Talk:Clare Balding/Archive 1

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

Gay?

She's on the List_of_gay,_lesbian_or_bisexual_people. If she really is gay, I think that'd bear mentioning on her article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.135.8.67 (talk • contribs) 15:48, 15 August 2006.

AFAIK she is a lesbian.GordyB 14:41, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Controversy again

There are still those who want this section, and today I've once again removed it for the following reasons.

  • The information is adequately covered in the article already.
  • The section seems unlikely to ever be expanded beyond a few sentences.
  • A section is only needed if the Ofcom investigation were to lead to serious consequences for Balding or the BBC.

The words mountains and molehills spring to mind. Thank you TheRetroGuy (talk) 23:52, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. A whole section on this mountainous molehill gives undue weight to it. Tonywalton Talk 13:24, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Also agreed. However I suspect other users, like myself, may not have noticed that it is already in the article. Would it not make more sense to place it towards the end of the section on her career? Not suggesting it's the end of her career, but it would seem to be more chronologically obvious, and may discourage other users from re-adding it. -- zzuuzz (talk) 15:06, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Seems a sensible idea to me. I'll move it to the bottom of the career section as it's the most recent information about her. Hopefully this will sort out the problem. TheRetroGuy (talk) 16:38, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
ok, I've moved the information regarding the Treadwell incident to the bottom of the 'career' section and added a non-bbc reference. I've also shifted a paragraph regarding her family to the 'personal life' section, which I've now retitled 'Family and Personal life'. Seems to read better now. TheRetroGuy (talk) 16:55, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Controversy

Do we really need a whole section dedicated to the Liam Treadwell incident? And is the episode really that controversial? Treadwell himself says he wasn't offended by the remark, so I don't know what all the fuss is about. TheRetroGuy (talk) 16:06, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

No we don't. It's just a typical example of the type of editor permeating Wikipedia that wants to stretch out some nonsense into a 50,000-word controversy section. I've merged the section into the career section as it is undue weight and therefore a violation of WP:BLP. Bradley0110 (talk) 17:53, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Reads much better now. Well done. TheRetroGuy (talk) 18:02, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Who are you two people on here to judge what is acceptable or not, stop covering events up, she (Clare Balding) made the news and since it was pretty well documented atleast some reference should be made here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.115.128.118 (talk) 18:23, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

It is mentioned, but it doesn't need a section of its own. It's hardly on the same level as something like this for example. TheRetroGuy (talk) 18:30, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't agree. It has been the subject of numerous articles in the press, and is well sourced here. It is notable and worthy of its own section. I've reinstated. It's not like there is a shortage of space on wikipedia, so what's the harm in having a seperate section if it makes it easier for readers to find what they are looking for.Jandrews23jandrews23 (talk) 21:28, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Well it's getting far too much coverage. This is a trivial matter which will have been forgotten by next week. It deserves a brief mention, but not its own section. Wikipedia isn't a downmarket redtop or a gossip column and so I shall once again remove it. TheRetroGuy (talk) 22:27, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Wait a minute, who are you to decide what is worthy of wikipedia or not. Take a look around and you will find there are many more trivial articles and information on here. Why shouldn't there be a controversy section? If information is well sourced and not libellous, you have no authority to remove it without consensus.Jandrews23jandrews23 (talk) 09:09, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

WHo are you to decide whether it stays or goes, it is well documented fact, if that many people complained you can be sure 100x that thought it was disgraceful.

