User talk:Ediehl

June 2008
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 03:57, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Bias
There are several reasons the text you submitted is not suitable for inclusion: I do appreciate the fact that you took the time to ask about this, and I appreciate the fact that you attempted to neutrally present the information. Hope this helps. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 03:08, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) The text is not attributed to a reliable source. Should you then ask about the Fox News article sourcing, please see the FAQ about that article (specifically, the sources are so sufficiently numerous that selecting any one (or few) would elevate their criticism to a level of undue weight).
 * 2) The appearance of bias is one of the most important (some say the most important) part of the Fox News identity. The perception of bias regarding Fox News is much more pronounced than it is for NBC.
 * 3) Our policy on introductions states that only notable controversies will be covered in the lead.

Reply
"Your sources noted in the article are Slate, the Democratic Party, and Media Matters. Hardly neutral observers on the issue." One, they're not "my" sources. Two, they are not referenced in the lead, which is where you attempted to add your statement. Three, you're attempting to misrepresent the sourcing -- I'm not sure where you looked, but I see sourcing from FAIR, the AP, the NYT, and Pew Research. If you bother to look in the controversies article (where the majority of that content is stored, you'll also notice that there is additional sourcing of every major news network, several newspapers, and several academic journals. "Can I then assume that if I reference 3 or more similar sources highlighting NBC bias (in fact, there are quotes from some NBC staff indicating such) that my edit will not be removed from the NBC article?" I can't make a statement regarding an event that has not yet occurred. I can say that if you attempt to add it to the introduction, it will most likely be removed per WP:LEAD.  I can also say that if your main motivation in coming to Wikipedia as a new editor is to try and discredit organizations with which you disagree politically you're probably in the wrong place -- we're more interested in having editors who are interested in building an encyclopedia than we are in having editors looking to service a particular agenda. This isn't to say you're unwelcome, but so far you're acting like a single purpose account -- you might be better off contributing to less controversial topics until you learn our policies, guidelines, and norms. "Your comment 'The perception of bias regarding Fox News is much more pronounced than it is for NBC.' is clearly your opinion, not fact. That is not my opinion, nor the opinion of millions of other people. I can't see how you can use this as an argument to keep the bias argument ON the Fox article, and take it OFF the NBC article." Not exactly -- there are several academic studies that show that FNC is by far the most biased media organization (there is but one that says the opposite). Likewise, the level of controversy surrounding FNC's bias is several orders of magnitude greater than it is for any other mainstream media organization, as evidenced by the copious number of reliable sources detailing this controversy -- likewise, there aren't nearly that many for any other organization.

Hope this helped. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 12:11, 27 June 2008 (UTC)