Talk:Hitz Radio

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Hitz Radio article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1

This article was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination: keep, 30 June 2016, see discussion. keep, 5 July 2009 (UTC), see discussion.

This article was nominated for deletion on 2 June 2007. The result of the discussion was keep.

This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Radio Stations 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.Radio StationsWikipedia:WikiProject Radio StationsTemplate:WikiProject Radio StationsRadio station ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Archives

Archive 1

The site has now been closed down, surely this supports the facts that it was illegal. Maybe some major changes to this article?

Hitz Radio UK Home 172.159.180.26 15:28, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This has nothing to do with the legality or otherwise of the operation... he's just let his domain registration lapse:

Registration Service Provided By: Low Price Domains
Contact: support@websitesource.com
Visit: http://www.lowpricedomains.com

Domain name: hitzradiouk.com

Registrant Contact:
  Hitz Radio UK
  Ryan Dunlop (dj_ryan123@msn.com)
  +1.2081331247
  Fax: none
  28 Forge Road
  Ayr, NA KA89NJ
  GB

Administrative Contact:
  Hitz Radio UK
  Ryan Dunlop (dj_ryan123@msn.com)
  +1.2081331247
  Fax: none
  28 Forge Road
  Ayr, NA KA89NJ
  GB

Technical Contact:
  Website Source, Inc
  S. Rosendahl (support@websitesource.com)
  +1.5126089990
  Fax: +1.5126089990
  107 RR620 S.
  STE 102 #e14
  Austin, TX 78734
  US

Status: Locked

Name Servers:
  dns1.name-services.com
  dns2.name-services.com
  dns3.name-services.com
  dns4.name-services.com
  dns5.name-services.com

Creation date: 16 Aug 2006 14:19:02
Expiration date: 16 Aug 2007 14:19:02

A sign of incompetence, perhaps, but nothing more. JulesH 16:27, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is also no trace of the station(s) broadcasting. There is no audio coming from this station. The domain name "hitzradio.co.uk" is also owned by this individual but still redirects. One would have thought with the entrepreneurial skills and business savvy that is claimed, this would have been rectified in a quicker period than 72 hours. I think its fair to summise that on the face of it, the originator of the stream has stopped transmitting because of several reasons, most likely due to pressure from a legal entity in the UK. On the basis of the fact that there is no longer a web presence, and no longer a broadcast, that this station has ceased to exsist. As for the company, I would assume that it has or will also cease to exsist, although that is my opinion and can't be substantiated. Kevincoy 16:56, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If HitzRadioUK is a) offair and b) offline, at this point in time the article should be re-written in the past tense. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.32.103.235 (talk) 17:06:00, August 19, 2007 (UTC)

There is no evidence that this is anything other than temporary. Let's wait for reliable sources to comment before engaging in rewrites. JulesH 19:18, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A Statement from Hitz Radio News on behalf of Hitz Radio Ltd shows it was an administrative error and nothing to do with it being closed down. link is: http://www.hitzradiouk.com/news/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=259&Itemid=2 Furthermore should you have ANY issues with our services then obviously it would be recomended contacting Hitz Radio Ltd directly in the future before jumping to conclusions.

Sources innacurate! Why do the Radiotoday articles no longer work? This now means that those sources are no longer accurate and against the rules of wikipedia. Thus there is now no primary or secondary sources condeming the claims of Hitz Radio. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.138.140.116 (talk) 17:02, August 21, 2007 (UTC)

Once logged in, you can see the article. Source still accurate. 172.207.110.199 10:06, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yep both articles are still there on Radio Today, but I'm registered, so I never thought it had become a log-in only page. If there is a dispute about this, perhaps the text could be quoted in the main Wiki article with reference to registering with the site to view the original authentic verifiable webpages? We shall see what happens with interest, as someone on the radio once said! 81.97.107.123 12:08, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

As it is not vieweable to the public directly then it is not evidence in wiki rules. Thus the sources are not available. And yes I heard that as well! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.138.140.116 (talk) 14:51, August 22, 2007 (UTC)

Actually user 86.138.140.116, are you refering to verifiability? Could you point me in the direction that back up what you are saying?

All I have found is that:

"The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation.[1] The source should be cited clearly and precisely to enable readers to find the text that supports the article content in question."

