Talk:Fox News controversies/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 → Archive 9

dont remove my talk posts again!

two former al jezeera employee's who are Jordanian Muslims who quit fox news because the wernt critical enough on Israel does not count as a controversy. If you dont beleive these people have a bias then feel bad for youTowers84 13:38, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

do Not revert without good reasonTowers84 13:41, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

you know what your right you wikinas I guess my complaint isn't valid. now I'm off to the spain article to edit that it rightfully belongs to the jihad BECAUSE I CAN CITE A SOURCE! or should I go to the U.S. page and mention that soon it will burn and its whores will be raped as rightful spoils for the righteous because as you know, I can cite a source. consider the source. UNLESS you can give me a reason why this is controversial, and not just two Arabs being sympathetic to hezbollah (yeah thats in the article) I shall continue to remove it. Towers84 14:26, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I'll stop removing it. Though just because you dont agree with me does not automatically make what I say an "insane rant". I have just as much right to post here as anyone. It is neither fair nor proper to remove my posts on the discussion page. Don't be childish, refute my position. Towers84 11:30, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Towers84, your approach is generally not acceptable here at WP. That said, I have reviewed this incident and agree that it does not belong for a couple of reasons.

  1. It is currently factually wrong. These two people were not employed by FNC. They did logistical support for FNC in some capacity, but they were never employed by FNC as the article would suggest. Their "Resignation" letter states that they were never employed by FNC. Thus, they should not be listed as "Producers" for FNC, since they were never in that capacity, and it should not be stated that they "Resigned" since they were never in the capacity to resign in the first place.
  2. Their reason for resigning (which they could not have done) is not specified, outside of simply accusing FNC of being pro-Israel and biased. This is akin to having a freelance writer state they are not going to do freelance work for someone in the future because they don't like that company anymore.
  3. This was not reported in any mainstream news as a story, but simply two freelancers (who were never employed by FNC to begin with) making a political statement against FNC, without stating any specific criticism.

Unless significant reason can be shown why it should remain it should be removed immediately. Even if it is to remain it must be rewritten as it is currently not factual. Arzel 14:02, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Beyond that, it certainly looks like you're making terrorist threats. "should I go to the U.S. page and mention that soon it will burn and its whores will be raped as rightful spoils for the righteous". I'll take it to ANI from now on. /Blaxthos 15:04, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Now thats just being childish and you know it. First you attempted to censor me by removing my talk posts and when I attempt to make a point you accuse me of terrorist threats! Read the Koran while a beautiful and poetic book is full of dark age morality (hence the whores comment). look up "America" and "burn" on google. While depressing it does make my case, souces could be cited. By ANI what do you mean?Towers84 18:11, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

See WP:ANI. Andyvphil 10:28, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

What about the "Anonymous" issue?

Anyone going to add it? (unsigned, by 209.144.25.189; 07:57, 10 August 2007)

Bias Wikipedia Editing

Should it include the wikipedia editing controversy that they completely rewrite the articles in their favor? One reference is here: http://radar.oreilly.com/archives/2007/08/wikipedia_is_on.html It was on digg too: http://digg.com/political_opinion/Fox_News_Caught_Editing_Wikipedia_Changes_Included

Please sign your posts. The digg is just a link to the same oreilly radar article. I salvaged a dailykos link from the edit war history for that paragraph I added (temporarily, just in case it has legs) on this subject. Any more? (Feel free to add refs, but please don't lengthen the maintext unduly unless the subject acquires some weight.) Andyvphil 09:35, 15 August 2007 (UTC) ...Er, actually it was in Fox News Channel that I split this subject from the "bias" subheading. Did gastric bypass surgery here too, now. Up to four cites, by combining. Andyvphil 10:01, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Please note that blogs are not considered reliable sources by Wikipedia. As such, the "Wikipedia Edits" section should be removed as there is no sourcing that a) the alleged conduct is considered controversial or b) that the Foxnews employee or employees did anything wrong on the site. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 23:27, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
The cites to the blogs verify the statement that it received much attention w.r.t. Fox News editing of WP articles on the blogoshpere. The reliable sources are online sites such as The Guardian, InformationWeek and The Huffington Post (the last being a politically liberal site, but a reliable source nonetheless, with a real-name byline the presentation of which is sanctioned by the publication, as opposed to being an anonymous blog). All three present verifiable evidence in support of the assertions they make. Thus far this issue has been seen by editors as inadequately notable for the article on Fox News Channel, but is sufficently notable and widely discussed to be notable in the context of this article, which specifically has to do with public controversies related to Fox News Channel. ... Kenosis 23:50, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm not convinced this is big enough. All this shows is that a few employees on one or two occasions made a few brief edits. This is hard to see as serious enough to be included here. JoshuaZ 00:34, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Most users editing this article have an anti-Fox agenda, it's no use trying to persuade them to be neutral.-DMCer 08:16, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Quick look at FOXNews shows it has carried two articles on the story, one by AP[1] (which mentions AP) and another by the London Times[2], neither of which mention Fox. Andyvphil 00:03, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Claiming that FOX News was directly involved in such issues volates WP:OR. Singling out Fox News from a news story about the issue in general violates WP:UNDUE. This issue should not be in this article. Bytebear 23:05, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
I tried, I really tried to rewrite the paragraph about this issue in a NPOV way, but to say that FOX is somehow at fault for something that is so commonplace is just not particulararly controversial. It's like saying Oprah is controversial because she jaywalks. Bytebear 23:10, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
You are confusing controversy with malfeasance. Andyvphil 23:24, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Exactly, so you're agreeing that it doesn't belong in this "controversies" article?-DMCer 01:01, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
No, I am observing that something can be a controversy even if FNC did nothing wrong. The response in this article ought not be omission, but NPOV treatment that allows the reader to discern that FNC did nothing wrong without that being said in Wikipedia's voice. Andyvphil 18:58, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
No, I am not. There is no LAW that says you can't edit Wikipedia in a POV way. There is no LAW that says that you cannot edit Wikipedia if you are related to the subject. There are policies in place, but no one is going to be fined or arrested for editing Wikipedia. However, thre are laws against jaywalking, but the practice is so common, that it is a non-issue, but it is technically more controversial to jaywalk than to edit Wikipedia. So what makes this an issue, and Jaywalking a non-issue? I really on't want to be the Fox News Channel babysitter, but you give me no choice. Your claims of NPOV are so blantently false, that it's laughable. And your sly removal of the "fact" tag simply illustrates my point. Bytebear 23:31, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Your response indicates, again, that you are in fact confusing controversy with malfeasance. Please read my answer to DMCer. (I can in fact imagine a scenario in which jaywalking becomes controversial.) And I removed the {{Fact}} tag because choosing to characterize Radar O'Reilly, Huffington Post , DailyKos etc. as "liberal blogosphere" was a matter of editorial choice of words which can be argued about here but for which a citation request is inappropriate. Since I commented the removal at length it hardly seems "sly".Andyvphil 18:58, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
If I may, I want to firmly support the inclusion of the section on Wikipedia edits. This was discussed at the main article Fox News Channel and it was decided that it wasn't adequately notable to include there, but was reasonable here. I see no indication that it's not reasonable to include among the Fox controversies, because it has, according to notable reliable sources, been controversial -- not major, but controversial nonetheless. And this is an article about Fox News Channel Controversies. ... Kenosis 22:32, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Actually, consensus was that adding a list of controversies on that page is generally a bad idea, and that this particular issue was so debatable on it's merit, that it definitely did not fit the criteria. That said, the jury is still out as to whether this is a controvery given WP:OR and WP:UNDUE, along with a lack of substantial references singling out Fox News. Bytebear 23:35, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
A reference which "singles out" Fox News is not required, so long as the source adequately describes Fox's activity. Sources support the article, not vice-versa. Italiavivi 23:45, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
But when the reference states that Fox is among hundreds of similar companies with the same issue, it becomes not-notable (at least not on an individual level). Bytebear 23:47, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Exactly what policy are you using to support that argument? /Blaxthos 23:58, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Agree, Blaxthos. Bytebear, the argument to dismiss Fox's actions based upon other companies doing the same thing is baseless. Italiavivi 06:13, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Actually, there is nothing that definitively identifies FNC as the editor, other than IP addresses. I am still waiting to see the ultimate decision, but I don't think this should be an issue on any article because it involve WP self-reference. Arzel 00:01, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
What else do you need? Fox News owns the IP that was used, ergo a FN employee made the edits. Beyond that, I don't think anyone is saying that FNC directly "ordered" or "authorized" the edits. Please stop trying to gloss this over. /Blaxthos 14:30, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Without commenting on the content itself, there is no proof that the person who made those edits is an employee of FNC. If I logged out right now, I'd be editing from an IP address owned by Auburn University. That does not by any means make me an employee of the University.; it simply means I'm using their wifi. - auburnpilot talk 14:36, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
So good to see you finally engaging, AuburnPilot.  ;-) A few points to consider: (1) I think we should make a distinction between a public university (which, last I attended Auburn University you had to have some sort of credentials to use their computing network; and my current University requires radius authentication before using WiFi) and a company (which, I can assure you, has strict access control policies). (2) The articles edited and the content of those edits are directly related to Fox News. Are you really asserting that someone unaffiliated with FoxNews just happened to scrub Shephard Smith's bio, or made the other edits? Some random WiFi thief who just happens to be stealing FNC's (unlikely) unsecured signal to make pro-FNC edits? I think that's a stretch of believability. (3) See Respondeat superior. (4) I think we're simply pointing out that the edits came from FNC's network. No statement needs to be made about WHO or WHY the edits were made; readers can use their own powers of deduction to determine if they think that FNC or its employees were responsible for said edits. In any case, not mentioning it is unacceptable, IMHO. /Blaxthos 14:48, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Point (2) would fall under WP:OR. It's a good theory, and probably correct, but you need a reliable source outside of our little discussion group to say it. My second point is Notability. Is it notable that Fox News has done this? Or is Fox News just one of many. The phenomenon is notable, but the individual participants and their contributions are not. Bytebear 17:59, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Notability is a concept that applies to the existance of articles, not to the content therein -- perhaps a subtle, but very significant, difference. Regarding original research, as explained elsewhere, there are now reliable sources that directly implicate Fox News, thus removing your WP:OR concerns. Regarding your claim of notability, assuming said concept applied here (which it does not, as has been explained countless times in the past (not directly related to this particular dispute)), who gets to decide what is "notable"? Are they anointed by you, or is there some sort of secret guideline? What exact requirements are you using to determine if you think something is notable? Obviously, my questions may include a small amount of hyperbole... You can't just censor away information you deem as being "not notable", and you certainly can't go shopping around for policies to use to exclude... first it's an WP:NPOV problem, then it was a violation of WP:OR, then it became a WP:RS issue, and now you're trying to use a notability guideline on article content? Where have I heard this logic before...? /Blaxthos 22:59, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Respondeat Superior does not apply to all conduct done by an employee during work hours. It only applies to conduct which is related to the duties of the employment. So if a janitor at FNC decides to start editting Wikipedia on his lunch break, that would not be imputed to FNC. However, if FNC hired someone (if it's a PR firm, that is under a different aspect of the law) to scour the Internet, to sanitize articles relating to the company, then respondeat superior would apply. There is obviously no proof of any of these companies doing that, so we'd have to keep that assumption out of the article. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 16:39, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

External Websites

I have removed the Fox Attacks external link. This website actively encourages people to contact local advertisers and pull their advertisement from FOX. I realize the external websites do not have to be NPOV to be included, but this website crosses the line in that it targets local FOX affiliates. If you don't like FNC fine. When you tell people to contact FNC about specific content (Media Matters) fine. Then you tell people to contact their advertisement for no specific content you have crossed the line. Arzel 14:15, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, of course. This was quite sensible. Thank you, Arzel. ... Kenosis 23:42, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
We can't link to the websites of political organizations that advocate boycotts? This is a policy you'll need to quote to me. Then we can start making a list. It'll be an interesting list. Andyvphil 08:33, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
See Truthiness. It doesn't actually violate any policy, but Arzel tends to go with what "feels" right to him, regardless of what is actually stated in policy. /Blaxthos 18:04, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Oh Blaxthos, why do you make assumptions? I didn't realize I needed to quote policy when something is obvious. FOX Attacks, fails both WP:UNDUE and WP:RS. This is undue weight because you have an external link for no specific reason, other than stacking. FOX is not a relevant source for anything, other than the recent WP edit minor incident. To include their site within the external link section is obviously a situation of undue weight. FOX Attacks also fails because they are an extremist site.
Extremist sources
Organizations and individuals that are widely acknowledged as extremist, whether of a political, religious or anti-religious, racist, or other nature, should be used only as sources about themselves and their activities in articles about themselves, and even then with caution.
From FOX Attacks own website they acknowledge their goal to attack FOX by targeting FOX Advertisers and starting petitions targeting FOX. As such, they can not be viewed as a reliable source. From their own FAQ.
Q: I cannot stand to watch FOX Noise Channel, is there something I can do?
A: Yes! You can still contact advertisers without having to actually watch the channel. There are lots of brave folks out there willing to overload their TiVos.
Q: What about national advertisers? It looks like you're just focused on local ones.
A: Yes, for right now we are targeting local advertisers for calls, but we are collecting information on national advertisers for the future.
As I stated earlier. If you want to contact FOX about specific comment and call them on it (like Media Matters) fine, but when you are actively attacking the entire organization, you have crossed the line. Arzel 21:24, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
If the site isn't being used as a source, then we don't really need it, do we? If it doesn't add anything to the article, cut it. Parsecboy 23:01, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
FoxAttacks need not be a RS to appear as a WP:EXTernal link. It appears to be a site "which fail[s] to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain[s] information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources". The fact that it advocates boycotts doesn't make it extremist, merely highly partisan. I didn't add it, but the weakness of the arguments so far for removing it is enough to convince me to revert until someone makes a better argument. My bias is in favor of supplying navigation to relevant material, trusting the reader to make up his own mind. Andyvphil 23:24, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
(reset indent) WP:RS doesn't apply to WP:ELs. The extremist argument doesn't hold much water, and is highly subjective -- any organization that calls for a boycott of a particular organization is "extremist"? Negative. See Andyvphil's comment. /Blaxthos 01:14, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
The link isn't appropriate for Wikipedia. Whether or not it calls for a boycott shouldn't even matter specifically, it's the content and goals of the site that make it unsuitable. -DMCer 16:22, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Can you justify that with policy, or is this just a personal opinion? It seems to fall under a site "which fail[s] to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain[s] information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources". /Blaxthos 18:27, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm confused. Can someone explain to me what part of WP:EL is being claimed to be violated here? JoshuaZ 23:49, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
I removed it because it fails as a WP:RS and WP:UNDUE. It was intially used as a source for the Wikipedia Edits and then added as an External Website. It fails as a reliable source because it advocates a financial attack on local FOX affiliates. I believe this is a good example of an extremist website, where the only purpose of the website is to hurt a business finanically, and is certainly not appropriate for an encylopedia. I also removed it because of undue weight. There are already watchdog sites within the external link section, the inclusion of this website seems to say that anyone that has an anti-FOX website should get to include theirs as well regardless of whether it is used as a reference. Seriously, I wish everyone would get over their own personal bias and dislike of FOX, the inclusion of sites like this makes WP a worthless pile of mudslinging. Blaxthos and Italiani are going to disagree with me because they already don't like me. Arzel 15:16, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Comment on content not the contributor. I would agree that this site should not be used as a source of information as it fails WP:RS. But as an external link for the controversies article, it seems to be ok, as the bar for this portion of articles seems to be ridiculously low (and if you don't believe me, check out the JFK assassination articles. You'll see some of the dreck, lying and slanderous sites that are listed in the external links).Ramsquire (throw me a line) 16:23, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
I am guessing you are probably right about some of the drevel on other articles, and they should probably not be included either. But that is neither here nor there because, as I have been told numerous times, you can't compare article content (which I think is crazy because that is what everyone does anyway). The fact of matter is that this is basically a mirror site for MoveOn.org, Media Matters and others. Only this site goes a step futher and tells you to contact anyone advertising with FOX and complain with them about FOX so that FOX is hurt financially. I seriously don't see how a source can fail RS but still be used as an EL in this regard. Extremist Vigilantistic sites should simply not be allowed as external links. Arzel 18:51, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
I mentioned the other sites as an example to see how low the bar had been set at this project. It's not my intention to engage in saying that if it's OK there, this particular link is OK. To be honest, I don't really have an opinion either way on this issue. I don't even know how these discussions on external links gets legs. Do people ever read these links and go to those sites? Ramsquire (throw me a line) 20:22, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
I certainly use ELs as navigation aids. So I think the conspiracy sites certainly should be linked to at the JFK assassination articles, though I would prefer them to be identified as "Conspiracy Theory Sites" rather than just "External Links". Anyway, this discussion doesn't have legs, just partisans. The idea that calling for economic secondary boycotts is "extremism" is nonsensical, and if the site is otherwise just a mirror of relevant (to this article) Media Matters and MoveOn material...well, that's convenient. Yes, it's mostly drivel, but it's part of the function of this article to cover "controversy" drivel in an NPOV fashion and thus expose it for what it is. Andyvphil 21:20, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't know how often people go to them, but linking within a WP article, gets you bumped up on Google search engines. Other sites already have credibility outside of simply being linked within a WP article, but FOX Attacks doesn't. Nothing more than free advertisement IMO (this is not why I feel it fails WP policy however). Arzel 21:18, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
I believe Wikipedia sets the attribute (rel="nofollow") on its pages so that doesn't happen Andyvphil 21:35, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
I think you are correct. I am not sure when Wikipedia changed this, but I do know that less than a year ago sites listed within external links showed up on google searches. I think it is a good that they have changed this. Arzel 23:26, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Been sitting out for a while, but I just have to jump in here with regard to Arzel. First of all, stop making comments about editors instead of content. I'm getting tired of wandering along somewhere and repeatedly finding that you're talking shit about *me* instead of the arguments I make. Repeated violations of WP:NPA will get you censured -- count on it. Also, please double check your facts before asserting truth, because more often than not you're just plain wrong. By what you've said here, it's not a far stretch to believe that you want to remove said EL because you think "linking within a WP article, gets you bumped up on Google search engines" which is "free advertisement" and gives it "credibility". Absolutely incorrect (on all accounts), and it seems like you're hunting a policy to try and use to keep out external links with which you don't agree. When questioned directly by several editors about what part of WP:EL is being violated, I saw no response (but only accusations of people disagreeing with you because "they don't like [you]." I'm asking (for the third time) that you stop this kind of behavior or take it elsewhere. Thanks. /Blaxthos 17:50, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
His argument is that the Fox Attacks site violates WP:EL's "extremist" provision, I believe. Italiavivi 18:17, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
His risible argument... Andyvphil 19:00, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Blaxthos, why not read what I have written before becomming unglued. I have stated numerous times that FOX Attacks fails because of undue weight and for being an extremist website. I submit as futher evidence from their site.
Bravenewfilms is a proxy for FOX Attacks. Robert Greenwald started an supports both sites, and they contain the same content. He is also a well known activist in support of hurting FNC.
http://bravenewfilms.org/blog/5287-fox-attacks-the-environment
Seen enough? Now it's time to get to work. Join with us, the Sierra Club, and MoveOn to put an end to this propaganda and distortion by appealing to Fox's advertisers. Specifically, Home Depot. Why? Because Home Depot says they care about the environment. So we're giving them a chance to prove it by asking them to stop advertising on Fox until it changes its lies and distortions about the climate crisis.
Tell Home Depot to stop advertising on Fox!
No responsible company claiming to support the environment should be advertising with a corporation that consistently deceives America about the climate crisis. Rupert Murdoch says he wants to "get their house in order." Let's help him along by applying pressure to his bank accounts.
Thank you for joining us in this next FOX ATTACKS battle.
I don't support Fox's arguement regarding the climate, but this is clearly an extremist site, and advocate threatening FOX advertisers. Please explain to me why this site doesn't violate WP policy regarding external links. Arzel 23:34, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
I said the list would be interesting. To FoxAttacks we can now add the Sierra Club and MoveOn.org. And the United Farm Workers (they boycotted Safeway). And the University of California (South Africa!). And... Yeah, we can keep ourself busy all over Wikipedia without half trying. Andyvphil 02:09, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
I feel that further replies to Arzel will only result in more flaming and commentary on editors vs. arguments ("coming unglued", etc.). Please also add Focus on the Family to the list, along with other extremists like Martin Luther King, Jr.. /Blaxthos 04:07, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that what they (fox attacks) are proposing is quite different from a boycott. if someone were to boycott fox news, that would mean they stop watching, take it a step further and going after say, Home Depot, that would mean you stop shopping at home depot. demanding ads removed just to damage Fox is not protest, it is however petty. I personally can't stand any of the major news networks. so I don't watch them. thats a choice. freedom means the right to choose. And blaxthos was right this does draw a parallel to Dr. King, when people disagreed with him they tried to silence him instead of letting people make up there own mind. it's called free market, when people stop watching, the advertisers stop paying. pulling the plug before that is both restraint of trade and censorship. I say remove the link. Towers84 08:42, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Please Stop

Please refrain from edit warring re: Fox Attacks. This is not an endorsement of one side over the other, only requesting that we attempt to reach consensus on the talk page rather than continue reverting the same link. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 22:40, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Talk discussion was ongoing, they decided to start deleting mid-talk. They can hold their horses, and I'll revert so long as the Talk is ongoing. Italiavivi 01:46, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
How have we not reached a consensus? It's like, 8-1 in the previous thread to remove the "FOX Attacks" link.-DMCer 03:55, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
You don't count too good. Andyvphil 11:00, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
You might want to recount it, then work on your grammar. "You don't count too WELL", is correct English. -DMCer 16:24, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Nitpicking minor grammatical errors on a site where not everyone speaks English as a first language does not help your case at all, DMCer. Keep it up, if your arguments are that weak. Italiavivi 19:35, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
I would think you'd agree that everyone should be able to count. Luckily, I'm not worried about weak arguments, as it seems you have just 2 people who agree with you.-DMCer 21:34, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
You should have been perceptive enough to realize I was choosing not to use correct English. Someone who goes all Valley Girl in their written communications ("It's like, 8-1...") has no business playing grammer guru. Especially when it was, like, wow, 3-2, really, and now appears to be, like, 4-3. Andyvphil 23:28, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Keep digging.-DMCer 08:15, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Keep digging yourself, friend. Italiavivi 14:21, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
(deindent) By my reading, this discussion appears to be about evenly divided on this issue — so, I think everyone should just stay calm and avoid name-calling and keep the discussion going. --Haemo 08:21, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
ha ha he called you friend.Towers84 08:46, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Lots of bad external links

I am looking through the links on this article, and more than a few are in conflict with Wikipedia:External_links#Links_normally_to_be_avoided. Bytebear 00:03, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Please provide the links in question, as we can only guess as to what you're referring right now. Parsecboy 00:08, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Doing a quick check, these should be removed:

I am sure there are many more that fit other criteria. Please review the list of objectionable linkings on WP:EL. There are a lot of links in this article and each should probably be reviewed. I an hesitant to keep many of the blogger type opinion links without corroborating sources. Bytebear 00:25, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree that those should be removed, especially the Daily Show clip, which we can all agree is comedy, and not really suitable as a reference. Parsecboy 00:35, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
The controversy he is responding to is actually about the actions of FN rather than FNC, but comedy is just the medium. The point is serious enough. Andyvphil 02:19, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree as longs as the facts are there and the point is valid the medium should not really matter.In fact I cant remember the last time the daily show needed a retraction. unlike FN,CNN, or MSNBC. Towers84 08:51, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

A retraction for what reason? The Daily Show is a parody, just like SNL, the Colbert Report, and I am sure there are others. Everything they say is to assumed to be under the guise of a parody and not to be taken seriously. They can say pretty much anything they want without any fear of retraction. From that end they should never be used as a reference regardless of whether it is true or not. Arzel 13:57, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Why is this Biography of Living Persons?

Why does this whole article have the Biolgraphy of Living Persons template on it? Thanks •smedleyΔbutler• 04:13, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Removed. Bytebear 04:19, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Thank you •smedleyΔbutler• 04:44, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Suggested change by me

The section on Joseph Cafasso is not NPOV, IMO. It starts out 'The New York Times'. A lot of RW's think the NYT is not a RS. This Cafasso hoax and scandal is proven fact, and more important than this article makes it. I would like to change it to below:

  • For over four months in 2002, Fox News used fake 'military expert' Joseph A. Cafasso who said that he was a retired Lieutenant Colonel in the Special Forces, won the Silver Star for bravery, served in Vietnam and was part the failed mission to rescue hostages in Iran in 1980. Cafasso assisted and shared tips with reporters, producers and on-air consultants at Fox. It was discovered that Cafasso had only served 44 days in Army Boot Camp and was discharged as a Private. After he left, Fox was criticized for using him as a 'Military Expert' without ever checking his record and credentials. [3] [4]

What does everyone think of that? Okay? •smedleyΔbutler• 04:44, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

First, fake 'military expert' is not neutral NPOV to me. Why not simply say,
  • For over four months in 2002, Fox News used Joseph A. Cafasso as a "military expert". He said that he was a retired Lieutenant Colonel in the Special Forces, won the Silver Star for bravery, served in Vietnam and was part the failed mission to rescue hostages in Iran in 1980. Cafasso assisted and shared tips with reporters, producers and on-air consultants at Fox. It was later discovered that Cafasso had only served 44 days in Army Boot Camp and was discharged as a Private. After he left, Fox was criticized for using him as a 'Military Expert' without ever checking his record and credentials. [5] [6]
Second, your primary source is still the NY Times. A lot of RW's will continue to think the NYT is not a RS and there is nothing that can be done about it. All you can do is present the information and let the reader decide about the reliability of the information. Ursasapien (talk) 05:01, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
I would remove the quotes and italics for a more neutral version. Bytebear 06:21, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Your wording is good Uruspan and Bytebear. I would use the Italics. Uruspan, look at the article on Cafasso. His fakery was proofed by many sources. There is no argument about it. To start this section out with 'The New York Times wrote' is (IMO) a attempt to discredit or slant the info. It can be put at the end that this was first discovered in the NYT and then confirmed in dozens of sources. By the way, the NYT published the phony BUSHGOV WMD claims through Judith Miller. Theyre RW too. •smedleyΔbutler• 06:34, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Lead sentence

I reverted this unless this can be sourced. Thanks, --Tom 23:33, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Revert of undiscussed name change

I've reverted the name change:

  • 18:58, 27 August 2007 Night Gyr (Talk | contribs) m (moved Fox News Channel controversies to Criticism of Fox News Channel: controversy indicates two active sides; many of these are unanswered)

This was completely unilateral and undiscussed. I don't really follow the logic in the one-line edit summary, either. Please discuss it here first... thanks! /Blaxthos 01:08, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

It was discussed. It's had so long to have objections raised that the discussion is now in the archive. No one had any objection to the name, just someone complaining that the page was a list of criticisms or biased. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 01:51, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, it was discussed, but that was over a year ago, by people who aren't even participating in the discussions here. That's hardly a legitimate excuse to moving the page without asking anyone for consensus first. Parsecboy 12:27, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Actually, it was about a month and a half ago, and I was the one who proposed it. See Talk:Fox_News_Channel_controversies/Archive_3#naming. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 16:17, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

My take would be that these are two different/seperate topics/titles, so I guess nobody will be happy with a single title :). Could there be two articles or is that overkill/ridiculous? Anyways, what do I know :) Cheers, --Tom 13:37, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Ahh, I must've missed it when I did a quick scan of the archives. Parsecboy 17:32, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
I think it might be a little overkill to have two articles of this type. You're right though, that they are two different things. Perhaps "Criticisms" would be the broader title (controversies would of course generate criticism). Any thoughts? Parsecboy 14:59, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't think the controversies crowd is going to like that title much. Two articles with seperate content might not be the worst thing? Anways, --Tom 15:16, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Let's wait and see if any of them are around to comment. I agree that some sections of this article (such as the "Criticism of pundits") aren't really "controversies", and as such, do not belong here. I think "criticism" would be a better title. Parsecboy 15:42, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

It's based on precedent, since we have Criticism of Wikipedia for example. I think it's OR to diagnose a controversy in most of these cases, but "criticism" is obvious. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 16:27, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I would prefer "criticisms" over "controversies" as it is less subjective. A "Controversy" is subjective to opinion, but a criticism can be presented as fact. Although, we should be careful about who is doing the criticism and remove most of the Blogosphere rhetoric. Bytebear 16:31, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
I agree, "criticism" would be more appropriate. Similar media organizations have "criticism" in their title in this context. DMCer 06:03, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
The only "similar media organization" would be CNN, and the Wikipedia article is named CNN controversies. I think we have two choices here. Retain the "controversies" name for both articles, and then prune all irrelevant non-controversial content from them. Or we change the names of both articles to "Criticisms of...".-Hal Raglan 14:08, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Hal, you're incorrect. I'm not sure what you looked for, but you ou might want to see Criticism of the BBC, Criticism of The New York Times, Al Jazeera#Criticism and controversy, etc.-DMCer 05:59, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
You´re not sure what I looked for? I said the only similar media organization would be CNN, and that article is named CNN controversies. I did no search, and never claimed I did. However, now that you have very helpfully pointed out some other articles, I do believe that precedent has indeed been sent for such a change. My only concern, which you did not address, is that if the Fox article is changed than the CNN article should also. I have made a proposal for such a title change on the CNN controversies talk page. I would assume that everybody here who is so eager to change the Fox title would fully support the CNN title change?-Hal Raglan 15:13, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I oppose the name change:

  1. Not all controversy comes from (or is related to) critics. See the substantial debate regarding (and the current state of) the introduction to the main article, Fox News Channel (specifically the sentence "critics and some observers...").
  2. "Controversy" has no implied or explicit connotation in the English language. Please show some supporting evidence from a reliable source (Oxford English Dictionary, Merriam-Webster, etc.) if you're going to use this as rationale to change the name.
  3. It seems like some people want to change the name of this article, and then use that name change to justify culling out some content. While I may think that there is some extra content that shouldn't exist, changing the name of the article can't be used to sanitize the content contained therein, and definitely can't be used as a justification to change the name either.

/Blaxthos 14:21, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Criticism doesn't mean it has to come from a professional "critic". The "other observers" you referenced ARE critics. Once again, see Criticism of the BBC, Criticism of The New York Times, Al Jazeera#Criticism and controversy, etc.-DMCer 05:59, 31 August 2007 (UTC)-DMCer 05:59, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

"Criticism" is too narrow, and if some criticism isn't controversial...well, let's just let it in anyway. So, leave the title the way it is. Andyvphil 14:58, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I´m not sure I agree with the assumption that the name change will result in a justification for content being culled. It seems to me a ¨Criticisms¨ article would allow for much, much more content to be included. As the article is now, only a proven controversy should be detailed. With the name change, presumably the editors who wanted the change would then allow ANY criticism of Fox News to be included. As DMCer notes, criticism doesn´t have to come from a professional critic, simply from "other observers". Apparently any individual who makes a criticism automatically becomes a critic with views worth inserting into this article. I just hope that people so hellbent on making the name change understand that this will become a monstrously huge article.-Hal Raglan 15:13, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Why not just get to the real point of this discussion. This and articles like this have become a repository for any and all issues that anyone has with the organization or person. Those that want to make sure everyone knows how much they dislike the person or organization are defending the current standard because they think those that want the change are trying to backdoor the article into "whitewashing" the article. When it shouldn't even matter, half the crap in here doesn't belong in an encycolpedic article one way or the other. As such I don't see a reason to change the name as it won't make any difference in the content or the attitude regarding these types of articles other than a pointless edit war and bickering between the two opposing sides. Arzel 16:06, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree that much of the info here, as well as most of the content in the CNN controversies article, is not notable. Anything that can´t be definitively shown as an actual controversy should be deleted from both articles. As I mentioned above, changing the name to ¨Criticisms of Fox News¨ will probably result in much more ¨crap¨ being inserted, not less, so I don´t understand the complaint about any potential ¨whitewashing¨ after the name change.-Hal Raglan 16:54, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
I agree completely with the above two points.DMCer 07:57, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
I think the discussion is pretty much dead, with Arzel, Hal, Andy, and myself all opposing a change. Though our rationales may differ, I think it's notable that Arzel and I actually fall on the same side of the fence on this one. I don't see a consensus to change forthcoming with so much opposition, so I think it's probably time to shelve the proposal. /Blaxthos 18:37, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Add me to the list of editors opposing the change, for the reasons given above (too loose/open, slightly less neutral, etc.) — xDanielx T/C 03:24, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Trent Reznor Controversy

From wikipedia's page on nine inch nails:

In 2006, after being alerted by a fan website, Reznor issued a cease and desist to Fox News for using three songs from The Fragile on air without permission. The songs "La Mer", "The Great Below", and "The Mark Has Been Made" appeared in an episode of War Stories with Oliver North detailing the battle of Iwo Jima.[88] A post appeared on Reznor's blog, which read: "Thanks for the Fox News heads-up. A cease and desist has been issued. FUCK Fox Fucking News."[89][90]

It has citations. Anyhow, Fox Networks/News getting entangled in a violation of copyright laws obviously doesn't speak so well to their business practices. Does this merit a mention on this page?

160.39.129.60 18:54, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

The citiations don't seem to be RS, one of them might be, but there is no followup on whether what FNC did actually violated any laws. It appears that FNC used some NIN songs, to which a blogger posted a message or email to NIN, and then Trent claims to have sent FNC a cease and desist note, but that is it. No further context as to what happened. I don't think it should be mentioned here without any context or better sources. Arzel 20:18, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Fox News bent to pressure from Monsanto?

I've removed the following addition to maintext, made by RyanMatheuszik, until it can be improved upon.

* Former Fox News reporters have stated on camera that they were coerced by management to report the news in a specific fashion in line with major advertising concerns for the station.[7]

Inasmuch as "Fox News" redirects to "Fox News Channel", and the video alleges corporate involvement, I don't see any reason why we can't cover this here, as well as in the Jane Akre and Steve Wilson articles. I think the best way to do this is write an adequate NPOV treatement more or less identical in each of those two articles, with a shorter mention here, with crosslinks. Thanks to RyanMatheuszik for bringing this to my/our attention, but we need more specific text (see the section title above), dates, details, etc. and, better, a cite that is not a possible copyvio (though it is possible to link to Youtube if the owner can be found to have done so, as MSNBC does here (it's the link on "she called in...")).

So, I'm inviting Ryan to try again, and hope others will agree. Andyvphil —Preceding comment was added at 23:47, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

It's also covered here. Andyvphil 22:15, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Per my previous comments on the primary FNC talk page, perhaps a link to the BGH controversy subpage should be included. Perhaps under "See Also" after mentioning of "The Corporation" a link to the BGH controversy since that is the most direct link to the story. Arzel 23:21, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
The problem with placing this here is that "the corporation" referred to by the reporters is not the Fox News Channel, but Fox Broadcasting Company. I understand that there was allegedly some threat to the Fox News Channel by Monsanto, which may have alerted NewsCorp but there is nothing to link this story to the FNC, an entirely different and separate entity. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 23:28, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Jon Stewart

This paragraph has no reason to be in there other then he made a joke. I'm taking it out if no one disagrees. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RYNORT (talk • contribs) 17:25, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

CNN controversies versus FOX controversies-- night and day difference

Loaded lanuage, double standards, editorial biases that could only be described as perverse. I'm not sure hwo wikiepdia will ever get any real credibility when you have such overt bias all over the place.66.190.29.150 (talk) 22:21, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Please elaborate. You have the right to complain, just please point out specific examples instead of using blanket statements. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.39.217.183 (talk) 16:37, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Fox_News_controversies/Archive_4&oldid=1136736476"