| Revision as of 16:11, 31 March 2015 editSineBot (talk | contribs)Bots2,555,980 editsm Signing comment by Pistongrinder - "→Spinning off company with Chief Financial Officer Michael J. Angelaki: new section"← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 14:41, 21 November 2024 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,303,087 editsm Archiving 1 discussion(s) to Talk:Comcast/Archive 2) (bot |
| (97 intermediate revisions by 52 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
|
|
|
{{Talk header}} |
|
{{Talk header}} |
|
{{Not a forum|Comcast}} |
|
{{Not a forum|Comcast}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|vital=yes|1= |
|
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1= |
|
|
{{WikiProject Companies|class=B|importance=high}} |
|
{{WikiProject Companies |importance=high}} |
|
{{WikiProject Pennsylvania|class=B|importance=high}} |
|
{{WikiProject Pennsylvania |importance=high}} |
|
{{WikiProject Philadelphia|class=B|importance=high}} |
|
{{WikiProject Philadelphia |importance=high}} |
|
{{WikiProject Telecommunications|class=B|importance=high}} |
|
{{WikiProject Telecommunications |importance=high}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Media |importance=High}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject United States |importance=High |MS=yes |MS-importance=low}} |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
|
|
|
{{Auto archiving notice|bot=MiszaBot I|age=60|dounreplied=yes}} |
|
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
|archiveheader = {{atnhead|noredlinks=y}} |
|
|archiveheader = {{atnhead|noredlinks=y}} |
| Line 18: |
Line 19: |
|
|archive = Talk:Comcast/Archive %(counter)d |
|
|archive = Talk:Comcast/Archive %(counter)d |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
== style issues == |
|
|
The very first sentence in this article sounds like an advertisement. It really should be written simply as "Comcast Corporation, formerly registered as Comcast Holdings, is a US based mass media and communications company. It is currently ranked as having the highest revenue in the world as a International Media Corporation. |
|
|
== Comcast and AT&T Merger == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Ambiguous alert (woo!) == |
|
I feel that the discussion of the merger referenced in item 72, not only leads the audience to presume that comcast has current holdings in AT&T U Verse, but also the source has no affiliation with the security and exchange commission. |
|
|
|
|
|
<ref>{{cite web|title=Denver Business Journal|url=http://www.bizjournals.com/denver/stories/2003/03/24/focus1.html?page=all|website=http://www.bizjournals.com/|publisher=American City Business Journals|accessdate=6 June 2014}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|title=Office of General Counsel|url=http://transition.fcc.gov/transaction/attcomcast.html|website=http://transition.fcc.gov|publisher=Federal Communications Commision|accessdate=6 June 2014}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|title=Federal Communications Commission|url=http://www.fcc.gov/encyclopedia/att-comcast-merger-page|website=www.fcc.gov|publisher=Federal Communications Commision|accessdate=6 June 2014}}</ref> The current Direct TV merger illustrates that competition between the two independent companies exist, and reference the previous use of broadband vs the new DSL method.<ref>{{cite web|title=Forbes Online|url=http://www.forbes.com/sites/dorothypomerantz/2014/05/01/why-comcast-should-cheer-for-att-to-buy-directv/|website=http://www.forbes.com|publisher=Pars International|accessdate=6 June 2014}}</ref> |
|
|
|
:''"Comcast is described as a family business. Brian L. Roberts, its chairman, president and CEO, is the son of founder Ralph J. Roberts. Roberts owns or controls about 1% of all Comcast shares…"'' |
|
{{reflist}} |
|
|
|
Yes, but which Roberts? – ] (]) 07:33, 29 January 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
:Erm, that should've been "''Ambiguity'' alert". Apparently the mobile version of WP's editor doesn't let us correct our Talk topics, just reply to them. I'm married, so this seems familiar. – ] (]) 07:36, 29 January 2022 (UTC) |
|
<small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 03:22, 6 June 2014</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Financial performance: Aug. 25, 2023 changes == |
|
== Removal of criticism summary in the lead section == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Greetings Wikipedians! Two issues here: 1) The narrative part of this section seemed to be outdated. There was text about results from 5-10 years ago but nothing about more recent years. I deleted the outdated text and added a brief, non-judgmental summary of 2022, supported by citations. 2) A web site called "Simply Wall Street" is cited multiple times by prior editors. How do we know that web site is a reliable source? I'd prefer to see something written by a firm or publication that is closer to Misplaced Pages standards. The boilerplate on "Simply Wall Street" is not impressive: "Simply Wall Street Pty Ltd (ACN 600 056 611), is a Corporate Authorised Representative (Authorised Representative Number: 467183) of Sanlam Private Wealth Pty Ltd (AFSL No. 337927)." Full disclosure: I have no conflict of interest or affiliation with Comcast apart from the fact that I use their cable TV and internet products. Cordially, ] (]) 14:38, 25 August 2023 (UTC) |
|
A consensus was reached a while back regarding the wording and inclusion of a summary of the criticism material in the lead section; that discussion also involved an RFC as well as a thread at ANI: |
|
|
*] |
|
|
*] |
|
|
