User talk:Tkhorse

And then imagine a world in which Tkhorse repeatedly deletes the controversial statement, "The government lied about inventing the HIV virus as a means of genocide against people of color", from the 'controversy' section of Jeremiah Wright's wikipedia entry because, in his opinion, Fox News, rated as number one cable news program in America, is more "biased" then ABC News (which reported on other controversial racial criticisms Wright made, and which Tkhorse left in the Wright entry). 152.23.68.27 (talk) 16:29, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

TO: Anonymous Contributor: You still don't get it. First, I have not repeatedly deleted the sentence--it was being deleted AUTOMATICALLY because the page was semi-protected. I merely happened to write up some of the reasons why I thought the quote, in isolation, was out of context.

Second, I don't think that ABC News is less biased than Fox News. In fact, as I stated before, I think that the ABC News Blotter with Brian Ross website is an especially poor source, because it often publishes unsubstantiated rumors, and always in a sensationalist manner. But in this case only, the source should be cited because it "broke" the news--Ross had bought the tapes of the sermons, had gone through them, and picked out the sensationalist snippets.

Third, most of the informed public would probably agree that, objectively speaking, Fox News is often biased. I am not saying Fox's point of view is wrong--it may be the perfectly correct point of view, which is probably what you think, and I am not questioning that--but what I am saying is that Fox often does not present information in a neutral and non-opinionated fashion, which are goals of Wikipedia. The fact that it is the number one rated cable channel is not really relevant to this point. People magazine is the best selling magazine in America. --Tkhorse (talk) 18:03, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First, there are multiple ways to delete information, you happened to choose a more indirect and underhanded way (protecting the page to ensure the info could not be added after becoming aware someone was re-adding it). Others have agreed in the talk that the page had no reason to be protected.

Second, you allowed hard news facts from ABC but not from Fox News, citing Fox's bias as the reason. Period. Your excuses don't hold water because you have no proof, nor have you given someone any reason to believe, Fox or any other news organizations have not bought the sermon tapes as well.

Third, there is no rule that only news orgs that "break" stories can be cited. Fox News and ABC both have reputations for getting hard facts right, regardless of their editorial slant. Their ratings are relevant because many Americans trust them for hard news (in addition to enjoying their editorial positions). A quotation is a hard fact, and a hard fact cannot be "biased." I do not "agree" with Fox News because I have no idea what their "position" is. I hardly ever watch Fox News. And by the way, I am an Obama supporter and plan on voting for him... I just honestly think the public should know about these controversial statements (in part b/c I wanted Obama to approach them more directly).152.2.100.229 (talk) 20:42, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Truce. I did not protect the page, someone else did. I no longer remember what we are arguing about re Fox; anyway, for anything that is actually broadcast on Fox, if you can cite a link to the actual Fox news video or the text of the transcript, that would be fine. As I recall, the ABC News Blotter is an actual website that one can cite and link to. However, a Youtube video which clearly shows the Fox logo violates copyright.--Tkhorse (talk) 02:52, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]