Talk:Fox News/Archive 16

So that's what this is about!
I was wondering why this bizarre "Fox News = Air America" meme suddenly popped up out of nowhere, and I've found out why: This blog entry on the Huffington Post last week by little-known liberal radio talk show host Thom Hartmann. Now that we know where it's coming from, it just makes its inclusion in the article all the more of a WP:NPOV violation. --Aaron 21:09, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

How so? What specific NPOV policy does it violate? Kevin Baastalk 15:40, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Creating Archive 15
Due to the gigantic size of this talk page, I've moved every discussion that's been quiet since October 20 to Talk:FOX News/Archive 15. If I moved a section that anyone still wishes to keep active, just let me know and I'll move it back. --Aaron 20:00, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, the only thing I'd move back is the RfC that was closed just hours before the one above. It is a major part of the above RfC. AuburnPilot Talk 20:03, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Okay, give me a minute. --Aaron 20:06, 23 October 2006 (UTC) Done. --Aaron 20:09, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Food for Thought (Some References)
I've done some research (currently ongoing) to verify some of the cite-needed and currently disputed issues. I have not incorporated any references into the article (yet), but I think they're good talking points.


 * "Fox News is significantly to the right of all the other mainstream television networks." --


 * "Our main result is that Fox News had a significant impact on the 2000 elections. The entry of Fox News [into a cable viewing market] increased the Republican vote share in presidential elections by 0.4 to 0.7 percentage points [in those markets] . --

Plenty more research is forthcoming, but I figured this is a good starting point. /Blaxthos 16:15, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * That first reference is indeed a good one, and you're welcome to add it as a ref for claims that FN is seen as conservative or right leaniing. The 2nd refernce actaully says nothign about Fox's alleged agenda or bais - it just notes a correlation. It is OR to conclude from such correlation that FN is conservative. Isarig 23:01, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

How do you claim the second reference as original research? The research was done by university professors and researches, and published by UC Berkeley. Additionally, the research bolsters/gives tangeable proof to claims made by others (and by the first reference) -- solid numbers countrywide that show that the presence of Fox News increases conservative voting in virtually all districts (read the research). I fail to see how this qualifies as original research (when it's independantly published, verifiable, peer reviewed). Maybe I'm missing something... /Blaxthos 15:49, 12 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Please read more carefully. The 2nd ref says "the presence of Fox News increases conservative voting ". That is not OR, and I did not claim it is OR. Contrary to what you claim, the research does not "give[s] tangeable proof to claims made by others", if byu that you means the claims that FN is baised. The reaserch does no such thing, and to conclude from that claim that FN itself is baised, which is the point of contention here, is OR. Isarig 17:28, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

We're not using this research to say "Fox News is biased." We're using the research to say (paraphrased) "Research shows that the number of Repblican votes increased in each market as Fox News channel became available." It gives tangable (verifiable & duplicated) proof that the presence of Fox News has increased Republican votes. It neither speculates why nor attempts to draw conclusions. /Blaxthos 21:39, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Used in this manner, it's fine, but then surely such a point does not belong in the intro. Isarig 23:15, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Request for Comment: FNC allegations of bias
This is a dispute about where, if at all, information regarding FNC's alleged conservative bias should be included. 01:05, 13 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Statements by editors previously involved in dispute
 * While I initially believed the section should not be included at all, I've since changed my position. After discussing it, I believe it should be included but not in the introduction. The intro is for specific info on the subject and the content of the paragraph in question fits better in the article's history section. AuburnPilot 01:05, 13 October 2006 (UTC)


 * What amount of documented, verifiable, scientific evidence do you think is needed before Fox News' alleged bias is mentioned in the intro? As stated earlier, the publics' opinion writ large is that Fox News has a particular slant to the right.  There are studies that show that Fox News' presence raises Republican votes by a significant margin.  A vast majority of journalists said (unprompted) that Fox News is the most biased news outlet (paraphrase).  My challenge above regarding asking people you know about their impressions of Fox News (which I tested myself at work today and found true -- and I live in Mississippi!) will in all likelihood produce the same results.  What would it take for those fighting to vehemently to keep this info buried to agree that it might be appropriate in the intro?  Or, is it something you're completely unwilling to consider?  If so, I think that would show some POV problems.  I applaud the fact that we've had at least one reversal about keeping the info out completely, but I think the fact that this is such a widely recognized issue that it deserves more than a few paragraphs buried in the history section.  BTW sorry I didn't link all the references for my statements (again) but they can be found in the discussion above.  /Blaxthos 08:16, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I believe the intro as it was about to weeks ago is fine. That is, include a short sentence that says that the channel's critics view it as conservative, but the the network denies this allegation. Anything else, such as the inclusion of studies that show people's perceptions of the channel, or worse, studies whose results are misinterpreted by editors as showing bias when in fact they don't, do not belong in the intro. Isarig 19:14, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with excluding studies from the intro but the reason I stuck it in there in the first place was to rebut objections that the intro was "unsourced". If we can agree that the objection is unwarranted, then we can exclude studies from the intro. Gamaliel 19:58, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree with Isarig. Up until a week ago it was a short, concise and to the point.  It was deleted, and then reinserted and references were given, etc etc... until it snowballed into all this.  I'm glad to have done some research, and would love it to be incorporated where appropriate, but I still believe the simple statement we had until a few days ago was appropriate.  /Blaxthos 21:41, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
 * If this is the version you are talking about: "The channel was created by Austrailian-American media magnate Rupert Murdoch, who hired Roger Ailes, then President of CNBC and a former Republican political consultant for U.S. Presidents Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush, as its founding CEO. Fox News is widely seen by critics of the channel as advocating conservative political positions, a charge which the channel, whose slogans include 'Fair and Balanced' and 'We Report, You Decide', denies." I didnt have a problem with it either. It's definitly short, concise and to the point. Again, I don't think any mention should be in the intro, but this version seems like a good point of compromise to me. I can live with this as the last part of the intro. AuburnPilot 21:52, 13 October 2006 (UTC)


 * No, the version I'm talking about is the circa Oct 4 version which reads "The channel was created by Austrailian-American media magnate Rupert Murdoch, who hired Roger Ailes as its founding CEO. Fox News is widely seen by critics of the channel as advocating conservative political positions, a charge which the channel, whose slogans include 'Fair and Balanced' and 'We Report, You Decide', denies." I will not support the version above, because it cherry picks the role Ailes played as a GOP consultant, to subtly push the POV that this was a relevant fact in hiring Ailes. Isarig 22:12, 13 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I think this is the best compromise version as well. I would support it's inclusion in the introduction.  If were to delete "widely", I'd support it even more. Ramsquire 22:04, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
 * That version works for me too. I also agree with the removal of widely (a little weasley) although I had more of an issue with "openly" seeing how it obviously is openly advocating or it wouldnt be a debate. AuburnPilot 22:17, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Although I would prefer to not have this in the introduction at all, in order to compromise and reach consensus, I would support Isarig's version as well.Ramsquire 22:31, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Sounds like we're almost there, then. So, can someone codify a mutually agreeable version?  I dont' want to try and synthesize from the comments above. /Blaxthos 22:33, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I still don't think it belongs. All media outlets have criticism.  It just doesn't belong in the intro.  It is just as widely perceived by critics that CBS News is liberal as is Dan Rather yet none of this belongs in their intro and isn't there.  Monica Lewinksy doesn't belong in Bill Clinton's intro paragraph either and you will see that it isn't yet one could argue that the Lewinsky scandal defined Clinton just as much as conservative bias defines Fox News.  This is a bad precedent and looks like Systemic POV from the outside.  Here's the question: "Why would Wikipedia single out Fox's intro, the nmost widely watched cable news channel,  for criticism when no other news outlet intros have it?"  It is not encyclopedic to include the criticism in  the intro.  And lastly, Fox news consistently reaches only 1 million Americans.  Out of 300 million.  "Widely" is hardly a term to use when describing any news network.  Think about that when evaluating studies of "70% believe" when less than 1% actually see.  And think about it further when this is the prime reason for including it in the intro.  --Tbeatty 03:10, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm trying to approach this as two seperate (but heavily related) issues. Issue 1:  Fox News Channel has a particular POV when reporting news.  Issue 2:  There is a proportionally significant number of independant entities and persons who claim Fox News is biased.  I think issue 1 is very clear -- such analysis is absolutely not within the scope of wikipedia, and certainly is inappropriate.  However, issue 2 is appropriate... but where?  I think by any measureable standard, the controversy is so widespread (well known & documented) that it is essential to at least mention it in the summary.  As far as saying "all news outlets are biased" -- perhaps so, however there are several indicators that the number of critics, the veracity of the criticism, and the amount of criticism make it worthy of mention at the outset.  To put the CBS example in perspective -- several pieces of independant, verifiable research (involving citizens, news professionals, and vote analysis) all lend credence to the fact that Fox News is much more widely criticized for reporting with a POV than any other network.  If the majority of news journalists and citizens polled said (unprompted) that CBS was seen as the most politically slanted news agency, I would absolutely support saying so in its intro (I have not read the article, to be honest).  I am trying desperately to avoid issue one (referenced above), I'm simply saying that FNC is so widely associated with a conservative view that it is a disservice to avoid mentioning it at the outset... as someone mentioned a while back, that's what Fox News is known for -- maybe not known for being POV, but it's known for being controversial, which is why it's worthy of mention.  Sorry to be so longwinded, but I'm trying to be clear and thorough.  /Blaxthos 08:25, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't believe your supposition is correct that studies show that Fox is viewed as having more bias than any other news outlets. People think Fox is biased,  They think the NY Times is biased.  They think the Washington Post is biased.  Fox is as associated with a conservative view as other news outlets are associated with a liberal view.  Claiming that the particular bias that Fox has deserves mention in the intro is POV.  --Tbeatty 18:08, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Would you believe the numerous amounts of peer reviewed research done by multiple credible institutions (inlcuding universities) published by neutral parties? What would it take for you to believe?  I'm sure I can find more scientific research, if that's what you need (although I encourage you to read the references that have already been cited).  Understand this -- I won't dispute that every news organization is inherently biased (subconsciously or otherwise); the issue here is that the perception of bias is so great/widespread/rampant/well-known/documented by verifiable research (compared to other mainstream news outlets) that it warrants mention from the outset.  /Blaxthos 00:50, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


 * To sum up my previous comments on this matter: that Fox is widely seen as conservative is a fundamental part of Fox's public perception and to not address it in the introduction, where all key issues should be addressed and summarized, is POV. NPOV does not mean ignore controversial issues. Gamaliel 20:14, 13 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Comments


 * Bias in media has certainly been covered and is a legitimate topic for any news outlet. However, this article is about the "Fox News Channel", not "Peoples perception of the Fox News Channel" and as such, the intro should be reserved for information that give the reader concise facts about the topic, not speculative opinion or even facts about the speculative opinion.  There is plenty of room inside the article for exploring bias from both a historical perspective and a controvery perspective where it can be weighted for NPOV and explored in more detail.--Tbeatty 01:36, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Tbeatty sums this up perfectly. Discussion of bias should indeed be part of the article, but not part of the introduction. Blueboar 14:59, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I would prefer to not have the bias accusation in the introduction for the reason's Tbeatty outlayed above. It fits in better in the history and controversies section. Ramsquire 18:35, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I think the controversy over Fox's bias is sufficiently notable to merit a mention in the introduction. the polls, studies and opinions that are mustered in support of the bias have been mentioned in the controversies article. further, note that a google search for "fox news ten years" turns up articles about a neutral topic - Fox's anniversary, but which still highlight the bias controversy as a notable feature of Fox, in the following sources USATODAY (+ reprinted at AOL news), Hartford Courant, Washington Post LA Times NY Daily News, Miami Herald, Media Guardian. these are every one of the news sources (excepting Fox News itself) in the top 20 google results. it may be tough to agree upon a short and neutral wording of the issue, but i dont think that's a good enough reason to bury a notable feature deep in the article. i'm also prepared to do some work to help thresh out such a wording. Doldrums 04:06, 14 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't really care too much one way or the other whether or not the "bias perception" is mentioned in the introduction. (Although my preference is that it not be there, since I think the intro should be reserved for very basic "biographical" type facts). BUT - if it is included in the Introduction, my main concern is that it not include Weasel Words. The current introduction "...but also a highly criticized network for its alleged conservative bias." still violates WP:WEASEL. Weasel Word sentences like this don't answer the question - "Who criticizes?", which is why they should not be used. If the bias is going to be discussed in the introduction, it needs to be a specific, citable reference.
 * Note - That version isn't the one I think most people are advocating. The phrase we almost all came to a consesus on (see above):  "The channel was created by Austrailian-American media magnate Rupert Murdoch, who hired Roger Ailes as its founding CEO. Fox News is widely seen by critics of the channel as advocating conservative political positions, a charge which the channel, whose slogans include 'Fair and Balanced' and 'We Report, You Decide', denies."/Blaxthos 00:56, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


 * This phrase - "Fox News is widely seen by critics of the channel as advocating conservative political positions..." is no different from the other phrase in its violation of WP:WEASEL . Cbuhl79 17:34, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

