text:
Template talk:Test

Archives
See the Archives index.

Example for article name
My understanding is that this template now wraps in the behavior of test-n? The instructions given don't mention this, which was rather confusing. Could an example be added? -- Creidieki 19:55, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * The documentation at the top of this page mentions it. The box on the template page contains helpful reminders, rather than actual instructions. —[ admin ] Pathoschild 05:04, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Why should we subst this?
Since test and test-n were merged, they both create messy code on user talk pages. I personally think templates containing if should never be subst'ed. Kusma (討論) 13:54, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
 * It's a very simple ParserFunction, and there is an optional parameter that allows you to substitute the contained code. —[ admin ] Pathoschild 21:53, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
 * My complaint is that " Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. " doesn't look good on user talk pages, not really much better than  . Kusma (討論) 21:57, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
 * It's a simple fix, just put  before the  . Should I get an admin to change that, or is there a problem? -Amarkov babble 01:26, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Then it works when substituted, but breaks when not. That's not much of a problem, of course; it'll just break messages by users who still don't substitute. It'd be simple to implement a reverse parameter to fix display on example pages, where the templates aren't substituted. I see no real problem with switching to that method. —[ admin ] Pathoschild 02:31, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * It should be possible to check for substitution and change it if it isn't substed. But you do realize that neither method is incorporated in the test templates, right? -Amarkov babble 03:52, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Checking for substitution requires ParserFunctions, which would then need to be substituted by one of the two methods above. Adding unsubstituting ParserFunctions to check for substitution to use the correct method to substitute other ParserFunctions is rather self-defeating (and confusing).

 * The first method isn't present because the test series was migrated separately by someone else. If there's no opposition to Amarkov's suggestion, I'll implement that across the spectrum. —[ admin ] Pathoschild 19:54, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Go for it. —Centrx→talk • 22:20, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Bug 5678 ("Colon functions: undefined parameter (default) values clobbered") makes #if unusable for this purpose when substituted (see [ sandboxed bug test]). If someone is aware of a viable workaround, please explain it here or implement it yourself. — {admin} Pathoschild 02:14, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Another link
editprotect I think that we should make the "Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia" a link to Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. It would be a piped link, of course, so that the first sentence of would look like, "Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia.", and the first sentence of Article would look like "Thank you for experimenting with the page Article on Wikipedia." After that, both versions of the template would look exactly the same. The reason I think this should be added to the template is so that users who "recieve" this template would be directed to the policy that I'd mentioned, so that they could realize why their "improvements" had been reverted. That way, we have a better chance of turning vandals into constructive users, not to mention not alienating the ones who were trying to be constructive in the first place. What do you guys think? --Luigifan 21:08, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

 * This test template is designed for newbie tests. Very few newbies are disrupting the encyclopedia to make a point.  WP:POINT is directed more at experienced knowlegeable Wikipedians who purposefully disrupt Wikipedia because they are knowledgeable about policies and disagree with them.  Newbie tests are done by those who are not knowledgeable of the policies, or often even that their edits will show up in the encyclopedia.  moink 23:09, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

 * It's worse than you make it seem, actually. By doing this, we imply that is what they are doing. Saying that is definitely biting the newcomers, and possibly a violation of WP:AGF, too. -Amarkov babble 01:39, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Surprisingly often, when test is used the person receiving it is actually just testing. Directing them to the sandbox is often all that is needed to prevent them unintentionally disrupting articles. Accusing them of POINTing is not going to help the situation. --ais523 10:45, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Editprotected change not carried out. Garion96 (talk) 17:57, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Your test worked
This wording has always bothered me a bit. It seems to legitimize testing. It reminds me of an old usenet response to test posts - "nope, still didn't appear in alt.test". I think it should say, instead of "your test worked", something like "your edit appeared in the encyclopaedia and has been reverted...". Does anyone know what I mean? -- zzuuzz (talk) 23:17, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I think the wording is supposed to be like reverse psychology. --Luigifan 23:21, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Notwithstanding. -- zzuuzz (talk) 00:06, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * It might not have appeared for long and, properly, it did not appear in the "encyclopedia", could have been reverted instantly. —Centrx→talk • 00:29, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I think for some instances of legitimate testing (not vandalsim) where someone is experimenting with something like a template or a chart, trying to see how it works and if they can change it to work differently, and their test royally screws up the template or chart... to say "your test worked" is blatently wrong. Most testing is of the, "hey, I can edit? What happens if I push this button?" variety and in those instances, yes, their test did work. Earlier today, however, I reverted Portal:Current events/Calendar. It looked like the anon was trying to figure out what all that mess of code in the edit window does and really made a mess out of it and couldn't figure out how to fix it. I warned them with test, but then thought, "Well, no, your test most certianly did not work", so I manually edited the template after warning them, but still... maybe the wording of the template should be altered to be useable in both situations. ~  ONUnicorn (Talk problem solving 17:22, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Interwiki links
Please add simple:Template:Test and fr:Modèle:Test 1. --Rory096 17:06, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Done. Thanks. JesseW, the juggling janitor 21:54, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Please also add th:แม่แบบ:Test --Jutiphan 06:41, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Done, thanks. Kusma (討論) 12:51, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Suggestions for users testing with creating newpages
Often when newpage patrolling, I encounter users who are clearly experimenting with Wikipedia by creating a new page, sometimes as vandalism or perhaps just without knowing much about what we do, i.e. creating a page about themselves. I was wondering whether a set of templates to add to those user pages would be useful, for example:

 * Hello, welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for experimenting with creating a new page, but please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.

Also, often people post articles about non-notable people, i.e. themselves, their friends, etc. Perhaps something like this might be appropriate:

 * Hello, welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for experimenting with creating a new page, however, some of the subjects you have written about may not correspond to our notability guidelines. Please take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.

Then there could perhaps be a similarly graded system for repeats, etc. Does anybody else have an opinion about this? Bob talk 19:43, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The TestXarticle series? -Amarkov blahedits 21:24, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Proposed revised version
Here is my idea of a revised version of the template:

 * Welcome to Wikipedia. While this may not have been your intent, your recent edits have been unconstructive and have been reverted or removed. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia, or if you simply want to practice editing, please use the sandbox. If you need any assistance, please contact the one who left you this message.

I think this version is better, because it has more universal use. It could be used more appropriately in cases when a user makes an unconstructive edit that is not necessarily a "test".-- Azer Red  Si?  22:24, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Experiment
"Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia"

WP:VAND says that "if you are not sure that an edit is vandalism, always start with ." What if the user was not experimenting, but rather was making a good faith edit, and another user thought it was a test, and reverted it? The reverter would just put this template on the talk page. It might intimidate the user, deterring him from further editing. I think this template should be used as a warning, nothing else. Many users "warn" good-faith newbies without thinking of the consequences. What they need to do is manually type a reason for reverting, and what that user could do in the future. Also, I noticed that they usually leave an edit summary of "test1" or "test2" or "warning user with VandalProof". These may further intimidate a good-faith newbie user. Users need to think before they warn. --75.26.9.99 03:55, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Hello
Why do you get mad at that wiki isaiahs 01:04, 20 December 2006 (UTC)Crazyhors

 * I'm not mad. I mostly like Wikipedia, I just don't like how people "warn" others. --71.138.128.14 03:56, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Why are we thanking them for experimenting?
They did something wrong, we shouldn't be thanking them for it. -Amarkov blahedits 01:36, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
 * We want to encourage them to edit Wikipedia, so even if they're a little misguided in how they do that, we still appreciate that. JYolkowski // talk 01:40, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Linking to revert help page
I'm torn as to whether or not I think it's a good idea for this template to link to Help:Revert. Since it's a a good faith warning, keeping it wouldn't hurt in cases where the edit in question was indeed good faith, and would equip those users to revert vandalism in the future. But do they really need to know exactly what a revert is now just to know that their test has been removed? If they stick around, they'll learn the tricks of the trade as they become a more experienced editor, anyway.

