Talk:9am with David and Kim

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Portal	9am with David and Kim is maintained by WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.
Start	This article has been rated as start-class on the quality scale.
Low	This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Australian television.
Assessment comments This article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

[edit] Protection

The other contributor is only adding POV like "flogger" next to the presenters name and adding over the top language. I suggest the contributor responsible be dealt with ASAP and the article unlocked. - Mike Beckham 15:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

The term flogger was initially propagated by el meaestro, Mr Bert Newton himself, exactly in reference to Ms Moira MacLean. "Here is Moira" was indeed probably more frequent. Bert Newton however used the term flogger repeatedly and regularly, presumably with a lacing of irony. Therefore I used it also in the entry with inverted commas!

The programme is directed towards Australian housewifes, thus not the intellectual elite of Oz-Femininity. Part of the programme's aspiration to relative success is actually to use a relatively dull appearing male counterpart to the relatively smart appearing Watkins. It is eg., a common advertising pardigm, if it is directed to a chick to play her up relative to a dumb but feasible male.

That us David did not even survive at any serious length as a drummer with a band is something we smile about gently - it may seem stretching credibility, but then when KNOW it is fact. If you want me to annotate the entry as decribing the programme following quite deliberately a "smart chick, dull gheezer" stereotype in order to achieve commercial success then this can be done. Plenty enough footnotable literature in this regard has evolved in recent years.

The article should probably have a clear and discernible interface in this direction anyway, even more so as it follows a clear evolutionary pattern of tv in general.

I am happy to deal with any further issues you wish to make a point of. Nevertheless, please kindly abstain forthwith from issuing "warnings", when this is none of your prerogatives, and don't shriek out loud "vandalism" just because of new facts that are in the way of your opinion. Things can all be sorted out on a person to person, very human level.

Greetings Oalexander-En 19:30, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Libel

I have excised from the test a section containing biased and libellous remarks about a living person. To make negative claims on the basis of personal opinion about a public personality without a reliable source is to expose the author of such claims, and Wikipedia itself, to a defamation suit. The user has been warned and I have removed the offending revisions from the page history.--cj | talk 11:17, 31 March 2007 (UTC)