Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 03:20, 7 October 2010

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Fox News article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40Auto-archiving period: 14 days

Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments, look in the archives, and review the FAQ before commenting.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Fox News article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40Auto-archiving period: 14 days

view · edit Frequently asked questions Concern: The introduction mentions alleged bias or other controversial information. WP:LEAD - The lead should be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article, establishing context, explaining why the subject is interesting or notable, and briefly describing its notable controversies. It is appropriate to overview the controversies and allegations of bias, as these are substantial. Concern: The introduction mentions allegations of conservative bias but I've seen studies that say Fox News is centrist and/or liberal. Shouldn't these viewpoints be mentioned in the lead as well? Although there are studies with various viewpoints on Fox, the view that Fox is conservative dominates. For the lead we restrict ourselves to the dominant view, conservative bias, while noting that this viewpoint has dissenters. The lead should only briefly summarize the notable controversies. The notability of this particular controversy is measured by studies, documentaries, films, boycotts from influential persons based on the perception of bias, and numerous pop culture references to the alleged conservative bias. No other viewpoint has gained as much currency, and therefore including them in the lead would violate WP:FRINGE; WP:NPOV and WP:LEAD. Concern: Does the article take any position regarding the allegations of bias? Misplaced Pages takes no position on whether Fox News is biased. The introduction highlights the existence of a notable controversy concerning the perception that the network promotes conservative political positions. Neither the introduction nor the article takes a position on whether such a perception is accurate, we merely reflect the consensus of reliable independent sources. Previous discussions: See archives 21, 19, 18, 17, 16 (Includes RfC) and 15.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Journalism High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of journalism on Misplaced Pages. 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 High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Radio Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Radio, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Radio-related subjects on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.RadioWikipedia:WikiProject RadioTemplate:WikiProject RadioRadio Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. To-do List: Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : Create: Missing years and articles in radio, National Association of Radio Distress-Signalling and Infocommunications (Hungary) Assess : Unassessed Radio articles; Unknown-importance Radio articles Cleanup : Radio articles needing attention Expand : Midweek Politics Bob Crane Maintain : Portal:Radio Stubs : Expand: Radio stubs Verify : Unreferenced BLPs Other : Collaboration of the Week: Requests for Radio peer review: Rod Serling The Howard Stern Show The History of Rock & Roll American Top 40; The Museum of Curiosity; Scott Mills (radio show) Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Media Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Media, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Media on Misplaced Pages. 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 Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Media To-do List: Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Cleanup : Media influence, Video game culture, Sound bite NPOV : Content (media and publishing) Verify : Multimedia, Alternative media, Alternative newspaper Other : Answer requests for comments Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Television High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Misplaced Pages 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 High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. New York City Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York City, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New York City-related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York CityWikipedia:WikiProject New York CityTemplate:WikiProject New York CityNew York City Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Politics Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. 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 Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

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, come here to 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.

Template:Pbneutral

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Fox News. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Fox News at the Reference desk.

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

Lead again

For previous discussions on this topic, see Lead is entirely unsatsifactory (19 Jul 2009) and Lead redux (25 Oct 2009)

- also Intro should include criticism & controversy per LEAD (May-June 2010)

Many observers have asserted that both Fox's news reporting and its political commentary promote conservative political positions.

That's not correct. We aren't Fox News, and we don't allow the "some people say" gambit on this website. "Many observers" have not asserted this at all. Many scholars, media critics, journalists, and media organizations maintain that Fox does not report news at all, nor does it subscribe to the most basic standards of journalism, such as good sourcing and objectivity. "Some people say" this is nonsense. The primary criticism is not that Fox promotes conservative political positions, and it never has been the primary criticism. The criticism is that Fox does not report news or practice journalism. That is the criticism. Yes, they desperately want us to believe that the criticism concerns their conservative POV, but it doesn't, and that needs to be changed. Fox doesn't get to write this article. This particular criticism has been picked out because it best promotes the interests of Fox, that is to say, the more people who believe that Fox is criticized for its political position, the more people leaning from the center to the right will say, hmmm, maybe the liberal media is picking on the little guy. This is a deliberate form of propaganda placed in the lead to prevent actual criticism. Viriditas (talk) 10:24, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Could you suggest an alternative wording? I think that sentence is fairly neutral. This article is certainly not pro fox, it covers in far to much detail criticism / controversies already. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:26, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I can, but I've previously discussed this and my comments are in the archives. You could try expanding it to include and summarize the main criticisms, rather than pointing to the one that doesn't criticize them at all. Every media outlet has a political position, so this criticism is all but empty. Fox is criticized for claiming to be a news channel, but not using journalistic standards of objectivity or reporting. Media critics frankly don't give a damn about political positions, just as long as they are reported with fairness and balance, the two things missing most on Fox, yet ironically, the two things they claim to offer. I notice that the quality of references in this article is very weak, with almost no scholarly sources in use. Why not? Viriditas (talk) 10:30, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

The lede must summarize the article, and not make OR or SYNTH in the process. All cites must be reliable sources, and, frankly, the editors who WP:KNOW the truth, are not editing in accord with WP policies and guidelines at all, but in accord with what they "know." Collect (talk) 10:35, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

The lead does not summarize the article, and the use of multiple cites in the lead is a huge red flag that something is wrong. Good and featured articles don't require sources in the lead, because the lead adequately, and more importantly accurately summarizes the topic. Which good and featured articles have you worked on, Collect? And, why are there no scholarly sources in the article, specifically, scholarly sources that have criticized Fox News? You may want to read Cla68's essay, Collect. According to him, editors who don't try to improve articles to good or featured status are probably activists pushing their POV. What do you think about that? I notice that this article isn't able to rise above a C-Class rating. Could it be because it is being controlled by activist editors? What would Cla68 say? The lead has been questioned for years, with no edits being allowed to fix it. Viriditas (talk) 10:46, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Provide them. Most of the editorialists I have seen have axes to grind, it seems. I suggest using google books for actual printed stuff. Articles I have worked on include Huey Long, Prem Rawat, Judaism, and somewhere around a thousand more <g>. For some reason I do not keep any track of which have ever been "good" or "featured" - "Sufficient unto the day ..." or the older "It is not up to us to complete the task ..." are both applicable. Is there any real reason you wish to know which articles I have ever worked on? I even wrote one from scratch Christopher Burnham, and even wrte one for Simple Misplaced Pages as well. I have posted on commons, wikiversity, meta, strategy, and simple (see SUL stats). In a "prior online life" (working for a major online service) I have read well over 4 million posts, written over 200,000 posts, and managed well over a gig of image and text files (when image files were generally under 20k in size). I have read well over 10,000 books in my life now, and still read (albeit skipping the kissing scenes in romances <g>). BTW, (another EC above) the bit about "pushing" POVs has absolutely nothing to do with making GAs. In fact, most editors never push for GA. Have I worked on GAs? Yep. Do I count them? Nope. Collect (talk) 10:59, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I see you've created a total of one article on Misplaced Pages. Congratulations. Now, all you have to do is expand it beyond an unassessed stub. As for your contribs, you might want to take a look yourself. In any case, there are still many problems with this article, least of all the lead. You will not find an experienced editor who will agree that the lead section best represents the current "Criticism and controversies" section. Viriditas (talk) 11:14, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Considering that your big articles include lots of articles on "this year in jazz" and the like, I submit that your cavil is errant. I have worked on many hundreds of XfDs - and you not. Written essays and contributed to major policy pages. You not. Been active online for three decades. You not. Been paid for magazine writing. You? Been paid for artwork. You? Helped mediate several controversial pages. You? Each editor does what he or she can - starting articles is not where I have worked, though I could add a few hundred biographies of dead people easily. Value each editor on that basis. Collect (talk) 14:56, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

1. The "many" wording is covered in the FAQ at the top of the talk page, and is quite firmly supported by nearly a half-dozen RFC's spanning half a decade. If your comments are "previously in the archives" then you should be well aware of this established wording and the RFC's that have formed and repeatedly validated it.
2. The oversourcing in the introduction is due to the fact that editors such as yourself routinely show up and challenge the introduction, despite it being supported by the article text.
3. Your rationale for changing the introduction, specifically "they desperately want us to believe that the criticism concerns their conservative POV, but it doesn't", is a violation of our original research/synthesis of thought policies, and is based upon what you believe is the truth (which has no relevance here).
4. Finally, your repeated violations of WP:AGF ("it is being controlled by activist editors", "editors who don't try to improve articles to good or featured articles are probably activists pushing their POV", "This is a deliberate form of propaganda placed in the lead to prevent actual criticism.") is both unnecessary and makes it look like you're here to advocate your beliefs instead of considering a longstanding consensus.

//Blaxthos ( t / c ) 10:54, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

"Many" is not a recommended term as it is not the term used in the body of the article. And "critics" seems accurate. As "many" is not supported, while "critics" is, I would trust you would retain "critics" as being a neutral statement of what is in the body of the artcle! (noting that the rest of the comments above are clearly not directed at my position). Collect (talk) 10:59, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

It looks like this article is controlled by editors who won't allow it to be improved, and who insist on using extremely poor sources, cherry picked for a certain ideological POV, with no scholarly sources in use. This is why the article is currently C-Class. There is no incentive to improve it per Cla68's essay on this topic, namely POV pushing that values stability over accuracy, that can't be challenged by B, GA, or FA reviews. This is why I've said it's propaganda, not worthy of an encyclopedia. Viriditas (talk) 11:04, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I do not have the time to read through the archives of previous proposals. If you want something in the article changed now, you need to make the proposal clear now so that i can oppose it. Thanks BritishWatcher (talk) 11:10, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Do you think that the current lead section best represents the article per WP:LEAD? Viriditas (talk) 11:16, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I think the current lead is more stable than it would be if we started adding silly claims that suggest Fox News is not a news channel and doesnt do journalism. I can understand the conservative POV claims about the channel, but the idea it aint even a news channel is laughable and if this introduction even hinted at that it would make the whole article a joke. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:19, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, tell me what kind of journalism do they do? "Some people say" isn't journalism, it's personal opinion pretending to be news. So tell me. Surely, they've won awards for the journalism, right? Investigative stories, reporting awards, correct? You do know that reporters report stories, I hope. Besides being the first media outlet to report that George W. Bush won the 2000 United States presidential election despite the fact that Al Gore won it with 543,895 more votes, I can't think of a single story that Fox News has ever reported. Can you? Viriditas (talk) 11:30, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Voter intimidation in the 2008 presidential election, they reported that news story whilst other media outlets in the United States gave very little coverage to such a serious issue. I happen to think Fox journalism is something the USA needs right now because without it, the biased "mainstream media" would have more of a monopoly on the information. However this is not about what you or i think. The fact remains we have to comply with WP:NPOV and at the moment the introduction is fairly neutral, to give more undue weight in the introduction to the critics of fox would be problematic and not in the interests of this article, as it will lead to instability. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:40, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

The lead needs to be expanded or modified per WP:LEAD to match the primary claims in the "Criticism and controversies" section. This has nothing to do with NPOV, so please stop bringing that up. Viriditas (talk) 11:48, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

It is infact that section which needs serious trimming because at the moment it violates WP:NPOV by giving undue weight to the critics, there is for example no section on praise for Fox News. The introduction does not need changing to fit more of the stuff from that section in it, the section needs changing. I will continue to bring up NPOV because that is my primary concern when considering proposed changes. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:59, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

That may very well be true, but you're still avoiding my point about WP:LEAD. I realize that you may not be familiar with how to write lead sections, in which case I will give it a go in the next day. I recently helped rewrite the lead section for Glenn Beck, and I would estimate that 80-90 percent of my changes are still intact. Viriditas (talk) 12:09, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

WP:NPOV is more important than WP:LEAD. I am happy to look at proposed changes to the introduction, and if they maintain neutrality and improve the intro to be more in line with WP:LEAD i will support it. But it has to be neutral, and it can not give undue weight to fox news critics. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:18, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, but I think you are still missing the point. NPOV and LEAD are two different things. As the controversy and criticism section and subarticle note, Fox News has received a great deal of criticism, and the current lead doesn't best represent that content. Please have a look at WP:LEAD where you can learn more about how to write a good introduction and summary of the topic. Please also notice that the criticism of Glenn Beck is not just neutral, but covers and summarizes the main points. The criticism in this article only covers one aspect of the criticism and fails to summarize the other primary points. Viriditas (talk) 12:31, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes they are two different things, what i am saying is NPOV is more important than LEAD. Just because this article gives clear undue weight to critics/controversy of Fox News channel does not mean we should change the introduction to reflect it. We should be sorting out the minefield in that section. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:43, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

The introduction most certainly needs to be changed, and if you read WP:LEAD, you'll notice that it says, "The lead should establish significance, include mention of notable criticism or controversies, and be written in a way that makes readers want to know more. The appropriate length of the lead depends on that of the article, but should be no more than four paragraphs." So, here's the problem: The article is currently at 57,894 bytes and contains three paragraphs. The thing is, the entire lead contains only eight sentences. This is somewhat unusual, as a lead section of this size would probably contain on the order of two to three times that many. In other words, the three paragraphs are really only one paragraph when you remove the line breaks, and should be expanded to summarize the article. Viriditas (talk) 12:55, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

(ec)US Presidential elections are determined by Electoral Votes - not popular vote. Collect (talk) 11:41, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

My point is that Fox called the election before any other media network. That is pretty significant, historically, yet not a word about it in this article. Why not? David W. Moore, formerly with the Gallup Poll, thought it was important enough to write a book about it. Viriditas (talk) 11:48, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Some networks "called" Florida before the polls had closed. The normal rule in life is that someone is first - at least Fox waited until after the polls closed! Care to elucidate on that? Collect (talk) 12:02, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

No offense, but I think you are missing the point. Encyclopedia articles often highlight significant historical events, focusing on "firsts" and unique items associated with the topic. For example, according to the Timeline for the day of the September 11 attacks, "Fox News Channel is the first of the United States news networks to implement a news ticker at the bottom of its screen for supplementary information about the attacks." Apparently, all the news networks copied Fox after they added the ticker. This is something I recall seeing live, but I wasn't aware Fox was responsible for it. Viriditas (talk) 12:06, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

They called the election first and it turned out to be right. Sounds like good journalism! I think its a rather disturbing method of announcing/declaring results, but it is the American way, Fox was simply doing its job. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:03, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

BritishWatcher, if it was "good journalism" as you claim, can you explain why it is that Roger Ailes appeared before a House Committee in 2001, and said, ""But in my heart I do believe that democracy was harmed by my network and others on November 7, 2000. I do believe that the great profession of journalism took many steps backward." If it was "good journalism", why would Ailes say that? Is there a way we can blame the liberals here? Viriditas (talk) 21:00, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

As you may or may not know, the election results were disputed, and David W. Moore, whom I refer to above, is just one author who wrote a book about it. Viriditas (talk) 12:06, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Eh? The recount was disputed - and the NYT, inter alia, found that no reasonable methodology would have made a difference in the recount result. Collect (talk) 12:08, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Moore's central thesis is that Fox's early call influenced the outcome of the recount and court decision. Perhaps you should do some research on it. Viriditas (talk) 12:10, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Basically its his opinion. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:20, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Of course it is his opinion. On Misplaced Pages, we represent and attribute significant opinions. As a former pollster for Gallup he has some insight on the topic and his book is based on first-hand reporting from the scene of the election he was covering as a journalist. Are there any articles you've written where you've had to cite the opinions of an author? And as for the controversy concerning the election recount, that's a significant historical event. Howard Dean even told Sean Hannity at the 2008 Democratic Convention that resentment over the disputed election results in 2000 was one factor leading the call for a change of government. Viriditas (talk) 12:31, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

One thing is for sure, this guys opinion does not belong in the introduction. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:44, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I would generally agree, however, it is notable that Fox called the 2000 election in favor of Bush. Notable items like this could appear in the lead section if there was enough content in the article supporting it, but I'm using this as an example. I don't see it appearing in the lead anytime soon. If anyone is interested, the subject is covered in some detail in the article, John Prescott Ellis. Viriditas (talk) 13:57, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

The Many observers especially considering the partsian nature of the refrences is an obvious POV why not just remove it?Unicorn76 (talk) 13:03, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

If we can't even put in the lead that Fox is partisan, why bother at all? This article is clearly compromised. Manticore55 (talk) 14:04, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Of course we can put that in the lead, but it isn't the primary criticism. The primary criticism is that they are not "fair and balanced" as they claim, and that they act as an extension of the Republican Party. The idea that the primary criticism has to do with the notion that they promote "conservative political positions" is a subtle form of misdirection. Bush's first cousin, John Prescott Ellis was working for Fox the night of the 2000 election against Gore, and called the election for his cousin, even when the Associated Press said it was too close to call. When Bush became president, Fox News did not criticize a single thing he said or did for eight years, and in fact, acted as an informal mouthpiece for the administration and promoted their policies, justifying two wars and ignoring economic and social issues like health care and jobs, issues that concern the average person. This is the complete opposite of what a news organization serving the public is supposed to do. Other criticisms concern Fox's penchant for fear mongering and divisiveness, stirring up race issues and attacking anyone who disagrees with their religious, conservative agenda. I believe I've summarized the general criticism against Fox. Viriditas (talk) 14:23, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

The claims are editorial in nature at best - as for someone being someone's cousin, that is gleefully irrelevant entirely. Networks do not change votes in a recount in the US. Nor in the UK. Nor in Australia. I fear you wish to emphasize what you WP:KNOW to be "fear mongering and divisiveness" rather than relying on WP policies about reliable sources. Collect (talk) 14:28, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

These claims are documented criticisms published in reliable sources and I've just paraphrased them for you. According to these sources, it is relevant that the individual responsible for calling the 2000 election was related to the person running for office. That's called a conflict of interest, and journalistic ethics avoid it. Additionally, several studies were published or released showing that people who watched Fox News were less informed about basic issues than people who watched other news stations. Studies seemed to show that Fox's audience is consistently misinformed and lacks the necessary information needed to make good decisions in a democracy, information the public expects from a media outlet. Viriditas (talk) 14:32, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

NBC and MSNBC called Florida for Gore before the polls closed in the Western Panhandle, do you think this had an effect on the final tally in Florida? Why don't you go over to the MSNBC page and accuse them of not actually being a news outlet. Arzel (talk) 18:37, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Didn't John Prescott Ellis, first cousin of George W. Bush, receive the Florida results from his first cousin John Ellis "Jeb" Bush, the Governor of Florida, before calling the election for his cousin? Viriditas (talk) 20:49, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

So what, if MSNBC hadn't first called Florida for Gore before the polls closed, then there would have been no reason for voters in the strongly republican western districts to leave the polls and not vote thus the vote total in Florida likely would not have been very close and then nothing later would have mattered at all. All of this is purely academic. Using Ellis to eventualy make the conclusion that FNC is not a news outlet is quite the leap. Arzel (talk) 23:18, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Please try to pay closer attention. Author David W. Moore is using Ellis, not me. He is also joined by several other authors and media critics. When we speak of claims, there are sources for these claims. I realize this is somewhat of a foreign concept for Fox News, considering that they rely exclusively on "some people say" gambits to communicate opinion instead of news. Viriditas (talk) 23:22, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Show me any RS which says that a cousin is estopped ethically from commentary on events. One cite, even. Assertions about what you WP:KNOW fail to impress at this point. It looks very much like your only goal is to cast broad aspersions on anyone and anything connected with Fox. Mayhaps you should examine George S.'s commentaries on Clinton, who was his actual employer? Try making all this sort of edits on his article and see where it ends up <g>. Collect (talk) 14:44, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Viriditas, if you have a problem with a cousin of George W Bush working for Fox News, do you have a problem with Nina Totenberg or Jeffrey Toobin reporting on the Supreme Court when they are friends with specific Justices? Drrll (talk) 15:49, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Viriditas, Fox news is evil, they push propaganda, they stole the election, the suck, they aren't fair and balanced, they are not a news organization, yadda, yadda, yadda. Now that we know how you personally feel about them, we expect you to craft a fair, NPOV, thoughtful, lead? Sorry if I have my doubts. But please, draft one, post it hear and let the games begin.--Threeafterthree (talk) 16:10, 31 August 2010 (UTC)ps, also when even Blaxthos!! questions you, I know you're toast :)...sorry Blax, just kidding oh course :)...--Threeafterthree (talk) 16:17, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I have paraphrased the most popular, general criticisms about Fox News. You and others keep pretending that these criticisms are personal beliefs that belong to editors to avoid discussing why the lead section does not best represent the criticisms and controversies section, and instead misdirects the reader into thinking that they are criticized for being conservative. Fox News claims to be fair and balanced. Have media critics analyzed this claim and criticized it? Yes. Fox News claims to "report" and let the viewer "decide". This claim has also been criticized. Fox News claims to be a news organization that engages in journalism. Which journalism scholars and organizations agree with this, and what awards have they won for their investigative reporting or news stories? Fox News has been accused of firing employees who don't report and cover a news story how management prefers it to be covered, calling into question their commitment to objectivity and the practice of journalism. Fox News has also been criticized for engaging in naked political punditry and biased news reporting. All of these criticisms are documented, yet the lead tells us only that they are accused of being conservative, which is not a criticism at all, and is written as if their critics are liberals who don't like conservatives, when in fact, Fox has been criticized by both conservatives and Republicans. Viriditas (talk) 20:21, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Viriditas, we heard you the first three times you said these things.(Iam probably going to regret this but here goes) Would you like to post a draft of how you think the lead should read and then see what others think about it? --Threeafterthree (talk) 20:27, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

What I think is not the issue here. What is at issue is whether the article can be improved to B, GA, and FA criteria. And we have to ask, why, after all this time, it has not. User:Cla68 argues, that this is because POV pushing activists discourage article improvement. First thing I notice when I visit this article is the lead section, which is supposed to summarize the main sections in the body. I notice that it is much too short, and that it needs at least another dozen or so sentences. Viriditas (talk) 20:34, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

The issues you bring up have already been discussed, several times, and the current lead is the result of many RfC's and other forms of dispute resolution. If you can provide WP:RS that shows that any of the information in the current lead is false, or if you want to present new information that is properly sourced, then by all means, please present it. All you have presented is anecdotal evidence and personal opinion. While this may sway public opinion, it doesn't satisfy the requirements of Misplaced Pages. One could just as easily state that MSNBC is a liberal shill because their anchors have been quoted saying they get a "thrill" up their leg when Obama talks, or their coverage of the election (14% negative coverage of Obama v. 73% negative coverage of McCain according to a 10/08 Pew Research study). This may be popular opinion if ratings are to be believed (though I doubt you would agree), but it doesn't satisfy Misplaced Pages requirementsRapier (talk) 00:50, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I know these issues have already been discussed, because I've brought them here before. I also know that the current lead is due to obstructionism and stubborn POV pushing, and I notice you haven't addressed a single thing I've said about the lead section. As for what you call "anecdotal evidence and personal opinion", nothing has been offered of the sort, so it appears you are unfamiliar with what those words mean. Let me help you out: On Misplaced Pages, we write articles based on the best sources we can find, sources that are authoritative, accurate, neutral, current, and reliable. All of these things are part of the overall policies and guidelines. What you call "anecdotal evidence and personal opinion" are found within reliable sources that publish these claims, and many of these sources do not appear in this article for some strange reason. Most worrying, are the lack of scholarly sources about the subject, especially the studies of Fox News that have been published in peer reviewed journals and other scholarly papers. Now back to the subject at hand, namely the eight sentences used as a lead in a 57 kilobyte article. That doesn't work, and it needs to be expanded to properly summarize the main points of the article, including the criticism which you and others are trying so desperately to remove. If you can't improve this article to the status of B, GA, and FA, and work honestly to achieve those goals, then you have no business posting on this talk page. This talk page is only used for discussion about how to improve this article. The vast majority of respondents have failed to directly address and answer my questions pertaining to the problems I've observed, and seek to continue to distract and attack the messenger. Back to the subject at hand. The lead should best reflect WP:LEAD and contain highlights of the history of Fox News Channel, any "firsts" and significant events related to the organization, and describe the most significant criticism in proportion to its coverage. Viriditas (talk) 01:02, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your patronizing. It makes it clear where this is going. Take a long look at WP:LEAD, since that seems to be the crux of your argument. That is a guideline in the Manual of Style, and it even states that common sense is supposed to be used when applying it. You assert that the critisisms of Fox belong in the lead, the consensus disagrees with you. Repeatedly. Period. End of argument. Bring new, sourced arguments or let it lie. Rapier (talk) 04:38, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Criticism of Fox is in the lead, and the lead needs to be expanded to incorporate more of the article and more of the primary criticism. There is no "consensus" that disagrees with me on this point, nor could it, since Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view is a policy that cannot be negotiated by editors on a talk page. The article and the lead section must represent all significant views fairly, proportionately, and without bias. It's really very simple. I intend to expand the lead in accordance with the policies and guidelines. You may revert at your own risk. I don't think you are very "clear" on where this is going at all, as it will be no different than my expansion of the lead section in Glenn Beck which was not challenged by any editor. It sounds to me like you are pushing a POV and are attempting to prevent the improvement and expansion of this article. If that is the case, then please step aside. Viriditas (talk) 10:15, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

As you state yourself, criticism of fox is already in the introduction, if you do expand on that then several editors may revert it. We must not give undue weight to the critics, just because this article has an out of control critics section does not mean the lead must reflect that, it means we must trim down the out of control section which clearly violates undue weight. Also please assume good faith. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:21, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Please don't threaten to blindly revert or edit war, because I will have to spend valuable time writing up administrative reports on your behavior, rather than spending my time writing. Representing significant criticism fairly and accurately is not "undue", it's NPOV and good editing. In case you don't know, editors who cry "undue, undue" whenever they are faced with content they personally dislike, tend to be labeled as POV pushers. The lead section consists of only eight sentences, when it should clearly describe and summarize the article at a length two to three times that size based on current length. I hope this helps you understand the problem. Viriditas (talk) 10:27, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

(out)(ec) You do not appear to have anything near consensus at this point, so I would suggest you accept that and be happy. Collect (talk) 10:24, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

This is Misplaced Pages, not the Fox News Channel. On Misplaced Pages, we do not need consensus to edit an article or expand a lead section per WP:LEAD and WP:NPOV. You may want to step aside and let others edit in peace, rather than continue this campaign of obstruction and obfuscation. The problem has been explained, over and over again, with you and others screaming WP:ICANTHEARYOU and threatening to edit war over edits that haven't been made or proposed. I'm sorry, but this kind of disruptive behavior is not acceptable. You may want to find another website to push your POV. Considering the fact that you've been here since 2006 and in that time you've only managed to create one single article, which remains an unassessed stub, I have to wonder exactly what you do here besides intimidate and harass other editors. Viriditas (talk) 10:30, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

oh for goodness sake, this is wikipedia and it depends on consensus. Many editors here have tried discussing this with you, we have asked for your draft proposal on several occasions but this debate seems pointless. So how about, you edit the article introduction, if any of us oppose the change, one of us will revert it. Then if you reinsert it, a different editor will revert it and we will follow the same process until you have reached your limit. Then if you add it again, we will report you for edit warring. Thanks BritishWatcher (talk) 10:33, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Looks like you require a little education about edit warring. Edit warring does not mean you are entitled to make three reverts, and you can be blocked for making one. Based on your previous comments on this page threatening to blindly revert, if you so or anyone else here so much as makes one single revert without explaining in depth and in detail as to why, you will be reported for premeditated edit warring. And just so you fully understand, I can edit this article for months on end, day after day, week after week, without making a single revert. Viriditas (talk) 10:37, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

If you add something that does not have consensus here, we can revert saying you need consensus for that change, considering many editors here have been debating this matter with you over the past 24 hours. You need consensus to change this introduction. Tell us your proposed changes, then we can debate the specifics and avoid having to revert each other. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:48, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

We have not "debated" anything. All that I see in this thread is distraction and obfuscation. The lead is too short for an article this size and does not summarize the significant points, including the points made in the criticism section. Nobody has managed to dispute this fact, but rather, they keep changing the subject. WP:ICANTHEARYOU might play in Peoria, but I don't roll like that. Repeated threats to edit war and revert will be used as justification for a request for administrative action. I have explained the problem several times. The onus is not on me or you to fix the problem. Anyone can expand the lead section, and anyone can edit this article without having to ask your permission. Here is your golden opportunity to address a problem raised on the talk page and to respond in the affirmative saying, "I have fixed the problem, expanded the lead, and added significant information, including criticism." It's not very hard for you to do that is it? If you or others refuse, then I will attempt it. If my attempt is reverted, I will file a report showing that I have explained the problem, only to have editors ignore it, and then revert me when I tried to fix it myself. What's stopping you from expanding the lead at this moment? You are welcome to continue to ignore, distract, and obfuscate. I will only add it to the report. Viriditas (talk) 11:00, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

It is you that fails to get the point when you ignore several editors comments. The introduction of this article should not give undue weight to criticism of Fox News Channel. The present introduction mentions criticism and is neutral and reasonable, to not mention it at all would be problematic but we must not go overboard, simply because the section on criticism / controversy violates wikipedia policies. Anyone can change the introduction or the article, but if those changes do not have support of editors here they can be reverted for more discussion on the matter. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:01, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

You're obfuscating again. Nobody has said anything about giving undue weight to a criticism. What has been said, and what continues to be said, is that the lead needs to be expanded to include all significant views, including criticism, per WP:LEAD and WP:NPOV. Please do so. I see that while you have 13,449 edits from 2008 to your credit, you don't appear to have much experience creating or writing articles, which might explain the communication problem about the lead section. You also appear to be obsessed with nationalism, which is generally a red flag for POV pushing. Viriditas (talk) 11:07, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

You are the one with a problem with the introduction. If you want to try and change it either propose the new wording here or make the change and see if other editors revert it. It covers criticism in the introduction already. Again you make accusations against editors, the only editor breaking the rules on this page appears to be you. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:12, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Again, you don't do much article writing, and it doesn't look like you've ever created an article (correct me if I'm wrong) so you might not understand what we do here. Let me break it down for you: On Misplaced Pages, we create, write, and improve articles. That's it. So far, a group of editors appear to be holding this article hostage, and preventing it from being improved by outside editors. I have suggested improvements, and they have all but been ignored. And, I have been threatened with reversion, edit warring, and insults for my efforts. I think there is a basic misunderstanding here. If you aren't here to write and improve articles, then you just shouldn't be here. That's what this discussion page is for. Now, with that said, I'm willing to sit back here and watch you improve it. Are you willing to do the work? Because if I do it, you can't blindly revert or edit war. Viriditas (talk) 11:28, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Forgive me if i do not take advice from someone who said a short while ago "On Misplaced Pages, we do not need consensus". Several editors have asked you to state your specific proposals for what you want changed, you have yet to explain what those changes are. Until you do this discussion is just going to go round and round in circles. You have been advised that your edits may be reverted if they do not have consensus (Which is why we are trying to get you to tell us your changes here, so we can debate them first). It depends on how you define "improve", i do not considering giving undue weight to fox news critics in the introduction of this article an improvement, when criticism is already mentioned in the lead. I am not going to change the introduction, especially the criticism part of it, i think the current wording is neutral and stable. Either propose the changes here first, or you do risk your edits being reverted if others object to it. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:36, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

You seem to be deliberately misconstruing and misinterpreting my words to further distract from improving this article. I said, On Misplaced Pages, we do not need consensus to edit an article or expand a lead section per WP:LEAD". This refers to Misplaced Pages:Be bold. Your arguments against improving this article all boil down to WP:IDONTLIKEIT and reverting due to "no consensus", which is discouraged on Misplaced Pages. If you read the policies and guidelines, you'll find that harmonious editing is encouraged, and this means improving already existing text, and expanding and rewriting, not reverting. Since you have made it extremely clear that you refuse to do any work on this article, then please do not continue to use this talk page. Per talk page guidelines, this space is only used to discuss how to improve the article. This article is currently rated as C-Class, and the goal is to bring it to B, GA, and FA. If you can't contribute to that effort, then I'm sorry to see you go. Goodbye. Viriditas (talk) 11:42, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages requires consensus, if you are bold, we have the right to revert your change. Especially as it has been heavily debated on this talk page and there does not seem to be overwhelming support for alterations to the introduction. This talk page is for discussing how to improve the article. Please tell us your proposal and then we can debate if we agree on it or not rather than going round and round in circles. No need to say bye, i am going nowhere. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:49, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

We already have consensus for WP:NPOV and WP:LEAD, but you do not appear to understand it. More importantly, no amount of consensus on the talk page can override policy, which is the problem here. I don't have any proposal, I'm only trying to raise the standards of this article, starting with the lead section. Again, this talk page is only used to improve the article. Since you refuse to do that, I don't understand what you are doing here besides threatening other editors and obstructing improvement. So, what is it exactly that you do on this page and why are you editing it? Viriditas (talk) 11:52, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

At the moment i am wanting to ensure that you do not give undue weight to Fox News critics in the introduction which would violation WP policy. If you do not have any proposals and other editors here appear to disagree with you then there is no point continuing this debate until you have some clear suggestions on wording youd like to see changed. I will wait for those proposals thanks. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:56, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

You are repeating the same thing over and over again, after I've previously addressed the fact that my request for improvement has nothing to do with undue weight but with expanding the lead and NPOV, all in effort to improve this article. It is not possible, therefore, for you to continue to claim that you are here to insure something that isn't happening. Do you understand that you are not making sense? Because you appear to be repeating yourself in an attempt to distract and obfuscate from improving this article, and because you appear to be misusing this talk page, I think your behavior has now crossed into the disruptive territory. If you can't help improve this article or address the problems that I've raised, please don't edit here. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 12:03, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Until you tell us your specific proposals for the change to the introduction, we can not be sure if your changes are going to give undue weight. Please make some clear suggestions and we can see what other editors think about them. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:08, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

You have been informed several times now that the article does not meet the requirements for B, GA, or FA criteria, and needs to be improved, starting with the lead section. Please stop ignoring these suggestions because YOUDONTTLIKEIT. Anyone can be bold and help expand the lead section to improve the article, and nobody needs your permission or consensus to do so. You need to take a step back and stop threatening other editors when you yourself do nothing to help improve this article. Or have you? Show me the diffs of the contributions you've made to this article that do not consist of blind reverts. Are there any? Please answer these questions. Viriditas (talk)

This is not about me, several editors have been debating with you these past 24 hours, you did not seem to get much support. You say i am ignoring suggestions, yet you have just admitted you have no proposals. So what specific suggestion am i ignoring? i can not give you specific reasons for opposing a change, if i do not know the specific change you wish to make. All i have said is, if you make the change to the article it may be reverted because it will need consensus or could give undue weight. I have not been threatening you or any other editor. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:22, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Recap: You refuse to improve the article and it appears that you don't do any work on this article at all except for hanging out on the talk page and threatening good faith editors who attempt to improve it with reversions and edit wars. Did I summarize your position correctly or is there something you want to add? What you are doing is greatly frowned upon. If you can't use the talk page to help improve the article, then you should not be here. Either help or step aside. Do not disrupt. Viriditas (talk) 12:28, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

If you are so convinced that you're right and everyone else is wrong, take it to a noticeboard and see where you get. Include your actual wording change proposal. Drrll (talk) 12:30, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

