Talk:CAM-D

NPOV

I believe there is a bias supporting HD radio in the issues section and some of the information seems a bit fishy, especially that HD radio transmitters are cheaper than CAM-D, which is unreferenced and bias. Milonica (talk) 08:18, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Adding to the point that this article has an extreme bias supporting HD, this sentence bothers me: All planned production is for HD AM and FM receivers.. I added the fact tag to this because how can we possibly be certain that ALL radios in production will be for HD AM and FM. I am still able to buy analog radios at almost any electronics stores. I highly doubt anyone is ONLY producing HD radios. I may not support HD radio, but please don't add nonsense to an article that doesn't deal with HD. Milonica (talk) 21:26, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay, after thinking it over and looking for more sources, I was unable to come up with a rational citation for the line in italics above, so I removed the line all together. After reading through the article several times, I found that it had contradicted itself, so I fixed this as well. One line said that radios were capable of receiving it, the other line said there currently were no radios able to receive it. I believe someone who supports HD radio must have come and caused this article some much needed fixing by putting material in it that basically attacks CAM-D and makes HD radio look like its a godsend, which is anything but the truth. Anyone else care to add their point to this? Milonica (talk) 21:42, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV

I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:

This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:

1. There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
2. It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
3. In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 00:30, 17 June 2013 (UTC)