Talk:PM (BBC Radio 4)

Does anyone know WHY the programme is called PM? Does it simply stand for Post Meridiem, linked in with the notion that the program 'starts your evening'? This is worth adding to the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jez9999 (talk • contribs) 15:35, 16 January 2008 (UTC) I believe it is simply because it stands for "post meridiem" - perhaps this could go in the article. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 22:22, 13 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

The programme explained on air on 22 April 2015 that it was named after Peter Mandelson who, whilst a child, had won a competition to name the programme. However, there is reason to believe that this may be a case of British humour at work. I expect your post meridiem explanation is correct, though I don't have a cite. GrahamN-UK (talk) 17:20, 22 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

This programme could be mentioned as a programme that has referred to Wikipedia when David Cameron raised the topic of whether Gordon Brown knew how old Titian was at the time of his death, although there was some subsequent correspondence. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 22:22, 13 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

What has happened to this recently? Listeners can no longer post comments, because the presenters seem to have stopped adding new threads. 137.108.145.39 (talk) 09:46, 11 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

In fact, now there is no way to comment even when new topics are added - why is this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.108.145.39 (talk) 12:41, 27 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

Why can’t the PM producers find a decent ‘first reserve’ presenter for whenever Eddie Mair is away? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.108.145.39 (talk) 13:30, 26 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

The post-"Saturday PM" slot is mentioned for iPM which it intermittently still inhabits (approx 25 minutes of runtime, leading up to the Shipping Forecast), when a programme like In Business isn't repeating itself in that slot, but no mention is made of iPM being continuously broadcast for (I think) as long as it has existed elsewhere in a 5:45am slot (15 minutes, and thus is more edited 'version' of the 5:30pm 'repeat', when that occurs). I may check historical listings for more info, but in the meantime I'm putting this out there for anyone who is bothered. 149.254.183.107 (talk) 09:43, 17 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

See also Old revision of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#BBC Technology journalist wants to talk to admin(s) about checkuser, Old revision of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#PM (BBC Radio 4), www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b05r3z47, [1], [2], [3], [4] and TimedText:2015-04-22-1700-1800-bbc-radio4-pm-wikipedia-experiment.ogg.en.srt

Eddie Mair and a PM correspondent Rory Cellan-Jones said on air today (April 22) that they had been mischievously editing the wiki for PM as a way of exploring the Grant Shapps story about his own Wikipedia page. The edits were reverted by a wiki editor and they were asked not to vandalise the page. Should this be included within the 'quirky features' section? Hackcyn (talk) 16:38, 22 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

Fuck no. They don't deserve the satisfaction. BethNaught (talk) 16:45, 22 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

It's totally incorrect to claim that said on air today (April 22) they had been mischievously editing the wiki for PM . They weren't particularly serious in their initial discussion but the intention was clearly serious — certainly not 'mischievous'. In the end, Rori Cellan-Jones ( a serious and respected technology journalist) reported back that the Wikipedia editing procedure had proved impressively effective. Many listeners who knew little or nothing of the workings of Wikipedia are now much better informed and quite possibly more appreciative.DavidCrosbie (talk) 17:00, 22 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

I heard the exchange too and was very tempted to reach for a computer but none was to hand. I think 'mischievous' was a fair assessment of what they said. It was not clear from what they said on air whether the edits they made were factually correct or incorrect, though at one point they claimed they were factual. They were eccentric, at least as they described them on air, but related to issues which had come up over the course of some time on air about the program. It may be they chose points which did have real background to test how discriminating editors here might be. I havnt checked what was actually posted as compared to what was said on air had been done. I think the conclusion was that they credited wikipedia with protecting the page, which I note is listed as only a 'start' article. Maybe they should be encouraged to contribute. The PM program for 22/4/2015 should be available for listening on the BBC Radio4 website. I dont know how long they keep them there for. Sandpiper (talk) 23:58, 22 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

