Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:38, 22 January 2010

BBC Stub‑class Low‑importance

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 Stub This article has been rated as Stub-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Tasks for WikiProject BBC: edit history watch purge Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : Improve BBC, BBC News (TV channel) and BBC News to Good Article status following previous reviews, create BBC Computer Literacy Project (in light of forthcoming 30th anniversary) Cleanup : Chucklevision - references and general clean-up, Pebble Mill Studios - over-detailed and long, BBC World Service Television - unreferenced and confusing Copyedit : BBC News, Broadcasting House Expand : Top 20 start-class BBC articles with most importance: BBC Japan, BBC World Service Television, BBC Lifestyle, BBC Two Northern Ireland NPOV : Criticism of the BBC (See comments) Stubs : Stub-Class BBC articles Other : *Restructure the category Add infoboxes to the BBC articles without infoboxes Add free-use images to biographical articles where possible Add references to Goa Mix (see assessment) and Coat of arms of the BBC Return Dad's Army to a Good article. (See comments) Reassess BBC following improvements to article.

Iran Unassessed

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Iran, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles related to Iran on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please join the project where you can contribute to the discussions and help with our open tasks.IranWikipedia:WikiProject IranTemplate:WikiProject IranIran ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Satelite Jamming dispute

The source states that the satellite operator (i.e. Eutelsat, NOT the BBC) confirmed that the jamming was originating from Iran. Rapido (talk) 16:48, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Here are the 2 sources you are using: http://blogs.rnw.nl/medianetwork/bbc-adds-more-satellites-for-its-persian-tv-service ; http://blogs.rnw.nl/medianetwork/bbc-says-its-satellite-broadcasts-being-disrupted-from-iran . They both mention BBC's view, and I am being kind not attacking the credibility of your sourcing, but you should always source the original, in this case the originals come from AFP and BBC Press release which I have checked.

Never the less, out of the sources you provided, only 1 part mentions or concerns an accusation of signal jamming origination.

"The BBC said today that the satellites it uses to broadcast in Persian were being jammed from Iran, disrupting its reports on the hotly-disputed presidential election. The corporation said television and radio services had been affected from 1245 UTC Friday onwards by “heavy electronic jamming” which had become “progressively worse”. Satellite technicians had traced the interference to Iran, it said.

The satellites its uses in the Middle East to broadcast BBC Persian television to Iran were being affected, meaning that audiences in Iran, the Middle East and Europe would likely experience disruption. BBC Arabic television and other language services had also experienced transmission problems, the corporation said."

My editing is concise and adherent to the NPOV, as i've written that the BBC's technicians beleive the jamming signal to originate from Iran, not only concurrent with your 3rd class sources, but also the original BBC Press release. Unless you can cite a scientific document, or a valid source independent of the BBC (since this article concerns BBC, Misplaced Pages encourages non-BBC sources to adhere to NPOV) proving the Satelite signal to be from Iran. Such accusation are serious and Iran could face fines and trials if it is found to be jamming signal as it is illegal, so if you have prove, send it to the U.N. they will be more than willing to accept. --94.193.135.142 (talk) 11:10, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

And if you beleive so much Eutelsat mentioned this, then write "Eutelsat stated the satelite jamming to originate from Iran but provided no technical data that could be verified". If you have technical evidence or proof, then you have remove the latter part of the phrase. Look in the mirror, be a human editor, not a Political activist lurking around Misplaced Pages, be professional for Gods sake. --94.193.135.142 (talk) 11:14, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Screenshot date verification of no participation by Rapido following revert. --94.193.135.142 (talk) 12:05, 21 January 2010 (UTC) < Date and time

I agree on the sourcing issue. The references say "blog" in the url, so without any further investigation I would toss them as reputable sources for anything. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 07:59, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Cunando too, though the blog it self sources are from AFP and the BBC Press Release, the original sources need to be cited here, and any claims need to state in the article by Who. Rapido's revert does not state who, and most importantly, whether the source provided evidence to back their claim or not. --94.193.135.142 (talk) 17:28, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Cunando

Please refrain from wiping out the discussion page, if you have concerns please reply here, if you are accusing my objection with "same unverified claims" please explain why they are unverified, are you suggesting Iran's media is not to see a voice on an international Misplaced Pages? Have you even bothered to read all of Misplaced Pages's guidelines? Are suggesting those guys protesting calling the BBC "Bahai Broadcasting Corp." as some photoshopped picture and those protests never happened? Or are you being dictatorial with your wikipedia actions?

