![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. 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 10 | ← | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | Archive 18 | Archive 19 | Archive 20 |
In the interest of NPOV should the last sentenance of the third paragraph regarding Fox News bias be removed. The bias accusation is not give the same prominance in the CNN and BBC descriptions and is focus later in the page. 71.233.211.201 19:20, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
You wre not kidding about extensive discussion. It just seems to a new editor that the pro and cons were equal, so I wonder what seems to be an obvious POV is put on fox News and not CNN or BBC. 71.233.211.201 21:36, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Changed by an editor recently:
"Fox News" redirects here. For the weekly talk show on Fox's broadcast network, see Fox News Sunday.
This seems unnecessary to me. There are several weekly talk shows on "Fox's broadcast network"... whby is Fox News Sunday specified? Is it likely that someone wanting the article on one particular show would search for Fox News? I move to strike the recent change. / Blaxthos 19:43, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
The memo has not been authenticated to my knoledge (sp) I think we should avoid publishing rumors. Gpshaw 20:49, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Bill O'rielly who is the face of Fox News Channel has denied their is any such editorial control, I think this bias portion should be removed. Skypad 19:34, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, I reverted this edit by 66.217.176.6. It was oddly placed in the middle of the internal memo section. AuburnPilot talk 17:57, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
It becomes increasingly hard to assume good faith with this fellow. I submit the following diffs:
/ Blaxthos 18:32, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough, though I feel it takes some forethought to log out and then try to re-insert the same POV material from another place. I do think that he believes he is right, and maybe just made some poor choices on how to proceed. / Blaxthos 19:08, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
I was logged in on my second edit, don't know why I did not come up. what is considered a vaild source? The one I used showed a study by a university that showed Fox does not have a conservative bias. Media Matters on the other hand is funded by an extreme left wing idealouge George Soros. If I source the exact article and date will that suffice? Skypad 10:04, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
I accidentally clicked enter before typing summery... "United States" is not proper grammar. "U.S. based" would be more appropriate, but why change what works? / Blaxthos 06:13, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
[1]. This is a portal page. This does not provide sufficient information for the statements in the introduction to be verified. The sentence will be removed, due to WP:WEASEL stating:
“ | If a statement can't stand on its own without weasel words, it lacks neutral point of view. Without any sources, it is also unverifiable. | ” |
"Unverifiable" means anything that doesn't adhere to WP:VERIFY. VERIFY also states:
“ | Sources should be appropriate to the claims made: exceptional claims require stronger sources. | ” |
It would therefore not be acceptable for only this one link to be sufficient enough for one to verify the actual content of the study (which isn't even specifically stated in the POV statement). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.227.194.89 ( talk • contribs).
What you two users have advocated is disregardation of community-wide standards because you feel as if consensus was reached. "Consensus can change", but you are not allowing discussion of the topic to be expressed freely - remember, not everyone was present when something was called. Your statements are not the only voice, and are not consensus. The statement in question, which I believe is the sentence: "Fox News is seen by some critics and observers as advocating conservative political positions." is not verifiable according to the source given. It is striking that when something that was stated without a source in a Wikipedia article, it is those who are challenging the validity of the "fact" who are being asked to look for another source. If it is indeed a fact, the person who included the text should be the person looking for another source (as they may as well have been adding false information into WP). Nevertheless, this statement is not a statistical fact that is being discussed here - it is a statement based on stereotypical opinion. Without specifics, there cannot be fact in the statement as it stands. In my own research of the 2006 report that was cited as the source, I cannot find a section relating to a consensus view of many media researchers or members of the media that show that Fox News Channel has "bias" anywhere (keywords in Google, Yahoo and MSN all show no results) - in fact, it isn't even mentioned. In the second sentence below the edit box, you will see the sentence: "Encyclopedic content must be verifiable." Quite simply, nothing in the 2006 Report was found to support the statement described in the opening sequence. In light of this, I have removed the source and have tagged the statement with {{[[template:fact|fact]]}}. In the template suggestions itself, it recommends that: "If it is doubtful and (quite) highly harmful, you may move it to the talk page and ask for a source," and "If it is very doubtful and very harmful, you may remove it directly without the need of moving it to the talk page first." However, it also states that: "if it is doubtful but not too harmful to the whole article, you may use verification needed tag to ask for source verification." It only makes sense that I am changing my tag from {{fact}} to {{verify source}}. -- 72.197.186.248 02:08, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm removing a source that doesn't cite what the Wikipedia article claims it does. It's a lie - it's a flat out lie, the 2006 report does not reference a bias in the operations of Fox News at all. What is on the Wikipedia article right now is not factual. Forget WP:WEASEL if you want (guideines should be seriously considered, right now it's not even being considered), you are asserting that something is factual but have no source to back it up. It's flat out lying. You can't just throw a link and say "it's there" - you have to prove it's there. Removing it does not violate any Wikipedia policy, but keeping the negative, unfactual statements does. -- 72.197.186.248 05:12, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Not registered; obvious vandalized bogus image with "FEAR" captioned all over. -- 194.251.240.116 12:13, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
Looking around some of the other network's entries ( CNBC as one example), should FNC and its programs have a general template containing all of the network's programming and such? Chris ( Talk) ( Contribs) 05:28, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
There should be a section in this article that lists there news rooms & Bureaus. Like they have in the CNN & MSNBC Articles.
I Know of only a few of them.
I Will list them and who ever starts the section can add them to the list.
These are the current News Rooms they use the most on FOX NEWS CHANNEL.
The Wikiquote entry for Fox News Channel has been nominated for deletion as an attack page. For those who are interested, the relevant VFD can be reached here. ~ S0CO( talk| contribs) 00:07, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
The one sentence explaining the topic, doesn't explain the topic. If a reader is not versed in this issue, they won't know what the issue is about. There should be at least one more sentence explaining what the critics say about the memos. Additionally, the sentence which states "The other point of view..." needs to be sourced, otherwise it is POV, as the sentence clearly states. 216.158.161.32 ( talk) 13:31, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Ok, I was chastised for adding descriptions of political leaning after references to these two organizations. Reverted, in fact. I have reversed that, but am willing to accept "left-leaning" in place of "left-wing" if it will unbunch the panties. Certainly the groups in question self-identify themselves as left-of-center, and it appears rather standard everywhere else in Wikipedia to have such positional declaratives. Anyone object?-- Textmatters ( talk) 20:26, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Reverted again? Ok, "progressive" it is. Please don't remove, Blaxthos. The groups self-describe themselves as progressive. Another revert is inappropriately POV on your part.-- Textmatters ( talk) 20:40, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Ok, I'll let it go. I will, however, remove the attribution listed after MRC on the MSNBC article page and certainly expect your support. -- Textmatters ( talk) 20:57, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
I added the last paragraph to the end of the slogan section because i feel that it is fitting, makes sense, and had yet to be addressed in the section. Furthermore, it is simple, concise, and not 'leaning' one way or another; merely a direct statement and observation. -- Cuauhtemoc07 ( talk) 21:14, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
This article has quite frankly become a joke, and nothing more than a vehicle for a select group of editors to tailor it under certain guidelines - that although themselves, don't violate policy; still help to portray the lowest common denominator of contribution. There is a consistent movement to edit this article in order to convey a more objective and accurate presentation. In this venture, we have collectively destroyed the original content beyond repair. There is various claims of bias, scattered in a shotgun-like pattern throughout the article, which any attempt of revision is met with resistance from several levels. Collectively we are spinning our wheels at the best way to illustrate the essence behind FNC, and that argument itself serves as the best source to prove the foundation for this movement. This article meets the criteria for existing as an attack page, and should be deleted. A conglomeration of efforts will be valuable in establishing the new article for FNC; one that portrays a truly objective aspect, such that other channels/mediums posses.
Wikiport (
talk) 11:09, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Sorry guys, but given this new editor's spurious attempts to delete the entire article twice, as well as his flagrant POV-pushing throughout his short editing history, I don't believe that he's done due diligence in reading the past discussions and endless RFC's. If there is a concern than hasn't previously been raised, by all means let's address it. If this is nothing more than disagreement with the content (or an attempt to whitewash the article) his actions and his statements are only an attempt to make a WP:POINT. Everything in this article is firmly grounded in consensus, and a simple perusing of the archives give a clear indication of why things are the way they are, and the processes utilized to reach (and later validate) such. / Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:31, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Blaxthos and I agree on everything so why not ask us :)-- Tom 22:49, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. 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 10 | ← | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | Archive 18 | Archive 19 | Archive 20 |
In the interest of NPOV should the last sentenance of the third paragraph regarding Fox News bias be removed. The bias accusation is not give the same prominance in the CNN and BBC descriptions and is focus later in the page. 71.233.211.201 19:20, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
You wre not kidding about extensive discussion. It just seems to a new editor that the pro and cons were equal, so I wonder what seems to be an obvious POV is put on fox News and not CNN or BBC. 71.233.211.201 21:36, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Changed by an editor recently:
"Fox News" redirects here. For the weekly talk show on Fox's broadcast network, see Fox News Sunday.
This seems unnecessary to me. There are several weekly talk shows on "Fox's broadcast network"... whby is Fox News Sunday specified? Is it likely that someone wanting the article on one particular show would search for Fox News? I move to strike the recent change. / Blaxthos 19:43, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
The memo has not been authenticated to my knoledge (sp) I think we should avoid publishing rumors. Gpshaw 20:49, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Bill O'rielly who is the face of Fox News Channel has denied their is any such editorial control, I think this bias portion should be removed. Skypad 19:34, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, I reverted this edit by 66.217.176.6. It was oddly placed in the middle of the internal memo section. AuburnPilot talk 17:57, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
It becomes increasingly hard to assume good faith with this fellow. I submit the following diffs:
/ Blaxthos 18:32, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough, though I feel it takes some forethought to log out and then try to re-insert the same POV material from another place. I do think that he believes he is right, and maybe just made some poor choices on how to proceed. / Blaxthos 19:08, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
I was logged in on my second edit, don't know why I did not come up. what is considered a vaild source? The one I used showed a study by a university that showed Fox does not have a conservative bias. Media Matters on the other hand is funded by an extreme left wing idealouge George Soros. If I source the exact article and date will that suffice? Skypad 10:04, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
I accidentally clicked enter before typing summery... "United States" is not proper grammar. "U.S. based" would be more appropriate, but why change what works? / Blaxthos 06:13, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
[1]. This is a portal page. This does not provide sufficient information for the statements in the introduction to be verified. The sentence will be removed, due to WP:WEASEL stating:
“ | If a statement can't stand on its own without weasel words, it lacks neutral point of view. Without any sources, it is also unverifiable. | ” |
"Unverifiable" means anything that doesn't adhere to WP:VERIFY. VERIFY also states:
“ | Sources should be appropriate to the claims made: exceptional claims require stronger sources. | ” |
It would therefore not be acceptable for only this one link to be sufficient enough for one to verify the actual content of the study (which isn't even specifically stated in the POV statement). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.227.194.89 ( talk • contribs).
What you two users have advocated is disregardation of community-wide standards because you feel as if consensus was reached. "Consensus can change", but you are not allowing discussion of the topic to be expressed freely - remember, not everyone was present when something was called. Your statements are not the only voice, and are not consensus. The statement in question, which I believe is the sentence: "Fox News is seen by some critics and observers as advocating conservative political positions." is not verifiable according to the source given. It is striking that when something that was stated without a source in a Wikipedia article, it is those who are challenging the validity of the "fact" who are being asked to look for another source. If it is indeed a fact, the person who included the text should be the person looking for another source (as they may as well have been adding false information into WP). Nevertheless, this statement is not a statistical fact that is being discussed here - it is a statement based on stereotypical opinion. Without specifics, there cannot be fact in the statement as it stands. In my own research of the 2006 report that was cited as the source, I cannot find a section relating to a consensus view of many media researchers or members of the media that show that Fox News Channel has "bias" anywhere (keywords in Google, Yahoo and MSN all show no results) - in fact, it isn't even mentioned. In the second sentence below the edit box, you will see the sentence: "Encyclopedic content must be verifiable." Quite simply, nothing in the 2006 Report was found to support the statement described in the opening sequence. In light of this, I have removed the source and have tagged the statement with {{[[template:fact|fact]]}}. In the template suggestions itself, it recommends that: "If it is doubtful and (quite) highly harmful, you may move it to the talk page and ask for a source," and "If it is very doubtful and very harmful, you may remove it directly without the need of moving it to the talk page first." However, it also states that: "if it is doubtful but not too harmful to the whole article, you may use verification needed tag to ask for source verification." It only makes sense that I am changing my tag from {{fact}} to {{verify source}}. -- 72.197.186.248 02:08, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm removing a source that doesn't cite what the Wikipedia article claims it does. It's a lie - it's a flat out lie, the 2006 report does not reference a bias in the operations of Fox News at all. What is on the Wikipedia article right now is not factual. Forget WP:WEASEL if you want (guideines should be seriously considered, right now it's not even being considered), you are asserting that something is factual but have no source to back it up. It's flat out lying. You can't just throw a link and say "it's there" - you have to prove it's there. Removing it does not violate any Wikipedia policy, but keeping the negative, unfactual statements does. -- 72.197.186.248 05:12, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Not registered; obvious vandalized bogus image with "FEAR" captioned all over. -- 194.251.240.116 12:13, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
Looking around some of the other network's entries ( CNBC as one example), should FNC and its programs have a general template containing all of the network's programming and such? Chris ( Talk) ( Contribs) 05:28, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
There should be a section in this article that lists there news rooms & Bureaus. Like they have in the CNN & MSNBC Articles.
I Know of only a few of them.
I Will list them and who ever starts the section can add them to the list.
These are the current News Rooms they use the most on FOX NEWS CHANNEL.
The Wikiquote entry for Fox News Channel has been nominated for deletion as an attack page. For those who are interested, the relevant VFD can be reached here. ~ S0CO( talk| contribs) 00:07, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
The one sentence explaining the topic, doesn't explain the topic. If a reader is not versed in this issue, they won't know what the issue is about. There should be at least one more sentence explaining what the critics say about the memos. Additionally, the sentence which states "The other point of view..." needs to be sourced, otherwise it is POV, as the sentence clearly states. 216.158.161.32 ( talk) 13:31, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Ok, I was chastised for adding descriptions of political leaning after references to these two organizations. Reverted, in fact. I have reversed that, but am willing to accept "left-leaning" in place of "left-wing" if it will unbunch the panties. Certainly the groups in question self-identify themselves as left-of-center, and it appears rather standard everywhere else in Wikipedia to have such positional declaratives. Anyone object?-- Textmatters ( talk) 20:26, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Reverted again? Ok, "progressive" it is. Please don't remove, Blaxthos. The groups self-describe themselves as progressive. Another revert is inappropriately POV on your part.-- Textmatters ( talk) 20:40, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Ok, I'll let it go. I will, however, remove the attribution listed after MRC on the MSNBC article page and certainly expect your support. -- Textmatters ( talk) 20:57, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
I added the last paragraph to the end of the slogan section because i feel that it is fitting, makes sense, and had yet to be addressed in the section. Furthermore, it is simple, concise, and not 'leaning' one way or another; merely a direct statement and observation. -- Cuauhtemoc07 ( talk) 21:14, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
This article has quite frankly become a joke, and nothing more than a vehicle for a select group of editors to tailor it under certain guidelines - that although themselves, don't violate policy; still help to portray the lowest common denominator of contribution. There is a consistent movement to edit this article in order to convey a more objective and accurate presentation. In this venture, we have collectively destroyed the original content beyond repair. There is various claims of bias, scattered in a shotgun-like pattern throughout the article, which any attempt of revision is met with resistance from several levels. Collectively we are spinning our wheels at the best way to illustrate the essence behind FNC, and that argument itself serves as the best source to prove the foundation for this movement. This article meets the criteria for existing as an attack page, and should be deleted. A conglomeration of efforts will be valuable in establishing the new article for FNC; one that portrays a truly objective aspect, such that other channels/mediums posses.
Wikiport (
talk) 11:09, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Sorry guys, but given this new editor's spurious attempts to delete the entire article twice, as well as his flagrant POV-pushing throughout his short editing history, I don't believe that he's done due diligence in reading the past discussions and endless RFC's. If there is a concern than hasn't previously been raised, by all means let's address it. If this is nothing more than disagreement with the content (or an attempt to whitewash the article) his actions and his statements are only an attempt to make a WP:POINT. Everything in this article is firmly grounded in consensus, and a simple perusing of the archives give a clear indication of why things are the way they are, and the processes utilized to reach (and later validate) such. / Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:31, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Blaxthos and I agree on everything so why not ask us :)-- Tom 22:49, 18 September 2008 (UTC)