Talk:CBS Records (2006)/Archives/2014

Added Official site
I have added the Official CBS Records site. Kathleen.wright5 24:53, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Former CBS Records label and company now Columbia Records and Sony Music
This attempt at Wiki entry on CBS records is truly dreadful and deserves better treatment given CBS Records enormous importance to recorded music throughout the world during the 20th century. Please do it justice and research it properly. User:SimRah11 —Preceding comment was added at 11:48, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * It is obvious that SimRah did not read the very top of this article which mentions that this CBS Records has no connection with the more famous CBS Records whose catalogue is now owned by Sony Music and whose label name is now called Columbia Records. The CBS name is owned by CBS Corporation. Steelbeard1 (talk) 11:57, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I also have a concern about the narrow scope of this article, and have requested help at the Record Labels Task Force. You may wish to weigh in over there. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 14:56, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The redirects have already been mentioned above and the following point is also mentioned in the task force discussion. The complication is that CBS only gave a temporary licence on the CBS name which forced Sony to rename the CBS Records label to Columbia Records and the CBS Records company to Sony Music Entertainment.  Any new material involving the former CBS Records label and company should go to the Columbia Records and Sony Music Entertainment articles. Steelbeard1 (talk) 20:30, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

CBS Records (1962–1991) vs. CBS Records (2006)
Once again, this CBS Records has no connection with the 1960s CBS Records. Other than the brief mention of the earlier one, any detailed mention of the former CBS Records label belongs to Columbia Records and the former CBS Records company goes to Sony Music Entertainment.
 * The reference you use says the business entity "CBS Records" was relaunched in 2006. You used the incorrect word founded. Corporate structures can be opaque, but the "CBS Records" name and the "Columbia Records" name are not synonymous, although they sometimes are incorrectly used that way. The business entities appear to be "CBS Records" and "CBS Records International" that are involved with "Columbia Records". More research is needed, but the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal and Billboard use "CBS Records" and "CBS Records International" when describing the heads of the CBS music division up utill 1988, and incorrectly after 1988. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:19, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The "relaunch" is of the CBS Records NAME. NOT THE COMPANY.  The former CBS Records company is now Sony Music Entertainment. Steelbeard1 (talk) 11:05, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * But the current CBS Records is completely unrelated to the CBS Records entity which was sold in 1988 and renamed to Sony Music in 1991. CBS only gave Sony a temporary license to use the CBS name which is why the name had to be changed in 1991.  This allowed CBS to form a new CBS Records label in 2006. Steelbeard1 (talk) 17:56, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
 * If it helps you, think of the article as being about the name rather than the company. I have divided the article into the two distinct business entities. Every incoming link is for the old business entity so please stop reverting to your version that deleted the information on the old business entity. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:27, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Each record company entity REQUIRES ITS OWN ARTICLE. As the former CBS Records company is now known as Sony Music Entertainment, the separate article already exists. Steelbeard1 (talk) 21:31, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Then make an new article called "CBS Records (2006)" that has the one line of information on the new company. All the internal links leading to this article are for the pre 1988 CBS Records. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:34, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
 * There is just ONE active CBS Records and NO DEFUNCT COMPANIES called CBS Records as they go by other names now which are Sony Music Entertainment and Columbia Records. Steelbeard1 (talk) 22:39, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Why not have two CBS Records articles? There is a defunct British label called CBS for a start. Rothorpe (talk) 22:41, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
 * CBS Records in the UK is NOT defunct, it changed its name to Columbia Records. If you look at the Columbia Records UK web site at, you will see that it uses the same "walking eye" logo that was used when the label was called CBS Records. Steelbeard1 (talk) 22:43, 23 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Gentlemen, discussion is what you do instead of edit warring, not concurrent with it. Please continue to try and work this out here, and seek WP:3O or other forms of WP:DR if needed. If edit warring recurrs after the protection expires, the other tool we use to stop edit warring will come into play, and nobody wants that. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:55, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

I was thinking of the Philips version of CBS, before Columbia took over Oriole. If all those links come here, we could have a separate article for that, which would leave the present article needing only a hatnote. Rothorpe (talk) 23:01, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, Philips Records was CBS Records' distributor until CBS bought Oriole to control its own distribution in the UK. American Columbia Records were on the Philips label since 1951 until CBS Records was formed in the UK in 1962. Steelbeard1 (talk) 23:05, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
 * But Philips distributed CBS on Fontana in 1961 (Brubeck's Take Five for example) but then formed its own CBS label (Unsquare Dance). It wasn't until about 1965 that the separate British CBS was formed (Like a Rolling Stone). Philips had it for 2 or 3 years---as CBS Records. Rothorpe (talk) 23:23, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
 * So noted. But Philips was STILL acting as CBS's distributor.  They did not own the CBS recordings and lost their rights to the CBS material after CBS bought Oriole Records. Steelbeard1 (talk) 23:32, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

For what it's worth, Steelbeard1 is correct per section header. I understand the confusion, but 1962 CBS Records is indeed an entirely separate company than the subject of this article. Information about the previous company with the same name should not be in this article. 78.26 (talk) 23:14, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
 * So what about all the links to the old CBS Records that come here? Rothorpe (talk) 23:44, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
 * They should be redirected to the Columbia Records article regarding the record label and the Sony Music Entertainment article regarding the record company. Steelbeard1 (talk) 00:06, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Are you volunteering? Rothorpe (talk) 00:27, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I've been doing that on the articles I catch. Steelbeard1 (talk) 01:20, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if it has any relevance, but the first version of this article to contain content (non-redirect) is about this 2006 company.  All of the articles referencing the old version of CBS would have previously re-directed to Columbia Records.  Anything added subsequently should have been linked to Columbia Records.  Aside from sorting out Grey Gull Records output, I can think of little that engenders more confusion than the various permutations of the name Columbia and their predecessors and descendants.  However, since this article has always been about the 2006 incarnation, it doesn't seem right to place information about the previous version into this article, even though Norton's edits are in absolute good faith.  Perhaps we should just chuck it, have this article name become a disambiguation page, and link to the three approprirate articles.   78.26  (talk) 00:17, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. Rothorpe (talk) 00:27, 24 August 2012 (UTC)


 * My version of events: There are two incarnations of CBS Records as a business entity and 1,300 internal links to the article are for the pre 1988 business and 4 or 5 potential links to the 2006 version of the business. Steelbeard1 insists that only the 2006 business should be in the article and reverts any and all changes to the article back to his version despite the addition of a half dozen references in the New York Times and Billboard to the pre 1988 company with its own president. He insists that the pre 1988 version should be called Columbia Records despite the business news referring to an entity called CBS Records. Business structure is complex so we have to go with what the reliable sources use. If the New York Times says Clive Davis is the president of CBS Records and doesn't print a retraction, we have to assume that business entity actually existed. For instance the New York Times reports: "Mr. Yetnikoff was instrumental in the sale of CBS Records to Sony in January 1988 for $2 billion. At the time, he signed a multiyear contract that was believed to have included a $20 million bonus. Mr. Yetnikoff was made president of CBS Records in 1975. Before that he was president of CBS Records International, which he took over in 1971. He had joined the company a decade earlier as a lawyer." All these internal links are to the earlier business entity and have nothing to do with the 2006 version of the company. If he wants to create a separate article called "CBS Records (2006)" he is welcome. That will take care of any links that may belong to the new business entity and save the hundreds of incoming links to the old entity. Here is my version of the article. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:55, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The entity Richard Arthur Norton was referring to WAS called CBS Records until 1991 when the company changed its name to Sony Music Entertainment and the record label of the same name outside North America was renamed Columbia Records. Again, all material involving the pre-1991 CBS Records label and company belong in the Columbia Records and Sony Music Entertainment articles respectively. Steelbeard1 (talk) 00:04, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Sony Music Entertainment is a conglomerate that owns Columbia Records, Epic Records, RCA Records, Provident Label Group, Verity Gospel Music Group, Legacy Recordings, Columbia Records UK, RCA Label Group (UK) as businesses merge we don't make one massive article and redirect the older companies, we preserve previous business entities. None of the incoming links are to the 2006 business entity. We still have articles on all the companies that were bought by General Motors and by Volkswagen and by Ford. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 00:17, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * BEFORE CBS Records changed its name to Sony Music, its label portfolio included Columbia Records, Epic Records, Legacy Recordings and CBS Records UK (now Columbia Records UK). When Sony Music merged with, then acquired BMG Music, it added RCA Records among other labels. Steelbeard1 (talk) 01:20, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

The official Columbia Records UK label info page at utilizes the Columbia Records Wikipedia article intro with minor changes as quoted here: Label History Founded in 1888, Columbia is the oldest surviving brand name in pre-recorded sound, being the first record company to produce pre-recorded records as opposed to blank cylinders. Columbia Records went on to release records by an array of notable singers, instrumentalists and groups. From 1961 to 1990, its recordings were released outside the U.S. and Canada on the CBS Records label before adopting the Columbia name in most of the world. Today it is a premier subsidiary label of Sony Music Entertainment. Steve Barnett and Rick Rubin are the co-heads of Columbia Records. Mike Smith is MD of Columbia UK.

C/O Wikipedia Steelbeard1 (talk) 12:40, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Decision
Please express an opinion of which of the two business entities, CBS Records (1962) or CBS Records (2006), should be the landing page for the 1,300 incoming links:

Revert to version with CBS Records (1962) and CBS Records (2006) as headers and preserve all 1,300 incoming links
Revert to this version which preserves the 1,300 incoming links that belong to CBS Records (1962). This version has the lede "CBS Records is a business unit of CBS Entertainment that "signs and develops recording artists, and offers an alternative approach to introducing them to the marketplace through integrating their music into programming on the CBS Television Network". "The new CBS Records is not related to the former CBS Records business or its artists or assets, which were acquired by Sony in 1988". In essence we have 1,300 votes from reliable sources that the CBS Records (1962) is the proper landing page and not the CBS Records (2006) that Steel is insisting on.
 * Revert to the version which mentions both incarnations of the company. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 13:43, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The links which Norton provided which go to the wrong CBS Records are being corrected. Steelbeard1 (talk) 14:25, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I would hold off on the changes, since they will have to be reverted if consensus is to preserve them as CBS Records. You are just making double work for everyone by jumping the gun. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:15, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I strongly disagree as the redirects would be correct with the links going to the present entity names. Steelbeard1 (talk) 19:21, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * As I said earlier, when a reliable source says John Smith signed with CBS Records and you change it to John Smith signed with Columbia Records you are causing semantic drift by substituting in something that is not an exact synonym. Legally one is not the other. We have to use reliable sources and not what you think is the best fit. It isn't fair to the reader to allow the exact meaning to drift away from the correct business entity. It is a subtle form of vandalism that will be hard to detect by future editors. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:23, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
 * You are totally wrong, Norton. The article will still say "CBS Records" but the link would go to either Columbia Records regarding the record label or Sony Music Entertainment regarding the record company. The first batch now go to the correct article.  The erroneous links were fixed by using CBS Records or CBS Records and obvious errors such as American acts saying CBS Records instead of Columbia Records were fixed as they were issued in the US on the Columbia label. Steelbeard1 (talk) 10:45, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
 * In the past, others as well as myself fixed erroneous links for British acts on EMI's Columbia label which linked to the American Columbia Records instead. Of course, they were fixed to link to the Columbia Graphophone Company article which is the article for EMI's Columbia label.  The Columbia Records article has hatnotes for the two other Columbia Records articles in Wikipedia, Columbia Graphophone Company and Nippon Columbia. Steelbeard1 (talk) 11:54, 26 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Revert to the version which describes both incarnations. Rothorpe (talk) 18:23, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * CBS Records (1962) was renamed Columbia Records in 1991. Steelbeard1 (talk) 18:29, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * So we all agree it was called "CBS Records" before its renaming ...no need to make this point again - we get it.Moxy (talk) 18:31, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Columbia Records was founded in 1888 and CBS Records in 1962. Again, they are not exact legal, or business, or even plain English synonyms, but you are still trying to force one on the other. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:06, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * It gets complicated as time went on. In 1922, Columbia sold its British branch which is the Columbia Graphophone Company which merged with HMV in 1931 to form EMI with the labels maintaining their identities.  So when Columbia's parent CBS entered the British market in 1962, they had to use the CBS Records name.  EMI renamed their Columbia label to EMI Records to avoid confusion with the American Columbia Records.  When CBS sold its record company to Sony in 1988, they gave only a temporary license for the CBS name so in 1991, the record company was renamed Sony Music Entertainment and Sony acquired the rights to the Columbia name and trade marks from EMI allowing for the revival of the Columbia Records name in the UK in 1991.  Initially, Sony couldn't decide whether to use UK Columbia's Magic Notes or US Columbia's Walking Eye.  Eventually, the Walking Eye from the old CBS Records logo was adopted for the Columbia label world wide except in Japan where Nippon Columbia owns the Columbia Records trade mark there. Steelbeard1 (talk) 19:31, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok lets explain this in the article. lets address this in the article were we can go into details about the situation over simply redirecting our readers to a small section in a parent article that simply cant go into much detail because of were it is. More info is better!! less info is worst.Moxy (talk) 20:04, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * It's already explained in the Columbia Records article. Steelbeard1 (talk) 17:26, 25 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Is Steelbeard1 aware that outside of the USA, (in Australia, New Zealand, France, Asia and many other territories) that CBS Records was the name of the international company that represented the interests (including A&R, recording, manufacturing, distribution & marketing) of all of Columbia Records and Epic Records releases outside of the USA? I personally worked at CBS Records Australia from 1987 till the changeover to Sony Music Entertainment in the early 90's and I also had dealings with CBS Records (as a music retailer 1976 - 1980) when they changed their name from ARC in Australia to CBS Records as part of a the global trend rebranding of all the affiliates around the world (outside of the US). I now also manage an international network of over 6000 current and alumni record company people globally on Facebook (many who worked at CBS from around the world) who will also vouch for my story (see my profile page for details at User:Simon.rashleigh. I can also provide an avalanche of evidence to prove the existence of CBS Records as being the major name (outside of the USA) as being one of the big global five record companies from the mid to late 70's to the late 80s. The other four major international companies being Polygram, W.E.A. (the international name for Warner, Elektra, Atlantic Records), RCA and EMI. It has often been a problem that people based in the USA who did not work for the company (or even the recorded music industry) are not aware of CBS Records being the international name for Colombia and Epic Records during the 70's and 80's. Surely Wikipedia represents a Global perspective and not just an American one? Simon Rashleigh 06:22, 27 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I support the notion to revert to both incarnations, because to have everything based on just the 2006 would bring howls of protest from the ex record company people I represent and would be wiping away the rest of the world's association with CBS Records from the 60's to the 80's where we did not refer to our company name as Colombia Records. Remember there is a world view out there besides the USA perspective. Another option would be to create a page called 'CBS Records International' to explain the Non-USA incarnation of Colombia & Epic Records outside of the USA during the 60's 70's & 80's. In fact sometimes we did actually refer to the company as CBS Record International. Simon Rashleigh 06:52, 27 August 2012 (UTC) User:Simon.rashleigh

