text:
Television in the Republic of Ireland

Television in the Republic of Ireland is available through a variety of platforms. The digital terrestrial television service is known as Saorview and is the primary source of broadcast television since analogue transmissions ended on 24 October 2012. Digital satellite (from Sky Ireland, Saorsat and other European satellite service providers are available) and digital cable (from Virgin Media Ireland) are also widely used.

While many people receive their television via Saorview, which is broadcast by 2RN, more than half subscribe to multichannel television networks. The biggest single multichannel television network in Ireland is Sky Ireland, which broadcasts digital satellite television services. Virgin Media Ireland, Vodafone TV and Eir among others, provide similar digital television services to Irish viewers.

History
Television was first received in Ireland in 1949, following the opening of high-power BBC transmitters at Sutton Coldfield near Birmingham, England and later Holme Moss in West Yorkshire, England, giving marginal reception along parts of the east coast. The first transmissions on the island of Ireland began with the launch of BBC in Northern Ireland (BBC Northern Ireland) when it began broadcasting television programmes in 1953, followed in 1959 by the launch of Ulster Television (now known as UTV).

Throughout the 1950s the governments of Ireland were worried about the influences of British television and the popularity of the medium. By the end of the 1950s, 60% of the population could receive the UK's BBC TV and ITV from spillover from Northern Ireland, Wales and the west of England. Throughout the 1950s the Irish government discussed the provision of an Irish television service; this was headed up by Leon O'Broin, the secretary of the Department of Post and Telegraphs. The Department of Post and Telegraphs had responsibility for Radio Éireann, Ireland's radio service. In 1950 O'Broin established his own committee on Irish television and bought a television set to receive broadcasts from the BBC. The Department of Finance at this time were worried about the cost of setting up a new television service and dismissed the possibility on several occasions during the 1950s. By March 1951 O'Broin would press for the inevitable establishment of an Irish television service in the state. In a memorandum to government, the department set out four possibilities for the ownership and control of a new service:

 * 1) Owned by the state directly
 * 2) Owned by a public corporation (similar to that of the then Radio Éireann)
 * 3) Owned by private enterprise
 * 4) Having a combination where transmitters would be owned by the state and content would be provided by private enterprises

The Department of Finance was incensed with this and asked the government to tell O'Broin to resubmit the proposals through the Department of Finance according to the formal procedures of the Civil Service. John A. Costello, the Taoiseach, did so and returned the memo to the Department of Post and Telegraphs. The Minister for Finance refused to look at TV, calling it a "luxury service". Through this O'Broin was able to get funding for the research he had asked for.

The public service broadcaster, Telefís Éireann, opened in 1961, followed by an additional channel RTÉ2 in November 1978. TG4 launched on 31 October 1996 as a free-to-air public service broadcaster that targets Irish language viewers.

The earliest colour broadcasts in Ireland took place in 1968. However, a full colour service was only introduced in 1973, with The Late Late Show remaining in monochrome until 1976.

On 20 September 1998, TV3 launched as the first independent commercial broadcaster in Ireland. In the 2000s television in Ireland expanded with the launch of Eir Sport 1, Bubble Hits (now defunct) and 3e (originally C6 on Cable, later added to Sky), which are available through PayTV cable and satellite services. TV3 purchased C6 and rebranded it 3e. Only with the launch of Saorview (FTA DTT) was 3e available free-to-air.

Ireland commenced its switch over to its free-to-air digital terrestrial television (DTT) in October 2010. This provided viewers with greater viewing opportunities with an increase in public service channels, i.e. of commercial services with the possibility of more public service channels from existing public service broadcaster and possibly two new channels, the Houses of the Oireachtas Channel and the Irish Film Channel, subject to finance from the government for the last two. The then Minister for Communications Pat Rabbitte aspired to have a complete DTT service rolled out by 31 December 2011.

Regulation
In Ireland, the Commission for Communications Regulation regulates radio wave spectrum licensing, and since 1 October 2009 the Broadcasting Authority of Ireland regulates both public service broadcasters such as RTÉ, TG4 and commercial broadcasters.

Digital terrestrial television

 * On 17 March 2011 a public advertising campaign was launched to highlight the integration of digital terrestrial television within Ireland. Saorview, Ireland's national free-to-air digital terrestrial television (DTT) service, launched officially to the public in May 2011. The service initially aired services provided only by RTÉ, TG4 and TV3. Additional services such as a commercial DTT service were deferred until a later date. The BAI have since ended negotiations to find a suitable service provider for such content.
 * Previously, service providers for the commercial DTT varied between 2008 and 2010. Negotiations between the three key players which included Boxer, OneVision (DTT), and Easy TV were deemed unsuccessful. Both Boxer and Onevision failed to sign-off an agreement between BAI and RTÉNL. Easy TV considered its position on the license offer put to it on 29 April 2010. The Easy TV consortium informed the BAI on 12 May 2010 that it was declining their offer to pursue negotiations regarding the Commercial DTT Multiplex Licence.
 * Public service channels are carried by 2RN (Under the Saorview brand), with this service operational to 90% of the country by 31 October 2010 and complete by 31 December 2011 (98%). However, publicly accessible tests of this system were available across large swathes of the country since December 2009 with further expansion since 29 October 2010 with a soft launch in Spring 2011 culminating in a hard launch before 31 December 2011 when the ASO phase began.
 * The Irish system, being used by both RTÉNL and any subsequent commercial DTT provider, is a MPEG-4 DVB-T service with an MHEG-5 interactive layer.
 * RTÉ Television were awarded a licence to operate a single multiplex, with a second multiplex which followed once analogue broadcasting ceased on 24 October 2012. Other services to launch on the second multiplex include additional services from TV3 such as TV3HD, TV3+1, 3Kids and 3Classics and additional channels from RTÉ such as an arts channel and music channel.
 * The Broadcasting Act 2009 provided provision for the launch of two additional public services. These include an Oireachtas Channel and an Irish Film Channel. The Oireachtas TV service currently broadcasts on Saorview channel 22. The Irish Film Board will oversee operation for the Irish Film Channel.
 * By 2012, SAORVIEW offered 98% coverage for all channels. This was a significant improvement in free-to-air television coverage. Similar services such as Saorview available in the United Kingdom (i.e. Freeview) and other parts of Europe are not compatible with Ireland's DTT service. RTÉ recommends that consumers wishing to avail of the SAORVIEW service only purchase receivers that carry the SAORVIEW approved logo. In practice, most MPEG-4 DVB-T compatible equipment, such as that conforming to the UK's Freeview HD standard, is capable of receiving SAORVIEW transmissions, albeit with some limitations to the EPG function. As the Freeview HD system is based on the newer DVB-T2 standard, SAORVIEW reception is dependent on the backward-compatibility of such devices.

Historical testing
DVB-T was repeatedly tested from 2RN's Three Rock Mountain transmitter, with relatively long tests in 1998 and 2001, and shorter tests in 2004, with a single multiplex carrying the four Irish analogue terrestrial channels, and Tara Television while it was in existence, on both UHF (channel 26) and VHF (channel D). These were under temporary licences for testing, which are regularly awarded. RTÉast Networks also broadcast test DVB-T with analogue TV and radio channels from the Clermont Carn transmitter in the Cooley Mountains, County Louth with some signal bleed into Northern Ireland.

A contract to run a nationwide system, with six multiplexes from main sites, and four from relay sites was awarded in 2001 to ITS Digital Limited, led by former RTÉ executive Peter Branagan and trading as "It's TV", who intended to launch a pay TV and broadband service. ITS wanted to offer broadband internet access using the DVB-RCT standard (which while high bandwidth at up to 30 Mbit/s, is not fast enough with 20,000 people on one mast). They had no broadband licence and no viable business plan without selling broadband, and due to lack of funding withdrew its application in October 2002.

The government also planned to privatise RTÉ's transmission network at this time but this too failed in October 2002 following the withdrawal of ITS Digital Limited DTT licence application and a number of other factors.

Disability organisations and the switchover
TV Access, a coalition of organisations that promote issues surrounding individuals with disabilities and senior citizens, began a campaign to highlight the switchover from analogue to digital television (DTT) broadcast services in its contribution to the Oireachtas Communications Committee heard on Wednesday, 1 April 2009.

TV Access aimed to make the wider public aware of the needs of aging and disabled viewers; they also launched a website.

Promotion for DTT roll-out began on 17 March 2011.

Multiplex licensing process

 * The establishment of a commercial multiplex for Digital Television Terrestrial within Ireland was punctuated with many delays. The BAI (then the Broadcasting Commission of Ireland) engaged in two phases of targeted consultation to assist in the development of its DTT Multiplex Licensing Policy. These consultations ran from May to December 2007 and involved the production of a comprehensive consultation document outlining policy proposals in relation to DTT licensing and the commissioning of independent research on DTT. It was initially proposed that RTÉ Television would operate the free-to-air public service multiplex, RTÉNL would provide the relevant broadcasting technologies and a third party would provide the pay or subscription service. These third parties included Easy TV, One Vision (DTT) and Boxer. Initially, Boxer Ireland was given the licence to operate the pay DTT service. Boxer's failure to negotiate with RTÉNL and the economic downturn in Ireland resulted in Boxer no longer holding interest in pursuing its business in Ireland. On 20 April 2009, the BAI announced that Boxer had ended negotiations on the DTT contract without a successful outcome. Following this the consortium that made up One Vision were issued the licence. Once again, One Vision failed to negotiate with RTÉNL, hence negotiations were unsuccessful. On 29 April 2010 it was announced that Onevision had pulled out of negotiations. Finally, The Broadcasting Authority of Ireland began negotiating with Easy TV (a consortium made up of RTÉ and UPC Ireland). RTÉ publicly confirmed on 14 May 2010 Easy TV was "declining their offer to pursue negotiations" on the DTT contract. The BAI officially confirmed Easy TV's withdrawal and the conclusion of the current DTT licensing process on 18 May 2010.
 * In July 2010, the then Minister for Communications Eamon Ryan announced that RTÉ would provide a basic free-to-air service without a pay DTT element. The free-to-air service would provide up to seven to ten channels and would roll out between 31 October 2010 to 31 December 2012. The new service would provide viewers with existing Irish channels, while also providing opportunities to expand existing channel portfolios. This service would be provided by Saorview and Saorsat the latter to be used in areas were availability to access the Saorview is limited due to geographics.

Cross-border partnership
On 1 February 2010 Ireland's then-Minister for Communications Eamon Ryan signed an agreement with the UK's Ben Bradshaw. This agreement was designed to ensure viewers within Northern Ireland could watch RTÉ One, RTÉ2 and TG4 on a free-to-air basis after the digital switchover. While initial reports suggested that BBC services would equally be made available free-to-air in the Republic of Ireland at the same time, this was not to be the case. Instead BBC One Northern Ireland and BBC Two Northern Ireland were to be made available on a paid-for basis. In practice all BBC satellite channels can be received freely in the Republic of Ireland, due to overspill from the United Kingdom.

Following a broad range of technical work, the two governments agreed an effective way to provide for the continuing provision of TG4 by building a new, low power TV multiplex in Northern Ireland. In addition to carrying TG4, this multiplex, which is part of the UK DTT system, also carries RTÉ 1 and RTÉ 2. This increased the coverage of these channels in Northern Ireland, to 90% of the population in Northern Ireland to receive their services on a free-to-air basis, either through overspill as before or via the new multiplex.

The former analogue signals were switched off on a co-ordinated basis in the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland on 24 October 2012.

Foreseen as part of the agreement between both governments was the establishment of a joint venture (as a not-for-profit company) between RTÉ and TG4 to run the multiplex which is licensed under the UK's Wireless Telegraphy Act 2006 by Ofcom at the request of the UK government. In addition, the licensee has put out to competitive tender all the elements of the multiplex operation which are contestable and the multiplex is operated on an open book basis.

Mobile terrestrial television
Mobile Terrestrial Television is TV on mobile phone handsets, which does not have contention problems compared to 3G networks.

The Commission for Communications Regulation issued its response to Consultation 08/44 about interest in multi-city mobile TV licenses that could cover up to 40% of the population that would lead to the Award of available UHF spectrum in the urban areas of Cork, Dublin, Galway, Limerick and Waterford. That response to consultation was issued on Tuesday 28 July 2009. Having provided options to stakeholders in terms of 2 options outlined in Consultation 08/44 of Mobile Telegraphy Licence or a technology neutral Wireless Telegraphy Licence, and minded by the 7 responses it received, the Mobile Telegraphy Licence was seen as the best use of spectrum, given the nature of the spectrum of 8 MHz of UHF band in between 470 and 750 MHz in the five main urban areas due to the limited spectrum arising from DTT introduction and use of 4 multiplexes as the spectrum priority prior to analogue switchover (ASO).

ComReg proposed launch of the wholesale mobile TV network following licence award be rolled out within 24 months before penalty or licence withdrawal from the winner of the contest. The contest was done by comparative beauty contest instead of auction, given the nature of Mobile TV as a newish area and the risks in terms of investment inherenet in it. Given the limited spectrum a wholesale model as noted by the EU Commission reference 2 in such situation is chosen. This results in third parties having access through agreements with the wholesale mobile network operator as Other Mobile TV Service Providers (OMTSPs) in a timely, reasonable, non-discriminatory and transparent manner to the network to provide their own services and electronic programme guide from up to 20 channels maximum space.

The licence would be for ten years and not automatically renewed. Those services are encrypted by the service provider to the subscriber. Contributors to the consultation 08/44 were given time to reflect on the terms suggested for the comparative beauty contest before 11 September 2009 and following that feedback and ComReg's further reflection on that, the comparative contest guidelines were issued and an application date set by the end of the year. The winner of that contest would have two years to build the network and agree terms with Other Mobile TV Service Providers. The Broadcasting Act 2009 was also referred to in Comreg Publication 09/64.

By April 2010, following on from the response to its consultation at end of 2009 the communications regulator ComReg issued an Information Notice on the future award of a mobile television license, ComReg 10/26 Mobile TV Wireless Telegraphy Licence Award on Tuesday, 30 March 2010.

The Information Notice provided in ComReg's plans to issue one 8 MHz frequency channel in the UHF band in the areas of Cork, Dublin, Galway, Limerick, and Waterford and invited candidates to tender for the licence in the fourth quarter of the year of 2010 and announce the licence results by the end of 2010. It weighed elements of business plans when it began the comparative process in Q4 2010. Offer of licence would have been 2011 but this was then cancelled by ComReg. International frequency co-ordination would also be ongoing during the period primarily with the UK.

Comments to ComReg's mobile television licence proposal were taken until 30 April 2010.

By November 2010, only two responders responded to ComReg's Television licence proposals consultation. These were RTÉNL and Vodafone Ireland. Points regarding wholesale access commitments considered critical for the successful provision of wholesale Mobile TV service and the provision of Mobile TV services for the benefits of consumers more generally were discussed. The two responders addressed points regarding automatic additional spectrum and ComReg outlined that it was minded to consider later award of mobile TV license when a national network for same would be possible of for other uses. The main concern was to whether there is demand for broadcast mobile TV, given experiences elsewhere or whether the award be made post ASO when international spectrum co-ordination is clearer. ComReg welcomed views regarding these issues from interested parties by no later than 5.00 p.m. on 9 December 2010. It will make its decision going forward on the licence proposal following consideration of responses to this.

Cable
Prior to Sky Digital, cable television was the most common system for distributing multi-channel television in Ireland. With more than 40 years of history and extensive networks of both wired and "wireless" cable, Ireland is amongst the most cabled countries in Europe. Forty percent of Irish homes received cable television in September 2006. The figure dropped slightly in the early years of the 21st century due to the increased popularity of satellite reception, notably Sky, but has stabilised recently.

In Ireland, Virgin Media Ireland, which formerly traded under the brand names Chorus NTL and UPC Ireland, is by far the largest cable operator, almost all of the state's cable TV operators and formerly all of the state's MMDS licences. Virgin Media offers digital cable television services in cities and towns throughout the country (with the exception of Cork, where the network is digital-only). It offered MMDS services in rural areas until the MDS licences were withdrawn in 2016. Other than Virgin Media, the only other operators providing digital cable systems are Crossan CableComm which operates in Longford, Smyths Cablevision, which operates in Cavan, and Casey Cablevision which operates in Dungarvan, County Waterford.

Satellite
Direct broadcast satellite service has been available since the late 1980s with the arrival of free-to-air satellite Astra and subscription service Sky Television.

In 1988 a pan-European satellite service was launched through SES. The service provided viewers with pan-European channels which targeted the entire continent. On 5 February 1989, when Sky Television launched, British Satellite Broadcasting, which was also available in Ireland, launched in 1990 and the two merged to form British Sky Broadcasting in 1990. For most of the 1990s however, Sky's DBS customer base in Ireland was dwarfed by the large numbers receiving its channels via cable. Sky Digital, Ireland's first digital television service, launched in October 1998. However, in the absence of any subsidy for the Sky Digibox in Ireland – viewers in the UK could avail of both a Sky subsidy and one from British Interactive Broadcasting – the cost to initially acquire Sky Digital equipment was very expensive (IEP 450) and subscriber numbers did not rise until both these subsidies were introduced into Ireland in 2000. In 2001, UK and Irish terrestrial channels became available to Irish Sky customers for the first time.

While Sky is the biggest satellite service in Ireland, it is by no means the only satellite broadcast available. Most free to air broadcasts available in Europe are available in Ireland via the right receiver (set top box) and a dish pointed at the correct satellite. In 2008, Sat4free, an adapted version of the UK Freesat equipment, began selling in Ireland. It is a fixed NI postcode version of a Freesat receiver. Some retailers in Ireland sell actual Freesat setboxes. Both Freesat and Sat4free are superior to generic satellite receivers for the reception of UK television, only old stock of Sat4Free is now available and new purchases should be "Freesat HD" even if the TV set is not HDTV. Imported "Grey market" (as the contract the operator has doesn't permit direct sales outside the intended Geographic area) satellite receivers are sometimes used to watch both FTA and subscription channels from visitors home countries (e.g., Cyfrowy Polsat)

Following the failure of the commercial DTT process in May 2010 RTÉ submitted a revised DTT plan including an FTA satellite option to the Dept of Communications in mid-June 2010 for approval. RTÉ publicly announced at an Oireachtas Joint Committee on Communications discussion in mid-July 2010 that a free-to-air satellite service, called Saorsat, would be offered to complement the terrestrial DTT service. Saorsat will enable Irish public service channels to be made available free to air and unencrypted, for the first time, as a means of covering the last 2% of the population who will be unable to receive the Saorview terrestrial service.

RTÉ said the combined offering was designed to be the most cost-effective solution for viewers and broadcasters; to offer for the first time 100% coverage of free-to-air public service television services in Ireland, and to provide full national backup coverage on satellite in the event of an emergency or catastrophic failure of the DTT system.

Approval for the revised National DTT plan and the new Saorsat satellite service was announced by the Minister for Communications at the end of July 2010.

The Saorsat satellite service has been available publicly since 3 May 2012 as tests had commenced at the end of May 2011.

Streaming
With over one quarter of the population viewing programming on streaming platforms, many public service broadcasters and international streaming services serve the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland, some of the most popular include:

 * Netflix
 * Amazon Prime Video
 * Apple TV+
 * Walter Presents
 * Disney+
 * Volta

Free to access:

Republic of Ireland
 * RTÉ Player
 * Virgin Media Player
 * TG4 Player
 * Arte
 * Channel 4 (selection of on demand content only. Live TV not available)
 * BBC iPlayer (Ireland version, on Sky Glass only)

Northern Ireland
 * RTÉ Player International
 * BBC iPlayer
 * Channel 4
 * ITVX
 * My5

Other technologies
DVB-H
 * O2 Ireland and 3 Ireland undertook trials of DVB-H. However delays in licensing broadcast spectrum to the mobile sector in Ireland forced telecoms providers such as O2 to proceed with 3G/HSDPA Mobile TV. Vodafone Ireland and 3 Ireland already have significant digital video content distributed over their 3G and 3.5G (HSDPA) networks

Virgin Media Ireland provided a wireless cable service over an all digital MMDS network reaching over 80% of the country. This network operated at 2.5 GHz to 2.7 GHz until the 18 April 2016.

The now defunct SCTV Digital provided an advanced digital television service to Cork City and parts of County Cork. It is licensed to operate all over Munster. Operating at 11.7 GHz to 12.5 GHz (MVDDS) it delivered approximately 75 digital television channels and video on demand services from "Sky By Wire".

Digital satellite is the only form of subscriber satellite transmission available in the country and is provided by Sky (and Sky+ HD). The Freesat a UK service is also available in the country, as are FTA satellite channels from several other European countries.

One company provides digital television via IPTV; Magnet Entertainment.

 * Magnet Networks offers viewers in Ireland the chance to view RTÉ One, RTÉ2, TV3, TG4, 3e and Dáil & Seanad TV channels via the internet.

Deflectors (UHF television programme retransmission)
In rural areas where neither cable or direct terrestrial overspill was available, UHF television programme retransmission systems or deflectors picked up the UK terrestrial channels (either from Northern Ireland or Wales), and retransmitted them on local UHF signals along with other channels.

These operators faced legal action in the late 1990s from MMDS operators, as they did not pay royalties to the relevant broadcasters, and were not licensed. When the deflectors were shut down, there was such an outcry in those areas that an independent election candidate in County Donegal, Tom Gildea, was elected as a TD on a platform of supporting legalisation, which occurred in 1999.

Deflectors were first licensed in 1999 by the then spectrum regulator, the ODTR. The Wireless Telegraphy (UHF Television Programme Retransmission) Regulations, 2009 were the last for deflectors, as all deflector licences expired in December 2012 due to the transition to DTT.There are few (if any) such systems still operating in Ireland.

Television licence
In Ireland, a television licence is required for any address at which there is a television set or device not exempted under Staturory Instrument 319 of 2009 see. In 2008, the annual licence fee is €160. Revenue is collected by An Post, the Irish postal service. The bulk of the fee is used to fund Raidió Teilifís Éireann, the state broadcaster. The licence must be paid for any premises that has any equipment that can potentially decode TV signals, even those that are not RTÉ's. The licence is free to senior citizens (to anyone over the age of 70, some over 66), some Social Welfare recipients, and individuals who are blind. The fee for the licences of such beneficiaries is paid for by the state.

Most-viewed channels (IRL)
The channels with the largest AGB Nielsen viewing share from 2002 – 2012 are outlined in the table below:

In 2013 in the Republic of Ireland 45% of TV Viewers watch free-to-air Irish services from RTÉ, TV3 and TG4, while 10% of viewers watch the traditional Northern Irish channels UTV, BBC 1 NI, BBC 2 NI and Channel 4.

This compares to 2002 figures which show that 47% of viewers watched services from RTÉ, TV3 and TG4, while 31% watched traditional Northern Irish channels.

Irish services had an audience peak of 56% in 2006, while traditional Northern Irish services saw their audience share slide down to 19% in the same year.

