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 Constablequackers (talk | contribs) at 08:19, 26 October 2018. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 08:19, 26 October 2018 by Constablequackers (talk | contribs)(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 

Template:Vital article

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.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconMedia High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Media, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Media 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.MediaWikipedia:WikiProject MediaTemplate:WikiProject MediaMedia
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Media To-do List:

 Here are some tasks awaiting attention:
WikiProject iconUnited States: Mississippi
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Mississippi.
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

Confusing sentence

In the following sentence under the Criticism section:

"Comcast refused to correct the name on their bill after bringing it to the attention of numerous customer service outlets for the company by explaining that Ricardo is the legal name of the customer, so the Browns turned to consumer advocate Christopher Elliott."

Two things are unclear:

1- Who is "bringing (the bill) to the attention..."? Sense dictates it's the customer, but from the way the sentence is phrased, it sounds like it's Comcast who's doing it (which would be against their own interests).

2- Since Ricardo Brown's name was changed to "Asshole Brown" in the bill, how could Comcast possibly defend itself by alleging that "Ricardo" is the customer's real name? It would be like making a drawing with the sky colored red, and when someone asks you why did you paint the sky red, you answer "because skies are blue".

Ericobnn (talk) 22:04, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Helpful edits reverted

Hi @Constablequackers: can you please explain why you reverted my edits to the page? My edits addressed broken sources and unsourced content, and rephrased content that wasn't neutral/was biased. The page is also out of chronological order and is difficult to follow from a readability standpoint, and my edits began addressing this issue. I was just wondering if you could explain your reasoning. Thank you! GroundFloor (talk) 17:53, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi, GroundFloor. I saw your edits last week and noticed that they altered or outright removed a lot of material that has been in place on Comcast's Misplaced Pages page for several years now. While I have no problem with you updating broken links, you seemed to be deliberately removing information that drew attention to many of the company's various controversies over the years. This information is entirely neutral, fact-based, backed-up with sourced content, and should remain in place. Constablequackers (talk) 09:19, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
@Constablequackers:, in respect to the lead, the paragraph I pared down gave undue weight to criticisms that are not considered prominent controversies MOS:LEAD. The majority of content here was from press releases and sources that were more opinion that fact (an award that was based on a reader poll, which is also mentioned later on the page), many of which are 5+ years old. I didn’t remove it completely, but pared it down to prevent this section from jeopardizing the page’s WP:NPOV. Most of the content can still be found further on the page (there is an entire criticism/controversy section), but it doesn’t belong in this form in the lead.
The second edit to the Corporate offices section simply updated the content. The last time it was updated was 2005 and the information was out of date. The Employee relations section was out of chronological order, confusing and didn’t reflect WP:NPOV. Again, nothing was completely removed here, but reworded in a more neutral way and reordered for ease of understanding. I would like to propose reinstating these edits and then discussing any issues/changes you may have. I just don’t see how reverting it completely is helpful. GroundFloor (talk) 16:19, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
If we enter into any sort of discussion over what can be considered a "prominent controversy," we could be at this for next several years. Even attempting to define that term could be quite difficult. Going through the article, which is quite large, to remove "press releases" (do you mean articles from sources that largely consist of material from press releases or other publications?), both positive and negative, would also require a great deal of time. Ditto for any sources that are over 5 years old. There are many of these throughout the article.
As for chronological order, there are several other sections that also jump around in their timelines for the sake of coherency, and the article as a whole consists of sections that jump back and forth throughout Comcast's 40+ year history. The "Employee Relations" section is focused on the company's problematic corporate policies and how they impact their staff as well as their customers. Why should a few primarily industry awards that are nearly a decade old become the focus by being placed at the top of that section? There should be a reason beyond mere chronological order.
Ultimately, I think what you've been focusing on should be rather low priority for an article with larger problems, namely the fact that at least a third of it is currently devoted to the company's various attempts to purchase other companies like 20th Century Fox. Should those events really occupy so much space? Constablequackers (talk)
I agree that the article needs a lot of work. My plan was to begin at the top and work my way down, as I typically do with articles of this size. That being said, I can agree to compromise and make adjustments to other issues on the page first if you feel those require more attention. However, I stand by what I've said about certain content not belonging in the lead. By no means am I suggesting that all old content/sources be removed. I am merely pointing to the fact that the topics covered in the lead were mentioned in the media few times by sources that are less than credible/prominent and haven't remained prominent. It doesn't make sense that those be included in something that is supposed to be a general overview of a topic, especially at the risk of remaining neutral. Can cross that bridge when we come to it after addressing some of the additional issues you've mentioned. GroundFloor (talk) 14:29, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
I fear we're drifting into the realm of extreme subjectivity. As you probably know, Comcast has courted many controversies over the years and remains a company that is often criticized by its customers, the media, industry watchdogs, etc. Something to this effect arguably must remain in the lead. Striving for neutrality is a worthwhile endeavor but avoiding or outright removing this content is by no means neutral. Your original edits, made a few weeks ago, seemed to be trying to remove or attenuate much of this coverage. Whether a source remains "prominent" in the year 2018 and the future should be irrelevant, especially when media organizations routinely fold, and when the content involved relates to events that happened several years ago. I also find it curious that you felt no need to remove Comcast's failed merger with Time Warner from the lead. Please also keep in mind that the content you want to alter has also been in place on Comcast's page for several years now and no else seems to feel the need to change it. So, again, is there really a need for this on a page with larger and more immediate concerns? Constablequackers (talk) 08:19, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
Categories: