Talk:Chris Moyles

Protection

Time to request semi-protection? -- 9cds^(talk) 16:19, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

hmm - I'm hoping that it'll die down afte the weekend. At the moment the vandalism is regualr but not unmanagable; there seems to be a fair few editors coping with it. Robdurbar 16:44, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Though I'm beginning to think that you're right Robdurbar 14:18, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

---

Someone needs to remove 'chris is really really funny' from the very bottom of the page. aside from the fact that it isnt exactly NPOV, he's a fat talentless blob who seems to have become convinced he can sing. (perhaps replace with 'chris moyles has no talent'?)

"Moyles is about as funny as a your mum. "Comedy Dave" is an gay nickname as well ..... :-)" ~~AF

Load mouthed twat! He used to be good but now he talks rubbish all morning and at an unbearable noise level. I tuned in the other day and it sounded like a school playground with him and his team all arguing over each other.

---

all that i ssaid before this is complete bollocks and chris moyles is fucken great, so fuck you! and also get a life, why listen to it if u dont like it u sad bastard anyway . . . . he drinks his own bodly waste —Preceding unsigned comment added by EnitBlad (talk • contribs) 00:34, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

The Chris Moyles show is the best thing on radio, everything else on at the same time is ... crap. If you switch over to Wogan it sounds like he's alone and talking to himself, plus Wogan was rubbish on children in need. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.46.247.147 (talk) 12:59, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

→ More obvious vandalism present including false information and slang, 17.08pm. I have reverted the edits. --Mark Macmillan™ (talk) 17:09, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Great that you did it, but you don't need to keep us up to date on reversions, they happen daily. AndrewJDTALK -- 19:57, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

POV

"despite the fact that using "gay" as a derogatory term is found highly offensive by the majority of the gay/bi community."

This is POV, i am removing it.

Censorship

Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia_is_not_censored

As you can see there, Wiki does not censor the word "fuck" and am therefore changing the "f*****" to "fucker"

Accusations of transphobia

I think this should be removed for the time being. All the other controversies link to a reputable source (aka. BBC, Ofcom, Digital Spy, The Times etc.), but this controversy just links to a source where this bloke is trying to generate support for people to complain to Ofcom. I think it should be removed, and if the matter does eventually end up in Ofcoms hands, or gets an article given to it by a very reputable source, it should be reinstated. Anon Dude 18:34, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I think that this is reasonable - re WP:LIVING, we should avoid including negative material just for the sake of it. There is already enough for people to realise that Moyles can offend at times. --Robdurbar 19:26, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

this is a major site for the trans community isnt that a reputable source? i think this issue will before ofcom very shortly.

It makes no difference what you "think" will happen, wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Martin 11:51, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

While the issue is clearly ongoing, given that the BBC have now responded to the complaint (complaint here and response here), are the "accusations of transphobia" now worthy of inclusion?

PFC of course, while working on trans issues, are in fact a reputable group with many noteable people that carry honours for said work.

If it's not yet deemed a suitable addition to the article, then that fair enough, but we do now have the issue talked about by both sides of the dispute, including sources for each. Crimsone 20:22, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

now appears that the incident is being investigated by the metropolitan police. I now see no reason that this event should be ommited from the article, as it is quite clearly significant. --Crimsone 22:18, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

What's your source of information regarding a police investigation? ~~ Peteb16 01:26, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

It was a recent email from the PFC news list. It will be placed in the public archives soon (if it hasn't been already)

Oops. Further to my above comment... source here

Note also though that it's not just the fact that it's been reported to the police who are investigating - there is also the fact that the BBC have responded to a complaint. Crimsone 01:35, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

It's probably best to wait and see if the incident is reported in the news. The website you've referenced seems to be speculating to much about what the police could or should be doing about the incident rather than what they actually are doing about it and, as I'm sure you're aware, you can't submit speculation to Wikipedia. ~~ Peteb16 01:48, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

While that is undoubtedly true for the purposes of wikipedia, never the less the Metropolitan police are looking into the matter. Surely this is the statement that really matters? Crimsone 01:49, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Their source of information seems to be one of their subscribers, not the police themselves. Second hand information from a non-reputable source is not reliable information. I really think it's in your best interest to wait and see if there's an official press release about it from the police. ~~ Peteb16 01:56, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

