Talk:WNYC/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

More 'borrowed' text

The section on 'Folksong Festival' has been clearly lifted directly from the web page www.wnyc.org. Although there have been a number of minor edits, this minimal word re-arranging does not qualify the paragraph as 'independent thought'. Any teacher grading the section would have awarded an 'F' for plagiarism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.189.180.33 (talk) 19:13, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Coordinates

{{geodata-check}}

Please note that the coordinates in this article need fixing as:

this is wrong, it has the old pre-9/11 antenna location for the FM transmitter


(Above comment posted 2009-03-16T21:04:53.)

Please provide the correct coordinates and cite your source. BrainMarble (talk) 19:13, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

wnyc2

wnyc2 doesn't appear to exist anymore. However, Q2 seems to match the description, yet I was unable to find any history detailing the end of wnyc2 or the birth of Q2. --Spacepotatoes (talk) 07:31, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

wnyc websites

My mention of the WNYC website was removed from within the article, though left(or was moved to) the boxes on the right. wnyc.org, in addition to streaming the stations, provides a lot of content, both print and podcasts, that is not broadcast on the stations themselves.

Perhaps a section or line in the text should provide the above description. Formulairis990 (talk) 19:44, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Wnyc trademark, am, fm confusion

The recent minor edits regarding AM and trademark have introduced confusion, in my opinion. The second paragraph does a stark shift from WNYC trademark to WNYC AM the station. Also it is not clear that the first mention refers to the AM station, while it is made explicit with the FM one. The third paragraph is also problematic in that it is not clear what is meant by WNYC. It sounds as if it refers to the trademark alone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Formulairis990 (talk • contribs) 19:09, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

That's because they should be 2 separate pages. WP:WPRS consensus is that stations which are simulcast are usually the ones with 1 page. There should clearly be 2 pages: WNYC (AM) & WNYC-FM. Addendum: this WNYC page should become a disambiguation page.Stereorock (talk) 19:50, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

How does the need to have separate pages for the stations necessitate introducing ambiguity regarding what is meant by the use of the word WNYC in the article?

Because instead of shifting paragraphs, all of each station's information will go on a page solely for said station.Stereorock (talk) 19:57, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Also have you said all you have to say regarding the WNYC finance section? Formulairis990 (talk) 19:38, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

No, but time hasn't been kind of late. Also, when replying, please add one more colon to your reply from the one above it (so your reply will start with 2 colons). That will aid in keeping a flow & seeing responses. Thanks!Stereorock (talk) 19:57, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Also I followed your link WNYC (AM) & WNYC-FM. It doesn't state what the convention should be when there isn't a a disambiguation page. But that seems secondary to the confusion in the discussion of trademark vs. the two stations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Formulairis990 (talk • contribs) 20:07, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

"Addendum: this WNYC page should become a disambiguation page" How would you do this? Perhaps you can point to an example. Formulairis990 (talk) 20:13, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
Sure, look at WPRO. You see a link to WPRO (AM), WPRO-FM, WPRI-TV & something unrelated to broadcasting which has the acronym WPRO. In this case here, this WNYC page would become a disambiguation page with links to WNYC (AM), which would have information mostly about WNYC (I go by the legal callsigns & A.M. stations are never issued -AM suffixes by the FCC) & WNYC-FM, which would mostly be about WNYC-FM. There may be some shared information, like early history on both pages.Stereorock (talk) 20:33, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
Also, look up WGBH, which is a disambiguation page which links to the radio station, television station & WGBH Educational Foundation, which may be of more help. This is what the WNYC pages should be: each radio station, plus a new page about New York Public Radio, if there isn't one already.Stereorock (talk) 20:58, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
As to the how, what I do is copy the whole page into each of the new ones & then cut out the information that doesn't pertain to that individual station. So, for example, there's no need for the WNYC-FM infobox on the WNYC (AM) page.Stereorock (talk) 21:06, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
Oh, I thought you meant somehow making the current page also include disambiguation info. What you suggest would require major rewrites. I suspect the page is in its current form because the two stations simulcast a large percentage of the time, and the percentage shifts back and forth over time.Formulairis990 (talk) 21:13, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
So how about placing "(AM)" when the AM station is the subject, as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WPRO_(AM) begins its article.
The third paragraph still needs to be addressed: "New York Public Radio is the owner of WNYC" What is meant by "WNYC" here?

Formulairis990 (talk) 21:19, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

It shall be that way once the pages are split, but if there is any instance of that now, definitely there should be an (AM) suffix. As for the meaning of that 3rd paragraph, I think the original writer combined WNYC-AM-FM into just WNYC. I've changed it to "the WNYC stations", but I would prefer to make it "WNYC, WNYC-FM,...."Stereorock (talk) 21:55, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
Update-changed it to say WNYC (AM), WNYC-FM....Stereorock (talk) 22:03, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. Now it's back to my original sentence before it was edited. Now how about adding (AM) as well in the preceding paragraph?Formulairis990 (talk) 22:50, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
Done.Stereorock (talk) 23:50, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
Thanks.Formulairis990 (talk) 01:38, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

fwiw, the tables of compensation seem unusual and excessive absent any further explanation or elucidation of their meaning. if there is no secondary reporting on the fact that they're too high, or too low, or meaningful in any way, then i say we leave it out. otherwise it looks like we're trying to make a point, but don't even say what it is. Happy monsoon day 01:09, 17 March 2016 (UTC)


The above comment is in the wrong section. I cut and pasted it to the bottom of the section: Staff salaries. Chronologically it would have been in the same location, had it been created in that section. Formulairis990 (talk) 18:54, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Splitting pages up

I have more-or-less copied the relevant section of the WNYC page into each station's own page: WNYC (AM) & WNYC-FM. The stations do not completely simulcast, which is (as I understand it) to be the criteria for combining stations into a single page. They each air different programs & have their own histories (shared & separate), so I have split them. To come will be a New York Public Radio page about the organization which owns WNYC-AM-FM.Stereorock (talk) 17:26, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

I have made NYPR its own page. I shall hold off on making this a disambig page, as I am not sure where the talk page should go, whether it stays here, goes with NYPR, or with each station. Also, if this does become a disambig page, it should also have WNYC Stuidos & WNYC Transmitter park. However, this page may be unique enough as-is to keep.Stereorock (talk) 18:03, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for putting in the effort to disentangle the page. I can see NYPR being pulled out (btw, you didn't link to it here or in the new articles, did you create it?), but the WNYC AM FM split might not be an accurate portrayal since they project themselves as a single entity with one identity that happens to use 2 stations, akin to the association of a website with the broadcasting station even though a website may be a superset of the broadcast content. Also my sense is that most listeners (myself included) consider it a single entity.
Remember that besides the significant simulcast, their programming is very similar. I'm not sure but I think some programs air on both stations but at different times. In addition when they fundraise as one, and promote themselves as WNYC without identifying AM or FM. They only identify it for specific program schedules, often making announcements for the upcoming programs on both stations.
This is in contrast to their handling of WQXR, which while managed by NYPR, does really have a distinct identity in promotion, programming, on-air staff, and in listener's minds. Formulairis990 (talk) 19:42, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Staff salaries

An IP added a section: WNYC#Most Recent Reported Staff Salaries. It appears a bit hostile (not as bad as originally added though), without context and does not appear encyclopedic. I'd appreciate some feedback or section improvement. (leaving a note over at WikiProject Radio)--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 03:05, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

It's unencyclopedic (doesn't add anything to the history or the understanding of WNYC), poorly formatted (too many caps), utterly ephemeral (those numbers will be different soon), and not noteworthy (they are based on a single primary source – not Wikipedia's preferred method; has any secondary reputable source discussed the subject?) It's not an aspect that I've seen covered to this extent in any other Wikipedia article about a company, let alone a radio station. The section should be removed. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 03:46, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

The top of the article has the warning: This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (March 2008)

So why is this specific information singled out by you but not the following which has no citation at all? Listenership and new media[edit] WNYC has been an early adopter of new technologies including HD radio, live audio streaming, and podcasting. RSS feeds and email newsletters link to archived audio of individual program segments. WNYC also makes some of its programming available on Sirius XM satellite radio.

