Talk:WHRW

message: The Mike Stalzman section contains obviously non-encyclopedic content. Needs to be revised immediately, probably just removed. I will remove in a week unless significant revisions are done. 149.125.250.242 15:06, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Non-encyclopedic content

message: Why is this article considerably longer than much larger (and arguably more prominent) news and radio institutions? This piece is extremely bloated and filled with unnecessary details that are of little historic or encyclopedic value. Furthermore, very few references are provided to back the information and claims that are presented. Wikipedia is a source of concrete information, not a diary, scrapbook, or place to tout one’s own interests.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.67.117.127 (talk) 03:31, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Wiki is not paper. What this means is there is no reason to keep articles artificially short like in a paper encyclopedia, because there is virtually endless capacity on the hard drives of the servers of wikis such as Wikipedia, and the more information that the public has available to it, the better. If you have a problem with the content of the article, such as it being non-encyclopedic, you should definitely try editing it to be more encyclopedic in nature, but if you have a problem with the length, your concern is irrelevant and runs contrary to the mission of Wikipedia as stated by Jimbo Wales. WHRW, like all the other Binghamton radio stations, has a Wikipedia page about it because they are all notable, and for the approximately 250,000 people who live in the Binghamton metropolitan area or who visit the area, such articles can be useful in learning more about their community and the various radio stations they can listen to. Unnecessary deletion of relevant information would be detrimental to Greater Binghamton because there is much less information about Greater Binghamton and the things in the Binghamton area on Wikipedia than there should be for a community of its size and historical importance. For instance, it would be helpful if there were more articles detailing local politics, such as an article on Binghamton Mayor Matt Ryan, who recently had to deal with  a crisis involving a shooter named Jiverly Wong who killed 14 people at the American Civic Association, and is up for re-election this year. The local economy has been doing badly for many years, and citizens need more information on a variety of subjects in order to make informed choices to help improve the community and its economy. For instance, citizens can turn to WHRW News for information at 6:30 pm on weekdays on the radio whenever school is in session at Binghamton University, as WHRW News is currently the fastest-growing news organization in Greater Binghamton, but there should also be useful information on Wikipedia about important subjects for the local populace, since local media outlets do not put all of their content online, and much of the content they do put online is only there temporarily. Regarding the earlier comment, the name of WHRW's current General Manager is not Mike Stalzman, it is Mike Salzman. And if you think this article is too long relative to articles about other media institutions that are bigger, please add more information to the other articles until they have more information than this one (but only add relevant, verifiable information).  Be bold! --69.205.228.89 (talk) 22:58, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

text: For the most part I think this page is currently ok, but could be slimmed down a little bit.  The only thing that looks off to me is the section about WHRW News making News in 2009.  It's really not terribly noteworthy in WHRW history, just more recent.  Additionally, the tone is clearly biased.  There are a number of other events in WHRW history that deserve more space or at least a reference, such as Paul Battaglia, or the KKK incident (had something to do with free speech, no?).  John and Yoko station ID would make a neat media addition to the entry too.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.108.103.161 (talk) 03:19, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: In all honesty there is quite a lot of editorializing and philosophizing in this article. It's not NPOV, but more like a station-written promo, which it kind of may be in passages. Making it NPOV would slim it some. Anyone who knows about freeform radio has seen/heard these kinds of editorial angles many times, and doesn't need it repeated here, even if NPOV were not an issue (which it is). 75.193.34.88 (talk) 17:03, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Article Longer than necessary, References needed

message: Starting in the late '60s WHRW was commonly interpreted as "What hath radio wrought."  — Preceding unsigned comment added by RadioWhisperer (talk • contribs) 18:30, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alternative Name 

message: This is relevant to radio as a whole, but provides no relevant information relating to WHRW itself. I can't find a reason to keep this, unless anyone else has a good reason Aerbag (talk) 21:27, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  What use does "The Golden Age of FM" have?