This  level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Companies Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Companies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of companies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CompaniesWikipedia:WikiProject CompaniesTemplate:WikiProject Companiescompany Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Companies To-do: Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : Wikipedia:Requested articles/Business and economics/Companies Assess : Category:Unassessed company articles Copyedit : Category:Company articles needing attention Infobox : Category:Company articles needing infoboxes Maintain : Portal:Companies Stubs : Help expand stub articles located at Category:Company stubs Other : Tag company articles with the {{portal|Companies}} template Tag company talk pages with the {{WikiProject Companies}} project banner Answer requests for comments Conservatism Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Journalism High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of journalism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JournalismWikipedia:WikiProject JournalismTemplate:WikiProject JournalismJournalism High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Radio Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Radio, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Radio-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.RadioWikipedia:WikiProject RadioTemplate:WikiProject RadioRadio Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. To-do List: Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : Create: Missing years and articles in radio, National Association of Radio Distress-Signalling and Infocommunications (Hungary) Assess : Unassessed Radio articles; Unknown-importance Radio articles Cleanup : Radio articles needing attention Expand : Midweek Politics Bob Crane Maintain : Portal:Radio Stubs : Expand: Radio stubs Verify : Unreferenced BLPs Other : Collaboration of the Week: Requests for Radio peer review: Rod Serling The Howard Stern Show The History of Rock & Roll American Top 40; The Museum of Curiosity; Scott Mills (radio show) Media Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Media, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Media on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MediaWikipedia:WikiProject MediaTemplate:WikiProject MediaMedia Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Media To-do List: Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Cleanup : Media influence, Video game culture, Sound bite NPOV : Content (media and publishing) Verify : Multimedia, Alternative media, Alternative newspaper Other : Answer requests for comments New York City Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York City, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New York City-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York CityWikipedia:WikiProject New York CityTemplate:WikiProject New York CityNew York City Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Politics: American Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by American politics task force (assessed as Mid-importance). Television: Stations Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Television stations task force (assessed as High-importance). United States: Television 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 Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by American television task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

Hi everyone, I want to replace the sentence 'Fox News has been characterized by many as a propaganda organization' with 'Fox News is a right-wing propaganda organization'^[1] because it's more specific. Let me show my sources of information: ^[2][3][4][5]

Volantor (talk) 00:23, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote the original sentence and I think the new sentence goes too far by definitively stating FNC is a propaganda organization. I think we should go only so far as to say many have concluded it is. soibangla (talk) 00:31, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I simply disagree Volantor (talk) 23:57, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DUCKTEST Volantor (talk) 21:50, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck". Volantor (talk) 21:51, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The duck test does not apply to article content. Of course Fox is a propaganda organization. (My opinions are not that of Wikipedia.) But, it requires massive documentation to state that in WikiVoice, particularly since there exist supporters here. Your proposed change would not be possible at this time. Avoid Sisyphean tasks. O3000, Ret. (talk) 23:42, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Truth matters Volantor (talk) 19:14, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's an essay, not a policy. O3000, Ret. (talk) 21:34, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If a statement is not false, it is true. ... not to say “the Earth is found by many to be round” but "the Earth is round". Volantor (talk) 07:40, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How many references are needed to state that in WikiVoice? Volantor (talk) 07:42, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia does not really have any biased opinion, it is cynically based in neutral facts. Jllo782 (talk) 08:46, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Show me a news show that isn't slanted. 2600:1003:B124:396B:384F:7D87:B848:A19D (talk) 19:30, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So I guess that we can brand CNN and MSNBC as left wing propagandists, you will agree with this? 46.97.168.128 (talk) 14:37, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CNN and MSNBC did not have to pay $787 million for spreading lies. Which is a small part of the problem. In any case, those are other articles about other organizations. What Fox is does not apply to what CNN and MSNBC do. O3000, Ret. (talk) 15:24, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, instead they just had to pay for defaming that high school student. By nearly all accounts CNN is not any better than Fox. Jinventor (talk) 03:17, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your US left-right scale is messed up anyways, Democratic Socialism is not the same as Communism. And stop labeling far-right republicans as centre-right, they are more Radical than that! Jllo782 (talk) 08:50, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

While I likewise do not support stating Fox is definitely a propaganda organization, as @Objective3000 said regardless of the fact that they arguably are it's hard to back that in WikiVoice. That being said I *do* support adding specifically that fox was accused to be a *right-wing* propaganda organization. That makes it a little more clear what kind of propaganda it's accused of presenting and it should be pretty easy to find citable sources for that claim. 144.51.12.162 (talk) 19:26, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Go and fight over NRK instead, and find out if it is left-leaning like it was in the 50-80s.