That's good enough reasoning, as long as it is accepted that PFC believe it to be reliable information else they wouldn't have posted it, being as they are a reputable organisation. I will stand by for further developments, although I do feel that this section now has sufficient grounding to be re-instated. --Crimsone 02:04, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

personally i would reinstate the section and include the fact that the police are investigating. im not sure why PFC arent seen as a reputable source.Jocasta shadow 02:28, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I was referring to PFC's subscriber, not PFC. Even so, I would hardly describe PFC as unbiased, as a news report would be. ~~ Peteb16 09:59, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

perhaps that should read ' as a news report should be' giving the fact Metro, London lite and thelondonpaper are all apparently newspapers. ; )

Couldn't you have said The Sun or the Daily Record? We don't all live in that London... ;) ;) On topic, though, then if we have news source stating that its been investigated, then it could go in. Using the PFC would be suitable, but a non-involved organisation would be better. --Robdurbar 20:16, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

They print that Metro rubbish everywhere nowdays *tsk*Jocasta shadow 21:44, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I think there is one important point differentiating between newspapers and this group PFC as reliable sources. Newspapers (despite their biases) have the threats of libel action and the PCC to force them to stray not too far from the truth. PFC, on the other hand, is both the prime agent and reporter of this allegation and this conflict of interest undermines their credibility as a source. Kijog 14:19, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

The thing is that no reputable source is reporting it - PFC are the only people on the matter. And of course I think it is fair to say, PFC is quite biased when it come to matters like these. It would surprise me if this inclusion wasn't written by a PFC memeber. Anon Dude 16:11, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

It is often the case that issues like these go under-reported. It must be said thought, that Stonewall arn't exactly unbiased when it comes yo accusations of homophobia on the same logic.

Never the less, the accusations were made by PFC. PFC are a group that contain within a number of people who have been given honours by the queen for this exact work - That says at least something for their individual integrity. One of them Stephen Whittle, is even a fairly accomplished lawyer. PFC also has a great deal of respect for it's work in Parliament. Regardless of this, ALL news sources have bias - it's in the nature of news and journalism. Papers like "The Sun" and "The Daily Mail", to name but two of many are renowned for it, but they seem to be oki as sources. By comparison, PFC actually has an amount of credibility when you look at it in that light.

Because of the fact that only PFC so far seem to have reported on this in any detail (pending either a response from the Met or from OfCom), I have taken the NPOV measure of choosing my words very carefully to reflect the facts exactly, rather (eg, PFC reported/accused) as opposed to portraying any Bias from them (Moyles did/was guilty of). As such, the way it is written really offers very little POV or Bias. The section merely aknowledges the event.

For that matter though, even Moyles' biography on the Chris Moyles Fansite mentions the accusations of transphobia - it just doesn't go into any detail. I could throw that in as a source for good measure if required (I've just added it)? I would suggest that if there is a concern that this article is looking a bit negative overall, a better way of adressing it would be to add a section on any notable work for charity that he has done (as I imagine he's done some) or something, rather than ommitting facts from it.

Incidententally, I'm in no way a "member" of PFC, but I do subscribe to the newslist. there are very few who are actually "members" of PFC - it's a tight ship. --Crimsone 18:07, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

The section is a violation of WP:LIVING, on negative content: If a view represents that of a tiny uninfluential minority, it has no place in the article. Martin 18:29, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't represent a view. It represents the fact that accusations were made. Nowhere does it say what PFC's view on the issue was, and thus there can be no bias. It mentions only the facts that can be unarguably be ascertained from the sources, being that PFC did indeed make the allegations, as demonstrated by the archive of PFC making them, and the fact that they are mentioned on Moyles' biography on his fansite, and that PFC have made further reports on the reaction to the accusation, the contents of which are unconfirmed. These aren't views - they're facts that not even Moyles would refute (after all, WP:Living is all about ensuring that libelous and baseless defamatory articles are not witten about living people likely to want to bite back if they knew of them. This is clearly not the case here anyway, even if there were bias).

Also, please define "tiny uninfluential minority". Last I checked, PFC were in no small part responsible for a major Act of Parliament, trans people have gone from being the subject of constant ridicule to having protections in statute law, and police are starting to record incidents of transphobic hate crime seperately. That's not exactly uninfluential - further backed up by the fact that somebody (or a group) quite clearly managed to "influence" the state into awarding people of PFC honours for their work and the PCC into changing the Editorial Code of Conduct.

Not that it matters though for the reasons in my first paragraph above. This isn't a view - it's a fact, and as such, there's no violation of WP:LIVING --Crimsone 18:42, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

You misunderstand. It is the view of a tiny minority. Yes, it is a fact that the minority hold this view, but that is where you have misunderstood the point of the policy. Martin 19:07, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Again - please point out where the "view" lies. There's no view in the article section for anybody to hold. (Therefore incidentally,) please also define "uninfluential minority" and state exactly who you feel this minority is, because I'm not entirely certain that this is the case either.

I have not misunderstood the point of the policy, as it is set out in WP:LIVING#Rationale for all to see. Once more, in the sense that the sources have been used and in the way the section has been written, it confirms quite reasonably with the required policies as per WP:LIVING...

1. WP:V accusations are also listed on a major (pro-moyles) fansite, which has been referenced. PFC has indeed made the allegation which is what's written in the article and appropriately sourced (to PFC actually making the allegation - it doesn't get closer).
2. WP:NPOV Only the verifiable facts have been written and sourced. No bias or commentary has been written into the section. everything written can be confirmed in the sources, and the source itself is recognised and credible (as per it's nature, achievements, and recognition in government and state for the work they do and have done).
3. WP:NOR the allegations are backed up again by the fansite. The BBC response contained in the PFC sources contains quite enough information to be checked - as irrelevant as it is because it's about the fact that PFC reported it in response to the allegations. The reader of the article can make his/her own mind up about whether or not the BBC wrote it (and most would indeed conclude that the BBC did in fact write it - PFC doesn't and can't afford to make such things up and tell outright lies, and wouldn't want to anyway as they have far more important things to be doing). Again, the fact that the allegations were made is backed up by a prominent website with opposite bias.) --Crimsone 19:31, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Does any group hold the same opinion as PFC? It seems to me that this minority group dislike chris moyles and have been pushing their agenda, and it has now spilled over onto Wikipedia. Also, I don't find the references acceptable, they all point to the PFC website, apart from one which points to a site which simply acknowledges the accusation. Martin 19:42, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

PFC isn't a minority group. In spite of everything that's been written, I have no idea how it woulb be possible to come to that conclusion. Here's a google search as further evidence of the nature of PFC... google "press for change" in the UK

This organisation have neve mentioned Chris Moyles before except for this incident. If you look at the sections of their website mentioned in the sources, you will see that they have cited many such incidents where they feel there has been discrimination. There is no kind of vendetta against Moyles from the organisation (a respectedand influential organisation, by definition, is neither a minority or a minority group. It's a respected and influential organisation). There's nothing to spill over to wikipedia. Moyles was accused and that fact is backed up by two significant sources that are of opposite bias (at least - to those who see such bias). There's no vendetta in the first place. It's not the person they are complaining about - it's the content of one of his shows.

The references are acceptable for the purposes that they've been used. The article doesn't say anything that isn't a clearly verifiable fact. Whether there's any truth or grounding to PFC's accusations is entirely up to the reader - the article itself does not repeat them. The article doesn't comment on them. The article simply states that they were made, and that PFC have reported on the subject of a response to them. Again - it's up to the reader to pass judgement if they so choose, but the facts as they are written in the article can be unquestioningly verified by the sources given, which are reputable and can be proven to be reputable given enough time and effort (as if it's not obvious by looking through their site, their recognition and their achievements), and the facts given offer all of the available and verifiable factual information that is currently available.

The site that acknowledges the accusation also cites PFC as the organisation that made it, and quotes PFC in giving an explanation of what exactly the accusation was about. --Crimsone 19:58, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Sourcing

I've just been through the article and replaced the inline links with proper referencing.

Unfortunately, the first two external links in the Work outside of radio section (1 and 2) no longer seem to work. link #1 is dead, and link #2 has been redirected to a set of forums... 1 2

Could somebody please either find these sources via archive.org or find a different source for the relevant statements. :) --Crimsone 08:46, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Breakfast show presenter error?

Did he not start on the 5th January(or there abouts) 2004, not in 2003 as it says in that little box at the bottom? I know Sara Cox finished mid december, and then Scott Mills filled in until the show launched properly. Or does it go by the date the last presenter finished?? Appologies if I am incorrect. SFadam 11:47, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I changed it to 2004 as that is when he started Anon Dude 09:59, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Added unsourced paragraph

I've just added an unsourced paragraph to the section on accusations of transphobia with regards to OFComs response. Unfortunately, the message has not yet been added to the archive, and so cannot be linked. When it can be (which will hopefully be soon, but it is the chrismas period after all), I shall put it in (unless somebody else gets there first). Crimsone 14:24, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

"Controversies" section and POV comments

Surely I'm not the only one who thinks that "controversies" dominate this article, too much so even for someone who is well known as being controversial. The actual section takes up about half the article and there were mentions within "Radio 1" and again where his autobiography is mentioned, though I've moved the latter. Also having this as a whole separate section seems to be in danger of becoming a catch-all list of everything he's ever done that someone didn't like, could some or all of it be part of a Biography section instead? He doesn't like Towers of London and they don't like him, is that a noteworthy "controversy" in the same way as being accused of being homophobic or racist? I don't think so.

