Misplaced Pages

Template:European-English (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore | cache)

here is the deletion log for a template. I know that wikipedia is not a democracy, but is a meritocracy. This discussion shows support and opposition over its deletion and works out 50/50 for each. However administrator User:Happy-melon claims that "The result of the debate was Delete" even though there was no consensus from the wiki-community (see the TFD above). The real result of the discussion was no consensus for deletion. User:Happy-melon has decided to use his admin powers and delete the template because he personally disagrees with it, not because there was a consensus from the wiki-community. If admins are going to delete things for personnel reasons instead of going by the discussion, then why have these discussions? I believe this may be User:Happy-melon using his admin powers to suit his own WP:POV, instead of using them responsibly and for the intended purposes, which he was granted with them for. He even told users to "Get over it".
Firstly I believe the TFD should be reviewed by other admins, and secondly other admins should review weather User:Happy-melon used his admin powers appropriately or not. Thanks Ijanderson (talk) 18:46, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse - The nom was well argued and I don't see a similar argument to keep the template - people might not call the language they speak "British English", but they certainly don't call it "European English" - not to mention the fact that millions of native English speakers don't live in Europe!! In reality, of course, they usually just call it "English". The {{Template:British-English}} is sufficient here - the only other NPOV names I can see that it could have is "Commonwealth English". Black Kite 19:05, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn and relist Whatever you think about it, if you think it correct or not to use this term, the matter is something else here: The TfD was inappropriately closed because there is no clear consensus - there were only two real votes: One to delete and the other to keep and all the other votes where "per XXX"-votes. And those were exactly 50/50 split. So no matter what you think about the subject in question, there was no clear consensus to delete it. And thus I think it should be rediscussed to establish a clear consensus. SoWhy 19:14, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

• Hence my endorse - I don't think the first Keep was valid, and all the other Keeps were per the first one. Black Kite 19:20, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

• And all other deletes were the first one. So there was 1 delete vs. 1 keep. I share the nominator's concern that "get over it :D" implies a certain POV in the closing admin (not as he writes in general but with this specific close) and thus I think another TfD can only serve to establish a clear consensus. If there really is consensus to delete it, then that will be the outcome there as well. SoWhy 19:40, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

• Actually there was one Delete that wasn't per nom, but that's nitpicking - the main point is that Mike R's nomination was well-argued and made good points, whereas the single Keep viewpoint doesn't really make sense at all, as I mentioned above. Having said that, I've no real opposition to relisting it, but I suspect it'd end up like the first one. I note that a couple of the Keep voters are in regular touch with the User:Ijanderson977 on their talkpages, too. Black Kite 20:21, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't we be listening to what the wiki-community wants, there was clear support for "Keep", however these users views were ignored, whether you believe there view is correct or not Ijanderson (talk) 19:33, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

• No, there was no support for keep, there was no consensus with delete-votes equaling the keep-votes. SoWhy 19:40, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

• The ratio of keep votes to delete votes isn't terribly reliable as a judge of consensus. Look at the strength of the arguments rather than the numbers. WilyD 15:42, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Exactly, User:Happy-melon chose to go with his POV instead of waiting for a consensus to be developed. Ijanderson (talk) 20:02, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse, template is redundant with {{British-English}} and was only used on one page. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:21, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse. Sure, the debate edges a little toward No Consensus territory, but the fact remains that the deletion nomination stands unrefuted. The arguments in favor of deletion would, if I were closing the debate, be persuasive. Allegations of admin abuse are quite serious, and I note that you posted this request at ANI as well - but I see no evidence of anything here other than a good faith close that seems to have properly evaluated the debate. As Tim Vickers noes, there's already another template for which this template is redundant, so I'm not sure what precludes the use of that template. UltraExactZZ ~ Evidence 22:10, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse, case for deletion was reasonable and pragmatic, the case for keeping was based on the strange notion that "British English" is a POV term and that "European English" is a meaningful term in the context that this template used it (and there is no sign that I can see that this is the case). A perfectly reasonable close. --Stormie (talk) 23:42, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse; the close was proper. — Coren  02:19, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse Process followed. MBisanz 11:42, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn There was no consensus reached on that case, therefore a deletion should not have occured except if policy stated this template could not exist, which it did not. This closing is incorrect per policy KoshVorlon > rm -r WP:F.U.R 16:32, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse - Misplaced Pages is not an experiment in political correctness. The closer evaluated the strength of the arguments (essentially: "delete, redundant" versus "keep, avoid pro-British POV") and acted accordingly. Considering that the English language was developed by the English, and given the admission (in the TfD) that European English is just British English under another name, the closure was certainly appropriate. –Black Falcon 20:07, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse - seemingly correct decision. "Unused, never to be used, essentially unusable" is a far stronger argument than the demonstratably false "European English is a thing". WilyD 13:57, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:Chillenden windmill blown down.jpg (edit | ] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD)

I believe that the image should not have been deleted as it is irreplaceable and had a valid fair use rationale. Image was deleted despite discussion here in which other editors were agreeing that the images' use in the Chillenden Windmill article was justified. Mjroots (talk) 13:33, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion - I agree with Howcheng who cited WP:NFC#Unacceptable use images #6. This is not an iconic or famous enough image to overcome NFCC#2 concerns. If people want to see a picture of the windmill after it was blown over, they can look at the source given in the article, and follow that to the BBC article. Offline readers and printed version users will have to make do without. See here for examples of famous, much-discussed, images where I feel NFCC#8 overcomes NFCC#2 concerns. This image does not qualify, in my opinion. Carcharoth (talk) 15:00, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Incidentally, I would also endorse the deletion of Image:Chillenden mill part frame.jpg and Image:Chillenden windmill frame.jpg. At the very least, only one of these should be used, and efforts should be made to find free images that would illustrate the same things. You would be surprised what you can find in photo archives sometimes - 19th century or early-20th century pictures may exist showing the framework of such mills. Or ask nicely for the owners of those pictures to release one or more under a free license. Carcharoth (talk) 15:11, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment I would oppose deletion of either or both of those pictures. It may well be possible to find photos showing the framework of a post windmill, but that would not show the framework of Chillenden Windmill, which is a mid-nineteenth century mill, and has completly different framwork from, say, a mid-seventeenth century mill. I will ask IJP about getting free-use copies of the photos in question. Mjroots (talk) 07:56, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion per original deletion rationale, and Carcharoth's statements above. Kelly 15:55, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn deletion and allow the IfD to run its proper course. The deleting admin was already involved and !voting in discussions on Misplaced Pages:Images and media for deletion/2008 August 21 concerning the issue at stake. See AN/I. It was out of order for him to use admin tools in this instance. WP:DRV is to decide whether process was followed properly, which in this case it was not. Ty 02:38, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
  • It would be more efficient to keep deleted and follow policy. Sure, Future Perfect could have waited, and should have given a 48-hour notice separately, but ultimately following process here will only result in deletion in any case. The BBC are using it to illustrate a news story. We are using it to illustrate the history of the windmill. Is that transformative enough under US fair use laws? That, to me, seems to be the real question. Carcharoth (talk) 03:40, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
• Reinstate and overturn the deletion It's a valid use of an image per WP:NFCC; important to convey meaning; and an invalid deletion. Modernist (talk) 03:30, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
  • It is a picture of a windmill lying on its side after being blown down. That text adequately replaces the image. Especially since we already have a free picture of the windmill (after reconstruction) so the appearance of the windmill is covered by that. We don't need a non-free one of it after it was blown over in a storm. People can follow the link to read the BBC article and see the picture. Carcharoth (talk) 03:36, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
    • Granted there is an image of an intact windmill (after reconstruction) and that image conveys what the windmill looks like. However the phenomena of the blown over windmill (covered by a Fair Use Rationale) helps to explain visually what cannot really be totally understood by explanation alone. The image brings a different message; and that's important and now it's lost..I think about ground zero or an Olympic event - the destuction can be explained; the athletic achievement can be described, but the images deliver the information in a profoundly different way. I'd hate to only access the Olympics in my morning paper. This encyclopedia has a unique character and ability to convey visual information. Modernist (talk) 04:01, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn deletion Reasonable fair use of the picture to explain an important part of the article. I'd otherwise have not the least idea of what such an occurance looked like, and I deft anyone to describe it clearly inw ords. DGG (talk) 07:02, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
• Comment a couple of the overturns above don't actually address the deletion issue, i.e. failure to meet one or more of the actual fair use criteria, that it may arguably meet some of the other criteria does not overcome the requirement for deletion. (In fact the argument that this is a particularly good image to illustrate the windmill probably strengthens the argument that it fails criteria 2) --82.7.39.174 (talk) 09:53, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
• Comment Yes, and that is a matter of interpretation...Precisely we disagree concerning criteria 2. The illustration of the event is not intentionally or unintentionally replacing commercial journalism's role in depicting that event. The encyclopedia is simply conveying information; and making clear and visually understandable..what otherwise would not be..It becomes a matter of timing as well...Modernist (talk) 10:44, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