As any reader can find the text in the articles in question, albeit with registering, then I propose that the links to contain a registration comment to point readers in that direction. That would not mislead readers, as some people have been intent on doing! 81.97.107.123 15:19 August 22, 2007 (UTC). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.97.107.123 (talk)

Also if you continue reading you will notice you cant put sources to standard login pages! It does not allow visitors to get the information directly and thus against the rules. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.138.140.116 (talk) 17:20, August 22, 2007 (UTC)

Even after logging In I noticed that the article saying Ryan Dunlop was a fantasist has been deleted/removed by RadioToday. Thus we can regard it was incorrect and no longer use that phrase. The only remaining article says "Came Under Fire from the radio industry" and you still have to login and still not sufficient to claim he is a fantastist or anythign against Hizt Radio's audience etc.

funny, I can access the article. keep it up, i'm an editor for an online internet news site such as this and i will write a new article and replace the references in due course, if they keep getting deleted. 172.207.110.199 17:28, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, well it doesnt work here your fantasising and go for it and write it...mmm digitalspy have removed everything too. strange that! So yeah write an article and see what happens, will be interesting. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.138.140.116 (talk)

What will be interesting? 172.207.110.199 20:32, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence from sites requiring people to sign up is acceptable (although obviously evidence from elsewhere is preferred). An example of this is the New York Times. The real question is whether RadioToday is a reliable source, and that decision should be based on the reputation of RadioToday. Frankly, there's not many sites linking to RadioToday - mainly mediauk.com and, er, the HitzRadio wikipedia page. [1] [2]

I 've left RadioToday in, but changed a few other bits and pieces (mainly just re-ordering). I removed the Alexa reference - there's quite a few problems with using figures from Alexa in this case. Alexa figures are for Internet Explorer only, and so exclude those listening or accessing the site using a media player. More info on Alexa's page. --h2g2bob (talk) 21:25, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, does everyone know they can sign posts using 4 tildes, like this: ~~~~. To get a username (rather than being a number) you can register (for free). It just makes it a bit easier to work out who said what on the talk page --h2g2bob (talk) 21:32, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, I will register later but to be honest I do not believe RadioToday is an accurate source either. Frankly the London Times and official news organisations are listed and then RadioToday which seems to be influenced directly/in-directly from the public and certain individuals. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.138.140.116 (talk) 06:31, August 23, 2007 (UTC)

Listen Ryan (after a careful IP inspection and tracert). If that one goes I am making a new one on a reliable source. You aren't getting away with this without some sort of criticism at the very least. 172.207.110.199 10:21, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, The March 11 article is not there! I registered and searched all morning. So its going. You can keep the June one as it is there after you register albeit. But you cannot use information from an article that no longer exsists! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.133.41.179 (talk) 10:32, August 23, 2007 (UTC)

Why are you even trying? More new articles will just keep appearing. 172.207.110.199 10:51, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We shall wait and see. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.133.41.179 (talk) 10:56, August 23, 2007 (UTC)

RadioToday is a well respected industry resource. Only this week I was in the sales office of Smooth Radio (West Midlands) and saw many references to RadioToday including wall planners and information pertaining to issuing press releases to them. As someone who is around radio studios often, calling RadioToday an unreliable source is massively unfounded, as anyone in the radio industry would quickly point out. To user 172.207.110.199, please contact me. Should Ryan Dunlop be reading this, I would also be interested to clarify which P2P technology is being used as quoted to Radio Five Live, and also which plugin and distributable is being used as I can't find a trace of any through the "Hitz Radio" website. Kevincoy 17:13, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You don't think that RadioToday is an accurate source? What do you think it is, a Hitz Radio slagging site that only writes about you and your ego? Erm Cough, BBC employees read it don't you know! We shall wait and see, hehe! 81.97.107.123 ADDITION - well said Kevincoy - it will be interesting to see what information is forthcoming, or whether it will be casually dismissed again like my previous questions. There's more accountability than that in a Limited Company. Also you do realise that you will have to go like the clappers to get sales in and for all of these published claims to come good when you file your company accounts - which anyone can get hold of! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.97.107.123 (talk) 17:23, August 23, 2007 (UTC)

I am sure you will find that the BBC 5 LIVE interview with Mr Dunlop says future tense in his speech. Maybe this is some sort of new innovative broadcasting? maybe not but you never know, look forward to seeing what plugin this will be, very nice that mr coy asks these questions while his six hits website isnt working quite a bit these days, maybe your concentrating on this lad so much that six hits will end up like the rest of your ventues! and yeah i look forward to seeing the company house returns as well - THE REASON FOR MY DEFENCE FOR MR DUNLOP AND HIS COMPANY IS THAT I TRIED THIS MANY MANY YEARS AGO BUT ALL YOU SAD PEOPLE OUT THERE SLATED ME AND I COULDNT COPE WITH THE PRESSURE FROM EVERYONE, HE IS, KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK IF YOU ARE READING THIS!

P2P streaming is indeed innovative, and still in the early phases of rollout by the companies that are developing the technology. It isn't new, and is in use by other broadcasters including Sixhits, which I am indeed involved with. The difference here is that Sixhits is a legitimate broadcast with publicly requestable data and information, from listenership, to current development pertaining to the planned Local DAB multiplex rollout later this year. By ventures, I assume you mean the company which I headed up in order to reduce the licence rates in this country for internet-only broadcasters? I think you'll find that this was somewhat successful in reducing the licencing rates, and the only reason the company that I headed up ceased to exsist was the reluctance of MCPS/PRS Alliance to issue a blanket licence to further reduce royalty rates through a joint agreement with Phonographic Performance Limited. Whilst we're on the subject, it would be interested to learn whether "Hitz Radio" is licenced under the MCPS/PRS Alliance Joint Online Licence (JOL) scheme or the Limited Online Exploitation Licence (LOEL) scheme. Kevincoy 08:55, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

86.133.41.179, Can we try to discuss relevant things? Slating other sites clearly won't get you anywhere other than offending people. The discussion for Hitz Radio has nothing to do with any other site. Just try to cut out personal attacks, including those on Ryan Dunlop. Rysin3 10:16, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"I am sure you will find that the BBC 5 LIVE interview with Mr Dunlop says future tense in his speech." I am sure that you need to clean your ears out! Here is a transcript from the relevant section of the interview from the BBC Radio 5 Live interview on Tuesday 21/08/07:

Presenter: "Now you say that you've got, erm, 260000 listeners. There is some controversy over that though, as I'm sure you're aware. For instance that kind of listener base on the internet would cost an awful lot of money in bandwidth. How do you finance that and what do you claim your listener base is Ryan?"

Ryan Dunlop: "Our listening audience as of last month is sitting at 260000 per week reach. We use peer-to-peer (P2P) technology, similar to that of Limewire or ah, erm, ah, Kazaa file sharing networks, which allows us to reach such a large audience on the internet."

So as you can see the presenter was refering to the controversy over claimed figures already seen in the media earlier this year. Ryan directly answered that question with figures from LAST MONTH, that he says are attributed to p2p technology. Nothing to do with future innovation - it's already being used according to the 5 Live interview. The only place that mentions this p2p use as a future development has just been added to the Hitz website FAQs. This coincides with the 5 Live interview to tie things up after it was said on air. But still what was on the 5 Live interview came straight from the horses mouth, no question. If you disagree I can put it as a link in the main article, so you can refresh your memory and listen again. 81.97.107.123 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.97.107.123 (talk) 12:16, August 24, 2007 (UTC)

Yes I listened again already and to be honest he is 16 and you seem to be really sadly interested in every word he says - and word by word at that!

Its sick, sad, disgusting and really a stranger looking on this looks like grown up men talking about a child! YES HE MAY NOT BE A MINOR but he is still a child, kid, teenager... what ever you want. But at least he isnt our shooting people, being an ASBO or swearing at old people. He is being mature and trying to get somewhere, Maybe you have to learn that and forget all the hazyness... who here can say they had their head screwed on at that age to say they wanted to run a radio station and maybe this is a way (in his view) of getting there.

Once again I am not Ryan Dunlop! thats not ok I just think it is ridiculous the attacks he is getting and the quotes you people are coming up with. Maybe you should just leave him alone and do your own business and if it really is hurting you so much why slate him in the public - it just doesnt look right at all - send him your views in a mature manner and I`m sure you may get a better response! Thats all for now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.133.41.179 (talk) 15:46, August 24, 2007 (UTC)

There is no "obsessing" about a young person trying to run a business, and you mention that he is not out "shooting people, swearing at old ladies, or getting an ASBO". This is true, however, the law is being broken in this case in more ways than one. First off, there is no music licencing in place, which means for those broadcasting online and trying to run a successful enterprise out of doing so and paying for the licences, "Hitz Radio" is getting away with not paying and putting the law abiding people at a disadvantage. All the artists you hear on "Hitz Radio" are currently being ripped off and not getting the dues that they should from having their music used. It is similar, but not on such a grand scale, as someone borrowing your car without permission, in other words, theft. Misleading the public and the press is also not a very good way of going about trying to run a business. All of the questions being asked here are legitimate, and go unanswered, even when contact is attempted with the person involved directly. Now, offering advertising deals on the back of outrageously inflated figures, and without providing evidence of such, and on the back of bold claims such as "Napster saw a massive increase in usage because of a campaign on Hitz Radio", is really not a good way to go about running a business either.

There's no obsessing, just a deep interest and concern on the law being broken in this case, and the fact that a lot of press attention is being provided, but answers not being provided to questions which would simply prove the fact that even some industry insiders see Ryan Dunlop as a fantasist. Running a hobby internet radio station and even as a business is strongly encouraged, but legally, and truthfully. Kevincoy 16:36, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well... who cares! I am sure the royalty agencies will be looking in on it at their own time, yes? But I am sure by your reply you are pestering them anyway.

