Talk:Gary Radnich

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Stub This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article is supported by the Arts and Entertainment work group.
This article has been automatically assessed as Stub-Class by WikiProject Biography because it uses a stub template.
  • If you agree with the assessment, please remove {{WPBiography}}'s auto=yes parameter from this talk page.
  • If you disagree with the assessment, please change it by editing the class parameter of the {{WPBiography}} template, removing {{WPBiography}}'s auto=yes parameter from this talk page, and removing the stub template from the article.
WikiProject California This article is part of WikiProject California, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page to join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
This article is within the scope of the San Francisco Bay Area WikiProject, a collaborative effort to build a more detailed guide on Wikipedia's coverage of San Francisco and the Bay Area. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
Stub This article has been rated as Stub-class on the quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

The following comment was placed in the article accidentally, I guess:

Radnich has not been at KNBR since 1985. He's been at KRON-4 since then. He's didn't come to KNBR until the early 90's.

Tafinucane 23:59, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] That last line--you know which one

The two sources do not support the contentions in that sentence. The second source, the clip from KRON where he discusses Barry Bond's new deal, shows that Radnich's criticism is not entirely constant. But that's a somewhat debatable point.

However, the first source--from the SFChron--summarily dismisses the near-libelous claim regarding "racist commentary." Perhaps Radnich has expressed unsavory views about fellow Serbians or left-handed Lithuanians, but that Chron bit is about how much he loves his black wife (and their two daughters).

71.202.113.205: If there is a source out there that actually confirms those allegations, find it and post it. Indeed "Content with sources is not vandalism," but calling someone racist, when wholly contradicted by the single source linked, is deceitful and puerile. Much like vandalism. Or not signing your revisions.

Brecca 02:23, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Useage of terms in this article

The present citations for the use of racist in this article do not appear to be supported in the citations supplied. I cannot image a sportcaster/announcer being allowed to be a racist in this day and age. Recommend deletion of the term. Morenooso 00:42, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] My recent edits

If anyone can provide me the specific passage in the cited article that demonstrates that Radnich is "known for refusing to take responsibility for his racist commentary", please do so. Otherwise, that unsourced assertion has no place in this article. JavaTenor 01:39, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I could not find any. Please see my post above this one. Morenooso 01:44, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism and References

Good work done above in eliminating someone's overzealous criticism of Radnich. However, more edits should still be done. The criticism section, as it now reads, is arbitrary and unfair. A truly neutral article would have a section called "Reactions to Radnich" rather than the less-value-neutral "Criticism." And then there's no way such a section would start and be focused around the opinion of some guy from SF Weekly--a publication with practically zero presence in the sports community.

What's more, the claim that Art Spander panned Radnich "for his support of Krueger's racist comments" is false. Radnich defended Krueger without "supporting his racist comments"; he argued that Krueger deserved another chance--despite those comments. For what it's worth, Spander remains a regular and enthusiastic guest of Radnich's radio show. The article cited in the References takes Radnich's remarks out of context, and also doesn't belong in this article above. Radnich has been on the air for 20 years, and the fact that he defended his colleague in the midst of a now-mostly-forgotten controversy a couple of years ago should not be played up this prominently in a stub article about him.

Note also that 1. The Spander article cited as it is by headline in the References creates the incorrect implication that Radnich is the host in hot water, not Krueger. 2. The Spander article is not cited in the Krueger page on wikipedia. Neither is the word "racist" used in any form on that page.

In summary, the Criticism and References in this stub reflect not the public's actual perception of Radnich, but the perception of one angry wikipedia editor who had a chip on his shoulder. The biased guy's contribution to this stub should be removed. The Criticism tab should be deleted, and all the SF Weekly references as well as the link to the Spander article.

Update: I figured out how to go ahead and make the changes I recommended above. So I did. Mark dittmer 07:31, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I agree with you. See WP:BLP#Criticism for a good guideline on the inclusion of criticism - I certainly don't think some random offhanded comment in the SF Weekly qualifies, and I agree with you that the criticism paragraph overall is excessive in a short article like this one. JavaTenor 19:50, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
If you feel the article gives undue weight to criticism of Radnich, then why not contribute something to the article to balance it rather than removing what other editors have contributed. Just because you don't agree with the criticism does not mean it doesn't exist. Mr. Radnich is a controversial figure, as he hosts radio talk show where he voices very strong opinions. San Francisco Weekly clearly meets the standards of WP:RS and WP:V, and the opinions of their editors are perfectly reasonable. Furthermore, Art Spander's criticism is attributed and sourced properly. WindyCityRider 04:17, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
To argue that the criticism does not reflect the public's actual perception of Radnich is absurd. A cursory survey of Internet message boards clearly suggests that the wiki editors who have contributed to the criticism section are not alone:
Gary 2/3 of the time doesn't talk sports, or just takes the most synical[sic] view without really using and analysis or viewing different angles. And when he doesn't want to talk about something, he just says "WHO CARES" and cuts people off. -- smirnoff


Radnich sounds like a guy who is bitter that he never got the anchorman job and will always be "just" the sports guy. -- nostocksjustbonds


Radnich is unbearably awful -- hairball


I am tired of Radnich's act. The "sports isn't all that's important" routine doesn't allow for any substantive discussion. I almost never listen to him anymore. -- Katman


Fitz and Brooks are funny. They are basically what Gary Radnich wishes hewas. And they actually talk about sports. -- thehavenot


If anybody even gets close to uttering something like a criticism, Radnich gets his back up faster than a pervert overdosing on viagra. -- E


Can't stand listening to the bitter guys like Ralph Joe Pesci Barbieri and Radnich. -- Josh


Tolbert can be amusing. Radnich creeps me the hell out. -- oldjacket


Radnich is stealing money. -- Skaldheim


I totally agree Gary + Bruno = best 30 mins of radio. It gets boring after while when all they talk about is sports, I need that extra knowledge of whats happening to celebrities. -- pak55


I've heard hours of Radnich, and yet, I'm not sure I've EVER heard him let a caller make their point. -- hairball


This guy is a complete asshole to his callers!!!! -- Jonathan


Radnich is such a tool, if it wasn't for Brian Cox, he'd be a sure fire winner for the biggest idiot on radio. -- GTSCH


Gary Radnich is a fucking idiot I would love to drop this guy on his head -- arcidi


Gary is terrible, he rarely talks about sports topics, it's mainly an entertainment tonight type show. You can get daily updates on Paris Hilton, or Brittany Spears, but try and find out who is on the trading block or who is going to sign where and you are brushed aside. The passion for sports has passed Gary bye, it's time for him to go to a station where he can talk entertainment and people will enjoy it. He's not for KNBR, which is supposed to be THE Sports Leader. Get rid of Radnich. -- danielocean05


What a jackass Radnich is,rude,classless and makes people (KRON STAFF,ect)look like fools!!!! I dont understand how he has "any"job whatsoever. -- Bigguy469


How the hell did Gary Radnich ever manage to get on television? He's a dimwitted, uninformed blowhard with nothing to offer -- about as appealing and intelligent as a cross between a monkey and a frat boy. The audience loses 10 IQ points every time he comes onscreen with another one of his witless commentaries. -- KatMcH


He's tired, tells the same stories over and over. Egotistical, sarcastic, rude, his opinion is the only one that matters to him. Very phony... -- Nolan


Did you hear his rant the other day about the Stones and Dylan "sell out"? First, the Stones were never a counter culture phenonmenon[sic]. They were a rock band, nothing more. Who cares how they open their next senior citizen tour? But the Dylan comments were wonderful. Prattling on about Dylan selling out with the recent Volvo TV advert song...... It was Donovan, a sell out since day one. What an idiot. -- sfleftie


Gary Radnich knows as much about sports as a wet food stamp. He talks more to hear himself speak than to deliver any insight into the games. -- bayareafan


When is the real person going to be showing up for work, this Gary person is an obvious fill in. My dog knows more about sports than this clown. -- rhode
As you can see, many people do not share your high opinion of Radnich. The criticism section is entirely justified and appropriate. WindyCityRider 04:38, 28 September 2007 (UTC)


Dim Wit is gay for Gary. JavaTenor is gay for Dim Wit. Is there a list of gay log rollers in wikipedia? Look it up before you cry, cry, cry. Usage is 100% truthful and apt. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.160.229.161 (talk) 23:58, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

That last unsigned comment is a perfect example of why a survey of internet message boards should not be considered as an accurate gauge of public opinion. People on internet message boards tend to be overly negative, vindictive, et cetera. It would be equally scientific for me to listen to his show and quote his callers saying "Gary I love your show" and citing that as an accurate gauge of public opinion.

You do successfully argue that he is a controversial figure. However, the two citations we're arguing about are still skewed heavily in the article. I'm going to try to find a way to remedy the SF Weekly citation so that it's presented in a POV-neutral way. But I don't see how you can stand by the Spander article. In the references section, there is a listing that says: "Comments put KNBR host in hot water" and that absolutely makes it sound as if Radnich is the host in question, and he is not--the article is about Larry Krueger and it tangentially mentions Radnich, and the citation is therefore absolutely inappropriate. It's as if it's only included so that that misleading impression can be made in the References section.

You in no way responded to my argument above re: the Spander article, except to caution me about legal threats. You have nothing to worry about in that regard. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mark dittmer (talk • contribs) 03:38, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Upon further review, the SF Weekly citation is fine the way you have it; I did insert an introductory sort of sentence into the "Reactions to Radnich" section.

Dim Wit tosses Radnich salad. 67.160.229.161 04:25, 29 September 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Request for Comment

Argument is regarding the appropriateness of one of the citations. The citation in question is being alternately removed and then re-posted, here it is for your convenience, as cut from the article history: "}}</ref> In 2005, Art Spander panned Radnich for his support of Larry Krueger's racist comments about Giants' skipper Felipe Alou.[1]" It's been posted in between the "2003" and "2006" sentences of the "Reactions to Radnich" section. Mark dittmer 21:51, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

For reference, here's the article in question, which is an article about Larry Krueger that contains only one sentence mentioning Radnich. It would make a reasonable addition to our Krueger article (or maybe the KNBR article?), but it's out of place and misleading here, per WP:BLP#CRITICISM. JavaTenor 19:43, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Hey Ditmer -- why do you feel the need to censor content on this topic? Are you an employee or contractor to KNBR, KRON, Gary Radnich, and any entity or person related to these corporations or their affiliates? Who are you to say what is neutral and what is non-neutral. Cards on the table, please. 69.181.183.206 21:17, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Reply to 69.181...: I think I laid out the arguments supporting removal of the link in question enough times on this page so that if you wanted to address them with arguments of your own, you could. You have chosen, instead, to characterize them (without any argument to support you) as "censorship." Again, if you can refute my arguments, please do so. Unfortunately for you, I am not an employee/contractor/etc. for KNBR/KRON/etc., so again, you're going to have to come up with an actual argument supporting your assertions--including your assertion that this stub now resembles an advertisement. Mark dittmer 19:17, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

You removed content that had been in the article since Mar 1. You claim it is non-neutral but it's a straight recitation of fact. That you think it might give a wrong impression is a reflection of your own pov. However, Art Spander has more credibility than you. The text and the source meets Wiki standards of credibility and verifiability. The content that has been there under Critisim since Mar 1 remains relevant to a section entitled "Reaction to Radnich." If people like you censor contributions to Wiki, topics like this serve the same purpose as PR content (when maintained by employers) or myspace groups (when maintained by fans). Your undue patronage of Mr. Radnich makes you one or the other. Please make a shrine to him on another site. 67.160.229.161 00:07, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Advert tag

I have removed the advert tag. It is really inappropriate. As far as I can tell the article adheres to WP:BLP. Note I have no idea who Gary Radnich is, I looked at this as a result of an OTRS ticket (2007110610013067). --Brianmc 09:41, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Popular catch phrases"

Is this section appropriate? If no one objects I will remove.--Stetsonharry (talk) 20:16, 6 March 2008 (UTC)