Since 2002 the number of channels competing for advertising revenue has risen from 11 in 2002 to 38 in 2013. Advertising on UK services account for about 17% of all advertising revenue in Ireland. Of the 38 channels competing for advertising only 6 are Irish based.

title: Television in the Republic of Ireland


text:
Talk:Supreme Court of the United States

Court-Packing
I do not think this sentence is neutral: "The expansion of the conservative majority on the court during the presidency of Donald Trump sparked a liberal response in the form of calls for court-packing." Specifically, I question the milquetoast use of "expansion" versus the provocative expression of "court-packing". The "expansion" was exceptional — three Justices — one-third of the Court. They are generally recognized as specifically selected to be substantially conservative, and young. It began with one seat the Senate Leader had so deliberately left vacant for about a year, by refusing to act on a nomination in the preceding President Obama's term (so egregiously that the seat has often been called "stolen".) It ended with a third seat filled in a relative flash, within days from the end of the presidential term. For this the Senate Leader openly contradicted his own former justification of stalling to gain the first. He had averred that a seat vacated near the end of a presidential term should be filled by the next President, thus representing the interests of the popular vote. These actions by the Senate Leader are most properly identified as egregious "court packing." Three justices were "stuffed" in one presidential term, which nobody denied were overtly selected for thoroughly strong conservative views. Furthermore, the sentiment was that these three appointments were explicitly selected to target a challenge to Roe v. Wade, with the expectation of overturning the 50-year precedent. Which then happened, followed by chaos in many states. And yet more long-time conservative goals. This is an exceptionally important part of U.S. history, and the conservative "court-packing" must not be glossed over. By contrast the "liberal response" was strenuously not "court packing" but a wish to simply rebalance the deliberately engineered conservative political imbalance. In addition, "Democratic" is the specific term for the other end of the spectrum from "conservative". "Liberal" has frequently been used in propagandistic media as a term for disparagement. Democratic is historically the neutral term. Having pointed out this lack of neutrality in the subject sentence, I leave it to someone with a thoroughly neutral disposition to clarify it. Furthermore, whatever Wikipedia article discusses the manipulation of the Supreme Court and its effect on Roe v. Wade should be linked.IGE (talk) 19:11, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

 * Do you have sources calling this expansion court-packing? You may have more success finding sources that say 'norm-breaking expansion' but it seems like a valid point depending on what reliable sources say Superb Owl (talk) 17:37, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
 * @IGE I agree. I have edited that section to better reflect the context behind the move to increase the court's size, including the unprecedented change in the conservative majority from 5-4 to 6-3 under Trump. I hope this edit goes some way to address your concern. Best - Marincyclist (talk) 04:39, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Why the "median justice" is relevant
Since it has been raised, let me address why it is relevant to include information about who the "median justice" is. The median justice gives you a reference point for the ideological bent of the court, and where the ideological "center of gravity" lies. When the median justice is a strong conservative (as it has been since the death of Ginsburg), that tells you the Court is very conservative. If the median justice is a "swing" justice (as Kennedy was) that tells you the court is more balanced between its liberal and conservative wings. What is not relevant in a 6-3 court is a discussion of "swing justices" because there isn't one or two justices who "control the balance", as for example was the case in the 1930s, when Chief Justice Hughes and Justice Owen Roberts formed the center of the court; because there isn't a 2 or 3 block of justices who side with the liberals some of the time and with the ultra-conservatives the rest of the time. The language was changed from "swing justice" to "median justice" (following the retirement of Justice Kennedy) precisely for this reason, and yes, it is important. If we had a court in which, say, Justice Alito was "the median Justice", that tells you a lot about the ideological bent of the Court. When we had a Court in which Potter Stewart or Byron White were the median Justice, it was a very liberal court (just after Fortas joined the Court). So, yes, the "median justice" is an important concept, even in a 6-3 Court (or even a 7-2 or an 8-1 court). Knowing that someone as conservative as Roberts or Kavanaugh (who was considered teh most conservative justice in the D.C. Circuit) are the ideological center of the Court right now is an indication of just how far to the right it is, and not just that it is "dominated by conservatives". Magidin (talk) 22:59, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

 * Thanks @Magidin - I used some of that analysis in the body (citing an existing source) - have removed those notability templates and replaced them with one requesting an 'update' for data beyond 2021. Is this enough detail on this topic for this subsection? We also always have the main article: Ideological leanings of United States Supreme Court justices if it takes a while to explain. Superb Owl (talk) 23:27, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

See also - Selected landmark decisions
Supreme Court of the United States

Should we remove any decisions already mentioned in the article? Seems like that might be more consistent with WP:See also not wanting us to repeat links already in the body of the article. Superb Owl (talk) 15:50, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Range of certs granted
The lede had stated that the court grants "only 75-80" certs in a typical year. Editor Needforspeed888 changed that to "fewer than 100", with an edit summary stating the Court had been granting fewer cases (which the edit would have made less clear). After I reverted, it was changed to a larger range of "50-90". In any case, I went to the paper cited as a source, and the only reference I can find to the number of certs granted appears in page 67, Section 10.2, where it says "In a typical year, the Court grants  certiorari in about 80 of the more than 7,000 cases in which Supreme Court review is requested." So this citation does not support a claim that the number has dropped off, and does not support a range of 50-90; it also did not really support the range of 75-80. Looking at the table in the [ https://www.scotusblog.com/statistics/ SCOTUSBlog Stat page] (under "pace of grants"), looks like OT22 had about 60 grants, OT21 had about 67, OT20 about 71, OT19 about 61; but this is WP:Synthesis. We either need a better source, or the text needs to be changed to what the source actually states, which is "about 80". Magidin (talk) 03:29, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Gibbons vs Ogden
This court decided that FEDERAL LAW OVERRIDES STATE LAW in the early 1800s. Can this be used? The reason I have asked is that STATE LAW PERMITS DRUG USE while FEDERAL LAW does NOT. This may become part of the current US ELECTION CYCLE, in which someone getting pot in a state could get arrested for it by the Feds. 216.247.72.142 (talk) 02:01, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Did NOT know I shared a bad resignation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.247.72.142 (talk) 02:08, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Edit Conflict with Bot: ? Was that do I share a bad designation No.#? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.247.72.142 (talk) 02:15, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

No info re: appointment of chief justice?
This article does not seem to explain how/when a justice becomes chief justice of the SCOTUS. It is explained in the dedicated Chief Justice of the United States article, but it seems like it should at least be mentioned here.

Perhaps the first sentence of the "Nomination, confirmation, and appointment" section should be amended to: "Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution, known as the Appointments Clause, empowers the president to nominate and, with the confirmation (advice and consent) of the United States Senate, to appoint public officials, including justices of the Supreme Court, including the position of chief justice" (with "chief justice" linking to the dedicated page.) Chconnor (talk) 20:29, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

 * John Roberts is the present Chief Justice. There are some who say Neil Gorsuch being appointed was a shallow manipulation or selling out of American democracy by preventing Merrick Garland from being confirmed to the Supreme Court or even getting a hearing.  Source: New York University Press, 2010. 199.242.176.66 (talk) 19:09, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
 * All of the information on appointment of the Chief Justice is at Chief Justice of the United States. Why would we need to repeat that in two articles? BD2412  T 19:38, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Talk:Supreme Court of the United States


text:
Talk:Have I Got News for You

Writers?
Is it worth mentioning the writers of the show? I've just read an interview with them here: http://www.sitcom.co.uk/writers/haveigotnewsforyou.shtml —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.139.150.233 (talk) 19:15, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

One more high point
not been able to ref the series or episode but hte one with [Jack Dee] where they keep on making names for pot noodles —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.100.103.136 (talk) 16:49, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Older entries
I removed:

Germaine Greer's on-air excoriation of rival newspaper columnist Suzanne Moore and concomitant introduction into the English language of the expression "fuck-me boots".

Greer's comments on "fuck-me shoes" (not boots) were first published in the Grauniad (or indeed written for the Grauniad and leaked to the Evening Standard). What she said on HIGNFY is here: http://www.hignfy.net/transcripts14.htm.

Also, libel is when a defamation is in "permanent form", including a television programme, as per http://www.writersworld.tv/authors/libellaws.htm --rbrwr

 * Ummm... why refer to the Guardian by Private Eye's joke-name for it? SoM 11:48, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * I was probably in a frivolous mood. It was a long time ago, I was young... Anyway, I assume that anyone who is sufficiently interested in HIGNFY to read this talk page would understand and appreciate the reference (or at least be able to work out which publication is meant). I've made it a wikilink for the benefit of anyone who might still be confused. --rbrwr± 12:44, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * All it deserves. Alecto 20:14, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

 * Fair enough. I only even mentioned it (IIRC) because it's a featured article.--SoM 19:10, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * Fan site with reviews, links, etc

I've removed the above link, because the link no longer works. The site may have been used as a reference, in which case can we still verify everything on the page? I expect so, since it's a very well-known programme and all that, but I just thought I'd better draw people's attention to the potential problem. What do we do when websites used as references disappear, anyway? Do we have to remove all the material we got from them which can't be verified elsewhere? -- Oliver P. 22:47 1 Jun 2003 (UTC)

 * Removing information?! Surely not! I had hoped to leave the dead link, to emphasise the fact that it was there, but no longer - I rather suspect (unsubstantiated) that the BBC over zealously shut down the fansite... --ntnon 00.06 2 Jun 2003 (UTC)

 * Some of it's available from the Wayback Machine at http://www.archive.org (though we can't necessarily rely it remaining there, either). The Greer transcript I mention above is at --rbrwr

 * Hi, I owned the website in question, and the BBC id not shut it own but in fact actively linked to it, as proved by BBC Online stories related to HIGNFY. The site shut down because I could not long afford the time and the price of webspace had gone up. The link to Off The Telly at the bottom of the page refers to an article written by me, of which there are further parts to be published soon.

I don't remember the exact details but I remember a Tory MP once sued the BBC and Hatrick Publications for publishing a book acompanying the programme called Have I Got 1997 For You which said he was a "bastard" or a "shit" or something along those lines. If anyone remembers any more details of the case please post them here. Saul Taylor

 * "Conniving little shit", apparently. --rbrwr

Alexander Armstrong
I can't find any evidence that he will be the new perminant host as the article previously stated. Saul Taylor 12:43, 2 Feb 2004 (UTC)

 * See.
 * Hmm, on further viewing, it is written by the AP about reporting from The Sun, of all places, so perhaps we should take it with a pinch of salt...
 * James F. (talk) 00:12, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)
 * I don't think we should say that a new presenter has been apointed until the BBC officially anounces it. Saul Taylor 04:01, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)

 * He will make his fifth host's appearance in episode 2 of the new series next week. Jeremy Clarkson is due to host episode 1, with Germane Greer as one of the panellists, apparently, so I've edited it to say "Most (broadcast) apparances", so it still says 7 for her. Robert Mc Cann

Can we please keep the updating until after the transmission? Because it was done prematurely, Clarkson was incremented TWICE for one ep. - SoM 16:30, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

He won't, according to BBC official announcements although that is 2005. The Ananova link says it's 2008 but it is not official, has no exact date and has no author. Still it can be true I guess. I have nothing against the guy but I rather enjoy the guest host system. Zubbus (talk) 08:41, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Episodes list
Started Have I Got News For You episodes list. Its my first atempt at doing tables. Saul Taylor 02:27, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Anderson & Duchovny
An anonynomous contributor has added:
 * Gillian Anderson and David Duchovny were once reported by TV guides as being guests on an upcoming show. When the show aired, two different guests were present, and Angus joked that he didn't know how that had happened.

I don't remember this and I couldn't find any verification substaniating it on Google. Does anyone else remember this happening? Saul Taylor 17:48, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * Yes, I'm pretty sure this happened - there's a couple of contemporary postings on Google Groups . I think it just seemed like a crap joke at the time, so whether the BBC really did start the rumour I've no idea. Sjorford 21:14, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * On the "Best of HIGNFY" DVD there is a trivia feature - they appear as subtitles - which gives extra info. and background to stories. One of the comments is about this - saying the BBC and production company were inundated with calls when the story was circulated. I will not profit from this so don't consider it an advert - That DVD features clips from the beginning of the show to Angus' last appearance and is EXCELLENT. I've just bought it myself, well worth it (£8.97 from a certain high profile website....)Mark 20:56, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)

 * Agreed. Even if you have no knowledge of, memory of, or interest in the people or topics covered on this CD, you'll still split your sides laughing. -- Derek Ross | Talk 04:07, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)

Morgan
Could Piers Morgan's appearance be considered a high point? I'm tempted to put it in. I know its considered the worst appearance by any guest ever but its highly watchable - I think its the same phenomenon as people slowing down to watch a car crash. Mark 21:00, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Boris
What article of HIGNFY could be complete without mention of Boris Johnson appearances. For those who haven't seen these delights (both as guest, and as guest presenter), then the MP for Henley's rambling tangential style is TV gold.

In particular: during his guest presenter appearance, when the autocue would, at every available opportunity, try to get Boris to swear, and his efforts to avoid this.

 * Paul did that too. Thanks to whoever corrected the DVD synopsis of "The Full Boris". I was sure that it was 90 minutes, but I've watched again this week, just to make sure, and it is indeed 60. But then again, seeing as its Boris we're talking about, it probably feels like 90 minutes each time you watch it. Robert Mc Cann

According to the show's main page Boris has been banned from appearing on the show ever again (with no evidence). On the list of episodes page it shows that Boris is to host the show on the 15th December. Should the 'fact' be deleted? Kelly elf 11:11, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * That's not right, is it? Well, I don't know what the episode list's source is for Boris hosting the last show this series, but if he is we should certainly delete that bit from the main article. Though on a personal note, I'll be highly diasppointed if Kirsty Young isn't presenting any this series. She's clearly the best one.--PaulTaylor 16:52, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Balls to that! Dara O'Brean! Natural choice.--Crestville 10:30, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Dara o'Briain is good, but I don't think you really want a comedian hosting it, a non-comedian who's funny is better. Besides, Dara's doing Mock the Week now - he can't have two topical BBC comedy panel shows.--PaulTaylor 15:52, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

 * Deyton was a comedian. Young is a news presenter - where's she going to get the time to film HIGNFY? I think Dara would ditch Mock the week in a flash if the chance for HIGNFY arose.--Crestville 15:35, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

 * Well, Angus Deayton was a comic actor, rather than a straight-up comedian. I know Kirsty Young probably wouldn't be able to do it full-time, what with her proper journalist commitments and Desert Island Discs nowadays. She's still best.--PaulTaylor 15:57, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Image
This article has been listed as a featured article lacking a picture; what about a screen-capture of one of the DVDs?

James F. (talk) 07:48, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * Copyright? Is that fair use? If so, could we use, say, the DVD cover from http://www.amazon.com ? See  -- ALoan (Talk) 17:07, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * I suppose we could use the Amazon cover image, but, frankly the quality isn't much...
 * A screen-capture would come under Fair Dealings, I imagine, yes, and almost definitely under Fair Use (so the Wikimedia Foundation would be all right, too).
 * James F. (talk) 02:58, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

THe picture of Boris, and most certaintly the caption describing him as a future prime minister are entirely inappropriate for this article. Mintguy (T) 00:24, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * There's a better version of the same image at http://www.boriswatch.com, which as it is also derived from the book cover would possibly be OK to use, if it's just the quality that's the problem. And on the caption: is an amusing caption not appriopriate for an article on a comedy programme? Perhaps there is need to add more on Boris's contributions to the show in the article? Richard Taylor 09:40, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I think a picture of Boris somewhere wouldn't be too inappropriate, however, I think such a picture should be lower down on the page, if we include one, as at the moment it is in the place you would expect a picture of the show's logo, or a general screen grab or somelike like that. I do think the boriswatch image is a better one, in any case, as it doesn't have the writing on, but the ideal boris image would be a screen grab, as then it would be a picture of him in the show, which is after all the subject of the article.

As for the caption, I don't think you can justify it merely on the grounds of humour, as it probably won't be clear that it is humourous to people not aware of who boris is. As such, I think you shouldn't say he is a potential future prime minister, unless there is evidence that he is likely to make a bid for PM. Also, I think the caption is too long anyway, and much of the information should be in the article proper.

