Talk:PBS/Archive 2

Still known by full name??

Wikipedia's naming conventions of acronyms says that abbreviations should be used only if it is almost exclusively known by its abbreviation. Well, how well-known is PBS by its full name Public Broadcasting Service?? Only the first 2 idents in the PBS idents article mention the full name, and it has been more than 20 years since the third came into existence. Is the full name still common enough?? Georgia guy 23:36, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Selective British programming gives a false image

Why does PBS never show any of the good, realistic, contemporary British dramas? Instead, as in the Masterpiece Theatre nonsense cited below, only snobbish, patronising period costume stuff gets shown, which in reality only appeals to a minority, Sunday night audience in the UK itself. (Don't tell me, you all think Midsomer Murders is a grittily honest depiction of British life...). And if they really did reflect the British public's taste, they'd show Dad's Army or Only Fools And Horses instead of the awful Are You Being Served which is largely forgotten over here -- similarly, Benny Hill is only really remembered with a cringe. Dolmance (talk) 16:12, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Masterpiece Theatre

I don't want this in the article, I just wanted to share it:

- - - - - - - - Gail Shister | PBS offers Oprah a 'Masterpiece Theatre' partnershipBy Gail ShisterInquirer ColumnistPASADENA, Calif. - Oprah's Masterpiece Theatre? It could happen. With PBS's crown jewel still sponsor-less since ExxonMobil bailed in December '04, outgoing network president Pat Mitchell pitched Oprah Winfrey a partnership in the franchise in an e-mail Saturday, Mitchell confirms. And if Winfrey kicks in enough green, she could get her name above the title, Mitchell says. PBS guidelines require a commitment of $8 million to $10 million a year for that to happen - tip money for the billionaire talk-show queen. "There's no downside," Mitchell said in an interview at the TV critics' winter meetings. "How can you get a better trademark, a better brand? Look how many books they sell based on her recommendation." Mitchell and Winfrey go back more than 20 years. Though Mitchell and MT executive producer Rebecca Eaton only began brainstorming the idea on Saturday, Mitchell outlined her perfect scenario: Winfrey and Eaton would coproduce some of the books to which Winfrey owns broadcast rights as TV movies or mini-series, to air on PBS under the MT banner. Winfrey's infusion of capital would dramatically strengthen the overall MT brand in the marketplace, enabling an increase in productions. Simple, right? "The fact is, Oprah could just write a check and save public broadcasting," says Mitchell. " 'Here's your budget for the next three years.' I don't think she's going to do that. She has other things on her plate. Masterpiece Theatre is a really good fit." ExxonMobil had been MT's sole corporate underwriter since its 1971 launch. PBS and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting have been keeping it afloat, but with far fewer offerings than in the past. MT will do 10 titles this season, including an eight-hour adaptation of Charles Dickens' Bleak House that begins Sunday. "There's no way I'll let Masterpiece Theatre leave our schedule," Mitchell promises. The final decision on the Winfrey plan - if there is one - would be up to Eaton and Boston's WGBH, the producing station, Mitchell says. "It seems like a wonderful combination," says Eaton, e.p. since '85. "I feel her sensibilities and our sensibilities are quite similar." One example: Tolstoy's Anna Karenina was a Winfrey Book Club selection as well as an MT production. To Eaton, Winfrey "is huge. In another culture, she would be an oracle, like the woman in the village everyone came to for guidance." Eaton says she spoke to Winfrey's Harpo Productions two years ago about coproducing a mini-series based on her book picks, "but they said their plate was full. Now might be the right time to go back." Museum-bound. In her new job as chief executive officer of the Museum of Television and Radio, lame-duck PBS chief Pat Mitchell plans to look to the future, not the past. Mitchell, who begins March 15, says one of her top priorities is to make many of the museum's 100,000-plus TV and radio programs available on the Internet (for a fee). (Fun Fact: Mitchell downloads podcasts of ABC's Desperate Housewives and Lost. She watches them on airplanes.) Named in 2000 as PBS's first female president, Mitchell announced almost a year ago that she would leave the public network at the completion of her contract in June '06. The PBS board has allowed her to exit early, she says. The network is expected to name Mitchell's successor within two weeks. Names on the short list are said to include Gary Knell, head of Sesame Workshop; Vivian Schiller, general manager of Discovery Times Channel; and Jerry Wareham, vice chairman of PBS's board. Mitchell plans to use her new position "as a platform to talk about hugely important issues - how media influences the way we think and live, and the decisions we make." She has signed a two-year deal. The nonprofit museum, with locations in New York and Los Angeles, was founded in 1976 by William S. Paley. Mitchell says she's finding it tougher to leave PBS than she expected. After announcing her planned departure, "I pushed it to the back of my head. We were all in denial. Now that we're actually dealing with it, it's hitting home."

Abortion mention

Is the phrase under criticims of PBS "mandatory abortions would be perhaps even more wrong than banning abortions, for example" needed? While I appreciate that the writer of that quote is trying to be neutral by playing to both sides of the abortion debate, I think there could be a less evocative example of a tax-supported liberty infringement. Because PBS is often criticized as too liberal (as the article notes), seeing a sentence about abortion juxtaposed with "Criticisms of PBS" makes the casual reader think that PBS might have some controversial involvement with the abortion issue. There's no reason to bring up such a divisive example when there are much more tame examples of government funding not representing the viewpoints of all citizens funding the required activity/speech.

