Talk:BBC/Archive 3

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Most Respectable?

I'll say it again: Name an alternative. The Guardian, for the love of Mike, is a Newspaper. Now, let's name a broadcasting organisation, shall we? If you cannot name even one credible alternative, then you have absolutely no case for reverting. Tannin 14:32, 16 Sep 2003 (UTC)

It isn't the case to propose, yes or no, an alternative. I believe it is more a question of NPOV. So, indeed it would be better to adopt less hyperbolic wording, Tannin. I might quit agree with you that BBC is the most respectable but I would prefer a more neutral phrasing.

Vanderesch 14:44, 16 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Thankyou for your comment Vanderesch, but I'd better clear up a small misunderstanding. I do not think the BBC is the most respect-worthy broadcasting organisation in the world. It may well be, but (a) that is not the question, and (b) I have an (understandable) bias towards our own wonderful ABC. Given the choice, I'd take the ABC over the BBC without having to think too hard about it. None of which, of course, is relevant. It doesn't matter what I think, it only matters what people in general think - and it is our job to report that in as NPOV a way as possible.

The situation is quite simple: either the BBC is the most respected broadcasting organisation, or there is some other organisation that has equal or greater respect. There is no third alternative. If the BBC is not, then someone will be able to name the equally or better respected organisation. This silly debate has clogged up recent changes for so long that, if there were another equally or more respected broadcasting organisation, then it would have been mentioned here long since.

So far, the only alternatives proposed are (a) a newspaper (i.e., not even a broadcasting organisation at all), and (b) a press agency (i.e., not even a broadcasting organisation at all). Unless, of course, you believe that there could be a worldwide broadcasting organisation more respected than the BBC and yet so little known that no Wikipedian has ever even heard of it. Tannin

Try Disney and Time Warner for competitors. JamesDay

NPOV doesn't mean ignoring facts because they sound like opinions. It is not a POV to state that a widely held view is a widely held view if all of the evidence points to the fact that it is a widely held view. It is an opinion to say that "the BBC is the best broadcaster in the world". But this is not what we are having a dispute about. The sentence that is in dispute - is "The BBC is the most widely respected broadcaster in the world". This is not an author's opinion. It is a simple statement much like like "Football is the world's most popular sport". This is the simple question that some people seem to be having trouble understanding. Jiang want's proof. Well there is a simple proof by exhaustian. If the the BBC isn't then what is!? (And answer came there none).

If you equate respect with trust then two items should be drawn to your attention.

68% of European viewers trusted BBC World's output during the Gulf War, compared to 66% for CNN and 59% distrusted of Voice of America [1] in a survey of 10,617 people in Croatia, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Great Britain, Netherlands, Poland, Slovenia, Sweden, Turkey and the Ukraine.
Research has ahown that the BBC is the most trusted broadcaster in Arabic[2]. Mintguy 16:36, 16 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Now we're getting somewhere. Those facts are valid, so put them in the article to illustrate your claim. That definitely makes your claim stronger. See how useful facts and figures are? Now, I would contend that this belongs in another graf, and not sentence #2. But I'd also like to point out that CNN and BBC are very close to each other on "trust" (66% and 68%) it doesn't bode so well for overwhelming proof.

Also, it's a bit unfair to strip out all opposing viewpoints, like my rundown of your 21 sources, so I've put it back in (for now). Fuzheado 17:10, 16 Sep 2003 (UTC)

So where the hell were you with this complaint when Archive1 was created? Get real. Tannin 23:45, 16 Sep 2003 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Current disputes over articles

--- Even though it may currently describe a fact, even after I've read some of your pro- arguments, the phrase "most respected" still strikes me as POV. I wonder why, I can't put my finger on, but I can't dismiss that feeling.

The problem is not probably just a question of factuality, and you obscure the discussion by reducing it to logical arguments.

I feel it dangerous to include such sentences in the encyclopedia because they're tending to imply that BBC is not only respected (a potential fact) but also connotes the BBC as respectable (an opinion; and worse, a pression on the reader's opinion) (That latter effect, is reinforced by the non-appearance of dissenting opinions).

And there's fuzziness about what "respected" means. Respected by whom ? and how ? And what does "most widely respected" mean ? How deep must be someone's respect to be accounted for ? And what does it say about those people who don't "respect" BBC ? Also, this may change with time. Perhaps by 2005 will be that fact(?) no longer a fact. (It's already almost a non-fact, if it's about trust, since BBC's 68% are so close to CNN's 66%. Unless you remove the "most".)

