Jump to content

Talk:Fox News controversies/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

Swedish Newspaper Expressen

The statement from the article (" * Swedish newspaper Expressen called Fox News "the most biased news source in the west" and "there are lies, damned lies and Fox News"[71]. [citation needed]") has several problems from my point of view. The first quote is unsourced. The second is actually from a blog of one of the commentators of the newspaper. I don't think it's accurate to say that the newspaper "called Fox News..." when it seems to be the opinion of a particular commentator. These issues could probably be sorted out, but to me their is a bigger question. Is it relevant at all? Expressen is a tabloid paper and doesn't seem to offer any evidence to support the statement. They are entitled to their opinion, but I'm not sure that it adds anything to the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ucanlookitup (talk • contribs)

It's wrong to attribute the opinion to the newspaper unless it's either a) stated in a news article or b) written by one of the editors. If it's just a opinion contributor, we could just as easily say that Fox news wanted John Kerry to win the last election (because one of their Democrat-supporting opinionists does). --GunnarRene 22:06, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
I agree. Blogs are not WP:RS. I am removing the blog comment. Isarig 22:40, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
Not all blogs are proscibed by WP:RS. I'll review this deletion. FeloniousMonk 18:54, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
WP:RS says "...blogs are largely not acceptable as sources. Exceptions may be when ... a well-known professional journalist, has produced self-published material. In some cases, these may be acceptable as sources, so long as their work has been previously published by credible, third-party publications, and they are writing under their own names, and not a pseudonym." Behrang Kianzad certainly qualifies as a well-known professional journalist. I've restored the quotes and their cite, and would encourage Isarig to be more careful in interpreting policy in his rush to remove criticisms of Fox from this article. FeloniousMonk 19:04, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
I encourage you to read the full policy you cite, which ends "...so long as their work has been previously published by credible, third-party publications". Where is the credible, third-party publication that that has previously published this comment? I also await some evidence that Kianzad meets the definition of 'well-known professional journalist'. What makes him well-known? The presumption. made very explictly by WP:RS is that blogs are unacceptbale as sources, except in rare' limited circumstances, and thsu the onus is on you to establsih that this blog is the exception. You have not doen that, yet, so out it goes, for now. Isarig 20:28, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
The content fully meets the standards of WP:RS: The fact that that Expressen as a newspaper allows him access to contribute to the blog under their domain as a Culture commentator in and of itself means that Kianzad meets the definition of 'well-known professional journalist'. As for Kianzad's work being previously published by credible, third-party publications, the Swedish magazine Mana cites his article here and an academic paper, a masters thesis, published by the Department of Scandinavian Languages of Lunds University cites both Kianzad and his article here. FeloniousMonk 20:54, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
The fact that a tabloid allows a blogger to blog under their domain means nothing, in and of itself, and it does not establish that he is a journalist at all, let alone a "well known professional journalist". I don't think that an electronic bi-monthly magazine published by the Association for Iranian-Swedish Solidarity counts as a credible 3rd party publication. And the cites you mention refer to Kianzad as a blogger, and discuss his contibution to blogging. Sorry, you'll have to do better that that if you want to include blogs as a source. Isarig 01:58, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Expressen is hardly a tabloid and Mana constitutes a credible publication per WP:RS regardless of your personal opinion of it's subject matter.
WP:RS says blogs are acceptable as sources when:
  1. They written by a well-known, professional researchers writing within their fields of expertise or well-known professional journalists,
  2. their work has been previously published by credible, third-party publications,
  3. they are writing under their own names, and not a pseudonym.
The facts here are:
  1. Expressen, a notable Swedish newspaper, presents Kianzad as a "Culture commentator" and publishes his columns regularly in the paper's official blog:[1] Sydsvenskan.se, another Swedish newspaper, also carries Kianzad's writings on culture and Fox News:[2] Kianzad is published in Zero Music Magazine: [3] Kianzad's published writings on Fox News are cited by an masters thesis published by the Department of Scandinavian Languages of Lunds University: [4] Kianzad says he was an editor for two newspapers: [5] Journalisten.se published "Kianzad and Rahimi: Lack of interest for diversity work, a Debate":[6] A Google search for "Behrang Kianzad" returns 732 results:[7] Clearly Kianzad is a 'well-known professional journalist'.
  2. The Swedish magazine Mana cites Kianzad's article here and an academic paper, a masters thesis, published by the Department of Scandinavian Languages of Lunds University cites both Kianzad and his article here This meets the requirement that Kianzad's work has been previously published by credible, third-party publications.
  3. Kianzad publishes using his own name: [8] This meets the requirement that Kianzad is writing under his own name, and not a pseudonym.
Clearly only the willfully obtuse or the most persistent of the POV-challenged can continue to insist that the requirements of WP:RS have not been met. FeloniousMonk 03:36, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
You are engaging in some very creative interpretations of WP guidelines, which, if applied everywhere, would render the guidline meaningless, as every blog source would meet your creative interpretations. Let's take it from the top: the relevant WP guidline cautions us that blogs, as a rule, are not WP:RS, and allows that under very limited circumstances, they may be allowed. Contrary to what you claim, WP:RS does not say "blogs are acceptable as sources when:..", but rather that these are required, but not sufficient conditions. "In some cases, these may be acceptable as sources". Next - contrary to your assertion Expressen's WP page says it is a tabloid: "Expressen is a Swedish centre-right tabloid" - just as I've written. Next - the master's thesis you cite does not cite Kianzad's writing on Fox, but rather describes him as a blogger, and cites his essay on blogging (Kianzad, Behrang: Det bloggistiska manifestet, Expressen 2005-06-01). Kianzad may claim he is was the editor of 2 newspapers, but that's his unverified statement - precisely the problem we have with self-published blogs. Next - the "Swedish magazine Mana" is an on-line-only publication of the Association for Iranian-Swedish Solidarity - hardly the stuff that "credible 3rd party" refers to. As to the Google search, it precisely makes my point and establishes the total non-notablity of him. 732 hits? You've gotta be kidding me. My own name returns nearly 4 times as many hits, and I'm far from being notable. A real 'well known professional jornalist' such as Thomas Freidman returns over 2 million hits, John Pilger returns over a million. For good measure, taking the first name I saw listed on the Sydsvenskan.se site, whom I assume is a somewhat well known Swedish journalist (though completely unknown to me) - Per T Ohlsson - I see well over 700,000. 732 hits? What a joke. You should be embarassed to even mention that.
To sum it up: we have a totaly non-notable individual (732 Google hits) who blogs, his blog is featured on-line on the domain of a tabloid newspaper, and one of his essays on blogging (but not his Fox criticism) has been mentioned in 1 (one) academic publication. This is exactly the kind of source that WP:RS was written to keep out of WP. Calling me 'wilfully obtuse' is a violation of WP:CIVIL, but does not make your argument stronger. (but since you have self-reverted your latest 3RR violation, I will let it go for now) Isarig 04:39, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
I see in your reversion of Guettarda you've left the edit summary "Kianzad is a totaly non-notable blogger, his blog is not WP:RS" What part of it is Expressen newspaper's blog, not Kianzad's, don't you understand? Or that Kianzad is a regularly published columnist at that newspaper and one other along with one magazine? Edit summaries that twist the facts like that do not change the facts, and I've provided those facts while you've provided tendentious interpretation of them and spin. For example, of course Kianzad pales when compared to more famous or well-known journalists; comparing him to them is comparing apples to oranges. Yet Kianzad's 732 Google hits is more than that of a number of topics that have their own articles at wikipedia, so claiming only 732 Google hits means he's non-notable is specious reasoning. FeloniousMonk 16:23, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Your own words say it all: "of course Kianzad pales when compared to more famous or well-known journalists - comparing him to them is comparing apples to oranges." that means he is not a well known journalist, and fails the basic criteria for inclusion of his blog. Indeed, let's stick to facts. Isarig 16:47, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
By your standard of notability then we can just AFD 95% of this encyclopedia and go home. Notability will always be relative, based on a number of factors like region and audience; your insistence on applying one standard for all is unreasonable and not supported by policy or guideline. FeloniousMonk 18:06, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Kianzad

Is my revision a better description of who Kianzad is and where he wrote than just "Blogger?" Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:55, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it has been established that he is a reporter for Expressen, the blog in question is his, isn't it? Isarig 18:03, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
No, it's obviously not. Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:06, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Correct, the blog belongs to Expressen and Kianzad is one of several contributors to it. FeloniousMonk 18:08, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Is he a reporter for Expressen? Searching their site for his contributions finds all of 6 entries, over the course of 2 years, all of them blog entries, and none of them even recent. Looks like he was an occasional blog contributor, of no particular significanceIsarig 18:11, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Writing op-ed is a type of journalism last time I checked. Expressen presents Kianzad as a "Culture commentator":[9] He seems to get around for being "an occasional blog contributor, of no particular significance" as you claim: Sydsvenskan.se, another Swedish newspaper, also carries Kianzad's writings:[10] Journalisten.se published "Kianzad and Rahimi: Lack of interest for diversity work, a Debate":[11] Kianzad is published in Zero Music Magazine: [12] Kianzad's published writings on Fox News are cited by an masters thesis published by the Department of Scandinavian Languages of Lunds University: [13] Kianzad says he was an editor for two newspapers: [14] Of the 732 results Google search for "Behrang Kianzad" many are for articles:[15] The magazine Mana cites Kianzad's article here. Seems notable enough to me. FeloniousMonk 18:48, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Opinion journalists are not reporters. --GunnarRene 19:45, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
The relevant policy, WP:RS, doesn't say "professional reporter," it says "professional journalist." As I said op-ed is by definition a form of journalism. FeloniousMonk 21:09, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
It was justfification for this edit, not for deleting the point. --GunnarRene 21:36, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
He may be notable enough for you, but I'm unconvinced, and you'll have to do better than that to overcome WP:RS. And since I've already called out your misrepresentations on the master's thesis piece, I'd thank you not to repeat it, or stronger words for what you are doing will be used. Isarig 21:03, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Dismiss it all you want, the evidence remains here and others have found it compelling despite your opinion of it given. FeloniousMonk 21:11, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Some have. others have not. As I said, I am unconvinced, and don't see a consensus around keeping these unoriginal points from a non-notable source in the articel. Isarig 21:43, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

