Talk:British Council
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The British Council is incorrectly categorised as a department of the UK government. Note that it is a charity, and the Charity Commission gives as a "Key Legal Principle" that "Charities must be independent of government and other funders" http://www.charity-commission.gov.uk/supportingcharities/polstat.asp . Clearly the British Council, as a legal charity, must by definition be independent of government, and so cannot be a department of the UK government. It is also true that the British Council receives government funding - £186.2 million in the current year. Its status is therefore anomalous.
- I'm not sure it is, many charities in the UK have their single biggest funding source as the UK government in one form or another. Alci12 15:24, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Agreed - it is a non-departmental public body. I have changed the category. MuddyDave 13:57, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] This article is becoming a mess
This article is becoming a mess, with claims and counterclaims, text apparently written by British Council representatives, text commenting on other parts of the article, etc. It needs to be reviewed in depth be disinterested editors. — Grstain | Talk 19:52, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
The interference with this site by British Council's propaganda team is evident from both the History log and from the cackhanded used of first person in large sections of this entry. This is positively Orwellian. It is unhelpful, however, for so-called 'disinterested parties' to help them out in this blatant PR exercise by removing inconvenient Hansard references and other authoritative and well-documented sources available on the internet. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.145.242.107 (talk • contribs) .
If you want to add criticism, source it from reliable published sources like newspapers. Don't use what is probably your blog. That senior managers 'admitted' to having 1,809 teachers out of 7,925 staff doesn't seem like a big deal; the questioning MPs don't pick up on it.--Nydas(Talk) 20:25, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
I do not know this guy Nydas but I can assure her/him that I perhaps know a bit more about the topic under discussion than contributors who believe all newspapers are 'reliable published sources'. Some are, some aren't. S/He also makes the incorrect assumption that any information being added by those who dispute The British Council and Nydas's versions of 'the truth' "use what is probably your blog". As I have no 'blog', this is equally wide of the mark.
This (wo)man Nydas has according to the history page removed what I can independently verify is an authoritative public commentary on British Council matters by an informed source - who is meticulous in providing references. Removal of such references remains as unhelpful as the attempts by The British Council's own Information Services unit to use Wikipedia for their own advertising. It is also clearly a misreading of Hansard for Nydas to assert that "MPs don't pick up on" the relative numbers of British Council staff in front-line work. Not only do they "pick up on" it, they even asked that question! I suggest that Nydas shift attention to areas in which s/he has some expertise instead. Like punctuation? Or is s/he a former diplomat? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.145.242.107 (talk • contribs) .
- Please read Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Verifiability. Newspapers, even bad ones, have editors and people responsible for fact checking. Blogs are self-published and are very rarely reliable.--Nydas(Talk) 08:09, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Facts are chiels that winna ding. The sourced material Nydas objects to are factually based references. Wikipedia guidelines referred to [on blogs] are pretty clear that qualified references to such sites are perfectly OK where this is an acknowledged expert in the field. That is the case here I suggest. The guidelines are very clear as well that advertising is strictly forbidden. This Wikipedia entry has been repeatedly edited by British Council managers.
In respect of the British Council's staff weblog, that gives an insider view that is clearly relevant in assessing whether the additions to the Wikipedia entry by British Council Information Service (representing managers) bears a relation to the everyday experience of this strange organisation which takes reprisals against staff who criticise it publicly or online. British Council is a propaganda organisation, that was busted for not paying taxes in Russia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.145.241.234 (talk • contribs) .
This article is becoming useless. Half of it is pro British Council propaganda - written by marketing people in the British Council who don't even bother to hide their identity. It's completely unreferenced - there are no links to any external sites - there might as well just be one link to your own website. The sad thing is the British Council does a good job in many countries - but your input is so obviously corporate and partial I no longer care!
Even worse though, the criticism section seems to be written by people with an real axe to grind. It is so vitriolic and lacking in any objectivity that your average reader would ignore it anyway. It sounds very similar in content to an equally one sided blog that bangs away against the British Council. Why don't we just delete everything and have one link to the British Council Corporate site and another to an anti British Council blog? Cm17 00:30, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
It seems strange that so many people have so many axes to grind about the British Council... I find myself, as an impartial observer, asking "Why"?... If, as suggested, British Council staff are taking part in an edit war, then it seems quite sad that these people, perhaps under instruction, or for other personal reasons, deem it fit to add bias to what should be an impartial source of information. "Just what is the British Council?", I find myself asking - a propaganda machine or what?...
