Talk:Radio from Hell

Squirrels Comment in Article

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)

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)

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

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

RFH Userbox

Made one today while customizing my own profile...enjoy. {{User:UBX/user Radio From Hell}}

R.F.H.This user can't stop listening to Gina's whining.

Transclusions

Shadowkhas 05:26, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup Work

I've noticed this article has a lot of formatting problems that aren't consistent with the Manual of Style, and theres a lot of problems with the tone of the article. I'm going to add a couple of tags to the page to invite some cleanup work, and start on some of my own cleanup work to get this article up to par. I invite your help and suggestions! --76.23.0.191 10:28, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Can I ask for some specific examples of problems in the article? AtroposTheRandom 02:55, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Page formatting has some problems; See the Manual of Style I linked above. I'm going to replace the picture and info about the CDs at the top with an appropriate infobox for one, and clean up the organization and syntax of the entire page. This article also lacks NPOV in lots of places, and contains inline satire and jokes. Remember that this is supposed to be an encyclopedia - what would you think if you read an article that said someone was attacked by squirrels and therefore no longer cared for them in The Encylopedia Britannica (whether or not its 'based in fact)? --98.202.46.220 18:25, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

You may have some points about style, however, I disagree with you, specifically about the "squirrels" comment. The Encyclopedia Britannica, at least in times past, has been limited by space, meaning that some facts are necessarily omitted. I feel that the Wikipedia overcomes this barrier and allows for the inclusion of lesser known, but not necessarily less important facts. A fact is still a fact regardless of whether one reader considers it to be irrelevant. Though perhaps not as integral to the show as the fact that Gina has two children, the "squirrel" incident has been raised on numerous occasions. AtroposTheRandom 00:23, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Atropos. Not only that, but as for non-NPOV, I don't see the problem. The fact that there is a section on controversy created by the show, I think, shows considerable attempts to be neutral. As I have stated before, compare with the pages for Opie and Anthony, The Howard Stern Show, etc. Compare it to the Daily Show or Colbert Report. A fact is a fact, regardless of whether that fact is humorous in nature or not. A feature that is designed to be funny, when described clinically is ridiculous and inappropriate in and of itself. To extricate the "humor inline" would be to completely strip the article of anything of interest. If someone stumbled across the show and wanted to know more about the show, its hosts, and features, I think this is a decent primer. Some more specifics suggestions would be good, or we can continue to work collaboratively on this. If you have an example of a wikipedia article on a similar subject that could serve as a template for what we're shooting for, I'd love to see it. NYC BFOP Andy Whillice 01:18, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is fundamentally a collection of information from other preferably secondary information sources. According to Wikipedia's Wikipedia:No original research standards, "Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, published secondary sources.". For example: The fact taht Radio From Hell is a radio show on KXRK 96.3 is a fact verifiable by secondary sources. The fact that Kerry and Bill are hosts on the show is likewise verifiable. Unfortunately, Kerry being attacked by squirrels and therefore being afraid of them is very likely an exaggeration of the truth and not (as far as I can tell) verifiable by reliable secondary sources. Unless you can find reliable secondary sources to backups statements like that and others in this article, I'm going to remove them. I read through The Howard Stern Show and couldn't find any examples of content like whats in this article - could you provide some examples? Even if there is some similarities, it doesn't mean that its right even in that article - The Howard Stern Show is only a Class-B project as rated by Wikiproject Radio. --98.202.46.220 03:21, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Kerry was not attacked by squirrels. It was Bill. Mr. Allred related this story on September 9, 2005, during the fourth hour of the radio show. Bill has again mentioned the event on December 12, 2005 and April 20, 2006. The previous Wikipedia argument with regards to the squirrel story was mentioned on November 14, 2006. All of this is verifiable via the sanctioned (as linked from the front page of http://www.x96.com) "blog" or show recap. I am not aware of any embellishment or exaggeration to this story. Mr. Allred fed the squirrels, and they became aggressive.

Perhaps you would feel more comfortable with a sub-section detailing Allred's animal troubles? Mr. Allred has also related numerous encounters with urban raccoons. AtroposTheRandom 04:36, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

The X96 Blog is not a secondary source, as required my wikipedia. They do this to make it so people can't post stupid embellished facts about themselves - if I can use primary sources like my own blog, whats to stop me from posting an article about myself th at says I am supreme God and Commander of the universe, and using my blog as a reference to prove its so? --98.202.46.220 17:42, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Squirrels attacking humans, while seemingly silly, is more commonplace than we would like to think. Here's an example from Florida: http://www.livescience.com/strangenews/060811_ap_squirrel_florida.html and there was an example here on the news just a few months ago of overly aggressive squirrels in a Long Island Park attacking small children. There's also several videos on YouTube if you just search for squirrel attack. As for similarities with the Stern show, there are several instances of this type of information on his personal biography page- about the size of his penis, his home life growing up, etc. Stern has the advantage in that you can reference his books, which also may or may not be factual. There are even worse examples on the Opie and Anthony page, most of which are so foul I would not dare repeat them. Considering that Bill stands by this story over and over again and always claims that it is 100% factual and not schtick, I think we should take his word for it. Why is it this fact that always becomes a bone of contention, and not, say, the fact that Bill claims to read The Economist or that Kerry collects toys and reads comic books? Whillice 14:02, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I used the squirrel comment as an example because it seems to have caused problems in the past and is an excellent example of whats wrong with this article. As I stated above, referencing Howard Sterns books for an article about him is not consistent with Wikipedia's policy of requiring secondary sources. --98.202.46.220 17:42, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

