Talk:Fox News

Archives

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

Controversies

Since there is an entire article to FOX controversies, I am going to compress those in this article. If you have a problem please discuss. Arzel 03:34, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Consider migrating the content instead of removing, as the Accusations of bias subsection in the article on FOX controversies is only one paragraph. Terjen 03:53, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

And your point is what? Adding content simply because you believe there is not enough is not a reason for inclusion. In any case what you added is not notable. Arzel 03:57, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I sense some hostility here... anyway, my point was a suggestion about migrating much of the content in the Accusations of bias subsection of this article to Fox News Channel controversies.Terjen 04:10, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

It is not hostility, sorry if it came across as such. The article is already long, and much of what is in the controversy is already stated in the other article. If you look at other similar articles, their is even less controversy listed other than a link to the controversy article. Just trying to make it consistant with others. Arzel 04:23, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Additionally, why is AIM's opinion notable in this context? A lot of people or organizations probably have opinions, but that does not mean they should be included here. Arzel 04:05, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I added the concerns of Accuracy in Media at a time when the article paraphrased commentators like Jonah Goldberg. I am fine with the bar for inclusion being higher now. Terjen 04:19, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

A subarticle is created when the topic is too large to cover in the main article. In other words, if you are going to remove content related to controversies, it shouldn't just be blanked into history. It should be moved into the controversy article. I'm all for condensing, but let's be honest; this is butchering of extensively sourced material. - auburnpilot talk 04:08, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

That is all in the controversies sections. How many times does it need to be restated and reworded? Arzel 04:20, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

This certainly appears like trying to find another vehicle to push a particular agenda. How many different ways is this guy going to try and find to cull information that he deems as negative? This is a total abuse of the idea of a subarticle. I don't agree with 95% of the evisceration done by Arzel, and will try to find time later today to undo some of the damage. Also, please don't try to justify the changes with comparing this article to others (as we pointed out previously). This isn't CNN, or MSNBC, or any other article. Let's just stop the agenda pushing, k? /Blaxthos 15:29, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Just what is your problem? Just recently you were complaining about the length of the overall article and proceeding to move a bunch of content into a different article. The controversy section is repeated within the controversy sub-article, so I ask what is the point of replicating much of it twice? Some of the stuff I removed was repeated verbatim between the two articles. Yet here you are AGAIN attacking my motives and accusing me of pushing some agenda. Apparently trying to clean up an article is viewed as agenda pushing by some if the cleanup doesn't agree with their own agenda. Arzel 17:29, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Just like we stated above (RE: programming subarticle), the main article should highlight the controversies (which it always has), and the sub article should contain in-depth information on the controversies (which it always has). This is no different than how we had to repeatedly point out to you that the lead section should briefly mention notable controversies (which you tried your hardest to remove), and they should be covered more thoroughly in the article itself. For an example from an A-class article, see Ted Kennedy and Chappaquiddick incident. Given your recent campaign/attempts to sanatize this article, and your willingness to simply blank sections and/or trim well sourced information, it's pretty clear that you're attempting to once again wield the scythe. /Blaxthos 02:13, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Just how is this comparable to the Ted Kennedy article? If anything this article is a perfect example of how controversy should be listed, you don't see multiple paragraphs relating to the Chappaquikkick incident within the main article, just as there is no reason to list every person that feels FNC is biased within the main article. Simply state that their is bias and link to the subarticle. I really wish you would try to have some semblence of objectivity regarding this or any issue, you are rude and attack any person that doesn't agree with you to the letter. Arzel 14:04, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm with Arzel on this one - it's bad enough most of these criticisms were hanging about in the HISTORY section for so long without somebody removing them, now we have so much criticism crammed into the controversy section that it's practically its own article OUTSIDE of the main criticism and controversy page! The TK/Chappaquiddick incident lists three lines about what is probably the most infamous event in Ted Kennedy's life and gives no damning details either way - it simply lists he was driving the car without noting his documented actions afterwards and other allegations. Which is fine by me. The Fox News controversy stuffs so much massed criticism in that the summary section of criticisms and controveries is the same size as the entire history of Fox News! This seems to me to constitute an undue emphasis being put on Fox News criticism. It was always my understanding a summary section for a sub-article should not try to summarize nearly every specific criticism that it can find (whilst quoting more criticisms) in that article. As for attacks on people pushing agendas and such - I've already seen one person falsely accused and instantly aquitted of being a sockpuppet by an editor on here - for heck's sake cut it out. As a said a while back - nobody here is personally affected by Fox, nobody works for them and so forth - so there's absolutely no reason for all this aggression. Edders 11:14, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

First of all, one can't look at the events of the last few weeks (regarding aforementioned campaign) and then just assume that the edits made under the guise of "cleanup" are valid prima facie, especially (as one of our admin regulars noted) since some of this information was just obliterated. Secondly, as noted in past conversations, FNC controversies are quite numerous and are a big part of what makes FNC so notable. It's unfortunate that FNC has been such a controversial topic, however that doesn't mean that we should now use the sheer volume of criticisms as a reason to exclude them from the main article -- sorry if FNC has more controversy than it does criticism, but if anything that highlights the notability of the controversial nature of the subject. Perhaps an acceptable compromise would be to list a few sentences (an overview) of each controversy in the main article, with anchor links to a detailed explaination in the sub article. Honestly, I thought this is how it was setup (it was at some point)... but I again state that relegating the controversies to the sub-article only (or simply blanking them altogether) is unacceptable. /Blaxthos 11:52, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I will state again, this information is on the controversies page, what is the point of repeating some stuff verbatim and other stuff practically verbatim. Nothing has been completely deleted, all the main points of criticism exist on the appropriately named sub-page. Furthermore, the current section is still far more wordy than other similar articles with controversy sub-pages. Finally I left each of the three main themes of controversy, along with a short paragraph summarizing the main issues which is then expanded on the controversy suppage. I don't neccesarily have a problem with individual summarization (which I had considered), but it makes little point when many of the controversies are only a couple of sentences anyway. On a side note, this article is about FOX news channel, as one of the main cable news networks, to say that it is notable because of controversy is laughable. It would have an article regardless of any controversy. It is not an article of FNC controversy, that is why there is a sub-article. Arzel 13:59, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

