Talk:Radio From Hell

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Who gets attacked by squirrels...come on?--Trickse 20:55, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I fixed some of the problems in this article, but it is still extremely crufty, non-NPOV, and full of other stylistic problems. I've also changed much of the punctuation to comply with Wikipedia:Style guide, especially in regards to quotation marks. -Porlob 20:20, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

As Trickse pointed out, this article is a bit silly. This article is about a comedy / satirical group, but such comments are not appropriate on Wikipedia (save for in a quotations section). I'm going to add an "inappropriate tone" tag. --67.182.231.23 16:03, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

1 This article referenced on the show
2 Removal of innapropriate tone headline
3 Citation Needed
4 RFH Userbox

[edit] This article referenced on the show

That was surreal: hopping in the car this morning to hear myself described as a "hater" and an "asshat." I'm a HUGE fan of the show, the only commercial radio program I listen to. I absolutely believe this article should exist, and support its further development. As I mentioned above, most of the changes I made were grammar fixes. This is not a criticism of Atropos, but just me trying to fix what I see as opportunities to improve the article. I used the term cruft, which maybe is a little unfair, but I do think there are some issues with the article. Others may have different opinions, which is not only okay, it's GREAT. Indeed, some of the content that I thought was unnecessary, others thought was important and added back in with just a few clicks. That's the beauty of Wikipedia: no one person has control over an article.

One thing that I think could use improvement is the lack of cited sources. I have no doubt that most of the information on the article is accurate, but nothing is stopping someone from adding in that, say, "Kerry was born in Latvia and received the Purple Heart in the Vietnam War." If there are no sources cited, its hard to distinguish true information from misleading statements. That's kind of a tricky move for an article about a radio show, but where possible, we should add in citations. Atropos has been keeping a blog of the show, so that is actually simplified a LOT. Lets throw in some citations to the blog (for those new to Wikipeida, see Wikipedia:Citing sources to see how), and other media references to the show, such as the recent Salt Lake Tribune article.

I wholeheartedly second Bill's call to arms for fans of the show to come here and participate in the discussion and article. I hope I'm not REALLY an asshat! :) Good luck everyone! -Porlob 14:39, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Isn't it interesting that most people just don't get it. Why does there have to be one way to approach the world? Life? War's begin as arguments and the need to be right. An open mind coupled with the willingness to see things as they are and not as we were programed and the honesty to see the real truth about ourselves. This what I have learned and appreciated from my friends Kerry, Bill and occasionally Gina and that is what they are about. It has been stated that the opposite of Courage is..................................................................................................... wait for it ...............................................................................................................................................................................Conformity!!!!!! Get real and honest with yourself. Think! For God's sake and your own. ........... Madd Mexx. Bwaaaaahahahahahha! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Madd Mexx (talk • contribs) 09:39, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of innapropriate tone headline

Hey all, I've removed the tag that this does not meet wikipedia's quality standards as I (and am assuming others) are working to improve the page. I'll be adding a bunch of links as I find them and have generally tried to re-write the article to be more in line with wikipedia's "standards."
Personally, I liked the "Atropos" version of the page before, but if the gauntlet has been thrown down...
Furthermore, the idea that this page is crufty is ridiculous! The show is the most popular in a key demo in a major market, so a discussion even of the minutia of their content is not only justified, but warranted.
Some might say The Daily Show and The Colbert Report are as equally unimportant-- they are incredibly popular amongst a small group of people-- but you don't see the "Cruft" label heaved around those pages. Whillice 05:06, 15 November 2006 (UTC) Whillice the NYC FOP formerly of Utah County

Thanks for all your hard work. You've done a lot to improve the article so far. Note: I was the originator of the "crufty" comment. The comment was not in reference to the article itself, but to some of the content of the article which seemed to go into more detail about certain things than I thought was necessary. As I mentioned above, that term was probably a little unfair, though it is still my opinion that some details could be trimmed off. -Porlob 13:52, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Again, go look at Daily Show and Colbert Report- lots of extraneous content due to fan popularity, but hardly cruft. Like you have said, since the wiki is user-based and can add and take away content based on their own preferences, we can see which sub-sections will live on and which will die and fade away.Whillice 18:57, 15 November 2006 (UTC) Whillice the NYC FOP formerly of Utah County

