This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
Sections older than 180 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
CBS on coins
Vlogger Go Viral has the CBS logo on the coin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.58.152.81 (talk) 00:29, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 11 external links on CBS. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Corrected formatting/usage for http://members.aol.com/Jeff560/cbs.html
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130922013759/http://www.novia.net/~ereitan/CBS_Chronology_rev_h_edit.htm to http://www.novia.net/~ereitan/CBS_Chronology_rev_h_edit.htm
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130922013759/http://www.novia.net/~ereitan/CBS_Chronology_rev_h_edit.htm to http://www.novia.net/~ereitan/CBS_Chronology_rev_h_edit.htm
- Added
{{dead link}}
tag to http://www.americanradiohistory.com/Archive-BC-IDX/57-OCR/1957-09-09-BC-0005.pdf - Added
{{dead link}}
tag to http://www.americanradiohistory.com/Archive-BC-IDX/64-OCR/1964-08-03-BC-0023.pdf - Added
{{dead link}}
tag to http://www.americanradiohistory.com/Archive-BC-IDX/64-OCR/1964-08-03-BC-0024.pdf - Added
{{dead link}}
tag to http://www.americanradiohistory.com/Archive-BC-IDX/64-OCR/1964-08-03-BC-0025.pdf - Added
{{dead link}}
tag to http://www.americanradiohistory.com/Archive-BC-IDX/55-OCR/1955-06-20-BC-0091.pdf - Added
{{dead link}}
tag to http://www.americanradiohistory.com/Archive-BC-IDX/55-OCR/1955-06-20-BC-0092.pdf - Added archive https://archive.is/20000903070554/http://www.kenberry.com/ken_berry_interview.htm to http://www.kenberry.com/ken_berry_interview.htm
- Added
{{dead link}}
tag to http://www.americanradiohistory.com/Archive-BC-IDX/94-OCR/BC-1994-06-20-Page-0007.pdf - Added
{{dead link}}
tag to http://www.americanradiohistory.com/Archive-BC-IDX/95-OCR/BC-1995-07-18-Page-0014.pdf - Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.cjar.com/press/cj_press_20080620.php
- Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.cjar.com/press/cj_press_20080723a.php
- Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.cjar.com/press/cj_press_20090224.php
- Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.worldscreen.com/articles/display/22324
- Corrected formatting/usage for http://newsroom.zonemedia.net/Scripts/FileDownload.asp?fPath=D%3A%5CWWW_Domains%5CZONE_PRESS%5CFiles%5CPress%5CCBS%20FINALChello%20Zone%20partnership%20press%20release.doc
- Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601039&sid=aKVPpRZ9A3tE&refer=home
- Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A18982-2004Sep13?language=printer
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:39, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
Firing of CBS general counsel and vice-president
I object to this edit. The editor who made this revert contends that the following removed material relies upon primary sources rather than secondary sources, which is obviously false, see WP:Primary.
In October 2017, Hayley Geftman-Gold, vice president and senior counsel at CBS, wrote on social media that she had no sympathy for the victims of the Las Vegas Strip shooting because they were most likely Republican, whereupon CBS fired her, referring to her statement as "deeply unacceptable".[1][2][3]
References
- ^ Flood, Brian. “CBS fires vice president who said Vegas victims didn't deserve sympathy because they were 'probably Republicans'”, Fox News (October 2, 2017).
- ^ Barr, Jeremy. “CBS Fires Legal Exec Over Comments About Las Vegas Shooting Victims”, Hollywood Reporter (October 2, 2017).
- ^ Battaglio, Stephen. “CBS fires executive for 'deeply unacceptable' post after Vegas shooting”, Los Angeles Times (October 2, 2017).
