Talk:The Archers/Archive 1

Archive 1

Guiding Light

"Guiding Light" has been on US television since 1952, and was on radio before that. I think that might trump The Archers' claim. -- Zoe

I'll qualify it with "radio" until we can ascertain the facts! sjc

I see there's another claim at Unshackled 80.42.47.145 02:45, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

From the article, Unshackled seems to be a series of unconnected dramas with the same title, not a continuous story Andy G 18:59, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Deluge of new editors expected

BBC Online asks readers to edit Wikipedia article on The Archers. David | Talk 23:13, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Unfortunately, many of the "joke edits" (called "vandalism" around here) will mystify anyone who does not frequent the official Archers bulletin board. I'm being a dreadful spoilsport, sorry! Philip Cross 14:44, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The marmalade joke made me laugh! --Mongreilf 10:49, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Helen's supposed anorexia

Helen Archer suffered from an eating disorder, which the scriptwriters insist it was not anorexia nervosa

Where/when did they insist on this, and why? Flapdragon 16:04, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Removed the unexplained phrase "which the scriptwriters insist was not anorexia nervosa". Flapdragon 13:55, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Script Gaps for Topical Material?

Is it true that Archers scriptwriters typically insert pieces of conversation that are irrelevant to any plot and can be replaced at the last minute by some highly topical material? For example, does anyone know what was actually broadcast in the episodes of September 12/13/14th 2001? Also, has this scripting technique been used on other radio soaps? JXM 17:11, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I think there are three questions here and my answer is yes, yes and I don't. In the days when there were five 15 minute episodes, the omnibus edition lasted one hour. Consequently there had to be 15 minutes of dialogue every week which could be omitted without compromising the plot. Archers episodes are recorded up to 3 months before broadcasting and therefore topical inserts a required so that the characters don't appear to be completely unaware of important world events (though Archers Anarchists would argue that this is a defining aspect of Ambridge Folk). I can't recall any inserts for September 2001 though I do vividly remember Jill Archer's visit to the church following the death of Diana, Princess of Wales.

There was a topical insert for September 11th, it featured David and Ruth at the end of the episode on September 12th saying how their problems were insignificant compared to those of New York. --Aztek41 10:12, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Ambridge (old discussion)

[Untitled]

Ambridge is also a real town in Beaver County in Western Pennsylvania. It began life as a company town for, and derives its name from, the American Bridge Company, which was headquartered there. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.95.18.162 (talk • contribs) 09:07, 13 January 2004.

I have mentioned Ambridge in the American Bridge Company article I just created ++Lar 01:46, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Merger

This page was rather short, and in need of attention (Ambridge has never been a town, and is certainly not in the East Midlands!), so I have merged it into the main Archers page. Hopefully there it will attract more attention. I hope nobody minds, but I was feeling bold. GyroMagician (talk) 16:16, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Character biographies

We are now getting a long page warning, so we may need to consider means of reducing the article size.

What do fellow editors think of moving the biogs to a new page? This would have the dual benefit of reducing the article size and would also allow readers to avoid spoilers if desired.

We could also consider a month-on-month storyline page.

Any thoughts?

Stevecov 14:20, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, is Brian Aldridge really a "serial adulterer" on account of one affair and another ret-conned affair? Also, "nouveau riche" implies ostentatious and crass vuglarity which I don't observe in the Snells... Paul S (talk) 16:49, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Correct use of Language

I would be grateful if we could agree to not use politically charged terms such as "gay" and "homophobic" when what we really mean is "practising homosexual" and "opposed to homosexuality". The former terms are disputed as valid terms and are simply not recognised by many people, whereas the latter are. This is, after all supposed to be an encyclopaedia, not a pamphlet pushing a particular viewpoint. Whilst the subject matter may be ostensibly trivial, it is important to maintain impartiality and accuracy.

I will not revert the changes as they stand as I am fully aware that someone will simply revert them in turn. But it should be noted that this is not without objection.

