Talk:Fox News/Archive 31

Archive 25

←

Archive 29

Archive 30

Archive 31

Archive 32

Archive 33

→

Archive 35

Logo

200px|left 200px|right What is the deal with the logo? There have been lots of changes and reverts and reverts back (myself included). To me it is pretty clear the one on the right looks better than the one on the left. I am pretty sure I have seen the one on the right used on the television station, but the one on the left seems to be the one currently on their website. Thoughts? –CWenger (talk) 00:09, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I have to agree, that's why I create the picture to enhance the image of wikipedia. As for a refernce it's right here Thanx for your support CWenger (talk) Keep WP honestJetijonez (talk) 17:42, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, because it's on a third-party website is HAS to be true! It doesn't look like the one on the website, which is alot cleaner, and while the On-screen version(I have the channel in my line-up) has the same 3D effect as the blue section of Jetijonez' version, the red part that says "channel" is completely 2D, as in the other version which I reverted to. Fry1989 (talk) 00:02, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

We shouldn't be creating our own facts or images that make things look better. I recommend switching back to the official logo that they themselves use in online media such as this. 98.246.191.164 (talk) 10:34, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Source The roots of Roger Ailes' idea

"the market that Fox News sought to corner when it was launched in 1996, its "fair and balanced" slogan calibrated perfectly to resonate with conservatives who believed Rather and his cronies were anything but that.... in building Fox News, Ailes has created the opposite anchor-guest dynamic, essentially establishing his network as a safe haven for conservative politicians from the mainstream media and its pesky, biased questions."

• The roots of Fox News - The anniversary of a famous on-air showdown reminds us what Roger Ailes' big idea sprang from , salon.com, Jan 26, 2011. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.145.3.213 (talk) 09:10, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Competition

This seems to be partly a joke. Instead of CNN and MSNBC, which Fox News competes most directly with, there is a list of international broadcasters. Fox News may be fairly said to compete with some of these channels internationally, but Nile TV? That's the state-run domestic channel in Egypt accused of blatant government propaganda. That may reflect how some feel about Fox News, but it's not appropriate for a NPOV encyclopedia, since Nile TV is not even intended for an international audience. We might as well list every domestic news channel on the planet. 98.246.191.164 (talk) 10:41, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I would agree, some like SKY are actual owned by NewsCorp and cannot be called competition. I am going to make a WP:BOLD edit. Arzel (talk) 16:42, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Canthandlethetooth, 24 January 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} Please update the Ratings and Reception section. It currently reads: "In January 2010, Public Policy Polling reported that Fox News was the most trusted television news channel in the country with 49% of respondents stating they trust Fox News.[38][39]" The results of the same poll as of January 2011 say Fox News is the LEAST trusted news channel, see link: http://www.cjr.org/campaign_desk/new_survey_says_fox_least_trus.php Thanks! Canthandlethetooth (talk) 08:35, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Here is the 2011 survey from PPP: http://publicpolicypolling.blogspot.com/2011/01/our-second-annual-tv-news-trust-poll.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.133.142.94 (talk) 01:15, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Not done: This has been discussed in the past (e.g. here). -Atmoz (talk) 15:37, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

International transmission

Is it really necessary to list every country's cable/satellite providers that provide FNC? Looks cluttering.

Senior Trend (talk) 22:55, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I dunno. Is this what's done for internationally broadcast channels? NickCT (talk) 19:08, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

ESPN, CNN, and CNN Headline News don't seem to have it, I think the map suffices Senior Trend (talk) 00:40, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Main Competitors?

Does anyone see the Wikipedia propriety or even a need for this unsourced, speculative and highly subjective list? IMHO, it should be deleted. JakeInJoisey (talk) 06:46, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

 Done: Agreed, I just deleted it. –CWenger (talk) 02:06, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

New slogan?

Does this count [1]?

The Most Trusted Name in News Senior Trend (talk) 21:20, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Controversy in intro

Hi, I have done a WP:BOLD edit to make it sound a lot more readable

Some critics have claimed that Fox News Channel promotes conservative political positions.[5] Fox News Channel says that its political commentary and news reporting operate independently of each other and denies any bias in its news reporting.[6]

Senior Trend (talk) 03:41, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Would "some critics" be a weasel word? The reference provided seems kinda weak since its a blog about OJs book that accuses Fox news in a paragraph as being biased. If you know of a stronger reference that would be great. Im still new at this so if im wrong, my bad. Thanks. Jason 09:27, 28 May 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougy05050 (talk • contribs)

Paragrapgh is out of place

"Some critics[who?] have asserted that Fox News Channel promotes conservative political positions.[5] Commentators, news anchors, and reporters at Fox News Channel respond that news reporting and political commentary operate independently of each other, and deny any bias in the news reporting."

Not to be a stickler but this critic section is out of place and needs to be moved to the critic section of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dunnbrian9 (talk • contribs) 04:09, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

News article, Fox: The Liars' Network

This should be added to controversies or some section.

Eric Alterman, of The Nation magazine, has documented lies promulgated about Democrats on the Fox network including false and misleading stories put forward by Bill Sammon. see: Fox: The Liars' Network by Eric Alterman April, 2011 76.239.25.186 (talk) 05:22, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

No, it shouldn't be. We should not take every single blog and article about any news organization and put it in a wikipedia article. Especially not when it is clear the article is biased - it says "The Liberal Media" above it and it is clear that the article writer has some personal vendetta against the organization. The answer is no, one should not go around the internet trying to find any bit or piece of information that attempts to say "Fox lies" simply because they don't like the organization.YouMakeMeFeel: (talk) 19:41, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the first user: This article is relevant and should be added to the encylopedic article. As for "YouMakeMeFeel"... "the answer is no".. you are not the authority or some arbitrator on such issues which require consensus and thorough discussion. Who the hell do you think you are ... by saying "the answer is no" as if you are the final authority and as if you are some significant person or as if you hold any decision-making weight, like the final decision is yours to make or something?? The name of the author does not mean anything. It is the context. The article offers credible reasoning and sources for its content. Calling oneself "conservative" or any other label does not mean you actually ARE... it is the actual content that actually counts. 70.26.8.87 (talk) 14:02, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

• Saying no doesn't mean someone is "the final authority" blah, blah, blah. Get over yourself already. I agree that a clearly biased piece with a lot of opinion in it isn't the best source we can use. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:25, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

• • Disagree this is an Encyclopedia, not an opinion website. Jetijonez (talk) 18:15, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

@YouMakeMeFeel: The point of the Alterman's article is exactly the opposite of of what you are trying to imply here. It is not about disliking Fox (for being conservative or whatever reason), but that fox somewhat systematically distorts facts. Also it in an article in The Nation and not some arbitrary blog or opinion on the internet.

Alterman clearly dislikes Fox, however I c no reason to doubt the actual issues. Is anybody claiming that Fox did not report faöse figures in the Gore story? Is anybody claiming the quotes of and his taped statements are not true? Those the thing this article could be cited for. Having said that this article is probably not the best place to integrate that information but Fox News Channel controversies might be better and Bill Sammon is discussed there already. The article here is to provide a general overview of Fox as a whole (all its aspects) and not details on any controversy it might have caused.--Kmhkmh (talk) 18:51, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

The REAL liars are:

msnbc cnn npr washington post cbs abc nbc etc etc etc — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daniel the duck (talk • contribs) 01:06, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Indeed in the world according to Fox, however this WP.--Kmhkmh (talk) 02:17, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

For an article to be neutral sources such as the "Nation" can not be used. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dunnbrian9 (talk • contribs) 04:11, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

there is no neutrality requirement for sources, there are requirements regarding reputation and accuracy.--Kmhkmh (talk) 06:47, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Crj84, 25 June 2011

Crj84 (talk) 00:37, 25 June 2011 (UTC) I believe the following text should be added under the "assertions of conservative bias" subsection of Criticism and Controversies.

In a June 19 2011 broadcast of Fox News Sunday, Chris Wallace stated that fox news is the counterweight to msnbc, they have a liberal agenda and we tell the other side of the story.