Other available secondary sources include the Toronto Sun, Variety, Snopes, Washington Post, USA Today, The Hill, MSN, The Miami Herald, etc. Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:10, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
- Yes, yet another attempt to target condemn a liberal has been turned aside, what a shame. Per usual, this edit places undue weight on a completely unknown and non-notable person in CBS Legal. What this person said has no bearing on CBS the corporate entity. Perhaps it would have been so if the did not fire her, but we'll never know since they did the right thing. This edit was turned away at the Vegas shooting article, as it was here. Also, counting up the Google hits as you tally source after source doesn't help the case any, of course sites are going to report it today, that's the recentism-oriented nature of the media. Bookmark that google search, run it again on 11/2/2017, and we'll see if there was ever any legs to this story having a lasting effect or wider scope. I'm a bettin' man, and I say "nope", it won't. TheValeyard (talk) 23:25, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
- A few extra sources on it. Washinton Post, Snopes, Business Insider, The Hill, and CBS themselves. The acts of a VP in the company are notable for that company regardless if the individual is not notable by themselves. PackMecEng (talk) 00:29, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
- Wikipedia has a policy:
WP:WHATWIKIPEDIAISNOT:#NOTNEWSWP:WHATWIKIPEDIAISNOT#NOTNEWS (05:20, 4 October 2017 (UTC)). The point is that "in the news' is not in question. The point is that Wikipedia is not a newspaper or other type of news organization. These policies are what make it possible for editors who rarely ever meet face-to-face or have conversations outside of subjects directly related to editing this encyclopedia reach a consensus on the contents here. The lists of news items that cover this instance are primary sources. Wikipedia depends on secondary sources, sources that discus the meaning of this social media post and consequent firing. Even when these secondary sources are available, the better place is likely to be in a yet-to-be-written Wikipedia article on reactions to the massacre. The policies and guidelines of Wikipedia are what allow us to develop content here. — Neonorange (talk) 03:28, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
- Wikipedia has a policy:
Per WP:OR:
In general, the most reliable sources are:
- Peer-reviewed journals
- Books published by university presses
- University-level textbooks
- Magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses
- Mainstream newspapers
Mainstream newspapers are as good as it gets at Wikipedia, though I agree that their editorial/opinion content may be primary rather than secondary. Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:34, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
- Though it could be said that I have argued on both sides of the primary/secondary source divide, depending on the source, especially on how long before present time the document was produced, the Wikipedia policy WP:Identifying reliable sources#Primary, secondary, and tertiary is part of a policy that could be more clearly written. I take it to mean that, in this case, secondary sources are needed to give meaning to what is likely a one-day wonder that is mainly fodder for partisan arguments. Stuff happens. If secondary sources appear that discuss any meaning this post then be fired event has, then that will give a clue to what it any, Wikipedia article is a logical home. Until then, the number one Wikipedia policy for this discussion is
News reports. Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion. For example, routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia. While including information on recent developments is sometimes appropriate, breaking news should not be emphasized or otherwise treated differently from other information. Timely news subjects not suitable for Wikipedia may be suitable for our sister project Wikinews. Wikipedia is also not written in news style.
- from WP:WHATWIKIPEDIAISNOT#Wikipedia is not a newspaper. — Neonorange (talk) 05:46, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
- Are you trying to make the argument that all the sources listed above are primary sources? Or that this news will not have lasting impact on CBS itself? PackMecEng (talk) 12:50, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
- The article section in question violates WP:BLP, and I have therefore removed it. Specifically, it violates WP:BLP1E, which explicitly instructs us to avoid coverage of otherwise low-profile living individuals who are notable only in the context of a single event, regardless of whether that event is covered in reliable secondary sources. In other words, the BLP question in this case has little to do with the existence of reliable sources, and instead stems from a policy-level decision about the appropriateness of such material.
In this case, the subject of the material a) is covered by reliable sources only in the context of this one event; b) otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual; and c) the event in question is not earth-shakingly substantial in its own right (the example given in policy is the attempted assassination of Ronald Reagan; presumably we can all agree that making an insensitive comment on Twitter is not quite in the same league in terms of significance). The material thus meets the criteria set forth in WP:BLP1E and is therefore inappropriate inclusion on Wikipedia. Please note that this removal is taken as an enforcement measure for WP:BLP; the material should therefore not be restored absent a clear demonstration that it meets policy and a consensus to that effect. MastCell Talk 15:15, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
- @MastCell: As far as I can tell WP:BLP1E applies to the subject having an article of their own, not mention in another article. Specifically "Being in the news does not in itself mean that someone should be the subject of a Wikipedia article. We should generally avoid having an article on a person when each of three conditions is met:" which is different than what you mentioned "which explicitly instructs us to avoid coverage of otherwise low-profile living individuals". PackMecEng (talk) 15:28, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
- WP:BLP1E, like all of WP:BLP, applies to biographical material anywhere on Wikipedia. It is not limited to standalone articles, or else it could be quite easily gamed. It's right there in the lead of the policy page: "This policy applies to any living person mentioned in a BLP, whether or not that person is the subject of the article, and to material about living persons in other articles and on other pages". MastCell Talk 15:45, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
- Seriously, this is a big deal of encyclopedic proportions? Are you sure that it's not an attempt to do something a bit more than being neutral? Drmies (talk) 16:09, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
- Nope, not a big deal in the least. I agree the issue with the section is notability of the event, which is yet to be fully determined in relation to CBS as a whole. But BLP1E seems to be misapplied, as the main places I see that brought up is AFD for BLPs. With a broad interpretation of BLP1E like that saying basically no person can be mentioned in any articles unless they are notable enough for their own article is problematic. PackMecEng (talk) 16:16, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
