Talk:Bill O'Reilly (commentator)/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Bills $10 million

According to Olberman, Bill paid $10 million in the lawsuit according to some sources.

-G —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.117.158.83 (talk) 04:37, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

What is wrong with the You-Tube videos?

The You-Tube videos of himself are somewhat sped-up to about two percent try to make O'Reilly sound more like a puppy dog in those videos, which confuses some of their viewers.

--4.160.216.121 01:50, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Why is Bill's salary prominently displayed in his bio-box? Quick looks at other, especially liberal, jounalist's pages reveal that they don't have the same. Is this supposed to be insulting? Inflammatory? What?209.115.232.65 21:38, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Probably because he doesn't deserve nine million dollars a year. And he's not a journalist, he's an anchor. He reads off a teleprompter and inserts his own opinion, that's not journalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.252.48.158 (talk) 00:05, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Which ones? I watch him on Youtube all the time and have never noticed. Jcrav2k6 18:34, 19 September 2007 (UTC).

Please see WP:TALK. This page is to discuss changes and improvements to the article. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 18:49, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Please see WP:EL and confirm that any videos are not in violation of external link protocol, including linking to copyrighted material. Bytebear 21:32, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Archive

I think it is time for this page to be archived. If there is some current ongoing discussion, please advise. Otherwise I will archive the page. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 22:02, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Shocking Omission

The word Peabody doesn't show up on the page. O'Reilly has repeatedly claimed to have won "two Peabody awards - the most prestigious award in journalism" for his work on Inside Edition. He's repeated this claim for several years on every venue he spoke in front of. This glaring omission causes me to doubt everything I read on Wikipedia.

How do you guys choose which facts to ignore? Do you practice censorship, do certain people "own" pages and publish whatever they feel like under the guise of a public encyclopedia, or what?

WRONG. if you have a source for it, add it and cite it, if it does not have a source, it is removed you republican. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.83.164.10 (talk) 01:32, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

You may want to check his controversies article. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 16:24, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

O'Reilly did not win peabodys, he won another award of which the name escapes me currently... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.135.180.236 (talk) 17:45, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, O'Reilly won an outstanding reputation as a professional journalist when he was with Inside Edition. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/05/12/bill-oreilly-on-inside-ed_n_101267.html Too bad the Huffington Post does not meet the wiki standards for this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.107.225.216 (talk) 20:10, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I did a quick search on the Peabody Award website for "Bill" or "William" (I get some stupid error searching for "O'Reilly") and didn't come up with any results. There are two hits on Colbert, though. Interesting.

Roygbiv666 (talk) 21:27, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

---

I made some edits that don't really chnange the meaning per se but changes the tone a bit? But to be fair, why call one person's claim "a lawsuit" but call O'Rielly's claim as a "preemptive lawsuit?" -- the tone of the 1st para of that section suggests the harassment was true, and it wasn't extortion, it was just O'Reilly saying it was ... one is depicted as the truth teller and the other is the liar ... and we don't know any of that. In addition, some of the ocmments are illogical. I removed where it said the disputes were settled "in her favor" -- because it was not a court settlement, there is no "favor" one way or another. Also it's confidential. Both of them say it was settled in "their favor." Oh, also at one point, one of them "contends" something, and the other "claims" something. Adjusted that so they are the same. SecretaryNotSure 01:27, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

For what is O'Reilly best known?

Is he best known as a (political) "commentator" or as a "TV presenter" or something else? If you asked 1000 Americans what he BO'R does, what would most say (apart from "I don't know"!)? It would be convenient if it were something other than "commentator", as it would mean we could rename the article and therefore remove the disambiguation "hat" at the top of the page (the other Bill O'Reilly was a sports commentator, after he retired from playing). NB "(political commentator)" would also do the trick nicely. --Dweller 16:15, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

He is best known as the host of the O'Reilly Factor, and that is stated in the first sentence in the article. He is a political commentator so I don't think we need to change anything in the article lead. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 16:56, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

You misunderstood me. I'm not suggesting any amendment to the Lead - I'm referring to the article title. --Dweller 17:35, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I see no point in removing the disambiguation hat. It's interesting to know that there's another famous Bill O'Reilly. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:10, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Interesting opinion, thanks. Logically extending that, we'd make all pages for similarly named people into disambig pages. --Dweller 17:35, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Maybe I'm missing your point, but don't we already do that in most cases? Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:40, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Not where there's a prime usage. --Dweller 20:16, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Gotcha. There are four issues: (1) The hat dab—AFAIK, that's almost universal. (2) the dab page. Also almost universal. (3) What Bill O'Reilly redirects to: the dab page or this page. This is not at all universal. The question is whether this BOR is sufficiently more famous than the other for Bill O'Reilly to redirect here. (4) Given that Bill O'Reilly would be synonymous with the dab page, whether the dab page should redirect to it, or vice-versa. It seems that having Bill O'Reilly redirect to the dab page makes a lot more sense. I plan on suggesting this on Talk:Bill O'Reilly. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:25, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Bill O’Reilly Celebrates Black History Month

Reports now surfacing the web from employees of Fox News about Bill O'Reilly's celebration of Black History Month AhmaudAdoudie 17:06, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Keeping in mind WP:BLP, that had better be backed up by a reliable source prior to inclusion. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:09, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Inclusion? Why should this be included? --Tom 14:14, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

If it becomes reliably sourced, properly presented, and verifiable (I haven't heard anything else about it) then the burden is on someone to show why it must be excluded. Remember that notability does not apply to content. Either way, it does not appear that this story "has legs" or has hopes of being reliably sourced (at least in the short term), so it's probably a moot point. /Blaxthos 15:54, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I've edited the first sentence of this section due to BLP concerns. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 16:47, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

A wise move, I'd say. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 16:52, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Section title

The sexual harrassment/extortion section title has been altered many times both recently and in the past. Some want to just make it about the s.h., some want it to just say exortion, and others have wanted both. I think it would be better to include both terms to be more NPOV. There is disagreement on this so it would be good to find a consensus here. MrMurph101 23:46, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes... I noticed there seems to be some division of opinion there. Let me just say no one should be trying to "cover up" something that's something of signficance, on the other hand, no one should be trying to alter to wording to make it sound like "we know he did it" etc.

By the way, there's some minor misundertanding over terms. Lawsuits only have two outcomes, they go to court or the don't go to court. If they don't go to court, it means the parties involved have agreed on something. When they agree, they drop the lawsuit. So there's no justification for saying one party "settled out of court" and the other one "dropped his lawsuit" because that makes it sound like one was "kinda guilty." The fact is they both agreed on something, and they both dropped their lawsuits. That's how it ended.SecretaryNotSure 00:04, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I currently like it as is. I think Extortion/Harassment controversy sums it up clearly. Carbon Monoxide 01:17, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Both lawsuits were dropped. It doesn't matter if the guy from Washington Post phrased it that way -- there's no distinction.SecretaryNotSure 02:24, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Better yet, instead of arguing about it. Someone explain what the difference is, and why should we phrase it "oreilly was forced to drop his lawsuit, Oreilly was forced to settle, etc" Besides trying to make it sound like the extortion was made up and the sexual harrassment was true.(!) Which if you have some evidence for, that would be helpful SecretaryNotSure 02:32, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Arzel 02:49, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I also agree. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 02:52, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I do not agree. It's very simple: an out-of-court settlement involves the exchange of money (usually without an admission of wrongdoing); a dropped lawsuit does not involve the exchange of money. Though the net result is the same (lawsuit goes away) the underlying concepts are both distinct and significant. Let's strive for factual accuracy regarding what happened instead of trying to make it sound like both instances were settled the same way (which is not the case). I don't think (I'll check edit histories) anyone has advocated the wording "oreilly[sic] was forced to drop his lawsuit" or Oreilly[sic] was forced to settle, so let's leave the strawmen in the fields. The wording I advocated (and still do) is simply stating the facts: O'Reilly settled the lawsuit against him, and he dropped the extortion suit. Regarding the title, I don't think it's a problem to mention both aspects in the section title if other editors feel strongly about including both. I support the current version, as edited by R. Baley. /Blaxthos 10:02, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