I do think we should have some information on Boris, although what we want to include is debatable, as there isn't one big moment to focus on like with Hattersley and the Tub of Lard, although his 'kick blair's butt' round would probably qualify. Silverfish 11:26, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * Anyone who has been described as "the star of Have I Got News For You" (when campaigning for Henley) needs a prominent mention, but I don't agree with the captioning. Find a moment (the guest presenting episode with the coconuts should do it) and stick it in there. Kinitawowi 11:06, Aug 11, 2004 (UTC)

 * I put up a hand-drawn version of the HIGNFY title this morning. I'm not sure what Wikipedia's stance is on trademarks though, so this may not be alright. -- Solipsist 11:14, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * I think the picture should include Angus Deyton, Paul Merton and Ian Hislop, as they were the original three. Maybe use one where Boris Johnson is a guest star (hey, I'm a Boris fan too). --Nathan 00:00, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Peter Mandelson?
There was at one time a splendid running gag/series of choice moments about Peter Mandelson - shortly after Matthew Parris outed him, so, 1998, I guess. And the Beeb had some kind of a clampdown about mentions of Mandelson, so naturally HIGNFY mentioned him at every possible opportunity. At least, that's how I recollect it - but I'm not quite confident enough in my knowledge to insert it. I'm hoping someone who remembers better will be jogged into adding it by this post ... --JennyRad 16:24, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

 * Well remembered! I've now added it. Chris 42 17:53, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

First names or surnames
I was wondering if there's a particular reason why in the 'Running Gags' section, Merton and Hislop are refered to as 'Paul' and 'Ian' and this is not the case in the rest of the article. If there's a reason then obviously that's fine but I'm happy to change it if needs be. User:SamTrev 20:05, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

 * There is no good reason I can think of, other than people feel quite familiar to them after all these years.--Crestville 10:30, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Good NewsWeek
Should be added that this was a subject of a lawsuit from Hat Trick Productions. I don't want to add without a reference, so hopefully someone else will find one.

Inappropriate tone
I added the tag and would like to explain. There are many instances of unencyclopedic language, e.g. "she proceeded to give Ian Hislop five points straight off the bat." straight off the bat is not formal language. Neither is "But it could have been worse" "Naturally, the HIGNFY team took great delight in flouting this directive" "Occasionally, or, in other words, if there's time to fill" and regarding the famous News of the World episode "Merton cried out 'This has been one news story of the week but the one I'm really interested in, Angus, is'" when in fact he said it at a pretty normal volume.

Also POV problems, a Michael Winner comment is called "regrettable" and the Hamiltons "managed to come through pretty well"

Finally are pure, silly jokes really at home here? "In a recent episode, the panel were discussing gay marriages and Paul turned to Ian, saying, "We're still on for the 20th, right?" "So far, Paul's theories have included that Boris has been knitted, he is a glove puppet from the neck down, he requires batteries and there is an electric current going through his chair to wake him up when he slows down." See What Wikipedia is not

The article is also heaving with unsourced information - I know it's all true because I've listened to the DVD commentary too - but not everyone can be expected to know this. Mark83 20:55, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Choice moments/notable incidents
I've removed a lot of minor, non-notable jokes and incidents. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Any incident which we describe must have had a major impact or have historical significance, this should not be a list of every joke. For example a joke about KFC selling "troughs" of french fries. I found it funny but is not significant. I've left things like the Thatcher swallowing joke - Merton said on the DVD commentary that is was at that point one of the most talked about moments. Another example is the Piers Morgan thing. It is important not only because it was one of the worst performance by anyone in television history, but also because it's significant - the editor of a major newspaper responsible for reporting on people's private lives demanding his privacy. Mark83 00:17, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

"Intrusive about a woman's body"
"Hislop was, afterwards, criticised for being intrusive about a woman's body, although the actual recording shows that he did not say anything on that subject."

What on earth is that supposed to mean? Criticised by whom, exactly? 217.155.20.163 00:54, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

 * Some newspaper--Crestville 16:58, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Pot Noodle
Maybe I'm going a bit too far back, but does anyone remember the episode where they spent half (or near half) the show coming up with new names for Pot Noodles. In a HIGNFY book that I got last (2006) Christmas, it says that the company gave the show a vast amount of Pot Noodles because of the free publicity. I was wondering, should this be in the "notable moments" section? -- S kully Collins Edits 14:06, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * It happened quite recently, as far as I remember. I'm not bothered about its invlusion because I didn't find it very funny, but it's probably as notable as much of the other stuff in that section. Also, we could probably do with that book and the other two in the References section being properly listed, maybe after the DVDs/Videos in the article.--PaulTaylor 15:49, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

The Maxwells (I was tempted to use "Maxwell House as the header, but I won't)
Help

I am trying to write articles about Ian Maxwell and Kevin Maxwell, nothing litigious, however one has been deleted and the other is up for deletion. Why does Wikipedia not have biographies of these two very significant businessmen?

Can anyone help. Johnnybriggs 03:55, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

 * I don't know so much about them, so I can only help by stating the significants of these two individulas in Britian in the early 90s, involved as they were in their father's biggest scandal and the defendnats in one of the biggset British litigations ever over the mirror pension fund. They are not just non-noteable children of Robert Maxwell, they are destestable arseholes in their own right. If you need any advice on how to make this come across in their articles, please contact me.--Crestville 10:36, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

 * re:they are being deleted because they is no information on them. Read the sources at the botom and use the information to form full articles on them.--Crestville 10:37, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Surely if someone meets WP:NOTE it doesn't matter if there is a full encyclopedia or a stub. A full article is good, a stub is bad, but neither should be deleted. Request for expansion is fine, but deletion could fall into disruption to make a point. -- Mark83 12:04, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Paula Yates
I've changed the bit about Paula Yates, the truth is she didn't know what was going to happen in the show; this wasn't an act. I remember reading in one or two newspapers that Paula collapsed after the show and people just stepped over her, Michael was called for and took her home in tears. I do try and get all the facts before I make an edit, but this is something I know by heart. Thanks (INXS-Girl 14:40, 05 April 2007 (UTC)

 * What you know by heart, unfortunately does not count in Wikipedia. Your comments must be verifiable. ⇒    SWAT Jester    On Belay!  00:31, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

"Sailing close to the wind"
Is this an encyclopaedic phrase? Smonnie 15:17, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

No, it's a non-standard, non nautical phrase meaning, "to do something that is dangerous or only just legal or acceptable," much-like commenting on a Wikipedia page without using a "handle".

Also: I notice this page hasn't got a Wikiquote page. Perhaps initiating one would help with future libel actions? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.120.149.212 (talk) 12:34, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Rewrite of article
I thought I'd let you all know that I'm planning a fairly heavy set of edits to this article in the next 72 hours to try to restore an encyclopaedic tone, and to remove the large, unnecessary lists of information. In particular, I think that a lot of the "notable" moments are going to be trimmed out - a running commentary of every hilarious thing is not necessary. I think if you want that included, you will have to write separate stub articles on each of the episodes and include the information there.

If anyone wants to see how its progressing in the meantime, its at User:Fritzpoll/HIGNFY_Redraft. Any comments to my talk page, please. --Fritzpoll 20:05, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * As long as the show isn't referred to as HIGNFY throughout, that's fine with me. Nothing cheapens an article more than laziness. - Dudesleeper · Talk 20:15, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

 * No, that's just to make the page easier for me to type out - it will be referred to as "Have I Got News for You" or "the programme" --Fritzpoll 21:30, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, I wasn't referring to the article in your userspace. I was referring to this. - Dudesleeper · Talk 00:05, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Is another rewrite in order? There are still too many 'notable moments' and the tone is not encyclopedic throughout significant portions. Also links to other articles are used badly. 80.195.80.148 14:25, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Maybe the only way forward is for comments about episodes to be put in the relevant bit in List of Have I Got News For You episodes. Would take some editing though. Georgethe23rd 20:10, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Notable moments & running gags
This section is too long, and filled with a lot of non-notable content. Unless there are (reasonable) objections, I'll be cutting it right down within the next couple of hours, at which point this talk page section can become a place for those that disagree to put forward a good reason to revert my edit. Appologies for the short notice, but tonight's a good night for me to do some serious editing, and I reasoned that some notice was better than none :). The Islander 18:53, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

 * Add to that the Notable Moments section, for exactly the same reason. The Islander 18:54, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

