Talk:Fox News controversies

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Wikiposter0123 (talk | contribs) at 22:13, 30 August 2010 (→‎Considerations regarding coverage). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Pbneutral


Archive
Archives
  1. February 2006 – July 2006
  2. June 2006 – August 2006
  3. July 2006 – July 2007
  4. June 2007 – December 2007

POLITICAL CHANGES

Photographs should be put up where Fox News had altered the political party namely from corrupt Republicans being represented as Democrats:

http://images.huffingtonpost.com/gen/88511/thumbs/s-SANFORD-large.jpg http://images.huffingtonpost.com/gen/88512/thumbs/s-FOLEY-large.jpg

Commenting so this is archived. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:58, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just wondering...

Why one MMFA and HP suddenly qualify as big ticket news items? The different incidents could be explained as honest mistakes and really HP and MMFA aren't good indicators of notability. Soxwon (talk) 05:31, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The "mistakes" seem to consistently favor Republicans. Mistakes would happen in equal frequency in both directions. Can you find any examples of a scandal prone Democrats being mislabeled as a Republican? The list included in the article is only a partial list. Here are some others - http://intershame.com/on/Fox_News/?d=123. In terms of notability, just because the source is MMFA or HP doesn't mean it isn't notable. If you Google each event, you'll find that there were many opinion pieces that referred to each one. Ucanlookitup (talk) 12:27, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, but coverage from other sources that aren't there just to criticize Fox News (like MMFA) or from a liberal blog (HP) would establish that these were genuine controversies. And your argument mistakes burden of evidence. Can you cite an example where this "controversy" made it into the mainstream media? Most of the places I noticed were simple blogs quoting intershame, hardly mainstream coverage. Soxwon (talk) 21:57, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You make a fair point about not finding it in the mainstream media. I'll concede on notability. Ucanlookitup (talk) 22:36, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fox News has an obvious ideological slant on stories they choose to cover, in some cases promote, the conservative "fact checkers" they use, and the slant within the stories. How is Fox News considered legitimate but Huffington Post accused of ideological slant? Just wondering... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.119.153.76 (talk) 18:37, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please see related discussion at this noticeboard. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 18:58, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding "not finding it in the mainstream media"... MSNBC, at the very least, has extensively covered the four video mistakes in the past few weeks. I am pretty sure the Daily Show has as well, and I doubt they're the only ones. But, either way, people seem to be under the mistaken impression that WP:NPOV requires sources be without ideology, which is a complete misunderstanding of policy -- WP:NPOV only requires that Wikipedia present issues neutrally (not that sources be neutral). See the detailed explanation here. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 19:25, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say that sources had to be w/o an ideology, but if they tend to blow minor incidents out of proportion (even if done in a factually accurate manner) then the WP:WEIGHT of their content that is being added comes into question. Soxwon (talk) 20:48, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
With no disrespect intended, your categorization of incidents as "minor" or not is not really relevant -- that the criticism has been picked up (or acknowledged separately) in mainstream media is plenty sufficient indication that the incident has weight. Honestly, Soxwon, I don't think you're going to be able to sell this as some sort of insignificant criticism by fringe groups carrying no weight -- MMFA/FAIR/etc. are already considered reliable sources with regards to media issues (as noted at the RSN noticeboard request you made); broadcast sourcing on MSNBC (and likely elsewhere, if we bother to hunt it down) is just the final nail in that coffin. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 03:16, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion was specifically focused on the mislabeling of scandal prone Democrats as Republicans. SoxWon started the discussion when I restored the edit he removed. The video incidents are still in the article and were widely reported in the mainstream media. I cannot find any examples, though, of the mainstream media covering the incorrect party attribution. If anyone else can, please include the reference. Ucanlookitup (talk) 03:49, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ucanlookitup, you just opened a can of worms. A minor mislabel is nothing compared to the rest of the media's blatant lack of labels whenever a Democrat has a scandal. PokeHomsar (talk) 08:23, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Slogan controversy and "Outfoxed"

There appears to be very little or no mention of Fox's "Fair and Balanced" slogan controversy, although this slogan has been widely criticized. Doesn't this issue merit more discussion in the article?

Also, Robert Greenwald's 2004 documentary Outfoxed is hardly mentioned or referenced in the article, despite being a key player in the Fox News coverage balance and bias debate. Perhaps it and its assertions should be further explored in this article, particularly in concert with the slogan controversy.

71.198.169.120 (talk) 19:37, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No. --Tom (talk) 20:09, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, yes, this topic does merit more discussion, and this topic has been discussed in reliable, scholarly sources. Viriditas (talk) 07:01, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, a documentary by Media Matter for America, a company much more liberally biased than FNC is conservatively biased, is not worth more discussion. Outside of Beck, O'Reilly (sometimes,) and Hannity, FNC is mostly fair and balanced. PokeHomsar (talk) 08:20, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No. It isn't, and after their most recent $1 million donation, it is perfectly reasonable to include partisan criticism of another partisan organization. Fox has argued before the Supreme Court it is an entertainment organization, not a news organization, yet it pretends and acts as if it were one. Comparisons with MSNBC are false, because only 15 hours of MSNBC are liberal, whilst the rest is centrist or conservative. FOX News is unique in American Media and thus deserves special consideration as being pointed out as being the partisan arm of the Right that they really are. The one million dollar donation removes all doubt to the contrary about that to any honest observer. Manticore55 (talk) 06:05, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PokeHomsar, so what you are saying is that other than the "journalists" who account for creating and maintaining the vast majority of Fox's viewership, as well as being the most widely watched segments on FNC, the rest is pretty fair and balanced? That being the case, then I think this is very relevant to the topic at hand. RobertMfromLI | User Talk 21:22, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ropbert, Beck, O'reilly, and Hannity are not journalists. They're pundits. Asking for them to be neutral would be like asking for Keith Olbermann to be neutral.Wikiposter0123 (talk) 21:39, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As for Manticore's rant... do expect to be taken seriously?Wikiposter0123 (talk) 21:39, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiposter0123: I agree, but that is why I think this is an important topic for inclusion. O'Reilly is one of the biggest who keeps mentioning how they are "Fair and Balanced" - and all three pretend they're news casters as opposed to pundits. RobertMfromLI | User Talk 21:49, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Title

The current title is not appropriate for this article. This is not an article about the journalist standards or ethics regarding FNC. It is an article largely of the complaints by others about FNC. Controversies may not be a good name, but this is clearly misleading. Arzel (talk) 02:05, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There also doesn't appear to be any recent discussion or concensus for this change. I am changing back and suggest we discuss a proper title. Arzel (talk) 02:07, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure how to return name. Anyone else know? Arzel (talk) 02:14, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Frankly it appears to be an attack article and I'm not sure it would (or should) survive an AfD. JakeInJoisey (talk) 03:43, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Um, it already has survived an AFD, Jake. As far as title goes, how about Criticism of Fox News? Stonemason89 (talk) 21:35, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There was absolutely no discussion of this move and I am going to revert. Soxwon (talk) 03:27, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

News Corp Co-Owner Donates $300,000 to NY Mosque effort

Since the News Corp GOP donation is being debated, I figured this would be debated as well. "The second largest shareholder in News Corp. -- the parent company of Fox News -- has donated hundreds of thousands of dollars to causes linked to the Imam planning to build a Muslim community center and mosque near Ground Zero in Manhattan, says a report from Yahoo!News." Yahoo! News Highly relevant -- Fox News has campaigned against the mosque for weeks now, without revealing that their parent company had involvements in the mosque funding. This just broke today (Sunday, August 22, 2010). Please include after appropriate head-scratching and debate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.123.142.53 (talk) 18:04, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well he is a muslim, so its not that surprising. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:39, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see that News Corp had any involvement in the mosque funding. This donation of $305K was from Prince Al-Waleed bin Talal, of Saudi Arabia, and it was from his charity, not News Corp. This item just isn't relevant in this article, although it might be in his. — Becksguy (talk) 23:22, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The connection though was made due to Al-Waleen owning seven percent of News Corp, being a significant co-owner of Fox News. It should also be noted that as of 2010 News Corp. has a $70 (9%) investment in Al-Waleed's Rotana Group, the Arab World's largest entertainment company.Wikiposter0123 (talk) 23:31, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe its just me, but I thought I saw User:76.123.142.53's tongue rather firmly implanted in his cheek. JakeInJoisey (talk) 23:26, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe he's just trying to note the irony of using a businesses' lack of support for Obama's business-killing economic plan to show conservative bias in a daughter company by comparing it to that same businesses' apparent interest in things that contradict that very same daughter companies perceived position.Wikiposter0123 (talk) 23:34, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes it's hard to tell... Remember the funny one in the RfC on Fox as a RS in which someone claimed that CBS created a fake news story in 1938 as evidence of deception? It was, of course, The War of the Worlds (radio). That one I enjoyed. — Becksguy (talk) 23:35, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

LOL. :)
While we're at it have you heard of the "Swiss Spaghetti harvest"? Epic hoax by the BBC. Maybe I'll start an RfC on their credibility. :PWikiposter0123 (talk) 00:15, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Auto archiving

I've added 45 day/10 thread auto archiving to this page as its getting really long. I hope that's OK. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:31, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

$1 Million GOP Donation

Fox parent News Corps donated $1 Million dollars to the Republican Governor's Association. Many news outlets have covered this controversy, but Fox News hasn't mentioned it once. This has gotten a lot of press lately...any reason its not on this section?184.91.62.76 (talk) 01:06, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For one thing this article is about Fox News Channel, not about News Corps. Arzel (talk) 19:16, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's not like FNC/NC has been accused of republican bias, so it's totally irrelevant to this article. Oh wait... //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 23:43, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FNC mentioned on Special Report, the day the story broke. Good researching there, plant. PokeHomsar (talk) 02:46, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, they did not. The story broke on August 16th, and FoxNews Special report had a 39 second blurb about it on August 18th. They waited 2 days after the story broke before they mentioned it at all!DellDolly (talk) 06:26, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please show the footage--no mention has ever been made on FNC.184.91.62.76 (talk) 18:45, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a link to the 39 second video of the mention on FoxNews Special Report. DellDolly (talk) 06:26, 22 August 2010 (UTC) :http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/201008180065 DellDolly (talk) 06:26, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And it is not relevant to the article. Add it to New Corp. article. Or, you're asking us to add to every publication and news service they own. Blaxthos, your input as a terribly biased individual to the other side, is not needed here. PokeHomsar (talk) 02:47, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Utterly preposterous...it is part of the main Fox News article; and the criticism of the donation is directly relevant to Fox News because the News Channel is the one being accused of showing a bias to the GOP, in fact, the letter from the DGA was addressed to Roger Ailes of FOX NEWS, not to Rupert Murdoch. Fox News' coverage of the issue and Mr. Daschle's response is also part of the controversy, which is the title of the article. To say that NewsCorps donation has nothing to do with Fox News is disingenous at best and blatantly partisan at worst. I have no trouble including a spirited defense of the donation in the article, but to ignore it is just ridiculous.SemDem (talk) 18:34, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you kidding me? News Corp. owns the New York Post, the FOX network, Fox Business Network, the Wall Street Journal, and several other things. FNC isn't the only thing Murdoch owns in the media industry. He even owns a chunk of Hulu. Also, not only was this kind of thing legal before the Citizens United case (it was,) but before the $1 million donation, News Corp. had mostly given about equal to both parties. PokeHomsar (talk) 19:15, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is no question the donation is legal. The donation is also a matter of fact and it's on the record. The donation of $1,000,000 to a congressional committee at the national level would be noteworthy enough, but this was to the Republican Governor's Association. It is understood that Fox News Channel will be actively promoting Republican candidates for governor and incumbent Republican governors and not giving equal treatment to Democrats. This donation is evidence of that and thus stands as a controversial act. Also, the relationship between News Corp and Fox News is exceptionally close and not at all like that of other parent companies of media outlets. See Robert Greenwald's "Outfoxed" [[1]] for actual memos from corporate to Fox News personalities directing them how to craft political perceptions (in favor of Republicans).Nlaeditor (talk) 10:43, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Saying that before this donation, News Corp had given to both sides equally is incredibly disingenuous. Previous donations were in the range of tens of thousands of dollars. Any comment denying that a million dollars is a lot more than donations that might add up to $100,000 in any given election year is a dishonest one! $100,000 is only 10% of $1 million. And, to top that off, previous donations were from employees and PAC's. This donation was directly from corporate, not from employees. That makes it different too. DellDolly (talk) 06:18, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Murdoch also owns the Weekly Standard. PokeHomsar (talk) 19:16, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In terms of viewer ship, income and size, Fox News dwarfs all of those other areas. Furthermore, Fox News is far more blatantly partisan than any of the other outfits owned by News Corp, AND have not so blatantly championed the Citizens United Decision of the Roberts Court which made this possible. And calling someone a "Plant" is a violation of Wikipedia Policy. WP: Courtesy. Manticore55 (talk) 06:03, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RFC: $1 Million GOP Donation

NewsCorp, the parent of Fox News Channel, has made a $1 million donation to a GOP organization. Should this incident and the controversy surrounding it be included in the Fox News Channel controversies article? Proponents contend that the widespread accusations against FNC of Republican bias makes this information relevant; opponents contend the information is only relevant to the NewsCorp article. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 19:27, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support inclusion as RFC nominator. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 19:27, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • NO Since it was not an action taken by FNC, I cannot see how this would be a controversy of FNC's making. It is entirely a manufactured controversy from the left. NewsCorp has donated money to both parties for years, historically the majority has gone to Democrats, now that they have donated to the Republicans the left wants to attack FNC. GE has donated hundreds of thousands of dollars to both parties as well with the majority going to Democrats, yet none of the GE related news companies (NBC, MSNBC, NBC News) mention it, neither does GE for that matter. It is already mentioned on the NewsCorp article; where it belongs. Arzel (talk) 19:45, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If the left has linked this to Foc News then it is a Fox News controversy and should be included here.filceolaire (talk) 18:42, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think I understand that logic. This has nothing to do with FNC Arzel (talk) 21:04, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On your first point, Arzel: It is disingenuous to point out previous NC political contributions because the $1 million recently donated is more than the combined donations to both parties in the last 4 years. The political timing of the donation is also very convenient, making it hard to believe that it was a short-term whim to donate to republicans and not an opportunistic play on a long-term agenda. On your second point: While it would normally be unfair to judge a subsidiary corporation based on the actions of its parent corporation, context is everything. Fox News isn't some distinct corporate entity that acts independently of its parents corporation, and News Corp isn't the type of parent company which does nothing but act as a holdings company. Fox News is known to cater to, if not manufacture altogether, conservative sentiment. While Fox News themselves may not have produced the event, it is somewhat clear that the 1$ million donation from NC is rooted in the same poisonous tree that other Fox News controversies are rooted in, so I think its somewhat relevant to put here. This is especially true since the "Criticism/Controversies" section of the NewsCorp article has been eliminated anyway. I wouldn't mind omitting the action on the Fox News controversies page if there was another page or section dedicated to tracking criticisms/controversies of NewsCorp as a whole (particularly when one criticism (partisan bias) spans so many subsidiaries). Kapnobatairza (talk) 00:00, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Possibly include as part of a neutral summary of NewsCorp donation history during Fox News existence. It's attracted enough attention to merit mentioning, but it needs context then. Rd232 talk 20:03, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Include Is it really debatable to include an empirical fact? Surprised that someone had the gaul to call it manufactured. And how is it not notable? It got a lot of coverage. This should be a given to be included. 68.227.169.133 (talk) 10:11, 22 August 2010 (UTC) (UTC)— 68.227.169.133 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
I offered a submission that I researched and made sure to include Fox News and News Corps responses to be fair and balanced. First I was told it was a minor controversy, then I was told no one really was covering it (false), then I was told that I had to get "consensus" from everybody on this highly partisan issue (even though some here clearly have an agenda), then I was told that News Corps has nothing to do with Fox News. Enough! This is the largest donation made by a private company to the RGA AND one of the largest in history by a media organization! This issue is already on the main article on Fox News, and it has been thoroughly covered by the main stream media. The criticism has been directed towards Roger Ailes and Fox News in terms of how they can claim to be "fair and balanced" in the coverage of upcoming races as well as Fox News' reluctance to cover the controversy! As I said before, I have no trouble with a blurb that gives a strong defense of the donation...but it is disingenuous at best and partisan at worst to say that this does not deserve to be in this article.SemDem (talk) 02:03, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cross Posting your efforts at the Daily Kos really don't help your situation. This RFC is now completely worthless as you have inundated it with your fellow biased crew. This comment gives you away.

    We gave up on the Fox News main page, and simply added a balanced blurb on the "Fox News Controversies" page, which even INCLUDED the official Fox News and News Corps defense of the donation. It was removed.

    Arzel (talk) 15:00, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Arzel, for all we know you could have made the "cross posting" at that website when you realized that community consensus was against you anyway, thereby giving yourself an excuse to claim the whole RFC is "worthless"... I'm just saying, let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater. There is no policy that says an RFC becomes "worthless" if it gets attention off-wiki; we simply consider the content of the arguments instead of the quantity of participants -- if we now have a million editors who all give reasoned arguments, then their argument still are valid. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 15:07, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just saying, let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater.
I concur with Blaxthos' position. Off-wiki canvassing is neither new nor can even be unexpected (although experienced editors will realize that it may actually do a dis-service to the credibility of the favored position) and the tag applied was designed to address that eventuality. As to...
...for all we know you could have made the "cross posting" at that website when you realized that community consensus was against you anyway...
Good Lord Blaxthos. Provocative, incendiary and unnecessary come to mind immediately. May I suggest that this discussion of the event be re-factored out of this section to its own section if you are both committed to continuing this discussion? JakeInJoisey (talk) 15:27, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]


  • Certainly Include. Opponents state but offer no source to support contention that "NewsCorp has donated money to both parties for years, historically the majority has gone to Democrats, now that they have donated to the Republicans the left wants to attack FNC." If NewsCorp has given money to any political party, it belongs in this article. Similarly when GE and other corporations make significant gifts to either party, it should be sourced and accurately represented. Wikipedia is not in the business of First Amendment censorship. Republicans See Gains in Governors' Races as Funding Hits Peak by Jonathan Salant of Bloomberg responsibly reports that "News Corp., the media company controlled by Chairman and Chief Executive Officer Rupert Murdoch, gave the RGA Republican Governors Association $1 million in June" and that "The Republicans' biggest corporate donor was New York-based News Corp" and that "News Corp. opposes proposed federal rule changes that would weaken the position of its Fox network in negotiations with cable companies. Governors may have a stake in the issue." In recent decision, the US Supreme Court allows unlimited corporate gifts to political parties. This gift is the largest yet by any corporation, according to the Bloomberg article. Deliberately deleting relevant facts such as these undermines Wikipedia credibility. Skywriter (talk) 13:07, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The million dollar Fox gift to the Republican Governors Association is one direct effect of the Supreme Court's Citizens United opinion. Story, July 6, 2010, in Los Angeles Times by David G. Savage underscores the importance of "The 5-4 ruling in the Citizens United case (which) struck down all limits on direct election spending — for giant, profit-making corporations as well as small nonprofit groups. For more than 60 years, Congress and many states had barred corporate and union spending to sway elections. The court's opinion dismissed all such laws as unconstitutional censorship." For the first time in history, it is likely we will be seeing many more corporate gifts of significant size to each of the political parties. To set Wikipedia policy now, at the beginning of what is likely to be a sea change in the funding of US politics, is short-sighted and it is a disservice to the public that has a right to know who funds what campaigns. Citizens United is the fourth-largest political-advocacy organization in America, according to a recent article in Esquire. The Citizens United decision paved the way for the Fox gift to the Republican Governors Association. It is a mistake to either ignore corporate gifts to politicians or to shove 'em behind closed doors in the darkness of closets.Skywriter (talk) 14:10, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reject, seems largely manufactured. Nobody has complained before for parent companies of news organizations making political donations, and this hasn't really received that much attention.Wikiposter0123 (talk) 20:23, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Nobody has complained before for parent companies of news organizations making political donations" is entirely implausible hyperbole, and "this hasn't really received that much attention" is simply wrong. Google News gives at least 338 articles[2], including UK coverage. Rd232 talk 20:52, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Did you really just say "entirely implausible hyperbole"? That doesn't mean what you think it means. I suppose you could be right about the second part, Media Matters and various other blogs have harped about this quite a bit, and appear to be leading the controversy. That isn't WP:UNDUE and WP:RECENTISM at all.Wikiposter0123 (talk) 21:08, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Entirely Implausible....as in, it is entirely implausible that a logical or reasonable person would believe that this is 'manufactured' or what was really going on when News Corp made the donation to the Republican Party, and the fact that we are even having this conversation implies a titanic disconnect between what you're arguing and what everyone else (everyone else being 300+ articles) sees. Hyperbole, as in 'making stuff up out of thing in air' as in 'blowing stuff ridiculously out of proportion.' Yeah, saying Fox News did not make this donation smacks of Hyperbole. This "Entirely Implausible Hyperbole" seems a pretty accurate description to me. Manticore55 (talk) 06:08, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Yeah, saying Fox News did not make this donation smacks of Hyperbole." Re-read what "entirely implausible hyperbole" was in reference to(about parent companies making donations without being scrutinized), then re-write your response which is pretending that it was in reference to claims that Fox did not make the donation(which it didn't). Also hyperbole doesn't mean 'making stuff up out of thing in air'.Wikiposter0123 (talk) 22:41, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]


  • Wait and See For the most part the only real thing that has attached to FNC and received mainstream media coverage is the letter demanding full financial disclosure. After that, it's mainly incidental mentions in MSM with lots of chatter from the left. I would say wait for the mainstream media (NYT, LA Times, Globe) to pick it up or else leave it in Newscorp article where it belongs. Include per LA Times. Voices from WP and mediacoder from NYT are blogs. Don't give a fuck anymore, not really worth the time and trouble. Soxwon (talk) 21:52, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Are you guys just intentionally ignoring the references from mainstream sources? I'm quite shocked you have the balls to even attempt to shade this as some insignificant controversy only being perpetuated by fringe elements, given references as diverse and respected as:
  • PBS (News Corp.'s $1M Contribution to GOP Governors Group Under Fire)
  • NPR (Rupert Murdoch's News Corp. Gives Big To GOP)
  • CNN (Fox News takes heat for News Corporation's GOP donation)
  • CBS news (Fox News Parent News Corp. Gives $1 Million to GOP)
  • BusinessWeek (Republicans See Gains in Governors’ Races as Funding Hits Peak)
  • Channel 4 (Murdoch donates $1m to the Republicans)
  • Politico (Fox parent's donation causes stir)
  • The New York Times (This Governor Brought to You By …) (as requested!)
  • Los Angeles Times (Fox News parent firm donates $1 million to Republican Governors Association) (as requested!)
  • Washington Post (Fox parent News Corp. donates $1 million to Republican Governors' Association)
  • The Guardian (Rupert Murdoch's Republicanism)
  • The Atlanta Journal Constitution (Democrats cry foul: Fox News’ parent gives $1M for GOP victories)
  • The Orlando Sentinel (Fox News Channel: Does News Corp. donation to Republican Governors Association show Fox News isn’t fair and balanced? )
  • New York Magazine (Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp. Further Aligns Itself With the GOP)
The assertions (from the usual right-wing crowd) are demonstrably false. Keep in mind, this is an article about FNC controversies -- I submit that the titles of most of the references above directly reference Fox News Channel, and that the existence of a controversy is clear given the number of, and diversity amongst the sources presented. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 00:00, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: it seems to me by reading the NY TImes that the "controversy" is over Nathan Daschle requesting Fox put a disclaimer on their news programs, not that News corp made the contribution. I don't really feel like going through all these but if you could just remove the rest of the articles that deal primarily with Daschle's publicity stunt and not with New Corps donation then that would help.Wikiposter0123 (talk) 00:06, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If Nathan Daschle has linked this donation to Fox News and this link has had publicity then it is a Fox News controversy and should go on this page.
So, just to be clear, you're not willing to actually read the source material, but you want the community to consider your opinion to be honest, informed, and in good faith? Furthermore, you want us to exclude sources based upon your own interpretations? Can you please point me towards a policy that supports this highly irregular circumstance? I'm having trouble believing you're here in good faith, and not making some pointy objection based on what you already have decided must be true... //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 00:12, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I only want to read through articles that deal primarily with this "controversy". not the articles that happen to mention it or explain it as a backdrop to Nathan Daschle's comments which are the focus. Trying to wear down editors by mentioning so many articles which may or may not be relevant is a bad tactic to use. It is up to the one supplying the sources to make sure they are relevant, your NYT source wasn't and I just stopped reading after that. I suppose I'll read a few more, but I don't like wasting my time.Wikiposter0123 (talk) 00:18, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sum up:"The Democratic National Committee called into question Fox News' objectivity Tuesday after it was reported that the cable network's parent company – News Corporation – recently donated $1 million to the Republican Governors Association."(CNN)