After a little reading, I agree that they do appear technically different, but I don't like the "without an appology" statement, as this implies BOR knew he did something wrong, and still wouldn't appologize. Regardless of whether he did do something wrong, he certainly doesn't feel he does, so it is hard to believe that he would appologize for something he didn't think he did. How about "Both parties settled the harrasment lawsuit out of court, and subsequently O'Reilly dropped his extortion lawsuit." Both parties have to agree for settlement, so it makes little sense to state that only BOR settled, but it doesn't take both sides for one to drop a lawsuit. Also, I don't think the "brutal ordeal" statement is needed either, but could go either way. Arzel 13:11, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I see the distinction you're making, and IANAL, but is it more accurate to say that "O'Reilly settled the lawsuit against him" or that "the lawsuit against O'Reilly was settled"? The former (to me) suggests more of an assumption against him than the latter. Of course, the grammar "experts" will have problems with the passive voice in the latter, but I don't care. :P Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 13:44, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Although it's true that both sides have to agree to a settlement, standard nomenclature and accepted practice is that the defendant in a lawsuit is the one who is said to have settled out of court. Wikipedia cannot make any assessment regarding whether BOR did something wrong (those sorts of judgements are reserved for our readers), however I would caution against all this excessive manuvering to try and shade this in any manner other than presenting the facts. Regarding "brutal ordeal", wasn't that BOR's own description of the incident? I would be willing to guess that both parties would agree that it was indeed a brutal ordeal (sure sounds like it). Regarding the "assumption against him" point... perhaps, but that's the risk you take when you settle a lawsuit instead of taking it to court. Kinda like that Senator who got caught in the men's room... if you were really innocent, wouldn't you want your day in court? If you choose to pay someone to make something go away instead of fighting it, you have to live with "how it looks to everyone else". We just have to make sure that WE do not imply anything beyond standard language describing the incident. /Blaxthos 13:49, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

That's the implication. Where's the evidence that someone paid money? All the sources say no details of the "settlements" was disclosed.SecretaryNotSure 14:24, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd say that Blaxthos misspoke when he said "an out-of-court settlement involves the exchange of money". It usually does, but could involve anything from a formal apology, to some other agreement. Of course, I say it usually does, but I believe it also is usually not disclosed whether or not it does. (Again, IANAL.) So, it's fair to say it was settled (vs. dropped), but unless there's evidence that someone paid money, we should not mention that anywhere. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 14:31, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

My apologies if I was unclear. We should not mention money in the article at all, and I didn't mean to imply that we should. I was only using it as an example, but I see how it could be interpreted differently -- my bad. /Blaxthos 15:00, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I apologize if I am coming into this discussion late. I think the "settled...dropped" language is fine as it is taken directly from the Washington Post article. We cannot control the assumptions some future editor can make, but we can accurately describe what the reliable sources state. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 21:30, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

It concerns me that somehow "Guy from Washington Post say it that way" = "correct phrase to use." I get the feeling the guy from the WP said it that way for exactly the same reason we're trying to avoid, to imply guilt.SecretaryNotSure 22:20, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Find a source that doesn't word it that way, then. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:27, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

OK, great ideaSecretaryNotSure 22:40, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

We have no place re-tooling the language contained in a reliable source to try and change the meaning, regardless of the intent (path to hell and all that). /Blaxthos 23:01, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Here's the first reference: from http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A34312-2004Oct15.html -- this one is already in the article as a reference. It says 4th paragraph:

"Guys like O'Reilly who like to espouse what right-wing Republicans espouse about family values shouldn't be doing stuff like this," he said, adding: "The man knows he did it. He finally got it through his thick skull that he did it, and he's not going to get away with it. . . . He's going down."

This establishes the link between "he's a republican" and the reason for the lawsuit and/or the reason why the lawyer thinks he's guilty. Notice it's not about "justice for my client" it's about "he's going down!"

Next, about the phrasiology. From USA today http://www.usatoday.com/life/television/news/2004-10-28-oreilly-settles_x.htm :

Shortly before Factor aired Thursday, O'Reilly's lawyer, Ronald Green, issued a statement saying the cases and claims had been withdrawn and all parties agreed there was no wrongdoing by O'Reilly, Mackris or Mackris' lawyer.

Note that it says "the cases" not "his case" or "her case" or "the case" ... the cases, both of them, had been withdrawn. That's all we know. We can't speculate that "well, I think (in my mind) that orielly had to pay money or "settle." Heck, for all we know -- think about this -- How do we know Mackris didn't pay O'Reilly for him to drop the extortion claim, and when he agreed, she dropped the harassment lawsuit??? Think about that one.

Here's another comment about the matter from the same article:

O'Reilly's lawyer, Ronald Green, issued a statement Thursday saying both sides "regret that this matter has caused tremendous pain, and they have agreed to settle. All cases and claims have been withdrawn, and all parties have agreed that there was no wrongdoing whatsoever by Mr. O'Reilly, Ms. Mackris, or Ms. Mackris' counsel, Benedict P. Morelli & Associates."

Notice this is a lot like the other statement, except here he uses the term "settle" for both parties. That's right, in this statement and the one above, he first uses the word "withdrawn" for both parties. The next statement uses the term "settle" for -- again -- both parties.

In other words, to be fair, we have to say both settled, or both of them dropped their lawsuits, or both of them withdrew their claims. What we can't say is that one of them "settled" and the other one "withdrew" or "dropped" the lawsuit.

I found a few other news articles recording the same statement so it's probably reliable but I think I said enough. ThanksSecretaryNotSure 23:18, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I didn't see your other comment. We don't want to go down that path to hell so we'll see what others think.SecretaryNotSure 23:22, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Note that one says "cases" and the other says "both sides". Both sides could easily refer to both sides of one case. Also note that the "cases" statement says withdrawn, which could possibly mean (IANAL) dropped or settled. I'm not sure this disputes the other source (which admittedly has a bias), but it might. Any people with more knowledge of the law want to weigh in on withdrawn vs. settled or dropped? Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:26, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

• "Withdrawn" and "Dropped" are the same thing -- the petitioner removes his petition from the Court's consideration.
• A settlement involves a contract that may be reviewed by the court, which may be accepted or rejected.
• An out-of-court settlement involves a contractual agreement between two parties of which the terms of the agreement are kept private. If one party breaches the terms of the settlement, the other party may use the contract to pursue punative judicial action.

