This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
BBC was one of the Social sciences and society good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. 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.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Eurovision, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Eurovision-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EurovisionWikipedia:WikiProject EurovisionTemplate:WikiProject EurovisionEurovision articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject BBC, an attempt to better organise information in articles related to the BBC. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join us as a member. You can also visit the BBC Portal.BBCWikipedia:WikiProject BBCTemplate:WikiProject BBCBBC articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Media, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Media on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MediaWikipedia:WikiProject MediaTemplate:WikiProject MediaMedia articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion.
To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Radio, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Radio-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.RadioWikipedia:WikiProject RadioTemplate:WikiProject RadioRadio articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject London, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of London on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LondonWikipedia:WikiProject LondonTemplate:WikiProject LondonLondon-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Brands, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of brands on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BrandsWikipedia:WikiProject BrandsTemplate:WikiProject BrandsBrands articles
The following Wikipedia contributor has declared a personal or professional connection to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view.
Not in 2016 as claimed in 6.9 BritBox -
"In 2016, the BBC, in partnership with fellow UK Broadcasters ITV and Channel 4 (who later withdrew from the project), set up 'project kangaroo'"
Latest comment: 1 month ago3 comments3 people in discussion
Since BBC is funded with public money, does not this make it state-funded? Is not this a point that this acticle could highlight? 2.27.2.54 (talk) 14:43, 21 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
The very first sentence reads 'public service broadcaster', implying government funding. Also, 'state-media' carries a different implication regarding independence from the funding government than the large degree of independence the BBC enjoys. JackTheSecond (talk) 16:10, 21 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 6 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Last section. "In 2023, the BBC's offices in New Delhi were searched by officials from the Income Tax Department. The move came after the BBC released a documentary on Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi. The documentary investigated Modi's role in the 2002 Gujarat riots, which resulted in more than 1,000 casualties."
to
"In 2023, the BBC's offices in New Delhi were searched by officials from the Income Tax Department. The move came after the BBC released a documentary on Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi. The documentary investigated Modi's role in the 2002 Gujarat riots, which resulted in more than 1,000 deaths."
121.98.30.202 (talk) 04:19, 19 April 2024 (UTC) 121.98.30.202 (talk) 04:19, 19 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 1 month ago5 comments4 people in discussion
This middle east conflict is obviously a contentious issue. This proposed edit asserting "Anti-Israel bias and antisemitism" of the BBC is contentious in itself. John Simpson, the World Affairs editor for the BBC, commented on the BBC's approach to conflict, "We don't take sides. We don't use loaded words like "evil" or "cowardly". We don't talk about "terrorists". And we're not the only ones to follow this line. Some of the world's most respected news organisations have exactly the same policy. But the BBC gets particular attention, partly because we've got strong critics in politics and in the press, and partly because we're rightly held to an especially high standard. But part of keeping to that high standard is to be as objective as it's possible to be." The proposed edit and its loaded accusation is non neutral, and also overlooks complaints from the other side that for the BBC, and western media, "Israeli life is deemed to be worth more than a Palestinian life". Inserting material that furthers the agenda of either side or discredits a news source, and the BBC is one of the more reliable news sources on the conflict, is a breach of neutrality. It is also a subject that belongs on the talk page of the conflict article itself, rather than singling out just one media source (BBC in the case here), in how the media is critiqued on its reporting. Gabriella MNT (talk) 13:37, 19 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Extensive external sources have singled out BBC for antisemitism. It is misleading to censure the referenced claims. Certainly, one can add other referenced claims that disagree, but our job is to work with sources. Minden500 (talk) 13:47, 19 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 1 month ago1 comment1 person in discussion
This section needs to be revised. It suggests BBC has right wing bias because it was “anti-Brexit”, “unionist” and its employees are “neo-liberal”. These are signs of a left wing bias… Helpingtoclarify (talk) 01:31, 28 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
level-4 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale..svg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
Done : And confirmed in source. ("killed") JackTheSecond (talk) 10:56, 19 April 2024 (UTC)