Not necessarily the case, and as was done by another user above, I'd direct you to WP:UNDUE and WP:BLP. TheRetroGuy (talk) 10:34, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Wait a minute, who are you to decide what is worthy of wikipedia or not. Take a look around and you will find there are many more trivial articles and information on here. Why shouldn't there be a controversy section? If information is well sourced and not libellous, you have no authority to remove it without consensus.Jandrews23jandrews23 (talk) 16.48, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

It's ok, they can't lock the article down permanently, I will roll back the Controversy section as often as I can. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.96.25.153 (talk) 17:24, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Those wishing to have this section should be aware that Wikipedia is not the news, and therefore, while the incident has received a lot of coverage in the media, that does not mean it should receive an equal amount of coverage here. It is mentioned in passing which seems to me to be enough. In a couple of weeks from now it'll be yesterday's news anyway and nobody will be bothered who said what. Furthermore, it's hardly controversial. The Russell Brand phone calls are controversial. Perhaps even Carol Thatcher's remarks in the green room after The One Show are controversial. This little episode is not. TheRetroGuy (talk) 17:59, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a source of information; anyone using it to research a person should be able to use an article to find out as much as they can about said person. By covering over their bad points you render any such article that you tamper with (because you think you have the right to censor) biased and untrustworthy. OK, the incident may not be controversial by definition, but it needs more of a 'passing' mention imo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.115.12.105 (talk) 14:45, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and therefore the information on here should be encyclopedic. It shouldn't be a dump for every piece of trivial information that comes along. Her comments may have been ill-judged, but we shouldn't be making a meal of them. Get over it please and move on. TheRetroGuy (talk) 17:02, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Says you? I don't think so.

The Daily Telegraph is now reporting that Ofcom are considering investigating the comments; certainly "Wikipedia isn't a downmarket redtop or a gossip column" but I doubt whether the Telegraph could be so described either. I suggest however that there's already enough about this on the article unless/until Ofcom do investigate, in which case the bit that's already there can be expanded (IMO an Ofcom investigation for a reported "more than 2000" complaints is notable, especially in the light of other recent apparent failures of the BBC to avoid offending TV licence payers). Tonywalton Talk 14:20, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. There is no doubt this should have its own section. There are less notable incidents which have an entire article to themselves.Jandrews23jandrews23 (talk)
That argument is covered by this - in a nutshell, what's in or not in other articles is not relevant. I'd say itwill need a section, however the fact that Ofcom are "considering" an investigation probably isn't enough to start a whole section. Yet. Tonywalton Talk 15:31, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
I agree if this develops further and Ofcom investigates that more information should be added, possibly even a separate section if it becomes necessary (i.e., if Ofcom's findings were very critical or if the BBC decided to fire her over the comments - both of which seem unlikely). But as things stand at the moment there really isn't enough information to justify the Criticism section.

An official apology has now appeared on Balding's website. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.115.35.0 (talk) 17:29, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Here is the apology :

APOLOGY Hello,

First of all, please accept my apologies for not replying personally to all of your e-mails. There was, understandably, a flood of complaints over my comment to Liam Treadwell about his teeth. Please know that I never intended any harm and did not draw attention to his teeth in any way to humiliate him. I actually thought he'd had his teeth knocked out and in a fall, so was trying to do something to show how tough jockeys are and how lacking in vanity compared to other professionals.

I realise that this did not come across as I intended and for that, I apologise. I made this clear to Liam on Saturday and spoke to him again on Monday morning, when he told me that he was fine about the whole thing, not at all offended - that had been my main worry as his feelings were the priority throughout.

The reason I did not make any other calls on Monday, did not appear on the radio to defend myself or make any further statements was that I was not in a fit position to do so. I was in hospital, having a cyst removed from my thyroid gland and being prepared for a general anaesthetic. I consequently missed most of the discussion.

Thanks to those who have remained supportive.

Best wishes,

Clare

Jandrews23jandrews23 (talk) 10:48, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Fantastic. Perhaps now we can have an end to this silliness. TheRetroGuy (talk) 11:50, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
Thank you to TheRetroGuy for giving this more of a mention than it did have, well edited and not overweighted - thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.115.161.7 (talk) 19:42, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

On 4th April 2009 Balding was interviewing the jockey Liam Treadwell, who had just won the 2009 Grand National on his first attempt. During the interview she harangued Liam into showing his crooked and missing front teeth to the camera (the jockey looked shocked and unwilling to do this), saying "Liam, just give us a big grin to the camera. No, no, let's see your teeth. He hasn't got the best teeth in the world, but you can afford to go and get them done now if you like", to which Treadwell retorted "Well I could do but I ain't complaining, it might be bringing on bad luck if I do that though".[4]

