Talk:PBS

"Dot and Dash" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Dot and Dash and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 31#Dot and Dash until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 18:35, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

RfC about PBS's status, not just as a US TV network, but as a major US TV network (Part 2)

Even though a recent RfC about this very issue fairly quickly reached community consensus in favor of viewing PBS as not only a US TV network, but as a major US TV network as well, when I attempted to edit the article to reflect that very same community consensus, I was told need WP:RS not comments. So then, I proceeded to cite the website for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB), which actually states: PBS is a private, nonprofit media enterprise owned by its member public television stations. The response for that edit was please.discuss such changes on the talk page, and get a consensus first. So, in an effort to satisfy the two editors (@Johnuniq and BilCat:) who refused to accept the prior established community consensus & reliable source from CPB concerning PBS's status as not just a US TV network, but also as a major US TV network, I am opening this RfC. And, I would like to invite the editors (@SMcCandlish, Huggums537, Mrschimpf, and NMasiha:) who commented on that prior RfC to comment on this one. 2600:1700:C960:2270:FD70:5AC:B762:C849 (talk) 05:01, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Sorry but an RfC needs a clear question so I have temporarily disabled the above. First, please review User talk:2600:1700:C960:2270:94A6:8FE6:3787:1A0D where I explained that the wording in diff ("However, the argument can be made that...") is not going to work. Put a complaint about other editors somewhere else—such complaints obfuscate an RfC and mean it won't be successful. Finally, please just discuss proposed wording before resorting to an RfC. Do you have a proposal based on a reliable source? Bear in mind that a hidden comment pointing to a talk page is not adequate—the proposed change has to stand on its own without hidden comments. Johnuniq (talk) 05:31, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

• Comment I was lead to believe that RfC only applied to the US OTA article sections and top logo, not here, so at least here, I have no opinion about any wording and such for the main PBS article. Nate • (chatter) 05:56, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
• OK, @Johnuniq:, I'd like a question answered about the article's current wording...

Under the "Operations" section of the article, the first paragraph states that PBS is technically not a TV network. Yet, according to the article's own infobox, for "Type", it is labeled a "free-to-air television network"; I'm guessing that wording is there because of how many stations across the country carry PBS programming. So, that means that either the first paragraph under "Operations" is incorrect (meaning PBS actually *is* a TV network, using the example of a network-affiliated station that doesn't air all network programming and/or even display its network affiliation), or that label under "Type" is incorrect (meaning PBS is similar to American Public Television, which everyone knows is certainly not a TV network). Which is it, because both cannot *technically* be correct (to use the article's own wording/logic), as they put forth contradictory statements.

• Now, @Johnuniq:, for my response to your comment...

Wouldn't an RfC *technically* be a discussion about proposed wording?

Plus, since the prior RfC about PBS's status as not just a US TV network, but a major US TV network, found community consensus *in favor of* PBS being recognized as not only a US TV network, but a major US TV network as well, shouldn't that RfC provide adequate justification to modify the wording in the article in order to reflect said community consensus?

And, as I've already pointed out, CPB's website refers to PBS as "a private, nonprofit media enterprise owned by its member public television stations". Generally, if a TV broadcast outlet (such as a TV network) is backed by a group of television stations across the country, how could that not then put forth the logic that said broadcast outlet is indeed a TV network?

To put it this way: the other RfC about this issue stated that not all network-owned or -affiliated stations will air the programming a network distributes (as that decision is sometimes left up to the station owner), nor will all network-owned or -affiliated stations carry branding reflecting their affiliation with the network they're attached to (again, as that decision is sometimes left up to the station owner). So, by using the wording/logic currently being presented in the article, as well as the logic I just presented above, the current major TV networks (ABC, CBS, NBC, Fox, The CW) could be viewed in the same context as PBS, since not all network-affiliated stations air network programming, or even display their network affiliation. That would then mean that none of the major TV networks could be *technically* viewed as TV networks then, since each network simply produces & distributes programming, while it is up to the station owner what network programming gets aired. 2600:1700:C960:2270:FD70:5AC:B762:C849 (talk) 06:21, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

The IP's edit changed the start of PBS#Operations to read as follows (IP's text in green):

Unlike the five major commercial broadcast television networks in the United States, ABC, CBS, NBC, Fox, and The CW, PBS is technically not a network, but rather a program distributor that provides television content and related services to its member stations. However, the argument can be made that, since not all TV stations owned by, or affiliated with, the major networks air all network-distributed programming, and since not all TV stations owned by, or affiliated with, the major networks display on-air identification that corresponds to their affiliation with their respective network, because of non-profit TV stations that currently & actively affiliate with PBS, it could still possibly be considered a TV network nonetheless. Regardless, each station is charged with the responsibility of programming local content such as news, interviews, cultural, and public affairs programs for its individual market or state that supplements content provided by PBS and other public television distributors.

The original text and the new text are original research. There should be a reference verifying the claims. It might be better to remove mention of the other networks and just say that PBS distributes content to member stations (preferably with a reliable source!). At any rate, as mentioned above, articles do not include text like "However, the argument can be made...". Are there any proposals for a change? Johnuniq (talk) 07:24, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Wow. Nice mental gymnastics there in order to completely avoid answering my question & addressing my comments...

If PBS isn't a TV network, then "Free-to-air television network" should not be next to "Type" in the infobox. Otherwise, the article is *technically* contradicting itself, and I don't think Wikipedia itself would look very good having an article whose wording is causing said article to contradict itself.

But, it still does stand that, even though it's not directly connected to the article, or even this talk page, there is a community consensus on the talk page for "List of United States over-the-air television networks" on the side of recognizing PBS as not just a US TV network, but also as a major US TV network.

And, as far as I know, the only way I know of to start a discussion on the proposal of changing article wording would be to launch an RfC. Now, as far as the "correct" wording of the RfC, I'm not sure whether it should be a modified (as in disregarding the part about it being a major US TV network, & solely focusing on it being a US TV network, for concern related to the PBS article) repeat of the RfC from the talk page for "List of United States over-the-air television networks", or if it should simply ask if PBS should be considered on the same level as the major networks (as far as being a TV network).

In fact, after taking a look at the entire "Operations" section of the article, relating to the now-established community consensus for PBS's status as a TV network, I would even go so far as to request that maybe almost all the content in the "Operations" section needs to be re-written, specifically to address the concerns I stated above (as far as how much network programming a network-affiliated station chooses to air, as well as whether or not a network-affiliated station chooses to make reference to its network-affiliation). I mean, as time goes on, the current wording of "Operations" may have been somewhat true decades ago, but with how television broadcasting has evolved over time, that same wording may no longer apply currently.

So, to make a long story short: if necessary, in order to start a discussion about proposing a change to the article's content, I will launch an RfC asking if the wording in the "Operations" section of the article needs to be changed to address current thinking nowadays concerning stations' affiliated with major TV networks (as far as how much network programming they air & whether or not they reference their network affiliation). And, just as a reference (so that other Wikipedia editors are aware that a consensus already exists in favor of recognizing PBS's status as a US TV network), I will include a link to the RfC about PBS's status as a US TV network, since the consensus of that RfC does seem to be relevant to the "Operations" section of the article. And, it wouldn't even hurt to also reference CPB's website mentioning that PBS is owned by its member stations. 2600:1700:C960:2270:FD70:5AC:B762:C849 (talk) 08:38, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

You can't start an RfC until there is a short description of the proposal that the RfC has to answer. It's obvious (as I said) that the existing text has a problem but the issue is what to do about it. See WP:FIXIT. Johnuniq (talk) 09:08, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Discussion about PBS's status as a TV network

After having a recent discussion with @Johnuniq: about wording in the article that relates to PBS's status as a TV network, he suggested I launch a discussion about a proposed wording change to the article. So, as a result, this is my attempt at launching such a discussion, in order to come to some sort of consensus.
Now, seeing as how the RfC I am going to reference has some relation to this discussion (that RfC was partially about PBS's status as a TV network), I would like to inform any editors interested in participating in this discussion that there already exists a community consensus in favor of recognizing PBS not only as a US TV network, but as a major US TV network. And, seeing as how this discussion has some relation to that RfC, I am inviting the users who participated in that RfC (@SMcCandlish, Huggums537, Mrschimpf, and NMasiha:) to contribute to this discussion. 2600:1700:C960:2270:5541:D297:6D67:AEBE (talk) 01:43, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

What is needed is a rewrite of the first paragraph at PBS#Operations. To do that, a reliable source is needed. There is probably no need to mention other networks or discuss whether PBS "is technically not a network". How about putting some energy into finding a reliable source. Johnuniq (talk) 03:05, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

So, you're saying, in the article's lede section, the reference to PBS as "an American public broadcaster and television program distributor" wouldn't be changed even if I found a reliable source/reliable sources referring to PBS as a TV network?

And, as far as my attempt to find reliable sources referencing PBS as a TV network...

(I guess luckily for me) as it turns out, after doing a Google search for the term "pbs television network", I found these references, but not sure if any of these would be acceptable: Mondo Times [1]: "Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) is a USA television network."; Tesla Memorial Society [2]: "Tesla, Master of Lightning, New Voyage Communications for PBS Television Network, 2000, 90 minutes"; Carnegie Council for Ethics in International Affairs [3]: "(Ray) Suarez joined the PBS NewsHour in 1999 and was a senior correspondent for the evening news program on the PBS television network until 2013."; Inside Peace [4]: "We are pleased to announce the release of Inside Peace throughout the PBS television network in the United States." 2600:1700:C960:2270:5541:D297:6D67:AEBE (talk) 03:51, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

What text do you propose? What source to verify that text? Don't mention anything else. Johnuniq (talk) 04:51, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Well, @Johnuniq:, here's a thought I just had on the wording of that first sentence in that first paragraph under the "Operations" section...

As far as the statement "Unlike the four major commercial broadcast television networks in the United States, ABC, CBS, NBC, and Fox, PBS is technically not a network, but rather a program distributor that provides television content and related services to its member stations.", when it comes to re-wording that statement so that it reflects how people view PBS nowadays (as proven by the RfC about PBS's TV network status & the websites I came across), what about changing it to partial past-tense, as in From PBS's launch up until 2000, it was not technically considered a US TV network, compared to US TV networks like ABC, CBS, Fox, & NBC, due to the stations that air PBS programming not being owned by PBS; in other words, stations that aired PBS programming from the time of PBS's launch until 2000 were considered to be independent stations that carried programming distributed by PBS. However, beginning in 2000, public references to PBS labeled it as a TV network. to show how PBS used to be viewed years ago (I'm guessing that's why that wording has been in the article for this long)? FYI: I figured to use 2000, since the webpage listing Tesla, Master of Lightning on the website for the Tesla Memorial Society cites 2000 as when that named program was released/distributed.

I mean, I'm in the dark as to if Wikipedia would have, in any of its published articles, references to how, years ago, brands mentioned in said articles used to be viewed.

And, as far as a source to verify PBS starting to be labeled a TV network in 2000, I figure start with that webpage from the Tesla Memorial Society website, then, as per WP:3REFS, back up that webpage's reference with either one or two of the other websites I linked to above (not really sure how many references to PBS being labeled a TV network would be needed in order for the re-wording to pass notability requirements).

Now, as far as the second sentence in that first paragraph under the "Operations" section: Each station is charged with the responsibility of programming local content such as news, interviews, cultural, and public affairs programs for its individual market or state that supplements content provided by PBS and other public television distributors., I'm going to need help on figuring out what would have to be done with that wording.

Of course, as far as the re-wording, whether of either sentence, or that first paragraph as a whole, I'm open to any suggestions you have that could help the re-wording pass notability requirements. 2600:1700:C960:2270:5541:D297:6D67:AEBE (talk) 06:05, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

So, @Johnuniq:, have you seen the comments yet? 76.235.248.101 (talk) 04:06, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Yes, this page is on my watchlist and I had already seen the above. Sorry to be blunt but many of us are busy and above I wrote "What text do you propose? What source to verify that text? Don't mention anything else." This issue is not a high priority for me and I don't have the energy to wade through the above to see if there is proposed text and a source. Johnuniq (talk) 05:20, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

• I want to point out that @Johnuniq: explicitly asked you to simply verify the statements with sources, which is fundamentally different than meeting WP:notability requirements. It is very important for editors to understand that notability is a test to see if content deserves having an article of its own, not about putting content inside an article per WP:NNC. I'm only pointing this out because this comment you made grabbed my attention, and I'm a huge stickler about this: I'm open to any suggestions you have that could help the re-wording pass notability requirements. Feel free to release yourself from any burdens of having to meet any notability requirements for content within articles.Huggums537 (talk) 09:28, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Request for comment about the status of the Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) as a TV network

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Consensus was reached that the beginning of the "Operations" section should be re-worded to From PBS's launch up until 2000, it was not technically deemed a TV network, compared to TV networks like ABC, CBS, Fox, & NBC, due to the stations that air PBS programming not being owned by PBS (despite the stations being referenced as PBS member stations); during that time, they were seen as independent stations carrying PBS. However, beginning in 2000, public references to PBS labeled it as a TV network. 2600:1700:C960:2270:3CD1:517A:41BE:55DB (talk) 19:58, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

---

I am proposing re-wording the first sentence under "Operations": Unlike the four major commercial broadcast television networks in the United States, ABC, CBS, NBC, and Fox, PBS is technically not a network, but rather a program distributor that provides television content and related services to its member stations. to From PBS's launch up until 2000, it was not technically considered a TV network, compared to the major US TV networks like ABC, CBS, Fox, & NBC, due to the stations that air PBS programming not being considered owned by PBS; they were considered independent stations carrying PBS at that time. However, beginning in 2000, public references to PBS labeled it as a TV network..

And, for reference, here are three sources making reference to PBS as a TV network, one of which references 2000 as when they started considering it a TV network : Mondo Times [5]: "Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) is a USA television network."; Tesla Memorial Society [6]: "Tesla, Master of Lightning, New Voyage Communications for PBS Television Network, 2000, 90 minutes"; Carnegie Council for Ethics in International Affairs [7]: "(Ray) Suarez joined the PBS NewsHour in 1999 and was a senior correspondent for the evening news program on the PBS television network until 2013."; Inside Peace [8]: "We are pleased to announce the release of Inside Peace throughout the PBS television network in the United States.. 2600:1700:C960:2270:79B0:F220:B8D8:7E65 (talk) 19:55, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

This is a distinction without a difference, and pre-2000 is ancient history. Some of the supposed networks didn't own all of their affiliate stations either. End of the day, it's the programming that defines a station. --StellarNerd (talk) 19:58, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Well, it's valid to point out that there's times where stations affiliated with ABC, CBS, Fox, NBC, etc. don't air network programming. So, does that then mean that, when network-affiliated stations don't air network programming, the network they're affiliated with can't be technically considered a network?

In fact, there was recently a discussion about PBS's status as a TV network, and the community consensus was that PBS can & should be considered not just a US TV network, but a major US TV network.

