Talk:Fox News/Archive 20

Controversies
Since there is an entire article to FOX controversies, I am going to compress those in this article. If you have a problem please discuss. Arzel 03:34, 23 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Consider migrating the content instead of removing, as the Accusations of bias subsection in the article on FOX controversies is only one paragraph. Terjen 03:53, 23 May 2007 (UTC)


 * And your point is what? Adding content simply because you believe there is not enough is not a reason for inclusion.  In any case what you added is not notable.  Arzel 03:57, 23 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I sense some hostility here... anyway, my point was a suggestion about migrating much of the content in the Accusations of bias subsection of this article to Fox News Channel controversies.Terjen 04:10, 23 May 2007 (UTC)


 * It is not hostility, sorry if it came across as such. The article is already long, and much of what is in the controversy is already stated in the other article.  If you look at other similar articles, their is even less controversy listed other than a link to the controversy article.  Just trying to make it consistant with others.  Arzel 04:23, 23 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Additionally, why is AIM's opinion notable in this context? A lot of people or organizations probably have opinions, but that does not mean they should be included here. Arzel 04:05, 23 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I added the concerns of Accuracy in Media at a time when the article paraphrased commentators like Jonah Goldberg. I am fine with the bar for inclusion being higher now. Terjen 04:19, 23 May 2007 (UTC)


 * A subarticle is created when the topic is too large to cover in the main article. In other words, if you are going to remove content related to controversies, it shouldn't just be blanked into history. It should be moved into the controversy article. I'm all for condensing, but let's be honest; this is butchering of extensively sourced material. -  auburn pilot  talk  04:08, 23 May 2007 (UTC)


 * That is all in the controversies sections. How many times does it need to be restated and reworded? Arzel 04:20, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * This certainly appears like trying to find another vehicle to push a particular agenda. How many different ways is this guy going to try and find to cull information that he deems as negative?  This is a total abuse of the idea of a subarticle.  I don't agree with 95% of the evisceration done by Arzel, and will try to find time later today to undo some of the damage.  Also, please don't try to justify the changes with comparing this article to others (as we pointed out previously).  This isn't CNN, or MSNBC, or any other article.  Let's just stop the agenda pushing, k?  /Blaxthos 15:29, 23 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Just what is your problem? Just recently you were complaining about the length of the overall article and proceeding to move a bunch of content into a different article.  The controversy section is repeated within the controversy sub-article, so I ask what is the point of replicating much of it twice?  Some of the stuff I removed was repeated verbatim between the two articles.  Yet here you are AGAIN attacking my motives and accusing me of pushing some agenda.  Apparently trying to clean up an article is viewed as agenda pushing by some if the cleanup doesn't agree with their own agenda.  Arzel 17:29, 23 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Just like we stated above (RE: programming subarticle), the main article should highlight the controversies (which it always has), and the sub article should contain in-depth information on the controversies (which it always has). This is no different than how we had to repeatedly point out to you that the lead section should briefly mention notable controversies (which you tried your hardest to remove), and they should be covered more thoroughly in the article itself.  For an example from an A-class article, see Ted Kennedy and Chappaquiddick incident.  Given your recent campaign/attempts to sanatize this article, and your willingness to simply blank sections and/or trim well sourced information, it's pretty clear that you're attempting to once again wield the scythe.  /Blaxthos 02:13, 24 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Just how is this comparable to the Ted Kennedy article? If anything this article is a perfect example of how controversy should be listed, you don't see multiple paragraphs relating to the Chappaquikkick incident within the main article, just as there is no reason to list every person that feels FNC is biased within the main article.  Simply state that their is bias and link to the subarticle.  I really wish you would try to have some semblence of objectivity regarding this or any issue, you are rude and attack any person that doesn't agree with you to the letter.  Arzel 14:04, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm with Arzel on this one - it's bad enough most of these criticisms were hanging about in the HISTORY section for so long without somebody removing them, now we have so much criticism crammed into the controversy section that it's practically its own article OUTSIDE of the main criticism and controversy page! The TK/Chappaquiddick incident lists three lines about what is probably the most infamous event in Ted Kennedy's life and gives no damning details either way - it simply lists he was driving the car without noting his documented actions afterwards and other allegations. Which is fine by me. The Fox News controversy stuffs so much massed criticism in that the summary section of criticisms and controveries is the same size as the entire history of Fox News! This seems to me to constitute an undue emphasis being put on Fox News criticism. It was always my understanding a summary section for a sub-article should not try to summarize nearly every specific criticism that it can find (whilst quoting more criticisms) in that article. As for attacks on people pushing agendas and such - I've already seen one person falsely accused and instantly aquitted of being a sockpuppet by an editor on here - for heck's sake cut it out. As a said a while back - nobody here is personally affected by Fox, nobody works for them and so forth - so there's absolutely no reason for all this aggression. Edders 11:14, 24 May 2007 (UTC)


 * First of all, one can't look at the events of the last few weeks (regarding aforementioned campaign) and then just assume that the edits made under the guise of "cleanup" are valid prima facie, especially (as one of our admin regulars noted) since some of this information was just obliterated. Secondly, as noted in past conversations, FNC controversies are quite numerous and are a big part of what makes FNC so notable.  It's unfortunate that FNC has been such a controversial topic, however that doesn't mean that we should now use the sheer volume of criticisms as a reason to exclude them from the main article -- sorry if FNC has more controversy than it does criticism, but if anything that highlights the notability of the controversial nature of the subject.  Perhaps an acceptable compromise would be to list a few sentences (an overview) of each controversy in the main article, with anchor links to a detailed explaination in the sub article.  Honestly, I thought this is how it was setup (it was at some point)... but I again state that relegating the controversies to the sub-article only (or simply blanking them altogether) is unacceptable.  /Blaxthos 11:52, 24 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I will state again, this information is on the controversies page, what is the point of repeating some stuff verbatim and other stuff practically verbatim. Nothing has been completely deleted, all the main points of criticism exist on the appropriately named sub-page.  Furthermore, the current section is still far more wordy than other similar articles with controversy sub-pages.  Finally I left each of the three main themes of controversy, along with a short paragraph summarizing the main issues which is then expanded on the controversy suppage.  I don't neccesarily have a problem with individual summarization (which I had considered), but it makes little point when many of the controversies are only a couple of sentences anyway.  On a side note, this article is about FOX news channel, as one of the main cable news networks, to say that it is notable because of controversy is laughable.  It would have an article regardless of any controversy.  It is not an article of FNC controversy, that is why there is a sub-article.  Arzel 13:59, 24 May 2007 (UTC)


 * You seem to have either missed the point (again) or are purposefully ignoring it. Several seasoned, longstanding editors have raised objections to your edits, and have explained why, yet you continue to unilaterally enforce changes that don't sit well with the rest of us.  At this point I'm not going to stoop to your level and edit war with you... I request some of our other seasoned editors step in and proffer their opinions -- it appears you refuse to listen to my explainations.  AuburnPilot, Gamaliel, Ramsquire... anyone else wanna weigh in on this?  Seems like this is just another means to the same end to me.  /Blaxthos 14:06, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem migrating and condensing some of the information in the main article to the controversies page. But that hasn't been done. Yes, some of the information is repeated there but not all, e.g. the 56 percent of journalists finding Fox to be especially conservative, the correlation between the arrival of Fox and the increase in GOP votes, and the discussion fo the 6/3/03 memo are all gone. Now I am not saying that all of that info is necessary in either article, and their could be some discussion of its removal because of undue weight and arguments for its inclusion since it is sourced information. However, don't simply delete sourced information under the pretense of moving it to the subarticle. The info is not being moved to the controversies page, it is being deleted. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 16:28, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

At the risk of sounding glib: If it's all verifiable/notable/npov blah blah blah, why can't we just put it in the criticism article then? Edders 20:49, 24 May 2007 (UTC)


 * You've just hit the nail on the head, Edders. The main article should summarize the points of the subarticle, but there is certainly no reason why this content can't be moved to the controversy article. The problem was that the content was covered more in depth in this article than the subarticle, so when Arzel removed it, the content should have been moved, not simply removed. Sure, a forward thinking editor could have moved the content for Arzel, but when you remove content under the pretense that it is already covered in a subarticle, the subarticle should have more in depth coverage than what you are removing from the main article. Move the content = good thing. Remove content = bad thing. -  auburn pilot  talk  21:03, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Meh. I thought I was being edgy and rebellious. It really helps to take a deep breath, sit back from the article and say: What the heck? Edders 21:10, 24 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I've added the deleted info to the controversies article. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 21:15, 24 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I wasn't aware that I had deleted information between the two, I thought I had only deleted content that was identical between and moved other information between the two. A new editor was adding new information at the same time I was condensing which resulted in a little confusion, but my intent was not to delete any notable information.  I do see that I failed to move completely one paragraph which I thought was in the controversies section.  Arzel 02:03, 25 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I apologize if my post came across as accusing you of purposely misleading and deleting information in bad faith. I never thought you were doing that.  I just assumed you were attempting to trim down the size of the article by taking out info you deemed to be giving undue weight to Fox detractors.  On it's face, there is nothing wrong with that.  But since this article is highly contentious (and the information is sourced), if your intent was to trim the fat, we should have a discussion first and try to reach a consensus on what goes and what stays.  That's the point I was trying to make.  But in any case, thanks for clearing your intentions up. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 16:53, 25 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I didn't take your comments that way, but thanks anyway. I was hoping to get some discussion initially regarding the compression and movement to the Controversies subpage, but instead it immediately turned into a huge arguement.  Arzel 17:39, 25 May 2007 (UTC)


 * If your intent is to "get some discussion initially" then it's probably best to suggest the changes on talk and wait for editorial response instead of taking the axe to the content and then adopting the if you have a problem with it then discuss attitude, especially when dealing with such a controversial topic where one's edit history might lessen the assumption of good faith. /Blaxthos 18:47, 25 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Don't turn this back on me, I have made very few edit changes to these articles. I would ask that you quit trying to insinuate that I have some personal POV agenda, and I would add that my first post here was responded with no assumption of good faith by you even though my history at that time would have no one assume that I don't have good faith.  Your personal attacks on me do not do you any service.  Arzel 01:56, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
 * You make broad, sweeping changes, then revert those who ask you to take it to Talk. That's a pretty good sign of someone with an agenda. Italiavivi 20:09, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Still Tag-Teaming people I see. Thank you for looking out! OfForByThePeople 03:29, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * People, calm down. Please read the following:  WP:AGF and WP:Bold.   If you are all in such a panic about this, I would recommend taking a break for a while.  This page and all it's history will be here when you get back. Bytebear 19:11, 25 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Dude, this thread has been dead for a month. Are you just trying to start something?  If not, let sleeping dogs lay.  If so, you might want to go back under your bridge.  /Blaxthos 19:32, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * What do you find trollish about my behavior? I am not the one breaking the rules of Wikipedia.  If you were clever, you would have noticed the dates, and that OfForBy reopened this thread, and I was attempting to cllose it.  Get a grip already.  The world is not out to get you. Bytebear 00:56, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * OfForBy's post was in reference to the FAQ poll section (see below). The last post here outside of yesterday was on May 30. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 16:35, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Ramsquire, I know how you love to AGF, but I think that replying to such is just wasted effort. /Blaxthos 20:30, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

The fun continues
Blaxthos - 1)  The rudeness of the tutorial you sent causes me to ignore and delete everything you ever send to me directly.

2) I don't answer to you, don't ever take a tone with me in your writing that suggests I do, or my response will be as rude and disgusting and arrogant as you seem to be in every post.

3) If you can't see that the articles on the three major US news channels should bear a resemblance in form, then you advocte charges of bias against Wikipedia, instead of working to be "fair and balanced"  in dealing with peoples concerns.  There are three major news channels, and they each have ratings, controversy, critics, mistakes, bloopers, haters and so on.

4) This is an article about Fox News Channel, not a bitch fest corner for people who hate the fact that Fox has 9 of the ten top shows in the field.

5) How about a small mention in the opening, a few paragraphs in a controversy section, and then if you must, create a tome of gigantic proportions with all the critics and haters of Fox News?

6) I think this article is crap, but I don't have the strength to kick every deflated tire in this thing.  If we could make the three articles resemble each other, I could take how bad I think this one is, but the difference screams bias.  I guess Wikipedia editors and frequent and loud contributors could be accused of being controversial.  Then a number of groups could be formed to bitch about it, and be used as reputable sources when including each and every instance and slight and disagreement.  Then two other big free online encyclopedia's could be given the soft touch.

How does that sound to you? Jeremy99 03:10, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


 * "How does that sound..." To put it in the nicest way I can, it sounds like total bullshit. If you expect people to listen to your concerns, and not just write you off as some lunatic, try to tone down the rhetoric, keep the person attacks to a minimum, and realize we are all volunteers. Nobody is getting paid to make these articles better or worse. Also, the very fact that the above rant was elicited from this comment by Blaxthos is incomprehensible. Also note Jeremy's edit which blanks half the introduction. I don't see how Blaxthos' comment was rude, and I'm apparently overlooking the "tutorial". If you have concerns, please raise them, but tone it down. - auburn pilot   talk  04:14, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks, AuburnPilot... I wasn't even sure what this guy was talking about until I read your followup comment. He now joins the ranks of Offorbythewhatever, Cbuhl, and the rest.  Additional response is probably unnecessary.  "bitch fest corner" indeed.  /Blaxthos 19:50, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

For one of the very few times I have to agree with Blaxthos, but I also see where Jeremy99 is comeing from b/c this has become a bitch fest for Fox Haters....but as AuburnPilot it in his summation...tone down the rhetoric as I have been there before, and I stand by my comments below, w/ a minor exception to AuburnPilot as he as currently proven to be fair.Thank you for looking out! OfForByThePeople 13:45, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

1)Rudeness includes butting in on others conversations.

2)Generally if you don't want to be called a hypocrite, you shouldn't call people lunatics and use vulgarity, then talk about personal attacks.

3)The rudeness is mainly in the talk pages to others who have dealt with Blaxos before, I just saw shades of it in his response to me. The tutorial is plain, unless you lack understanding, a tutorial would be welcomed from normally polite people.  My view of Blaxos interactions on this topic do not lead me to that conclusion.  Therefore, hints on rules, true or not, are unwelcome.

4)I believe that the three articles on the main news channels in the US should be comparable, and that this gives Wikipedia credibility. To say one doesn't care about that removes my need to assume good faith on this topic, before I even have a personal dealing.  If I say things should be done well, and someone says they don't care, they have proven bad faith.  Encyclopedic articles should not vary wildly, especially similar topics, and if they do, I must submit that they are clearly not encyclopedic in tone or setup.  If Fox News Channel has more detractors that can be sourced, then have a bigger critcs page, or controversy page, as compared to the other major news channels.  Once again, the content is not in dispute by me at this point, only how it is presented and where.

5)When half the intro is about controversy or open or veiled attacks on the owner/operators, and this is paired with the article on Rupert Murdock, one sees a pattern, that is all the more clear when the CNN and MSNBC articles are taken into account.

6)I think most who want changes look to see all three fixed up, and the vitriol taken out of the Murdock article, but have had their concerns ignored, or have been attacked. Tag teaming bothers me about as much as if Fox went off the air, slight irritation, but no skin off my arse.

7)I do recognize that some may want a rewite as compared to an edit (deletion), but some of us may view something as junk and simply want it removed utill something better can be arranged, so anyone viewing the page doesn't leave with the wrong impression (that Wikipedia is wrong and biased most of the time) and this leads to necessary fast action. If something is sourced in two parts of an article, removing it from a badly placed area or an area that is poorly written or set up does not mean you are removing the sourced material from the article, just from a sloppy seconds area.  I read the talk, and saw that a number of people thought changes should be made, and made my vote clear.  Sometimes a rotten limb must be cut close to the tree to be safe, even if you take some good tree with the bad.  I do not dispute that foreshadowing controversy and other parts of the article are justified, only that, IMO, it should be done well. You two disagree, and put the stuff I found rotten back. I don't think I will lose that much sleep.

8)The next step is to discuss this problem again, with the people who have had concerns, and attempt to make changes that can be agreed to by most. Or we can just butt heads until someone else chooses.  Either way, as you said, I don't get paid to put up with people questioning me.   Jeremy99 07:45, 8 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Could you show me the policy that states articles on similar topics must be formatted in the same way or else they are "clearly not encyclopedic in tone or setup."? Personally, I prefer to actually read the content and judge whether it is encyclopedic, rather than look at how the headers are formatted. As to "Rudeness includes butting in on others conversations.", anyone in the world may reply to any comment you leave. There is no such thing as "others conversations"; I can join any discussion. Now, to the actual issue of the article, the information is properly sourced, was defined by consensus, is written in form with our policy on maintaining a neutral point of view, is required by WP:LEAD, and is the result of dozens of editors working together; many of whom battled to remove the content until we finally reached an agreed text. You should expect hostility, whether warranted or not, when blanking months and months of work. - auburn pilot   talk  16:53, 8 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Ditto to what you said AuburnPilot. I find it a bit strange, that since we have decided to argue to maintain a consensus for which we worked very hard to get, that we have been called Fox-haters and biased (among other things) when we were actually in the camp that objected to the first lead paragraph, and got the compromise (and I would say much, much, much, more neutral) lead we have now?  Makes me wonder, what some of these editors would have done with these versions.  Ramsquire (throw me a line) 20:27, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I can't see a link that stands out in the references section on the Fox page directing the reader to watch the documentary 'Outfoxed'. This should be a high priority to anyone who has more involvement with repairing what information has been censored,  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Doc Travis (talk • contribs).
 * Complete video on Google. Probably a copyvio? Andyvphil 22:47, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair and balanced image caption
Are we going to go through this again? How should we "label" this caption? I preffer no labels or commentary, Thanks--Tom 16:31, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I can't believe we're still on this utterly peripheral issue. It's like this article is part of the land that stood still. I mean, excuse me but I can't understand why some editors are so desperate to preserve the point that Fox's slogan is 'controversial'. I suppose every time there's a picture of Roger Ailes you want him labelled 'neocon zionist puppet' as well. You already have a whole sub article to attack Fox. No need to be greedy :) :P Edders 16:48, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * you are preaching to the choir here. Thanks for the reply. --Tom 17:16, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * There's no doubt that the slogan is controversial. Additionally, it's included in the Controversy subheading specifically because it's controversial.  Please please stop trying to sanitize the article.  /Blaxthos 01:28, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Blaxthos, please stop accusing me of "trying to sanitize the article" since that is pure nonsense. I don't live here or act like I own this article like some folks. I STILL don't give a rat's ass about FNC. Above you say that "There's no doubt that the slogan is controversial". That is YOUR opinion. Who else says that? Just because there was some lawsuits or something that makes it controversial? Just present the verifiable/sourced facts and let the readers decide. Your own bias is showing through again. Cheers, --Tom 14:26, 30 May 2007 (UTC)


 * At best, Blaxthos, that violates WP:OR. At the worst, it violates WP:NPOV.  Unfortunately, there's no middle ground here to keep it in; it is indisputably against policy to include weasel words, or to give undue weight.  --66.227.194.89 02:07, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * What weasel words? First off, pointing out a controversy isn't violation NPOV -- if we said something like "Fox News' bullshit slogan...", we'd be violating WP:NPOV.  Secondly, noting that there is controversy regarding the slogan isn't original research, as there are several sources regarding said controversy (and it's completely verifiable and attributed within the article).  Once again, you're trying to nuance policy to sanitize the article.  I'm prepared to call a wikipedia-wide WP:RFC if you guys are going to try to interpret policy in such a way that you can remove reference to something that's obviously controversial.  Also, I think it's pretty telling that you accuse Wikipedia of having a liberal agenda when consensus is not in your favor.  Again, it was put into the Controversy section of the article to demonstrate the controversy itself.  /Blaxthos 02:22, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Based on the description of Weasel Words, this definitely falls into that category. Bytebear 02:40, 30 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Blaxthos... there was no consensus for anything on my symbolic move vandalism. Besides, it is quite clear in WP:NPOV that consensus does not determine neutrality - WP:NPOV does.  Either way, you do not seem to understand the concept in which a case of neutrality is questioned.  Instead, you choose to take your own protocol and actions, without supplying sufficient evidence to back up your own statements even when confronted.  Your lack of policy knowledge but active trolling of this page is extremely suspective behavior.  Please, listen to all users - not just the ones that agree with you. --66.227.194.89 03:00, 30 May 2007 (UTC)


 * i.e. The Creator of Wikipedia is quoted as saying "WIkipedia does tend to be more liberal". Thank you for looking out! OfForByThePeople 03:34, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Request for Comment - Noting Controversy
Some editors have objected to noting the controversy surrounding Fox News Channel's Fair & Balanced slogan -- specifically, captioning the "Fair & Blanaced" title graphic with the word "controversial". Objections have included violations of WP:NPOV, WP:WEASEL, and WP:OR. -- 03:28, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Rationale for inclusion (Stated by Blaxthos):
 * 1) There is no doubt (as far as I know) that there is controversy surrounding the Fair & Balanced slogan. There is an entire Wikipedia article dedicated solely to the controversy.
 * 2) The controversy itself is well sourced within the articles (WP:ATT/WP:V), including a lawsuit for misleading statements and books detailng the subject.
 * 3) The sources of the controversy are clearly referenced (no WP:WEASEL words), and no assertion is given to the validity of the claims of bias -- only that such controversy exists (no violation of WP:NPOV).
 * 4) Some editors have contended that, yes there is a controversy, but since no source directly says "the slogan is controversial" it is original research to describe it as such. By definition, if controversy surrounds a particular subject, then it is necessarily controversial.  original research is the publication of original thought; there is no new information here, and this is an attempt to use nuanced policy interpretation to cull valid, sourced information from the article.

Please post comments below. Thanks! /Blaxthos 03:28, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

"Fair and Balanced" is the TV stations slogan. How could you want to remove it? Should we accuse "The View" as being a controversial name b/c it is not everyones view, and therefore designate the title of the show to a controversies section. WOW some of you continue to amaze me. Thank you for looking out! OfForByThePeople 03:39, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I think you missed the point entirely. We would note it as controversial if there were multiple verifiable sources detailing said controversy.  It's noted here precisely because the controversy does exist in this case.  It's not that Wikipedians find it controversial, it's due to the fact that there have been many real-world incidents surrounding the controversy.  /Blaxthos 03:43, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Rationale for removal (State by Arzel 03:45, 30 May 2007 (UTC)):
 * The inclusion on the image gives the impression that the image itself is controversal.
 * The controversy is primarily due to FNC suing of AF because of his book using the slogan.
 * Much of the continued discussion revolves around the issue that many feel FNC is not "Fair" or "Balanced".
 * To say the actual image itself is controversal is quite a stretch. To say that the actual slogan is controversal is also a stretch.  To say that there was controversy regarding FNC trying to sue AF for using the slogan is what it is.  Arzel 03:45, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Look, it's a weasel word, period. Is the caption about the controvery? Is it referencing something about the controvery? are there even references cited? Answer the following questions:


 * Who says that? You?
 * When did they say it? Now?
 * How many people think that? How many is some?
 * What kind of people think that? Where are they?
 * What kind of bias might they have?
 * Why is this of any significance?
 * On what grounds are we establishing this as true (or at least, probably true)?

If you find that the sources are POV (which they are) it doesn't belong in the article. Bytebear 04:21, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I think you'er still missing the point... I'm still confused about your WP:WEASEL assertion... where, exactly, is this weasel word? There is no connotation with the word "controversial", which is the sole topic of this RfC.  We're not saying any people think anything -- we're simply noting that there is controversy surrounding the choice of Fair & Balanced as a slogan -- the rest is superfluous and argumentative.  The controversies are completely and properly sourced in the Fox News Channel article, the Fair and balanced article, and the Fox News Channel controversies article.  Are you now disputing that controversy exists?  If not, then it is absolutely controversial.  I direct your attention to the definition of controversial:  of, relating to, or arousing controversy.  Seems pretty clear to me.  /Blaxthos 04:28, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * You don't understand the concept. You can say that "XYZ has called the term 'fair and balanced' inaccurate. But you cannot assert in this article that 'fair and balanced' is controversial.  Saying it is controversial is POV.  And saying "some experts say it is controverial" or "many agree that it is controversial" is using weasel words.  Bytebear 06:54, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * You seem to believe that there is a point of view associated with the word controversial. There is none -- if something "arouses controversy", then it is, by definition, controversial.  This is a basic function of the English language, and there is no connotation associated with it (despite your belief to the contrary)... it's simply a boolean:  either something has incited controversy, or it hasn't.  Simply noting controversy isn't a point of view, and it's not weasely because the controversies are well documented and reliably sourced.  We're not saying the controversy is right or wrong, we're just showing that it exists (and it does indeed exist).  We're not saying the slogan is inaccurate or not... we're just noting that it has aroused controversy (and thus is controversial). /Blaxthos 07:00, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * But there is no controversy about the term, or about the logo. The controversy was regarding the copyright of the phrase.  There is no other controversy, so to label the phrase "fair and balanced" as controversial, is equivilant to labeling "Micky Mouse" as controversial because Disney sues people based on copyright infringement. Bytebear 07:03, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I can't seem to follow your logic or your analogy. Let's try this in two ways:  first by comparison... let's consider the USA PATRIOT act.  There is no doubt that the act was controversial, and it's not a violation of NPOV to point out that the act caused controversy.  It's entirely possible (and even prudent) to point out that the act was controversial without issuing opinion on who is right -- whether the act is a Good Thing(tm) or a Bad Thing(tm), it's definitely caused controversy.  Noting that controversy exists does not imply anything beyond "this has caused controversy."  Second, let's try the Socratic method:
 * Is the definition of controversial of, relating to, or arousing controversy? Merriam-Webster (an unassailable authority) says yes.
 * Has the slogan "Fair & Balanced" caused controversy? Lawsuits, books, articles, and media surveys say yes.
 * Quod erat demonstrandum the slogan "Fair & Balanced" is controversial.
 * I don't see how that logic can possibly be refuted. /Blaxthos 08:22, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I just had a moment of understanding I think... some people may say "Well, I don't think the USA PATRIOT act (or the Fair & Balanced slogan) is controversial", when in actuality they mean "I don't think their argument has merit". This doesn't mean that the controversy is nonexistant... it all springs from misuse of the word.  Again, there is no assertion of validity of the criticism, however its mere existance (by notable individuals (Ted Turner, Al Franken, etc.) as well as lawsuits, books, and studies) necessarily means that the subject is controversial.  It has no meaning beyond that, save in the minds of those who misuse the term (no offense intended).  I don't know how to be more clear and understanding of your point, and address what seems to be the core misunderstanding of the issue.  Maybe this helps.  /Blaxthos 09:30, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 2 - Here is the problem with your logic. The slogan itself is not controversal.  The controversy stems primarily from the fact that FNC sued because of its use via trademarck dispute.  Thus it is not the slogan that caused the controversey, but the action of FNC to sue because of what it viewed as trademark misuse.  Your second point is not valid.  Arzel 13:47, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * You're just flat out wrong... have you even read the sources (or the article text)? One, FNC was sued over the slogan itself, not the other way around... We're talking about the lawsuit to have the slogan "Fair & Balanced" rescinced as being "notoriously misdescriptive."  How could you possibly argue that this wasn't ABOUT the slogan?  Two, Franken's book is ABOUT the slogan, and includes the slogan in the title.  There's another book, too, that also references the slogan (by Joseph Minton Amann and Tom Breue).  Two books, a lawsuit, criticism by numerous pundits and industry insiders (including Ted Turner)... how much evidence do you need before you'll admit that the slogan has caused controversy? /Blaxthos 15:09, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * No you are wrong. Fox sued for copyright infringement.  This is not controversial.  The second lawsuit was thrown out as frivolous.  In other words, the courts said there was no controversy.  You are stating that the conttroversy is a fact, but it is not fact, and a court declared it as such, so you are pushing POV using a weasel word.  Plain and simple.  Go back to the Disney analogy.  I could sue Disney for saying Disneyland is "the happiest place on Earth", but it would be thrown out.  Would you then say in the Disneyland article the "controversial slogan, Happiest Place on Earth?"  Bytebear 15:48, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * To Blaxthos: I did read the sources and the article text.  FNC was sued in response to their suit against the AF book.  FNC created controversy for trying to sue for defamation on a very spurious case.  The case was thrown out, and then FNC was sued to show how dumb their original suit was, and that was also droped.  I am not sure why you are so upset.  You asked for opinion, but any opinion that differs from yours is wrong?  Arzel 17:50, 30 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Dump the image or keep the 'controversy'. the image serves no function other than to lend some additional visibility to the section its in. to give additional prominence to a company slogan for no good reason at all, and in the process fail to note that the substance of that slogan is disputed is to simply push the company's pov. plenty of RSs attest to the "is disputed". see previous discussions (those sources were removed from the article because the Google Books convenience links didn't work for a particular editor!) Doldrums 09:25, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Was I that editor :). Anyways, --Tom 15:55, 30 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with Doldrums. The best way to get to a consensus is to just get rid of the image, or don't apply any descriptive text to the image.  Is it perfect? No, but I think most people could live with that sort of compromise. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 16:56, 30 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Simply stating in the caption that the slogan is "controversial" seems pretty POV to me. There really isn't a need for it IMO, the article body right next to it provides plenty of information. Cogswobble talk 17:54, 30 May 2007 (UTC)


 * There is nothing POV about noting controversy where it exists. User:Bytebear lacks a fundamental understanding of the NPOV policy if he thinks using the term "controversial" isn't allowed in Wikipedia articles.  Either keep the word "controversial" in the image's description or get rid of the image (and many of this article's other frivolous non-free images) altogether. Italiavivi 23:22, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * You misunderstand. It isn't the term "controversial".  It is applying it to a slogan that isn't controversial.  There was one bogus lawsuit that was thrown out.  Hardly a controversy, and hardly concensus enough to state it as fact. Bytebear 23:33, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Wow... "one bogus lawsuit" -- if that's not a POV characterization, I don't know what is. What about the books?  What of the relevant criticism?  If this is so bogus, why is there an entire Wikipedia article dedicated to the controversy?  You're once again ignoring the meaning of "controversial":  something that causes controversy.  Wouldn't a lawsuit, books, criticisms be enough to admit that, "hey, okay, so there has been some controversy surrounding the slogan"?  Of course it does!  That's why this article exists!  /Blaxthos 01:04, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with Bytebear, but I also have no problem with getting rid of the image (and caption) entirely. The only version that I think is clearly POV is the version that simply states that it is controversial. Removing it entirely isn't POV one way or the other. Cogswobble talk 23:36, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The Fair and Balanced article should be deleted as well. It is just a duplicate of the paragraph in this article. Yes, there was an issue raised with the slogan, but to call it "controversial" is to add undue weight to the matter. I would rather see "disputed" than controversial, because the term "controversial" is a matter of opinion, whereas "disputed" is fact.  Even still, to put the word in an image caption is to further a POV.  Let the facts speak for themselves. Regardless, the matter seems to have been resolved. Bytebear 01:28, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Just because you don't understand what the word means doesn't change the meaning for the rest of the world. Here's the rub:  contraversy comes from the latin contra- (against) and vertere (to turn).  The Latin equivalent means disputable!  So let's follow the logic... controversial means arousing controversy, and controversy is defined in contemporary English usage as  a discussion marked especially by the expression of opposing views.  Merriam-Webster goes so far as to list DISPUTE right after the definition!  See for yourself!  When interpreting the English language, consult an authority.  ;-)  /Blaxthos 01:50, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Italiavivi has not given a substantial reason as to why he has made changes. I am reverting... again.  Please discuss before changing. Bytebear 23:47, 30 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I see Italiavivi has a history with this page, and 3RR. Are you that upset at Fox News?  Can you please cite the "controversy?"  Bytebear 23:56, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Indeed, I've been blocked for "edit warring" while preventing User:Cogswobble from deleting a certain notable sentence from this article's lead. Absolutely proud of and unapologetic of my actions during that dispute, too, given the sentence is still there. :)  As for your rhetoric ("upset," etc), your arguments must be very weak if you are resorting making comments about a user's Talk page. Italiavivi 00:01, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Which is why Wikipedia will never be taken seriously as a research tool. As long as people with a POV fight against those with objective and neutral views (like myself), the objective view will be buried under a pile of false statements. Bytebear 00:22, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * You seem to hold yourself in very high esteem, o objective and neutral one; if Wikipedia is such a failed project, no one's forcing you to log in or edit. I find your view of Fox News to be anything but neutral, given your lack of willingness to acknowledge obvious controversy. Italiavivi 00:28, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Casting aspersions on editors motives in uncivil and unproductive. Keep it focused on content, please. Gamaliel (Orwellian Cyber hell master) 23:58, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Bytebear and Italiavivi, please give it a break. The test for Wiki is verifiability not truth.  So if you are looking for truth, don't look here.  Also, can we simply comment on the content and not the contributor.  I propose deleting the caption. Is there a consensus for that!? Ramsquire (throw me a line) 00:26, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I propose deleting the caption and image. The phrase "Fair and Balanced" is what's copyrighted, and a non-free image isn't necessary to illustrate it; that aside, this particular image is from 2005, and I doubt Fox News is using the exact same graphic today. I'll support any initiative to remove frivolous non-free images from this article. Italiavivi 00:31, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm going to go ahead and delete the caption and see if we can just live with that. Cogswobble talk 00:29, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Uh, cogswobble, please don't make changes to the subject of the RfC while it is ongoing. The whole point of the RfC is to find a consensus before making changes (changing it throughout defeats the purpose). Same goes to whomever else changed it. Thanks. /Blaxthos 01:06, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Huh? Where does it say that you can't make changes during an RfC, especially as consensus develops? Cogswobble talk 17:36, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm responding to the RfC, and I find Blaxthos' arguments persuasive. --MaplePorter 23:02, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Summary 1
It seems a quick consensus is forming to simply remove the questionable graphic. While I have no objection to such, I would like to note that this seems to be the path of least resistance (easiest out), and still leaves unanswered the core issue surrounding the debate -- if controversy surrounds a particular subject, is there a problem in noting that it is controversial? I honestly believe that ignoring the underlying question only enables it to become an issue again later. /Blaxthos 06:13, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Again, WHO says "controversy surrounds" this subject? You do? Its obvious(sp)? Its an opinion/grey area/original research in MY opinion. I really don't have a horse in this race, so whatever. I'm just concerned/leery when edits say "everybody can see that..." or "its obvious that..." Anyways, --Tom 14:28, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * "Controversial" is not subjective... it's objective. Either something has caused controversy, or it hasn't.  /Blaxthos 14:52, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, I admit to it being the path of least resistance. But there doesn't seem to be any other way to move on from this. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 16:38, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Why does leaving the single word "controversial" out of an image caption mean that people are ignoring controversy that may surround it? The body of text right next to the image describes the controversies. The main objection people had to the word "controversial" is that it looks like it's stuck there just to provide a negative connotation - i.e., it's not NPOV.
 * I wouldn't have a problem with a caption that said something like (as was proposed earlier) "The slogan has been the subject of controversy over a dismissed lawsuit by the Independent Media Institute which claimed it was notoriously deceptive". Of course, that would be kind of redundant, since that's what the body of text right next to it says. It seems like some people aren't happy with the image unless it has a negative caption attached to it. So fine, if we can all simply agree that the image isn't necessary at all, then let's just leave it out. Cogswobble talk 17:35, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Where do you guys get that controversial is negative, or subjective? It's not an opinion, it's not a negative adjective.  I've pointed to the definition, the etymology, the proper usage... why do you guys insist it means something it doesn't?  /Blaxthos 19:33, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * "Acme Corp is a manufacturer of widgets."
 * "Acme Corp is a controversial manufacturer of widgets."
 * "Acme Corp is a manufacturer of widgets, and has been sued by the Widget Protection Foundation for the exploitation of widgets."
 * Only one of these three statements contains a commonly perceived as negative connotation without any verifiability. Cogswobble talk 20:11, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but baseless analogies don't explain why you believe "controversial" is subjective and negative. As evidenced by every English language authority I can find, convroversial is not an opinion (either something has caused controversy, or it hasn't), nor is it negative (it simply states fact, namely that controversy exists surrounding the issue).  If you can point me to some sort of evidence to the contrary, by all means do.  /Blaxthos 20:27, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Claiming that a simple definition of "controversial" [definition] proves that the word is completely objective is hardly compelling evidence that "every English language authority" claims that "controversial" is a completely objective word. On that argument, I could just as easily claim that "ugly" [definition] and "beautiful" [definition] are completely objective words.
 * Like I've said many times, I don't have any problem with with deleting the image entirely, OR with expanding the caption to briefly discuss the controversy. Cogswobble talk 20:40, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Controversy is objective: it either exists or it doesn't.  Ugly and beautiful are qualities that are subjective on the part of the person evaluating such.  I can't believe this has become remedial English.  Not to worry, I think it's time for me to let this one go (with you at least).  Retort as you see fit.  /Blaxthos 03:09, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, it is subjective. Who claims it to be controversial?  Well, you do?  Do you have a reference that calls it controversial?  If not, then it is original research. If you claim it is by definition, I would argue that the only controversial issue is one lawsuit (which was thrown out as frivilous) created as a counter to a copyright infringment lawsuit.  So, I saw you are using a weasel word on claims based on original research. Unless you can find a reference that cites the phrase as "controversial" then you can use the term.  And even then you have to say "the phrass that XYZ claims is controversial".  If we are going to keep the image, we should get outside opinions.  Bytebear 06:08, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Anybody want to guess how Blaxthos will respond? Let me. Controversial is objective, not subjective. I still disagree with that. Oh well. --Tom 16:28, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

(outdent)Another widget example. Widget company XZY makes, you guessed it, widgets. One day, this guy's widget breaks and screws up his, err, house? Anyways, he goes down to the company and throws eggs at the building and starts to picket the place. Is the company contraversial now? About a year later, the same company starts to make widgets that blow up in people's faces and there are 1,000s of lawsuits and the government closes the plant and 100s die. Is the company now controversial? Who measures the degree of contraversy? Who decides when it reaches a level of contraversey? Objective?? --Tom 16:35, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * How convenient it is to avoid acknowledging that something is controversial simply by saying "oh that controversy doesn't count". Not to mention misrepresenting the adjudication of the lawsuits and completely ignoring the other controversy (books, criticisms, interviews, studies, etc.).  Ignore the point or try to explain away all you want... the mere existance of so many controversies makes it controversial:  something causing controversy.  Conveniently ignoring the simple logic doesn't make it any less valid.  /Blaxthos 16:42, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Hey Blaxthos, Seriously, I don't know if the slogan is contraversial. Again, provide sources that call it that rather than saying "look, its obvious, ect." I still think its subjective but no biggie. Cheers! --Tom 17:14, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * We call that Wikilawyering, specifically criteria 2 & 3. We have multiple sources for multiple controversies surrounding the slogan.  Trying to say it violates original research to call it "controversial" is trying to use a nuanced interpretation of the rules to violate the spirit of them... WP:OR is to prohibit using Wikipedia from publishing new thought.  There is nothing new in acknowledging the controversies that surround the issue.  /Blaxthos 17:40, 4 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Wow, so when someone wants sources for something, you accuse them of Wikilawyering. Funny how it's always wikilawyering when someone suggests that policies don't back up your point of view. WP:OR is pretty clear, but because you think it's obvious that the slogan is controversial, somehow people are guilty of wikilawyering for suggesting that WP:OR requires explicit sourcing. Cogswobble talk 18:04, 4 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Once again, you've missed the point. /Blaxthos 18:48, 4 June 2007 (UTC)


 * You've made it pretty clear that you can't even be bothered to read and understand policies before you accuse people of violating them - . I think I see your point pretty clearly, when people actually do read and apply policies to things you disagree with, you resort to accusations of wikilawyering. Cogswobble talk 18:51, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

{Blowing Referee's whistle}-- Cogwobble, Blaxthos -- neutral corners for a while. I am going to request closure of this RfC, with the deletion of the image being the final result. Since that has already occurred it's no point continuing the discussion, except to tick each other off. We all should agree that that is not necessary. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 20:05, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Newshounds a suituble source?
While I think they can cited in some places, some FNC related articles seem to state Newshounds as the only source in critism sections. While I see no problem in backing up statements with citations form Newshounds, I don't think it should be the sole ciation for an article, as Newshounds reliabilty as a source is in question in my view. --IvanKnight69 17:12, 1 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't see Newshounds used as a source in this article. If you are referring to its use in another article, make that complaint on that article's talk page. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 17:36, 1 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Newshounds cite Fox constantly as a source, therefore the they should be considered as a suitable source in the criticism section. --Magick93 06:13, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

FAQ (still needed)
So what of the FAQ? I still contend that it's a good idea for us to have listed the common concerns and reasoning used, along with perhaps links to the discussions. /Blaxthos 04:09, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Are you thinking about any particular "concerns and reasonings"? Thank you for looking out! OfForByThePeople 23:15, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I absolutely don't think the FAQ belongs. If people come here with objections or issues, then they their objections or issues should be engaged directly. Cogswobble talk 18:06, 4 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Directing users with concerns that have been previously addressed to previous discussion is standard Wikipedia practice. If they have something new to add, they can do so after familiarizing themselves with at least the basics of ground previously covered.  Gamaliel (Orwellian Cyber hell master) 18:09, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Where is the FAQ?
FAQ's are standard at Wikipedia, to alert newer users to previous discussion and consensus. Nothing in the FAQ prevents a newcomer from discussing aspects of the previous discussion. With this in mind, I propose re-adding the FAQ to this page. Any user is free to add whatever he wishes to it, provided there is a consensus of course. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 18:28, 6 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I coulda sworn it was there this morning. Re-re-added.  /Blaxthos 18:55, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Let's not forget the FAQ can be edited here. If we disagree with its contents...good news, a new argument. However, it shouldn't simply be removed. -  auburn pilot  talk  20:22, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Straw Poll
Knowing full well that polls are not binding on Wikipedia, I am suggesting the following poll on keeping or deleting the FAQ above. Although the arguments for and against have been presented in detail. I believe a poll may be helpful in determining where the FAQ stands.


 * 1) Keep. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 19:17, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Keep as an easy way to both summarize previous discussion and point editors to where the discussion occurred. -  auburn pilot   talk  20:22, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Strong keep per above, so we don't go in circles continuously. /Blaxthos 20:41, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Keep. Directing users with concerns that have been previously addressed to previous discussion is standard Wikipedia practice. Gamaliel (Orwellian Cyber hell master) 21:08, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Keep per AuburnPilot, Blaxthos, and Gamaliel. Italiavivi 00:37, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) Delete In my opinion, having the FAQ placed at the top of the page gives it an impression of "officialness" that I don't think it deserves. I think it may discourage newer editors from making changes and asking questions. Cogswobble talk 02:10, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Incidentally, I am not opposed to the existence of the FAQ, and I think it could be useful to link it when people ask questions. Alternately, I wouldn't be opposed as a compromise to adding a section to the talk page, and adding the template inline there. What I don't like is having it embedded with the other templates. Cogswobble talk 02:14, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Delete Placing the FAQ at the top of the page is unheard of throughout wikipedia...it raises questions as to the legitimacy of the entire article before it is even read. Thank you for looking out! OfForByThePeople 19:15, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * "Placing the FAQ at the top of the page is unheard of throughout wikipedia"...Actually, that is precisely the purpose of FAQ. -  auburn pilot  talk  19:35, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Could you expand on that? Thank you for looking out! OfForByThePeople 19:43, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * You said it's unheard of, but the very purpose of this template is to have a FAQ at the top of the talk page. See Talk:RuneScape which has a very similar format, Talk:Habbo Hotel, which has the small version, and Village pump (technical), a core Wikipedia page that utilizes a FAQ at the top of the page. Also note these examples give "Yes or No" answers, where as the one on this page simply summarizes previous discussion. -  auburn pilot  talk  19:47, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * FYI I am also not opposed to having a FAQ section, just so long as it does not start getting into topics which...should be under the FNC Controversies article. Thank you for looking out! OfForByThePeople 19:37, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * So are you changing your original response to a keep? Ramsquire (throw me a line) 19:56, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Delete The archives exist. Wikipedia is not defined by consensus and an FAQ implies that the answers are set in stone.  Bytebear 18:19, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Keep. "officialness" worry unwarranted, given wording of the FAQ. "archives exist" does not mean they shouldn't be summarised. Doldrums 06:52, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Oops, I would've said delete but I'm too late lol Edders 20:28, 11 June 2007 (UTC) - (Copying Edder's vote, not too late) Cogswobble talk  19:43, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I am only opposed to keeping it, if it is placed at the top before more pertinent information. I agree that there should be a FAQ section, but not at the beginning. If it is going to be at the start DELETE if it can be placed elsewere KEEP. Thank you for looking out! OfForByThePeople 17:28, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I guess that's a keep with caveats. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 18:14, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I am only saying keep so long as it DOES NOT delve into controversies, b/c there is an entire atricle for this, and it needs to be towards the end of the article...or just put a FAQ link which takes you to the controversies section. this could also be sufficient Thank you for looking out! OfForByThePeople 18:50, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * also just to agree w/ bytebear...this is not based on consensus and my gut does say DELETE Thank you for looking out! OfForByThePeople 18:52, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Maybe I'm reading your comments wrong, but you realize we are not talking about putting a FAQ in the article, right? We're talking about the FAQ at the top of this talk page. Again, maybe I'm just misreading your comment, but it sounds like you are under the impression we want to add a FAQ to the article. -  auburn pilot  talk  19:05, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

on no no no. I understand the discussion, and truly do appreciate your courteousness. My concern is that a FAQ at the top of this page gives new users reason to believe that this is an unreliable article....even though the FAQ is on the talk. see what I mean? which is why i do have to vote DELETE aka unneccessary Thank you for looking out! OfForByThePeople 19:15, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

A couple of misconceptions seems to have arisen concerning the FAQ. One, please read the text of the FAQ. It explicitly states it covers only the introduction section. It goes on to say "If you are concerned with the introduction, please read the following and see if your concern has already been addressed. If you are unsure, please feel free to ask for clarification." This in no way is claiming some sort of consensus about the contents of the entire article. It is only stating that the introduction has been parts of numerous discussion, and to check to see if your point has been raised previously. Two, Of the people, please be coherent about what your objection is. Is it because it is unheard of in Wikipedia, is it with the placement, or is it because you feel it is unnecessary. Or do you want to keep it as longs as it not the first thing on the talk page. You are all over the place. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 20:09, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Wow, this is amazing... two editors (cogswobble and offorwhatever) have voted to delete the faq, but say "i'm not opposed" to having the FAQ. Then false claims of "unheard of" and the like... the FAQ goes at the top, it's purpose is to clarify why things are the way they are (so we don't have to continually explain it to new people (not to mention stubborn ones :-) )), and the majority of the community here is in favor of it.  It's just a Darn Good Idea(tm).  Time to move on.  /Blaxthos 20:20, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I'd say let's keep it open for seven days (i.e. June 13), so that we are not accused of taking it down when delete votes (such that they are) arise. The count so far is 2 delete by ByteBear and Edders, 1 delete with caveat by Cogs, 6 keeps, and we are still waiting for By the People to make up his mind. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 20:31, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Oops, I would've said delete but I'm too late lol Edders 20:28, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Edders, you've been counted, no worries. I would, however, say that "do not oppose" would count as a keep, even if a conditional keep, no?  Concur on the 7 days, btw... let's not give any opportunity for cries of foul play.  /Blaxthos 21:02, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

As I said initially, I'm not opposed to the FAQ existing as it's own section. I'm going to make an edit and move it there to show what I mean. Cogswobble talk 19:37, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * See the edit here for what I mean. I wouldn't be opposed to the FAQ existing in this form. Cogswobble talk  19:41, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Two thoughts: 1. If we do what you propose (and I have no position on the proposal yet), the FAQ risks being moved once someone creates a new archive. If we were to place a disclaimer on it stating that it should not be moved, then that would create the same "officialness" problem you have in the first place.  What would be your position, if there was agreement that the FAQ would go on the bottom of the templates list and stay there?  2.  In the instances where FAQ's are used, they generally go at the top of the page.  What is different about this one that would warrant different treatment? Added later- btw, would you be interested in changing your position to "Weak Keep provide that..." since you have stated to not having an issue with the FAQ, but only with its placement?Ramsquire (throw me a line) 22:59, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I've moved the FAQ back, per standard best practice, instructions on the FAQ template, and the seeming consensus on here. Putting it in a nonstandard place increases both the chance that it will be overlooked, and that it will be inadvertantly archived.  /Blaxthos 05:39, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Blaxthos, you dont have to like me, but you will show me the same courteousy that I have shown you and spell my entire name when referring to me.... DELETE only b/c I there is no consensus. Thank you for looking out! OfForByThePeople 01:05, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * There was no offense intended -- your name is just long and your signature is formatted such that there is superfluous username stuff included in the link. I won't re-address the rest.  /Blaxthos 06:57, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

An excellent example of such a template notice is at Talk:Intelligent design. Doldrums 12:34, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Poll Summary
Ok, I'm closing the poll (after a week and one additional day) with the final result being 6 Keeps, 1 conditional Delete (Cogswobble), 2 straight Deletes, and OfForBythePeople, various responses. On the surface there seems to be a 6 to 4 split, which would mean no consensus. However, considering Cogswobble delete is based primarily on the placement of the FAQ, and he states explicitly that he has no problem with the existence of the FAQ, that is 7 out of 10 editors who think the FAQ should exist in some form. And depending on what side of the bed OfthePeople wakes up on any given day (after all he has given four different and distinct responses, which leads me to think he may be a bit confused about the issue), there is an argument that 8 out of 10 people support the existence of the FAQ. Issues of placement can be worked out. Well that's my analysis, other thoughts. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 16:40, 14 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Good analysis, but now that I fully understand the issue at hand. (thank you for correcting me) my last vote was, and still is, to DELETE.   Thank you for looking out! OfForByThePeople 16:53, 14 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I am going to propose adding a bolded sentence to the FAQ that states: (a) nothing in the FAQ presents an official position of Wikipedia, (b) that once editors have reviewed the previous discussion and/or summary in the FAQ they are free to make any comments or suggestions regarding the introduction, or any other part of the article, provided they follow the editors note in the introduction before making changes. I think that would satisfy Cogswobble concerns. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 17:28, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I've been kind of busy, so unable to participate much. As you said, 6-4 is not a consensus, but it seems that if we were to move the FAQ to the section I proposed, that would certainly address my concerns, and I think would address OfForByThePeople's concerns. Adding the sentence that you did certainly helps to address my concerns as well. That would make it 8-2, which is much closer to an actual consensus. I'll go ahead and move it again. Cogswobble talk 00:07, 15 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Consensus usually requires some compromise. I've added the disclaimer in an attempt to address your "officialness" complaint and still placate the majority of editors who participated. Also, you may have noticed that I lowered it as well. If you are going to place it there, then the disclaimer is unnecessary.  But we would needs to be add text requesting users not to archive it, which to me gives it an "officialness" it doesn't need.  Ramsquire (throw me a line) 00:22, 15 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Objection is duely noted, but there is a reason FAQ's go at the top (as noted by Ramsquire). Let's not break best practices/style guides just because one editor doesn't like it.  Thanks.  /Blaxthos 00:59, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree, the sentences added by Ramsquire should be more than enough for compromise. Leave the FAQ's position at the top. Italiavivi 01:51, 15 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, my vote, and I think it's fair to say OfForByThePeople's vote is still Delete as long as the FAQ is where you guys put it, which means that there then isn't consensus to keep it. If you're concerned about it being moved into an archive, just add it back when the next archive is created. Cogswobble talk 02:00, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * We already compromised with you on the content of the disclaimer. Time for you to compromise (and quit edit warring over its position), Cogsie. Italiavivi 02:49, 15 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, if there was no consensus, it would be no consensus for deletion. Please stop edit warring over the position of the FAQ. In a no consensus situation, the debated issue remains at the status quo. -  auburn pilot  talk  02:06, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Title
I'm still having a hard time understand why there is a problem with the template being at the top of the page, but no problem with it being at the top of the page, but under the TOC. Is it because the template is called a "FAQ"? Would it be better if it simply read "Summary of previous discussion" rather than "Frequently asked Questions"? If so, play around with User:AuburnPilot/Templatetest all you'd like...it's not called a FAQ and it works exactly in the same way as FAQ. -  auburn pilot  talk  02:21, 15 June 2007 (UTC)


 * AuburnPilot, Blaxthos, Ramsquire, and others. You have calculated attacks against anyone who opposes your view...just remember this IS NOT your article. 129.7.91.47 02:02, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * And in case anyone wonders who made the above attack, please see this diff where the IP in question signs as OfForByThePeople. -  auburn pilot  talk  02:49, 19 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Busted! Why am I completely unsurprised?  Any remaining good faith I've retained for OfForByThePeople is now gone.  Additionally, I don't find it all that surprising to see this person go off site to try and coordinate opposition or stack votes, either.  /Blaxthos 06:53, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

FYI Blaxthos you are my best friends, and I would never do anything against you :-)  Thank you for looking out! OfForByThePeople 17:24, 19 June 2007 (UTC)


 * OK, did I miss several steps of this discussion? One, I have no idea what OfthePeople is talking about(which is nothing new)--what attacks?.  Two, has the poll been compromised by someone attempting to push it in a direction by going off-site for votes? Ramsquire (throw me a line) 17:51, 19 June 2007 (UTC)


 * No off site votes ... as far as I know. I was merely making (an innappropriate) sarcastic response to something Blaxthos said above. Sorry, this is not the time or the place for such actions. Forgiveness requested. Thank you for looking out! OfForByThePeople


 * Follow the diff AuburnPilot posted above -- the section to which the IP/OFBTP posted seems an awful lot like attempts to go off-site for coordinating oppostition (and possibly vote stacking). It seems to me that he was trying to use an anonymous IP to make false accusations of personal attacks and slipped up.  In either case, offsite coordination coupled with spurious accusations and smartass comments seals the deal for me.  As someone else noted to me earlier today, the actions show this isn't someone worth taking seriously.  /Blaxthos 21:28, 19 June 2007 (UTC)


 * You don't have to like me, you don't have to respect me, you don't have to consider anything I say or do worth any persons time.... but I am not stupid and did simply forget to log in... which I went back and corrected. You are getting off topic, and as far as "vote stacking" show me any type of evidence or proof. Otherwhise you are, or simply have become exactly what you are accusing me of being, and as far as the various IP addresses, I have about 5 computers that I use, 1 personally, and 4 professionally... which if you do the math equals 5 different IP addresses, but I always sign my name. Love Ya Blaxthos and Thank you for looking out! OfForByThePeople 22:53, 19 June 2007 (UTC)


 * You made false accusations of ownership and personal attacks against editors and administrators who are (and always have been) in good standing. You've gone to editors who may share your views and repeatedly hounded them to contact you off site (for what purpose, I wonder?).  You've now repeatedly been a smartass ("Love ya Blaxthos" etc.) which shows a complete lack of maturity... You earn no respect, and have lost the good faith of most of the editors here (especially the ones who extend that good faith much further than I do).  Just about any reprehensible behavior I can think of you've pretty much covered (save sockpuppetry, which a nice RFCU would clear up).  It's times like these I really wish wikipedia had an /ignore function.  In any case, I don't think your continued participation here is in good faith, productive, or welcome any longer.  /Blaxthos 00:09, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

You have me all figured out. Gotcha. WOW. THE END...I have nothing else to say to such a ridiculous comment/argument/and editor who has not had good faith in me since I first joind. That is the last I will speak of this. Thank you for looking out! OfForByThePeople 04:54, 20 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually I changed my mind. Is it possible to request an extensive RFCU on myself. I would have admit though, that this would be for a selfish reason. I would love to have a good laugh at the results. Thank you for looking out! OfForByThePeople 17:41, 24 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Um, if you want to do a checkuser on yourself, go right ahead. Although I suspect you already know if you are a meatpuppet or sockpuppet of other accounts. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 16:30, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I was being sarcastic, but constant accusations with no foot to stand on bring that out of me. look here, or here so since when does talking about e-mail on Wikipedia become a crime? Thank you for looking out! OfForByThePeople 23:14, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

An 'In Popular Culture' Section
I think this should be a small section of the article, noting how Fox News has being refernced in popular culture, such as The Colbert Report and The Daily Show etc, and mentioning that Fox News features prominently in Fox Network shows such as 24 and Prison Break. --IvanKnight69 15:30, 1 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Disagree -- While FNC has had more exposure than a lot of other "foo in popular culture" types of articles/sections, generally those sorts of articles are hopelessly unreferencable and trivial. If there are reliable secondary sources that discuss the impact of FNC on popular culture, that might be one thing; if we're talking about having a bullet list of trivial information, then it's something else entirely.  I just don't see it adding anything to the content of the article.  /Blaxthos 16:20, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

It would not be taking anything away from the article either, and would add a bit of trivia. FNC is the butt-end of a lot of jokes in popular culture...this poking-fun-of, and satire, is how some people are first introduced to Fox News. If you have good secondary sources...I think it would be ok. Thank you for looking out! OfForByThePeople 02:13, 2 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't have a problem with an "in popular culture" section so long as it isn't trivia. I agree with Blaxthos that a bulleted list of trivial facts is not appropriate. We aren't a joke book after all. I believe a solid paragraph with appropriate sourcing would be no problem. - auburn pilot   talk  02:20, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Agree... trivia is not welcome. If there are actually secondary WP:RS-compliant sources, by all means get your edit on.  /Blaxthos 05:44, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * also agree w/ Blaxthos and AuburnPilot...not trivia. Thank you for looking out! OfForByThePeople

Map
The map is wrong as the article states it is no longer available in sweden.--Tresckow 02:05, 2 July 2007 (UTC)


 * If so....then remove it from the article. Thank you for looking out! OfForByThePeople 02:15, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * No, don't go removing a map because one country out of the entire world is miscolored. Instead, contact the user who created the map and request they make the required change. This is no different than a chart (uploaded as an image) on poll results; when the polls are out of date, the image is updated to reflect the most recent numbers.- auburn pilot   talk  02:17, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * dont remove it (Sullynyflhi 02:21, 2 July 2007 (UTC))

Of course don't remove the map. I meant...go make the proper edits. Sorry about not qualifying my comment. Thank you for looking out! OfForByThePeople 02:22, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Ratings
None of the other articles on cable news channels have such detailed sections on ratings. Is the detailed information from 2005 and 2006 really necessary (especially when it's written with negative implications--that they've lost viewership while everyone else is gaining) when it's out of date?

The statement about having 8 of the top 10 programs on cable news is out of date. As of second quarter 2007, they now hold 9 of 10: http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/original/q207ranker.pdf Additionally, they've now posted double digit increases in primetime instead of declines. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brokermatthew (talk • contribs)


 * Welcome to Wikipedia, Brokermatthew! One of the great things about this project is that you can update anything that no longer applies. If you have links (and you've provided one above) to the new information, feel free to update the article. For a cable channel, ratings are fairly important, so I'd actually prefer they be added to other articles rather than removed from this one. Again, feel free to update the article to reflect the new ratings standings. - auburn pilot   talk  02:07, 4 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not allowed to edit the page. It says it's protected, which is why I posted this here. Brokermatthew 02:10, 4 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I'd forgotten it was semiprotected...try now; I've unprotected. - auburn pilot   talk  02:16, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Unprotection
I've removed semi-protection from this article, and since I'm a regular contributor, I wanted to make note of it here. I don't believe there is any WP:COI, as I'm a registered user and admin; semi-protection wasn't stopping me from editing the page. If anybody has a problem with this, let me know. - auburn pilot   talk  02:16, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I am unfamiliar/ignorant with this protocol...could you explain to me as to why it was added in the first place? Thank you for looking out! OfForByThePeople 05:09, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Protection policy. Doldrums 05:17, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you, that was very helpful. Thank you for looking out! OfForByThePeople 05:28, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify, admins are typically not supposed to use their "tools" on articles where they regularly contribute. This helps prevent the appearance of a conflict of interest or flat out abuse, where an admin might semi-protect a page so that an anonymous editor s/he disagrees with cannot continue editing. The same goes for full protection, in that an admin could fully protect the version of an article s/he prefers, prohibiting anyone from changing it. Unprotection is generally not as risky, but there is still the potential for a conflict of interest. The protection was added by Kafziel, back when we were getting a great deal of IP sockpuppets. - auburn pilot   talk  17:33, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Well I appreciate the fact that you continue to respond to these things...AuburnPilot. Because I was genuinely ignorant on the topic, so...thanks, and I hope that everyone here had a GREAT Independence day. Thank you for looking out! OfForByThePeople 13:25, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Accusations of Bias - Ailes
I have removed the comment regarding Ailes being a former Republican consultant for a few very good reasons. I realize it is a fact, I have no issue with its factual nature, but it's inclusion after a rebuttal to exisiting criticism removes the neutrality from the paragraph. Arzel 14:47, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * His last work as a consultant was almost 20 years ago.
 * The section is label accusations of Bias, I have seen nothing to indicate that FNC is Biased because of Ailes work as a Republican consultant before he started working for FNC.
 * The way it reads gives the impression that any comment by Ailes should be disregarded because of his previous work (NPOV).
 * I am not sure of the WP policy regarding this but it is a loaded sentence without any reference of fact that it is actually a criticism.
 * We have worked hard to get the controversies section in this article down to a managable few sentences, and if you start added stuff the page will again look like it did before, so if you can actually determine that it is a valid criticism of Bias put it into the controversies section.


 * We had this debate some time ago, and we removed this sentence from the introduction (with my blessing).
 * The fact that Ailes worked for the RNC is definitely significant, since Fox News primary controversy is the accusation of conservative bias.
 * There is nothing in the sentence that implies "any comment by Ailes should be disregarded" -- I don't see how this point is anything other than overreaching.
 * Since you acknowledge that the sentence is true, and since it's easily verifiable, there is no policy problem.
 * The sentence is directly pertinant to this particular paragraph, and as such shouldn't be construed as adding unrelated criticism (info creep).
 * As stated before, you don't get to decide what is "valid criticism" (your words). If it's significant, verifiable, relevant, and NPOV you have no basis to delete it.
 * Reverted (again). /Blaxthos 15:08, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * So you completely disregard the aspect of POV, and that it is out of context for the section and that we have worked to condence the controversies section and put them into their own article. Indicate why this should be included here or leave it out all together.  Work with me, not against me.  Also I remembered the other aspect why it shouldn't be included in that section (thanks to the anoyn).  WP:NOT  WP is not an indiscriminate collection of facts.  This seems to be trumped by WP:N far too often.  Arzel 17:20, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

To be honest, this is one of these "intent of the editor" disputes that I avoided last time it came up, because I don't want to play mind reader. If the intent is to list a significant job held by Ailes prior to taking over at FNC, I guess it's okay (although he has held numerous other significant jobs prior to his work with Reagan and Bush and after as well). For example, there's nothing wrong with saying that CNN was created by media tycoon Ted Turner, founder of TBS. But if it is being put there to show that because Ailes worked for Republicans and is one himself, and therefore the network he runs can't be "Fair and Balanced" then that's wrong on so many levels. But to propose a solution why don't we simply mention the consultant work (and the previous titles he held at CNBC and "pre-MSNBC" as well) after the first mention of Ailes's name in the article's body. Mention that has been the source of controversy (in one sentence) under accusation of bias. And then flesh out the controversy in the FNC controversies article. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 18:29, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree. I don't have a problem with the information as such.  It is easily backed up by Ailes own bio, but the intent here seems to be that he can't be neutral because of previous work, and I can see no other reason for it's addition within that section.  Arzel 19:14, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * You're both glossing over the fact that the most notable controversy (some would argue most notable fact period) is the accusation of bias regarding FNC and their alleged love for the RNC. I see both sides of this one -- on the one hand, I believe that his past is extremely relevant given the consistant accusations of bias in favor of the RNC and conservatism in general and the fact that Ailes now runs the network (COI anyone?).  However, I also see that it could be construed as an attempt to get an underhanded jab in (so to speak).  In the end, you're trying to use a conclusion you are drawing from the facts presented as justification to remove factual/relevant information... that's just not right.  Is it relevant?  Yes.  Is it correct/verfied?  Yes.  Do you like the conclusion you draw from it?  Probably not... but in the end, we're simply stating a fact and letting the reader draw a conclusion (or not).  If we were making some sort of synthesis of thought, then I could see your point.  Given the persistance of the accusations of bias, I just don't see how it's responsible to NOT mention it...  Also, sorry for reverting without discussing first -- it was done before i noticed there is now a discussion ongoing. /Blaxthos 18:01, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * No, by insertion as such you are leading the reader to a conclusion you have already made. It does not belong in this section for violation of WP:NPOV and WP:NOT.  By use of your own logic I then ask, "For what purpose has it been added within this section?".  You claim that my analysis would be a synthesis of thought, but the same can easily be said for the inclusion within.  You say that it is up to the reader to decide the conclusion, but this is faulty logic.  The conclusion has already been stated, which leads to two alternatives.  Either Ailes is biased because of previous work or he is not.  If he is not then the inclusion within this section is synthesis of material to promote a POV.  If he is biased because of previous work then there should be some reference to make the claim, but it is easy to see where this arguement leads, which is again synthesis, only of thought.  In either case the author which inserted this sentence into the article feels that Ailes previous work with the RNC makes him, and therefore FNC biased against the DNC.  If such evidence or commentary exists, fine, put it into the sub-page relating to FNC controversies and keep this page from mushrooming.  Arzel 05:11, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * A mention of past work that Ailes has done seems to be proper, but so should mention of his work with other companies that are both conservative and liberal (NPOV blah blah), personally I think it should all be removed and put under the biography of Roger Ailes article. Thank you for looking out! OfForByThePeople 20:31, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Just another mention, this entire talk page can be related to a large amount of revolving credit...a lot is happening, but nothing gets done or improved and rarely even changed. Does anyone else see a problem with this? Thank you for looking out! OfForByThePeople 20:35, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree that the details of this belong in the Ailes bio, not here. It's undue weight as well as the issues listed above.  It's fair to mention it, but details belong elsewhere especially since it's a Guilt by association style of fallacious argument.  --Tbeatty 06:15, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't care either way in terms of including/removing the text, but will you two stop reverting each other? If this continues, there's no doubt this page will be protected; let's not do that. - auburn pilot   talk  05:32, 16 July 2007 (UTC)


 * AuburnPilot, as noted in my reply above, I apologized for the additional revert after I noticed what was going on (and that discussion was ongoing). Tbeatty, I don't think we're trying to make anyone appear to be guilty (or anything else)... think about it in terms of another situation.  Suppose we have a vice-president who works for an administration that has been accused of giving favorable business practices to a particular company.  Isn't it prudent to mention the fact that the vice-president used to work for the company that is the benificiary of the alleged favoritism?  Wouldn't it be abdicating responsibility by not mentioning it?  /Blaxthos 17:54, 16 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Blaxthos, I am not glossing over anything. Per my proposal, a sentence will be dedicated to the fact that some believe Ailes prior work with the RNC is evidence of bias, and the full controversy would be fleshed out in the controversies article.  I explicitly say that prior work is relevant and could be included. However, a stand alone sentence without sourcing in the accusation of bias section can lead other editors to question the intent of the editor who placed it in that section. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 18:12, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles are not supposed to be a bulleted list of everything that a person has done in their professional careers, and about who worked with them, and what that person worked for...etc etc etc. That is exactly what this article has become. This article is supposed to be about the Fox News Channel, not about the individuals who work/own/manage the station...that is what their articles are for. Making a mention is one thing, but sometimes editors seem to forget that many of these people have 30+ years of experience w/ in their industry, and the nit-picking that is now taking place is ridiculous, again this article is not about Murdoch, Ailes, O'Reilly, Rivera, etc..... it is about the Channel itself and how what takes place on the air. If you want to get into actual biographies of individuals at the station then go to their article. OfForByTheWhatever...


 * First of all, we're talking about one sentence regarding the guy who runs the company, not a "bullet list of everything that a person has done in their professional careers...". More inappropriate behavior... let's nip that strawman argument in the bud.  Secondly, we're talking about the most notable controversy (and some would say most notable aspect of) the channel itself -- such information is absolutely relevant.  /Blaxthos 19:07, 16 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I think you'll notice that there is a certain person who apparantly has no idea what this project is about and consistently wastes space exclaiming how certain things "are unheard of", "are not supposed to be", "should be deleted", etc. Only to backtrack when told given new correct information. So in that vein, please note that I was not supporting the deletion of the information, but cleaning it up to actually state what the controversy is, instead of letting the readers make the inference.  Ramsquire (throw me a line) 22:15, 16 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Ramsquire: Acknowledged, and I appreciate the clarification.  As I stated during the discussion of the last "issue", I no longer give much faith and credit to those editors.  The burning strawman in this discussion is only additional validation that such comments are to be taken lightly (if at all).  I will work on a fair and referenced sentence this weekend.  Isn't it amazing how every sentence (nay, word!) in this article requires research and planning?  I applaud your patience and perserverence. /Blaxthos 22:44, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

If any of you have an issue with me, well then e-mail your problem with me and I will respond, but "strawman" and "certain editor" is so childish...just e-mail me with any direct complaints. Thank you for looking out! OfForByThePeople 19:10, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I think it's pretty clear and straightforward in the post. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 20:55, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I would just prefer e-mail (which i dont think Wikipedia should even have) b/c it can allow us to cut around the crap and formalities. Thank you for looking out! OfForByThePeople 19:53, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Biased about bias?
Hey guys, I'm not too sure that someone read the 6th footnote of the article (4th one about Fox's conservative bias- study by Tim Groseclose and Jeff Milyo). It's actually a "study" done by two very conservative professors to try to show that Fox is the most centrist, while all the other major news sources are far-left. It claims to prove a liberal bias. So obviously, there's a problem here: The sentence that this footnote is attached to is supposed to cite allegations of Fox's conservative bias, not disprove them. I don't have a problem with including a very biased and poorly received study, but I do have a problem with the placement. Rather than delete the link right away, I thought someone could suggest moving this citation. Anyone have a home for it?

Rob Shepard 15:59, 3 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I'd say drop the citation entirely. The statement itself already has multiple other sources, and the study this cite references is shoddy (operationalization of variables, etc.).  /Blaxthos 18:14, 3 August 2007 (UTC)


 * As I stated several months ago, I think this study should go after the next sentence as defense of FNC. As a study it is no less valid than the IU study regarding BOR.  Arzel 14:21, 4 August 2007 (UTC)


 * One, as Rob points out, the source doesn't say what it's being used to cite (automatic deletion). Two, we don't "defend" or "prosecute", we simply source statements -- it would be inappropriate to move it to the next half of the sentence because it doesn't have anything to do with FNC denying their bias.  At any rate, it's all relative... whether you think FNC is far right or center, there is no dispute that it's much futher to the right than the other news organizations.  Given the amount of work that has gone into a "fair and balanced" (ha ha) intro and the problems with the study itself, I really think that it's best to remove it entirely.  There are plenty of other supporting sources for the statement to which it is (inappropriately) attached.  /Blaxthos 16:42, 4 August 2007 (UTC)


 * It is a properly sourced study, I am not sure what either yours or Rob's qualifications are to dismiss the study. In any case if your are going to use your logic by which the source doesn't say what it's being used to cite then the State of the News Media (ref 3) should go as well since it does not state anywhere in the study that FNC is biased.  However this only goes back to my original problem with these references, and my problem with them being used.  It is nice to see that you are finally agreeing with my original point that I made some months ago.  Note that ref 3 was 4, 4 was 5, and so on. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Fox_News_Channel/Archive_19#Intro_Statement
 * After reviewing the 4 reference sources for the intro (4,5,6,7) the following is obvious.
 * 4 - This is a survey of journalists, who by their definition consider FOX to be the most conservative by either a two to one or three to one margin, the statistics they use are a little confusing. However, ref 7, which uses other research to justify it's study uses as a critera that journalists are two to three times as likely to be Democrats versus Republican. Ref 4 makes no note of the limitations in it's study, and just based off this fact it is not too suprising that they would get those results. In any case, ref 4 is not really a criticism of any source, but a report of how journalists feel, and is certainly not a direct criticism of FOX.
 * 5 - This is a criticism by Democratic hopefulls only.
 * 6 - This is basically 5.
 * 7 - This is the only true research which could be used to back up the statement. However, this study is not critical of FOX or any other broadcast station, futhermore it does not state empirically that FOX is conservative, only that it is more conservative than some of the others. Additionally, ref 7 is specific to FOX Special Report and not to FOX in general.
 * Arzel 22:56, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

The problem with the "bias" section is that it is based on the wrong thesis. Murdoch's internal memos are aimed at maintaining the British Empire by proxy using US resources. Evolution_of_the_British_Empire The conservative vs liberal archetype is a red herring. Should the Democrats ever align closer to British colonial interests the bias would probably tilt the other way.GrEp 00:36, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Olbermann
The addition by User:Narco to the controversy section is highly appropriate IMO because it's a direct criticism from a member of another mainstream network, yet the Daily Kos mention gives a sense of where Olbermann (and, if you're a "Fox fan" as I am, the majority of mainstream news) is coming from. Unfortunately, it doesn't meet WP:CITE at present. The quote is from yesterday's show, which is why I'm taking it as a good faith edit rather than removing it, but please add an external citation when one becomes available. Thanks! Luatha 21:42, 9 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I disagree. It is simply an attack from Olbermann, from which it is well known that he hates FNC.  It does not relate to any specific criticism of FNC, and this article is not a vehicle for KO's hatred of FNC.  Arzel 13:29, 10 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with Arzel. Even if Olbermann's statements can be properly sourced/attributed, his statements do not merit inclusion. His established hatred of FNC aside, not every statement expressing a disprovable/hatred of Fox News is notable. This is merely a general statement, rather than a specific case of criticism/controversy/bias. - auburn pilot   talk  13:35, 10 August 2007 (UTC)


 * While I won't go so far as to use words like "hatred", the information added certainly is very recent and definitely does not rise to the level necessary for inclusion in the main article. Should it become properly sourced and NPOV, it should reside within Fox News Channel controversies, not here.  /Blaxthos 14:25, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Although I still think it's a relevant piece of information, Blaxthos is correct about the placement. Still relatively new to Wikipedia, thanks for pointing that out. Luatha 21:43, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Fox News editing Wikipedia
It has recently come to the attention of wired news that there were politically motivated edits by anonymous users. The tool they used Wikipedia Scanner reveals a series of edits by from the fox news ip range. Should this information be included on Fox News' page? (The specific edits are included here)
 * someone added it in a very POV way. I made it less bias (ironic, ain't it?)  I think it's a minor point.  Do you think Microsoft employees edit the Microsoft article?  I would be surprised if they didn't.  It isn't particularly encyclopedic.  and it is used to point out FOX News bias?  That is POV. Bytebear 06:23, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * First of all I'd like to note I didn't edit that in. Secondly you said a blogger accused fox news of something, which is misleading, the actual DNS lookup of the IP Address is here. There are multiple sources saying fox edited, and even vandalized wikipedia, the most notable evidence being the edit history of the IP Address it's self, and who the address belongs too. Also microsoft has been caught editing wikipedia, and paying people to edit wikipedia, so this makes it ok for Fox to do so? Not even a valid point. Wikipedia will be a Corporate advertisement if things like this are aloud to happen. Opensourcefuture 06:33, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The source cited on the page was from a blogger. If you have other more reputable sources, feel free to add them.  The problem with this is that IP addresses even if owned by FOX are no indication that the edits were endorsed or even know of by FOX.  Do all other entities get a blurb about who edits them?  No, and unless FOX is found to be behind the edits directly, the information is irrelivant.  Do you really want to see who edits every article and see if they are edited by IPs within the organization.  You think FOX is unique in this aspect?  Of course not.  As such, the information is UNDUE WEIGHT, which is against Wikipedia policy. Bytebear 06:39, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Does the Microsoft page say it is bias because its employees edit it? In other words, if it isn't mentioned in that article, why should it be in this one? Bytebear 06:42, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm no fan of FOX News, but I did revert the changes that the anonymous user re-added. This issue deserves some attention paid to it, but as added to the article, it is so badly written, formatted and so ridiculously POV that it had to be removed. I have no doubt that anonymous users in the FOX News headquarters (whoever that may be) have been editing articles concerning them or their competition. Let's watch how this unfolds, and if merited, add it to the article in proper prose (as opposed to POV gibberish).--Fightingirish 06:48, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I really don't think it needs any attention at all. Articles are edited by users associated with the subject all the time.  Wikipedia rules will hinder POV, and I don't see why this article should be any different and it doesn't show any more evidence of Right Wing Bias, which is the topic of the section.  This information, in a word, is useless. Bytebear 06:53, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Manipulation of information to hide a point of view is bias, and I agree the information needs to be presented from a neutral point of view, but this can't continue if wikipedia is going to be used as a source of information with any validity. Opensourcefuture 06:57, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I dunno. After reading through some of the changes, I'd say there's a lot of bias involved. We're talking about removing information, blanking sections unfavorable to them, etc. Take a look.--Fightingirish 06:58, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * But is it FOX promoting those changes, or just employees working on their own? And do other articles about other companies do the same thing?  What about religion?  Can we condemn Catholicism because Catholics edit details they don't find favorable?  The issue goes to UNDUE WEIGHT, and singling out FOX because of this practice is bias.  Bytebear 07:05, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not signaling out fox for this practice, (although they've been doing it for a while, and to a large extent) I haven't even edited the actual article once, furthermore lots of groups, and people censor wikipedia. Doesn't make it right. Personally I think we should start cracking down on this sort of thing to preserve neutrality, and integrity of articles. Opensourcefuture 07:12, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Heres the List of edits from fox's IP range if anyone would like to dispute it. Opensourcefuture 07:18, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Of course the practice isn't right, and it isn't disputed. but should it be included as a bit of information in this article? I cannot imagine this issue being integrated into the content of the article.  Any controversial topic is going to have edit wars and censors. It is expected.  That the editors are associated with the topic is even less noteworthy.  That the anti-FOX news community makes an issue of it is most predictable (and most bias).  It just isn't a relevant issue except to those who want to make FOX look bad.  Undue weight has caused the issue to be bias.  Ok, I have said my peace. I will leave it alone for now and see what the discussion brings.  07:23, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Thats why my original post on the topic was if the information should be on this topics page. No one answered so I left it alone, someone else edited thought it should and put it on the page. Then you responded to me after you edited it. I understand where you're coming from about it receiving attention, that happens being it is a sensitive issue. Maybe some other wikipedians can add some input. I still think other articles in addition to this one should be treated the same way. Opensourcefuture 07:35, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I've encountered this sort of thing before. See Talk:Joe_Biden. NB: not deemed worthy of mention in mainspace, probably because it is neither notable nor noted outside Wikipedia. Andyvphil 08:21, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Please review WP:ASR, it isn't about us, it is about the subject of the article. This is very trivial and doesn't belong in an encyclopedia.  --rogerd 15:22, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Please review WP:ASR, particularly note "... discussion of Stephen Colbert's call for vandalism of the Elephant article might be appropriate for the articles on the Colbert Report or Wikipedia...". This is not an important controversy, and I don't think it will become one, but it now has a RS (Information Week) beyond the blog mentions, and there is no excuse for confusing your judgement that the story is trivia with policy. This is a simple content dispute, and I think the editors who think it is not trivia should be accomodated with a short, NPOV, mention. Andyvphil 04:33, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I've removed it - no reliable sources plus it didn't actually constitute a controversy. Edders 15:42, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * We should consider the re-introduction of this material an act of vandalism. I say that only because not one editor has come to the talk page to defend their position.  If they think this material is important, let them defend it.  Bytebear 16:09, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Fox news editing wikipedia is a conflict of interest and should be noted. And for the person who said it wasn't mentioned outside of wikipedia, it was.

Has anyone reported any of the users repeatedly re-introducing the information for vandalism? I don't know the exact process myself. Also, let me repeat to make myself clear: DAILY KOS, DIGG, etc. are NOT reliable sources. There is as of yet no notable controversy, and no evidence to support the claim that the Fox News Network is itself making these changes. End of story. Edders 21:23, 15 August 2007 (UTC)


 * My point exactly. The closest thing to a valid reference is blogs.usatoday.com which says in part:


 * According to Wired, the data-miners examined 34.4 million anonymous edits. They found 2.6 million people or organizations were responsible for these changes, including users who were logged on via computers at Microsoft, the CIA and other government offices.


 * Hardly a case for FOX being unique. The closest thing in that article to pointing fingers at Fox is the vague statement "For example, computers at a cable news network were used to edit entries about correspondents and competitors." This information might be useful on the Wikipedia article, but not here. Bytebear 21:27, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps there should be a Category of "Articles that have been edited by their subjects in the last year" and it is a sort of Hall of Shame to see that category tag at the bottom. Tempshill 01:06, 16 August 2007 (UTC)


 * This was just called to my attention via email by another user. The issue is not whether it's unique,, but rather that the edits originating from Fox News Channel computers were POV biased to attempt to further their POV. It definitely appears to me to meet WP:Notability at this point. I'm going to add a brief note about it in the article under "Controversy", citing to Daily Kos and others. ... Kenosis 02:34, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * But it isn't notable, at least not in the context of this one article. Are you also going to put the same notice on Microsoft, Google, Hilary Clinton?  All of those pages were edited by people associated with them.  Bytebear 03:22, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I have to agree with Bytebear, as there is a huge difference between something that is newsworthy and something that is encyclopedic. Fox News editing articles is not encyclopedic, even if it is covered by news media. This sort of thing happens all day every day, and I've even caught the Federal Air Marshal Service blanking content about how their marshals board planes. This doesn't merit inclusion. - auburn pilot   talk  03:34, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I must disagree about what's meant by "encyclopedic" and "unencyclopedic". Fact is, Wikipedia also reports current events as a matter of standard practice, and many of those current events involve differences of opinion that occur online. ... Kenosis 04:13, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * What appears notable here is that numerous weblogs and online news sites such as the Huffington Post have alleged edits to Wikipedia articles such as Al Franken, Keith Olbermann, Chris Wallace and Brit Hume, and provided verifiable evidence in support of their accusations. True that Daily Kos is an anonymous blog, though widely known and read. The Huffington Post, on the other hand, involves bylines with real names, and as such is a WP:Reliable source.  I propose to add the following subsection to "Controversy" section of the article:
 * ===Accusations of biased editing of Wikipedia articles===
 * "In August, 2007, politically liberal online news sites reported that biased editing of Wikipedia was repeatedly done from Fox News computers. Wikipedia articles allegedly edited from Fox computers from 2005 through late 2006 included Al Franken, Keith Olbermann, Chris Wallace and Brit Hume."
 * Footnotes:
 * 1. Jonathan Kim, "FOX News Takes Their Propaganda to Wikipedia" in The Huffington Post The Huffington Post, August 14, 2007
 * 2. See also, Daily Kos, August 14, 2007 citing Wikipedia edits allegedly attributable to IP addresses owned by Fox News Channel. See also, additional reporting of evidence in support of accusations of editing from Fox News Channel IP address at  and
 * I'd prefer to hash it out here as best as possible before implementing something like the above, because this plainly is notable, verifiable and reliably sourced as a controversy in which Fox is involved. By describing it as a controversy in which accusations have been made and evidence provided in support of those accusations, it also meets NPOV, IMO. ... Kenosis 03:51, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * It isn't controvesial. It is an every day occurance by dozens if not hundreds or even thousands of organizations. This kind of editing happens on many articles, not just FOX related articles, and not just by FOX related editors.  It's simly not notable. Seriously, it needs to be dropped. Bytebear 03:58, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * In other words, it should be put into another section rather than "Controversy"? Frankly, much of the issue in the WP article about Fox is about bias, or at least accusations thereof. So, in some sense, Bytebear is right, it isn't even controversial.  But it appears to me to be squarely within the range of material that is worth reporting and which fits squarely within the relevant WP policies w.r.t. such reporting. ... Kenosis 04:05, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Simply not newsworthy. Many people edit from the workplace and don't speak for their employer. likewise, this is only persons who have not created an account. It's not reliable to associate any specific organization to a particular edit. --Tbeatty 04:14, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, it may be common practice, but it's in direct violation of WP:Conflict_of_interest. That it's widespread practice, as we know from WP experience, is not a justifiable reason to assert that it's OK.  More importantly, it's now a public matter that bears directly on the issue of bias that's central to the controversy surrounding the use of the words "Fair and Balanced".  Moreover, such edits were not only to WP articles about persons directly employed by Fox, but also to articles on persons who demonstrably have been opponents of Fox. I don't ordinarily get involved in this kind of article, but in this case I honestly think the cat's out of the bag on this matter, and at this stage I think we can very reasonably assume the exposure will not stop with The Huffington Post and InformationWeek. ... Kenosis 05:15, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Please. It's newsworthy on its face. The fact that it has surfaced here belies the claim that it isn't. Additionally, there's precedent for coverage of such instances at Wikipedia articles. The only question is is how to present it and which sources to use. FeloniousMonk 04:36, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * It is NOT newsworthy, actually. It does not pertain to the article in any way and there is not, in fact, a precedent for such things. There IS, however, a precedent for realizing that a network or corporation is responsible for the the actions of an anonymous individual. Surely you know that.  Don't let any bias you might have work against Wikipedia.  DMCer 05:33, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The BBC, MSNBC, FBI, Microsoft, Al-Jazeera, and others have all been exposed on this Wikipedia tracker. While it is noteworthy, NONE of the instances are cause enough to include it in an encyclopedia.DMCer 05:38, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I fully agree that the Wikipedia Scanner is not what's relevant. What's relevant is the fact that the Fox IP edits to articles such as Al Franken, Keith Olbermann, Chris Wallace and Brit Hume, edits which upon examination plainly seek to further Fox's public positions, are now part of the public controversy over the notion of "Fair and Balanced".  As an additional aspect of public controversy over this issue of alleged "fair and balanced" reporting by Fox, or the alleged lack thereof, it deserves a brief treatment in the article. ... Kenosis 05:48, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * You cannot attribute any of thise edits to "Fox", only an IP address registered to them. You have no idea who made those edits or why.  They may not even be employees.  I suspect Fox provides internet access to visitors and guests.   The short answer is that this may simply violate WP:COI and be an internal Wiki matter, but it's not encyclopedic and certainly not relevant to the article on Fox News Channel.  --Tbeatty 06:08, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not justifying the edits. Fox News IPs shouldn't be editing the Fox News article. neither should the DNC be editing Rush Limbaugh. But the fact that they did is not a noteworthy event. Revert, leave a warning and be done. But these acts are not encyclopedic enough to be included because they can't be sourced properly. I'll give another reason: a lot of companies offer wireless on their campuses to anyone who is there. This is the wireless laptop age and everyone needs to be connected. There is no way to even know that the IP editors were even employees. --Tbeatty 05:41, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Leave a warning, my foot-- a warning for what? I now see what Tbeatty was referring to. A day or two ago the issue was not noteworthy, but today it is noteworthy by merit of its increasing online coverage, which has been occurring independently of internal discussions within Wikipedia. In addition to the numerous left-leaning blogs, as of today the issue been written about with real-name bylines in the Huffington Post and InformationWeek.  How many more reliable sources will need to be added to this?  Again, on the sources that have been provided since this discussion began, it is notable and directly relevant to what the whole stir is about Fox News, which is their assertion that they're "fair and balanced" and the vociferous claims by the political left that Fox is actually heavily biased towards the political right.  This, it is directly relevant to the article, based on reliable sources and verifiable evidence, and quite notable as of today. ... Kenosis 05:56, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Kenosis, you are mistaken. This is an encyclopedia article about a network, not an individual who vandalizes Wikipedia like millions of others, and tons of other companies.  How would this sound?  'The CIA is an American intelligence agency.  The members of the CIA also edit their own Wikipedia articles to conform to their own viewpoint.'  Again, this does not belong anywhere near an encyclopedia article.-DMCer 06:01, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I could also argue that Fox is the actual victim by the fact that these sources all point to FOX, when in fact, it is a common occurance with many companies, and singling out Fox shows that these sources are bias. Should we add the content in that context? Bytebear 06:08, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Have you looked at the actual edits that were documented? They are consistent with Fox's basic positions, quite plainly biased against Fox's opponents and competitors in articles about public opponents of Fox such as Franken and Olbermann (the ones from 2005 through late 2006), and are not just limited to polite defenses of Fox employees such as Hume, and Wallace. And, we are not in a position to make judgments about who might or might not have made the actual edits on Fox's computers, a judgment which would be OR. Fact is, it's now part of the public controversy, increasingly and rapidly being reported by reliable sources with verifiable evidence in support of the assertions. ... Kenosis 06:10, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Unless you could prove that FOX Network had an institutionalized method for doing these edits, it is all speculation. Also you would have to go to every other article, look at their edits and add documentation there.  The practice, no matter how "well documented" is common, and I guarentee you that Clinton employees have valdalized Republican articles.  Remember, these were the folks who pulled "W"s off of keyboards before leaving the White House. Do you think any Clinton articles have this bit of information?  Bytebear 06:14, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Exactly. What is notable is the coverage on the web of the Fox-IP Wikipedia edits . ... Kenosis 06:19, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I looked at the citations, and the only unbias one (USA Today) talked about the issue referencing Microsoft, the CIA and others mentioned above, but not FOX. That makes the inclusion even more bias. Bytebear 06:30, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * What is the political bias of Information Week? Andyvphil 06:33, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * InformationWeek is biased? And even The Huffington Post is presenting information with evidence, not just rendering an opinion. (And incidentally, the USA today is actually in the blog section of their site.) But like I said, this probably won't stop there--If the coverage of this issue does stop there, then I imagine many of us including myself can look at it much differently in a week or two. Gotta go--take care for now. ... Kenosis 06:38, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't count the Daily Kos as a "reliable source", you can't get much more POV than that. The point is, nobody is denying it happened, what is important to realize that that doesn't mean it gets tossed into an article about a network. If you went to work for the Russian government, and decided to start bashing another country's article, would you put that in Russia's article? No.  The common vandalism by what might be a *single* person do not belong in a network's article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.247.238.71 (talk • contribs)
 * Agreed that the Daily Kos by itself is not a reliable source. However, at this point in time other web news sites that are reliable sources are making the same point.  And, at this stage I think we can probably expect that the coverage will not stop there.  I'm out of here for now. Nice to talk (and argue) with y'all.  Later. ... Kenosis 06:23, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * True. G'night.-DMCer 15:02, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Consensus?
The debate is leaning toward exclusion of this information. I have removed the content (once again) until it is resolved. I will continue to remove it unless consensus is met to include it. If you add it without any discussion, I feel it should be reverted immediately, because you are too weak to even defend your position. Bytebear 06:35, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Consensus? Per last section:
 * Not notable: Bytebear, 140., DMCer, Tbeatty, Edders
 * Notable: Andyvphil, Kenosis, FeloneousMonk
 * Unclear(to me): Opensourcefuture, Fightingirish

There is no policy issue on content. The only issues are notability/undue weight. You have a RS and NPOV treatment. And no consensus to remove (look the word up). Andyvphil 06:59, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * you forgot two: - auburnpilot and Tempshill who were both on the Not notable, which is why I said it is leaning toward exclusion.  That's 7 vs. 3 -oh, and one of the three was brought into the debate by another's email. Bytebear 07:04, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Missed auburnpilot. Tempshill's an Unclear, so far as I can see. So, 6-3-3, per last section (only). No consensus, maybe not even a majority. And a consensus doesn't "lean" -- either it exists or it does not. The barrier you need to cross to exclude notable, reliably sourced information from an article is one you haven't surmounted. Andyvphil 09:17, 16 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I think it's notable, though I also think that with time it will become less notable and in a couple of years a future editor will remove it and nobody will object. It should be included in the article for the same reason that more-current events are very often, appropriately, included in Wikipedia articles.  Tempshill 15:47, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Exactly. Andyvphil 00:59, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Not notable. Those that dislike or even hate FNC have jumped on this to promote their POV that FNC is biased, when it is not provable that FNC is in itself responsible for these edits. These edits occured some time ago, yet the reporting (mostly from left leaning blogs) gives the impression that this was a recent which is in itself misleading and biased reporting on their part. Not to mention it violates the WP self-reference. Arzel 14:02, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * There is no evidence that Fox News made the edit. --Tbeatty 16:43, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * (a) It doesn't. Quoting self: "Please review WP:ASR#Articles_are_about_their_subjects, particularly note "... discussion of Stephen Colbert's call for vandalism of the Elephant article might be appropriate for the articles on the Colbert Report or Wikipedia...". (b)"These edits occured some time ago." Actually, the most recent edit by an anonymous editor in the Fox News range is July 30. As with most of these it is not obvious COI. (c) Of course crit of FN is often biased and misleading. That doesn't mean Wikipedia doesn't report on the existance of the controversy in an NPOV fashion. Andyvphil 01:12, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * It may not be provable, the same way that many crimes are often not provable beyond the shadow of a doubt, but the crimes still get articles. (I'm not saying this editing is a crime in any way.)  Tempshill 15:47, 16 August 2007 (UTC)


 * It's a crime to vandalize Wikipedia? Come on!  Don't escalate the situation.  The issue is undue bias toward (against) Fox News.  Would it be better to say "It is common practice for company employees to edit Wikipedia in ways that benefit their employees.  Several websites have singled out Fox News to further their own agendas."  Bytebear 16:16, 16 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Bytebear: "It is common practice for company employees to edit Wikipedia in ways that benefit their employe[r]s. Several websites have singled out Fox News to further their own agendas." Uh, isn't that pretty much what I wrote? "The tool showed that such edits from corporate or government computers were not uncommon, but the Fox edits got some online attention." (someons struck out "..from the liberal blogosphere." Andyvphil 00:59, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Look at what I reverted . Doesn't exactly sounds like what you wrote. Bytebear 01:26, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Look again at what you reverted, twice. . Andyvphil 01:43, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I was making a point of showing that the "liberal blogosphere" should not be used as a source and that if you were to include the information it should be empasized that they are POV, which emphasizes my point that such sources shoudl be avoided. I have no regrets making those edits.  Bytebear 01:59, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I still don't see the relevance, as a response to me, of the revert you pointed to. Anyway... The blogosphere and other sources without editorial review are not RS for facts, but are RS for the views of the writers themselves. You can't report the allegations as fact based on DailyKos and the like, but you now have Information Week and The Guardian(UK) as RS for the facts. Andyvphil 02:14, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Maybe we should block FOX for making POV edits, vandalism, etc. News organizations are violating the independence and integrity of both themselves and Wikipedia by doing so, or at least FOX News is. 204.52.215.107 17:13, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

To the growing list of WP:Reliable sources, we can now add ... Kenosis 17:30, 16 August 2007 (UTC)


 * In addition to it being quite irrelevant, as it happens on a daily basis, the Wikipedia Editing is already mentioned in Fox News Channel controversies, where it would be belong if anywhere. There is no reason for it to be duplicated here; this is why we have sub-articles. - auburn pilot   talk  17:45, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Uh, no. Please review WP:POVFORK, particularly the bit about a summary of the content of the child article being mandatory in the parent. I've only recently come to this article pair and it appears to be a classic content fork, with the pro-FOX POV warriors censoring this article's content and the anti-FOX POV warriors being given free hand to turn Fox News Channel controversies into a miasmic swamp of misrepresentations of already anti-FOX content. Andyvphil 01:38, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Also note that the same group that found the Fox edits found a variety of other edits (see the Guardian article among others). It is hard to see how we should include the Fox one if we are not including the other organizations' edits. JoshuaZ 21:42, 16 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I've been watching this discussion for a few days, and just find it confusing. This is a wiki; everyone can edit. Why is it noteworthy that employees of Fox News may have an edit history here?  This is really insignificant information. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 22:22, 16 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, they were editing rivals articles adding negative material in violation of WP:COI, and it got a lot of press. JoshuaZ 23:35, 16 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I still don't see the significance. I've seen students vandalize the pages of rival schools all the time.  It's the unfortunate shortcoming of a wiki.  As for FoxNews, I've seen the accusations being made in blogs, but I haven't seen any of that verified in the MSM articles.  This info should go into an article on the WikiScanner or Virgil Griffiths. I just don't see the significance unless of course these employees were directed to commit the alleged acts of vandalism. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 23:54, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * It has been included and verified in a fair number of RS MSM sources such as the Guardian. In any event, I do agree with you, see above remarks. JoshuaZ 00:03, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * This incident could be easily sourced with reliable sources, but I'll add my voice to those who think it isn't yet significant enough to be included. Maybe in the controversies article but not here, not yet.  Gamaliel (Angry Mastodon! Run!) 00:09, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I've been following it mainly through the blogosphere so although I saw the Guardian article, it was in a mirror site. So my mistake there.  I would have problems with this even going in the controversies article, at this point, since it is making an assumption that the vandalizing employees are doing so with the approval of Foxnews (which would admittedly make this a huge story).  But if it is just people "having fun", then this is no different from the problematic high school and college students that vandalize articles all the time. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 00:16, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I agree. (And I removed a similar section from the NY Times article.) Maybe this story will snowball and we can reassess it then, or maybe enough people think this should go in and we can compromise by putting it in the controversies article. But as it stands now, we're on the same page. Gamaliel (Angry Mastodon! Run!) 00:19, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * It is appropriate for this story to be covered in greater depth in a sub-article, but policy requires that the content of the sub-article be summarized here. See WP:POVFORK. Andyvphil 01:58, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * No, it's not even worth a sub-article. Fox News is essentially an IP provider here.  It is not news or notable if a Cox Internet subscriber edits Time-Warner wikipedia with an IP.  Without being able to identify the editor, it's very difficult to reliably report this.  It could be a visitor, a guest from a show, an employee, someone in the parking lot squatting on the IP, etc, etc.  Attributing it to Fox news would need a reliable source that actually links it to a Fox news employee (I am aware of the content of the edits but that is also OR).  Since the ultimate source for all of this is wikipedia, I don't know how that connection is made.  --Tbeatty 02:39, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * It was not suggested this story be made a sub-article. It was suggested that this story be mentioned only in the existing sub-article. That is against policy. ... Saying the edits were performed at the direction of Fox management would indeeed need a reliable source, as would alleging that they were not. The text as I have edited it does not speculate, merely repeats the facts supplied by RS. Andyvphil 07:35, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

(Lose Indent) That the WP edit section is currently within the controversies section is irrelevant as it should probably be removed from there as well. Even if it is decided that they should stay, there are several controversal and criticism related to FNC with the main issues listed in this article. By your logic, every single controversy should have a paragraph within the main article, basically removing the reason for a sub article. If this were a huge story then yes, but as it is now, no. Arzel 13:53, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

As of today, I'm now persuaded by JoshuaZ, Arzel, Bytebear, DMCer, and Tbeatty that it's not sufficently notable in comparison to other controversies so as to include this WP-editing controversy on the main article, nor is it sufficiently major or complex so as to justify a completely new article. IMO, at present it is given reasonably appropriate coverage in Fox News Channel controversies, but has not become sufficiently major, by comparison to other relevant controversies, to include here. I suppose if it gets coverage in some major news magazine or whatever, we'all can readily revisit the issue. Everybody take care for now, OK? ... Kenosis 14:43, 17 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm dreading the possiblilty of an off-handed mention in the NYT to start this all off again...Edders 16:36, 17 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually I'd like to make the point that if there were to be a giant Level 5 media storm over this, then that alone would boost the topic's notability to "worthy of mention in this article", even if the activity itself is not very notable. Distasteful, but true.  Tempshill 17:57, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Why is it still up? It's simply not notable enough and makes the article look very unencyclopedic.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by DMCer (talk • contribs) 22:19, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Arbitrary break in discussion of alleged Fox "scrubbing" story
The fact that some employees of Fox News have apparently been making mildly POV edits to subjects that they know something about is not a major controversy, but anti-Fox media warriors have been trying to make it such and the issue, specifically at Fox, has received attention at multiple WP:RS, which is the definition -- by policy -- of notability. The suggestions that it is not notable because "everyone does it", "you can't prove it was Fox employees - maybe it was a hacker in the parking lot", etc. are without merit, mere variations on WP:IDONTLIKEIT. ... By policy, as I've shown, the contents of sub-articles are to be summarized in the parent article. This does not mean every detail has to be repeated in the parent article, obviously, and "removing the reason for a sub article" is a WP:STRAWMAN argument. E.g., "Accusations of bias" has three sentences here, many more at Fox News Channel controversies. The "scrubbing" allegation is sui generis and does not fall under any of the other controvery categories and deserves a short, NPOV, reliably-sourced separate mention here. Which is what I've provided. I can live without the partial list of articles edited (someone else insisted on that) and can cut the cites down to IW, the Guardian and maybe HP, but that is de minimus. I've already agreed that this section can probably be removed when it stops being a current event. Which it may do by the time the editing protection is eliminateded. Andyvphil 20:16, 17 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I've deliberately avoided commenting on this whole debate for a few days to let things shake out. Some points I'd like to make:
 * Anyone who looks at the edits from Fox IP ranges can clearly see a pattern of biased editing, both in the articles edited and the content that was removed. It is hard for anyone to claim that those topics and content just "happened" to be edited, and such content just "happened" to be removed.
 * There is no way to know if this was at the official (or unofficial) direction of FNC management. I wouldn't be surprised either way, honestly.  I think it was probably just some gung-ho FNC employees with a little too much free time, but then again there have been instances in the past that might suggest otherwise (remember the memo?).  However...
 * A company is responsible for actions by its employees (especially using company resources, such as computers and internet access) -- see respondeat superior.
 * Notability is a concept applied to the creation of articles, not content within articles.
 * While blogs aren't generally considered reliable, I would think that Wikipedia edit histories certainly are. Of course, one must be careful not to run afoul of WP:OR.
 * "Everyone does it" is an argument to be avoided.
 * I'm still not sure how to incorporate this information, however I don't think anyone can reasonably say that there is "nothing to see here, move along". /Blaxthos 23:12, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * (1) Actually most of the edits from the Fox IP range are unexceptional and not on Fox-related subjects.
 * (2) Fox News employees presumably search for information on the web. Search engines routinely turn up Wikipedia articles. Presumably a fair number of FNC employees are sophisticated enough to know thay can change/fix/vandalize a Wikipedia article. What would be surprising would be if they didn't do it at all.
 * (3) True, but irrelevant. No RS suggests Wikipedia is going to sue Fox because its employees are violating WP's TOS.
 * (4) True, "[t]he particular topics and facts within an article are not each required to meet the standard of the notability guidelines", but notability is a measure of significance. It is argued that this subject is too insignificant to warrant mention. If the controversy meets the notability criteria for its own article that is certainly an argument that it is significan enough to mention in a broader article.
 * (5) You can't be careful enough. It's going to be WP:OR, period.
 * (6) But see (2). Andyvphil 00:46, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The pattern may exist, but has any reputable news organization singled out Fox News for the behavior. In the same vein, has anyone looked at the edit patterns of other orgamizations with the same level of scrutiny?  Is there any evidence that Fox News had anything whatsoever to do with the edits?  Were they sanctioned by the organization?  I see a lot of WP:OR going on in answering that question.  "I wouldn't be surprised" is a bias and POV statement, and falls under this category.  Step lightly when making such assumptions.  Saying that a company should be responsible for the actions of it's employees may be at issue, but it goes to a more broad topic, like watching pornograpjy at work; Should we single out a single company because someone at work watches porn; or should the issue be presented in a neutral article about porn.  The same applies to this topic.  It really should be covered in the Wikipedia article and used as an example (along with others from other organizations), and not singled out, as that would be POV (once again).  Using Wikipedia content is self referencing and should be avoided, and clearly the blogs are POV, so the only recourse is to use legitimate news sources, none of which, at this time has singled out Fox News as more agregious than any other organization.  To say otherwise is once again, WP:OR as well as giving WP:Undue Weight to the issue.  As such, you cannot point to one NPOV source that criticises Fox News directly or indirectly, and as such, this material must be removed.  "Everyone does it" is a perfectly acceptable argument, because it points to POV.  If everyone does it and you single out one entity over all the others, that is clearly POV. Bytebear 23:46, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Two RS (IW, Guardian) both mention ("single out") Fox. I've already pointed out why the "self referencing" concern is inapplicable. That other organizations don't yet have mentions (which I don't know to be true) is no reason not to mention the controversy here - consider the logic underlying WP:ATA The proposed test does not suggest Fox is more egregious. Andyvphil 01:08, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The pattern does exist. The fact that a news agency has yet to run a story on the actions of FNC is more of a failing of our policies on wikipedia than it is an excuse you should use to gloss over the issue.  Vicarious liability is not just an opinion, it's the law.  I really don't see the relevance of the porn analogy -- viewing porn is a far cry from systematically removing (or inserting) biased information that appears to coincide with the company from which it originates (see WP:COI).  I noted the WP:OR problem, but I think you're stretching the argument, as I doubt our policies were written to keep something like this from being incorporated in the article (see my comment about WP:RS and edit logs).  It certainly seems that the FNC crusaders here are trying to use the letter of our policies to avoid the spirit of wikipedia (see WP:LAWYER).  Just my $0.02.  /Blaxthos 00:26, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Please, assume good faith. Not all of use are "FNC crusaders".  And I don't assume you to be a "FNC basher".  But having a bloated controversy section, with questionable references on a non-Fox specific issue is never going to pass muster for Good Article status.  The porn example shows that you cannot blame a company for the actions of its employees, and that you cannot single out one single company for such action when essentially (and it has been shown) that nearly every major company is affected by the same "controversy".  Bytebear 23:43, 21 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Fox news was busted red handed end of story, there is no excuse the ip addresses matches their location, and they have made just too many edits for it not to be suspicious. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rizelon (talk • contribs) 10:32, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

WIRED Magazine's "Wikidgame"

 * The pattern is not unique to Fox News, and in fact one of our two primary sources do not even mention Fox News. Instead it focused on the CIA.
 * "An online tool that claims to reveal the identity of organisations that edit Wikipedia pages has revealed that the CIA was involved in editing entries."
 * The other only in a list of hundreds of other violators:
 * "Wikimedia Foundation employee removes source about Wiki Scanner funding"
 * "Microsoft whitewashes controversy, cost of ownership, Linux comparison"
 * "Monsanto glosses over Roundup's effects on animals"
 * "CIA vandalizes Pope Fonzie the 16th's page."
 * "NIH shares thoughts on Scientologists"
 * "Firestone Tire deletes human rights, defective tires controversy"
 * "Wal-Mart spinmeisters at work..."
 * "Pepsi employee scrubs Pepsi article of health criticism section"
 * "Amazon linkspamming wikipedia"
 * "Amnesty International UK deletes long sections containing criticism of Amnesty"
 * "Hilarious - Ford renames Honda Fit to 'Honda Loser'"
 * "Center for Security Policy tries to skirt neo-con ties"
 * "Occidental Petroleum Deletes 6 Major Scandals"
 * "Someone at Greenpeace doesn't like Ted Nugent"
 * "Phillip Morris Tobacco wants to clear up some issues with NAMBLA"
 * "Microsoft accuses Linux community of FUD"
 * "Stonewashed Jeans, Whitewashed Wikipedia Entry"
 * "ESPN erases sexual harassment allegations"
 * "Bob Jones University (low hanging fruit)"
 * "The NRA adds "Iraq was involved with 9/11" bullshit to 9/11 article"
 * "MPAA SF/CA office censors criticism, (C), DRM entries"
 * "Scientology again using celeb deaths for self promotion"
 * "Blockbuster inserts advertisements into its own page"
 * "That same person in the senate doesn't want you to know about Byrd and the KKK"
 * "Romanian oligarch tries to clean up image"
 * "Cal Ripken: The Ironman of commercial spam"
 * "Merck spins Vioxx lawsuit for sympathy"
 * "Nintendo hiding problems"
 * "Exxon-Valdez spill whitewash"
 * "Halliburton's subsidiary Kellogg, Brown and Root - thoughts on the Pot"
 * "Bad luck & poor investments" caused bankruptcy of native tribe destroyed by Exxon-Valdez spill"
 * "General Motors generally making itself sound better"
 * "Nintendo deletes line refering to Nintendo DS Lite hinge cracks."
 * "Scientology on Kurt Cobain's death
 * "FBI edits Guantanamo page
 * "The NRA changes "hunting" to "wildlife conservation & management"
 * "Hillary Clinton and Korgoth of Barbaria"
 * "CIA interests in Lightsabers"
 * "Al Jazeera does not like some words in Tailban article"
 * "City of Seattle's Greg Nickels is a National Leader on Environmental Issues"
 * "Liberty University stands up for Truth and Justice"
 * "ChevronTexaco deletes "Biodiesel", Iraq fine"
 * "BBC accuse Tony Blair of being a drunk sex maniac"
 * "Patrick Henry College shows What Jesus Would Do"
 * Ok, I got tired of typing, but I think you get the point. This is about 1/6 of the page content.  Yes, Fox is mentioned, but not in any more context than any of the other few hundered listed. Putting any information here is UNDUE WEIGHT and saying they are more guilty than the rest is ORIGINAL RESEARCH, plain and simple.Bytebear 01:13, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
 * No one said they're any more guilty than the rest. Regarding WP:UNDUE, you're trying to apply it to a range of articles -- the purpose is to make sure that each article is balanced, NOT that each article is consistant with other articles.  What other organizations has done is irrelevant -- it doesn't mitigate the circumstances here, and it certainly doesn't mean it shouldn't be included.  I noted the WP:OR problem, but I also assert that you're trying to use the letter of the policy to circumvent the spirit of it, especially given the fact that most people seem to agree that the pattern does exist.  /Blaxthos 01:27, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I will disagree with your assesment, and point out that there is no reliable source that ponts to Fox News, and the references above actually show the undue weight by singling out one company out of a field of hundreds. Pulling Fox News out of a list of hundreds is undue weight, regardless of other articles.  In other words, it's not a comparison with other articles, but an analysis of the sources we have to work with.  Bytebear 02:06, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Uh, how did WIRED Magazine's "Wikidgame" become "one of our two primary sources"? We have, so far as I know, 3 RS: IW, the Guardian(UK) and the BBC. The "Wikidgame" is an unedited annotated list of links that visitors to the Wikipedia Scanner think are significant. For example, "Fox News Republicans remove all Fox controversies" by Anonymous claims "After listing the various controversies from Fox, from the lawsuit where they filed to the court that they had the right to lie the entire Fox article had almost all controversies shoved and hidden away in to a separate article thus leaving a nicely sterilized faux article behind." This appears to be an allegation that Ilyanep created this article to sterilize its parent. The only link provided is to the current FNC article. Andyvphil 02:30, 18 August 2007 (UTC)


 * So you are saying that blanking out the criticism section (which many non Fox News editors have done) is more notable than any of the hundreds of other POV edits I have listed above? Bytebear 02:47, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Once again, you're missing the point. WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV apply within articles.  You can't use them to try and say "what about article foo" or "what about company bar".  Either FNC did what is alleged, or they did not.  It's no more valid than a car thief trying to use "but there are other people who steal cars" as a defense.  /Blaxthos 03:13, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
 * No you are not undestanding my point. The source lists hundreds of examples, and singling out Fox News for this article is WP:UNDUE.  In other words, you are using the article to make a point, but the article is not making the point at all.  Your car analogy is incorrect because the employer is not responsible for the actions of that driver, and in fact, may own the car.  Also, editing wikipedia in any way is not illegal.  It may be immoral or against policy, but there is no crime here. Bytebear 03:20, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
 * There is so much miscommunication here that I am having trouble disciphering it all. I hope others are able to understand the points I'm trying to convey.  Please show me how WP:UNDUE (a subsection of WP:NPOV) mentions that one can't use sources that mention multiple organizations.  What WP:UNDUE means is that all viewpoints must be represented in articles (a neutral point of view)... it does not mean that "sources that list hundred of examples" can't be used -- census data mentions hundreds of cities, is it also "undue weight" to single out one particular city's statistics?  Of course not.  My car analogy has nothing to do with employers and employees -- I'm pointing out your error in logic regarding other companies that also have edits that are WP:COI (and patternistically biased).  And finally, the analogy (term you used) is just that:  an analogy not meant for literal interpretation; there was no allegation of criminal activity.  /Blaxthos 03:28, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Maybe it isn't undue weight in the strict sense of the term, but it certainly makes it not noteworthy, at least not in this article. I do have no problem with a mention of the issue in articles about conflicts of interest if it is covered in a general sense.  Look, the article is locked down for a week.  That should give us plenty of time to come to a consensus.  We should probably do some straw polls to get an idea of where people stand in the issue.  Bytebear 03:51, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Make that 2 RS, both of which mention Fox prominently; I knew Wikidgame wasn't a source; I took Bytebear's word that the BBC cite was a source. It's not. It's a source for the Wiki Scanner article, but doesn't mention Fox at all. Bytebear still doesn't seem to understand at all what Wikidgame is ("The source lists hundreds of examples...") It's not a source -- it's a bulletin board. Andyvphil 10:58, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
 * following xferred from my userpage- Andyvphil
 * Hello, the main Fox article page is locked, but why is it not better to document this issue (Fox edits) in length at the contoversies article, not the main Fox article? I'm not sure I am following along. Please explain, Thank you. ΞBMEDLEY  Δ SUTLERΞ  06:13, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * By all means, document this issue at greater length at the contoversies article than here. But policy requires a summary here. What part of my explanation is not understood? Andyvphil 06:46, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * "But policy requires a summary here." What policy?  Bytebear 20:48, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Quoting self (above): Please review WP:POVFORK, particularly the bit about a summary of the content of the child article being mandatory in the parent. Andyvphil 21:51, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * And what is the child article? Controversies?  So do we need to summarize every controvery?  No, we don't.  Or is there some other article detailing this issue that I am unaware of. Bytebear 22:10, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Mere assertion is not a response to quoted policy. Yes, FNCC was spun out from FNC. Quoting self, again: The "scrubbing" allegation is sui generis and does not fall under any of the other controvery categories and deserves a short, NPOV, reliably-sourced separate mention here. Andyvphil 22:17, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The policy is in fact a guideline (subtle difference), and it does not require that every aspect of the sub article have a summary in the main article. The article is about controversies, three of which are summarized in the main article. The notability and amount of information about the Wikipedia editing controversy is not such that it requires a section in both articles. It is a minor occurrence which takes place on a daily basis. The sub article receives a summary in the main article, but the main article is not required to summarize every point of the sub article. To do so would defeat the point. - auburn pilot   talk  22:18, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * You note an edit conflict -- perhaps you wrote this before I added the second self-quote. I'm not saying every point need be summarized, merely every category. The difference between policy and guideline is too subtle to be relevant here. Andyvphil 22:30, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * This is a long disputed issue, and not just on this article. Adding a summary of every controversy allows for bloat and updates that expand the summary. In my opinion it is a bad idea.  I personally think a single link to the other article in the "See Also" section on any article with a controversy page.  I really wish it could become a guideline, in fact.  As to this particlular issue, I don't think it warrents any space on wikipedia, at least not on a specific "violator's page", but a mention in an article about the controverises with editing Wikipedia in general would be acceptable. Bytebear 22:51, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * As usual,I strongly agree with Bytebear. Many editors of opposing views have worked very hard to streamline the 'controversies' section and ensure that not every little Fox News criticism/controversy gets slapped onto this article as soon as it breaks. Letting the Wikidgame stuff through sets a very bad precedent imo and will just lead us back to the continuous edit-warring that took place no farther than two or three months back :) Edders 01:29, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I concur as well. Arzel 23:24, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Ratings
Anyone have a source for Fox's latest ratings? The latest only go up to August 2006 :P Edders 11:51, 16 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I was actually digging around for these last week. All I could ever get were the top 10 shows from nielson.  Anyone with more experience in finding such info wanna give some assistance?  /Blaxthos 03:31, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Page protected
I've fully protected the page for 1 week in response to a request at WP:RFPP, given that there seems to be a minor edit war in progress. It sounds like the issues can be sorted out on the talk page. If consensus is reached before the 1 week is up, feel free to leave a message at WP:RFPP and it can be un-protected early. As always, protection was applied without regard to the current state of the article and does not endorse this version as the "right" version. MastCell Talk 18:40, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Even more coverage
From the current signpost: "An article in Information Week added mention of edits by Fox News" This story has legs, and certainly we now have any reliable source concerns met. Scrubbing it completely is borderline dishonest, IMHO, and certainly doesn't serve the interests of the encyclopedia. /Blaxthos 05:37, 22 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually the Signpost article mentions a LOT of coverage of the Fox edits: by Information Week, The Guardian, the Huffington Post, Wonkette, Crooks and Liars, MSNBC Countdown and Fox News(!). Andyvphil 09:04, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Not notable, The article says "The Fox News link reveals, for example, that... ".  It is only using Fox as an example, and not the source of the issue.  Bytebear 19:26, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm new so you will have to forgive me if I'm just not seeing something but I have been reading up on reliable sources lately I can't find anything that states the subject (in this case FNC) has to be the "source of the issue"... especially in a situation like this where the source seems to be diluted among a number of different people/orginizations. Clearly if FNC is listed it shows they were involved (according to the article). Could you please specifically point out to me where I can find that an article has to be about the particular person/orginization versus mentioning them in relation to the topic to be concidered reliable?  Thank you.  Supernathan 20:50, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * As far as anyone can tell, there is no such policy or requirement... in fact, the last time we pressed for specific examples the claimant started backtracking off such claims. Good eye.  /Blaxthos 22:51, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Trying to keep the peace is not bactracking. I still feel strongly that no controcersies should exist on this page, and I still think this infomration is immaterial to Fox News Channel specifically.  Do you honestly intend to go to every corporation article and add this information regarding them as well?  Bytebear 23:33, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Trying to keep the peace? You tried to assert that someone had violated WP:UNDUE.  When called on it and asked for specific verbiage in policy you said "Well, maybe it's not...in the strict sense".  Come on, man.  Also, whether other articles include mention of controversial edits or not, it wouldn't change the fact that someone at Fox News did do it.  Is a murder less significant because there are other people who are murdered?  Is a stolen car not noteworthy if there are hundreds of other auto thefts?  That argument holds no water -- "let's not include it because other companies did it too".  I call bullshit.  /Blaxthos 23:57, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keeping controversies out of this article is done because there is a controversies article, and you don't need all the information in both places. I have found with controversial topics, adding even one summary of a controvery opens the door for bloat, and I am against bloat.  A policy is not LAW and I can interpret the concept of "undue weight" anyway I damned well please.  It is undue weight to say that "Oprah Winfrey" employees were caught jaywalking, because there was a story about excessive jaywalking in Chicago.  You see, I equate editing Wikipedia with about the seriousness of jaywalking (in fact it is less, because jaywalking is actually a crime).  You, apparently, think it is akin to murder. Bytebear 00:39, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * As long as you don't expect the rest of us to subscribe to what you believe to be true... one, that's about as far from WP:UNDUE as you can get. As explained before, WP:UNDUE says that no one particular viewpoint should be presented with undue weight (not anything about what you're trying to assert).  Also, if the article mentioned Oprah employees jawalking specifically, then it's certainly appropriate to use the article as a source (as it SPECIFICALLY mentions the subject!).  Do you get any of this from policy, or is it just what you feel should be?  Also, please lay off the ad hominem attacks -- they certainly don't make your position any more valid.  /Blaxthos 00:44, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Not if it mentions them as an example of a larger group. Say the article says "Jenny, an employee of Oprah was caught".  How are Jenny's actions reflective on Oprah?  Even if Jenny was late for work, or using Oprah's car in a handicapped space, it still isn't an issue with Oprah.  It has no bearing on Oprah at all. Bytebear 00:48, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The issue is simple. thousands of company employees edit Wikipedia every day.  Why single out Fox? That is giving undue weight to Fox and ignoring the rest. Are you fighting to add it to Microsoft or AT&T or CIA? Bytebear 00:49, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * So you're using the "what about article foo" argument? I think that has been shown to be irrelevant.  Fox was singled out in reliable sources.  Also, where exactly are you getting this from policy?  Done and done.  /Blaxthos 00:57, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * No it isn't irrelivant. You are arguing that somehow Fox is more wrong than these other companies, that they do not merit such attention but Fox does.  That is POV, plain and simple. Bytebear 00:59, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Where is this rule that says "if a reliable source mentions more than one entity it can't be used" ? Please, explain.  /Blaxthos 01:00, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Because other reliable sources name other companies, like the CIA and Microsoft, along with thousands of others. If a source singled out FOX alone and said it was more culpible then that source would be POV and not reliable.  But a truly reliable source would put no emphasis on FOX, but you still choose to emphasize Fox over all other companies. and that makes you and this issue POV. Bytebear 01:02, 24 August 2007 (UTC)


 * One should also not forget that self reference to WP is to be avoided, and there is no proof that FOX employees actually made the edits. There is a great deal of circumstantial evidence, but this is simply not notable for FNC or any of the other companies.  If it were not for Wikipedia this controversy would not even exist.  As for the sources, most of them are from sites that already have shown a dislike of FNC, and can hardly be considered neutral.  This is simply an attack job on FNC, and as Bytebear has stated undue weight regardless of how presented.  I still don't think it should even be included in the controversies sub-page.  Arzel 04:03, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Alright I just want to state up front that I am not trying to create animosity but I have been watching you guys squabble for a while now and it has gotten exactly nothing done. All I am asking for is verification of policy from the person who brought it up in the first place. I am not asking this question (and possible questions in the future) to create yet another reason to bicker but to try to bring the neutral tone to both the article itself and to this talk page for that matter. Things like ...I call bullshit. and ...anyway I damned well please are completely useless to me and Wikipedia and just cause the discussion to implode on itself.

Having said that I am going to state my question again and I would like Bytebear to respond if he doesn't mind. I am asking you to show me in the NPOV, NPOV tutorial, or similar source where it is stated that an article can't include multiple sources. From what I have read (so far) I can find no such statement and it is frustrating that this would stop process on the article. The argument I have heard so far is from you is not so much in favor of leaving the controversy out but creating some sort of system where it would be listed in each and every article that was affected (accompanied by a verifiable source). I also want to say that (from what I understand) undue weight along with a number of different issues aren't infinitely subjective, there has to be some sort of rational agreement made on a definition. As a friend of mine put it "Two people can't have a discussion about an orchard until they agree on the definition of an apple."

I hope everyone sees that this (along with anything else I write) is written in a civil tone and I would appreciate if you kept the same civil tone when responding. Thank you. Supernathan 04:24, 24 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree, and I too request Bytebear to show us any policy, guideline, or tutorial that supports his argument. /Blaxthos 06:49, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I am all for taking this to arbitration if you want. But, unless you are willing to go to every company page and fight as fiercely as you have here, you are pushing POV, and that is against Wikipedia policy.  Bytebear 16:16, 24 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Are you talking to me Bytebear? Because that doesn't at all adress my question. I am still trying to clear something up from a few days ago before I feel comfortable moving on.  This is not a me versus you thing I am just trying to get some clarification as a new user.  Also while I am not trying to attack you (at all) I feel that the responsibility would rest on the individuals who edit each article to decide if this issue is appropriate or not.  From what I understand just because I correct a spelling mistake (or anything, let us please not get bogged down with my crappy analogy) on one page doesn't make it my responsibily to fix every spelling mistake/whatever with every page on the site. First things first though... do you feel that this is a reliable source or not?  It is a separate issue than deciding if it should be included or not.  Thanks again. Supernathan 17:08, 24 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The burden of evidence lies with the editor who wishes to add this material, not Bytebear. (please note that I am NOT taking a position on the reliability of the sources.) Ramsquire (throw me a line) 17:23, 24 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I would like to request a clarification if I could. While I absolutely understand and agree with the idea that the burden of proof should be on whoever is requesting the update has there been any presidence on WP of a single editor being responsible for updating multiple articles (as a matter of policy v. personal choice). For example I decide that I want to update the Cleveland, OH article about a statewide blackout that happened on a particular date is it also my responsibility to update the Columbus, Cincinnati, Toledo, etc. pages as well? Supernathan 18:04, 24 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Clearly not. What I believe Bytebear is saying is that the editors who want to add this to the Foxnews article don't seem to have the same enthusiasm to add it to the articles of other companies mentioned in the sources.  To him, that is evidence that it is POV driving this fight not a desire to improve the article.  Personally, I see his point (if that is in fact his point), but we should comment on the content not on motives of other editors.  As it stands, I think this information is trivial, not worthy of mention in the article, and is the kind of thing that embarrasses Wikipedia's standing as an encyclopedia.  However, since it is reliably sourced, without a consensus to keep it out, then it can be included (although it probably shouldn't be). Ramsquire (throw me a line) 20:48, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * You are interpreting me correctly, but it is more than just the POV of the editors that makes this unacceptable for the article. The sources are reporting on a phenomenon affecting Wikipedia.  The phenonmenon only tangentially realtes to Fox News.  Those who have found references, have had to hunt and peck to find ones that uses Fox News as an "example" of the phenomenon.  Fox is not directly realted to the phenomenon itself.  Other sources reference Microsoft, CNN, CIA, etc.  How many other companies are not referenced at all?  Hundreds?  Thousands?  How can we possibly include this information in their pages if we have no references.  Fox is a target, and as such the example of using Fox is more likely than say "Barry Bonds" editing his own page, so why are we giving something so much focus of Fox News, when it is just luck (with some POV prodding) that Fox News is even mentioned in any of the references?  I think we need to work toward a consensus to remove it from this page, as well as the controversies page.  It just doesn't belong in either. Bytebear 22:12, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Ramsquire, wouldn't this also violate WP:SELF under http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:SELF#Articles_are_about_their_subjects ? Inclusion of the WP edits is in essence discussing the WP article and not the subject.  I have other problems with it's inclusion, but this seems to be the most straightforward way of avoiding something as trivial as this.  Arzel 22:50, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Arbitrary Break in Wikipedias Edits debate

 * (a) WP:SELF allows this kind of reference to Wikipedia. Note the Colbert example.
 * (b) Arb doesn't do content disputes. You could try a RfC.
 * (c) Fox is not just one of hundreds of organizations. Justifiably or not it is one of the companies most prominently mentioned in the coverage. E.g., look at the Signpost article.
 * (d) This article is on my watchlist. The CIA article, etc., is not. I am not obliged to edit articles all over Wikipedia in order to demonstrate my good faith addition of the material here.
 * (e) It is the obligation of the editor who inserted the material to enable it to be verified. By inserting it he can be assumed to assert notability. It is not his obligation to eestablish a consensus for inserting it. Neither inclusion nor exclusion has a greater burden to establish consensus. Andyvphil 23:25, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * (a) I don't interpret the Colbert example that way. That is a specific example where SC was commenting on a specific WP article.  SC made the item notable, not WP.  In this instance it is notable only within the context of WP.  If there were not an article on FNC, then there would be no news relating to the editing of the FNC article.  If there were not an article on SC it might still be news because SC was commenting on a different aspect outside of WP.
 * (b) I thought this was a RfC.
 * (c) The mainstream news (of which there are very few) to mention this, do not single out FNC. It is more of a general story relating to the ability to identify anoynomous IP addresses, with the exception of sources that are already critical of FNC, which can hardly be viewed as RS in this instance.
 * (d) No, you are not, but it does raise a question why those interested in putting it in here are so determined in having it included.
 * (e) I think you have it backward. Arzel 23:46, 24 August 2007 (UTC)


 * (a) The newsweek Information Week article is a reliable source. WP:SELF has demonstratably allowed said reference.
 * (b) Please learn how Wikipedia works before threatening "arbitration" and other adversarial procedures.
 * (c) On- and off-wikipedia media has mentioned the FNC example specifically.
 * (d) What happens on other articles is not relevant to the debate here. ("What about article foo" argument).  Beyond that (and more disturbing to me) is that both Bytebear and Arzel seem to want to use an editor's conduct ("motives") to evaluate content.  That seems like a serious violation of WP:AGF and WP:NPA.  Who cares what Andy (or I) do or don't do for CIA or IBM -- we've given plenty of examples for inclusion within wikipedia policies.  All the arguments for exclusion seem to either be based on a nebulous argument without any specific policy or precident ("undue"); or mis-applying actual policy ("notability") (or both).  Information is both verifaible and reliably sourced.
 * (e) Arzel, verification necessarily has to be done by a second party. You don't verify your own work.  /Blaxthos 00:20, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * (a1) What Newsweek article? I was only able to find a story put together my a Newsweek senior editor for Olberman's Countown.  Olberman is demonstratedly anti-FNC.
 * (a2) How so?
 * (b) I am not threatening anything.
 * (c) Only those specifically targeting FNC.
 * (d) The only motives I specifically question are when editors make conflicting edits within a similar frame of reference.
 * (e) Not quite what I was getting at. More along the lines that it is up the includer to demonstate relevance. Arzel 00:47, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * (a) Sorry, I misspoke. I meant an article in Information Week.
 * (b) Sorry, someone threatened arbitration (which doesn't even deal with content disputes).
 * (c) "Specifically targetting FNC" - Notable companies with the most egregious violations were mentioned by reliable sources both on Wikipedia and off (Signpost, MSNBC, Information Week, etc etc etc).
 * (d) There are rules specifically against discussing motives vs. content. How many times do we have to tell you to stick to the merits of the argument?  Also, please stop wikistalkiing and comparing edit times and other silliness --  See WP:NPA and WP:AGF, Arzel!
 * (e) Relevance 1 a : relation to the matter at hand.  I believe all the information presented has related (mentioned) FNC specifically.  It's relevant!  Maybe you mean notable, but as we've explained before, WP:N applies to the creation of articles, not to the content therein.  Hope this helps.  /Blaxthos 01:13, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The Information Weekly article only mentions Fox News as an example. They could have just as easily used Microsoft, the CIA or Ford. It should hold no more weight than any other compnay.  There is no evidence that the examples were given because they were "the most egregious".  That would be WP:OR to assume that.  Bytebear 04:47, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict)
 * (a) I've read that article, it is not FNC specific.
 * (b) Resolved.
 * (c) As I stated earlier, those that mention FNC specifically, are already noted for their anti FNC stance. Still waiting to see third party sources that are not already biased.
 * (d) I take serious exception to this. Accusations of wikistalking are a serious matter.  Explain yourself.  Also, what personal attacks?
 * (e) Perhaps you should also read WP:NOT. Regardless you have yet to show it doesn't violate WP:SELF or WP:UNDUE within this article.  It is already mentioned in the controversies subpage, and it is certainly not nearly as notable as everything within that article that is not completely summarized here.  I know you like to comment often about notability relating to only the article, but that is simply hiding behind verbage.  Not everything that gets press by some entity is worthy of inclusion WP:NOT there must be some modicum of what is really relevant and worthy of an encylopedia, and in the grand scheme of things this is simply not important.  As I have stated before, if not for WP this would not even be an issue WP:SELF, "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, so our articles are about their subjects; they are not about the articles themselves".  As Ramsquire stated, this should reside within the article about Wikiscanner, and it currently does.  Arzel 04:53, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Let me see if I can address these point by point:
 * (a) I've read that article, it is not FNC specific.
 * What did you read, exactly? Here's what I saw:
 * The Fox News link reveals, for example, that Oct. 11, 2005, someone at an IP address associated with Fox News (12.167.224.228) edited Fox News anchor Shepard Smith's Wikipedia entry to remove a paragraph about Smith's 2000 arrest "for aggravated battery with a motor vehicle." -- Information Week article
 * Also
 * "An article in Information Week added mention of edits by Fox News, cleaning up embarrassing information about anchor Shepard Smith. -- Our own Signpost"
 * Both articles are very specific, even mentioning what content was scrubbed (and why it's significant). Of course, the Signpost shouldn't be used as an article source, but it goes a long way towards pointing out that this is more than a "minor" even that should be glossed over.
 * (c) those that mention FNC specifically, are already noted for their anti FNC stance. Still waiting to see third party sources that are not already biased.
 * Signpost is biased, or Information Week? I am not aware of either organization being "noted for their anti-FNC stance."  You can't cherry pick sources based on you liking what they have to say... See WP:RS.
 * (d) Accusations of wikistalking are a serious matter. Explain yourself. Also, what personal attacks?
 * If you're chasing around editors from article to article, especially trying to evaluate their actions based on timestamps and other tomfoolery, then that is wikistalking. If you're trying to evaluate the merit of one's edits based on what they do on other articles, that is a violation of WP:NPA (besides being just plain wrong).  Look, argue based on the merits instead of trying to "evaluate editors' motives".  I don't see how anyone can make that any more clear.  I know I'm the third or fourth editor who has said that to you in the last month or so.
 * (e) As Ramsquire stated, this should reside within the article about Wikiscanner, and it currently does.
 * Actually, what Ramsquire finally said was:
 * "However, since it is reliably sourced, without a consensus to keep it out, then it can be included (although it probably shouldn't be)."
 * There is definitely not a consensus to keep it out, nor has any policy been quoted that (properly) merits preclusion. I've heard a few arguments about WP:UNDUE and the like, but upon direct questioning for where exactly you're getting all this from, you guys have nothing to say (other than the backtracking mentioned earlier).  I couldn't even follow the WP:SELF rant above, but I think it's moot since the signpost article was used here to show significance, not suggested as a reliable source.  I have absolutely no clue what the WP:NOT stuff was about, but if you're trying to use WP:NOT to exclude content like this then you're really stretching.  Hope this helps.  /Blaxthos 10:25, 25 August 2007 (UTC)


 * (a)Arzel's response, if I can make any sense out of it, misses the point. Which is: The guideline does not mean that you should avoid mentioning Wikipedia! It means (i) articles should be written in a way that does not indicate or assume that they are being read on Wikipedia's website or indeed on any website, and (ii) that articles should not assume their audience has any unusual interest in Wikipedia. Mentioning Wikipedia in the context of Colbert's advocating vandalism of a Wikipedia article is to be considered for mention in exactly the same way you would consider mentioning the New York Public Library if his eponymous character had advocated stealing NYPL's books. I should have mentioned the Siegenthaler example as well, as that is an even more exact parallel. WP:SELF says mentioning Wikipedia in Siegenthaler's article is required "because the media attention surrounding his Wikipedia entry is now a notable event in his public life". If the media attention surrounding the editing of Wikipedia entries from FOX ip addresses is a notable event in FOX's public life then it is perfectly appropriate to mention Wikipedia in this article. You can say it is not notable, but you can't say WP:SELF has any bearing.
 * (b) Bytebear said "I am all for taking this to arbitration if you want." The ArbCom doesn't do content disputes. No, Arzel, this discussion is not an RfC, it's just a discussion. The RfC would be a posting at WP:RFC/P asking for outside participation in this discussion.
 * (c) Actually, I think it was WikiScanner that first targeted Fox News. You can search for any organization by name, but the jump page has some suggestions down the right side, and Fox News was at or near the top when I first looked at that page (it has since moved down in the list a bit, but was still there the last time I looked). The anti-FOX sites ran with it, but IW and the Guardian also mentioned Fox News prominently. Is there any other organization that gets as many mentions in the Signpost summary of the coverage as Fox?
 * (d) I'm determined to have it included because the arguments against including it are so bad and transparently motivated by a misplaced desire to defend Fox. Anyone who encounters mention of this controversy should be able to come here for a brief, NPOV treatment of it.
 * (e) The story is obviously relevant, well-sourced, and a current event. It's long term importance is dubious, but there is really no excuse for being so determined to keep any mention of it out of this article right now. Andyvphil 11:39, 25 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Responding to both editors.


 * (a) The title for the signpost article is "Wikipedia Spin Doctors Revealed" with a lead of "A new Web service searches the change logs of 35 million Wikipedia edits and attempts to identify the organization associated with the IP addresses recorded with changes." That article is about Wikiscanner, it is not FOX centric.
 * This is neither here nor there because this is a self-reference issue. The Siegenthaler article is not even close to the same thing.  The fact is that the edit issue is about WP, and affects multiple entities, it is NOT about FOX or any other entity, to indicate as much is undue weight.
 * These edits are already mentioned in context within the Wikiscanner article, which is where they should remain.
 * (b) Sorry regarding RfC, thought it was mentioned in this instance.
 * (c) Thus far the only articles which make an issue regarding edits by FOX are biased reports. There has yet to be a single mainstream article which focuses on FOX, they have been all stories about the Wikiscanner.  I never said the signpost was biased, but the articles are not FNC centric.
 * As for Wikiscanner targeting FNC, well that would only provide more evidence that this is a targeted manufactured controversy, and has no place in an encyclopedia.
 * (d) Andyphil, that is not a good reason to include this. Given your predisposition, I am not sure how you could have a neutral POV regarding this issue.
 * (d) Blaxthos, What are you talking about? I have not "followed" anyone to any article that would allow you to make such an accusation, I am not checking timestamps (for what purpose even?).  My comment I made was a general comment that I have run into accross independent articles, not specific to anyone.  You accuse me of several things, and at the same time tell me not to attack, sounds a little like WP:POT.  I am giving you an opportunity to appologize for you baseless accusations.  If you have some proof, point it out.
 * (e) 1. There is no concensus to include it at this time.
 * (e) 2. While there are RS that mention FNC, there are no RS, to my knowledge, that are about FNC.  They have been about wikiscanner.
 * (e) 3. Even if there were RS to use WP is not an encyclopedia of everything, inclusion of meterial must be in accordance of it's relevance to the article.  While this may be notable by the strict interpretation of some, it still doesn't warrent inclusion in the primary article because it is simply not that big of a deal.  It is not unique to FNC, and there hasn't been any continuing coverage relating to FNC because even the edits made were fairly innoculous.
 * (e) 4. Even if 1, 2 and 3 were not true, the material already exists on the controveries subpage, and there is no place it here when we have worked hard to streamline the controveries section within the main article to specifically mention the main issues.
 * (e) 5. Regardless of your feelings about WP:SELF the fact is that this is about Wikipedia, it is not about FNC.
 * (e) 6. According to the author of the tool himself, there is no way to know for sure that the edits were even made by an employee of FNC, and if nothing else this should be removed because of this supposition, alluding to a fact by which noone can prove.
 * (e) (Ramquire) Blaxthos, actually he said both.
 * (Note) If in the future someone at FNC or any other entity is identified as making edits on the behalf of their organization then I wholeheartedly agree that this would be a huge issue worthy of inclusion (like the Siegenthaler issue). Arzel 16:43, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I did say both. My personal preference is to have this go into the Wikiscanner article, since the technology is the true subject of the story, not the CIA, Foxnews or Microsoft. However, since I don't enjoy banging my head against a wall, and there is no policy explicitly banning this info from the article, and there is no consensus to have it removed I'm willing to let it go. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 16:12, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Another arbitrary break
Where exactly are you finding this policy or guideline that says a source must specifically be ABOUT Fox News to qualify as reliable? A source that is ABOUT WP:COI wikipedia edits that SPECIFICALLY mentions Fox News qualifies. No amount of spin from you will change that. If you have an actual policy that supports your supposition, list it now or please stop speaking it as gospel. You can't just make up rules, dude.

Likewise, what policy or guideline are you using to determine that it's "not that big of a deal" and "fairly innoculous"? Obviously there are many of us to believe it is, so far as to have countless blogs (which go towards the "big deal", not to be used as a reliable source), the Wikipedia signpost specifically mentions it (would it be mentioned there if it was "not that big of a deal?"), and a national print publication. We have reliable sources (and unbiased ones -- no one has claimed Information Week to be biased except you, and only because you don't like the content of their article), and it is not up to us to justify to you why it should be included. Even Ramsquire said so. Again, quote a policy to back up your claim, or back off your claim. /Blaxthos 17:20, 25 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I never said Information Week was biased, I said it wasn't specificaly about FOX. Here is a listing of the top google searches on "Wikiscanner" and "Wiki Scanner", tell me how many even mention FOX in their story.  I left out obvious blogs and links back to WP, there may still be a few blogs or unreliable sources though.

http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2007/08/16/tech-wikiscanner070816.html?ref=rss http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2007/08/15/ap4023544.html http://www.newsfactor.com/story.xhtml?story_id=54656 http://news.independent.co.uk/sci_tech/article2874112.ece http://www.marketingvox.com/archives/2007/08/16/wikiscanner-is-wikipedia-a-propaganda-tool/ http://www.linuxinsider.com/story/59010.html http://abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/08/16/2006343.htm http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/16/AR2007081601727.html http://www.wired.com/politics/onlinerights/news/2007/08/wiki_tracker http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,22259259-2,00.html http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=12823729 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/6947532.stm http://www.computerworld.com/blogs/node/6052 http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2007/aug/15/wikipedia.corporateaccountability http://www.shacknews.com/onearticle.x/48482
 * As for the signpost, what difference does it make which sources they use? From what I have seen FNC is a very minor incident within the large scheme.  This is just a minor issue though, there are several issues which I stated why it should not belong.  I have already listed the actual policies many times, why not try to address them as to why I am wrong.
 * Are you going to address your accusations against me or should I just assume that you have no evidence and you are trying to shift the focus from the issue to me? Arzel 18:47, 25 August 2007 (UTC)


 * How come I've got to point out your direct contradictions every time you post a reply?
 * "As I stated earlier, those that mention FNC specifically, are already noted for their anti FNC stance. Still waiting to see third party sources that are not already biased." (Arzel, 04:53, 25 August 2007)
 * "I never said Information Week was biased" (Arzel, 18:47, 25 August 2007)
 * Which is it??
 * Also, we're still waiting on some policy or guideline that you're using to make the evaluation that it's "not that big of a deal" and "fairly innoculous"? The signpost, the blogs, the editors on this page (a good number of them), and the InfoWeek article all show that (1) it is a big deal, and (2) it's not so "innoculous".
 * And finally, what policy states that a source must be "about" the subject? Where are you getting this?  By your logic, we can't use an article about the entire presidential election in an article about, say, Hillary Clinton.  That's absurd -- if the source is reliable (it is) and mentions specific actionable information about the subject (it does), then it meets the requirements for sourcing.  For the last time, show a policy or guideline that supports your claim that a source must be "specificaly about FOX".  /Blaxthos 19:32, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I can see how this might be mis-interpreted, but I have stated several times that the IW article is not FNC specific, quit obfuscating the issue. Arzel 20:37, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I've already stated that it is WP:UNDUE WP:NPOV and WP:SELF. Until you address your malicious accusations I am through debating with you.  Arzel 20:37, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Can you quote from the policies that support your argument? To summarize:
 * WP:UNDUE is a subsection of WP:NPOV that says no one viewpoint should be represented with undue weight within an article. For example, don't give too much weight to either side of a debate within, say, an evolution article, and minority views shouldn't be given as much or more weight as generally accepted ones.  Has nothing to do with "sources that aren't specifically about Fox".
 * WP:NPOV says that viewpoints must be presented from a neutral point of view -- not favoring one over the other.
 * WP:SELF has to do with self references. The only source given that references Wikipedia is (1) provided as an indication that this is not "innoculous" and "not that big of a deal"; and (2) not presented as an actual source for the article.
 * Now, if you want to try and duck the merits of my arguments by claiming that I've made "malicious accusations" then you're welcome to point out policy specifics to any of the other (multiple) editors taht have requested exact language within policies.
 * And finally, allow me to once again clarify your backtracking and outright contradictions:
 * "I have stated several times that the IW article is not FNC specific" (Arzel, 20:37, 25 August 2007)
 * The Fox News link reveals, for example, that Oct. 11, 2005, someone at an IP address associated with Fox News (12.167.224.228) edited Fox News anchor Shepard Smith's Wikipedia entry to remove a paragraph about Smith's 2000 arrest "for aggravated battery with a motor vehicle." -- Information Week article
 * How is this not specific? How can it be any less specific?  It SPECIFICALLY mentions Fox News IPs, the DATE, and the CONTENT THAT WAS REMOVED!  Is it not specific, or is it biased?  Or maybe unreliable?  At this point, I would like to direct you to WP:PS.
 * For editors that might be following along silently, please voice your thoughts at this point. I feel like continuing with Arzel will continue to deteriorate into ad hominem attacks, willful ignorance, and making up of policies (history will repeat itself).  Do we need to call an RFC on this, or can someone actually quote an applicable policy that demands exclusion?  So far NO one has shown an actual reason to exclude (with policy examples).  "I don't like it" or "I don't think it's a big deal" is simply not going to cut it.  /Blaxthos 21:08, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * For the record, Blaxthos has accused me of Stalking with no evidence, and has repetedly attacked my comments even though I have clarified my statement, and now accuses me of ad hom attacks. Arzel 03:18, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Here is another reference to the Wikipedia editing. Slate: Wikipedia Unmasked. Guess what, no Fox News. This and other stories are examples that Fox News is not pivotal to the situation.  Fox isn't the story.Bytebear 00:37, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * "Pivotal to the situation" -- Just because you can find articles that address Wikiscanner without mentioning FNC directly is no rationale for excluding the information here. The "situation" isn't Wikiscanner, the situation is that reliable sources have mentioned FNC directly.  Despite if you think it's a big deal or not, obviously some people do -- FNC has been mentioned directly in national print and broadcast media, and even in our own newsletter!  Is it reliably sourced?  Yup!  Is it verifiable?  Yup!  Is there any question that it didn't happen?  Not unless you're calling Wikipedia logs unreliable!  Has it received nationwide coverage in a secondary source?  Yup!  You have no real basis for exclusion except that you don't particularly like the content.  How is that anything but pushing a POV? /Blaxthos 02:43, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * And here's another one: Times: Seeing Corporate Fingerprints in Wikipedia Edits. Begins: "Last year a Wikipedia...paragraph about criticism of SeaWorld’s 'lack of respect toward its orcas' disappeared... An Anheuser-Busch employee eventually took responsibility for the changes to the SeaWorld page — but only after being challenged about them twice by another user. A person identifying himself as Fred Jacobs, communications director for the company’s theme park unit[Anheuser-Busch owns SeaWorld], said on the entry’s 'talk' page that discussion of the ethics of keeping sea creatures captive 'belongs in an article devoted to that subject.'" Just like Bytebear saying it should be mentioned at WikiScanner -- BUT NOT HERE! NEVER HERE! Andyvphil 02:29, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * What are you trying to say? That the two incidents are related?  They are in no way similar.  Arzel 14:15, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikiscanner intentionally created a "minor public relations disaster" for Fox
As for Wikiscanner targeting FNC, well that would only provide more evidence that this is a targeted manufactured controversy, and has no place in an encyclopedia. - Arzel 16:43, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The error in this statement is fundamental, and is precisely what I was taking about when I referred to Arzel's & Bytebear's "misplaced desire to defend FOX" or, earlier, to Bytebear's "confusing controversy with malfeasance". The Monica Lewinsky scandal may have been a "targeted manufactured controversy" but that doesn't mean its wrong that she gets her own article in an encylopedia. Virgil Griffith said he developed WikiScanner "to create minor public relations disasters for companies and organizations I dislike (and) to see what 'interesting organizations' (which I am neutral towards) are up to." I strongly suspect he dislikes Fox News. But his motivations don't matter for the purpose of deciding whether to mention Wikiscanner in this article. All that matters is that he succeeded. Andyvphil 22:26, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * For the record, I am not defending FOX. Arzel 03:49, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Nor are you responding to my point. Andyvphil 04:31, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia Edits Points of issue
Since some editors would rather debate the editor and not the content I am stating my points here. As I have stated earlier, if these edits are shown to be made by or at the direction of specific employees of FNC which resulted in some main stream press and criticism then I agree they would reach the level of a major issue. As it is they are simply too minor to be worthy of inclusion within the main article. Arzel 03:47, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) The Wikipedia Edits violate WP:SELF. The issue regarding wikipedia edits is wikipedia centric and has little to do with the individual organizations.  Wikipedia specifically states that articles should be about the subject, not about wikipedia as it relates to the subject.  There are rare exceptions to the rule when the subject becomes known through edits via wikipedia and there article.
 * 2) Violation of WP:UNDUE. FNC is a minor issue with respeact to the WP edits.  Articles relating to the WP edits are far and away specific to the general tool used to identify IP addresses.  The edits themselves have drawn little national or international attention and are very minor when compared to other controversies involved with FNC.  This is not unique to FNC as hundreds if not thousands of organizations have been identified through the wikiscanner tool.  The actual edits were removed when found and are not even an issue within the actual articles.  There has been little if any actual criticism of FNC regarding this issue with the exception of sites and blogs which are already known to have an issue with FNC.  Within the context of the FNC article, the issue of WP edits plays zero part in their business or operation.
 * 3) Violation of WP:NOT. While the wikiscanner tool is interesting, not everything can or should be included in the article.
 * 4) Violation of WP:NPOV. Regardless of how it is worded, the interpretation is that FNC made these edits, when by the admission of the author of the tool it is impossible to know for certain that an actual employee of FNC made these edits.
 * 5) The WP edits are already within the FNC Controversies subpage. A great deal of work was put into summarizing the existing controversies into a few key issues and subsequent link to the subpage.  To suggest that these edits (which were not illegal, not unique to FNC, not out of the ordinary for most any article on WP) are within the same class as FNC allegations of Bias or the FNC internal memos issue is incredulous.
 * WP:SELF is not applicable. I've already explained this at length.
 * WP:UNDUE is not a guideline about whether to include a subject in an article. It is a guideline about how and to what extent to include different points of view on material already in an article. Blaxthos has already pointed this out.
 * It is hard to discern what part of WP:What_Wikipedia_is_not is alleged to be "violated".
 * The text which is being deleted does not identify any Fox employee as having performed the edits in question. "[T]he interpretation...that FNC made these edits" is in Arzel's imagination. The deleted text is clearly WP:NPOV.
 * Again, please review WP:POVFORK. It is not permissable to scrub this article of material indigestible to Fox partisans by exiling it to another article. Andyvphil 04:52, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I've repeatedly given detailed explainations of the misunderstanding (or mischaracterization) of policy. I've asked (as have several others) many times for specific language instead of nuanced and nebulous ideas of what policy should be... so far I've seen none. I am not going to re-detail every fault endlessly -- read above. /Blaxthos 08:06, 26 August 2007 (UTC)


 * 1 Blaxthos, No you haven't explained it, you have said it doesn't apply
 * Your first and only arguement against WP:SELF - I couldn't even follow the WP:SELF rant above, but I think it's moot since the signpost article was used here to show significance, not suggested as a reliable source. /Blaxthos 10:25, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Why does inclusion on the signpost make it a moot point, this has nothing to do with reliable source issues.
 * Andyvphil, the Colbert and Siegenthaler examples are not even close to the same thing.
 * What you are both refusing or failing to acknowledge is that this exists because of Wikipedia, NOT because of the organization. It is about Wikipedia edits outside of the context of the company.  Wikipedia articles should be about the subject, NOT wikipedia.
 * 2 Both. From WP:UNDUE Undue weight applies to more than just viewpoints. Just as giving undue weight to a viewpoint is not neutral, so is giving undue weight to other verifiable and sourced statements. An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements.  AND 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.
 * We have yet to see a single RS in which the article is specifically about FNC. We only have a couple RS articles which even mention FNC in any capacity.  There are several articles about Wikiscanner, and within the context of those article FNC is a significant minority.
 * 3 Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. In the context of what FNC has done and what their business is, this is extremely minor.  Imagine if you were to include everything single minor thing someone at FNC did.  Hey guess what, John Doe who works at FNC wrote that Olbermann is a jerk and plastered it on every car windsheild in California.  Is this notable, yes, does it have anything to do with FNC other than he happened to work their, no.  If he was told to do it by FNC, then yes.
 * 4 My Bad, I just realized that this is already covered under undue weight, didn't realize they overlaped that much.
 * 5 This does not violate WP:POVFORK. Even if the subject of the new article is controversial, this does not automatically make the new article a POV fork. However, the moved material must be replaced with an NPOV summary of that material. If it is not, then the "spinning out" is really a clear act of POV forking: a new article has been created so that the main article can favor some viewpoints over others.
 * I would be in favor of a simple sentence relating to the WP edit section if it were not such a minor issue, however in the interest of current compromise until a possilble concensus can be reached I will do so. Arzel 14:55, 26 August 2007 (UTC)


 * 1 The Siegenthaler example is an exact parallel. The media attention surrounding the editing of Wikipedia entries from FOX ip addresses is a (slightly) notable event in FOX's public life and the fact that Wikipedia is involved is of no consideration in the decision as to whether to mention it. The kind of self reference discouraged by WP:SELF is not involved here... The edits are not "outside of the context of the company". They were presumably performed on the company's computers by company employees, an obvious inference mentioned by multiple sources. It is false to say the material need be relevant only to Wikipedia OR WikiScanner OR Fox, it can be relevant to all three and mentioned in all three articles.
 * 2 Touche. However, the weight given to the subject in the oft-deleted text is appropriately light. And the second quote has no relevance.
 * 3 You are again confusing controversy with malfeasance. At least two reliable sources, the Signpost, multiple hostile blogs, and WikiScanner's inventor made a point of mentioning Fox's involvement. That Fox did nothing wrong is something the Wikipedia reader should be able to conclude, if true, from Wikipedia's coverage of the controversy. It is not an argument for censoring it from Wikipedia.
 * 5 Indeed, an NPOV summary would mean that no POV fork was occurring. Right now that summary is exactly two sentences long. Andyvphil 00:21, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 1 I really wish you would stop comparing John Seigenthaler, Sr. to this issue. Seigenthaler wrote an op-ed piece for USA Today on how annoynomous users can create libelous articles within WP (which has since been fixed).  This resulted in a significant incident between he and WP from which several article specific to that incident were written.  It is significant within his article because he made it a specific issue.  Although he had a presumably notable past prior to the incident, he had no article.  The incident involving him resulted in his notoriety relating to WP being greater than his previous notoriety, and one could presume that he is now mostly known for that incident.  There is simply no correlation between the two incidents.
 * 2 There is simply no way edits via computers on FNC networks are anywhere near the significance of other issues people have with FOX.
 * 3 I think you are confusing major and minor significance.  From what I can see there is only one RS, Information Week, which even mentions FNC in any capacity.  The Signpost uses that reference.  Blogs are not RS.  Virgil cannot be used because of potential conflict of interest. - Correction, 2 RS (The Guardian) that mention FNC in any capacity.
 * 5 It is still undue weight in context with other controversies, but I will make an attempt to reduce the verbage.  Arzel 03:54, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia Edits
Why is this stuff still in this article? I see no reason to exist at all in any article other than the Wikiscanner article, but at best it should be on the Fox News Channel controversies article. It should be removed, and this debate moved to that page. Seriously, can we close this debate and move it to that page? Bytebear 00:20, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * No. Andyvphil 12:55, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * As Ramsquire and others have pointed out, there is no valid reason to remove it. Given the number of editors who believe it should be included, I don't think it will be just swept under the carpet.  /Blaxthos 01:01, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * It's covered in the other article for one, and it voilates WP:UNDUE and WP:POV by not being addressed in the hundreds of other articles of which Wikiscanner also shows as having the same "controversy". By not addressing those articles it shows both issues are valid. This is on top of the issue that this is not a controversies article.  The entire section should be removed, since it is repeated in another article.  And there is no concensus that is should stay.  Bytebear 01:53, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Several people have said that your vague attempts at using WP:UNDUE as a reason against inclusion is flawed.
 * "'Maybe it isn't undue weight in the strict sense of the term, but it certainly makes it not noteworthy, at least not in this article. -- Bytebear 03:51, 18 August 2007 (UTC)'"
 * In that quote, you're saying that it's not really WP:UNDUE, but you mean that it's not noteworthy? Well, others believe it to be noteworthy, and given your liberal (flawed) interpretation of WP:UNDUE I don't believe your argument is persuasive against removing properly formed and sourced information.  /Blaxthos 02:37, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Why is it noteworthy for Fox News and not all the other companies. Sounds like the story of a child in a school musical who can't get his dance steps right, and the mother says all the children are out of step except her child.  Bytebear 02:46, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The fact that reliable sources (as well as our own signpost) has featured it makes it notable. Beyond that, you the "well other companies did it too" (or even the "but it's not in other companies' articles") argument is not a valid reason for barring inclusion, nor does it make it any less true (or verifiable, for that matter).  /Blaxthos 04:14, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * No reliable source has singled out Fox News Channel, other than to use it as an example of the situation. The "other companies" is perfectly valid.  It goes to motive and POV.  Why are you insisting this article contains this and no other?  That is Undue Weight, which is the issue I was pointing out before.  So many things are wrong with this, and you have nothing to offer as a reason other than it "is not a valid reason."  Why is it not a valid reason?  Why are you not adding this informaiton to 100 other articles also mentioned by sources?  Your POV is showing. Bytebear 04:34, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * You can't decide to evaluate content based on what other edits someone has or has not made. That is an obvious violation of WP:AGF and WP:NPA, and is completely unacceptable.  Also, you haven't given us any specific example of policy, guideline, precedent, tutorial, or other justification for your interpretation of the rules.  /Blaxthos 05:46, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I can point out Undue Weight given to one article over hundreds of others. Why is this article more important than all the others?  You still have not given one valid reason fot this to be included.  I have given at least half a dozen reasons why it does not belong in Wikipedia in genearal, and this article specifically.  Take it to the Fox News Channel controversies article where this debate belongs.  It does not belong here, unless you can find one compelling reason that it does other than "Fox was mentioned". Bytebear 16:25, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * As a side note, has anyone realized that this "issue" has completely died down at this point? I havn't heard anything about it recently. Hell, I probably wouldn't have heard anything about it in the first place if it weren't for online blogs. Edders 16:36, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Again, can you pont out any specific example of policy, guideline, precedent, tutorial, or other justification for your interpretation of the rules? Or is this just something you feel is right?  /Blaxthos 18:03, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Asside from the several I have pointed out that you refuse to address? I want to know why you "feel" it is only important to this article?  You have not addressed that question, and I have asked it continually. Bytebear 18:31, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Several editors don't feel it belong, and don't use Ramsquire to ascribe your point of view. Additionally, the Signpost to which is constently used as a reason for notability is circular logic if I ever saw it, as it is a clear case of sefl-reference. You are in essence referencing Wikipedia as a source as to why this is important on a wikipedia article. Although I strongly feel it does not belong, if it is it must be worded relative to the other controversies (is this even a controversy?) in this article. Furthermore quit using blogs as references for this. You are making a mountain out of a molehill here and it takes away from the credibility of Wikipedia as a whole. Arzel 18:51, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I have stayed out of this for a bit now but I can't believe that the "other companies did it too" argument is still being made. I personally think that if something is mentioned in this article about the "controversy" than it should listed in the CIA article and the Democratic Party article and a number of others... and if I choose to mosey over to those pages and mention that then that is my perogative.  It was already clearly stated that it is not any individual editor's responsiblity to edit multiple pages on a single issue... so please focus on other points.  Supernathan 15:59, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I can;t believe you think this is notable for Fox News Channel because a few references mention Fox News as an example. If it isn't notable for CIA or the hundreds of other companies mentioned (and the thousands not mentioned), then it becomes not notable for Fox News. Why is Fox News singled out?  Why isn't Skippy Peanut Butter Company or Tampax?  The issue is that it is only being mentioned in this article, and as such that goes to POV and Undue Weight, but those are symptoms more than the issue.  It is crucial in this case to look at the sources and ask yourself, were they singling out Fox News Channel over others?  and if so, how?  If not (which is the case) then how is it notable for Fox News Channel?  It is simply not.  Bytebear 17:51, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, Bytebear, but your argument has no basis in policy, and as Supernathan and others have pointed out is not a valid reason for exclusion. Beyond being verifiable via a primary source (Wikilogs), it has been specifically mentioned by multiple secondary sources (with at least one of them meeting criteria set forth in WP:RS).  It happened, it's been reliably sourced, and there is no valid reason for exclusion.  Time to let this one go.  Thanks.  /Blaxthos 18:39, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you need to review the policy WP:Notability. "Significant coverage is more than trivial but less than exclusive." How is the mention of Fox News Channel more than trivial?  They could have just as easily mentioned Crest Toothpaste.  That makes it a trivial example.  Sorry, it does not pass the test. Bytebear 18:44, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Maybe this will help:
 * WP:N is a guideline, not a policy.
 * WP:N applies to the creation of articles, not the content contained therein.
 * WP:NNC (a subset of WP:N) answers this directly: "Notability guidelines give guidance on whether a topic is notable enough to be included in Wikipedia as a separate article, but do not specifically regulate the content of articles, which is governed by other guidelines such as those on using reliable sources and on handling trivia. The particular topics and facts within an article are not each required to meet the standard of the notability guidelines."
 * Thanks! /Blaxthos 18:48, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, it still is not relivant. It is too trivial, and there is no source that indicates that Fox is noteworthing in their actions.  Not to mention that assuming Fox News Channel has anything to do with the edits is WP:OR. There are just too many reasons to leave this out, and not one good reason to keep it in. Bytebear 19:07, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * You say "t has been specifically mentioned by multiple secondary sources", but at the same time it is specifically not been mentioned in several other sources on the same topic. Bytebear 19:37, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Wow, that's really reaching... "we shouldn't include it because it wasn't mentioned in every source" -- do you see the lunacy in that argument? You were flat out wrong on the "policy", but you persist with your reasoning without policy to back up your statement?  That's dogmatism, and it's unacceptable on this project.  As WP:N states, the rules for inclusion are "governed by other guidelines such as those on using reliable sources and on handling trivia".  Now, the information is properly sourced, and it's defintely not "trivia" (as defined by WP:TRIV)... As far as the WP:OR argument goes, no one has said FNC officially (or unofficially) sanctioned the edits... the information in the article plainly states that edits "from IP addresses owned by Fox News", which is verifiable and proper.  Please stop grasping at straws to keep this information out, because there is absolutely no policy or guideline that is even close to warranting exclusion.  /Blaxthos 19:43, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, it is very important. If it were so notable, it would be in every article article about the issue.  It is trivia, and if not, give a compelling argument why it is not.  I have yet to hear you defend even one of your statements.  You have yet to present an argument other than my arguements are wrong.  You are the one avoiding presenting your position.  Convince me that it should be included.  I have reliable sources that (by exclusion) say that Fox News is not noteworthy to the issue.  That is enough for exclusion right there.  The guideline on trivia has nothing to do with this issue.  The guideline on notability however does apply.  The articles that mention Fox News do so in a trivial way.  They choose Fox News arbitrarily.  That makes the mention of Fox News in them trivial.   The other sources that focus on Fox News are not reliable or notable, so they don't count.  Give me one source that mention Fox News in a non-trivial manner.  Bytebear 19:51, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

"Notability guidelines give guidance on whether a topic is notable enough to be included in Wikipedia as a separate article, but do not specifically regulate the content of articles, which is governed by other guidelines such as those on using reliable sources and on handling trivia. The particular topics and facts within an article are not each required to meet the standard of the notability guidelines."

- WP:N

Can this be made any clearer to you? Can you make an argument for exclusion that does not include the concept of "notability", since it clearly and explicitly does not apply? /Blaxthos 20:01, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * You are in voilation of WP:Point by "relying upon the letter of policy as a defence when breaking the spirit of policy," among other things. Bytebear 21:13, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

That makes no sense at all. I can't even comprehend what accusation you're making, much less how it somehow trumps the points we've been trying to convey to you. WP:NNC is directly on point, and your argument as to why it shouldn't apply here is completely baseless. /Blaxthos 00:12, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


 * It makes a lot of sense. As such, it falls under the direct correlation of undue weight where minority views should not be given equal if any weight within an article violating NPOV.  The simple fact is that this is a trival controversy which has been mentioned only twice in reliable sources.  even then it is a mention of example, not an article specifically targeting FNC.  You are continually giving this issue far too much weight in context of the entire article.  I see you not even willing to reduce the summarization to the point of providing weight due to the controversy compared to other controversies relating to FNC.  Finally, why do you feel the need to include within the main article when it already exists pratically verbatem within the controversies article?  Arzel 00:45, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Keith Olbermann
The Wiki Edits were mentioned on Keith Olbermann on August 16th. Also, it got 2000+ diggs. Nrvous82 03:40, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


 * First of all, the reference is bias, because he is a competetor, but having looked at the source, here are some things I noticed. Olbermann does pick on Fox a bit because he was personally targeted by some of the edits, but he also mentions the BBC, the CIA, Exxon and Diebold Voting Machine Company (sp).  Kevin Poulson, the "expert" from Wired Magazine says the "Number of organizations being 'outed' by this is just staggering".  He also said, "[Wired] readers have voted the D-Bold case the most shameful", and then close behind Dow Chemical for Agent Orange and the NSA, along with "many, many others" (He doesn't reference Fox as being particularly egregious.  It should be noted that Olberman accuses Fox for not mentioning themselves in their reporting of the issue, but he also doesn't mention Microsoft or NBC, both of which are on the IP list. Bytebear 05:05, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


 * This obviously can't be used as a secondary source, however it certainly goes to debunking the "not notable" argument, as it's now been broadcast (and Fox significantly singled out) on a national cable network (as well as reliable print sources). Fortunately, the notability argument is moot regarding article content(per WP:NNC).  Who cares what companies were or were not mentioned -- Fox clearly was.  Even the unpersuasive arguments now have nothing upon which to stand.  /Blaxthos 05:41, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Did you read the two statements also made in that report. The number of organizations is stagering, and there are "many, many others" that are more notable than Fox News.  This source is working against your argument, not for it. Bytebear 05:54, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Over one minute of a six minute segment was dedicated strictly to Fox News. They were identified, and even the subject of on-screen graphics.  Other companies were identified, but none to the extent of Fox News.
 * Other reliable sources have also specifically mentioned the edits from Fox IP's.
 * Notability is moot -- please go read WP:NNC.
 * /Blaxthos 06:42, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * because the source is bias against Fox News (note the "expert" only mentions Fox in passing, and points to other companies as "shameful").
 * still other reliable sources do not mention Fox News at all.
 * violation of WP:Point by "relying upon the letter of policy as a defence when breaking the spirit of policy."
 * Bytebear 06:57, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Bytebear, where do you get the idea that since there are other sources that don't specifically mention Fox News we can't mention it here? Also, can you please explain what the "spirit" of this guideline is, and why you feel that the letter of the guideline (which explicitly addresses this situation) should be ignored?  From what I'm able to decipher, you're basically saying I know the notability guideline says it doesn't cover article content, but it should in this case -- where is that coming from?  That might help move things along.  Thanks.  /Blaxthos 07:02, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * You do not have a single reliable source that points to Fox News directly as a source of the issue. The closest you have is a reference to Fox News as an "example" of the issue.   This makes it not notable for Fox News. It is just as notable for any of the other 1000 companies associated with the issue.  You are adding Undue Weight to Fox News by singling out Fox News as the only article worthy of mention.  What's funny is that Diebold, the number one offender has a much smaller and NPOV sentence on the issue than this article (and the controversy article).  I also think it is more noteworhy for that article because Wired did vote it the number 1 offender.  No mention of Fox News there though.  Bytebear 07:16, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:NNC - Again, can you please explain why we should ignore explicit guidelines? What is the "spirit" of the policy, and what makes you think we should ignore it?  Do you have any policy or precedent?  /Blaxthos 07:34, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Because Wikipedia's #1 rule is "Ignore all rules". The sources do not specify Fox News in any capacity other than an example of the issue.  They are not the issue.  That should be enough, but you claim the sources say more.  Please explain.  You have a tendency to force me to clarify my position, which I have done countless times, but I have yet to hear one argument for your position.  What is your reasoning for inclusion?  Be specific. Bytebear 07:43, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * So the only justification you have is WP:IAR? That's usually the last resort of those who have no other justification to give, and rarely is it a situation worthy of WP:IAR.  /Blaxthos 07:48, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Blaxthos, are you going to provide your reasoning or not? Also, why do you insist on including blogs for sources? Arzel 14:13, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Protected again
Why is this necessary. The stuff about Fox editing articles is not worth mentioning. All the text says right now is that Fox News computers "made edits". How is that newsworthy? They could have been correcting the article or improving it for all we know. Weatherman90 23:51, 3 September 2007 (UTC)


 * At first glance, I was ready to take the minority stance and support weatherman and blaxthos here, in that simply making edits to wikipedia, regardless of who you are, is not, in itself, notable, save exceptional circumstances. Edits found via wikiscanner are often minor improvements, like fixing punctuation, spelling, or grammer.  People working at Fox News having simply "made edits" is not newsworthy.


 * However, upon reading the disputed text and following the citations, I see that the disputed text says more than that fox news simply "made edits". It mentions what pages where edited, showing a selection of articles wherein there is clearly a potential conflict-of-interest.  (Though I don't know if this is a representative sample of arti
 * I'm not going to check into the veracity of that list, all I have to say is that wikipedia is not a democracy. The winning arguments win - and you guys need to come up with some new arguments instead of repeating the same tired old arguments that have already been refuted.  And other people have pointed out that they have been refuted,cles edited by fox news IPs, or statistically significant, I assume good faith on the part of the editors.)  Some of the citations detail the edits that were made, and those changes were clearly controversial and in the interests of fox news, while not neccessarily being in wikipedia's interests (read: the reader's interest).  I believe this is notable, though the brief paragraph didn't make it clear to me why it was notable, just as it didn't make it clear to weatherman.  Maybe it should be expanded to show why it's notable? Kevin Baastalk 01:56, 4 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I noticed the comparison with the Diebold article. And the mention that it's just one sentence.  This article is just two sentences.  I don't see that as a substantial difference.  Diebold's one sentence reads: "In August 2007, Wikipedia Scanner found that edits via the company's IP addresses occurred to Diebold's Wikipedia article, removing criticisms of the company's products, references to its CEO's fund-raising for President Bush and other negative criticism from the Wikipedia page about the company in November 2005."  This is a long sentence, and good writing style guidelines recommend that long sentences be broken up into smaller ones.  Here, the logical break would be: "In August 2007, Wikipedia Scanner found that edits via the company's IP addresses occurred to Diebold's Wikipedia article.  (insert an introductory clause such as "The edits included ") removing criticisms of the company's products, references to its CEO's fund-raising for President Bush and other negative criticism from the Wikipedia page about the company in November 2005.".   Now this looks very similiar to what we currently have in the Fox News article.  The main difference here is that the Diebold article details the nature of the edits made (the second sentence, after splitting), whereas this article merely mentions what articles they were made to.  Kevin Baastalk 02:09, 4 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Kevin, the real issue here is one of undue weight and wikipedia self-reference. If people really believe that this falls into the same category of controversy that have been leveled against FNC, then one should really question the existing controversy on this page.  Furthermore, this controversy lies almost totally within wikipedia (as do all the others related to the wikiscanner).  Is this article about wikipedia or is it about FNC?  Additionally, some of the references are from left-leaning blogs/news sources that already have a beef with FNC, to which they shouldn't even been used.  Arzel 02:48, 4 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I thought I addressed the issue of undue weight pretty thoroughly. In the first paragraph, I argued that the issue is notable enough to merit space in this article, in that sources from Fox News censoring and altering information on a popular medium is interesting and important information about the fox news channel. In the second paragraph, I took the comparison to the diebold article, which was used by someone else to argue that the disputed text is given undue weight in this article, and showed that that argument didn't hold up.


 * Regarding wikipedia self-reference, wikipedia should be wikipedia-neutral; it shouldn't be biased towards or against wikipedia in any way. That would make it, well, biased.  Notice, for example, that wikipedia has an article on wikipedia.  That article describes wikipedia in some detail.  And it provides links to wikipedia and articles about wikipedia.  Point is, I think you're misinterpreting the policy.  Wikipedia should be unbiased.  That is the goal.  That means with regard to itself as well.


 * And to answer your question: this article is about FNC. You can tell that by the title of it.  And by the content in it.  Every thing in the article pertains directly to fox news.  The relevancy of every section and every paragraph should be plain to the average reader.


 * And finally, the last sentence you wrote is ad hominem logical fallacy. Kevin Baastalk 23:54, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Weatherman and Kevin both illustrate my point perfectly -- the mere mentioning of "made edits" doesn't put the controversy into the context of why they are significant. I think Kevin did a better job of explaining the position than I could have.  /Blaxthos 00:39, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Why thank you, Blaxthos. :)  I'm glad I could help. Kevin Baastalk 02:08, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The last sentence I wrote certainly is not an ad hominem, as I did not attack you in any way. Per the question of WP:UNDUE it reads "Views held only by a tiny minority of people should not be represented as significant minority views, and perhaps should not be represented at all."  The notion that wikipedia edits are significant is questionable at best.  Currently there are only two news stories from mainstream sources that even mention the FNC edits, and even then the edits are mentioned as one of many examples from various companies and organization.  There has yet to be any mainstream news that has written specifically about this issue.  While there may be a large minority on WP that feel this is significant, in the reference world where it matters it is not.
 * This leads into the next point. There currently exists a sub article describing the many controversies of FNC, being far to large to incorporate in the main article this was summarized with the main issues being mentioned here along with a link to the sub-article.  By inclusion within this article we are saying that the WP edits are one of the most significant controversies involving FNC, which is clearly not the case.
 * This leads into the next point of WP:SELF. By inclusion here as one of the most significant issues regarding FNC we are saying that wikipedia is important, more important that FNC.  Now please tell me just how significant is this issue?  Is anyone talking about it?  Is it even in the news anymore?  There was a best one or two days of mainstream coverage regarding the Wikiscanner itself.  Compare to the alegations of media bias (which is not only the main criticism of FNC, but continues almost day to day unabated.
 * Your final arguement of logical fallacy I suppose is also tied to my disregard of some of your sources. However, one of the core principles of wp is verifiability and reliable sources.  When you use sources which do not fall under RS then it is quite fair to disregard them.  Now please present an argument as to how this issue is not undue weight with regards to the rest of the article.  Show me that this isn't just a minor trivial issue that is only important here because this is Wikipedia. Arzel 00:58, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


 * i did not mean ad hominem in the colloquial sense. I meant it as a form of logical fallacy. The last sentence you wrote in your previous question was "Additionally, some of the references are from left-leaning blogs/news sources that already have a beef with FNC, to which they shouldn't even been used."  I was not mentioned in that sentence; I was not part of that argument.  The blogs/news sources was the "A" that claims "X"; the "hominem" in "ad homimen".  Your argument was: A claims X about B.  X doesn't like B.  Therefore, what A claims about B is false (and therefore X, A's claim about B, is false).  This is, more precisely, ad hominem circumstantial.  Can you show me a single sentence in the articles referred to that is false, or even questionable?  If every word of the article is true, then what's the problem with the article?
 * There are plenty of sources to choose from, so pick and choose. The problem is that the summary in the WP article doesn't say what kind of edits were made, which is interesting and important to the reader.  They can only get that information from the sources cited, and that, only if said sources have that information.  So we need sources with that information.  The ones that you make you ad hominem argument at happen to be the most informative.  Now as I said before, that information really should be in this article, because the casual reader otherwise wouldn't understand why the edits are even mentioned (cf. "made edits") - but there has to be references to outside sources that can be used to verify this information, per WP:verifiability.
 * It is not just a minor trivial issue because it is a major media organization intentionally decieving the public. I know that comes off rather strong, but word it however you want, it is certainly not trivial.  It is unethical.  Kevin Baastalk 02:08, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Proof please, show me some proof that FNC "intentionally" was trying to decieve the public. You have anoynomous IP addresses, you and noone else have anyway to determine at this time that these edits were de facto made by or in direction of FNC.  Arzel 14:02, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Those IPs are from FNC's computer network. That means that however made them was using one of FNC's computers.  Now it is highly improbable that some bum from off the street somehow got inside one of the buildings and sat in joe schmoe's chair while he was off to lunch, made edits on wikipedia, then walked out.  The only other possibility is that an employee did.  Now it's possible that the employee broke into the office after work hours to use his office computer rather than his home computer for whatever reason, but highly unlikely.  The edits were made by an employee (or multiple employees) of fox news, who were on the clock (getting paid by fox news while they were doing it).  That much can be deduced with almost absolute certainty. Kevin Baastalk 00:04, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * You cannot draw the conclusion that it was an FNC employee. That is original research and quite possibly false. On the 4th of this month, I made this edit without logging in. If you look, the IP traces to Auburn University, but I am certainly not an employee of the university. I was simply using a computer in the university's public library. FNC may not have a public library, but you certainly have zero proof it was an employee, and that is not the only other possibility. - auburn pilot   talk  00:10, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * OMG, now you're just being ridiculous. You even went so far as to make a false analogy, and then, in the very next sentence, point out that it's a false analogy.  Then why even make it in the first place?  Kevin Baastalk 01:45, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * If you've actually read the false analogy article which you've linked to, you'll note that my comment contains no such argument. I've clearly demonstrated that editing from an IP registered to a certain organization does not prove that the editor is an employee of that organization. I'm not being ridiculous, and attempting to draw a conclusion that the edits were made by or sanctioned by FNC is original research. You may not draw that conclusion within the article. - auburn pilot   talk  02:14, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Fox news and a campus can both be loosely considered organizations. Apples and oranges are both fruit.  Just about anyone can walk in and out of a campus and use the computers, therefore just about anyone can walk in and out of fox news and use their computers.  Apples are red, therefore oranges are red.  Campuses have libraries, that provide public access to computers. Fox news does not.  Apples have a pigment on their skin that absorbs green and blue light, reflecting only red light.  Oranges do not. Kevin Baastalk 02:28, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * That's not the point or analogy I made, and it's certainly not my problem that it is the conclusion you drew. My point is that neither edit proves either editor to be an employee of the two organizations: Auburn University and Fox News Channel. The fact remains, you may not draw that conclusion. Dance around the fact all you wish, it will not change. - auburn pilot   talk  02:35, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * So you admit that you were making an analogy, then deny that it was the one that it is clear to everyone that you were making, and then don't even tell us what you want us to believe the "real" analogy you were making was. On top of that, you want us to believe that what you were really trying to prove is that a.) you're edit from auburn university does not prove that you are employed at both auburn university and fox news, nor does it prove that the editor with the fox news ip is employed at both fnc and auburn university, nor does an unspecified edit from the fox news ip prove that either you or him is employed at both auburn university and fnc.  I think that is pretty obvious; it kinda goes without saying. And nobody, esp. not me, has argued to the contrary.  Which means, furthermore, that it is completely out of context, which makes it all the more unbelievable that that is what you really meant to say.  I read you correctly the first time.  You said that you made edits from a university, and a university is an organization, but you are not an employee of the organization.  Thus, making edits from a computer owned by an organization does not necessarily mean that you're an employee at that organization.  This is all fine and dandy.  And so far a correct use of logic.  Nobody is arguing against it.  However, the inverse - to say that all organizations have public access computers - does not follow from these premises.  That is where the logic is incorrect, and the analogy is false.  apples are red. apples are a fruit.  therefore, not all fruits are orange.  that is what you said.  and it is true.  however, it is not the same as saying that all fruits are not orange - that is an entirely different statement.  And it's falsity can be demonstrated simply by finding an orange fruit.  Fox News does not have public access computers. If it did, you'd have a valid point, and I'd concede it.  But it doesn't, so your analogy is false.  Accept it and move on.  I read you correctly the first time. Kevin Baastalk 22:21, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Nowhere did I say that "all organizations have public access computers". Quit attempting to put words in my mouth and actually discuss the subject at hand. If you're not refuting that editing from a FNC IP doesn't make you an employee of FNC, then we have nothing further to discuss. That is my only point, and your attempt at word games will not change that point. I couldn't care less if FNC has public computers, but you cannot draw the conclusion that it was an employee who made those edits. This is a fundamental aspect of policy. - auburn pilot   talk  23:44, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Then you really had no point, other than to suggest that to say that the people who made the edits from fox news ips where empolyees of FNC is OR. Which you could have just said in one sentence without the extra stuff.  If you wanted a paragraph, you could have been more persuasive by citing the policy with a wikilink and quoting relevant excerpts from it.
 * In anycase, the OR policy is inapplicable because:
 * 1. It's common sense, and I don't believe that common sense qualifies as OR.
 * 2. It's not stated in the article, so the point is moot from the get go. Kevin Baastalk 01:27, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Not only that, but even if it was a Fox News employee, I am sure Fox News has policies against internet uses unrelated to their work. Unless you can find a policy or a job description that is to specifically edit Wikipedia, Fox News as an organization cannot be held accountable for the edits.  End even then, you would need to have a reliable source to back it up. Bytebear 03:04, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I never said they were asked by anyone to do it. We don't know that. Kevin Baastalk 01:45, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, and btw they aren't "my" sources. I'm just discussing them now that you brought them up. Kevin Baastalk 02:14, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Looks like The Colbert Report is featuring the COI/Wiki story tonight. I have no doubt they'll feature FNC.  Quite the legs for such a "non-notable" story .  My pleasure, Kevin.  /Blaxthos 03:33, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Called that one wrong. heh.  /Blaxthos 03:39, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * So you are agreeing it is not notable? Because I agree with Arzel.  Bytebear 03:56, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * No, obviously not (see the sarcasm tag and quotes?). As Kevin and many others (including the SignPost) have explained, it is indeed notable.  Also notice where non-notable directs above.  /Blaxthos 04:04, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * you misunderstand the context of "do not specifically regulate the content of articles", because notability can generally regulate context, otherwise we would have a list of every Fox News Channel employee listed. That is notable (at least to some degree).  But as I said, there are several issues, notablilty being just one of them.  You have yet to justify this inclusion.  Give me citations that say it is notable.  Give positions on the other issues raised. Bytebear 04:10, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

ByteBear, at the risk of looking like an ass (but in the efforts of consensus building): "Notability guidelines give guidance on whether a topic is notable enough to be included in Wikipedia as a separate article, but do not specifically regulate the content of articles, which is governed by other guidelines such as those on using reliable sources and on handling trivia. The particular topics and facts within an article are not each required to meet the standards of the notability guidelines."

- WP:NNC (emphasis added)

No matter how you slice it, the "non-notable" argument carries no weight regarding direct exclusion of content. Clearly a large number of organizations (and wikipedia editors) feel that it is notable (see Kevin's considerable efforts above), and it meets WP:RS/WP:NPOV/WP:V. Further attempts at exclusion seems more like an effort to scrub unfavorable content than it does a reasonable effort to build a reputable encyclopedia. /Blaxthos 04:34, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


 * "Scrub"? Scrub of what, that you have a non-significant issue that is currently of undue weight within the context of the entire article and that it is only relevent because it is regarding wikipedia ?  Seems to me that instead of a reputable encyclopedia some users would like to see a gossipedia, where inuendo and minor reports are presented as major issues when they serve to disparage an entity they personally dislike.
 * For those that feel this should be included, please explain to me how this is any way as significant as other controversies involving FNC. Furthermore, show how this is unique or even extrodinary with respect to wikipedia (where there are literally thousands of anoynomous edits every day).  Finally, show how this even had an effect on wikipedia (none of the edits lasted for any significant time.) Arzel 14:02, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Why are you so strongly fighting inclusion, when so many editors have expressed concern that it is worthy of inclusion? Obtusely asking the same questions over and over doesn't make your argument or reasoning any more valid. All requirements for inclusion have been met, and you've provided exactly zero reasons from policy as to why it should not be included. If it meets with RS/V/NPOV and a significant number of editors feel it should be included, then you really don't have a reason to argue it must be excluded (except that maybe you don't like how it makes FNC look). /Blaxthos 16:12, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) The half-dozen or so (probably more) editors who have expressed support for inclusion believe it's notable. Information Week believes it's notable.  National print and broadcast media have featured the story as notable.  OUR OWN NEWSLETTER featured it as notable.
 * 2) WP:NNC specificlly says that notability guidelines do not apply to content.
 * 3) It's not about the context of Wikipedia. KevinB does an excellent job of explaining this above.
 * 4) WP:UNDUE has nothing to do with this situation. You're misrepresenting policy -- this has been explained in detail by no fewer than three different editors above.
 * 5) The effect on Wikipedia is irrelevant -- the fact that it occured is the point.

Stop overstating your postition. I am not discussing notability, so don't go there. I am clearly discussing undue weight and self-reference, which you clearly do not want to debate because you clearly know that you are in the wrong here. Finally the same could be said of you. You only want it included because it makes FNC look bad. Leave the Ad Hom at home. Arzel 13:59, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Arzel, you're the one doing the Ad Hom, not Blaxthos. Blaxthos is not attacking Fox News.  He is not saying "Fox News is bad", and he is not making any arguments based on any subjective characterizations of fox news.  He is simply and plainly stating a set of facts related to fox news.  That is not ad hominem.  An example of ad hominem would be:
 * A doesn't like B.
 * A says X about B.
 * The reason A says X about B is because A doesn't like B.
 * Therefore, X is false.
 * Both 3. and 4. are logically invalid. and the whole premise of the argument is founded on 1., which is completely unfounded.  It comes from this specious piece of logic:
 * A says X about B.
 * Therefore, A doesn't like B.
 * Which is also logically invalid. And furthermore, creates a circle.  As it turns out, using this reasoning, as long as a says x about b, then x is always false, no matter who "a" is.  Therefore, x can never be true about b.  How fortunate for b; it can do no wrong!  What happens if x does b?  Well, a person using this reasoning will never be able to acknowledge it.
 * You know, it seems to me that some people seem to thing that a simply has no valid reason for disliking b, and just states x about b because it's a mean thing to say, and he likes saying mean things about b, because he dislikes b. They never consider the possibility that maybe a says x about b because it's true, and if a doesn't like b, it's because x is true.  not the other way around.  a dislikes b because x is true.  NOT a says x is true because a dislikes b.  Occam's razor: the simplest answer is mostly correct.
 * Now you're accusing people of wanting stuff in the article because it makes fox looks bad - which seems to be founded on no other basis than that the info makes fox looks bad, which is no reason to exclude it - is ad hominem circumstantial logical fallacy, at best, and is also assuming bad faith, which is against wikipedia policy. You are the one who is making ad hominem arguments, not blaxthos. I do not mean to say that you are making personal attacks against anyone. I mean that the form of argument that you are using is a common logical fallacy known as "ad hominem", because it is founded on assumptions about a person or group of people, from which the conclusion does not follow logically. Your statement, "You only want it included because it makes FNC look bad." is both a perfect example of ad hominem circumstantial and of not assuming good faith.  Kevin Baastalk 01:45, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Please quote the exact part of WP:UNDUE you believe warrants exclusion of sourced information. Also, please explain how WP:WAWI somehow doesn't apply in this case.  Both have been repeatedly repudiated by several editors above.  Thanks.  /Blaxthos 14:45, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * You say theses issues have been repeatedly repudiated by several editors above. I have been following this issue from the beginning, and I do not recall one repudiation.  Can you please list how they do not voilate WP:UNDUE and WP:WAWI.  Feel free to quote others.  Bytebear 17:05, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:UNDUE -
 * WP:UNDUE is not a guideline about whether to include a subject in an article. It is a guideline about how and to what extent to include different points of view on material already in an article. Blaxthos has already pointed this out. -- Andyvphil
 * WAWI
 * The guideline does not mean that you should avoid mentioning Wikipedia! It means (i) articles should be written in a way that does not indicate or assume that they are being read on Wikipedia's website or indeed on any website, and (ii) that articles should not assume their audience has any unusual interest in Wikipedia. -- Andyvphil
 * You can find more rebuttals and inclusion-speak by searching for the following users' comments above: USER:Kevin Baas, USER:Supernathan, USER:Kenosis, USER:FeloniousMonk, USER:JoshuaZ.  This, of course, is a non-incusive list.  Hope this helps.  /Blaxthos 18:46, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

section break
This has been going on for over a month. If the two sides feel so strongly about this issue, perhaps an RfC or mediation is in order. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 17:11, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


 * There appears to be a consensus, both by en pessant and established editors, that the story deserves some mention. Among those who feel it should not be included, even you (Ramsquire) admit that there is no policy that warrants exclusion.  The only ones still fighting the consensus are Arzel and ByteBear, both of whom have been repudiated by several editors (see above).  I really think the issue is already settled. /Blaxthos 17:51, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Says who? I agree, we need RfC before deciding "it's done." Bytebear 21:23, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I have gone through a quick scan of the comments and users who have piped in on this topic:
 * For inclusion:
 * Blaxthos
 * Andyvphil (although he has altered on some of his comments)
 * Kevin Baas
 * Tempshill (although using a "Firestorm of coverage" as evidence)
 * JoshuaZ (although he says "It is hard to see how we should include the Fox one if we are not including the other organizations' edits")
 * Kenosis
 * Against Inclusion:
 * auburnpilot
 * Weatherman90
 * Arzel
 * Bytebear
 * Edders
 * Ramsquire
 * Tbeatty
 * Gamaliel
 * So how is this consensus? Bytebear 21:37, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * You're welcome to call an RFC on this (or any) issue at any time. I would caution going ahead and "tallying !votes" or speaking for others, especially given that the majority of those you list spoke on this issue almost a month ago (before the significant media coverage even occured) -- I have only seen two editors continue on the campaign after the story "got legs" (so to speak).  /Blaxthos 21:42, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I didn't tally the votes. You did.  You declared a consensus when you Arzel and myself have really been the only ones discussing the issue at length.  You have invoked the ghosts of posters past when you pulled quotes (most likely out of context) and decried consensus.  I am calling you on it.  Done.  Bytebear 22:12, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Please avoid sounding petty. Per your request, I provided a list of editors who have given rebuttals to your arguments.  Given that there are few editors who have continued with arguments for excluding reliably sourced content since the significant media coverage (you and Arzel) and several editors have attempted to help you understand how your policy interpretations are incorrect, I feel fairly confident in stating that there seem to be two versions of a consensus (what's plural of "consensus?") that go together to formulate my statement -- there are those who feel that it "definitely should" be included, and then there are those who feel it "probably should not" be included but acquiesce that policy can't be used to exclude it either.  The information is reliably sourced, neutrally presented and attributed, and a good number of Wikipedians think it is significant (as noted by a month long conversation and our own Signpost coverage) -- just because you find it unflattering doesn't mean you should look for any possible way you can find to exclude the information.  /Blaxthos 22:35, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not going to check into the veracity of that list, all I have to say is that wikipedia is not a democracy. The winning arguments win - and you guys need to come up with some new arguments instead of repeating the same tired old arguments that have already been refuted.  That's really no way to run a debate. Kevin Baastalk 22:34, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * (If you don't, I'm going to switch sides.) Kevin Baastalk 22:38, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Fine, my main argument is that you have only two reliable sources that mention Fox News and only as an example of the situation. It is noteworthy for Wikiscanner and Criticism of Wikipedia and Reliability of Wikipedia but not for Fox News. You have several other reliable sources that do not mention Fox News at all. If it is so newsworthy that Fox News was involved, why wouldn't all reliable sources mention them? Let's discuss this to death and then we can move on to other issues, like if this is a controversy, why is it in this article at all when it is covered in Fox News Channel controversies? Bytebear 23:04, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * That has been discussed ad infinitum and refuted several times by several editors. Recycling the same thing over and over doesn't move us forward.  You are welcome to call an RFC if you wish, but please don't regurgitate the same (refuted) argument of notability and "if every source doesn't mention it then it's not important".  /Blaxthos 23:21, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I do not accept your response that "if it is mentioned, it must be in the article." You need to give a better reason than that.  How is the source treating Fox News Channel?  Do they see Fox News Channel as the "story" or just one of THOUSANDS of examples.  And if you are singling out one example out of THOUSANDS, isn't that giving more credence to the example than the source intended?  How can you quote the source when the source says "For example, ..." without either sounding bias or omiting the "For example" from the quote and being bias.  Bytebear 23:27, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


 * And it seems as though we are back to yet another old argument it is going to be great when we can have an argument on this story based on it's actual merits. No one here is saying that this issue should be left out of any of the THOUSANDS  of other articles (in fact I believe I have mentioned that I am in favor of it being listed in many many articles if it is mentioned here) and again it is not my (or anyone else here's) responsibility to go to each and every page affected and change that as well... I really hope that this is the last time this has to be explained. Also we won't be able to determine what a source did or did not intend in an article all we can do is verify is that it was mentioned... which it was... multiple times.


 * I also wanted to point out that just because I am not posting doesn't mean I am "not here" there are probably a number of us floating right now and reading but not posting. Thanks  Supernathan 16:33, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * ByteBear, I've covered that at length. I'm not going to get sucked back into that circular discussion... I have repeatedly asked any policy, guideline, or precedent to support your argument and received none.  Regarding "You need to give a better reason than that", please see WP:V.  /Blaxthos 01:02, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * RE "If it is so newsworthy that Fox News was involved, why wouldn't all reliable sources mention them?": Well, for one, "all" is quite a few. I'll assume that by "all" you meant "more", and more specifically, other news sources.  To answer your question: News agencies are adverse to criticize each other, because it appears unprofessional.  Also, many of the news reports were interested in wikiscanner, on account of its ability to discover conflict-of-interest edits like the one mentioned in this article, rather than any such instance of discovery.  And rightly so: the novel ability of the wikiscanner is both more interesting and more important than any particular product of this ability.  However, this does not diminish the importance or interesting-ness of the particular products. Kevin Baastalk 01:40, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

The simple fact is (and always will be) that this is UNDUE WEIGHT and palls in significance with any other criticism regarding FNC. Many editors seem to feel differently, but fail to back up their reason why it is not undue weight other than to simply dismiss the statement. It only appears to be significant because it relates to Wikipedia, ergo making this seem like a huge story (which it is not), thus it is a SELF-REFERENCE. It had "legs" for a week at most, and is now not mentioned at all anywhere outside of wikipedia. Wikipedia is the story, wiki-scanner is the story, FNC is not a story especially within the context that perhaps thousands of companies have made the same kinds of edits. Arzel 14:23, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Your first point has already been dealt with multiple times and in the Undue Weight article it says "NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each." Undue weight says nothing about the exclusion of an article it only refers to making sure that additions are balanced when written.  Lets move on, shall we?
 * So you are making an assumption that this is a significant viewpoint? Significance lays outside of wikipedia, and outside of wikipedia this is not a significant veiwpoint.  Arzel 15:33, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


 * You second point however is what we should actually be focusing on. We need to talk about what the standard should be for an issue to be listed, should something be listed temporarily (a year, ten years, etc.) because it was a recent issue, or how do we have a longer view of what the article should be? If we were working on the Honourable East India Company article and found that in 1780 they manufactured false shipping reports would we care now?  Will people in a decade or two care about this issue?
 * To compare your analogy, we have Wikinews for this kind of stuff. It was covered and it is no longer a story.....why people think it is important regarding the history of FNC I simply don't know.  Arzel 15:33, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Something I have not seen mentioned (at least in a while) is that the Fox edits are not run of the mill compared to other companies (although there were certainly a number who did the same or worse). I am not going to go through all of them right now but (some of) the Fox edits were much bigger (wiping entire sections blank, etc.) and did much more to improve the image of the company or harm images of others that we need to separate them from the average company exposed by wikiscanner.  I am not saying that I am for or against inclusion but I am raising some questions and again I would like to start having a real discussion about this.  Thanks.  Supernathan 15:06, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The standard for inclusion is precisely the problem. This is a topic perfectly fitting with the standards for inclusion on WikiNews. It does not, however, have any encyclopedic value whatsoever. Nobody can even prove it was an employee of FNC...it's irrelevant fluff. - auburn pilot   talk  15:23, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


 * By who's determination are these much biger than others? Why is wiping an entire section black even interesting, it gets reverted almost immediately anyway.  How is what FNC did even unique to articles in general?  There seems to be some predisposition by some editors that what FNC did was unique, and out of the ordinary.  When the fact is that this is not unique, and not out of the ordinary.  Thousands of companies have made the same or similar edits.  It seems to me that this is a story because it involves FNC editing Wikipedia and it is interesting.  If anything it would probably be much more interesting to find major companies that don't have some link to wikipedia.  Even more interesting, is that I suspect most people that work for some company, that edit here have made some edit to that company at sometime, but since they are not anoynomous they wouldn't get tagged like this.  Arzel 15:33, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Fox News is a major provider of news. News outlets have traditionally been held to a much higher standard than the average company, called "journalistic integrity" or "journalistic ethics", taught at every school of journalism.
 * Fox News repeatedly claims to be Fair and Balanced. As an outlet from which a large number of people get their news, it is certainly significant when edits from that source are making bad faith edits.
 * The edits were, as SuperNathan and KevinBaas have pointed out, significantly biased -- both on the topics that were edited and the content that was added or removed -- towards subjects that are by all accounts a conflict of interest.
 * All information is reliably sourced and (most importantly) verifiable.
 * The current phrase that is included is neither original research, nor draws any conclusion -- we're not saying "Fox News made the edits", we're saying "edits were made from FNC IP space." The rest is left up to the readers.  No admonishment is made (WP:NPOV) and no conclusions are drawn WP:OR.
 * Some people may not feel it is encyclopedic content, others do. There is not a clear policy that governs this, as far as I can tell, once we get beyond the Big 3.  The closest thing I can find is WP:NNC.  Many many editors feel that this is significant -- if you don't, that's fine, but I don't think Wikipedia has a mechanism for editors to exclude content because they believe it's "non-notable" if (a) there are a significant number of editors who feel it should be included, and (b) it is reliably sourced, neutrally presented, and verifiable.  I believe the only choice that remains for exclusionists is to call an RFC, though I am not sure what (legitimate) policies and guidelines can be used at this point.  I would like to note that the exlusionists on this point have jumped between many many policies -- when one doesn't work, try another.  I've seen arguments based on WP:RS, WP:N, WP:OR, WP:NPOV, WP:SELF, WP:UNDUE, and (of course when everything else fails) WP:IAR.  Sounds an awful lot like an essay I wrote recently.  /Blaxthos 16:14, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Not true. I have from the beginning shown this to be Undue Weight, and Self-Reference.
 * (1) And....If it was a huge story you would have a lot of press about it, there is almost none. Regardless of how significant you feel this is, that is not what is presented outside of wikipedia.  Furthermore you are equating what was done as being done by FNC newseditors, which is OR because no evidence exists.
 * (2) And that would be OR.
 * (3) They are not significant with regards to what anyone other company has done, if they were then the leads stories regarding wikiscanner would state that this was unique or out of the ordinary. Since the articles sourced make no suggestion that this is the case it is not significant.
 * (4) So what, just because something happened, it does not automatically warrant inclusion within WP. WP is not an encyclopedia of everything.
 * (5) The sense is that FNC did it. Pure inclusion in the current form gives the impression that FNC did make the edits.  You have reverted my nuetral tone a few times already.  Arzel 18:26, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Please quote the section of WP:UNDUE that deals with excluding reliably sourced, neutrally presented content. Regarding the rest...
 * No statement is made as to who made edits, only that they came from the FNC network. There is no guideline or requirement as far as the number of reliable sources that must exist, simply that they do exist.  Please see WP:V.
 * We're not using that statement in the article (where WP:OR would apply). I'm showing you why so many editors and organizations feel it is significant.  Please stop confusing policies that are applied to article content with reasoning used for inclusion.  There is a difference.
 * Many people believe it is significant -- both on Wikipedia (see Signpost and the number of editors who believe it warrants inclusion) and off (see multiple national broadcasts, web coverage, and of course our reliable sources).
 * No, we're not including it "just because it happened." See all the discussion above as to why it's significant.
 * No statement has been made that is says anything other than "edits were made from FNC IP address space".
 * Thanks. /Blaxthos 20:18, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

In reference to the first point... I am done talking about it. I suggest you read the UNDUE WEIGHT section but until I see something in that section that mentions the exclusion of issues vs. the balanced view of issues I am done. Secondly, I don't see how you and I disagree here. And as far as Fox's involvement I will find some examples when I have some more time but it was not average, someone from Fox IP addresses vandalized Wikipedia to make the company look better. And I am not going to demean your intellegence by pretending your question about why removing an entire section is real... you are an editor here so you understand it as much as any of us (better than most I would assume). The issue isn't the correction, the issue is the inital vandalism. I agree with you Auburn Pilot that the standard for inclusion is the issue but we haven't been able to talk about that because the discussion has been hijacked by explaining and reexplaining policy issues that are readily available for research. Thanks again. Supernathan 16:18, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Don't even waste your time looking, for one it would be OR, for another, what difference does it make? If you go into the significance of one or more specific issue then it becomes an article about Wikipedia and how some changes are more significant that others.  As far as FNC goes, the only story is that some edits were made by computers within the FNC network.  When you start to go into the context of the changes it becomes an article about how wikipedia works and is in essense about wikipedia.  Arzel 18:26, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * No sir. It doesn't become "about" Wikipedia -- the "story" (which, I assume, you followed the references and actually read) is what was edited from the FNC network, and the content that was removed or changed.  The sources quoted specifically identify both what was edited, and why it's significant -- hence the controversy.  /Blaxthos 20:08, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I am not going to get into a policy argument concerning this, because as I see it, no policy explicitly supports the exclusion of this information. But my question is, what makes this encyclopedic? The logic seems to be that since the edits were made at FNC it is relevant to FNC. I disagree. To me, more important than where the edits were made is who in fact were making these edits. Or in the alternative, if there was some evidence of direction from FNC higher ups. None of this available, and to assume such would be original research. For example, if it was discovered that Shephard Smith was the one who scrubbed the info from his article, that would be appropriate to mention in Shephard Smith's article but not Fox News--unless of course, he was told to do so by some exec at the company. Likewise, if the alleged vandalism on Franken's page was done by Bill O'Reilly clearly that would be appropriate for inclusion. However, if some producer, or research analyst did this on their own accord, how is it relevant to FNC? Their edits at FoxNews is no more relevant to FNC, than my edits here is relevant to the company I work for (Yes 98 percent of my contributions to Wikipedia are from my work IP). That is my problem with this whole debate, outside of happening on Fox property, how is it relevant to FNC outside of being trivia. And if it is trivia, that makes it unencyclopedic. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 20:39, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Exactly. We don't know who made the edits. It could have been a Fox News janitor for all we know. To include this trivial bit of information is absurd. Are we really going to start documenting every time a company computer makes an edit? Weatherman90 00:59, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Summary style and article length are policies that could potentially be used to argue against the inclusion of this information in the article. If anyone wants to take a crack at those arguments. The article doesn't tell me it's length in KB, but it doesn't look that long, so this would probably make for a weak argument. keeping summary articles and detailed article synchronized and levels of desired detail are aspects of summary style that are particularly relevant to this dispute. Kevin Baastalk 22:31, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Ultimately I have to agree, I could probably make an argument that this should get a mention in the controversies article but I don't think there is enough meat here (or long term interest) to include this on it's merits. As soon as I see a verifiable news story with a memo/email from a FOX employee authorizing the changes be made it's a different ball game but for the time being (at best) I think this is something that should be mentioned in the conversies article. Supernathan 13:22, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Good - let's just remove the stupid page proection then already. Weatherman90 23:21, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I suspect that if the protection were removed, some people would continue to edit war over the inclusion/exclusion of this topic. - auburn pilot   talk  11:52, 13 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not going to wheel on the article itself; although I believe the issue does merit inclusion, I don't believe that it (or any issue) is worth months long discussions as to why it should be included. Personally, I believe that when policy does not necessitate exclusion and when there are a substantial number of editors who believe an issue does warrant inclusion then the information should be included (I would submit WP:NNC as supporting evidence).  Beyond that, I think we have stumbled upon another deficiency in the system -- there is no clear policy or guideline when there is a dispute such as this.  /Blaxthos 17:21, 13 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Let me flesh out the "summary style" argument: firstly, the dispute content should be in the sub-article, so that the sub-article an summary are in sync.  With this done, the summary should follow summary style: it should be a concise summary that goes somewhat into the broader, larger topics covered in the sub-article.  The summary should keep its content in roughly the same proportion as the sub-article.  Unless the content, newly added into the sub-article, can be considered a broader, larger issue, and can be about the same percent of space in the summary as it is in the sub-article, it does not belong in the summary.  This information is not a broader, larger issue, and is too small to be given proportional space in the summary.  Thus, by all counts, the information should be in the sub-article, but not the summary. Kevin Baastalk 21:51, 13 September 2007 (UTC)


 * That seems like a reasonable point to me. ;-)  /Blaxthos 23:01, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Shockingly it sounds like we may have an agreement... can everyone live with the decision that this won't go on the main page but that it may or may not go in the controversies article? Supernathan 14:26, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Summary
Without going into the particular points of each argument, I believe that we have a consensus to mention this incident only in Fox News Channel controversies based on the supposition that the incident is not part of a broader issue that warrants a summary in the main article, based on Wikipedia summary style and article length guidelines. However, this does not endorse, condone, or otherwise validate the arguments that were refuted (namely claims under WP:UNDUE, WP:N, WP:OR, and WP:NPOV). /Blaxthos 19:24, 17 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I won't be back from Wikibreak for another week, but let me note that your "consensus" doesn't include me. I dunno where you get this "broader issue...warrant[ing] a summary" business, but it's not in WP:SPINOUT. I expect I will at some point consider the story too unimportant to justify mention here, but I don't think it'll happen until spurious POV-driven arguments for its deletion stop being advanced. Andyvphil 01:38, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


 * "I expect I will at some point consider the story too unimportant to justify mention here, but I don't think it'll happen until spurious POV-driven arguments for its deletion stop being advanced." Just what is this supposed to mean?  That you are just trying to make a WP:POINT?  Under any case, your assertation is warrentless as I have not personally tried to argue and point, taking a break to reasses my view of the situation, and to see if further coverage would appear (which is hasn't).  Arzel 18:53, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


 * So noted. I made specific reference to prejudice against the other arguments, and am working under a compromise mentality here.  I also agree that it is a very important issue that should be included, but this is the first argument against inclusion that actually has any validity at all.  In the efforts of consensus, given that certain editors seem hell bent on excluding its mention by any means possible (how many policies were tried before one style guide might be applicable?) I thought it was best to let this one go (even though most people who want it excluded seem to feel that way for POV reasons).  If you wish to continue discussion, I have no problem with that -- I didn't mean to imply unilateral consensus... just remove the editprotected template below and continue the discussion.  :-)  /Blaxthos 08:28, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Stop Blaxthos, I'll not be attributed with your "Policy Shopping" when I have not done so. What I find most interesting is that the manual of style arguement by which you have suddenly agreed is a direct correlation to the aspect of undue weight within this article, which has been one of my primary points of contention from the beginning (the other being self-reference, which I still feel is valid, but that is besides the point).  Regardless of such, there appears to be concensus, with the exception of Anyphil, who appears to disagree out of spite.  Arzel 18:53, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Arzel, the very next time you comment on an editor instead of the merits of his argument, I am going to make a full court press against you for incivility. You've been warned countless times -- enough is enough.  Stop it now.  /Blaxthos 19:31, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Like Andyvphil, I am on wikibreak and am not going to be sucked back into this bullshit while I'm on vacation. I will not, however, sit here while editors are accused of attempting to exclude this material in order to advance their own opinion, especially when the very same could be said for the other side of this argument. There's a very distinct different between policy shopping and illustrating how several policies apply, so let's keep those and similar accusations out of this discussion. Stop trying to undermine editors by analyzing their motives and have a normal discussion. - auburn pilot   talk  20:58, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I take a break and the exact same crap is going on here. I'd happily accept Blaxthos' compromise - I'm happy with anything that keeps this nonsense (nonsense that, I might add, everyone except us seems to have forgotten about) out of the main Fox article. Arzel, even if another editor acts like a prick just let it go - the worst thing to do is lower yourself to their level. This is pretty low level - look in recent archives for bullshit sockpuppetry accusations. Let's turn our focus to stuff like ratings and a more detailed/informative history section :) Edders 00:09, 20 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I've removed the section. - auburn pilot   talk  15:12, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Resolution
Please remove the section entitled Wikipedia edits per consensus to remove (see above). Full protection should no longer be necessary. /Blaxthos 19:24, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I've reduced the page protection. Please tread carefully. Cheers. --MZMcBride 01:15, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Request to Archive
Can someone with better abilities than me please archive this talk page, its rather long. - Mike Beckham 10:19, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Right now we still have some open issues pending. Once those are resolved to everyone's satisfaction I will archive.  Thanks.  /Blaxthos 18:02, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Comments regarding FNC RFC

 * In an attempt to keep things orderly for the RFC I initiated for the intro section of the FNC article, I figured it might be a good idea to establish a section for comments. Please feel free to revert or comment as needed. I think this issue needs to be addressed in the wake of current events and the changes made in regards to other prominent news organizations. I respect the consensus in place, but quite frankly I feel it is outdated. I apologize to the editors that have dealt with this for years, but; isn't this what we do here? I think the fact that this issue is constantly revisited is an indication that something must be changed or address in current time. The great thing about Wikipedia is that it changes, it isn't the old dusty encyclopedia that inhabits some corner shelf in your dwelling. I offer a sincere thanks to those editors who have given their time to take this RFC seriously; there is a lot of experience here. Wikiport (talk) 08:30, 30 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Consensus doesn't go stale like bread; in this case, consensus has remained stable for many years because WP:LEAD is very clear on the issue. If you "respect the consensus in place", can you please explain WHY (using Wikipedia policies and guidelines) you feel it's "outdated"?  The fact of the matter is that you have absolutely no policy that supports your position.  The truly great thing about Wikipedia is that this is not a vote -- no matter how many brand new editors with zero clue about our policies show up, decisions grounded in policies always trump baseless "votes" of inexperienced editors who are completely unfamiliar with policy.  As most have noted above, you've brought nothing new to the discussion, offered no policy to support your position, and have simply insisted time and time again that "things should change" without any supporting logic.  In a sentence:  There is no policy to support your position, because you're just plain old fashioned wrong.  //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 14:46, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Blaxthos, Blaxthos, Blaxthos!!?? What are you doing here? Trying to stir up trouble after young Wikiport has clearly offered up an olive branch? While I'm sure that there is much valuable information in the Wikipedia policies and guidlines there is even more valuable information in the actual articles. You might start by reading the one on Eddie Haskell. Perhaps you'll want to edit it. Badmintonhist (talk) 17:58, 30 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Blax, I found some night table reading, WP:CCC. I think it is clear the consensus isn't as solid as you claim, which is good, it means forward progression. I don't believe we need a policy in order to adopt a position, that's like shopping for a law to enforce. To end here, I believe that a great philosophy here is that new editors need not be familiar with rules or policies in order to edit, I swear I read that somewhere in my little welcome package. My logic and position are clear, I really can't be any more specific for you. I respect your opposition to this, you have really made it clear. Thanks. Wikiport (talk) 23:28, 30 September 2008 (UTC)


 * No one disputes CCC. What is needed for consensus to change is a reason for consensus to change. WP:IDONTLIKEIT is insufficient. Gamaliel (talk) 23:34, 30 September 2008 (UTC)


 * There is no indication of WP:IDONTLIKEIT here. Opinions have been voiced, but a far cry from fulfilling the letter of that guideline. The results from the RFC in its infancy stages, already show a clear indication that there is no overwhelming majority, least of all a consensus. Wikiport (talk) 00:09, 1 October 2008 (UTC)


 * The opinions voiced in the previous RfCs and discussions are not forever binding, but they shouldn't be ignored either. Gamaliel (talk) 01:19, 1 October 2008 (UTC)


 * young wikiport? like u know him?  Docku: “what up?”  18:05, 30 September 2008 (UTC)


 * "While I'm sure that there is much valuable information in the Wikipedia policies and guidlines there is even more valuable information in the actual articles." Policies dictate how articles are written, not the other way around.  If you don't understand that, Badmintonhist, then I don't think your opinion carries any weight.  //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 19:13, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

No, Wikipedia policies do not "dictate" how articles are written. They give guidelines. Two sets of intelligent people could each scrupulously follow those guidelines and wind up with very, very different articles on the same subject. There is nothing in WP:LEAD that would "dictate" to an editor that mention of a bias controversy is called for in the case of Fox News but not in the case of MSNBC. Badmintonhist (talk) 20:11, 30 September 2008 (UTC)


 * got to go with Badmitonhist on this, per wp:IAR. policies are not the be-all-and-end-all.  -- Ludwigs 2  20:20, 30 September 2008 (UTC)


 * And in this case, what rule prevents us from improving or maintaining this article? Until such time as this guideline or policy is stated explicitly, I think we should abide by WP:LEAD. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 20:52, 30 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I absolutely agree with Badmintonhist on this. I see WP:LEAD thrown around a lot on this subject, but it is quite open to interpretation. In the end, WP:IAR makes a lot of sense. and directly relates to the discussion at hand here: How to improve the article's lead. I don't believe a blanket statement of bias, is a objective controversy. I would be in favor of inserting language somewhere along the lines of: Fox News Channel's prime-time lineup includes controversial news anchor Bill O'Reilly or something similar, just an idea. We can fulfill the notable controversy lead-in, while maintaining a true NPOV. *Please note, that's just a hipshot suggestion, it obviously needs work. Wikiport (talk) 23:18, 30 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Again, beside the fact that you don't like the end result, what is wrong with using LEAD to guide us? Think of it this way, I can claim IAR and call you an assortment of vile names.  However, it would be baseless and wrong of me to do so, right? I'm asking for the shortcoming in LEAD that would justify ignoring it.  If there is none, then let's drop this IAR nonsense. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 00:17, 1 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure I see your analogy with respect to WP:IAR, my understanding of the policy is so editors don't keep spinning their wheels when attempting to improve or maintain an article. WP:LEAD has been quoted here by some, in such a way that it portrays a need to adhere to it at all times, which is not the case. In this case, we must examine if the bias is a notable controversy, and if so; does it need to be labeled in any specific language which would place a pro-conservative accusation out of place. The lead should contain a brief idea of what is to follow. Given the content of the article in it's entirety, and the amount of attention that is given to the alleged bias, I don't agree with the amount of specificity the lead currently contains. This is different from not liking the outcome, as not liking something clearly implies a non-objective POV. What is clear is that editors do not agree, and that is what needs to be addressed. It is clear a new WP:Consensus needs to be achieved in the best interest of the article. It is better for all involved to agree, rather than a simple majority (which may or may not exist) that is constantly challenged. Wikiport (talk) 05:27, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Alleged Fox bias is still a notable controversy. Hell, if you believe academic research on the subject, it's a fact.  Check out this recent article in Scientific American.  Switzpaw (talk) 05:35, 1 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Please, don't misread what I was saying. I was attempting to illustrate a point, not deny the fact that alleged bias is a notable entry. Wikiport (talk) 05:42, 1 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Since it appears the MSNBC issue has resolved itself, is it fair to say that this action is now moot? If it is, doesn't that prove that it was all a disruption to prove a point?  //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 06:13, 1 October 2008 (UTC)


 * One step forward, two steps back. This issue is far from resolved, regardless of what happens over at Talk:MSNBC. It is clear that there is no consensus here, as it was clear prior to the current RFC. Your contention that this was all an elaborate move to prove a point is incorrect and gaining mold; it remains just as counter-productive as before. This issue may be resolved, once a current consensus is achieved. This intro is a blanket accusation of the entire channel with no focus; if it is to be included in the lead, it should not only be cited, but revised in such a way that will provide objectivity, not a simple "some say this about X, but X says it isn't true." That is a cheap trick to get something on record. Wikiport (talk) 06:37, 1 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Everyone is not going to agree, and WP:CONSENSUS doesn't require that. No one has offered any sort of rational argument for ignoring relevant policies, and it's pretty clear that the majority of established, respected editors feel that the current solution is the best one possible.  Complaining about it ad infinitum because everyone doesn't agree isn't productive, and given you're a new editor who's shown zero interest in learning/following policy, I don't think there's much value in continuing.  Anyone want to call this one?  //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 07:36, 1 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Again, it is evident that you oppose the very idea of this RFC. It is also quite clear that you wish to continue smearing me in a public forum. Your opinion doesn't seem to be so much related to the article, as it is perpetuating a back and forth argument. I believe your behavior is borderline disruptive, and contrary to the RFC process. The very fact I nominated a RFC for this project, is evidence enough that I am adhering to Wikipedia guidelines. This is only to gain comments and conversation regarding the subject, relax. It's not like I am changing anything by myself here. Your constant attempts to elevate your "seniority" here, is quite contrary to Wikipedia policy as well. Opposing viewpoints are just as valuable as anything else to this process. Wikiport (talk) 17:29, 1 October 2008 (UTC)


 * It takes a while for an editor to go from here to earning the trust of the community. I am afraid this also involves participating in editing different issues and different articles.  Docku: “what up?”  18:02, 1 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, I am sure the world would be better off if everyone just sat down, and went with the flow. My interpretation is different than yours, granted. But, I'm getting there. Wikiport (talk) 00:00, 2 October 2008 (UTC)


 * This is the last time, I'll ask this. If you don't deny that "alleged bias is a notable entry", and don't deny that LEAD states that we should summarize the article and present notable controversy, what exactly is the point of this exercise?  You also never state why, in this case, we shouldn't follow WP:LEAD.  You mention CCC with no reason on why it is required that consensus change, and IAR, again with no explanation why LEAD is inadequate here.  This seems to be a discussion that will spin in place until we agree with you.  If that's the case I'm not interested in participating further. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 18:06, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

At this point why don't we all just cool it. The statement concerning political bias in the lead of this article is really pretty innocuous (as is the statement now in the MSNBC article - last time I checked). It merely notes that a controversy, which obviously does exist, exists. I've been pretty tough on Blaxthos lately but in his last couple of statements I have to admit that he has a point. I would advise both Blax and Wikiport, however, to lay off the wikilawyering. Selectively invoking often very open-ended "rules", and castigating those who don't ascribe to your interpretation of them, is not the best way to make cogent points. Badmintonhist (talk) 19:02, 1 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I do think a cool down period would do a lot of good. Those who are regular contributers to this page, have already taken place in the RFC, therefore I don't see any harm in letting it continue in order to gain a wider variety of comments. Nothing implies that we need to continue this semi-heated debate of this and that. I think it is important to protect the integrity of the article, as my motivations were not contingent upon the addition of a lead statement in the MSNBC article. I do thank all that have contributed up to this point. Wikiport (talk) 19:59, 1 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I propose before any "cooling off period" begins we close this RfC since the person who proposed it, now agrees that the allegations of bias is notable and has produced no reason why LEAD should be ignored. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 21:04, 1 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Full support.  Docku: “what up?”  21:07, 1 October 2008 (UTC)


 * To be clear I never objected to mention of bias in the article itself, I have never been in favor of the mention of bias in the lead because I believe it could be worded better. But, this is only my opinion. I don't think the WP:LEAD should have been ignored, but I do believe we shouldn't cut off our peripherals either. I would like to see the RFC continue to run for a little while longer to engage some more editors, but, I fully support the group's decision. I do thank the editors here for taking the time to become engaged/reengaged for what may seem quite silly. Thank you again. Wikiport (talk) 23:55, 1 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Full support for closure. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 00:59, 2 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Adhering to policy WP:RFC: Most RfCs are automatically ended by the RfC bot after thirty days. (The expiration date is listed in the list of RfCs.) If consensus has been reached before then, the RfC nominator(s) can remove the RfC tag, and the bot will remove the discussion from the list on its next run. Thanks for your time everyone...! Wikiport (talk) 04:35, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Lawyering
This discussion is about Fox News Channel. This discussion apparently is centered around what occurs on MSNBC, and the clear intent is to try and hold this page, which is compliant with policy and formed by consensusbuilding, hostage to an unrelated article. If the problem is there, then engage in the discussion that has been progressing at Talk:MSNBC. As I said a moment ago, the logic presented is a clear case of wikilawyering to force a point. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:04, 30 September 2008 (UTC)


 * To quote wikilawyering: In any case an accusation of wikilawyering is never a valid argument per se, unless an explanation is given why particular actions may be described as wikilawyering, and the term "wikilawyering" is used as a mere shortcut to these explanations. FNC and MSNBC are separate articles, yes. However, I think it's like discussing the Red Sox [] and Yankees [] rivalry, but only addressing one side. Of course some opinion from the other article is going to bleed over a bit, since most editors here are involved in both talk pages, I don't see how it distracts from the RFC. Wikiport (talk) 23:42, 30 September 2008 (UTC)


 * People are arguing here that one article should or should not have something because another article does or does not. That's not a valid argument for what we should be doing here and is a distraction from legitimate discussions about article content. Gamaliel (talk) 23:44, 30 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes: each article should have its own discussion of whether that criticism is notable enough for inclusion in the lead, without reference to the other articles. -- Ludwigs 2  00:11, 1 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with this, I'm just saying it isn't too off in left field if an analogy or so gets used since the topics are so similar. Wikiport (talk) 00:19, 1 October 2008 (UTC)


 * well, I dunno... my worry would be that it would end up in a political snarl.  for instance, the first thing I'd be likely to say in such a discussion would be that the primary group which accuses MSNBC of a liberal bias is FNC and its affiliates, and that drops us in to this intractable discussion about whether the accusations of bias against MSNBC are reliably sourced because of the supposed bias of FNC.  that's sure to go nowhere fast.  -- Ludwigs 2  02:12, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not very familiar with Wikipedia's policies or indeed what exactly wiki-lawyering means, but I'm a lifelong a conservative who calls a spade a spade. Fox News is conservative, which isn't inherently bad in my opinion but is very real, and MSNBC... well... I think Countdown and The Rachel Maddow Show speak for themselves if you watch 30 seconds of them. Anyway, there are more than enough documented allegations of bias against Fox to warrant inclusion in the introduction. In fact, I'd go so far as to say it is blatantly POV not to mention the issue. Please let me know if there's an attempt in the future to neuter this article. Thompsontough (talk) 11:14, 15 October 2008 (UTC)