Talk:South Carolina Educational Television

Logos

The current SCETV logos (for the network and individual stations) are available for free download at scetv.org. This should justify fair use of current and past images on this page. JTRH 14:00, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

"Asbestos scandal"

The Website pertaining to the alleged "asbestos scandal" to which someone keeps linking this page is NPOV, contains allegations which are unsourced and potentially libelous, and appears to be primarily a vehicle to sell a book. JTRH 02:03, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

== Asbestos Scandal not some wild accusation - This asbestos issue is a real big deal for those who have been poisoned. People are sick and many others soon will be. You are reading nothing but the facts in this case. I know they sound controversial, but all are true and can be supported.

You have offered no proof of these allegations other than repeatedly linking to a Website which doesn't cite any reliable sources of its information. Furthermore, that Website's statements about Inez Tenenbaum are flatly libelous. Can you provide evidence of ANY objective news coverage of this "scandal"?JTRH 03:25, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

And you're not helping your cause by editing in a manner that violates the spirit--and almost certainly the letter--of WP:SOCK. Blueboy96 03:29, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

This is a tough thing to do, but I am certainly willing to follow Wikipedia protocals to insure that I am able to continue to participate. I have to struggle to remain brief when telling the facts about the SCETV asbestos matter since it is so complex. Everything is supported with hard evidence and documtation but we are talking about 1000's of pages. I am the author of the book, but have no desire to "sell books". I want the truth to be known and I want the guilty to pay. The book is 583 pages long and was written as a brief collection of the legal documents and evidence in the asbestos case concerning Browning vs. SCETV. No, the suite was not at all frivolous, but was covered up by many agencies in SC governemnt. I recently discovered that SCETV secretly settled with Browning in this case for $60,000 cash. There are other terms of the settlement I have not been able to discover, but I was able to obtain (by filing a FIOA)the judge's order specifically settling the case. What is so criminal is that there are hundreds, maybe thousands, who are very sick and they don't know why.

I hear you clearly about backing up what I say. I will attempt to re-do my website at www.etvscandal.com in a way that briefly tells the story yet provided inbedded references to official/legal documents that support every word I write.

By the way, I have heard from many who are suffering serious health problems from asbestos exposure through SCETV. Their conditions are documented through doctors and medical records. Some people have died. Victims and families are afraid to come foward with this. They have been threatened. This is not some frivilous or irresponsible accusation. SCETV management and officials are thieves, bullies, and environmental criminals who knowingly poisoned not only their own workers, but innocent children. This is every bit fact. Unfortunately, every site on the Internet protraya SCETV as some kind of saint. Let's ask SCETV to support that!!!

David Epps

Mr. Epps, I'm sorry, but you still don't get it. The kinds of allegations you're making are not suitable for an encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Wikipedia is not a place for personal grievances. Wikipedia is not a place for accusations or for conspiracy theories. Wikipedia is not a place to insert personal opinions in the guise of objective fact. The following statement is a perfect example: "SCETV management and officials are thieves, bullies, and environmental criminals who knowingly poisoned not only their own workers, but innocent children. This is every bit fact."

Calling someone a thief and a criminal is not fact unless you can prove it in court, which you have apparently been unable to do. (Otherwise, it's potentially libelous on your part, another thing that doesn't belong on Wikipedia.) Calling someone a bully is entirely a statement of opinion. Claiming that there was a "secret" settlement, unless you can document it through an objective public source other than yourself (and, by definition, you can't document a "secret" settlement) is an allegation that simply does not belong on Wikipedia.

Mr. Epps, I lived in Rock Hill for 23 years. I was active in politics and in several community organizations. I have never heard of this "scandal." Where is the news coverage? I found one article about the Browning lawsuit in The State when I tried to research your allegations in the middle of our "edit war" the other night. I'm not willing to buy the argument that the reason for that is that there was some vast criminal conspiracy to cover it up (another allegation you're making that is thus far unsupported by any objective evidence and is thus unsuitable for Wikipedia).