The template is also given to users who turn out to be vandals. In these cases, might WP:BEANS apply? I've seen vandalism marked with an edit summary claiming to be reverting vandalism once or twice, so it might be a bad idea to teach possible vandals about that nifty little trick. Then again, such deception is pretty rare, and they'll always figure out how to revert (or claim to be reverting) eventually, too. Like I said, I'm not sure if it's a good idea or a bad idea to keep that wikilink, so I thought I'd just mention it here in case someone else had a stronger argument than I do. --Icarus (Hi!) 08:23, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Biology version
Thank you for catalyzing the catabolic processes of this somatic cell. Your hydrolysis worked, and it has been allosterically inhibited or marked for destruction by lyzosomes. Please use the Golgi Apparatus for any other substrates you may want to catalyze. Take a look at the chaperonins to learn more about catalyzing our polypeptides.

Test-n; increasing the ns?
I'm wondering if there's any way to make it so that; when warning someone with name of page we could make it work with multiple pages? See, for example User talk:169.244.174.12. Water is on my watchlist; so I saw the vandalism there and reverted it, then checked the user's contributions and reverted their earlier vandalism to the other two pages. I only wanted to use one warning template as they hadn't yet been warned and it seems silly to give them, , and without giving them a chance to see  and respond. At the same time you want them to know that all their testing and vandalism has been reverted.

I don't know enough template syntax to know if it's even possible; but is there a way that we could specify with that there's more than one page, how many, and the names of all pages? Maybe something like 3 ? Is that possible? Is it hard? Should we edit the template to use that? ~  ONUnicorn (Talk problem solving 15:26, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * _ _ (It should be noted that a sufficient reason for ruling out addition of test2 and test3 is that such escalation is for repetition after each of two previous warnings, not simply for multiple offenses; "silly" is far from the right word for that.)
 * _ _ (I also note than test-n Rdrs to test.)
 * _ _ I want this too; my current application, & proposed arg scheme, are e.g.
 * .
 * with all arguments thru the first 5 listed; for more than 5, the conditional markup would evoke the rest by adding ", etc." (I'll not bore you with the careful generation of English syntax that i picture.)
 * IMO the value to be gained is shock and awe: not just
 * someone noticed your unsuitable article, and cares enuf to comment on it
 * but
 * the pattern of your editing has been noted.
 * Careful patrollers could sequence the arguments, as above, to demonstrate human insight, undercutting any tendency to infer the notice comes from a bot.
 * _ _ I am about to do a backward-compatible prototype in a private Tl sandbox. If i'm missing something, stop me before i glance thru the protection rules and install it over the existing version. --Jerzy•t 17:05, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Moved documentation
Hi, I've moved the documentation from this Talk page to the Template:Test/doc subpage, as recommended in Template doc page pattern. Please edit the template to: Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you may want to do. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.

Thanks. +mwtoews 03:12, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Done. Luna Santin 05:08, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

"Thank You"?
Can we reword this? "Thank You" seems like a strange thing to say to someone who's vandalizing Wikipedia. --DDG 19:04, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

 * The cordial wording serves the following purposes:
 * It assumes good faith. (Keep in mind that many of the edits in question are well-meaning tests, not vandalism).
 * It denies vandals the angry reaction that they often seek. ("They're thanking me for my test?  This is no fun.")
 * —David Levy 19:59, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

 * I suppose I was just referring to uses of the test template in the case of outright vandalism, but your points are noted. I'll continue using these templates as-is for now.  However, is there an alternate template I should use in the case of outright vandalism (i.e. patent nonsense, personal attacks)? --DDG 21:24, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes. Template messages/User talk namespace has lots of various warning templates to suit different situations. ~  ONUnicorn (Talk problem solving 17:09, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Redirect?
Editprotected This template appears to have been superseded by uw-test1. I therefore would like to redirect this to that. (Why wasn't this done when uw-test1 was created ITFP?) This would not only cut the confusion resulting from the presence of two nearly identical templates unaware of each other's existence, it would also clarify that we have these multi-level templates and hence why the wording is as it is. -- Smjg 12:35, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not convinced that's a good idea; not everyone seems to like the new templates. -Amarkov moo! 20:39, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

 * But what's there not to like about them besides slightly different wording? Anyway, if that's the problem, can't we call this uw-test1sdw, thereby making it more sensibly a part of the system?

 * If OTOH it's the names of the new templates that people don't like, then they don't have to use them. -- Smjg 21:08, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I think there's general agreement -- or at least understanding -- that the newer templates will eventually deprecate the older ones. When and how that should happen, though, still seems to be in the air; I'd prefer we have this discussion somewhere more central, such as the village pump or community noticeboard. Also WT:UTM is another option, for a smaller audience (testing the waters, say). – Luna Santin  (talk) 22:21, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

 * It's more the coding and appearance of the new templates I don't like. I prefer the older, simpler templates; having to write subst=subst: to reduce the code is something that people aren't going to do, practically speaking. Also, for me the lower-numbered warning templates are a time-saving aid to prevent having to handcraft a message (and to create a message with better links and more thought than a handcrafted message), rather than something that's obviously boilerplate with a little icon by the side. I would expect the prose messages in the old test1,test2... system to be more effective in vandalfighting. --ais523 09:51, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

 * "having to write subst=subst: to reduce the code" - what on earth are you talking about? Besides, my proposal was about sticking to one structure for the warning message system, rather than about how the messages look.  When/whether to consolidate the two versions of the messages into one and which version we should keep are two separate matters. -- Smjg 18:33, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I thought I'd replied to this, but it seems I didn't. Compare the following:
 * [[Image:Information.svg|25px]] Welcome, and thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox.
 * and
 * [[Image:Information.svg|25px]] Welcome, and thank you for experimenting with the page the page [[: on]] on Wikipedia. Your test worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox.
 * If you have a look at these on the edit screen, you'll notice the difference. The second one has |subst=subst: added, to reduce the ParserFunctions in the output, so that's what I was talking about. (At the moment, it seems that uw-test1 is broken, actually, because the output is different between the two versions.) Still, I prefer test to uw-test1 anyway (especially as the image on uw-test1 falls foul of the well-known IE6 PNG bug, so the background looks strange around it). --ais523 08:57, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

 * Oh, I see now. With test, the #if always remains in the code, and in uw-test1, you can add |subst=subst: to the template parameters to get rid of it.  But the only real difference in this respect is the presence of  in uw-test1 to enable this, and I don't see this as bloating the resulting code much more than the #if (which you can't get rid of using test, except by manual editing after saving) already does. -- Smjg 13:25, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Editprotected change not carried out, there doesn't seem to be consensus to do so. Garion96 (talk) 17:53, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Why did we change?
I'm confused as to why we need two different vandalism/experimenting templates. Why did we change from the old one? And why don't we just have the old one redirect to the new one? Could someone explain please? GofG undefinedundefinedundefined Contribs 21:02, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * See WP:UW and this strawpoll regarding redirects. --Geniac 12:43, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Test
Template:Test has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — mrholybrain 's talk 16:16, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Redirect
Can you please redirect this page to uw-test1 as part of the Wikiproject User Warnings and they are basicaly the same anyway, thank you. Af648 10:44, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * There was a poll about this, and there was no consensus for the redirection there; therefore, I'm removing the editprotected, unless you know of some reason why the poll's results don't apply. --ais523 10:48, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Because polling is evil? – Gurch 19:54, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

ru iwiki
Please, add iwiki to ru:Шаблон:Тест.--193.124.238.46 11:54, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