The sexual harassment suit was settled out of court, the extortion lawsuit was withdrawn voluntarily. One cannot say that the withdrawal was a term of the settlment, as those terms are contractually private and unsourcable. Hope this helps. /Blaxthos 23:57, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Not saying this should go into the article (it should not), but based on my experience, any settlement agreement would have required the dismissal of the extortion suit. Settlements are primarily done through release agreements that require the waiver of all claims currently pending or intended to be filed based on the same transaction. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 00:12, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

It seems mainly like an issue of semantics and/or legalese. It would be good to phrase it as concise as possible. Perhaps "...both parties agreed to settle and agreed that there was no wrongdoing and the details remain confidential." MrMurph101 00:20, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely not. We have no idea to what either party agreed. All we know is that BOR settled the sexual harassment suit and withdrew the extortion suit. Leave it as the source does. /Blaxthos 00:33, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not against that per se but a more concise version would still be the ideal to find a consensus. MrMurph101 00:46, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I've attempted to "fix" the sentence by stating that both parties agreed to a settlement (which they did), and both lawsuits were dismissed (which they were). Even though a case is settled, the underlying lawsuit has to be dismissed by the party who filed it. In my sentence, I took out the common language of "dropped and withdrawn", and used the term of art that describes what happens when a lawsuit is terminated by the parties. That is, it was dismissed. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 20:23, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Arthropods articles with comments

Can anyone say why (or even how) this talk page is in Category:Arthropods articles with comments?!? Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 14:17, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I figured out the how (and I suppose the why): Template:WikiProject intelligent design has this category included. I'll take the discussion over there. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 14:21, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Why is this page even included in that wikiproject? Carbon Monoxide 15:31, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Presumably because the article itself is included in the category Category:Intelligent design advocates. That leads to another question, which I don't know the answer to, however. I would say that if he is included in that category, intelligent design should probably at least be mentioned in the article. I personally have no idea where BOR stands on intelligent design. (Oh, and the arthropod problem has now been fixed thanks to ConfuciusOrnis.) Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 15:42, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Googled it. Result: [1]. Although I don't think it's particularly notable. Carbon Monoxide 15:49, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. It may not be extremely notable (I notice it's ranked "low-importance" by the ID project people), but it seems sufficient to include him in the category, and possibly to add a short sentence somewhere appropriate to describe this viewpoint. To those interested in intelligent design (whether they like it or hate it), that Bill O'Reilly feels that way is notable. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 15:52, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

It might fit better in the Politics of Bill O'Reilly article. Carbon Monoxide 16:42, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Because he is a Arthropod. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.84.136.156 (talk) 00:17, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

He has low "ratings"

Doesn't O'Reilly have lower ratings than "Countdown with Keith Olbermann? Olbermann, along with some of the NBC News staff insists he has lower ratings than any cable news program, this would outrage O'Reilly, if he were being told.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.160.45.119 (talk)

He does not have lower ratings than Olbermann, though the section detailing ratings generalizations, specifically:

"The show generally has more viewers than the two other cable news shows on CNN and MSNBC that run against it combined. The O'Reilly Factor posts three times as many viewers as Countdown with Keith Olbermann. O'Reilly has averaged 2.2 million viewers a night this year versus Olbermann's 710,000 viewers."

is unnecessary and has been deleted. The ratings between the networks, and specifically Olbermann and O'Reilly, vary significantl night to night depending on a number of variables. Blanket statements like the above are pointless. Ademska 08:54, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

100 most influential conservatives in America

Although very notable, I'm wondering how this fits in with WP:BLP concerns since Bill O'Reilly keeps adamantly claiming to be independent. It's easy to brush off this concern by pointing out that we're reporting how another group has labeled him, that same argument wouldn't work at all if we were talking about certain other labels. I'm not really that concerned, but I feel it deserves discussion. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 16:21, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

We should note that O'Reilly received the designation. We should also note that O'Reilly labels himself as an independant. Neither is slanderous/libellous and should be far outside WP:BLP concerns. /Blaxthos 23:46, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree, but I question whether it should be in the lead. Is this list well known, like Time's most influential list, or the US News and World report's list on various colleges and universities? I suggest it be dropped down into the body Arzel 00:44, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I have no opinion on the placement, or knowledge of the significance of the list. /Blaxthos 01:07, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I moved it to the body after another mention of influential people list. Arzel 01:21, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Liberal Positions Held By O'Reilly:

1) Supports Civil Unions for Gays and Lesbians

2) Supports Gun Control

3) Opposes the Death penalty (used to support it).

4) Supports the Endangered Species act.

5) Privately anti-abortion but supports Roe Versus Wade.

6) Although he condemned Clinton for lying about the Lewinsky affair he said in an interview with Diane Sawyer that "Bill Clinton's Presidency was overall a good one".

The only people who call O'Reilly a Conservative are people who don't listen to him.

He is a strong (aggressive and abrasive) moderate who is vigorously opposed not to liberalism but extreme liberalism (what he also calls the "far-Left"). And he has also opposed the "far-Right" on many occasi0ons.

24.8.106.182 (talk) 03:41, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Kool-aid to wash down 2+ month old beef? I'll pass (except on the irony)... ;-) /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 06:38, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Speculation? It's sourced, albeit anonymously

I have a problem with the current section on the Mackris lawsuit. Basically, as it stands, it essentially pushes the POV that Mackris was engaged in an extortion bid. In fact, there are no published reports that suggest that the settlement talks ended with anything but a large payment from O'Reilly to her. The Kurtz article attributes the statement about O'Reilly paying a settlement worth millions of dollars to an anonymous source close to O'Reilly. How much do you expect you can get? The Kurtz article was already cited before I made these changes--if we believe that he is engaging in speculation, why is it that we're willing to cite him at all? There is mounds of evidence suggesting that O'Reilly more or less did what he was accused of. He told Marvin Kitman that he had "a problem". Mackris moved to a swanky new apartment not long after the suit was settled. There is no reason to disbelieve what Kurtz said and every reason to believe it. We attribute the statement. It should go in, lest readers get the mistaken idea that this was just an extortion bid. Croctotheface 19:54, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

If you want to work on re-wording the section from a more neutral tone, that is fine, but to include speculation as to the settlement...I have to disagree. To include the speculated settlement reads like gossip. Arzel 19:59, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

How about "According to several published reports, as part of the settlement O'Reilly paid Mackris millions of dollars, however the terms of the agreement remain confidential. As a result of the settlement both the harassment and extortion lawsuits were dismissed..." Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 21:45, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, as noted elsewhere, there is a difference between "settled", "dismissed", and "withdrawn" (however subtle the difference may appear to the layperson). Other than that portion, I support Ramsquire's version. /Blaxthos 22:12, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Arzel 23:06, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of how a layperson would use those terms, both cases were dismissed. On the court docket, both cases would have been listed as dismissed (possibly "dismissed pursuant to settlement"). After a settlement, all related actions are dismissed if not, the attorney should be sued for malpractice. This is what I do for a living, so this is how I am coming after it the topic. It defies logic that the extortion case would have been dismissed outside of the settlement agreement, and to use misleading terms gives that impression. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 23:28, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

FTR-- my only point is that I would prefer using the legal term of art "dismissed" as opposed to dropped, withdrawn, etc., which are simply characterizations of the dismissal. Also note that the sentence only states that the dismissal occurred as a result of the settlement, not as a term of the settlement. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 00:12, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I believe there has been a miscommunication. A dismissal usually refers to a case that the court dismisses with cause (as unfounded, failing to make a prima facie case, procedural errors, etc.). From what I understand neither case was dismissed -- the harassment suit was settled and the extortion suit was withdrawn. In no case may we say that one was because of the other (unless properly sourced, which is not likely to be forthcoming due to the confidentiality agreement). If I recall correctly, the source cited actually uses that language, no? /Blaxthos 00:51, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Follow up - to be honest, my expertise is in criminal law (where dismissed carries a certain connotation). It may be different nomenclature in civil law, however I suggest we strive to be as accurate and specific as possible. /Blaxthos 00:54, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I'll try to be brief but in civil law, the term dismissal covers both, voluntary and involuntary dismissal. Usually when a court dismisses a case with prejudice (e.g. through summary judgment) it would still be called an adjudication -- meaning a judgment was rendered. The settlement doesn't effect the basic nature of a dismissal. Generally, almost all settlements in civil cases are in effect releases. The boilerplate language simply states in exchange for x amount of dollars the parties release each other for any claims now known or later discovered. Also, neither party admits any fault nor wrongdoing. Finaly, The agreeement is confidential, and other miscellaneous items are added. Sometime after the checks are cut, a request for dismissal is filed by the Plaintiff. There is no such thing in the lexicon as "withdrawal" of a case or "dropping" a case. You can dismiss a case on your own for whatever reason, or have it dismissed by the court for whatever reason. Based on what happened other people use withdrawal/dropping to describe the dismissal. Here, neither party would have dismissed their action without the settlement, and their is no evidence of court intervention, so to use two different lay terms for the same act (i.e. filing a request for dismissal) can be misleading and confusing. I hope this helps. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 01:13, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm fine with the version you posted above. So long as we acknowledge the reports that the terms of settlement/dismissal/adjournment/withdrawal involved O'Reilly paying Mackris, I'm disinclined to quibble about terminology or the rest of the section. Without including this information, which appeared in reliable, mainstream news outlets, the section strikes me as rather incomplete. Croctotheface 06:06, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the version as currently posted is skewed in favor of O'Reilly's view of events. Ramsquire's suggested change seems satisfactory to me. Only the section heading is misleading, since the widely reported controversy was solely based on the alleged "Sexual Harassment" aspect.-Hal Raglan 15:45, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I made the suggested change. It can be further tweaked by others if needed.-Hal Raglan 15:54, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Section Title Change

The "Extortion/Harassment Controversy" section has been renamed "Andrea Mackris lawsuit" based on the premise that her lawsuit was the driving force behind the story. I don't really have a preference over either title, but I wanted to point out that the extortion suit was filed first, so if there was a counter-suit, it would have been the sexual harassment case. Also, all the press seemed to indicate that the timeline is O'Reilly filed the case after negotiations broke down and that Mackris then filed the lawsuit, which had already been prepared (before the early negotiations) in response to O'reilly's suit. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 00:04, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I made that change because importance trumps chronology. While we don't know the terms of the settlement for sure, every indication is that the extortion suit was without merit and the harassment suit resulted in a settlement of millions of dollars paid to Mackris. To characterize this as an extortion controversy would ignore what we know from our sources. Croctotheface (talk) 06:50, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I would tend to agree with Croctotheface... the extortion claim was a pre-emptive attempt to repudiate the root issue, which would be the lawsuit. Saying so in the article would probably violate WP:OR, but it can be used to logically name the section. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 08:28, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I believe you guys are overlooking two important factors. One, O'Reilly's celebrity played a very important role in the coverage. If she never filed the harassment suit, no one would have paid attention to his suit against her. So the media coverage based on celebrity would greatly skew the importance of one case over the other. Two, if you believe the extortion suit was an attempt to repudiate or retaliate for the harassment case, that indicates a belief that the allegations in the sexual harassment complaint are true. I am not prepared to go there, based on my experience with Plaintiff work in civil cases. I am not saying that nothing happened, but please understand allegations are just that. Finally, Defendants will often settle a case even when they don't think they did anything wrong on the advice of their attorney. A perfect example of why is the Anuche Brown Sanders case versus the Knicks. Often times embarassing facts come out that have little relevance to the case in chief. In a public case, it is rarely ever worth it to go to trial regardless of fault. That being said, I'll repeat again that I don't have a problem with the title. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 21:06, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

moving the criticism section

what's the point of putting criticism about Bill O'Reilly on his page when there is an entire page devoted to criticism of him?!?!?! I think it should be an all or nothing section. Not a half here half there and put them together. I'm moving it if no body objects. RYNORT 00:47, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

The section should be a summary of the main spinoff article. MrMurph101 (talk) 01:09, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Radio Factor

radio factor is big and there is only a paragraph under the early broadcasting career section... Can someone fix that RYNORT 00:46, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

major editing

I just went through and cleaned up the non necessary information and staying straight froward/ simplifying all of it. RYNORT 00:46, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

You probably need some sort of chart for including the affiliates he's been a part of. It looks kind of odd right now. MrMurph101 (talk) 01:27, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I took off the bold property... does it look any better to you RYNORT 03:06, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

It does, thanks. MrMurph101 (talk) 03:17, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

mackris

it says that media reported the settlement was millions. I don't think any unverifiable information like that should be presented in that form. It just doesn't belong. It seems to me more of a weasel format to try and paint a picture of the incident.RYNORT 20:02, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I also don't think a rumor should be in any article, and am pretty sure it goes against some kind of policy.RYNORT 20:13, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

All statements are properly attributed to reliable sources and verifiable. The Washington Post clearly states things beyond what is in the article -- "Fox believed Mackris had tape recordings of the long, highly detailed conversations alleged in the suit" and "O'Reilly and his attorney, Ronald Green, never denied that the Fox commentator had used such language" -- and I believe that the version that exists now was reached by considerable efforts towards building an acceptable compromise. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 20:38, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Concerning allegations of a multi-million dollar settlement is not verified. that should be taken out for it is a rumor.RYNORT 20:58, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but that's not how it works. It has been published in a reliable source, namely the Washington Post -- a rumor has no attribution; this information can be verfied by following the link. The included text clearly states that the terms are confidential, but that the figure was $2m USD before talks broke down. Also, this has already been subject to considerable review and is now a consensus version reached via discussion by many editors. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:46, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Follow up - considering your very first edit was blatant vandalistic POV-pushing, and your subsequent edits have almost all attempted to push a conservative agenda, I'm having trouble continuing to assume good faith that your intentions are to improve Wikipedia. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:52, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Well excuse me. This article has been considered for deletion multiple times. Now one can wonder why that is, or one could suppose that it's a right wing conspiracy as yourself. The truth is, this article had an extreme biased to it, including unreliable sources and sensational writing. So if you want to put a term on me pushing a conservative agenda, I'll have to say that it's people like yourself hurting wikipedia the most by claiming that articles such as these should be left alone and unchallenged. Thank you.RYNORT 22:35, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I gave the wrong impression. I doubt very much that there is a "right wing conspiracy", I just think it's the efforts of a misguided individual who is more concerned with pushing his particular point of view by removing critical content than he is concerned with following our established policies, guidelines, and precedents. Fortunately, it appears we have a large number of editors who strive to comply with the goals and methods of the project. Hope this clears things up. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 23:06, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Fortunately nothing. Why do you think wikipedia gets a bad rep? It's notorious for being biased, sensational, and unreliable. I suggested moving dead links about certain claims of O'Reilly that couldn't be verified without those articles being present and your "editors" disagreed and said the sources and content should stay. Also, this article fails to say what level of criticism it's using to post. Most of these things are just whether they got people excited or not. Also, certain criticisms are mostly opinions and nothing really major, so by that standard should be post every blogs criticism of O'Reilly? I don't think so. Yours Truly, Right winger RYNORT 23:17, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I was hoping for a while that wikipedia would prosper. But now seeing how this kind of "peer reviewed" editing works, my visions are becoming bleak. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RYNORT (talk • contribs) 23:20, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Disparaging the project because your personal opinions are trumped by our policies and the consensus of other editors does nothing to advance your standing or validate your point. Instead of trying to use the project to further your agenda, I would suggest trying to learn what Wikipedia is all about, what it is not, and how our policies and guidelines work. I would suggest that your edits and your comments thus far have been less than helpful; I hope that in the future you will take our rules to heart, be more considerate of others' opinions, and respect consensus. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 23:27, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Well blog info is not really allowed in these articles as blogs aren't considered reliable sources. If you see it, you should challenge it on the grounds of WP:RS rather than calling people biased for wanting it in. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 23:23, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

The information about the settlement, as others have pointed out, is sourced to the Washington Post and supported by the consensus reached on this talk page. Within the Post article, the information is attributed, anonymously, to a source close to O'Reilly. There's no reason whatsoever not to include it. Croctotheface (talk) 01:31, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Recentism

