Talk:Radio Caroline

Summary

What exactly is radio caroline; a radio station? One? Daniel Christensen (talk) 05:08, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Have you actually read the article ? 86.112.254.192 (talk) 14:50, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

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)

Caroline had various sources of income post 1967. A big one was being paid to carry religious programming during off-peak listening hours and/or on secondary frequencies. Payola (payments by record promotors to play their records) was another particularly in the 1967/68 period when Phillip Solomon (one of the directors) owned a small record company (Solomon and Pears/Major Minor Records) and a chain of record shops (Caroline Music). It was initially hoped that multinational companies would advertise on the station but most of the advertisments turned out to be for overseas mail order businesses. The biggest advertiser during the 1980's was an agent engaged in the legally dubious practice of reselling Canadian lottery tickets by mail order. Apparently quite a lucrative business before the establishment of the UK national lottery. Another trick was to run two stations (one in English and one in Dutch) from the one ship and subsidise the loss making English service from the profitable (even post 1974) Dutch one.

It does beg the question though how after 1974 the Dutch service could continue to operate profitably when post 1967 the English one couldnt 80.229.222.48 14:06, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

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)

Registration of ship

Radio Caroline claimed their broadcasts were legal as they took place in international waters from Panamanian registered vessels (Despite the registration being revoked in 1964 at the British Governments request and in 1987 due to them neglecting payment of registration fees). However surely to be legal the broadcasts would have needed a licence from the Panamanian Government ? Also (Given that the UK Government did prosecute Radio Scotland and most of the Fort based stations when they found them inadvertently broadcasting in British waters) how come nobody raided the ship after the Panamanian Govt revoked the registration in 1964 ? And was the Mi Amigo registered in any country during the 1972-80 period ? 213.40.227.50 (talk) 22:06, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Because the vessel was in international waters? --kingboyk (talk) 14:23, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Well it didnt stop them in Aug 1989 did it ? A ship in international waters can still be boarded:

1) By the state to whom the ship is registered

2) By another state with the permission of the state to whom the ship is registered

3) By any state if the Ship is unregistered. (As was the case for much of the time with the Caroline ships)

4) By a state at war with the state to whom the ship is registered

5) Other limited circumstances (Suspicion of piracy, slave trafficking etc) 86.112.94.153 (talk) 21:47, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

The Dutch courts ruled the boarding illegal, Caroline received compensation, which almost ironically helped them to stay on the air. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deke42 (talk • contribs) 01:41, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

The Dutch courts didnt do anything of the sort because the matter never reached the courts. The authorities eventually agreed to return the records and studio equipment on condition that a waiver was signed indemnifying their officers against any court action. There was a previous incident (c.1981) where they had boarded another radio ship (M.V. Magda Maria/Radio Paradijs) which WAS registered in Panama (although the ships papers weren’t in order) where the courts ruled the boarding unlawful. 2.221.93.93 (talk) 23:08, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

It must be remembered that the law, in all relevant countries (UK, Holland, Panama) changed between 1964 and 1991. I would not try to explain the actual state at anyone time - 'cos I dont know. It must also be accepted that even though laws were enacted, some weren't enforced until a certain set of conditions were in place. The would answer why UK and Holland left their actions until much later. --Keith 19:03, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

1989 raid

Dutch staff were arrested and taken back to the Netherlands...Although the British staff were not arrested and were left on the ship

Were any of the Dutch staff (or the individuals caught up in the raids on land in the days/weeks prior) ever actually charged and if so what was the outcome? 213.40.104.250 (talk) 00:50, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Not as far as I can recall, I think Caroline's case against the Dutch government probably held them up pending the outcome if indeed any of them were to actually be charged.

Given that a lot of Dutch people are also very fluent English speakers did any of the Dutch staff attempt to avoid arrect by pretending to be British (or Irish etc) ? 213.40.128.2 (talk) 13:42, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Again this is only my recall, but I believe the Dutch authorities knew roughly who they were after, and the British representatives with the raiders would certainly have been able to help in this regard. It would seem like a sensible course of action to take, I've never read anything to suggest that it happened, but thinking about it I'd lay odds that someone somewhere tried it on. :) --Deke42 (talk) 01:48, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

It was always normal practice for all staff on offshore stations to carry passports with them when travelling to/staying on the ship (as they were technically leaving the country) and in case of any issues with customs or immigration authorities on their return. Therefore the authorities would have had little problem conclusively establishing peoples nationality. A lot of the staff on the "English" Caroline service were actually Irish (as was the owner) which made it difficult for the UK authorities to act against them. Ironically Radio 819 (The Dutch language service thought to have been the main reason for the raid) was rumoured to have been in financial difficulty and probably wouldn't have lasted much longer although the Dutch authorities had been planning the action since late 1987. Most (all ?) of the staff on the ship on 19/8/1989 seem to have been unaware the vessels registration was not in order despite the fact being publicised in some trade journals as far back as May 1987. 2A00:23C7:70C:EF00:F96A:4019:D799:41A (talk) 19:08, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Role of James Murphy

However, the following day James Murphy, an investigator for the Office of Official Solicitor acting on behalf of the Department of Trade and Industry, led colleagues and counterparts from the Netherlands Radio Regulatory Authority to carry out an armed raid on the Ross Revenge.

Is this an exaggeration of the role of Mr Murphy in the raid ? The operation was in the main carried out by the Dutch RCD (Radio Controle Dienst) backed up by the Dutch Navy/Police and with some assistance from the British authorities. Murphy was working for the British authorities and was therfore hardly "leading" the raiding party. His main role seems to have consisted to have attempting to question the "English" crewmembers on board the Ross Revenge having bluffed/exaggerated his legal powers/authority to do so. The person in charge of the RCD operation appears to have been a guy called Martin Roumen #. 86.112.254.192 (talk) 15:19, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

The paragraph was misleading. In effect it said a British official led a group of Dutch PTT people, backed by the Dutch Navy, which resulted in the British staff walking free, and the Dutch staff being arrested. I think you will find Murphy was an observer, and his attempts to get the British staff to incriminate themselves was decidely useless. Changing one word "led" to "joined", and clarifying by adding the word UK twice made the context correct --Keith 16:01, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Alleged Shortwave Interference

The interference on short wave, however, did exist; and several times Caroline was warned about this by officials and offshore-radio fans.[citation needed] I know this doesnt amount to a verifiable citation but for what its worth I can recall the issue being discussed (several months prior to the raid) on another Shortwave pirate station (WLR). Given the nature of the pirate radio community at the time It is highly likely that word would have made its way back to at least some of the people involved in Caroline. While quite a few bad decisions were made at various stages throughout the stations history for a ship based station to broadcast on a marine frequency must rank as one of the most difficult to comprehend. And while it is likely that the severity of this interference was probably exaggerated by the authorities (Nothing was done about it for over a year and even the RCD statements issued in the aftermath of the raid indicated it was only a secondary concern although the British authorities made more of an issue of it) It is hard to fathom why the station (or those responsible for the choice of frequency) played into the hands of those who wanted rid of it. 86.112.51.161 (talk) 22:29, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Radio Caroline Ltd

Can we please clean up the article Radio Caroline Ltd and move the onshore era stuff there, or merge the contents of that article back into this one? (Note we previously forked to Radio Caroline (onshore) but ended up with one article again for some time).

I suppose the important thing is: is there any connection between the current "Radio Caroline" and the old pirate station other than the name? --kingboyk (talk) 19:46, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

In answer to your two points:

1) Yes you may. It was creatd by User:Fk27jh who tried to rewrite the station history, and as such is an orphaned article - it would be better deleted. Apart from one link which you placed, no other article relates to it. That will be removed shortly, as irrelevant.

