Talk:Fox News/Archive 19

This is an archive of past discussions about Fox News. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 15

←

Archive 17

→

Extensive programming and host information necessary on main page?

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I'm wondering if this page wouldn't be considerably more user-friendly if the long lists of programming and personalities were moved to a separate page focusing on that. While useful information, it seems tangential to the main goals of an article. I do realize that other network and newspaper pages do this as well, but perhaps someone can explain the rationale behind this--does anyone else see it as unnecessary clutter?—Preceding unsigned comment added by SlipperyN (talk • contribs) 08:16, 19 April 2007

I think that's probably a good suggestion. /Blaxthos 07:09, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Recent POV change

Latest comment: 17 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

A recent IP edit substituted "Democratic Party" for "critics". While that may be true, it is narrow and not directly attributable whereas "critics" is less controversial and certainly true. If no one minds, I'd like to tone down the edit for the sake of WP:NPOV. I'll leave stand the "fair and balanced" slogan as it is a counter point to the arguement before it (and is slightly ironic). CompRhetoric 13:16, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, change it back to the more NPOV (and consensus) version. /Blaxthos 15:03, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, didn't realize it was the consensus. Personally, I hit the Daily Show, Fox, and NPR for a round view - throw in The Economist and you might get a good Western-Centric view. CompRhetoric 19:20, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Fair and Balanced image

Latest comment: 17 years ago42 comments9 people in discussion

Hi folks, I removed "contraversatial(sp)" from the image caption as this appears to be wp:or and POV and unsourced. WHO says it is contraversial?? Just because their was a lawsuit and some flap that means what?? If we have reliable sources that say "Fox's slogan is contraversial" ect, then please provide a link to that source. Anyways, thanks, --Tom 12:25, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Wow... You admit to the controversy (which is well sourced) and then raise an issue by way of original research when it's noted as being controversial. These policies don't exist for you to use as a blunt instrument to keep out negative or unflattering information -- the controversial tag is not synthesis of new information, it simply notes that the tagline is indeed "controversial" (as you've already pointed out). WP:OR isn't to be used to cull out any information you can't find verbatim in the source itself. Reinserted. /Blaxthos 16:09, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I didn't admitt to anything and it dosen't matter what you are I say/said. What matters is what reliable sources say. They say what? Please stop with your agenda pushing. I don't give a rat's ass about Fox news or whether its negative or positive material. I am an equal opportunity editor when it comes to POV words and editors who synthesize material. Again, just get a source that says what you want to add and add it. If not, just leave it out, geesh. --Tom 19:25, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Please tread lightly when accusing other editors of agenda pushing. The existance of the lawsuit, the book, our sub-articles on this subject indicate controversy. Anyone else want to step in here and voice an opinion on the spurious claim of unverifiable information / original research? This conversation, to me, borders on ridiculous at this point. /Blaxthos 22:40, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I looked at the caption and I think the word "controversial" would come across as very POV. The word makes it look as if Wikipedia editors are trying to push an anti-Fox News agenda. (I hate Fox News myself, but Wikipedia articles are not the place for that.) A better word would be "disputed", as in "Fox News' disputed 'Fair & Balanced' trademark". The word controversial tends to have a very negative connotation to it, so I would generally recommend avoiding it to keep things NPOV. However, since the IMI petition was withdrawn, the trademark is no longer formally disputed, therefore the best phrasing would be the current "Fox News' 'Fair & Balanced' trademark". JHP 00:40, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of the legal status of the motion, the fact that it exists at all (as well as Franken's book and the resulting lawsuit) are ample evidence that the trademark phrase has caused controversy (which makes it controversial). Regarding your preference for disputed, I don't think there is that much difference in connotation; I simply think that controversial is a more accurate depiction (see previous sentence). Noting that controversy exists is definitely not a point of view. If we said "Fox New's bullshit slogan" then you might have a point... ;-) Regardless, it's inappropriate to gloss over the fact that the slogan itself has caused controversy. /Blaxthos 03:12, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

How can people spend this much time arguing over such a tiny thing?! Is it really that much trouble to just take it out? It's just a picture of a news logo, for christ's sake! I really don't see the logic of people pasting 'controversial' or 'disputed' on every single thing to do with Fox News. That people don't like the slogan is documented plenty of times in the criticism section. This article is slipping further and further into POV-pushing. Edders 11:13, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I think the fact that it's documented (and that you point out such) only supports the position that it's not original research and is accurate. I still fail to see how noting controversy equals POV pushing... /Blaxthos 14:40, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Because you are giving voice to criticism where it is not necessary. A picture of the logo shows a fact, "Fair and balanced" is their motto, and is seen on idents for the network. That is fact. As you said, we have sections for controversy. We don't need to put "some people think this is wrong" everywhere - we've already explained it enough times. Additionally, WP:NPOV does not call for negotiations, which is what the lead has became - a negotiation. The lead in this article does not conform to either WP:LEAD or WP:NPOV, despite this users' best attempts to claim it does. To put it bluntly, we know Fox News isn't seen as a neutral source by left-wing elements. The fact that we cite FAIR and MMFA (two highly liberal organizations) as primary sources in the article is damaging enough to Wikipedia's NPOV stance. Being a mouthpiece for those organizations, as I believe this whole article is, is completely unacceptable. This inclusion of "controversial" everywhere the motto is mentioned is just one example of how these groups get their way on Wikipedia. It is not controversial to state a fact. It is controversial to add "controversial" everywhere. --75.21.179.121 16:04, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

The controversy is also a fact. WP:LEAD specifically says controversies should be noted in the intro. Citing controversey is not being a mouthpiece for any organization. The credibility of the controversy is left for the reader to decide, which is also appropriate. Could any of our established editors familiar with this article and who have actively participated in the consensus-building activities share their opinions please? /Blaxthos 18:31, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Just to note, not everyone who participated in the so-called "consensus" regarding the lead approved of it. In fact, many disapproved of it. Nevertheless, as the other anon stated, NPOV is not up for negotiation, as was done in the "consensus" decision (quite frankly, I'm still wondering how consensus was actually reached - and yes, I am looking at the archives). This is a clear-cut violation of the NPOV policy. That issue aside, we do not put "the controversial documentary An Inconvenient Truth" under every caption of artwork or images related to it on its article, because it too would be redundant, just like here on the "Fair and Balanced" statement. FNC's article is big enough; getting rid of some non-necessary material should be a high priority. I think if anything, we should remove the part about "Critics see Fox News as advocating conservative political positions [...]", and replace it with something like: "The network's motto, "fair and balanced", has been criticised by certain critics of the network, most notably the Democratic Party of the United States". Reasons being: (1) "Critics" is too wide of a term and is an example of a weasel word, and (2) from views of history, unwillingness of certain users to include sufficient information regarding origin of biased statement (as required in WP:NPOV under: "It is also generally important to give the facts about the reasons behind the views, and to make it clear who holds them. It is often best to cite a prominent representative of the view.".) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.227.194.89 (talk) 20:27, 28 April 2007 (UTC).

Plain and simple, the mention of controversy is not being removed from the introduction. The intro serves as an overview of the article in its entirety and should include mention of any controversies. That is not up for debate. As to the mention of "controversy" in the image caption, I really couldn't care less. What I'm amazed by is the fact that people are edit warring over its inclusion/removal. If you find something in an article that you don't believe is properly sourced, by all means remove it. But, if you are reverted, take it to the talk page. Add a {{fact}} tag to the disputed section. Alert the regular contributors, but do not edit war. If a citation is requested, we'll look for a citation (whether or not one is really needed, the more citations an article has the better the article becomes). - auburnpilot talk 20:34, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

The very fact that people are so desperate to repeat every goddamn criticism of Fox on every bit of information they can shows that this is definately POV pushing. The actual 'criticism' section is too far gone - I'm certainly not going to waste my time trying to balance a page ruled by 'mediamatters' fans. Frankly even the Bill O'Reilly controversy bit isn't as bad as this. At least the MAIN Fox News page can still be a genuinely useful encyclopedic article and not just a regurgitation of bloggers' little checklists on how Fox is run by fascists. Letting peoples' agendas seep into a page just makes it look untrustworthy. Edders 21:32, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

When your rant ends and you wish to discuss actual improvements to the article, please let me know. - auburnpilot talk 23:43, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

This is getting ridiculous. Either discuss the changes, or editors are soon going to be blocked; edit warring is not tolerated. I've reverted twice, the blatant removal of sourced information that is perfectly in line with WP:LEAD, WP:NPOV, and WP:RS. Removing material because you don't like it is unacceptable. - auburnpilot talk 23:51, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I'll ignore your personal insult and note that I wasn't directing it at you, if that's how you read it. I was appealing to people not to let this article go down the toilet as others about controversial subjects have. I've been watching the page for a long time without editing it, and I've noticed that Fox is vandalized so many times not by people simply adding 'you suck' but continuously replacing 'Fox' with 'Faux' or "Republican'. This is testiment to the childish zeal the subject inspires in some critics, who just want to turn it into a whinging blog post rather than a encyclopedic article.

Also, Auburn Pilot and the other editor who keep removing the controversy bit in the opening - bring it to the discussion page, guys! :) Edders 23:59, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Then you have my apologies. If you've been watching this page, you know this introduction has been the subject of discussion since October 2006. Maybe you haven't been watching it that long, but that is why I tend to have a short fuse in regards to this article. No matter how many times it is explained, no matter how many editors explain it, another editor always comes in and repeatedly blanks the introduction for the very reasons we've explained are not at play. Then, of course, they either refuse to discuss the matter or refuse to acknowledge policy is against them. - auburnpilot talk 00:27, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

No one seems to understand how it actually conforms to policy, but there have been many examples on how it does not conform to either WP:NPOV or WP:WEASEL, let alone the grey-area decision on WP:RS (competitors == bias in itself). Actually, "competitors" might be a good compromise, swapping it with the more ambiguous "critics". After all, the report as its only source (which, as history shows is not allowed to be referenced in the lead, although NPOV states we should only report facts about POV and always cite it no matter where in the article it is seen). The report was about FNC's competitors. --66.227.194.89 04:26, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Each time you make an edit, you come up with an even stranger reason for your actions. Now the sources are "grey area" and from competitors. You must be joking, right? The Project for Excellence in Journalism (source 1) was conducting by all of these people. This includes multiple journalism schools at major universities. The second source is an article by the Financial Times. How these are "grey area" in WP:RS is beyond me. Funny, we had another user swap reasons with every post once before...The position that critics believe the channel is conservative is fact. Please read the sentence. It does not say FNC is conservative. That would be a violation of NPOV; this is not. - auburnpilot talk 04:33, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

There are now 4 sources for the sentence in the introduction. This includes two studies done by American universities in addition to two sources with statements from critics (the source's wording) including US House Representative Diane Watson. You cannot possibly have an issue with the sourcing of this statement now. - auburnpilot talk 05:38, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

This was all already covered in the last eight months of discussion, as well as in the FAQ at the top of this page. How can we continue to assume good faith when this guy/these guys are just re-using malformed arguments that have already been explained? /Blaxthos 07:18, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

As long as we're still stating policy, you can assume good faith. And no, this is still in violation of the weasel word guide, and of the NPOV POLICY. Specifically cite them, otherwise it will continually be a violation. You could put "Democratic representatives, and the 2006 Study [...] composed of mostly competitors of the network see the channel as an advocate of conservativism in the United States." That is both factual and in accordiance with policy. The version right now, is not. And I've proved that numerous times; you users have not demonstrated its compliance with NPOV at all. --66.227.194.89 21:53, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

As stated within WP:NPOV, an opinion stated as fact is acceptable and exactly what should be done: "rather than asserting, "The Beatles were the greatest band," we can say, "Most Americans believe that the Beatles were the greatest band," which is a fact verifiable by survey results...". I guess you missed that part of NPOV. Critics believe FNC is conservative; that is a verified opinion stated clearly. The sentence doesn't say FNC is conservative, the sentence states that it is the critics' belief. - auburnpilot talk 22:14, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

The Beatles' claim is backed up in numerous, specific polls. The issue of FNC as a conservative organization is backed up in one poll of critics. That does not constitute enough reasoning for it to be included the way it is. You have one poll from one organization, which means unless you cite it as such, that's nothing to brag about, especially in the lead]]]. --66.227.194.89 21:03, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

As someone who's been involved in this debate briefly in the past, I have to say that I still think that if editors are going to continue to patrol this page, they should remain civil, regardless of how many times similar issues are brought up. If you can't remain civil, then you should probably take a break from this page.

As far as the sentence in the intro, I generally agree with what auburnpilot said. The statement identifies (broadly) the source of the opinion, and the citations identify it more specifically. I interpret this as being generally consistent with the intent of WP:WEASEL, which is to ensure that opinions are properly attributed. However, I do understand that it would be undeniably not weaselly if the word "critics" were replaced with a specific critic, but I think it's fine as is.

As far as the "controversial" description in the "Fair and Balanced" image caption, I generally agree with Tom, JGP, and the anon editor(s) in that it shouldn't be there. The body of the text provides plenty of info about the slogan, and I agree that unless a source specifically says "the slogan is controversial", that it's original research to say it is. (Note that if someone wants to add a source that says that specifically, I would have no problem with leaving it in the caption). Cogswobble talk 20:19, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

If there is anyone who will argue that there is no perception of conservative bias at Foxnews is just not dealing with reality. In addition this perception is well cited in the intro. Further, one need not be far left to have the bias. Bill O'Reilly has stated numerous times that Fox News "tilts right" sometimes. Clearly he is not a critic of the channel, and clearly he is not a liberal. But that is beside the point, until someone can come up with how the citations are wrong and that one political viewpoint encompasses all of the holders of this perception the intro stays as is. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 20:41, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Were you responding to me or to the thread in general? If you read what I said, I'm not arguing in the least against a perspective of bias. The only thing I objected to was calling the "Fair and Balanced" slogan "controversial" in the caption without citing a source that says it's controversial. I agree that it's controversial, but according to WP:OR, my opinion isn't a reliable source. Cogswobble talk 23:05, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

That's taking WP:OR entirely too far... use some common sense. WP:OR is to keep wikipedia from becoming a place where new thought is synthesized and proffered for consumption. No new thought is being synthesized, and I think people are trying to use technical interpretation of policy to nuance the article. This isn't an WP:OR issue. /Blaxthos 01:12, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Why on earth is it taking WP:OR too far to suggest that a clearly controversial statement should be clearly cited? Every time I read a Featured Article off the main page, it's chock full of citations and references around every statement that even sniffs of controversy or original research, yet you seem to be arguing for fewer citations around such statements in this article, by simply declaring that certain policies don't apply. I fail to see how adding references can make the article poorer. Cogswobble talk 02:22, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Cogswobble, you interpret WP:OR differently than I do. Fox News' conservative bias is cited in the article. Al Franken's criticism of Fox News and the resulting trademark dispute got sustantial press coverage at the time. Also, the IMI petition regarding the "Fair and Balanced" trademark is cited. It's not that much of a stretch to use the adjective "controversial" to describe these disputes. My complaint regarding the use of the word "controversial" in the caption is that it reads like it was written by someone who has a grudge against Fox News. Since Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, I think its text should have a more professional and impartial feel to it. --JHP 03:38, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

"Critics and observers of the channel see Fox News as advocating conservative political positions". This alleges that all critics and all observers of media allege that Fox News is a conservative organization. That's plain false - not only a violation of WP:VERIFY, WP:NPOV and WP:WEASEL (not to mention WP:RS) - it's just incorrect. However, one more thing needs to be stated concerning "Fair and balanced"... I don't believe there is a single person or entity that is disputing that FNC holds the trademark to the term "Fair and balanced." Since that is the case, it would be extremely irresponsible to insert a "controversial" or "disputed" tag in front of it. --66.227.194.89 21:00, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

And again you've linked to policy and guideline without attempting to explain how the introduction is in violation of these policies and guidelines. And as an added bonus, you're now throwing in WP:VERIFY. We've quoted specific policies which clearly support the wording, sources, and inclusion of the statement within the introduction. You have yet to do so for your position. The introduction does not state all critics or all observers (your wording) and is backed up by sources. Your argument and interpretation of policy is flat out wrong. How many people will it take explaining this to you before it sinks in? - auburnpilot talk 21:30, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

The perception of bias is verified by the survey of journalists who all can't be critics. It is neutral because it is only stating that there is a widespread perception(which Ailes and Murdoch admit to in the interview cited "People think Foxnews is conservative... Notice he didn't say "Democrats, the Left, or Critics). And when the holders of a position are too numerous and diverse to quantify, weasel words are proper. Finally, all the citations are reliable under the definition of WP:RS. So I am sorry to say that you are 0 for 4 in your policy citations. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 22:46, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I looked at the disputed text in the introduction. I think it is appropriate and should remain, although I recommend saying "critics" rather than "critics and observers". The text is well-cited. The text is "fair and balanced" because it mentions both the criticism of Fox News, as well as Fox's defense. Conversely, I still think the caption for the "Fair & Balanced" logo smacks of bias. The controversy is appropriately covered in the text of the article. The dogmatic insistance on using the word "controversial" in the caption is overkill. Just because something is controversial doesn't mean you have to mention it everywhere it appears in the article. In fact, it is not the logo that is controversial; it is the slogan that is controversial. Perhaps we should remove the logo altogether, and let the text of the article speak for itself. --JHP 00:26, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I have no opinion of the "Fair and Balanced" logo issue (meaning I do have one, but I am trying to side step that issue). As for the introduction, the reason observers needs to remain is due to the citation. If we limit the phrase to only critics, it becomes incorrect. For example, I am sure there are a sizable number of independant and right leaning journalist in that survey that believe that FoxNews is biased, however, they may not be critics. I'll use myself as an anecdotal example. I don't think the mention of bias belongs in the intro as long as it covered in the article, but I believe the bias exists, and I am not a critic of Foxnews as I believe all news is presented with bias and spin. So the intro, to be accurate, should leave room open for people like me. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 00:38, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with JHP on both counts. I think that "critics" is better than "critics and observers", but at the moment I'm not too opposed to leaving "and observers" in. I think that the caption "controversy" text is unnecessary and should be removed (or at the very least cited explicitly). Cogswobble talk 02:22, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

It still should specifically list the most prominent entities. The statement is still simply in violation of WP:NPOV, which makes it clear that we are to cite facts about opinions explicitly. --66.227.194.89 03:21, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Citing a fact about an opinion is precisely what is happening here. The sources back up the claim and nothing more needs to be said. I, Blaxthos, Cogswobble, JHP, and Ramsquire have explained this to you. - auburnpilot talk 03:42, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Incidentally, I have much stronger objection to the new wording that was just introduced. "Many critics and observers" adds a weasel word for no good reason. I think it's far better to leave it as "Critics and observers", and my preference is for simply "Critics". Cogswobble talk 03:24, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Specifically citing examples is the only way this item can be resolved under policy. Anything less is just wasting time, and will never fit under WP policies. --66.227.194.89 03:30, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem removing "many" from the wording and believe the sentence was better before (re)introducing the phrase. As to the image, while I really don't care either way, I don't see the harm in adding a citation. - auburnpilot talk 03:42, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Incidentally, would anyone mind if we split these two discussions into separate threads? It's getting kind of confusing with half the statements about the caption and half about the intro :-P I'll make a try of it and see if it sticks. Cogswobble talk 03:53, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair and Balanced Image Caption

Latest comment: 17 years ago38 comments10 people in discussion

I am going to do a complete rewrite of the "Fair & Balanced" caption in an attempt at compromise. Please let me know how you like (or hate) it. --JHP 03:50, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

My preferred caption is still simply "Fox News' "Fair and Balanced" trademark", since I don't think the image caption needs to be wordy at all. But I won't object to your caption, since it basically just summarizes what's in the adjacent section. Cogswobble talk 03:59, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I actually find the new caption to be a fair compromise. It clearly states the controversy exists (giving a reason for the image to be there) and that the controversy is related to the slogan. This caption is also backed up by the paragraph and the sources within. - auburnpilot talk 04:02, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

My model for the caption is the image boxes that often appear in textbooks or encyclopedias. They often have an image of the topic under discussion and a caption that either summarizes nearby text or provides some little bit of trivia about the topic. --JHP 04:12, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Nah, it's still weasely - there was one trademark dispute that really isn't that notable at all. I think its article deals with this issue nicely - we don't need to do any additional work at its presence, other than to note it is a slogan or that it is trademarked by FNC. --66.227.194.89 19:38, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Since the latest problem is that there are also allegations of liberal bias, I removed "conservative" leaving the statement "... controversy due to trademark disputes and accusations of bias". This encompasses all possibilities of any bias. - auburnpilot talk 19:47, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually there were two trademark disputes. How the hell could anyone (except a right-wing extremist) think they have a liberal bias? --JHP 21:10, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to Nuke the caption, but maybe we should just have the image :). OK please carry on with the agebda pushing, thanks, --Tom 23:51, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

It's good to see you're willing to compromise. --JHP 00:09, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

No kidding. I've re-reinserted AuburnPilot's compromise version. /Blaxthos 03:27, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Please stop with the agenda pushing. There has to be reliable sources WHO say there is a contraversy. It is orginal research/POV to slap labels on that caption. Take it to a blog or elsewhere, just stick to facts that can be sourced and verified. Thanks, --Tom 12:38, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Tom, stop with the spurious claims of agenda pushing, malformed arguments and flawed logic, and edit warring. Consensus is against you, and further edit warring will be both a 3RR violation and a thumb in the eye of editors who have been working together. Stop the incivility and disruptive edits please. /Blaxthos 15:57, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Will you provide a source that SAYS Fox's SLOGAN has had accusations of bias? --Tom 16:54, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I think what the caption is trying to encapsulate is the "controversy" and accusations in the adjoining section, namely Al Franken's book. The Slogan has not had accusations of bias. Bear with me here, Fox has been accused of bias, and because it uses Fair and Balanced as a slogan, these accusers take issue with the slogan e.g. Al Franken's use of the slogan in his book. Unfortunately that can't go in the caption, so besides these few words of explanation, I have no solution to this issue. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ramsquire (talk • contribs) 17:02, 2 May 2007 (UTC).

Will you provide a source that SAYS Fox's SLOGAN has had accusations of bias? What does this have to do with the price of tea in China? ;-) I think you're confusing your arguments, Tom. There is no accusation of bias regarding the slogan... The slogan has caused controversy, and we're noting such. This isn't original research. This isn't unverifiable. This isn't misleading. This isn't unsourced. It's simply true. Editors above came up with a more clearly worded version, which seems to have gathered consensus except for you, who would rather remove the image and caption instead of allowing controversy to be noted/explained. Let it go, man... /Blaxthos 17:30, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Blaxthos, as the editor above states, the SLOGAN image says that "the SLOGAN has been the subject of controversy due to trademark disputes and accusations of bias". My problem is that this makes it seem that the SLOGAN is biased. That may be the case, I don't know since I am not that firmiliar with this article. If that is the case, provide a source. If it is NOT the case, the image caption should be reworded. What can you and I agree on. I preffer LESS than more. How about, "The Fox News "Fair & Balanced" slogan has been the subject of trademark disputes." This appears to be factual I guess. Anyways, cheers! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Threeafterthree (talk • contribs) 18:19, 2 May 2007 (UTC).

Massive spelling errors aside, you're changing up your reasoning and logic and missing the point... There is no POV issue when stating fact... and no one can deny that "Fair and Balanced" has been the subject of controversy due to trademark disputes and accusations of bias. The controversies go beyond a trademark dispute, and by trying to EXPLAIN the controversies (and all the surrounding sides) you're biting off more than you need chew. I am in favor of just tagging it as controversial.... but I'm going with the consensus version that was put together above. It's verifiable, factual, and concise. It doesn't give any undue credibility to note that it's been the subject of such. /Blaxthos 18:26, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

My spelling sucks, admitted. So much for my Ivy league education :). Its not about what "no one can deny that" it is about SOURCES saying that "the SLOGAN has been the subject of controversy due to trademark disputes and accusations of bias". You need to provide sources/links that say that exact thing, not YOUR analysis. I see this all the time where an editor will say "read the article, its clear that this is what is meant" ect. All I have an issue with is the CAPTION for their slogan image. Again, I have no hourse in this race. I could give a hoot about Fox. You have an admitted bias towards Fox. OK, whatever, we/you/I still need to provide sources for material in question or it should be left out. --Tom 19:35, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

My previous attempt to resolve the conflict seems to have failed, so I propose a new solution: Completely remove the image and the adjoining caption. There are too many Fox News screenshots in the article anyway. Most of the Fox News images don't provide the reader with any useful information, so if we have one that is causing a huge debate, just delete it. --JHP 19:33, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Great, I would rather have less, than more that, imo, is not properly sourced. --Tom 19:36, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to remove it unless someone voices an objection. --JHP 19:48, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the image that was causing the fight. If you object to this decision, please voice your objections here. --JHP 18:16, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Discussion in this section in no way indicates a changed consensus to remove the "Fair & Balanced" image, and it was pretty disingenuous to remove it citing "in accordance with Talk discussion." The burden is on Talk page objectors when attempting to change consensus versions, and you (User:JHP) are in no place to demand that editors not restore a consensus version over your edits. Italiavivi 13:57, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I waited for two days between my proposed deletion of the image and the actual deletion of the image. Nobody objected. As WP:CONSENSUS says,

"Silence equals consent" is the ultimate measure of consensus

Furthermore, I made no such demand that editors not restore the prior version. --JHP 22:56, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Please try to be less hostile Italiavivi. JHP only removed it after waiting an entire day for any objections, and only after another editor agreed with the change, and he never demanded that other editors not restore a "consensus" version.

I'm reverting to the more verbose version of this caption. It seemed to have significantly more support than the shorter version. Please discuss it here if you change it again. Cogswobble talk 16:44, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I'm not going to revert it now, because I don't want to even come close to WP:3RR, which I think applies to any revert anywhere on a page, not just a particular revert. I'd suggest that someone change this back to the more verbose version? Cogswobble talk 16:47, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Again, WHO is saying that their slogan is contraversial? All I am asking for is SOURCES, NOT orginal research. Please don't come back with "read the article, oh course its contraversial, everybody can see that" that is the essence of original research. Wikipedia is NOT about the truth but about presenting ALREADY produced peer reviewed material. Anyways, I would rather not even have the image if its going to be "labeled" as such. Cheers! --Tom 13:58, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

If there is an image that is causing a fight, and neither the image nor its caption add any useful information beyond that already contained in the text of the article, the simple thing to do is to delete the image. If you don't think the image should be deleted, please explain how it benefits the readers of the article. Also, please propose some compromise text for the caption. Unfortunately, there are some people on both sides of this debate who are so insistent on having things their way, that not only do they revert changes of the opposing side, but they also revert any attempts at compromise. --JHP 15:00, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I was thinking MAYBE using "disputed" in the caption, but then I thought, no WHAT DO RELIABLE SOURCES SAY?? That should be what we use. Again, I am in no way married to this article or caption so I have no problem if its removed. I do have a problem with the caption if it can NOT be properly sourced. Am I repeating myself :). Anyways, Iam off to a May day celebration and NO, I am not a communist/socialist or whoever it is that celebrates this :) Cheers!--Tom 15:13, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

you want sources? you've got sources. Doldrums 15:18, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I tried to read/understand those but didn't get to far. Can you please use something that simple folks like myself can view and comprehend? Why not just leave the caption with LESS labeling/description? The reader can read the article and decide for themselves? Thanks, --Tom 15:50, 6 May 2007 (UTC)p.s. I got past the registration issues, but the 4th referecne, the section on Fox is NOT even included in the "review"?? anyways --Tom 15:56, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

incidentally, u can read the relevant quotes from those citations, which i've posted below, in the intro section. having read them, would you say that reliable sources bear out the caption i placed? are you suggesting that the reader can read the article and "decide for himself" that several academic sources call Fox's coverage biased, without us mentioning that they do? Doldrums 16:29, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

also, do tell me why you think these are not "mainstream/easily verifiable" sources. thanks, Doldrums 16:36, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Doldrums, this is more about the caption for Fox's slogan and not about Fox's bias. The sources you gave were through google search or something. I personally would like a direct link to the site rather than that google search, thats all. Anyways, --Tom 12:39, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

each of the sources contrasts Fox's slogan with its content. "I like a different link" is not a reason to remove the well-sourced statement. Doldrums 12:29, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Italiavivi, I waited for two days between my proposed deletion of the image and the actual deletion of the image. Nobody objected. Quite frankly, few others wait as long as I did before making their edits. --JHP 15:00, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the caption should not have the statement relating to the controversy. The real controversy is the phrase "Fair and Balanced", but the wording on the image often gives the appearance that the image is controversal, when that is clearly not the case. Additionally it is undue weight. The controversy is already being discussed in the paragraph, there seems little point and stating again that their is controversy in the image right next to the paragraph which is describing the controversy. Arzel 12:34, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't really have a problem with the caption mentioning the controversy, as long as it's done something like this: [1], because it's simply a summary of the subsection next to it, and it doesn't ambiguously label the slogan as "controversial".

I also don't have a problem with the caption not mentioning much of anything, as you've currently implemented it. Cogswobble talk 16:27, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Intro Statement

Latest comment: 17 years ago60 comments10 people in discussion

I have no problem removing "many" from the wording and believe the sentence was better before (re)introducing the phrase. As to the image, while I really don't care either way, I don't see the harm in adding a citation. - auburnpilot talk 03:42, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Which version did you think was better? "Critics and observers..." or just "Critics..."? I'm going to go ahead and change it to "Critics..." because that's the one I prefer ;-) but I won't object if someone changes it to "Critics and observers..." Cogswobble talk 03:46, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I would prefer to keep "and observers" simply because the opinion is not held just by critics. I believe the studies and link to a comment by a US Rep go to the "and observers" while the fourth goes to "critics" (specifically stated in the source). Combined, you have "critics and observers". - auburnpilot talk 03:57, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I prefer to leave the "and observers" off because I tend to agree with the anonymous editor that it makes it sound as if everyone who observes Fox News thinks they are biased - whereas it's fairly safe to say that all their critics think they are biased. But as I said, I don't strongly object. Cogswobble talk 04:01, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

That's kind of the catch-22. If we leave in "and observers" it implies all observers. If we add "many observers" its too weaselly. Observers definitely view the channel as conservative (not just critics), so how do we word this correctly? - auburnpilot talk 04:06, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

How about "Some critics and observers...". It allows the point to be made without being as strongly suggestive as "many" or an implied "all". Anything that doesn't specifically name who is bound to be weaselly, but I think there's a broad enough section of the population that naming a few individuals or groups is really not appropriate. --JHP 04:25, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Or what about "Critics and some observers..."? For me that encapsulates it a bit better. Cogswobble talk 04:51, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I can live with that and have reinstated the "and some observers" phrase. - auburnpilot talk 05:31, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I can deal with this compromise of "some observers". --66.227.194.89 19:35, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

These types of statements should not be in the intro of ANY Television Station. CNN, FOX, ABC, whatever. It is a non-encyclopedic fact and should be reserved for a specific section. It's primary purpose is to criticize, and is not informative. Arzel 19:47, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

And you are flat out wrong. Please read WP:LEAD where it clearly states such controversies should be included. - auburnpilot talk 19:49, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

AuburnPilot, please find room in the lead to include Accuracy in Media's stance that FNC is in a stage of a "leftward drift". Surely AIM must be a big enough organization to be represented as counterbalance under WP:NPOV. --66.227.194.89 20:10, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely not. No where in the lead is any argument made that there is a bias at FoxNews. The intro only states that critics and observe see (or in other words Believe) that Fox has a rightward bias--it is about the perception of bias, not the fact of its existence. The intro is neutral because it doesn't take any stance. To add your sentence would be to take a position and violate NPOV. IF you feel the sentence should be in the article place it in the bias discussion, but not in the lead. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 20:31, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Is it realy a notable controversy if it is only a perception of bias from a few sources? Arzel 01:24, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

It's a notable controversy. What do you want? For us to source every person in history who has ever had the perception? The comment that this is only from a few sources is ridiculous. One source substantiating the perception would have been enough; we provided extra to reinforce the point. - auburnpilot talk 02:53, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Incidentally, I believe that would fall under the undue weight clause of NPOV which states "views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views". I am not, however, opposed to the inclusion. I certainly don't support it either. I guess I just don't care. - auburnpilot talk 20:40, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

This topic can have that effect on people. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 20:59, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Accuracy in Media are an extremely conservative organisation who always accuse Fox News as well as all the other news organisations of things like "leftward drift". Canderra 22:18, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Because they're a conservative group, they don't matter? The CBC (Congressional Black Caucus) is completely liberal, and we're using one persons' POV from that group as a source for the lead statement that shouldn't be there. Source #6, which is being used as a source to the statement, (yes, statement - if it wasn't a statement, it would be attributed) but it doesn't even address anything related. But the media study is focused on one program, Special Report with Brit Hume, amongst other networks of its time (the study, although released in 12/04, hasn't researched programs since 03). These two sources that were included are probably FUD. So, in reality - you have a Project for Excellence in Media report and one Democratic congresswoman (dig up Howard Dean's comment and that'll give another example). That's two personal opinions of FNC being conservative, and one professional opinion. There is a prominent example of the network being considered left. It's not undue weight. --66.227.194.89 22:43, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Saw your comment after mine, but I see you came to roughly the same conclusion. Arzel 01:24, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Canderra, what you said is correct. However, many left-wing editors are happy to use left-wing media watchdogs like FAIR and Media Matters as sources. If left-wing media watchdogs can be used as sources, then right-wing media watchdogs have to be allowed as well. Personally, I don't think such agenda-pushing organizations are reliable sources no matter what their political persuasion. --JHP 00:29, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

How about the opinion of the owner of the subject itself. It's in footnote 8--and to quote “People think we’re conservative but we’re not conservative.” That's from Rupert Murdoch himself, totally validating that the perception exists, and denying it's truthfulness. That is exactly what the intro does, states the perception and the denial by Foxnews. Also, please note again, he uses people, which may be an admission that it isn't just critics. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 23:07, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

From the WP:LEAD Criticism - include criticism if there has been significant, notable criticism. Thus this should be both significant and notable. After reviewing the 4 reference sources for the intro (4,5,6,7) the following is obvious.

4 - This is a survey of journalists, who by their definition consider FOX to be the most conservative by either a two to one or three to one margin, the statistics they use are a little confusing. However, ref 7, which uses other research to justify it's study uses as a critera that journalists are two to three times as likely to be Democrats versus Republican. Ref 4 makes no note of the limitations in it's study, and just based off this fact it is not too suprising that they would get those results. In any case, ref 4 is not really a criticism of any source, but a report of how journalists feel, and is certainly not a direct criticism of FOX.

5 - This is a criticism by Democratic hopefulls only.

6 - This is basically 5.

7 - This is the only true research which could be used to back up the statement. However, this study is not critical of FOX or any other broadcast station, futhermore it does not state empirically that FOX is conservative, only that it is more conservative than some of the others. Additionally, ref 7 is specific to FOX Special Report and not to FOX in general.

As such only two of the references clearly state any criticism, and the cricticsm comes directly from Democratic hopefulls and not the general public or even the "general" critic as the lead would imply. Thus the intro needs to drop the "observer" tag, and include the clarrifier that it is Democratic hopefulls, or maybe more specific Democrats that view FOX to have a conservative bias. Finally, none of these is either significant or notable. Arzel 01:04, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

You're 6 months too late for the debate on whether or not the statement will be included. You are welcome to discuss the wording of the statement, but even the hard opposers have worked to find a version of the sentence which is acceptable. Try working with the group, please. - auburnpilot talk 02:53, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:CCC Once established, consensus is not immutable. It is reasonable, and sometimes necessary, for the community to change its mind. A small group of editors can reach a consensual decision about an article, but when the article gains wider attention, members of the larger community of interest may then disagree, thus changing the consensus. The original group should not block further change on grounds that they already have made a decision.

After reading much of the history I have not found any consistent concensus regarding this issue. It appears there have been several other people that have also made the same comment to be rebuted with "concensus was reached". That aside, I see this article has had considerable discussion, which appears to derive from the fact that some very vocal anti-FNC people want to make sure that everyone knows that FNC is biased, giving the whole article a feeling of bias. In any case, the intro is not factual. Reference 7 does not back up the claim it is referencing. No reference makes any link to the general population which would attribute the word "Observer". The most serious claims of bias come from Democrats, specifically relating to the upcoming 2008 primaries. Arzel 04:40, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with much of what Azrel said here. I don't think the "consensus" argument should be used to stop discussion here, and I do think that the "observer" word would be better left out of the intro. Cogswobble talk 04:48, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Quite frankly, I don't care if there was a consensus then. The introduction is specifically written within policy and guideline. The references reinforce the statements, as does the section later in the article. Nobody here is anti-FNC, and if you actually read the archives, you would note that I was originally 100% opposed to the statement's inclusion. However, after discussion and a thorough reading of policy, I realized the errors in my argument. I'll link to WP:LEAD one last time, in hopes you (Arzel) will actually read it. The lead must be an overview of the article in it's ENTIRETY. If anything, we need to expand the lead, not reduce it. - auburnpilot talk 04:55, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

AuburnPilot, perhaps you should re-read WP:AGF, WP:NPA, WP:WELCOME, and most importantly WP:VERIFIABILITY. I spent over two hours last night reading through the archives and the reference links in the intro. Please explain to me how concensus was reached when throughout the past 6 months there has been continued questioning of the concensus and a flury of "sour grapes" statements to those questioning the concensus. Please explain to me how ref 7 in anyway possible backs up the claim that FNC in general is biased or that it is critical of FNC. Please show me on any of the references where any claim of observer is made. Arzel 13:53, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, Arzel, but you're just spinning your wheels here. This has all been covered extensively, and I see no need to continue this conversation when it's plainly covered once every month or so in the archives for the past 8 months. /Blaxthos 16:00, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

It has been extensively discussed without any clear concensus and continued arguement. Arzel 17:39, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Once again, the "it's been covered so there should be no more discussion" argument. Arzel said he read the entire archives and isn't convinced that consensus was reached. I read the entire archives a little while back, and I agree with him. I think there's plenty of room for discussion about the content of the intro statement. Just because the debate has continued for 8 months doesn't mean the debate is over. Frankly, I don't think it will ever be, after all, this is Wikipedia.

Again, I agree with Arzel specifically in that I think the intro statement would be better off without the "observers" part. Alternately, a better "observers" reference could be found. Cogswobble talk 16:39, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Cogwobble and Arzel, no where in the introduction is there a statement that Foxnews is conservatively biased or that there has been research done "proving" any bias at Foxnews. The intro is only stating "People (a group too numerous and diverse to be quantified-- see WP:WEASEL) BELIEVE (again it is just a retelling of a perception--does anyone deny this perception exist?) Foxnews is conservative and that Fox denies that this BELIEF is true. Normally, I don't like sending people to the archives or shutting off discussion under the "consensus has been reached" argument, but it may do you guys well to actually re-read the discussion. In any case, I'll summarize: when the intro stated "Foxnews is a conservative news network" many editors were up in arms, and changed it (correctly IMO) to the "consensus" version (meaning the version we are arguing to keep. I could use current but everyday that changes) which is simply attempting to state that "Many people believe FoxNews is conservatively biased, however Fox denies this". If you have any suggestions on getting this out more clearly, please advise. But note that it is not just critics that have this perception, and that this perception relates to Fox's noteworthiness. Therefore, it stays in the lead and to only state critics is misleading and violates NPOV under the undue weight provisions. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 16:53, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

To all those who wish to remove "observers", please come up with a reliable source supporting your position that it is only critics who hold this perception. Otherwise we shouldn't remove sourced information with unsourced info. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 17:15, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Are you seriously considering a Rebuttable presumption regarding this issue. Do you have any idea what kind of precedent this would result in? Did you read what I had said earlier? NOWHERE in any of those references is there any mention of a general public concensus that FNC is biased. Those reports deal specifically with a Democratic perception that FNC is biased. As to your assertaion of what people believe, that is pure opinion. If you want an acceptable NPOV version clearly state the facts backed up with the two primary references. Possible suggested starting point: Critics consider FNC to be more conservative than other contemporary news organizations. with refs 5 and 6. Clean, concise, no weasle, not inflamatory, neutral. Arzel 17:39, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I can go along with Arzel's suggested rephrasing. But are we really sure that only critics consider Fox News to be more conservative? I strongly suspect that even conservatives believe that Fox News is more conservative. That's why they like the channel so much. How about "Fox News Channel is widely considered to be more conservative than most competing news organizations"? If the entire debate is about the word "bias", then let's get rid of that single word but still keep the word "conservative". --JHP 04:50, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

No one is saying that there is a "general public concensus_[sic] that FNC is biased". Did you read what we've all been saying for the last 8 months? You miss the point entirely, and I'm starting to find it difficult to come up with a response that doesn't involve "you didn't read" or "you do not understand". /Blaxthos 17:46, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

That's why I'll be ignoring this user on this topic. It's clear that he/she is coming from an angle, that I just can't decipher. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 18:55, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

How does removing "observers" violate WP:UNDUE? I've seen a lot of mention of this policy in this discussion, but most of the arguments that claim support from "undue weight" seem to be in contrast to what the policy actually says. Nothing in WP:UNDUE says anything about giving undue weight to any particular source. In fact, WP:UNDUE explicitly mentions that prominent adherents of a position should be named.

Furthermore, I disagree strongly that the "too numerous and diverse to qualify" exception somehow justifies any wording of the intro. The example used in WP:WEASEL for this exception is the rather benign "some people prefer cats, others prefer dogs". I just don't think that's even close to being equivalent to this issue.

To clarify, I don't have a problem with saying "Critics accuse..." and then citing some specific critics. I think this satisfies WP:UNDUE by naming prominent adherents (through the citation), and it satisfies WP:WEASEL by citing some example critics. Again - in my opinion, I think that "observers" is much more weaselly since it fails to qualify the holder of the opinion. Cogswobble talk 18:10, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Wow, are we back to this again? We went through this in October. Are you sure you've read? This is the intro, and naming individual critics to try and characterize the entirety of the controversies assigns that critic (or observer) undue weight. Read WP:LEAD and WP:NPOV (and where this was covered back in the day). /Blaxthos 18:29, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

(to Cogswobble--edit conflict) Just so I understand where we are coming from... You view a scientific survey of journalists where almost 70 percent believe that Fox is biased, and you get from that they must be all critics? In addition, you were the very person who found the quote from Murdoch, that said "People" and yet you want the intro to only state critics in direct opposition to two of the sources that have been provided, one of which was provided by you. I don't see how that could be done.

As for undue weight question, it is not the source, it is the elevation of a specific type of source. For example, if we said Greenwald, we would be elevating the "far-left" to the holders and denying more moderate and conservative persons who also hold the perception. (At least this is what the consensus was when I proposed naming specific persons-- see the archive).

Finally, I don't have a problem with "critics accuse", and it dovetails nicely with two of the sources, but it directly contradicts two others.

Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 18:31, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, let me clarify a little more. I am not at all opposed to "Critics...". I am weakly opposed to "...and some observers..." - I just don't think it's necessary, because I just think it is more weaselly than necessary, I'm not going to make proactive arguments to get rid of it, but I will weakly support other people who do. I would be opposed to "and ~~some~~ observers" because it fails to quantify entirely, implying that all observers feel that way.

As far as the "undue weight" thing - this statement "it is the elevation of a specific type of source" is exactly what I have a problem with. I don't see any mention of that in WP:UNDUE. I'm not saying it's not an argument you should use, just that I don't see it in WP:UNDUE.

Also, from what I've seen, the strongest and most prominent criticism of Fox News is qualifiable as coming from Democratic or left wing sources, so I don't think it's misrepresentative to cite it as such. Cogswobble talk 18:38, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about using numbers, but you made three points and I need to keep it clear (multitasking). 1.Fair enough 2. I don't necessarily agree with the argument, I'm just letting it be known, that a) the discussion occurred previously and b) what the consensus voice was. I would actually prefer to name specific people, but I see the point that doing so narrows down the group of people we are referring to to the exclusion of others. 3. In the body of the article, that distinction is made much more clearly (and also in the Controversies article as well). But since the introduction is a brief overview, it would be misleading to make that distinction, considering the sources used. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 18:50, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

noting State of the Media 2007 journalists survey finding:

At the same time, the single news outlet that strikes most journalists as taking a particular ideological stance - either liberal or conservative - is Fox News Channel. [...] Fox has by far the highest profile as a conservative news organization; it was cited unprompted by 69% of national journalists.[2]

Doldrums 18:54, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

one more source

Fox News had never been known for its impartiality: most of its program hosts freely mixed opinion and news. In times past the cable network had won favour with conservative politicians and viewers because of its definite right-wing sympathies. Now Fox News had proved that its brand of war coverage, full of bombast and vigour and patriotism was a crowd pleaser.

-Rutherford, Paul (2004), Weapons of Mass Persuasion: Marketing the War Against Iraq, University of Toronto Press, p. 105

Doldrums 19:20, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

more sources

Featuring overtly conservative talk show hosts and programming and outright ideologically biased news reporting, the network nevertheless brands itself "Fair and balanced". [...] In some ways, the network doesn't shy from the "conservative" label placed on it by critics because it argues that "the American people" believe the news media is liberal, and hence the network is therefore offering a corrective choice.

-Jones, Jeffrey P. (2005), Entertaining Politics: New Political Television and Civic Culture, Rowman & Littlefield, p. 51, ISBN 0742530884

Fox uses a different approach to news from its main competitor, CNN. It is 'populist, politically partisan (despite its claim to be "fair and balanced") and aggressively patriotic' (Tait 2004b, 12). As far as its owner, Rupert Murdoch is concerned, Fox is a 'really objective news channel', in comparison to the liberal approach taken by CNN.

-Harrison, Jackie (2006), News, Routledge, p. 164, ISBN 0415319498

Commentators have called its 24-hour cable-news channel a politically conservative alternative for news, but Fox News Channel President Roger Ailes disagrees. "We said we were going to do fair and balanced news, and that scared them" he said.

-Maynard, Nancy (2000), Mega Media: How Market Forces Are Transforming News, Trafford Publishing, p. 45, ISBN 0970129203

Explanations for [FNC's] new-found popularity typically revolved around the stridently right-wing, pro-war stance informing its reporting and commentary, generally said to be more "in tune" with public opinion than CNN's more neutral stance. The openly partisan agenda of Fox - its logo "fair and balanced" being derided by critics as a misnomer - was discernable at a number of levels.

-Zelizer, Barbie; Allan, Stuart (2004), Reporting War: journalism in wartime, Routledge, pp. 6–7, ISBN 0415339979

The Fox News Channel [...] attributes its success to a "Fair and Balanced" (its tag line) approach. But others feel that Fox has a distinctly right-leaning tone that actively courts conservative viewers disillusioned by a perceived liberal bias in the media.

-Vault Guide To The Top Media & Entertainment Employers, Vault (company), 2005, p. 115, ISBN 1581313373 {{citation}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help)

Doldrums 11:30, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't see why it's necessary to address this in the intro at all. Criticism traditionally goes in the body. We don't start our article on The New York Times by talking about how liberal its critics claim it is. It seems needlessly antagonistic to insist it be included in the intro here. Besides, even if a compromise on the exact wording is reached today, it will come up again in another month or two. Why not just give it its own section and end the drama before it starts? Kafziel ^Talk 19:10, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

why in the lead - see Q1 in FAQ at top of page. my previous response (and other comments) in Archive 16. as for "it'll come up again", i hardly need point out that exactly the same argument can be made for leaving it out - in a month's time someone will turn up wanting to know why a notable feature of FNC is missing in the lead. the appropriate way to handle such things would be to sum up the arguments in a subpage and note the prevailing consensus on the FAQ above. Doldrums 19:31, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't see why it's necessary to address this in the intro at all. Criticism traditionally goes in the body. We don't start our article on The New York Times by talking about how liberal its critics claim it is. It seems needlessly antagonistic to insist it be included in the intro here. Besides, even if a compromise on the exact wording is reached today, it will come up again in another month or two. Why not just give it its own section and end the drama before it starts? Kafziel ^Talk 19:10, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

why in the lead - see Q1 in FAQ at top of page. my previous response (and other comments) in Archive 16. as for "it'll come up again", i hardly need point out that exactly the same argument can be made for leaving it out - in a month's time someone will turn up wanting to know why a notable feature of FNC is missing in the lead. the appropriate way to handle such things would be to sum up the arguments in a subpage and note the prevailing consensus on the FAQ above. Doldrums 19:31, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

You seem to misunderstand the meaning of "consensus". It doesn't mean "more people said X than Y, so X wins". It means "the people who said Y have been irrefutably proved wrong or have withdrawn their opposition, so X is the only remaining valid option". That hasn't happened here. Not by a long shot. And citing somebody's (whose?) idea of an "FAQ" doesn't mean nobody ever gets to ask those questions anymore. That's not how a talk page works. Kafziel ^Talk 19:45, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

As has been stated numerous times, one of the reasons Foxnews is notable is due to the belief by many that it advocates conservative political positions, as well as the fact that it is owned by Rupert Murdoch, and that it is the number one cable news network in America. To highlight two reasons for its notability and dismiss the third, would seem to violate NPOV. Also, the conservative bias is discussed in detail in the body of the article in the history and controversy section. Under the guidelines of WP:LEAD, a sentence or so of the intro should be dedicated to each subsection of the article whenever possible. Finally, I disagree strongly with the edit protection of the article, as the only person edit warring was Threeafterthree (who could've simply been blocked under WP:3RR, the other editors were removing his changes until a consensus was reached on the trademark caption issue. No one was edit warring in the intro for the past few days. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 20:46, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Kafziel, you can look at it one of two ways. If you want to understand why something is the way it is, you're welcome to read the FAQ and the archives to realize why the community has created the current version. By doing so, you'll learn that every point that has subsequently been brought up, considered in the formulation of this version, and has been satisfied. Or, if you're trying to invalidate your vote-counting argument, there still haven't been as many "oh hey why are we doing it this way?" johnny-come-latelies as there were participants in the original RFC (RFC's and other actions, actually). So, either way, we put the FAQ up to show that, "hey, you're not the first person to wonder why this is done this way... maybe this will help explain it." Given all the oversight this process went through (and continues to go through) it's going to take more than en pessant editors mis-applying nuanced policy. /Blaxthos 20:58, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

You can disagree all you like. The other editors who were reverting his changes had no more right to do so than he had to make them. He did not violate 3RR (and if we're going to talk about blocking someone based on the spirit of 3RR, then I could have blocked everyone involved - it wouldn't be my first time). Reach consensus (not just a bunch of people shouting louder than some other people, as I explained above) and then the article will be unprotected.

You can disagree all you like. Wow, there's a great attitude to have on a consensus driven project. Also, editors don't have a right to delete what they deem bad faith changes? Finally, I said "COULD'VE" been blocked, NOT "SHOULD'VE" been blocked, meaning you could have gone to a less extreme measure, than blocking the entire article based on the conduct in one small part of the article. I ask you again to reconsider your edit protecion. Vigorous debate on the talk page is NOT edit warring. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 21:15, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Page protection is not consensus-driven. It is unilateral. That's why admins sit through a whole long process where the community discusses whether to let each of us have the ability to do it. The consensus was yes (unopposed, in fact), and that consensus extends to my ability to protect this page without talking it over first.

And, no, editors do not have the right to delete what they deem bad faith changes. At least, they don't have the right to do it over and over and over again. The only exception to 3RR is vandalism, and POV disputes, stubbornness, and bold edits are specifically listed under what is not vandalism. Kafziel ^Talk 23:45, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't have any personal stake in this article. In fact, I agree with you. I was just offering an easy way to get the page unprotected that everyone could maybe see fit to agree on (for the time being, at least - the future is not my problem). Fox News is not in any way notable because of the criticism. The criticism is notable because Fox News is already notable. It was notable long before the criticism. The only way to keep from POV-pushing here (as you've just proven, by saying I should have blocked one side but not the other) was to lock the article. You don't have to listen to my input - as I said, I was just making a quick suggestion, and have no real opinion here - but the protection stands until some better consensus is found. Kafziel ^Talk 20:56, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Kafziel, you're jumping in without knowing the history at all. We had upwards of twenty editors participate in multiple RfC's to reach a consensus, and now you're completely gutting the effort by saying consensus hasn't been reached. You have two admins and probably half a dozen editors with a thorough understanding of the situation, and you are advocating locking the article. It is very presumptuous for you to walk in, take one look, and then make a declaration based on the last few days on the talk page. Add in the "you can disagree all you like" and it adds up to a very inappropriate action and attitude that's solely without merit. Additionally, you're basing the "no consensus" declaration on what's going on with the introduction (which is a very clear consensus, sans one or two editors who won't review the history) when you were asked to issue a 3RR block on the (insigifnicant) image caption issue (which is clearly a 3RR violation). As someone with "no personal stake", you should either recuse yourself entirely or take a little more time to actually try and understand the issue... This isn't an issue of "The Wrong Version" as much as it is "The Wrong Solution", as noted by Ramsquire. /Blaxthos 21:01, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not "jumping in". You came to me, I didn't come to you. And I didn't declare this an edit war; you did. A person can't violate 3RR unless someone else is on the opposing side, reverting him. So unless it's vandalism, which this was not, then it's an edit war. As far as I'm concerned, if you file a report at 3RR, you're telling me things have gotten out of hand (on both sides) at whatever page is involved. So I don't generally take requests from either side of the dispute. In fact, if one side is particularly pleased with something I do, I've probably done something wrong, because I'm not here to make you happy or help you win an argument. I'm here to facilitate the discussion, to let you all settle it yourselves. If it seems to me there is active discussion on the talk page, then I'm not going to block any of the participants. I'm going to protect the article to stop the edit war and let everyone keep talking. It's pretty simple, and it doesn't take a whole lot of knowledge about the entire talk history of every article. I won't offer any more advice about the article, but I won't unlock it for the time being, either. Kafziel ^Talk 23:45, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I asked you to block an editor for violating 3RR. You have come and imposed a complete lockdown of the article instead. Beyond that, you've stated that you believe if a 3RR complaint is filed, then everyone must be out of order, and the best thing to do is to fullprot the article in question and "facilitate discussion", right? So, every 3RR report means "both sides are out of hand"? No sir... there are still some editors who understand the history, apply precedents & policy correctly, and still run into editors who won't play by the rules and violate our policies. We asked you to enforce a rule, not to lock down the entire process (and thereby giving legitimacy to editors who either don't understand, or don't care about the rules). That's not what we ask our admins to do. /Blaxthos 23:56, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Come on. I think you're getting a little melodramatic here. I did enforce the rule - nobody is edit warring anymore. That is the purpose of 3RR. There are no policies on Wikipedia with the express intent of blocking users on request. Even at AIV, it is up to the discretion of the administrators and sometimes other solutions can be found. If Threeafterthree was refusing to discuss his changes or respond to warnings, I would have blocked him. Since he was willing to talk about this (and since he did not violate 3RR, a fact which seems to have escaped everyone), a block was not appropriate. Kafziel ^Talk 00:34, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Admins are aware when there are deliberate attempts to break WP:3RR, and can differentiate that against edit warring. Simply put, if there is one person that commits the vandalism - that may be a violation of 3RR. But the fact that this has been challenged by many editors makes it obvious that it is an edit war. Either way, those editors that have been claiming there is "consensus" clearly have a lot of dissent and it is not obvious (nor has it ever been, IMO) that there is a consensus to include the item itself. Perhaps the greatest quandry of this all is the sources themselves for the statement. If users themselves are not able or willing to back up their sources when challenged, they shouldn't be there. We've seen it from a select group of editors that stubborness and nonexistant heirarchy plauges the actions of users here. Perhaps the greatest thing said on this talk page was that Fox News is notable because they're Fox News - they're not notable because of their controversies. Either way, the past is the past - it's obvious discussions start now. One reminder - this is not October. Don't think it is October. According to the Gregorian calendar, it's May. Keep that in mind, and remember WP:CCC. --66.227.194.89 00:20, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

Latest comment: 17 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

On the main page at this moment, the article is locked from editing. Reading through the history section, it appears the section relating to the Fox News Alert was vandalized prior to this occurring with some of the sentences included in the section, such as, "On FOX Kids News Channel the piercing chime is replaced with a clap of thunder but the swooshing sound is still intacted", which I don't believe is a valid entry and to my understanding should be vandalism. If an administrator can revise the edits done on this section, that would be great. Thank you! Chris (Talk) (Contribs) 22:46, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

The sentence has been in place for more than a month, being introduced here and the following edit. If you wish to propose a solution, please try and be specific. -- zzuuzz^(talk) 23:35, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Take out the Kids...Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 23:38, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Done. I also changed "intacted" to "intact".

By the way, wow - that section (describing the various sound effects in detail) has to be one of the most boring things I've ever read. That's worse than listening to other people tell you what they dreamed about last night. I mean, it's bad. But anyway, it's fixed. Kafziel ^Talk 23:49, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Introduction:Again

Latest comment: 17 years ago23 comments7 people in discussion

In an attempt to reach a new consensus (if necessary) re: the introduction, I ask those who wish to see change to please state which of the following statements you disagree with, if any, and how the intro can be changed to accurately reflect these principle or any additional ones.

Many people believe Fox News to be conservative.
Many of the people who believe Fox News to be conservative are critics from the Left side of the American political spectrum.
However, some moderates and independants also hold this perception.
Not everyone who believes in this perception is a "critic" of Fox News.
Fox News denies they are conservative.
This perception of bias at Fox News is one of the aspects of its notability, alongside its ownership and ratings.

Simply put, which of these statements is disputed and why? If we can get past this then we can work on actual language that embodies this and is acceptable to all. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 23:08, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Without admitting that consensus has changed (I don't believe it has), I agree with everything except the #2/#3 combination. The rest is documented and verifiable from reliable sources -- let's not try to characterize those who believe one thing or another... let's just state it exists. /Blaxthos 00:05, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

(Consensus hasn't changed, but since we are being ordered to discuss it more by those with greater knowledge than us, we have no choice) I agree with you but there have been attempts to limit the perception to just the Left and/or Democrats. That's why I put that in. If we can get widespread agreement on those two perhaps there could be some consensus. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 00:10, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Consensus was never established, Ramsquire. The moment you and the other editors who have delayed consensus making in the first place realize that, the sooner this article will comply to WP standards. --66.227.194.89 00:21, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Specifically:

"Many" is an opinion, and can only be backed up by facts about the opinion itself. We haven't seen any large, reliable studies to prove this, either in American or International markets.
Most are, but as NPOV states, we cannot give undue weight.
"Some" is an example of undue weight, especially when there are no specific citations to back up the statement that is being made.
From the sources, all but one (final media report by university) were. Be sure not to sensationalize the results (especially not just certain portions, either) of that report, however - FNC was found more centrist than the big three on news analysis. That's not what the lead says happened in the report.
Fox News denies that they are biased period.
Unfounded accusation, brought forth by users who have, throughout the period of editing this article, displayed this on many accounts. For examples... well, let's make this fun: "check the archives" ;-)

--66.227.194.89 00:26, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, and at this point I don't care if I get blocked for saying this, but your post makes you come across as an absolute idiot and troll. Especially when you say consensus has never been established--even after the RfC when all of those editors agreed to varying degrees with the "consensus" version. A more logical and rational argument would be that consensus has changed, or is in the process of changing (I don't agree with it, but it is a reasonable position to take considering the last few days). If it is changing then we should soon see by what takes place in this discussion. BTW-- I take it that you agree with the six points above. You didn't say which ones are inaccurate. If you took the time to read, you would see that I am just fleshing out parametes of what should be represented in the new intro. We'd get to policies and guidelines later. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 00:35, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I support completely Ramsquire's statements, and I'll do you one better. I charge that 66.227.194.89 is none other than our old friend Cbuhl79 (talk · contribs). Notice the timeframes (with regards to Cbuhl79) of the following:

Talk about agenda pushing, sockpuppetry, and refusing to abide by WP:CONSENSUS. This isn't a changed consensus... this is the same sour grapes from the same editor who was rebuffed and later the subject of an ArbCom request. At this point, I'd advocate checkuser to expose this for what it really is... /Blaxthos 01:13, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Wrong, Blaxthos. I am not Cbuhl79. But this isn't the fist time you have made this mistake... my sources indicate that you've accused another user of being the same (which turned out to be undeniably false) sockpuppet. But one thing is sure - if users don't agree with you, they must be sockpuppets or harming the project. Read my responses, please. You certainly should at least answer them if you won't let me edit the article. --66.227.194.89 21:25, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I see no more agenda pushing by this anon user than I see by you. You both are pretty committed to a certain thing being said or not said in the intro.

And I can't see anything in WP:SOCK that suggests that even if this anon user is cbuhl79, that they're in any way guilty of sockpuppeting. Cbuhl79 is clearly no longer active, ergo, this user can't be acting as a sockpuppet. If cbuhl79 was coming back as an anonymous user, there is absolutely no policy against this, and it certainly isn't sockpuppetting. That user was never blocked or censured.

I also note again that you misrepresent the ArbCom issue - cbuhl79 was never even blocked, much less the subject of an actual ArbCom decision. There were two ArbCom requests which were as much about the behavior of several of the still active editors as they were about cbuhl79, and in any case, they were both rejected, and are therefore pretty much moot.

Finally, I simply find it absurd that you still continue to insist that immutable consensus has been reached, and that editors who wish to continue discussion are somehow "refusing to abide" by it. Cogswobble talk 01:28, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Let's see if I can clear this up:

I'm not pushing any agenda other than assuming good faith regarding the proper formulation of a consensus version. This is not the version I originally advocated, but am now advocating as part of an extremely hard-earned consensus.
If it is Cbuhl (and it is), then he's already shown that he's unwilling to abide by a consensus to which he doesn't approve by calling additional RFC's in bad faith, making unilateral changes, wikilawyering (shopping for a policy he can use to effect the changes he wants).
The conduct was so egregios as to earn an ArbCom request, and beyond that, if it had been issued a week or two earlier then ArbCom would have certainly heard the case -- we've not since had a vote so close. Certainly there is no misrepresentation of the standing of the case, and I request that you show us where other editors in this discussion have been before ArbCom in any sort of defensive capacity. I certainly haven't.
Returning as an anonymous IP (much less logging out to effect changes while actively doing the same with a named account) is definitely nefarious (if not textbook sockpuppetry or canvassing).
Conensus was reached... if you're trying to say consensus has changed, I point you to the records clearly repeated over the last few months. If you're trying to say consensus was never reached, well then you're just plain wrong, and you've got at least 18 editors who would disagree with you, as we were the ones who actually worked towards reaching it. Beyond that, even if you count the sockpuppets we still haven't come close to that many editors claiming that consensus has changed.
WP:LEAD, WP:WEASEL, and WP:NPOV issues have been addressed (at length) -- just because a few editors refuse to actually abide by the policies (and the consensus of a slew of editors here) doesn't mean this is a worthy discussion. Furthermore, jumping on the bandwagon every time some anonymous or unknown editor asks the question is not the answer. The rest of us have come to a consensus, and it's high time you start supporting the community instead of inciting problems every time this comes up. All those issues were asked, answered, and explained a dozen times.
At what point do you think consensus be reached? Do we go over this again and again every time some editor comes along and asks the question? Perhaps we should show those editors how "hey, that issue already came up... here's what happened and why". All it takes is reading the archives...

Please, cogswobble, start working WITH the community instead of AGAINST it every time someone raises the issue. /Blaxthos 01:59, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I think I can respond to almost everything you've said here by simply saying - just because you say it's so, doesn't make it so. Cogswobble talk 02:14, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

How many do you need before you'll consider it? I can probably direct you to quite a few... And what, exactly, do you contest as being incorrect? /Blaxthos 02:17, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Since you already said you would be ignoring my comments, I am not sure what point there is in responding, but I will present my arguments nonetheless and hope that you abide by WP:AGF. Additionally, I am not Cbuhl. I am not a sockpuppet. I have become involved because of what appears to be rampant criticism in articles on WP.

Many people do appear to view Fox News to be conservative, however Many is a debatable word since many people view the other major news sources to be liberal or at least more liberal, as a juxtaposition there are those that view Fox to be Neutral and others liberal, while those that view Fox to be conservative view the others to be Neutral. It is an endless circular logical problem, which will never placate either side of the debate.
I would say Most.
Believes which perception? The conservative nature or the conservative bias?
Again, which perception?
Actually Fox claims they are more neutral than other main stream media sources.
I would say that Fox's claim to be neutral and the criticism of that label is the real notability.

There is more to this than the statements you have made. One of Fox's main claims is that mainstream media is liberally biased, and that they offer equal weight to both sides of the argument. Reference 7 in its analysis state statistics that state the media in general is more liberal than the average American by a 2:1 to 3:1 margin. As such if Fox follows a neutral agenda (as they claim) then you would achieve the results in reference 4 which state that Journalists view fox to be more conservative by a 2:1 to 3:1 margin. Under this pretense Fox is more conservative than other mainstream media is, but is it biased? The only real claims of actual bias are from references 5 and 6, which are from democratic hopefuls. In the 2007 state of the media review http://www.stateofthemedia.org/2007/narrative_overview_publicattitudes.asp?cat=8&media=1

In contrast with a decade ago, there are no significant distinctions anymore in the basic believability of major national news organizations. About a quarter of Americans believe most television outlets. Less than one in five believe what they read in print. CNN is not really more trusted than Fox, or ABC than NBC. The local paper is not viewed much differently than the New York Times.

To me it appears the real debate is whether there is actual observable bias which is distinguishable when compared with other mainstream media, and there does not appear to be. I will grant that journalist', which are more likely to be liberal, consider Fox to be conservative as a whole, but it does not carry over to the general public, at least not according to the sources cited including the additional one I included here.

I have two general problems with the current iteration.

Criticism of a politically charged nature within the lead is quite rampant on WP articles, which appears to lead to considerable argument and edit wars. Although this affects articles that could be viewed as either liberal or conservative, there is far more criticism directed at articles considered to be conservative. This only furthers the belief that WP is liberally biased, and does nothing to help the overall credibility of WP.
The statement in the current iteration is not backed up by the references listed and appears to be primarily driven by the fact that personal opinion is that FNC is biased.

And yes, I do have an agenda, I wish to see WP universally neutral. Arzel 02:23, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

To be fair, I said I was ignoring you because I didn't know where you were coming from. You appeared to be responding to things I wasn't saying. Considering the previous sockpuppetry and other trolling by a certain editor, I wasn't sure what you're angle was. I didn't say I'd ignore you forever, and on all articles. I'm now officially out of this discussion but since you asked a question that only I can answer, I'll answer it. Generally speaking (not about Fox in particular), I would say that if the discussion concerns a journalistic enterprise, having a "nature" is the same as having a bias. They are supposed to be neutral and not have "natures". FTR-- your re-iteration of #6 is identical to what I wanted to get across. So if you want to replace it with that go ahead. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 18:24, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

To respond to Ramsquire, apologies for getting sidetracked.

1. Disagree - in that "many people" is too ambiguous

2. Agree

3. Agree

4. Weakly Disagree - I think if you are accusing Fox News of bias, then you are a critic. Note that I don't think that "critic" has a negative or positive connotation.

5. Agree

6. Weakly Disagree - If this were a near universal perception, then I would agree that it is one of the most notable things.

Cogswobble talk 02:46, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

As a first step to resolving this conflict, I strongly suggest getting rid of the word "bias" due to its negative connotation. Can we all agree on that? In the "Intro statement" section above, Arzel suggested "Critics consider Fox News Channel to be more conservative than other contemporary news organizations." That's OK by me. --JHP 05:01, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I have changed the sentence to use Arzel's suggestion. The word "bias" was also removed so it now reads, "Critics consider Fox News Channel to be more conservative than competing news organizations; the channel says it is not conservative." Please vote on whether you find the new text to be acceptable. --JHP 15:35, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes (salting the jar to encourage others) --JHP 15:35, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

This is unacceptable since it only identifies "critics" as seeing Fox's rightward tilt. Gamaliel (Orwellian Cyber hell master) 16:36, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I changed it to say "Critics and some observers consider Fox News Channel to be more conservative than competing news organizations; the channel says it is not conservative." Is this acceptable to everyone? --JHP 19:46, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Weak support. I prefer to leave out "...and some observers..." for reasons stated above, but I am not opposed to leaving it in. Cogswobble talk

Weak support. Although I don't like the word observers under the current context it does read neutral and less inflamatory. My primary objection is that the references don't really back up the claim of observers, but I am not also not opposed to leaving it in. I imagine some may consider the word "some" to be weasle. Arzel 23:39, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

This brings up a question I had yesterday: Do conservatives consider Fox News to be conservative? (Or perhaps less liberal?) In fact, isn't this why many conservatives prefer Fox News over its competitors? Personally, I don't like the "and some observers" phrase because it is wordy and gives the sentence an awkward feel. However, it is proving very difficult to satisfy everyone. --JHP 01:07, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I think it is deeper than that. I think that some conservatives have been told over and over and over that FOX is biased that there is a backlash to the point they feel other stations to be liberal and that FOX is the only neutral source. I believe it has reached a point that even if they may have felt that FOX was biased they block it because so many on the left say that FOX is biased and that you must be a red-necked rube or retarded to believe anything they say. Just listen to Randi Rhodes for a while and you can get a good idea of the divide between the two spectrums. I believe that people in the middle fall into two camps. Those that feel FOX is biased do so because they either truely believe it, or because it has been said so many times that they feel they are agreeing just to be part of the group. Those that don't feel FOX is biased either truely feel they aren't or are tired of being told FOX is biased. The result is very little middle ground. Ironically, IMHO, democrats are guilty of the very thing they claim FOX; repeatedly stating a fact that they believe to be true when it may not be. Arzel 00:50, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

FAQ

Latest comment: 17 years ago16 comments9 people in discussion

Given the fact that there is clearly not consensus about the intro statement, I don't think the FAQ should be pasted at the top of the page. The discussion is occuring and should occur in the talk page, there doesn't need to be a "FAQ" that primarily presents one side of the argument listed at the top of the page. Cogswobble talk 03:29, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

FAQ does not say there's consensus about the intro. it serves a useful purpose by giving a concise overview of the issues involved, something that's sorely needed - look at the length of the discussions on this page and in the archives. if you think it leaves out significant points or is one-sided, feel free to edit it. Doldrums 12:36, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

The FAQ strongly implies that those are the official, consensus-supported answers to common questions. That's not true. At best, everyone is experienced enough to know just to ignore it. At worst, having it there discourages new users from asking questions or starting new discussions. Kafziel ^Talk 12:57, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Just for clarification... those were consensus supported answers to the questions presented. It was all taken directly from the RfC that occured in October of last year, and is all plainly visible in the Archives from that time period. Not only are you willing to come in at the 11th hour and declare what's factual, but you're completely unwilling to find out what actually occured. Quel suprie. /Blaxthos 13:31, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm taking the FAQ away again. I originally objected to it's inclusion because I think it discourages discussion on the talk page, and this still applies. Again, I find it curious that editors here can talk about how "consensus was reached" in the same breath that they complain about the fact that this issue has debate has been going on for months. That's a strange definition of consensus. Cogswobble talk 23:16, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Consensus was reached. Read the archives. Gamaliel (Orwellian Cyber hell master) 23:27, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Sheesh...if consensus was reached, then why has this discussion continued nearly unabated for so long? And why have at least four editors that I count who have "read the archives" agree that consensus was not reached. Cogswobble talk 23:39, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd say the 18 or so editors who put aside their differnces and hammered out an mutually acceptable definition is consensus. If that is not consensus, then consensus is impossible on Wikipedia. Gamaliel (Orwellian Cyber hell master) 23:47, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Also, consensus is not unanimous agreement. There has been one holdout editor who resorted to trolling and sockpuppetry to keep the debate alive. Foolishly Blaxthos, Auburn Pilot and myself, not realizing we were being duped kept responding in good faith, thus keeping the debate alive. And regardless of claiming to have read the archives, you can't have possible read this and say that there was never a consensus. You will also see consensus by many of those same editors not participating ins his bad faith RfC which coincidentally was started less than an hour after the first one ended. If there was no consensus, you'd think more of the original editors would have continued hammering home their points. [3]. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 00:13, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Concur with the above editors, this article was well-handled by both RFC's and peer reviews. The consensus version stands against the edit warriors. Italiavivi 16:09, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

That's funny, there are a group of editors here who are discussing the intro now, but I guess the fact that you claim that consensus was reached months ago mean that nobody is ever allowed to discuss changes to this again? Cogswobble talk 16:26, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I have read the archives again, and still disagree that full concensus was reached. This is somewhat of a moot point now that there are more than one questioning the result. Arzel 00:19, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Arzel. Which makes at least four different editors in the last two archive pages who have "read the archives" and dispute the consensus claim. (Myself, Bytebear, Offorbythepeople, and 66.227.194.89). You claim that "one holdout editor" does not make a lack of consensus. Are you claiming then that every single person who has continued to object in some form to the current intro is the same person? Cogswobble talk 16:06, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Consensus details

Consensus building effort

Talk:Fox_News_Channel/Archive_15#Should_FNC.27s_alleged_conservative_bias_be_mentioned_in_the_article_introduction.3F
Talk:Fox_News_Channel/Archive_16#Request_for_Comment:_FNC_allegations_of_bias -- Consensus building effort by no fewer than 17 editors (not even counting anonymous comments)
Talk:Fox_News_Channel/Archive_16#Request_for_Comment:_Wording_of_the_intro -- Malformed RfC in Bad Faith in which consensus was upheld

Editors who participated (not even including anonymous IP's)

Aaron
Gamaliel
Blaxthos
Isarig
AuburnPilot
Edders
FeloniousMonk
Ramsquire
Rama
Cordless Larry
Cbuhl79
Mrmiscellanious
GTBacchus
Doldrums
Tbeatty
Blueboar
Doldrums
Kevin Baas

Not everyone agreed on every point, but every name you see gave input and issued opinion on what became the final compromise version of the introduction. Every point you have raised was rased, and addressed, in the discussions referenced above. So now, you're saying the work of eighteen named editors and several anonymous contributors is laughable? That is the most serious violation of WP:AGF I've ever seen, and speaks volumes about your credibility on this issue. /Blaxthos 20:02, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Also, maybe you guys are just unclear on what constitutes a consensus... it doesn't mean everyone agrees with every point. It means that the community as a whole has agreed on a specific wording or issue... not that a few people who don't like it can take every opportunity to make spurious claims that the consesnsus is invalid or doesn't exist at all. /Blaxthos 19:03, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Blaxthos, you point out people who were involved in discussion, but not part of any consensus decision. Your list here means nothing; at least four users on that list vehemently disagreed with the outcome, and many others didn't participate at all when the claimed "consensus" was apparently "reached". --66.227.194.89 04:34, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

stare decisis et non quieta movere

Latest comment: 17 years ago10 comments3 people in discussion

I'm done with this, guys... forget the project-wide RFC's and editorial review that's already occured. I no longer have the interest or the patience to deal with the same repetitive arguments that use the same broken logic, especially with editors who refuse to both acknowledge proper policy and the efforts that have already taken place. Most of you know me for my extreme patience and persistance, but truely this is more than I'm willing to deal with. Good luck... I fear this article will deteriorate into the blind leading the blind, but I certainly don't hope it to be so. Sorry to abandon those who have been here trying to keep the sanity, but I don't doubt that many of you will be joining my exodus if you haven't already. Best of luck. /Blaxthos 03:39, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Considering your admitted bias towards Fox, this isn't a bad idea. Take a break and then come back refreshed. I am sorry to get into it with you over a stupid caption to a image, but I thought I would start out with something small, but even that was difficult. What makes this project amazing is that it is trying to catelogue ALL information ever known to mankind and is open to 6 billion editors from different perspectives. Cheers, --Tom 13:18, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Tom, don't try to characterize me as admittedly biased -- just another example of your willingness to twist the facts to suit your agenda (not the first time, judging from your talk page). Also, please don't bring yourself onto my talk page uninvited. Thanks. /Blaxthos 13:28, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

blah, blah, blah. Somebody was talking about me on your talk page, so I responded. Anyways, --Tom 13:32, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

p.s., Would you like to give an example of "twisting the facts" per above? Didn't think so. --Tom 13:34, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

"your admitted bias" - where is my bias, and where is it admitted? This has deteriorated into trolling... hopefully the other editors won't bite. /Blaxthos 13:42, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I think you make your agenda perfectly clear here [4]. Again, would you like to provide a source for where I "twisted the facts". --Tom 14:10, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

"I (and many others) have worked hard for a long time to ensure that their bias is noted and presented in a way that does not violate our neutral point of view policy. Anything added to the project needs to be WP:Verifiable by citing reliable sources within the article. At no time may editors add their own commentary or analysis to articles, as it constitutes original research and violates WP:NPOV. " -- yep, my agenda is stated and crystal clear. That is the textbook definition of a neutral point of view. /Blaxthos 14:47, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I love how nobody here actually works for, or is personally affected by anything done by Fox yet it's probably the article with the most trolling and flaming (on both sides) I've ever visited. :) In the spirit of adding tenuously relevent sentiments in a different language - C'est la vie. I think everyone should have a break from the bias sections of the article for a while and focus on building up some of the drier details - Network history, ratings etc. - to cool off. I don't believe any of that stuff has actually been changed in months. Edders 13:38, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, I am going back to edit articles about Jewish/Arab issues since those folks are so calm and even keeled compared to folks around here :) geesh! Anyways, glad I stopped by, cheers! --Tom 14:12, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Frivolous non-free images.

Latest comment: 17 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

I do agree with User:JHP that this article has far too many unnecessary non-free images. I propose removing all copyrighted images from this article save the primary Fox News logo, the screenshot of the channel's coverage, the "Fox News Alert" card, and the "Fair and Balanced" trademark. Italiavivi 16:03, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

The FoxNews.com logo is significantly different and represents its online presence. As is the MSNBC online logo. It deserves placement to represent its other division. - Mike Beckham 16:06, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

The FoxNews.com logo is the all-caps word "FOX" imposed over spotlights, just like every other Fox logo. Wikipedia should avoid non-free media where possible; the MSNBC online logo is probably inappropriate for fair use as well. Italiavivi 16:18, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

It is different colours, different look totally. I have to say your going OTT with removing all images. For representation of certain things like their online operations images are important. It is significantly different to the main logo and therefore deserves to be displayed. Same goes for MSNBC. - Mike Beckham 16:21, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, where did I advocate removing all images? I believe I listed above four images of value to keep in the article. I'm still not sure how "FOX" imposed over spotlights is significantly different, but we'll see how other editors feel. It is a non-free image headed for deletion regardless, and trying to craft a fair use rationale for it will prove most difficult in a deletion argument. Italiavivi 16:25, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Please discuss changes here - Talk:Fox_News_Channel#Introduction:Again

Latest comment: 17 years ago24 comments6 people in discussion

There's been a lot of reverting of the intro statement lately. The thread here - Talk:Fox_News_Channel#Introduction:Again is a discussion about the intro statement. If you revert or change the intro statement, please discuss it in that thread Cogswobble talk 16:34, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

No, that thread is where you are trying to make your case for changing the consensus version. Your tactic here, pretending that your version has any manner of consensus (and that editors here must come argue with you if they don't endorse your changes), is very disingenuous. Italiavivi 16:53, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Umm...that thread is where at least four different editors are discussing a change to the intro, and at least three have explicitly supported a specific version. I'm not saying "my" version has consensus. In fact, the version that is currently being discussed isn't even "my" preferred version. I'm also not saying that people shouldn't be discussing it, or changing it. Just that they shouldn't change it without discussing it.

Are you saying that no one should ever be allowed to change the introduction because an immutable consensus has been reached? Cogswobble talk 17:12, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps one should consider the community-wide RfC with 18+ editors participating in the formulation of the old version instead of insisting consensus has changed when there are two or three people who refuse to recognize the consensus... "at least four different editors" isn't even close to the participation from people from all over Wikipedia last October (where every point you now make was brought up and pondered (and answered) by the group). How do you justify a group of 3 or 4 editors (some of whom have been accused of sockpuppetry) trumping a group five times larger that already reviewed those points? Wear everyone down till they are so frustrated they give up? Cogswobble, you've jumped on every opportunity to try and push this change instead of respecting the community consensus already in place, and in the process have frustrated almost every regular contributor to this article. /Blaxthos 18:38, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

So you are in fact saying then that an immutable consensus has been reached? Cogswobble talk 18:52, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

No, I'm saying the burden for showing consensus has changed is higher than 3 or 4 editors... the larger (and more intricate) the consensus-building effort/team was, the larger the burden on those alleging consensus has changed becomes. So far you've given no answer as to why you and your cliq of 3 editors should trump the effort of so many editors just 8 months ago, especially given that that group already spoke to every issue you've raised. Explain that... /Blaxthos 18:55, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Ah, so you are saying that three or four editors aren't entitled to discuss a change to your immutable consensus? I suppose all of the editors who have ever participated since then would have to agree in order to change the consensus that was undeniably reached 8 months ago? Cogswobble talk 19:01, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Incidentally, what exactly is this immutable consensus version? Because as far as I can tell, the current version has only been around for a few days, and not counting the removals, it has been changed slightly many many times in the past few months. In fact, the discussions to which I was referring to above were discussions on how to tweak the intro statement. You seem to be accusing everyone who wants to modify or improve the intro statement of demanding that it be removed. Cogswobble talk 19:05, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Discuss all you like, but don't go making false claims that consensus does not or never did exist, and be prepared to show us how consensus has changed before demanding changes. I believe you're either being purposefully dense or downright sarcastic, and I ask that you go and read the policies before claiming that you're on the high road. All of your questions (regarding what constitutes a consensus, and what you have to do to show that it's changed) are addressed in WP:CCC and WP:CONSENSUS. As far as "what is this consensus version" -- it's clearly linked like three times above. Obviously you don't actually read what we type (or the archives)... how many administrators and editors need to point it out to you? The only thing I demand is that you assume good faith regarding the consensus version, and that you actually show us how consensus has changed before changing the article. The "tweaks" and "modifications" you're trying to effect were already considered and rejected by a group much larger than the three (relatively newcomer) editors that are here now... why should we throw out a large group's consensus decision based on the (already covered!) issues raised by a few editors? /Blaxthos 19:08, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Why are you so hostile to any suggestion of improvements to this part of the article? My first edit on these talk pages was asking for a source in the intro. You responded in a hostile manner: [5]. In fact, a source was later found and added (and is still there), and there was agreement among several editors about this change. At various points throughout the past few months (not counting times when it has been removed), the intro statement in the past has read:

Fox News is seen by some critics and observers as advocating conservative political positions.
Fox News has been criticized as advocating conservative political positions
Although Fox News has been criticized as advocating conservative political positions
Fox News is seen by critics and many observers of the channel as advocating conservative political positions
Fox News is seen by critics and observers of the channel as advocating conservative political positions
Critics and some observers of the channel see Fox News as advocating conservative political positions
Critics and some observers consider Fox News Channel to be more conservative than competing news organizations

So which version exactly is the immutable unchangeable (unless by a mega-super majority) consensus version?

Where have I unilaterally demanded that the statement be removed or changed? I've voiced my support (to some degree or the other) for several of these versions, and I've participated actively in discussions here. In fact, I've only made a tiny handful of edits to the article itself.

And what part of this [[6]] am I completely failing to misunderstand? Cogswobble talk 19:26, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I didn't realize it was so hard for you to find...

Fox News is seen by critics of the channel as advocating conservative political positions;^[1] however, the channel, whose slogans include "Fair and Balanced" and "We Report, You Decide", denies allegations of bias in their news reporting.
— Archived Consensus

.

Obviously since then we've added some references, but that's the language & content reached by consensus. I believe there has been more discussion and consensus regarding critics and observers in which you participated... /Blaxthos 19:43, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh, so how come the text has changed so many times since then? And please explain how I am misunderstanding this diagram -

Cogswobble talk

Actually, I think I'm understanding the diagram correctly, which is why the intro text has been changed numerous times. Cogswobble talk 19:50, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Willfully forgetting your own participating, posting huge charts... Shame on me for feeding the trolls. /Blaxthos 19:53, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Ah, so people who want to discuss changes are trolls. Gotcha. Cogswobble talk 20:01, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

It is impossible to have consensus regarding something that people are currently fighting over, because consensus implies general agreement. (Don't believe me? Look up the definition.) The people claiming consensus regarding disputed topics are merely fabricating consensus in order to get their own way. Unfortunately, there are some people on both sides of these debates who are so insistent on having things their way, that not only do they revert changes of the opposing side, but they also revert any attempts at compromise. --JHP 15:23, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

When past consensus-building involved 18+ editors, and current objections involve three? And when the objections of the three newcomers were already exhaustively covered in past RFCs/Peer reviews? Claiming that there's already solid consensus on the matter is hardly fabrication. Italiavivi 20:16, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Not true. The references included DO NOT back up the statement being made. Reference 3 indicates that Journalists (which have been identified as being liberal by a 2:1 to 3:1 margin as being liberal) sampled from the largest media sources (not all sources) identify FNC as being conservative in nature. References 4 and 5 are from Democratic hopefulls and leaders which are critical of FNC. Reference 6 examines specific programs on various channels and finds that FOX special report is more conservative than most other programs in the review. However, that difference is equally as far from center as those that would be viewed as left. Additionally it is not critical of FNC. As such the current statement is referenced by sources which do not back up the claim of the statement.

Lets stop bikering about whether concensus was reached since it will not help move this discussion forward. Arzel 23:10, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

There was clear consensus which resulted from the participation of 18+ editors in the RfC and Peer Review systems. On the other hand is Cogswobble, Edders (a clear POV-pusher with a spuriously intermittent edit history), and an anonymous IP. I'd say the past consensus is pretty strong compared with the reverts/deletions that've been made over the past week. That aside, you're completely out of line making these changes over the objections of myself, Blaxthos, Ramsquire, and others. Italiavivi 23:45, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Not sure if you directed this at me, but I didn't make any changes to the article regarding the lead. Arzel 02:47, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

It was not directed at you. I've consciously left you off the list of "recently arrived disruptive Fox News editors." Italiavivi 04:09, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

A few facts: A) THERE WAS A CONSENSUS. To deny that there was never a consensus, is simply not true. It's right there in the archives. However B) CONSENSUS CAN CHANGE, and maybe it has and I've been willing to concede that it may have (although I still don't see evidence of this change, to me it seems to be new users raising old arguments.), but C) THERE IS NO "NEW" CONSENSUS either, based on the continuing discussions and the fact that the current version reads almost identically to the old version that was SO bad. Finally, D) there was sockpuppetry invovled previously, it's in the archives. See Archive 18 and User:Skypad for a confirmed case and my workspace for an unconfirmed case, of let's just say "weird coincidence". One more thing-- several editors who participated in the RfC's have claimed that there was a consensus with diffs showing how the consensus was reached. I am now askingany editor who claims to have read the archives, to please, by using the diffs, show how consensus was NOT reached back then.Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 20:50, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia has such a disorganized mess of rules, guidelines, and instructions that it seems there is always something new to bite me in the ass. It makes me feel like I am wasting my time trying to edit Wikipedia. I had no idea that you could archive talk pages. How can you tell if a talk page has archives? How can you access the archives if someone else hasn't already posted a link to the archived page? Do I have to read all of the archives, or is there a quick way to find out if there is a preexisting consensus? --JHP 23:44, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Never mind. I found it. How do you archive a page? --JHP 23:47, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Why doesn't it surprise me to learn that at least one of the new voices didn't even know what an archive was? How much you guys wanna bet he's not the only one who hasn't actually read the history? Quel suprie... /Blaxthos 00:01, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Ainsley Earhardt

need to add Ainsley Earhardt

lists

Latest comment: 17 years ago8 comments5 people in discussion

to put things in perspective. feel free to add to list or ask for cites. i haven't bothered to dig them (citations) up for some. Doldrums 16:23, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Those who ...
say Fox is conservative/biased	say its not
Fox critics: Newshounds, Outfoxed Media watchdogs: FAIR, MMA, MRC's L. Brent Bozell III calls[7] Fox "a conservative alternative" to "liberal TV news" notable Democrats Democratic underground, Daily Kos, Move-On crowd Journalists in SotM2007 survey: 69% vrs. 20% (for most "liberal" source) of national journalists 42% vrs. 17% of local journalists (see page 16) half dozen books on Journalism by academics, journalists (search for "Rutherford" in Intro Statement section above) Notable Journalists/media persons: LA Times editor, Ted Turner Media reports from USATODAY (+ reprinted at AOL news), Hartford Courant, Washington Post LA Times NY Daily News, Miami Herald, Media Guardian was[8] every one of the news sources (excepting Fox News itself) in the top 20 google results for "fox news ten years" (for coverage of Fox news on its ten year anniversary).	Fox News

"Outfoxed" is not notable. Neither is MoveOn.org, Newshounds, all other blogs, FAIR, MRC or MMFA. None of them are notable enough to be added in Fox News' article, but their position on FNC should be in their articles. Not every Democrat is notable, but prominents like Howard Dean are. Ted Turner is a competitor, as are the participants in the study and the LA Times. Doldrums, you seem to have a very strong stance on this subject. The problem is, WP:RS speaks for itself in these cases. --75.21.179.121 01:50, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Incidentally, according to the study where 69% of journalists cite Fox News as conservative, 34% of those journalists consider themselves liberal, 54% consider themselves moderate, and 7% consider themselves conservative. It's still a compelling and useful statistic, but it's worth noting that this sample (journalists) tends to be far less conservative than the public, which is split 20/41/33.Cogswobble talk 16:49, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

As utterly retarded as such blogs are, I think they still merit a brief mention. I believe reps from FAIR are occassionally asked to contribute to discussions of media bias etc. on the major News channels, same as how the conservative MRC guy is on Fox (and I think MSNBC once?) now and again. But to add to 75's point, who pointed out that Turner and Times are competitors - the Guardian is basically the New York Times of Britain aside from its anti-Americanism (only despises Republican leaders moderately more than it does Democrats :) That doesn't stop it being labelled a notable source. If we're going to list just about every liberal or lefty institution in existance we could just as easily end up doing the same for conservative ones like National Review, LGF, Powerline, Republican Senators etc.

At the end of the day many people DO say Fox News is biased. The problem is A: Virtually every single one is liberal or leftist and B: Exactly the opposite is said by most conservatives. Indeed, Fox itself was established - according to Ailes -because a lot of people (i.e. conservatives/republicans/libertarians/whatever) saw the "Mainstream Media" as dominated by liberals, hence why their slogan is "Fair and Balanced" to differentiate themselves from their competitors. There are minor exceptions all over the place - Goldberg saying Fox is biased, Kerry saying he got a "fair shake" etc., but I think we can all agree this is the general state of things.

Yeah, Jonah Goldberg is a total "leftist." There's no shortage of conservatives willing to concede Fox News' bias toward their favor. Italiavivi 23:35, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

So, on the one hand if CNN has a line about their alleged bias in the intro, then Fox sure as heck should have one too. On the other hand, is this general wikipedia policy? I'm not an expert on wiki policy so if we could at least come to some consenus about that we could move on.

WP:LEAD is already crystal clear about inclusion of controversy in articles' introductions. Italiavivi 23:35, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Finally, a section that DOES merit immediate deletion is the alleged bias parts in the "History" section. The "History" section should be exactly that - a history of how and why Fox came about, it's challenges etc. Either dump the POV-pushing in the cesspit that is the seperate Fox criticism/controversy article (I'm guessing it's probably there already) or get rid of it all together. Doing Uni exams atm but after Wednesday I'll be able to devote more time to this whole punch-up and hopefully make some progress. Edders 12:39, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

And I'll steadfastly oppose any attempt by you to whitewash the article. Italiavivi 23:35, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

That's a good point Edders, we should probably at the very least move some of the bias parts in the "History" section elsewhere, unless they explicitly pertain to the history of Fox News. Cogswobble talk 16:54, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry

Latest comment: 17 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

Quite honestly, I'm not here for FNC's article. I have been here to analyze WP policies on a hot-button issue. After seeing discussion on many other articles, I came across FNC's article. The most interesting part about this analysis was that when users or anons had dissenting views on other articles (such as Israel, Hezbollah), many of them were resolved peacefully.

However, on this article... when a certain view is held, a sockpuppet check was automatically ordered. Now, this should be put in the top section to work on. That does not equate to maintaining civility.

Disgusting to say the least. Valuable contributors to Wikipedia have been lost because of these actions, which seemingly appear to be from the same group of users (not all, but most, who claim there was "consensus" are behind this).

Please grow up, those who are doing this. I am not Cogswobble. I'm pretty sure the other anon is not Cbuhl. And yet users attempt to make it appear as if we are. I ask all users to check all timestamps, all edits that are accused of being sockpuppetry. Most of these are not even related, yet are cited as sockpuppet actions. It not only degrades the argument these individuals are trying to make (civilly), but it also is a personal attack. As all users of Wikipedia are volunteers, this is probably the worst thank you that can be given. And for that, certain users should be ashamed. You will not see me participate in any more discussion on this subject, because despite having and showing respect for everyone else here, some users felt as if I was not entitled to the same. For that, I have no desire to work anymore here. --75.21.179.121 02:04, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree, there are a few editors here who's primary argument against any change seems to consist of appeals to a long-ago consensus, and accusations of sockpuppetry against anyone who disagrees. I have to say I'm sorry that the tactics that some of the editors here appear to have worked on you, especially since the accusation against you was so ludicrous - [9]. Cogswobble talk 16:20, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

At least you've moved beyond denying the past consensus. Now then, combine that with the extensive discussion and number of editors involved in that consensus building. Italiavivi 23:56, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I can't say I've been following this Sockpuppetry thing closely, but from working on the Richard Perle article I know what a pain in the bum it is to get attacked as a vandal, a sockpuppet, an employee of the subject or the subject themselves just because I got rid of POV and totally unsourced potential libel. Whether 75's been treated unfairly or not people need to consider how angry it makes editors when they're accused of such stuff. Edders 12:45, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone on the political left believe that Fox News is hurting the GOP?

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Is this a true fact? Liberal viewers and critics of Fox News are claiming that the Republican Party and their approval as a unit is being hurt by anchors of Fox News. When the liberal watchdog groups such as Media Matters, Daily Kos, Newshounds are debunking the Fox News stories and helping the competition roughly CNN and MSNBC gain ratings, could this be a sign that Fox News' "alleged" partisanship is hurting the Democrats or the Republicans? Is that true? LILVOKA 20:43, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Foxnews.com

Latest comment: 17 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

I added {{POV-section}} to Foxnews.com header because of partisan claims re: contributors.--'oac' (old american century) | Talk 22:32, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I see nothing POV with that section. Stating someone's political orientation is not a violation of NPOV. The organizations those writers write for should be a clear confirmation of their political positions. If someone writes for both the Heritage Foundation and Fox News, well, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure it out. --JHP 04:18, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree I am removing it, if you you have any other problems continue discussion here before putting it back. - Mike Beckham 12:22, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

The intro phrasing - Can we start from here?

Latest comment: 17 years ago48 comments8 people in discussion

This page seems to have a tendency to make people pretty argumentative. Let me just clear a few things up, I'm not saying that I think the intro statement needs to be removed, I'm not even saying that the intro statement needs to be changed. I was just a little perturbed at what seemed like an effort to preclude discussion regarding the introduction.

As we all know, consensus can change, and wikipedia is constantly evolving and changing. A few sections up, JHP, after an objection from Gamaliel, offered this version:

"Critics and some observers consider Fox News Channel to be more conservative than other contemporary news organizations."

This version was supported explicitly by myself, JHP, and Azrel, and implicitly by Gamaliel (since his objection was met). I'm not trying to argue at all that this version is the best version, or that the previous version must be changed, but let's just talk about here and now.

Right now it appears that several editors object to this version, and would explicitly support the previous version. If we can all discuss how to improve this article, then all the better. If the bulk of opinion is clearly behind any version of this intro, then I for one won't have any problems. Cogswobble talk 02:05, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Careful claiming an endorsement from Gamaliel. Italiavivi 04:12, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Italiavivi. I don't think you can count Gamaliel as supporting it. His objection was met, but supporting and not objecting are not the same. We don't know his current opinion. --JHP 07:20, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I wasn't trying to suggest that Gamaliel explicitly supports this version, just that he made a specific objection, and the objection was met, and thus was involved in the discussion about this version. Obviously, I can't speak for him or his opinion. Cogswobble talk 18:20, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

To clarify, I do not support the new proposed version and I support the original 18+ editor consensus version. I made a specific objection on a point where I did not feel there was any room to compromise. Gamaliel (Orwellian Cyber hell master) 18:23, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Additionally I restate my objection to the current itteration as not being supported by the references being used. Arzel 03:02, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

yes, the above proposed wording is not supported by sources. it in fact attempts to present Fox's view (that it is more conservative than others, who are too far in the other direction, and therefore Fox is balanced) as if it is the views of the critics/observers/whatever. i've listed several sources above describing Fox programming as conservative, right-wing or partisan. that shld adequately support a statement in the lead of the form "<label of disparate group> says Fox is conservative/right-wing/partisan, Fox denies this and claims ...". Doldrums

I was refering to the current version in the article, the above version is fully supported by your citations, your apparent issue is that is not harsh enough. Furthermore, your references earlier (not all of which are viewable) don't support the degree of criticism directed at FNC. One thing that does appear quite apparent from your references, is that many people that are very anti-war seem to blame FNC for promoting the war. In effect, the anti-FOX movement, is really a partial reflection of the anti-war movement. In anycase, your book references are stating personal opinion involving secondary quotes (i.e. I read this in X which supports my opinion that Y believes/does Z). Not that I have anything against personal opinion properly stated and quoted, but not within the lead in this context. Again restating: The references used do not back up the statement that FNC advocates a biased conservative position, it is personal opinion and undue weight. Furthermore, one reference used to support the statement does not accuse FNC of being either, and even defends against that statement. The primary conclusion has been that they are more conservative than their competitors. Arzel 13:52, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

i don't see the difference between what i suggest, viz. "<group> say Fox is conservative/right-wing/partisan" and "<group> say Fox is more conservative than other media" as a difference in harshness. i'm simply pointing out that the sources i've cited don't make comparative statements. they simply call Fox news programming c/r/p and report that Fox argues otherwise.

i keep seeing these "i can't see some of the sources" complaint. what is the problem? i've posted the quotes that i've used above. are people unwilling to believe that the above quotes are accurate? do they want to see more context? if so, i've provided reasonable information about the books - if the (convenience) link doesn't work for someone, they're free to find the books on their own online or otherwise. right now it looks like a "i can't read the source so i'll not consider it" argument.Doldrums 14:53, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I am not overly concerned with the wording of the sentence. I was just trying to resolve an edit war. I failed, though. --JHP 22:08, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

There are a few problems with the proposed sentence above. First it contains an unnecessary US-centric view of conservative. Americans may very well know what is being said when we use the label "conservative", however the word is adjective and should modify a noun in an encyclopedia. Stating it as "advocating [[conservatism in the United States|conservative]] political positions" is less US centric and more grammatically correct. Second, FoxNews denies all bias in their reporting, not just the right leaning one a number of people believe exists. I understand bias has a negative connotation, but we should strive to be accurate, not necessarily accomodating. The issue that people have with Fox (at least the ones that do)is that they perceive it to be biased. Third, this is what the source says: "At the same time, the single news outlet that strikes most journalists as taking a particular ideological stance - either liberal or conservative - is Fox News Channel. Among national journalists, more than twice as many could identify a daily news organization that they think is "especially conservative in its coverage" than one they believe is "especially liberal" (82% vs. 38%). And Fox has by far the highest profile as a conservative news organization; it was cited unprompted by 69% of national journalists." It mentions nothing about Fox as compared to its competitors which the above statement does. Fifth, and finally, personally I still maintain that it would probably be best if the perception bias angle was kept out of the introduction; however, I understand that I was in, and probably remain, in a distinct minority on this point based on the concluding language from the bold language above, which seems to refer to Fox's notability as a conservative news organization-- backed up by a scientific survey. Also, stop bitching about "the editors" who keep using consensus to avoid discussing the issue. Name names! Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 23:12, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd really like to duck out of this dispute with my tail between my legs. However, if you want me to name names I'll say that from my perspective Blaxthos and Italiavivi resort to the "consensus was reached" argument. When someone proposes a change, they are often silent. Then when someone actually makes a change, they tend to do a revert based on previous consensus. Then a fight ensues on this talk page. I'd really like to hear them say, "The reason the consensus version is preferable to the new version is because...". If we know the problem with the new version, then we know what to fix. Again, this is my personal impression. I haven't actually memorized everything they have written. Also, I would like to say that I believe Italiavivi violates WP:CIVIL on a fairly regular basis. --JHP 18:20, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with JHP on all points here, I was actually just about to respond with almost the same thing, especially that Italiavivi and Blaxthos' are "the editors" to which I refer. Cogswobbletalk 18:25, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I had forgotten that I ended my post with that request. Go figure! Well, you've been involved with this for a week, and are ready to leave. Imagine what it's like for me, who has been through this since October. Or for Blaxthos, who was here before I was. So I don't blame him for being short with new people raising what he deems to be old arguments--almost verbatim. Not to speak for Blaxthos (as I am about to) but I'm sure if someone were to phrase there arguments as "I know this was discussed previosly, but you guys overlooked (a) in reaching your version..." perhaps he would have more patience. As for Italiavivi, well, it seems to be a new red-line account who made a B-line to topics like this one. Older users like myself tend to be wary of accounts like this when they first begin (especially when they already have multiple blocks for edit warring), but I'll give him time to learn the ropes before passing any more judgment. FTR-- I think I speak for the original editors above in stating why the earlier version is preferable to the newer one. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 18:36, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

As I said before, I am not concerned with the phrasing of that sentence. If most people prefer the old version, then that's fine with me. I just saw an edit war and tried to help resolve it. Since I failed, I think I may be doing more harm than good. BTW, Italiavivi has had an account for 9 months and has 1,000-1,500 edits. --JHP 21:38, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't blame you for trying to assist. At least you have been honest that you didn't know about archives so didn't read them before jumping in. But, I still don't see when this alleged edit war regarding the intro occurred. There has been extensive and sometimes heated discussion on the talk page, but very few edits to the actual article and its introduction. Hey, having an opinion and voicing it never does harm. Locking an article under spurious circumstances...well that's another story. As for Italiavivi, it appears he was an intermittent user until January, for whatever that's worth. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 21:53, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I've been around for almost a year; I'm not a "red-line account," and I've successfully helped mediate plenty of reasonable conflicts (especially at Talk:Barack Obama). You mind dropping your baseless insinuations now? Italiavivi 02:38, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

You're right. Sorry about that. To be fair, you were once a red-line, were gone for a while, and only recently came back. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 17:42, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I guess I should clarify that the main edit war I noticed was regarding the "Fair & Balanced" image caption.[10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21] I tried two solutions to resolve it: first I tried flagging the disputed text[22], but that didn't work.[23] Then I tried rephrasing it to satisfy both sides.[24] Then I noticed what seemed to be a smaller edit war regarding the existence of that intro sentence[25][26][27][28][29][30] and I also saw the debate about it on the talk page, so I tried to rephrase it to satisfy both sides.[31] My belief is that if people are fighting over either choice A or B, try to resolve it by proposing C as an alternative. --JHP 23:11, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I tried three solutions to the "Fair & Balanced" image caption dispute. The third option was removing the image entirely. I waited 2 days before proposing that solution and implementing it. All my attempted solutions ultimately failed. --JHP 23:36, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

To respond to some of Ramsquire's other points:

As far as the US Centric "conservative" term - Agree wholeheartedly, I was just copying the plain text above, not the wiki text, I didn't mean to remove the wiki link to the American usage.

As far as the journalist survey - First, let me say that I think the journalist survey absolutely belongs. I only note that of the journalists surveyed for the 69% figure, only 7% of them self-identify as conservatives, compared to 33% of the public. It seems to me like most sources that accuse Fox News of bias have some sort of liberal slant, so I think it's fair to characterize it as such.

I do agree with your point that this source doesn't explicitly mention Fox News' political slant in relation to other media.

As far as leaving the bias out of the intro - I (weakly) agree, in that I don't really think it's necessary. Cogswobbletalk 18:35, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

First, you missed my point. It's about more than the wiki-link. In the US, when we say something or someone "is conservative" it is generally understood what is meant. However, the word is an adjective, it should have a noun in an encyclopedia.[32] Yes, in everday usage in English we often turn adjectives into nouns, but it remains grammatically wrong, (e.g. saying "X is obese" when actually we mean "X is an obese person"). When we say, "conservative" what we actually mean is that someone or something is a supporter of the conservative political philosophy, or an advocate for U.S. conservatism. Therefore the earlier version is more grammatically correct.

Second beware of making assertions and analysis of polls for purposes of contributing to Wikipedia. Your analysis of the poll is original research. If you find a reliable source critiquing this poll, on those grounds, then we can get somewhere.

I believe the ship has sailed on the leaving it out argument. At this point, it would clearly be against any consensus, and there is simply too many sources supporting the theory that Fox is notable due to this bias controversy. I mean there has been several documentaries on the topic.Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 19:13, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I guess I did miss your point initially. You're saying then that the word conservative in "...to be more conservative than..." is more ambiguous to a non-American audience than the the word conservative in "...advocating conservative political positions"? I can agree with that.

Again, I was stating my own opinion that it seems to me that most of the accusations of bias come from liberal sources, and for me the journalist survey doesn't dissuade that opinion entirely. There's nothing wrong with stating original research on talk pages ;-) But, as I said before, I think it's a good source, and I'm not actively arguing for the "...and observers..." to be removed, so it's kind of a moot point (for me).

Yeah, I'm not really arguing to leave it out. Just noting that I don't personally think it's necessary. Cogswobble talk 19:20, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps I don't quite follow what Ramsquire is trying to say, but I'd just like to point out that it is perfectly grammatically correct to use the word "conservative" as a noun. It is listed in the dictionary as both an adjective and a noun.[33][34] --JHP 19:07, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I think I stated that everyone here would understand when we label something conservative, because we use adjectives as nouns all the time. Heck, we all speak English. But a few things, note that the primary definition is as an adjective. The noun usage is secondary and implies the first. (Also, see my "X is obese" versus "X is an obese person".) Both sentences are grammatically correct, but for purposes of an encyclopedia, the second version is better and more grammatically correct, as it is not US or English centric. For example, I believe that in German "conservative" (or konservativ) is only an adjective, unless one is referring to a member of the Party. So a German reader may get confused. Also, the noun connotations may not translate well to other non US English speakers-- That's all I'm saying. I know I wrote "Yes, in everday usage in English we often turn adjectives into nouns, but it remains grammatically wrong, (e.g. saying "X is obese" when actually we mean "X is an obese person")." but there's a typo there, I never finished the clause. (hey I reserve the right to screw up my own edits). There should be a qualifier "for encyclopedic uses" at the end of the sentence. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 21:23, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

As far as English grammar is concerned, I don't think the syntax of the German language should count. There is a German language version of Wikipedia for that. We should be aware of slight differences between American and British English, though. "X is obese" is perfectly good English, even for an encyclopedia. However, I agree that we should be concerned with how different cultures interpret a word. For example, when referring to a person's political orientation, Americans use the word "liberal" differently than non-Americans. Non-Americans use "liberal" to refer to people who are strong believers in both personal and economic liberty (freedom). That's why "liberal" and "liberty" have the same Latin root, liber-, which means "free". Americans use the word to refer to people who are strong believers in equality, but equality and liberty are not the same. (Think of the free trade vs. fair trade debate.) Americans use the word "liberal" incorrectly. It reminds me of a discussion on a weapons forum a few years ago. The subject of the discussion was a new anti-weapon law in Australia. An American said, "I hate the way liberals are always trying to take away our freedom." A confused Australian responded, "Aren't liberals the ones who support freedom?" For the record, I am a liberal, but not a liberal. --JHP 00:58, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

From WP:CSB: Be more conscious of your own biases in the course of normal editing. Look at the articles you work on usually and think about whether they are written from an international perspective. If not, you might be able to learn a lot about a subject you thought you knew by adding content with a different perspective. As conservative is generally an adjective around the world, we should use it in that sense here. Non-English speakers count. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 20:31, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Foreigners count, but non-English speakers won't be reading the English version of Wikipedia. How can you read an article in a language you don't understand? There are foreign language versions of Wikipedia articles for them. If a German has learned English, then he should know that "conservative" is a noun. --JHP 21:08, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I should also point out that if you say "X is obese", the word obese is being used as an adjective, not a noun (if that's what your example was trying to imply). In fact, obese is not an adjective that can become a noun. To make it a noun, you would have to say "X is an obese", which doesn't make any sense in English. Examples:

"John is conservative." (adjective)
"John is a conservative." (noun)

--JHP 20:09, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

For clarification, Ramsquire pretty much hit the nail on the head (re: speaking for Blaxthos). It's woefully apparent that the new hats jumped in without consulting the past consensus... perhaps I am quick to get frustrated, however my intent is not to stifle discussion; however it is not our responsibility to repeatedly explain issues that have already been covered. I am frustrated with Cogsqobble, who takes every opportunity to ram changes through instead of adopting the consensus version as his own... new editors may not be aware of the longstanding effort, but Cogswobble certainly is (and has been advised of the what and why many, many times). I concur with Ramsquire and Gamaliel -- I object to the proposed versions (for reasons already covered extensively in previous discussions) and openly endorse the version arrived by 18+ editors and multiple wikipedia-wide RFC's. I also strongly issue caution editors who claim endorsements from others and editors who jump in without knowing the history of the issues. /Blaxthos 23:21, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly agree with Gamaliel, Blaxthos, Ramsquire, and the past RfCs/Peer Reviews. The intro's version prior to Cogswobble/anon's arrival doesn't need changing in any way. Italiavivi 02:38, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Give me a break, you two need to read some Wikipedia policies, particularly WP:AGF and WP:CONSENSUS. You are correct in that it's not your responsibility to repeatedly explain issues. You have no duty to do so, you're free to leave the discussion if you can't continue to assume good faith.