It is the state broadcaster of Norway,so it is supposed to be trusted. Jllo782 (talk) 08:44, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Soibangla Your current statement includes Weasel Words. They should be avoided when we can add specificity. There is no problem with the statement other than that it is unnecessarily vague. At the very least, a word like "critics" needs be added. Your edit has removed specificity and added weasel word statements. Amend it when you can, or I can fix it later. Just10A (talk) 17:30, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

what weasel words? "many?" I would agree if the statement were not supported by an abundance of sources, but it is. by mentioning just a handful of specific sources in the text, your edit suggests "only these guys believe it." I can fix it later if you gain consensus. soibangla (talk) 17:37, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MOS states, "Claims about what people say, think, feel, or believe, and what has been shown, demonstrated, or proved should be clearly attributed."

It additionally states that for an editor to simply view an abundance of sources and convert it to a weasel word violates the Wikipedia:No original research policies. The sources listed are either stating personal belief or using "some say" language. Just10A (talk) 17:55, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

specifically naming a handful of sources when there exists an abundance of sources is deeply misleading. The sources listed are either stating personal belief or using "some say" language is incorrect and the edit is not OR as it is supported by many reliable sources. I think you and I have said enough on this, what do others think? soibangla (talk) 18:02, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If it is incorrect, please provide it. As of now, the majority of the sources from my cursory glance are either stating the position of a specific writer/paper or are using "some say" language. And even then, they are usually citing who they are referring to after their "some say." Additionally, I already said we don't have to only provide "a handful of sources" we just need to qualify it with something like "critics" or name the sources. That would avoid your weasel words issue.

Again, MOS states that, ""Claims about what people say, think, feel, or believe, and what has been shown, demonstrated, or proved should be clearly attributed." as opposed to using Weasel Words. I'm afraid that is just policy. Just10A (talk) 18:09, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Just10A, you recently reverted this edit claiming it was undue and had weasel words. I do not see how it is undue and do not believe it has any weasel words. If you would like to explain your reasoning please do so, as I do not see the concerns you have raised in the well-sourced and cited edits that were made. Pinging @Soibangla due to his prior involvement in this conversation. BootsED (talk) 19:49, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1.) Reverting at the very least during discussion per WP:NOCON.

2.) The undue and weasel word issues are similar to the ones already brought up (in fact, the new edit made them worse.) As far as undue is concerned, there is not a ton of sources to compare it to, but Fox is not primarily identified as a propaganda org, particularly when compared to other tertiary sources (what wikipedia is). The Encyclopedia Britannica, for instance, makes no mention of it in the entire article, much less the lead [1]. Additionally, as already discussed, the majority of the sources are either reflecting the position of the specific writer or are using "some say"-esque language. That, combined with the fact that it's contentious and that other tertiary sources don't seem to include it, presents a decent UNDUE chance.

3.) The edit clearly includes weasel words per MOS:WEASEL. Weasel words are not entirely banned, but they should be avoided and definitely shouldn't be used for contentious claims. At worst the phrase should just explicitly say "critics", and even then that is still technically a weasel violation.

4.) This wasn't mentioned in the original revert, but, in addition to the above issues, WP:MANDY is an essay, not policy. And it is an essay that in my experience is one of the ones most commonly overruled, so that would be an issue as well.

Let me know if there's anything else I can help you with. Just10A (talk) 01:33, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All boils down to "I just don't like it" with a touch of passive-aggressive condescension ("Let me know if there's anything else I can help you with") at the end. Zaathras (talk) 04:10, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if it came across that way, but weasel words and undue policy are not "I just don't like it", and are quite clearly cited. WP:NOCON policy is pretty clear here too. Just10A (talk) 07:28, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In regards to the propaganda claim, there were several peer-reviewed journal articles that described it as such. Despite this, it was still listed as described as, we did not say in wikivoice that is was a propaganda source. Encyclopedia Britannica was not used in the citation to say that Fox was described as "propaganda". There are 17 other sources that do that for us, including several peer-reviewed journal articles. Some of the sources can probably be removed to prevent over-citing this fact.