How's this
The channel was created by Austrailian-American media magnate Rupert Murdoch, who hired Roger Ailes as its founding CEO. Fox News is seen by critics of the channel, such as Air America and Robert Greenwold as advocating conservative political positions. The channel, whose slogans include "Fair and Balanced" and "We Report, You Decide", denies allegations of bias in their news reporting. Ramsquire 17:42, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


 * The problem with identifying those specific critics is 1) it gives the impression that those are the only critics and 2) that it is an idea that only resides with the far left. If we need to cite a source to comply with Cubh179's objections, then the Pew study should be restored to the intro. Gamaliel 17:44, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I honestly believe Cbuhl's weasel word objection is not correct in this case. I would be more inclined to agree with him/her if the para read "many say..." or "opponents contend...", but in this case the who is identified.  But to move on from this, why don't we use the para above, taking out Air America and Greenwold, and simply putting the ref note to the link at the end of the sentence. Ramsquire 18:02, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


 * One of the examples of weasel words in WP:WEASEL is ""Critics contend...". The problem IMO with an unreferenced "critics" is that it's not much different than saying "Opponents of Fox News oppose Fox News, while supporters of Fox News support Fox News" - it's not useful information unless it actually states who the opponents are. In looking into this issue, it seems to me that many (but not all) of the people who accuse Fox News of bias are either known to be "liberal", or are other Media organizations with potential conflicts of interest. Many "conservatives" will argue that Fox News is unbiased, or only appears right-leaning when compared to the rest of the media, which they believe are left-leaning. This is a specific example of why I believe it is always necessary to cite criticism specifically, so that at the very least the reader can explore the potential bias of the critic. Cbuhl79 18:33, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


 * As someone stated before, WP:WEASEL is a guideline not policy, so sometimes weasel words are allowed. I believe this is one of those situations where it is OK, since the weasel language isn't being used to introduce the argument or thesis of any editor. It's being used to introduce a perception of FoxNews.  However, since the perception is widespread in some circles, finding a cite wasn't difficult, so it's been added in the proposed paragraph below. Ramsquire 18:39, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't think this fits into any of the exceptions to the Weasel guideline. This article is not about Fox News' bias or perception of bias (there's already an article about that here - Fox News Channel controversies). Nor are the holders of this opinion too numerous or diverse to qualify. Cbuhl79 18:59, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


 * And if the critics are specifically identified later in the article during a full discussion of that issue, then I don't believe WP:WEASEL applies. Gamaliel 18:40, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I think it still applies. If an article is going to state the opinion of a critic, the identity of the critic shouldn't be buried elsewhere in the article. WP:WEASEL suggests fixing the following weasel sentence "His critics have suggested that John Smith may be a functional illiterate." with "Author Ed Jones, in his book John Smith is an Idiot, wrote an open letter to Smith asking, 'John, are you able to read and write on an adult level?'". I think we should do the same here. Cbuhl79 18:54, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

The channel was created by Austrailian-American media magnate Rupert Murdoch, who hired Roger Ailes as its founding CEO. Fox News is seen by critics of the channel as advocating conservative political positions; however, the channel, whose slogans include "Fair and Balanced" and "We Report, You Decide", denies allegations of bias in their news reporting. With concerns of a reference, how about the above with the slight modification of a reference in place of air america/greenwold. AuburnPilot Talk 18:26, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Just slap it in the article and wait for some new objections, if any. Ramsquire 18:31, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Done. AuburnPilot Talk 18:37, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Although I still think criticism of the bias does not belong in the introduction, I won't object as long as there is a specific mention of one or more critics. I still think it would be much better if we could find a poll of Americans that mentions Fox News' bias. I think something like "According to Pew, 80% of all Americans believe Fox News is biased towards conservative positions", is much more appropriate than something like "The Democratic National Committee accuses Fox News of bias towards conservative positions." Cbuhl79 18:43, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I guess I was a few minutes late in stating my objections. Again, I still object to the statement without specific citations - by which I mean including them in the body of the article, in addition to references. What was wrong with this sentence "Fox News is seen by critics of the channel, such as Air America and Robert Greenwold as advocating conservative political positions."? Cbuhl79 18:50, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


 * We happen to agree that the bias criticism should not be in the introduction, however as this is a consensus project, sometimes we have to let things go for consensus. The link in the above proposal is to a survey of journalists, so I think it encompasses your suggestion.  The problem with specific mention of certain people is that it necessarily excludes others who hold the same view.  So although the far left obviously holds that opinion, there are also mainstream persons who hold the same opinion, and they are discounted in the above example.  Of course with the current version, the far left is likewise excluded.  That's why a weasel word probably is the way to go in the introduction, and then flesh it out in the body of the article.  But we can agree to disagree. Ramsquire 18:56, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't agree. I don't think that we need weasel words at all here. The exclusion argument could be used to justify almost any use of Weasel Words in any wikipedia argument. "Weasel words give the force of authority to a statement without letting the reader decide if the source of the opinion is reliable". Cbuhl79 19:09, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Relax. I said we can "agree to disagree", meaning, you're not going to change my mind, I'm not going change yours. So I'm trying to gracefully bow out of this debate. Ramsquire 19:13, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


 * P.S.- From WP:Weasel Exceptions: When the holders of the opinion are too diverse or numerous to qualify. For example, "Some people prefer dogs as pets; others prefer cats." Ramsquire 19:17, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, as I stated earlier I don't think that applies here - where so many of the critics of Fox News come from one ideological stance. Cbuhl79 19:22, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Oops, I forgot to make an edit summary, but I changed the intro to "A 2004 survey of journalists by the Project for Excellence in Journalism found that Fox was 'the single news outlet that strikes most journalists as taking a particular ideological stance' " to specifically mention the referenced source as per my comments here. (I also didn't use the word "critic" because it doesn't appear to me that above quote was intended as a criticism of Fox News, simply a statement of the results of the survey. I don't have any objections to adding (or replacing) statements that discuss explicit criticism.) Cbuhl79 19:20, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Please read through the RfC above. You are inserting a version of the paragraph that has been rebuffed previously.  Ramsquire 19:24, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok, then I just removed this entirely, as there is no consensus on the wording in the intro, but there seems to be more consensus to just leave it out. Cbuhl79 19:26, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. I'm thinking of doing a straw poll on the three versions of the article to see where the consensus is. Ramsquire 19:30, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Sounds good. Cbuhl79 19:31, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


 * FTR- I never meant to imply that some consensus had been reached with Auburn Pilot's/my version. I was only saying there was a consensus against the version you inserted. You're right there is no consensus on what should go in, so let's leave it blank until one is reached. Ramsquire 19:34, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, we can't ignore the issue either. Cbuh179's objections are that it is unsourced. So let's put a source it, problem resolved. Gamaliel 22:27, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
 * If only it were that simple. The last attempt included a source and Cbuh179 still objected...AuburnPilot Talk 22:33, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Plus his objection was that even when sourced, it still included weasel words. Ramsquire 22:48, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, I'll try again. We should strive for agreement and consensus at all times and attempt to satisfy as many objections as possible, but consensus does not require 100% agreement. Gamaliel 22:45, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, my objection is with the Weasel Words. From WP:WEASEL - "Weasel words don't really give a neutral point of view; they just spread hearsay, or couch personal opinion in vague, or indirect forms syntax." Cbuhl79 17:36, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

It should be noted (AGF notwithstanding) that some editors seem to be set on finding new objections when the old ones are satisfied (first, there are unsourced generalizations in the intro; then specific citations shouldldn't be in the intro; now, weasle words are the problem) -- almost like the goal is specifically to keep it out of the intro by using whatever means necessary. I don't think consensus requires 100% agreememnt, especially when evaluating those who find new objections when it serves their purpose. Sorry to fall off the good faith bandwagon, but it's hard to keep the faith when it appears the intent is to construct further obstacles instead of finding solutions to existing issues. A hearty thanks to those of you (war eagle!) who have been truely working towards finding a solution. As for my opinion, I thought we pretty much had it tidied up a week ago (see above). /Blaxthos 00:16, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I'd have to agree. As WP:AGF states, This policy does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary. Regardless of AGF, with only one editor objecting, I think it's time to call this a successful RfC. Paragraph included. Big thanks to everyone who participated in this debate; consensus can be hard to reach. War  Eagle! AuburnPilot Talk 02:45, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Are you suggesting that there is evidence to the contrary to assuming that I am objecting in good faith? That doesn't seem to be in very good faith, if you pardon.
 * I'm not objecting to including a sourced statement about Fox News' perceived bias in the introduction. But I still object that the sentence still includes Weasel Words. Is anyone able to claim that the current introduction doesn't include Weasel Words? I did not object to some earlier variations which did not include Weasel Words, but others objected to them because they were too narrow, presumably because they believe the holders of the opinion to be "too numerous and diverse to quantify", an objection that I don't think applies. Cbuhl79 17:17, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Cbuhl79, consensus has been reached. WP:AGF is irrelevant to that point, which is the only point that matters. Thanks for participating in this RfC, which I am now going to remove from the RfC alert pages. AuburnPilot Talk 17:46, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Hey, how come War Eagle is the only one to get a special kudo. I'm jealous.  But seriously,  I do believe consensus seems to be with the current paragraph.  Part of consensus is sometimes not everyone leaves happy, but at least their views have been heard.  That has occurred here.  Let's close this thing, and move on to more issues. Ramsquire 17:57, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but I can't accept that the consensus opinion is to leave this as it stands, with Weasel Words advocating a POV opinion. Cbuhl79 18:23, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
 * In the interests of AGF - Perhaps I misunderstood. The original RfC dispute was over whether or where the allegations of bias should be included. My original position that it should not be in the introduction, but I have no problem with the consensus view that it should be. My objection now is that I believe that weasel words in the introduction advocate a POV opinion. Since this original thread was about the first issue, I'll start a new RfC about the second issue.

Request for Comment: Wording of the intro
This is a dispute about what the wording of the following statement in the introduction: "Fox News is seen by critics of the channel as advocating conservative political positions[2]; however, the channel, whose slogans include "Fair and Balanced" and "We Report, You Decide", denies allegations of bias in their news reporting."

Critics such as Robert Greenwald and Air America Radio accuse Fox News of advocating conservative political positions, while a 2004 survey of journalists found that Fox was "the single news outlet that strikes most journalists as taking a particular ideological stance". The channel, whose slogans include "Fair and Balanced" and "We Report, You Decide", denies allegations of bias in their news reporting.Cbuhl79 18:50, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Statements by editors previously involved in dispute
 * My objection is that the above quote uses Weasel Words to advocate a POV opinion. I believe that critics should be specifically named (like in the example below). The earlier objection to a citing these critics specifically was that it implies that this is an idea that only resides with the far left. In spending a LOT of time recently looking for criticisms of Fox News, most of the strong criticism does in fact seems to come from left leaning sources, so I think it is POV to use the above statement to imply otherwise. My main problem with Weasel Words here is that they don't tell the reader WHO holds the opinion.
 * This is an RfC by an editor who is unwilling to accept the result of another RfC which did not end in his favor. I will not play games and participate in this one. AuburnPilot Talk 18:55, 20 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Sour Grapes - As AuburnPilot just explained, this is simply sour grapes. There is no need to continue this discussion -- a very clear distinction between summary info in intro vs. specifics in article.  Looks like a blatant violation of WP:POINT, though I don't know how to handle such violations. /Blaxthos 23:31, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
 * The lack of AGF is disappointing here. I fail to see what WP:POINT I might be making. I simply did not feel like *my* objection with what I felt was POV wording was dealt with in the RfC which was about a *different* issue (whether or not bias should be mentioned in the intro). I did not even have any strong objection to including it in the intro (I only expressed a preference that it be not). I simply believe that it is POV to obscure the characterizations of critics. Since I've continued to raise my POV objections though, I've been subjected to ad hominem attacks by two of the editors involved in the dispute, and only one response to my objection (from an editor involved). Cbuhl79 00:47, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I've re-read WP:CONSENSUS carefully, and I don't think it's a fair characterization to say that a consensus has been reached on the wording of the introduction, particularly since my objections are re:WP:NPOV. Cbuhl79 00:56, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I have never attacked you; simply stating that I believe this entire RfC is based on the fact that you didn't get your way is my opinion. That is not an attack. Now, since you want to claim this issue wasn't a part of the previous RfC, here are a 19 edits that directly relate to Weasel Words, a discussion that was initiated by you. I only went up to 17:44, 17 October 2006, because this is much more time than I'm willing to spend on this discussion, but there are about 60 additional diffs directly related to Weasel Words. All one must do is take a look at the history of this page, or simply at the RfC above this one. AuburnPilot Talk 02:02, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

