Talk:CNA (news channel)/Archive 1

Press release

I have removed a copy-paste of a MediaCorp Group press release that was added to the article. Press release, Google cache.

If someone would like to add to the article using the press release as a resource, that would be perfectly reasonable. --TenOfAllTrades(talk) 28 June 2005 06:12 (UTC)

Hi all

I have updated this page to include media quality issues about Channel News Asia. Minor portions of external materials have been quoted.

Pberrett 02:20, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

What you basically added was a whole bunch of text on Singapore's press freedom in general, with little linkup with that on the CNA itself. Why do you add all that text, and then ask the reader to form his own assuptions, when it is plain obvious what kind of outcome you are expecting from the average reader? This is hardly NPOV, and is hardly appriopriate for this article. Please write about the channel itself, and if there is a need to question its impartiality, please write about direct criticisms of its content by third party sources instead of trying to conjour up your own assumptions.--Huaiwei 16:43, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Censorship

Thanks Huawei for your comments

What I was trying to achieve was to place the ChannelNewsAsia entry in the context of the issues around Censorship in Singapore which are a hot topic.

In hindsight, I agree that my links were not the best way to do so. There is nonetheless a need to provide a link so that readers are aware of the media context in which ChannelNewsAsia operates and the issues around censorship. Otherwise one would be unaware of the situation in which ChannelNewsAsia finds itself.

Fortunately somebody has started a page examining the issues of censorship in Singapore. As part of a (if not the) major media organisation in Singapore this is something that directly affects ChannelNewsAsia. I have provided a straightforward link to the entry on censorship in Singapore. That page more thoroughly covers the media issues I was trying to raise. I hope you find this satisfactory.

Regards

Pberrett 11:56, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

self censorship is also common, it is starting to look like US news media. disgusting but not unique to singapore. Akinkhoo 06:26, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup

This article devotes much of its space to listing the channel's various anchors and correspondents, with little of substance about the channel besides a possibly biased paragraph on censorship. Johnleemk | Talk 15:24, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Sushila Krishnan

Note: Pussila Krishnan? Her name's Sushila, ignorant fools.

Clean-up Time

I believe this article could have been written better and more professionally. We should add information such as its history, unique features that distinguish it from other news channels, distribution and its criticisms. I don't think we need to mention all the correspondents and news casters, maybe if you want to do so please do it at a subpage. --Russianroulette2004 12:19, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

conflicting report

CNA has made several conflicting report. 1 of them is the report in the great wall being viewable in space, despite the fact that they also reported that the chinese astronaut stated it was not viewable at all. and when the news were brought forward in their forum, it was censored and deleted. it continues to push the point that it is viewable in it's random fact just to make asia "look good". i hope they take a serious view on ensuring their information is correct because creditability should be THE BIG THING for an news organisation! Akinkhoo 06:23, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Possible Slander / Defamation

The article refers to ex-staff members involved in a matter (sexual in nature) involving deportation of one of them... can anyone provide a source for this? other wise i suggest we remove it as it is defamatory 121.79.1.46 (talk) 03:59, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

The incident involving the ex-staff, ie: Shankar Aiyar which was sexual in nature was a well known fact and it made headlines a few years ago.60.48.208.126 (talk) 11:12, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

That may be true, but i would point to to WP:V WP:SOURCE and until such time as you provide one, it will be removed. 121.79.1.46 (talk) 23:14, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Your recent edit is not sourced. Please familiarize yourself with WP:V From that policy:

"Do not leave unsourced or poorly sourced information that may damage the reputation of living persons or organizations in articles and do not move it to the talk page (See Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons for details of this policy). As Jimmy Wales has put it: I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons. –Jimmy Wales [3]"

Your changes will continue to be reverted until you provide a source, and a reliable one at that. Simply saying 'it was in the headlines' is NOT enough for wikipedia. So if it is correct, provide a reliable source or two and the edit can remain. Cheers 121.79.1.46 (talk) 23:31, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Another edit from an IP based in Malaysia, this time from 218.111.38.242 which was also followed by a rather nasty talk message from 118.100.98.40. Both are again from the TELEKOM MALAYSIA BERHAD network. Rather tiring, so please, if you are reading this, just provide a source as per WP:V and we can all move on, otherwise your edits consitute vandalism, and will continue to be reverted. 121.79.1.46 (talk) 19:03, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Shankar Aiyar

I typed in the name "Shankar Aiyar" and "Channel NewsAsia" into LexisNexis. There were over twenty articles documenting his court case in reliable sources. I'll list them below.