However, recently {{user|Justinw303}} has been wanting to remove that material. Given the prior consensus, a discussion is needed before wholesale removal to determine if consensus on the inclusion has changed. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Logo Update from February 2024 == |
|
Per ], the lead should "''summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies''" - so I do agree with a mention in the lead section. However, I would also agree that the phrasing again needs to be cleaned up to be presented more neutrally in the lead. The section is for a high-level introduction, not providing details of the criticisms - which is more appropriately contained in its own section. --- ] <small>(] • ])</small> - 22:42, 6 March 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
: It think it's fine in its current form. Comcast is one of the most, if not *the* most, controversial corporation in America these days. They're constantly in the news for their ongoing PR disasters, customer service woes, attempts to take over Time Warner, their stance on net neutrality, etc. These are all topics that should definitely be addressed in the introduction because Comcast has become so synonymous with these issues. ] (]) 10:32, 9 March 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{edit COI/accepted}} |
|
:: Please remember that there is a separate article dedicated to ], and that is where most of the details of the criticisms belong. Every company has incompetent or mean employees, but that doesn't mean that we cover every single incident in nauseating detail, or even just the most recent ones. I'm fine with the mention in the Lead that Justinw303 has removed, and I've reverted his removal at least once myself. It should probably be rewritten to be more neutral though. - ] (]) 09:14, 10 March 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Comcast logo was updated in early 2024 to include a reflection layer that's not represented here. The new SVG logo is available on Wikimedia Commons, can someone update this here? The correct version of the logo is reflected at https://corporate.comcast.com and at https://brand.comcast.com. |
|
::: Thanks for bringing this up here. You've got to keep in mind that Comcast's problems in these areas go above and beyond that of your typical American company. They're constantly in the news for these problems and their issues with poor customer service and terrible employee relations have been ongoing for several years now. It's almost as if Comcast has become an example of how *not* to run a telecommunications company. While the incidents in question may number two or three they're indicative of larger issues and concerns. This is why they should be included in this article. Perhaps not at such length and they could use additional context but, given the attention they received, they warrant inclusion. ] (]) 09:35, 11 March 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
] |
|
== Merger Proposal == |
|
|
I propose Merging ] with ] to create an article that represents a NPOV without forking POVs ( one priase one critical ) ] (]) 03:25, 14 March 2015 (UTC) Carmony]] (]) 21:10, 12 March 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
] (]) 02:29, 6 June 2024 (UTC) |
|
: I would suggest that things be left in their current state. There's soooooo much ground to cover when it comes to this company and its various controversies. If we merged that article into this one, 9/10ths of it will be comprised of critiques. Comcast has a quite long history when it comes to PR disasters. ] (]) 09:25, 13 March 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
::Hey Consta, I appreciate your feedback, I agree that a simple cut and paste over would leave things worse than they are. however, I think what we can do is restructure the layout of the comcast information. We could make an article "Comcast Controversies" that could be the main article for controversies. Controversies are a topic, "Criticism" is just a point of view. If comcast has a lot of lawsuits involving them we can create an article "Comcast Litigation" Because a lawsuit isn't really a critique, but it is something noteworthy especially if the lawsuit creates precedents. Currently we have 2 articles for 1 topic ( comcast general ) but we just have 2 povs ( critical and non critical ) when ideally what we would want is multiple topics to create multiple articles ( History of Comcast, Comcast Controversies, Comcast Litigation, etc) I know it is a lot of work. but the end result will be NPOV articles addressing topics. ] (]) 00:39, 14 March 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Comment'''. No. In my honest opinion, there is too much criticism about this company that there needs to be an article about it. But since the article is mainly about Comcast itself, I wouldn't mind merging it. ] (]) 03:18, 14 March 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
::I think the best way to handle criticism is to put it in the topic it is about. If comcast is criticized for anti-trust practices. make an section "Anti-trust" and put all information about it there. when we say "Criticism of comcast" what do we mean? would we include the criticism that it is one of the top 40 most diverse workplaces in 2015 according to Black Enterprise? or is that not allowed since it could be seen as positive criticism and we limit it to only negative? if we are limiting it only to "negative" how do we decide what negative is? we decide by leaving NPOV and having a POV. That's why topics are safe and "criticism" is a slope that always leads us away from NPOV. Comcast has done things that are not flattering absolutely, so we create sections and articles about those topics and we post the information about it. We aren't here to say "here's the good looking comcast article" and "here's the bad looking comcast article" we are here to make 1 article to cover comcast, and any sub-articles needed for topics that are big enough. ] (]) 03:25, 14 March 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
