Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:Fox News Channel

2010-08-10T19:43:38Z

Lono:

Question: Is it the job of a news channel such as Fox, CNN, etc. to present the news and allow the viewer to decide or to take it upon itself to criticize the policies of the President? It seemed like during the reign of GWB, Fox chose to limit its criticism of the President, and instead leveled it at the President's critics. During Obama's Presidency, they criticize the President, while painting Obama's critics as Patriots, those people who embody the spirit of this nation. You simply cannot be an intelligent, responsible American and not see whats going on at Fox. They aim their "negativity cannon" at opponents of the GOP. Plain and Simple

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)

:You think I watch Fox News? I don't have cable TV at all. Not even rabbit ears anymore. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 19:18, 28 January 2008 (EST)

Eh, who needs TV when you have the internet? :P--[[User:ITSAMEMARIO|ITSAMEMARIO]] 20:24, 30 April 2008 (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)

*Do we have a citation for "It's been trouncing CNN, MSNBC and CNBC for years, and it quite often draws a much larger audience share than all competitors, combined."?
--[[User:Cowbell14|Cowbell14]] 15:18, 10 December 2007 (EST)

*Please tag that the sentence "It's been trouncing CNN, MSNBC and CNBC for years, and it quite often draws a much larger audience share than all competitors, combined."? needs to be cited. Recent information shows that CNN has slightly pulled ahead in overall ratings but can most likely be explained because of the major advertising campaigns they've been using. Regardless it needs a source cited to be an accurate statement and not just an opinion. --[[User:TheRockstar|TheRockstar]] 20:43, 1 February 2008 (EST)

*Please help ensure accuracy by removing opinion or conjecture and citing sources. Example: "Who can say what host Greta Van Susteren's politics are? She mostly covers the crime-of-the-day stories. Geraldo Rivera has always been liberal on most issues, with the exception of being a strong supporter of the military and stiff penalties for sex offenders.". This statement does not cite a source. While I may know from viewing that Rivera has been more liberal then others on the network people who are trying to get an educated factual statement don't know where it came from --[[User:TheRockstar|TheRockstar]] 20:47, 1 February 2008 (EST)

I would think it would be a good idea to have an article about the criticism fox news has gotten (I myself DO think it is a right wing station though) But some of the criticism it has gotten is a little bit absurd, and it would be somthing interesting to talk about.--[[User:ITSAMEMARIO|ITSAMEMARIO]] 20:27, 30 April 2008 (EDT)

== 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)

Yes, but he WAS a registered rebulican, and he supossed was one when he was saying he is "independent" [[user:thegovernator]]

== 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. {{unsigned|Stitch}}-- 00:54, 7 November 2007

*Well, news items are news items, articles in encyclopedia's are not the same, yes? What have one to do with the other? The source given was hard to find, but seems to be from someone's blog, and part of the citation there comes from one of those tabloid-like newspapers in the United Kingdom. Sort of a circuitous way to bring election coverage to the United States in my opinion, wouldn't you agree? So one should imagine whoever placed that item was just trying to use this silly sourced item for provoking discussion. --[[User:TK|şyŝoρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 04:53, 7 November 2007 (EST)

== By way of criticism: Fox News still has a liberal style ==

To demonstrate the impact [[liberal bias]] has on the media, this article should note some instances where the "liberal" style of news commentary remains on Fox, for example:
* "preference for obscenity and profanity" http://foxnewsporn.com/
* "over-reliance on mockery" - Fox commentary shows do a lot of this, it's not very Christian
* "believing that conservatives will fail" Fox's election coverage sometimes portrays Hillary as inevitable because of the overwhelming media consensus
* "pretending to know more than he does" Fox's commentators, especially O'Reilly, sometimes presume to know things they don't know

In this way the criticisms liberals lodge at Fox can be turned back at them as examples of typical liberal style. [[User:Shii|Shii]] 23:30, 23 November 2007 (EST)

:Wow, way to turn Classic Conservative actions into "liberal ones"
: "over-reliance on mockery" and "pretending to know more than he does" You say yourself these are actions of O'Reilly and yet you somehow claim they are liberal actions. When faced with the ugly truth that Fox News is actually a tool of conservative propaganda....deny deny deny, eh? -Lono

== Proof that Fox Noise has an agenda. ==
[http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-begala/fox-news-we-report-e_b_80698.html Fox News: We Report -- Even if We Know It's False] Paul Begala complains about the lies told about him on air.

[http://www.g4tv.com/thefeed/blog/post/682323/EA_Slaps_Fox_News.html EA Slaps Fox News] EA's response to Fox News' recent overexaggerated claims of pornography in Mass Effect. Farren Ballast. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 23:04, 24 January 2008 (EST)
:Fox dutifully fulfills New Media Are Evil: [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DNO6G4ApJQY here] and [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tWVDRx-V5n4 here] Then you've got [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oGqPxn7njqM Fox News editing footage to make a dem look worse] [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5L5dYzu1w9k Fox ignoring Ron Paul], [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZxAPf2x96I0 Fox attacking "non-existant" veterans], and [http://foxattacks.com/ pretty much everything from Fox Attacks.]
:MSM is garbage. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 16:06, 27 January 2008 (EST)

::No? Fox Noise Channel's lies and attacks don't even warrant a "BUT THOSE ARE LOCAL CHANNELS" response? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 16:49, 28 January 2008 (EST)

:::If you wish to continue to call it "Fox Noise Channel," please feel free to go back to DK or DU or wherever you came from (after I request that you be permanently blocked as a troll for it). [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 19:21, 28 January 2008 (EST)

::::Stop trolling, Barakada. Maybe the reason you've been ignored is that nobody can take you seriously. How about you actually write something and say "this is what I think should go into the article" instead of posting a bunch of links strung together with nonesense and opinion? [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 19:25, 28 January 2008 (EST)

:::::Al...right... How about "The above links are proof that Fox News Channel does, indeed, have an agenda, and devotes parts of it's airtime to attacking forms of new media for no apparent reason, snubbing legit candidates, and attacking America's most patriotic citizens-- it's veterans."? Seriously, though, I thought I was allowed to show opinion on talk pages. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 23:25, 28 January 2008 (EST)

::::::You are allowed to have an opinion. I've already said it's not ''what'' you said but how you said it. Nobody's going to do the work for you, so if you want something placed into the article, write it up, including wikimarkup, and ask someone (I think it has to be a sysop) to either unlock the page or put the text in. None of your above posts are written in good encyclopedic form, so if indeed you were suggesting material for addition, the value of what you said got lost in the noise. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 00:16, 29 January 2008 (EST)

:::::::I didn't expect anyone to put my exact comments in the article. Even if I were to put the links above in in an encyclopedic form in a criticism section, I would surely be banned. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 19:47, 29 January 2008 (EST)

::::::::I don't get the point of complaining if you fully intend not to be taken seriously. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 10:26, 30 January 2008 (EST)

:::::::::I do intend to be taken seriously. However, I fully realise that any attempt to include those links in the article will come off as liberal bias, because it is. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 22:21, 30 January 2008 (EST)

Barikada, please take your [[liberal]] links and your [[liberal]] stories elsewhere. Or else try being more fair and balanced, like Fox News. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 19:31, 28 January 2008 (EST)

:Don't you start it now too, Feebas. There's nothing wrong with his links by themselves, but instead the problem is the manner in which he presented them. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 19:37, 28 January 2008 (EST)

::I'm sorry... :) Admittedly, Barikada could have been a bit less grating and sardonic in his presentation. And perhaps - if it were kept relatively neutral/objective - a reasonable section on "criticisms of Fox News" section could even be written (not sure how well it'd go over, but regardless). [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 23:31, 28 January 2008 (EST)

:::I think as long as the [[Conservapedia:Guidelines]] are followed (particularly #Attribution), there is no reason why we shouldn't have a criticism section. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 00:16, 29 January 2008 (EST)

::::Criticism, yes. Hate-fueled smearing, no. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 00:10, 30 January 2008 (EST)

:::::Exactly. We don't allow that here, but neutral criticism is ok. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 10:26, 30 January 2008 (EST)

::::::The links above are hate-filled, I agree. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 22:21, 30 January 2008 (EST)

[http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/26/arts/television/26mass.html This] clear retraction by Cooper Lawrence, the author who made the accusation makes the Roger Ailes quote seem pretty empty - "If you make a mistake, get on the air as fast as you can and admit it. ... Do your homework."

Also, despite having a commentator who had actually played the game available, Fox chose not to use him in the broadcast. It makes this quote of his fairly hollow-sounding: "Make sure you reach out to a point of view you don't agree with to be sure you have some balance in your piece, because journalists, despite the public perception, are not empty-headed fools.".

Hollow, that is, unless Fox does indeed retract. Which they may. When Hell freezes over. [[User:Reasonableperson|Reasonableperson]] 22:43, 29 January 2008 (EST)

I believe that, at the very least, the Begala bit should at least get some mention-- there's no way to spin that. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 22:21, 30 January 2008 (EST)

==Fox's ratings take another dive==
[http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/01/31/fox-news-ratings-take-another-slide/] Fox's ratings are dropping. If the decline of newspaper circulation is proof that society is becoming more liberal (As seen on the main page's talk page, courtesy of Andy) what does this mean? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 19:50, 3 February 2008 (EST)
:Crooks and Liars and Media Matters. Wow. Great sources, Barikada. What's next? The Weekly World News? Don't bother clicking the link, folks. It's just mindless, biased liberal propaganda. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 15:02, 4 February 2008 (EST)
::Besides, any drop in [[Fox News]]' ratings is likely due to the liberal [[MSM]], trying to draw viewers away from responsable, balanced reporting with their [[liberal]] [[propaganda]]. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 18:05, 4 February 2008 (EST)

==Category change==

The Category:Broadcasting should be removed now that it is a supercategory of Category:Cable TV Networks. -[[User:Foxtrot|Foxtrot]] 16:53, 16 July 2008 (EDT)

== Unencyclopedic ==

"There's no doubt, of course, that Fox News is closer to mainstream America than CBS, ABC, NBC or CNN. But, after all, that was its founding mission."