Angry racing fans called for her to be sacked,[5]. Balding was said to have apologised by text message rather than in person.[6]. Treadwell's fiancée defended him, saying: "I love him whatever Clare Balding says".[7] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.11.76.230 (talk) 09:24, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Hull FC

This error in one of Balding's commentaries seems too trivial to warrant a mention, especially as its unreferenced and rates no mention I can find on Hull FC fan sites. I can understand it might have been briefly annoying to a fan, but its inclusion feels like it's prompted by a grudge, which threatens the article's neutrality. Alistair Stevenson (talk) 18:20, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Nobody's objected so I've removed it. Alistair Stevenson (talk) 18:45, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Unreasonable reversion of an external link

Without first discussing the issue Alistair Stevenson has reverted the inclusion of an external link:

giving a reason of "Delete link to deprecated site per WP:ELNO". I cannot see anything in WP:ELNO that would cause RadioListings to be deprecated.

Alistair Stevenson has also suggested that RadioListings is in some way that he fails to explain violating copyright. I am not aware that a list of radio programmes in which someone has participated is copyright material. Such a list seems to me to be similar to a bibliography, about which WP:COPYLINKS says "It is not necessary to obtain the permission of a copyright holder before linking to copyrighted material, just as an author of a book does not need permission to cite someone else's work in their bibliography."

Jim Craigie (talk) 00:37, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

As well as falling foul of points 1, 2, 13, the link you sought to add is specifically excluded by point 11 of WP:ELNO which deprecates "Links to blogs, personal web pages and most fansites, except those written by a recognized authority. (This exception for blogs, etc, controlled by recognized authorities is meant to be very limited; as a minimum standard, recognized authorities always meet Wikipedia's notability criteria for people.)" The site you have linked to is the personal site of Paul Wells. Sources for the information the site contains are not given but a substantial quantity of the site is derived from copyrighted programme information and schedules. I suggest you remove the series of external links you have recently made promoting this site at other articles and the attempt you have made to form a template. Do you have a personal connection to www.radiolistings.co.uk? Alistair Stevenson (talk) 00:50, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
I disagree that RadioListings falls foul of points 1, 2, 13:
1 – RadioListings is a unique resource in providing the equivalent information to IMDb for UK Radio – and a Wikipedia article would not attempt to contain a complete list.
2 – RadioListings doesn't "misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research".
13 – The last sentence in 13 clearly permits this link.
and I disagree that RadioListings is specifically excluded by point 11 since it it clearly not a blog or a fansite, and while it does seem to be maintained by an individual it is not a "Personal web page created by an individual to contain content of a personal nature" – it appears to contain public domain information processed into a database.
I have no connection whatsoever to RadioListings or to Paul Wells – thank you for demonstrating that you don't assume good faith – it is just the best equivalent to IMDb for Radio that I've found.
Jim Craigie (talk) 02:37, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Radiolistings.co.uk is a personal website containing unverifiable information maintained by an individual who does not meet the test of a recognized authority, for these reasons it is not an acceptable external link for an article on Wikipedia. It's inevitable that the motives of an editor using his account for the single purpose of adding spam links to a commercial website are going to be questioned. Alistair Stevenson (talk) 11:51, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
The information in RadioListings is verifiable from a number of sources: Actors' CVs (e.g. Jenny Agutter Radio Appearances), broadcasts themselves, broadcasters' (internal) archives, broadcasters' web sites (e.g. BBC Radio drama), archives of broadcast listing magazines (e.g. Radio Times), other websites (e.g. Radio Plays & Drama), etc. But it is precisely because this information is not easily available online that RadioListings is a valuable reference. RadioListings could be improved (e,g. more data, better duplicate merging), but I haven't found anything even comparably good so far.
Unless you know more about Paul Wells than I do, I think you should apologize to him for your assertion that he is not a recognized expert in his field. How do you know that? And what is the relevance of that anyway? And even the most trivial research by you would have shown that my Wikipedia account has not been used for a single purpose, nor do I believe that I have ever added a spam link. If, having failed to justify your actions, you are going to descend into denegrating others then I will not continue this discussion with you.
As there is no other support here for your position please withdraw your reversion.
Jim Craigie (talk) 15:21, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
The test of expertise is as set out in WP:ELNO which I quoted for you above, "recognized authorities always meet Wikipedia's notability criteria for people". Yesterday you added www.radiolistings.co.uk links to 11 articles and created a www.radiolistings.co.uk template. If nobody else expresses a view on this talk page the next step would be to begin dispute resolution by seeking a WP:Third opinion, not to ignore policy and reinsert your link. Alistair Stevenson (talk) 15:35, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Response to third opinion request ( Disagreement regarding acceptability of an external link ):
Please remember that editors are encouraged to be bold in making good faith improvements (additions and deletions), and there is no ownership of articles that requires pre-approval of edits. An accepted practice is to boldly edit, have the edited reverted, and then engage in discussion. The reversion did provide an edit comment, which is not always the case. However, providing details about how policies are applicable to a situation can often avoid misunderstandings over merely citing policy.

