Jump to content

Talk:Hitz Radio/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

This article reads like a hatchet job on this radio station rather than an NPOV description of the station. Whether or not any of this stuff is true, I have my doubts as to whether it's encyclopedic. That's why I've marked it NPOV. Digital Spy Poster 19:37, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

If you can find any proof of disputes, please do provide them. Until then do not continuously add the template. It's a little unfair if people arguing the case have to provide evidence but those who doubt it do not. IfYouCanSoCanI 15:37, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Whoever "Digital Spy Poster" is, I suspect that he/she is linked to Hitz Radio UK or Ryan Dunlop. The same editor has been seen on the Sixhits Wiki page to install a 'speedy deletion' discussion. TROLL.

I can confirm that I'm not connected with Ryan Dunlop or Hitz Radio. Neither this nor the SixHits article satisfy WP:CORP and therefore should be removed. I'm about to file an AfD on this page. Digital Spy Poster 20:16, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Digital Spy Poster - please go forth and read the Notability text that you are citing as not being part of this page. It is notable due to the significant secondary sources that were involved. These secondary sources are UK and/or Scottish national media with a significant number of readers, listeners or viewers. They are also cited and firmly reliable.

RE: BLPC - NPOV is surely satisfied. References to specific names that are not part of the references in primary and secondary sources have been removed. Specific date of birth removed to protect privacy. Several words have been changed over edits, example "clearly not true" deleted, false to unlikely, did not have to uncertainty, a different name to slightly different, copied from to suspected to be similar to, suggestions over something rather than clearly blaming.

Besides the changes to words and sentences, many sentences have been totally deleted to protect privacy and delete rumour and unverifiable and uncited sources. The main person in question is named as it is in the various priamry, secondary and tertiary sources cited. Other names have been removed, so has the primary persons date of birth.

I contest that the latter edits, on the whole, satisfy NPOV, BPLC and NOR. All are referenced and cited. Some are from tertiary sources in regard to the primary subject's internet forum postings. However at least 2 of these are also corroborated by a statement on camera in the STV news report, which is a verifiable PRIMARY source.

Anybody that would still like to contest any information here, please go ahead and suggest changes that would make it, in your opinion, adhere to any policies. Remember that anything, either adding in evidence or contrary to it, should be cited and referenced by primary or secondary sources preferably, as already seen in the article.

sources

This is one of the most Pisspoor articles I've ever seen - chock full of weaselwords, guesswork and sources that are talkboard threads or original research. --Fredrick day 17:53, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. Whether or not the article is eventually deleted, it doesn't look like it's going to be speedied, so I've removed some of the worse material from the article. JulesH 11:05, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

trademarks

Please stop adding details of supposed trademark infringements unless you understand the relevant IP law. Most of the allegations of infringement added recently are clearly not actually trademark infringements if you know anything about the actual law. JulesH 19:25, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Changes

I'm going to edit this quite aggressively, perhaps even stub and rebuild. This is needed because large parts of the article is unsourced, original research or sourced from unreliable sources. For the record, the old version is here. --h2g2bob (talk) 21:59, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I've been considering that myself - I think we STUB it and then rebuild line by line with good sources. --Fredrick day 22:02, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Sources

Dumping ground for sources until they find a home in the article --h2g2bob (talk) 23:18, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Renamed

I've renamed this from Hitz Radio UK as the website calls itself "Hitz Radio" and it is listed at Companies House as Hitz Radio plc. --h2g2bob (talk) 05:16, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I suggest that a change back to Hitz Radio UK. That is it's on-air branding, publicity profiling and website address. It is not a PLC, but a private 'LTD' company, ie not open to the public to buy or sell shares. There is a USA based online station called just "Hitz Radio" that is a legal entity in that regard and is also called that by the website address. That station has also been operating longer than Hitz Radio (UK) Ltd, so should fairly and appropriately take that name on the English world-wide Wikipedia. 81.97.107.123 16:03, 16 June 2007

To the contrary this is an article on Hitz Radio as a media group of radio stations - it just so happens its main brand is called Hitz Radio UK! Remember it also owns other radio stations and under all business affairs etc it is called just Hitz Radio - note that this does not intefere with any american stations. As in regard I agree about Hitz Radio Ltd and not Hitz Radio Plc like has been placed.Sammy912uk 16:17, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Hitz Radio is the group while Hitz Radio UK is their main station.[1] However, you're right about ltd/plc - I got it right in the article, at least :-) --h2g2bob (talk) 16:38, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough, if you want to drop the UK from the title, then do so. I still think that it should be renamed from just "Hitz Radio". As the English version of Wikipedia, contains material pertinent to all English speaking countries and is read by people in both the USA and Britain, then it will avoid any confusion with the "Hitz Radio" based in the USA, which also happens to broadcast online to Britain and the rest of the world. If you want to argue that Hitz Radio in Scotland is really just "Hitz Radio" for business terms, then it should be renamed "Hitz Radio Ltd". That is the real business use and what it is registered as legally in Britain. That would avoid confusion with the USA version of "Hitz Radio", as "Ltd" is not a term used for business entities in the USA. 81.97.107.123 17.30, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Well Hitz Radio I believe you are talking about HitzRadio.com? If so all their branding is hitzradio.com and not hitz radio - just listened to Hitz Radio in the UK to see about its onair branding which is now "The UKs Hitz Radio", So it seems they are using Hitz Radio as their onair name more and more - and their actual site just states Hitz Radio. Finally, the press have called it just 'Hitz Radio' and thus its in public interest.Sammy912uk 06:39, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Why so positive?

It's positive because Wikipedia only allows reliable sources, which doesn't include blogs or forums. While the blogs may be true, anyone can write a blog, so it doesn't prove anything. I included a bit about the blogsphere to prevent this being a complete whitewash - strictly speaking that's original research, which probably shouldn't be included.

The answer is to find reliable sources which cast aspersions on Hitz Radio. If, say, the manager of a very well known internet radio station were to make a comment, that could be included as the person making it would be reliable.

Alternatively, send your research into newspapers. For example, Wired may be interested in this sort of technology news.

While a lot of your research is strong, we just can't accept it, however good it is.

Wikipedia's full rules are here. --h2g2bob (talk) 16:29, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

In regard to linking to blogs and forums - is that legit as you mentioned it strictly it shoudlnt be included. Also inr egard to getting a director of another well known internet radio station to comment - wouldn't that be a competitor speaking and thus biast.

I agree with if they believe they have well-researched and proof then thehy should contact a press organisation (national level as this was published by national oranisations) and only then can anything be used against Hitz Radio. Sammy912uk 16:40, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

True, if we add statements from competitors it will need to be done carefully, but 99.9% of what's here already is "Hitz says..." so it will probably balance.
As for the blogsphere stuff - I think the very limited form I put in adds to the article. (My form is "These claims are disputed by some in the blogsphere." + 2 refs). But if someone really pushed for removal, there's not a lot I could do. --h2g2bob (talk) 17:43, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
Clearly though, the claims are made by hundreds of forum members (although they have been removed if someone could explain... Never mind i just read the above :-) ). They surely are notable claims if so many websites have published them. you can surely understand some peoples' frustration though. A fraud station (OK, potentially, but obviously) getting yet another good writeup, egging on the young owner to commit even more fraud, pretending to have all these listeners and selling advertising to people deceived by Wikipedia and other sources. 172.188.63.120 19:24, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
Unfortunately not. Blogs and especially forums are simply not reliable enough regardless of how many of them there are. Allegations of fraud are better handled by the police than by Wikipedia. --h2g2bob (talk) 01:11, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
Yeah I understand that, I do a bit of editing myself, but I'd rather not login, people have been getting threats over this. I'll post back on this discussion page if there's any non-blog writeups, it's inevitable there will be one. Is there nothing else that can be done to show readers that there's come concern over the truth of his claims to the media? 172.188.63.120 01:38, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Forums and blogs aren't reliable - apparently President George Bush is on them? thats just ridiculous! Secondly If you can find a site with the same or higher branding as The London Times, BBC or similar to go against this story then goodluck as the majority of your statements are claims going the opposite direction - he says, you say, he says, you say - kind of thing. You have your 2 links to blogs on the wikipedia article at least so be happy. As before it was editted it was just ridiculous accusations on all accounts. On another note, I don't actually see Hitz Radio benefiting or losing anything from the press attention, esspecially as near to none of it mentioned the site and Hitz Radio (if you ask for advertising) don't mention it at all, even in their media pack! And in relation to your final sentence why not get the media? That would sound like the smart thing but it seems (by looking at forums) you`ve already tried that route, shame, really.Sammy912uk 06:37, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Clearly Ryan, a mate, or someone with far too much time. 172.188.63.120 13:22, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

