Talk:Sunday Night at 10

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

BBC Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject BBC, an attempt to better organise information in articles related to the BBC. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join us as a member. You can also visit the BBC Portal.BBCWikipedia:WikiProject BBCTemplate:WikiProject BBCBBC articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Tasks for WikiProject BBC: edit history watch purge Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Chucklevision - references and general clean-up, Pebble Mill Studios - over-detailed and long, BBC World Service Television - unreferenced and confusing Copyedit : BBC News, Broadcasting House Expand : Top 20 start-class BBC articles with most importance: BBC Japan, BBC World Service Television, BBC Lifestyle, BBC Two Northern Ireland NPOV : Criticism of the BBC (See comments) Stubs : Stub-Class BBC articles Other : *Restructure the category Add infoboxes to the BBC articles without infoboxes Add free-use images to biographical articles where possible Add references to assessment) and Coat of arms of the BBC Return Dad's Army to a Good article. (See comments) Reassess BBC following improvements to article. Radio Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Radio, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Radio-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.RadioWikipedia:WikiProject RadioTemplate:WikiProject RadioRadio articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. To-do List: Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Collaboration of the Week : Requests for Radio peer review: Rod Serling The Howard Stern Show The History of Rock & Roll American Top 40; The Museum of Curiosity; Scott Mills (radio show)

It is requested that a photograph be included in this article to improve its quality. The external tool WordPress Openverse may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

Upload

An editor has requested a third opinion regarding a dispute about this page. If you would like to contribute to the discussion, please see the discussion below.

Outline

This is basically about the show's producer being unhappy with some of the information which is included. I wrote this article earlier in the year and have tried to do so using a neutral point of view. All information is referenced from reliable third party sources, but there are apparently concerns that these are one-sided. There is very little information expressing the BBC's point of view, but I have tried to include this where possible. Despite this, referenced information has been removed on several occasions without explanation. I've requested a third opinion to gauge the views of others and to ascertain whether there are any issues with this article, and have invited the show's producer,

Much of what is included in this page is neither neutral or verifiable and based on a short period concerning press reports on the former presenter of the programme. The edits I made to the page were an attempt to make the entry more 'neutral', 'factual' and to provide information about the programme based on the present.Bob McDowall (talk) 20:56, 12 September 2009 (UTC)mcdowb01[reply]

It would actually be quite useful if there were some sources that gave the other side of the story as it were. I have tried to write a balanced article, and generally the sources in which the information appears (Daily Telegraph, Daily Mail, etc) are regarded as being reliable. If you're unhappy with the information they've provided then you should take it up with them. I know this has become a controversial issue so let's have an open discussion about this and hopefully we can write a balanced and useful article that encompasses everything that's appropriate. I must say that it is a fact that Laycock was a large part of the show, having hosted it for many years, and he departed because he was unhappy (for whatever reason). This drew a lot of attention and I think this needs to be included.

What story? I thought the entry was about a weekly programme broadcast on BBC Radio 2? It's not a case of being 'unhappy' with the content of newspapers; it's more what I know to be factually inaccurate being recycled on Wikipedia. Again, the edits I made were an attempt to make the article neutral and provide factual information on the programme, nothing more. Responsible reporting is not a case of what you or I may think, but providing users with accurate, non biased and factual information. There are many other places on the internet you can choose to editorialise on, should you so wish.92.11.63.195 (talk) 21:43, 12 September 2009 (UTC)mcdowb01[reply]

With all due respect, to me this seems to be entirely about you and what you are unhappy with, and you don't appear to want to reach any sort of compromise. This information was reported by reliable sources, and I urge you to take it up with the organisations if what they are reporting is wrong. If you have some other reliable sources (other than yourself) then I'd be happy to add them. Otherwise you're just offering your opinion and personal opinions don't actually count for much here. I'm an experienced editor and created this article in good faith. I actually resent your accusations that I'm editorialising and I suggest that in future you refrain from making such claims.

To be fair I worked in journalism for ten years and know that any article has to be supported by several reliable third party sources. I doubt this information would have appeared in reliable newspapers without the author being pretty certain of the facts.

talk) 22:58, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

I am responding to the request for a third opinion. Perhaps it would help if McDowall was specific about which unfactual claims have been made. Of course, in Wikipedia, the important thing is verifiability, not truth... but if we look at the specifics of the claims, we may find something to take issue with. It does seem odd that a large proportion of an article should be taken up by a recent controversey. I would suggest that the article be expanded with other, verifiable information... and maybe a nice image (public domain or fair use) of Clare Teal and/or some of the bands popular with the show. Yaris678 (talk) 21:48, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for responding. I had hoped to add more background detail, etc, but could find very little. Most of the information available concerns the recent controversy. Hopefully if Mr McDowell is specific then we can clear this up. Also, perhaps he can help fill in some of the gaps by providing some more background information. For example, I know that Malcolm Laycock occasionally had guests on the show so perhaps we can have some information about that. And Laycock (and now Teal) also read out a list of big band concerts taking place around the country. I could add some of this myself, but it won't be referenced, I'm afraid.

talk) 22:22, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

I've now added a Show Format section and a few more details regarding past features, etc. Should be ok now.

talk) 22:59, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

The additional material you have provided on show format is fine in terms of

WP:V because it hasn't been challenged and (in my opinion at least) is unlikely to be challenged. Of course, if it is challenged then we'll have to think again. Yaris678 (talk) 13:43, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks. I might see what else I can find to enhance this a bit further. Some of the guests who've appeared would be interesting (I have a vague memory that Tony Bennett might have been on at some point in the dim and distant past). And of course, I'll add whoever the long term presenter is when that is announced. Two things Bob McDowall can offer advice on if he hasn't been put off editing. Cheers

talk) 12:48, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Have requested pictures for both this and for the

talk) 13:31, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply

]