Talk:KARE

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 within the scope of WikiProject Minnesota, which aims to improve all articles related to Minnesota.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
Mid	This article is on a subject of Mid-importance within Minnesota articles.
This article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

1 Great template
2 Article name
3 Removal of newscast schedules?
4 WTCN with "current" logo
5 Recent changes
6 Fair use rationale for Image:WTCN85.png
7 Fair use rationale for Image:WTCN alt.PNG
8 Fair use rationale for Image:WTCN.PNG
9 Fair use rationale for Image:WTCN.jpg
10 Fair use rationale for Image:WUSA.PNG
11 Fair use rationale for Image:Wtcn11.jpg
12 KARE and WCCO ratings

[edit] Great template

You know what, this page looks like a great template for other pages for individual television stations. I think the person who wrote this just might be on to something. Denelson83 00:46, 3 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Heh, thanks. —Mulad 03:17, 3 Jan 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Article name

I have moved this article back to KARE from KARE-TV. Consensus on both WP:NC#Broadcasting and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television Stations#Article names is that the article name should reflect the actual call letters of the TV station. As can be seen here: [1] the call letters for this station are in fact KARE. Any concerns regarding this topic would be best addressed here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television Stations. A 05:56, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of newscast schedules?

To all editors, please see the discussion at Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not#Newscast schedules, redux where the issue of removing locally originated programming schedules is discussed. Calwatch 05:22, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WTCN with "current" logo

I have videotape from 1985 with the "current" KARE logo AND the WTCN call letters (not the WUSA call letters!) - I will be grabbing a frame of that soon and correcting this listing! The WUSA logo shown is great, however it is NOT the first appearance of the "current" 11. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Drakeduck (talk • contribs) 22:55, 31 January 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Recent changes

Organization is important and when people edit, it should look clean and not clustered up. Therefore, placing people in alphabetical order is the easiest way to make it clean. However, should it totally be in alphabetical order? Or should the CURRENT main pillars be listed alphabetically then the remaining go alphabetically? I adjusted them with the exception of the 5 pillars of the station (Pomeranz(3), Pierce(2), Nelson (1), Jensen and Shaver). I did alpha order the top 3 because if you watch the news intro, the females are announced before Pomeranz is). Thoughts??

I'm also a tad leary of listing people without webpages. I don't see any former staff listed that didn't play an impact in KARE's success. The people listed (without webpages) spent at least 3 years at the station. Since they have no current webpage shouldn't exclude them from being listed. I'm hesitant to list Janal Klein & Julianna Olsen as reporters. However, I've seen them do reports in the past week so their inclusion isn't a bad idea or is it? I'm going to add Jeff Olsen, Cindy Chapman, and their Backpack Journalist to reporters section. Though I wonder if KARE OnLIVE should have it's own category. Thoughts?

Removed Eric Perkins & Belinda Jensen from the anchors section because their primary functions have nothing to do with the Saturday show. Added Pat Evans to the anchor section as his main function appears to be OnLIVE host. Updated Julie Nelson's and Diana Pierces as their schedule updated.

Added Jo Bender & Don Moldenhauer to weather staff as they're listed on KARE's website. Updated current and former staff members based on websites available and kept old staff (without webpages) intact. Added Mike Igoe and Kirsten Lindquist to former staff. Moved Charles Gonzalez to former personalities section as he no longer appears on 2 parts of site. Will keep his KARE profile until he gets new one or KARE removes it.

Added OnLIVE to external webpage. Hopefully, someone can add more about OnLIVE to the page.

Kyleftydude 19:51, 1 July 2007 (UTC)kyleftydude

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:WTCN85.png

Image:WTCN85.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 05:33, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I have no idea what the complaint is. If using a company's former logo on the company's article isn't fair use, than I'm stymied what fair use is at all. I added additional info to the pic and removed the disputed template -- hope that's proper... --Rehcsif 01:33, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:WTCN alt.PNG

Image:WTCN alt.PNG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 07:27, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:WTCN.PNG

Image:WTCN.PNG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

BetacommandBot (talk) 07:28, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:WTCN.jpg

Image:WTCN.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

BetacommandBot (talk) 07:28, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:WUSA.PNG

Image:WUSA.PNG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

BetacommandBot (talk) 07:34, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Wtcn11.jpg

Image:Wtcn11.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

BetacommandBot (talk) 16:00, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] KARE and WCCO ratings

This is to address an apparent edit conflict which I don't care to see prolonged (no pun intended). Specifically, I have noticed relatively current, neutral and notable cited information relating to KARE's ratings is being removed without any apparent rationale and in it's place an un-cited and somewhat contradictory claim. The user in question apparently is now also trying to post the same entry on the WCCO-TV page.

I post this for the purpose of community discussion as the user apparently does not wish to provide any neutral reference for their edits. Tmore3 (talk) 20:45, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Third opinion question

I am responding to a request for a third opinion. I don't see any discussion, and the only post about it here was more one month ago... — Athaenara ✉ 04:20, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I have re-listed the dispute on the Third opinion project page. — Athaenara ✉ 03:40, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Athaenara also left a request for comment on the Television Stations Project talk page. In response, I have read the dispute and would like to offer a neutral opinion, which can be found in the ~~next~~ "Reverted" paragraph. dhett ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:22, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ratings

This article is about KARE and not about WCCO. The blatant inclusion of the ratings content smacks of WP:NPOV and I have removed it, because of its irrelevance to KARE and its unverifiable source it had. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ ^echo 06:50, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry but the source is verifiable if you wish to research it and is neutral, if you consider the second largest newspaper in the state "unverifiable" I guess that's a discussion for another place. That being said I never had a problem with working out a compromise and might even be resigned to leaving out mention of WCCO entirely for the sake of reaching a resolution instead however the previous editor has chosen to ignore requests by multiple users to discuss and opted to remove material time and time again without any rationale other than in the editor's own words we were "trying to diminish the accolades of KARE".

Accolade or not the station has lost significant positioning in local ratings for the last few years notable for the position it used to have for decades. How this should be communicated I've always been open to working with but it is nonetheless notable in the stations history and now belongs in this station's history.

On a personal note and not that I need to but I became involved with this article not because of any alleged personal bias or agenda, which incidentally I don't think the same can be said for other edits on this page, but because of significant neutral cited information being removed in favor of un-cited POV statements. Tmore3 (talk) 17:50, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

A source must be verifiable and reliable. Do you have a link to it? If not, it's not an acceptable source. All it says is St. Paul Pioneer Press (MN)LOCAL TV - December 22, 2007 - A9 Main. You'll need to provide a link for it or it will be removed again. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ ^echo 18:48, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

There is absolutely NO Wikipedia policy/requirement that says a source has to have a valid link to be a valid source. A source may be an appropriate website, a print source, or any other approved source, so long as it's verifiable and not original research. --Rehcsif (talk) 19:51, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

That's quite correct. Heck, a page number is a lot more than we usually get. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:07, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

But these "sources" being provided are not books.. they are newspapers. They should be linked as both newspapers being used have web sites. If he's just using them because "I just read it in the newspaper, I got the newspaper right here on my desk", that's WP:OR. Simply, these are unreliable sources. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ ^echo 00:49, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Nobody said they are books. A specific newspaper issue was given. If you assert the source is innacurate, than track it down and prove it. Otherwise please see WP:AGF and settle down. --Rehcsif (talk) 03:50, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Don't tell me to settle down. The burden of proof is on the person inserting the content. That's never changed. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ ^echo 06:42, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

You are assuming bad faith. The user in question gave a source. If you don't believe it, it's NOT up to him to give you the source in the format that you desire (because you're unwilling to go look it up at the local library), lest you delete his material... --Rehcsif (talk) 14:40, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

In hopes of reaching a compromise, I have modified the KARE page. The information regarding KARE's February 2008 HH ratings and StarTribune link have been kept, with no reference to WCCO-TV. Also, the paragraph regarding KARE's ratings in 1986 has been deleted. Furthermore, direct information and quotes, regarding KARE's recent NPPA honors, from kare11.com have been added. Information is precise with valid support links. Robinsegg 22:32, 18 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robinsegg (talk • contribs) 22:32-22:43, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Information from the station's own website is not from a reliable source. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:48, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reverted

Reverted edits made by Robinsegg on 1 April 2008 on this topic. Material on demos was already included in previous version. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tmore3 (talk • contribs) 03:48, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

The material in reference to the above post is highly questionable, not only because of the dead link provided as reference, but also because no other sources have substantiated this claim, especially WCCO. If this information were accurate and reliable, surely WCCO would have given a related PR release. Why have the current demo statistics, from the most recent ratings period in February 2008, been deleted? There seems to be a conflict of interest by the person who continually modifies the KARE page to reflect misinformation which benefits competitor WCCO-TV.

