The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, use the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.
This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (center, color, defense, realize, traveled) and some terms may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Media, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Media on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MediaWikipedia:WikiProject MediaTemplate:WikiProject MediaMedia
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of journalism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JournalismWikipedia:WikiProject JournalismTemplate:WikiProject JournalismJournalism
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Companies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of companies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CompaniesWikipedia:WikiProject CompaniesTemplate:WikiProject Companiescompany
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Georgia (U.S. state), a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Georgia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Georgia (U.S. state)Wikipedia:WikiProject Georgia (U.S. state)Template:WikiProject Georgia (U.S. state)Georgia (U.S. state)
Add {{WikiProject Georgia (U.S. state)|class=|importance=|atlanta=|atlanta-importance=}} project banner to Atlanta-related articles to talk pages and assess.
Maintain and further improve articles already of high-quality.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
Brent Bozell and Tim Graham (5 September 2025). "Google Gives You Wikipedia Tilt on Cable News Channels". Townhall. Retrieved 5 September 2025. The Wikipedia article on CNN mentions a defamation suit, if you read deep down more than 50 paragraphs. ... There was no mention of CNN settling a defamation lawsuit after a Florida jury found them liable for defaming Navy veteran Zachary Young over his business in getting refugees out of Afghanistan.
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move reviewafter discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Oppose Not disrespected the move request, but it appears that "CNN" is commonly used name per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:CONCISE. Even within the network itself, they almost never called CNN "Cable News Network" unless they use the name for legal purposes, implied that CNN also avaliable in satellite dishes worldwide and even avaliable terrestrially in many countries as "free-to-air" channel. 103.111.102.118 (talk) 19:18, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, mostly per WP:ACROTITLE: In general, if readers somewhat familiar with the subject are likely to only recognise the name by its acronym, then the acronym should be used as a title. and per Objective3000 CNN is so much more common (ngrams (will have some false positives for other CNNs but not very many) it is likely there are readers who don't what Cable News Network is (which also has consistently been declining in ngrams since 1992). The examples given in nom are much more commonly referred to by their full name than CNN is. Skynxnex (talk) 20:21, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A google search for the term "Cable News Network" returns mostly auto-generated CNN business profiles (such as FCC and Bloomberg pages). "National Basketball Association" returns dozens of pages of relevant, mostly official, NBA-related sites.
CNN themselves minimally use the non-abbreviated form, which in my opinion, further supports that CNN is the common name used by both the organization and the public. On the other hand, NBA regularly uses their non-abbreviated form in materials and branding, therefore it is recognizable. Tvfunhouse (talk) 14:34, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I did consider the other examples and I agree with what Tvfunhouse and others have said. Yes, NBA and FBI are more commonly abbreviated than not. However, their full names are sufficiently common that they easily satisfy the Recognizability criterion: The title is a name or description of the subject that someone familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in, the subject area will recognize. (See: WP:CRITERIA section of Wikipedia:Article titles policy.) This is not the case with CNN, whose full name is almost never used and is likely unfamiliar even to millions of people who watch it every day.
Article title decisions rarely–if ever–hinge on a single fact or policy. "CNN" is better than "Cable News Network" on all five article title CRITERIA. The guidance at MOS:ACROTITLE aligns with the general policies and guidelines and covers their specific application to acronyms (including initialisms). As Skynxnex has already quoted, the key directive here is (emphasis added): if readers somewhat familiar with the subject are likely to only recognise the name by its acronym, then the acronym should be used as a title. The issue here is not only that CNN is the common name, it is the only name most readers are likely to recognize. "Cable News Network" will confuse or surprise most readers, whereas Federal Bureau of Investigations, National Basketball Association, and the full names of most universities are recognizable and easily understood even if people most often abbreviate. --MYCETEAE 🍄🟫—talk16:07, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Correct. CNN is very liberal. To the point that they've been sued multiple times over the years for repeating false propaganda from "unnamed sources". ~2025-42603-49 (talk) 16:01, 23 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not necessary. Fox News makes no attempt to have balanced coverage. Their primetime lineup appears as speakers and advocates at conservative political events in ways that no CNN anchor would be allowed to. CNN and Fox have dramatically different standards as to their coverage. Despite what American conservative politicians claim, CNN is not a liberal media outlet in the way that Fox is a conservative media outlet. If you want to include such a contentious statement, you should start an RfC on that topic. Since you have only found one anon who has backed up your position and there are four editors who have disagreed (myself, @Roxy the dog, @Headbomb, @Objective3000), this proposed change should not be implemented. I'm tagging in the other editors to assist them in keeping an eye out here. Bill Heller (talk) 18:19, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
.svg){kind=small}
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Annh07 (talk) 11:35, 30 March 2025 (UTC)
Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the 