Talk:KTVX

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Television Stations This article is part of WikiProject Television Stations, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to Television stations. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.

This article is part of WikiProject Utah, a WikiProject related to the U.S. state of Utah.

Contents

[edit] Old Callsign

KTVX used to broadcast under the callsign "KCPX". This information was previously placed under "Former Affiliations" in the infobox, which I don't think was fitting. I would place it under a section on the station's history, but I don't know that much about the station, so I didn't start such a section. I'm putting this here for reference. - Hinto 02:04, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] High profile censorship incident

A section on a high-profile incident of censorship that made all the papers has been removed twice. I have added it back. If someone has a legitimate reason for changing it other than trying to censor the station's image, I would be far more receptive to edits designed to make the paragraph more accurate or balanced than censoring it.

The current form of the paragraph on the censorship incident now mentions KSL as a station not giving in to censorship. But KSL is NBC, which just apparently turned down advertising of a film about the Dixie Chicks', because "they are disparaging of President Bush." This was not a local incident as the KTVX censorship incident claimed to be.198.60.22.24 18:16, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Revert War

One user with multiple accounts (User:RSPW Poster & User:RSPW Coaster) is removing the reference to censorship by ClearChannel and the ownership of rival station KSL-TV with absolutely no justification. Can we have this article protected from said abuse? Chadbryant 22:02, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

There is no "Revert War." It is all a figment of Mr. Bryant's fertil yet misguided imagination. I am removing the last portion of the entry because its sole purpose is to show a positive spin on the Mormon Church. Even when there have been previous entries attempting to remind others that these ARE Mormons, Chad removed them -- why? What did the simply entry of "(Mormons)" do to allegedly vandalize the entry, as he's tried to claim in the past? Barring that, and staying with this, it should be noted that Chadbryant *is* a member of the LDS Church, which is why he put the entry up in the first place. This is justification -- it was done as a matter of a personal opinion. Slanted, sure, but this "FOX News" style of Wikipedia editing should have no place on the site! RSPW Coaster

I would say keep the paragraph but remove the line about KSL and the mormons. If it made a national paper it is news worthy. But at the same time pushing an agenda of making ksl, and the mormons, look "good" is not good NPOV. A 09:27, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

I think the line about KSL is quite relevant. It was mentioned in the USA Today article for a reason. Utah Mormons, which are a majority in Utah, generally are strongly, even hostilely, aligned with the war parties (Republican or some Democrat) yet even the LDS-owned KSL could see that free speech was at issue here and said so. This is just an important fact. I did not add this language, and I let it be edited out when it seemed that those trying to censor out the censorship incident altogether would make a compromise with the simpler paragraph, but now that the paragraph has been edited out so many times since by those apparently trying to censor the image of KTVX, I think it should be left in. No doubt KTVX hates to be revealed in such an extreme position.
There are 16 paragraphs in the article, the quote from KSL and the line that it is owned by the LDS church is in paragraph 13. More of a passing mention then the body of the article. My position above still stands. May seem important to Utah wikipedians, but would look like lds agenda pushing to those outside utah, imo. Also, please sign your comments, even if you do not have an account, you can do this by adding four ~'s in a row. A 21:20, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
As noted above, the portion describing the ownership of KSL is both relevant and germaine to the article. Those who are constantly removing it do so only because of their own agenda and bigotry. Chadbryant 04:44, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
"Bigotry?" All I'm asking is that you stop putting pro-Mormon remarks into your article because I suspect the only reason you continue to do so is because you yourself are a follower of the Mormon Church. I never said anything about hating any particular religion, race, etc. Try again, Chad. ~~ RSPW Coaster 21:11, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
I still do not agree with the inclusion of the line regarding KSL and the LDS church. If it was both "relevant and germane" then it would have been in the first few paragraphs of the article mentioned. In the inverted pyramid style of journalism, the most relevant information is at the first of the article. The useless tidbits such as that even the mormon owned station in the market played the ad go at the bottom of the article. Personal agenda of RSPW or not, it should not be in the paragraph. Do you have a good argument of why it SHOULD be included? A 07:58, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

So RSPW, are you going to talk about the article in here and come to a compromise or are you just going to keep reverting in hopes of getting a ban? I think my proposal of keeping the paragraph but removing the reference to ksl and the lds church is fair, but by mindlessly reverting you are making it hard to make the case for it. A 01:09, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

The argument to include the text about KSL seems to have been made clearly (and similar text appeared in other national and local articles). Some counter-argument has been made to omit it, which doesn't seem to answer the argument well, but looking back through the edit history, the one making the changes has admitted vandalism: "well hell, as long as you continue to lie about there being vandalism, I may as well oblidge ya.", and continued removing the whole thing, which had also happened when the text was not even there. The whole paragraph has been removed so many times when it did not contain the language that it is clear there is more at issue than that part of the text. While the paragraph stands very well in minimal form without the KSL reference, which merely elaborates on the fact that KTVX was the only local station which did not air the add the ad and that Clear Channel was applying First Ammendment differently from others, the more the vandals behave like KTVX shills, the more we may as well leave it in. This has never been about the image of the Mormon Church. This has been about trying to make KTVX look good by censoring their image, as the behavior clearly demonstrated when the language was present and not present. 198.60.22.24 14:51, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
Um...okay...the only reason why I said "well hell, as long as you continue [ . . .]" was because at that point, it had become glaringly obvious to me that Chadbryant was going to continue with his bullshit claim of "vandalism" in his justification for placing those remarks back in. He had -- and still continues in doing so -- used a flimsy, watershed excuse of "vandalism" in this article entry and others to try to justify to himself and -- most importantly -- to Wikipedia administrators, in an attempt to get his own warped agenda over and make others look like the bad guys. See "Stannie Get Your Gun" entry for American Dad as a good example -- a single line of trivia was placed into the article. The trivia was correct, justified, and in no way harmed or broke down the article, yet simply because someone he disliked had placed the remark into the entry, Chad removed it and claimed "vandalism." It should be noted he eventually received a 24 hour ban as a result. Point being, I meant no real disrespect -- I simply was fed up by his pathetic and petty behavior, and knew that there was no way he was going to stop until he hit a ban. -- ~~ RSPW Coaster 21:24, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
I'm glad that someone is bothering to actualy talk about this rather then just revert over and over and over. However, your words would mean alot more if they were not comming from a proxy. For everyone else's information, 198.60.22.24 is socks.xmission.com, a proxy that could be used to hide one's identity. I am still waiting for a good argument in favor of keeping the line about KSL in. A 20:26, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
I consider RSPW "discussion" dishonest, because it has always resulted in removing the entire paragraph and such self-admitted vandalism. The discussion was clearly there before, as were versions without the text RSPW claims is leading RSPW to remove the entire paragraph. There are still roughly a hundred page hits remaining on Google which thought the KSL reference was significant. There were twice the number which did not. As I said before, I could live without the KSL reference, because it is only an elaboration, albeit one that was significant. It looks like the war started over even sillier little changes and did not initially question whether the KSL should be mentioned. 198.60.22.24 21:09, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
By creating an account and signing in you increase your anonymity, not vice-versa. Hall Monitor 21:32, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
I would agree if it were not for the fact that over 30k subscribers have the ability to hide behind this ip. Once again, I'm not saying that this poster has, just that there is the possibility. A 04:51, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

A asked for a 3rd party. Here it is: this revert war must stop. My suggestion is this: it is evident by the source article that the information in the disputed paragraph is factual and informative. However, the wording of the paragraph could be better adjusted. By adjusting the positioning of the conjectured sentence in the paragraph so it is more of a context then an extra point would make it more worthwhile. So perhaps saying which stations did screen the ad would have more merit then the statement that KTVX was the only station, which has what I would perceive as negative connotations. Just my 2 cents. MyNameIsNotBob 06:59, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

The revert war is only happening because of two unrelated parties working in concert - the abusive user currently running the "DinkSocks" of User:RSPW Poster & User:RSPW Coaster (who is doing it only because I fixed the reference to "Mormon Church" [incorrect] to "LDS Church" [proper terminology], and has been doing similar vandalizing edits/reverts to other articles I've contributed to), and an IP belonging to ClearChannel Communications, which has attacked this article in the past for pointing out CC's censorship of anti-war/anti-Bush/anti-Republican content. Both of these contributors are of little or no value to Wikipedia as a whole, and their biases & bigotry should not be allowed to influence the content of an article. Their reasons for vandalizing the article as written have nothing to do with wanting to improve it, and everything to do with removing contributions that they disagree with for whatever reason. Chadbryant 07:29, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
Oh would you just SHUT THE FUCK UP already?!?! The only one who has "no value to Wikipedia as a whole" is YOURSELF. YOU constantly put YOUR own values and opinions into articles that would be best left unsubstantiated in that form or simply left as they are. A good example of this would be the rec.sport.pro-wrestling entry where you put your opinion back into the entry after being told months before it should be left OUT of the entry. You are always crying "Mommy! The article has vandalism! I need to revert it, Waaaah, Waaah, Waah!" and when you aren't screaming your head off in a restaurant annoying other patrons with your ludicrous justifications of "vandalism" you are yelling at the waiter about how much "harrassment" there is. Frankly I think you would be best off banned not just for 24 hours, but permanently; however, that's not my decision to make, just as it's not YOUR decision to label other user accounts as so-called "sockpuppets" simply because your paranoid nature suspects them as so!
Anyhow...I believe the Mormon Church reference should not be within the article. Who cares who owns the stations? The behavior of the stations are not relevant; rather, their factual information, up to and including anchorpersons and other such trivia, should be included. There are many ways to phrase the article without putting pro-Mormon propaganda into the mix; as has been stated before, the only reason that Chadbryant believes it to be "vandalism" or "improvement" or whatever damn thing he's harking about this week is because HE is Mormon; thus, his reasons for the information going into it cannot be placed into the article in a completely neutral manner or placement of thought. As for "Mormon" to "LDS," who really cares? Both are correct, in this instance, and an outsider to the entry would be able to comprehend the point of the "facts" either way.
For those who would believe Mr. Chadbryant to be some good Wikipedia Samaritin, I suggest you do a little bit of research on the subject first. He has a long, drawn-out history on Wikipedia to place his own opinions and petty behaviors into their entries (see his recent 24 hour ban for violation of the 3RR rule as a good example) and this is no exception. I am more than willing to discuss this "problem" (though I don't see how there is one other than Chad's biasedness and social phobias coming to light in a cybertext form) on this talk page, so long as Mr. Chadbryant does not come along and delete my comments or edit my entries, as he has been found to have a history of doing so! -- RSPW Coaster 21:10, 6 December 2005 (UTC) 21:09, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
Chadbryant, thank you for actualy responding rather then just reverting. While I am not sold on the line including the reference to KSL, I agree with you that the paragraph in some form should stay. I would still like to get a compromise out of RSPW, but baring that, I think seeking some protection of the article is the correct line of action after this many reverts back and forth, vandalism or not. RSPW, do you have anything to add to the discussion? A 07:41, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Who owns the stations is very relevant, as is the statement made by the KSL-TV rep. I am content to let people figure that out for themselves by following the reference (or a hundred others on the web that mentioned it, search for keywords ktvx, sheehan, ksl) but having it in the article is not a bad thing. Chadbryant is technically right in changing the name of the Church, for several reasons, but wrong in insisting on it to the point where there is a war over it and vandalism overshadows the content of the article (and I wouldn't have bothered changing the name in the first place). On the other hand, I am not sure he can be blamed, with the wacko behavior of RSPW who keeps censoring all the information in this article that was not placed there by the Clear Channel shill and has apparently thus far only done harm to the article, as far as I know and his edits have regularly gone way beyond what he claimed was wrong with the article, invalidating whatever argument he felt he had. It seems like he has some vendetta and stalks Chadbryant who probably goes around making harmless corrections to the references of the Mormon church, which is probably what brought him to the article. The RSPW rant above speaks for itself. Mezle 23:00, 6 December 2005 (UTC) (formerly posting as 198.60.22.24)

"Speaks for itself?" If you mean did I sum up Chadbryant's behavior, then yes, it "speaks for itself." Notice how he is still claiming "vandalism" despite there being none. I don't know what his hang up is with vandalism -- perhaps he spent time in juvenile hall as a child for such acts? At any rate, I wasn't "censoring" anything -- I was removing it based on my belief it was only placed there due to Chadbryant's pro-Mormon beliefs and the fact that he is/was a member of their church and as such was attempting to make them look like the "better" in this situation. Actually given that he hates George Bush and our current government, putting those remarks in there makes a lot more sense in retrospect than anything else; posters to rec.sport.pro-wrestling could certainly back that up. But, for now, just make yourself happy in knowing you are incorrect in your assessment of "stalking" or "vendetta" -- and I can assure you that Chadbryant is FAR from "harmless." RSPW Coaster 01:41, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
There is no such entity as the "Mormon Church" - it's a slang term that developed due to the ignorance of people not familiar with the LDS Church. Referring to LDS Church members or the church itself as "Mormons" is also incorrect. The only reason I changed the reference to "Mormon Church" is because it is incorrect.
As far as User:RSPW Coaster is concerned, that is the latest in an incredibly long line of sockpuppets employed by one infamous Usenet troll who has brought his troublemaking to Wikipedia in order to attack any article I've had any input on, as well as my user & talk pages. There is an entire category devoted to this individual's numerous sockpuppets, most of which are suspended indefinitely within a few days of creation. Chadbryant 01:02, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
Does it matter if there is "no such entity?" Whether it's slang or not, it's still in the popular lexicon, and more people are going to think of the "Mormon Church" rather than the "LDS Church."
As far as the accusation of sockpuppetry, this is laughable at best! Chadbryant has a history of declaring other users on Wikipedia as "sockpuppets" without any rhyme or reason for doing so other than his own paranoia and his biased agenda towards those who would go up against him and say he is wrong. For if there is one thing Chadbryant REALLY hates, it's when someone proves or attempts to prove that he's wrong. But Chadbryant's out-of-control ego is not the issue here. -- RSPW Coaster 01:17, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Unfortunately, User:RSPW Coaster is still engaging in his revert war, well beyond the 3RR rule. His edits have done nothing more than insert style-violating and nonsensical material into the article. Chadbryant 01:48, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Unfortunately, User:Chadbryant is still engaging in his revert war, well beyond the 3RR rule. His edits have done nothing more than insert his own opinion and nonsensical material into the article. RSPW Coaster 02:00, 7 December 2005 (UTC)


How about this? just stop, remove all contentious stuff on the page, and wait for three (3) days. Seventy-two (72) hours. During that time, maybe imagine that a firestorm destroys half your city; or that doctors announce they have discovered a cure for cancer. Then reflect about how unimportant this Wikipedia edit issue here is in the great scheme of things. Breathe deeply, feel glad to be alive, and realize that you are a good person and the other party in this edit war probably has people who think they are a good person as well.

Then comes the easy part, just be flexible and clever and come up with something for the article that you can both live with before moving on.

Please for the sake of all of us, agree to start with a three-day cooling off period, I mean really.RomaC 14:52, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR violations

Several users are in violation of the three revert rule, an action which warrants being blocked. To be fair to all parties involved, please read WP:3RR and discuss your changes rather than revert warring. Hall Monitor 21:35, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Reverting an article to remove vandalism (in this case, numerous deletions & style-violating attacks on the paragraph regarding the Cindy Sheehan ad) does not violate the 3RR rule. Chadbryant 22:21, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
There is no "vandalism" -- this seems to be Mr. Bryant's favorite word to justify his behavior here on Wikipedia. Not only is he using it above, he's also used it in dozens of other entries to satisfy his own warmped agenda. Regarding a possible violation of the 3RR rule, Chadbryant was recently banned for 24 hours for violating it in another entry (though he continues to remove references of this from his talk page in a petty attempt to ignore it). I would go so far as to suggest he should experience the same for this entry. RSPW Coaster 02:06, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Compromise

Alright the article has been modified to read as follows:

During George W. Bush's visit to Salt Lake City to speak to the Veterans of Foreign Wars on August 22, 2005, KTVX was the only local television station that did not air the paid political message of Cindy Sheehan against the war in Iraq[1]. The station's owners Clear Channel Communications claimed that the ad would offend its viewers. However, rival KSL-TV did not hesitate to air the ad.

