Talk:No Agenda

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Podcasting, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of notable podcasts and podcast-related information on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PodcastingWikipedia:WikiProject PodcastingTemplate:WikiProject Podcastingpodcasting articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

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

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. -- Me ^Holla! 23:16, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cleaning the article out a little

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)[reply]