Talk:Chuckle Brothers/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Names

According to the About Us page on the offical tour website, they are called Paul and Barry Elliot. --RedboXen 13:33, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Steven Vu

One of the most famous episodes, in which there is a special guest appearance by the legendary Steven Vu, the Brothers get up to some extraordinarily hilarious japes, including creating a yearbook with many hilarious consequences and errors.

Steven Vu isn't in the wikipedia, so hardly legendary. We don't have yearbooks in the UK either. Jackliddle 19:14, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Since when did inclusion in the wikipedia become a requirement for legendary status? And yearbooks, though they are a predominantly American creation, are more and more common here. So get with the times. I've seen the episode concerned, and it is hilarious. Vu is a wonderfully skilled actor.
If he's so legendary, why don't you start a page about him? Some of us haven't a clue who he is. Also, who is "Richard Tyrone Jones", other than "a Chuckle expert". Or is that all he is? In other words, some fan. Is it usual practice to quote otherwise unnoteworthy fans on Wikipedia? — TheJames 20:19, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Because it's unadulterated vandalism.


Affair

Re-entered text incorrectly suggested as "vandalism"

Nice try. Removed it again. BillyH 01:39, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
Could you explain why you think it is vandalism. I spent 5 minutes today and whilst I could not find a first hand source I did find

[1],[2],[3],[4]

Which all discuss an article in the Sun newspaper.

Jackliddle 16:59, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

From The Sun article, and I quote (bolding the relevant bits):
"Despite its mass popularity, many people hold negative views of the paper. They accuse it of being coarse and unprofessional; its journalistic style of being sensationalist, designed to appeal to the lowest common denominator and "dumb down" public discourse; and its editors and staff of being willing to print stories based on tenuous evidence, and to manipulate the news and even fabricate stories for partisan reasons."
I admit that at first I thought the anon was a vandal, but seeing as this was reported in none of the other papers, I think it's safe to say that the story is untrue. BillyH 17:26, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
The current version is better, but I'm still not sure about the 'scandal' thing. It wasn't much of a scandal if it was only reported by one newspaper. BillyH 22:53, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
The original edit never mentioned The Sun so cannot have had anything to do with you deleting it without checking it out? Calling contributors vandals just because you've have never heard of the matter in question is pretty poor behaviour for anyone, for an admin its inexcusable. Jackliddle 15:26, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
To be fair, though, this page is vandalised quite a bit. The edit looked like a typical vandal edit to me, and, while I still think the actual story is cobblers, I apologise. BillyH 15:38, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

I win! :)

Original Sun article

I went searching and found this link: http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2005192809,00.html Unfortunately the article has expired and the wayback machine seems to have skipped that one. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 08:11, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

I found a copy of the article on a forum. I then copied a segment of the text and googled it, which showed a few other posts with the same text (some with the title "What a dirty Chuckle"). Not "authoritative" sources, but they do seem to corroborate each other --Joshtek 18:03, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Regarding Inclusion

The threshold for inclusion here is "verifibility not truth" so although the story may very well be bullshit, the fact it was written in a major newspaper means it's still worthy of inclusion; to ommit it based on your personal opinion of The Sun would be POV and OR. If the facts are still debated however, you can word it so that the article states that the incident was reported in The Sun, rather than stating it purely as fact. If any sources can be found debunking the story then those can be included to balance the article. - 85.210.43.171 22:16, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

The verifiability policy says, "Articles should contain only material that has been published by reliable sources." Please read our guideline on what constitutes a reliable source. If the Sun has a reputation of being unreliable, then we cannot use it as a source. -- Donald Albury 23:02, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
If NO other sources run with this story, and there's no other way of verifying the story, I really don't think the Sun is a reliable source on its own. They have frequently ended up in court for telling fibs about celebrities, and have very little interest in publishing stories representative of the truth. The Sun is more of an entertainment magazine than a real journalism-based newspaper, and several ex-editors have admitted as much. The fact that their most famous regular feature is the soft porn photo on page 3 gives you an idea of the level they're operating at.

Real Brothers?!

I sought out this page in earnest because I wanted a 'reliable' source to verify if the two were in fact real brothers rather than them being a sham and a lie.

Thank you. 195.92.168.166 17:48, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

DVD

I updated the page with information about the brothers new DVD released yesterday. I just finished watching my copy and its as funny as ever! Psychopathic J 21:48 22 May 2007 (GMT)

Caption

Could someone check i got the captions right for the main picture?(Black Dalek 11:39, 9 June 2007 (UTC)).

CBE?

Is the 2007 honour true? I've checked the BBC article and couldn't find anything about them on it. Also googled it, finding nothing, but is there a source anywhere? 80.6.6.193 06:27, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Have now searched the entire PDF file of the honours list for "Elliot", "Chuckle", "Paul" and "Barry" and found nothing relevant, so will remove the honours mentions 80.6.6.193 07:16, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Paisley and McGuinness?

Would it be worth mentioning that NI First Minister Ian Paisley and Deputy First Minister Martin McGuinness have become widely referred to as "the Chuckle Brothers"? Maybe the recent Folks on the Hill satirical song that pointed this out could be mentioned as well. It'd be a larf. Captain Smeg 17:02, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Show Biz Family

Please can you provide more details of the family. Do they in fact have the same parents, and do they have any siblings? --82.152.138.226 14:00, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm also intrigued about the details of the family. Why have the other two brothers got a different surname to the Chuckles/Elliot's? Any info would be appreciated! :) Londonsista (talk) 16:05, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Paul and Barry are the half-brothers of the other two brothers (the pattons) - they all share the same father, but paul and barry have a different mother to jimmy and the other one. I think the article should be changed to reflect this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.66.179.205 (talk) 01:40, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

TvGoHome

I've put the TV go home citation in. I must get out more. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.108.90.132 (talk • contribs) 17:07, 20 January 2008

Chuckle Opera

Have removed the following section, as there's no citation provided.

Also in May 2008, the Chuckles announced plans for their Chuckle Opera. The main contributors and financial backers, David Gray and Chris Tidey, announced that the show would launch initially nationwide before being launched on a global stage. Demand for tickets is expected to be high and hopes are that success could rival or even eclipse that of Queen's "We Will Rock You".

If they're actually making an opera and proof can be drummed up, it can go back in. Until then, it's out. --RedHillian (talk) 23:51, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Bargain Hunt

Removed the following uncited text as unreferenced, should refernce be forthcoming, it can go back in.

They are currently being considered as the new presenters of popular daytime show Bargain Hunt.

--RedHillian (talk) 18:41, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Merger proposal

Propose merging Paul Chuckle and Barry Chuckle into this article as both people are known only for their involvement in the "Chuckle Brothers" act, and both articles are only stubs where the majority of the content is already in this article. robwingfield «T•C» 09:18, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I've redirected them, as the articles were unreferenced stubs, and contained no other assertion of notability (one reference had been added, but there appears to be a problem with the external site as it's showing the correct title for the news article with unrelated content). —Snigbrook 14:55, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

BBC Radio 6 15th Feb

The page was subject of a discussion at approx 11.20 am GMT on BBC Radio 6. This started a vandalism / revert edit war. Suggest temporary (quick) lock down of page until this has subsided. Nossac (talk)

under control so far but may do if it carries on! Justinc (talk) 11:52, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

The Weakest Link

When did they first Appear on the Weakest Link? Because it says it was first shown in May 2007, and repeated in December 2006. This can't be right! One of the dates has to be wrong. I had a look at the IMDB and found a couple version of the Weakest link in 2007, but the C brothers weren't listed. No other Couple versions of the Weakest Link came up in Google. Can anyone come up with better references? --Benten10X (talk) 19:32, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Father and Son? --Multiple vandalisms.