[edit] Edit war
Please stop edit warring. Discuss here to achieve consensus and instead of expressing unsubstantiated opinions, forbidden by WP:TPG, provide verifiable reliable sources per guide below on referencing. Also sign posts on talk pages with 4 tildes ~ . Thank you. Tyrenius 19:40, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
- Please take the disputed material out of the article, copy it onto this talk page, and discuss it with regard to references and achieving a balanced article per WP:NPOV. Tyrenius 23:16, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
- I have tidied up the article, and tagged elements which, in my view need to be cited. — Grstain | Talk 13:31, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Guide to referencing
Click on "show" to open contents.
| Using references (citations) |
|---|
|
I thought you might find it useful to have some information about references (refs) on wikipedia. These are important to validate your writing and inform the reader. Any editor can removed unreferenced material; and unsubstantiated articles may end up getting deleted, so when you add something to an article, it's highly advisable to also include a reference to say where it came from. Referencing may look daunting, but it's easy enough to do. Here's a guide to getting started.
A reference must be accurate, i.e. it must prove the statement in the text. To validate "Mike Brown climbed Everest", it's no good linking to a page about Everest, if Mike Brown isn't mentioned, nor to one on Mike Brown, if it doesn't say that he climbed Everest. You have to link to a source that proves his achievement is true. You must use Reliable sources, such as published books, mainstream press, authorised web sites, and official documents. Blogs, Myspace, Youtube, fan sites and extreme minority texts are not usually acceptable, nor is Original research, e.g. your own unpublished, or self-published, essay or research.
The first thing you have to do is to create a "Notes and references" section. This goes towards the bottom of the page, below the "See also" section and above the "External links" section. Enter this code:
The next step is to put a reference in the text. Here is the code to do that. It goes at the end of the relevant term, phrase, sentence, or paragraph to which the note refers, and after punctuation such as a full stop, without a space (to prevent separation through line wrap):
Whatever text you put in between these two tags will become visible in the "Notes and references" section as your reference.
Copy the following text, open the edit box for this page, paste it at the bottom (inserting your own text) and save the page:
(End of text to copy and paste.)
You need to include the information to enable the reader to find your source. For a book it might look like this:
An online newspaper source would be:
Note the square brackets around the URL. The format is [URL Title] with a space between the URL and the Title. If you do this the URL is hidden and the Title shows as the link. Use double apostrophes for the article title, and two single quote marks either side of the name of the paper (to generate italics). The date after The Guardian is the date of the newspaper, and the date after "Retrieved on" is the date you accessed the site – useful for searching the web archive in case the link goes dead. Wikilinks (double square brackets which create an internal link to a wikipedia article) function inside the ref tags. Dates are wikilinked so that they work with user preference settings.
You may prefer to use a citation template to compile details of the source. The template goes between the ref tags and you fill out the fields you wish to. Basic templates can be found here: Wikipedia:Template messages/Sources of articles/Citation quick reference
The first time a reference appears in the article, you can give it a simple name in the <ref> code:
The second time you use the same reference in the article, you need only to create a short cut instead of typing it all out again:
You can then use the short cut as many times as you want. Don't forget the /, or it will blank the rest of the article! A short cut will only pick up from higher up the page, so make sure the first ref is the full one. Some symbols don't work in the ref name, but you'll find out if you use them.
You can see refs in action in the article William Bowyer (artist). There are 3 sources and they are each referenced 3 times. Each statement in the article has a footnote to show what its source is.
When you become familiar with the process, the next step is to have one section, "Footnotes", with links embedded in the text, and another, "References", which lists all of your references alphabetically with full details, e.g. for a book:
If you're ready to go into it further, these pages have detailed information:
I hope this helps. If you need any assistance, let me know. As a British Council employee I have to sday that it is run by a bunch of no-hopers. Morons the lot of 'em. Tyrenius 19:41, 12 August 2007 (UTC) |
[edit] Not an innocent actor in IR
The BC is an arm of the British government and may serve as cover for espionage. This article needs to address such charges. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.194.63.129 (talk) 00:54, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Charges made by whom? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.122.161.195 (talk) 06:53, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Nobody aparantly. Anything could be a cover for espionage...Larklight (talk) 20:47, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