Corporate name

Their website now says at the bottom:

"Copyright 1995-2006 Public Broadcasting Service (PBS)". Any view on this?? Georgia guy 23:46, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

NPR

People at KCTS have said that PBS does both television and radio broadcasting(NPR). Timothy Clemans 19:34, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

This is incorrect. An individual station may have a radio and TV Broadcast arm, however, at a national level, PBS is only television and Internet and NPR is strictly radio and Internet. I work for PBS, so that is how I know.MChmiel (talk) 20:55, 12 December 2007 (UTC)MChmiel

"Public Broadcasting as Censorship"

Under the Supreme Court's First Amendment precedents, several statements in this section are wrong. The Court has pointed out that government funds spent on speech from general tax revenue do not present the same constitutional problems as a fee exacted for the sole purpose of subsidizing speech activities. See, e.g., Wooley v. Maynard, 430 U.S. 705 (1977). Furthermore, with respect to the latter, the statement that "[f]orcing someone to pay for speech they do not agree with is the same violation of their freedom of expression as censoring them" is not entirely accurate. The Supreme Court has held that under the First Amendment, an individual can be forced to subsidize speech with which she disagrees provided that speech is germane to the reasons for which the speaker in question exists. See, e.g., Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, 431 U.S. 209 (1977). Nevertheless, given the Court's position to expenditures made from general tax revenues, this doctrine of compelled speech is not implicated by public broadcasting funding. To the extent that the inaccuracies in this section are only communicated as the beliefs of some critics, that should be mentioned so that this section is not misleading as a truthful statement of the law. Alternatively, it should be made clear that these are not legal or even constitutional arguments, but ones under a classical sense of liberty that are not entirely supported in American jurisprudence.

Statments RE PBS handeling of Islam

Let's be fair, Death of a Princess caused tremendous scandal and uproar when it was broadcast, the program is openly hostile to Islam and makes disturbing (unfortunatly probably true) allegations about women under Islam. (WARNING SPOILER!:: The program concludes that the she was murdered by grandfather)

Well if its true than whats wrong with it? They should have more true things on TV. Islams are often sadistic savages, we've seen that for ourselves havn't we? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.36.89.104 (talk • contribs) .

Navigation box at the bottom of this article

Given that this network is incumbent, is anyone predicting that this network will discontinue sometime within 10 years?? Please explain if the answer is "yes". Georgia guy 20:11, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Tucker Carlson is a NeoCon, not a Libertarian.

The section on Political and ideological bias mentioned "PBS made room for libertarian commentator Tucker Carlson" Libertarian my ass, he's a right-wing neo-con who is poorly disguised as a "liberal".

Don't believe me? Go read the Wiki article on Tucker Carlson.

I can't believe anyone actually thinks Tucker is a Libertarian. That's like thinking George W. Bush is a member of the Peace Movement or Saddam Husein was a decent human being. Get actual, people.

PBS is also an abbreviation for "Portable Batch System", a queuing system for compute cluster networks.

I added this link to the reference cluster: Back to Bias Basics at PBS by Brent Bozell III, May 2, 2007 Asteriks 09:34, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Jeremy Clarkson?

Under Programming, under the Public Affairs section, it lists "Jermey Clarkson" as a program? Is this supposed to be Jeremy Clarkson, the Top Gear presenter? Is there a source for this? I find it hard to believe he has a television show on American Public Television. 76.235.221.249 (talk) 00:35, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

The problem with the political/ideological bias section...

The problem with the bias section is that it focuses on uncited, and all too-specific programs that do not make up even a majority of PBS productions. PBS and its affiliate create thousands of hours of content every year, and its absurd to suggest, by picking out one or two programs, the whole tone of PBS. The more generalized bits about the issue of objectivity and its role in public broadcasting should be kept, but individual programs cut out, and reserved for pages dedicated to said programs. What do other people think? SiberioS 19:36, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

The wording seems to be biased against conservatives. If Wikipedia is NPOV, then reword this section. -Yancyfry

I think most of the criticisms offered to support an idealogical bias within PBS might be better suited for the specific shows themselves. Overall I think PBS is pretty balanced, but when you get down to a few specific shows (PBS Frontline is a classic example) that's where the objectivity is lacking. So while I do agree that PBS seems to fit a certain agenda to get more funding from it's viewers, I think it may be better to keep most of the criticism to the specific shows that exhibit bias. FreedomFighterXL (talk) 04:45, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

The purpose of the conflict of interest section isn't to acertain whether PBS is biased or not. Its purpose is to report of the perceived conflict. While specific episode disagreements seem more apt to be put in the episodes, the issue of PBS being perceived as a biased source of information should be covered. PBS' June 2009 decision to cease any new religious programming will likely give us some sources to cite on these perceptions in a more general manner. imagine002 ([usertalk:imagine002|talk]]) 21:24, 16 June 2009 (CDT) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.210.64.102 (talk)

Question

I understand PBS is composed of member stations, but does it have a headquarters of its own? I think it is centered in Washington D.C., while the CpB is in Arlington. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.132.129.37 (talk) 19:33, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

PBS does have a national headquarters in Arlington, VA. CPB (Corporation for Public Broadcasting)is headquartered in Washington DC, just across the river.MChmiel (talk) 20:57, 12 December 2007 (UTC)MChmiel

removed stuff

and some are uncomfortable with shows such as Wall $treet Week which they see as promoting a corporate outlook without any corresponding series featuring opposing views from labor unions

I took that out because it was unsourced, and OR. The show also isn't on, anymore. As far as the point, it's been a long time since I watched it, but think unions were covered when they made news. I don't know of any mainstream union-centric news outlet, either, (in contrast to CNBC, Bloomberg, WSJ, etc) and union news is just an aspect of business news, so expecting a devoted show might be unreasonable. I also couldn't find a source making this criticism. 171.71.37.29 00:54, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

The Doors

The Doors played a few songs in March or April 1969 on a PBS station called WNET. The show they played on was called "Critque". Can someone add this information —Preceding unsigned comment added by Phoenix X91 (talk • contribs) 01:01, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Infobox at the bottom...

