Talk:BBC News at Ten

Fair use rationale for Image:Bbc ten.jpg

Image:Bbc ten.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 11:02, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Bbc news theme 2007.ogg

The image Image:Bbc news theme 2007.ogg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --08:36, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Paul Royall

Following the AfD decision to merge that article into this one, I've copied across what I feel are the key facts and references to this section. I've left out his education, as that doesn't seem relevant here to me, but if others disagree it's still available over there to be brought across. Landscape repton (talk) 09:33, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Huw Edwards news story and him stepping back

Because of the ongoing story related to misconduct of Huw Edwards and him being revealed as the unnamed BBC presenter that these stories were about and therefore him stepping back from the role as main presenter of both the News at Ten and BBC Event programming as well as currently being in hospital this will mean he will not be returning any time soon. Should this page be updated to state he is not the main presenter anymore or should it wait until there is a permanent main presenter announced to replace him instead? TheMightyShipp (talk) 23:08, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

I was teetering on the brink of replying in July and my apologies for not doing so. I should make clear this is alleged misconduct as we don't know what, if anything, is proven. My thoughts at the time were that he is still presenter of the programme and that it was appropriate to wait as he might come back and the absence be a temporary one. However I am now of the view this can be changed to show Mr Edwards as a former presenter, on the basis we hear today that many BBC journalists including what we are told is a senior member of staff do not expect him back: https://www.theguardian.com/media/2023/sep/02/no-one-expects-him-back-what-now-for-bbc-huw-edwards Economic forecasts and science are reported on the basis of what economists/scientists expect to happen or expect to be the case; therefore I see the information we have today as justification for thinking Mr Edwards isn't going to come back on the basis this is very unlikely to happen as it isn't expected by anyone close to the news teams including those involved in the programme. Aspaa (talk) 07:38, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

It's still WP:CRYSTAL as we don't know what is going to come of this. The situation isn't ideal as neither the BBC nor Edwards have made any further comment on this since July, and it might not happen for months. Nevertheless, the article should not say he is a former presenter until there is some direct clarification. As the Guardian news story points out, Edwards is still believed to be suspended on full pay at the moment.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:52, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

It is an interesting point and I am now of no view one way or the other on this. On the one hand, Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation; however "verifiability means other people using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source" and, as far as I see it, the Guardian is a reliable source for saying he is not expected to come back. The speculation therefore isn't unverified. This is not "rumors", it is information from well-placed sources. They may presume or expect that he isn't going to come back but, again, it is verified by the reliable source the Guardian. However, Wikipedia does not predict the future and we don't know he isn't going to come back. There is nothing definite to say he is a former presenter. However, maybe this also can be turned on its head and there is nothing definite to say he is still a current presenter. In fact, as I see that, it is , if we discount the Guardian as we can't independently verify what it says ourselves, then unverified speculation and crystal ball.

However this is also versus the claim that he is current presenter and, given that he has now been absent for so long, he has arguably ceased to be a current presenter and crystal ball vs the claim that he is current presenter which is factually inaccurate. He is not a current presenter. Given how long he has now been absent, he is currently not a presenter at all, although we also don't know if he is a former presenter as nothing definite that he will never come back, although we expect, based on the Guardian, that he is a former presenter but then again crystal ball and ... it's not factually accurate to say he is a current presenter anymore is it? He isn't currently presenting the show and hasn't done so for best part of approaching five months now. The box on the right of the article claims "Presented by" and then includes Huw Edwards. But the programme isn't presented by Huw Edwards at the moment. The claim is factually incorrect. It may remain correct in the case of someone on the rota so that someone not presenting over the weekend that still regularly presents is still a person the programme is presented by. It doesn't cease to be presented by Sophie Raworth on days she is absent because, as a whole, she is regularly a current presenter. However, Huw Edwards no longer is. Also to claim he is the lead presenter for the bulletin on weekdays when he isn't is factually incorrect. However, the article says he is the lead presenter and then adds "but he has been suspended since July 2023", which clarifies the position and isn't misleading or inaccurate. Nonetheless maybe the box on the right, that says "Presented by", is wrong. I am neutral point of view and therefore I have no view. Aspaa (talk) 00:50, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

As not unknown with me I'm afraid an afterthought. It is unverified speculation that the programme is now presented by him and Wikipedia is predicting the future that he is going to come back which is prohibited and is what Wikipedia is not allowed to do. He is not at the moment a current presenter for this show, given how long the absence now is, although he may (this is of course speculation) become a current presenter again in the future if he were then to come back. Aspaa (talk) 01:09, 22 November 2023 (UTC)