Misplaced Pages

Talk:Comcast

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Bryce Carmony (talk | contribs) at 03:25, 14 March 2015 (→Merger Proposal). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 03:25, 14 March 2015 by Bryce Carmony (talk | contribs) (→Merger Proposal)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Comcast article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 2 months 
This page is not a forum for general discussion about Comcast. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Comcast at the Reference desk.
This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconCompanies High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Companies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of companies on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CompaniesWikipedia:WikiProject CompaniesTemplate:WikiProject Companiescompany
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Companies To-do:

 Here are some tasks awaiting attention:
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconPennsylvania High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Pennsylvania, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pennsylvania on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PennsylvaniaWikipedia:WikiProject PennsylvaniaTemplate:WikiProject PennsylvaniaPennsylvania
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconPhiladelphia High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Philadelphia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Philadelphia on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhiladelphiaWikipedia:WikiProject PhiladelphiaTemplate:WikiProject PhiladelphiaPhiladelphia
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconTelecommunications High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Telecommunications, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Telecommunications on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TelecommunicationsWikipedia:WikiProject TelecommunicationsTemplate:WikiProject TelecommunicationsTelecommunications
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Comcast article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 2 months 

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

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. 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.

  1. "Denver Business Journal". http://www.bizjournals.com/. American City Business Journals. Retrieved 6 June 2014. {{cite web}}: External link in |website= (help)
  2. "Office of General Counsel". http://transition.fcc.gov. Federal Communications Commision. Retrieved 6 June 2014. {{cite web}}: External link in |website= (help)
  3. "Federal Communications Commission". www.fcc.gov. Federal Communications Commision. Retrieved 6 June 2014.
  4. "Forbes Online". http://www.forbes.com. Pars International. Retrieved 6 June 2014. {{cite web}}: External link in |website= (help)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.141.52.212 (talk • contribs) 03:22, 6 June 2014‎

Removal of criticism summary in the lead section

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 Justinw303 (talk · contribs) 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.

Per WP:LEAD, 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. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 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. Constablequackers (talk) 10:32, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
Please remember that there is a separate article dedicated to Criticism of Comcast, 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. - BilCat (talk) 09:14, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
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. Constablequackers (talk) 09:35, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Merger Proposal

I propose Merging Criticism of Comcast with Comcast to create an article that represents a NPOV without forking POVs ( one priase one critical ) ] (talk) 21:10, 12 March 2015 (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. Constablequackers (talk) 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. Bryce Carmony (talk) 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. Smarty9108 (talk) 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. Bryce Carmony (talk) 03:25, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
Categories: