Talk:Fox News controversies/Archive 7

This is an archive of past discussions about Fox News controversies. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Should this article be deleted?

I was wondering if I should take this article to AfD for deletion. The New York Times, arguably the most influential news organization in the US, used to have a similar article, 'Criticism of the New York Times', but it was deleted after nomination at AfD. FNC is much less influential and has a much shorter history than The Times. Drrll (talk) 22:51, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Link to Deletion Discussion. I would oppose such a deletion; I'm actually quite surprised the NYT criticism was deleted (although I have not looked at the original article). Much of the discussion seems to be that the content is unsalvagably poor, non-neutral, or repetitious with the main article, not that the topic is unencyclopedic. (There's also more keep !votes, which is curious). Whether or not that article should have been deleted, this article does not suffer from any of the same flaws. --TeaDrinker (talk) 22:58, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't believe it would survive a rational examination on its merits under WP P&G...and before anyone suggests it already has, take a look at that AfD. FWIW, I have considered an AfD nomination myself. JakeInJoisey (talk) 23:46, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

On second thought (after reading the responses), maybe it's not such a good idea to delete this article. Do you think there is sufficient support for undeleting the 'Criticism of the New York Times' article? BTW, JakeInJoisey, what's "P&G"? Drrll (talk) 15:57, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I would support its deletion, however its nice for this article to exist where all the crap can be put which keeps the main fox news article cleaner. BritishWatcher (talk) 00:45, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

That's a clear violation of WP:POVFORK, but it's nice to know you're honest about your true intentions. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 02:04, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

...its nice for this article to exist where all the crap can be put...

Must be why it was closed as a Seedy Keep. JakeInJoisey (talk) 02:12, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

It was closed as a speedy keep because it's not a POV fork, and exists as a valid split due to size guidelines. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 20:47, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

BTW, JakeInJoisey, what's "P&G"?
Policies and guidelines. JakeInJoisey (talk) 16:01, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Wow and here I was just thinking I needed good headache. Soxwon (talk) 19:11, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

What now on the donation issue

The deeply flawed and rigged RFC has now come to an end. So what are we going to do. At present we have a single misleading sentence in this article which gives no context. It fails to highlight the fact NewsCorp has donated to the democrats as well. Its one sided and biased. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:40, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

That smells like revisionary horseshit. Funny how the objections to the original RfC wording only came much later when they didn't like how it turned out, not saying anything about it in the beginning. That's messed up. -PrBeacon (talk) 18:46, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Gave context per Brit. prickly pete(-_-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.250.210.136 (talk) 03:06, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

BritishWatcher once again ignores the distinction between employee contributions and corporate contributions, as well as trying to discredit the process entirely. Bending over backwards to poison the well, aren't we? BritishWatcher, you've made your opinions quite clear throughout the RFC, and I suggest that you should put some effort forth towards at least giving the appearance of assuming good faith when requesting external closure. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 20:39, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I have simply stated fact. It was a deeply flawed and rigged RFC. I am not blaming a single editor for the rigging part, that was external forces. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:49, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Request an uninvolved editor or administrator close the RfC. I was going to do so on the administrator notice board, but since any uninvolved editor can close it I wasn't 100% sure if that was the best place to request closer or not. Akerans (talk) 19:48, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Anything less than an admin closure will be untenable. I have made a request here. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 20:45, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree that a neutral uninvolved admin closure is absolutely necessary in this case, so I seconded the request at WP:AN (per above), as well as making a comment on the RfC as being a debate. I suggest we wait until the RfC is closed before manning the barricades again. Lets enjoy the quiet for a bit. — Becksguy (talk) 23:29, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Remark: near the top of the RFC I said "Possibly include as part of a neutral summary of NewsCorp donation history during Fox News existence." This need for context to makr inclusion justifiable was thoroughly ignored in the discussion (AFAIK - from skimming). Rd232 ^talk 07:01, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Check out this edit to the article [1] in which the phrase "News Corporation's political action committee had previously split their contributions to Democrats and Republicans by a margin of 54% to 46%, respectively." was added by an IP to the initial sentence about the donation that has been there for a while. Cite was the Kurtz article in the Washington Post. And this edit really reinforces the question of how to best write the donation content while avoiding POV and UNDUE, now that the RfC has closed in favor of inclusion (like an AfD Keep close). — Becksguy (talk) 07:24, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

The addition atleast makes the content more balanced. Well done to the IP. We should have added something like that a month ago. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:15, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Now do we want to expand it a bit, or is it enough as is? Or what? — Becksguy (talk) 18:39, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

The current statement is completely unacceptable for several reasons. The entirety of coverage in the article is:

In June 2010, News Corporation donated $1 million to the Republican Governors Association. News Corporation's political action committee had previously split their contributions to Democrats and Republicans by a margin of 54% to 46%, respectively.

There is no context as to why this is controversial. At the very least, we must identify why it is a big enough deal to mention in the article and identify the specific criticism.
There is more text dealing with the counterclaim (that has only one source) than there is dealing with the actual controversy (of which there are hundreds of sources).

WP:UNDUE is very clear -- we represent viewpoints with the weight afforded to them in reliable sources, not because there are a vocal minority of Wikipedia editors who demand inclusion. I recommend a two-pronged path forward: One, expand the coverage of the donation to sufficiently give context and specific criticisms; two, flesh out how many sources carry the counterclaim and include it with proper weight proportional to its coverage. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:11, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

There has been little evidence that this donation by NewsCorp is controversial for Fox News Channel. I believe the current wording is fair. We have the sentence about the donation which people demanded was included, but we also include context, that previously Newcorp has donated fairly equally to both. If this donation has to be mentioned at all, it must be in that context. I see no reason for a change now unless its all deleted. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:20, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

There has been little evidence that this donation by NewsCorp is controversial for Fox News Channel.

...and several sources suggesting otherwise. The Howard Kurtz article of August 18th contains the following entry that has not, as yet, been cited (emphasis mine)...

"The way the rules are written, he (Murdoch) is playing by the rules," says Tobe Berkovitz, an associate professor of communication at Boston University. "This just reinforces for liberals how evil and manipulative Fox and Rupert Murdoch are. For the civilians out there, I don't think they're going to see this as particularly relevant or particularly important."

Mmmmmm...a citation from academia. JakeInJoisey (talk) 22:09, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Britishwatcher, you did everything in your power to keep this from being included at all, and you're still stuck on getting rid of it (clearly stating you want it "all deleted"). You didn't at all speak to my specific policy points (weight with regards to sourcing), so forgive me if I believe that your sole intent isn't to follow policy but rather to minimize this controversy in the article. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:46, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

My opinion on this matter is firmly on the record. This is an issue about NewsCorp, not Fox news Channel. So yes i still do not believe it should be in this article, and if it was not for the flawed RFC which external forces rigged may be it would not be in the article now. However, as it is there, it must be neutral, and put things into context. The second sentence provides context. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:55, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

You're not even willing to accept the RFC's results, even after the closing admin said he ignored all of the SPA's and gave a detailed ruling on the policy. Given that you won't even afford one of our most respected administrators the good faith required by our pillars or accept the fact that you're just wrong, I do not think we should at all consider your opinion on how the material should be worded. If you're not able to be objectively honest about your position and policy, then you're definitely not objective enough to have any input on its presentation. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 22:05, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I do not have to change my views on a matter simply because of a RFC outcome. I have not removed the text from the article as ive had to accept the outcome of this. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:11, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Now is the time for creating suggested verbiage for the content. Lets please not re-argue the RfC. There is one possible version in the article now. Where are the others for consideration and discussion? I'm creating a new subsection just for actual suggestions. I'm procedurally listing the current one there, but I don't necessarily endorse it (therefore didn't sign it). — Becksguy (talk) 22:14, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Suggestions for donation content wording

In June 2010, News Corporation donated $1 million to the Republican Governors Association. News Corporation's political action committee had previously split their contributions to Democrats and Republicans by a margin of 54% to 46%, respectively. [Current version, including sentence added by 69.250.210.136 at 03:02, 21 September 2010 (UTC)]
In June 2010, News Corporation donated $1 million to the Republican Governors Association. Although much of the criticism was from the opposition Democratic party, several media commentators noted the usually large size of the donation^[1]^[2]^[3], the potential conflict of journalistic ethics,^[4] and the dearth of coverage of the donation on Fox News compared with other networks^[4]. Howard Kurtz also pointed out an apparent contradiction with an earlier statement by News Corps. Chairman Rupert Murdoch indicating News Corporation did not support "the Tea Party or any other party."^[5] Although larger than previous donations, other owners of media organizations have donated to both political parties.^[2] News Corporation's political action committee had previously split their contributions to Democrats and Republicans by a margin of 54% to 46%, respectively.

Not sure just how to keep this process orderly, but here's my suggestion using the above as a starting point (omitting cites in draft to save time and stipulating all content must be RS)...

In June 2010, News Corporation, parent company of Fox News, donated $1 million to the Republican Governors Association. Media reports noted both the unsually large size of the donation and ensuing criticism alleging both a breach of journalistic ethics and further evidence of Fox News' conservative bias. That criticism was identified as emanating primarily from the Democratic Party and other partisan sources. Media critic Howard Kurtz noted an apparent contradiction with an earlier statement by News Corp Chairman Rupert Murdoch indicating News Corporation did not support "the Tea Party or any other party". Mr. Kurtz, as well as other media reports, also noted a question of both the tenuous relevance and import of this issue in the public perception. While this News Corp donation was significantly larger, other owners of media organizations have routinely donated to both political parties. News Corporation's political action committee had previously split their contributions to Democrats and Republicans by a margin of 54% to 46%, respectively.

Perhaps it might be better to first deliniate concepts for inclusion or exclusion? JakeInJoisey (talk) 11:53, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I have a real problem with allowing editors who have been vehemently against inclusion at all, and who have tried to ignore or derail the overwhelming consensus identified by the closing admin, to now influence the wording. Both proposal #1 and Jake's proposal are horribly unbalanced, spending an inordinate amount of effort to discredit the criticism ("emanating primarily from ... partisan sources", "tenuous relevance"). While we do want balance, I don't see support in sourcing for half (or more) of the text to be spent rebutting or otherwise discrediting the criticism. It's inappropriate. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 15:21, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, it is a tendentious and disruptive at4empt to bypass a clear consensus and re-ignite a settled dispute. Dlabtot (talk) 16:48, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Some people are just trying to correct the clear bias that has been created by simply having the fact a donation was made this year, when in previous years NewsCorp gave donations to both parties. Now we have had to accept its inclusion we need to be sure the wording is neutral and its balanced by putting it into context. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:18, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh and i must of missed the bit where anyone said there was an "overwhelming consensus". BritishWatcher (talk) 17:23, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Blaxthos, on what WP policy basis do you say that those who opposed its inclusion should have no say in how it's included? Drrll (talk) 17:43, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Cut the crap, that's not what he said (and I think you know it). -PrBeacon (talk) 18:28, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

well thats what it sounded like he said to me. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:50, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Here are several salient quotes from Howard Kurtz, who appears to be generally recognized as non-partisan and is one of the few (if any?) notable media voices directly addressing several relevant aspects of this edit.

On the substantive nature of the "criticisms", "Reliable Sources" transcript, August 22, 2010...several days after the story broke...

"...there's no basis for arguing that the donations compromise Fox News more than the other networks."

On the probable lack of resonance in the public sphere and the partisan nature of that criticism, from "Media Notes", August 18,2010, The Washington Post...an academician's perspective...

"The way the rules are written, he (Murdoch) is playing by the rules," says Tobe Berkovitz, an associate professor of communication at Boston University. "This just reinforces for liberals how evil and manipulative Fox and Rupert Murdoch are. For the civilians out there, I don't think they're going to see this as particularly relevant or particularly important."

There are additional RS for that content and hopefully those views will be reflected in the edit composition. JakeInJoisey (talk) 17:37, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

First, I will note Jake's version is a reworking of my proposal, so we're starting from a point of fairly similar views. I would note that pulling those quotes is a bit of quotemining, since Kurtz also called it hypocritical. However Kurtz is not the only view we can use. The guardian article noted the donation "has been widely regarded as a breach of journalistic ethics." I think it is counterfactual to represent the criticism as "emanating primarily from the Democratic Party and other partisan sources." My version acknowledges both the various political sniping and the media critics who took issue with this donation. --TeaDrinker (talk) 19:19, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I would note that pulling those quotes is a bit of quotemining, since Kurtz also called it hypocritical.

A more careful reading reveals that Kurtz was citing the hypocrisy on both sides, Murdoch for his apparently contradictory statement and the allegation that Fox News is somehow uniquely compromised by the political donations of a parent company. The first is incorporated in the proposed text. The second is not. It should also be represented for balance, both with additional RS beyond Kurtz himself.

Inre "The Guardian", are you proposing to characterize its view as non-partisan? Perhaps you should read the first paragraph of the Wikipedia lead...then we'll discuss it some more. I would be interested on just who (if anyone) is cited as included in the alleged "widely regarded" universe.

I think it is counterfactual to represent the criticism as "emanating primarily from the Democratic Party and other partisan sources."

Your assertion should and will be measured via the provision of consensus-acceptable RS sourcing...but let's resolve this Kurtz issue first.

Finally, I'm still not at ease with this process. I don't mind suggesting/editing/citing/posting the content at each turn in the road, but that will become space intensive. Perhaps a sentence at a time or, as I suggested earlier, first deliniate concepts for inclusion or exclusion assuming appropriate RS? JakeInJoisey (talk) 20:02, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree, Kurtz was saying the issue was hypocritical on "both" sides. I included this from another Kurtz citation in my last sentence ("Although larger than previous donations, other owners of media organizations have donated to both political parties."). I can't imagine what else you're suggesting we need; discussing extensively is certainly undue weight if the entire point is based only on the opinion of one person. Now to the issue which I think is the crux of the difference between our versions: you seem to claim that most or all of the criticism was "partisan." That's demonstrably false, and you have already been provided with many citations backing that up. --TeaDrinker (talk) 12:15, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I also object to JakeinJoisey's attempts to frame this issue based on his POV. Perhaps if he and others had demonstrated some spirit of compromise before, his contributions now would seem truly collaborative. Instead it's just more sour grapes. -PrBeacon (talk) 18:41, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

The more recent proposals are way too long and give undue weight to this minor issue. Such a huge paragraph is not required. It should be two or 3 lines that provides balance, nothing more. Although the proposal 2 right near the top of this section is atleast fairly neutral. yet i see that is being condemned for some reason, maybe because it provide some balance. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:52, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

The more recent proposals are way too long and give undue weight to this minor issue. Such a huge paragraph is not required.

Whether or not it is a "minor issue" will be left to the determination of the reader and the size of the entry should and will be predicated upon an NPOV presentation of pertinent facts as established in reliable sourcing.

I wouldn't get too hung up on size at this point. We're clearly still unresolved as to identification of elements of the issue that warrant incorporation and an orderly approach to that determination seems warranted. I hope to have something up soon in that regard.

Although the proposal 2 right near the top of this section is atleast fairly neutral. yet i see that is being condemned for some reason, maybe because it provide some balance.

Please tone down the rhetoric. Nobody is "condemning" anything that I can see. Teadrinker offered a suggested edit and I proposed amendments to that suggested edit. Teadrinker has objected to utilization of "partisan" and that objection should be addressed...which is my intent once the "Kurtz" question is fully explored. JakeInJoisey (talk) 14:30, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Other Networks section

I don't see what purpose this section serves; it does not describe a controversy, but rather a rivalry with a competitor. I suggest it be removed entirely. Dlabtot (talk) 22:06, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I second that. It also cites no sources and is extremely speculative. 219.120.58.58 (talk) 02:31, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

fact-checking, content dispute

Fox News is notoriously poor at fact-checking its news stories as well as commentaries -- in some cases ignoring facts which don't serve its causes. Why doesn't this appear anywhere in the article? I only see sections on photo manipulation and incorrect video footage. -PrBeacon (talk) 04:09, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I've added one of the criticism sections which was (improperly) removed earlier this month from the main FNC article, "Accusations of misrepresentation of facts" .. This could/should be fleshed out with other examples and sources. -PrBeacon (talk) 04:23, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I have removed that re-inserted section as, and as you appear to have suggested, current sourcing is inadequate under WP:V/WP:UNDUE. Please post suggested cited content here for consensus resolution as to WP:V. ~~I am also sectionalizing your second comment to facilitate resolution of that issue as a topic separate from your OP.~~ (refactor for topic continuity reverted by User:Dlabtot) JakeInJoisey (talk) 16:06, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

DISPUTE - "Accusations of misrepresentation of facts" content inclusion

User:Dlabtot has re-inserted the disputed content. Comments are solicited from interested editors as to the adequacy of sourcing for this previously consensus-deleted content under WP:V/WP:UNDUE. JakeInJoisey (talk) 16:38, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

The Media Matters references are probably not sufficient by themselves to establish noteworthiness. The HuffPo reference probably is sufficient, although I doubt that those inserting/reinserting the content would stand still if a similarly conservative news site was used to level criticisms at MSNBC or CNN, and would probably call it POV-pushing. Drrll (talk) 17:10, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the removal. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:49, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I note that Soxwon, in his later justification of removing this material from the main FNC article, at least supports its inclusion here in this article. -PrBeacon (talk) 05:58, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Jake, I did not suggest that current sourcing is inadequate though I understand you & others feel that way. However, MMfA's reliability has been upheld at repeated RS/N discussions. -PrBeacon (talk) 18:40, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

MMfA's RS is irrelevant (at this point anyway) to a WP:V/WP:UNDUE objection. Please supply adequate reliable third party sourcing beyond the partisan Huffington Post suggesting that MMfA's three assertions contained within the content attained sufficient media coverage to warrant inclusion here. This article is not an RSS for MMfA daily spin. JakeInJoisey (talk) 20:59, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Ok, enough with the policy dancing. The more you try to shuffle & shift it around to suit your argument, the less convincing it is. You have shown little to no objectivity regarding criticism of Fox News. Along with other clear supporters of FNC, you should therefore recuse yourself from any further judgement of sources. Every outside RfC and admininistrative discussion upholds MMfA as a source. -PrBeacon (talk) 05:11, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

One of the few RfCs conducted about MMfA leans against its use here and strongly favors being consistent in the use of MMfA and the MRC/Newsbusters. Drrll (talk) 06:02, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

That's not accurate, you're conflating the BLP issue with general discussion. And the more recent RSN on MMfA specifically [2] was summarized at Talk:FNC - RS/N, outside editors: MM is reliable -- where you even said the previous RSN, the one you link above, "asked, using an RfC, whether such sources should be consistently excluded or included in BLPs. The consensus (by a small margin) was to exclude these sources in BLPs. It didn't address use in non-BLP articles like FNC though." Note- the last point then is not accurate, either, the RfC asked about general use and BLP use. -PrBeacon (talk) 18:14, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Unsourced, unincorporated content removed from lede

I have amended the lead to remove the following unsourced content...

Fox News Channel has been the subject of many allegations concerning journalism ethics and standards.

Not only is the content unsourced, the phrase "journalism ethics and standards" doesn't even appear in the article body itself. This article is a wreck. JakeInJoisey (talk) 22:31, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

You should have allowed for a discussion of this before you did it, so I've reverted. You're really in no position to judge what's appropriate for a criticism/controversies daughter article. A more balanced editing process would start with a cite tag, as I've now added -- though it doesn't need it. Phrasing in the lead doesn't have to appear in the body text and you know it. There are plenty of examples of poor fact-checking and bias in FNC's reporting, to name two facets of their unethical and unprofessional 'journalism.' -PrBeacon (talk) 05:12, 1 October 2010 (UTC) revised

You need to start with some sourcing. You don't add the statement and then say "Let's find some sourcing for it". Arzel (talk) 20:01, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, the burden is on those who wish to include material. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:43, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

I didn't add the statement, it's been there awhile -- check the edit history before you make such a false claim (here and at FNC). And it is in fact a summary of valid criticisms, despite your POV to the contrary, so it doesn't need a cite tag for the lead. -PrBeacon (talk) 19:08, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

It was added by Viriditas who changed the name of the page accordingly without concensus. This addition was missed during the return of the page to this title and during the following edit war and RfC regarding the NewsCorp donation. It never had concensus and does not now. Arzel (talk) 19:37, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

A simple reading of this article shows that, without a doubt,Fox News Channel has been the subject of many allegations concerning journalism ethics and standards. To pretend it has not is inherently dishonest; to demand citations for such a statement is wikilawyering and disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 20:45, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I see that you would rather throw a bunch of accusatory words about me rather than discuss the issue. I see a lot of claims of bias but very little about supposed violations of journalistic standards or ethics. MMfA whines about everything FNC does, so they can hardly be counted on as an onjective view. I'll admit that the photo manipulation on Fox and Friends was not very journalistic or ethical, but I fail to see "many". Would care to elaborate, or would you rather just continue to accuse me of being dishonest? Arzel (talk) 23:47, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Just throwing this out there: A simple reading of this article shows that, without a doubt Fox News Channel has been the subject of many allegations concerning journalism ethics and standards. If they it contains examples of this being pointed out, why not just include those examples as citations. If they don't explicitly say they are breaches of journalism ethics and standards, then isn't it original research to say that Fox News has made such breaches based on the content of the article? Soxwon (talk) 00:59, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Just throwing this out there...

I threw it out there at the start of this topic. Not only is it unsourced, the phrase isn't even offered in the main body text. JakeInJoisey (talk) 01:46, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Both "Fox News Channel has been the subject of many allegations concerning journalism ethics and standards." and "Critics of Fox News Channel have accused the network of having a bias favoring the political right and the Republican Party." are problematic. The first one isn't that bad. I love wikilinlks but unfortunately it makes sense that we can't use it. FOX isn't sourced over there and that topic (which might be OR since it appears to be creating a topic from from various agencies ad publishers rule books) isn't mentioned as a whole here in sources. I get why the link was used but might as well remove it since it is controversial. "Many" could also be problematic. I agree that there has been "many" criticisms but "many" might be too vague here. Of course if sources are clearer and that article is fixed then it could be fine. The second line is even worse. Of course people who are criticizing are critics from a purely semantic view. However, labeling those criticizing as purely "critics" also disregards that they could be looking at the topic objectively. So merge the two lines together. Easy fix.Cptnono (talk) 08:57, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

FPP

The page has been protected now because of edit warring over the lead. Arzel & Jake have removed the contested sentence instead of working to improve the lead -- ostensibly so that sentence will not appear in the main FNC article. Once again the pro-FNC camp has managed to dig in their heels and resist what they invariably see as liberal bias, whether as self-appointed protectors or something more flagrantly in violation of WP:COI policy. Reasonable, moderate conservatives are ashamed at how ~~Faux~~Fox News regularly distorts the truth and insults the intelligence of its viewers -- and as I've seen over the past few months, this extends to FNC's presence on wikipedia. -PrBeacon (talk) 03:49, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

You may wish to reread WP:COI, you appear to be confusing it with POV-Warriorism and tendentious editing (I am not saying that either Arzel & Jake are POV Warriors, I am just saying that this is the term that PrBeacon means). Soxwon (talk) 04:12, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Nope, I know the difference just fine thanks. The reference to COI was set against 'self-appointed'... As FNC staff has been known to edit wiki articles, I imagine they've just gotten more careful about the IP addresses etc. -PrBeacon (talk) 04:21, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

The easy resolution seems rather evident...a bit more sourcing and a bit less rhetorical, paranoid posturing. Do you have ANY notable RS specifically alleging that the news division of Fox News operates in violation of "journalistic ethics and standards" that might warrant incorporation in the main body to say nothing of the lead? JakeInJoisey (talk) 04:34, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually, PrBeacon, NPR has edited Wikipedia more often than FNC (for example, the obvious editing of Nina Totenberg by Totenberg or someone close to her at NPR). It's just that the FNC editing, of course, got far more coverage in sympathetic press. See the WikiScanner website for more details. Are you going to go through the effort of trying to track down regular editors of NPR & related articles like you did for the FNC?Drrll (talk) 07:57, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Nope, I'll leave that to you and yours. But thanks for the promo work. I note that 2 of the 3 editors responding to this subthread have decided to focus on one small detail rather than the greater issue(s) of improving the article. -PrBeacon (talk) 16:18, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

PRBeacon, how about focusing on the content of the edits rather than over the top rhetoric (faux news) and ad-hominems? Content, not contributor. Magog the Ogre (talk) 07:40, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

It's hardly 'over the top' unless you're a fan, and not all ad-homs are untrue -- some "questions of personal conduct, character, motives, etc., are legitimate and relevant to the issue" .. You're probably more aware than some others here about FNC's efforts at cleaning up it's wikipedia pages, or I should say at least you acknowledge it. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Fox_News_Channel_controversies in re [3] and [4]. -PrBeacon (talk) 01:41, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Accusing someone of working for a PR organization? You'll need proof for that, and you have none that any of the above editors works for them. Not to mention the dailykos posts are a case in point example of WP:MEATPUPPETRY. And calling it "faux news" might be funny as a joke off this website, but this is professional environment. I would say the same thing to any other editor (e.g., Puffington Host). I'm warning you that your behavior is disruptive and the fact that you're not seeing it while I'm pointing it out to you is not a good sign. Focus on the content of the article not on the other editors. Magog the Ogre (talk) 02:22, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I understand what you're saying, I just don't agree with all of it. Due respect, you don't know what I'm seeing. I've acknowledged before that challenging bullies and turf-warriors like the pro-FNC crowd, is bound to ruffle some feathers. Necessarily. WP:NPA seems to say it's appropriate to discuss other editor's conflicts of interest. Am I misinterpreting? Anyway I haven't accused any specific editors, yet. But given FNC's history of meddling in wikipedia articles, how is it inappropriate to raise the issue here? Your concerns about professionalism are appreciated but somewhat misplaced here, imo. -PrBeacon (talk) 17:41, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure I'm not seeing what you're seeing. What I see is this: a turf-war between some pro-Fox and anti-Fox edit warriors. You accuse them of actually being on Fox's payroll, when the evidence for that is circumstantial at best - yes there is a history of Fox changing its own articles but there is no evidence that a) these editors are part of that or b) it's any worse than any other company that would leave you to single out these editors on this article. In turn, they accuse you of being a dailykos left-wing fanatic. Because you lack proof, the ad hominems are unnecessary and only inflame the situation. Unfortunately, in this article there is enough inappropriate meatpuppetry on both sides, which is why we're to deciding to draw up sanctions on WP:AN. As the saying goes, you don't attract flies with vinegar; you'd be better off and come to a better agreement with cordiality (if the other side doesn't respond, there are other venues). Now, back to how we resolve this dispute, right? I have found I can get along with even the most hardened opinions against my own if I'm cordial - unless the other person is an irremedial edit warrior, in which case only the person looks like the fool. Magog the Ogre (talk) 20:04, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Hold on, where did I accuse anyone specifically? Perhaps it may seem unfair to lump all defenders in the FNC camp together, whether 'self-appointed' or not.., but their history of talkpage bullying and article reverts show a similar orthodoxy in resistance to any and all criticism. If they were more reasonable and collaborative, then yes your approach would work. And I still don't know what you were talking about earlier with the 'PR organization' comment. Where does anyone accuse me of being a 'dailykos fanatic'? fyi I've been contributing to these discussions long before the recent RfC attracted meatpuppets. Not that anyone ever asked, but I'm an independent who's frankly embarassed to see Fox News abuse the conservative name and more importantly here, that those distortions spill over into wikipedia largely unchecked. -PrBeacon (talk) 22:52, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps I read your comments a bit too quickly... in any case I think perhaps we're both reading too much into the other's comments: I don't have a particularly strong opinion on how the article should read, and I have no desire to single you out specifically PrBeacon. I just want to make sure the talk page stays on topic and that anything construed as a personal attack stays off. And I made assumption that you'd been accused of being a member of dailykos... I was only giving it as an example. Anyway, carry on, and apologies if my words came across too strongly... in response to your words coming off too strongly (if you don't understand this comment, feel free to ask for clarification on what you don't understand). Magog the Ogre (talk) 03:17, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Full protection

I see no further attempts to make discussion in almost a week. The full protection has expired. Does that mean no one else has any suggestions to make? If the edit warring resumes, I will have to replace the protection or block any offending editors, depending on the nature of the edit warring. Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:45, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Fox News Contributors

My understanding is that Fox News Channel uses the phrase "Fox News Contributor" exclusively to refer to people paid under contract to appear on Fox News Channel. Fox News Contributors are not allowed to appear on competing channels except during certain limited time windows, such as when they are promoting a recently published book they wrote.

Ann Coulter was described as a Fox News Contributor, but I believe she is not, as evidenced by her frequent appearances on other channels. I changed her description to "frequent guest". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.108.157.188 (talk) 17:49, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Do you have a reference for that phrase? That's useful information and it should also be added to Fox News Channel. Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:14, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I see Juan Williams has the title. Until yesterday at least, he did work for NPR as well. Magog the Ogre (talk) 20:37, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Criticism of Fox News pundits

I believe this section should be expanded to include Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity. As this is supposed to be encyclopedic, there should be plenty to unearth on at least those two in this section, as much controversy as they have gotten over the years. It should be easiest with O'Reilly, considering the Andrea Mackris phonesex controversy, among many other things, but I'm sure much could be said about Hannity as well, like editing the rally that was mentioned as just a general Fox News controversy. I don't believe I'm dedicated enough to do this myself, but as long as we've had this section, I'm surprised Beck, Cavuto, and Gibson got mentioned but not O'Reilly or Hannity. There may be enough to start something on Van Susteren as well and her connections to Palin, or Geraldo revealing the locations of troops in Afghanistan. Have we been too lazy with this part of the article? I beleive we have. J390 (talk) 01:51, 30 October 2010 (UTC) Um, hello people. There's a lot we could put down there. Not all of it of course, we want to be NPOV. But if we have a controversy section, we're missing something if we don't have O'Reilly (formerly most controversial host) and Hannity on there. J390 (talk) 00:46, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Media Matters

We should change Media Matters and Fair from Media Watch dog, to progressive advocacy groups.Nbaka is a joke (talk) 21:20, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Opposed. Please see past discussion, notably this one [5] from the main article's talkpage, which references one of the more recent (of many) admin noticeboard threads. -PrBeacon (talk) 05:36, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Critics of Fox News...

Arzel recently added a cn tag for: Critics of Fox News Channel have accused the network of having a bias favoring the political right and the Republican Party. Fox News has publicly denied such charges, - and I am hoping clarification can be given as to what part needs citing? The claims of bias are cited innumerable places in the article, and the very first citation is where Fox (or more accurately Murdoch and Ailes) have publicly denied such (here's one of at least 4 times they deny such claims): We’re not promoting the conservative point of view, we’re merely giving them equal time and access. Please clarify how an additional citation should be added and what it should support. ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 18:44, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I believe Arzel added the ^{[citation needed]} tag in regards to "while its commentators are self-described conservatives," and rightfully so. That statement is directly refuted by Anita Dunn (while calling Fox News "a wing of the Republican Party") in the next available reference when she stated: "I mean, obviously, there are many commentators who are conservative, liberal, centrist -- and everybody understands that." †TE†Talk 18:59, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Ah! Thanks... that would make sense. So, either (a) rewording to remove that claim, or (b) finding cites to when Beck and O'Reilly have claimed such would satisfy the needs and allow for the removal of the tag? Which would you suggest? I'd lean towards b since it should be able to be easily done. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 19:15, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I was going through this article and Fox News channel because of the lede situation when noticing the same exact sentence and reference. I don't know where it came from, but it seemly derives from this suggestion by Fox VP Michael Clemente that "White House officials were intentionally conflating opinion show hosts like Glenn Beck with news reporters like Major Garrett."

How that becomes '"Fox News has publicly denied such assertions, stating that, while its commentators are self-described conservatives, the reporters in the news room provide separate, neutral reporting," is anybody's guess. We should probably just remove it now and discuss other options later. †TE†Talk 19:45, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

There's a cite missing (or included elsewhere in the article). I am always loathe to remove anything from the lede without actually checking the article. One of the guidelines indicates to not cite the lead and instead cite the expanded sections in the text below. If someone followed that, then it simply means double-citing, or following the guidelines and leaving it as is. I prefer double-citing on contentious articles such as this. Finding that cite would of course also solve the other cite problem we were discussing. ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 19:57, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Here's the cite that was removed. I'm shocked it wasn't anywhere else in the article with the whole Anita Dunn/Obama Administration controversy. You can't find any refs that would've backed up such a broad statement to begin with. I doubt we can even pin O'Reilly or Beck down as "self-described" conservatives, just Hannity. Beck calls himself a Libertarian and O'Reilly is always talking about his independent streak, I believe. Anyways, I agree with you about double-citing contentious material in the lead. †TE†Talk 20:08, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

"Anybody's guess": because it says and implies such in the article. I guess we can lobotomize the lead instead of reading the FOX article though. The WP statement in question is:

"Fox News has publicly denied such assertions, stating that, while its commentators are self-described conservatives, the reporters in the news room provide separate, neutral reporting,"

Fox, in responding to such claims implies (not states) that though such may be true of their commentators, it does not apply to their news reporters.

"It's astounding the White House cannot distinguish between news and opinion programming," Clemente said. "It seems self-serving on their part."

As an answer to claims of bias, that seems very much like them admitting that their opinion pieces hold such bias, while claiming their news pieces do not. Appropriate rewording would fix the sentence issue. Or, (as noted earlier by me) someone could lobotomize the lede without discussion. ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 20:10, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, that sentence was quite the stretch from the cited source. Since we should address this issue in some manner...

What would you suggest? †TE†Talk 00:33, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Good question... as much as I like minimizing the use of direct quotes to zero or very few, this seems a situation where including such may be the best way of handling the issue (or someone better at writing make a proposal). Fox non-answers the question in a way open to multiple interpretations. Quoting their response ensures no one adds an external interpretation to the paragraph on WP - whether that interpretation is accurate to Fox's intent or not. I am very big on not reading implied meaning into such stuff, even if I feel very strongly that such was truly the meaning intended. Suggestions? Anyone who's better at content contribution want to take a stab at it? Best, Rob ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 01:02, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Why is there a "problem cite" tag in the "Accusations of distortion" section?

I am curious why there's a cite problem tag in the "Accusations of distortion" section? The section title clearly labels it is discussing an accusation, the section text clearly indicates who has made the accusation (Media Matters for America) and references where they have publicly made such claims. We aren't citing facts. We are citing a claim that they said it. In this case, my understanding is, directly referencing the statement to where whomever said it is permitted, and in some cases, directly citing them is preferred (to ensure proper context and accurate quoting/claiming). Does anyone have thoughts? Is the template in the wrong section? Did someone forget to move it when that section was cited? Best, Robert ROBERTMFROMLI ^TALK/_CNTRB 23:33, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Anyone? I've waited ten days to see if anyone has any ideas. I'd like to remove the "drive by" tag if no one has objections. ROBERTMFROMLI ^TALK/_CNTRB 16:56, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Does anyone have thoughts?

Sure. The current sourcing, as correctly noted by the tags, does not satisfy WP:V/WP:UNDUE and the content, without provision of additional third-party sourcing indicating that any other sources but MMfA and Huffington Post gave a crap about this, should be deleted. JakeInJoisey (talk) 17:17, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I sadly do not understand you. Are you saying that to prove that Media Matters has accused Fox of "accusations of distortion" that someone else needs to make such a claim? I don't see how UNDUE applies either, considering that Media Matters is a very vocal and notable organization on such matters - and far from the only one that has made such a claim. Nor do I see how citing others' claims would fix (lack of) "undue" issues regarding claims made by Media Matters - it would be entirely irrelevant to the section unless the section mentioned others with such claims (in which case, then they should be cited as well). IF I am understanding your rationale correctly, we must remove any criticism where (a) someone else hasn't supported that the claim was made and (b) havent listed others who have the same claim against the article subject. Seems nothing in the guidelines supports such (in cases where there's a big, notable claimant making such a claim so very publicly). If this were some fringe group no one had heard of, I'd agree. But this is (1) a big group that (2) has bought a lot of air time, and (3) that Fox News themselves has went on the offensive against because MM has made such claims.

But again, I may simply be misunderstanding what you are trying to say... ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 18:38, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Are you saying that to prove that Media Matters has accused Fox of "accusations of distortion" that someone else needs to make such a claim?

Not at all...but the encyclopedic merit of any of MMfA's litany of allegations of Fox News journalistic perfidy can only be established via the provision of adequate third-party sourcing making note of MMfA's issue-du-jour. Either that or you might as well set up an RSS feed from MMfA directly into this article.

Instead of criticizing the placement of the tags, why don't you try to provide some third-party sourcing that might elevate MMfA's claims to something more than petty, inane sniping? JakeInJoisey (talk) 02:20, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Apologies, I thought it was common knowledge that Fox themselves airs a bunch of (either) pieces (or) rants about MM, or has been in conflict with them at least since 2007[6][7][8][9]. I shouldn't have made that assumption, and apologize for having made it. Anyway, those are a few links that may or may not be appropriate to indicate that others give credence to the fact that MM has issues with Fox... there are others, but since Wikipedia comes up all over the place, I didnt spend too much time digging.

As for why I didnt, it is quite simply because pundits such as Beck (and a couple others) go on regular "rants" about MM, so I thought it public knowledge and couldnt understand the need to cite that MM has issues with Fox through another source. AND I have NEVER seen a requirement needed to cite a claim to someone else when it can be cited directly and publicly to the person/organization that made the claim. Regardless, I've offered my apologies above for not realizing that those here wouldn't know about the topic we are discussing. Best, Robert ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 03:01, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Whoa, hold on there. Don't take Jake's word on the reliability of critical sources, especially MMfA which has been repeatedly upheld as a media watchdog at various administration noticeboards. Of course a third-party source may help in general, but Jake's contempt for MMfA is not the barometer we use. -PrBeacon (talk) 04:54, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Sigh* as has been REPEATEDLY pointed out, MMFA is to be judged on a case-by-case basis and generally not to be used exclusively, but to support a story already covered by a mainstream news source. Soxwon (talk) 05:43, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

No that's not quite true either. The case-by-case consideration was for BLPs, which may apply to a limited extent for FNC. The RS/Ns I've seen had no clear consensus for factual use, but strong support for use of MMfA for its criticism of conservative media. I summarized the latest one at the main FNC article Talk:Fox_News_Channel/Archive_26#RS.2FN.2C_outside_editors:_MM_is_reliable and it was seconded by Drrll and Niteshift36, surprisingly enough. -PrBeacon (talk) 06:17, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

No, all the discussions I have been a part of (and there have been many) have said case-by-case period. Their weight needs to be taken into consideration. Soxwon (talk) 20:22, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Criticisms of socialism which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you.--Marcus Qwertyus 20:23, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Why aren't O'Reilly and Hannity under "Criticism of pundits"?

They're two of the three most visible and controversial hosts on the network. I'm sure we could get a lot in. On a similar note, hypothetically, if we have an MSNBC controversies page in the future, it would be well to include it's commentators Olbermann, Maddow, Matthews, and Shultz. There's years worth of criticisms of these people. J390 (talk) 08:10, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

First of all MSNBC is journalism and their pundits have no where near the amount of evidence piled up against them to show the obvious bias like Fox news pundits. Show me one study that actually deals with bias in msnbc instead of just giving your armchair analysis. Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.38.230.227 (talk) 19:42, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Should all sources that use fox news be automatically purged from Wikipedia?

The science is alread in on this subject, if Wikipedia's image is to be improved as a reliable source of information, then Fox news should not be allowed to be used for anything, unless its to prove what fox has said. But to use fox news as a source when talking about serious issues like the financial crisis does all Wikipedia users a disservice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.38.230.227 (talk) 19:42, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

This would be more properly discussed on something like the WP:RS discussion page or a notice board regarding RS. Kevin Baas^talk 16:35, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Union Poll

On wed Feb 23 fox showed a poll that stated that Americans were opposed to unions. But they flipped the results because teh pool actually said that Americans favored unions.

http://www.rawstory.com/rawreplay/2011/02/fox-reverses-poll-results-to-portray-public-as-anti-union/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.187.83.247 (talk) 15:53, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

The First Casualty of "War"...

We need to come to some consensus understanding here. IMHO, MMfA claims of "controversy" related to Fox News are insufficient to satisfy WP:RS standards for inclusion unless supported by the provision of clearly related and reliable third-party sourcing. On that basis, I have reverted a recent edit by User:128.172.143.140. Comments? JakeInJoisey (talk) 16:23, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Someone change the Glenn Beck area

It makes him sound negative and almost evil. Never once has he mentioned socialism on his program or critized President Obama's policy. He is not controversial and this should be noted in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.254.126.57 (talk) 01:12, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

i don't know what you're refering to here, but if you've ever listened to him, well, HE makes himself sound that way. so maybe you're just confusing quotes and verifiable stuff with content/analysis? i don't know. just something to be wary of. we can't put our own opinion in even to "balance it out". we can only put in notable an due weight facts. Kevin Baas^talk 14:35, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

You should know better. Please, try to WP:AGF and avoid WP:BITE in the future. You might also try paying some attention to timestamps, as articles can change in a week. †TE†Talk 15:21, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

i don't see how that was a violation of either. i did not assume any bad faith on the part of any editor or use ascerbic language with respect to any editor. i reserve the right to clearly and frankly state relevant facts, anecdotes, and opinions. as far as timestamps go, articles CAN change in a week, but they usually don't. Kevin Baas^talk 15:58, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps You should know better as well? The unsigned poster clearly lied. I can in less than 10 seconds find 10 examples proving the claim the person made false. The fact is, the claim that "Never once has he mentioned socialism on his program or criticized President Obama's policy." is an absolute falsehood. It isn't unreasonable to assume that there was bad faith on the part of that editor because the mischaracterization is so clearly agredious to the events that occurred. Here is a link to the first video that popped up when I simply looked. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M9GOk_sXt9I — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.252.42.88 (talk) 10:11, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Photo Manipulation

I noticed in the photo manipulation section when you click on a picture it says purpose: "To show the manipulation done by Fox News Channel to a photo of Steven Reddicliffe." and "To show the manipulation done by Fox News Channel to a photo of Jacques Steinberg."

Is there any citation that shows that Fox New Channel manipulated the photos themselves as this person is claiming? You can't just make a claim that a news channel manipulates photos and show no proof. Sure, they may have aired a photo that has seemingly been altered, but that in no way proves that Fox New Channel altered, or otherwise manipulated the photo themself. If there is no proof they manipulated the photos themself, then this dubious claim needs to be removed, like many of the other dubious claims made by "Fox haters" that troll these articles.YouMakeMeFeel: (talk) 19:53, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether most of the trolling here is done by "fox haters" or "fox lovers".

But be that as it may, this is the somewhat the wrong location for that question, since it is not a issue of this article and the subtitles for the pictures used in it, but it is the problem if the image file. The metadata there can be edited, so you can fix that or simply raise the question on the discussion page of that image file.--Kmhkmh (talk) 21:59, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Fox News, President Obama and Osama bin Laden

A new section should be added to numerous times Fox News had said "President Obama is dead", "Obama bin Laden is dead" and "Obama is dead", should it be created? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Silver163 (talk • contribs) 20:11, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Do you have source of any respectable figure calling them out on it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.89.137.233 (talk) 00:40, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Give us a break. There have been multiple instances of various non-Fox News individuals mixing up Osama bin Laden's and Barack Obama's names. The notion that there needs to be a separate section devoted to minor slips of the tongue are why much of the criticism of Fox News is not to be taken seriously.

University of Maryland study

I don't want to quibble about each word used in the description, but it needs to be somewhat accurately reflect what the survey was about. The survey clearly states that it is about misinformation and it also explains what it considers "false" and "correct" information in this context. So no matter how exactly you want to phrase that, you cannot simply state it was a survey of beliefs and fox viewers turned out to have the following believes, such a description would be an utter misrepresentation of the survey and a violation of WP policy.--Kmhkmh (talk) 19:31, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

What policy is being violated? How is it being misrepresented? Also this is a violation of WP:PRIMARY Arzel (talk) 21:27, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

If you describe the content of a source in a false or misleading manner, that's a policy violation. As I said above the study is cleary about misinformation (starting from its very title to lotsa detailed formulations explaning and talking of misinformation) and turning that into mere "opinion survey", as the old description did, is a gross misrepresentation. Note that at this point this has nothing to do with the study's claims being (objectively) true or not or whether it should be critiqued or not. It is just a question of describing its claims accurately.

As far as WP:Primary is concerned, I don't really see a violation here, in particular in this area, where people cite constantly pundits, newspapers and even blogs arguing against academic university publication on the base of WP:Primary strikes me rather odd and the study is not exactly putting forward a novel idea either. Also if you read WP:PRIMARY carefully, you'll see there is usually no issue with citing reliably published (primary) material, as long as you stay away from personal interpretations, which btw was exactly the problem of the old formulation (by ommission) and the reason I complained. Lastly you might not even the consider paper itself as the primary source but rather its raw data/questionaire, whereas the interpretation of that data by the scientist is not really that different from the interpretation of the data by any (other) secondary source.

Lastly if you seriously want to object against the use of the study at all on the base of WP:PRIMARY, then I'm partially the false person to address. I included the study neither here nor in the FOX News article, I merely corrected its misleading description.--Kmhkmh (talk) 22:57, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Soxwon is probably right, that is better to explicitly put the information in qualifiers (i.e. explicity writing something like "the study claims, that ..."). However the edit was still somewhat problematic, as it what again not fully reporting what the study actually says. I tried to fix that, but I but i think my formulation is still a bit awkward, so feel free to improve it. But please note, that a proper description needs to cover the following points to describe the study accurately:

It needs to be clear that the study defines what misinformation is (but that definition is not universally agreed and might be subject to debate)
It needs to be clear that they explicitly classify various voters' beliefs as false or true based on their definition misinformation

Just stating the various beliefs without the study's classification of them is omitting the central point of the study being about misinformation (="false" beliefs).--Kmhkmh (talk) 12:39, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I think that the current wording should work OK. It may be better to use a secondary source to characterize the study, but I don't feel strongly about it. I do think that some of David Zurawik's analysis of the study should be added in another sentence, namely, who defines "misinformed" (already covered in the current text), that certain government agencies are defined as holding the "true" views, and that the study didn't differentiate between the influences of actual news coverage vs. political ads seen on the FNC. Drrll (talk) 16:01, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Misinformation is a completely unambigious term. believing the answer is not a when the answer is a. it can be defined quantitatively in terms of information theory. notice however that there is a common misperception about information (ironically!), namely it is common to percieve it as something intrinsic, where in fact it is a peroperty of a relationship between things. the information ('signal') "in itself" is not a sufficient definition to evaluate it quantitatively. for instance, one may need to specify a source. having specified a source you can then determine the divergence between the model (recieved message) and the source, e.g. as a kullback-liebler-divergence. in the case of binary values this becomes utterly trivial. e.g. "what number am i thinking of?" "5?". "no." now say i am thinking of the number 7. someone else tells you that i am thinking of the number 3. that is misinformation. (notice they must include a source, "me" in order to evaluate whether it is misinformation or not). this is the universally agreed upon definition and it is not subject to debate. Kevin Baas^talk 19:51, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

The second part: "it needs to be clear that they explicitely...." no it doesn't. that's implied neccessarily. that follows neccessarily from there being information to be informed or misinformed (or not informed) about. to state otherwise would simply be absurd. Kevin Baas^talk 19:54, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Kmhkmh is correct. describing the content of a source in a false or misleading manner is a clear violation of policy, nto to mention downright unethical. there is nothing ambigiuous or debatable about this issue. it is for that reason that i am replacing whatever the hell that was with a faithfull summary of the content of the report. Kevin Baas^talk 19:59, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

From the report:

A study of misinformation raises the somewhat delicate question of what is true. When dealing with topics that have been highly politicized, it is common to default to the position that all perceptions are relative and treatment of any position as more or less true is itself inherently political. We believe that such a position is at odds with what is necessary for well-functioning democracy. It is indeed very important for a healthy democratic process to be open to a wide range of positions. At the same time, it is essential that there be means and institutions for achieving consensus about key factors that ultimately affect public policy decisions. On a regular basis government economists come to conclusions about the state of the economy. Such conclusions influence key decisions in the private sphere, as well as government decisions. Such government economists should be, and generally are, open to input from experts outside of government in the course of coming to conclusions. In the course of this study, to identify “misinformation” among voters, we used as reference points the conclusions of key government agencies that are run by professional experts and have a strong reputation for being immune to partisan influences. These include the Congressional Budget Office, the Department of Commerce, and the National Academy of Sciences. We also noted efforts to survey elite opinion, such as the regular survey of economists conducted by the Wall Street Journal; however, we only used this as supporting evidence for what constitutes expert opinion. In most cases we inquired about respondents’ views of expert opinion, as well as the respondents’ own views. While one may argue that a respondent who had a belief that is at odds with expert opinion is misinformed, in designing this study we took the position that some respondents may have had correct information about prevailing expert opinion but nonetheless came to a contrary conclusion, and thus should not be regarded as ‘misinformed.’ It should also be noted that queries about expert opinion were not predicated on the idea that there is unanimity on issues. On some issues, such as climate change, there is a vocal dissenting minority among experts. Thus questions were framed in terms of whether, among experts, more had one or another view, or views were evenly divided.

Kevin Baas^talk 20:09, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

And let me be clear 'cause it seems that you miss this crucial point: they did not ask people what their opinion was, they asked them what they though expert opinion was, whether it was divided or unanimous. not whether the experts were right or wrong, or certain opinions were right or wrong, as you seem to think. while the latter may be subjective, the former is not. Kevin Baas^talk 20:13, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

The inaccurate wording i have removed blatently misleads on these very important points stated clearly and in no uncertain terms in the very introduction of the report. this is a clear violation of policy, and ethics. Kevin Baas^talk 20:17, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

As far as the study goes, this video pretty much casts doubt on it in the best way possible (with facts): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O8KHOgyYyHQ PokeHomsar (talk) 21:57, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

sorry, i watched a few minutes of that video. in short, it's a crock of sh**. it's more egregiously fallacious and opinionated than the people here who want to misrepresent it and add their own synthesis and analysis that's directly contrary to the information contained in the report. and it is the worst example of blatent bias i've seen in nearly a decade. it is just downright disturbing, and i wish you hadn't shown me it. Kevin Baas^talk 22:08, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

You clearly didn't watch a minute of it. He does analysis to contradict the conclusions of the study by casting doubt on the answers to the questions. The answers to the questions were completely false. There's a reason the MSNBC viewers did better than the rest on most of the questions. PokeHomsar (talk) 00:47, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually, it seemed like he set out to find certain answers and cherry-picked the facts that best supported these answers, and although his analysis was vaguely interesting, I would definitely question his methods. Soxwon (talk) 01:04, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, there is a fair bit wrong with that video, certainly his appreciation of Crowding out (economics) is flawed. u n☯mi 02:00, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Well the video does raise some valuably questions in terms of critically questioning the study and provided some interesting background research, but it has some flaw on its own by cherrypicking the background material and somewhat ignoring some context issues and reading things into the study, which it strictly speaking doesn't claim (but only people using it do).

In some way it might just show that the study should have not used some of the economic questions in a murky area where there are no clear answer from a strict scientific point of view to begin with but only people believing to have them. Some ecomnomic arguments occasionally bear resemblance to religion rather than science.

As far as the WP article is concerned the video cannot be used as a source anyway. And the original point of thread was, that the claims of the study were not accurately/adequately described in the WP article. Which is a completely different issue from the question whether those claims are actually true or not. However that problem with the inaccurate description has been fixed already.--Kmhkmh (talk) 11:47, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

P.S.: Various recent edits introduced the misrepresentation of the study again. So let me reiterate:

If you reference/cite the study at all, you need to do so in an accurate manner. The description of those views of Fox viewers as misinformed and false is a central claim of the study. It does not matter whether you agree with the study's claims or not and it doesn't matter whether they are truly correct or not. In any case you need to describe the study's claims accurately, anything else is a policy violation.

If some editor here still has problems to wrap his head around this concept, then think of it as a quote. If you quote somebody, then you have to quote his originally statement verbatim, no matter whether it is correct or total nonense. And if you think the content of the is nonsense, you can add some sourced criticism of it afterwards, but you cannot modify or correct the quote to remove the (perceived) nonsense.--Kmhkmh (talk) 14:11, 12 January 2011 (UTC)--Kmhkmh (talk) 14:11, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Kmhkmh, very clearly stated. I share your frustration that it seems some people are making a straw man of the report, and personally i find making a straw man of anything morally reprehensible. anycase you may have noticed my wording. while you changes are definitely a step in the right direction, i was striving for wording that more closely approaches a "quote", as you say; one that more precisely matches the technical precision of the wording used in the report. e.g. w/phrases like "statistical significance" and "correlation", and clarifying that the study was not about belief, but about knowledge of what the distribution of expert opinion was (while remaining agnostic about the opinions themselves). why be vauge when you can just as easily be a little bit more precise, thus being simultaneously more accurate _and_ more informative? anycase that's just a little overview of the thinking behind my wording, FWIW. Kevin Baas^talk 14:26, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not necesssarily a big defender of the current wording, but to me that's something like minimal version I might accept to avoid edit warring. Going below that as in the version before is misrepresentation of the study and policy violation or in a more common tongue simply lying (by ommission) about its content. If you want a more extensive description, I have no objections. But I would prefer if you and the other involved editors (azrael, soxwon, PokeHomsar) were to agree on text proposal on the discussion page first, rather than edit warring over it in the article. Another compromise beyond coming up with our own accurate description of the survey's claims and content, is to agree an various literal quotes giving an accurate description in their entirety. It seems a bit artificial/overblown to me, but of nothing else works that might be an option.--Kmhkmh (talk) 14:41, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I fixed a little something you missed that i'm sure noboby will have any problem with: [10]. Kevin Baas^talk 16:04, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I also fixed an attribution error and a lie by ommission: [11]. I don't expect these to be controversial, either. Kevin Baas^talk 16:11, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I noticed the line under, that says "...agencies are defined as holding the "true" positions on issues ...". this is patently false. the report clearly states that agencies are not in anyway presumed (or "defined"!) to hold "true" or "correct" positions on the issues. this is clearly stated in the intro in the text i have quoted above. as this is a matter of verifiable fact (a matter of record, in fact), it should be made clear to the reader. Kevin Baas^talk 17:55, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I quote directly from the study: "While one may argue that a respondent who had a belief that is at odds with expert opinion is misinformed, in designing this study we took the position that some respondents may have had correct information about prevailing expert opinion but nonetheless came to a contrary conclusion, and thus should not be regarded as 'misinformed.'" Kevin Baas^talk 18:28, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

"According to the results of the study many viewers of Fox News falsely believe that most economists think that the fiscal stimulus of 2009 caused job losses, that most economists have estimated the health care law will worsen the deficit, and that most scientists do not agree that climate change is occurring, and this misinformation about the distribution of expert opinion increases with the frequency of watching Fox News." The wording of this is untrue and false. I read the study and the source myself, nowhere in the study does it say any of the things you have written. Nor is any of this quoted directly from the study, because it's not what the study indicates.

I directly quoted from the study when I said Fox viewers were more likely to believe a certain thing. I left out the charged word "falsely" because it was nowhere in the study you have sourced, and I have no partisan agenda here as that word seems to serve. You are distorting the study. As I stated before I could not find anywhere in the study where it says "many fox viewers believe" or that they "falsely" believe anything, only that they were more likely to believe a certain thing. It is not up to you and your original research to decide whether a belief is false or not. The source does not state that any belief is false -- that is something you added in through original research -- and if you have some sort of agenda of proving that, than do so. If you want to prove that the fiscal stimulus of 2009 did not cause job losses, that the health care law will not worsen the deficit, and that most scientists do not agree that climate change is occurring you should do it somewhere else where it does not appear that it is simply a partisan injection of liberalness with no real goal. You are trying to use a study about misinformation to disprove certain economic and environmental beliefs among other things; this is not the place or the source for that. Show me in the study where it says something is a false belief. It's not cool to put words in the mouth of a study and claim that it is just and what the study really said.YouMakeMeFeel: (talk) 03:49, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Read the comments above carefully and please refrain from starting the same nonsense all over again.--Kmhkmh (talk) 04:54, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

The wording from the study is Those who watched Fox News almost daily were significantly more likely than those who never watched it to believe that:. As YouMakeMeFell stated, the word falsely is not in the document. Arzel (talk) 05:00, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

That is quote mining and presenting it out of context and this is clearly explained above. The study clearly identifies those beliefs as misinformation or false. Read the comments above carefully in particular the bold print.--Kmhkmh (talk) 05:16, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Quote Mining?!?! Seriously?!? That is the quote directly preceeding the section which makes those statements. What we have included in this article is almost verbatim from the study. Arzel (talk) 14:44, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

That is what quote mining is, quoting certain pieces out of a document verbatim but ignoring the context and as a result mischaracterizing the information/content of the overall document. As I said before that those views are false or misinformation is the core context of that document. It is is not just sampling arbitrary views but it is sampling views it considers to be misinformation or not true.--Kmhkmh (talk) 13:59, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

I've no dog in this hunt, but it seems to me your argument (assuming I understand your argument) that, based on this study, "misinformed" is clearly synonymous with "false" may be quite problematic per WP:RS, WP:OR, perhaps WP:SYNTH and, almost assuredly, WP:TRUTH. "Misinformed" is a characterization while "false" is a declaration with considerably more rhetorical mojo.

If your suggested use of "false" as a contextually legitimate synonym for "misinformed" cannot be supported by a specific quote from the purported source (which, IMHO, is the mandated WP:POLICY resolution for "challenged" content), then I must concur with those objecting to its use. JakeInJoisey (talk) 12:44, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I suggest you skip frankly somewhat ridiculous rule gaming here and read the explanation below carefully and reread the older discussion as well.--Kmhkmh (talk) 13:21, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Alright due to AGF there is apparently some help in text processing needed here, so let me provide it:

read page 3 - 4 pay in particular attention to: A note on the the question What is "True" and the key findings under point 2 and 4
now read pages 6 - 17 carefully and note what the study classifies as a correct answers (correct beliefs) and as misinformation (false beliefs).
Now read page 21 - 26 and pay in particular attention to page 22. One page 22 the quote mined for the article is "Those who watched Fox News almost daily were significantly more likely than those who never watched to believe that ....". Now if the suggested reading above still hasn't rung a bell, that the studies considers the listed beliefs as false then pay attention to line directly above the quote mined one, which provides the contexts again: "There are however a number of cases where a greater exposure to a new source increased misinformation on a specific issue."
lastly some help in plain English. If a person beliefs in claim A and claim A is a misinformation then the person falsely believes in A.

Conclusion:

A description of the study results by simply listing various views being more common among Fox viewers without mentioning that the study classifies those views as misinformation or false beliefs (as YouMakeMeFeel, Arzel and JakeinJoisy apparently prefer) is a severe misrepresentation of the study's results. As I've already mentioned in the older discussion further up, I don't care about the exact wording (be it "false belief", "misinformed belief" , "misinformation",....), but omitting one of its a central aspect in the description of its results is clear no-go. --Kmhkmh (talk) 13:08, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

You have clearly laid out your original research. The first sentence in the section clearly states that this study is about "misinformation". This is then followed by what FNC viewers believe. You seem to want to belabor the point by repeating the "misinformation" word and then replace that word with your more stronger wording of "falsely believe". Why do you feel the need to emphasize the issue past what the actual study does? It is a correct representation of the wording from the study, you seem to want to impart your own personal opinion into the mix as well. Arzel (talk) 14:41, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

WTF??? he has clearly enumerated pages in the report, asking you to read certain section and take note of certain sentences in there, quoting them exactly. how is that OR? that's called READING THE FRIGGIN' REPORT AND ACTUALLY COMPREHENDING WHAT IT SAYS. that's a prerequisite to saying anything at all sensible and accurate about it. now if you're going to shed doubt on the value of reading comprehension then it behoves us to ask: why, pray tell, should we bother to write anything? Kevin Baas^talk 22:34, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes he clearly enumerated the pages and laid out a perfect reasoning for coming to his conclusion by using several different pages to make his argument. He then followed it up with a clear logical conclusion to his reasoning. In other words he synthesized several section together to present a novel interpretation thus violating WP:OR specifically WP:SYNTH. His primary problem is that the study never says that FNC viewers falsely believe anything, only that they were misinformed based off the definitions used for the questions. The authors of the study attempted at great lenght to not be the judge of the accuracy of the actual statements, which is probably the best thing that can be said about this study. Arzel (talk) 00:28, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Wow, you've got to be frickin' kidding me. What is your beef with reading and comprehending the frickin' study so that its content can be accurately represented? Kevin Baas^talk 13:32, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what quote mining is, but Arzel and JakeInJoisey have made my points; Arzel, by justly using a quote from the study. The quote that Arzel used is presenting nothing out of context, instead, it is representing it in the context that it is originally made, instead of adding the words "falsely believe". JakeInJoisey reiterates my point that the word misinformed is not clearly synonymous with false. If you want to prove that the fiscal stimulus of 2009 did not cause job losses, that the health care law will not worsen the deficit, and that most scientists do not agree that climate change is occurring you should do it on their respective articles relating to those ideas, because that would be the relevant place; instead of trying to inject that here. You have clearly laid out your original research, which is not allowed. As said, it is clearly stated that the section is about misinformation, it does not need to be stated again because that would be wholly redundant. I think the current revision is quite good.YouMakeMeFeel: (talk) 18:32, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Please read through the discussion in this section carefully from the beginning, before it was started back up again. I do not feel I should have to reiterate what has already been stated very clearly. Thank you. Kevin Baas^talk 22:45, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually, JakeInJoisey's revision was very well written, and very neutral in nature, while your revision is very poorly written and entirely paraphrased in your own opinion.

1. non-sequitor

2. pure opinion with absolutely nothing to back it up

3. also, just plain false, and baldly so

4. why did you bold that?

Kevin Baas^talk 13:34, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

I've seen the previous discussion, and I disagree with your conclusions Kevin Baas; I'm sorry you don't like some of Wikipedia's policies on certain matters such as original research... we all have to work with them here. I, and a few others, opt to use direct evidence through quotes from the source, while you try to paraphrase in your own views and make completely weak and childish arguments like "this is crap". You have a section about critical thinking on your talk page and you make a statement like that? Wow...

How can the revision be cleary biased when it uses direct quotes from the source.. that one of you pulled? Unless of course you are implying that the source or study is somehow biased. Just because you think someone is biased doesn't make it so, and it doesn't diminish their argument either. Instead, it makes you look like the kid who crys wolf, i.e. you call someone biased whenever you have no good argument for yourself or points of your own, and it diminishes your own argument if you have any. Kevin Baas, you are simply showing your inabiltiy to be an effective editor on this matter.YouMakeMeFeel: (talk) 23:41, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

WTF?!?! Now you are making dishonest arguments and putting words in my mouth! When did I say i don't like any of WP's policies on OR?!?! I love them!! When was i trying to paraphase? I never was! I am trying to use direct quotes, and you guys are fighting that! And how can you possibly call "this is crap" an argument?!? Do you even know what an "argument" is?

How does the existence of direct quotes preclude completely the possiblity of being clearly bias? How does it follow that the source is biased? When did i imply that i think me saying something is biased makes it so? What arguments? Who did i call biased? I've refered you to my arguments above, which nobody has even tried to refute yet! Discuss content not contributors! Don't insult people! Don't you find it ironic a little bit ironic that you are the one being disrespectul and patronizing and and all and you are using the word "childish"? And you haven't even made a single argument yet, or discussed any of mine whose "conclusions" you purportedly refurte and thus feel you can hand wave them all withtout saying anything about them and then that's the be-all-end-all-final statement on them, all you have said here is been insults that don't even make any sense! Kevin Baas^talk 13:27, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

@Arzel: You were confusing original research with original writing, that is to provide an accurate summary of a source in your own words, which is our essential job as editors. The notion, that calling a view false, which the study defines as not being the Truth or misinformation would constitute original research is utter nonsense. I suggest you reread the arguments above carefully . Keep in mind a(n accurate) reformulation in your own words is not original research but drawing your own additional conclusions is, but did not do the latter above but just the former. I didn't draw any additional conclusions but I just explained what the study actually says and which parts you need to consult in particular to understand that (rather than focusing on a single quote).

@YouMakeMeFeel: I'm not sure whether you haven't fully understood the issue (at least judging by your earlier postings). This is not about WP stating whether Fox viewers are more likely to have false views, but about WP accurately describing the content of that study. This means WP needs to state, that the study claims Fix viewers are more likely to hold certain views the study characterizes as false or misinformation. The issue with old version was that it didn't do that. However JakeinJoisey's latest edit has fixed the issue with an alternative formulation, so apparently he has understood the problem now.

@All: Imho JakeInJoisey's new version is acceptable, at least it is not a misrepresentation anymore (contrary to the version he originally preferred). Whether Kevin's or JakeInJoisey's is better is matter of editorial judgment and I don't have strong opinion on that. However the old mischaracterization is a no-go.--Kmhkmh (talk) 14:26, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

I think you are confused in thinking that they are different. You are not a reporter, WP is not a reporting entity. WP is not an originator of original thought, and if your summary includes original thought or synthesis of existing information then you are breaking core WP policies. Your summarization to "explain" what the study is talking about is your perspective of what the study is talking about, ie, original research. Arzel (talk) 18:15, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

As I said already there was no original thought involved nor a synthesis of different sources, there was an accurate summary of one source. And it is not "my perspective", but what the study itself says and there isn't really any wiggle room "personal interpretation" on that matter. The study clearly classifies the discussed views as misinformation and as not being the Truth (and I gave you the explicit places in the paper, where it does that). And yes understanding a source is requirement for using it properly and has nothing to do with original research either. To be rather frank, if you're seriously claiming the study doesn't describe those views as false or misinformation, then from my perspective you either haven't really read the study or you're gaming. But be that as it may, if you insist on seeing original research here, feel free to request a third opinion.--Kmhkmh (talk) 18:43, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

I said that there were major problems in the new revision and asked the people making the changes to discuss it on talk first. This is also noted on the boilerplate at the top of this page: "The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. Please discuss substantial changes here before making them.". Emphasis added on "before".

Since they have failed to do so -- not one of them even had the courtesy to ask me what said problems were -- and instead opted to continue revert warring, I have taken it upon myself to change it back to the consensus version and the status quo ante bellum, and point out a few of the problems with the substantial changes, below.

Changed back: characterized as "misinformation" to considered misinformation" - "Characterized" is a very strong pov word and there was no characterization, making this not only pov but just plain false.

Removed: While noting that "...false or misleading information is widespread in the general information environment...",^[6]
as this is entirely trivial and insignificant. The goal is obviously to rhetorically diminish the results of the poll; to "weasel"; with spurious information.

removed: the study concluded that "...those who watched Fox News almost daily were significantly more likely than those who never watched it to believe..." this single line was not' the study’s conclusion. saying that it is is original research (and clearly false), and it is also clearly intended to diminish the results of the report by providing false information about the scope of the study and its results.

removed: …assertions characterized by the study as "misinformation"' -again characterized is a pov word and just plain false in this case. Also “assertions” is misleading as it makes one think that they were things like "global warming is real" – an assertion – when actually the questions were with regard to what expert opinion was on global warming, and the report explicitly states that they do not predicate the results based on any assumption of the accuracy of these opinions. Also, WHAT "assertions"? why don’t you just say what the questions where in regard to specifically. Thus, replaced all this with the original "According to the results of the study many viewers of Fox News were more likely to believe that most economists think that the fiscal stimulus of 2009 caused job losses, that most economists have estimated the health care law will worsen the deficit, and that most scientists do not agree that climate change is occurring, and this misinformation about the distribution of expert opinion increases with the frequency of watching Fox News." as this solves all of these problems.

Kevin Baas^talk 15:05, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I have reverted your edit. The purpose of the tag you mis-cited as justification for your undiscussed edit is to encourage dialogue on contentious content so as to preclude edit-warring. "Dialogue" necessitates feedback PRIOR TO execution of a likely contentious edit, not an after-the-fact invitation to "discuss". You can, of course, revert right back if you so choose, but please don't characterize your edit as some specious and transparently pretentious adherence to guidance which your edit, in actuality, totally ignores. JakeInJoisey (talk) 15:31, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

As per your correct interpretation of tag i cited, i cited it properly. As you correctly state, ""Dialogue" necessitates feedback PRIOR TO execution of a likely contentious edit, not an after-the-fact invitation to "discuss"." That is why i have reverted, once again, your likely contentious edit. nor please engage in "dialogue" with "feedback" PRIOR TO execution your likely contentious edit. Once again. As you can see from above I have even taken the liberty of starting if for you, having gotten tired of waiting for you to provide any justification in full or in part for your substantial and likely contentious edit. I have clearly stated numerous issues with it. please address these issues. Kevin Baas^talk 17:33, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

This is a key finding of the study. Your claim that it is spurious is quite incorrect.

1. Perceptions of Misleading and False Information
An overwhelming majority of voters said that they encountered misleading or false information in the last election, with a majority saying that this occurred frequently and occurred more frequently than usual.

Your other complaints are similarly incorrect. If than FNC viewers were "misinformed" about certain assertations is not a primary conclusion, then the study is not really worth mentioning, if it is, then it is certainly one of the conclusions. Your version cherry picks specific assertations, where as simply making the general statement removes this bias and is a neutral presentation. There were nine different assertations, listing them all would be undue weight for the section. Arzel (talk) 17:43, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

A agree that that is one of the key findings in the report. But that is not relevant to any thing here. If you take this finding to verify the statement "While noting that "...false or misleading information is widespread in the general information environment...", then you are woefully mistaken. These are two completely different statements.

simply saying things are incorrect is not sufficient. a rebuttle constitutes specific logical statements directly related to what is being rebutted and based on verifiable premises. not blanket dismissals. Re: "If FNC viewers were..." neither true nor relevant. this is non-sequitor, black-and-white-fallacies, and probably a few other things. and in any case it does not address any of the issues i brought up. you assert that my version "cherry picks" assertions. firstly it is not "my" version, and secondly, though it does not list 9 assertions, it lists 3 out of 9, which is a pretty good ratio and certainly is not cherry-picking. it picked them as they seemed the most relevant and if i'm not mistaken the report might have given these specialattention to, as they were particularly aggregious. but in any case, if that is your beef, i am fine with listing all 9 assertions. making a general statement does not remove any bias and is not a neutral presentation. simply listingthe specific facts is the most neutral and undistorted way to present information. though as you said, listing them all would be undue weight. hence only the most relevant and notable examples were picked. if you disagree on what are the most relevant and notable examples, well that is certainly something we can discuss. but basic writting guidelines are that one should give examples, and one only need spend a few seconds on this article alone to see that this is done quite consistently on wikipedia. Kevin Baas^talk 18:22, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

You say it is not relevant, I say it is and I have the view of the authors since they certainly felt it was relevant to the study as a whole. Not sure how you can claim stating one of their principle findings is a way to introduce weasel words to diminish the study. Your presentation of the material is entirely your point of view, and even if you claim it is not your view you endorse a non-neutral presentation.

You do not seem to understand me. when i say that what is in the proposed version as a preface and what is in the report as a finding are two completely different statements, i mean that the statements are not at all the same statements. i did not present any of the material, and even if presenting material were "entirely my point of view", then you presenting your material is thus "entirely your' point of view" and thus i don't see how that logic even works out in your favor. also claiming something is not my view does not automatically make me endorse that view, nor is accurately portraying someone else view as someone elses view an endorsement. that is just ridiculous on its face. Kevin Baas^talk 01:30, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Whatever. One of the primary aspects of the study is that misinformation was widespread, to not include that statement implies that it was only for FNC. That is clearly a biased point of view. That statement needs to be included to neutrally reflect the findings of the study. Arzel (talk) 02:17, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

To not include that statement would NOT imply that it was only for FNC. The simple fact that the results were not a perfect 100-0 split demonstrate defnitively that FNC was not the only source of misinformation. Well, the others could have been indirectly from FNC through e.g. word of mouth. but the point is that is not implied. in fact, the finding you refer to is a direct logical consequence of the fact that it is not a 0-100 split; that is where they got the "finding". (though FNC is, in fact, the only one they found to have statistically significant correlation with misinformation about the distribution of expert opinion, and that is notable and accurate as far as "only for FNC" is concerned.) In any case, if you want to include the statement that was made in the report, as opposed to the OR statement in the proposed version, and include it as a finding, that is, with the other findings, at the end, i would be fine with that. but i hope you can see how that's completely different than what's in the proposed version right now. Kevin Baas^talk 03:02, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Watchers if MSBNC and watcher/listener of PBS/NPR were misinformed about the Chamber of Commerce (not suprising) and two TARP questions, so you are misinformed. Arzel (talk) 13:39, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

While it is true that watchers of said station,s among others, were misinformed about said questions, among others, it does not follow that i am misinformed. in fact, that only goes to demonstrate that i am correct in asserting that FNC viewers were not the only ones that are misinformed. Kevin Baas^talk 14:47, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

That is quite the logical knot you are tying. Arzel (talk) 19:14, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

I am not even sure how to respond to the following.

removed: the study concluded that "...those who watched Fox News almost daily were significantly more likely than those who never watched it to believe..." this single line was not' the study’s conclusion. saying that it is is original research (and clearly false), and it is also clearly intended to diminish the results of the report by providing false information about the scope of the study and its results.

This was obviously one of the conclusions and not sure how this is inteded to diminish the results. What is the false (ironic) information being provided?

i must have copied that from the wrong version of the text. in that case, i'm glad you find some of the original wording to your liking. :) Kevin Baas^talk 01:30, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

As for your final complaint, I don't understand your primary issue there either. Assertations are statements. Statements were provided to respondants with a question do you agree with this statement ie assertation. If you want to change the word assertation to statement go ahead. Arzel (talk) 21:41, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

That is entirely my point! Statements were not -- i repeat not --- provided to respondants with a question do you agree with this statement ie assertation. which you would know had you read the frickin' report! Kevin Baas^talk 01:30, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Also, that is only 1 of 3 complaints i made in the last bullet point. the first being a reiteration of the first bullet point, and the last about the value of giving indicative examples rather than interpreting with watered-down generic statements. Kevin Baas^talk 01:35, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

I reverted what was then the current version for two reasons: inappropriate use of scare quotes, especially the repeated use of them around "misinformation", and the removal of specific issues discussed in the study. Gamaliel (talk) 05:37, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

When you revert please make sure that citations are still appropriate and stay in a proper format, I had to fix that twice now in the current back and force editing. Btw I suggest people discuss various summary/description versions here first, before editing the article in a partisan fashion. I might also help to restrain the potential inner partisan views on Fox a bit and focus on the study's content. If there is no way agree on a short summary, then we might need to have a more extensive one simply listing all examined misinformations. I personally don't quite agree or understand the current selection anyhow (why's Obama's citizenship not in there, which is probably the most obvious and clear cut misinformtaion ?).

As far as the "scary quotes" are concerned I somewhat what agree. Although in a way they provided a correct description, they nevertheless create a hacked impression. The original description a few months back describing them simply as false (according to the study's definition of truth on those views) and later Zulawski criticizing the study's notion of truth not being unproblematic provided an appropriate fluent narrative, which somewhat got lost in the edit war over the first part of the study description. It also avoided the stylistically awkward repeated use of misinformation/misinformed in scary quotes.--Kmhkmh (talk) 10:20, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

The word "Falsely" relating to the statement regarding the beliefs of FNC viewers is not reported in the study. The is clearly WP:OR. Why do you feel the need to opine something past what the study states? Arzel (talk) 02:17, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

If i may try to speak for him - while the word "falsely" is not explicitly used, it is clear that the answers were considered "incorrect" in the report as they did not accurately reflect the true state of affairs, as described in the introduction of the report. where they not somehow considered "incorrect", well then there would be no results to be had; all of them would be "degree of correct information undefined", and the entire study would be an excercise in absurdity. Kevin Baas^talk 03:08, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes. In short, the whole point of the study is that those things are false. Gamaliel (talk) 03:50, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

As I explained at length further up using the word "falsely" is neither a case of WP:OR nor WP:SYNTH. And it is somewhat incomprehensible to me how someone can read the study and claim the study would not consider those views as false (or believing them as false). The argument line above, that the study does not literally say "falsely believe" in some sentence, is a bit like arguing the the source didn't say "5" but just "2+3" or the source didn't say "false" but just "not true". From my perspective such an argument is utterly nonsensical.--Kmhkmh (talk) 08:57, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Alright as this seems to turn into latent edit war but more importantly from my perspective some editors either have a serious misunderstanding of the cited source and policies or their are blatantly gaming, it is time to let some uninvolved take a look at the cited source, cited policies and arguments on this page.--Kmhkmh (talk) 13:18, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

It is the "finding" of the study that certain beliefs are based upon "misinformation" that is "false" (an "opinion" whose basis is also challenged as being fundamentally flawed). To characterize those who might hold with those "beliefs" (attributed, in part, to a purportedly intentional distribution of "misinformation" by Fox News) as "falsely believing" is a POV-inspired semantical misrepresentation of the study's findings and conclusions via WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. To qualify (and clearly denigrate) their "act of believing" as "falsely believing" is to exceed the actual language of the study determination and to erroneously state as "fact" that the study ever qualified the "act of believing" as "falsely believing". First, from the perspective of the believer, one does not "falsely believe" anything. You can "believe" something that others might characterize as false, but YOU are NOT "falsely believing". You either "believe" something or you "don't believe" something. To qualify that act of "believing" as "falsely believing" is to inject a pejorative determination of fact specifically directed at the believer's "act of believing" rather than at the substance of "what he believes". The study MAKES NO SUCH CHARACTERIZATION and it is arrived at ONLY BY WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. Either quote it or leave it out. JakeInJoisey (talk) 13:19, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

The study makes exactly such a characterization as explained above. It is not about whether those views can be described as factually false nor about any "acts of believing" (whatever that's supposed to be), but that the study characterizes them as false (again read the explanation further up carefully, in particular the part where the study defines its view of "the truth" regarding those believes). You are confusing understanding and accurately summarizing a source with original research (further conclusions/result not being in the study) or synthesis (combining different sources to suggest a conclusion not being contained in the sources themselves).--Kmhkmh (talk) 13:56, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

The study makes exactly such a characterization...

Then quote it. Don't POV paraphrase it. QUOTE it. JakeInJoisey (talk) 14:09, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

This is the wording from the source:

Those who watched Fox News almost daily were significantly more likely than those who never watched it to believe that:

This is the wording proposed by those in favor of "Falsely".

..according to the results of the study many viewers of Fox News were more likely to falsely believe..

This is the wording proposed by those who feel the previous version to be WP:OR WP:SYNTH

..according to the results of the study many viewers of Fox News were more likely to believe..

That the results are statistically significant is also included in both versions. Arzel (talk) 13:55, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

As explained above you are quote mining and ignoring the context (in particular the section where the study defines what it considers as "the truth", see detailed explanation further up). --Kmhkmh (talk) 14:02, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Comment - Per comment above, it is the "finding" of the study that certain beliefs are based upon "misinformation" that is "false" (an "opinion" whose basis is also challenged as being fundamentally flawed). To characterize those who might hold with those "beliefs" (attributed, in part, to a purportedly intentional distribution of "misinformation" by Fox News) as "falsely believing" is a POV-inspired semantical misrepresentation of the study's findings and conclusions via WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. To qualify (and clearly denigrate) their "act of believing" as "falsely believing" is to exceed the actual language of the study determination and to erroneously state as "fact" that the study ever qualified the "act of believing" as "falsely believing". First, from the perspective of the believer, one does not "falsely believe" anything. You can "believe" something that others might characterize as false, but YOU are NOT "falsely believing". You either "believe" something or you "don't believe" something. To qualify that act of "believing" as "falsely believing" is to inject a pejorative determination of fact specifically directed at the believer's "act of believing" rather than at the substance of "what he believes". The study MAKES NO SUCH CHARACTERIZATION and it is arrived at ONLY BY WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. Either quote it or leave it out. JakeInJoisey (talk) 15:02, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

It sounds to me like you are very religous and take great offense when people say that you need to provide evidence to fulfill the burden of proof for your beliefs. While that may not be the modus operandi of religous people in concerns religious stuff, in rational thinking it is the modus operandi. Kevin Baas^talk 15:07, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Let me put it otherwise: insofar as a belief relates to an empirical testable assertion -- i.e. insofar as it is falsifiable -- it is called a belief precisely because it may be true or false; i.e. because it may be consistent or inconsistent with the true state of affairs. That is why it is called a "belief" and not a "fact". Kevin Baas^talk 15:14, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

I think the notion that "falsely believed" is some kind of slur is bizarre, but I have attempted to reword the sentence to get across the facts while avoiding that phrase. Gamaliel (talk) 16:02, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

That works for me too.--Kmhkmh (talk) 16:41, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

That is even worse. Why do you feel the need to wordsmith the clearly stated conclusion from the study? Let the FfC move forward on stop inserting original research. Arzel (talk) 19:23, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm getting the impression you don't really understand how wikipedia articles or encyclopedic articles are created. Encyclopedic articles are not a collection "quotes", instead we provide something of an accurate illuminating summary of reputable external sources and we primarily reference content and not quotes. Here we're are providing here a summary of 30 pages paper in a few sentences, such a thing normally cannot be facilitated by simply quoting something literally (possibly out of context). So the "quote it or leave it out"-rationale is not sensible approach for most scenarios (unless you have short statements/opinions that you quote literally). It is of course possible that editors disagree on the on the exact formulation of an accurate summary (which might be the case here, though your notion of the study's results is some incomprehensible to me), in such a case that needs to be resolved as a normal editorial dispute about content, i.e. let others editors take a look and comment regarding an accurate summary.--Kmhkmh (talk) 15:39, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Interesting observation...and it inspired some thought on WP:NPOV (not yet expressed that I'm aware of). IMHO, I'm getting the impression that you don't really understand the concept of NPOV. It also suggests your zeal to incorporate an unquotable, WP:SYNTH constructed denigration of a single, specific group of "false believers" (to use your preferred construct) does not evidence motivation for the presentation of an NPOV, accurate, informed presentation of the study's purpose and findings, but rather a POV manipulated, selective use of those findings in pursuit of an opportunistic denigration of Fox News alone...and by proxy via its viewers.

Even assuming that your "falsely believe" construct was legitimately WP:V, it would, by logical extension, necessarily apply to the entire universe of "false believers" identified by the study as inhabiting the entire population of ALL media audiences. However, your pointedly selected targets (NOT the study's) for denigration as "false believers" are solely those of Fox News. Aren't you deceptively suggesting to the uninformed reader that, via your construct, the findings specifically singled out Fox News viewers as a singular group of "false believers" within what was an unmentioned SEA of "false believers"? And were the actual name of the study to be considered, "Misinformation and the 2010 Election A Study of the US Electorate", why wouldn't "more misinformed" or language rooted in the study TITLE be more representative and reflective of the study focus than the selective, unnecessary, arbitrary POV denigration and labeling of only ONE group as "false believers"? JakeInJoisey (talk) 20:11, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

RFC metadiscussion

Collapse per admin recommendation

(g)ood idea this RfC. I refactored ~~and and edited the language in what I thought to be more clear and NPOV language.~~ JakeInJoisey (talk) 18:05, 10 July 2011 (UTC) If not satisfactory, I'm all ears and certainly encourage discussion or changes to the language if it's unsat for some reason. JakeInJoisey (talk) 14:30, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

If there were no "dispute", there'd be no need for this RfC. Unnecessary/redundant language. JakeInJoisey (talk) 14:59, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

So what?--Kmhkmh (talk) 15:01, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

LOL! Don't tell me you're now wikilawyering the boilerplate text! Kevin Baas^talk 15:02, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Merely an attempt to help make a silk purse out of this sow's ear. Suit yourself. JakeInJoisey (talk) 15:05, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with that expression. is that like lipstick on a pig? in that case i don't see how that at all relates to anything; it seems totally random. Kevin Baas^talk 15:09, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

And you're apparently unfamiliar as well with the proper composition of an RfC. This one, rather than posing a question, describes, instead, the substance of the debate...but, again, suit yourself. JakeInJoisey (talk) 15:19, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Or perhaps I just don't see why anyone would really care. Kevin Baas^talk 15:23, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Either delete the RfC or restore already submitted RfC comments/responses...or it's on to AN/I. JakeInJoisey (talk) 15:54, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Delete this RfC would be completely inappropriate. I have not seen any third party comments/responses in here yet. And to my knowledge any comment that has been put on this page still is on this page. If you feel it neccessary to escalate this to AN/I, go right ahead, but IMO that would be very spurious. Kevin Baas^talk 16:00, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Again no comment was deleted just moved to the section above, now please have the courtesy and allow 3rd parties to comment here. This section was intentionally split from the original (and ongoing) discussion above to collect the 3rd party comments and provide a better overview of the discussion. Do we really have to argue here on a kindergarden level and completely spam this section before even a single 3rd party comment has arrived?.--Kmhkmh (talk) 16:34, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Re-looking at the edit history, it appears that Kmh's attempt to purge this RfC of already submitted comment/responses and my attempt to rectify that inappropriate purge has apparently resulted in the mis-placement of RfC content after your revert. It needs to be restored. However, as we have an admin now actively involved in this discussion, perhaps Gamaliel can weigh-in on this "restriction of RfC comment" nonsense before resolution is solicited elsewhere. I have solicited that consideration on his/her talk page. JakeInJoisey (talk) 16:29, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Read the comment above and read the version list, I didn't purge a single bit, I just moved the comments one further up. And now we half half a page of pointless bickering again just making the orientation harder for 3rd parties.--Kmhkmh (talk) 16:39, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, no responses to the RFC were deleted or moved. It looks like the only things that were moved were metadiscussion about the impending discussion. The point of an RFC is to bring in fresh opinions and that is inhibited by the same old warring parties using the RFC as yet another battleground. Editors not new to this page are of course welcome to register their opinion regarding the substance of the RFC, and those comments should generally not be moved or removed. I've decided to be bold and split this into a metadiscussion section for this conflict and a new section for responses to the question posed in the RFC. If the parties agree, perhaps we could even collapse this subsection? Gamaliel (talk) 16:47, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Update: Looks like more was deleted than I first realized. Taking another look at the edit history. Gamaliel (talk) 16:56, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Correct. My response was moved...and it resulted in my RfC tailored response being added to and nearly duplicating my earlier submitted comment above and also contributing RfC related content to the further cluttering of that mess above.

As to Kmh, his premise (even IF his action to restrict RfC responses was WP:POLICY supportable) in fact impedes, not facilitates, the ability of an uninvolved editor to offer an informed opinion. Absent a succinct presentation of opposition views, an editor would be compelled to wade through that already TLTR treatise above to discern the issue(s) involved. JakeInJoisey (talk) 17:02, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

It is difficult to satisfy the sometimes conflicting goals of full participation on an RFC versus preventing that RFC from becoming another battleground between already participating parties. Perhaps separate sections for existing party responses and third party responses? Gamaliel (talk) 17:09, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

A valid point, save for one consideration. If involved parties can be allowed to state their individual positions free from rebuttal from OTHER involved parties, an uninvolved editor will be quite free to reach his/her OWN determinations as to the worth of the position taken. In short, involved parties should BUTT OUT inre the positions of OTHER involved parties. JakeInJoisey (talk) 17:15, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

From the same premise i come to a different conclusion. To quote Thomas Jefferson: "We are not afraid to follow truth wherever it may lead, nor to tolerate any error so long as reason is left free to combat it." Kevin Baas^talk 17:24, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

And to quote a much nearer source: "[Wikipedia]'s primary but not exclusive method of determining consensus is through editing and discussion, not voting." 17:30, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Please. Spare me the insinuation that anyone might "fear" your arguendo. My observation was in response to Gamaliel's observation about bringing the "battleground" into the RfC. Are you so lacking in confidence in the superiority of your own argument that you're compelled to prejudice someone else's? JakeInJoisey (talk) 17:40, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

I am making no such insinuation. nor do i feel any desire to prejudice others arguments. i am simply quoting wikipedia guidelines and a very pertinent and measured statement of reason. please assume good faith and don't insult other editors with offensive accusations. Kevin Baas^talk 17:45, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Then I'll leave it for others to judge the level of "ad hominem" and "good faith" evidenced in your response to my RfC comment...which I am about to re-enter. JakeInJoisey (talk) 17:55, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand what you are saying here, but whatever. Kevin Baas^talk 17:59, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

some comments were duplicated in the moving stuff around. that may be what you are seeing by apparent deletion - returning them to non-duplicated status. Kevin Baas^talk 17:06, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

If I am reading the history correctly, it looks like Jake's comment above that begins "Per comment above, it is the "finding" of the study that certain beliefs are based upon "misinformation" that is "false"" was originally a response to the RFC. Gamaliel (talk) 17:09, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

This RfC is so badly presented that I'm compelled to offer the following as a suggested remedy...

Does the language "falsely believe/believed" (see version list) satisfy WP:V consideration as a legitimate cite of the University of Maryland Study or does it's use violate WP:OR and WP:SYNTH?

This, I believe, is an NPOV presentation of the issue and would facilitate editor response. JakeInJoisey (talk) 18:24, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

The rfc is not badly represented, but neutrally formulated and easy to understand. However it was badly placed in the beginning (top of the talk page rather than top of the concerned section). There was nothing wrong with correcting the placing, but there was something wrong with modifying posts signed by other users than yourself (strictly speaking you "forged" my posting). Tinkering around with the content of the people's is a big no-no. However if you really feel the need to start a serious argument over the exact formulation of the rfc (imho completely ridiculous here, but other editors may judge that for themselves), then post an alternative wording under your own signature next to it (as you've done now).--Kmhkmh (talk) 19:40, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Kmh, you've yet to demonstrate that you've fully comprehended either the letter or the spirit behind RfC composition/presentation. Go read it again and remove the battleground chip from your shoulder. You don't OWN an RfC just because your "sig" is at it's end. An RfC is community property kiddo. JakeInJoisey (talk) 19:46, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

JJ you're attacking a straw man here. Also ironically I implore you to stop treating this like a battleground and to read over the page on RfCs carefully. in both spirit and letter. as well as other guidelines and policies such as talk page discussion, in both spirit and letter. You'll see that the original composition/presentation was just fine. If you have another issue you would like an rfc brought up about, you are more than welcome to start your own rfc. rest assured, we will not behave towards it or you the same way that you have behaved towards this one. in fact, provided that there isn't some egregious problem with it, you will be left quite at peace. Kevin Baas^talk 21:06, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not "attacking" anything. I'm attempting to demonstrate that there may be a better way to both present and facilitate editor comment on this RfC so that the RfC "...attracts a clear and actionable response" as per the spirit of "...do your best, and invite others to improve your question or summary later." I initially made what I believed to be improved, NPOV language edits which would be received as an attempt to improve the RfC, not usurp control. He didn't like them...and reverted. No biggie. He (or anybody else) sees no merit in my proposed wording, fine...but the RfC does not IMHO, as currently presented, encourage a "clear and actionable response." However, I will concede that after reviewing WP:RFC again, in the final analysis, what he says goes and I guess he does OWN it. JakeInJoisey (talk) 21:36, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

This RfC has expired and requires closure by an uninvolved admin. Comments? JakeInJoisey (talk) 11:50, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

RFC and responses

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Remember I am not endorsing any particular view, simply reviewing the discussion and that nothing can substitute the WP:BRD process as a way to develop consensus.

The discussions reveals, in my view, a general agreement that "false" or "falsely believe" is not present in source(s) without involving WP:SYNTH. There is a general view that the source in question does uses language such as "misinformation" and "true state of affairs", mostly from the un-involved editors who commented, and a general recommendation, also from the third-party editors that the line(s) in question be rewritten, not just at the level of the "falsely believe", but at a more fundamental level, to reflect the actual text and findings of the study in question - something that to them is not clear right now.

There were questions raised as to the impact that this would have on article length. While it is beyond my task to examine that - as it was not discussed by any comment in the RFC - but I will say htat in general issues of length are affected on the one hand by WP:NOTPAPER, in the sense that we have no technical or policy/guideline limit on article size (AFAIK, the longest single article in Wikipedia is over 165 letter-sized pages long!!!) and on the other hand, by WP:UNDUE, which is part of our neutral point of view policy, and which says in its first line "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint." (Emphasis is mine). It is up to you, the involved editors, to find this balance between the unlimited space to write an article, and the need to balance all views. However, I recommend against arguments in the style "we must do X because policy Y says Z" - that is WP:WIKILAWYERING. Try instead something like "we should do X, which is not against policy Y, because of Z reasons".

In the discussion there was also a proposal that I want to highlight from an involved editor:

Those who watched Fox News almost daily were significantly more likely to be misinformed on specific issues than those who viewed other media sources.

I haven't read the source, just this discussion, so I am trusting this line is verifiable to the source. It strikes me as a good starting point for further discussion - my comment is not an endorsement of its inclusion, just a suggestion to consider to move consensus forward, and editors are fully in their rights to make counter suggestions or modifications/expansions as they see fit. As it stands, I think it reflects well both the general agreement that falsely believe is WP:SYNTH or otherwise not verifiable to the source and the general view/recommendation that the source should be better represented in the text. There could probably be better reflections, or better suggestions, but I do not think they were made in the discussion in a concise manner.

I remind all of the involved editors that this is not a binding discussion, and as such it cannot be used to argue for the inclusion or exclusion of any content, it simply provides editors with an organized view of where the views of involved editors lie, and what the views of un-involved editors might lie as an aid in the dispute resolution process. I also remind editors to remain civil and assume good faith, some of the comments were bordering on the uncivil, and although I do not see any personal attacks as such, perhaps a read of the essay (that I started years ago, so a bit of self-promo there ;-) WP:POOR might be of use to all of you. Also keep in mind we all are editing an encyclopedia based on the notion of a neutral point of view and of verifiability, not truth, so both try to see the "other side" (NPOV) and try to forget "your own truth" (V), but try to further study how these policies are understood in the general community (by reading essays for example), because I see some misunderstandings among the involved editors around these policies that might be a source of needless friction and promote a more positive environment in what is clearly a controversy-prone article, as well as one about controversies. If you need any clarifications or have any questions, feel free to ask at my talk, or email me, as I will not monitor further discussions unless specifically called upon by any of you back here. I hope this process has been of use. Happy editing!--Cerejota (talk) 05:44, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

There's a dispute whether the adjective false/falsely (see revision history since of June 21st and in particuler:[12]) correctly reflects the source or whether it violates WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. For details see the discussion above.--Kmhkmh (talk) 13:13, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

{{uninvolved|close|An uninvolved user is requested to help ascertain if there seems to be an RfC consensus, if so what it is and, if appropriate, close it.}} --JakeInJoisey (talk) 11:22, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Uninvolved editor here. The RFC seems to have been improperly made. I am doing it properly now (using the template {{rfc}}), and hence extending the discussion period by at least a week to allow further discussion. I apologize, as this discussion was opened quite a while ago, but I do not feel comfortable closing an RFC not properly done, as it might not reflect enough wide views, which is the goal of the RFC. After a week shout out to me in my talk and I'll close it and/or switch the "answered=yes" flag in the "uninvolved" tag above to "no".--Cerejota (talk) 00:48, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

I didn't notice the RFC tag had been removed by a bot. Closing shortly.--Cerejota (talk) 02:23, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Involved editors

Insert comment here.
NO: The wording from the study is "Those who watched Fox News almost daily were significantly more likely than those who never watched it to believe that:" followed by the list of issues per which this disputed text follows. Those in favor of the word want to add falsely prior to the word believe which is clearly WP:OR. Additionally this is an attempt to push a POV by making the statement stronger than the study reported. Arzel (talk) 19:18, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
~~Comment~~ Violates WP:OR and WP:SYNTH JakeInJoisey (talk) 16:57, 24 July 2011 (UTC) - Per my comment above, it is the "finding" of the study that certain beliefs are based upon "misinformation" that is "false" (an "opinion" whose basis is also challenged as being fundamentally flawed). To characterize those who might hold with those "beliefs" (attributed, in part, to a purportedly intentional distribution of "misinformation" by Fox News) as "falsely believing" is a POV-inspired semantical misrepresentation of the study's findings and conclusions via WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. To qualify (and clearly denigrate) their "act of believing" as "falsely believing" is to exceed the actual language of the study determination and to erroneously state as "fact" that the study ever qualified the "act of believing" as "falsely believing". First, from the perspective of the believer, one does not "falsely believe" anything. You can "believe" something that others might characterize as false, but YOU are NOT "falsely believing". You either "believe" something or you "don't believe" something. To qualify that act of "believing" as "falsely believing" is to inject a pejorative determination of fact specifically directed at the believer's "act of believing" rather than at the substance of "what he believes". The study MAKES NO SUCH CHARACTERIZATION and it is arrived at ONLY BY WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. Either quote it or leave it out. JakeInJoisey (talk) 19:31, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Note: As the language of the RfC was arbitrarily and unilaterally changed some 10 days after it was posted, I have adjusted my previous "comment" accordingly. JakeInJoisey (talk) 16:57, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Comment contrary to the repeated (imho nonsensical) claims of "no such characterization", WP:OR and WP:SYNTH, the study actually does characterize those views as false (to see that it important to read the whole study, in particular the section, where it defines what it considers as the actual correct/true information. A more detailed explanation in particular including the exact pages to look at is given further up in the main section of the original discussion). To fully understand the misconception being at work here it might be also important to read full original discussion above.--Kmhkmh (talk) 19:54, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
Comment - eh, i suppose i'm supposed to comment. new editors coming here via the rfc, just read the report in question and the discussion above. i believe the issues have already been made quite clear, no need to reiterate yet again. Kevin Baas^talk 21:15, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
Comment. It's pretty clear that the entire point of the study is that these things are false. To pretend that they are not is to willfully misunderstand the topic of that paragraph. Gamaliel (talk) 00:22, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
- Exactly my point and my essential issue with the this section since October 2010, when the arguments over this began. From my view there seems to be a persistent push by some editors to obfuscate the fact that the study considers this views as false and instead simply present those views as mere (potentially correct) opinions in a opinion survey. Such attempts are a misrepresentation of the study or as you say a willful misunderstanding.--Kmhkmh (talk) 09:21, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
  - I've been shying away from that phrase (or a similiar one) myself, but someone else said it now so let me just say that after many failed attempts at clarifying what is clearly stated in the report, it seems to be a conclusion that is inevitable; it seems more and more to be an accurate description. Kevin Baas^talk 14:25, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Third party responses

Remove 'false' word, but include in another sentence if sourced - My understanding of the RfC is that is addressing the word "falsely" in the sentence: "...according to the results of the study many viewers of Fox News were more likely to falsely believe that most economists think that ...". Is that correct? If so, the word falsely should not appear in that sentence as is, because that is using the encyclopedia's voice. A better way to write it (assuming there is some source ABC that claims the belief is false) is: " ...according to the results of the study many viewers of Fox News were more likely to believe that most economists think that ... Person ABC asserts that that belief is erroneous because ... ". Breaking it into two sentences should resolve the problem. If there is no source ABC that asserts the falsity, then that second sentence ("Person ABC ...") would not appear, of course. --Noleander (talk) 21:38, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes false is to be understood as false according to the study not as false as a fact (WP). However the intro of that paragraph makes clear that for the following sentences we report the study's opinion/results and nothing else, i.e. not making factual statements.--Kmhkmh (talk) 22:03, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Okay, but it should still be re-worded, perhaps as: " ...according to the results of the study many viewers of Fox News were more likely to believe that most economists think that ... The authors of the study assert that that belief is erroneous because ... ". Leaving the word "falsely" in place as it is now can lead to nothing but confusion. The encyclopedia should strive for clarity. --Noleander (talk) 00:32, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

what do you expect us to put after the ellipses? "...that that belief is erroneous because it is inconsistent with the true state of affairs." As clearly stated in the intro, the results are not predicated on the authors' beliefs. Perhaps inserting some kind of summary about what the intro of the report says (re: correct/incorrect information) would be in order. There appears to be much confusion about that. Kevin Baas^talk 14:29, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

then, replace the second "that" with "the given". Noleander's suggestion is quite reasonable. A separate sentence also removes much confusion. Bstephens393 (talk) 11:24, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

how does changing "...that that belief is erroneous because it is inconsistent with the true state of affairs." to "...that the given belief is erroneous because it is inconsistent with the true state of affairs." solve anything (other than being grammatically a little nicer)? 13:24, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

and if the word "false" is really bothering people how about instead we say "inconsistent with the true state of affairs"? Kevin Baas^talk 13:27, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Instead of "the true state of affairs", I would suggest the more concise "reality". Gamaliel (talk) 14:44, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Your initial comment is correct (despite the vagueness of the RfC wording). What is at issue here is the necessity, appropriateness and, ultimately, the WP:V legitimacy of incorporating the phrase "...falsely believe/believed" to characterize Fox News viewers. We are not debating anything beyond how best to concisely present the study findings as to how they relate to and reflect a "Fox News Controversy". That can be done in a single sentence without getting into this unwarranted and detailed examination of (on) specifics (of) ~~to further bloat~~ what should be a footnote. ~~in an already bloated article...which is next on the agenda to be addressed.~~ JakeInJoisey (talk) 15:22, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

you seem to be a man of many strong opinions. this article is well within wikipedia recommended article sizes. Kevin Baas^talk 15:46, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Comment(s) struck and amended accordingly to remove irrelevant remarks. JakeInJoisey (talk) 15:59, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Observation: From the study

In the course of this study, to identify “misinformation” among voters, we used as reference points the conclusions of key government agencies that are run by professional experts and have a strong reputation for being immune to partisan influences.

And

This suggests that misinformation cannot simply be attributed to news sources, but are part of the larger information environment that includes statements by candidates, political ads and so on.

Furthermore, those who had greater exposure to news sources were generally better informed.

In the great majority of cases, those with higher levels of exposure to news sources had lower levels of misinformation.

There were however a number of cases where greater exposure to a news source increased misinformation on a specific issue.

Those who watched Fox News almost daily were significantly more likely than those who never watched it to believe that: (emphasis mine, and list of incorrect views follows)

To me this suggests three things

1 Misinformation is defined as views which are incompatible with those of key government agencies that are run by professional experts

2 In general, misinformation is not simply based on the source of news

3 There are exceptions to point 2, notably FOX News

Based upon this to me it is not unreasonable to paraphrase the bolded sentences into:

Those who watched Fox News almost daily were significantly more likely than those who never watched it to be misinformed on a specific issue in a number of cases

IOW, they falsely = incorrectly = erroneously believed so and so... accurately describes the effect: watching FOX News leads people to support the opposite, i.e. falsely, of what experts consider correct.

Cheers.--- Nomen Nescio ^{Gnothi seauton}_{contributions} 16:41, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Your thoughts are interesting, but really little more than your own research. Why must we modify the wording of the study, which is quite clear, in order to appease those who wish to present a specific point of view? Arzel (talk) 16:21, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

The suggested wording still misrepresents somewhat the focus of the study, a numerical, relative comparison of a belief in alleged "Misinformation" exhibited among viewers of comparable and various media (please see my comment above). Were this suggested text to be used, it would better read...

Those who watched Fox News almost daily were significantly more likely to be misinformed on specific issues than those who viewed other media sources.

I also believe that delineation of those "specific issues" is superfluous to the prospective reader's understanding of the study's finding and constitutes irrelevant and POV bloat. JakeInJoisey (talk) 16:39, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

By the same logic, that would ironically make the comment you just made "superfluous to the prospective reader's understanding [] and constitutes irrelevant and POV bloat". It could be that you just don't like the facts that contradict your pre-established beliefs and so you to hide and diminish them as much as you can if not removed altogether so that you can maintain your existing pre-established beliefs without experiencing any cognitive dissonance. This would be a classic psychological response. It's what we humans do; it's the human modus operandi. Kevin Baas^talk 14:34, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

No, I simply don't like POV inspired WP:OR, WP:SYNTH language masquerading as NPOV paraphrasing. Nor am I particularly impressed by rather clear WP:NPA transgressions which generally accompany a rather dismal (and failing) argument. JakeInJoisey (talk) 14:47, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

None of us like "POV inspired WP:OR, WP:SYNTH language masquerading as NPOV paraphrasing". Fortunately there isn't any on this page -- that I am aware of, at least. I am not "particularly impressed by rather clear WP:NPA transgressions which generally accompany a rather dismal (and failing) argument." either. You may want to consider what I have said about psychology. In order to evaluate things from a clear unbiased perspective it is important that we acknowledge and accept our innate human predispositions that are naturally aligned against this and strive to go beyond them. I'd recommend, for one, instead of starting with bad-faith assumptions and working off of that to try to find reasons to justify them, try instead to develop neutral logical and practical methods of assessment that do not rely on ad hominem arguments or bad faith and learn to apply them consistently, and then from there user that to weed out e.g. inconsistencies and double-standards in treatment of material. i.e. try reversing the way you are looking at things; put the horse first, then the cart. If you are basing your analysis on whether something seems to you to be "POV inspired WP:OR, WP:SYNTH language masquerading as NPOV paraphrasing", then you are essentially assuming the conclusion. furthermore you are using emotions to guide logic rather than logic to guide emotions. I recommend you try to take a more critical thinking approach, and especially methods of overcoming bias (copy of old version of the page from my user page). Kevin Baas^talk 17:55, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Good Lord. JakeInJoisey (talk) 18:10, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I hope you take what I said seriously, because I am serious. Kevin Baas^talk 18:28, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Remove "false": this paraphrase strays too far from the original text. – Lionel ^(talk) 08:16, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

|}

^ "Investment in Political Campaigns Can Damage Brands". Advertising Age. 23 August, 2010. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
^ ^a ^b Kurtz, Howard (18 August, 2010). "News Corp . defends $1 million gift to GOP - Critics say donation by Fox News's parent company shows bias against Dems". Washington Post. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
^ Lichtblau, Eric; Brian Seltzer (18 August, 2010). "News Corp . Gives G.O.P. $1 Million". New York Times. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
^ ^a ^b "Fox News (and The Times) silent on News Corp 's $1m Republican party donation". Guardian Unlimited. 20 August, 2010. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
^ Kurtz, Howard (22 August, 2010). "Reliable Sources". CNN. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
^ Clay Ramsay; Steven Kull; Evan Lewis; Stefan Subias (2010). "Misinformation and the 2010 Election: A Study of the US Electorate" (PDF). WorldPublicOpinion.org. The Program on International Policy Attitudes at the University Of Maryland: 4. Retrieved June 21, 2011.

[1] "Investment in Political Campaigns Can Damage Brands". Advertising Age. 23 August, 2010. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

[kurtz1-2] Kurtz, Howard (18 August, 2010). "News Corp . defends $1 million gift to GOP - Critics say donation by Fox News's parent company shows bias against Dems". Washington Post. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

[3] Lichtblau, Eric; Brian Seltzer (18 August, 2010). "News Corp . Gives G.O.P. $1 Million". New York Times. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

[guard-4] "Fox News (and The Times) silent on News Corp 's $1m Republican party donation". Guardian Unlimited. 20 August, 2010. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

[5] Kurtz, Howard (22 August, 2010). "Reliable Sources". CNN. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

[StudyP4-6] Clay Ramsay; Steven Kull; Evan Lewis; Stefan Subias (2010). "Misinformation and the 2010 Election: A Study of the US Electorate" (PDF). WorldPublicOpinion.org. The Program on International Policy Attitudes at the University Of Maryland: 4. Retrieved June 21, 2011.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]