User talk:Balloonman/fox

oppose

 * 1)  Donald Schroeder JWH018 (talk) 03:37, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) Becksguy (talk) 09:37, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 3) Unomi (talk) 10:16, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 4) Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:52, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 5) dave souza, talk 13:40, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 6) Dlabtot (talk) 02:54, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 7) fetch  ·  comms  ''' 20:13, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 8) Dontnod (talk) 23:01, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 9) Herostratus (talk) 05:14, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 10) Stifle (talk) 09:29, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 11) Petri Krohn (talk) 00:58, 17 August 2010 (UTC) changed after initial comment supporting FNC

support

 * 1) Soxwon (talk) 03:40, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 2)  RJC  TalkContribs 03:57, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 3) Blueboar (talk) 13:21, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 4)  II  | (t - c) 01:47, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 5)  Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 03:29, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 6) LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 02:31, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 7) Collect (talk) 11:26, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 8) LK (talk) 11:24, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 9) A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:00, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 10) Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 14:36, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 11) JASpencer (talk) 17:01, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 12) BigK HeX (talk) 20:18, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 13) Cube lurker (talk) 18:03, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 14) SDY (talk) 18:13, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 15) Tryptofish (talk) 19:15, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 16) Carrite (talk) 21:21, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 17) Mr.Z-man 21:53, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 18) Sceptre (talk) 02:59, 4 August 2010 (UTC)---note:big caveat
 * 19) 69.251.180.224 (talk) 03:36, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 20) Squidfryerchef (talk) 22:37, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 21) GRuban (talk) 01:37, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 22) Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:05, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 23) SWTPC6800 (talk) 05:41, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 24) Ryan Norton 08:53, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 25) Rlendog (talk) 02:03, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 26) Hobit (talk) 02:48, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 27) Cptnono (talk) 08:20, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 28) K10wnsta (talk) 01:56, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 29) Wikiposter0123 (talk) 05:28, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 30) Kim D. Petersen (talk) 15:21, 7 August 2010 (UTC) (MARGINAL)
 * 31) John Carter (talk) 23:05, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 32) Weaponbb7 (talk) 16:28, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 33) Ost (talk) 18:12, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 34)  Horologium  (talk) 18:37, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 35)  RJC  TalkContribs 19:06, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 36)  DGG ( talk ) 22:53, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 37) Jclemens (talk) 01:32, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 38) Squidfryerchef (talk) 10:30, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 39) Bearian (talk) 23:21, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 40) Figureofnine (talk) 00:45, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 41) JakeInJoisey (talk) 13:38, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 42) JuJubird (talk) 01:45, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 43)  GregJackP   Boomer!   17:01, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 44) Slatersteven (talk) 17:07, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 45) patsw (talk) 13:51, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 46) Nastytroll (talk) 17:13, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 47) Gnevin (talk) 14:31, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Can we close this thing yet? This is now day 16 and there is zero chance that this will be closed as "Fox is unreliable." The rough count right now is that there are 10 people who support this RfC and 46 people who believe (some with caveats) that Fox News meets our RS requirements. So let's take a closer look at those numbers, half of the people who oppose Fox chimed in within 10 hours of the RfC starting. 3 more within 3 days of its starting, and 2 more within a week of the RfC starting. Nobody new has supported the notion that the Fox News is unreliable in over a week.

On the other side, 21 people chimed in within the first 3 days and another 21 within the first week. There have only been 4 new voices in the past week and all 4 have argued in favor of keeping Fox News as a Reliable Source. In other words, not only is the raw numerical number in overwhelming support that FN should be kept as a reliable source, the trend from days 3-7 and 8-15 have been to keep it as such. Despite the arguments of a small number of people, they have not been able to pursuade people to join their stance. This RfC is a complete and utter waste of time.