Talk:Fox v. Franken

	Fox v. Franken is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.
Article milestones Date Process Result February 23, 2006 Featured article candidate Not promoted

This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

United States Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Law C‑class Low‑importance Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Added Link Supernathan 17:37, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Added NPOV due to questionable phrasing in the background section including but not exclusive to...

"...implying by omission that other news outlets were unfair, unbalanced"

"Liberals quickly began to accuse the network..."

"...on liberal Web sites and blogs..."

Supernathan 17:47, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What about those sentences lacks neutrality? Are you saying that they should be more specifically attributed? I don't think that's really a problem with injecting a point of view so much as laziness in finding specific quotes. Croctotheface 20:04, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This was a controversial case and it is very easy to turn it into a left versus right issue. In absense of specific quotes to use of the word liberal is not acceptable, there need to be specific sources listed for the accusations/websites or the sentences need to go all together. Having said that I also feel that it is a big jump to assume that FNC's taglines intrinsically "imply" anything without any sources... if there is a verifiable source of this I would certainly suggest it be listed. Without proper sources or an edit of the phrasing the article won't be neutral. Thanks. Supernathan 21:04, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree with you that the article should have better sourcing. However, I don't really have a POV concern, since I think all lines are both true and verifiable. If you want to rephrase those sentences away from using "liberal", I don't think I'd have a problem with that. Regarding the implication of Fox's slogan, I'm pretty sure that there are sources for that. Fox News did sort of have as it's mission correcting the alleged "liberal bias" of the mainstream media. Croctotheface 21:12, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we disagree here but I feel that the lack of sources is specifically what currently makes the article NPOV. Liberal is not a neutral word... in fact it is the specific word used in the NPOV tutorial as an example. I think we need to rephrase or cite specific sources to fix this. I still feel like the taglines are an issue but less so than the rest of the article.Supernathan 21:33, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that sourcing concerns are generally different from POV concerns. I have a sourcing concern with this article, but I don't think that a thorough examination of sources will require significant changesbecause the text itself is mostly neutral and verifiable, if not completely sourced. Croctotheface 21:49, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How do you feel about this phrasing?

"The network was then accused of having a conservative bias, "fair and balanced" became widely used as an ironic euphemism for perceived right-wing media bias on Fox and other media outlets."

Supernathan 13:33, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like the passive voice ("was then accused"). It really doesn't solve the problem; it actually removes a vague but accurate attribution--I remember reading liberal blogs, especially at this time, and ironic use of the slogan was common--and replaces it with no attribution. Croctotheface 21:47, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I want to be clear that I am not trying to create animosity here but I feel that the current attribution is not accurate. I am certainly not married to the phrasing I suggested but the fact is that it does solve the problem at hand while highlighting the sourcing problem that both agree already exists.

I remember reading liberal blogs, especially at this time, and ironic use of the slogan was common--and replaces it with no attribution.

The problem with this is that from a neutral point of view there is no such thing as a universally accepted definition of a "liberal blog". I wouldn't say "Canadians quickly began to accuse the network of itself having a pervasive conservative bias." because it is too big a group of people and they do not speak with one voice. If you read blogs at the time and remember what they were we could list them (with sourcing) as the source of the accusations but not "liberal blogs" in general because it is useless and misleading the way it reads now. Supernathan 18:17, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, that's certainly a fair point. However, a passive voice construction is not the answer. How would you feel about "some liberals", "liberal critics", or "some liberal critics", or an attribution along those lines? Croctotheface 20:19, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That gets us a whole lot closer and I am sorry if it seems like I am splitting hairs here but with the "some liberals" it leaves out the possibility that others may have also made accusations and unfortunately "critic" is one of the