This comment may be found here http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/fox-news-sunday/index.html#/v/1007046245001/exclusive-jon-stewart-on-fox-news-sunday/?playlist_id=86913 at 4:12

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — Abhishek ^{Talk to me} 03:54, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

"other side of the story", in this context, is the non-liberal agenda side. That doesn't mean a conservative bias. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:16, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Marking as answered and Not done for now: until a RS can be found Jnorton7558 (talk) 09:29, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Fox News spokeswoman 2008: there's no truth to the claim that the network has the capability to snoop through phone records. A disgruntled ex-employee had made the claimof black ops room

• Fox News Knocks Down 'Brain Room' Claim, Jan 10 2008.--91.39.113.101 (talk) 08:50, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

FNC logo

As debated in earlier discussions on this talk, a consensus was reached by other editors in regards to the FNC Logo to be used. Now Packerfan386 (talk) has taken upon himself to change out the current FNC Logo with inaccurate image, and states and I quote "uses not some derivative from a anti-fox news site. plus the .svg is beyond hideous" as he has said in his edit commentary. This not only displays incivility on this editors work, but also shows unsubstantiated claim that the image has no references. Unfortunetly Packerfan386 (talk) has missed out on one the small detail (of his uploaded image) that the references from http://www.foxnews.com in its Logo, is just that; FOX NEWS dot COM for the website. I can't find anywhere in the TV news cast a logo with dot com in there. This is not only an untrue representation of the television program image, it also undetermines the accuracy of this article Jetijonez (talk) 06:27, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I applaud you taking this to the talkpage, and you are right, the previous image was the result of consensus. That said, and I don't mean to belittle the situation, but given the fact that both images appear to be accurate (one is more stylized than the other, they both look fine to me) this doesn't seem to be a very big issue, given some of the other disputes that have occured on this article. Personally, I kind of like the one you support, but I don't care enough to make an issue out of it. If you feel really strongly about this then you do have policy on your side, but as far as getting my ire up I'm afraid my kneejerk reaction is to say "Meh" and move along. SeanNovack (talk) 12:31, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I think Sean is right—both logos are acceptable. You can see Packerfan386's logo (File:Fnc logo.png) used here, or you could turn on FNC or pull up a clip on YouTube and see Jetijonez's logo (File:Fox News Channel.svg). Since this is an article about the channel, I give a slight edge to the logo used on the channel as opposed to its website. Also, I have to say Jetijonez's logo is quite a bit more aesthetically pleasing. –CWenger (^ • @) 17:10, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Though the original is appropriate take the fact the article is about the news station mostly; I am fairly sure I have seen a varaint on the .com logo on TV the normal logo on TV shows on Fox News during shows the bottom rotates to show different time zones I also believe it will occasionally show .com at the bottom to advetise their website. Though technically the more appropriate logo is the origianl one not the .com one.Supereditor8000 (talk) 03:58, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Fox News biast againt 2012 Republican Presidential candidate Ron Paul

This morning Fox News announced who the establishment’s three leading 2012 GOP candidates are in light of last week’s Republican debate and straw poll in Ames, Iowa.

Fox News’s top three are: 1. Michele Bachmann, who won the straw poll by as little as 0.91% or 152 votes, 2. Mitt Romney, who did not even compete in the straw poll, and 3. Rick Perry, who participated neither in the debate or the straw poll.

No mention was made of Ron Paul, who overwhelmingly won the debate (even according to Fox News’s own post-debate poll) and scored a close second at the straw poll with 4,671 votes, except to lump him in with Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum and Herman Cain as an also-ran.

http://www.ronpaul.com/2011-08-15/the-mainstream-medias-leading-gop-candidates/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.169.96.46 (talk) 09:20, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

That is an interesting aspect, but we would need a 3rd party source for that. Moreover it is a detail that belongs into the controvery article rather than here.--Kmhkmh (talk) 10:09, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Fox news as the product of Nixon's response to anti-Nixon administration news coverage?

• I've just stumbled on one of Gawker's articles entitled Roger Ailes’ Secret Nixon-Era Blueprint for Fox News, where it presents documents from the Richard Nixon Presidential Library that depict a ploy «by Ailes and other Nixon aides to circumvent the "prejudices of network news" and deliver "pro-administration" stories to heartland television viewers». This being true should be referred in the article. Any thoughts? -- Mecanismo | Talk 22:55, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

This sounds quite interessting!--91.39.113.101 (talk) 08:50, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Demographic

Can someone please change "in the age 25–54 demographic" to "in the 25-54 age range", or similar? The use of the modish word "demographic" is fatuous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.131.48.230 (talk) 16:58, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Uhh, im pretty sure "demographic" is a standard term for the media industry. I'm surprised someone throwing around "modish" and "fatuous" would be perturbed by "demographic" Jairuscobb (talk) 21:14, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Fox News in Canada

The section under Canada is misleading and false. Fox News is banned in Canada because of a Canadian regulation that bans the broadcast of false or misleading news. And no I'm not making that up. Fox News attorneys even admitted that the First Amendment gives them the right to lie or deliberately distort news reports on the public airwaves in the USA. However, Canada's Radio Act requires that "a licenser may not broadcast....any false or misleading news." Here are some sources:

http://mwcnews.net/focus/politics/9037-fox-news-lies-keep-them-out-of-canada.html http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/276-74/5123-fox-news-lies-keep-them-out-of-canada http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-f-kennedy-jr/fox-news-will-not-be-moving-into-canada-after-all_b_829473.html http://current.com/community/93039146_canada-rejects-fox-style-news.htm http://www.care2.com/causes/crtc-refuses-to-allow-false-news-on-canadian-airwaves.html Galraedia (talk) 20:33, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Those are highly opinionated and biased sources and they don't quite back the argument you are trying to make. From the reading, FNC is not baned, only broadcasting of false or misleading news. By that definition you are trying to use none of the news organizations in the US would be allowed to broadcast in Canada as they have all at one time or another broadcasted something that was false or misleading news. Furthermore, the most reliable of the sources (care2) actually says that SUN will be moving into Canada. It is ironic that you would present misleading opinion to state that FNC is banned from Canada. Arzel (talk) 23:44, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Highly opinionated and bias? Are you freaking kidding me? Fox News and Fox News TV style channels are banned from broadcasting on the airwaves in Canada. Here: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/crtc-ditches-bid-to-allow-fake-news/article1921489/ Galraedia (talk) 00:53, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Please, spare me the hyperbole. Yes, a bunch of left wing sites are making that claim, but that is not what the law says. There is no law that says "Fox News is banned from Canada", only that law that says you can't broadcast false or misleading news. but even Canada hasn't become China in it's control of information. Arzel (talk) 03:45, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Arzel, there is no left or right in wikipedia, only the truth. Fox News is banned from broadcast in Canada because officials in that country see it as "false or misleading news". Whether or not that is true is irrelevant because it doesn't change Canada's reason for not allowing it on the airwaves. I'm not saying Fox News is "misleading or false", I am saying that Canada's reason for not allowing it on the airwaves is because they consider it to be in violation of a law that prohibits the dissemination of false or misleading news in their country. The fact that you would accuse these sites of being "left-wing" brings into question your own bias. Just because something isn't suger-coated the way you want it to be doesn't make it any less true. Galraedia (talk) 21:04, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Some editors may find it fortunate that CRTC rules don't apply at Wikipedia; the assertion that "Fox News is banned from broadcast in Canada" is verifiably a falsehood:

• http://www.myaccess.ca/Home/Communities/AC3/AtHome/TV/ChannelLineup/ViewOurLineup/tabid/2485/ABZone/AC3AHA/Default.aspx
• http://www.bellsrdu.ca/en/sales_channel_lp.php
• http://www.cogeco.ca/web/on/en/residential/tv/tv_channels.php?cat=F
• http://www.eastlink.ca/CableDigitalTV/DigitalChannels/InformationPackage.aspx
• http://www.mts.ca/mts/personal/winnipeg/mts+ultimate+tv+service/channel+packages+and+pricing/find+a+channel
• http://www.rogers.com/web/Rogers.portal?_nfpb=true&_pageLabel=PTV_PROG_CHANNEL&forwardTo=themePack&group=1&N=125+12+4294967120+4294949452+4294949430
• http://www.sasktel.com/personal/max-entertainment-services/max-channels.html?Link=LOBMaxChannels&campaign=Home#knowledgeplus
• http://www.shaw.ca/Television/Channel-Listings/
• http://www.lyngsat.com/packages/shawf1.html
• http://www.telus.com/content/tv/common/pdf/TELUS_TV_channel_guide.pdf

Fat&Happy (talk) 18:29, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Let's be honest

I think the statement would be a lot more accurate if it read: "Some critics have asserted that Fox News Channel promotes exclusively conservative political positions."

It should also really be noted that Chris Wallace claims that Fox News is a deliberate counterbalance to perceived bias in the "liberal media", as can be seen in his interview with Jon Stewart on Fox News Sunday here.

• Counterbalance to liberal bias doesn't mean you have to be promoting a POV. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:58, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Readers can figure these things out themselves. btw, there are Fox affiliate TV stations, in addition to cable Fox News Channel. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 21:56, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Masonic hoax

The network gave more favorable coverage to Barack Obama in 2008 than to John McCain during the election and the Obama administration shields them from U.K.-style investigation. They should be added to List of Masonic hoaxes.

The Light Burns (talk) 17:50, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

No source that there was a UK-style investigation proposed by a non-kook. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:27, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Or that Fox is Masonic. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:29, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

In the first sentence of this section, the red text indicates that "the page does not exist". Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 02:20, 31 December 2011 (UTC) . . . I.e., The page linking FoxNews "does not exist".

• The article was speedy deleted as a hoax. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:02, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

FDU poll - NPOV DISPUTE

Some seem to think that a poll conducted Fairleigh Dickinson University that claims FNC viewers are less informed about world affairs. Others feel it is a coatrack. I see one problem with the lack of demonstrated relevance. First, why does the poll even matter? I see no coverage of the poll by reliable third parties that would indicate the poll was notable or significant. All I see if a press release being used. Second, why do we need another poll that makes that kind of claim? The article already contains that sort of info. Adding yet another one starts looking like an WP:UNDUE issue. The admin who is edit warring over it says he is willing to discuss it. We'll see if there is discussion or something else. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:10, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

There have been hundreds of thusands of polls on many subjects - absent any reason to believe that they hold particular significance, my opinion is that they do not belong on Wikipedia. In short - right. Collect (talk) 15:27, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

As far as the coverage is concerned, the poll was covered but various (mainstream) new outlets. As far as the "poll depository" is concerned, yes there are ton's off polls and surveys on ton's of subject, but imho that's not really an argument for anything. What matters is whether the poll has something to do with or to say about the article's subject and whether it was covered media and stems from reliable/reputable sources. You can argue that both is the case here.

However because something can be mentioned in an article (as far as policies/guidelines and encyclopedic interest are concerned) doesn't mean it must be mentioned. In particular since the FDU poll/study is also mentioned in Fox News Channel controversies which is linked here, you might argue there is no real need to mention this particular poll/study in here explicitly as well. This might be also an option for compromise between conflicting views here, i.e. it will be contained in a Fox related article and can be looked up in WP, but it won't be contained in the main article (=this one).--Kmhkmh (talk) 16:12, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

• It certainly appears more fitting to the other article than this one. Insisting that the same poll doesn't appear to have gained much attention be spammed into multi articles doesn't look terribly neutral. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:24, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I see no "spamming" here. Aas I pointed out above. the poll is clearly related to the article's subject and was carried by various news outlets (see for instance [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7]). So I'm not quite sure what you mean by on "insisting not having gained much attention", i. e. what degree of attention do you think is is required. Obviously the lack of knowledge of fox viewers (or more general partisian media) is hardly a page 1 news item in the general news to begin with (like much of our encyclopedic content actually).

However as I said above if the supporters of the content in question can live with it being only mentioned in the Fox News Channel controversies, then that looks like a reasonable compromise to me to resolve the editing conflicht.--Kmhkmh (talk) 20:54, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

• I'm not going to debate the use of the word spamming. I used it. I don't apologize for it. So some other outlets talked about it. Most of the talk was in the blogosphere. Regardless, there is nothing that makes this poll any more notable than the gazillion other polls that come out every year and this one doesn't really contribute anything the existing ones don't already address. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:42, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Again the notability of the poll (as its own subject among of a gazillion of polls) doesn't matter and hence the argument above about the notability doesn't make sense. You could equally argue that we should not cite a newspaper article, a book or an academic paper on fox (or actually any other subject), because there are a gazillion newspaper articles, book and papers out there. Or ultimately even why using any source at all, since it is not notable anyway as there are a gazillion sources out there. I hope this clearly illustrates how nonsensical this argument is.

We are not discussing an article about the poll itself (which wouldn't be notable indeed), but we talking about sources and content for an article on Fox. What matters is the relation of the poll to the article's subject (and no, there's no gazillion of university polls that deal with fox news). Also the news outlets I gave examples above are not part of the blogosphere, that the poll is discussed in the blogosphere as well is completely different matter and hardly an argument against inclusion.--Kmhkmh (talk) 00:19, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

• Actually, the notability of the poll does have bearing. Let's be realistic for a second. If Podunk Community College conducted a poll of 40 freshmen about who they think the VP nominee will be in 2012, how notable is that really? They are as reliable as any school, but is the poll important enough for much outside of the statistics class at Podunk CC? As for the rest......I'm too tired to deal with the rest of your "reasoning". I still haven't heard anyone argue for including it. Debating why it shouldn't be excluded is pointless if the consensus is that it shouldn't be included. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:52, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

From Mediaite...rather sums this up nicely...

The study is being heralded by the usual suspects as proof that Fox News many foibles (like this map of the Middle East, screencap via) is actually more damaging to all Americans than not watching any news at all. Of course, most of these are ignoring the fact that of this extremely select group, the MSNBC viewers were entirely confused about Occupy Wall Street for some reason– and, of course, are ignoring the fact that said foibles are natural in the television industry (and in print, and in talk radio), and forgivable if kept to a minimum.

And, more importantly, they ignore at their peril the questionable academic work that went into this study, and the questionable language used by the professors that may be a red flag as to how much they are exaggerating the importance of their work.

JakeInJoisey (talk) 06:37, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Now I'm being told I can't revert his addition again, despite the fact that I count 4 editors saying it shouldn't be in the article. Others can revert it, but I can't. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:19, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Well though I personally prefer to go with suggested compromise to avoid another partisan edit war, I have to say Gamaliel isn't quite wrong either. It is true that some editors "agree" on not having it the FDU poll in there, but yet there several editors who want to see it in there as well. More importantly agreement is not substitute for a proper argument and I yet have to see one why, it can't be in the article. I've already explained above why your "argumanent" is invalid and in fact no argument at all and your last reply was still following that same scheme, hence I originally didn't even bother to answer that. Replacing the "gazillion of polls" by a arbitrary election season polls by some "college" is missing the mark in a similar fashion and is not at all related to the issue at hand.

You are right that Gamaliel (ideally) should discuss one the talk first rather than edit warring with you. On the other hand as long as you fail to produce to an argument of any merit, you may appear to him just as one of the "usual suspects" using the discussion for the purpose of partisan obstruction.--Kmhkmh (talk) 03:57, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

First, as to the charge of "spamming": I'm the one who added the FDU study (it's not properly called a poll) to the "Controversies" article. My opinion, expressed on the talk page there, is that the poll actually should be here in this main article. I knew, however, that similar studies had been improperly removed from this article. I didn't feel like investing the time to refight that battle, so I resigned myself to considering it yet another instance in which a few editors with enough persistence can bias Wikipedia. I'm guessing that, when Gamaliel added the information here, he didn't know it was in the daughter article. In short, nobody was spamming.

Second, as to the substance: The "Controversies" article now includes reports of several studies about FNC viewers' level of knowledge. I suggest that, per WP:SS, we could compromise by leaving the detailed study-by-study information there, but including in this article a summary along these lines: "Multiple studies have found that Fox News viewers are less well informed, but this conclusion has been disputed. See Fox News Channel controversies#Tests of knowledge of Fox viewers." This wouldn't be as good as giving more detail here, but it would be an alternative I could live with as being better than an edit war or protracted discussion. JamesMLane t c 04:38, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

• There was no "charge" of spamming. I used the word and then you and Kmhkmh got your panties in a bunch over it. Sheesh. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:43, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I used the word "charge" and then you got your panties in a bunch over it. Sheesh.

Now, that response on my part would of course be silly. I'd be pretending not to know that "charge" has a negative connotation. You imply that "spamming" has no negative connotation, as if you had innocently commented that my eyes are blue and I had inexplicably gotten all upset about it. If you didn't know before, know it now, that some people (many people, IMHO) would read your use of "spamming" as a criticism, a charge, even an attack, and would react accordingly. JamesMLane t c 08:22, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

• Actually, I never implied "spamming" doesn't have a negative connotation. Quite the opposite, it DOES have one. I don't deny it, nor do I apologize for using it. It is not, however, a "charge". If there were a "charge" (ie an actual policy complaint), I'd be addressing it in a far different manner. Surely you realize that I've been around here long enough to know where ANI is at, don't you? So maybe you should stop making (incorrect) guesses at what I'm implying. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:06, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

You're using "charge" in the narrow sense of "allegation of conduct that violates an explicit Wikipedia rule". I was the one who first used the term, and I used it in the broader sense of "allegation of conduct that is in some respect inappropriate or wrongful". You've now agreed that your statement did make such an allegation, so I hope we can end this digression. Our different understandings of the word "charge" aren't worth pursuing. JamesMLane t c 17:37, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

• If there were a "charge" (ie an actual policy complaint), I'd be addressing it in a far different manner. Beyond that, tell yourself whatever you want to make yourself feel better. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:21, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

This is non-peer reviewed, pseudo-academic, POV junk and has no place in either article. JakeInJoisey (talk) 05:02, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't require that citations be limited to peer-reviewed academic journals. In this very article, the vast majority of the citations are from sources that don't meet that mythical standard. The actual standard is reliability. In this instance, an established educational institution has conducted a study and published the results. That meets the tests of reliability (which doesn't mean infallibility) and of verifiability. As I've noted above, your personal opinion that the university's study is merely "pseudo-academic" is irrelevant. Find a prominent spokesperson who's expressed that opinion, preferably with some supporting evidence and argument, and we can include a report of the opinion, properly attributed. (Wikipedia does report facts about opinions.) You'll note that, with the other studies cited in the "Controversies" article, we report on the study and on the responses to it, including published criticisms.

Your desire to suppress this body of work completely, and omit it from Wikipedia entirely, is unlikely to fly. JamesMLane t c 09:25, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

The actual standard is reliability.

Indeed, it is.

Your desire to suppress this body of work completely, and omit it from Wikipedia entirely, is unlikely to fly.

On the contrary, I have every expectation that respect for this project via editorial judgement will prevail. We'll see. JakeInJoisey (talk) 14:24, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

That's a nice wikilawyering line here, while it is probably not completely off as nightshift's "gazillion of polls"-argument, it still misses it mark. While it is true is WP articles should use peer reviewed academic journals or that least give them a higher priority than other reliable sources, this nevertheless only applies to topics/content that generate enough academic interest, that there are per reviewed journal articles to begin with. If that's not the case WP articles can (and should) use other reliable sources, such as non peer reviewed academic publications (books, articles in non peer reviewed journals, newspaper exposes by academics, ..., and things like the FDU poll) or reputable investigative journalism pieces (books, newspapers, journals, documentaries).--Kmhkmh (talk) 12:38, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

• First, the "gazillion of polls" wasn't the freakin argument. Second, if you want to keep harping on it and being a general dick about an offhanded comment (that you are taking out of context), then at least have the common courtesy to get my name right when you continue beating the dead horse. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:43, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Well if you hadn't insist on variation of the same argument rarther then simply stating it was an offhand comment, then I would have had no reason for commenting on it any further. If you say it was offhand comment and not serious argument, that's fine with and no need to discuss it further. However I do have to wonder how you can ask for "common courtesy" (which I have no problem in extending to you) and in the same line calling me a "dick". Nevermind that complaining about a loss of "common courtesy" because a typo is already a bit peculiar to begin with.--Kmhkmh (talk) 22:44, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

• Yeah, when you keep taking it out of context and harping on the same crap over and over, that's being a dick, especially when you make condescending remarks like "friends of Fox". And that last line doesn't even make sense. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:48, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

First of all I made no "friends of fox" remark in this discussion (talking about quoting out of context). And second from my perspective it is rather friendly description for what you are pulling here. But perhaps I'm mistaken and it was all a string of offhand remarks, in that case please forgive me that I've considered taking you seriously. I'll try to it ion the future.--Kmhkmh (talk) 00:30, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

• Who said you made it in this discussion? You made it while you were canvassing "informing" another editor about the discussion. The fact that you made it elsewhere doesn't negate the condescending or dickish nature. The quote isn't taken out of context at all. As for what I am "pulling here", if you pay attention, you'll see that I wasn't the first editor to remove that survey, Jake was. I was the one who brought the discussion here. So, if opening up discussion is "pulling something", then I guess I'm guilty. I thought discussion was preferred. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:32, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that I suggested that you were the first, who removed the poll. In fact in this thread I wasn't referring to any particular removal by somebody, but hey ... . As far as the pulling is concerned, that referred primarily to pulling "offhand remarks" and the potential motivation behind it. As far as the "condescendind and dickish nature" ist concerned it always helps to consult the related WM essay : Don't_be_a_dick. I spare you the explicite quotes here though and in any case for me it is end of discussion here. It seems to focus solely on alleged personal issues rather the article and hence turns into a waste of time for me and others. In addition I probably should stick to what I've suggested on posting further up. --Kmhkmh (talk) 02:22, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

• Meta comment - I have reinstated the disputed content, will re-designate this section as disputed and will tag the relevant section as such. Interested parties are encouraged to refrain from further edit warring. JakeInJoisey (talk) 13:22, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Let me propose a hypothetical question: if a person does not know anything about jaundice, how come watching Fox News, or MSNBC for that matter, will make that person "'more ignorant"' about jaundice? This issue has got nothing to do with the obvious bias of either news channel. Rather it has to do with the indefensible title of a poll, which is being used as if it were true. I know WP is not the place to settle such discussions, but for credibility's sake, such statements, however well sourced, do not belong here. Some people think that god exists, and this has been widely reported. Does it mean that WP should become a platform for bible-lovers? Would that, well reported and all, be acceptable? I think not, and so, we should strive for objectivity.--Ianonne89 (talk) 13:32, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

With respect to the poll your premise is incorrect. You cannot make the assumption that the person knows nothing about jaundice beforehand nor that it might it acquire information about jaundice by other means (then watching common/mainstream news). He/she could look it up on WP even for instance. The only thing you can actually assume that this person is not watching news in particular no Fox or no MSNBC (on regular basis).--Kmhkmh (talk) 13:53, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

You say I can not make the assumption that the person knows nothing about jaundice. And yet, that is precisely what press release does, in the title: "Some News Leaves People Knowing Less." How did they know people know less? How can they possibly quantify whether or not people know less? Are there any questions, in the poll's methodology, that would suggest that people where asked whether they knew less or more as a consequence of watching a particular news source? However way you want to slice this, people can not be left knowing less. In any case, they may left as ignorant, but most certainly not knowing less. That is why I say that the premise of the poll, and how it has been used, is deeply misleading and, in fact, unsustainable. --Ianonne89 (talk) 14:09, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether it is really helpful to argue whether the title of the story could be misread, as far as WP is concerned the title doesn't really matter but the content. As far as the jaundice example is concerned the person might end up knowing less after starting to watch fox and getting his brain filled with nonsense, however I agree this isn't strictly what the study shows. It simply shows that knowing less in certain areas correlates statistically with being a fox user (even after being correcting for certain other variables). Now this finding in particular due the correction for other variables could suggest, that watching fox might dumb down people in certain, but it s far from establishing a real causal relationship. There could be other variables not being considered at the heart of the correlation and even if we accept the correlation not being due to uncontrolled hidden factors it is still just a correlation. Meaning you don't know whether fox makes people dumb or whether being dumb makes people watching fox, the latter might here be almost as reasonable as the former. So yes in that sense the title might be a bit polemic and misleading (which however is trick for selling information and not even a stranger to peer reviewed publications).--Kmhkmh (talk) 17:25, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

First of, I am somewhat sorry for having generated this debate. While I see clearly why the poll should not be included due to its impossible to sustain conclusions, flawed methodology, and misleading title, I can appreciate that others feel very strongly about it, in what can only be seen as a desperate attempt to make users of one channel look "dumber" than users of other channels. That's fine. However, WP is not just a random collection of information. As editors, we should, rather than "we must", seek to include information that's relevant, pertinent, and well sourced. In this light, does the poll meet that criteria? I don't think so. None of the questions in the poll lend to its conclusion, i.e. that FNC viewers remain even more ignorant about certain issues than, presumably, when they first started watching news in that channel. That is just a preposterous incongruity, that applies just as well to any of channels mentioned in the poll. NYT readers can not be more ignorant about Big Humpty upon reading the paper, than when did not, as a matter of custom, read the paper. But I won't insist anymore. Being a Brit, I thought I could bring some dispassionate views about this subject, but no such luck eh?--Ianonne89 (talk) 09:55, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Over and above WP:NPOV, let's ralk about WP:RS and whether a study based on such a limited poll can come to a universal conclusion with any degree of statistal accuracy. From the text of the "study" itself:

According to the latest results from Fairleigh Dickinson University’s PublicMind Poll, some news sources make us less likely to know what’s going on in the world. In the most recent study, the poll asked New Jerseyans about current events at home and abroad, and from what sources – if any – they get their information. The conclusion: Sunday morning news shows do the most to help people learn about current events, while some outlets, especially Fox News, lead people to be even less informed than those who say they don’t watch any news at all.

Among other topics, New Jerseyans were asked about the outcome of the uprisings in North Africa and the Middle East this past year. While 53% of New Jerseyans know that Egyptians were successful in overthrowing the government of Hosni Mubarak, 21% say that the uprisings were unsuccessful, and 26% admit they don’t know. Also, 48% know that the Syrian uprising has thus far been unsuccessful, while 36% say they don’t know, and 16% say the Syrians have already toppled their government.

But the real finding is that the results depend on what media sources people turn to for their news. For example, people who watch Fox News, the most popular of the 24-hour cable news networks, are 18-points less likely to know that Egyptians overthrew their government than those who watch no news at all (after controlling for other news sources, partisanship, education and other demographic factors). Fox News watchers are also 6-points less likely to know that Syrians have not yet overthrown their government than those who watch no news.

This study is targeting a particular demographic in a single (small) state and positing that because the poll results acquired in the poll (without giving the specifics of the poll itself) come out a certain way (after "adjustment") thet these results should apply nationally. This is obviously spurious and any attempt to put this forward as a reliable study that is coming from a neutral point of view seems to be ignorant at the very best, and blatant POV pushing at the very worst. Either way, there is no place in this article for this study. SeanNovack (talk) 14:53, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Where exactly does the study claim that the results apply nationally? The statistical adjustment concerns other standard factors influencing knowledge (and are known to to have a statistic correlation with knowledge) and jumping from NJ to national. The (formal) reliability depends on the reputataion of the FDU and its institute, which hardly one of the top ranking national universities but it's reputation seems to be solid nevertheless, certainly enough for appropriately conducting a fairly standardized poll--Kmhkmh (talk) 17:49, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

SeanNovack, you've demonstrated only that the study doesn't conclusively prove the comparative ignorance of every FNC viewer in the country. And if FDU somehow had asked these questions of every FNC viewer in the country, you could point out that just because they're less likely to know whether Hosni Mubarak is still in power in Egypt doesn't prove that they're less likely to know something about jaundice. You're applying a ridiculously rigid standard that isn't applied elsewhere in this article, elsewhere in Wikipedia, or elsewhere in real life.

Speaking of real life, my idea of Wikipedia "reliability" is that it means something along the lines of "the sort of evidence that reasonable people generally take into account in assessing a question of the type at hand". The reference to the type of question at hand recognizes the point made by Kmhkmh, that many subjects aren't addressed in peer-reviewed academic journals. Even when a subject is so addressed, people don't generally disregard all other sources of information.

No one has proposed that Wikipedia state that watching Fox News makes you more ignorant. Gamaliel's edit and my suggested compromise above are both careful in two respects. First, the statement is that FNC viewers are less well informed, not that the viewership caused the comparative ignorance. The fact of the comparative information levels is taken from the source. For Wikipedians to dispute causation is a straw-man argument unless and until someone wants the article to address causation. Second, even the statement about the comparative information levels isn't presented as a flat, unqualified fact ("FNC viewers know less than the average American"). Instead, in Gamaliel's edit and in my suggested compromise, it's stated to be the conclusion of one study or of several studies. My compromise also notes the existence of controversy on the point and directs the reader to the more detailed treatment elsewhere, which includes reports of opinions critical of the studies. The reader is given all the relevant information. Thus, instead of the Wikipedia geniuses suppressing the information on the basis of their decision that Fairleigh Dickinsion University got something wrong, our FNC content would follow the principle "We report, you decide." The difference is that we'd actually be doing it, not just paying lip service to a slogan. JamesMLane t c 18:48, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

January 2011: Anti-government protests in Egypt begin.

February 11, 2011: Mubarak resigns.

October 9, 2011:

A demonstration … touched off a night of violent protests against the military council ruling Egypt, leaving 24 people dead and more than 200 wounded in the worst spasm of violence since the ouster of President Mubarak. The protest … appeared to catch fire because it was aimed squarely at the military council, at a moment when the military’s delays in turning over power had led to a spike in public distrust of its authority. ("Egypt News — Revolution and Aftermath". The New York Times. November 29, 2011.)

October 17–23, 2011: FDU conducts a survey of New Jersey residents asking:

To the best of your knowledge, have the opposition groups protesting in Egypt been successful in bringing down the regime there?

November 21, 2011: In a press release announcing the survey, FDU characterizes a "no" answer to the above question as an indication of being poorly informed, implying that such an answer indicates ignorance of Mubarak's resignation eight months before.

November 25, 2011: According to The Daily Telegraph,

13.05 The new Egyptian prime minister Kamal al-Ganzuri, who served as prime minister for Hosni Mubarak, is a choice that will almost certainly intensify criticism by the tens of thousands of protesters accusing the generals of trying to extend the old guard and demanding they step down immediately.

After the announcement, crowds were chanting in Tahrir Square: 'Illegitimate, illegitimate!'.

One protester Mohammed el-Fayoumi, 29, said: 'Not only was he prime minister under Mubarak, but also part of the old regime for a total of 18 years. Why did we have a revolution then?'"

"Egypt protests and Arab Spring: November 25 as it happened". The DailyTelegraph. London. November 28, 2011.)

November 29, 2011: The New York Times says

…nine months later, as Egyptians began voting in the first parliamentary elections since Mr. Mubarak’s fall, the future of the revolution was anything but clear.

Initially, the military had been seen as the linchpin of the transition to a more democratic regime. It was the institution Islamists hoped would steer the country to early elections that they were poised to dominate. Liberals regarded it as a hedge against Islamist power. And the Obama administration considered it a partner that it hoped would help secure American interests.

But in the months that followed, growing numbers of secular Egyptians wondered if what had happened was a popular revolution or a military coup — whether they had traded one military regime for another… ("Egypt News — Revolution and Aftermath". The New York Times. November 29, 2011.)

Who's uninformed? Fat&Happy (talk) 21:27, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Well it a good idea to be careful here to get the facts straight. Referring to the newly installed Ganzuri is not a good idea, since you need to consider the situation at the time of the poll and maybe shortly before hand. In addition though Ganzuri was originally a mubarak man, he kinda switched sides later on. So the facts are he opposition groups did successfully bring down the government (as in the president and much of his cabinet) but it did not bring down the regime as in the old power structures in society (yet).

So I grant you that using the term regime instead of (or for) government does indeed create an ambiguity that can be seen as highly problematic. This is indeed a language faux pas. A better less ambiguous phrasing of the question would have been: To the best of your knowledge, have the opposition groups protesting in Egypt been successful in bringing down the goverment/president there?

Nevertheless given the genereal state of knowledge of the aveage US citizen (nevermindfox viewers) of foreign affairs and international geography (there have been various polls on that over the last 20 years all with similar results) it seems highly unlikely to assume that those no-sayers. were aware of the finer difference between regime and government (or the ambiguity in colloquial language) and of all the finer details of the regime/power structure in Egypt. In theory you could argue that a significant portion those no-sayers did indeed mean something like: No, the protesting opposition was not succesfull in bringing donw the regime, because although they've brought the government and governing party (NDP), they did not bring down the all the essential old power structures in particular the military council. But in reality imho you can pretty much exclude that secnario given the general context knowledge we have, so I say the misinformed are still almost all of the no-sayers (inluding all those fox viewers among them). You may however slap the pollsters for a rather sloppy use of language, but then again such language mishaps or ambiguities are unfortunately not that uncommon in polls, arbitrary questionnaires, test and exams. That is not to excuse them, but to be realistic about the occurrences and that such mishaps in a single question don't necessarily render them useless or invalid as a whole.--Kmhkmh (talk) 01:14, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps you should contact the editors of The Daily Telegraph and explain that they need to "be careful here to get the facts straight" in their articles, since their frequent use as a reliable source in Wikipedia means thousands of editors rely on their accuracy.

Saying, essentially, "since I think U.S. citizens (never mind Fox viewers) are ignorant, it's appropriate to assume that a response that accurately reflects the situation at the time of the question – protests against the government/regime in power still taking place, and that regime not ceding power – reflects a lack of knowledge of events that occurred eight month earlier, because those ignorant people couldn't really know what was happening", and using that to prove the respondents are in fact ignorant, seems just a bit circular.

Regardless of how the question was interpreted, the bottom line here is that using responses to one ambiguous question (differences between groups on the corresponding Syria question were mostly within the poll's overall margin of error, never mind the larger MOI for individual subgroups) in a single-state poll by a lesser-known university polling group to characterize viewers of a nationwide news channel is wildly undue weight. Fat&Happy (talk) 02:21, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Being careful referred to you and reading your comment in general. What I said above is no contradiction to what those news articles state, I just pointed out what you have to take into consideration when reading then (such as the date of the publication).

I did not suggest that "U.S. citizens (never mind Fox viewers) are ignorant" but I said that the average US citizen often lacks knowledge in the area of foreign politics in geography, which is more or less well known phenomenon (there plenty of essay and studies on that). Furthermore I outlined based on that how I would read the data on that somewhat botched poll question, i.e. what is the most likely scenario given the context knowledge we have. You could argue to simply disregard that particular question completely, but personally I'm not quite convinced that this is necessary.

As far as the "esser-known university polling group" is concerned, we can only use the polls we have on particular subject. So what matters here is only, whether that poll comes from university/institute that has a sufficient reputation. I surely would prefer a Harvard poll on fox, but alas so far there is none.

I'm not sure why that nationwide keeps creeping into the discussion here aside from maybe the "provoking" or polemic title, there is no extrapolation to the nation. It is a result about fox viewers in New Jersey.

After going over the study again, I agree however that the small amount of the questions in particular having only two for foreign affairs and one of them botched is indeed problematic and I agree that based on that drawing conclusions about foreign affairs knowledge is not reliable. So while I still strongly agree with reasons for the removal posted by others earlier, you actually have me convinced now that the study can't really be used to assess the knowledge of fox viewers in foreign affairs. Hence I withdraw my objections against the removal and I agree that in particular the current formulation (Fox News are less informed about "whats going on in the world") is clearly a no-go. If the study is used at all (a weak argument might still be made based on media coverage), then the wording would need to be very carefully crafted and there needs to be some information about the caveats. The easiest and probably best option is to drop the study after all.--Kmhkmh (talk) 03:22, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I see the Wikigeniuses are still at work. Their battle cry is: "We Wikipedia editors will analyze the professors' study, we'll forecast what conclusions a reader might draw from it, we'll assemble other evidence relevant to that conclusion, we'll synthesize it all, and then, applying our manifest genius, we'll decide what the correct conclusion is. Having decided that, we'll ruthlessly suppress any mention of any information that might be read as cutting against the position we've chosen to endorse."

That whole discussion is simply irrelevant and a violation of WP:SYNTH. To be blunt about it, nobody cares that JakeInJoisey and Fat&Happy think the FDU study puts Fox in an undeserved bad light. Nobody cares that Kmhkmh rejects the charge. Nobody even cares what JamesMLane thinks about Fox, although they at least know my real name. Jake and Fat, I've repeatedly pointed out to you that if your criticisms are articulated by a prominent spokesperson, then we can include a report of such criticism, attributed to that spokesperson. As for your own opinions on the subject, you're entitled to hold them but you're not entitled to ask that the article conform to them.

