Wikipedia

Talk:CNN controversies/Archive 2

< Talk:CNN controversies
Latest comment: 5 years ago by Maxxx12345 in topic Redditor controversy moved
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Adding Discretionary Sanctions

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

"Black voters"/ "felons" controversy

Latest comment: 7 years ago24 comments5 people in discussion

Please read WP:POV and WP:UNDUE, those pages explain why we do not tolerate edits like that. [1] (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 20:59, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm not adding anything new, the content was in the CNN page. A user was moving minor controversies to this page and forgot to move this paragraph. I moved it for him. This has been discussed in Talk:CNN as I mentioned several times. If you wish to remove content, provide an explanation for it next time instead of just reverting without communication.
Now, concerning the paragraph in question... Why do you question WP:POV? There is attribution in the text ("conservative reporters have criticized"). It is in a controversies article, it was widely reported (by the conservative reporters who made the criticism). Why would say it has undue weight here? I don't like the pages that made the criticism either, that doesn't mean it shouldn't be listed in a controversies article - which should be complete. Saturnalia0 (talk) 21:07, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Who cares where it came from, shit is shit and should be deleted. The burden is on you to prove that an addition is an improvement, but you cannot because it isn't. Oh, and controversies articles suck, just like controversies sections. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 21:11, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
"shit is shit and should be deleted"? Please explain your removal in terms of policy, not in terms of "I don't like what I see, so I'll remove it", because it makes it seem like that is what you are trying to do - how do you expect one to assume good faith, then? "the burden is on you to prove that an addition is an improvement, but you cannot because it isn't." Well if you say that I cannot possibly explain, because, you say so, "it isn't", then why debate? It is not an addition, it's a paragraph being moved from another article. You are the remover, the burden is on you to explain the removal. You did so (at first), I explained why I disagree, and you proceed to say "shit is shit". Saturnalia0 (talk) 21:15, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
WP:POV and WP:UNDUE are policy (wp:undue is part of wp:pov). Please read WP:BURDEN. The original location of that text is irrelevant. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 21:17, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I saw that and I already replied to it. You proceeded to say "shit is shit and should be removed" and repeat yourself. Saturnalia0 (talk) 21:20, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
You have to prove that the addition is an improvement. You cannot because it isn't. Are you going to try? I don't really see the point, but if you insist on trying then I'll probably read it. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 21:22, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
This is a controversies article. The edition adds a controversy which was widely reported by conservative outlets - major ones, whether we like them or not. It adds information about a relevant controversy to a controversies article, with attribution. Saturnalia0 (talk) 21:29, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
IMHO all controversies articles should be deleted. Per WP:RS we require reliable sources, per WP:POV we require neutrality and due weight. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 21:32, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. -- WP:UNDUE (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 21:34, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes, you already said that and I already replied to it. I'll wait to see if anyone else has anything to add to the discussion, since we cannot agree on whether the paragraph should be removed or not. Be civil and communicate your removals next time. Saturnalia0 (talk) 21:37, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
@Saturnalia0: Even if you would be able to find 10 people who agree with you that still does not overrule policy. WP:POV is policy. Inb4 meat or sock. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 21:40, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
I'm aware. It is your interpretation, whoever, that there is a WP:POV issue. That is precisely the matter being discussed. Saturnalia0 (talk) 21:43, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Like a wise potato once wrote: "Facts are facts. Opinions are opinions. Shit is shit." That diff contains 3 urls, and none of them are reliable sources. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 21:45, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
There is no dispute, I assume, that CNN actually published the article? The article itself can be linked, if need be. Saturnalia0 (talk) 21:58, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
I am one of those high-tech potatoes who can use Google, you may have heard about us. Do you like Rick and Morty? (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 22:08, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
I don't think a handful unreliable, biased sources getting their dander up over a CNN article is printworthy for this article. If it was a widely-seen criticism, such as appearing in actual, multiple, reliable sources, then it may be ok. TheValeyard (talk) 00:45, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Shit is indeed shit and should be reverted; I have just reverted the IP who came by and dropped this hot potato back in. It doesn't take a content editor to see that this is nothing but partisan gossip based on unreliable sources. Drmies (talk) 03:22, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
Really Drmies!? Check the sourcing for the first paragraph of the subsection on the complaints about Sanders winning the debate polling but Hillary being declared the victor by CNN. It's no better and arguably worse: The Daily Caller which is always deprecated when it's used as a source for stories that please the right; The Daily Kos, enough said; and a bunch of other obscure stuff. As I left it, the "Trump wants to court Blacks but doesn't want felons to vote" story was sourced to a perfectly legitimate newspaper, The Deseret News; a column in The Hill; and an article by the highly regarded legal commentator Jonathan Turley. It's also in Daily Caller whose articles are apparently perfectly OK when they speak up for Bernie. Motsebboh (talk) 04:12, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
I'll give you Turley--but the thing in The Hill is just a bloggy opinion piece by someone not as famous as Turley. But worse, the writing is just not OK--"Some reporters and commentators have criticized CNN for the implication that "black voters" are somehow related to "felons", implying subtle racism by the headline". That's weaselish to begin with, but check the actual statement: the sources say that (inadvertently) CNN made "black" synonymous with "felons". Mind you, that's some commentators, interpreting a headline. But our text says "implying racism"--I suppose that's CNN doing the implying? That's not verified by the sources. But even if they did--this headline is a "controversy"? Every fart or tweet is now of encyclopedic value? BTW, I'm not going to look at your other example, but the Daily Caller is never OK, as far as I'm concerned. Drmies (talk) 04:31, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
To respond to the "the complaints about Sanders winning the debate polling" part, wasn't that the "debate polling" was an online, self-selecting poll? If so, then it has nothing to do with determining who wins a debate. Any criticism on that angle displays a fundamental ignorance of statistics, therefore is fringey by definition and doesn't belong in an article. TheValeyard (talk) 05:00, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, but that's not how we determine what should be included in an article. Lot's of ignorant notions draw news coverage. Motsebboh (talk) 05:12, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
Actually, it is how we determine it. The "biased opinion poll" criticism was made by fringe, non-reliable sources. TheValeyard (talk) 13:41, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
I was speaking generally not specifically to our situation here. I've already pointed out some highly questionable sourcing for the material on the Hillary/Sanders polling. If you think it's really that bad you should probably delete it. Motsebboh (talk) 16:28, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

1st paragraph "Coverage of the 2016 Us Presidential Election" section

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This is a bit odd, Valeyard. Just above you've said that the material in the first paragraph of the "2016 Election coverage" (re the complaints of Sanders supporters on CNN's treatment of on-line polls favoring Sanders) is "fringey" and doesn't belong in the article. I suggested that you might, then, remove it. Having examined the sources myself I concluded the same and proceeded to remove the paragraph. You then reverted my edit and restored the paragraph. What gives? Your edit comment says that cbs.com is a reliable source. But CBS is the source for the next paragraph in the article, not the one which I removed and you restored. Motsebboh (talk) 05:23, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on CNN controversies. 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:

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 05:13, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Proposed merge with CNN blackmail controversy

Latest comment: 7 years ago85 comments37 people in discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The merge is supported. No strong/valid objections to WP:NEWS in the oppose !votes.Winged Blades Godric 04:44, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

WP:NOTNEWS; doesn't need to be written about in three separate places, not likely to need its own article. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:07, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Hasn't a "lot" already happened? Ted Cruz, Donald Trump Jr., and others are suggesting a criminal offensive. Don1182 (talk) 12:56, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
And how is it a violation of NPOV? It's been front page for multiple days, and legal challenges may be forecoming. Don1182 (talk) 12:47, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

*Let it be, for now - the scandal is barely over - it's been less than one day since it's beggining. I say we should let this page be for at least a few days and see how the story develops/whether the page will grow in size and content or not. It certainly does not seem like a good idea to remove a page in less than 12 hours since it's creation because (the story is not yet significant). Also, I say we should summon someone neutral to make we final decision, because I feel like most of the people in this thread make have made their decision based on their personal opinion about Trump/alt-right/convservative thought, yet. It certainly does seem like the dude abode me did just so. --DraKyry (talk) 03:26, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

This editor was indef banned for disruptive behavior and sock puppetry.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:54, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
Really? Time for you to review Assume good faith, my friend. General Ization Talk 03:30, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
No, we don't keep around a piece of garbage POV article just because "to see how the story develops". That's ridiculous, as is this "article". And DraKyry looks like a classic sleeper/troll account. A couple (quite interesting) edits back in 2010, nothing for seven years, then pops back in to push this bullshit non-story on Wikipedia. Also, they just reverted five times in less than an hour. Obvious WP:NOTHERE.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:36, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

:::Yeah, not after looking at the vandalism attempts some of those people had engaged in: http://imgur.com/a/auaEa & http://imgur.com/a/LCyyb --DraKyry (talk) 03:35, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

That's not at all vandalism, none of it. Maybe disruptive editing and edit warring (by both of you), but not vandalism. SkyWarrior 03:40, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

::::: Okay, the burden of proof is on you now. If you claim that it's not vandalism but disruptive editing - fine, call your vandalism whatever you want. But if u accuse me of being equally distruptive please, prove me with the proof that I did something on par to those two screenshots. --DraKyry (talk) 03:49, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

I'll admit, calling it "disruptive editing" may have been a stretch, but you (and Marek to an extent) have both been edit warring; your first image link confirms this. SkyWarrior 03:53, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support per WP:NOTNEWS and Zrowny. We don't need a separate article for this; a mention here should suffice. SkyWarrior 03:29, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - The controversy needs to be described in the CNN controversies article (under the section Andrew Kaczynski "Redditor non-identification controversy") while it can also be mentioned in the Andrew Kaczynski article. Even if it was notable long enough to justify an article, "CNN Blackmail Controversy" would imply that CNN was actually blackmailing the user, as opposed to being accused of blackmailing. Yoshiman6464 ♫🥚 04:26, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Update: I have changed the name of the section since the controversy itself extends past the Journalist who broke the story. Other than that, I still support the merge for now. Yoshiman6464 ♫🥚 22:49, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Let it be, for now - This isn't just about a news story or lapse of ethics. The story is about a television station and a President of the United States engaged in a death match. I have never seen something like this before. I would let this develop. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.197.236.20 (talk) 04:35, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Let it be, for now - This is a big deal. It's too large of a story to be contained as a subsection. This is bigger than a "CNN controversy." Johnwk (talk) 05:43, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support per WP:NOTNEWS and others. In the event this does become too big for an article, which it isn't yet, then it can be spun-off again. Until then, the existence of the article is implying greater lasting significance than is supported by reliable sources. Grayfell (talk) 08:29, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose – I hope I'll never see the day when a news organization is accused of blackmailing some random person and reporting it becomes routine news reporting. Politrukki (talk) 08:42, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
People make accusations all the time. Being "accused" of something bad-sounding is routine. Not immediately reporting the name of an adult who made incendiary comments on the internet =/= blackmail. If reliable sources are even still talking about this in a week I'll be very surprised. Grayfell (talk) 08:48, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
Anyone can make accusations, but wide and "almost universal backlash"[2] is non-routine. The fact that there's significant national and international coverage suggests that the event is notable. At this point it's impossible to say whether this will have any lasting effects. Politrukki (talk) 13:02, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
Ted Cruz and leading figures of the GOP are "fringe"? Don1182 (talk) 12:47, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Multiple political figures are considering lawsuits on CNN. This seems like a topic that a lot of people don't like, but it will definitely have an effect. Ted Cruz has implied legal charges are coming. Don1182 (talk) 12:45, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
    Can you provide any sources that say "Multiple political figures are considering lawsuits on CNN"? I find that claim dubious.- MrX 13:34, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
That is not at all what the cited articles say. "Political figures" have no standing to file lawsuits in this case, if any charges were to come of this, it would stem from a complaint by the alleged victim, or action by the State AG. ValarianB (talk) 14:52, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
Don1182, neither of those sources say anything about "Multiple political figures are considering lawsuits on CNN". Perhaps you were reading the comments section of the Washington Times.- MrX 15:05, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
That means the name needs to be changed. Don1182 (talk) 14:12, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
A lawsuit against CNN is non-notable? It's still trending on Twitter, front page news, and will likely lead to legal action. This is highy significant. Don1182 (talk) 14:10, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
What lawsuit? - MrX 15:07, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
front page news. I subscribe to the NYT and WSJ. It was in the NYT business section; not the news section. I found no mention in the WSJ. Objective3000 (talk) 16:26, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment - I have a feeling that most people here are against coverage because they disagree with the drama. However, this is about notability. Don1182 (talk) 14:10, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
Something that is notable only because of its perceived (or promoted) drama is not truly notable by our standards. Put another way, notability cannot be manufactured by hype. General Ization Talk 16:30, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
Please assume good faith in talk page discussions. We are following policy here. I hate CNN and I'm conservative-leaning, but this is about WP policy. Nothing indicates so far this is deserving of its own article. NoMoreHeroes (talk) 21:58, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
There's a lot of talk of this being non-notable, but no one can explain why it isn't. This is going to likely go on for weeks, and Senators are weighing in. Don1182 (talk) 15:24, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
See above Don1182 (talk) 15:24, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
I looked and I didn't see anything other than you saying that a few senators gave their input and that you think this could become big. DARTHBOTTO talk•cont 19:08, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
I'd like to add that the story already died down a bit; most news coverage of it is from two days ago. A detailed, throrough section in CNN controversies seems enough. And even if it does eventually develop into a noteworthy lawsuit - not all lawsuits are notable. Don't see an article about Sarah Palin suing the NYT. NoMoreHeroes (talk) 16:43, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
This account was created just to participate in this vote.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:53, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

:::*I read this page. I would also advice you to read it too. It really hurts my feelings that one side of the discussion feels free to critisize the other side for not following wikipedia's rules, while it does not follow these rules itself. Look at the talk pages of related articles or the comments above - for example those made by (talk) I was probably wrong by calling the opposing side that, or even by saying that everyone on that side is the same. I feel like I had degraded my argument by saying that. But I strongly feel that this argument still stands - the main issue here for opposing side seems to be the politics. I know this is not a logical argument, but if you look at the history of contribution of like half the people who supported the merger in the discussions above - their contributions are mostly concerned about the modern US politics - and their narrative stays the same. These are the new hawkish liberal Westerners who feel like killing innocent peasants all around the world is good, Trump is evil, and CNN is GOd. I am sorry to say this, but this is a definitive (if not logical) proof, for me, that your side is totally politically motivated. Take care --Nigario.sss (talk) 20:15, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

  • hawkish liberal Westerners who feel like killing innocent peasants all around the world is good, Trump is evil, and CNN is GOd. People that don’t agree with you want to kill innocent peasants? Please read WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF. Your comments are far out of line and, frankly, just plain wrong. Objective3000 (talk) 20:25, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

:::::*This is not what I said, and u know that. You just made a strawman. I also looked at your contributions. Your contribtuions ar almost exclusivly centered around pages related to this whole CNN, Trump, fake news, Russia interference style. And you are always extremly pro-liberal (or whatever your ideology is called). Same applies to most of those who support merging this pages. Now, you can say whatever you want. But this is what I call politically motivated. This wiki cannot be saved. Goodluck. Nigario.sss (talk) 20:37, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

  • Can't provide logician arguments? Attack someone personally! Call him a troll!! And this is what you call an encyclopedia. Also, to further my argument about poltiical motivation. Look at this guy's history of contributions. Look at his talk page. look at the history of this page. Just a few days ago Volunteer Marek vandalized this page removing 1/3 of it's content, and nobody cares. He did the same to CNN blackmail page. Nigario.sss (talk) 20:58, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
  • It's funny you are accusing other of attacking you personally and avoiding logical argumentation when that is precisely what you're doing. You're violating WP:AGF by attacking those that disagree with you and claiming that anyone who disagrees with you is politically motivated (besides making additional absurd assertions). You have provided no arguments for your position as most arguments pro-merging here are taking Wikipedia policy into account, not their own opinions. The fact that you jump to label and insult those with diverging views instead of presenting cohesive arguments against merging is counter-productive to the encyclopedia. I am conservative-leaning, and I know many here are too, and are variously accused by both sides of having extraencyclopedic motivations. However, we are following policy. If you actually read the Support arguments here, you would know that. NoMoreHeroes (talk) 21:58, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
  • That was no strawman. Only a tiny portion of my edits have had any relation to CNN or Russia, and I have deleted anti-Trump edits and have !voted against anti-Trump material. In fact, none of the top ten mainspace pages that I have edited are political. You obviously have extremely strong opinions about political subjects. Your apparent anger and attacks against other editors suggest that you might be better looking at other areas of the encyclopedia. Objective3000 (talk) 21:02, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

::::::::::*If I open your contributions page right now I see 50 edits - all related to what I said. In fact, anyone can look at it, so I don't understand why are u trying to hide it. I have absolutely no opinions on any political matters what-so-ever (with the possible exeption of Gaddafi - but that's a different topic). I don't have any anger, and I feel like all of my arguments were logical and sound, while you are calling me names and ignoring the fact that most of your side had accounts almost exlusively dedicated to making political statements on an encyclopedia. In short: you should reverse your last sentence and apply it to you yourself. Now I am gonna go and edit some history pages of Morocco - I obviously have no business doing here. Nigario.sss (talk) 21:11, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

  • By the way, there is no correlation between making a lot of edits related to politically sensitive topics and being politically motivated. Guess what: politics is extremely and constantly controversial, and as such always causes a storm in Wikipedia. It's no surprise at all that editors always take time to handle the political article because it's a significant part of the encyclopedia and requires attention. It has nothing to do with opinions. We've had numerous anti-Trump pages deleted or moved for Wikipedia policy reasons strictly. This has nothing to do with being pro or anti Trump. I just hope you could see that. NoMoreHeroes (talk) 22:08, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

*:: I am not the guy, but I think the same and I just explained my position above. Take care Nigario.sss (talk) 20:41, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Your opinion, and not an argument. NoMoreHeroes (talk) 22:08, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
My perspective is that if Nigario.sss continues with his behavior, an AN/I report will be warranted. DARTHBOTTO talk•cont 22:37, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

::: Can you do it? I would very much like to see whether administration of this website is as incoherent and politically motivated as you are Nigario.sss (talk) 06:37, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

  • Support The POV fork at CNN blackmail controversy is an attempt to violate WP:NOTNEWS or is an attempt to add to the beat up over the incident. A company (CNN) did not like what a random person on the internet did. The company did what they legally could while trying not to unduly damage the person. Everything else is WP:UNDUE. Try a separate article in six months when WP:SECONDARY sources have written an analysis of its significance. Johnuniq (talk) 03:13, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

WWE material

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I've removed a paragraph devoted to criticism about CNN's interview of John Cena in a WWE special from 2007. I don't find the sources reliable, and I find it excessive weight given the lack of meaningful coverage in reliable sources, outside significance, etc. The sources cited are:

  • "Wrestling World News" - unclear whether this is reliable, and even if so, it's a fan/niche publication.
  • The WWE website itself - primary-sourced, involved party
  • A single op-ed published in the Baltimore Sun in 2007 by Kevin Eck, a former member of the "WWE creative team."

This doesn't seem sufficient. Additionally, the incident is briefly mentioned at the John Cena article, which seems more than enough. Neutralitytalk 13:40, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Seems fair to me. Saturnalia0 (talk) 15:20, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Undercover Videos/James O'Keefe

Latest comment: 7 years ago30 comments6 people in discussion

I was stunned when I came across the page and saw no mention of the CNN undercover video controversy. Was there a discussion or an edit that I may have missed that removed this controversy? This was a huge story, much bigger than a number of these other listed controversies. Hidden Tempo (talk) 22:56, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

It's not really a notable "CNN controversy"; no wrongdoing was identified, nothing really "controversial" was said or done, no employee was disciplined and there was no significant or meaningful lasting impact on CNN. The entire thing disappeared in a single news cycle; per WP:NOTNEWS, there's no real reason to say anything about it here. The "undercover videos" were, in short, a nothingburger. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:00, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
Eh? That's not what a "controversy" is. It doesn't matter if you think (or anyone else thinks) any wrongdoing was committed or if you think the revelations are a "nothingburger." A controversy is a source of pubic dispute, disagreement, strife. Many people (which you just opined) think that what we all saw on the videotape was just fine. Others saw it as confirmation what they had believed all along - that CNN's Russia coverage is "mostly bullshit" and "for ratings." The fact that there is disagreement is what defines this as a controversy, not how many news cycles it occupies. Furthermore, why did you use the word "unexplained" in your reversion of my reversion? As I explained, a user (I believe it was Volunteer Marek) removed large swaths of long-standing material without gaining consensus. That's not how it works, here. Just because a sockpuppet undid these edits makes no difference. Kindly self-revert and gain consensus before deciding to remove large percentages of an article. Thanks in advance. Hidden Tempo (talk) 23:08, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
You reinstated massive edits made by two separate sockpuppet accounts of a banned sockpuppeteer. If you want to take responsibility for edits by banned sockpuppets, you should gain consensus for them here on the talk page. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:16, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
No, I reverted the edits of a user who unilaterally decided to relieve the article of at least 25% of its content. Alex Bernstein reinsteated the material here. Are you calling Alex Bernstein a sockpuppet on this talk page? If so, WP:SPI is the appropriate place to do that, not here. Hidden Tempo (talk) 23:40, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
A quick look at the contributions for Alex Bernstein indeed demonstrates that they are blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet of DraKyry. So yes, I am calling them a sockpuppet, and they won't be able to respond here because they're permanently blocked from editing. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:43, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
Says he's account creation blocked, but that's neither here nor there. Intermediate edits made after the removal of big ol' chunks of longstanding material without consensus are not at all pertinent. Consensus is required on the talk page before doubling down on a crippling removal of material that's been there for years. I see a discussion was started in relation to some of these subsections - it should have been allowed to continue before editors unilaterally decide what's best for the article, even if they really, really think it should be removed. Hidden Tempo (talk) 05:06, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
Please do not wikilawyer over the obvious. The history of the article shows that Volunteer Marek pruned the article on 6 July 2017. It stayed like that for three days when a revert by Nigario.sss occurred. I immediately reverted with an explanatory edit summary. The article stayed pruned for another 18 days until a revert by Alex Bernstein which I again reverted (WP:SILENCE is assumed to be consent). The two reverts are from indeffed sockpuppets. Edits by blocked sockpuppets are not "neither here nor there", and there clearly is consensus to prune the article—apart from the socks there appears to be only one editor pushing for a return of the WP:UNDUE material. Johnuniq (talk) 05:47, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
Source coverage appears to be mostly about O'Keefe, not so much about CNN. The content belongs where it is - at the O'Keefe article. In here, if anything, a brief mention in Conflict with Trump administration I'd say. Saturnalia0 (talk) 23:12, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
But nobody in the Trump administration has anything to do with O'Keefe or the release of the videos. This is a CNN controversy, one of the biggest in its history, and it's not listed. CNN was forced to respond and defend the subjects of the videos. It probably should have its own article (although the AfD succeeded for some reason), and unquestionably should be listed as a controversy. Hidden Tempo (talk) 23:15, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
one of the biggest in its history [citation needed] — CNN's response to one of the videos was literally "lol." Not even conservative media outlets could make hay out of them. Reliable sources paid attention for about 36 hours, until it was clear that O'Keefe's "bombshells" were practice bombs filled with flour. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:18, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
Oh don't be cute, North. You know that's my own opinion, just like your opinion that the revelations were a "nothingburger." Yes, they initially responded with "lol" (which says far more about CNN than the seriousness of the controversy), and then later issued a longer, serious statement when they realized this wasn't going to just go away. Anyway, you're not going to self-revert? Just going to claim that my reinstatement of long-standing material was "unexplained" and triple-down on the removal? Hidden Tempo (talk) 23:30, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
You appear to be the only person in favor of your edits; there is, at best, no consensus for your edits. I won't claim there's a clear consensus against them, but given that you assumed responsibility for edits originally made by two blocked puppets of a banned sockmaster, I don't think it's improper at all for the burden to be on you to justify why a massive edit originally made by a banned sockpuppeteer is actually what's best for the encyclopedia. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:41, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
We keep taking two steps back here, North. First you revert my reversion with the edit summary that I gave "no explanation," which is false, as my edit summary shows. Then you say I'm reinstating edits made by a sockpuppeteer (not true, it was Volunteer Marek who originally removed 25% of the long-standing material from the article). Now you're claiming that if a sockpuppeter makes an edit, it can never be reinstated? You've been around here a long time, North. You know full well that WP:BURDEN is not applied to editors who revert deletions for long-standing material. The burden rests squarely on the shoulders of the editor who feels that 25% of the article (most of which is extremely long-standing) should be removed. The reversions were challenged, and you and Johnuniq(sp?) reinstated the deletions without discussion on the talk page. Now, if you want to get rid of a bunch of material on the basis that a supposed sockpuppet wants it to stay, that argument isn't going to hold up. But, I will certainly give you a heads up on your talk page if this can't get resolved on this talk page. Hidden Tempo (talk) 05:06, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
but nobody in the Trump administration has anything to do with ... the release of the videos - on second thought you are correct. It doesn't even belong under Conflict with Trump administration. Saturnalia0 (talk) 23:26, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
This is a James O’Keefe controversy, not a CNN controversy. It belongs in his article, not here. Objective3000 (talk) 00:08, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
What's your reasoning on that? It's a controversy surrounding CNN, involving multiple CNN employees (including the CEO, Jeff Zucker), and every RS. Is the Kathy Griffin beheading controversy a Kathy Griffin controversy or a CNN controversy? Because right now it's listed here, with the other controversies involving CNN employees (in this case a former CNN employee). Hidden Tempo (talk) 02:08, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
Actually, I would think the Kathy Griffin controversy belongs only in the Kathy Griffin article, not here. She cohosted CNN’s New Year’s Eve special once a year as a comedian. How does CNN bear any responsibility for something she posted on Instagram and Twitter on May 30th, about as far from New Year’s Eve as you can get? As for James O’Keefe, he has a long history of making highly edited videos specifically designed to deceive. What he does belongs in his article, not the articles of his victims as controversies. That would only serve to further his misleading narratives. Objective3000 (talk) 10:54, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
I agree and have removed it. Kathy G is not a CNN employee. O'Keefe's shenanigans have more of a leg to stand on for inclusion in this article, and his is pretty weak as it is. ValarianB (talk) 12:24, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
I don't agree at all, ValarianB. The reason Kathy Griffin isn't a CNN employee is because she was fired from CNN. CNN issued a statement regarding her termination. The face of the network, Anderson Cooper, tweeted out a statement about his disgust with his former colleague's behavior.[3] It was a huge controversy surrounding CNN and Griffin.
Regarding O'Keefe, the same arguments are made every time O'Keefe's videos come to light (although the "specifically designed to deceive" is OR and speculation). Regardless of how editors feel about O'Keefe's work, these videos were all about CNN. It's not even really much of a question. The videos capture a high level CNN employee referring to their Russia coverage (which comprises the bulk of their airtime) as "mostly bullshit" and "for ratings." Other CNN employees (including the CEO of CNN) were invoked and criticized for their Russia coverage. It's not even a question of whether or not this is a CNN controversy, and has nothing to do with who broke the story. Is Bill O'Reilly's termination a "New York Times controversy" because they reported on the harassment allegations? No. It's a Bill O'Reilly/Fox News controversy. Hidden Tempo (talk) 13:46, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
Are you suggesting an equivalence between the New York Times and James O'Keefe? Objective3000 (talk) 14:28, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
Lol let's not get into that one again. Right now, we're talking about a massive CNN controversy being excluded from the CNN controversies article. More than happy to get into all that other stuff on my talk page. Hidden Tempo (talk) 14:59, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
Griffin was never a "CNN employee", that is why her beheading antic has nothing to do with the network. She was signed to appear once per year for a few hours at a holiday event, and CNN terminated her contracted appearance this coming 12/31/17. ValarianB (talk) 17:15, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
That's semantics. You can't fire someone who's not your employee. If you agree to perform a service for a person or entity in exchange for financial compensation (and sign a contract, as Griffin did), you are that entity's employee. it doesn't matter how often she performed said service or what dates the service is/was provided. CNN was called on to terminate Griffin, and they obliged under the pressure. The CNN New Year's Show is going to be radically different this year due to Kathy Griffin's behavior. Major piece of CNN lore, here. Hidden Tempo (talk) 17:31, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
That is the heavily-biased Breitbart-like take on the matter I'm afraid. At no time during the Griffin affair was CNN ever blamed, implicated, or criticized for any role they had in the matter, because there wasn't a role to be had. Griffin had a yearly contracted appearance, presumably with a morals clause which is what was violated, and they terminated this year's deal. That's all there is to it. If CNN had decided to retain her for this year's festivities, that may have warranted a mention here. ValarianB (talk) 17:40, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
Don't be afraid, multiple left-wing and right-wing sources thoroughly covered CNN's action taken against their former employee. Anyway, thanks for the talk. Since only a few editors are voicing their agreement with the material, an RfC probably isn't the best way to go, but obviously this isn't going to be resolved here. Will let you know if/when any other steps are taken, especially in regards to the original gutting of the article by Volunteer Marek, which was contested multiple times. Hidden Tempo (talk) 17:58, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
CNN was not a party to the controversy. I am not sure why such a straightforward fact is so controversial, but it is what it is. As for Volunteer Marek's removal of extraneous and irrelevant content, you seem to have an unorthodox definition of "contested multiple times", which one would reasonably assume means "multiple users". Here is one confirmed sockpuppet edit here, another here by the same confirmed sockpuppet. We also have your attempt. So really, "multiple times" means "Hidden Tempo and a sock-master". Is that really the argument you wish to advance for retention of the material in question? ValarianB (talk) 19:29, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure why it's controversial, but a fact it most definitely is not. One of CNN's employees found themselves swirling with controversy which led to her termination by CNN with a statement from CNN, and another one from the face of CNN. It's a CNN controversy, which you disagree with. Not interested in your semantics or what you think is "unorthodox" and what's not. As I said, I'm still mulling over how to handle the gutting of the article. If the content dispute escalates, you will receive a notification. Take care. Hidden Tempo (talk) 19:59, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