No, I'm sorry, a group of editors cannot "hang out" on a talk page and prevent editors from expanding or improving it. I've already explained the problem with the lead section and I've received nothing but IDONTLIKEIT replies. This has nothing to do with right and wrong, and everything to do with how we edit articles. Please stop misusing the talk page and contributing to a hostile atmosphere of threats and intimidation. Viriditas (talk) 12:39, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I am waiting for you to make your proposal. Then i can tell you if i think it improves the article or not. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:31, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Please stop with the ICANTHEARYOU. I have explained the problems with the lead section many times in this thread only to be met with continual disruption, obfuscation, and obstructionism. You have explicitly refused to expand the lead section per WP:LEAD and WP:NPOV, so I already know what you think. Furthermore, you do not appear to be here to help improve the article, but to prevent good faith editors from working on it. Viriditas (talk) 12:39, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Viridita, the idea that editor(s) are "refusing" to edit or "improve" or whatever seems a little fringy, imho. Editors are free to contribute to this project in the way they see best fit. If anybody wants to improve/expand the lead GO FOR IT. I would suggest, that the best way would be to post something here and then see what others think, or folks could just do what they like. I think everybody has heard you loud and clear at this point. Anyways,--Threeafterthree (talk) 12:56, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I think you must have missed the part where I was threatened with reverts and edit wars if I dared to edit the article. Viriditas (talk) 13:05, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

If you make a change, it may be reverted, that is how being bold works. Until you detail your proposed changes, i do not know if your change will be reverted. If the change gives undue weight to critics of Fox News, then it will be. That is why the best way forward is for you to suggest your proposed change to the introduction on this talk page, to avoid any need for a revert. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:31, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

(e/c)I actually saw it, and wasn't too impressed by it. I was sort of saying that anybody else is free(but of course you are as well, but you said you didn't really have any specific proposal) to have a stab at "improving" the lead. The problem with contentious articles, across the board, is that there is a spectrum of views/opinions on the subject. For example, some folks think FNC is an ok news source with partisan commentary and does it best, yadda, yadda. Others believe FNC to be an extension of the REP party and a propaganda machine. Where is the "truth"?, not that the truth matters at all as Blax has correctly pointed out above. What we/you/I/us try to do in cases like this is present some type of balance and present it in the most NPOV way we can. Is this easy? Hell no, since most people believe their view to be "correct". I believe the lead shouldn't get too into the nitty gritty, if you will, but present a general overview of the "dispute". Again, can the lead be "improved"/changed to accurately articulate this? Sure, why not, I guess. Anyways, --Threeafterthree (talk) 13:35, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

The lead section has a prose size of 974 characters. This is too small for a 56,626 byte article. One would expect a B, GA, or FA class article of this length to have a prose size somewhere between 2000-30001500-2000 characters in the lead. Also, the lead does not represent significant events or subtopics. It is quite clear that the lead needs to be expanded. That this fact is disputed shows that there is a fundamental misunderstanding as to how the lead works. Because of this strange position, I maintain, after talking to the editors who are against expanding the lead, that there is a certain amount of obstruction going on here. Viriditas (talk) 13:49, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Your opinion is that the lead needs to be expanded. In your opinion other editors are obstructing your point of view. If you want to throw that accusation out, take it to WP:ANI and name names. Otherwise you are simply making bad-faith accusations. I strongly advise you to read Misplaced Pages:Consensus before continuing to complain without actually putting up an edit that can be discussed. You are doing yourself no favors in the credibility department right now. Rapier (talk) 15:08, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

A reading of B/GA/FA requirements leave little doubt that the current introduction is insufficient (both in size and in content) -- I wouldn't call that an "opinion". I also tend to agree with Viriditas with regards to the "why" -- the article has changed considerably in the 5 years since the intro language was constructed, but the introduction itself has changed very little. I'll admit I'm usually the first to push back on editors advocating change, largely because I don't want to deal with all the associated drama that has come with the 6+ RFC's over the years. However, I'll also be the first to admit that operating in such a manner is both an indication of groupthink and a clear signal that growth is stagnant. The accusations of "bad faith" (to which I am certainly guilty of earlier) is unwarranted, and I've since been won over by Viriditas' steady answers based in policy. We shouldn't be satisfied with a C class article, and we certainly shouldn't let the difficulty of dealing with tendentious editors hold improving the article hostage. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 15:32, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

If the guy would bother to tell us the wording he would like to see added to the introduction then we can give an opinion on if it should be included or not. But he has yet to do that. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:52, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh and if the paragraph on criticism is to be extended then the rest of the lead will need doing as well at the same time. We can not just add a few sentences to that final paragraph which would make it swamp the other two paragraphs in the introduction. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:59, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Viriditas is far to hung up on numbers. There are no specific size requirements for the lead, only guidelines. If he would simply propose some suggestions then it would be possible to discuss them, but he doesn't care about that, only goes on and on and on and on about how it is not long enough and how bad FNC is. The fact is that this article will probably never reach FA much less GA or even B. The only goal which seems to be prevelant is the attempt to further disparage FNC as much as possible, and the only tendentious editing is when those same editors come here and try to ram every single MMFA, FAIR, KO, etc beef into the article. Arzel (talk) 16:01, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

This is exactly the point. Several people have asked multiple times for the specifics of what should be changed so those edits can be discussed and debated. Viriditas was told that if simply made the edit without discussion that it may be reverted by any of a number of people that disagree, and then the normal process of discussion on the talk page would take place. Either way, we are all barking at the reflection of a bone here until we actually have proposed text (which by the way, needs to conform to WP:RS). This is not a cabal or a concerted effort to block anybody, it is an ordinary request to see a change before we agree/disagree with it. Rapier (talk) 16:08, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) As one of the editors who participated in the discussions, and RFC's about the lead (and I guess part of the obstructionist cabal that I didn't know existed-lol) I'll just say that I think everyone here wants this article to be a FA, A-level article. The genuine dispute is how to do that and we all have our opinions on the best route. So to Viriditas, I applaud yours effort to improve the article and will await your proposal once you are ready to make one. I'd just remind you that while the lead is likely insufficient, it was the best the editors could come up with at the time of discussion. It is the result of doing our best to follow the guidelines while compromising to reach consensus-- not the nefarious shenanigans you implied earlier. I for one would like to see the lead, via reliable sources of course, reflect that the criticism from detractors is actually "shoddy/corrupt journalism in support of a POV" rather than simply "having a point of view". Ramsquire 17:20, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I have raised this topic three separate times, including this discussion, Lead redux on 25 Oct 2009, and Lead is entirely unsatsifactory on 19 Jul 2009. It is very possible that other threads exist in the archive describing the same problem. Because of the obstructionism on this topic, I am adding the {{Lead too short}} tag until the time that this problem is addressed. Viriditas (talk) 01:16, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Good for you. You still haven't given us anything to talk about other than you don't like what is here. When you are willing to tell your edits, then we can continue the discussion. Until then, you are doing nothing but complaining. Rapier (talk) 02:49, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I have provided quite a bit for you to consider, and it's been ignored since at least July of last year. I can also demonstrate that the tag is appropriate: Can you list the main points of the article, and can you tell me if they are represented in the lead? Viriditas (talk) 04:00, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

No, I won't play your game. I specifically asked you for the text of your edits. You assert that a change needs to be made and you use arguments of policy and style. You have not given us the text of your edits, and it isn't my responsibility to make your arguments for you. Rapier (talk) 04:38, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand. Are you saying that the lead section adequately summarizes the content of the article? Viriditas (talk) 04:51, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Or are you saying that it is inflammatory and controversial to be a conservative? Is anyone saying that Fox news is Neutral? Or that they're Liberal? I mean if we're going by consensus you can make an argument about the word partisan, but if you're going to argue that people who watch and people who DON'T watch don't consider FOX conservative then we're really really really stretching the bands of credibility here. You want a specific text change, I'm giving you one. If you're going to cite WP:NPOV I'm going to cite WP:WEASEL. Seriously. Is anyone here going to honestly try to argue the point that Fox News is NOT conservative? Seriously? Manticore55 (talk) 14:07, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

The lead now says, "Fox News Channel... is a conservative cable and satellite news channel.... Critics have asserted that both Fox's news reporting and its political commentary promote conservative political positions." If Fox is conservative, then it makes no sense to later say critics have called it conservative. TFD (talk) 15:04, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

The lead now says "Critics have asserted that both Fox's news reporting and its political commentary promote conservative political positions. However the FAQ on this page states Many observers.... Would it be non-contentious if I changed the language of the lead to be consistent with the FAQ? If further change is needed to the lead or the FAQ after discussion we can do so later. Ramsquire 19:24, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Just to point out, the "Many observers" in the FAQ was refering to when the sentence read have asserted that Fox's political commentary promotes conservative political positions it didn't also include the news reporting. That got bastardized along the way to include both. Probably best to stick with critics since those are the folks saying the whole channel is in the tank. But whatever, I am heading out for awhile, good luck :) --Threeafterthree (talk) 19:42, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

This article's lead section may be too short to adequately summarize the key points. Please consider expanding the lead to provide an accessible overview of all important aspects of the article.

follow-up

There's been no progress made since the { { Lead too short } } tag was added 3 weeks ago, just the usual stonewalling I've encountered before. . Defenders of Fox "News" Channel continue to dig in their heels. -PrBeacon (talk) 00:43, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

The current wording clearly took a long time to agree. Ive no problem with parts of the intro being expanded, as long as it does not give undue weight to the critics of Fox News. BritishWatcher (talk) 00:45, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

As the discussion above shows, the so-called "critics" of Fox News are not represented in the lead section. All the lead says is that "critics have asserted that both Fox's news reporting and its political commentary promote conservative political positions." That is not a criticism of any kind, it's an observable fact. I don't think you understand what criticism actually means. Looking at the first sentence of Fox News Channel controversies, we see the statement, "Fox News Channel has been the subject of many allegations concerning journalism ethics and standards." That is the statement that needs to appear in the lead section, and those are the criticisms that need to be represented as they directly address the core of the published criticism, such as: Fox News employees were ordered to deliver "Republican, right-wing propaganda" on the air and on their website; reports by the Project on Excellence in Journalism showed 68 percent of Fox cable stories contained personal opinions, as compared to MSNBC at 27 percent and CNN at 4 percent, and that "Fox was measurably more one-sided than the other networks, and Fox journalists were more opinionated on the air." Other concerns involve the broadcasting of opinions by pundits who have false credentials (Joseph A. Cafasso as only one example), the publishing of news stories containing fabricated, negative quotes attributed to Democrats, and more. Those are the core criticisms, yet none appear in the lead. Instead, we are told that their promotion of conservative political positions is the major criticism, when in fact, it is not. "Some say" this article is a whitewash. Viriditas (talk) 00:14, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

On one hand, you want to import consensus from another article when they are anti-Fox. At the same time, you ignore the other articles. The article on NBC news has a 2 sentence mention about allegations of bias in the lead. The CBS news article makes no mention of any bias accusations in the lead, nor does the article about the CBS evening news. Amazingly, the lead doesn't mention the controversy over the Bush National Guard records, despite that being a very significant event in the history of CBS news/CBS Evening news. The CBS News article doesn't even mention it in the body. ABC news? No mention of bias or controversies in the lead. MSNBC? A single sentence mention of allegations of bias in the lead. CNN? No mention of bias allegations or controversies in the lead. In other words, this article is either in line with others of a similar topic or actually puts more info in the lead than others. So why the insistence that Fox get special treatment? Niteshift36 (talk) 01:24, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

The subarticle was split out of this one, and while facts might be funny things, they aren't "anti" anything. Please don't keep trying to distract this discussion with Tu quoque arguments. The topic under discussion is Fox News Channel. If you can't discuss it, then you have no business coming out of hibernation to blanket revert. Viriditas (talk) 09:23, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

• I'm not sure who you think you are, but you've developed this pattern of telling me what I should and shouldn't do. You don't intimidate me and you're not fooling anyone. I know what the fucking topic under discussion is. I am discussing it and you have absolutely no standing whatsoever to tell me what I do or do not "have no business" doing. Instead of trying to put me in my place, you should learn yours. I'll help you out: You're a regular editor, just like me. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:49, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Instead, we are told that their promotion of conservative political positions is the major criticism, when in fact, it is not.

Probably correct. They do, after all, still exist. Speaking of their existence, has the breadth and depth of leftist vitriol inre Fox News been adequately represented in Misplaced Pages yet? It might even make an interesting article. JakeInJoisey (talk) 00:24, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Jake, critics of FNC, observe their failure to follow basic journalism ethics and standards. If they are going to call themselves a news organization, they need to follow those standards. They are welcome to change their name to "Republican Party Programming" at any time. And, Jake, do you really think a news organization that follows basic journalistic ethnics and standards needs to advertise as "fair and balanced"? That's like marketing bottled water as "wet". They are expected to be fair and balanced, however, the critical literature demonstrates their failure in this area. Perhaps that's why they use the slogan in the first place, to distract their viewers from their shortcomings, like a less than endowed man in a large, noisy, shiny sports car. Vroom, vroom... About that size. Viriditas (talk) 00:32, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

They are expected to be fair and balanced. Aren't all of them expected to be? Yet there is criticism of all the major networks on the point of bias. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:24, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

And yet, this article is not about "all of the major networks". It's about Fox News. I can, of course, provide statistics that measure the media bias of Fox News in relation to other networks. But that is neither here nor here. Fox News is generally viewed as conservative. That is not in dispute by any reliable source. And Fox News has been criticized for failing to follow basic journalism ethics and standards. What part of this do you object to here? Viriditas (talk) 12:32, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Were I you, I'd be a bit less concerned with posturing in talk (and I apologize for my own contribution to that inappropriate digression) and a bit more concerned about sourcing your most recent (and rather contentious) edit. JakeInJoisey (talk) 00:46, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Contentious? It was taken word for word from Fox News Channel controversies. If you dispute the accuracy of this statement, please describe your objection. My guess is that you don't, but you, like the others here, most of whom have never even edited this article, will continue to engage in obstruction and obfuscation. Viriditas (talk) 00:49, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Other editors in another article reached some sort of consensus. That doesn't make it tranferable to every article about FNC. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:24, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

This bizarre argument that you and others keep repeating, that consensus for a particular edit means that all editing, expansion, and modification is somehow frozen and forbidden, is demonstrably wrong. Please stop repeating it. All I'm seeing here is naked opposition, obstruction, and obfuscation, the three big O's. That kind of stonewalling is not a substitute for discussion. Viriditas (talk) 01:47, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I responded in more detail above. In any case, once a consensus is reached, it takes more than someone just sweeping in and molding it to their personal preference. You want a specific objection? WP:WEIGHT and in reality, what you added is fairly redundant. Now that I answered your question, perhaps you will be so kind as to answer the one I asked above. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:17, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

The "look above at the response" that isn't there tactic won't work here. And there is not a single thing about the content you dispute that is contradicted or contested by appealing to WP:WEIGHT, so I can only conclude you are wikilawyering. It's interesting and informative to see how all these accounts come out of hibernation to revert. Don't worry, I'm keeping track. Viriditas (talk) 09:20, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

• I don't know what you think you're "keeping track of". Nor do I get your ridiculous, repetitive claims of "hibernation". During the past month, I haven't gone longer than 3 days without an edit somewhere on Misplaced Pages. I'm not in this article daily, especially when nothing major is going on, but that doesn't add up to "hibernation". I gave examples in my response above about how this article is equal or exceeds other similar articles. If you're too inept to scroll up and read them, I feel sorry for you. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:55, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

"Contentious" is an assumption which should probably be anticipated by any editor participating here (see the tag on top?), but I'm not objecting...I'm observing. JakeInJoisey (talk) 00:57, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

It's the three O's, intended to stifle improvement of this article. It's an old and tired tactic used by POV pushers. Viriditas (talk) 01:47, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Is there support for the change to the introduction that has taken place? "their news coverage is generally viewed as promoting conservative political positions" seems rather questionable. Before it mentioned Critics hold that view. I believe some of these changes need to be reverted for more debate to take place. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:42, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

This is a wiki. No editor needs support or consensus to edit an article. Since you are not an active contributor to this article, I question why you are concerned about the edit. Per WP:V you are welcome to visit the source, Encyclopædia Britannica Online Library Edition. However, if you don't have access to this source, I will reprint the original for you below:

Fox News Channel, a satellite and cable news network, was launched in 1996 and soon attracted more regular viewers than any other news network. Popular opinion shows included The O'Reilly Factor with host Bill O'Reilly and Hannity & Colmes with hosts Sean Hannity and Alan Colmes. A radio division, Fox News Radio, was introduced in 2003. Despite its slogan “fair and balanced,” however, the network's coverage was widely perceived as favouring politically conservative viewpoints.

