Talk:Cinemark Theatres/Archives/2014

Untitled

I went ahead and deleted a lot of this article because most of it was either stuff from the employee manual or obvious facts like, "Cinemark makes most of its money from concessions". If you need to be told how movie theatres generate revenue in the United States, there are more appropriate articles for that info, and if I wanted to read the Cinemark Employee's Handbook...well, I don't want to do that. --Cog05 21:13, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Contradictions

Check out the Carmike wikipage. This page also claims that they are the third largest film company in the U.S. This informaton should be corrected or removed -68.82.217.112 05:47, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Carmike hasn't been third for a long time. The Carmike information is incorrect.

Employee/customer relations

I have added in the employee/customer info for valid reasons:

1) Someone interested in employment with the company may research it before applying. The handbook is only availible to employees after they have signed a contract, yet the handbook also outlines job expectations and behavioral restrictions the employee may not agree with or consent to.

2) Many people ask opinions when going to the movies. They will probably want to know that what they're told may not necessarily be true, as the employee handbook encourages giving false opinions on films.209.169.73.213 04:46, 9 January 2007 (UTC) - no it doesn't; it simply states to say that many of our guests have enjoyed it, which is true of any film! Many guests will enjoy it, many won't. Offering a personal opinion doesn't mean the guest will like the movie, and may resent your opinion if they don't like it.

I'm an employee at a cinemark in my city. We're somewhat encouraged to tell the customer what we think, but to add something of a disclaimer such as "but that is just me" or we just tell the customer what it is about and avoid an opinion all together. The latter is the most commonly used, most employees never see movies just because of the fact that we work there or we're always working or so on. We also have never signed a contract and there was always an orientation of sorts on the theater. Also, there's no restriction on asking about the employee handbook before signing any papers. You may ask about it at anytime, just most people don't. I'm not a manager, i am an employee at cinemark.

Avoid bias. Articles should be written from a neutral point of view, representing views fairly, proportionately and without bias.

Per the bias policy this section should be re-written from a neutral point of view.

After reviewing wiki entries for other theater chains this entry is inconsistent in subject matter and tone. .User:indymon 19:51, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

• I almost deleted the offending material myself; but for now, rather than removing it outright, I multitagged it as biased original research since I didn't add the material myself and to avoid an edit war. If desired, the non-complant material can be removed... Ranma9617 05:09, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

How can it be original research if it's cited?209.169.73.213 05:04, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Section on Cinemark's mascots

I don't think that article belongs there. While it does describe them, it also describes two policy trailers in detail and I don't know wether it should belong in the article or not. 82.39.91.92 (talk) 17:43, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Proposition 8

Why was the section on donations to Proposition 8 removed?159.250.64.33 (talk) 15:04, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I have added content about Prop 8, with references, and am watching. Patricia Meadows (talk) 19:16, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for adding that section back in. I agree; the action of the CEO of the company is important to note here. Rickmerc (talk) 03:04, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Someone using the IP 76.173.119.45 keeps deleting it. We should watch to make sure it doesn't happen again. Patricia Meadows (talk) 04:16, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

There has been some aggressive deletion of the gay marriage controversy, from 2 anonymous IP addresses. Neither of those parties has participated in this discussion. I will continue to undo those deletes until someone makes a compelling argument why this information does not belong in a category titled "Controversy." I invite discussion. Do you think it belongs? I would like to establish consensus before this gets out of hand. Thanks. Patricia Meadows (talk) 02:22, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Someone's personal views have nothing to do with the company views. If there was an Alan Stock page, it would belong there. By continuing to run this it is doing more harm to theater employees who depend on theater revenue to keep jobs than it will for Mr. Stock. If an usher for Cinemark donated money to a cause people disagreed with, no one would know, but that usher would have the right to spend their hard-earned money any way they like. CEOs have the same right. Mr. Stock's views are not the views of the company and it is his business how to spend his money. While I disagree with his position, the company is not run by that process. 76.185.122.208 (talk) 06:51, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

The question shouldn't be "Will this hurt Cinemark or its employees" or "Do CEOs have a right to donate money" but rather "Does this belong in an encyclopedic entry about the company?" Given how much media attention this has brought to Cinemark, I would certainly think it does, especially as it has been filed under "Controversy." This isn't about picking sides in the gay marriage debate, this is about creating a comprehensive Wikipedia entry. Patricia Meadows (talk) 12:43, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

More to the point, if a company is boycotted, surely that is relevant, regardless whether you aU[[gree with the boycott or not. Patricia Meadows (talk) 12:53, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

TinselTownCNK is clearly Cinemark Theatres (see revision http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cinemark_Theatres&oldid=256639111 for past use of first person plural) and obviously has a vested interest in deleting the "Controversy" section either in whole or in part. I have undone these deletions many times. Patricia Meadows (talk) 19:12, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

"TinselTownCNK here. Sorry not to have 'talked' sooner- still figuring this system out- Thanks. Yes, situation has gained national attention- however vote was specific to CA... and with news and internet access EVERYTHING becomes National. Campaign/donation rules require that individuals enter work information to prevent large corporations from making hidden donations to Candidates campaign funds and thereby unduly influence a vote, etc. $9999.00 paid for about 5 seconds of air time, it did not buy anyone's vote. Boycott (mentioned above) has taken place by a few hundred individuals in 3-4 cities"

