Talk:WABC (AM)

WABC Country
It was stated in the WIKI article that WABC is carrying "WABC Country" on it's HD2. WABC is an AM station, and at the current time, AM HD equipment is not capable of running subchannels. The WABC country format is strictly web-only. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.228.148.235 (talk) 02:01, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

WABC Country really needs it's own page, as it is a webstream only feed, pretty much unrelated to the primary station. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.228.148.235 (talk) 02:10, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

WABC-AM heading to Red Apple Group
https://radioink.com/2019/06/27/cumulus-sells-wabc-for-12-5-million/?fbclid=IwAR3L_ffOmcFs_Jh6-TQvB_KfNFrs-9HUgWAKt2vmwiLX7AS5nuNeUxdItZk

https://www.radioworld.com/news-and-business/business-and-law/cumulus-to-sell-wabc-am

as of June 2019 there are talks that Cumulus will sell WABC-AM to Red Apple Group lead by John A. Catsimatidis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:640:C600:3C20:190B:83C:1624:5188 (talk) 20:17, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

https://radioink.com/2019/06/27/new-owner-of-wabc-looks-to-put-it-back-on-top/

Here is more on John A. Catsimatidis when he takes control of WABC-AM. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:640:C600:3C20:3DA4:61C3:20C3:BDEB (talk) 02:36, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

AOL Broadcast Fan's contributions
Some person but in quotes about the time this station plays, music and provided some useful information, but has sentences that may be informal for wikipedia, such as WABC was King ect.


 * I tried to clean it up as best as I could, as it was a whole lot worse before. The same user (I'm assuming this, because it was in a similar style even though he's using different IP addresses) also did similar edits for WFAN (when it was WNBC), WBBR (when it was WNEW) and WKTU. They all should be cleaned up, and I shouldn't be surprised if other New York City radio stations get the same treatment sooner or later. ErikNY 02:37, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes, this person is an AOL anon whose contributions have two characteristics: For some stations I've just isolated his/her contributions in a separate section, pending further treatment. Wasted Time R 21:32, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Total recall of every format change, minor format tweak, and tangled ownership switch that every NYC radio station has gone through in the past 40 years.
 * 2) Total disregard for structure, self-editing, wikification, and proofreading.


 * The thing is, this person's contributions throw articles out of balance. WABC has been a NYC radio powerhouse for 40 years now, first as the dominant music station, later as the dominant talk station, yet about 80% of the current article focuses on the one late 70s-early 80s stretch where they struggled.  That's not right.  On the other hand I hate to throw out this person's narratives — in some cases they are amusing, especially for stations that are always in programming turmoil. Wasted Time R 23:57, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I've also noticed similar edits for various TV stations. If you look at the new pages just created at this moment, the user is using a similar format for Kansas City television stations. The same can be said for TV stations in other markets. Something should be done to alert other users who could be helpful in cleaning up this mess. ErikNY 02:54, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm a radio industry veteran who made a first attempt at cleaning up the "disco" section this afternoon. I am loath to delete some of these observations, as the demise of WABC as a Top 40 station was a seminal and sad event for many people, but I did clean up the sentence/paragraph structure, took out the words and phrases that were either too colloquial or didn't make sense, and in general, tried to make this section flow more clearly. I hope the result is an improvement, but it could use another pass or two. Comments welcome. 205.188.116.67 22:09, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Someone with the same IP as mine (at that time, anyway, as AOL IPs are not static due to the proxy servers) vandalized the WABC page six hours after I had made major revisions to the article. Because of the one line of vandalism, and the later reversion, four hours of my work was lost. Please revert to the version posted at 00:23 on 26 July as I believe it was a significant improvement to the original. I cannot revert the article, as I'm obviously an AOL anon user without an account - yet. Thanks. 64.12.116.197 07:16, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Done. ErikNY 13:11, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

