Talk:Fox News/Archive 10

message: I agree with the NPOV header - much of the Allegations of Bias section is original research. Rather than reporting what people's opinions are of FOX and then quoting sources, the entire section is devoted to discrediting fox using news reports directly. The PIPA report and the others are good material. The rest is like saying Wikipedia finds that FOX has bias becaue of these proofs. When what it should say is that X claims FOX is biased because of blah blah.
Additionally, the length of the material completely overwelms the articles. It is over half the article and over 2/3 if you take out any lists. This also says Wikipedia finds bias at FOX. 205.188.117.8 13:28, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I added the NPOV header myself for different reasons; I fully support the Allegations of Bias section. Shem(talk) 23:03, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: Actually, Eddie, I just now measured the article in terms of screen-length units (on an 800px vertical monitor, the article is approximately 7200px long).  The anonymous user here is incorrect; the "Allegations of Bias" section is just less than one third -- not 2/3 or half -- of the article.  Not even close. Shem(talk) 02:17, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV 

message: It looks like Silverback is being a pain again. Y'all know how I feel about him. So, Tim, et al, is this anything we can ding him for? Please say yes! crazyeddie 06:29, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Silverback 

message: Between inserting POV language and adding lengthy biographical listings to the allegations of bias section, I'm not only interested in seeing his/her sources for a few statements, but his/her idea of "relevance" in general. Shem(talk) 00:35, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I like the idea of protection, but since I am somewhat biased here I posted a notice on the Village Pump and Administrator's Noticeboard. — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 16:59, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: Yes, I am (was before I got tired of listening to 100% Michael Jackson) pro-Fox. I'll wait another day for an admin to comment on this page. If there's no comment, I'll go ahead and protect it and stick around. I suppose we might archive the talk and start a new to-do list with a process for resolving stuff, etc. — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 17:53, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: I'll comb through the past edits as per your request, sure.  Also: their name is biased? Shem(talk) 03:46, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: Going through the history now, I'll only be 10 minutes. Shem(talk) 03:56, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Make an edit comment that says "keep this version for tommorow". Thanks. — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 04:01, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: Done, no worries. Shem(talk) 04:16, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Giving anon 206.15.101.1-2 a chance to explain. 

message: As editors have now pointed out, there is strong (I would say undeniable) evidence that FNC is doctoring photos in their broadcasts in a retaliatory manner.  Despite the usual suspects' attempts to whitewash negative information, an ethical breach this serious must be mentioned in this article.  References:
*  (MSNBC)
*  (AOL News)
*  (Editor & Publisher)
*  (MMFA)
*  (Drudge Retort)
*  (Huffington Post, reprinted from MMFA)
Anyone feel up to dealing with the howler monkeys?  ;-)  /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:38, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Bulletpoint 5 is actually the "Drudge Retort". Drudge isn't covering this, at least not yet. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 21:43, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Doh, thanks Ramsquire.  ;-)  /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:47, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This has not only been a very active topic of discussion on the blogosphere, but had received a fair share of notice from other media outlets. I think it's becoming enough of a scandal to warrant mention in the article.--96.52.132.224 (talk) 22:22, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Doctored photos