weasel words that they tell us to leave out in the style manual. Unfortunately this is the kind of stuff that it going to make it hard to solve this issue without creating another problem by making the sentence too vague/passive (and thus a bit useless) or citing specific sources. Supernathan 04:39, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Splitting hairs is fine, though at some point it might not be unreasonable for you to do some research and find specific critics, of which there are many, to attribute statements to. I honestly can't imagine that anyone with even a passing familiarity with modern American media politics would disagree that Fox News is criticized for being a shill for the Republican Party and conservatism. That's not to say that we shouldn't strive to attribute the statements better, for several good reasons, but it does mean that I don't have a concern that this is really weaseling. I'd say there are two main reasons to avoid "critics say": first, specifics are almost always better than vagueries, and second, it's often a way to inject your own critical opinion while hiding behind the masks of unnamed "critics". In this case, the criticism is so common and widespread that I'm not concerned with the second issue becuase the criticism is so common. I think that even mitigates the first issue because the criticism is SO widespread that it would be impossible to list every person who has made that argument. Croctotheface 06:00, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why it didn't occur to me before but I will bet you that most of our sourcing homework has already been done for us over at the

I'm not trying to start an edit war here but we clearly have not reached consensus. Until it is actually fixed (not just identified) I am leaving the npov tag up. I am more than willing to continue talking but please don't take the tag down again until we have come to an agreement. Supernathan 16:16, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to add this as a separate issue from the issue of neutrality so once the NPOV issues are fixed we can move on. Supernathan 19:47, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The way this is stated in the

Fox News Channel

article is...

Fox News has been accused of promoting a conservative, right-wing, and Republican point of view at the expense of neutrality.

they then source this article. I really like this type of phrasing because while it is passive the sourcing still shows exactly who is stating the claim... we could use additional sourcing if you would like but I think this solves our problem on that sentence.

We also have to fix the sentence that refers to "liberal websites and blogs". Supernathan 17:04, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, I don't care at this point. Find a phrasing you like and change it to that. Croctotheface 19:58, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good, I'll take care of it. Supernathan 21:01, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't mean to be rude above, but this process is taking forever. This disagreement is over more or less inconsequential nonsense. Your only edits to the actual article are adding the tag and reverting my attempt to address your complaints. Just fix the damn problem already. Croctotheface 00:02, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's fine, I don't take this stuff personally but it is odd to point out that you didn't mean to be rude and then tell me to fix the damn problem. I feel like I have stated my points pretty clearly and as I have said I will take care of it. You can follow up if you want or you can just trust me to do it but I will get to it when I can. In the meantime I am going to leave the tag up. Thanks. Supernathan 16:08, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I find it puzzling that you have so much time to argue here on the talk page but so little to actually devote to editing the article. I do not appreciate the fact that you just reverted my proposed solution and then made no effort, in the following three days, to actually put in a version you think is better. It would take two minutes, maybe, to translate what you're talking about on the talk page into changes to the main page. I would try to make a change, but I expect that you would just revert it. Croctotheface 01:31, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The image

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --02:30, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The quotation from this section appears to come from the opinion denying the temporary restraining order, not the opinion on the injunction itself. Remember, Fox sought a restraining order prior to the hearing on the injunction, so this wouldn't be the actual "opinion" of Fox v. Franken. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Receptacle (talk • contribs) 18:48, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There have been a bunch of recent edits concerning two pieces of language: whether to say something to the effect of "after O'Reilly left the show" to describe when Inside Edition won the Polk award, and whether to say that Franken "repeatedly" interrupted O'Reilly. I'm going to go with the last stable version, which included both of these. If anyone has any further thoughts about the matter, let's discuss them here. Croctotheface (talk) 04:09, 25 March 2009 (UTC) Actually, I just rewatched the video, and the "shut up" comes after Franken's first interruption; though he does interrupt again, it is not accurate to say that O'Reilly yelled "shut up" in response to any kind of repeated interruptions. Croctotheface (talk) 04:14, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since this is STILL happening, here's the video: [1]. It's plain that between O'Reilly starting his reply and the "shut up" line, Franken interrupts exactly once, which prompts the screaming. It is just inaccurate to say "repeatedly," which is arguably a BLP violation in that it's about Franken and it's false. As far as the inclusion of "after O'Reilly left," it's illustrative of the difference between what O'Reilly said "we won Peabodys" and the truth. It should stay. Croctotheface (talk) 07:06, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Pax.Jimintheatl (talk) 22:44, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked the anon editor for repeatedly reverting the edits back without discussing things here (don't know how many times exactly he violated 3RR). I've also semi-protected the page for a week. Let me know if this causes any problems for anyone or if there are any future difficulties with the page. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:05, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Critics such as FAIR[2] and Media Matters for America[3] have accused Fox of having a pervasive conservative bias; on many Web sites and blogs, "fair and balanced" became widely used