After what seems like a hundred passes, I have taken down the "cleanup" tag on the "Disco/End of Musicradio" section, as it now seems to be conformable to standards. If anyone disagrees, or has a material problem with either the style or content, put the tag back up and state your specific concerns here so that I or someone else can work at fixing them. Thanks. 205.188.116.67 04:43, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Characterisation of talk show hosts
I changed the lumping of Gambling and Batchelor in with the others between them. Gambling is more moderate, while Batchelor is idiosyncratic. The four in between them, however, are conservative hosts. Wasted Time R 02:24, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Mark Simone
I don't think this edit was helpful. The comment is "tone down the Simone rah-rah". I don't see "rah-rah". This previous information was accurate and relevant and should be reverted. patsw 23:54, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
 * The removed material included bio info about Mark Simone that's already in his article, material about the announcement of the show that's outdated since the show has now begun, and the statement that the show "is an overwhelmingly success", which is not supported by ratings data (yet). As for the rah-rah, there's contributors that are spamming Mark Simone into various radio articles, I suspect this was at play here too.   Wasted Time R 00:16, 16 January 2006 (UTC)


 * They're still keeping up the spamming, under the guise of many anonymous IDs. Trying to cram as much PR as they can into the article.  The "super-sub" nonsense is the latest bit of spam.  I wonder if all this is coming from Simone himself, bucking for a promotion. Eleemosynary 05:00, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

It's not spam. It is replacing information which you keep removing. You also should not be editing this article, since you are clearly not a listener. Any WABC listener knows that they call Simone "Supersub". If you didn't even know that, you are not qualified to be editing this article. -- }


 * Wrong on all counts. Eleemosynary 05:31, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

WMCA pov
some anon WMCA lover has ruined both this and the 'MCA article with hopeless POV. PMA (not logged in)


 * I have not read the WMCA article, but I agree that this article takes a pro-WMCA bias in the "Rivalry with WMCA" subsection. I would change it, but I don't really know how to accurately point out their battle over listeners and ratings.  The user seemed to contribute some valid arguments, but does not have statistical data to back up those points.  If the section were less opinionated, it could be salvaged into a more coherent section. D2001dstanley 13:19, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, really, what's up with THAT?
The article reads like it's about WMCA.

It doesn't tell the story of WABC, especially it's influence, significance, etc. at all.

Bad wiki. User:70.111.88.166  06:24, 9 June 2006


 * Youse two are SOOOO right. The WMCA propoganda has been NUKED. 64.12.116.197 11:38, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Its About Time You Have The WJZ Info
The WJZ Article Was A Stub Since Wikipedia Opened, And Now Thank To You PPL, The Article Is (Nearly) Complete! THANK YOU WIKIPEDIAN HISTORIANS

Frank0115932 04:49, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Edit wars involving the wording of Supersub
A valid link to an independent news article from a reliable source was cited and removed by another editor. Prior to my reverting this deletion, my independent Yahoo search indicated that Mark Simone is called Supersub. Unfortunately, none of my sources came from reliable sources as defined by Verifiability.


 * The single-source link does not support the article text that Simone is "billed" as a "supersub." The anon editor placed it on the page in order to push more pro-Simone POV PR, as he or she has done on several other pages under several anon sockpuppet IDs.  The info is hardly verified, non-encyclopedic, and should be removed.  And please sign your posts.  Eleemosynary 13:00, 12 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Disagree. The title of the article has supersub in it. It was properly introduced and cited. Ronbo76 13:25, 12 February 2007 (UTC)


 * The headline of a single-source article does not translate to official WABC policy. The citation does not back up the article claim. Eleemosynary 02:43, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Bias regarding current programming
In reading the article on WABC as it relates to current programming, the language someone used in describing their morning shows and some of the late-evening programming had a very distinct slant that sounded more like a promotional tool and less like an "honest" description of the current programming ("honest" is in quotes because that word pops up numerous times in the description of the morning show itself). Additionally, discussion of evening lineup changes also was off-kilter and irrelevancies included. Therefore, the current programming section was slightly revised to neutral language; references to Air America, the "gratingly-voiced" Lynn Samuels and the "Springeresque Richard Bey" were eliminated, but the bulk of the generalities were maintained. 24.117.250.51 06:46, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

As of September 2010
an obsolete bit of OR removed as both Joe Scarborough and Curtis Sliwa have been removed from the lineup: Virtually all of WABC's weekday lineup—specifically Scarborough, Sliwa, Limbaugh, Hannity and Levin (and to a lesser extent Imus) -- consists of hosts with very similar viewpoints. Former program director Phil Boyce has stated that these programming decisions are ratings-driven, while critics of WABC state that the station's programming reflects a conscious conservative political advocacy. The station's slogan is "News, opinion, passion". It would be good if any future text added characterizing the stations's political advocacy were cited to a reliable source itself independent of political advocacy. patsw (talk) 14:03, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