My names Sam, I have NOTHING to do with Ryan or Hitz Radio - much to my regret, but over a decade ago this same sort of thing happened, now its one of the world's biggest brands. You are the ones that have blogs/forums talking about a teenager so far too much time? Yes I do have quite alot of free time, but I dont spend that time bitching.It is yourselves that blog into the night... Sammy912uk 13:50, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

What happened a decade ago? Also I have no blog, I simply know that several newspapers have been stupid and taken for a ride. And Hitz Radio UK will get nothing out of it, even though the "Director" thinks he's a multi-millionaire, yet still lives in an ex-council house and runs his radio from a shed. You have to laugh really. 172.206.18.100 14:48, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Sam, you have a Hitz Radio "media pack"? What on earth for? What's in it? Are you going to advertise to all those listeners? I can't honestly think why you would have got a "media pack" otherwise. Have you not thought that these "media packs" could also be bulk printed/produced and therefore predate any of the publicity? Future prints could very well include some of the media reports. You know the sort - along the lines of, "Craig from London says that his whites have never been whiter since looking through our media pack!" Any "media pack" for an FM or MW commercial radio station in the UK will include listener figures and % share of demographic groups and ages. This is an important part of the literature for potential advertisers. Does the Hitz Radio "media pack" contain the same information? OK being online they can't assess ages and demographics, but they can give information to listener counts and listening hours. If so what is it without reverting to any of the media articles, if you dare say that is! 81.97.107.123 20:00 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Well actually, The media Pack i got was revised as of: May 20th 2007 and does state the station has had press exposure but doesnt go in detail. I asked for it to research into the stations background. Ryan amulti-millionaire? I`d watch this space, I`ve spoken to a few people and lets say he isnt too far from it and don't believe everything you read against or for Ryan - nothing is what It Seems - I`ve done research the propper way through the OFFICIAL sources and official companies - We shall wait and see.Sammy912uk 17:59, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Ryan, Sorry Sam... you Really need to lose that apostrophe habit of ` instead of '. Perhaps it's something they teach you inside the Hitz Radio fan club, as all the fans (and staff) seem to have the same habit here, on forums, and on the "official" website. You're very cockey and you will not be a "Multi-millionaire", Dream on. Rysin3 18:23, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

No sorry Sam that just won't suffice! I asked several questions as to what is in the "media pack" you have in your possession. I will be specific here, and hope since you say you have no connection to Ryan or Hitz Radio, you can answer them honestly and candidly! 1. Most importantly does the "media pack" state listening/audience figures and/or listening hours. 2. If it [media pack] does, then how are the figures broken down or quoted. ie weekly, monthly, quarterly, yearly etc. 3. These things should be contained in the "media pack" - as you have already admitted it is sent to people who ask for advertising. 4. The media pack should also give some information as to the cost of advertising spots or longer duration advertising packages. 5. It could also give information detailing cost of sponsorship for say programmes, weather, traffic news, or other on-air content.