In regards to using the word "critics", we can just remove it and say "commentators and researchers" instead.

Yes, Mandy is an essay, however, the fact that numerous sources, including numerous peer-reviewed journal articles have described Fox as biased, it is fair to say that Fox is biased and not require us to have Fox's rebuttal in the lead. BootsED (talk) 01:13, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just10A, you recently reverted my re-addition of the edit again claiming weasel words. To be clear, I did not re-add my edit per your previous comment that you were reverting while discussion was ongoing. As no further discussion has occurred for over a month, I re-added the content to the page. WP:NOCON does not apply in this instance, as you are the only editor here who has objected to the edit, while myself and two other editors have disagreed. Also, please assume good faith and don't accuse me of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Pinging Zaathras and Soibangla due to their prior involvement in this conversation for awareness. BootsED (talk) 22:49, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just10A, you haven't responded in two weeks. Please respond to my inquiry above, or I will presume that you are amenable to having my edit added back to the page and have no further comment. BootsED (talk) 16:45, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted their unjustified deletions. At this point is borders on disruptive and will be actionable if it persists. Zaathras (talk) 22:27, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I missed your original ping. The position was never that the addition was only being rebutted while discussion was going on. It was that it was at least being removed while the discussion was going on, per WP:NOCON, but also explained with points 2-4 why it shouldn't be added as it was at all in addition to it being removed while discussion was going on. Also, I don't think I was the only one, I believe user @FMSky also voiced an issue with this and the lead in the past if I'm not mistaken.

Zaathras, I recommend you review WP:ASPERSIONS, all of the actions were explained and cited clear policy. Your change to the article is without consensus (if nothing else, due to WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS alone [the flowchart helps], the page has sat like this through months and multiple other edits/editors.) As a result, I'm going to return the article to its prior state unless a compromise/consensus is reached on the talk.

I'm more than happy to participate in coming to a compromise that addresses the issues per WP:CONACHIEVE with you guys, but I would appreciate tuning down the antagonism. Just10A (talk) 00:41, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is clearly WP:TENDENTIOUS editing on your part and your habit of WP:WIKILAWYERING is not conducive to collaboration. I suggest you stop this. O3000, Ret. (talk) 01:12, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly is wikilawyering about this? Citing policy lol? Every action has been thoroughly cited and explained. Just10A (talk) 01:53, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Misciting policy is also disruptive, I'm afraid. You keep keep harping on "no consensus!" but if multiple editors revert you, then that kinda means that you lack consensus for your editing suggestion. Zaathras (talk) 02:11, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus is not the result of a vote, and a 2 vs. 3 (now 4, I assume) is not exactly an overwhelming tide lol. Especially not one that warrants disregarding clear policy. Just10A (talk) 03:55, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That there is a policy violation is your opinion. Not fact. Zaathras (talk) 04:11, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's a nice idea, but you haven't supported it. You're more than welcome to attempt to explain why any of the policies I cited don't apply (because they clearly do). As of now, however, you've cited nothing to support it. Just10A (talk) 04:18, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The onus is on the one deleting content. Good luck with that. Zaathras (talk) 05:23, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not deleting it. You're adding it, per WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS. Good luck with that. Just10A (talk) 05:27, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, just to be clear, you're more than welcome to make an RfC if you're so inclined about your position. Like I said, I'm happy to work with you guys, I'm just enforcing clear policy that has been explained. Just10A (talk) 05:31, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The consensus for inclusion is explicit. You are welcome to create an RfC to attempt to change this. O3000, Ret. (talk) 12:06, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not really seeing a good reason for including this new material to the lead. Especially the way its written. PackMecEng (talk) 19:02, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That is not a valid reason for you to remove it against the obvious consensus. O3000, Ret. (talk) 19:10, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it is, because there isnt an obvious consensus for the new material. PackMecEng (talk) 19:45, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Policy is clear here. You declaring something does not make it so. There is currently no consensus for this material in the lead, and you're citing nothing to support your position. Beyond that, there's not much I can help you with. Just10A (talk) 22:25, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Let's stick with talking about what about the edit you disagree with. Don't just cite policy without applying it to the edit at hand. Just because someone disagrees does not mean the edit cannot be made because someone says no. Wikipedia is not a democracy, but based on discussion. BootsED (talk) 23:19, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What I see here is you have enumerated policies of weasel, undue and original research as objections. What I don't see is persuasive reasons those policies are actually applicable here, but rather they seem to be wikilawered to shoehorn the lead sentence to fit those policies, then you reiterate that you've demonstrated they fit as "clear policy" because, well ... you say so. I don't see that works.

