Talk:Fox News/Archive 32

Request for Comment
Should this article's summary of the more detailed Fox News Channel controversies article include reference to the dispute about Fox News viewers' levels of information? JamesMLane t c 03:36, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

A while back, some of the material in this article was spun off into a more detailed daughter article, Fox News Channel controversies. The wisdom of that decision is not currently being commented on. Instead, at issue in this RfC is how to summarize the more detailed article here in the main article. The specific question is the addition of two sentences to the current summary.

The disputed addition reads: "Multiple studies have found that Fox News viewers are less well informed, but this conclusion has been disputed. See Fox News Channel controversies."

Below are: the argument in support of including this information, the argument in opposition to including it, and the section for comments by other editors.

Argument in support
The first paragraph of Summary style states in part: "When there is enough text in a given subtopic to merit its own article, that text may be summarized within the present article. A link should then be provided to a more detailed article about the subtopic."

Currently, the summary of the more detailed article is not adequate, because it omits one entire passage (about 700 words long) that is found in the more detailed article. The information presented there includes academic studies by the University of Maryland, Stanford University, and Fairleigh Dickinson University; a poll by the Pew Research Center; and commentary from various other notable sources, including Roger Ailes, the head of Fox News. The reader of the main article should be informed about the existence of this body of work and given a wikilink to where the more detailed information is available.

The proposed addition to the summary is neutral, in that it does not attempt to adjudicate between the competing points of view. It merely reports them.

Opposition on this talk page seemed to focus on the most recent of the academic studies, the one from Fairleigh Dickinson University. Some editors found fault with FDU's methodology. If any prominent spokespersons (as opposed to Wikipedia editors) have advanced such criticisms, then the criticisms can be considered for reporting, with proper attribution, in the more detailed article where the FDU study is reported. Some Wikipedians' disagreement with the study is no basis for suppressing it, however, and is still less a basis for omitting mention of the entire topic area. I personally disagree with Ailes's opinion, in which he characterized the University of Maryland study as a "push poll", a charge that can readily be seen as false by anyone who reads our article about push polls. Nevertheless, our more detailed article properly reports his mendacious statement, and the language at issue in this RfC acknowledges his opinion by stating that there is a dispute.

No one opposing the inclusion of this language has suggested any alternative language that would fairly and succinctly summarize the information in the more detailed article, per Summary style. JamesMLane t c 00:57, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Argument in opposition
The reasoning that "When there is enough text in a given subtopic to merit its own article, that text may be summarized within the present article. A link should then be provided to a more detailed article about the subtopic" applies here is misguided. The removed material did not merit "its own article". It got a section of a larger article. JamesMLane has been the only editor supporting this interpretation of WP:SS, while numerous experienced editors have opposed it. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:27, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Comments
Please indicate whether you support or oppose inclusion of the disputed sentences, along with any other comments.


 * oppose when the reader reads the test results they speak for themselves. I see no need to pull a fox news and tell the reader he is stupid based on undisclosed information. It is much better to have a text logically arrive at a conclusion. We wouldn't want wikipedia readers to become less well informed. Just mention the topic enjoyed scientific curiosity (i.e.) inform the reader such research exists. How it was conducted and by who is at least as important as the conclusion IMHO. Hope that helps and good luck. 84.106.26.81 (talk) 08:22, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Your comment gives me the impression that you think the proposed text is bad, because it summarizes the opposing facts and opinions, but that you'd support an addition to the summary that omitted that aspect. It suggests something along the lines of: "The topic of the comparative information levels of Fox News viewers has been the subject of academic research.  See Fox News Channel controversies."  Is that what you're getting at?  I ask this because you say we should "mention the topic enjoyed scientific curiosity" but right now the article doesn't mention that. JamesMLane t c 10:17, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * yes, to me it seems to hard to summarize results without risking original research. 84.106.26.81 (talk) 03:36, 29 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose Badly framed suggestion to say the least.  It sets up a "Some reports show that Gnarphists are murderers, but this has been disputed"  type case. The presentation of the charge with a comment "has been disputed" is grossly insufficient in any article on Wikipedia whatsoever.  This does not mean editorial opinions about FNC, clearly labelled as opinions, are improper - but placing a pseudo-fact into an article with a "it has been disputed" is disingenuous - whether about FNC or any other article (I hold the same position about any articles and opinions - left-wing, right-wing, whatsover - opinions must be clearly labelled as such).  Collect (talk) 13:13, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Comments from involved editors
Oppose: As stated above. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:28, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Oppose (for now): Per Nightshift36 & Collect. Per Nightshift36: It appears that the rationale behind WP:SS references (and perhaps encourages?) the collation of existing content into the development of another "Article", not a sub-section of an already existing one. However, my grasp of this issue is mushy at best and I'll be interested to read the comments of other editors on the subject. Per Collect: I concur that this may be a case of innuendo trafficking. JakeInJoisey (talk) 13:29, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Oppose: Couldn't agree more with Niteshift and Jake. SeanNovack (talk) 13:55, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Support: I have not been susbstantially involved in this particular dispute, but I have in general been sporadically involved in discussion on this and it's controvery page. So I error on the side of disclosure. It seems to me that people who want to keep it out are letting the incredulity of the results, or how the results makes people feel, affect their judgements. These are not legitimate criteria for inclusion or exclusion in an encyclopedia article, and they have no basis in Wikipedia policy. The criteria are WP:V and WP:N, and this certainly meets both. Kevin Baastalk 16:13, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry Kevin, but N and V aren't the only things involved here. WP:UNDUE also applies. This information isn't being surpressed or censired. It exists, properly, in the article about FNC controversies. Forcing it into a second article is beginning to look like an agenda. This article is supposed to be about FNC, not their so much their viewers. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:54, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Ya, i realize i left out WP:UNDUE after i saw it mentioned below. The criteria are WP:V and WP:N and WP:UNDUE, and WP:UNDUE is certainly a debate point.  Personally I would have liked it if they had asked more questions on the survey.  Ah well.  Viewership is an important aspect of any media outlet. This article is about the aspects of Fox News, a media outlet. Kevin Baastalk 16:14, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * As noted elsewhere, there is an entire article devoted to the topic of "controversies" related to FNC and the way to get to that article is clearly displayed in this one. Every article should not contain everything related to them. To use your reasoning, Sony Records is a media outlet. If a Sony label artist states in an interview with a reliable source that he likes chocolate cake, then we should put it in the Sony Records article. Notable guy, telling a reliable source some crap that they printed. It's verifiable. But is it relevant to Sony Records? No. Just being verifiable and (arguably) notable (because a RS printed it) doesn't make it relevant. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:54, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * That is not using my reasoning.  That is a rather egregious straw man and a fallacy of the excluded middle, and a clear misapplication of WP:SS, among other policies, such as WP:N, which i just mentioned in the very same paragraph you're replying too! Kevin Baastalk 16:07, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * It is your reasoning if you really look at it. You keep talking about WP:N. Who says this is so notable that it needs to be here? That is what were are debating, but you keep stating it like it is an undisputed fact. Thus, you must consider something to be notable just because it was covered by an RS. And no, your needless wikilinking of commonly used terms doesn't make your reasons stronger. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:56, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Support along the line of Ucanlookitup's reasoning below--Kmhkmh (talk) 10:43, 29 December 2011 (UTC) Oppose And very strongy oppose the use of limited frame sampling polls such as FDU being extrapolated out to the larger population as seems to be the desire here. Arzel (talk) 16:35, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose This is a singular and unscientific poll that has been given unjustified weight. Wikipedia should not offend readers who have conservative views. If Wikipedia has liberal readers and an equal number of conservative readers, why offend half of the readers? It makes no sense at all. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 02:16, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Responses from uninvolved editors

