Talk:David Tench Tonight

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the David Tench Tonight article.
Article policies
Archives: 1
Flag
Portal
 David Tench Tonight is within the scope of 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.
B This article has been rated as B-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
TV
Television Portal
This article is part of WikiProject Television, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to television programs and related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Low This article has been rated as low-Importance on the importance scale.
Assessment comments
Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on July 12 2006. The result of the discussion was delete.
Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on August 7 2006. The result of the discussion was no consensus.
Archive

Archives
1

Contents

[edit] Aired

The show aired about 12 hours ago, was a very good look into technology and how things might be run in the future. You may even see a lifelike cgi host of a real life human host that couldn't make it to an interview, although the day a tv host can't make it to an interview with a world famous star will be a sad day indeed.

I guess the nay sayers were wrong, but there's no need to hold it against them. Everyone gets it wrong sometimes JayKeaton 23:29, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

  • So how long have you been working at channel 10? - ZEROpumpkins 12:48, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] David Tench Identity

The talk page is not for idle speculation. If something has been stated in a main stream publication, then cite it. If it hasn't, then kindly refrain from such speculation about living people, who may object to the association you are making. Tyrenius 09:00, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

So are you suggesting all speculation must be removed from Wikipedia? OK lets remove all theories about Kennedy's assasination, we don't want falsely accused people objecting to it. Oh, I'm sorry it's ok to put that speculation in because it's been cited by a main stream publication, that means it's credible.

Many people have talked to have said that they believe [refactored re BLP] I believe if it is such a common belief it should be reported on this wiki entry. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.122.198.130 (talk • contribs) .

Please refrain from sarcasm. Continued use will constitute a personal attack. You are quite correct that it is ok to put in material cited by a mainstream publication. However, in your final statement you are advocating a violation of non-negotiable policies of WP:VERIFY and WP:NOR. Wikipedia is not interested in editors' beliefs or common beliefs. It is only interested in using verifiable, reliable secondary sources. Please study and follow policy. Thank you. Tyrenius 02:39, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

So why not go to the Tim Ferguson wikipedia page and remove the 'idle speculation' that also makes claim that he is Tench? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 58.170.84.74 (talk • contribs) .

You are a wikipedia editor, so please do this, and I will back you up. Tyrenius 02:39, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm pleased to see that someone has, quite properly, removed the idle speculation. Tyrenius 01:42, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
I am pleased to see that this pleases you. If more people in this world were pleased there would possibly be less war JayKeaton 09:30, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Identity is known

The identity of the performer is known. I have added a link to the performer on the page; I've tried to keep it subtle so that no one will have it spoiled for them. I hope you all think that this is a good way to do it. - Richardcavell 23:33, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I think it would be prudent to add a direct external reference for the statement still. Ansell 23:59, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Also, even though this is a spoiler, it is bad style to pipe links via text as you did. The spoiler warning should be enough on its own. Ansell 00:01, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't believe that the article referenced is a credible source for information. The Herald Sun also ran a similar article on August 22 [1] stating that the identity of David Tench's voice could be Laurence Mooney. Unless a more credible source comes along, (i.e. a Press Release from Network Ten) or more than one source details the information, than I believe it is inappropriate to speculate about the 'identity' of David Tench. Liyster 09:46, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
I think that a columnist, in the quoted reference, as opposed to a reader, in your reference, is more credible, and it is not "truth" that wikipedia is after, its just verifiability, and people do not say that columnists are in the uncredible source usually. If you had another columnist who was willing to put their name to a claim, as opposed to their readers it may be different. Ansell 11:12, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

The credibility in both cases mentioned comes not from the person quoted but from the publications they were quoted in, which both have editorial review before publication. I am assuming they are both major newspapers. If so, then they can (and in fact should I think) both be used, but carefully to give the exact context of the claim. "Industry insiders" is not a term mentioned or alluded to in the source. The first instance should say that the Sun Herald quoted a reader's report of what had been said by an MC, and the second should say that the Daily Telegraph stated the name was revealed by a columnist (Jackie Lee Lewes). It is not up to us to judge such sources, merely to report them. This is a straightforward application of policy. You might like to note my comments earlier on this page. :) Tyrenius 16:13, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I thought I should remove any ambiguity in my last remark about my earlier comments. By this I mean simply my aim is to apply wiki policies and I have no particular bias (interest or knowledge for that matter) regarding this character. It's simply that, no source=no mention. As soon as you have the source, you can include whatever that source can be used to verify, which is what the source has said. I hope that's clear, but contact me if it isn't. Tyrenius 22:10, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
I disagree that the credibility comes just from the publication source. The credibility of the primary source is also a factor. The difference between a reader of a newspaper speculating over something and a journalist reporting something as their professional job is a difference in credibility. Wikipedia may not be here to judge the truth of the sources, but their reliability is not equal just because they were both published in newspapers IMO. The current text is overly vague as it just refers to the journalist and the reader as "sources", without actually voicing their claims, which kind of defeats the purpose of the sentence. Ansell 02:17, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

This issue was thoroughly explored over Xeni Jardin, including a contribution from Jimbo Wales. A web site that would normally not be considered credible and able to be used was quoted in the New York Times. It was the NYT that was credible, and, as they had published it, it could be used — the bit they had published, that is. If you then go on to judge the credibility of the primary source, that is original research, as you are making your own judgement. The wiki editor's job is to report what secondary sources have said (i.e. newspapers) and the way they have said it. As I said above:

The first instance should say that the Sun Herald quoted a reader's report of what had been said by an MC, and the second should say that the Daily Telegraph stated the name was revealed by a columnist (Jackie Lee Lewes).