I stand by mischievous, particularly since some of the edits they made were potentially plausible - that Eddie Mair asked for one of the theme tunes to be dropped in 2005 - and they also insisted on air (clearly ironically) that the edits were true: that the programme really was named after Peter Mandelson who won a competition as a child to name a radio show. It was all very wry and chortlesome, but it was also designed to mislead and RC-J is still denying that he was PMpuppet.Hackcyn (talk) 10:14, 23 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

BethNaught, please remain WP:CIVIL. —Sladen (talk) 21:53, 22 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

I was not being uncivil to any other editor, unless you think PMPuppet counts. BethNaught (talk) 07:02, 23 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

BethNaught, an editor with your signature used inappropriate language towards another editor. Yes, PMpuppet counts. Perhaps one could consider a strike/retraction of the two words in question. —Sladen (talk) 20:44, 23 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

I did have a computer to hand, but another admin semi-protected before I hit the keys. The intention was serious, and when they suggested that listeners had a go they immediately retracted that idea, realising it could only cause problems. I have grave doubts about the "Quirky features" section. It looks very like the "Trivia" sections which we have strongly discouraged for some years now Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:23, 23 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

PM has definitely become more quirky in recent years, and arguably this is an example of it. Not so much that they were discussing the news story of whether or not Grant Shapps had been editing his own article, and decided to see whether such a thing might be possible with their own experiment, but the bantering way they discussed on air what they had done. The question of missing pips is one which has been discussed from time to time over the years on the program, because the time signal has been changed and listeners noticed. Similarly, the question of having a signature tune or not has been debated on the program somewhat light heartedly. They do use signature tunes within the program, as at the moment for their election coverage section. Even this though contains a running joke because it is referred to as the XXX desk of XXXX, which turn of phrase has been used for wimbledon, olympics, panda pregnancies. Sandpiper (talk) 21:41, 23 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

I have listened to the recording, as well as blocked the user PMpuppet who was mentioned on the programme. Regarding which person made which edits as which user, I have added fact tags. As time and eyes are upon us and I am impatient, I soon expect to see verbatim quotes and recording timings for the precise claims in the article, not links to edits, or I'll edit the section mercilessly. Thanks. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 08:53, 23 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

Ah, so a colon makes an indent? Very useful. Someone very helpfully has put a transcript of the show here - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=TimedText:2015-04-22-1700-1800-bbc-radio4-pm-wikipedia-experiment.ogg.en.srt&action=edit - which I've added a link to, as well as subsequent tweets by Rory Cellan-Jones. I've also turned the direct allegation that it was Cellan-Jones who made the edit, as PMpuppet, into a much more mealy-mouthed version as Cellan-Jones has officially denied this, although I would draw your attention to the transcript which says:

62

00:30:59,050 --> 00:31:00,650

>> MAIR: I see… Now are you going to carry on…?

…Sorry, could you make a change to the page now, just to see what happens?

>> CELLAN-JONES: I suppose I could

>> MAIR: You've got your laptop there, do you want to just do that live?

>> CELLAN-JONES: Well, I mean, that is vandalism, but if you really want me to do it…

>> MAIR: In the interests of journalism, lets say it's that

>> CELLAN-JONES: Any particular things you'd things like me to say?

>> MAIR: You could be creative if you like

>> CELLAN-JONES: OK

and then later:

102

00:48:46,000 --> 00:48:48,400

>> MAIR: Quick update now from Rory Cellan-Jones dot com

Are you still trying to change the PM Wikipedia entry?

>> CELLAN-JONES: I am, but now it's completely locked-down

The version history on the page shows that PMpuppet was active during the early stages of the programme, so I think the weight of evidence shows that Rory Cellan-Jones was certainly trying to make edits himself and there is an absence of any evidence of a third BBC person being involved as PMpuppet.Hackcyn (talk) 09:59, 23 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

The version seems to lack an admission, and the part about "someone called PMpuppet whose identity we don't..." "we don't know who they are, no.". However the article is improved so I will spare you my editing skills. Thanks. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 15:23, 23 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

I liked the bit which goes:

23 00:29:17,650 --> 00:29:19,300 >> MAIR: Earlier in the afternoon we asked you to go about editing the Wikipedia page that's about PM—this programme. What did you do, how did you do?