2) Please read article. Due to the legality of the station, no official/legal continuing connection may be traced from 1964 to 2010. However Ronan O'Rahilly, as originator, although now getting on in years, is still connected and supports the operation. --Keith 20:27, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I've read (and edited) the article many times but this question has always bugged me :) Do we have any documentary evidence of O'Rahilly's support or indeed any evidence other than the name that the modern day station is a successor to the offshore Caroline and not just branding? (see Team Lotus and Lotus Racing for an example of the latter :)). I'm not doubting your word or wanting to cause trouble but just wish to be clear that these two "Radio Caroline"s belong in the same article. Thanks again. --kingboyk (talk) 09:13, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

It is not possible to prove any financial or legalistic continuity, as said above. However, it is also not feasible to prove seperate entities. It can be said there is a distinct turning point at the time the operation became "legal", in the 1990's, when Pete Moore assumed overall control, but as can be seen from the stations own history, he has the backing of O'Rahilly. See [1].--Keith 11:44, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Righto, I'll have a read of that some time. Hadn't realised there were links on that page! Some independent sources would be nice though. Thanks again. --kingboyk (talk) 14:24, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

The entire first section needs a revamp...

Why does the editor and author refuse to admit that the BBC music policies had as much to do with the creation of Radio Caroline as did the record company restrictions on Radio Luxembourg. I have tried to edit this into the first two lines but was censored. So much for Wikipedia accuracy!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ercjncpr (talk • contribs) 18:01, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

It is not a case of not accepting what you say - it's a case of what you are saying!!. The BBC Policy of the time (which extended after 1968) did not affect Radio Luxembourg, nor the other pirate stations that came on stream. What was more "relevant" was the policy of the record companies - hence the removal of the BBC comment which wasnt valid. Wikipedia acuracy has been restored! --Keith 20:39, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

I have tried repeatedly to wikify the first section of this article, but a 'nanny' user refuses to allow anyone else to make modifications. The entire first section is riddled with weasel words, POV issues, no citations, vague dates and awkward phrasing. My attempts to help clean up the article have been reverted. At this point I give up. If the nanny user "keith" wishes to have the article his way and no other, I don't care. I have pointed out there are issues in the article. --Brian_{(view my history)}/^{(How am I doing?)} 06:18, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

This "nanny" does not like being reffered to as such, nor do I wish to have the article my own way. There are plenty of edits to disprove this innuendo. What I do take exception to, is the unconstructive nature of his edits. If he, Brian or bschott, cares to research the article and provide constructive input, then I wouldn't have any problem! --Keith 06:42, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I have no idea about the factual accuracy or otherwise of the "Chronology" section, if that is the part of the article being discussed. But there are clearly issues in that section - a general lack of verifiable references, unencyclopedic wording, and formating issues such as the use of very short paragraphs and unnecessary bolding of words. The section seems anomalous anyway - parts of it would be better in the Introduction, and other parts in the main text, perhaps with an additional timeline. If more references were provided for that section, it would be easier to undertake proper copy-editing of the section, to everyone's satisfaction. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:30, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Ghmyrtle, I have no problem with anyone editing this article as long as the information that is there currently, or is subsequently placed there, is correct. Most of the "citation needed"'s placed by Bschott, were in fact covered by the references given at the bottom of the article. When you get down to the level of "citations" needed, I think a line needs to be drawn. If a comment is made about the Marine Broadcasting Offences Act, and is taken from a printed article that is already reasonably well cited, do we really need to provide the relevant citation here again. My problem against the edit done by Bschott is that it asked for all these and then complained on the tone (weasel words), without making "one" single contribution to the article. (It is almost irrelevant that in his revert, he removed valid informmation and corrections to the text). The online article (here) could actually be used for nearly every single "citation". This reference is actually used within the article already! It is bad enough when people openly opposed to what the station stands for, try rewriting history, quoting obviously dubious material, and mixing up the history of one station with another!! --Keith 10:22, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps the problem relates to WP:CITE: "If a source supports a significant amount of the material in an article, it may sometimes be acceptable to simply add the citation at the end. It serves as a general reference, not linked to any particular part of the article. This is more likely to be appropriate for relatively undeveloped articles or those covering a very simple or narrow topic. Any material challenged or likely to be challenged requires an inline citation, as does contentious material about a living person" (my emphasis). Inline citations are clearer and more easily verifiable. In any case, my comment on the "Chronology" section remains - is it intended as a summary of later sections, in which case it should be placed in the introduction, or is it a free-standing section, in which case it should be better referenced? From an outsider's perspective, I must question the over-use of www.radiocaroline.co.uk - partly because it is clearly a commercial link, there may be conflict of interest issues, and more generally because it is always unwise to rely largely on a single source. If some reliance is placed on that source, and if there are facts on which more than one interpretation can be placed, other (perhaps more independent} sources should be used as well. I stress I'm not taking one side or another here - it's an interesting article, and it needs to be properly referenced and balanced. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:34, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Admittedly the use of a singular ref point may be of dubious value. However, much of what is contained in this article and the single source can be verified from other "printed material" references already used, and possibly a number of online sources which are now available. (Though it can be said that some of these are very personal POV's). As said previously, if someone wishes to make a valid contribution then I havent a problem. I do not have the time nor inclination to start going over the material I do have, (which are already listed in the references), to find the exact point and then place such as an "inline citation". (Its bad enough expending time and effort removing dubious material.) Others are welcome to, but not just to punctuate the article with "citation needed" or "weasel words" - that is not a reasonable contribution! --Keith 07:46, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I understand the problem - but it seems to me that it's quite appropriate for other editors to ask for those sources to be spelled out in the text, with page references, per WP:CITE. If a point of accuracy is questioned, adding a tag is the right way forward (indeed, a "reasonable contribution") - and it seems to me that it is then up to the person who has access to the published sources to provide the detailed reference, including page numbers and so forth, or to provide other verifiable references. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:05, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Removal of random POV-check-section template by unsourced IP Edit

