Talk:Rawlinson End

Title change for the article "Rawlinson End Radio Flashes"

I've put in a request for a title change for this article, as it's current title is completely wrong - there was NEVER a BBC radio show by Vivian Stanshall with the title "Rawlinson End Radio Flashes".

Aside from both being created by Vivian Stanshall, "Radio Flashes" has nothing to do with "Rawlinson End". The two were entirely separate entities, and the only place on the planet where I have ever seen them conflated in this way was in this article. Their only connection is that working with Stanshall on 'Radio Flashes' may have inspired John Walters to ask him about doing something with Rawlinson End once he (Walters) had become familiar with it.

The thirteen 20-minute episodes of Rawlinson End that began in 1975 are in no way associated with Radio Flashes and nowhere in them is the phrase "Radio Flash" used.

I've also had to make numerous changes and additions to the article itself I'm afraid as a lot of the information in it was also incorrect or at best incomplete.

The most accurate part of the article was the episode list (which while impressive at first glance omits the actual first radio appearance, as detailed in the paragraphs I have added to the "Background" section of the article). — Preceding unsigned comment added by HippyGumbo‎ (talk • contribs) 22:40, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

 Done. Station1 (talk) 02:03, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

As this article's author I disagree about the deletion of "Radio Flashes" from the title -- these are, in fact, a continuance / expansion of Stanshall's earlier radio pieces which he called "Radio Flashes," and the programs have subsequently became universally known, online and elsewhere, as the "Rawlinson End Radio Flashes." True, Stanshall never referred to them that way himself, and I suppose there is not a lot of confusion generated by the deletion (although it WAS nice to set them apart from the "Rawlinson End" album). I like most of the additions to the article as well, although a few of them (viz. the ladies magazines) seem to be either original research or unreferenced speculation.Rcarlberg (talk) 12:00, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

---

Firstly, I do appreciate the compliment about my additions to your article, and I do apologise for the somewhat snotty 'outraged' tone of my initial request (which has only become truly apparent to me on reading it back just now).

However, while it may arguably be the case that elements of "Radio Flashes" inspired and encouraged Stanshall to expand upon "Rawlinson End", that's where the connection ends, I'm afraid. The introduction to the four editions of "Radio Flashes" in 1971 was: 'I am Vivian Stanshall, and these are my Radio Flashes'. This was the only time the term "Radio Flashes" was used by Stanshall to describe his own broadcasts. No episode of "Rawlinson End" (which as you know began in earnest in 1975) ever mentioned or even alluded to the phrase "Radio Flashes". Not only did Stanshall himself never refer to them as such, John Peel never introduced or referred to the original "Rawlinson End" broadcasts using the term "Radio Flashes" either, not even retrospectively. Nor have any subsequent biographical documentaries about Stanshall and his work referred to "Rawlinson End" and "Radio Flashes" as a single entity.

Therefore, I'm afraid it simply isn't correct that the programmes are 'universally known' as "Rawlinson End Radio Flashes" - I have genuinely never seen or heard the two shows conflated in this way before, on or offline, in the same way that no-one refers to "Pride And Prejudice And Sense And Sensibility" or even "Oliver Twist's Old Curiosity Shop". A quick google search only confirms the fact - mention of the two shows will of course appear in any in-depth article about Stanshall, but never as a single unified phrase.

The Rawlinson End album, meanwhile, has it's own dedicated page linked to in this very article. Regarding the 'inspired by ladies magazines in waiting rooms' reference (hence the original prologue ending with "Now, read on..." as opposed to "Now, hear this...", for example), Stanshall did refer to this in interviews in print and other media - none of which I can cite off the top of my head (because I haven't the time to look, frankly), so if there are any major objections to it's inclusion on those grounds feel free to have at it.

Again, while I'm sorry to have to argue the toss with someone who is clearly a fellow admirer of Stanshall and his work, I do feel I'm in the right here. HippyGumbo (talk) 07:07, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

I can't help feeling this article is overlong and seriously in need of trimming. It also appears somewhat ungrammatical in places, a failing of which the erudite Viv would never have approved. Lee M (talk) 03:52, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

I'm not entirely convinced that “Pete Moss” should link to the article about Sphagnum either, unless this is some kind of Stanshallesque jape. Mr Larrington (talk) 19:04, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

I agree. The article is way too long, because it is full of unsourced material. Several whole sections are entirely unsourced. I have tagged the passages that should be either sourced or removed. I'll come back in a few days and remove the stuff that hasn't been sourced; that'll make the article a lot smaller. MrDemeanour (talk) 22:52, 9 April 2024 (UTC)