Thank you for your contributions and work on this article. However, I am going to re-add the Inappropriate Tone flag. The fact that you are working on this article is good; however, these flags are designed to invite additional help, and to add this article to a global list of articles needing some work. The reason I added this flag was because this article contains numerous jokes and sattire inline; This is an encyclopedia and jokes from the show aren't appropriate content for being inline in the article. I propose we move them to a quotations or humor section. If you disagree, feel free to comment; however, I don't think the Inappropriate Tone flag should be removed because you are "Working on it". --67.182.231.23 05:18, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I've started a thorough rewriting and reorganizing of the page; note my changes to the first sections and the Kerry Jackon section, and the addition of awards and humor sections. --Mike 06:17, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Mike-- me likey. Atropos? Any comments? Does anyone else think moving content to the humor section is sufficient to remove the tag? My personal feeling is the same as what Atropos originally said earlier this weekon air-- if someone just stumbled onto the show by moving into the SL media market or caught them one morning while passing through town, the wikipedia article should explain who these people are and what they do on the air. I think the humor involved inline is appropriate, especially in areas like Gina's section. The info is primarilly biographical and may seem humorous, but it is still biographical and therefore, appropriate. Just because a fact is funny doesn't make it not noteworthy. You can argue that the fact itself is not important, but anyone who knows Gina knows that her idiosyncrasies are the most, if not only, noteworthy thing about her. Anyway, 67.182.231.23, feel free to sign in if you're going to be making huge editorial decisions like adding and removing tags, so we know who you are. Whillice 07:01, 16 November 2006 (UTC) Whillice (aka Andy) NYC FOP fo UC

Hey all-- I removed tha tag again for this reason-- compare this to wiki's for other radio programs, all of which seem to be deemed acceptable (loveline, stern, etc) and to pages for daily show, colbert report, and this is tame by far. If you want to add an innaproriate tone tag, log in, make some constructive changes like mike, atropos and i have been doing, and then say why it is still warranted even after your edits. doing so without adding your own content, edits, etc, to make it better is just simple armchair quarterbacking and, i daresay, vandalism. disagree? tell me why.

"It is not the critic who counts: not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood, who strives valiantly, who errs and comes up short again and again, because there is no effort without error or shortcoming, but who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions, who spends himself for a worthy cause; who, at the best, knows, in the end, the triumph of high achievement, and who, at the worst, if he fails, at least he fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who knew neither victory nor defeat."

Teddy Roosevelt, "Citizenship in a Republic," Speech at the Sorbonne, Paris, April 23, 1910

"Okay, let's all be good little automaton droids and believe everything (wikipedia tells us- sic)." Ben Stiller, Mystery Men Whillice 21:51, 16 November 2006 (UTC) aka Andy, NYC FOP

I'm going to stop working on this article. I set out to make a few standard cleanup and stylistic changes to this article, and I find it ridiculous that I and others face public ridicule through popular media for this. I'd like to invite other people to edit this page, but I'd like to remind you to pay attention to this talk page and work based on expressed consensus, not just your own opinion. My choice to make edits to this page while not logged in has been interfered with, despite being a cardinal right of wikipedia that users are allowed to make anonymous edits, and some of my edits (namely the addition of the Inappropriate Tone flag) has been reverted several times despite an expressed consensus on this talk page that they are valid. So: do what you want. I'll be back after the dust settles, and everyone is done obeying the commands of radio show hosts to fight these 'bad' edits while they brag about how unique and individualistic they are. --Mike 00:46, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok, ok. We're sorry. Didn't mean to hurt anyone's feelings, but not one person has justified to me why this page has a supposed innapropriate tone when the pages for Loveline, The Howard Stern Show, The Daily Show, and the Colbert Report are not substantially any different. I think the consensus is actually that the tag should be off, not on, as it has been changed back, as you said, several times. Justify the tag comparative to those pages, and then put the tag back on and I'll gladly not only leave it be, but put it back up after anyone takes it down.