The reason not to get into a debate like this on the talk page is stated in Wikipedia:Verifiability: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true." The multiple studies about FNC viewers' level of knowledge have been conducted by reputable institutions, have been widely reported in the corporate media, and are relevant to the subject of this article. That's what's needed for inclusion.

I do agree with Fat&Happy on one point. Given that there've been multiple studies on this subject, it's undue weight to single out the FDU study and report only on it. That's why the text reporting all the studies and reporting the criticisms of them should be moved here from the "Controversies" article. JamesMLane t c 02:42, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Well WP editors can and should use editorial discretion. While they cannot simply second guess or overwrite what a reputable sources says, they can select however what sources they use and summarize and they do not simply summarize any verifiable source out there. If editors know that a certain formally reputable source, has real "objective" issues, then they can decide to drop it as a source. Editors are not supposed to integrate knowingly false or highly information as factual description into articles, "verifiability, not truth" is not to be understood in such a way. Or to put it this way, the included information should be verifiable and true.--Kmhkmh (talk) 03:36, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

You write, "If editors know that a certain formally reputable source, has real 'objective' issues...." That depends on what you mean by "formally reputable" here. FNC itself (frequently cited on Wikipedia as a source) is a good example. It meets the criteria that many Wikipedians seem to consider the gold standard of reliability: It's a mass medium run by a large for-profit corporation, which derives most of its revenue from selling advertising to other large for-profit corporations so they can sell people crap they don't need. Quite obviously it has objectivity issues, not to mention accuracy issues given its numerous and repeated mistakes, but there seems to be no serious questioning of its use as a source.

You also write, "Editors are not supposed to integrate knowingly false or highly information as factual description into articles...." Of course, "knowingly" is the tricky part. Different editors know different things, some of them being diametric opposites. One solution, where there's any contention, is to attribute the statement. For example, should Wikipedia say that FNC viewers are less well informed? I certainly don't know that to be false -- in fact, I think it's probably true. Nevertheless, there's no need for us to state it as fact when we can attribute it. We know, beyond any reasonable doubt, that the university published the report it did in which it came to that conclusion. We know the same about the other studies from other sources that have come to the same conclusion. So, we report that there are studies reaching this conclusion, a statement that is readily verifiable and that cannot in good faith be disputed. We also report that the studies have been criticized -- again, readily verifiable and not reasonably disputed.

Finally, you want to limit the content to what is verifiable and true. That's certainly an ideal, but the actual Wikipedia policy recognizes a practical limitation when it refers to "whether editors think it is true." See, that's all we know. The verifiability policy embodies the pragmatic recognition that a diverse group of editors will frequently disagree. The only way to achieve "verifiable and true" is to have a considerable shared view of truth. Go edit Conservapedia or dKosopedia if that's how you want to operate. The bickering on this talk page about details of political change in Egypt is just a drop in the ocean of the bickering we'd have on the talk pages of numerous controversial subjects if we tried to turn your formulation into policy. What we do, instead, is to report facts, to report facts about opinions, to document what we say, and to let each reader make up his or her own mind. We draw the line only where there really is a wide enough consensus about "truth" that we can enforce it. The people who deny that Fox News has a conservative bias are treated seriously, and quoted in the FNC article. The people who made charges about John Kerry's war record, making statements that contradicted Navy records and sometimes their own prior (pre-campaign) statements, are treated seriously, and an entire article is even devoted to their lies. On the other hand, the people who think the Earth is flat are not given a fair presentation in the article about the Earth.

One objective criterion we use is third-party coverage. In the case at hand we have multiple studies that have been widely reported in the mass media. That fact must play a role in our exercise of our editorial discretion.

If you think the Verifiability policy should be changed, you need to take it up on that policy's talk page, and seek community consensus for a change. My argument was based on the wording of the policy as it is now in effect. JamesMLane t c 07:21, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I follow the "verifiability but truth"-policy for years and have been involved in various meta discussion. So let reiterate again what I touch upon above. It means you cannot include something just because it is "true" but it needs to "verifiable" as well. Anything you want to include needs to verifiable (that's (first) threshold), but that doesn't mean that we blindly include anything that is verifiable. Verifiability is just the first (and maybe foremost) condition a piece of content has to meet. The next one is, that it should be accurate or "true" to the best knowledge of the WP editor. For example let's say I write some article about some math theorem and I have some standard textbook which is a reliable source on the field in general. If I know however due to my domain knowledge, other reliable external sources and maybe even a later published Errata, that its statement on that particular math theorem is not quite correct (due to typo, a sloppy formulation of conditions, ...), then I will not state the theorem in WP as given in the book although it is formally verifiable (=published in a reliable source). Instead I simply resort to another reliable source and drop the textbook silently.

Now as fas as the FDU poll and the article on Fox is concerned, you can make an imho (weak) argument that WP should simply report on all polls dealing with Fox that from a formally reliable somewhat reputable source as there are not too many anyway and it might be interesting to readers to have access to them all. But if you do so the description of the FDU poll needs to carefully accurate and stay away from obvious misinformation or misleading descriptions (otherwise WP would pull a Fox job) and as Fat&Happy has demonstrated the poll does not show what the current description in our article states. So to the very least that would need to be changed.

Editorial discretion (=not anything formally verifiable needs to be included) however gives you the option to simply drop the problematic source (similar to my math theorem scenario above). Rather than a potentially endless partisan wrangling about an accurate description of the problematic source, it might be indeed better (and certainly easier) to simply drop in this case. Now some might wanted to exclude the FDU poll for purely partisan reasons and at least some of the original arguments against it sounded pretty partisan to me at first glance, but Fat&Happy has raised a fair point that's simply beyond any partisanship and needs to be considered.

On that note it is also interesting to compare FDU against PIPA (Maryland university) which is used in the article as well. Some of PIPA's question might also have slight ambiguity problem iirc (as I mentioned before this is not uncommon and hard to get rid off completely), but they used 11 different question to assess misinformation of (fox) viewers rather than only 2 with one them being severely botched due to ambiguity and the other one having problems with producing a statistically significant difference.--Kmhkmh (talk) 13:49, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

On that note I find it curious that none of the study's detractors seem to have even noticed it's biggest legitimate weakness: the exceedingly small sample size of questions. It's not so much a study of how informed people are as a study of how well they can answer ONE very specific question! Such a disappointment. All the had to do is write a few more questions down on a sheet of paper, but failing to do so, they royally botched the entire study! (IMO) Kevin Baas^talk 14:02, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Indeed at a closer look this study is sorely disappointing. Unfortunately good really informative polling or surveys (large samples sizes, extensive questionnaires) are rather expensive and resource consuming, hence there is a constant temptation to take shortcuts. While some shortcuts might be acceptable FDU's attempt more or less ended up in disaster.--Kmhkmh (talk) 14:47, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I have reverted Sean Novak's recent edit. While substantively correct, it violates, IMHO, WP:OR. The "conclusion" of the study, as expressed in the press release, is as follows...

The conclusion: Sunday morning news shows do the most to help people learn about current events, while some outlets, especially Fox News, lead people to be even less informed than those who say they don’t watch any news at all.

It is, IMHO, trash innuendo...but that is the citation used in support of the existing language...which is, unfortunately, accurate. JakeInJoisey (talk) 15:00, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

The first paragraph clearly states the questions were asked of people from NJ and this is repeated several times within the text. I see no ambiguity whatsoever. It is clearly not OR to state this since it is clearly stated within the text. Regardless I removed completely because it is vastly undue weight for the FNC article and it is not a scientific study either (not a peer reviewed publication). Arzel (talk) 15:10, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

This section is debating the propriety of this content. I'm not sure your unilateral deletion is either prudent or warranted prior to coming to some consensus on the issue. JakeInJoisey (talk) 15:23, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Aside from the poor methodology as stated above, this poll is limited to residents to the state of NJ, and as such has little relevance to FNC as a whole. I am removing for weight reasons alone. Jake, that is a seriously strange premise to make, and something I have seen alluded to within this discussion. People that have not been exposed to some form of information cannot by definition be more informed than people that have been exposed to some information. If anything that kind of presentation of material be the authors of the poll only point to the poor methodology as a whole of the publication, and only furthers the clear reason to remove such a poorly contrived and regionally small poll. Arzel (talk) 15:05, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

People that have not been exposed to some form of information cannot by definition be more informed than people that have been exposed to some information.

Irrefutable logic about which nobody can argue (and my appreciation to our Brit contributor for his contribution in that regard).

...only furthers the clear reason to remove such a poorly contrived and regionally small poll.

I am in complete agreement. The survey is ambiguous, POV junk and should be trashed...not "fixed" via WP:OR editing and misrepresenting the cited source. Am I making my point successfully here? JakeInJoisey (talk) 15:12, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

People that have not been exposed to some form of information cannot by definition be more informed than people that have been exposed to some information.