I think more needs to be established that RadioListings is reliable, although I'm not sure to what extent. Verifiability does not assume good faith on the part of reliable sources. However, while IMDB is not a reliable source, I believe it is acceptable as an external link per WP:ELMAYBE which allows consideration of "Sites that fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources." While ReliableListings can be similarly put under consideration, I'm neutral as to whether it has been demonstrated that this site is sufficiently knowledgeable. I'd recommend to continue try to reach a consensus through civil discussion while assuming good faith and avoiding personal attacks. The next option available would be to present to the external links noticeboard.—Bagumba (talk) 06:47, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Regarding copyrights, BBC seems to have granted permission as written in RadioListing's copyright. However, I would be concerned by the statement "The bulk of the data for RadioListings was obtained from feeds provided by the BBC." What is not provided by the BBC? Then there is the statement "Other information is provided to me by those who listen to the programmes and those who make them, and I've assumed that these contributions are intended for publication." Is it responsible for Wikipedia to make the same assumption? Bagumba (talk) 07:11, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Thank you Bagumba, as your careful consideration of the matter does not arrive at a definite conclusion, I've taken up your suggestion of presenting this issue at WP:External_links/Noticeboard#RadioListings.co.uk. Alistair Stevenson (talk) 12:26, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Where's the dyke?

Why does the article not use the word, 'Dyke', which is the very word that prompted CB's complaint. Wikipedia is presumably not aimed at under-age chidren, needing removal of 'grow-up words'?

It is especially interesting that CD can humiliate another person about his teeth, putting him under duress and taking advantage of her role as interviewer, whilst becoming indignant when someone else accurately refers to her sexuality, albeit using a slang word (dyke).

Strongly recommend that a short, accurate quote of the phrase to which she objected is provided. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.176.213.174 (talk) 15:18, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Only if a reliable source is provided which reproduces the quote verbatim. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:39, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
[[1]] may suffice? Paste Let’s have a chat. 16:45, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

BBC Sports Personality of the Year

As co-presenting BBC Sports Personality of the Year (and she has definitely done this, as in 2012) seemed a big part of her broadcasting career, I have added this information to the section on her broadcasting career. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 16:53, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

How can it be a big part when it's (by definition) just one programme per year? --Redrose64 (talk) 17:08, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Update needed - her BAFTA award should be mentioned

To update this page, shouldn't the page mention the BAFTA award she was given in May 2013? The page on Michael Palin mentions his 2013 BAFTA. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 14:49, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

I think that the name of her award was called "Outstanding Achievement in Factual Presenting". ACEOREVIVED (talk) 20:18, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Clare Balding. 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.

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:51, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Clare Balding. 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) 20:43, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Clare Balding. 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) 22:43, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Clare_Balding/Archive_1&oldid=1136615207"