Talk:104.1 Territory FM

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Australia / Northern Territory (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon 104.1 Territory FM is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.
Start-Class article 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 Northern Territory (marked as Low-importance).
Note icon
Need help improving this article? Ask a LibrarianWhat's this? at the National Library of Australia, or the Northern Territory Library.
Note icon
The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to for other than editorial assistance.
WikiProject Radio Stations (Rated Start-class)
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.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Breach of contract section.[edit]

Hello, I came here from the editor assistance requests page. It seems like there is a disagreement about the breach of contract section. There are two relevant policies that should guide your discussion here. Firstly, everything controversial needs sourcing by reliable sources which it appears the section contains. Secondly, the topic of breach of contract needs to be handled in an unbiased manner. Let me know what you think. ~a (usertalkcontribs) 18:17, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I've added no bias (All sourced facts from the report) and it's also about a community broadcasting licence breach not really a contract. Bidgee (talk) 18:20, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

It seems that the section in question was removed again (edit summary: "Licensing breaches arn't listed on other media wiki's.[sic]"). If nobody disagrees, I'll revert the removal. ~a (usertalkcontribs) 23:19, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I was heading to do the same when I saw your post. Since this section is reliably sourced, I fully support keeping it in the article at this time. If the IPs who continually remove it would like to open up a discussion on the talk page and support their position, I'll be glad to listen, but without a new consensus, it's properly sourced material and belongs in the article. Dayewalker (talk) 02:10, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Absolutely. The comments on some of the reverts appear to be trying to say that such information is not in other articles so shouldn't be in this one. Off hand I don't remember exactly what the guideline is, but I do remember reading a guideline somewhere that says that just because a particular type of information is not in one article is not a reason not to have it in another similar article as long as it's reliably sourced or not controversial enough to need sourcing. Yes, I reverted the removal earlier and will do so again unless there is discussion and a change in consensus on this talk page. From here on, I'll consider undiscussed removal to be vandalism and revert accordingly. --Athol Mullen (talk) 10:54, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is probably a good example here. If the other editors want to come to the talk page and discuss this, and explain why they feel this piece of properly sourced material doesn't belong on this page, they're welcome to do so. I think we'd all welcome the discussion. However, until that point it should stay, and any drive-by deletion of it should be reverted. Dayewalker (talk) 14:56, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
I've got no issues with them discussing it but I have issues with removals of reliable sourced content that I sourced (With no POV). Bidgee (talk) 15:03, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Bidgee sourced the content but with no POV, about a little community station in the Northern Territory, one of over 400 in the Australia and decided arbitrarily that this breach should be highlighted, without malice of course as appropriate content for a global web resource. There is no doubt the ruling by the ACMA is official however the fact Bidgee decided (without POV) to add it deserves question. The other editors have a point in so much as "reliably sourced, OTHERSTUFFEXISTS" drive-by deletions etc, but unbiased Bidgee's contribution is not. It beggars belief that this "random" contribution was just that "random". It is the act of someone with an axe to grind. It is not information, it doesnt serve a purpose, if anything it is a news item of little histroical worth not an encyclopedic inclusion. I welcome other input.Lantanabelle (talk) 15:53, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry but you have a COI into Territoy FM (Which I've posted elsewhere on Wiki). This was not a small issue and it is information thats sourced, notable and is historical and it's not the only article which I've added ACMA's investigations such as 2YYY and I also think 2ARM(It's only got links ATM) has a section about a breach. I'll repeat I do not work for ANY radio stations, I do not work for ACMA, I do not have a POV against radio stations and I do not just add it just because I feel like it. The section is not negative to 8TOP (Territory FM) and it's not a news piece but it's facts. Bidgee (talk) 16:09, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
The COI issue is irrelevant because it is unproven. As for the content, I believe it does serve a purpose: it provides information. Lantanabelle, do you see anything biased about the text? Is there a way we could reword the section? ~a (usertalkcontribs) 16:30, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
There is a COI [1] (Was a few other things I posted as well somewhere about this but feel on deaf ears) but can't find the area posted this in. Also I've written it in a neutral POV based on facts by ACMA's report. Bidgee (talk) 16:36, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Sorry I just now saw that. Regardless, I'd still like to see what Lantanabelle would consider a more appropriate wording. ~a (usertalkcontribs) 16:39, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. In fairness and to remove malice may I suggest an approach that would appear fair for any Australian radio station listing which would cover both commercial and community stations and is factual but not pointed, allows access to fact without derision" REGULATORY AUTHORITY ACMA (Australian Communications Media Authority) is responsible for monitoring and ensuring Australian licensees comply with the Broadcasting Services Act 1992. ACMA takes a graduated approach to enforcement action and uses the enforcement powers available to it according to the seriousness of the breach. For details of this and any other stations compliance (talk) 16:19, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Content is not malice. ACMA is a reliable source. Bidgee (talk) 16:34, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Yikes. What exactly are you talking about? You are suggesting that we make our article factual but not pointed? Is the article currently "pointed"? I'm not sure. Please try to explain using simple wording what you're trying to express. ~a (usertalkcontribs) 16:32, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
ACMA is a reliable source, perhaps, it's a government agency; however, the issue isn't the facts, but the notability. Minor license violations (including "serious" ones, which ACMA called the violation but which didn't result in any sanctions, as far as I could find, so how serious was it? They meant that it shouldn't be continued, and if it was, then they'd consider enforcement action). If the local fire department did an inspection and found a violation of fire codes, which they required be corrected, would this be appropriate for the article? I'd judge it by secondary sources. Was the ACMA notice discussed in the national press? It seems that there are a lot of these notices, and the editors taking the material out are correct, we don't have them in other articles, even for the exact same violation. That's no proof, perhaps they should be there, too, but it's merely an indication. I decided to remove the material. It doesn't deserve its own section, I'm pretty sure about that; if there were some extended controversy over their license, then that would justify a section, and this ACMA notice would be mentioned there. Another possible compromise would be an External Link to the ACMA notice, with brief description of what it is about. I'd do it if I had time today.--Abd (talk) 17:23, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Rubbish! It is notable. and the whole article is based on reliable source. I'm sure you and I have had issues in the past but don't use this article just to prove a point. Bidgee (talk) 17:33, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
User:VirtualSteve see's no issues with the content.[2] Bidgee (talk) 02:32, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm utterly unaware of what Bidgee is talking about with "you and I have had issues in the past," and I'm not using this article to prove any point. My decision and action had nothing to do with Bidgee personally, beyond having noticed the tendentious argument on WP:AN/I and here.--Abd (talk) 04:44, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Consensus to remove the Breach of contract section[edit]

Only way we are going to get to the bottom of this is to poll (Not Vote). Please give a valid reason. Bidgee (talk) 17:41, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep
    • Not a minor license violation as if it wasn't it would not be a press release for a serious license violation and serious isn't minor. It's notable and has a reliable source. Bidgee (talk) 17:41, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
    • Absolutely a keep - Content is reliably sourced and written without improper bias. Remember Wikipedia does not censor especially in cases such as this where the breadth and gravity of the breach by the radio station is not "us" making a mountain out of a molehill. The argument about what is or is not in other similar articles (in relation to this type of content) is neither here nor there - indeed if there are similar issues for other articles go ahead and put them in but do not sanitise the facts in this case.--VS talk 02:32, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
      • Further comment There seems to be some contention (see below in Abd's comments) as to whether this matter was serious or just an unintentional violation and therefore resulted in just a simple "fix-it" ticket. A quick read of the report (27 pages!) by the regulatory body will inform that the word serious is used three times. The radio station has been in operation since 1981 and they were found to have breached two important parts of their licence. The latter of these two important parts was that the radio station broadcast advertisements (certainly an intentional act) a right to which it appears they were not entitled - indeed the number and duration of the advertisements is listed in the report at about 50 advertisements - in other words 50 intentional acts against their licence. This is part of the reason why the regulator indicated that the failure to comply by 104.1 Territory FM was a serious matter and that they are required to report on a 6 monthly basis until ACMA is satisfied. Anyone (I do every day) who deals with government regulators and regulations - where (further) failure will most probably mean cessation of licence and operating privileges - will understand that this public report is not a mere slap on the wrist - it is a demand to comply. Finally I note that this Government Report is similar to a court report insofar that whilst it may never reach the spectrum of mainstream journalism - it most definitely is notable and certainly of precedence - that is it will be used again and again by both prosecutors and defenders in future similar or of similar point cases.--VS talk 05:30, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Weird. I deal with governmental agencies for a business, and it happens that we get notices when we fail to comply with something, and we fix it, and it is not serious. It would become so if we didn't respond. The report did not find any intentional failure to comply. As an example, one of the "advertisements" was an announcement by a governmental body. Such announcements might ordinarily be allowed. However, that governmental body also provides funding for the radio station. So was this an advertisement? The report considered it so. But it is easy to see how the station personnel may have failed to so consider it and thus to tag it. The report found no pattern of noncompliance. Just how serious this all was might be measured by the response to it in the radio community, which seems to be that the report was favorable to 8TOP. From the report, "Two of the complaints also alleged that the service was failing to represent its community interest in line with its licence conditions. However, ACMA’s investigation found that the licensee was meeting the requirements of this licence condition. 8TOP’s licence was renewed by ACMA for a period of five years commencing on 2 August 2008." Essentially, the breaches were an insufficient system for soliciting and incorporating community input and two untagged announcements by sponsors. (But possibly more.) The real key is: no sanctions. No fines, no special conditions, and no revocation of license or immediate threat of same.--Abd (talk) 07:26, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Do you mind if I ask if you work in Australia? I'm trying to understand what country the agencies you're talking about. Bidgee (talk) 07:33, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
No problem. I live and work in the United States, and it looks like regulation of Public radio here, is similar, particularly regarding advertisements.--Abd (talk) 14:13, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Sorry to say though, the agencies are not like the agencies in the US. Bidgee (talk) 15:22, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
    • Keep, as per both Bidgee and VS. Valid, reliably referenced content. If someone is worried about its prominence in the article, expand the article with other valid, reliably referenced content so that this becomes a smaller percentage of the overall article but follow WP:COI where relevant. --Athol Mullen (talk) 04:48, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Remove
    • No source has been cited to show notability. Newspaper articles? "Serious breach" in the language of a regulatory agency can simply mean "Do something about this or we will take further action," and notification of such breaches is common and not necessarily notable. Agency regulations can be complex and accidental, unintentional violations can easily occur, so an agency notifies the licensee, and, presumably, the licensee fixes it. What would be truly serious would be shown by sanctions. This would be like putting in the article about a person that they got a "fix-it" ticket for their motor vehicle, i.e., a citation that says "Fix your tail light or you will have to pay a fine." In other words, the term "serious" as used in the governmental notice is not the ordinary usage; the violations were, in fact, minor, as shown by lack of sanction, all that was required was evidence of compliance or of intention to comply. --Abd (talk) 04:54, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Comments
    • Newspaper articles do not have to be used and infact can be less reliable then a trusted Government Agency. Also this is not about a person, motor vehicle and radio licenses are not the same as a drivers/vehicle license and the argument used above to remove is not relevant to the issue at hand nor the article. Community Radio station licenses are not easy to get in Australia unlike Commercial and Narrowcasting licenses since the Group must support that it's (the radio station) is needed within the community in the area it will broadcast in and follow strict licensing conditions/rules. Bidgee (talk) 05:13, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Less reliable, sometimes. But newspapers generally make notability decisions, government agencies will publish total trivia, if their remit requires it. Newspapers, thus, don't publish everything that gov't agencies issue, they only analyze and report on what they consider notable enough to spend money on printing. To claim that the report considered the violations "serious" in the general usage sense is original research and SYNTH and not really warranted by the report, no matter how many times they used the word "serious." Serious, to the police, means an arrest, not the mere issuance of a compliance request or order. Imagine a headline, "Mayor guilty of serious offense." And read the story and find out it was a ticket for driving with a broken taillight. That's a serious offense, if knowingly continued, and it could cause an accident and death. But the headline would be misleading.
The issue is notability, not reliability, in this case. I have, however, edited the section to make it more balanced in terms of what ACMA actually reported. Overall, ACMA was satisfied that breaches were unintentional and "confident" that the license requirements were being met. Basically, I think this was a tempest in a teapot, to the point that a number of editors were willing to edit war over it.--Abd (talk) 05:42, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Agreed - the issue is notability. I have addressed that issue above within my further comment and will say no more. I also think that your tightening of the paragraph should be welcomed by all - and I concur also with your implied assumption that the edit warring over this part of the article can now cease. Thank you for your written acceptance of the content as per your copy edit.--VS talk 05:50, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
I don't necessarily "accept" the content, beyond seeing it as not worthy of edit warring, as long as it's balanced, and that's why I tried to accomplish with that edit. Thanks. --Abd (talk) 07:10, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
(Just because I like to clarify things), generally speaking, issues with content within articles aren't notability concerns as such, as notability is only related to the article as a whole. The problem here is one of undue weight. While as the article stands now I think it is a problem, with the current version after Abd's edits it fits in better, as it is more balanced, and as the article (hopefully) grows this will be a valid part of the station's history to cover. - Bilby (talk) 05:53, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Undue weight and notability are interrelated. It's possible to dig up facts about a topic that are reliably sourced, but that simply aren't sufficiently notable enough to mention. If the local fire safety agency issued a citation to the station for some fire code violation, such as a smoke detector missing a battery, requiring remedial action, but no sanctions (unless there was no compliance), would this be notable? It's been claimed in the incredible amount of verbiage about this, on Talk pages, AN or AN/I (I forget which), that ACMA found the breaches "serious." However, a missing battery in a smoke detector is "serious." The ACMA report, though, clearly did not consider the breaches serious enough to warrant sanctions, they simply wanted the breaches not to continue, and expressed confidence that they would not. They revoke licenses for truly serious breaches. The newspaper report apparently played up the affair, the head was "Radio station guilty." It could just as well have been "Radio station license renewed, station not guilty of failure to meet license requirements." That's what really happened, in substance. Why in the world was this worth all this fuss? Bidgee accused me, above, of WP:POINT violation, for reasons which remain a mystery to me. He reverted out my comment on his Talk page, without comment. Perhaps some things will always remain mysteries.... --Abd (talk) 07:10, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
This has nothing to do with an fire safety agency so stop using examples that are clearly are not the same. The issue goes back to CarolSpears/Blechnic thing in AN/I which I'm not going to dig up. Bidgee (talk) 07:20, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
This isn't really that important at this point, but WP:Note is fairly clear in that notability doesn't apply to article content, but WP:Undue certainly does. That aside, I think I'll see if I can grab enough to expand the article as a whole, and that should help with balance. - Bilby (talk) 07:36, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Untagged sponsorship announcements[edit]

Bidgee insists on this (I mark with italics): "had also broadcast advertisements (untagged sponsorship announcements) in August and September of 2007. Advertisements are defined as announcements by or about sponsors (those providing financial support or payment) that are not tagged as such. The primary report only refers to advertisements. It does mention that sponsorship announcements are allowed within limits., if tagged. Advertisements are not allowed. Sponsorship announcements that are not tagged are considered advertisements. The details about the adverts are in the extended report linked from the summary one, but I don't think we need to define "advertisements" in this section. They were considered advertisements, which is pretty simple and clear. (It's also clear from the report that this was an oversight. One of the "advertisements" was an announcement from a governmental body that also provides support for the station, and it's pretty easy to see how the station could overlook and fail to consider this an "advertisement," this seems highly technical. Comments on this ridiculous level of detail? --Abd (talk) 06:50, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Don't come complaining to me when Lantanabelle or someone with an IP removes it (the word advertisement). Some people don't realise that sponsorship announcements have to be tagged or they will be classed as advertisements. This is just being used as another attack against me, AGIAN. Bidgee (talk) 07:01, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
I presume he means "AGAIN." I've asked what this is about, no response. I don't recall any interactions with Bidgee. The word "advertisement" can't be removed (properly), since that is what was found by ACMA, directly, simply, plainly.--Abd (talk) 07:31, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
  • I have no particular worry whether the line (untagged sponsorship announcements) is left in or taken out. However is it reasonable to assume that leaving it in clarifies the breach in such a way that it assists the reader (who does not choose to read through the reference relating to this material) so that that reader does not leave with too negative a view of the broadcaster over this incident? Other views?--VS talk 06:58, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, don't drink alcohol. Coffee, please, with heavy cream. I have no idea why this became personal. --Abd (talk) 07:31, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Oh dear Abd - whilst I was hoping you were going to accept my drinks rather than continue this argument ad nauseam with Bidgee - I didn't expect you to try and bring me on to the band wagon?. How about I buy you another drink - I grind a damn good coffee - while you consider how silly it looks that you edit the article in favour of the content and argue against it at the same time?--VS talk 07:39, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Coffee's up. :) Coffeee img451.jpg--VS talk 07:42, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
I'll supply my own sucralose. Thanks. Mmmm, great coffee. We should do this more often.
Not concerned with looking silly. It's called compromise, Steve. I created and obviously accept the compromise, personally, but I'm not the community and my acceptance does not signify consensus. On my own, I'd remove the material, probably. On the other hand, with more research, the story behind the complaints is somewhat interesting, details are in the extended report. It looks like a disgruntled organization retaliated by filing complaints. But the report, while it confirmed two aspects of the complaints and rejected two, clearly did not consider the violations, the two confirmed aspects, as long as the errors were not maintained, serious enough to warrant action. Essentially they required the station to improve their community involvement process, which wasn't a bad idea anyway, and to follow stricter standards in interpreting what announcements required a sponsorship tag. That's truly minor stuff, as these things (license renewals) go. It's like a lease: the lease may require the tenant to perform certain actions. If these actions are not performed, the landlord can notify the tenant that they are in breach of the lease; but normally, this does not terminate the lease if the tenant promptly remedies the breaches. "Breach of contract" is a term with generally stronger implications, i.e., it implies, to the public, that the contract is broken. Which it was not. Rather, some specific terms were found to be imperfectly performed and the regulatory agency properly warned about them and expected (with "confidence") that they would be remedied.
The issue here, what warrants my continued comment, is civility. There was massive incivility between Budgee and Lantanabelle, leading to disruption, administrative involvement, etc. It was all unnecessary. I will be watching this article now, and intend to intervene if the incivility continues, which I hope does not happen. WP:DR works. We can work out content issues, finding true consensus except with the most stubborn of POV-pushers, if we remain civil. Incivility tends to harden positions, leading to edit warring. After all, why should I give those ***** what they are demanding? And if blocked, the enraged user becomes convinced that Wikipedia is unfair, and continues to push with IP edits. It is much more efficient to work to find compromise that satisfies guidelines and policies and editors. Lantanabelle, if you read this, you could have done what I did, add material from the report that was exculpatory, making it balanced, instead of insisting on removal. --Abd (talk) 14:02, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Dead link[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 21:53, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 2[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 21:53, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 3[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 21:53, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 4[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 21:53, 31 May 2011 (UTC)