RE: It appears a bit hostile Please explain this comment. Analogous salary and gender information is provided on the following pages https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_of_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_salaries https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_the_United_States_House_of_Representatives

The information you deleted is a straight out copy of the information in their IRS tax form, nothing more, nothing less. WNYC is a non-profit company, they call themselves a "public radio station", which is why the Federal government deems this to be essential public information for the evaluation of how well run a non-profit is. I find the numbers troubling, someone else may not. But we would both rely on this information in evaluating this entity. The only information I added was the gender column, which is objective information. How is the gender and salary information any different then the demographic information provided on countries?

RE: without context and does not appear encyclopedic Please explain this comment. In my original edit I tried to provide salary context by including salaries from other organizations. The only context for the US presidential salary that I saw was an English prose retelling of the data in the accompanying table.

RE: It's not an aspect that I've seen covered to this extent in any other Wikipedia article about a company, let alone a radio station. This could be said literally about every single item starting from Wikipedia's first day to now, no? I'm actually surprised this information is not pro forma on Wikipedia regarding non-profit entities. Other websites collect and present this same information.

Too many caps? In the position descriptions, those were taken directly from the from WNYC's 990 IRS form. CEO is usually all caps.

Not noteworthy because it is based on a single source? Do you mean you object to not having citations of other articles referring to this WNYC IRS form? The compensation table at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_of_the_United_States has one citation, the other two are for inflationary adjustment calculations.

RE: utterly ephemeral (those numbers will be different soon). Those numbers are almost 2 years old. The numbers are ostensibly updated once a year. A defining feature of Wikipedia is that it is kept up to date with changing information. Presumably country demographic data are updated when made available.

What about the gender column of the staff in the table? Is that too ephemeral as well? Do you feel that information would not be of interest for someone researching this station for comparison with other public radio stations? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.4.115.14 (talk) 00:46, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

To LorienDrew and Michael Bednarek, I placed the description(solely derived from various wikipedia pages) of the IRS Form 990 which WNYC MUST BY LAW FILE AND MAKE READILY PUBLIC for your benefit and anyone with your level of understanding of WNYC. Because you both at best displayed an ignorance of it and a failure to acquaint yourselves with it, though I repeatedly pointed it out as justification for my edits. At best, you both have a misunderstanding or unfamiliarity of what WNYC exactly is -- the subject of this wikipedia page -- and have not bothered acquainting yourselves with it or following up on my description of it before passing judgment on my edits. The article right away, and repeatedly, conflated the term WNYC with the actual owner New York Public Radio in the text with only mentioning the proper owner in the infobox, until I corrected this; this indicates past editorial eyes were not familiar or did not care enough about the subject to correct it. Oddly there is no mention of donors or donations in the entire article, the defining feature of WNYC which with clockwork high-frequency it announces.

Disturbingly, LorienDrew you described my inclusion of the reported salaries as "hostile" in your removal of it, perhaps this was an honest misinterpretation on your part, but in fact this is exactly what the IRS Form 990 was legislatively created to abet and promote (as I've repeatedly pointed out). The statute itself is in section "Public Inspection IRC 6104(d)." It EXPLICITLY SINGLES OUT not-for-profit corporations by MANDATING A REQUIRED TRANSPARENCY of them with the EXPLICIT SINGLING OUT of making public the compensation of "Officers, Directors, Trustees, Key Employees, and Highest Compensated Employees". It then requires that this information be made readily public for up to three years worth of filings. How readily this is made public is commonly used as a key factor in rating not-for-profit corporations. The purpose of the filing is to provide information to the IRS and the public for evaluation purposes, since non-profits are not required to file any other financial reports or have an audit.

LorienDrew and Michael Bednarek, your edits fall under the definition of "disruptive," and as the wikipedia page on this states: you may not be aware of this. At minimum, you both have not bothered to collaborate by addressing my points and acquainting yourselves with the subject matter or my citations, and as in the case of Micahel Bednarek objecting based on fortune telling a vague future event: "those numbers will be different soon."

LorienDrew and Micahel Bednarek, I would like reinsert the IRS Form 990 data that you removed. I would also like to reinsert some version of the purpose of the Form 990 description to address misinterpretations as "hostile" of any data from it that is included.

Please advise, and if you both still disagree with the inclusion of the Form 990 data, I would like to put this matter to the dispute resolution process. If you could kindly advise on this in such event.

Thank you. IRS Form 990 reader — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.4.115.14 (talk) 19:22, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

First, the financing section or data was not removed, just the extraneous descriptive content. The giant list of salaries is also WP:UNDUE and completely out of any Manual of Style. Also, please have a thorough read through Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. If you wish to have an encyclopedic section based on the controversies over financing and salaries then write an appropriate one and include it.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 20:05, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
What User:Loriendrew said. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 23:12, 6 February 2016 (UTC)


BELOW IS THE EDIT IN QUESTION:
ORIGINAL TITLE: Most Recent Reported Staff Salaries
NEW TITLE: 'Officers, Directors, Trustees, Key Employees, and Highest Compensated Employees Formulairis990 (talk) 19:03, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
Below are the WNYC staff salaries reported by WNYC in their IRS Form 990 2013 filing.[1]

GENDER NAME REPORTED POSITION SALARY
F Laura Walker CEO $790,115
M Dean Cappello CCO, EVP, programming $440,917
F Margaret Hunt SVP & CHIEF DEVELOP. OFFICER $377,953
M Harry Clark GM, UNDERWRITING $371,197
M Thomas Hjelm EVP & CHIEF DIGITAL OFFICER $370,238
F Michele Rusnak CFO $366,978
M Brian Lehrer HOST $366,742
M John Hockenberry HOST $351,646
M Jad Abumrad MANAGING EDITOR / HOST $347,753
F Noreen O'Loughlin VP, INTEGRATED MKT & GEN MGR T $296,764
M James Schachter VICE PRESIDENT, NEWS $288,972
M Graham Parker VP & GM, WQXR $283,880

☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring): "giant list of salaries is also WP:UNDUE"

The above 12 lines is a data dump in your view? Examples of wikipedia data table inclusion: 12 Mount Everest deaths: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Everest The section with the data provides financial background for one of the high profile deaths: giving the unfortunate climber's expenditure and the typical range of cost for a Mount Everest climb.