If we are only to allow facts that can be verified outside of the context of the show, we might as well delete this article. The fact that Kerry uses Aqua Teen Hunger Force clips, and drinks Cosmopolitans is only verifiable by listening to the show. The fact that Gina is afraid of wind chimes; only verifiable by listening to the show. If a celebrity claims, in a radio interview, that they enjoy planting petunias in their spare time, is that completely off limits?

If you would like, I can preface all of the facts only verifiable by Kerry, Bill, and Gina themselves with "Bill claimed on the March 3, 2005 episode of..." Personally, I think that would make the article near unreadable. I also feel that information of this nature is understood to be of a self-related nature.

The information on the show-recap or "blog" is always pulled directly from the show, as is verified by the hosts and listeners of the show. Wikipedia allows experts, which I would consider myself on the subject of the Radio From Hell show, to publish information as long as it is publicly available via another source. AtroposTheRandom 01:57, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Ditto for me being an expert on Radio From Hell, Atropos. But then I guess that qualifies as "original research." Since all events are verifiable also via the podcast (since May, at least), that also seems like a viable resource. A comparison of the blog summaries to the content of the podcasts show the correctness of the blog record, so I think the comment about publishing a blog comment saying "I am God" seems a little silly and trite. That's not what the RFH blog is [Although, Atropos, you should publish a blog article saying as much-- i think Kerry, Bill, and Gina would agree to your godlike nature].

By the standards you want to set, 98.202.46.220, then it seems that all of the articles I've previously made reference to (Stern, Opie & Anth, Daily Show, Colbert, Loveline, etc) should be rewritten, deleted, etc. I think it's understood that content of this kind, specifically, content that would be deemed superfluous, would be simply deleted or ommitted in a true "Encyclopedia." So would the wikipedia articles that give in-depth episode guides of every episode of every Star Trek series. They are also verifiable by comparison to their source material, or some fan site that could also easily proclaim that "I am God." I think it's generally understood that the rules for issues of academic importance and then there are articles, like this one, where those rules apply to a lesser degree because to strictly interpret them would be self-defeating and ridiculous.

Finally, removing the citation for Gina announcing her newest child is ridiculous. Either the fact is a) self-evident, or b) someone might be interested in reading the blog summary for the day she made the announcement, in which case there was a link to said entry. How is that not sufficient? What would be proper evidence of this fact? Do i need someone to publish this fact in a peer-reviewed journal in order for it to be usable on the site? You see, it just gets ridiculous. Whillice 03:49, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I have reverted some of the changes in the Gina section to reflect the original references, as no one seems to be able to justify their deletion. Seeing as the majority seems to support this idea, I'm working off the basis on this consensus. Whillice 05:43, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Who is the majority? Two users? I haven't done anything except link to, explain, or quote Wikipedia policy. How does your decisions to remove my Citation Needed requirement comply with Wikipedia's policy on requiring primary sources? --67.161.209.182 04:52, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm talking not only about wikipedia's policies, but a metaphysical question of what is truth? What constitutes a fact? Someone can say that Saddam tried to buy uranium yellow cake from Niger and reference CIA documents, President Bush's 2003 State of the Union, and numerous newspaper articles, but it didn't make it true, and no matter of citation could make it so. And here we have something like the fact that Gina announced she was pregnant on a certain date on the show (which she did claim on that day-- you can download the podcast and listen to it) and furthermore, you can go see Gina and verify she is now pregnant. Wikipedia's guidelines are good, but Truth is more important. Adding that you need a citation about Gina's pregnancy announcement calls into question the veracity of the statement when the preponderance of the evidence shows it to be true. Just because you (or your overly strict interpretation of the wikipedia guidelines) don't like the source doesn't mean it's not true. And after all, these are guidelines, specifically ones that are not adhered to in the great majority of articles on similar topics. And yes, i have read Wikipedia's sections on verfiability: I just happen to disagree with them, and so would Socrates, Kant, Augustine, and many others. There are problems with tone and NPOV: fix them, don't dispute the veracity of easily provable facts just because it doesn't meet a standard that no one else seems to adhere to. Whillice 04:38, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Squirrels again? I don't get that.