That is basically what these sources are saying. That the DNC is criticizing Fox for being biased because it's parent company made a donation to the GOP. I haven't yet read any articles(although I havn't read them all) that featured criticism from anybody else. How this could be subsequently drummed up as a "controversy" thus is beyond me.Wikiposter0123 (talk) 00:28, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The DNC is the largest political party in the USA. If they have linked this donation to Fox News then it is a Fox news controversyfilceolaire (talk) 18:42, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have now put in all the titles of each reference given above. Most of them don't mention the DNC until several paragraphs in, and only one couches the subject in the tone of "DNC raises concern." Let's stop burning that strawman. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 00:43, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Then respond to my question as to why criticism from seemingly solely the DNC warrants a "controversy".Wikiposter0123 (talk) 01:08, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Because the DNC are a major political party. filceolaire (talk) 18:42, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My analysis (and yours) as to the "why" is irrelevant. We base inclusion on due weight evidenced by reliable sources. Given the copious sourcing in this case, I think that requirement has been satisfied. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 01:43, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
When you and your "friends" push to have the same information put into articles for MSNBC (parent company GE has donated hundreds of thousands of dollars more for Democrats) then it will be a little easier to see past the politicing of WP. This is only a controversy because the DNC seems to be crying about it. Since they have nothing else to talk about they seem to want to make this a "FNC is biased" issue, when it has nothing to do with FNC. Election season has fully arived. Arzel (talk) 02:20, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If one of the 2 major parties in the USA claims that "FNC is biased" then there is a controversy and it deserves to be added here. Your claim that Fox News is not biased is Original Research and has no place here.filceolaire (talk) 18:42, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You are being dishonest once again. First off, GE is a conglomerate, but their main business is not the news business. News Corp's main focus and largest companies under their umbrella are news organizations. MSNBC is a small part of GE. Secondly, when you say that GE has donated hundreds of thousands of dollars, those are contributions from employees and PAC's, not direct contributions from GE itself. This contribution from News Corp was from corporate, reportedly at the direction and insistence of Roger Ailes. Third, even if GE did give a $100,000 to the Democrats, they also gave close to that amount to Republicans. I checked the numbers for Disney, which owns ABC, and therefore ABC News, and their donations over the past few election cycles were about 60-40 Dems over Reps. But News Corp gave $1 million to the Republican Governors Association and nothing to the Democratic Governors Association! That amount of money is 10 times as much as the amount you're complaining that News Corp gave to Republicans. Comparing the two is simply unfair and a distraction from the controversy raised by this donation by News Corp.

And one of the main companies in the USA is FoxNews. To suggest that this isn't a FoxNews controversy is denying the undeniable. Saying that it has "nothing to do with FNC" is disingenuous.DellDolly (talk) 06:40, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neither the parent company of MSNBC, GE nor the parent company of ABC News, Disney, has done a thing similar to what News Corp did. GE and Disney have both donated to both parties. In the past 4-5 years, based upon election contribution documentation sites, about 55-60% has gone to Dems and 40-45% has gone to Republicans. That's to candidates, and not to a partisan political group. That's one significant difference. Second, News Corp is largely a news media company. Neither GE nor Disney are largely involved in news media - those are tiny portions of the vast GE and Disney conglomerates, especially compared to the rightwing media presence of FoxNews, the Wall Street Journal, and many other media companies! Third, News Corp donated 100% to the Republican Governors Assoc, and 0% to the Democratic Governors Assoc. There is no precedence for that behavior in any arena. Fourth, the contributions from News Corp come from corporate - 100%. A large percentage of the contributions from "GE" actually come from the employees of GE, and are not corporate donations.

There is no fair comparison that can be made between the parent company of MSNBC and the parent company of FoxNews. Any attempt to do so is an illegitimate one, apparently intended to distract from the actual problematic behavior by News Corp. DellDolly (talk) 04:38, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blax, you were the one that said MSNBC did not warrant a controversy article on Wikipedia, although I can write a book on it based on research from the Media Research Center alone. This does not directly concern FNC but its parent company. You wanna criticize Jon Stewart for being a hypocrite in attacking FNC for this when the parent company of Viacom gives a majority of its donations to Democrats?

Remove. PokeHomsar (talk) 02:46, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gentlemen, you still seem to miss or bypass the point... your personal analyses are completely irrelevant. Let's stick to policy discussions instead of playing armchair pundit and/or misrepresenting clearly unrelated discussions. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 02:50, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Policy. You mean like WP:RECENTISM and WP:UNDUE during the summer cool off period where nothing exciting news related happens so everything gets covered no matter how unimportant.Wikiposter0123 (talk) 03:31, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WP:RECENTISM is not a policy. Can you point out the language in WP:UNDUE that you believe supports the "summer cool off period" analysis to ignore dozens of sources? The actual language in the policy is (emphasis in original):

Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject ... in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public.

I think it's been sufficiently demonstrated that there are ample diverse reliable sources that have published this controversy. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 03:35, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Controversy"? What they have published is criticism by the DNC. Does criticism by the DNC alone mount to a controversy to you? It would be a controversy if others jumped on the band wagon and supported the DNC, but it appears that largely news organizations have solely reported what the DNC has said without weighing in themselves. If the RNC criticizes Obama and that gets reported on then should that get mentioned in Obama's article? Somehow I think you would say No.Wikiposter0123 (talk) 03:55, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When a News Organization donates a million dollars to a political party, it deserves mention in the article. I am normally a huge fact of waiting for 'cooling off' but some events are significant enough that one does need to wait for them. You didn't need to WAIT three weeks until after Pearl Harbor to know it was an event. To those who might call that analogy hyperbole, how about the Citizens vs United decision that made this even possible? That case had major historical significance and did not require time to determine whether or not it was necessary. Fox News has donated to a major political party. It *IS* worthy of inclusion in the article. Failure to include it seriously seriously seriously undermines Wikipedia's credibility. WP:Recentism does not apply. Manticore55 (talk) 04:12, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"When a News Organization donates a million dollars to a political party, it deserves mention in the article."
Do you care to strike out or rewrite your baloney argument? Fox news didn't make the donation. Kinda of makes you whole argument seem irrelevant and out of touch(especially the comparison to Pearl Harbor).Wikiposter0123 (talk) 05:03, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Do you care to strike out or rewrite your insult of me in clear violation of Wikipedia Policy? While you mention 'the argument' the tone of your statement is clearly meant as a diminutive and as an insult upon my person. Please apologize and rewrite your statement. Now on to your statement: Fox news did make the donation. Yes, Fox News is a sub set of News Corp, but Fox News is the most prominently visible member OF that corp. I know this because Fox News makes the statement that they are the number one cable news network on a regular basis. Your counter argument frankly smacks of Weasel Words, metaphorically speaking. To say that Fox News didn't make the donation is a False Correlation. Manticore55 (talk) 05:39, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Are you suggesting Fox News prompted News Corps to make the donation that they otherwise wouldn't have? News Corps owns dozens of companies including Myspace, WSJ, and Hulu, to say that they made the donation would be equally dishonest. You are attempting to label this as a Fox News decision without any evidence for that. I won't bother askign for you to strike out your comments, they're pretty ridiculous as they stand.Wikiposter0123 (talk) 22:28, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Include. This is significant information that people seeking out knowledge about this organization could find useful as they try to make an informed judgment. Arguing to omit this information supports a political position and not the free exchange of information that should be the purpose of Wikipedia. This should be included because it is a documented fact and some readers (and that is all that is required) could find it useful in forming their own opinion about the coverage of news by the Fox organization. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.162.109.198 (talk) 04:21, 22 August 2010 (UTC) — 67.162.109.198 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Agree with above comment: "When a News Organization donates a million dollars to a political party, it deserves mention in the article." Period. 04:35, 22 August 2010, EastCountyNewsie —Preceding unsigned comment added by EastCountyNewsie (talk • contribs)

Fox didn't donate a million dollars to a political party. Period.Wikiposter0123 (talk) 05:03, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't the elves, it was Santa! Manticore55 (talk) 05:43, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It was News Corp, a media conglomerate which specializes in news organizations, including FoxNews and the Wall Street Journal here in the USA. The donation was meant to influence elections in the USA, and so the relevant News Corp businesses are those that are in the USA!! That would include FoxNews, and so the contribution by News Corp to the Republican Governors Association certainly IS a Fox News Channel controversy. Trying to deny it by saying that FoxNews is only a subsidiary of News Corp is trying to deny reality and is a lie by omission! —Preceding unsigned comment added by DellDolly (talk • contribs) 06:13, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If it's not to a political party, what's the word "REPUBLICAN" doing in the name of the organization? The sheer number and extent of comments about this matter here is per se evidence of a "controversy" that must be noted on Fox's wiki page. The more comments and dispute, the more evidence the controversy must be reported. —Preceding unsigned comment added by EastCountyNewsie (talk • contribs) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.237.200.175 (talk) 17:52, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Include: The opinion that Fox is biased toward the GOP is probably the most noteworthy thing about the network. The fact that News Corp. Gave $1 million to the Rep. Gov. Assoc. is excellent supporting evidence of this obvious fact. No reason to delete it, other than an effort to hide the fact of Fox bias. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.91.18.87 (talk) 04:51, 22 August 2010 (UTC) — 69.91.18.87 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

No one other than the Democratic National Committee seems to think so.Wikiposter0123 (talk) 05:03, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: most of the new comers seem to be under the impression that Fox news itself made the actual donation, as opposed to it's parent company News Corps, a humongous news conglomerate who owns media entities as vast and distinct as hulu.com and myspace(why isn't this being mentioned in their articles as well?). I would advise them to re-read this discussion so that they can properly understand what is going on here. I will repeat my previous argument, if you can find notable people criticizing the donation outside of the Democratic National Committee then this could amount to a controversy.
Counter Note: I am not a new comer to wikipedia, only to this discussion and I am well aware that Fox News is merely a subsidiary of News Corp, nevertheless, failure to identify Fox News as the chief political spokesman for the views of Newscorp, and those correlate the point raised here is an intellectually dishonest argument. Manticore55 (talk) 05:41, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fox News isn't their political spokesperson, News corps has their own spokespeople. And you speak of dishonesty.Wikiposter0123 (talk) 22:33, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As I explained above, this was a contribution to the USA's Republican Governors Association, and so the companies under the control of News Corp in the USA are the relevant ones. One of the major companies owned by that media conglomerate would be FoxNews. Denying this is denying the undeniable.DellDolly (talk) 06:30, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody's denying the facts, just the relevancy.Wikiposter0123 (talk) 22:33, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: You are about to witness an epic 50+ person pile-on for inclusion that ends at the subsection titled "arbitrary break". After discussion at the arbitrary break subsection ends the discussion continues at a section titled "Failed attempt at..." in a subsection of that section titled "continued discussion". Please do not be discouraged to join in the discussion from this, but if you are then at any point in time just reading the last 10 or so comments will probably get you up-to-date on where the discussion is, but please don't post if you haven't at least read the last 10 or so comments.Wikiposter0123 (talk) 22:01, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Include This was a significant event and generated significant controversy, the subject of this article. Editors attempting to disparage sources on this talk page seem to be latching onto the fact that news organizations requested comment from Democratic organizations as evidence that this was a politically manufactured controversy when it is no such thing. Widgertick (talk) 05:25, 22 August 2010 (UTC) — Widgertick (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Include Any media organization that would donate such a large amount in such a partisan fashion would endure controversy, no matter the political affiliations involved; this should be no different. Ks64q2 (talk) 06:24, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just for record, first edit in 3 months, 3rd edit in 6 months for this one Soxwon (talk) 19:35, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Irrelevant. What does that have to do with anything? You are free to leave a note when it is a new user or new SPA, but this is an established user since 2006 that has made about 1,000 edits to Wikipedia. Your comment for the 'record' should be outright removed for trying to mislead editors. Vodello (talk) 14:44, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Include It absolutely is controversial for an ostensibly neutral media outlet to not acknowledge the biases of its parent organization. When someone on NBC talks about General Electric and any controversial activity GE is doing, there is at least a reasonable frequency of the time an on-air acknowledgment that GE owns NBC, alerting the viewers that the broadcast is potentially biased. Fox is a News Corporation entity and there is therefore a reasonable case (and controversy) to be made that Fox should therefore acknowledge openly the potential for bias in its reporting. Vote (talk) 06:30, 22 August 2010 (UTC) — Vote (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Include When the parent company of a major news organization which explicitly represents itself as "fair and balanced" donates such a large sum of money to one political party, that is a conflict of interest. The public has a right to know about political donations like this one, and their potential implications for objective news reporting. As for editors claiming that personal politics are motivating those who wish to include, isn't that a clearly ad hominem argument, and sidestepping the issue at hand? Personally, I would support inclusion even if it were Time Warner or NBC Universal who had donated to the DNC. Again, this is not about politics, it's about the potential conflict of interest when the parent company of a major news organization clearly shows a political bias. As such, it deserves to be included in the Controversies section. -BloodDoll (talk) 06:35, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note, first edit in 7 months. Soxwon (talk) 19:35, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Irrelevant. Soxwon, this is again an irrelevant attempt to mislead editors. This is not a new user, nor is he a single purpose account. Strike your note immediately. Vodello (talk) 14:44, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note, I am busy in RL and do not often login to Wikipedia. I prefer to browse as an IP, but if a discussion catches my interest or I want to work on an article I will log in. Inactivity and then sudden activity, by itself, should not be criteria for labeling me as a meatpuppet. Now, if I had a long history of popping into controversial political topics on Wikipedia and advocating a liberal viewpoint, your conclusion might have merit. As it stands, I don't think it does.
Also, I am changing my position to Exclude because I have changed my mind, and now do not think this meets Wikipedia guidelines for inclusion (see the latest section on this talkpage.) -BloodDoll (talk) 07:38, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Include Of course. This shouldn't even be up for debate. News Corp owns Fox, and the quote given by the News Corp spokesperson about the donation was very specifically ideological. It's difficult to imagine a reason why a reader should be kept from this information while deciding on source of bias for this network. There's no legal independence by FNC from News Corp and the size of the donation is enormous even for a large corporate donor to a party committee. FNV (talk) 07:34, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
First edit in 6 months. Soxwon (talk) 19:35, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Irrelevant. Notes are to be used against brand new accounts and new single purpose accounts. FNV is neither, making quality edits to articles for over four years. Your constant attempts to discredit votes of established users with misleading half-truths is unacceptable. Vodello (talk) 14:44, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Include Geez. I can't believe this is even being debated. Of course, there have been lots of things that have been debated (and voted on) in the nearly seven years I've been editing here that have surprised me, so I suppose I shouldn't be surprised that I am surprised. --Ray Radlein (talk) 08:24, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
First edit in 3 weeks. Soxwon (talk) 19:35, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Include That it's controversial is evident from the comments on this page. Whichever side you're on, there's clearly debate about this, and that's the criteria. There are reputable media sources to back up the story. It's noteworthy, it goes up. EvilStorm (talk) 10:07, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is the best argument I've seen so far in this discussion. There is clearly controversy. Those who point out that it is not actually Fox News itself that made the donation should be satisfied with a clear, factual statement that its parent company was responsible for the donation. But not mentioning the controversy at all strikes me as a POV willful ignoring of facts. Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:22, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Include Is it really debatable to include an empirical fact? Surprised that someone had the gaul to call it manufactured. And how is it not notable? It got a lot of coverage. This should be a given to be included. 68.227.169.133 (talk) 10:11, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Include Obviously newsworthy. Wording is always contentious, but the donation, particularly its size, is an undeniable fact, and worth including in an encyclopedia article about an avowedly right wing information disseminating organization. I'm disheartened that this is up for debate, but not surprised. Fox News partisans consistently descend upon such issues and create false controversies. Including this is NOT controversial. The contribution itself, IS controversial. The former refers to the encyclopedia, the latter refers to interpretations that can be made on all sides as to the implications of said contribution. --Quartermaster (talk) 10:16, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • INCLUDE Facts are facts. If you dance with the Republican party, donate to one of their campaign organizations, you almost exclusively cite pollsters who donate to the Republican party, and you create astroturf campaigns (tea party) to support the Republican party, then you have no business acting like you are nothing more than part and parcel of the Republican party. If you try to project that you are anything else, you are lying to the audience. Which is ok as long as everyone knows you're lying. But don't act like you're telling the truth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.98.25.186 (talk) 11:01, 22 August 2010 (UTC) — 76.98.25.186 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • INCLUDE "Facts are facts" (above) says it well. If Americans expect the news media to report facts, any accusations of any bias aside, then reporting facts about media companies is essential. If the entity in question is a subsidiary, it still reflects the corporation's viewpoint. Political donations are a fact, and laws generally require disclosure. So the fact is unassailable. It's not as if there is a secret News Corp/Fox donation of $1 million to Move On that has not been leaked. Arguments about the "manufactured controversy" are irrelevant. dadadata (talk) 12:11, 22 August 2010 (UTC) {{[reply]
First edit in 4 months Soxwon (talk) 19:35, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Irrelevant. Dadadata is a long-time editor that has been clearly established and is not a brand new user or new single purpose account. You are leaving these notes on multiple established users, and it is blatantly disruptive. Vodello (talk) 14:44, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • INCLUDE (update my comment immediately above) See the new Joseph Pulitzer biography by Jeffrey Brown. It shows that the historic relationship between mass media, media owners whether individuals or corporations, and politics has always been one of money and electoral support. This is only the latest in a long, long tradition of mass media taking sides in elections. It is pointless to pretend otherwise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dadadata (talk • contribs) 13:27, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Include This was clearly newsworthy, we need only look at the sources and the discussion it caused in media. I do not think the distinction between Fox News and the news corp is relevant. It is also a very large sum of money. futurebird (talk) 11:18, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
First edit in 5 Months Soxwon (talk) 19:52, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Irrelevant Once again, this is an inappropriate 'note' made in an attempt to discredit the vote of an established user that has made thousands of edits to Wikipedia since 2006. Futurebird is not a new account. Futurebird is not a single purpose account. Your comments are misleading and need to be struck immediately. Vodello (talk) 14:44, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Include Obviously. This has been all over the news for days and is very relevant. The argument that News Corps isn't Fox News is baloney, like trying to claim that Walt Disney's "Peter Pan" isn't Disney. Wikipedia is not here to aid megacorporations with their shady obfuscating tactics and damage control, it's here to dispense knowledge. Xamuel (talk) 11:20, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

— Xamuel (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

  • Include This is timely and relevant and newsworthy, and there is no need to suppress or avoid the fact of this donation. Davermont (talk) 13:12, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

— Davermont (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

  • Include This is an important fact in an ongoing discussion about the role of fox news in the national media. To leave out this fact about it's parent company's behavior would distort that important discussion. It's a fact and it's relevant to the role Fox News plays in the national media.Puzzle123 (talk) — Puzzle123 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Include I think it's important this should be included in this article as it's easily referenced and relevant. A major criticism/controversy regarding Fox News is its perceived Republican bias while claiming to be "fair and balanced." Confirmed political donation of a large sum by FN's owner in the run-up to an election is part of that controversy and deserves to be mentioned in that context. IrishPete 15:33, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Include Leave the politics at home and let the Wiki record the facts. There is every reason to include this, and no reason to have them erased, especially since it appears to be pursued for the PR purposes of the subject. Stop the FUD; a child company IS the parent company under another name. Tubusy (talk) 15:43, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note, first edit in month. Soxwon (talk) 20:06, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Irrelevant Longtime established user that goes little more than 30 days without making an edit. Really? Again, disruptive. Vodello (talk) 14:44, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Include giving WP:due weight. If there are enough sources on the controversy as more than a single event, cover it in detail. Otherwise, the single event has gained enough coverage that it warrants a sentence in the controversies section. The exact poll numbers about how they are perceived are undue weight in my opinion and there is plenty of room for one or two sentences about their political donations. We don't have to cover it as a shady practice or judge them for it. Merely point it out and mention that it led to criticism. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:45, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that a majority of the people here that wish to include it are under the impression than FNC never addressed this "controversy." In fact, Bret Baier talked about it on Special Report the day the story broke. PokeHomsar (talk) 16:27, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Include A legitimate news item, covered by dozens of ultra-reputable outlets, one that has a great deal of relevance to a complete picture of Fox, why is this even under discussion? I don't even see why this is in the "Controversies" section - there is no controversy as to whether this is true, and I note that both BillGates and WarrenBuffer contain descriptions of their philanthropy, precisely because this is essential to a complete picture of who they are. TomRitchford (talk) 16:28, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note, first in 2 months, third in 9 months. Soxwon (talk) 20:06, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Irrelevant TomPritchford is an established editor since 2004 with edits to many different subjects. He is neither a new account, nor a new single purpose account. The notes you have left to discredit established editors are misleading and disruptive. Vodello (talk) 14:44, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Include I would not only suggest including this, but because of this discussion, would recommend adding separate section for News Corporation exclusive items.EmanWilm (talk) 16:36, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per the clear and overwhelming consensus of this RfC, I restored the material to the parent article. I'm not sure why this pov fork even exists. As far as I'm concerned it should be merged into the parent article. Dlabtot (talk) 16:54, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Point of order -- this article is a split due to WP:SIZE, not a POV Fork. If you're curious "why this even exists", please check the history before throwing around the "POV fork" label. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 18:08, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Include It is vitally important that this issue be on wikipedia and well-known to the public at large. You cannot let Fox News edit Wikipedia at their whim because something paints their organization in a negative light. It would be absolutely irresponsible to Wikipedia's charter, just as the entire incident is absolutely irresponsible to journalism in this country, if you were to allow them to scrub this controversy from the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.193.201.178 (talk) 16:56, 22 August 2010 (UTC) — 71.193.201.178 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Include Clearly include this. It is newsworthy and noteworthy (see above list of cited national sources, e.g. those posted by Blaxthos) and should clearly be listed as a "controversy" on a page dedicated to such. It provides evidence of a conflict of interest underlying Fox's reporting, even were one to give them the benefit of the doubt and assume that they were aiming for objectivity. --Spiffulent (talk) 17:18, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note, first edit in month. Soxwon (talk) 19:52, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The most irrelevant "note" yet. Now you're saying that if someone takes THIRTY DAYS off, they are no longer allowed to have a voice on Wikipedia? Even further, your claim is a completely false. Spiffulent made edits on August 2 and August 20. User has made edits to several different subjects since May 2010, and is neither a new account nor a single purpose accounts. This is misleading, disruptive, and borderline deserves to be reported to WP:ANI. Vodello (talk) 14:44, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Include A media organization giving an unprecedented donation in favor of a political party, particularly when it is widely reported as it is, is an event comfortably meeting WP notability guidelines. 'Net (talk) 17:28, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note, first edit in 3 months. Soxwon (talk) 19:52, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Irrelevant. Netcrusher88 is an editor that registered in 2002 with edits to many different subjects. He/she is neither a new account, nor a single purpose account. Your notes are disruptive, and I have cleared up every single one of your misleading discrediting attempts. Vodello (talk) 14:44, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not unprecedented. GE has donated well over a half a million dollars to Democrats in the last year as well as about half that to Republicans. NewsCorp itself has historically given more to Democrats, why is it now a controversy? Arzel (talk) 21:04, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Include This is one of the most significant controversies regarding Fox News to date. Of course it should go in Wikipedia. This place is about preserving knowledge and history, let's do our jobs here. 129.15.131.183 (talk) 17:31, 22 August 2010 (UTC) Edit: Right now, it's in the article as a single line at the end of the "Ownership and Management" section. Is this really what all the fuss was about? — 129.15.131.183 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Really, how can something they did not do be their most significant controversy? Arzel (talk) 21:04, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
FNC did not make the donation, NewsCorp did and it is included there. Arzel (talk) 21:04, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Include This is so obvious I would wonder why it's even being discussed but for the fact that I'm well aware of how Wikipedia is used by POV advocates. Sooner or later Wikipedia is going to have to come up with some other method of editing articles. If all the time and energy devoted to arguing over manufactured controversies like this one (over whether to include this information) were diverted to discovering alternative energy sources, the problem would have been long solved. Tom Reedy (talk) 17:38, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is included on the NewsCorp article. Arzel (talk) 21:04, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Include For a media corporation to back a political party by making the largest single donation that that party receives is a clear indication of corporate favour, and a direct and unequivocal admission of editorial bias (something that is hardly a secret if you have ever watched more than ten seconds of Fox News). The purpose of Wikipedia is as a peer-moderated encyclopedia, not as a PR vehicle for a brand. Should the brand feel guilty, or wish to hide this donation, then perhaps they SHOULDN'T HAVE MADE IT IN THE FIRST PLACE. Wikipedia is a historic record. The donation occurred. It is controversial. Therefore it belongs in the Fox News Controversies page. As it is a controversy regarding Fox News and News Corp. Would Fox News employees prefer a new page entitled News Corp Controversies? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.215.1.167 (talk) 17:58, 22 August 2010 (UTC) — 196.215.1.167 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
It is included on the NewsCorp article, you are confusing the two. Arzel (talk) 21:04, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Include NC is the parent company of FNC. The objectivity of FNC is regularly called into question, and in this context the actions of their parent company are pertinent. Perhaps it would assuage those who deny that this is pertinent if similar text was added to articles for other NC branches, such as WSJ. -Shaggorama (talk) 18:12, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note, first edit in 3 months. Soxwon (talk) 19:52, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Irrelevant Established user, not new, not single purpose, yadda yadda your note is disruptive. Vodello (talk) 14:44, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Should I blame you for everything your parents do? Arzel (talk) 21:04, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Include Extensive coverage for highly controversial actions by Fox News. Notable and deserves inclusion. If consensus is ignored after this RFC, the 'editor' that removes the statement should receive a block. Vodello (talk) 18:22, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
FNC did not take this action. Arzel (talk) 21:04, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Little to no edits outside of 9 years ago. Soxwon (talk) 19:52, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why? Does NewsCorp control the reporting at FNC? Arzel (talk) 21:04, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Include This goes to the very essence of Wikipedia. Obviously this story has merit and should be included, if this were about Daily Kos or Huffington, no one would be disputing this, as they have never billed themselves as "fair and balanced"...if Fox is Balanced, some attention needs to be paid to this story in regards to the obvious contradiction. Diarmada 18:57, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are confusing FNC and NewsCorp. Arzel (talk) 21:04, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • While there is some COI issues with the scrubbing coming from a fox news IP address, as an old hand wikipedia editor being asked to come "vote" on an request for comment from offsite, I'm note sure dailykos people get the "not vote" culture. Sure, the million dollar donation is significant right now, but will it be notable compared to the more blatant shows of bias fox news has done in the past? I'm thinking that to not overburden this article, the more wiki way of doing things (at least back in my day) would be to spin off the donation to a "Fox news GOP donation controversy" article and then reference it from either here or the criticism of fox new article (assuming there is one)--Rayc (talk) 19:44, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Abstain Although FNC did not make the donation directly, their parent corporation did, and they apparently failed to report on it while the rest of the mass media did. It seems like *that* is the controversy, not the donation itself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WCarter (talk • contribs) 19:51, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Incorrect, FNC reported it the same day. Arzel (talk) 21:04, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Include Controversy: "a discussion marked especially by the expression of opposing views[1]" -- If this edit page doesn't constitute an expression of opposing views on the topic, I don't know what does. FNC has said there is no reason the donation would weigh on their news coverage. Others see it as the company putting its money where its mouth is. The donation was enough to garner wide and critical mainstream coverage, as well as continued coverage online. It speaks to the widely-accepted conservative bias at the station -- Or it constitutes parent company's free speech. Controversy. Include. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.123.142.53 (talk) 19:58, 22 August 2010 (UTC) — 76.123.142.53 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

It is included on the NewsCorp article. Arzel (talk) 21:04, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yr right. On that News Corp entry, it should link directly back to this page. The blurb there references its conservative media outlets (the largest and most obvious being FNC): "In anticipation of the 2010 elections, News Corp. donated $1 million to the Republican Governors Association. The move was criticized to be journalistically compromising the already conservative leaning media outlets owned by the corporation." Include. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.123.142.53 (talk) 21:23, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is included with the NewsCorp article. Arzel (talk) 21:04, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Include Pretty much since its founding, FNC's been accused of being more of a PR organization than impartial news source, and this event is certainly germane to those discussions. Phaseolus (talk) 20:07, 22 August 2010 (UTC) — Phaseolus (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
News Corp is NOT FNC. Arzel (talk) 21:04, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Include Fox news has a factual record of not only supporting a specific party, but works actively with both their journalists and news programming to manufacture news according to their political agenda rather than adherence to their stated objective analysis. This is not the only place or political party where political bias occurs, but is quite notable to the extent that it goes about doing this. The one million dollar donation is an example of this. Nodekeeper (talk) 20:32, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Prove it. Furthermore, FNC is not the organization that donated. Arzel (talk) 21:04, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You know Arzel, I really think consensus has been reached here. That you are, in fact, wrong. The emperor has no clothes here. Nodekeeper (talk) 21:42, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Include for sure. Other corporate wikipedia pages such as GE, LMCO, MSFT, GOOG, contain information about their political donations, I fail to see what makes Fox special A7244270 (talk) 18:52, 22 August 2010 (UTC)— A7244270 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
FNC is not the parent company. This is already included at News Corp which is the the organization which made the donation. Arzel (talk) 21:04, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why is it extrememly controversial when previous large donations from others (including FNC) to Democrats are not? Arzel (talk) 21:04, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment With all due respect, Arzel, that is not relevant here. This RfC was started in order to achieve consensus on whether or not NewsCorp's donation of $1 million dollars to a GOP organization is controversial, given that NewsCorp owns Fox News - a major news organization in the United States. Personally, I agree with you: all political donations by the parent companies of major US news organizations should be scrutinized and criticized, whether it be NewsCorp, Time Warner, NBC Universal, etc. But again, that is not the issue here. -BloodDoll (talk) 23:20, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This RfC was started in order to achieve consensus on whether or not NewsCorp's donation of $1 million dollars to a GOP organization is controversial...
Um...no it wasn't. Whether it is "controversial" is irrelevant to this RfC consideration (but is a good discussion to have). Whether it is relevant under WP:V/WP:Undue for inclusion in "Fox News Controversies" is the issue. Please read the RfC again. JakeInJoisey (talk) 23:53, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WP:V has already been shown based on the list of multiple credible sources who have reported on this donation and its implications (PBS, CNN, BusinessWeek, LA Times, NY Times, etc.) See above, near the beginning of this RfC, for a more complete list of sources. WP:Undue is trickier. I note that WP:Undue states that "in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public." I would argue the prevalent viewpoint that this is a controversial donation which has implications for Fox News has already been established in multiple reliable sources (again, see the list above). Thus, it satisfies concerns about WP:Undue. Moving on to WP:NPOV, I would suggest that the official responses from both Fox News and NewsCorp be included, which would satisfy NPOV by including both sides of this controversy. -BloodDoll (talk) 02:21, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WP:V has already been shown based on the list of multiple credible sources who have reported on this donation and its implications (PBS, CNN, BusinessWeek, LA Times, NY Times, etc.)
I believe the jury is still out on that question. I've not yet read those sources purportedly supporting this issue as warranting inclusion in this article. I will when the brouhaha attendant to this DKOS incident subsides.
I would argue the prevalent viewpoint that this is a controversial donation which has implications for Fox News...
"The prevalent viewpoint" for the purposes of this article, as I'm confident you are aware, will be ascertained by the provision of reliable sourcing reflecting that viewpoint. While I've not yet read the purported sourcing, specific cites (as opposed to generic characterizations) could be determinative. Perhaps I've overlooked them, but I've yet to see one cited.
Moving on to WP:NPOV, I would suggest that the official responses from both Fox News and NewsCorp be included, which would satisfy NPOV by including both sides of this controversy.
I didn't address WP:NPOV as, at this point in the discussion, it is premature and unrelated to the RfC. However, assuming your position prevails, the "source" of the purported controversy, if identifiable in reliable sourcing, should also be included. I believe User:Wikiposter0123 has argued that point quite effectively and correctly.
As to this discussion, it will be lost in this morass of an RfC and will probably be best continued elsewhere. JakeInJoisey (talk) 12:35, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with BloodDoll that the article should go beyond merely stating the fact of the contribution, but should include a fair presentation of each major point of view about it. Whatever Fox News/News Corp. might say about it would certainly be important, but if they have no comment we might include a comment downplaying the issue from a Republican politician or a right-wing columnist. We should also fairly summarize the criticism. JamesMLane t c 16:41, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Include GE isn't a media corporation. News Corp is. Thus, their journalistic credibility is at stake. Their main arm in the U.S., Fox News, is therefore the natural face of News Corp in the states. Therefore, any political action News Corp takes in the states should be posted and heavily cited on the Fox News page. Eragle (talk) 16:40, 22 August 2010 (UTC)(UTC)— Eragle (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Strawman argument. Show that FNC played a part in this decision. Arzel (talk) 21:04, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Include Come on guys. It's a fact, it's newsworthy, it's in. 67.244.87.198 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:06, 22 August 2010 (UTC). — 67.244.87.198 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Include. The article in The Washington Post singles out Fox News as particularly prone to political influence from the unusually large donation. Notable and relevant. Binksternet (talk) 21:21, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Include its newsworthy and the connection has been made to Fox News by multiple reliable sources including the New York Times and the Guardian. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:23, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Include. It's in the news. It happened. People want to know about it. It's a controversy that involved Fox News. Simple. - GAMEchief (talk) 21:23, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note, first edit in 3 weeks. Soxwon (talk) 20:06, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Include. It is public information, as political contributions are required to be. It is newsworthy and relevant in that it shows "fair and balanced" is not balanced. Tangurena (talk) 21:37, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note, first edit in a month. Soxwon (talk) 20:06, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Irrelevant Established user, not new, not single purpose, yadda yadda your note is disruptive. One month.. Jesus H. Tapdancing Christ. Vodello (talk) 14:44, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Include. Who actually made the donation is irrelevant. Claims about the DNC being the only one complaining are irrelevant. The DNC represents 72 million people. This is about FNC controversies. Looking at the comments here and the included citations, this is a controversy. End of story. Diodisegno (talk) 22:14, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

— Diodisegno (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

  • Include Just the amount of controversy over whether or not it SHOULD be considered controversial makes the case for it being controversial. Basically: News organizations are supposed to be impartial, just giving facts and discussing all sides of the issues at hand. When the organization clearly supports a particular ideology (republicans) it's showing that it's not fair and is in fact biased. ALSO Fox News is owned by NEWS CORP, we're not stupid enough to think that an umbrella corporation is a separate entity. — Antibubbles (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Include A purported balanced news organization gave a million dollars to one party and that party is the one they're (News Corp/Fox News) accused of being in bed with. It should absolutely be included, as it's been a headline controversy pretty much everywhere outside of Fox (who hasn't even bothered to report on it). Sloopydrew (talk) 07:55, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note, first edit in a month. Soxwon (talk) 20:06, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Irrelevant Established user, not new, not single purpose. Do not leave these notes again. Vodello (talk) 14:44, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relevant Thanks for including notes, being established and not new and not a single purpose do not disqualify someone from being a potential meatpuppet. Although WP:MEATPUPPET doesn't discredit a meatpuppet's argument if it is legitimate, it does point out that it often leads people like this person to come make arguments without the facts (like claiming Fox didn't report on this when they were the first people to). If you think his argument is worth repeating(lol) please feel free to argue it yourself or ask the user to come back to elaborate(rofl).Wikiposter0123 (talk) 21:44, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you can't take your own "arguments" seriously with your little "lol" and "rofl"s, why should anyone else? You imply that established users that haven't edited in just 21 days are obvious meatpuppets. I won't respond to your tripe anymore, because obviously you think this is all a funny game. Good luck on trying to make a consensus of 3 plants outweigh a consensus of 80 editors. I'm sure you'll "lol" and "rofl" your way to victory. Vodello (talk) 20:04, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Include Obviously. Talk about a no-brainer. Additionally, those politically motivated editors, left or right, who attempt to whitewash Wikipedia or use it to push their political views should be permanently banned from the project. Dlabtot (talk) 15:53, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]


"Arbitrary break"

This is amazing. I actually counted over 50 potential meat puppets. (Edit: inserting italicized words for clarification)For the purpose of discouraging future meat puppets I am now citing WP:Meatpuppet

For the purposes of dispute resolution, the Arbitration Committee has decided that when there is uncertainty whether a party is one user with sock puppets, or several users acting as meatpuppets, they may be treated as one entity.

Please continue the debate.Wikiposter0123 (talk) 23:42, 22 August 2010 (UTC) Edit: I am not calling anyone in particular a meat puppet, only saying the obvious truth that there are meat puppets present and noting their numbers shouldn't influence the discussion.(Wikipedia isn't a vote anyways). All contributors are welcome to make their arguments down below.Wikiposter0123 (talk) 21:54, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion irrelevant to the inclusion or exclusion of News Corps donation.(Discussion of concerns related to presumption of meatpuppets)Wikiposter0123 (talk) 21:54, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
With utmost respect, I reject that every single wikipedia editor who disagrees with you and states the obvious, that NewsCorps donation is controversial for Fox News, should be labeled a potential "meatpuppet". All of the editors here, even ones that have been here a very long time, should not be dismissed just because several had their attention called to this important discussion.Wingman1400 (talk) 03:35, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Over 50 is more than a few(considering their were only 2 opposing before). Besides I only said they were potential meat puppets. I for instance don't think Blaxthos, SemDem, and the two arguing beneath us are puppets. But if you think there is some diversity of opinion in that massive pile-on that shows that some of them were not puppets then by all means bring up their comments and let's discuss them.Wikiposter0123 (talk) 03:40, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The number doesn't say anything. After the story at DKos, it's only natural that many very real editors weighed in, and many of those may be only part time editors without much experience. Where is your evidence showing these are all new members, joining just for the purpose of influencing this discussion? Imho such baseless accusations are not helpful, and you should show much more restraint. Rememeber WP:Byte and such. If you have any suspicions, don't be lazy, check when those people joined, and bring "offenders" to the attention of the ARC.Gray62 (talk) 09:45, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have never state that anyone specifically was a meatpuppet. I said to base the arguments made on their merit not by their plurality, and FYI:
"of the 61 include votes, 26 are from SPAs, 15 are from editors who have not edited in at least 3 weeks prior to this discussion, and a number have no other edits to this page."
Your attempts to distract away from my arguments of UNDUE weight by making up this whole "Wikiposter says everyone is a meatpuppet so lets disregard everything he says" argument is annoying and doesn't help. I have never called anybody specifically a meat puppet or suggested the "whole opposition" are either. If you have an argument to make then make it, but if you want to argue that the meatpuppet pile on means the info should be included despite significant undue weight objections then I redirect you to the quote I made at the top.Wikiposter0123 (talk) 21:45, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I respectfully object to the aspersion that I am a meatpuppet. (1) This issue was brought to my attention via the DailyKos posting. (2) I have over 4,000 edits since 2005. (3) Casting this unsubstantiated meatpuppet aspersion is akin to asking "When did you stop beating your wife?" (4) Comments in the original DailyKos posting have pointed out the importance of adhering to wikipedia policies, as well as not engaging in destructive activity (doesn't mean that it doesn't happen, but one CAN be a responsible Kossack as well as a responsible wikipedia editor). I posit that the claim of rampant meatpuppetry absent evidence is a blatant smoke screen to derail the discussion. This is a discussion, not a witch hunt. I am appalled at this tactic. --Quartermaster (talk) 12:47, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody's called you a meat puppet.
  1. Nobody has questioned your impartiality(although mine has been repeatedly by you and others)
  2. Edits won't give your arguments more weight
  3. To make yourself look smart stop copying the examples given at the loaded questions page. I see that exact example given time and time again and consistently incorrectly(as you have now[note: I didn't even ask a question). Calling the claim their are meatpuppets here an "unsubstantiated aspersion" is akin to WP:I didn't see that(that being a massive influx of new users, SPAs, inactive editors, and the daily kos post.) I'm starting a list now of every time I have heard someone incorrectly call something a loaded question and used "When did you stop beating your wife?" as their example.
  4. The original comment told editors to come flood here in an effort to stop "paid Fox shills". "Kossack" is that slang term for DailyKos members?(Nobody has said they're unreliable). I would agree that "the claim of rampant meatpuppetry absent evidence is a blatant smoke screen to derail the discussion", but would disagree that this is "absent of evidence", you're not making yourself look more credible. "This is a discussion, not a witch hunt.": I made an arbitrary break, informed the meatpuppets that their numbers would not sway the discussion, and told people to "Please continue the debate." which you and these other two newcomers to the argument are attempting to derail with a witch hunt to portray me as a Macarthy. Not one argument has been made against someoneelses' argument that their argument doesn't count because they are a meat puppet. If you want to contribute to the discussion, then make an argument for your side, and listen to the arguments of the other side.Wikiposter0123 (talk) 21:45, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WHO are you to give orders to other editors? You make accusations here about meatpuppetry, but don't come up with ANY evidence! And once more as a reminder, the problem with your accusation iswn't hard to understand. Meaptpuppetry means, NEW editors join in a discussion because of an out-of-wiki call. WHERE are those NEW editors here? Lots of established editors instead, many of them joined before you did! Your efforts to make it look as if their opinions don't count are outrageous. Either cxome up with EVIDENCE for meatpuppetry, or drop that point alltogether. Once again, if an old time editor reads a blog about a wiki issue anywhere, and decides to weigh in, that's NOT meatpuppetry!Gray62 (talk) 08:55, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Wikipedia process on this issue will continue despite this derailed RfC...and another section is easily established. I wouldn't be too concerned about it. JakeInJoisey (talk) 00:02, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Kk, let's hope not.Wikiposter0123 (talk) 00:10, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Include On the subject of whether this belongs on the Fox News Controversies page or not: With major news outlets clearly covering this controversy as being about Fox News, I think that by definition means that this is an appropriate Wikipedia page for it to be on. While major news outlets may get their facts wrong on occasion, they *are* part of the makings of a public controversy, so when so many of them cover this as a Fox News related controversy, it's fairly close to a tautology that that is a Fox News related controversy. This seems so blindingly obvious, IMO, that I find it hard to take as credible any other content from commenters who claim that it does not belong on this page; making such claim marks the commenter, it seems to me, as someone who came here specifically to "vote" in defense of Fox News and not think about the merits. I can't see any other explanation for, effectively, arguing the equivalent of up is down. Cos (talk) 02:07, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note, First edit in 3 weeks, fourth in 3 months. Soxwon (talk) 20:06, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"so when so many of them cover this as a Fox News related controversy"

People have not covered it that way. They have simply covered that the DNC has criticized Fox for this without anybody else of significance(you know, someone other than MediaMatters) weighing in(if there are others then I apologize, but so far I have only seen the DNC). I don't think the criticism by a sole group who is heavily politically biased against Fox is enough to be notable. As for your ringing endorsement of Assume Good Faith, I'll just ignore that.Wikiposter0123 (talk) 02:36, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Include. Arzel endlessly reiterates that this controversy is about News Corp., not Fox News. What matters here is that News Corp. controls Fox News and can influence Fox's coverage. This donation is therefore quite relevant to the main controversy concerning Fox, namely the widespread charge of bias (although the charge is so widespread and so clearly true that it's borderline inaccurate even to call it a controversy). Incidentally, I've changed the heading of this thread by inserting the word "alleged" per the relevant Wikipedia guideline ("Keep headings neutral: A heading should indicate what the topic is, but not communicate a specific view about it."). JamesMLane t c 02:39, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
GE has donated hundreds of thousands of dollars to the Democratic Govenors, and a lesser amount to Republicans. GE has donated hundreds of thousands of dollars more to Democrats than Republicans. NC has historically given more to Democrats than Republicans. Now NC has given a larger amount to Republicans and it is a huge controversy for FNC? Sorry, I don't buy it. Most of the comments above has been worded to suggest that FNC donated money or that FNC did not report the event. Neither is true, thus my "endlessly" reiterating is correct. It is nice to see other regular editors here supporting this bastardization of WP policies though. It is also a nice afirmation of the exceedingly large general left bias on WP. Does it even bother you that the general RfC process has been hijacked? Or do you simply agree with it because it supports your general belief? Arzel (talk) 04:17, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Exclude: This incident was never reported by itself as a controversy but always cradled within the over-the-top criticism by the Democratic National Convention who made it a public spectacle with their leader's show pony demand for Fox to now have a disclaimer on their shows of conservative bias. If tomorrow they demand Fox has a disclaimer warning for Cabbage Bias because it turns out News Corps has a huge stake in cabbage, that will get a lot of coverage, but would belong in DNC's article. The fact that News Corps made this donation is irrelevant, and would belong in an article about businesses afraid of Obama's anti-corporation policies, not on their article. One political group attacking Fox for the camera's is hardly relevant and is a case of WP:RECENTISM, especially during a slow season in news reporting where everything is reported now matter how shallow. This is just one in a long line of manufactured, find a complaint someone or group has levied against Fox and then make a section for it in their article. If this is still being talked about in 6 months then include it then.Wikiposter0123 (talk) 03:10, 23 August 2010 (UTC) (Note - this is the second !vote from this editor)[reply]
Is it really fair to vote twice?72.62.72.70 (talk)
EVEN if the controversy is manufactored, which is almost impossible for you to judge, the fact that so many prominent voices weighed in, and the huge reporting in the media makes this an issue that should be mentioned here.Gray62 (talk) 10:04, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Gray62. The issue is notability. Wikiposter0123 is implicitly conceding notability but arguing that this shouldn't be notable because it's "manufactured". The fact is that prominent politicians and national party committees all have some power to influence the agenda; they harp on things that they hope will become notable, and sometimes they succeed. JamesMLane t c 11:27, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"so many prominent voices weighed in"
That's my problem, the fact that only the DNC has weighed in with people reporting the DNC's criticism. No other prominent voices have made this criticism(at least that I have heard of)
"Wikiposter0123 is implicitly conceding notability"
Lindsey Lohan got criticized for having Fuck You written on her middle finger nail at her trial, this was even more heavily broadcasted, that doesn't make it notable, that and this criticism are likely to be forgotten in 6 months not making them notable.Wikiposter0123 (talk) 19:27, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Include, this seems relevant to the article but maybe put it within it's own section on the page. I am not a meat puppet.--Craigboy (talk) 05:48, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've never read the Daily Kos in my life. Given that the international press have made the link makes it totally relevant. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:21, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Include! The donation issue should be reported in legth at the News Corp story, sure, BUT the reaction by Fox News, and especially the criticism about their reporting, and the missing disclaimer, belongs HERE.Gray62 (talk) 09:49, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note, first edit in 3 months. Soxwon (talk) 20:06, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Where does this arbitrary break come from? I don't know this from RfA and such. Doesn't this screw the count up a bit? Gray62 (talk) 09:53, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This RfA is corrupted by the seemingly endless parade of Daily Kos editors, and a HUGE WP:CANVASS effort. I suspect fewer than 4 or 5 people additional people would have come here to comment if not for the Daily Kos based of previous history involving these types of disputes and various pages. Also it is not a vote. Arzel (talk) 13:52, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So, what? If the media reports about a Wikipedia issue, more part time editors log in to see what's going on. Only natural. This doesn't invaluate their opinions. And this is not a vote, but a show of a strong consensus, with only few opposing voices, to INCLUDE!Gray62 (talk) 16:33, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ugh, so many people who do not know what is going on. The "media" did not comment on this. SemDem went to the Daily Kos and posted a blog telling people to come here and vote for it's inclusion, after that we had an influx of 50 people come here, post nearly identical posts all vying for inclusion. WP:MEATPUPPET is a violation of policy.Wikiposter0123 (talk) 19:32, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Exclude - Reiteration of previous Comment - Simple, this is not News Corp. It has recieved little attention outside the partisan bickering from the left. It has recieved less attention than many of the other supposed controversies of FNC. The biggest reason why this exploded was because of a false report that FNC would not report on it, when in fact they were one of the first. Similar media companies have donated hundreds of thousands of dollars to Democrats, and indeed, NewsCorp had donated more to Democrats than Republicans prior to this, yet those donations don't seem to be controversial. The donation is already included within the NewsCorp article. I find it absurd for the many meatpuppets to come here and say that this is the most controversial thing that FNC has ever done, when they had NOTHING to do with it. Arzel (talk) 13:52, 23 August 2010 (UTC) (Note - this is the second !vote from this editor)[reply]
    1. What policy supports your belief that we evaluate source material based on your personal analysis ("partisan bickering from the left")?
    2. Why do you continue to try and equate donations by employees and donations by a corporation? Do you not understand the difference between the two, conceptually and legally?
    3. What sources (of the ones proposed above) do you believe are focusing on "a false report that FNC would not report on it"?
    4. What policy do you think states that editor analysis (as in, your statement "the biggest reason why this exploded...") is at all relevant to evaluating sources?
    5. Why are you !voting twice?
    Thanks. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 16:15, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    1. WP:COAT
    2. Leagally they are no different.
    3. I never said that. Many of the Daily Kos meatpuppets are making that claim because the Daily Kos post made that claim, I was simply trying to correct the miss-statement that they keep repeating. Makes it quite easy to spot the meatpuppets by the way. Note the obvious DK angle below.
    4. Obvious, the issue here exploded because for some reason the Daily Kos people thought that FNC was the company that made the donation and that FNC isn't reporting on it. The situation here exploded because of that.
    5. Not a second vote, it appeared that we were starting over because of all the canvassing meatpuppetry.Arzel (talk) 00:22, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    "Little attention"? Quite to the contrary, there are countless media reports, among them stories in the NYT, WaPo, WSJ, Politico, The Guardian, Der Spiegel, you name it. ONLY Murdoch companies barely mention it! And it's obvious that this is rele3vant as a Fox News controversy. The Democratic Governor's Association directly addressed Roger Ailes with their demand that their shozuld be a disclaimer in Fox' reporting from now on! Sry, but your arguments don't hold water. Gray62 (talk) 16:20, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, the article doesn't invite or direct anyone to edit anything. It only brought this discussion to the attention of editors, many of them long-time established wiki editors. Considering that Fox News has compensated personnel to scrub their own entries, your outrage is misplaced. Further, I think it is simply offensive and counter-productive to attack every opposing viewpoint as a "meat puppet" simply because the majority opposes the suppression of information. This has received attention on every major media outlet, let alone Fox News, which makes it a controversy in and of itself. Yes, others have donated...but this was an historic donation by a media organization and the single largest contribution from a private company to the RGA. The fact that Fox News won't put a disclaimer up when they cover the races and refuse to offer airtime to any Democratic gubernatorial opponent at the very least makes this issue "controversial" for Fox News.Wingman1400 (talk) 16:29, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak include The standard that should be applied, I think, is whether the press has covered this as a significant controversy. Wikipedia can not be put in a position of judging the validity of the concern (except insofar as the independently reported facts may be relevant), but merely reporting on the existence of the controversy. How the donation is being covered in the news is a matter of research, however we can all agree, I should hope that many press outlets have covered the Democratic Party's protestations, which may be enough to warrant inclusion as such. If evidence in reliable sources can be found that the controversy is being opposed by folks other than just the Democratic party and it's affiliated politicians, this should be mentioned too. --TeaDrinker (talk) 17:04, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

News reports. Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion.
This criticism got less coverage than criticism of Lindsay Lohan having "Fuck you" written on her middle finger nail at her trial. Neither has lasting appeal, if it did then more notable people would've criticized Fox for this other than the DNC. If you can find significant organizations(not MediaMatters) or individuals(not affiliated with DNC) that have criticized them for this, maybe a nonpartisan business ethics group or media ethics group, or if this is continued to be talked about six months from now then it should be included. Until then addition of this would just be a lot more Soap in the already incredibly inappropriate criticism articles.Wikiposter0123 (talk) 19:46, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thanks for the reminder of guidelines. I think we agree that something appearing as a flash in a pan, or ephemeral coverage, have no place in Wikipedia. However this is something which has been discussed pretty widely, and is something which people in 10 years would likely be interested in, I should think. WP:NOT would indeed exclude a tidbit of celebrity apparel, even though it receives some coverage in the news. However there's no question in my mind that this donation has surpassed that mark. I am uncomfortable with your suggestion that DNC criticism should not be included simply on that basis. If it is a case of a partisan political attack, it should be included and described as such. It should not be our position to decided whether this is Watergate or Swiftboating; we should merely report the notable criticism and the relevant (and reliably sourced) facts related to it. --TeaDrinker (talk) 20:16, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Criticism by one partisan source does not qualify as a controversy. If this was a major thing then other news organizations would have come out and condemned Fox News. A temporary flash of coverage does not equal notability, and your presumption that this will be talked about 10 years from now is a violation of WP:CRYSTALBALL. Unless the significance is completely obvious like China attacking the U.S., items under disputed notability should wait until they have been further shown to be notable. That will be seen if this is continued to be brought up and regularly addressed, and not just being the 15 minutes of fame produced by the DNC showboating for the press.Wikiposter0123 (talk) 20:28, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Check those policies and guidelines again: WP:CBALL is not applicable here. While you review that, check over WP:EVENT too: the likely future recollection of an event is very much part of determining notability. The notability of this event is firmly established; I am frankly puzzled that you bring it up. There is no question that at the very least the DNC has made an accusation which has received significant levels of independent coverage from national and international media. This is not a grey area; this is clear cut. --TeaDrinker (talk) 20:54, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"This may include effects on the views and behaviors of society and legislation. For example, the Murder of Adam Walsh ultimately led to the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act, among other notable subjects."
What's happened here is that you want to take the Murder of Adam Walsh(News Corp donation) and mention in it the criticism of pedophilia(Criticism of Fox News) article before the passage of the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act(future criticism of News Corp donation).
"It may take weeks or months to determine whether or not an event has a lasting effect. This does not, however, mean recent events with unproven lasting effect are automatically non-notable."
In this case no other group has come out to criticize the News Corps donation. Only the DNC. We will have to wait and see if others pick up on it or if it becomes a popular talking point, for instance, in the upcoming elections.
"Reporting with little thematic connection or contextual information,[1] or lacking insight or critique,[2][3] is often considered to be routine reporting."
No real insight or critique in these reports.
". Events that are only covered in sources published during or immediately after an event, without further analysis or discussion, are likely not suitable for an encyclopedia article. "
The list of reasons goes on
"Even in respected media, a 24-hour news cycle and other pressures inherent in the journalism industry can lead to infotainment and churnalism without proper fact checking, and they may engage in frivolous "silly season" reporting. Some editors may take into account perceived media bias, such as Missing white woman syndrome, when assessing notability."
Bias of those reporting against their main competitor, plus it is the summer, real news stories are down and sensationalist comments like those asking for a disclaimer are reported more often.
Try going to Wikinews.Wikiposter0123 (talk) 21:16, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your efforts to follow policy and guidelines, however this is clearly a matter which has reached national and international attention. To suggest that something which has received substantive coverage on nearly all national news outlets (save Fox), and substantial coverage in the international English language press is not notable would be to shave this encyclopedia to a mere smattering of articles. The only question in my mind is how to characterize the controversy, not whether it exists or has achieved a level of notability sufficient for inclusion. --TeaDrinker (talk) 22:20, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"To suggest that something which has received substantive coverage on nearly all national news outlets (save Fox), and substantial coverage in the international English language press is not notable would be to shave this encyclopedia to a mere smattering of articles."

First off, Fox did cover it, they were the first people to report on the News Corps donation leading me to believe that perhaps you have not read through the whole discussion. Secondly, I am not proclaiming that wide press coverage alone is not enough to merit inclusion I'm citing known Wikipedia guidelines. A few points made:

  • "Anticipation of notability may be mistaken. Many events portrayed by the media as major on the day they occur quickly become only a footnote. "
  • "The duration of coverage is a strong indicator of whether an event has passing or lasting significance. Although notability is not temporary, meaning that coverage does not need to be ongoing for notability to be established, a burst or spike of news reports does not automatically make an incident notable. "
  • "The general guideline is that coverage must be significant and not in passing. In-depth coverage includes analysis that puts events into context, such as is often found in books, feature length articles in major news magazines (like Time, Newsweek, or The Economist), and TV news specialty shows (such as 60 Minutes or CNN Presents in the US, or Newsnight in the UK). Reporting with little thematic connection or contextual information,[1] or lacking insight or critique,[2][3] is often considered to be routine reporting. "

Meh, there's more, but you can go there and read it if you want. Wikipedia is loaded with unnecessary information because of recentism and because people think everything that gets a spark of coverage is notable. They're not, we shouldn't even have criticism articles.Wikiposter0123 (talk) 22:11, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, JamesMLane of the 61 include votes, 26 are from SPAs, 15 are from editors who have not edited in at least 3 weeks prior to this discussion, and a number have no other edits to this page. Meatpuppetry at its finest, plain and simple. Soxwon (talk) 20:14, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Soxwon, I quoted the actual Wikipedia guideline. It reads, "Keep headings neutral: A heading should indicate what the topic is, but not communicate a specific view about it." You're applying a revised version: "A heading should indicate what the topic is, but not communicate a specific view about it, unless Soxwon thinks that one specific view is clearly correct, in which case the heading may convey that view." I'd be grateful if you could refer me to the discussion in which there was consensus for that revision of the guideline. In the meantime, I'm restoring the heading to some semblance of neutrality. (Note that I'm not changing it to "Arbitrary break so right-wing POV pushers can continue their ideological crusade to suppress inconvenient facts". I mention that possibility only in the hope that it will help you understand why the Wikipedia community has endorsed neutral headings as the best way to go.) JamesMLane t c 20:48, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To prevent any further distraction over arguing about this and return to discussion regarding inclusion I have changed the title to "Arbitrary break" with quotation marks to note the irony that the break clearly isn't arbitrary, but specifically placed to come after the "alleged" meatpuppet pile-on.Wikiposter0123 (talk) 21:38, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Let's all write in bold! Soxwon, is it your contention that consensus is actually to exclude this information? Also, is that with or without counting the fact that both Wikiposter and Arzel !voted twice?' //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:42, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Of note heres some more international coverage from the BBC - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-11014504 and South China Morning Post (Hong Kong) - http://www.scmp.com/portal/site/SCMP/menuitem.2af62ecb329d3d7733492d9253a0a0a0/?vgnextoid=1d1e672ad958a210VgnVCM100000360a0a0aRCRD&ss=Asia+%26+World&s=News. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:58, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We are restarting the voting process anew down here We just assumed the voting process had started over, thus the double vote. Because votes don't actually matter these are really more just statements of our side. Nobody has indicated that there is consensus to either include or exclude, and by the way, Soxwon was not counting the votes, he was mentioning the numbers of likely meat puppets, so why you took that as a count of votes it seems to me is because you are perhaps a little to vote orientated.
Now can we please stop talking in bold?Wikiposter0123 (talk) 21:56, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Given multiple reliable sources have commented on this and mentioned Fox News it seems worthy of at least a sentence without being WP:UNDUE. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:01, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let's wait until the meatpuppets have abandoned their crusade before we work on wording a statement according to wikipedia policy. Soxwon (talk) 22:09, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
NICE...everyone who disagrees with you will be dismissed as a meatpuppet. That is REAL good to know. All I need to do if there is a negative post on Obama, no matter how factual (such as he was born in Hawaii), is invite people to join the discussion on RedState. Then I can get it get it taken out!Wingman1400 (talk) 22:18, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Let me repeat my statement with relevant portions highlighted: Let's wait until the meatpuppets have abandoned their crusade before we work on wording a statement according to wikipedia policy. If you had read my above !vote, you would notice I have changed my vote to "include." However, I'm more than a little leery of trying to put together a statement that could be contentious with people who don't understand basic policy (wikipedia is not a vote, we go by what sources say, Meatpuppetry etc.) lurking and trying to "fix" it as we work on it. Your opinions are more than welcome, but it would be more beneficial if the actual wording came from those who have experience and have a more thorough knowledge of policy. (And I'm sorry if I come across as elitist, but honestly, looking back at my first edits I find myself constantly cringing) Soxwon (talk) 23:00, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Given multiple reliable sources have commented on this and mentioned Fox News it seems worthy of at least a sentence without being WP:UNDUE." Multiple sources have reported the DNC's commentary on this without endorsement or analysis of it. Given that only one source has actually criticized Fox for this, and since that source is the DNC, that is undue weight. "NICE...everyone who disagrees with you will be dismissed as a meatpuppet. That is REAL good to know." Nice, every argument against you will be strawmanned into being an argument that your a meat puppet and then argued against from that position without actually arguing against the actual arguments which have little to nothing to do with claiming others are meat puppets.(with out the obvious knowledge that of the 50+ pile-on some are definitely meat puppets).Wikiposter0123 (talk) 23:05, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Despite Wikiposter0123's statement, we are not "restarting the vote" (as if it's a "vote"). I have requested administrative assistance. With regards to all the claims of "meatpuppetry":
  1. cum hoc ergo propter hoc - There is no way to know if and/or how many of the respondents commented based solely due to an offsite article. Furthermore, it is entirely possible that someone from the other side made the post in the hopes of creating a chance to discredit an RFC that wasn't going to go his way. In the end, it does not matter anyway.
  2. Only by lawyering can one use the "meatpuppet" claim in this context. WP:MEATPUPPET intends to stop people from going to their friends and having them commit a proxy vote with no involvement -- going to school and asking your best friend to go !vote on something. In this case, an offsite post simply pointed out the RFC and did not include any sort of instructions of what to say or how to participate. There's a big difference between "hey, do this" and "hey, look at this".
  3. The only way the cries of meatpuppetry could possibly be relevant is if this was strictly a vote count. RFCs are not evaluated based on the number of votes, but rather by the quality of the discussion. WP:NOTVOTE and other polices state "this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
//Blaxthos ( t / c ) 23:59, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong exclude - This issue is about News Corp not Fox News Channel. The above attempt to rig this RFC is shocking and a blatant violation of WP policies. I fear including this issue in the article now will simply encourage this sort of disgraceful behaviour in the future. It should be left off. BritishWatcher (talk) 00:05, 24 August 2010 (UTC) (Note - this is the second !vote from this editor)[reply]
  • Include - The perceived problem with the donation is precisely over the connection with FOX News et al. This is made abundantly clear in news reports on the matter. un☯mi 16:16, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The major problem is that of weight.Wikiposter0123 (talk) 18:28, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Include - DNC and News Corp. brought Fox News into this; the DNC by questioning Fox's objectivity and News Corp. by stating their donation has no bearing on their journalist. Clearly there's a conflict. There are mainstream sources to support that, and it's worth, at least, a sentence. Akerans (talk) 18:07, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Clearly there's a conflict", mainstream sources don't seem to support this, see:
Media Matters to run ad on Fox News touting News Corp's $1 million donation to GOP
[snip]
News Corp.'s $1 million donation to the Republican Governors Association is perhaps the best ammunition yet for those trying to undercut Fox's claim of being "fair and balanced," and Media Matters is doing its best to keep the story going. But in a general sense, other news outlets have been surprisingly receptive to Fox's claim that it's a legit news outlet, so it's anbody's (sic) guess whether this story will continue or whether it will die quietly.
UPDATE, 4:07 p.m.: In one place above I erroneously described the donation as coming from Fox, not News Corp. I've edited the post to correct.[3]
Wikiposter0123 (talk) 18:28, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My assessment has nothing to do with MMfA or the incorrect comments from editors on this page. I was basing my assessment on the lead paragraph, and what the sources are saying. The lead states, "Fox News Channel has been the subject of many allegations concerning journalism ethics and standards." The most recent concern being from the DNC, questioning Fox's objectivity based on the donation of its parent company News Corp. When I said there's a conflict, I meant this clearly falls within what the article is about, and the sources support its inclusion. Sorry for not making that clear in my original post. Akerans (talk) 20:33, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My argument however isn't that this isn't the appropriate topic. This definitely is a criticism of Fox News, it however isn't a very significant one with only two members of the DNC criticizing them for it. A criticism is only significant if it gets support from a significant number of people, or begins to become a common talking point against Fox. That is why it isn't encyclopedia worthy. Sorry for misinterpreting what you meant by "the conflict".Wikiposter0123 (talk) 21:19, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wikiposter, can you please point us to the policy you believe supports your definition of "significant"? What policy supports your contention that "criticism is only significant if it gets support from a significant number of people"? It is my understanding that policy bases significance on the number of reliable sources that publish the issue (not how many people have voiced the criticism). Please explain. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 22:13, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"It is my understanding that policy bases significance on the number of reliable sources that publish the issue" Funny, so Lady Gaga is the most significant thing in the universe. It is my understanding of policy that significance is determined by having an lasting effect on something, continued coverage, or is significantly held to be significant. It seems your understanding of policy believes a short flash of news coverage by a wide range of sources proves significance, it doesn't.Wikiposter0123 (talk) 00:26, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Include. That the controversy has been presented, not as a corporate donation to the RGA by NewsCorp, but as evidence of Fox News' conservative bias, means that it should be mentioned on the Fox News page. The controversy need not be of FN's making for it to be an FN controversy. There are many, many reliable sources that say things to the effect of "Fox News' parent company makes $1M donation to RGA", etc. The controversy has been linked to Fox News not by us, but by those reliable sources. It is not POV-pushing to include mention of such, but rather it would be whitewashing to exclude it. As long as we stick to a neutral description of the controversy, I can see no valid rational to exclude. Throwaway85 (talk) 05:30, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, this discussion has for the large part transferred to the bottom of the page in a different sub section entitled continued discussion, please go there if you are looking for the continued arguments after this concerning the News Corp donation.Wikiposter0123 (talk) 21:25, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Include' A significant point of view -- one that is both noteworthy enough to be reported, and is appropriately related to this controversies article -- is that Fox News holds a conservative bias in both its news coverage and political commentary, while maintaining that it is fair and balanced (holding no bias to any political party). If anyone will try to contest that this point of view exists, and is noteworthy enough to warrant inclusion in this article, I will be happy to provide many sources other than HP and Media Matters. While the donation is from News Corp, it's significance (and the only reason it received any attention) is because News Corp owns Fox News. The name on the check doesn't mean a thing -- only how the donation has become noteworthy. — Mike :  tlk  04:36, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article Locked And Prevent Removal Of Cited Sources

The page was finally locked just a few moments ago because of constant changes but I fear that people would make an account just to try and remove the most "controversial" element of this article. Therefore I'm suggesting that a bot or something be assigned to revert any "blanking" of relevant texts that are cited by a legitimate source. At least until the heat cools down. --75.215.244.58 (talk) 19:54, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, how about making an account yourself? Gray62 (talk) 09:34, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

People being directed to "edit" this article

It should be noted and taken into account that the website "Daily Kos" is sending it's visitors to this article - just in case anyone is curious about the sudden, massive influx of would be "editors":

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2010/8/21/895233/-UPDATED:-Fox-News-Scrubbing-Wikipedia-Entry-on-$1-Mil.-Donation- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.168.188.44 (talk) 23:20, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Graci. WP:Meatpuppeting anyone?

For the purposes of dispute resolution, the Arbitration Committee has decided that when there is uncertainty whether a party is one user with sock puppets, or several users acting as meatpuppets, they may be treated as one entity.