It is very much worth pointing out that the Adam and Ian storyline is very much a piece of specious homosexualist propaganda - first of all, the characters are completely flawless, their "relationship" is flawless. Sadly, the statistics about homosexual relationships, their brevity, infidelity and promiscuity which are very well documented paint a very different picture. Yes, it is a soap opera, and it isn't meant to be "real", but it is worth noting the way that The Archers can, like all things, be hijacked to push an agenda, as it clearly has been in this case.

Encyclopaedias seek to use language in its commonly accepted form: this is a 21st century concept and uses language in its 21st century context. A cursory glance at any dictionary will demonstrate that the words "gay" and "homophobia" are clear and unambiguous and are in terms which can be regarded as NPOV in today's usage.

I don't accept that the portrayal of one same-sex relationship is pro-gay propaganda any more than I believe that one character owning a sausage business is anti-vegetarian bias. In fiction, personal characteristics are plot devices as often as they are individual quirks and I don't believe that portraying two gay men in steady jobs in a blossoming relationship is remotely unusual, even in a rural setting.

Your persistent vandalising POV amendments are becoming tiresome and I expect that you can expect an imminent visit from the Wikipolice if you do not desist from vandalism.

On a more serious note, your edit history shows evidence of a thoroughly corrosive obsession with the gay issue and, whilst I am not clinically qualified, I respectfully suggest you seek help for it. - Stevecov 12:26, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments Steve. But there is another aspect to this that you may not have considered. Wikipedia is not simply a resource for white western liberals and their own peculiar world view - it is intended for a world audience. Furthermore, the BBC is an international broadcaster and increasingly the Archers will be heard by a large number of people outside a certain bubble. The overwhelming majority of the world's people do not consider homosexuality to be normal or morally acceptable and understand both the terms "gay" and "homophobia" to be words that belong in the lexicon of (a tiny minority of the world's) people who seek to normalise homosexuality and stifle opposition to it. That Steve, is what is truly "corrosive", and, IMHO, the hijacking of the Archers to push a distorted view of homosexuality in contradiction of the evidence is far more "corrosive" to the BBC and British society than any obsession I might have. As you can understand, many people take Wikipedia at face value and it is important to present a balanced view.

The current language used in the article does not present a remotely balanced view. As I have stated above, I will not edit the article because I know that people who outnumber me and are far more determined to push their POV than me will rapidly vandalise my changes so please rest assured, so you can call off your thought police! But for the record - and for all our African, Asian and American brothers and sisters who may be bemused and perhaps outraged at both the BBC's bizarre treatment of this subject and Wikipedia's lack of perspective on it - it is worth noting that not all people in the West share or support this perspective and distortion, and would wish to present to said bemused listeners an explanation.

Any bemused non-UK listeners will, therefore, learn that acceptance of same-sex relationships is an increasingly mainstream position. By acknowledging your minority position in UK public opinion, you implicitly accept that the BBC is reflecting and not driving public opinion.

Your "evidence" is partial and has been repeatedly discredited. These theories are rightly acknowledged on other pages in this encyclopaedia; they do not belong on a page which is devoted to a radio serial, two of whose characters are in a same-sex relationship.

As it happens, I think Eastenders is a dreadfully tokenistic representation of multi-cultural London. I don't feel the need to vandalise its page constantly with a stream of abuse because the series doesn't accede to my personal world view. The vast majority of its characters are white, when even the least observant would note that Tower Hamlets (illustrated by the legend map indicating its setting) is less than 40% white and is predominantly Bangladeshi.

The Eastenders page does not make mention of this common criticism because it is clearly not NPOV. Neither are your repeated vandalising edits on the Archers page. - Stevecov 11:07, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Steve, again, for your comments. I note that you list under your interests "homosexual rights" which may give us a clue as to where you are coming from on this issue. You (or someone else) stated that Adam and Ian have an "enduring relationship". In fact it has only been going about six months IIRC. You state that this matter relates to my opinion. It pertains to verisimilitude - the likelihood of two practising homosexual men in their late 20's / early 30's living together like Phil and Jill archer - though I do take your point about it being a work of complete fantasy.