Lots and lots of different "ephemeral" stats in different formats https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_New_York_Yankees_season

You again mischaracterize and ignore what this data actually is. It is not a giant list, nor simply a listing of salaries. The IRS Form 990 calls this data: Officers, Directors, Trustees, Key Employees, and Highest Compensated Employees

In other words, this data communicates who are the most important people and roles within the organization as judged by the organization itself; with the monetary portion offering a ranking based on allocation decisions of 7 percent of its resources. This provides extremely significant insight into the organization. Again that is why the Federal government exclusively requires this of nonprofits, and NOT just the total revenue portion which you cherry picked allowed. The Federal government and nonprofit rating websites consider this data of wide of societal interest, oddly you do not.

Why should a Wikipedia New York sports team page have a plethora of analogous employee data but not a New York Public Radio station?

User:Loriendrew: "If you wish to have an encyclopedic section based on the controversies over financing and salaries then write an appropriate one and include it" What "controversies?" There is absolutely no interpretation made above. I consider the data troubling, but that's my interpretation. I take it with your links you believe just the inclusion of the data I am pushing a POV. But that is exactly what YOU ARE DOING by censoring it's inclusion, you are preventing people from making deductions from it.

User:Loriendrew: "completely out of any Manual of Style" How so, in light of the other Wikipedia links I provided? And what can I do to fix it?

User:Loriendrew: "please have a thorough read through Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not" I've done so. It is a large and broad document. What specifically do you cite in objection?

Michael Bednarek (talk), you didn't bother responding to my response to your criticism claiming the annual fiscal data is too ephemeral for Wikipedia and too detailed as well.

This is how this edit came about: For years I wondered what the public radio salaries were, how long they've been there, the diversity, etc. And every once in a while I would google, and come to Wikipedia. And find nothing. For country data: yes. For the Yankees: Yes. WNYC: No. As Federal Law and nonprofit ratings websites suggest, others have had similar experience. After many years I finally dug around and found this data. This information need by ordinary folks, as it happens, the US Federal Government has foreseen and legislatively seeks to fulfill. The financial data is given for the unfortunate Mt. Everest Climber, because there is recognition of the need and interest in this crucial aspect. The same need surely applies the Fourth Estate in its role in keeping a democracy functioning.

Please advise on raising this issue through the Wikipedia resolution process. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Formulairis990 (talk • contribs) 22:17, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Input has been requested from WikiProjects Companies and Radio Stations--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 23:58, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
Remove. How is their salaries encyclopedic? I say it isn't encyclopedic.Stereorock (talk) 00:39, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Loriendrew, thank you for requesting wider community input. [User talk:Stereorock|talk], the Wikipedia page on the New York State senate gives their salaries, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_State_Senate So clearly salary information is currently considered encyclopedic by the Wikipedia community regarding the New York public institution of government. This suggests that the Key Employee salary info of the New York public institution that is New York Public Radio, who themselves make a point of marketing themselves as the Fourth Estate in New York should also have their salaries posted, this on top of the reasons I gave above. NOTE: this is not just salary info, as I explained above. I will post the new edit below.

Also your reasoning can be summarized as "BECAUSE, THAT'S WHY". You do not provide any reasoning for your assessment that it is not encyclopedic other than literally: "I say it isn't encyclopedic." And you do not counter any of my reasoning for its inclusion. Formulairis990 (talk) 22:01, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

AMENDED EDIT UNDER DISCUSSION:

Just because it's there doesn't make it encyclopedic (please see WP:OSE); this is the ONLY such case I have seen so far about a non-profit radio station's employees' salaries published on Wikipedia (see WBUR-FM, WGBH (FM), WOMR for examples). Speaking frankly, it appears that you are an activist trying to post this information just because it's public record. Knowing how much some disc jockey makes does not, in my mind, does not constitute encyclopedic knowledge. I can't imagine that in say, the Encyclopedia Britannica, nor can I imagine it belonging here; the president of the United States' salary, yes, I can see that. By the way, I looked at the page you linked to for the N.Y. State Senate-I couldn't find any salary information.

As for my previous statement that I quite simply put "I say it isn't encyclopedic", yes & I stand behind that. You haven't proven that having such information on Wikipedia IS encyclopedic. In one of your earlier arguments, you state that this information is "need"(ed) by people. Why here. Why not start a website of your own detailing that information, also WNYE & every other non-commercial station? That seems a more appropriate venue. I would say by including the salary in your table, coupled with your reasons above on how this edit came about, that you are using Wikipedia for a soap box, which it isn't to be used that way.Stereorock (talk) 23:12, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Just to be clear, the station is WNYC not "WNYE" and the state senate salary info is in the infobox on right above elections; simply do a find in page on the word "salary". You seem ignorant of the subject of the article: no one would could call these people disc jockeys, since least of all they don't play music. Also included in the "Key Employee" data are none hosts. Please review the data again, my arguments for inclusion, and the subject of the article.

I am not an activist -- though I can not prove this, and it's besides the point (presumably sports fans are behind the reams of Yankees data, maybe even ones trying to influence sports betting). I do find the numbers troubling; I have stated this repeatedly, and stated my progression to putting forth this entry -- my first by the way.

"Just because it's there doesn't make it encyclopedic" "this is the ONLY such case I have seen so far about a non-profit radio station's employees' salaries published on Wikipedia" Well this came up before; this time I'll point out that quite a bit of sports stats came into existence gradually. Please See WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC and "Delete We do not have an article on y, so we should not have an article on this." in WP:OSE. So basically you have to provide a rational. My primary rational was pointing to the federal law that requires the generation of such data. And I've pointed to the Wikipedia page for the law which aptly describes the societal need for this data its integral necessity to understanding nonprofit organizations.

Also look up what Forth Estate means, the societal role that WNYC constantly claims it fulfills.

The interesting question is why haven't you seen such information on non-profit organizations before on Wikipedia.

Why is it ok to post the salaries of public officials (not necessarily elected, such as Supreme Court Justices), but not those of a publicly funded institution that eagerly claims to be the other necessary component of a functioning democracy. Formulairis990 (talk) 01:27, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Regarding WNYE, I put that in there because they are another non-comm in the city of New York, yet I don't see any move to put their information on their site; same goes for WBGO, WBAI, WFMU, etc.. Furthermore, why is this on WNYC-AM-FM's site, when clearly there is information about WQXR-FM as well? If this belonged on Wikipedia, which I still maintain it doesn't for reasons forthcoming, it would be on a separate page for "New York Public Radio", the institution (a non-government organization, not part of the government) that owns WNYC-AM-FM. By the way, the comparisons you gave for the N.Y. State Senate (which was not explicitly clear as to what salaries you were first referring to; it sounded like the stats in your chart were on the state senate page) & Yankees are apples & oranges. Firstly, the state senate works directly for the people of New York. They are the government, NYPR is not; they are a private institution that may receive public funds, and that amount is perfectly encyclopedic along with what funds come from listeners & from other entities (other NGOs, corporations, etc.). Plus, that salary doesn't single anybody out like your chart does;should there also be a list of NYPR's top 10 donors? Secondly, regarding the Yankees, that information I don't believe to be encyclopedic, but it is reported by every sports outlet so sports fanboys can have more stats to salivate about. Also, I don't see a chart akin to yours on the Yankees' page. Now, as to your assertion that the impetus for putting the salaries of WNYC-AM-FM/WQXR-FM's staff on this page is that the federal government demands that the information be public, that's only what the federal government requires & Wikipedia is not the government. What we do put on the page includes what their technical information, their slogan, notable staff-present & former; we even include what the stations brought in as a whole for the previous year. How is posting someone's salary & gender notable? More importantly, in what way is it any metric on how they do their job?! Going back to the Yankees, their payroll is how much versus the Kansas City Royals who won the World Series last year having a smaller payroll. Same for the WNYC-AM-FM/WQXR-FM chart you created: it doesn't tell me one thing about how well they do their job. It just tells me who they are, what gender they are, their position & how much they get paid (yes, hosts are listed which is the same difference as a disc jockey-they're on-air). In your argument you say that people NEED to know this information & you find this information troubling. Therefore, you aren't posting this information from a neutral point of view. That being troubled is influencing your decision to create that table. At best, what, in my opinion would be acceptable, would be link to the federal document in the external links section, which would be neutral. Wikipedia is not supposed to be a soapbox.Stereorock (talk) 15:48, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Why do you consider their total revenue "encyclopedic" and not how spend it? Btw, I am the one that created total revenue edit, so I am gratified you find it useful, if not least for a debate-point. It came from the same IRS Form 990 as the "key employee" data. And I added the NYPR association as well. The article is called WNYC, but seems to really describe NYPR entity with focus on the 2 WNYC radio stations. That is confusing, but I took it that it was created this way because WNYC is culturally synonymous with NYPR. Perhaps it should be broken out.

