Talk:Chris Wallace

Interview Transcript

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,215397,00.html If you want to have a quote from the the interview, at least quote it properly, instead of mashing separate sections together with the lines "But I had responsibility for trying to protect this country. I tried and I failed to get bin Laden. I regret it. But I did try. So I tried and failed. When I failed, I left a comprehensive anti-terror strategy and the best guy in the country, Dick Clarke, who got demoted."

Bill Clinton section way too long

I must reiterate my concern that this section is growing way out of proportion. Not only that, but my co-editors here have taken it upon themselves to add several long paragraphs discussing the veracity of Clinton's statements. I do not think these belong here on Wallace's bio, maybe if we create a daughter article then the material would belong. If you guys still disagree, I have a whole bunch of "fact-checking" I can add to "clarify" Clinton's point that the administration did nothing for 8 months before, I'd just prefer that this page sticks to Wallace rather than turn into a page dedicated towards one interview, unless, of course, we move this to a daughter article. --kizzle 01:29, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

You said: "I have a whole bunch of 'fact-checking' I can add to 'clarify' Clinton's point that the administration did nothing for 8 months before." I presume that you are speaking of the Bush administration "doing nothing" for 8 months. At no point in the Clinton-Wallace interview does anyone allege that the Bush administration did anything over and above what the CLinton white house did. So, you could certainly add it in, but it's rather irrelvant. However, when discussing a now infamous interview between Wallace and Clinton, it is certainly relevant to speak of who said what, and to provide a factual analysis in case either of the two parties said something that may have been factually incorrect. Wallace gets criticized for asking what many perceive as a rude question, Clinton gets crtiticised for providing a less-than-straightforward answer to Wallace's question, which is perhaps a good reason why Wallace should have asked his question in the first place. SOunds fine to me.

The whole thing is irrelevant. The only reason there's a section on here about Clinton at all is that Clinton attacked his journalist neutrality. Without that, it should just be one name in a list of notable Wallace has interviewed. This article should not be in the business of assessing the truth of answers of all his notable interviewees. His answer to the substance of the question is no more notable than anyone else's for the purposes of this article. That material, if important, should go in articles about those subjects. This article is about Wallace the journalist. If someone attacks his journalism, that's relevant. If someone lies to him in an interview, that's not. Feel free to add whatever spew you've got to articles that are actually about terrorism policy, but that's not a battle to fight here. Derex 03:30, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Amen. If this was a daughter article than I wouldn't mind the info being included, but frankly this does not belong on Wallace's bio page. --kizzle 04:18, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

It should be included. It explains why Clinton blew his top, which had little to do with Wallace being unfair with him and everything to do with Clinton not wanting to answer the question.

Derex, You're committed to neutrality? Are you kidding me? Is that why you haven't deleted the portion of Chris Wallace's article that quotes "Media Matters" that oh-so-unbiased news source? And what about the characterization that Chris Wallace expresses "bias" in asking Clinton the one question almonst everyone in this country wants to ask him? The most obvious question that anyone could possibly ask? And then to allow Media Matters to characterize him as biased because they (in thier allegedly comprehensive review of "dozens" of interviews occuring on Fox News) found only one example where a high level democrat was asked an analogous question? And guess who conducted that interview? Why, Chris Wallace. So, how does this even prove Media Matters' allegation that Chris Wallace is "biased"? Number of high-level republican politians asked by Chris Wallace about failures to get Bin Laden: 1. Number of high-level democratic politicians asked by Chris Wallace about failures to get Bin Laden: 1. Media matters just adds the word "only" before the "one republican" and you all report it like it's objective news. Garbage. Complete garbage. Not that Wallace necessarily should give equal attention either. The failures of the Bush administration have been exhaustively treated in the press. The public is much less informed about what happened 15 years ago. And now you're going to tell me that criticisms of Clinton's *response* to the question that brought all this controversy on Wallace is off limits. No way. It's going back in. juliandroms

