Difference between revisions of "Talk:Fox News Channel"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(Defence page for FOX) |
|||
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
::* IM me! Exculpatory1 on AIM. ;-) | ::* IM me! Exculpatory1 on AIM. ;-) | ||
| + | |||
| + | == Defence page for FOX == | ||
| + | |||
| + | 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) | ||
Revision as of 02:09, March 19, 2007
This article is exceptionally better than its predecessor. --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. Myk 18:47, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
Please don't revert pages while someone is editing!
Thanks. :-) --TK 03:02, 18 March 2007 (EDT)
- Psst... no way to know something is being edited ;) Myk 03:17, 18 March 2007 (EDT)
- IM me! Exculpatory1 on AIM. ;-)
Defence page for FOX
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? Messpm 22:09, 18 March 2007 (EDT)