If you insist in restoring this material to the SCETV page, it will be deleted again (as often as necessary), and this matter will go to arbitration. And I'm sorry, but given the nature of the material and its multiple violations of Wikipedia policies, I'm pretty sure you'll lose. JTRH 20:40, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Well Mr. JTRH, I will just have to move forward and see how Wikipedia makes a determination on this issue. Again, everything I state can be backed and supported by the proper documents, just maybe not the way you would prefer. I will try to respect that, and will do all I can to reach your standard and that of Wikipedia. What I am saying is absolutely accurate and true. Like it or not, it's history, and it belongs on Wikipedia and/or any other medium where truth and facts belong. You sound like someone who is a little brainwashed by the SCETV propaganda machine. But don't feel too bad, you are in the majority with the other SC Kool-Aid drinkers.

I have an degree that includes environmental engineering. I have 27 years experience and have worked for all military, FBI, Justice, NIS, CIA, etc. I know what I'm doing and know what I am talking about. SCETV, just as the Nazis, committed some terrible crimes that have caused many, many people to suffer terribly, some to even die. This wasn't an accident. SCETV management did it on purpose over money. Unfortunately, neither they nor anyone can just say "i'm sorry" and all can be forgotten. Asbestos related illnesses are incurable and I get e-mail from new SCETV victims all the time.

In many cases, I have not put those documents out on the web out of a respect for those who have been caught up in the middle and might not want their names dragged into this. I am the same about having my name associated with this mess, but have no choice but to deal with it. It’s a very long story. I hate that I have anything at all to do with this because I had nothing to do with it from the start, that is until I was hired as an investigator and placed into a unique position to have seen what really happened and could not get out. I worked full time on this case from 2000 through 2001. I was shocked at what I saw. I hate to use names such as "bully" but that is an accurate accounting. I personally witnessed an SCETV executive openly and publically threaten SCETV employees about talking. What better name would you use?

I believe covering the history of SCETV is like looking at the history of Germany. Even though many from that beautiful country would rather have the dark side of their history erased, including Hilter, the Nazis, and the Holocost, they simply can’t. People still suffer today and want to know why. That is a part of understanding history. It’s not always pretty or kind. When you look up something in an encyclopedia, do you want the truth or some Disney version?

In case you didn't read correctly...I will re-state for you one more time. I am not making personal judgments here. I still work in the area of the military and law enforcement and am very busy so things are not going to move fast in getting a mountain of proof in place to make you instantly convinced. I do not have the time I would like to update and build my www.etvscandal.com website as fast as I would like but will do so as best I can. Check often. I will leave Wikipedia alone for now until I have all the facts and supporting documentation in place. Then I will be back and I will say to you, let history speak for itself.

Since you are interested, why not contact SCETV. Why don’t you ask them to post their side of the story based on the facts found in the public documents you are going to see. Will you be as hard on them?

David Epps

You still don't get it. This is not about my opinion of SCETV or of your allegations against them. The issue, and the only issue, is that your material does not meet Wikipedia standards. My response to you above included links to the Wikipedia policies about soapboxes, personal grievances, accusations, etc. Those are the standards that this community (not you, not me, but a consensus of participants) has set for Wikipedia content. Please read them (as well as the Neutral Point of View policy, which I forgot to list earlier), and if you'd like to discuss this further, I'd appreciate a response as to why you feel your material doesn't violate those standards after you have read them. You have the right to post whatever you want on your own site, but there are standards you have to meet on Wikipedia. You'd be better off airing your grievances elsewhere, rather than continuing to expend your energy on a Wikipedia battle that you are simply not going to win.JTRH 01:14, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I just Googled your name and SCETV. You are a consultant to the plaintiff? Read Wikipedia's Conflict of Interest policies as well. Your personal involvement in this case ethically disqualifies you from being able to contribute reputable and objective information, even if you could back it up. Just please read the policies. JTRH 01:20, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I will continue to read the guidelines and maybe I will experience a sudden increase in clarity. But, since you seem to understand the regulations better than I, please explain how allowing a link to the “SCETV official site” on Wikipedia (and not to my SCETV site) is honoring the Neutral Point of View policy. Don’t SCETV employees maintain that site? Don’t they just plaster it with opinion and propaganda about how great SCETV is?

Yes, I was a consultant to the plaintiff from Oct 2000 until Nov 2001 but no a party in the suit.

David

A link to the official site maintained by the subject of a Wikipedia article is considered a noteworthy part of the article. The fact that someone with a complaint against the agency thinks an objectively-written site is filled with "opinion and propaganda" is itself a matter of that person's opinion.

By Wikipedia standards, someone who has been involved in a legal case, whether as a consultant or as a party, is automatically not considered a reliable source of objective, verifiable information. John JTRH 11:13, 31 July 2007 (UTC) (edit: information about that case.)JTRH 11:14, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, I will ask someone who knows all the facts of what happened, but was not associated with the case, to write to the Wikipedia SCETV page from now on. The story is the same for anyone who has access to the facts.

I appreciate all of your advice.

Regards,

David

David, thanks for your cooperation, and I'm sorry to come across as harsh. I've had quite a lot of my own work on Wikipedia cut to shreds by people because it didn't meet WP standards as they saw them (or they just didn't like what I had to say). All you really need by way of a citation is a reference to an objective, reputable and verifiable source. For example, was there any coverage of this lawsuit in The State beyond the one article I found? Was it reported on WIS or one of the other Columbia stations? If you can provide documentation along those lines, and write the piece objectively, that would take care of the problem (although, again, it would be better for the article's credibility to a wider audience if it were written by someone who wasn't involved in the case at all). It's perfectly OK to make the factual statement that SCETV was sued, give the allegations, and describe the case objectively. My problem with what you produced before was a lack of verifiability and a lack of neutrality on your part. (Think of it this way: is that the way a newspaper would report on this story?) Thanks again. Best, John JTRH 22:57, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Also, so that I may better understand what qualifies or disqualifies me or anyone else to have an arms-length editing rights status so as to remain absolutely neutral in this or any other matter on Wikipedia...please disclose what your relationship is to SCETV? Have you ever worked there, contributed to, or have some other kind of tie to that organization? Other than a person's honor or integrity, how can you police a given writer's background to a particular subject and/or page on this site?

Take care,

David

I have no connection to SCETV except that I used to contribute at the basic annual membership level when I lived in SC (something like $35-$40 a year). Wikipedia is pretty much self-policing, which is why quality control is so difficult. You never know whether someone knows what he's talking about, or whether he's connected to the issue, unless it's written neutrally and references are cited. The Neutral Point of View regulations essentially speak for themselves. Best, John JTRH 23:33, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Again, thank you for your advice and guidance in properly using Wikipedia. If you think about it these standards are a pain but then that is why the accuracy and integrity of the content can be trusted by users. It is actually amazing how good encyclopedia level answers can now be readily found at no cost to the public. I still want to put the information on here about the SCTEV asbestos matter, but will certainly do so in a way that meets the highest standard of being verifiable all the way. There is no need at all to overstate any part of that story because it is powerful enough just based on the publically available facts that are available yet just very hard to get to with filing extensive FIOAs. I will make sure I take the time to do this at the referencing standard.

Again, many thanks for your time and attention to get me on the right track. It will take me awhile to get a bulletproof version together to show to others who are involved with this case. I will try to build it on another site and then I will let them tell other sympathetic taxpayers what happened based on a highly referenced story that is without opinion. Look for it in the future.

Best regards,

David Epps

Expeditions with Patrick McMillan

Strange and sad that there seems to be no complete episode guide for Expeditions with Patrick McMillan anywhere?-96.233.20.151 (talk) 14:25, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Split out into separate ETV stations

Similar to UNC-TV in North Carolina, and WNSC-TV that is already split out, should we split out the rest of SCETV's stations into separate articles? Cheers! CentralTime301 03:08, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

And same as my discussion with UNC-TV, at which you ignored me, there is no reason to do this because they are all simulcast. Despite this rejection, you probably already started working on the split-up, this post was just a formality. --WashuOtaku (talk) 03:35, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Absolutely not. That’s ridiculous. Xenon54 (talk) 03:53, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Out of curiosity...

...What was SCETV from 1958-1963 before WNTV signed on? TCFLightyears93 (group chat / contributions) 17:41, 19 May 2023 (UTC)