Talk:Talksport

Untitled

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)

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)

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)

As does George Galloway, who is Catholic
Brooza 20:45, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Attempt at Resolution

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

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)

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)

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)

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.

For some reason the slightly mad anon contributor refuses to accept that the traffic and news teams are "presenters" and reverts back on sight, going over the 3RR in the process if need be... --Kiand 00:10, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Lowest audience

It has the lowest audience of any national station? That must be untrue -- anybody heard of 1Xtra, 3C, etc., etc.? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrew.boulton (talk • contribs) 2006-05-20

Indeed it is - its actually the 7th highest commercial national in the latest RAJAR figures. Theres at least 15 commercials and a few BBC's behind it. Both 1Xtra and 3C actually do fairly well, mind - the lowest figure goes to Fun Radio, and thats just among those who pay to be reported. --Kiand 10:11, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Schedule - Unencyclopedic?

As I discussed on some BBC radio articles, Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not under section 1.7.7 states that Wikipedia is not a TV/Radio guide. Rather than delete the information in the schedule, would it be better for someone with knowledge of TalkSPORT edited the schedule and make it into sections like Presenters and Programmes? Sonic 08:29, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Someone just deleted the schedule as I was writing the above comment. My suggestion still stands. Sonic 08:30, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I did that once but I was told it was against copyright even though I wrote it all myself! I don't see anything wrong with listening the presenters and on-air staff....

Needs an overhaul

I've just gone through this page and done what I could to get the opening section into better shape. The vast amount of text before the TOC was ridiculous, so I've put most of that into a history section and just left the basic details at the beginning.

I haven't even bothered touching the presenters section, but it's pretty clear there's way too much information there. It reads too much like advertising material. I really don't think we need to detail every single programme on the station... it's just too unwieldy. It needs to be trimmed back to remove the, uh... less notable... presenters/programmes. It'd be cool if someone more in the know about the station could tackle it.

I've made another section into which I've put the most recent programming developments at the station. This can be edited as necessary for those who like to tell everyone about what's going on lately at talkSPORT.

Furthermore, I have no idea what purpose the large list of presenter names with links is meant to serve... the bit below the Twenty20 Cup Live section. Can anyone justify keeping it? If not I'm going to delete it in a few days time. I'm also looking at the ratings section as needing a good clearout, because it's so shamelessly POV and far too long for the average reader to give a damn.

Any thoughts?

--EddieBernard 10:41, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Is there a possibility we could split this article into two and have Talk Radio UK as a seperate article? Just a thought.Olaf Legend 16:35, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

AFD on company operating TalkSPORT transmission sites

There's an AFD on Alice Soundtech, a leading UK supplier of studio and transmission equipment for ILR and RSL radio stations (from mixing consoles to AM/FM transmitters) also operating some transmission sites for TalkSPORT and Virgin Radio. People in the biz or in the know can chime in at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alice Soundtech. -- 62.147.39.76 10:31, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

POV

I've cleaned up one major bit of POV for The Jon Gaunt Show, hopefully someone can expand on the description for that show and go through the other shows with a fine toothcomb for other WP:NPOV violations. --tgheretford (talk) 21:19, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

And as soon as I do that, someone else has added what I believe is a WP:NPOV violation (diff). As I am not prepared to violate WP:3RR, can someone suggest what else I can do apart from whack a POV template to the section? --tgheretford (talk) 00:05, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

What I will try and say is that either the information placed in the article be verified with reliable sources, otherwise as per WP:V and WP:NPOV policy as well as WP:WEASEL guidelines, it can be removed. --tgheretford (talk) 00:12, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I surprised it wasn't mentioned that Steve Wright was a presenter on Talk Radio in 1994, on the same frequencies (1089, 1053 AM) that only a year earlier he was broadcasting his show for Radio 1 before it went to FM. 86.133.156.8 09:31, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