"Please know that Cinemark made no financial contribution to either side on this issue. The company does not take a formal position on political issues that do not directly affect our business. It would be inappropriate to influence our employees’ position on personal issues outside the work environment, especially on political, social or religious activities. Cinemark is dedicated to providing high quality entertainment for all of our customers. As an equal opportunity employer, we do not discriminate based on race, creed, religion or sexual orientation. We appreciate the importance of this matter to you. We hope that you equally appreciate that any individual act or contribution is just that, individual acts of personal expression and do not reflect company positions or policy."

The Gay marriage section added to the Cinemark Theatres page does not provide any pertinent information about the theatre company, it doesn't provided any information about the history of Cinemark USA, or about the thousand of employees- gay and straight- who work for the organization and love it. Would like to remove section again- and ask it not be replaced. Sincerely-TinseltownCNK (talk) 20:25, 6 January 2009 (UTC)TinselTownCNK

Glad to have you part of the discussion, TinselTown, and welcome to Wikipedia. I hope we can bring more Wikipedians to this discussion and bring this issue to a satisfactory conclusion. The question on the table is this: Does a mention of a political boycott of a company belong on that company's WP page? I would argue that it does, especially as it has been filed under "Controversy". I hope a WP administrator will weigh in here... (And confidential to Tinsel, you can sign your posts on talk pages by adding four tildes -- "~" -- to the end of your post. It automatically signs your username and ensures that no one forges your signature.) Patricia Meadows (talk) 22:17, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

As the person who added the section, I obviously think it should stay. The values and opinions of the CEO may not be valid here, but surely a boycott of the company as a result of those values is? This is a newsworthy issue that has become part of the company's history. Templetongore (talk) 09:18, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your input. First, I agree that a boycott should be included, but once again I would have to ask "What quantifies a 'boycott?'" Over 217 million people pass thru the doors of Cinemark theatres every year to see a movie. Assume on the high end, that 100,000* people choose to no longer attend Cinemark theatres as the result of this debate (or any other, for that matter), how is it that less than .00046% of the 217M movie goers no longer attending constitutes a Boycott- and as such becomes a part of the company's history. In a year (or 4 years...), should Cinemark need to sell off theatres because this did have a lasting impact, then ok- add it to the History under Controversy. (*based on % of the LGBT population in the 3 major markets where there have been protests).

Second, I again have to ask that we consider the impact the news and the internet has had on raising this- and any issue- to a National news level. Had this same thing happened 10+ years ago, news of it would never have passed beyond the borders of California. Also, I don't have my facts 100% correct on this but, I understand that a number of other states had a similar prop 8 on the ballots in November- it did not pass anywhere. Why is it only CA that is rasing such a ruckus... and again does this really make for a mark on a company's history?

I too, hope to see an administrator weigh in. Thank you again TinseltownCNK (talk) 15:17, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure if the relatively small scale of the boycott is a valid reason for excluding this section. The fact that the story was newsworthy should be reason enough. Would the inclusion of a positive news story that also involved a similarly small number of people, be contested? Templetongore (talk) 16:57, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

There are far more words dedicated to the Cinemark "gift card" than there are to gay marriage. Should I ready for a bracing debate about what percentage of the general population is affected by Cinemark gift cards? Patricia Meadows (talk) 05:38, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I must beg the question, if the donation was so insignificant as to "not buy anyone's vote" then why was it even made? One can't contribute to a political cause and then claim that their support should be invalidated based on the numeric quantity. A donation was made, support was given, and as a result Cinemark got some very bad press. Even if there isn't a massive boycott, they've still taken severe damage in the eyes of the gay community.

I must seriously question the validity of TinseltownCNK's even being allowed to edit this page, let alone have his/her voice heard in the discussion. Tinseltown is a catchall name for Cinemark stadium-style theatres, whereas CNK is a stock symbol for the company. This, coupled with their repeated inclusion of a corporate-history type timeline of the company, clearly identifies them as a representative of Cinemark and therefore biased.64.92.22.125 (talk) 04:44, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Also, calling CineArts theatres "arthouse theatres" is intentionally misleading. CineArts theatres still primarily exhibit mainstream films. The only difference is that they will occasionally dedicate a few screens to independent features, which Tinseltown Theatres do not.64.92.22.125 (talk) 04:48, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I would have to say that the Gay Marriage portion does not belong on the page. Simply because the CEO donated money does not mean the company is anti-gay marriage. They have plenty of LGBT employees, and showed movies with gay themes like Brokeback Mountain, or about gay individuals, such as Milk. If the CEO had a page, it would belong there, not on a company's wiki page. To say there was "severe damage" done due to this is grossly overstating a minor event. Simply because a few theaters had protests doesn't mean it warrents notation. If anything that made the news deserved to be on the wiki page, where is the section about how well movies like Dark Knight did in Cinemark theaters? My local news did a 3 minute long story on families going to see movies like High School Musical and Bolt, and they filmed the segment at the local Cinemark, why isn't that mentioned too? These were also local stories that had national ramifications; unlike the protests, events like these actually DID happen in Cinemark theaters nation wide, not just 3 theaters, and were far more significant to the success and status of the company. 76.208.2.105 (talk) 10:19, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I would love to keep this debate from going totally silly. Nuff said. Patricia Meadows (talk) 15:37, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

