From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Canada / Ontario / Toronto (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada 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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Ontario.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Toronto (marked as Low-importance).
WikiProject Radio Stations (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Radio Stations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of radio stations 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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

So-called "Bob Dobbs" information is inaccurate and not NPOV[edit]

First, the links to Bob Marshall and Robert Dean are incorrect; neither of them have anything to do with this person at CKLN.

And also, if you want a "RELIABLE" source, then an interview with Bob Dean is hardly "reliable." As has already been said both here and here, this is a man who claims to be over 80 years old, to have met Hitler, to have introduced Prince Charles to Lady Diana, and who "inspired" the Church of the SubGenius -- all of which are flat-out lies. Based on this, claims by Dean as to his origins are also unreliable. --Modemac 20:19, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Where's your proof that they are lies, Modemac? I'm still investigating Dean/Dobb's claims (it's still unclear what his actual name is (let alone anything else he says), considering I've emailed several people who claim to know him and refer to him as "Dobbs", not "Dean" (as I have posted to alt.slack). Taking Stang's word for it (and anyone associated with him, such as you) is just as hypocritical. ∞ΣɛÞ² (τ|c) 05:28, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
He refers to himself by the name "Bob Dobbs" because that name gained some fame from it's use by the Church of the SubGenius, who invented it and the concept behind it. This way he can get some attention. He knows if he didn't use the name, he would not be capable of getting any attention on his own. This has been explained to you laboriously and clearly already. If you want to "investigate" it, just find one instance where Bob Dean used the name Bob Dobbs before the Church of the Subgenius. Simple. --Reverend Zapanaz 18:25, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
His diary (Android Meme's Xenochrony) was allegedly written long before the SubGenius and he refers to himself as "Bob Dobbs" in it all the way back to the beginning... ∞ΣɛÞ² (τ|c) 22:28, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
you have seen pictures of him, at least. If you believe he was old enough to have spoken to James Joyce in 1935, you are an idiot. --Reverend Zapanaz 06:38, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
This exact conversation took place on alt.slack a month ago, and this exact subject was argued over there. Your pretending that it didn't is just trolling. The burden of proof is on Dean to provide evidence that he "inspired" Ivan Stang and Philo Drummond (he didn't), that he was an "intelligence agent" in the 1950s (he wasn't), that he was born in Paris in 1922 (he wasn't), that his ridiculous claims of meeting famous figures (again, such as Hitler and Prince Charles) actually happened (they didn't), and that he is anything at all other than a silly kook who invents Munchausen-like stories about himself in an attempt to sound important and get attention by stealing the hard work of others. He has yet to provide evidence of his lies, and he can't because they're just hot air. This makes any "evidence" such as those blog interviews or Paranoia magazine articles or podcast interviews unreliable, and thus they do not hold up to Wikipedia's standard of verifiability. --Modemac 11:27, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Granted, Bob has made a lot of outrageous claims without proof, but that isn't the issue here; whether or not he appeared on CKLN-FM is--and, apparently, you agree he has. So, please, leave your based non-neutral edits out of Wikipedia. ∞ΣɛÞ² (τ|c) 22:28, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
His name isn't Bob Dobbs. He refers to himself by the name "Bob Dobbs" because that name gained some fame from it's use by the Church of the SubGenius, who invented it and the concept behind it. This way he can get some attention. He knows if he didn't use the name, he would not be capable of getting any attention on his own. Adding a reference to him in Wikipedia under the name Bob Dobbs is inaccurate. --Reverend Zapanaz 06:42, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Again, his article name on Wikipedia is not the issue here. And lay off the personal attacks--you've been warned on your talk page. ∞ΣɛÞ² (τ|c) 09:03, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Your original contribution was under the name "Bob Dobbs", which is why I brought it up. --Reverend Zapanaz 04:09, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Removed links to irrelevent information about a fraudulent person who's very *name* is even unverfiable AnkaraX 02:59, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Ezra Levant section on CKLN wikipedia page[edit]

Some consideration should be given to reducing the amount of space provided to the Ezra Levant commentary in the CKLN page. If persons are interested in reading his comments, the footnote will successfully lead persons to the Sun News site which contains all of the quoted material. Perhaps paraphrasing or providing the drift to his comments would be more appropriate. The amount of weight of his statements, relative to the total history of CKLN, or even the revocation of CKLN's license itself, appears disproportionate, and tends to create a certain bias to the article.Prawnsyscheme (talk) 14:55, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Adding Arnold Minors info[edit]

I added some cited material that Arnold Minors claimed for well over a year to be the "Chair of the CKLN board". He was even quoted in a Bermudan newspaper, while he was the press secretary to the Bermudan PM, something to the effect that his media experience was having run "Ryerson's radio station". For some reason, an editor saw fit to remove this, for reasons I am unclear. I think it is significant to mention it, because reference to him also shows up repeatedly in the CRTC hearing transcripts for CKLN. I should note that the "multiple board" references seem anecdotal at best and no names are attached to the claims. Minors was definitely the most prominent and longest serving "rival" board spokesperson, and he is a notable person not only for being Bermudan press secretary but for the controversies that followed him when he was on the Toronto Police Services Board.