- Yeah, but that's not saying basically that. This is an encyclopedia: we should be writing up content that has verifiable lasting influence. Drmies (talk) 18:21, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
- Exactly. WP:RECENTISM applies here. oknazevad (talk) 20:38, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
- Yeah, but that's not saying basically that. This is an encyclopedia: we should be writing up content that has verifiable lasting influence. Drmies (talk) 18:21, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
- Nope, not a big deal in the least. I agree the issue with the section is notability of the event, which is yet to be fully determined in relation to CBS as a whole. But BLP1E seems to be misapplied, as the main places I see that brought up is AFD for BLPs. With a broad interpretation of BLP1E like that saying basically no person can be mentioned in any articles unless they are notable enough for their own article is problematic. PackMecEng (talk) 16:16, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
- @MastCell: As far as I can tell WP:BLP1E applies to the subject having an article of their own, not mention in another article. Specifically "Being in the news does not in itself mean that someone should be the subject of a Wikipedia article. We should generally avoid having an article on a person when each of three conditions is met:" which is different than what you mentioned "which explicitly instructs us to avoid coverage of otherwise low-profile living individuals". PackMecEng (talk) 15:28, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
I started a discussion at the Biographies of Living Persons Noticeboard, here. Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:12, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
Forget the BLP issue. This is not a noteworthy event in the context of 90 years of CBS history. SPECIFICO talk 21:57, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
- You really think the John Batiste firing was way more significant? Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:16, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
- You know better than to put words in my mouth like that. It only weakens your already faltering stance. SPECIFICO talk 22:37, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
- So what do you think about inclusion of the John Batiste firing in this article? For it? Against it? I don’t see anything less significant about this other firing; quite the contrary. Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:41, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
- What do you think about the price of lemons in Portugal? SPECIFICO talk 22:46, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
- I'm agnostic about whether the Batiste stuff belongs in the article, but it's important to recognize that this is an apples-to-oranges comparison. Batiste was, and remains, a public figure independent of the controversy in question. The woman we're discussing is otherwise a private figure and non-notable outside the context of this one incident. That's a key distinction in WP:BLP, and the analogy to Batiste is inappropriate since it ignores this key distinction. MastCell Talk 23:54, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
- What do you think about the price of lemons in Portugal? SPECIFICO talk 22:46, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
- So what do you think about inclusion of the John Batiste firing in this article? For it? Against it? I don’t see anything less significant about this other firing; quite the contrary. Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:41, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
- You know better than to put words in my mouth like that. It only weakens your already faltering stance. SPECIFICO talk 22:37, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
I agree with what oknazevad and SPECIFICO said about this not being a noteworthy event in the context of 90 years of CBS history and is a case of WP:RECENTISM. It does not belong in this article. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 11:07, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
Batiste
The Batiste material was removed here today. I restored it at John Batiste with better sourcing and some tweaks for accuracy. Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:12, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
- Good move. --Nat Gertler (talk) 21:12, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
"War of the Worlds" Broadcast
Isn't the War of the Worlds broadcast panic a myth? That section of the article might need to be double checked and corrected with different, reliable, and verifiable sources.
Thanks! Your Pal, MooperVeltresleex 17:33, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
"A resurgent 'Jake and the Fatman'" during the early 90s?
"Under network president Jeff Sagansky, the network was able to earn strong ratings from new shows Diagnosis: Murder; Touched by an Angel; Dr. Quinn, Medicine Woman; Walker, Texas Ranger, Picket Fences and a resurgent Jake and the Fatman during this period, and CBS was able to reclaim the first place crown briefly, in the 1992–93 season..."
I think this sentence may need to be revised. Didn't Jake and the Fatman get cancelled after the 1991-92 season (before all the other shows mentioned in this sentence even debuted)? Jim856796 (talk) 18:05, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
Charlie Chaplin
Today I edited away the claim in a photo caption that Charlie Chaplin "chose CBS" to introduce the public to his voice after having done silent film for 20 years, because there was no source, and because the notes on the photograph provided no basis for the idea that this was his first use of radio.
Doing further research, I find that Chaplin was on the radio as early as 1923, before CBS was even on the air. As such, not only should my edits not be undone, we may want to consider removing the image altogether; it's hard to see that CBS did anything particularly notable for Chaplin, nor vice versa. --Nat Gertler (talk) 23:13, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
Lucille Ball responsible for the CBS eyemark?
I've heard a story that goes that Lucille Ball didn't like CBS' "spotlight" logo, and requested that it be changed to the familiar eyemark used today. Is this true or another television urban legend? MightyArms (talk) 19:45, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
- Online, I could only find this text about the CBS logo on a Tumblr page: "It was created by William Golden based on a Pennsylvania Dutch hex sign as well as a Shaker drawing. Early versions of the logo had the lens telescope to reveal the acronym. It was often depicted against a field of clouds. The new logo made its broadcast debut on October 20, 1951, five days after the premiere of their mega-hit “I Love Lucy.”" [[1]] In retrospect, I would guess not, but I hope this helps. Isthmus55 (talk) 20:38, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
Tiffany Network
I think this part in the lead needs more clarification:
It has also been called the Tiffany Network, alluding to the perceived high quality of its programming during the tenure of William S. Paley.
Where does the name Tiffany factor into this explanation? Is the "perceived high quality" of CBS under Paley being likened to the quality of Tiffany lamps? 199.120.30.205 (talk) 23:34, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
Split Proposal
The history section is too long and may be better off separated to a different article. kpgamingz (rant me) 18:20, 3 June 2022 (UTC)