Regarding State Senate salaries and NYPR: "They are the government, NYPR is not; they are a private institution that may receive public funds, and that amount is perfectly encyclopedic along with what funds come from listeners & from other entities (other NGOs, corporations, etc.)." Well why do you get to make this distinction? Where is your rational, especially given the data solely exists for the purpose of public scrutiny.

My hope is that ALL nonprofits have NOTABLE information from their 990 filings included on Wikipedia in the future. I quickly came across exemplary ones that give one pause; and I would like to add the info to their articles.

From my reading of Wikipedia rules, if something is notable it can go in. My point about the data being legislatively mandated to be produced and made available for public scrutiny (as well as audited under threat of legal penalties), is to provide evidence for widespread social recognition of its notability. The data is also titled using an exhaustive list of nouns and adjective to specifically describe its notability: "Officers, Directors, Trustees, Key Employees, and Highest Compensated Employees" There are numerous websites dedicated to presenting and ranking the above information. The compensation information is specifically required, not just the names.

You say: "it doesn't tell me one thing about how well they do their job" Please read my previous comments above in bold regarding one example of the utility of this data. Odd that in a capitalist country, you find finance data of no import. One insight that jumps out you from the "Key Employees" data is who surprisingly is NOT included. I can speculate what's going on, but I have never had intention of including it here.

You ask: "Should there also be a list of NYPR's top 10 donors?" Sure, sourced-notability wins again. It's expected of News Media to make clear potential conflicts of interest. This became a big issue during the 2008 financial meltdown. See "Stewart responded, "I want the Jim Cramer on CNBC to protect me from that Jim Cramer."[63]" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Cramer

WNYC touts itself as being a leading member of the Fourth Estate, if former mayor Bloomberg was a big donor to them wouldn't you want to know. Or how about Trump or Clinton? "The Clintons' foundation has received between $100,000 and $250,000 from Trump,[173]" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump I wonder why it doesn't say that he donated to her campaign as well.

You consider gender to not be notable. Surely you must recognize large numbers of people would see differently. Here's a Wikepedia article at length on the demographics of the Supreme Court. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States

My point of view is not represented at all in the information under debate. As I described my journey to this edit: I repeatedly over the years looked for such info on Wikipedia, BECAUSE I DID NOT KNOW WHAT IT WAS or where to find it.

Aside from the gender column, it's literally not more than a cut and paste of the: "Officers, Directors, Trustees, Key Employees, and Highest Compensated Employees" IRS form 990 section.

Yet you wish to impose your point view by barring it, giving shifting rational, some of which Wikipedia explicitly advises against. See WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC and "Delete We do not have an article on y, so we should not have an article on this." in WP:OSE.

You claim it is not notable, giving your opinion as rational, but you do not address my previous supporting evidence for its notability.

So here in brief and summary is why it is notable: Nationally legislatively mandated production of the data. Nationally legislatively mandated making the data readily available for public scrutiny. Nationally legislatively mandated auditing of the data with legal penalties. The title of data section: "Officers, Directors, Trustees, Key Employees, and Highest Compensated Employees" Numerous websites dedicated to collecting, presenting, and rating such data. It describes that top people in an organization, how they value themselves and how they value themselves against other organizations. It tells you what they are doing with the money they ask you to give them. Were not talking about a product. It's an organization made of people. And this one in particular touts itself as being a leading member of the Fourth Estate. Formulairis990 (talk) 21:56, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

In addition Wikipedia explicitly states that a simple lists are prohibited "EXCEPT" those consisting of "CEOs, supervisory directors and similar top functionaries". Though this doesn't mention compensation, the quote is synonymous with the Form 990 data title: "Officers, Directors, Trustees, Key Employees, and Highest Compensated Employees". See https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not Ironically this page is given as evidence against having a simple list. Formulairis990 (talk) 21:27, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

THE COMMENT BELOW WAS CUT AND PASTED HERE FROM IT'S ORIGINAL LOCATION IN THE SECTION Wnyc trademark, am, fm confusion by Formulairis990 (talk) 18:54, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
fwiw, the tables of compensation seem unusual and excessive absent any further explanation or elucidation of their meaning. if there is no secondary reporting on the fact that they're too high, or too low, or meaningful in any way, then i say we leave it out. otherwise it looks like we're trying to make a point, but don't even say what it is. Happy monsoon day 01:09, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Neutralhomer made a similar argument.
You're both engaging in a straw-man tactic, regardless of your intention. You're not evaluating or even acknowledging my argument and evidence for a broad societal constituency for the subject's attribute the information covers, which I went into in detail, while presenting a different argument, shooting it down and then claiming it as the sole criteria for inclusion, when the common reality is that there may be any number of reasons for inclusion, each with their own unique information seeking constituency, not to mention mine... which you don't mention.

(::It must be stressed that Wikipedia explicitly makes an exception for simple lists of key employees, though it does not mention compensation. SEE "7. Simple listings without context information")

