Jump to content

Talk:Viacom (2005–2019)/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Paramount

What was Paramount's corporate name before the Viacom deal? I know it wasn't Paramount Pictures, and I know that it had already changed from Gulf+Western by the time of that deal. (BTW, as of a couple of years ago, Viacom still owned some of Gulf+Western's South American oil businesses, according to an SEC filing I was looking at.) 18.24.0.120 16:49, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC)

The answer is: Paramount Communications, Inc. --M.Neko 09:24, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Viacom Historical Logos

Do you believe old logos of Viacom should be added on this page? Zscout370 05:26, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

yes 82.28.230.146 19:59, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
yes defenitely!!! 66.116.107.217 07:37, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Viacom Owners

We should have the owners/top institutional and private shareholders listed here as well so that we can see the structure...

Viacom's deal with HD-DVD

There ought to be a section on this! They were paid USD150 million for this deal. 61.68.85.205 08:56, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

V of Doom

Is the long section cataloging Viacom's various production logos really necessary? I know that the "V of Doom" is of interest to logo fans (since I'm a borderline one myself), but I think it is really too specific a topic for a general encyclopedia. tregoweth 07:32, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

There seems to be an anon revert of the removal... --Wcquidditch | Talk 11:55, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Recommend removing production logo history

In all reality, there's no necessity for the long blaring history of the Viacom logos....they seem to be overwhelming the article. Recommend rewrite to make it shorter, or outright removal. --Stdjsb25 04:17, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

From the looks of it, it has been split into a seperate page. Agreed, it is far too long for this article. --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:17, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
Which apparently failed. --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:19, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Westinghouse brand assets

Does anyone know which company will keep the Westinghouse brand assets after the split? Jkatzen 02:10, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Old/new Viacom split

I created a new page for the original company, Viacom (1986) that is now known as CBS Corporation. I moved most of the historical elements of the article there, and placed the old Viacom logo on that page as well. This page (Viacom) should now be devoted only to the activities of the company founded on December 31, 2005. Jkatzen 00:08, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Um, why? So we can ensure that Viacom (2007) becomes the millionth article? -- SwissCelt 04:37, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
No, largely because it's an entirely different company with different assets, a different founding date, and a different history. The content, as it is, is lengthy as hell, so I'd find a means such as this to split it up to make it easier to read or understand beneficial. Jkatzen 06:47, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Paramount TV byline

Now that Viacom and CBS have "divorced", will the Paramount TV byline still be "A Viacom Company" or will it change to "A CBS Company" with an "eye" replacing CBS? 71.111.209.99 22:50, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Judging from episodes of Judge Judy (awful pun, I know), the logo shown after all new episodes of Viacom television programs is named CBS Paramount. Here's how it looks:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EOhj3XEyRKY

Sing it with me now... "Boy, that's an-noy-ing!" --M.Neko 09:29, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Paramount's original corperate name and a Star Trek question

I'm respoding to the first comment: Paramount's corperate name just prior to merging with Viacom was Paramount Communications.

And here's my own question: does Viacom fully own the entire Star Trek franchise? Or does CBS Corp. own the Star Trek shows?

Viacom owns 50% of Sega of America?

Wikipedia is the only place linking Sega of America to Viacom (outside a couple of old games released by Viacom). This seems pretty strange to me... unsigned comment by 213.216.199.30 21:52, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I've invested quite some time but couldn't find anything about Viacom owning Sega. Brands like Viva or The Box were mentioned, but nowhere was a single word about Sega. The Viacom brands page mentiones xfire (relatively small) but not Sega of America (pretty large). Until someone proves the opposite we should take the "Viacom owns 50% of SoA" information as a fake. Therefor I've removed Viacom from Sega and Sega from Viacom and from Template:Viacom. --32X 11:10, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
This is only partially true. In the early 1980's, Sega of America was owned by Paramount, which at the time was a Gulf + Western company (not yet affiliated with Viacom). It was sold to CSK Holdings in 1984 after the video game crash. Today, Sega is a subsidiary of Sammy, a Japanese pachinko manufacturer. The full title of the merged company is Sega-Sammy Holdings.
I strongly doubt that CBS, Paramount, or Viacom has any stake in the new Sega, although Viacom CEO Sumner Redstone DOES have controlling interest in Midway, which (as Bally-Midway) also owned SOA for a brief period of time.
Oh what a tangled web corporations weave, eh? :D --M.Neko 09:17, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I wonder what viacom's new production logo will look like. How about reviving the V Of Doom, with new graphics? Now that would be cool!69.141.79.71 00:24, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

