Jump to content

Talk:Fox News/Archive 17

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10←Archive 15Archive 16Archive 17Archive 18Archive 19Archive 20

In the interest of NPOV should the last sentenance of the third paragraph regarding Fox News bias be removed. The bias accusation is not give the same prominance in the CNN and BBC descriptions and is focus later in the page.71.233.211.201 19:20, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

There's been extensive discussion concerning this issue. Please see this to see a summary of the current consensus. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 19:49, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

You wre not kidding about extensive discussion. It just seems to a new editor that the pro and cons were equal, so I wonder what seems to be an obvious POV is put on fox News and not CNN or BBC. 71.233.211.201 21:36, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

The pro and cons were equal. The current introduction is a compromise version that all sides can live with due to the reasons given. By no means is it perfect. Although, consensus can change, it is best not to peel off this scab without a showing that consensus has changed. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 21:47, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Don't forget about Archive 15. More discussion of this subject can be found here as well. -- AuburnPilottalk 21:55, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
I just want to applaud the anonymous editor for actually discussing ideas for change before just implementing them. Though we like editors to be bold, it's very pleasing to see editors concerned about community consensus instead of making unilateral changes. Bravo, 71.233.211.201! /Blaxthos 01:13, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Recent Redirect Notice

Changed by an editor recently:

"Fox News" redirects here. For the weekly talk show on Fox's broadcast network, see Fox News Sunday.

This seems unnecessary to me. There are several weekly talk shows on "Fox's broadcast network"... whby is Fox News Sunday specified? Is it likely that someone wanting the article on one particular show would search for Fox News? I move to strike the recent change. /Blaxthos 19:43, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I went ahead and reverted it, but I can see why the editor made the change. The only other article on the disambiguation page is Fox News Sunday, but other uses for Fox News are likely to be included. Also, Fox News redirects to this article. I think it would be better served if it redirected to the disambiguation page. AuburnPilottalk 19:57, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
I disagree... how likely is it that someone typing 'Fox News' is actually looking for something other than info on the Fox News Channel? I posit it's not likely at all, and that the most good would be done for the most people by immediate redir to Fox News Channel, with standard disambig notice at top. Also note the original title of this article was "FOX News". /Blaxthos 20:14, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

POV-Check Internal Memos

The memo has not been authenticated to my knoledge (sp) I think we should avoid publishing rumors. Gpshaw 20:49, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Fox News Channel has not disputed the authenticity of the memo. Additionally, this topic has already been covered. Please see the most recent Talk Page archives for a discussion and consensus. /Blaxthos 20:55, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Just because it isn't disputed doesn't mean it's authentic. No assuming. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.227.194.89 (talk) 03:51, 14 December 2006 (UTC).
You are assuming this wasn't thoroughly covered before integrating it into the article. Once again, see Talk:Fox_News_Channel/Archive_16#Internal_Memos. No assuming.  ;-) Also note I was originally against including it. /Blaxthos 04:32, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Please stop citing archive pages for justification. Consensus can change. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.227.194.89 (talk) 18:51, 24 December 2006 (UTC).

Bill O'rielly who is the face of Fox News Channel has denied their is any such editorial control, I think this bias portion should be removed.Skypad 19:34, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Single purpose accounts that contribute inflammatory POV don't carry much weight, IMHO. /Blaxthos 01:39, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't think Skypad qualifies as an SPA. He/she been editing here less than a week. Perhaps we should assume good faith and inform him/her of the basics of the Wikipedia community. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 16:56, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough, however I have my doubts based on the material contributed thus far (even to this article). To my detriment, my willingness to assume good faith is notoriously thin when confronted with editors who constantly push POV or inflammatory material. Thanks for reigning me in a little.  :) /Blaxthos 17:00, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, I reverted this edit by 66.217.176.6. It was oddly placed in the middle of the internal memo section. AuburnPilottalk 17:57, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

AGF

It becomes increasingly hard to assume good faith with this fellow. I submit the following diffs:

/Blaxthos 18:32, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I am in no way endorsing the contributions made by Skypad. It is poorly sourced, and reeks of POV. However, I have nothing showing that this is being done in bad faith. It could be so, but since his/her first contribution was done on the 7th, I'm willing to give him/her the benefit of the doubt. I think he/she believes he/she is trying to contribute and we should help him/her do so properly. I don't have enough to say that Skypad is purposely attempting to disrupt Wikipedia. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 18:43, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough, though I feel it takes some forethought to log out and then try to re-insert the same POV material from another place. I do think that he believes he is right, and maybe just made some poor choices on how to proceed. /Blaxthos 19:08, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I was logged in on my second edit, don't know why I did not come up. what is considered a vaild source? The one I used showed a study by a university that showed Fox does not have a conservative bias. Media Matters on the other hand is funded by an extreme left wing idealouge George Soros. If I source the exact article and date will that suffice?Skypad 10:04, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Recent change without edit summery

I accidentally clicked enter before typing summery... "United States" is not proper grammar. "U.S. based" would be more appropriate, but why change what works? /Blaxthos 06:13, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

And again here. I promise to get a new keyboard ASAP. The removed text (recently added by anon) is unsourced and original research -- analytical POV. /Blaxthos 05:18, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

This is not a source

[1]. This is a portal page. This does not provide sufficient information for the statements in the introduction to be verified. The sentence will be removed, due to WP:WEASEL stating:

"Unverifiable" means anything that doesn't adhere to WP:VERIFY. VERIFY also states:

It would therefore not be acceptable for only this one link to be sufficient enough for one to verify the actual content of the study (which isn't even specifically stated in the POV statement). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.227.194.89 (talk • contribs).

  • Everything I have just proven with Wikipedia policy is correct in relation to the sentence in the introduction. If you want to revert me, post here before. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.227.194.89 (talk • contribs).
First, please sign your comments using 4 tildes (~~~~); this provides your username (or IP) and the date. Without this, it is very difficult to follow a discussion. As this very item has been discussed at greater length than any other item I have encountered here on Wikipedia, I'm not inclined to open that discussion again. Here are the basic points: 1) WP:WEASEL is not policy, and there are exceptions to its suggestions. 2) The statements are sourced and the sources meet WP:VERIFY; this is not an "exceptional claim" 3) If you believe it needs additional sources, please provide them 4) While consensus can change, it hasn't. 5) Please do not type in all caps. It is considered yelling in the typed forum and we practice civility here. AuburnPilottalk 05:19, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
This has been discussed (and RFC'd) to death. Please see the most recent two talk archives for an extensive explaination. I strongly suggest learning history before trying to re-invent the wheel. In any case, repetitve reverts of an issue decided by RFC is NOT the way to make any sort of progress. Before "picking off this scab" (as someone eloquently put it) you really need to (1) read the history, and (2) show evidence of a changed consensus. I, for one, still believe the version reached by RFC & consensus is the best possible option. /Blaxthos 06:36, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

What you two users have advocated is disregardation of community-wide standards because you feel as if consensus was reached. "Consensus can change", but you are not allowing discussion of the topic to be expressed freely - remember, not everyone was present when something was called. Your statements are not the only voice, and are not consensus. The statement in question, which I believe is the sentence: "Fox News is seen by some critics and observers as advocating conservative political positions." is not verifiable according to the source given. It is striking that when something that was stated without a source in a Wikipedia article, it is those who are challenging the validity of the "fact" who are being asked to look for another source. If it is indeed a fact, the person who included the text should be the person looking for another source (as they may as well have been adding false information into WP). Nevertheless, this statement is not a statistical fact that is being discussed here - it is a statement based on stereotypical opinion. Without specifics, there cannot be fact in the statement as it stands. In my own research of the 2006 report that was cited as the source, I cannot find a section relating to a consensus view of many media researchers or members of the media that show that Fox News Channel has "bias" anywhere (keywords in Google, Yahoo and MSN all show no results) - in fact, it isn't even mentioned. In the second sentence below the edit box, you will see the sentence: "Encyclopedic content must be verifiable." Quite simply, nothing in the 2006 Report was found to support the statement described in the opening sequence. In light of this, I have removed the source and have tagged the statement with {{[[template:fact|fact]]}}. In the template suggestions itself, it recommends that: "If it is doubtful and (quite) highly harmful, you may move it to the talk page and ask for a source," and "If it is very doubtful and very harmful, you may remove it directly without the need of moving it to the talk page first." However, it also states that: "if it is doubtful but not too harmful to the whole article, you may use [verification needed] tag to ask for source verification." It only makes sense that I am changing my tag from {{fact}} to {{verify source}}. --72.197.186.248 02:08, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

It is one thing to request another source, but it is quite another to remove one that is already provided. Do not do that again. I have no desire to discuss this tonight, but will in the coming days if you feel necessary. Again, do not remove sources that are already in the article without providing a suitable replacement. AuburnPilottalk 02:23, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
I find this anonymous editor's behavior to be almost insulting. Many editors have put forth a considerable amount of effort in crafting a suitable, balanced, and verifiable introduction. Now an otherwise unknown editor comes along and wants to re-hash a previously decided issue. Worse than that, he is attempting to effect the exact same change using the same flawed argument. We need not point out (again) that WP:WEASEL is simply a guideline (and one that narrowly enjoyed a simple majority when proposed), and how the current wording and diction is appropriate. Please please please, go read the past battles before trying to start a war. This article has a dedicated "task force" that will not allow such behavior. Anyone want to speculate if this is the same character as before? /Blaxthos 06:55, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
I believe this addresses your concerns. As stated before, the current version is a compromise version, and any change to it, will re-start a long and tortuous process. The reason some editors may be short with you and feel insulted is that each one of your points and arguments have already been addressed in detail, and you are not bringing up any new points to be considered. Very few people to argue the same points over and over, especially when consensus has clearly been reached. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 18:39, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm removing a source that doesn't cite what the Wikipedia article claims it does. It's a lie - it's a flat out lie, the 2006 report does not reference a bias in the operations of Fox News at all. What is on the Wikipedia article right now is not factual. Forget WP:WEASEL if you want (guideines should be seriously considered, right now it's not even being considered), you are asserting that something is factual but have no source to back it up. It's flat out lying. You can't just throw a link and say "it's there" - you have to prove it's there. Removing it does not violate any Wikipedia policy, but keeping the negative, unfactual statements does. --72.197.186.248 05:12, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

If you take the time to read the content of the source, you will find the following statement, along with several other statements backing up the claims of the Wikipedia article: "And Fox has by far the highest profile as a conservative news organization; it was cited unprompted by 69% of national journalists. The New York Times was most often mentioned as the national daily news organization that takes a decidedly liberal point of view, but only by 20% of the national sample.". Do NOT remove properly sourced material or hide sources if you do not intend to provide a replacement. AuburnPilottalk 06:03, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Image:Foxnewsalert.png

Not registered; obvious vandalized bogus image with "FEAR" captioned all over. --194.251.240.116 12:13, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing it out. I've reverting the image and it is now appearing as it should. If you still see the image with "FEAR" typed all over it, clear your browser's cache and the problem should be fixed. - AuburnPilottalk 15:36, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Programming Template

Looking around some of the other network's entries (CNBC as one example), should FNC and its programs have a general template containing all of the network's programming and such? Chris (Talk) (Contribs) 05:28, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

There used to be a very basic overview of programming which can be seen in this version. The only true difference was a listing of air times, but it was gutted by the one and only Cbuhl79 here. I like the idea, but it was removed due to WP:NOT a directory, which mentions TV/Radio schedules. (Bad argument coming) Seeing how DirecTV and the like all have articles devoted to programming/schedules/guides, I don't see how it would cause a problem here. I'm just not committed either way... - AuburnPilottalk 06:10, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, I ment something different (I personally like the list actually). If you look on Street Signs, for example, you can see a template on the bottom of the page with all of the networks programming. Chris (Talk) (Contribs) 06:22, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

NEWS ROOMS....

There should be a section in this article that lists there news rooms & Bureaus. Like they have in the CNN & MSNBC Articles.

I Know of only a few of them.

I Will list them and who ever starts the section can add them to the list.

These are the current News Rooms they use the most on FOX NEWS CHANNEL.

Wikiquote entry nominated for deletion

The Wikiquote entry for Fox News Channel has been nominated for deletion as an attack page. For those who are interested, the relevant VFD can be reached here. ~ S0CO(talk|contribs) 00:07, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Memos criticism section

The one sentence explaining the topic, doesn't explain the topic. If a reader is not versed in this issue, they won't know what the issue is about. There should be at least one more sentence explaining what the critics say about the memos. Additionally, the sentence which states "The other point of view..." needs to be sourced, otherwise it is POV, as the sentence clearly states. 216.158.161.32 (talk) 13:31, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

MMfA, MoveOn.org

Ok, I was chastised for adding descriptions of political leaning after references to these two organizations. Reverted, in fact. I have reversed that, but am willing to accept "left-leaning" in place of "left-wing" if it will unbunch the panties. Certainly the groups in question self-identify themselves as left-of-center, and it appears rather standard everywhere else in Wikipedia to have such positional declaratives. Anyone object?--Textmatters (talk) 20:26, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Reverted again? Ok, "progressive" it is. Please don't remove, Blaxthos. The groups self-describe themselves as progressive. Another revert is inappropriately POV on your part.--Textmatters (talk) 20:40, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

A cornerstone of Wikipedia is a neutral point of view. If we go slapping labels on critics and explanations on criticism we introduce editorial opinion. There is no policy or guideline that advocates inserting analysis or characterizations into articles, and it's always best to leave descriptive words out. /Blaxthos ( t / c )

Ok, I'll let it go. I will, however, remove the attribution listed after MRC on the MSNBC article page and certainly expect your support. --Textmatters (talk) 20:57, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Sogan

I added the last paragraph to the end of the slogan section because i feel that it is fitting, makes sense, and had yet to be addressed in the section. Furthermore, it is simple, concise, and not 'leaning' one way or another; merely a direct statement and observation. --Cuauhtemoc07 (talk) 21:14, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

First of all, new discussions go at the end of the talk page. and second, you need a reference and not state it as fact. I removed it as Original Research and POV. Bytebear (talk) 21:17, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of FNC Article

This article has quite frankly become a joke, and nothing more than a vehicle for a select group of editors to tailor it under certain guidelines - that although themselves, don't violate policy; still help to portray the lowest common denominator of contribution. There is a consistent movement to edit this article in order to convey a more objective and accurate presentation. In this venture, we have collectively destroyed the original content beyond repair. There is various claims of bias, scattered in a shotgun-like pattern throughout the article, which any attempt of revision is met with resistance from several levels. Collectively we are spinning our wheels at the best way to illustrate the essence behind FNC, and that argument itself serves as the best source to prove the foundation for this movement. This article meets the criteria for existing as an attack page, and should be deleted. A conglomeration of efforts will be valuable in establishing the new article for FNC; one that portrays a truly objective aspect, such that other channels/mediums posses. Wikiport (talk) 11:09, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

What part of WP:CSD#G10 (negative unsourced biographies of living persons or pure attacks) does this meet? Pedro :  Chat  11:15, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Pedro, I agree and withdrawal the claim under the stipulation of G10. It was a typo that quite frankly you won't let go. Thanks, but I think we can move further without any additional complaints of a G10 violation. I let my original statement stand as written above. Thanks! Wikiport (talk) 11:47, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
That's a pretty bad typo. So bad you did it twice [2] [3] in fact..... So now you've agreed that this article is not a G10 nomination what are you actually suggesting needs to be discussed to fix it up? Pedro :  Chat  11:52, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
If you read up to my original comment above, you will be able to answer your question. The G10 stip. was used mistakenly as a template; which I am admitting was a typo. If I need to acknowledge this fact twice I will. I think the whole G10 thing is done now, yes? Now, lets concentrate on what is important and the issue here. Thanks for your continued support. Wikiport (talk) 12:06, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Agreed, the important thing is th earticle. So what specific areas are badly wrong? Pedro :  Chat  12:17, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
I think that the article as written and organized, is severely in need of a facelift. This would be possible, however I believe there is such a wide spectrum of opinions on this, that no progress is ever really made. There is no need to argue over the use of a single word, or even a phrase; since none of the changes really change anything to make it a more objective article. I fully realize there is no shortage of accusations of political bias of the channel, but do we really need that written in just about every section of the article, to include the introduction? Again, I believe there is a small quantity of people who mean well; however are keeping any real progress from being made. This isn't to serve my own agenda, it is merely to point out that we have a chance to make a truly wonderful article; that at this point is lacking. Thanks for your interest Pedro, I'm glad to see a "new" face to this conversation! I think this is just what this discussion needs. Wikiport (talk) 17:09, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
I'd be quite happy to put some input here and help if I can. As a Brit who doesn't have Satellite television I can honestly say I really couldn't care less about any bias or otherwise this network may have for our American cousins :). I think the initial issue Wikiport seems to be identifying is the piece identifying bias in "...about every section" of the article. I'd be interested in some debate on that. Pedro :  Chat  20:32, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
It's been raised several times in the past. Check the archives. If there is a specific complaint that hasn't been addressed adequately or hasn't been raised, I'd be glad to help. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 21:21, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry guys, but given this new editor's spurious attempts to delete the entire article twice, as well as his flagrant POV-pushing throughout his short editing history, I don't believe that he's done due diligence in reading the past discussions and endless RFC's. If there is a concern than hasn't previously been raised, by all means let's address it. If this is nothing more than disagreement with the content (or an attempt to whitewash the article) his actions and his statements are only an attempt to make a WP:POINT. Everything in this article is firmly grounded in consensus, and a simple perusing of the archives give a clear indication of why things are the way they are, and the processes utilized to reach (and later validate) such. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:31, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Again, Blax; I didn't "attempt" to delete the entire article. I made a typo which I admitted above, and only then was I nominating it; AND I opened the discussion here for editors to comment on. It is easy to see your agenda here as your contributions are basically exclusively to add criticism of the Republican party and associated individuals who you may deem as conservative. Not only have you applied to have users blocked who oppose your POV, but you violate the very rules you quote to others to further your cause. Other than that, GREAT JOB! Thanks so much! Wikiport (talk) 06:59, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
This article doesn't need to be deleted. Rather than make blanket accusations of bias, please post specific material that you have a problem with and let others comment.