Your comment is concrete bias I can directly point at, in contrast to your percieving bias due to a lack of an interpretive point of view of the data; something you state without explaining why it "looks like we're making a point", and how such a perception on your part should be reason for leaving this sought after information out.
Such bias may explain the highly conspicuous absence of this standard IRS Form 990 information from Wikipedia at large.
It is a Pro Forma component used in the evaluation of non-profits.
The revenue and the "Officers, Directors, Trustees, Key Employees, and Highest Compensated Employees" is objective and telling data, that is the most notable, intuitive, and easily understood data in the form, in my opinion.
It is legislatively mandated by the national laws of a representative democracy.
The Form 990 isn't simply a catalog detailing of all of a corporation's data, but a specific selection intended for public scrutiny, the result of evolving consideration literally stretching to over 7 decades.
To state the obvious, such laws are considered to be the consensus of society.
The laws indicate a national distributed societal constituency for this information.
In addition this information is collected, rated and presented by several organizations, e.g. Charity Navigator
You claim the data "seem unusual and excessive absent any further explanation or elucidation of their meaning."
But you don't explain why it seems this way to you or why this should lead to its exclusion.
You also claim the data should only be included if the information is unusual: "reporting on the fact that they're too high, or too low or meaninful", thereby identifying one potential constituency for this information, but not acknowledging the one I provide evidence for.
Wikipedia is not a saloon book of records; can you point to an example in the WNYC page where this is applied, or in any article where the subject is not notable due to being unique.
Exceptional subjects, attributes, and attribute values are the outliers on Wikipedia, not the other way around.
I would claim, my other arguments aside, that the compensation column is in keeping with the motivation for Wikipedia making an exception for such a "simple list"
You say the information isn't "meaningful", that's completely vague, what exactly do you mean but this?
There are plenty of examples of data presented as is, because it's about a subject attribute that is recognized to be commonly used in understanding and evaluating a subject.
Again wikiepedia explicitely allows for a simple list of key employees.
The Hamilton musical page lists the "principal roles and casts" in a table analgous to a key employee list.
The [[ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michigan_Radio%7CMichigan Public radio station page]] includes a table of several years worth of revenue data which came from the Form 990 data.
No explanation of the data is given.
Ordinary attributes with ordinary values that are presented as is without being part of an elaborate interpretation are commonly included in encyclopedic articles:
  • Numerous government positions have their salaries listed without explanation, as I previously pointed out.
  • Mount Zion's elevation isn't remarkable, yet it's listed
  • a cursory sample shows that all or most of founding fathers were born in America, not surprising, not remarkable, not explained.
  • The article on the Sun, a "middle-aged" boring run-of-the-mill star has its own page with copious numerical stats without attached prose, such as escape velocity.
  • Sports teams have copious mind-numbing tables; is there even anything to be drawn from such data? That's up to the information seeking constituency to figure out.
So on and so on.
Neither you nor anyone else have objected to my inclusion of the revenue data which came from the same Form 990 document that contains the compensation data.
Why is that?
In requiring the omission of data from the same form, you do in fact have to provide an explanation, that goes beyond the use of adjectives, explaining this contrast in treatment.
Now I've taken the time reiterate points I've previously made and reformulate them to an extant specifically for you.
Please accord respect, not to me, but to the Wikipedia community process by evaluating my arguments and evidence for the inclusion as well as responding to my questions.
Thank you.Formulairis990 (talk) 21:20, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
this is interesting. Well, I must say that, frankly, you've persuaded me that as long as other information taken from the 990 forms can be used as a matter of public record on wikipedia, with no suggestion of its subtext or intended meaning, then it's hard to spell out the real objection to this information. My thought what that the salaries seem quite high, and that it would look like wikipedia was making a point of showing how high they were, without a secondary source to substantiate it. But indeed, I have no evidence of that...
I have a final concern, however: might this not be gratuitously revealing private information about individuals? The closest policy item I find to this is WP:BLPPRIMARY. but that doesn't say that personal income is off limits. In any case, I can anticipate the objection to this weak objection: they're essentially public figures working in a major public institution and their salaries are a matter of public record. So they're effectively exempt the kind of personal protections that regular, say, federal employees or private citizens may be accorded. I have no clue where that stands vis-a-vis wikipedia policy — and such arguments likely have no standing, and therefore are irrelevant.
in conclusion, i have no objection to the inclusion of the 990 salary data on this and other pages. Does anyone else, still? Happy monsoon day 23:12, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for the quick response and your analysis particularly surrounding WP:BLPPRIMARY. I'm not sure if I came across it before. And thank you for your willingness to change your call upon re-evaluation.
I believe WP:BLPPRIMARY does not apply here. The salaries of elected positions and other government positions are commonly found on Wikipedia, effectively revealing the office holder's salary:
The Form 990 key employee data should be treated similarly.
Public interest in knowing
Non-profits are defined by a social contract. An integral component of this contract is public scrutiny. A primary purpose of the Form 990 data, if not the primary purpose of the key employee section, is to enable and foster this public scrutiny.
The social contract involves the literal public subsidizing of their operations by not collecting taxes from them or their donors on their donations; effectively the public is a silent partner that annually infuses capital making up a large percentage of their total revenue. But unlike a normal partnership,there isn't the normal expectation of a "financial return", not least because it can not normally be easily financially quantized, if at all. No rigorous mechanisms exist in enforcing the social contract with non-profits; the contract realies in practice and by design on the good-faith of the non-profit. Unlike elected positions in which the public has direct say, or government operations that are, at least nominally, innervated by a formal auditing framework, e.g. Inspector general, Government Accountability Office.
Since only the top and key employees are listed, it is a reasonable expectation that they must have knowledge of this social contract in order to carry out their duties, e.g. CEO, COO, etc. or that they should reasonably be aware of it, e.g. radio hosts, and that this involves public scrutiny of their compensation and title, just as for example, a NY State Senator should know their salary is wide public knowledge, e.g. listed on Wikipedia.
The Form 990 role and compensation information listed describe notable attributes of the non-profit's relationship with their key employees, and the public needs this information in order to evaluate the non-profit, unlike say an employee's "vehicle registration" under normal circumstances.
And unlike "vehicle registration", a small part of all-encompassing regulations around vehicle ownership which society relies on and tasks the government with enforcement and scrutiny, the public is left with the job of evaluating the use of their funds by the non-profit, which involves the evaluation of how much the non-profit's resources the small group of its key employees essentially decide to allocate towards their own pay, through the varying degrees of influence available to them in such an organizational dynamic.
Other than the Form 990, the public is also left to its own devices in constructing tools and frameworks to facilitate their evaluation.
Nothing is preventing a non-profit company from relinquishing its non-profit status which would free it from such legislatively mandated public scrutiny, and still continue accepting donations and grants. And some take this route.
Another defining point particular to WNYC, and other news organizations, is that they enter into a social contract involving journalism. They participate, under such contract, in what is commonly referred to as the Fourth Estate; WNYC frequently states this as point of pride. Witness the company Gawker, in the Hulk Hogan lawsuit, direly attempting to claim Fourth Estate membership for its protections in order to prevent its potential extinguishment.
The Fourth Estate is considered a societal governing component, so for instance there is an expectation, in principle, that conflicts of interest would not be violated or minimally made public, an expectation not normally made of most other types of companies, but does parallel societal expectation of our government. Another parallel involves the public interest in compensation which is manifested in Wikipedia commonly posting government salaries.
Formulairis990 (talk) 22:12, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
you do take a long time to make your points, but again, I can't find anything here to disagree with. the above logic is not really within the grounds of wikipedia, but I don't know what the relevant policy is - and absent a policy on listing salaries and top staff of 501(c)3 organizations, I think the matter simply defaults to whatever consensus is reached. I see no objection, in principle, to including this information on the page. Happy monsoon day 18:24, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
"long time?" In length, time, or both? Well it's easier to dismiss then to construct a reasoned argument.
These arguments aren't simply meant to convince others; they are foremost used to convince me, not simply if they have standing, but if the goal has worthy merit.
The above arguments are meant to show that the information is within explicit Wikipedia policy of what merits publication, or in the spirit of it. I feel the consensus violates it, and to extent self-consciously so; I am not alone in this observation. I believe this is a major short-coming of Wikipedia which self-perpetuates: imagine if American Supreme Court Justices decided on their successors.
Formulairis990 (talk) 23:21, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Officers, Directors, Trustees, Key Employees, and Highest Compensated Employees [excluding compensation]

Hello potential consummate objectors, while the issue of adding compensation is sorted out, I would like to roll out the following edit.

