Talk:Andrew Peach/Archive 1

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

BBC Radio 2

I'm really not sure why people object to information about him being a newsreader. The fact is that he does read the news on Radio 2. Where's the problem guys? TheRetroGuy (talk) 16:59, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rewrite

This article needs a serious rewrite so that the information is presented in a more encyclopedic format. When I have an hour or so to spare in the next few days I'll take a look at it, do a Google search for references, etc. TheRetroGuy (talk) 11:11, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've slightly altered this, adding headings and moving some text around, to make it more encyclopedic. One of the problems is that other than the BBC sites there doesn't appear to be much information out there about him. TheRetroGuy (talk) 10:38, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Third opinion

I've requested a third opinion on this article because the current edit war [1] is silly and becoming disruptive. I have tried to talk to both parties involved, but neither seems to want to compromise, so I'm asking for the input of others. TheRetroGuy (talk) 11:07, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Third opinion

Anaxial (talk · contribs) wants to offer a third opinion. To assist with the process, editors are requested to summarize the dispute in a short sentence below.

The edit war beaically boils down to two editors who cannot agree on whether or not to include a particular piece of information. See here and here for typical edits. This has been going on for several weeks and is getting ridiculous. I've tried talking to the two editors concerned, but with little success. I have also removed the sentence concerned a couple of times in the past as I personally feel the information is not necessary, but I wouldn't lose any sleep if it stayed in. I just think it's time to resolve this as it's becoming disruprive. TheRetroGuy (talk) 13:10, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note that, to offer a third opinion, I will need to see statements by the two editors concerned. Otherwise, you may be looking for an RfC, rather than a Third Opinion. Thanks. Anaxial (talk) 17:10, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that's going to happen, so I'll open an RFC. I've also moved the comments from the viewpoint section in case the editors do wish to comment. Thanks TheRetroGuy (talk) 19:45, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Viewpoint by Quadell

I have no idea if he is "best known for his appearances with Chris Evans and Jonathan Ross", but if it's true, it needs to be cited to a reliable source. Otherwise the information should be removed. – Quadell (talk) 22:08, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Viewpoint by (Annon BBC employee)

Not only is the information wrong that was being put up on Peach's page, but it was also completeley unnecessary. He is only a freelance reader for BBC Radio 2 and doesn't have his own weekend reading slot like it was suggested. Saturday's you can hear Ricky Salmon and Andrea Simmons, and Sunday is again, Ricky Salmon followed by Fran Godfrey. I have an idea as to who kept bigging up the Evans and Ross information!

Viewpoint

I am confused why the article for a national radio broadcaster seems to have been removed altogether? The above info is incorrect. Radio 2 weekend readers are Salmon/Peach on Sautrdays, Salmon/Sandars on Sundays, not that this is important.

RFC

There's an ongoing edit war which beaically boils down to two editors who cannot agree on whether or not to include a particular piece of information. See here and here for typical edits. This has been going on for several weeks and is getting ridiculous. I've tried talking to the two editors concerned, but with little success. I have also removed the sentence concerned a couple of times in the past as I personally feel the information is not necessary, but I wouldn't lose any sleep if it stayed in. I just think it's time to resolve this as it's becoming disruprive. TheRetroGuy (talk) 19:50, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I semi-protected the page. – Quadell (talk) 22:08, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't say "award winning news shows", just say "new shows", then include the awards in their own section within the article, otherwise it becomes a promotional piece. ► RATEL ◄ 00:14, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't say "best known for" because that's opinion dressed up as fact. Rephrase so that the things he is best known for are mentioned, with citations, but avoid peacock terms. ► RATEL ◄ 00:16, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If the shows won awards for Peach's efforts on the show, then they would be reasonably included in the lead, as he, in effect, won them. The "best known for" clause is somewhat problematic, and probably shouldn't be added unless there is a specific relevant source saying that. Even then, I myself would question having it in the article, as the material is more about the shows than about the subject of the article. John Carter (talk) 17:56, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "he presents award winning" is improper as it gives the implication that all shows he presents on automatically win awards, in addition to being a violation of WP:PEACOCK. Claims of "best known for" are generally personal opinion and without being backed up by reliable sources probably shouldnt be included. -- The Red Pen of Doom 18:19, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Refs