Information from the NPPA website, regarding KARE's NPPA honors as large market Station of the Year, has now been added. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robinsegg (talk • contribs) 07:25, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

The reference on KARE continuing to lead in the adult demo was already included and cited in the previous version of this paragraph. Newspaper citations have already been addressed and discussed at length (see above) and FYI not that it must, but most if not all the citations can be located in the first paragraphs, for free in an archive search, if this is truly your concern. Also find it interesting that at the time they were available online in full you were trying to delete the same material and did not dispute them instead arguing it was "diminishing the positive recognition of KARE" . I attempted in good faith to reach a compromise on this earlier, you do not appear to be interested in the same. Tmore3 (talk) 17:26, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

The discussion on newspaper citations deals largely with your arguments for including your unsearchable reference. I have never been able to view this reference, which is a big reason I contest its inclusion. Furthermore, the 20-year historical event you mention was never touted by WCCO or other official sources--why? If this were truly accurate and significant information, it certainly would be much more available than one obscure article.

You're not only diminishing the positive recognition of KARE, you're doing it to the benefit of WCCO. The household numbers placing KARE in third are not significant in the industry--they are used for bragging rights. How is this relevent for KARE? Why have you deleted the most recent demographic ratings from February 2008, showing KARE's continued demographic strength--numbers highly valued in the TV news industry?

Unnecessary modifications, regarding KARE's honored position as NPPA Station of the Year, continue to be made. Your edits include semantics, replacing "honored" with "was the recipient of," as well as deleting the positive reference cited from the NPPA website. KARE's honors are truly an outstanding achievement, not only with all of the competition involved, but also the amount of times KARE has garnered this distinction. This is a rarity, even in the MSP market.

Exactly what is your connection with WCCO? I have no connection to KARE, Gannett, or any of its employees. I fail to see how your attempts to modify the KARE page have been "in good faith." You appear to be "warring" with selected information which benefits WCCO, while deleting any recent and comparable references which would give a more positive image for KARE. Robinsegg (talk) 18:30, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

For starters I do not consider the two largest newspapers in the station's state as "obscure references". If you don't care if to look up them up through traditional research methods frankly that's not my problem, but it certainly does not give you the authority to delete them (again see discussion above). I do however wholeheartedly encourage you to research them as you will find the material is there and cited accurately.

For the record I have no professional connection to WCCO or CBS or any other station in this market for that matter. I will say though that for someone who claims to have no ties to the topic you seem almost unusually adverse to having anything other than positive information included about this topic.

You questioned why I changed "proud recipient" (which is actually what you wrote) to something more neutral and if after all this discussion on NPOV you still dispute why I modified something like this, I don't know if there is enough server space to explain it to you. The wording on this statement by the way and your elaborate material on NPAA awards only seems to lend credence to a suspected COI on your edits or at the very least some form of fancruft.

This article is not a mirror of kare11.com and if you have a problem with nothing other than "positive recognition" of a company then I'm afraid you are going to encounter similar problems throughout this wiki project.

Finally, if you are truly concerned about cited material, I suggest you might look at the majority of your contributions, of which provide no citation whatsoever. If you really would like to endlessly dispute my citations, I would now like to see neutral and fully accessible online sources for every one of your past and future contributions lest they face deletion...ready, I seriously doubt it.

For the benefit of this talk page, please direct any future correspondence on this issue to my talk page as your arguments are becoming increasingly targeted towards me, not to mention the bloat on the article's history page because of these endless reverts...yeesh! Tmore3 (talk) 22:41, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

First of all, the endless reverts have been started by you. As long as *your* edits are left alone, there are no reverts. The arguments are directed toward you, because you're the one who has been warring. I have made several attempts to modify my own edits, as well as paring down the information, but you always return with your own version, "cleverly" slanted to point out KARE's weakness and WCCO's strength.

There is clearly no NPOV in your submissions. "KARE has struggled..." from whose POV? What factors have changed in the market (besides the loss of Paul Magers) and nationally to help explain the ratings shift? Fox 9 as a new competitor at 10? Weak NBC programming? Less younger TV news viewers (KARE's strength)? New technology?

If the demo ratings you cite are so readily available, why not provide an active link? My concern has nothing to do with the two largest Minnesota newspapers as sources. You also refuse to allow my latest edits, which include the most recent Demo ratings from February--why?

Your ratings paragraph also lacks clarity. You go from mentioning November demographic ratings to February household ratings without any distinction. Once more, the HH ratings serve as bragging rights, so why point these out on KARE's page? My initial contribution here simply stated the seesaw competitiveness between KARE and WCCO, as well as a nod to their respective network contributions. You have turned my submission into a chest pounding for the competition.

There is "common knowledge" regarding many of my contributions. If you want to protest the noted "chemistry" between Paul Magers and Paul Douglas or KARE's "innovative" team, go ahead. Wasn't KARE's 1980s approach vastly different, i.e., "innovative" compared to WCCO and KSTP? Is that really my POV? I have obliged by deleting this whole paragraph, but you continue to bring it back, asking for citations. Talk about endless reverts!

What else do you have a problem with? The network switch from the 70s? (sorry, no citations there), competitors not saying "care" when mentioning Channel 11? The "strength" of the Magers name in Minnesota? How much of this uncited information would you like to delete?

I have tried using various words to portray the importance of the NPPA awards for KARE. The last word I used was "honored". You have deleted every attempt I've made. If you question my NPOV here, check with those in the industry to understand the relevance and importance of these awards. To simply state "KARE was the recipient" downplays the prestige and competitiveness of this great distinction, not to mention the number of times KARE has won. My POV doesn't enter the picture at all!

I made the first attempt at reaching a compromise by greatly reducing the contested information, but you weren't satisfied and made several reverts. The continued changes show a deliberate attempt to hand pick or alter information, portaying KARE in a diminished state. Robinsegg (talk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.24.172.216 (talk) 04:04, 3 April 2008 (UTC) Robinsegg 19:34, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Third opinion

Having read the history of the dispute, please allow me to interject some thoughts here.

The {{Template:Peacock}} tag is appropriate. This article reads like a press release or some puff piece. It is not our responsibility to portray importance or to point out prestige or competitiveness of awards. Just stick to the facts. The fact that KARE held a ratings lead is encyclopedic. So is the fact that they slipped to #2. As is the fact that they are now #3. Of course, these assertions must be backed up by references, or they should not be made at all.
Information about other stations, whether WCCO, KMSP or any other, belongs in those stations' articles, not here. Only information relevant to KARE belongs here. So if KARE lost a demographic lead to WCCO, it's OK to mention that KARE lost their lead in a demo, or even that WCCO has overtaken them in a demo. It is not OK to go on about how WCCO did in that demo.
Remember that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and not all information is appropriate for inclusion. Before putting something in, ask yourself, "If someone reads this article five years from now, will they care about this?" Chances are, the answer will be no, even if the information is relevant today.
Unsourced facts should be removed. Period. There is no need to use the {{Fact}} template. The threshold for inclusion is verifiability from reliable sources, not necessarily truth. Specifically, the paragraph about the 1986 ratings should be removed due to lack of sources. You can always add it back in once sources are established. But that is the responsibility of the editor including the information, not the one challenging it.
Avoid subjective descriptions. Describing a meteorologist as "fresh-faced", a news team as "innovative", an anchor team as "popular", or an anchor and meteorologist as "having good chemistry". According to whom? While it's true that not every fact has to be sourced, every fact that is challenged must be sourced, and if it cannot be, it must be deleted.

dhett ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:10, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Response from Robinsegg

I have once again attempted to reach a compromise. Per the preceding comments, questionable POV statements have been deleted. The ratings paragraph had become confusing with HH numbers and demographic numbers bouncing back and forth. The facts now simply state 1) Long time competition between KARE and WCCO in HH, 2) WCCO's continued winning streak in this category, since 05/06, 3) KARE's third place rating in 02/08 HH, followed by its first place rating in 02/08 demos. This should cover all verifiable references with clarity. I respectfully request an active link citing the Nov. 2007 demographic assertions. As it stands, the link provided is unverifiable. I have tried researching this information myself, but have not found anything supporting this claim. Factual statements from the NPPA have been added for clarity. There is no editor POV given.Robinsegg 18:05, 4 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robinsegg (talk • contribs)

Response from Tmore3

Agreed on all points. My only guess is perhaps the user believed I was somehow attempting to promote another station by mentioning the station that displaced KARE. This I didn't personally see the harm in this as I would have defended it regardless of the station, In hindsight for the sake of hopefully quelling the dispute though I removed all references to the other station quite a few edits ago. Unfortunately it seems the user continues to remove the material and citation with the justification that it can't be read online. This has been discussed in detail above and am sure I can find dozens of articles including featured that have periodical citations that are not linked to an online version of the article.

On a separate note a month or so ago I posted a question on the project's talk to see if anyone knew of any "model" station articles in hopes of finding a guide to reference (especially when dealing with disputes like this)...any ideas?

In the meantime while it was not my intention to be this involved with this article in the coming days I am going to see if some neutral sources can be located as much of this it appears to have come from either the station's website or original research. Tmore3 (talk) 18:20, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

KARE ONLIVE is now KARE 11 @ 4 I have notice both online and during the newscast. KARE 11 @ 4 is more of a newscast now with Diana and Pat that is both live online and on air. Joe —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jminnesota (talk • contribs) 06:30, 1 May 2008 (UTC)