The preceding reads as an opinion. I am not arguing that the statement is untrue but I don't think a statement like that belongs in an encyclopedia. Please remove or rephrase. --[[User:Wikidan81|Wikidan81]] 11:15, 23 September 2008 (EDT)

== Sorry (re: Fox entertainment) ==

I was just trying to clarify criticism of Fox by conservatives. Should I make another article and link it?[[User:AlexanderM|AlexanderM]] 19:55, 13 December 2008 (EST)

:That's one alternative....check and make sure we don't already have an article about "Big Fox". They are all different corporate entities, the different networks, News, Sports, TV, etc. Thanks! --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk!]] 19:58, 13 December 2008 (EST)
::[[Fox Network]]. Checked, and expanded.-[[User:AlexanderM|AlexanderM]] 19:59, 13 December 2008 (EST)

== "is a conservative ... channel" ==

I'd think Fox News is pretty unbiased, especially compared to other news channels. I was going to remove the word conservative but wanted to see what everyone here thinks. [[User:SaltLake|SaltLake]] 19:38, 29 January 2009 (EST)

== Conservative ==

Mr. TK sir, isn't it a conservative channel?--[[User:TaroMasuki|TaroMasuki]] 23:02, 29 January 2009 (EST)

:No. Even the John F. Kennedy School of Government, at Harvard, says it is one of the, or the most unbiased and balanced among all networks. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 23:04, 29 January 2009 (EST)
::That is very strange sir because on this thing [http://72.14.235.132/search?q=cache:lLVQk7Cmah8J:content.ksg.harvard.edu/leadership/index2.php%3Foption%3Dcom_content%26do_pdf%3D1%26id%3D539+"john+f+kennedy+school+of+government"+"fox+news+channel"+conservative&hl=ja&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=jp] from them it says that 74% of the people who like it are conservative or very conservative, which sir would ordinarily lead me to believe that its coverage tends to be conservative.--[[User:TaroMasuki|TaroMasuki]] 23:10, 29 January 2009 (EST)
Try watching Fox News for ten minutes and tell me where you see any conservative bias around. [[User:SaltLake|SaltLake]] 16:06, 30 January 2009 (EST)
:I am truly amazed at the 'head in the sand' mentality you display. Everything about Fox News screams conservative bias. Their constant criticism of everything
:the Democrats do and their hippocricical switching from "support the president, no matter what" during Bush Jr.'s terms to "Obama is unAmerican and destroying this
:country" is obvious. You know, I think most Americans would respect the Conservative movement more if they would just ADMIT that yes, Fox is a biased tool
:of the Republican/Conservative party rather than attempting to deny it. Its laughable in its obvious-ness. [[User:Lono|Lono]] 15:40, 10 August 2010

Talk:Fox News Channel

2010-08-10T19:43:03Z

Lono:

Question: Is it the job of a news channel such as Fox, CNN, etc. to present the news and allow the viewer to decide or to take it upon itself to criticize the policies of the President? It seemed like during the reign of GWB, Fox chose to limit its criticism of the President, and instead leveled it at the President's critics. During Obama's Presidency, they criticize the President, while painging Obama's critics as Patriots, those people who embody the spirit of this nation. You simply cannot be an intelligent, responsible American and not see whats going on at Fox. They aim their "negativity cannon" at opponents of the GOP. Plain and Simple

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)

:You think I watch Fox News? I don't have cable TV at all. Not even rabbit ears anymore. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 19:18, 28 January 2008 (EST)

Eh, who needs TV when you have the internet? :P--[[User:ITSAMEMARIO|ITSAMEMARIO]] 20:24, 30 April 2008 (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)

*Do we have a citation for "It's been trouncing CNN, MSNBC and CNBC for years, and it quite often draws a much larger audience share than all competitors, combined."?
--[[User:Cowbell14|Cowbell14]] 15:18, 10 December 2007 (EST)

*Please tag that the sentence "It's been trouncing CNN, MSNBC and CNBC for years, and it quite often draws a much larger audience share than all competitors, combined."? needs to be cited. Recent information shows that CNN has slightly pulled ahead in overall ratings but can most likely be explained because of the major advertising campaigns they've been using. Regardless it needs a source cited to be an accurate statement and not just an opinion. --[[User:TheRockstar|TheRockstar]] 20:43, 1 February 2008 (EST)

*Please help ensure accuracy by removing opinion or conjecture and citing sources. Example: "Who can say what host Greta Van Susteren's politics are? She mostly covers the crime-of-the-day stories. Geraldo Rivera has always been liberal on most issues, with the exception of being a strong supporter of the military and stiff penalties for sex offenders.". This statement does not cite a source. While I may know from viewing that Rivera has been more liberal then others on the network people who are trying to get an educated factual statement don't know where it came from --[[User:TheRockstar|TheRockstar]] 20:47, 1 February 2008 (EST)

I would think it would be a good idea to have an article about the criticism fox news has gotten (I myself DO think it is a right wing station though) But some of the criticism it has gotten is a little bit absurd, and it would be somthing interesting to talk about.--[[User:ITSAMEMARIO|ITSAMEMARIO]] 20:27, 30 April 2008 (EDT)

== 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)

Yes, but he WAS a registered rebulican, and he supossed was one when he was saying he is "independent" [[user:thegovernator]]

== 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. {{unsigned|Stitch}}-- 00:54, 7 November 2007

*Well, news items are news items, articles in encyclopedia's are not the same, yes? What have one to do with the other? The source given was hard to find, but seems to be from someone's blog, and part of the citation there comes from one of those tabloid-like newspapers in the United Kingdom. Sort of a circuitous way to bring election coverage to the United States in my opinion, wouldn't you agree? So one should imagine whoever placed that item was just trying to use this silly sourced item for provoking discussion. --[[User:TK|şyŝoρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 04:53, 7 November 2007 (EST)

== By way of criticism: Fox News still has a liberal style ==

To demonstrate the impact [[liberal bias]] has on the media, this article should note some instances where the "liberal" style of news commentary remains on Fox, for example:
* "preference for obscenity and profanity" http://foxnewsporn.com/
* "over-reliance on mockery" - Fox commentary shows do a lot of this, it's not very Christian
* "believing that conservatives will fail" Fox's election coverage sometimes portrays Hillary as inevitable because of the overwhelming media consensus
* "pretending to know more than he does" Fox's commentators, especially O'Reilly, sometimes presume to know things they don't know

In this way the criticisms liberals lodge at Fox can be turned back at them as examples of typical liberal style. [[User:Shii|Shii]] 23:30, 23 November 2007 (EST)

:Wow, way to turn Classic Conservative actions into "liberal ones"
: "over-reliance on mockery" and "pretending to know more than he does" You say yourself these are actions of O'Reilly and yet you somehow claim they are liberal actions. When faced with the ugly truth that Fox News is actually a tool of conservative propaganda....deny deny deny, eh? -Lono

== Proof that Fox Noise has an agenda. ==
[http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-begala/fox-news-we-report-e_b_80698.html Fox News: We Report -- Even if We Know It's False] Paul Begala complains about the lies told about him on air.

[http://www.g4tv.com/thefeed/blog/post/682323/EA_Slaps_Fox_News.html EA Slaps Fox News] EA's response to Fox News' recent overexaggerated claims of pornography in Mass Effect. Farren Ballast. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 23:04, 24 January 2008 (EST)
:Fox dutifully fulfills New Media Are Evil: [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DNO6G4ApJQY here] and [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tWVDRx-V5n4 here] Then you've got [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oGqPxn7njqM Fox News editing footage to make a dem look worse] [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5L5dYzu1w9k Fox ignoring Ron Paul], [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZxAPf2x96I0 Fox attacking "non-existant" veterans], and [http://foxattacks.com/ pretty much everything from Fox Attacks.]
:MSM is garbage. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 16:06, 27 January 2008 (EST)

::No? Fox Noise Channel's lies and attacks don't even warrant a "BUT THOSE ARE LOCAL CHANNELS" response? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 16:49, 28 January 2008 (EST)

:::If you wish to continue to call it "Fox Noise Channel," please feel free to go back to DK or DU or wherever you came from (after I request that you be permanently blocked as a troll for it). [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 19:21, 28 January 2008 (EST)

::::Stop trolling, Barakada. Maybe the reason you've been ignored is that nobody can take you seriously. How about you actually write something and say "this is what I think should go into the article" instead of posting a bunch of links strung together with nonesense and opinion? [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 19:25, 28 January 2008 (EST)

:::::Al...right... How about "The above links are proof that Fox News Channel does, indeed, have an agenda, and devotes parts of it's airtime to attacking forms of new media for no apparent reason, snubbing legit candidates, and attacking America's most patriotic citizens-- it's veterans."? Seriously, though, I thought I was allowed to show opinion on talk pages. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 23:25, 28 January 2008 (EST)