  • Any objections?
  • Any objections to adding a gender column based on Prima Facie evidence?

The edit as far as I can tell is explicitly allowed by:
Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not section "Wikipedia is not a directory" item 7:
[Not allowed] "Simple listings without context information. Examples include, but are not limited to: listings of business alliances, clients, competitors, employees (except CEOs, supervisory directors and similar top functionaries), equipment, estates, offices, products and services, sponsors, subdivisions and tourist attractions. Information about relevant single entries with encyclopedic information should be added as sourced prose. Lists of creative works in a wider context are permitted." Formulairis990 (talk) 20:27, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Officers, Directors, Trustees, Key Employees, and Highest Compensated Employees
WNYC staff reported in the "Officers, Directors, Trustees, Key Employees, and Highest Compensated Employees" section of the WNYC IRS Form 990 2013 filing.[2]

NAME REPORTED POSITION
Laura Walker CEO
Dean Cappello CCO, EVP, Programming
Margaret Hunt SVP & Chief Develop. Officer
Harry Clark GM, Underwritting
Thomas Hjelm EVP & Chief Digital Officer
Michele Rusnak CFO
Brian Lehrer Host
John Hockenberry Host
Jad Abumrad Managing Editor / Host
Noreen O'Loughlin VP, Integrated MKT & GEN MGR T
James Schachter VP, News
Graham Parker VP & GM, WQXR
I think this should go on a "New York Public Radio" page, about the organization itself. I am not opposed to this chart as-is. I have been busy & haven't had time to split WNYC into 3 pages: one for the A.M., another for the F.M. & a 3rd for N.Y.P.R., but this chart should go on the 3rd page when created.Stereorock (talk) 16:57, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
Still not seeing how this is encyclopedic. Huge multinational corps show at most a Chairperson and CEO, while radio stations may show Owner, general/program director, and bullet-list the notable hosts/DJs if not in a narrative. Meanwhile, if there is a fascination with salaries, simply put the IRS form in an external link. Anyway, no all-caps please.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 21:06, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm not seeing how this is particularly encyclopedic or noteworthy — it smacks of "staff directory for the sake of a staff directory", with no particular reason why it's information that the entire world needs to know. There might be an encyclopedic way to work some or all of the names into the body of the article in a coherent way (e.g. substantive and properly sourced information about their roles), but simply listing them in a table of "highest-paid employees" isn't the way to do that. Bearcat (talk) 19:34, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
☾Loriendrew☽I edited the list as per your anti-capitalist demands.
"Still not seeing how this is encyclopedic." If you're referring to the compensation issue, the last time you chimed in you requested guidance because you claimed you could find none. But you didn't respond to my evidence and argument for it and my questions to you.
And as with the compensation issue, if you say it's unencyclopedic, then you have to explain why my argument consisting of evidence and rational making use of the evidence is invalid. Or you have to provide a rational argument with evidence which explains why this particular edit can not be included.
I've quoted above the Wikipedia policy which appears to make explicit allowance for this info in simple list form by explicitly delineating it as exception to a Wikipedia ban on simple lists without prose. I found this exception because you objected by referring to a bunch of GIANT wikipedia pages, without specifics, to look at and told me to read thoroughly, with one of your arguments being that simple lists are not allowed.
Well in one of those pages it in fact explicitly DOES allow it.
The one ambiguity I see is the the phrase "top functionaries." But I believe this info fits the bill both semantically and in the spirit of the delineated exception.
On a broader point, you say that "Huge multinational corps" and radio stations show less information than the Wikipedia rule explicitly delineates as if these are exemplars to be modeled, but shouldn't it be the other way around: these articles fall short of what the Wikipedia rule describes and also cultural Pro Forma norms regarding needed information about corporations. These articles deserve criticism and should be updated.
You're using existing articles as rules rather than guidance, instead of the Wikipedia rules and themselves and their spirit. This mechanism protects a status quo, getting Wikipedia stuck in a rut and preventing it from fulfilling a potential the rules attempt to allow. How do you know there weren't others attempting to add the missing info on the "Huge multinationals" but were met with inexplicable resistance.
Formulairis990 (talk)
Bearcat (talk) You mischaracterize the table as "highest-paid employees".
Formerly it's Officers, Directors, Trustees, Key Employees, and Highest Compensated Employees
And the gap between that and what I said is what we in the business refer to as "a distinction without a difference" — the words are different, but the substantive meaning of what's being said isn't. Bearcat (talk) 04:32, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
Previously by my mistake, my citation of the Wikipedia rule which makes exception for such a simple list by explicitly delineating the type of content it can list, was separated into the previous section.
I've merged this section with it, so it can be found at the start.
Please provide a rational grounded with evidence to justify exclusion of this list.
My understanding is that Wikipedia article CONTENT does NOT need to be notable. See WP:NOTE"These guidelines only outline how suitable a topic is for its own article or list. They do not limit the content of an article or list. "
"Notability", at least the way the term is used on Wikipedia, is not a concept that's applicable to the content of an article, no. But "noteworthiness", which is not the same thing as the Wikipedia sense of "notability", is a concept that's applicable to the content of an article — "notability" is a characteristic of a topic; "noteworthiness" is a characteristic of an individual piece of information about that topic. An article about a city, for instance, does not need to contain a comprehensive list of every individual business in that city: not because those businesses aren't notable, although most of them probably aren't, but because a comprehensive list of every individual business in the city is not a thing that an encyclopedia article would be expected to contain. An article about a person would not be expected to contain the name of their pet goldfish, or their favorite cheese, or their favourite contestant on The Bachelorette — even if those pieces of information were verifiable in sources, which they are more often than you would think, there would still be no substantive reason why Wikipedia needed to concern ourselves with adding that kind of trivia to their articles.
Similarly, an encyclopedia article about a radio station would not be expected to contain a list of every single person who works there, or of their salaries: we have a longstanding principle on here, in fact, that the only staff members who should ordinarily be listed in a radio or television station's article are those who are themselves notable enough to already have their own separate biographical articles for their mention in the station's article to be linked to. Wikipedia is not a directory, and that includes "comprehensive staff lists of organizations or companies". Bearcat (talk) 04:32, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
I respond in an argument above to claims that attribute values must be notable rather than attributes themselves; and describe why they are rarely so (SEARCH ABOVE FOR "Mount Zion's elevation isn't remarkable, yet it's listed... the Sun, a "middle-aged" boring run-of-the-mill star").
My head is spinning trying to make heads or tails of your point with this. The elevation of a mountain is a piece of information that an encyclopedia article about a mountain would always be expected to contain, regardless of whether that mountain was superlative or not. Details about the Sun, which (regardless of its "boringness" or "non-specialness" as stars go) human life, and by extension the existence of Wikipedia, depends upon — thus making it the single most important star in the universe to readers of Wikipedia, regardless of whether it has any superlative status among other stars or not — are pieces of information that an encyclopedia article about the Sun would always be expected to contain. A list of every individual staff member of a radio station and/or their salaries, however, is not content that would be expected in that radio station's encyclopedia article — for starters, we have a legal obligation to pay careful consideration to those people's personal and financial privacy rights, in a very different way than government financial reports do. Bearcat (talk) 04:32, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
Formulairis990 (talk) 21:22, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
I see, for the record, that you've been editing Wikipedia for less than a month under this username, and in fact have never made a single edit to Wikipedia that was unrelated to this discussion about this issue. It's plainly obvious that you have a personal agenda of some kind that is not consistent with contributing to a neutral point of view encyclopedia — this is becoming disruptive, and you're in very real danger of earning yourself a temporary or permanent editblock if you don't make a major adjustment to your attitude. Bearcat (talk) 04:32, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
BearcatYou want to temporarily or permanently block me? Your call.
You cite disruptive, please specifically quote to me the relevant passages that you claim apply to me.
Because I see multiple passages that apply to you regarding your response.
Prolonging a discussion for over two months, because you refuse to accept any answer except the one you want no matter how many established editors tell you why it's not going to be that way, is pretty much the textbook definition of disruptive editing. There's a point at which one is just beating a dead horse, and you crossed it several weeks ago now. Bearcat (talk) 01:24, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Also you mention above "we in the business.."
What business are you referring to?
"We in the business" is an idiom, which can be used by anybody in any context as a rhetorical device. I'm not actually in any "business" other than being a Wikipedia editor and administrator, whose job (at least on here) is to know what the rules are and why, and to enforce them when they're being broken. Bearcat (talk) 01:24, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
When I have free time I will give a fuller response.
Formulairis990 (talk) 17:26, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