I have no time or inclination to read rants. So, I'll just respond to the first sentence. Yes, I am committed to neutrality. I have told you repeatedly that the material you want to address is fine per se. I have also told you that you need to put it in the right article. Articles that are actually about the substance of his comments. It reminds me of some joker trying to fight the whole damn global warming controversy again over on An Inconvenient Truth. He finally got shut down, because it was obviously idiotic when we had articles on the topic. Not the place for it, get it in the right place, and then you can add a wikilink to it from here. This article is about CHRIS WALLACE, journalist. I've nothing more to say on the matter, but you can look forward to me editing this article in accordance with that rather obvious fact. Derex 20:50, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

No, you're not going to read what I wrote because it's correct and you have no response. So let me guess. You believe that a "Criticisms" section in "An inconvenient truth" detailing many of the exaggerations included in the film is out of bounds. But a similar "criticisms" section in ABC's new film about 9/11 must be included by necessity. Bzzt. Wrong. This article is about Chris Wallace, and it now includes a section on what has become his most famous interview where he exchanges with the former president. juliandroms

Funny, I don't recall ever reading or editing anything about that 9/11 film here. And yes, I think that scientific disputes belong in scientific article. The AIT article can simply link to those very nicely with a note that so-and-so disagree that the film has a valid scientific basis. I have nothing further to say except this in an article about CHRIS WALLACE. You are also in danger of violating the 7RR. I'd avise against that.

• [1]
• [2]
• [3]
• [4]
• [5]
• [6]
• [7]

Derex 21:23, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

You mean he violated 3RR twice and should be blocked. The same principle applies to Ann Coulter's article, despite her advocating intelligent design, which is laughed off in the scientific community, we don't spend paragraphs detailing the (in)validity of intelligent design on Coulter's bio page, but rather on the ID pages. It's not an issue of partisanship here, it just simply does not make sense to use the level of detail you propose on someone who isn't even the subject of this article. --kizzle 23:26, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, yes he should be. But, I'm just too nice to report him, especially when I've got 4 of my own. ;) Derex 23:52, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Made changes to the quotes from "Media Matters." In keeping with NPOV, it's not essential to say whether Media Matters believes Wallace is or is not impartial (that would be their opinion, not established fact). Nor is it useful to suggest that Wallace had asked "only one" senior Bush administration about failures to capture Bin Laden, because so far as we know, he only asked "only one" senior Bush administration member and "only one" senior Clinton official. So I just stated that there was one other instance documented by MM where Wallace interviewed a senior Bush official (Donald Rumsfeld) and left it at that. The reader can decide for themselves whether haveing asked one republican and one democrat constitutes bias on Wallace's part juliandroms —Preceding unsigned comment added by Juliandroms (talk • contribs)

If you type 4 tildes ~~~~, then your sig gets added with a timestamp. That makes it easier to follow the discussion. Derex 05:11, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Juliandroms 05:56, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

You really need to review WP:NPOV. Note in particular this passage:

In presenting an opinion, moreover, it is important to bear in mind that there are disagreements about how opinions are best stated; sometimes, it will be necessary to qualify the description of an opinion or to present several formulations, simply to arrive at a solution that fairly represents all the leading views of the situation.

But it is not enough, to express the Wikipedia non-bias policy, just to say that we should state facts and not opinions. When asserting a fact about an opinion, it is important also to assert facts about competing opinions, and to do so without implying that any one of the opinions is correct. It is also generally important to give the facts about the reasons behind the views, and to make it clear who holds them. It is often best to cite a prominent representative of the view.

In this instance, Media Matters is a prominent representative of one POV. Media Matters takes the position that Wallace has shown bias by asking the general question in his only interview with Clinton, while never having asked it of Rice, Cheney, Hadley, or Card. Media Matters also takes the position that Wallace has shown bias by raising the subject of the Cole with Clinton after never having raised it in any of his interviews with Bush administration people. We aren't adopting or endorsing those opinions by Media Matters. We're reporting them. Pursuant to the NPOV policy, we're reporting who holds the opinion and we're reporting the stated reasons behind the views.

