Talk:CNN/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Fox News References

Guys, I'm going to remove all of the Fox News references. I know that there is someone here that is obviously a bit fanatical about this. And that's fine. We all have things we feel strongly about. I can respect that. But this is a page about CNN. It really doesn't seem that all of the Fox stuff has a valid reason for being here. I only ask that before anybody goes and reverts these changes, that they please read the sections through and keep in mind that, despite their own personal opinions, this is a page about CNN. It's not a competition. While CNN may at times certainly not be neutral, there is no reason this wiki page can't be a neutral article. ~~Daydreamer302000, January 2007 (UTC)

I've removed another irrelevant Fox News reference. If someone can give a good reason for putting in such references on CNN's wikipage, please explain that here. Keep in mind that this is NOT a competition. If you are a big Fox News fan, and have reasonable complaints about CNN, well... ok. But that is not a reason to keep putting Fox New's references on CNN's page. This is supposed to be a neutral article, not a competition. In no way does the lack of references to other News networks (there are hundreds with massive audiences all over the world) imply their relative importance or lack thereof. I'd ask that you please put the information about these other networks on their respective pages. --Daydreamer302000 15:26, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

BBC Impartiality

"The BBC, known for its impartiality and unbiased reporting, differs from CNN International which uses local reporters in many of its news-gathering centers ..."

I'd say quite a few people would dispute that the BBC is "known for its impartiality and unbiased reporting," and this aside has no bearing on the rest of the article, or even the rest of the sentence.

Jwtkac 18:30, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Have you ever listened to the BBC World Service? I hate these people who has the BBC has any type of agenda. IT IS AN IMPARTIAL SERVICE.Anybody who has read the BBC Charter relises that that the government stipulates that BBC Reporting should be fair an unbyast. Similarly, the lie scale of production beats CNN too. The BBC has around 350 Correspondents around the world in total, and we haven't even got to their service in the UK yet. I believe the Americans need to watch the BBC more to realist that America's tainted view of the world.

Good Grief. We are biased, admit the stars of BBC News.[1] Haakondahl 05:42, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

The BBC is so much better. Why do you yhink they are so sucesful today. They are one television company, and they operate so many channels and radio services.

• BBC World, the lagrest News Channel in the World (larger then CNN)
• BBC One, the largest channel in the UK
• BBC World Service, one of the largest RADIO SERVICES IN THE WORLD
• BBC News 24, the largest News channel in the UK
• BBC News, the largest, news service in the world.
• BBC.com, the 49th most visited website in the World. CNN's is the 154th most visited website in the World. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mohammed Hasanie (talk • contribs) 20:26, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Jeff Greenfield

Who destroyed Jeff Greenfield's page??? How can it be restored? --DanyaRomulus 01:19, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

• It was deleted for copyright violations [2]; apparently it was largely a cut-and-paste job from his bio on the CNN web site. It will have to be recreated from scratch. --Aaron 01:30, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

--CNN Former Staff edit --

the page should be updated to include:

CNN original anchors Bob Cain (anchored from 1980-2001) now retired in Las Vegas, Bill Zimmerman, now living on Long Island, N.Y., and Don Miller (unknown). Also missing is Andrea Arceneaux who anchored in the late 1990s. {User Str8man87} Dave Browde, now at CBS News, who was a CNN original staff member - the correspondent assigned (simultaneously) to the Pentagon and the Supreme Court; Mark Walton, the original White House Correspondent; Bob Berkowitz, now a talk show host, another original staff correspondent, who also covered the White House and Capitol Hill; Scott Barrett, (now unknown) - the correspondent made famous in the Tapes of Wrath asking about the network catering services at the stakeout outside GW University Hospital, after the assassination attempt on then President Reagan; Kirsten Lindquist, (unknown) - an original DC based anchor.