It is not a "CNN controversy" no matter how much you wish it to be so, sorry. When there's only 1 editor (you)insisting on a thing and many other editors who disagree, the only resolution should be the dropping-of-the-stick. ValarianB (talk) 12:28, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
Disagree. As I said, I'm still mulling over the next action, here. If you think a 3-1 vote is enough to get other editors to do what you what, you're sadly mistaken. Stop trying to get people to think like you think and leave it be. Enough. Hidden Tempo (talk) 14:06, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Discussing individual controversies

Latest comment: 7 years ago10 comments4 people in discussion

Though I agree with most removals there are some that should stay in this article - which is about CNN controversies, not about CNN itself. As with previous restores I made, some incidents indeed were poorly sourced, but better sources are available:

Operation Tailwind

diff. No reason was supplied for removal. This is major. The story was controversial and was retracted and a public apology was made. People were fired and it prompted a lawsuit. Coverage by the The New York Times[4] (who called the apology a "devastating admission" of falsehoods), the Washington Post[5] (of the lawsuit that unfolded from the firing), ABC[6], etc. Definitively a stay I'd say. Saturnalia0 (talk) 19:24, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Misrepresentation of Hatebreed

diff. Got an article on Rolling Stone (magazine)[7], not an op-ed, CNN retracted the claim and the AFD issued a public apology. The Atlantic also ran a piece on it.[8]. Various others music-related magazines covered the issue as well, such as NME[9]. This seems very due for this article, but not for the main CNN one. Volunteer Marek MrX wouldn't you agree? Saturnalia0 (talk) 19:24, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Semi-automatic weapons

diff. There was originally only a Washington Times ref, but the Washington Post and others also covered the controversy.[10] Saturnalia0 (talk) 19:24, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Keith Kerr

diff. "Who cares" is not a valid reason when you have the New York Times, Fox News and others covering the controversy. Saturnalia0 (talk) 19:24, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

My guiding principle for removing several sections was that the sources cited were insufficient to establish due weight. Some of the content also bordered on trivial for an article about controversies of a major news network. If better sources can be found to support any the material that I removed, I have no objection to restoring it. The Hatebreed material seems to meet that criteria, but Volunteer Marek may have a different take. - MrX 20:33, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
If better and more extensive sourcing is provided then some of it can come back. Other stuff, like Keith Kerr is just BLP vios. More generally the article should only include things of lasting importance and most of these items do not meet that criteria.
More generally, this article as a whole is unencyclopedic (though that's a generic problem with these kinds of "lists" articles). An encyclopedic article would start with a survey of scholarly or other in-depth sources which have analyzed CNN and provide some insight into the subject rather than "here's some things that someone somewhere complained about".Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:55, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
I will take a better look at the Keith Kerr case and see if anything can be done to improve the article in general in the next couple days, thanks for the input. I gather there are no objections to the other cases? Saturnalia0 (talk) 01:25, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
I think the Hatebreed thing is too minor. On the other hand, the Tailwind probably belongs and maybe the semi auto weapons thing if better sourcing can be found.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:19, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