I will qualify this line of questioning for other readers of this discussion section, especially editors like Fredrick Day and H2bob etc. You see it is important that these facts are ascertained and real honest figures are put on them and independently verified (not just the media articles where there is now a growing consensus against them). Advertisers are simply charged more when more listeners are listening to a radio station (or read a paper/magazine or watch a tv channel). That's how it works. Advertisers are given this information in "media packs" by all (AFAIK) the national and local FM/MW broadcasters in the UK, and probably the rest of the developed world. Advertisers and sponsors need to know the costs and assess that against the numbers reached in a cost ratio. In FM/MW UK radio Rajar send out diaries for listeners to complete their listening habbits. So in that case they also know ages and household demographics. This information is also available from FM/MW UK radio stations to advertisers. The same thing applies to TV in the UK and is measured by BARB. Internet only radio stations do not have the capacity to measure listener ages or their demographic profile, but online radio stations can view and log listener numbers. Still if Sam says he is in possession of a "media pack" gained from enquiring about advertising, and that he is in no way connected to Ryan or Hitz Radio. So Sam the ball is in your court. Please answer my perfectly reasonable questions with good grace and dignity! 81.97.107.123 20:32 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Oops, I've just noticed that the Companies House incorporation documents (£3 from Companies House) state that Ryan's dob is March 1990. His own website and other statements from Ryan and Hitz Radio say it is March 1991. Perhaps there was a slip of the wrist or keyboard?

The Age of Legal Capacity Act (1991), in Scotland, alters the common law and makes it civil law to prohibit anyone under the age of 16 being able to act as a company director. If Ryan really was born in March 1991, then he would have been 15 at the time of incorporation.

PS - I'm still waiting for Sam's response as to what's in the "media pack". 81.97.107.123 21:53 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Well it looks like some people are getting their acts together. I've seen the document link for myself [[2]] and it does say 1990 on it and £1000, not any of the £20000 quoted in the press. It's all very confusing now. Ryan is either lying about his age on his website, to the media and on wikipedia, or he lied on that document to make himself 16 to become a director. I know these are serious accusations, but that is what it all looks like to me. I think it must be time for Ryan, Sam or whoever he is know as today, tomorrow or next week - to own up about everything and put his dirty clothes in the wash. I mean I've been following this in the forums for 3-4 months and this age problem has only just been finally sorted out. Who knows what other information may come out in the weeks or months to follow?

May I say that I know a bit about business and not everything is as it seems here. The disparity of the age if disconcerting to say the least. This could end up in action being taken if either the Department of Trade and Industry or Office of Fair Trading get wind of this. The people involved with this, everyone legally associated with the business of Hitz Radio Limited, could end up being dragged before the courts. Everyone could end up with a very large fine and several years disqualification from acting as a company director, although imprisonment is at the discretion of the judge and on the strength of the DTI or OFT case. Most of the evidence in the archived article was strong but was rightly stubbed according Wikipedia rules. Like I say though, now that the age is proved to be questionable, the people behind this company should dissect the media reports and 'dumping ground for sources' on this page and make a full statement to clear these things up. It will be for everyones benefit if this is done. I should know as a friend who had his own business too had to go this this procedure. These people in their black suits of official office are not nice, they are efficient, effective and don't care about reputations, wealth, status and how hard or long a person has previously put into an enterprise. eleventhcommandment 23:15 June 21 2007 (UTC)

I'm not certain that "everyone... could end up being dragged before the courts." It's a possibility and many cases do, but not all. I agree with most of the rest of the former comment. This age thing should be cleared up by Ryan, as I've already pointed out, it was an illegal act on the face of it. He should also go through all of the newspaper articles piece by piece and put the record straight. He should also do that where he has appeared on TV & radio and been quoted to say various things that tend to agree with the newspaper articles. It's getting just a bit too heated now, so I'd advise that course of action would be sensible.