You claim this material it is "rather questionable", however, I must ask, on what basis do you make that claim? I would also like to take the opportunity to point out that your argument, "I believe some of these changes need to be reverted for more debate to take place," makes no sense whatsoever. On Misplaced Pages, we choose to revert for very specific reasons, and the reason you list is not one of them. Viriditas (talk) 10:55, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

This is a wiki. No editor needs support or consensus to edit an article. Since you are not an active contributor to this article, I question why you are concerned about the edit. Per WP:V you are welcome to visit the source, Encyclopædia Britannica. You claim it is "rather questionable", however, on what basis do you make that claim? Viriditas (talk) 10:48, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

As this is wiki i have the right to raise concerns about your edits and even revert them so we can have more debate, but i chose to find out if others have a problem before acting. Changing the introduction from stating: "Critics have asserted that both Fox's news reporting and its political commentary promoteconservative political positions" to "Fair and Balanced" is the slogan of the Fox News Channel, however, their news coverage is generally viewed as promoting conservative political positions" . You have changed the balance of the introduction. I believe this is undue weight to the critics of fox news channel. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:57, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

That's not how we use the reversion function on Misplaced Pages. Please review Misplaced Pages:Reverting and the many linked articles and essays. As for "concerns about my edits", I don't see any concerns, only your rallying cry of "revert, revert, revert", which goes against our best practices on this site. As for your comments on this edit, I would invite you to read about "balance" and "undue weight", as neither of those things are relevant. I hope, by now, you have reviewed the Encyclopædia Britannica material I have posted above. Please tell me what is wrong with it, and if possible, present other reliable sources that conflict with it. Viriditas (talk) 11:06, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I have told you whats wrong with it. You have radically changed the balance of the introduction. From it stating critics view it as conservative, to it being generally viewed as promoting conservative views. This seems like a rather big change to the introduction which has been stable for some time and took a lot of work to get. Do you have consensus for the change you have made? How many editors have said they support this new wording? BritishWatcher (talk) 11:16, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

No, you have asserted that you think something is wrong with it, and you claim that the balance has been changed. I don't see anything wrong with it. On Misplaced Pages we use reliable sources to write articles, not the views of other editors. Encyclopædia Britannica and many other reliable sources state that "the network's coverage was widely perceived as favouring politically conservative viewpoints." If you find something wrong with this statement, please point it out, with specific comments directed towards the error you see. Please do not reply with "I think something is wrong" or "It is not balanced". Demonstrate what is wrong, using other sources as examples. Again, we don't edit articles based on your opinion. We go with what the sources say. Also, as you well know, we have many other sources, some scholarly (UCLA study comes to mind) that show that Fox News espouses conservative viewpoints. These statements are not made by "critics" of Fox News, so actually, your claim that only critics of Fox News make these claims are false. Viriditas (talk) 11:23, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

The EB online is not a reliable source by WP standards. It os a "tertiary source" at best, which solicits edits from users. Perhaps you did not know this? Collect (talk) 11:26, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I know how we use sources, Collect, and I know that the Encyclopædia Britannica is an acceptable, reliable source and it is supported by secondary sources in the very same reference. Perhaps you didn't know this? I suggest you get over to WP:PSTS: "Misplaced Pages articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources." Any questions? Viriditas (talk) 11:30, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Do you have support for the change you have made? What sources say is not the only thing that matters, we have to ensure the article is balanced. The change you have made quite clearly changes the balance of the introduction by removing "critics" and stating it is a generally held view. Such a change to the introduction that has existed for a long time requires consensus. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:33, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I just explained this to you. Opposition, obstruction, and obfuscation are not appropriate tools for discussion. If you can't find anything wrong with the material, then you have no business opposing its inclusion. I have provided a reliable source. Now, please explain your objection to the material. If you can't, and if the only think you can do is continue to blindly, oppose, obstruct, and obfuscate, then you will need to exit this discussion. Viriditas (talk) 11:42, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Collect wrote in his edit summary: EB online is not a Reliable source - it is a tertiary source which uses edits proposed by online users.

That is a false statement. Encyclopædia Britannica Online Library Edition is a reliable source. Sorry, Collect, but you need to retract that false statement. Online users did not write this material. This material is authored by professionals. Viriditas (talk) 11:42, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Consider experience as fact: a blocked sockmaster asserted one of the editors ... managed to insert an ill-advised change to the Britannica source, I contacted Britannica and directed them to the Talk page concerned at Talk:Drudge Report and they obvious had a rethink on the change they had allowed, and reversed it. proving that user "suggestions" are routinely used by Britannica. Quod erat demonstrandum. Collect (talk) 14:14, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

More half-truths, Collect? The example you provide shows unvetted contributors in the left pane. However, the material on Fox Broadcasting Company shows it was written by Jeannette Nolen, social science editor for Encyclopaedia Britannica. So, the entry was not written by users as you claim, because if it were, they would appear in the contribution pane, as they do in the Drudge example. This means your argument is no longer valid, and that you now have to change your position. Viriditas (talk) 14:49, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Nope. Same edit suggestion button as before. And the "editor" is a person at EB following the "suggestion" of any unnamed editors. The "suggest edit" on this article, as on all the others, is directly above "Arts & Entertainment: Fox Broadcasting Company." Do you hear it now? Collect (talk) 15:17, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

More of the same false statements, Collect? I just proved to you with your own links that what you said was false. The FN article on EB was written by Jeannette Nolen, social science editor for Encyclopaedia Britannica. The article you linked to, however, was written by anonymous contributors, who are listed in the left pane. Is any of this making sense to you yet? Viriditas (talk) 16:16, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Popular shows include top-rated The O'Reilly Factor with Bill O'Reilly, and Hannity with Sean Hannity, featuring opinion, commentary, and interviews.

Collect, you need to explain why you removed this information from the lead section with your revert. Viriditas (talk) 11:47, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

No matter what the situation with Britannica is, its very clear your bold additions require more debate. They were rightly undone so we can discuss them on this talk page. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:00, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

No, they were falsely undone, based on false claims. Encyclopædia Britannica Online Library Edition is a reliable tertiary source written by experts. Collect made false claims in the edit summary, blanket reverted valid content, and refused to discuss his reverts. That's not how we edit Misplaced Pages. Furthermore, those edits are supported by dozens upon dozens of reliable sources, such as Groseclose & Milyo (2005). If you can't dispute these edits, and if you can't find a problem with the sources, then you will have to concede. Opposition, obstruction, and obfuscation is not a valid form of discussion. Viriditas (talk) 12:09, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Did you see the "suggest edits" link on the EB pages? Suppose I pointed out that they do, indeed, use user-suggested edits? Would you then dismiss all this? Collect (talk) 12:12, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

There is no such "suggest edits" link in my version. This is an authorized version written by experts. However, I did look at the version you refer to and noticed that there was a "contributors" pane on the left side, listing the names and biographies of the editors. In addition to the regular editors, this particular article was written by Jeannette Nolen, social science editor for Encyclopaedia Britannica. It's a reliable, tertiary source. Viriditas (talk) 12:24, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I certainly oppose the change you made to the sentence on the critics of fox news. I have no feelings either way on the issue of popular shows being mentioned in the introduction or not. However if others oppose this addition or it has been debated before then it clearly needs discussion. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:01, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but simply saying "I oppose" is not a valid form of discussion. If you can't find anything wrong with the material, then you will need to concede the point. Consistently opposing for the sake of opposing will result in serious sanctions. Viriditas (talk) 12:09, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I have explained what was wrong with your addition. It gave Undue Weight to the critics of fox news, by changing the sentence to state it was a generally held view. You need to accept the fact changes require agreement. You can not just demand your addition be kept. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:13, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

And I previously explained to you above, it is a generally held view that Fox News is conservative as reflected in the preponderance of reliable sources on the subject. (Does anyone claim that Fox News is fair and balanced apart from itself, or liberal for that matter?) And, furthermore, I have explained to you that many of these sources are not written by critics, such as Groseclose & Milyo (2005) and Turner (2007) for example. Therefore, I have met your objection, and now you must concede. Viriditas (talk) 12:24, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

You changes to the introduction changes the balance, i believe it gives undue weight to fox news critics. We must wait and see what others think, if everyone else supports your change then i will have to concede. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:14, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I've already responded to this. Please do not keep repeating the same thing over and over again as if I didn't already address it. Many of these sources are not written by critics, so it is not giving "undue weight to fox news critics". Groseclose & Milyo (2005) and Turner (2007) for example, are not "critics" of Fox News, yet describe Fox News as conservative. Is this making sense to you? Viriditas (talk) 14:42, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Collect, please explain this edit. Why did you remove a statement about Fox News being "largely circumscribed by conservative firebrands such as Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity and Glenn Beck" from the lead and moved it to the section on Criticism and controversies#Accusations of conservative bias? That makes zero sense. First of all, the article is about Jay Wallace, VP of News Editorial, Fox News Channel and is published by Broadcasting & Cable. There is nothing controversial about the content nor does it have anything to do with criticism, controversy, or conservative bias - nothing. So, please explain why you removed it from the lead and placed it into this section. According to your edit summary, you the "lede is for summary, not individual claims." Well, Collect, that material was a summary of Fox News' top programming, and did not represent an individual claim of any kind. Furthermore, none of this content is disputed by any known reliable source, and the source in question interviewed Jay Wallace in the article! Could you please take a moment to compose a response that defends your move of this material? It doesn't sound like you read the source, as I cannot think of a single justification for your edit, other than "I don't like it". Please justify your edit. Viriditas (talk) 14:10, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

You need to consensus for these changes to the introduction. Let us wait and see other editors opinions. There is no rush. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:12, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I need no such consensus whatsoever. Misplaced Pages can be edited by anyone at any time. No editor needs consensus to do research, find reliable sources, and add relevant content to this article. Collect's latest edit was highly disruptive as it again made false claims in the edit summary. The source itself included an interview with a VP of Fox News and there was not a single thing controversial or accusatory about it. Collect's edit is just as disruptive as his previous one and is completely unsupported. Viriditas (talk) 14:24, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh and your latest addition which Collect rightly undid was even more problematic than your previous changes. It is totally unacceptable to have in the introduction of this article one organisations view about "conservative firebrands". Please raise your proposals for the introduction on this talk page before adding them to the article, its quite clear the material is objectionable and may need to be reverted. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:18, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Completely and totally false, yet again. That these pundits are considered "conservative firebrands" is not in dispute by anyone in any reliable source on the subject. What you and Collect need to understand, is that we do not edit Misplaced Pages based on your personal opinions, but on what the preponderance of reliable sources say on the subject. The statement by the trade magazine Broadcasting & Cable is totally supported, uncontroversial, and mainstream. There is not a single thing objectionable about it, nor could you possibly find something wrong with it. The material adequately and accurately summarized the Fox News Channel programming material and subarticle, and was perfectly acceptable for this article. There is no rational reason for its removal other than "I don't like it". Viriditas (talk) 14:23, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

The statement by a magazine about "conservative firebrands" does not belong in the introduction of this article. Your previous addition mentioning them was atleast more neutral than this new proposal your making. It lacks neutrality and give undue weight to a POV. Much like your other alterations did until they were rightly reverted. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:33, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

You already made that assertion, and I already disproved it. When you make an assertion that's been disproved, you have to either meet the response or concede the point. You can't just keep repeating the same thing, over and over again. That's tendentious editing. There's nothing wrong with the statement in the lead, nor does any source disagree with it. There is nothing "biased" about it, and the concept of "undue weight" has nothing to do with it. Please learn with these things mean. The statement is attributed to a respected trade magazine that interviewed the VP of Fox News, and that's how we write articles. Please read and understand WP:NPOV. Viriditas (talk) 14:42, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

It does not belong in an introduction. Ill keep repeating the same things because you keep disagreeing. I believe your edits changed the balance of the introduction and gave Undue weight to the critics of Fox news channel. That is problematic and its clear that there is not consensus in support of your changes. you have to accept that and debate them, not go and add even worse material to the introduction which labels people "firebrands". BritishWatcher (talk) 14:52, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

You're tendentiously repeating yourself again without meeting the replies I've already given. Your opinion is that whatever you personally don't like does not belong in the lead. That's fine, but that's not how we edit articles or how we use the talk page. Here, on the discussion page, we discuss good evidence and bad evidence. We don't rely on personal opinion, preference, or tastes, likes, or dislikes, unless we all agree to do so. When we deal with content, we rely on the source. And, we evaluate the source for reliability, as well as accuracy and relevancy. Saying, "it does not belong in an introduction" is equivalent to saying, "The Moon is made of green cheese." It doesn't mean anything. And, when you say my edits changed the balance and "gave Undue Weight to the critics", you're ignoring the points I've already made, which is that the critics did not write this material. So, you need to directly address these issues in order to have a discussion, and in order to justify removing or moving the material. Simply showing up here every day with another variation on "I don't like it" based on zero evidence isn't going to work. Viriditas (talk) 15:08, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Tendentious = trying to persuade yourself that you, as a single editor, override consensus of a half dozen other editors who disagree with what you "know" or have "researched." At this point in time, I would suggest that your sole voice arguing is far more "tendentious" than anyone has been by a mile (or kilometer depending). Collect (talk) 15:14, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Collect, you have not addressed a single question I've raised about your reverts. All you have done is blindly revert and blindly move content to inappropriate sections without responding to a single word I've said. You haven't been able to justify a single edit that you've made here. "I don't like it" is not a consensus for anything, and no matter how many times you say "I don't like it", it's still a consensus for nothing. Opposition, obstruction, and obfuscation aren't conducive to editing. Either address the points I've raised or dont', but do not think for a moment that you have supported your edits in this regard. Viriditas (talk) 15:21, 26 Septemb

Why the insistence on labelling them conservative? Seems kinda POV pushy to me mark nutley (talk) 15:23, 26 September 2010 (UTC)er 2010 (UTC)

I haven't insisted on anything. I've only been citing reliable, scholarly journal articles andindustry trade magazines. Could you point out an actual problem with my edits? Viriditas (talk) 15:36, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

1) They have no consensus 2)They give undue weight to the critics of Fox News. 3) You are clearly aware such alterations are controversial, your previous edits have been undone.

This latest one was the worst of them all. Rather than accepting there is disagreement and adding less controversial changes, you are adding even more controversial changes. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:44, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but you haven't addressed a single problem with my edits. You're just engaging in obstruction. Saying "you have no consensus" doesn't allow you or anyone else to prevent editors from expanding and improving this article. Nobody needs consensus of any kind to edit. Secondly, you've been repeatedly informed that the sources in question are not critics, and they do not give any "undue weight" (I don't think you know what that means) to critics, since they aren't critics to begin with. So both of those points of yours don't hold any water. Third, there is not a single thing controversial about my edits, other than the editors on this talk page who claim they are controversial. When asked why they are controversial, I am unable to get a single rational answer. The sources don't consider them controversial, but rather state these facts without qualification. So, we see, once again, opposition, obstruction, and obfuscation, with no basis in fact or evidence. Viriditas (talk) 15:56, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

You have no agreement for the inclusion you want and it has caused the article to be fully protected. I oppose any alteration to this article which gives undue weight to the critics of fox. I believe parts of your changes did just that. We have to wait and see how others feel now. Its your opinion that it wasnt undue, its my opinion that it was. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:20, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

A false consensus supported by naked obstruction lacking rational argument cannot override policy. When asked why you oppose the material in question, you argue "because". Sorry, that's not going to fly. The preponderance of reliable sources support the view that Fox News is seen as pro-conservative and pro-Republican. If that's what the sources say, that's what we say. And one more time, in case you didn't hear it the first dozen times I explained it to you, these sources are not critics of Fox News. Viriditas (talk) 10:19, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Saying something is "perceived as" is different from saying it is. In any case a one paragraph mention of FNC in a tertiary source is unhelpful. TFD (talk) 00:49, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

moving forward

There are plenty of other editors who agree that the lead needs more balance, including me. Objections above seem to ignore recent archives and the FAQ which represents past consensus. FNC regularly violates two fundamental principles of responsible journalism: neutrality and fact-checking. Everything at Fox News Channel controversies is effectively a part of this article. I think its time to get outside admin involved. -PrBeacon (talk) 18:25, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Alot of the crap at the controversies page is stuff that would not be justified on the main article of a news channel. The proposed changes that have been made today were mostly unjustified and gave undue weight to a certain view point. The article is more neutral now than it would have been if those changes had not been reverted. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:46, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I understand that you (and several others) don't like the criticisms and embarassing incidents, but your POV doesn't dictate whats appropriate to include. -PrBeacon (talk) 18:53, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

It is not about us not liking things, it is about ensuring WP:NPOV is complied with. Edits like stating in the first sentence Fox News is a conservative cable and satellitenews channel clearly are not helpful or neutral. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:12, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Britishwatcher, I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of Fox News Channel controversies. The article is not a dumping ground for what you believe to be "crap", which is a clear violation of WP:POVFORK. The article is a daughter article of this one, based on WP:SIZE, and summary style mandates that we include meaningful summaries of those contents here. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 19:44, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

We include a summary of the main controversy here already and we include the concerns about Fox's POV in the introduction. That is neutral and fair, the changes that got reverted earlier were not neutral. They gave undue weight to a particular point of view. What made it worse as after each undo, the content being added became more and more controversial rather than less. The last being stating in the first sentence of this article Fox is a conservative news channel... It was obviously not neutral. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:13, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

First of all, summary style and WP:LEAD both state that we should summarize all notable controversies in the introduction, not just one. Beyond that, we don't come close to accurately summarizing it -- as PrBeacon an Viriditas point out, the scope is far beyond an accusation of bias. Two, you seem to be confused about WP:NPOV, which only requires that we present material in proportion to its coverage in reliable sources. Three, you didn't bother addressing any of my points regarding your stated intent to violate policy by treating the daughter article as a dumping ground for "crap". Given all this, it's hard to continue to continue to assume good faith. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 22:17, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

1) We summarize the main controversy about fox news, which is the claim they are bias. We presently state it in a neutral way by explaining their critics view it as promoting conservative views. Unless the whole introduction is going to be reworded to ensure its not given undue weight, i can not support additional information about a controversy. The changes that were made today were certainly unacceptable. 2) Claims about their bias is mentioned in the introduction of this article for that reason. We can not overload the introduction with the controversy stuff which would give undue weight to the critics. 3) It is not me that supports using that article as a dumping ground, i believe it contains a lot of pointless information that does not need to be there and would certainly not be justified for this article, but i did not add it nor do i intend adding to that page. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:29, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

BritishWatcher, could you please clarify what you believe "undue weight" means, and how you think we measure it? Thanks. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 20:39, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

What undue weight means is reading a wikipedia article and finding that a quite popular and reputable news organization is, instead, the scourge of the universe. JakeInJoisey (talk) 23:50, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Undue weight would be to expand the detail of the controversy so it becomes a huge part of the introduction. As ive said before, if the full introduction is to be expanded so there are 4 paragraphs, i am prepared to accept more of a mention of the controversy, a paragraph on it will be justified although it would have to be balanced. But at the moment we have 3 short paragraphs, to go into more detail about the controversy would make it the biggest paragraph and the dominant issue in the introduction.. hence it would be giving undue weight to the critics of Fox News Channel. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:57, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

How do you believe we measure weight, BritishWatcher? //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 03:59, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

He's been asked this several times and refuses to answer. This argument of obstruction boils down to "I don't like it just because". That's not going to work. Viriditas (talk) 10:22, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Introduction again has been changed with no debate. Changing the previously agreed wording of critics to "many observers". BritishWatcher (talk) 22:53, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

You know...

It should take more than political talk show hosts (Chris Matthews), political "watchdogs" (MMFA), and partisan websites (HP) to warrant entire sections in an article about the biggest cable news program in the United States. A quick g-news search for any of the items mentioned in the sections finds no major network news coverage for Scott Mcclellan (with a google search providing a simple Fox News response only) and really the rest came down to nitpicking. While this stuff is fine and dandy for the criticism article, shouldn't we hold the main article to higher standards? Soxwon (talk) 18:22, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Fully agree. Good change, that section have been violating WP:UNDUE for a long time. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:27, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

(EC) And before I get flack from Blaxthos about sources not needing to be neutral, I would like to point out that none of the items mentioned in Media Matter's for America's list of "egregious examples" of "distortion" were covered anywhere but Huffington Post and that both of these sources are ideologically driven and have partisan axes to grind. I don't think its too much to ask for another source. Same for Hardball with Chris Matthews, I would like to see some major news coverage outside of a single talk show before it gets a statment, much less its own section in the article. Soxwon (talk) 18:32, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Soxwon, what policy do you believe excludes Chris Matthews, Media Matters for America, and Huffington Post as reliable sources? How do you reconcile that with (1) WP:RS, and (2) repeated findings by WP:RSN that all those hosts are reliable for sourcing their own opinions? Is your position based in policy, or your own personal feelings on them? //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:43, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Blaxthos, I don't exclude them as reliable sources, I am simply asking for confirmation that these are indeed significant and relevant enough for inclusion for Fox New Channel's argument. MMFA, CM, and HP are indeed reliable enough for their own opinions, not sure where it is written that their opinions are entitled to be included, much less getting its own subsection of the article. Soxwon (talk) 22:27, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I believe the policy concept you're looking for is due weight. I find it's usually best to frame your position in terms of policy, instead of in terms of partisanship. With regards to your specific point about McClellan, it was quite extensively covered when he originally revealed his assertions. I can't speak to how many google hits exist, but I don't know that google is a comprehensive metric we should use as a primary example. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 22:33, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I did g-news it as well as googled it (it being "Scott Mcllelan Fox News" w/o quotation marks). Not very much to show for it in the way of weighty sources I'm afraid. The only approaching respectable was an LA Times blog on the third page of google. At least that's what my search button has returned. (As for the number of hits, blogs were showing up as were mentions of Fort Mcclellan, and Fox News covering Scott Mcllelan's departure and Tony Snow's placement) Soxwon (talk) 22:39, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

"it was quite extensively covered when he originally revealed his assertions. " Flashes of news coverage immediately after an event are not a sign that an event is very notable. If people aren't mentioning it today then I doubt this really should be here.Wikiposter0123 (talk) 05:27, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

We're not talking about notability about an event, we're talking about a book (which unquestionably passes WP:BOOK), and its relevance to Fox News Channel. McClelland was a live guest on many shows and did a lot of interviews regarding his book and assertions about Fox News -- from NPR, ABC, CNN, NBC, and even Fox News; I find it absurd for folks to now act like there was insignificant coverage of his book and its relevance to Fox News. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 20:45, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

What specific thing from the book do you think needs in the article? Niteshift36 (talk) 22:30, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I didn't say "from the book". I'm obviously referring to that time when Soxwon took it upon himself to delete criticism before discussing it. I'll say this, you guys are doing a hell of a job "keeping the main fox news article clean". //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 22:50, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I responded to you with a simple question. No sarcasm. No attack. No advocacy of a position. Nothing but a simple question. Your response is....sarcasm. No mystery why these discussions end up the way they do, is there? It wasn't "obvious" since there was no link to the diff you were talking about etc. I simply never saw the revert that happened 3 weeks ago. I know you like to peddle the notion that I'm sitting on this article 24/7, but I don't. When people address you reasonably, try responding the same way. Who knows what might happen. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:04, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Pardon me for assuming that you actually read the discussion and find the diffs yourself before participating in a discussion thread. I did not know the onus is on everyone else to provide convenient diffs so you have to put forth no effort before jumping in; I will try to keep this in mind in the future when dealing with you. I'll also take this opportunity to point out that Soxwon didn't ever actually discuss his change, but rather posted a rather boundless rhetorical question that doesn't really focus any attention on his unilateral deletion of sourced content. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 03:51, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

"Pardon me for assuming that you actually read the discussion and find the diffs yourself before participating in a discussion thread" Actually Blax, I did read the discussion but there were no diffs to look at. "I did not know the onus is on everyone else to provide convenient diffs so you have to put forth no effort before jumping in" Again, histility and sarcasm isn't going to be that productive. First, you know that people provide diffs to darn near everything around here. Second, if you didn't provide the diff, that's cool. But to then respond that you were "obviously referring to something today that was said 3 weeks ago isn't exactly "obvious" or helpful to reaching a resolution. "I will try to keep this in mind in the future when dealing with you." And that says much about the hostility already being displayed. You are going to keep something in mind that is based on a false premise. Further, your choice of phrase indicates how you view this. You don't say "talk to you" or "debate with you", you view it as "dealing with" me. So I've tried twice now to engage you in a civil manner, without sarcasm etc and gotten sarcasm in return. I'll try again. Your complaint seems to be that it was removed without discussion. That's exactly what I'm trying to do. I asked what specific things you think should be in. Instead, of telling me, you complained about my asking "from the book". My error. I rephrased and you've still told me nothing specific. Is it your position that what was reverted should be as is, with no changes at all? Niteshift36 (talk) 16:12, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Niteshift36, the very first post by Soxwon to this thread references an "entire section" that he removed from the article, and then talks about doing a google search "for any of the items mentioned in the sections". BritishWatcher then says it is a "good change". If you actually read this section, you would also have to read the diffs to have any idea of what Soxwon was talking about. If you had done that, then my objection should be obvious, and I should not have to put on a dog & pony show when you know exactly what text I'm talking about (and by doing so, you are disrupting Misplaced Pages to prove a point). If you did not read the section, then the point you are trying to make might be valid, but it confirms my belief that you just jump in to defend your cause with no real intent to contribute objectively (in which case you should be topicbanned immediately). So, which is it? (and yes, this is exactly the bullshit I mean when I say "dealing with you") //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 03:39, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

• Yet again you demonstrate an inability to be civil and now, a distortion of fact. I didn't jump in and advocate anything. I asked you a question. Nothing more. No advocacy of anything. No statement of position. I simply asked what you specifically think should be in. I've asked that more than once. I've done nothing in this discussion to warrant your uncivil behavior, your accusations or your hostility. I'm not sure why you insist on being uncivil. Perhaps you are incapable of having a civil discussion. Or perhaps you can't separate this discussion from past ones. I'm not sure what it is. But I will ask you to stop making unfounded assumptions and accusations, wikilinking to things to appear to have support for your spurious allegations and stop acting in an uncivil manner. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:49, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Niteshift you don't have a leg to stand on for lecturing anyone else about civility. -PrBeacon (talk) 05:29, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

• If your sole contribution is to come in and try to start a fight, that is the very definition of uncivil behavior. But if you're going to, at least get your facts straight. I didn't lecture Blax. It has been a while since he and I got into it. I approached it in a civil, respectful manner and was immediately met with sarcasm. I simply pointed that out and made the suggestion that civility breeds civility. But you want to jump in and start yammering about "lecturing". You, my friend, have started out in this discussion with attacks and incivility. Not too promising. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:57, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

^Yet more hypocritical lecturing. It's a tiresome tactic of yours to continue derailing any discussion you don't like. /yawn -PrBeacon (talk) 17:49, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

• Keep adding examples to your uncivil behavior. It's fine with me. Again, you've contributed nothing but attacks and it is obvious. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:02, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

So, you cry wolf about incivility, yet exhibit more hypocrisy. It's a shame that your compatriots either overlook it or don't see it. And maybe you didn't notice the two subthreads below, either, especially the part about compromise and collaboration -- you seem more interested in throwing feces and getting the last word. -PrBeacon (talk) 04:11, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

• Cry wolf? When the incivility is there, it can't, by definition, be crying wolf. I think I see the problem here. You appear to be unable to have more than one conversation at a time. To you, every discussion is connected. So if I said something to you 3 months ago that was sarcastic, you apparently think that determines that every exchange from there on must be uncivil. I treat each conversation separately and try (at least try) to start out anew. I'm not always completely successful, but at least I'm making the effort. I wish you would be able to say the same thing. Once again, you've contributed absolutely nothing to this exchange about the issue, only about me. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:46, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

No, you dont see the problem. You're in the middle of it. Your petty bickering is a weak attempt to sidetrack or derail any substantial discussion, as you've done before & unfortunately I go against my better judgement and engage it -- but Me calling you out on it is not being uncivil, doesnt matter how many times you shout it. Regardless, I'm not the one on a high horse here. You claim to be making an effort at civility, but you're just making it worse. -PrBeacon (talk) 17:35, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks for your input. Is there anything you'd like to say about the topic of the discussion? Niteshift36 (talk) 23:26, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh, isn't this subthread about you and your transparent attempts to disrupt the talkpage? Or maybe you could enlighten us all with more of your subjective definitions and misinterpretations of policy. -PrBeacon (talk) 23:52, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

• No, it's not. Do you have anything to say about the topic of the discussion? Niteshift36 (talk) 00:11, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Yep, plenty. Though I know you don't really care. What have you contributed to this discussion? -PrBeacon (talk) 00:20, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

All these accusations of hypocrisy coming from the person who back in July visited my userpage with accusations that he never could back up when challenged to do so, and then deleted my entire reply on his page as "vandalism", thereby going against WP:NOTVAND (feel free to visit my page and his to see the full text). I'll give you this much, you are certainly fulfilling your stated goal "to counter the 'activism' spin I see on Misplaced Pages". The problem is, by doing so you are forfeiting any assumptions of good faith by others, and you run counter to three of the five pillars of Misplaced Pages. So you really shouldn't be surprised when people react negatively to what you are doing. Sometimes when nobody sees what you believe you are seeing, it's because you are the one not seeing clearly, not everybody else. Just a thought. Rapier (talk) 04:59, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Doctor, heal thyself. Or spare us the psycho-babble, at least. Making vague references to supposedly unfounded allegations on other pages is a cop-out. What I said then is apparently still true now: you're as guilty as Niteshift, Arzel and others at patronizing and dismissing others, meanwhile distorting arguments to fit your prejudices -- so your pretense of AGF is hollow and false. Since we're revisiting old grudges, why don't you go back to the MMfA thread in these FNC archives to see. -PrBeacon (talk) 05:15, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

• And therein lies part of the problem my friend. You seem to be unable to let go of anything that was said to you in the past. If someone said something to you months ago that you didn't like, you act as if it happened 5 minutes ago. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:49, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

^Wrong again, Rapier's the one who brought up a past grudge in his drive-by reply. You both seem to enjoy engaging in psychological projection and willful blindness. -PrBeacon (talk) 17:35, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks for your input. Is there anything you'd like to say about the topic of the discussion? Niteshift36 (talk) 23:26, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Yep, see below -- that's been carrying on for a week now. As to this subthread, my contribution is admonishing a habitually disruptive editor. I know some feel it's not my place to do so, but no one else has stepped in. -PrBeacon (talk) 23:52, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

• You're interpretation of events is understood. Do you have anything to say regarding the topic of the discussion? Niteshift36 (talk) 00:11, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh now you're trying to get the discussion back on track, eh. Maybe you could add something substantial to the end of the thread instead of trying to bait others into personal attacks. -PrBeacon (talk) 00:20, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

no consensus for removal of Criticisms

Soxwon had no consensus to make the big changes he made, and he left no summary of the subsections which were removed. That's what it boils down to. I'm restoring the text in question. -PrBeacon (talk) 17:52, 29 September 2010 (UTC) revised

There was no consensus to include it in the first place. The section had been streamlined to follow WP:SUMMARY guidelines, however editors continue to try and expand it more and more to include minor specific issues that promote a specific point of view, so I removed it. Arzel (talk) 18:29, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

An objective way to write a neutral summary is to have the summary cover topics / issues / etc. in proportion to how they are covered in the article. Assuming the article follows weight and notability guidelines, the summary will too, and it is generally easier to follow such guidelines---at least in the aggregate---when you have a whole article to do it in rather than a just short summary. Kevin Baas 18:33, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I think Arzel misunderstands the concept of consensus by edits. The subsections remained in the article for awhile. They also appear in the daughter article FNC controversies. -PrBeacon (talk) 18:39, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Concensus is not concrete and just because something has been around for awhile doesn't make it right. I was bold and rmved sections of the article that I feel were given undue weight. Please explain why you feel they should be re-inserted. Soxwon (talk) 18:43, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

• Note that Arzel reverted before discussing , as usual. Then Soxwon did the same . -PrBeacon (talk) 18:50, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Did you not notice the discussion above? Just b/c you weren't here for it does not mean discussion did not already take place (and honestly, is what I did really that different than your single line and revert? No it isn't, so either show consistency and discuss or stop accusing others of "reverting w/o discussion") Soxwon (talk) 18:54, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

i think what he meant by the concept of consensus by edits, among other things, is that an edit sticking around for a while does demonstrate a kind of tacit community approval. in fact, the be bold policy recommends making an edit to the article just to see if it sticks. more generally i think what he meant is kind of like reaching a consensus by making edits to the article and watching the edit history and how people react and being respectful and discussing it if it proves contentious. Kevin Baas

My edit stood for three weeks w/o disproval. Other editors were free to make their comments, but bad edits are bad edits. Instead of trying to wax eloquent on policy and whether or not I was bold, how about instead debating the merits of my deletions. Soxwon (talk) 18:59, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

It was discussed, no objections were raised, you simply need to read. -Soxwon's edit summary. Stop patronizing. Clearly an objection was raised earlier by Blaxthos, you simply dismissed it. Your POV does not determine weight. And yes I read the discussion above, that was related to your removal of the material 3 wks ago -- not very long, some of us don't camp this article. At least 3 of us object to your removal, so it was too bold. Yet you revert without discussing it further. I suggest you self-revert until further discussion reaches compromise. -PrBeacon (talk) 19:02, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks for reinforcing my point earlier about how not editing here for a couple of weeks doesn't equate "hibernating". Niteshift36 (talk) 04:05, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

• Huh? -PrBeacon (talk) 17:37, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not arguing whether or not I was out of line, I want to know why it should be re-added. Please state why you think it should be re-inserted or stop wasting time. Soxwon (talk) 19:07, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

You need consensus to add that material that was removed some time ago. He does not have to self revert. Oh and atleast 3 of us object to you reinserting that material. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:10, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

No, thats not the way it works. I restored material that had been there for months if not longer. I've already given reason why. Why don't let others weigh in instead of repeating your case? -PrBeacon (talk) 19:19, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

If what prbeacon says is accurate, then it sounds to me like the other party is the one who "made the edit" (whether it was a removal, addition, or modification is irrelevant), and thus should be the one acquiescing to a revert and discussing. Kevin Baas 19:28, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Why do you not state why the material should be in the article? BritishWatcher (talk) 19:29, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I believe the material was rightly removed, it should not have been readded without debate. It was gone for weeks and has been stable, its removal improved the article. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:04, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm just an outsider frankly i don't even know the specific content under debate (maybe its' better that way, at least for now), so anything i say is totally generic right now. in any case what i would recommend is a common policy known as "status quo ante bellum" (latin for "the way things were before the war"): revert to the status quo ante bellum, then discuss. maybe reach a "new" consensus, maybe rediscover the old one. Kevin Baas 19:13, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

When does the status quo become the status quo? This was removed weeks ago and has been stable since. Its clear several editors oppose it being readded, and no one undid the removal at the time (from what i can remember). A case should be made for why it needs to be readded. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:25, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I think the bigger question here is when did the "war" begun. the status quo ante bellum is whatever existed just before then. Kevin Baas 19:29, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

And a clear majority of editors at the time, and a majority still now based on the new opposition, still supported its removal. Consensus can change. There was agreement that material was rightly removed. With one editor opposing at the time. If this was just 2 editors removing something then i could understand the concern, but its clear from the above debate.. several other editors accepted the change. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:33, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) ...i suppose that doesn't mean it must have had "consensus", but i'm sure we all can acknowledge that it should at least have had a decent amount of tacit consensus (had stood for a while). for instance, if the previous version happens to be a vandalized version, there's no real practical reason to keep that. but from what i hear it's been sitting there for months so that's not really a concern. Kevin Baas 19:29, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

it had been sitting there for months and some of us had concern about it for months. The removal was stable for almost a month, i fail to see how adding back material a clear majority of editors supported the removal will improve the situation. At the very least the case should be made about why it must be readded. At the moment all we have heard is "there was no consensus". When infact there was consensus, with one dissenting voice at the time, that several editors challenged. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:38, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

clearly there's an argument about whether there's consensus for this or that and i don't know who's right or wrong. maybe an rfc's in order, i don't know. more people is always good. Kevin Baas 19:46, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Certainly not another silly Request for Comment, i think there has been RFCs on the introduction.. even after that it doesnt stop those who want a different wording from demanding it be changed. Why put this debate on hold for an entire month to ask if there was consensus to remove it or not. When we should debate the content that was removed and if it should be readded. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:54, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

That's what i meant. sorry i see how that came across wrong. i didn't mean an rfc on whether consensus was achieved, but an rfc on the diff. Kevin Baas 20:05, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Well i am not a fan of RFCs, especially considering the last one about fox news was advertised on a certain website which led to a flood of IPs/SPAs coming to demand something be added because they were against fox news. I dont mind a rfc on if the specific text should be readded, if people really think thats necessary, but the present text which has been stable for almost a month and has majority support should remain, pending the outcome of the RFC. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:14, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

At to reasons whether content should be added or removed, the obvious answer is weight and notability. and i imagine those things (hopefully) would be the things debated in such a discussion. now the available evidence / notable material might seem to strongly favor one or the other side. be that as it may, re-apportioning things in contrast to this to fit any preconcieved model, even one of "equality", amounts to assuming the conclusion and is thus a form of bias that should be avoided. which is why i suggest that the distribution of the weight in the summary should reflect that of its corresponding sub-article. in any case, no debate on weight and notability should start from the aforementioned error of assuming the conclusion. Kevin Baas 19:43, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

This section should summarise the subarticle, i agree there. But that is an argument against re inserting the material they are demanding. One of the two sections being readded is the complete copy of the section on the Fox News controversy page. So how is that a summary when it contains exactly the same text? BritishWatcher (talk) 19:54, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

There are no arguments against reinserting any material here. There's only obstruction. I would like to see you address the edits you say have no consensus. Coming to this talk page to chant "no consensus, unbalanced, undue" isn't a discussion. You need to support your claims with evidence. Saying the same thing over and over again doesn't make it more true. Viriditas (talk) 19:58, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

It is not me that has started a section here saying "no consensus", when there clearly was consenus with 1 dissenting voice almost a month ago when it was removed. 1 of the 2 sections that they are trying to reinsert is clearly not notable enough for this article in the detail it is. If this is meant to be a summary of the controversy page, why is it simply the exact same text? BritishWatcher (talk) 20:01, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) exactly the same text is certainly not a summary. i don't know the specifics and i'm not going to get into it right now. i don't have the time. i suppose i'm kind of ducking out and in right now. i hope for better rather than worse. i can say that last time i read the summary to the controversy page it didn't really suggest that there was much of a controversy (which i know to be patently false), so it seemed to me that something was lacking. Kevin Baas 20:05, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Ok I've had enough of Brit's repeated distortion of facts to support his POV. Especially how he argues against an RFC. The restored material had long-standing consensus. Removal of it requires more discussion than was allowed. And WP:summary doesn't say what some of you think it says. By the way, where is a summary of the daughter article FNC controversies? -PrBeacon (talk) 20:24, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

It amazes me, there has been all this debate and yet the editors demanding text be readded have still yet to say why it needs to be back in the article. Ive stated one problem with it. 1 section is a complete copy of the section in the controversy article. There is no way that requires to be in this article word for word. Now i am happy for us to debate how to sort out the controversy section to ensure it reflects the subarticle, but the material you seem to want back in does not do that. Which facts am i distorting by the way? BritishWatcher (talk) 20:31, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

i have noticed that this whole ordeal was once characterized as only one person objected to the removal and at that not really given a reason. just a cursory overview of recent discussion shows that to be, to put it lightly, a "distortion". there are clearly a number of editors objecting to the removal and they have not been vague about it. Kevin Baas 20:32, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

One editor did object at the time, almost a month ago. It is only now that certain other editors are crying foul. So no that is not a distortion, it is also the case that before no reason was given against the removal and that remains the case after tonights debate. They have said absolutely nothing about why the text in question is so important and needs to be readded to the article. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:54, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

well what i read certainly characterized things that way. and characterizations are what matter. the reasons are of course weight and notability. Kevin Baas 20:59, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

And it fails on both counts. You yourself said this should be a summary of Fox News controversies. It is not, because one of the 2 sections they are trying to readd was not a summary, it was the same thing, word for word of what appears at Fox News Controversies, a single section, in a very large article. There is no need for it to be here.. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:02, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I also said that as worded it doesn't seem to give a fair impression of what the controversies are; that it seems to be lacking something. in any case i think it would be more productive if you guys started to talk more about the content, esp. with regard to weight and notability, rather than each other. i'm out for the day so I (conveniently) won't be partaking. ;) Kevin Baas 21:10, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

What should be included in the controversy section

Would it not be best if we try to debate what exactly we think should be in the section on this article and cover the major points presented over at fox news controversies? The debate over if the previous text should be readded or not will resolve nothing because there is clearly no consensus for it to be readded. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:04, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Saying "no consensus" is not a substitute for rational discussion demonstrating no consensus. Merely repeating the same thing over and over again won't make it true. You keep claiming "undue" and "unbalanced", but you have not shown this to be true. The lead section needs to be expanded to include all important points, as well as criticisms and controversies. You can't avoid this fact. Viriditas (talk)

Brit has the misconception that I/we need to justify restoring the criticisms. That is simply not true. The burden is upon those who want to keep the material out. Brit and others make reference to having problems with the material before Soxwon made his changes, where is this discussion? And there is nothing in WP:summary that says we cannot include material from the daughter article. In fact, it says that the main article's section should have a summary of the daughter article, which it does not have. -PrBeacon (talk) 00:40, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

The basic aspects are summarized, there is no need to go into specifics. As for what should stay or go. The MMfA junk about things like a graphic not adding up to %100 certainly do not belong. That kind of crap is just stupid. Arzel (talk) 14:10, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

The 'basic aspects' were not there, I recently added the summary lead from the FNC controversies article -- which should be revised and expanded per MoS: "The summary in a section at the parent article will often be at least twice as long as the lead section in the daughter article." We know you & others think any criticism of FNC is partisan 'crap' so you really should recuse yourselves from this article or at least from passing judgement on any relevant criticisms. -PrBeacon (talk) 19:02, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

The burden is upon those who want to keep the material out.

Nonsense, and that sets WP:V on its ear. The "burden of proof" is WP:V and it is the responsibility of the content-inserting editor to meet that standard. I, for one, am unsatisfied that "Allegations of Misrepresentation of Fact" meets that standard due to the openly partisan nature of MMfA and HP. If those "allegations" are notable, surely WP:UNDUE mandates much more significant coverage than 2 openly partisan sources. The section does not, IMHO, satisfy WP:V and, without provision of significant sourcing in considerably more mainstream sources, should be deleted from the daughter article. JakeInJoisey (talk) 14:46, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Nope, the content was there before. I restored it. Therefore, the editor(s) fighting for its removal have to gain a new consensus, which was not done. WP:V is not in question here, and we already know you don't like watchdog groups like MMfA, but its been upheld as a reliable source at repeated RS/N discussions. -PrBeacon (talk) 18:52, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Ok, just a quick recap of what was removed and the reasons for it being removed:

Accusations of misrepresentation of facts The media watchdog group Media Matters for America has cataloged what they claim are the ten most "egregious examples" of "distortion" by both Fox News and its TV personalities. The criticisms include several examples of cropping quotes from President Obama, Vice President Biden, and Vice President Gore so they appear out of context, using image manipulation software to edit the appearance of reporters from The New York Times, and using footage from other events during a report on the November 5 "Tea Party" rally in Washington DC. They claim the intention is to make it appear as if a larger number of protesters attended the event. Media Matters also called attention to the December 4 edition of Fox and Friends and accused the show of misleading their viewers with a "questionable graphic" that showed the results of a Rasmussen Reports climate change poll adding up to 120%.

Again MMFA comes up and again I maintain that criticism made by them alone is not really substantial enough for inclusion in the main article. The breakout article covers the subject in more detail and would thus be a better place for these types of criticisms that weren't covered outside of a few select (and arguably partisan) sources.

In November, 2009, Fox News anchor Gregg Jarrett told viewers that a Sarah Palin book signing in Grand Rapids, Michigan had a massive turnout while showing footage of Palin with a large crowd. Jarrett noted that the former Republican vice-presidential candidate is "continuing to draw huge crowds while she's promoting her brand-new book", adding that the images being shown were "some of the pictures just coming in to us.... The lines earlier had formed this morning." The video was actually taken from a 2008 McCain/Palin campaign rally. Fox senior vice-president of news Michael Clemente issued an initial statement saying, "This was a production error in which the copy editor changed a script and didn't alert the control room to update the video." Fox offered an on-air apology the following day during the same "Happening Now" segment citing regrets for what they described as a "video error" with no intent to mislead.

Again, we're leveling criticisms of inherent bias within a news organization. Surely we need more than a single yahoo news blog and apology. Where is the coverage of such a (supposedly) notable event? This is again criticism that should be covered in the breakout article where the subject is discussed in more detail.

White House Talking Points While promoting his memoir, What Happened, Scott McClellan, former White House Press Secretary (2003–2006) for former President George W. Bush stated on the July 25, 2008 edition of Hardball with Chris Matthews that the Bush White House routinely gave talking points to Fox News commentators — but not journalists — in order to influence discourse and content. McClellan stated that these talking points were not issued to provide the public with news; instead, they were to provide Fox News commentators with issues and perspectives favorable to the White House and Republican Party. McClellan later apologized to Fox News commentator Bill O'Reilly for not responding to Matthews' suggestion that "Bill" or "Sean" received the talking points; McClellan said he had no personal knowledge that O'Reilly ever received the talking points. Furthermore he pointed out "the way a couple of questions were phrased in that interview along with my response left things open to interpretation and I should not have let that happen".

So we basically have a guy who is promoting his new book and trying to drum up publicity. So of course he's not going to say inflammatory things or even remotely suggest things that might generate attention-garnering controversy. Even setting aside the idea that he's trying to pitch his book, there is still almost no coverage for this outside of a few sources that, arguably, engage in partisan bickering. As with the other sections, weight comes into play and I would generally like to see other coverage of the White House talking points outside of book interviews for Mr. McClellan and HP. A g-news search shows that this is far harder to come by than has been purported.

Again, most of these "controversies" and whether or not they belong comes down to whether or not you believe that MMFA, HP, and Yahoo News are in the same league as the NYT, WP, and LATimes. I for one believe they do not. Soxwon (talk) 15:06, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Plenty of others disagree with you -- including outside editors at multiple RS/N discussions. -PrBeacon (talk) 18:52, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

And plenty of others agree with Soxwon. However, the issue is the two paragraphs and it is very clear that there is still no support for it to be reinserted. So Why do we not start by creating a list of the issues we think should be covered in the section on controversies etc. We can then debate them and try to come up with something that will improve the section in the eyes of all sides. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:40, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Again you're characterizing our objections to the removal as "no support for it to be reinserted." That is either disingenuous or blatantly dishonest. Not exactly in the spirit of compromise, is it. -PrBeacon (talk) 05:52, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand the surprise expressed that most of criticism-side of controversy comes from FNC critics... --TeaDrinker (talk) 19:56, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

biased organisations that clearly hate fox news channel and have an agenda should not be given the same weight as neutral sources. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:13, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Britishwatcher, what policy do you believe supports your assertion that "biased organizations that clearly hate should not be given weight"? What guideline covers detecting hate, or measuring bias? What policy defines what you are calling "weight"? I want to know the exact language you think justifies your comments, so please be specific. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 09:50, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Well i said should not be given the same weight as neutral sources, surely this is obvious? A group that dedicates itself to attacking Fox News compared to neutral 3rd party sources are clealry more notable and worthy for inclusion. The section in question is obviously covered in the undue weight section. Like this bit.. "For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and neutral, but still be disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic." And that is after being sure its neutral which in some organisations cases is far from clear. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:47, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Just think: if Soxwon had edited down and/or summarized the content he was removing, thus improving the section instead of simply diminishing it, then we'd probably be having a more collaborative discussion by now. -PrBeacon (talk) 05:44, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

That is certainly an option, I would agree that they could all be housed under one roof under one section with, say, a line or two for each without any being given undue weight. Soxwon (talk) 16:37, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

RfC

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. Within 24 hours, this page will be added to the following lists: Media, the arts, and architecture Politics, government, and law When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the lists. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

There is a disagreement regarding which material and how much should be included in this article as opposed to contained to Fox News Channel controversies. See the above section for details. Placed by request. VernoWhitney (talk) 14:09, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

"There was no consensus at talkpage to remove the long-standing material." - Well thats misleading for a start. There was one editor at the time that opposed the change, others all challenged him in support of the removal. Another pointless request for comment, can this one please not be advertised on external websites so this does not get flooded with anti fox news contributors who try to stack the RFC, as happened last time. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:50, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

That's not an accurate assessment, either. If you're truly interested in a collaborative effort to improve the article, you'll stop making these mischaracterizations. -PrBeacon (talk) 17:23, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Please explain how my assessment of the situation (prior to all the latest debate kicked off in the past couple of days) is incorrect? BritishWatcher (talk) 19:28, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

One of the 2 sections removed was a complete copy word for word of something that appears on Fox News Channel controversies. Surely an incident that has a single section on the controversy page should not all be included on here? The section of controversy here should summarise the main issues at the controversy article. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:54, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

PrBeacon is attempting to WP:GAME WP:SUMMARY. This is not the proper way to deal with disputes. He made a disputed edit on the sub-page, added a citation flag to the unsourced edit and then used WP:SUMMARY as an excuse to add the same edit to this article. I am sorry, but if this is the kind of collaboration that is going to be used then this RfC should be closed immidately as bad faith. Arzel (talk) 18:34, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Arzel is misrepresenting valid criticism and summary, as usual. I did not add the statement to the daughter article. I added the cite tag as a gesture of compromise with Jake there, but Arzel doesn't understand this because he doesn't really participate in talkpage discussions. His drive-bys on these articles are irresponsible, to say the least. -PrBeacon (talk) 19:28, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I refuse to participate in this RFC on several grounds:

1. There is no succinct, neutral statement of the issue. The onus appears to be on respondents to read a thread that is already full of half-truths, POV warriorism, and dealings with bad-faith editors.
2. As the original editor who objected to the removal, I can absolutely state that BritishWatcher's statement above is a flat out lie. Additionally, he is the very editor who refused to accept the result of the last RFC in which he participated. Given his repeated history of bending the truth, misrepresenting policy, obstructionism, previous attempts to derail another RFC, and then stating he will ignore an RFC consensus when it disagrees with his position, I have a real problem with starting this RFC with no summary and mistruths from an obviously bad-faith editor.
3. It has become painfully clear that this article (and the daughter article) are now controlled by advocates who are dedicated to "keeping the main fox news article clean". Given their tendentious and lawyerly past, I have no belief that they will participate in good faith and respect the outcome of the RFC this time.

I am sure I will catch some heat from (a) the advocates (for challenging them -- I always do), and (b) uninvolved editors who think this statement is just a run-of-the-mill personal attack. I would like to remind everyone that WP:AGF does not require one to continue to assume good faith when there is ample evidence to indicate that it is not warranted -- if you're going to disregard my statement based on that reasoning, I ask that you please contact me first and I'll be glad to provide evidence to support my position. I wouldn't make such a statement if I didn't believe a reasonable objective editor will reach the same conclusion after a preponderance of the evidence. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 19:23, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

1) I did not start this RFC nor do i support it. So blame PrBeacon for that.

2) Please explain how my statement above is a flat out lie. Between the 2nd of September when the removal took place and 27th of September, how many people agreed with you? When you responded on the 28th, another editor replied asking you to explain the problem, you didnt manage to explain the problem. Then Prbacon stepped in.

2a) I have said i accept the fact we must include the information on the other article, although i still consider that RFC deeply flawed and rigged. Since then ive said if the issue must be included it should be balanced with the fact NewsCorp gave donations to the democrats too. Ive not removed the ohhh so important sentence that attracted many SPAs and IPs after it got advertised on an external website. The RFC wording itself was very one sided, which makes your objections in point 1 rather amusing.

3) Well after your shocking little rant in this latest post its hard to see how people can assume good faith on your part. Ive not been deleting material and moving it to the other article. Part of the problem with the removal you are concerned about is it was word for word paragraph of what is said on the controversy page. There for the idea it has to be said entirely here is obviously a problem. As for my comment you link, i believe that to be the case. Certain editors want to list the slightest little controversy, even if it is not notable enough. Well its a good thing such crap goes on that page and does not get put here. The Controversy section of this article should summarise that controversy page. The removed paragraphs did not accurately summarise that article. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:54, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

"There is a disagreement regarding which material and how much should be included in this article as opposed to contained to Fox News Channel controversies. See the above section for details." Seems neutral to me. Yes there could be more summary detail, but I know if I wrote it there would be immediate objections from the pro-FNC crowd. Some aren't happy with any discussion of criticism.

@Brit- above you objected to phrasing in my request at the RFC board and dismissed this effort at dispute resolution as 'pointless'. You're free to restate your position, but why rehash every argument from above, and in such a patronizing manner? Blaxthos raises valid concerns about how you (and others) seem to be non-cooperative, and your tone above reinforces this perception. Why not let others weigh in before attempting to counter every post here? -PrBeacon (talk) 19:42, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

The wording here is fine, i said your comment on the board was misleading about the situation. And my other comments on RFC related to one on the fox news controversy page that had clearly biased wording and was also rigged thanks to external forces. A section on criticism on this page is fine and a mention of it in the intro is fine, but at present it clearly gives undue weight to critics. The word for word copy of one section that is on the controversy page certainly is not notable enough to be here. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:03, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

As the person who deleted the text originally, I am also going to say that i am not interested. I probably went to far, but I still feel that too much weight was given in the form that was in the article. I shall restore the material and then wash my hands of the matter. Soxwon (talk) 22:27, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

There is no need to restore one of the paragraphs that simply is identical to the section on the controversy page. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:51, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I consider one paragraph in the lede and thirteen more paragraphs on the topic to be substantially overweight. Obese, even. Since a sub-article exists, one or two paragraphs is normal WP usage for a precis. Collect (talk) 19:48, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

FPP Requested

Given the current dispute and edit-warring over the lead, I have requested FPP for this article. JakeInJoisey (talk) 14:44, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

My two simple edits lead to that? :) Your probably right to request it mind mark nutley (talk) 14:47, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

You're here too? ;) JakeInJoisey (talk) 14:53, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

If Viriditas would be prepared not to continue to add material to the introduction without agreement then page protection would not be needed. But seen as he added some material, it got reverted, he then added even worse material which has again been undone, it might be easier for FPP. I doubt it will be granted though, its no where near edit warring levels that are probably required. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:50, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Jake, this must be the first such instance of edit warring by one side that I've ever seen. Care to show me where I made a single revert? Viriditas (talk) 15:49, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually, no...that would be counter-productive to the purpose of the now-imposed FPP. Perhaps introduction of your suggested edits in talk would better foster consensus resolution. You are welcome, of course, to a final word, but I, for one, am done here (and thanks to the reviewing admin for consideration). JakeInJoisey (talk) 16:15, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I've discussed every edit I've ever made in the above sections and I have received not a single reply addressing my edits at any time. All I hear, and all I've heard for months now, is "no consensus", "unbalanced", and "undue weight", regardless of whatever I add to the article. This was even reverted with the same nonsensical explanation:

Popular shows include top-rated The O'Reilly Factor with Bill O'Reilly, and Hannity with Sean Hannity, featuring opinion, commentary, and interviews.

