Talk:British Council

On references

Please, use the references tools properly!!!!!!!!!! One of the persons editing this article has terrible skills and should first learn how to use the tools.

Status

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)

Why then is the BC in China based in the British Embassy? Which other charities are at home in Embassies? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.172.54.170 (talk) 04:46, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

This article is becoming a mess

Want an example of the failure of the Wikipedia method over a standard encyclopedia? Look no further than this page. This article could easily be used by critics as an example of how Wikipedia isn't working very well. I find it sad that this article is such a mess and reads more like a rant than serving the purpose of providing useful information. I have been keeping an eye on the page for a couple of years now (years!) and it just seems to be getting worse. I am a teacher of the British Council and so cannot do anything myself, but it is clearly a biased (I would say twisted) look at an organisation that (in the opinion of a lot of people) does a lot of good work.Bcgstanley13:57, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

You can bring specific issues, other than your own rant for fixing. Does a certain paragraph need more references? Is one section not impartial enough, if so, where can we get the other point of view? Help good-faith editors better the article. From Selma to Fresno (talk) 18:25, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

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 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)

It is not surprising that the article is a mess because the BC itself is a mess; a true chameleon. The article doesn't deal with the BC relationship to the private sector which is very ambiguous indeed. Does Wikipaedia want the PC version of the BC (from the BC) or something more worthwhile about how it is actually seen in practice by those who have the misfortune to have to deal with it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.172.54.170 (talk) 04:51, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Guide to referencing

Click on "show" to open contents.

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)

Additional Information

Have added a section to this website regarding the IAESTE programme administered by the British Council in the UK. Only 1 reference really needed.

IAESTENI (talk) 11:43, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:IELTSlogo.jpg

The image File:IELTSlogo.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --03:38, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Historical anecdotes needed?

Is there any need for such an extensive 'historical anecdotes' section? Doesn't seem highly useful or noteworthy. Ankur Banerjee (talk) 20:12, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Multiple issues tag removed

I have removed the multiple issues tag [1]. This tag has been in place for over a year with a large amount of editing to the article and little discussion on the talkpage. It is obvious to me that the tag does not reflect issues throughout the whole of this large article. It would be more constructive therefore if anyone with specific issues can tag those specific sections or sentences so that they can be dealt with. Polargeo (talk) 11:41, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Body language

The article starts:

The British Council is an arm's length body. . . .

Is this a grotesquely mixed metaphor that actually means something, and if so, what? Or is it merely nonsensical? -- Hoary (talk) 06:51, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Palestinian Literature Festival Went Ahead Eventually As Planned in 2011; in 2009 it was the British CONSUL not The British Council that 'stepped in'

Somebody - presumably linked to British Council ? - keeps trying to suggest that the Palestinian Literature Festival which Israel tried and failed to disrupt earlier this year somehow only went ahead because British Council relocated it to their premises. But this appears to be completely false: there is a video showing clearly that the event went ahead after some delay in the Occupied Territories as planned. The video footage speaks for itself. Here it is on You Tube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ADhr2ododX4&feature=channel_video_title The video clip attached to the Wikipedia entry for British Council appears to relate to an incident in 2009 not 2011. This features the British HM Consul-General in East Jerusalem 'stepping in' not British Council even though the proposed solution announced by HMCG on camera after reading the Israeli Court order pinned to the door of the original venue involved a switch to 'British Council premises'. This was however an intervention by HM Consulate General (ie The British Government) not The British Council - and no British Council officials are featured in the video evidence at all. The British Council office in East Jerusalem is in a converted cinema building above a kebab shop close by. In 2011, the Palestinian Literature Festival website features video evidence showing how Festival participants and local organisers defied an Israeli tear-gas attack to ensure that the Closing Event went ahead as planned despite Israeli harrassment. But again it is hard to see why this incident is featured on a Wikipedia entry for British Council which was after all only one of several sponsors of the annual Festival (along with The Open Society) which is organised by Palestinians. Trying to suggest that British Council 'stepped in' to save the day in 2009 is also misleading - the video footage shows it was the British Consulate that 'stepped in' rather than British Council (sic) and it thus seems strange to 'big-up' the BC role?

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.3.231.118 (talk) 00:38, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

BC activity across UK

This site has details of BC activity across UK, is it possible in use it in the article, as it seems quite important? http://activitymap.britishcouncil.org/ (79.190.69.142 (talk) 15:15, 12 June 2011 (UTC))