Talk:Fox News

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Talk:Fox News Channel)
Jump to: navigation, search
Frequently asked questions (FAQ)
Concern: The introduction mentions alleged bias or other controversial information.
  • WP:LEAD - The lead should be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article, establishing context, explaining why the subject is interesting or notable, and briefly describing its notable controversies. Appropriate to overview the controversies / allegations of bias.
Concern: The introduction uses weasel words by referencing "Many observers".
  • WP:NPOV (Undue weight clause) - Critics are sufficiently numerous that elevating a single critic or source gives it undue weight and is in compliance with the accepted exceptions to WP:WEASEL.
Concern: The introduction mentions allegations of conservative bias but I've seen studies that say FoxNews is centrist and/or liberal. Shouldn't these viewpoints be mentioned in the lead as well?
  • Although there are studies with various viewpoints on Fox, for the lead we are restricted to only note the major controversy, i.e. the conservative bias, and the fact that this viewpoint has detractors. The lead should only briefly summarize the notable controversies. The notability of this particular controversy is measured by studies, documentaries, films, boycotts from influential persons based on the perception of bias, and numerous pop culture references to the alleged conservative bias. No other viewpoint has gained as much currency, and therefore including them in the lead would violate WP:FRINGE; WP:NPOV and WP:LEAD.
Concern: Does the article take any position regarding the allegations of bias?
  • The article takes no position on whether the Fox News Channel is biased. The introduction highlights the existence of a notable controversy concerning the perception that the network promotes conservative political positions. Neither the introduction nor the article takes a position on whether such a perception is accurate.
Previous discussions: See archives 21, 19, 18, 17, 16 (Includes RfC) and 15.


I will post here what I've posted on Doglover159's talk page:

Wikipedia is not a TV guide, which is why I've reverted their edits. There is no need to list the personalities, either, since they are in the section below.

Corkythehornetfan 21:13, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 July 2016[edit]

Amanda Carpenter and Mary Katherine Ham work at CNN as Contributors not at Fox News Channel. (talk) 21:51, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made.  B E C K Y S A Y L E 17:52, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 30 external links on Fox News Channel. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:54, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 1 October 2016[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Move. After over 2 weeks, we have consensus that Fox News, which already redirects here as a WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT, is the WP:COMMONNAME. The hat note for Fox News (disambiguation) will remain for any readers who are looking for other topics. Cúchullain t/c 14:27, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Fox News ChannelFox News – Per WP:COMMONNAME. The previous move request failed due to WP:PRIMARYTOPIC arguments, which are invalid as long as Fox News is a WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT to this article. If consensus at this discussion is that this article is not the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for "Fox News", the disambiguation page should be moved to the base title. SSTflyer 13:38, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm sure Fox News is the common name, but the primary topic is the channel. I completely agree with George Ho's comments in the last request. Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 17:37, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Support per nom. Unreal7 (talk) 15:42, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Support, common name. Chase (talk | contributions) 19:01, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose per FOX News Network clearly a distinction even FOX Network does.--Moxy (talk) 19:19, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Strongly oppose any move from this title; the subject has been well vetted in previous discussion. Also oppose any realignment of Fox News (disambiguation) as well as any refactoring of Fox News's target.--John Cline (talk) 21:18, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Support If you go to the website, Facebook and Twitter pages, you'll see that they have all been changed to "Fox News". And they all are about the TV channel (not radio, etc.). —Musdan77 (talk) 18:34, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
Wrong (talk) 19:22, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
What's "wrong"? It says Fox News (Go). This is the actual home pageMusdan77 (talk) 04:40, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
@Musdan77 Yes good link the website ...but if you want to see the channel that's another thing seen here . Perhaps this NEW article will help Fox & Friends Celebrates Fox News Channel's 20th Anniversary. Just like TMZ on TV vs -TMZ..- Moxy (talk) 05:05, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
The first link shows the schedule for the "channel". The second talks about the anniversary of the "channel". So, of course, it's going to use "channel". But that doesn't say that Fox News is not what is most often used as the name today. —Musdan77 (talk) 18:23, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
RIghT! This article is about the "channel" so why would we name it after the website? Very odd RfC I think. -- Moxy (talk) 20:08, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
The website is named for what the channel is most often called now. In my opinion, the introductory sentence should say: "Fox News, also known as Fox News Channel (FNC),..." —Musdan77 (talk) 18:03, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Support per WP:COMMONNAME. While a majority of the content may be about the cable channel, the scope of the article clearly includes both radio and web, per Fox News Channel#Outlets. Any discussion of Fox News Radio falls under WP:OSE, and maybe the best solution to that apparent discrepancy is a merge. Fox News Radio is not a large article. ―Mandruss  02:20, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose I thought "Fox News" refers to the "Fox News Network" (that is the network of channels and not simply 1 channel). I guess in this case it is useful to distinguish between the two. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 02:39, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose I closed the previous RM as not moved, so I will not close this one, but I see no compelling evidence to make this move as the current title is accurate and unambiguous. --Mike Cline (talk) 11:19, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Support. Given that Fox News is already a WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT to Fox New Channel, and it is clearly the WP:COMMONNAME (nobody would say "Channel", it's always "Fox News"), and also WP:CONCISE, this move seems a no brainer. A hatnote exists to take people to other uses such as the radio station.  — Amakuru (talk) 15:50, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Support per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT. A hatnote fixes the problems outlined by the 'oppose' votes above. InsertCleverPhraseHere 04:18, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Support per the aforementioned WP:COMMONNAME and WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT. The Google analytics speak for themselves. Amccann421 (talk) 01:35, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

I need clarification[edit]

So the 3rd paragraph in the "above the fold" section accuses Fox News of bias in favor of the Republican Party. Not disputing that, but why is there no similar accusation made on the pages of CNN; MSNBC; CNBC; CBS; etc.????