 * Right, I've done a bit. To be honest, I think I've been quite lenient, and really a few more from each section should go, but I'll leave that to someone else to do. The Islander 18:49, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Deayton's sacking
To the anon who seems adamant that there was only one round of tabloid allegations about Angus Deayton, please check the dates of the BBC News sources quoted. The first occurrence was in May 2002 in Series 23 (which led to Paul Merton's News of the World t-shirt, etc.), while the second was the following October in Series 24 (when he was sacked after hosting two episodes). Please do not revert again. Thanks. Chris 42 (talk) 01:13, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm having a hard time seeing the relevance of including the word "adulterous" in brackets in the paragraph about Deaton getting sacked. It looks more like a sly dig than relevant information to me Madashell (talk) 10:41, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Edited / unedited?
The section on the right hand side states that the 30 minute version of HIGNFY is "edited" and the 40 minute version is "unedited". This could do with being changed as both versions are in fact edited. This can be confirmed by the actual unedited versions of the Boris Johnson episodes (The Full Boris) which are actually a good hour or more in length which means that the 40 minute "Have I Got A Bit More News For You" episodes do still have plenty of the recorded content trimmed from them. I'd therefore propose changing this to something like "standard" for the 30 minutes version and maybe "extended" for the 40 minute version or something? Trippynet (talk) 11:54, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Very good point. I've now amended the infobox. :-) Chris 42 (talk) 11:57, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Original Research
A good 2/3 of this article appears to be original research and fancruft. Like all of the sections Notable moments, Running gags and Frequent targets. I see from the talk above that it appears to be a regular problem. Anyone object to it going? -- Escape Orbit (Talk) 21:57, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * It's definitely not encylopedic and should be drastically edited. Unfortunately I fear that like Top Gear it's likely to return to its fan-boy style within days.  All power to your elbow if you do manage to spring-clean. TrulyBlue (talk) 22:06, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd be willing (if anyone wants me to) to try and add references to the episodes in which many of these events take place if necessary. That way any content should be far easier to verify. I don't think that the sections should be deleted however.Trippynet (talk) 19:11, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

 * What makes a moment 'notable' though? To me, that would need to be reported/ commented in the media; if you have those sort of sources then fine. I don't think the issue with running gags is their verifiability, more whether they're notable. Same goes for targets. Ged UK (talk) 21:06, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

 * Exactly. There are notable things mentioned in the article (by Wikipedia's definition of the word) that could have cites added with a bit of work.  But all the "Merton/Hislop said something funny" stuff added to the article clearly aren't notable.  It's notable that Paul Merton is a comedian and many people find him very funny, but notability of the specific examples are simply points of views and original research by individual editors.  It's all great stuff, but belongs on a fan-site, not an encyclopaedia.  What I intend to do is a bit of sourcing of cites for what seems most likely to be notable to me, but otherwise remove the rest.  If anyone can cite any of the rest, all to the good.  -- Escape Orbit  (Talk) 11:01, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Rounds
I'm not sure how relevent this is, but there is no mention of the rounds within the show. I think a new section should be added including this. The types of round could be added(such as the missing words round) and then what happens in each of them (such as headlines from obscure guest publications). Then further to this a little bit of the history about the round, like when it first appeared etc. should be added. A good source for information about it is here Andypandy2020 (talk) 18:54, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

 * I seem to recall there was a Rounds section, or it was in the format section. I can't remember what happened to it, though I think it may have had something to do with the vagaries of the rounds. I'm also not sure how reliable a source H2G2 is. Ged UK (talk) 19:39, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

 * I understand that there is some variance in the rounds and some occur only once, so how about the section is called "recurring rounds" or something on those lines instead? Also, H2G2 is part of the BBC, so I think we can trust it as a reliable reference. Andypandy2020 (talk) 19:59, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

 * It's only hosted by the Beeb, it's written by 'normal people', just like Wikipedia, so if the info isn't sourced, then I don't think it would meet our requirements here. Ged UK (talk) 20:16, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

 * Point taken about H2G2, so I've had a look for other sources and found this one . Do you think it is suitable as a source instead? Andypandy2020 (talk) 20:26, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Looks OK to me. Ged UK (talk) 20:30, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Wonderful, I've made the change. Do you think it's ok? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andypandy2020 (talk • contribs) 20:57, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Not bad. I've made a couple of changes to it as the odd-one-out round traditionally comes third rather than second. I've also added a mention for the Wheel of News which sometimes replaces the picture spin quiz. I've also mentioned the tabloid headline round which traditionally was the second round up until a few years ago. These details are all verifiable from the UKGameShows source. I've referenced it a second time after the "Whiteley/Countdown" detail.Trippynet (talk) 19:48, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Original Research again
I've removed the same stuff that was discussed and removed a few months back. Particularly the stuff from the sections Notable moments, Running gags and Frequent targets. Before anyone adds them back in could they discuss it here please, and justify why it shouldn't be considered original research. Additions to Wikipedia should be notable by Wikipedia's definitions. -- Escape Orbit (Talk) 19:44, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I've removed this material yet again. Would 77.96.110.37 please either provide some justification for this material and explain why it isn't [WP:OR|original research]] or stop adding it.-- Escape Orbit  (Talk) 12:28, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Jack Dee discrepancy
Jack Dee is listed as having appeared as a guest host both 5 and 6 times. I have no idea which is right, so I haven't touched it, but someone should. 84.65.147.127 (talk) 17:51, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

This should be added somewhere
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,365645,00.html http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1025670/Have-I-Got-A-Court-Case-For-You-The-man-fell-sofa-watching-hit-TV-ended-arrest.html William Ortiz (talk) 10:49, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

 * Why? The notability, if any, would be appropriate to an article about policing. The fact that he was watching HIGNFY isn't the significant part of the story for me. Ged UK (talk) 11:25, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Any ideas what article then? William Ortiz (talk) 07:24, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

 * Maybe Law enforcement in the United Kingdom, but I don't know whether the editors there will feel it fits there either. Maybe worth a try. Ged UK (talk) 07:27, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Guest presenters
The whole section is just a reformatted list of List of Have I Got News For You episodes, and it's only going to get longer and more messy as the series' continue. I agree with putting the most often guest presenters up, and maybe the bit about appearing as a guest after appearing as a host, but why do we need the list of people who have only appeared on it once, when their names are already here? Any agreement to scrapping it? LicenseFee (talk) 21:56, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

My suggestion would be to remove the '1 appearance as host' part if it gets much longer. Leave the rest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.32.48.236 (talk) 22:19, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

2010 Series?
I know there's a source for the show being "expanded into the UK equivalent of The Onion," but I hear there are plans to keep the show going into 2010, maybe later. Does anyone have a source for this? I can't seem to find one. It would useful to put on the main page so people know it's still going and didn't end this month.Cyrenaic (talk) 13:32, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

There will be a new series, Hattrick has already announced ticket being released in march . User:Allard Tuesday 12th January 2010 at 19:57 European Central Time.In —Preceding unsigned comment added by Allard (talk • contribs) 18:57, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Twitter feed
Just to say that since March 2010 there has been an official Have I Got News For You twitter feed which is here: @bbcHIGNFY

The show promotes chat on twitter by putting a graphic of the hashtag #HIGNFY at the front of each show to encourage viewers to debate. (This has been running since the Autumn series 2010). During the week and between series, Hat Trick posts topical jokes and encourage followers to take part in missing word rounds.

The twitter feed is edited by the show's executive producer Richard Wilson. Hattrickdigital (talk) 08:33, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Something's amiss here
In the "Format" section, we have a paragraph that says:
 * Over an hour's worth of material is recorded for each 30-minute programme on Thursday evenings for broadcast on Friday, allowing the programme to remain topical while the BBC's lawyers have time to request cuts of potentially slanderous material. "No reviewer could possibly review it in that time. We started off with an audience of two million, and somebody might have mentioned it to their friend, and then it sort of built up a momentum of its own."

This makes no sense at all. The paragraph starts out by talking about how much material is recorded, what is cut out, and ends in a (presumably validly) cited but unattributed quote that looks as if it has to do with how quickly the audience built when the show was starting out.

It's a total non-sequitur, or at least so it appears. Can someone with access to the context to the quoted bit come up with some way to make sense out of this? 192.35.35.34 (talk) 02:32, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Introduction fails to describe overall purpose of show
Introduction fails to describe overall purpose of show. After reading it, I am still not sure what the show is about.