The Bahrain stuff. Are there more reliable sources? All it had was Glenn Greenwald and RT. The second one is not reliable and even the first one a bit dubious. To show that this is indeed a "controversy" this needs more than that.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:46, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

It looks to me like most of these individual controversies are notable on their own and can be moved to new articles if needed. For example, the HanAssholeSolo tweet story just turned up again as background in a news story today [11]. Exploring the angles of whether CNN is blackmailing and/or Trump is being childish simultaneously in context would be easier to do in a full article; this would also allow some reduction here per WP:summary style. Wnt (talk) 17:37, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Procedural note on challenged edits

Latest comment: 6 years ago26 comments9 people in discussion

@NorthBySouthBaranof, Objective3000, and MrX: You have all reverted some edits by IP contributors, which were challenging the removal of several paragraphs earlier today by Volunteer Marek. I would remind you that the "do not restore challenged edits" provision covers both additions and removals of long-standing and well-sourced material, except for egregious vandalism or BLP violations. Now one of the IPs has restored the disputed text, and I would advise all of you to discuss the merits here. I have no personal opinion on the material, have never edited this article, and will not participate in this discussion. — JFG talk 14:43, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for setting the record straight. There was some serious gaslighting misinterpretation on my talk page.[12] Dirty pool. 2A02:4780:BAD:25:FCED:1FF:FE25:109 (talk) 14:50, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
Please be civil. My edit, right or wrong, was a polite and well intentioned effort at stopping an edit war. Your response was accusatory and false. I don't play "dirty pool". O3000 (talk) 14:58, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
The IP Should be blocked for blatantly violating 1RR which is the only article restriction in effect according to the edit notice. I also strongly suspect that the IP is a sock of a blocked user, probably user:Hidden Tempo. Furthermore, the restrictions were not logged at WP:DSLOG, so the article is technically not even under edit restrictions. Ad Orientem, would you please fix this?- MrX 🖋 15:09, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
I should be blocked for violating DS even though technically there are no DS and you and two others also violated the DS but shouldn't be blocked because "reasons." What? I reverted DS violations, simple as that. I don't know who Hidden Tempo is but I'm not a sockpuppet, please be civil. Are we going to talk about the actual edits now? 2A02:4780:BAD:25:FCED:1FF:FE25:109 (talk) 15:21, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Thank you for bringing that to my attention. The 1RR editing restrictions have now been logged. Everyone involved here is strongly reminded that 1RR is in effect, and any further breaches will not be looked upon kindly. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:23, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
@Ad Orientem: What about consensus required? 2A02:4780:BAD:25:FCED:1FF:FE25:109 (talk) 15:30, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
[13] O3000 (talk) 15:36, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
Thank you Ad Orientem. The template on this talk page also needs to be fixed. (I would do it, but I don't know the name of the correct template).- MrX 🖋 15:31, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
@Ad Orientem: There seems to be an inconsistency, whereby the talk page shows a "consensus required" restriction, whereas the article's edit notice has just 1RR. Did you place the restrictions originally? If yes, which was it supposed to be? If no, who did it and can we get them to comment here? Pinging NeilN and Coffee who are familiar with this process. — JFG talk 15:44, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
Ok I think I have corrected the edit notice so that it is now is in sync with the talk page notice. If there are further issues let me know. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:07, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
Ack! You are right. I will try and fix the edit notice. and the log entry. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:50, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
Many thanks. Now perhaps editors can start discussing the merits of challenged contents… — JFG talk 16:16, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Ok, it's freaking idiotic that these DS restrictions apply in the same way to throw-away IP accounts, which have no reason to observe them, and established editors. This is a long running problem and admins have done nothing to try and address it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:28, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Good point. - MrX 🖋 15:32, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
There is a longstanding community consensus that IPs, with a few exceptions, are accorded the same rights and responsibilities as other editors. If it looks like an IP is trying to dodge 1RR that can be handled on a case by case basis. If there are concerns about socking SPI is this way. Clearly there is a content dispute here. And yes, talk page consensus is the way we handle that sort of thing. I don't see anything wrong with the talk page template but I will double check. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:40, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
Yes, but there's also a principle of "if it quacks like a duck. An ip who seems pretty familiar with how sanctions work, and how to game them, should be dealt with accordingly. TheValeyard (talk) 15:57, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
There are a lot of experienced IP editors. Knowing how ACDS works is not by itself evidence of socking. Duck blocks usually require some evidence of who the sock master is or that it is obvious block evasion by IP---. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:10, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
I think that the sanctions should be changed to standard AP sanctions, which do not automatically include 1RR and consensus required. Having said that, it's a good idea to establish a consensus. Doug Weller talk 18:17, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
I agree, strongly. The consensus required feature is not appropriate for an article like this, and it gives throw away accounts and socks the ability to damage and disrupt. And why hasn't the edit warring, proxy surfing IP been blocked already? - MrX 🖋 18:26, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
Is that about me? Looks like I kicked a hornets nest of angry editors lol. My IP hasn't changed since my first edit here (to fix the links) and it's my own address not a "proxy" or whatever. Now can we please talk about content? 2A02:4780:BAD:25:FCED:1FF:FE25:109 (talk) 18:32, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Now that it looks like this content dispute won't be settled by edit warring, aspersions or socking accusations - does anyone want to defend the edits? 2A02:4780:BAD:25:FCED:1FF:FE25:109 (talk) 18:21, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

As "you" are the one who challenged the edit by reversion, the onus to defend that action is in your lap, it seems. TheValeyard (talk) 20:53, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
  • For the record Doug Weller and I have communicated on this and I am happy to defer to his judgment. I apologize for not being more involved with this discussion but I am actually trying (rather unsuccessfully) to be on a wikibreak for Great Friday and Orthodox Easter. Anyways I am grabbing a quick snack before the next round of services and should be available for an hour or so. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:27, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

"There is a longstanding community consensus that IPs, with a few exceptions, are accorded the same rights and responsibilities as other editors." - this is laughable. What "responsibilities" do throw away IP accounts actually have? The responsibility to create brand new account when their old one gets blocked? The responsibility to provoke endless edit wars because if they get banned, what do they care, but hey, they might be able to take a few established editors down along the way? Handle by case-by-case basis? Please! You ban this IP. They just get another one. In the meantime every single time a throw away IP makes an edit established editors have to waste their time by scrupulously following DS and not "restating challenged edits". Like this right here. I don't care if it's a "content dispute". What I care about is that there's no way to resolve the dispute, because one party - the throw away IP account - can do whatever the fuck it wants to, while the other party - long established editors who do have some responsibilities - can't.

