Talk:Fox News Channel

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. --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. ;-)

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. --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? 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! --[[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. Messpm 10:34, 19 March 2007 (EDT)