Talk:KERA (FM)/Archive 1

Assume Good Faith: a Wikipedia rule

"To assume good faith is a fundamental principle on any wiki, including Wikipedia. As we allow anyone to edit, it follows that we assume that most people who work on the project are trying to help it, not hurt it. If this weren't true, a project like Wikipedia would be doomed from the beginning.

So, when you can reasonably assume that something is a well-intentioned error, correct it without just reverting it or labeling it as vandalism. When you disagree with someone, remember that they probably believe that they are helping the project. Consider using talk pages to explain yourself, and give others the opportunity to do the same. This can avoid misunderstandings and prevent problems from escalating." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.247.119.43 (talk)

Contant reversions by User Acjelen

The User Acjelen has now reverted the article page at least 3 times to a stripped down version containing factual errors about the subject matter itself. Objections have been raised by user Acjelen to the wording of some of the text. No objection has been written to user Acjelen rewording the text in a style in keeping with Acjelen's own taste, providing that the information contained is not deleted unless it can be shown to be in error. Unfortunately Acjelen who claims to be a librarian, is acting contrary to librarians' code by deleting information in an effort to censor. The deletions are sloppy because they also delete factual corrections to previously incorrect information which Acjelen then inserts once more by these reversions. In addition to the above, Acjelen has stated a lack of personal knowledge of the subject itself by asking for information that is contained in the text itself (see below.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.129.60.203 (talk)

---

The text on funding was removed while referencing this page, but the person who removed it did not enter into the discussion but simply acted as a censor and deleted text. The question of funding and "memberships" needs to be addressed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.128.86.68 (talk)

It looks like this page is in the right place (thanks ;-) but just in case someone gets the urge to move it: The official call sign of this station is KERA [1], with no "-FM" suffix. Since KERA has multiple meanings, the "(FM)" tail is added to the article name instead. Kind of splitting hairs, but whatever —Mulad (talk) 21:49, May 27, 2005 (UTC)

Funding

The discussion of the funding sources needs an independent article that describes this funding method that many "public radio" stations employ. Then they all could link to it. - Bevo 14:21, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

• Good idea. I wrote the original text after getting a total run around from KERA (and I am a paid member!) It would appear that the on air staff ad lib and verge into the realm of dishonest puffery like used car sales people, promising things that they cannot deliver just to get their "pledge" numbers. On the membership cards and forms there is no mention of what a person has joined (no organization with a membership and officers, that is) and the same is true of their web site. The Texas Secretary of State has only an out of date listing for the parent radio-TV corporation and obviously there is something very wrong about the entire sloppy and misleading manner in which the stations/s (radio/TV) are managed. I would be delighted to see a documented explanation forced into the open as a result of this discussion and the article, because it does appear that their legal excuse is that they are really offering value for money with their discount membership cards, rather than running a charity of some sort. This makes me wonder then what the true value is of the membership discount cards (not much in my opinion), and how much that operation costs them and how those surplus profits are then legally appropriated for the station account and under what theory of law this is performed. The same is true of the so-called "gifts" which are not "gifts" in the strict sense of the legal definition because they all come attached with hidden "shipping and handling" charges on top of the Membership fee. This hidden bit of deceit is then used in puffery by the on air pledge staff who claim that many members prefer to donate all of their membership fee to the station rather than take a gift, which is probably a dishonest if not downright fraudulent claim since most "Members" then get hit up separately for the "shipping and handling" fees. If the station wants to raise money, that is one thing, but its current methods of dishonestly engaging in high-pressure sales pitches hour after hour to sell trinkets and Membership discount cards is something else. Annon. (so that KERA do not rush off to see who I am!) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.155.161.188 (talk)