Also under "Show Format", "Features" there is the comment:

"He is renowned for his sharp manner, quick temper and put-downs, which are directed at seemingly everyone in a constant barrage"

with a link to a Guardian article. I think that's pretty POV for something which isn't a direct quote from the article or anyone else, far as as I can see. That article is worth being linked but it's not much of a source in this case.Jimbow25 13:58, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Agree, I think it's getting a bit too much. I notice Towers of London Controversy now has its' own section. What next? Perhaps we should devote a whole section to the Dr. Fox controversy, the John Peel controversy, the time when Moyles said Fuck at 09:49 controversy.... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Anon Dude (talk • contribs) 09:55, 27 January 2007 (UTC).

I agree, shall we delete the towers of london section? in six months time no one will know who they are and it trivalises the other serious issues that have been raised with OFCOM etc.Jocasta shadow 08:22, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Done. --Robdurbar 08:27, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

As for the Guardian comment - its not necassairly disparaging. His wit and put downs are one of the reasons people listen to the show (I know it is for me!) --Robdurbar 08:27, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Could the racism section be merged into the intro into contoversis as its about a single incident! nobody (or atleast no source i can find) has accused him of being racist! halle belied that the joke was in bad taste and made this clear

the pay controversies section also has no place in a NPOV article as at most it should read "some people are unhappy over claims that he earns £630k but as the sun has a biased POV against him it should be dropped completely IMO

The section on the transgenderism should be cut right down the section should only describe the incident not give a step by step follow up by the PFC Xbehave 09:52, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Done 84.69.246.164 16:09, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I think the Contraversies section needs scaling down to facts, not POV comments and irrelevant time-lines. It is rather large for a living persons biography.

The accustations of racism section should probably be wholly deleted. Halle Berry understood it was a joke, if in bad taste, and no investigation or repremand was issued by OFCOM. -Anon84.69.246.164 16:40, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I've put in the line regarding the drinking criticism - but I don't know how to source it. The information is taken from here (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7598288.stm). It seems Moyles came in for particular criticism. Blaise Joshua (talk) 11:37, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Picture?

Does nobody in Britain have a REAL camera anymore? That cell phone picture is no better than having NO picture. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.87.70.91 (talk) 07:43, 29 April 2007 (UTC).

I agree with you, it is not a very good quality photo, although it does the job, you can see who he is. There are a lot of pictures of him all over the place and I would have thought that at least one photo would comply with Wikipedia standards. Andrewjd 21:18, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Transphobia?

I've deleted the setion on transphobia. He may have ben accused by the PFC but Ofcom found no breach of "section 2 of their code relating to harm and offence". It seems a bit a of a nothing section 84.69.159.234 20:31, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

The Team

The section on Chris' team needs an edit I feel, as the use of grammar is poor and the sources are uncredited. 212.158.111.130 08:39, 10 September 2007 (UTC) Siobhan

Parodies

Can somebody add Chris to the category : Parody musicians? Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.145.240.76 (talk) 16:56, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Wouldn't it make more sense if this section be removed from here and added to The Chris Moyles Show article as it's an activity the team (especially Comedy Dave and Dominic) are involved in rather than just Chris himself? Violetbeau (talk) 22:29, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Golden Hour

They no longer run the golden hour but I don't know the date that it was discontinued. Does anyone else have details? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.27.95.134 (talk) 10:12, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

There was a Golden Hour that ran before Xmas 2007. It was circulated around the '40 years of radio 1' celebration. They played old songs, and also some of the covers.

Chris Moyles doesn't like playing old songs for an entire hour, so sometimes he has the 'Golden 5 minutes' or something similar. AlexFili (talk) 14:03, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Pub

His favourite pub is "The Woodman", in East Leeds.--212.241.67.98 (talk) 20:35, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

9/11

As it is mentioned on the Mark and Lard page, should something not be mentioned about his show on 9/11, and his exceleent control of the situation? Duffman1208

This is not a Bio it's rubbish

This page is not a bio, just a diatribe on his rather tacky BBC radio show, with the BBC going for the lowest common denominator (gutter) in the dumbing down of yoof, on a quest for ratings. This sort of article is why people joke about Wikipedia (well deserved). Rename this the Chris Moyles BBC Radio Show, and start again!

The guy sounds like a tool. Eiad77 (talk) 12:29, 4 November 2008 (UTC)