Secondly who cares what he does... he is using the press/media to his advantage, any propper entrapreneur would do the same, a certain Mr Branson springs to mind! I would love to see in this world how many 'large scale' operations are 100% legit...My senses and contacts say the opposite. Its the ones that aren't squeaky clean that make the big cash and success. Bare that in Mind and keep up the good work Ryan if you are reading this.

Also was reading that Napster link as well, seems he was 13 at the time? and it wasnt Hitz Radio Ltd so technically that is not relevent.

Its like bringing your failed businesses into the equation with six hits, which obviously wouldnt suit you!!! That it is all for now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.133.41.179 (talk) 17:49, August 24, 2007 (UTC)

As someone else done above, I done a TraceRT etc. on the IP 86.133.41.179. All signs lead to Ayr (or Prestwick). Can you please just stop using your dynamic IP as a Sock puppet Ryan, come on with your real username and represent yourself in this discussion. Regardless of the context, you deserve a say too so don't feel as if you have to pretend not to be yourself. I'm sure everyone will understand why you have been using sock puppets, but please from now on represent yourself with a username. No one's stopping you from putting points across. Rysin3 18:31, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also don't think this is obsessing. You said with great confidence that Ryan was talking future tense. I simply pointed out the opposite, with the actual interview you were refering to. If you don't like that, then tough, get your facts right first. Secondly there wouldn't have been a problem (in this case) if there had been no deception in that interview.

He is not a child and after reading other comments saying that, you seem to now finally accept that, and your legal standing as such. True he is not an real adult either by legal definition (ie 18+), but at 16, even 15 or 14, he should be fully aware that there's white lies and just plain bullshit. He has the brassneck to tell awards bodies and journalists lies and then appear on TV and radio in person and do the same again. If he can sit or stand there and do that in front of an audience, camera or mic, then he can certainly take our flack, whatever you or anyone else may say to defend him.

You're right about some large companies may not do everything legit, but that's the nature of the beast to a certain extent, and can come down to lack of communication between people or departments in large businesses, rather than explicitly doing wrong like you seem to think. Also there could be a lack of training and poor company procedures to help prevent things going wrong and/or prevent any wrong doing. There is also something called the law - if you've heard of that. That means that even the very largest companies are called to account, say like British Airways, which is a FTSE 100 listed company. British Airways was recently reported by Virgin Atlantic (who Ryan may note has a chairman & majority shareholder called Sir Richard Branson) for price fixing. There's endless stories on the web about things like that. So at the end of the day there are far more small companies in proportional terms that are not legit than larger ones, as the larger ones have the resources to be legit and have built a reputation that they don't want tarnished.

So that raises the question, why do you think that we are talking about large operation here? Even if it genuinely had 260000 weekly listeners and 5000000 listening hours a week, that's actually small beer, in real terms, for something as vast as the internet. We're not talking big beer here, it is not, and that is part of the argument, you see. So that means that there's no lack of communication between large internal deparments, or between middle management etc etc - because there is none of that at Hitz Radio Ltd. So that is not a viable excuse. If you are doing your Scottish Highers or even go to uni in a couple of years and study business, Marketing or Management type courses you will do communication or organisational behaviour. If you do, then you will see what I mean. It all falls around procedure and 'quality circles'. Something that seems severely lacking at Hitz Radio. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.97.107.123 (talk) 19:56, August 24, 2007 (UTC)

"He is being mature and trying to get somewhere..............Once again I am not Ryan Dunlop! thats not ok.................send him your views in a mature manner and I`m sure you may get a better response!"

Since you have still not forgotten to lose the ` as an apostrophe, it kind of makes a mockery of the things you say. How on earth are we supposed to improve the article and establish real facts, when perfectly reasonable questions have been put forward to you (RYAN) for months without any satisfactory answers, both here and elsewhere. What a complete waste of time it would be for someone to write an email or letter to you, given all that is written here and your immature attitude and treating everyone with contempt as if everything is gameplay.

I will also update the article now with the BBC Radio 5 Live interview dated Tuesday 21/08/07. This will also show those that listen just how pathetic it was to say that it is spoken in future tense and then say I quoted it word for word to show that it isn't. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.97.107.123 (talk) 18:36, August 25, 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, with reference to my business activities over the past three years, I'm afraid they just don't fit into any comparison with Hitz Radio Ltd and its owner. None of my business activities have been illegal, and "failed" is not a term that would be used to describe them. However, I have gone into great detail about them on other sites such as Media UK, where a full and frank debate had taken place on the matter.

The Napster information is still available as a post, which was made last year, making Ryan, at the least, 15, and not 13, and well within the registration period of Hitz Radio Ltd. (source: http://www.talkshoutcast.com/index.php?topic=527.msg2645#msg2645). As you can see, September 2006 is the date posted, and its also, ironically, the post that claims 3 FM stations, 4 DAB stations, and online stations are run by the company.

