Talk:BBC World Service/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

"State Media" category removed

Al Jazeera‎, Raidió Teilifís Éireann, et. al. are have their articles with the category as 'state media'. The BBC World Service received and continues to receive [funding] from the Foreign Office. Ergo, it is literally state media (though it is also publicly funded as well, hence why I added that category as well).

I have no idea why this would be controversial. It's not saying that it's propaganda, just that it's merely an apparatus of state media (I know the connotation is controversial in English, but that doesn't change the objective fact of the matter). Ergo, I have re-added the category back in. PeaceThruPramana26 (talk) 07:15, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

@PeaceThruPramana26 Why do you keep starting an edit war instead of reading and trying to understand what you're being told? I just don't get it. Renat 07:21, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

1.) I'm violating no rules, as I haven't violated the 3RR policy, "the violation of which will usually be considered edit warring", so please stop accusing me of violating rules when clearly I have never done such;

2.) As per the page I linked above, "Editors engaged in a dispute should reach consensus or pursue dispute resolution rather than edit war. " For quite some time now, you've been leaving inappropriate warnings on my page, making baseless accusations of unhelpful edits or edit warring, and now you tell me I simply must "understand what I'm being told"?

You can pardon me if I don't assume that your interactions with me are in good faith. PeaceThruPramana26 (talk) 07:25, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

The "State Media" category is, indeed, somewhat problematic. The German broadcasters ARD and ZDF may be labelled state media because, even though they are public service broadcasters funded by a general license fee, their boards are partly nominated by politicians. Like Deutsche Welle, the BBC World Service is a touch more independent, held at a bit more arm's length, which according to the researchers and historians quoted qualifies it as "independent". == Peter NYC (talk) 07:41, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

@PeaceThruPramana26 I will explain it once again:
We have WP:SUBCAT. It says: Except for non-diffusing subcategories, pages for sub-categories should be categorised under the most specific parent categories possible.
Category:State media requires diffusion. Pages in this category should be moved to subcategories where applicable. BBC World Service is already categorised under Category:BBC World Service. Category:BBC World Service is a subcategory Category:BBC. And Category:BBC is a subcategory of Category:State media.
About your edit summary here - diff:
-->This is not an edit war, since the 3RR has not been violated by anyone - wrong. See WP:EW. The three-revert rule is a convenient limit for occasions when an edit war is happening fairly quickly; it is not a definition of "edit warring", and it is absolutely possible to engage in edit warring without breaking the three-revert rule, or even coming close to doing so.
-->I disagree with the logic, and have created a discussion on the topic page. Whether you agree with it or not is irrelevant. It is an editing guideline. It means it is a generally accepted standard that all editors should attempt to follow.
-->If your logic stands, then a LOT of wiki articles are going to need revamps So what? Go and fix them then.--Renat 07:57, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Then allow me to clarify: I disagree with your interpretation of the guidelines, especially considering you seem to take issue with heeding them yourself as subject to your own interpretation. PeaceThruPramana26 (talk) 08:01, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Just a fact: The BBC World Service is not technically editorially independent, since as per the Broadcasting Agreement, while "the World Service has full editorial and managerial independence and integrity" it's also beholden to the foreign secretary setting the agenda for the World Service, as "the FCO will define the external broadcasting service it requires clearly through robust objectives and performance measures", meaning that ultimately that editorial control in this context means "the BBC will decide the most effective and efficient way of delivering the service defined"; In otherwords, the BBC has the editorial independence to decide "the most effective and efficient way" to deliver "the service" that the FCO requires of the BBCWS.

As an interesting aside, the former director, Peter Horrocks, compared the organisation not to Deutsche Welle or say, the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, but Russian State Media. PeaceThruPramana26 (talk) 07:51, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Please note that, as the notice at User talk:PeaceThruPramana26 § February 2022 states, "Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made". Per WP:3RR, the three-revert rule "is not an entitlement to revert a page a specific number of times".

Category:State media is in Category:Categories requiring diffusion, and has the message "Pages in this category should be moved to subcategories where applicable. This category may require frequent maintenance to avoid becoming too large. It should directly contain very few, if any, pages and should mainly contain subcategories". WP:SUBCAT states, "Except for non-diffusing subcategories (see below), pages for sub-categories should be categorised under the most specific parent categories possible." Because Category:State media is a category requiring diffusion and Category:BBC World Service is a subcategory of Category:State media (via Category:BBC), this article should not have the Category:State media category when it already has the Category:BBC World Service category.

If you find any other articles with categories that can be simplified this way via WP:SUBCAT, you are of course welcome to adjust those categories, too. — Newslinger talk 08:21, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. If true, I'll strongly keep this in mind as a reference. PeaceThruPramana26 (talk) 07:21, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Just to clarify: This logic would also apply to RT News as well, correct? They have a category which itself is a subcategory of Category:State media via Category:RT_(TV_network). So I assume then there will be no objection should I go along and remove this? Or is the BBC the only state media apparatus on the entire website that has these special rules apply? Genuinely trying to see the difference here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PeaceThruPramana26 (talk • contribs) 07:26, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Yes, Category:RT (TV network) is indeed a subcategory of Category:State media, so Category:State media can be removed from articles that are already classified under Category:RT (TV network). — Newslinger talk 07:30, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

I cannot watch BBC World in South Korea, it banned in 2022. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neoper11 (talk • contribs) 11:50, 17 April 2023 (UTC)