26 00:29:26,050 --> 00:29:29,050 >> CELLAN-JONES: Well, just to be completely clear you may have asked me that… It's not at all clear that I did it.

Before the PM program on 22 April there was only one edit to the page from an anonymous editor, IP 132.185.161.98 at 12:39. Then ten edits by PMpuppet between 1:49 and 2:20. These were reverted by Sladen one minute into the program, which I think would be just after PM announced that it was intending to edit its own page live on air. If Mair is to be believed, and Cellan-Jones had acted on the instructions Mair stated he had given, then Cellan-Jones must have edited either as the IP, or as PMpuppet. If he made more than one edit, then he must be PMpuppet. It is perfectly possible that someone else made both sets of edits, or that more than one person acted as PMpuppet. However, this is not a busy page. It seems an extraordinary coincidence that I think few would accept as such, if the PM office decided to make such an experiment, and then a purely random person happened to do it instead who was unconnected. PMpuppet reverted the page again at 17:28.

132.185.161.98 also made three edits to the Eddie Mair page at about the same time (12:36-12:38), including one grammatical correction and twice changing his year of birth. The same IP made a couple of edits noting the removal of Lutfur Rahman as Mayor of Tower Hamlets, a current news story. This IP is registered as belonging to the British Broadcasting Corporation in London and made three more edits to the page in September 2014. I seem to recall the presenters commenting that there is more anonymity for a registered user than a supposedly anonymous one, because the IP of registered users is not displayed. An admin would be able to advise further on whether PMpuppet was connected via a BBC IP or not, and whether it happened to be the same one.

IP 132.185.161.96 is another registered to the BBC, and was used four times between 17:07 and 17:30 to reinsert changes to the page which had been removed by BethNaught and Sladen. That would constitute edit warring. Both this and the very similar one with last digit changed were also used earlier in the day to edit article Warsangali, which is a Somali clan. One might jump to the conclusion someone had used the computers interchangeably at different times of day, and perhaps that they are in the same office. Both have been used to make edits on several same wikipedia pages, including ones relating to the BBC.

The previous most recent edit before all this was another IP, 165.120.206.32 on 3 April, who removed a comment about Robert Peston being prepared to take over the show, made by 95.146.113.120 on 24 March. This might be vandalism, but it also might be an actual piece of banter from Eddie Mair similar to the ones he made during this show. Robert Peston is a BBC journalist who appears on the show from time to time reporting economics. This is very likely checkable if the BBC website still has the original broadcast, probably on 24 March, if anyone is keen enough to sit through the whole hours program. Available past episodes seem to go back to 2007. Sandpiper (talk) 21:41, 23 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

I'd note here that on 23 April PM mentioned on air that their article now reported they had vandalised their own page. In my view this is quite a noteable event, particularly for users of wikipedia, who are the only people likely to ever see it. This is a start article and logically ought to have much more content, but this is the sort of thing I would find interesting if I had happened to simply look up the page. So it should be in.

However, I am less convinced that this should be described bluntly as vandalism. Firstly, casual readers will not be aware of the special meaning of this amongst wikipedia insiders, and will interpret it in its common meaning. Secondly, vandalism in its special meaning does require that an edit has been made to deliberately harm the article or wikipedia. I do not believe PM were planning to leave the article forever with deliberately false information added, but intended this as a test, as they publicly stated. I do not think wiki being tested from time to time is a bad thing for the encylopedia as a whole. People editing pages to deliberately alter public perception of themselves, issues or events, or to disparage wiki, is rather a different matter, but that is not what happened here. I am not sure if PM were able to draw conclusions about how easy it is to subvert an article, because if I was setting out to do that I would not announce the fact on national radio. Sandpiper (talk) 09:08, 24 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