I have removed a random POV-check-section posting from article on the grounds it has been placed by a single edit IP address. The location it was placed did state "felt by many", so didnt indicate it was a consensula opinion. Unconstructive IP edits of this sort are seen as vandalisim and as such will be removed. Constructive edits are welcomed. --Keith 10:48, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Removal of film connection comment

A line Radio Caroline's popularity was enhanced by the recent film "The Boat that Rocked" (other titles were used in some countries) which was loosely based on its time as a pirate radio ship. has been removed.

It is definitely a POV, as the film itself is, pardon the pun, thought to have sunk without further trace. What was initially a good idea, turned out to be an over hyped comedic parody of a number of incidents in the sixties. The Caroline organisation gladly provided technical support for filming and initial promotion of the film, but subsequently it has been quietly forgotten. A tale is that although only loosely based on the offshore pirate scene of the sixties, it was heavily re-edited for the US market --Keith 13:39, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Despite the fact that I keep screaming at her "It wasn't like that!! ... and that Incredible String Band album is really good!!!", my daughter thinks the film is "cool". Aarrgh! Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:42, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

The film while not a huge box office success hasnt exactly "sunk without further trace" either. DVD copies are widely available in Supermarkets and video shops in the UK (2010) 86.112.94.153 (talk) 21:41, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

The "sunk without trace" was a "topical" pun. Its appearance on DVD means nothing - it is common practice to have sold the DVD rights in a particular region, before the film is even completed production, flop or blockbuster. No doubt it will appear on a TV channel, with multitudinous repeats, in due course, as again it was probably pre-sold --Keith 21:54, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

NY Times story

The Crouch EDM efort is the subject of a story in today's NY Times. I didn't immediately see any new info. Perhaps a more expert editor would like to check? Wwwhatsup (talk) 20:02, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

The NYT story does not offer any new detail except possibly personal quotes from MP's supporting the EDM. The section of "our" article dealing with this EDM, has yet to be written. I am not "au fait" with the full details, but would not attempt anything with the outcome still awaiting. --Keith 21:02, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Canadian Pretender organsiation

Apparently in January 2011 an article appeared, no source given except Toronto, so presumed in some Canadian publication.

This laid claim that Radio Caroline does not continue as a station BUT acknowledges the existence of an operation in the UK.

A web site ([www.radiocaroline.org]} has appeared purporting to be a group behind a return to the air by the original Caroline. This group has no connection with the people who run the current Caroline operation - which has connections going back to the originator, Ronan O'Rahilly, numerous staff members, and continuity.