(mostly directed to User:Bearcat)would it be possible to somehow get a policy ruling on this, or apply to make issues like this a formal part of policy? it's strange that seemingly something so straightforward would be the subject of so much disagreement. does wikipedia allow the featuring of personal financial information of individuals in public positions where that information is already public? where would we got to begin a community process on this? I also note that formulairis990 clearly has a very keen interest in specifically this matter... but feel at the same time that his own proclivities are only tangentially relevant to the question he (continually) poses. Happy monsoon day 14:49, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

If not for the disruptive–type dialog by what appears to be an agendized WP:SPA, a full RfC might be in order. It is an interesting thought, about how much is too much information, but as this debate is is clearly lopsided already I'm not sure how asking for more opinions would result in any other immediate resolution.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 16:10, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Further, do the proposed additions have encyclopedic value? Are they subject to coverage and discussion in reputable sources? Do they improve the readers' understanding of WNYC's role in broadcasting? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 16:18, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
my tentative answers would be: how do we define encyclopedic value? yes, they're subject to coverage and discussion in second party sources. and finally, they certainly add information to readers knowledge about WYNC - but whether and how they "improve... understanding" is another matter, and one on which different people would presumably come to varying judgements.
My thoughts are: this is public information and media is the Fourth Estate, so why shouldn't such information be made public by Wikipedia as a matter of course? That is just a subjective view, and a kind of open question. BLP doesn't have anything to say about the financial privacy of people in this position. our standard benchmark is whether the information is deemed notable by third party (and preferably reliable) sources. In that case, we could possibly look at [1] (typical) [2] (mentions it once) [3] (only a mention, but demonstration of interest in the issue in general) [4] (similiar interest in npr salaries) [5] (vox populi) [6] (interest in issue)[7] (interest in philanthrophy industry) [8] (more vox populi) [9] noted in an industry publication as particularly high. I'm a little undecided but can't see reasons for opposing it. Happy monsoon day 17:56, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments, Happy Monsoon, and taking the time to dig up these references. Even if at some point you decide to oppose this type of edit, I will appreciate your fair and open minded approach.
I also came across most of these, but I didn't want to be accused of POV. But I also, even though as I've previously stated I find the numbers troubling, want people to come to their own conclusions, which would be easier if similar information was included on other articles as well.Formulairis990 (talk) 00:44, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
To Michael Bednarek: The discussion is really about NYPR, the non-profit that operates WNYC. It was just discussed here because NYPR only recently got its own page thanks to Stereorock (I didn't have the confidence to create a new article). Does the NYPR factor affect your evaluation at all? Also you previously asked similar questions, which I responded to at the time.Formulairis990 (talk) 00:51, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
To ☾Loriendrew☽: I completely disagree with your mischaracterization which is a pattern of your constant spindoctoring; see my response to Bearcat below. Regarding "agendized WP:SPA", the explanation is that this is my narrow interest. I feel this is highly useful missing information that is easy for me to add. It's a big very low hanging fruit. I don't really have the expertise or confidence to add other stuff to Wikipedia. I was hoping to add IRS Form 990 to others articles, but got stuck here.Formulairis990 (talk) 01:03, 5 April 2016 (UTC)


To Bearcat If you respond, please follow WP:AVOIDABUSE by:

The current consensus on this compromise proposal is 3 unopposed and 3 opposed.
So no "dead horse" here.
The issue I have with your opposing arguments is that you did not address the actual compromise edit (nor the original one) and did not acknowledge my supporting evidence and rational.
The proposal is: to add a simple list of "CEOs, supervisory directors and similar top functionaries."
The Wikipedia policy I cite that allows me to include it is:
WP:NOTDIR section "Wikipedia is not a directory" item 7: "Simple listings [are not allowed] without context information. Examples include, but are not limited to: listings of business alliances, clients, competitors, employees (except CEOs, supervisory directors and similar top functionaries), equipment, estates, offices, products and services, sponsors, subdivisions and tourist attractions."
To me, this alone appears to be sufficient evidence and rational for inclusion.
The evidence of an information seeking constituency that would "expect" to see this information that I've been repeatedly referring to in my past responses is the IRS Form 990.
It is legislatively mandated by the national laws of a representative democracy.
The Form 990 isn't simply a catalog detailing of all of a corporation's data, but a specific selection intended to foster public scrutiny, the result of evolving consideration literally stretching to over 7 decades. To state the obvious, such laws are considered to be the highest and most binding consensus of society. The laws indicate a national distributed societal constituency for this information. By law non-profits must readily provide the public with the last 3 years of their 990 filings. In addition this information is collected, rated and presented by several organizations, e.g. Charity Navigator. These websites typically provide more than 3 years worth of filings, but all they've collected.

  • Here is similar list, which includes salaries [BBC_Trust]
  • Extremely detailed finances: [[10]]
  • A comprehensive staff list: [[11]]
  • NPR staff [[12]]
  • WGBH Trustees [[13]]

A counter argument to the edit must explain why the above evidence and rational do not justify inclusion. Pretty straight forward.
Arguing anything else is just a straw man tactic. And that is what you've done.
You did not even acknowledge the Wikipedia exception I cite, and instead cite its section against inclusion, as if the exception did not exist.
You repeatedly misrepresented the 12 items to be included as "A list of every individual staff member of a radio station and/or their salaries." Clearly the original or this compromise edit do not seek to do this.
You misrepresent the edit by reducing it to a table of "highest-paid employees." When the actual IRS FORM 990 title for this data is "Officers, Directors, Trustees, Key Employees, and Highest Compensated Employees"
The impression I got is that you are doing this to prevent the policy I cite from applying to this list.
When I challenged you on this, you stated the "gap between that and what I said is what we in the business refer to as "a distinction without a difference."
Well others may disagree with you, but you obstructed their path to come to a different conclusion by failing to identify this as your reductive interpretation, and not the actual edit.
Of course top employees are most likely to earn the most. But salary is only one criteria.
Here watch: Let's remove the criteria "Highest Compensated Employees"
The NEW list is now:

NAME REPORTED POSITION
Laura Walker CEO
Dean Cappello CCO, EVP, Programming
Margaret Hunt SVP & Chief Develop. Officer
Harry Clark GM, Underwritting
Thomas Hjelm EVP & Chief Digital Officer
Michele Rusnak CFO
Noreen O'Loughlin VP, Integrated MKT & GEN MGR T
James Schachter VP, News
Graham Parker VP & GM, WQXR

Not much different; 3 items removed, because we can not know with absolute certainty why they were included on the list. This is because the IRS "Key Employee" definition overlaps with the definition of "Highest Compensated Employee" Though it suggests an IRS view point that a "Highest Compensated Employee" is likely a person with key influence in the organization.
But yes these 3 items are up for debate.
You misrepresent the data as private, you state: "we have a legal obligation to pay careful consideration to those people's personal and financial privacy rights, in a very different way than government financial reports do"
Again, this IRS FORM 990 data is collected for public scrutiny: By law it must be made available to the public by the company itself for 3 years; usually it is provided on their website, as this is.
It is also available, beyond 3 years, for free, through numerous non-profit rating organizations.
Regarding my Mount Zion and Sun argument I referred you to,
you stated: "The elevation of a mountain is a piece of information that an encyclopedia article about a mountain would always be expected to contain.... Details about the Sun, which... human life, and by extension the existence of Wikipedia, depends upon — thus making it the single most important star in the universe to readers of Wikipedia, regardless of whether it has any superlative status among other stars or not — are pieces of information that an encyclopedia article about the Sun would always be expected to contain."
Really? I doubt even 1% of 1% will ever know or care there are such things as the sun attributes like "Metalicity" and "Flattening"? What proof do you have they are "expected"... beyond common sense?
While I have proof and common sense: the proof is in the form of the IRS FORM 990 which represents the highest and most binding form of societal consensus on the public utility of this information, in other words evidence of an information seeking constituency that would "expect" to see this information'. The common sense is represented by the fact that it is a Pro Forma component of non-profit evaluation.
You mischaracterized my activity, which is actually encouraged by wikipedia, rational arguments and queries to others, the compromise edit, etc., claiming that I prolonged the discussion because I "refuse to accept any answer except the one" I want. It's actually that the answers offered, like yours, did not even attempt to refute the justification I proposed. And often in fact they were listed on WP:AADD as invalid arguments. Besides most of my postings have been in reply to others, with the editors refusing to followup, sometimes even just beyond their initial objection posting. My followup questions would often go unanswered, even for a simple clarification, and my points not addressed.
You state: 'I'm not actually in any "business" other than being a Wikipedia editor and administrator, whose job (at least on here) is to know what the rules are and why, and to enforce them when they're being broken'
If you were keeping tabs, then you should have moderated so that arguments remained rationally grounded instead of endlessly driving towards dogma, instead you offered the most offending example, and capped it off by threatening me with permanent banishment. Formulairis990 (talk) 00:34, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

frankly, this appears to be quite obsessive. On principle I can't object to a simple table, but Formulairis990, please take a look around the encyclopedia, learn the rules, edit some different pages, and relax a little. over and out on this topic from me.Happy monsoon day 23:59, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
Advice taken.
Though more than matching my lone efforts are the curiously highly motivated focused efforts of several highly experienced users to redact data which is explicitly intended for public scrutiny and which is current, simple, highly intuitive and telling. Actions antithetical to the avowed mission of the default goto publicly crowsourced encyclopedia, and counter cultural trends.
They are incapable of providing a rational explanation for their actions; misrepresent my actions; and malign my intentions without proof.
You might find the following extremely curious. Norway, Finland, and Sweden publish everyone's' income filings online. Yet this doesn't appear mentioned on their country taxation pages or sections. Someone else questioned this as well, 3.5 years ago: Taxation in Norway
As an example of "current, simple, highly intuitive and telling" IRS Form 990, take a look at the following
Don't click on link below it until you've given the data some thought.
List of Officers, Directors, Trustees, and Key Employees
Revenue: 0
Name Title Position Hours/Week Compensation
Bill Hyers Chairman 1 0
Ross Offinger Treasurer 1 0
Stephani Yazgi Secretary 1 0
Btw, I like the guy.[14]
Formulairis990 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:41, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Content Dispute

This is a lengthy content dispute. While the editors are to be thanked for discussing it rather than edit-warring, it isn't getting anywhere. Read the dispute resolution policy and try a dispute resolution procedure. There appear to be two editors, so that Third Opinion would be appropriate. The issue appears to be whether to include a list of people. If there is anything else, it may be too complicated for Third Opinion. Alternatively, a Request for Comment appears to be a reasonable option. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:14, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Why the reversion to false info sourcing w dead-link?

THE FOLLOWING IS MOVED FROM Michael Bednarek TALK PAGE: Why did you revert wnyc to remove the nypr reference and all those wikilinks Your reversion also restored a factual error which references a dead-link as supporting evidence. Why did you that?Formulairis990 (talk) 22:46, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Hint: It helps if you include a link to the relevant page. I assume you refer to my edit at WNYC.
First, this discussion should be at Talk:WNYC. Second, read my edit summary; it explains almost every part of my edit. In the main, I removed your reintroduction of material in the lead section not directly to WNYC, but to New York Public Radio. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 03:18, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
You're edit summary doesn't explain why you replaced factually sourced info with false information sourcing a dead link.
In addition the edit you reverted to was the first edit of an anonymous account that has no activity beyond the day of the edit.
You also oddly removed links from the infobox, and you cite WP:REPEATLINK
Yet that page specifically states at the start that You CAN REPEAT links in infoboxes, as many articles do
I copied this to the wnyc talk page. As you wish we can continue there.
Formulairis990 (talk) 16:30, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
I replaced the citation you removed for NYPR ownership of the WNYC stations.
I re-added infobox links as WP:REPEATLINK allows in infoboxes.
I removed your edit of replacing NYPR with WNYC as the owner of other stations. You cited a dead url, which itself explicitly used the words New York Public Radio: "http://www.wnyc.org/articles/wnyc-news/2011/jun/29/blog-new-york-public-radio-acquires-four-njn-radio-stations/"
It was also confusing to read in a preceding paragraph that WNYC stations are owned BY NYPR, and then to read that WNYC owns stations itself.
Formulairis990 (talk) 21:06, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on WNYC. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:38, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Should the current WNYC page be converted to a disambiguation page?

Looking at the histories, in 2016 material from this WNYC page was used to create three new pages: WNYC (AM), WNYC-FM and New York Public Radio. I would have thought that at that time the existing WNYC page would have been modified to become a disambiguation page to the three new pages, but that doesn't seem to have happened. The result is extensive duplication, especially with the original WNYC page and WNYC (AM).--Thomas H. White (talk) 13:07, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

  1. ^ IRS Form 990 2013 filing
  2. ^ IRS Form 990 2013 filing
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:WNYC/Archive_1&oldid=1136225094"