 * Support it's not much to ask and JamesMLane's misunderstanding of a guideline is not a reason to oppose. Also JamesMLane, while you're correct that the methodology or the disagreements about the truthfulness of the studies/polls are irrelevant, you confused and bored your reader with discussing them.
 * Johnathlon (talk) 10:21, 28 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Support. I am previously uninvolved, and came here via the RfC. Based upon what it says in this section of the talk, it seems to me that the addition is justified, and it is a disservice to our readers to leave it out. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:42, 28 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Support. It's really not news to either supporters or opponents of Fox News that there is a controversy concerning their objectivity. An article about Fox News is incomplete without a reasonable summary. Ucanlookitup (talk) 04:12, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Just a note, the proposal doesn't state anything at all about objectivity, it specifically states "Multiple studies have found that Fox News viewers are less well informed, but this conclusion has been disputed." This is not a "reasonable summary", this is an accusation of ignorance based on what media is watched, that directly affects the perception of the quality of that media.  For this reason, it appears to me that this is strictly a POV addition, and does not belong. SeanNovack (talk) 20:50, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The article would be incomplete without it? There is an entire article devoted to nothing but "controversies" and a full section of that article devoted to this stuff. There is a link to that article clearly displayed on this page. If a reader is too lazy to go view it, that's not my problem. We shouldn't litter every article with every detail about a topic just to compensate for laziness. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:49, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Counter proposal. Different sentence: "Some studies, surveys and polls suggest Fox News viewers tend to be less informed than viewers of other news sources. More information on these studies and their numerous criticisms can be found here." I agree with SeanNovack that the sentence as summarized is a bit POV. Sean, what do you think about this? What about you Niteshift? Johnathlon (talk) 10:14, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Per the above. Rationale for adddition is weak and the 'is disputed' disclaimer raises serious issues.  Toa   Nidhiki  05  20:40, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose - A simple link the the controversies page is sufficient. A summary of significant controversies can be listed there if they have their own wiki-article. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:51, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I think Collect has his finger on the crux of the issue. I know this is a very long thread spread over several discussions (mainly because James keps bringing it up), but the practical upshot of all of this is that there is a poll that was done in New Jersey with a small number of people who watched FOXNews asked about events in the Middle East.  The questions were vague and required interpretation to answer, and the "correct" answer that the pollsters were looking for differed in opinion from the answers received.  Since the answers differed, they were counted as "wrong", and the conclusion of this "study" was that these people were therefore "uninformed".  That in of itself is not a valid logical conclusion and should not be allowed.  What the "study" then does is states that "viewers" of FOXNews are "more uninformed" than "viewers" of others media.  This is an obvious logical fallacy, as even a perfectly valid poll of citizens of New Jersey could not be extrapolated onto the nation as a whole.  Therefore, the entire push to get this included appears to be strictly a POV push to make people that disagree with the OP look more ignorant and "uninformed".


 * Nope Still implies that scientific studies show FNC viewers to be "wrong" on issues where it is rather clear that the material is capable of POV interpretation, that the numbers are not statistically valid, and that others dispute the entire premise of the studies, not just the results. Thus placement in this article was and remains beyond the pale. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:05, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * As far as statistics/surveys are concerned there is almost always someone disputing something (and WP editors probably dispute any result they don't like to begin with). What matters here is how reputable the study and its authors are and those disputing it (and for what grounds). If for instance Roger Ailes objects against a study that carries very little to no weight, if however some Princeton researcher disputes it, that's another matter, even more so if his objections are published in a reputable academic journal. Having said that, the FDU study (contrary to the Maryland study) is in many aspects at the lower end of the scale as far as still acceptable reliability/reputability is concerned, hence it is within editorial discretion to drop it from the article - provided there's an editorial consent for it. I don't quite see that right now however.--Kmhkmh (talk) 14:36, 30 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Note. This discussion has been linked at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Conservatism. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:00, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that this doesn't transgress WP:Canvass. JakeInJoisey (talk) 16:25, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Nonsense. I belong to two Wikiprojects that have an interest here, and I posted a message that there was an RfC on each of them (Politics and Conservatism).  The message left simply directed the members to the discussion as a possible area of interest, no more.  The only possible way this could violate WP:CANVASS would be votestacking, and that is an extremely marginable accusation given the fact that the article itself specifies that FOXNews is perceived as a "conservative" news outlet, this would obviously be of interest to some of that Wikiproject, along with anybody in the "Politics" Wikiproject.  Any member of a "Liberalism" wikiproject is welcome to bring it to the attention of those editors as well, in order to broaden the scope of the discussion. SeanNovack (talk) 17:39, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I am satisfied that Sean's note there was sufficiently neutrally worded that it does not violate Canvass, and I guess that there is a plausible rationale that this discussion would be of interest to editors there. What I believe was lacking with regard to the needed transparency was disclosure here, and I attempted to solve that with my posting. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:25, 30 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose Argument against makes more sense per WP:SS. NYyankees51 (talk) 17:13, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose: having this singular factoid here gives it undue weight. To properly include it here we would have to provide complete context, which defeats the purpose of WP:SS. – Lionel (talk) 23:41, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Hear, here. .!. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 16:53, 1 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Support: This seems to be clearly notable (in the sense that the research has been discussed in RS), so mentioning it in this article seems in order. I'm not sure, if the "has been disputed" part needs to specially be mentioned here, since reading the section of the controversy article it turns out that there is no research disputing it, just what amounts to more or less the usual suspects complaining about the results. And these complaints aren't nearly as widely covered as the research itself. --Dailycare (talk) 20:38, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I am no fan of Fox, but even I find this one-sided summary to be an obvious WP:NPOV violation. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 12:08, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Comments regarding the validity of studies/polls
Note: Comments (or comment threads containing comments that are) disputing the validity of the relevant studies and/or polls contained on the controversies page (Fox news channel controversies) are included below. These comments are kept here as opposed to removing or archiving because this is an ongoing discussion and to remove the controversy that might follow deletion. For clarification, original "Support" or "Oppose" comments that did not dispute the validity of studies/polls continue to appear above and (as members of comment threads that dispute the validity of the studies/polls) also appear below. See Wikipedia is NOT a forum. Johnathlon (talk) 01:52, 2 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Support it's not much to ask and JamesMLane's misunderstanding of a guideline is not a reason to oppose. Also JamesMLane, while you're correct that the methodology or the disagreements about the truthfulness of the studies/polls are irrelevant, you confused and bored your reader with discussing them.
 * Johnathlon (talk) 10:21, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The methdology of the polls is not irrelevant. The poll which started this situation was a one state poll being extrapolated out to give an impression that it applies to the entire viewing audience of FNC.  Such polling methodology says almost nothing about FNC in general and provides the neccessary evidence that using such information is vastly undue weight.  Arzel (talk) 16:43, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately Arzel, as a matter of policy wikipedia explicitly is not about what's true or what's accurate, but what's wp:verifiable. I have personally witnessed many reliable sources (as have others on this talk page) provide coverage to this issue. And no, a single sentence stating that a controversy exists with a link to more information is not undue weight. Further, if we were debating the truth of the poll results you would need to be more specific about the poll you are referring to as there are multiple in the relevant section on the controversy page. Johnathlon (talk) 19:57, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I never mentioned anything about truth or the lact thereof. I specifically stated undue weight, which is a WP policy, and I am specifically referring to the FDU poll which is the reason for this RfC in the first place.  James is trying and end-around the objections to this poll by making a general RfC with the hope of including this poll as a result.  The FDU poll, btw, was limited to one state.  As such it is grossly undue weight to use this poll to extrapolate out the knowledge of all FNC viewers.  Arzel (talk) 16:35, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Which part of "Multiple studies have found that Fox News viewers are less well informed, but this conclusion has been disputed. See Fox News Channel controversies#Tests of knowledge of Fox viewers." is extrapolating? I think you are forgetting that the issue is that sentence, not any studies. This is not a forum to debate the methodologies of polls or studies. Johnathlon (talk) 09:53, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * "Multiple" is particularly troubling. James is using the FDU study to strenghten the "Multiple" statement and extrapolate it out to the larger population.  I am not debating the methdology of the poll, but I will not stands by when other editors try to make it more than it is.  If I wanted to debated the actual polls or studies I would talk about how the U of Maryland study is crap because it uses opinion and contrived facts as the true statement.  What I find most interesting about the U of M study is that some of the "truths" have now been shown to be false, such as the effect of the Health Care legislation reducing the national debt.  The U of M study used the CBO scoring, which was forced to show a deficeit reduction, which was an accounting ruse (CLASS and Medicare Doc Fix) to begin with and has now with the removal of CLASS been shown to be completely false.  Anyone that thinks Obamacare will reduce the deficeit is completely off their rocker.  Thus FNC viewers were not only more informed, they were FAR more informed than the esteemed authors of the Maryland Study who did little more than regurgitate the Obama administrations POV.  But since it was covered by sycophantic media it satisfies V and RS.  Besides I am not debating the methodology anyway.  Arzel (talk) 16:37, 1 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Support. I am previously uninvolved, and came here via the RfC. Based upon what it says in this section of the talk, it seems to me that the addition is justified, and it is a disservice to our readers to leave it out. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:42, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I would say it is far more of a disservice to give undue weight to agenda driven small frame polls being used to describe the larger population outside of the sample frame. Arzel (talk) 16:40, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I looked back and saw your comment to me here. Not surprisingly, different editors can disagree about that point. But, since I infer that you are an involved editor, it's generally not very constructive for involved editors to argue back at uninvolved ones. After all, the whole point of an RfC is to get new input, not to keep repeating views that have already been said. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:45, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, one would hope that that input has done some research and state the rational behind their reasoning. Why is it justified?  You don't say.  Arzel (talk) 16:39, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, obviously you didn't take the hint. It is justified because it passes WP:V and WP:RS, and the concerns about WP:UNDUE can readily be addressed by a brief statement about the poll methodology. I think that your position fails WP:NPOV, and I know that you will disagree with me about that. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:57, 30 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Support. It's really not news to either supporters or opponents of Fox News that there is a controversy concerning their objectivity. An article about Fox News is incomplete without a reasonable summary. Ucanlookitup (talk) 04:12, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Just a note, the proposal doesn't state anything at all about objectivity, it specifically states "Multiple studies have found that Fox News viewers are less well informed, but this conclusion has been disputed." This is not a "reasonable summary", this is an accusation of ignorance based on what media is watched, that directly affects the perception of the quality of that media.  For this reason, it appears to me that this is strictly a POV addition, and does not belong. SeanNovack (talk) 20:50, 29 December 2011 (UTC)


 * This RfC has nothing to do with the summary regarding their objectivity, it has to do with summarization of a specific one-state poll being used to describe all viewers of FNC. Arzel (talk) 16:39, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The article would be incomplete without it? There is an entire article devoted to nothing but "controversies" and a full section of that article devoted to this stuff. There is a link to that article clearly displayed on this page. If a reader is too lazy to go view it, that's not my problem. We shouldn't litter every article with every detail about a topic just to compensate for laziness. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:49, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Rasmussen
There is a POV calling Rasmussen conservative since Wikipedia own entry does not list it that way it should be removed. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rasmussen_ReportsBasil rock (talk) 15:36, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * What the Wikipedia article says has no bearing. The characterization is sourced. Granted, I'd prefer to see more than just a Time reporter saying it, but to arbitrarily remove it isn't right. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:34, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I posted the point and no one came to defend it. Since a reporter is just stating his oppinion that does not make it a fact.Basil rock (talk) 09:08, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Nobody is saying that just because a reported said it, the item becomes fact. You might find it enlightening to read the essay WP:TRUTH. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:09, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 15 March 2012
glen beck is no longer aired on fox it was replace with the 5

Tjtimster88 (talk) 00:23, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Celestra (talk) 14:29, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

✅ — Fine references were available a year ago, FYI. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 14:40, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Neutrality tags in misrepresentation of facts section?
Can we talk about why that is there? What can be fixed about that section such that the tag can be removed? The Sound and the Fury (talk) 14:26, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Putting "alleged" is fine, I suppose. These things weren't decided by a court. I thought in the context it was clear, but anyway. The tags?The Sound and the Fury (talk) 17:13, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't have a problem with removing the tag. It was placed there because an editor tried to edit-war in a study that was opposed by numerous editors. When that failed, he tried to discuss and found little support. Then he started a RFC that failed to get the consensus he needed. I, however, would not be the best person to remove it since my touching ti would surely force some sand under his bathing suit. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:21, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Let me do the honors. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 17:27, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

HELP: not original research (maybe needs reediting)
I had this removed for WP:OR. While it might need some language tightening - it is not original research. Check my secondary sources. I'm just talking about what is in there. Please edit and repost. --Daniel E Romero (talk) 23:43, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Frank Vandersloot controversy −	In May 2012, Frank Vandersloot was interviewed by Fox News as part of a story that he was a victim of "political terrorism" claiming that the Obama administration singled him out as a "private businessman" for contributing to the Romney campaign. Frank Vandersloot is the campaign finance co-chair is of the Romney campaign, making him a public figure subject to public debate. This has led to critics of Fox News clamming that they made false reporting about Frank Vandersloot in order to make a scandal against President Obama putting him of the light of a private donor whose privacy was harmed when in truth he is a public figure fully subject to public scrutiny for his political views as part of the Romney Campaign.


 * Looks more like WP:SYNTHESIS than WP:OR. You need a single reliable source putting the pieces together.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 00:32, 17 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Agree with Arthur. I cited wrong policy.  I also replied on my talk page regarding that. - Xcal68 (talk) 00:38, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

The news on CEO Frank Vandersloot is not a controversy. President BHObama chose to say eight people who donated semi-large sums to Mitt Romney were therefore un-American. Vandersloot decided to not just sit back and take it. You can read his extended remarks here: Further, he will be taking further actions to defeat Obama. It is news, but it is not a controversy. Currently, you do not see his name in our Article. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 14:02, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Use of Media Matters
As Media Matters has declared a campaign of "guerilla warfare and sabotage" against Fox, I don't think they can fairly be used as a source in the article. . Or if they are used, their POV should be documented more thoroughly than merely describing them as a "liberal watchdog group" William Jockusch (talk) 14:30, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Disagree. One could just as easily say its a counter to the repeated attacks against media matters from fox news personalities, which have undeniably occurred for years now. I think it should remain as is, to assure that such a fight doesn't manifest on this page. At least until Media Matters actually does something in line with these statements; It would be far too easy to clutter pages up with endless back and forth of similar messages across the political spectrum. 74.132.249.206 (talk) 01:50, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The entire history of MMfA has been to try and sabotage FNC, the only difference is that they now openly admit it. It was created for this purpose, you seem to suggest that it existed peacefully until attack by FNC, which is difficult to imagine since MMfA has been largely ignored by FNC, with the exception of BOR.  Arzel (talk) 02:22, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * All of this is actually missing the point a bit. The most important point for us is not whether or not Media Matters is biased but whether or not its reporting is accurate. The "guerilla warfare and sabotage"-line might suggest that Media Matters doesn't care much for accuracy (anymore) and it require special scrunity and should in doubt be avoided in the future. However as far as the old material is concerned as long as there are no issues with its accuracy, there's no reason to remove them.
 * One might see some irony in the fact however that Media Matters finally turns into something it originally claimed to fight against. Ultimately Media Matters' state of affairs is just piece in the general trend spearheaded by Fox, where opinion or agenda trumps accuracy, information and proper investigative journalism. Or to put it this way not only "sex sells" but "opinion sells" as well.--Kmhkmh (talk) 02:42, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * "Guerrilla warfare" doesn't suggest inaccuracy at all. Quite the opposite. According to Wikipedia, "The strategy and tactics of guerrilla warfare tend to focus around the use of a small, mobile force competing against a larger, more unwieldy one." Guerrillas use "the element of surprise, and extraordinary mobility to harass a larger and less-mobile traditional army, or strike a vulnerable target, and withdraw almost immediately." Their precision is what makes them effective. Declaring war on someone or something doesn't necessarily mean you intend to cheat to win. " Liberal Progressive watchdog" fairly and clearly illustrates the stance of Media Matters to readers here. I'd be much more worried about accuracy if a critic declared an alliance with the other side instead. FOX News may itself be to blame for the negative connotations of "guerrilla warfare", by the way it roots for the home team when covering Iraq and Afghanistan. But it is a neutral term, in truth. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:55, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Media Matters is an extremely biased organization that relies on controlled opinionated sources that only confirm their opinion & reject all unbiased sources that may object to their opinion. They have no real credibility other than the powerful followers they have that manipulate many high ranking news sources. They never show an objective opinon SpankyFC (talk) 15:22, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Propaganda organisations
Add Category:Propaganda organisations — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.158.101.93 (talk) 18:14, 16 May 2012‎ (UTC)

Lets see... no. - Xcal68 (talk) 19:05, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

A funny section. ;-) :-)  :-)  Examples for thinking FoxNews is propoganda should be suggested (also as humor).  Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made.  Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 14:07, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Can't believe this suggestion sounds so reasonable that it was taken seriously despite the ;-) . I don't get how the footage from other crowds placed in the tea party protest video is propaganda though... Using footage from larger crowds also isn't propaganda, because it only affects the political decisions of people who decide which crowd to join by checking their size. Displaying a picture of a full moon while describing the crescent moon, while incorrect, isn't propaganda, because it only affects the political decisions of lunatics. 24.85.161.72 (talk) 02:49, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I can totally see how it should be considered as such, but adding it is realistically just going to end up in a stupid edit war. Some things aren't worth fighting over. One side will always see FOX one way and the other another. So why would it matter what an encyclopedia says or doesn't? It's not going to "prove" anything to anyone. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:56, 1 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I think it would be interesting to get a neutral source (which would probably have to be ETs) to compare the bias of Fox 'news' v Fox 'op-ed commentary' v NYT 'news' v NYT 'op-ed commentary'. Might be interesting but I suspect impossible. The retiring ombudsman at NYT acknowledges that there is a groupthink at NYT whereby the slant of the op-ed pages pervades the news reporting, but then the internet commentaters that sneer at "Faux News" would probable think crosspollination of the NYT news and op-ed pages is a "good thing"--advocacy journalism. Perhaps the criticism of Fox on that point is an example of projection. When I was a child in the 1950s I remember curling up in my parents' bedroom floor in front of the radio to listen to "Sleepy Joe" tell Uncle Remus stories, and the station manager commenting on the issues of the day, ending with "I ask not that you agree with me, only that you think about it". In commentary on controversial issues today, leftists respond that if I don't agree with them I am a "Trailer Trash" "GED Moron" brainwashed by "Fox fake news" "Karl Rove" and/or "Tea Party". --Naaman Brown (talk) 21:52, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * This would be slippery slope. No need to label organizations because one person disagrees with their views. Each news station has its own bias. No need for such labels. JOJ  Hutton  21:57, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Fox News endangers leader of team that killed bin Laden
http://thinkprogress.org/security/2012/08/24/740021/pentagon-book-publisher-reveal-seal-name/

