Talk:Fox News controversies/Archive 3

message: I removed a photo and caption about Jeremy Glick. There was nothing in the article body about this incident, so the photo doesn't really belong (unless someone adds an item about it to the article body). Cbuhl79 15:58, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, why isn't there any mention of Glick in the article?  Surely it's one of the most notable controversies surrounding the channel. - 81.178.65.251 08:23, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jeremy Glick Photo 

message: Per WP:RS, we should be removing material from this page that is based solely on "watchdog group"'s views on accounts.  The following are from the "Evaluating reliability" section:
* With any source, multiple independent confirmation is one good guideline to reliability, if several sources have independently checked a fact or assertion, then it is more reliable than one which is not checked.
* A particular source which aims to have credibility beyond a particular POV is generally regarded as more reliable than one whose audience is narrow in terms of its ideology, partisan agenda or point of view.
*In general it is preferable to cite the original source for an assertion, as well as important confirming sources. It is generally preferable to cite reliable sources over less reliable sources when given a choice.
Media Matters for America, Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting, and others are not services for which noteable controversies are brought to fame - just because these organizations may criticize networks for their work, it is not noteworthy in its own source just because they have.  Many of this section here are sourced by only the first group listed; some are also sourced by the second.  These services are not notable enough to be used as a source extensively in this article; just like other watchgroups like NewsBusters aren't notable enough to be sourced extensively in CNN's main or controversies article.
Sections in this article that only use watchdog groups as sources should either be removed or more sources should be sought.  --Mrmiscellanious 20:48, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Watchdog group mentioning removal 

message: Two reasons this should be reinstated into the artice:
*1: It happened TWICE.
*2: The CNN Cheney X thing has a mention on the CNN controversy artice. Why this should be granted an exception in such a case is unclear.
--Spencer "The Belldog" Bermudez  |  (Complain here) 16:28, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with the previous comment by Spencer "The Belldog" Bermudez. This is a notable incident that was widely reported. Also what did User:Aaron mean by "pulling rank"; I wasn't aware that contributors had rank. --CSTAR 16:48, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree with the two above users; the incident deserves mention. Whether the title of the section should be changed from "False Reporting" is another question. Sure, accidents happen everyday, but if there's controversy regarding biased reporting and O'Reilly's show just happens to label the most reviled politican in America a Democrat, then it deserves mention, Aaron's opinion about its motivation notwithstanding. MastCell 16:54, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Given all that, I think it's absolutely unfair to accuse Fox of a systematic campaign to switch people's party affilations around for partisan gain. It makes Wikipedia look like bad, because anyone coming here to look at this article that sees this listed (especially under the strongly POV subhead "false reporting") who knows anything about TV news will instantly discount the entire article as worthless. They know the (D)/(R) mixups can't possibly be true, so how can they trust anything else being allowed on the page? (As an aside, the Chaffee mistake is itself evidence that these are just mistakes; Chaffee is a Republican; why would they want to make people think he's a Democrat, especially less than a month before an election where the GOP may well lose the Senate? Qui bono?) --Aaron 17:15, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

text: So, in short: No, the X thing does not belong on the CNN page, and it renders that CNN page just as illegitmate in the eyes of those with actual TV news experience. However - and far more importantly for our purposes - the "what about article A?" argument doesn't carry much weight on Wikipedia. Each page is its own battlefield, and the fact that you find a similar screwup on another article doesn't mean this one should contain the same mistake. Likewise, nobody involved in this discussion is under any obligation to go over to the CNN article and take care of that X mess just because it was invoked over here. (Although I probably will at some point; it's been bothering me for a long time.)--Aaron 17:34, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your comment makes sense now, thanks for the explaination.  And you have a point, but to make it more general, we shouldn't be accusing anyone of anything.  We should be reporting the accusations of others.  Whether or not we think they have merit doesn't matter; that is for the reader to decide. Gamaliel 17:31, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, actually Chafee has often been called a RINO (Republican in Name Only) by the right, his conservative credentials have been questioned, and there was an effort to run a more right-wing, conservative, party-line candidate against him in the primary - so labeling him as a Democrat could, conceivably, be intentional. O'reilly does have a well-documented history of dishonesty about things like this. Just as conceivably, it could be an accident of the type that Aaron describes. I like the edits that Isarig just made; I think this deserves short mention, but as Gamaliel said, it's not up to us to make accusations in the article. For that reason, we should reconsider the section heading "False Reporting" - what about "Accusations of false reporting" or some such thing? MastCell 18:38, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a much better heading. Gamaliel 18:41, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

text:  That heading may cover two of the incidents mentioned; however the incident about presidential candidate John Kerry seems clearly "false reporting". Whether it was meant as a joke or not is irrelevant, no? --CSTAR 18:48, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Acciendal dubbing of Democrats 

message: I found this video on YouTube of a MSNBC report of Fox News bias.  I'm not sure when this was originally aired (posted on Nov. 15), but the news is alarming.  Significant?  Jumping cheese  Cont@ct 02:48, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I found the complete transcript on the MSNBC website.  Apparently, The Huffington Post found some memo regarding a Republican bias in Fox News.  Jumping cheese  Cont@ct 02:58, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bias? 

message: This article states, "A study published in November 2005 by Tim Groseclose, a professor of political science at UCLA, comparing political bias from such news outlets as the New York Times, USA Today, the Drudge Report, the Los Angeles Times, and Fox News’ Special Report, concluded that Fox News' Special Report with Brit Hume had an Americans for Democratic Action rating that was closest to the political center, and that Special Report was the most centrist news program on television"
However, this contradicts the citation, which says "The most centrist outlet proved to be the NewsHour With Jim Lehrer. CNN's NewsNight With Aaron Brown and ABC's Good Morning America were a close second and third."  The citation also says that "Only Fox News' Special Report With Brit Hume and The Washington Times scored right of the average U.S. voter."
Initially, I was going to delete the offending portion, but, since removal would render the paragraph and the following one almost meaningless, I wanted to open discussion of this point.  The purpose of the paragraph is, I assume, to present a study showing that FOX is not conservatively biased.  If there are any studies that actually say this, they would be appropriate in this section, but the citation clearly does not say this.  The following paragraph attempts to argue against the study's methodology, but this becomes meaningless, since the previous paragraph is no longer accurate in claiming that Special Report or Fox News is centrist.
I think either the 2 paragraphs should be rewritten with correct citations or they should be removed.  Thoughts anyone?  --Geespelvin 21:30, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No one responded in the last couple of days, so I went ahead and made changes.  Although I think the paragraphs aren't completely clear, I wanted to at least change the incorrect statements about Special Report, so that it correctly reflects the two relevant conclusions of the citation, namely that according to the study Special Report is to the right of center and most news outlets are to the left. --Geespelvin 05:47, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Groseclose study 

message: I'll add this in this week, if anyone wants to help. - Fairness & Accuracy For All 06:14, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I added a some extra information on the FNC VP's involvement, as well as some citations.Athene cunicularia 20:32, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Obama Madrassa Media Scandal 

message: I just edited this article to try to clean up some misrepresentations.  I'm not a Conservative, but rather a Libertarian, and I dislike Fox News as much as most of the Liberals, but I think its important to properly disclose that media watchdogs FAIR and Media Matters, news program Democracy Now, and the documentaries Outfoxed and The Corporation are liberal biased themselves.  To not disclose stuff like that is to go down to the level of Fox News and is unacceptable.  If you feel that liberal is too loaded of a term, feel free to change it to progressive or whatever the Dems are calling themselves these days.  Just please don't portray left wing as objective by not disclosing the slant.  You'll just strengthen the Conservatives case for Liberal Media bias and you definitely don't want to do that. 206.251.2.43 00:13, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've expanded upon your recent edit, but I have not labelled the documentary or the essay as liberal.  The producers of those two pieces of work present them as neutral and factual (regardless of their political leanings).  Therefore that is a matter of point of view, and we at Wiki must remain neutral in these areas. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 00:40, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To 206.251.2.43: The article on Fox News Channel controversies is not the place to inject your opinion about whether a media group is "liberal". There are articles dedicated to each of these groups right here on Wikipedia, and I'm sure that they have their own "Controversy" sections that you can improve. If they don't, you can feel free to create one, using evidence and citations, that conveys your point. But if keep doing stuff like this, and it will be seen as vandalism- like what you did to the Prescott Bush article when you said "[He] would be ashamed to be the grandfather of current President George W. Bush."Athene cunicularia 01:38, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rationale behind my recent edit 

message: There should be a link to foxattacks.com since it is mostly based from clips from fox news.
they mention an interesting tactic for those who dont like fox news
STEP 1. Watch the Fox News Channel.
STEP 2. Identify local businesses that are advertising on the Fox News Channel. Find their contact info and enter it into our database so that other people will be able to contact these advertisers too.
STEP 3. Call and/or Write to these local businesses and (politely) ask them to stop advertising on Fox until Fox stops acting as a mouthpiece for the Republican Party.
perhaps this should be mentioned?
:How about immolating themselves in front of the advertiser's headquarters?  This tactic drew excellent media coverage in the 1970s.  --CliffC 23:41, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Foxattacks.com

message: You consider the Democratic Party and Fox News to be "political opponents" of one another?  Italiavivi 12:58, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the Democratic Party  considers Fox to be a political opponent, as evidenced by the quotes you provided. Isarig 14:37, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interesting, Isarig. 

message: I'm confused why the whistle blower lawsuit doesn't show up here.  Is this because of the suit was against an affiliate?
--Charles Merriam 04:45, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Monsanto, BGH, Whistleblower lawsuit. 

message: What is up with the inordinate number of cites from Media Matters?  of the 100 or so citations, over 30 were from MM alone, this looks like a Media Matters outlet.  In anycase the whole suggestive cleavage issue is not noteworthy, and entirely opinion based.  The only criticism is from Media Matters, and it is all what "they consider".  Arzel 02:52, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Media Matters overuse 

message: I suggest migrating much of the unwieldly pundit bullets to their subjects' articles, or "[Pundit name] controversies" (like Bill O'Reilly controversies) sub-articles if necessary.  They look a disorganized and sloppy mish-mash, currently. Italiavivi 00:06, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with merging the section back into the individual subjects articles.  However, we would run into notability  and forking problems if we simply created new "controversies" articles. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 00:23, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Individual pundit sections getting unmanageable. 

message: After substantial searching, the only source for the BOR quote is a recording on the MM webpage. This is also the only source. Furthermore this is from the BOR radio factor show (supposedly) of which BOR does not identify himself in any manner. This is not written text, nor is it video. You might be able to get a full recording from BOR, but I have no plans on paying for a membership. Thus you have a recording, which noone else can hear the entirety, cut by MM which is already highly critical of BOR, used by MM to support a position they promote, further used to spport the opinion that several editors have regarding FNC. If ever there was an instant of Gotcha journalism journalism this is it, and it certainly doesn't belong here. Arzel 01:03, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: When writing RFC requests, editors should summarize content disputes in a neutral manner.  You simply used the RFC listing to further push your agenda for deleting O'Reilly's remarks.  After being called profane names by Arzel and now this bad-faith RFC listing, I have serious problems assuming good faith on his part. Italiavivi 03:06, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I will not participate in this bad-faith RFC.  It's simply sour grapes due to an existing RFC on Fox News Channel and being refuted by several editors regarding this issue. /Blaxthos 01:15, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggest you both read the archives from the FNC talk http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Fox_News_Channel/Archive_19 and take particular notice to the way you have both treated me from the very beginning.  My initial goal plainly stated was to try and reduce some of the rampent criticism within WP articles so they don't read like rants against the person/entity written about, and the only time I haven't been treated to responses like this (Blaxthos' second reply to me)....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)
replies: text: At least you're admitting that this isn't about anything other than your dissatisfaction over being rebuffed in previous disputes.  As such, I move to strike this malformed RFC as nothing more than a WP:POINT, and baseless at that (four editors have now disagreed with your position and logic -- no need to continue).  /Blaxthos 06:08, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Ramsquire:  Regarding bad faith, I direct you to this quote by Arzel posted only two hours before the RfC:  "I don't think this needs a RfC at this time."  What changed so drastically in two hours?  I just don't believe it's in good faith, and his response has shown what's really on his mind.  Time to strike it and move on... /Blaxthos 00:28, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Regarding bad faith; inflammatory, accusatory, POV-pushing RFC descriptions:  Italiavivi 01:38, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Let me clarify, I simply don't see the bad faith in starting the RfC.  It's not like it is a "responsive RfC" or a "forum shopping RfC" as I have seen previously at Wikipedia.  Yes, the RfC descriptive statement was out of line.  I totally concede that point.  But there is bad faith by Arzel in that apparently he views us as so biased that he doesn't trust anything we say.  Of course, he also believes that he is the victim of bad faith, so I didn't mean to say it does not exist.  I know he changed his mind within two hours but I don't have any evidence as to why he would do so in bad faith, so I hesitate to label it as such. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 16:37, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The whole thing is out of line... the issue isn't contested by anyone except Arzel, whom we know to have an incomplete or incorrect grasp of Wikipolicy; Arzel didn't think it was worth of an RFC, yet an hour later he files one; the description/POV presentation of the issue is completely out of line and is the quintessential demonstration of my problem with Arzel:  he pushes an agenda whenever possible; when questioned about the validity of the RFC, instead of discussing the issue he goes into a rant about how he has been mistreated.  All this only validates my concern -- this RFC is more about other editors than it is any valid issue regarding this article (and your comments indicate you recognize the same).  I don't think we need to know the exact reason he changed his mind to recognize (by explicit and implicit evidence outlined above) that this is a malformed and inappropriate RFC issued because of something other than the issue at hand (QED in bad faith).  /Blaxthos 17:35, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As you're well aware by now, I will bend over backward to continue to assume good faith with editors.  It has bitten me in the rear end in the past (one situation you are well aware of), and will probably do so in the future.  What can I say, I like to see issues resolved through consensus. ;). Ramsquire (throw me a line) 17:59, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, a quality I admire and respect especially in the face of the evidence you acknowledge is to the contrary.  If you don't mind having a few scars on the tushy, even more respect is earned.  /Blaxthos 22:26, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I'll tell you what, stop pushing minor criticism into this already bloated article and I will agree.  There is a certain faction within WP that feels the need to point out every minor criticism regarding some entity they personally dislike.  Arzel 19:44, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Furthermore, the recent edit I made was from a BLOG site, and as such is not a reputable source.  Why not do a little research before instantly attacking me.  Arzel 19:49, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So why not use that logic from the beginning?  First you try to use WP:NOTE, then when that doesn't work you try WP:NPOV, and now you're trying WP:RS... that, my friend, is policy shopping (see below), and is indicitative of agenda pushing.  If FNC apologized for the incident (which you state they did) then there is no question that the incident occured, is there?  So now, what is your next attempt going to be?  Time to move on, man... you're alienating yourself at this point.  /Blaxthos 21:37, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfC 

message: I'm closing this malformed RFC as suggested by an otherwise uninvolved editor.  Several editors familiar with wikipedia policies and guidelines have pointed out that the initiating editor is attempting to misapply policy (and as recently as today continues to try and use such in removing acceptable content).  To summarize (again):  notability only covers the creation of new articles, reliably sourced comments should be deleted only if it violates NPOV - it is not Arzel's job or right (or anyone else's) to decide what criticism is or is not appropriate.  It's my sincere hope that this has now been made clear, and it's my suggestion that any additional attempts to use this sort of logic to censor or cull criticism will be willfull and in bad faith.  Arzel, please stop.  Thanks!  /Blaxthos 18:16, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll tell you what, stop pushing minor criticism into this already bloated article and I will agree.  There is a certain faction within WP that feels the need to point out every minor criticism regarding some entity they personally dislike.  Arzel 19:44, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Furthermore, the recent edit I made was from a BLOG site, and as such is not a reputable source.  Why not do a little research before instantly attacking me.  Arzel 19:49, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So why not use that logic from the beginning?  First you try to use WP:NOTE, then when that doesn't work you try WP:NPOV, and now you're trying WP:RS... that, my friend, is policy shopping (see below), and is indicitative of agenda pushing.  If FNC apologized for the incident (which you state they did) then there is no question that the incident occured, is there?  So now, what is your next attempt going to be?  Time to move on, man... you're alienating yourself at this point.  /Blaxthos 21:37, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Summary

message: So what is it Arzel? Should the objectionable text be deleted because it violates WP:NOTE, or because it is somehow POV.  If it was the latter, why not say so at the beginning instead of stating your opinion that it was trivial and not notable?  Finally, before you accuse me of POV pushing (if you even know what that means, and based on your comment, I doubt it) why don't you read a little about me on my userpage.  Then ask yourself which POV I am pushing.  Great way to turn on the one editor who was willing to argue with other editors and actually willing to discuss things with you and help you out. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 19:50, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Another scar on the tushie, eh?  :-)  Policyshopping (repeatedly trying to justify the same change using different policies/guidelines) is the quintessential example of agenda pushing...  It's obvious he either doesn't understand the policy, or willfully ignores/misinterprets them when it suits his agenda.  No worries, if this continues, I will seek an RFC on his conduct.  /Blaxthos 21:32, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: LMAO... I guess so. I guess I need to start wearing padded pants. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 21:35, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And the personal attacks just keep coming.  Ramsquire, if you are so neutral then you would not have been so quick to revert my change.  A blog reference is clearly not a reliable source.  I know you are quick to reference WP:NOTE, however if you use the direct definition of the word notable you would see that this, among others, is not notable, and has no place in a supposed encylopedia.  I accused you of POV because of your response to my edit.  I suppose I should have also included the WP:RS at the same time, but didn't think it was neccessary at the time.  Now you accuse me of turning on you, when you (admittedly wrongly) responded to a comment I left on my own talk page (which I felt was an instance of trolling).  In the meantime I made my edit, and then you appologized.  Blaxthos, I'll save you the trouble. Arzel 04:03, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: PA? Trolling?  Screw you Arzel.  I didn't know there was an appropriate period to wait before making an edit.  And I can only respond to what you write, unlike you I lack the ability to read minds. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 16:14, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd like to urge everyone here to relax. There is no need for saying "screw you" to anyone. And ad hominems will get us nowhere either. Perhaps the best course of action here would be to submit an RFI, state the essential argument for both sides, and let new editors take it from here. This is rapidly descending into a bitter, personal problem here. We don't want that to happen, do we? Parsecboy 20:31, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Consensus stands somewhere around six supporting/one oppose for inclusion of the O'Reilly and Turner comments.  I'm not filing any Requests for [Fill in the Blank], because I (and most of this page's editors) hold that the article is fine.  It's up to Arzel to file anything further. Italiavivi 22:08, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: FTR- I agree that there is a certain nitpicky nature to some of the additions to this and other articles on Wikipedia (and if I had my druthers there are tons of things in this article I would delete).  However, what distinguishes me from others is a) I understand that my opinion is not sufficient to remove reliably sourced contents, b) I will assume good faith until it is specifically shown to not exist (i.e. I take people's positions at face value and try not to imply motives, c) if I am wrong, I try to be honest and say so and d) I follow the policies and guidelines.  To sum up, although I don't like everything in an article, I am not going to support someone deleting sourced information when they can't even come up with an actual reason for deletion with reasons at one point in time being "non-notable", "gotcha journalism", "trivial", "NPOV", "POV", "undue weight", "it's from a blog", "I don't like it", "you are biased", and so on and so forth.  Ramsquire (throw me a line) 22:21, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Arzel's Edit Summary

message: I am not going to debate any further previous incidences involving myself.  I still feel that the John Conyers incident falls outside of WP:NOT 
'News reports. Wikipedia properly considers the long-term historical notability of persons and events, keeping in mind the harm our work might cause. The fact that someone or something has been in the news for a brief period of time does not automatically justify an encyclopedia article.'
However, that said this incidence must be edited to illustrate that FNC has appologized, twice. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070606/ap_on_en_tv/tv_fox_wrong_tape Arzel 03:46, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The source states that there is (and there are many documented instances of such).  Since it's reliably sourced, I don't see the problem.  Video feeds of multiple instances are available from the source linked, should you wish to verify this yourself. /Blaxthos 14:34, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I read the source, and am quite certain there was only one other incident mentioned.  Being it was a MM source (which is quick to note anything they don't like about FNC), I would be surprized if there exists other incidents that they do not know of.  In any case sites like MM and Newshounds are not looked favorably at my work, so I will have to check later.  Are you going to address the other issue?  I am willing to look past previous transgressions and begin anew, but I need to see some evidence of neutrality, so long as this reference remains libelous I cannot move forward, and I am not going to fix it.  Arzel 15:39, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