Anyone care to tell me how that is unbalanced and undue weight? It was added because the lead needs to cover the major aspects of this article. It was blanket reverted by Collect because he doesn't care what the source or the content says, as long as he can prevent editors from editing. That kind of behavior should not be allowed here, and based on the record of disruption that I've documented, there should be strict sanctions imposed on these editors. Viriditas (talk) 16:22, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Undue weight was you adding "conservative" to the first sentence of the introduction and also changing critics say they support conservative views to suggesting its a generally held view. Both clearly change the balance of the introduction in a negative way. That wording about the talk shows i dont have a problem with, although its questionable if it belongs in the intro. But when that was undone instead of just debating it you inserted a sentence describing them as "firebrands" which was clearly problematic for the intro. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:33, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

On the contrary, the preponderance of the use of the term "conservative" as a description of Fox News by the top sources on the subject demonstrates that it isn't undue. And, these sources I refer to are not critics. That this view is generally held is supported by the EB source and the rest of the sources in that paragraph. The talk shows belong in the lead as a summary of the topic. Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, and Glenn Beck were described as "conservative firebrands" by Broadcasting & Cable an industry trade magazine; That article was about the VP of Fox News and was purely positive and laudatory in tone, nothing critical or accusatory. All of the problems you describe exist on this talk page, and do not exist in the sources or with the material. There is no rational justification for their deletion, removal, or reversion. Viriditas (talk) 16:45, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

If you believe it is acceptable to state as fact fox news is a conservative news channel in the first sentence of this article then i can understand why you can not see the problem with some of the other material you have been inserting into this introduction today. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:32, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

My beliefs have nothing to do with this. Reliable sources call FNC conservative, and RS say it is generally viewed as conservative. If you disagree with these RS, then you will need to show other RS supporting your position. We go with what the preponderance of sources say, not with what editors think or feel. This has been explained to you many times now, so please stop ignoring my request. Respond with sources that make the case why we can't say FNC is or is viewed as conservative. You assert this is somehow a problem, but the RS are at odds with your personal beliefs. Viriditas (talk) 23:24, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

For the last time - the "EB source" is an encyclopedia which solicits and useds "user suggested edits" as has been shown. Comments by individuals properly belong in the body of the article, not in the lede - which is supposed to be a summary of the article. And such comments, as they are opinions, must be ascribed as opinions of the individuals. This is not I, it is WP policies and procedures which govern here. Collect (talk) 16:57, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Collect, please stop repeating misinformation after you've been corrected several times. The content in question was written by Jeannette Nolen, social science editor for Encyclopaedia Britannica, not by a user suggested edit. If it was, a name would appear in the left pane, as a name appears in the article about Drudge. It's also important that you understand that Jeannette Nolen's opinion is supported by many sources, such as Groseclose & Milyo (2005), Turner (2007), and DellaVigna & Kaplan (2007). This is really not in question by anyone, except a few unknown editors on a Misplaced Pages talk page. That's not how we write articles. Viriditas (talk) 20:59, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Your main problem is that when I was the one suggesting an edit, my name never appeared on the page - the name that appeared was the EB person. Making your assertions nicely inaccurate. Collect (talk) 00:19, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Non-EB employee edits have a contributor history visible in the left pane, so I'm afraid you are mistaken. Furthermore, your point is another red herring intended to distract us from the preponderance of reliable sources supporting Nolen's article. Instead of addressing this evidence, you're desperately grasping at straws trying to attack a source supported by a dozen more. It's transparent and amounts to wasting our time. Viriditas (talk) 01:57, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Mine was not so noted. I suggest that either you are wrong (as you were about there being no suggestion button) or that you are getting a totally different EB site than I get. Collect (talk) 05:03, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Brass tacks, Collect, brass tacks. I can prove that non-EB contributors are attributed. For some reason, you cannot. Again, you distort my comments, as I never claimed there was no suggestion button. I claimed that I was viewing the library edition of EB (a paid version) directly from their website, and that version does not have a suggestion button, only the free one does. For some reason, these simple facts cause you a great deal of confusion. Let me know if I can help out in any way. Viriditas (talk) 05:11, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

(out) Try again - you asserted that there was no "suggest edit button" - Remember? A sock puppetteer accuded me of having a name - which was that of the EB editor! And the paid version absolutely had the same buttons, as I used a free trial once. Enough. Basta! Why would a free version offer a feature a paid version lacks? Collect (talk) 05:18, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I just checked again, and you are correct, the button is on the paid site. However the layout is completely different, so I missed it the first time. Here is what the submission box says:

Your comments and suggestions will be read by our staff of professional editors and, in some cases, by members of our worldwide community of authors and advisers. All suggested text changes will be fact-checked, and all approved changes will be published. No new or entirely rewritten articles will be accepted through this community-response system, though suggestions for new entries are welcome in the comments section at left. Thank you for helping Britannica remain the most trusted encyclopaedia in the world.

A link to a message about their "Editorial Message" says the following:

Encyclopædia Britannica is the oldest continuously published and revised work in the English language. Our reputation for quality and reliability is built on a tradition of more than two centuries of publishing. Keys to Britannica's success have been the quality of our contributors--a community of experts that now includes more than 110 Nobel Prize winners--and the thoroughness of our editorial process. Britannica's new community-response system both reflects and enhances this commitment to excellence. This system provides general readers, subject-area specialists, and Britannica's nearly 5,000 contributors worldwide with a fast and easy way to communicate with our editorial staff. All comments are welcome; all suggestions will be read and taken seriously; all suggested text changes submitted through this system will be thoroughly evaluated and fact-checked; all approved changes will be published; and all readers using this system will receive a reply from our editorial department. We have always had vigorous interaction with our readers and contributors, and this system simply enhances this communication, leading to an even better encyclopædia. Whether you are a current contributor to the encyclopædia or a member of Britannica's worldwide community of readers, we welcome your participation in this new and exciting feature.

So, Collect you are in the end, mistaken. This "suggestion" feature does not make the Encyclopædia Britannica unreliable, especially when the information in question is supported by a preponderance of reliable sources on the same subject. No one source exists in isolation. You know this, it has been explained to you on a constant basis, and yet, you still persist in your war of attrition. As User:Phoenix of9 accurately observed during your previous arbcom reqest:

I also do think Collect may be using the attrition technique. Discussing something at great lengths and eventually trying to wear down the opponents patience.

He was right then, and it still holds true today. Viriditas (talk) 05:37, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Aha - when in doubt look up edits from othere well over a year old? Nope. The fact is that you erred, and seem reluctant to say so in a short statement. And complain on others talk pages to boot! Try a simple apology the next time you have to admit you are wrong <g>. Collect (talk) 10:35, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I see you're still engaging in a rhetorical war of attrition, still distracting away from the main point, still trying to waste the time of good faith editors, and still trying to avoid the preponderance of evidence in favor of the statement cited by the Encyclopædia Britannica. Let me bring you back on track. Regarding FNC, EB writes:

Despite its slogan "fair and balanced," however, the network's coverage was widely perceived as favouring politically conservative viewpoints.

This statement, sourced to the EB, is also supported by a wide variety of sources. It is not in dispute that FNC is widely perceived as favoring politically conservative viewpoints. If you maintain that it is, Collect, then you will have to provide sources showing otherwise. You can't, because this statement is not in dispute by anyone. Feel free to keep trying to distract from this fact by raising the fact that I failed to notice a graphical button on the EB website, as if that has anything to do with this discussion. Meanwhile, this will be added back into the article with multiple attributions, as it is easily sourced in the academic literature. Viriditas (talk) 11:09, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Did you misread User Talk:Gwen Gale's comments on this? After all, you sought her input, I trust you will follow it. Collect (talk) 12:03, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I haven't misread anything, Collect, and for your information, tertiary sources like encyclopedias are considered reliable sources on Misplaced Pages. Feel free to ask questions at WP:RS/N if this isn't making sense to you. Viriditas (talk) 12:09, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Viriditas, the consensus seems to be not to use EB since better sources are available. Continuing this discussion is just disruptive editing. TFD (talk) 14:48, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

TFD, there is no such consensus, and whether we use EB or not has no bearing on the outcome of the argument. Collect chose to attack EB to distract away from the topic under discussion, namely, that Fox News is "widely perceived as favouring politically conservative viewpoints." This is not in dispute by any source. Viriditas (talk) 01:18, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

No you are creating the distraction. The purpose of this discussion page is not to determine whether FNC is "widely perceived as favouring politically conservative viewpoints." Arguing that there are lots of good sources and then presenting only a weak source is disruptive editing. TFD (talk) 02:29, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

There are many sources which indicate FNC has a conservative slant. Here's a few from the past few years, but they are numerous. For JakeInJoisey, who does not consider a citation complete unless it has an annotation, I have included brief annotations.

• Aday, Sean. 2010. Chasing the Bad News: An Analysis of 2005 Iraq and Afghanistan War Coverage on NBC and Fox News Channel. Journal of Communication 60:144-164. Argues FNC covered the war postively and was friendlier to the Administration in 2005.

• Starr, Paul. 2010. Governing in the Age of Fox News. The Atlantic Monthly Jan/Feb. pp95-98. Argues that Fox is "ideologically driven," more than other news outlets, having taken a leadership role in the Republican Party.

• Pollak, Richard. 2010. A Confederacy of Foxes. The Nation Jun 14. pp7-8. Describes FNC as "hyperconservative" and a "pernicious right-wing influence."

• Harmon, Mark and Robert Muechen. "Semantic Framing in the Buildup to the Iraq War." A Review of General Semantics. 66: 12-26. "Compared to CNN, Fox News programs were more likely to use the pro-war terms and less likely to use the anti-war terms. "

• McDermott, Terry. 2010. Dumb Like a Fox. Columbia Journalism Review 48: 26-32. "No reasonable person would sincerely deny that Fox has a distinct bias favoring Republicans, and conservative Republicans especially." " Steele, in some broader cultural sense, works for Ailes, who is without close contest the most powerful Republican in the country today."

• Poniewozik, James. 2008. Fox on the Run. Time Magazine 171. Notes strong conservative slant in FNC, calling it the "cultural artifact of the Bush era." Covers the challenge of being a conservative network potentially under a Democratic president.

• Poniewozik, James. 2010. Can the CNN-ter hold? Time 175. Notes FNC is right wing, MSNBC is left.

• Greenbaum, Mark. Sarah Palin and Fox News. Christian Science Monitor 11 Jan. 2010. Op/ed noting "Mr. Ailes, a brilliant former Republican operative, has infused a Republican viewpoint into the channel's programming, as evidenced by its lineup of Bill O'Reilly, Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, and even Palin's potential presidential rival Mike Huckabee, who hosts a low-profile weekend show."

• Junod, Tom. 2009. Because they hate him and want him to fail. Esquire 151. Details FNC as a conservative network, and Shep Smith, who in 2008 "distinguished himself by treating Republicans as aggressively as Fox News normally treats Democrats."

I got tired of reading similar content, but they are really not at all hard to locate. In short, there are many reliable sources indicating FNC caters to conservatives. Jake is likely to object to my inclusion of an article by the Nation; it is relevant, but there's plenty of others to look at too. --TeaDrinker (talk) 04:21, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

For JakeInJoisey, who does not consider a citation complete unless it has an annotation, I have included brief annotations.

Look Teadrinker, belaboring this point is getting old fast. I don't care what you call it but if I suggest a source as supporting an edit, I'll provide a QUOTE from the purported source for consideration of its substance and relevance. While paraphrasing purported sourcing is perhaps easier, there is considerably less room for both misunderstanding, misinterpretation and/or (God forbid) misrepresentation when quoting a source. I believe that approach is more productive in producing, at least, a consensus understanding of exactly what the source says in support of the proposed edit.

That being said and FWIW, I don't have a particular problem (and didn't, as I recall, the last time this came up) with acknowledging that Fox News reflects a generally conservative approach to its news presentation (and my compliments for at least gathering some sourcing. It sux having to do it but it has to be done). JakeInJoisey (talk) 04:59, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I meant no offense; I just wanted to explain why I was following the unusual practice of annotating citations. There's no real replacement for looking them up and reading them yourself, of course. That's how research is done. However for your benefit, I have done my best to cater to your requests. If you prefer I not do this it would make it easier for me. --TeaDrinker (talk) 05:11, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

However for your benefit, I have done my best to cater to your requests. If you prefer I not do this it would make it easier for me.

How you want to present your purported sources in support of suggested edits is your business. As for me, I'll provide a source, a quote and a link. Let's put that to rest forevermore, shall we? JakeInJoisey (talk) 05:22, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I would avoid news sources because it is difficult to determine the weight that should be given to the opinions expressed. The journals you mention that discuss war coverage might be useful as would the Groseclose & Milyo study that has been discussed here before. If we have a source that says other news media view them as biased then that could be included, but I would not want to come to that conclusion on our own. When we use these sources we must be clear what they mean by bias and whether they are referring to the news or the commentary. We also must be sure to represent the terminology correctly. The Groseclose & Milyo report for example did not look at accuracy and assumed that all media could be ascribed left/right bias. TFD (talk) 05:09, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

While the scholarly sources certainly deserve more weight, let's not rule out all news pieces -- some sources in popular media would pass academic muster, for instance. -PrBeacon (talk) 20:01, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

FCC control and reliability

There is an never ending discussion on this page about the reliability of Fox News. As I understand it, the liberties Fox has taken in not following basic journalism ethics and standards, in their right to be biased, and in their right to lie under the First Amendment stem from the fact that they are a satellite and cable TV news channel. As Fox does not broadcast on radio waves like broadcast TV, they are not subject to regulation by the Federal Communications Commission. Despite the Bush-era deregulation of communication, I understand there are still regulations and at least traditions that would prevent their programming on broadcast TV. As a cable channel they are about as free from regulation as the Internet and they have no obligation to be any more reliably or neutral than web "news" sites like Kavkaz Center.

There was a related discussion on the reliable sources noticeboard here: Is DemocracyNow a reliable source?. As Democracy Now! is broadcast by radio and they claim to carry news, I understand that they would be subject to regulation. An argument was made that even Rush Limbaugh is allowed to broadcast, but he is not news – maybe the FCC would allow Fox News if it was named Rupert Murdoch propaganda hour or something.

In discussing the unreliability and criticism it might be useful to frame the criticism in the context of a lack of regulation. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 21:11, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Good points, i dont know the details of what regulations apply or not there but its certainly notable and would provide some background to the situation in the Criticism and controversies section. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:16, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

This is an absurd presumption. The FCC does not regulate whether something said over the airways is true or not. By this logic CNN and MSNBC fall into the same group. About the only thing that the FCC seems to actually keep track of is profane language and nudity. Furthermore this meme that FNC does not follow journalistic standards is simply untrue in the context of all other cable news stations. Arzel (talk) 01:29, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I laugh. Which is why I am no longer interested in editing this article. http://www.mindfully.org/GE/Akre-Wilson-Fox-TV2apr98.htm Manticore55 (talk) 21:08, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I was wondering when this might come up. But since this has nothing to do with FNC I don't see how it is relevant to this discussion. Arzel (talk) 23:39, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

MSNBC and CNN don't lie and make stuff up like fox news does. (And I challenge anyone who disagrees to present evidence to the contrary.) Also, I don't have cable, i watch some of the shows on it some time. it's on channel 6 in milwaukee. Kevin Baas 23:49, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

• I guess you never heard of the 1998 reports on Operation Tailwind where CNN claimed the US used sarin gas in Vietnam. No proof and after a 2 week investigation, they had to retract the story and fired the producers. Or criticism of them misrepresenting images of civil unrest in Tibet. Or CNN's chief news exec admitting that they witheld news stories about atrocities by Iraq so they could keep reporters there. Or the Project for Excellence in Journalism (from a liberal school no less) that showed a definate bias in the coverage of Obama vs. McCain during the 2008 campaign. And don't forget (then) MSNBC's Chris Matthews and the thrill for Obama running up his leg. No....MSNBC and CNN are lilly white and unbiased, right? Niteshift36 (talk) 04:08, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

scientific/psychological studies have shown, unfortunately, that presenting facts that contradict a persons beliefs may actually make their beliefs stronger as a sort of aggressive counter-reaction. there are also other interesting studies that have been done about bias and perception, with similiar unfortunate results. studies more specific to issues of bias and new stations are listed on the fox news channel controversies page. you might take an interest in those. thou, if the psychological studies are at all accurate, it probably won't do you much good, anyways. Kevin Baas 16:58, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Kevin, you "challenged" anyone to present evidence to the contrary. I just did. You shose to ignore it and go off on a tangent about "psychologicial studies" that have no bearing on what you challenged. You pretty much ignore the answer given. The fact is, I haven't said FNC is really any better than CNN or MSNBC. My contention is that they really aren't much different than them, just a different angle. In other words, they all have some sort of bias, so why is Fox's so special? Niteshift36 (talk) 17:12, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually the thing is no you did not. I asked for lies. you did list some things i was unaware of, and thank you for that. but none of it was lies. some of it was unproved, that doesn't mean it was made up. maybe not sufficiently validated, but that's altogether different than just pulling something out of your a$$. another thing you listed was an ommission. not a lie and not something you wouldn't expect from just standard operating procedure of a news organization. the rest where more or less your own or someone else's coloring of events. not lies. not stuff that was made up. so no you really didn't answer my challenge. and that was why i responded as i did. because thing that you seem to have felt were answers, from an objective stand point, weren't, so that's why i said what i did about bias and perception and how it clouds a person's judgement on, for instance, what is an answer to a challenge; what is equivocable; and what is not. Kevin Baas 20:16, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

