Talk:No Agenda

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Podcasting  
WikiProject icon This article is part of WikiProject Podcasting, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's knowledge of notable podcasts, and podcast-related information. If you would like to participate, don't hesitate to join!
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
 

If there is an attempt to repopulate the article- please follow guidelines and make it look professional. Simply pasting links and audio clips will not do and only add to the shows tarnish. Please site all of the quotes, stories, and assorted stories with their correct show numbers and if possible show notes.


—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.18.168.171 (talk) 12:27, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Whoever thinks this was "cleaning out a little" should rephrase the phrase with "gutting the article" which now needs to be lengthened.

It was so short, because I gutted it of all the crap that I wasn't going to agonise over rewriting to wikipedia standards, which I'm not frequent enough of a listener to do, Nor enough of a fan of the boys to try and edit out the fanboyish bullshit that was the common themes and catchphrases section before, and turn it into a quality section. It did need length after I cleared out all the bullshit, because it was a terrible bloody article, as it stood. While I'm still dubious about if the end section should be there, under wikipedia policy, at least now it's been written well enough to conform to wikipedia's standards of writing. Churba (talk) 16:25, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I for one liked the previous run down and explanation for the sound effects and catch phrases. Now we have zero backgound. Since the show hosts say they will not background anything, this gutting the article makes things worse. Go gut the Noam Chomsky entry if you want something fun to do. This is now totally disjointed and ruined. Before this butcher job newcomers could at least get a sense of the ironic basis for the show and its sounds. Now it seems to be all about politics. Terrible job.

As much as I like No Agenda, Churba is right in his edit, as it pertains to WP policy. He was a pretty huge douchebag about it, but right nevertheless. I know that NA has some great fans that would be able to edit the page in such a way to follow WP code, but still give it the tone that it deserves. -- MeHolla! 23:16, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I was being an arsehole about it, and got mouthy in my commentary. Sorry about that. But hey, Maybe I'll be the next Adam Curry - A rather notable mouthy bastard. HA. One can only wish, I'll probably never achieve notability outside of very small group of people. I mean, sure, I don't share his looks, but shit, we can't all have TV faces in radio places. To end that digression, I did hold myself to the standards wikipedia asks for in their articles, though I was probably a tad harsh with the fact tags, in retrospect. And yes, I do listen occasionally, as much as Curry annoys me, and as much as John D is about as much of a buzzkill as your twelfth beer, because it does amuse me at times.

That aside, I did edit in good faith - As dickish as I was about it in my manner, I was trying to edit the article down into what WAS good, so that better fans than I could fill it out with stuff that wasn't utter crap later on. And it seems I provided the impetus of this, as I just heard from a friend of mine that I was mentioned on the show in regards to this article. I'll listen to that later, and probably e-mail Adam and John about it. And in defence of my edits, as much as you say it was terrible, the article speaks against that, as much of my re-writing of existing content remains. I must admit, I was wondering about a few odd things that occurred a little while back that seemed oddly connected to the show. That I was mentioned on the show actually explains a lot.

Also, a hefty pat on the back for all the people who have contributed to the article as it stands- excluding myself, of course - I'm quite impressed with your good work. As little as that probably means to anyone, and as much as it took curry most likely roasting the shit outta me on the show - like I said, not listened to that one yet, I'll get around to it later, and I have to find the bloody thing first - but you have my Thanks and Kudos for doing a good Job.Churba (talk) 16:25, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Cleaning the article out a little[edit]

I deleted the "Common Themes and Catch Phrases" section, for multiple reasons, as listed below.

1)It was unnecessary. No themes were discussed, just catch phrases used by the hosts, and Wikipedia is Not Quote DB.

2)It was written essentially somewhere between Praise and Ad-copy, with a dash of the host's paranoia filtering in. To quote:

"John C. Dvorak's Pet Peeve of the Day. - self explanatory." (If it's self explanatory, then why do you need to say it's self explanatory by way of explanation?)

"Nothing to See Here!- A phrase noting that an item under discussion is something that the mainstream establishment would rather leave out of the public mindset." (Whoever wrote that section of the article speaks as if everything the hosts say is absolute objective truth, when it is merely the opinions of the hosts.)

"Our formula is this: We go out, and we hit people in the mouth!- A simple, yet effective formula spoken by the NFL's 49ers coach Mike Singletary" (Who says that it's effective? Other than fans of the show and the hosts, whose "Hitting people in the mouth" is restricted to internet message boards and people who believe as they do, taking their words as gospel, respectively.)

"Two to the head. - being "suicided"" (No Explanation of what this means or implies, and no reference to that this is the host's speaking of what they see to be one of the possible consequences of speaking out against the conspiracies they espouse. Which is strange, because if the government is willing to kill all these people, most of them with far fewer people paying attention to them than the hosts, and making it look like an accident, they why have Adam Curry and John Devorak not died or vanished in Mysterious "Accidents" considering that they are "Revealing the truth" to, according to them, Nearly half a million people? But pardon me for asking questions and thinking for myself as the hosts admire, because while doing so, I seem to have digressed.)

"Two to the arm - continuing the "Two to the..." theme, this references vaccinations." (There is no "Two in the" theme, as it's a play on words, and reference to the double tap(from which their Two in the head reference comes) and equating vaccines in lethality with a pair of gunshot wounds to the head.)

"No service for you! - liberal use of this catchphrase from Seinfeld's "Soup Nazi" denoting an authority's denial of favor to the rebellious" (Again, speaking as if the host's opinions are fact.)

"Turn Down Your Speakers! - John doesn't like headphones." (And I don't like your terrible idea of what a Wikipedia article should be, namely, a fan website to your favorite conspiracy theory podcast. Turn down your Rhetoric.)

"Douchebag! - The guys call 'em like they see 'em." (Fantastic! You got a source for that? No? Then sorry, buddy boy, your agreeing with the hosts doesn't make it fact, and thus, it shouldn't be here.)

"The distraction of the week, on No Agenda. - When exposing manufactured news or presidential slutsquad distractions being covered by mainstream press." (Do I need to say it again? Repeating the host's opinions as fact.)

Also, I'm about to edit out all the external links in the main body of the article, and move some them down to the External links, and then cleaning up the language of the rest of the article, and finally, adding in requests for citation where nessassary. Churba (talk) 04:39, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I corrected some of the catch phrases so they are less opinionated and more general. I hope to make more edits soon. I may not agree with the method but Churba has valid points. Cubbieco (talk) 06:03, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
As I've said above, I was indeed a mouthy arsehole about it, but yes, I did hold myself to Wikipedia's standards during my edit, and I'm glad that even though I've probably been blasted by Adam and John, and certainly blasted by a few fans, that it has resulted in a better article all around.Churba (talk) 16:25, 11 May 2010 (UTC)