                  
 * I encourage any interested editor to read all of the links AuburnPilot provided and ask - "Was I not acting in good faith?", and "Was consensus reached on the *wording* of the introduction?". I re-read them all, and I think the answer to both questions is No. The editors here seem to be intent on stifling discussion simply because THEY declared that consensus was reached. Cbuhl79 15:26, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
 * There's a huge difference between editors intent on stifling discussion and everyone disagreeing with your position. Everyone, including two additional editors who have no previous affiliation with this discussion, disagrees with your position. Even an editor who you gave a hypothetical situation, disagrees with your position. This is my last comment on this subject, so I respectfully request that you find a new pet peeve  and move on. Consensus can't be masked. AuburnPilot Talk 17:30, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
 * While I still argue that consensus was ever reached (especially since one of the other editors involved never agreed) - From WP:CONSENSUS: "At times, a group of editors may be able to, through persistence, numbers, and organization, overwhelm well-meaning editors and generate what appears to be support for a version of the article that is actually inaccurate, libelous, or not neutral, e.g. giving undue weight to a specific point of view. This is not a consensus." My pet peeve on Wikipedia is violations of the Weasel Words guideline WP:WEASEL that are used to hide violations of WP:NPOV. I think my comment below explains why I believe this version violates WP:NPOV. Cbuhl79 18:39, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I would also like it understood that I am not leveling a personal attack. It should also be noted that WP:WEASEL is a guideline, not a policy (important to note the difference).  I think it's more productive to work on articles instead of fighting consenus (what's the plural of consensus?).  /Blaxthos 11:25, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Again, I'm very interested in finding consensus here, I just don't think it's been found. Mostly, I'd like to find some references that criticize Fox News that do NOT come from left-leaning sources. I've seen it claimed numerous times that criticism is widespread (and I'm not insisting that it is not), but I haven't seen people provide references to support this. Since all of the sources I've found that strongly criticize Fox (like moveon.org and Air America) are left-leaning. I'd also like to find a good general poll that could be referenced (instead of a poll of journalists). Cbuhl79 15:26, 22 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Simple... read up a few pages. I personally posted several references from respected sources.  I could doubtless find more if needed.  Your diction above (stating that all sources were left-leaning) shows that you probably have more interest in this article than simply cleaning up wikipedia.  ;-)  Also, if act as if Fox News is the "center" viewpoint, then I think it would be de facto that any critical report would come from a source "further left" than Fox.  It's all relative.  Please find a new hobby.  /Blaxthos 19:49, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Would you have a problem if I changed the intro to say - According to the Quarterly Journal of Economics, Fox News is significantly to the right of all the other mainstream television networks; however, the channel, whose slogans include "Fair and Balanced" and "We Report, You Decide", denies allegations of bias in their news reporting."? I'm not claiming that Fox News is the "center" viewpoint. IMO, Fox News is probably the right-wing viewpoint, but according to WP:NPOV - when including the opinions of critics, "It is also generally important to give the facts about the reasons behind the views, and to make it clear who holds them. It is often best to cite a prominent representative of the view." which is what I have been trying to do here. Cbuhl79 20:39, 22 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Comments

I will assume good faith and participate in this malformed RfC. The first intro was reached by a consensus of editors on this page, and to me is sufficient, under WP:LEAD. Now one particular user still has a problem under WP:WEASEL. I believe this is one of the areas where said guideline does not apply. The critics of Foxnews who believe it espouses a conservative position is too numerous and diverse to quantify as just far left or left as shown by the survey cited in the paragraph. Are all those jouranlists liberal? That would be a statistical oddity. Current paragraph is fine. Ramsquire 18:59, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't believe that consesus was reached - other than a handful of the editors declaring that it was. My only request is that criticisms be cited specifically. My belief is that most of the people who _strongly_ criticize Fox News are left leaning. I ALSO believe that some large number of people (Americans) believe Fox News to be biased, and I would WELCOME a poll that indicates as such. I just have a problem with the statements along the lines of "critics accuse of something". I believe that critics should be identified and clarified. Cbuhl79 19:34, 20 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Consensus had been reached. Blaxthos, Gamaliel, Isarig, Tbeatty, Auburn Pilot, and myself (the editors who were bickering about the intro in the first place) all agree in varying degrees with the current version.  You are the lone holdout for reasons which, although I respect them, I cannot agree. Ramsquire 20:28, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Just FYI, I don't believe Tbeatty agreed to the "consensus" (at least not in a signed comment). It's a lot of discussion to wade through, so I don't think you're trying to misrepresent anything, but his last comment continued to oppose even including it in the introduction.
 * Nonetheless, I feel like I have a different objection entirely (since the original was for whether or not it belonged in the introduction, to which I don't object), and from reading all of Tbeatty's comments, I am GUESSING that he weighs in on my side (although a comment from him would be welcome). I do recognize that I am in the minority of opinion with the rest of the editors that are involved in this debate, but I don't think a 4 to 2 majority is a broad enough consesus given the small number of editors involved, especially when I feel like a WP:NPOV violation is occuring. I would at least like some more discussion and/or additional outside opinion on this particular matter. Cbuhl79 20:55, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Well that's why we have the RfC process. Ramsquire 21:02, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment: The sentence in question seems fine and non-weaselly to me. I would, however, put the footnote mark after the semicolon:
 * Fox News is seen by critics of the channel as advocating conservative political positions;[2] however, the channel, whose slogans include "Fair and Balanced" and "We Report, You Decide", denies allegations of bias in their news reporting. --Akhilleus (talk) 23:58, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment. I see nothing wrong with the sentence as it is. As Ramsquire said, Fox News is widely viewed as holding a conservative position, not just by the left-wing. Trebor 00:41, 22 October 2006 (UTC)


 * My position is that as I've searched for criticism of Fox News, it seems to come mostly from left leaning sources. I HAVE found polls that suggest Fox News is biased, but they are easy to characterize (i.e. Jounalists believe Fox News is biased). I'm not suggesting that there are NOT criticisms of Fox News that don't come from left-leaning sources, just that I haven't (yet) found them, and that they seem to be the exception. If someone can find some good references to criticisms that are not left-leaning, then I would have less problem with the statement as it is. Or if someone could find a good GENERAL poll (i.e. "A poll of Americans by Zogby found that 52% of Americans feel that Fox News is biased"), then I would want this to be included in the introduction (my frustration lately has been that I can't find any polls that ask this question). I've asked for this numerous times, and as of yet, nobody who insists that "Fox News is widely viewed as holding a conservative position" has bothered to cite some references to support that. Some of the editors seem to be strongly opposed to characterizing the criticism of Fox News, which I feel is POV. Cbuhl79 15:17, 22 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I just took the time to carefully re-read WP:NPOV, and I would like to point out the following:

When asserting a fact about an opinion, it is important also to assert facts about competing opinions, and to do so without implying that any one of the opinions is correct. It is also generally important to give the facts about the reasons behind the views, and to make it clear who holds them. It is often best to cite a prominent representative of the view.
 * Given that WP:NPOV is a fundamental Wikipedia principle, unless someone can reasonably point out to me why we should not follow this policy here, I'm going to re-word the sentence in the introduction. Cbuhl79 16:04, 22 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I've thought more about this, and I see your point (and my first response was poorly thought out, sorry). In my opinion, the phrase "critics of the channel" does not imply that these critics are not left-leaning, but rather says that those who criticise the channel do so mainly because they view it as having conservative bias. But, similarly, the second version of the introduction need not imply that these critics are only left-leaning, but rather just mentions a few of the stronger critics. So I've ended up undecided (and not especially concerned with) which version should go in - they both say much the same. And I agree with Kevin Baas that the journalist survey is interesting enough to go in (unless a general survey of the public can be found instead). Trebor 22:41, 22 October 2006 (UTC)


 * What about this sentence:
 * Critics such as Robert Greenwald have accused Fox News of advocating conservative opinions, and according to the Quarterly Journal of Economics, Fox News is significantly to the right of all the other mainstream television networks. Fox News denies allegations of bias in their news reporting.
 * This includes a strong critic (Greenwald), a neutral (as far as I can tell) observation, AND Fox News' own response. (I'll add references to each of these if other editors think this looks good). Cbuhl79 02:40, 23 October 2006 (UTC)


 * That looks fine to me. Trebor 13:04, 23 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I like that better than either of the other two versions (than the current and the originally proposed). I endorse it. Kevin Baastalk 15:29, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment: I'd add the survey of journalists - that's pretty remarkable/notable/significant. And I'd take out however. And you don't need to say what their slogans are, that's not really relevant, and it's uninteresting and unimportant. Just say something like "FOX denies these allegations." (thou in all fairness, it the survey results do not constitute an allegation). Kevin Baastalk 21:27, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I went ahead and made the change I suggested above - "Critics such as Robert Greenwald have accused Fox News of advocating conservative opinions, and according to the Quarterly Journal of Economics, Fox News is significantly to the right of all the other mainstream television networks. Fox News denies allegations of bias in their news reporting.". I added two references, can someone take a look at them and make sure they are correctly formatted? (in particular, I just referenced the Outfoxed web page directly, is that ok?). Also, does anyone think I need a specific reference for Fox News denying bias? Cbuhl79 18:48, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Fox News Bankruptcy
I notice that Wikipedia goes into exhaustive, meticulous detail in describing Air America Radio's current bankruptcy woes. But this article on Fox News completely ignores the fact that, early in its history, Fox News itself underwent a corporate restructuring and bankruptcy. Fox News didn't turn a profit until 2002, (many years after it first began broadcasting). For that matter, Rush Limbaugh and talk radio took years of struggle and fiscal losses before they gained an audience and became profitable. Air America is only a couple of years old and it is still working to build an audience. For Wikipedia to focus solely on Air America's woes and then completely ignore the similar early fiscal woes suffered by Fox News and right-wing talk radio is conveying the (mistaken) message that Americans aren't supportive of a liberal radio network (when in reality, Air America is simply undergoing the teething pains of many types of new businesses, Fox News included). For Wikipedia to suggest otherwise is inaccurate and shows how this "reference" source has been hijacked by the extreme right-wing. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.86.120.67 (talk • contribs) 04:06, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, do you have any sources to point to so that we can read them and maybe include something? As always, something must be verifiable and sourced. I'll keep an eye on this to see what sources are brought up and we'll go from there. AuburnPilot Talk 04:08, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 1. Not turning a profit ≠ bankruptcy. As long as some entity is around to pay your bills (like, say, the News Corporation), you can continue operations forever without turning a profit. And most new businesses take a good four to five years to achieve a profit. Bankruptcy, on the other hand, is a specific legal term for when a given entity claims it can no longer pay its bills at all. There's no comparison between Fox's situation and Air America's. 2. Talk pages are for discussion of the article to which they are connected. If you have an issue with how other editors are handling the Air America Radio article, you should bring it up on Talk:Air America Radio, not here. --Aaron 04:13, 21 October 2006 (UTC)


 * re: "There's no comparison between Fox's situation and Air America's." Uh, actually, the two situations are identical. Both businesses struggled early on. Both filed for bankruptcy. Those are the FACTS. To suggest otherwise proves my point about Wikipedia being taken over by the extreme right-wingers, who are obsessed with forcing their viewpoints down the throats of the rest of us, as well as writing all the articles here with a pro-Bush pro-GOP slant. And the reason I'm bring this point up here is because of the fact that as long as this article ignores Fox New's early struggles and its restructuring and its bankruptcy, this article will be no more "balanced" than a PR fax from Fox News headquarters. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.86.120.67 (talk • contribs) 04:28, 21 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Again, care to back it up with sources? <font face="Brush Script MT" color="#0000FF" size="4">AuburnPilot Talk 04:33, 21 October 2006 (UTC)


 * This is the first I've heard of a filing of bankruptcy by FNC. If you provide some verifiable sources, we will be happy to include it in the article. --rogerd 04:43, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

This 1999 Online NewHour interview features none other than Brit Hume himself saying that Fox News is losing "$80 million to $90 million a year" and is expected to lose money "for a couple more years." http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/media/july-dec99/cable_7-12.html My point on all this is that, if Wikipedia is going to exhaustively detail every single fiscal woe suffered in Air America's history, then the article on Fox News ought to point out that Fox News also suffered early on in its history.


 * Well, if there's a good reference for this, then why not include a mention of this somewhere in the history section of the article? Cbuhl79 15:31, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, I went ahead and added this in, I'd welcome feedback on how I added it. Cbuhl79 16:05, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm going to remove it, for a number of reasons, in no particular order: 1) You're openly admitting you're doing it as a point ("Why in the AAR article and not the FNC one?"), which is, well, against WP:POINT. 2) There is no comparison between Fox News and Air America, except that left-wingers happen to have an interest in both. Air America is a talk radio network that freely admits they operate from a specific POV; Fox News is a news channel that claims to be Fair & Balanced (whether anyone agrees or disagrees with that is beside the point). 3) It's just not a good edit the way you did it; it doesn't make any logical sense tacked on to the end of that paragraph. You'd have to create at least an entire paragraph about FNC's finances (not that I'm recommending this, for all the other reasons listed here). 4) No matter what, you've still got the problem that standard startup losses are not at all comparable to bankruptcy. Almost every new startup, no matter what business they're in, involves large amounts of losses for the first few years. Doesn't matter whether it's FNC, CNN, MSNBC, Sears Roebuck, America Online, or any of a zillion dotcoms. To compare these standard Business 101 losses to AAR's financial situation is just plain factually incorrect, and it makes Wikipedia look bad. I'm sorry, but there's no other way to put it. --Aaron 16:57, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Umm...I'm not the one making a WP:POINT. Another editor brought up the reference - although I do think they were just whining about the way they feel Air America was being treated, they did provide a reasonable reference with useful information that might belong in the History section. I agree entirely with the statement that "standard startup losses are not at all comparable to bankruptcy.", which is why it doesn't deserve anything other than a passing mention, but with a good edit, it could be useful information in the History section. Cbuhl79 18:33, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I can see how you might have thought I was the anon editor making a WP:POINT, since I accidentally made the edit before I logged in. In any case, I think if the anon editor who originally brought this up wants to discuss how this information should be and could be included, that would be welcome - otherwise, I'm not going to re-add it. Cbuhl79 18:51, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Where's the Consensus?
Unfortunately, I showed good faith and participated in an RfC on an issue where consensus had already been reached. Seeing what has happened since, now I feel like a fool. After days and days of discussion several editors almost all agreed on the form and wording of the introductory paragraph. Now the paragraph has been changed based on the passive approval of two persons who were not involved in the original RfC, and over the unanimous objection of all other editors who participated in the original RfC. This is bad faith, and totally unacceptable to the content dispute process at Wiki. When I showed Cbuhl, that consensus has been reached, he disputed it, saying in effect "4-2 isn't a consensus" (notwithstanding that all editors who participated in the RfC approved of the previous version to varying degrees). Several of those editors refused to get involved in this one. That is evidence that consensus has been reached. Here's where the bad faith lies, Cbuhl has changed the intro solely on his version and on two other editors. I will revert, until someone shows me that consensus had not been reached previously. Ramsquire 19:12, 23 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I must agree 100% with Ramsquire's above comment. To say I was bewildered to see Cbuhl change the intro would be an understatement. I actually stopped what I was doing, reread this entire talk page, and still couldn't figure out why the change was made. When multiple editors agree to something, and one disagrees, there is no need or precedent for starting a second RfC. That it has been done, and then changes made after all involved in the previous one adamantly opposed more changes, is very bad faith and can't possible be seen as in line with wikiprocess. Consensus was reached in the first RfC, and in no way did consensus support change in the second. <font face="Brush Script MT" color="#0000FF" size="4">AuburnPilot Talk 19:27, 23 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Add my agreement to AuburnPilot and Ramsquire. As previously stated, it certainly appears that Cbuhl is more personally invested in this article's subject (or the viewpoint from which it is seen) than can be reasonably attributed to WP:NPOV and WP:AGF.  That being said, I have never been involved in a Wikipedia situation that has "gone this far" and am unaware as to what remedies exist regarding renegade editors who violate WP:POINT, ignore WP:CONSENSUS, make unilateral changes to articles based on his POV, initiate malformed RfCs, and cause most others to see his edits as a bad-faith effort.  My opinion:  changes by this editor at this point should be summarily reverted until a little more respect for WP policices and guidelines is earned.  Just my humble opinion.  /Blaxthos 19:43, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok, can you two explain why it is ok to violate this part of the WP:NPOV policy - When asserting a fact about an opinion, it is important also to assert facts about competing opinions, and to do so without implying that any one of the opinions is correct. It is also generally important to give the facts about the reasons behind the views, and to make it clear who holds them. It is often best to cite a prominent representative of the view. Your position seems to be that because you believe criticism of Fox News is "widespread", that a source of criticism should not be clearly identified. To be clear, I'm not insisting that this version be the final version, if further discussion is necessary to reach consensus, then let's have further discussion. Cbuhl79 19:38, 23 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Instead of jumping in half-assed and crying foul, how about reading all of the previous discussions on this topic. That issue has already been covered, and again you continue to violate multiple WP policies and guidelines.  Any issue you've brought up thus far was already covered and agreed upon by the initial parties before you decided to take up this cause.  Personally, I refuse to continue any discussion with you on these points (beyond this one).  Solution has been arrived upon, consensus has been reached.  WP:CCC not withstanding, there is nothing more to discuss.  Sour grapes -- "Nothing to see here, move along."  /Blaxthos 19:47, 23 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Cbuhl, please stop the Wikilawyering. Where is the consensus to your change?  There isn't any.  Don't you find it odd that you have had no support for your position?  Is everyone but you right?  If that is your attitude, then Wikipedia as a consensus project is not the place for you.  Until you show, either a lack of consensus for the agreed upon version, or consensus for yours, I will revert. If you continue we will have no choice but to initiate an RfC on your behavior, as it is beginning to be seen as a disruption to the project. Ramsquire 19:49, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Again, arguments against my changes have failed to explain why it is ok to violate WP:NPOV, and instead make ad hominum attacks, despite the fact that I have kept this in the discussion page as much as possible, and despite the fact that I have not actively tried to push one POV over the other (insisting only that sources be clearly identified). I only made the most recent change after discussion with two new editors who agreed with my WP:NPOV objections, and after leaving the discussion in place for over a day. I'll revert this only one more time right now, since I'm not interested in taking part in a revert war, but please note from WP:CONSENSUS (emphasis added): It is assumed that editors working toward consensus are pursuing a consensus that is consistent with Wikipedia's basic policies and principles - especially the neutral point of view (NPOV). At times, a group of editors may be able to, through persistence, numbers, and organization, overwhelm well-meaning editors and generate what appears to be support for a version of the article that is actually inaccurate, libelous, or not neutral, e.g. giving undue weight to a specific point of view. This is not a consensus. Cbuhl79 20:05, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

(My fifth attempt to post this; edit conflicts keep getting in the way.) While I agree with Ramsquire, AuburnPilot and Blaxthos, I also have a separate problem with Cbuhl79's edit: It raises Robert Greenwald and the Quarterly Journal of Economics to an unreasonably high level of implied importance. As is, the opening comes off as, "FNC is a news channel, etc. The mighty Robert Greenwald has stated that they have a conservative bias." That's the reason this level of granularity is generally put much further down in articles; it throws off the opening in general and helps make the POV come off as important as the subject itself. --Aaron 19:55, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * While I can understand the objections, if you carefully read WP:NPOV, you'll see absolutely no mentions there of the danger of giving specific critics unreasonably high importance.

Sometimes, a potentially biased statement can be reframed into an NPOV statement by attributing or substantiating it.

For instance, "John Doe is the best baseball player" is, by itself, merely an expression of opinion. One way to make it suitable for Wikipedia is to change it into a statement about someone whose opinion it is: "John Doe's baseball skills have been praised by baseball insiders such as Al Kaline and Joe Torre," as long as those statements are correct and can be verified. The goal here is to attribute the opinion to some subject-matter expert, rather than to merely state it as true.
 * If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;
 * If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;
 * If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it is true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not.Cbuhl79 20:04, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh, now I love this comment. Seems you're unwilling to agree to any version except the one you deem as not violating POV. Again, I must recommend that you read WP:Consensus; it doesn't allow you to reach the one of your choosing. Ramsquire, Blaxthos, Aaron, and myself, along with Gamaliel from the previous RfC and several others all disagree with your position; isn't it time to concede that the intro is perfectly acceptable the way it is? <font face="Brush Script MT" color="#0000FF" size="4">AuburnPilot Talk 20:16, 23 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Greenwald is a good choice for this instance because he is representative of the criticism. His documentary "Outfoxed" is very well known and popular among critics. The point of citing a specific critic, per WP:NPOV policy, is not to deem them as important, but to provide a verifiable representation of the claim - so the criteria for selecting them are 1. verifiability and 2. representativeness. Kevin Baastalk 20:23, 23 October 2006 (UTC)


 * From WP:NPOV "...and to make it clear who holds them. It is often best to cite a prominent representative of the view. Who says Greenwald is a prominent representative of anything?  Granted I was the one who brought up his name in one of the proposals.  But I agreed with Gamaliel, that adding him gives an impression that the critics are in the far left.  That is not representative as the polls and other data in the body suggest.  Since the perception by critics seem to cover a wide political spectrum, various employments and a large segment of the American public, it is entirely appropriate here to use weasel words to encapsulate that criticism in the introduction.  There are specifics in the body of the article.


 * However, that is a separate issue from why editors are annoyed. Many of us are tired of this discussion, and the rehashing of old arguments.  I've stated my issues below


 * Ramsquire 20:45, 23 October 2006 (UTC)


 * His documentary "Outfoxed" is certainly prominent. Though admittedly, I didn't know he made it until I clicked on his name. You make a good argument. Kevin Baastalk 20:58, 23 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Wow, a lot of antagonism here. And Blaxthos, I found your comments particularly hyperbolic, misrepresentative, and in bad faith.   And 4-2 is clearly not a consensus. it's a majority, a 2/3 majority. consensus is more like 4/5 - it's more improbable and takes more time and effort to achieve.  which are actually desirable traits in this case.  it makes the 'pedia more stable, accurate, and npov.  and Blaxthos', your opinion "..should be reverted" is noted, and does not give me a high opinion of your discussion skills.


 * Forgive the confrontational language there. But the comments by you people seem to me to be just inflammatory rhetoric and not very productive or helpful.  If you people want to help work on improving the article, you're welcome to.  In the meantime, don't attack others who are working cooperatively with each other while you refuse to participate. Kevin Baastalk 20:15, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * And I suggest you read the first RfC where everyone worked together, participated, and reached an agreement. <font face="Brush Script MT" color="#0000FF" size="4">AuburnPilot Talk 20:18, 23 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Well if an agreement was reached, then good! I have nothing against the current version of the intro.  Now a few people seem to be trying to improve it more, by taking input from the wikipedia guidelines/policies and each other.  I have no problem with this.  I don't understand why you seem to have a problem with it.  I think this article can still be improved, and that improvement is an incremental process.  the last agreement was one increment.  if another agreement can be reached, that's another. Kevin Baastalk 20:27, 23 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I am confrontational because I have bent over backwards to assume good faith to Cbuhl, and today he just spit in my eye. Here's the history if you don't want to read through all the discussion on this topic.  There were five editors involved in a dispute about bias in the intro.  At some point consensus was reached on that issue that it can go in if it is neutral and doesn't give the perception of bias undue weight.  Several formulations were proposed and commented on.  Cbuhl came in and made his Weasel Word objection.  Although I didn't think it was valid, I still proposed the current version to incorporate his suggestion.  At this point all of the original editors agreed and removed the discussion from the RfC page.  Not quite happy with that result, Cbuhl started this RfC, claiming there was no consensus, (although 5/6 would seem to be consensus to me) started another RfC on an issue that was already discussed.  Against my better judgment I participated because I thought someone from the original RfC should.  Today, I see he changed the intro based solely on you and his passive discussion.  I take it personally because after being told there was no consensus, I don't see how 5 out of 7 (even though you originally agreed with the five), warrants a change.  It seems to me that Cbuhl is intent on pushing through his viewpoint and is not listening to what others are saying.  And before you say, that I am doing the same thing, just know that I don't want the mention of bias in the intro at all.  But I put my opinion aside in an effort to reach consensus.  I ask Cbuhl to do the same. Ramsquire 20:27, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Maybe that's a point that isn't getting across. Anyone coming into this discussion might also need to take a look at the discussion that preceded the first RfC. It is now archived and can be found here. Just like Ramsquire, I was initially opposed to the paragraph's inclusion at all, but in the interest of this being a community project, I said ok, but lets do it right. After lengthy discussion, and the initial RfC (which I started), we came to an agreement. This 2nd RfC is a direct contradiction to that agreement, and seeing how this RfC was initiated less than 2 hours after the first one closed, it's hard to see the good faith. <font face="Brush Script MT" color="#0000FF" size="4">AuburnPilot Talk 20:39, 23 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you, both of you, for your information. I'd say that 5/6 is a consensus, and that the intro should stay at this consensus version pending a comparable consensus for a new intro. Kevin Baastalk 20:45, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * And to me the article seems pretty good. Though if I could put in my two cents: I don't like the word "however", I think it's subtle POV.  I think that sentence should end there and the next sentence should read "The channel denies allegations of bias in their news reporting."  Kevin Baastalk 20:52, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Now there's a change I can agree to with very little thought. Being a grammer/punctuation issue, rather than content, I think that change can be made without much debate. <font face="Brush Script MT" color="#0000FF" size="4">AuburnPilot Talk 20:55, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Kevin, I agree that my tone in the last few comments may appear particularly caustic. I encourage you to read them in context -- It appears you failed to read the original RfC discussions that occured, which may assist in understanding why I felt such diction was necessary. Hope this helps. /Blaxthos 20:50, 23 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks. It was thinks like "passive approval" and "unilateral edit" that bothered me.  What's the difference between "active" and "passive" approval?  To approve one must perform an act, so i don't see really how "passive approval" is possible.  And I don't see how one can make a bilateral or mutli-lateral edit.  Only one person can edit at a time.  So I don't understand why "unilateral" was used if not for unsubstantiable rhetorical purposes.  Anycase, I have not read the archives.  I'll take a look.  thanks. Kevin Baastalk 21:02, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

To be fair, I was referring more to the other editors than to Ramsquire. I made the change this morning only after discussion with other editors yesterday. I haven't seen anyone explain why it's ok to violate the WP:NPOV policy listed here: When asserting a fact about an opinion, it is important also to assert facts about competing opinions, and to do so without implying that any one of the opinions is correct. It is also generally important to give the facts about the reasons behind the views, and to make it clear who holds them. It is often best to cite a prominent representative of the view. All of the arguments against me have been centered around how "consensus" has already been reached and how I'm guilty of "sour grapes" - while I've been consistently arguing for adherence to Wikipedia policies. I originally objected to inclusions of criticism without clearly citing the source because I think it is POV. I originally argued my point using WP:WEASEL, but it was pointed out that WP:WEASEL is a guideline, not a policy, so I found references in WP:NPOV that I believe support my position that a prominent holder of the opinion should be clearly cited, and have not yet seen any arguments why this should not be the case Cbuhl79 21:09, 23 October 2006 (UTC)


 * No one has discussed your NPOV argument? What about this, this, this, and this to point to a few responses. Ramsquire 21:50, 23 October 2006 (UTC)


 * As I said - "I originally objected to inclusions of criticism without clearly citing the source because I think it is POV. I originally argued my point using WP:WEASEL, but it was pointed out that WP:WEASEL is a guideline, not a policy, so I found references in WP:NPOV that I believe support my position that a prominent holder of the opinion should be clearly cited, and have not yet seen any arguments why this should not be the case."
 * Most of the objections were along the lines of "these weasel words are ok because...". I continued to disagree with those assertions because I felt that they were being used to promote a POV position, at which point consensus was declared by the other editors. I re-read the WP:NPOV policy, and found very clear language that supports the clear and specific citation of holders of an opinion. Cbuhl79 22:01, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

WP:AGF Warning
Not sure where to put this, so I figured I'd drop it here. Move as appropriate. Thank you for your comment. I'll admit I may be being hard-headed in (what I believe) is a defense of WP:NPOV, but I've been subjected to numerous personal attacks and accusations ever since the other editors declared that consensus had been reached.

<tt>The preceeding was found left on Kevin's talk page by Cbuhl79.</tt> I think this is just a continued example of how Cbuhl abuses the good faith issued to him.

To Cbuhl79: I would like you to demonstrate where any one of us has issued any sort of personal attack against you. Please give us examples of how we've "attacked and accused" you.

/Blaxthos 21:03, 23 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok, here's a good example "renegade editors who violate WP:POINT, ignore WP:CONSENSUS, make unilateral changes to articles based on his POV". I'm not sure what WP:POINT you think I've tried to make (except perhaps that WP:NPOV is an inviolate principle of Wikipedia), and I'm not sure how you can characterize me as a "renegade" editor who makes "unilateral" changes, despite the fact that I have only made changes after discussion has occured, and have not attempted to take part in any revert wars. I also fail to see how my continued insistence on clearly citing sources and prominent critics can be seen as my "POV" Cbuhl79 21:20, 23 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Renegade - You have no support for your position but your own. This isn't a "personal attack."
 * WP:POINT - You continue to find new wiki policies to use to try and effect the same changes. When one fails, find another.
 * "I originally objected to inclusions of criticism without clearly citing the source because I think it is POV. I originally argued my point using WP:WEASEL, but it was pointed out that WP:WEASEL is a guideline, not a policy, so I found references in WP:NPOV that I believe support my position that a prominent holder of the opinion should be clearly cited, and have not yet seen any arguments why this should not be the case" Cbuhl79 21:57, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * unilateral - No one agrees with your changes but your own. What occurs is not discussion as much as it is here is what I did and why.
 * There certainly hasn't been much discussion on the WP:NPOV violations with the other editors who declared that consensus had been reached. And it's quite a stretch to say that no one agrees with my changes but me, as you'll see other editors who were at least briefly involved and were willing to help me address my WP:NPOV concernas. Cbuhl79 21:57, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * revert wars - I didn't even include this at first, but just look at the history of the FNC page for the last couple of hours. Your behavior comes awfully close to even violating WP:3RR.
 * Again, I'm not interested in participating in a revert war, so I only made my first edit today after discussing it here yesterday. My change was reverted twice, so I reverted twice, asking for explanations about my WP:NPOV objections, which were not forthcoming. Cbuhl79 21:57, 23 October 2006 (UTC)


 * My point is simply that, at this point, I think there is plenty of evidence as to why any edits you make and facts you assert need to be scrutinized, as opposed to just assuming good faith. That you actually went to others' talk pages and accused anyone of personal attacks is only further validation of such.  /Blaxthos 21:29, 23 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, and the fact that every single editor vehemently opposed to any further discussion of this WP:NPOV violation is based not on evaluations of the WP:NPOV policy but on arguments about my behavior validates my claim. Cbuhl79 21:57, 23 October 2006 (UTC)


 * That is an out and out lie. There is no NPOV violation as discussed above.  This falls in to the weasel word exception as discussed above, and on the WP:WEASEL talk page.  You just refuse to listen to other editors.  As evidenced by your repeated false claim, that no one has discussed the issue.  The issue has been discussed to death, look at the archives, and on this page. Ramsquire 22:01, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Please read the WP:NPOV policy and explain why this violation is ok. Cbuhl79 22:06, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

When asserting a fact about an opinion, it is important also to assert facts about competing opinions, and to do so without implying that any one of the opinions is correct. It is also generally important to give the facts about the reasons behind the views, and to make it clear who holds them. It is often best to cite a prominent representative of the view.
 * And what fact is being asserted? Look, this NPOV stuff in the intro has been discussed, in depth.  Ramsquire 22:18, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Let me try to clarify a few key points for you: It is my sincere hope that this experience will help you learn how to appropriately contribute and improve articles. /Blaxthos 02:53, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * WP:WEASEL is a guideline, and not a policy. As such, it appears understood that in some cases "weasel words" may indeed have an appropriate usage -- this case, in particular, seems like a perfect example.
 * WP:WEASEL is not, as you have openly claimed on the WP:WEASEL talk page, a "tool to enforce WP:NPOV".
 * Citing sources should be done within the article body, not the introduction. There was a call for sources weeks ago.  I did some research and posted under "Food for thought" heading on the (now archived) talk page.  Several editors involved in the original cleanup stated that elevating sources into the intro gives undue weight to any one source.  I now believe they were correct on both points.
 * The qualifications set forth in WP:CONSENSUS have been satisfied for some time. I can find no justification for continuing to assert your idea of what should be, be it by ongoing reverts (check!), asking for continual discussion of issues settled by consensus (check!), or making claims of personal attacks and persecution (check!).
 * Continued wikilawyering by trying to find new ways to re-open decided issues (reverting, asking for new RfC's to change the outcome, etc.) both violates WP:POINT and further alienates yourself from the community.
 * I apologize if my tone is particularly insensitive, but you seem particularly unwilling to listen to what anyone is telling you, and unwilling to accept solutions that don't meet with what you think should be.
 * The list of violations of norms, best practices, guidelines, and even policies is almost mindboggling.

Once again, you avoid addressing my concern with the violation of WP:NPOV, and instead focus on the fact that I earlier objected to a violation of WP:WEASEL. I object to violations of WP:WEASEL because I feel that they are used to push a POV, and the WP:NPOV policy supports my view: When asserting a fact about an opinion, it is important also to assert facts about competing opinions, and to do so without implying that any one of the opinions is correct. It is also generally important to give the facts about the reasons behind the views, and to make it clear who holds them. It is often best to cite a prominent representative of the view. Cbuhl79 12:29, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


 * The policy states "generally important... to make it clear who holds them". Phrases like "many critics and observers" are generally considered sufficient for these purposes.  And I say this from a lot of experience on political articles.  The main goal of the policy is for views to be represented as such, rather than as facts.


 * Notice the bolded word: "It is often best to cite a prominent representative...". Often.  That does not mean that one always must do it, or even that it is always the best thing to do.  "Often" means there are cases where it is not the best thing to do.  Not citing a prominent representative is not a violation of policy.


 * Some of the editors here have made a good case for not citing a prominent representative in case, to put in my own words what i think they're trying to say: that the view is widespread, primarily what one might call "grass-roots", so to cite a prominent critic is misleading in that it suggests that it's only held by a vocal minority of prominent people. Kevin Baastalk 15:59, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you for being willing to discuss this Kevin. Although I believe that it can be argued that criticism of Fox News is "widespread", I think that (some of) the editors here are trying to assert that criticizing Fox News is a majority opinion - this is what I disagree with. According to WP:NPOV
 * If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;
 * I have yet to see a reference that states that a the viewpoint that "Fox News advocates conservative opinion" is a MAJORITY viewpoint. For example, the currently listed survey was a survey of Journalists only, and while it found that 56% of National Jounalists specifically cited Fox News as being "especially conservative", it also found that only 26% of Local Journalists cited Fox News as being "especially conservative". I also found this 2004 (election year) poll - http://www.rasmussenreports.com/Broadcast%20Bias.htm - that found that less than 37% of people surveyed thought Fox News was actively trying to help elect Bush. (Note that the poll was taking right after the memo scandal, so I'd like to find a better poll).
 * To me, it's clear that the view that Fox News is biased is a significant minority opinion, and I don't believe that WP:NPOV makes exceptions because a view might be "widespread". From WP:NPOV:
 * If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;
 * This is what I'm trying to do. I'm not suggesting that Robert Greenwald MUST be the critic that is named, but that if we are going to say that "critics accuse Fox News of advocating conservative opinions", a critic (or two) should be found and cited that that actually accuses Fox News of advocating conservative opinions. Cbuhl79 17:25, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I looked through WP:NOT and I found no mention of either of the two bulleted items. Perhaps they were mis-cited?  In any case, item 2 simply says "then it should be easy to name prominent adherents".  Well it is easy to name prominent adherents.  So we can say, by that standard, that the viewpoint is held, at least, by a significant minority.  That's all that statement tells us.  It does not in any way speak to how the viewpoint should be presented. Kevin Baastalk 21:27, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Whoops, "WP:NOT" was a typo - it should have said "WP:NPOV" (I corrected it in an edit just now). Hmm...so you think that the statement "then it should be easy to name prominent adherents" is simply a measure of distinguishing what constitutes a "significant majority"? Since it followed the statement about majority opinions - "If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts", I assumed it was also an instruction. Cbuhl79 00:22, 25 October 2006 (UTC)


 * No one is trying to assert that the bias criticism is a majority opinion. The reasons given for inserting it into the intro was that it was widespread perception that is one of the reasons Foxnews is notable and to not have it in the intro is POV.  Note that nowhere in the intro are terms like "most" "some" "few" or "all" used.  It says "many critics and observers", which does not address majority/minority distinctions.  What is your next argument? Ramsquire 17:52, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't disagree at all on including mention of bias in the introduction, I was originally in favor of leaving it out, but I never strongly opposed it. My argument remains the same - that the sentence as it is fails to clearly cite a prominent holder of the opinion. The main argument against this is always along the lines of
 * "1) it gives the impression that those are the only critics and 2) that it is an idea that only resides with the far left." (quoted from an earlier post)
 * I think these are valid considerations, but I think the first issue is outweighed by the WP:NPOV policy - which NEVER mentions any of those concerns. As far as the second issue, I'd be glad to help other editors select a good, prominent critic (or two) that other editors can agree on. Cbuhl79 18:07, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

It is quite sufficient to say "many" if the sentence is immediately followed with (a) a reference which makes that same point about criticism or (b) several references to critics making the charge themselves. The only operative policy here is verifiability, and that satisfies it. Indeed, a long listing of critics by name would probably violate the undue weight provision. Derex 19:00, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Let's keep all this in context too. The sole editor who is still objecting has attempted to wikilawyer several policies to assert his position... when one fails, find another; when he didn't like the outcome of the first RfC, he called another one hoping for a different outcome by using different semantics; claiming personal attacks and persecution when he didn't get his way -- behavior covered under WP:POINT.  Additionally, the consensus also covered giving undue weight to any one particular critic.  I think at this point further conversation is moot, because consensus has been reached.  Why are we wasting talk space at this point?  /Blaxthos 21:48, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, Cbuhl79 has been soliciting comment on talk pages. So, I commented. Really no need to write twice as much in response and then complain that I wasted talk space by commenting. Derex 01:26, 25 October 2006 (UTC)


 * My comments were not leveled at you -- sorry to have been nonspecific. That Cbuhl79 is going to talk pages to try and rally support for his position really shouldn't come as much of a shock to anyone, given his behavior thus far.  Again, sorry for the misdirected frustration.  /Blaxthos 05:50, 25 October 2006 (UTC)


 * So are you saying I shouldn't solicit the opinions of people who have been previously involved in the discussion? Is soliciting opinions bad behavior? Note that I asked Tbeatty (who I hoped would agree with me) and Isarig (who I assumed would not) the exact same question - [|Tbeatty diff] / http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Isarig&diff=prev&oldid=83471342|Isarig diff]]. (Derex appeared to have been involved in a seperate discussion on Tbeatty's user talk page) Cbuhl79 15:51, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Again, my main interest is in observing the spirit and the letter of WP:NPOV, see: "When asserting a fact about an opinion... It is also generally important to give the facts about the reasons behind the views, and to make it clear who holds them. It is often best to cite a prominent representative of the view." Note also that the "undue weight" clause of WP:NPOV has absolutely nothing to do with "giving undue weight to any one particular critic". To the contrary, the "undue weight" clause explicitly suggests it: "If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents; This is my only suggestion, that we change the introduction statement to name a prominent critic, as opposed to (or in addition to) merely citing a survey of journalists. I fail to see how there can be any objections under the WP:NPOV policy to changing the current introduction - "Fox News is seen by many critics and observers as advocating conservative political positions" to something like "Critics of Fox News such as <<Prominent Critic>> accuse Fox News of advocating conservative political positions." Originally I cited WP:WEASEL as my motivation for objection, other editors argued (not unreasonably) that it was a "guideline" and not a "policy". To satisfy that argument, I objected on the basis of the "policy" WP:NPOV. Objections to my proposed changes since then have centered around making exceptions as to why we shouldn't strictly adhere to WP:NPOV. I'm not at all opposed to someone exploring Wikipedia policy to find other arguments for why these exceptions should be made. Cbuhl79 23:30, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


 * As previously stated, the point is moot. Virtually every editor except you has taken exception to your position and explained why; this discussion is no longer productive, necessary, or justified.  /Blaxthos 00:11, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Cbuhl's interpretation of the WP:NPOV policy is simply incorrect. There is no violation of NPOV here. The fact that you, Cbuhl, state this is my only suggestion is quite misleading, as it is much more likely a demand. I don't think it can be said any other way than it has over the last two RfC's. The intro is perfectly within wikipedia guideline and policy and there is no justification for changing it. To continue insisting, in the face of great opposition, is quite ridiculous. Please, with all due respect, let this issue die. I really can't think of any other way to word why your position is incorrect; it's been said too many times in too many different ways. <font face="Brush Script MT" color="#0000FF" size="4">AuburnPilot Talk 01:09, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
 * From WP:NPOV:

Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, is one of Wikipedia's three content policies... The principles upon which these three policies are based are non-negotiable and cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, or by editors' consensus.
 * I'm not sure how I'm misinterpreting WP:NPOV when I read:

"...and to make it clear who holds them. It is often best to cite a prominent representative of the view."
 * YOUR interpretation on the other hand, revolves around the fact that "consensus has already been reached", or on trying to argue WITHOUT citing Wikipedia policy on why we should weasel out of making it clear who holds the opinion, and citing prominent representatives of the view. Cbuhl79 14:28, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Their argument comes from WP policy too. They are trying not to give undue weight to a particular person's viewpoint because it is misleading and, in any case, it is covered later on in the article. You are trying to cite a couple of particular people's viewpoints because you think it clarifies the sort of people who hold the opinion that Fox News is biased. Both arguments have merit in WP policy but are mutually exclusive, so consensus has to be reached as to which approach you take (personally I am neutral - I think either introduction would be alright). Now I know some of you think consensus has been reached already, but how about a simple vote as to whether particular critics should be cited in the introduction or not, and the participants agree to accept the outcome of the vote (if rough consensus is reached either way). Would that settle this issue (which is just going round in circles otherwise)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trebor_Rowntree (talk • contribs)


 * Trevor: all this has been covered at length.  Please read all past discussions before proposing additional action on topics already discussed/voted/decided.


 * Cbuhl79: Please notice the word often in the same repetitve quote you keep posting.  Then, please scroll up and look at the comments from every other editor who has worked on this.  Pay particular to the multiple explainations by multiple editors for every objection you've thus far concocted.  Now, you have no legal or moral justification for continued discussion.  Grow up, move along, and find another cause.  /Blaxthos 16:56, 25 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I'll repeat what I put on your talk page. Despite you claiming this issue being decided, clearly Cbuhl79 does not agree and this argument is not getting anywhere. I thought a vote might be a way to settle this firmly - if you have a consensus it should be easy to win. Other than that, how are you planning to finish this discussion and avoid getting into a revert war?Trebor 18:24, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Trebor,

I appreciate your willingness to assist in this situation, however I think it is important to note the following:


 * WP:AGF specifically states that one must not continue to assume good faith when evidence to the contraty exists. As several editors have pointed out, there are several actions by cbuhl that give overwhelming evidence that he is not acting in good faith, specifically:
 * Wikilawyering
 * Calling a second RfC as soon as the first one closed (satisfying WP:CONSENSUS) on the same issue.
 * Making a WP:POINT
 * Finding new excuse to raise the same point when first attempt fails ("try different policies until one gets the resut one desires").
 * Claiming victimization of personal attacks, when none exist.
 * Soliciting support for his position by approaching uninvolved parties on their talk pages.
 * Refusing to listen to multiple editors' explainations as to why his position is incorrect.
 * Gaming the system.


 * The vote you proposed has already occured. Why pander to someone who obviously refuses to hear any voice but his own?
 * I already announced several times that I no longer AGF with the editor in question,

The way to end it? Simply stop responding. If you agree that it should end, then absolutely do not call for another vote to rehash dead issues -- all that does is stir the water more!

Admittedly, I had planned to stop responding after the last post, but then more people kept jumping in, seemingly without understanding the complete history involved. I think several points you made on my talk page actually were covered in previous public postings (regarding AGF, personal attacks (which you also claim occur, so I am asking for you to cite them if you still assert they have occured), past votes and consensus).

If you think Cbuhl is correct, then jump in the fray -- I think even with two or three more voices the consensus would not be overturned (though I strongly acknowledge WP:CCC) but this is just one big whinefest over sour grapes. If you do not think Cbuhl is correct, then I urge you to explain to him why he is wrong (as we've all tried) instead of coddling him by agreeing to another vote. I also suggest re-reading what happened to the one person who did decide to AGF and re-participate in the (invalid) second RfC. Might make you think twice about acquescing to the squeaky wheel.

Anyway, hope this didn't come off as too harsh. /Blaxthos 21:48, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Ongoing discussion
Blockquotes are Trebor, responses are blaxthos -

"I think cbuhl is still acting in good faith (based on the tone of his postings) and doesn't think the issue is as cut and dried as you do."

His tone shouldn't be how you evaluate his "good faith" -- actions speak louder than words.

"the current intro came after discussion (not a vote) at the end of the last RfC which had began on a different topic."

Negative. The end goal is the same, even if the vehicle used is differet. Please read WP:POINT. Finding new ways to effect the same change is clearly discussed in several policies and guidelines.

"it had been going on for 5 days already with little progress."

Indeed, there is no progress to be made. Consensus has been reached. Issue has been discussed to death. Current discussions are to try and help Cbuhl (and now you) understand why further discussion is moot.

"I'd been following the discussion for several days without commenting and thought it was getting nowhere, so suggested a poll, with agreement in advance to adhere to the result, might break the deadlock. But then you jump on me as if I've done something wrong."

One individual who refuses to accept the community consensus is not a deadlock. Wikipedia would get nowhere if every change had to be met with complete agreement by all parties. To be honest, I do think it's wrong that you want to continue opening the issue for further vote, totally bypassing the endless work that we have done to (1) refine the article to meet with consensus views, and (2) explain to Cbuh79 why/how his view is out of line. That shows a complete disrespect to all of us who have used hundreds of kilobytes to try and help him understand why.

"You shouldn't be afraid to defend your position,"

Hey now, let's not violate WP:OR and WP:AGF with me -- my reasons aren't because I am "afraid to defend [my] position". My "defense" (improper wording) of "my" position is neither a defense, nor is it my position. The consensus was reached a while back by a number of editors (not asserted by me). The reasoning for such can be foudn in the endless volumes on the talk page. The "defense" (which should be described as "explaination") has been explained at least half a dozen times by like, five or six editors.

You should also note that this isn't the only place Cbuhl has been told he's wrong on this issue -- go read the talk pages for the policies and templates he's even trying to cite! How many people saying "that is incorrect" do you think we need before his continued objection should be viewed as invalid?

"if you think there was already a vote (an actual poll) on the issue in question can you point me to it because I can't find it."

WP:CONSENSUS does not require an "actual poll" or vote -- in fact, in circumstances like this it is very much more productive to have a collaborative effort (which we did!) instead of "pick one." You should be able to read everyone's comments (from the last 2 weeks or however long it's been) and get a pretty clear indication that the only one supporting Cbuhl79's position is Cbuhl79.

Again, I think it's nothing but counterproductive for you to give validity to Cbuhl79's behavior. The precedent this sets is dangerous and not in the best interests of the project -- I liken it to a prison sentence that won't be imposed until all appeals are exhausted, and there is always an opportunity to repeatedly appeal. /Blaxthos 08:33, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Addendum - Thought these quotes, from WP:CONSENSUS would help Cbuhl and Trebor get some clarification:

"The preferred way to deal with this problem is to draw the attention of other editors to the issue by some of the methods of dispute resolution, such as consulting a third party, filing a request for comment (on the article in question), and requesting mediation. Enlarging the pool will prevent the railroading of articles by a dedicated few. In the case of a small group of editors who find that their facts and point of view are being excluded by a larger group of editors, it is worth considering that they may be mistaken."

- WP:CONSENSUS

"Precise numbers for "supermajority" are hard to establish, and Wikipedia is not a majoritarian democracy, so simple vote-counting should never be the key part of the interpretation of a debate."

- WP:CONSENSUS

Hope this helps! /Blaxthos 08:48, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Request for Arbitration
I have opened a request for arbitration here regarding the wording of the sentence in the introduction about Fox News' bias. Since two of the editors involved have explicitly stated that they believe I am not acting good faith, I decided to seek arbitration on the matter. I notified the three editors who I know are strongly in disagreement with me, I also notified four other editors who have been involved since I opened the second RfC. I encourage any other interested parties to comment on the matter in the Arbitration Request. I have also closed (or am about to) the RfC that I opened. Cbuhl79 17:33, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

The above Request for Arbitration was removed from the ArbCom request page on 28 October 2006, 05:02 (UTC) after being unanimously (0/4/0/0) rejected by the committee. The four votes were cast by ArbCom members Fred Bauder, Charles Matthews, Jayjg, and Matthew Brown (Morven). <font face="Brush Script MT" color="#0000FF" size="4">AuburnPilot Talk 05:57, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Request Rejected


 * This one is plain and simple. We should not be violating any policy or guideline to advance what is, at the end, opinion.  Wikipedia is a collection of facts, and the fact that one group may have considered it conservative is non-encyclopedic.  It has absolutely no neutral use here on this encyclopedia.  --Mrmiscellanious 21:32, 5 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Please do not remove the text in question, again. It has been the topic of two RfCs and twice has been brought to the attention of the Arbitration committee. Doing so is not wise. -- <font face="Brush Script MT" color="#0000FF" size="4">AuburnPilot talk 21:56, 5 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Can you link all those actions (the RfC's and the first ArbCom)? Seems while it may be appropriate, it isn't appropriate in the opening paragraph.  There's a section here for it and an entire article dedicated to Fox news controversies.  Spark*  22:00, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Look up. They're all still on this page. -- <font face="Brush Script MT" color="#0000FF" size="4">AuburnPilot talk 22:00, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
 * You're quick. I just came back to state "what, you expect me to look up?", and you've commented already....  Spark*  22:02, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I guess it's the frustration I've been filled with over this topic that leads me to respond quickly to any comments. It's very very lengthy, so I hope you're in for a good novel sized discussion ;) -- <font face="Brush Script MT" color="#0000FF" size="4">AuburnPilot talk 22:04, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I'd forgotten that part of the discussion was archived. Further discussion can be found in Archive 15, under the heading Should FNC's alleged conservative bias be mentioned in the article introduction?. Good luck. -- <font face="Brush Script MT" color="#0000FF" size="4">AuburnPilot talk 23:33, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Here's the problem I have: CNN has been accused of multiple biases for years on end, but there is not a single statement in the opening part of the article that it has been accused of any of them. We need to hold NPOV seriously, and not addressing a bias in the early potions of the CNN article (remember, CNN and Fox News are direct competitors) would be in violation of that if we include it in Fox News' article as well. Arguing that accusations against Fox News are in any way more notable than the accusations against CNN would not relate to a summary of the article in whole; if we are to include a criticism in one area of a similar article, we are expected to do it in another. I fail to see how it is notable at all, in either cases, to bring up allegations in the opening statements - and if we do it to one, we must do it to the other. --Mrmiscellanious 03:43, 9 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Assuming that there was some sort of equivalence in the public perceptions of Fox and CNN (an assumption I do not share with you), then this is a matter for you to bring up at Talk:CNN, not here. The alleged deficiencies of another article do not require us to edit this one in any particular way. Gamaliel 03:53, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Presenting a percieved bias in one article but not another is essentially a double standard. It is indeed a responsibility to include certain sections in articles of the same nature, especially in the form of criticism.  --Mrmiscellanious 04:04, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

When the items being discussed are clearly in violation of a site policy (WP:NPOV): the text, as it stands right now, reads: "Fox News is seen by some critics and observers as advocating conservative political positions". There is an eerily similar statement in WP:NPOV that prohibits this use in any Wikipedia article: There is a temptation to rephrase biased or opinion statements with weasel words: "Many people think John Doe is the best baseball player." But statements of this form are subject to obvious attacks: "Yes, many people think so, but only ignorant people"; and "Just how many is 'many'? I think it's only 'a few' who think that!" By attributing the claim to a known authority, or substantiating the facts behind it, you can avoid these problems. As it stands now, the statement included in the opening sentences of Fox News violate the weasel words section of WP:NPOV (it is not just a recommendation). Failing to be specific on this violates WP:NPOV, as it is clearly shown above. --Mrmiscellanious 04:04, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * This has already been discussed at such great length, we could have a separate wikipedia for this issue alone. If you would take the time to read this talk page, you'll see that it has been discussed. Consensus was reach, and while consensus can change, it hasn't. Please do not remove the text again. -- <font face="Brush Script MT" color="#0000FF" size="4">AuburnPilot talk 04:09, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * We don't update articles by telling people to "read the talk page again." Wikipedia does not operate based on historical discussions, it operates based on current discussions.  Consensus was not reached, as I still see this text being challenged almost every day.  That does not show there is a consensus in the Wikipedia community to include this text.  --Mrmiscellanious 04:21, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * This is not a historical discussion. It is a discussion that ended not two weeks ago, with an ArbCom request still pending on the behavior of the only user who refused to accept the consensus. This is how Wikipedia works. -- <font face="Brush Script MT" color="#0000FF" size="4">AuburnPilot talk 04:25, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Removal of "conservative" text
Source is not cited specifically as to the "fact" it represents from the source. If it is indeed in the source that it is stated, please provide more specifics as to where it is located so that others can verify its content. --Mrmiscellanious 04:21, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * To show reasoning, view the link given in as the citation for the fact. When searching for "Fox News" or "Fox News Channel", I see results in a 2005 report, not a 2006 - and I have not yet found any specific page which represents the fact that is stated in the article (in the 2005 report).  To the editor who included this as a source: please edit this citation to include the specific location of the claim.  --Mrmiscellanious 04:28, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * If you believe the source fails verification, you are welcome to tag it as such using the Failed verification tag. From the citation: "Fox has by far the highest profile as a conservative news organization; it was cited unprompted by 69% of national journalists.". You are welcome to find a source that you feel better represents the statements in the article; however, simply blanking the text is not appropriate. -- <font face="Brush Script MT" color="#0000FF" size="4">AuburnPilot talk 04:45, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, based on WP:VERIFY, that is what it is recommended to do:

I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons.
 * Therefore, I am taking this recommendation to remove the statement, as it is unsourced and therefore unverified. Sad to see we went through all this discussion on something that wasn't even cited in the first place.  --Mrmiscellanious 18:51, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The source that's there is terrible. I cannot find the text AuburnPilot quotes above.  However, a google search reveals this source, which does have the text quoted and backs up the claim.  I still don't think it belongs in the opening of this article however.  There's a section dealing with this claim of bias, and a whole other article dedicated to Fox News controversy.  *Spark*  19:58, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The fact that there is an entire article dedicated to this topic is exactly why it is important enough to be dealt with in the intro. We've already been over this stuff before. Gamaliel 21:27, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Mrmiscellanious seems to be a sockpuppet of Cbuhl79. I am going to report it to WP:SSP. That being said, the fact is the perception by some not the actual bias. Therefore it is properly cited (even though it need not be at all). Ramsquire (throw me a line) 19:22, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Interesting theory, however that has been my position for months now on the article (you can view my history if you'd like). However, my actions were justified by the quote above in WP:VERIFY.  Find a new or more specific source for the statement, or it goes.  Simple as that.  Please also note that I will be adding a statement in the introduction that will state among the lines of saying: "Some journalists and critics have also stated that the network has advocated liberal political positions."  Surely, by way of WP:NPOV (give no side any more notice than the other) and by using the precedence of the "conservative positions" (and the vague but factual use of "some"), this is acceptable in the opening statements.  Expect this statement and a source sometime next week.  --Mrmiscellanious 21:01, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * If you intend to start a revert war, I have no problem bringing in another admin to reblock you. You have just come off a 3RR block for reverting this article. It is not wise to continue. Please reconsider your actions before continuing. -- <font face="Brush Script MT" color="#0000FF" size="4">AuburnPilot talk 21:03, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Not to mention the blatant threat to violate WP:POINT. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 21:07, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, this isn't to make a point - and no, I have no intention of starting a revert war (I did make a point by the recent 3RR violation, as you can see in my edit comment, I even admitted I was breaking the policy). One reason why I am doing this is not because I think Fox News has a liberal or conservative bias (or none, for that matter) - the statement has its own section, and without going into specifics in the opening (something we want to avoid), we make it seem as if it is a consensus that Fox News is a conservative organization. We present disputed facts if they are found to be by consensus (and there is a dispute), but we do not present opinion if there is a consensus and a dispute is present - unless it is, of course, attributed and sourced correctly, which would in turn make it a fact. The statement, as it stands, still reads: Fox News is seen by some critics and observers as advocating conservative political positions. Factual? Sure, but it is just as factual as a statement with the exact opposite content. It can be added, without any issue at all, that the statement came from the Project for Excellence in Journalism's 2006(?) report, and a more specific link would be added to make this statement undoubtedly factual. But I don't like seeing a statement with no attribution as extreme as this in an opening statement of an article that should not have as many NPOV discussions as this one has, and it's even more frustrating when there is not a more specific source cited in the footnote. The report is extremely large, and even adding a page number of the official report, or weblink to the section it is included, would make this a verifiable fact. I don't feel as if these are too hard of requests to make. --Mrmiscellanious 00:36, 11 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Please note this. Please give evidence that consensus has changed, before making any changes to the introduction. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 00:43, 11 November 2006 (UTC)


 * This has all been covered to death. Stop giving validation to the trolls and the uninformed who don't bother familiarizing themselves with issues already decided and points already covered.  From this point forward, I propose getting administrators involved to handle further edit warring and vandalism.  /Blaxthos 02:00, 11 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not. The link is to the "One More Time" subsection.  That's why I created it.  Everytime a new user comes here to argue it, I'll just point them to the fact that it's been done before and this is where the consensus is.  The good faith "Johnnie-come-lately's" will get a summary of the previous discussion, and the trolls will just be ignored. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 00:11, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

One more time
I'll try to spell out what I think the consensus is re-- the intro: "Since the perception of Foxnews having a conservative bias (whether the perception is accurate or not is irrelevant) is sufficiently widespread, to leave it out of the article would violate NPOV.  This perception is also one of the factors that makes Foxnews notable, so it should be mentioned in the introduction.  Also, since the perception (again not any actual bias just a perception) is so widely known to exist it need not be cited at all.  Since the holders of this perception are too diverse and numerous to quantify, it is OK to use qualifiers like some or many to support the existence of the perception.  However, to show that said perception is not being pulled out of thin air, there is a citation to a study showing the pervasiveness of the perception." To the editors who've already been through this, if I missed something please correct.

If someone wishes to reargue the intro, use the above as a reference point. We have no desire to keep arguing points that have already been made. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 21:18, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I think the only thing I would add is that the only requirement is that the facts (in this case the existance of a wide perception of bias) be verifiable (and they are, and have been). To elevate any one source would give undue influence (and presumably is why the requirement is that it is verifiable, but doesn't have to be sourced).


 * Although consensus can change, it is insulting to those of us who worked hard to come up with an appropriate version of the intro when some new voice comes in and arrogantly decrees what will or will not be. What's more bothersome is that those persons seem to have purposefully ignored the quite lengthy discussion that has already occured, and in which all of their points have been discussed (and rebuffed) at length.  It is rude and irresponsible to jump in willy-nilly, and it's absoulutely abhorrent for anyone to violate WP:3RR in the process of advancing a viewpoint the community has already rejected.  The further this goes, the more appropriate administrative actions and punative sanctions seem -- WP:AGF not withstanding, I think an equal burden of good faith lies in assuming it was worded in good faith by a proper caucus -- read the history before bitching about the present.  Starre decisis! /Blaxthos 23:44, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Finally a break? (archive)
Do you guys think the storm has died down enough to archive the massively redundant and frustrating talk thus far? I don't think we should archive until all the dissonance has ended (due to the fact that it's necessary reference material for those who cry foul (though they don't seem to bother reading it)). I wonder what the lowest mean time to archive is... I'm sure this article would skew the results of that metric! /Blaxthos 09:32, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Obviously not. /Blaxthos 18:02, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Intro (AGAIN)
(just to add a little more redundancy) i think the intro text can more closely follow the first sentence below(and cite its link), again from the State of the Media 2005 report -

Doldrums 10:37, 11 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Why is this being brought up AGAIN? Why is it under the section about archiving?  /Blaxthos 17:07, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * it's being brought up again, since there are two problems with the existing text.
 * the current cite link takes a reader to the SotM contents page, where the reader has to magically figure out that she needs to go to the Cable TV Audience subsection to verify the statement.
 * intro uses a "some critics and observers" wording, whereas the source supports a more notable "many in the mainstream" wording.
 * if you don't like this thread in this section, feel free to move it elsewhere (just not to the rubbish bin). Doldrums 17:34, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

To be fair, I agree with you (at least in part). I believe the "mainstream" wording is more appropriate, but also less likely to be agreed upon by some editors. The current wording is a compromise version. It is also my understanding that directly citing a source ("source joe says that..." / "critics such as frank say...") violates the undue influence constraint (especially when said criticism is too numerous and widespred to quantify). Personally, I don't think any reference should be given in the intro (undue influence) -- the fact that it is easily verifiable (by a number of methods) is all that I believe the policy requires. Anything more becomes undue weight. As I said, this was a compromise between many editors. Hope this helps! /Blaxthos 18:02, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * i don't like the present citation link. i think we'll have someone questioning whether that citation substantiates the statement, every couple of days. if the link is changed to the Cable Audience page, the intro is fine by me. Doldrums 04:12, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

allegations of bias SECTION and due weight
Fox_News_Channel. There is an entire article devoted to the allegations of bias, yet this article can only find space for three measely sentences? I'm not even sure you can call that a "section", you can barely call it a "paragraph". I strongly think it should be expanded to a more representative proportion. Kevin Baastalk 18:11, 11 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Also agree. I think two problems have contributed to this:
 * hawkish behavior from both "sides" that tend to snipe any development at all (picked apart using cite/npov/other policies as blunt instruments)
 * recent frustration over spending an entire month on trying to handle the renegade actions of two (or possibly one) editor(s).
 * The controversy section does need expansion and a more inclusive POV, IMHO, and could likely be cleaned up/referenced very easily. I don't think I'll have time to work on it, but I do agree. /Blaxthos 19:18, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

The con/crit section in this article is merely meant to say, essentially that there are controversies and criticisms in the first place. There's no reason to put extra stuff in theis section when it can be added to the actual controveries article. Edders 14:51, 13 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Disagree -- a section shouldn't exist to just make note of the existence of another article. Likewise, in this case a major part of the public identity of Fox News has to do with the existence of the controversy, and therefore should have more than an obligatory sentence referencing an in-depth article. imho. /Blaxthos 22:41, 13 November 2006 (UTC)


 * This is actually a non-negotiable issue. It's a matter of summary style, which is outlined by the wikipedia policies and guidelines.  if you want to argue it, argue it there, but good luck. Kevin Baastalk 22:54, 13 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Disagree with adding more info. I believe (and correct me if I'm wrong) the point of having a separate article is so that the subject can be expanded as much as needed without clogging the main article. When a specific topic is large enough, it should be moved to a separate article like has happened here. The main article should only include a link to the the other aricle using main, along with a brief summary of its contents. I think the section could be rewritten, but I don't see a need for expansion. -- <font face="Brush Script MT" color="#0000FF" size="4">AuburnPilot talk 23:57, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Is there a section in the MoS, or where do I find the summary style outlined in the policies and guidelines. Not trying to be difficult or dense, just haven't seen official docs on it.  /Blaxthos 01:30, 14 November 2006 (UTC)


 * NPOV_tutorial and NPOV_tutorial (which links to Summary_style). Kevin Baastalk 17:18, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * From NPOV_tutorial: ''Articles need to be interesting to attract and keep the attention of readers. For an entry in an encyclopedia, ideas also need to be important. The amount of space they deserve depends on their importance and how many interesting things can be said about them...


 * From NPOV_tutorial: ''...When an article becomes too long (see Wikipedia:Article size), a split is recommended. Such split can be performed in a POV way, for example by putting everything you don't like in a new article and then giving that article an un-common name, so obfuscating its whereabouts.


 * The NPOV way of splitting articles is explained in Wikipedia:Content forking: every main section of the article is reduced in size, keeping to the "space and balance" principle as explained above... Kevin Baastalk 23:18, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the ref, Kevin. AU:  I think that implies that the main article should have some summary, but only as much as is proportionally appropriate for the article.  Likewise, since the controversy is a big part of FNC (as we went through re: intro), wouldn't that mean at least a summary paragraph (not a sparse sentence or two) is appropriate?  Comments welcome!  /Blaxthos 01:50, 17 November 2006 (UTC)


 * That sounds about right to me. My only hesitation was that it might open up the doors to all kinds of crap like the Criticism and public perception section has on the GWB article. The section on the main article is about half the size of the separate article, which really is too much. I think the suggestions above will work well on this page, avoiding such problems. -- <font face="Brush Script MT" color="#0000FF" size="4">AuburnPilot talk 02:25, 17 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Wow, I didn't notice that section had gotten so big. Yeah, not like that.  I'd say 2 or 3 short-medium length paragraphs. Comparing it to the section right below it, "Trademark disputes", to mantain due proportion with that, it should be bigger than that section.  Kevin Baastalk 20:01, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Why does Fox news claim that they are not biased?
Why does the Fox news channel insist on being dishonest and deceitful by claiming to be fair and balanced? I don't think Air America makes any such claims.01001 17:53, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Fox News Channel article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject. Please see Wikipedia's talk page guidelines for more information. -- <font face="comic sans ms" color="mediumblue">Auburn <font face="comic sans ms" color="darkorange">Pilot talk 18:22, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

When they claim they're "fair and balanced" it makes their job easier to lie to the uneducated people who watch the channel and make them believe every word they say. It's a fact. Fox News doesn't report on facts, because they have a liberal bias. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.29.221.37 (talk • contribs) 03:49, 4 December 2006


 * Ok, that made me laugh. An entire talk page riddled with complaints about conservative bias, then this. -- <font face="comic sans ms" color="mediumblue">Auburn <font face="comic sans ms" color="darkorange">Pilot talk 03:53, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Internal Memos
I have a few issues with the addition of this this section to the article. I know the recent post election memo has received a lot of attention in the blogoshpere, but has this memo been authenticated by anyone? A quick search through google news using the search term "Fox News Internal Memo" only gives a cite to the Huffington blog. Also, the section makes this claim "There has been at least one documented case of Fox News fabricating information on-air to support the version of reality requested in an executive memo" without any evidentiary support by way of citation. It also makes the claim that "Within hours of the memo's publication, Fox News anchors were on-air with with unsubstantiated reports of "cheering" Iraqi insurgents" again without evidentiary support. The HuffingtonPost.com link attached only has the pdf of the memo, and comments by viewers of the site. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 01:04, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Though a well documented and verifiable version should be included in the article (IMHO), until this is more than blog buzz it doesn't meet criteria for inclusion. Isariq got it before i could.  /Blaxthos 02:19, 17 November 2006 (UTC)


 * This is a slate.com article that could be cited to add this issue to the main page. http://www.slate.com/id/2154078/entry/2154079/?nav=tap3 /21:59 IST 19 November 2006

Jmayer The posted section on the leaked internal memo contains a citation reference to a photograph of the actual memo. If you like, you can add a claim such as "I personally beleive the memo to be a forgery," even though Fox News has never disavowed the authenticity of the leaked memo. However, deleting the entire section is censorship of cited factual information, and violates Wikipedia's neutral POV. In other words: you can't just delete factual relevant information you personally dislike, people.


 * Please assume good faith.  No where in the above post is my personal opinion apparant, nor is it relevant.  Also my objection is not NPOV but rather sources for all of the assertion in the text.  Your supposed solution violates various Wikipedia policies.  Please provide relevant sources that warrant the above paragraph in the article.  Thank you.  BTW-- the test for inclusion on Wikipedia is verifiability not "fact".  Ramsquire (throw me a line) 22:00, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Jmayer I propose: I will edit the relevant passage, and qualify the memo citation with information regarding it's source, and the difficulties of verifying the authenticity of the document. I will also indicate that Fox News has not disavowed the memo, and will update the section if and when Fox News does issue an official statement on this issue. Will that be sufficient to address your concerns?

Jmayer I would also like to add that the existence of this memo has been reported as news by outlets such as MSNBC. It's not just "some blog," and I will attempt to find additional citations.


 * Although I was initially against the inclusion of the information, it was due to proper sourcing. The youtube link removed by AuburnPilot is a link to the story, as broadcast by MSNBC.  MSNBC shows a "printout of the memo itself", as well as makes reference to the Huffington Post.  MSNBC also goes into the background of the person who wrote the memo, and interviews Greenwald.  At this point, I think this is enough verification to include the information in the article (MSNBC should be cited as the primary source).  I'm not going to try and formulate wording for inclusion, but I think the version Jmayer did was pretty good. /Blaxthos 22:12, 17 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Let's be careful here. My objection to the proper authentication wasn't the only thing wrong with the passage.  Olbermann repeating something he got off the blog, may not be sufficient.  Even if sufficient, the entry should not go back in, as is, until the assertions I mentioned earlier are also likewise sourced. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 22:16, 17 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I'd like to see some distinction made here. There is a difference between reporting done by a blog, as opposed to information hosted by a blog.  This is a PDF of an actual scanned memo, which happens to be hosted by a website that is also a blog.  The citation is a reference to the photo, not to the blog itself.  Please claify for me what additional assertions require sourcing here.  Jmayer  22:23, 17 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I've made the changes in the article. I left in your sources with regard to authentication.  However, I request, if possible that you still look for a better source.  My original objections are listed in the opening comments of this section.  My newer ones are the unsourced descriptions of John Moody. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 22:33, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * As an update, Aaron has reverted my changes on grounds unrelated to my sourcing concerns. I will not approach his arguments.  For the record, I believe this story has received notoriety mainly in the blogoshpere and from Keith Olbermann who is obviously biased against Foxnews.  With that being said, I do think mention of this story should be in the FoxNews controversy article and not here.  If we were to allow this story here, then it technically destroys the need for a controversies article as all controversies could be inserted here. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 22:47, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I'll try to address the two issues I see formulating:
 * Authenticity - MSNBC is not simply regurgitating blogosphere posts -- they have, in my mind, given credibility to the memo. I believe their exact words were "a memo first obtained by huffingtonpost.com," which seems like they are asserting the authenticity of the memo.  Since it was a prepared piece, I would also tend to think it goes through a little more scrutiny than fresh-off-the-wire anchor reporting.  Obviously, this means MSNBC's credibility is on the line here (and I suppose that credibility will determine if one believes this story or not), but as one of the three 24-hour news networks, this pretty much seems reliable.  Also note that FoxNews has not denied that the memo is authentic; they refuse to comment.
 * Appropriateness - My first reaction is that it smacks of tabloid news, however once one accepts that the content of the memo as true, then it necessarily becomes an integral part of the identity of FoxNews. I think the big deal here is not "where" as much as "what" -- this is a huge opportunity for original research and point of view claims.  If the memo is authentic (which I believe it to be) then this casts a serious doubt (in my mind) on the objectivity of a "news" source that claims to be Fair & Balanced.  It's certainly fodder for the controversies article, however the ramifacations of what it reveals is also appropriate in the main article.  HOWEVER this cannot occur until it is no longer original research (the dust settles, so to speak, and there are published/available valid sources).
 * /Blaxthos 23:40, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * As to authenticity-- because of my bias against the only person reporting the story (rv per WP:BLP concerns) I am vary wary of this story not being reported in the LA Times, NY Times, or in any other medium. Putting that bias aside, with the PDF there does seem to be some verification that this memo exists.  There is no verification from a reliable source (Huffingtonpost would not satisfy the RS requirements), however that this is an authentic FoxNews memo from Moody.  However, because of my bias to the mainstream reporter, I will recuse myself from making any deletions based on authentication objections.  MSNBC news didn't report this story, Olbermann did.  There is a difference there in terms of fact and accuracy checking.  On this same show Olbermann frequently names people the "Worst Person in the World".  I don't think that he does so with the endorsement of MSNBC.
 * As to appropriateness-- I agree completely with you there.
 * And my third argument (which was once my second)-- The section once read "There has been at least one documented case of Fox News fabricating information on-air to support the version of reality requested in an executive memo" and "Within hours of the memo's publication, Fox News anchors were on-air with with unsubstantiated reports of "cheering" Iraqi insurgents" There is no source to support any of those contentions, and it is original research. I think my edit, accurately summed up the situation, but obviously someone else disagrees.
 * Ramsquire (throw me a line) 23:59, 17 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for being reasonable on this issue, Ramsquire. I think we'll have a bit more back and forth on this, but I think that this section of the article is benefitting from our debate.  Too bad other users seem to insist on simply censoring this part of the article, but aren't interested in explaining their actions on this page.  :-(  By the way, I've found a bunch of additional memo PDFs that I will add references to shortly.  Jmayer


 * To stop the edit warring, can you place any new proposals on the talk page first. Thanks. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 00:41, 18 November 2006 (UTC)


 * FWIW, I agree with Ramsquire's edit removing the word "unsubstantiated." Jmayer.


 * Olbermann is pretty raunchy... he reminds me of some other other guy on some other network... factor something or another. ;-) However, I would make the same assertion about any document any network purports to be fact -- FNC, CBS (ouch!), CNN, etc..  The ramifications (as evidenced at CBS) are great enough that I don't think MSNBC or Olbermann would make that claim without a pretty thorough review.  I would argue that MSNBC is the reliable source.  As far as the wording, I think that it doesn't need to be addressed, as it's superceded by the WP:OR problem.  At this point, at best, a one sentence mention in the main article (and link to controversy article) might be inserted. /Blaxthos 00:45, 18 November 2006 (UTC)


 * My stand point on this issue is that it should be included in the Fox News Channel controversies article, and then included in the summary of that article on this page. It doesn't deserve an entire subsection on the main page. -- <font face="Brush Script MT" color="#0000FF" size="4">AuburnPilot talk 00:47, 18 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I disagree that these details should be shuffled off to gulag in some separate Fox News Channel controversies page. These items should be discussed in detail in the Fox News Channel controversies page, but also summarized here, which is what has happened.   Removing all mention of this controversy from the Fox News page effectively asserts the absence of controversy, which is both false and violates Neutral POV.  User:Jmayer 00:58, 18 Nov 2006 UTC


 * What is the point of a spinoff article if the information will be presented in the main article as well? To be honest, I think a quick summary stating Foxnews has courted controversy with its conservative bias, and some damning memos is all that is needed here.  If someone is interested in more detail, they can link over to the article.  Nothing is being hidden here.  However, if every controversy is summarized here, why would they go over to the spinoff?  And in that case, why have one?Ramsquire (throw me a line) 01:00, 18 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Good question: what is the point of a spinoff page? From what I've seen on other wikipedia pages, spinoff pages contain extra details on an issue that are too verbose for inclusion in the main article.  so, instead, the main article contains a 1-2 paragraph summary, and a link to a spin-off page with more details.  This is what we have here.  Why does this particular page have a spin-off page?  Good question -- because the "controversies" page is not currently verbose enough to warrant a separate page.  My guess is that the spin-off page was made some time in the past to resolve an edit-war similar to the one that occurred today.  IMO, this is a poor reason to have a spin-off page, but there it is.  I restate my early assertion that the existince of the controversy summary section is important, as an absence of this section would falsely indicate an absence of controversy. The controversy page should not be used as an excuse to excise all mention of relevant information from the main page.  J.Mayer 01:43, 18 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Usually the summary is 3-5 sentences. But to your larger point, the argument gets circular.  The Controversies article is small because editors keep attempting to place controversies here.  But if we allowed all controversies to be placed here, it would make the section large enough to justify its own spinoff.  It seems the spinoff originally started because editors here figured that the controversies section would be huge as a subsection of this article.  However, the controversies section has not grown as expected because of an aversion to place info there, for the same reasons you listed. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 02:41, 18 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I think you can find a similar scheme at Ted_Kennedy. There is a summary section as well as a link to the detailed article.  /Blaxthos 09:24, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Someone added this reference but deleted it a half hour later I think. I won't reinstate his comment (his prerogative) but I think the reference should be noted.  It's the Olbermann story, but in hard copy.  /Blaxthos 00:29, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Controversy/Bias pertaining to Mick Foley
I'm sure you all know the controversy over Foley and his perverted ways, but while reporting on it, Fox News actually changed his title from a republican to a democrat, I can't find a source but i saw it on best week ever(I Know not the most intelectual show) and they showed a clip from fox news, and there it was (D)Mick Foley, this should be added to the controversy section if someone finds a valid source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.157.206.75 (talk • contribs) 17:22, 28 November 2006
 * Interesting as it may be, this is just blogger buzz for now. Need more than a "I heard that somewhere...".  If you can provide the date/time that you saw this, that might help. /Blaxthos 01:05, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


 * It's verifiable that Foxnews and other news stations have made that mistake and similar ones throughout the years. But one thing, it is Mark Foley, not Mick.  Mick Foley is a professional wrestler and a best selling author.  Ramsquire (throw me a line) 01:11, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


 * And it is also already mentioned in the Fox News Channel controversies daughter article; screen cap and all. -- <font face="Brush Script MT" color="#0000FF" size="4">AuburnPilot talk 02:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Article messed up
for me; the International transmission section is showing up in the references section for some reason? is this the article or just me? - - [ The Spooky One ] | [ t c r ] 02:07, 30 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I noticed it too. I believe I fixed it.  MrMurph101 (talk) 03:31, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. it's fixed now. - - [ The Spooky One ] | [ t c r ] 22:11, 2 September 2008 (UTC)