1. Former TV presenter Shankar Aiyar out of prison, flies back to India Channel NewsAsia, December 23, 2004 Thursday, SINGAPORE NEWS, 177 words ... Former television presenter Shankar Aiyar, who had been jailed for ... ... later went to the airport.Channel NewsAsia understands a male ... ... now working overseas.Channel NewsAsia understands Shankar's original ... SHANKAR AIYAR (94%);

2. Shankar Aiyar spared cane on medical grounds Channel NewsAsia, September 3, 2004 Friday, SINGAPORE NEWS, 143 words ... Former television presenter Shankar Aiyar has been spared the cane on ... ... Subhas Anandan, told Channel NewsAsia Shankar was suffering from problems with the ... SHANKAR AIYAR (96%);

3. Former Indian TV host appeals against caning in Singapore: report Agence France Presse -- English, February 12, 2004 Thursday, International News, 155 words ... reported Thursday.Vidya Shankar Aiyar is claiming he is medically unfit to ... ... for local broadcaster Channel NewsAsia, is also seeking a review of his ... VIDYA SHANKAR AIYAR (91%);

4. Shankar Aiyar's family appeals to President for clemency in molest case Channel NewsAsia, February 11, 2004 Wednesday, SINGAPORE, 104 words The family of Shankar Aiyar has written to President S ... SHANKAR AIYAR (94%);

5. Shankar Aiyar starts 16-month jail sentence for molest Channel NewsAsia, February 3, 2004 Tuesday, SINGAPORE NEWS, 215 words ... Former television presenter Shankar Aiyar will spend his first ... SHANKAR AIYAR (96%);

6. Shankar Aiyar withdraws appeal, starts jail term on Feb 3 Channel NewsAsia, January 19, 2004 Monday, SINGAPORE NEWS, 149 words ... Former television presenter Shankar Aiyar has withdrawn his appeal and will ... SHANKAR AIYAR (95%);

7. TV host gets 16 months' jail in Singapore for molesting colleague Agence France Presse -- English, January 6, 2004 Tuesday, International News, 155 words ... after a party.Shankar Aiyar, who had worked for local broadcaster Channel NewsAsia for about three ... SHANKAR AIYAR (93%);

8. Shankar gets 16 months' jail, 4 strokes of the cane for molest Channel NewsAsia, January 6, 2004 Tuesday, SINGAPORE NEWS, 460 words ... Former television presenter Shankar Aiyar has been sentenced to 16 months' ... SHANKAR AIYAR (98%); SUBHAS ANANDAN ( ...

9. Shankar Aiyar to be sentenced on Tuesday Channel NewsAsia, December 31, 2003 Wednesday, SINGAPORE NEWS, 1069 words ... out of trouble.Vidya Shankar Aiyar, one-time host of the ... VIDYA SHANKAR AIYAR (97%); VICTOR YEO ( ...

10. Former television presenter found guilty of molesting woman Agence France Presse -- English, December 30, 2003 Tuesday, International News, 195 words ... conservative city-state.Shankar Aiyar, an Indian national, was ... ... report by broadcaster Channel NewsAsia said its former presenter ... SHANKAR AIYAR (94%);

11. Ex-TV presenter Shankar Aiyar found guilty of molest Channel NewsAsia, December 30, 2003 Tuesday, SINGAPORE NEWS, 369 words ... Former television presenter Shankar Aiyar has been found guilty on ... SHANKAR AIYAR (98%); VICTOR YEO ( ...

12. Release of Shankar's statement was a legal move: MediaCorp Channel NewsAsia, November 19, 2003 Wednesday, SINGAPORE NEWS, 171 words ... police to hand over Shankar Aiyar's written explanation to them.Shankar is ... SHANKAR AIYAR (92%);

13. Verdict on Shankar's trial on Jan 6 Channel NewsAsia, November 18, 2003 Tuesday, SINGAPORE NEWS, 192 words ... former TV presenter Shankar Aiyar, who is accused of outraging the ... SHANKAR AIYAR (95%); JEWEL OCAMPO ( ...

14. Shankar challenges testimony of cabbie and ex-girlfriend in molest trial Channel NewsAsia, November 17, 2003 Monday, SINGAPORE NEWS, 167 words ... Former television presenter Shankar Aiyar, who faces charges of ... SHANKAR AIYAR (96%); JENNIFER ALEJANDRO ( ...

15. Accused says woman's mood changed after she woke up naked Channel NewsAsia, November 14, 2003 Friday, SINGAPORE NEWS, 159 words ... Former television presenter Shankar Aiyar said he was surprised by the ... SHANKAR AIYAR (94%);

16. Accused says woman flirted with him during party Channel NewsAsia, November 13, 2003 Thursday, SINGAPORE NEWS, 143 words ... Former television presenter Shankar Aiyar said the woman, who had ... SHANKAR AIYAR (94%);

17. Shankar's trial: Taxi driver testifies woman voluntarily alights from vehicle Channel NewsAsia, November 12, 2003 Wednesday, SINGAPORE NEWS, 224 words ... former television presenter Shankar Aiyar of outraging her modesty, had got ... SHANKAR AIYAR (94%);

18. Taxi driver testifies in molest case against former TV presenter Channel NewsAsia, November 11, 2003 Tuesday, SINGAPORE NEWS, 217 words ... former television presenter Shankar Aiyar.He is charged with outraging the modesty of ... SHANKAR AIYAR (94%); ERIC TEY ( ...

19. Prosecution calls first 3 witnesses in molest case against former TV host Channel NewsAsia, November 10, 2003 Monday, SINGAPORE NEWS, 174 words ... Former TV presenter Shankar Aiyar, who faces two ... SHANKAR AIYAR (96%);

20. Defence lawyer in Shankar trial alleges woman has selective memory Channel NewsAsia, September 19, 2003 Friday, SINGAPORE NEWS, 177 words ... former TV presenter Shankar Aiyar who is charged with outraging the ... SHANKAR AIYAR (95%);

21. Former TV presenter faces outrage of modesty charges Channel NewsAsia, September 18, 2003 Thursday, SINGAPORE NEWS, 165 words Former TV presenter Shankar Aiyar appeared in Court ... SHANKAR AIYAR (96%);

22. TV presenter charged with outraging modesty of woman Channel NewsAsia, May 29, 2003 Thursday, SINGAPORE NEWS, 102 words Shankar Aiyar, 37, who faces ... SHANKAR AIYAR (56%);

I would say that the issue is clearly not defamation or libel (those are strong accusations) -- after all, it's a verifiable statement of fact that he was charged with molestation, put on trial, found guilty, was sentenced to 16 months in jail and four strokes with a cane, avoiding the caning in Singapore on medical grounds, and then was deported to India recently.

The real issue here is whether or not it's so noteworthy that it has to be included in the Channel NewsAsia article. Yes, on the one hand, there are 22 articles on the subject (many from Channel NewsAsia itself). On the other hand, is it a significant event in the history of Channel NewsAsia? To be honest, I really don't think it's that important (at least, I don't see evidence of it changing Channel NewsAsia in any verifiable way), so the issue is whether we're doing any harm by including the citations. I'd be inclined to give the poor guy a break and not include it in the article. If someone wants to create another article on this case alone, that would be a separate matter -- but again, I wouldn't advise that either. It might end up being a AfD candidate rather quickly on WP:BLP grounds. Regards, J Readings (talk) 13:53, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the research, i don't think labeling (at the time unreferenced) statements of sexual misconduct as defamatory or libel as strong - they are what they are - if he did it, it is not, if he did, the statements are defamatory so the 'strength' of the accusation is neither here nor there. I agree with you that the question, now it can be confirmed (although, does CNA classify as a trust-worthy media outlet, considering it's government ownership and control? serious question) through reliable sources (i.e court records etc) is it worthy of including in the CNA article? is it relevant to CNA's history of operation in any way shape or form? thoughts? 124.254.121.189 (talk) 01:55, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Court records, like transcripts, are generally considered primary sources and discouraged on Wikipedia (at least that was the latest consensus on the noticeboard). What usually gets priority, as WP:RS states, are scholarly works and (to a lesser extent) newspapers and books. Put differently, the priority of Wikipedia is citing secondary sources that have reputations for editorial oversight and fact-checking. The more editorial oversight involved, the better. Does CNA apply? I would think so, unless there is documented evidence from reliable sources also stating that CNA is not a reliable news agency. Incidentally, while we're on the subject, CNA was not the only news agency to cover the story. Agence France Presse (on several occasions) and (though not listed above, I used Factiva on that one) the Straits Times also covered the story in detail. But that's neither here nor there, the trial certainly happened, he was found guilty, was imprisoned, and eventually was deported to India. All verifiable facts from multiple reliable sources. My point was that the poor guy is still relatively young. Putting this kind of negative, albeit factually accurate, information on the internet for all to read may do more harm than good. But ultimately that's something for the Community to decide through an RfC or higher if other editors here insist that it be included. Personally, I think that it shouldn't be includedd, but if there's a dispute (and it doesn't look like there will be yet) a majority doesn't necessarily decide the matter on the local talk page. The much wider established Community of Wikipedia users will usually have their say through an open process. Best, J Readings (talk) 07:06, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it should be included 220.239.182.222 (talk) 12:04, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Start the article anew?

I note that the list of former correspondants has been removed 60.48.208.119, if people are fine with this i suggest we start a clean-up of the article. What do others think? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.23.146.66 (talk) 00:36, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

If anyone replaces the list, here is the relevant policy for why it should NOT be included: Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Lists_of_people. I was going to remove the list earlier myself but I couldn't find the policy that gave me jurisdiction to do so (admittedly I didn't look very hard). ~ Ameliorate _{U T C} @ 07:10, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Edit request from Cherry040488, 7 December 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} East Asia

• Victoria Jen, Taiwan Correspondent, Taipei

Former Christina Lo Taiwan Correspondent, Taipei

Cherry040488 (talk) 15:10, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Done She appears on the official website, not conclusively, but it seems to be accurate, so I have made the change. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:41, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Removal of former staff and people at Singapore Headquarters

Per WP:NOT, WP:BLP, and WP:NLIST, we cannot include all of these people on this list. For the people in the Singapore office, we should include only verifiable on-air talent. We are not a directory which seeks to make all-inclusive lists of employees. Furthermore, this information is highly likely to be unverifiable, since there won't be any reliable, publicly available records on non-on-air staff. Former employees are definitely not supposed to be listed unless we have either a reliable source which indicates that the person is notable and that they worked at Channel NewsAsia, or their own Wikipage. This is standard practice across all television stations (well, it's supposed to be, although it hasn't been enforced everywhere yet). Qwyrxian (talk) 00:46, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. I'll note that this new spelling may not comply with WP:MOS but given all of the links are to here... Vegaswikian (talk) 02:34, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

---

MediaCorp Channel NewsAsia → Channel NewsAsia – The channel is called Channel NewsAsia, not MediaCorp Channel NewsAsia, and there is no other Channel NewsAsia for "MediaCorp" to disambiguate from. The current title seems analogous to "Time Warner CNN" or "News Corporation Fox News Channel." See [1] and [2]. 98.246.191.164 (talk) 10:53, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

• Support: Makes sense, MediaCorp is an unnecessary disambiguator not typically used in the common name. –CWenger (^ • @) 15:37, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Channel NewsAsia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130516235900/http://beta.mediacorp.sg/en/latestmediacorphappenings/6 to http://beta.mediacorp.sg/en/latestmediacorphappenings/6
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121121095809/http://www.news.gov.sg:80/public/sgpc/en/journalist_room/media_guide/detail.html?cat=4 to http://www.news.gov.sg/public/sgpc/en/journalist_room/media_guide/detail.html?cat=4

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:37, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Cities with headquarters

Hi, just noticed the article mentioned that channel news Asia is “Based in Singapore, it has correspondents in major Asian cities and key Western ones, including New York City, Sydney, London and Dubai.”

Just wanted to request that Dubai not be listed among key western cities due to the inaccuracy of the description. Dubai is not a western city but a city in Western Asia/ The Middle East. PrinceofFrancia (talk) 08:09, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

RE: "Start the article anew?", "Clean-up Time" & "Cleanup"

Hi all, I'm pretty new here so would appreciate guidance and reviews of any edits I've made.

Have noted suggestions to clean-up the article or reboot it completely. I'd like to give it a try. Am still unsure about citation styles even after reading up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sosialpath (talk • contribs) 06:54, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

A restart would be a good idea as you have made a blatant promo-piece out of it. The Banner talk 20:31, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Good morning The Banner. I'm a little surprised you've called it that as I had no such intention.

I've attempted to establish its significance in the lead -- following the guidelines here, to "establish context; explain why the topic is notable; summarize the most important points". As "any prominent controversies", I intend to continue with three sections: "Role in Singapore media" and "Criticism" are crucial as CNA is state-owned, as well as "Controversies". Talk is cheap, however, so you're entitled to your opinion until those sections are actually written.

At any rate, the entry was less than 250 words yesterday so I had little to work with. I've used the structure of the CNN and CNBC entries as guides:

CNN	CNBC	CNA (proposed)
History	History	History
Programming	Programming	Identity
Staff	Personalities & coverage	Programming
Other platforms	Ratings	On-air staff
Specialised channels	On-air presentation	Digital news
Bureaus	Partnerships	Role in Singapore media
Controversies	International channels	Criticism
Awards and honors	CNBC.com	Controversies
See also	High definition	See also
-	Airport "stores" or "bureaus"	-
-	Criticism	-
-	See also	-

Well, I'll get on with it then. We'll continue this discussion in due course. Sosialpath (talk) 04:30, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Do you have any ties with the company?

I would suggest that you start reading Wikipedia: Reliable Sources. That is asking for reliable (no social media or other user-generated websites), independent (not in any way related to the subject), prior published sources. For instance: Twitter and Facebook fall foul of that. On the positive side: sources in English are only desired, not mandatory. The Banner talk 10:59, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Good afternoon Banner. Thank you for the pointers, and I went through Wikipedia: Reliable Sources again, and carefully.

I gather that the main (or a major) point of contention is that too many references are from the subject's own website (even if CNA is technically a news organisation), when one should look for third-party sources. I was fully congnisant of this before starting to write and strove to find a third-party source for every citation. There were many details (claims) on the website of their parent, Mediacorp, which I felt weren't solid enough and omitted the the detail if I could not find corroboration elsewhere.

In hindsight, I went overboard in citing every. single. presenter. page. in the section on them. The intention was to show that the presenter line-up reflects the network's determination to underline its "Asianness". This, as well as those politician quotes, will feed into the "role in Singapore media" section and how it is, in fact, state-owned (like the BBC). Once again, I acknowledge that talk is cheap and promises of further sections mean nothing until I write them, and the motivation to finish them is greater now with the scrunity. The research has been done -- all third-party sources, naturally -- it's just a matter or organising it now.

As for the Twitter and Facebook citations, the intention was just to cite the network's followership on those platforms, and not any content published in a tweet or FB post. If I cannot find these figures elsewhere, would you advise removing them altogether?

PARAGRAPH REDACTED @Sosialpath: - do note that this paragraph is not redacted, it is still in the history, editing over does not redact it, only an admin can do it via request and upon agreement at WP:AN incidents. --Quek157 (talk) 18:02, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

If you don't mind, I shan't give away too many details (or will edit these details out later) given Singapore's track record with media and academia -- there is a reason why Singapore is ranked #151 out of 178 countries by Reporters without Borders.

Poor etiquette and unfair assumptions

First of all, I appreciate The Banner’s role as an enforcer here, as Wikipedia’s credibility as an encyclopaedia has strengthened in no small part due to such individual efforts.
However, I take issue with his flagging of the addition I made roughly four weeks ago as containing "content that is written like an advertisement" and which "may contain an excessive amount of intricate detail that may only interest a specific audience". Most egregiously, he has made stated that the "major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject" (namely myself), ignoring the fundamental principle of assuming good faith (AGF).

1: "Close connection" with subject

The first assumption would not have been possible without my having first disclosed on this talk page, in response to his query, my having once worked in another media outlet within the same conglomerate, but not in Channel NewsAsia, before leaving the industry altogether years ago. This disclosure was made in good faith in hope of receiving further guidance, especially as I have been contributing for less than a year, and despite some personal concern given the difficult position which journalists, academics and even perceived critics face in Singapore. I signalled my intention to redact the paragraph containing the disclosure and did so after four days. I take issue with the use of my disclosure as an issue to be flagged, ignoring all other details in assuming "bad faith" on my part in contributing around 2,000 words to an article on a subject that was hardly served by less than 250 words before March.

2: "Written like an advertisement"

The second charge that the addition (or parts of it) was "written like an advertisement" was made without any further reply from The Banner to my last post here on March 23 and, once again, done without assuming good faith on my part. I would appreciate a third opinion on whether the addition was a "blatant promo-piece" as charged. The Banner has still not pointed out which sections were written like an advertisement and, most damagingly, went on to assume bad faith in adding the note that the article contains content "written like an advertisement". In both my replies to The Banner on this talk page, I made every attempt to explain the thinking behind the edits and even posted a table with my proposed structure for an expanded article, alongside the structures for the Wikipedia entries for CNN and CNBC to show the rationale behind the sections and content within. I went on to explain that the sections on programmes and presenters – which I volunteered could have been tighter or moved off to a separate page, even though The Banner made no specific comment about those sections – were included to illustrate CNA’s conscious positioning as an Asia-first news network. I had gone through the CNN and CNBC entries thoroughly before setting out to add to this article, especially as I am a relatively new Wikipedia editor and do not want to add any sub-standard content. Furthermore, the issue of media in Singapore is an extremely sensitive one due to extensive government involvement and often leads to strong, emotionally-charged arguments, and I noted previous discussions on this talk page about neutrality. The semi-protection lock placed on this entry, due to sock-puppetry attempts, was further impetus for me to be as objective as possible.

3: "Excessive amount of intricate detail"

The bulk of what I added was the history, and I made every effort to give an objective, neutral overview of CNA's progression without any rah-rah hyperbole about how viewers love it or how ground-breaking the network is. In fact, there were many details about CNA's viewership growth which I could not corroborate using third-party sources and so omitted them. I would not even use the CNN and CNBC articles as examples of neutral entries – more so the latter, which goes on about its on-air presenters ad nauseum and has full programming grids embedded – and sought to be even more objective.

4: Failure to assume good faith, discuss, compromise

I acknowledge that the addition was not completely successful on this, and I responded to The Banner's first post about my addition with the most positive attitude in seeking to learn and improve the content.

The Banner's last reply on March 22 did not acknowledge or address any of reasoning. He did point out that social media is not a reliable source, to which I explained that I was only referencing the follower numbers of the CNA and related media organisation accounts and then asked if I should remove those references altogether. However, I received no reply and later found out that the notice of "multiple issues" added to the article header. In my last post to him on this talk page, I did acknowledge that I myself did not consider the article to be complete without a section on criticism, which I only managed to complete and add here today (April 17, 2018). I acknowledge, and I did so as well in my last post here on March 23, that the overall balance of the article cannot be adequately judged until that section(s) were added, and that this may have been taken by him as justification to doubt my intentions.

• The Banner has not assumed good faith on my part, despite my honest disclosure about my previous employment. He even went on to use my disclosure selectively to note that I "appear" to have a "close connection with its subject".
• The Banner has not followed the principles of Wikipedia etiquette, including his misrepresentation of me and ignoring my reasonable questions.
• The Banner has been uncivil – which I will concede is arguable, and he wears his "take-no-prisoners" approach as a badge of honour. His first post to me was to charge that I had written a “blatant promo-piece”. In my last attempt to approach The Banner via his talk page earlier today, asking an alternative channel for discussion may be opened (as I do not want to have to further discuss my personal background in public out of privacy concerns), his reply (roughly nine hours ago) was a curt "No." On this point, I may be out of line as a noob for breaching etiquette by approaching a fellow editor through his/her talk page, and I would appreciate if another editor could set me straight on that.
• The Banner has failed to discuss the content on the talk page, with no reply since March 22. Once again, my approach via his talk page may not be counted as that is not the proper venue, so I do not know if that counts as intransigence and demonstration of failure to communicate. Whether I am amiss on this count, I did make an attempt.
• The Banner has not been open to compromise. From his very first post, I have made every attempt to be civil and respectful, with the attitude that I should learn from his feedback. I have also tried to offer solutions and look for workable compromises. I have not received the same courtesy or consideration.

Sosialpath (talk) 11:30, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

• • Sosialpath, as this is a Wikipedia-discussion it should take place on Wikipedia. Not on any other place or by e-mail, IRC or Facebook. The Banner talk 08:51, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

User talk:The Banner: I not only accept that, but I thank you for this helpful pointer. It would have been more appreciated if this was conveyed when I asked about alternative channels of communication on your talk page two weeks ago instead of a curt "No." I apologise for being a noob and unaware of Wikipedia procedure, and had made this request out of concern that disclosing too much personal information could compromise my status and safety in Singapore. Once again:

Being a noob, I was unsure about whether removing the flags myself was acceptable and thought it better to seek a common understanding. I have also considered deleting my contribution and restoring this article to its original length before March 21, but opted to see if Wikipedia adminstrators could help clear this misunderstanding. Whatever the outcome, this has been a huge discouragement and wonder if you've read this: Wikipedia: Please do not bite the newcomers. Sosialpath (talk) 10:14, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

RfC on content "written like an advertisement"

Is the flagged issue that the article "contains content that is written like an advertisement" valid? Sosialpath (talk) 11:29, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Can you offer some context for your question, please? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 04:37, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi Jack Sebastian. Thanks for taking an interest, and my apologies for the late reply.

Another Wikipedia user, The Banner, had flagged this article as containing parts "written like an advertisement" after I had added 2,000 or so words (it was less than 250 words prior to my contribution), and I question his motivation and objectitvity. With regards to the other two flags, I had also requested for a third-party opinion and arbitration but they appear to have been deleted in the two weeks since while I was travelling on assignment. Sosialpath (talk) 09:51, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

• For a start, much of the content is sourced to closely connected sources, including the subject's own website, and to social media sites. These are not independent, published documents, and so are not suitable sources. Information to be included in an encyclopedia article about Channel NewsAsia should have been written about by journalists and other authors not connected with Channel NewsAsia, and published in books, magazines, or newspapers with editorial oversight. Information that is only sourced to closely connected sources or to personal websites, blogs, social media, etc., should be omitted, especially if it appears to have been added emphasize the importance of the subject. And yes, one discussion at a time about a particular topic is enough.—Anne Delong (talk) 12:19, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