::::::You are allowed to have an opinion. I've already said it's not ''what'' you said but how you said it. Nobody's going to do the work for you, so if you want something placed into the article, write it up, including wikimarkup, and ask someone (I think it has to be a sysop) to either unlock the page or put the text in. None of your above posts are written in good encyclopedic form, so if indeed you were suggesting material for addition, the value of what you said got lost in the noise. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 00:16, 29 January 2008 (EST)

:::::::I didn't expect anyone to put my exact comments in the article. Even if I were to put the links above in in an encyclopedic form in a criticism section, I would surely be banned. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 19:47, 29 January 2008 (EST)

::::::::I don't get the point of complaining if you fully intend not to be taken seriously. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 10:26, 30 January 2008 (EST)

:::::::::I do intend to be taken seriously. However, I fully realise that any attempt to include those links in the article will come off as liberal bias, because it is. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 22:21, 30 January 2008 (EST)

Barikada, please take your [[liberal]] links and your [[liberal]] stories elsewhere. Or else try being more fair and balanced, like Fox News. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 19:31, 28 January 2008 (EST)

:Don't you start it now too, Feebas. There's nothing wrong with his links by themselves, but instead the problem is the manner in which he presented them. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 19:37, 28 January 2008 (EST)

::I'm sorry... :) Admittedly, Barikada could have been a bit less grating and sardonic in his presentation. And perhaps - if it were kept relatively neutral/objective - a reasonable section on "criticisms of Fox News" section could even be written (not sure how well it'd go over, but regardless). [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 23:31, 28 January 2008 (EST)

:::I think as long as the [[Conservapedia:Guidelines]] are followed (particularly #Attribution), there is no reason why we shouldn't have a criticism section. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 00:16, 29 January 2008 (EST)

::::Criticism, yes. Hate-fueled smearing, no. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 00:10, 30 January 2008 (EST)

:::::Exactly. We don't allow that here, but neutral criticism is ok. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 10:26, 30 January 2008 (EST)

::::::The links above are hate-filled, I agree. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 22:21, 30 January 2008 (EST)

[http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/26/arts/television/26mass.html This] clear retraction by Cooper Lawrence, the author who made the accusation makes the Roger Ailes quote seem pretty empty - "If you make a mistake, get on the air as fast as you can and admit it. ... Do your homework."

Also, despite having a commentator who had actually played the game available, Fox chose not to use him in the broadcast. It makes this quote of his fairly hollow-sounding: "Make sure you reach out to a point of view you don't agree with to be sure you have some balance in your piece, because journalists, despite the public perception, are not empty-headed fools.".

Hollow, that is, unless Fox does indeed retract. Which they may. When Hell freezes over. [[User:Reasonableperson|Reasonableperson]] 22:43, 29 January 2008 (EST)

I believe that, at the very least, the Begala bit should at least get some mention-- there's no way to spin that. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 22:21, 30 January 2008 (EST)

==Fox's ratings take another dive==
[http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/01/31/fox-news-ratings-take-another-slide/] Fox's ratings are dropping. If the decline of newspaper circulation is proof that society is becoming more liberal (As seen on the main page's talk page, courtesy of Andy) what does this mean? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 19:50, 3 February 2008 (EST)
:Crooks and Liars and Media Matters. Wow. Great sources, Barikada. What's next? The Weekly World News? Don't bother clicking the link, folks. It's just mindless, biased liberal propaganda. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 15:02, 4 February 2008 (EST)
::Besides, any drop in [[Fox News]]' ratings is likely due to the liberal [[MSM]], trying to draw viewers away from responsable, balanced reporting with their [[liberal]] [[propaganda]]. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 18:05, 4 February 2008 (EST)

==Category change==

The Category:Broadcasting should be removed now that it is a supercategory of Category:Cable TV Networks. -[[User:Foxtrot|Foxtrot]] 16:53, 16 July 2008 (EDT)

== Unencyclopedic ==

"There's no doubt, of course, that Fox News is closer to mainstream America than CBS, ABC, NBC or CNN. But, after all, that was its founding mission."

The preceding reads as an opinion. I am not arguing that the statement is untrue but I don't think a statement like that belongs in an encyclopedia. Please remove or rephrase. --[[User:Wikidan81|Wikidan81]] 11:15, 23 September 2008 (EDT)

== Sorry (re: Fox entertainment) ==

I was just trying to clarify criticism of Fox by conservatives. Should I make another article and link it?[[User:AlexanderM|AlexanderM]] 19:55, 13 December 2008 (EST)

:That's one alternative....check and make sure we don't already have an article about "Big Fox". They are all different corporate entities, the different networks, News, Sports, TV, etc. Thanks! --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk!]] 19:58, 13 December 2008 (EST)
::[[Fox Network]]. Checked, and expanded.-[[User:AlexanderM|AlexanderM]] 19:59, 13 December 2008 (EST)

== "is a conservative ... channel" ==

I'd think Fox News is pretty unbiased, especially compared to other news channels. I was going to remove the word conservative but wanted to see what everyone here thinks. [[User:SaltLake|SaltLake]] 19:38, 29 January 2009 (EST)

== Conservative ==

Mr. TK sir, isn't it a conservative channel?--[[User:TaroMasuki|TaroMasuki]] 23:02, 29 January 2009 (EST)

:No. Even the John F. Kennedy School of Government, at Harvard, says it is one of the, or the most unbiased and balanced among all networks. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 23:04, 29 January 2009 (EST)
::That is very strange sir because on this thing [http://72.14.235.132/search?q=cache:lLVQk7Cmah8J:content.ksg.harvard.edu/leadership/index2.php%3Foption%3Dcom_content%26do_pdf%3D1%26id%3D539+"john+f+kennedy+school+of+government"+"fox+news+channel"+conservative&hl=ja&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=jp] from them it says that 74% of the people who like it are conservative or very conservative, which sir would ordinarily lead me to believe that its coverage tends to be conservative.--[[User:TaroMasuki|TaroMasuki]] 23:10, 29 January 2009 (EST)
Try watching Fox News for ten minutes and tell me where you see any conservative bias around. [[User:SaltLake|SaltLake]] 16:06, 30 January 2009 (EST)
:I am truly amazed at the 'head in the sand' mentality you display. Everything about Fox News screams conservative bias. Their constant criticism of everything
:the Democrats do and their hippocricical switching from "support the president, no matter what" during Bush Jr.'s terms to "Obama is unAmerican and destroying this
:country" is obvious. You know, I think most Americans would respect the Conservative movement more if they would just ADMIT that yes, Fox is a biased tool
:of the Republican/Conservative party rather than attempting to deny it. Its laughable in its obvious-ness. [[User:Lono|Lono]] 15:40, 10 August 2010

Talk:Fox News Channel

2010-08-10T19:33:47Z

Lono: /* Conservative */

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)

:You think I watch Fox News? I don't have cable TV at all. Not even rabbit ears anymore. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 19:18, 28 January 2008 (EST)

Eh, who needs TV when you have the internet? :P--[[User:ITSAMEMARIO|ITSAMEMARIO]] 20:24, 30 April 2008 (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)

*Do we have a citation for "It's been trouncing CNN, MSNBC and CNBC for years, and it quite often draws a much larger audience share than all competitors, combined."?
--[[User:Cowbell14|Cowbell14]] 15:18, 10 December 2007 (EST)

*Please tag that the sentence "It's been trouncing CNN, MSNBC and CNBC for years, and it quite often draws a much larger audience share than all competitors, combined."? needs to be cited. Recent information shows that CNN has slightly pulled ahead in overall ratings but can most likely be explained because of the major advertising campaigns they've been using. Regardless it needs a source cited to be an accurate statement and not just an opinion. --[[User:TheRockstar|TheRockstar]] 20:43, 1 February 2008 (EST)

*Please help ensure accuracy by removing opinion or conjecture and citing sources. Example: "Who can say what host Greta Van Susteren's politics are? She mostly covers the crime-of-the-day stories. Geraldo Rivera has always been liberal on most issues, with the exception of being a strong supporter of the military and stiff penalties for sex offenders.". This statement does not cite a source. While I may know from viewing that Rivera has been more liberal then others on the network people who are trying to get an educated factual statement don't know where it came from --[[User:TheRockstar|TheRockstar]] 20:47, 1 February 2008 (EST)

I would think it would be a good idea to have an article about the criticism fox news has gotten (I myself DO think it is a right wing station though) But some of the criticism it has gotten is a little bit absurd, and it would be somthing interesting to talk about.--[[User:ITSAMEMARIO|ITSAMEMARIO]] 20:27, 30 April 2008 (EDT)

== 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)

Yes, but he WAS a registered rebulican, and he supossed was one when he was saying he is "independent" [[user:thegovernator]]

== 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. {{unsigned|Stitch}}-- 00:54, 7 November 2007

*Well, news items are news items, articles in encyclopedia's are not the same, yes? What have one to do with the other? The source given was hard to find, but seems to be from someone's blog, and part of the citation there comes from one of those tabloid-like newspapers in the United Kingdom. Sort of a circuitous way to bring election coverage to the United States in my opinion, wouldn't you agree? So one should imagine whoever placed that item was just trying to use this silly sourced item for provoking discussion. --[[User:TK|şyŝoρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 04:53, 7 November 2007 (EST)

== By way of criticism: Fox News still has a liberal style ==

To demonstrate the impact [[liberal bias]] has on the media, this article should note some instances where the "liberal" style of news commentary remains on Fox, for example:
* "preference for obscenity and profanity" http://foxnewsporn.com/
* "over-reliance on mockery" - Fox commentary shows do a lot of this, it's not very Christian
* "believing that conservatives will fail" Fox's election coverage sometimes portrays Hillary as inevitable because of the overwhelming media consensus
* "pretending to know more than he does" Fox's commentators, especially O'Reilly, sometimes presume to know things they don't know

In this way the criticisms liberals lodge at Fox can be turned back at them as examples of typical liberal style. [[User:Shii|Shii]] 23:30, 23 November 2007 (EST)

:Wow, way to turn Classic Conservative actions into "liberal ones"
: "over-reliance on mockery" and "pretending to know more than he does" You say yourself these are actions of O'Reilly and yet you somehow claim they are liberal actions. When faced with the ugly truth that Fox News is actually a tool of conservative propaganda....deny deny deny, eh? -Lono

== Proof that Fox Noise has an agenda. ==
[http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-begala/fox-news-we-report-e_b_80698.html Fox News: We Report -- Even if We Know It's False] Paul Begala complains about the lies told about him on air.