TinselTownCNK recently added two history sections, but at the same time obscured the proposition 8 stuff and removed the Department of Justice lawsuits controversy completely. I have kept the history, but put the controversy back in its own section. Templetongore (talk) 08:32, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I am providing a heads up. I am about to remove the 'Controversy' section again and incorporate the 2 items into the body of the Cinemark page. ADA Lawsuits will go under a new section that I plan to add; 'Features'. And, the Gay marriage will be included in the History section 2000 to present. My reason and basis for doing so is as follows:

First, AMC Theatres was subject to the same ADA/wheelchair accessibilty lawsuits as Cinemark. Their Wikipedia page does NOT have a controversy section. Second, if 'you' insist on adding a controvery section to the Cinemark page, then you must by your logic go to just about every other Wikipedia page and add 'Controvery'sections. Case in point: 1) Roger Maris and Anheuser-Busch were in legal battle with each other for years over distribution rights. Neither of their Wikipedia pages makes any mention of the lawsuits or settlements involved, 2) Harvey Milk himself, was involved in labor protests with Coors Brewing Co. The labor disputes on the Coors Wikipedia page are listed under History, NOT Controversy, and 3)An upper level management employee of Dell computers gave $25,200 to the "yes on 8" campaign. While not the CEO, he still got his money from Dell and gave a lot to help the passage of the initiative. There is no controversy section on the Dell page either. If i had the time to research further, I'm sure I could find controvery with at least half of the Wikipedia pages currently on the site. thank you TinseltownCNK (talk) 16:27, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

...and I intend to add as many controversy sections to as many pages as possible, as otherwise, those article will be unbalanced. The controversy on this page forms part of the profile of the company, and needs to stay. If AMC Theatres were subject to the same lawsuits as Cinemark, this does not mean details of those lawsuits should be removed from the Cinemark page but that they should be added to the AMC Theatres page. Templetongore (talk) 08:44, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

How long before someone bans TinseltownCNK's IP? The "sourced" history section is written in the present tense and is nothing more than a glowing corporate history prepared by Cinemark and sourced to appear NPOV. Does Wiki really want its business articles being written by the PR divisions of those businesses?64.92.13.111 (talk) 05:01, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

The recent edits to the gay marriage section of this article are taking things a bit far. It's long, over-detailed, and reads like a Cinemark attempt at damage control. Not sure what Knulclunk's goal is, but the gay marriage section deserves to stay in this article but perhaps without so much breathless posturing. Patricia Meadows (talk) 21:24, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree the new gay marriage is too detailed and could be heavily edited. There seemed to be discussion here, so I kept my edits to the minimum needed to make the section coherent. I have no attachment to this section, do what you will. --Knulclunk (talk) 00:02, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

My apologies! It wasn't you, Knulclunk, but rather Pportia who added all that odd content. Sorry. I should have been more careful when I checked the history. Patricia Meadows (talk) 04:25, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

"Wheelchair-bound"

A previous editor changed this usage and was reverted. "Wheelchair-bound" is considered derogatory usage and should not be reintroduced into the article. Please see List of disability-related terms with negative connotations before reverting this change again. --Rahaeli (talk) 13:41, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Major Rewrite Needed

This article needs a major rewrite. The article should be about the business, not about politics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.28.138.230 (talk) 21:21, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Why? Working at Cinema is ALL about drama and politics ISOGuru (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:04, 6 December 2010 (UTC).

I believe most of the policies need to be deleated as well. this should be informative about the company not about what a previous CEO did with his PERSONAL money. this is not tied to cinemark as a company.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.202.79.241 (talk) 17:11, 13 January 2013 (UTC) 

Prop 8 and Muvico

I removed alot of the Prop 8 information because it was adequately summarized in one paragraph. Added information about purchases of theaters from Muvico. Also, I added a picture of a theater in Rockwall, TX.--Jonesdr77 (talk) 11:17, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Confusing passage

The main page of this article is confusing when it has a paragraph saying

Cinemark has a controversial conceal to carry policy that has been in place for at least the last five years.

when it would be easier to say

Cinemark's policy for carrying concealed weapons has been in place for over five years.

I don't see the basis for saying it is controversial. It might be controversial, but then again maybe it isn't. How are we to know? I just don't see any controversy here. Could someone explain why it is controversial? Dexter Nextnumber (talk) 09:05, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Update Cinemark Logo

Can you please update the Cinemark logo that now says "Cinemark, Century Theatres, CineArts, Tinseltown & Rave Cinemas" now that Cinemark added Rave Cinemas to their logo after buying Rave Cinemas? 76.69.127.122 (talk) 02:02, 9 September 2013 (UTC)