  That's fine, but doesn't address my point, succesfully arguing that something is green, whilst the article wasn't deleted for being non-green is a non-argument. If one of the typifying traits of why it was deleted is in fact "being green", then it is potentially just strengthening the argument for deletion. --82.7.39.174 (talk) 11:02, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

• Excuse me? What in the world are you talking about? The initial argument was about the bbc spending money, and the article image trodding on journalists commercial turf..addressed by comments above. Have you seen WT:NFC#Press agency photos? Modernist (talk) 12:07, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

  And what in the world are you talking about? (Good eh, makes my argument a winner). I was referring to some of the comments not being referenced to the reason for deletion e.g. DGG's argument (sorry I had to pick one) "Reasonable fair use of the picture to explain an important part of the article. I'd otherwise have not the least idea of what such an occurance looked like, and I defy anyone to describe it clearly in words.". The first part is just a bald assertion that it passed the criteria which is similar to "Non-Notable" or "Notable" as an argument in terms of strength. In this it doesn't provide any direct counter argument to those claiming it fails NFCC#2 which is cited as the primary reason for deletion. Second part is highlighting why it's a good image and thus passes NFCC#8. i.e This perhaps succesfully argues that NFCC#8 is passed, but in order to pass our fair use policy all points must be passed. In this case the deletion was specified as being a failure on NFCC#2. Now with regards NFCC#2 it seems in arguable that the commercial opportunity here is a picture illustrative of the windmill fallen down, the fact we want to succesfully argue NFCC#8 is passed since it is a good image to illustrate the windmall fallen down, would in fact suggest we are using it "in a manner that is likely to replace the original market role", since that is the original market role. i.e. as an argument it is potentially supporting a failure to meet NFCC#2. The point here is not if it does or doesn't meet any of the particular criteria, it's about if the arguments presented are in fact properly in context of the deletion. --82.7.39.174 (talk) 13:11, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

• I think your circular and vague comments above make my point.. Modernist (talk) 13:21, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

  Ok, another argument winning statement. It seems quite clear that either I am not able to express my point clearly (which isn't about if the image should or shouldn't be kept) or you are not able to understand it. Either way it seems pointless to continue. --82.7.39.174 (talk) 13:31, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion. "We really want to use it" doesn't qualify as a fair use rationale. We shouldn't be using press photos ever if there are suitable free replacements, which it seems in this case there is. Nandesuka (talk) 13:30, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
• I must be confused...What suitable replacement? Are you replacing the deleted image that satisfies all WP:NFCC with a suitable free replacement? Great...Modernist (talk) 13:42, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse, fails WP:NFCC number 8. Stifle (talk) 17:19, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
  • That is a point which can and should be debated at IfD. This is not the place to introduce new arguments. The deletion was not on that basis. Ty 05:47, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion The image has to meet all of the NFCC, not just one or some. this is a case where the guidelines for inclusion of images differ from those for content. The process issue at hand (whether or not is was deleted early) can be handled by simply relisting at IfD or accepting this debate as a stand-in for what a relisting debate would be and deleting based on this consensus. I'd rather not do that, as it would give some incentive to treat this venue as XfD2 (more so than usual). either way the deletion appeared appropriate given that the delete votes referenced the "governing" policy and the keep votes did not (despite the suggestion of the nominator). Protonk (talk) 18:00, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
• Reaffirming own deletion, reasons have been stated above. I add that it also probably misses NFCC#8+1. The exact visual sight of the blown-down windmill is not crucial for understanding the article. The degree and nature of the damages can easily be described by text, if it's really necessary. Language is more powerful than some people think. We don't need a visual representation of exactly which piece of rubble was blown where. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:31, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion - Closing administrator provided comprehensive rationale, which is supported by policy. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 19:23, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment Reason given for deletion was NFCC#2, which is -

Respect for commercial opportunities. Non-free content is not used in a manner that is likely to replace the original market role of the original copyrighted media.

The original market role of the original copyrighted media was to tell a news story. The purpose of the image in the article is to illustrate a part of the history of the windmill, not to tell a news story. Therefore the reason given for deletion is not a valid one in my opinion. Mjroots (talk) 19:59, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

The original market role of the original copyrighted media was to illustrate the windmill's destruction, and that image is still valuable to anyone interested in telling the story of the mill's destruction. You could claim fair use for using that image in an artistic collage entitled "Destruction in South America" or in an article entitled "The Power of News Coverage in Europe" or in a book called "Photographing Destructed Buildings". But as long as you're just using that image to tell the story of the windmill's destruction, you're in direct competition with the news agency that took the time to produce that photo. --Damiens.rf 20:08, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

