This article is within the scope of WikiProject Elections and Referendums, an ongoing effort to improve the quality of, expand upon and create new articles relating to elections, electoral reform and other aspects of democratic decision-making. For more information, visit our project page.Elections and ReferendumsWikipedia:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsTemplate:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsElections and Referendums articles
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.
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 articles
Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I don't think you say that 60 minutes II changed its name specifically to avoid tarnishing the original show after Killian without having some proof that somebody said so, so I tagged it {{fact}} a while ago. The change to arguably is what is known in wikipedia as a weasel word, in this case a way to blame the name change on Killian by adding the qualifier "arguably? Well, who exactly argued this? If the people making this argument would normally be considered reliable sources (bloggers, for example) then it should be left out entirely. If the people making the argument would be considered reliable sources, we should quote and cite them directly. I took out all the insinuations about the name change being related to Killian; it can be restored if someone finds a source saying so. Thatcher13102:20, 1 May 2006 (UTC)Reply
