Talk:Radio Caroline

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Former FA This article is a former featured article candidate. Please view its sub-page to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.

An event in this article is a March 28 selected anniversary (may be in HTML comment)

Contents

[edit] 2004

I went over this and corrected spelling, and grammar as best I could. Also added some links where I thought it would be helpful.--Mr. Snow 03:30, Mar 7, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Radio Caroline: additions and corrections

I am making substantial additions and a few corrections to the entry of Pirate Radio and adding other information where appropriate on other entries. There are some basic errors with this article on Radio Caroline which clash with existing entries elsewhere.

One entry requiring correction is where the name of the radio station came from. The name came from the family of President John F. Kennedy, not from the pop group known as the The Fortunes. Their record was not used until much later as a signature tune. Although their recording of "Caroline" (which was the "B" side of "You've Got Your Troubles" and entered the British charts in 1965), it was originally released in the UK during March, 1964 (on Decca F11809). However, when Radio Caroline first began broadcasting in March 1964 its first theme at close down was Jimmy McGriff's "Round Midnight" (an LP track on "I've got a woman", Sue ILP 907 1962 United Kingdom; Sue 1012 USA).

While the article states that Caroline was the first to begin broadcasting from offshore all day, it was not the first offshore station to begin broadcasting to Britain in English. That award goes to CNBC (Commercial Neutral Broadcasting Company) which transmitted from the same ship as "Radio Veronica" which was broadcasting to Holland in Dutch.

There were also other attempts two years before Radio Caroline and Radio Atlanta and these were spin-offs from CNBC called GBOK and GBLN (also known as the "Voice of Slough". GBLN even had the backing of Herbert W. Armstrong's daily sponsored program called "The World Tomorrow". But unlike CNBC, neither of these two stations made it on to the airwaves - although they generated a lot of publicity in the UK national press at the time and for this reason alone they deserve a mention. MPLX 21:58, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] I made several additional minor corrections to my copy ...

The reason for the sudden number of changes is due to the fact that when I tried out the links to LOOK it directed me to something other than to LOOK magazine. I found that LOOK is listed as Look and there is a note there about a new publication using all capitals. However, I am almost certain that original also used capitals in their masthead, but rather than add to more confusion I changed my link to reflect the correct entry. I also added a comma by mistake in the link to "Oval Office" and as a result no existing entry turned up, so I had to remove that comma. There were a few other items like that which were very minor. I am mentioning this in case anyone becomes concerned about why the number of changes were made in such a short period of time. MPLX 23:10, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Updating of status and addition of several important internal links

I have made a slight alteration to the wording of the first paragraph in order to reflect the current (2004) status of this radio station, while adding several important internal links.

Until 1990 the status of "Radio Caroline" was deemed to be illegal and unauthorized and therefore a pirate radio broadcaster. Since 1991 the station has operated both from land based studios in Southern England as well as from its ship, the MV Ross Revenge under terms of a series of low power and local ("RSL") Restricted Radio Licenses that have been issued by appropriate British Government licensing agencies. Today "Radio Caroline" also uses satellite transponders, cable affiliates and Internet streaming to distribute its programs to the rest the world. This is what my modification to the first paragraph was intended to reflect. MPLX/MH 04:58, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] "Murder"?

I don't think a killing for which the accused was aquitted on the grounds of self-defence (not a technicality in any sense) should be characterised as a "murder". I would encourage someone to provide a better heading. While this unfortuante event certainly deserves mention in the context, I don't believe it deserves an unmeritedly sensational topical heading

Rlquall 17:50, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Wrong place to explain the Crown

This statement was poorly inserted into the flow of the article so that it destroyed the theme and even created disruption over spacing: "(The Crown is a term which is used to separate the government authority and property of the state in a kingdom from any personal influence and private assets held by the current Monarch)." There were links to the term "Crown" for an immediate reference to further reading, should. the reader find it necessary. MPLX/MH 05:47, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] How did Radio Caroline make its money?

While it was a "pirate" station? Who advertised on it? Were the advertisers comfortable with the unlicensed nature of the station?

In the 60s, what they did wasn't illegal, so they ran adverts like any commercial station would do today. By the 80s this had all changed; the UK had introduced 2 different Acts and it was impossible to advertise British companies. I was able to pick up Caroline 558 a few times and I only ever heard an advert for one company, an international brand of (if I recall correctly) vitamin pills. I've read that the 1980s operation was funded by renting studio space and airtime to Dutch broadcasters and through broadcasting religous programmes. A rich backer may or may not have been involved, too. This is all off the top of my head, so it's not an encyclopedic answer, nor was I around in the 60s :) --kingboyk 14:05, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Photos

A picture speaks a thousand words... and this article is sadly devoid of photos. Does anyone have any images with suitable licences that they can upload? I'm thinking a picture of the 60s vessel, a picture of Ronan and some of the DJs, the Ross when she still had her 300ft mast, anything really! --kingboyk 13:37, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

This may be belated, but I'm considering adding a couple of book and CD covers with photos of the ships. Lee M 04:11, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Radio Rainbow

I will be reverting Radio Rainbow references until such time that there is a) evidence of Radio Rainbow's offshore status (e.g. a photo of their ship at sea) and b) a citable source stating that they have or are suspected to have strong links with the Caroline organisation. --kingboyk 13:06, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] COMMENTS PLEASE FROM EVERYONE ON THIS REVERT WHICH IS REALLY ANOTHER AND POV APPROACH

In order to bring this article into a reasonable size it has been divided into four basic parts. The current article now deals with the present and legitimate status of Radio Caroline as a licensed entity. There is now plenty of room to expand this article and to add new events as they occur.