What's the point of this warning?
I just came across these warnings and I can't figure out when I should use them. The first one implies that the editor somehow guessed that the edit was a "test". But how do we define what a "test" is? Replacing a page with "qze eqzrf eqrez ez" could be considered a test but why would we bother finding out if the user was "testing" or just vandalizing. I'd say in all cases, a is appropriate while a  warning is just guess work. If a user purposely damage a page as a "test", it's still vandalism unless he/she undo the changes. The warning and more are even less useful since they are assuming bad faith - in other words they are assuming vandalism in which case a  and more would be more helpful (in particular for new changes patrollers). So I'm just wondering what was the rational for creating these templates? What purpose do they fullfil that a wouldn't? Laurent (talk) 22:10, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * You might ask those people who patrol Recent Changes. You are supposed to use, , etc. and wait until the newbie figures out his/her error. It is all part of Assume Good Faith until it is abundantly clear that the newbie is malicious. Then you have justification to act against a known vandal with , etc. . --Ancheta Wis (talk) 01:13, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Redirect? again
Six years on... Based on this, I don't think anyone is using this template anymore. I am tempted to redirect it to uw-test1; are there any objections? — This, that and the other (talk) 10:30, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Still prefer this one and use it. No reason to redirect it. Garion96 (talk) 12:03, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, if it's in use, I can't argue with that. — This, that and the other (talk) 03:32, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

title: Template talk:Test


text:
Wikipedia talk:Controversial articles

Citing "Centrist" Mainstream Media Organizations
The Guidelines said:

"An editorial from a mainstream centrist media organization is best, because it can usually be assumed to represent the opinion of a meaningful segment of the population, but don't rely on the journalist to always accurately report the bias of its sources. Alternately, a text from conservative or alternative media or a focus group can be cited, provided the source is accurately labeled in neutral terms."

"Conservative and alternative media sources" were created precisely to problematize and draw attention to the bias in supposedly centrist mainstream sources. Neither the Wall Street Journal nor the New York Times are centrist and both have clear idelogical biases on their editorial pages as do the vast majority of "mainstream" news sources.

But what is more, in exactly what way are centrists more "meaningful" than rightists or leftists? Assuming this word was meant only in a numerical sense an argument might be made that there are more right wingers than centrists and more left wingers than centrists.

In short this string of comments needs to be reevaluated. While I would agree that most mainstream sources try to pretend to be unbiased in their regular news pages or news shows no such effort is exerted on the editorial page or on opinion shows. The New York Times may strike a neutral tone on its news pages but takes clearly liberal positions on its editorial page time and time again.

Thus, while one should not refer to the "liberal New York times" when citing a hard news story one should feel free to do so when citing an editorial by that paper. Carambola 22:02, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Unlabelled comments from before December 31, 2004
Some people say this article should be merged with NPOV

 * WHO say this?? Shouldn't we trying to avoid weaselspeak??

 * I think this is an article that deserves development. NPOV is a fine article, but an article on the specific problem of controversial and difficult articles is like an advanced course version : ChrisG 21:30, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I wanted to point out that attaching a name to facts or opinions is different from Cite your sources. Consider this:

Some people believe the CIA planned the assassination of John F. Kennedy

Versus this:

''New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison argued in the Clay Shaw case that the CIA planned the assassination of John F. Kennedy. ''

Versus this:

''Some people believe the CIA planned the assassination of John F. Kennedy. (People vs. Clay Shaw, 1967, III, ii, 37-45) ''

One axis is that of citing sources; the other is that of naming opinions. They're not really the same thing; attaching one name to a widely held opinion seems a violation of NPOV, because it draws undue attention to that one name.

Regarding linking to "mainstream" media sources, Wikipedia's POV policy is not about presenting the "majority view" or a "centrist view." It is about sticking to demonstrable facts, and not passing off controversial opinions as fact. Where appropriate, opinions should be described but clearly identified as opinions.

Let's be realistic here. There are NO universally accepted NPOV media sources in existence. There are doubtless many which try but none which 100% of the world agrees is truly NPOV. Readers are free to dismiss a link's source as biased but, unless the content of the individual article can be clearly demonstrated to be inaccurate, then it should remain. If someone else wishes to edit and place a competing or contradicting piece alongside, I have no problem with that.

I would expect that the contributors to this work understand that all media sources provide editorial/opinion articles as well as "straight" news pieces. The two are expected to be kept separate. Expressing political beliefs in editorial articles or segments that differ from one's own political opinions is not "proof" that their news reporting is inaccurate. If, on the other hand, opinions are presented as "news fact", that would be an instance of inaccuracy which all here should agree must be corrected.

Chris, I thought the following text was very useful but not quite what I had in mind for this article. Do you mind if I merge it with NPOV where I think it belongs? What I was looking for was more along the line of very specific guidelines for handling difficult topics. -- Viajero 21:45, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)

 * I've had a look at NPOV and I'm not sure where my additions would fit in. From my experience the comments I've made are only really necessary on controversial issues. :ChrisG 18:47, 13 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Use every opinion Controversial articles are a great opportunity to develop your ability to write neutral point of view. Treat every criticism or rewrite of your writing as a sign that in some way you fell short of neutral point of view. You may feel your original version is closer to NPOV than its replacement, but the very fact that it has been altered suggests in some way you failed to achieve NPOV.

Often it is the way you write a point which causes someone to react, not the underlying point itself. Try to identify what part of your contribution triggered the negative reaction. Consider:

 * Whether you have chosen a value laden word, which drowns out what you are trying to say. Can you choose a more neutral, less loaded term?
 * Whether you have presented a balanced range of views, often people neglect to represent the full range of views. Be inclusive.
 * Give an equitable amount of space to different points of view. Most conflict is usually focused on the introduction or preface to a controversial article. If you get that section agreed then often the rest of the article is much less of a problem.

I'm going to try adding what I think are helpful things for these guidelines. Please feel free to criticise. DJ Clayworth 21:42, 23 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Copyedit and some (hopefully) NPOV edits
As this article itself could easily be seen as controversial, I will explain my edits here. Obvious is listed at Words_to_avoid, so I have removed the word three times, without removing the attached statements. will have to be (regarding documenting assertions) seems too strong to me in a semi-policy article; I have replaced it with should be. I reformatted the weaselspeak paragraph for clarity -- the punctuation and sentence structure was confusing to me. Also, I chose to soften the statement that the given expressions are legitimate rhetorical devices to a statement that they may be legitimate; is there consensus that these are definitely legitimate? I can't tell from the diff what I supposedly changed in the Attribute facts section. I corrected article agreement of "a acceptable" to "an acceptable". And I rephrased the parenthetical expression in the last paragraph for clarity. I am willing to discuss any part of these edits someone finds objectionable. Charm ©† 01:29, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)

Proposed addition about the prominence of controversies
A comment in the December 2005 Nature review prods me into a proposed addition to this guideline. I'd like to add the following:
 * Avoid giving undue prominence to controversies
 * As noted in Wikipedia's NPOV policy, articles must represent all views of controversal subjects fairly and without bias. But as the NPOV tutorial notes, the amount of space dedicated to a controversy plays a role in bias-free coverage.  Once a controversial topic has been covered, it is important to take a step back from the edit wars and other steps that led to the end result and take a broader perspective.  Does the end result overly emphasize the controversy?

