Talk:Bob Fass

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

Problems[edit]

This is about as UNwikipedia as an article can get. Pure hagiography. And the endless, unnecessary details. You'd think Fass was as important as Karl Marx or Isaac Newton. He's a great broadcaster, but 500 words should be MORE than enough. And losing the asskissing narrative style would also help.

This entry was definitely written by an unabashed admirer of this largely unsung hero. However, I feel that it covers the history and the facts, along with being a shout out to an innovator in the radio medium. If you have further comments and wish to communicate with the author of this piece, please send correspondence to ophelia@angel.net

Actually, what I think I'll do, when I have the time, is chop the hell out of it so that it meets Wiki standards for an encyclopedia entry on a person of minor note. It's okay that you worship Fass, but you need to get an independent web site to pay him homage and record his every act. (Or maybe just write a biography of him and publish it.) This is Wikipedia, not your homepage. Wiki has rules and standards.

TERRIBLE OMISSION![edit]

Bob Fass made a loud fart on Dec. 18, 1975. Why isn't this MENTIONED???

however...[edit]

i agree that the article is long and overly detailed (and i haven't finsished reading the whole thing yet). there are too many similar blow by blow accounts of how particular folks with recognizable names wound up on the air.

however...

what i haven't found so far is mention of fass's experiments with live on-air dicussions involving multiple callers. before conference calls were common and multiway dicussions amoung folks who couldn't see each other were pretty unusual and weird, fass would somehow manage to moderate dicussions among a dozen callers without folks interupting each other, talking over each other, etc. today it's no big deal, but then it was a bit magical.

[IIRC wbai was an innovator in call-in programming more generally and needed to engineer gear from scratch to what they did.]

putting aside fass's other work for the moment, i see radio unnameable as significant in four ways:

-- it brought notable people to the airways.

-- it reported on notable events.

-- it created a sense of community.

-- most importantly perhaps, it was formally innovative.

maybe building out from themes like this would help structure and tighten up the article. -ef —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.38.203.239 (talk) 21:00, 1 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I have just read the article and do not understand the objections to it. I was one of those early listeners. The article is factually accurate and very precisely captures the essence of the program. neil.heims@gmail.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.202.116.108 (talk) 10:02, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article is far too long for the subject and filled with fluff. Perhaps splitting out the information specific to the show and leaving this article to focus on biographical information would help solve that.--Rtphokie (talk) 14:29, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

yup. not boring enough[edit]

This is indeed an "unwikipedia" article: the author is doing something more like magazine writing, where you actually try to convey to the reader why they should care about the subject. Here at wikipedia, we prefer compendiums of factoids presented in a stodgy style (because as we all know, to be neutral, one must be boring).

Anyway, whatever happens to the style of the article, I disagree that it's excessively long -- if it were about a Saturday morning cartoon, no one would blink. I think that many wikipedians have trouble grasping the importance that radio used to have, and tend to dismiss radio subjects as being inherently "unnotable".

Bob Fass's later experiments with on-the-air conference calls were actually a bit dull, in my opinion, but certainly worth mentioning. A more important omission is a description of Bob Fass's style: he spoke quietly, in his naturally deep voice, his mouth very close to the mic: he conveyed this great sense of personal warmth -- you got the feeling that he really cared about you. This sort of thing may not sound very remarkable these days, but this really was a sort of revolution in how radio was done -- now, watered down versions of this kind of "radio personality" abound, but Fass, if not quite the first, was one of the best at this. WBAI listeners were convinced (in error) that the Joni Mitchell lyric "he was a holy man on FM radio" must be a reference to Bob Fass.

Good luck saying something like that so that it'll survive the wikipedia storm, though. I know, why don't I publish it somewhere else, and you can quote me? That's a lot better, right? -- Doom (talk) 15:52, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't like Wikipedia standards, then by all means go elsewhere! Since you didn't set up Wikipedia, you just have to like it or lump it. People like Wiki because the articles strive for a "boring" balance of facts and viewpoints. They don't come here to read "original," "artistic" prose provided by Kool-Aid guzzling groupies of whatever person the article concerns.

It's nice to see that this article has finally been slapped with all the warning notices it has long merited. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.237.253.247 (talk) 00:34, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

jesus h christ[edit]

i was looking for instances on WP of an obscure figure in the counterculture movement, who was mentioned briefly in this article, and thus found this article. I really dont want this dreck to be the place this persons name ends up in. What i really dont get, is why ANYONE who is a fan of ANYTHING would want to write such an unencyclopedic article. it only detracts from a persons notability. i wasnt aware of bob fass, and am interested, but NOT because of this article, but in spite of it. This is just about the worst article i have found yet. i really hope i can find time and energy to fix it.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 00:42, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What specifically don't you like about the article? Constructive criticism is probably a better idea than just saying it's the "worst" article you've encountered, though I admit there is humor in that sort of phraseology. Bus stop (talk) 00:49, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Where do i begin? the writing style is informal, unencyclopedic, more like a rolling stone piece. There is violation of NPOV. surely someone like this must have inspired some criticism from someone, sometime. where is that reflected?. i LOVE writing like this, but NOT here. references are not given for any of the material, which is essential for the minutae reported on. excess linkage, section headings are poorly written, and the references given are as bibliography, which i suppose works, but i prefer references here. also, when bob fass says he feels marginalized at WBAI, thats libelous without a specific reference to where he said it. and personal interviews CANNOT be used in a wp article. they have to be in print and accessable by any researcher. i have corrected some of the material, as can be seen. my apologies for being flippant, but this is simply not acceptable for an article, and im surprised that no one has done anything to improve it over the years. i got about a 4th of the way through it, its hard work. and if anyone currently watching this article is one of the writers of the article, my apologies for stepping on toes, but someone has to do it. nothing personal, but there are very clear guidelines at WP, and some of this material is simply unambigously inappropriate for WP. and yes, someone said it, if this article was published in rolling stone or elsewhere, we could quote it.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 01:33, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, not much better[edit]

nearly 2 years, same content. you can take almost any sentence at random and delete it, and improve the article. thats sort of double plus ungood, to coin a phrase.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 06:02, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:BobFassRadioUnnamable.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion[edit]

An image used in this article, File:BobFassRadioUnnamable.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status

What should I do?

Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:BobFassRadioUnnamable.jpg)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 19:21, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Bob Fass. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 21:57, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bob Fass. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 05:27, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What is the source for former wife Catherine Revland?[edit]

The NYTimes lists one former wife, Bridget Potter (divorced) and a surviving widow, Lynnie Tofte. Another former wife, Catherine Revland, has now been listed. What is the source? WordwizardW (talk) 01:41, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bob_Fass&oldid=1201292103"