Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:Fox News Channel

2007-11-07T07:54:48Z

Stitch: Edit for Fair and Balanced section

{{protect|TK}}

Suggest someone writes this page properly, fairly and honestly (yes it's biased toward GOP/conservatism) and then locks it.

This article is exceptionally better than its predecessor. --[[User:Truth is bipartisan|Truth is bipartisan]] 17:59, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

Well... the last article called Fox News Channel was copied wholesale from wikipedia. This is fine. But we appear to have lost the discussion page for [[Fox News]]. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 18:47, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

Please don't revert pages while someone is editing!

Thanks. :-) --[[User:TK|TK]] 03:02, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

:Psst... no way to know something is being edited ;) [[User:Myk|Myk]] 03:17, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

::* IM me! Exculpatory1 on AIM. ;-)

== Morons/Vandals ==

'''Okay, it was pretty much made crap by a vandal, who has now been blocked. Post your suggestions here, if you have something worth-while to suggest, and I can incorporate your changes. I think it more important we spend our time creating pages which are badly needed, and missing from here, rather than constantly reverting pages screwed around with by ***holes, who are obviously mentally impaired, or little kids with too much free time.''' --[[User:TK|TK]] 06:20, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

----

Why is the point of this whole article to defend FOX news against criticism? Shouldnt it be about facts about FOX, and facts only? And then maybe have a separate "criticism" or "controversial" section at the bottom?

Is this an encyclopedia or is it something else? [[User:Messpm|Messpm]] 22:09, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

*''Well, it is something else'', it is the '''Conserv'''-apedia. It would be intellectually arguable that the smears and disinformation put out there about the Fox News Channel is now integral to all of the information about it. Therefore a large portion of the page will contain the "information you object to. Since you do not have a user page here, I have no idea if you are a registered member or what. If you had bothered to look at the page information, you would see it was totally devoid of information until I populated it two days ago. I am sorry if my abilities are not up to your obviously higher standards, but I have been doing other things, like working at my job, placating needy clients who also demand attention. It has been my intention to get back to it, organize it, add headers, etc. But since this is a wiki, I also expected others to help organize it as well. I have no problem with you adding the header: "Controversy" Some of the information, especially quotes from Roger Ailes would necessarily end up in both sections. If you feel you can at least be aware of our users affinity for Fox News, because they provide a non-judgemental forum for the Christian right and Republicans, have at it, your help would, indeed, and most sincerely be welcome! --[[User:TK|[[TK|TerryK]]([[User talk:TK|contact me]])]] 23:02, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

::I apologise for the somewhat aggressive tone in my former message. I had just read the locked moon article which, quite frankly, almost made me cry. I realize that this is a work in progress and that it is not no-where near complete in it's current state. And I would be happy to help, if I can find the time since I, like you, have things in real life to do as well. But until I can find the time to make some proper research my contribution will solely be in commenting the article.

::That being said, my biggest concern with the article is perhaps the large amount of facts, or maybe information is the right term since as you pointed out this is conservapedia and it is bound to have a bias, being added at once, instead of little at a time. In my mind, and you may or may not agree on this, less information in smaller packages makes the article easier to structure. Still, your effort in contributing what you have is a start and I would like to point out that this is not a complaint you should take personally, it is rather a suggestion to the future editors. Whoever that is, you, me, or someone else. [[User:Messpm|Messpm]] 10:34, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

Thanks, Messpm! When collecting information, I find it sometimes easier to compose using Word, then pasting it over, so as I have the time, I add to it, then BAM! I paste it here. I know some additional headers and splitting it up some, for readability is needed. Sometimes with very political things, we need to move lots slower refining things. Putting emotions aside, by all credible studies and comments from people in the public arena, Fox has indeed surpassed the other news organizations in the US, in crediability, without giving up it's pro-America stance. A nifty trick, if the pros are to believed. ;-) Besides, just before midnite, my blood sugar is low, so I get cranky! :p --~ [[User:TK|Terry]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 10:43, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

== Introductory paragraph needs work ==

The end of the first paragraph doesn't sound great on an encyclopedic level. There are several oddly worded rhetorical questions which need to go. Also the tone sounds like someone is loudly arguing, which is not encyclopedic.--[[User:Nomine Cervus|Nomine Cervus]] 02:23, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

I agree.

==Pic to add==
[[Image:FNC logo.jpg|thumb|right|Fox News Logo]]

== '''FOX NOISE CHANNEL''' ==

Thats the real name of this neocon run noise making channel. Its full of fear-mongers and radical neocons. KO said it best so get it right its Fox Noise Channel.

The worst part about it is these neocons are all fakes.[[USER:Smithson9999‎]]

:Oh, look. A Slobbermann groupie carrying out their marching orders. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 21:34, 29 June 2007 (EDT)

Jinxmchue just cured my anemia with all that irony. --[[User:9820|9820]] 00:21, 27 July 2007 (EDT)

== Requested edits ==

* can someone mention the fact on how it finaly gave a voice to white middle class american males. Also,. it is an unfair unbalanced network [[User:Eljawa|Eljawa]] 10:06, 25 July 2007 (EDT)
:Sounds like a fairly racist POV you have expressed. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 11:52, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

* Could this article be added to [[:Category:Broadcasting]]? Thanks. --[[User:Interiot|Interiot]] 02:20, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

Indeed it can! --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 07:23, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

There is an error in the last sentence of the last paragraph of the "Founding" section. "quit" instead of "quite"--[[User:TheGoodSociety|Joe]] 15:34, 17 August 2007 (EDT)

A lot of the statements in the article are not sourced and some are simply pure conjecture, also there is an obvious pro-Fox bias.--[[User:NeoCon4Life|NeoCon4Life]] 16:11, 4 November 2007 (EST)

*NeoCon/Liberal, please be specific! This isn't WP and trolling will be dealt with harshly! --[[User:TK|şyŝoρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 16:46, 4 November 2007 (EST)

== It's okay.... ==

Three Sysops editing at once, LOL. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 22:48, 13 May 2007 (EDT)
:This article is starting to look fair and balanced. We probably need a little more about Ailes & his background. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 22:49, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

*Yes, maybe we can get another two or three admins in here working on it! :p --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 22:50, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

==Independent?==
You guys are conservatives, so facts don't always matter... But Bill O'Reilly has been shown as a registered Republican Many times. [[User:SirJim|SirJim]] 08:04, 11 July 2007 (EDT)

*That is in fact more [[deceit]]. O'Reilly is registered Independent. All voting rolls are public record in the United States, and you should not be making such inaccurate, and possible trolling posts. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 15:31, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

== bias. ==

this article reads like fox news, please consider moving to conserva-

owait, its already here.

facts < politics

flaming appreciated, its a bit cold here. {{unsigned|Headsup}}

EXCUSE ME!!! is this an article or an advertisment for fox news channel????? how about some facts. eg, when did it start broadcasting, where does it broadcast besides the united states, who are its directors, what are its main topics and programmes??? {{unsigned|Plqgnmv}}

*Okay, I excuse you. Now, how about you doing what editors are supposed to do, and suggest specifics here, or ask that it be unlocked for you to add them? --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 18:45, 1 September 2007 (EDT)

==Internal Links==
Both [[Chris Wallace]] and [[Brit Hume]] lack internal links in this article, even though there are articles on both of them. You might want to change that. Thanks, --[[User:Tash|Tash]] 19:46, 12 September 2007 (EDT)

== Edit for Fair and Balanced section ==

In the interest of full disclosure, should the fact that Fox News is the biggest backer of Republican presidential candidate Fred Thompson be mentioned?

I'm not sure of the accuracy of the claim, but it is on the front page of Conservapedia right now, and a backing of a presidential candidate by a news source is something of enough import to warrant its inclusion.