Wikipedia, and consensus, is constantly evolving. As JHP pointed out, there is no "very heavy" burden on new editors to show why consensus has changed. New editors have every right to be WP:BOLD and make changes, particularly when they discuss it on the talk page. If you want to continue to join the discussion in the talk pages, then that's great. But WP:CONSENSUS doesn't say that you can simply wait 'till someone makes a change and then revert it while making wild accusations of sockpuppetry and consensus demolishing. Cogswobble talk 15:50, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Cogswobble, you exhausted your good faith by continually siezing upon every opportunity to ignore or invalidate the previously-agreed-upon consensus version (as noted by Gamaliel, Ramsquire, Italiavivi, and others) every time a sockpuppet or new editor comes along. The consensus version is NOT one that ANY of us wanted, but it's one that we all came to agree upon after much give and take (by the entire community). I will not continue to issue good faith when, instead of adopting the consensus (as the rest of us did) you continue to take every opportunity to try and force change. You should know better -- you've certainly had enough editors explain it to you, and while we're talking about assuming good faith, why is it so hard for you to assume good faith that (1) a considerably large number of editors participated in arriving at the consensus version, and (2) every issue you try and sieze upon was already asked, considered and answered by that group? /Blaxthos 16:03, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

So you're acknowledging that you don't assume good faith. That's good to know.

You also claim that I try to force change. That's a curious claim, care to show me where I've tried to ram through a change unilaterally? Can you show me where I've indicated that I won't accept any version other than my own? In fact, can you even show me what "my" version is? I didn't even come up with the "...more conservative than..." version, in fact, I don't even support it any more or less than the previous version. But JHP was trying to come up with a compromise version to meet Azrel's objections, and Italiavivi rudely reverted it with wild claims of consensus demolishing, when in fact JHP was interested in forging a consensus.

So, can you show me in WP:CONSENSUS where it says that new editors don't have the right to question, discuss, and engage in WP:CIVIL discussion with other editors? Your MO seems to be to react in a hostile manner to any new editor on this page who wants to discuss changes. Cogswobble talk 16:13, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Cogswobble, editors generally drop WP:AGF when dealing with editors acting like WP:DICKS. Italiavivi 16:38, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Haha, please read the edit summaries here: [35]. I think that says enough. Cogswobble talk 16:44, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh, please. No where in there does he claim that new editors can't engage in discussion. Enough with the strawmen. Gamaliel (Orwellian Cyber hell master) 16:35, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Both Blaxthos and Italiavivi are hostile and rude to editors who try to engage in discussion, as noted by both myself and JHP. Contrast this with AuburnPilot, Ramsquire, Doldrum, and yourself, who have been willing to discuss things in a civil manner. Cogswobble talk 16:44, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

For the record, I did not say that Blaxthos was hostile. If he is abandoning WP:AGF then my opinion may change. I do think he misinterprets WP:CONSENSUS, but I now understand his point of view. --JHP 21:06, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Blaxthos may be a little short sometimes from your perspective, but he's been putting up with sockpuppets, trolling, and strawmen for almost a year while most of the other editors who forged the consensus abandoned the article. So while I don't condone any instances of supposed newbie biting, personally, I'm willing to cut him some slack, and any shortness on his part hardly means he is claiming new editors can't engage in civil discussion. Let's keep things in perspective please. Gamaliel (Orwellian Cyber hell master) 16:57, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but to keep things in perspective, there's no need to be uncivil. If editors can't remain civil, they should take a break from a page. Cogswobble talk 17:00, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

While I agree to a point, you might consider that if an editor is getting pissed off, there is a reason they are getting pissed off, and the solution is to solve that problem (trolls, sockpuppets, annoying editors, whatever), not to lose a productive editor from a contentious article that needs all the conscientious and accomplished editors it can get.

Regardless of your opinion on that matter, I don't think claiming that the editor in question is saying things they clearly are not helps the problem any. Gamaliel (Orwellian Cyber hell master) 17:05, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, since we agree to a point, I'll let it rest at that :-) Thanks for being civil. Cogswobble talk 17:14, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

(lose indent) Past history is no reason for the attitude that some have had. One my primary problems with this is that the references do not back up the statement being made and have recieved very little discussion other than "concensus was reached" flack from the start. My response was that it didn't appear concensus had been reached, and even if it had it doesn't make a difference when the references don't support the facts. I have since fallen back on some of my objections because of additional references, but the intro (in its current form) does not back up the general statement being made, which is why I even suggested the change earlier. I still don't like the word "observer" (more comment below), and reference 6 does not support the theory of advocating a conservative position. Unfortunately reference 6 does support the "observers" statement. I say simply find a better reference. Arzel 17:31, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

No one is making excuses for anyone, just saying "we understand" because we all have felt it. There is a difference. As for your claim that the reference does not support the theory of advocating a conservative position-- you do realize that that is exactly what is meant when one refers to someone or something as conservative. Also this is taken directly from the source "the single news outlet that strikes most journalists as taking a particular ideological stance - either liberal or conservative - is Fox News Channel. Among national journalists, more than twice as many could identify a daily news organization that they think is "especially conservative in its coverage" than one they believe is "especially liberal" (82% vs. 38%). And Fox has by far the highest profile as a conservative news organization" When they use the term conservative they're using it in the sense of advocating a political ideology. Also in the interview when Ailes says "People think FoxNews is conservative, we're not conservative" he is talking about the perception of Fox as an advocate for conservatism. They're certainly not speakiing about the type of dress used by the anchors, or the religious of British Political leanings. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 18:00, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I have read that many times, I just don't hold that they mean the same thing, and I don't think the questions in that survey are worded to imply that. Why not just explicitly state what the survey says without trying to interpret what it means? It may end up being a little more wordy, but perhaps their might be fewer problems in the future over whether it is POV or not. Arzel 21:13, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Ramsquire on this point. --JHP 21:23, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Azrel: Despite what you claim the sources say or don't say, clearly a consensus of editors disagree with your assertions. As someone said earlier reference another point, that ship has sailed.

I have pretty much accepted that you disagree, however that does not change the fact that reference 6 does not back up the statement being made. If you actually read the study, the primary conclusion is that the media is biased liberally. FNC special report is the 5th most moderate program out of the 20 listed. Ironically that study is criticized by the left for being conservatively biased and yet it is used here to reference a statement that FNC is conservatively biased, but hey I guess concensus over rules logic. Arzel 04:31, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Gamaliel/Ramsquire: Thank you for your patience and support in trying to help these guys understand the frustration/disgust I feel. It is sincerely appreciated -- I've tried to step back from this one some and let the trolling/bullshit subside.
Cogswobble: There is no requirement to continue to assume good faith when there is evidence to the contrary. As I've said several times before, every time someone comes along as says "hey what about this" you immediately try to use that to advocate change instead of even trying to explain that perhaps we didn't just come up with the (then) current version randomly -- there has been a massive effort to create a version that is, for the most part, acceptable to the community as a whole (and not just the people who come to the talk page and assert that things aren't right). Since you have shown that you will not assume good faith regarding the consensus version, and instead encourage change instead of even trying to explain the how and why, I no longer assume that you're operating in good faith.
JHP: I recognize that you saw a problem and tried to help fix it -- bravo! It's unfortunate that you've kinda gotten caught in the crossfire. I think the lesson in this (for everyone, including the admin who locked the page) is to do due diligence regarding the situation before jumping in feet first.

/Blaxthos 01:36, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Blaxthos, thank you. I encourage you not to abandon WP:AGF regarding Cogswobble. I think he has been acting in good faith, but just has strong opinions. That said, it does seem that most editors have decided to stick with the previous consensus, with Arzel and Cogswobble dissenting.

On another note, I encourage everyone to take a look at the size of this talk page. The talk page, not including archives, is far longer than the actual article. Almost all of it is debate over a single sentence in the introduction and a single image caption. Imagine what could have been achieved if the same amount of effort had gone into actually improving less controversial Wikipedia articles. --JHP 04:56, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, JHP. We all have strong opinions, however we can't let that be an excuse to act in a counterproductive manner. We all gave up something to arrive at a version that was acceptable to the community as a whole, and the most helpful thing to do when an editor brings up points that were already considered and answered by a large consensus is to explain the reasoning and show where that point was considered. This doesn't mean stifle discussionm but nor does it mean we should cover the same ground ad infinitum when it has been covered previously (hence the FAQ). If new points not considered are raised, then they should certainly be considered. If a group of editors as large and diverse as the original group believes consensus has changed, then a new solution should be formulated. It's important to remember that the previous consensus was an official RfC that drew editors from all over the Wikipedia, which is a more robust and rounded consensus than a small number of editors who take it upon themselves to visit the FNC article. Likewise, we don't need editors trying to use every new editor's concern ad captandum vulgus... I think that, barring circumstances I just outlined, everyone should respect the concept of stare decisis et non quieta movere, or we'll certainly spend eternity covering the same ground over and over (as you pointed out regarding the size of this talk page (and the previous ones) on one sentence!). /Blaxthos 07:13, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

My views on Fox News bias

Latest comment: 17 years ago16 comments5 people in discussion

Let me state my own personal opinion regarding Fox News. I think they clearly have a very conservative bias. When I add/delete the channels on my TV and VCR, Fox News gets the "delete" option. I think it is important to have something in the introduction of the article that mentions their conservative bias. When I first started participating in this debate, I was backing Blaxthos and Ramsquire. However, I quickly realized that the "consensus" text was resulting in an edit war with the right-wing, Fox News-loving editors, who seemed to want that sentence removed. When Arzel, who seemed to be conservative, proposed a rephrasing that still allowed a clear mention of Fox News' conservative slant, I realized that the objection from conservatives surrounded the word "bias". The word "bias" has a universally negative connotation, while the word "conservative" has either a negative or positive connotation depending on the political orientation of the reader. I asked everyone for their opinion on the new proposed sentence. I only got one objection and that was because the words "and observers" had been removed, so I added them back. However, I now find myself debating against the left-wing, Fox News-hating folks here, who seem to want absolutely no change whatsoever. This "consensus can't change" argument violates WP:CONSENSUS. I just want to find a happy medium so the sentence doesn't keep getting deleted. --JHP 03:14, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

You misrepresent the comments of past editors here. No one made any "consensus can't change" argument, and if you insist on misrepresenting us, I'll cease my assumption of good faith on your part. We've simply noted that the burden lies very heavily upon newly-arrived editors to demonstrate why a past consensus (established by 18+ editors via RfCs and Peer Reviews) should be altered for them. Two new editors don't get to override 18 editors simply because they're new arrivals. I'd also ask that you strike your false allegations of "consensus can't change" from your comment, as well as your attacking fellow editors as being "left-wing Fox News hating." Or should I start assuming bad faith of you all, and label you "Fox News fanboys" or "right-wing Fox lovers" in future discourse? Italiavivi 04:12, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

First, you never assumed good faith on my part. You attacked me the very first time you responded to anything I wrote. I don't see you assuming good faith on Cogswobble's part either. He has shown a willingness to work toward compromise and has been subject to some pretty mean attacks in response. Second, I call it as I see it. I already used the phrase "right-wing, Fox News-loving", myself. I was simply trying to distinguish the two disputing groups. I apologize if it sounded offensive. That was not my intent. (By the way, as I stated above, I hate Fox News.) Third, show me where WP:CONSENSUS says the burden lies very heavily upon newly-arrived editors. Fourth, while I believe most editors on both sides of this debate are well-intentioned, when someone gets blocked from editing I think it says a lot about their character. --JHP 05:18, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Have it your way, then. The only thing my block illustrates, by the way, is that Cogswobble and an anonymous IP editor were performing the same contentious reverts together. I don't care what you think of my character, and I have no problem undoing changes that fly in the face of well-formed consensus. :) Italiavivi 11:44, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Could we please stop with the personal attacks. Arzel 12:53, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Italiavivi, you misinterpreted my "personal opinion regarding Fox News" post. I didn't mean it to be an attack on anybody. I'm sorry if you were offended. However, can you please show me where WP:CONSENSUS says the burden lies very heavily upon newly-arrived editors. I don't see that anywhere. I think it is important that we are all on the same page regarding our understanding of WP:CONSENSUS in order to stop the edit war that seems to be going on. --JHP 14:44, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

You see to be misinterpreting what I said. I said that the burden is on these newly arrived editors (Cogswobble and the anon) to illustrate a change in consensus. It takes more than two newcomers re-hashing the same old disputes to convince me that an article should be changed from a consensus formed by 18+ editor RfCs and Peer Reviews. They say "now that we're here, there's no consensus!"; I say that's rubbish, and it's on their shoulders (two editors) to illustrate why the article is suddenly in desperate need of a change from what was reached previously (by eighteen editors). And I'll gladly take a non-3RR-violating "edit war" block to make sure that editors who would change articles by ramming their new versions (and say "MY VERSION is the new version, come argue on Talk before you revert it!") through don't see their versions stand. Italiavivi 02:46, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Can you show me where in WP:CONSENSUS it says that it's ok to summarily revert changes that are under discussion based purely on appeals to a previous consensus?

Can you show me where someone actually said anything even remotely like "MY VERSION is the new version, come argue on Talk before you revert it!"?

Also, I note that you continue to blatantly lie that you didn't violate 3RR for your block by continuing to claim that this edit [36] was not a "real" revert, even though you know as well as I do that the previous version had commented out the entire body of the text, and thus your edit restored a delete. Cogswobble talk 16:02, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

"if you want to change this again, that's fine, but please discuss it here Fox_News_Channel#Introduction:Again. This is the latest version that has been supported by several editors." You waltz in, alter the consensus version [37], lie that it hadn't been objected to (a boldfaced lie), then revert back to your version again after someone restored the consensus version. [38]

The WP:CONSENSUS flow chart allows for bold changes to the consensus. It also allows for reverting the changes if someone doesn't like them. Then discussion goes to the talk page. (i.e. consensus -> don't like -> make bold change -> don't like -> revert -> discuss on talk page.) Italiavivi seems to be making the incorrect assumption that discussion on the talk page is required before making bold changes. Again, read the flow chart. Wikipedia policy does not allow for hostile attacks from anyone however. --JHP 21:51, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

To be clear, I am not conservative, however I am probably more conservative than the average wikipedian. My primary problem with the intro is unnessecary inflamatory language prevelant on many articles with some political slant. These articles have become less of an encyclopedia than a collection of controversies and hate of the opposition with a clear bias towards certain individuals and organizations. Fox seems especially hated for a variety of reasons, which is fine, it just shouldn't included carte blanche within WP. I am also interested in a more NPOV appearance to WP articles in general, and there seems to be a trend with controversal articles in what people feel "Should be known" versus what is "Notable" where individuals that dislike some person or organization put undue weight on criticisms. This article is a prime example of this pushing. The references used in the lead do not back up the strong condemnation of FCN advocating a general conservative bias (i.e. pleading support in favor of). Some people (primarily self-described democrats and journalist', which are far more liberal than the general population) feel very strongly that FNC has a conservative slant and that is fine, but advocating is a strong word which is not ascribed to the general population (if reference 6 is to be believed). As it is, for articles like this and Bill O'Reilly, WP is really only usefull to find out what people don't like about them, rather than who their are or what they do, and isn't that really what an encyclodpedia supposed to be? Arzel 04:02, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry if I judged you incorrectly. On politically-charged topics often people's view of reality is affected by their political orientation, so it can be easy to assume someone's political orientation from the side they take in a debate. --JHP 05:18, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

No offense taken. Arzel 12:51, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Arzel, I think you read way too much into the use of advocating in the introduction. FTR-- the reason it was used was because the prior intro simply read in effect "Foxnews is a conservative news organization created by Republican operative Roger Ailes". AuburnPilot, Isarig, myself and others all objected to this phrasing on the same grounds you raised. After a long discussion about whether to include this bias stuff in the intro, it was decided that if it goes in, it wouldn't be given undue weight. The best way to state it was not to say simply conservative, but to identify the actual problem people see-- which was that in their opinion, Fox advocated for the conservative viewpoint. Originally, the consensus version read "FoxNews is seen by critics and many observers as ..." However, over time the first part of the sentence was lost and it simply read "Critics and observers view", which I corrected when Cogwobble notified me. Finally, I would agree that by starting the sentence off with "critics" as it is in the current version it may give the wrong impression of what the sentence is trying to convey. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 23:26, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree that many people view FNC to be conservatively biased, but from reading the various references several aspects are quite clear.

A great deal of the criticism comes directly from the democratic party.
Many journalists (journalist' ? never quite sure on the proper use) consider FNC to be conservatively biased, however this should be prefaced with the fact that few journalists are conservative.
The primary research which actually viewed political leanings compared with the average population does not attribute a bias towards FNC, but that they are more conservative than many others, prefaced with the fact that many others are equally liberal.
New viewers of this article often have an interpreation of POV as is evident throughout the history of this article, especially when compared to other articles (NBC, ABC...ect)

I might ask why is there such an insistance on the words "advocating" and "observers"? It appears to me that the thought is to leave them out would be such that the article is not critical enough, which begs the further question, why must there be an emphasis on criticism? Arzel 04:02, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Agree.
There was a poll taken about the political indentification of journalists. The results were that the majority of journalists considered themselves neutral "middle of the road", or independant. More considered themselves liberal than conservative, but the overriding view of themselves was politically neutral. Now, we can all dispute that and say they are being dishonest, but for the purpose of this article, we have to take them at face value. That is why the argument was made that we can't simply attribute it to the left, unless, of course, there was a reliable source supporting that proposition.
That survey should go into the bias section of the article (if it isn't already). However it is a novel question of how and whether it should be presented in the intro. All the intro is trying to do is state that this perception of bias, real or imagined, along with the denial of Fox plays a part in Fox's notability. It is not arguing either way. If we present too much information on any side of the debate, then we run the risk of giving that side undue weight.
All we can do is ask for reliable sources for information. If you believe information is biased, and unattributed. Tag it first, and if there is no source forthcoming after a reasonable time, delete it.

The reason why observers was placed in the article is discussed here when I originally presented examples of who I thought were some of the more notable holders of this theory. (Please note: I am not trying to avoid discussion by pointing to the archives. It is just that evolution of the discussion is sort of longwinded, and it is better to simply read how the language was arrived at, instead of me summarizing it again). As for use of advocating, it seems appropriate as the persons referred to in the sentence believe that Fox argues for a cause and is sometimes a supporter and defender of the conservative political philosophy. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 17:07, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Just a quick note to say I have read the archives again. I don't have time to fully comment, but I do agree with much of what you have said. Arzel 17:52, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Simple to follow

Latest comment: 17 years ago7 comments4 people in discussion

Here's something simple to follow. Do not debate about calling FNC conservative - that is a clear violation of NPOV. Instead, cite who states they are conservative. Include details about who this is coming from, especially critics. I'm telling contributors for the last time, this is the only possible way to stop this from recurring again. Why people seem to not care is beyond me. "Not the sockpuppet the consensees wanted", --75.21.179.121 02:02, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

The introduction is to summarize; we can go into details later in the article. The perception is too widespread to detail "who" in the introduction, and any identification of specific critics runs the risk of creating the false impression that this perception is limited to a few critics or a specific group. Gamaliel (Orwellian Cyber hell master) 02:37, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

This summarizes my whole issue with these types of criticisms. There seems to be a pattern of erroring on the side of making sure criticism is duly noted. Instead of simply stating that criticism exists and this is what it is, there is this perception that people need to know the magnitude of the criticism as well. What difference does it make if some have a perception that criticism is limited to a few critics or specific group? Hence, why does the additional clarifier of "observers" need to be included? By this wording I read it to be that both critics and the casual viewer feels that FNC is advocating a conservative political agenda, but I have yet to see reference make such a claim. Arzel 17:44, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

"Observers" belongs because it is not just critics who have that perception of Fox, despite the efforts of Fox partisans to attribute the perception exclusively to the left. Gamaliel (Orwellian Cyber hell master) 17:46, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I think you are under the wrong assumption that critics must be ment to only include liberals. FNC comes under attack from the right for being liberal as well, you just don't hear about it as much. My point being is that if they are not critics then they don't have a problem with with the bias? Arzel 17:55, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I've never seen Fox criticized as being "liberal" by any notable source whatsoever. Would you care to provide some reliable sources for that one? Italiavivi 02:39, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Watchdog_critic_frets_about_Foxs_leftward_1020.html Cliff Kincaid has criticized FNC for moving to the left. I know I have seen others as well. Now, are you going to respond to the question I put forth to you? Arzel 04:06, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

separate out individual issues

Latest comment: 17 years ago48 comments4 people in discussion

we've been going around in circles and getting sidetracked into discussions of user conduct. so i've created this section to separately and concisely address each individual issue all by itself. yes, it's been tried before and hasn't worked. so i'm trying it again. make it work. please discuss each issue in its own thread and take issues about conduct elsewhere.

Reliable sources have been found saying Fox programming is "conservative", or "has a right-wing slant", or "partisan".

propose and agree. Doldrums 15:51, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

disagree. Best third party evidence suggests FNC is more conservative than it's competitors, but does not attribute a bias or partisan slant. Opinion exists stating otherwise. Arzel 16:34, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

we're not judging evidence. we're reporting what sources say. and what sources say (full quortes above) are, "a conservative news organization"[39], "definite right-wing sympathies"(Rutherford, Paul (2004), Weapons of Mass Persuasion: Marketing the War Against Iraq, University of Toronto Press, p. 105) , "overtly conservative talk show hosts and programming and outright ideologically biased news reporting"(Jones, Jeffrey P. (2005), Entertaining Politics: New Political Television and Civic Culture, Rowman & Littlefield, p. 51, ISBN 0742530884), "politically partisan"(Harrison, Jackie (2006), News, Routledge, p. 164, ISBN 0415319498 , "politically conservative alternative for news"(Maynard, Nancy (2000), Mega Media: How Market Forces Are Transforming News, Trafford Publishing, p. 45, ISBN 0970129203), "stridently right-wing, pro-war stance"(Zelizer, Barbie; Allan, Stuart (2004), Reporting War: journalism in wartime, Routledge, pp. 6–7, ISBN 0415339979), distinctly right-leaning tone"(Vault Guide To The Top Media & Entertainment Employers, Vault (company), 2005, p. 115, ISBN 1581313373 {{citation}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help)).

opinion exists saying otherwise is discussed elsewhere below. Doldrums 17:11, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Simply quoting a section without understanding or at least taking into consideration the context is not helpful. In any case after considerable additional reading I agree that some of your sources back up the notion of general bias. Several are specific to the war on Iraq and individual commentators (O'Reilly I would assume). Understand that my initial issue is that opinion books (which is what these are in general) use other sources to back up a conclusion by which the attributed quote can be lost in reference. An ongoing example is the quote attributed to the home of Bill O'Reilly. the current quote attributed to him was from a book by Franken who stated he read it in the (NY) Observer, however that actual quote from him in identifiable print is quite different. Arzel 03:41, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the statement. However, I think it is better to say "more conservative" rather than "conservative". Someone whose political views are to the right of FNC will not see FNC as conservative. --JHP 18:09, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Agree - There are many sources that say Fox News is conservative. Cogswobble talk 18:03, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

those saying so are a mixed bunch - left-liberal groups, Democrats, liberal and conservative media watchdog groups, journalists' survey, notable individual journalists, academics.

propose and agree. Doldrums 15:51, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

disagree. Majority of criticism is from a liberal perspective, unless the arguement is frames such that it is a difference in degree. Arzel

what about the half dozen non-partisan sources above. what about - 69% of journalists in survey say Fox is conservative. 34% of those surveyed self-identified as liberal? by what measure did u figure out "majority" ? Doldrums 17:11, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

The majority is relative to conservative (7%). I don't think you can dismiss that the minority are conservative, and I have yet to see a conservative group label FNC as conservative. Arzel 03:41, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the statement. --JHP 18:09, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Weakly Disagree - The majority of these sources have a liberal or Democrat slant. Cogswobble talk 18:03, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Fox news' alleged editorial bias is notable enough to be part of the lead

yes, the bias is notable enough to be covered, duly sourced, in detail in the article. the lead sums up the article. so the bias gets a proportional place in the lead.Doldrums 15:51, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

disagree on a global scale, criticisms of opinion don't really deserve lead status, if it was a specific controversy relating to FNC that would be a different story. That said I accept that this position is not accepted.

the lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article WP:LEAD. Doldrums 17:11, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

As I stated this is a general concern to try and reduce overal criticism from WP articles. Arzel 03:41, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the statement. --JHP 18:09, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Weakly Disagree Cogswobble talk 18:03, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

it is pov to include claims of bias in the lead.

no. it is pov to

include views in the lead if doing so gives undue weight to the view. "due weight" is proportional to the (sourced) coverage in body of article.
make it appear the view is universal. so the suggestion is to either ascribe the view to a labelled group. if that is not feasible (for reasons of length, for eg.), word it using weasel words or passive voice or such similar means. important thing is to note the view exists without implying it is universal.
not include duly weighted counterviews. yes. that's why Fox's rebuttal is also part of lead. if other sources also support that counterview, they can be listed too.

further, it is pov to exclude a view properly covered in the article from the lead. Doldrums 15:51, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

not neccessarily, but general criticism not linked to specific issues (i.e. most people think that John Doe is biased) is not notable unless it is linked to specific issues. Arzel 16:34, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

if an article discusses "most people think that John Doe is biased" in detail, using reliable sources, then it is. see WP:LEAD. Doldrums 17:11, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Again just looking for ways to reduce overal criticism within WP. Arzel 03:41, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the statement. Bias is an inflammatory word. It will result in edit wars. (Fox News is biased, though.) --JHP 18:09, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Weakly Disagree - That mentions of bias are POV. Agree with JHP that the word bias is inflammatory. Cogswobble talk 18:03, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

it is "controversial" or "inflammatory" to include this in the lead and will lead to edit-warring and such.: WP articles shldn't hide sourced, relevant, notable stuff simply because it is controversial. further, not putting it in the lead is no different- those on the other side will see that as controversial, inflammatory and will edit war. the solution is to discuss, come to a consensus, summarise the consensus and the reasons for the same (FAQ, anyone?). so the next new user who disputes it can be easily pointed to this summary, and is free to dispute the consensus on the talk page and gain enough support to change the consensus. Doldrums 15:51, 8 May 2007 (UTC); As I stated earlier actual controversies (which should always be limited) are fine, but criticism like this is inflamatory and a magnet for disruption. Arzel 16:34, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with the statement. I think the way the sentence is phrased is important for avoiding edit wars, though. --JHP 18:09, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Disagree. I agree with JHP, that the wording is important. Cogswobble talk 18:03, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

all the 'conservative' labelling comes from liberals and shld be noted as such.

no, only some. the journalism survey numbers shows that. arguing that "the body of journalists is more liberal than the body of the general US public, and so all the labelling comes from liberals..." is OR unless you can source the "and so" part. the academic sources do not self-identify and have been published by academic (except one, if i remember correctly), not partisan publishers. as for the all academics are to the left of the public... argument, read this paragraph again.Doldrums 15:51, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

somewhat. The statistics relating to journalist political leanings are included on the existing references. If one wishes to use such sources to back up one claim then one must be free to use any part of that source. In two of the references it is stated that journalist' are 2 to 3 times more likely to be liberal than the average population and equally unlikely to be conservative. This is not implicit bias on their side, but it is factual. Arzel 16:34, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:OR#Synthesis of published material serving to advance a position. Doldrums 17:11, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

How so? The references clearly state that journalist' are far more inclined to be liberal than the average population, or perhaps more accurately far less conservative. Synthesis of would be that only 55% (not 69%) of national broadcasters responded FNC as conservative. (69% of the 80% that said yes to the question of whether they could think of one). Arzel 03:41, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with the statement. --JHP 18:09, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Weakly Agree - I think that the majority of labelling comes from liberal organizations, but the word "all" leaves no room for a minority. Cogswobble talk 18:03, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

all those news sources quoted should not be considered because they are "liberal" or because they are competitors.

liberal or competitor, they remain reliable sources. it's perfectly ok to use them as sources, identify them and attribute the view properly and not claim that their view is a consensus view. further, the lead also notes Fox's rebuttal about "liberal media".Doldrums 15:51, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Most sources are reliable unless their is some known conflict of interest (i.e. msnbc doing a study showing that fnc is biased). Arzel 16:34, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:RS doesn't say so. Doldrums 17:11, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with the statement. --JHP 18:09, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Disagree. Cogswobble talk 18:03, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

conservative sources say Fox is ....: get sources. fill up the list above, add the views to the article, including lead, in due proportion.. Doldrums 15:51, 8 May 2007 (UTC); not sure if it is neccessary. I can see this ending up as a contest of sources. Arzel 16:34, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

some of the sources are "blogs" and so shld not be considered.

couple of things. the blogs' views are echoed by a number of reliable sources provided. the blogs are notable - have recieved media attention, etc. Doldrums 15:51, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Blogs have already been determined to not be allowable under most circumstances. Their regurgitation of an exisiting sources proves nothing. Arzel 16:34, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Websites and publications of political parties, [...] or any other partisan group, may exhibit bias and should be treated with caution. [...] these websites can be used to present the viewpoints of these groups, if properly attributed. Such sources should be presented alongside references from other sources in order to maintain a neutral point of view. WP:RS

Blogs should not be considered reliable sources. --JHP 18:09, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Agree - Blogs should not be considered WP:RS

i can't follow that link in my browser.

read the citation information provided and get the source by some other means. or ask someone you trust to verify if the quotes above are accurate. Doldrums 15:54, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

rules for citations are spelled out and should follow WP guidelines least future issues arise. Arzel 16:34, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

can you point out any source for which adequate citation info has not been provided? Doldrums 17:11, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any on this article, but then I haven't researched all of them. Just make sure that a quote from a book is attributed back to the original author, and not just the book if it is quote in a book quoted from a different article. Arzel 03:41, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

As long a some people can follow the link, then it's OK. Imagine if we disallowed books as sources just because most readers don't own the book. --JHP 18:09, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I am not saying that books should be disallowed, just that quotes from sources likely to be questioned should be easier to reach, and if all the sources are from books in a controversal article or section which are difficult to follow I foresee additional conflict. Arzel 03:41, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Dead Link - New Yorker

Latest comment: 17 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

This link - [40] is dead, can anyone help me find it? It's for the reference where Ken Aluetta of the New Yorker says that Fox News was founded to counter a perceived liberal bias. Cogswobble talk 16:36, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Grrr, I hate it when people put in incomplete citations.

I assume the link was to this article, "Broadcast News", which is a discussion/interview with/of Aluetta and/by Amy Tubke-Davidson. In the same issue of TNY, there is an article by Aluetta about Fox called "Vox Fox". Gamaliel (Orwellian Cyber hell master) 16:53, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Ah, thanks. I added it back with the fixed link. Cogswobble talk 16:56, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Editorial Double Standard

Latest comment: 17 years ago12 comments3 people in discussion

My first comment on the page was that statements of controversy and criticism should not be included in the lead of these types of articles (regardless of interpretation of WP rules). I made the same statement on the CNN talk page. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:CNN#You_cannot_describe_CNN_as_being_solely_criticized_for_.27liberal_bias.27. and my statement was used explicitly by Italiavivi and implicitly by Gamaliel to remove the statement from the lead in CNN. However both of these editors hold fast that a similar statement should remain on FNC. Both articles have individual pages for criticism, and I fail to see the difference. Perhaps someone could explain why CNN is treated differently. Arzel 06:07, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

As one who does not edit or care about what happens in the CNN article, WP:LEAD is clear. Arguments ad hominem tu quoque serve no purpose -- we disucss this article based upon the merits, not on what happens elsewhere. It sure looks like you're shopping for a way to effect a particular point of view (POV pushing). /Blaxthos 09:05, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

This is not ad hominem tu quoque I think you actually mean Post Hoc or in laymans term a causual relationship fallacy, but it is not either. However, you do resort to a weak Ad Hominem against me. Why not respond to my direct response to you earlier regarding reference 6. Arzel 14:32, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Please don't try to tell me what I mean; it's all clearly explained already. Ad hominem tu quoque refers to an irrelevant accusation of hypocrisy, which describes perfectly what you're trying to do -- you just tried to bring up a what happened on another article's talk page with two of our editors (implying hyprocisy), which is completely irrelevant here. No attack was made against you personally, I simply am noting that you're now policy- and situation-shopping trying to find a way to effect a change you obviously want (WP:LEAD and other arguments you've presented on this page, and now bringing up actions on unrelated/irrelevant articles), which smacks of POV pushing. /Blaxthos 17:54, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I know what you are saying, I was simply trying to imply that you have a better arguement with a Post Hoc point. The fact is that they are relevant.

I defended both CNN and FNC from excessive criticism.
CNN and FNC are approximately equal Liberal and Conservative respectively according to the Glencose and Miylo paper (ref 6). CNN - 56.0 (SE 4.1), FNC - 39.7 (SE 1.9). With their respective confidence intervals their difference from the mean would make them statistically equal divergent.
My statement on CNN was used to back up removal of a claim of Liberal Bias by one perhaps two editors common to the FNC article.
My statement on FNC was ignored due to concensus from two perhaps more editors common to the CNN article.
Both the CNN article and the FNC article have a page for only criticism.

Now tell me exactly what POV do you accuse me of pushing?

I am simply trying to make WP a better place by getting rid of some of the needless criticism in articles which serve only to disparage individuals or organizations. And for the record this was my original position. I am still waiting for a response regarding reference 6, I think it should be moved to the next sentence if it is going to stay as it is more of a defense in favor of FNC than evidence of bias against FNC. Arzel 22:12, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Saying things like "needless criticism ... which serve only to disparage individuals or organizations" clearly shows the POV you're pushing. The community writ large has already spoken on this (extensively), and by trying to find different ways to try and effect the same change shows that you're more concerned with that agenda then with forming a consensus. /Blaxthos 02:07, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Would you please stop accusing me of pushing a POV. Apparently in your world A neutral POV is a conservative POV. Arzel 04:12, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

A neutral point of view wouldn't characterize said criticisms as "needless" and "serving only to disparage", nor would it try to find several different ways to remove them (after being rebuffed on previous attempts). /Blaxthos 04:44, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

A neutral point of view wouldn't attack every person trying to make this article into something less than a FNC hate rant. I get it, everyone gets it, you hate FNC, you think they are extremely biased, and you want to make sure that everyone else that reads this knows it. I point to your pushing your own agenda regarding the "True and balanced" slogan to the point of incredulity. Please explain how a dismissed lawsuit regarding their slogan is needful criticism. Will anyone care in 5 or 10 years? What about it is notable, other than it is criticism? Arzel 13:39, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I haven't attacked anyone, and I think it's rather immature to resort to "you hate FNC" and/or attacking me and my motives. There has been ample coverage of both the slogan lawsuit, Al Franken's book, and several other controversial incidents, and definitely warrant inclusion (the community writ large has already deemed it so). Had you been here long enough, or if you actually bothered to read the history, you would know that I've opposed the addition of several controversial issues by other editors (such as the memo affair a few months back) for various reasons; most regulars here know and respect me as being fair and evenhanded. So, who gets to decide what is "needful criticism"? You? Noting controversy isn't pushing an agenda, but trying to find new and creative ways to remove references to it definitely is. /Blaxthos 13:52, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

You attack my motives numerous times, to which I try to stray from commenting. I question your motives once, and you go off on a tirade. Since you completely ignored both of my questions and returned to attacking me again I find little reason to futher discourse with you. Arzel 19:45, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Can we stop with the pissing contest, or do I need to go buy everybody rain coats? At this point, we can without doubt ignore whatever consensus was or was not formed in the discussion that began last October, because it is quite clear there is not a consensus for change. While I greatly appreciate JHP's attempts to end this asinine debate, the old (and current) version is worded in a formal tone, which matches the sources, while the suggested version is very informal in tone and does not address FNC's objections as clearly. Yes, I understand your objections to the sentence, but it is not meant to introduce commentary or criticism for the sole purpose of demeaning the channel. The criticism is notable, it's wide spread, and we have properly sourced that it is an opinion, not fact. No amount of discussion can change verified fact. And before anybody calls me a Fox hating liberal, a quick overview of my contributions will show nothing could be further from the truth. (counter) - auburnpilot talk 20:17, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Split programming

Latest comment: 17 years ago13 comments4 people in discussion

I have split off the large programming section into a sub-article. This has been suggested in the past; the length of the section was making the article's size unwieldy. I think we should do something with the large list of present and past personalities in the article -- are they all notable/necessary? Forever? /Blaxthos 21:45, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

The list of reporters is a common feature of many different network news pages (ABC News, NBC News, CBS News), not to mention other cable news channels (CNN, MSNBC), and should be left on the FNC page for the time being considering this appears to be a common element of a news network's page. Secondly, moving the programming section seems like a good idea for page size, but it doesn't really work in application in my opinion in that it divides what the network does from the main network page itself. Chris (Talk) (Contribs) 22:11, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I find the move to be rather strange and agree with Chris that it just divides the network article from the work the network does. Also, the new page's location (if it remains separate) should not be an actual subpage but a completely separate article. In other words, it would have to be moved from Fox News Channel/Programming to Fox News Channel programming. I don't believe size is really an issue, as the article is only 53kb with the programming included. - auburnpilot talk 00:19, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I was one of those who suggested the move. The issue for me is usability: The length of the programming information makes the article unwieldy. Would it be possible to have a shorter section listing, say, the 10 most popular shows and personalities, with a link to a separate page with the complete information? SlipperyN 16:34, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I've moved the article name again, per AuburnPilot's suggestion. I've always wondered about making a hierarchial structure vs. seperate article. I digress... I just don't think it's beneficial to have every show that does or has ever existed in the article -- they may be notable ipso facto being on FNC, but perhaps it would be easier to manage if the major shows were highlighted in the main article, and the details of everything that is/was is in a sub article? I just think that the big bullet list of all shows, along with the huge list of every personality who has been on FNC adds little and makes the article seem like it's chock full of bullets and lists instead of meaningful content. I'd advocate doing the same for their personalities (highlight the major ones, split off for the details on *.*). /Blaxthos 07:59, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

The article is oddly arranged as it is, so I'm not going to strongly object to the split. If the personalities are split, I would suggest combining them in the same article as the programming. If we split it off into a second daughter article, it's likely to seem very unimportant. Maybe combining to two into an article titled Fox News Channel programming and personalities. Obviously not the best title, but I'm not sure there is enough content to form a seperate article for personalities. - auburnpilot talk 20:21, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I think that's a good suggestion -- the two are fairly well related and I think that would both arrange the main article more clearly and provide a daughter article that had more substance. /Blaxthos 04:39, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

What about the main article. I'm not sure what it is, but the arrangement/order of topics seems unorganized. Is it just me or does anybody else see it? - auburnpilot talk 05:14, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I think you're right. I previewed the page without the list of personalities and it looks more complete. The long bulleted lists make the article seem off balance. - auburnpilot talk 07:08, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

What about a change of name for the daughter article... maybe something like Fox News Channel content? Something to encompass both aspects (which are interrelated) without being too wordy... /Blaxthos 16:24, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Continuing on the above discussion, I agree we should spin off the programming section (which is already done) and the personalities section into an overall page on Fox News Channel programming, which already does exist. Once moved, the main article needs to be cleaned up further with the division of the radio section from the page into a separate page, Fox News Radio, which could possibly give a larger and clearer focus on the division of Fox News compared to the short and cluttered section currently on this page. Also, the descriptions of each of the sections with the "Main article:....." link could include a selection of major personalities or tidbits, but that can be debated. Chris (Talk) (Contribs) 05:59, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

It's already looking more like an article, rather than a random list of information. As to the name of the daughter article, I think Fox News Channel content is too broad. I don't really have a problem with "personalities" not being included in the title; they're sort of a part of programming anyway. I say we leave it as is. - auburnpilot talk 20:48, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Agree. Props to Clindhartsen for the suggestion -- I think it's turned out well. /Blaxthos 04:31, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

"Online" Section

Latest comment: 17 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

In the same vein as the split programming discussion, I'm not sure how I feel about the "Online" section. For one, the section title is generic. The content is mostly a bullet list (again) and I really am not comfortable with the labelling ("conservative", "neoliberal", "feminist" etc.). I propose this be renamed, trimmed, and/or moved to the FoxNews.com section (if it still exists). /Blaxthos 04:39, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, the generalized title was an idea to make the general layout of the page to have some likeness to CNN, which instead of listing the section as CNN.com, lists it as "Online" making note of the network's assorted online services. Notable, FNC does not provide as many services, such as a simulcast of the channel online, but the generalization of it seems to make it seem more connected to the article in large vs. a separate entity. Secondly, the section is currently nothing more than a basic set of commentators for the site, though I already added a semi-summary of the sites services, but that could use expansion with a possible move of the commentators into the "Fox News Channel Personalities" section. Chris (Talk) (Contribs) 04:18, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I like the revised changes. My only hesitation in all of this is many editors' desire to use other articles (CNN, MSNBC, etc.) as templates or guidelines on what should be done here. I posit that the editors of those articles are no more authoritative than we are, and we should base our decisions on our best judgement and wikistandards rather than "well this is what they do at so-and-so". Don't let that detract from my praise however... I like what's been done. Good job! /Blaxthos 16:44, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

True, editors of other articles have no more authoritative than anyone else, but some of the general layouts of other pages would add to this article and many others, including an expansion of the history section alike to MSNBC or BBC News, considering the one here seems very short and covers a small time frame. The main point of the new revisions was to cleanup the page and give a simple explanation of each of the network's mediums, then branch them off into separate pages due to the excessiveness of some of the sections, like programming). Chris (Talk) (Contribs) 17:25, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Controversies at the top of Fox News Channel Page

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

If you look at all the other news channel pages, there is no criticism on the opening paragraph of the wiki page. But on the Fox News Page, you have an entire paragraph talking about how it is a "Right Wing" News Channel. People can have their opinions, but it belongs in the bottom, on the controversies section, not the beginning paragraph. I recently deleted this paragraph, and will continue to do so, i'm almost positive wikipedia would agree with this decision. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hillstead (talk • contribs) 20:48, 19 May 2007— Hillstead (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Please read the rest of this talk page, as well as WP:LEAD which clearly states that in writing an effective lead, "briefly describing its notable controversies" is a requirement for creating an introduction which is "capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article". This has been debated, discussed, edit warred, and beaten to death. You say "I recently deleted this paragraph, and will continue to do so". I say do so at your own peril. - auburnpilot talk 20:58, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Revisions and Moves

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

In the following edit, here, I went through the general section about the network's programming, online, and Fox News Radio, replacing them with three general titles, Television, Online, and Radio, under one overall title, Outlets. To a certain extent, this was an idea of a revision of the section for a combination of cleanup and better understanding in whole. The edit also included the addition of John Moody under "Key People", due to his relevance of being in control of news editorial, or what gets onto the channel, in addition to removing "Management" due to it repeating information already in this article or in the article about Roger Ailes himself. Anyway, any opinions or dislike of the new changes? I can admit, the "Online" section may need some expansion. Chris (Talk) (Contribs) 08:08, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

The Simpsons have a feud with Fox News

Latest comment: 17 years ago7 comments5 people in discussion

And there you have it, The Simpsons has a feud with Fox News. On their 400th episode, they made some comments that will "rise the anger level" of the network. Fox News and The Simpsons are a part of 20th Century Fox. The cast of The Simpsons are now engaged with a feud with Fox News Channel. Each character made a snipe at Bill O'Reilly or Fox News with some comments directed at the channel. Ludacris, a featured guest on the 400th episode, is pretty much a shot at O'Reilly and Fox News. And Fox being the representatives of both The Simpsons and Fox News Channel, it's seems like a deadlock between them. There were comment relates to O'Reilly digging up infomation on a political opponent (usually a person who is a a member of The Democratic Party or a liberal). The most starling surprise is the characters stated that Fox News was "exposed" as a conservative media outlet. Ashame that The Simpsons can get away with this, without loosing the audience. I am guessing right wing media critics such as Michelle Malkin will get on the blow horn and attack The Simpsons. Seth MacFarlene's televisions shows Family Guy and American Dad also take shots at Fox News. It's a war between the adult cartoons and Fox News. We'll see the feud be brought out in spotlight once it hits the MSM. Note: MSM is mainstream media. LILVOKA 01:09, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Are you wanting to add this to the article? I'm confused as to why you're posting the above message to several talk pages. - auburnpilot talk 01:22, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

/Blaxthos 04:11, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with AP and Blaxthos. Interestingly, one could come to a completely different interpretation as well since the Simpsons also took a shot at Media Matters. The main newcaster was kicked off the news for swearing. Even though no one was watching the show, dedicated watchers were monitoring the newscast for swearing or other remarks, aka Don Imus and Media Matters. This is also OR and shows the danger of interpretation of vague references. Arzel 04:28, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Since the watcher was hardcore Christian Ned Flanders and was only concerned about swearing and not political content, I'd say it was wishful thinking to see this as a Media Matters and instead a shot at Christian monitoring groups with words like "Concerned" and "Parents" in the names of their organizations. Gamaliel (Orwellian Cyber hell master) 16:47, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Re-read my last sentence. Arzel 17:17, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Gamaleil... since this is a primary reference (The Simpsons show itself) interpretation is OR, be it LILVODKA's commentary or Azrel's attempt to make it about Media Matters. FWIW, I also believe it's a swipe at parental monitoring groups rather than MM/Don Imus (completely different context), but I'm glad we're all agreed that this has no place anywhere. /Blaxthos 21:16, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Ironic Joke?

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Is the presence of Template {{bias}} an ironic joke? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajuk (talk • contribs) 16:33, 21 May 2007

No, it's not. - auburnpilot talk 16:47, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

FAQ (still needed)

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

So what of the FAQ? I still contend that it's a good idea for us to have listed the common concerns and reasoning used, along with perhaps links to the discussions. /Blaxthos 04:09, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Controversies

Latest comment: 17 years ago27 comments6 people in discussion

Since there is an entire article to FOX controversies, I am going to compress those in this article. If you have a problem please discuss. Arzel 03:34, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Consider migrating the content instead of removing, as the Accusations of bias subsection in the article on FOX controversies is only one paragraph. Terjen 03:53, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

And your point is what? Adding content simply because you believe there is not enough is not a reason for inclusion. In any case what you added is not notable. Arzel 03:57, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I sense some hostility here... anyway, my point was a suggestion about migrating much of the content in the Accusations of bias subsection of this article to Fox News Channel controversies.Terjen 04:10, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

It is not hostility, sorry if it came across as such. The article is already long, and much of what is in the controversy is already stated in the other article. If you look at other similar articles, their is even less controversy listed other than a link to the controversy article. Just trying to make it consistant with others. Arzel 04:23, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Additionally, why is AIM's opinion notable in this context? A lot of people or organizations probably have opinions, but that does not mean they should be included here. Arzel 04:05, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I added the concerns of Accuracy in Media at a time when the article paraphrased commentators like Jonah Goldberg. I am fine with the bar for inclusion being higher now. Terjen 04:19, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

A subarticle is created when the topic is too large to cover in the main article. In other words, if you are going to remove content related to controversies, it shouldn't just be blanked into history. It should be moved into the controversy article. I'm all for condensing, but let's be honest; this is butchering of extensively sourced material. - auburnpilot talk 04:08, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

That is all in the controversies sections. How many times does it need to be restated and reworded? Arzel 04:20, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

This certainly appears like trying to find another vehicle to push a particular agenda. How many different ways is this guy going to try and find to cull information that he deems as negative? This is a total abuse of the idea of a subarticle. I don't agree with 95% of the evisceration done by Arzel, and will try to find time later today to undo some of the damage. Also, please don't try to justify the changes with comparing this article to others (as we pointed out previously). This isn't CNN, or MSNBC, or any other article. Let's just stop the agenda pushing, k? /Blaxthos 15:29, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Just what is your problem? Just recently you were complaining about the length of the overall article and proceeding to move a bunch of content into a different article. The controversy section is repeated within the controversy sub-article, so I ask what is the point of replicating much of it twice? Some of the stuff I removed was repeated verbatim between the two articles. Yet here you are AGAIN attacking my motives and accusing me of pushing some agenda. Apparently trying to clean up an article is viewed as agenda pushing by some if the cleanup doesn't agree with their own agenda. Arzel 17:29, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Just like we stated above (RE: programming subarticle), the main article should highlight the controversies (which it always has), and the sub article should contain in-depth information on the controversies (which it always has). This is no different than how we had to repeatedly point out to you that the lead section should briefly mention notable controversies (which you tried your hardest to remove), and they should be covered more thoroughly in the article itself. For an example from an A-class article, see Ted Kennedy and Chappaquiddick incident. Given your recent campaign/attempts to sanatize this article, and your willingness to simply blank sections and/or trim well sourced information, it's pretty clear that you're attempting to once again wield the scythe. /Blaxthos 02:13, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Just how is this comparable to the Ted Kennedy article? If anything this article is a perfect example of how controversy should be listed, you don't see multiple paragraphs relating to the Chappaquikkick incident within the main article, just as there is no reason to list every person that feels FNC is biased within the main article. Simply state that their is bias and link to the subarticle. I really wish you would try to have some semblence of objectivity regarding this or any issue, you are rude and attack any person that doesn't agree with you to the letter. Arzel 14:04, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm with Arzel on this one - it's bad enough most of these criticisms were hanging about in the HISTORY section for so long without somebody removing them, now we have so much criticism crammed into the controversy section that it's practically its own article OUTSIDE of the main criticism and controversy page! The TK/Chappaquiddick incident lists three lines about what is probably the most infamous event in Ted Kennedy's life and gives no damning details either way - it simply lists he was driving the car without noting his documented actions afterwards and other allegations. Which is fine by me. The Fox News controversy stuffs so much massed criticism in that the summary section of criticisms and controveries is the same size as the entire history of Fox News! This seems to me to constitute an undue emphasis being put on Fox News criticism. It was always my understanding a summary section for a sub-article should not try to summarize nearly every specific criticism that it can find (whilst quoting more criticisms) in that article. As for attacks on people pushing agendas and such - I've already seen one person falsely accused and instantly aquitted of being a sockpuppet by an editor on here - for heck's sake cut it out. As a said a while back - nobody here is personally affected by Fox, nobody works for them and so forth - so there's absolutely no reason for all this aggression. Edders 11:14, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

First of all, one can't look at the events of the last few weeks (regarding aforementioned campaign) and then just assume that the edits made under the guise of "cleanup" are valid prima facie, especially (as one of our admin regulars noted) since some of this information was just obliterated. Secondly, as noted in past conversations, FNC controversies are quite numerous and are a big part of what makes FNC so notable. It's unfortunate that FNC has been such a controversial topic, however that doesn't mean that we should now use the sheer volume of criticisms as a reason to exclude them from the main article -- sorry if FNC has more controversy than it does criticism, but if anything that highlights the notability of the controversial nature of the subject. Perhaps an acceptable compromise would be to list a few sentences (an overview) of each controversy in the main article, with anchor links to a detailed explaination in the sub article. Honestly, I thought this is how it was setup (it was at some point)... but I again state that relegating the controversies to the sub-article only (or simply blanking them altogether) is unacceptable. /Blaxthos 11:52, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I will state again, this information is on the controversies page, what is the point of repeating some stuff verbatim and other stuff practically verbatim. Nothing has been completely deleted, all the main points of criticism exist on the appropriately named sub-page. Furthermore, the current section is still far more wordy than other similar articles with controversy sub-pages. Finally I left each of the three main themes of controversy, along with a short paragraph summarizing the main issues which is then expanded on the controversy suppage. I don't neccesarily have a problem with individual summarization (which I had considered), but it makes little point when many of the controversies are only a couple of sentences anyway. On a side note, this article is about FOX news channel, as one of the main cable news networks, to say that it is notable because of controversy is laughable. It would have an article regardless of any controversy. It is not an article of FNC controversy, that is why there is a sub-article. Arzel 13:59, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

You seem to have either missed the point (again) or are purposefully ignoring it. Several seasoned, longstanding editors have raised objections to your edits, and have explained why, yet you continue to unilaterally enforce changes that don't sit well with the rest of us. At this point I'm not going to stoop to your level and edit war with you... I request some of our other seasoned editors step in and proffer their opinions -- it appears you refuse to listen to my explainations. AuburnPilot, Gamaliel, Ramsquire... anyone else wanna weigh in on this? Seems like this is just another means to the same end to me. /Blaxthos 14:06, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem migrating and condensing some of the information in the main article to the controversies page. But that hasn't been done. Yes, some of the information is repeated there but not all, e.g. the 56 percent of journalists finding Fox to be especially conservative, the correlation between the arrival of Fox and the increase in GOP votes, and the discussion fo the 6/3/03 memo are all gone. Now I am not saying that all of that info is necessary in either article, and their could be some discussion of its removal because of undue weight and arguments for its inclusion since it is sourced information. However, don't simply delete sourced information under the pretense of moving it to the subarticle. The info is not being moved to the controversies page, it is being deleted. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 16:28, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

At the risk of sounding glib: If it's all verifiable/notable/npov blah blah blah, why can't we just put it in the criticism article then? Edders 20:49, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

You've just hit the nail on the head, Edders. The main article should summarize the points of the subarticle, but there is certainly no reason why this content can't be moved to the controversy article. The problem was that the content was covered more in depth in this article than the subarticle, so when Arzel removed it, the content should have been moved, not simply removed. Sure, a forward thinking editor could have moved the content for Arzel, but when you remove content under the pretense that it is already covered in a subarticle, the subarticle should have more in depth coverage than what you are removing from the main article. Move the content = good thing. Remove content = bad thing. - auburnpilot talk 21:03, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Meh. I thought I was being edgy and rebellious. It really helps to take a deep breath, sit back from the article and say: What the heck? Edders 21:10, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I've added the deleted info to the controversies article. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 21:15, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that I had deleted information between the two, I thought I had only deleted content that was identical between and moved other information between the two. A new editor was adding new information at the same time I was condensing which resulted in a little confusion, but my intent was not to delete any notable information. I do see that I failed to move completely one paragraph which I thought was in the controversies section. Arzel 02:03, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I apologize if my post came across as accusing you of purposely misleading and deleting information in bad faith. I never thought you were doing that. I just assumed you were attempting to trim down the size of the article by taking out info you deemed to be giving undue weight to Fox detractors. On it's face, there is nothing wrong with that. But since this article is highly contentious (and the information is sourced), if your intent was to trim the fat, we should have a discussion first and try to reach a consensus on what goes and what stays. That's the point I was trying to make. But in any case, thanks for clearing your intentions up. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 16:53, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I didn't take your comments that way, but thanks anyway. I was hoping to get some discussion initially regarding the compression and movement to the Controversies subpage, but instead it immediately turned into a huge arguement. Arzel 17:39, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

If your intent is to "get some discussion initially" then it's probably best to suggest the changes on talk and wait for editorial response instead of taking the axe to the content and then adopting the if you have a problem with it then discuss attitude, especially when dealing with such a controversial topic where one's edit history might lessen the assumption of good faith. /Blaxthos 18:47, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Don't turn this back on me, I have made very few edit changes to these articles. I would ask that you quit trying to insinuate that I have some personal POV agenda, and I would add that my first post here was responded with no assumption of good faith by you even though my history at that time would have no one assume that I don't have good faith. Your personal attacks on me do not do you any service. Arzel 01:56, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

RFC

Latest comment: 16 years ago26 comments16 people in discussion

Closed WP:RFC

Result was keep, no consensus reached for change. Wikiport (talk) 17:05, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

RFC: Is the alleged bias statement in the Fox News Channel introduction needed.

Resolved

Is the alleged bias statement in the Fox News Channel introduction needed, if it is discussed throughout the article? Wikiport (talk) 02:22, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

retain bias comments in lead - the concern over bias in FOX news reporting is well-documented, and a prominent facet of the topic. leaving it out of the lead strikes me as incomplete coverage of the material. let's be honest: this is a politically charged issue, and it's a delicate task to write something that avoids the appearance of being politically biased. if we don't comment on it at all in the lead, that will look pro-conservative, just as commenting on it too strongly will look pro-liberal. the current version isn't too bad; I say leave it. --Ludwigs2 05:22, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Strongly disagree - The introduction should contain no mention of bias, as it is contrary to the WP:Structure policy, [[41]] There is no shortage of coverage regarding the alleged bias of the organization within the article, to include several sister articles which speak exclusively to the alleged bias of the channel. This language is poorly placed and is covered in depth in the article itself. I vote to exclude the alleged bias comments in the intro. Wikiport (talk) 05:56, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

How many times are you going to "vote", since you're also the nominator? Also, you have linked WP:STRUCTURE as supporting your position. The section, in its entirety, reads:

Sometimes the internal structure of an article may require additional attention to protect neutrality and avoid problems like POV forks and undue weight. Although specific article structures are not as a rule prohibited, in some cases the article structure itself may need attention. Care must be taken to ensure the overall presentation is broadly neutral.

Can you please explain how that supports your position, especially given that the governing policy on introductions, WP:LEAD, states:

The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any notable controversies that may exist.

We have one policy that clearly dictates what belongs in the introduction, and one that has nothing to do with the subject at all. This is exactly why I nominated for speedy close of this RFC -- it's a bad faith initiation that has no ties to policy. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 11:50, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

retain bias comments in lead - Make sure the bias allegations are sourced though. I'm sure it won't be hard. Ngchen (talk) 14:36, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Actually, elevating any one (or more than one) citation to the introduction gives it undue weight. Since the claims are clearly supported by many citations within the article itself, sourcing in the introduction isn't necessary. See the FAQ. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 14:51, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Concur with previous consensus. Nothing new has been presented here to even discuss, much less something worth overturning that broad consensus. Gamaliel (talk) 14:38, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Comment. Not including it in the "lead" would be similar to writing a biography on Christopher Columbus and not mentioning his voyages in the "lead" section. Docku:“what up?” 14:44, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

disagree - Are we serious? Of course it should not be included into the lead! Anyone with a brain knows there are sources that will attest to the bias of the news organization. Read the article! It's all about bias and conservative issues! Keep it where it matters. 138.162.128.53 (talk) 15:32, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

- Remove from intro. Bias controversy is handled in the interior of article. Including it in the lead creates the impression that credible charges of bias have been made against Fox uniquely among cable news networks. That is certainly (Matthews, Olbermann, Abrams; now Matthews, Olbermann, Maddow, Olbermann. Are we serious?) no longer the case. Badmintonhist (talk) 16:32, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Remove from intro or add similar wording to MSNBC intro. Credible bias have been leveled at both networks. --rogerd (talk) 18:53, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

This is the talk page for discussing changes to the Fox News Channel article. If you want to discuss changes to the MSNBC article, try Talk:MSNBC. The content of one article is not to be used as a bargaining chip in a discussion about the content of another. - auburnpilot talk 22:55, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Keep notable controversy in the lead for reasons stated several times and as per WP:LEAD. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 20:02, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm putting the following comments on both the Fox News and MSNBC talk pages. I recommend that the following statements, or something quite similar, be put in the respective leads of the two articles:

Critics and some observers of the network say that Fox News Channel has promoted conservative and pro-Republican political positions since its founding.

Critics and some observers say that MSNBC has become increasingly liberal and anti-Republican, particularly in its prime time lineup, during President George W. Bush's second term in office.

Obviously the last few words of the second statement would have to be modified shortly. Badmintonhist (talk) 22:27, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Keep mention of bias in the intro per previous 2 years of discussion, multiple RfCs, WP:LEAD and everything said above by Ludwigs2, Gamaliel, Docku, Blaxthos, and Ramsquire. Maybe one day somebody will actually have an opinion based in policy (rather than a distortion of policy) when they fight for the mention of bias to be removed, but I've yet to see it. - auburnpilot talk 22:55, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Remove the bias introduction. I have followed this article for several weeks now, i'm amazed at the catfights. My little minion was right, there is a evident bias here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JBasilone (talk • contribs) 14:56, 30 September 2008 (UTC) — JBasilone (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Remove or make Consistant Much of the problem here is the fact that there has been a strong shift in MSM, particularly with MSNBC actively pushing for Obama in this election. It is quite insulting to think that FNC is the most biased when existing sources have already stated the FNC has been the most balanced of all news organizations regarding the 2008 election. Much of the objection to any change in concensus is a repeating of facts from several years ago, and FNC has evolved considerably since this time. Arzel (talk) 18:11, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Arzel, is there some policy you can quote that specifically advocates your position and supersedes WP:LEAD? This article will not be used as a bargaining chip to force changes to an unrelated article, and attempts to do so could (should?) be considered a violation of WP:POINT. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 19:19, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Looking at Arzel's argument, I don't see a push to force changes on other articles; just to portray this article using more up-to-date information. I would still have to see these existing sources that Arzel is talking about, of course, but I don't think this concern should be dismissed outright. »S0CO^{(talk contribs)} 20:09, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Arzel, no where in the lead or article does it say or imply that FNC is the most biased network. This has been pointed out to you before. Does anyone here really deny that the PERCEPTION of bias at FNC is not one of the factors regarding its notability? Let's get real here people. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 20:55, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

There is an implied perception. By including the statement only here the implication is clear. FNC is biased and all other networks are unbiased. Can anyone here honestly say that MSNBC is not clearly in the bag for Obama? It was slanted before, and now that Maddow has her own show the evidence is clear. This is mostly a moot point right now because appropriate language has been included on the MSNBC article. Blaxthos, I really think this should be a view of common sense. Readers should expect a neutral presentation throughout WP, and up until now this has been sorely lacking to a great degree. Arzel (talk) 02:37, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

sigh... this is not about whether any network is actually biased. this is about whether there is any significant debate about whether a network is biased, in reliable sources. I know for a fact that there has been academic discussion of the potential or perceived bias of FNC, but so far as I know the only people arguing that MSNBC is biased is FOX and its affiliates, who clearly have a conflict of interest. show me a reliable, third party debate about the bias of MSNBC (preferably an academic discussion) and then we can take this argument over to the MSNBC page and worry about it there. otherwise, this is not a reasonable discussion. --Ludwigs2 02:46, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Please stop discussing MSNBC here. Reliable sources supporting a notable controversy described in the lead of MSNBC can be found: here, here, and here. Switzpaw (talk) 02:53, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

No issues with current form Speaking for myself of course. However, to possibly placate continuous concerns the lead could also note in some way how FNC formed as an alternative to the perception among American conservatives that the mainstream media was biased to the left and the subsequent perception that FNC is conservatively biased and not truly "fair and balanced." Don't quite know how to word it but if my idea flies we can try something. MrMurph101 (talk) 02:40, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Keep, agree with FAQ regarding the reason the sentence is in the lead, and from my reading of the subject, FNC is still criticized for and observed as promoting conservative political positions. Switzpaw (talk) 06:57, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

^ Project for Excellence in Journalism, State of the News Media 2006: An Annual Report on American Journalism.

[1] Project for Excellence in Journalism, State of the News Media 2006: An Annual Report on American Journalism.

[1]