The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.
Concern: The introduction mentions alleged bias or other controversial information.
WP:LEAD - The lead should be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article, establishing context, explaining why the subject is interesting or notable, and briefly describing its notable controversies. It is appropriate to overview the controversies and allegations of bias, as these are substantial.
Concern: The introduction mentions allegations of conservative bias but I've seen studies that say Fox News is centrist and/or liberal. Shouldn't these viewpoints be mentioned in the lead as well?
Although there are studies with various viewpoints on Fox, the view that Fox is conservative dominates. For the lead we restrict ourselves to the dominant view, conservative bias, while noting that this viewpoint has dissenters. The lead should only briefly summarize the notable controversies. The notability of this particular controversy is measured by studies, documentaries, films, boycotts from influential persons based on the perception of bias, and numerous pop culture references to the alleged conservative bias. No other viewpoint has gained as much currency, and therefore including them in the lead would violate WP:FRINGE; WP:NPOV and WP:LEAD.
Concern: Does the article take any position regarding the allegations of bias?
Wikipedia takes no position on whether Fox News is biased. The introduction highlights the existence of a notable controversy concerning the perception that the network promotes conservative political positions. Neither the introduction nor the article takes a position on whether such a perception is accurate, we merely reflect the consensus of reliable independent sources.
Previous discussions: See archives 21, 19, 18, 17, 16 (Includes RfC) and 15.
Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. Ifconsensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.
This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Companies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of companies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CompaniesWikipedia:WikiProject CompaniesTemplate:WikiProject Companiescompany articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of journalism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JournalismWikipedia:WikiProject JournalismTemplate:WikiProject JournalismJournalism articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Radio, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Radio-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.RadioWikipedia:WikiProject RadioTemplate:WikiProject RadioRadio articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Media, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Media on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MediaWikipedia:WikiProject MediaTemplate:WikiProject MediaMedia articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York City, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New York City-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York CityWikipedia:WikiProject New York CityTemplate:WikiProject New York CityNew York City articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion.
To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:
You must follow the bold-revert-discuss cycle if your change is reverted. You may not reinstate your edit until you post a talk page message discussing your edit and have waited 24 hours from the time of this talk page message
Violations of any of these restrictions should be reported immediately to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard.
Editors who are aware of this topic being designated a contentious topic and who violate these restrictions may be sanctioned by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offense.
I don’t think the fact that Fox News is “conservative” needs to be mentioned in the first sentence of the first paragraph; maybe that should be briefly discussed toward the end of the intro. 76.170.142.83 (talk) 06:10, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi everyone, I want to replace the sentence 'Fox News has been characterized by many as a propaganda organization' with 'Fox News is a right-wing propaganda organization'[1] because it's more specific. Let me show my sources of information: [2][3][4][5]
I wrote the original sentence and I think the new sentence goes too far by definitively stating FNC is a propaganda organization. I think we should go only so far as to say many have concluded it is. soibangla (talk) 00:31, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The duck test does not apply to article content. Of course Fox is a propaganda organization. (My opinions are not that of Wikipedia.) But, it requires massive documentation to state that in WikiVoice, particularly since there exist supporters here. Your proposed change would not be possible at this time. Avoid Sisyphean tasks. O3000, Ret. (talk) 23:42, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
CNN and MSNBC did not have to pay $787 million for spreading lies. Which is a small part of the problem. In any case, those are other articles about other organizations. What Fox is does not apply to what CNN and MSNBC do. O3000, Ret. (talk) 15:24, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Soibangla Your current statement includes Weasel Words. They should be avoided when we can add specificity. There is no problem with the statement other than that it is unnecessarily vague. At the very least, a word like "critics" needs be added. Your edit has removed specificity and added weasel word statements. Amend it when you can, or I can fix it later. Just10A (talk) 17:30, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
what weasel words? "many?" I would agree if the statement were not supported by an abundance of sources, but it is. by mentioning just a handful of specific sources in the text, your edit suggests "only these guys believe it." I can fix it later if you gain consensus. soibangla (talk) 17:37, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
MOS states, "Claims about what people say, think, feel, or believe, and what has been shown, demonstrated, or proved should be clearly attributed."
It additionally states that for an editor to simply view an abundance of sources and convert it to a weasel word violates the Wikipedia:No original research policies. The sources listed are either stating personal belief or using "some say" language. Just10A (talk) 17:55, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
specifically naming a handful of sources when there exists an abundance of sources is deeply misleading. The sources listed are either stating personal belief or using "some say" language is incorrect and the edit is not OR as it is supported by many reliable sources. I think you and I have said enough on this, what do others think? soibangla (talk) 18:02, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If it is incorrect, please provide it. As of now, the majority of the sources from my cursory glance are either stating the position of a specific writer/paper or are using "some say" language. And even then, they are usually citing who they are referring to after their "some say." Additionally, I already said we don't have to only provide "a handful of sources" we just need to qualify it with something like "critics" or name the sources. That would avoid your weasel words issue.
Again, MOS states that, ""Claims about what people say, think, feel, or believe, and what has been shown, demonstrated, or proved should be clearly attributed." as opposed to using Weasel Words. I'm afraid that is just policy. Just10A (talk) 18:09, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Just10A, you recently reverted this edit claiming it was undue and had weasel words. I do not see how it is undue and do not believe it has any weasel words. If you would like to explain your reasoning please do so, as I do not see the concerns you have raised in the well-sourced and cited edits that were made. Pinging @Soibangla due to his prior involvement in this conversation. BootsED (talk) 19:49, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
1.) Reverting at the very least during discussion per WP:NOCON.
2.) The undue and weasel word issues are similar to the ones already brought up (in fact, the new edit made them worse.) As far as undue is concerned, there is not a ton of sources to compare it to, but Fox is not primarily identified as a propaganda org, particularly when compared to other tertiary sources (what wikipedia is). The Encyclopedia Britannica, for instance, makes no mention of it in the entire article, much less the lead [1]. Additionally, as already discussed, the majority of the sources are either reflecting the position of the specific writer or are using "some say"-esque language. That, combined with the fact that it's contentious and that other tertiary sources don't seem to include it, presents a decent UNDUE chance.
3.) The edit clearly includes weasel words per MOS:WEASEL. Weasel words are not entirely banned, but they should be avoided and definitely shouldn't be used for contentious claims. At worst the phrase should just explicitly say "critics", and even then that is still technically a weasel violation.
4.) This wasn't mentioned in the original revert, but, in addition to the above issues, WP:MANDY is an essay, not policy. And it is an essay that in my experience is one of the ones most commonly overruled, so that would be an issue as well.
All boils down to "I just don't like it" with a touch of passive-aggressive condescension ("Let me know if there's anything else I can help you with") at the end. Zaathras (talk) 04:10, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry if it came across that way, but weasel words and undue policy are not "I just don't like it", and are quite clearly cited. WP:NOCON policy is pretty clear here too. Just10A (talk) 07:28, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In regards to the propaganda claim, there were several peer-reviewed journal articles that described it as such. Despite this, it was still listed as described as, we did not say in wikivoice that is was a propaganda source. Encyclopedia Britannica was not used in the citation to say that Fox was described as "propaganda". There are 17 other sources that do that for us, including several peer-reviewed journal articles. Some of the sources can probably be removed to prevent over-citing this fact.
In regards to using the word "critics", we can just remove it and say "commentators and researchers" instead.
Yes, Mandy is an essay, however, the fact that numerous sources, including numerous peer-reviewed journal articles have described Fox as biased, it is fair to say that Fox is biased and not require us to have Fox's rebuttal in the lead. BootsED (talk) 01:13, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