Either you are joking; which is fine, but there are special places on Wikipedia for this sort of humorous contribution; or you have greatly misunderstood the nature of public radio and other cultural organizations. For instance, I belong to the National Georgraphic Society. I know this because I receive the Society's monthly. I've never attended any meetings of the Society or voted for any officers. I work at a public library, which requires a library card into order to borrow items from the library's collection. Patrons or members of the library (those with library cards) have only the most indirect influence on library policy and staffing. It's really an insult to "direct" to use "indirect" that way. I am also a member of KERA radio. Every year when I renew my membership I select and receive a gift. I tend to select books. One year I selected a radio built into a set of earphones. It got local stations okay, but not KERA down in Dallas. I know that using "membership" and "member" is just an effort by KERA to increase funding for the radio station by giving contributors a sense of belonging. It's caught on among other public radio stations across the country and most are now using it. My point is that this kind of funding scheme is not unique to KERA. I also need to address the tone of the anonymous editor's contributions, which is inappropriate to an encyclopedia like Wikipedia. -Acjelen 04:13, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

No Joke! First of all you admit that YOU are NOT listening to KERA so you admit that you don't have first hand knowledge of the problem at hand! Second, the National Geographic Magazine is NOT a discount club and you ARE a member of the National Geographic Society with a direct interest in the publication. This is NOT the same as KERA which is owned by a Texas corporation by another name over which people who donate money have no connection to! In the receipt and mailed solicitations there is NOTHING to indicate what you are donating to. Your library analogy does not apply and is quite absurd. Stick to the issues raised please, but if you have no knowledge do NOT delete information from those that do! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.128.86.68 (talk)

I am sorry that you misunderstand me. I do listen to KERA, just not on their free headset. KERA is not a discount club either, though I don't know what a "discount club" is. KERA is a public radio station (well technically both a public radio and a public television station). Pledge drives to raise money are not unique to KERA or Texas, but ubiquitous throughout the United States. All of this is moot, however, since even if you did understand the matter, which you do not, your contribution neither follows Wikipedia's neurtral point of view policy nor meets standards of encyclopedic content. -Acjelen 12:21, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Obviously you have not paid money - cash - to become "a member" - I HAVE! and all you get is a discount card for products and services in the name of "KERA" - but there is no club or society and KERA the radio station is owned by a Texas corporation which no one can join or even own its shares. I suggest that you read the text and then deal with the factual issue - I have no objection to you correcting the copy but I do have an objection to you censoring the entire subject because you do not understand it! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.128.86.68 (talk)

What's the name and fuction of that Texas corporation? Anyway, you are using a very limited sense of membership. Based on my experience on Wikipedia, I can tell you that your content will remain if you tone it down, move it to a more general article on public radio (as membership drives are common throughout the U.S.), and improve the writing style (e.g. loose the scare quotes). If you instead merely put the same text back, it will be removed. -Acjelen 03:38, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

The problem with your "my way or no way" destructive approach is that you have obviously NOT read the article - because the core article answers your question! It is also obvious (because you have stated it), that you have no direct or first-hand knowledge of the subject! Further, you do not seem to understand the words of written law - which you find "scarey". It would appear however that you have a vested interest in seeing that this material is not read. What that reason is you have not explained, since YOU are fully capable of rewriting the same text to conform to your own personal writing style - without deleting information. According to your own Wiki profile you claim to be from another State other than Texas, who is currently working in Texas as a "public librarian". This accounts for your misguided comparison between public radio and public libraries, although public librarians usually strive to preserve information - rather than destroy it in a vain attempt at self-serving censorship. Please read the text and then, if you dislike the way it is phrased - rephrase it without destroying its meaning. But before you start, please take the time to actually read the text. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.128.86.68 (talk)

NPOV

Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Content should represent a neutral point of view, should be verifiable, and should not be based on original research. - mako 21:01, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree, it is not a soapbox and it should represent a neutral point of view - while of course being totally factual with supportable data. That is why I have corrected the information regarding the translator transmitters at Wichita Falls and Tyler, Texas and added links.

I also added a separate link to KERA-TV. In addition I added details about North Texas Public Broadcasting, Inc., to show the status of its corporation ownership which cannot by law accept members (who own shares.) You can donate to North Texas Broadcasting, Inc., and ask them to use the money to help pay for the services, equipment and programming to keep their radio station on the air, but you cannot donate to KERA as such. (See the KERA combined TV and radio web site for further information.)

I corrected the programming information by adding links to PRI and the BBC which account for about as much of the airtime as NPR when you factor in any remaining local content.

As for the funding aspect, the fact is that the station asks listeners to become a member of KERA, which is impossible since the call letters are owned and assigned by the FCC and North Texas Public Broadcasting, Inc., owns the buildings, studios and transmitters and pays the staff.

I have no original or other research about what "KERA membership" means. All I know is what everyone else knows: when a listener sends money they get a discount card for fringe goods and services unrelated to KERA. However, there is no membership that I know of except when one pays their "Angel" fee and becomes a member of some inner circle - something that is denied to everyone else. This "Angel" association does indeed appear to have an organizational core, but what that is I don't know. However, the term "membership" as it has been used up until recently is misleading if not dishonest, since there is nothing to be a member of.

If you know more (without departing into original research of course), then you should add it to the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.129.60.203 (talk)

I'm just trying to get you to see that accusations of false pretences and fraud are not appropriate here. - mako 21:59, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Being a reasonable person then, I ask you if someone advertises a claim in order to get money but the facts do not support their claim, then how would you describe their operation? Clearly what is claimed and what is true with regards to KERA fundraising are two different things. If this was Joe Blow the used car dealer he would be under investigation by the District Attorney. If it was a charity run by you and you are in the same jurisdiction as KERA - the same would apply. So this is a double standard. Now if you would like to word this in such a way that both the facts of the claims by KERA are preserved and the facts of reality are preserved to show that the two are contradictory, then please have a go. But what I object to is the idea that the spotlight which shows the truth of the matter should be turned off. After all, there are MANY Wikipedia subjects that are very controversial and which do show two sides of a story, so this is no different. But again, if you can describe this without destroying the meaning, please go ahead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.128.138.119 (talk)

One of your arguments is that the 'membership' is a lie. I think your concept of membership is not held by most people. For example, if I join AAA I get maps, a magazine, and roadside assistance. I don't get any shares of AAA, and why should I? Likewise, if I start a secret society, and make you a member, are there any shares in a corporation to give out? Membership is a common practice in public radio and television; check out my local station, KQED, for example.

Often people choose not to get gifts because a 'pure' donation nets a tax writeoff. If you wonder who you're donating to, North Texas Public Broadcasting, Inc. is a 501(c)(3), and you can read their financials.

You also allege that they don't mention shipping charges. Yes, they may not mention them on-air, but it's a reasonable omission. If you think it's 'fraudulent', then why not tell them so, or go to your local media, or sic the DA on them? I doubt writing on Wikipedia will get you anywhere. - mako 01:28, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

To be a member of something makes you a part of something. That is the standard dictionary definition. Now that I have shown that the Public Library is not a good comparison and that the National Geographic Society is not a good example, you have now raised AAA and tried to limit membership to share ownership. I did not advocate that example as a singular answer but in relationship to the parent corporation. I then brought attention to the call letters themselves and I have repeatedly shown that there is no membership available to anyone in anything at the basic level. Their Angel society is defined separately. Now back to AAA. If you join AAA as a member you do belong to a club that does exist in fact. The KERA club/society does NOT exist in fact. As for trying to insinuate that I am on some sort of crusade against KERA you are way off the mark since I listen to KERA and send money to KERA. I am merely trying to get them to be more honest about what they are doing by creating a honest and true account of their operation here on Wikipedia. I assume that you have no objection to a truthful NPOV article about KERA here on Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.247.25.19 (talk)

I guess you didn't read WP:V. The first sentences: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. This means that we only publish material that is verifiable with reference to reliable, published sources." Please read WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:NOR; they are the tenets of Wikipedia. And also read WP:NOT.

So why does the Angel society meet your requirements for existence, and not the regular membership? If there are members, then there is a membership, no? That's all the definition requires. Also consider the phrase 'card-carrying member'. - mako 01:32, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

KERA FAQ FUNDING

As of Monday, April 10, 2006 the North Texas Public Broadcasting, Inc. web site for KERA television and radio states the following in their FAQ for funding:

"WHAT DOES MY MEMBERSHIP INCLUDE? See Member Benefits for a description of what you will receive as a KERA member."

Unfortunately the further link to "Member Benefits" goes to a notice that the page cannot be displayed and a suggestion to return to the main page.

"IS THERE A WAY I CAN HELP KERA MONTHLY RATHER THAN ONE LARGE PAYMENT? Yes you can! Easy Chex is the most convenient and cost-effective way for you to support programming on KERA 13, KERA 2 and KERA 90.1."

Unfortunately North Texas Public Broadcasting, Inc., sold KERA 2 to a commercial religious broadcaster some time ago. In other words it does not exist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.129.60.203 (talk)

KERA RAFFLE

From the North Texas Public Broadcasting, Inc., web site for KERA television and radio as of Monday, April 10, 2006 =

"Support the KERA Ticket to Ride Raffle. Buy a $100 raffle ticket and you could win a Pontiac Solstice! If you've tried to get your hands on the hot new Pontiac Solstice, you know what a cool opportunity this is. And remember, you're also supporting KERA 13 and KERA 90.1, so everyone wins. Raffle tickets are $100 each, and only 1,300 will be sold. We'll draw the winner live on KERA 13 on Sunday evening, June 18, 2006. You need not be present to win. Winner will be notified by telephone. Employees or immediate family members of North Texas Public Broadcasting and Sewell Automotive Companies are not eligible to participate. Must be 18 years or older to enter. The car is valued at $25,245. This amount, less $100 cost of winning raffle ticket, is taxable income to the winner. Prize is not convertible to cash, nor will credit be given toward another Pontiac model. Vehicle taxes, tags, and title are the responsibility of the winner. Winner must complete Form W-9 and sign W-2G prior to delivery of the vehicle. Prior to delivery, winner must remit cash payment of $7,068.60 to satisfy 28% U.S. common tax withholding. Raffle ticket price is not tax deductible or refundable. Colors/options of winning vehicle to be determined by availability. Sponsored by Sewell Pontiac. How many raffle tickets would you like to purchase? KERA Ticket to Ride Raffle for a Pontiac Solstice $100." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.129.60.203 (talk)

What is this supposed to illustrate? You pay the same 28% tax if you win the lottery. - mako 02:09, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Read the wording. This is a sponsored raffle by a car dealer over a supposedly non-commercial radio station. This is supposed to illustrate that the old days of a true separation between commercial and non-commercial radio are in the past. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.247.25.19 (talk)

I don't see how this is relevant to the article. You might as well complain about corporate underwriting; that's a bigger concern in my book, but it's still not relevant here. - mako 01:32, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Source?

The station also offers "gifts" to "members" for their donations above the basic level, but these gifts come with a shipping and handling cost which results in a large number of people waiving their not-so-free "gifts".

"A large number": how many? Can you provide a source? - mako 02:07, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

The source is the station itself on air and this is also confirmed on its own web site! So what are you questionning, the fact that the "gifts" are waived or that there is a hidden shipping and handling charge to receive the "gifts"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.247.25.19 (talk)

a large number of people waiving their not-so-free "gifts". "A large number" is evasive, and needs to be quantitative. And the phenomenon of gift-returning needs to be sourced. - mako 01:32, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

BBC World Service

The British Broadcasting Corporation originates most of its domestic (UK) radio programs from BBC Broadcasting House at the end of Regent Street in London, England and they are financed by a mandatory license fee imposed upon every television set in use in the UK. (This used to apply to radio sets as well.) The BBC World Service serves the same function as the USA's Voice of America - which is forbidden by US law to broadcast to, or serve citizens or residents of the United States of America because it is financed by the United States Government as a propaganda arm, while the BBC World Service is the British propaganda arm and it is financed by the British Foreign Office with broadcasts originating from studios located in Bush House, which located some distance from the domestic Broadcasting House. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.244.181.239 (talk)

Because there seems to be an unwillingness to accept the facts about the BBC World Service, this is what the Wikipedia article about the BBC World Service states. Due to the inclusion of the full name of the British Foreign Office I have amended the copy of the article to reflect this detail.

The BBC World Service is one of the most widely recognised international broadcasters of radio programming, transmitting in 33 languages to around 150 million people throughout the world. The English service broadcasts 24 hours a day. Unlike the BBC's main radio and television services, which are primarily funded by a licence fee, the World Service is funded by the British Government through the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.244.181.239 (talk)

This is outside the scope of this article. Take your concerns to BBC World Service. - mako 01:32, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Propaganda

Although there seems to be an objection to use of the word "propaganda" as applied to the BBC World Service which is the propaganda arm of the British government, this is what the Wikipedia article on propaganda says -

Propaganda is a specific type of message presentation directly aimed at influencing the opinions of people, rather than impartially providing information. In some cultures the term is neutral or even positive, while in others the term has acquired a strong negative connotation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.244.181.239 (talk)

It says right there: a strong negative connotation. Its usage in this article is both irrelevant and POV. - mako 01:32, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Removals

[Note to readers: this section has become a bit hard to follow. The numbered points are things that I removed from the article, and the first indent following each one is my reasoning. The second indent is the anonymous editor's rebuttal, and the third indent is my response, mostly signed. - mako 11:06, 16 April 2006 (UTC)]

0. which unlike the license fee financed domestic services of the BBC that are heard in the United Kingdom, originates from separate studios and is financed by the British Government through the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. (The Foreign and Commonwealth Office, more commonly known as the Foreign Office, is the United Kingdom government department responsible for promoting the interests of the United Kingdom abroad.)

Irrelevant to this article.

1. Questionnable solicitations?

This is a conclusion based on your interpretation, therefore it is original research.

How can existing material created by others on other Wikipedia articles that are related to this one become "original research" within the Wikipedia interpretation? Clearly they are not and clearly you are deleting material in effort to censor material and that is clearly both original and clearly against Wikipedia policy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.129.11.178 (talk)

From WP:NOR: "An edit counts as original research if it ... introduces an analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reputable source". - mako 23:36, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

---

2. Listeners are asked to become financial supporters by inducing them to pay a minimum amount in order to receive a discount card to be used for goods and services from a limited number of outlets.

This is not specific to KERA, so it is redundant. Take it to fundraising.

A totally absurd conclusion by a deletionist censor. If this was applied to all Wikipedia articles then Wikipedia would be gutted and no article could stand on its own. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.129.11.178 (talk)

Then let me wonder at how people can be "asked" by "inducing them". It's also obvious that the number of outlets cannot be unlimited. This sentence is so slanted that it should be written upside-down. - mako 23:36, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

---

3. The discount card is touted as a membership, although no membership at the basic level exists.

Solely your argument.

Absolutely not! This is proved by the latest mailing from KERA in April 2006. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.129.11.178 (talk)

WP:NOR: "An edit counts as original research if it ... provides new definitions of pre-existing terms".

---

4. The station also offers gifts on air during pledge drives for donations above the basic level,

Again, redundant.

Again a ridiculous answer by a deletionist censor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.129.11.178 (talk)

---

5. although upon making a donation the donor is informed that shipping and handling charges will be applied, thus turning the "gift" into a purchase.

This conclusion is illogical.

If a person is given a gift in law then the person is given somsthing totally free of any cost whatsoever. If a person is then told that they will have to pay for both the "handling" as well as the shipping charge to get the "gift", then in law it is no longer a gift but a purchase. I suggest that a few people are in need of exposure to the meaning of words as well as the law relating to gifts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.129.11.178 (talk)

Shipping is not the gift. You still don't pay for the gift. Have you encountered "free gift with purchase"? Is amazon violating the law with this sort of promotion? - mako 23:36, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

---

6. As a result many supporters decline to pay the shipping and handling charges and thus they do not receive the "gift".

See above. Needs source.

The sourse is available from KERA - it is not a hidden fact. They do not deny it! They in fact welcome it as a means of gaining more income. Read their own web site or listen to the station. I assume that the problem is that the two main deletionists had no first hand knowledge of the subject matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.129.11.178 (talk)

You're conflating two very different things, and attempting to cloud the issue. As I said before, no gift = tax writeoff for the donator.

What you need to furnish is a source for how many people, after having chosen a gift, decline to pay the shipping and handling and then do not get the gift. - mako 23:36, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

---

7. Although this article states that the power is limited to 250 watts this is not correct in the instance of KERA. (See external links below to translator transmitters.)

0.25 kW = 250 W. (Couldn't get to recnet, so I changed that link.)

No idea what that deletionist comment means. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.129.11.178 (talk)

The FCC licences effective radiated power. Both translator stations are within the limit of 250W ERP. - mako 23:36, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

---

8. *BBC World Service - this article provides details of its funding by the British government as a [propaganda] service.

• Voice of America - is the US version of the BBC World Service and its broacasts are not allowed by law to influence citizens or residents within the USA.
• North Texas Public Broadcasting, Inc. recruitment specifications for fundraising applicants.

Irrelevant to the article.- mako 01:32, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

No, you asked for sources and sources were provided and your only way out then was to delete! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.129.11.178 (talk)

You're being evasive. Tell me how these, and their comments, are relevant to the article. Supporting original research doesn't count. - mako 23:36, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

---

Clearly mako is expressing a POV that is contrary to Wikipedia NPOV. If material from all related articles on Wikipedia is deleted following this pattern, then Wikipedia will be gutted. I thought Wikipedia was to inform in a NPOV manner? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.244.181.239 (talk)

Is this article some kind of test case for the limits of and problems associated with creating an encyclopedia anyone can edit? I doubt the current situation would continue unchecked on a less obscure topic—even a less obscure radio station. -Acjelen 21:30, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Is your point that KERA is obscure because you have no first hand knowledge of the subject? Or is your point that you do not know how to get your own way? Clearly both are contrary to Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.129.11.178 (talk)

---

One recent edit was a straight revert, with an incomplete edit summary. Assuming good faith only goes so far, and I for one would like to know how I am expressing a POV.

Regarding broadcast power, the FCC license is based on Effective radiated power. And call sign meanings are relevant (not to mention verifiable). - mako 01:22, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

You are constantly stressing a POV against a NPOV approach by deleting information that you do not like, rather than trying to improve upon the flow of information being provided. Deletionism like censorship is highly POV and it reflects a limited understanding of what Wikipedia is trying to accomplish. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.129.11.178 (talk)

Further debate

What you originally added to the article was original research. Now it is just random things you find suspect, which are of limited relevance. These are obviously being used to support your position, no matter how spurious they may be. Even if this was not original research, it would represent a minor viewpoint, which is in the NPOV policy. And you also have not shown verifiability.

You have shown bad faith in reverting the page while discussion continues. The onus is on you to demonstrate why your edits should stay. Making a coherent argument, referencing the policies, is in your best interest. If you continue in the same fashion, we will have to request intervention. - mako 23:36, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

1. verifiability - I have quoted their own web site and their own literature as sources and documented same! You on the other hand delete.

2. I corrected misinformation and added links to show the status of the repeater stations at Wichita Falls and Tyler.

3. I quoted Wikipedia as a source for information about the BBC World Service and you still tried to delete that!

Obviously the kettle is calling the pot black (to quote an old saying), in as much that you are the one who has a VERY POV ax to grind and this is causing you to revert, delete and destroy information and knowledge which means that YOU are dedicated to preserving your own slimmed down version of your own original research! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.254.88.239 (talk)

(I indented your post for you.)

1. If you're going to make wild accusations, you'd do better if you presented examples to back up your assertions.

2. As for your material, you have not verified anything. You have not given a source for a more specific number of cases where shipping charges have caused people to forego their gifts.

3. I have repeatedly told you about ERP, yet you insist in presenting misinformation about transmitter power.

4. Your invocation of the BBC World Service is totally tangential to KERA -- I ask you, would it be relevant to have those sentences in the article of every single radio station that carries the BBC-WS? No, that is not how Wikipedia works -- we have these nice links which place more detailed information just a click away. - mako 21:28, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the indentation, I have numbered your own wild accusations.

1. "Wild accusations" = where? Suggesting such a thing is in itself a "wild accusation" - hence my claim that you are accusing others of what you are doing yourself.

2. Handling and shipping charges = if I find some specific quotations from KERA to verify that people do not accept the "gifts", will that be sufficient for you? It is not a secret. They make the claim on air and in literature. What is your beef with this issue?

