Talk:Landmark Media Enterprises

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Virginia (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Virginia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Virginia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.


I am proposing that Dominion Enterprises be merged into this article. What do others think? --BwB (talk) 11:57, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Not recommended because Landmark Media Enterprises (LME) is more of a legal construct than an operating company. Dominion Enterprises (DE) is actually the primary operating entity within Landmark Media Enterprises (LME). LME has board oversight but otherwise does not play an operating role over DE or other affiliated companies. --mapdock 6:52, 9 May 2012 (UTC)


the Frank Batten listed here (and at the Wikipedia article re. Dominion Enterprises) as CEO appears to be deceased.Lori (talk) 15:39, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

That's Frank Batten Sr. who died in 2009. His son, Frank Batten Jr., is the current CEO of these companies. Woodshed (talk) 17:05, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Landmark Media / Dominion Enterprises federal lawsuit[edit]

Landmark Media Enterprises and Dominion Enterprises are defendants in a federal lawsuit under Case No. 16-1264 with the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. This is a fact. The inclusion of this material was edited by Hammersoft once the necessary citation support was added to the Article page for both Landmark Media and Dominion Enterprises. The U.S. Department of Labor's Solicitor's Office filed an Amicus Brief with the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals under Case No. 16-1264. This too is a fact. The proper support for the DOL's court filing was included when the article pages for both Landmark Media and Dominion Enterprises were updated regarding the federal brief. There is no basis to remove these additions to the article pages as they have the proper support with verifiable sources.

It is unclear why the actions of Amatulic are not considered edit warring being that Amatulic removed the edits of Hammersoft regarding the lawsuit. The inclusion of the lawsuit on the article pages was finalized by Hammersoft and therefore should remain included. The inclusion of the DOL's brief should also remain in the article pages. Federal agencies do not randomly file briefs to lawsuits in which they are not a party. This is makes the relevancy of the lawsuit that much stronger and the proper citation was included.

Once the proper citation was completed to support the inclusion of the lawsuit and the DOL brief, the only reasons given to remove this material were subjective comments about its relevancy and that myself, Norfolk Truth, is new to editing articles. None of these reasons present legitimate basis to remove edits to the articles.

How are the inclusion of cited details not sufficient to meet the WP:Burden policy? Norfolk Truth (talk) 19:56, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Just because a company is involved in litigation does not make it worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia article. Companies litigate all the time, and unless this is national news or a landmark court case, I don't see why it should receive such prominence in a very short article. Your assessment of the importance of the suit is unsupported by secondary sources, you rely on primary sourcing, which does nto establish notability. Primary sourcing is discouraged in general for rpecisely this reason: court documents are subject to interpretation and may not be used except in extremely limited circumstances. You appear to be trying to use Wikipedia to right a great wrong. Please leave that to the courts, and Wikipedia can record the results if they rise to an appropriate level of notability. Wikipedia is not the news, nor is it a means of promotion for a cause, however just. Acroterion (talk) 01:59, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Third Opinion[edit]

A Third Opinion has been requested. My own opinion is that there hasn't been an actual exchange of discussion, only one statement by each of two editors. However, if I am asked, I would say to include the litigation briefly. I am removing the request, and am suggesting that the parties either include the litigation or resume civil discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:02, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: the discussion goes across talk pages, see also Talk:Dominion Enterprises. There have been more than one statement by each editor. An opinion to include or exclude, grounded in policy, would be welcome. ~Amatulić (talk) 15:16, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

The page has information about the company closing its pension plan. How is this newsworthy or significant? The pension plan information is lacking proper citing and does not meet the burden as to why closing its pension plan should be included in the first place.

The lawsuit information should be included to let the decade plus of 401k plan participants who were unlawfully denied their rightfully owed dollars.

Until someone can give an objective legitimate reason to deny the public this information, it should remain in. Norfolk Truth (talk) 00:24, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

You aren't getting it. There is no argument based in Wikipedia policy that supports your position. The WP:BURDEN is on you to support inclusion of non-noteworthy material, and your opinion of its value is just your own opinion. Your edits have been reverted by multiple other editors. You haven't offered any objective argument for including this material, and claiming erroneously that nobody has given an "objective legitimate reason to deny the public this information" is definitely not an argument for inclusion. Such objective arguments have been made, grounded in Wikipedia policy. And that's what matters here: Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Not personal views. You have been given reasons, multiple times, on multiple talk pages, why Wikipedia policies and guidelines do not support including this material. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:41, 4 June 2016 (UTC)