The naivety of this statement is a perfect example of how out of touch a lot of admins are.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:52, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

For what it's worth, my reading is that the core problem here is that the IP never articulated the reason for their removal (they just asked for "discussion", which is meaningless.) You can't just revert and demand people take it to talk to reach consensus, since you have to articulate a clear objection for people to respond to - WP:BOLD allows people to assume that their edits enjoy consensus until a specific objection has been raised (which has, to my reading, not yet happened here.) That means that "rv, get consensus on talk" in the absence of any discussion at all is an inappropriate thing to do (it's reasonable when both parties know that the material is disputed and, more importantly, why, but you cannot use it to start a dispute - you must state your position with or alongside your initial revert.) And, more generally, reverting without raising a specific objection wastes everyone's time by making it take longer for discussions to focus on the actual dispute and making it harder to reach consensus, since nobody can really answer your objections and / or propose compromises until you've clarified what they are. (It is also worth pointing out WP:ONUS; as a general rule, when the inclusion of something in an article is challenged, the onus is on whoever wants someone included. But anyway, I've created a section where anyone who believes the challenged material can present their case as WP:ONUS requires down below.) --Aquillion (talk) 03:50, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Just noting that the consensus required sanction wasn't enforceable

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

That's because it wasn't in the edit notice. All such restrictions must be mentioned in an edit notice. Let me know if anyone finds other examples of this. Doug Weller talk 08:35, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Disputed removals

Latest comment: 6 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Let's not get bogged down over procedural disputes (like the discussion above.) We should jump to the actual content dispute, since that's the only way to reach a resolution anyway: Do these disputed edits improve the article? My opinion is that they do not and that the multiple people who have challenged that material were correct to do so - it's all extremely trivial. In the current political environment, almost everything is going to attract some sort of criticism, but none of these really rise to the level where they're worth covering as independent controversies. --Aquillion (talk) 03:43, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

I would say give the ip 24h to produce a coherent argument as why the material should remain in the article, as the burden is on him/it/whatever. If that is not ideal, then perhaps a straw poll of actual editors who have an opinion on it? TheValeyard (talk) 04:50, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
Well, nobody has raised a specific objection on the talk page, and while I think the procedural dispute is a bit of a distraction, the general tone of it (and a quick nose-count of people weighing in above) makes me reasonably certain that there's a consensus for removal, so I've re-instated the change. If anyone objects, please provide a specific justification for inclusion to satisfy WP:ONUS before restoring. --Aquillion (talk) 06:58, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Prominent Misuse of the term alt-right in the Redditor controversy

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Prominent Alt-Right users on social media subsequently accused CNN of blackmailing the user, using a hashtag, #CNNBlackmail, that was heavily pushed by Julian Assange, as well as various right-wing online activists and conspiracy theorists. Implies that the #CNNblackmail was used primarily by white supremacists for the furthering of their cause. Glancing at the hashtag itself shows that the while there does seem to be some to be alt right personalities, or at least trolls impersonating the white supremacists using the hashtag, the movement seems more united by their support of free speech, and distrust of CNN and corporate media conglomerates in general. They might be more accurately distilled as free speech activists.HanzHarder (talk) 18:17, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Glancing at the hashtag itself.... We don't analyze such things ourselves, but use reliable sources. The BBC was used for this, which is a highly reliable source not known for sloppy use of labels. O3000 (talk) 18:23, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
I take your point about analyzing the twitter feed by myself and encouraging other to do the same, we couldn't expect to agree on this topic if the editors were allowed to let their opinions dictate too much of the articles contents. Although it is my opinion that it is an opinion that the BBC is highly reliable.

On the BBC's use of the term Alright It is likely that they were referring to the Reddit community where the meme originated as Alt right, not HanAssholeSolo himself, the #CNNBlackmail and certainly not the original meme. I would think it would be difficult to prove that the BBC uses a precise definition for alt-right, and that this definition accurately matches the one put forward in the Alt-Right Wikipedia page given that the Wikipedia page acknowledges the vagueness surround the term.

this New York Times article says the hashtag #CNNBlackmail began to spread as thousands of the network’s detractors began to pile on<ref>https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/05/business/how-a-cnn-investigation-set-off-an-internet-meme-war.html<ref> I think this implies the effect I had described earlier where a small group of alt-right personalities managed to incite a larger group of online protesters into defending the Redditor over the issue of free speech using the #CNNblackmail. The mistake I see in the article is that there is no distinction between the Alt-Right element involved and the majority of the protesters that were trying to defend free speech.

this Vox article does not directly align the alt right with the #CNNblackmail though they do document the alt rights undeniable connection to the controversy. https://www.vox.com/culture/2017/7/5/15922224/cnn-blackmail-doxxing-hanassholesolo-reddit-wrestling-gif

The semiautomatic rifles section needs to be expanded

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

https://www.dailywire.com/news/27608/cnn-report-invents-new-term-full-semi-automatic-ar-james-barrett https://www.theblaze.com/news/2017/10/07/cnn-mocked-with-hilarious-reaction-for-showing-rifle-with-grenade-launcher-while-talking-bump-stocks I will admit these are click bait articles that are far from unbiased, but they do demonstrate some small portion of the misinformation spread by CNN pertaining to semiautomatic rifles and the AR-15 in particular. I have never seen an article written by CNN on the topic of guns that is not both biased against the republican party and gun rights and misleading because of Obvious inaccuracies, omitted information, and vague and fluidly defined buzzwords. I suspect that this is a truth that can be demonstrated on any such article, but I hope I am mistaken. I realize that my views on this issue are likely motivating all of this, but I cannot shake my disgust at the way CNN treats this issue over simplify complex issues and misusing terminology.HanzHarder (talk) 19:29, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't see how either of these articles shows anything at all. The first is not CNN talking, but a pro-AR15 Lt. General using a term that apparently the NRA doesn't like. The second is about an image that may or may not have been displayed with who knows how many other images during a show with no information about what was said while that particular image was displayed and a link to a tweet that doesn't exist. O3000 (talk) 20:05, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Cohen story

Latest comment: 6 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Preserving the material here by providing this link. As far as controversies go, this one appears fairly minor. From BuzzFeed:

CNN’s decision to stand by the story has irked some staffers inside the network, which has taken strong action on errors in the past, forcing out three employees last summer over a bungled Trump-Russia article.
The network, in effect, doesn’t appear to believe it made a mistake — the story was, some inside CNN argue, carefully worded to hedge against those in the Cohen camp changing their tune. In other words, the story reports claims that Cohen had said he was willing to make, not the underlying truth of those claims.