Your edit mangles the presentation. Your personal opinion is that, because Wallace asked one Republican (Rumsfeld) and one Democrat (Clinton) a general question about why more wasn't done about al-Qaeda, that shows that Wallace isn't biased. You're entitled to your opinion, but we aren't going to suppress the Media Matters opinion just because you think it's unsupported by the facts. There is a significant body of opinion that finds bias here, because Wallace had many more opportunities to ask Republicans, because he let Rice et al. off the hook completely, and because he never raised the Cole with the people who had the meaningful chance to respond to it. I personally agree with Media Matters that these comparisons are useful, your opinion to the contrary notwithstanding.

Furthermore, I hope you see from WP:NPOV what's wrong with this observation: "In keeping with NPOV, it's not essential to say whether Media Matters believes Wallace is or is not impartial (that would be their opinion, not established fact)." To say that Media Matters thinks that is a fact -- it's a fact about an opinion, which the policy says should be included.

Of course, my personal opinion, like yours, is no basis for excluding a significant contrary opinion. There may be some prominent right-wing spokesperson out there (Rush Limbaugh or his ilk) who has made the argument that Wallace, having queried Rumsfeld and Clinton as he did, thereby showed his magnificent impartiality and his superb journalistic skills. That would be far from the silliest thing Limbaugh ever said, so it's not at all implausible. If some such prominent spokesperson expresses some such opinion, feel free to include it, with attribution and citation. JamesMLane t c 08:45, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

You're not "surpressing an opinion" by excluding a tendentious, unreliable source.

The opinion of Media Matters as to the Wallace-Clinton affair is no more consequential or pertinent than the opinion of the DNC, or George Soros, so I don't see how you can insist upon its inclusion in this article, much less the heavily-biased attempt at portraying its spin as authoritative. Ruthfulbarbarity 18:42, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

As to whether to include opinions, I refer you to this passage from Wikipedia's NPOV policy:

But it is not enough, to express the Wikipedia non-bias policy, just to say that we should state facts and not opinions. When asserting a fact about an opinion, it is important also to assert facts about competing opinions, and to do so without implying that any one of the opinions is correct. It is also generally important to give the facts about the reasons behind the views, and to make it clear who holds them. It is often best to cite a prominent representative of the view.

Media Matters, the DNC, and George Soros are prominent representatives, as are such tendentious, unreliable right-wing spin artists as Brit Hume and his ilk. (In fact, if you look at the George Soros article, you'll see the inclusion of criticisms from Dennis Hastert and Bernard Goldberg, whom no sensible person could consider unbiased.) Therefore, it's proper to include the POVs of Media Matters and Brit Hume, each attributed to its source and therefore being reported rather than adopted.

I agree with you that we shouldn't portray spin as authoritative. That principle would be violated if we said something like, "Wallace is biased in favor of the Bush administration", and then supported the statement with a citation to the Media Matters analysis. We haven't done that. On the other hand, the article as it now stands does violate NPOV by portraying Hume's spin as authoritative, through use of the word "noted" (implying fact). We could balance out the NPOV violations by changing the preceding paragraph to read, "Media Matters noted that there were no interviews in which Wallace or his predecessor, Tony Snow, had asked a Bush administration official about the treatment of Clarke or about the lack of response to the Cole bombing." Of course, the better approach is to report both positions without implying that either is correct.

Incidentally, there's a good argument to be made that my assessment is too harsh on Media Matters. That neither Wallace nor Snow ever asked any such question is a matter of fact, not opinion. None of the critics of Media Matters have provided a single citation to refute what the group reported. Returning to the NPOV policy:

We sometimes give an alternative formulation of the non-bias policy: assert facts, including facts about opinions — but do not assert opinions themselves. There is a difference between facts and opinions. By "fact" we mean "a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute." For example, that a survey produced a certain published result would be a fact. That there is a planet called Mars is a fact. That Plato was a philosopher is a fact. No one seriously disputes any of these things. So we can feel free to assert as many of them as we can.

