User talk:Heavy Chaos

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Talk:Fox News. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Accusing other editors of a biased motivation is always a personal attack and forbidden here. [1] Andre🚐 00:48, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't we lay out the very simple argument and your response.

An IP user says "Hey, since Fox News is being sued for defamation, we shouldn't even call them "Fox News", since they aren't even real news [etc, etc]" [2]

The next comment is a user with a lot of effort spent on trying to make sure wikipedia and everyone else devalues Fox News, literally and in their hearts. He simply says "Yeah, I agree, see all that stuff I put somewhere else." [3] (Incidentally, you also have a lot of effort put there as well).

Then you come in with another simple "Agreed" statement, along with a wobbly use of the word "controversial" with regards to Fox News being "news". [4]

A short incredulous reply asks "What are you really asking here?" [5] I'm not 100% confident, but I think probably this user sees the silliness of the suggestion.

Along comes the NPOV, very sensibly. I'll blockquote this one [6]

We're not going to "de-news" the opening sentence of the article of, um, Fox News. Their journalistic integrity is certainly in tatters as the Dominion lawsuit exposes a lot of nefarious, partisan activities behind the curtain. All of that can and should go into the article, but let's stay grounded in reality in how the lede describes the subject.

And, boy, you backtrack fast: "Oh fine Zaathras, be the voice of reason and moderation, just like Fox" [7].

So, leaving on the table whatever "just like Fox" is supposed to mean and what we might glean from it, are you suggesting something other than an instance where you ought to be slapped with a trout? Shall you return to that talk discussion with a rebuttal for Zaathras? HC (talk) 22:52, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have recently been editing post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which has been designated a

contentious topic

. This standard message is designed as an introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially-designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;

comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;

follow editorial and behavioural best practice;

comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and

refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the

Ctopics/aware

}} template.

HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:01, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]