Contents

Talk:WXBU

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Pennsylvania Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pennsylvania, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pennsylvania 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.PennsylvaniaWikipedia:WikiProject PennsylvaniaTemplate:WikiProject PennsylvaniaPennsylvania articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Television: Stations Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Television stations task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Recent edits by 207.230.140.240

[edit]

The IP address 207.230.140.240 (talk • contribs) has recently fleshed out the history of this station considerably. Which is great; for example, it now has enough info for an infobox. However, a WHOIS lookup finds that this IP resolves to Clear Channel Communications. The operator of this station. Which makes me suspect that original research may be at work. Though I don't know for certain, and I don't have a clue what we do going forward.

But honestly, if it's true, and I'm interpreting the policy correctly, I'm a bit torn. If the user has access to information directly from the source, information that would seem to be manifestly true, why shouldn't that information be allowed into the encyclopedia? Do we delete information that came from someone in a position to know precisely because they're in a position to know? And of course the answer is WP:V: we need to be able to check off on this info, and "inside" information coming from within the ivory tower, so to speak, is a bit suspicious. And there's the possibility that whatever gets added is informed by some ulterior motive, such as marketing. Verifiability, not truth, you know?

Maybe I'm just babbling to myself. In the meantime, I've added {{Originalresearch}} to the article until we can make a decision on what to do about this, or until something happens with it. Or something. Morgan Wick 07:06, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the issue you are trying to make out it, their is nothing in the txt of the article that would have any inkling of a smear campaign, also the tag you used it to harsh, if any thing their is a lack of references and sources, but nothing outlandish to say that it's or. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 07:17, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I said anything about a smear campaign. For that matter, I didn't take anything from the text itself; this was purely by inference. I just noticed that the IP came from Clear Channel. Am I misinterpreting the NOR policy? Morgan Wick 22:48, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Boothy, a while back you changed the mention of WLYH at the very top to WHP-TV, which is a very different station. Any reason why you did that, and why only the notorious BenH noticed until now? Morgan Wick 00:03, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Becaused i used the WHP oage as the base format for the cleanup on this page, just forgot to change the intro i guess. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 03:59, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm convinced by Boothy's explanation, and I plan to remove the WP:V tag from the page.--Desmond Hobson 06:57, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I put that tag their, my contention was the {{Originalresearch}} tagging. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 07:05, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sinclair. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.79.229.32 (talk) 02:47, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]