[http://www.g4tv.com/thefeed/blog/post/682323/EA_Slaps_Fox_News.html EA Slaps Fox News] EA's response to Fox News' recent overexaggerated claims of pornography in Mass Effect. Farren Ballast. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 23:04, 24 January 2008 (EST)
:Fox dutifully fulfills New Media Are Evil: [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DNO6G4ApJQY here] and [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tWVDRx-V5n4 here] Then you've got [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oGqPxn7njqM Fox News editing footage to make a dem look worse] [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5L5dYzu1w9k Fox ignoring Ron Paul], [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZxAPf2x96I0 Fox attacking "non-existant" veterans], and [http://foxattacks.com/ pretty much everything from Fox Attacks.]
:MSM is garbage. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 16:06, 27 January 2008 (EST)

::No? Fox Noise Channel's lies and attacks don't even warrant a "BUT THOSE ARE LOCAL CHANNELS" response? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 16:49, 28 January 2008 (EST)

:::If you wish to continue to call it "Fox Noise Channel," please feel free to go back to DK or DU or wherever you came from (after I request that you be permanently blocked as a troll for it). [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 19:21, 28 January 2008 (EST)

::::Stop trolling, Barakada. Maybe the reason you've been ignored is that nobody can take you seriously. How about you actually write something and say "this is what I think should go into the article" instead of posting a bunch of links strung together with nonesense and opinion? [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 19:25, 28 January 2008 (EST)

:::::Al...right... How about "The above links are proof that Fox News Channel does, indeed, have an agenda, and devotes parts of it's airtime to attacking forms of new media for no apparent reason, snubbing legit candidates, and attacking America's most patriotic citizens-- it's veterans."? Seriously, though, I thought I was allowed to show opinion on talk pages. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 23:25, 28 January 2008 (EST)

::::::You are allowed to have an opinion. I've already said it's not ''what'' you said but how you said it. Nobody's going to do the work for you, so if you want something placed into the article, write it up, including wikimarkup, and ask someone (I think it has to be a sysop) to either unlock the page or put the text in. None of your above posts are written in good encyclopedic form, so if indeed you were suggesting material for addition, the value of what you said got lost in the noise. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 00:16, 29 January 2008 (EST)

:::::::I didn't expect anyone to put my exact comments in the article. Even if I were to put the links above in in an encyclopedic form in a criticism section, I would surely be banned. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 19:47, 29 January 2008 (EST)

::::::::I don't get the point of complaining if you fully intend not to be taken seriously. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 10:26, 30 January 2008 (EST)

:::::::::I do intend to be taken seriously. However, I fully realise that any attempt to include those links in the article will come off as liberal bias, because it is. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 22:21, 30 January 2008 (EST)

Barikada, please take your [[liberal]] links and your [[liberal]] stories elsewhere. Or else try being more fair and balanced, like Fox News. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 19:31, 28 January 2008 (EST)

:Don't you start it now too, Feebas. There's nothing wrong with his links by themselves, but instead the problem is the manner in which he presented them. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 19:37, 28 January 2008 (EST)

::I'm sorry... :) Admittedly, Barikada could have been a bit less grating and sardonic in his presentation. And perhaps - if it were kept relatively neutral/objective - a reasonable section on "criticisms of Fox News" section could even be written (not sure how well it'd go over, but regardless). [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 23:31, 28 January 2008 (EST)

:::I think as long as the [[Conservapedia:Guidelines]] are followed (particularly #Attribution), there is no reason why we shouldn't have a criticism section. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 00:16, 29 January 2008 (EST)

::::Criticism, yes. Hate-fueled smearing, no. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 00:10, 30 January 2008 (EST)

:::::Exactly. We don't allow that here, but neutral criticism is ok. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 10:26, 30 January 2008 (EST)

::::::The links above are hate-filled, I agree. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 22:21, 30 January 2008 (EST)

[http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/26/arts/television/26mass.html This] clear retraction by Cooper Lawrence, the author who made the accusation makes the Roger Ailes quote seem pretty empty - "If you make a mistake, get on the air as fast as you can and admit it. ... Do your homework."

Also, despite having a commentator who had actually played the game available, Fox chose not to use him in the broadcast. It makes this quote of his fairly hollow-sounding: "Make sure you reach out to a point of view you don't agree with to be sure you have some balance in your piece, because journalists, despite the public perception, are not empty-headed fools.".

Hollow, that is, unless Fox does indeed retract. Which they may. When Hell freezes over. [[User:Reasonableperson|Reasonableperson]] 22:43, 29 January 2008 (EST)

I believe that, at the very least, the Begala bit should at least get some mention-- there's no way to spin that. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 22:21, 30 January 2008 (EST)

==Fox's ratings take another dive==
[http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/01/31/fox-news-ratings-take-another-slide/] Fox's ratings are dropping. If the decline of newspaper circulation is proof that society is becoming more liberal (As seen on the main page's talk page, courtesy of Andy) what does this mean? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 19:50, 3 February 2008 (EST)
:Crooks and Liars and Media Matters. Wow. Great sources, Barikada. What's next? The Weekly World News? Don't bother clicking the link, folks. It's just mindless, biased liberal propaganda. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 15:02, 4 February 2008 (EST)
::Besides, any drop in [[Fox News]]' ratings is likely due to the liberal [[MSM]], trying to draw viewers away from responsable, balanced reporting with their [[liberal]] [[propaganda]]. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 18:05, 4 February 2008 (EST)

==Category change==

The Category:Broadcasting should be removed now that it is a supercategory of Category:Cable TV Networks. -[[User:Foxtrot|Foxtrot]] 16:53, 16 July 2008 (EDT)

== Unencyclopedic ==

"There's no doubt, of course, that Fox News is closer to mainstream America than CBS, ABC, NBC or CNN. But, after all, that was its founding mission."

The preceding reads as an opinion. I am not arguing that the statement is untrue but I don't think a statement like that belongs in an encyclopedia. Please remove or rephrase. --[[User:Wikidan81|Wikidan81]] 11:15, 23 September 2008 (EDT)

== Sorry (re: Fox entertainment) ==

I was just trying to clarify criticism of Fox by conservatives. Should I make another article and link it?[[User:AlexanderM|AlexanderM]] 19:55, 13 December 2008 (EST)

:That's one alternative....check and make sure we don't already have an article about "Big Fox". They are all different corporate entities, the different networks, News, Sports, TV, etc. Thanks! --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk!]] 19:58, 13 December 2008 (EST)
::[[Fox Network]]. Checked, and expanded.-[[User:AlexanderM|AlexanderM]] 19:59, 13 December 2008 (EST)

== "is a conservative ... channel" ==

I'd think Fox News is pretty unbiased, especially compared to other news channels. I was going to remove the word conservative but wanted to see what everyone here thinks. [[User:SaltLake|SaltLake]] 19:38, 29 January 2009 (EST)

== Conservative ==

Mr. TK sir, isn't it a conservative channel?--[[User:TaroMasuki|TaroMasuki]] 23:02, 29 January 2009 (EST)

:No. Even the John F. Kennedy School of Government, at Harvard, says it is one of the, or the most unbiased and balanced among all networks. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 23:04, 29 January 2009 (EST)
::That is very strange sir because on this thing [http://72.14.235.132/search?q=cache:lLVQk7Cmah8J:content.ksg.harvard.edu/leadership/index2.php%3Foption%3Dcom_content%26do_pdf%3D1%26id%3D539+"john+f+kennedy+school+of+government"+"fox+news+channel"+conservative&hl=ja&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=jp] from them it says that 74% of the people who like it are conservative or very conservative, which sir would ordinarily lead me to believe that its coverage tends to be conservative.--[[User:TaroMasuki|TaroMasuki]] 23:10, 29 January 2009 (EST)
Try watching Fox News for ten minutes and tell me where you see any conservative bias around. [[User:SaltLake|SaltLake]] 16:06, 30 January 2009 (EST)
:I am truly amazed at the 'head in the sand' mentality you display. Everything about Fox News screams conservative bias. Their constant criticism of everything
:the Democrats do and their hippocricical switching from "support the president, no matter what" during Bush Jr.'s terms to "Obama is unAmerican and destroying this
:country" is obvious. You know, I think most Americans would respect the Conservative movement more if they would just ADMIT that yes, Fox is a biased tool
:of the Republican/Conservative party rather than attempting to deny it. Its laughable in its obvious-ness. [[User:Lono|Lono]] 15:40, 10 August 2010

Talk:Fox News Channel

2010-08-10T19:26:35Z

Lono: /* By way of criticism: Fox News still has a liberal style */

Acropolis

2010-08-10T18:53:08Z

Lono:

'''The Acropolis''' is the [[Greek]] term which refers to the portion of a town or city that is built on a hilltop for easy defense. It comes from the Greek "acros" which means summit and "polis" which means city. It literally translates to "the highest point of the city". In ancient [[Greece]] there were many [[city-states]] for geographical reasons, and there was often an "Acropolis" in a city-state. The Acropolis of [[Athens]] is the best known ''Acropolis'' of the world.