• Fair assessment for the advertisement sounding and sourcing. However, any independent write up must be sourced elsewhere as ChannelNewsAsia is a channel under Media Corp (A Singapore Government linked company in some sense) and the other press we have with editorial review is clearly SPH (Singapore Press Holdings) straits times (another GLC). I can't find any sources locally with these constrains. And mediacorp and straits times published almost all magazines, newspapers. If based on your criterion, there are practically no sources (hardly any media will report on CNA). I hope you understand SG context where there are GLC everywhere, I can't use Mothership either (which Our IMDA - basically media controller) state as news, as it is ran by government ex minister, if I exclude all these, others site will only be criticism of the mainstream media (CNA) which is linked to government (alleged by them). This will cause a POV issue. I will say the page is important to Singapore, a country as CNA is one of the only 2 Free to air english channel for us (another is Channel 5 ran by same company), there is no alternative for non cable people. For COI, this then will need to declare with the author, and proof need to be, and reported to admin if needed, the user is at fault not the article, the accuser should be the onus to find out COI. After reviewing user "Sosialpath" history, I will say there's a prima facie case based on editing history, but someone may just be willing to edit a narrow range of article (see one-purpose account). This really need to be addressed by admin at AN not at a Rfc. I will not go any further. Overall, IMO the only the COI text is suitable. I may not be a 3O as I am a SG wikipedian --Quek157 (talk) 19:27, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

My sincere thanks for your considered assessments.

• (Anne Delong: I agree fully with using third-party sources and omitted many claims made on the subject's website which were vague and could not be corroborated. I had also noted that many other Wikipedia pages refer to their subject's own About Us webpages and thought it was acceptable, at least for basic details, but on hindsight, I relied too heavily on the subject as a source. As Quek157 pointed out, third-party reports on the subject are rare, but I would happily remove these references if the information can't be found from independent sources, as well as all references to the number of followers/likes for the subject and other media outlets on social media.
• Quek157: Appreciate your expanding on the SG context and the notability of the subject. My intention was to develop what was an inadequate <250-word stub with only one reference (to the subject's own "About Us" webpage) that served no one -- and this is why tertiary students in sg are told to ignore Wikipedia, leaving communication students in particular with only an equally inadequate and one-sided curriculum which disproportionately emphasises the government's justifications for its framework of control (media is a nation-building partner, eschewing liberal notions of an independent fourth estate). The structure of the expanded article was based on Wikipedia entries for CNN and CNBC -- for better or worse, being a noob -- and I spend a month on research and writing, mindful of the need for objectivity while striving to be as comprehensive as possible. I do not as yet feel qualified to edit in other areas at this point but worked up the confidence to contribute to this article (after my tentative first and only other submission) as I'm not such a noob in this area at least. As previously noted, I readily disclosed my past ties which ended four years ago when I took a different career path, but I will respond and cooperate with any review or COI investigation so long I'm not outed for being the author of any text which could be deemed negative about the system.

When I set out on this undertaking, I made every effort to be as neutral and as comprehensive as possible and so was genuinely shocked to have met such an attack here -- mind you, I did not just use that word mindlessly, given the tone of the attack and failure to assume even a sliver of good faith on my part -- in spite of my readiness to listen, learn, and then edit the article myself to delete whatever is not up to scratch.

Regardless of my background, which I disclosed, I had hoped for whatever I added to be assessed on its own and in context, considering how poor the original <250-word stub was (possibly a result of it being a poisoned chalice). I am therefore grateful to have received your genuine 3O assessments. tbh I had considered restoring this article to its original <250 words and giving up altogether if this is the reception one can expect after putting in this amount of work (however imperfect the result and a sincere willingness to improve), but I will gladly make the edits needed (including the removal of all references derived from the subject as well as its parent conglomerate) from your considered feedback. Sosialpath (talk) 12:50, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Comment I will add only this, if you can't find enough third party independent sources which are reliable, don't bother to expand or make an article, it does not work here in Wikipedia. That why annually we have almost 20 - 30 articles on SG being haul to Articles for Deletion / speedy deletion. I understand you are (qualify "maybe" and I did not dig deep into your profile) a bona fide editor, but the narrow scope of editing make you a SPA potential (Single Purpose Account). All these are due to the COI Paid editors we have these few years (hack, all these terms I learn upon returning from a 10 years hiatus from wikipedia). IMO, those are not attacks, attacks in Wikipedia can be much worse, those are just termed at most harrassment. And for the issue of politics, there is no place here, though since young we never can include any wikipedia pages as sources, I got marks deducted from examinations from it. I just say that many of the articles (SG) cannot be expanded without being tagged. So if you can't do it, don't. Save yourselves from all the trouble. Sources that can be perfectly used in articles / reports in SG cannot be used here. Subject that have notablity get dismissed (Lor 1 Bus Terminal was deemed not notable even if it served as the main terminal for Park and Ride - I missed the Afd, or else I will protest there - it's not WP:ROTM IMO). Subjects that clearly a good Biography get denied. This is Wikipedia. Mass Comm students this is not where you should expand articles, and why ADM / FASS state that I really can't know. This is the reality, I am toeing the line very carefully. I will suggest using other sources to build up articles, if in doubt, discuss in talkpage here. If you need to build up an article from scratch, don't do it in mainspace but do it in Articles For Creation WP:AFC where it will undergo less scrutiny. Nowadays, everything is tagged with something unless you can be perfect, which need experience to do so. Feel free to ask further at Teahouse, WP:AFC. We have to be careful here. It is thankful this is not G11 (Speedly deleted due to advertial) / hauled to Afd (Articles for Deletion) --Quek157 (talk) 13:05, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Quek157. Thanks for the helpful tips — I'll definitely use the Articles For Creation WP:AFC space as you suggested — and for putting things into perspective. Did not know that much about the history too, only what I read in past posts on this talk page.

Sad to hear about that real attacks are a lot worse, and that the situation seems rather hopeless if one is notable subjects are rejected. Seems like there are multiple and unclear agendas. Did you get an explanation for the dismissal of the Lor 1 bus terminal, and a chance to prove its notability? I must say that this is rather discouraging, and hope it's not like this with the rest of Wikipedia ... —Sosialpath (talk) 10:43, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

@Sosialpath: yes, please submit at WP:AFC, I am a both a reviewer there as well as WP:NPP, main difference is that at AFC it will be a teaching session where at NPP (you just submit as an article) we will just tag or delete (any form). For the Lor 1 Bus Terminal case, it was a sad one. Mixed votes at Afd, but there is not one good keep vote which addresses notablity WP:GNG, hence, the deletes wins. I am not there and there is no way overturning a 1 month vote. I returned to Wikipedia is to make sure such nonsense deletions (no prejudice to closing admin Tony, I will agree based on the consensus and discussion, the outcome will be delete) does not happened again because SG wikipedians do not know a head or tail to argue at Afd (no prejudice to Mailer also who voted WP:POINT, it is it but I think he also can't say much also as he is busy with mopping with buckets and the cause of bus terminals (called bus stations) here are usually deleted). --Quek157 (talk) 10:54, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

• Sosialpath. I hope you don't consider my comments an attack; I was trying to point out differences between the article as written and Wikipedia's policies. In response:

• Many new Wikipedia editors who have experience with other types of writing have difficulty in adjusting to the "encyclopedic" style. When writing a magazine article, for example, one of the goals is to entertain the reader, so the most exciting, controversial, folksy, or emotion-provoking material is sure to be included. In a news article, the most current information is sure to be up front. Editorial writing includes speculation and expands on possible causes of events, etc. Press releases announce accomplishments and upcoming events.

On the other hand, an encyclopedia article about a company should be dryly factual, with a short summary at the top, a history of the founding and development of the company, and only general information about the best-known (i.e., independently reviewed and documented) of the company's products and services. A concise, well-sourced article is better than a long one with a lot of poorly sourced detail. The article should not emphasize information that the company would like readers (and potential advertisers) to know about it (for example, how many twitter followers it has, or what awards its staff have won), but instead focus on what readers themselves want to know (for example, what type of content in which languages are broadcast, and what company operates the channel). Independent sources are important; if the only information about staff members is in their own profiles, then they are simply not well known enough to be named in an encyclopedia.

• It's true that there are other articles with references to "About" pages and other COI sources - many of the nearly 6,000,000 articles need adjustment and trimming; they are being created faster than they can be checked and improved. That's a reason to fix them, though, not to emulate them.—Anne Delong (talk) 21:25, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Anne Delong. Hey, no worries, I didn't think for a second that your pointers were an attack. Really appreciate the guidance and especially your further explanation on how writing styles differ — wish I had this on hand before I started writing (and if these guidelines are already published in a user's guide, I regret not having looked hard enough to find it).

About the "About" pages, I understand that it makes sense not to refer to them and will not do so in future. I only noted that it's commonplace by way of explanation for my error and not to justify it. When I wrote that I would happily remove those references, it was meant with all sincerity and no saltiness.

Thanks again for the guidance, and encouragement! —Sosialpath (talk) 10:43, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

__________________
@The Banner:, anything to add for this Rfc (in fact should be 3O). --Quek157 (talk) 11:12, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

I am not truly convinced. Sosialpath went straight to personal attacks and started filing request for help on several places at the same time. I deliberately did not join this discussion just to let it run its course. So I will not comment any further in this matter. The Banner talk 13:10, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

I will let others chip in as this runs also. No more comments --Quek157 (talk) 16:07, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 April 2019

222.165.104.248 (talk) 12:38, 15 April 2019 (UTC)Please change [List of programs broadcast by Channel NewsAsia] to [List of programs broadcast by CNA].

Updated as requested. robertsky (talk) 05:30, 16 April 2019 (UTC)