Talk:Chris Moyles

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Protection[edit]

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

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

Censorship[edit]

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[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
What's your source of information regarding a police investigation? ~~ Peteb16 01:26, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
They print that Metro rubbish everywhere nowdays *tsk*Jocasta shadow 21:44, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Sourcing[edit]

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)[reply]

Breakfast show presenter error?[edit]

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)[reply]

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

Added unsourced paragraph[edit]

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)[reply]

"Controversies" section and POV comments[edit]

The quote he would take the virginity of Charlotte Church" does not appear in the reference 43 the actual quote is quite different, unless anyone can find a reference.? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.0.112.19 (talk) 22:54, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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).[reply]
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)[reply]
Done. --Robdurbar 08:27, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Done 84.69.246.164 16:09, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Picture?[edit]

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).[reply]

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)[reply]

I am a follower of Chris Moyles on twitter and have uploaded a picture that he has personally taken and posted on twitpic. Unfortunately someone keeps removing it and saying that it does not have appropriate permission. However if they bothered to do their research they would know that all pictures on twitpic are available for free use, hence the reason they have a link allowing you to embed the file into your website/blog. Further more, I personally uploaded this file to commons and I know the legal status of the image conflicts. I am new to editing articles I am unable to do better at this time, it took me ages to work it out and I am irritated, it's not nice to have your work removed without an ounce of consideration. I would ask anyone who takes issue with this discuss it with me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dom991 (talk • contribs) 00:42, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Transphobia?[edit]

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)[reply]

The Team[edit]

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[reply]

Parodies[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Golden Hour[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Golden Hour is every Friday from 9am to 10am. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Narok04 (talk • contribs) 03:33, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

9/11[edit]

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

Age?[edit]

On two occasions in the past few weeks Chris has claimed on his show, to be only 24. Is this some ongoing gag that I've missed or is he seriously trying to make out he's only 24 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.165.239.250 (talk) 11:25, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bit of both really! He isnt 24 though!Squirrel684 (talk) 08:53, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ringtone[edit]

What was the tune that he described as 'gay'? It is relevant to the article, and the accusation of him being homophobic - if, for example, it was Relax by Frankie Goes to Hollywood, then it would have been accurately described as gay. Nietzsche 2 (talk) 23:24, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, it isn't relevant, since that wasn't Moyles defense. As explained in the article, Moyles used the word "gay" to describe something as "rubbish", and was not commenting on the ringtone in the manner as you describe. The issue was if it was homophobic to use the word "gay" in the derogatory sense of "rubbish". The panel felt on the one hand that it could offend some listeners, and counseled caution on its use, but then said that Moyles was keeping up with developments in English usage and was not being homophobic. Also, anthropomorphism aside, a song cannot be homosexual, so a song cannot accurately be described as gay, unless you're using the older definition and saying the song could be characterized by cheerfulness. cswpride (talk) 03:29, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Some songs, such as Relax, have a homosexual theme, hence such a song can be described as gay. Why isn't the name of the song stated in the article, so that the reader can make up their own mind whether it can be described as gay as in having a homosexual theme and / or as in (widely considered to be) lame? For a controversy to omit a piece of info that is central to it is censorship. Nietzsche 2 (talk) 01:42, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Twitter?[edit]

Is it really necessary to mention his Twitter account? And is it really necessary to count his number of followers each day?Startstop123 (talk) 16:32, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's relevant to mention it as it is useful as a source, when it comes to pictures and personal opinions, for updating this article... however a running commentary is inappropriate. Go to his fanpage for that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dom991 (talk • contribs) 00:52, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Moyles and religion[edit]

Chris Moyles, brought up as a Catholic likes to think of himself in messianic terms. When he arrived at the Radio 1 breakfast show - a slot that has traditionally been accorded a quasi-mystical significance - he styled himself "The Saviour of Radio 1"; and his autobiography, published in autumn last year, has the title The Gospel According to Chris Moyles. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/profiles/chris-moyles-snap-cackle-pop-448486.html

Despite this Chris Moyles spoke honestly about his views on church in the UK on his breakfast radio show about the BBC televised Pentecost service: 'That's The Spirit!' from Kingsgate Community Church (Peterborough) shown on BBC1 for Pentecost Sunday (31st May 2009). Chris Moyles Talks Up Church on Youtube —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stevejay2005 (talk • contribs) 20:37, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Contract[edit]

I have removed a sentence under "Pay controversies". I did this for the following reasons;

  • The cite supplied makes no mention of any "controversy".
  • The cite supplied says £630,000 a year, it does not say £810,000 or an extra £75,000 for extra listeners.
  • The comparison to Jo Whiley in the cite is not in line with the quoted £810,000 in the article
  • There is little point in citing The Sun in the article, as the supplied cite is not The Sun. So it's little better than third hand hearsay. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 14:58, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Listening numbers[edit]

Chris moyles article:

After five years on afternoons, on 5 January 2004, Moyles started presenting Radio 1's flagship programme The Breakfast Show, switching places with Sara Cox. He had been appointed to increase the ratings for the show and did so, putting on an extra 1,000,000 listeners to the audience in the first quarter of 2004. By 2005, Moyles and his team had succeeded in hugely increasing the morning audience, with his programme's audience swelling to 6.5 million.

Sara cox article:

The number of listeners grew from 6.9m to 7.8m over her first fifteen months in the job. The tide turned however, and by August 2002 numbers had dipped back under 7m. In August 2003, the BBC again denied rumours, reported in the Daily Mail, that she had been given 10 weeks to increase ratings, or to face replacement. However just two months later the BBC announced that Cox, whose listening figures had slipped to 6.6m, would be replaced by Chris Moyles in January 2004.

Doesn't seem to me that these numbers match up? If the audience was 6.6m when sara cox left, how did chris moyles add 1 million listeners and get to 6.5M? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dwyatt 101 (talk --Dwyatt 101 (talk) 22:00, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's not what it says. It says they were 6.6m two months after August 2003, i.e. October 2003. Moyles did not start until January 2004. Presumably they were significantly down since October by then. However, it should be noted that both the Sara Cox and this article are conspicuously uncited on this matter. So neither can be verified. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 22:22, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Longest ever show[edit]

I think this section should be moved to either The Chris Moyles Show or Comic Relief, and just have a single line mention here, as the finer details of guests etc are not about Chris Moyles the person. –anemoneprojectors– 10:33, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ethnicity?[edit]

While going over his statistics, i was a bit suprised that he describes his nationality as british, despite his strong links to ireland, from his mother being from dublin and his father's ancestors coming from the west of ireland, but that isn't why i am writing this.

what struck me even worse than the nationality is that the ethnicity written underneath describes him as being 'Anglo-Irish', which despite its relevance, its both historically and politcally incorrect. the anglo-irish were 'a privileged social class in Ireland, whose members were the descendants and successors of the Protestant Ascendancy.'

'The term 'Anglo-Irish' is often applied to the members of the Church of Ireland who made up the professional and landed class in Ireland from the 17th century up to the time of Irish independence in the 20th century.'

chris moyles is a catholic.

despite it being used informally, as to refer to joinly made flims or banks or whatever, it is not an ethnicity, well not in the broad sense, and if it did it would only refer to those of the aforesaid and their ancestors. he also constantly refers to his irish ancestory, which shows that he has a strong connection.

could an admin or advanced user please look over this and correct it. thank you.

--Johnny45irish (talk) 03:39, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ND: Anglo-Irish /wiki/

Thanks for pointing it out. I have removed this from the info box as it appears to be based purely on someone's estimation of what he may be based on what is known about his family. Ethnicity is a minefield that shouldn't involve guesswork, so it shouldn't be listed unless we have a good cite, and preferable one where he self-describes. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 15:12, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To Johnny45irish Chris Moyles doesn't 'describe' his nationality as 'British', someone editing his Wikipedia page has done that. As the son of an Irish mother he would be entitled to claim citizenship of the Republic of Ireland as well as British citizenship, there is no conflict in possessing both. So far, so uncontroversial. However I would dispute that the term 'Anglo-Irish' refers exclusively to Church of Ireland 'Ascendancy' people. It has been used in that context, but that use is disputed both by those referred to (who invariably self-described as 'Irish', especially before the rise of the Gaelic League etc) and by others who see it as pejorative. Today, anglo-irish can mean someone born in the Republic of Ireland who goes to live in England, and many years later returns to the Republic. They are Anglo-Irish. Or Hiberno-English, perhaps.

From what I've seen and heard of Chris Moyles he would not be bothered at all by being described as Anglo-Irish, acknowledging, as it does, that he has strong links to both Ireland and England. It has nothing to do with his alleged religious affiliation which is, as far as I can see, unknown. Many people brought up as Roman Catholics have long since stopped self-describing as such.

'Irishness' is specifically excluded from BAME, if it is not an ethnicity, than neither is 'Anglo-Irishness'.78.16.174.46 (talk) 05:03, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Award Discussion[edit]

