Talk:CBC News

Lack of Verification
This page hardly has any verification to the information on the article. Would someone find verification please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spyrokid77666 (talk • contribs) 07:32, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreeing with the lack of verification, much of the information was not cited or verified. For example, the first paragraph does not have a citation as to the fact that CBC News was founded in 1941. Also, there may be some bias surrounding some of the sources as some are created by news outlets such as Huffington Post. Frmjenn (talk) 01:42, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
 * The lede (also spelled lead) section is not required to have any references. All of its content should be supported in the article. See MOS:LEAD. The founding date is not currently supported in the article, and I'm not sure if it ever was. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:38, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
 * This has been a problem for a decade. I've now tagged the problematic sentences. Walter deleted the tags, without proper reason. I therefore reverted. If this continues, I will consider instead deleting the non-referenced material per our rules. We are not a collection of uncited text - that is not how wp works. 2603:7000:2143:8500:A0EC:BE1B:EA2A:45AD (talk) 16:31, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * He has now - without reason/edit summary, reverted my tags once again. Can someone suggest an admin who might help here? User:Spilia4, User:Aquillion, User:GorillaWarfare? 2603:7000:2143:8500:A0EC:BE1B:EA2A:45AD (talk) 16:35, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

GorillaWarfare supposed discussion
claimed that there is a discussion about these drive-by taggings. I see no such discussion and these are WP:BLUE issues that were tagged. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:09, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * See above. From looking at the tags, these are not WP:BLUE issues at all. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 17:19, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you GW. --2603:7000:2143:8500:A0EC:BE1B:EA2A:45AD (talk) 17:38, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Allegations of bias
I noticed obvious issues with the article yesterday so have edited it, but only read the talk page archives today to see if a previous discussion happened. There was a previous discussion so I'll add more information explaining my changes. I would even suggest merging the section into a single paragraph, considering that what remains is a general impression of public opinion. — Paleo Neonate  – 15:48, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Other parties were also sued for copyright, cherry picking the conservative party for a long paragraph is undue.
 * If there's something to report about the conservative party trying to shut down CBC, that's what WP should report and it possibly doesn't belong in that section.
 * There was mention of personal criticism but when reading independent sources about it one can easily determine that CBC is not the problem. WP would then report about that rather than promoting the person's claims and that's undue as well a disservice to the person anyway.