CrocodilesAreForWimps (talk) 13:28, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Do Panel Shows have an overall purpose other than just to entertain? Narom (talk) 14:41, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Purpose - To put forward the BBC's leftist agenda in the form of "Precision Engineered" comedy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.115.8.188 (talk) 15:42, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Angus Deayton
It was revealed in the Press that Deayton got £50,000 an episode whereas the contestants got just £12,500 an episode. The bitter and snide remarks started immediately against him and when stories of Deayton's sex and drugs came out, the four contestants attacked him mercilessly at every opportunity so that in the end, the BBC had no choice but to get rid of him. (178.236.117.122 (talk) 16:43, 5 May 2013 (UTC))
 * Revealed by who in what?

Running gags
2.30.100.89 (talk) 12:43, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Robert Kilroy-Silk's "share or shaft" quote
 * Eamonn Holmes weight jokes (not too many of those recently)
 * Liz Truss's cheese quote and open pork markets in Beijing seem to be on their way to becoming 'running gags' also

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Have I Got News for You. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091201165659/http://www.nightlisteners.com/public/wait-wait-don%E2%80%99t-tell-me%E2%80%A6/ to http://www.nightlisteners.com/public/wait-wait-don%E2%80%99t-tell-me%E2%80%A6/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 20:33, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Notable moments
The "Notable moments" section, which was and is the target of at least one redirect (The Rt. Hon. Tub of Lard MP) was removed by user:WikipediaUserCalledChris in January this year, apparently without discussion, using the edit summary "Original research surely?" . I don't agree with this removal, as these are indeed all notable moments from the series - Roy Hattersley/Tub of Lard, The Hamilton's getting brown envelopes of cash, Boris Johnson's appearances, Angus Deyton's last episode as presenter and Nicky Morgan/leather handbag. While it may be original research to describe them as the most notable or some such like that, I do think the section (as a concept, not necessarily in identical format) deserves to be restored in some form. Thryduulf (talk) 13:16, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
 * The problem with sections like these is there is no clear, sourceable, criteria for determining what moments are notable. So it comes down to an editor's opinion, which is the original research. If you can devise a manner of doing this, then maybe it would work.  But otherwise what happens is these sections just keep growing with increasing trivia.
 * What would be better is if the "notable moments" were properly incorporated into a history of the show, with proper context and sources demonstrating what exactly made them "notable". -- Escape Orbit (Talk) 16:23, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Notability of Farage-joke police involement
Edits to the Controversy section have removed the note on UKIP logging a police case against the show as below.
 * In April 2015, the UK Independence Party complained to Kent Police over a false statement about candidate Nigel Farage, which would be in breach of electoral law. The police did not investigate, stating "The matter has been reviewed by officers but there's no evidence of any offences and there will be no further action.".

To my mind this meets all of the requirements for notability as in Notability in that it:
 * had significant coverage, the reference being a national news source;
 * comes from a reliable source, the BBC, along with a quote from Kent Police;
 * has wide sources - a google search finds stories in almost every major national newspaper;
 * is independent of those involved - independently edited, and many independent sources (see the majority of press coverage);
 * has direct quotes and is not presumed.

It also apoears to relate to an attempt by a national political party to pursue a criminal case against the show, and thus is I'd argue is probably relevant for a encyclopaedia entry (unless anyone knows different, I'm just going by what I'm reading?)

I beleive it should stay, but rather than get into an edit war with the editor that's removing it I'd like to gain some concensus. What do other folks think? Lkchild (talk) 22:45, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

 * For me, it is the "police involvement" issue more than anything else. The police specifically chose not to be involved.  The media made a big hype over it during an election cycle, probably a slow news day.  No investigation, no consequences, a big fat pile of nothing.  This page is already overblown with the kind of cruft that I would love to take a weed-whacker to. This is an encyclopedia, not a fan page.  Scr ★ pIron IV 23:14, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
 * If you were not even interested enough in the incident to describe what it actually was, that's a good indication that it's not worth including. I added the text describing what actually happened, but the removal of the whole thing is better. Something the police investigated could be of note; something they didn't is not. 124.159.170.92 (talk) 06:46, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep in mind this one didn't originate with me - I just came to correct it - I was mid-edit when it was removed. On reading the actual reference (and others) they did investigate but determined there was no case to be had.  I'm not arguing this as a fan, just as an interested party.  This, to me, is a significant event, but if no other editors agree the concensus is with you.  Lkchild (talk) 19:36, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Have I Got News for You. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110608045207/http://www.offthetelly.co.uk/?page_id=338 to http://www.offthetelly.co.uk/?page_id=338
 * Added tag to http://www.err.ee/press/pressiteated_2008/teletaip_tuleb_tagasi/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 08:40, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Hattersley
I've removed again the addition of the Hattersley episode. While it is common knowledge that the episode occurred, and a source discussing it shouldn't be hard to find, we most definitely need a good cite for the claim that Hattersely considered litigation. "Reportedly" isn't good enough. And that's before consideration about what makes this "controversial" and suitable for inclusion in this section. Where was the controversy? -- Escape Orbit (Talk) 14:30, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Ian Hislop's Attendance Record
Currently, the article says "On rare occasions Hislop and Merton have been absent from the programme" and "During this period, Hislop - who would be the longest serving member of the three on the programme since its premiere — was forced to be absent from one episode in 1994 due to appendicitis." I believe this is untrue, and that Hislop has never missed an episode. As I recall he checked himself out of the hospital to do the show despite his appendicitis, and had an appendectomy immediately after filming concluded. Given that level of devotion to being there, it seems churlish at best to claim he wasn't. A potential source to cite here is the Radio Times (https://www.radiotimes.com/news/tv/comedy/2017-10-06/have-i-got-news-for-you-15-facts/): "4. Paul Merton, Clive Anderson and Frank Skinner have occupied all three roles on the show — guest presenter, team captain, and panellist. But Ian Hislop is the only person to have appeared in every single episode, even during a bout of appendicitis in 1994." Also from the BBC (https://www.bbc.co.uk/mediacentre/latestnews/2012/hignfy-hosts): "Ian Hislop is the only person to have appeared in every episode - and in front of every guest host - despite suffering from a burst appendix shortly before one 1994 edition and having to go to hospital immediately after the recording." While this doesn't fully support my memory (neither includes the checking out of hospital part), it does tend to confirm that he did not miss the show... as does watching the episode. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.155.70.240 (talk) 14:20, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I've removed the statement and put in your source. The source previously used in fact suggests the opposite of what was claimed in the article, and your source is much more clear about things. -- Escape Orbit  (Talk) 14:37, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Credit Opening Theme
It would be pertinent to include that the opening theme was composed by George Webley, as it hasn't changed significantly since the series was created - I actually visited the page to find that information myself.

It could be included in the See Also section with Triffic Films. Fohfuu (talk) 12:40, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

The "Odd One Out" round
In parallel with the Wiki entry that gives a few details about each & every episode, I'd like to do the same for the 'Odd One Out' (OOO) round. Over the years, I've found this to be fascinating, producing the odd pearl (usually from Ian Hislop), such as the Norwegian Environment Minister calling John Gummer a "Drittsek" which is their word for a "Shitbag". There was a website that gave details up to about series 21, but that site appears to have closed down. That same site also had a few errors, relating to attaching a round to the wrong episode. At the moment, I'm having to resort to YouTube, but it doesn't show all episodes. To further complicate matters, some 30-minute episodes of HIGNFY didn't show the OOO, but it was included in the extended version of the same show. Is there anyone who knows if there still is such a site? I tried asking Hattrick, but they never responded. Similarly, is there a discussion forum on the 'net that deals with HIGNFY? Facebook is no good as the HIGNFY group seem to specialise in digging up dirt and eliciting opinion(s).

Thanks in advance

Taff Hewitt (talk) 18:06, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Guest panellists only in series 11
I suppose this means that when Paul Merton was absent in season 11, he was replaced by guests. But they actually have guest panellists in every series, so the infobox should say that. Richard75 (talk) 13:26, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Have I Got News for You