Talk:Fox News Channel/Archive 17

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Archive 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 17
| Archive 18 →

Contents

Header

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)

There's been extensive discussion concerning this issue. Please see this to see a summary of the current consensus. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 19:49, 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)

The pro and cons were equal. The current introduction is a compromise version that all sides can live with due to the reasons given. By no means is it perfect. Although, consensus can change, it is best not to peel off this scab without a showing that consensus has changed. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 21:47, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Don't forget about Archive 15. More discussion of this subject can be found here as well. -- AuburnPilottalk 21:55, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
I just want to applaud the anonymous editor for actually discussing ideas for change before just implementing them. Though we like editors to be bold, it's very pleasing to see editors concerned about community consensus instead of making unilateral changes. Bravo, 71.233.211.201! /Blaxthos 01:13, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Recent Redirect Notice

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)

I went ahead and reverted it, but I can see why the editor made the change. The only other article on the disambiguation page is Fox News Sunday, but other uses for Fox News are likely to be included. Also, Fox News redirects to this article. I think it would be better served if it redirected to the disambiguation page. AuburnPilottalk 19:57, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
I disagree... how likely is it that someone typing 'Fox News' is actually looking for something other than info on the Fox News Channel? I posit it's not likely at all, and that the most good would be done for the most people by immediate redir to Fox News Channel, with standard disambig notice at top. Also note the original title of this article was "FOX News". /Blaxthos 20:14, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

POV-Check Internal Memos

The memo has not been authenticated to my knoledge (sp) I think we should avoid publishing rumors. Gpshaw 20:49, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Fox News Channel has not disputed the authenticity of the memo. Additionally, this topic has already been covered. Please see the most recent Talk Page archives for a discussion and consensus. /Blaxthos 20:55, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Just because it isn't disputed doesn't mean it's authentic. No assuming. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.227.194.89 (talk) 03:51, 14 December 2006 (UTC).
You are assuming this wasn't thoroughly covered before integrating it into the article. Once again, see Talk:Fox_News_Channel/Archive_16#Internal_Memos. No assuming.  ;-) Also note I was originally against including it. /Blaxthos 04:32, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Please stop citing archive pages for justification. Consensus can change. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.227.194.89 (talk) 18:51, 24 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)

Single purpose accounts that contribute inflammatory POV don't carry much weight, IMHO. /Blaxthos 01:39, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't think Skypad qualifies as an SPA. He/she been editing here less than a week. Perhaps we should assume good faith and inform him/her of the basics of the Wikipedia community. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 16:56, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough, however I have my doubts based on the material contributed thus far (even to this article). To my detriment, my willingness to assume good faith is notoriously thin when confronted with editors who constantly push POV or inflammatory material. Thanks for reigning me in a little.  :) /Blaxthos 17:00, 10 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. AuburnPilottalk 17:57, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

AGF

It becomes increasingly hard to assume good faith with this fellow. I submit the following diffs:

/Blaxthos 18:32, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I am in no way endorsing the contributions made by Skypad. It is poorly sourced, and reeks of POV. However, I have nothing showing that this is being done in bad faith. It could be so, but since his/her first contribution was done on the 7th, I'm willing to give him/her the benefit of the doubt. I think he/she believes he/she is trying to contribute and we should help him/her do so properly. I don't have enough to say that Skypad is purposely attempting to disrupt Wikipedia. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 18:43, 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)

Recent change without edit summery

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)

And again here. I promise to get a new keyboard ASAP. The removed text (recently added by anon) is unsourced and original research -- analytical POV. /Blaxthos 05:18, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

This is not a source

[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).

  • Everything I have just proven with Wikipedia policy is correct in relation to the sentence in the introduction. If you want to revert me, post here before. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.227.194.89 (talk • contribs).
First, please sign your comments using 4 tildes (~~~~); this provides your username (or IP) and the date. Without this, it is very difficult to follow a discussion. As this very item has been discussed at greater length than any other item I have encountered here on Wikipedia, I'm not inclined to open that discussion again. Here are the basic points: 1) WP:WEASEL is not policy, and there are exceptions to its suggestions. 2) The statements are sourced and the sources meet WP:VERIFY; this is not an "exceptional claim" 3) If you believe it needs additional sources, please provide them 4) While consensus can change, it hasn't. 5) Please do not type in all caps. It is considered yelling in the typed forum and we practice civility here. AuburnPilottalk 05:19, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
This has been discussed (and RFC'd) to death. Please see the most recent two talk archives for an extensive explaination. I strongly suggest learning history before trying to re-invent the wheel. In any case, repetitve reverts of an issue decided by RFC is NOT the way to make any sort of progress. Before "picking off this scab" (as someone eloquently put it) you really need to (1) read the history, and (2) show evidence of a changed consensus. I, for one, still believe the version reached by RFC & consensus is the best possible option. /Blaxthos 06:36, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

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)

It is one thing to request another source, but it is quite another to remove one that is already provided. Do not do that again. I have no desire to discuss this tonight, but will in the coming days if you feel necessary. Again, do not remove sources that are already in the article without providing a suitable replacement. AuburnPilottalk 02:23, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
I find this anonymous editor's behavior to be almost insulting. Many editors have put forth a considerable amount of effort in crafting a suitable, balanced, and verifiable introduction. Now an otherwise unknown editor comes along and wants to re-hash a previously decided issue. Worse than that, he is attempting to effect the exact same change using the same flawed argument. We need not point out (again) that WP:WEASEL is simply a guideline (and one that narrowly enjoyed a simple majority when proposed), and how the current wording and diction is appropriate. Please please please, go read the past battles before trying to start a war. This article has a dedicated "task force" that will not allow such behavior. Anyone want to speculate if this is the same character as before? /Blaxthos 06:55, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
I believe this addresses your concerns. As stated before, the current version is a compromise version, and any change to it, will re-start a long and tortuous process. The reason some editors may be short with you and feel insulted is that each one of your points and arguments have already been addressed in detail, and you are not bringing up any new points to be considered. Very few people to argue the same points over and over, especially when consensus has clearly been reached. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 18:39, 2 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)

If you take the time to read the content of the source, you will find the following statement, along with several other statements backing up the claims of the Wikipedia article: "And Fox has by far the highest profile as a conservative news organization; it was cited unprompted by 69% of national journalists. The New York Times was most often mentioned as the national daily news organization that takes a decidedly liberal point of view, but only by 20% of the national sample.". Do NOT remove properly sourced material or hide sources if you do not intend to provide a replacement. AuburnPilottalk 06:03, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Image:Foxnewsalert.png

Not registered; obvious vandalized bogus image with "FEAR" captioned all over. --194.251.240.116 12:13, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing it out. I've reverting the image and it is now appearing as it should. If you still see the image with "FEAR" typed all over it, clear your browser's cache and the problem should be fixed. - AuburnPilottalk 15:36, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Programming Template

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 used to be a very basic overview of programming which can be seen in this version. The only true difference was a listing of air times, but it was gutted by the one and only Cbuhl79 here. I like the idea, but it was removed due to WP:NOT a directory, which mentions TV/Radio schedules. (Bad argument coming) Seeing how DirecTV and the like all have articles devoted to programming/schedules/guides, I don't see how it would cause a problem here. I'm just not committed either way... - AuburnPilottalk 06:10, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, I ment something different (I personally like the list actually). If you look on Street Signs, for example, you can see a template on the bottom of the page with all of the networks programming. Chris (Talk) (Contribs) 06:22, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../f/o/x/Talk%7EFox_News_Channel_Archive_17_127f.html"