By value or opinion, on the other hand, we mean "a piece of information about which there is some dispute." There are bound to be borderline cases where we are not sure if we should take a particular dispute seriously; but there are many propositions that very clearly express values or opinions. That stealing is wrong is a value or opinion. That the Beatles was the greatest band is a value or opinion. That the United States was wrong to drop the atomic bomb over Hiroshima and Nagasaki is a value or opinion.

I think I'm being pretty charitable toward Chris Wallace and Faux News by going along with the idea that there's a serious dispute about this point, given the absence of any citation to the contrary, but I'm willing to make that compromise in the interest of getting this article into stable form. JamesMLane t c 21:13, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the concise reply.

My point isn't that opinion should be excluded per se.

I was only asking why the tendentious opinion of Media Matters, an avowedly partisan, admittedly biased political organization, should take precedence over independent, impartial media analysis.

If the criticism of Wallace emanated from the Poynter Institute, or some equally reputable organization that monitors American journalism-and which has the credentials and standing to critique perceived flaws in a particular reporter or news anchor's methodology-then I could understand its inclusion in the article.

But I do not see how the criticism by a Soros-funded dispenser of Dem. talking points, one of which, i.e. that Richard Clarke was demoted or penalized by the Bush administration, is patently false, fits into the context of Chris Wallace's interview of former President Clinton. Ruthfulbarbarity 01:01, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

NPOV policy says "cite a prominent representative". Media Matters is prominent. If you think there's a better source to cite for this view, please give us the link so we can consider it as a possible replacement for Media Matters. JamesMLane t c 02:24, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

No, Media Matters is not prominent... it's a weblog on the Internet. It hasn't spawned any level of notability in relation to the interview itself... at least not on a widespread view. Their opinions do not matter in this article, because they are not a notable party in the interview. We are not a mouthpiece for them - I'm sick and tired of seeing their opinion plastered all over Wikipedia... we aren't here to spread their opinion. It's not notable in this article. --Mrmiscellanious 22:26, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad somebody said it. Media Matters is a special interest group. All the wikilawyering in the world won't change that. Dubc0724 15:31, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

According to WP:RS, notable, reputable, and verifiable sources are the key, not partisanship. Also, the mere status of being a blog does not in itself justify exclusion from Wikipedia; what about LGF or Wonkette? --kizzle 22:35, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Media Matters isn't being cited here for some statement like "Fox so-called News is a disgrace to journalism." Instead, the statement is a simple factual report: The FNS anchors never asked any Bush administration person about the Cole, they never asked any Bush administration person about Clarke, and the only time out of dozens of interviews that they asked any Bush administration person any question remotely critical of the handling of terrorism was the single Rumsfeld interview noted in the Media Matters report. Those statements are matters of fact, not opinion. This talk page is full of right-wing blah blah blah attacking Media Matters, but there hasn't been one single citation of a fact that would contradict the report. Media Matters identified the FNS interviews it surveyed. With all the time and energy that's been devoted to smearing Media Matters on this page, surely someone could have taken a moment to cite an occasion when FNS pressed the Bush people on this issue -- if there were any. The absence of such a simple refutation speaks volumes, as does Hume's failure to offer such evidence. Whether Media Matters would be worth citing for an assessment of whether Fox News is biased is another question (I think it would be), but here, we're citing a simple report. JamesMLane t c 23:47, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Placement of quotation from Rumsfeld interview

There are several reasons to place the quotation from the Rumsfeld interview in the paragraph about the Media Matters report, which cited it.

1. Chronologically, Media Matters cited it before Hume did. The Media Matters report was issued on September 24. Hume made his comments on September 26.

2. To omit the quotation from the account of the Media Matters report, and then quote it in full only in Hume's purported rebuttal, gives the impression that Hume caught Media Matters omitting relevant evidence to make its case. For example, this edit by Juliandroms said that Hume's response "noted that, given that Wallace had asked Donald Rumsfeld similar questions to those which he posed to Clinton, a charge of bias is unwarranted...." The reader may conclude that the charge is unwarranted but shouldn't be given the impression that Hume was the first one to quote the Rumsfeld interview. All the language quoted by Hume was in the Media Matters report two days earlier.

3. Hume's "interpretation" is at best questionable. It includes his reference to "Mr. Clinton's assertion that Wallace did not challenge the Bush administration's pre-9/11 record on terrorism". I don't agree that Clinton made any such assertion. According to the full transcript as posted by Fox News itself, Clinton asked whether Wallace had asked any Bush people about terrorism in general. Then he mentioned the Cole. Then he mentioned Clarke. Only then did he say, "I don't believe you asked them that." Wallace seemed to interpret Clinton's statement as referring to the question about the Cole -- which, indeed, had not (and still has not) been posed by Fox News Sunday to anyone in the Bush Administration. If we were to include Hume's dubious interpretation of what Clinton said, then, to avoid misleading the reader, we'd have to include a contrary interpretation, or quote that part of the Clinton interview transcript verbatim. All of that would relate to the credibility of Media Matters, of Clinton, and/or of Hume, but not Wallace. Therefore, in the Wallace article, it's better to simply quote his grilling of Rumsfeld, and note that Hume cited that interview in disputing the charge that Wallace was biased. JamesMLane t c 17:55, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

The pre-9/11 record on combating terrorism during the Bush administration subsumes the period of time where the Bush response to the Cole bombing would have occurred. So in essense, Rumsfeld was being asked the same question that Clinton alleged that Wallace never did ask of a senior Bush official. Notwithstanding, parse words all you want, but Clinton was in fact accusing Wallace of bias. The response from Brit Hume is just quoting the exact same passage as Media Matters, except rather than prefacing it with the word "only", it's presented as a counterexample to the allegation that Wallace is biased. FYI Wallace is widely known as a fair reporter among the Fox News staff.75.46.170.198 20:19, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Media Matters cited the Rumsfeld interview in the course of its argument that Wallace is biased. Hume cited the Rumsfeld interview in the course of his argument that Wallace is not biased. The wording I reverted to reports each of these opinions, attributes each opinion to its source, and notes that each source thought that the historical data supported its/his position.

Some readers will agree with Media Matters that Wallace's asking only one such question, in the course of dozens of interviews of Bush Administration officials, shows his bias. Other readers will agree with Hume that Wallace's asking the question once of a Democrat and once of a Republican shows his fairness. It's not our job to tell the readers which of those conclusions to adopt. We should present the facts along with notable opinions. The wording I reverted to does that. There's no significant information about Wallace that's removed by my reversion. JamesMLane t c 02:48, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Except you cut out the part of Hume's argument, where he says that his interpretation of Wallace having asked Rumsfeld a similar question is that he is not biased. I'm saying, include both interpretations of this fact. The way it reads not, it only includes one interpretation.

I thought that Hume's spin was obvious from the context, but if you think it isn't, we can certainly spell it out. I checked back to Hume's piece and he didn't use the word "biased". He did, however, refer to the famous Fox News/Al Franken slogan "Fair and Balanced", so I used the word "fair" instead of your "not biased". Does the rewritten language meet your objection? JamesMLane t c 04:55, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Bias In Journalism

The truth is that all manner of journalistic activities are biased. In Europe this is not a problem; for instance both the Guardian and the Economist make no bones about their political and social biases, and both attempt to report issues to the best of their ability. We live under a delusion in the United States that our journalists are supposed to be "objective." This does not exist and never will exist; the main problem is that the centrist MSM and the conservative Fox network do not admit to their bias. The Nation and dailykos.com, for example, are certainly liberal and admit it, while freerepublic.com is certainly conservative and admits it. This is the way it should be - if you want to start up a journalistic endeavor that attempts to be "objective" go right ahead, but I believe that will prove very difficult, and you'll probably end up in the trap of the MSM, which tries so hard to prove itself untainted by the supposed "liberal bias" in the media that it ends up being mostly worthless as a place to get informed and insightful reporting. This effect actually makes the MSM less credible - stating one's biases openly is a good foundation for honesty.

Fox News is conservative, period. Brit Hume is a conservative journalist, period. It's what they are and what he does.

To be a journalist, one must work at journalism. Fox News is not a journalistic endeavor. It is a rightwing psyops organization that dissiminates propaganda. Brit Hume is a propagandist. Chris Wallace is a propagandist.

The sky is blue as well. To shrink from admitting that in their wiki articles is shrinking from any encyclopedia's responsibility to describe things for what they are, accurately. If Fox News wishes to maintain the public fiction that their reporting is fair and balanced, that's their business. But just because someone maintains the position that the earth is flat or that the sun revolves around it does not make it so, and to remove accurate assessment and acknowledgment of that bias from wiki articles does a disservice to all of Wikipedia.PJtP 16:13, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Wow, a long-winded essay, but completely off topic. Most of what said is true, especially the part of about the "objectivity" from both conservatives and liberals. However, none of it explains Wallace and whether he is "liberal" or "conservative".--Getaway 14:22, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry people, I know Fox News, these people are not propagandists they are professionals. Now, CNN and MSNBC are quite a different story. 24.185.239.25 (talk) 01:12, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikimachy

Kacela is determined to denigrate Chris Wallace. JamesMLane seems to be just as determined to keep the article objective. Who will triumph?Lestrade 23:47, 9 September 2007 (UTC)Lestrade

Let's not look at it in terms of "triumph". I've left a note for Kacela (who's a new contributor) explaining how WP:NPOV restricts what we can say about yellow journalists like Wallace. I hope we can work it out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JamesMLane (talk • contribs) 01:06, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

ATTN: Badagnani, PLEASE indicate why you deleted additions to this page that are factual and accurate. If you don't have objectivity, perhaps you shouldn't be editing the page of a controversial and lambasted journalist. Please advise. -Harold —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.224.190.106 (talk) 15:07, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Republican candidates' debate

Does this section belong here? The previous section talks about whether or not he grills Democrats and not Republicans, but Ron Paul is someone that few people in the media have taken seriously at all and is not apart of the Bush administration (which Clinton says Wallace leaves unchallenged) so asking him a tough question isn't any evidence to the contrary. 24.196.146.119 (talk) 05:30, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Redundancy

I was reading this article after watching the Clinton interview, and came across a section that seemed fairly redundant. In reviewing the talk page, this is clearly a controversial article with lots of allegations of bias, so I thought before any editing I should put it here up for thought and comment. Anyway, the two paragraphs in question are the Media Matters one about Wallace's statement and interview of Rumsfeld, followed by Brit Hume's response which basically repeats exactly the same information, with the addition of a verbal pat on the back for Wallace. Two paragraphs saying the same thing seems unnecessary to me. I would suggest rewriting it as follows:

Wallace's statement was disputed by Media Matters for America, a media watchdog organization that critizes what it describes as "conservative misinformation in the U.S. media". CITE. The organization found no interviews in which Wallace or his predecessor, Tony Snow, had asked a Bush administration official about the treatment of Clarke or about the lack of response to the Cole bombing. As to the Al Qaeda and the war on terror generally, the Media Matters report stated that Wallace had challenged only one Bush administration official, then Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, about the war on terror and a perceived failure to pursue the treat of Al Qaeda, by saying, "Mr. Secretary, it sure sounds like fighting terrorism was not a top priority." CITE. Brit Hume of Fox News cited the same interview as evidence of Wallace's independent reporting. CITE.

Just a suggestion to try to tighten this up and reduce some of the opportunities for POV. croll (talk) 19:19, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I think your suggestion is reasonable. Nevertheless, we've faced a constant attempt to suppress the information presented by Media Matters for America -- not that, in two years, anyone has ever been able to point to the slightest inaccuracy in the MMfA summary of the published FNS transcripts, but that hasn't stopped them from trying to remove the data by screaming "bias". Therefore, instead of your accurate statement that MMfA "found no interviews", I've use the wording "the organization stated that", to make even more clear that we're merely reporting the MMfA position. For this purpose, alleged bias doesn't matter, because WP:NPOV calls for articles to report facts about opinions. JamesMLane t c 04:04, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Uh, so I've apparently bumbled into a bee's nest by editing the Clinton interview section before seeing the talk page. Don't worry, all I really did was eliminate some more redundancy by taking out words dwelling on the Richard Clarke and USS Cole thing. According to this section itself, Wallace didn't contradict Clinton on whether he'd asked about Clarke or the Cole so it seemed misled to try to take up that as an issue. Also, the section is a bit long and really has the appearance of a small beef that someone had with Wallace and spilled lots of ink on his Wikipedia page for it. I don't know about the larger issues but the Clarke & Cole stuff did seem redundant to a normal reader.

I did change some other wording but I swear only to improve flow and reduce verbosity. If you have any issue with it, please change it back. Sorry if I disturbed any delicate balance you've all worked so hard to achieve.

Goodbye and all the best, Qwerty0 (talk) 02:13, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

References needed

I placed a references needed template at the top of the article because there are essentially no references in the personal life section and the infor there has the appearance of original research. My hope is that references can be added soon. SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 16:24, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I have a particular concern with the list of notable people he's interviewed. People add names to this list from time to time, and it's completely unsourced. I'm concerned that some jokers might just add names more or less at random. JamesMLane t c 21:21, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Material about not responding to 20,000 emails

I have removed this non event. If it is such a huge deal, doubtful, add it to the CAP article. --Threeafterthree (talk) 21:58, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

When Source X provides information about Subject Y, the information belongs in the article about Subject Y, not the one about Source X. Here, CAP is providing the information about Wallace.

Whether or not it would be a "huge deal" in isolation, it's clear that the Clinton interview (which gets its own subsection) is an important part of Wallace's bio. Out of all the interviews he's done, this one has been highlighted in the article for almost four years; see this version, which also includes the Rice information. The part about Rice becomes important because it relates to Wallace's own statements about the Clinton interview. JamesMLane t c 17:12, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

This is still a non event. A partisan advocacy group emails are ignored? Was this covered by sources other than themselves? It's also OR/synthesis to then say, he got the emails but ignored them, see, look at the transcript. Again, has any other sourced brought up this "story"? --Threeafterthree (talk) 18:27, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

You're ignoring the entire connection to the Clinton interview. Wallace himself stated that his questions to Clinton were prompted by emailed requests, thus making the emails relevant here. JamesMLane t c 20:10, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

You still haven't answered my question about other sources. Have you even read the thinkprogress blog post? I am really afraid that your hostility is getting in the way of "fair" editing. Why can't we treat this article the way we would Obama's? --Threeafterthree (talk) 20:19, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

To my mind, "hostility" is exhibited by, for example, asking another editor, "Are you really that brain dead?" [8] Here, I didn't say anything about your brain activity or possible lack thereof; I merely pointed out that this particular comment of yours was erroneous in that it ignored the context of the incident. As for your question about whether I've even read the ThinkProgress source cited in my edit, the answer is that yes, I did -- what makes you think I might not have? Finally, we treat this article like Obama's in the sense that both are to conform to NPOV and other Wikipedia policies, but there are differences. Obama is involved in so many matters of consequence that we can't cover them all in his bio article. That's why there are several daughter articles. Even the silliness about Obama's birth has its own daughter article. The threshold of notability for getting something into the main Obama article is higher than that for getting something into the main (and only) Wallace article. If your question means that the threshold should be the same for both, then the Obama article will quickly grow to preposterous length. JamesMLane t c 00:06, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Maybe try rereading it. Also, it's a blog posting? Do you have any other sources that are really reliable? Also, nice spin to deny your admitted hostility and talk about my behavior. Edit warring over including a blog post about a non event says it all, IMHO. --Threeafterthree (talk) 01:36, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