You seem to have either missed the point (again) or are purposefully ignoring it. Several seasoned, longstanding editors have raised objections to your edits, and have explained why, yet you continue to unilaterally enforce changes that don't sit well with the rest of us. At this point I'm not going to stoop to your level and edit war with you... I request some of our other seasoned editors step in and proffer their opinions -- it appears you refuse to listen to my explainations. AuburnPilot, Gamaliel, Ramsquire... anyone else wanna weigh in on this? Seems like this is just another means to the same end to me. /Blaxthos 14:06, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem migrating and condensing some of the information in the main article to the controversies page. But that hasn't been done. Yes, some of the information is repeated there but not all, e.g. the 56 percent of journalists finding Fox to be especially conservative, the correlation between the arrival of Fox and the increase in GOP votes, and the discussion fo the 6/3/03 memo are all gone. Now I am not saying that all of that info is necessary in either article, and their could be some discussion of its removal because of undue weight and arguments for its inclusion since it is sourced information. However, don't simply delete sourced information under the pretense of moving it to the subarticle. The info is not being moved to the controversies page, it is being deleted. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 16:28, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

At the risk of sounding glib: If it's all verifiable/notable/npov blah blah blah, why can't we just put it in the criticism article then? Edders 20:49, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

You've just hit the nail on the head, Edders. The main article should summarize the points of the subarticle, but there is certainly no reason why this content can't be moved to the controversy article. The problem was that the content was covered more in depth in this article than the subarticle, so when Arzel removed it, the content should have been moved, not simply removed. Sure, a forward thinking editor could have moved the content for Arzel, but when you remove content under the pretense that it is already covered in a subarticle, the subarticle should have more in depth coverage than what you are removing from the main article. Move the content = good thing. Remove content = bad thing. - auburnpilot talk 21:03, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Meh. I thought I was being edgy and rebellious. It really helps to take a deep breath, sit back from the article and say: What the heck? Edders 21:10, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I've added the deleted info to the controversies article. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 21:15, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that I had deleted information between the two, I thought I had only deleted content that was identical between and moved other information between the two. A new editor was adding new information at the same time I was condensing which resulted in a little confusion, but my intent was not to delete any notable information. I do see that I failed to move completely one paragraph which I thought was in the controversies section. Arzel 02:03, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I apologize if my post came across as accusing you of purposely misleading and deleting information in bad faith. I never thought you were doing that. I just assumed you were attempting to trim down the size of the article by taking out info you deemed to be giving undue weight to Fox detractors. On it's face, there is nothing wrong with that. But since this article is highly contentious (and the information is sourced), if your intent was to trim the fat, we should have a discussion first and try to reach a consensus on what goes and what stays. That's the point I was trying to make. But in any case, thanks for clearing your intentions up. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 16:53, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I didn't take your comments that way, but thanks anyway. I was hoping to get some discussion initially regarding the compression and movement to the Controversies subpage, but instead it immediately turned into a huge arguement. Arzel 17:39, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

If your intent is to "get some discussion initially" then it's probably best to suggest the changes on talk and wait for editorial response instead of taking the axe to the content and then adopting the if you have a problem with it then discuss attitude, especially when dealing with such a controversial topic where one's edit history might lessen the assumption of good faith. /Blaxthos 18:47, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Don't turn this back on me, I have made very few edit changes to these articles. I would ask that you quit trying to insinuate that I have some personal POV agenda, and I would add that my first post here was responded with no assumption of good faith by you even though my history at that time would have no one assume that I don't have good faith. Your personal attacks on me do not do you any service. Arzel 01:56, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

You make broad, sweeping changes, then revert those who ask you to take it to Talk. That's a pretty good sign of someone with an agenda. Italiavivi 20:09, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Still Tag-Teaming people I see. Thank you for looking out! OfForByThePeople 03:29, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

People, calm down. Please read the following: WP:AGF and WP:Bold. If you are all in such a panic about this, I would recommend taking a break for a while. This page and all it's history will be here when you get back. Bytebear 19:11, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Dude, this thread has been dead for a month. Are you just trying to start something? If not, let sleeping dogs lay. If so, you might want to go back under your bridge. /Blaxthos 19:32, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

What do you find trollish about my behavior? I am not the one breaking the rules of Wikipedia. If you were clever, you would have noticed the dates, and that OfForBy reopened this thread, and I was attempting to cllose it. Get a grip already. The world is not out to get you. Bytebear 00:56, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

OfForBy's post was in reference to the FAQ poll section (see below). The last post here outside of yesterday was on May 30. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 16:35, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Ramsquire, I know how you love to AGF, but I think that replying to such is just wasted effort. /Blaxthos 20:30, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair and balanced image caption

Are we going to go through this again? How should we "label" this caption? I preffer no labels or commentary, Thanks--Tom 16:31, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I can't believe we're still on this utterly peripheral issue. It's like this article is part of the land that stood still. I mean, excuse me but I can't understand why some editors are so desperate to preserve the point that Fox's slogan is 'controversial'. I suppose every time there's a picture of Roger Ailes you want him labelled 'neocon zionist puppet' as well. You already have a whole sub article to attack Fox. No need to be greedy :) :P Edders 16:48, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

you are preaching to the choir here. Thanks for the reply. --Tom 17:16, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

There's no doubt that the slogan is controversial. Additionally, it's included in the Controversy subheading specifically because it's controversial. Please please stop trying to sanitize the article. /Blaxthos 01:28, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Blaxthos, please stop accusing me of "trying to sanitize the article" since that is pure nonsense. I don't live here or act like I own this article like some folks. I STILL don't give a rat's ass about FNC. Above you say that "There's no doubt that the slogan is controversial". That is YOUR opinion. Who else says that? Just because there was some lawsuits or something that makes it controversial? Just present the verifiable/sourced facts and let the readers decide. Your own bias is showing through again. Cheers, --Tom 14:26, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

• At best, Blaxthos, that violates WP:OR. At the worst, it violates WP:NPOV. Unfortunately, there's no middle ground here to keep it in; it is indisputably against policy to include weasel words, or to give undue weight. --66.227.194.89 02:07, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

What weasel words? First off, pointing out a controversy isn't violation NPOV -- if we said something like "Fox News' bullshit slogan...", we'd be violating WP:NPOV. Secondly, noting that there is controversy regarding the slogan isn't original research, as there are several sources regarding said controversy (and it's completely verifiable and attributed within the article). Once again, you're trying to nuance policy to sanitize the article. I'm prepared to call a wikipedia-wide WP:RFC if you guys are going to try to interpret policy in such a way that you can remove reference to something that's obviously controversial. Also, I think it's pretty telling that you accuse Wikipedia of having a liberal agenda when consensus is not in your favor. Again, it was put into the Controversy section of the article to demonstrate the controversy itself. /Blaxthos 02:22, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Based on the description of Weasel Words, this definitely falls into that category. Bytebear 02:40, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

• Blaxthos... there was no consensus for anything on my symbolic move vandalism. Besides, it is quite clear in WP:NPOV that consensus does not determine neutrality - WP:NPOV does. Either way, you do not seem to understand the concept in which a case of neutrality is questioned. Instead, you choose to take your own protocol and actions, without supplying sufficient evidence to back up your own statements even when confronted. Your lack of policy knowledge but active trolling of this page is extremely suspective behavior. Please, listen to all users - not just the ones that agree with you. --66.227.194.89 03:00, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

i.e. The Creator of Wikipedia is quoted as saying "WIkipedia does tend to be more liberal". Thank you for looking out! OfForByThePeople 03:34, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Request for Comment - Noting Controversy

Some editors have objected to noting the controversy surrounding Fox News Channel's Fair & Balanced slogan -- specifically, captioning the "Fair & Blanaced" title graphic with the word "controversial". Objections have included violations of WP:NPOV, WP:WEASEL, and WP:OR. -- 03:28, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Rationale for inclusion (Stated by Blaxthos):

1. There is no doubt (as far as I know) that there is controversy surrounding the Fair & Balanced slogan. There is an entire Wikipedia article dedicated solely to the controversy.
2. The controversy itself is well sourced within the articles (WP:ATT/WP:V), including a lawsuit for misleading statements and books detailng the subject.
3. The sources of the controversy are clearly referenced (no WP:WEASEL words), and no assertion is given to the validity of the claims of bias -- only that such controversy exists (no violation of WP:NPOV).
4. Some editors have contended that, yes there is a controversy, but since no source directly says "the slogan is controversial" it is original research to describe it as such. By definition, if controversy surrounds a particular subject, then it is necessarily controversial. original research is the publication of original thought; there is no new information here, and this is an attempt to use nuanced policy interpretation to cull valid, sourced information from the article.

Please post comments below. Thanks! /Blaxthos 03:28, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

"Fair and Balanced" is the TV stations slogan. How could you want to remove it? Should we accuse "The View" as being a controversial name b/c it is not everyones view, and therefore designate the title of the show to a controversies section. WOW some of you continue to amaze me. Thank you for looking out! OfForByThePeople 03:39, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I think you missed the point entirely. We would note it as controversial if there were multiple verifiable sources detailing said controversy. It's noted here precisely because the controversy does exist in this case. It's not that Wikipedians find it controversial, it's due to the fact that there have been many real-world incidents surrounding the controversy. /Blaxthos 03:43, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Rationale for removal (State by Arzel 03:45, 30 May 2007 (UTC)):

• The inclusion on the image gives the impression that the image itself is controversal.
• The controversy is primarily due to FNC suing of AF because of his book using the slogan.
• Much of the continued discussion revolves around the issue that many feel FNC is not "Fair" or "Balanced".
• To say the actual image itself is controversal is quite a stretch. To say that the actual slogan is controversal is also a stretch. To say that there was controversy regarding FNC trying to sue AF for using the slogan is what it is. Arzel 03:45, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Look, it's a weasel word, period. Is the caption about the controvery? Is it referencing something about the controvery? are there even references cited? Answer the following questions:

• Who says that? You?
• When did they say it? Now?
• How many people think that? How many is some?
• What kind of people think that? Where are they?
• What kind of bias might they have?
• Why is this of any significance?
• On what grounds are we establishing this as true (or at least, probably true)?

If you find that the sources are POV (which they are) it doesn't belong in the article. Bytebear 04:21, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I think you'er still missing the point... I'm still confused about your WP:WEASEL assertion... where, exactly, is this weasel word? There is no connotation with the word "controversial", which is the sole topic of this RfC. We're not saying any people think anything -- we're simply noting that there is controversy surrounding the choice of Fair & Balanced as a slogan -- the rest is superfluous and argumentative. The controversies are completely and properly sourced in the Fox News Channel article, the Fair and balanced article, and the Fox News Channel controversies article. Are you now disputing that controversy exists? If not, then it is absolutely controversial. I direct your attention to the definition of controversial: of, relating to, or arousing controversy. Seems pretty clear to me. /Blaxthos 04:28, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

You don't understand the concept. You can say that "XYZ has called the term 'fair and balanced' inaccurate. But you cannot assert in this article that 'fair and balanced' is controversial. Saying it is controversial is POV. And saying "some experts say it is controverial" or "many agree that it is controversial" is using weasel words. Bytebear 06:54, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

You seem to believe that there is a point of view associated with the word controversial. There is none -- if something "arouses controversy", then it is, by definition, controversial. This is a basic function of the English language, and there is no connotation associated with it (despite your belief to the contrary)... it's simply a boolean: either something has incited controversy, or it hasn't. Simply noting controversy isn't a point of view, and it's not weasely because the controversies are well documented and reliably sourced. We're not saying the controversy is right or wrong, we're just showing that it exists (and it does indeed exist). We're not saying the slogan is inaccurate or not... we're just noting that it has aroused controversy (and thus is controversial). /Blaxthos 07:00, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

But there is no controversy about the term, or about the logo. The controversy was regarding the copyright of the phrase. There is no other controversy, so to label the phrase "fair and balanced" as controversial, is equivilant to labeling "Micky Mouse" as controversial because Disney sues people based on copyright infringement. Bytebear 07:03, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I can't seem to follow your logic or your analogy. Let's try this in two ways: first by comparison... let's consider the USA PATRIOT act. There is no doubt that the act was controversial, and it's not a violation of NPOV to point out that the act caused controversy. It's entirely possible (and even prudent) to point out that the act was controversial without issuing opinion on who is right -- whether the act is a Good Thing(tm) or a Bad Thing(tm), it's definitely caused controversy. Noting that controversy exists does not imply anything beyond "this has caused controversy." Second, let's try the Socratic method:

1. Is the definition of controversial of, relating to, or arousing controversy? Merriam-Webster (an unassailable authority) says yes.
2. Has the slogan "Fair & Balanced" caused controversy? Lawsuits, books, articles, and media surveys say yes.
3. Quod erat demonstrandum the slogan "Fair & Balanced" is controversial.