And now I'm hungry.Wikiposter0123 (talk) 23:35, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nowhere in your link are people being directed to "edit" this article. 95.208.9.102 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:10, 23 August 2010 (UTC).[reply]
They're being directed to support this change on the talk page, That's called WP:MEATPUPPETing.
Agree. The DKos blog linked above simply invites people to join the discussion on this talk page. It does not tell people to make edits or support one side. How is that WP:Meatpuppet? In addition, I (and other editors, I'm sure) resent being labeled a meatpuppet simply because we have argued for inclusion in the ongoing RfC. Verges on Wikilawyering, really. On the flip side, I have seen several IPs and suspected SPAs in the RfC. Those may be properly labeled as meatpuppets, but not established editors like myself who have contributed to the discussion. Let's stop beating people with a Wiki policy stick simply because they don't agree with a specific position in the ongoing RfC. -BloodDoll (talk) 08:26, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
After it was found out the author of it changed it to "invite people to join the discussion". It seems you didn't read the original post which drew the people here..Wikiposter0123 (talk) 20:01, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And what about WP:Goodfaith? Didn't you read the note at the start of this discussion? Accusing others to be meatpuppets, without any real evidence that they only joined for this discussion, ISN'T good faith! Be careful, it may be YOU who will have to answer to the arbitraitors, if you continue in this way! Gray62 (talk) 10:10, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ha, ha, ha. No real evidence of meat puppeting? Please tell another joke.Wikiposter0123 (talk) 20:01, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As long as you are quoting DKos...how about this article: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/8/14/212516/918
Calling for unpaid wikipedia editors in an open forum to contribute to the discussion..what a scandal. Fox News has compensated shills paid to scrub wikipedia from IP addresses at its headquarters...but that is okay.Wingman1400 (talk) 23:52, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a newspaper and we need to know the signifance of stories before including them. That may mean that Wikipedia may not be the best source for what happened in the last 24 hours. TFD (talk) 03:20, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That $1 million donation happened yesterday? Tom Reedy (talk) 12:59, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A donation of a cool one million dollar IS significant. And the significance also shows in the wide reporting about the issue. I don't see any valid reason not to include the strongly referenced fact in the article about Fox news controversies. To continuosly delete those edits is very close to vandalism, and imho admins should lock this article after including the edit. Gray62 (talk) 08:40, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Would be editor" is rich, coming from an unsigned (!) IP. You sure you are an editor at all? Gray62 (talk) 08:35, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There's no need for personal level sniping, Gray62. I think it wise to have a heads up for any unusual amount of "incoming" regardless of the directing source. When someone posts a "go here and jump into the fray" link somewhere it's easy to note those using it via referrer logging. I would assume most people find orchestrated convergences to be counter-productive. I might also point out it's quite easy for a person to do what called an "IP lookup", it's a very simple matter to convert a numeric address to ISP/physical location. I imagine there is even an article here explaining how it's done. Failing that, a quick googling of the phrase "IP lookup" should be of assistance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.168.183.252 (talk) 13:09, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, as a part time editor, who isn't here every day, I welcome it if reports in the media or blogs alert me about controversial issues going on here. And, excuse me pls, I don't do "personal level sniping", I'm simply pointing out that it's quite hypocritical to complain about "would be editors" when you yourself post as an IP, and don't even sign your stuff! And as for the "IP-Lookup" issue, well, I'm an established, even though occasional, editor here, and I have already been subject of a sockpuppet investigation once that proved I'm genuine and nobody's fool. Hmm, but how come you know so much about this, but post as an unsigned IP here? If there is reason to be suspicious about someone, why not about you? Gray62 (talk) 13:47, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"complain about "would be editors" when you yourself post as an IP. If there is reason to be suspicious about someone, why not about you?"

I believe if you check you will see I have made no "complaints", but have rather just noted the reality. You are more than welcome implementing whatever term with which may feel more comfortable with re: those with an axe to grind who are directed here. e.g "drive by editors", "one-off editors", 'axe grinding editors", "water carrying editors", etc. & ad infinitum. It's the same as a if a site with an axe to grind were sending it's visitors to the Albert Gore, Jr. entry discussion to rant and rage about allegations of prostitution. It's just common sense to take note when such things occur. I understand you may be extremely suspicious to near paranoiac due to not knowing how to convert a numerical IP to the verbose, more literal version. But you should realize that the admins at Wikipedia just have no such problem. While you are most welcome to indulge in fantasies of waging a mighty personal battle against Rupert Murdoch or whatever imagined bogeymen, I assure you the reality is just a wee bit different. However, if you have issues or suspect plots due any totally unrelated (to the real-world issues & questions people are discussing here) issues due some anger, frustration or whatever, please feel free to demand an in-depth "investigation" indeed, if it will calm your nerves. But the best advice, I would suggest, is in dropping the emotionalism and in learning to take am objective, a-emotive position - whether it be on the question here on on any other issues that may arise in Wikipedia. I wish you all the best, but I just have really no interest in cluttering discussions here with people's personal issues. Don't mean to be rude, just to the point. Good luck and goodbye. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.168.183.252 (talk) 05:32, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"The DKos blog linked above simply invites people to join the discussion on this talk page."

By way off addendum - it should be noted the particular "dairy" I cited and offered a linked to was *very* heavily re-edited after it was made mention of here. It suddenly went from "go here to get Fox News!" to "well, conservatives and liberals should discuss it". I posit such 180's should be viewed with a ("an"? whatever) very skeptical eye. If I saw the same type of shell-game switcharoo from some crank Freeper (Freerepublic.com user) it would be just as deceptive and odious. If anything, I believe a lesson to be learned here is "beware any sudden influx urging editing being applied so-and-so". Unfortunately, there is just so much talking points BS being pushed by the left and the right. Makes one almost yearn for "middle-ground talking points" - but that's a personal digression/indulgence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.168.183.252 (talk) 06:00, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another reading of the changing of the original diary (as one who is familiar with the DailyKos hive mind) is that responsible wikipedia editors who are ALSO kossacks contacted the diarist on the back channel and chided him for the tone of the diary, explaining wikipedia policy, etc. DailyKos diaries are often changed, not in order to hide something, but to more responsibly address an (initially) misaddressed contention. It WAS irresponsible to request kossacks to use wikipedia to "get Fox News," and the diarist was convinced to edit the diary to be more responsible, and respectful, of how wikipedia works. DailyKos is a dynamic blog site which engages in self-correction as new facts come to light - sort of like wikipedia, no? --Quartermaster (talk) 12:59, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
no.Wikiposter0123 (talk) 18:08, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually yes. DailyKos is a dynamic political blog, but a high visibility, high quality, and influential one. And it's framework is like a Wiki, so yes corrections can be made. DailyKos can't be used directly as a source, but it has great value as an news aggregator with links to sources that can be used. — Becksguy (talk) 20:03, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Actually yes. Conservapedia is a dynamic political blog, but a high visibility, high quality, and influential one. And it's framework is like a Wiki, so yes corrections can be made. Conservapedia can't be used directly as a source, but it has great value as an news aggregator with links to sources that can be used."If Becksguy was a conservative (talk) 20:03, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just for the record, I think your statement above is factually incorrect. Current Alexa traffic analysis (last 6 months) shows that DailyKos's traffic rank to be 1,189th in the US, Conservapedia's rank is 14,176th. Also, DK is linked to by 12,021 sites, while Conservapedia is linked to by 1,654 sites. --Quartermaster (talk) 13:43, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And FreeRepublic is 1,128th in the US. How about we stick with sources that we can agree are neutral and reliable? Soxwon (talk) 17:02, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Request for evidence of DailyKos manipulation of article

Independent of this discussion, is there any evidence of manipulation or edit warring of the article itself by meatpuppets (i.e., the evil denizens of DailyKos)? It seems like the accusations of meatpuppetry (which I regard as a spurious smoke screen over the issue of the whether or not to include a million dollar contribution by Fox News to the GOP) are ignoring the fact that, maybe, these evil denizens of DailyKos aren't actually disrupting Wikipedia as alleged? Lots of accusations, a paucity of evidence. --Quartermaster (talk) 23:36, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Who cares. Your pursuit only creates more smoke than light. Let's get on with the discussion. JakeInJoisey (talk) 00:09, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strawman smoke screen. Nobody has made the claim of disruptive editing or edit warring by meatpuppets.
Stupid section. Just get on with the discussion.Wikiposter0123 (talk) 00:14, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Stupid"? What about your calls to keep this discussion civil? And it was YOU who started this meatpuppet nonsense. No evidence for this so far. Where are the NEW editors who allegedly joined only for the purpose of influencing the discussion? Most here have been longer at WP than you!Gray62 (talk) 08:59, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We gave up on the Fox News main page, and simply added a balanced blurb on the "Fox News Controversies" page, which even INCLUDED the official Fox News and News Corps defense of the donation. It was removed. The discussion page and the history page on the "Fox News Controversies" section is funny. First the argument was the controversy was "minor", then the argument was it wasn't covered by any other media. When a wikipedia editor listed EVERY media outlet that covered it, then the argument was it required "consensus" from everybody before it could be in the article...and the latest arguement? That NEWS CORPS is not really Fox News so it doesn't belong there. Yeah...even though the whole controversy is around FN bias, and how they fail to even address the issue, and the fact that they won't allow ANY Dem governor to come on their show and discuss the matter, etc. Right now, the scandal is scrubbed on Wikipedia. A REQUEST FOR COMMENTS forum has been called to resolve this matter in the talk section (bottom):http://en.wikipedia.org/... It's essentially two guys against Fox...so if you have an account on Wikipedia, please contribute and let your voice be heard! Wikipedia is always a top search result of just about any topic, so this does matter--Fox knows it.

The talk went crazy after this was posted at the DK. WP:DUCK Arzel (talk) 00:21, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Failed attempt at establishing facts + continued discussion concerning the News Corp donation(go to aptly named subsection to get there)

Because I see a lot of misconceptions going around by newcomers not familiar with the topic.

Currently nothing can be agreed upon.

Wikiposter0123 (talk) 20:18, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You got several things wrong, from the use of "meatpuppet" to the recitation of facts. I suggest that your self-anointed "education" of people "new to this page" is presumptuous and unnecessary, and certainly doesn't show that you're here in the spirit of WP:AGF (one of the five pillars). //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:37, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So newspapers like the Guardian - based in the UK - are just copying the Democrats. Yup sounds totally believable. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:44, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your lack of specifically mentioning anything wrong makes your argument sound so convincing. Eraserhead, anybody reading what I said can see that your post is so off topic that it borderlines trolling.
If there is something wrong, then say what is wrong and why it is wrong, don't argue just because you think the facts are POV.Wikiposter0123 (talk) 21:50, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think a group of people, paid or not, being asked off wiki to come join and support a cause is the very definition of meatpuppetry. However the goal is never to determine who is and is not a meatpuppet, it always should center on the arguments and discussion made, regardless of the source. Piling on support does little but frustrate people. In my experience, new WP users (being unfamiliar with the policy, guidelines, and goals of the project) are not likely to make particularly compelling arguments.
I should also note, the use of paid editors by any organization is frowned upon (although the formal policy on this is unclear). Editors who are paid are encouraged to disclose their potential conflicts of interest, and those who attempt to subvert the integrity of the encyclopedia (paid or not) may be permanently blocked. Such editing can also be a source of embarrassment for the company hiring the individual as well, if editors try to circumvent ordinary process to accomplish their aims. However it is poor form to accuse new users of being either paid shills or meatpuppets without cause (beyond their simple advocacy of a particular point of view).
I would contest your third point; you yourself have contested this by suggesting that extensive coverage was the result of media disapproval. This claim was repeated here, for example. I would further suggest that you're list is grossly misleading, in that it suggests the criticism is only permissible if it originates from the media themselves. Indeed, notable criticism is reported even when it is leveled primarily by political partisans. Consider, for example, the swiftboat nonsense. It is inarguably notable, even though no one other than political shills were making the claims. Moreover the is no blanket prohibition of citation of material from DailyKos; it simply does not speak strongly to the notability. Nevertheless, it can be cited as a reliable report of what the DailyKos said about the donation. Overall, your statements are narrowly worded to be technically correct, but when ordinarily construed, would be misleading. I would suggest, therefore, your list is sorely lacking as advice to new users and they would be well advised to ignore it. --TeaDrinker (talk) 22:43, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Afaik you can only talk of meatpuppetry if NEW members join because of an outside call! Where are those new members here? To call for OLD member, established editors, to weigh in at a discussion is allowed.Gray62 (talk) 08:37, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, through numerous RFCs, those outside of the traditional media (MMFA, HP, Daily Kos, and what have you) have been designated as needing to be judged on a case by case basis. While other, more mainstream sources are preferred, that does not mean they are to be used exclusively (though caution should be used to avoid using the non-traditional sources excessively). Soxwon (talk) 23:06, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed also that they can be used on a case by case basis. However, the DailyKos did not comment on this, a user wrote a diary entry on this. Not the same.Wikiposter0123 (talk) 19:03, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I included your argument to #3 number "Some users have claimed though that by reporting on the DNC's criticism, the news organizations are themselves endorsing it." Am I writing this correctly? "in that it suggests the criticism is only permissible if it originates from the media themselves." I don't remember saying this, it definitely was not my intention to suggest it. Many members have been implying that the media is endorsing the criticism by reporting on it, that was my attempt. If you're reading more into my words other then what they are actually saying, then I can't help if you are mislead. Nonetheless I have changed the title. "Moreover the is no blanket prohibition of citation of material from DailyKos; it simply does not speak strongly to the notability. " A user's post(mentioned diary entry to be more specific) is not a statement by the Daily Kos. I said nothing about a blanket ban on their words. It seems people reading this have assumed I am subliminally adding sub-text to my statements to imply gross mischaracterizations of what I am actually saying.Wikiposter0123 (talk) 22:57, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think since you have a very strong opinion on this matter, you may not be the best person to give advice to new users. I think your phrasing on point 3, for instance, still leans toward a particular point of view. PBS reporting the coverage simply notes that the donation "has drawn fire from journalism schools, ethics analysts and progressive political organizations this week." I think setting up a list of points to agree or disagree with is a good starting point for a discussion, but I'm not sure this list fits that bill. --TeaDrinker (talk) 23:11, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(to clarify I am referring to both sides)I think no one here has any logic, sees elaborate schemes and second meanings behind everything other people and news sources say instead of just listening to the facts. Since it appears nothing has been agreed upon I just erased everything. Great starting point.
Any suggestions?Wikiposter0123 (talk) 23:25, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'd have to concur with TeaDrinker on this point... especially considering what you just wrote, which was posted whilst I was writing this very message. While still assuming WP:AGF on your part, your phrasing and tone seem a bit brusque; almost as if you had a bone to pick in much the same way you're accusing these "meatpuppets" of having one. Looking briefly through the list of proponents of including this in the Fox News article above, I see a great many of user who have contributed a lot to Wikipedia. ARS members, random page editors, one user who it looked like has been working on creating articles listed in the Articles To Be Created listings. This, again, does not credit your position. I understand your concerns, but I would suggest bringing a more helpful tone to this discussion if you'd like it to hold more merit with some editors. Remember, we're all on the same team here. Ks64q2 (talk) 23:29, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A bone to pick? I have no people I would ever hold a grudge against, my tone is the product of my obviously low view of people making arguments related to politics on Wikipedia(both sides), the lack of any direct intonation due to this being written over the internet and not vocalized, and your imagination. I sound much more depressing, and much less misanthropic in real life. As for my actions crediting my positions, people's positions should be credited on their merit and not on the tone being made by them, the fact though that they aren't credited on their merit contributes to my outlook on people arguing here. As for a helpful tone, more of that would be nice, but if you're new to political debates on Wikipedia, it doesn't come easily. I am disappointed that facts cannot be agreed upon because it is assumed that they all carry hidden agendas behind them, obviously this discussion isn't going to go anywhere.Wikiposter0123 (talk) 23:52, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Edit: anyone here who does not think there have been meat puppets here cannot realistically hope to gain any credibility with me.(please listen to what I said and don't read it as "I think everybody is a meat puppet", or whatever sub-text or symbolic meaning you can devise).Wikiposter0123 (talk) 23:55, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)

Looking briefly through the list of proponents of including this in the Fox News article above, I see a great many of user who have contributed a lot to Wikipedia.

Yes indeed, the Daily Kos Meatpuppet list is quite long indeed. You all can ignore the obvious if you want, but you are only encouraging this type of behaviour in the future. Just take a look at the edit history of some of these editors, even the ones that are actual accounts show very little if any usage in the past year or months, and most have very little edits to begin with. The probable correlation between all of these events is simply far to high to be ignored. Arzel (talk) 23:59, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Where is that list? Where are the NEW editors who deliberately joined for the purpose of influencing the discusion? Many here seem to misunderstand the main point of the meatmpuppetry rule. To call for established editors to weigh in on an issue is NOT meatpuppetry! Gray62 (talk) 08:40, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Continued discussion(thanks Blooddoll)

I think we need to stop the arguing about who is a meatpuppet and who is not, who is biased and who is not. Let's discuss this on the basis of Wikipedia policy, shall we - since that's really the criteria which needs to be satisfied for inclusion. WP:V is easily satisfied per the list near the beginning of the RfC; but WP:Undue and WP:NPOV are more problematic. I think Wikiposter hit on something in his list:

"No major news organization has come out and criticized Fox for this. They have only reported on the DNC's criticism without weighing in themselves. Their reports do not approve or disapprove of the DNC's comments, but so far the DNC is the only notable group to criticize Fox."

Read through the news reports and you'll see this is true. Only the DNC has criticized NewsCorp and Fox News for this. If we include it as a controversy solely on the basis of the minority viewpoint held by the DNC we are violating WP:Undue and WP:NPOV. But, you ask, what then is the majority viewpoint? Well, the majority viewpoint seems to be that this isn't controversial - because, as Wikiposter pointed out, the news sources have not weighed in on either side... and in addition, outside of DKos and Wikipedia it hasn't attracted a lot of attention. I think we need to resolve the minority viewpoint issue raised by WP:Undue before we can move forward. If a more experienced editor can add additional policy guidelines, I think it would help in restructuring this debate into a more constructive dialogue - instead of the pie fight we have now (largely thanks to the DKos blog.) -BloodDoll (talk) 07:28, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:V is easily satisfied per the list near the beginning of the RfC...
I'm not yet inclined to either agree or disagree with that statement as it appears to be predicated on an assumed resolution to the RfC question itself. IMHO, the issue at hand in the RfC is whether or not this "event" itself rises to satisfy WP:V sourcing requirements that would clearly identify it as relevant for inclusion as a "Fox News" related "controversy". This, of course, begs the oft-asked question within these spaces and so many others...what, exactly, is Wikipedia-relevant "controversy" and how might it be both identified and properly sourced. To be more specific to this case, do the protestations of patently partisan sources create de facto "controversies" that satisfy all Wikipedia criteria for inclusion? As per the norm in so many of these "controversies", another familiar name emerges from within a Washington Post blog (emphasis mine)...
Media Matters to run ad on Fox News touting News Corp's $1 million donation to GOP
[snip]
News Corp.'s $1 million donation to the Republican Governors Association is perhaps the best ammunition yet for those trying to undercut Fox's claim of being "fair and balanced," and Media Matters is doing its best to keep the story going. But in a general sense, other news outlets have been surprisingly receptive to Fox's claim that it's a legit news outlet, so it's anbody's (sic) guess whether this story will continue or whether it will die quietly.
UPDATE, 4:07 p.m.: In one place above I erroneously described the donation as coming from Fox, not News Corp. I've edited the post to correct.[4]
Now, as to WP:V, let me re-iterate what I stated earlier (and about which I believe you may now concur). WP:V is surely satisfied as to the documentation of the "event" itself but, as you have noted, the "controversy" (with increased scope targeting Fox News) is demonstrably emanating from 2 hyper-partisan sources and doesn't appear to be reflected as notable anyplace else. That case could be buttressed by actual "citations" from purported sources recognizing the "controversy" as legitimate and something more than another "controversy-du-jour" from both the DNC and MMfA. JakeInJoisey (talk) 12:39, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Two things: I don't think we're in a position to decide whether the controversy is legitimate, only its notability, and I don't think the critics are as narrow as you suggest. The point of a controversies page is to report on the controversies around Fox News; FNC's critics will likely be a major player in that. We have no need to (and in fact, should not) include content which would elevate some partisan attack to the level of criticism, but if there is criticism being widely reported, we should not decide it isn't "real" because the source is partisan. I should also point out, pbs is reporting a much wide critical group. --TeaDrinker (talk) 16:15, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"I don't think the critics are as narrow as you suggest."
So far you have provided two members of the DNC, and one not notable ethics instructor at a relatively small school for journalists in Florida whose opinions got mentioned by one source. Bring in notable critics if you want to proclaim that more critics are against this.Wikiposter0123 (talk) 18:19, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
@TeaDrinker First, thanks for your contribution (and to BloodDoll and all editors as well) towards restoring this mayhem back to a discussion of the issues.
As a comment on your 2nd observation...
...and I don't think the critics are as narrow as you suggest.
I concur that "criticism" (and simple interest) is not merely limited to the DNC and now MMfA. I should have made note of the greater breadth of "criticisms" (not a whole lot I'd venture anyway) but I was primarily focusing on BloodDoll's seconding observation that "news sources" were apparently not yet "weighing in" on the relative notability of those "criticisms" identified as emanating from the DNC. The Washington Post comments I cited above appear to reflect that relative media indifference.
Perhaps before commenting further on matters relating to Wikipedia and "Controversy", I'll yield the floor for comments. JakeInJoisey (talk) 18:25, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So, can we all agree WP:V is satisfied for the event itself (i.e., NewsCorp donated $1 million to a GOP organization)? If so, that's one stumbling block out of the way.
Now, whether the donation is relevant to include in Fox News controversies is the major problem. As stated before, I do not think that it can be included in this article (Fox News controversies). Again, the reason is that only Democratic organizations have drawn a link from the donation made by NewsCorp to the journalistic integrity of Fox News (or lack thereof.) Let me just address specific editors here.
JakeInJoisey: I agree with your comments. The key here is "relative media indifference". Aside from PBS, are there any other news sources (per the original list near the beginning of the RfC) that criticize NewsCorp and Fox News for the donation? Do any of them note there may be objectivity implications related to Fox News as a result of the donation? If not, that means this "controversy" is only being pushed hard by the DNC and other Democratic organizations... essentially, a manufactured controversy. As I said before, WP:Undue then comes into play. If only the DNC and other Democratic organizations are pushing the Fox News angle, wouldn't that be considered a minority viewpoint per WP:Undue? Inclusion would therefore violate WP:NPOV by giving more weight to the minority viewpoint held by the DNC and other Democratic organizations. As you say, the majority viewpoint seems to be that of general indifference - in other words, that this is not a controversy.
TeaDrinker: Yes, I think we can decide on the legitimacy of this controversy - and I myself don't think it's legitimate. Here's why: It's not reasonable to argue that we must include it in Fox News controversies solely because partisan political organizations (the DNC, Democratic Governor's Association, MMfA) say there is a controversy. If we did that, we'd have to include every political talking point of both the Democrats and the GOP in Wikipedia articles! In my opinion, the discussion must have more participants than just Democratic organizations vs. NewsCorp and Fox News. So far, this simply isn't the case. But, you say, what about the PBS link you provided? As to that, I don't think the PBS link is enough to prove this "controversy" is widespread, and therefore legitimate to include. Three points here.
First, is the PBS link even a reliable source? I note the story is on "The Rundown", a self-described blog. Does that satisfy WP:V? The relevant section here is WP:NEWSBLOG. I am not sure if "The Rundown" is under full editorial control of PBS. If not, it's not a reliable source. Comments?
Second, there's the issue of PBS being in the minority when it comes to news reports about the donation and its implications. Most of the other news sources simply report the donation, the criticisms leveled by the DNC and other Democratic organizations, and the responses to the criticism by NewsCorp and Fox News spokespeople. The news sources themselves do not weigh in or even include other, independent organizations and people criticizing NewsCorp and Fox News. Again, WP:Undue comes into play here. If only PBS and a few other news sources say it is a controversy, that would be a minority viewpoint still.
Third, the beginning of the PBS blog seems to imply it is a widespread controversy, but does not back it up in the rest of the blog. The only critics mentioned in the PBS blog are the Democratic Governor's Association and Kelly McBride, ethics instructor at journalism training facility The Poynter Institute. So, yet another partisan political organization (the DGA) and a little known ethics instructor from a little known journalism school. That really isn't very widespread criticism, is it - and, in fact, contrary to what the blog claims in the beginning: "News Corp.'s $1 million contribution to the Republican Governors Association has drawn fire from journalism schools, ethics analysts and progressive political organizations this week." Note: plural journalism schools, ethics analysts, and progressive political organizations ... but then the rest of the blog entry cites only 1 journalism school (the Poynter Institute), 1 ethics analyst (Kelly McBride), and 1 progressive political organization (the DGA). This goes back to the comment by Wikiposter123 - these critics are not indicative of a more widespread controversy.
So to sum up, I still think we have the issue of WP:Undue here. Unless the advocates of inclusion can come up with criticism from notable, independent organizations and people, we are still left with the fact that most of the criticism is coming from a minority - namely Democratic organizations. The majority viewpoint appears to be that of indifference. And thus including it in Fox News controversies would violate WP:Undue by giving more weight to a minority viewpoint (that the donation has implications for Fox News) than the majority viewpoint (it doesn't have implications and it isn't controversial). -BloodDoll (talk) 22:24, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Very well said yes. The "notable, independent organizations" that are directly criticising fox news channel over this donation is the key problem, so far ive not seen sources backing that up. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:27, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That is exactly my argument as well. Good articulation of it.Wikiposter0123 (talk) 22:41, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Can someone please copy/paste the exact text from undue that means criticism has to come from "notable, independent organizations and people"? I'm not finding it, and not sure to what text you're referring. Akerans (talk) 23:24, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The very first line: "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources" You don't need independent organizations and people, that was just a suggestion that you could do to prove the DNC's viewpoint is a significant one. If you can prove that in another way then go ahead, but please be aware the a spark of news coverage alone does not prove significance.(although the dieing down of coverage does indicate a 'lack of significance)Wikiposter0123 (talk) 23:39, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If there was no coverage of this criticism, you would be correct. However the fact that many independent organizations covered this criticism makes it necessary to include in the article. There's nothing there that says the criticism must originate in reliable sources, only that it must be reported on in reliable sources. Swiftboat, for instance, never originated from a reliable source, but was reliably reported on. This donation criticism has been published in multiple reliable sources, even though the sources have not themselves originated or formally taken a position on the matter (which is something news organizations do rarely). --TeaDrinker (talk) 23:59, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"However the fact that many independent organizations covered this criticism makes it necessary to include in the article. "
Please read WP:EVENT, WP:NOTNEWS, and WP:NOTABILITY all which state repeatedly that wide coverage of something does not necessitate its inclusion into an article. If that is your argument then you are not supported by policy, and if you have a problem with policy and believe everything with wide coverage needs to be added then you should take it up on the policy pages, not here.Wikiposter0123 (talk) 00:10, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wikiposter0123, seriously dude, you're making a fool of yourself. Notability guidelines do not apply to article content, only to the notability of articles. I have no doubt you will keep trying, but I think we all know your position. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 00:28, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Dude" WP:NOTABILITY discusses that temporary coverage does not warrant an article being created, obviously supporting my point that news coverage does not necessitate inclusion of info on Wikipedia. If you think bypassing people's arguments with slight technical attacks and not the core of their argument makes you look smart and not like a fool and a bad wikilawyer, then I think I'll look elsewhere for a source for advice. Don't expect people to take you seriously when this is how you act.Wikiposter0123 (talk) 00:50, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Did you not read the policy I just linked? WP:N and related policies are not applicable to content discussions. Given you thought we were "starting the vote over" (which is wrong on several levels), and you now doubling down on a position that is explicitly prohibited in the linked policy, either you do not read the policies themselves or you're just policy shopping to service your agenda. The veracity with which you've pursued your goal at the expense of all else is evidence of the latter: you're not here making good faith arguments, but rather interested in advancing your cause. Since every time I ask you for policy to support your positions you either link to irrelevant notability guidelines or userspace essays, and clearly ignore or lawyer around actual policies, I will no longer take the bait. Cheers. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 02:12, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blax, stop pretending you have made any arguments with policy thus far to support your position. I have already explained to you that things are not worthy for inclusion solely because they received news coverage, I have cited WP:EVENT and WP:NOTNEWS for that and you have yet to respond. WP:NOTABILITY absolutely talks about content on the wikipedia(not in individual articles, but content in the encyclopedia). I cited notability(as I've explained but you have not listened) to show that just like in event and notnews which say we don't add material based on news coverage to also show we don't start articles based on news coverage to show that this is an overarching theme in Wikipedia policy, and that no where in Wikipedia do we add content(in already existing articles or in creating articles) based off news coverage. You have stated: "It is my understanding that policy bases significance on the number of reliable sources that publish the issue" To which I have stated the obvious, that Lady Gaga isn't the most significant thing in the world just because she receives a lot of coverage, and that it goes against policy specifically WP:EVENT among others which all state we don't add stuff to Wikipedia because of a flash of news coverages. If you can find a single policy which backs up you above assertion, then cite it. Otherwise wikilawyering will not help your case.Wikiposter0123 (talk) 19:52, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How many different reliable sources actually made a connection between News Corps donation and Fox News Channel? BritishWatcher (talk) 00:05, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
None, and that is the problem. Essentially a bunch of Democratic organizations are claiming there is a connection, and claiming that there is a huge controversy. There are no other sources for those assertions. -BloodDoll (talk) 09:18, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wikiposter0123, if I'm taking that line literally, then the significant viewpoint is Fox New's objectivity, and/or media bias. That's a widely held view, shared by many groups and individuals, throughout this article. So, adding the DNC, and head of the DGA, to that list is not undue. Akerans (talk) 14:52, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It would help if those who are demanding it remain would create a list here of every reliable source that clearly makes the connection between News Corp making a donation and Fox News Channel. At the moment all ive seen is the DNC making the connection, Media matters trying to exploit the issue and some left winger in the far left British Guardian newspaper in a "Comment is free" section where they let all sorts loose to rant. I also note the actual sentence is still in the article, this RFC should be going on for a couple more weeks to ensure we get more feedback and its less influenced by the vote rigging.

There for we should consider balancing out that sentence for the time being, whilst we decide if it belongs there at all. We need to mention Newscorps donations between 2002-2009 which went to both the dems and republicans. We need to state clearly Foxs or Newscorps response to the allegations. By failing to add these things, we are clearly not being neutral although i do accept this whole article is full of those problems, but we do need to address each of them at some stage. BritishWatcher (talk) 00:05, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It would help if those who are demanding it remain would create a list here of every reliable source that clearly makes the connection between News Corp making a donation and Fox News Channel.
Assuming inclusion of whatever content were to survive this RfC, it will be, by necessity, sourced and subject to consensus composition. Let's cross that bridge if and when we come to it (though inclusionist's could certainly help their case with specific cites now).
I also note the actual sentence is still in the article...There for we should consider balancing out that sentence for the time being, whilst we decide if it belongs there at all.
I was honestly unaware whether it was currently in or out and, right now, don't really care either way. It's existence is tenuous anyway and not really worth getting agita over. As to other "problems", let's clear this particular plate first, one way or the other. JakeInJoisey (talk) 03:13, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@TeaDrinker This donation criticism has been published in multiple reliable sources, even though the sources have not themselves originated or formally taken a position on the matter (which is something news organizations do rarely).
Perhaps rarely overtly but surely and frequently covertly by coverage (or lack thereof)...but that discussion is for another time, another place. The issue here (and as was, I think, reflected in point #1 of your earlier post) is whether this "criticism" (which surely exists) rises to a level of "controversy" for the purposes of inclusion within this article. It is that question that goes to the heart of this RfC and warrants resolution. You stated earlier...

We have no need to (and in fact, should not) include content which would elevate some partisan attack to the level of criticism, but if there is criticism being widely reported, we should not decide it isn't "real" because the source is partisan.

...and there we part company. I'll steal and modify your prose to offer...

We have no need to (and in fact, should not) include content which would elevate some partisan attack to the level of "controversy", but if there is "controversy" being widely reported, then it is appropriate for inclusion in this article.

Unqualified "criticism" does not equal "controversy", and there's the rub, IMHO. The floor is yours. JakeInJoisey (talk) 00:51, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I stand corrected, I was using "controversy" and "criticism" interchangeably. To my mind, if there is wide reporting of some criticism of an action (or perceived action) there's a controversy. But I am fine with the distinction you draw; I should think this qualifies either way. What we should avoid is if someone on Kos or such posted a diatribe about Fox and it went no further. Here the controversy about the donation quite clearly it has been widely reported, so it should be included.
@Wikiposter0123, thanks for the reminder of policy and guidelines. I have read them and have applied them or related rules in perhaps a thousand different cases. I can assure you there is a basis in those documents to include the content; but I would encourage you to re-think your argument. Why does not including the controversy make Wikipedia a better encyclopedia. That's fundamentally the question at issue here. Would a person searching for controversies surrounding FNC not think that was relevant? I submit that this sort of thing is precisely the sort of controversy that a user would be looking for. Even if you think it is unfounded, the fact that people are calling it a controversy in the media makes it appropriate for inclusion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TeaDrinker (talk • contribs)
TeaDrinker, I think you're missing the point me and others have been trying to make. No legitimate controversy exists - because so far, only Democratic organizations have asserted that the NewsCorp donation calls into question Fox News' journalistic integrity. It isn't a huge controversy just because the DNC, MMfA, DGA, et al. say it is. The NewsCorp donation does not have an effect on the journalistic integrity of Fox News just because the DNC, MMfA, DGA, et al. say it does. It is a manufactured controversy and politically motivated attack on Fox News. You would be violating WP:Undue and WP:NPOV if you included it, because you are giving undue weight to the viewpoint of a minority group - in this case, the Democratic organizations who assert the integrity of Fox News is now ruined and that it is a huge controversy.
Also, you make several assertions in your reply to JakeInJoisey that I disagree with. I will quote.
Would a person searching for controversies surrounding FNC not think that was relevant?
This is not relevant to the discussion, because what gets included on Wikipedia is determined by Wikipedia policies. You have failed to show that this "controversy" meets WP:NPOV and WP:Undue, among others. Also, unless you're psychic, I don't think you can find out just what someone searching for FNC controversies would think relevant or not. It is a question that cannot be answered with any surety.
I submit that this sort of thing is precisely the sort of controversy that a user would be looking for.
Personal opinion and therefore not relevant, because this is not about our personal opinions - it is about meeting basic Wikipedia standards such as WP:V and WP:NPOV that so far have not been met.
Even if you think it is unfounded, the fact that people are calling it a controversy in the media makes it appropriate for inclusion.
The "people" calling it a controversy consist almost entirely of Democratic organizations - and, as noted above, something is not a controversy just because one person or group claims it is. And the media aren't giving an opinion either way - they are merely reporting the remarks of the various Democratic organizations.
Bottom line: Democratic organizations criticizing NewsCorp and Fox News and claiming that it is a controversy is not enough. Editors in favor of inclusion need to come up with organizations or people other than the DNC, MMfA, etc. who are making the same points. Then they might satisfy WP:Undue, WP:NPOV, WP:V, etc. -BloodDoll (talk) 09:12, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The entire article is full of groups and individuals making the same points. Every group and individual in this article is questioning Fox New's journalist ethics and media bias. So, adding the DNC, or head of the DGA, is not undue. They share a widely held view of Fox News. Akerans (talk) 14:52, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But they are not neutral. Just because the DNC are unhappy that NewsCorp gave a donation to the RPA (even though they have also donated to the Democrats) does not mean it is justification for inclusion on this article. We need neutral sources raising concerns about it and linking Fox News Channel itself, rather than just Newscorp. Otherwise we are giving it undue weight, it would not be out of place in this article which clearly violates it in most sections, but it does not mean we should add more. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:17, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The entire article is full of groups and individuals making the same points. Every group and individual in this article is questioning Fox New's journalist ethics and media bias.
Interesting observation. Were this an AfD consideration citing WP:ATTACK for cause, your comment might be cited in a finding for deletion. JakeInJoisey (talk) 15:46, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is not for us to judge whether we think a controversy is legitimate or manufactured; we simply report on the controversies which achieve a national level of attention (and the relevant facts behind them). Adding your own editorializing as to "legitimate" controversies is a clear neutral point of view issue. But this should be a moot point, since (as I have pointed out before); there's ample evidence this extends beyond the DNC. Even Wikiposter0123 has pointed out some of the other critics. This is clearly a "legitimate" controversy, even by the "neutral" standards being suggested. --TeaDrinker (talk) 16:49, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is it a notable controversy for this page? Every time the DNC moans about something must it be listed on this page? There are not neutral sources showing this to be a controversy about fox news channel specifically. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:57, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The two points, to reiterate: 1. Yes, if the DNC's criticism is widely reported, then it should be included, and 2. the criticism demonstrably extends well beyond the DNC. --TeaDrinker (talk) 17:48, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
BritishWatcher, groups and sources do not have to be neutral for inclusion. If I'm wrong, please cite the policy that says otherwise. The only neutral policy I'm aware of is the one that says we have to write about subjects in neutral tone, even when the sources are not. And, we do have sources to support its inclusion. "The Democratic National Committee called into question Fox News' objectivity Tuesday..." (Source: CNN), to cite one. Akerans (talk) 18:01, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We appear to be inching our way towards what is, IMHO, the nexus of this issue. Earlier you stated...
To my mind, if there is wide reporting of some criticism of an action (or perceived action) there's a controversy.
If I might re-state your position as I understand it...
1. You concur that "criticisms" and "controversies" are not synonymous (in fact, the title of a main article section does suggest otherwise)
2. A "controversy", for Wikipedia purposes, may be defined solely by the breadth of reliable sourcing providing documentation of the "criticism".
3. The number or nature of the documented "critics" from whom this "criticism" emanates has no bearing, for Wikipedia purposes, on whether or not this "criticism" rises to a level that might rightly characterize it as a "controversy".
If that is a fair representation of your position (did I overlook or misrepresent anything?), then I have some diffculty squaring it with another statement in which I believe you previously concurred...
We have no need to (and in fact, should not) include content which would elevate some partisan attack to the level of "controversy".
If we were to apply your criteria to this content, would we not be elevating a partisan attack to a level of "controversy". Is there any independent analysis/sourcing that suggests this is something other than a partisan attack? JakeInJoisey (talk) 20:08, 25 August 2010 (UTC)JakeInJoisey (talk) 18:04, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Striking my last for now as I had forgotten your earlier qualifier on that point which, barring any further amendment or clarification on your part, may render my question moot. More to come... JakeInJoisey (talk) 20:08, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Why does not including the controversy make Wikipedia a better encyclopedia."
The classic inclusionist argument. Why should not Wikipedia post trivial information if someone will find it interesting WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE. I further more contend that people looking for criticism of Fox will either be:
a:Haters just looking for any criticism what-so-ever and not encyclopedic and rationale reasons to hate Fox. Giving info for them is unnecessary, that is what blogs and internet forums are for.
b:People looking for legitimate or significant criticism of Fox in which I think most people will either find this irrelevant noting only the DNC has really criticized them for this, or they will be mislead into believing it is more important then it is because they found it in an online encyclopedia and they just assume only important or notable things get reported here.(as our policy claims it does)
"Even Wikiposter0123 has pointed out some of the other critics."
Only to mock how non-notable they are. A ethics professor of no significance within the ethics field at a small journalism school in Florida whose opinion was posted in a single piece, and Media Matters. Does that sound like a combo that elevates the significance of this topic? No.
"Wikiposter0123, if I'm taking that line literally, then the significant viewpoint is Fox New's objectivity, and/or media bias."
Yes
"That's a widely held view, shared by many groups and individuals, throughout this article."
Many of them also undue weight. "So, adding the DNC, and head of the DGA, to that list is not undue."
No, it is also undue.
And lastly:
"Even if you think it is unfounded, the fact that people are calling it a controversy in the media makes it appropriate for inclusion."
People in the media are not calling it a controversy, they are calling it a criticism by the DNC. A criticism solely by the DNC does not equal significance, and neither does a flash of media coverage on that criticism. Fox news is unpopular enough that if a significant criticism came up it would be widely picked up by its detractors, the fact more people haven't come out and similarly criticized Fox is evidence that this isn't significant.Wikiposter0123 (talk) 19:52, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, "notable" is still a fine word to use in lieu of "significant"...and you can't be served with a wikilawyer subpoena for doing so. JakeInJoisey (talk) 20:18, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I was just trying to use different synonyms of notable to make my writing sound less repetitive, I didn't think it would sound like some sort of wikilawyer trick.Wikiposter0123 (talk) 21:13, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm wondering, just what sort of thing are you looking for to make this donation important for inclusion? (Open to any of the advocates for removal) --TeaDrinker (talk) 20:40, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We've mentioned a few already, here are some possibilities.
  • "notable, independent organizations and people"
  • Media ethics groups
  • Democrats who the general public has actually heard of like Nancy Pelosi, Obama, Biden, Reid. Republicans also but you're not going to find any.
  • Other news corporations, heads of news corporations, or spokespeople of news corporations
  • a movement formed in protest of the donation(ex: a movement started in protest to boycott Glenn Beck's show after he questioned whether the president was a racist)
  • Evidence of a large public outcry
  • Notable(not Mediamatters editors) people predicting this will likely follow Fox around for a long time to come and lead to ratings decline
  • News reporters actually commenting on the significance of the criticism by the DNC
  • continued coverage with in depth analysis
  • people reporting on significant effects this donation has caused

There are a wide variety of things you could use to find to show notability. The lack of these things however illustrates a lack of notability.Wikiposter0123 (talk) 21:13, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good list, it would certainly just take a few of those things to justify its inclusion on this article but so far if that was a check list, theres a lot of fails. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:22, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, although I would argue that if that were a check list it would have nothing but fails. In fact, I am recommending if someone finds something that falls into one of those categories(or another category they have created) to put the ref by it and to "check" it off.(or just present it down below in a post)Wikiposter0123 (talk) 22:04, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weight basically says depth and length of coverage dictates space and detail in an article, and I feel there's enough depth and length in sources to warrant a sentence. I think you're putting too much emphasis on specific factors to happen for inclusion, which is not in the spirit of the policy. Akerans (talk) 22:26, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the average coverage by people on this I would estimate that coverage had largely stopped before the third day. That's not a lot of length. As far as depth of coverage this header pretty much sums up the depth this topic received in the media "Democrats attack Fox for News Corp . donation", which isn't in-depth at all.Wikiposter0123 (talk) 22:41, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

TL;DR version

Point taken, too soon
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Alright, the above discussions have grown way the hell out of hand and reading through the discussion is becoming just plain impossible. For the sake of trying to keep this manageable, is there anyway to condense the main arguments down to two or three posts and/or organize them so that someone can get the main thrust of each argument w/o having to drive themselves nuts? (Note this isn't a "Let's throw it out and start it again" it's more of a "Let's make this so the average user doesn't simply go "tl;dr" and leave)Soxwon (talk) 00:04, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Where in the hell do you people get the idea that you can just throw out a hundred editors' contributions, and/or boil them down? There is no argument here, there is no question here... consensus is super duper completely clear, and there is absolutely no point to continuing to feed the two or three editors intent on not hearing anything. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 00:10, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
See note added, that's a helluva wall of text. Thought it might be nice to summarize arguments for newcomers (as I expect there will be). Soxwon (talk) 00:12, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's a hell of a lot different than a "reboot", don't you think? Starting bullshit like "second voting" only adds to the confusion, which I suspect is exactly why Wikiposter and Britishwatcher are all over it. Over here in the real world, we all know that doing so is wildly unhelpful and completely unsupported in policy. Instead of playing into their painfully obvious attempt to try and corrupt the process, you should either point out the tomfoolery or ignore it. To your broader attempt, yes there will come a time at which it will be time to consider all of the "wall of text" and attempt to make some sort of summary of the viewpoints. However, 24 hours after the RFC started is not that time.  :-) //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 00:18, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Coverage of the Donation

One of the questions has been the extent of the coverage of the $1 million donation by News Corp to the RGA. Feel free to add to these. (Note that some coverage used content or headlines from wire services, so they have similar titles or content.) --TeaDrinker (talk) 22:13, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Non-editorial articles/substantive coverage

  • Kurtz, Howard. "Democrats' letter to Fox News denounces News Corp. donation to Republicans" Washington Post August 18, 2010
  • "Fox News (and The Times) silent on News Corp 's $1m Republican party donation" Guardian Unlimited, August 20, 2010.
  • "Dems fume over $1M Murdoch donation" The Bulletin August 19, 2010
  • "Democrats call on Fox to include disclaimer" Charleston Daily Mail, August 19, 2010
  • "Fox News hit for big GOP donation - $1 million check brings call to run disclaimers on TV" Chicago Tribune, August 19, 2010.
  • "Dems lean on News Corp . for gift to GOP group," Houston Chronicle, August 19, 2010.
  • "Fox News hit for big GOP donation" Orlando Sentinel, August 19, 2010
  • "Democrats Protest News Corp's Donation to GOP" Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, August 19, 2010
  • "$1M gift to GOP draws fire" northjersey.com, August 19, 2010
  • "Fox News' parent gives $1 million to GOP unit" Buffalo News, August 18, 2010
  • "Democrats cry foul over News Corp 's Republican donation" Deutsche Press-Agentur, August 18, 2010
  • "Rupert Murdoch's News Corp . Gives Big To GOP", All Things Considered, National Public Radio, August 18, 2010
  • Lichtblau, E and B. Stelter. "News Corp . Gives G.O.P. $1 Million", New York Times, August 18, 2010
  • "Dems: Fox needs disclaimer -- We gave to GOP", Seattle Post-Intelligencer, August 18, 2010
  • "Fox News parent gives $1M to GOP governors group", Seattle Times, August 18, 2010
  • "Dems say $1M donation skews media coverage" UPI News Service, August 18, 2010
  • Kurtz, Howard. "News Corp . defends $1 million gift to GOP - Critics say donation by Fox News's parent company shows bias against Dems" Washington Post, August 18, 2010.
  • "Fox News' parent: $1 mil to GOP governors", Seattle Post-Intelligencer, August 17, 2010.

Non-editorial Briefs (1 paragraph or less)

  • "Fox News Watch", FOX News, August 21, 2010
  • Hirschfeld, Peter. "National parties watching Vt. race - Big money from national organizations could sway elections outcome" The Times Argus August 22, 2010
  • "Fox News' GOP gift draws flak". The Journal Gazette, August 19, 2010
  • "Democrats attack Fox for News Corp . donation" Lexington Herald-Leader, August 19, 2010
  • "Fox News donation to GOP under fire", St. Paul Pioneer Press, August 19, 2010
  • "Political Headlines", FOX News Channel, August 18, 2010

Editorial

  • Huff, Steve. "Democrats, Obama Target Fox News, Republicans Over Donation," The New York Observer, August 18, 2010
  • Reliable Sources, CNN, August 22, 2010
  • Countdown with Keith Olbermann, MSNBC August 17, 2010.
  • "Fox News Fair and balanced?" Charleston Gazette (WV), August 24, 2010
  • "Does the GOP own Fox News, or does Fox News own the GOP?" Daily Astorian, August 24, 2010
  • The ED Show, MSNBC, August 24, 2010
  • Hagey, Keach. "Brave new world of political giving a risky one for media companies Court ruling that eases limits on donations raises concerns over objectivity, partisanship" The Star-Ledger August 22, 2010.
  • "Political contributions and media organizations don't mix" Dallas Morning News, August 21, 2010
  • Shafer, Jack. "Sympathy for Rupert Murdoch", Slate, August 18, 2010
  • "Fox News Channel" Orlando Sentinel (online), August 17, 2010.
  • "'Investment' in Political Campaigns Can Damage Brands" Advertising Age, August 23, 2010
A laudable effort...but thus far addressing a non-issue. WP:V for the "criticism" is uncontested and irrelevant to the RfC. Is there content in there suggesting something more than run-of-the-mill partisan sniping at Fox News by proxy? If you've read all these, citations...please. If you're going to prevail, you're going to need them anyway. JakeInJoisey (talk) 22:29, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
None-the-less I'm sure this is probably going to become their major talking point(even if it is a strawman), so I've created a subsection for concerns on the coverage below.Wikiposter0123 (talk) 22:35, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Edit:WP:Don't create an article on a news story covered in 109 newspapersWikiposter0123 (talk) 22:38, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I won't assume anything...other than good faith. If there's RfC-relevant meat on those bones, I'd like to see it cited and defended as to the relevance. JakeInJoisey (talk) 22:45, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) @JakeInJoisey: You're back to claiming criticism doesn't count if it comes from a partisan source. I don't see where you're getting that; it is neither demonstrable in policy nor in what makes a good encyclopedia. However, even ignoring that, we have multiple editorial boards taking a dim view of the donation. We even have secondary reliable reporting on the criticism which notes the breadth of the criticism beyond the DNC. I am frankly puzzled as to what else it is you suggest we need. --TeaDrinker (talk) 22:46, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Notability of a star isn't based on its size and neither is your list which is filled with articles by non-notable local news sources, brief mentions of the donation(its own section even), "routine" coverage that didn't go in-depth or provide any analysis, and stories that came out right after the incident.
Criticism is much more notable when it comes from a non-partisan source, a few Dems criticize Fox and now it's notable? Sure, if they had some others join them.
"Multiple editorial boards", the board itself criticized Fox or did just one of it's writers. Having a few writers who no one has heard of on editorials boards that few people read isn't going to prove notability.
As for your being puzzled as to what we want, what about this puzzles you? and how did you draw from that that we wanted articles from the Dallas Morning News.Wikiposter0123 (talk) 22:57, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Two things: your goalposts continue to shift and I have now met even your own personal standard. It is a violation of WP:NPOV for us to judge some criticism, even if widely reported, insignificant because we don't like the critic or think it is unfair. I take strong exception to these bizarre ideas you're promulgating, that we can't discuss criticism unless it originates with people we like (we can demand it be reported reliably, but not that the criticism itself be valid). Nevertheless, I have provided you with precisely what you requested. Editorial boards of several news organizations (unsigned editorials are presumed to come from the board) have taken a stance on the question. These are the "other media organizations" you refer to. National media critics, including Howard Kurtz (Washington Post media critic), Dave Levinthal (Center for Responsive Politics), Anita Dunn (former Whitehouse Communications Director), and Eric Burns (former media critic for FOX) have all made comments on it. These are the "notable, independent organizations and people" you were asking for. Obama was reported (NY Observer) to have criticized it. He is a Democratic politician most people have heard of. Many of the editorials commented on the significance... Will the goal post shift further? --TeaDrinker (talk) 23:26, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Howard Kurtz, he definitely could be notable if he criticized Fox. He doesn't criticize them though, but rather reports that the DNC has attacked Fox news and their leader "is doing what he can to keep the story alive. "
  2. Dave Levinthal, no wiki, not notable
  3. Anita Dunn (former Whitehouse Communications Director), the one who couldn't possibly have a grudge against Fox and is only known by the general public due to the controversy where she stated Mao-Zedong was one of her two favorite political philosophers that Fox lead in covering. That Anita Dunn? Edit: I see that one article on the News Corp donation mentions Anita Dunn's criticism of Fox back during the White House feud, but she is not even mentioning the News Corp donation(indeed her criticism of Fox predated the donation by several months). Is this the comment you were talking about? Because if so it doesn't appear she has even commented on the News Corp donation.(if I'm wrong and she does elsewhere please point me to it, although she would barely have add any weight to the notability of the criticism).
  4. Obama criticized the donation? Boy does he like to unnecessarily weigh in on controversies(like every.single.one.). Oh wait, he didn't. Despite the title saying "Obama Target Fox News" the only mention of Obama in that article is this line:
"The director of Organizing for America, a project of the Democratic National Committee, sent a notice out to past donors to Barack Obama's presidential campaign"

It is important to read the articles before citing instead of just using the info from the headline because headlines often mislead by making spectacular statements to draw readers in that aren't backed up in the article. Ironic that even though he has weighed in on the Cambridge Police incident, the building of the Mosque near Ground Zero, and every other controversy that he hasn't weighed in on this one.(more proof of a lack of notability?)

"These are the "other media organizations" you refer to."

No, these are the other media organizations I refer to:
Advertising Age, Dallas Morning News, The Star-Ledger, Daily Astorian, Charleston Gazette, St. Paul Pioneer Press, Lexington Herald-Leader, The Journal Gazette, Seattle Post-Intelligencer, Seattle Times, UPI News Service, Deutsche Press-Agentur, Buffalo News, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, Orlando Sentinel, Houston Chronicle, Charleston Daily Mail, The Bulletin.

I fail the see why you characterize my request for notable people criticizing the News Corp donation to show the criticism's notability as "bizarre". I don't know why you would think I am constantly changing goalposts when that is all that I am asking for. I don't know what has possessed you to claim that you have met this standard and "I take strong exception to these bizarre ideas you're promulgating" that I am arguing that "we can't discuss criticism unless it originates with people we like".Wikiposter0123 (talk) 00:10, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I characterize calling the largest wire service in Germany as failing to be mainstream press "bizarre." My two points: It is absolutely WP:NPOV to claim that criticism has to come from non-partisan sources. It merely has to be reliably reported on. I totally reject your standard that criticism needs to have been made by people you like. As for your dismissal of every media outlet which contradicts your claims as insignificant, biased, or somehow unworthy of inclusion, I am at a loss. Obviously if the Seattle PI reports something, it is counted as a reliable source. I have read the articles I cited, but clearly we're not reading the same articles.
Howard Kurtz called News Corp's donation hypocritical, and suggested it was "a self-inflicted wound." But don't take my word for it, the coverage of the criticism noted "Howard Kurtz reports that the Democrats have been quick to take advantage of a partisan act that has been widely regarded as a breach of journalistic ethics." That's a secondary source reporting on the events, consistent with WP:OR. You wanted notable criticism, there's an international paper reporting that there is "wide regard" of this as a breach of journalistic ethics.
When I pointed out NPR said the same thing, you rejected that claim too. There's obvious criticism, there's reporting at a national and international level of the criticism. There's substantive coverage from independent media all over the country, including condemnation by independent media organizations. That's precisely what you proposed as your standard. --TeaDrinker (talk) 00:30, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oi, point me to the sources you are even talking about because I think you are misreading them from what I've read.
" You wanted notable criticism, there's an international paper reporting that there is "wide regard" of this as a breach of journalistic ethics."

I couldn't find their report on their site, the best I could find was it cut-and-pasted here in which it says nothing of the sort, so at this time I have to assume that you are either totally incompetent, misspoke, or something weird is going on. Direct me to where you are reading this.

Howard Kurtz called News Corp's donation hypocritical, and suggested it was "a self-inflicted wound." But don't take my word for it, the coverage of the criticism noted "Howard Kurtz reports that the Democrats have been quick to take advantage of a partisan act that has been widely regarded as a breach of journalistic ethics."
Please, where does it say this, certainly not in his own article, and I am having trouble locating him saying these words.
That is really the closest you have to making a point, but I'm fairly certain it is wrong, but I can't direct you to him not saying this because I can't find him saying this. Please point me to where you think Howard Kurtz says this is "widely regarded as a breach of journalistic ethics." because so far that just looks wrong as he has not said as much in his report. Further more when did he call it "hypocritical" are you just making stuff up now?
"When I pointed out NPR said the same thing, you rejected that claim too."
NPR said this was "widely regarded as a breach of journalistic ethics." Show me where they say this.
"I have read the articles I cited, but clearly we're not reading the same articles."
Here's a hint post links to articles if you want to talk about them. I'm not going to continue scouring the internet for sources you don't provide links to that don't appear on Google.trying without quotations just as irrelevant,
Also, I'm not even finding any criticism by Anita Dunn about the donation, you mind telling me what article you think she is? Will you leave if this turns out just to be a huge waste of time?Wikiposter0123 (talk) 06:11, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Now we seem to be getting somewhere. Howard Kurtz called the donation hypocritical on reliable sources, August 22. Specifically it was in reference to Rupert Murdoch's previous assertion that News Corp didn't support the "Tea Party or any other party." Kurtz went on to characterize the donation, noting that other media owners had donated money as well, then saying Murdoch should have know this donation would cause criticism (calling it a "self inflicted wound").
Anita Dunn, was perhaps less direct, said in regards to the donation "We see Fox right now as the source and the outlet for Republican Party talking points. And it's fine if that’s, you know, how they want to build their business model. But we don’t think we need to treat them as though they are a news organization, the way other news organizations here are treated." This was on NPR's all things considered, August 18th.
I can't provide links since not everything is yet on the internet (or at least, not freely available on the internet). While I hold your demands for ever-increasing "notability" of critics is inconsistent WP:NPOV and WP:NOR, I believe we have now met even your standard. --TeaDrinker (talk) 19:52, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Howard Kurtz called the donation hypocritical on reliable sources, August 22. Specifically it was in reference to Rupert Murdoch's previous assertion that News Corp didn't support the "Tea Party or any other party." Kurtz went on to characterize the donation, noting that other media owners had donated money as well, then saying Murdoch should have know this donation would cause criticism (calling it a "self inflicted wound")."
Again, where are you getting this?
"Anita Dunn, was perhaps less direct"
Her lack of directly referencing the News Corp donation might be because of the fact that she made that statement 10 months ago before the News Corp donation during the feud against Fox News.
"I can't provide links since not everything is yet on the internet (or at least, not freely available on the internet). While I hold your demands for ever-increasing "notability" of critics is inconsistent WP:NPOV and WP:NOR, I believe we have now met even your standard."
You have not provided a single other person aside from Howard Kurtz who I question has said the things you claim he has said. If it's on a pay for site, then why don't you cut and paste the article onto your talkpage or mine. As for other places like Deutsche Press-Agentur, how are you accessing those? Do you order a subscription to Deutsche Press-Agentur.Wikiposter0123 (talk) 22:38, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was reading Kurtz's quote off of a transcript of "Reliable Sources" on CNN, August 22, 2010. I got Anita Dunn's comment from NPR's All Things Considered transcript from August 18, 2010. It seemed from the transcript that they were including it as relevant to this discussion. However it would appear that they copied it in from a previous interview, which I apologize for the confusion.
Kurtz, I should note, is the host of Reliable Sources and specifically discussed the donation from the final commercial break to the end of the show (with two other mentions of other media events, both less than a paragraph of text). I have a University subscription to a full text news service which provides searchable full text of news around the world. I can not cut and paste any significant amount of text from a source under copyright--to your talk page or this one. Copyrights are, I'm afraid, non-negotiable.
I am still astonished you would take the more than 30 references I provided and dismiss all of them for one reason or another. I think, in light of those extensive references, Kurtz is a voice in a chorus. Moreover, you seem to insist that he hold a particular viewpoint to include any discussion in the text. This is absurd. You recognize him as a notable media commentator making comments on the topic. Whatever his viewpoint, it is clearly a topic of national discussion. --TeaDrinker (talk) 23:03, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Whatever his viewpoint, it is clearly a topic of national discussion." No. "I am still astonished you would take the more than 30 references I provided and dismiss all of them for one reason or another." I have consistently asked for more critics, not more sources reporting on something that two members of the DNC said. I certainly was not looking for an editorial from the Daily Astorian. "I can not cut and paste any significant amount of text from a source under copyright--to your talk page or this one." Then post the quotes. "Moreover, you seem to insist that he hold a particular viewpoint to include any discussion in the text. This is absurd." By a particular viewpoint I simply ask that he hold a viewpoint, and that you can provide a quote of him saying that.(don't need the source, just the relevant paragraph)Wikiposter0123 (talk) 23:11, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Considerations regarding coverage

Below are some things to take into consideration regarding the coverage.

  • A major concern for editors against the inclusion regards the lack of continued coverage, so additional weight will be given to articles that are provided which followed up on the story on later dates.
  • It should be noted that per WP:BREAKING:
"It is wise to delay writing an article about a breaking news event until the significance of the event is clearer as early coverage may lack perspective and be subject to factual errors."(emphasis mine)

Many breaking news stories falsely reported that Fox did not report on the News Corp donation when they broke it first, another example of why lasting coverage and follow up articles are more valued than the immediate coverage. Example:

"Fox News (and The Times) silent on News Corp 's $1m Republican party donation" Guardian Unlimited, August 20, 2010.
  • General guidelines of Wikipedia state that news sources that are either local, obscure, out of the mainstream, internet only or self-published are not generally used for proving notability. From Notability in Wikipedia#Sourcing:
Notability should be demonstrated using reliable sources according to Wikipedia guidelines (not policy). Reliable sources generally include mainstream news media and major academic journals, and exclude self-published sources, particularly when self-published on the internet. The foundation of this theory is that such sources "exercise some form of editorial control."

New sources that seem to fit this description will generally recieve less weight than those of the mainstream. These sources include:
#Advertising Age

  1. Dallas Morning News
  2. The Star-Ledger
  3. Daily Astorian
  4. Charleston Gazette
  5. St. Paul Pioneer Press
  6. Lexington Herald-Leader
  7. The Journal Gazette
  8. Seattle Post-Intelligencer
  9. Seattle Times
  10. UPI News Service
  11. Deutsche Press-Agentur
  12. Buffalo News
  13. Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
  14. Orlando Sentinel
  15. Houston Chronicle
  16. Charleston Daily Mail
  17. The Bulletin

Feel free to place additional concerns.Wikiposter0123 (talk) 22:35, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to request you either start a new section or post to the bottom. But seriously, major metropolitan dailies are pretty clearly mainstream news. --TeaDrinker (talk) 23:53, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Chicago Tribune, the Washington Times, The LA Times, sure. The Seattle Times? Definitely not nearly as much weight should be given to them.Wikiposter0123 (talk) 05:23, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The WP:BREAKING guideline is usually geared toward avoiding creating articles where it is unclear of the notability of the subject. Here it has been reported by many independent journalists, and has been discussed by many editorialists (additionally, we're not creating a new article). It's notability is secure; I would suggest there's even enough coverage for a separate article, were someone interested in writing one. The suggestion that there's insufficient evidence of the notability of this controversy, when it has been covered in depth by multiple national and international organizations, boggles my mind. --TeaDrinker (talk) 22:55, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It should be noted that most of the sources listed above specifically focus on News Corp and Murdoch in their title. This reinforces my argument that this is really about News Corp and Murdoch. It is not a controversy that FNC had anything to do with, and I have yet to see a rational reason why this is an notable controversy that FNC was involved in. Arzel (talk) 23:27, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is ironic you don't think that a guideline which suggest using later articles instead of breaking news because they might contain factual errors when multiple editors here have suggested that Fox's lack of reporting on the issue is evidence of it's bias despite the fact they reported on it first with one editor even saying:

"Although FNC did not make the donation directly, their parent corporation did, and they apparently failed to report on it while the rest of the mass media did. It seems like *that* is the controversy, not the donation itself."

The fact that you would suggest this warrants its own article suggests to me that you are a fundamentalist inclusionist, who both does not understand WP:UNDUE, WP:NPOV, WP:NOTABILITY, and WP:EVENT, but perhaps has not even read any of the arguments against inclusion which has stated many times that policy does not dictate notability by amount of news coverage. Claiming your mind is boggled by this discussion doesn't make it seem that you understand what this discussion is about.Wikiposter0123 (talk) 23:21, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My mind is boggled because I have a hard time following your argument. Now you are claiming that we can't cover something which happened recently, as a rule? I can assure you, when something is unclear if it will received much media attention or not, we might tend toward caution in creating a new article. However when something has already received substantive attention, it is part of the historical and public record. It should be included. WP:BREAKING doesn't really apply. --TeaDrinker (talk) 23:37, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a history of our discussion
I said this:"Bring in notable critics if you want to proclaim that more critics are against this."
Then you said this"Now you are claiming that we can't cover something which happened recently, as a rule?"
Then this"I take strong exception to these bizarre ideas you're promulgating, that we can't discuss criticism unless it originates with people we like"
Then this"I totally reject your standard that criticism needs to have been made by people you like."
I cited WP:BREAKING to note that "early coverage may lack perspective and be subject to factual errors." and then pointed out the errors early reports made in reporting that Fox hadn't reported on the news.
You responded:"WP:BREAKING doesn't really apply."
You said "My mind is boggled because I have a hard time following your argument.", and to repeat, it is: You need notable people or groups levying a criticism to make it notable. Notable does not equal non-partisan, I have not said that, but have suggested non-partisan sources would help you're argument for notability as they would have more weight to them.Wikiposter0123 (talk) 05:22, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@TeaDrinker You're back to claiming criticism doesn't count if it comes from a partisan source.
That mis-represents my position. Here's my quote...

Is there content in there suggesting something more than run-of-the-mill partisan sniping at Fox News by proxy?

That's the question that this RfC is addressing. Is this "criticism" recognized by reliable sourcing as something more substantive than opportunistic partisan Fox News sniping at a level that would make it relevant for consideration as a "Fox News Controversy"? Please show me some cites (not just articles) that you purport will make that case. What criteria define a "criticism" as opposed to a "controversy" and how is that reflected in the citations that will make that case?

I've already provided a citation from the Washington Post that appears to rebut your contention. Another rebuttal indicy would be the disappearance of this story from active news coverage. Is any news source still expressing an interest in it? JakeInJoisey (talk) 00:11, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Which policy or guideline is it that prescribes measuring "active news coverage"? I'm interested in knowing what P/G's recommend is a suitable amount of time. As far as I'm aware, the governing policies deal with the number of reliable sources, not for how long it was in the newspapers... //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 00:24, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Which policy or guideline is it that prescribes measuring "active news coverage"?
I suppose that might be relevant were this a discussion on actual content composition. It isn't. It's an RfC on whether or not this issue might be legitimately identifiable as a "Fox News Controversy". There is no WP P/G that precludes consideration of anything in that regard. The relative shelf-life, political affiliation, depth and breadth of reliable sourcing that support tying "Fox News" journalistic integrity to this "criticism" are all germane indicies for consideration in this RfC. JakeInJoisey (talk) 13:45, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
An appropriate consideration and worth discussion. However, I've responded to TeaDrinker above and I'm quite curious what those who advocate for inclusion think of that Washington Post blog entry I cited. To be quite honest, I've not done much looking around since I read that but I thought it quite pointedly addressed issues we're debating here. JakeInJoisey (talk) 00:38, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Can you repost the link? There's at least three references to story from the Washington Post proper, but I don't know the blog source you're referring to. I am also curious about your answer to Blaxthos's question. --TeaDrinker (talk) 00:45, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Here it is again...(emphasis mine - a short observation following)
Media Matters to run ad on Fox News touting News Corp's $1 million donation to GOP
[snip]
News Corp.'s $1 million donation to the Republican Governors Association is perhaps the best ammunition yet for those trying to undercut Fox's claim of being "fair and balanced," and Media Matters is doing its best to keep the story going. But in a general sense, other news outlets have been surprisingly receptive to Fox's claim that it's a legit news outlet, so it's anbody's guess whether this story will continue or whether it will die quietly.
UPDATE, 4:07 p.m.: In one place above I erroneously described the donation as coming from Fox, not News Corp. I've edited the post to correct.[5]
...anbody's (sic) guess whether this story will continue or whether it will die quietly.
If this story doesn't have substance enough to satisfy a probably sympathetic media observer that there's some "there there", how does it get elevated in Wikipedia to the level of a "Fox News Controversy"? JakeInJoisey (talk) 01:32, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's why it's only worth a sentence. But, it's also worth a sentence because Fox News is being criticized for its parent giving "one of the biggest [donations] ever" (source: NY Times). Akerans (talk) 02:25, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Assuming you are refering to the following...
The contribution from Mr. Murdoch’s News Corporation, which owns Fox News, The Wall Street Journal, The New York Post and other news outlets, is one of the biggest ever given by a media organization, campaign finance experts said.
...that looks like rather benign reportage to me. Where is it you see the "criticism"? JakeInJoisey (talk) 03:01, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The criticism is from other sources, and I'm not saying we should synthesize these sources. I was providing an alternate view to the "this is just a typical news story and doesn't belong here" (paraphrased) argument. That is, if this was just a typical news story, then I would agree it doesn't belong. However, since this is one of the biggest donations ever, we shouldn't dismiss the criticism as typical news. Akerans (talk) 16:47, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To Blax's concerns about need ongoing coverage: It's a very simple policy that I've mentioned multiple times but I suppose haven't linked you to, it's called WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE. The opening line reads "The duration of coverage is a strong indicator of whether an event has passing or lasting significance." "That's why it's only worth a sentence. But, it's also worth a sentence because Fox News is being criticized for its parent giving "one of the biggest [donations] ever"" So the criticism is barely notable, but the donation because it is notable makes the criticism notable enough. So by your reasoning, if having a hangnail is not notable, but Lady Gaga is notable, so then Lady Gaga having a hangnail is notable.Wikiposter0123 (talk) 04:58, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Uh huh. So you are blatantly ignoring policy, which is directly on point (emphasis in original):

The notability guidelines are only used to determine whether a topic can have its own separate article on Wikipedia and do not govern article content. The question of content coverage within a given page is governed by the principle of due weight and other content policies.

Could we please stop making things up, or trying to justify positions based on irrelevant policies and invented interpretations? Thanks! //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 11:52, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Uh, Blax, you're in the wrong argument.
You said "Which policy or guideline is it that prescribes measuring "active news coverage"?"
Then I said "...it's called WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE. The opening line reads "The duration of coverage is a strong indicator of whether an event has passing or lasting significance."
To which you responded "Uh huh. So you are blatantly ignoring policy, which is directly on point (emphasis in original):

The notability guidelines are only used to determine whether a topic can have its own separate article on Wikipedia and do not govern article content. The question of content coverage within a given page is governed by the principle of due weight and other content policies.