The answer to that is fairly obvious. If people are exposed to incorrect information, or information that is presented in a confusing or misleading way they will be less informed than people that were exposed to less but accurate or clearer information. So, the logic if far from irrefutable. In fact, it's simply wrong. Ucanlookitup (talk) 17:41, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

The argument from the authors is that those that have not been exposed to the information at all are more informed that those that have. It is simply a logical nightmare to understand. If the baseline for all groups is Zero information, then it is not possible to be less informed than the baseline. Regardless of the correctness of the information, those informed of something would have to be more informed than those that have not been informed at all. You could say that those that have been informed have been mis-informed, but it doesn't make any sense to say they were less informed since it would require information to be drained from their brain. I don't think FNC has that technology yet (Thank you Jim Carey for the best Batman movie ever!) Clearly; what the authors are really saying is that those that are uninformed are more likely to be correct in their guess than those that have been informed. Ironically, as F&H pointed out earlier, the premise for the question regarding Egypt may actually be just the opposite in which case the authors of the study are less informed than viewers of FNC! Which exposes an inherent flaw in these types of polls. One must asume that those asking the questions actually know what they are talking about to begin with. Arzel (talk) 17:59, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

The authors did not say that they had zero access to information. They said that they indicated on a poll that they do not watch the news. Those are very different things. Ucanlookitup (talk) 21:16, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Indeed "zero access to information" is completely false premise, in the context of the study it so essentially only getting your information through other means than (regularly) watching the news. I. e. the "logical nightmare"-issue that was already raised earlier does simply not exist (see also comment regarding the function of the human brain/memory). Nevertheless the study has a lot of other problems that render it essentially useless for drawing any conclusion on the knowledge of fox viewers about foreign affairs (at least on the level of a reliable source).--Kmhkmh (talk) 21:31, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

A question for those who want to exclude the study because they disagree with it

Currently, Wikipedia's coverage of the numerous studies of FNC viewers' information level is found at Fox News Channel controversies#Tests of knowledge of Fox viewers. That section includes reference to the PIPA (University of Maryland) study. It also includes Roger Ailes's response, in which he denounces the PIPA study as a "push poll".

Now, the term "push poll" has a clear meaning. The PIPA study doesn't fit it. The lengthy discussions above about the FDU study don't need to be replicated in this instance, because the merits of Ailes's comment are clear: His statement is false. (Addendum: To clarify in light of the subsequent discussion, the foregoing statement represents my personal opinion. Roger Ailes has not confessed to me that, as an experienced political operative, he is perfectly familiar with what a push poll actually is. He has not been convicted of perjury (his statement wasn't under oath anyway). I am not aware of any polygraph examination of Ailes that supports my opinion, nor is my opinion based on research into Roger Ailes that has been published in a peer-reviewed academic journal. Does that cover it? End of Addendum. Thank you.)

Oh, and his statement wasn't subject to academic peer review, either.

Now, the question is, should Ailes's response be reported in Wikipedia? I think it should be. We can verify that he made the statement, it's relevant to the subject of the article, and he's not just some random blogger. That the statement is (known to me to be) rubbish is not an adequate reason for removing the information that he made the statement.

I raise the question here because this is the page where we're discussing the subject of FNC viewers' information levels, but also because it's a handy example of how we apply the standard of verifiability rather than truth.

So, would the editors who want to exclude the FDU study also want to exclude Ailes's statement? JamesMLane t c 20:13, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

fine with me.--Kmhkmh (talk) 22:06, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

You may want to temper your comments against a living person's opinion. Who's opinion is it that he is lying? Yours? Arzel (talk) 22:23, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Excuse me? I merely stated that I have no objections against the removal, since I was asked that question. I never suggested Ailes was lying nor did I make any "tempered remark" towards him or his opinion. So please get grip here. The discussion has already enough (offhand) comments being borderline ridiculous.--Kmhkmh (talk) 23:46, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I assume Arzel was addressing me, and, yes, as the context makes clear, it is my opinion that Ailes is lying. (Similarly, the cited section of the "Controversies" article includes the characterization of the PIPA study as a "hoax poll", and this talk page includes the characterization of the FDU study as "POV junk". These comments are surely derogatory to the living persons who conducted the studies, but it's clear that they are the opinions of, respectively, Ann Coulter and JakeInJoisey.) To Kmhkmh: When you say "I have objections" do you mean "I have no objections"? I'm not trying to be snarky, but based on your first comment I think you left out a word. JamesMLane t c 00:42, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

In that case he should use your name explicity or use use a different ident (same ident as me when he's replying to you). And yes I accidentally skipped the word "no" above due to fast typing - I'll fix that now.--Kmhkmh (talk) 10:11, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

• Your question is pointless. What happens in that article is decided on the talk pages of that article. What the editors there decide has no bearing on this article. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:43, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I anticipated that comment and answered it in the penultimate paragraph of my comment. JamesMLane t c 00:42, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

• Explaining why you think it should be asked here doesn't make it correct. It is your opinion that it is ok to ask it here. It is my opinion that it's not and in the wrong place. You didn't "answer" it, just gave your excuse. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:50, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I gave my "excuse", which is based on my opinion that Wikipedia is to be governed by neutral standards of general applicability, rather than by special-interest pleading. That's why discussion of similar cases is relevant. This opinion is held by other people as well, but you are of course free to express a contrary opinion. You're even free to belittle my opinion as an "excuse" although that choice of terminology may not be the most conducive to a fruitful discussion. As for the placement of the comment, JakeInJoisey and I disagree on most things but in this respect I was following his suggestion here that all discussion of this subject be concentrated on this talk page. You are free to prefer duplicative discussions on two different talk pages.

By the way, you may not have read everything on this talk page, but somewhere up there I gave my opinion that the entire mainspace presentation concerning this body of studies should be transferred from the "Controversies" article to this one. It's therefore directly relevant here to ask whether comments like those of Ailes and Coulter should be transferred or deleted. JamesMLane t c 05:32, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

RE: Ailes and Coulter: I don't think we should lower the bar that much. I know they're well known people, but when you start quoting crazies in an otherwise serious article, it really detracts from the credibility of the article. Not to mention readability. Kevin Baas^talk 15:55, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

I disagree with you. It's not just that these crazies are well known, but that they're expressing a significant opinion, which should be reported. (To present their side fairly, we should also summarize the important facts on which they rely. In this instance, AFAIK, there are no such facts, which, I admit, supports your call for exclusion -- but it's still a significant opinion.)

Fair presentation of this opinion doesn't require exhaustive presentation. At present we quote Coulter and Ailes and Bill O'Reilly and a columnist for The Wall Street Journal, all saying essentially the same thing. We could consider reporting the craziness while trimming the reiteration.

Just to clarify, these quotations from Ailes, Coulter, et al. aren't in this article; they're in the controversies article. I'm editing this article to include a link to the relevant section there. The inclusion of the right-wing quotations should be pursued on the other talk page. JamesMLane t c 22:54, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

The Foxification of News

I was hoping other editors would look over the new article The Foxification of News, to ensure it's made in a balanced manner. --Rob (talk) 18:12, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

We notice the article has been removed. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 16:48, 1 January 2012 (UTC) . . . . No Comment!

What is the correct application of WP:SS here?

There is a body of academic work on the subject of the comparative levels of knowledge of FNC viewers. In my opinion, that material should be presented in this article in full. At present, however, editors opposed to that have succeeded in removing it from this article and relegating it to a daughter article, Fox News Channel controversies.

According to WP:SS, when material is moved to a daughter article, a summary should be left behind. Accordingly, I added such a summary here, but it was promptly reverted by Collect. My addition was exactly what I had suggested on this very talk page in the course of the discussion about including the latest study; no one objected then, but Collect now imperiously informs me that I must "try for consensus".

My addition complies with WP:SS (as the wording preferred by Collect does not) and with WP:NPOV. I'll restore it unless someone can explain to me what' wrong with it (other than "disclosure of this fact might reflect badly on Fox News"). JamesMLane t c 02:17, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

The summary basically said that some studies say one thing and other studies do not. Putting that into a "claim" is the height of silliness indeed. Where two conflicting claims get catenated, the bogies of WP:OR (and SYNTH) are evident. Wikipedia does not, moreover, say that every article conceivabley related to an article must be presented in that article. Collect (talk) 02:23, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

• Are you STILL on this BS? Seriously? First, was it moved from here to the other article? Or from the other one to here? Second, where specifically does it say that in SS? The specific passage of the guideline (note, not policy)you are referring to would be fine. It is worth noting that your comment "other than 'disclosure of this fact might reflect badly on Fox News'" appears to be lacking in good faith. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:27, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

At least he wears his bias on his sleeve: "Hostile to the right wing" is part of his description on his userpage. Kind of explains why he keeps coming back to this. Somehow because I view a channel that has an editorial bias that doesn't agree with him, I'm "uniformed". That's fine. But since he is self-describing as "hostile" to the right wing, I wouldn't expect much assuming of good faith. I hope he proves me wrong. SeanNovack (talk) 03:38, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Collect wrote that putting mention of the studies "into a 'claim' is the height of silliness indeed." My summary put nothing into a "claim". It reported what's in detail in the daughter article, namely that the issue of the information level of FNC viewers has been investigated. It tells the reader what would otherwise not be self-evident, namely that the question has been investigated, that conclusions differ, and that further detail can be found at the wikilink. Collect seems to be reacting to an edit that added "FNC viewers are badly informed" but I made no such edit. As for WP:OR and WP:SYNTH, it's certainly not OR to state (based on published reports) that studies were done and to summarize their conclusions.

