Talk:CBS News controversies and criticism

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the CBS News controversies and criticism article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

This page is not a forum for general discussion about CBS News controversies and criticism. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about CBS News controversies and criticism at the Reference desk.

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Television Low‑importance

	Television portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Media Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Media, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Media on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MediaWikipedia:WikiProject MediaTemplate:WikiProject MediaMedia articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Media To-do List:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : Mackay Radio
Cleanup : Media influence, Video game culture, Sound bite
NPOV : Content (media and publishing)
Verify : Multimedia, Alternative media, Alternative newspaper
Other :
- Answer requests for comments

Journalism Low‑importance

	Journalism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of journalism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JournalismWikipedia:WikiProject JournalismTemplate:WikiProject JournalismJournalism articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States: Television Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Television portal This article is supported by American television task force (assessed as Low-importance).

This article needs some serious work. First of all the lead does not summarize the article's body but just contains different content. Moreover I kinda fail to see how a few individuals complaining about a so called "liberal bias" amounts necessarily to controversy or scandal. One might consider it criticism but that belongs more in the CBS article itself rather than here and there might be an issue with WP:DUE.

The section on project Nassau needs to be rewritten and a bit more detailed, as the current description is imho somewhat misleading. A good source on the whole topic can be found here http://books.google.de/books?id=zDUwTxtK2toC&pg=PA303.

The part on Benghazi is rather unclear (to me), it needs to explain what the supposed scandal is here and why. Broadcasted an edited interview is rather common thing and no scandal as such neither is releasing the full unedited footage later. So there needs to be better framing explaining why such thing was scandalous in this particular instance and who is charging/criticizing CBS for what exactly. Without that the section should be dropped due not being a scandal.--Kmhkmh (talk) 07:01, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In addition the Killian document and plagiarism sections are without sources currently, which on "controversial" subject topic like this are strictly speaking grounds for immediate deletion. I suppose for Killian documents the sources can be lifted from the linked main article.--Kmhkmh (talk) 07:07, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Propose name change

I propose changing the name from CBS News controversies and criticism to just be CBS News controversies Controversies are a topic. Criticism is a pov. Since Criticism is the evualuation of the merits or faults of something. what if someone had a source for an award by CBS? would it go here with the controversies? or would it go in the main CBS News article? This is a good looking article but we should just change the name to have it be dedicated to controversies. letting positive and negative criticisms go in the main page for CBSBryce Carmony (talk) 00:26, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 14 March 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (non-admin closure) -- Calidum 05:51, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

CBS News controversies and criticism → CBS News controversies – Controversies are a topic criticisms are more a POV, focusing on controversies is best for this article then the main article can handle criticisms Bryce Carmony (talk) 00:33, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, Firstly criticism, when objective, may deal only in facts. Secondly it is still possible for us to comment on or report an expressed POV in a non POV way. We are not saying what Wikipedia thinks. Greg Kaye 13:05, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All criticism creates controversy but not all controversy creates criticism, so controversy is all we need. whats the point of having "and criticism" there isn't. Criticism =/= note worthy, controversy = notable. that's why Controversy is better than criticism. also, there is not such thing as "positive" or "negative" controversy. it's left up for the reader. but there is such a thing as "positive" and "negative" criticism. Criticism is just inferior to controversy in every way I can think Bryce Carmony (talk) 13:09, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. It's not entirely clear what the proposal actually means, but I think that with the inclusion of some punctuation the proposer is saying that while it is OK to have an article discussing controversies, it isn't OK to have an article discussing criticisms because that would be inescapably non-neutral. He is suggesting that in addition to changing the title the criticisms should be merged into the main article. I can't understand this:

If any article about criticisms is non-neutral per se then moving those criticisms into the main article would simply create a non-neutral section within the article
Any controversy requires taking a critical perspective

The only issue here is the title of the article. Change it if you wish but not as a stealthy way of merging the content - that needs a separate discussion and a clear consensus. andy (talk) 13:26, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you think Criticism and Controversy are the same thing don't worry about it. Bryce Carmony (talk) 14:05, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. This would be better handled by a merge, which would make the page titel irrelevant. 209.211.131.181 (talk) 16:15, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.