George Galloway

There has been some very libelous statements apperaing on the politics section of the page such as describing him as a anti-semite and supporter of the terrorist organisation, Hezbollah. I have reworded it for the moment, but it is being repeatedly reverted or changed. As the politics section doesnt seem relevent, perhaps it is time to remove this section. Willow177 (talk) 21:17, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Are we really supposed to put up with this kind of libellous nonsense on Wikipedia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.9.46.14 (talk) 22:19, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Galloway supports Hezbollah - he has made various speeches to this effect. Galloway makes no secret of his hatred of the Jews (or the English for that matter), listen to his radio show - the man is a modern day Lord Haw Haw. The fact that the left wing "intelligentsia" will support any murderer (Saddam, Guevara), tin pot dictator (Chavez, Castro) or nutter (Galloway) provided they are anti-Semitic and anti-American should not get in the way of the truth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.90.253 (talk) 13:45, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Willow177 & Anon IP: May I be so bold so as to suggest that what you've both said is libellous? Galloway does support Hezbollah. He has said so himself. And rightly so. But Hezbollah being a terrorist organisation is dependent on POV. And the anti-semitism charge is a load of nonsense. And you know it. He is anti-Zionist, as are a lot of people out there. But that does not make him an anti-semite. --Charliewbrown (talk) 20:02, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, you're wrong. 1) It is a libel to say that he is an anti-semite. And 2), he is a supporter of Hizbullah, but it is a subjective opinion that they are terrorists. Not only that, but how does that fit in with the claim to "common sense" views in the previous paragraph? It is gratuitous.

Just look at the bile in the comments above. The idea that Galloway can be accused of making "no secret of his hatred of the Jews" is absurd (I am the same person who has been reverting the libel and non-NPOV, and will continue to do so until this is resolved).

In addition, how can "campaigns of liberation" be considered neutral? It is liberation in some people's opinion. To me it is mass slaughter - but I didn't alter the article to say that. The only way it can fulfil POV is to call it the most basic thing: Military action. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.9.46.14 (talk) 19:45, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Just what we need, another left wing apologist for terrorism eh ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.90.253 (talk) 20:04, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

OK I just reverted some of the comments above that were changed by the anon IP 87.194.90.253 (talk). S/he edited the comments by Charliewbrown (talk) as well Willow177 (talk) so that it appears as if they agreed that Galloway is an anti-semite when in fact the original statements were to the contrary. Unfortunately we were all fooled by this...And to you, anon IP 87.194.90.253 (talk): this is your final warning, if you persist in this behavior of editing against consensus and changing other editor's comments, you will be banned. --Nuttycoconut (talk) 16:09, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Biographies of living persons Violation

I am getting a little tired with the constant adding of potentially libellous details to this article about George Galloway. This is explicitly a violation of the biographies of living persons policy. Just because this isn't an article about a person doesn't mean it is acceptable - BLP applies to all Wikipedia articles. If information is being added back in, then please feel free to remove it immediately as per BLP policy, add the relevant template (adding unreferenced controversial information about living persons) from here and if it continues, report it at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. --tgheretford (talk) 12:05, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I noticed that as soon as the semi-protection has ended, the libellous biographies of living persons policy violations have resumed. I don't know whether we should also request page protection again as well as report the relevant user at the incidents noticeboard for administrators? --tgheretford (talk) 22:14, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Mr Galloway has frequently gone out of his way while broadcasting on Talksport to defend Jewish people from 'hate speak' which many callers have aimed at them. One time Mr Galloway said; 'any man who wants to attack a Jew is going to have to fight his way past me first, (George is an ex Boxer)'. Mr Galloways stated views on Israel on Talksport are also curious. He says Israel is a 'Settler State' founded and supported by aithiest none Jews. To say Mr Galloway is Anti Jewish is rediculious.Johnwrd (talk) 03:47, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Traditionalist Attitudes

" ... traditionalist attitudes towards issues such as capital punishment, immigration, and the ongoing military action in Iraq and Afghanistan". A circumlocution, I'd say: unless the tradition is crudity and pig ignorance. --OhNoPeedyPeebles (talk) 20:31, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Return of Talk Radio