Would everyone please leave it alone. A 02:55, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

That censors the newsworthy fact that KSL is owned by the LDS Church (or, more accurately, Bonneville International, a business arm of the LDS Church). I don't consider censorship of any newsworthy fact to be a compromise, and the vandalism of a corporate shill looking to save face for his/her company, or a multi-sock vandal like User:RSPW Coaster should not be a catalyst for censorship. Chadbryant 03:23, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
"That censors the newsworthy fact that KSL is owned by the LDS Church." -- Um, how is that newsworthy exactly? All I see is pro-Mormon biasedness from you, Chad. I don't see how the fact that it's owned by Mormons makes it any more relevant than if it was owned by say the Southern Baptists or the Catholics. You don't consider censorship a compromise? Is that why you are abusing Wikipedia all over the place and falsely claiming "vandalism" to justify your edits? Nor do you have any proof that I am "multi-sock" in any form. You are just angry because this leaves the LDS/Mormon part out, and you'll do almost anything as a loyal member to ensure its PR relief. RSPW Coaster 03:55, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
Chadbryant, first of, a difference in opinion IS NOT VANDALISM! Also, I have asked you for some justification of why the 1 paragraph summary of a 16 paragraph article has to include a passing mention from paragraph 13 (KSL/Mormons). You or anyone else has yet to make a good argument other then "if it made the news it is newsworthy." I am sick of this revert war and the childlike bickering that you two let spill over from your "pro" wreastling past. Asking for an unofficial opinion from an admin didn't do any good, asking for a third party opinion in #wikipedia did no good. I have just put up a request on Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts, I hope it helps end this pointless revert war. A 07:03, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
Deliberately reverting an article to one that uses incorrect terminology, or removing a reference that casts the subject in a negative light without justification *is* vandalism. As noted above:
Utah Mormons, which are a majority in Utah, generally are strongly, even hostilely, aligned with the war parties (Republican or some Democrat) yet even the LDS-owned KSL could see that free speech was at issue here and said so. This is just an important fact.
Noting the ownership of KSL *and* correcting the usage of an incorrect term in reference to the LDS Church have both been justified, and no amount of clouding the issue with multiple socks, proxies, or references to professional wrestling will change that. This "revert war" only exists because a noted and documented troublemaker with numerous sockpuppets has chosen to devote his life to taking issue with every contribution I make here. Chadbryant 07:28, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
(sigh) Once again you are about as unbiased as Jesse Jackson in a New Orleans neighborhood. Reverting the article to remove the reference to the LDS does not mean that the article then u ses "incorrect terminology," nor does it mean that it casts it in a "negative light." Unless you can tell me how the ABSENCE of a reference within the article makes it a "negative light?" How could NOT mentioning the LDS Church make it a negative light? See, this is what this whole thing is about in the first place -- your pro-Mormon biasedness not allowing you to contribute to the article in a neutral fashion.
There are no multiple socks or proxies. Even if there WERE, you would have no way of knowing, since you can't see IP numbers or host sites. This is the same problem that Wikipedia has had with your behavior of labelling user accounts as "DinkSocks" simply because you don't like the way that person posted or behaved. As usual, your paranoia (and possible schizophrenia) are shining through in an obvious light through the Wiki window pane, which is keeping you from stating your case without coming across as some sort of idiot with a vendetta or a petty jerk who reverts articles just because he doesn't like the original poster. -- RSPW Poster 17:47, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
Well the correct move would have been to report what is in your eyes as vandalism to an admin and ask for either some protection or a tempban on the user who you claim is commiting the vandalism. Instead you have reverted the article 23 times in the last 4 days. Even if this doesn't violate the 3RR rule, it is still not good wikietiquite. A 08:14, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
Chadbryant knows NOTHING of good "wikietiquite." He will edit user pages on a whim, claiming them as sockpuppets with no justification or reason whatsoever. He'll just jump onto the user page, drop in the template, and WHAM! that's it. Nothing on the talk pages, nothing on admin pages. He's repeatedly reverted articles based on the flimsiest claims of "vandalism," seeing it where there is none and making it up on others. You have about as much of a chance of getting him to behave as you do filling the Grand Canyon with oatmeal. -- RSPW Poster 17:49, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] WP:LAME

I have protected this page (hopefully on The wrong version) with a reference to WP:LAME in the protection message. You people are acting in a manner difficult to distinguish from idiots. Please stop doing so - David Gerard 08:20, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

And 3RR each - David Gerard 08:50, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Survey for what version of the paragraph to include

72 hours is over. Voting is now closed. Please see below.

Alright now that the article is locked and hopefully those involved will cool down, we can get back to some constructive debate on the topic. There are three options as I see it, however please add another if you feel it is appropriate. Add a vote for the option you think should be on the page and after a few days we can hopefully put this dead, bloody, and beaten horse to pasture. I am going to attempt to invite all those who have edited this article in the past as well as other Utah wikipedias via talk pages, however everyone should be allowed to vote.

(let me butt in here with a note on the Options 1,2 &4 - we now seem to have arrived at the understanding that the following is not correct: "KTVX was the only local television station that did not air...(the ad)" as it is being reported that there are 11 stations in the market -four were approached and one refused- so in all eight stations did not air the ad. We could say KTVX was the only station that "refused" to air the ad but I am not quite bold enough to edit Options which people have already voted on) RomaC 05:03, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

While you provide some good points, I would like to stick to the 72 hours of waiting and discussion before removing or editing any of the versions people have put forth. The problem there is that I will not be here, I am going to be a few hundred miles away at a conference. However, now that there are more then three people involved, I have faith that this will work out. I would ask that one of the long time Utah Wikipedians such as JonMoore take over facilitating this discussion. I'll put a request on his talk page in hopes that he will do this. If he is unable/unwilling to, are there any other offers of someone to help out with this? A 07:45, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
I could give it a try. I've never really moderated something like this before, but sure, why not? I am an admin myself, so I suppose we are supposed to work with things like this, although I tend to be a content generator, as opposed to a "beaurocrat". When is the end of the 72 hour phase? Jon 01:30, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
I posted the survey at 08:54, 7 December 2005 UTC. If you do not stay up all night like I usualy do, feel free to end it when you feel appropriate. Thanks for helping out with this. A 02:21, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Option #1 - Pre edit war Version:

During George W. Bush's visit to Salt Lake City to speak to the Veterans of Foreign Wars on August 22, 2005, KTVX was the only local television station that did not air the paid political message of Cindy Sheehan against the war in Iraq[1]. The station's owners Clear Channel Communications claimed that the ad would offend its viewers. However, rival KSL-TV, which is owned by the Mormon Church, did not hesitate to air the ad.

Votes:

  • RomaC 17:02, 7 December 2005 (UTC) Close, but I would say "refused to air" rather than "did not air" and add a quick reference to the other two stations that also ran the ad, that way readers can better understand how KTVX stands in relation to its competitors. Because the owners of KTVX are naturally provided in the article, so should the owners of the other three stations be identified, as this provides some insight into the backgrounds and policies that informed their decisions on whether or not to run the ad.

I personally see Option #1 as the best option of all of the above. To be totally accurate the LDS church has not endorsed President Bush or the War in Iraq, however it seems that the vast majority of LDS Church members in Utah support President Bush and the Iraq War. It might be a good idea to point out Clear Channel's contributions to the Bush camp in 2000 and 2004. It might show a reason besides offending viewers why KTVX refused to air the commercial [[Hypernick1980 08:49, 8 December 2005 (UTC)]]

Option #2 - Pre edit war Version minus reference to KSL & LDS Church:

During George W. Bush's visit to Salt Lake City to speak to the Veterans of Foreign Wars on August 22, 2005, KTVX was the only local television station that did not air the paid political message of Cindy Sheehan against the war in Iraq[1]. The station's owners Clear Channel Communications claimed that the ad would offend its viewers.

Votes:

  • --Boothy443 | trácht ar 09:19, 7 December 2005 (UTC), i do belive that the paragraph is needed, as the isuue was raised espically considering that Utah and Salt Lake is generaly considered as a conserative/pro-bush region, but as KLS-TV was not the only station to run the ad, i fail to see the reason to point them out as opposed to the other stations which also ran the ad regardless of what the ownership of the station is, unless their is some sepecif reson that ownership gave to running the ad, and even then that would be better situated in the KSL-TV artile as opposed to this article.
  • For reasons listed in other parts of this novel of a page, I vote for this option. A 08:55, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
  • The reference to the LDS Church-owned station is an attempt to make KTVX's decision appear extreme. POV. Dedhed 10:13, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
  • -Hinto 16:28, 7 December 2005 (UTC) : as per Boothy443.
  • I think this is the best option. Why would you want to mention who the owners are? The newsworthy fact is the decision of the station, not who actually made the decision itself. Are you going to have to put up the name of the news director for that particular evening? Why not the name of the pastor of the local church in the town while you're at it? I simply don't see a reason for leaving the LDS reference in other than to try to make it look like "Ha, HA! The Mormons are better than those other guys 'cuz they were free thinkers enough to run the ad! The rest of those jerks SUCK! Look how foolish and stupid and backwards ignorant they seem to appear because they didn't run the ad! But OUR guys did! So fuck you, America! We RULE!" ...there's just no reason to have that. Leave the fact in that the station ran it, but keep the LDS reference out. Besides, the station has an internal link within Wikipedia, and if you peruse the entry there, it mentions the Mormon Church. So all it takes is a single click for people to figure that out. -- RSPW Poster 17:54, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I do believe that even mentioning KSL's (and thus Bonneville International and the LDS Church) desicion in this matter is only provided to push POV. In order to balance it, it would be required to mention ever major local station's decision in the matter and their reasons for their actions for an un-biased view on the situation (however, all that information wouldn't be relevant on KUTV's page, thus I vote for option 2). Nothing about KUTV's desicion had anything to do with KSL's decision based on factual information. Tierra 00:53, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Option #3 - Remove paragraph

  • Remove it. All it does is create a pro-Mormon slant and cause huge amounts of trouble and edit wars. It should be left out of the article and never spoken of again, much like the second Darren on Bewitched. Pickles The Cat 22:36, 7 December 2005 (UTC)


Option #4 - Reworded paragraph

During the visit by US President George W. Bush to Salt Lake City to speak to the Veterans of Foreign Wars in August 2005, Cindy Sheehan ran a paid political message protesting against the war in Iraq. The advertisement was screened on all of the local television stations, including the LDS Church owned station KSL-TV. However, the owner's of KTVX, Clear Channel Communications, requested that the ad not be screened on KTVX as it may appear offensive to the local viewers.

Votes:

  • MyNameIsNotBob 09:30, 7 December 2005 (UTC) I added this option as the other versions lack readability and I believe the LDS reference is important as it adds context to the issue.
Thanks for adding another option and voting. A 09:35, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Option #5 - Pre edit war Version with two small revisions:

During George W. Bush's visit to Salt Lake City to speak to the Veterans of Foreign Wars on August 22, 2005, KTVX was the only local television station that did not refused to air the paid political message of Cindy Sheehan against the war in Iraq[1]. The station's owners Clear Channel Communications claimed that the ad would offend its viewers. However, rival KSL-TV, which is owned by the Mormon Church locally owned, did not hesitate to air the ad.

Votes:

  • Here's my reason behind the two revisions. The first revision is due to the fact that the source article only indicates that Sheehan tried to buy ad time on the big four stations, not every single commercial station in Salt Lake City. The second is that the comparison with KSL-TV is relevant because it is locally owned, so while the big media conglomerate thought it was not appropriate for the local market, the local owner did, and to make that point it doesn't matter who the local owner is. The other two stations that aired the ad are owned by their network. 16:29, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
  • --Evice 16:41, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Shifting my vote to this significantly better option. We need instant runoff capability -- If this loses, I want to shift my vote to option 2. Mezle 16:47, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
Mezle, I would have no problem with this. I think that we should let this survey run as is for atleast 72 hours as a sort of cooling off period; and to make sure everyone who wishes to, gets a chance to vote.

Option #6: Yet another rewording...

During the visit by US President George W. Bush to Salt Lake City to speak to the Veterans of Foreign Wars in August 2005, Cindy Sheehan ran was featured in a paid political message protesting against the war in Iraq. The advertisement was screened on all of the other local television stations, including KSL-TV, which is owned by Bonneville International, the for-profit arm of the LDS Church. However, the owner's of KTVX, Clear Channel Communications, requested that the ad not be screened on KTVX as it may appear offensive to the local viewers. KTVX managers said the content "could very well be offensive to our community in Utah, which has contributed more than its fair share of fighting soldiers and suffered significant loss of life in this Iraq war." [1]

Votes:

  • I find none of the above suitable. Technically, KSL is owned by Bonneville International, which is a for-profit entity owned by the leadership of the LDS church, and not necessarily the Church directly, but for all intents and purposes might as well be owned by the Church. Jon 18:35, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
  • MyNameIsNotBob 20:09, 7 December 2005 (UTC) This option follows my idea, but is significantly better as Jon has put some research into it. Thanks Jon!
  • I find this version to be quite acceptable. Chadbryant 00:10, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • This is a good start, but...I marked "all of the" -> "other above because the USA Today article lists three networks that aired the ad, which does not include all Salt Lake City stations documented by Wikipedia. The notion that Clear Channel thought the ad would be offensive is contradicted by the USA Today article, in which local station managers deny that the corporate owner had anything to do with the decision. I've added a direct quote from them instead. The USA Today article also states that Sheehan appears in the ad, but that they were purchased by Gold Star Families for Peace, so I fixed that. I don't know why people think the bit about the other station being owned by the CJCLDS is trying to make Mormons look good or bad or anything else. To an outside observer like me, it's just a supporting detail to affirm that the rival station's sensibilities are aligned with the largely conservative, largely Mormon local population. That is to say, it wasn't that KTVX is simply a conservative station and the others considerably more liberal. -- Beland 02:54, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Option #7: Yet another rewording...

During the visit by US President George W. Bush to Salt Lake City to speak to the Veterans of Foreign Wars in August 2005, Cindy Sheehan ran was featured in a paid political message protesting against the war in Iraq. The top four stations in the market (KSL, KSTU, KTVX and KUTV) were offered to be paid to air the ad, and KTVX declined the offer. The local station managers said the content "could very well be offensive to our community in Utah, which has contributed more than its fair share of fighting soldiers and suffered significant loss of life in this Iraq war." [2]

Votes:

  • "All of the other stations" is overreaching because there are eleven broadcast stations in the SLC area. Since three are educational stations, that still leaves eight. Apparently, only four were even approaced to air the advertisement. List all four stations, with links, and let the reader make any decisions about the motives of the station management without leading them to any such conclusions. Val42 03:46, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • This is more accurate. As much as I'd like articles to link to things I've worked on (Bonneville International), option 6 obscures the fact that three other stations ran the ad. We could even add ownerships for the other stations, but the correct ownership for KSL is Bonneville. Forcing the LDS Church into the sentence seems like special pleading to advance a POV. On the other hand, if we could source a credible commentary that found KTVX's rejection of the ad especially notable in light of KSL's acceptance, then it could probably find a place in the article. Cool Hand Luke 02:17, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

While I think the above discussion resulting from the survey is good - it is much to early to start voting on a version. To continue that discussion, imho, the key points of the controversy are:

  1. that KTVX refused to air the ad, creating significant local controversy that was also carried nationally (I read about it from an AP wire story);
  2. that KSL would air the ad is significant because it is normally the first station in the area to restrict things that could be considered offensive to the local community (for example, not airing Saturday Night live see KSL and NBC schedueles, and airing prime-time shows after 11 pm rather than the normal time slot);
  3. KSL ownership is significant since it adds context to why KSL is singled out from the other stations in the area electing to air the ad.

KTVX's decsion, at least locally, would have been less controversial if KSL had also refused the ad - KTVX wouldn't have been the only station to do so for example. Especially since KSL is the station most often associated, in Utah, with being extremely sensitive to the community and making difficult decisions to not air specific material. That KSL would air the ad is a significant indicator and makes KTVX's action stand out.

That some are reading the connection between KSL and the LDS church as some attempt to positive spin is interesting since those are just the facts, now the wording is key here because some wording could imply a POV. Remember that implications (even ones we think are obvious and must be the only reason a person wants a specific fact included) are up to the reader to decide. We need to decide if the fact is notable and then present it in an NPOV manner. I think KSL's relationship with a large organization that may have an agenda is notable and failure to disclose that relationship would be inappropriate.

Finally some comments on wording.

  1. Bonneville is not the for-profit arm of the church. The church owns several for-profit organizations and they are not all under the Bonneville umbrella.
  2. I think the quote from the station should be included - why in their own words they choose not to air the ad.
  3. The refence to KSL's owner should be a short as possible.

That's it for now :) Trödel|talk 15:49, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

You are right. I should have worded it "a for profit arm..." Possibly it could simply say its owned by Bonneville. If the reader wnts to know about Bonneville's ownership, they could simply click on that article, or KSL's for that matter. Jon 23:49, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Total votes

  • Option #1: 2 votes
  • Option #2: 6 votes
  • Option #3: 1 vote
  • Option #4: 0 votes
  • Option #5: 3 votes
  • Option #6: 4 votes
  • Option #7: 2 votes

Jon 04:45, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Really, this shouldn't be considered anything more than a staw poll. In fact, it shouldn't be a poll at all, just a tool for reaching a compromise that can have consensus. As the raw totals show, there's nothing near consensus around any single option. That said, can we agree that we ought to leave the other station's ownership out of the article unless a significant source can be cited that finds that ownership illuminating or relevent to KTVX's decision not to run the ad? Cool Hand Luke 05:21, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] "Mormons"

It seems that the revert war was largely about the term "Mormon."

If, pending above discussion, the LDS Church is mentioned in the article, I think we should follow the LDS styleguide which suggests something like "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints ("LDS Church"; see also Mormon)." This is more appropriate. "Mormons" is an imprecise term for Latter-day Saints or the LDS Church. Cool Hand Luke 02:33, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Unprotected

Ten days is long enough protection for a lame edit war. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 15:09, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

You would think so, wouldn't you. Looks like some editor from a Utah Comcast IP has taken back up the old mantle of discussionless paragraph removal. GAH!! What is so motivating about this one article that has driven people to lame edit/revert war the holy hell out of it? Getting the article locked and having an informal poll didn't work, does anyone have any other ideas? A 03:31, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
I just made the change to the paragraph that received the most votes in the poll. I think that my wording was better (can we have another poll?), but I thought it better to use the one that received the most votes. I added in the appropriate links. Val42 04:41, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Polls are a bad idea, really, so don't hold another one. If you have substantial agreement on the right version (and honestly does it make that much difference?) then that should be enough for reasonable people to live with. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:04, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] KTVX vs. KTVX-TV

User Davodd has renamed this article from KTVX to KTVX-TV. I am not sure of his/her motivation, but I would like to point out that the license for this station is for the call letters KTVX, not for the call letters KTVX-TV, which would be a totaly different call sign. In some cases the FCC does append a -TV or -FM to a tv station, but in this case they did not. Is anyone opposed to moving the article back to KTVX? A 03:35, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Technically, each broadcast license appends two letters to indicate the band and/or modulation method. KTVX-TV is the analog signal broadcast on Channel 4. KTVX-DT is the digital signal broadcast on a UHF frequency. KSL has even more: KSL-TV is analog on Channel 5, KSL-DT is digital on Channel 44 (I think), KSL-AM on 1160 AM and KSL-FM on 102.6 FM. To further complicate things, KBYU-TV and KBYU-DT use alternate audio channels on their signals to broadcast KBYU-FM (radio). But the FCC doesn't require that they use the extension, presumably because if you can receive the signal you already know how they're sending it.
But to answer your second question, Yes, this article should be moved back to KTVX because that is what people will be typing in. And because we wouldn't want to have to also create an article called KTVX-DT that would duplicate much of the same information or just be a redirect. Val42 04:41, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
As a former technical director/engineer for a radio station that has an -FM callsign (KWCR-FM) this is a subject I've done some research on. While I cannot find any official word on the matter, as I understand it, the first license to get a set of call letters gets just the call letters. All following licenses with the same call letters get an appendix, be it -DT, -TV, -LPFM, -AM or what have you. But that argument aside, you are right, it does get harry when you consider the world of digital tv. Are we going to start having a separate article of a sub station (i.e. 4.2) when they broadcast something different then the main channel? For example KYTX-DT subchannel 19.2 will start carrying UPN programming soon. In summation, I am a strong supporter of moving all of the SLC market TV channels back to the title they previously had. I am still waiting for the person who made the changes to provide reasoning for the change, and will give him/her a few more days to make a case before making the change. A 06:30, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

It looks like there has been some talk about this here and Wikipedia:Naming_conventions#Broadcasting. I'm not sure what started Davodd on his spree of renames, but I don't see mention of any such wikipedia wide change. The line that I'd like to draw attention to from the second link is "Radio and television stations in North America should always be titled with their C---, W---, K--- or X---- call sign, with the suffix -TV, -FM or (AM) when necessary." (emphasis added). I would say that it is not needed on most of the TV stations in the SLC market, as few have the -TV designation listed as their callsign. I can see the argument to make all tv station pages have a uniform naming convention, but if this is the case, then it should be listed as such on the naming conventions page. A 07:19, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Hello. Regardless of its original licensing status, upon change of ownership the the TV station, its official legal designation has consistently been "KTVX-TV" (this is how it's referred to by its owner, Clear Channel, [3] and the U.S. Government [4]. I moved the page for accuracy and as an effort to make Wikipedia more consistent in naming for readers unfamiliar with particular DMAs. As for the -DT and sub channels, the naming policy is already addresses that: "Where a single broadcast outlet operates several transmitters with different call signs, create the article at the call sign which is considered the primary transmitter by the FCC ..., and make the other call signs redirects to that call sign." So the -DT or ##.1 and ##.2 should all be redirects (if needed) to the main KTVX-TV article for now. Davodd 11:36, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
I will concede on KTVX -> KTVX-TV. However, what about KPNZ where I can find no reference on the FCC website to the term 'KPNZ-TV' but I can find many with the search term 'KPNZ'? While it may be nice to have a uniform listing of tv stations, is it worth it when an article title does not represent the actualy call letters of the station? I am sure that this is the case quite often across the nation. A 20:32, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
Currently, KTVX-TV and KTVX-DT (two different licences) are broadcasting the same content. Therefore there should be one article. With digital television, there is one primary transmitter and the subchannels are data streams within the overall data signal. Currently, there are local stations in the SLC broadcast area that are not using all of the bandwidth available so US-DTV is aggregating the unused bandwidth from several stations to create a "virtual cable" company. This content is partially carried on KTVX-DT, but it is not KTVX content. What about when KTVX starts broadcasting multiple video content signals on their "subchannels" (another data stream on the same transmitter)? How would you cover this in the KTVX-TV article? Both of these are clearly not applicable to the KTVX-TV article, so you should immediately create a KTVX-DT article with this (stub) content. Except, it would immediately be recognized that this content should be merged with the KTVX-TV article, and the resultant article be renamed KTVX. Why don't we just skip the intermediate step and rename the article to KTVX now? Val42 19:38, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Val42, you raise excellent points, I agree with you. However, I also think keeping the TV station pages named consistently across all of wikipedia. I think that the appropriate place to have this discussion would be the Television portal or on the style guide page. However, I would not oppose you renaming the KTVX page while such a discussion was taking place. On a similar topic, don't get my started on USDTV and how KUED and KUEN are selling this bandwidth to them. <g> A 00:58, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Actually, for all transitional digital TV stations in the U.S., there is only one license, and hence only one callsign. The FCC does not assign separate callsigns to transitional digital TV stations (since they cannot be sold), nor does it assign "-DT" callsigns at all. (See 47 C.F.R. §73.3550.) Furthermore, the suffix is considered part of the callsign (47 C.F.R. §2.302). The position that I and a number of other Wikipedians have always taken is that the article title should reflect the official callsign of the station, no exceptions. Where disambiguation is required (which can only occur when a callsign conflicts with another three- or four-letter code or acronym), in both Wikipedia and in those industry where accurate representation of callsigns matters, the standard disambiguation practice is to append a space and the type of service in parentheses. In this particular case, the callsign of the station, according to the FCC's records (the one and only authoritative source) is "KTVX". It is not "KTVX-TV". Therefore, this article should be named either "KTVX" or "KTVX (TV)". 121a0012 05:02, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I searched for the television portal, but didn't find it. I checked out the two articles above. The "standard" doesn't seem to be as straight-forward as I would have hoped. I referred the discussion of the naming of television stations to here, unless they have another place. Val42 01:27, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

You may want to contact Davodd. Perhaps he can point us in the direction of where we could talk to those that made the choice to change all of the pages to -TV. A 02:01, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Interesting tidbit I found linked off of 121a0012's talk page: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Radio_Stations#Stations_with_call_signs. So is a mention in a pdf on the fcc site a good enough argument in support of keeping the page at -TV, or should we move it back? A 09:11, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

User Davodd has just responded to a request I made asking for him to step back in and provide some insight. He has decilned with a reason listed on my talk page for anyone who cares. As he is the only one who was for the pages to be -TV, I will go ahead and move all of the stations that do not have -TV in their callsign tonight. A 09:42, 20 December 2005 (UTC)


The page was moved to KTVX-TV again, I have left the following message on User CFIF's talk page:

As we have talked about on the talk page for KTVX, the page should have been kept at KTVX and not moved to KTVX-TV. The FCC call letters for this station are KTVX. I refer you to Wikipedia:Naming_conventions#Broadcasting. Please make note of the phrase "... should always be titled with the official call sign as assigned by that country's regulatory authority." (bold text mine). If you have anything to add to the conversation please bring it up on the talk page of KTVX, we already have a section that talks about the page name. A 02:40, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Clear Channel Wikipedia Editors

Does anyone else find it awesome in an ironic kinda way that someone from ip 207.230.140.240, an ip assigned to Clear Channel [5], is the one now(?) reverting the paragraph? Anyone know a netadmin at ClearChannel that would let slip the identity of the person, or at least station, that this ip is used at? A 01:04, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Another anonymous editor, this time from a Comcast Cable[6] address, just deleted the controversial section again. I've restored the deleted paragraph. Wasn't the new "partial protection" policy supposed to be possible after this past weekend? Val42 03:45, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I've gotten the IP 207.230.140.240 added to the blacklist on the bots in #wikipedia-en-vandalism on freenode. Whenever someone from that ip makes a change the bots will flag it in the channel. There is no garuntee that this will get the paragraph reverted quicker, more often, but it should make them a bit higher profile. The IP has been blocked again for another 24 hours (Special:Ipblocklist). I doubt this will make any difference, it didn't last time, it is nice to get a daylong break from watching the page. A 23:12, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Hear Hear! In your experience, how long do these sort of lame edit wars usually continue and what is the usual result? Thx RomaC 23:27, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
Not sure, but this user has over 250 edits going back a year. If they are not some sort of CC paid wikipedia editor, I'm sure someone there would like to know how much time this person spends on wikipedia. A 07:27, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

In other news, I'm considering either emailing the technical contact listed on the arin entry for the ip block, or perhaps even calling them after the holidays. I'm sure that CC doesn't want it publicaly known that they, or an employee of their's, is trying to "clean up" the image of a CC station. Also, if you look at the number of different CC stations and other related articles they have edited, and the number of names this person has added, you will be amazed. The CC employee wouldn't know that Ron De Castro is the General Sales Manager of WWPR-FM. Either this is someone who has moved arround the corporation alot, or someone who works in some sort of corp. office job. A 07:27, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks again, very interesting please keep us posted! RomaC 16:54, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../k/t/v/Talk%7EKTVX_56ae.html"