Details surrounding the incident in New Hampshire today are very unclear and may not reach the threshold of notability - I removed the section, pending more reliable information emerging, and a sense of whether this is notable to anyone other than O'Reilly himself and his fans. Seems to me that rushing to include it today is recentism at its worst, especially since we don't really know exactly what happened. What's the rush? This is not Wikinews. Tvoz |talk 05:27, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Someone put it in and I found an independent source so I let it stay in. I really don't care if this is in or not. MrMurph101 (talk) 21:02, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I just added a section about this incident based on five independent sources. I could add more - Google news says there are 151 news articles on the topic. I'd say that qualifies as notable, lol. The assertion that 'we don't really know exactly what happened' is laughable. Dlabtot (talk) 07:06, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Follow the edits and see the timestamps - at the time this was added originally last night, the details were murky and unclear, and as I said, it was removed "pending more reliable information emerging". Until the videotape was produced and O'Reilly talked about it today, indeed we didn't know exactly what happened. If consensus is that it reaches a threshold of notability, fine - I'll certainly look at the section you entered. But when that comment above was added, what was laughable was the inclusion of this minor incident. And I still think we need to distinguish between Wikinews and Wikipedia articles - recentism is a real concern. Are you so sure that this is notable enough and encyclopedic to stand the test of time? That news articles are written about it is not necessarily enough. Tvoz |talk 07:28, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Again, your assertion that 'the details are murky and unclear' is laughable. There are multiple videos of the incident available on youtube. They all show the exact same thing: the simple facts that were reported in the over 100 news articles on the subject. I'm not really interested in arguing about this, since you haven't actually raised any valid or reasonable objection to the inclusion of this material - if it is deleted I'll just submit an RfC. Dlabtot (talk) 07:52, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Just wondering - can you read? I said that last night - that is, Sunday - the details were murky, and I removed the material then. I did not remove your section tonight, I said I would look at it. And yes, I am well aware of the videos, as I said, and the articles reporting on the incident. But nonetheless, I am questioning whether this is encyclopedic and notable enough to include in a biography of Bill O'Reilly. It is a minor incident that he's making a big deal out of today, but I am questioning whether it will stand the test of time - beyond his program and Olbermann's - as something that should be included in an encyclopedia article about him. I would like to hear from others - and you can certainly post an RfC if you like. Tvoz |talk 08:07, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Speaking of reading, prior to the next time you insult another editor by asking, "Can you read?", you might want to read WP:CIVIL. Dlabtot (talk) 08:14, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

But it's ok to misrepresent what another editor says and then call it "laughable"? OK, got it. Tvoz |talk 09:22, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the section shouldn't be in the article. It's a minor incident and in no way adds to any understanding of the subject. I removed it as being 'stupid'. --Elliskev 13:41, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism

Can someone with a registered account please roll back the frequent vandalism in this article? (I'm registered and would do it but can't remember my ID...) 65.216.218.133 (talk) 19:45, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

RfC: Shoving incident

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RfC Question

Should the shoving incident reported by over 100 news sources be included in the the article? Dlabtot (talk) 14:07, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Closed RfC: no consensus Dlabtot (talk) 19:05, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Why it should

The extensive coverage by over 100 news sources establishes it's WP:notability and significance to the subject of the article. The disputed section is cited to 5 independent sources, and contains no original research. Dlabtot (talk) 14:07, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Also this is not in any way a criticism of O'Reilly(diff), it is an actual, real-life event, captured on multiple videos, and extensively reported by mainstream news sources - hence its significance. The fact that his behavior may reflect poorly upon him does not mean it is 'criticism'. Dlabtot (talk) 18:26, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

BTW, I did look on foxnews.com for a transcript of O'Reilly's comments about the incident ('defending the Constitution' etc) but I wasn't able to find it, at least not yet. I do believe that his characterization of the event, once properly sourced, is appropriate for inclusion as well. Dlabtot (talk) 20:21, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I also believe this incident will pass the "ten-year test". Ten years from now, people will routinely mention this incident when recapping the highlights and lowlights of O'Reilly's career. Dlabtot (talk) 22:14, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

You don't know that. Now, you're just talking out of your ass. --Elliskev 22:28, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Of course I don't 'know' it, neither did I claim to 'know' it. I would advise you to please respect WP:CIVIL. Dlabtot (talk) 23:01, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice, but my saying that you're "talking out your ass" is not incivil unless someone was so dense to think that my claim is literal. --Elliskev 13:54, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

No, "you're just talking out your ass" is still an uncivil thing to say, please refrain from that sort of language, it can quickly turn a discussion into an argument. RomaC (talk) 14:04, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah. OK. Whatever. It's irrelevant to the discussion, anyway. --Elliskev 14:47, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

This material does adhere to WP:BLP guidelines. Editors asserting otherwise should be specific in their assertions. Dlabtot (talk) 23:04, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

It should be noted that the RfC hasn't even been open for 24 hours. And has so far only been responded to by one uninvolved editor - who, it should also be noted, argued for inclusion. Blaxthos argued for inclusion as well, but I believe he is not an uninvolved editor in the debates on this page. Any discussion at this point of what the consensus is, is decidedly premature. Dlabtot (talk) 23:55, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it seems no uninvolved editors have commented yet. Hardly a basis for WP:CONSENSUS. Dlabtot (talk) 00:05, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Consensus is not required to be determined by uninvolved editors, it's a process by which editors attempt to agree on edits. RfCs are uninvolved editors giving their opinions, but unless there are particular policy violations, they're not empowered to dictate how an article reads. We're asking for their opinions, and should include them in our thinking, but that's where consensus comes in. We're supposed to talk about why we think something should or shouldn't be included and reach some kind of agreement. So far I haven't seen much support for this from a pure content point of view. Tvoz |talk 08:36, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

As to the question "Why is it notable for inclusion in his biography?" Besides the widespread coverage by reliable sources - the primary yardstick by which we measure WP:notability - the incident is highly notable because it is so unusual. I believe it may be completely unprecedented in the TV era for a prominent journalist to get involved in a physical confrontation with a Presidential campaign staffer. I mean there is video of O'Reilly shoving Marvin Nicholson and being asked to back off by the Secret Service. lol. Whatever we decide in the short-term, as I said previously, I'm confident that ten years from now, this incident will neither be forgotten, nor will it be absent from this article. Dlabtot (talk) 01:21, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree there are now reliable sources quoted to confirm details about the incident; what I am questioning, again, is whether this is notable enough for inclusion in the man's biography. Unfortunately these last comments seem to be your own opinion - do you have sources that say this is "completely unprecedented" (Dan Rather at the '68 Democratic convention comes to mind, by the way)? And your confidence that this incident will not be forgotten in ten years is interesting, but irrelevant as it's just your guess. So I'm not seeing much in the way of people other than you saying they think in an affirmative way that this material belongs in the article - the most I've seen is the rejection of some questions about the text that were based on policy questions. This, however, was always a content dispute as far as I am concerned. Tvoz |talk 08:36, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Look, I understand that you don't think this is notable. That is your opinion and I don't agree with it nor do I find your supporting arguments to be credible. As far as the "ten-year" test thought experiment - of course it's only my opinion. It's a thought experiment. Yes, I am stating my opinion. You are the one who raised WP:RECENT - that is the essay that suggested the ten-year test. If you don't want issues of recentism discussed, don't raise them. As for your assertion that I am the only one who has argued for inclusion of this material, that's simply a false characterization of this discussion - made, no doubt, in good faith. Dlabtot (talk) 14:49, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Why it should not

Recentism, in a word. This is a minor incident that is not likely to have any impact on anything. We are not Wikinews reporting on everything that happens in the world, we are writing an encyclopedia biography of a notable person. This incident, at present, doesn't appear to be notable beyond O'Reilly and those who make fun of him, despite the fact that it was covered in news articles. Has it had any impact beyond O'Reilly and Olbermann? Was he arrested or did the Obama staffer press charges against him for assault? Those are the types of things that might make this minor incident notable, in my mind - without them, it's just another minor story. Tvoz |talk 17:17, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I understand your point and agree with many of the things you mention. But WP:RECENT is not a policy or a guideline. Also, WP:NOTE does not apply to article content. So unfortunately, there is nothing to prevent the info from appearing in the article except WP:IDONTLIKEIT arguments. As I said, we can simply place the tag over the content. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 19:09, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Just because it can be included doesn't mean it should be included. There's nothing wrong with loading an article full of well-cited crap — if you're looking to write a crap article. --Elliskev 21:41, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Please note too, we have more strict guidelines than other articles in WP base on WP:BLP. Bytebear (talk)

And there does not seem to be consensus among editors to include it. I didn't say that WP:RECENT is policy and therefore has to be followed - but it is not invalid because it is not official policy. It is an important and valid point about what an encyclopedia article - a biography of a person's whole life in this case - ought to be. I ask again, although it has been reported, what impact has it been demonstrated to have on anything other than to fuel O'Reilly and his opponents' flames? Why is it notable for inclusion in his biography? How is it a significant incident in his life and career? the point that WP:RECENT makes, among others, is that a little perspective can go a long way, and I don't see that here. Tvoz |talk 23:22, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

To clarify-- would I put this information in the article? No. I don't think it's important to the biography and by next week will be long forgotten. However, simply stating that you don't like something is rarely ever sufficient to keep information, as trivial as it turns out to be, out of an article. WP:BLP does not apply because it is reliably sourced, WP:NOTE does not apply since this is about article content not article creation, and it doesn't fall neatly into any of the categories of WP:NOT. To those who say that this sort of thing makes crap articles, well, I say welcome to Wikipedia. Until this project changes it's basic format as a wiki, you'll have to deal with stuff like this from time to time. However, over time I've seen that minutae gets trimmed. That's why I keep coming back. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 00:47, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

And the concept of consensus? Tvoz |talk 07:18, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Pardon me for interrupting, but I don't understand what your question is. The concept of consensus is explained in the Wikipedia official policy: WP:CONSENSUS. What is your question? Dlabtot (talk) 08:00, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I explain this below - I'm well aware of WP:CONSENSUS - my question is what role does Ramsquire think consensus should play here. In other words, I did not raise a policy question when I objected to this material being included, I said I think it does not belong from a content point of view, that it is not at all clear to me that it is notable enough for inclusion in the man's biography because it is a very minor incident that we have no particular reason to believe will last the test of time. Since I am raising a content question, not a policy question, the appropriate response, I believe, is for editors to express their opinions on whether the content merits inclusion, and then, one hopes, we will reach some kind of consensus based on what all editors who comment on it say. You went for an RfC, which is ok with me, as long as it's understood that content disputes that aren't policy related aren't somehow bound by what the outside editors think. They are giving their comments, as uninvolved editors who perhaps have some perspective and aren't caught up in the disagreement. They don't dictate whether we include the material or not, but their opinions should be duly noted. So far I do not see that there is consensus to include this material, but indeed, this was just posted. I'm in no particular rush, and I'm glad you;re not either. Tvoz |talk 08:36, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Why would I be in a rush? This is part of O'Reilly's history, it really did happen, it really did receive broad coverage in mainstream sources, it really is an extraordinarily unusual event for a prominent journalist to get into a shoving match with a campaign aide. It won't go away, it won't be forgotten, the only question is whether Wikipedia includes it now or later. And of course no one can dictate consensus, just as no one has a veto over consensus. Dlabtot (talk) 15:04, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

And let's be clear - there are editors who have not previously edited this article. There is no such thing as an 'outside' editor whose opinion is to be merely 'noted'. The article is not owned by those who regularly edit it. Dlabtot (talk) 15:13, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

To Tvoz, you are right. If there is a consensus that this information stays out of the article, then it should not be placed in it outside a change in consensus. As the first uninvolved editor to comment, it was impossible for me to know where the consensus was at that time or if one even existed. So I went to see if there was some policy that called for its exclusion, and then proposed a solution. However, if you are seeking a consensus not based on any particular content policy to exclude the information, then it is pretty clear where I stand. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 19:49, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Ramsquire, I think you pretty much summed it up nicely. Attempts to exclude otherwise-compliant (sourced NPOV) information without any sort of firm grounding in policy or guideline are, in my opinion, inappropriate. So far I've seen a few oft-tried policy buzzwords (like "original research" accusations) thrown around, but all have been quickly backed away from when challenged directly. Many people here seem to be asking for proof of a negative, ie "Show a policy that mandates inclusion"... that's not how Wikipedia was designed (especially around content disputes). The burdens of verifiability and neutral points of view are with the editor inserting the new information; if another editor wants to exclude the information, he has the burden of showing a firm justification in policy for excluding otherwise appropriate information. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 20:08, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Of course if there is a consensus to keep it out, which is what I believe Tvoz is seeking, then it should stay out even if it does not violate any stated policy. I am usually pretty inclusionary when it comes to article content, as you are well aware. But if consensus leans one way, I have no problem either way. Right now I don't see any consensus for inclusion or exclusion. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 20:16, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Correct/agree. My contention/understanding is that when there is no consensus for inclusion OR exclusion, then it is necessary to allow inclusion (absent any policy/guideline justification to exclude). I'd have to do some digging to see if that's in policy anywhere, or if it is just an understanding I learned via experience/circumstance. How do you all understand it? /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 20:48, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you both - in fact I am inclusionary too for the most part, but I also feel strongly that biographies should be an overview of a person's life and career, not a retelling of minor incidents that at the moment they happen seem major to some people. So in my opinion, this item shouldn't be in unless something changes to make it more significant. So I think Blaxthos is right that if there's no specific policy violation as a reason to remove it, it would go in - absent consensus either way - which is why I wasn't arguing on policy grounds. Ramsquire seems to be affirming that absent a policy problem, consensus among editors is what determines inclusion or not, which I think Blaxthos would agree with. At this point it appears to me that from an affirmative content point of view only Dlablot is arguing in favor of including it. So let's see what happens. (If I missed anyone else who has come forward in support it's an inadvertent oversight and I apologize.) As for opposing the inclusion on content grounds it looks like me, Ramsquire, Elliskev, Bytebear and Tom. It's not a vote - I know that - but at the moment the arguments in favor of including it don't seem to have convinced anyone else. As I said, there's no rush - and in fact I think letting a little time go by is good for both points of view: if this continues to be discussed in the media (beyond O'Reilly and Olbermann who both have their own axes to grind), then I, for one, might change my opinion on this and want to include it. But if it fades away as I think it already has, then my point remains that it just isn't such a big deal. Let's see what happens. Tvoz |talk 21:26, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Comments from uninvolved editors

As long as this is reliably sourced, which it appears to be, there really isn't anything to support its removal. Concerned editors can simply place a {{recentism}} tag on the article. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 17:09, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

The source is reliable, but Wikipedia is not a news outlet. I would say if there is a source that uses this incedent to demonstrate a pattern of behaviour, then you can use that source. Otherwise, you are using this source to come to your own conclusions. Bytebear (talk) 19:30, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Uh, what conclusions are you talking about? All I see is a very short statement about an event. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 19:31, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

If the event is so trivial, why is it in the article? What purpose does it serve? Bytebear (talk) 19:36, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