Main page mentions the return of Talk Radio - a talk-only station running parallel to TalkSPORT on DAB - in July 2008 but AFAIK nothing has happened. Any news? Looks like this section of the page needs revision. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alansausse (talk • contribs) 04:35, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Legal Grammatical Error

Excuse the lack of vocabulary here, I'm into Law not Literacy so much. Under the header "Controversies" on the first bullet point: "a call from someone who wanted to shoot the Royal Family" Legally this is incorrect. He expressed the sentiment of them being shot. Also noting that barely anyone who called this fellow's show viewed it as anything but serious. No prosecution of this caller resulted. And Sedition is not personal intent. Thus the above is incorrect.

It may also be a trivial note to add that Boyd also claims to have wandered off in his mind, as the caller was mourning the death of the Queenmother and had heard it several times before that day.

89.100.60.94 (talk) 11:53, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Talk Radio (UK) era

This article is unfortunately recentist, concentrating on Talksport post-rebrand without going into much detail about its time as Talk Radio UK and Talk Radio. For example, the 'programming highlights' and 'controversies' sections which list events not particularly distantly separated in time begin after the rebrand, mysteriously not saying anything about the station before it was known as Talksport, and the 'former presenters' sections talks about Talksport's original line-up, which I think means the line-up at the point of the rebrand (James Whale was on at midnight and I remember listening!).

The article does not mention when the 'UK' on the end of the name was unceremoniously dropped. One thing that might also merit inclusion since the format from the outset was wall-to-wall phone-in is the phone number the station used and its changes over the years (not because the numbers themselves are important but because the pricing of calls is highly relevant to a phone-in station, given that people waiting on the line can potentially be a significant source of revenue). As I recall it started off as the local rate 0345 105389 and at some point became a free 0500 number, before changing back to something that charged (possibly more than a local rate), but I don't know when these changes occurred. Finally, are the medium wave frequencies used vacated BBC ones from the days before widespread FM reception? If so, what was on them before, and when they were freed up was it always intended to license a new national independent talk radio broadcaster, or might we have had a music station like Virgin/Absolute Radio instead? Since national wall-to-wall phone in was new to the UK in 1995, I wonder if anyone can dig up anything about how the new station was received when it went on air. Were analogies drawn, for example, with AM talk radio in the USA?

Can future editors of this article try to bear in mind what I've said here about recentism, and look at this station in a broader historical perspective in which everything notable that has happened from 1995 (and potentially before) to the present is equally important. Credulity (talk) 18:17, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Talksport. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120503235834/http://radiotoday.co.uk/news.php?extend.3389 to http://radiotoday.co.uk/news.php?extend.3389
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100329122126/http://www.utvpitch.co.uk:80/about/sport-magazine/ to http://www.utvpitch.co.uk/about/sport-magazine/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:54, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Talksport. 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 http://www.webcitation.org/686c4mNb1 to http://www.rajar.co.uk/listening/quarterly_listening.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:52, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

"TalkSPORT.com" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect TalkSPORT.com. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. The Banner talk 14:08, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Seven medium wave transmitters to be turned off in 2020

See here. 1107 kHz Torbay no longer works, so it looks like this has been turned off. The transmitter site was here and the service began in 1995.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:37, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

FA Cup Final

The current version under live sport heading states "FA Cup final (simulcast with BBC Radio 5 Live)" - normally in broadcast terms I've always taken a "simulcast" as being the broadcast of the same programme on multiple stations. It would be unlikely that Talksport and the BBC would be broadcasting the same programme - i.e. the same commentators and presenters. While it could be quite possible that the event would be broadcast on both stations, they would most likely have two completely separate broadcast teams.

It's not unusual for the same matches to be covered by multiple broadcasters and indeed the section introduction notes that some events are "non exclusive" as such I would have thought the simulcast with BBC 5Live reference is not needed. Unless my assumption that it is two separate programmes is incorrect in which case it would be worthy of note.

--Philedmondsuk (talk) 19:40, 17 May 2021 (UTC)