You may only archive, and only when all parties in a discussion agree that the discussion is over, so do not undo or attempt to wipeout active discussions. I will report you, I have reported many of your kind successfully before and have no problem following the same routes again. ˄˅ --94.193.135.142 (talk) 11:10, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

If you think my raised discussion is of a "soap talk" nature, please provide details as I beleive it is very concise, raises a valid issue concerning BBC and I can put forth countless daily newspapers in Iran not only raising the issue, but also citing journals and research done in Iran of academic levels. I'm Jewish myself and we are very close with Bahai's, however, some thing as part of a plan needs to be recorded accurately, and this is one. The article needs mentioning of Iran's official, journalistic, and academic view. #

You can choose to help me with this issue and include a brief 2/3 sentence mention in the article, I may budge on the picture, or we can argue and spend a long time verbally fighting, when in the end, Misplaced Pages warrants the mention of the afore mentioned criticisms. You have to understand, soap talk or trolling is "arguing" or spreading rumours, the Bahai domination criticism made was indirectly official of the Iranian government, and a significant number of people in Iran including academics have written and talked about the issue. Now the Nazi way forward would be to not include them, the right way would be to voice their view, especially when there are tons of sources. Even reuters picked up on the claim. Now if its false or not is another story, exactly just like BBC claiming the signal jamming to originate from Iran, its just someones, some organisations or some countries and governments view which needs inclusion for encyclopedic reasons. We ought to mention the criticisms made agains the BBC, proving their validity is not our job unless a scientific source has independently validated the claim. --94.193.135.142 (talk) 02:10, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Here's an example of you using the talk page as a soap box: "For anyone wanting to do a bit of self research, you can research the names of the administrative, editing and presenting team on BBC Persian and realize the majority are self-declared Bahai's. Off wikipedia, I am also reporting via direct.gov.uk the BBC for discriminative employment practices, and will also request the governments view on this matter." You were using the talk page to promote information, not to talk about article content. You've already been blocked from editing once and if you continue adding your conspiracy theory to the page without verifiable and reliable references, it will continue to be removed and you will be blocked again. So far you have not provided any such references. Have a good day. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 07:54, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

So because of two senteces, you suggest all the other raised points should be discarded? This is not a conspiracy theory, its Iran's theory. The definitions for a conspiracy theory is wide, America's accusation of Iranian Nuclear Weapons programme is equally a conspiracy theory, but see's no discrimination in its additions to Misplaced Pages. Remember Misplaced Pages does not agree to double standards.

Yes, I was blocked for reverting (3RR) what I beleive was non-sense and inaccurate editing and sourcing by Rapido who engaged in a edit war. How is that relevant to our dispute? You are making an invalid analogy.

And Promoting Informaiton? Isn't providing sources, also providing information? Isn't raising an issue, providing information? What is your definition of "providing information", since I provide information all day long talking to my friends, in meetings, at work, at home. The mouth provides information. I think your soap box claim is disputable, and could easily umbrella many other valid discussions and is a good excuse to use to garbage something you do not like. Its the type of information provided that is important here, and I do agree, the personal actions I mentioned to were personal though in action relevant for I am planning to use BBC's official replies as sources, therefore letting people know here, to not be surprised in the future of such moves.--94.193.135.142 (talk) 17:31, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

• Stub-Class BBC articles
• Low-importance BBC articles
• WikiProject BBC articles
• Unassessed Iran articles
• Unknown-importance Iran articles
• WikiProject Iran articles