Talk:Family Radio

Radio station rumors

Since Wikipedia is an encyclopedia which should rely on sourced information, uncited rumors about radio stations leaving family radio is most likely Original research. --LBMixPro^{<Speak|on|it!>} 06:27, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, Family Radio was founded by Richard Palmquist and several investors in 1958. Bill Mansdoerfer was the first station manager. Harold Camping came on the scene, I believe, in 1959 as a member of the board of directors. He took control of the station (KEAR-FM in San Francisco) and the fledgling network shortly thereafter. Gpettingell 00:50, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

This Page Needs Serious Work

Of all the pages I have seen on wikipedia this is by far one of the worst. I appreciate that Family Radio has controversy surrounding and that it may be impossible to create an unbiased page regarding it, but this is ridiculous. The narrative of the article switches back and forth between first and third person; and then the author will debate doctrine and point out how certain biblical scripture opposes Harold Camping's on-air statements. This sort of thing should not be included in the article. The article should simply provide what Family Radio is and what they do and say. It is important to include a "controversy" section of the article. It is in this section that controversial topics should be addressed and the opinions of Family Radio's critics should either be mentioned or at least linked to. I will begin to clean up this article to make it more unbiased.

sabbetius 04:06, 10 May 2007 (UTC)Justin Sabbetius

I think it would improve the balance if the section "Beliefs of Family Radio" included a comment to see the controversy section on the "Harold Camping" page. I realize that the page is already referenced under "See Also", but there is currently no direct mention of controversy on the Family Radio page. XKNATSA (talk) 08:18, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

merge proposal

It has been proposed that all station specific articles for Family Radio stations be merged into Family Radio. Stations which provide no local programming or other content and carry nothing but network provided programming lack sufficient notability to warrant an article. However, any station that does provide sufficient local programming or has a history (such as ownership changes) which warrants coverage, should not be merged. See WP:WPRS for more information. Any opinions, additional information on these stations or suggestions would be appreciated.--Rtphokie (talk) 16:21, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree, but I also suggest this proposal for other network controlled stations such as the Movin' brand as well as Radio Disney, for the same reasons provided. But if we were to do that, we will then need a list of stations which simulcast Family Radio programming. --w^{L<speak·check>} 00:17, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest not to merge stations which have a unique history unrelated to their status as a network outlet, or have a history unique to their location. For example, KEAR San Francisco has a very unique history in San Francisco, having moved around the FM dial for a while and now broadcasting on the frequency of legendary AM station KFRC. Or KFRN Los Angeles, which has the unique status of being, as KFOX, the first country music station in the Los Angeles area. And nearly all of the "Movin'" and Radio Disney outlets have significant and substantial histories before they acquired their current formats and network affiliations. Also, "Movin'" is a brand, not a network—the stations are all programmed locally, have their own local DJ's, etc. DHowell (talk) 00:52, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Strongly disagree. Whenever you have done this in the past, the station detail is lost. As stated in WP:WPRS "The scope of this project is predominantly articles about individual radio stations" not networks. If I want technical detail about KDFR, for example, I don't want a redirect to Family Radio. Each station has unique characteristics: location, coverage, power or ERP, HAAT, history, etc that disappear on a merge or redirect. Moline670 (talk) 17:18, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

History

History section removed: contained mostly unsubstantiated information and personal biographical information not relevant to Family Radio as an organization. Lacking unbiased, factual/encyclopedic Family Radio historical information, this section should not be included.

History section removed: contained mostly unsubstantiated information and personal biographical information not relevant to Family Radio as an organization. Lacking unbiased, factual/encyclopedic Family Radio historical information, this section should not be included. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.199.98.17 (talk) 23:23, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Deleted again for the same reasons stated previously. Personal biographical information is not encyclodedic and unsubstantiated; more akin to editorial.. Other information is unsubstantiated, without reference, and not supported by evidence of third party, neutral sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.193.216.163 (talk) 18:39, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Deleted again in accordance with Wiki defintion of verifiability:"The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—meaning, in this context, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or the material may be removed.

Wikipedia:Verifiability is one of Wikipedia's core content policies. The others are Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Jointly, these policies determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in Wikipedia articles. They should not be interpreted in isolation from one another, and editors should familiarize themselves with all three." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.193.216.163 (talk) 18:44, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Verifiable vs True

According to Wiki: "Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. The most common types of vandalism include the addition of obscenities or crude humor, page blanking, or the insertion of nonsense into articles.

Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism. Even harmful edits that are not explicitly made in bad faith are not considered vandalism. For example, adding a personal opinion to an article once is not vandalism — it's just not helpful, and should be removed or restated. Not all vandalism is obvious, nor are all massive or controversial changes vandalism. Careful attention needs to be given to whether changes made are beneficial, detrimental but well intended, or outright vandalism."

As by defintion above, removal of the history section of this site does not qualify as "vandalism." The contents of this section could very well be fictional in the absence of references substantiating the claims. As a fact, information (easily gathered regarding Harold Camping personal biographical history), conflicts with the claim he is a proponent of the Modern ("New")version of the King James Bible. Evidence gathered from Family Radio ( a proof link removed by others) contradicts the claim presented in this section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.193.216.163 (talk) 19:00, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the information regarding the signature. I had not noticed the alert. Interesting, the time/dates stamps appeared without the "76.193.216.163 (talk) 19:18, 20 May 2008 (UTC)". Regardless, the reasons for the removal of the the history section were explained clearly and concisely. The History section content is suspect and questionable without support reference and the inclusion of false data. 76.193.216.163 (talk) 19:18, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Registered users

Please check the recent edits made by the 76.xxx.xxx.xxx users (I believe they are the same person being given a different IP address each session). Mainly to check the neutrality of the article isn't being compromised by someone close to the station. Rapido (talk) 09:04, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality (as Wiki defines)is the objective, therefore antagonist and opinion edit contributions should also be checked carefully as well. I am "one" of the editors of the History section and likely different IPs have been assigned for each edit session. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.247.115.33 (talk) 00:57, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

If other Wikipedians can check all the numerous edits for the unregistered user 76.xxx.xxx.xxx "with a fine toothcomb", it would be most appreciated. Rapido (talk) 22:31, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Not sure you know how the internet works there buddy. 110.175.53.215 (talk) 12:22, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Full-powered stations

While this article has a list of low-powered translarors, it lacks a list of full-powered stations -- can someone provide? -- azumanga (talk) 16:44, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

In addition, the translators should be grouped by their respective originating stations. The translators are part of a hierarchy; the network sends programming to the stations, which in turn send their signals to the translators. As such the translators should be connected in the text to the stations from which they receive their signals. Normally, I think, this is typically done from the WP page on each individual station, not the network's page. (I might add that every single USA radio station should have its own page, instead of a redirect to the network, since under USA broadcasting rules each station serves a local purpose and is not just a piece of some far-off network broadcaster's puzzle.) Michael Patrick (talk) 17:31, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Family Radio Teaches Heresy

I don't know why my change to "heretical" got reverted. Virtually every mainstream Christian will agree that Family Radio teaches heresy and thus is heretical.General Mung Beans 2 (talk) 01:45, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Editorial comments removed

With due respect to user Sednalm, I have removed a large amount of new material from "Teachings and Comments". Please consider my reasons before restoring it or making further edits: This is an article on Family Radio. The article is not a place for discussion, critique and rebuttal. (Neither is the talk page, but that's another story). There are differences of opinion on the correct interpretation of Scriptures. Thus any particular interpretation cannot be included within the NPOV policy of Wikipedia unless the holder of the opinion is apropos to the subject of the article. If any arguments or rebuttals to the teachings of Family Radio become culturally significant to the degree that they warrant mention in a Wikipedia article, I would suggest that they be summarized in a new section, and include references to which public figures are making those arguments. Otherwise there are numerous internet forums and blogs devoted specifically to the teachings of Family Radio which are a more appopriate venue for comment. Phildonnia (talk) 22:52, 21 January 2011 (UTC) P.S.: I believe this article will see more traffic as the visibility of FR increases in the time leading up to the predicted Judgement Day. I do hope the article can be cleaned up soon.

Family Radio will shut down?

