Talk:Fox News/Archive 29

Archive 25

←

Archive 27

Archive 28

Archive 29

Archive 30

Archive 31

→

Archive 35

Edit request from Thefoxfanatic, 8 October 2010

{{edit semi-protected}}

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed.--Talktome^(Intelati) 05:09, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia.[1] 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.[2] 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 Wikipedia, 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 Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia, 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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia, not the Fox News Channel. On Wikipedia, 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 Wikipedia, 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 Wikipedia, 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 Wikipedia, we do not need consensus to edit an article or expand a lead section per WP:LEAD". This refers to Wikipedia:Be bold. Your arguments against improving this article all boil down to WP:IDONTLIKEIT and reverting due to "no consensus", which is discouraged on Wikipedia. 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)

Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia: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 ^{(throw me a line)} 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 ^{(throw me a line)} 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)

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. [3]. 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 Wikipedia 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 [albeit delightful] 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 Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia, 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 Wikipedia. Please review Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia 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: "Wikipedia 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.[4] 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: [5] 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 Wikipedia. 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. Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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)

There seems to be only a few die hard Fox haters who want to keep the many observors in the lead. Since the footnotes are primarily Media Matters and Fair funded by left wing idelouges like George Soros who Fox exposed as a tax cheat, we can't take them seriously. for every media matters lie I can get an MRC counter point. What is the problem removing entirely?Unicorn76 (talk) 15:49, 9 October 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)

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 ([[6]]) 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^talk 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^talk 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 [7] Kevin Baas^talk 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^talk 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^talk 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^talk 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)

If it was about people who have announced their candidacy that would be a valid point, but it is not about people who have announced their candidacy. it is about people that are widely held to be considered "potential" candidates. e.g. by pundits and the like. it happens every election cycle. it does not follow that if people have not announced their candidacy saying that they are "potential candidates", as verified by numerous reliable sources, is "speculation". for an example, see the 2012 election articles and the sub-articles on "potential candidates". (which btw, might be a good place for this info.) Kevin Baas^talk 14:34, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

• "Widely held" based on sheer speculation and nothing really factual. But it still comes back to the grumblings of a person or two that didn't end up with widespread coverage and whether or not that rises to the level of being a significant enough issue to inclued. At this point, I'd say no. If it becomes a bigger issue, then perhaps. But at the present, I can't say it merits inclusion. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:53, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I do have to agree with that general sentiment, and also the election is still kinda far off. and somewhere on the election pages might be a better place for it, if like you said, it gets more coverage. Kevin Baas^talk 14:56, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

The criteria for inclusion is not necessarily whether the prospective candidates have announced. Names are listed at United States presidential election, 2012 and Republican Party (United States) presidential primaries, 2012 if they've been discussed in two or more reputable sources that are less than six months old. -PrBeacon (talk) 19:01, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

That is exactly why Krugman's claim means nothing. If you use his information about the 2010 field then it is WP:CYRSTAL if you don't use his information than he is substantially off the mark, because the field is far greater than what he is claiming. Arzel (talk) 19:11, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

We're not just talking about Krugman's opinion piece anymore. As James says above, the original source is Politico [8] a news outlet with conservative connections. They name the major candidates working for Fox News, all of which have been listed by other sources as potential candidates. In addition to the quote already mentioned above, there are other observations worthy of consideration for inclusion:

• "At issue are basic matters of political and journalistic fairness and propriety. With Fox effectively becoming the flagship network of the right and, more specifically, the tea party movement, the four Republicans it employs enjoy an unparalleled platform from which to speak directly to primary voters who will determine the party’s next nominee. ..."
• "Fox, in an e-mail to POLITICO, indicated that once any of the candidates declares for the presidency he or she will have to sever the deal with the network. But it’s such a lucrative and powerful pulpit that Palin, Gingrich, Santorum and Huckabee have every reason to delay formal announcements and stay on contract for as long as they can."
• "The idea of the four prospects — and especially the former Alaska governor — facing media questions only on a network that both pays them and offers limited scrutiny has already become a matter of frustration in the political and journalistic community — and not just among those the intensely competitive Fox is typically quick to dismiss as jealous rivals. ..."
• "What worries some in the political and media community, though, is that behind Palin’s incessant attacks on what she calls “the lamestream media” is a strategy to de-legitimize traditional news outlets so as to avoid ever facing any accountability beyond Fox."

-PrBeacon (talk) 05:37, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Bump. -PrBeacon (talk) 05:28, 2 November 2010 (UTC)