Talk:Talksport

This page seems extremely POV. It tells me nothing about the channel, only how great the hosts are... I may change this to VfD after thinking about it for a while. Luigi30 23:47, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC) Guess it was fixed. Hooray whoever did that. Luigi30 23:50, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I think that the comment about Jewish presenters may not be intended as anti-semitic, but as a point that there are no female presenters because of the content. the employment of jewish presenters, is to show that this is not because, of predjudice on the stations part Lazmac 15:46, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Surly the comment about the fact that there aren't any female presenters being such a problem is superflous. Readers need only look at the list of presenters below to see that there aren't any female hosts. I think that the problem is the IP address with a false sense of selfimportance, who seems to think that their judgement lies over that of the rest of contributers. If we are going to conclude that the only reason that the majority of listeners are men just beacause of the presenters, we need citations (not just discrediting newspaper articles, but solid facts), and not the opinion of one anonymous IP, who has continually walked over the community side of the Wikipedia project (which means finding concensus) in the name of overiding "censorship". Otherwise, all we should do is state the facts (that there aren't any female presenters, and that the majority of listeners are men). There is no reason that there are Jewish presenters working there needs to be mentioned. Yellowmellow45 17:56, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is possibly worthy of mention that Charlie Wolf is Jewish, as he often expresses political views in support of Israel.
SimonMayer 23:17, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You can't add information lifted straight off their website 1) because it is copyrighted and 2) there is sponsorship detail and contact information which is a form of advertising. Yellowmellow45 16:48, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to see a more descriptive passage about the station, about its history and output as someone who had not listened to station, would have little idea what it was like. Lazmac 12:05, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No female presenters? Not true, there's Robyn who does the news... --Kiand 17:27, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why the hell has the page been reverted back to what it was after I had put up more detailed introductions and information about each show on the weekday schedule!??!?!?!

I reverted it thought I it was good, and should be edited not removed Lazmac 14:22, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Buy why did you revert and remove EVERYTHING I had put on?

You can't add information lifted straight off their website 1) because it is copyrighted and 2) there is sponsorship detail and contact information which is a form of advertising. Yellowmellow45 16:49, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did no such thing whatsoever. I did not lift any information from their website and typed it all using my own words. Fair enough with the sponsorship details but I very much doubt they will be bothered me putting schedule and programme information on this site. If the sponsorship stuff is true then why does the current schedule stil say "Fiat Vans Sportswatch"????

the "predominately male audience"

Theres one real reason the station has a predominately male audience. It covers sports. Thats why. The presenters are mostly (but not entirely - listen to their news team) male due to it, oh, covering sports.

Theres no other reasons. --Kiand 17:01, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

EXACTLY, which is what I've been trying to point out to the anon IP, who really should read the second problem with Wikipedia [1] Yellowmellow45 17:02, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, the article is entitled "Why Wikipedia Must Jettison Its Anti-Elitism (Op-Ed)". Yellowmellow45 has revealed his agenda too all. 195.92.67.75 17:25, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

errrr no, merely pointing out that he has a point. I have no agenda and please refrain from personal attacks, its quite rude. I see you haven't really read it, the guy co-founded Wikipedia, and is also a supporter. Yellowmellow45 17:27, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are censoring unbiased information to suit your "Elitist" agenda, so kindly desist. And FYI, newsreaders are provided by Sky. Not one woman hosts her own show on the station. 195.92.67.75 17:37, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And how is that relevant, really? Its a sports station, and its a fact that far, far, far fewer women have any interest in sport than men. There -are- women broadcasters on the station, who provides them is completely irrelevant. As long as the station is predominately about sport it will have a predominately male audience. They could get all the female sportscasters in the world to present the current content and it would still have a predominately male audience because of the programme content. --Kiand 17:42, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think someone broke the WP:3RR (or will soon) Yellowmellow45 17:44, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

James Whale, Ian Collins, Charlie Wolf, Mike Dickin, Howard Hughes, Mark Keen, Mike Mendoza and Duncan Barkes are not sports presenters, and any mention of sports issues is stricly forbidden on their shows. talkSPORT's news bulletins are provided by Sky, as are the newsreaders. 195.92.67.73 18:03, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So? Its still mostly a sports station, and those are still women on the air who are acknowledged by talkSPORT as presenters on their homepage.

You're pushing a (pointless) POV on to the page that is entirely unprovable. If you can provide a reputable third-party source that says that its mainly male audience is down to the male presenters and NOT the programme content, it'd be OK then. But I'm sure you can't. And don't even think of reverting again for at least 24 hours. --Kiand 18:07, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All those shows have female callers, so the IP's point is disproved, there are female listeners who aren't put off. This is no plce to make political statements or unprovable points. I'm assuming good faith, but, if anyone has an agenda, it's the IP Yellowmellow45 18:08, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the problem with the revert rule is that the IP uses a proxy server and so edits under different IPs and is therefore, thoretically (and unfairly) exempt Yellowmellow45 18:12, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IP editors are -not- exempted from the 3RR. And this one has broken it, quite heavily, today alone. --Kiand 18:14, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Attempt at Resolution

CHECK and MATE to those intent on disrupting Wikipedia Yellowmellow45 18:27, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It would be nice for ther personal attacts, slights on motives and assumptions of viewpoints to stop. Then progress could be made. Enough opprobrism thankyou very much. Yellowmellow45 18:50, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So now we learn that the IP had no interest in the matter anyway. What does that make them? A troll? Never!!Yellowmellow45 19:02, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lack of station history?

There seems a disappointing lack of info on the change from Talk Radio to talksport, why this happened, who arranged it, what happened to the presenters etc etc. Magic Pickle 00:41, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    While there is no non-white presenters, Lisa Francesca Nand who does the traffic is of Fijian descent.  There is also a couple of female newsreaders: Robin, Rachel etc.