As I've already mentioned, my biggest concern here is the breach of copyright, by using commercial works in a business enterprise. This is highly unacceptable, and whilst I do not contact MCPS/PRS Alliance directly about this matter, I do mention it when in contact with them regarding my own dealings. Why should all the legitimate broadcasters have to pay the fee's when Hitz Radio Ltd appears to get away with not paying, and not being punished for it? Its a fair discussion point. Kevincoy 11:17, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be fair to say that this organisation is also guilty of Plagiarism? This ITN report;

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/itn/20070928/twl-tensions-rise-following-burma-crackd-41f21e0_1.html

seems to be reproduced right here;

http://hitzradiouk.com/news/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=349&Itemid=2

Interesting.

Kevincoy 07:37, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A few days ago, 62.6.162.38 (talk · contribs) reverted the page to a version from several months ago. I've changed it back, and left a note on his talk page. --h2g2bob (talk) 01:59, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted this several times, from what appears to be a dynamic IP. The edit summary reads

H2g2bob - while i agree in part, please do not make unilateral decisions. use talk before making such major edits. rv for now - discuss on talk

which suggests they'd like to discuss the issue. I would encourage them to do so, so we can have a proper discussion of this and improve the article. The main problem with the version the IP suggests is that it has very few reliable sources, and is strongly biased. --h2g2bob (talk) 01:09, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Im the 82 IP... and although dynamic, my ip changes very rarely, and is always in the 82.x.x.x range. So to sum up: I'm not the 62 editor. My problem is thus: 62 made an edit, and you made a unilateral decision to change it. You are not god, and should not make such modifications without discussion. I admit that 62 is far from innocent, but if you are not prepared to discuss, I will revert your edits. 18:17, 19 September 2007 (UTC)~

Hello, thanks for the reply. I should probably start at the beginning. A few months ago, this page was listed on the BLP Noticeboard as having problems. I started the page again from fresh, following the guidelines Wikipedia sets out. Recently, 62 had been trying to revert the page to that previous version (this can be seen by comparing the two versions).

The old version was heavily biased. I would suggest it went as far as being an attack page, a page who's entire reason is to disparage the subject. To pick a paragraph at random:

Hitz Radio UK has also been reported by various individuals for plagiarism

This paragraph uses weasel words like "various individuals". There is no source here, so there is no way of discovering who these individuals are, or whether they are well placed to provide such commentary.

The station also aired Sky News Radio bulletins for several months, despite Sky News (& UBC Media who sell the Sky News Radio package) having no record of Hitz Radio UK being a subscribing station.

The references here provide general information about sky news radio (ref 23), state that UBC exclusively distributes sky news radio (ref 24), and provide a list of radio stations which are allowed to distribute it (ref 25). Wikipedia has a policy not to allow original research. Piecing information together like this is a type of original research called improper synthesis.

This ultimately lead to the conclusion that the station was in breach of copyright for using such bulletins

Wikipedia requires references are reliable sources. References 26 and 27 are forum posts, which are not reliable sources.

I (and others) made the changes I did so that it complies with Wikipedia's guidelines, and have always been willing to discuss my changes on this page. --h2g2bob (talk) 15:28, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

62.6.162.38 or 82.x.x.x - following the large number of reverts between the two versions, would you be willing to participate in dispute resoultion? For example, requests for comment or 3rd opinion? If you aren't willing to justify your edits, I will request the page is semi-protected. --h2g2bob (talk) 13:10, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My offer to discuss changes to the page and/or go to some form of dispute resolution still stands. If the IPs who are reverting are serious about making changes, then discussion is the way to go about it. Repeatedly reverting content without explaining edits is disruptive. --h2g2bob (talk) 20:33, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's been a lot of reversions between this version and this version of the page. As it's mostly been only me and (I think) 2 IPs doing the reverting, your comments will be helpful. --h2g2bob (talk) 15:25, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK Well It's quite clear after following this that the most accurate version is the one which breaks a lot of Wikipedia's rules. I'm sure a few people will agree. What we need is a way of including the criticism in the current article, balancing out the news articles with the criticism. It clearly has come under lots of criticism. Rysin3 11:31, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am absolutely happy to do this. I have no problem with h2g2bob (And your firsfox extention is one the first I install after a reinstalled - its superb), but this article reads as a whitewash in its "rules achieved" state. I do admit the version I revert to is far far from idea too, but there is somewhere in the middle where all parties can be happy its fair, accurate, and within the rules. I'm happy for there to be some middle ground found. Any ideas where to start? 08:24, 9 October 2007 (UTC)62.6.162.38

I've tried to edit down the more problematic sections of the article. I've let some of the less-than-perfect sources stand, but only for issues that other sources exist for. I've removed everything I consider original research, some of which was quite blatant. How does this work for a compromise version? JulesH 13:35, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

JulesH, I think you've made a good start but there are still a lot of problems left.