Under External Links, that infobox doesn't seem appropriate to the context--"preceded by--succeeded by"--especially when you consider that "succeeded by" links to "incumbent". That's not a good link; it takes you to a description of the POLITICAL meaning of "incumbent", which has nothing to do with PBS. Unless someone can provide a good reason to keep it, I'd like to remove it. Thoughts? Gladys J Cortez 19:51, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Ratings

As a European I was hoping to find out from the article how popular PBS is but found no reference to viewing figures here. Is it watched by 1%, 10% of the US TV audience? What have been its top rated shows/periods? Is it gaining or losing audiences? It would be good if this could be added by someone in the know. Vauxhall1964 (talk) 22:53, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

This should answer your question and the information probably should be in the article, but I won't do it. 98.64.242.215 (talk) 03:11, 30 August 2009 (UTC) usemasper

Merger proposal

I think PBS idents should be merged into this page, just because it is a page of PBS logos and it would, IMHO, go well with this page. 173.89.180.19 (talk) 12:30, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Kenneth Thomlinson

Neither of the citations in this section support the statements made. Neither citation 12 or 13 contain any reference to Karl Rove whatsoever. Nor is there any direct quote from Moyers, only saying that he quit for personal reasons- not the reason stated in this section. Citation 13 contradicts the timing of the addition of the Journal Editorial Report and whatever show Tucker Carlson was on. There is no mention in either article regarding "improper financial dealings with consultants". I am not sure what this refers to- there are certainly plenty of charges out there about Thomlinson, but I can't parse which one/what the section is talking about. Given that Thomlinson is a living person, Biographies_of_living_persons applies to any Biography of him, and we need to get these citations fixed. In particular, I have found no source- reliable or otherwise- mentioned that supports the contention regarding Karl Rove. Additionally, there seems to be quite a bit of evidence showing that the Journal Editorial Report was started under Thomlinsons tenure. In fact, I have seen those alleging bias on Thomlinsons part referring to his fund raising for that program as unethical.

Given this is unsourced information about a living person, I will plan to edit out any unsupported facts or opinion in the next week. That will most likely mean removing this entire section. Please add accurate citations and correct any errors/remove unsupported assertions if you do not want this removed. Please refer to Biographies_of_living_persons "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.[2]" Packetmonger (talk) 11:03, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

In the "Political/ideological bias" section, Kenneth Tomlinson appears twice and the information appears to overlap or be duplicate. Could use some cleaning up? I don't know this subject well enough to do so myself. AadaamS (talk) 10:47, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Telephone and Contact Info

Finding a phone # for the PBS HQ is very difficult. Nowhere on their site. But if you google this

Public Broadcast System, Washington, DC

you will find this next to a map:

Public Broadcasting Services 2100 Crystal Dr, Arlington, VA (703) 739-5000

I called, and the phone # is good. I couldn't figure out how to add it to the info box. Perhaps someone else would be so kind. Thanks 207.237.207.140 (talk) 15:18, 16 June 2009 (UTC) Robert Tolmach

Public funding and possible bias

I am a little unhappy about the sentence "Although state and federal sources account for less than 50% of public television funding[7], the system remains vulnerable to political pressure." It makes an ideological presumption that public funding necessarily makes a broadcaster susceptible to obey the government of the time, rather than be under pressure to remain neutral. I understand why one might naively believe this, but experience shows that public funding does not necessarily translate into political influence, and private networks are not immune from political pressure (through licensing and ownership issues). The BBC and CBC, for example, are publicly funded, and are typically seen as neutral, whereas private organisations like Fox News and MSNBC are not. I suggest taking out the sentence so as to avoid taking either side of the funding debate. VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 07:27, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Wasn't there a big stir in the 1990s (which worked) to reduce the tax-based funding, spearheaded by, among others, senator Kay Bailey Hutchison ? Or should i ask about that in the talk page of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting ? --Jerome Potts (talk) 21:57, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Frankly, I'm not sure this article needs a "criticism" section that's a page-long at all. Towards this end, I am axing every "citation needed" sentence in it that's sat for 2+ years without being supported. Enough's enough. 24.29.11.58 (talk) 16:08, 6 October 2012 (UTC)Ubiquitousnewt

PBS Sports

PBS will not plan to sports coverage of Division I-A NCAA basketball, NCAA Division I FBS NCAA football (including the Southeastern Conference), High School basketball, and High school football. 71.153.221.21 (talk) 06:55, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

The beginning of the end for PBS?

I read that "Congress is considering a bill to eliminate federal support for local public broadcasting. To be clear about the impacts, this bill is not about reducing or cutting back support. It is about cutting off funding completely." This means that PBS and NPR and other public broadcasting will die completely! Here's the article. --Angeldeb82 (talk) 15:51, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Over 80% of PBS funding comes from non-federal sources.(Revenue) However, one still has to consider whether any corporation can survive a 20% cut to income. Anarchangel (talk) 03:25, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Graphic request

Can someone find the data for and make a graph of annual public (i.e., government) funding for PBS since the network's founding through this year? And then also make an identical graph with each data point adjusted for inflation year-by-year? I think this would be tremendously helpful in helping to understand public broadcasting's consumption of public funds throughout the years. This request inspired by the Mr. Rogers video now circulating. Robert K S (talk) 22:31, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

removed content about public broadcasting funding

There was some content in the article about how public broadcasting is funded, as opposed to PBS in particular. I removed the content as there is no specific breakdown of how much PBS gets as opposed to any other public broadcasting organization. Hopefully someone can find an appropriate source so these details can be filled in. aprock (talk) 06:34, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Change PBS from redirect to disambiguation page

It has been requested to remove the redirect of PBS to Public Broadcasting Service and to move PBS (disambiguation) to PBS. Discussion is at Talk:PBS (disambiguation)#Requested move, August 2011. older ≠ wiser 17:05, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Benny Hill?

Was Benny Hill ever on PBS? In the few cities I lived it was on commercial/independent stations.

Since pretty much every OTHER British comedy was on PBS -- especially Monty Python -- many fellow Yanks mistakenly thought Benny Hill was also. Is the entry in this article a case of that, or does someone have an actual source that PBS did indeed run it at some point? 216.50.220.28 (talk) 22:34, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

While I can't speak for the service as a whole, I do know that Benny Hill has been shown on WNET in New York. But that points to the issue of people assuming that something shown on their local PBS station is shown on all PBS stations. PBS isn't like the commercial networks in having centralized scheduling, instead it acts as distribution service. So the list should consist only of programs distributed to local stations by PBS. The list may need cleanup. oknazevad (talk) 05:02, 16 February 2012 (UTC) (PS, new comments go on the bottom of talk pages, just so you know.)

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: moved. No one has disputed that PBS is the common name and the most recent discussion the consensus was that the TV station is the primary topic. Of course consensus can change, but those arguing that the station is not the primary topic have not addressed any of the criteria at WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, whereas those supporting (and at the previous RM) have done so and have not been refuted. Jenks24 (talk) 06:53, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

---

Public Broadcasting Service → PBS – The Public Broadcasting Service is obviously the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. In fact, the network rarely refers to itself as the Public Broadcasting Service anymore. - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 21:58, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

• Ambivalent. While PBS does redirect to this article, not the disambiguation page, a situation confirmed by a discussion last August, as a TLA, it's kinda ambiguous for the article title, when a natural disambiguation, spelling it out, exists.oknazevad (talk) 23:29, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
• Support. If you google PBS -wikipedia, this subject is the topic for nine of the top ten results. The network refers to itself as "PBS" all over their homepage. "Public Broadcasting Service" appears only in the legal fine print. Kauffner (talk) 05:59, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose As with many TLAs, PBS (disambiguation) shows multiple entries. It's therefore arguable that Public Broadcasting Service isn't the primary topic (regardless of Google results in this case). Therefore, per WP:DABNAME, PBS (disambiguation) should be moved to PBS. However, inbound links to PBS would then need dabsolving. -- Trevj (talk) 11:45, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
  • I the checked the top 30 Google results. The only topics that come up other than the network are Australia's Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme and the Portable Batch System. "Public Broadcasting System" got 122,344 page views in the last 90 days, "Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme" got 6,913, and "Portable Batch System" got 6,594. Even if you assume that every reader knows the Portable Batch System as "PBS", the network is getting 90 percent of relevant traffic. That's certainly more than half, per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Kauffner (talk) 03:31, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
    • Consider this also, the US is the world's largest Anglophone country. Therefore, since PBS is recognized by much of the country, it is m i386ost likely the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 11:42, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

      But is Public Broadcasting Service more likely than all the other topics combined and does it have long-term significance [and] substantially greater enduring notability and educational value than any other topic associated with that term? I count >30 alternatives listed at PBS (disambiguation). -- Trevj (talk) 13:30, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

      Yes, the current consensus is that it's the primary topic for "PBS". See Talk:PBS (disambiguation)#Requested move, August 2011 -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:06, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

      I'm still in opposition, for the reasons stated. But I note that overall consensus seems to be evolving towards support for this proposal. -- Trevj (talk) 05:57, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

• Note: I've placed a {{Pls}} note at WT:WPDAB. -- Trevj (talk) 13:34, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
• Support. Already the primary topic for "PBS", should use its WP:COMMONNAME, similar to NASA or NATO. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:05, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
• Support because this is English Wikipedia, not Filipino or Italian Wikipedia. For many English readers, PBS is widely known as some non-profitable network of independently-funded affiliates. --George Ho (talk) 04:16, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose since this is really an ambiguous abbreviation. Also note that this is not a correct nomination since moving the dab page is not listed as a part of the nomination. I'm not convinced that all English speakers would agree that this is the primary topic. Maybe those of American English, but that is only a subset of the English speakers. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:48, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
  • • Actually, PBS (disambiguation) would not move at all. PBS is a redirect to this article, so it is not an in correct nomination. And there was no consensus last August to move the disambiguation page to the plain TLA title, based largely on page view statistics. oknazevad (talk) 02:40, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Unfortunately, Talk:PBS (disambiguation) proves that there was no consensus to move "PBS (disambiguation)" into PBS. If this discussion results "no move", then we'll be stuck in the middle of nowhere. Maybe a discussion about policies and guidelines might help. --George Ho (talk) 01:57, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

    It seems to me that there may have been some flawed logic in that previous discussion. For correctly included wikilinks to PBS, they're going to lead to whatever the right article is in context of those articles. It may the case (in the area of broadcast networks) that the COMMONNAME is that discussed here. However, there are numerous other meanings in other subject areas. -- Trevj (talk) 05:17, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

    How is logic previous discussion "flawed"? --George Ho (talk) 05:30, 15 June 2012 (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.