3. ERP. I am not disputing ERP, what made you think that I was? My observation was not in any way shape or form intended to spark a controversy about ERP. I don't get your point at all.

4. In answer to your question about the British Government funding of the BBC World Service the answer in this instance is yes because it goes to funding and the fact that people who listen to a similar station in another city are unlikely to be interested in what KERA is doing. This is a very local station even though its signal reaches across parts of North, East and Central Texas.

Please do not smear or delete because you cannot have your own way. Wikipedia is supposed to be open access to knowledge and information - not censorship. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.247.119.43 (talk)

1. Wild accusation: "you are the one who has a VERY POV ax to grind and this is causing you to revert, delete and destroy information and knowledge which means that YOU are dedicated to preserving your own slimmed down version of your own original research!" I'm curious, what sort of original research am I presenting?
2. For the third time, what you need to furnish is a source for how many people, after having chosen a gift, decline to pay the shipping and handling and then do not get the gift. Verifiability, plain and simple.
3. You wrote: "Although this article states that the power is limited to 250 watts this is not correct in the instance of KERA." I know you probably got this idea from the REC database entry where it says "Transmitter Power Output: 0.435 kW". But there's a difference between transmitter power and effective power; the ERP is still limited to 250W, as it says a bit further down. Therefore your statement is not correct. The reason I originally changed the link was because the site was down. For consistency's sake, use one site or another.
4. This particular point isn't about facts, it's about article scope. It's simply incongruous for an article about a radio station to suddenly start talking about how the BBC-WS is funded. What about NPR or PRI then? It doesn't make sense to include this information in the KERA article.
5. You still haven't convinced me that your membership claims are not original research. - mako 01:26, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

1. You are following hot on the heels of another user who reverted the article 3 times to shrink it down to a bare bones listing and you are following the same pattern. Neither one of you contributes knowledge or information, but you both want to delete any attention drawn to problems with fund raising.

2. You are tiresome on your source question because I just asked you if I find their own reference will this satisfy you, but instead you sidestepped my answer by trying to insinuate that I am making something up which even KERA does not hide!

3. Do you ever read what I write? I answered this point the last time. It is no big deal and as for 2 sources instead of one, well now, aren't you contradictory yourself?

4. Why didn't you respond to my last answer on this point? You seem dedicated to ignoring the facts and banging a drum. As for the funding of NPR it is in part funded by the US Government and as for PRI I am not sure because I have not checked. As for the BBC World Service it is 100% funded as the propaganda (please look up the meaning of this word), arm of the British Government and it neither operates from the domestic BBC studios and neither does it fall under the same controls as domestic BBC radio. It is an overseas propaganda arm of the British Government which may be good or bad depending upon your own political point of view.

5. Your point here is a mere repetition of your similar point above. Do you have ANY contact with the subject matter? Try contributing information and knowledge for a change, you will like the experience. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.247.119.43 (talk)

1. The point being, if I have not contributed knowledge or information, then I cannot have possibly have contributed original research. You can't have it both ways.
2. I apologize for being pedantic. If you have a source from KERA, then it will work, provided it meets verifiability requirements, of course.
3. Please tell me why you believe your statement is true, because I can't find any truth in it. If I interpret your sentence to mean watts ERP, then KERA's translator stations obviously do not exceed the 250W ERP limit. If I interpret your sentence to mean plain watts, then that part is false, because the broadcast translator article says 250W ERP.
4. Quite frankly, I found your answer hard to interpret. I asked, should this info be in every article that mentions the BBC-WS, and you replied yes due to the funding aspect and "people who listen to a similar station in another city are unlikely to be interested in what KERA is doing". I understand the first point, but not the second. As for propaganda, that's a POV term, as the quotation you cited above makes note of. I question the need for inclusion here, as the BBC World Service article makes its purposes pretty clear. Including lengthy passages here is redundant.
5. I am not sure what you are getting at. I don't agree with your interpretation of membership. And I would advise you to contribute information to an article other than this one for a change. You will like the experience.
6. How is this "public radio fraud" article relevant to KERA? - mako 05:26, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

This is tiresome, but to answer -

1. You have NOT contributed knowledge or information, but you have contributed original research by your deletions since the deletions create a skewed article. That is what happens when censors enter into editing, because a NPOV article becomes POV due to someone having a desire to shield knowledge from being read.