The claim that Family Radio will shut down on May 21, 2011 is unsourced, and, as near as I can tell, unfounded. I'm removing it; please feel free to source it and re-insert it if in fact it is true. It would seem to me that, an organization that had failed to predict the End several times before, would have a contingency plan in place for when we all wake up on May 22 and are still here. Either way, the statement appears to be totally unsourced; in fact, I came across a very interesting source that seems to say otherwise. http://eaec.org/bibleanswers/Harold-Camping-Contingency-Plan.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jsharpminor (talk • contribs) 06:49, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi! Not-understandable...

Can somebody please elaborate on what the following passage means?:

"Camping now teaches that The Cross was just a demonstration of what had already happened before the foundation of the world".

That's pretty much the way Mr Camping puts it. What he means is this: Historically, Christians have understood the event of Christ's crucifixion ('the Cross') as being the event in which God accomplished various things such as paying the price for sins. The understanding being promoted by Mr Camping is that God had actually accomplished all of these things already, prior to the creation of the world, and that the 'the Cross' merely demonstrated and affirmed to believers that these things were accomplished. For various reasons, this understanding requires a fundamentally different interpretation of scripture in many places, and I suspect that many Christians would regard it as heretical. The present supporters of May 21 will soon learn that they were wrong, but that won't automatically mean they will reject the 'demonstration' teaching and revert to the understanding that most Christians have - therefore, it could be hard for Camping follows to re-integrate into churches in future, so I suspect there could eventually remain an identifiable group, similar to the 7th Day Adventists following the Great Disappointment, who no longer believe in the original prediction but have retained their own distinctive understandings of scripture. --Poglad (talk) 11:30, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Beyond that point, putting a date on the flood of Noah was something started by the evolutionists. Technically, I don't think God intended a date to be associated with the flood, rather, the flood is a metaphor for teaching another lesson about man and God's powers and love for man. Putting a date on the flood sorely detracts from the relevance of this act by God. Dates seem to "dehumanize" the importance of the flood, and just reduces it to an even, rather than part of the relationship with God. Also, Mr. Camping keeps calling the wife of Noah "Mrs. Noah". It is unknown if Noah is his first or last name, so this is an unfortunate misnomer on the part of Mr. Camping, though, not major. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.212.193.236 (talk) 00:42, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 68.202.138.45, 21 May 2011

a lot of good semi protection has done here, the page has been defaced.

This kind of vandalism and the inability of concerned people to fix it are why wikipedia is frequently scorned as flawed.

The entire first paragraph of this page is defaced.

68.202.138.45 (talk) 15:48, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

 Question: What is wrong with the first paragraph?--Breawycker (talk to me!) 15:33, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Nothing to fix--Jac16888 ^Talk 20:55, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 66.56.156.8, 22 May 2011

that this page include that they were wrong about the end of the world

66.56.156.8 (talk) 12:48, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed.--Breawycker (talk to me!) 15:35, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

I added the following sentence into the history section, perhaps it sufficiently resolves your request: "Leading up to May 2011, Family Radio spent millions of dollars to advertise the ultimately fallacious 2011 end times prediction." Mrtea (talk) 21:07, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

(ec)Given the amount of media interest I will put in a note about the Camping's 2011 end times prediction. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 21:09, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Website redesign

On 23 May, the Family Radio website was updated to a new design that makes no mention of the previous predictions. I find this fascinating. The design is a complete reworking of the appearance of the site: unless this was accomplished in two days, I wonder if this is a hasty reversion to an old design, or was work on this already in progress prior to the predicted Rapture date? -- Chronulator (talk) 10:58, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Original website was hidden but is still available

The old website is still available typing the original home page to which the web address was directed. It is http://familyradio.com/index2.html To "honour the truth" It might be useful to link to the old home page for reference purposes. This html file may be deleted soon. Afterwards a Google Cache link can be used, depending on the traffic, this cache website might even stay online available much longer than the Family Radio owners wish. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.223.11.66 (talk) 16:25, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

archived copies are also available at archive.org. For example http://web.archive.org/web/20101023040240/http://www.familyradio.com// --Nowa (talk) 00:55, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Station list

Just wanted to leave a note here to clarify my recent edits to the list of affiliate stations.