 * If an article is a biography, is the controversial incident all that the individual is known for? In some cases, that make be the case, but a recent controversy, however major, might be only a year in the career of a public figure with perhaps decades of mostly uncontroversial involvement in high profile positions.

 * Some subjects, like abortion debate, are about the controversy itself. In those cases, the controversy by definition looms large in the article.  But trying to cover the pro-life/pro-choice debate about abortion in the abortion article itself could result in an article where the debate overshadows the less controversial aspects of an encyclopedic coverage of the topic.

 * For the cases where reducing the prominence of a controversy seems appropriate, the simplest approach to is to create an article about the controversy, as in abortion debate or allegations of child sexual abuse by Michael Jackson in the early 1990s. For cases where it seems justified to have the controversy dominate the article, as in the case where a controversy is the only reason someone achieved his or her 15 minutes of fame (or infamy), this can be validated through a couple of techniques.  One technique is to look at the Special:Whatlinkshere list for the article (both pre-existing and newly introduced); if references to the article are limited to topics related to the controversy, that helps validate the dominance.  It can also be validated by consulting sources external to Wikipedia, though external sources are less useful when an article is addressing current events.

(end of proposal)

I guess feedback can come at three levels. There's the guideline itself ("Avoid giving undue prominence to controversies"), the rationale for the guideline, and the wording I've chosen. It might be most useful to see if the guideline survives scrunity at the first two levels before anyone comments on the third. 69.3.70.171 21:37, 15 December 2005 (UTC).

Views on use of banners
Please see the banner at the top of British Isles. I'm arguing against the use of banners like this. My view is that a banner is not for this purpose, but rather to confirm to the reader that they are at the right article, and if not, where else they might go. It seems to me that this banner is being used to push the POV that the term British Isles should be abandoned. I changed the banner to this but it was quickly reverted. So that's my view, what's anyone else's? Thanks. Arcturus 20:03, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Nonsensical definition of weasel words
The guidelines regarding weasel words give the following example:
 * ...who claimed they were forced from their homes... (bad--It's quite possible the people described were forced from their homes. )

This guideline presents a bizarre a-priori bias. It gives an inverted interpretation of the word 'claimed'. To "claim" used in such a context means to "assert" or "demand recognition of the fact" (both OED defns) yet the guideline proceeds to point out that those making the claim may well be correct, surely a redundant point. Either way, the term should not imply any hidden meaning, either the claim was made, (i.e. asserted by those making it) or it was not asserted (claimed) by those making it. The act of making a claim does NOT imply its veracity. Nor does reporting that a claim was made cast any doubt on its veracity, as is convolutedly implied by the interpretation of the given example. I would argue that use of the term in the example is good usage, not bad. RichardJ Christie 10:26, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

 * I just stumbled across this page and find the discussion of weasel words quoted below has it backwards:

 * ...is widely thought to be the work of... (good)
 * ...who claimed they were forced from their homes... (bad--It's quite possible the people described were forced from their homes. )

 * The phrase "widely thought to be" is an unattributed claim that immediately causes me to ask "thought by whom?"; it's a classic case of weasel words. On the other hand, the statement "...who claimed they were" specifies precisely who is the source for the claim, thereby avoiding the classic kind of weasel word.  The word "claim" might be replaced by a more neutral term "who say they were," but I don't think the problem here is weasel wording.  --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 20:39, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I just translated this into Serbian and I have to concur with the above — the discussion of weasel words in this guideline does not look good at all. --Dzordzm (talk) 16:16, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Terrorist
A long-running discussion on the word "terrorist" at WT:Words to avoid ended on December 18. The high-volume discussion is a distraction for the many people who are pointed to WP:Words to avoid from the Good Article criteria, and is a deterrent to watchlisting that guideline. Unless there's a vote to "demote" the text and discussions (that is, to move them out of the guidelines and back to the article talk page or to WikiProject Terrorism), they should be in some guideline, and this is the most closely related guideline I can find. I'd like to archive the talk thread over there and move the guideline text and its shortcuts to WP:Controversial articles. Any objections? - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 16:19, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

 * I haven't heard any objections, and I'd like to make the change in time for this month's WP:Update. I'm archiving the talk and moving today's message in that thread here.  Feel free to revert. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 16:16, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

 * Just a suggestion; I've broken the Words with multiple or controversial meanings section from WT:Words to avoid into Words with multiple meanings (left there) and Words with controversial meanings (brought over here), and moved the "terrorism" subsection over here. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 16:31, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

 * I object. I haven't able to object because I was away for about a month, but I personally think that to move does not improve the quality and easiness of wikipedia and will only cause longer prolonged discussions about the usage of the words in already controversial articles. Grey Fox (talk) 00:56, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

 * I left msgs on the talk pages of most of the people who had been involved in the discussion, everyone was okay with it (but they didn't come here and register a vote, because no one was opposing). I can ask again if you like. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 01:03, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Some new proposed wording on terrorist, extremist, freedom fighter, etc.
[Moved from WT:Words to avoid]: Totally oppose the inclusion of the phrase "barring clear consensus to the contrary" in this proposal. They will merely give an official stamp to the dominant POV on en:Wiki - it will destroy any semblance of WP:NPOV. Sarah777 (talk) 15:39, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Words to avoid
It seems to me better to include "Words with controversial meanings" in Words to avoid not here. I see no benefit in moving "Extremist, terrorist or freedom fighter?" to here as the objections to is are not that they are in the guideline Words to avoid but that a prohibition on their usage exists. I think the status quo should be maintained unless there is a consensus to move it here and there is no indication to me that there is. --PBS (talk) 18:34, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