WABC Today reorganization

 * This section should be reorganized into sections reflecting the periods of Disney ownership and Citadel ownership (Citadel declared a Chapter 11 Bankruptcy in December 2009).
 * Recent (but no longer current) hosts and staff should be in a separate section.
 * No section should be labeled "Today" or "Current", but the current section should be labeled "2010". patsw (talk) 14:19, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Creation Date of WABC
The article states that WABC came into being in 1953. However, I've been listening to old broadcasts from the Manhattan Room of the Hotel Pennsylvania from October to December 1937 - Benny Goodman. In these broadcasts, they clearly identify the station as "This is the Columbia Broadcasting System - WABC New York" I'm baffled. 96.23.126.179 (talk) 00:39, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
 * The article also says that "The WABC call letters were once used previously on CBS Radio's New York City outlet, before adopting their current WCBS identity in 1946." See WCBS (AM) – the call sign WABC was used for this NY station (originally the Atlantic Broadcasting Company) from 1926 to 1946. -- Picapica (talk) 14:05, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on WABC (AM). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130520064915/http://www.musicradio77.com/wabcboard/wwwboard//wabcboard1.html to http://www.musicradio77.com/wabcboard/wwwboard//wabcboard1.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 14:31, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on WABC (AM). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151223142100/http://hdradio.com/station_guides/widget.php?id=45 to http://www.hdradio.com/station_guides/widget.php?id=45

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 20:15, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

old 45s on youtube
from WABC

https://www.youtube.com/user/WABCRADIO77/videos

109.157.75.97 (talk) 03:09, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

"Ingram later noted that this was actually illegal under FCC rules, but said that they didn't know it at the time.[33]"
("Dominant Years" Paragraph four) There is nothing anywhere in the "33 footnote" link that says or implies anything "illegal" about the event, nor is it illegal to have a crowd of onlookers chant a station jingle. The statement as it stands is absurd. My career was in radio and I know of no such FCC rule that even suggests anything even remotely like this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.160.130.28 (talk) 16:58, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Tag at Top of article
noticed issued a personal warning on my page because I deleted these tags. Let's have a discussion then. The article clearly has 2 tags for sections, 1 that is unclear and 1 that needs to be expanded. Other than that the article's in good standing. Have a discussion here rather than issue personal warnings about Also elaborate on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:RedWarn. RedWarn does not insinuate that 55 citations are not enough here. Sucker for All (talk) 21:44, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Just an observation; a great deal of the article is unsourced. That is glaringly obvious, to me at least:
 * Subsection WJZ Newark (1921-1923) - half is unsourced
 * has 14 sources. That's not too few.
 * Subsection Takeover by RCA - unsourced except for one sentence
 * all good here
 * Subsection Initial network operations - unsourced except for one sentence
 * 1 source details a short section. no problems here.
 * Subsection NBC-Blue network flagship years - half is unsourced
 * 5 sources for this section more than enough.
 * Subsection Birth of ABC - half is unsourced
 * 7 sources plenty here
 * Subsection WABC's first era (1953-1960) - half is unsourced
 * 4 sources here
 * Subsection Early years - unsourced
 * Could use sources here, but it's the only case of this in the entire very long article. It's tagged appropriately here for now, and I haven't challenged that
 * Subsection Dominant years - unsourced except for one sentence
 * source 33 and 34. also added a nytimes citation to replace a cn
 * Subsection "Disco" era - unsourced
 * same as early years.
 * Subsection "77 WABC, New York's Radio Station" and the transition to talk - unsourced except for one sentence
 * same as early years. subsection tag's appropriate for now.
 * Subsection Early years and success - unsourced except one sentence
 * 37, 38 and 39 go into details here
 * Subsection Under Citadel and Cumulus - half is unsourced
 * tons of sources here
 * Section Previous programs - unsourced except one sentence
 * source 51
 * Subsection Weekdays - unsourced
 * the links for Bernard McGuirk and Sid Rosenberg, Curtis Sliwa and Juliet Huddy. The station also airs The Brian Killmeade Show and The Mark Levin Show all verify this 1 sentence
 * Subsection Sports programming - unsourced
 * section eliminated
 * So, would you kindly explain in detail how this article doesn't need more citations and references? Thanks. --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 03:39, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I really do think, and I hope that my formatting of your post isn't botheresome to you. I appreciate the discussion. Sucker for All (talk) 04:30, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm at a loss of words. My edit is undecipherable now, you understand that, yes? I can barely comprehend myself what is going on now, and other users likely difficulty reading through this talk section. I feel that I need to draw your attention to Talk page guidelines to learn about talk page etiquette. Also please try and understand Verifiability. All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists and captions, must be verifiable. Since you keep bringing up other articles like Power 106 (in other talk pages), if you take a look, virtually every sentence has a citation and is sourced; not all, but everything except one section and a few sentences are sourced. Does that make sense? Content needs in-line citations. Doesn't matter if there are five sources in a section or "tons of sources here." The fact is that half the article is unsourced. Take a look at Tutankhamun, Julia Letlow, or even Montana. 90% of sentences in these have in-line citations. If you need help creating named references, please check out WP:REFNAME.
 * I am not going to waste my time reversing your talk page comments now embedded in mine, but please do not edit another user's comment, please comment below their edit. Again, it will be difficult for other users to understand any semblance of what that list is now. Tldr there's still a ton in the article that's unsourced. --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 11:10, 15 July 2021 (UTC)