The term "blog posting" conjures up some crackpot in his attic writing whatever he feels like, which is why Wikipedia generally doesn't rely on self-published sources. ThinkProgress, however, has staffers and an editor -- see listing here -- so, for our purposes, it's really more of an online magazine. As for my "admitted hostility", I always try to follow the advice of St. Augustine: "Love men. Slay errors." So, yes, I am hostile to errors, to bias, to sloppy thought, and to misplaced hyphens. As Barry Goldwater didn't say, hostility in the defense of accuracy is no vice. What is a vice is hostility toward other editors, as exemplified by your "brain dead" crack. Some of us consider this distinction important. JamesMLane t c 04:06, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Have you reread the link? Do you have any other source, other than this blog whose writers are not notable?--Threeafterthree (talk) 04:13, 2 September 2010 (UTC)ps, you forgot your hostility to the right wing.--Threeafterthree (talk) 04:18, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

This section contains a fair amount of orginal research, so much so that to remove it would remove most of the section. FNC sources are being used for most of the evidence against Wallace, ergo, the section is using Wallace's own words/actions against him with very little third party reporting on the issue. This is the very defintion of original research. Arzel (talk) 15:24, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Thinkprogress material

The recently added material from Thinkprogress should be removed, as it is sourced to a blog. It has nothing to do with whether the site is partisan or not or whether the actual audio is on the website. Blogs of news organizations are allowed, per WP:IRS, but the Center for American Progress is not a news organization. If you want to add the material, find a reliable source that discusses the matter. Drrll (talk) 18:00, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I would tend to agree. Have main stream reliable sources covered this? --Threeafterthree (talk) 18:11, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I think removal of this page misses the point on the need for reliable sources. Reliable sources are necessary for the reason you don't want a group or person with an ax to grind to make up something about a group or a person. Fine, I understand that. But, when that person or group has the exact audio of that conversation then that is definitive proof that conversation happened. It is silly then to argue about how reliable a source is when that conversation is recorded in audio.

It misses the whole point of need for relaible sources, it is not for the sake of needing reliable sources but as evidence or proof that a certain statement or fact is in fact, correct. Well, the audio did exactly that, other than if someone is going to argue that ThinkProgress hired actors to play the roles of Gallagher and Wallace, which would make them the greatest voice actors living today. If a journalist doesn't trust a source but the source gives them the exact audio of a conversation, he wouldn't throw away the audio because of the source. It is as if people in here are more concerned about rules for the sake of rules, then actually looking at evidence and judging it when it obviously shows that conversation happened. 4 Octorber 2010([User:70.92.3.193]) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.92.3.193 (talk) 18:33, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't doubt the veracity of the recording. It's just that Wikipedia is built upon reliable sources, not that the Thinkprogress blog technically doesn't fit the rules. If it matters enough to be covered in this WP article, then it is likely covered by some reliable source. If you find one, I won't object to the material being included. Drrll (talk) 01:57, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Chris Wallace's mother and Mike Wallace's first wife.

There is a discrepancy between the name of Chris Wallace's mother "Kaplan" and the name of Mike Wallace's first wife "Kaphan",listed on his Mike Wallace's page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.243.99.149 (talk) 15:51, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Notable Interviews

I completely agree with the Wikipedia editor's tag on this section. I am alarmed by the fact that it is nowhere near complete and we should urge all readers to expand upon it. Are there any more proactive steps we can take as Wikipedians to encourage readers to add names of people Chris has interviewed over his career?

If you are reading this now and you have seen Chris Wallace on television interviewing a person whose name does not appear on this list, you can help Wikipedia by adding that information. Please don't be shy! As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia wishes to include all relevant information. Mardiste (talk) 23:45, 5 February 2011 (UTC)