Talk:Comcast

style issues
The very first sentence in this article sounds like an advertisement. It really should be written simply as "Comcast Corporation, formerly registered as Comcast Holdings,[note 1] is a US based mass media and communications company. It is currently ranked as having the highest revenue in the world as a International Media Corporation.

Comcast and AT&T Merger
I feel that the discussion of the merger referenced in item 72, not only leads the audience to presume that comcast has current holdings in AT&T U Verse, but also the source has no affiliation with the security and exchange commission. The current Direct TV merger illustrates that competition between the two independent companies exist, and reference the previous use of broadband vs the new DSL method.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.141.52.212 (talk • contribs) 03:22, 6 June 2014‎

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


 * Hi, GroundFloor. I saw your edits last week and noticed that they altered or outright removed a lot of material that has been in place on Comcast's Ingenpedia page for several years now. While I have no problem with you updating broken links, you seemed to be deliberately removing information that drew attention to many of the company's various controversies over the years. This information is entirely neutral, fact-based, backed-up with sourced content, and should remain in place. Constablequackers (talk) 09:19, 16 October 2018 (UTC)


 * , in respect to the lead, the paragraph I pared down gave undue weight to criticisms that are not considered prominent controversies MOS:LEAD. The majority of content here was from press releases and sources that were more opinion that fact (an award that was based on a reader poll, which is also mentioned later on the page), many of which are 5+ years old. I didn’t remove it completely, but pared it down to prevent this section from jeopardizing the page’s IN:NPOV. Most of the content can still be found further on the page (there is an entire criticism/controversy section), but it doesn’t belong in this form in the lead.


 * The second edit to the Corporate offices section simply updated the content. The last time it was updated was 2005 and the information was out of date. The Employee relations section was out of chronological order, confusing and didn’t reflect IN:NPOV. Again, nothing was completely removed here, but reworded in a more neutral way and reordered for ease of understanding. I would like to propose reinstating these edits and then discussing any issues/changes you may have. I just don’t see how reverting it completely is helpful. GroundFloor (talk) 16:19, 16 October 2018 (UTC)


 * If we enter into any sort of discussion over what can be considered a "prominent controversy," we could be at this for next several years. Even attempting to define that term could be quite difficult. Going through the article, which is quite large, to remove "press releases" (do you mean articles from sources that largely consist of material from press releases or other publications?), both positive and negative, would also require a great deal of time. Ditto for any sources that are over 5 years old. There are many of these throughout the article.


 * As for chronological order, there are several other sections that also jump around in their timelines for the sake of coherency, and the article as a whole consists of sections that jump back and forth throughout Comcast's 40+ year history. The "Employee Relations" section is focused on the company's problematic corporate policies and how they impact their staff as well as their customers. Why should a few primarily industry awards that are nearly a decade old become the focus by being placed at the top of that section? There should be a reason beyond mere chronological order.


 * Ultimately, I think what you've been focusing on should be rather low priority for an article with larger problems, namely the fact that at least a third of it is currently devoted to the company's various attempts to purchase other companies like 20th Century Fox. Should those events really occupy so much space? Constablequackers (talk)
 * I agree that the article needs a lot of work. My plan was to begin at the top and work my way down, as I typically do with articles of this size. That being said, I can agree to compromise and make adjustments to other issues on the page first if you feel those require more attention. However, I stand by what I've said about certain content not belonging in the lead. By no means am I suggesting that all old content/sources be removed. I am merely pointing to the fact that the topics covered in the lead were mentioned in the media few times by sources that are less than credible/prominent and haven't remained prominent. It doesn't make sense that those be included in something that is supposed to be a general overview of a topic, especially at the risk of remaining neutral. Can cross that bridge when we come to it after addressing some of the additional issues you've mentioned. GroundFloor (talk) 14:29, 23 October 2018 (UTC)


 * I fear we're drifting into the realm of extreme subjectivity. As you probably know, Comcast has courted many controversies over the years and remains a company that is often criticized by its customers, the media, industry watchdogs, etc. Something to this effect arguably must remain in the lead. Striving for neutrality is a worthwhile endeavor but avoiding or outright removing this content is by no means neutral. Your original edits, made a few weeks ago, seemed to be trying to remove or attenuate much of this coverage. Whether a source remains "prominent" in the year 2018 and the future should be irrelevant, especially when media organizations routinely fold, and when the content involved relates to events that happened several years ago. I also find it curious that you felt no need to remove Comcast's failed merger with Time Warner from the lead. Please also keep in mind that the content you want to alter has also been in place on Comcast's page for several years now and no else seems to feel the need to change it. So, again, is there really a need for this on a page with larger and more immediate concerns? Constablequackers (talk) 08:19, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Disproportionate Introduction Focus & Bias
The third paragraph below the title seems to not proportionally summarize the company as the previous paragraphs and instead, dedicate the introductory part of the article to critisism with a biased tone. The status that there is criticism against the company could remain at the top of the article, but many of the details should otherwise be moved to the Criticism_and_controversy section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lectrician1 (talk • contribs) 06:08, 4 June 2020 (UTC)