I'm inviting User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz here to explain what he is trying to do by repeatedly removing long-standing content, without discussion, or any attempt to reach consensus. He has made a number of vague references to a consensus, but doesn't feel obliged to join in with "natterings" on the talk page to explain where this occurred, or why it applies to this particular content. I think that after being reverted the first time he could have avoided a lot of hassle for everyone if he had discussed things. It's good to talk. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 18:01, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I second that. It's bullying, nothing less, and cannot be tolerated. If the 'Stonewall Awards' are flimsy (which, as it happens, I believe them to be) then that wiki needs to go if they are not to be referenced here. So we need an AFD for Stonewall Awards and a removal before this xref can be removed also. --82.41.22.244 (talk) 21:16, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There fact that it's an "award" may be questionable, but I think therefore that it's a question of how it is presented on the article. Clearly, the thoughts of Stonewall, if properly cited, on this are notable. So it could be that it would be presented more as commentary by a notable body, rather than a "award" as such.
However, if we are regard it as purely a negative award, I don't see any real difference between this and, say, the Golden Raspberry Award for Worst Actress. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 12:26, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The vandal keeps removing the information. Most recently calling the content 'contentious' having previously tried other adjectives and ignored your request that they define them. Would appreciate your input as to how we get this info to stick and put an end to the vandlalism? --82.41.22.244 (talk) 16:13, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalised again, this is getting out of hand. We have established a 2:1 consensus that the (cited, relevant) info should stay in but Wolfowitz continues to 3RR and vandalise the page. The first editor that removed it did not supply an edit summary and has not returned. The second editor complained that the cite didn't fit (correctly) and after the cite was corrected, has also not returned. Consensus thus established 2:1. How can we stop this vandalism? --82.41.22.244 (talk) 17:05, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi IP. Please note that this is NOT vandalism. This is called a content dispute, and is very common on the project. You and a few other editors believe the "award" belongs in the bio. Other editors believe it should not be included. I believe that there should be a clear consensus for ANY material that goes into an article, and not the other way around, ie, no consensus means material stays. Does that make any sense? Thank you. --68.9.119.69 (talk) 21:55, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi IP also. It's not vandalism to remove x9 cited, relevant material from a wiki without consensus? I'm not sure you're right. In answer to your question, though, what you write doesn't make sense, but only because you've hold a series of misconceptions about this situation (see below). --82.41.22.244 (talk) 17:12, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm open to persuasion, actually. What I'm not open to is an editor repeatedly removing established cited content, while claiming a consensus that he won't direct anyone to, nor enter any discuss with anyone. The one editor who has removed this nine times in the last week without once attempting to establish a consensus, is still notable for his absence in this talk page. He vaguely references a BLP Noticeboard consensus, but won't say where, and has otherwise ignored his fellow editors, or treated them with contempt.
This content is not "going into the article", it has been there for some while. It is not a violation of policy. Its removal is contested, and there is no consensus for its removal. Consequently the opinion of one editor is not a basis for its removal. It is up to those wishing it removed to present a case, based on policies and guidelines, that sways consensus. As I've said, I'm open to persuasion and accept there may be a case for either its removal or, preferably, a re-wording. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 17:38, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't about "cited content", it's about inflammatory content that violates BLP. Shii (tock) 14:33, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please explain where BLP is being violated. It is not a violation to include the opinion of a notable authority when discussing a notable event in Moyles life. Even if it is a negative opinion. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 15:16, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If Fox News gave Obama an "award" would you mention that on Obama's page? Shii (tock) 04:20, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I can't see how Obama and Fox are relevant. Could you answer EscapeOrbit's question? How is this a BLP vio? Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 09:35, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If Obama was involved in some controversy that Fox News could authoritatively comment on? Possibly. It depends if there were other, better, sources and the general notability of it all. Treat each case on its merits. But do you think this is a relevant comparison? Moyles is not a prominent politician and Stonewall is not a TV channel. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 11:25, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
How do you prove that Stonewall is an authority on bullying? Shii (tock) 13:37, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
They are not, any more than they are an authority on Radio 1 DJs. They are however, an authority on the more specific homophobia, accusation of which is what the section is discussing. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 15:21, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reasons for leaving R1 breakfast[edit]

The article states:

On 1 July 2011, it was announced that Moyles will remain within the BBC until at least 2014,[13] ending speculation that he would move to a commercial rival. The deal was estimated to be worth £1 million.[14] This would have allowed the presenter to reach his 10-year anniversary on The Chris Moyles Show. However, on 11 July 2012, Moyles announced that he would be leaving his show at the end of September that year.

What is left unexplained is why the change of plan. There is a lot about the increased listenership that Moyles brought relative to his predecessor in the breakfast slot, but it is not clear if the figures went into decline in recent years and Radio 1 management wanted to shake things up, bring in a younger presenter etc (I have heard Grimshaw will be playing more records - does this offer a clue that they think listeners want more music than they tend to get with Moyles?) or if he left for his own reasons and Radio 1 would happily have kept him on. Could this information if it can be found (presumably there is media comment about this) be put in this article and the one on Moyles's show? Also, I would have thought the episode in I think 2010 where he told listeners on the air that he hadn't been paid for a substantial period would merit a mention. It is quite striking to have a high-profile DJ go public with a complaint about station management on air. Credulity (talk) 18:07, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The bit about his contract is still valid, he hasn't left, there's no change of plan as far as his contract is concerned as he'll still be with the BBC at least until 2014, he's just stopped doing the Chris Moyles Show. The reasons he gave on air didn't seem to suggest he was pushed although, if he was, he's very unlikely to say so while still under that contract. We can speculate of course, as you have done, but there's unlikely to be any verifiable source for it. ~~ Peteb16 (talk) 18:47, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Chris Moyles. 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 10:08, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Chris Moyles. 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:

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

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 01:42, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Chris Moyles. 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:

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

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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) 06:55, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I’m a celebrity[edit]

Entered November 2022 80.47.28.164 (talk) 21:20, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please clarify what you mean. S0091 (talk) 21:22, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Chris_Moyles&oldid=1206581653"