They don't have a new production logo; they're no longer in the television business. Besides, don't you think a new V of Doom would be a bit much in a theater? ;) 71.140.88.57 02:58, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Viacom Template Removed for the time being

Removed the template until there is a direct source supporting that Viacom actually owns those assets lists on the template.162.84.159.253

It's counterproductive to entirely remove every item in Wikipedia that's not properly cited. If you think it needs improvement, mark "citation needed" on it, or help verify it yourself. Over time, as new sections are added, the ones that aren't easily verifiable will gain cites. If you think a section is particularly problematic, build consensus on the Talk pages. Until then, please don't go around blanking things single-handedly. Jkatzen 15:43, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I suggest a new section to deal with copyright issues, specifically 1) copyright infringements by YouTube and others and 2) Viacom assuming copyright to all materials submitted to their fan-based websites and web discussion forums, such as the colboard.com, a web discussion forum for fans of Stephen Colbert. --Kangarooelaine 20:24, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I've reduced the protection to semi, so established users should have no problem editing. I think a section on the YouTube takedowns is a good idea; just make sure it's properly sourced. And fair warning, the page was protected last night because of a lot of vandalism that appeared to be from Stephen Colbert fans who were upset about Viacom's actions on YouTube. I can't say I blame them for being angry (fair use? hello?) but please do keep an eye on that while you're working. -- Vary | Talk 20:43, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I hate Viacom for deleting great music videos off YouTube. And it's not like the majority of them are even available for sale. So what harm does it do to Viacunt? I'm convinced they just hate good music. --Svedenhaus 09:12, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Whoa whoa whoa, watch the language. I hate Viacom too but such language is just unnecessary. Ginbot86 (talk) 22:12, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I am impressed that this page has not yet been protected

I mean, this just shows how wikipedians can be well behaved if they try, even if the controversy is a company pretty much infinging on free speech. It is a great improvement over the what happened with the stingray article when steve irwin died.--202.161.1.167 09:47, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


Someone Deleted my Thorough Research On this article >/

Someone deleted my section I provided yesterday discussing the new service Viacom and Joost have teamed up with to create. Did anyone see that one? It was replaced with a shorter, vague, and informal explantion that lacks the grammar I put in. What gives?! I tried to contribute more to this article, but when I edited that version, the person inexcusably deleted it and replaced my explanation with their own. I even cited my sources. Anyone see the short sentence with the phrase "which made many youtube fans upset"? That's the one I'm talking about. Wikipedia should either enforce tighter restrictions on this article or lock it altogether for the time being. I'm sick of contributing to Wikipedia in a meaningful way and having other people delete it. If this keeps up, Wikipedia can just forget about me trying to help them.

~Bowser —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bowser81889 (talk • contribs) 18:58, 21 February 2007 (UTC).

Your version was, in fact, far superior to the current state of the article. I have replaced the history section. Jkelly 22:51, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Viacom has people monitoring this article. Expect more deletions.71.131.186.152 18:48, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
viacom can suck a dick —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.210.51.222 (talk) 11:29, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay, now Viacom's monitoring this article and making edits they want now? That's inexcusable! Ginbot86 (talk) 22:13, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Edit to 'Kasaibou's hatred against Viacom' & Request

I started by fixing the spelling errors and some spacing that was rather strange. However, reading over this section I realize it doesn't make much sense or add up well. For instance, changing crashing a plane into the building into six curses, one of which includes a painless death for the CEO? Could someone who is familiar with these curses go through and correct the weird wording? 72.146.36.206 14:22, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

And now it's plain old deleted? 72.146.36.206 02:42, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Note to Viacom

Just because something used to air on Nickelodeon doesn't automatically mean that you own it.24.29.74.132 23:27, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Viacom#Corporate_governance

This section of the page is probably more linking than regular text. Many of the words that link to their respective wiki pages (joost, youtube, many of the names) are duplicate links. In my opinion it would be OK to "un-wikify" the majority of them, but I don't know the criteria.--bb 14:18, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Yup they are certainly duplicate links and the policy is to only have the first instance of a word linked. However, after I removed the duplicate links of people names that appeared in 'Corporate Governance' it didn't seem to be as good so I reverted my changes.Apartmento 02:22, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Cut-and-paste page move

Earlier tonight, the article was moved to Viacom (2006-present). I have reverted that action, for several reasons. One, it was a cut-and-paste move, which is contrary to policy as it does not bring the contribution history with it. Two, because a move of that nature should be discussed first, given the notability of the company. Finally, the name doesn't seem to be appropriate under the naming guidelines. Anyway, I feel it should be up to the page regulars to decide how you wish to handle this. Thoughts? --Ckatzchatspy 06:13, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

About the part saying "May 28"

Where it says all the stuff including CBS Corporation becoming Viacom Entertainment, whoever put all that in please tell me where you got that info from, because I'm not sure that the whole thing is true.

It's not true. No such merger or series of acquisitions (which would instantly make Viacom the largest media conglomerate by far) has either been announced or even speculated on. While Paramount, which has made Transformer's in a co-production deal with Hasbro, has hinted at optioning further Hasbro properties, no other official deals have been made to my knowledge. As for the other listed companies, those are blatantly absurd (Vivendi Universal alone is worth more than the entirety of Viacom, let alone affording Fox and NBC-Universal). I'm deleting that line. SiberioS 05:29, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

A discussion has started at Template talk:Viacom about the navbox. --Geniac 21:44, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Speedy kept deletion nom

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Viacom delldot talk 18:49, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Criticism?

On just about every other coperation-focused artical I have seen a section for criticism. And since there's so much in regards to Viacom it's quite confusing that there is no section to serve this purpose. I recall running into one earlier, was there a valid reason it was removed? --Kidalana 12:27, 26 October 2007 (UTC) I think there should be I mean there basicly a monpoly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.31.163.82 (talk) 23:45, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Why does it say Viacom was founded in 2006?

Where it says Viacom was founded in 2006 it makes no sense at all. Viacom was founded in 1971. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.164.88.250 (talk) 00:08, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

It does make sense. The Viacom that exists today is not the same corporate entity as the Viacom that CBS spun off in the 1970s. This Viacom is actually a spin-off from today's CBS Corporation (which prior to that time was itself called Viacom); this was the end result of a 2006 corporate split. Hence, the modern-day Viacom was founded in 2006, and thus the article is fine as is. --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:04, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Viacom owns wikipedia?

What's up with this:

The split was approved by Viacom's board June 14, 2005, approved December 31, 2005, and effectively undid the Viacom/CBS merger of 1999. The original Viacom changed its name to CBS Corporation and is headed by Moonves. It now includes Viacom's "slow growth businesses", namely CBS, UPN (Which will merge with The WB in the 2006-07 television season, forming The CW Network), CBS Radio, Simon & Schuster, Viacom Outdoor, Showtime, Wikipedia and most television production asset ?

This implies that Viacom owned, and that CBS Corporation now owns, Wikipedia. I don't know everything about Wikipedia, but nowhere on Wikipedia's Wikipedia page, Wikimedia's about Wikimedia page, or Wikimedia's benefactors' page does it mention CBS or Viacom.

I would say that it was probabgly vandalism. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.161.1.167 (talk) 09:53, 7 February 2007 (UTC).
Even so, if Viacom does own Wikipedia, nothing will change. But security will be even tighter. Youtube, beware! --Commander Lightning —Preceding undated comment was added at 21:38, 6 November 2008 (UTC).

Vandalism!!

Someone with a devoted hate for Viacom put the name as "Viacom A.K.A. FUCKING IDIOTS," yet the page can't be edited. Why?? -64.91.158.52 (talk) 00:23, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

 Done It was vandalized by a logged in user, and the page is only semiprotected. If you see any other vandalism, please leave me a message on my talkpage. --Terrillja talk 00:28, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

News on Time Warner Negotiations

According to CNN, Viacom and Time Warner have reached an agreement allowing subscribers to continue viewing channels such as Nickelodeon, MTV, VH1, Comedy Central, etc.

http://money.cnn.com/2009/01/01/news/companies/viacom_twc/index.htm Axelarater (talk) 18:36, 1 January 2009 (UTC) Axelarater

Viacom/ Youtube/Google

Viacom is a company that owns many companys like MTV, Dreamworks, Comedy Central, etc. Viacom has recently filed a lawsuit against Youtube and Google. They asked for the right to know EVERY video EVER posted on Youtube and EVERY person who has ever watched or uploaded it. They claim to think that everything that might mention Viacom, MTV, etc is copywrited. They took this idea to court and the judge approved of it. Soon Viacom will have almost all the information of Youtube and Google. Judging by the looks of it, it probably won't stop. It will go to other companys, other sites, other people. Ever since early 2008 Viacom's stock has dropped 3x then it was last year. They aren't doing well money wise or by people just liking them. More and more people are begining to see what Viacom really is. Thank you for listening if you do not agree with this that is okay. I am just posting this to help the average American get the scoop on Viacom.


P.S. Viacom if you think this is copywrited it is not and if you think it is I am sorry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.220.9.236 (talk) 23:43, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

SPAM ALERT!!!

I request that we return the original content for this article using history and lock it for administrative purposes until further notice.

I request that you familiarize yourself with the concept of "nobody cares".  Aaron  ►  04:49, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Mexico

Is there a Viacom company in Mexico? --58.179.190.119 (talk) 12:54, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Deleting Stupid, Poorly-Written Comments

I've deleted this piece of terrible writing, but I think the issue should be addressed: February 2, 2007 was the date Viacom Wants youtube to delete videos of their videos of Viacoms products like Comedy central and Nick,they thinks Youtube is copyrighting their products.Which the users thinks its annoying them, So Viacom should leave Youtube alone and never come back.

Kellaghkellywatchthestars

Viacom owns those broadcasts, so they have the right to remove them from Youtube if the piracy site is violating copyright laws regarding Viacom. --Commander Lightning
They don't have the rights to remove videos that blatantly don't belong to them, which they do.

--CasualFriday —Preceding undated comment added 04:58, 1 June 2009 (UTC).

You have no idea. Viacom IS the media!! HEIL DAUMAN!!!! --Commander Lightning —Preceding undated comment added 16:09, 6 June 2009 (UTC).

As we all know, Viacom has been claiming many videos and music tracks in epic proportions. But as of now, they are officially proven otherwise. as proven here [1] they are officially just trying to manipulate there rights, and reigning nothing but hate on youtube. Soon youtube will be forced to give in. As you know MTV doesn't show music videos anymore. Soon Viacom will change the whole entire urban universe as we know it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SockMob (talk • contribs) 04:13, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

This talk page is not for the discussion about Viacom and/or YouTube. Please keep discussions to only about our article on Viacom. For further information, see the warning added to the top of this talk page. IIIVIX (Talk) 06:20, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Semiprotection review

  • 16:42, 1 March 2008 Caulde protected Viacom ‎ (IPs in a certain range deliberately vandalising article [edit=autoconfirmed:move=autoconfirmed]) (hist)

Caulde has since left Wikipedia. I'd welcome opinions from regular editors about whether this semiprotection is still necessary. --TS 13:29, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