 * Regarding whether there's consensus: I'm not sure either, but I think there is (otherwise I wouldn't have made the edit), because every time I've brought the issue up over the last few months that the "terrorist" thread might be out of place at WT:Words to avoid, no one has objected. So, let's ask around and see.  Check out the WT:Words to avoid archives: compare what people talked about from Jan-May 2007 (50 different registered users discussing a wide variety of topics relevant to the guideline) vs. Jun-Dec 2007 (not much besides heretics, martyrs, apostates, freedom fighters, apartheid, and terrorists) vs. Jan-Aug 2008 (around 60 registered accounts discussing a wide variety of topics relevant to the guideline) vs. Sept-Dec 2008 (not much besides terrorists, martyrs, concentration camps).  What you'll see is that that talk page tends to be lively and useful for the intended and important purpose (people at GAN and GAR have insisted that it stay in the WP:WIAGA criteria, with good reason), up until the time that there's vigorous discussion on "bad guy" topics, and then everyone else stops watchlisting and goes away (despite efforts by G-Guy and myself to get people interested in new topics).  In contrast to all the "bad-guy" discussions, I don't see any bad guys here :)  But inadvertently, we've allowed a very important guideline talk page to get hijacked for single-purpose advocacy. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 19:37, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * There's this new thing going 'round. I dunno if you've heard of it. It's called common sense. TERRORISM is NOT a word to AVOID. It isn't even a controversial word; no one denies it exists. Its use may be controversial with respect to certain topics; that is is CONTENT ISSUE. Holy Crap, people. Wake up. Ling.Nut (talk—WP:3IAR) 00:25, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I think Ling has hit the nut on the head, in his typical inimitable style. Use of words like "terrorism" is primarily a content issue, not a style issue. It only becomes a style issue when it is used to label: this is particularly true for "terrorist" used as a noun to describe a person. I would be in favour of adding an example or brief discussion involving terrorism or something similar to WP:WTA. However, I think this guideline is a much better place to discuss the general neutral point of view issues concerning controversial applications of works like "terrorism", not WP:WTA.
 * This does beg the question, why the heck is this guideline part of the Manual of Style? It has nothing to do with style, but is an adjunct to WP:NPOV. Geometry guy 19:24, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * re: "brief discussion": see my first paragraph in this section. The evidence suggests that discussions on use of the word "terrorist" on Wikipedia are not short; thus the move.  Agree that "style" isn't the best description for this page, but I tend to be conservative and only change the minimum necessary to deal with the issue of the moment. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 19:31, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * As I said above, I also oppose the move, at least for now. The last discussion did not achieve any concensus to change, and didn't end long before you made the move. It's better to invite previously involved users back to the discussion and try a concensus before making any major changes. Grey Fox (talk) 01:06, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Consensus is as much about people not objecting as it is about people approving. This thread is a good example of consensus discussion. This isn't a major change - it is simply common sense. Geometry guy 11:10, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It is a word to avoid as a general matter, not a question of articles that themselves are controversial or about controversial subjects. Whether it fits or not in that other article is a different matter.  It certainly does not fit in this article, which is about how editors can get along without shanking each other.  Someone made a suggestion to branch it and several other content-related problem words into their own article.  If that's the case it is not the only one.  Quite a few of the "words to avoid" are included on that page because they create POV issues, not because they are purely stylistic problems. Wikidemon (talk) 03:53, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

 * I only now became aware of this discussion. I have so much to say, and find that almost everything has already been said. But, as always in wikipedia discussions, I am going to say it anyway.

 * First of all, it seems pretty clear to me that the word terrorist always says what side you're on. The terrorists are always the bad guys.  Can someone point me to a use of the word where the terrorists were the good guys? So the suggestion that the use of the word is a content, and not a POV, issue, is simply wrong.  Regardless of how rigidly you define the word, its use always contains an opinion.

 * Second, no one seems to have asked this question: can you write the same thing without using the word terrorist? Look at Passover massacre.  In that article, the word terror appears only in direct quotes.  By any objective definition of the word that attack was terrorism; yet our article presents the attack as no less heinous than had we used the word.  So it isn't like we're censoring the encyclopedia.  In the encyclopedia we don't call slums shitholes, and we don't call politically motivated acts of violence against innocent civilians terrorism.  You just need a little imagination to say the same thing another way.

 * Third, I believe the word "massacre" should be another banned word. Massacres are something that bad guys do to good guys.  There is no agreed objective definition of the term.  It is used consistently in the Wikipedia as an editorial comment, and it is used liberally.

 * Anyone interested in my views on this matter is welcome to read my essay User:Ravpapa/The_Politicization_of_Wikipedia. --Ravpapa (talk) 06:02, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was do not move. A redirect could be helpful however.--Yannismarou (talk) 19:56, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I think this article should be moved to Controversial issues. There are very few articles where the controversy does not spill past simply the relevant article page. Lucian Sunday (talk) 17:54, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

 * You are right that controversial articles are almost always a piece of a larger controversy. But this guideline deals with editing the specific article, not with handling the larger issue.

 * However, a redirect from "Controversial issues" would certainly be in order. --Ravpapa (talk) 06:10, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

 * Oppose. Per Ravpapa. Issues is such a wishy washy word that it means nothing. 199.125.109.124 (talk) 19:05, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

 * Oppose I agree a redirect would be in order, but as the topic of the page is how to handle controversial articles, changing it to "issues" really solves nothing. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 13:57, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the . Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Controversial categories and templates
While controversy in the text of an article is handled pretty well by attribution, and this project page addresses that fairly well, controversial categories and templates are not handled as well and aren't explicitly addressed here. Categories, etc. cannot be attributed. Neutral_point_of_view says "A biased statement violates this policy when it is presented as a fact or the truth." Шизомби (talk) 15:05, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Need for expanded See Also section
I would like to add the following to the "See also" section of this article. Is there a consensus on that? Please give feedback. Thanks.

 * Criticism
 * Avoid thread mode
 * Pro and con lists
 * Words to avoid
 * List of controversial issues

Boyd Reimer (talk) 20:01, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

 * I'll go ahead and do that. 132.68.27.21 (talk) 15:27, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Need for an All-In-One template for Talk pages and Main pages of controversial articles
I see a need for an All-In-One template for Talk pages of controversial articles. For example, could we combine all of the below into one template for Talk pages? Plus perhaps a template for the top the main page of the article itself?

Please let me know what you think. Thanks.

Boyd Reimer (talk) 12:11, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

MoS naming style
There is currently an ongoing discussion about the future of this and others MoS naming style. Please consider the issues raised in the discussion and vote if you wish GnevinAWB (talk) 20:51, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Proposal to remove this from the MOS
On going discussion about removing this page from the MOS. See here Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style Gnevin (talk) 20:35, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

 * I have proposed that this page be swiftly removed from the MoS and guideline status entirely. See here.—DCGeist (talk) 01:08, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Proposed guideline for describe all points of view fairly
When there is a controversy or dispute over what viewpoint is closest to reality, NPOV requires us to avoid enshrining any one POV as correct, but we are also warned against giving all viewpoints "equal validity".

Perhaps it would help if we listed the following for every viewpoint described:
 * 1) Name of the person or organization espousing the POV
 * 2) Reasons they have given for supporting it
 * 3) *For example, "because it is true" or "because it's the right thing to do"
 * 4) Evidence and/or analysis they have given which favors the POV
 * 5) *For example, a scientific paper explains the theory of how A causes B, along with studies which associate observations of A occurring in conjunction with (or followed by) B
 * 6) *For example, C called D "anti-semitic" on the grounds that D has called for "elimination of all Jews from (fill in blank)"
 * 7) *For example, E called F "anti-Muslim" on the grounds that F has called for "elimination of all Muslims from (fill in blank)"

If the source gives no evidence or analysis, we can either omit that part or point it out. In some cases it may be better to omit pointing out the lack of evidence and analysis, especially if a party to the dispute has made a point of it.
 * For example, a politician might say that G is an outrage because it doesn't respect the rights of or is insensitive t) H - but gives no evidence of disrespect or insensitivity

Sometimes we may be able to construct a table, if their are many sources with significant viewpoints. If the "reasons given" or "evidence/analysis" field is empty, this could mean either that WP contributors haven't found anything yet, or that the source really didn't provide this information. --Uncle Ed (talk) 15:34, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * These suggestions would work if the world was as simple as the examples given. But it is not. The guidelines from WP:NPOV are fine, no need to change them. Emmanuelm (talk) 01:13, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Exemption from size limit for controversial subjects
WP:SIZE recommend to split article over 100Mb. The article Abortion is under 100Kb because some of the volume was transfered in Pro-choice and Pro-life. Is this a good thing? No, it is a clear example of content forking. On the other hand, George W. Bush, a nice example of the NPOV style, is 170Kb long as it should be.