• The lead section describes the station as "infamous for the publicity it has gained in United Kingdom national newspapers". This is not attributed to any source, because (rightly or wrongly) none of the newspapers dispute the figures presented by Hitz Radio. This contributes to the bias in the lead section.
• "The Hitz Radio UK MySpace site had attracted less than 1700 profile views [...] This suggests the claims of the general public awareness of the station to be false." is original research.
• The whole article is presented in a biased way. For example, compare "the station has also claimed to be starting a record label" with "the station is planning to start a record label". The reference here [3] appears to be broken, so I can't check the source's intent on this one.
• The controversy section is completely unsourced, (or perhaps claims the Media UK message board community as a source)
• "Ryan Dunlop's age has also been questioned, due to a variety of dates of birth being given on a variety of websites. Many of the newspaper articles have said he is 15, both before and after his March birthday" starts a paragraph of original research or original synthesis, and appears to me to be an unnecessarily ad homium attack on Dunlop. The sources used here are frankly bizarre, and nothing like the redflag sources which would be needed to suggest this is deliberately misleading.
• The statement "Dunlop [...] claims that Hitz Radio UK broadcasts on other platforms, even though they do not have an Ofcom license and no evidence of such other broadcasts exists." is supported only by links to a forum, not by reliable sources.
• The Publications section appears to draw heavily from blogs.

Having a huge list of problems (I'm sure there are more that this list) is why I stubbed and re-created the article from sources to the shorter version a few months back. If the company really is a scam, then the media or the police should investigate. If it is conning the music industry, then they'd certainly be interested in taking action. I'm not suggesting a whitewash, but Wikipedia isn't the place to start an investigation. --h2g2bob (talk) 23:39, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In fairness h2g2bob, when you have people interested in advertising with Hitz Radio etc. Wikipedia also becomes misleading to those thinking about doing so. It's certainly an unusual situation as far as wikipedia is concerned, but it's potentially misleading. Which is why the criticism will need to be made more obvious in the article, I feel. Rysin3 11:17, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

h2g2bob... You clearly have a passion for wiki, and that is a good thing. I have tried to follow the rules, and can see that there are parts that are borderline. However, being a fan of wiki, are you not worried about the reputation it has been given for being unreliable and untrustworthy? I realise there are rules, but why don't you help up provide sources for what - I absolutely promise you - is true. The article needs to be neutral, but for the benefits of the public at large reading, needs to show the truth. For example, if i set up thebank.com and used it to steal credit card details, posted on wiki, are you suggesting you could only modify it if there were sources saying I was a con man? 14:29, 11 October 2007 (UTC)~~

If it is only anon IPs that are continuing to add OR and badly written info then i'd recommend getting it semi-protected. --Neon white 23:44, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to make sure I wasn't being obtuse about this :) Plus, I wanted ideas on how to make the page better. --h2g2bob (talk) 01:39, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well if we're to stick to the Wikipedia rules 100% of the time even in a case like this, then I really don't see why i've bothered visiting talk pages in the past. We don't in certain cases, and in this case I think it's clear that the article is not accurate. So we need to include more of the criticism. Rysin3 10:40, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've never read so much rubbish! CON MAN?! MIDSLEADING ADVERTISERS?! Im told the newspapers checked their facts before publishing them - through reliable sources! If you are so sure that the articles are untrue then why dont you ask them what information they got from Hitz Radio? If you think that Hitz Radio is lying to advertisers then why dont you ask them about our service! I think this has been going on too long. nearly 8 months and no proof, no evidence, NOTHING!! maybe certain people here and on the blogs should just get on with their own lives and leave Ryan alone to build Hitz even more successful. it wont happen because people are too jealous of Ryans achievements! I think some are scared that Ryan is doing better than they are and they CANT ACCEPT IT! If I was Ryan Id be thinking about taking legal action against those that keep slagging him off without any proof! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sammy913uk (talk • contribs) 15:00, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Definite COI here WP:COI. You should not be involved with editing this page if you cannot keep to a neutral POV and resist self-promotion which it seems you cannot. I think there appears to be good evidence that some of the claims made to newspapers were misleading. There are no sources to back up the claims, therefore they are unverifiable. I think the numbers would have to be independantly reviewed. I would also suggest you take a long look at WP:CIV. Personal attacks are not appropriate on wikipedia and will not be tolerated. --Neon white 15:19, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neon white, SELF PROMOTION? I am not Ryan Dunlop! I agree there are no sources to back up some peoples claims and therefore they should not be included in the article. The numbers were reviewed by the newspapers and checked by the BBC for their radio interviews. I could understand if 1 misleading article were to appear, but 5 OR 6?! it is impossible that none of them independantly checked the numbers. Thats why people against the numbers should ask the newspapers and BBC for their information. All of the evidence from national press is in favour of the figures, and none as trustworthy is against it. It would seem that is the way to go and once people have been told they WERE REVIEWED then the article can be edited with all the good sources and none of what some people want. User:Sammy913uk —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 18:53, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"why dont you ask them about our service", suggests quite clearly that you are involved and therefore have a COI. There is no evidence to suggest the numbers have been properly reviewed as, i believe, there is no process for measuring internet broadcasting numbers as there is for radio and the only source so far is the company itself. Like many people have pointed out, the numbers do not add up. The claims are exceptional and the evidence, therefore, has to be very solid. I didnt say the articles were misleading, i said the claims stated in the articles were. It's secondary sourcing and not verifiable at this stage. Note the use of the word 'claims', the newspaper articles are not stating facts. --Neon white 17:37, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody said you were ryan dunlop.... but I suspect you are connected in some way. Also, if it adds weight/respect to my viewpoint - ill happily make an account. i prefer using an ip though, because its public, and not tied to me. However, I'll make a new name for further comment.