Multiple places on the page claimed the brothers are father and son. The source used actually talks about how they are brothers. Later in the article, the same citation is used talking about their real father. Someone keeps editing it back to saying they are father and son. They are clearly not. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/7012553.stm) SarahNeave (talk) 20:09, 5 December 2009 (UTC).

Dead?

Can anyone find something official about Barry Chuckles supposed death? Jackliddle 14:33, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

It was first added to the page on the 9th, following which both brothers have appeared in the CBBC Channel studio, and on BBC Look East. Obviously untrue. BillyH 15:51, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
This is a recurring hoax. Some people are mistakenly still under the impression that "One of the Chuckle Brothers died". I think it should be listed on the main page under the sub-heading 'hoax' so that people can assure themselves it is just that. Does anyone have a legitimate reference to back up what we know to be true?GrantRS (talk) 14:19, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Hoaxes section

I have removed a new section on hoaxes because it was poorly referenced. The sources used were gubgwire and facebook; if someone wants the section included in the article, third-party reliable sources must be provided to support the information. Neither gubuwire nor facebook qualify I'm afraid,. Nev1 (talk) 14:55, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism

Why oh why is this page so targeted for vandalism?! Some have nothing better to do it would seem. Dashwortley 21:19, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Personally the page reads like a fanzine - even as if self written to promote the rather weak and obviously very low budget production. Their show has absolutely no educational merit, which is a travesty considering it is children's production. I came to this page for background on the production team, which seems a Mafia like family concern. I can understand why this page has problems, it's very poor, and obviously reflects the artistic output of these people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.106.177.168 (talk) 19:35, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry, I think it just shows how popular (after all, how much of the vandalism is really nasty?) and, much of the humour is similar to the Brothers own... Its not right, agreed, but I don't think fans should take it personally. 194.66.32.20 (talk) 15:54, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Brothers' Ages

The ages given for the brothers is wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Editor randy (talk • contribs) 20:45, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

The ages in the infobox are calculated from the date of birth. What is the correct information then? Keith D (talk) 23:04, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
I think this user was looking at a vandalised version of the article where the birth years were briefly changed to 1900 and 1903. January (talk) 13:41, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
I have corrected the years according to the entries in the GRO index of births. Keith D (talk) 18:43, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Peter Sellers??

Their father was a well-known Gang Show performer whose stage name was Gene Patton; he worked with the 18-year-old Peter Sellers in 1920 in 'The No. 10 Gang' and gave performances in London, Orkney, Iceland and the Hebrides, the Far East, India and Burma.

1920?? Peter Sellers was born 8 September 1925 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.9.134.206 (talk) 20:00, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out. The dates were vandalised earlier this month and while other dates got reset this one did not. It should be 1943 I have restored it to its previous value. Keith D (talk) 21:51, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Train Name

I have it on very good authority from a friend at Serco Rail that a unit will be named after the bro's, but, have it your way... (It will not be a nameplate, merely a vinyl wrap) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.141.97.18 (talk) 20:46, 13 January 2007 (UTC). Edit: My apologiesd, it appeared that it had been removed. very odd. Incidently, there IS a Class 156 page on Wikipedia, so why isn't the link working from the CB page??

This was vandelised (train turned to 'pony', possibly by an agrevieved Northern Rail customer) but then competely removed. I have reinstated the original statement.

I have looked for anything that would corroborate this claim but can find vitually nothing. Saying the you have it on "very good authority from a friend at Serco Rail" on the talk page is not the same as what you have written in the article, "In 2007, Serco Rail announced that in March their Northern Rail franchise will name a DMU unit after the duo, in a marketing initiative named 'Local Heroes, Local Trains'." As is addressed above, the WP:V says, "Articles should contain only material that has been published by reliable sources." Not trying to be zealous, just looking for some verfication. Sláinte!-- Cafe Irlandais 22:59, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