I would only support including this incident in the PM article if it had any significant coverage in 3rd-party sources (e.g. national newspapers), which does not currently appear to be the case. At present the refs for the paragraph are unacceptable, being a deleted transcript of the show, a dif for an edit to this article, the PM programme itself, and tweets by PM presenters and journalists. This incident is mildly interesting for Wikipedia editors, but it is not notable in the long-term, and no more worthy of inclusion in the article than many other quirky experiments that the PM have carried out in the past. BabelStone (talk) 11:56, 24 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

I concur and support it's removal per WP:UNDUE. SmartSE (talk) 13:24, 24 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

Cellan-Jone referred to it as vandalism during the programme, and even if the intent was not malicious it doesn't mean it's not vandalism. You could argue that Banksy's artworks are vandalism and were viewed as such in the early days of his career. With respect to the inclusion of the PM Wikipedia experiment, I agree with Sandpiper - this is the sort of thing I would expect to see on the page, whether or not it was noted by newspapers. We can't rely on newspapers to judge the importance of an event because they are subject to all sorts of constraints, not least the presence of other news - events that took place on September 12, 2001 and September 1, 1997 were probably never documented in the news media if they weren't relevant to the main events of the previous day. Certainly I can't see that this is any less worthy of inclusion than most other things on the page apart from the list of presenters and producers. Why do we need to know that someone prepared for the programme by doing crosswords, or that interviewees would mention Blue Peter badges? In a world where the number of blogs is uncountable, why is it important for people to know that PM used to have a blog? And is it really worth knowing that a BBC radio programme made a contribution to the BBC's Children in Need charity appeal?Hackcyn (talk) 08:59, 27 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

I agree that this was clearly not vandalism. PM was not acting with any malicious intent to actually harm the project. Rather, it was conducting a practical experiment, based on the Grant Shapps Wikipedia story, to test how easy it is to inject silliness into Wikipedia. And they duly found that it's all but impossible.Yolon5 (talk) 09:51, 25 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

I have reinstated the earlier entries for Robert Williams, Susannah Simons, Frank Partridge and Clare English, which were removed because they do not have their own Wikipedia entries. This is not one of the rules of Wikipedia as far as I'm aware. Robert Williams and Susannah Simons are mentioned in the "History" section and it seems perverse to remove them from the list of former presenters. I may be adding further such entries as and when I confirm the dates served. GDBarry (talk) 15:17, 16 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

I have now removed the "former presenters" section. Notable former presenters are listed in the "History" section. There is an editor here who is determined to obliterate any mention of any former PM presenter who does not have a Wikipedia article, regardless of how distinguished or long-serving. I can't be bothered with this sort of game-playing. GDBarry (talk) 18:38, 16 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

Please follow the rules. People must have an article to be added to a list of presenters. Otherwise the page becomes a “schedule” page. - Funky Snack (Talk) 18:57, 16 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

What are you talking about? This is an article on a long-running BBC current affairs magazine programme that has been running for fifty years, with many distinguished presenters. Until you came along, no one had even considered removing Bob Williams or Susannah Simons from the list of presenters, because they're distinguished former presenters with many years of service. You seem to be intent on destroying Wikipedia's coverage of the history of the BBC.

What article are you going to ruin next? Are you going to remove Douglas Cameron's name from the Today (BBC Radio 4) page, because he doesn't have a stand-alone article? Go on, I dare you. I'm sure can I find hundreds of other articles for you to ruin, because you have no understanding of the history of radio. It didn't all start when Wikipedia was invented. GDBarry (talk) 19:12, 16 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

Again, please stop your abuse and calm down. If people are listed with no articles, they are likely to be removed. - Funky Snack (Talk) 19:16, 16 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

Fine. I'm going to start going through every programme I can think of in the history of the BBC, removing the names of everyone who hasn't got a Wikipedia article. It's going to be absolute carnage, but I now know I can do so safe in the knowledge that "Funky Snack" told me to. GDBarry (talk) 19:19, 16 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

I think you really need to calm down and grow up. Feel free, if you remove names from lists which have no article themselves, that’s doing as per the Wiki rules. Please can you stop your abuse or you’ll be reported again. - Funky Snack (Talk) 19:32, 16 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

No it isn't. There is no such rule. And I haven't abused you. Report me again if you like - you got a warning alongside mine, so I can't see how it would help matters. If you really think you are going to improve Wikipedia by removing the names of people who have made important contributions to broadcasting (or to anything else for that matter), you must have a very strange idea of what Wikipedia is for. Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia purely about people who have entries on Wikipedia. It would never have got started if it worked like that.

