Talk:10 O'Clock Live

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Television / Episode coverage (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of television 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.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the episode coverage task force.
 
WikiProject British TV/Shows (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject British TV/Shows, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of British TV shows 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.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
 
WikiProject Comedy (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comedy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of comedy 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.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Politics of the United Kingdom 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.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 

Edits by User: SummerWithMorons[edit]

This is just to summarise why I believe the edits by SummerWithMorons by are not constructive, and to provide a place for discussion (rather than starting an edit war). Please bear in mind this is not intended in any way as an attack or whatever, and the edits certainly don't seem to be bad faith.

First, the additions of "political satire" to the "politics" section are out of place - we do not need to tell the reader what the show is (i.e. "a political satire show") in every section/sentence - that is what the lead is for, and can be discussed more fully elsewhere in the article where it is appropriate (possibly in the "Format" section). This is similar to how in general conversation we wouldn't normally refer to a person by their name every time they are mentioned, we would use a pronoun such as he or she. (Also, "political satire show" does not really adequately describe the show - it's too broad.)

Second, nobody is claiming (AFAIK) the the show isn't left-slanting, so saying that they "argued" it is inappropriate (there was no argument). I don't know if the existing wording ("noted") is perfect, but it better represents it than "argued"… perhaps "commented" or even "complained" would be a better way of putting it.

Also, the sources used for the original statement "A number of commentators have noted that the show favours a dominantly liberal, left-wing stance on political issues" are examples, and are certainly not exhaustive. As such, a general statement (as it was initially) is appropriate, as unless the particular commentators are especially noteworthy for whatever reason, they have no reason to be named specifically. That's not to say that naming them is inappropriate, just that they should not be treated as important in their own right (without good reason for each one).

Also some minor points - the article is written in British English, and as such uses British spellings for words such as "characterised" (rather than "characterized"). Also, there is a "quote" field in the cite web template, so its generally preferable to use that than to simply append the quote onto the reference.

Alphathon /'æl.f'æ.θɒn/ (talk) 20:16, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Saying that what another editor added to an article is "not constructive" is a bad start. It's probably not the case, but be sure not to be under a owning sentiment towards the article. A part from that, regarding the article content, while referring the opinins of commentators is defintely better to say claimed, or complained, as noted implies that they merely reported a given fact. It's worth reminding that of course Wikipedia is not to take the side of the sources it cites.
On the titling and framing of the "Politics" section, it seems the section in itself is problematic. It may be interesting to have one with through discussion on the show editorial line or satirical point of view; but as long as it's composed of merely that sentence complaining of a left-wing bias, it may look as giving undue prominence to some poor polemicists. In this case it may be better to move the sentence to the "Reception" section.--Sum (talk) 20:54, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, I seem to be having a hard time phrasing things today; "not constructive" probably is the wrong way of putting it and it's things like that made me put the "disclaimer" (not attack etc) sentence in, since I feel that's how I am coming across despite what I am intending. All I meant was that the end result of the edits wasn't as good as the original. Also, I certainly do not have any sort of "ownership" feeling towards the article (or any article) and am fully aware of how it is counter to WPs goals.
Anyway, on to the discussion about the article.
"while referring the opinins of commentators is defintely better to say claimed, or complained, as noted implies that they merely reported a given fact."
I'm not sure I agree entirely - "claimed" is a bad word as it implies that they were not being (completely) truthful and falls under WP:ALLEGED. Also, if "noted" implies that they were "merely report[ing] a given fact", "complained" implies that that they were both "report[ing] a given fact" and claiming that it is necessarily a bad thing. In this case however, "noted" is being used to mean something more akin to "observed". It's kinda hard to comment since I'm not sure exactly what your gripe with "noted" is (the lack of their opinion or delivery as "this is a fact" or something else entirely). If you could clarify that'd probably help.
"It's worth reminding that of course Wikipedia is not to take the side of the sources it cites."
Again, it depends what you mean. If it's concerning a controversial issue or something then Wikipedia gives due weight to both sides (not necessarily equal weight) so in practice takes the side of the majority (in whatever field applies - in science for example, the the "majority" refers to the majority of scientists in a given field rather than of the general population).
"On the titling and framing of the "Politics" section, it seems the section in itself is problematic. It may be interesting to have one with through discussion on the show editorial line or satirical point of view; but as long as it's composed of merely that sentence complaining of a left-wing bias, it may look as giving undue prominence to some poor polemicists. In this case it may be better to move the sentence to the "Reception" section."
That all seems fair to me. I believe there is already something in the reception section about political alignment anyway. I'm not quite sure what you meant by their "satirical point of view" though; do you mean the point of view from which their satire is derived, the point of view they are satiring (I don't think they are doing that… what I mean by that is something akin to parody) or that they are presenting in a satirical way? Bear in mind that the existing section can be expanded (and probably should be - it was created by an anon IP about a week and a half ago with the edit summary "Political leanings - an important section to highlight any biases, please supplement with appropriate comments and references from newspapers").
Alphathon /'æl.f'æ.θɒn/ (talk) 21:42, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
Incidentally, "noted" would appear to fall under WP:SAY, so yeah, it should probably be replaced. The question is, with what? Alphathon /'æl.f'æ.θɒn/ (talk) 21:57, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Dead link[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 03:47, 20 June 2011 (UTC)