I say that NPOV is more important than article size and that articles on controversial subjects will inevitably be, and should be, longer than 100Mb. I suggest to add this concept to this page. What do you think? Emmanuelm (talk) 01:13, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Allowing "passionate" quotes in controversial subjects
Quotations states that Where a quotation presents rhetorical language in place of more neutral, dispassionate tone preferred for encyclopedias, it can be a backdoor method of inserting a non-neutral treatment of a controversial subject into Wikipedia's narrative on the subject, and should be avoided.

The article Muammar al-Gaddafi contains a quote from Ronald Reagan calling him a mad dog. This quote is clearly non-encyclopedic but well known; that article would be incomplete without it. Balance can be achieved by the juxtaposition of biased opinions. I suggest that controversial political subjects be exempt from this guideline. What do you think? Emmanuelm (talk) 01:18, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

 * Quotations is an essay, not a guideline. You can do what it says or not, depending on the context.

 * I think that the sentence is referring more to the situation where editors with a strong opinion on a subject use extreme quotes to introduce bias into an article. Using biased quotes is okay, as long as the political position of the speaker is made clear (Doctor Dicklewood, a spokesman for the extreme right-wing group Blurbls, called the president "a porcine platypus.").

 * I think that, on the contrary, when the topic of an article is a subject of vitriolic debate, that vitriol must be documented in the article. Otherwise, the article is not complete. So Reagan's quote (which I assume is in quote marks) is certainly appropriate for the article.

 * Downplaying of controversy is one of the methods used by POV pushers to belittle their opponents. You can read about this at my essay User:Ravpapa/Tilt: How to get bias into a Wikipedia article. --Ravpapa (talk) 06:41, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

 * Gee, Ravpapa, thanks for agreeing with me. But WP:controversial articles still says nothing about it and WP:quotations remains contrary to your and my opinion. Will you support me in changing this? Emmanuelm (talk) 15:29, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

hijacking of controversial articles.
I have been involved in a long NPOV dispute in a controversial article. Every now and then someone has been having a go at getting the article more balanced and NPOV, but failing. The block of editors there are not even engaging in discussion about the way the article is and keep up a pretense that they are, from my point of view. I have seen a lot of this in controversial articles and often it is those who have more people and more time who dominate rather than those with the more sound understanding of Wikipedia policy. So, and I am aware that I am still a newbie and there may be sensible reasons that this idea may not have happened, but why is there not a noticeboard for content disputes like there is ANI for behaviour disputes. Surely it would save Wikipedia a lot of time and trouble to have a higher body decide on the sorts of disputes that endlessly go on in controversial articles? And perhaps articles generally.Jed Stuart (talk) 03:42, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Template for controversial articles
Is there a template that I could place on a controversial article? It would be very helpful. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 21:38, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Wikipedia talk:Controversial articles


text:
Radio in the Republic of Ireland

Licensed radio broadcasting in Ireland is one element of the wider media of Ireland, with 85% of the population listening to a licensed radio broadcasting service on any given day.

Ireland as a radio pioneer
Guglielmo Marconi, the Italian inventor and the father of long-distance radio transmission, had a significant connection to Ireland as a descendent of the influential Jameson family, and the country played a crucial role in his early radio experiments.

The earliest known radio broadcast in Ireland took place on 6 July 1898, when Marconi set up a wireless telegraphy link between Rathlin Island and Ballycastle. This communication system was established on behalf of Lloyd's. In 1907 Marconi International Marine Communication Company the world's first transatlantic wireless telegraphy service in the world in Clifden. The station conducted the first successful transmission of the first commercial wireless messages across the Atlantic Ocean between Clifden and Glace Bay, Nova Scotia, Canada. The station remained in operation until the late 1920s, when it was closed due to advancements in more powerful transatlantic wireless stations.

Modern Radio
A Morse code transmission on 24 April 1916 from the General Post Office in Dublin by the rebels during the Easter Rising is considered the first broadcast in Ireland. Regular radio broadcasting in Ireland began with 2RN's test transmissions in 1925. 2RN has since become RTÉ Radio 1, which celebrated 90 years of uninterrupted broadcasting in January 2016, making it amongst the oldest continuously operating (if not the actual oldest), continuously public service radio station in Europe. RTÉ Raidió na Gaeltachta launched in 1972, and RTÉ Radio 2, now RTÉ 2FM, launched in 1979.

Commercial radio was outlawed in Ireland until 1989, leading to the development of Irish pirate radio. Upon legalisation, licences were advertised and awarded on a franchise system explained in the article for a national service and a network of regional services covering the country. These all took to the air during 1989 and 1990, and although the national service (Century) eventually failed, all the local services lasted until their licence was revoked, or still exist. Additional licences have been added on an erratic basis since the late 1990s.

An "international" service, Atlantic 252, also operated on 252kHz long wave between 1989 and 2002, although it was aimed solely at the United Kingdom and Ireland. It was never subject to the authority of the Broadcasting Authority of Ireland (BAI) and was operated under RTÉ's remit as a joint venture between RTÉ and CLT-UFA. After a short period as a sports station (TeamTalk), the frequencies reverted to sole RTÉ control and were used as an additional frequency for RTÉ Radio 1 until transmissions ceased in April 2023, with running costs cited as the reason.

In Ireland, Community Radio has been active since the late 1970s. However, it took until 1994 before the Independent Radio and Television Commission established an 18-month community radio pilot project to explore and evaluate the potential offered by community broadcasting in an Irish context. This project went operational in 1995, when licenses were issued to eleven community and community of interest groups across the country. 2004 saw the establishment of CRAOL the Community Radio Forum of Ireland.

Licensing
Aside from the stations operated by Raidió Teilifís Éireann (RTÉ), radio stations in Ireland operate under sound broadcasting contracts issued by the Coimisiún na Meán. This body replaced the Broadcasting Authority of Ireland (BAI) in 2023 and supervises and regulates RTÉ, commercial Independent National, Regional, and Local Radio stations, as well as the non-profit Community Radio stations, Institutional Services and Temporary Services.

Transmission
All stations broadcast on FM, and RTÉ Radio 1 also broadcast on 252 kHz long wave until April 2023, which was mainly intended for reception outside Ireland. RTÉ radio services are also available free-to-air on digital satellite, as is Newstalk, and a number of recently licensed services or applicants have used satellite transmission to homes as part of the licence applications.

Medium wave (AM) licences were issued for new commercial stations for Limerick and Galway in 2002, although these services never reached the air and were later withdrawn. A medium wave licence was awarded for quasi-national religious service Spirit Radio.

During 2006, a group, Choice FM, applied for and received permission to broadcasting on MW in the Dublin area over a period of thirty days. The "easy listening" radio station relayed its FM programming on 1278 kHz MW and operated opt-out programming at various times. The group is said to be interested in obtaining one of the four MW channels that are allocated to the Dublin area, however the future schedule for licensing does not indicate that any MW licences will be offered on a permanent basis.

During 2007, a radio station called The Rock obtained a temporary classic rock music service. The station broadcast on 94.9 FM and also on 1278 kHz MW. The Rock was operated by the same group that operated Choice FM during 2005 and 2006, although different MW facilities were used by the group during 2007.

Ownership
Raidió Teilifís Éireann and Bauer Media Audio Ireland dominate the national radio broadcasting sector. RTÉ operates Radio 1, 2FM, the Irish Language station RnaG, and classical station Lyric FM. The two national commercial stations are both owned by Bauer Media Audio Ireland - Today FM and Newstalk.