71.241.153.17 18:35, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

CNN

In one part of Wikipedia's article about the cable/satellite news channel CNN, there is a section about a former CNN program, "Crossfire," which names at least some of the people who have hosted that program. But, I did not see the names of John McLaughlin or Michael Kinsley included in that part of the CNN article. I believe that, within the early history of Crossfire, John McLaughlin very briefly was either a regular host (with Tom Braden) or an occassional fill-in for Pat Buchanan.(Later in the '80's, McLaughlin's PBS program, "McLaughlin Group, premiered). Also, I believe that, eventually, Michael Kinsley became a regular host "on the left" for Crossfire for a period of time. 70.143.53.39 21:24, 23 December 2006 (UTC)DN, Dec. 23, 2006

The opening lists CNN as #1 with the qualifier "unique viewers". In pure numbers, they are a distant second to Fox News. Their Bias against conservatives and unwillingness to cover stories concerning Democrats transgressions and scandals (most notably the Hillary Clinton / FBI files scandal in which over 500 FBI files were found in the living quarters of the White House) by the Janet Reno justice Department gave rise to the letters CNN being translated as the "Clinton News Network" by conservative radio. The lax reporting by the network gave rise to Rupert Murdochs Fox News.

If Fox then CNN...

Hello,

This is my first submission so please let me know if I'm not doing this correctly:

I believe that in order to be fair and impartial, if you are to include the following statement under the Fox News description "Fox News is seen by some critics and observers as advocating conservative political positions.[3] The channel denies allegations of bias in their news reporting" I think it would be fair and just to include a similar statement on the CNN description that would state that "CNN is seen by some critics and observers as advocating liberal political positions.[3] The channel denies allegations of bias in their news reporting".

Please let me know if you agree!

All the best,

Marcello 15.243.169.70 21:00, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Fair in terms of drawing business. But is it true? Well, yes, it is. And to be fair to the neo-Nazis, some critics also deny the holocaust. The difference is that Fox News has a thin veil of probable deniability while CNN has, well, it has a thicker veil at least. Fair yes, Just no. (mmmmmm, veil) Phil 64.238.49.65 17:51, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Unfournatly a cabal on Wikipedia has forced their views on the Fox page and blocks even discusion on it.Kirin4 01:03, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Fox Reference

This article should not state the Fox News Channel as Right-Wing in fact, but in allegation.

"This is a marked contrast to domestic criticism from Fox News Channel and other right-wing media outlets..."

to

"This is a marked contrast to domestic criticism from Fox News Channel and other alleged right-wing media outlets..."

As the discussion states in the Article policies, a neutral point of view is important.

- I agree, it's heavily POV. --IvanKnight69 12:40, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

You cannot describe CNN as being solely criticized for 'liberal bias'.

When the article at CNN controversies and allegations of bias lists so many criticisms of CNN as being "too lenient on the Bush administration" and pro-war in nature. Italiavivi 15:14, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

That article has one very short section alleging being "too lenient on the Bush administration" - which is sourced to articles making that complaint of ALL US news stations - CNN, NBC, Fox and others. The bulk of the article, however, is allegations of bias against the Bush and Republican administrations, specific to CNN. Please see WP:NPOV#Undue Weight Isarig 16:11, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I did not realize that referring to Barack Obama as "Osama" was an allegation of liberal bias. I did not realize that being banned from Iran by Mahmoud Ahmedinejad was an allegation of liberal bias. Glenn Beck controversies clearly indicate liberal bias. You, Isarig, are the one attempting to give undue weight to a portion of CNN's controversies. Italiavivi 16:14, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

yes, there are some criticisms on that page alleging non-liberal bias. Similarly, the Fox News_Channel controversies#Other_criticisms article contains some allegations that are not of Conservative bias - e.g- A Kerry-related journalist covering the Kerry campaign. The bulk of the CNN criticism article, however, is allegations of liberal bias. Feel free to do a word count. Isarig 16:23, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