It is in the article because it has received significant coverage and an editor inserted it. It serves the purpose of disseminating information about Bill O'Reilly. Now, what about this claim of WP:OR that you backed off of so quickly? Are you objecting because you truely believe that it concludes something (if so, please explain), or are you objecting because you don't like the content and figured WP:OR is a good catchall? Sorry to have a low amount of good faith lately, but I've seen this sort of thing tried many times before by the same few editors. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 20:09, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't know who you are talking about here, so please clarify. I'm not a part of any group and I'm not "trying this sort of thing". I question the notability of this very recent, very minor incident, and I question the reason for ading it. Tvoz |talk 23:22, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

"This sort of thing" is in reference to a cadre of editors citing policies or guidelines that have no relevance... particularly, the objection regarding "conclusions" where no conclusion exists (the good old WP:OR). Regarding your questioning its notability, WP:N clearly states that it "does not specifically regulate the content of articles" (emphasis added). For clarification, read WP:NNC. Hope this helps clear things up. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 06:45, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I am familiar with NNC. I didn't invoke WP:N or any Wikipedia policy other than to raise the concepts of recentism and consensus - both of which are valid points and not policy shopping. So you weren't talking about me, I gather. (You might be more specific when you refer to cadres of editors doing something - being one of the editors who objected to this inclusion, one might incorrectly conclude that you were including my objection in the "cadre" you imagine.) I am using "notable" as a reasonable and common guideline that is employed throughout the encyclopedia to determine what material lasts in articles and what doesn't. I didn't say it should be thrown out because of the notability policy, I said why I think it doesn't belong here and I point out that there doesn't seem to be consensus at this point among editors here to include it. Just because something is sourced does not make it immune to removal - editors are expected to discuss items that others raise questions about, and one hopes that reasonable people will reach reasonable compromise and consensus to include, exclude, or modify material. Show me where it says that anyone can put any sourced material in and others can't remove it. This is a content dispute, not a policy one, so univolved editors' opinions about the content are welcome, but not violating a policy does not guarantee that something stays in.. Tvoz |talk 08:36, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

My biggest complaint is that every news event is not Wikipedia worthy. This incident by itself does nothing to improve the article, but if it is being used as some kind of character profile, which I believe is why it was included, then that assertion needs to be backed up. The question you need to ask is "Why is this information important to the article?" If you cannot answer that, then it needs to be removed. If you can answer that, then make sure that answer is not based on original research. Bytebear (talk) 21:53, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

If that's your "biggest complaint" then you should state such when you're voicing your objection. I don't see any sort of "conclusion" or unsourced material. Throwing around irrelevant objections only wastes all of our time (ever heard of the boy who cried wolf?). Regarding the rest... I'm not the editor who inserted it, though I see no problem with its inclusion given the large amount of coverage it has received (though I do recognize the recentism concern). I have my own thoughts about what is important to the article, and I can certainly give plenty of reasons to include it. However, before we do all of that if you could point us to the policy or guideline that governs "what is important" it would probably be useful (to me at least). If you're objecting to it simply because it's negative, or makes Bill O. look bad, that's not really a valid reason to exclude it -- the fact that it happened (and widely covered) is all that matters (as long as it's neutrally presented, concise, and factual, which it is)... It happened, and it's gotten enough (worldwide) attention that it has become a significant event. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 06:27, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Because something is "well sourced" is not enough for Wikipedia. It must be noteworthy. Adding something to the article because it "makes Bill O. look bad" is just a bad as omitting something for the same reason. Step off your high horse before you fall off. Bytebear (talk) 23:54, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

• I have no problem with its inlcusion. Seems to be neutrally presented, concise, and very well sourced. Didn't see anything about Bill O's quote about "nobody blocks a shot for the factor" and calling the dude "low class", but that's probably more info than is really necessary. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 19:31, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

To be clear - I'm not objecting to this at all because it makes Bill look good or bad - I don't even know which it does, and Bill himself seems to think he looks quite good as a result of it. I don't care if he looks good or bad. I am objecting to this because it is a very minor incident that happened, yes - that's why there are sources - but to me it does not rise to the level of importance to justify including it in the article. You and Dlablot seem to think it belongs in for whatever your reasons, but so far several other editors have said they think it should not be in. So, let's see what others think and see if we can reach consensus on this content point. Tvoz |talk 08:36, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Unless ALOT more comes from this "incident", ie crimminal charges or work place suspension, ect, it really does not seem note worthy for this article at the moment. Anyways, --Tom 16:13, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Reinstating the headers in the above RfC

Please note: I'm reinstating the headings as they were - please don't edit or refactor a discussion while it's underway. The editors who responded to the RfC were not involved in the original disagreement about whether or not the material should be added which is in "Recentism" above, and they chose to enter their comments in a section referring to "uninvolved" editors. It's not appropriate to edit an ongoing matter like that. Tvoz |talk 20:41, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 20:45, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, sorry. Dlabtot (talk) 08:50, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Next time I do an RfC, I'll skip the headers, and just pose the question, since they were so misinterpreted that they did not fulfill their intended function, which was to avoid what has happened, with the same editors just repeating the same points at each other over and over and over and over. How many times do the same arguments need to be stated? Dlabtot (talk) 08:57, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia! :) Have you been here long? Repeating yourself ad nauseum is the only way to be taken seriously sometimes. The fun part is that in a couple weeks someone else may arrive with the same issue and we'll have to do this entire thing all over again. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 18:24, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Thesmokinggun report

I was hoping more could be added on Andrea Mackris court transcripts and the events described within. At the very least a link. http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/1013043mackris1.html

The details of the situation are rather shocking. The transcipt shows the harrassment was quite severe and perverse and contains threats to whistle blowers, Al Franken, and all enemies of Fox News by Fox's owner and high ranking members of the government, all in Bill O'Reilly's own words.

I have yet to read anything renouncing the transcript's legitamacy and it has been referenced by Slate magazine and AOL news. http://www.slate.com/id/2181434/ http://news.aol.com/newsbloggers/2008/01/06/bill-oreilly-shoves-obama-bodyguard/

Southcrossland (talk) 15:08, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Please read WP:BLP, there is no reliable third party source that O'Reilly actually did any of the things alleged in Ms. Mackris complaint. Wikipedia is not a gossip rag, there needs to be corroboration that these allegations occurred before they go into the section. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 18:18, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I assumed being referenced by at least three major media sources with no denial from the party in question was fairly reliable. Bill O'Reilly and Fox news attempted to sue Al Franklin for using the term "fair and balanced", logic would suggest that making up fake documents proclaiming horrible acts hypocritical and detrimental to his character/network would at least ellicit a denial, if not a major law suit. I have not read anything that suggest that either of these responses have taken place. Southcrossland (talk) 18:32, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

He did deny these accusations publicly, he filed suit against her for extortion, and in any case, he probably couldn't countersue her explicitly for the allegations in the complaint due to the litigation privilege. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 21:33, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I'm fairly certain he denied that she felt harrassed, not the he didn't make the advances towards her. As well, he wouldn't sue her unless the documents on the site were true and leaked by her(in which case it deserves to be mentioned on wikipedia). I was suggesting that if the documents were not true that that is a blatant case of false defemation of character and that he would sue the website itself, or at the very very least make a very loud public denounciation of the site and its false accusations. Do you know of any evidence against the report, as would be expected from such strong accusations presented as legal documents? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Southcrossland (talk • contribs) 00:59, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

"This matter has caused enormous pain, but I had to protect my family, and I did. All I can say to you is please do not believe everything you hear and read..." [2]. The lititgation privilige prevents people from suing each other for allegations or statements made in connection with a lawsuit. As the website is only printing the complaint, a public document in any case (so there is no leak), there is no defamation claim he could have pursued against anyone you name. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 18:05, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