To expand on my previous comment about the advertising thing and the "media pack". If Ryan has been telling the truth about everything, then fair enough, good luck to him. But he has been claiming all these listeners, with the associated costs of distrubution and licensing, within a few months of having the Companies House document show there was £1000 invested in the company. Of course there could have been some more investment in between, but there is no record of that at Companies House. To falsly claim these things would also open up other areas of legislation, besides the age thing. If that turns out to be true, then it could have a negative impact on advertisers' perception of (internet) radio in general, as "Mickey Mouse" firms.

PS - I'm still waiting for Sam's response as to what's in the media pack!! In fact anyone will do that has one, or anyone that uses ` for an apostrophe. 81.97.107.123 14:33 June 22 2007 (UTC)

Date of Birth

Please do not add information on Dunlop's date of birth (beyond the version he publicly gives). It's original research and not relevant to the page. --h2g2bob (talk) 13:04, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

To explain, the section began:
During the investigation by some radio industry professionals,(radiotoday) conflicts over his date-of-birth surfaced when looking at some company director search engines.(director search engines) ...
Radiotoday does not mention his date of birth at all, and the remainder is at a minimum original synthesis. --h2g2bob (talk) 13:37, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I think what that meant was on the forums, there was a lot of discussion on them about his age but we already had to remove them. 172.143.102.124 15:55, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

No he doesn't mean that. He is talking about my edits earlier today. New primary verifiable information has come to light via the public records at Companies House. This shows that Ryan was the only director with £1000 of shares and his date of birth is given on that document as 12-03-1990. Therefore h2g2bob has reinstated the original director search engine databases which are linking into the information given in that Companies House document. Although it seems it is taking some time for the Wiki to update this info on the current page. I will also endevour to get the actual document linked into the same areas, minus sensitive info like address and the Secretary's name - to adhere to BLPC privacy. 81.97.107.123 16:09 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, to be clear, I took out the speculation on why the data was wrong, but put back the DoB according to the directory listings to be beside his version of his DoB. I wanted to err on the side of caution in this matter because this is relates directly to a living person, and is a fairly serious allegation. --h2g2bob (talk) 16:40, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

User JulesH, this is a warning to keep the Companies House CoI document. I have explained deliberately in the "Note" section that it has been altered. It is NOT A SCANNED document by myself, but by Companies House and is available directly from them. I have explained it has been altered to take out some BLPC privacy information, but the original is available to verify from other sources. Therefore it is 100% verifiable, not only from Companies House, but also other registries of Companies House documents. This passes Wiki rules on verifiability as a primary source as an 'historical document' directly related to the subject and available as a public record. It is verifiable, although it does cost money to obtain it, but that is no different to someone buying a book or magazine to verify a source. The information on that document is also shown on the director databases which act a secondary sources as they seem to be holding information from that CH document. There is no synthesis. All that was said is that his age was variously given as..... which was written by h2g2bob. That is backed up by the document and the registries. If you do not believe the document to be true, then I challege you to spend £2.5 or £3 and get the original for yourself. When you have done that, you can come back and comment here to let me say I told you so. Until then it stays, next time will be your final warning!

Sorry, but WP:NOR requires us (except on "rare occasions", for which I don't believe this qualifies) to refer to secondary sources. The certificate of registration is a primary source, and as such is disallowed. Frankly, I'm not even sure why the director's date of birth is an issue, as it has no relevance on the subject of the radio station. JulesH 08:06, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Also, the listings provided by business reference companies that are merely information copied directly from Companies House's database are not reliable or secondary sources. They are not subject to fact checking or editing by their republishers, but quoted verbatim from CH documentation.
Thirdly, please do not reintroduce the errors I removed from the article. JulesH 08:10, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Archive 1
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hitz_Radio/Archive_1&oldid=153595744"