I'm going to seek further guidance about the rules, but I can't believe that Wikipedia is meant to work in the way you suggest. There must be tens of thousands of people in all fields of endeavour who don't have an article simply because no one's got round to creating one yet. It would be utterly ridiculous to exclude all mention of them.

I suggest you read the article WP:RED about so-called "red links" - in particular the part that says "In general, a red link should be allowed to remain in an article if it links to a title that could plausibly sustain an article, but for which there is no existing article, or article section, under any name. Do not remove red links unless you are certain that Wikipedia should not have an article on the subject, or if the red link could be replaced with a link to an article section where the subject is covered as part of a broader topic". There is absolutely nothing wrong with including them, and they are in fact encouraged. GDBarry (talk) 20:01, 16 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

It also states in other WP pages that lists of names shouldn’t be added unless there was an article. Now, why don’t you follow the guidance of Wikipedia and stop this edit war. I don’t know why you’re so attached to Luke Jones. Are you sure you’re not him? I will be looking to report you again if you continue your rude manner. I’ll be keeping an eye on you contributions and will be sure to mention it if you go against the decision of those who issued the warning. - Funky Snack (Talk) 20:06, 16 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

No of course I'm not Luke Jones. He has to be on the air at 6am tomorrow - do you really think he'd be up this late having a pointless argument on Wikipedia? GDBarry (talk) 20:36, 16 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

It’s 9:40pm, many can go on hardly any sleep. You do sound like you have a lot of knowledge for one person, having read the article you tried to create for him? And terms like “on the air”. I’ll be looking into this as self promotion. - Funky Snack (Talk) 20:43, 16 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

I put all that effort into the article because previous drafts had been rejected, so I wanted to create an article that might get through the submission process. As for "on the air", it's an absolutely bog-standard English expression meaning "broadcast on radio or TV"! Have you really never heard it before?

I'll be very amused if you can prove that I'm Luke Jones or promoting him in some way. How do you plan to go about it? And how come I never tried to promote Luke Jones on Wikipedia while he worked for the BBC? GDBarry (talk) 20:55, 16 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

Feel free to take a look at this article. This clearly states they must have notability. Please, stick with these rules or face a block due to going against the rules of Wikipedia and edit warring. - Funky Snack (Talk) 20:25, 16 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

That is an article about stand-alone lists - i.e. lists that are the subject of a separate article. It does not apply to "embedded lists" - ones that are included as part of a larger article. Please see WP:LISTBIO, which I have referred you to at least twice before. GDBarry (talk) 20:33, 16 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

Lists containing names in radio station articles must Be notable. End of. Please accept that and respect the rules of Wikipedia. - Funky Snack (Talk) 20:39, 16 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

I respect the rules of Wikipedia. I don't respect rules that you've just made up yourself with no justification. I cannot believe that you have removed the names of several distinguished former presenters of PM from this article on the grounds of a rule you've just made up. It has nothing to do with Luke Jones (whose name I didn't even try to reinstate in this article). I have been listening to PM for well over forty years and I have the greatest of respect for former presenters like Susannah Simons and Frank Partridge. No one has complained about their inclusion in this article until now. What have you got against them? GDBarry (talk) 20:48, 16 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

I’m merely sticking with Wikipedia guidelines. As discussed, I’ll be keeping an eye on your edits and will be sure to report you if more reverts are made. - Funky Snack (Talk) 20:50, 16 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

I haven't made a single revert. Not one. I don't actually know how to make them. You reverted one of my edits but I haven't reverted anyone else's. I always make fresh edits to the article. GDBarry (talk) 20:58, 16 July 2020 (UTC)Reply