The thing I worry about is definately the non NPOV: I would like to see more criticism of the show to make it more balanced, as I know there are definately haters out there. Whillice 04:59, 17 November 2006 (UTC) Andy the NYC FOP fo UC

[edit] Citation Needed

I've added some "citation needed" tags. These are some items that need referencing so everything is nice and kosher as far as verifiability. With the quotes, are any of these on the blog? A quick link over there and all is well!

A quick question, though: The article states that "when Kerry Jackson and Bill Allred moved to the station, Gina Barberi was added to the morning show, and the show was renamed to its current 'Radio From Hell'." If memory serves correctly, Gina wasn't part of RFH originally, but Jimmy Chunga was a third wheel until he went off to KENZ. I vaguely remember Gina doing a late late night show and was later added to RFH when Jimmy Chunga left... Is my memory playing tricks on me? Someone with a little more knowledge should expand that section as appropriate.

Ritchie's age was listed as 22... But I was in high school with him which should make him about 26. I've changed it to 26 with a "verification needed" tag.

I kind of think that many of my issues with the article would be fixed if instead of having one giant RFH article, we incorporated parts of it into individual articles for Bill Allred, Kerry Jackson, and Gina Barberi. Some of the biographical information would seem more at home on an individual article than here. The aforementioned Jimmy Chunga has his own (awful) article. Shouldn't they? Comments anyone? -Porlob 15:18, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I beleive that is also the case with the history of the show and was how I had originally written it-- it was changed by someone and I deferred to them, assuming my memory was just fuzzy. I don't think I ever listened to KJQ and was introduced to Kerry and Bill w/o Gina and w/ Chunga sometime between 1992 and 93-- she was added full time sometime around '94 or '95? I'm trying to find verified resources for a lot of these: I had some before and they had been removed? I'll go in and re-add where possible.

I also agree it might be better to have individual articles for each personality. As of now, if you search for Kerry Jackson, it does a redirect to Radio From Hell. Anyone better at editing know how to get around that?

Again, my templates for making this suitable are the above-mentioned articles, which give each individual correspondant or on-air personality their own article. I say go for it.Whillice 18:20, 17 November 2006 (UTC) Andy NYC FOP

I've removed the redirects from the pages for Bill Allred, Kerry Jackson, and Gina Barberi, so they are ready for prime time. I'll do some work on this if I get time. In the mean time, have at it everyone! -Porlob 19:59, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Personally I don't believe they need their own articles. Unless there is material floating about that I am unaware of, everything that we know of Kerry, Bill, and Gina is within the context of the show. Just my opinion. AtroposTheRandom 16:22, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Let's think about it this way: If Encyclopedia Brittanica were doing an article on Radio From Hell, would they have a "Gina Barberi" article or would it simple say, "See: Radio From Hell." They don't technically need their own articles, but since many of the complaints are of the type "there is humor where there ought not be humor," especially in regards to the biographical information (Bill being attacked by squirrels, Gina's section, Kerry's geek fetishes), would this be alleviated by moving them to their own pages? That's one question.

The second is that "The Daily Show, Stern, and Loveline all do it that way with each individual having their own page-- should we?" But, like Atropos said, no other info is available or relevant besides what has to do with the show.

The thid is that "If we make four articles out of one, would that really make it all better in terms of rooting out cruft, non NPOV, etc or are we just making four articles with the same problems?"

I am now completely of two minds on this (flip flopper, I know_- I can see how having one big article is more convenient and each individual bio article on them would almost be too small. . . . .I'm going to hold off on making any drastic changes until we get some more input. Thanks for speaking up, Atropos. Whillice 20:24, 18 November 2006 (UTC) Andy NYC FOP fo UC

Frankly, I don't see any harm in the extra pages - except that it's more to monitor for, what I see as, no real benefit. I know that Chunga knows how to use this and I know the kind of humor that he finds so inviting. I now have to monitor 6 pages (RFH, Gina, Kerry, Bill, Chunga, Wikiquote) to ensure that nothing has gone too far off...AtroposTheRandom 01:21, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok, that's it. I agree. Since there has been vandalism on this page, it makes sense to just have the one main page. I've re-added the redirects. Whillice 02:21, 9 December 2006 (UTC) Andy NYC FOP fo UC