Preserve CBS Records (2006) version and change all 1,300 incoming links
Preserve the current version which is about the second incarnation of CBS Records that was established in 2006 and change all 1,300 incoming links.
 * Support Steelbeard1 (talk) 18:10, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * (insert viewpoint here)

Third opinions

 * Very interesting talk.. both parties making great points. I do believe that both entities should be mentioned with links to main "new" company names (or 2 articles pre- and after). Very confusion to our readers if we dont explain things here - were one would look for CBS stuff past or present. Many companies get bought out/move and have name changes and I believe explaining this in the parent article would be simply over whelming as - for instants Sony is made up of many smaller companies that still have there own articles. i.e Compo Company that is part of Sony needs a separate article because is simply insignificant to mention in the  Sony article as a whole, but important enough to merit mention here in the encyclopedia by way of its own article. Best to explain in full over redirects that will confuse readers.Moxy (talk) 18:13, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * We need a decision on what to do when the lock in lifted, do we retain the current article and work from there, or revert to the previous version and work from there. It is a binary position of which two versions will be the starting point for additions and emendations to the article. Which of the two versions do you think is the best starting point for continuing to write? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:33, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * We should work with the 2006 incarnation CBS Records article, probably make the hatnote more obvious, if it's possible, to redirect the reader to either the Columbia Records article or the Sony Music article for the earlier CBS Records incarnations. Steelbeard1 (talk) 19:02, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Additions to article
In 1966 CBS Corporation set up a music and education division called CBS - Columbia Group with Goddard Lieberson as president. The Group included the following operating divisions: CBS Educational Services, CBS Records, CBS International, CBS Direct Marketing Services and CBS Musical Instruments. Liebersen had been head of Columbia Records since 1956. CBS Records produces and markets the output of Columbia Records, Epic Records, Date Records, Okeh Records, and Harmony Records.

The mention of "CBS Corporation" for 1966 is completely wrong. There was not a "CBS Corporation" in 1966. The company was called "Columbia Broadcasting System Inc" in 1966. Besides, the Sony Music article already mentions the inclusion of "CBS Records" led by Clive Davis in 1966 as part of the CBS-Columbia Group. Steelbeard1 (talk) 17:31, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I added info about Leiberson's promotion to head the CBS-Columbia Group to the Sony Music article which uses the same citation mentioned above. Steelbeard1 (talk) 17:41, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * That material is for the Sony Music article, not the current incarnation of CBS Records. How many times DO I HAVE TO SAY that ALL MATERIAL related to the CBS Records company that existed prior to 1991 belong in the Sony Music article as CBS RECORDS INC. CHANGED ITS OFFICIAL NAME TO SONY MUSIC ENTERTAINMENT INC. on January 1, 1991. The side story about Sony aquiring the Columbia Records trade mark from EMI belongs in the Columbia Records article as the CBS Records label outside North America (except Spain and Japan) also changed its name to Columbia Records on January 1, 1991. Steelbeard1 (talk) 22:22, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Question.. do you believe other labels like Compo Company and Okeh Records should redirect to Sony? If so why and if not why is CBS different? Is it simply because CBS has two histories? Is your position that we merge all the sub labels? Because lets be honest the Sony article does not actually cover the CBS time period well at all. It cover the Sony side well but no real history of CBS.Moxy (talk) 22:31, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The Canadian firm Compo Company was never connected with CBS/Sony Music. They did manufacture Okeh Records for the Canadian market when Okeh was an independent company.  Compo evolved into Universal Music Canada.  As far as Okeh Records is concerned, it has its own Wikipedia article and was briefly revived as an active label in the 1990s by Sony Music.  Sony's Epic Records controls the Okeh catalog today.  The point is, Sony Music was founded in 1929 as American Record Corporation which bought Columbia and Okeh Records in 1934. As ARC had a complicated beginning as it was formed by merging several record companies, it has its own article.   After CBS bought ARC in 1938, they made Columbia its flagship label and Okeh its subsidiary label.  Columbia/CBS Records was owned by CBS until Sony bought the record company in 1988... by Steelbeard1
 * I am sorry - I simply dont understand why CBS should not have its own article detailing its history (like artists, producers, founders, etc) before it merged with sony like all the rest of the  merged labels.  We all Agree it has its own history long before sony. Would be best to ask more to get involved i belive - perhaps others will see your argument more clearly.Moxy (talk) 23:06, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Because it is now Sony Music Entertainment and already has a detailed history going back to when CBS bought ARC showing all the leaders of the record company over the decades such as Goddard Lieberson and Clive Davis. Sony Music is a subsidiary of Sony and the current name of what was CBS Records Inc until January 1, 1991. Steelbeard1 (talk) 23:11, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * So is many many other labels, why is this one different?  I simply dont understand why a CBS article about CBS before its merger with Sony is undesirable especially  when all the other labels that merged with Sony have an article detailing there pre sony history...Many  much less important labels then CBS have articles - thus I am lost at the current logic.Moxy (talk) 23:17, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * CBS Records was both a record company and a flagship record label. A record company can have several record labels, Columbia, Epic, Okeh, etc.  The CBS Records company is now Sony Music.  The CBS Records label, of course, was the flagship label outside North America and that label is now Columbia Records which was/is the name used in the United States and Canada. Columbia Records is now the flagship label (along with later acquistion RCA Records) world wide except in Japan where Nippon Columbia owns the Columbia trade mark. Steelbeard1 (talk) 17:55, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not trying to make an arguement one way or the other, but I do have to point out a fundamental difference: All of these other labels (Okeh, American Record Corporation ,etc) had, at one point or another, a history that was independent of Columbia.  I guess you can't make the same argument for Epic, but it's identity was quite separate from Columbia, and it was operated independently of Columbia.  The 1962 version of CBS was operated alongside Columbia, and never had a history nor identity separate from U.S. Columbia.   78.26  (talk) 23:58, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Epic has its own article and it was founded by CBS. Explain then why the 1962 CBS Records label and the American Columbia label shared the same walking eye logo???? Steelbeard1 (talk) 13:49, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Your argument is that you know the truth and that supersedes what the reliable sources say about CBS Records (1962) as a business entity. I say we go with what Time magazine and the New York Times say and not what you know as the truth. Mathematically: CBS Records (1962) = Columbia Records + Epic Records + others = Sony Music Entertainment +  the Columbia label for international use from EMI. So there is no direct equivalence to the entities that you are substituting as synonyms for  CBS Records (1962). --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:13, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The 1962 CBS Records changed its name in 1991 following CBS's requirement that Sony change the name of the company t9o Sony Music and the label to Columbia Records. Even Columbia Records UK makes that statement. Steelbeard1 (talk) 13:49, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * We have the history of this company spread over many articles.... time to consolidate the info so our readers dont have to read multiple articles to get serviceable info about the topic. Moxy (talk) 16:48, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * What articles??? The former CBS Records company history is already in the Sony Music article and the 1962 CBS Records label history is already in Columbia Records. Steelbeard1 (talk) 17:19, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * So you agree the info is not consolidated properly - that is the info is in many articles Best you ask for more to get involved.Moxy (talk) 17:54, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * It is already consolidated properly. One article for the record company and the other for the record label.  Sony Music for the record company and Columbia Records for the record label. Steelbeard1 (talk) 18:00, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Best to get more involved at this point as we are just repeating ourselves. Thus far the view for a separate article is the dominate position. See correction below in small text.... Moxy (talk) 18:05, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I only see three total votes so far. Not much of a mandate.  We need to get more editors active in updating the Sony Music or Columbia Records articles for their input.  I feel again that the hatnote on the CBS Records article needs to be more obvious. Steelbeard1 (talk) 18:19, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * correction to above statement- I forgot about User:78.26 .... so we have 5 people involved 3 vs 2....definitely need more people.Moxy (talk) 19:00, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

I would strongly suggest opening an RFC to solicit more input nefore making any drastic changes to the article. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:26, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * After the article was unlocked, Norton defied your suggestion and made drastic changes. I reverted those drastic changes.  I propose a compromise solution which is to create a new article called "CBS Records International" regarding the international arm of Columbia Records which was founded in 1962. Steelbeard1 (talk) 10:38, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Presidents of CBS Records

 * Clive Davis 1966-1973. He was fired for using corporate money to pay for his son's bar mitzvah.
 * Goddard Lieberson 1973-1975.
 * Walter Yetnikoff 1975-1990. He was president of CBS Records International from 1971-1975. In 1988 CBS Records was sold to Sony and in 1991 the name of the company was changed to Sony Music Entertainment. He remained as president until 1990.


 * Most of this is already in the Sony Music Entertainment article where this material should be in. Steelbeard1 (talk) 17:17, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, but this information is relevant because it deals with the International Division of CBS Records so its different. It should be headed as 'Presidents of CBS Records International'. These presidents had actually two titles in the 60's 70's & 80's. They were 'President of Columbia Records USA' (which only involved the USA territory) and they were also 'President of CBS Records International' (that included the rest of the world - Australia, France, New Zealand, Asia and many other nations). (See my full explanation above under "Decision")Simon Rashleigh 07:40, 27 August 2012 (UTC) User:Simon.rashleigh

New lede
CBS Records existed from 1962 to 1991 and was relaunched in 2006. It was formed in 1962 by CBS Corporation. In 1966, in a reorganization, it became a subsidiary of the newly formed CBS - Columbia Group. CBS Records produced and marketed the output of the labels: Columbia Records, Epic Records, Date Records, Okeh Records, and Harmony Records. In 1988 Sony Corporation purchased CBS Records and the subsidiary labels for $2 billion, and the name was retained until 1991 when it became part of Sony Music Entertainment.

The 2006 version of CBS Records (or we can say CBS Records (2006))is a business unit of CBS Entertainment that "signs and develops recording artists, and offers an alternative approach to introducing them to the marketplace through integrating their music into programming on the CBS Television Network". CBS Corporation states "The new CBS Records is not related to the former CBS Records business or its artists or assets, which were acquired by Sony in 1988".

The "relaunch" is of the name, NOT the company. The two entities are not related. Check out the history of the Parrot Records article. The earlier blues label had to have a separate article. The former CBS Records STILL EXISTS but under different names for the label and the company. Steelbeard1 (talk) 20:07, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Companies are relaunched, names are recycled. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:53, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * You have said this many, many times. We get it. Try thinking of the article as being about the name and not the business entity. I and others have suggested on numerous occasions that you are welcome to start CBS Records (2006) and migrate your version there. We are doing this to preserve the 1,300 incoming links. The landing page should always be for the most common of two identically named entities, so think of the incoming links as 1,300 votes from reliable sources. And please do not explain your rationale again, it is posted here many times already. I am not here to change your mind, it is already set in stone. I am here to develop consensus among the other editors. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:14, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia REQUIRES that entities of the same name HAVE SEPARATE ARTICLES. See General Electric to give an example. Also, I am strongly in favor of redirecting the links that go the wrong CBS Records article. That is the reason for the hatnotes on top of the current CBS Records article.  Steelbeard1 (talk) 20:19, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Can you please link to that rule you are citing so I can read it. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:49, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * See Disambiguation Steelbeard1 (talk) 01:42, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Dude, that is a 6,346 word article, that is like saying: go read the Bible, all your answers are in there. If you want to refer to the Bible you have cite a chapter and a verse. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:15, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