Ownership rules were relaxed in the mid-2000s, which saw several companies buying up local and national commercial stations, including Scottish Radio Holdings, who sold their stations to Emap, who eventually sold on those stations to Denis O'Brien's Communicorp. The ownership of commercial radio in Ireland is largely by two companies; Bauer Media Audio Ireland which owns two national, one regional and two local stations, and News Broadcasting, which owns six local stations.

The rest of the stations, mostly small services, are generally owned by local businesses, with notable proprietors of stakes including Thomas Crosbie Holdings, the Roman Catholic Church and the Mid Western Area Health Board.

Until 31 March 2021, RTÉ also broadcast six DAB stations. These stations are now available via other digital platforms.

 * Local Radio owners
 * Bauer Media Audio Ireland - 98FM, SPIN 1038 and Red FM
 * News Broadcasting - FM104, Dublin's Q102, Cork's 96FM, C103, Limerick's Live 95 and LMFM
 * Raidió Phobail Chiarraí Teoranta - Radio Kerry, Shannonside FM, Tipp FM, Clare FM
 * Tindle Radio Group - Midlands 103
 * Connacht Tribune - Galway Bay FM

Independent national radio

 * Today FM (formerly Radio Ireland) - popular music with some speech programming
 * Newstalk - news and talk radio
 * Radio Maria Ireland - religious radio on the digital terrestrial platform

Multi-city and county radio
Broadcasting to Greater Dublin (Dublin city and county; limited parts of County Kildare, County Meath and County Wicklow), Cork city and county, Limerick city and county, Galway city and county and County Clare:
 * Classic Hits Radio - music service for over-45s
 * Spirit Radio - Christian and religious service aimed at over-15s; launched on 27 January 2011 with FM frequencies in the cities of Dublin, Cork, Limerick, Galway and Waterford. In July 2012 the station as required by its licence introduced its planned AM transmission on 549 kHz medium wave to increase coverage to nationwide.

Independent regional radio

 * Beat 102-103 - Counties Carlow, Kilkenny, Waterford, Wexford and South Tipperary.
 * Spin South West - Counties Kerry, Clare, Limerick, North Tipperary, and south west Laois.
 * iRadio (NW) - Counties Galway, Mayo, Longford, Roscommon, Sligo, Leitrim and Donegal.
 * iRadio (NE and Midlands) - Counties Kildare, Meath, North Laois, Carlow, Louth, Westmeath, Offaly, Cavan and Monaghan.

All services are licensed for "youth" content, no franchises area geographically overlap, and the entire country is served apart from County Wicklow and the cities and counties of Cork and Dublin, both of which have "youth" licensed services (Red FM and SPIN 1038 respectively). Beat 102-103 was the first to air, and was a pilot for the rest of the system.

In 2011, i102-104 and i105-107 merged to become one iRadio entity.

Independent local radio
There are 25 commercial stations (Independent Local Radio - ILR) licensed on a regional franchise basis. Often several counties of Ireland are covered by one station only, but Dublin and Cork have several. The majority of the ILR stations collectively own the sales house, Independent Radio Sales.

Dublin ILRs
Except for the two original ILR licenses - 98FM and FM104 - each additional ILR license in Dublin was awarded for a specific format, intending on meeting demands which it was felt that 98FM and FM104 were not catering to. The majority of stations heard in Dublin can also be heard in North East Kildare, South Meath and North Wicklow.

 * 98FM - general service
 * Radio Nova 100FM (Ireland) - classic rock music service; the Original Radio Nova (Ireland) International, Ireland's first Superpirate station by the same name previously broadcast in Dublin from 1981 - 1988
 * Dublin's Q102 - service aimed at older listeners (35+); renamed in 2004, formerly 'Lite FM'. A pirate station by the same name previously broadcast in Dublin from 1985 - 1988
 * SPIN 1038 - service aimed at youth (initially licensed for dance music).
 * FM104 - general service; formerly 'Rock 104' and 'Capital Radio' 104.4FM
 * Sunshine 106.8 - easy listening service; renamed in 2010 - formerly 'Dublin's Country'/'Country Mix'. A Superpirate station called The Red Hot Sound Of Sunshine 101 previously broadcast in Dublin from 1980 - 1988.

Cork ILRs

 * 96FM and C103 (dual franchise) - C103 is aimed at older listeners, also sports and rural interest programmes.
 * Red FM - Music-driven service (originally a youth service)

Leinster (excluding Dublin) ILRs

 * East Coast FM - County Wicklow
 * KCLR 96FM - Counties Carlow and Kilkenny
 * Kfm - County Kildare
 * South East Radio - County Wexford
 * Midlands 103 and Midlands Gold - Counties Laois, Offaly, and Westmeath (split service)
 * LMFM - Counties Meath and Louth

Munster (excluding Cork) ILRs

 * WLR FM - Waterford City & County
 * Clare FM - County Clare
 * Live 95FM - Limerick City and County
 * Tipp FM - County Tipperary
 * Radio Kerry - County Kerry

Connacht/Ulster ILRs

 * Galway Bay FM - Galway City and County; commercial radio station
 * Ocean FM - County Sligo, North Leitrim, and South Donegal.
 * MidWest Radio - County Mayo
 * Shannonside FM - Counties Longford, Roscommon, East Galway and South Leitrim. Dual franchise with Northern Sound Radio, covering Counties Cavan and Monaghan.
 * Highland Radio - County Donegal.

Community radio
Community Radio covers specific local communities or communities of interest. These operate on a non-commercial basis. In Ireland, the BAI requires that community radio stations subscribe to the World Association of Community Radio Broadcasters (AMARC) Community Radio Charter for Europe. Community radio in Ireland is represented by CRAOL. Currently there are 20 fully licensed community radio stations on air in Ireland, with offers of contracts from the Broadcasting Authority of Ireland, while there are 42 stations in the process of obtaining a licence.
 * Belfield FM - University College Dublin
 * Cavan Community Radio - Cavan, County Cavan
 * Claremorris Community Radio - Claremorris, County Mayo
 * Connemara Community Radio - Letterfrack, County Galway
 * Cork Campus Radio 98.3 - studio located at University College Cork but is licensed for the general student population of Cork City
 * CRC FM (Community Radio Castlebar) - Castlebar, County Mayo
 * CRY 104.0FM (Community Radio Youghal) - Youghal, County Cork
 * Dublin South FM - County Dublin
 * Dundalk FM 97.7 - Dundalk, County Louth
 * Flirt FM - University of Galway
 * ICR FM (Inishowen Community Radio) - Carndonagh, County Donegal; now known as Inishowen Live.
 * LifeFM - County Cork
 * Liffey Sound FM - Lucan, County Dublin
 * Near FM (North East Access Radio) - County Dublin
 * Phoenix FM - Blanchardstown, County Dublin
 * Radio Corca Baiscinn - Kilkee, County Clare
 * Raidió Na Life - Dublin (Irish language station)
 * RosFm - County Roscommon
 * TCR FM ("Tramore Community Radio") - Tramore, County Waterford
 * Tipperary Mid-West Community Radio - County Tipperary
 * ULFM - University of Limerick
 * West Dublin Access Radio - County Dublin
 * West Limerick 102 - County Limerick
 * Wired FM - Limerick, County Limerick
 * Westport Radio WRFM 98.2 - Westport, County Mayo
 * BCRfm Ballina Community radio - Ballina, County Mayo
 * Eden 102.5 fm - Edenderry, County Offaly

Special interest services
Special interest services resemble ILRs in most ways, but must be of specialist interest — e.g. heavier local interest content, or specialist music. Only one such station is licensed, Dublin City FM, which brand themselves as 103.2 Dublin City FM on-air, and DUB CITY on RDS. Dublin City FM are essentially a community station with specialist traffic reports around rush-hour periods.