After I added the lead sentence last July, it was removed and subsequently relegated to the body in November. So as I see it, the only relevant policy now is LEADFOLLOWSBODY. Otherwise, why would you not oppose the content in the body, but only in the lead? This leads me to suspect IJUSTDONTLIKEIT in the lead, despite that it is abundantly and reliably sourced. soibangla (talk) 03:19, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. Apart from the issues already previously voiced by myself and others, WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY isn't even the applicable policy here. That just outlines how the lead should be edited as long as it fits the body so that the 2 don't get out of sync, it doesn't outline the standard for including things in the lead. That's in MOS:INTRO and MOS:LEADNO, which says that the lead should only cover the most important parts of the article and accurately summarize it. For comparison in the body, FOX is only referenced as a "propaganda org" one time in the entire article. It's not at the forefront of the conversation at all.

So, long story short (just scratching the surface), it is not primarily identified as a propaganda org (this is a critic viewpoint), but as a news outlet with clear bias issues (aka, what's in the lead/most of the body), and the alternative is barely even mentioned in the body. On top of that, it's trying to be inserted with weasel word issues. For those issues, it has not obtained consensus for inclusion at this time. Just10A (talk) 04:27, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What are these weasel words you are referring to? You say you disagree with it being described as a propaganda organization, but that's not a weasel word. As I've stated before, nobody is saying that it is a propaganda organization, just that it has been extensively described as one. We have a ton of sources that do so, so its not undue. If anything the description of it as a propaganda organization should probably be expanded upon in the body in the first place as there's a lot of reliable sources discussing it. BootsED (talk) 20:24, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, would you be amenable to including the edit without the sentence "it has been described as a propaganda organization" in the lead until more context regarding the propaganda claims are added to the body of the article? BootsED (talk) 21:32, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Just10A Courtesy ping. BootsED (talk) 22:36, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm assuming you mean this edit [2]? Yes, I think it's written very well. Just remove the second-to-last sentence. I would also probably move the the final sentence into the dominion lawsuit paragraph just so all of that stuff is in the same place, may have to edit it a bit to make it flow.

Although, I do wanna be clear that I/we are not consenting to it being in the lead later just because we add a little bit more commentary about it in the body. That was just one objection among several. I would still imagine people would think it's undue, but that's an analysis for then. I just didn't want any confusion. Beyond that, I think your paragraph is well written. Just10A (talk) 23:11, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I remain unpersuaded that weasel, undue and original research are applicable for exclusion of the lead sentence and I am leaning toward opening an RfC to broaden the discussion to others. soibangla (talk) 02:56, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We need to add a bit more description about the propaganda claims to the body first anyhow. I don't see any harm in working on describing the many sources provided for that claim in some more detail before adding it to the lead. BootsED (talk) 02:47, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's fair enough. I will re-add the edit to the page but remove the propaganda section until more discussion of it is added into the body of the page. BootsED (talk) 02:40, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I want a ideological box to be in "programming" or something. It's clearly trumpist and conservative biased. It's like Conservapedia on TV. A strong bias who has led to it broadcasting false information, which is dangerous. Jllo782 (talk) 08:39, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Should the first sentence of the third lead paragraph read:

Fox News has been characterized by many as a propaganda organization.

