Jump to content

Talk:Red Eye (talk show)/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

"Unexplained repeats"

Someone posted about the unexplained repeats from 8/13 - 8/17. Turns out, according to Greg's blog, he's on vacation. Buspar 05:53, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Notable Wikipedia

The template that added to this talk page referred to Will Leitch, whose name has since been removed from the article. Should it remain, or was he not covered extensively enough within the article to warrant the template in the first place? --Savethemooses (talk) 06:31, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Guest list disguising apparent Googlewashing

I see the issue of the huge guest list has been discussed above and yet the list still remains. It strikes me as political Googlewashing to me. As was mentioned here at WP:AN the other day, there are hundreds of spurious links into various political candidates' pages with little apparent purpose other than to increase the candidates' Google rankings. —Wknight94 (talk) 18:35, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Wow why are google ranking so important? If I want to find something on Wikipedia all I have to do is type Wiki after whatever I am searching for. So as I understand if you deleted the list for the simple reason that you did not like the fact that when you typed in their names in google their wiki came up? Seriously dude get a life if people are looking for info on somebody 99% of the time they search wikipedia for it, if they are not looking for info on somebody and that person pops up on google, then they'll just move on past it. As much as i love the internet, I loved life before it more for the simple fact that people didn't have to come up with fake stuff to cry about. Just my 2¢ on this topicFisha695 (talk) 08:43, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

First, be nice. Second, this is an election year so things like Google ranking are the most important things in the world to certain people. If you bothered to read that archived WP:AN discussion or the article on Googlewashing (which I gather you didn't), you'll see that we're being infiltrated by sneaky people quietly trying to get their candidates above the others in the Google rankings by linking to their Wikipedia articles wherever they can, whether the links are appropriate or not. They do that by creating giant name-dropping laundry lists like the one that was in this article. —Wknight94 (talk) 12:55, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

-- If people vote for somebody because of where they come up in an internet search, then those people have more problems then just being stupid IMO Fisha695 (talk) 08:23, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

That's neither here nor there. It's still a common practice - especially here. —Wknight94 (talk) 16:26, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Notable guests

I think it'd be better to have it as Regular guests and then for Notable guests. The only reason I say that is because there are several people who appear on the show every week or every other week. Fisha695 07:18, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

The reason I made it "notable" is in keeping with some other shows that mention notable guests in their articles. You could make it "Regular and Notable Guests" and include both. Buspar 07:04, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure it's entirely helpful to list so many people in this section. It's starting to turn into a list that will quickly become unwieldy. Honestly, I think the whole section should be deleted unless some particular guest appearance was noteworthy in and of itself. CarbonX 07:23, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

There should be a list of regular guests, because that's worth noting. There should not be a list of important guests who have only been on the show once, or a handful of times, because that's not worth noting. The list of regular guests should be titled "Regular guests" rather than "Notable guests" because that's what it is, and not what it's not. - Shaheenjim (talk) 23:12, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
The problem with the list, as it currently exists, is that it appears to violate wp:nor and wp:v. If you watch the show and see a guest on the program, you adding their name to the list here seems to me to be original research. Also, none of the additions appears to be cited, and are therefore not verifiable. The reason I had been reluctant in the past to simply delete the list is that obviously a lot of people put work into the article and I'm not really sure what the "appropraite" way to handle this type of information is. At any rate, I think it would be helpful if people would stop removing and readding the section for the time being, and discuss here until there's some sort of clear consensus. I'm going to see if I can find an appropriate tag for the secion in the meantime. CarbonX (talk) 15:17, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. It's also ironic that this section is "Notable guests" but several of the people in the list don't even have articles! How notable could they be? —Wknight94 (talk) 16:28, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
The source of the information is the show itself. That's how it's verifiable. It's also why it's not original research, since the people in charge of the show are the ones who originally did the painstaking research necessary to determine who was on the show. - Shaheenjim (talk) 00:16, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
I think maybe you're looking at this the wrong way. Noone is saying that what is in that section is untrue, simply that it is not appropriate for wikipedia. I'd strongly suggest you read wp:notability. And if you feel that this information is still appropriate, you'll also want to read wp:v. Or at the very least point out some policy or guideline on wikipedia that supports the inclustion of that section. CarbonX (talk) 02:31, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
The notability guidelines are for articles. They aren't for each individual line in an article. If we're going to have an article about a TV show, then obviously the people who are on the show are notable. As for verifiability, the source is the show itself. That is as good a source as you could possibly get for information on the show. - Shaheenjim (talk) 09:03, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Your "If we're going to have an article about a TV show, then obviously the people who are on the show are notable" is a fallacy. NBC News is notable too, does that mean every eyewitness on the street for every news piece on the program is also notable? Show me the policy/guideline that backs you up. As for verifiability, how do we know the list you've compiled is correct? There's nothing in print to back it up, is there? Pardon me if I don't trust your individual recordkeeping. —Wknight94 (talk) 13:02, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm not suggesting we mention everyone who was on the show for a few seconds. I'm suggesting we add everyone who is regularly on the show for a significant period of time. This page is the Wikipedia policy supplement that backs me up. And as for verifiability, you know the list is correct from watching the show. - Shaheenjim (talk) 06:59, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but you're simply mistaken on the standard of verifiability for wikipedia. You or someone else needs to add links to the article to verify the contentw of the list or it is not verifiable and therefore needs to be deleted. CarbonX (talk) 09:23, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Not only is your list unverifiable, but your definition of "regular" and your standard for "several" are both your own. At the very least, you'd need consensus for them and you clearly don't have that here. —Wknight94 (talk) 15:35, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
To CarbonX: Links? As in links to a website? Are you implying that things are only valid if they're found on the internet, rather than TV? That's absurd. There are lots of things that aren't eligible to be republished on the internet, due to copyrights. I don't know why you guys are having such a problem with verifying things by watching the show. Is your TV broken?
To Wknight94: I'm not sure what you're attempting to say here. Are you saying that you know what the word "several" means, but you haven't watched the show enough to determine whether or not Kerry Howley, for example, has been on the show several times? If that's the case, then it's fine if you haven't watched the show, but you shouldn't be editing the work of people who have watched the show. Or are you saying that you know what the word "several" means, and you've watched the show, but you think Kerry Howley hasn't been on the show several times? If that's the case, then you're just plainly wrong. Or are you saying that you don't know what the word "several" means? If that's the case, then you may be beyond my help. - Shaheenjim (talk) 07:07, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
"Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." Wikipedia content should be verifiable by someone who was no knowledge of the subject. So yeah, my TV is broken. To satisfy the standards of wikipedia you know need to provide me with verification that those people were on the show. Honestly, at this point, I seriously doubt your sincerity. CarbonX (talk) 16:17, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
What's your point here? Are you suggesting that there aren't any sources that can verify the regular guests? Because clearly the show itself can. If someone who has no knowledge of the subject wanted to verify the regular guests, they could do that by starting to watch the show. That's not an unreasonable standard for someone who would presume to edit an article on the show. Or is your point that the show isn't a reliable source for information on itself? It's true that for a lot of subjects, scientific journals are better sources than TV shows. But I think a TV show is a sufficiently reliable source for information on itself. I refer you again to this Wikipedia policy supplement. - Shaheenjim (talk) 08:39, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
But the show hasn't published a list of its guests. You have. If the show did so, it would be reliable. Since it doesn't (presumably), we have to trust you, and that's the definition of original research. —Wknight94 (talk) 13:35, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
I dug around and found this template. I think if you wanted to use that for every person that add back to the page, that would meet the citing standard. But you can't simply put up a big list and expect people to take your word for it. CarbonX (talk) 21:45, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
If people don't take my word for it, they could always watch the show themselves. But since you aren't willing to do that, I found dates for several of the regular guests on YouTube. I'll try to fill in dates for the rest as they appear on the show over the next few weeks. - Shaheenjim (talk) 07:49, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
As I alluded to above, maybe you're unclear on the definition of "several". "Several" means more than twice[1] but all of the entries you gave have exactly two listings. This list has really made quite a mess of this article. I'm surprised you want to keep it. —Wknight94 (talk) 14:58, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

It should be noted that The O'Reilly Factor page also has a Regular guests section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.253.64.213 (talk) 08:26, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Not anymore. —Wknight94 (talk) 12:28, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Greg Gutfeld just referred to Greg Wilson as a "Red Eye regular." So even if I didn't have common sense, I'd say that establishes that the people who are on the show often, like Greg Wilson, could be considered regulars. - Shaheenjim (talk) 08:26, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Schedule

This excerpt from the article:

New episodes generally air Tuesdays through Saturdays, with Sunday and Monday episodes being repeats from earlier in the week. An exception is made if the show is pre-empted during the week, in which case the unaired episode will be shown on the weekend. As of October 18, 2007, this has only occurred three times. As of October 20, 2007, the show stopped being replayed on the weekends. However, as of October 27, 2007, a new show airs on Saturdays at 11:00 p.m ET this was changed to 10:00 p.m ET with it being replayed on Sundays and Mondays 2:00 a.m ET. Reruns are played on Friday mornings 3:00 a.m ET.

is semi-incoherent. Would someone please rephrase it? - Shaheenjim (talk) 23:09, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Its actually totally incoherent babbling. who cares if an exception is made if it preempted or how many times its happened..all too much info and none of it sourced.. its fine the way it is now that I changed it. If you want to add when reruns air..cool, source it and do so in a readable manner. the way it is sourced now is how the network advertises it. 3AM weekdays.. we don't need to overload the reader with.. it was this before october but know its this unless this happens then its this,except of course when he goes on vacation. which he done only x amount of times.. but if he comes back early they will do this except the one time they did this.. but its likely due to other fox shows that they will do this...and if he has to by chance leave early because of a tummy ache they will do this.... The networks own description sums it up enough.. concise.. -24.60.24.39 (talk) 04:32, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Michelle Collins

The Michelle Collins linked to is not the same one who appears on the show. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.243.43.68 (talk) 19:04, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

"Regular" guests

While I don't really have an opposition to listing some guests that are actual regulars, like Sherrod Small, Jim Norton, and Marc Lamont Hill, who have made fairly frequent appearances, I think it's a stretch to put those that are rarely on at all as "regular", i.e. Ron Paul. Should we fix that? LightCleric (talk) 21:32, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I deleted Ron Paul. Feel free to delete any others like that. - Shaheenjim (talk) 23:48, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Conservative

Since Fox news is directed at a conservative audience doesnt this programe clash with their usual image. Should get a mention. --Realist2 ('Come Speak To Me') 07:57, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

The political views of the main people on the show are usually conservative. So in that sense it's a fit. But I agree that it doesn't really fit with a serious news channel in general. Not that I'm complaining.
Also, I suppose it's worth noting that Fox probably wouldn't officially describe itself as conservative. They always say they're fair and balanced. But I don't think they're fooling anyone. - Shaheenjim (talk) 13:58, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Yeah Olbermann is balanced. 68.42.9.58 (talk) 16:08, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Recently they seem to be admitting it, well, at least their admitting that most of their viewers are moderate to conservative. Realist2 ('Come Speak To Me') 16:10, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I think you guys are confusing their news block with their opinion block; their opinion blocks may lean center-right, but their News block is quite centrist. Red-Eye is clearly directed at a more Libertarian Conservative audience. Travis T. Cleveland (talk) 23:13, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I think they're aimed at more of a just-plain-bizarre audience. That's probably why I like it. :-) - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 00:01, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion the contrast between Fox News' (perceived) center/center-right bias with this shows sometimes liberal (more accurately libertarian though) tone is worthy of mention. It doesn't need its own section but a nice line in there would be nice. Fatrb38 (talk) 08:19, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think there is a contrast at all. Fox News is conservative, and for the most part, so is this show. Being conservative doesn't mean you can't goof around and parody stuff. Red eye is basically the right-leaning version of Real Time with Bill Maher. Greg is quite a neo-con, Andy is a libertarian -- but much more conservative than liberal, and Bill is kind of a moderate liberal. Most of the guests are also conservative or libertarian. Aside from Marc Lamont Hill and Bob Beckel, they all pretty much reflect conservative views. So the show is much like Real Time: a panel of 3 or 4 people who share one outlook, with a token person to give the opposite outlook. Since Real Time would be considered liberal by most, I don't think it's too bold to consider Red Eye conservative.

Segments?

Like the Halftime and Postgame Reports, and Male Time? Also the name the drawing one. I think these should be included. –Howard the Duck 15:17, 29 November 2008 (UTC)


"As you know, I draw the news" --Purpleslog (talk) 00:44, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I say we do it. Don't forget "Greg-a-logue"! Fatrb38 (talk) 08:19, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Canadian section - On-air apology made

{{editsemiprotected}} An on-air apology has been made.

Please replace "Greg Gutfeld issued an apology shortly thereafter." with "Greg Gutfeld issued an apology through FOX News which many Canadians found lacking." (Keep the reference) Please add, following the edited sentence and unchanged reference, "This was followed by an on-air apology stating 'On a Red Eye segment from the March 17 show we covered an item on Canada's proposed synchronized break ... as a light-hearted show with a satirical point of view we sometimes go over the line. In this case, I obviously did not intend to offend your national pride and love of military service. I apologize.' " A reference for this, unless someone has a link to the clip: Fox host on-air to say sorry for mockery

CanuckMike (talk) 08:41, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Not done: {{edit semi-protected}} is not required for edits to semi-protected, unprotected pages, or pending changes protected pages. Leujohn (talk) 08:09, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
Oddly enough, the request was made while the page was semi-protected and a response (from anyone, yes or no) was not forthcoming until the page protection expired. Thank you for following up on the other edit request I made.
CanuckMike (talk) 17:23, 30 March 2009 (UTC)


How about "Greg Gutfeld issued an apology through FOX News which many Canadians with a pathological hatred of FOX, and those who have little understanding of what the show is all about, found lacking."

Saying merely that "many Canadians found lacking", give's a false impression. Many of the people I argued with (in other mediums) hate FOX WITH A PASSION, and/or have absolutely no idea what the show does on a regular basis (just go to YouTube and see for yourself how many times the word "fuck you", or variations, was used). Rather, they took one thing out of context and let their pathology run wild. Also, many people, including 2 or 3 actual Canadian news programs thought, or implied, that Red Eye was an actual "news" broadcast rather than a comdedy show.

Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 08:00, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't hate Fox or Fox News. I actually enjoy some Fox programming, plenty of it irreverent. Back to the wiki, you're right to bring up the biased nature of my suggested sentence edit. It's an unreferenced opinion of events. You're interpretation of the reaction, however, is just as baseless. All I was trying to convey, as this was unfolding, was the nature and count of the "apologies" from the host. The first was a written statement issued through Fox claiming the content was misinterpreted. The second was on-air and less explanatory.
Re: "news" broadcast, that's the problem with this wiki entry - the "Genre" listing is nonsense. A number of the same news organizations are mentioning Wikipedia and the rapid entry update. We've both been discussing the Genre on this talk page and I'd like to continue.
CanuckMike (talk) 17:27, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Please explain exactly how the genre is "nonsense". I still don't understand what exactly your problem with it is. Lychosis T/C 17:31, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
My interpretation is based on personal experience and if I cared to do so, I could prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. However, my suggestion was ONLY meant to highlight that adding "which many Canadians found lacking", as you suggested, gives a false impression of the controversy and begs the question as to WHY they found it "lacking" (which means getting into psychoanalysis) - I did NOT intend that it should actually be incorporated into the article.
Regarding the genre. What's wrong with "comedy, discussion"? That's what the show Politically Incorrect is listed as and Red Eye is a pretty similar show.
Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 23:08, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Is "The Daily Gut" a FOX News site? Or a fansite? And what makes "The Activity Pit" an official fansite? tedder (talk) 16:55, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

The Daily Gut is Greg's blog. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.253.64.213 (talk) 08:39, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

The Activity Pit is the only fansite mentioned on the show frequently. –Howard the Duck 16:29, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Ratings

I found more updated ratings information here [2] but I'm not sure how to incorporate it into the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.16.203.44 (talk) 13:31, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Greg's Apology

A while back I added Greg's on air apology to the Canadian section as a way to defend Greg as the section is very anti-FOX/Red Eye/Gutfeld/. However when I was reading the page today it appears to have completely disappeared. I checked the Articles history but could not find my edit on any of the pages. How is this possible? I hate to become a conspiracy theorist but I'm starting to think that some higher up Canadian and or Liberal Wikipedian deleted my entry and any history of it. Funny thing to is I that remember a user or possibly a bot came along and corrected a spelling mistake I made since I had just typed it while I listened to it on YouTube. Anyways...just thought I would mention this anomaly, oh and if any respected Wikipedian would have the cojones to add Greg's apology back then you will be doing history a great service. Seeing how Wikipedia will become more accepted for a source of historical information as we move on. - Red Eye fan

BTW if you're wondering why I didn't have an account when I edited the article was because I do have an account however I choose not to use it do to the liberal bias and bureaucracy that is Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.32.68.144 (talk) 00:17, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

If you think that it's bad that Liberals are attacking Fox/Red Eye in this article, you ought to see what people are doing to Carrie Prejean (former Ms. California). Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 15:51, 18 June 2009 (UTC)


Um, what?

How is TVNewser an unreliable source when it's used multiple times in the article? How is putting the Youtube video of the specific segment unreliable as well? I ask this because I used these sources as citations and they were edited out.

Bottom line, the article seems to be lacking in citations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CynicalRealist (talk • contribs) 06:42, September 20, 2009 (UTC)

Unreliable means the source (in this case, TVNewser) cannot be trusted a worthy source. The article needs citations but doesn't need to be spammed with unreliable ones. Using a YouTube video is generally not accepted because, unless proven not to be, most of such videos are on their illegally and Wikipedia should not link to illegal content. Also, the video could be removed at any moment making the source useless. However, not all videos on the internet are not accepted. • S • C • A • R • C • E • 09:43, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
I can understand why the YouTube video can be seen as unreliable now, but TVNewser is used multiple times in the article, so...
Just because you use a source multiple times throughout the article doesn't make it a reliable source. Can I use the Uncyclopedia as a source if I use it multiple times throughout the article? Of course not. Please read up on reliable sources at Wikipedia:Reliable sources • S • C • A • R • C • E • 13:41, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

International broadcasts

Does anyone know why Fox News has stopped airing Red Eye for its international signal? I live in Mexico City and used to be able to watch this show at its usual schedule, but it's been about 4 months since they stopped airing it. Instead of Red Eye, I get a repeat of Sheperd Smith's 7 PM show. There is no explanation on www.foxnews.com, or on the show's Facebook's Fan Page. I have written to Fox but have received no response whatsoever. Thanks in advance, in case you know what's the deal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.216.41.63 (talk) 21:15, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Please see WP:RD/E ς ح д r خ є 22:06, 13 November 2009 (UTC)


Complaint

Although it doesn't effect me in Australia, I too am affraid that they might cancel it, but it does have support within FNC, Julie B, Courtney, etc like it and contribute to it's struvture and content, but also I've heard that Niel cavuto likes the show too. Theres a petition up to move it, maybe it should be mentioned, http://www.nowpublic.com/culture/save-red-eye-w-greg-gutfeld SAH-DennyCrane 13:30, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

While I agree with your sentiment, please note that putting such a message here doesn't accomplish much. I suggest sending it to Fox News' comments email account; maybe with enough emails you can change Roger's mind. Talk pages like this are just for discussing edits on the article, not the subject itself. Good luck! Buspar 00:47, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Speaking of complaints, I'd like to remove the phrases "explicit sexual implications" and "obscene imagery" from the Format section. I have no idea what "couching" means, but my guess is its better suited to explain the way Greg introduces guests than calling them explicitly sexual. Typically, women are introduced with "She's so hot that..." but what follows is rarely explicit; rather, it's a cute play on words referencing the literal meaning of the word "hot" - i.e., "She's so hot that it's physically impossible for her to build a snowman." Hardly explicit, and not really sexual. In fact, the whole Format section sounds like it was written by someone who has a generally negative POV about the show. As for "obscene images," the photos and video clips strewn throughout are better characterized as "offbeat images that are ironically irrelevant to the subject matter being discussed," i.e. images of kittens and puppies playing while viewer voicemails are played. Obscene? Think not!Cbflagginc (talk) 21:18, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Feel free to do whatever you'd like to the article, as it is currently a mess. As long as it is constructive of course ~ ς ح д r خ є ~ 21:21, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I did, and I appreciate the blessing. Thanks!Cbflagginc (talk) 21:32, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

The Leg Chair

See http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22greg+gutfeld%22+%22leg+chair%22&start=0&sa=N for fan references to it

JohnScott2 (talk) 02:43, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Terms coined by fans are not reliable sources. I'm aware this was mentioned on an episode but it never has since then. A neatly inserted mentioning in passing should exist in a section, rather than giving it its own section. The list of segments is inappropriate, only "Pre-game report", "Half time report", "Post-game wrap up", "Gregalouge" and "Messages for Greg" should be incorporated into a new section and the list should not exist. This is an encyclopædia article, not a place for fans to collaborate and build an archive for the show ~ ς ح д r خ є ~ 09:07, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

On the show, both Greg Gutfeld and Andy Levy have also used the term "The Leg Chair" several times. JohnScott2 (talk) 03:12, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

More Edits

I edited the article to remove substitutes for Andy Levy on the grounds that it was really long for something that rarely takes place (he's not absent often; in fact, I hadn't seen any of those people substitute for him for maybe a year). Also, I moved Gregalogue and Male Time (now "Mail Time") to daily segments. And in the regular segments, I added "but infrequent" in parenthesis; these segments are rarely, if ever, on anymore (with the exception of Master Baden and perhaps a couple of others). I didn't remove them, just put "infrequent" in the section title. Cbflagginc (talk) 17:47, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Canadian Section

Cleaned it up a bit and tried to reduce bias and tone, if anyone wants to help please do. I also removed a reference which was some giving an opinion on youtube, thats a bit ridiculous to cite that in my opinion. Mbr1983 (talk) 19:24, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I think "seemingly completely unaware of Canadian losses and combat contributions in Afghanistan's most dangerous areas." is a loaded sentence that is acknowledged later on with "Canadian soldiers have been fighting in Afghanistan since early 2002 [13] and have (as of the date of the segment's broadcast) lost 116 soldiers during the mission, the highest casualty rate among allied nations in the conflict.[14]."
"Gutfeld also inexplicably proposed that the United States military should invade Canada", inexplicably is unnecessary because he explains why invading Canada at the moment would be the best time: “Isn’t this the perfect time to invade this ridiculous country,” Gutfeld continued. “They have no army.” as linked in a article at the bottom of the wiki. BrendanInAmerica (talk) 04:01, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

BrendanInAmerica: In my opinion the comments you mentioned are completely accurate as they presently exist and have no need of alteration. --Freshfighter9 (talk) 10:32, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

They could not be "seemingly completely unaware of Canadian losses and combat contributions in Afghanistan" if the article they are reading from stated that the Canadian Military would need a break from the War in Afghanistan because of said "losses and combat contributions" (Like this from March 9th, 2009: http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/Army+need+operational+pause+2011+General/1370594/story.html). If they weren't reading from that article (or an article like it), and had no prior information about Canada/Afghanistan/War on Terror in general, then we could assume they were "seemingly completely unaware of" Canada's military contributions. The sentence is in need of some neutrality or trimming. BrendanInAmerica (talk) 19:18, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Why is this even deserving of inclusion on the page? It's far from the only thing the show has ever apologized for and it was a relatively minor story itself. As you stated, the original section contained a large amount of bias and was seemingly the only reason it was written in the first place. I see very little that differentiates this from a dozen other topics the show has covered.68.202.139.56 (talk) 08:58, 16 April 2009 (UTC) FellintoOblivion

If by "relatively minor story" you mean "was headline news for a week in Canada," then yes, you're right. In fact, I would not have heard of the show at all if it weren't for this incident. Pretty notable if you ask me. 69.60.237.4 (talk) 15:43, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, yes, many anti-Fox Canadian liberals got their panties in a bunch over a perceived slight, but I'm not sure mentioning more than that should be in this article. So, I would have to agree with FellintoOblivion.
Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 20:47, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Why are you bringing politics into this? It is either a notable incident or it is not. It meets Wikipedia's requirements for notability, therefore it is a notable incident and should be included.69.60.237.4 (talk) 18:19, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it is notable, but only because of political reasons. The Left went into "full-tilt". I know that that is the case because I argued with many of them on various Web sites and you would not believe the names those who defended Red-Eye were called. I, personally, was called a pedophile in order to make an analogy that that is how Canadians felt about Gutfeld's comments. If that is not bizarre, Left-wing lunacy, then I don't know what is. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 02:26, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
You do have to admit too, that the mocking was not totally unfounded. As a member of the military (albeit the US, not the Canadian, military), I can't think of many things more ridiculous than a military engaged in a conflict needing a one year "synchronized break". That's like calling a time-out! "I know we're in the middle of this war, but if we could just get a little time off to go and have a breather, that would be great!" As far as I can tell, this was the first time that a military, anywhere, has said they needed some time off from the fighting. SpudHawg948 (talk) 10:10, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
I thought that "was headline news for a week in Canada," DOES mean "relatively minor story". 129.139.1.68 (talk) 20:51, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Possible references?

I stole these links from the show's website (http://www.foxnews.com/redeye/), I just though they might be useful for someone who wants to add references to the page so we can get the reference tag off the top of it:

TuckerResearch (talk) 22:05, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Genre

I dispute the uncited and unjustified classification of this television program as "Comedy, Satire, News Parody." If you'd like to keep the three, defend them. While the previous "Excrement" description seems apt, it too has no citation or rationale. All we're doing is offering an opinion or regurgitating promotional material. The revert should not have been made without discussion.

Currently, it should read "Disputed" or "Late night talk show." Let the viewers decide for themselves if concensus can't be reached.

CanuckMike (talk) 02:07, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Just because you don't agree with the politics of the show, does not mean it isn't a comedy. The problem is, people like you, Canuck Mike, are exactly the target of this show's jokes. And you can't stand that. And that's the comedy.

Assuming good faith, but this is just silly. It is a comedy/news parody program. The genre isn't disputed at all. Lychosis T/C 03:33, 26 March 2009 (UTC)


I'm disputing it. Therefore, it's disputed. Saying something is true does not make it so. As far as a classification, nothing just 'is' in an encyclopedia. Thirty seconds of Googling finds:
According to FOX: "Outrageous and outspoken — you won't believe what Greg Gutfeld and friends have to say about today's hottest topics!"
According to Greg: ""The idea is simple", he says. "We just sit down and talk about junk. We have no props, no high end production values, no huge guest stars. I am the most inexperienced talk show host in the history of television. I'd describe it as a chat show for miscreants. Or Jonathan Ross with a male host.""
CanuckMike (talk) 04:23, 26 March 2009 (UTC)


I'd find a reference, but I'm editing from work and am behind a proxy and all that internet-restricting nonsense. I'll leave it up to someone else. It won't be changed to disputed, though, just sayin'. Lychosis T/C 04:31, 26 March 2009 (UTC)


So, you'd agree with the host that it's a talk show? Red Eye is America's latest TV hit
CanuckMike (talk) 04:44, 26 March 2009 (UTC)


It may be a talk show, but that doesn't make the other genres untrue. Like I said, I can't provide a reference myself at this time, so someone else is going to have to. Lychosis T/C 04:48, 26 March 2009 (UTC)


Alright, a maybe on Talk Show with a suggestion that references or some form of rationale for the three labels I dispute is forthcoming. I'll wait patiently, for now. Thanks for your input.
CanuckMike (talk) 14:40, 27 March 2009 (UTC)


It doesn't have a Genre... For many reasons, for one: No show is like it, no show allows the panel to go from talking about politics, to celebrities, to some random thing such as Bill's hair, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.127.93.254 (talk) 05:29, 26 March 2009 (UTC)


Well, that's sounds like a talk show without focus to me. Free form :-), if you will. Given the tone of the program, would you consider a description along the lines of "Shock jock talk show", or is that leaving out/misrepresenting things?
CanuckMike (talk) 14:40, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Red Eye is very much like Bill Maher's old show, Politically Correct. PC's format is listed as "Comedy, discussion". Perhaps the same can be done with Red Eye.
Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 23:51, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Come on there is a talking newspaper on the show is there really any debate that's it's not a Comedy? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.38.83.45 (talk) 16:55, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Content removal

I deleted a large portion of this article because it was unsourced and onsourcable. Much of the information amounted to trivia that was only important, or even understandable, to fans of the show. I left the introductory section in place, as well the ratings section as it was the only section that included references. CarbonX (talk) 03:24, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

yeah, thats not gonna happen. at least without concensus. Im sure alot of people put alot of work into this accurate article. So I suggest adding a cn tag or something unless you see something that is wholly inaccurate, contentious and therefore needs to be deleted. Putting on an episode or two of the show on tv would allay your fears of it being innacurate.. Theres alot of other articles that are lacking in the sources that are not gutted completley to a stub. explaining the segments of the show is not trivia. get consensus,, or maybe look for a ref or two. Maybe Ill try sometime when its not 4AM. -Tracer9999 (talk) 09:01, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Me watching the show does not, in any way, make this article more or less encyclopedic. The point is that are no reliable, verifiable sources the stuff I deleted. It all amounts to trivia, which can *only* be obtained by watching the show. I mean, seriously, there is a heading titled, "Stories We Sort of Liked But Not Enough to Include Earlier in the Show But Still Wanted to Talk About So Let's Really Quickly Do Them Now". Do you think that any reputable source has EVER given attention to this subset of the show? I left in place the introductory paragraph and the only section of the article that contained any references. I'm sorry, but this is a bad, very bad, wikipedia article, and mentioning the fact that there are other bad articles does nothing to improve this one. CarbonX (talk) 09:37, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

The fact is if you put on any episode.. that is a suitable reference for all that material. Foxnews can be its own source as long as the information provided is about foxnews, and is not being used to elevate them to a more positive critical light or increase prestige thru weasle words.. but is just descriptive of the programming. so although not inline referenced, a link to the shows page with episodes validly decribes the segments for any person to verify. The section you mentioned "Stories We Sort of Liked But Not Enough to Include Earlier in the Show But Still Wanted to Talk About So Let's Really Quickly Do Them Now" is the shows lightening round, listing that is the same as listing bill orielly's talking points segment (it just has an odd name to it in an attempt at being humerous). Its a daily part of the show where they give very fast answers with out the usual back and forth. Its not trivia, its a description of a segment of the show. as a matter of fact even on the orielly factor article none of the segments on that show are referenced individually either and that is the TOP RATED cable news show on tv. or cnns larry king live, Anderson Cooper 360°, The Situation Room..we would basically have to take every single news program down to a stub as most people consider the show to BE the reference. the show is its own reference for non contientious items as mundane as what segments appear on the show. This show has not been a 5k article in at least 2 years if ever. Im just saying to come in and say.. oh yea Im just gonna delete the whole article and leave a stub is hardly fair to the editors who have edited. Adding the section you did and and asking the editors what they think..and what they think they should do to change it or improve upon it, would have been more appropriate in my opinion. If you feel the article is bad bad bad as you say then improve upon it, try to source it, rather then gut it. but I will gather up some references and turn the page to huge references section if that works for you better as soon as I get a chance. -Tracer9999 (talk) 16:36, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Per wp:verifiablity, "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." In the case of RedEye, Foxnews is the first party source. So, no, watching the episode does not count. I'll go ahead and add a tag, but I seriously doubt that you can find a third party source of any of the stuff deleted. Also, since you re-added the information I'd point out that's your responsibility, not mine, to find sources. If you believe it's verifiable, prove it. If nothing is cited in a reasonable amount of time I'll go ahead and remove it again.CarbonX (talk) 21:37, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Per- WP:PRIMARY - "A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements that any educated person, with access to the source but without specialist knowledge, will be able to verify are supported by the source. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot..." as such.. the segment sections are simply descriptive statements of what occurs on the segments of the show, and the quotes describe the plot so to speak, to the point that any educated person without being a specialist and has access to the episodes could verify (and they are all on hulu by the way if you need to)... -Tracer9999 (talk) 23:55, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Except for the fact that the information I removed does not fit your example. In the example of a book, an article might quote a passage from a book and then contain commentary about that section immediately afterwards. What is occurring here is that people are watching the show and randomly adding in information about what they. None of it appears to be verbatim quotes of the show, but rather descriptions...or you might say synthesis...perhaps even, original research.
Furthermore, if you keep reading wp:primary, you'll see this: "Do not make analytic, synthetic, interpretive, or evaluative claims about material found in a primary source." For example, watching the show and deciding that certain segments are "weekly", "recurring", or "retired". Sounds an awful lot like original research to me. Then it continues, "Do not base articles entirely on primary sources." While there are sources in some of the article, very large portions of it rely on primary sources. The information is not encyclopedic is does not belong here. CarbonX (talk) 07:07, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Removed ratings comparisons

The section about the ratings as anything but NPOV: The show's rating were compared to cherry-picked programs from other networks to make it look good. (Quote:"more overall viewers than every CNBC show, every MSNBC show that is on before Hardball with Chris Matthews, most of Headline News, and American Morning on CNN") Instead of adding to the clutter by also including the much higher ratings for comparable programs like The Daily Show or The Colber Report, I removed any direct comparisons to other programs from the article. We don't have them for other shows, why should we make an exception for this one? --Baumi (talk) 19:39, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Probably because this show is on at 4am, and it's kind of an accomplishment to beat every show on a competing network when that's your timeslot —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.142.177.24 (talk) 02:48, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

'Guest Panelist' name list

Ever since this list of 'Guest Panelist' names was added to the 'Guest hosts' list, I was concerned where this list was heading and how it would be successfully defended if someone wanted to delete it. I sure would hate to see any more effort put into building this 'Guest Panelist' list larger still, only to have contributors to this list disappointed/upset when someone comes along and deletes it for violating Wiki policy or whatever, which happened in 2008 (see 'Guest list disguising apparent Googlewashing' above). Since election-time is about to heat up again, that is a real possibility. It would be in the best interest of these contributors to discuss this now before any more effort is put into building this list. --RedEyedCajun (talk) 06:42, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

article totally accurate as of 8/9/2011 according to the show sidekick

on the show they said all the details listed on the red eye page are all 100% accurate.. so ,,we have a good baseline for the article..lol -Tracer9999 (talk) 22:24, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Rachel Marsden's departure

It's almost a joke that the "Rachel Marsden's departure" section is included at all, let alone in the "Controversy" section. Not only is it not controversial, but it's not really notable. I'm putting it up for discussion first, but I think it's due for removal.—DMCer™ 11:35, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, who put this back in?! I doubt many people even remember who she is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.80.129.16 (talk) 21:26, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

For the 100th time, I deleted this section. I think even the most loyal viewers, including myself, only remember her vaguely and couldn't identify her in a police line up. Not sure who keeps putting it back up there...but if I had to guess, perhaps it is HER! Cbflagginc (talk) 04:45, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

It's not controversial, to be sure, but that she used to work as part of the team is definitely notable enough to warrant one line in the article. Something along the lines that "Marsden worked for x amount of time on Red eye as a co-host [or whatever], but was let go around such and such time because the show took a different direction." No more than that. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 09:16, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Frankly, it doesn't seem like any of the entries in the controversy section are all that controversial.--Icowrich (talk) 06:36, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

'Political proxy vs destructive force' section heavily altered after banned user went forum shopping for help

Recently, a banned Wiki user known as Jackjit ( sockpuppet Jackjit archive ) went WP:FORUMSHOPPING after he failed here for several months to edit/vandalize the 'Political proxy vs destructive force' section. About 5 editors over that time period reverted "his edits" as vandalism. Jackjit, who uses a dynamic 118 IP address, then went to the WP:NPOV noticeboard and asked for help in getting "his edits" made, quote "...if someone could please make these changes as the current author to the page keeps changing these attempts." He did not tell editors on that noticeboard that he was a banned editor, so anyone can immediately revert his banned edits at any time, or that many editors did revert his edits (not just one author) because they recoginized his edits as vandalism anyway, even before he was revealed to be a banned user by the administrator Gadfium. The following was how the 'Political proxy vs destructive force' section appeared before it was heavily edited recently with the 'discussion'(minus banned Jackjit/118IP comments) that was held on the WP:NPOV noticeboard. Interested editors can NOW comment here and also see why/how these changes were made without any discussion here before those heavy edits were made. --RedEyedCajun (talk) 07:22, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

==Political proxy vs. destructive force==
In a September 28, 2010, Rolling Stone article, President Barack Obama made another political attack[1a][2a][3a] on Fox News Channel by accusing the cable network of having a "point of view that I think is ultimately destructive for the long-term growth of a country that has a vibrant middle-class."[4a][5] Red Eye host Greg Gutfeld responded to this particular political attack by Obama with his following September 29, 2010 Greg-alogue:[4b][6a]

"Okay. So, you're the President of the United States, with both houses under your control. You also have the most fawning press of any president in the History of the Universe. And yet you let FNC get under your skin, because it’s the only network that doesn’t have a 'thrill up its leg'?

Obama is like a sports team who owns the Ref, the fans and the field, but refuses to play ball until the kid in the 10th row stops chewing gum."[4c][6b]

Then Gutfeld advanced the theory that President Obama keeps attacking Fox News as a proxy for those Americans who do disagree with his policies and whom Obama otherwise wouldn't be able to get away with so blatantly attacking[1b][2b][3b] without providing proof.[4d]

"And this is why the Crybaby-in-Chief needs us. It provides cover, so Obama can criticize Americans without ever saying 'those Americans.' He can just say Fox News instead. One thing is for sure: If you go after a collection of talking-heads, you're going to get an earful back. And if you disagree with me, you're a racist, homophobic, taurophobe."[4e][6c]

Footnoted sources(note: sources are used more than once in article):
[1a,b] http://www.torontosun.com/news/columnists/peter_worthington/2009/10/29/11561946-sun.html Toronto Sun "White House 'war' with Fox News"
[2a,b] http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/12/business/media/12fox.html?pagewanted=all New York Times "Fox’s Volley With Obama Intensifying"
[3a,b] http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/18/weekinreview/18davidcarr.html?ref=media New York Times "The Battle Between the White House and Fox News"
[4a,b,c,d,e] http://www.aoltv.com/2010/09/29/obama-slams-fox-news-and-greg-gutfeld-slams-him-back-video%20&%20transcript/ AOL "Obama Slams Fox News and Greg Gutfeld Slams Him Back" -article includes 9-29-2010 Greg-alogue by Gutfeld
[5] http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/obama-in-command-br-the-rolling-stone-interview-20100928?page=2 Rolling Stone article w/Obama quote
[6a,b,c] http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,601642,00.html Fox News transcript of 9-29-2010 'Greg-alogue' by Gutfeld


The 'discussion' which took place on the WP:NPOV noticeboard follows(minus banned Jackjit/118IP comments):

I wouldn't say it's a blatant NPOV violation but it could use some cleanup. It should simply say "President Barack Obama criticized Fox News Channel..." and "responded to this criticism from Obama with..." instead of "political attacks". The phrases "another" and "this particular" are subtle POV phrases. –CWenger (^ • @) 06:57, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
Greg Gutfeld, the host of Red Eye, specifically said that he was responding to "this particular" quote by President Obama in Rolling Stone.(addendum: Also see the title of the AOL footnoted source above[4a,b,c,d,e] --RedEyedCajun (talk) 15:36, 30 July 2011 (UTC)) That is not a POV - that is a fact and sourced with complete transcript of episode containing the complete Greg-alogue, which is not shown above. The phrases "another political attack" is also not POV because the White House Anita Dunn publicly announced in the New York Times and elsewhere that they would be making many political attacks against Fox News and their on-air personalities from now on in response to what they saw as political attacks by Fox. This is also all fact - not POV and many political attacks soon followed which were all reported as such, including the Rolling Stone Obama quote, even by the New York Times which warned the WH that it was unwise to attack Fox News and their on-air personalities in this way. --RedEyedCajun (talk) 13:56, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
I had a look and it looks obvious that an editor or editors are expressing a POV that Obama has made political attacks, not criticisms, against Fox News. The wording is contrived to reiterate that they were 'political attacks' and about 10 sources have been added to "prove" that Obama has made "blatant political attacks". I'll try to clean it up. Alex Harvey (talk) 15:11, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
The user IP 118 that wants this change is a long-time banned user known originally as Jackjit. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Jackjit/Archive
He libeled the host of Red Eye, Greg Gutfeld, calling him a racist in the Red Eye article without any source, so he is not capable of judging NPOV or having fairness on this Red Eye article. He has a LONG history of shopping for help WP:FORUMSHOP using his banned shared/revolving 118 IP address, avoiding his block. He was just recently blocked again after avoiding his block. Over the past months, many other editors have reverted these changes Jackjit/118 wants to the Red Eye article, as well as his other vandalism to the article, so he is not being truthful here saying it is only one editor reverting his changes/vandalism. In fact, many editors across Wiki are reverting his vandalism to Conservative/republican articles. He should not be here shopping around for help (he's supposed to be banned), but especially since I was NOT notified of this discussion here but discovered it on my own by mere chance. I suspected this when user Alexh suddenly showed up out-of-the-blue on Red Eye article deleting the same well-sourced material as Jackjit/118IP.
As to Alex Harvey (talk) false/uninformed accusation that 10 references were added over time, it is only three reliable sources that have always supported the term "another political attack", which is toned down from "war" and "battle" which is used in the two "New York Times" sources and Toronto Sun source. Ten more could have been referenced, but three is plenty to support the language some people might find objectionable. These sources also use the term "attack". WP:NPOV is being followed here because the language used is netural when compared to the reliable sources language, which is much harsher POV and tone toward Obama administration's political war/battle against Fox News and how unwise the Obama administration was to announce a war against Fox. Also, WP:NPOV does allow objectionable language to be used, even if some or many may find it objectionable or more likely WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT.
I have always been open to some changes to this particular section and have allowed several to remain in the past without challenging them, even though I thought the references fully supported keeping them. It is not fair for one editor (Alexh) to go delete material that has been well sourced without discussing it on the Talk page of the article first, especially since this is a very obvious attempt at shopping for help WP:FORUMSHOP and Alex Harvey (talk) willingly took the bait and then stated falehoods here. He obviously did NOT look at the footnotes because if he had, he would have known there were three sources cited supporting the term, not ten as he stated above (addendum: and not 6 either, as he incorrectly stated below --RedEyedCajun (talk) 03:43, 28 July 2011 (UTC)). That also proves he did NOT even bother to read the source material to see if it did support the language before he deleted the content (but he did leave many references hanging so a 'bot' wouldn't immediately revert his edits as pure vandalism); therefore, his only real objection is WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT! It is false that anything was "contrived" - it was all well-sourced. The term "political attack" is an often used term which describes an attack that is of a "political" nature, which is fully supported by the three references which Alexh didn't bother to read before making his uninformed deletions and forcing his political POV into the article without any discussion.
Please compare my talk page/contributions to Alexh and Jackjit and see who is more capable of compromise, following NPOV and being fair with deletions/helpful edits/adding references/talk. I like debating issues such as this, but the proper place is the Red Eye Talk page where other interested editors, who wanted to keep the language in question and have in the past reverted these same edits by Jackjit/118IP (and now, Alexh), could have commented. Jackjit/118IP knew many there didn't want that material deleted/changed, so he went shopping for help WP:FORUMSHOP to get someone else to respond to his deceptive untruths and then make his edits, which is always his MO when he can't get his way by simply deleting well sourced material without discussion. So much for banning a user on Wiki - even one as bad as Jackjit still edits deceptively on Wiki and spreads untruths to get his way. --RedEyedCajun (talk) 09:54, 26 July 2011 (UTC) --RedEyedCajun (talk) 13:11, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Hi Red Eyed Cajun, is it fair to say that this is a pretty strongly worded response? For the record I am Australian with no interest in US politics and no prior knowledge of this subject. One doesn't always need prior knowledge to see that something is biased, and that is the case with the section discussed here. It's true that I didn't actually count the number of sources you've given to justify your wording 'political attacks' and 'blatantly attacking'. So now I have counted and you have 6, 3 on the first wording and 3 on the second. Generally, there are a lot of footnotes "proving" various bits of wording in that article - probably more than I've ever seen actually. The NPOV policy states,

Prefer non-judgmental language. A neutral point of view neither sympathizes with nor disparages its subject (or what reliable sources say about the subject), although this must sometimes be balanced against clarity. Present opinions and conflicting findings in a disinterested tone.

Actually, if you had ever bothered just once to go read the footnotes and sources, you would know that I did not try to "prove various bits" with footnotes. That is outright false. There are 3 footnotes (not 6 or 10 footnotes like you incorrectly stated above) that show this was 'another political attack' by Obama. Any one of those three sources alone would have supported 'another political attack', but I knew if I only put one, someone would be complaining one is not enough. So I put all three. The first sentence was a combination of a Rolling Stone Obama quote and another source which used the word "attack", all properly footnoted at the end of the sentence. I'm so sorry if you just don't like properly footnoted content on Wiki, which is Wiki policy. --RedEyedCajun (talk) 05:44, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
The one thing I have sadly learned about Wikipedia is that political ideology knows no borders. Jackjit/118IP is a liberal New Zealander who vandalizes USA conservative/Republican type articles constantly. So saying you are Australian Alex Harvey doesn't prove you are any less biased than me or anyone else when it comes to NPOV on USA related articles. --RedEyedCajun (talk) 15:42, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
Do you feel that your section is consistent with this policy? Do you feel you have used a disinterested tone? Alex Harvey (talk) 15:14, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
In 20/20 hindsight, I should not have gone with the word "attack" which the reliable sources used (and thus mislead me). I should have instead replaced "attack" with the term "political comment", i.e. "President Obama made the political comment that Fox News was a destructive force..." That would have been a lot better than the current wording which uses the biased weasel word "criticized" which automatically implies there is something bad that deserves criticism. --RedEyedCajun (talk) 05:37, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
Nobody here has complained once about "destructive force" being very pejorative. Yet they delete Gutfeld's response quote of "Crybaby-in-Chief". The section is now in violation of WP:NPOV as long as "destructive force" is allowed without being balanced by Gutfeld's "Crybaby-in-Chief" response for clarity/balance. In an ironic way, by removing Gutfeld's "crybaby" quote, Gutfeld's 'Greg-alogue' response cannot be properly judged in context by the reader. Many on the left might well say Gutfeld's political response to the President's political comments proves Fox's on-air personalities are "destructive forces". Do you really think Gutfeld's response was helpful to Fox News' image? The Huffington Post bloggers didn't think so.--RedEyedCajun (talk) 05:37, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
To re-quote NPOV policy: "A neutral point of view neither sympathizes with nor disparages its subject (or what reliable sources say about the subject), although this must sometimes be balanced against clarity. Present opinions and conflicting findings in a disinterested tone." And objectionable material you WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT is not a reason to delete and eviscerate a section using WP:NPOV as a sledge hammer, because sometimes you lose the very clarity, balance, meaning and unbiased content most are seeking to present on Wiki articles. --RedEyedCajun (talk) 05:37, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
Hi Alex, Cajun. I've gone through the section and trimmed it. There's no reason for using a pejorative term ("political attack") when a non-perjorative term ("critcise") will suffice. Alex, this list may both amuse and depress you; I've seen far worse than two pairs of three citations on Wikipedia. Sceptre (talk) 16:37, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
I have no problem at all leaving the edits you made to the article. We shall see if others who disagreed in the past step up now and revert your edits or not. I will let others decide the fate of this section. But I don't think a banned user like Jackjit should be allowed to edit/vandalize this article or others, using WP:FORUMSHOPPING by his asking on a noticeboard "...if someone could please make these changes..." I really did NOT think further describing the kind of "attack", which was the word used in many reliable sources, by adding it was an obvious "political" attack was pejorative. It's all political and don't we all know this. I think it was also fair of these same sources to say some of Fox's "attacks" were political in nature and the WH had every right to respond sometimes. --RedEyedCajun (talk) 17:14, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I now suggest the following for this section, because I believe it addresses ALL the concerns with WP:NPOV that were brought up in the discussion above. (Remember NPOV does not mean something cannot be objectionable to some or even many. Just because somebody WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT doesn't mean a sledge-hammmer should be used to eviscerate a section and its clarity/balance/neutrality/meaning): --RedEyedCajun (talk) 13:55, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

In a September 28, 2010, Rolling Stone article, President Barack Obama made the political comment[1][2][3] that Fox News Channel has a "point of view that I think is ultimately destructive for the long-term growth of a country that has a vibrant middle-class."[4a][5] Red Eye host Greg Gutfeld responded to Obama's political comments with his following September 29, 2010 Greg-alogue:[4b][6a]

"Okay. So, you're the President of the United States, with both houses under your control. You also have the most fawning press of any president in the History of the Universe. And yet you let FNC get under your skin, because it’s the only network that doesn’t have a 'thrill up its leg'?

Obama is like a sports team who owns the Ref, the fans and the field, but refuses to play ball until the kid in the 10th row stops chewing gum."[4c][6b]

Then Gutfeld advanced the theory that President Obama uses Fox News as a proxy for those Americans who do disagree with his policies:[4d]

"And this is why the Crybaby-in-Chief needs us. It provides cover, so Obama can criticize Americans without ever saying 'those Americans.' He can just say Fox News instead. One thing is for sure: If you go after a collection of talking-heads, you're going to get an earful back. And if you disagree with me, you're a racist, homophobic, taurophobe."[4e][6c]

Footnoted sources(note: sources are used more than once in article):
[1] http://www.torontosun.com/news/columnists/peter_worthington/2009/10/29/11561946-sun.html Toronto Sun "White House 'war' with Fox News"
[2] http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/12/business/media/12fox.html?pagewanted=all New York Times "Fox’s Volley With Obama Intensifying"
[3] http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/18/weekinreview/18davidcarr.html?ref=media New York Times "The Battle Between the White House and Fox News"
[4a,b,c,d,e] http://www.aoltv.com/2010/09/29/obama-slams-fox-news-and-greg-gutfeld-slams-him-back-video%20&%20transcript/ AOL "Obama Slams Fox News and Greg Gutfeld Slams Him Back" -article which also includes 9-29-2010 Greg-alogue by Gutfeld
[5] http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/obama-in-command-br-the-rolling-stone-interview-20100928?page=2 Rolling Stone article w/Obama quote
[6a,b,c] http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,601642,00.html Fox News transcript of 9-29-2010 'Greg-alogue' by Gutfeld


I really hope this satisfies everyone who wants to comment or has commented. The first three references may not be needed at all now, or just the first one could be used to support the term "political comment". Also the Rolling Stone footnote [5] does not need to be included. I originally included it so President Obama's interview comments could be easily read in full context (for fairness), and was rewarded by being criticized above for having too many footnotes in the section by Alex Harvey (talk), who never even bothered once to read the footnotes or their source material before he changed the section without any discussion here(on the article's discussion page). --RedEyedCajun (talk) 13:55, 28 July 2011 (UTC) --RedEyedCajun (talk) 14:13, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Er, I haven't read this section yet, but I just wanted to note that I removed the section out of hand because (ETA: as it was written at the time O.o) it had nothing to do with the show and should go on the article about Fox News. Please discuss if there's a disagreement. I think I'm going to stay away from these articles from now on. Fast Clear (talk) 04:25, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

When Obama commented against Fox's point of view, he really was referring to the on-air hosts points of view, who are the faces and spoke persons for Fox News Channel's point of view. They project Fox's point of view. Obama's dislike for many Fox hosts personal points of view are well documented. As Gutfeld explained to Obama, "if you go after a collection of talking-heads(Fox News hosts), you're going to get an earful back (from the hosts when you make controversial comments about their personal points of view)." Gutfeld was offended and commented to what he perceived as an attack on his personal point of view by the President of the United States, the most powerful and influential man on the planet. Even if you don't accept my argument, since when can't Wiki talk-show articles include the host's comments responding to the President of the United States controversial comments? His comments are very noteworthy to me since that doesn't happen every day. Looks like a few forgot back in 2011 that Wikipedia doesn't censor sourced material without discussing on the article's talk page first. This above discussion was nonexistent on this talk page because the above discussion took place elsewhere and was pasted here after the big edit was already made, and even that pasted discussion has been stagnant for over a year. So I'm going to be bold. I'll replace the current section, which replaced the original section, with most of the above section which compromises without censoring the sourced material. Please discuss here first this time around before reverting my bold edit which has had all of the original offensive material addressed and removed. Please explain your specific objections here first before reverting. Even though there is a rule that says don't censor comments WP:Censorship, I will be bold and replace Crybaby in Chief with (President Obama) since I believe that is the real objection to all this material, and it's sources, being included.-172.129.136.6 (talk) 07:48, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Halftime Report

It appears they merged the halftime report with the post game wrap up and now call it the post game report. So we may need to make some adjustments to the list of blocks. how long do we wait to see if this is permanent. been going on for awhile now. -Tracer9999 (talk) 15:49, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Red Eye without Greg Gutfeld Comment

Since he will no longer be hosting the show, this article should probably be moved to whatever the new name is. After new episodes premiere next week, we will know what that is. --‖ Ebyabe talk - Repel All Boarders ‖ 18:08, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 7 March 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Move to Red Eye (TV series). The article has already been moved to a new title while this RM was ongoing, but I'll move to the title favored in the RM. Cúchullain t/c 12:56, 6 April 2015 (UTC)


Red Eye w/Greg Gutfeld → Red Eye (television show) – Greg Gutfeld no longer hosts the show. New show title. 71.146.3.77 (talk) 08:19, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Also please note that it was created as Red Eye (TV series), then moved to Red Eye w/Greg Gutfeld in March 2007 because that was the show's actual name. --‖ Ebyabe talk - State of the Union ‖ 06:24, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
The title card as currently shown in the article infobox says "Red Eye w/ Greg Gutfeld" , there's clearly a space that's missing from the article title -- 70.51.200.101 (talk) 10:44, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
Hmm. On the Official Fox website, it has been changed to just "Red Eye". So I'd support moving to Red Eye (TV series). --‖ Ebyabe talk - Opposites Attract ‖ 18:28, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Controversies section

The Controversies section is very strange. Only the Canadian military section even seems like a controversy. The "Political proxy vs. destructive force" (despite being talked about above in 2011) just seems to describe something the show said about a comment by Obama. Unless Obama directly responded to Red Eye, or other media did, how is that notable compared to the thousands of other comments the show has made? Same with the Park 51 section. So Gutfeld proposed this bar and Cordoba responded, that seems notable enough, but the rest of the section is sourced directly from the man's blog and just continues to comment without any secondary source to establish that it was any more notable than any other thing the show talked about.

Also, the section names are bizarre. Where do they come from? Ashmoo (talk) 15:07, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Use of [sic] in the quotation in the lead?

As has been pointed out by 14.202.19.39 (talk), the quotation in the lead—

You almost feel like you're going out and not going out. It's like being at a bar with your friends and hearing all their opinions—while laying in bed eating Snackwell cookies.[1]

—incorrectly uses lay instead of lie. The IP user believes this mistake needs to be highlighted with [sic]. I disagree. Per the Manual of Style, [sic] is used "to show that the error was not made by Wikipedia," but it's doubtful anyone would think this was introduced by us: it's a wording mistake, not a spelling mistake. More importantly—and why I'm bothering to bring it up—it's needlessly derisive; it clutters our lead; and it's even more tedious than this comment. Thoughts? —  Rebbing  talk  01:36, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Gurley, George. "Red Eye for the Straight Guy". The New York Observer. Archived from the original on October 31, 2011. Retrieved October 18, 2011. {{cite news}}: |archive-date= / |archive-url= timestamp mismatch; October 4, 2011 suggested (help); Unknown parameter |dead-url= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Red_Eye_(talk_show)/Archive_1&oldid=1147994294"