I really hope that I'm not muddying the waters, but shouldn't the first paragraph state "and the name was retained until 1991 when it was re-named Sony Music Entertainment" instead of "and the name was retained until 1991 when it became part of? Apologies in advance...  78.26  (talk) 02:33, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, please reword it better. Please make any changes to help. The byzantine business structure is difficult and Billboard's use of synonyms makes the task difficult. Just as I said that we have to be careful about semantic drift, I can also see it in Billboard where they sometimes say "CBS Records" or "CBS Records Group" or "CBS - Columbia Group" interchangeably, with someone as president. I am sure sometimes the president of one was also the president of the other, to confuse things further. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:02, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * But the company, both US and international still became Sony Music in 1991 so the CBS Records article under that name still should be the 2006 incarnation with the hatnotes on the top directing readers to either the Sony Music or Columbia Records article regarding the company or label. I would not object, though, to a new article called "CBS Records International" regarding the international arm of CBS Records which was founded in 1962. Of course, the hatnote at the top of the CBS Records article can add the link to "CBS Records International." Steelbeard1 (talk) 10:20, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

recycled or relaunched
Was the company relaunched or was the name recycled. Which is better to use? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:07, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * "Recycled" is the more appropriate term here. Steelbeard1 (talk) 10:23, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Yet, the reliable source uses the term "relaunched", this is again an example of semantic drift. We are not supposed to be doing original research. Have you considered writing you own book or newspaper article, then you can be used as a reliable source since your writings would be vetted by a publisher. Otherwise your just saying that you know the truth despite what reliable sources say. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 13:09, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Once again, the "relaunching" is of the NAME. See  about CBS Corporation's revival of the CBS Records name for a new company. Steelbeard1 (talk)

Idea to create "CBS Records International" article
I came up with a compromise solution. Create a new article called CBS Records International regarding the international arm of CBS Records which was founded in 1962. Of course, the hatnote on the top of the CBS Records article can add the link to the CBS Records International article. Steelbeard1 (talk) 10:23, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I think this is a good compromise Steelbeard1 and I especially like the fact that we now have CBS Records as a disambiguation page and separate pages for CBS Records 2006 and CBS Records International. It also future proofs CBS Records (now as a disambiguation page) for any future changes to the CBS Records brand by its owners and management. Now we can get on with the job of being able to tell the story of either CBS Records International and CBS Records 2006 without tripping over each other. Simon Rashleigh User:Simon.rashleigh —Preceding undated comment added 01:43, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Created CBS Records International article
Utilizing material from Norton's material and, after correcting obvious errors, I created the new CBS Records International article. Please freeely enhance that article. Steelbeard1 (talk) 10:55, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

