Talk:KTVX

message: 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)
thread_title: Old Callsign

message: 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)
thread_title: High profile censorship incident

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: 3RR violations

message: 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)
replies: text: And 3RR each - David Gerard 08:50, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: WP:LAME

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text:  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)

text: Thanks for adding another option and voting. A 09:35, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

text: 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." 
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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Survey for what version of the paragraph to include 

message: 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: 
#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);
#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);
#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. 
#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. 
#I think the quote from the station should be included - why in their own words they choose not to air the ad. 
#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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Discussion 

message: *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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Total votes

message: 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)
thread_title: "Mormons"

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

message: 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 , 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)
replies: text: Another anonymous editor, this time from a Comcast Cable 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: Thanks again, very interesting please keep us posted! RomaC 16:54, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clear Channel Wikipedia Editors 

message: Thanks. Xiner (talk, email) 20:35, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: With due respect, this is not a directory. It doesn't list every employee, and it has useful information about where past personalities went. I think including every past and present reporter is excessive (and probably not verifiable), but surely the headlining staff merits note. At least as much as the cast of any movie. Cool Hand Luke 01:30, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I must disagree. However, I'm new to the broadcast articles, so I'll defer to your judgment and restore the section for now. I will investigate the issue. Stay tuned. Xiner (talk, email) 01:35, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I must admit that I don't know what the formal policy is either, but the practice seems incredibly common. When one can quickly pull up a half dozen articles with similar (or worse) lists to the one I've reinserted, I'm loath to go on a rampage removing them.  This is particularly the case because Ruth Todd is apparently worth her own article. As a former Salt Laker, I don't see what makes her peculiarly notable among area broadcasters, but I certainly think she and other anchoring cast are worth a quick mention here. Cool Hand Luke 01:47, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know, someone might list that page for deletion. :) Seriously, though, I've checked out a few other TV station articles, and you're right, it's way too widespread for anyone to delete anything without a ruling from higher-up. I still think it's unencyclopedic, but if others live, so should these. Cheers. Xiner (talk, email) 01:56, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, of course. Good idea. Xiner (talk, email) 15:07, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: List as a "directory"

message: I could probably refine the first couple of sentences in the History section if someone could say exactly what the corporate structure was. Xiner (talk, email) 02:06, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Awkward sentence 

message: I can't add this into the article due to WP:OR concerns, but I just happened to see the movie Psycho tonight on a beautiful 35mm print.  In the movie, after Norman Bates is caught, theres a shot of a TV news van pulling up to the motel.  The van is boldly emblazoned with "KTVX."  It seems that the letters then belonged to a station in Muskogee, OK.  There is some chatter about this on web forums, but nothing that qualifies as a reliable source.  I searched some news databases with recent coverage, but it doesn't seem that any press has mentioned it since the mid-1990's at least.  Just some mildly interesting trivia, I think. Cool Hand Luke 06:30, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is not original research (WP:OR). It may be...trivia, but I'm not gonna delete it from the article. Check out the Stuyvesant_High_School#In_popular_culture. Xiner (talk, email) 14:11, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  KTVX in Hitchcock's ''Psycho'' 

message: Most of the TV articles have experimental dates in parentheses ... figured it was a common convention, so I put it back in. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Blueboy96 (talk • contribs) 20:35, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Experimental dates in infobox

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on KTVX. 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/20070425161056/http://www.clearchannel.com/Corporate/PressRelease.aspx?PressReleaseID=1943 to http://www.clearchannel.com/Corporate/PressRelease.aspx?PressReleaseID=1943
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130829004251/http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1082A2.pdf to http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1082A2.pdf
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) 22:20, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified