Talk:Fox News controversies/Archive 2

message: Is my revision a better description of who Kianzad is and where he wrote than just "Blogger?" Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:55, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it has been established that he is a reporter for Expressen, the blog in question is his, isn't it? Isarig 18:03, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it's obviously not. Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:06, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Correct, the blog belongs to Expressen and Kianzad is one of several contributors to it. FeloniousMonk 18:08, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is he a reporter for Expressen? Searching their site for his contributions finds all of 6 entries, over the course of  2 years, all of them blog entries, and none of them even recent. Looks like he was an occasional blog contributor, of no particular significanceIsarig 18:11, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Writing op-ed is a type of journalism last time I checked. Expressen presents Kianzad as a "Culture commentator": He seems to get around for being "an occasional blog contributor, of no particular significance" as you claim: Sydsvenskan.se, another Swedish newspaper, also carries Kianzad's writings: Journalisten.se published "Kianzad and Rahimi: Lack of interest for diversity work, a Debate": Kianzad is published in Zero Music Magazine:  Kianzad's published writings on Fox News are cited by an masters thesis published by the Department of Scandinavian Languages of Lunds University:  Kianzad says he was an editor for two newspapers:   Of the 732 results Google search for "Behrang Kianzad"  many are for articles: The magazine Mana cites Kianzad's article  here. Seems notable enough to me. FeloniousMonk 18:48, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Opinion journalists are not reporters. --GunnarRene 19:45, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The relevant policy, WP:RS, doesn't say "professional reporter," it says "professional journalist." As I said op-ed is by definition a form of journalism. FeloniousMonk 21:09, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It was justfification for this edit, not for deleting the point. --GunnarRene 21:36, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

text: He may be notable enough for you, but I'm unconvinced, and you'll have to do better than that to overcome WP:RS. And since I've already called out your misrepresentations on the master's thesis piece, I'd thank you not to repeat it, or stronger words for what you are doing will be used. Isarig 21:03, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Dismiss it all you want, the evidence remains here and others have found it compelling despite your opinion of it given. FeloniousMonk 21:11, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Some have. others have not. As I said, I am unconvinced, and don't see a consensus around keeping these unoriginal points from a non-notable source in the articel. Isarig 21:43, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kianzad 

message: Source discussion continues above. But how about what this adds to the article? The other points in that section are interesting, while this point only says, in this version, that this particular guy doesn't like Fox news. If he has an original thought on the matter, perhaps that could be put in instead? --GunnarRene 22:54, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Geesh! We are wasting an awful lot of energy on one line of the article. We have three separate sections on the talk page and way too many reverts. Personally I have to agree with GunnarRene's comment "...but all that quote says is that he thinks Fox News lies." Is the point we're trying to show is that some commentators think Fox News lies? If so, surely we can do better than a single foriegn language commentator. Whether or not he is a reliable source, he is still only stating an opinion. Is anyone arguing that he is so influential that the mere fact that he holds the opinion is noteable? Ucanlookitup 23:00, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: True. It's not like there's a shortage of legitimate and significant criticisms of Fox News in the world. I just don't like seeing bowdlerizations arising from misrepresentations; gets my hackles up. FeloniousMonk 23:08, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, seeing as even you now agree that he adds nothing to the discussion, other than his compeletly non-notable personal opinion that Fox lies, can we finally get rid of this non-notable comment from  a non-noatble source? Isarig 00:58, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't put words in my mouth. FeloniousMonk 01:39, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You agreed with a previous editor who said Kanziad's opinion, in and of itself, is non-notable, and that he adds nothing to the article. What are we to make of your opinion? Isarig 01:42, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, you're putting words in my mouth. It's an op-ed article in a notable Swedish paper, as such it provides insight into how Fox News is viewed by that segment of the Swedish population that comprise its readership. FeloniousMonk 01:39, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No. --GunnarRene 01:50, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I think (without putting words into his mouth) that FeloniousMonk objects to ever agreeing that the source is non-notable. He just agreed that the person is not so famous that a non-novel opinion would be notable. --GunnarRene 01:50, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok. So, if we are all in agreement that the person is not so famous that a non-novel opinion would be notable, can we get rid of this not-so-famous person's non-novel opinion? Isarig 01:54, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I propose it would be far easier to come to a decision if the individual who repeatedly dissembled in an attempt to get rid of the information stopped trying. Hipocrite - «Talk» 12:33, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly. I'm getting really tired of his dishonesty. FeloniousMonk 16:19, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: What does it add

message: Does anybody object to making the Simpsons reference into a "See also" link? The episode article in question contains enough information and the current point doesn't actually tell us anything about Fox News.--GunnarRene 15:45, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Simpsons

message: To remove baggage, I will attempt to restructure the discussion such that both sides can see where the other one is coming from. I would ask that individuals edit only the arguments of the side they disagree with, please.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hipocrite (talk • contribs) .
:This looks like a collaborative argument-building exercise, and might be interesting. The point seems to be to edit the following section that you personally support, wihtout replying to the other one, without indenting, and wihout signing your personal contribution. Then you put your signature at the bottom. Correct? --GunnarRene 17:00, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope-  to edit the sections you don't support. Because I don't care, I took a shot at the other two sections. I expect people who care to edit the don't care section and the side of the dispute that they are NOT on. You are supposed to advance the best argument of the other side. Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:08, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Something like the ultimate strawman factory, then. That might be useful if we don't use it to ridicule the "other side". I have a bad feeling about this, but lack the restraint to not play along.--GunnarRene 17:42, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

text: One more question, where do we continue discussion? Above in the relevant threads? --GunnarRene 18:04, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Expressen article opposing argument experiment 

message: * The article is an important representation of what some section of Sweedish people believe, and must be included.  (not my opinion) Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:39, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Include the Expressen article (opposing argument experiment) 

message: * The article stacks yet another repetitive claim into an already too-long list. The list desperatly needs shortening, so we must remove the least intresting claim immediately. There is no claim less interesting than this one. (not my opinion) Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:38, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Exclude the Expressen article (opposing argument experiment) 

message: * Reducing the wikistress of my fellow editors is more important than a making a "perfect" article, which is unaccheivable anyway. This point doesn't add anything to the article, but it doesn't detract anything either.  (not my opinion)--GunnarRene 17:42, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who cares? (opposing argument experiment) 

message: What do people think of changing the title to "Criticism of Fox News Channel"? RN 20:31, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why not Fox News Channel controversies like BBC controversies? And change CNN controversies and allegations of bias to CNN controversies. I think allegations of bias are covered by "controversies". These articles should emphasise particular controversies and put them into the bigger picture. General discussion of bias should maybe go into Media bias in the United States or something. --GunnarRene 20:57, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Fox News Channel controversies is fine by me, "Criticism of Fox News Channel" isn't bad either. Moving specific accusations of bias to Media bias in the United States would be a POV Fork. General accusations, not directed at FOX specifically can be moved of course. FeloniousMonk 23:52, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Fox News Channel controversies" sounds good to me as well. RN 22:29, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Add my vote for "Fox News Channel controversies" as well. Ucanlookitup 00:12, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, moved it as there doesn't appear to be any objections. I like the new name, much shorter and less unwieldy. RN 16:27, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title change? 

message: FeloniousMonk has removed a sourced rebuttal to criticism of Fox by Ailes (and dishonestly described this in his edit summary as "fmt, + additional cite". I restored Ailes' comment, and kept FM's quoting of the rejoinder to the rebuttal. MF again removed it with the claim that this article is for discussing controversies. I guess his concept of discussing controversy is one side airing out any and all grievences, down to a non-notable quote from a 700-google-hits Swedish-Iranian blogger, while the other side is not allowed to respond. I'm afraid that not how WP works. Isarig 05:31, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Let me second that. FeloniousMonk, your conduct here is unbelievable, and unbecoming of an administrator. An important part of any "controversies" article is the rebuttal, and you seem content to relegate it to a subclause, and then devote a huge chunk to bashing that rebuttal. (An amount that's totally unwarranted, BTW - the Boehlert piece claims that, if it were really fair, FNC would be obliged to make a big deal out of a DUI charge from 25 years before - that's pure spin). One of your favorite words seems to be "whitewash", for a change you don't like - you seem fine with doing a "blackwash". Korny O'Near 13:58, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Let me third that. One side calls Fox's pov "spin", and the other side says Fox is being misinterpreted. Doesn't WP:NPOV mandate describing both sides of a dispute fairly? To paraphrase Felonious, this is not the "Accuse Fox of spin" article. --Wing Nut 17:11, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

text: You mean other than the fact that it co-opts a section of the article dedicated to 'Criticism' to favor FOX's CEO's rebutal of criticism? Other than that and it dropped the formating of the section, nothing. FeloniousMonk 18:50, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree on the formatting. I'm sure you can think of a good section header if that warrants a new section. --GunnarRene 18:56, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Please what? I'm not a Republican, I'm a freaking Norwegian citizen! This is not supposed to be a content fork. NPOV is absolute and non-negotiable. --GunnarRene 18:54, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was addressing Isarig, Korny and Wing Nut. FeloniousMonk 19:05, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, good. Although I'm non-American, I guess I could be "partisan", but I still see the problem. If we applied that same standard to the rest of the article, its entire contents would be (follows) --GunnarRene 19:22, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And just what makes you think I'm a Republican, or an American? Isarig 22:02, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Eric Boehlert's criticism of FOX in Salon  is in response to Ailes fending off criticism of FNC's news standards by touting that Fox News broke the Bush DUI story. This is already covered adequately in the article. Keep in mind the subject of the"Other criticisms" section are the criticisms it contains, not the rebutals of FOX. To favor FOX's CEO's rebutal of criticism in the section of the article dedicated to 'Criticism' violates undue weight. I'm not dogmatically opposed to expanding the summary of Ailes' statement that prompted the criticisim, but this is not it. I can understand that some here want to expand coverage of Ailes' statements in his WSJ/OJ article further, but do it outside of the criticisms section in a different section. FeloniousMonk 23:42, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Where, exactly, is Ailes' fending off criticism of FNC's news standards, "already covered adequately in the article"? As far as I can tell, this section is the only one the mentions the argument. Isarig 00:09, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A new section then? (If Ailes were addressing a specific point, it would go with that point, but it seems he mostly addresses bias?) --GunnarRene 00:16, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm fine with a new section, titled 'Fox's response to criticism' or something similar , that would include the Ailes arguments removed by FeloniousMonk. Isarig 01:19, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

text: That would be a reasonable compromise, I think. A section dedicated to response to criticisms seems fair. FeloniousMonk 02:00, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Ailes

message: Since its inception, the Fox News Channel has been the subject of controversy. Critics of the channel accuse it of political bias towards the right [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10], by touting the political leanings of its commentators and acussing it of immediately adopting the rhetoric of the Bush Administration. The network has steadfastly denied the accusations. Fox News CEO Roger Ailes responded that critics "confused our highly rated news analysis and opinion shows like Bill O'Reilly with our hard news coverage" and that "Fox News is the network that broke George W. Bush's DUI four days before the election."[10]
and that would be all. You can't just include the critisism that has actually been addressed by the critisized; all relevant, sourced and novel points should be included. --GunnarRene 19:22, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Eric Boehlert's criticism of FOX in Salon  is in response to Ailes fending off criticism of FNC's news standards by touting that Fox News broke the Bush DUI story. This is already covered adequately in the article. Keep in mind the subject of the"Other criticisms" section are the criticisms it contains, not the rebutals of FOX. To favor FOX's CEO's rebutal of criticism in the section of the article dedicated to 'Criticism' violates undue weight. I'm not dogmatically opposed to expanding the summary of Ailes' statement that prompted the criticisim, but this is not it. I can understand that some here want to expand coverage of Ailes' statements in his WSJ/OJ article further, but do it outside of the criticisms section in a different section. FeloniousMonk 23:42, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Where, exactly, is Ailes' fending off criticism of FNC's news standards, "already covered adequately in the article"? As far as I can tell, this section is the only one the mentions the argument. Isarig 00:09, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A new section then? (If Ailes were addressing a specific point, it would go with that point, but it seems he mostly addresses bias?) --GunnarRene 00:16, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm fine with a new section, titled 'Fox's response to criticism' or something similar , that would include the Ailes arguments removed by FeloniousMonk. Isarig 01:19, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

text: That would be a reasonable compromise, I think. A section dedicated to response to criticisms seems fair. FeloniousMonk 02:00, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Example

message: My first concern about Kianzad was that his statements as they appeared in the article before were totally uninteresting and should not have been included. (We even appeared to have consensus on it.) But now I've done some actual research into this (since I'm Norwegian and understand Swedish) including even some original research, which I of course won't include in the article, and some verifiable facts that I have included in the article to make the Kianzad point relevant. Perhaps it should be moved to the section on mistakes.
Kianzad makes a mistake in his newspaper piece that the population of Malmö is only 25% immigrant, when a total of 33% of the population is either foreing-born or born in sweden of foreign-born parents. He makes the specious claim that only 7% of the population comes from muslim countries. Perhaps he forgot to account for some of the African and European countries with Muslim majorities. I made the same calculation and arrived at 10-13%. And that neither accounts for muslims born in the West, nor for muslims in those 8% born in Sweden. Indeed, the balkans and the middle east are the largest areas of foreign immigration to Malmö, with neighbouring Denmark BEHIND Iraq, Bosnia and Yugoslavia in the rankings, and with Lebanon and Iran right behind it (Lebanon and Iran together had more emmigrants in Malmö than Denmark, although some Danish people could be there on shorter visits without registering as moving there, as could muslims from the rest of the EU by the way). So although Fox made a Dhimmi Watch-inspired mistake that should have warranted spiking and correcting the article (the violence problem was interesting after all) Kianzad made a couple of errors too; although not as grave mistakes as the one Harrigan made, Kianzad should correct too. --GunnarRene 22:20, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Supposing an equal birthrate in the borough of Rosengård, even just Iraq, Bosnia and Lebanon almost bring the number of potential Muslims in that borough up to 25%. (We don't have numbers from all countries in all boroughs. Numbers from all countries are just available city-wide.) But this would count as new analysis of verifiable data, and even that is original research so I did not attempt to add it to the article. All I do in the article is explain what Kianzad took issue with. Describing the city as 25% Muslim is not worthy of criticism unless we also state that the actual numbers say that it's 25% 1st generation with an additional 8% second generation foreign background, not 25% Muslim. And the borogh of Rosengård was brought up both in the Fox article AND by Kianzad himself, so mentioning the verifiable information about that borough is not original opinion nor original research. --GunnarRene 23:20, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Numbers on Rosengård: Assuming equal fertility in all ethnicities, a whooping 34% percent of the January 1, 2004, population of Rosengård consisted of Iraqis, Lebanese and Bosians, with another 20% "Yugoslavian" (Serb (including Muslim Kosovo Albanians) and Montenegrin). But although the numbers of "Muslim country" population of Malmö and its Rosengård borough was mentioned by both reliable sources, that calculation is Original Research because I made an assumption about birth rates that none of the sources brought into play. --GunnarRene 00:35, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Good work, but it is original research. The "Other criticisms" section is for statements of critics, not clarifying, supporting or debunking their statements. FeloniousMonk 23:24, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Then I'll move it to factual errors, not "other criticisms" since the only interesting thing that Kianzad says, except for stating that he doesn't like Fox News, is that Fox News got Muslim and Immigrant mixed up. Rosengård is in the freaking title of his op-ed too, so mentioning it is totally relevant. --GunnarRene 23:28, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, so you are debunking his criticism then... No. Whether any criticism is valid or accurate is not for us to judge. The only criteria for inclusion at Wikipedia is that it meets WP:V and WP:RS. FeloniousMonk 23:32, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

text: BTW, the subject of his comment as it is included here is about FOX News, not Rosengård. FeloniousMonk 23:33, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Namely: "That is, that precise argument, or combination of material, must have been published by a reliable source in the context of the topic the article is about." And those reliable sources are actually Kianzad himself (the City of Malmö statistics on origin, and about Rosengård) and Fox News (about Rosengård). --GunnarRene 23:48, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Expressen again 

message: Primary source information removed, although the primary information was not presented contrary to the WP:OR policy. It so happens that we have an article on the borough of Rosengård with immigration statistics, pictures and everything. I didn't know about this article but I've put it on my watchlist now. --GunnarRene 15:49, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Primary source information removed