Until the identity and intentions of the this "Canadian Pretender" are established, the article as it stands is accepted by most people as being correct. --Keith 22:16, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

For much of radio Caroline's history there were multiple factions both within and outside the organisation (a term which is something of a misnomer) which claimed that the station had at some point (none of them really agree on exactly when) had somehow drifted from its true purpose (none of them fully agree on exactly what) Most of these had their roots in disagreements over music policy, personality clashes and (after 1990) the decision (again a misnomer as it was something forced upon them by circumstance) to pursue a course as a landbased (or river-based) licenced broadcaster. A lot of folk insist anything other than an unlicensed ship offshore broadcaster can never the "true" radio Caroline even though all available evidence suggests such a thing would never be a legal, economic or practical feasibility in the 21st century. While some of them raise interesting questions about the manner in which the organisation (that misnomer again) was managed -particularly in its latter days at sea these are questions which have with the passage of time become pretty moot. 2A00:23C7:70C:EF00:F96A:4019:D799:41A (talk) 19:53, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

RadioCaroline.org

The website has an address in Vancouver which upon further checking reveals it is located in a hotel owned by the main investor in the 80s Radio Caroline - Nelson Skalbania. For research/reference purposes a link to the RadioCaroline.org would be useful. It seems odd to have a link to an unidentified "hoax" website Caroline1395.com and yet ignore the website of a main shareholder of the last offshore Caroline. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.180.18.219 (talk) 11:08, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

See this article. enough said --Keith 12:55, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Quote "Nelson Skalbania, a Canadian entrepreneur who owns everything from luxury hotels to hockey teams, as well as having the controlling stake in Radio Caroline"

If that is the case why isn't his website (RadioCaroline.org) being listed in the links area ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.181.3.55 (talk) 12:29, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I understand Nelson Skalbania has not had any legal or financial connection to the Caroline organisation for over 25 years. He does not have a stake in the operation currently (that AMFM.org article was written 26 years ago.) His Wikipedia profile does not show any relevant connections either (i.e. no broadcast, or European connections)

Radio Caroline is an English radio station, based in England, with a (offshore) history going back to 1964. It is now a LEGAL operation.

The Canadian website, whilst not admitting it, envisages an illegal operation. Please read, and explain how else it would operate in a regulated world. Also please can you indicate how the connection to Skalbania is made to the website, as no names are mentioned. --Keith 14:44, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

A lot of what is written on this radiocaroline.org site seems very similar to the radiocaroline.eu site that was up two or three years ago. If they are beyond question, why do they not even identify themselves? 86.155.104.167 (talk) 20:42, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Raison d'etre

The opening sentence reads: Radio Caroline is an English radio station founded in 1964 by Ronan O'Rahilly to circumvent the record companies' control of popular music broadcasting in the United Kingdom" - I don't have a copy of the source ref but, surely, it wasn't the record companies who controlled broadcasting it was the BBC? Programming choices aside, the BBC itself suffered from the Musicians Union mandated 'needle-time' constraints. The labels did control Radio Luxembourg, but that wasn't technically a UK broadcaster. Wwwhatsup (talk) 06:48, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

You said "it wasn't the record companies who controlled broadcasting it was the BBC" - Correct - true, as to what you said.
However, at that time, the record companies, via industry & trade bodies, ultimately controlled what amount of music was played (across the whole BBC Radio and TV), and, to this day, it still does through the payments made by all UK broadcasting companies.
Needletime was severley restricted. There was of course "freedom" to play what they wanted within the limit, but you then have to think about what other stations (Radio Luxembourg and AFN were the only real choice) were playing, AND the payola scandal of the time. There is a massive difference between the broadcast scene then, now, here in the UK, and the US.

(There is also Ronan O'Rahilly, who used that phrase as the reason he set the station up)

--Keith 08:42, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Clean-up, copy-edit etc.

Hi all, I've been cleaning up this article and I'm hoping to get it to Good article standard eventually. I may require help in certain areas, especially post-1984 Caroline/Monique etc., as my main sources (Henry/von Joel, 1984 and Noakes, 1984) don't extend to this period. Otherwise I'll plug on with it. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 20:50, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

suggestion .... Take information already in article, then read the history, as told by station ([here]). Then look for some Monique material???. There is a lot of POV stuff around which can be used when edited. Sorting out wood from chaff should be easy having already done the previous 30 years!!! lol - --Keith 21:38, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll have a look there, although I'd rather avoid 'official' and amateur material. Sorting wheat from chaff is easy - telling fact from un-fact isn't when sources are limited. :-) Thanks again, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 04:00, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

MV Imagine Section

This section is bugging me as there is no reference material for it.

Firstly, I have shifted it from its previous location as it had nothing to do with the station - albeit it happened at the timepoint it appeared at. I moved it to the International section at the end.

I have searched hi/lo online for reference material on this item, and so far found nothing. There is also nothing in the books I have (but thats not extensive!!).

Finally I decided to look where it appeared first in these edits - 2003-10-15T04:00:26. The edit there does not mention a fraud case, or Wolfman Jack, but does mention MV Imagine and some legal problems

Since there was no connection with the station - just using the idea to defraud, and the possibility that the media company and Wolfman Jack were not actually involved, but had their names used as they were involved with the station, I feel it might be wise to remove it totally until some source material can be validated. --Keith 21:15, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, please remove it; I couldn't find any online material either, except that the Stuart Henry / Mike von Joel book says the Ross Revenge had been re-named 'Imagine' but doesn't mention a fraud. If references are later found it can always be added back. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 03:19, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Done --Keith 06:12, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Radio Caroline New Zealand

There is a single reference ([2]) for this. The station's size can be guessed by its website content ([3]), although other links predominately promote "Caroline" as part of the name. The station makes no reference on air to "Caroline". However, an overnight automated service inserts "Caroline" idents every x minutes. --Keith 08:46, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

The press report is incorrect and should not be used as a reliable source. The accurate situation is as presented in my modification to the Radio Caroline New Zealand section. How do I know ? I am the owner of the licence. (Mosmania (talk) 08:54, 14 September 2011 (UTC))

On a personal level, your assertion of ownership is not questioned. However, it is not an acceptable nor verifiable source for Wikipedia. Whilst I also see the quoted ODT article as being poor, that article and the other ref are the only generally available information I can find. It is noted the name Andrew Yeates was not mentioned in the article - only the spokesman for Puketapu, Lawrence McCraw, is named --14:42, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Fake pirate DJ

Is this worth a brief mention anywhere? Paul MacDermott (talk) 13:48, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't know, but it is certainly very interesting! Thank you for linking to it, I wouldn't have found it otherwise. 2.31.164.13 (talk) 18:25, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Radio Caroline. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.unlockdemocracy.org.uk/charter88archive/pubs/other/mcgann.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:31, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Planet Sales Ltd

Who are "Planet Sales Ltd" and how has this single-director/single-shareholder company come to own "Radio Caroline"? When and why did O'Rahilly's involvement end? (The Ross Revenge section suggests he was still involved - or possibly responsible for - the Ross Revenge era).

I'm still left with the same impression (possibly false) that I posted about many years ago, that the current onshore operation has nothing to do with the offshore station. It would be really nice if the narrative of the period following the grounding of the Ross through to becoming a legal station came about, with references. Surely this is documented now - e.g. in a book - given that the illegal operations are ancient history? Surely if O'Rahilly were still involved, he'd be a director as the operation is now legal? Questions, questions, and not enough of them are answered in this article :( --kingboyk (talk) 19:51, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Interesting now that 'Planet Sales Ltd' is now dissolved as at 13 October 2020 https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/11981692 46.208.99.238 (talk) 14:17, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Given that Ronan spent the last few years of his life in an Irish nursing home reportedly suffering from vascular dementia any notion that he may have been involved in a London based company founded in 2019 seem extremely fanciful ? 2A00:23C7:70C:EF00:705D:54A2:627F:BD4 (talk) 20:40, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

The present page needs to be deleted.

I spent some time alerting fellow editors to the problem with this page by writing a new introduction and removing some of the most obvious and glaring and unsupported rubbish. Then someone came along and simply reverted the new text to the old text.

This page is a classic example of why academia has warned students not to cite Wikipedia!