::: Honestly, I think what you're offering here is a solution in search of problem. Your comment about the diverse workplace thing is especially confusing and odd. Such information is one of the company's few positive traits and can by no means be defined as any sort of critique, unless one is arguing that having a diverse workforce is a bad thing. I would support renaming the page "Comcast Controversies" but I don't think it's really necessary. That aside, I think there's way too much information about Comcast's various controversies/PR disasters/etc. to merge it all into the company's main page. It's all so nefarious that it deserves its own page (if only because adding it here would increase the article's length by at least double). ] (]) 09:47, 16 March 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
:::: Controversies are not necessarily criticisms though is the point. Controversies typically draw criticism but they aren't criticism in and of themselves. the criticism is about the controversy, so lets say for example we had an article "Comcast Controversies" think how easily we could write it NPOV. Comcast did this, critics said this. It would roll out of our keyboards beautifully. instead with this "Criticism" article what do we write? could we have a "criticism of criticism" as the counter argument? it would look silly. "Comcast Litigation" would be another useful article since Lawsuits are not criticism, they are lawsuits, the actions that provoke lawsuits can draw criticism. so in a article about litigation it would be so easy to source the criticisms. but currently we have such a bad article. for example look at this part: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:This is the correct and current logo that appears on the website. ] (]) 15:04, 6 June 2024 (UTC) |
|
*Crimes by contractors |
|
|
There have been instances of attack, theft, rape and other crimes by Comcast contractors. These have taken place during home installations, service calls, door-to-door flyering, and neighborhood visits. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Notifying about SpinCo == |
|
Certainly this is controversial. but how is this a "criticism" is there someone who is saying "because the contractors did this, I criticise comcast" no, we don't have it written like that, the way we write it is as if to say "certainly YOU the READER should criticise comcast look at how bad this is" that's not NPOV. A "Comcast Controversies" would so easily handle this. Crimes of Contractors - then we provide the source. and let the reader make up their mind what to think. If a SPECIFIC criticism is about these crimes, by all means we can source it. you have to admit that the section "Crimes by contractors" is lacking a specific person ( our group ) giving the criticism. ] (]) 10:34, 16 March 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Please see ] for discussion related (more directly) to it. <span style="color:#7E790E;">2601AC47</span> (]|]) <span style="font-size:80%"><span style="color:grey;">Isn't a IP anon</span></span> 13:31, 20 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
== Spinning off company with Chief Financial Officer Michael J. Angelaki == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:Moreover, any chance that we could proceed with ] or ]? <span style="color:#7E790E;">2601AC47</span> (]|]) <span style="font-size:80%"><span style="color:grey;">Isn't a IP anon</span></span> 13:33, 20 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
Bloomberg.com is reporting, March 2015, that Comcast is investing in a new company with CFO Angelaki that "will focus on investments in growth businesses around the world." Where is the best place to include this information in the article? Its own section under "Divisions and Subsidiaries" or under the subsection of "Venture Captial"? <ref>http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-03-31/comcast-to-invest-4-billion-in-new-company-with-cfo-angelakis</ref> <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 16:10, 31 March 2015 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
Greetings Wikipedians! Two issues here: 1) The narrative part of this section seemed to be outdated. There was text about results from 5-10 years ago but nothing about more recent years. I deleted the outdated text and added a brief, non-judgmental summary of 2022, supported by citations. 2) A web site called "Simply Wall Street" is cited multiple times by prior editors. How do we know that web site is a reliable source? I'd prefer to see something written by a firm or publication that is closer to Misplaced Pages standards. The boilerplate on "Simply Wall Street" is not impressive: "Simply Wall Street Pty Ltd (ACN 600 056 611), is a Corporate Authorised Representative (Authorised Representative Number: 467183) of Sanlam Private Wealth Pty Ltd (AFSL No. 337927)." Full disclosure: I have no conflict of interest or affiliation with Comcast apart from the fact that I use their cable TV and internet products. Cordially, BuzzWeiser196 (talk) 14:38, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
The Comcast logo was updated in early 2024 to include a reflection layer that's not represented here. The new SVG logo is available on Wikimedia Commons, can someone update this here? The correct version of the logo is reflected at https://corporate.comcast.com and at https://brand.comcast.com.
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