There are not "some" criticisms; those criticisms (generally from liberals) comprise the majority. Word counts are irrelevant, count the issues one-by-one, section-by-section. Your edit-warring (switching the order without mentioning it in your edit summary) has become quite disingenuous, Isarig. Italiavivi 23:16, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Please read WP:POT before making any further personal attacks along the lines of accusing me of being disingenuous. The very WP article you are referencing lists conservative criticisms first. Isarig 23:18, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Please read WP:UNDUE, there is more criticism listed from liberals than from conservatives. Italiavivi 23:24, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I am familiar with WP:UNDUE, but it seems you are not. There is so much criticism of CNN from conservatives, that it can't possibly be considered "undue weight". I am referring you to the very article you are referencing to support your claims - that article itself says "CNN has come under criticism by conservatives claiming that CNN has liberal bias. Critics, such as Accuracy in Media and MRC, have claimed that CNN's reporting contains liberal editorializing within news stories, and have jokingly referred to CNN as the "Clinton News Network," the "Communist News Network," "Chicken Noodle News," or "Clearly Not Neutral".[2] [3]

Some liberal observers have claimed that CNN has a conservative bias. For example, media watchdog Media Matters for America has documented several hundred separate instances of what it sees as conservative editorializing during CNN broadcasts [4]." - conservative criticism first. Isarig 23:29, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

The ordering of the controversy article in no way changes that the majority of its criticisms come from liberals, not conservatives. Yours is a shockingly flimsy argument, Isarig. Italiavivi 23:31, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

If the ordering does not matter, then perhaps you should stop edit warring over the order. Isarig 23:48, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

CNN controversies contains more criticisms from liberals than from conservatives, regardless of the article's ordering. I don't see you denying this. Italiavivi 23:51, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

The ordering on this page does not change the amount of criticisms - so why are you edit warring over it? Isarig 00:02, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

You were the one who changed the ordering without mentioning it in an edit summary; edit warrior, heal yourself. There are more criticisms of CNN from liberals, thus liberal criticism gets mentioned first, and you don't change the ordering via your disingenuous revert warring. It's not hard to understand. Italiavivi 00:27, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Do you think WP editors are dumb, and don't know how to check edit histories, or do you suffer from short term memory loss? Do you need to be reminded who changed the order that had been in the article for months? Isarig 00:37, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

It's not that WP editors are dumb, it's that one WP editor in particular (yourself) is prone to distortion. There is no order there in your past version -- it only mentions conservatives' criticisms. A blatant case of undue weight which was corrected. Italiavivi 01:24, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

End Indent - The notion of criticism should not be included in the intro of these types of articles. It is non-encyclopedic, non informative, and its only purpose is to criticize. WP is really starting to become a place to air grievences, and is becoming less of an encyclopedia. Arzel 19:50, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of our rationales and independent of other articles, Gamaliel, myself, and Arzel all hold that the line in CNN's article doesn't belong. I have removed it. Italiavivi 23:53, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

My statement was general for all, but it seems there is a double standard when compared with FNC where the tag is inappropriate for CNN but not for FNC, even though both have their own criticism page. Please explain the difference. Arzel 05:50, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

CIA

Imagine if the US didn't have CNN the CIA wouldn't have anywere to get there intelligence from. Thats why they were late for World War 2 CNN wasn't around to tell them it had started.

Uh, okay, I haven't found guidance on whether and how to combat frivolous comments such as this. First, is there anybody who does not feel that this is a specious, frivolous comment? Haakondahl 05:52, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Propaganda

Imagine where the Iraqi insurgents and other extremists would be if they didn't have CNN tho show their propaganda, for example, when they showed video of a US soldier being shot by a sniper, or when they showed US soldiers being dragged through the streets of Mogadishu. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.104.100.178 (talk) 13:20, 16 March 2007 (UTC).

Imagine if the CNN showed the US soldiers shooting people all you'd see is a load of Dead British soldiers. for those in southern US the British are on your side it was a friendly fire observation.

I'd rather like to see the images that CNN doesn't show. Like U.S. soldiers beating an raping civilians or British troops beating children.

-G

You want to provide some proof of that?