Blaxthos and I agree on everything so why not ask us :)--Tom 22:49, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Blaxthos, I don't think an objective and fresh look at this article would do any harm. The "consensus" you speak of is by a very few members who agree on the subject. That is hardly grounds to cement something in law if a new party comes along and wishes to tailor to article towards neutrality. There has been no compelling argument speaking to the fact that the introductory section should stay as written. This is what the discussion page is for; just because a discussion is in the archives, doesn't mean it can't be brought to light again in a more accessible and viewable arena. Your word carries as much weight as mine. Thanks! Wikiport (talk) 04:13, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
You've been asked four times in this thread to be specific. Can I suggest that you pick one area you regard as problematic, and start a discussion with your suggestions for improvement. But also be aware that many aspects of the article have already been debated at considerable length over long periods of time. Dean B (talk) 08:20, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
Absolutely, as I have stated, specifically; I am concerned regarding the wording in the introductory section of the article. I have no problem with controversy or "negative" language towards Fox News at all. I'm not trying to "whitewash" the article what-so-ever. I'm not sure how many articles we need that speaks to the supposed bias of Fox News; but, since we have them, why not try to ensure everything is where it should be. Thanks for your time, I realize it has been addressed many times in the past. Wikiport (talk) 22:15, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
Wikiport, you're obviously never even examined the archives of the last three years' worth of discussion regarding the introduction. We've had, at the very least, three RFC's with the participation of over forty editors, which is quite a remarkable number. For all the consensus building and RFC's, the introduction has remained stable and basically unchanged since 2006. Regarding equating your word and mine, I humbly suggest that your short contribution history of biased edits, your violations of WP:POINT and WP:NPA, your disruptive pattern of removing sourced and stable material, and your factually incorrect assertions ("consensus of very few members who agree on the subject") properly distinguishes your word from mine. Good day. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 11:49, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
I think we have gone through this song and dance enough Blax, you can use my talk page if you wish to address something with me specifically. Now, my point stands that this should be addressed. Don't feel the need to contribute if you feel it is a waste of time. There are other editors, and people who gain/lose interest on a seemingly daily basis. Quite frankly, I believe the article needs some new blood. The archives is not a viable excuse why everything should stay the same. Change is inevitable, and it is Wikipedia. Wikiport (talk) 22:15, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
If you have a concern that has not previously been addressed and confirmed via consensus, please let us know. If this is regarding things we've already hashed out, you need to demonstrate that consensus has changed, which is going to be unlikely considering the sheer number of RFCs and editors confirming the wording of the introduction, as well as your questionable history of personal attacks, insults, strawmen arguments, and spurious deletion nominations to make a point. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 22:54, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
And again, user talk pages are used to address issues specifically with other editors. I fully expect your appreciation in moving your campaign to the appropriate section. I have seen much controversy using "sock puppets" in your consensus, so I must attempt at getting others involved with a more objective opinion. I believe you have thrown the dead dog into the fire now, lets concentrate on improving your excellent contributions to this page. Thanks so much! Wikiport (talk) 01:26, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Baseless accusation noted; you may find my response here. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 02:31, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
I appreciate you moving the conversation elsewhere. I marvel at your persistence in this matter! Now, lets turn that energy into improving this article. Thanks! Wikiport (talk) 02:58, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Can you please list something specific about the intro that you don't like that hasn't been discussed ad nauseam. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 19:20, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Ok, excellent question. To be as specific as I can, I don't believe we need any language in the introduction of the FNC article that speaks of bias in anyway. That isn't what an introduction is for. I mean think about it, would you intro one of your friends at a party as, "Hi, this is my friend Jim, some people say he is conservative, while other's say he isn't." It makes no sense. There are ample sections and sister sections that speak to the alleged bias of FNC. Furthermore, I believe that the fact that other news mediums (who are equally accused of bias) don't have similar entries in their respective introductory sections. I'm sorry, but just because it is addressed in the archives, doesn't mean this isn't a work in progress. Wikiport (talk) 06:10, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, that's already been addressed to death. We've had at least three project-wide RFC's specifically on that issue, and the community consensus over the past three years is that the introduction must cover significant controversies (which is specifically covered in WP:LEAD). Also, we're not really concerned with other articles; even if we were, clearly the scope of the bias controversy with regards of FNC far outweighs those of other mainstream news organizations. This is all covered in the archives and in the FAQ... repeating it ad infinitum isn't going to earn you any respect or change the facts. Anything else? //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 11:46, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
I think it is quite clear you aren't concerned with any other articles. Question: How do you come to the conclusion that the bias controversy of FNC outweighs other news organizations? I appreciate your relative statement, but it doesn't state a fact. The #3 rated MSNBC has been attacked vigorously for having a liberal bias, to the point where 2 prominent commentators were relieved of that duty. I appreciate your "protection" of the article, but it is quite clear change is needed. I'm not looking to gain your "respect" or debate your supposed "facts" either. It does seem however, there is never a shortage of opinion in your comments, that's what I want to throw-out from this article so it actually resembles a encyclopedic article, rather than a liberal spun attack page. Don't worry, we'll get there.. Thanks! Wikiport (talk) 20:24, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
I have again reported your disruptive editing here. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 12:09, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
This "editor" has now been "blocked" for "disruption". //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 14:28, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm happy to see that other editors are equally concerned with the intro section, as well as other sections of the article. No doubt some of these concerns have been "addressed" in the past, and no doubt there is a current need to "re-address" them. It is apparent to see when an editor tries to protect the article, once it is tailored the way he/she wants it; just at this stagnant time is when it needs to continue to evolve into a useful article. Wikiport (talk) 19:36, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
Fresh back from being blocked for making false accusations, and you're back at it again. I've reported your conduct a third time. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 20:04, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Fox_News/Archive_17&oldid=1134393969"