Notable enough to add here? Hcobb (talk) 18:40, 24 August 2012 (UTC)


 * That FNC reported the name or that the SEAL wrote a book without having it vetted by the Pentagon? It is exrememly unlikely that his name would have been anoymous for long considering the manner in which he had the story published.  Arzel (talk) 18:47, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Since when is thinkprogress.org a reliable source? — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 19:02, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Reliable source or not, the story indicates other news outlets have also published this guy's identity. It would seem to be undue weight to list this factoid in this article. It also isn't very notable, just finger pointing. If the revelation of the name actually led to some dangerous situation for the guy, it would be different. It might be appropriate for an article about the raid, the book or the author. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:21, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I think Hulk nailed it. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:41, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Improper use of "alleged".
There seems to be an edit skirmish over having "alleged" before "conservative bias" or "misrepresentation of facts". Keep in mind, the controversy in a nutshell is "Side A says FNC has a conservative bias. Side B says FNC does not have a conservative bias." NOT "Side A says FNC has an alleged conservative bias. Side B says FNC does not have an alleged conservative bias." Even the most diehard FOX defender can't deny there are allegations of bias, and its critics don't allege there is alleged bias. Dig it? InedibleHulk (talk) 10:36, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Then how about just saying "Side A alleges a conservative bias" and everyone is happy? When it comes to the section title, I think allegation belongs there. The body doesn't need to keep saying alleged, since it is presenting both sides, but simply callig the section "conservative bias" implies that there is one, which isn't NPOV. "Allegation of a conservative bias" properly labels the section. Again, no dispute that the allegations exist and not claiming that "alleged" needs used in every sentence, but the section title sets a tone and that tone should be a neutral one.Niteshift36 (talk) 11:19, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
 * This is a subsection in a section called "Controversy". Controversies need a Side B, or they're not controversial. The hissing and spitting is over the issue of conservative bias, not the allegation or denial of it. Putting one side of the argument in the header is not neutral. It implies the allegations are in themselves controversial. Why not call it "Denial of conservative bias" instead? Some may argue the denial is what really stirs the flames. But if we merely state the issue, then describe both sides of the fence, we don't need to choose a side. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:41, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, I don't see it that way. Before I get dismissed as "hissing and spitting", consider what I'm actually saying. The issue is the allegation. One side says the allegation is true and one says false, but it is still the allegation that is being made and/or denied. There is no bias, there is an allegation of a bias. I'm not suggesting that one side be given preference over the other, or that a "B side" be eliminated, only that it be neutral. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:38, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
 * To say something is true is to allege it. Side A is not alleging the allegation is true; they are alleging Fox News has a conservative bias. Fox News denies they have a conservative bias. So that's what the argument's about. I do hear what you're saying, and the "hissing and spitting" referred to the controversy in general, not to our conversation. But I think we're at a bit of a dead end. I'll leave it for now, but I think more opinions than ours are needed before we call this settled. Request for Comment, maybe? InedibleHulk (talk) 16:13, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
 * When it is all said and done, the section is, in fact, about the allegation that is being made, since we will likely not be able to definitively say that there is a bias any time soon. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:25, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
 * It should be about whether or not there is bias, not whether one side is right. There's a subtle but real difference. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:17, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, I made one more change. This eliminates the controversial "conservative bias" phrase and illustrates (hopefully) how "alleged" doesn't sound so neutral when it's on the other side. Hope you like it!InedibleHulk (talk) 16:28, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Someone else reverted it, but I can't say I was a fan of it either and I can't see where it made sense. Why would that use of allegation be more acceptable than the other? Let me ask a simple question, do you believe that "Allegations of a conservative bias" is not neutral or misrepresents the section? If yes to either, please elaborate. I'm not asking about your feelings on the "logic" or what not, just the basic is it neutral and is it accurate? Niteshift36 (talk) 17:25, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
 * It was just as inappropriately non-neutral, but tilted to the other side. I was making a point. If you didn't get it, explaining won't help. I believe the title is inaccurate (in an imprecise way, not a completely false way) and slightly slanted because it implies the controversy is over Side A's stance on the issue rather than on the issue itself. Consider: Would it be more neutral to frame another argument as "Does God exist?" or "Are people who say God exists wrong?"/"Are people who say God doesn't exist wrong?" We should present the question here in the heading, then both answers in the body, not Side A's answer in the heading AND body. Dispute over neutrality or something similar would be preferable, I think, if Conservative bias is that offensive. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:11, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
 * It's not the use of "conservative bias" that's being disputed, so changing that doesn't seem like a big improvement. I see allegations of a bias and FNC's response to the allegation, thus making it a disussion of the allegation. I'm failing to see where "dispute" is an improvement over allegation, nor do I see the implication you are seeing (that the title implies the controversy is one-sided). Niteshift36 (talk) 18:52, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
 * If it wasn't disputed, what is this and this? From the guidelines on criticism sections: The undue weight policy requires that negative criticism be presented in a way that does not draw excessive attention to the negative criticism. Such as by not putting that side of the argument in a bold section header. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:06, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Those edits are 110% consistent with what I've been saying. Both leave the term "conservative bias" in place, so clearly I don't have an issue with the term. The issue is leaving it there ALONE, versus accurately reflecting that the section is about the ALLEGATION of a conservative bias. (see, I can do random bold print too) Simply stating "conservative bias" implies that there is one. There is an ALLEGATION of one. Niteshift36 (talk) 12:32, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm talking about it as a section header, not as a term. That bold print wasn't random. InedibleHulk (talk) 14:46, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I know what you were talking about and still would have known without the bold print. Bold or not, the section is still about the allegation of a bias, not about a bias. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:20, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Requesting comments on Controversy wording
Please read Talk:Fox_News_Channel and state your opinion on the matter. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:11, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
 * My opinion is simple, the section is about the fact that some allege a conservative bias and FNC disputes it. Thus, there is no proven bias, but there IS, in fact allegations of it, making "Allegations of a conservative bias" completely accurate, appropriate and neutral. Niteshift36 (talk) 12:34, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
 * That's a specious argument. Observe: "My opinion is simple, the section is about the fact that some allege that the world is round and the flat-earthers dispute it. Thus, there is no proof that the earth is round." 24.177.125.104 (talk) 21:36, 8 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm not going to get deep into an argument here, but I thought I'd throw out a couple things I noticed. First of all, every single allegation of conservative bias referenced in both the lead and the opening of the allegation section is from a liberal source.  Second, it's indisputably obvious that the channel has conservatives hosting its commentary shows.  I would say I'd be okay with mentioning allegations of a right-wing slant in news reports if it were made clear they are all from left-wing sources. —Torchiest talkedits 17:55, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Isn't disagreeing with the "right-wing" what defines a source as "left-wing"? I've never been a fan of the Red vs Blue mentality in American media, so I'm not as clear on the rules as some may be. But it seems this is a "goes without saying" distinction. No believer of any ideology is likely going to complain about a major channel adhering to and spreading it. It presumably wouldn't be seen as a problem by them. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:00, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * No, as there are more political viewpoints than just conservative and liberal. —Torchiest talkedits 17:15, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Sure, but all can be labeled left-wing or right-wing, when compared to another on the spectrum. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:14, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * ...you mean, from allegedly left-wing sources? 24.177.125.104 (talk) 21:28, 8 September 2012 (UTC)


 * FoxNews TV is more popular because it is 'conservative' (not 'right-wing'); more popular than 'liberal' TV such as MSNBC and CNN. — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 03:56, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
 * And that contributes to this discussion... how? 24.177.125.104 (talk) 21:37, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