Debate:Two sides to a coin. The liberals use of Swift Boat

2007-11-07T07:35:59Z

Stitch:

Swift boating or to Swift Boat somebody is to falsely discredit them. That's how the liberal uses it. But in reality it is; to level a damaging accusation to which the object has no good response; to produce extensive documentation of same without a rebuttal. In lay person terms; when a liar is caught in a lie but pleads blameless.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 02:36, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

Swift boating means to throw a bunch of spaghetti at the wall and see what sticks. This was attempted in the stories floating around a few weeks ago from the "Madrassa Veterans for Truth" about Barack Obama going to a Q'u'r'a'n school, with the implication that he was a secret muslim (actually he is active in his Christian church). Hillary is gonna face innuendoes from the "Unclosetted Lesbians for Truth" bunch pretty soon. Giuliani is gonna have something new and awful bubble up out of New York City. Romney is having trouble with his ridiculous statement that he is a lifetime NRA member, when he just bought his membership last fall and he's 60 years old. [[User:Teresita|Teresita]] 03:10, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

So, throw out a bunch of false accusations (spaghetti) and see which one is true (sticks)?--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 03:39, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

:No, the ones that get media traction (possibly for being titillating and fodder for gossip around the watercooler) are the ones that stick. [[User:Teresita|Teresita]] 08:30, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

:Oh so Teresita, there is no truth behind swift boating, definetely the liberal version.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 10:10, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

Perhaps there should be an official "Swift Boat" page. I came to conservapedia to try to get the other side of the coin. Certainly it's used as a pejorative, but when used in discussion, it's a term to which there are definitely two sides. I really don't know much about the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, but when I do searches for it, all I see is for the most part the wikipedia side of the story, (for example http://swiftvets.eriposte.com/kerrypurpleheart1.htm) with claims such as only one member of the swift boat veterans for truth served on the boat with him, and he was not present for those circumstances where Kerry earned his medals. A definitive page here on Conservapedia would help to show the other side of this debate. For the casual searcher, it seems as though there is only one substantive side to the story, there is no response on the swift boat web site to many inconsistencies raised, and perhaps the truth could come out here. --[[Stitch]] 11:30 6 November 2007 (PDT)
[[Category:Conservapedia Debates]]

Debate:Two sides to a coin. The liberals use of Swift Boat

2007-11-07T07:35:34Z

Stitch:

Debate:Two sides to a coin. The liberals use of Swift Boat

2007-11-07T07:34:50Z

Stitch:

Swift boating or to Swift Boat somebody is to falsely discredit them. That's how the liberal uses it. But in reality it is; to level a damaging accusation to which the object has no good response; to produce extensive documentation of same without a rebuttal. In lay person terms; when a liar is caught in a lie but pleads blameless.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 02:36, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

Swift boating means to throw a bunch of spaghetti at the wall and see what sticks. This was attempted in the stories floating around a few weeks ago from the "Madrassa Veterans for Truth" about Barack Obama going to a Q'u'r'a'n school, with the implication that he was a secret muslim (actually he is active in his Christian church). Hillary is gonna face innuendoes from the "Unclosetted Lesbians for Truth" bunch pretty soon. Giuliani is gonna have something new and awful bubble up out of New York City. Romney is having trouble with his ridiculous statement that he is a lifetime NRA member, when he just bought his membership last fall and he's 60 years old. [[User:Teresita|Teresita]] 03:10, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

So, throw out a bunch of false accusations (spaghetti) and see which one is true (sticks)?--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 03:39, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

:No, the ones that get media traction (possibly for being titillating and fodder for gossip around the watercooler) are the ones that stick. [[User:Teresita|Teresita]] 08:30, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

:Oh so Teresita, there is no truth behind swift boating, definetely the liberal version.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 10:10, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

Perhaps there should be an official "Swift Boat" page. I came to conservapedia to try to get the other side of the coin. Certainly it's used as a pejorative, but when used in discussion, it's a term to which there are definitely two sides. I really don't know much about the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, but when I do searches for it, all I see is for the most part the wikipedia side of the story, (for example http://swiftvets.eriposte.com/kerrypurpleheart1.htm) with claims such as only one member of the swift boat veterans for truth served on the boat with him, and he was not present for those circumstances where Kerry earned his medals. A definitive page here on Conservapedia would help to show the other side of this debate. For the casual searcher, it seems as though there is only one substantive side to the story, there is no response on the swift boat web site to many inconsistencies raised, and perhaps the truth could come out here. --[[User:Stitch]] 11:30 6 November 2007
[[Category:Conservapedia Debates]]

Debate:Two sides to a coin. The liberals use of Swift Boat

2007-11-07T07:33:32Z

Stitch: