Talk:BBC newsreader Alagiah to undergo treatment for bowel cancer

Pre-review comment

@DaneGeld: Hejsa. Han er ikke journalist. Alagiah is a presenter/news reader. He didn't even study journalism at university. Could you make those fixes before we do a review? Thanks, --SVTCobra 18:37, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Hej! Thanks for dropping by. I know he didn't do journalism at University (he studied Politics), but even Wikipedia describes him as a "journalist", stating that he's previously had work in print journalism with "South Magazine". He moved to working with the BBC in 1989 and was their Developing World correspondent working from London, then Southern Africa correspondent working from Johannesburg. I'd say he has ample experience as a journalist to be called one. Even the BBC refer to him as such! Thoughts? DaneGeld (talk) 18:46, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Måske gør de det. The word journalist does not appear in either source. Wikipedia calls him a presenter four times in the lede paragraph of his bio. Det er mine tanker. --SVTCobra 18:53, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

True. But Wikipedia calls him a journalist in the very first line of his bio. "George Maxwell Alagiah OBE (/ˌæləˈɡaɪə/ born 22 November 1955) is a British newsreader, journalist and television news presenter." - I guess I'll change it though, so we can get this out and running. DaneGeld (talk) 18:57, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

This is an easy fix. Let's just call him what the sources call him. Quick and dirty search: This Guardian article does not call him a journalist, preferring "newsreader" (and also "star"). The BBC doesn't say "journalist," preferring "newsreader." The Sun calls him "presenter," but it also says "He joined the BBC in 1989 after seven years in print journalism." So this could go either way. I say play it safe and say "presenter" and elsewhere in the article something to the effect of "spent years in journalism" if you feel the need. There are lots of sources on this out today. If you find a good one that says "journalist" explicitly, then I can get behind it in this article. Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:58, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Does the Wikipedia article cite a source that calls him "journalist"? Just use that one. Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:01, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

I've changed it already, to newsreader in the article, and the title of the page. As you say, the Guardian calls him newsreader, the BBC call him newsreader, I just want to get it sorted. Feel free to contrib if you want to add anything else prior to review :) DaneGeld (talk) 19:02, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

That's probably the best choice. The context makes it very clear that he's at least involved in journalism. He might be a journalist, but the sources think that the fact he's a newsreader is more important, maybe because it's more specific. Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:21, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Review of revision 4376074 [Passed]

Revision 4376074 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 02:02, 16 January 2018 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: I had some sense throughout the source-check that the text was running someone similar to the sources; it never actually got close enough to set off any alarms (neither automated nor mental). The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.

Revision 4376074 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 02:02, 16 January 2018 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: I had some sense throughout the source-check that the text was running someone similar to the sources; it never actually got close enough to set off any alarms (neither automated nor mental). The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.

@Pi zero: is this the article you were telling me, with the WN:When problem?
•–• 11:05, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

BBC for headline -- I don't think it is globally known, there are some Asian companies with that abbr. Could be their news reader.
•–• 11:09, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

@Acagastya: Yes, this is the one that had the when problem. Re BBC. To clear away one issue, the initialism is proper here, as (like "NASA") it's much better known in short form than long form. It's pretty prominent, I wouldn't think there'd really be much of a problem with the usage, in practice; and it has enough global presence that it could be awkward to qualify by place, especially since the person is of primary interest here. Imho it's not too dire, in this particular case, keeping in mind that headlines aren't always perfectly unambiguous (that's the lede's job). Is there an alternative? I suppose one could specify country instead of network in the headline; at first consideration, either approach seems workable to me. --Pi zero (talk) 14:57, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

@Pi zero: Well, what if instead of BBC, the newsreader was of ABC? American/Australian/Albanian?
•–• 16:06, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Albanian? That one's surely less globally recognized, wouldn't you think? Certainly "ABC" is a know source of confusion, though; we have a redirect BBC to the British thing, but our ABC is a disambiguation page. --Pi zero (talk) 16:25, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

@Pi zero: Mentioned Albanian for a reason [consider it like the analogy of Benin] -- the question is, how would have one dealt with if one of the two "well known" [now that is like Wikipedia's style of saying] ABC's were INT.
•–• 16:38, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

FFS: BBC is globally known brand whether you think it or not. But maybe, just maybe, we should point out that it's not a reference to "Big Black Cocks" as referred to in the pornography industry. Yes, let's put that on the disambiguation page. --SVTCobra 16:48, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Peace. If we've thought about it before it happens, we're more prepared when it does. --Pi zero (talk) 16:55, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Rule 34 always prevails. --SVTCobra 17:01, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Or at least an exception would tend to disappear when observed. At any rate, we don't need a disambiguation page to distinguish the British Broadcasting Corporation from another "BBC" that doesn't have three published articles in our archives to support a category. --Pi zero (talk) 17:09, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
Do you know about that teacher in Manila? Many would know about BBC, but that Filipino teacher may think it could be Banahaw Broadcasting Corporation .By the way, your comment strengthens my argument that Wikinews articles are primarily for the first world countries, and not for global audience. [Similarly, more than a billion people knows what Ganga is, or what Ramzaan is, yet who was the one lashed out for the usage?] Japan is another first world nation, and there is Biwako Broadcasting Co. There are significant number of BBC's well known in their countries. There is a political party in India with the abbr. BBC. Do not take things for granted. I can think of dozens of people who would not know what BBC is or what it stands for. Do not forget that not everyone has access to all the facilities that you have, at the same price. Yet a pedophile thinks a phallus would have a newsreader. Re-read the healdline, and it might be perfect candidate for Whackynews. Also, isn't a news article snapshot of time, and per that philosophy, if someone from the future reads the article, would they know what BBC is? It might have reduced to nothing, in the future, just like EIC. East India Company was a very famous, but it would be surprising if they think of it as soon as they hear EIC. (They would probably think it is a typo, and should be LIC, or maybe it is East India Comedy -- the busch of "stand-up comedians")
•–• 22:01, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't claim this headline is perfect, nor do I claim there mightn't be a way to improve on it (for future articles). What I'm missing is a really good way to do it that is clearly better in every respect. Saying "UK newsreader Alagiah..." (or "British", or the like) would be less specific, so that's not perfect either. --Pi zero (talk) 23:16, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I know. I am not saying this one is not acceptable, but I am interested to know how anyone will tackle if there were companies like ABC, which causes confusion. And maybe our off-wiki discussion about headline in general also helps us understand what we are aiming for. [AIM -- probability of a 90's kid, or average USian knowing it is high, but some years later, it would be obscure]
•–• 23:21, 17 January 2018 (UTC)