I don't see how that logic can possibly be refuted. /Blaxthos 08:22, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I just had a moment of understanding I think... some people may say "Well, I don't think the USA PATRIOT act (or the Fair & Balanced slogan) is controversial", when in actuality they mean "I don't think their argument has merit". This doesn't mean that the controversy is nonexistant... it all springs from misuse of the word. Again, there is no assertion of validity of the criticism, however its mere existance (by notable individuals (Ted Turner, Al Franken, etc.) as well as lawsuits, books, and studies) necessarily means that the subject is controversial. It has no meaning beyond that, save in the minds of those who misuse the term (no offense intended). I don't know how to be more clear and understanding of your point, and address what seems to be the core misunderstanding of the issue. Maybe this helps. /Blaxthos 09:30, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

2 - Here is the problem with your logic. The slogan itself is not controversal. The controversy stems primarily from the fact that FNC sued because of its use via trademarck dispute. Thus it is not the slogan that caused the controversey, but the action of FNC to sue because of what it viewed as trademark misuse. Your second point is not valid. Arzel 13:47, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

You're just flat out wrong... have you even read the sources (or the article text)? One, FNC was sued over the slogan itself, not the other way around... We're talking about the lawsuit to have the slogan "Fair & Balanced" rescinced as being "notoriously misdescriptive." How could you possibly argue that this wasn't ABOUT the slogan? Two, Franken's book is ABOUT the slogan, and includes the slogan in the title. There's another book, too, that also references the slogan (by Joseph Minton Amann and Tom Breue). Two books, a lawsuit, criticism by numerous pundits and industry insiders (including Ted Turner)... how much evidence do you need before you'll admit that the slogan has caused controversy? /Blaxthos 15:09, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

No you are wrong. Fox sued for copyright infringement. This is not controversial. The second lawsuit was thrown out as frivolous. In other words, the courts said there was no controversy. You are stating that the conttroversy is a fact, but it is not fact, and a court declared it as such, so you are pushing POV using a weasel word. Plain and simple. Go back to the Disney analogy. I could sue Disney for saying Disneyland is "the happiest place on Earth", but it would be thrown out. Would you then say in the Disneyland article the "controversial slogan, Happiest Place on Earth?" Bytebear 15:48, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

To Blaxthos: I did read the sources and the article text. FNC was sued in response to their suit against the AF book. FNC created controversy for trying to sue for defamation on a very spurious case. The case was thrown out, and then FNC was sued to show how dumb their original suit was, and that was also droped. I am not sure why you are so upset. You asked for opinion, but any opinion that differs from yours is wrong? Arzel 17:50, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

• Dump the image or keep the 'controversy'. the image serves no function other than to lend some additional visibility to the section its in. to give additional prominence to a company slogan for no good reason at all, and in the process fail to note that the substance of that slogan is disputed is to simply push the company's pov. plenty of RSs attest to the "is disputed". see previous discussions (those sources were removed from the article because the Google Books convenience links didn't work for a particular editor!) Doldrums 09:25, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Was I that editor :). Anyways, --Tom 15:55, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

• I agree with Doldrums. The best way to get to a consensus is to just get rid of the image, or don't apply any descriptive text to the image. Is it perfect? No, but I think most people could live with that sort of compromise. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 16:56, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

• Simply stating in the caption that the slogan is "controversial" seems pretty POV to me. There really isn't a need for it IMO, the article body right next to it provides plenty of information. Cogswobbletalk 17:54, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

• There is nothing POV about noting controversy where it exists. User:Bytebear lacks a fundamental understanding of the NPOV policy if he thinks using the term "controversial" isn't allowed in Wikipedia articles. Either keep the word "controversial" in the image's description or get rid of the image (and many of this article's other frivolous non-free images) altogether. Italiavivi 23:22, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

You misunderstand. It isn't the term "controversial". It is applying it to a slogan that isn't controversial. There was one bogus lawsuit that was thrown out. Hardly a controversy, and hardly concensus enough to state it as fact. Bytebear 23:33, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Wow... "one bogus lawsuit" -- if that's not a POV characterization, I don't know what is. What about the books? What of the relevant criticism? If this is so bogus, why is there an entire Wikipedia article dedicated to the controversy? You're once again ignoring the meaning of "controversial": something that causes controversy. Wouldn't a lawsuit, books, criticisms be enough to admit that, "hey, okay, so there has been some controversy surrounding the slogan"? Of course it does! That's why this article exists! /Blaxthos 01:04, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Bytebear, but I also have no problem with getting rid of the image (and caption) entirely. The only version that I think is clearly POV is the version that simply states that it is controversial. Removing it entirely isn't POV one way or the other. Cogswobbletalk 23:36, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

The Fair and Balanced article should be deleted as well. It is just a duplicate of the paragraph in this article. Yes, there was an issue raised with the slogan, but to call it "controversial" is to add undue weight to the matter. I would rather see "disputed" than controversial, because the term "controversial" is a matter of opinion, whereas "disputed" is fact. Even still, to put the word in an image caption is to further a POV. Let the facts speak for themselves. Regardless, the matter seems to have been resolved. Bytebear 01:28, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Just because you don't understand what the word means doesn't change the meaning for the rest of the world. Here's the rub: contraversy comes from the latin contra- (against) and vertere (to turn). The Latin equivalent means disputable! So let's follow the logic... controversial means arousing controversy, and controversy is defined in contemporary English usage as a discussion marked especially by the expression of opposing views. Merriam-Webster goes so far as to list DISPUTE right after the definition! See for yourself! When interpreting the English language, consult an authority.  ;-) /Blaxthos 01:50, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Italiavivi has not given a substantial reason as to why he has made changes. I am reverting... again. Please discuss before changing. Bytebear 23:47, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I see Italiavivi has a history with this page, and 3RR. Are you that upset at Fox News? Can you please cite the "controversy?" Bytebear 23:56, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, I've been blocked for "edit warring" while preventing User:Cogswobble from deleting a certain notable sentence from this article's lead. Absolutely proud of and unapologetic of my actions during that dispute, too, given the sentence is still there. :) As for your rhetoric ("upset," etc), your arguments must be very weak if you are resorting making comments about a user's Talk page. Italiavivi 00:01, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Which is why Wikipedia will never be taken seriously as a research tool. As long as people with a POV fight against those with objective and neutral views (like myself), the objective view will be buried under a pile of false statements. Bytebear 00:22, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