Government Funding

This article omits any mention of government funding for PBS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.208.40.196 (talk) 07:58, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, this article definitely needs a Funding section, which explains not only government funding, but endowments, public fundraising, etc. ~E:74.60.29.141 (talk) 15:08, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree. What's the percent breakdown of funding sources? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.101.47.52 (talk) 16:09, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Public Television Revenue by Source, FY 2008:

Source — Amount (Percent of Total)

• CPB Appropriation* — $294,750,000 (15.7%)
• Non-CPB Federal Support — $65,911,000 (3.5%)
• Local Government — $82,609,000 (4.4%)
• State Government — $303,565,000 (16.1%)
• State Colleges and Universities — $119,227,000 (6.3%)
• Other Colleges and Universities — $40,103,000 (2.1%)
• Foundations — $131,504,000 (7.0%)
• Business — $303,398,000 (16.1%)
• Subscribers — $438,793,000 (23.3%)
• All Other** — $101,270,000 (5.4%)

---

Total Federal Revenue — $360,661,000 (19.2%)

---

---

Total Revenue — $1,881,130,000 100%

*Does not include separate appropriation for Digital and Interconnection.
**i.e.: major gifts, auctions, bequests, and endowment
Note: these are for fiscal year 2008. ~Eric F 74.60.29.141 (talk) 03:49, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Stations

The lengthy list here is redundant with the Main article... and should be replaced by a general description of history, growth, etc. ~E:74.60.29.141 (talk) 15:08, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

• I fixed this just now. --AlexWCovington (talk) 00:45, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Big Bird "controversy"

Is this worthy of addition to 'Controversy' section? - Simply google 'big bird controversy' for "About 3,820,000 results". Also ties in with 'government funding'. ~E:74.60.29.141 (talk) 15:15, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

PBS.org

...needs a section. ~E:74.60.29.141 (talk) 15:36, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Viewing rates  ?

Is PBS possible to watch over the entire US ? How do PBS manage in viewing rates compared to NBC, CBS, ABC and other channels in general ? 83.249.161.191 (talk) 01:02, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Just some general thoughts

Since the conception of television, it was started as a way to entertain and bring important news to the world. PBS is no different in that respect. PBS has used childrens programs to promote learning of reading, writing, arithmatic, and social skills. In the later years of PBS, it started incorporating more informational programs for the older children, young adults, and on up. True, as one person commented, local PBS stations rely on local support from the community they are providing service to. The local, state, and federal governments have all had their issues with budgets, thus cutting available funds for these services that PBS provides. Individuals do donate to their local stations; either one time annual pledges or monthly pledges. It's all up to the individual and their budget on how this plays out. PBS still strives to give the most in education, whether it be in children's programming to the news of the world, to the arts and dramas during the prime time hours in the evening. It is beneficial to have information available, but PBS does it in a way that enables a person to learn details from a program without all the local ads and breaks as in the other national networks. I know this for a fact, since I am a member of my local PBS station and an employee. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.18.43.110 (talk • contribs) .

PBS UK

I note that PBS will be released as a channel on Sky and Virgin Media in the UK on 1st November. Not sure, if notable, where this can be slotted in? [1]

Governance

How is the organization governed? I assume there is a Board of Directors; who selects them? -- Beland (talk) 20:41, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

http://www.pbs.org/about/leadership/ contains limited info. Member stations are independent entities. --Nelson Ricardo (talk) 01:38, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Comparision towards NBC, ABC and CBS etc

Since I've never visited the US (yet) or any part of America, may I ask how big the PBS is, compared to NBC, CBS and ABC - and possible others. Any kind of answer is better than none. Boeing720 (talk) 04:41, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Please Update the PBS page

Note: the article is not protected; I changed the template from edit semi-protected to request edit accordingly. LittleMountain5 02:11, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi, my name is Natalie and I work at PBS. I had made changes from an account I created "PBSofficial", not realizing I couldn't do so. Sorry about that. Here are the two paragraphs we would like updated.

First request

CURRENT COPY

PBS was founded by Hartford N. Gunn Jr. of WGBH-TV in Boston, Massachusetts, as the Corporation for Public Broadcasting on October 5, 1970, at which time it took over many of the functions of its predecessor, National Educational Television (NET), which later merged with Newark, New Jersey station WNDT to form WNET. In 1973, it merged with Educational Television Stations.

PROPOSED REVISION

On Nov. 3, 1969, four public broadcasters, including the presidents of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB) and National Educational Television (NET), incorporated a new nonprofit organization to interconnect the public television stations, taking on those functions of NET.

Citation: Public Broadcasting PolicyBase (January 14, 2000). "Articles of Incorporation of Public Broadcasting Service". Current Newspaper. Retrieved 2013-01-03 (SEE http://www.current.org/wp-content/themes/current/archive-site/pbpb/documents/PBSarticles69.html)

[Note: The Public Broadcasting Policy Base is listed currently as a citation on the PBS Wikipedia page. ]

President Lyndon B. Johnson signed the first Public Broadcasting Act in November 1967, paving the way for leading to the formation of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB). As the steward of federal funds to support public television and radio stations and program production, CPB recommended the formation of a national program distribution service. The Public Broadcasting Service was born, and its headquarters was established in Washington, DC. Hartford Gunn, president and general manager of public television station WGBH in Boston, was named the first president of PBS in March 1970. The service was composed of 128 local member stations.

Citation: Public Broadcasting Service. (1999). PBS Celebrates 30 years of television at its best [Press release].

Second request

CURRENT COPY

The Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) is an American broadcast television network. The non-profit public broadcaster has 354 member television stations which hold collective ownership. The network's headquarters are located in Arlington, Virginia.

PROPOSED REVISION

The Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) is an American broadcast television network. The non-profit public broadcaster has more than 350 member television stations that that are independently owned and operated. The network's headquarters are located in Arlington, Virginia.