Slogan

Their slogan is: "The Most Trusted Name In News". Can anyone proof that?
I mean where are the facts about it, where is it written? --Slimjim1984 18:19, 18 March 2007 (UTC) from Berlin, Germany

I'm not sure what to prove about it. It's their slogan; we're not claiming anything as to the truth about it. Splintercellguy 22:15, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Awards

Shouldn't there be a section outlining the journalism awards (Peabodys, Emmys, Murrow etc.) that CNN and its team has won? I'll start it, but does anyone have any thoughts? 64.242.28.5 18:16, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Jenny Harrison

This article links to the wrong one. --Jonboy 15:10, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Former personalities

Why don't you add Martin Soong to the said section? He is now back with CNBC Asia. Valerie Morris can also be added as she is now be hosting a new financial literacy programme. --Pinoysurfer 13:14, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Another obvious add: Dave Browde, now at CBS News, was the original Pentagon and Supreme Court correspondent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.104.131.150 (talk) 16:29, August 28, 2007 (UTC)

Browde is correct, above, as among the missing, you should add Mark Walton, another CNN original staffer, covering the Carter White House, and Bob Berkowtiz, another original DC Bureau correspondent, and later an author of some note. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Obscureinformation (talk • contribs) 08:44, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I believe Anna Hovind should be added to the "former" list. After a few cursory searches, I can't tell if she's still working for CNN, Turner or who else, so I won't add her for now. Shawn D. (talk) 15:53, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

The Gulf War

"some of the most nail-biting, suspenseful reports in television news history" sounds awfully like POV to me. Will anyone object if I remove it...or has a suggestion for removing the POV? Guinness 23:28, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

The author of this section refers to the "London blitzkrieg." This is incorrect. The "blitzkrieg" was a style of warfare utilizing mechanized military units in what was essentially a strategy dependent on maneuvers over attrition. The author, I assume, was referring to the London "blitz" which was the German bombing campaign meant to devastate British morale & industry. Could someone please change this? Anonymous

Scheduling and WP:NOT

In editing the Fox News Channel article in October 2006, a discussion started on determining whether a schedule should be placed on a television channel's page due to guidelines set by WP:NOT. The discussion ended with the editing of the removal of the times/schedule of the network on the network's page, leaving a list of programming without any mention of a schedule. I will concede, the discussion was between a smaller group of Wikipedians, but does anyone agree with this determination or should the schedule be left on a network page? Chris (Talk) (Contribs) 23:06, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Networks like NBC has it, I don't see why it should be different for cable networks. WP:Not can be used against anything if you think about it, however a table of a weekday schedule is something I personally think valuable and informative enough to be kept. - Mike Beckham 02:31, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree, in fact this is one of the things that make this article actually worth reading, so long as people keep it updated. Arzel 05:53, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

This schedule must be for the American version. This is definitely not appicable to CNN International. Should bother to put that schedule up as well? Would there be interest? Is it notable enough? I'd have to check on regional differences (if any), but I could get around to it sometime. --Daydreamer302000 12:24, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Due to many different timezones etc... I think for CNN US only is the way to go - Mike Beckham 12:16, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Well I don't believe timezones have an effect on the programming. However regional differences just might have an effect. I'll look into it. --Daydreamer302000 12:24, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Bureaus or Bureaux

Surely the correct plural of bureau is bureaux? In any case, the note about boldface under the heading Bureaus does not make sense: bureau should be replaced with the correct plural form, whichever that is. Bistromathic 12:21, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Trivia

Here are few things that could be added to trivia section. There are more computer games where you see Cnn references. In Both Master of Orion 1 and 2, if you get random event, you will see cutscene where you will get newsflash from GNN: Galactic News Network. Also in X-Com Interceptor you have news from HNN: Hyperspace News Network. Sometimes you can even hear soundclip "This is HNN".

Makeman38 08:16, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Hubris, Bias and Exaggeration - language needs some work

This article is appalling. Phrases like "the most nail-biting, suspenseful reports in television news history" and "resulting in some of the most indelible journalistic images of the late 20th Century... Their impact was widespread and profound" Are highly subjective and add little to nothing to the content of this article. It sounds as impartial as Lynard Skynard commenting on Niel Young. The pro-CNN bias is throughout, and I would suggest limiting it somewhat, as well as adding a note on sone of the brad criticism of CNN, as some of the comments above suggest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.73.77.254 (talk) 16:41, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree. I was about to create a new section to go with the neutrality tag someone already placed in the Gulf War section. Although the content may be correct (I remember the impact CNN had during the frist few hours of the Gulf War) we definitely need to (1) tone down the rhetoric; and (2) source some of the statements. Anyone want to collaborate on this? /Blaxthos 19:49, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

FORMER SHOWS

Let's try this again: would someone please add these shows to the "Former Shows" category of this page. These two shows existed prior to 9/11 and never came back in the aftermath:

• "Greenfield at Large" with Jeff Greenfield (aired at 10pm weekenights)

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4196/is_20010604/ai_n10692633 http://feldmandesigns.com/davestelevisioncnngreenfield.htm

• "CNN NewsSite" with Joie Chen (aired at 4pm - integrated the news and internet)

http://www.unc.edu/news/archives/sep03/chen091203.html

• "The Point" with Greta VanSusteren lasted until she defected to Fox News.

http://www.timewarner.com/corp/newsroom/pr/0,20812,668933,00.html

I even cited some sources for Pete's sake!!!

Thanks so much.

68.158.184.41 02:35, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Theme song?

I have been watching CNN for some 12 years and I really want to know what is the name of the current "apocalyptic" sounding theme song and who did it.

CNN coverage of Gulf War (1990-1)

Your text on coverage of the Gulf War refers to Wolf Blitzer as "then White House correspondent." Blitzer was then Pentagon correspondent. Charles Bierbauer was then Senior White House Correspondent. Frank Sesno was also White House Correspondent.

129.252.85.111 19:19, 30 July 2007 (UTC) Charles Bierbauer Dean College of Mass Communications and

  Information Studies

University of South Carolina

24-hour news coverage

The sentence "CNN introduced the idea of 24-hour television news coverage, celebrating its 25th anniversary on June 1, 2005." implies 24-hours news coverage started on June 1 2005. Weren't they were doing it already for a long time ? --Tigga en 00:44, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Nope...the passage implies that they celebrated the 25th anniversary of 24-hour news coverage on June 1st, 2005. Vikramsidhu 00:49, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

CNN vs. USAF

I seem to remember reading in General Charles Horner's (CIC of all air component during the Gulf War) biography, "Every Man a Tiger", that CNN lost contact with their reporters on the first night because they foolishly decided to feed their signal through the Baghdad Central Telephone Exchange (used for both military and civilian traffic). Guess what got bombed by F-117s on the first night? Apparently, the coalition commanders used CNN suddenly going off the air as the first confirmation that the planes made it through and hit their targets.

Might be worth including. Kensuke Aida 04:14, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

You should rectify a glaring omission

You should rectify a glaring omission: Include under criticisms that in 2003, CNN's chief news executive Eason Jordan admitted that for the past decade the network systematically covered up stories of Saddam Hussein's Iraqi atrocities. Reports of murder, torture, and planned assassinations were suppressed in order to maintain CNN's Baghdad presence. [3] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.244.192.116 (talk) 20:34, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Title Discussion

I have a feeling we will be discussing the recent removal and my re-insertion of material into the lead, so start the discussion here. Arzel 00:34, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

1. The lead section is not the title.
2. Instead of starting a wheel war and then saying let's talk about the wheel war I'm starting, why not discuss the changes, figure out what consensus is, and then make edits as appropriate? Hence the big banner at the top of the talk page...

/Blaxthos 07:24, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Don't jump down my throat. I reverted a blanking of material that had all the evidence of starting a debate and decided to be bold and set up the discussion section. So I put down Title instead of Lead, big deal. Arzel 00:01, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

"Online" section

The online section could use a clean-up and rewrite - currently it's a little random, kind of awkwardly-written and feels not quite NPOV. I will take a crack at it sometime soon if no-one else does. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SueG (talk • contribs) 14:04, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Ratings?

