Talk:WWDC (FM)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject United States / District of Columbia (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
 Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject District of Columbia (marked as Low-importance).
 
WikiProject Radio Stations  
WikiProject icon 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.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
 

[edit] Untitled

Original article was nominated for deletion on May 31 (though not actually listed on VfD), and then corrected by the nominator. See Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/WWDC-FM. Bearcat 07:25, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

According to the wikipedia Beatles-page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Beatles) it was not WWDC who played the Beatles first on American Radio. Could this be corrected?

  • The Gender Bias information needs something serious to back it up, not only factually, but on the idea that it is discriminatory. Radio station playlists can consist of any particular genre, vocal style, timeframe, that they want to. Our freedom is to listen if we enjoy it, don't listen if we don't like it, and complain only if there is discriminatory or derogatory action which manages to offend you. A lack of female lead songs shouldn't fall into this category.

[edit] Seriously Skewed and Un-Encyclopedic statistics

By way of comparison, women make up 4.1 percent of national parliamentarians in the highly patriarchal government of Iran.[7]. In the US Senate, an all time average of 1.85% of the women in senate has existed.

Say what? What does this have to do with anything? I understand the point that this person was trying to make, but it's not the type of comparative information you put in an encyclopedic entry. A good piece of comparative information for an encyclopedic entry would be, after having said that of this list of 500 songs, that only 3.8 percent were female led, would be to include the percentage of nationally recognized mainstream modern rock acts are female led. Besides that, the information quoted above is extremely skewed, as it is designed to make you compare the numbers 4.1% and 1.85%, but there's no basis for comparison, as 1.85% is an average over time, but 4.1% is a measure of women that are national parliamentarians at a given point in time. Just to put things into perspective, According to:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_the_United_States_Senate

16 of the 100 members of the Senate are women.

and, according to:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_United_States_Congress#Gender

74 of the 435 members of the House of Representatives are women.


that's a total of 90 out of 535 members of the US Congress. That's right around 16%, a much more appropriate figure to compare with the Iranian 4.1%. But then again, this little factoid shouldn't even be on this page in the first place.

Kronos o 22:24, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Personal tools
Namespaces
Variants
Actions
Navigation
Interaction
Toolbox
Print/export