You seem to hold yourself in very high esteem, o objective and neutral one; if Wikipedia is such a failed project, no one's forcing you to log in or edit. I find your view of Fox News to be anything but neutral, given your lack of willingness to acknowledge obvious controversy. Italiavivi 00:28, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Casting aspersions on editors motives in uncivil and unproductive. Keep it focused on content, please. Gamaliel (Orwellian Cyber hell master) 23:58, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Bytebear and Italiavivi, please give it a break. The test for Wiki is verifiability not truth. So if you are looking for truth, don't look here. Also, can we simply comment on the content and not the contributor. I propose deleting the caption. Is there a consensus for that!? Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 00:26, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I propose deleting the caption and image. The phrase "Fair and Balanced" is what's copyrighted, and a non-free image isn't necessary to illustrate it; that aside, this particular image is from 2005, and I doubt Fox News is using the exact same graphic today. I'll support any initiative to remove frivolous non-free images from this article. Italiavivi 00:31, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to go ahead and delete the caption and see if we can just live with that. Cogswobbletalk 00:29, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Uh, cogswobble, please don't make changes to the subject of the RfC while it is ongoing. The whole point of the RfC is to find a consensus before making changes (changing it throughout defeats the purpose). Same goes to whomever else changed it. Thanks. /Blaxthos 01:06, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Huh? Where does it say that you can't make changes during an RfC, especially as consensus develops? Cogswobbletalk 17:36, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm responding to the RfC, and I find Blaxthos' arguments persuasive. --MaplePorter 23:02, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Summary 1

It seems a quick consensus is forming to simply remove the questionable graphic. While I have no objection to such, I would like to note that this seems to be the path of least resistance (easiest out), and still leaves unanswered the core issue surrounding the debate -- if controversy surrounds a particular subject, is there a problem in noting that it is controversial? I honestly believe that ignoring the underlying question only enables it to become an issue again later. /Blaxthos 06:13, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Again, WHO says "controversy surrounds" this subject? You do? Its obvious(sp)? Its an opinion/grey area/original research in MY opinion. I really don't have a horse in this race, so whatever. I'm just concerned/leery when edits say "everybody can see that..." or "its obvious that..." Anyways, --Tom 14:28, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

"Controversial" is not subjective... it's objective. Either something has caused controversy, or it hasn't. /Blaxthos 14:52, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I admit to it being the path of least resistance. But there doesn't seem to be any other way to move on from this. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 16:38, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Why does leaving the single word "controversial" out of an image caption mean that people are ignoring controversy that may surround it? The body of text right next to the image describes the controversies. The main objection people had to the word "controversial" is that it looks like it's stuck there just to provide a negative connotation - i.e., it's not NPOV.

I wouldn't have a problem with a caption that said something like (as was proposed earlier) "The slogan has been the subject of controversy over a dismissed lawsuit by the Independent Media Institute which claimed it was notoriously deceptive". Of course, that would be kind of redundant, since that's what the body of text right next to it says. It seems like some people aren't happy with the image unless it has a negative caption attached to it. So fine, if we can all simply agree that the image isn't necessary at all, then let's just leave it out. Cogswobbletalk 17:35, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Where do you guys get that controversial is negative, or subjective? It's not an opinion, it's not a negative adjective. I've pointed to the definition, the etymology, the proper usage... why do you guys insist it means something it doesn't? /Blaxthos 19:33, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

"Acme Corp is a manufacturer of widgets."

"Acme Corp is a controversial manufacturer of widgets."

"Acme Corp is a manufacturer of widgets, and has been sued by the Widget Protection Foundation for the exploitation of widgets."

Only one of these three statements contains a commonly perceived as negative connotation without any verifiability. Cogswobbletalk 20:11, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but baseless analogies don't explain why you believe "controversial" is subjective and negative. As evidenced by every English language authority I can find, convroversial is not an opinion (either something has caused controversy, or it hasn't), nor is it negative (it simply states fact, namely that controversy exists surrounding the issue). If you can point me to some sort of evidence to the contrary, by all means do. /Blaxthos 20:27, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Claiming that a simple definition of "controversial" [definition] proves that the word is completely objective is hardly compelling evidence that "every English language authority" claims that "controversial" is a completely objective word. On that argument, I could just as easily claim that "ugly" [definition] and "beautiful" [definition] are completely objective words.

Like I've said many times, I don't have any problem with with deleting the image entirely, OR with expanding the caption to briefly discuss the controversy. Cogswobbletalk 20:40, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Controversy is objective: it either exists or it doesn't. Ugly and beautiful are qualities that are subjective on the part of the person evaluating such. I can't believe this has become remedial English. Not to worry, I think it's time for me to let this one go (with you at least). Retort as you see fit. /Blaxthos 03:09, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it is subjective. Who claims it to be controversial? Well, you do? Do you have a reference that calls it controversial? If not, then it is original research. If you claim it is by definition, I would argue that the only controversial issue is one lawsuit (which was thrown out as frivilous) created as a counter to a copyright infringment lawsuit. So, I saw you are using a weasel word on claims based on original research. Unless you can find a reference that cites the phrase as "controversial" then you can use the term. And even then you have to say "the phrass that XYZ claims is controversial". If we are going to keep the image, we should get outside opinions. Bytebear 06:08, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Anybody want to guess how Blaxthos will respond? Let me. Controversial is objective, not subjective. I still disagree with that. Oh well. --Tom 16:28, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

(outdent)Another widget example. Widget company XZY makes, you guessed it, widgets. One day, this guy's widget breaks and screws up his, err, house? Anyways, he goes down to the company and throws eggs at the building and starts to picket the place. Is the company contraversial now? About a year later, the same company starts to make widgets that blow up in people's faces and there are 1,000s of lawsuits and the government closes the plant and 100s die. Is the company now controversial? Who measures the degree of contraversy? Who decides when it reaches a level of contraversey? Objective?? --Tom 16:35, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

How convenient it is to avoid acknowledging that something is controversial simply by saying "oh that controversy doesn't count". Not to mention misrepresenting the adjudication of the lawsuits and completely ignoring the other controversy (books, criticisms, interviews, studies, etc.). Ignore the point or try to explain away all you want... the mere existance of so many controversies makes it controversial: something causing controversy. Conveniently ignoring the simple logic doesn't make it any less valid. /Blaxthos 16:42, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Hey Blaxthos, Seriously, I don't know if the slogan is contraversial. Again, provide sources that call it that rather than saying "look, its obvious, ect." I still think its subjective but no biggie. Cheers! --Tom 17:14, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

We call that Wikilawyering, specifically criteria 2 & 3. We have multiple sources for multiple controversies surrounding the slogan. Trying to say it violates original research to call it "controversial" is trying to use a nuanced interpretation of the rules to violate the spirit of them... WP:OR is to prohibit using Wikipedia from publishing new thought. There is nothing new in acknowledging the controversies that surround the issue. /Blaxthos 17:40, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Wow, so when someone wants sources for something, you accuse them of Wikilawyering. Funny how it's always wikilawyering when someone suggests that policies don't back up your point of view. WP:OR is pretty clear, but because you think it's obvious that the slogan is controversial, somehow people are guilty of wikilawyering for suggesting that WP:OR requires explicit sourcing. Cogswobbletalk 18:04, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Once again, you've missed the point. /Blaxthos 18:48, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

You've made it pretty clear that you can't even be bothered to read and understand policies before you accuse people of violating them - [1]. I think I see your point pretty clearly, when people actually do read and apply policies to things you disagree with, you resort to accusations of wikilawyering. Cogswobbletalk 18:51, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

{Blowing Referee's whistle}-- Cogwobble, Blaxthos -- neutral corners for a while. I am going to request closure of this RfC, with the deletion of the image being the final result. Since that has already occurred it's no point continuing the discussion, except to tick each other off. We all should agree that that is not necessary. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 20:05, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Newshounds a suituble source?

While I think they can cited in some places, some FNC related articles seem to state Newshounds as the only source in critism sections. While I see no problem in backing up statements with citations form Newshounds, I don't think it should be the sole ciation for an article, as Newshounds reliabilty as a source is in question in my view. --IvanKnight69 17:12, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't see Newshounds used as a source in this article. If you are referring to its use in another article, make that complaint on that article's talk page. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 17:36, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

FAQ (still needed)

So what of the FAQ? I still contend that it's a good idea for us to have listed the common concerns and reasoning used, along with perhaps links to the discussions. /Blaxthos 04:09, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Are you thinking about any particular "concerns and reasonings"? Thank you for looking out! OfForByThePeople 23:15, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I absolutely don't think the FAQ belongs. If people come here with objections or issues, then they their objections or issues should be engaged directly. Cogswobbletalk 18:06, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Directing users with concerns that have been previously addressed to previous discussion is standard Wikipedia practice. If they have something new to add, they can do so after familiarizing themselves with at least the basics of ground previously covered. Gamaliel (Orwellian Cyber hell master) 18:09, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Where is the FAQ?

FAQ's are standard at Wikipedia, to alert newer users to previous discussion and consensus. Nothing in the FAQ prevents a newcomer from discussing aspects of the previous discussion. With this in mind, I propose re-adding the FAQ to this page. Any user is free to add whatever he wishes to it, provided there is a consensus of course. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 18:28, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I coulda sworn it was there this morning. Re-re-added. /Blaxthos 18:55, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Let's not forget the FAQ can be edited here. If we disagree with its contents...good news, a new argument. However, it shouldn't simply be removed. - auburnpilot talk 20:22, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Straw Poll

Knowing full well that polls are not binding on Wikipedia, I am suggesting the following poll on keeping or deleting the FAQ above. Although the arguments for and against have been presented in detail. I believe a poll may be helpful in determining where the FAQ stands.

1. Keep. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 19:17, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
2. Keep as an easy way to both summarize previous discussion and point editors to where the discussion occurred. - auburnpilot talk 20:22, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
3. Strong keep per above, so we don't go in circles continuously. /Blaxthos 20:41, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
4. Keep. Directing users with concerns that have been previously addressed to previous discussion is standard Wikipedia practice. Gamaliel (Orwellian Cyber hell master) 21:08, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
5. Keep per AuburnPilot, Blaxthos, and Gamaliel. Italiavivi 00:37, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
6. Delete In my opinion, having the FAQ placed at the top of the page gives it an impression of "officialness" that I don't think it deserves. I think it may discourage newer editors from making changes and asking questions. Cogswobbletalk 02:10, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

   Incidentally, I am not opposed to the existence of the FAQ, and I think it could be useful to link it when people ask questions. Alternately, I wouldn't be opposed as a compromise to adding a section to the talk page, and adding the template inline there. What I don't like is having it embedded with the other templates. Cogswobbletalk 02:14, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

7. Delete Placing the FAQ at the top of the page is unheard of throughout wikipedia...it raises questions as to the legitimacy of the entire article before it is even read. Thank you for looking out! OfForByThePeople 19:15, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

   "Placing the FAQ at the top of the page is unheard of throughout wikipedia"...Actually, that is precisely the purpose of {{FAQ}}. - auburnpilot talk 19:35, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

   Could you expand on that? Thank you for looking out! OfForByThePeople 19:43, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

   You said it's unheard of, but the very purpose of this template is to have a FAQ at the top of the talk page. See Talk:RuneScape which has a very similar format, Talk:Habbo Hotel, which has the small version, and Wikipedia:Village pump (technical), a core Wikipedia page that utilizes a FAQ at the top of the page. Also note these examples give "Yes or No" answers, where as the one on this page simply summarizes previous discussion. - auburnpilot talk 19:47, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

   FYI I am also not opposed to having a FAQ section, just so long as it does not start getting into topics which...should be under the FNC Controversies article. Thank you for looking out! OfForByThePeople 19:37, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

   So are you changing your original response to a keep? Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 19:56, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

8. Delete The archives exist. Wikipedia is not defined by consensus and an FAQ implies that the answers are set in stone. Bytebear 18:19, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
9. Keep. "officialness" worry unwarranted, given wording of the FAQ. "archives exist" does not mean they shouldn't be summarised. Doldrums 06:52, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
10. Oops, I would've said delete but I'm too late lol Edders 20:28, 11 June 2007 (UTC) - (Copying Edder's vote, not too late) Cogswobbletalk 19:43, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I am only opposed to keeping it, if it is placed at the top before more pertinent information. I agree that there should be a FAQ section, but not at the beginning. If it is going to be at the start DELETE if it can be placed elsewere KEEP. Thank you for looking out! OfForByThePeople 17:28, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I guess that's a keep with caveats. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 18:14, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I am only saying keep so long as it DOES NOT delve into controversies, b/c there is an entire atricle for this, and it needs to be towards the end of the article...or just put a FAQ link which takes you to the controversies section. this could also be sufficient Thank you for looking out! OfForByThePeople 18:50, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

also just to agree w/ bytebear...this is not based on consensus and my gut does say DELETE Thank you for looking out! OfForByThePeople 18:52, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Maybe I'm reading your comments wrong, but you realize we are not talking about putting a FAQ in the article, right? We're talking about the FAQ at the top of this talk page. Again, maybe I'm just misreading your comment, but it sounds like you are under the impression we want to add a FAQ to the article. - auburnpilot talk 19:05, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

on no no no. I understand the discussion, and truly do appreciate your courteousness. My concern is that a FAQ at the top of this page gives new users reason to believe that this is an unreliable article....even though the FAQ is on the talk. see what I mean? which is why i do have to vote DELETE aka unneccessary Thank you for looking out! OfForByThePeople 19:15, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

A couple of misconceptions seems to have arisen concerning the FAQ. One, please read the text of the FAQ. It explicitly states it covers only the introduction section. It goes on to say "If you are concerned with the introduction, please read the following and see if your concern has already been addressed. If you are unsure, please feel free to ask for clarification." This in no way is claiming some sort of consensus about the contents of the entire article. It is only stating that the introduction has been parts of numerous discussion, and to check to see if your point has been raised previously. Two, Of the people, please be coherent about what your objection is. Is it because it is unheard of in Wikipedia, is it with the placement, or is it because you feel it is unnecessary. Or do you want to keep it as longs as it not the first thing on the talk page. You are all over the place. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 20:09, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Wow, this is amazing... two editors (cogswobble and offorwhatever) have voted to delete the faq, but say "i'm not opposed" to having the FAQ. Then false claims of "unheard of" and the like... the FAQ goes at the top, it's purpose is to clarify why things are the way they are (so we don't have to continually explain it to new people (not to mention stubborn ones :-) )), and the majority of the community here is in favor of it. It's just a Darn Good Idea(tm). Time to move on. /Blaxthos 20:20, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd say let's keep it open for seven days (i.e. June 13), so that we are not accused of taking it down when delete votes (such that they are) arise. The count so far is 2 delete by ByteBear and Edders, 1 delete with caveat by Cogs, 6 keeps, and we are still waiting for By the People to make up his mind. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 20:31, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Oops, I would've said delete but I'm too late lol Edders 20:28, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Edders, you've been counted, no worries. I would, however, say that "do not oppose" would count as a keep, even if a conditional keep, no? Concur on the 7 days, btw... let's not give any opportunity for cries of foul play. /Blaxthos 21:02, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

As I said initially, I'm not opposed to the FAQ existing as it's own section. I'm going to make an edit and move it there to show what I mean. Cogswobbletalk 19:37, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

See the edit here [2] for what I mean. I wouldn't be opposed to the FAQ existing in this form. Cogswobbletalk 19:41, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Two thoughts: 1. If we do what you propose (and I have no position on the proposal yet), the FAQ risks being moved once someone creates a new archive. If we were to place a disclaimer on it stating that it should not be moved, then that would create the same "officialness" problem you have in the first place. What would be your position, if there was agreement that the FAQ would go on the bottom of the templates list and stay there? 2. In the instances where FAQ's are used, they generally go at the top of the page. What is different about this one that would warrant different treatment? Added later- btw, would you be interested in changing your position to "Weak Keep provide that..." since you have stated to not having an issue with the FAQ, but only with its placement?Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 22:59, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I've moved the FAQ back, per standard best practice, instructions on the FAQ template, and the seeming consensus on here. Putting it in a nonstandard place increases both the chance that it will be overlooked, and that it will be inadvertantly archived. /Blaxthos 05:39, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Blaxthos, you dont have to like me, but you will show me the same courteousy that I have shown you and spell my entire name when referring to me.... DELETE only b/c I there is no consensus. Thank you for looking out! OfForByThePeople 01:05, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

There was no offense intended -- your name is just long and your signature is formatted such that there is superfluous username stuff included in the link. I won't re-address the rest. /Blaxthos 06:57, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

An excellent example of such a template notice is at Talk:Intelligent design. Doldrums 12:34, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Summary

Ok, I'm closing the poll (after a week and one additional day) with the final result being 6 Keeps, 1 conditional Delete (Cogswobble), 2 straight Deletes, and OfForBythePeople, various responses. On the surface there seems to be a 6 to 4 split, which would mean no consensus. However, considering Cogswobble delete is based primarily on the placement of the FAQ, and he states explicitly that he has no problem with the existence of the FAQ, that is 7 out of 10 editors who think the FAQ should exist in some form. And depending on what side of the bed OfthePeople wakes up on any given day (after all he has given four different and distinct responses, which leads me to think he may be a bit confused about the issue), there is an argument that 8 out of 10 people support the existence of the FAQ. Issues of placement can be worked out. Well that's my analysis, other thoughts. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 16:40, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Good analysis, but now that I fully understand the issue at hand. (thank you for correcting me) my last vote was, and still is, to DELETE. Thank you for looking out! OfForByThePeople 16:53, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I am going to propose adding a bolded sentence to the FAQ that states: (a) nothing in the FAQ presents an official position of Wikipedia, (b) that once editors have reviewed the previous discussion and/or summary in the FAQ they are free to make any comments or suggestions regarding the introduction, or any other part of the article, provided they follow the editors note in the introduction before making changes. I think that would satisfy Cogswobble concerns. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 17:28, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I've been kind of busy, so unable to participate much. As you said, 6-4 is not a consensus, but it seems that if we were to move the FAQ to the section I proposed, that would certainly address my concerns, and I think would address OfForByThePeople's concerns. Adding the sentence that you did certainly helps to address my concerns as well. That would make it 8-2, which is much closer to an actual consensus. I'll go ahead and move it again. Cogswobbletalk 00:07, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Consensus usually requires some compromise. I've added the disclaimer in an attempt to address your "officialness" complaint and still placate the majority of editors who participated. Also, you may have noticed that I lowered it as well. If you are going to place it there, then the disclaimer is unnecessary. But we would needs to be add text requesting users not to archive it, which to me gives it an "officialness" it doesn't need. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 00:22, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Objection is duely noted, but there is a reason FAQ's go at the top (as noted by Ramsquire). Let's not break best practices/style guides just because one editor doesn't like it. Thanks. /Blaxthos 00:59, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree, the sentences added by Ramsquire should be more than enough for compromise. Leave the FAQ's position at the top. Italiavivi 01:51, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, my vote, and I think it's fair to say OfForByThePeople's vote is still Delete as long as the FAQ is where you guys put it, which means that there then isn't consensus to keep it. If you're concerned about it being moved into an archive, just add it back when the next archive is created. Cogswobbletalk 02:00, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