OK, does anyone have opinions on the argument between Niteshift and I? Basically, should the title be the subject of the controversy (conservative bias) or one of the sides of the controversy (Allegation or denial or conservative bias)? InedibleHulk (talk) 04:44, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Again, the subject is the allegation, not the bias. Niteshift36 (talk) 11:52, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
 * If the subject is allegations, that would mean Side A alleges there are allegations (which they don't, because that goes without saying) and Side B denies there are allegations (which they don't, because that's indisputable). Saying the argument is about Conservative bias is neutral and accurate. It doesn't say either side is right, simply says what both sides are alleging and denying. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:58, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * You're making a semantic straw-man argument to derail the conversation. It's the subject that's being discussed here-- your opinionated contention notwithstanding. 24.177.125.104 (talk) 21:33, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * News flash for you sunshine: Of course it's semantics....we are discussing the WORDING of the title and how it is perceived. Dictionary.com is free and may keep you from blurting out foolishness. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:43, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Nice dodge, but I know what semantic means. Would you like to respond to the allegation that you're making a strawman argument? 24.177.125.104 (talk) 04:30, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * There is no dodge, you simply misused the word. Your strawman allegation doesn't even merit a response since it doesn't apply. Niteshift36 (talk) 12:12, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Yawn. Whatever you say, yo. This is tedious. 24.177.125.104 (talk) 13:22, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * At last, we agree on something. Talking to you is tedious. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:02, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, gee, no one's forcing you to. If all you have to offer is faulty/absent reasoning and opinion statements, I'd, frankly, consider it a courtesy if you stopped. 24.177.125.104 (talk) 22:38, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd consider it a courtesy if you didn't start stalking other pages and leaving me little troll droppings on my talk page. Meanwhile, you whine about any of my responses being sarcastic, but post this. Niteshift36 (talk) 12:30, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * At the risk of editorializing, that was an excellent response! (24's, that is.) InedibleHulk (talk) 02:55, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Of course you would. Color me shocked. Niteshift36 (talk) 12:30, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Controversy - a discussion marked especially by the expression of opposing views. One view is that Conservative bias exists on Fox. Another is that Conservative bias does not exist on Fox. What do these opposing views have in common? They are both about Conservative bias. Only one is about allegations of it. It would be just as wrong to call it Allegations of objective impartiality, though Fox News has verifiably alleged it exists. If one can invert a phrase like that, it's obviously not neutral. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:40, 10 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment: "FNC disputes it" is not the same thing as "no proven bias." That being said, I don't see anything in the article that would prove it - I'm inclined to say that academic sources would be required. If such sources can be provided, "allegations" should be removed, but otherwise not. Arc de Ciel (talk) 18:05, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * How's this for an academic source asserting Fox News' bias? It's the first Google Scholar hit for "Fox News", and the third sentence unambiguously describes Fox as 'conservative' . 24.177.125.104 (talk) 21:25, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Once again, you miss the obvious. Nobody is disputing the fact that some call FNC "conservative". Please try actually reading the discussion. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:43, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Please cut out the condescention. The controversy is over whether Fox News is biased, not over whether there are allegations of bias. 24.177.125.104 (talk) 04:37, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Um, no. You started in here, from the beginning with condescending silliness about flat earth and "semantics", now when you get a little back, you want to play the victim? Sorry, AGF isn't a suicide pact. Niteshift36 (talk) 12:12, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * That "flat earth" analogy made perfect sense. If you see it as silliness, you missed the point. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:42, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * No, the point wasn't missed at all. His example is distorted. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:02, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * ORLY? How so? 24.177.125.104 (talk) 22:33, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Arc de Ciel said academic sources asserting bias would be required to remove "allegations"; 24 provided one. It's clear 24 read the discussion. No, this sub-discussion about "proof" isn't exactly relevant to the larger one about a neutral title. But 24 responded relevantly to the sub-discussion. In the What consensus? section below, you seem to believe de Ciel's concern is relevant. In that case, it has been addressed sufficiently. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:57, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Read what he said. He said if the bias can be proven, then allegation should be removed. "If such sources can be provided, "allegations" should be removed, but otherwise not". If the sources do not prove there is a bias, then allegation should remain. If the sources prove there is a bias (not an allegation of one), then the word would be removed. The IP provided a ref that someone called FNC "conservative". So what? Who disputes that. That doesn't prove a bias. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:42, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Close. He said he was inclined to say academic sources would be required. Such sources were provided. You ask "who disputes that" FOX is conservative, while at the same time denying bias exists. Hard to make sense of this. Are you saying a news organization can have an undisputed political association and be neutral? InedibleHulk (talk) 22:38, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * As you see below, you are wrong. Arc correctly pointed out that just because FNC is conservative, that doesn't make the existence of a bias a given fact. You appear to be having difficulty with that concept. Further, you misrepresented what I said. I didn't say there is an undisputed "association" with anything. I said they are conservative leaning. That's pretty much a no-brainer. That doesn't make someone biased. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:02, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * "Leaning" equals "bias". Unbiased news doesn't lean either way. Just the facts. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:44, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * No, it doesn't. For example, a reporter himself can be a liberal, but that doesn't ensure his reporting will be biased. He could report neutral. Just because FNC hires people with conservative roots doesn't make their product automatically biased. Niteshift36 (talk) 12:30, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * You're conflating the organization and it's employees. Again, you state that FNC is conservative: how so? I don't care about the politics of the reporters; I want to know how a news organization demonstrates a political affiliation if not through it's news-gathering-and-reporting operations. 24.177.125.104 (talk) 18:30, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay, my impression so far. First, one academic source (that isn't a review article) is not generally sufficient to make such a broad statement. Also, I agree with Niteshift that calling something "conservative" is not necessarily the same as calling it "biased" - mainly on the grounds that if the statement were correct, there would be sources making more explicit statements. That being said, given the emphasis he/she put on the word "proven," I should point out that it doesn't mean "100% with no possibility of a mistake," just "beyond a reasonable doubt." That is, the level of evidence that would normally be required in order to make a statement in Wikipedia's editorial voice.
 * Second, for the article cited (I have access to the full text, not sure if anyone else here does), it does supply evidence that introducing FNC causes more people to vote Republican. This in itself has two possible interpretations, as they state in the last sentence of the abstract (the part that is available to everyone). The most interesting thing, though, is that they seem to be taking the statement Fox is biased as a given. This can also be taken from the abstract; they're saying that they want to study the effects of media bias, and therefore they studied the effects that occur when Fox is introduced. Taking something as a given in an academic paper usually means there is a long history of evidence supporting the statement, such that it doesn't have to be argued for any more. That's a pretty strong indication - but again, we would need the actual sources, at least studies which have "FNC is biased" as their conclusion, and preferably a review article.


 * But then again, if Inedible Hulk wants to argue from title policy rather than from factual status, all of this is irrelevant anyways. :-) (See below.) Arc de Ciel (talk) 05:46, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm cool with going the title policy route. The points of this controversy (between FOX and critics, not between us here) don't interest me. I'm already convinced which side is right. I'm just concerned with the title remaining neutral. But thanks for clarifying! InedibleHulk (talk) 06:27, 12 September 2012 (UTC)


 * ✅ with InedibleHulk. Here's the point: everything appropriate for Wikipedia is an allegation in some sense, as anything else is OR. As such, it really goes without saying. Besides which, the fact that the section is subordinate to one called 'Criticism and controversies' already implies that the claim is not accepted as fact by some. The language simply does not need to be there, and its inclusion is lends undue weight to a particular POV. 24.177.125.104 (talk) 21:39, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Everything appropriate for WP is an allegation? Are you serious? Obama is president. That is appropriate for WP and it is a FACT, not an allegation. Given the number of utterly reliable sources on that fact, it surely isn't OR. That may be one of the most ridiculous statements I've seen made on here. Hulk should disavow your support. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:43, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * No, I shouldn't. 24 is referring to Wikipedia's policy of verifiability, not truth, being the criteria for inclusion. Yes, Obama is President, but if nobody alleges that, we couldn't put that fact in his article. "Allegation" doesn't mean "untrue or disputed". Some allegations are, some aren't. 24 understands and explains the problem with undue weight in highlighting one side of a clearly labeled controversy. If it doesn't make sense to you, you're either misunderstanding something or ignoring it. Re-read carefully. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:27, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't need to re-read. You do. Niteshift36 (talk) 12:12, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Bingo! 24.177.125.104 (talk) 04:25, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

I basically agree with InedibleHulk and the IP above. While I don't consider the use of alleged/allegation as a big problem, it is nevertheless dispensable here for the reasons outlined by the IP and therefore somewhat of a redundant filler. Such fillers however should imho usually be avoided.