FAIR and Media Matters for America don't have to be cited here to substantiate this allegation. Virtually every major academic, scholar, researcher, author and journalist who has studied or published about the media since FNC was established, has observed and written about their conservative bias. Citing FAIR and Media Matters here makes this seem like some kind of fringe, liberal attack, when in fact this opinion of FNC is the dominant, accepted observation in the relevant literature and has little to no opposition or counterargument. Because of this evidence, it's not considered an accusation, it's considered a fact. Viriditas (talk) 14:07, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That this or that organization has this or that bias is certainly opinion, not fact, but we can change the language so that it's more in line with what the lead of the

Fox News Channel article says. Croctotheface (talk) 23:58, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

I think this situation is different. There is simply an extraordinary amount of evidence in reliable sources documenting that this bias is an institutionalized management style that flows directly from the top-down to all aspects of the organization. Anecdotal evidence from former and current employees, published statistics and related data sets all support the existence of this bias. We even have court cases pointing to FNC's acknowledgment of this practice. When the evidence is this strong, we cannot consider it opinion, but rather fact. It is not an opinion that FNC is biased. It is a fact, supported by strong evidence from every reliable source imaginable. Could I please see some good counterarguments in sources devoted to analyzing, reviewing, and discussing issues related to journalism? As far as I know, there are none. The fact of the matter is, the FNC business model is based on open bias, as their target demographic market audience is said to prefer and expect that their news is one-sided. That is, after all, why they tune in. Viriditas (talk) 01:54, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I understand what you're saying, but the notion that someone is biased in this or that way is opinion by definition. It's just a basic observation versus inference distinction. Again, we should take our lead from the

Fox News Channel article, and you can see the construction they use in the lead there. If you believe that the Fox News article should be edited to say something like what you want to say here, then take it up on that talk page where it will attract more participation from other editors. (I see that you have done this already; that page is a far better place to have that discussion than here, and there's no reason to carry it on in two places.) If you just want to argue about how Fox News sucks, this isn't the place for it. Again, feel free to edit the article so that it no longer talks about FAIR or MM but rather about "many people" or something more in line with the language at the Fox News article. Croctotheface (talk) 01:56, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

It isn't opinion at all. Could I please see some good counterarguments in sources devoted to analyzing, reviewing, and discussing issues related to journalism? As far as I know, there are none. The fact of the matter is, the FNC business model is based on open bias, as their target market demographic audience is said to prefer and expect that their news is one-sided. That is, after all, why they tune in. It is essentially no different than a viewer who chooses to watch the Playboy TV. One does not watch this channel for its religious programming and interpretation of scripture. This is not an opinion about why viewers choose to watch specific programming, but a factual statement. Playboy TV is admittedly biased to showing, for the most part, beautiful, fit women with large breasts and round, shapely buttocks, and that is what their viewers want. The channel simply has no interest in asking Susan Boyle to sing in a bikini, and neither do their subscribers. This is pure bias, and Playboy TV, like FNC, has no problem with it. This is not a matter of opinion, but of documented fact about FNC television programming. However, the so-called "criticisms" are deceptively crafted to make it appear that FNC is the subject of attacks from liberals and left-wingers, which ironically is supportive of their business model, but not encyclopedic. Encyclopedias tend to simply choose the best sources on the subject (in this case journalism) and report the facts. Viriditas (talk) 02:07, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to repeat what I said before, and then I'm going to stop responding because this discussion is not helping the article. That someone has a bias toward this or that is opinion by definition. Even a well-supported opinion remains opinion. I don't need to try to make a case against your opinion since I am not disagreeing with it, just saying that no matter how much evidence you provide, it's opinion, not fact. By definition. This page is not the place to discuss this issue anyway; that's the Fox News talk page, where you are already posting. There is not a reason to carry the conversation on in two places. Finally, this is not the place to discuss whether Fox News sucks. Croctotheface (talk) 03:42, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That Fox News Channel is biased is a fact, not an opinion, and it's a fact based on evidence. I have never at any time discussed "whether Fox news sucks", so I have no idea where you get that from. The fact that Fox News Channel is biased is an integral part of their business structure, and it's precisely the reason they attract and maintain viewers. I think the problem you are having is that you are confused about the word used as a pejorative, which is not being used in this instance. The fact that Fox News chooses a certain perspective is supported by the evidence, both in the scholarly journalism literature and in court transcripts and decisions, and numerous instances related to their business. This is not pejorative but rather an accurate observation of their business, in the same way that Playboy TV is biased towards beautiful women with large breasts and round, shapely buttocks (as I described above). This discussion also has nothing to do with the FNC talk page, where I am discussing the lead section. I don't believe you have actually reviewed the literature on this subject, nor do I believe you understand the discussion. If what you claim was true, and this was an "opinion", then you would be able to show, using the relevant literature, where academics, scholars, and experts in the field of journalism have dismissed the evidence for bias. No such refutation exists, and as such, it is safe to claim that the evidence supports the observation that Fox News is biased, and uses this bias as part of their business model to attract viewers. There is nothing pejorative here, in the same way that Playboy TV attracts viewers who want to watch beautiful women prance around without clothing. It is not an opinion that Playboy only airs images of beautiful women, and is biased against displaying or portraying less attractive, overweight, or even "average" women. This is a fact, and is part of their business plan. In the exact same way, Fox News only covers issues and frames those issues in a way that only gives one side of the story. This bias is essential to their operation and forms the basis for their television programming. This is supported by data in the relevant literature and is not disputed by anyone. It is therefore, a fact, not opinion subject to some kind of alternate interpretation, much the same way that gravity is a fact, not an opinion. You could attribute the force of gravity to invisible pink elephants pulling you down to the ground, in much the same way that you could attribute the bias of Fox News to angry, hateful attacks and opinions from the radical-left. In both cases, your opinion would be unsupported, and the facts would remain. Again, if you believe that it is an "opinion" that Fox news is biased, then please provide a counterargument authored by professionals in the field of journalism that provides a better explanation. Viriditas (talk) 05:03, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is heading into "TL;DR" territory here. I want to reiterate again that we don't benefit from an extended back-and-forth, and at this point I'm continuing for personal amusement more than anything else. I'm not sure if you're listening to what I'm saying here about the difference between fact and opinion. So far, you've just provided data in support of the notion that Fox is biased, but that does not make it "fact". Some of the material you're presented here, such as saying that this or that is "essential to their operation" is clearly opinion as well. An extremely well-supported inference does not become "fact" because it's extremely well-supported. Matters of fact are matters of observable data. Once you interpret that data, you're into the realm of opinion. A finding of bias in favor of one or another side by definition requires interpreting data, so it's therefore opinion and needs to be attributed. And don't overstate your case; the notion that nobody disagrees with the opinion that Fox is biased is certainly incorrect; whether you doubt their motivations is another matter, but such disagreement exists. Croctotheface (talk) 05:38, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So you say. Show me a single study in the relevant, scholarly journalism literature that documents this disagreement. It doesn't exist. It is an accepted fact in the journalism literature that Fox News Channel presents a biased perspective. Are you claiming that this is an opinion and not a fact? Fine, show me otherwise using relevant sources, i.e. authors, professors, and scholars of the media and journalism. Contrary to what you claim, nobody seriously questions this fact. Viriditas (talk) 05:44, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again, your position seems to be that "well supported" or "academic consensus" is the same as "fact". It is not. Anything with an interpretive element--and identifying someone's biases requires interpreting data--is by definition not factual. Croctotheface (talk) 05:59, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's the most absurd statement I've ever read. Your entire world is an interpretation. Your senses interpret everything you experience, and your technology helps interpret things for your senses. There is nothing that exists for you, right now, that is not an interpretation. Your parents have raised you based on their own interpretation, and you have formed some of your beliefs based on this interpretation. Your culture has interpreted the world for you, and you have embraced some of this interpretation as your own. In point of fact, all interpretation is opinion. But, we are not dealing with opinion here. In its most general sense, an opinion is commonly defined as "personal belief or judgment that is not founded on proof or certainty." The consensus on the subject from all relevant sources on the subject is quite certain that Fox News is biased. Please provide me with good, reliable sources showing that this fact is in doubt. Viriditas (talk) 06:09, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is a difference between the way you're using "interpret" as a synonym for "perceive" and the way I am using it, which is in the sense of interpreting data. The data is what's factual; the inferences based on that data, such as that Fox News is biased, is opinion. In our article, which ironically has an unreferenced tag, opinion is defined as "a belief that may or may not be backed up with evidence, but which cannot be proved with that evidence". You cannot prove Fox's motivations by providing evidence of their behavior. You can't prove someone is kind or unkind based on observations, so the notion that someone is kind or unkind is opinion, just like the notion that Fox is biased toward this or that. Croctotheface (talk) 06:14, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We are still talking past each other. You are treating "bias" as a pejorative opinion here, while I am treating it as an objective, descriptive fact that describes their broadcasting style. The problem, as I see it, is that you don't understand why the term "bias" is used here. The ethics of journalism is such that the news is expected to be researched and delivered in a certain way. Because Fox News Channel does not deliver news in this way, and structures their entire organization around the opposite of what journalistic ethics demands, the descriptive term "bias" is substantiated fully and is not an "opinion" when used in this way. There is no need to "prove" or "disprove" anything; the sources are full of the evidence, and there is nothing subject to doubt here. That Fox News is biased, from the position of a journalistic POV is a fact, not an opinion. What you fail to understand is that saying "Fox News promotes conservative political positions" and saying "Fox News is biased" is entirely equivalent. Are you honestly saying that Fox news does not promote conservative political positions in their newscasts? Please provide sources for that opinion. Viriditas (talk) 08:30, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that we're talking past each other, but the problem for you is that your definition of "opinion" is not the accepted definition here or anywhere else. You seem to believe that I am somehow pro-Fox News, but that's not the case at all. What you think or I think is not relevant, the question of whether I personally disagree is not relevant, the question is whether this matter requires making inferences based on data, which means it's opinion, or whether it's a matter of cold, hard observable fact. Your reason for believing that the formulation you have is factual is that have always been some variation on the "substantiated fully" language you have here. Again, a high, even overwhelming level of substantiation for an opinion does not magically turn it into fact. The difference here is that you want the encyclopedia to say that Fox News is biased; I want to attribute that statement to something on the order of "many observers" in the way that it's done at the Fox News article. I'd suggest you take the matter up elsewhere, such as at the talk page for

