User talk:Parkrun1999: Difference between revisions
Parkrun1999 (talk | contribs) |
Parkrun1999 (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 23: | Line 23: | ||
::::Good point. I think in principle you are absolutely right. However, it is fairly clear to me that CNN are biased against Trump, both with the people on the opinion shows and the breakfast show. CNN is clearly a liberal network in my view but it will be hard to show it encyclopedically When I watch CNN it seems like the presenters often try to talk the moral high ground, normalizing anti-trump rolling coverage and often interrupting conservative speakers. Maybe it is in part because trump slanders CNN as fake news. I just feel there is a double standard with this compared with Fox. [[User:Parkrun1999|Parkrun1999]] ([[User talk:Parkrun1999#top|talk]]) 21:51, 21 July 2018 (UTC) |
::::Good point. I think in principle you are absolutely right. However, it is fairly clear to me that CNN are biased against Trump, both with the people on the opinion shows and the breakfast show. CNN is clearly a liberal network in my view but it will be hard to show it encyclopedically When I watch CNN it seems like the presenters often try to talk the moral high ground, normalizing anti-trump rolling coverage and often interrupting conservative speakers. Maybe it is in part because trump slanders CNN as fake news. I just feel there is a double standard with this compared with Fox. [[User:Parkrun1999|Parkrun1999]] ([[User talk:Parkrun1999#top|talk]]) 21:51, 21 July 2018 (UTC) |
||
PS (edit conflict) I looked at the controversies and I think it is such a shame that the paragraph touching on CNN bias suggested in the CNN talk page is omitted from both the CNN and the CNN controversies page. [[User:Parkrun1999|Parkrun1999]] ([[User talk:Parkrun1999#top|talk]]) 21:51, 21 July 2018 (UTC) |
PS (edit conflict) I looked at the controversies and I think it is such a shame that the paragraph touching on CNN bias suggested in the CNN talk page is omitted from both the CNN and the CNN controversies page. [[User:Parkrun1999|Parkrun1999]] ([[User talk:Parkrun1999#top|talk]]) 21:51, 21 July 2018 (UTC) |
||
I have put it in CNN controversies. [[User:Parkrun1999|Parkrun1999]] ([[User talk:Parkrun1999#top|talk]]) 21:52, 21 July 2018 (UTC) |
Revision as of 21:52, 21 July 2018
July 2018
Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living (or recently deceased) persons, as you did to Page protected with pending changes level 1 Jimmy Dore. Thank you. Scr★pIronIV 13:37, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
Sorry. I will find references for future edits. Parkrun1999 (talk) 14:05, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did on Cenk Uygur. This violates Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Magnolia677 (talk) 15:36, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
DS Alert
Please carefully read this information:
The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for edits and pages regarding post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.
Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.O3000 (talk) 21:22, 21 July 2018 (UTC)Template:Z33
Recent edit
Hi. Your revert to [CNN] violated the "Consensus required" restriction on that page. All editors must obtain consensus on the talk page of that article before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion). This includes making edits similar to the ones that have been challenged. If in doubt, don't make the edit. This is explained on the article's Talk Page. No doubt you missed it. I suggest that you self-revert your revert. O3000 (talk) 21:26, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
Hello, O3000. Sorry for my error, it has already been reverted again. The reason I put the edit in was to try and encourage a neutral point of view in the article, in addition to summarizing criticism in an encyclopedic tone with references. I am disappointed that it was reverted so quickly. I would be interested in your point of view. Thanks Parkrun1999 (talk) 21:33, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
- The fact that most of the stories are negative in no way suggests bias. For example, you will find that most news stories about a rapist are negative. That doesn't mean the sources are biased. They are just reporting the news. I don't mean to compare the subject to a rapist. I'm just showing the problem with the argument. In fact, I don't remember the study itself concluding any bias; and we are not allowed to draw our own conclusions. In any case, the Harvard study has been brought up on many occasions. It just doesn't tell us anything in isolation. O3000 (talk) 21:39, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
- You might look at CNN controversies. O3000 (talk) 21:43, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
- Good point. I think in principle you are absolutely right. However, it is fairly clear to me that CNN are biased against Trump, both with the people on the opinion shows and the breakfast show. CNN is clearly a liberal network in my view but it will be hard to show it encyclopedically When I watch CNN it seems like the presenters often try to talk the moral high ground, normalizing anti-trump rolling coverage and often interrupting conservative speakers. Maybe it is in part because trump slanders CNN as fake news. I just feel there is a double standard with this compared with Fox. Parkrun1999 (talk) 21:51, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
PS (edit conflict) I looked at the controversies and I think it is such a shame that the paragraph touching on CNN bias suggested in the CNN talk page is omitted from both the CNN and the CNN controversies page. Parkrun1999 (talk) 21:51, 21 July 2018 (UTC) I have put it in CNN controversies. Parkrun1999 (talk) 21:52, 21 July 2018 (UTC)