Note: The current entry notes: “Unlike public broadcasters in most other countries, PBS does not own any of the stations that broadcast its programming (in context, there are no PBS owned-and-operated stations anywhere in the country). This is partly due to the origins of the PBS stations themselves, and partly due to historical broadcast license issues.” Given this, I think asking for the above change is reasonable. NatNBen (talk) 15:58, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out this important error! Sorry for the long wait in the Request Edit queue. I prefer not to do them, but with nobody else looking after the queue, someone's got to do it. This is a good edit, please go ahead and make the correction. However, actual sources would be nice (there were none in the text). CorporateM (Talk) 18:04, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Merger Proposal

I propose merging PBS logos to PBS, since I observed that documenting numerous individual logos of a single topic is barely tolerable in Wikipedia, and previous similar logo histories have been removed. That article doesn't have enough references to be sustainable, and in my opinion, the undertaken detail to describe each logo's sound and visual effects without importance is unacceptable. And according to one of the cleanup messages, there is a non-neutral POV. I guess the merge would turn the article into a section in the PBS article with a short and general history of the logo. TheGGoose (talk) 17:04, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

• Support. Such articles have all been merged or deleted. Not notable enough for an article, and more than a small mention here would be too much. Give it a small section with a quick overview, but be sure that it isn't weighed down by a ton of useless trivia (which the existing article largely contains). oknazevad (talk) 20:25, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

I speculate how the section has to be written; in the introduction, should we mention the very first ident and/or the 1971 logo/ident that introduced the "P"? Then after describing the first logo's introduction, put details of its creation by Lubalin Smith Carnase. Should ident revisions be listed, by like only stating the years PBS got new idents? These are suggestions. TheGGoose (talk) 17:00, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose. The article on PBS logos survived several Afd's; go to the talk page if you don't believe me. Georgia guy (talk) 17:19, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment. WP:CCC. Old afd's don't handcuff us from seeing if there's still support. Frankly, considering how utterly terrible in terms of unsourced trivia the other article is, there's no reason to keep it. oknazevad (talk) 20:09, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
    • You mean, if the article were on Afd today, it would get a consensus to delete?? Georgia guy (talk) 20:42, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
      • I would think so, like other network logo articles have been. Or the result would be consensus to merge. oknazevad (talk) 20:45, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose, per Georgia guy for the same reason. — Wyliepedia 19:31, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

OWNERSHIP

May I inquire why is there no "Ownership" subsection, where the ownership structure of the company would be explained? Would it make sense to create one?

Pudist (talk) 03:28, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on PBS. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090225051216/http://www.publicdiplomacycouncil.org/uploads/Eichler_Public_Diplomacy_Hungary.pdf to http://www.publicdiplomacycouncil.org/uploads/Eichler_Public_Diplomacy_Hungary.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:29, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

There is no WIKI page on Paula Kerger?

Are you kidding me? Starhistory22 (talk) 23:27, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Doctor Who

When did PBS ever distribute that? I've only seen it on Space (channel). Is it possible PBS (Canada) has a different lineup and needs an article? 174.92.135.71 (talk) 17:56, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Backnin the 80s they showed episodes from the Fourth and Fifth Doctors periods. oknazevad (talk) 23:32, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Tucker Carlson

Is it appropriate to describe him as "center right"? Where people fall on the political spectrum seems really subjective, and probably not appropriate for the encyclopedia, even if we have a source for it - which I do not think we do. Also, when it says "this program has since moved to FNC", it is not clear what program we're talking about. <> Alt lys er svunnet hen (talk) 03:05, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

After a long time...

...the article on PBS logos/idents was deleted per its seventh nomination. Any thoughts on whether there should be a link to http://logos.wikia.com in an appropriate section of this article?? Georgia guy (talk) 21:44, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Availability?

"Availability United States southern Canada"

I believe southern Canada to be incorrect. I live in Northern BC and had PBS. I think this should be changed to just "Canada". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:56a:f57e:6900:89bd:5db6:6cf2:b9e8 (talk) 06:01, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Bias?

The section, "Accusations of political/ideological bias" ends with "obvious left-leaning PBS shows," but this bias, if it exists, was not substantiated. What may be "obvious" to the author of this sentence may not be so obvious to others. This accusation of bias needs to be substantiated or removed. - WTW — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.34.22.251 (talk) 09:46, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Needs to be updated about Charlie Rose and Tavis Smiley

These recent dismissals from PBS need to be added to this article ASAP.Starhistory22 (talk) 03:22, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Correct English?

Should "or by state government-owned or -related entities." be "or by state government-owned or government-related entities."? This sentence majorly confused me, but maybe it's perfect English.

89.242.181.22 (talk) 15:08, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

I agree that sentence was confusing. I fixed it, hopefully correctly. Station1 (talk) 02:25, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on PBS. 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/20110515140419/http://www.cpb.org/stations/reports/revenue/2005PublicBroadcastingRevenue.pdf to http://www.cpb.org/stations/reports/revenue/2005PublicBroadcastingRevenue.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 18:20, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Inaccurate Information

After some questioning online about the PBS start date here not really being supported by the famous 'Mister Rogers Testimony', someone helpfully directed me to the CPB timeline page (https://www.cpb.org/aboutcpb/history-timeline).

This pretty much debunks the 1970's start dates listed in the article, with a start date for PBS of November 3rd 1969, and Sesame Street starting Production November 10th of 1969.