Incidentally it is not the UK mainstream opinion that homosexuality is acceptable, and this is why I think it is worth noting the Archers' anomalous position. I do not understand why any reasonable person would have an objection to replacing "gay" (which is an ambiguous term) with (where applicable) "person who experiences same sex attraction" or "practising homosexual", or for that matter the highly disputed term "homophobia" with "moral objection to homosexuality". (A phobia, as you know, is a psychiatric condition).

I do think that it might be worth pointing out that EastEnders is racially unrepresentative of that part of London. That would be a valid comment - however as I don't have a television I don't care.

You note that homosexual matters are covered elsewhere on Wikipedia. A salient comment given that the articles overwhelmingly represent a white, middle class, western liberal, perspective on this phenomenon, and a good indication of the imbalance inherent on Wikipedia on this matter, and hence its liability as a source. I do believe that we need to rationalise the terms we use in relation to this matter to prevent offence and ambiguity.

"Incidentally it is not the UK mainstream opinion that homosexuality is acceptable, and this is why I think it is worth noting the Archers' anomalous position."

The "Living Together" Report based on a YouGov survey conducted October 2006 found:

93% supported the Employment Equality(Sexual Orientation)Regulations 2003 which provide protection from discrimination a harassment for gay employees.

68% support the Civil Partnership Act 2004 which provides partnership right for same sex couples similar to marriage.

85% support the Equality Act (Sexual Orientation)Regulations 2007 which makes it unlawful to refuse people services, such as health care, on the grounds of their sexual orientation.

82% said they would support making it unlawful to incite hatred on the grounds of sexual orientation, similar to existing laws for race.

Only 14% would feel uncomfortable if their GP were gay, 18% for their child's teacher and 7% for their boss.

Only 1 in 20 people say they don't like lesbians or gay men (Down from 17% who said they felt less positive about LGB people in a Ipsos MORI poll in 2003 ).

Over half of people think that lesbian and gay people experience public prejudice in Britain and 73% think that anti-gay prejudice should be tackled.

38% think the media have responsibility to reduce the level of prejudice against gay people.

So it is the UK mainstream position that homosexuality is acceptable and The Archers' position is therefore neither anomalous nor notable.220.244.248.194 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:36, 9 November 2010 (UTC).

Episodes

It would be good to have a recent total for number of episodes somewhere near the beginning of the article.RuthieK 13:41, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

According to Who's Who in The Archers 2007, episode 15,047 will be broadcast on 1 January 2007. Working backwards from here, episode 15,000 will be broadcast on 7 November 2006. ISD 16:11, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

It's in the Infobox. It's silly to have it in the article becaus it has to be updated. Also there is not a logical connection between the number of episodes and long-running: “With over 17,650 episodes, it is the world's longest-running radio soap opera production.” It is the fact that it has been going since 1951 that makes it long-running. If it has had more episodes than any other then that's a different record.PhilomenaO'M (talk) 13:17, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Supermac

I read somewhere that Harold Macmillan was on the programme - cameo - before he became PM. Is that true? Is it in any of The Archers' books?88888 11:04, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

MahabharArchers

The Mahabharata is 1.8 million words in total. Is there any suggested word-count for the Archers scripts since it began? 88888 14:59, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Minutes per week * Weeks in a Year * Years in production * words per minute = 75*52*59.5*200 = 46,410,000 words. Makes The Archers at least 20 times longer than Mahabharata. Tigerboy1966 (talk) 13:20, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Bert Fry

There is no subentry for Bert Fry, despite being referred to in the subentry for Freda Fry. --quentin72

I have added a short entry for Bert Fry

Socksysquirrel 11:52, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

And a short entry for Robert Snell

Socksysquirrel 01:23, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Start Date

I'm not quite sure what this is supposed to mean, Starting on Whit Monday 1950 and continuing over Easter, a pilot series was broadcast to the English Midlands, so i won't change it, but isn't Whit Monday fiftyone days after Easter? Does anyone know, off-hand, just what was intended here? Cheers, Lindsay 18:15, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Worked it out, changed it. Cheers, Lindsay 15:07, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Nelson Gabriel

Corrected this section by referring to the article on the official website.[1] Philip Cross 21:58, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Nigel Pargetter

Can anyone tell me what is meant by: "Nigel Pargetter (played by Graham Seed, formerly by Nigel Caliburn, now Carrington)"

Thanks.