We already compromised with you on the content of the disclaimer. Time for you to compromise (and quit edit warring over its position), Cogsie. Italiavivi 02:49, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, if there was no consensus, it would be no consensus for deletion. Please stop edit warring over the position of the FAQ. In a no consensus situation, the debated issue remains at the status quo. - auburnpilot talk 02:06, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Title

I'm still having a hard time understand why there is a problem with the template being at the top of the page, but no problem with it being at the top of the page, but under the TOC. Is it because the template is called a "FAQ"? Would it be better if it simply read "Summary of previous discussion" rather than "Frequently asked Questions"? If so, play around with User:AuburnPilot/Templatetest all you'd like...it's not called a FAQ and it works exactly in the same way as {{FAQ}}. - auburnpilot talk 02:21, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

AuburnPilot, Blaxthos, Ramsquire, and others. You have calculated attacks against anyone who opposes your view...just remember this IS NOT your article. 129.7.91.47 02:02, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

And in case anyone wonders who made the above attack, please see this diff where the IP in question signs as OfForByThePeople. - auburnpilot talk 02:49, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Busted! Why am I completely unsurprised? Any remaining good faith I've retained for OfForByThePeople is now gone. Additionally, I don't find it all that surprising to see this person go off site to try and coordinate opposition or stack votes, either. /Blaxthos 06:53, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

FYI Blaxthos you are my best friends, and I would never do anything against you :-) Thank you for looking out! OfForByThePeople 17:24, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, did I miss several steps of this discussion? One, I have no idea what OfthePeople is talking about(which is nothing new)--what attacks?. Two, has the poll been compromised by someone attempting to push it in a direction by going off-site for votes? Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 17:51, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

No off site votes ... as far as I know. I was merely making (an innappropriate) sarcastic response to something Blaxthos said above. Sorry, this is not the time or the place for such actions. Forgiveness requested. Thank you for looking out! OfForByThePeople

Follow the diff AuburnPilot posted above -- the section to which the IP/OFBTP posted seems an awful lot like attempts to go off-site for coordinating oppostition (and possibly vote stacking). It seems to me that he was trying to use an anonymous IP to make false accusations of personal attacks and slipped up. In either case, offsite coordination coupled with spurious accusations and smartass comments seals the deal for me. As someone else noted to me earlier today, the actions show this isn't someone worth taking seriously. /Blaxthos 21:28, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

You don't have to like me, you don't have to respect me, you don't have to consider anything I say or do worth any persons time.... but I am not stupid and did simply forget to log in... which I went back and corrected. You are getting off topic, and as far as "vote stacking" show me any type of evidence or proof. Otherwhise you are, or simply have become exactly what you are accusing me of being, and as far as the various IP addresses, I have about 5 computers that I use, 1 personally, and 4 professionally... which if you do the math equals 5 different IP addresses, but I always sign my name. Love Ya Blaxthos and Thank you for looking out! OfForByThePeople 22:53, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

You made false accusations of ownership and personal attacks against editors and administrators who are (and always have been) in good standing. You've gone to editors who may share your views and repeatedly hounded them to contact you off site (for what purpose, I wonder?). You've now repeatedly been a smartass ("Love ya Blaxthos" etc.) which shows a complete lack of maturity... You earn no respect, and have lost the good faith of most of the editors here (especially the ones who extend that good faith much further than I do). Just about any reprehensible behavior I can think of you've pretty much covered (save sockpuppetry, which a nice RFCU would clear up). It's times like these I really wish wikipedia had an /ignore function. In any case, I don't think your continued participation here is in good faith, productive, or welcome any longer. /Blaxthos 00:09, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

You have me all figured out. Gotcha. WOW. THE END...I have nothing else to say to such a ridiculous comment/argument/and editor who has not had good faith in me since I first joind. That is the last I will speak of this. Thank you for looking out! OfForByThePeople 04:54, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually I changed my mind. Is it possible to request an extensive RFCU on myself. I would have admit though, that this would be for a selfish reason. I would love to have a good laugh at the results. Thank you for looking out! OfForByThePeople 17:41, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Um, if you want to do a checkuser on yourself, go right ahead. Although I suspect you already know if you are a meatpuppet or sockpuppet of other accounts. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 16:30, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I was being sarcastic, but constant accusations with no foot to stand on bring that out of me. look here, or here so since when does talking about e-mail on Wikipedia become a crime? Thank you for looking out! OfForByThePeople 23:14, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

An 'In Popular Culture' Section

I think this should be a small section of the article, noting how Fox News has being refernced in popular culture, such as The Colbert Report and The Daily Show etc, and mentioning that Fox News features prominently in Fox Network shows such as 24 and Prison Break. --IvanKnight69 15:30, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Disagree -- While FNC has had more exposure than a lot of other "foo in popular culture" types of articles/sections, generally those sorts of articles are hopelessly unreferencable and trivial. If there are reliable secondary sources that discuss the impact of FNC on popular culture, that might be one thing; if we're talking about having a bullet list of trivial information, then it's something else entirely. I just don't see it adding anything to the content of the article. /Blaxthos 16:20, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

It would not be taking anything away from the article either, and would add a bit of trivia. FNC is the butt-end of a lot of jokes in popular culture...this poking-fun-of, and satire, is how some people are first introduced to Fox News. If you have good secondary sources...I think it would be ok. Thank you for looking out! OfForByThePeople 02:13, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't have a problem with an "in popular culture" section so long as it isn't trivia. I agree with Blaxthos that a bulleted list of trivial facts is not appropriate. We aren't a joke book after all. I believe a solid paragraph with appropriate sourcing would be no problem. - auburnpilot talk 02:20, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Map

The map is wrong as the article states it is no longer available in sweden.--Tresckow 02:05, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

If so....then remove it from the article. Thank you for looking out! OfForByThePeople 02:15, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

No, don't go removing a map because one country out of the entire world is miscolored. Instead, contact the user who created the map and request they make the required change. This is no different than a chart (uploaded as an image) on poll results; when the polls are out of date, the image is updated to reflect the most recent numbers.- auburnpilot talk 02:17, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

dont remove it (Sullynyflhi 02:21, 2 July 2007 (UTC))