Talk:Today (BBC Radio 4)

Today (BBC Radio 4) is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination was archived. For older candidates, please check the archive.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
January 19, 2004	Refreshing brilliant prose	Not kept

Journalism

	Journalism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of journalism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JournalismWikipedia:WikiProject JournalismTemplate:WikiProject JournalismJournalism articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

BBC High‑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 articles

High

This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Tasks for WikiProject BBC:

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.

Radio: UK High‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Radio, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Radio-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.RadioWikipedia:WikiProject RadioTemplate:WikiProject RadioRadio articles

High

This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

This page is within the scope of the UK Radio taskforce. New members are always welcome!

To-do List:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : Create: Missing years and articles in radio, National Association of Radio Distress-Signalling and Infocommunications (Hungary)
Assess : Unassessed Radio articles; Unknown-importance Radio articles
Cleanup : Radio articles needing attention
Expand : Midweek Politics Bob Crane
Maintain : Portal:Radio
Stubs : Expand: Radio stubs
Verify : Unreferenced BLPs
Other : Collaboration of the Week:
Requests for Radio peer review:

[Untitled]

(Minor rewording to remove ambiguity. The alleged bias was by the BBC, not against the BBC.)

D'oh! My original draft said "accusations of bias on the part of the BBC". Then I thought, "oh hang on, that's ambiguous, I'd better change it..." --rbrwr

Words are slippery little bastards, aren't they? Terrific article, by the way. Respec' -- GrahamN 17:43 Jan 1, 2003 (UTC)

Does anyone know how much truth there is in the story about submarines tuning in to determine if the UK had been nuked? If the Today Programme is off air two days in a row, its the end of the world... that sort of thing? True or false, it's a common piece of info and deserves a mention, so does anyone know either way? -Nommo

Donovan (as cited in the article) spends a couple of pages discussing this. The story comes from Peter Hennessy's Muddling Through (1996), but Hennessy refused to discuss his sources with Donovan. Donovan asked BBC Executive Tony Hall and cabinet minister Ken Clarke about it and they were both rather skeptical. In any event the conditions under which Trident commanders would open their sealed orders are almost certainly secret, so the truth is effectively impossible to determine.

Muddling Through is collected journalism, so the story might have been published in some other form before. Hennessy has a new book out called The Secret State: Whitehall and the Cold War which is about this sort of thing and might go into this in more detail. --rbrwr

Ta. -Nommo

No problem. I've got hold of Muddling Through, which consists largely of rewritten Radio 4 Analysis programmes; the story is part of the preface, so that was probably the first time it was published. The Secret State came out last year in hardback, and there is apparently a copy in my local library, so I might go and have a quick look sometime next week. --rbrwr

I've now had a look at The Secret State, and he repeats the story without any real elaboration, citing his own book as the source. I'll work up an appropriate rendition of all this and add it to the article. --rbrwr

BBC Radio 4#Outline might be worth linking to? It has references to using Radio 4 in nuclear retaliation, stating the long wave signal can be clearly received at sea and has capability to broadcast in times of national emergency Paul (talk) 17:39, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Superb article. Any encyclopedia would be proud to have it as an entry. Well done. JTD 03:52 Jan 31, 2003 (UTC)

I would tentatively suggest moving this page to Today programme. Any objections? Trilobite 23:11, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Here goes.... Trilobite 03:33, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Marked for NPOV check. The Message Board section looks to be written by someone who disagrees with the BBC decision discussed. Use of "Much to everyone's surprise" and "effectively censor users" show bias and require citations.

The wikipedia article is discussed on the Message Board in question here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/mbtoday/F2767107?thread=3664486

--Brendan D 13:51, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if this edit funciton is no the way to add a reply, could see no other way.

What is the problem with 'to everyone's supprise'? All I can think of you may prefer is 'too all users supprise'?

'effectively censor users' seems fair if a past freedom to select any issue is to be removed. Such an action will control or censor subject matter.

I would think the

'These rules were timed so that they would curtail discussion on legislation contained in the Queen's speech[2] on 15 November 2006 during which contentious legislation like House of Lords reform would be announced.'

could be seen as, if not bias, slanting the article. It would be true but implies a specific motive that is not a known fact.

Otherwise there are quotes for and against used, which seems fair. Even though those in favour or accepting do seem to be only three or four out of the hundreds of posts.

thanks for the comments. As the main person putting in the section it is obviously hard to maintain a neutral point of view, but I have tried - and quite a few others have seen the article and Brendon is the first adverse comments I've seen. I'll see if I can reword the queen's speech reference it shouldn't imply a causal connection but as the effective curtailment of user initiated discussion will hit on the very day when many people will be going to the page to discuss the topics of the next session - it really needs to be mentioned! --Mike 16:55, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have edited "much to everyone's surprise" because it was only the users who were surprised which was a good point. I've modified reference to queen's speech to make it clear that the timing takes effect on one of the key dates on the UK political calenda. I'm happy with "effectively censor" as this appears to be the view of the vast majority of users. If anything I have perhaps given too much prominence to those in favour as there was a comment on the page that only 2 or even 1 person using the boards were in favour. I'm a little worried about leaving in a point of view that so few people support, but I think even if it is a very minor view, it probably needs to be mentioned. Having covered all the POV issue, unless anyone disagrees I'll remove the POV notice! --Mike 17:14, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For future reference here is the first message on the subject[1]here is a pro-labour comment on the boards: [2] here a pro-tory (I think) [3] a request for a Host to reply [4] one entitled BBC lies [5]

The re-wording is much improved. Any implied link with the date of the Queen's speech is speculation, and message boards aren't really a particularly good source in terms of 'verifiable' information. But the re-wording is much better and draws attention to the date, rather than directly implying the events are linked. Thanks Mike.

--Brendan D 17:47, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Brendan. On reflection, it may be that the programme runs its internal admin-schedule in line with the Queen's speach. Whatever the reason, I'm glad it prompted me to look a bit into it, because as of 23rd Nov, they are pulling all the raw material - so it is useful to have had it reviewed whilst the information is still available. --Mike 16:32, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative Newsboards

I was a bit digusted that someone had removed the information on the alternative newsboards under the pretence of "advertising", afterall what is the article about the today programme but advertising? Moreover, having seen the number of posts on at least one of the alternative boards I did half wonder whether it might deserve an entry on its own. To only mention the BBC boards without giving at least a link to the alternative boards would be biased and misleading, particularly as there is a chance that the alternative boards may be more successful than the BBC's own in house board.

So, I've reistated the information about the alternative boards, I've corrected one link, and I believe there is at least one other board that was set up which I don't have a link.

If anything it is possible the prominence given to the BBC's own inhouse board may prove to be excessive as the new format is not proving popular and the alternative boards appear to have seen a marked increase in posts. --Mike 09:57, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've done a rough check and I estimate about 2000 separate threads on the JamesStGeorge board on their main topic (in the same period nov05-nov06) which would put this single forum in the middle ranking of the five old BBC boards. This in itself is notable enough to warrant inclusion. The other boards I've included because they have been part of discussions I've read about alternatives to the BBC. --Mike 11:12, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The board itself has less than 200 members. Considering this is a long-running early morning news that has been around for almost 50 years, a forum with only 157 members is pretty small. Also, quoting random users in a discussion thread contradicts our reliable sources guidelines. Respectfully, who is i.moore, lucíllã døry or (darryl) to be included in a Wikipedia article? Also, are there any reliable source claiming the users left for alternative forums? If not, that last section can be considered original research, or even advertisement. -- ReyBrujo 22:27, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Big 8.10 Interview

Hello, I'm new to this. I love Wikipedia, but I have not tried to contribute yet. I'd like to suggest that this article should have a reference added to 'The Ten-Past Eight', the political interviews that usually take place at that time and which have evolved quite a political significance. I was prompted to sugest this by last week's with Mr Blair. KitEwing 10:57, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What type of reference - do you have suggestions? 213.249.162.132 09:52, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Date discrepancy

"Today was launched on the BBC's Home Service on October 28, 1957..." But the first presenter (Alan Skempton) is given dates of 1956-1958. JH (talk page) 21:05, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Modified Alan Skempton's dates of presentation according to your information Dsmith1usa 08:41, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jack de Manio

I decided that it was high time that Jack de Manio had an article, so I've created one. It's only a stub, and additions would be welcome. JH (talk page) 20:42, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Companion programme in mid-70s

" It was cut back to two parts in 1976-1978, but was swiftly returned to its former position." I remember this era - I was about 5 at the time, and there was another programme on between the two parts. It had a flute theme tune which I still remember, and I believe was played by James Galway. But I have no memory of either the title or content of the programme, and have not been able to find the details anywhere. If anyone knows, it may be worth mentioning in this article - and indeed being given an article of its own, if it doesn't have one already. Jacko1972 (talk) 18:02, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Was it called "Up to the Hour"? If I'm thinking of the same tune as you it's called Tambourin, by François-Joseph Gossec (1734–1829). Apparently. There's a performance at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Hj2DfO1sKA

Flapdragon (talk) 17:21, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, yes that is the tune. I don't remember the title "Up to the Hour", but as I say I was very young at the time and some cursory research confirms that was probably the programme. I shall investigate further! Jacko1972 (talk) 06:34, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In case anyone's interested, I've created a short article on the above-named programme. If you have any more information than I've been able to find out, please do add it! Jacko1972 (talk) 19:27, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Headings

Does anyone have any thoughts on merging the controversy and criticism sections. It strikes me that the two headings are similar enough that having them seperate makes no sense. Uvghifds (talk) 15:26, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would also clean up Controversy and check for neutrality. The fact the section's opening line says "faced controversy again" sets a very tabloid-level negative tone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.70.170.48 (talk) 13:59, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Charlotte Green

Omission? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.254.147.220 (talk) 16:29, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, CG was never a presenter in the way that Montague, Naughtie, et al are, but Wikipedia has an article on Charlotte Green. Philip Cross (talk) 17:06, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Religious slot

Do we have a source for the statement in the lede that this is "often-criticised"? Tigerboy1966 06:23, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Today (BBC Radio 4). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:04, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Query about the table of main presenters

Why is it that the table of presenters has a box on the right-hand side saying "Main presenter"? I think this is rather superfluous. My own personal view is that we could put in a list, rather than a table, of main presenters - presenting this as a list could help us to see when former presenters, such as Evan Davis, did the programme. 81.140.1.129 (talk) 22:22, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Trident submarine fleet

According to UK Business Insider, the Manchester Evening News and BBC Newbeat, the continuing broadcast of the Today programme is considered by the Trident nuclear fleet to be proof that British civilisation continues to endure. Is this notable enough to be included? ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 10:15, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Today (BBC Radio 4). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added {{dead link}} tag to https://www.radioacademy.org/articles/news/arias-the-winners/
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071027162611/http://news.independent.co.uk/media/article3101942.ece to http://news.independent.co.uk/media/article3101942.ece

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:25, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Sands

 I think it might be an idea if the second paragraph mentioned that Sarah Sands became editor of the programme in 2017. Vorbee (talk) 19:12, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Montague to swap roles in 2018

This article could mention how, in March 2018, it was announced that Sarah Montague will leave the Today programme to start work on The World at One, and Martha Kearney will then become a co-presenter of Today. Vorbee (talk) 10:18, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Martha Kearney

Martha Kearney will now need to be added to the list of current presenters. Vorbee (talk) 12:04, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox in top right-hand corner

The infobox in the top right hand corner has information on the current presenters of the programme. Could it also have information on past presenters of the programme, just how info-boxes on pop groups often have information on both present and past members of a group? This would help to clarify that Sarah Montague used to present the programme. Vorbee (talk) 10:48, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Puzzles

Somewhere in this article, it could be mentioned that from Monday to Friday, the programme has puzzles on it. It never gives us the answers, though. Vorbee (talk) 09:18, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Jack

In the box in the top right-hand corner where this article lists hosts, it could include Simon Jack. It could put him in the list of current presenters - Simon Jack continues to present the programme, as he did on February 18 2020. Vorbee (talk) 07:25, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should keep it restricted to the regular presenters rather than anyone who presents the programme. Sarah Smith (news reporter) has presented Today a few times and she isn't there. Tigerboy1966 07:46, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]