then again, given the increasing mix of celebrate and 'news', is there not a danger of presenters becoming as important as the news? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.110.75.41 (talk) 09:08, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction

[edit]

"in almost all of the world's 240 countries." Surely the world has fewer than this - 193 in the UN? 78.156.66.32 (talk) 08:35, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is a list of the worldwide newsrooms owned by the BBC on the List of BBC properties page, sourced from a FOI request. While this doesn't list the countries where reporters are active, it can give an indication and can be used instead.

History

[edit]

1970s

The reference to Ceefax is written in present tense, should this not be past tense as Ceefax has now ended? Will1701 (talk) 17:39, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Denisarona (talk) 17:44, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed Merger

[edit]

I strongly oppose the merger of the articles BBC Weekend News and BBC News Summary into this article. (BBC News Special is a different case - I've never really seen the point in that article). The Weekend News and Summary are both stand alone bulletins and are advertised as such in the same fashion as the BBC News at Ten is. They each have their own presenters and rotas as well, each of which deserve documentation. Furthermore, as they both have their own style, distinct from other bulletins. Uvghifds (talk) 15:38, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Although I think that both pages need significant reworking (especially the Weekend News page) if/when they are saved. Aw16 (talk) 19:06, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I also oppose the merger of BBC Weekend News. However, the 'specials' page is pointless since it's usually just a simulcast of the News Channel nowadays. Also, the 'Summary' page is redundant too now. All the summaries have been scrapped except the 8pm edition, the only significance of these rotas are covered on the List of BBC newsreaders and reporters page. Surely a few sentences expanding on the summary in the history section of this page is sufficient for one summary to be covered? So in summary, Keep BBC Weekend News but Merge/Delete BBC News Special and BBC News Summary. Bbbnbbb (talk) 17:49, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am sure the summary page used to be just about the 8pm update. The BBC treat that as a stand alone bulletin so I think that should keep an article - although definately change the title and make it more specific (like it was).Uvghifds (talk) 17:35, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sunday Politics

[edit]

Now correct me if I'm wrong but isn't the Sunday Politics broadcast from Broadcasting House rather than Millbank. The studio looks like the same one used for The Andrew Marr Show & Newsnight — Preceding unsigned comment added by Will1701 (talk • contribs) 18:49, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alleged political bias

[edit]

There is probably enough already about alleged political bias, but in case anybody thinks more should be added, this may be a useful source from the Left: It's the BBC's rightwing bias that is the threat to democracy and journalism, Owen Jones, 17 March 2014. – Fayenatic London 18:37, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if they're biased. But my goodness, they're declaring that the Conservatives will win a pluralty of seats in the 2015 general election & there hasn't been that many destrict results yet. GoodDay (talk) 01:58, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on BBC News. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

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

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:24, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on BBC News. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:37, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on BBC News. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:55, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on BBC News. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:24, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Osgars

[edit]

Dear Sir or Madam, Please tell me that there is more important news in the world than this fiasco . We have Child Abuse but all you keep on about is this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7F:8E42:4100:E4EE:A94:4AB3:B9B5 (talk) 06:45, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on BBC News. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:18, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on BBC News. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:33, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on BBC News. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:53, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Early Years

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians, I added a source in the “early years” section (citation No.[whatever number it ends up being in the article]) and I was looking for a consensus on whether this is up to Wiki’s standards.

Because this was published by a university, I am under the impression that it is reliable. Because the university published it, it likely met all of that institution’s internal qualifications for publication, and therefore passed the defense requirement for its thesis. Boothit11 (talk) 17:17, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:09, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tor URL

[edit]

Because you can't add citations to external links sections because they come after the references section, I am noting the source for the update I made to the URL here: https://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/internet/entries/936e460a-03b3-41db-be96-a6f2f27934e6 —Compassionate727 (T·C) 15:43, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 25 October 2022

[edit]

We should state that BBC news has 1 star on Trust Pilot Ukeuus (talk) 10:25, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. Including a user generated rating subject to review bombing doesn't seem like an improvement. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:39, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 5 December 2022

[edit]

Please change the sentence from "Fran Unsworth has been director of news and current affairs since January 2018" to "Deborah Turness has been CEO of news and current affairs since September 2022" because Fran no longer as a director and there are source to see Deborah as new CEO. (https://www.bbc.co.uk/mediacentre/articles/2022/deborah-turness-message-to-staff-first-day) 125.167.57.135 (talk) 08:34, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Done — CAPTAIN JTK (talk) 16:24, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

bbc - state owned media

[edit]

how can bbc remain independent from the government when they were collabrating with mi5?- https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/stories-43754737 Noroots22 (talk) 12:46, 21 May 2023 (UTC) Noroots22 (talk) 12:48, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:BBC_News&oldid=1213092955"