Niteshift36, the guardian of good faith, asks me, "Are you STILL on this BS? Seriously?" Niteshift, I see no reason to engage in a discussion with you about good faith. Whatever I say, you will doubtless have a low opinion of my good faith, and I can live with that. Your specific questions: First, as to the moving of the material, I stated that it was moved from here to the daughter article, and that's exactly what happened. If you look at this version, from a year ago, you'll see that the University of Maryland study was covered here in the main article. By this edit Collect changed the language of the discussion but didn't try to get it removed completely; that occurred subsequently. There may also have been other moves -- I don't remember for sure. As for the guideline (indeed it's not a policy, which is why I didn't refer to it as a policy), the first paragraph of Wikipedia:Summary style states in part:

When there is enough text in a given subtopic to merit its own article, that text may be summarized within the present article. A link should then be provided to a more detailed article about the subtopic.

I don't know if your problem is that my edit linked to a specific section of the more detailed article, a practice I've seen elsewhere but which isn't specifically addressed (pro or con) in the guideline.

SeanNovack asserts that I "keep[] coming back to this" and that the explanation for my alleged behavior is my ideology. He, like Niteshift36, is concerned about good faith, and my response is the same. I will respond to another of his misstatements: "Somehow because I view a channel that has an editorial bias that doesn't agree with him, I'm 'uniformed'." Sean, I have no information about your viewing preferences or your sartorial style. More to the point, I've made no assertions about any individual's information level, and I haven't even made any assertions about any group's information level. My edit states only that other people have made assertions about group information levels. Wikipedia should report such statements under the circumstances here present, regardless of whether individual editors agree with them. If you look at my response to Kevin on this page, you'll see that I believe we should fairly report both sides of this controversy, even comments that I believe to be right-wing disinformation. JamesMLane t c 06:40, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Curiously enough, folks who speak of "disinformation" and "crazies" might be viewed as having a POV which they desire to be more strongly represented in an article. I might suggest that folks who so desire should take a respite from such an article - the goal is not to add POVs but to accurately write about the topic of the article. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:22, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

It is truly unfortunate that some are committed to utilizing this Wikipedia project as a rhetorical, propagandistic POV bludgeon. JakeInJoisey (talk) 13:57, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

James. Thank you for your corrections, I'll be a bit more precise in my language: The edits you seek to add are detailing a poll of a small number of FOX Viewers in a single state that when read a certain way, based on how a poll question on the events in the Middle East are asked and interpreted, states that viewers of FOXNews in this state are misinformed on this issue. Therefore, according to the publishers of the poll, "viewers" of FOXNews are "less-informed" than "viewers" of "other channels". Since I self-identify as a viewer of FOXNews, according to the supporters of these poll results - among whom I include JamesMLane based on his efforts to get the results of the Fairleigh Dickinson University poll inserted into this article - I must be "less informed". I view this as a completely spurious point of view that is based on faulty conclusions drawn from a limited-scope poll of a small sample size, and attribute the attempt of the publishers of the poll draw these conclusions as an attempt to slander those that disagree with them idealogically. Ergo: "Somehow because I view a channel that has an editorial bias that doesn't agree with him, I'm 'uniformed'." Thank you for giving me the chance to revise and extend my remarks. SeanNovack (talk) 14:17, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Re: "Since I self-identify as a viewer of FOXNews, according to the supporters of these poll results - among whom I include JamesMLane based on his efforts to get the results of the Fairleigh Dickinson University poll inserted into this article - I must be 'less informed'."

Personalizing the disagreements and proceeding haphazardly from the general to the specific is not particularly useful. If a survey finding that blacks in the U.S. have lower incomes than whites, it does not man that Herman Cain or Robert L. Johnson are "lower income". Fat&Happy (talk) 15:58, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

• "When there is enough text in a given subtopic to merit its own article, that text may be summarized within the present article. A link should then be provided to a more detailed article about the subtopic" there is your answer. The material moved didn't "merit its own article". The material became part of a broader article. Problem solved. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:51, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Collect and JakeInJoisey seem to imply that I have an ideological viewpoint while they are studiously neutral, simply working without preconceptions to improve the encyclopedia. AGF doesn't require me to accept that characterization, however. Actually, Collect, if all the people with a POV were to take a respite from editing this article, then you and several people who frequently agree with you would be on the sideline, right along with Gamaliel and me. The Wikipedia standard isn't whether the editor is neutral, but whether the edit is neutral.

SeanNovack, based on your clarification, I think I see the problem -- you and I are disagreeing because we're addressing different subjects, and talking past each other.

You continue to direct your fire at the Fairleigh Dickinson University study. Thus, you assert that the information I "seek to add" is based on a poll "in a single state". Evidently you and Nightshift36 are reiterating your opposition to this edit, by which Gamaliel added that information to this article.

I invite you to examine the edit that I actually made, which Collect reverted and which is the subject of this thread. That edit is a brief summary of and link to a section in the "Controversies" daughter article. If you examine that section, you'll see that the information presented includes academic studies by the University of Maryland, Stanford University, and Fairleigh Dickinson University; a poll by the Pew Research Center; and commentary from various other notable sources, including Roger Ailes, the head of FNC. That's why, on the "Controversies" talk page, which I realize you may not have been monitoring, I pointed out that it's a mistake to consider the FDU study in isolation.

The question at hand is not whether to pull out the FDU study from all the other data and highlight it in this article. Instead, the question is whether to include here a summary that simply reports the existence of the controversy (without specifying any one of the sources of information about it), and to provide a wikilink to where the reader can find more information, pursuant to WP:SS.

As for Nightshift36's argument about WP:SS, it's clear that the main article is supposed to include a summary of the more detailed article. I'm noting that our current summary of the the more detailed "Controversies" article is inadequate because it omits one entire section, which I've tried to summarize in a single neutral sentence. I also included a wikilink to the relevant section of the daughter article. That's helpful to the reader but is, as I pointed out, not expressly addressed by the guideline. Nightshift36, I'm still not clear whether your objection is to the link. If we dropped the link but left in the one-sentence addition to the summary, would that be satisfactory? I think it would be inferior but I'd be willing to go along with it just to get past this ruckus. JamesMLane t c 20:56, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

You presume too much. I'm not just referring to the edit from Gamliel (which IIRC, drew you here in support of it). This is about your attempt to simply make some minor alterations to still get the same type of thing you've been so desperately trying to get put in the article. How funny that you have an entire article devoted to FNC "controversies" to entertain yourself with improve on and you use up some much energy trying to jam this stuff in. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:51, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Eh? You mean such "rightwingers" as Andy the Grump etc. who frequently agree with me? Nope - I do my best to evince no POV at all -- my only aim is to scrupulously follow WP:BLP, WP:RS and other Wikipedia policies. Try dealing more with policies and less with personalities. Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:05, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Having read your call to deal less with personalities, I'll take it as a retraction of your reference to "folks who ... might be viewed as having a POV which they desire to be more strongly represented in an article" and who should therefore "take a respite" from the article. Glad we got that out of the way. I agree with your statement that we should adhere to policies, although I'd add that we should also adhere to guidelines, including WP:SS. In this article's current state, it is noncompliant. JamesMLane t c 23:07, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

What remains is that your edit would require consensus here - which it appears to quite lack at present. Collect (talk) 00:00, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

I had hoped that more people would weigh in. At this point, I've seen no substantive argument against summarizing that section of the more detailed article. The sneers at my personal motives, along with the expressions of disagreement with one of the studies discussed in the more detailed article, have failed to persuade me. Yet, obviously, if the summary is restored, it will again be promptly deleted. It seems that we could benefit from the input of previously uninvolved editors, via the RfC process.

I've created the framework for the RfC at a temporary subpage, User:JamesMLane/RfC re Fox News. I invite anyone who opposes the inclusion of this language to edit that subpage by adding the argument in opposition. We'll make it easier on RfC participants if they have a summary presentation of the opposing views, instead of having to wade through all the talk here. I'll hold off on posting the RfC so as to allow time for the inclusion of the opposition. JamesMLane t c 01:02, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

You hoped more would weigh in? Or you hoped more that agreed with you would weigh in? I can't say that I didn't predict this. The fact is, a number of experienced editors have weighed in. They think you are wrong. You've had policies and guidelines used to counter your position. You've had the WP:SS guideline used. But again, since you don't agree, it's all dismissed. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:22, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

You've found time to lob another personal attack at me, but neither you nor anyone else has provided text for the "Argument in opposition" section of the RfC. It's been more than 24 hours. I'd be justified in posting the RfC now, but I'll hold off until Wednesday (NYC time) to give you and your allies another chance. As matters stand now, the RfC will be posted with my argument in support; the "Argument in opposition" section will state that opponents were invited to provide a statement in opposition but did not do so. JamesMLane t c 02:06, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

• Oh, you poor innocent victim. Which part was the "personal attack"? Pointing out the obvious or stating that I wasn't surprised? Again, you have been opposed using policies, guidelines and common sense. You've rejected them all because they aren't what you want. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:12, 28 December 2011 (UTC)