Any suggestions about this would be appreciated.

Prawnsyscheme (talk) 06:34, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Using primary sources such as court (or in this case CRTC hearing) transcripts and documents isn't allowed on Wikipedia as its considered "original research" and anything that relies only on primary information shouldn't be in the article. What you need is a published article (or less likely, a book) from a newspaper or magazine that mentions the information you wish to include. (talk) 07:46, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I see a reference to Minors in the archived eyeopener articles, specifically "Deadlock and dead air on Ryerson's radio" 2008-09-09, that you can use. See (talk) 07:51, 10 August 2011 (UTC)


Copied from User talk:RiseupRiseup and User talk:

Please see Wikipedia:No original research. You're not permitted to add personal observations or original research to Wikipedia articles. (talk) 03:28, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Be more specific please. RiseupRiseup (talk) 03:37, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Read Wikipedia:No original research. You're supposed to use secondary sources only, such as a news article or book that refers to a fact, not your personal observations that this or that show has gone off the air or that a website has changed etc. (talk) 03:39, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

It was not my personal observation at all. I referenced all the changes with citations. Basically, I was showing that CKLN was either not updating their site properly, or did not wish to admit that shows were leaving the station upon the move to Regent Park and rushed to change the information on their site only when it was exposed that they were claiming shows were still on their station when they were not. I notice you are making sure that the "Mooving in the Right Direction" show shifting its production and broadcast presence to CIUT, although cited properly in my posts, is always removed. My citations showed that the show was on CKLN's program grid and did move to CIUT. Why is this not allowed to be mentioned on your say-so? RiseupRiseup (talk) 03:50, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

See CHEV, another former over the air station which is not internet only but infobox remains. (talk) 03:56, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

I reject your insistence of the logo of a defunct radion station as the header for an article about an internet station that does not operate at 88.1 FM anymore. Its visual nature implies that CKLN still exists at 88.1 FM when it does not. CKLN 88.1 FM is defunct and should have kept its own page as CKLN-FM and a new or associated page with should have been started up. The way in which it is done now ruins the history of the station, takes away important information about it and is a disservice to the memory of CKLN-FM. I think this is important enough of an issue to bring up with experienced editors and look to precedence with other such defunct operations who have a presence on Wikipedia, some of whom operate now as internet stations. There appears to me to be a concerted effort by some editors, or editor, on this page to bias the article to obscure the truth in favour the new managers of and disparage some of those in the past. I would like to work with you to make the article more balanced since you seem to take a real interest in it, as do I. I see no reason why we cannot collaborate to make a better article. We should be looking to other articles of a similar nature to follow what others have done in similar circumstances, not act in a partisan manner, in my opinion. The article is very one-sided as it currently stands. I'd be willing to discuss this with you if you are amenable. If you are not, then please inform me and we will continue on as we have been. RiseupRiseup (talk) 04:06, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

You have to follow the rules. You can't add "original research" or your own personal observations, you also can't just remove information based on a whim. The article is clearly about both the defunct FM radio station and the internet radio station, which are in fact the same corporation, so you need to separate your personal opinion from your editing. While you might want to remove information about the former FM station because of your personal views the fact is it is the same corporate entity so such an act isn't justifiable. (talk) 04:12, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

See CHSC, a former over the air station which did not have its CRTC licence renewed that is now internet only but listed as "defunct". It uses its original 1220 AM logo, but the article always discusses the history of the station in the past tense except for its current online status. It has the advantage of providing technical data about the past operation for those historians who may be interested. I put forward that this is the model that I would recommend to editors should be followed. I hope you can agree to this also and since we both have a deep interest in CKLN that we can make the necessary changes in a non-combative and collaborative manner. We should be preserving history, not obscuring it, I maintain. Please respond with your thoughts in your usual prompt, expeditious manner which is appreciated. RiseupRiseup (talk) 04:18, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

I do not wish to make accusations, but I am not changing things "on a whim". As you can see I have researched other examples and am trying to engage in a reasonable manner with you, as we seem to have different views about this presentation. I used as a template the way in which "Pandora"'s Wikipedia was displayed. If it's good enough for them, I think it's certainly good enough for a radio station such as There's no example I'm injecting my "personal view". You are offering no proof of that but to say it. Let's be less confrontational and more collaborative, please. RiseupRiseup (talk) 04:22, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

The same can be said of the infobox for CHEV, if the radio infobox that CHEV and other internet radio station articles use is good enough for them... As for your other point, again, we're still talking about the same corporation, therefore a unified article is warranted. Legally, it's the same company and the same entity even if the medium used changes. (talk) 05:09, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

You are avoiding the information missing about CKLN's past that the new article obliterates in favour of promoting the current incarnation, which has to be seen as being less important than the previous incarnation. The CHSC example seems to work. Legally CHSC is still the same company, so that tallies with CKLN. The way the article is proceeding is destructive to the history of CKLN-FM. Why can't there be two articles, for instance? Should we bring in a more experienced editor to deal with this, seeing as you appear to be offering very little in the way of compromise? Seeing as you seem to know so much about the rules, what happens when an impasse is reached such as we seem to be? Is there some way of mediating such a dispute when all else has failed. I would appreciate your experience in this matter. RiseupRiseup (talk) 05:35, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

What historical information has been removed? If you compare the article now to what it was a few months ago you'll see historical information has actually been added, not obliterated. (talk) 15:17, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

  • RFC: I saw a request for comments on the Canadian Wikipedian's Notice Board about weather or not this should be part of the article CKLN. From what I read, there's no reason this article can't merge into CKLN's article (or vice versa). They're essentially the same station, just gone from over the air to internet only. Even the over the air CKLN broadcast over the internet. Me-123567-Me (talk) 15:33, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Actually, RiseupRisup, your CHSC (AM) example supports my argument since one article covers both the defunct AM signal and the current internet entity. (talk) 15:37, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Another example is JamRadio, another former over the air radio station which is now online only but has only one article to cover both stages. (talk) 16:38, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

For the record, we don't normally spin off new articles about radio stations just because they've changed what platform they broadcast on; for example, when an AM station moves to FM, we move the whole article to the new call sign and keep its entire history in the single article. There's no real reason why a station moving off terrestrial radio and onto the Internet should be treated any differently. For one thing, if it weren't for the old FM station's history, the new Internet station most likely wouldn't meet our notability guidelines in the first place, because there are no reliable sources discussing it as an entity in its own right; so far, all the media coverage it's generated is within the context of coverage of the FM station getting shut down.

Which is why the standard practice of WikiProject Radio Stations has always been that if a radio station changes an aspect of its identity but is still a straight continuation of the old incarnation rather than an entirely new entity, then we keep one article, not two. For example, if CKLN had simply shut down and then the Regent Park youth group had bought their old equipment to launch its own new Internet service called "Youth Focus" or something, then we'd most likely do two articles because those would be two different entities — but because there's an organizational continuation, the FM and Internet incarnations are one entity that's changed an aspect of itself, not two separate entities.

That said, I will however note that I have taken the categories which don't apply to the Internet incarnation off the article, and placed them on the redirect from the old FM call sign. Bearcat (talk) 19:27, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Additionally, it's worth noting that Pandora is not a single "Internet radio station", but a large company which produces dozens of individual "radio station" streams. Which means it's not comparable to CKLN, which is a single "station". Thus the infobox that applies to Pandora isn't applicable here, because they're not the same class of thing. Bearcat (talk) 01:21, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I see no reason to give preferential treatment to CKLN. The correct listing on the radio stations table for a station that has lost it's license is to list it as "defunct", as has been the case with every other station that has done so. Whether or not they are continuing as an "internet station" or some kind of podcaster is irrelevant to this discussion, although it can of course be referenced within the page itself. The table however is a list of radio stations that are; a) licensed by the CRTC b) broadcasting over the air. Neither is true of CKLN. This is beyond dispute. Saying that they are "still a corporation" is irrelevant again as is any debate on whether or not they are "broadcasting" a full schedule or not. If the table is going to be used to list internet and podcasters it will have to include all of them, not just CKLN, and that would clearly be unsustainable. I note that the listings for CKRG (which also lost it's license in 2011), CHSC (in 2010) and CFBN and CJWV-FM (in 2008) are all listed as "defunct" regardless of whether or not they are "broadcasting" on the internet. The standards should be uniform, period. There is no reason to make an exception for CKLN. Banjo Sam (talk)

Check out the listing on the Radio stations in the Greater Toronto Area table for VEK565 90.71 and CHEV - they aren't listed as defunct but are listed with a notation that reads "internet only". If a station is still operating but internet only, referring to it as "defunct" is misleading. The only stations listed as defunct on the table are ones that aren't broadcasting on air or on the internet. (talk) 02:36, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

The CHEV page is misleading since it hasn't been updated since 2010 and now should be. At that time CHEV still had an application in for another signal. So the argument could have been made that they should be given more time. Since then however they did not get their license renewal and should be listed as defunct as well. Also the website listed for CHEV does not work. Which points out the problem of listing these fly-by-night internet "stations" and podcasters in with actual licensed stations. This listing of "defunct" applies to their official standing with the CRTC and should be beyond dispute and much easier to keep track of than having to constantly check to see if these internet "stations" are actually "broadcasting" or not. I repeat internet "stations" and podcasters are not radio stations and to class them as such is misleading. Either they are licensed and on air or they are not. There must be consistency here and I'm not seeing it. Banjo Sam (talk)

Ironically the listing for the above mentioned CHSC actually does list as "defunct" even though they also claim to be "broadcasting" over the internet. Once again there seems to be no consistency being adhered to in the Toronto listings. This is why there should be a concrete standard that if a station has lost it's license and is off the air it should be unequivocally listed as such. I do not believe a separate page needs to be set up necessarily (unless there is a name change as well) but the listing should be clear and consistent. That is simply not the case here. I find the excuses being given for giving CKLN a pass unconvincing. Banjo Sam (talk)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 12 external links on CKLN-FM. 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:

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

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:34, 7 November 2017 (UTC)