== See also ==

*[[Greek empire]]
*[[Pericles]]

[[Image:acropolis.gif|right|thumb|An Acropolis]]

[[category:ancient Greece]]

Talk:Feminist style

2010-08-10T18:47:13Z

Lono:

==Referring to Women as Girls==
This is hardly a 'feminist' style. As a man, I would find it insulting if someone referred to me as a boy, when I am a 30 year old adult. Its common courtesy to not belittle another adult by referring to them as a child. [[User:Lono|Lono]] August 10, 2010

==Sense of Humor==
I find it ironic that this article states that feminists do not have a sense of humor. A lot of my fellow conservatives have no sense of humor whatsoever (which is why the 1/2 hour news hour was a welcome attempt, even if it didn't quite hit the mark). Anyway, this statement is not cited, and sounds like someone's opinion. I would like to remove it, as this is an encyclopedia. The rest of the article was spot on, especially the part about "altering language" to assert their viewpoint (At my college, many female student wanted the "ombudsman" to be called an "ombudsperson", despite the fact that Ombudsman is a Swedish word which has nothing to do with men.)--[[User:APeters|APeters]] 13:34, 6 September 2009 (EDT)

:Please take a look around, beyond the predictably liberal college culture. Type in "feminists" "no sense of humor" in a Yahoo! search and see nearly 30,000 websites pulled up noting this style.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:27, 6 September 2009 (EDT)

::You make a valid and important point, but I bet we can find better evidence to back it up. This is just an argumentum ad populum, and not something that should be taken as evidence -- after all, "conservatives" "no sense of humor" gets 87,000 hits. Anyone know of commentary on humor in the published works of famous feminists? --[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 08:30, 9 September 2009 (EDT)

Point taken.--[[User:APeters|APeters]] 18:51, 7 September 2009 (EDT)

== Title ==
Depsite the fact this article is pathetic (I'm no fan of feminists but really..)I think it Feminist Style sounds awkward. Perhaps 'Characteristics' is a better title.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 01:46, 15 April 2008 (EDT)

== Sexual harassment ==

Please, please, please tell me that the "think sexual harassment is a bad thing" is a vandal strike, or something. Are you telling me there's people out there who believe sexual harassment is a good thing? And that feminists are the only ones who believe it's bad?[[User:Raggs|Raggs]] 07:12, 15 April 2008 (EDT)

== Rape ==
The source for 'regards all men as potential rapists is a link to a blog that no longer exists. Statements, and articles, like this may not help our cause because they seem offensive not only to women but to us. We're better than this. There is no need to mock them or speculate about them. We will not win favor that way. We must stick to highlighting the positives of our own ideas like supporting charity and responsible spending. For the good of our reputation, i think it may be smart to delete this article altogether.[[User:Flounder19|flounder19]] 00:08 {EST}

:Plus, a blog is hardly a primary source for such a bold statement. [[User:Lono|Lono]]

Talk:Feminist style

2010-08-10T18:44:47Z

Lono: /* Rape */

==Sense of Humor==
I find it ironic that this article states that feminists do not have a sense of humor. A lot of my fellow conservatives have no sense of humor whatsoever (which is why the 1/2 hour news hour was a welcome attempt, even if it didn't quite hit the mark). Anyway, this statement is not cited, and sounds like someone's opinion. I would like to remove it, as this is an encyclopedia. The rest of the article was spot on, especially the part about "altering language" to assert their viewpoint (At my college, many female student wanted the "ombudsman" to be called an "ombudsperson", despite the fact that Ombudsman is a Swedish word which has nothing to do with men.)--[[User:APeters|APeters]] 13:34, 6 September 2009 (EDT)

:Please take a look around, beyond the predictably liberal college culture. Type in "feminists" "no sense of humor" in a Yahoo! search and see nearly 30,000 websites pulled up noting this style.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:27, 6 September 2009 (EDT)

::You make a valid and important point, but I bet we can find better evidence to back it up. This is just an argumentum ad populum, and not something that should be taken as evidence -- after all, "conservatives" "no sense of humor" gets 87,000 hits. Anyone know of commentary on humor in the published works of famous feminists? --[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 08:30, 9 September 2009 (EDT)

Point taken.--[[User:APeters|APeters]] 18:51, 7 September 2009 (EDT)

== Title ==
Depsite the fact this article is pathetic (I'm no fan of feminists but really..)I think it Feminist Style sounds awkward. Perhaps 'Characteristics' is a better title.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 01:46, 15 April 2008 (EDT)

== Sexual harassment ==

Please, please, please tell me that the "think sexual harassment is a bad thing" is a vandal strike, or something. Are you telling me there's people out there who believe sexual harassment is a good thing? And that feminists are the only ones who believe it's bad?[[User:Raggs|Raggs]] 07:12, 15 April 2008 (EDT)

== Rape ==
The source for 'regards all men as potential rapists is a link to a blog that no longer exists. Statements, and articles, like this may not help our cause because they seem offensive not only to women but to us. We're better than this. There is no need to mock them or speculate about them. We will not win favor that way. We must stick to highlighting the positives of our own ideas like supporting charity and responsible spending. For the good of our reputation, i think it may be smart to delete this article altogether.[[User:Flounder19|flounder19]] 00:08 {EST}

:Plus, a blog is hardly a primary source for such a bold statement. [[User:Lono|Lono]]

Debate: Why have conservatives let themselves get a bad name?

2010-08-10T18:34:44Z

Lono:

{{debate}}
::
I'm young (22) and exposed to a large group of liberals (in college) but it seems to me that the conservative movement has had a real problem with dirty tricks. Nixon was famous for it, outside of watergate his staffers ordered large numbers of pizzas for his opponents to pay for and invited foreign dignitaries and the like to the campaign events of his opponents so they would show up and be turned away at the door. The Neocon movement has embraced torture despite the fact that the US pretty flatly declared that no circumstances of threat could justify torture back in the 80's when we were the great nation leading the world away from torture. Conservatives are supposed to embrace personal liberty and small government, but many want draconian laws limiting free speech and think its alright to give govt. the power to enforce them. Unwarranted surveillance and sending troops to war with out a declaration from congress. This isn't conservative, we are not holding on to our constitution or our values, we are giving them up one by one to do something that looks clever. I see it in religion too, a great many people seem to have a religious outlook on existence that is based on tricking God into giving them eternal life, and attitude where they can go through life being awful in Gods name and then repent and be fine and that Jesus will forgive them because they are sinners. Personally I am a very forgiving individual, but if I learn that someone is going to do something to hurt me and assumes that I will forgive them because they ask me too I am likely to tell them just where they can stick there apology; If you premeditate remorse in to your plan to do something wrong as far as I am concerned no one with even a fraction of all knowing could possibly see that remorse as true rather than an insult on top of the prior wrong doing. --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 16:13, 9 October 2008 (EDT)

: It is because a lot of conservative principles are abhorrent things like opposition to equal rights for everyone, railing against food stamps, and killing middle eastern people. Also if you are not a WASP, you are an America-hating commie, according to the conservative talking heads on tv. [[User:Nrupert|Nrupert]] 13:58, 11 December 2008 (EST)

:: Nixon was a liberal Republican just as Bush and the neo-conservatives are. Brendanw is right about neoconservatism, I frequently tell people that Bush is an "FDR pro-business liberal" and they laugh at me, when in reality neoconservatism was a word invented by & for the anti-Johnson, anti-hippie, pro-business left-wingers of the 1940s (i.e. FDR's Bretton Woods and wanting to end Social Security after the Depression). In addition, most people don't understand how monetary policy and inflation work. (In elementary school until late high school, I could not understand why someone would be "pro-business" instead of pro-poor, and called myself a "Democratic Communist" lol)

:: As for the religion issue, I think people hate Christianity anyway. As a matter of fact, I have yet to meet an atheist who is not motivated by specific hate for specifically Christianity. My father suggests their respect for freedom coupled with hate for Christianity might be Satan-influenced. Who knows.

:: Racism is an issue with many conservatives, I hate to say it but it is a problem we have to face in order to remove a stereotype. While most people want to deal with illegal immigration, reverse discrimination, and preservation of language and culture for non-racist reasons, some seem to be motivated by a subtle racism. For example, I don't know if you've ever heard the Richard Bergis staged prank calls (available on YouTube), but one describes the problem of this subtle racism perfectly. The pranksters tell Bergis that there will be a black NASCAR driver, and at first he starts out making racist jokes, then it's "Can't white people have one thing for themselves?" and finally a slew of insults, racial slurs, and swearing. Now this is exaggerated and (judging by the other ones) fake, but you get my idea. If we are to defeat this stereotype, people who support paleoist ideas have to make it clear that they are not motivated by racism or anti-Semitism and why.