In addition to the Death hoax, I would like to add that there were widespread rumours that Barry was in fact not brother but father to Paul Chuckle. This fraudulent claim most definitely deserves mention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Griottetaste (talk • contribs) 02:46, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

You will need a reliable source for it to go in the article. Not some blog, facebook or similar site. Keith D (talk) 10:35, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from JackTheKid, 8 August 2011


JackTheKid (talk) 15:11, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Not done: This submission is blank. Topher385 (talk) 15:32, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

"Sex scandal"

Sorry, Zoyetu, but prefacing the comments with: "The Sun says.." etc, doesn't really alter the fact that they are BLP violations (and IMO, hardly notable). Please check here for the relevant policy.

If you disagree with my revert (perhaps you feel that The Express is not a tabloid newspaper) then feel free to discuss it here, but please do not restore the information until consensus has been achieved or better sources have been found.

Also, I see that Keith D has been tidying up this article - any thoughts Keith? --User:Hillbillyholiday talk 05:08, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

I was restoring some changes that appear to have got lost by a wholesale revert rather than a selective edit of the article. I would have to agree that controversial claims would need to be sourced to more reliable sources than The Sun and Daily Express. Keith D (talk) 11:26, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
I have sourced a potentially more reputable article for the paragraph (by media news magazine Digital Spy). Please let me know if it is acceptable Hillbillyholiday. -- User:Zoyetu 11:39, 28 October 2015 (GMT)
Zoyetu, I appreciate the effort, but extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof and I don't think the Digital Spy site cuts it. Also, when you look at the claims being made; what do they amount to? A middle-aged person sending a few suggestive texts and meeting another middle-aged person in a cafe? Hardly < insert favourite sex scandal here > is it? Hillbillyholiday talk 00:10, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
Hillbillyholiday Unfortunately I have to disagree with you there. Regardless of whether the story was published in a tabloid newspaper or not, the matter still caused a great deal of interest at the time and I feel therefore it is in the public interest to include it as part of the article. Indeed I have added to the paragraph to highlight that the revelations provoked interest from several internet forums, including this one and you can see that people were discussing the exact same issue ten years ago on this Talk page. I have made efforts to highlight to the reader that the article was printed in a tabloid source and therefore there may be issues surrounding its credibility, however three separate sources (albeit all tabloid) have quoted the story and not just The Sun. It would appear that you seem to be the only one who has taken issue to it as prior to your edits, the paragraph had been on the page for a number of weeks with no issue. Zoyetu 11:48 29 October 2015 (GMT)
WP:BLPSOURCES explicitly says that "Material [about a living person] should not be added to an article when the only sourcing is tabloid journalism." - if all we have is tabloids, forum chat and a Wikipedia talk page, none of those are strong enough sources for a BLP article. --McGeddon (talk) 11:53, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
McGeddon So you would class Digital Spy as a tabloid source? Zoyetu 11:58 29 October 2015 (GMT)
I'm not familiar with it. But if you're referring to this article, then it goes into no greater detail than a passing mention of "there was that whole sleazy sex scandal story a few years back" - we couldn't use it to source any details of what that scandal actually was. --McGeddon (talk) 12:06, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
McGeddon Yes, but it still mentions that a sex scandal took place, and corroborates the rest of the paragraph. Zoyetu 12:17 GMT 29 Oct. 2015
Wildthing61476, SuperMarioMan Would you also like to add your comments to this thread seeing as you both have also removed the comments? Zoyetu 16:56 GMT 29 Oct. 2015.
Indeed I would. These are not reliable sources as a number of editors have said. This page falls under the guises of a BLP, so accusations such as these have got to come from reliable sources, not a tabloid. The Digital Spy article mentioned a tabloid, and as such is not a reliable source. Wildthing61476 (talk) 17:01, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Chuckle Brothers. 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:

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

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:53, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Chuckle Brothers. 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) 08:12, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Chuckle Brothers. 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) 13:38, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Chuckle_Brothers/Archive_1&oldid=1103792115"