Also an additional point regarding conservative versus liberal sources argument popping above. We should pick sources for accuracy and journalistic or academic reputation. Arguing based conservative/Liberal or left/right scheme is not really helpful, it tends to produce a simplistic black and white approach to a colored reality. That might be appropriate for politicians and campaigners, but it isn't for a serious encyclopedic project.---Kmhkmh (talk) 01:41, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

What consensus?
Hulk claims a consensus while the RFC is still open. What consensus? Aside from the editors that reverted your change in the article, Arc de Ciel said that unless the bias is proven, allegation should stay. Torchiest and Shipp don't seem to be supporting you. So what? An IP editor came in and put a green checkmark, so you "win"? Niteshift36 (talk) 13:54, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I figured it'd be safe to call. If you'd rather wait it out, that's fine. Arc de Ciel seems to be missing the point. The body of the section makes it clear these are disputed allegations. That doesn't change the fact that what the dispute is about is Conservative bias. Shipp and Torchiest (with respect) have said nothing supporting either side of our debate. 24.177 has explained his/her argument using policy and logic and has explained why your argument is unsound. Remember, consensus is determined by quality of arguments, not a straight vote. But since there 's a chance some new editor may present something valid for your side, I suppose it's fair to wait. But for how long? InedibleHulk (talk) 23:14, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Don't lecture me on what consensus is. You are the one treating this like a vote. The default for a RFC is 30 days..... you barely made it through 10. The RFC was your idea, so you get to let it run its course. Niteshift36 (talk) 12:12, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I didn't miss the point. :-) I said that if bias is unproven, "allegations of" should stay. That doesn't mean I like the word "alleged" - it's generally a biased word used to cast doubt on something. It's on WP:W2W in the manual of style, but it's then followed by "Alleged and accused are appropriate when wrongdoing is asserted but undetermined, such as with people on trial for crimes. When alleged or accused is used, ensure that the source of the accusation is clear." I assumed that if there was a specific policy on titles that supersedes that, you would have cited it in the RfC question. However, I've now looked it up and found something about article titles, which says "Avoid judgmental and non-neutral words; for example, allegation implies wrongdoing, and so should be avoided in a descriptive title." I think it's reasonable to say that article policy title policy should ceteris paribus apply to section titles as well, but that's not the argument that you've been making.
 * In any case, I then said that the question isn't relevant if the statement is factual, i.e. supported by a reasonable amount of evidence. To me, that's a much more interesting question - and it's odd that everything in the article describes opinion and perception rather than academic analysis, when that academic analysis is available. See my comments above.
 * I've no problem with "alleged" in the body. It was always with the weight it received in a section title. I wasn't aware of the article title guideline you mention, but was arguing along those general lines. I'll gladly adopt it into my argument. Thanks. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:15, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Part of the problem is that "bias" is itself an emotionally charged word. Even if the consensus is towards taking "Allegations of" out, I might still support replacing it with something else, e.g. "Conservative programming." It would depend on how prominently the sources used the word "bias." (And if "bias" is retained, "Political bias" would be less charged as well.) Okay, I may or may not comment again depending on what the replies are. :-) Arc de Ciel (talk) 05:46, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, either of those works for me. Even "Neutrality" would be fine (and definitely sounds neutral). Anything that accurately fills the blank in "Side A has a viewpoint on _______. Side B has an opposing viewpoint." No "allegations of", "denial of", "pro-" or "anti-". And we can't pull a Fox News by adding a question mark ("Fair and Balanced?"). InedibleHulk (talk) 06:15, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Um -- why not "Disputed claims of bias" as being fully accurate and covering all sides? Collect (talk) 14:35, 11 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Isn't the 'disputed' rather redundant? If we say that something is 'claimed' rather than stating it as a fact, it rather implies that such claims may be disputed. Personally, I can't see anything wrong with 'Allegations of Conservative bias' as a section title, since that is what the section is about. I think our readers are clever enough to decide for themselves whether the allegations are true or not - or if they aren't, it isn't our job to spoon-feed them the 'truth'. (even if it is self-evidently-true). AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:41, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Again, the allegations are not what the controversy is about. Neither are the denials. Both are just arguments from either side. Labelling the section with "allegations of" or "denials of" is placing undue weight on one side or the other. The common thing is both sides offer a view on conservative bias (one says it exists, one says it doesn't). And so that's what it's about. Whether the allegations or denials are true is irrelevant to the impartial way Wikipedia should present any controversy. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:52, 11 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Could IH simply state in the RfC exactly what they would like to change? It is a little confusing.  Arzel (talk) 16:43, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * He wants to change the title of the section from "Allegations of a conservative bias" to "Conservative bias". Niteshift36 (talk) 16:49, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Yep. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:19, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Then I would say No uless it is limited to only those items are specifically proven with rock solid sources that specifically state it. None of this "X has described Y as an example of conservative bias." Unfortunately, or fortunately depending on your perspective, it would result in no section at all, since everything in that section is a claim (allegation) of conservative bias, especially the polls.  Arzel (talk) 16:05, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The various claims in the section aren't the issue here. Only the title. I have no problem with using "alleged" in the section to describe allegations. But the title should be neutral, only stating the issue, not one side's stance. "Proof" is not required for a neutral point of view. But 24 has some below, anyway. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:56, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay, how about this one? "[T]his study examines coverage of presidential approval polls on Fox News's flagship news program, Special Report, as well as on ABC's, CBS's, and NBC's evening newscasts over the last decade. The results provide substantial evidence for bias in the news choices across the four news outlets". 24.177.125.104 (talk) 20:55, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Here's another: "By analyzing television transcripts from cable news from a 12-month period, we reveal significant differences in political bias between television channels (liberal to conservative: MSNBC, CNN, FoxNews)". 24.177.125.104 (talk) 21:01, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * "[T]his study offers further evidence that the [Fox News] channel not only tilts right, but serves as a reliable megaphone for the Bush administration’s arguments, including allowing administration officials (and their allies) to dominate other voices, and giving less play to critical sources and even-handed analyses." 24.177.125.104 (talk) 21:12, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Actually see for an actual empirical study (rather than based on opinions of the observers). ''Who's the fairest of them all? An empirical test for partisan bias on ABC, CBS, NBC, and Fox News.(SYMPOSIUM: THE PRESIDENT AND THE PRESS)(Critical essay)'' Presidential Studies Quarterly, December 1, 2008 | Groeling, Tim. ''Despite testing for bias using an objective (dare I say, "fair and balanced"?) methodology, all of the outlets demonstrated what appeared to be at least some selection bias that matched the popular caricature of their supposed prejudices. (20)   and New York senator Hillary Rodham Clinton's (D-NY) campaign chairman Terry McAuliffe argued the former first lady had been "hamstrung" by pervasive bias in the media against her candidacy, estimating that 90% of the media were "in the tank" for her competitor, senator Barack Obama (D-IL). McAuliffe then praised the coverage on Fox News, which he identified as "one of the most responsible [media outlets] in this presidential campaign" (Marre 2008). '' implying the biases of all media are clear when measured empirically. If we have a section here, then we should add the correspending caveats per ABC, CBS, and NBC all appeared to favor good news for Clinton and bad news for Bush, while Fox appeared to favor the reverse. The main finding of the study was that Fox was far mopre likely to quote external polls (62 times in the multi-year period studied) while ABC and CBS rarely cited any outside polls. Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:00, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Dude, that's my second ref above. If you'd like to change other articles, I'd suggest discussing it on those articles' talk pages. 24.177.125.104 (talk) 04:56, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Dude, read my post. And note that this has nothing to do with edits on articles by me, so your post is a rad example of a non-utile comment.    What is clear is that "bias" os generally in the eye of the beholder, and is found in every media source they examined to some degree. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:38, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I promise, I'm trying, but the formatting makes it challenging. Bias is necessarily comparative. What all the sources agree on is that FNC tilts right of mainstream. What does "non-utile" mean? 24.177.125.104 (talk) 18:04, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Dispute Resolution Notice
Given how long this has been disputed for, I thought it would be prudent to solicit input from other, uninvolved editors. To that end, pleíase be advised that I've added this subject to WP:DRN. 24.177.125.104 (talk) 05:13, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * And they've closed it since this is still under the RFC. Seems like some folks are in a real hurry to get this changed.....here we left it one more day and we already have 2 more established editors that have come in an opined that the change isn't needed. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:36, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Hello, I thought I'd drop in and provide some DR magic. First of all Everyone needs to take a deep breath and re-read WP:CIVILITY.  I've seen several comments that are skirting the fine line of incivility. Second, the debate is over the word Allegation in the section heading?  Based on the back and forth from the Primary Source (FNC) and the criticisim so far, I'm inclined (personally) to leave the word Allegation in the section header.  To use one of FNC's own tags, "We Report, You Decide".  Present it in a neutral manner (report Allegation) and give the reader enough information to make a decision on their own. Hasteur (talk) 21:16, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * By that logic, shouldn't all of the controversies be of the form "Allegations of X?" And, indeed, every other assertion or contention? I don't think you give readers enough credit-- they're able to tell that the bias controversy involves allegations of bias based on the fact that it's a controversy. 70.194.74.249 (talk) 21:41, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Yep. This could just as well be called "Allegations of impartiality". Then I'll bet the other side would see why that's wrong. A truly neutral title can never be flipped around like that, because it describes the center of the debate, not either side of it. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:06, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Because you still don't get the idea that what is being discussed is the allegation. Some parties make the allegation, then offer their supporting reasons. We document that. Then Fox responds to the allegation and we document that. The allegation is the topic of the section. Niteshift36 (talk) 12:27, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * So you would have no problems with "Allegations of impartiality"? FOX makes that allegation, and critics respond to it. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:16, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Kindly refrain from telling me what I do or do not find acceptable. Niteshift36 (talk) 12:39, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The question mark means I'm asking you, not telling you. Do you have an answer? InedibleHulk (talk) 01:05, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * It was obviously a rhetorical question....well, I guess it could be poor writing, but you seem to be capable of writing, so I defaulted to rhetorical. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:16, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. But now that I've explained it's an actual question and directly asked if you have an answer to it, can you see how it might not be so rhetorical? (That one was rhetorical). Do you find "Allegations of impartiality" acceptable as a header? Why and/or why not? InedibleHulk (talk) 07:36, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Since you are arguing that anyone supporting a truly NPOV title should be able to support its converse equally well, then you should have no objection to titling the section Fair and balanced reporting, right? Fat&#38;Happy (talk) 08:23, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd object to its wordiness (and to a lesser extent, its use of a trademarked slogan). But "Impartiality", "Political neutrality", "Balance" or "Reporting" would be fine by me (though the latter two are a bit too vague). Anything that describes the subject of contention is OK; the more accurately descriptive and concise, the better. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:23, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * And you still don't get that treating everyone who disagrees with you as though they don't understand something is condescending. Cut. It. Out. 24.177.125.104 (talk) 13:11, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * You have zero room to talk about being condescending my anonymous friend. And when people keep acting like agreeing that FNC is conservative means it is presumed there is a bias, then yeah, I question if they know what they are talking about. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:58, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Srsly, you don't see the contradiction there? Then let me try another approach: in what way do you agree FNC is conservative? 24.177.125.104 (talk) 20:41, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * "Srsly", if you're going to continue your little game, at least be courteous enough to write the whole word. No, I don't see a contradiction. You are running around, whining bitching and moaning complaining about my civility but you aren't restraining the snarkiness yourself. Now you've taken to stalking other discussions. So sad.Niteshift36 (talk) 12:39, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I see what you did there. You never answered the question. 24.177.121.137 (talk) 06:43, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think I've complained about your civility yet, but you raise a good point: it is lacking. 24.177.125.104 (talk) 17:59, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, you have commented on your assessment of my response. Just scroll up a couple of lines where you call my responses condescending. Also, in the DRN section you started, you said "I'm also concerned with and disappointed about some recent comments made by Niteshift36 which I viewed as being condescending." Calling my responses condescending (twice), is certainly a comment on the civility of my responses. So are you just forgetful or a liar? Once again, you have zero room to talk about civility, especially after your latest flurry of troll droppings. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:13, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I suspect the reason there aren't more editors jumping at the chance to participate in this RfC has to do with your incredible lack of subtlety. 24.177.122.56 (talk) 06:01, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Or maybe they don't want to be stalked by you? Or maybe they can see the blatantly obvious, that the section is titled properly, and they don't want to listen to you start calling them names because your feelings got hurt. Niteshift36 (talk) 12:00, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
 * You're making my point. 24.177.121.137 (talk) 17:23, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
 * If it helps you feel better about yourself, keep believing that. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:16, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

What the hell...
...could we just call the section "Bias"? Then we could also discuss FNC's well-documented anti-Ron Paul bias-- which isn't particularly "conservative"-- as well. 24.177.125.104 (talk) 13:16, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * No, that's worse than Hulk's idea. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:58, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, but is it worse than your argument? ;-) 24.177.125.104 (talk) 20:30, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Linking to essays that don't actually apply to the discussion doesn't make your argument stronger. It just makes you look desperate. You keep acting like I'm the only one who opposes the change or that the reasons for it haven't been stated. While you gripe about how I respond to people who disagree, you fail to see the hypocrisy of your own responses. Niteshift36 (talk) 12:45, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * At least I have an argument... 24.177.125.104 (talk) 17:37, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I do too sunshine. My argument is that what the section is discussing is the allegation, making the title accurate and neutral. You may diasgree, but that doesn't negate the fact that the argument is there. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:16, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * "Neutrality", "bias", "political leanings", "journalistic integrity", whatever. As long as whatever title is used illustrates the common point of controversy (man, I wish we could use huge fonts), not one side of the argument, it's fine. Any mention of allegations or denials violates WP:NPOV and is also inaccurate. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:09, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, unless you are actually suggesting that nobody has alleged that Fox News has a Conservative bias, it is perfectly in accord with WP:NPOV to state that such allegations have been made - it is a verifiable statement of fact. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:13, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Sure, but so are the denials. Would it be alright to tip the balance and call it "Denials of conservative bias"? The fact that tipping the balance in a title is even possible clearly shows it isn't neutral. As someone mentions above, an article title guideline says "Avoid judgmental and non-neutral words; for example, allegation implies wrongdoing, and so should be avoided in a descriptive title." Surely this also appllies to section titles. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:21, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with 24: just call it "Bias"? Why isn't there a similar discussion about the next subtitle "Misrepresentation of facts". By definition the main heading makes it abundantly clear that these are items in dispute; they addition of "Allegations" adds POV. By the way: upon request above scholarly support for conservative bias was promptly provided, I haven't seen any scholarly support for the statement that FNC is neutral. W\&#124;/haledad (Talk to me) 02:01, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * (Just to be clear, I was suggesting that the title of the section be Bias. No scare quotes, no question mark.) 24.177.125.104 (talk) 04:59, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * If 'allegations' is inappropriate, how about 'Claims of conservative bias'? And in response to the previous post, we should have 'Claims of Misrepresentation of facts" too. there is nothing remotely judgemental in reporting that people have claimed something. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:08, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * That's a synonym. The French call it "accusation". If the meaning doesn't change, neither do my objections to it. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:20, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, are you objecting to Wikipedia reporting that some people think that Fox News has a conservative bias? If you aren't, how do you suggest we impart this information to our readers? AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:55, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Absolutely not. Report whatever's fit to print. Just not in the title. I suggest we give it a title that reflects the entire controversy, rather than either half of it. It's a subsection of a section about controversies, after all. Both sides have their cases presented on the issue of conservative bias (real or imagined) in the body of the section, but only one is referenced by the title. The allegations and denials aren't what's controversial, the subject of them is. I must have said that fifteen times here. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:41, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * So what section title are you proposing? AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:49, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

I started with "conservative bias" but, in the fourth post of this section, said anything neutral works (and that I wish it was in more visible giant letters). I know this talk section is large, but please read. Repeating myself only makes it larger. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:59, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

What is controversy, anyway?
Maybe it would be helpful to review what controversy means: "Controversy is a state of prolonged public dispute or debate, usually concerning a matter of opinion."

That there are allegations of bias is not an opinion, nor is it the subject of dispute or debate; as such, the allegations do not, in and of themselves, constitute a controversy. Rather, it is that which is being alledged (iow, whether said allegations are accurate) that is controversial. The allegations and denials of bias illustrate that there is a controversy over bias, not over allegations thereof.

As far as subsection headings go, I'd prefer "Bias", optionally preceeded with descriptors such as "Conservative", "Political", "Partisan", or "Right-wing". I'd also take "Objectivity", "Neutrality", "Partiality", or "Impartiality". But I will not abide "Allegations of X" or "Claims of Y" unless someone can provide acceptable sources demonstrating that the claims or allegations independently constitute a Fox News Channel controversy. 24.177.125.104 (talk) 06:45, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Apparently other here WILL NOT ABIDE the changes you propose. (Not only did I put it in bold print, but I did all caps too. Does that make my response stronger?) Since you've made you postions known and have stated that there is no way you will ever change it, you've shown that there can't possibly be any further meaningful discussion with you. Thanks for clarifying that you won't be open minded from this point on. Niteshift36 (talk) 12:51, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * LOL. You're a troll. (Hint: there is an obvious factual misrepresentation in every non-parenthetical statement you just made. Nice try, though.) 24.177.125.104 (talk) 17:34, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * And yet you complain about the tone of replies? I'll wait here while you look up hypocrite. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:20, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * If you feel like bickering about who's the bigger tool, use each other's talk pages, please. This talk page is for discussing this article. Do not respond to this request in writing. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:17, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry if you feel left out. I didn't mean to ignore how big of a tool you've been. I apologize for my insensitivity. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:19, 14 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Totally agree with the IP. Anything from his Paragraph 3 (in the top comment of this section, which this comment used to be directly under) is good enough for me. Whatever suits everyone is best. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:41, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Agree with IH. 24.177.122.56 (talk) 05:53, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Huh? You make a comment, Hulk agrees with it, then you agree with him agreeing? And bolding your agreement like it's a !vote or something. Thanks for the laugh. Niteshift36 (talk) 11:58, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I aim to please, sweetheart. 24.177.121.137 (talk) 17:26, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Controversey section

 * 1) The "conservative bias" section is noteworthy, but this misrepresentation section is based soley on the statements from MMfA, which is itself proudly carrying a bias. I would have no objections keeping this section, but we need much better sourcing and presentation.
 * 2) The Obama spat just plain doesn't belong. Will this matter to a reader 10 years, much less be interesting?  FN was critical of Clinton and had some muckety muck issues with that administration and those aren't here (nor should they be).    little green rosetta $central scrutinizer (talk)$ 04:18, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
 * 3) The suicide, while smacking of recentism also doesn't warrant its own section, but rather a sentance

There is also a problem with labeling this section overall, as having "controversy" sections is outdated. In short, this part of the article needs some cleanup. little green rosetta $central scrutinizer (talk)$ 04:18, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Whether Media Matters is biased is irrelevant. I imagine any person or organization making these kinds of claims would naturally be seen as biased against FOX. But they've provided examples of misrepresentation of facts, which are verifiably accurate. Fox News' side of the story is also included, so its not solely based on anything.
 * It's not a matter of MMfA disagreeing or having a different POV. They openly state that they target FNC, only looking for "issues" among conservative outlets and devoting a special section to FNC. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:54, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
 * That may be true, but if they make a valid point and support it with evidence, their motivations aren't important (to Wikipedia). We take statements by police about criminals they target, statements by governments about enemy governments, statements by film critics about Michael Bay. An organization can pelt another with crap all day long; some will stick, some won't. We should consider each piece of info on its own, instead of considering who threw it out there. Even a broken clock is right twice a day. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:01, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't be as uncomfortable with MMfA being used to support the claims of others, but using them as the basis of the claim seems a little dubious. Granted, sometimes they are right, but we're not in the "business" of deciding who is right. They have a clear bias and that is an issue to me. Again, using them for a supporting quote or two is one thing, but as the basis.....that's where I start being less comfortable. The statements of the police are (at least superficially) neutral. they are seeking the truth about a crime. The film critic may not like a Bay film, but they are there to review all films. If the critic said the purpose of their column was to "find all the suckiness in a Bay film and bring it to light", then yeah, I'd be uncomfortable with it being used as the basis of a controversial comment. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:25, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
 * MMfA isn't a RS that I'm aware of, rather they are an aggregator of sources. Using their interpretation and commentary for example, wouldn't do, but the information that is verifiable is fair game.  Of course we really should have some RS citing Fox as having a bias, or else this becomes original research or a "MMfA says" section.   little green rosetta $central scrutinizer (talk)$ 05:08, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
 * As for the suicide, even if it was just a sentence, it would still need its own section. Otherwise it would be in the preceding Obama section (on which I have no opinion). But yes, it is more "scandalous" than "controversial". Nothing to argue here; they screwed up, instantly admitted it and apologized. It should probably go in the Shepard Smith article instead. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:40, 29 September 2012 (UTC)


 * How is having Controversy sections "outdated"? InedibleHulk (talk) 04:43, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Controversies should be written into the article without having their own section. At least that's the gist I've been getting from reading the GA nominations.   little green rosetta $central scrutinizer (talk)$ 05:08, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Is the suicide broadcast a controversy?
I say no. FOX screwed up, admitted it and apologized. Nobody (in the article) is arguing this. The word "controversial" is often misused in news as a synonym for "scandalous" or just to drum up interest. But it actually means there's some sort of dispute or conflicting views on something. So this event should be removed. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:07, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree that it's not a controversy, and as mentioned above, it's ideal to phase out the controversy section by merging the controversial bits into the rest of the article. Whether this interest (but uncontroversial) incident finds a place in the final result is unclear. I&#39;m StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 19:24, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
 * So, while a controversy section exists, this doesn't belong in it? InedibleHulk (talk) 02:05, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Possibly. Just because there is a controversy section, that doesn't mean every controversy merits mention. This appears especially true when we have an entire article devoted to Fox News Channel controversies and a hatnote in that section that points users to it.Niteshift36 (talk) 13:47, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it seems like that article should be the place for all of this. Just a link here would probably be appropriate, not a section of duplicate info. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:05, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with reduced details and succinct delivery. I agree with neutral presentation, proportionality, and proper placement. I do not agree with omission, except for sloth. Therefor I did reinstate this content when I first noticed the obliteration. My original regards to this, are at User talk:InedibleHulk and it elaborates on that reversion. There is a controversy around this event. The larger issue is not unique to Fox News, but rather endemic. Unique to this "mistake" is the controversial statement by "Fox" to the effect 'we did all we could' or 'everything prudent' when it is clear within the larger context, that there is significantly more that could have been done, and that in live broadcasting, a 5 second delay is fringe to the 8 second, standards of old, and statistical trends that conservatively push for 10 seconds. Technologically, the least expensive equipment is capable of up to 40 seconds and some up to 80 seconds for the same price.  What's the right number? is 5 seconds enough? Is it oppression to require more? Frankly I'll be glad to skip that debate. Did Fox do all that they could do? Absolutely not. It's an editorial decision; which belongs to them to defend. But to say there's no controversy is like saying there's no controversy around wp:civil. And they are each as likely to find their own answer. But the controversy will assuredly remain. 76 Strat String da Broke da (talk) 00:12, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Regardless of whether something has potential to be controversial (and everything does), there is no evidence of any actual controversy here in the article. To keep it here, we'd need another side to the story. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:05, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I've given my perspective on the angle. Here is some related wp:rs:
 * "The broadcast immediately spurred scrutiny about the network’s tendency to take car chases live during its daytime newscasts.
 * Opinion, not factual that FNC has some measurable tendency. Arzel (talk) 13:48, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
 * "You can make a good case that Fox was inviting this type of debacle with its habit of airing live car-chase feeds.
 * Not really about FNC, more about other sites re-broadcasting the suicide. Arzel (talk) 13:48, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
 * "Al Tompkins, senior faculty for broadcasting and online at the Poynter Institute for journalism, told TheBlaze in an email there was “no excuse” for Fox to air what it did."
 * And this is different from what opinion? Is there anyone saying they should have broadcast the suicide?  Not sure what you are trying to say here.  Arzel (talk) 13:48, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
 * "Smith says Fox created a five-second buffer as a precaution - it didn't work. His apology is abject."
 * You are correct, he was clearly very sorry that this happened and appeared pretty shaken. Arzel (talk) 13:48, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
 * "I hope this inspires Fox to avoid providing such coverage in the future. Such chases have little impact for a national audience, beyond the thrill of seeing a chase on air. And we just saw what can happened when the worst comes to pass."|+tampabay.com%29
 * Doubtful, but perhaps you should look at it in a different light. They run these stories when there is little else bad happening in the world.  If anything you need to understand that people watching it drive the news.  You Slate source above really talks about this and then rips Buzzfeed for doing exactly what you say they should not.  Arzel (talk) 13:48, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I've said nothing of what I think. I've merely reprinted quotes from what others have said; to demonstrate that there is a controversy around this form of broadcasting. Therefor I will continue in keeping my opinion to myself; except in noting that I disagree with you. 76 Strat String da Broke da (talk) 18:00, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
 * And there are many others; and will be much more, I guarantee. 76 Strat String da Broke da (talk) 04:05, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Then it can stay, if some or all of this is added to the section to illustrate the existence of controversy. As it is now, it's just a description of an event, like a thousand other events the channel has broadcast. I've removed it, for now. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:59, 30 September 2012 (UTC)