I've tidied all the refs in this article so they now have names, dates, publishers, etc, etc. I haven't bothered checking through them though as I'm assuming whoever added them did that, so someone else needs to give them the once over. Cheers TheRetroGuy (talk) 14:16, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the Evans links are necessary as they aren't talking about Peach. There is ONE thing there that relates to him. Not big enough to be on his page. Besides, we all know this is Andrew Peach editing his own page. He was doing this before and bigging himself up. If the links for the awards were to be anywhere, they shoudl not be in the intro. They shoudl be below where they were before. if arguments start again, the page will need to be locked. People should not edit their own pages to make them bigger than they are! Thanks --212.58.230.137 (talk) 21:27, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Second third opinion

This has been done before, but I've requested a second third opinion since the edit warring continues. TheRetroGuy (talk) 11:23, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

From WP:3O. I pretty much agree with the opinion provided by Red Pen of Doom above. "presents award-winning" and "best known for" are peacock phrases and unless they can be sourced in some adequate fashion shouldn't be included. It looks like much of the problem here stems from one IP address that is repeatedly re-inserting deleted information. If it continues in that fashion, then it's time to start bringing Wikipedia's rules to bear and see about instituting some blocks for inappropriate editing behavior. The consensus of active editors on this talk page not to include the peacock-ish language seems pretty strong, and edit warring against that consensus is blockable behavior. I'm adding the article to my watchlist and will be glad to try to help. — e. ripley\talk 12:27, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Extra note: It looks like the article has been semi-protected through May 3, that should help keep it stable for a few days, but we'll see what happens when it's lifted. — e. ripley\talk 12:30, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can cafely say that it is Peach editing his own information. This is also self promotion, making himself sound bigger than he is. the IP address is located at the BBC in Reading, which is Andrew's place of work. The Evan's links included have no importance to is Wiki page. Also, the information about awards doesn't need to include "alongside Attenborough" etc as there are HUNDREDS of other people expecting awards with them. too. Why should me be any different? Lets see what happens on 3rd May, and if it continues, it will have to either be protected for a while or the page should be removed. --91.111.85.231 (talk) 12:18, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The edits would seem to be coming from the BBC in Maidenhead if I've interpreted this correctly, but we can really only summise that it might be Peach himself. It could be someone else working there and the evidence that it is Peach is really only circumstantial. For your own part in this you'd probably be better not to edit war with whoever it is. Life is too short to argue over trivial matters like whether or not he works full time or as a relief newsreader. If it is Peach making these edits then perhaps somebody needs to set up an IP block for that range of addresses, requiring anyone who wants to edit from there to create an account. TheRetroGuy (talk) 12:37, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The BBC facility at Maidenhead is responsible for the listen again feature for BBC Radio Services. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.131.102.128 (talk) 16:22, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That, or just a longer-term semiprotection. It achieves the same effect (forcing someone who really, really wants to edit the article to create an account, or at least come to the talk page), but wouldn't prohibit other innocent people from editing Wikipedia from those addresses. Let's see how it goes. — e. ripley\talk 14:22, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, lets not argue about this as it's not the end of the world. Lets look into this further. Notice the times the edits are being made. Peach is the Breakfast Presenter at BBC Berkshire, and all the changes making Peach sound great are all being made around the time of the Breakfast Show. Put 2 and 2 together, and you have the answer. I think (and others may agree, too!) that the IP address should be blocked and that way, we can see if the promotion of the individual continues. To my knowledge, the BBC don't have a studio in Maidenhead, but it's strange how it's still in berkshire! However, lets not forget that either way, self promotion is forbidden on Wikipedia. Secondly, having spoken to someone I know who works at Radio 2, it turns out that Peach is only a freelance news reader and only covers holiday and sickness. As this is the case, we need to be factual and say he "occasionally" reads the news on BBC R2. As for the Chris Evans references, Evans is no longer on the Drive Time show, so the links aren't necessary anymore. Finally - The awards. There are thousands of radio presenters who have been nominated for Sony awards. Yes, Attenborough may have been nominated but so have other people so lets try and just keep it as simple as "Peach has been nominated UK Speech Broadcaster of the Year at the 2010 Sony Radio Academy Awards" - nothing else is needed other than that. 212.183.140.4 (talk) 23:29, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Extra note: I've noticed that this page was nominated for deletion in 2009 because of the same issue. This seems to have gone on for over a year now so I think we should try and get to the bottom of it. 212.183.140.4 (talk) 23:44, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have asked TheRetroGuy for advice on getting this page protected, as once again the IP address making the changes is that of the BBC. We now know that it is self promotion. I will also be enquiring about geting the IP address blocked, as thsi is the cause of the trouble. One person giving self promotion. FreeSpirit10 (talk) 00:08, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of interest