Also, why do you insist on keeping this sentence in the article ? What do you think it brings to it ? --FvdP

It is not a statement of opinion, to state that a widely held view is a widely held view. In comparison with CNN, BBC News is just one of its arms. The BBC has earned respect for its output in Wildlife, Science, Comedy and Drama. The number of awards the BBC receives speaks for itself. Also CNN Broadcast on Televiion in English only (AFAIK), whilst the BBC broadcasts in 43 languages. Mintguy 23:27, 16 Sep 2003 (UTC)

You're failed to answer his/her question. What is this view? What constitutes holding this view? --Jiang 00:41, 17 Sep 2003 (UTC)

CNN is a part of one divison of AOL Time Warner. You're comparing a division of one company with the whole of another. See The Competitors: AOL Time Warner section.

From the entry: "According to some sources (e.g. [3] [4])" It's good to have sources, be they in the article itself or on the talk page. However, the weasel words "according to some sources" are highly misleading. When you have a plain and simple fact, state that fact plainly and simply. By all means, it's great to have sources, and I'm certainly not convinced that the current wording is ideal, but perhaps some kind soul will come along and improve it. Tannin 23:59, 16 Sep 2003 (UTC)

OK, I stuck the refs back in again, but it still ain't right. The trouble with the current formulation is that it appears to rest on those two sources, but it rests on a very great deal more than that.

The real difficulty, I think, is that we should devote a great deal more space to the BBC's unique status on the international stage. Hell, there is room for an entire article on that one topic, and not a short one either. But until someone comes along and writes it (I doubt that I'll have time to research it and do it for many months, given the fact that I'm ridiculously over-commited already), it is imperative that we at least mention it.

FvdP writes: the phrase "most respected" still strikes me as POV. Yes, I agree, or almost. I don't like it either. It does "sound like an opinion". It is, however, undeniably true. I would be pleased to see it rephrased. Better yet, expanded into a paragraph or two, and linked to a full history of the BBC's role on the world stage. Who did people listen to during the Hungarian Uprising, for example. All that stuff. Tannin 00:10, 17 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Moved from the current disputes page

Despite attempts at reasoned debate, the BBC page has degenerated into a reversion war. Painting it as fair as I can, User:Tannin and User:Mintguy favored stating BBC as "the world's most widely respected broadcasting organization" while myself User:Fuzheado and others have tried removing it or watering it down, since no stats, citations or quotes support this "fact." However, some seem unwilling to accept anything but strong absolutes, insisting on "the most" or "no other" in the second sentence. Seems clearly against Wikipedia:NPOV and Wikipedia:Avoid peacock terms but we need fresh perspectives. So we could use some other Wikipedians to help. Help! Fuzheado 15:54, 16 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I'm not sure I agree with Wikipedia:Avoid peacock terms. It appears to be the work of one person. I say call a spade a spade. But FWIW, the statement in dispute isn't using peaccock terms anyway! If the statement said the world's best broadcasting organization that would be peracock terms. But it is stating that a widely held view is a widely held view. It is not stating that this view is right or wrong. It is not a point of view. It IS a provable statement, using proof by exhaustion. I.e. is there another broadcaster that has more international respect than the BBC? Answer - NO. Ergo QED. If further proof were needed, then on a survey of CEOs asked about the companies they respected most: Out the 100 comapanies listed the BBC came joint 66th, the only other Broadcaster CNN came joint 90th. Ok still not convinced? In a survey during the Iraq war 10,000plus people from 10 countries in Europe were asked which broadcaster they trusted most. The BBC came first. Still not conviced? Ok, in a survey of Arabic listeners to Arab language stations, they were asked which station they most trusted. Guess what?, they put the BBC at the top of the list. I have found many websites (and I am sure there are many more) that say that the BBC is the most respected broadcaster in the world, and not a single website saying any other organization is the most respected broadcaster in the world. On top of this, the BBC has won more awards for it's output, in Drama, Science, Natural History and News than any other broadcaster. (Presumably, awards are a show of respect). The BBC World Service is the most "listened to" radio service in the world (surely a listener is showing his respect, otherwise he's tune into Voice of America, et al). This statement is not in dispute. Mintguy

That's a very small percentage of the world. Just because they listen to BBC doesn't mean they respect it. Think. This is not hard to understand. BBC may be the best alternative, but we can say that these people find many faults with this alternative. Don't equate that with respect.

You have not provided credible links to back up all that you've listed here. Even if you have, you have not asked the whole world. Since when has the best alternative been always most respected? Since when has there been the reqirement that one item out of the set is required to be most respected? What is the most respected soil? The most respected toilet seat? The most respected serial rapist? I don't think most people would be respecting rapists... --Jiang 00:33, 17 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Most respected newspaper, journalist, lawyer, doctor, scholer, encylopaedia, football team, broadcaster etc.. etc.. these are all possible and debatable. The most respected toilet seat is just plain absurd and deserves no further comment in a sensible discussion.

