Talk:The Archers

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Soap Operas, an attempt to build consistent guidelines for articles about soap operas and telenovelas on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit WikiProject Soap Operas, where you can join the project and/or the discussion.
???	This article has not yet received a rating.

	Radio Portal This article is supported by the Radio WikiProject. This project provides a central approach to Radio-related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article attached to this page and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards. Visit the wikiproject page for more details.
Start	This article has been rated as start-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
	This article is supported by the UK Radio task force.

	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.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale. (Add assessment comments)
Mid	This article has been rated as mid-importance within the BBC WikiProject.
Tasks for WikiProject BBC: Here are some tasks you can do: Merge: Suggested merge of Criticism of the BBC into BBC controversies (Discuss) Cleanup: Newsnight, BBC Prime, BBC Two Northern Ireland Expand: All 10 start-class BBC articles with Top importance - see here, BBC Lifestyle Stubs: Stub-Class BBC articles Update: BBC Portal NPOV: Criticism of the BBC (See comments) Other: Ensure all our articles have the talk page template added to their talk pages. Add free use images for biographical articles. Add infoboxes to the BBC articles without infoboxes. Get our new task force on BBC Sitcoms going. Add references to Goa Mix (see assessment) and Coat of arms of the BBC.

Contents 1 Guiding Light 2 Deluge of new editors expected 3 Helen's supposed anorexia 4 Character biographies 5 Correct use of Language 6 Script Gaps for Topical Material? 7 Bert Fry 8 Episodes 9 Supermac 10 MahabharArchers 11 Start Date 12 Nelson Gabriel 13 Nigel Pargetter 14 Souad Faress

[edit] Guiding Light

"Guiding Light" has been on US television since 1952, and was on radio before that. I think that might trump The Archers' claim. -- Zoe

I'll qualify it with "radio" until we can ascertain the facts! sjc

I see there's another claim at Unshackled 80.42.47.145 02:45, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

From the article, Unshackled seems to be a series of unconnected dramas with the same title, not a continuous story Andy G 18:59, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Deluge of new editors expected

BBC Online asks readers to edit Wikipedia article on The Archers. David | Talk 23:13, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Unfortunately, many of the "joke edits" (called "vandalism" around here) will mystify anyone who does not frequent the official Archers bulletin board. I'm being a dreadful spoilsport, sorry! Philip Cross 14:44, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The marmalade joke made me laugh! --Mongreilf 10:49, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Helen's supposed anorexia

Helen Archer suffered from an eating disorder, which the scriptwriters insist it was not anorexia nervosa

Where/when did they insist on this, and why? Flapdragon 16:04, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Removed the unexplained phrase "which the scriptwriters insist was not anorexia nervosa". Flapdragon 13:55, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Character biographies

We are now getting a long page warning, so we may need to consider means of reducing the article size.

What do fellow editors think of moving the biogs to a new page? This would have the dual benefit of reducing the article size and would also allow readers to avoid spoilers if desired.

We could also consider a month-on-month storyline page.

Any thoughts?

Stevecov 14:20, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Correct use of Language

I would be grateful if we could agree to not use politically charged terms such as "gay" and "homophobic" when what we really mean is "practising homosexual" and "opposed to homosexuality". The former terms are disputed as valid terms and are simply not recognised by many people, whereas the latter are. This is, after all supposed to be an encyclopaedia, not a pamphlet pushing a particular viewpoint. Whilst the subject matter may be ostensibly trivial, it is important to maintain impartiality and accuracy.

I will not revert the changes as they stand as I am fully aware that someone will simply revert them in turn. But it should be noted that this is not without objection.

It is very much worth pointing out that the Adam and Ian storyline is very much a piece of specious homosexualist propaganda - first of all, the characters are completely flawless, their "relationship" is flawless. Sadly, the statistics about homosexual relationships, their brevity, infidelity and promiscuity which are very well documented paint a very different picture. Yes, it is a soap opera, and it isn't meant to be "real", but it is worth noting the way that The Archers can, like all things, be hijacked to push an agenda, as it clearly has been in this case.

