Talk:Bible Broadcasting Network

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

Radio Stations Low‑importance 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 Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Text and/or other creative content from this version of WYFG was copied or moved into Bible Broadcasting Network with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

Text and/or other creative content from this version of WYFQ was copied or moved into Bible Broadcasting Network with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

Deleted this unsigned, unsourced commentary about named living persons – perWP:BLP, such statements about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, user pages, and project space.. JGHowes 00:41, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Admittidly, published information on BBN is sparse, but citations are required under Wikipedia:No original research guidelines. This is the way I understand it. From the wikipage:

What is original research?

Original research is a term used on Wikipedia to refer to material added to articles by Wikipedia editors that has not been published already by a reputable source. In this context it means unpublished theories, data, statements, concepts, arguments, and ideas; or any new interpretation, analysis, or synthesis of published data, statements, concepts, or arguments that, in the words of Wikipedia's co-founder Jimbo Wales, would amount to a "novel narrative or historical interpretation".

Also we need to try to write this as an enclyclopedia article. That's why I moved this section to the talk page back in Dec. The points made in this section need to be backed up by a published, reputable source.

Mytwocents 21:54, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The large majority of the section in question is not written from a neutral viewpoint and is not verifiable. I am going to go ahead and chop out a lot of it, and leave some basic parts that we can continue to debate about. Hetar 04:37, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

At first read, it looks like Hetar has done a reasoned, straightforward NPOV edit. It's definitely paired down, but I think the page needed this kind of edit. I went ahead and removed the NPOV and original research tags. Mytwocents 05:52, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:That'sthewayitis is at it again. He has gone and placed the same preachy and biased paragraph right back into the article. He didn't even bother to modify it so as not to repeat information that was left in above. What's the next step in preventing this from continuing? Do we need to get a lock on the page or have his user banned? For now I will just revert it back. --Hetar 07:09, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There has been an ongoing problem with That'sthewayitis adding "The Scoop" to the main BBN page for awhile now. If you go to User talk:That'sthewayitis you can see where he tried to give citations for his work. but it's just original research. He seems to be unaware what NPOV is all about. He mentions there that he worked at BBN for 10 years. It appears he has an axe to grind with Lowell Davey! There has been a Rfc for a week or so at the [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Religion and philosophy ]] It looks like the next step according to the Resolving disputes page is putting a request in with the Mediation Cabal for help. That should be done if he continues this rv back and forth. Mytwocents 08:22, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Request filed: 2006-02-21 Bible Broadcasting Network --Hetar 03:13, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank's Hetar, I happened to be leaving a note to That'sthewayitis explaining a second time about NPOV and no original research while you were filing the request. Needless to say, I concur with your action. Mytwocents 03:34, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings everyone, a request for mediation was recently followed and I am the mediator who's taken this case. I'll send messages to all of your talk pages so we can get all of your input as soon as possible. I know an initial statement of the disagreement has already been made here but I'd like to hear what the rest of you have to say regarding this. So, now is a good time for opening statements to get me up to speed with what you think is going on. Ohh, and as always, please keep WP:CIVIL in mind. Thank you. --Cyde Weys 21:43, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was simply removing talk page vandalism, but thanks for being on top of it :) -- Tawker 22:06, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the mediation Cyde Weys. I think this a pretty straightforward POV dispute. The section called "The Scoop" has been placed on the main article page several times by the editor User:That'sthewayitis. It is POV and stems from his personal experience at BBN during a 10 year time span. He needs to acknowledge and abide by Wikipedias NPOV and no original research guidelines. Mytwocents 06:54, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alrighty, I shall await his input on the matter then. I see the last time he edited the page was four days ago; is he perhaps done on this issue? --Cyde Weys 07:34, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps that's the case. User:That'sthewayitis is always welcome to state his view here, if he likes. Thanks go to --Cyde Weys for his mediation effort. Mytwocents 00:32, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I just stopped by from the template and now it appears that maybe I shouldn't have stuck my nose in, but I'll reprint here why I stuck the noncompliance tag in: These paragraphs are not encyclopedic as written. Do you have any ways to cite what BBN feel their mission is, and whether their listeners agree with this assesment? Jacqui^★ 17:08, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and PS: pardon my stupidity, but where on the BBN website can we find confirmation of what this page says? Jacqui^★ 17:12, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a soapbox. We need to maintain the Wikipedia talkpage guidelines on this talkpage; "The purpose of a Wikipedia talk page is to provide space for editors to discuss changes to its associated article or project page.";

A talk page is research for the article, and the policies that apply to articles also apply to talk pages. Research and debate should meet the same standards of verification, neutral point of view and no original research. There is reasonable allowance for speculation, suggestion and personal knowledge with a view to prompting further investigation, but it is a serious misuse of a talk page to continue to argue any point that has not met policy requirements.