For what it's worth, I tried to make the most "factual" parts of this article verifiable. The history is well-annotated. Anyhow, much of the article is basically self-reported. I think these are allowed per WP:SELFPUB, given that much of the article is culled from reliable third-party claims. If the squirrels are so contentious, maybe we should look for third-party verification, and we might have to trim some of it, but the article doesn't look bad to me overall. Please tag the problems so that they can be fixed. Cool Hand Luke (friend of the program in exile) 05:45, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Hey, Luke, Glad to have you helping. You'll notice in WP:SELFPUB that one of the requirements is "it is relevant to their notability" and "it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject". Things like one of the hosts being attacked by squirrels is neither directly related to the subject nor relevant to their notability or the notability of the Radio From Hell show. --67.161.209.182 04:51, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree that it's a stretch for notability, but it's one we usually allow for entertainment programs. They are notable for the program, and these details are part of the program. We should frame squirrel incident et al as a memorable parts of the program, not a notable parts of their biographies. Cool Hand Luke 07:36, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Could you give me and example of how this policy is used in that way elsewhere? I was always under the impression that policy was there so that, say, an article on Nikolai Tesla could use the lab notes of Tesla as a source. NOT so something like a radio show could use quotations from their own show and treat them like verifiable fact. --67.161.209.182 17:59, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I think you've identified a slight problem with the article's tone. We can use the show itself to describe the antics of the show, but we can't use it to verify details of the hosts' lives. Therefore, it makes sense to say that the show discusses Gina being pregnant, but her actual pregnancy is not key to her notability, so would have to be verified by reliable sources.

But to answer your question: many biographies of characters on fictional TV series are sourced almost exclusively from the show itself and unreliable sources. There are examples far more outlandish than this article (See, for a random example, Snowball (The Simpsons)). The only difference here is that the RFH folks are (presumably) real and need a higher standard of verifiability for their biographies. See WP:BLP. I think we avoid this problem by primarily talking about the show rather than their supposed biographies. Cool Hand Luke 20:23, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to start a massive reoorganization and rewrite to try to take into account both sides of this controversy. If you really dislike any of the changes I make, well, Be Bold and revert! But, please tell me on here what you disliked so I can continue to improve the article without treading on too many toes. --Mike 21:00, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I've rewritten and reworked the introductory paragraphs and history paragraphs (oops, just realized I wasn't logged in when I did the work on the history stuff; that was me though); I could really use some feedback and opinions! Let me know... Another thing: I'd like to ask that whoever put a lot of these references on page revist them to clean them up a bit..A lot of them are print periodicals I don't have access to or I'd do it myself. Its obvious that theres some errors here: "A Pair of Barberis Now Share Morning Airwaves Radio Shows Become Family Tradition" is obviously missing some punctuation and such... --Mike 01:01, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I have access to LexisNexis, so I'll try to verify the sources as much as possible and re-punctuate where necessary. Whillice 01:47, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Jeff Vice no longer does the movie reviews on RFH. Sean Means has been returned to that slot. 09:20, 27 May 2014 (EDT) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.30.126.139 (talk)

Removal of email text

I have re-removed the full text of the email. This is a text written by someone else, and unless he or she expressly releases it into the public domain (or a similar license), it is copyrighted and may not be reproduced here. It is not because the email is sent to your radio program that you hold the rights to it in any way, only the original author does, even if she implicitly or directly gave you the right to use it in yuor show. Please check our WP:COPYRIGHT page for more about this. The same goes for e.g. the liner notes on the CD, which I'll remove now as well (I had missed them previously): the right to print them in the CD booklet does not give you or anyone the right to publish them on Wikipedia without the permission of the authors. I doubt that these texts should be included even with such permission, but that is another discussion. Fram 09:11, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Traffic Sign-offs?

Why isn't there a section about the Traffic Sign-offs? This has been a big part of the show for many years.

Adult Living?

Radio From Hell has occasionally stirred up controversy with their, generally speaking, pro-gay rights, pro-gun, pro-death penalty, pro-adult-living, anti-Iraq-war, and anti-authoritarian viewpoints.

What does "Pro-adult-living" mean? Nik42 (talk) 03:32, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Where's Hello, yeah, what?,

Hello Yeah What is another feature that is missing. Doooomster (talk) 03:02, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Merger: Geek Show Podcast

To the extent there is any verifiable content in Geek Show Podcast--a podcast with a per-episode listenership of 19,000--it likely belongs in a subsection of this article. THF (talk) 00:45, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Check your facts-- listenership is more than double that now. Verifiable content includes mentions in newspapers and renowned entertainment blogs. Its content is completely different from Radio from Hell- the only overlap is one of the talent and that its genesis was on the show. Whillice (talk) 01:01, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

My facts come from the article, but: audience could be quadruple 19k, and it still wouldn't meet WP:WEB, otherwise we'd have to find articlespace for thousands of Youtube channels. An overlap in talent and origin sounds like a pretty big overlap to me. THF (talk) 01:12, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Touche. Have moved this discussion and our correspondence via each others' talk pages for a fuller discussion to the Geek Show talk page. Whillice (talk) 06:27, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Radio from Hell. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131009000816/http://social.entertainment.msn.com/movies/blogs/paralleluniverse-blog.aspx to http://social.entertainment.msn.com/movies/blogs/paralleluniverse-blog.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:15, 25 May 2017 (UTC)