Talk:Canadian Broadcasting Corporation/Archive 1

Hello. I found an interesting fact sheet on CBC/Radio-Canada. I think it might be good to incorporate the infos on this page in the article : CBC Fast Facts.

Also, if we are going to list the programming, we will need to list the programming of the French side as well, or if that is too long, split CBC and its "mirror" Radio-Canada in two separate articles. -- Mathieugp 14:43, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I don't really like unproven conjectures. If there is evidence that the CBC is not complying with its requirement to closed-caption 100% of its programming, I'd like to see it. Denelson83 06:32, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * The evidence has been published. &#8211; joeclark 23:45, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Picture placement
Why should div tags not be used? How do they mess up the main text? How should the images be prevented from stacking up? Would this table do? Tim Ivorson 16:49, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * The thing is that the "right alignment" has already been specified in the Extended image syntax for those images. Denelson83 20:54, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * I still feel a bit in the dark about what is wrong with using divs or tables for placing images. Isn't the stackup undesirable? I have changed the table on this talk page so that the extended image syntax doesn't specify right alignment. Does that help? Tim Ivorson 21:43, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * So the problem is that a div or table makes a little space before it. I couldn't see it before because I was editing the section and not the whole article. Is there a good way to prevent images stackups without this problem? Tim Ivorson 15:20, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

1940s CBC logo
That 1940s logo is utterly gorgeous. --  &mdash; I. Neschek |  talk 22:14, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

French Radio-Canada
The French Radio-Canada should not be a redirect to the CBC page. They are two seperate identities, one in English and one in French. Andrew pmk 21:49, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * They do indeed have two separate visible identities, but they're still both parts of the same corporate entity. Denelson83 04:04, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * That's like saying that if Johnson Corp is owned by Peterson Corp, Johnson Corp should not have an article and only redirect to the Peterson Corp's page, where there will only be a short summary of Johnson Corp's activities. That makes no sense. Radio-Canada's tv and radio programming is not even listed in this page. If it were, this article would be double the size it currently is, making it unreadable. -- Mathieugp 22:18, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * That is not the type of scenario described here. It's more like Johnson Corp and Peterson Corp are different names for, or different divisions of, the same corporation.  It is not one corporation that owns another.  It is one corporation, not two.  Denelson83  02:46, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * But in this case, it's not just Johnson Corp and Peterson Corp being having different identities while being the same company. CBC and Radio-Canada are so different from each other that linking Radio-Canada to the same article as CBC would be like linking the Ottawa Citizen, National Post, Canada.com, and Global TV all to CanWest Global. There needs to be division (or an entirely new article) between CBC, the corporation, CBC, the broadcasting network, and Radio-Canada, the broadcasting network.


 * I tend to agree. Radio-Canada deserves its own article.  It won't be up to the same quality as the CBC article at first, but the best way to improve it is to get started.  -Alexwcovington (talk) 05:16, 17 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Radio-Canada/CBC is one corporation, and this article represents an overview of that one entity. Yes, Radio-Canada television programming is vastly different from CBC television, but heck, even English-language Radio One is vastly different from Radio Two.  Each of the CBC's networks should also have their own articles (CBC TV, Radio Canada TV, RDI, Newsworld, etc. etc.) (as I believe is now the case), but it would be absurd to have two articles for the corporation itself, one under its English name, one under its French name.  Skeezix1000 21:27, 5 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, each of the CBC's individual TV and radio networks already has its own separate article. I think that's probably the most appropriate scenario here. Bearcat 23:47, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Venture between the CBC and Power Broadcasting Inc
"NWI was launched in 1994 as a joint venture between the CBC and Power Broadcasting Inc. In 2000, they sold NWI, along with the entertainment channel Trio, to Barry Diller's USA Network for $155 million." 

Crown Corporation
Is CBC/Radio-Canada still a Crown Corporation? The only reference on http://www.cbc.radio-canada.ca to Crown Corporation (in http://www.cbc.radio-canada.ca/about/pdf/CBCFacts.pdf) states that CBC was created as a Crown Croporation. Is that still the case? --Sepper 23:07, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * It still appears on the government's list of departments, agencies and crown corporations (http://canada.gc.ca/depts/major/depind_e.html). -Adjusting 23:27, 2005 Apr 19 (UTC)

Nicknames?
Is the Nicknames section really of a standard worthy of inclusion, especially since it ignores the most common internal nickname (the Corpse) and spends a lot of time talking about nicknames for unrelated media outlets? &#8211; Joe Clark 20050808


 * No, it's not worthy of inclusion. Based on reading it, and following the "footnotes", it should be deleted promptly.  Even if a nickname section is warranted, this nickname section should be removed.  There is nothing worthy of keeping.  There is not a single authoritative reference to support anything.  --rob 20:58, 8 August 2005 (UTC)


 * It either stays here or goes back to its own article; Canadian Broadcorping Castration in particular is a nickname with enough of a life of its own that it warrants mention somewhere. One short paragraph that puts it in the established historical context of common satirical nicknames for Canadian media outlets is hardly "a lot of time".) Bearcat 00:01, 9 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I won't object (e.g. I won't partake in a vfd) if it's put/kept in it's own article. However, somebody coming to *this* article isn't looking to read a wholely unupported bunch of rumours.  One of the links is a message with the subject "Re: virus and homepage".  Only footnotes of reputable sources should be used.  I'm sure there are countless other obscene nicknames for every government department and crown corporation.  We needn't print them all.  --rob 09:26, 9 August 2005 (UTC)


 * It was its own article and was then merged and redirected into this one. The thing is, you're not going to find much in the way of encyclopedic sources that give a lot of detail on the topic of the CBC's informal nicknames, which is why it's worth having something that explains where a documentable nickname comes from. Sources and examples are not the same thing, and examples don't need to be held to particularly high standards of authority. You would need an actual authoritative source to footnote a detail confirming that the phrase was actually spoken over the air; when you're just giving examples of what people claim was said, without any further factual assertions beyond "this is one of several different wordings that people claim was said", it's enough to reference a page that contains the wording you're citing as an example. Bearcat 17:08, 9 August 2005 (UTC)


 * An example like the one with "Mother Corp" means something. The others, even as examples, are worthless rumors.  I can post some stuff to some message board and than post a link as "proof", that what I'm saying is widely said.  I notice how one sentence is used for "Mother Corp" (proven), but most of the section is used for "bas...d", which is unsupported nonsense.  --rob 17:52, 9 August 2005 (UTC)


 * It is a documented fact that a considerable number of people believe that a CBC announcer once identified the network on-air as "Canadian Broadcorping Castration", and it is a documented fact that some people actually use it as a satirical nickname for the network (see, , , for just four examples.) It would be unsupportable to claim that it ever actually happened, but the article isn't claiming that. It's only claiming that the term exists, which is documentably true. Bearcat 00:17, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
 * The links you give are just some private blogs, personal web site, and message board postings. I can just as easily invent any word I wish, post it to some free web space, blogs, and message boards; and declare it's sufficiently "documented" to add to any article. --rob 01:02, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Since this is clearly going to come down to a circular argument, I will post an RfC for other opinions. Bearcat 01:48, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
 * That's a fair approach. I will offer a compromise.  Consider substantially rewording the section, so it's not focussed solely on the one profane nickname.  It barely mentions a couple other non-profane nicknames, with actual sources (Frank and Playback magazines).  Maybe there are other nicknames, with sources.  I guess my original negative attitude comes from seeing the word "castrated" repeated 5 times in a row.  --rob 03:01, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Hi, I found my way here from the notice at Canadian_wikipedians%27_notice_board. I study urban legends somewhat, and the "Broadcorping Castration" theme has many symptoms of being one. Personally, I feel this nickname belongs in the article as much as "If you send a postcard to Little Timmy, Bill Gates will donate him a kidney I saw this on the CBC" does.

Moreover, this is not a "common nickname", nor has it "persisted in Canada", and I do not agree that it has "few" references; it has none. The footnotes given are worthless, and the fact they disageee on who said it, when it was said, and even what was said, are all evidence the quote is fake. Listing every permutation of the story just gives it unjustified prominence.

I suppose you should mention it, otherwise another "helpful" Wikipedian will just add it again, but I think you can do so without giving it such prominence. This single, extremely dubious, nickname is given far more space than all the real, and documented, nicknames put together. In my opinion, the following sentence is more than adequate mention:
 * There is an urban legend that a CBC radio host once mispronounced the corporation's name as the "Canadian Broadcorping Castration".

As an aside, the mentions of the Globe and Mail's and National Post's nicknames are also out of place here. -- Corvus 16:31, 10 August 2005 (UTC)


 * This was formerly a separate article, specifically about the urban legend qua urban legend, which was merged into this one within the last week. The whole point of it existing in the first place was to prove that it's probably an urban legend, because it is an idea with enough currency out there to merit a good debunking. The point that the references that do exist are so variable in detail is part of attempting to prove the argument that it is a crock of shit. I don't mind trimming it down to a one or two line mention -- in fact, I already did -- but be aware that it was originally written as an entirely separate article within Category:Urban legends, specifically documenting the evidence for it being an urban legend, and not as an overload of inappropriate detail in this article. Rob appeared to be challenging whether the term even exists, not whether it should be treated here with the entire former article or just a brief mention. Bearcat 18:30, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear, I challenged whether usage existed to a notable extend. Technically, any term you or I say, or write, "exists" in the broadest sense.  It's literally impossible to say a word or term that doesn't exist, in this broad sense.  --rob 22:15, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Entertainers who got their "starts" on the CBC
I would like to propose we limit this to people who started with the CBC but have moved on to do other things, they are more famous for now. If their entire notable broadcast/entertainment career is with the CBC, this isn't the section for them, although they might belong elsewhere in the article. Shelagh Rogers is an example of somebody who doesn't belong in this section. --rob 02:11, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I'd agree there. Ingrid Veninger also doesn't belong on the list; she's not known for anything but her CBC work (and, if you want to get really technical, not particularly famous even for that.) Bearcat 02:17, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree about Ingrid Veninger. Does anybody know if Hart Pomerantz is well known for anything besides his CBC work?  --rob 02:45, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
 * He was also a writer for Laugh-In. Bearcat 18:48, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

I would also like to add the suggestion that we always state exactly what they did at the CBC. I filled that in for a couple it wasn't mention, and ask the information be included for any new entries. --rob 09:21, 18 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I would like to add a few people to this list : for example


 * The Guess Who - after their first your left them in massive debt they took a job as house band for CBC programs


 * Anne Murray - frequenctly apeared on Jubilee and other music programs


 * Wayne & Shuster worked on CBC radio & TV before becoming regulars on Ed Sullivan

Dowew 02:34, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

"CBC Radio 2 classical"?
Except for their newscasts, they seem to be shorter. Are you claiming that CBC Radio 2 is devoted to classical music, and not only others. I had heard PBS talking about the CBC, I thought this was some kind of joke.


 * Could you please clarify your comment? I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. Bearcat 23:03, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm trying to say that the CBC 72-hour walkout is a joke, when they hold picket signs, etc.

While fewer people still feel that way, that classical music should be the only music broadcast. It is impossible if at all for both CBC Radio 1 and CBC Radio 2 broadcast the same classical music format?

Regards, 4.16x.xxx.xxx


 * CBC Radio Two does not broadcast only classical music (although it is predominantly classical, there's also jazz and alternative rock programming); the article doesn't suggest that it does. (It may be running an all-classical stream from Galaxie during the labour dispute, I'm not sure. But if so, that's only a temporary thing.) CBC Radio One broadcasts a primarily news and information schedule, which during the labour dispute is mixed between repeats of CBC programming and some BBC stuff. At this particular moment (post-midnight), I have R1 on and it's running a Galaxie pop music channel. I still fail to understand your question. Bearcat 04:08, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Lockout?
We're into Day Two of the lockout; it's becoming front-page news and turning a lot of heads. Putting it in the article, though, is a bit tricky; what section should it go under? Granted, we may want to hold off a bit in case there's a sudden deal and it's all over; but at what point do we put it in for sure?

Any other ideas would be good to know as well. Radagast 12:04, August 16, 2005 (UTC)


 * It was already put in by another user (although I've had to edit for accuracy); it should be noted that there was also a labour dispute in 1999. I wouldn't go into some kind of massive detail that included 24-hour charts of the networks' broadcast schedules during the strike or anything, but I think what's there now is probably reasonable. A bit of expansion on the reasons behind the strike would probably be acceptable, too. Bearcat 17:26, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

What?
Do you think I am some half-sick person does not care for the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation? No, I do not live in Canada. I know nothing about what R1 and R2 programs broadcast, but what CBC Radio 2 program features classical music, besides Saturday Afternoon at the Opera? Even, I was accused of deleting the entire schedule.

Let me get this straight: CBC Radio 1: News/information, variety. CBC Radio 2: Mostly classical music and fine arts, (not much jazz, not much alternative rock) except Saturdays and Sundays? You tell me.

Regards: Unknown person


 * You did delete the entire schedule. Howzabout leaving the actual editing on CBC-related articles to people who are familiar with the CBC? As to what Radio Two program features classical music, what part of most of them, the answer you got the last three times the question was answered for you, did you fail to understand? And how do you think deleting the schedules is going to improve anybody's understanding of normal CBC programming? (Oh, and as to the question you left on my talk page, which leaves me with no idea where to answer you other than here, what in the hell makes you think Canada would be cold in the summer?) Bearcat 05:44, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

It's the CBC network shows temperatures for every city that is below 30 degrees is wrong, but it's warm down here in the U.S. at about 75-80 degrees.


 * Canadian temperatures are measured in Celsius, dude. 30 degrees Celsius is 86 degrees in your scale. (I can't believe that I actually had to explain this.) Bearcat 18:20, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

The lockout is over, you could probably delete the links to the positions of the CBC and labor in the external links section.

Hi, you're nipper
I don't mean to offend you, Bearcat. Peter Jennings worked at the CBC, before moving to ABC in 1964 or 1965. Well, our PBS radio station does not do the same thing as R2, it is mostly classical music during the day and also night, but not much jazz, and only special programs devoted to other types of music, etc.

Unknown person


 * Yeah, well, CBC Radio Two is not NPR. It's a different network, operating in a different country, with different programming and a different schedule. Oh, and please stop editing articles unless you actually know the topic -- Wikipedia articles cannot say something is probably true, like you did in Music and Company. They can only assert what is true about the topic, so if you don't know what's true about it, don't write the article. (Oh, and for what it's worth, Peter Jennings' Canadian media career was much more closely associated with CTV than with the CBC.) Bearcat 18:34, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Lockout in 2001
Wasn't there another CBC lockout in 2001?


 * No. 1999. Already noted in the article. Bearcat 05:31, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Controversy, controversy
"in a January 2005 documentary aired by CBC exploring the conservative bias in the U.S. media, Fox News and Bill O'Reilly were singled out for their conservative stance, from 9/11 to the 2003 War In Iraq." The 2005 Documentary was called "Sticks and Stones." It was not about conservative bias in the U.S. media but exposing the degradation of media quality and the way in which punditry has eroded into a series of yelling matches (thus the allusion to the childhood rhyme "sticks and stones may break my bones but names will never hurt me.")
 * Yes I agree, I saw the documentary, It was about the lack of established journalistic standards in some of the most popular US news outlets (such as Fox). I think Sticks & Stones was mainly attacked on its premise, not actually the substance.  The only reason this documentary is talked about is because O'reilly mentioned it...after he found out he was starring...  Not much of a controversy--sansv&oslash;ix 08:44, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Should this be added under the "issue of bias" section? CBC Sunday (on January 14, 2006) recently replayed a clip where O'Reilly and a Toronto Sun columnist again accused the CBC of liberal, left wing bias... all of which stems from the original fifth estate documentary ("Sticks and Stones"). &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by Firehawk12 (talk &bull; contribs) 13:15, 21 January 2006 (UTC)


 * You can watch the entire documentary, and see O'Reilly's and Coulter's response as well as a stack of viewer letters, here. --JTBurman 23:49, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup tag
There are too many one-sentence paragraphs and unlabelled external links in this article, and the lead-in looks too disorganized. I'm hoping this can be submitted to WP:FAC soon, but it won't make it in this state. Denelson83 21:28, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Vandalism?
How is stating the political leanings of a corporation vandalism? Z3D5599 (talk) 18:56, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Hmm. You were all quick to edit but nobody wants to reply.

Plenty of Wiki articles label people as far right but when one of your leftist media outlets is labelled it's marked as vandalism.

Typical liberals. Z3D5599 (talk) 19:08, 30 July 2019 (UTC)