non-Notable blogger

Guettarda just reverted my latest edit, retoring the statement that "*Iranian-Swedish blogger Behrang Kianzad wrote "there are lies, damned lies and Fox News". I had removed this statement with an edit summary that said Kianzad is a non-notable blogger, based on the fact that he gets all of 732 hits on Google. I don't see anything misleading about my summary, and re-iterate that Kianzad's blog is not acceptable per WP:RS. Interestingly enough, when in the past I had intorduced a blog source that Guettarda didn't like, he was much more strict about allowing such sources, saying "Blogs don't normally meet the requirement of reliability. There are specific circumstances, based on the author of the blog being a subject-matter expert, under which a blog posting can be considered a reliable source."[16]- he insisted that the blog, by an Ivy School professor, be tied to his teching expertise, and dismissed the blogger as non-notable, non-expert. By comparison, that blogger gets 68,000 hits on Google.Isarig 18:02, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Was the Ivy School professor a regularly published journalist? That makes a world of difference. FeloniousMonk 18:09, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
He was a published academic, and had a regularly published blog. Kianzad is not a regualrly published journalist, as evidenced by the paucity of his Google hits. He is an obscure, rarely mentioned blogger Isarig 18:13, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
The difference being Professor Juan Cole's blog was his personal blog and self-published while Kianzad's writing is found on a notable newspaper's blog, Expressen, which is acceptable per WP:RS. Again, comparing apples to oranges. Thanks for sharing the link to Juan Cole, now I remember you and why all this tendentious reasoning seems so familiar. FeloniousMonk 18:58, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
This is a highly debatable borderline. Kianzad is one of those people who have gotten a few opinion pieces published, while his main arena is blogs. If he'd added anything original to the debate, this meta-debate might be worth something, but all that quote says is that he thinks Fox News lies. --GunnarRene 19:41, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
"Kianzad is one of those people who have gotten a few opinion pieces published, while his main arena is blogs" Whether he written in blogs other than Expressen is not an issue, whether he is notable as a journalist is. The fact that Expressen has repeatedly published his writings [17], as has Sydsvenskan.se [18], Journalisten.se [19] and Zero Music Magazine [20] would all indicate that he is notable enough.
BTW all, his article in question Räven går i Rosengård - Fox News sprider myter om muslimerna i Malmö is a op-ed column in the "Kultur" section, not a blog post. Check the left nav of the page. Kulturbloggen, the blog, is the next section down. So that settles the blog issue, though it never really existed except in Isarig's mind. FeloniousMonk 21:26, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
You ar engaging in a pattern of subtle misrepresentations intended to beef up the record of Kianzad, so it bears addressing these misrepresentations one by one:
Expressen does not presents Kianzad as a "Culture commentator":[9] It presents him as a commentator, as any occasional opinion-piece writer is described. Expressen has not repeatedly published his writings - it carried all of 6 op-ed pieces by him, over the course of 2 years, the last one being more than a year ago. Sydsvenskan.se does not “carr[y] Kianzad's writings” in the sense that he is a journalist or a regular contributor to Sydsvenskan – it once (a year and a half ago) published an opinion piece by Kianzan, who is described on that page as a non-affiliated freelance writer. Journalisten does not repeatedly publish his writing, it once published an on-line debate in which he was one of the participants. The masters thesis published by the Department of Scandinavian Languages of Lunds University does not cite Kianzad’s writing on Fox, but rather his blog piece on blogging. As I wrote before, these occasional mentions in mostly minor, non-mainstream media outlets do not establish the needed credentials as a "well known journalist", which are a minimum pre-requisite for blog sources. Isarig 21:53, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
"Expressen does not presents Kianzad as a "Culture commentator" Oh really? Read the title bar of his article, that's the text at the very top of your browser window frame: [21] Kultur:Kommentar means culture commentary by any reasonable translation and definition of either word. A person who writes commentary on culture is a "culture commentator." Also, there is no provision or clause that prevents freelance writers from being used as sources. I have no definitive evidence as to whether he is freelance, a stringer, or staff, and neither do you, it's a non sequitur anyway.
That the sources I've provided here (which are in no way exhaustive) do not establish the needed credentials as a "well known journalist", a minimum pre-requisite for blog sources, is just your opinion, others have disagreed obviously, and your opinion is no more definitive here than theirs.
It's also another non sequitur: As I point out above Kianzad's article in question Räven går i Rosengård - Fox News sprider myter om muslimerna i Malmö is not a post to a blog, it is a op-ed article. The Expressen blog, Kulturbloggen, is here Look at the left navbar on either page. You'll see that the "Kultur" section is highlighted on Kianzad's article [22] and "Kulturbloggen" for the Expressen blog [23]. Since the article is not a blog after all, it already meets WP:RS regardless the status of Kianzad's notability. Care to explain to us why you originally chacterized the article as a blog? It almost worked, you know... FeloniousMonk 23:06, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
I believe that I identified it as a blog. It wasn't a clever plot, I assure you.Ucanlookitup 23:13, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
It isn't. Shame on you...;) Shame on me for not checking more thoroughly. FeloniousMonk 23:21, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
yet more subtle misrepresntations. The title of that section of Expressen is "Kultur" (Culture), but the title bar of the article is 'Kommentar/Behrang Kianzad: Räven går i Rosengård' (Commentary/Behrang Kianzad...). The formulation you invented- "Kultur:Kommentar" - appears nowhere on that web page. Summary: On the Culture page of Expressen we have the opinion of Kianzad, introduced as "commentary. Nowhere is he described as the Culture reporter or the Culture commentator of the paper.Isarig 01:06, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Oh... so a journalist who writes commentary in the culture section of a newpaper isn't a culture commentator? Whatever. FeloniousMonk 01:37, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
"Expressen has not repeatedly published his writings - it carried all of 6 op-ed pieces by him, over the course of 2 years" 6 times is repeatedly. He's not "regular", but he is repeated. Your other points stand. (For the time being.) --GunnarRene 22:10, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

What does it add

Source discussion continues above. But how about what this adds to the article? The other points in that section are interesting, while this point only says, in this version, that this particular guy doesn't like Fox news. If he has an original thought on the matter, perhaps that could be put in instead? --GunnarRene 22:54, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Geesh! We are wasting an awful lot of energy on one line of the article. We have three separate sections on the talk page and way too many reverts. Personally I have to agree with GunnarRene's comment "...but all that quote says is that he thinks Fox News lies." Is the point we're trying to show is that some commentators think Fox News lies? If so, surely we can do better than a single foriegn language commentator. Whether or not he is a reliable source, he is still only stating an opinion. Is anyone arguing that he is so influential that the mere fact that he holds the opinion is noteable? Ucanlookitup 23:00, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
True. It's not like there's a shortage of legitimate and significant criticisms of Fox News in the world. I just don't like seeing bowdlerizations arising from misrepresentations; gets my hackles up. FeloniousMonk 23:08, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Well, seeing as even you now agree that he adds nothing to the discussion, other than his compeletly non-notable personal opinion that Fox lies, can we finally get rid of this non-notable comment from a non-noatble source? Isarig 00:58, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Don't put words in my mouth. FeloniousMonk 01:39, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
You agreed with a previous editor who said Kanziad's opinion, in and of itself, is non-notable, and that he adds nothing to the article. What are we to make of your opinion? Isarig 01:42, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Again, you're putting words in my mouth. It's an op-ed article in a notable Swedish paper, as such it provides insight into how Fox News is viewed by that segment of the Swedish population that comprise its readership. FeloniousMonk 01:39, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
No. --GunnarRene 01:50, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
I think (without putting words into his mouth) that FeloniousMonk objects to ever agreeing that the source is non-notable. He just agreed that the person is not so famous that a non-novel opinion would be notable. --GunnarRene 01:50, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Ok. So, if we are all in agreement that the person is not so famous that a non-novel opinion would be notable, can we get rid of this not-so-famous person's non-novel opinion? Isarig 01:54, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
I propose it would be far easier to come to a decision if the individual who repeatedly dissembled in an attempt to get rid of the information stopped trying. Hipocrite - «Talk» 12:33, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Exactly. I'm getting really tired of his dishonesty. FeloniousMonk 16:19, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Swedish journalism and what this article should be

The statement by Kianzad adds absolutely nothing to the article. Are you telling me that he is the only journalist we can find critical of Fox News? One has to go all the way to the Swedish press to find someone willing to criticize Fox News? Seriously, why have you guys spent hours debating the merits of this remarkably tangential piece of cruft? This article is becoming as bad, or perhaps even worse, than a blog post.

Here's what I propose, for what it is worth. In the criticisms, drop the references to the Simpsons, drop the references to Swedish journalists, drop the cruft. Actually organize the article along thematic lines: for example, there should be a section about their preference for Republican talking points, and put the four or five strongest pieces of evidence there (e.g. no references to The Simpsons, for crying out loud), then there should be a section on reporting mistakes they've made, list those explicitly and then go on, etc. etc. They key here is, have a section, make the point, present the evidence, and then don't mention it again, and certainly don't mention it again ten times.

As it stands, the entire content of this article is "Fox likes Bush more than CNN and ABC do." Why do I need seven screenfuls of cruft to convince me of this? Do you think any reader will get all the way to the bottom of this article, still undecided about Fox' potential bias, and then say, "Oh, wait, Behrang Kianzad says Fox lies! Now I'm convinced!!!!!!1" 3/4 of this article is cruft, and you guys are arguing back and forth on this page, and reverting back and forth on the article page, over inconsequential trivia. Seriously, I tried to remove a statement which was not only unverified, but unverifiable, and it was reverted several times.

Is anyone willing to discuss, in a big picture sense, what this article should look like, and how it should be organized? I am very much willing to do so if people are game; this has the potential to be a good article. However, arguing the notability and/or notoreity of a Swedish-language journalist on an article which has not the slightest thing to do with Sweden, on the English Wikipedia, is, frankly, a waste of everyone's time. -- Deville (Talk) 23:29, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Well said! Ucanlookitup 23:38, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Simpsons reference now a "See also" link. I agree on decrufting as long as we remember
  1. not to introduce a POV
  2. to keep some of the popular cruft (e.g. the Guardian/Michael Moore points on the 2000 election) --GunnarRene 07:01, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
"The statement by Kianzad adds absolutely nothing to the article." That a matter of opinion, one that I'm sure Expressen's readers would largely disagree with. It's important here because it gives some insight into how Fox is perceived in that part of Europe. There's been zero consensus that it should be removed it from the article. FeloniousMonk 01:54, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
You've already been told this is nonsense. It does not 'give some insight into how Fox is perceived in that part of Europe' - it gives insight into how Kianzad perceives Fox, which is of absolutely no interest to anyone but Kianzad ,and perhaps his close friends and family. And you have already agreed that his opinion, in and of itself, is of any notability. Isarig 02:01, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
You may have said it's nonesense, but that doesn't mean I found it compelling. Apparently neither did Guettarda or Hipocrite either. There's no consensus on this. Opinions seem to be more or less evenly split for the moment. In such circumstances, the content stays. You need to accept that fact, stop edit warring, being disruptive and using blatantly dishonest edit summaries. You really need to stop putting words in my mouth as well. FeloniousMonk 02:21, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
If you think it's not nonsense, you need to make a case for that. you haven't. On the contrary, you've agreed with another poster who found the comment uninteresting, and non-novel. You have yet to explain what you meant by that, other to insist that it does not mean you think the comment is non-novel. You seem to misunderstand the WP concept of "consensus" - the very first paragraph of wp:consensus reads "insisting on insertion of an insignificant factoid into an article in opposition to many other editors has been judged a violation of consensus" - that is precisly what you are doing. keep it up, and you will be reported again. Isarig 04:15, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
Like Brer Rabbit told Brer Fox, please don't throw me in the Briar Patch. How far did you get with that stunt last time? How's that working for you? I'd tell you to go reread WP:CON, but consensus only works when all parties are participating in good faith. With your history of misrepresentations supporting your long history of POV-deletionism at Fox News-related articles, recent abuse of process and blatant dishonesty here, I see little hope of that. Instead I suggest you read WP:POINT. Were I you, I'd stop disrupting this article and find a more constructive way to contribute to the project. There's a limit to what the community will put with from chronically disruptive POV editors. FeloniousMonk 05:07, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
Last time I reported you for a 3RR violation, you were quick to self revert yourself, which is the only reason you were not blocked. Your contributions to this article, if one can call them that, are a vioaltion of WP:Consensus, as I've clearly shown. Your previous contributions included falsifications of what the Rasmussen poll found, falsification which could only be deliberate. Your contributions on the Talk pages as well as your edit summaries, here and elswhere, are a violation of WP:CIVIL. Like I said, keep it up. Isarig 14:04, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
Like I asked: How's that working for you?
Hipocrite, Guettarda, Ucanlookitup and myself have insisted the content should stay each time it's been deleted by you or GunnarRene. So it's been four to two against; three if you count Deville who's stayed out of editing largely. How you can claim four to three against is consensus suporting your opinion is beyond me. There's representations, misrepresentations and Isarig, I guess. FeloniousMonk 14:51, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
What has WP:POINT got to do with this? Is there some kind of demonstration going on? --GunnarRene 21:53, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
Just to clarify my position, I'm leaning towards removing it because I don't believe it adds anything useful to the article. I am NOT, however, in favor of it being removed by edit war, anonymous ip editors, or parliamentary tactics. I think if we all take a few deep breaths, we can reach a true consensus.Ucanlookitup 15:28, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for clearing that up. OK, so it's 3 against 3. That's still certainly not consensus as Isarig claims. FeloniousMonk 19:09, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
You and your buddy Guettarda, who have been tag teaming elswhere as well, can both keep it up. He's not far from being blocked as well. You've misrepresented Ucanlookitup 's postion - hardly a first for you. Boasting about gaming the system - vioalting 3RR and immediately self-reverting after being reported - will not look good for you. Keep it up. Isarig 15:45, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
I didn't feel mis-represented. I had just never enunciated my thinking before. Can we all hold off on the inflamatory statements for a while. The world won't end if the content stays in for a little while longer. Ucanlookitup

Reading this talk page, it seemed to me that I, FeloniousMonk, Deville, Isarig and Ucanlookitup all agreed that this point was useless as it stands now, while Guettarda or Hipocrite disagreed. Why did this change? I don't see any new information to support either keep or delete, and all I get is references to some kind of shared personal history (of the bad kind). I'll just ask what this point adds to the article. One way I see to keep the point relevant might be a survey of what European newspaper editors think of Fox news (questionaire), how Fox News is described in news articles, counting negative and positive stories about Fox News, or counting negative and positive op-ed's about Fox News, or counting how often Fox News is used as a source in European media. Kianzad's op-ed could be counted in such a study, but as the point stands, I can't see what it adds. Also, note how all the other points in that section, except The Simpsons, offer some information on Fox News.--GunnarRene 21:53, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I have no strong stance on this issue except to say that disruptive editing, maliciously false edit summaries, POV edit warring and misrepresenting facts on talk pages to make your own side look better are wrong and should not be rewarded. Hipocrite - «Talk» 13:35, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
All right. I can't detect intent thorugh wire, but I think the discussion was bringing out the facts, and clarifying the differences of opinion. Some editors felt misrepresented, in the way that statements of agreement were taken to cover more than was intended, but I think that is an understandable mistake. Is it safe to say that GunnarRene, FeloniousMonk, Deville, Isarig and Ucanlookitup agreed that the point is useless (in current version), that Hipocrite has no strong stance on it, while Guettarda has reverted but voiced no opinion on this talk page? --GunnarRene 14:06, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Isarig has no standing in this discussion. Hipocrite - «Talk» 13:47, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Excuse me? I have as much standing here as you, if not more. I have actually been editing this article to make it better for the last couple of months. What have you done, other than to revert to a non-consensu version?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Isarig (talk • contribs) .
Certainly not more. Wikipedia does not have a seniority policy. Your opinion counts as one and only one. "Non-consensu version"? And your constant misrepresentations jeopardize that... FeloniousMonk 15:23, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Could you two, as a personal favour to me, please stop revert-warring over this point? I'm not goint to insert or delete this point any more unless we get some input from other editors.--GunnarRene 15:30, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Nowhere was a concept of seniority mentioned by me. You do not have a good grasp of th eenglish language, it seems. My standing here rests on the fact that I've actually contributed somethign to this article, which is more that I can say for Hipocrite. Isarig 15:28, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
You did bring up that you had been editing/contributing more than Hipocrite, and that might be interpreted to lean towards "article ownership" which is frowned upon here. But Hipocrite needs to substantiate or withdraw his claim of "no standing". --GunnarRene 15:32, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
For his continued revert warring and his willingness to distort, dissemble[[24]] and make up facts[[25]], and his predilection to personal attacks instead of building consensus - I do not consider Isarig's position on the matter worthy of consideration. He has distanced himself from the reasonable editors, and should be considered a non-entity untill such a time as he is willing to work with, rather than against others. Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:53, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
[[26]]: Not dissemling or distortion, see below. [[27]]: Nonsensical and weak argument (a commentator in the culture section can safely be called a culture commentator), but is it making up facts? --GunnarRene 16:16, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Addendum to the question of "culture commentator": we at that time had text characterizing him as a "reporter" [28], and Isarig's argument makes some sense in the context of that discussion, though I don't agree with it. He is an occasional culture commentator. Not regular, but repeated. (6 times counts as repeated.) --GunnarRene 17:17, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
In the first diff, he writes "you have already agreed that his opinion, in and of itself, is of any notability." The response to this is DIRECTLY BELOW THIS COMMENT - "I never agreed that the point is useless. My position stated time and again is that the point is insightful and should stay."
I assume the second diff is a continuation of "it's just a blog," which was the earlier made-up fact [[29]] which was at least set up as a question. However, I will consent to removing the making up of facts from the bill of particulars. I have struck it above. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:21, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
On first diff, se below. On second diff: For the record: Ucanlookitup (not Isarig) made a good-faith mistake that the text was in a blog hosted on Expressen's domain. (The blog link is in the side bar next to the op-ed) An mistake easily made, since the guy is blogger. [30]. This mistake was cleared up. [31] Isarig has not in any edit summary or talk page edit since then refrerred to the source as a blog post. --GunnarRene 17:17, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
I never agreed that the point is useless. My position stated time and again is that the point is insightful and should stay. FeloniousMonk 15:12, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Ucanlookitup wrote: "Personally I have to agree with GunnarRene's comment "...but all that quote says is that he thinks Fox News lies." Is the point we're trying to show is that some commentators think Fox News lies? If so, surely we can do better than a single foriegn language commentator." FeloniousMonk wrote:: "True. It's not like there's a shortage of legitimate and significant criticisms of Fox News in the world. I just don't like seeing bowdlerizations arising from misrepresentations; gets my hackles up." Comment: Can you understand my confusion as to what you meant? --GunnarRene 16:01, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Hipocrite: The only conceivable grievance I can see against Isarig here is that his edit summaries did not fully respect FeloniousMonk's reversal/clarification of opinion. But I see those edits as supported by this talk page. --GunnarRene 17:23, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Simpsons

Does anybody object to making the Simpsons reference into a "See also" link? The episode article in question contains enough information and the current point doesn't actually tell us anything about Fox News.--GunnarRene 15:45, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Expressen article opposing argument experiment

To remove baggage, I will attempt to restructure the discussion such that both sides can see where the other one is coming from. I would ask that individuals edit only the arguments of the side they disagree with, please.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hipocrite (talk • contribs) .

This looks like a collaborative argument-building exercise, and might be interesting. The point seems to be to edit the following section that you personally support, wihtout replying to the other one, without indenting, and wihout signing your personal contribution. Then you put your signature at the bottom. Correct? --GunnarRene 17:00, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Nope- to edit the sections you don't support. Because I don't care, I took a shot at the other two sections. I expect people who care to edit the don't care section and the side of the dispute that they are NOT on. You are supposed to advance the best argument of the other side. Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:08, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Something like the ultimate strawman factory, then. That might be useful if we don't use it to ridicule the "other side". I have a bad feeling about this, but lack the restraint to not play along.--GunnarRene 17:42, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
One more question, where do we continue discussion? Above in the relevant threads? --GunnarRene 18:04, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Include the Expressen article (opposing argument experiment)

Exclude the Expressen article (opposing argument experiment)

  • The article stacks yet another repetitive claim into an already too-long list. The list desperatly needs shortening, so we must remove the least intresting claim immediately. There is no claim less interesting than this one. (not my opinion) Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:38, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Who cares? (opposing argument experiment)

  • Reducing the wikistress of my fellow editors is more important than a making a "perfect" article, which is unaccheivable anyway. This point doesn't add anything to the article, but it doesn't detract anything either. (not my opinion)--GunnarRene 17:42, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Seemingly irrelevant factoids might sometime in the future be relevant. (not my opinion) --GunnarRene 18:04, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Title change?