Have other outlets besides BuzzFeed covered it? The Daily Wire, Daily Caller etc are not sufficient for establishing this as a controversy that's due for inclusion. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:28, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Indeed. They are both unreliable fringe sources, so don't count. We'd need the involvement of other RS before we can consider it significant enough for inclusion. So far CNN is sticking by their other, unnamed, sources, as confirmation that what Davis said was actually true, even though he now tries to create the impression he misspoke. This pattern is one we've seen with Giuliani, after he has repeatedly said things that incriminate Trump, only to later retract what he's said. Considering those sources and their dubious relationships with truth, I suspect that CNN is doing the right thing. Time will tell. I hope others will post their findings from RS if and when they appear. Then we'll be in a better position to evaluate this. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 06:00, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
Sure, they'll do the right thing, CNN after all is the self-proclaimed "most trusted name in news." The problem is Lanny Davis admits he is the source for the CNN story [14] (and just for you because you have deemed fox news unreliable here's reporting from a Vox- a liberal source that you have decided is reliable). How can that be when the CNN story says "Contacted by CNN, one of Cohen's attorneys, Lanny Davis, declined to comment."? This is not minor, its CNN caught in an outright lie. They printed a false story which clearly states that Lanny Davis was not the source. Lanny Davis now admits he was the source and they refuse to retract. This was reported a week ago and CNN has done nothing, yet we just need to wait for them to do the right thing.--Rusf10 (talk) 04:48, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
After the fact, myriad RS have reported that Davis was (one of) the anonymous source(s). That is no secret...now. At first they (and CNN) didn't know he was the source, but now he says he was a source (but only one of CNN's sources). Davis is the one who lied (later), after being truthful (in the beginning). That he lied in his attempt to retract (cover-up) his inadvertent revealing of the truth doesn't help his credibility. None of these people have credibility: Trump, Cohen, Giuliani, Davis, et al. Fortunately they constantly and inadvertently tell the truth, but then they think they can say "oh, just kidding" and get away with it. No, we recognize when they were telling the truth, and when they are lying by denying that they did misspeak. It's a pattern they have established. There is no reason for CNN to retract the story, as it's true. They can safely ignore the denial by Davis, because he was not their only source. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 05:12, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Redditor controversy moved

Latest comment: 5 years ago14 comments7 people in discussion

According to this source, Andrew Kaczynski was not responsible for writing the line in his article which has caused so much havoc and debate. “All we intended to make clear is that there was no agreement about revealing or not revealing his identity,” said a CNN executive. The line was added into the story during the editing process, two sources with knowledge of the story said. “Someone did it as a safeguard and it backfired,” said one CNN source. Therefore, I've retitled the section and moved it to avoid imputing solely upon Kaczynski the responsibility for the controversy. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:11, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Are you seriously trying to tell me that Daily Caller is not a neutral, reliable source (and I agreed with you o that - they themselves state that they support the alt-right movement), BUT THAT BUZZFEED IS? --DraKyry (talk) 04:13, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
Actually yes, BuzzFeed News (as opposed to their clickbait side) is pretty respected at this point in terms of its journalistic chops (at least as much as Fox News, which is still a reliable source for Wikipedia purposes). Moreover, there don't seem to be any sources reporting otherwise — nobody is reporting that no, Kaczynski wrote the whole thing and it's all his fault. Once again, as per WP:BLP, we should err on the side of caution when reporting about living people, and we should avoid creating imputations or the suggestion of wrongdoing when it's, at the very least, unclear who is responsible. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:16, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
Unless the article is removed soon, CNN blackmail controversy should also be moved. Blackmail is a serious crime there is no evidence of blackmail and I have not seen any RS that uses the term other than to say there has been an accusation. Accusations are cheap. Objective3000 (talk) 13:24, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
Gizmodo has also covered it, and it seems their reporting mostly corroborates Buzzfeed's article. FallingGravity 22:31, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
I have changed the new name of the section; blackmail is an explicit criminal act, and no criminal allegations have been filed in any court of law; we don't say that there are "allegations of murder" about someone or something unless there's actually been criminal allegations filed. The Twitter musings of "Julian Assange and various personalities" are not subject to any editorial control, nor are they criminal investigators or prosecutors. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 14:49, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

"blackmail is an explicit criminal act"

No, no it isn't. 1.2 The use of threats or the manipulation of someone's feelings to force them to do something. ‘some people use emotional blackmail’

That's the actual definition of the word from the most reliable dictionary in the world, Oxford. It is not always a crime that involves money and should be renamed again to fit what it actually was. Gune (talk) 03:55, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Blackmail is a defined criminal act; that some acts of blackmail may not be criminal does not change the meaning of the word. As our article states, Blackmail is an act, often a crime, involving unjustified threats to make a gain (commonly money or property) or cause loss to another unless a demand is met. Given that no reliable source has reported on the existence of any evidence of blackmail or any formal legal action related to the claim, no victim has come forward to claim or charge that they were blackmailed, and that the only people who can be documented calling this "blackmail" are partisan political opponents of CNN, it would be highly inappropriate to use the inflammatory term they wish to smear CNN with as if the claim had any substance to it whatsoever. Simply screaming "blackmail" loudly does not make it so. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:43, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
Why are we even discussing this again? Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:07, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
Probably because it was never correctly addressed. Blackmail does NOT denote a criminal act, it connotes a criminal act. Any position to the contrary, as the one above, is factually incorrect. The above was also factually incorrect in claiming the only people claiming it was blackmail was partisan political opponents of CNN. Fron Newsweek to the Washington Post to the BBC openly discussed the possibility of blackmail in articles. I'll leave you with a link to a Washington Post Article detailing much of this, demonstrating the above claims to be patently false. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2017/07/05/the-reddit-user-behind-trumps-cnn-meme-apologized-but-cnnblackmail-is-the-story-taking-hold/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.bd8e4d85a49c — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxxx12345 (talk • contribs) 00:06, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

So you're saying the actual dictionary definition of the word isn't the actual definition of a word? Well that's a new one. Gune (talk) 05:25, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Use of the word blackmail in this article would be taken by most everyone as meaning extorting something (the 16th Century meaning); not the new, figurative definition. You can steal a kiss, or assault a chess opponent. But, you wouldn’t use those words figuratively where they could be confused with their literal meanings. Objective3000 (talk) 11:19, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

It is not a "new" definition. That definition of blackmail has been around just as long as the others. It IS the literal definition. Gune (talk) 17:10, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

First example of the word in the OED is 1552. I cannot find your definition in the 1933 or 1974 versions of the OED. In this case, it appears the first use of the word was by Ted Cruz and he was using it in a legal sense, even citing the criminal code. Objective3000 (talk) 17:28, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:CNN_controversies/Archive_2&oldid=1142755034"