So, care to respond to my first comment? 2600:1700:C960:2270:79B0:F220:B8D8:7E65 (talk) 22:33, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

• Support sounds more encyclopedic and includes more information. interstatefive  00:11, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
• Support it is a good improvement in my opinion. Fad Ariff (talk) 12:51, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose as phrased. I'm not entirely convinced. What changed within PBS to prompt such a change in terminology? That's the underlying question. As far as I can tell, there was no structural change to PBS at that point, just journalists being blasé about the technical difference. As such, I don't think we should try to say that there was a change with the service as this wording implies. Since the passage in question is one about technical and legal definitions, it must remain focused on that, not what a casual reference in a news story uses. In other words, I don't believe the references rise to a level to actually rebuff the distinction made by the existing references inThe previous passage. There is a distinct difference between how PBS operates and the commercial networks operate beyond being a non-profit with various funding sources. It's much more a cooperative than centrally controlled, and member stations (nit affiliates) have much greater flexibility to carry as much or as little programming as they wish.

Franlky, I think stating it's not a network in the first place is the problem. Describing how its operations differ is the important part. Saying that makes it "not a network" is a mistake. oknazevad (talk) 14:24, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

• Agreed with Oknazevad. There's also the problem that it's using the WP:WEASEL word "considered" three times when it does not need to be in there even once.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:00, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Ironically enough, Oknazevad's ending statement is almost exactly what Johnuniq said; that the wording of the first sentence in the first paragraph under "Operations" is problematic. So, I simply provided wording I thought was more appropriate, as well as references backing up my proposal.

And, the thing is, like I said in my proposal, the article from the Tesla Memorial Society was the only reference to PBS as a TV network that I found (among the three I found) that has any kind of date attached to it.

And, another thing: if anyone has a proposal or any suggestions about how you think the wording should be changed to better reflect PBS being seen as a TV network nowadays, then offer it/them up. I'm open to compromise/advice/suggestions. If anything, I simply put forth what I thought was the best way to re-word the problematic text.

As far as having a problem with "considered", what would be a better use to use in its place? 2600:1700:C960:2270:28CA:39B0:60B7:5908 (talk) 20:07, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Just drop the word (all three times) and it reads perfectly fine.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:18, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Well, what about re-wording it this way: From PBS's launch up until 2000, it was not technically deemed a TV network, compared to the major US TV networks like ABC, CBS, Fox, & NBC, due to the stations that air PBS programming not being owned by PBS (despite the stations being referenced as PBS member stations); they were seen as independent stations carrying PBS at that time. However, beginning in 2000, public references to PBS labeled it as a TV network."? 2600:1700:C960:2270:316F:57FB:6F73:B7AD (talk) 03:58, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

• I totally agree with SMC and Oknazevad. The statement about PBS not being a network never had any sourcing backing it up, and it should be removed. I see nothing in existing sourcing explicitly stating PBS is not a network. It appears to be conclusions made up by editors based on assumptions about how different networks operate, which is just original research and synthesis. I also support the proposed changes. Huggums537 (talk) 10:47, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
• Support per above. ~ HAL333 21:17, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
• Remove it entirely, as there's no sourcing for it not having been a network. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:34, 29 June 2022 (UTC) (Summoned by bot)

Well, as I was told by Johnuniq when I brought up a little over a week ago about the wording (specifically concerning PBS not being viewed as a TV network), he said it is problematic, much like a least a couple others in this RfC have stated. Johnuniq then proceeded to, more or less, tell me, and I quote, "What text do you propose? What source to verify that text? Don't mention anything else".

Now, the thing is, I figure that the re-wording should reference both how PBS was viewed years ago (not necessarily a TV network, but a content distributor, while the stations that air it are viewed as independent stations), as that's been the text that's been in the article for this long (since I'm guessing that that's how PBS was viewed years ago), as well as how it's viewed nowadays (as a non-profit, educational, and possibly major, US TV network).

Of course, after this RfC has attained community consensus on PBS's status as a TV network, the next step could be putting to a vote whether or not to retain that wording (PBS not being a TV network, but moreso a content distributor, as well as the network affiliation of the stations that air its programming), or just remove it completely.

But, for the time being, the focus is on figuring out PBS's status as a TV network. 2600:1700:C960:2270:75B3:DBD8:AB48:158B (talk) 03:29, 30 June 2022 (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.