On the contrary, the definition I am using for "opinion" is the most common form in use in the English language. For you to claim that it isn't the "accepted definition here or anywhere else" is ridiculous. Because you seem to be using your own personal, pet definition, I said that an opinion in its most general sense, is commonly defined as "personal belief or judgment that is not founded on proof or certainty." I really, really suggest you open a dictionary, any dictionary and read the definition for yourself, as I have given you the most common, primary definition of the word. How can you claim that this is not accepted here or anywhere else? I have no idea, but you will find the definition I have given you in every English language dictionary. For example, looking at the Compact Oxford English Dictionary, we see the primary definition as "a view or judgement not necessarily based on fact or knowledge".[2] Since you are having trouble following this discussion, let's recap:

• Definition of opinion offered by Viriditas (sourced to WordNet): "a personal belief or judgment that is not founded on proof or certainty"[3]
• Comment by Croctotheface: "Your definition of "opinion" is not the accepted definition here or anywhere else"
• Compact Oxford English Dictionary: "a view or judgement not necessarily based on fact or knowledge"[4]

You also claim that I believe you are "pro-Fox News" when I have never said anything of the kind. I'm afraid your "position" is entirely unsupported, as it is based on words that don't exist. As I originally suspected, you appear to be making shit up. Viriditas (talk) 13:34, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I overstated the case with "anywhere else," but I can't help but think that it took you a while to find a definition that made reference to a complete lack of support. For what it's worth, here's Webster's:

1 a: a view, judgment, or appraisal formed in the mind about a particular matter b: approval, esteem
2 a: belief stronger than impression and less strong than positive knowledge b: a generally held view
3 a: a formal expression of judgment or advice by an expert b: the formal expression (as by a judge, court, or referee) of the legal reasons and principles upon which a legal decision is based

All of these seem to comport pretty much 100% with what I'm saying. Note especially that one definition that says "a generally held view," since a key part of your case that this is not opinion is that it's a generally held view. Oops? Let's be clear about what's at issue here: you want the voice of the encyclopedia to say that Fox News is biased; I want to attribute that opinion to something like "many observers." It seems that if we accept your scheme here, then providing any support for anything would remove any need to attribute it. The encyclopedia, you seem to be saying, should simply treat it as fact. But again, you're not going to get what you want from arguing with me here. If you enjoy arguing, by all means continue, since I'm not getting bored yet. But if you want to actually get people listening to and considering your ideas, you should take them up in a larger venue. Croctotheface (talk) 23:14, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Took me a while? Whatever are you talking about? My definition was originally sourced to WordNet.[5] I found you a second definition of the term sourced to the OED.[6] There are no more authoritative links than WordNet and the OED. Your citation of "Webster's" (Er, which one?) is hardly relevant, as both the primary and secondary definition support what I have already said, namely, that an opinion is "a personal belief or judgment that is not founded on proof or certainty". You are trying to change the definition of the most commonly used words in the most authoritative dictionaries in order to somehow change the rules of the game. Sorry, it doesn't work that way. Words have meaning, and their meaning changes in the context of their usage. You were asked to support your claim that the factual bias of Fox News Channel is in doubt by a reliable source. Please do so. Otherwise, it cannot be considered an "opinion". The fact of the matter is, every relevant, reliable source about journalism, the media, and broadcasting, describes Fox News Channel as biased. It is the basis of their entire business model, just as Playboy TV is biased against women who do not meet their standards for "beauty". To recap, you seem to think this is an "opinion" that is pejorative in nature, when in reality, it is an observable fact based on the best reliable sources available. When all the sources are saying the same thing, it is no longer an "opinion", just as we don't attribute the force of gravity to gremlins holding you down, or the common cold to evil spirits. For the purposes of the encyclopedia, we consider gravity and the germ theory to be facts, even though there might be people on the fringe who believe that gremlins are causing apples to fall from trees and evil spirits are causing them to get sick. In the same way, anyone who claims that Fox News is "fair and balanced", has an opinion that is simply not accepted by the mainstream and is based on zero evidence. Viriditas (talk) 10:43, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NPOV? Shouldn't it be incredibly easy for you to gather a consensus for your view if the only people who disagree are a few nuts on the fringes? Croctotheface (talk) 14:50, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Which is the appropriate category or subcategories to use in order to place this article within Category:United States intellectual property law and/or Category:Trademark law? Viriditas (talk) 05:51, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080705090930/http://alfrankenweb.com/foxcourt.html to http://alfrankenweb.com/foxcourt.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—

The quote in the "Judge's decision" section appears to be only about the restraining order application that was denied on 20 August, not the preliminary injunction decision on 22 August. This needs to be checked. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 07:12, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Fox v. Franken. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927200748/http://www.tompaine.com/Archive/scontent/8656.html to http://www.tompaine.com/Archive/scontent/8656.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090421141950/http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature/2003/08/27/franken/print.html to http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature/2003/08/27/franken/print.html
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.usenet.com/newsgroups/talk.politics.misc/msg02738.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070930155736/http://www.kgw.com/business/stories/kgw_033004_biz_progressive_radio.d7edf1d8.html to http://www.kgw.com/business/stories/kgw_033004_biz_progressive_radio.d7edf1d8.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:35, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]