• This just looks like a pile-on, not a discussion, To reiterate my comment earlier Precisely we disagree concerning criteria 2. The illustration of the event is not intentionally or unintentionally replacing commercial journalism's role in depicting that event. The encyclopedia is simply conveying information; and making clear and visually understandable..what otherwise would not be..It becomes a matter of timing as well - The point is that the image does not violate NFCC#2 or the other nine either... I'm done now.Modernist (talk) 20:15, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. This non-transformative use is in direct competition with the commercial interests of the copyright holder. (And an image must satisfy all of the NFCC.) The deletion rationale was based in policy. I'm sure the BBC would be happy to license this to us for a fee. Until we start allocating donations to pay these license fees, however, we can't be using this photo. Clearly fails the NFCC and likely also the statutory balancing test. Calliopejen1 (talk) 23:08, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
• Wrong definition. The image was speedy deleted under WP:NFCC#2 citing WP:NFC#Unacceptable use#I6 as a justification. The latter concerns "A photo from a press agency (e.g. AP)." This photo was not from a press agency: it was from the BBC, which is a public service broadcaster, i.e. "broadcasting intended for the public benefit rather than for purely commercial concerns." A press agency relies totally on income from the products it provides in order to survive financially and is a profit-driven business. The BBC is in a very different position, as it is government-funded and has a remit to do public good. A press agency's primary function is to sell material. The BBC's primary function is not to sell, but to broadcast. Thus WP:NFC#Unacceptable use#I6 does not apply by definition, and all arguments above referring to that are invalid. There is a strong argument that WP:NFCC#2 does not apply here either, and certainly not in a clear-cut way that justifies unilateral speedy deletion while discussion is in progress on IfD. The deletion was improper and should be reversed. Ty 06:01, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Try image-googling for "chillenden windmill". You find this image a couple of times: on wikipedia, on another site that illegally ripped it off from us, and several times on various news reports on bbc.co.uk. Misplaced Pages comes first. BBC has a legitimate commercial interest that readers wanting to learn about the story are led to its own website. By mirroring the image here, backed by the market power of being one of the world's top-ten websites, we are channeling such readers away from them and to us. This is exactly "competing with the market role of the image". We are actually not just competing with them, we are overshadowing them. As for the commercial status of BBC, they clearly act as a commercial journalistic agency; read their terms and conditions, they certainly don't say: we're non-commercial and in the service of the public good, so you can rip off our contents at will. They say quite something different. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:37, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
    • As you say, Fut.Perf, the BBC is a NEWS organisation. When the mill blew down in 2003 it was news. Now, five years later, it is history. Therefore, the use of the image to illustrate an historical event cannot be in conflict with the use on the image to illustrate a news event. Mjroots (talk) 12:23, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
      • Have you read Fut.Perf's posting above yours?? BBC still uses this image and, at this very moment, we are detracting the value the image has for them. It's part of BBC commercial strategy to have a presence on the web, and we are driving readers way from their website by copying their content to ours. --Damiens.rf 13:14, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
        • Yes, I've read it. The BBC is a Public Service Broadcaster, paid for by the TV Licence fee which I and all other UK viewers have to pay - to paraphrase them, "it's my BBC!" Please explain how the use of the image on Misplaced Pages is driving readers away from their website? I'd argue that on the contrary, it pushes readers towards their website with the link on the image and in the article on Chillenden Windmill which uses the article the image appears in as a reference. Mjroots (talk) 13:24, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
          • As a tax payer, consider starting a campaign to make BBC produced material more free. In the third-world, for instance, Brazilian Governmental Photo Agency licenses all of its images under CC-BY-2.5. --Damiens.rf 15:24, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
          • Not all the BBCs activities are paid for by the licence fee, it does engage in commercial activities which bring in additional income. When it sells on TV series to other networks charges etc. i.e. There is still commercial opportunity. --82.7.39.174 (talk) 18:33, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Question If I uploaded a different image, which was not from a Press Agency, with appropriate licence and rationale, such as this one, would it get to stay in the article?

• You would have problems with WP:NFCC#8, since we don't need a visual representation of exactly which piece of rubble was blown where. But alternatively, have you considered contacting the copyright holder and asking him to release this image under a free license? See WP:COPYREQ for avoiding common mistakes. --Damiens.rf 15:28, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Your opinion is that it fails #8, mine is that it passes all 10 points. I'm trying to locate the copyright holder - he is active om flickr but I don't have an account there. Mjroots (talk) 15:33, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
    • Contacting that flickr user is certainly a good idea. If we're lucky he might give us a truly free license on it, which would be best for everybody. If he won't do that and only grants us permission for Misplaced Pages only, or for non-commercial use only, then it's still non-free, but at least we'd steer clear of NFCC#2, so yes, it would be somewhat better than the BBC image. In that case, the issue of the other NFCCs would have to be reassessed. As I said, I'm also a bit skeptical there, but that's open to discussion. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:46, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
• The fact that such an involved argument needs to be put in order to justify the deletion is proof that it is not clear-cut, as should be the case per WP:SPEEDY: "Where reasonable doubt exists, discussion using another method under the deletion policy should occur instead." There is obviously reasonable doubt, and the IfD should be allowed to proceed to achieve a consensus. This venue is not a substitute for IfD as it is being treated: it is to examine whether the proper process has been followed, which it has not. If the image should be deleted, then the IfD will establish that outcome. Ty 05:32, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion Natch. This is supposed to be a free encyclopaedia not an excuse to violate commercial copyrights. NFCC neds to be closely adhered to. Spartaz 18:45, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Quite. And it needs to be discussed in the IfD as to whether this image meets NFCC, so that is an argument for undeletion. As pointed out above, NFCC does not specifically prohibit press agency images. It also needs to be decided whether this is a violation of copyright. If it is a legitimate fair use, then no copyright violation is involved. The Foundation Licensing policy "permits the upload of copyrighted materials that can be legally used in the context of the project". One use is for an image to "illustrate historically significant events". This is not something an admin should unilaterally decide when there is a discussion in place about it, particularly when the discussion is going against the view of that admin, who is at the same time engaging and !voting on similar debates on the very same IfD page. Ty 05:19, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

For information The image was raised at IfD on August 21 but the image was deleted before the IfD discussion had run its full course. General consensus there was to keep the image. Mjroots (talk) 08:29, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Images_and_media_for_deletion/2008_August_21#Image:Chillenden_windmill_blown_down.jpg shows that at the time of the speedy deletion there were 4 users !voting keep and 1 delete. Instead of participating in this debate, as he had with some other similar debates on the same IfD page, Future Perfect decided to circumvent the process and impose his view with admin tools. This DRV is not about deciding whether the image should be kept or not: it is clear that there are differences of opinion on that, and IfD is the venue for those opinions to be examined in detail. This DRV is about whether it was right that an admin should perform an action in this way. Those opposing undeletion need to address this issue. Ty 11:56, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

You insist on head-counting, but the closing admin is supposed to weight arguments. The nomination was concerning the use of an image proceduced by a commercial news source, but none of the keep arguments addressed the matter raised by the nomination, even with a legible NOTICE on the nomination warning about this common mistake. MBisanz's argument for keep was that the image "would not be replaceable", what was a complete no-issue. Mjroots's argument was also about the inexistence of a free alternative and the impossibility to "recreate the exact image". How does this address the concerns raised by the nomination? Tyrenius's vote was just a recitation that the image meets WP:NFCC" with no further explanation, other than a link to a talk he started (and concluded nothing of interest). Nyttend's vote was an attack on the nominator (yours truly) that he pasted on almost every other image on that IFD page. Any admin would be right to ignore these head-counts. --Damiens.rf 12:35, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

That is why the IfD should have continued - to look into these points. See Misplaced Pages:An/i#Action_to_be_taken_on_Consensus_violations. Ty 00:01, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

There are those of us who say NFCC is met, and some say it isn't - restoration of the image and a new discussion is in order...Modernist (talk) 10:44, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse per Damiens.rf. --Kbdank71 13:51, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

• Overturn Unless I'm missing something the purpose of a deletion review is to establish whether policy was correctly followed. In this case an image was CSD before an IFD was completed, i.e. the policy wasn't correctly followed. I'd suggest overturn and allow the IFD to be completed. 217.41.55.225 (talk) 15:47, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion - L.A. Times v. Free Republic would suggest that no fair use rationale could be crafted for reproducing press content in its entirety, which would make this a valid speedy. The presence of an XfD does not prevent a valid speedy from being speedied. 217.36.107.9 (talk) 13:04, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
  • There is no comparison between this case and the one you cite. Free Republic was reproducing whole articles en masse. This is just a small part of the original article on the BBC site. This is also why the speedy deletion citing WP:NFC I6 is invalid and shows the difference between a press (as in photo) agency and a broadcaster. The agency's sole output is the photo. In the case of the BBC article, the photo was a small part of the output, which was mostly the text in their article. Ty 00:07, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
    • The work in question was a photograph. We are reproducing it in its entirety, and therefore derpiving the BBC of its ability to re-sell the image, if in fact it was an image taken by the BBC. I see no reason to distinguish between the BBC's News & Current Affairs department and any other journalistic body. 217.36.107.9 (talk) 09:18, 29 August 2008 (UTC)