text: "Libelous"?  You might want to check the definition... it has to be untrue to be libel.  ;-)  Anyway, the existance of other incidents don't matter (two is enough, IMHO), but since the source of that criticism is Congressman Conyers himself, the rest doesn't matter.  His quote is on the record everywhere, and to be clear for you:  Congressman Conyers is criticising FNC, not Media Matters.  It doesn't really matter if your work "looks favorably" upon media matters or not.  FTR, I added information about the apologies, per your request.  /Blaxthos 20:31, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was referring to this article as being libelous in that it stated no appology had been made, when two had been.  I think it still reads a little like editoral, but thanks for adding the reference.  Arzel 03:08, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  John Conyers  

message: Someone should put the mention of the interview between the two it was a heated argument and clinton came out and basicly called fox news conservitive hitmen out to get him. I would put it myself but i wouldnt know the correct place to put it. here's a link to the video on youtube in case anyone wants to see it. Youtube Video —Preceding unsigned comment added by Danieljackson (talk • contribs) 
:I have to agree -- this incident was widely covered in the media (Olbermann, Stewart off the top of my head; I'm sure there is some print media coverage as well) and being that it's a former U.S. president that is issuing the criticism makes it significant.  I believe we can source the interview itself (primary source) because his criticism was issued on-air with FNC.  I'll leave it to others to do the actual legwork (for now)... /Blaxthos 14:38, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chris Wallace/Bill Clinton interview 

message: supposedly ... so-called ... there seem to be a lot of weasel words in this article, I think they do need to be cut down --IvanKnight69 03:01, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  weasel words 

message: Shouldn't there be some mention of the Jeremy Glick interview here? --81.178.233.111 21:45, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jeremy Glick 

message: I removed the section, simply because it is irrelevent and misleading to have the statements of someone who worked for a a news operation at a FOX Entertainment Network affialtes, and not Fox News, as  as Fox News doesn't own, or even have any control or influence whatsoever over news programming at FOX affilates. If anyone has any issues with this, please bring this up, I really think it is misleading to have it in the article, and it's no more relevant than having something about MSNBC or CNN or Spongebob Squarepants. The infomation I removed should be added to the article about the WTTG FOX affilate though. --IvanKnight69 15:20, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The section you removed was both properly sourced and relevant.  The article mentions that Fox does not control affiliate content, however each entity is inherently tied to the Fox brand.  Solution isn't to remove it entirely, but to put it in proper context (which it does).  Reverted -- I also removed the commentary (improper grammar) you inserted.  /Blaxthos 16:27, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Relevance Of Frank O'Donnell's Statements 

message: I think some sections of this article need to be expanded, it would be nice to have some of the on air 'fights' mentioned in some capacity, such as the ones between O'Reilly and Glick, O'Reilly and Geraldo, Julie Banderas and Shirley Phelps-Roper as I'm sure they notable controversies that have a place on this page. --IvanKnight69 15:24, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have any reliable sources that address them?  I have no issue against inclusion, as long as all material is attributed properly.  /Blaxthos 16:28, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Glick's entry contains references pertaining to the interview.  You pretty much just have to enter something like "fox news jeremy glick" to get thousands of hits and numerous reliable sources anyway. --81.178.118.120 18:20, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

text: The better place for that info would be the Bill O'Reilly controversies page, where it is located. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 22:52, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notable Material Not Covered 

message: I removed this section title, without removing any of the information in the article.  I don't think it is fair to take criticism and/or jokes about two politicians and make this kind of generalization.  Steve Dufour 15:26, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "Criticism of African Americans"

message: I put the "blp" box on the article yesterday.  It's true that this article is not a biography, but still it is about living persons and the WP policies about writing about living persons apply to it. Steve Dufour 00:13, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The very first sentence of Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons is, Editors must take particular care adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page. This article contains significant biographical material, making the use of the "blp" box on this talk page appropriate. -- Jreferee (Talk) 01:42, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Biographies of living persons

message: wouldn't it be more accurate to call this "criticism of fox news channel", since "controversy" is vague and implies a dispute as an event.  That would be in line with Criticism of Wikipedia, where the criticism is an accusation of bias and a controversy would be a fight over the bias, but some of the criticisms are fairly uncontroversial, which is why I find the name silly.  We need to discourage silliness like "controversy was generated" which is vague, uninformative, and is completely misleading if the criticism went unresponded to. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 18:27, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Night. Use of "criticism" "controversies" etc. is one of my POV pet peeve. Per critique usage note, critique is widely accepted as a noun in a neutral context. While it is possible for criticism to be an NPOV evaluation or judgment of something, it more often degrades into POV complaints or condemnation about a topic. Critique is a somewhat elevated term for criticism and review is used as a synonym for these but may also imply a more comprehensive study. Naming an article "Critique of ..." or "Review of ..." rather than "Criticism of ...." may make it easier for the article to achieve NPOV. I don't think that article whose focus is "Here is all the reason's why some people think Fox News Channel is bias" could ever be NPOV.  -- Jreferee (Talk) 01:56, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I really don't see the reason for such a long article either.  It seems to me that an encyclopedia should be to give basic information about a topic.  Not to keep an inventory of everything some people don't like about it. Steve Dufour 05:53, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is hardly an "inventory."  Every single incident listed must still pass the tests of notability and being reliably sourced.  That the article is long is evidence of how widespread the controversy has become, not an indication of frivolous "inventory." Italiavivi 14:43, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But what is an "incident"?  That someone of Fox said something and someone else complained about it? Steve Dufour 00:15, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am asking you for clarification's sake:  Are you asserting (by your "inventory" comment and stated preference for "basic" content only) that there are WP:N or WP:V problems within this article?  I want to make sure I know where you are coming from. Italiavivi 03:17, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not any kind of expert on WP policy.  However, it seems to me that an encyclopedia should be a place where people go to find out basic information on a subject.  For instance on Fox News it could be: who owns it, when was it founded, how big is it, who are some of its important people, what influence it has had, what people say about it (including "it is too right-wing" and "it is not a good source of accurate news" and "it is controversial"), and things like that.  I don't think you can include everything every person who appears on their programs says that causes a controversy of some kind.  What if you did that for the New York Times or Time Magazine?  Or imagine WP in 100 years.  If Fox is still around how long will this article be?  I would, however, be in favor of a link to another website with this kind of criticism or controversy list included in the main article on Fox News. Steve Dufour 06:25, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And I am saying that if there is notability backed up by reliable sources, such things should be included.  Wikipedia covers what is notable (and reliably sourced), not just the basics (or so it seems to me). Italiavivi 01:06, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Steve Dufour.  People or Organizations with which some people have serious issues tend to include every little incident of issue into their article regarldess of context using "notable" as an excuse.  Much of what is here, and elsewhere, will be non-notable in the future, however that is irrelevant to many people within WP (which is the main problem with WP).  Aside from being a "I don't like it" WP is a "I don't like them" place to introduce any and all criticism regarding an individual or organization. Arzel 05:18, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

text: For better or for worse, WP:N applies to the creation of articles, not as a tool to cull out criticism you think is unwarranted.  /Blaxthos 07:19, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I know that is your interpretation of notability, but I feel you are misguided in this interpretation.  This is certainly not how a real encyclopedia works, and if WP ever wants the respeact of one we should follow their (real encyclopedias) guidelines.  Far too often WP becomes Gosipedia, where any little incident which has been published somewhere is determined notable.  And if there is a debate on the notability the action of debate somehow makes the incident notable.  Arzel 14:56, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That is the community's implementation of our policies.  You may feel that the project is misguided, but it's still how you wish things were instead of how they actually are.  Several editors have now explained this to you.  /Blaxthos 15:00, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps those several editors should take a step back and see the forest for the trees, which is exactly what I have done for the past few weeks (see my edit history).  Remember WP:NOT for the inclusion of notability.  Work with me, I am trying to make WP a better place, don't assume otherwise.  Arzel 17:23, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: FTR-- I agree that notability should determine what goes into an article, but unfortunately, verifiability trumps notability for article content.  If anyone can point me to a guideline or policy that says otherwise, please do so.  Ramsquire (throw me a line) 17:33, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  naming