Seems it means that the actor Caliburn changed his name to Carrington. Added Spotlight CV link accordingly. - Ralphbk 13:41, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Souad Faress

I just created a stub page for Souad (I was amazed to find that there wasn't one), which immediately gets landed with a 'speedy deletion' tag - can anyone else contribute to it and (perhaps even) explain how to satisfy the wikipedia criteria for a worthy article subject? Thanks! --Ndaisley (talk) 20:21, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Cite error:

At the bottom of the article it says (in red) "Cite error:". Anybody know why? I looked at all the <ref>s, but could see nothing obviously wrong. HairyWombat (talk) 21:16, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Fixed, thanks for noticing - looks like it was broken back on the 1st August, when the reflist was moved above the External links section. Moving it below has fixed the "Cite error:" mark. Stephenb (Talk) 22:31, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I have had to revert your edit. You reinstated some things that should be there (a Billy Connolly quote, "See also" link to radio soaps list), re-linked dates (which goes against MoS) and moved back the episode count to last May!--UpDown (talk) 11:18, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about that, perhaps I edited the wrong version. Having said that, you could have re-done the fix, since you are continually editing the article anyway... Stephenb (Talk) 13:52, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I was unaware of the fix you meant to do or how to correct the problem.--UpDown (talk) 15:56, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I've re-corrected it, as per my description above Stephenb (Talk) 17:23, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Number of episodes

I put a fact tag on the number of episodes. I cannot see how that number can be accurate and encyclopaedic without a proper citation. I see that a citation to a book has been added. If that is to stand then the number of episodes should be listed as of the date given in the book. If the current number of episodes is to be listed then it needs a citation. Further, I really don't see why the number of episodes needs to be updated every other day as it is right now. If we have a perfectly good citation that gives the number of episodes as of a particular date (some time in 2008 according to the citation) then why shouldn't it be left at that until another up to date citation comes along. --TimTay (talk) 10:20, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Completely agree, if the episode count is being updated as the result of a calculation rather than in direct reference to a reliable source then it starts to stumble in to the arena of original research. Nancy ^talk 11:26, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I just removed the book citation from the number of episodes as it does not support the figures given in the infobox. I repeat that the number of episodes listed as of a specific date should be supported by a citation. --TimTay (talk) 08:05, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

"Original research" - are you being serious. This is how episode counts are done across Wikipedia, and is it quite riduclous to on this page suddently declare otherwise. There is a ref for episodes as of 1 January 2009 (the book I cited), and you count from there. Then when the next ref comes, you use that. It is done with most programmes, especially soaps, to keep them up to date. And you say "I cannot see how that number can be accurate...without a proper citation" - what, so because there is not cite, it has to be wrong. In that case there is an awful lot of wrong info on Wikipedia. Episode counts are normally done in this way, not every piece of information in Wikipedia has to be referenced (otherwise you'd have ref tags at the end of every line). This episode count is fine.--UpDown (talk) 08:30, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Looking at some TV programme featured articles, very few seem to have ref next to the episode total. --UpDown (talk) 08:44, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy would appear to state the opposite; from WP:VER - "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true." Nancy ^talk 14:39, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

And as with all guidelines there are some exceptions.--UpDown (talk) 17:35, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

For the sake of accuracy I should point out that it's not a guideline, it's a policy. Nancy ^talk 07:29, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, and my last comment still applies.--UpDown (talk) 08:01, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Ambridge merger

I found a rather short Ambridge page, so I merged the content here. I made a few edits in the process, but it still needs a little more work. I hope I can leave it in the hands of some regular listeners (I only listen occasionally). Borsetshire would be another target for inclusion, if someone is feeling keen. GyroMagician (talk) 16:21, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Prequel novels

It is incorrect to state that two prequel novels were published in the 1970s. Only one of the novels was set in the early 1900s, the other in the 1970s. I believe that at least one of the novels published in the 1980s was also a prequel. Two other novelisations not listed here - "The Archers" and "The Archers Intervene" were published in the 1950s, and at least one reference book appeared during the 1980s.