I'm also still working on getting reliable sources for this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.6.162.36 (talk) 09:11, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A little offtopic, but you're actually more anonymous with an account. See this help page (and the Foundation:Privacy policy) --h2g2bob (talk) 16:18, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The version 62.6.162.36 suggests is somewhat better; but still doesn't answer a lot of the problems I listed above. Forum postings are still used as sources, and the page is still full of original research (the speculation around Dunlop's age is the biggest example of this). The lead section claims that the station is "infamous" for publicity from national newspapers, which is not supported by any references; which is indicative of the bias which remains in that version. --h2g2bob (talk) 20:09, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"maybe certain people here and on the blogs should just get on with their own lives and leave Ryan alone to build Hitz even more successful". - Your head's up your own arse. 172.207.120.111 11:51, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

172.207.120.111, please comment on page content, not on the contributor. Replying to my questions on sources and bias will have a greater impact on this article than making incivil comments. --h2g2bob (talk) 23:48, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted the page back to the short version because of the concerns I've already raised at length above. --h2g2bob (talk) 21:47, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Might be worth requesting protection if the edit war continues. --Neon white 23:21, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Protection won't solve the argument: I still think there needs to be clearer mentions of the controversy. Rysin3 23:56, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CONTROVERSY?! The only controversy was and is being created by a few individuals here and on the blogs. Rysin3, Kevin Coy and a couple of static ip addresses seem to be the ones responsible. Maybe user 172.XXX should get a proper user name instead of hiding behind it. After careful IP inspection and TRACERT it could very well be Rysin 3 or someone to do with six hits, after all.

Im in favour of an edit protection to the agreed article. The forums and blogs just arent reliable sources and seem to be the same few individuals that have a SAD OBSESSION with Ryan Dunlop! I WAS TOLD THAT MR DUNLOP IS COPING WELL DESPITE THE "CONTROVERSY" AND IS BUILDING HITZ WITH NEW PRESENTERS AND STAFF. I`VE HEARD THAT HITZ RADIO IS ALSO CLOSE TO GETTING AN ONLINE MUSIC STORE AND DRINKS COMPANY TO ADVERTISE WITH THEM. IF YOURE READING THIS RYAN, WELL DONE!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sammy913uk (talk • contribs) 20:30, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If there are sources for the controversy then there is no reason to not add it as long as the article stays balanced. The IP you are talking about is a US address so i highly doubt it is linked to the station. Making such personal allegations and accusations is not civil. No more warnings about that or about your clear conflict of interest --Neon white 13:54, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I've stayed out of this for some time, but alas, my name is mentioned again as a direct pot shot. Interesting that, since I'm not the only person to comment on this, and indeed, neither is Rysin3, that we become the central point of the potshots! Obviously, we must be stiking a nerve. This article should outline what "hitz radio" is, how it came about, and most importantly, it should be truthful. The problem here is that many questions have been asked, and still to today, they have gone unanswered. For example;

• What MCPS/PRS Alliance licence does this station hold?
• What Peer to Peer technology is in use as mentioned on BBC Radio Five Live?
• What is the basis of the projected finances as reported widely in the press? How is that to be achieved?
• Why does most of the "news" content on the "hitz radio" website appear to be directly plagiarised from other news outlets?
• What basis are the audience figures based on and what does the term "reach" as used in the BBC Radio Five Live interview actually mean in relation to these figures?
• Why was it claimed that large advertising deals with extra-ordinary results were advertised, when it has been proven beyond doubt that they never took place?

Obviously, there are a bucket-load more questions to compliment these, but I'm not holding my breath for any answers to be honest. My position is absolute, my company, Sixhits, of which I am the only person from the company posting here, is a legitimate, legal broadcaster. I highly object to the allowance of illegitimate broadcasts, and so far, there is nothing at all to prove that this station is legitimate, infact quite the contrary, and the claims in the British press simply compounds this.

Earlier comments by "sammy913uk" challenge that Journalists of the newspapers reporting the story and the BBC, must have thoroughly checked and thus proved all of the facts and figures used in their stories and broadcasts. I'm afraid this isn't the case, as this email from the Stephen Nolan show (BBC Radio Five Live) proves;

"Thanks for your correspondence; our producers fact-check their stories as thoroughly as possible before broadcasting. On this occasion, we checked out the Hitz Radio website and listened to broadcasts, and verified Ryan’s role with them by calling the station itself. As you pointed out, the story had run in several local and national newspapers, but because we could not ensure that the listening statistics they quoted could be verified for certain, we ensured our introduction went as follows:

A 15 year old schoolboy who started his own 24 hour radio station from his parent’s garden shed now ‘claims’ to have 250,000 listeners.” When it came to discussing the turnover Ryan suggested the station might make, the word “projected” was used, and the presenter Stephen Nolan was deeply sceptical throughout. He says “let’s see if this stacks up”, and later says “is this for real?”. He challenges Ryan saying “where are you getting these figures from?” and the tone in his voice is one of incredulity. He later says “I’m sorry if you think I’m being cynical.

Since Ryan is just 15, Stephen didn’t want to be seen to bully him, but the clear impression you get from the interview is that Ryan might be being naïve about his station’s revenue possibilities."

Source: http://james.cridland.net/blog/2007/03/08/fantasists-and-lazy-journalists/

For the record, by simply looking at the edit history of this article, I have not edited this article, and have no interest in doing so. From past performance, and having worked with companies providing back-end, white-page solutions for online music download services, I can only assume that the "online music shop" in speculation will simply be an affiliate scheme, available to anyone with a website. This is hear'say however.

Once again, I'll re-iterate that I have on several occasions in the past offered to provide my help and advice on all the matters listed above, but these have fallen on deaf-ears. Kevincoy 06:52, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I assume these are the points of controversy that Rysin3 mentions. There's needs to be reliable sources for all of that. This is not an inquest into the legality of the station we can only mention that if it is properly sourced. As there are a lack of sources, we need to stick with the verifiable facts. --Neon white 20:26, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A comment has been made as to whether this article is just blatant advertising. It's actually a good point. The article for a long period had solely relied on the press articles for validity, however these were questioned over their accuracy as they originated from Ryan Dunlop & Hitz Radio. Thus the articles likely constituted PR & advertising by non-traditional methods as opposed to paid for advertising. In addition the point of accuracy in the articles (due to the source being Ryan Dunlop), was that much of it was blatantly untrue. However since late November 2007, there has been some work done by Trading Standards which questioned the validity of the claims seen in the original articles - thus this is seen to be a problem with the Trade Descriptions Act. It has also been confirmed that Hitz Radio is not licensed by either PPL nor MCPS/PRS - needed to operate a legal online radio station - silly really considering all the press attention it has received! So to sum up, the original articles taken on their own were likely to be 'cheap' advertising and lies at that - such claims would never be passed by the ASA or for TV/Radio commercial clearance without being found to be untrue first. But since the new article has appeared which opposes the originals, and with more to follow, probably, then IMO the claim that the article is just advertising is unfounded. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.12.53.5 (talk) 16:07, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

84.69.226.22 (talk · contribs) added the {{Afd}} template to the top of this page, but didn't create the discussion page, where the reason for the proposed deletion is placed. I've removed the tag for now, and offered to help in listing the page for deletion if needed. --h2g2bob (talk) 20:13, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Hitz Radio. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071020032821/http://www.shell-livewire.org/awards/main.php?catid=41 to http://www.shell-livewire.org/awards/main.php?catid=41&subcatid=&artid=1181554915.142&PHPSESSID=2f0de894e5bb5d0c2...

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:53, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hitz 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/20081229053844/http://wck2.companieshouse.gov.uk:80/ to http://wck2.companieshouse.gov.uk/

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) 15:24, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Hitz 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/20070911084530/http://www.hitzradiouk.com/eastfortune2007/index.html to http://www.hitzradiouk.com/eastfortune2007/index.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070612113144/http://www.radiotoday.co.uk/news.php?extend.2049 to http://radiotoday.co.uk/news.php?extend.2049
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070524123910/http://www.hitzradiouk.com/station/about.html to http://www.hitzradiouk.com/station/about.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080918034055/http://hitzmediagroup.com/ to http://www.hitzmediagroup.com/

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) 08:13, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]