What do people think of changing the title to "Criticism of Fox News Channel"? RN 20:31, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Why not Fox News Channel controversies like BBC controversies? And change CNN controversies and allegations of bias to CNN controversies. I think allegations of bias are covered by "controversies". These articles should emphasise particular controversies and put them into the bigger picture. General discussion of bias should maybe go into Media bias in the United States or something. --GunnarRene 20:57, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Fox News Channel controversies is fine by me, "Criticism of Fox News Channel" isn't bad either. Moving specific accusations of bias to Media bias in the United States would be a POV Fork. General accusations, not directed at FOX specifically can be moved of course. FeloniousMonk 23:52, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
"Fox News Channel controversies" sounds good to me as well. RN 22:29, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Add my vote for "Fox News Channel controversies" as well. Ucanlookitup 00:12, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
OK, moved it as there doesn't appear to be any objections. I like the new name, much shorter and less unwieldy. RN 16:27, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Original research

If there is some criticism of Fox's coverage of Ritter's POV regardign Iraq, from WP:RS, please cite them. Otherwise, this is OR. The unsourced claim regarding the misidentification of the target struck by the C-802 missile is an everyday occurnce when reporting live from a war zone, and a merchant ship was hit - a cambodian one. CNN similarly mistakingly reported a couple of times that Hezbollah abducted 3 soldiers (vs. 2) and that the rockets that hit the train depot was Iranian (vs. Syrian). Not every mistake is worthy of the "false reporting". charge Isarig 18:40, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I watched Fox's coverage before the war in Iraq, and there was no analysis of the Scott Ritter's analysis cited below. Further the issues presented in the analysis were not presented. It is easy to disprove a negative. So disprove it or quit deleting it from the article.
Further, Ritter's work was not POV. Ritter was a weapons inspector and an expert in the field. If you bother to read the work, you will find it is exceptionally well balanced.

http://www.twnside.org.sg/title/twr147e.htm01001 03:34, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

'I watched Fox's coverage' is pretty much the definition of original research. I suggest you familiarize yourself with WP:OR. For this to be included in the article, you need to find a source other than yourself that criticizes Fox for not covering Ritter. Until you do that, it is OR, and will be deleted. Isarig 03:52, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
What the hell do you do with TV if not watch it? And further you watch it too. Scott Ritter is a cited clear source, and it is plain as the sun rising in the morning that Fox News ignored it.01001 03:58, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
The source you provided indeed cites Ritter, but it does not criticize Fox for not coverign Ritter. Again, I suggest you read WP:OR as it is clear that you do not understand what I am talking about.Isarig 04:40, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Based on your most recent edit, it appears that your comments regarding Ritter were not only original research, but were false as well - as Fox news did interview him. This boils down to your personal disapproval of the coverage FN gave to Ritter. You are most welcome to that personal POV, but it has no place in an encyclopedia. Isarig 23:01, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

How on earth was my last contribution OR? What possible explanation do you have for that? I simply cited two sources of the same subject and interviewee and asked the reader to compare for himself which is fair and balanced. It is pretty obvious from reading the two cites that Fox had a different agenda in their interview. One interview was attempting to learn from the Ritter, while the Fox interview attempted to discredit Ritter and cloud the subject. But this editorializing that I have put on this discussion page is not in the article.01001 16:21, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Are Fox news employees moniteering this page? My last contributions being deleted twice does not make sense to me. I will wait for a time for some explanation and then put them back up as IMO they are very important, as it is a concrete example with the problems with Fox News without any original research or point of view. It is for the reader to come to his only conclusions based on clearly cited facts.01001 16:38, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Editors concerned with the quality of the encyclopedia are monitoring this page. What you have posted was a polemic - reflecting your personal POV on how Fox should have covered Scott Ritter. This is a violation of WP:NPOV as well as a violation of WP:OR. If you are looking for an explantion of why your contribution was removed, I again suggest you read those WP policies. In short, even though you personally may feel very strongly that Fox had an agenda in the way it conducted those interviews, and even though you might even be able to prove such an agenda - that is considered original research and is not allowed. You need to find a reputable source - not yourself- that discusses the interview you cited and says it is biased or reflects an agenda.Isarig 18:47, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
My posting in this discussion was a polemic. My most recent posting in the article was stripped of any original research or point of view. I posted two interviews of Scott Ritter, one by Fox news and one by William Pitt. You still have not stated one reason why this posting was WP:OR or WP:NPOV. All you have done is cloud this discussion by pointing out that my original posting to this article false and biased. Well my original posting and my recent posting are two different things entirely.01001 19:02, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
You posted two interviews under the heading "misleading reporting" - which means these interviews show misleading reporting. They do not. That part is POV. The connection between these two interviews and the article's subject - Fox News Channel controversies - is that you allege there is some sort of controversy surrounding Fox's coverage of Ritter- that part is original research. If all you had done was post those two interviews, with no commentary along the lines of "read for yourself and decide which is fair", under a neutral heading like "Fox's covergae of Ritter's arguments" - then it would not be POV nor OR, but it would still get removed because then it would have no relevance to the topic of Fox controversies. Isarig 20:03, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Fine, I will add a section comparing Fox News coverage to other media coverage. I guess this should be added to the main article01001 02:37, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Ailes

FeloniousMonk has removed a sourced rebuttal to criticism of Fox by Ailes (and dishonestly described this in his edit summary as "fmt, + additional cite". I restored Ailes' comment, and kept FM's quoting of the rejoinder to the rebuttal. MF again removed it with the claim that this article is for discussing controversies. I guess his concept of discussing controversy is one side airing out any and all grievences, down to a non-notable quote from a 700-google-hits Swedish-Iranian blogger, while the other side is not allowed to respond. I'm afraid that not how WP works. Isarig 05:31, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Let me second that. FeloniousMonk, your conduct here is unbelievable, and unbecoming of an administrator. An important part of any "controversies" article is the rebuttal, and you seem content to relegate it to a subclause, and then devote a huge chunk to bashing that rebuttal. (An amount that's totally unwarranted, BTW - the Boehlert piece claims that, if it were really fair, FNC would be obliged to make a big deal out of a DUI charge from 25 years before - that's pure spin). One of your favorite words seems to be "whitewash", for a change you don't like - you seem fine with doing a "blackwash". Korny O'Near 13:58, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Let me third that. One side calls Fox's pov "spin", and the other side says Fox is being misinterpreted. Doesn't WP:NPOV mandate describing both sides of a dispute fairly? To paraphrase Felonious, this is not the "Accuse Fox of spin" article. --Wing Nut 17:11, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I think this edit is entirely appropriate. What if anything could be wrong with it? --GunnarRene 18:46, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

You mean other than the fact that it co-opts a section of the article dedicated to 'Criticism' to favor FOX's CEO's rebutal of criticism? Other than that and it dropped the formating of the section, nothing. FeloniousMonk 18:50, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
I agree on the formatting. I'm sure you can think of a good section header if that warrants a new section. --GunnarRene 18:56, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Please. Spare me the partisan tar and feathering. Summarizing Ailes' points are one thing, helping him make them is another. A fair, simple summary of what Ailes says is supported by policy and guideline, reiterating them point by point to the detriment of the opposing viewpoint is not. I'll continue to insist that this article follow the project's rules and conventions, as well as the contributors here. I apologize if those who seek only to mitigate criticism of FNC find that inconvenient. FeloniousMonk 18:47, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Please what? I'm not a Republican, I'm a freaking Norwegian citizen! This is not supposed to be a content fork. NPOV is absolute and non-negotiable. --GunnarRene 18:54, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
I was addressing Isarig, Korny and Wing Nut. FeloniousMonk 19:05, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
OK, good. Although I'm non-American, I guess I could be "partisan", but I still see the problem. If we applied that same standard to the rest of the article, its entire contents would be (follows) --GunnarRene 19:22, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
And just what makes you think I'm a Republican, or an American? Isarig 22:02, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Example

Since its inception, the Fox News Channel has been the subject of controversy. Critics of the channel accuse it of political bias towards the right [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10], by touting the political leanings of its commentators and acussing it of immediately adopting the rhetoric of the Bush Administration. The network has steadfastly denied the accusations. Fox News CEO Roger Ailes responded that critics "confused our highly rated news analysis and opinion shows like Bill O'Reilly with our hard news coverage" and that "Fox News is the network that broke George W. Bush's DUI four days before the election."[10]

and that would be all. You can't just include the critisism that has actually been addressed by the critisized; all relevant, sourced and novel points should be included. --GunnarRene 19:22, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Eric Boehlert's criticism of FOX in Salon [32] is in response to Ailes fending off criticism of FNC's news standards by touting that Fox News broke the Bush DUI story. This is already covered adequately in the article. Keep in mind the subject of the"Other criticisms" section are the criticisms it contains, not the rebutals of FOX. To favor FOX's CEO's rebutal of criticism in the section of the article dedicated to 'Criticism' violates undue weight. I'm not dogmatically opposed to expanding the summary of Ailes' statement that prompted the criticisim, but this is not it. I can understand that some here want to expand coverage of Ailes' statements in his WSJ/OJ article further, but do it outside of the criticisms section in a different section. FeloniousMonk 23:42, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Where, exactly, is Ailes' fending off criticism of FNC's news standards, "already covered adequately in the article"? As far as I can tell, this section is the only one the mentions the argument. Isarig 00:09, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
A new section then? (If Ailes were addressing a specific point, it would go with that point, but it seems he mostly addresses bias?) --GunnarRene 00:16, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm fine with a new section, titled 'Fox's response to criticism' or something similar , that would include the Ailes arguments removed by FeloniousMonk. Isarig 01:19, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
That would be a reasonable compromise, I think. A section dedicated to response to criticisms seems fair. FeloniousMonk 02:00, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Expressen again

My first concern about Kianzad was that his statements as they appeared in the article before were totally uninteresting and should not have been included. (We even appeared to have consensus on it.) But now I've done some actual research into this (since I'm Norwegian and understand Swedish) including even some original research, which I of course won't include in the article, and some verifiable facts that I have included in the article to make the Kianzad point relevant. Perhaps it should be moved to the section on mistakes.

Kianzad makes a mistake in his newspaper piece that the population of Malmö is only 25% immigrant, when a total of 33% of the population is either foreing-born or born in sweden of foreign-born parents. He makes the specious claim that only 7% of the population comes from muslim countries. Perhaps he forgot to account for some of the African and European countries with Muslim majorities. I made the same calculation and arrived at 10-13%. And that neither accounts for muslims born in the West, nor for muslims in those 8% born in Sweden. Indeed, the balkans and the middle east are the largest areas of foreign immigration to Malmö, with neighbouring Denmark BEHIND Iraq, Bosnia and Yugoslavia in the rankings, and with Lebanon and Iran right behind it (Lebanon and Iran together had more emmigrants in Malmö than Denmark, although some Danish people could be there on shorter visits without registering as moving there, as could muslims from the rest of the EU by the way). So although Fox made a Dhimmi Watch-inspired mistake that should have warranted spiking and correcting the article (the violence problem was interesting after all) Kianzad made a couple of errors too; although not as grave mistakes as the one Harrigan made, Kianzad should correct too. --GunnarRene 22:20, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Supposing an equal birthrate in the borough of Rosengård, even just Iraq, Bosnia and Lebanon almost bring the number of potential Muslims in that borough up to 25%. (We don't have numbers from all countries in all boroughs. Numbers from all countries are just available city-wide.) But this would count as new analysis of verifiable data, and even that is original research so I did not attempt to add it to the article. All I do in the article is explain what Kianzad took issue with. Describing the city as 25% Muslim is not worthy of criticism unless we also state that the actual numbers say that it's 25% 1st generation with an additional 8% second generation foreign background, not 25% Muslim. And the borogh of Rosengård was brought up both in the Fox article AND by Kianzad himself, so mentioning the verifiable information about that borough is not original opinion nor original research. --GunnarRene 23:20, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Numbers on Rosengård: Assuming equal fertility in all ethnicities, a whooping 34% percent of the January 1, 2004, population of Rosengård consisted of Iraqis, Lebanese and Bosians, with another 20% "Yugoslavian" (Serb (including Muslim Kosovo Albanians) and Montenegrin). But although the numbers of "Muslim country" population of Malmö and its Rosengård borough was mentioned by both reliable sources, that calculation is Original Research because I made an assumption about birth rates that none of the sources brought into play. --GunnarRene 00:35, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Good work, but it is original research. The "Other criticisms" section is for statements of critics, not clarifying, supporting or debunking their statements. FeloniousMonk 23:24, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Then I'll move it to factual errors, not "other criticisms" since the only interesting thing that Kianzad says, except for stating that he doesn't like Fox News, is that Fox News got Muslim and Immigrant mixed up. Rosengård is in the freaking title of his op-ed too, so mentioning it is totally relevant. --GunnarRene 23:28, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Oh, so you are debunking his criticism then... No. Whether any criticism is valid or accurate is not for us to judge. The only criteria for inclusion at Wikipedia is that it meets WP:V and WP:RS. FeloniousMonk 23:32, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Hello! Original research, such as polling your co-workers, readig tea leaves, throwing dice or coming up with new cosmology is allowed on talk pages. Original reseach is not allowed in articles, and that is why the article provides neutral information about what the situation is, without making any conclusions. It is more original research to call one of the above sections "False reporting". How dare we declare something false reporting, even when Fox News admit that the information was incorrect or made in jest. --GunnarRene 23:36, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

