User talk:RiseupRiseup

Please see Wikipedia:No original research. You're not permitted to add personal observations or original research to Wikipedia articles. 69.196.135.120 (talk) 03:28, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Read Wikipedia:No original research. You're supposed to use secondary sources only, such as a news article or book that refers to a fact, not your personal observations that this or that show has gone off the air or that a website has changed etc. 69.196.135.120 (talk) 03:39, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It was not my personal observation at all. I referenced all the changes with citations. Basically, I was showing that CKLN was either not updating their site properly, or did not wish to admit that shows were leaving the station upon the move to Regent Park and rushed to change the information on their site only when it was exposed that they were claiming shows were still on their station when they were not. I notice you are making sure that the "Mooving in the Right Direction" show shifting its production and broadcast presence to CIUT, although cited properly in my posts, is always removed. My citations showed that the show was on CKLN's program grid and did move to CIUT. Why is this not allowed to be mentioned on your say-so? RiseupRiseup (talk) 03:50, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See CHEV, another former over the air station which is not internet only but infobox remains. 69.196.135.120 (talk) 03:56, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have to follow the rules. You can't add "original research" or your own personal observations, you also can't just remove information based on a whim. The article is clearly about both the defunct FM radio station and the internet radio station, which are in fact the same corporation, so you need to separate your personal opinion from your editing. While you might want to remove information about the former FM station because of your personal views the fact is it is the came corporate entity so such an act isn't justifiable. 69.196.135.120 (talk) 04:12, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See CHSC, a former over the air station which did not have its CRTC licence renewed that is now internet only but listed as "defunct". It uses its original 1220 AM logo, but the article always discusses the history of the station in the past tense except for its current online status. It has the advantage of providing technical data about the past operation for those historians who may be interested. I put forward that this is the model that I would recommend to editors should be followed. I hope you can agree to this also and since we both have a deep interest in CKLN that we can make the necessary changes in a non-combative and collaborative manner. We should be preserving history, not obscuring it, I maintain. Please respond with your thoughts in your usual prompt, expeditious manner which is appreciated. RiseupRiseup (talk) 04:18, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I do not wish to make accusations, but I am not changing things "on a whim". As you can see I have researched other examples and am trying to engage in a reasonable manner with you, as we seem to have different views about this presentation. I used as a template the way in which "Pandora"'s Wikipedia was displayed. If it's good enough for them, I think it's certainly good enough for a radio station such as CKLN.fm. There's no example I'm injecting my "personal view". You are offering no proof of that but to say it. Let's be less confrontational and more collaborative, please. RiseupRiseup (talk) 04:22, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The same can be said of the infobox for CHEV, if the radio infobox that CHEV and other internet radio station articles use is good enough for them... As for your other point, again, we're still talking about the same corporation, therefore a unified article is warranted. Legally, it's the same company and the same entity even if the medium used changes. 69.196.135.120 (talk) 05:09, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are avoiding the information missing about CKLN's past that the new article obliterates in favour of promoting the current CKLN.fm incarnation, which has to be seen as being less important than the previous incarnation. The CHSC example seems to work. Legally CHSC is still the same company, so that tallies with CKLN. The way the CKLN.fm article is proceeding is destructive to the history of CKLN-FM. Why can't there be two articles, for instance? Should we bring in a more experienced editor to deal with this, seeing as you appear to be offering very little in the way of compromise? Seeing as you seem to know so much about the rules, what happens when an impasse is reached such as we seem to be? Is there some way of mediating such a dispute when all else has failed. I would appreciate your experience in this matter. RiseupRiseup (talk) 05:35, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What historical information has been removed? If you compare the article now to what it was a few months ago you'll see historical information has actually been added, not obliterated. 69.165.129.232 (talk) 15:17, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to involve other editors then discuss the issue at Talk:CKLN.fm. I've copied and pasted this discussion there and asked for input from the Canadian editors notice board. 69.165.129.232 (talk) 15:21, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

CKLN

It's worth understanding that Wikipedia is not just an advertising catalogue of what our topics happen to be right now; the entire history of CKLN, both in its former incarnation as an FM radio station and in its current form as an Internet radio service, remains permanently relevant for our purposes as an encyclopedia. I will note, however, that one thing I've done is to take any categories that don't apply to the station's current incarnation, such as Category:Ryerson University and the years of establishment and disestablishment, off the article and placed them on the redirect from the old FM call sign instead — however, it's not standard practice on Wikipedia to spin off multiple articles about the same thing just because something about that thing, such as what platform a radio station broadcasts on, has changed. For one thing, the Internet radio service likely wouldn't even qualify for an article on here at all if it weren't a remnant of a former FM radio station, because without the FM incarnation's history it wouldn't have the necessary volume of reliable sourcing to demonstrate proper notability. Bearcat (talk) 18:37, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the historical information that has been obliterated is the technical data about the 88.1 FM station. Now that it is "CKLN.fm", an internet streaming entity, instead of "CKLN-FM" the information in the upper portion of the article under the logo has been substantially altered. Whether more "history" has been added in terms of the story of CKLN is immaterial. I agree with Bearcat that CKLN.fm wouldn't even warrant an article in wikipedia in its current form, which I think supports the idea of having a "defunct" status, as other articles seem to be, applied to it as "CKLN-FM". The article, and the way it has been edited, is biased. I suggest cutting its length to the barest essentials and cutting out the CKLN.fm public relations data that permeates it. I note there is barely any information about the CRTC hearing, which is probably the most defining moment in the station's history. Also, I might ask Bearcat whether it is true, as has been stated by 69.165.129.232, that government documents, such as sworn under oath transcripts are not allowed to be referenced in an article. If so, what is the rule that should be followed there? Also, a lot of the citations are from student newspapers, one of them, the "Ryerson Free Press" which is the house organ of one of the parties involved in the dispute at CKLN, as stated in the article (CESAR). Surely there's a problem there. I think I read somewhere in the Wikipedia rules that such student newspapers, seeing as they are not done by professional journalists and do not have the supposed proper oversight of "mainstream" publications, are not reliable for citations. If this is so and the references were removed, I think it would improve the article because it would cut down its length and make it more succinct.

As stated before, I think the "defunct" status would be an improvement, and refer in the article to the new incarnation of CKLN.fm, which is at best a work in progress. So far it's a shadow of CKLN-FM's former self based on what's been going on for the past week or so. The implication to the contrary, as the article now insists whenever possible, is again "public relations" and suggests the editor has too close a relationship to the subject which I understand is a problem at Wikipedia. Such cases often lead to having a disclaimer placed on the article to that effect as a warning to readers. I believe this article would be better off, in its present form, with such a disclaimer. RiseupRiseup (talk) 04:32, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you want a response you should post your comments at Talk:CKLN.fm or on Bearcat's talk page. 69.165.129.232 (talk) 12:23, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]