I think, under this guideline, most of the content of this talk page should be deleted under WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:NOT#SOAP and WP:NOR. This includes any speculation about someone being a past employee of BBN. There is also the overiding policy of Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons:

Editors should remove any negative material about living persons that is either unsourced, relies upon sources that do not meet standards specified in Wikipedia:Reliable sources, or is a conjectural interpretation of a source.[1]

Mytwocents 19:14, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I see the unsourced commentary "The Scoop" about living persons is still on this page, contrary to WP:BLP. I've removed it. JGHowes 00:41, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It has been proposed that all station specific articles for Bible Broadcasting Network stations be merged into Bible Broadcasting Network. 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) 02:40, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, with qualification. (changed from Strong agree, based on discussion comments below). BBN stations do no local programming, except for occasional PSA's pertaining to local community events. Everything else is by feed from BBN's Charlotte flagship. JGHowes ^talk - 18:32, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say any pages with history should stick around. Otherwise, merge. TripEricson (talk) 05:04, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would go along if this reflects the same treatment of secular radio networks, such as clearchannel, on wikipedia. It is a given that the local stations produce no programming. Mytwocents (talk) 17:56, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the content doesn't matter, if the station is essentially a translator, it's not notable.--Rtphokie (talk) 18:44, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly Disagree. Most current BBN stations had histories prior to their acquisition by BBN, and people seeking that historical information would be put at a definite disadvantage if the separate articles were merged into one BBN article. Remember that radio frequencies are not owned by their licensees, but are licensed by the American public through the Federal Communications Commission. An article about how a given radio frequency was used in the past has no relationship to its current use by BBN, and therefore should not be merged with any such article about BBN. PastorMatt (talk) 06:40, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, any histories will either be merged into the main article or for articles which significant historic information, the page will be retained. --Rtphokie (talk) 12:19, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Pastor Matt and others do make a valid point about stations having significant pre-BBN acquisition history. Per WP:WPRS convention when a station retains its call sign, but radically changes format, it should be kept as a separate article if there's significant history. So my vote to merge is predicated on that important exception. JGHowes ^talk - 04:34, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: All federally-licensed full-power broadcast stations are required to compile a quarterly "issues-programs" list and to document programs aired by the station to address identified issues. An inquiry to the manager of our local BBN station (WHPE) revealed that this station produces three hours of such programming aired weekly on the station, in addition to a local church service aired each Sunday morning and a generous number of public service announcements on behalf of local organizations. We all know stations that would be considered to be more notable that do less. PastorMatt (talk) 17:39, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a reference for this requirement or better yet a link where those lists of local programming can be viewed? Existence of local programming such as this isn't evident from ,any of these articles. These stations are owned and operated by a network and appear to provide nothing more than network programming. If there is local programming that isn't reflected in these articles, that information needs to added. What is this 3 hours of weekly programming? Is that an hour of local church service simulcast on Sundays plus 2 hours worth of PSAs throughout the week or is there other local programming? --Rtphokie (talk) 02:06, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

§ 73.3526(e)(12) . By definition, this would have to be done with local, community-oriented programming. The fact of the broadcasting world is that most stations these days are either owned by a network, take large segments of their programming from networks (identified as such or masquerading as music services), or both. Wikipedia does not require schedules or a specific content rule for local programming as proof of notability for any station. If we make such a thing a precedent here we risk accusations of attempting the isolation of religious life from society in the specific case of BBN, or accusations of denying the notability of children or children's radio programming within that society in the case of a similar proposal you have made regarding Radio Disney stations. PastorMatt (talk) 03:23, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Disagree - Almost all of these stations have pre-BBN histories and many will have post-BBN histories. Some may not be full fleshed out yet but leaving a Start class article with infobox and what info we have so far will encourage editors to work on the articles in a way that a redirect and a short paragraph in a BBN article will not. On the flip side, if a merge occurs, the BBN article will bloat beyond usefulness if we merge in all the info in each of these articles. - Dravecky (talk) 00:43, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Disagree - Some of the BBN O&O affiliates have some station history. See WKRT (now WYBY) for example. - Mbrstooge (talk) 03:20, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]