Talk:Krishnan Guru-Murthy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Not an International Celebrity[edit]

Why do the British allow this fat, ugly fuckwad to appear on television and conduct himself like such a self-righteous dick?

Rock[edit]

Added reference (after a bit of searching!) to the Rock Band - seems Krishnan himself has admitted to this in a column he writes in The Guardian. 82.46.94.109 13:05, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Religion[edit]

The infobox states that he is a Sikh. All Sikh males have the middle or last name Singh. Central to being a Sikh is growing one's hair long and wearing a turban. Guru-Murthy's hair is far too short for him to be following Sikhism, and he does not wear a turban. Werdnawerdna (talk) 02:29, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Although I wouldn't necessarily agree with all of the previous post, on the central issue of Guru-Murthy's religion, he is in fact Hindu. I've cited this in the article. Mutt Lunker (talk) 14:40, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Kabaddi[edit]

Hardly the biggest thing on the page, but we may as well get it right one way or the other and keep it that way. I know this material is sourced, but WP:RS doesn't mean that we can just drag anything off the internet and claim that it should also then go into a WP page. The source has to be reliable - an obscure religious magazine which mentions this in passing almost certainly doesn't qualify as far as I can see. I had a quick look around and can't see any other online source for this. I'm tempted to remove it, per Insider1970 but will happily wait for some input from those returning it each time. --Nickhh (talk) 16:27, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

The 'source' is totally unreliable and wrong. Unless anyone can come up with any evidence beyond this obscure article which they will not be able to do because it is wrong please stop putting the line back in.

Unfortunately perhaps (but up to a point sensible, as a matter of general principle, otherwise we'd be in a free for all here with every editor arguing their points based on what they happened to think) it doesn't matter if material found in a decent source is "wrong", or if any one editor believes it to be so - see the very first line of basic policy on verifiability. However what does matter is that material is only taken from sources that are generally found to be reliable, ie that have a reputation for fact checking and accuracy, eg mainstream newspapers, academic works etc - see the secondary guideline on reliable sources. This online source clearly does not meet that threshold, and as noted above, no other, better, source appears to be immediately available to confirm the information. Hence it should not be here. Find a decent source for it - as was requested above - and it can go back. --Nickhh (talk) 16:08, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

'Anchor'[edit]

Since 'anchor' is an americanism and is not widely used in the UK to describe a presenter of a news programme, surely the word 'newsreader' is more appropriate? 86.128.122.167 (talk) 17:13, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure I like it that much either, but it is becoming more common here I think, and aids transatlantic understanding. Also, it is the word used in C4's own profile, from which the opening content is sourced. And, given that an "anchor" introduces and presents the programme, and interviews guests, it does differentiate the role slightly from, say, someone who simply reads the headlines. I wouldn't argue too much if someone did change it though. N-HH talk/edits 17:32, 18 April 2010 (UTC)