(Solidsandie (talk) 01:08, 8 July 2010 (UTC))

I have a copy of "The Archers of Ambridge" a novel by Edward J Mason, published in the 1950s and picked up in a second hand bookshop about 35 years ago. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thermosoverfil (talk • contribs) 19:01, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

The Gillans

I note that CBC started making the Canadian series The Gillans, with a very similar idea to The Archers, from at least the mid-1940s. I wonder if anyone confirm whether the later series drew conscious inspiration from The Gillans? _{Personal interest disclaimer: my father, David Murray, played a role in this programme for some years around 1950.} --Oolong (talk) 22:32, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Sentence about "The Guiding Light" is unclear, please make clarifications suggested below

The sentence in the opening paragraph "With over 16,700 episodes, it is both the world's longest running radio soap and, since the cancellation of the American soap opera Guiding Light in September 2009, the world's longest running soap opera in any format.[4]" is confusing and needs greater clarification.

This should be cited as two separate sentences. The first would state that "The Archers" is the world's longest running radio soap. I'm sure this is understood.

The second sentence should state that this makes "The Archers" the world's currently longest running soap in any format. But it is not the longest-running soap ever produced.

For the record "The Guiding Light" is listed in the Guinness Book of World Records as the longest story ever told. The show premiered on NBC's Red Radio Network January 25, 1937. The show moved to CBS Television on June 29, 1952, where it remained until its cancellation in 2009. It had a total and uninterrupted run of 72 years, and just over 7 months.

Ultimately, I suggest you remove all reference to "The Guiding Light" and simply state that "The Archers" is currently the world's longest running soap opera in any format.Joemalvern (talk) 17:26, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

John Yorke as (acting) editor

John Yorke has been editing The Archers since March 2012, and the series has acquired a distinctly different tone under his stewardship, with lots of implausible plotlines involving jeopardy and extreme behaviour. This has attracted considerable criticism from fans who accuse the programme of dumbing down in a (probably doomed) search for new listeners. Would somebody familiar with the wider Archers world like to document this in a new section? --Ef80 (talk) 20:35, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

It is funny that you raise this here - as my Mum had noticed a "dumbing down" of the Archers many years before March 2012. In fact, I think it may have been as long ago as 2004 that my Mum stopped listening to the Archers because she felt it had been dumbed down, and then some years later, on holiday in 2008, my family and I heard a man (who was actually a professional farmer) say that the agricultural editors of the Archers should have been sacked. I think that there is evidence that the programme has been dumbed down over the past few years now. I wonder whether any one feels that it would be worth discussing this theme in the article? ACEOREVIVED (talk) 14:26, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I have altered the heading to this section because in March 2012 Yorke became (acting) editor of The Archers while Vanessa Whitburn took four months leave. Vanessa had planned to use her four months off to travel, and had planned (in March) to return to The Archers last July.
Yes, I do think there has been a change; one that appears to feature the young characters more now than the stories used to when Vanessa Whitburn was Managing Editor. Rosemary Cheese (talk) 15:13, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

As is mentioned above, John Yorke was acting editor for 4 months and during that time stated on a number of occasions (after a first inerview whan he talked about "darker" story lines) that he was simply carrying on the story lines already laid down. If you read the Achers MB the posters there complain continuously about the "dumbing down and "stenderisation" of the The Archers under Vanessa Whitbirn, who has been editor since 1992. However since the fire that killed Grace Archer and Jennifer's illegitimate son we've had sensation aplenty and plenty of silliness so I don't think an encyclopedia entry should go there, unless it wants simply to state tht this view os held by some (how many?) listeners.PhilomenaO'M (talk) 19:31, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it was rather a ridiculous claim by those who, not liking the storyline, looked for someone to blame, even though he did not plan it. I've updated the entry a bit - I've not removed Yorke nor the linked criticism (even though the link is to the Daily Express - hardly reliable!) but added something of his rebuttal. Stephenb (Talk) 20:58, 3 January 2013 (UTC)