Originally, the list was formatted using the {{RadioTranslators}} template, with the individual call signs wikified in square brackets — but due to the structure of the template, formatting it that way broke the templates' links to the FCC database. Then earlier today, another user unwikified the call signs, but then changed the template to apply wikification to the call signs on that end — which in turn resulted in a lot of other articles displaying unnecessary recursive redirects back to themselves, because normally translator stations don't have their own independent articles on Wikipedia, but instead their call signs are just redirects to the network or parent station that actually provides their programming (meaning that in most cases, wikifying call signs at the template level just results in redirects right back to the article the template is on in the first place.)

Accordingly, please be aware that in its current format, the translators template is not appropriate for use on pages where you want some or all of the call signs to link to separate articles. I've consequently reformatted the list of primary affiliate stations as a coded table instead of a prefab template, while leaving the "W123AB"-format translator lists in the existing templates — and in the primary table, I've wikified only those stations which have separate articles, while not wikifying the ones whose call signs are just redirects back to this article.

If somebody who's familiar with complex template coding wants to reformat {{RadioTranslators}} to include an optional "wikify the call sign" switch, then by all means feel free to do that — but until that's actually been done, it's simply not the correct template to use if you actually want some or all of the call signs to be wikified right now. Bearcat (talk) 22:33, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Wrong station listed

Under West Coast Translators, the wrong station for Phoenix, AZ, is listed. 90.3 FM is Family Life Radio, which is not associated with Family Radio. Here is my reference 88.3 FM (call sign KPHF) should be listed instead. another reference

Diresu351 (talk) 00:45, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Already done Looks like somebody already made the change. Thanks. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:41, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Washington D.C. Station

Why was the Washington D.C. station removed? It is still owned by Family Radio but operated under a LMA (Local Marketing Agreement) with CBS Radio until the sale to CBS is completed. TheGoofyGolfer (talk) 03:01, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

• Never mind apparently CBS has completed purchasing the station. TheGoofyGolfer (talk) 03:04, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Help with page verification

Hello, I am contacting you to try to get help with edits made to this page. We are the Official not-for -profit organization related to this page. We were trying to make edits with factual information related to our organization. Each time we have done so, it has been deleted and replaced. Also the logo that is used for this page, we are no longer using and we are unable to replace it with the official one. Thanking you in advance,Famradio01 (talk) 21:44, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Famradio01, this article has been protected due to persistent vandalism, meaning that only certain users may edit it. If you are able to upload a non-copyrighted version of your logo to Wikimedia, I can add the image to the page.

If you would like specific information changed, and can provide reliable sources, preferably sources not directly from your organization, they can be changed. However, claiming that information is incorrect without providing a source is insufficient to warrant changing the article. TimothyJosephWood 18:22, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Marked as declined, as there has been no response from OP for three months. Altamel (talk) 02:55, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Family Radio. 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/20110811120223/http://www.familyradio.com:80/x/whathappened.html to http://www.familyradio.com/x/whathappened.html

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) 15:03, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Family Radio. 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/20080526081054/http://www.familyradio.com/english/connect/bio/haroldcamping_bio.html to http://www.familyradio.com/english/connect/bio/haroldcamping_bio.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110531132023/http://www.radio-info.com/news/family-radio-gets-a-1-million-offer-to-sell-their-66-stations to http://www.radio-info.com/news/family-radio-gets-a-1-million-offer-to-sell-their-66-stations
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120103161747/http://www.radio-info.com/ to http://www.radio-info.com/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111224105148/http://www.radio-info.com/news/round-3-of-the-bidding-for-family-radio-fms-in-two-markets to http://www.radio-info.com/news/round-3-of-the-bidding-for-family-radio-fms-in-two-markets

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) 03:10, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Move to Nashville

Can anyone provide a reliable source that the headquarters have actually made the move to Nashville? We have evidence that the move was planned, bu that is not the same as showing that it actually happened. Teh company's own web page https://www.familyradio.org/ still lists Oakland as their address. Meters (talk) 23:09, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

interesting. I wonder too. The "address" is still being broadcast as Oakland, I think. I guess it depends on how they define their "HQ". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.53.232.146 (talk) 19:03, 20 July 2022 (UTC)