Moreover while Hartford Gunn Jr was the first President of PBS, it and the CPB were founded by the Public Broadcasting Act of 1967. https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/local/1986/01/03/first-pbs-president-hartford-gunn-jr-dies/437c5212-dc2e-45d8-a713-da8f38ab877a/?utm_term=.72067ca92097

If this was a simple edit, I would go ahead and kick this in, but this appears to me to indicate this article may need a thorough fact check all the way through. Jonnan (talk) 00:31, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

November 3, 1969, was the date PBS was incorporated, as seen in its charter, which is linked in the seventh reference. Meanwhile the start of operations was October 5, 1970. The founding date in the infobox was wrong and not consistent with the sources in the article. Thanks for pointing that out. Fixed it. oknazevad (talk) 04:24, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

"History of PBS" section is needed

There needs to be some info on the history of PBS, starting with how it was preceded by NET (National Education Television) before NET stations became PBS stations in 1970. How Nixon disliked PBS and wanted to kill it's government funding but was ultimately prevented from doing so by congress. The fact that congressional PBS funding on a number of occasions been threatened, though never successfully, should be included. I found this link on the history of the CPB and PBS which includes many links to reliable sources that provide useful historical info that we can use: http://www.fundinguniverse.com/company-histories/corporation-for-public-broadcasting-history/ --Notcharliechaplin (talk) 18:36, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• PBS (2019).svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:06, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Lead consule for PBS resigned for comments related to children in re-education

Any thoughts on how this can be added to the page..jacob805 Jacob805 (talk) 09:58, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

I added it as this: In Janurary 2021, Michael Beller, the chief attorney for PBS resigned after being caught on tape suggesting that supporters of Donald Trump should be sent to re-education camps Caleb M1 (talk) 14:09, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Critical Response

The critical response section of this article is composed entirely of quotations, all of which are brief and vaguely positive. I think that this section falls under WP:QUOTEFARM and should either be deleted or gutted and re-written. I am, however, very new to wiki editing, so I wanted to make sure that this was the correct course of action/a valid criticism before making a somewhat drastic edit. --UnaRata314 (talk) 01:49, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Sounds like a promising direction. Perhaps you can give it a shot and share a proposed revision here? ★NealMcB★ (talk) 12:18, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Needs budget section

Needs a budget section. Fraction of funding from local stations, viewers, private grants, taxpayers etc. See NPR for a good model. ★NealMcB★ (talk) 12:22, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

YouTube

Wikipedia is not a forum

Why manipulate people on high profile cases by purposely fading or cutting out important facts with your blue alarm screen in attempt to hide important facts from the people who watches you on Facebook in hopes of receiving everything truthful from you ? I’m not funding your program anymore, especially after witnessing your videos broadcasting on YouTube. How dare you blast blue alarm screens in order to distort the truth to the people who trust you with your public broadcasting. It’s one sided broadcasting and always has been and you are poisoning those without the income necessary to establish cable in their own homes. Shameful. 2603:6080:C63E:6FDF:B161:5FB4:832:A3C7 (talk) 00:19, 18 November 2021 (UTC) This is the talk page for the Wikipedia article on PBS; talk pages are not a forum and should only be used to discuss changes to the article. Presumably you were looking for ways to contact PBS. Kleinpecan (talk) 00:26, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• PBS 1971 id.svg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:38, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• PBS 1971 id.svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 02:07, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

"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 [2]: "Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) is a USA television network."; Tesla Memorial Society [3]: "Tesla, Master of Lightning, New Voyage Communications for PBS Television Network, 2000, 90 minutes"; Carnegie Council for Ethics in International Affairs [4]: "(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 [5]: "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.

With the wording at the center of this RfC having been removed by a more experienced & established editor due to the lack of reliable information backing it up, as the editor who launched this RfC, I am hereby withdrawing it. 2600:1700:C960:2270:E482:1902:B447:B5E8 (talk) 08:06, 17 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 [6]: "Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) is a USA television network."; Tesla Memorial Society [7]: "Tesla, Master of Lightning, New Voyage Communications for PBS Television Network, 2000, 90 minutes"; Carnegie Council for Ethics in International Affairs [8]: "(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 [9]: "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)

Comment An IP editor who I believe to be the OP (hence an involved editor) attempted to close this discussion, claiming that consensus had been established. I reverted the closure, both because it should be closed by an uninvolved editor, and because I do not see any consensus here. Some editors have not followed the recommended conventions for RfC, but as I analyze the comments, I see 3 editors supporting the proposal, 3 opposed, and 1 with an alternative proposal entirely. That is not a consensus. General Ization ^Talk 23:12, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

As it was stated to you on my talk page...

Being the editor that launched the RfC in question, I refer you to: WP:RFCEND, specifically #5, which plainly states that, upon consensus being reached, even an involved editor is allowed to close the discussion, contrary to your statement. So, in accordance with Wikipedia's own policy, I am disregarding your first point.

Now, the thing is, the Wikipedia page for WP:CON itself does not specify what exactly "consensus" is, but does refer to the article for Consensus, which does define it as the majority agreeing on something.

As as far as comments, I see 5 editors (interstatefive, Fad Ariff, Huggums, SMcCandlish, & HAL 333), in one way or another, stating support for the proposed change to the current wording, 4 editors (oknezevad, SMcCandlish, Huggums, & ScottishFinnshRadish) stating no context, thereby no support, for the current wording (which was the discussion point for the RfC) that implied PBS wasn't a TV network, & 1 editor (StellarNerd) not even voting but simply stating an opinion on the current wording.

So, in this case, it would seem the majority (the 5 editors) does indeed support the proposed change to the current wording, thereby achieving consensus (at least according to Wikipedia's own page for "consensus"). 2600:1700:C960:2270:3CD1:517A:41BE:55DB (talk) 01:07, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

The accounting you have presented of the responses is not clear to me reading this section, and if it is not clear to me, it is most likely not clear to others. That is another reason to leave the closing to another, uninvolved, editor, who can independently assess the outcome of the RfC. There are several responses where the responders should be asked, in order to facilitate this, to restate their position on the original proposal. It would be appropriate for you to do so at this time. What is not appropriate is accusing someone who disagrees with your assessment of "vandalism", and ramming through the edit you have proposed when you know that this disagreement exists. Please do not continue this disruptive behavior. General Ization ^Talk 01:13, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Well, at this point, rather than continuing to engage with you, especially considering your recent actions & behavior concerning this RfC, & risk losing my temper (& possibly face an edit ban), I have filed a complaint at the noticeboard about your recent actions & behavior related to this RfC, as well as requesting a 3rd party review of the RfC.

And, until a decision is reached about that complaint, I will hold my tongue & restrain myself from any further interaction with you. 2600:1700:C960:2270:3CD1:517A:41BE:55DB (talk) 02:47, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

After thinking it through, I will abandon the noticeboard complaint & focus on a third-party review. And, depending on the result of that review, hopefully, I won't have to worry about dealing with you anymore. 2600:1700:C960:2270:3CD1:517A:41BE:55DB (talk) 03:35, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

• PBS is a network - So first, there is rather clearly no consensus in this discussion to implement anything. Second, I would suggest everyone take a look at Television_network (I added it as a link in this article). PBS is indeed a television network. It may have had a different model at various times, but then at various times, so have other television networks. Much of the first two paragraphs under "operations" read like original research, and should be removed. - jc37 01:31, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

@Jc37:, are you continuing the discussion, or is this you answering the closure request I posted at WP:RFCL? 2600:1700:C960:2270:E482:1902:B447:B5E8 (talk) 19:14, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

And, to answer your comment: I do believe that PBS is indeed a TV network, contrary to whoever has kept in the article the current wording (that I'm trying to take care of, as suggested by @Johnuniq:, which is why I launched this RfC) about PBS not being a TV network.

In fact, within the last maybe couple weeks or so, there was actually a discussion similar to this (about PBS's status as not just a US TV network, but a major US TV network) over at the talk page for "List of United States over-the-air television networks". And, it would seem almost every editor who responded to that RfC & voted in it believes that PBS is not just a US TV network, but a major US TV network. That was why, for that discussion, using the authority that Wikipedia clearly gives me at WP:RFCEND (specifically #5-If the consensus is clear, any editor—even one involved in the discussion—may close the discussion.) as the person who launched that RfC, when it seemed like that interest in the discussion had ended & no one else was going to comment/vote, I proceeded to end the discussion & state a ruling on the consensus, which, in that case, was quite unanimous in recognizing that PBS is not only a US TV network, but a major US TV network.

Not to mention, it seemed like no one had any problems in that situation with me closing the discussion & making said ruling on the consensus, which is why I found it odd that the editor who (in my opinion wrongly) re-opened this RfC & claimed there was no consensus (which I disagree with, as I clearly pointed out in my request for closure) did what they did, notwithstanding Wikipedia's current rules/policies/guidelines about contesting/challenging a closure of a discussion, none of which allow an editor to re-open a closed discussion without discussing it first with the editor who closed said discussion, or even requesting a review of the closure at the Administrators' Noticeboard, neither of which said editor did before (again, in my opinion wrongly) re-opening this RfC & claiming there was no consensus.

Plus, much as I told another editor earlier on in this discussion, my proposed change to the wording of at least the first paragraph under "Operations" seeks to not only retain how PBS was seen prior to 2000 (as I figured it was appropriate to retain said wording), but also update it to show how PBS is viewed today. 2600:1700:C960:2270:E482:1902:B447:B5E8 (talk) 04:28, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

The discussion is open until it is closed. Generally speaking, the response to a request at WP:RFCL will not be to add additional comments to the discussion, but to close it (with a summary of the consensus, or the absence of any) if the responder finds that closure is appropriate. If they do not find it so, they will indicate this on the entry at WP:RFCL. The absence of any comments there suggests that no one has responded as yet to the request. In light of Jc37's comments, it seems unlikely that the request will result in closure until that editor's claims are discussed. General Ization ^Talk 02:22, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

I hate having to break my promise of no longer interacting with you, but nowhere in my question to Jc37 did I anywhere, at all, mention your name. I was speaking to Jc37 about what their intentions were getting involved in this discussion.

So, with the exception of this comment (and, I am not asking for or requesting a reply to it), unless someone mentions your name or somehow directs a comment towards you, from here on out, I would appreciate you not leaving any further comments here, in order to avoid further cluttering up this discussion. 2600:1700:C960:2270:E482:1902:B447:B5E8 (talk) 04:28, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Ok, Going to try to respond in steps.

1.) I came here because I saw this listed at WP:RFCLOSE, and came to see if this was a discussion that I could help out and close.

2.) So when closing a discussion, it's more than merely counting "votes". And I go over a discussion multiple times before I close it. At first, I do a "first run through" to see if overall, whether the proposition had (or did not have) consensus to implement. It clearly doesn't. The discussion is all over the place.

3.) That said, that's just the initial run through. Part of closing is checking relevant policy and guidelines, and in the case of editors deciding on preferred words, it can be relevant to check if there are sources that the commenters are relying on, and just other due diligence.

4.) By this time I realized that there was a fundamental issue in that either version was - as far as I could tell - flawed, in that the presumption was that PBS is not a network.

5.) That was the point that I decided that I was no longer comfortable being the closer of the discussion. I could close it neutrally, if wanted - my read is that there is "no consensus" after all - however, I decided that I would prefer to add to the discussion, so I looked over everything again, and then posted the above - as a contributor to the discussion - not wearing a closer hat.

And finally, I can link to policy expressing this if you need me to, but just to be clear: On Wikipedia, you should have sources to add something to an article. If text is challenged, it is removed. My next step is to remove the entire section of text from the article. Please do not re-add without verifiable reliable sources. As a suggestion you all may wish to at least read the Wikipedia article television network - it has some things to say about PBS that you may find interesting.

Anyway, I hope that clarifies. And I know I glossed over a lot, but I hope it also sheds some light on at least some of the things a closer does when preparing to close a discussion.

I hope you all have an awesome day. - jc37 06:08, 17 July 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.