This article is linked to a trilogy of history concerning the unlicensed offshore era. All pages are linked, all are self-contained and all of them can be further expanded now that space is no longer a problem. Phonographic

I don't support this change, and I think such a radical change should have been discussed here first. Radio Caroline is, to most people and as far as most incoming links are concerned, a 1960s pirate radio station that was located on a ship. The present day operation is but an interesting footnote to most readers. If anything is to be split out and moved to a new article, it is the present day "fake Radio Caroline". I feel sufficiently strongly that my position is "correct" that I will have to see if this change is revertable somehow. --kingboyk 15:51, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
On the one hand I agree with you but on the other hand you have now introduced POV and you have also undone ALL OF THE CORRECTIONS made in clean up - which you have not bothered to fix. Try telling the Caroline Supporters that their venture is "fake" - well, you have. Now either fix the text that I fixed and leave in two sections or put it back the way that it was, but you have not presented a clean-up or provided a means for adding new copy and pictures to each of the sections I created. I would welcome further discussion on this and a vote on whether your approach or the encyclopedic and non-POV approach that I took is better.
I simply pasted back in your new articles, so nothing should have been lost! My reversion faces the enyclopedic facts: if "Radio Caroline" the satellite station didn't have a hugely famous past, it wouldn't even be notable enough for an article here! In this age, small digital broadcasters are ten a penny. The fact is that Caroline is legendary in this country - including to persons like myself who were born after the 60s - as the soundtrack to the swinging 60s, or (to people able to receive it) as a 70s/80s offshore station. I've no objection to you merging the "new Caroline" article back in; my objection was to have readers who type in "Radio Caroline" end up at an article about the satellite station! That's laughable. --kingboyk 09:22, 12 June 2006 (UTC) P.S. Next time, discuss such a change first. And, the LOUDER SOMEONE SHOUTS the more irate and the less open to reason they are. Think about it. Is this even debateable?!
The article required clean-up and it also required some means of adding new material because it was too long as it was. So I cleaned it up and divided it into logal and self-contained segments. (The segments were self-contained because the eras were divided and they are not entwined.) You claimed that you have reverted my work when in fact you did NOT revert but created your own new version in two NEW articles, one of which has a new heading.
However, you also reincorporated pre-existing old typos that I had already taken the time to fix in the clean-up. So what we really have is your new version that replaced my new version, only your version reincorportes old typos, etc. Obviously you are determined to have it your way and that is fine with me since these will be my final comments about this.
I wanted to see if anyone else cares - particularly since you introduced your own POV into your approach by calling the current Radio Caroline a "fake". That is hardly a neutral Wikipedia position! Why not ask Peter Moore for his opinion on your comments? Also please notice that I have not even attempted to revert your own new version. No one is shouting, its just that when someone claims something that is obviously incorrect, that error requires highlighting. Phonographic
There shouldn't be any old typos in the articles because I just pasted your split versions back in! If there is, I don't know how that happened - please fix it by going back into the history and using copy and paste. I haven't introduced any POV into the article other than making Radio Caroline contain the details of the famous old offshore operation rather than the new one. NPOV isn't necessary on a talk page. Don't misunderstand me, I wish the new operation well and of course it is legally Radio Caroline. However, I'm positive that readers clicking a link to Radio Caroline will expect to find an article on the offshore station. We don't have any article length warnings when hitting edit, so perhaps the best approach would be simply to merge the details of the new station back in too. The tag was cleanup, not split. Finally, I totally agree that let's see what other people have to say, that's what consensus is all about; however, consensus was formerly to cover all eras of the station in one article. If there's a consensus to split it and have the new Caroline in this slot I'd be extremely surprised but would honour it! --kingboyk 15:28, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
I am not debating further the matter of the split and already noted same (above), however, you should know the following of which you appear to be unaware: 1) the current Rado Caroline has in the last few hours now appeared on SKY for the first time with a numerical link to its original beginning. Radio Netherlands reported this on its blog and far from going away, Radio Caroline appears to be gaining strength for the first time in a long time so that it can reach new listeners in the UK.
Next - I am NOT going to redo my own correction work that you undid! You did not cut and paste my work but the original before corrections were made. So, friend - you do it since I already spent the time to do it once only to have my time wasted by your actions.
Finally, you state that clean-up was the only tag and that there is no warning about length of Wikipedia articles which again incorrect on your part. The warning was on the edits of this page when I began to clean it up, but those warnings only appear to the person who is spending the time and bother to edit a page - readers do not see them (unlike the clean-up tag.) I just wish that you would stop being so dogmatic about everything when you are obviously being dogmatically wrong.
Now unless you are going to make another incorrect comment that I have not previously addressed, THIS will be my final response about this article with this reminder: go and clean-up the errors that you reinstated! Phonographic 19:20, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Video

a video taken aboard the ship at the time by Nigel Harris is widely available

I would like to see this video. I can't find it. Can we have a link to it? The Wednesday Island 14:00, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Frequency quibbles

Removed comment from page code:

1562 kHz <!--probably 1565, to be 9*n-1-->

This is incorrect because frequencies at the very top of the mediumwave band were separated by 8 kHz at the time instead of 9. Caroline was on 1562, Capital in London was 16 kHz down at 1546, etc.

[edit] Deleted text

I deleted the following on the grounds that it is POV and inaccurate. Lee M 11:58, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

In reality though, most of what was played was merely the 'single from the album', and soul music followed by rock music followed by soul etc proved to be a lame format which appealed to very few. By 1975 Caroline played mostly disco music.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/a/d/Talk%7ERadio_Caroline_9a34.html"