Here is a previous discussion. Also see: Fox News#Political alignment in the body. soibangla (talk) 06:03, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

by many^[who?] This is textbook Weasel wording. Even though it is supported in body... in the political alignment section? I think the third paragraph is good enough already. If this sentence belongs anywhere, it's not the lede's summary. Aaron Liu (talk) 12:29, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I guess it's not weasel wording. But something about extending a summary beyond what we already have in the 3rd paragraph just feels wrong. I can't support what I'm thinking, though, so count me neutral. I would strongly prefer InvadingInvader's wording incorporated into the "is damaging to the integrity of news overall" sentence. Aaron Liu (talk) 01:42, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• No - for the reasons already stated in this and previous talk posts. It's weasel wording, not the primary classification of Fox, and is only mentioned a single time in the body. Not leadworthy. Just10A (talk) 15:10, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm against it -- better to leave the characterizations in the body of the article. CVDX (talk) 18:01, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes, although slightly more detailed attribution (eg. "researchers" - or "critics, commentators, and researchers" to match the body, although the researchers are the important part) wouldn't be amiss. Per WP:WEASEL, They may legitimately be used in the lead section of an article or in a topic sentence of a paragraph when the article body or the rest of the paragraph can supply attribution. This reflects a section of the body with very high-quality sourcing and is a major aspect of high-quality academic coverage on the topic, sufficient to justify a sentence in the lead; if people feel that that section isn't large enough, or doesn't cite enough sources, we can just expand it in the body as well. And the lead, of course, isn't limited to the "primary classification" (we're not discussing the first sentence of the lead, where that would apply); the purpose of the lead is to summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies. This is, obviously, an important point and a prominent controversy. Some relevant sources to indicate that it's an important point and a prominent controversy, which can be used to expand the body as well if necessary, include: ^{[1][2][3][4][5][6][7]} --Aquillion (talk) 18:48, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Most of these cites don't properly support the statement though? Even worse are all of the books, which, for instance, are next to useless for such a claim. They are written by 1.) The heads of Media Matters, a source not considered generally reliable by Wikipedia (and actually particularly biased towards Fox), and not scholars. 2.) Brian Stelter, a random CNN news anchor, also not a scholar, and; 3.) Literally just a random dude who wrote a book lol. The best I could find was his LinkedIn, where he's just a run-of-the mill Wealth Management Director [3].

  I guess you could say they technically count as "commentators," but that seems like an extreme stretch in WP:DUE and relevance to the point where we have no business including such "commentators" in the first place. It would be silly to cite Kevin Roberts or Bret Baier for books about CNN, for instance. Just10A (talk) 01:34, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Brian Stelter would fall into the accurately-described without any stretch and very Due "commentator" category. Same for the "random dude', a "14-year Fox News contributor, guest anchor, and two-time New York Times bestselling author". We rely on news publications.
  The non-books are all studies published by Taylor & Francis that call Fox News propaganda, and I do not get what you mean by "don't properly support the statement". Aaron Liu (talk) 01:42, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, but as Aquillion says, make sure to be more precise than "many". In this case, be as precise as you can with its wording while staying concise and remaining neutral. My suggestion would be that "Many researchers and commentators have criticized Fox News as being a propaganda organization" or some phrasing pattern of the like. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 21:33, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes - "Many" is a problem in the body as per WEASEL. But then we don't like lots of cites in the lead and if the cites are in the body.... This may be a case where the cites may be included in the lead to avoid this type of constant complaint. I'd prefer that the text remain in the lead without the extra cites. If readers want to know the details, let them read more than a paragraph. O3000, Ret. (talk) 01:19, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  when I added the sentence last July, I was aware that "many" was problematic if unsourced, so I included a bundle of many references[4]. though I try to avoid lead cites, I think an exception can/should be made here for such a contentious matter. I suppose some readers seeing that lead sentence might think "whoa! prove that right here and now," rather than look for the many sources in the body. soibangla (talk) 02:06, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Change to by critics, commentators, and researchers while literally true that it was criticized by "many," this is more specific and less weaselly. Andre🚐 01:37, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes, with appropriate sourcing. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 11:56, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• No, the lead already has material that a bunch of people dislike Fox. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:24, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I dislike pro wrestling, soap operas, and brussel sprouts. This is not about disliking Fox. It is about what Fox is. O3000, Ret. (talk) 16:32, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I believe he's just speaking colloquially. Not really an issue. Just10A (talk) 19:33, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]