Could we please stop making things up, or trying to justify positions based on irrelevant policies and invented interpretations? Thanks!"
If you notice, the talk was on continued coverage and discussing the importance of continuing coverage to show notability. Which is not "irrelevant policies" and "invented interpretations". Please join in on the current discussion now of whether the notability of the News Corp donation signifies notability of the criticism of the News Corp donation down below.Wikiposter0123 (talk) 18:50, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@TeaDrinker (or anyone) I have not yet voted on this RfC. Among other considerations, I have asked for specific citations that might argue for elevation of this suggested content from criticism-du-jour of Fox News via News Corp proxy to actual "Fox News Controversy" level but few, if any, actual citations (beyond article lists) have been offered. Somewhere above TeaDrinker suggested a Howard Kurtz commentary as particularly germane in making a case for inclusion. I overlooked that discussion earlier as the thread had become just too rancorous. If Howard Kurtz (or something else) is deemed to be representative, how 'bout citing them again here for examination? JakeInJoisey (talk) 12:10, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"The criticism is from other sources, and I'm not saying we should synthesize these sources. I was providing an alternate view to the "this is just a typical news story and doesn't belong here" (paraphrased) argument. That is, if this was just a typical news story, then I would agree it doesn't belong. However, since this is one of the biggest donations ever, we shouldn't dismiss the criticism as typical news."

Arguing the criticism is notable enough for the criticism article because the donation is notable does not show notability of the criticism. If a few Democrats believed that the existence of a Chinese teapot between the Earth and Mars revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit disproved Christian doctrine would that be notable enough for the Criticism of Christianity article? My point being you need to have more than just a few people making a criticism for the criticism to be notable, no matter how notable finding a Chinese teapot orbiting in space would be(especially after talking about it for so long), it wouldn't make their criticism of Christianity notable.Wikiposter0123 (talk) 18:42, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Democratic National Committee is not "just a few people". They are run by notable democratic leaders (i.e. Tim Kaine, Mike Honda, Linda Chavez-Thompson, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Donna Brazile, and Raymond Buckley) and the committee governs the Democratic Party (United States). This is a national organization that is recognized throughout the world. Please don't try to down play their significance. I'm sure the DNC criticizes their opponents every day, but it's not every day News Corp. gives $1 million to their opponent, and, in turn, they question Fox News' objectivity over it. Akerans (talk) 20:10, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: The WP:ANI report here filed by Blaxthos against Wikiposter0123, relative to the "restarting" of this RfC, has aged off the notice board and been archived. Although it wasn't officially closed, it was there for three days and no administrator action was taken. Regardless of one's position on this, I think it's clear the ANI report is a dead issue. This RfC continues... with drama. — Becksguy (talk) 19:02, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the request for continuing coverage, can someone point me to the coverage in the past month of the A. B. plot? Obviously there's less coverage now of certain events than when they were happening, but that does not alter their historical importance. These discussions about whether something covered by nearly every major news outlet are "notable" are simply ridiculous. --TeaDrinker (talk) 20:01, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Does anyone have an objection if I restructure this page to have all the RfC sections fall under the main RfC header with the banner, in the same order they are in now? That way they all will be subsections of the RfC. It currently looks like there are multiple independent threads, when all but the question about the mosque are continuations of the RfC. This is a housekeeping function, not a change in any content. The RfC is a wall of text and is hard enough to follow without structural and page flow impediments. Also, once this is over and needs archiving, it can be archived as one thread without pieces left over — Becksguy (talk) 20:16, 26 August 2010 (UTC)————UPDATE: Done. Becksguy (talk) 22:19, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lol, I was actually going to do that, but became too lazy. I think we might also want to summarize both sides and maybe put the summary at the top.
"These discussions about whether something covered by nearly every major news outlet are "notable" are simply ridiculous. "
Then do you think everything covered by nearly every major news outlet is notable? As for the A. B. plot, of course there isn't continued coverage in the news, but you'll find it in history books and historical political journals. That's where it's being covered(and if it isn't the article should be scrapped form Wikipedia).
"The Democratic National Committee is not "just a few people". They are run by notable democratic leaders (i.e. Tim Kaine, Mike Honda, Linda Chavez-Thompson, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Donna Brazile, and Raymond Buckley)"
Great, have them criticize it. The DNC's central focus is on "campaign and political activity in support of Democratic Party candidates, and not on public policy.", and they do not speak for every Democrat holding office. Many news stories mostly focused on:
  1. The donation's size
  2. Fox not covering the story(although it did)
  3. The over-the-top request by a DNC member for Fox to put up a disclaimer
There has been no coverage though which has lead weight to the notability of the criticism.Wikiposter0123 (talk) 20:34, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's obvious this guy is making shit up as he goes along, and I don't see how there is any chance he is here in good faith -- he's been wrong on every single policy point, and he's tried at least 5 different ways to accomplish the same goal and/or derail this RFC -- need I list them all? A small sample, for your consideration: "Restarting" the "vote", believing it is a "vote", trying to misrepresent notability guidelines as content policies, bypassing the actual content policies in favor of his own personal analysis, moving the goalpost when challenged, et cetera ad infinitum. He refuses to listen to anyone, and I'm pretty well convinced he doesn't even read our policies. I posit this is nothing short of disruptive behavior -- anyone else in favor of proposing a topic ban of Wikiposter? If he wants to productively contribute to this encyclopedia, I suggest he should spend some time editing non-contentious articles until he has demonstrated he is both willing to read and abide by policy, and able to honestly consider the opinions of others. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:13, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm tired of dealing with this. Blax, consider this your warning before I take your constant disruptive and baseless attacks on me to ANI, and leave this discussion here to people that want to discuss changes to the article.Wikiposter0123 (talk) 22:44, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Edit:I apologize to those here trying to establish consensus through discussion and working towards furthering that discussion. I will strike out my comment as a gesture of good faith, and hope this discussion can turn to discussion on the information's inclusion/exclusion.Wikiposter0123 (talk) 19:08, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is a content disagreement about a very contentious issue, not a debate about editor behavior. Filing reports is not particularly helpful in getting to consensus, rather it deepens the divide. Disclosing my position: I'm in favor of including the content, and will cast my !vote, and make my arguments, but I won't take it personally if the arguments are disagreed with. More importantly, regardless of what happens to this content, it won't be the end of the world as we know it (or of Wikipedia, or even of the article). The resources expended on this issue is staggering, including about 34,000 words and 240 KBytes so far in the RfC. The tone of this RfC is a much bigger problem than this particular content could possibly be, and the fallout will affect collaborative efforts between participants even after the battle is over. Please lets discuss content, not each other, and please lets try to assume more AFG and remember why we are here. Thank you. — Becksguy (talk) 04:47, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And its been Blaxthos tone that has been the worst. Hes used foul language and accused myself and Wikiposter of trying to "corrupt the process". Yet it is the inclusion camp that tried to rig this RFC with the post on Daily Kos which has without doubt had a huge impact on the whole thing. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:51, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The impetus behind this alleged "Fox News Controversy" is becoming rather evident...as is major media indifference. From "Mediate"...

But new allegations have come to light that question whether Media Matters was serious about running the ad as opposed to just generating attention – and possibly charitable donations – for itself. [6]

And from MMfA itself, Eric Boehlert bemoans the apparent indifference of the White House Correspondent's Association to the alleged "controversy"...

Does the association think it's fine and there's absolutely nothing wrong with it?[7]

Inclusionists might benefit from more citing and less rhetoric. JakeInJoisey (talk) 13:31, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually at this point I think both sides could use less rhetoric and more consensus building. Yes, the DailyKos diary piece sent many here in an attempt to votestack. And yes this debate is a battleground. But this RfC is corrupted only if you want it to be. It seems to have become more about proving the other side wrong, and about winning, rather than deciding together if this piece of content belongs in the article or not. The information about the donation is not a smoking gun relative to Fox News, so at the end of the day, it won't make a hell of a lot of difference either way. At this point the content in the article at dispute is 13 words long, yet this discussion is now more than 35K words long. See how disproportionate that is? It's just not worth this battleground. Get over who's fault it is, and finish the debate. The position of both camps is crystal clear, and everything we all need to know about the content is already in the RfC. Start proposing wording, since all that remains is to come to consensus on a version (or none), something that could be done in a very short time. If y'all really want to, that is. — Becksguy (talk) 15:22, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If we have to continue to mention the donation, we should also state that NewsCorp has donated funds to the democrats too. We should not make out like this one donation is a controversy when clearly only those organisations with an agenda see it as such and are trying to make it a bigger deal than it is. Ohh and this RFC has been corrupted, there is no "only corrupted if you want it to be". It has been corrupted, the evidence of this fact is very clear. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:45, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually at this point I think both sides could use less rhetoric and more consensus building...Start proposing wording, since all that remains is to come to consensus on a version (or none)
Your suggestion that the composition of consensus "wording" commence while, at the same time, noting that an "(or none)" option is, at this point, just as viable leaves me somewhat flummoxed. The purpose of the RfC is to solicit comments as to whether or not this content is appropriate for both identification and inclusion as a "Fox News Controversy". From the cites I've provided,[8][9][10] I believe there's a valid argument to be made that this is now more a "Media Matters for America" controversy than a "Fox News Controversy". Does anyone seriously contest at this point that the "News Corp" donation (which is borderline "controversial" in and of itself) has been used as a proxy attack against FNC by hyper-partisan interests? As was noted early on in this discussion (not by me), is an anti-Fox News allegation/attack by a hyper-partisan entity now de facto elevated to "Fox News Controversy" worthy? Yikes. We might as well just turn this article into an RSS feed from the DNC and Media Matters. JakeInJoisey (talk) 16:06, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed i still do not accept there is a notable controversy involving Fox news channel and this donation, its just certain people and a couple of political organisations with an agenda who are suggesting anything. I do also still fear that if the result of this RFC is to keep the text in the article, it will be seen by those responsible for the "RFC rigging" that took place as a victory. I happen to think its a bad idea if we allow cheaters a victory, it will encourage lots more cheating in the future if it stays in. If it was not for the cheating it may have been easier to reach a compromise. Those who say the SPAs will simply be ignored at the end of the RFC fail to accept it has already had a huge impact on it. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:11, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We could say, "The Democratic National Committee, and head of the Democratic Governors Association, questioned Fox News' objectivity after parent company News Corporation donated $1 million to the RGA. In a press release, News Corporation stated that their donation has no bearing on their journalist." Or something similar. I think going beyond that, that is going into detail about New Corporation's donation history, would be unnecessary weight. As far as MMfA goes, I don't think enough mainstream sources have mentioned them to warrant their inclusion. Correct me if I'm wrong, but seems the only mention of them is from a Washington Post opinion piece. Akerans (talk) 19:28, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No way. If this article is to continue to include this matter, it must mention the fact NewsCorp has donated large sums of money to the Democrats as well. To do otherwise would be totally against WP:NPOV. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:49, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Edit conflict: You would need to change it to something more like this before I would start even considering inclusion:

"The Democratic National Committee, and head of the Democratic Governors Association, questioned Fox News' objectivity after parent company News Corporation donated an impressive $1 million to the RGA calling Fox's reporting "partisan propaganda" and requesting Fox to have a disclaimer on their programs. In a press release, News Corporation stated that their donation has no bearing on their journalists, and that having also supported Democrats in the past, their decision to make such a large donation to the GOP was out of their belief that the GOP would be more friendly to business.

In response to the DNC's criticism the Washington Post reported that "But in a general sense, other news outlets have been surprisingly receptive to Fox's claim that it's a legit news outlet," with media critic Howard Kurtz noting that the leader of the DNC, "Daschle, who has already put out a fundraising letter about the News Corp. contribution, is doing what he can to keep the story alive."

By the way, I found this: Tobe Berkovitz, an associate professor of communication at Boston University. "This just reinforces for liberals how evil and manipulative Fox and Rupert Murdoch are. For the civilians out there, I don't think they're going to see this as particularly relevant or particularly important.

I still support not including this at all though and doubt my suggestion will be accepted by the inclusionists. The only way I feel to put this in giving due weight to the criticism is to balance it out by placing the commentary of others on the notability of the criticism, and that the resulting two paragraphs would be too much weight for this "controversy" in the article.Wikiposter0123 (talk) 20:47, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Actually, you're not distinguishing between money given by employees and money given by the corporation -- those two concepts are not the same. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 20:40, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
BritishWatcher, according to NPR, News Corp. gave $0 to the DGA in 2009 and 2010. Or, are you saying we should mention donations not related to the criticism? Akerans (talk) 01:15, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have two points which I'd like addressed by editors arguing in support of inclusion. I've raised these two points before, but I have not seen any direct responses to them by editors who support inclusion.

  1. Inclusionists need to show that including the criticism of Fox News, which originated mainly from Democratic organizations, does not violate WP:Undue by giving undue weight to a minority viewpoint. If only Democratic organizations are criticizing Fox News for the donation by its parent company, isn't that a minority viewpoint per WP:Undue? Again, the majority viewpoint seems to be one of indifference: a.) most of the news sources cited on this page only report the criticisms, but do not weigh in themselves, and b.) In addition, no notable, independent persons or organizations have commented on the donation or its implications for Fox News. Inclusionists need to show that the criticism of Fox News is widespread, and not just originating from a vocal minority (i.e. the Democratic organizations who initiated the criticism.) If this cannot be shown, I believe that including the criticism of Fox News would violate WP:Undue.
  2. If criticism of Fox News over the donation originated from partisan organizations, would including their (inherently biased) criticism violate WP:NPOV? Basically, the criticism that the NewsCorp donation affects the journalistic integrity of Fox News has not been backed up by any evidence, rather it has been simply asserted by various Democratic organizations. Therefore, including the criticism of Fox News would violate WP:NPOV unless inclusionists also include the responses of NewsCorp and Fox News spokespeople into the final wording (if consensus is indeed reached on including it, which at the moment appears rather uncertain.)

The first point is what caused me to change my mind about inclusion, so if an editor who supports inclusion can convincingly argue (on the basis of Wikipedia content policy) that including partisan criticism does not violate WP:Undue, I will be open to supporting inclusion. If not, I still say exclude. The second point also must be addressed, but is focused more on satisfying WP:NPOV if the consensus is to include. -BloodDoll (talk) 21:42, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To further note the objectives of the of the proponents of this criticism I would like to point out that people promulgating this criticism are attempting to use it to generate fundraising revenue as suggested by Howard Kurts" Daschle, who has already put out a fundraising letter about the News Corp. contribution, is doing what he can to keep the story alive.". More evidence of the lack of a controversy.Wikiposter0123 (talk) 22:18, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To highlight the inanity of this so-called "controversy," here's the Media Research Council to put it into perspective:

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/lachlan-markay/2010/08/27/lefties-upset-murdoch-donation-take-note-88-percent-network-donation

And the debate of the rational ends here. PokeHomsar (talk) 22:49, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@BloodDoll, even obviously partisan criticism, even if baseless, can be notable. We have now several articles on Swiftboating and related topics, even though that is now the quintessential example of baseless partisan criticism (far higher level of importance, certainly, reflecting multiple article coverage). We cover notable (though totally baseless) claims from absolute loons, such Barack Obama religion conspiracy theories, or Beck v. Eiland-Hall on a legally minor case, notable only for the press coverage of random internet satirists. There's no requirement that we have to find the criticism valid or originating from reputable sources, only that there is reliable coverage of the criticism of a sufficient magnitude to satisfy WP:UNDUE. In fact, WP:NPOV and WP:NOR demand we not make judgement about the validity of the criticism, which includes judging criticism as unfit for inclusion because we're unhappy with the people making the argument. It is a simple rule: if it is widely discussed, it is included. I agree, notable positions on the controversy should be represented; Fox has made a statement which was widely quoted. That should be included. --TeaDrinker (talk) 23:44, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Right, but your Swiftboating example really doesn't work. That was indeed a public controversy at the time - meaning many different people and organizations were weighing in on the merits of the attack on John Kerry, what its significance was for his political prospects, etc. etc. etc. Whereas here we have news sources simply reporting criticism from a number of Democratic organizations. We do not have a wide variety of people and organizations weighing in on this so-called controversy. -BloodDoll (talk) 01:45, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"It is a simple rule: if it is widely discussed, it is included. "
The rule I'm looking at(WP:NOTNEWS) says:
"While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion."

Thinking if something is widely discussed it should be included is against policy and doesn't make sense. What might be widely discussed by the news media is obviously going to be different from that in an encyclopedia. The two are just different mediums. Barack Obama conspiracy theories are notable because entire movements have formed around them. Get a movement forming around this then it will be notable. As for Beck v. Eiland Hall, that could possibly be deleted.Wikiposter0123 (talk) 23:54, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism is not news, though when it rises to a level of controversy it's often covered by the news (as here). //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 00:17, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Some of us do not believe it has risen to a "level of controversy" needed to justify inclusion on this page. BritishWatcher (talk) 00:24, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Blaxthos, that is a point that has been made before by the exclusionists here. It is not a "controversy" if 99% of the criticism comes from uniformly Democratic organizations. Controversy, to my mind, implies widespread public debate and discussion on a particular issue. On this issue, there is no widespread public debate and discussion - only Democratic organizations criticizing Fox News. That's why me and others have requested links to the same criticism from notable, independent persons or organizations to show there is a real controversy here - and not just an opportunistic, politically motivated attack on Fox News with not a shred of evidence. So far, those requests have been ignored, sidestepped, or misrepresented (intentionally or not, I don't know; I am AGF.) -BloodDoll (talk) 01:45, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion about a single statement for an incident that didn't last beyond one news cycle is rapidly approaching being twice as long as the article (139k for discussion, 82k for article). From what I've seen, we've reached a point where everyone keeps repeating the same arguments and talking past one another. Any suggestions for breaking deadlock and/or moving forward? Soxwon (talk) 02:12, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do. I have provided 3 citations from sources suggesting that there is questionable substance to this allegation of a "Fox News Controversy". I invite any of the inclusionists to likewise provide 3 citations from reliable sources (other than those known for their partisan advocacy) which they purport supports their position that this is a "Fox News Controversy". Give me 3 unequivocal, legitimate source citations and I'll vote include. JakeInJoisey (talk) 02:21, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As I have previously stated, this wall of text is over 100k. Could you please link those three sources again? Soxwon (talk) 02:32, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sure...
Greg Sargent, Washington Post "Plum Line" Blog...(emphasis mine except for lede)
Media Matters to run ad on Fox News touting News Corp's $1 million donation to GOP
[snip]
News Corp.'s $1 million donation to the Republican Governors Association is perhaps the best ammunition yet for those trying to undercut Fox's claim of being "fair and balanced," and Media Matters is doing its best to keep the story going. But in a general sense, other news outlets have been surprisingly receptive to Fox's claim that it's a legit news outlet, so it's anbody's guess whether this story will continue or whether it will die quietly.
UPDATE, 4:07 p.m.: In one place above I erroneously described the donation as coming from Fox, not News Corp. I've edited the post to correct.[11]
From "Mediaite" (which cites Greg Sargent's blog as well)...
But new allegations have come to light that question whether Media Matters was serious about running the ad as opposed to just generating attention – and possibly charitable donations – for itself.[12]
From MMfA itself, Eric Boehlert bemoans the apparent indifference of the White House Correspondent's Association to the alleged "controversy"...
Does the association think it's fine and there's absolutely nothing wrong with it?[13]
JakeInJoisey (talk) 02:54, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To make sure I understand what you saying. You're saying that since the Washington Post reported that no news organizations questioned Fox News, we should dismiss the fact that non-news organizations (i.e. DNC and DGA) questioned Fox News? Or, are you saying that the lack of continued coverage means we shouldn't include the material at all? Akerans (talk) 16:28, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The fact there has been limited criticism just from groups with a political agenda and there has been a lack of continued coverage of this matter, both mean it does not belong in this article. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:54, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh boy, more invented policies! One, there is no policy or guideline that says material "from groups with a political agenda" is not allowed. Two, there is no content policy that mandates "continued coverage" in sources (no, notability guidelines do not apply to content). Please stop making up policies and preaching them as if they're legitimate -- they aren't, and repeating them ad infinitum only makes you look like a POV warrior. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 22:01, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What part of WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE do you not understand?
, and what part of WP:WEIGHT do you not understand?

An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and neutral, but still be disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially in relation to recent events that may be in the news.

, or WP:EFFECT

Events are often considered to be notable if they act as a precedent or catalyst for something else.

What is the lasting effect of this? Where is the continued coverage? Is there anything that indicates that this was anything more than a fundraising effort by MediaMatters and the DNC? Wikiposter0123 (talk) 22:12, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Summary of positions

This page is going in circles, limiting anyone else's ability to enter into the discussion and going over the same material again and again. I propose major discussants state summaries of their views below and we all restrain ourselves from replying to each other. --TeaDrinker (talk) 19:27, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This RfC & Have You Stopped Beating Your Wife?

With reams of commentary generated by this as yet unresolved RfC, its perhaps worthwhile to re-consider both its genesis and its composition. Several observations...

  • Under what circumstances was this RfC presented? The content discussion had barely commenced (8 comments had been offered) when we were presented with an RfC on the question. Why?
  • The RfC was unilaterally composed. Was that composition itself neutral?
  • The RfC was unilaterally inserted with no prior discussion as to its efficacy or need. Why?

Here's the RfC again for reference...

NewsCorp, the parent of Fox News Channel, has made a $1 million donation to a GOP organization. Should this incident and the controversy surrounding it be included in the Fox News Channel controversies article? Proponents contend that the widespread accusations against FNC of Republican bias makes this information relevant; opponents contend the information is only relevant to the NewsCorp article.

Specifically, consider the neutrality of the following. Here's the "opposition" position as stated...

...opponents contend the information is only relevant to the NewsCorp article.

One would think, in equity, that the corollary to the opposition position might be...

Proponents contend the information is relevant to both Newscorp and Fox News.

Instead, we're offered (emphasis mine)...

Proponents contend that the widespread accusations against FNC of Republican bias makes this information relevant.

That's "neutral"?

IMHO, this RfC should have been challenged as to its efficacy and language at its inception. I regret that it wasn't examined more closely when the opportunity presented. JakeInJoisey (talk) 12:26, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed sadly the RFC rigging that took place with dozens of SPAs arriving overshadowed the more serious flaws in the actual RFC itself. The wording of the RFC was certainly not neutral, and i am unsure if others supported the proposed method of resolving this matter. Its clear when the issues are actually debated in detail as they have been way below the RFC, the case for inclusion is very weak. It would be unfortunate if these matters are over looked simply because of the mess the above RFC has been. And ofcourse this RFC could still go on for another couple of weeks. A sentence that clearly lacks neutrality remains in the article. It should have been locked on the article without the text in. :\ BritishWatcher (talk) 14:02, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed that it's not neutral it should have read: "Proponents contend that the widespread accusations against FNC of Republican bias makes this information relevant; opponents contend the proponents contension of "widespread accusations" is a false characterization of what they view as relatively little criticism levied at Fox. Oh well, back to arguing.Wikiposter0123 (talk) 20:18, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiposter, "Have you stopped beating your wife / Have you stopped beating yours?" is not exactly what I had in mind. JakeInJoisey (talk) 20:26, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
???? What?Wikiposter0123 (talk) 20:30, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your suggested text (unless you were simply being facetious) simply compounds the problem by balancing prejudicial text with more prejudicial text. Either way, it's after the fact supposin'. The RfC was clearly prejudicial at its inception. JakeInJoisey (talk) 22:28, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Didn't realize what I wrote. This should be fine then.Wikiposter0123 (talk) 22:44, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/controversy
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Fox_News_controversies&oldid=381957928"