It is not that there are errors on this page, the entire page is an error. I am not exaggerating. To begin with, this page is influenced by a body of people who wish to create the impression that Radio Caroline began in 1964 on a ship, and over the following years it disappeared and reappeared on a variety of ships, satellites and now it is a UK licensed station affiliated to a charity. That synopsis is entirely false.

Radio Caroline came on the air in 1964 and it ended when its financial backers pulled out prior to the 1967 Marine Offences Act becoming law. Then amateurs took over and tried to continue but they ran out of money a few months later in March 1968 and that was it. No more Radio Caroline.

The backers who began it are not the ones cited, and even the financial details are a joke because none of that section is true at all.

The other entities that have used the eponymous name of Radio Caroline are all unrelated to the original.

However, I do not intend to waste my time by adding information only to have it removed in a blanket revision. The person who performed this switch asked no questions, and is asking no questions now, but seems to be quite content to allow the rubbish that is presently on this page to remain there, and thus confirm to everyone in academia that Wikipedia is a joke edited by people who either want to sell a fake story, or by people who love being able to write story-tales as a joke and then watch them being published by Wikipedia as fact.

I will leave it to the person who reverted the text, to make the first move now by asking his/her own questions regarding the present text and trying verify what is on the page. But it cannot be verified because it is untrue.

I await this for other person to spend some of their time investigating the present text on this page before I spend any more of my time on it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DEC3063 (talk • contribs) 16:31, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

DEC3063, what are the sources that support your claims? Schazjmd (talk) 22:06, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Why should I waste more of my time if you are not going to check-up and see if the fake claims made on the now reverted page are true? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DEC3063 (talk • contribs) 11:32, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

@DEC3063: You have made some bold claims about the veracity of the facts in this article. When challenged for sources, you huff and argue that we should do our own fact-checking. That's not really how things work here at Wikipedia. If you think the presented (and cited) facts are wrong, please present your evidence. Otherwise, the cited article as it stood before your intervention will be the preferred version. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:18, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Comment - I regularly listened to Radio Caroline in the 1970s. Therefore the claim that Radio Caroline ceased in 1968 is demonstrably false. Mjroots (talk) 13:54, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

All the photos of Ronan O'Rahilly in the 70s and 80s involved with Caroline ships and personnel must be fake too... if the demander-of-deletion is to be believed. 2.31.164.13 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 18:32, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

PLEASE DELETE THIS ENTIRE ARTICLE

This article lacks any foundation in fact and as originally written it cannot be supported by genuine academic sources. The first reference comes from a US newspaper long after the station came on the air and is a self-promotion for George Drummond who had no connection to Jocelyn Stevens and the creation of Radio Caroline in 1964. In fact, after the closure of Radio Caroline for good in 1968, George Drummond engaged in a criminal conspiracy involving theft for which he was arrested in Germany and brought back to the United Kingdom for trial and imprisonment. Drummond was eventually released and after inheriting some money from his mother he went to Barbados where he totally changed his name from George Drummond). The part played by Ronan O'Rahilly was on behalf of Jocelyn Stevens and O'Rahilly's father who was short of money and allowed the masts to be fitted on to the original two Caroline ships. The 'Jimmy' story comes from a novel and the Caroline name had absolutely nothing to do with the Kennedy family. That myth began in March 1965. The name came from fashion editor Beatrix Miller. The article is such a self-promoting item on behalf of self-publisher Paul Rusling who is selling books to make money, and Malcolm Smith who is using this story to give credibility to his own recently formed business and a charity for which he hopes to solicit Lottery money. Therefore the only solution is to delete this article and demand proof of connectivity in any new article that is submitted under this name. As it is, it supports the notion that Wikipedia cannot be relied upon for any academic purpose as a citation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DEC3063 (talk • contribs) 12:24, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

And your reliable sources for these comments and allegations are....  ?? Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:59, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

PS: Of course, you are absolutely correct to say that "Wikipedia cannot be relied upon for any academic purpose as a citation". That has always been true, per WP:CW. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:02, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

You are asking for a negative to be proved as a positive or fiction to proved as fact. Either you have no interest in the truth of this matter because you have a vested interest in the commercial side of this article, or you enjoy causing trouble. Clearly you want the article to be left alone and I will. I have now proved once again that this subject (article) is toxic because too many people have an interest in preserving this myth, and that only goes to once again destroy any credibility that Wikipedia might be seeking as an institution. This article adds to its image as an unreliable source. If you have a change of mind I suggest you begin with the origins of the name and then move on to the origins of the 'Jimmy' myth. You should be able to find both without too much effort.DEC3063 (talk) 13:31, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

If you want the article changed, you need to provide reliable, published sources - rather than expecting other editors to assume that what you say is true, without providing any evidence. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:34, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

For info, I have partially blocked DEC3063 from editing the article indefinitely. Mjroots (talk) 13:51, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

You have essentially proved my point on two counts - (1) You accept that what is cited is true, and (b) you have no intention of bothering to discover whether it is true. You also avoided responding to my lengthy response above and so it is pointless repeating myself here. All of this suggests (not proves, but suggests) that you have a personal interest in this topic along with two individuals who are masterminding this deceit. The first is vanity publisher Paul Rusling who has a Wikipedia page and is promoting a book called 'The Radio Caroline Bible' which is in part the work of copyright theft and plagerism, and the other person is Malcolm Smith who hides behind the name of Peter Moore and who has filed false papers with Companies House in order to promote the myth that his new and tiny operation is linked to the original Radio Caroline of 1964. Unfortunately both these individuals know that is not worth the money to go after them in court because they do not have any worthwhile assets. However, this article as original written which should be deleted immediately is in furtherance of these financial ambitions of these two individuals. If you are genuinely neutral then delete the article and demand strict and credible sourcing proof for any new article. But I am not going to war with you because so far you have not demonstrated the open mind of a scholar who is seeking the truth of the matter, but hinting that you might have something to gain by this hoax remaining on Wikipedia. Your move next because I won't be on Wikipedia to respond. DEC3063 (talk) 14:15, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

What I have done is to prevent disruptive edit warring to the article. We are not interested in "the truth". What we are interested in is what can be verified by reliable sources. @DEC3063: if you leave Wikipedia that is your decision. I'm pretty sure we'll manage just fine without you. Mjroots (talk) 14:21, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

(e/c) I'd never heard of Paul Rusling - for what it's worth, I think his article should be deleted. You need to read WP:TRUTH. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:23, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Raised at WP:AN, proposed for a speedy under G11. Mjroots (talk) 15:42, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

@Mjroots: Paul Rusling doesn't really qualify for speedy deletion under G11 because a) it's not blatantly promotional; and b) it's a very old article. I would recommend taking to WP:AFD if that's the direction you think it needs to go. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:11, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

George Drummond

The lede previously had a citation to this archived 1966 Daytona Beach newspaper article, which refers to George Drummond as "one of the four directors of Radio Caroline". Drummond's name doesn't appear anywhere else in our article so, whatever his involvement may or not have been, it doesn't seem appropriate to either name him, or use the citation, in the opening sentence. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:41, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Radio Caroline North

Radio Caroline North. Read about this on https://mediumwave.info/2023/01/27/united-kingdom-241/ 82.170.17.19 (talk) 15:40, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Grammar corrected keeps getting changed back

What moron keeps changing back the poor grammar i keep corecting? like no space between Mi Amigo and sinks. And MiAmigorescued. 86.19.163.39 (talk) 06:25, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

This seems to be a technical problem affecting markup in some browsers. See Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#Section_headings_with_links. The headers were actually correct before you "fixed" them, and display correctly for me. The issue is being fixed at source, so I'll revert your well-meant changes. Jean-de-Nivelle (talk) 07:31, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

I’ve tried 3 different mobile browsers including safari and it looks wrong on all of them! 86.19.163.39 (talk) 08:28, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm using Google Chrome (Windows 7) and the headers display correctly. It's a problem that needs to fixed at source though, so please leave the wikitext alone for now, and the Tech crew will deal with it. It's clearly affecting many pages. Jean-de-Nivelle (talk) 08:54, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#Section_headings_with_links, this problem should be fixed today. —Bruce1ee^talk 09:05, 17 June 2024 (UTC)