Talk:WRHU

Fair use rationale for Image:Wrhuradio.jpg
Image:Wrhuradio.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.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at 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 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) 13:28, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm certain that the students from WRHU created this logo, and thus have allowed it to be used in an article they have contributed to significantly. -UWMSports (talk) 20:57, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Serious Flaws

 * This article has no sources, and is clearly written by someone within WRHU based on its non-neutral tone. Article brags about famous alumni, but many don't even show up in a google search. So I'm thinking these are recent graduates who haven't hit the big time and are using the page for their own bio WP:BIO. There are several other issues I will get into once something starts happening.-UWMSports (talk) 07:39, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

FYI-The article was not created by someone within WRHU-FM...the original creator/author has not been directly associated with WRHU since 1996. I created/authored the original article. - .-Dfmock —Preceding comment was added at 09:48, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

But you were at one point directly involved. The site references many things that are NOT notable. Please review WP:NOTE. I haven't started hacking away at it yet because I am giving the author some time to come up with valid sources. But Andy Gladding, Andrew Falzon, Jamie Morris, Bruce Avery, etc are not notable individuals. If they were they'd have their own page. If you have more famous alumni like Alan Colmes, that would be acceptable. That is the first section to go. I'll give you a week to come up with sources for that section or I'll simply reduce it to a list with the notable alumni. -UWMSports (talk) 17:34, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Original research?
In the the most recent series of edits, editor Dfmock removed all the issue tags without providing any WP:verifiable sources. Citing unnamed audiotapes in the edit summary screams "original research" and possible conflict of interest. Wikipedia content is supposed to be fact compiled from reliable published sources, not hearsay. The editor seems too close to the subject and none of the prose is sourced. • Gene93k (talk) 08:18, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Primary sources (Hostra University publications) are acceptable sources in some situations. From the Wikipedia No Original Research guidlines...


 * "Primary sources that have been published by a reliable source may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. For that reason, anyone—without specialist knowledge—who reads the primary source should be able to verify that the Wikipedia passage agrees with the primary source. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. To the extent that part of an article relies on a primary source, it should: only make descriptive claims about the information found in the primary source, the accuracy and applicability of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge, and make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about the information found in the primary source."


 * So to summarize, if the article says that the transmitter was located in Dempster hall or that the Radio Alumni organization offers a scholarship, that is easily verified by reference to the primary source (and not controversial). A comparative claim such as "WRHU has the largest radio news staff on Long Island." needs a secondary source.  Those are the "facts" that need to be flagged.  At least that's the way I read the rules.StreamingRadioGuide (talk) 05:18, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * That sounds okay. The article was tagged for original research when it was in this condition. The main source of contention (and edit warring) was the "They worked at 88.7 FM" section. Since then, User:UWMSports has deleted much of the offending content. • Gene93k (talk) 16:59, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Semi-protected
Unregistered users reverting my edits which make this article as neutral as can be right now. Will not lift lock until article is cleaned up with sources. This must be done by a reliable, registered user with reliable sources. -UWMSports (talk) 18:55, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * However this article got in this condition, it seems the "citations needed" tags are on all the non controversial things that are easily verified from Hostra's own web site and the FCC, and the NPOV issues regarding comparisons to other stations, accomplishments, awards, etc... aren't.StreamingRadioGuide (talk) 05:02, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I suggest you find the detail on the Hofstra site and link it up accordingly. I think that would help upgrade the RHU page. -UWMSports (talk) 04:30, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Issues with previous version
These reference, conflict of interest and original research issues have gone unaddressed for 6+ months. The article has been replaced with a nuetral stub version which sticks to the facts based on information from the FCC and Arbitron. Editors are encouraged to beef it up again with good information on the history of this station and the impact it has had on the campus but please do so with proper sourcing and if you are or have been involved with the station, please find someone else to help you make those edits.--Rtphokie (talk) 20:37, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Non-notable and unsourced content being removed
This article is packed with content that is non-notable, unsourced, undue, and/or runs afoul of WP:PROMO, WP:NOTWEBHOST, WP:OR, and likely other policies. That content is about to be removed. Please only restore those elements that can be explicitly verified by secondary, independent, reliable sources. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 17:26, 21 June 2020 (UTC)