WP: Dispute Resolution Noticeboard
I've added this dispute in the Dispute resolution noticeboard. Steelbeard1 (talk) 11:39, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Consensus
We have reached Consensus, please respect that. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 13:20, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * AGAIN, I would not call three votes TOTAL a consensus. Others have been invited to add their input which they have not yet done.  This dispute is now in Dispute resolution noticeboard Steelbeard1 (talk) 13:24, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * There is no quorum requirement for consensus, please respect that. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 13:47, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Why can't you wait for input from others??? I recall the ABN AMRO fiasco of editors who couldn't wait and others fought back, like myself, after the fact. Steelbeard1 (talk) 14:02, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * We waited the three days that the administrator gave us. I think what you are asking is for us to wait until consensus changes to what you are looking for. Consensus can change over time, but until then you must respect what compromises were established on the talk page. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 15:13, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * If you bothered to read the admin's comment on this page, he suggested outside input before making drastic changes. When the freeze expired, you went ahead and made the drastic changes BEFORE the outside input could post comments.  I have reported your actions to the admin. Steelbeard1 (talk) 15:17, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * We did get outside input, that was the second opinion to have the page with both entities, and not back to your unreferenced version, that you feel so strongly about. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:18, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The "second opinion" is not enough. I was seeking input from several people. Steelbeard1 (talk) 17:20, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * We were given three days and the three days expired. It is now the 4th day and there is more opinions against the changes you have made. You may not respect my changes to the article, but Wikipedia rules require you to respect consensus.
 * But not from the editors I asked specifically, such as the admin who set the block in the first place. Steelbeard1 (talk) 00:34, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Did you read Simon's posting favoring the CBS Records International article and the disambig page about? Steelbeard1 (talk) 01:50, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Disambig page
I have a new idea. Now that we have four different articles with claims to the CBS Records name, I suggest creating a disambig page called CBS Records with links to CBS Records (2006), CBS Records International, Sony Music Entertainment and Columbia Records. Steelbeard1 (talk) 14:00, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Done. Steelbeard1 (talk) 14:10, 27 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Dude, please read consensus before making major changes. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 14:31, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Once again, three people total with input sought from additional editors who have not yet responded do not constitute a consensus. Steelbeard1 (talk) 14:45, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * You have really screwed everything up. You have lost the history of the article by cutting and pasting. You really do not have the patience for working as a group in editing an encyclopedia. You have to wait for consensus to develop before making major changes where others have already disagreed with your changes. We were given three days to come up with a solution and we had three people give their opinions. I understand you have strong opinions, but "strong" is not the same as consensus. As I wrote you earlier, there is no quorum requirement for consensus. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 15:04, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * OTOH, you do not have the patience to wait for outsiders to add their input to the dispute. You are the problem.  Not me. Steelbeard1 (talk) 15:08, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I will say it one more time, we waited the three day period that was allotted for consensus building, during that time the article was locked. There is no quorum requirement for consensus, but consensus can change over time. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 15:16, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Consensus building does not take "three days." At times it can take weeks to reach consensus. Steelbeard1 (talk) 17:21, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Separate to who did what when, I'd like to say that its great to see the CBS Records disambiguation page, however there is a mistake about the facts on what happened to CBS Records International. It currently says "CBS Records International, the international arm of Columbia Records founded in 1962. The label was renamed Columbia Records in 1991." The first sentence is fine, but the second sentence is incorrect for two reasons. First of all CBS Records International was a Record Company (which had many labels including Columbia, Epic, Masterworks and many more) and not a record label as such. And secondly 'CBS Records International' became Sony Music Entertainment in 1991 NOT Columbia Records. I personally changed over the gold building plaque in our Melbourne office in Australia in 91, so I'm pretty sure about it. Then in 1991, all the new 'Sony Music Entertainment affiliates' who used to be called 'CBS Records International'(as Record "Companies") around the world looked after the Epic label as well as the Columbia label and many other labels also, so this error needs to fixed. Can this please be changed or do you want me to do it? Simon Rashleigh 02:03, 28 August 2012 (UTC) User:Simon.rashleigh
 * I suggest that we change the 'CBS Records International' entry on the disambiguation page to: ""CBS Records International, the international arm of Columbia Records founded in 1962. The record company was renamed Sony Music Entertainment in 1991." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Simon.rashleigh (talk • contribs) 02:07, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Done. BTW, the CBS Records International entity was originally a label distributed by Philips Records until around 1965 when it bought Oriole Records and established its own distribution. By 1968, it was a full fledged record company when it took over distribution of Epic and Okeh Records from EMI. Steelbeard1 (talk) 02:13, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks Steelbeard1, can you please send me privately (to my talk page) some links regarding what you said about the Phillips records link to CBS Records International? I'd like to know more about that, as this is new information for me. This label mess on Wikipedia of what record label / record company was called what and when due to the constant churn of ownership and licensing warfare in the music industry over the years was hard enough for us industry folk to keep on top of it all (and we worked there!!!), so its no surprise that we are faced with this challenge today in trying to document this history of record companies and record labels now.Simon Rashleigh 02:38, 28 August 2012 (UTC) Simon Rashleigh (talk)
 * Done. BTW, CBS entered the Australian market in 1960 before CBS Records International was formed.  See . Steelbeard1 (talk) 03:10, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

All to fast
OK this is all being done to fast without proper forethought (there is no rush) we "CBS Records (2006)" for the talk page - "CBS Records" for the article page and so on... Can we pls outline what should be done so all can help in the situation. What links where etc.... Slow it down...pls.Moxy (talk) 22:42, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * It's simple. CBS Records is now the disambig page to direct the reader to the correct article and to aid the editor to insert the correct wikilink landing point.  The 2006 incarnation of CBS Records is now CBS Records (2006).
 * Things are really screwed up now, someone is going to have to go back and fix the errors created and rebuild the article histories. Talk pages are mismatched and article histories are screwed up. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:34, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
 * An administrator User talk:Nyttend had changed things around earlier today without letting us know. I've contacted him asking for his input. Steelbeard1 (talk) 02:36, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I haven't been following this chapter and verse, but when my watchlist lit up with moves again it seemed it was time for move protection. No comment on the validity of any of those moves, but obviously we can't have the page being moved around so much. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:49, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
 * When three people want to keep a page as it is and one person wants to change it, and when the issue in question has not already been the subject of a wider community discussion, guideline, or policy, there's either consensus to stay put, or there's no consensus. Both situations result in the status quo, so Steelbeard needs to stop handing out trouts and to start going by what others advocate.  Nyttend (talk) 15:38, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The discussion in WP:AN is not going Norton's way which is why Norton is getting the trouts. Steelbeard1 (talk) 15:56, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
 * We all need to move forward and beware it takes more then one  editor to be in the position we are  in now - We all need to read over  Avoid personal remarks one last time. So what is the plan?Moxy (talk) 16:29, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The plan is to heed the majority and leave pages where they were before this all came up. Nyttend (talk) 21:00, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

The purpose of making the CBS Records page the default DAB page has fulfilled its purpose. All the 1,300 or so articles with misdirected links are now fixed. Steelbeard1 (talk) 20:05, 17 September 2012 (UTC)