Institutional services
The BAI may also issue licenses to institutions, such as hospitals and colleges, for the provision of low-powered FM services. At present, there are five such stations in operation; all of them are hospital radio stations, with the existing student radio stations operating under community radio or temporary licenses.
 * CUH FM Hospital Radio - (102.0FM) - Cork University Hospital, Cork, County Cork.
 * Mater Hospital Radio - Mater Hospital, Dublin, County Dublin.
 * Dreamtime 92.6FM - S.O.S. Kilkenny Ltd, Callan Road, Kilkenny, Co. Kilkenny.
 * South Tipperary General Hospital Radio 93.7FM - South Tipperary General and Maternity Hospital, Clonmel, County Tipperary.
 * St. Ita's Hospital Radio - St. Ita's Hospital, Portrane, County Dublin.

Temporary services
Stations may also be licensed to operate for shorter periods, with temporary licenses allowing stations to operate for up to thirty days in a given twelve-month period. These licenses may be used by stations providing a service to coincide with local, cultural and sporting events or festivals. Another group of stations to avail of this type of license are those that are being run as pilot projects; successful stations may later be established as Community Radio stations, or run for a permanent license.

One such temporary licence station was Sunrise Radio, which broadcast poly-lingual programming in the Dublin area for several months from March 2006. While its licence was renewed for the following year, it was not made permanent, and the broadcast frequency later allocated to another station.

RTÉ radio

 * Atlantic 252 - a joint venture with RTL, eventually failed financially.
 * RTÉ FM3 - Classical music/arts service, had existed prior to the launch of Lyric FM. FM3 time-shared the same national FM network as RnaG, resulting in limited broadcasting hours.
 * RTÉ Radio Cork (was originally 'RTÉ Cork Local Radio', changed name in 1989 to 'Cork 89FM', and relaunched again in 1994 as 'RTÉ Radio Cork') - an opt-out of Radio 1 for the Cork area on medium wave and secondary FM transmitters, closed in 1999 due to declining interest.
 * RTÉ mobile Community Radio station - existed during the late 1970s and 1980s, this mobile station provided temporary community radio services to towns and cities around the country.
 * Millennium 88FM - temporary local radio service for Dublin during 1988 and part of 1989 to mark 1988 at the year of the Dublin Millennium.
 * RTÉ Digital Radio Sport - a rolling service in the early days of DAB.
 * RTÉ Choice - international and national speech service with drama, documentary, arts, world news. Merged in 2013 with RTÉ Radio 1 Extra.

Independent national radio

 * Century Radio - failed financially, closed in 1991.

Independent local radio

 * Limerick 95 FM (Radio Limerick One) (95 MHz FM); lost franchise mid-term for stated misbehaviour - subsequently operated on a pirate basis.
 * CKR FM and Radio Kilkenny - franchises redrawn at end of contract, Kildare area awarded to KFM, Carlow and Kilkenny to KCLR. Gentrification of Kildare by Dublin commuters led Carlow to be closer aligned with Kilkenny in the eyes of the BAI, hence the changing of the franchise areas
 * Tipperary Mid-West Radio - held a very small franchise for South West Tipperary. Its franchise was merged with the rest of Tipperary franchise (held by Tipp FM). The station continues, being re-licensed as a Community Radio station.
 * North West Radio - subsidiary of Mid West Radio; replaced by Ocean FM at end of contract.
 * Easy 103 - held a licence for part of Wicklow and Horizon Radio held a licence for north Wicklow. These two stations merged to become East Coast FM.
 * Fresh 95.5 - short lived North Dublin-targeted station from LMFM; was licensed to Meath only, relying on signal overspill.
 * TXFM (formerly Phantom 105.2) - alternative rock music station for the Dublin area.

Community radio

 * Cashel Community Radio - Cashel, County Tipperary was a splinter group from Tipperary Mid-West Radio.
 * Tallaght FM - Tallaght, Dublin. Closed 2008.
 * 9-7-11 FM - Dublin North West's community radio, (named after the area's postal districts) existed in the mid-1990s.
 * Dublin Weekend Radio - station that broadcast from Dublin City University in the 1990s, it time-shared transmission with Raidio na Life. Facilities are now used by DCU.
 * Inishowen Community Radio (ICR-FM) - based in north Co. Donegal, ceased broadcasts in October 2012.
 * Ballyhoura Community Radio (BCR) - based in Charleville near the Cork/Limerick border. Went on air in May 2011, closed in March 2013. Frequency was 92.6 FM.
 * East Limerick Community Radio - FM Frequencies were 96.8 (main) and 97.3.

Institutional services

 * Beaumont Hospital Radio - Beaumont Hospital, Beamount, Dublin. Closed in 2007.
 * Vibe 107.4FM - was a student service in Waterford I.T.
 * Regional Hospital Radio 94.2 - Mid-Western Regional Hospital, Limerick, County Limerick. Closed in 2018

Radio Oglaigh na h-Éireann
Radio Oglaigh na h-Éireann was established in 1962 to provide a short wave service to Irish Defence Forces serving in United Nations peacekeeping missions in Congo. Daily broadcasts were made on 17.544 MHz at 17:30 UTC, using a transmitter located at the Curragh Camp. Programmes, which were provided by Radio Éireann, included news, sports results, music and drama, including The Kennedys of Castleross. The service was discontinued after several years, when the Irish peacekeeping mission in Congo terminated.

title: Radio in the Republic of Ireland


text:
Joe Handley

Joseph "Joe" L. Handley, MLA (born August 9, 1943), is a former teacher, politician and civil servant and was the tenth premier of the Northwest Territories.

Early life
Handley was born in Meadow Lake, Saskatchewan in 1943. Prior to moving to the Northwest Territories in 1985, he worked as an educator.

Handley joined the Northwest Territories government and served as Deputy Minister in a wide number of portfolios including Deputy Minister of Education, Deputy Minister for the Departments of Renewable Resources, the NWT Housing Corporation, Transportation and Resources, Wildlife, and Economic Development. He left his career as a Deputy Minister to run for election in 1999.

Electoral career
Handley ran for election to the Northwest Territories Legislature in the electoral district of Weledeh in the 1999 Northwest Territories general election. He easily defeated incumbent MLA Roy Erasmus. In his first term in office he became Minister of Finance, Chairman of the Financial Management Board, Minister Responsible for the Workers Compensation Board, Minister of Transportation, and Minister Responsible for the Northwest Territories Power Corporation.

Handley was returned to his seat by acclamation, running unopposed in the 2003 territorial election. After the assembly convened to pick a new Premier following the retirement of Stephen Kakfwi, Handley ran unopposed for premier. His colleagues in the Legislature, acclaimed him to that position on December 10, 2003.

Handley served one term as premier and did not run in the election held on October 1, 2007.

In March 2009, Handley expressed an interest in running for the Liberals under Michael Ignatieff in the 2011 federal election in the Western Arctic riding. Handley ran for the Liberals and placed third, receiving 2,872 votes.

title: Joe Handley