Wikileaks revelations have called into question the integrity of said organizations. Also many organizations inside and outside the USA have accused the aforementioned new services of bias.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bondianwolf (talkcontribs) 20:24, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

This page is for discussing improvements to this article. Alsee (talk) 05:16, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Tucker Carlson[edit]

Hi, I'm new here, shouldn't "On the record" be replaced with Tucker Carlson Tonight in the Outlets\ Television section? Greta van Susteren was canceled and replaced by Carlson. JanJasinski (talk) 02:22, 16 November 2016 (UTC)


Shouldn't the last paragraph on the introduction on Fox News being biased, be put into the Controversy section? Also, in MSNBC's introduction, there is no such criticism of the news network. Billybob2002 (talk) 00:13, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Which is irrelevant. We have an entire article on Fox News controversies, several of which are about its bias.

The article on MSNBC controversies, also mentions bias. But whether it should be mentioned in the main MSNBC article, is a matter for that article. Dimadick (talk) 16:01, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

You make a good point. I would encourage you to start an RfD to settle this matter. Marquis de Faux (talk) 03:02, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

"Alleged" misrepresentation of facts[edit]

Using the title 'Alleged misrepresentation of facts' seem to be an WP:NPOV violation. Ironically enough it probably comes from a misguided attempt to apply NPOV. There is nothing 'alleged' about Fox new's frequent misrepresentation of facts, it is a verifiable, true and perfectly factual to state that Fox News has misrepresented facts on several occasions (the recent scandal over it's fake story about Sweden being a case in point). By saying "alleged" in Wiki-voice, we make it sound as if this is just an opinion, not an actual fact. Could anyone imagine us talking about the "alleged Holocaust", the "alleged Rwandan genocide" etc. NPOV is not about being neutral between fact and opinions, it's about representing facts in a neutral manner. That being the case, the "alleged" should be dropped, as it can easily be sourced that Fox News has misrepresented facts on several occasions. Jeppiz (talk) 18:21, 20 February 2017 (UTC)


From Ireland

Agree with above poster. This is the worst so-called news channel for factual news, thus far. Countless times we've noticed stuff they put out has had to be corrected and /or mysterious sources used that leads to never really getting to the core of something they report. Some of their guests (after the opposite being verified on other news channels, or it could be something you already know not to be true) are just as bad. One guest said that in Birmingham, UK, there were "No-go" areas...NOT true! That is just one of the many bewildering things they / some of their guests come out with. They come across to us as more opinionated in what they deliver / put their own kind of spin on it, more so than just reporting in a professional manner. Again, a couple of them (Sheppard Smith - don't know if that's spelt right) seem more centered and straight-forward in how they deliver.

We also noticed that some of their anchors (not all of them) come across as angry and calling the other party (or whatever - Democrats) things like "snow flakes" - or the "(insert some kind of insulting word here) leftists" and the likes. Just so unprofessional. We often look through them all - CNN, etc. and never see them calling Republicans names and the likes. They, along with some others, just present themselves more professionally and seem to get a certain item of news (not from some kind of mysterious "source".) but often from where it actually originated - and usually have access to actual docs they are referring to, and /or an actual guest who IS the source. Just seems more transparent / easier to verify what they deliver. Fox is generally just not like this.

There's a guy called Hannity (if memory serves us well) and he goes on like this. He is a total Gob-shite and also seems to have a negative, unhealthy obsession with Barrack Obama - even after he has left office. Took a short while for us to notice all of this about this news channel, when we started checking it out, some years back. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:11, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 March 2017[edit]




  1. ^ Feldman, Josh (March 1, 2016). "Fox News Contributor Mary Katharine Ham Jumps to CNN, Makes Debut with Tapper". Mediaite. Retrieved March 12, 2017. (talk) 20:11, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

I'd recommend copying and pasting Ham's entry from this diff: (talk) 20:16, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
Done — Train2104 (t • c) 05:53, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 April 2017[edit]

Please add "citation needed" tag to mentions of "Fox News Group" in article, as there is currently no known reference to/confirming entity's existence. 2602:304:CEBF:8650:1995:CAEC:D28:5C3F (talk) 12:40, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Done DRAGON BOOSTER 13:18, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Wrong name in the infobox[edit]

It's Brazil, not Brasil. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

Already done by Niteshift36 (talk). regards, DRAGON BOOSTER 16:44, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Citation overkill[edit]

This article suffers from Wikipedia:Citation overkill.

Try to trim to max 3 cites at ends of sentences.

Observation: It appears that there are cases where more than 3 citations are effective for demonstrating the pervasiveness of behavior. Example: 5 unique instances of significant legal action against Fox News.

No need for 7.

That is Wikipedia:Citation overkill. Sagecandor (talk) 21:32, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Donald Trump Wiretapping Claim[edit]

This section needs to be deleted or completely re-written. Firstly the claim that Napolitano was suspended for it is false, he was never suspended despite what the LA times editorial page may have claimed. And second the story about the British wiretapping for Obama is not a claim it was a confirmed fact by the wikileaks as a result of the Snowden whistelblowing regarding the project code named "Tempura" — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:29, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Fox News Channel Pre-Launch Question[edit]

Did another network occupy FNC's satellite transponder prior to their official launch and if so what channel was it so I can added a Replaced to the InfoBox or was it simply an unused transponder?. YborCityJohn (talk) 19:22, 8 July 2017 (UTC)