Given the ongoing edit war (which I fear could be about to start again now the page is off protection) and the fact that a major contributor would appear to have a conflict of interest I have added a {{COI}} template to the article to alert those unfamiliar with this nonsense to the issue. TheRetroGuy (talk) 12:44, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Removed links

I removed all thsese links [2] [3] [4] because they seem to link to the same page. I've left one in (see ref 7) as that provides a sufficient source for the information added. Cheers TheRetroGuy (talk) 17:32, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

5 Live

Andrew is NOT working on 5-Live. He covered ONE show. As a member of management for the BBC, this individual has been bigging himself up for a while now. He gloated about being on Radio 2, and that has now been resolved by calling him a freelance newsreader. He is a local radio presenter, and that is all. --93.96.66.172 (talk) 13:03, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How do the sources describe him? That's all we go on. If the sources identify him as a presenter, he's a presenter. If they say only he has presented, then that's what we say. If they don't mention it, we don't mention it. As long as there's no peacock phrasing, all sourced information relevant to his career should be included. Ocaasi (talk) 12:13, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And will the argument break out again when he does another 5-Live show on Sunday? - David Biddulph (talk) 12:17, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We have a similar argument going on here. I have a lot of respect for the BBC, but I'm beginning to wonder what they do there all day. I've tried to mediate with this on several occasions, but without success, and the whole thing just does my head in now. TheRetroGuy (talk) 12:23, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What the sources say

Here's how this works. If you have a source, a current source, which shows he is not part of radio 2 or 5 live, a source which refutes these sources, then it's fine. Otherwise, there is absolutely no grounds to delete this information based on personal testament and obvious dislike. That's it.