• Please check again. The Operation Tailwind thing was a lie. No evidence. Just a wild story. Misrepresenting pics etc is exactly part of what people criticize Fox over. Now, if you want to expand beyond CNN and MSNBC, there are many more examples, some of faked footage, some of misrepresentations and some of just flat lies. BTW, I like how you dismiss lies of omission as mere omissions. When you negotiate with a government and agree to not show the really bad stuff about them is far beyond "just an omission". that strikes at the core of their integrity. I have absolutely no doubt that if it was discovered that Fox had negotiated with the Republican party to not report something in exchange for favor, you would not dismiss it as just being a simple omission. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:38, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry WHAT? Fox News is on the radio, or else someone is committing the grossest case of copyright vio in history when they claim to be Fox News fair and balanced: http://radio.foxnews.com/#axzz10nPDUmrU Soxwon (talk) 04:38, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

• You're correct. But don't expect the facts to deter the diatribe. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:52, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

lol the thrill up the leg was classic! Also who can forget the white people with guns controversy at a anti healthcare rally when a certain media organisation tried to make out it was a racial issue because there was a black president, then it turns out the images they showed were actually of a black man. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:26, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

What other news networks get up to is another matter but I do think regulation is very relevant to the controversy surrounding claims of bias. The fact they are not in any way acting outside of rules and regulations is notable. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:14, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

This discussion is unproductive. If there are reliable sources that say that Fox News is less reliable than other networks then please present them. Anecdotal evidence is original research and cannot be put into the article. TFD (talk) 03:24, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Old news, TFD, old news: See: Kull, Steven (2003). "Misperceptions, the Media, and the Iraq War". Political Science Quarterly. 118. New York: Academy of Political Science: 569–598. ISSN 0032-3195. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help) Viriditas (talk) 10:27, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Incorrect. We only need sufficient sources that cover a claim of unreliability to show ample weight for inclusion. Let's be real clear here, it doesn't matter whether the claim is true or not, but only need to show that the view has enough weight to warrant inclusion. However, refocusing on the original post to this thread, I don't think that there are any sources regarding "FCC control and reliability" that are germane to this article. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 03:54, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Consider which provides actual statistics from surveys, and appears to argue that those on the left are most apt to ascribe right-bias, and conversely, for any outlet. It furnishes breakdowns of opinions, and likely is an NPOV source for all of this, if used for straight facts. Collect (talk) 11:08, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

What a strange source. Whether the audience is conservative or liberal is not a good indicator of media bias. We don't really care about perceptions of media bias, as that is outside this topic. We want a neutral, objective measure of media bias, and we have those sources, and they measure media bias in the mainstream media in various ways. The source you offer is hopelessly out of date and relies on data from before 2000, but page 3 says it all: "The Fox News Channel offers a similar example of conscious product positioning...A conservative cable channel program might not attract ten million, but it might draw two million viewers. This logic of niche programming gave rise to the Fox news Channel, which chapter 3 shows has the most conservative audience among major media outlets." Fox News has the most conservative audience...because they are liberal? Viriditas (talk) 11:46, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

FNC has the most conservative audience because they are the only outlet that is not a mouthpiece for the left. Arzel (talk) 13:18, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

The source offered is objective in its presentation of facts. "Bias" is inherently not something which can be measured and weighed - it is heavily based on the perception of the person asserting bias. This book, in fact, makes that clear. Collect (talk) 13

51, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Viriditas, your source, "Misperceptions, the Media, and the Iraq War" says, "Those who primarily watch Fox News are significantly more likely to have misperceptions, while those who primarily listen to NPR or watch PBS are significantly less likely". To conclude from this that "Fox has taken in not following basic journalism ethics and standards" is synthesis, and you need a reliable source that makes this connection.

Arzel, could you please not soapbox. The other news media are not "mouthpiece for the left".

TFD (talk) 15:33, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Whatever are you on about, TFD? This is the second time you have mixed and matched two different discussions (the first was on Talk:John Birch Society). In this instance, I was replying directly to your statement, "If there are reliable sources that say that Fox News is less reliable than other networks then please present them," and I gave you Kull et al. (2003) in response. This source was not given a support for my statement about FNC not following basic journalism ethics and standards. Again, TFD, please stop mixing and matching different discussions and try to focus only on what is being said in each discussion. Do not do this again. Viriditas (talk) 19:56, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

That is the theme of this discussion thread, please read above, "There is an never ending discussion on this page about the reliability of Fox News. As I understand it, the liberties Fox has taken in not following basic journalism ethics and standards...." Regardless, your source does not support your opinion that "Fox News is less reliable than other networks", that is your original interpretation. Also please assume good faith and avoid personal attacks. TFD (talk) 22:05, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I call it a WP:DUCK response to the true soap-boxing by Viriditas. Arzel (talk) 16:44, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Bias can be objectively measured. It's just so many people choose not to. And when people actually do, people with such biases that have been objectively measured reject those conclusions for reasons that are specious, at best. And, of course, they will never recognize or acknowledge this, so in their minds bias has inevitably failed to be objectively measured. While those that do objectively measure it realize form that fact the futility. Kevin Baas 17:02, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

While I agree that bias can be measured, we need reliable sources that do this if we want to include it in the article. So far this whole page is nothing more than original research presented by some editors who are unwilling or unable to provide any reliable sources. TFD (talk) 17:12, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

On the contrary, pretty much every sentence in the article is reliably sourced in accordance with WP:RS. Kevin Baas 17:18, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I do not think we are on the same page. I was referring to this page, Talk:Fox News Channel, not the article, Fox News Channel. TFD (talk) 18:51, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Ok, my bad then. Kevin Baas 19:51, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Every potential 2012 GOP candidate works for Fox News (except for Mitt Romney and everyone who holds office)

Does anyone think this is notable? NickCT (talk) 17:32, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Considering that the article does not claim "every" - it specifically excludes Romney, for example - the claim is trivia at best, and probably inaccurate trivia to boot. Collect (talk) 17:35, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Its not an academic journal. Non pro fox news sources require academic journals to prove something, and even that isn't quite enough to convince people to achieve census. Clearly the New York Times is too biased to report bias. Manticore55 (talk) 19:32, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

• One columnist, who is a self-described liberal, expressing an opinion doesn't make this an "issue". Niteshift36 (talk) 19:58, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

It has been established (]) that a hundred columnists is not enough if it claims FOX news is biased. And besides, you are correct. It doesn't matter if the liberal columnist is right or not. If almost all the major Republican candidates are working for Fox (and the other one is a millionaire who self funds) that doesn't matter to this article. Of course, even if it were my opinion that it did, consensus is that it has to be established by an academic journal if it is an anti fox fact. I do find this ironic since, FOX advocates anti academic bias, such as advocating against Anthrogenic Climate Change. Source? I'm sure there is an academic journal I could find somewhere.... Manticore55 (talk) 20:30, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

• That's hardly a valid comparison. One guy giving a theory doesn't make something an "issue". Manufacturing an issue based on the opinion of one guy is a WP:UNDUE issue. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:49, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:02, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

the thing is it's neither a "theory" or an "opinion", it's a demonstrable assertion. BIG difference. And I mean WHOOPING. strangely there seems to be a great excess of people who couldn't tell the difference if it ran them over like a freight train. However, regardless of the veracity, it's a sourcing issue. Kevin Baas 17:00, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

In all fairness, Paul Krugman is a well-respected and highly regarded economist. Were this an issue of economics, I would advocate inclusion. This, however, has to do with politics, and is thus just another voice in a sea of opinion. Soxwon (talk) 00:52, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I actually have to agree. Using this article as RS to raise this point would be similar to using the editorial section of the WSJ or virtually anything from Fox News as a reference. I was just WP:FORUMing here. Don't mind if we hat this section.

I think it is an interesting point though. Very unusual that so many potential candidates should work for one media outlet. NickCT (talk) 02:58, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

The election is two years away, there is plenty of time for another candidate to emerge. Soxwon (talk) 03:15, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

True true.... NickCT (talk) 13:53, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

It is unusual that all five potential candidates are former office-holders. Anyway, Krugman's opinion is not notable in this case. TFD (talk) 04:58, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

How many presidential candidates in the past 100 years can you name who were not "former office holders"? (Clue: Ike was the only one from either major party). Can you name any Dem possibles who are not office holders or former office holders? "Unusual"? Not by a long stretch! Collect (talk) 14:21, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Clue correction: Wendell Willkie, but certainly you're right that most presidential candidates have been elected to something else first. A more important point is that Fox has four prominent Republican politicians as regular paid contributors, while offering the same kind of invaluable exposure to the following Democratic politicians: _____, _____, _____, and _____ (assistance in filling in the blanks is requested). JamesMLane t c 14:37, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Willkie -- the Democrat, of course! 2 out of a hundred or so possibles over 25 election cycles? So "unusual" is still inapt. Meanwhile Pawlenty, generally listed as a possible, is not a Fox commentator. Nor is Romney. Figuring out Dems is tough because no one announces against an incumbent this early at all - thus making the implicit question impossible to answer. Fox does, however, regularly have Dems on the air, to be sure. Just not "presidential hopefuls" because that, currently, is a null set. Collect (talk) 14:57, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Fox has politicians of both parties as occasional guests. The issue is having politicians as regular paid contributors. During the Bush administration, there were plenty of prospective Democratic presidential candidates; I'm not aware that any of them were hired as regular FNC contributors. Furthermore, even though, as you state, the Democrats currently have no presidential hopefuls who are situated similarly to Gingrich-Huckabee-Palin-Santorum, they do have former elected officials. (Note that CNN has picked up Eliot Spitzer.) Fox's roster of former-electeds-turned-contributors appears to be "balanced" as four Republicans and zero Democrats. This information is certainly relevant (although, of course, without my snarky reference to the "fair and balanced" slogan). JamesMLane t c 15:43, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

What is probably most notable is the number of possible candidates that do not currently hold office. If you don't hold office, you have to do something to keep your name in the news. In the 2008 election, all of the major Democratic candidates were senators and therefore unable to hold paid outside positions. I can't think of a single major candidate from either side that wasn't a govenor, senator, or representative in 2008. In 2010 you probably won't have any Democratic candidates to worry about besides Obama, and the only other possible challengers to Obama are already serving or working for him, so the "balance" in relation to the 2010 election is not relevant. Arzel (talk) 15:55, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

The source is Politico, not Krugman

The attacks on the Krugman column as opinion, and therefore irrelevant, are completely misguided. Krugman wasn't offering an opinion; he was stating an objective fact, and then offering opinions about it. If the Krugman column were all we had, it would be adequate sourcing for the underlying fact.

But, of course, the Krugman column isn't all we have. Krugman expressly credited his source, Politico (whose President and CEO, incidentally, is a former assistant to that well-known Bolshevik, Ronald Reagan). Let's focus on this article in Politico, which establishes the fact -- Palin, Huckabee, Gingrich, and Santorum are all prospective Republican candidates and are all on the Fox News payroll. The article goes on to point out some of the issues raised as a result. Of greatest relevant to our article is that Fox is providing four right-wingers with "a lucrative and powerful pulpit". Politico states:

Their Fox jobs allow these politicians an opportunity to send conservative activists a mostly unfiltered message in what is almost always a friendly environment. Fox opinion hosts typically invite the Republicans simply to offer their views on issues of the day, rather than press them to defend their rhetoric or records as leaders of the party.

In addition to what the situation says about FNC's overall right-wing bias (Krugman: "Fox News seems to have decided that it no longer needs to maintain even the pretense of being nonpartisan"), the Politico article refers to the issues of the disadvantaging of other Republican candidates and the problem of Fox News reporters who must cover their co-employees.

This is an unprecedented situation that certainly deserves mention. JamesMLane t c 14:29, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I'd say that's probably notable for a 2012 election article, too. Kevin Baas 14:33, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I would have to say that I'm on the fence, as it appears that the story received scant coverage outside of the Paul Krugman column. Soxwon (talk) 14:40, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

google news search for "fox news contributors" (quoted search) notice the first link with 15 news items Kevin Baas 14:48, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Isn't this mostly a WP:CRYSTAL situation? Arzel (talk) 14:40, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

How so? Kevin Baas 14:45, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Because it is making an assumption about who the major 2012 GOP field will be. According to the 2012 election page there are a number of listed potential candidates that are not included in this opinion piece. Furthermore, this is something that cannot even be verified because there is no way to verify that it is actualy true. If in a few months when people actually start to declare their bid it turns out to be true then it will probably be a topic of discussion and possibly worth inclusion. Right now it is opinion and not really that notable. Arzel (talk) 14:49, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

It is not making any assumption. The information can be verified easily, just by looking at the 2012 election page that you mentioned. (in almost the same sentence in which you said it couldn't!) And as was already mentioned, it's not an opinion on whether the potential gop candidates are all paid contributors to fox news, it's an objective fact. Kevin Baas 14:53, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

All? Romney? Pawlenty? Seems that all < all substantially. Collect (talk) 14:59, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm loathe to say it, but I agree with Arzel re WP:CRYSTAL. NickCT (talk) 15:00, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

All those candidates on the 2012 election page are sourced by at least two reliable sources. that leaves, however, the adjective "major", and its narrower scope, left unaccounted for. yet looking at the five claimed major ones, esp. in relation to the others, i don't think you'll find much disagreement, esp. among pundits. so it probably wont' be too difficult to find sources for that. Kevin Baas 15:07, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately the 2012 election cycle is already ramping up -- it only seems subdued because of midterm election season now, and candidates don't wait as long as they used to -- so WP:Crystal is moot. I agree with James says, this should be incorporated into the article. -PrBeacon (talk) 00:28, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

• I can't think of Republican who has announced their candidacy at this point. Was there someone I am unaware of? If not, it's a bunch of speculation and WP:CRYSTAL looks like it could apply. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:28, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

editor tracking others

PrBeacon has made a list of those who oppose him ("campers, FNC defenders")in this article and on Fox News Channel controversies, and expressed a desire to have those people subject to CheckUser. Drrll (talk) 14:10, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

WP:ATTACK allows tagging of "attack pages" for deletion. Collect (talk) 14:17, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Ok this is getting ridiculous. Wikiscanner exists for a reason people. Instead of trying to peg people who disagree with you as Fox News channel employees PrBeacon, you might wish to consider that they simply keep Fox News Channel on their watchlist. Soxwon (talk) 14:20, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

• Actually, I'm thinking of a BLP violation. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:31, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Hey, an "enemies list"!! How COOL is that!! Badmintonhist (talk) 16:13, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Look, the usual suspects think they're circling the wagons. For the record the list has been removed, but only because an uninvolved editor asked me nicely. I don't think the above accusations would stand up to peer review, especially the notion of characterizing it as an 'attack page.' -PrBeacon (talk) 17:18, 6 October 2010 (UTC) revised

• only because an uninvolved editor asked me nicely...The admin first said "You should take this as a warning, you can't leave this content in your userspace" then when it was moved to a similar page it became "I've deleted it as an attack page". Niteshift36 (talk) 23:22, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

^Wrong again- Are you intentionally mixing things up or just confused? This is the request to remove it: . And that was one admin's opinion, I disagreed and said I'm simply commenting on the users' behavior as editors, not on the editors' personal issues. The 'warning' you refer to was for calling you a troll in a previous thread, since you bring it up. By the way, your earlier remark about a 'BLP violation' might be amusing if you didn't take yourself so seriously. -PrBeacon (talk) 00:12, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

• Re-write history however you like. Even go back and strike through another editors comments like you've done. It's in the history my friend. anyone who wants can see I quoted accurately. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:24, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Nope, you only quoted the second part accurately but that still doesn't make you right, especially since you're mixing things up. You're welcome to argue that you think it was an attack, but above you're simply misrepresenting what actually happened. The only deleted a blank page, not an attack page -- as i said there, only the potential.. If you're going to argue semantics and picky details, make sure the history backs you up, because it doesn't here.

Anyone can go see it in the history. I selected the appropriate quotes. I quoted accurately and in the correct order. Done here my friend. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:40, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Assuming anyone else still cares by this point, which i doubt, you repeating youself doesn't make you any more right. Now it appears that you're intentionally lying about the facts: there was no official warning about the so-called 'attack page' and your attempts to refactor it are borderline pathological. -PrBeacon (talk) 03:04, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

• No official warning? Ok, whatever. There doesn't have to be a template or something to be "an official warning". You might want to consider re-wording your last response. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:19, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

WP:DUCK. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:11, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I dont know why you needed that hitlist when someone else is already gathering data on editors actions.. User:Viriditas/Fox News Channel reverts and disruption BritishWatcher (talk) 20:17, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Loosely tossing around terms like 'hit list,' 'enemies list' and 'stalking' shouldn't go unchecked, you guys are being overly dramatic. And I've changed this section's title because it's inappropriate, as the whole section may be. -PrBeacon (talk) 00:37, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

As I am not "pro FNC" , I find the new title offensive. Collect (talk) 00:45, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough, I've changed it again. I've asked the earlier admin to weigh in on the section's appropriateness to this talkpage. -PrBeacon (talk) 00:51, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

1. "The Ten Most Egregious Fox News Distortions". The Huffington Post. Retrieved 2010-05-04.
2. D.C.P. (November 11, 2009). "Hannity video switch-up is only the tip of Fox News' video-doctoring iceberg". Media Matters for America. Retrieved May 12, 2010.
3. Simon Maloy (December 8, 2009). "Fox News fiddles with climate change polling". Media Matters for America. Retrieved May 12, 2010.
4. ^ http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/20091119/ts_ynews/ynews_ts988
5. FoxNews (19 November 2009). "For That We Apologize". Fox News. Retrieved 21 November 2009.

• All unassessed articles
• C-Class Journalism articles
• High-importance Journalism articles
• WikiProject Journalism articles
• C-Class Radio articles
• Low-importance Radio articles
• WikiProject Radio articles
• C-Class Media articles
• Mid-importance Media articles
• WikiProject Media articles
• C-Class television articles
• High-importance television articles
• WikiProject Television articles
• C-Class New York City articles
• Mid-importance New York City articles
• WikiProject New York City articles
• C-Class politics articles
• Low-importance politics articles
• WikiProject Politics articles
• Misplaced Pages controversial topics
• Misplaced Pages requests for comment