I have been hearing that CNN's ratings or viewer numbers or something have been going down. Therefor this needs to be updated. 65.27.139.162 21:29, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps it would help us if you could start with where you've been hearing this. /Blaxthos 21:40, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

The O'Reilly Factor. And no, he isn't a racist or anything like that. Contralya 22:34, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

The war on terror

Shouldn't there a topic that relates to the war on terror? And how CNN focuses on the 'bad' things that happen over there and nothing about the good things? Therefore, they promote a bad/false image of Iraq and Afghanistan. I am sure there are plenty of sources to support this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.139.105.188 (talk) 22:39, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Iraq War Coverage

It would be helpful if the article contained a mention of the initial coverage of the Iraq War. Although more objective than some other American media, it was biased compared with PBS and foreign news services. WMD were accepted as fact, the potential insurgency was ignored, France was vilified (although not Canada or Mexico) for not joining the Coalition of the Willing, and reporters were "embedded" with the Coalition Forces. CNN fully accepted the Government's version of the war and let down its viewers. --The Four Deuces 22:32, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

While your observations may (or may not be) valid, for them to be incorporated into Wikipedia they must be published by a reliable source and presented neutrally. Wikipedia itself is an encyclopedia, and as such it cannot be a primary publisher of theory, fact, or opinion (see original research). If this criticism has been published elsewhere, it may be more appropriately placed in CNN controversies. Hope this helps. /Blaxthos 23:17, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry, but I did not realize that I need to quote sources in order to make suggestions. The point of my observation is that it would be helpful if the article contained information about the accuracy and objectivity of CNN, especially when it covered important news items. Accuracy and objectivity are not matters of opinion and in fact are evaluated by scholars and commented upon by peers. I am not a journalist nor scholar, which is why I think this information belongs in the article (and rest assured I do not intend to edit the article). —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Four Deuces (talk • contribs) 08:26, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

9/11?

Hello,

I was reading the CNN article on Wikipedia and on 9/11 it doesn't say anything about how pretty much all the cable stations stopped broadcasting and started playing CNN. Does anybody know who made that call? And why CNN was chosen to be broadcast on every channel? Who makes the call? I wonder if it was just done because the cable companies thought it was the right thing to do or that it was asked to do that by the government or what. This just got my interest if anyone knows that's cool.

-Greg —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.161.3.97 (talk) 21:32, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

This didn't happen in all markets, and for all cable providers; I certainly didn't see it. My guess is that Time Warner Cable is your cable provider; they would have a vested interest in going with CNN. Korny O'Near (talk) 15:20, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Controversy regarding Republican debate and planted questioner.

Shouldn't this go in the controverises section. Here are some references: [4] [5] [6] [7]. Bytebear (talk) 20:14, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Merge CNN.com into CNN

Most organizations have an official website, but not every website needs a separate article. This article doesn't give any information that justifies a separate article. I believe the article CNN.com should me merged into CNN. – Ilse@ 10:23, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose I personally think that CNN.com should remain a seperate article, but I'm just one person. Noah¢s (Talk) 23:32, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Merge CNN controversies into CNN

The article CNN controversies seems like a WP:POVFORK of CNN. The article CNN controversies should be merged into a "Criticisms" subsection of CNN, or the article CNN controversies should be killed. ← Michael Safyan (talk) 20:18, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Oppose: The CNN article is already 39 kilobytes long which is longer than standard article size. And the article CNN controversies is also very long. These huge info cannot be merged. And the article CNN controversies is well-referenced. So CNN controversies should stay as separate article. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 11:24, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Oppose I happen to disagree with the Wikipedia guidelines in this regard - I think the "controversies" article is a logical split, in the interest of maintaining good article size. Korny O'Near (talk) 23:13, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind. I withdraw my proposal to merge this article. ← Michael Safyan (talk) 02:59, 27 December 2007 (UTC)