2. You apologize for being pedantic and then you are pedantic! I asked you a plain and simple question if whether the source came from KERA itself this would meet your own POV guidelines for acceptability. You then engaged in another Wikipedia "no, no" by waffling in order not to give a clear answer in reply to a clear question.

3. I have no idea of what you are going on about. As I have written MANY times before, if the wording about ERP can be presented more clearly, then go ahead and do it. You seem to be banging this drum in order to make a point about absolutely nothing. I corrected the original misinformation that placed the main transmitter and the translator transmitters on the same footing and I also added external links as sources to back everything up. You seem to be adverse to writing in order to add, only in order to delete, confuse and destroy. What a time waster.

4 and 5. Your comments about membership are not written in the spirit of Wikipedia and do not contribute to knowledge or understanding about the subject. Please read the Wikipedia guidelines that I posted at the top of this discussion page. Again, please READ the guideline and then abide by them, we will all get along much better. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.129.8.93 (talk)

1. By definition, original research is "material added to articles".
2. But I've asked you for a source many times already. And I believe you can judge whether a source meets verifiability, as it's all laid out on the WP:V page, which is why I emphasized it so much.
3. Well, you removed it. That's all I wanted.
4. I'm not understanding you. Please understand that I don't have anything against you; I'm just challenging your content. If you're unwilling to discuss your contributions in the framework of Wikipedia policies, then there's only so much I can do.
5. Please read the policy about civility.
6. How is this "public radio fraud" article relevant to KERA? - mako 23:00, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Appropriate box

Clearly the entire article is NOT disputed, only certain sections of it are disputed and so I have changed the tags from the more sensational to the more topic specific useful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.247.119.43 (talk)

Obviously someone has dedicated themselves to destructed wallpapering by further adding to boxes and therefore creating more confusion. I have left the originals (previously improved) in place and removed the others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.129.8.93 (talk)

Third opinion

The stuff on the BBC World Service is wholly irrelevant (not to mention non-NPOV, and should be removed. Link to the World Service page and put NPOV discussion of it's neutrality or lack therof in it. If folk want to find out more, they can click the link and be illuminated. I don't know how US commerical radio, but if the funding methods are typical, the that information can go - people'll either know it, or will be able to find out from the article on commercial radio in the US. On the other hand, if KERA FM has any particularly unusual (and hence notable) methods (for instance innovative fundraising events), be sure to mention them. Finally, could everyone please be extra-careful to sign your contributions on the talk page with four tildes (~~~~) to produce a signature and date stamp. Like this one. --Scott Wilson 08:38, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Contadictory third opinion: If the information about the BBC World Service is untrue or misleading, that is one thing, but to suggest that it is not NPOV when the information came from the Wikipedia article about the BBC World Service, well that is plainly contradictory since you advocate links then to an existing article that is not NPOV - which by the way, I did not write! I also had nothing to do with definition of the word "propaganda" as it is defined on yet another Wikipedia article. So if the core of what you object to is coming from other Wikipedia articles via links and quotations then you should start there and remove all of that, assuming of course that what you are writing is NPOV, which of course it is not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.129.8.93 (talk • contribs)

Source added

Sources have been added to the funding section and others will be added, all originated with KERA. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.129.8.93 (talk)

Your sources still don't support your statement: upon making a donation the donor is informed that shipping and handling charges will be applied, thus turning the "gift" into a purchase. As a result many supporters decline to pay the shipping and handling charges and thus they do not receive the "gift". You need to establish cause and effect between shipping charges and not receiving the gift. You also need a specific number or proportion; 'many' is a weasel word and should be avoided. - mako 23:00, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Disputed sections

If you feel that Wikipedia's verifiability requirements are wasting your time, your material can probably find a home at Wikinfo. - mako 08:58, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

No further evidence has arisen to support these claims, so they will be removed. - mako 06:21, 19 May 2006 (UTC)