 * , is correct, you shouldn't be reformatting other people's talk page posts. It's too confusing to other editors. Just answer in a new post. SfA, I think you also need to understand that the absolute number of sources in a paragraph or section doesn't really prove anything. All material must be sourced. We assume that a source supports any sentence in the same paragraph that comes in front of that source and after the last source. That means any paragraph that ends without a source needs to be fixed or tagged. I've just done that tagging, and it's ridiculous -- there are more paragraphs tagged than not, I'm pretty sure. Go take a look and you'll see what I mean. —valereee (talk) 12:04, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
 * With respect, that was the proper way to address the issues, on a point by point basis. I notice that I have improved the article by deleting citation needed sections and adding a NYTimes source. Whereas 3 exceptional articles are shown, the majority, such as Barbara Streisand has at least 6 paragraphs that are unsourced. Seems as if a double standard's being applied here. Furthermore, I see no evidence that this contains original research. If someone disagrees, explain here. Sucker for All (talk) 21:46, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
 * in the future just try not to edit another user's comment--your method of editing my comment was not appropriate, you probably could have created an identical list with your answers. At any rate, the Barbara Streisand is almost entirely sourced except for one subsection (which there is a section template that indicates that more sources are needed). --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 22:15, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
 * @Sucker for All, how did Barbra Streisand and original research get in here? Sorry, I searched on this page, maybe I missed it...where are either mentioned before this? And, no, that's definitely not the way to address issues. We start new sections. I'll be happy to discuss at your talk, just ping me. —valereee (talk) 22:23, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
 * this article had the original research tag; SfA removed it recently. I believe he was invoking the Streisand article because he says that there's "at least 6 paragraphs that are unsourced" and he believes that there is a double standard. --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 22:56, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Ah. @Sucker for All, we discuss this article on this talk page. If there's something wrong with another article, we discuss it at that article's talk. You will find many of WP's 6 million articles have things wrong with them that need to be fixed; when someone doesn't have the time to fix something themselves, they tag it so someone else will fix them. That doesn't mean we have a double standard. It just means those articles need to be brought up to WP's standards, too. It doesn't mean we remove a useful tag on this article because another article also needs to be tagged. —valereee (talk) 09:38, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

OR
Noticed blue boy has undid this revision twice without talking in the talk page. Which sections does he think contain original research? Sucker for All (talk) 23:44, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Removal of content
@Sucker for All, I don't understand why you're removing content like Special:Diff/1033674186 and Special:Diff/1033671732? —valereee (talk) 14:52, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I've restored both of these, as neither seem dubious or like trivial removals. There's a source at that may contain much for supporting the first diff. —valereee (talk) 15:20, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I deleted parts of the unsourced content. A long section saying that sports programming doesn't exist at WABC's a little excessive in my opinion. Sucker for All (talk) 21:26, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
 * You deleted the entire history of sports programming at this radio station. Wikipedia isn't just about what's current. It's also about what's happened in the past, and this station was prominent in sports coverage in the past. It's fine to question whether coverage is excessive, but removing content that's been in the article for over a decade is a pretty big deal, and at minimum it needs discussion. If you don't understand why, you shouldn't be removing content. —valereee (talk) 22:48, 16 July 2021 (UTC)