Encyclopaedias seek to use language in its commonly accepted form: this is a 21st century concept and uses language in its 21st century context. A cursory glance at any dictionary will demonstrate that the words "gay" and "homophobia" are clear and unambiguous and are in terms which can be regarded as NPOV in today's usage.

I don't accept that the portrayal of one same-sex relationship is pro-gay propaganda any more than I believe that one character owning a sausage business is anti-vegetarian bias. In fiction, personal characteristics are plot devices as often as they are individual quirks and I don't believe that portraying two gay men in steady jobs in a blossoming relationship is remotely unusual, even in a rural setting.

Your persistent vandalising POV amendments are becoming tiresome and I expect that you can expect an imminent visit from the Wikipolice if you do not desist from vandalism.

On a more serious note, your edit history shows evidence of a thoroughly corrosive obsession with the gay issue and, whilst I am not clinically qualified, I respectfully suggest you seek help for it. - Stevecov 12:26, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments Steve. But there is another aspect to this that you may not have considered. Wikipedia is not simply a resource for white western liberals and their own peculiar world view - it is intended for a world audience. Furthermore, the BBC is an international broadcaster and increasingly the Archers will be heard by a large number of people outside a certain bubble. The overwhelming majority of the world's people do not consider homosexuality to be normal or morally acceptable and understand both the terms "gay" and "homophobia" to be words that belong in the lexicon of (a tiny minority of the world's) people who seek to normalise homosexuality and stifle opposition to it. That Steve, is what is truly "corrosive", and, IMHO, the hijacking of the Archers to push a distorted view of homosexuality in contradiction of the evidence is far more "corrosive" to the BBC and British society than any obsession I might have. As you can understand, many people take Wikipedia at face value and it is important to present a balanced view.

The current language used in the article does not present a remotely balanced view. As I have stated above, I will not edit the article because I know that people who outnumber me and are far more determined to push their POV than me will rapidly vandalise my changes so please rest assured, so you can call off your thought police! But for the record - and for all our African, Asian and American brothers and sisters who may be bemused and perhaps outraged at both the BBC's bizarre treatment of this subject and Wikipedia's lack of perspective on it - it is worth noting that not all people in the West share or support this perspective and distortion, and would wish to present to said bemused listeners an explanation.

Any bemused non-UK listeners will, therefore, learn that acceptance of same-sex relationships is an increasingly mainstream position. By acknowledging your minority position in UK public opinion, you implicitly accept that the BBC is reflecting and not driving public opinion.

Your "evidence" is partial and has been repeatedly discredited. These theories are rightly acknowledged on other pages in this encyclopaedia; they do not belong on a page which is devoted to a radio serial, two of whose characters are in a same-sex relationship.

As it happens, I think Eastenders is a dreadfully tokenistic representation of multi-cultural London. I don't feel the need to vandalise its page constantly with a stream of abuse because the series doesn't accede to my personal world view. The vast majority of its characters are white, when even the least observant would note that Tower Hamlets (illustrated by the legend map indicating its setting) is less than 40% white and is predominantly Bangladeshi.

The Eastenders page does not make mention of this common criticism because it is clearly not NPOV. Neither are your repeated vandalising edits on the Archers page. - Stevecov 11:07, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Steve, again, for your comments. I note that you list under your interests "homosexual rights" which may give us a clue as to where you are coming from on this issue. You (or someone else) stated that Adam and Ian have an "enduring relationship". In fact it has only been going about six months IIRC. You state that this matter relates to my opinion. It pertains to verisimilitude - the likelihood of two practising homosexual men in their late 20's / early 30's living together like Phil and Jill archer - though I do take your point about it being a work of complete fantasy.