:: And most importantly, biases of left-wing media outlets such as CNN and the once-libertarian-leaning MSNBC must be effectively challenged and exposed by Fox News and talk radio. The left criticizes us for "entertainment news" and reliance on personalities with opinions, but unlike the left' supposed lack of bias we admit it's "opinion". Blogs can help as well in getting the public to realize that there is no "objective news" and each side has an agenda. -[[User:Danq|danq]] 19:10, 19 September 2009 (EDT)

:: Hippocracy. Plain and simple. Conservatives preach and preach but do not hold themselves to the same standards as they try to hold others to. Also, (as on this site) conservatives will use blatantly illogical arguments to attempt to 'prove' their points. Once an intelligent person realizes that these methods are completely ridiculous, conservatives lose credibility. i.e. the one point that I have seen come up time and time again on this site is claiming that somehow a series of arguments have a statistical chance of being 'true' just due to their number. When you try to convince someone that evolution is false by stating that "If any of the counterexamples listed below is correct, then the theory of evolution fails. Moreover, if there is merely a 5% chance that each of these counterexamples is correct (and the odds are far higher than that), then the odds that these counterexamples are all incorrect and that evolution is true becomes very small (only a 4.6% chance that evolution is true with 60 possible counterexamples)." Now, the fact of the matter is that this "5%" chance of being correct is just not true. Merely listing possibilities does not grant any of them a chance of being true. Conversely, that statement of evolution only having a 4.6% chance of being correct is totally made up. You cannot expect people to take conservatives seriously if you are going to use that kind of nonsense logic. I can list 1,000 counterexamples and still have ZERO chance that any of them are true. This illogical argument is used many times, and its still as false in its reasoning as the first time used.
So to sum up, until conservatives begin a)using SOUND LOGIC and FACTS for their arguments rather than this circular "my proof is a link to my own website where i made up all the facts and figures im quoting" b)entertaining the possibility that, yes...everybody is wrong sometimes. Some dearly held conservative beliefs are going to be wrong. Sorry. The sooner that you realize that the "real truth" is probably a blend of your beliefs and the beliefs of your opponents, the better we'll all be. The world is not black and white... and c)The Bible cannot be used as factual evidence. Sorry guys, you cannot admit faith is a major component of the Bible/Christianity and then try to use the Bible as a source of fact. Factual proof does not go hand in hand with Faith. Cant have it both ways.
--Lono

Now, I'm a realist. I'm conservative on certain issues and liberal on others. Let me define the two terms the way I view them. Conservative: keeping things the same, tradition, embracing what works realistically at a given time. Liberal: Thinking outside of convention, newness, rebelliousness to norm. I have both qualities, its part of being human. I believe in gun ownership and also the right to burn the flag. I do not lean to one side or another like the media. The media and politics have forced people to pick sides. But the biggest thing, in my view, that gives conservatives a bad name is that most individuals that declare they are conservative do not think outside the box and impede good progress. Don't forget, the american revolution was a liberal move. Also, many conservatives I know let nationalism and religion cloud true reason. Most liberally minded people think outside the box and rebel and cause much pain for themselves, BUT in doing that searching they find truths and ideas that challenge those who do not challenge convention but merely accept it for what it is. Conservatives have a bad name because they refuse to see things from a liberal viewpoint. Instead they blame it on the devil or something like that. This is the 21st century, its high time our minds start questioning. --Nonobu

:Thanks for your candid analysis, but it sounds like you're on a path to atheism, and 99% of atheists end up being liberal. This may be the 21st century, but evil hasn't magically disappeared. Censoring the Bible, the most logical book ever written, doesn't make it any less true.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:57, 6 January 2010 (EST)

Mr. Shlafly, it's an honor to meet you.
I am not against the bible but you cannot rule out other religions that add to the vast scope of the human experience. I was raised lutheran and went to a lutheran school for most of my life. The Bible does have logical teachings. There is "evil" in the world but saying that it stems from the devil is a belief, not a fact. It can be a fact to many conservative people who will fight for it, and that's the problem. There is no evidence and that is frowned upon by many people. What I meant by it's the 21st century is that we have reached a growth in civilization where it is time to look for new answers to old problems. I believe that people's actions and thoughts can hurt the world around us, be it aggression or mere ignorance, but being atheist does not con-notate a bad thing but merely a lack of belief in what there is not enough evidence for. They rebel to tradition. Philosophically, what evidence do you have outside the bible that evil appeared in the 1st place? -That being something a liberal would ask. I would also like to hear your concise opinion on what a liberal is. Also, here's a link to an interesting video: http://www.ted.com/talks/devdutt_pattanaik.html -- Nonobu

:Lack of [[faith]] is the single greatest cause of depression and despair. There have been famous [[atheists]], some of whom went crazy. The output of that belief system is mostly harmful. Contrast that with the output of Christianity. How many atheistic hospitals have been built compared with Christian hospitals, for example? That is virtually zero compared with thousands.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:51, 7 January 2010 (EST)

There have also been famous christians, some of whom went crazy. I can argue against the output of religion as much as I can against atheism. Atheism and liberalism by nature are to offset convention and cause a tempest, call it growing pains. The night is always darkest just before the dawn, you cannot have newness without destroying what was there before. Therefore, Rome changing from pagan to christian also had a harmful output. It is all about perspective. I agree with your hospital bit, but there are almost no atheist hospitals because there is no atheist church that gives contributions. Christianity is also more organized. Atheists are normally against any spiritual organization. As for lack of faith causing depression, I would have to agree and disagree. It has been proven that people with faith live longer and happier lives. Religion is the opiate of the masses. It can be mind control and it can be wrong but it can make us feel confident and gives us drive. Atheists usually have no religious motivation, atheists are wandering and exploring. As somewhat of an atheist, I do not mind that searching because every stone I turn over has another truth. I do not mind sacrificing a comfortable, structured life to enable myself to see the complexities of this world. Jesus taught how to live your life. I agree with his teaching of love and we should strive to be as loving and tolerant as him. But God, a creator, that is a different story altogether...
Let me bring up conservationism and liberalism again. Conservatives get a bad name because of their blatant bias. A liberal can form a bias over time but the natural liberal has NO bias. Liberals are searching for new answers and thinking outside of convention. Conservatives will do whatever they can to uphold convention no matter how unrealistic it may be. They will target opponents personally. Lets look at the root words of liberal and conservative. Conservative: CONSERVe, CONvention. Liberal: LIBERAte, deLIBERAte, LIBERty. Conservativism is to conserve tradition and liberalism is to free oneself, deliberate and discuss complexities. All in all, liberals use critical thinking to answer questions, conservatives seem to use the answers of tradition and their bias as what is normal based on how they have been conditioned over the years in their social surroundings. FOX news targeted the children who were singing about Obama and called it "indoctrination". The facts in that situation is that the children were given permission slips which all parents signed and they sung about every president. FOX merely looked at children singing a song about Obama and wanted to relate to nazi germany. I'm sorry but that is blatant BIAS! Look us the definition of bias and you will find that it is a belief in something based on unfairness and narrow-mindedness. Being open to ideas, being liberal is NOT having a bias. ---Nonobu

:Well here's a question, regarding the output of atheism and Christianity, and the dark before the dawn. How long a time of negative output do you allow atheism before you change your mind and say that atheism is likely not capable of great positive output? Christianity began to have positive output within the first few hundred years of its existence. Has atheism, in the form of Enlightenment thinking and modern secular humanism had the same positive output? If you think it has do you have any examples? [[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]] 21:27, 8 January 2010 (EST)

:Nonobu, your argument leaves out libertarians, neoconservatives, some paleoconservatives (like Raimondo), Jews, atheists, agnostics, gays, probably even pagans and Muslims, and plenty of others who would call themselves conservatives and combining it all under the Christian Right. Plenty of conservatives favor change, even forward change. For example, neoconservatives are against laissez-faire capitalism and could support left-leaning pro-business economic policy. Plenty of conservative think tanks can make these arguments. There are varying reactions to technology in a world changing since 1776, namely with regard to stem-cell research and human cloning, and even with copyright policy, from the original time-limited government grant to recent views of a private property right. And with the conservatives supporting greater individual rights, your own life, and the life of the ones you love, can change in a non-Christian manner with or without government intervention. Also, you forget that "liberalism" was originally a term for the libertarianism of the Founding Fathers and not support for welfare programs - most countries still call the Right "liberal democrats" and the Left "social democrats". If you define "bias" as not being open to change, you are leaving out plenty on the Right who are. -[[User:Danq|danq]] 23:24, 14 January 2010 (EST)

My argument isn't necessarily to target any groups but individual's philosophies that are liberal and conservative. I'm simply saying that bias is antithetical to keeping an open mind. - I think that conservativism gets a bad name because of websites like this. There is a small group within the conservative demographic that agrees with everything on here. But to label this site as "conservative" gives all the rest of the people in America who consider themselves conservative a bad name. That conservapedia bible project... really?? rewriting the bible to fit an ideology is ridiculous at the least. I can go on and on. This site has its work cut out for it. And to reply to AddisonDM, the positive output christianity had equaled the negative input it added to other groups. Modern secularism is opening people's minds to more realistic and less superstitious ideas. We are making decisions based on rationality and not on religion. Christianity had bad affects just like atheism has bad affects. Christianity changed paganism forever and rationality will change christianity forever. Its the evolution of human society. ---Nonobu

:Nonobu, I urge you to get out more. There are twice as many "[[conservative]]s" as "[[liberal]]s", and in the latter category are many people who are obvious hucksters, like [[Al Gore]], or people who don't say anything meaningful, like [[Barack Obama]], or people who refuse to open their mind. Realize that conservatives give to charity at a higher rate than liberals, and the next time you or a loved one benefits from that charity, thank a conservative and open your mind.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:27, 16 January 2010 (EST)

::I agree with Andy here, the only people who view conservatives in a bad light are liberals. I am not concerned that a (small and getting smaller) group who have rejected all logic would wish to give my conservatism a bad name. [[User:DwayneD|DwayneD]] 14:32, 16 January 2010 (EST)

:Nonobu, there are a variety of people on Conservapedia, but I do agree that it is much more populated by the Religious Right. (I always recommend people looking for information favorable to creationism here.) Most liberals I know are permanently stuck with the false stereotype you are trying to hide, and no matter what you tell them, there is no way in their minds for conservatives to be charitable, color-blind, intelligent, educated, not from the South or not a Bible Christian. For example, according to a liberal, if you are Republican, you don't care about the poor, and you cannot possibly care about helping the poor if you are a Republican. As for the Conservative Bible Project, I too am not a fan - I have seen stuff I don't like, and personally I feel that having fiery King James alongside a "nicer" TEV or NIV solves the archaic language issue perfectly. But I keep quiet, and there's so much else here which I as a Catholic conservative am perfectly comfortable with, and I'm sure atheist/agnostic conservatives such as yourself can find something you'll enjoy here too. -[[User:Danq|danq]] 23:16, 18 January 2010 (EST)

I enjoy coming here for a good laugh and to point out ridiculousness and contradiction. I watch FOX news for the same thing. I am not alligning with any party and I see the good and the bad of being conservative or liberal. Classical liberalism is about personal freedom and promotes that government protect an individual's pursuit of happiness under the law. classical conservatism is about using government control to promote virtue or a certain morality, and that government comes from God. Liberalism spawned the scientific method that works according to our sense of logic and is always improving. Conservatism in America is too focused on moral purity based on a God that they can't even prove exists. Their attempts at proof are subjective in nature and anything they find that is objective does not match up with the scientific method. Then because It doesn't work with the method, they blame it humanities lack to perceive God because of our shortcomings, or blames it on a Liberal conspiracy. However, they forget that human perception has formed their definition of God anyways. Contradiction and denial of logic- mostly endorsed by the conservative media. That is why conservatives have gained a bad name. And Shlafly, you should open your mind and "get out more"- like out of your basement in New Jersey before you insult my intelligence like that again. Also, you haven't shown that you have an open mind. I am trying to have an honest debate.-Nonobu

:Actually, the laughter is against you, Nonobu. You're wrong on several key points. The first point is that their is a big difference between classical liberalism and modern liberalism; the classical version espoused liberty and liberality, and made it a point of ''giving'' rather than ''taking''. Modern liberalism - and anyone can see it for themselves in the media - has turned ''taking'' into a necessity and, through use of the government, merged taking with ''stealing''. You may be correct in asserting that liberals have come up with the [[Scientific method]], but it's use today has been thrown out the window ''by liberals themselves'', as the [[Climategate]] emails have proven to the world.
:The second point is the fact that you are wrong on conservatives. "Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day" is liberalism; "teach a man to fish and you feed him for life" is conservatism. Which is more in the essence of giving? Liberals feel good about giving a homeless man a shopping cart; conservatives feel good about getting the homeless man away from the cart, into a job, and into a home with the personal responsibility attached. And you say we deny logic?
:The third point is look at liberal attacks on God and the Bible. It isn't conservatives doing it. The moral standard that we follow is rooted in the Bible; the moral standard of this country's founding is in the Bible; the majority of the Founding Fathers believed in the God of the Bible, and today's liberals - by tossing out the Bible - pretend that they are better than Washington or Jefferson or Hamilton? By removing Ten Commandments markers from public squares, are liberals saying that their view is better? If so, then go out and kill someone. Rob a bank. Spit on your mother. Rape someone's wife. Break all of the commandments in addition to the lying that you displayed here. Let's see how far you get, because if liberalism is better, then you should be able to get away with murder and stealing and adultery and all the rest.
:Face it, Nonobu, the country has shown through the TEA Parties and the Massachusetts election that they are fed up with the deceit that is liberalism. It is high time that you wake your sorry butt up and see what it really is, because in the end there will be accountability. The God that ''you deny exists'' will make you stand before Him and He will judge you accordingly. You know full well how to change that. The choice is your's. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 14:13, 21 January 2010 (EST)
I used to have a stronger negative opinion of conservatism than I do now. I'm still very definitely a political moderate; I tend to lean more toward conservatism in my own personal life (trying to follow the word of God in everything that I do), but I'm more centrist politically and somewhat liberal economically.
I used to rant against Conservapedia all the time, at first because I didn't really understand the reality of some of the Biblical stuff on the site, and then later on I just refused to accept that anything conservative could be right. Still, even now that I realize that there is a lot of good information on the site, I still think that part of why this website has such a negative public image is because it attacks liberals ''so severely''. The front page is basically a mock-shrine to criticizing Obama. The page on homosexuality mentioned that we need to be loving and forgiving (which is very true), but the pages on liberal economic policies are nothing but judgmental, even though being economically liberal in and of itself (supporting universal health care, welfare programs, being [[politically correct]], etc.) is not a sinful act. [[User:CobaltFusion|CobaltFusion]] 08:04, 29 June 2010 (EDT)

Counterexamples to an Old Earth

2010-08-10T18:15:23Z

Lono:

It takes only one "counterexample" to disprove the theory of an [[Old Earth]].<ref>Most of the "evidence" for an [[Old Earth]] is based on claims that lack testability, as in [[radiometric dating]], and hence would not even satisfy minimum requirements for admissibility in court.</ref> As with any logical proposition, one contradiction disproves the proposed rule. If each of the 25 counterexamples provided here has merely a 10% chance of being valid, which is certainly an underestimate, then the probability that the Earth is billions of years old is only 7%. From another perspective, '''these counterexamples demonstrate that the Earth must be young with a likelihood of at least 93%'''.

== Counterexamples ==
The growing list of counterexamples to the theory of an [[Old Earth]] includes:

=== Astronomy ===
# The [[moon]] is receding from the [[Earth]] at a rate<ref>[http://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEhelp/ApolloLaser.html Measuring the Moon's Distance] ''Apollo Laser Ranging Experiments Yield Results'' by Fred Espenak, GSFC Planetary Systems Laboratory (LPI Bulletin, No. 72, August, 1994).</ref> that would have placed it too close to the Earth merely four billion years ago, causing instability in its orbit, tidal catastrophes on Earth, and other problems, causing Earth and the moon to be as they are today.
# [[Spiral galaxies]] appear to be young, and only implausible proposals of the existence of [[dark matter]] can reconcile the spirals with a belief in an old universe.
# The planetary orbits in the solar system - including Earth's - are unstable and unsustainable over the long periods claimed by Old Earth believers.<ref>[http://www.newsweek.com/id/201582 Newsweek: "An embarrassing little secret of astronomy ...."]. (Newsweek has inexplicably taken down its article, but it is quoted by Google and other links)</ref><ref>[http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v459/n7248/full/nature08096.html Existence of collisional trajectories of Mercury, Mars and Venus with the Earth] by J. Laskar & M. Gastineau, ''Nature'' 459, 817-819 (11 June 2009). Believers in an Old Earth speculate that the instability would not result in problems in a billion years, but other computer simulations could be developed to demonstrate multi-body instability for the solar system far more recent than that.</ref>
# At least one [[spiral galaxy]] spins in the direction opposite to the spin of its tail, suggesting an age too young to have generated the tail and contradicting the theory that the tails of spiral galaxies were formed over a long period of time.<ref>[http://www.unisci.com/stories/20021/0207023.htm "Hubble Shows Galaxy Rotating In The Wrong Direction"]</ref>
# The primary reaction in the [[Sun]] is the fusing of [[hydrogen]] to make [[helium]], but the ratio of these remains too high for the Sun to have been burning for millions of years.{{fact}}

=== Geology ===
[[Image:Stratigraphy_of_the_Grand_Canyon.png|right|thumb|300px|The Unconformity is readily apparent in the [[Grand Canyon]] where foliage and ground cover do not obscure the rock face.]]
# The continued existence of fragile natural arches without having collapsed a short time period for erosion and stresses on them<ref>http://www.naturalarches.org/big9.htm</ref>.
# An extrapolation of time between the collapse of weaker arches<ref>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/11/AR2008081102290.html</ref> with still-standing stronger arches supports a young earth age.
# The massive [[Great Lakes]] and freshwater lakes near the equator could not exist for millions of years, and several of these lakes are rapidly receding in volume.
# The existence of inland saltwater lakes, such as [[Mono Lake]] and the [[Great Salt Lake]], suggest a recent global [[flood]].
# The plentiful supply of high concentrations of underground well water, which would be expected based on familiar principles of [[entropy]] to dissipate over a long period of time.
# The relative purity of underground well water, which should be a muddy slurry had millions of years of erosion taken place.
# Earthquakes alter the Earth's rotation every century; extrapolating by orders of magnitude in time would have resulted in the occurrence of much larger earthquakes that would have destabilized the rotation<ref>A similar analysis may be performed for the likelihood of devastating collisions with meteors as time is extrapolated by orders of magnitude.</ref>
# The lack of erosion between rock layers<ref>http://www.amazon.com/review/R1WTZL8GG4H9K0</ref><ref>http://www.knowthebible.net/id115.html</ref>.
# Levels of contamination in water are rising, as water procedes through the [[water cycle]] it becomes progressively more contaminated. If earth (and life) had existed for billions of years, a limit would have long been reached where water (essential to life) was too contaminated for life to continue.
# [[Paraconformity]] and unconformity such as that seen at the [[Grand Canyon]] disprove the [[uniformitarianism (science)|uniformitarian]] view of earth history.
# All [[carbon dating]] of water supplies, even the most ancient and the deepest underground reservoirs, result in relatively young ages,<ref>http://www.betalabservices.com/PDF/Geyh.pdf</ref> and no water has been found suggesting an Old Earth.
# The ratio of strontium isotopes in seawater, which should change due to long-term erosion, has varied by only 0.35% throughout history. In fact, its value today is exactly the same as in the oldest samples, which are claimed to be from 500 million years ago!{{fact}}
# The interior of the earth is heated by decay of radioactive isotopes, which could not possibly still be persisting in sufficient quantities after 5 billion, or even half a billion, years.{{fact}}

=== Biology ===
# The intelligence of humans is rapidly declining, whether measured by SAT scores,<ref>SAT scores have been rapidly decreasing in real terms.</ref> music, personal letters,<ref>E.g., Civil War letters.</ref> quality of political debates,<ref>E.g., contrast the Lincoln-Douglas debates with debates today.</ref> the quality of news articles,<ref>''The Federalist'' was written for the newspaper audience in the late 1780s, but is far too intellectual for newspapers today.</ref> or any other measure.
# The age of onset of [[puberty|sexual maturity]] is rapidly changing, suggesting that life is in a short-term rather than long-term equilibrium<ref>For evidence of a rapidly changing age for sexual maturity in fish, see http://icesjms.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/46/3/235</ref>.
# The high observed rate of [[extinctions of species]] and harmful [[genetic mutation]]s suggest a relatively short period for the existence of life rather than a long one.
# The age of onset of [[cancer]] is markedly decreasing,<ref>http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/109865519/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0</ref> suggesting rapid changes inconsistent with an alleged long existence to life.
# The oldest direct evidence of life -- written documents, clothing, remnants of civilizations, tree rings, etc. -- is no older than about 3000 B.C.
# The number of natural, pure-bred bred dogs declines over time as dogs naturally crossbreed; a short period of time is suggested by the fact that there are over 100 different natural, pure breeds of dog thriving today.
# Lack of genetic diversity among the ''Homo sapiens'' species. Were evolution and the old earth true, the human population would show a much larger genetic variance<ref>http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/descent.html#rpafAHIwKHS7</ref>.

== External links ==
*[http://creation.com/age-of-the-earth Age of the earth -101 evidences for a young earth and universe] by [[Creation Ministries International]]

== References ==

<references/>

== See also ==

*[[Counterexamples to Evolution]]
*[[Counterexamples to the Bible]]
*[[Counterexamples to Relativity]]
[[Category:geology]]

Counterexamples to an Old Earth

2010-08-10T18:14:40Z

Lono:

It takes only one "counterexample" to disprove the theory of an [[Old Earth]].<ref>Most of the "evidence" for an [[Old Earth]] is based on claims that lack testability, as in [[radiometric dating]], and hence would not even satisfy minimum requirements for admissibility in court.</ref> As with any logical proposition, one contradiction disproves the proposed rule. If each of the 25 counterexamples provided here has merely a 10% chance of being valid, which is certainly an underestimate, then the probability that the Earth is billions of years old is only 7%. From another perspective, '''these counterexamples demonstrate that the Earth must be young with a likelihood of at least 93%'''. (this is baffling in its complete lack of logic. Just because you suggest a series of examples, it does not mean that ANY of them have a chance of being true. I can list 100 ridiculous possibilities and still have a 0% chance of any of them being factual. You use this argument time and time again and it simply has NO merit)

== Counterexamples ==
The growing list of counterexamples to the theory of an [[Old Earth]] includes:

=== Astronomy ===
# The [[moon]] is receding from the [[Earth]] at a rate<ref>[http://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEhelp/ApolloLaser.html Measuring the Moon's Distance] ''Apollo Laser Ranging Experiments Yield Results'' by Fred Espenak, GSFC Planetary Systems Laboratory (LPI Bulletin, No. 72, August, 1994).</ref> that would have placed it too close to the Earth merely four billion years ago, causing instability in its orbit, tidal catastrophes on Earth, and other problems, causing Earth and the moon to be as they are today.
# [[Spiral galaxies]] appear to be young, and only implausible proposals of the existence of [[dark matter]] can reconcile the spirals with a belief in an old universe.
# The planetary orbits in the solar system - including Earth's - are unstable and unsustainable over the long periods claimed by Old Earth believers.<ref>[http://www.newsweek.com/id/201582 Newsweek: "An embarrassing little secret of astronomy ...."]. (Newsweek has inexplicably taken down its article, but it is quoted by Google and other links)</ref><ref>[http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v459/n7248/full/nature08096.html Existence of collisional trajectories of Mercury, Mars and Venus with the Earth] by J. Laskar & M. Gastineau, ''Nature'' 459, 817-819 (11 June 2009). Believers in an Old Earth speculate that the instability would not result in problems in a billion years, but other computer simulations could be developed to demonstrate multi-body instability for the solar system far more recent than that.</ref>
# At least one [[spiral galaxy]] spins in the direction opposite to the spin of its tail, suggesting an age too young to have generated the tail and contradicting the theory that the tails of spiral galaxies were formed over a long period of time.<ref>[http://www.unisci.com/stories/20021/0207023.htm "Hubble Shows Galaxy Rotating In The Wrong Direction"]</ref>
# The primary reaction in the [[Sun]] is the fusing of [[hydrogen]] to make [[helium]], but the ratio of these remains too high for the Sun to have been burning for millions of years.{{fact}}

=== Geology ===
[[Image:Stratigraphy_of_the_Grand_Canyon.png|right|thumb|300px|The Unconformity is readily apparent in the [[Grand Canyon]] where foliage and ground cover do not obscure the rock face.]]
# The continued existence of fragile natural arches without having collapsed a short time period for erosion and stresses on them<ref>http://www.naturalarches.org/big9.htm</ref>.
# An extrapolation of time between the collapse of weaker arches<ref>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/11/AR2008081102290.html</ref> with still-standing stronger arches supports a young earth age.
# The massive [[Great Lakes]] and freshwater lakes near the equator could not exist for millions of years, and several of these lakes are rapidly receding in volume.
# The existence of inland saltwater lakes, such as [[Mono Lake]] and the [[Great Salt Lake]], suggest a recent global [[flood]].
# The plentiful supply of high concentrations of underground well water, which would be expected based on familiar principles of [[entropy]] to dissipate over a long period of time.
# The relative purity of underground well water, which should be a muddy slurry had millions of years of erosion taken place.
# Earthquakes alter the Earth's rotation every century; extrapolating by orders of magnitude in time would have resulted in the occurrence of much larger earthquakes that would have destabilized the rotation<ref>A similar analysis may be performed for the likelihood of devastating collisions with meteors as time is extrapolated by orders of magnitude.</ref>
# The lack of erosion between rock layers<ref>http://www.amazon.com/review/R1WTZL8GG4H9K0</ref><ref>http://www.knowthebible.net/id115.html</ref>.
# Levels of contamination in water are rising, as water procedes through the [[water cycle]] it becomes progressively more contaminated. If earth (and life) had existed for billions of years, a limit would have long been reached where water (essential to life) was too contaminated for life to continue.
# [[Paraconformity]] and unconformity such as that seen at the [[Grand Canyon]] disprove the [[uniformitarianism (science)|uniformitarian]] view of earth history.
# All [[carbon dating]] of water supplies, even the most ancient and the deepest underground reservoirs, result in relatively young ages,<ref>http://www.betalabservices.com/PDF/Geyh.pdf</ref> and no water has been found suggesting an Old Earth.
# The ratio of strontium isotopes in seawater, which should change due to long-term erosion, has varied by only 0.35% throughout history. In fact, its value today is exactly the same as in the oldest samples, which are claimed to be from 500 million years ago!{{fact}}
# The interior of the earth is heated by decay of radioactive isotopes, which could not possibly still be persisting in sufficient quantities after 5 billion, or even half a billion, years.{{fact}}

=== Biology ===
# The intelligence of humans is rapidly declining, whether measured by SAT scores,<ref>SAT scores have been rapidly decreasing in real terms.</ref> music, personal letters,<ref>E.g., Civil War letters.</ref> quality of political debates,<ref>E.g., contrast the Lincoln-Douglas debates with debates today.</ref> the quality of news articles,<ref>''The Federalist'' was written for the newspaper audience in the late 1780s, but is far too intellectual for newspapers today.</ref> or any other measure.
# The age of onset of [[puberty|sexual maturity]] is rapidly changing, suggesting that life is in a short-term rather than long-term equilibrium<ref>For evidence of a rapidly changing age for sexual maturity in fish, see http://icesjms.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/46/3/235</ref>.
# The high observed rate of [[extinctions of species]] and harmful [[genetic mutation]]s suggest a relatively short period for the existence of life rather than a long one.
# The age of onset of [[cancer]] is markedly decreasing,<ref>http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/109865519/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0</ref> suggesting rapid changes inconsistent with an alleged long existence to life.
# The oldest direct evidence of life -- written documents, clothing, remnants of civilizations, tree rings, etc. -- is no older than about 3000 B.C.
# The number of natural, pure-bred bred dogs declines over time as dogs naturally crossbreed; a short period of time is suggested by the fact that there are over 100 different natural, pure breeds of dog thriving today.
# Lack of genetic diversity among the ''Homo sapiens'' species. Were evolution and the old earth true, the human population would show a much larger genetic variance<ref>http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/descent.html#rpafAHIwKHS7</ref>.

== External links ==
*[http://creation.com/age-of-the-earth Age of the earth -101 evidences for a young earth and universe] by [[Creation Ministries International]]

== References ==

<references/>

== See also ==

*[[Counterexamples to Evolution]]
*[[Counterexamples to the Bible]]
*[[Counterexamples to Relativity]]
[[Category:geology]]