This page draws vandalism and POV like similar pages about large evil corporations. Looking at Monsanto and Sony, they are not protected.ExtremeSquared (talk) 09:16, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

This article was unprotected on September 22 and has seen significant positive contributions since then--most of those positive contributions have been from IPs, which I think vindicates the removal of semiprotection. --TS 10:09, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

VIACOM vs YouTube

Do you guys believe Viacom is guilty for claiming false copyright over videos on YouTube???--210.24.206.171 (talk) 15:11, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Address

Could someone add a mailing address for this company? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skysong263 (talk • contribs) 20:17, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Marketing speak

"Viacom connects with audiences through television, motion pictures, mobile platforms" - this sounds like something a marketing exec would write. Maybe it should have a more encyclopedic tone? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.102.41.117 (talk) 03:50, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Feud

A lot of YouTube videos and users have been terminated by Viacom. Users definately dislike this. So are we allowed to say that this is a feud with YouTube users? Like problems with WMG? 161.130.178.7 (talk) 14:37, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 November 2014

CBS no longer owns its outdoor division

Not done: as you have not cited reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 08:59, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

request edit

Viacom spun-off from Columbia Broadcasting Systems, Inc (CBS) in 1971 to become its own public company. For that reason, I propose we eliminate the section that denotes “Thomas E. Freston” as the founder, since it is inaccurate and Viacom in fact had several founders. I would also propose we change the text after “Founded” to June 4, 1971, which is the accurate date when the company became an independent entity.

Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page).http://thepub.viacom.com/about/pages/history.aspx

VIATJ (talk) 19:50, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Viacom. 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:

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 23:55, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

It looks like the "Copyright complaints against YouTube" section needs to be updated. There have been further developments in the case since 2012 (as set forth in the main article for the case), but the section doesn't reflect this. Alphius (talk) 23:39, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Viacom. 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:

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 01:48, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

The CW

is not "formerly The WB and UPN". It is a joint venture of Warner Brothers and CBS. It includes many of the programs and affiliates formerly associated with The WB or UPN. It is not a merger or a renaming. And though UPN was formely part of Viacom, The WB was not. I'd have made this correction to the the article myself, but I don't have permission.

Number One - Whoever you are, as I'm sure ANY of Wikipedia's editors will tell you & even as the edit page itself says, PLEASE, sign your comment using four tildes (the squiggly line character - "~") so that we know who is speaking.
Number Two - if, by not having permission, you mean you don't have an account on this website, that shouldn't make any difference. I don't have an account on here either, but that doesn't stop me from making edits to articles. 2602:304:CEBF:8650:E004:548B:7400:5233 (talk) 05:16, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

TTTEfan2017's message

Dear; Viacom when I was looking on your Wikipedia article the is another article of the original Viacom and it said, {{merge from|Viacom (original)|discuss=Talk:Viacom#Proposed merge with Viacom (original)|date=September 2017}}. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TTTEFan2017 (talk • contribs) 00:18, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

That merge was proposed by an anonymous user who never gave a rationale for it. I removed the tag from the article, as there was no discussion on the topic in the past month. Ibadibam (talk) 06:10, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Possible merger with Lionsgate (with CBS) and failed acquisition of The Weinstein Company (with Lionsgate)

I feel the Weinstein effect part of the article should be in the Lionsgate merger section as Viacom and Lionsgate were both bidding for TWC. --GodPro (talk) 01:31, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Viacom (original) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 01:45, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Viacom (1952–2006) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 09:45, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

"Merger with pending" additions in infobox here and on CBS Corporation articles

These should cease until we have a consensus for the addition to any article; we have no idea of either corporate structure and how they'll work as one currently. Nate • (chatter) 01:32, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Merger name?

If the merger is approved and officially instated, whenever that happens, would this page be renamed to Viacom (2005-2020)? HurricaneGeek2002 (talk) 18:35, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Viacom_(2005–2019)/Archive_1&oldid=1164831675"