You STILL for the 1000th time of asking haven't been able to find a credible alternative candidate. You cannot counter the proof by exhaustion, because no other broadcaster is able to make the claim that it is the world's most respected broadcaster.

What do you classify as credible? It seems to me that you disqualify any and all suggestions. The point is all these people whoever they are, are saying that the BBC is the most respected broadcaster in the world, and you can't find anybody who says that some other organization is more respected. Are seriously saying that even if I found a survey that said the BBC was the most respected broadcaster in the world, it wouldn't be valid to this argument, because it wasn't asking every single person in the world? Is that really your argmument? Are you seriously suggesting that all polls are invalid? If I am interpreting you correctly then that is the stupidest suggestion I've heard in a long time. Do you suggest that evolution can only be proven by finding every creature in the tree of life, extinct and extant!? Mintguy 23:27, 16 Sep 2003 (UTC)

You still for the 1000th time insist that just because there is not a more prevalent alternative than BBC that it is therefore "most respected." The alternative does not need to exist. It could very well be that the best alternative is not quite respected as you assume it to be.

The links you provided were already passed off as unreliable by Fuzheado. Read. --Jiang 00:33, 17 Sep 2003 (UTC)

See Talk:British Broadcasting Corporation for continuation of discussion. --Jiang 21:04, 16 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Discussion should occur here, not on the Wikipedia:Current disputes over articles page. Angela 00:51, Sep 17, 2003 (UTC)

Jiang, your current wording in the entry is good.

However, this business of buggerising around with talk pages is utterly ridiculous and unworthy of you (or any other good Wikipedia contributor). Let's follow the sequence, shall we?

We have a longish talk page.
Fuzheado did a quasi-archive, which still left the talk page very long, and (Oh! What a surprise!) just happened to remove everything above a long contribution that favoured his POV. It wasn't an archive at all - look how tiny Talk:British Broadcasting Corporation/Archive1 is.
Within a few hours, the talk page was up to 38k! Following standard practice, I archived, but properly this time, taking out about 25 or 30k, and leaving only the most recent part.
Seeing that the archive operation #2 (properly performed this time, not half done as in the first instance) happened to have one of my posts at the top, you then proceeded to fill the talk page up to overflowing again with whichever posts you felt like running a repeat showing of in order to favour your POV! It has not escaped notice that you felt perfectly happy with the 'quasi-archive' operation #1 (which had a Fuzheado post at the top and could thus be left untouched) but immediately jumped in to undo a properly conducted archive operation. If you really felt that "current discussion should not be archived", then where was your revert of the first archive?

That sort of behaviour is not in keeping with the ethics of the Wikipedia.

Tannin 01:40, 17 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I "unarchived" two times:

The first time I tried to restore everything (ie the entire discussion) so each side would be favored as is. (Fuzheado's points were already on this page. I didn't put them here.) I thought it would be more preferable to have a long page rather than an archived page for an ongoing discussion.
The second time, Fuzheado's points had disappeared (neither in archive nor here) so I restored them here since they were written so soon.

I believe the common practice is to only archive past discussions, not an ongoing one. At least that's what I see being done so far... --Jiang 03:01, 17 Sep 2003 (UTC)

38k is ridiculous. Your actions speak for themselves. Tannin 03:03, 17 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Not at all ridiculous. There are quite a number of articles (e.g. George W. Bush, History of the PRC) way over 32K. It's only fair to keep a long page with all sides represented. --Jiang 03:17, 17 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Tomato, tomahto. I didn't characterize your Archiving as sinister, so I'd appreciate the same. The resulting talk page (right after we referred it to Disputed Pages) really only had your and Mintguy's postings, so I tried to keep the whole thread on one page. That's it. Fuzheado 01:54, 17 Sep 2003 (UTC)

No problem, Fuzheado. It is often difficult to find a sensible spot to break a talk page at, and in the end it often favours one side or another. I originally looked at your archive, thought hmmm ... a bit short, not very good for "our side", but them's the breaks. Sometimes the cookie crumbles this way, sometimes it crumbles that way. So be it.

Later on, when the talk page hit 38k again, I did an archive. Yup: it favoured "my side", but I didn't worry too much about that because (a) there is often no "right" place to split it, and (b) I figured it was "our turn" anyway. ;)

My beef is with Jiang's silly reverts to the archiving. That is beyond the pale. Tannin

To respond to earlier: My posting of the 21 sources rundown caused the page to exceed the 32k limit, so I took out only what was necessary to let it fit AND make sense of the discussion. The segment was broken at a logical point, which was the horizontal rule starting a new thread. And I did say "for now" meaning I EXPECTED my post to fall off to an archive page very soon. And it did, as it should.

Not all chapters of a book are the same length, and the same should be expected with Archive pages. Fuzheado 02:20, 17 Sep 2003 (UTC)

fair enough. You make good points. Tannin

Without casting aspersions... is it just me, but where did my post of the 21 sources go? Fuzheado 02:31, 17 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I restored it. --Jiang

If so, it is by mistake. It should still be at the top of Talk:British Broadcasting Corporation/Archive2, where I left it before Jiang's reversions. Hang on a tic, I'll check. Tannin

"We now return to our regularly scheduled argument"

Regarding earlier post, am I the only one who finds it ironic that proof by exhaustion is a missing link? :)

The problem with proof by exhaustion is that it is almost exclusively used in mathematics, not in reasoned logic. A definition: A proof by exhaustion is a proof which is established by working through EVERY possible case and finding no contradictions. Usually such a proof is only possible if the proposition to be proved has some restrictions placed upon it. For example: [5]: Suppose a and b are even integers less than 8. Prove that the sum and difference of a and b are divisible by 2.

That's certainly different than trying to prove the assertion -- a fuzzy term "respected" as the parameter and "the world" as the problem set. Proof by exhaustion is usually dismissed [6] or outright unacceptable [7].

That said, I agree a whole graf on the BBC's reputation, fairness, role in the world and wide respect is appropriate and desirable. We agree more than we disagree. The thing in dispute is a) an unqualified claim of "most" (so qualify it with stuff cited above) and b) placement in the lead sentence. Perhaps someone can go ahead and write that graf, put it in, and start the dialogue. Any attempt by folks in the middle of the discussion would be too controversial. Fuzheado 03:25, 17 Sep 2003 (UTC)

OK. I'm cool with that. As for "exhaustion", we are about five Rhinoceros articles short of where I wanted to be by now! Doubtless you too are behind in your chosen field. Tannin 03:28, 17 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I'll be filing for unemployment benefits if this goes on. Fuzheado 03:47, 17 Sep 2003 (UTC)

So, are you going to have time to fill out the forms? Tannin

The competitors: Time Warner

(corrected to new name. As of today AOL Time Warner is now called Time WarnerJamesDay 11:55, 17 Sep 2003 (UTC))

See the list of TW companies. TW includes: Turner Broadcasting(includes CNN), HBO, New line Cinema, Time(This Old House and other very well known US TV items), Warner Bros and others, many of which are very well respected companies. Films released by TW include: Harry Potter, The Matrix, Terminator 3, The Lord of the Rings, Austin Powers, Scooby Doo. Take a look at the range of companies and languages reached by some of those companies on the pages I've linked if you don't see why TW got a higher rank than the BBC in the Price waterhouse survey.

We are talking about broadcasting organisations. CNN is one. AOL isn't. Tannin

Time Warner is a broadcasting organisation, of which CNN and AOL are broadcasting components. The AOL division regularly broadcasts assorted live and recorded events over the internet, though it is better known for the online service and the Web Properties Group sub-sub-companies: CompuServe, Netscape, ICQ and MapQuest.

"And CNN only does news - i.e., they are not a full-service broadcaster at all."

CNN is a component of Time Warner, which is a full service broadcaster. BBC News only does news. It would be misleading to write "BBC News only does news, i.e. they are not a full-service broadcaster at all", yet you did exactly that with respect to Time Warner with your comment. Please take a look at what Time Warner includes and consider Time Warner compared to the BBC.

AOL - Least trusted organizatino on the Internet. [8] Mintguy 22:27, 18 Sep 2003 (UTC)

To be fair and accurate -- the Gartner survey was specifically "when compared to banks, brokerages, credit card companies, U.S. Postal Service, Amazon.com, large retailers, and Microsoft." None of that has anything to do with the news or "broadcast organization". I don't consider ~~AOL~~ TimeWarner to be the paragon of news virtue, but it certainly isn't the "least trusted." We have FOXnews for that. :) Fuzheado 03:30, 19 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Mintguy, did the survey say that somewhere? The closest I could find was a high level of distrust when it came to supplying them with financial data over the internet. JamesDay 08:29, 22 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I've been away for a week. I've restored the first para again, as it was when I went away. I hope no one who has been involved in this debate has any problems with this. Ed Poor's change was re-opening old wounds. Mintguy 09:55, 28 Sep 2003 (UTC)