In both cases, the claimed name can be cited. We do not judge which of these is correct, or even if either of them is correct. That's not our job. Tyrenius 15:33, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay, however, if what you are saying about original research and judging reliability, then how does the reliable sources concept survive. There must be someone behind the choice of what is reliable to start with. How also do we put things in "reliable" categories so that we are not violating NPOV by giving greater weight to things which do not deserve equal weighting. Ansell 04:06, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
To clarify Jimbos quote, I would say that when he says:
"Usually not. In a case like this, some mention would seem to be in order since the site was mentioned in the New York Times, but the actual reference in this case is the New York Times itself, not the blog. Merely being mentioned in the New York Times does not license them to insert whatever random lunacy they may choose to print in their blog, into wikipedia as "critics say..." "
I read that as him saying that he agrees that the New York Times was not merely reproducing the statement by an otherwise "unreliable" source, but was commenting on it. This case is both similar and distinct. In that case it was a criticism, whereas this is merely a statement, without intent to criticize anyone. The fact that the statement credited to a reader, who "heard it" from someone, is simply being reproduced by the edited newspaper, in my mind does not imply the newspapers reliability on the source. The statement that credits its statement to a columnist who has their job on the line (maybe not technically, but professionally they must have some pride), fits in my mind with what Jimbo was saying about someone in a reliable source commenting, not merely reproducing. Ansell 04:36, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

When talking about current affairs, a national newspaper is considered a reliable source. That's generally accepted by practice, i.e. consensus. There is obviously judgement involved in assessing what weight to give different things. This judgement should be exercised from a NPOV.

The Xeni Jardin case was a slightly different issue, as the contention was whether the xenisucks.com site should be mentioned at all in the wiki article. In the normal course of events, it would not be. However, because the NTY had chosen to print its existence and relationship with Jardin, then it could be mentioned. The same principe applies to Tench. If some random reader made that statement elsewhere (for example their own website), then it could not be mentioned. The fact that a major newspaper prints that statement means that it can be used.

It can however only be used in the way that the newspaper used it. The paper didn't include it as a fact, so neither should the article. The verifiable information is that the newspaper chose to print a reader's speculation. We have to stick to precisely to that context. If the reader then contacted us to provide more information, that could not be included. If he told the paper and they printed the extra information, then it could (again making clear the context in which the paper used it). See also WP:VERIFY.

You are quite correct in saying that the newspaper has not given any indication of reliability in the source, and any inclusion of this should make that clear. That is then being accurate to the source and not distorting its importance.

You've misunderstood "what Jimbo was saying about someone in a reliable source commenting, not merely reproducing". The important criterion is that only the material in the NYT is permissable for use in wiki, on the basis that the NYT has put it in print. Anything else regarding the site which the NYT has not put in print is not permissable. It is not just the NYT's comment which is valid. As it happens, in that case there was no quote from xenisucks.com, but, if there had been, then the quote could have been used in the article (but no more than precisely that quote).

Tyrenius 23:36, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] number of epsisodes

Channel Ten has commissioned 26 episodes of David Tench and plans to build up a core audience of both male and females between 16 - 39 years of age. PR in a national paper JayKeaton 04:02, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

There's a student radio show called 'The Green Room' that broadcasts on Radio Adelaide 101.5FM Wednesday nights at 11:30PM that's holding a contest to see who can most accurately predict when David Tench Tonight will be axed. First prize is a free CD. They started the contest the same week David Tench Tonight first started airing.

Update on that: It was announced on 'The Green Room' on October 11th that some guy called 'Stephen Coote' guessed 8 weeks but because nobody guessed higher than him, he won by default. However, the witty hosts also mentioned that if channel 10 were a little less proud, it would have been a more exciting competition. It's a pretty funny radio show. I highly recommend it! Check out www.fusr.org

[edit] Voice of Tench

The article needs to state what or who is the voice behind Tench. This detail is missing. Please can someone address this.149.167.204.82 13:08, 24 August 2006 (UTC) I would like to point out that no body knows!

[edit] Tourette Syndrome

I think someone should put in a bit about his comments on tourette syndrome that aired on 7 September 06,considering fewer than 15% of tourette sufferers suffer from coprolalia.Serenacw 11:08, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

The general public does not care. Don't be pedantic. 211.27.241.74 02:59, 25 January 2007 (UTC) MarkBastard

What does this have to do with the article? If you have beef with David Tench, take it to Channel 10. --Scottie theNerd 03:31, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cleanup: Viewer numbers

This article should be used to communicate the number of viewers in order to indicate some sort of point. It should not be a copy of ebroadcast.com. Seriously, there isn't a need to provide statistics for every episode. --Scottie theNerd 05:08, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Segments section

What is this Segments section? Is it referring to the program's segments? Why is it written in future tense? What's the attack on Germaine Greer all about? This whole section needs either cleaning up or deletion.--Lester2 01:05, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Davidtenchanimation.jpg

Image:Davidtenchanimation.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 21:09, 13 February 2008 (UTC)