Incidentally it is not the UK mainstream opinion that homosexuality is acceptable, and this is why I think it is worth noting the Archers' anomalous position. I do not understand why any reasonable person would have an objection to replacing "gay" (which is an ambiguous term) with (where applicable) "person who experiences same sex attraction" or "practising homosexual", or for that matter the highly disputed term "homophobia" with "moral objection to homosexuality". (A phobia, as you know, is a psychiatric condition).

I do think that it might be worth pointing out that EastEnders is racially unrepresentative of that part of London. That would be a valid comment - however as I don't have a television I don't care.

You note that homosexual matters are covered elsewhere on Wikipedia. A salient comment given that the articles overwhelmingly represent a white, middle class, western liberal, perspective on this phenomenon, and a good indication of the imbalance inherent on Wikipedia on this matter, and hence its liability as a source. I do believe that we need to rationalise the terms we use in relation to this matter to prevent offence and ambiguity.

[edit] Script Gaps for Topical Material?

Is it true that Archers scriptwriters typically insert pieces of conversation that are irrelevant to any plot and can be replaced at the last minute by some highly topical material? For example, does anyone know what was actually broadcast in the episodes of September 12/13/14th 2001? Also, has this scripting technique been used on other radio soaps? JXM 17:11, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I think there are three questions here and my answer is yes, yes and I don't. In the days when there were five 15 minute episodes, the omnibus edition lasted one hour. Consequently there had to be 15 minutes of dialogue every week which could be omitted without compromising the plot. Archers episodes are recorded up to 3 months before broadcasting and therefore topical inserts a required so that the characters don't appear to be completely unaware of important world events (though Archers Anarchists would argue that this is a defining aspect of Ambridge Folk). I can't recall any inserts for September 2001 though I do vividly remember Jill Archer's visit to the church following the death of Diana, Princess of Wales.

There was a topical insert for September 11th, it featured David and Ruth at the end of the episode on September 12th saying how their problems were insignificant compared to those of New York. --Aztek41 10:12, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bert Fry

There is no subentry for Bert Fry, despite being referred to in the subentry for Freda Fry. --quentin72

I have added a short entry for Bert Fry

Socksysquirrel 11:52, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

And a short entry for Robert Snell

Socksysquirrel 01:23, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Episodes

It would be good to have a recent total for number of episodes somewhere near the beginning of the article.RuthieK 13:41, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

According to Who's Who in The Archers 2007, episode 15,047 will be broadcast on 1 January 2007. Working backwards from here, episode 15,000 will be broadcast on 7 November 2006. ISD 16:11, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Supermac

I read somewhere that Harold Macmillan was on the programme - cameo - before he became PM. Is that true? Is it in any of The Archers' books?88888 11:04, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] MahabharArchers

The Mahabharata is 1.8 million words in total. Is there any suggested word-count for the Archers scripts since it began? 88888 14:59, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Start Date

I'm not quite sure what this is supposed to mean, Starting on Whit Monday 1950 and continuing over Easter, a pilot series was broadcast to the English Midlands, so i won't change it, but isn't Whit Monday fiftyone days after Easter? Does anyone know, off-hand, just what was intended here? Cheers, Lindsay 18:15, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Worked it out, changed it. Cheers, Lindsay 15:07, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nelson Gabriel

Corrected this section by referring to the article on the official website.[1] Philip Cross 21:58, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nigel Pargetter

Can anyone tell me what is meant by: "Nigel Pargetter (played by Graham Seed, formerly by Nigel Caliburn, now Carrington)"

Thanks.

Seems it means that the actor Caliburn changed his name to Carrington. Added Spotlight CV link accordingly. - Ralphbk 13:41, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Souad Faress

I just created a stub page for Souad (I was amazed to find that there wasn't one), which immediately gets landed with a 'speedy deletion' tag - can anyone else contribute to it and (perhaps even) explain how to satisfy the wikipedia criteria for a worthy article subject? Thanks! --Ndaisley (talk) 20:21, 16 May 2008 (UTC)