BTW, the subject of his comment as it is included here is about FOX News, not Rosengård. FeloniousMonk 23:33, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
File:Spidey Reichstag 2.jpg

I suggest you read this: WP:OR#Synthesis_of_published_material_serving_to_advance_a_position and WP:SPIDER. Both parties refer to Rosengård, and Kianzad HIMSELF refers to the statistics from the City of Malmø. What's the point of mentioning him if we can't even mention the verifiable and relevant raw facts that have allready been brought into the discussion by the parties?--GunnarRene 23:45, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Namely: "That is, that precise argument, or combination of material, must have been published by a reliable source in the context of the topic the article is about." And those reliable sources are actually Kianzad himself (the City of Malmö statistics on origin, and about Rosengård) and Fox News (about Rosengård). --GunnarRene 23:48, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Re: you edit summary: (→Other criticisms - it still OR. How many other criticisms here have similar "context"?)

Title and infobox: It suggest that this article contains information on controversies. It says that Fox News is a cable television network, that it's from the US, what it's slogans are, who owns it and identifies the owner.

Ownership and management: 1st point contains additional information about one of the owners of Fox News, which is evidently "original research" by your standard.

Reports, polls and studies: This section contains copious results from surveys, which evidently counts as "original research" by your standard. Note that in both the case of Malmö and these surveys, reliable sources (Expressen and Fox News) have used those exact same surveys. I'm not pulling some other study out, I'm referring to the exact same surveys that they do.

Critisism of pundits: Says that Ofcom is the United Kingdom's statutory broadcasting regulator. It calls Media Matter for America a "watchdog group". It calls Hume's claim factually incorrect. The first part about Colmes is full of facts that aren't being claimed.

Other criticisms: Calls outfoxed a "documentary" and calls Greenwald a "left-wing activist". It calls Ted Turner the founder of CNN. It says that Hitler rose to power in 1930's Germany. It says that Florida is a popular Spring Break party spot. It says that The Simpsons is an animated sitcom, that it airs on the Fox network, and that it has spoofed the Fox network in general. It says that Expressen is a newspaper. It says that Kianzad is Iranian-Swedish and a newspaper commentator.

Fox News responds: It says that the WSJ owns OpinionJournal. It says that the WPXT ran the story. It calls Eric Burns a Fox News personality. It says that the quote is from an interview.

External links: It says that News Corporation is Fox's parent company. It calls News Hounds a watchdog blog. Again calls outfoxed a "documentary" and "critical". It says that VPRO segment is Dutch by Tegenlicht. It says that there are Dutch subtitles. It says that broadband is needed. It calls Bob McKeown's story an "Investigation". It says that there are residents in Bangkok (again a population statistic, although it's binary).

Categories: It says that this is related to the Fox News Channel.

Most of these facts are fine and not real Original Research, but if all information about what controversies are ABOUT are removed, then the article becomes less informative. Please read the policy on original research to see what original research really is. And you're welcome to browse Category:User sv for other Swedish speakers if you don't believe me about the sources. Kianzad uses both the City of Malmö statistics tables from 2004 and refers to Rosengård. And Fox news also use those statistics AND speak to a Rosengård principal. Since both notable parties have brought those specific sources of fact into play, I think my edit was totally relevant and it's also completely NPOV. I've left out all information found on Kianzad's source blog Kornet.nu and on Fox News's source blog Dhimmi Watch --GunnarRene 12:46, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Re: edit summary: rm context meant to discredit criticism. This is the criticism section, not the criticism debunking section. How many other criticisms have similar context? See above. The context is not meant to discredit the criticism, but to tell the viewers what Kinazad's criticism is actually about. As I stated earlier, all the other points in that list, except for the Simpsons point, told us something about Fox News itself and its conduct. If you've been paying attention, you'd see that the part that I take issue with here on the talk pages, namely the "7 % muslims" claim is neither presented nor "debunked" in the article. I see that you've edited WP:OR, so I won't ask you to read it again, as it seems you are familiar with the existence of the policy. --GunnarRene 15:17, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Reading the above, it is clear you are providing a contrived context using sources you've gathered and arranged to discredit a particular critic's criticism. A critic who's comments you've already admitted you don't care for and think don't belong here, I note. This criticism is in the criticism section, not the criticism debunking section. How many other criticisms have similar context?

Also, your "context" is indeed original research. You are taking primary sources and arranging them in such a way as to make a point that none of them actually make in their articles. Now if you found a secondary source that makes the point that you are trying prop up with primary sources, it wouldn't be original research. Either do that or let well-sourced criticism stand unmolested. Please read WP:RS and WP:NOR.

Your recent deletion of it violated WP:POINT, please stop doing that. FeloniousMonk 15:19, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Re:[33] I'm familiar with WP:POINT. And as an administrator I thought you would be more familiar with policies and guidelines here. Point is about doing bad stuff to show people how it would be if everybody did bad stuff.

This was not WP:POINT, this is about a bullet point. I'm happy with removing the point, and I'm also happy with keeping the point if it only tells readers what the point is acutally ABOUT. Everything we include here should be self-evidently interesting. The reason I started editing this article is that I was reading it and came upon something that looked like an irrelevant point added by an anonymous user or something. No offence to the original submitter, but the severe brevity and lack of content of the point made it look like that to me. When I actually go out to improve something here, I expect other editors to either help me make improvements and changes or actually debate why it's wrong to include the information. I'm not interested in engaging in an editing war between 3 versions of the article. --GunnarRene 15:31, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Re: [34] He's not just a blogger. But we did agree that the blogger/newspaper commentator is not so famous that him holding the opinion alone warrants inclusion. --GunnarRene 15:31, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

And one more thing: What kind of theory or position did you think was being advanced by quoting the exact same statistics as Kianzad and Harrigan were referring to? That not all the immigrants are Muslim? Kianzad actually MAKES that point. --GunnarRene 16:01, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Primary source information removed

Primary source information removed, although the primary information was not presented contrary to the WP:OR policy. It so happens that we have an article on the borough of Rosengård with immigration statistics, pictures and everything. I didn't know about this article but I've put it on my watchlist now. --GunnarRene 15:49, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Fox_News_controversies/Archive_2&oldid=967838553"