Talk:CBS News controversies and criticism
Page contents not supported in other languages.
| This is thetalk page for discussing improvements to theCBS News controversies and criticism article. This isnot a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article. |
Article policies |
| Find sources: Google (books ·news ·scholar ·free images ·WP refs) ·FENS ·JSTOR ·TWL |
 | The subject of this article iscontroversial 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, use the talk page to discuss them.Content must be written from aneutral point of view. Includecitations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
| This page isnot a forum for general discussion aboutCBS News controversies and criticism. Any such commentsmay be removed orrefactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions aboutCBS News controversies and criticism at theReference desk. |
 | This article iswritten inAmerican English, which has its own spelling conventions (center,color,defense,realize,traveled) and some terms may be different or absent from othervarieties of English. According to therelevant style guide, this should not be changed withoutbroad consensus. |
 | This article is ratedC-class on Wikipedia'scontent assessment scale. It is of interest to the followingWikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
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 withWP: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 herehttp://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]
I propose changing the name fromCBS News controversies and criticism to just beCBS News controversies Controversies are a topic. Criticism is a pov. SinceCriticism 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 mainCBS 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]
The result of the move request was:not moved.(non-admin closure)--Calidum05:51, 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 criticismsBryce Carmony (talk)00:33, 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 thinkBryce Carmony (talk)13:09, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