Regarding Radio 2

Regarding 5 live

There's nothing else to it. He's part of bbc radio 2 and he 'has stood in' or 'stands in' for 5 live. Don't like it, find a better source. Please don't keep reverting it. It will only lead to a block of the account. Ocaasi (talk) 13:30, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This really is rediculous. He is updating his own page to self promote him. I am a member of BBC management who would like to remain nameless as you would probably understand. I have had many dealings with Andrew Peach. Check the IP address the "big-ups" are done from, and the time. BBC IP address, at some stupid hour in the morning when he is on-air. He covered 5-live, it's not his full slot. When he finishes that reference will not mention him at all. It will go back to Stephen Nolan's page alone. He is also NOT, I repeat NOT a fulltime reader at Radio 2. I have spoken to colleagues at Radio 2 and they tell me he hasn't had much work there at all. What a shame. This is a reliable source, so please contact Alan Dedicoat at BBC Radio 2 and ask for the truth. His email is Alan.Dedicoat@bbc.co.uk - and he can tell you he hasnt had much work there at all! Wikipedia is for small facts, not for people to big themselves up! Oh, and Jonathan Ross no longer works for the BBC, which means some references are there for his ego! --93.96.66.172 (talk) 11:03, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid this is starting to become a bit of a head----, so I'm bowing out of the debate. I've tried to mediate time and time again, but nobody seems prepared to compromise, so I'm moving on. I'm taking this page off my watchlist so won't see any changes from today. The article is on the pending changes log and that should enable it to be kept in some kind of order. TheRetroGuy (talk) 12:44, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I will not reply to any further anonymous postings on this subject, or comments which attempt to continue the argument. However, I am happy to discuss this topic with an admin or other established users if the need arises. TheRetroGuy (talk) 12:56, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Guys, this is stupid, and there is no point in arguing. I agree with what the person said about not including 5-Live references, and also the references relating to jonathan Ross and Chris Evans. Chris Evans is now breakfast presenter, and the breakfast readers are either Alan Dedicoat or Moira Stuart. As for the 5-Live references,m he is only covering, so this person is correct in saying they shoudn't be included. To me (if I'm honest) it seems that the individual is creating this Wikipedia for himself. Also, if you study the IP addresses where the changes are made, the IP address is routed back to the BBC. I have studied the times carefully as well, which to me makes it obvious he is adapting his own page as seems fit. I don't have any doubt he is a freelance reader on Radio 2. This can be clarified by emailing Alan Dedicoat directly which I don't mind doing. In themeantime, lets compromise and take the 5-life references out and leave the R2 links etc. --FreeSpirit10 (talk) 13:46, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that the person who said about peach not working for 5-Live was in a way, correct. Stephen Nolan had his show covered again on Sunday, but NOT by Andrew Peach. Therefore, the link about Andrew Peach being on 5-Live is incorrect and not necessary. Maybe we could remove tis? FreeSpirit10 (talk) 18:07, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article says "a stand-in presenter", which surely isn't invalidated by the fact that other folk can stand in too. - David Biddulph (talk) 19:09, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yet more IPs (a number from the same range) are reverting the sourced material. The most recent said "Check the link"; the link said "Andrew Peach sits in for Stephen Nolan.", so the link supports the statement in the article. I'm sure that most readers are getting fed up with this vandalism to the article. Is there someone with a grudge against Peach? - David Biddulph (talk) 12:13, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New Argument

The battle commences. This has been the issue with this page for several months now. Andrew Peach has been known to update his page to how he sees fit, and I find this unacceptable. I think this should come to an end now, as I, like many other readers are fed up with the edit war. We should ask for this page to be either deleted or ask for s permanent protection against it. Having done my research, Peach is hardly ever on 5 live, so the link is dangerous to keep on his article. Having re-read the whole of this talk page, we need to minimise all of the article to a few lines, but keep relevant refs included, such as Sony awards. The links about Evans etc and 5 Live should be removed. Also, having had correspondence with a member of staff from BBC Radio 2, I have discovered that Peach is mow even hardly on Radio 2! Let's sort it. FreeSpirit10 (talk) 12:37, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see that a sourced link to him being a "stand-in" presenter on 5 Live can be described as "dangerous". I see from your contribution record that you have been engaged in a prolonged battele to remove references to Andrew Peach from various pages. I don't know, and am not interested in, the background to whatever personal dispute you are having with Peach, but in Wikipedia it is hard to see a justification for removal of sourced material. You refer to your own research, but of course WP:OR is not acceptance in WP. The link refers to a 5 Live broadcast from 2 weeks ago, and we have seen earlier such links. If you have evidence for him being "hardly ever on 5 live" then provide the links, and it could perhaps be reworded to "occasional stand-in". - David Biddulph (talk) 12:56, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If this is the case, lets say "occaional relied presenter on 5-Live" as this will clear up the debate. How can I provide proof that he is hardly on R5L. The less links there are saying this is more proof that the person making the chanes is correct. Andrew Peach is technically only a presenter at BBC Berkshire, and is only a relief reader occaionally at R2 and occaional fill-in presenter at R5L. 82.41.235.103 (talk) 17:30, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Andrew_Peach/Archive_1&oldid=405183034"