So you recognize the documents as legitimate, you just don't recognize the allegations as nessecarily being true. That's fine. I wasn't debating that. I was just expecting the full breadth of the allegations to be printed as such (allegations), and not as fact in itself. The point is the specific allegations are something people want to know. They are very strong allegations, of evidence reportedly captured on tape, presented in a legal realm, hypocritical of his stances, of which his only denial was "don't believe everything you read". In that light, the wikipedia coverage of the allegations seems very limited. I would think at least a link to the actual court documents would be appropriate. No? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Southcrossland (talk • contribs) 18:57, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Remember to sign your posts. I never questioned the legitimacy of the documents. I suspect that there may have been previous discussion about whether to include the allegations here, and the consensus was to keep it out or place it in Andrea Mackris's article. As long as allegations are not presented as facts, I'll have to see what you want to do before forming any hard opinions either way. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 21:31, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I think the following would certainly be a reasonable catalog of the events. I have taken the specific allegations from the court documents of his extortion suit and her harrassment suit, both of which are public. Please let me know if you see any problems:

On October 13, 2004, O'Reilly filed a lawsuit against O'Reilly Factor producer Andrea Mackris, her lawyer Benedict P. Morelli, and Morelli's law firm for extortion, contending Mackris had privately threatened to charge O'Reilly with sexual harassment unless he paid her more than $60 million (USD). [22] Later that same day, Mackris filed a complaint of sexual harassment against O’Reilly. [23][24] Her lawsuit claimed that Mr. O’Reilly subjected her to repeated instances of sexual harassment and spoke often, and explicitly, to her about phone sex, vibrators, threesomes, masturbation, the loss of his virginity, and sexual fantasies. The specific quotations led to speculation that the conversations had been recorded by Mackris, though this has never been confirmed. The conversations were never explicitly denied by Mr. O’Reilly, even prior to their settlement, but he did deny engaging in any physical or sexual assaults or "offensive touching." As well as claiming that Mackris motives were only monetary and political. Newspaper reports said that O'Reilly paid Mackris millions of dollars as part of the settlement, but the terms of the agreement are confidential.[25] Mackris' complaint had also sought additional damages and described alleged actions of retaliation by Fox towards herself and all others who pose a threat to Fox, including others who might speak up about alleged sexual harrassment and noted political rival Al Franken. .[25][26] Southcrossland (talk) 04:39, 15 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Southcrossland (talk • contribs) 18:27, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Hey, I plan on adding this unless you have any objections. Also I would like to cite the court documents themselves, but have no experience with doing this in wikipedia, not sure about maintaining the order of the citations for example. Please let me know what you think.Southcrossland (talk) 15:15, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't have any objections but if you check the archives, you'll see that expanding the section has come up numerous times, and it seems like the current version is the consensus version. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 19:09, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I've added it. Though like I said I didn't know how to correctly add new citations or appearently even keep the olds one in correctly. My apologies. I hope that it can be fixed. As for the previous being the consensus version. I can't see any problems with what I wrote. There is only fact present, all legal allegations are presented as such, and the additional information compared to the previous posts is not extraneous. I'm sure those who do and do not favor Mr. O'Reilly would still want to know what the specific legal allegations were.Southcrossland (talk) 18:42, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I've reverted, simply because you dewikified some links and the references were all gobbled. You can't copy and paste from what you see in the article. Click "edit page" and copy/paste the actual paragraph in the edit window (so reference information is copied as well, not just [1]. No objection to content or prejudice against you trying again. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 18:46, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Marist college

I removed the description of the college. People can click the link and decide for themselves what the school is or is not. Anyways, --Tom 18:34, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm at a complete loss as to why you think "small school Poughkeepsie" should be removed. Do you think it's not a small school in Poughkeepsie? It would certainly help people who have no idea what Marist College is, and considering that it is a small school few people probably do. I'm not going to edit war with you over such minutae, but I really think it's a useless removal of correct information. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 22:31, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Blaxthos, if people don't know anything about Marist, me included, they click the link. Also, I don't think its a "small" school after reading its article but thats my opinion. That is the point. Its an opinion that its a small school. You could probably pull references to show that its a "small" school but why? Looking at MANY other bios, do we qualify the people's college with adjectives and location? I would say no. Again, the material might be "true" but that does not mean that it deserves inclusion. I am personally of the minimialist school. I see so much material that is included in this project just because it is "true" and souceable. Anyways, what do others think? I thought about editing BO's high school in a similar fashion, but didn't since it was not a "standard"/ public school so MAYBE the clarification is worthy. Again, I would just mention the school's name and be done with it, but thats me. Cheers, --Tom 23:32, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

What is the standard for universites and colleges that are not well known? Even though it is a division I school it is not well well known so it's location might be a useful qualifier. Size, however, is difficult to quantify. Marist has an enrollment about about 5,000, which is smaller compared to many colleges within major athletic conferences (which usually number 10,000+). However there are many colleges and universities which are smaller than Marist. There were approximately 17.5 million enrolled students in all degree granting universities in 2005, with almost 4,300 institutions for a rough average of 4,000 students per university. There is probably a statistic that actually provides the average or median size, but I didn't see it here [[3]] All that said, I agree with Blaxthos, that the location is probably a nice qualifier because unless you follow sports closely you probably would have no idea where it is located. Just doesn't have the name recognition of a Harvard or Yale. Arzel (talk) 00:11, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd have to agree with Blaxthos and Arzel here - in fact, when he attended it was a small Catholic school in Poughkeepsie - I'd include all three of those points, just to give some context and flavor to his bio. I can't figure what the problem is. Tvoz |talk 00:23, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. I recently removed somewhere in the neighborhood of four or five three 'Catholic' references in a row[4]. Born to Irish Catholic parents, attended a Catholic elementary school, went to a Catholic college. I'm sure that there isn't any intent to make his Catholicism overly obvious, but it can be easily interpreted that way. It doesn't add anything. It detracts from the article by looking a lot like innuendo. --Elliskev 00:29, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't see what the Catholic thing has anything to do with Marist. However, I will say that your response only seems to have merit if you have some sort of negative opinion of Catholicism, otherwise it doesn't seem to make any sense... innuendo of what? That he's Catholic? /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 02:37, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Have to agree with Blaxthos. The label Catholic to both the school and college (althoug it no longer is) seem to be fine. Being born to Catholic parents is probably not needed. He is Catholic, thus it is assumed. Arzel (talk) 04:38, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Let me back up a bit. I don't think we need to label the schools, whether the label is 'Catholic' or 'small' or whatever. They are described as being such (or having been such) in their respective articles.

Maybe the 'Catholic, Catholic, Catholic' thing is just a style issue. I can live with it. It's not so bad when it's limited to the schools (although I find it unnecessary), but when the schools were labeled as 'Catholic' and 'formerly Catholic' right after it was pointed out that he was born to 'Catholic' parents, it just felt wrong. BTW, Blaxthos, my opinions have merit regardless of your analysis of them. --Elliskev 14:00, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Apologies if I used the wrong diction. I meant that your response, in its original form, only seemed to sense prima facie if one thought "Catholic" had a certain connotation. I am still pretty unclear as to what you meant by "It detracts from the article by looking a lot like innuendo", however I'm sure it wasn't intended to be a negative moniker. Hope this clears things up. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 15:43, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Not a problem. I don't want to get stuck in a tangential, but basically every label has a certain connotation. That's just a reality of life. If I call a college a small college, a certain connotation goes along with that. To some it may insinuate exclusive; to others rinky-dink. There are cultural connotations with 'Catholic' or 'Mormon' or 'Jewish' or 'Wiccan' or whatever. I'm a practicing Catholic who makes it to Mass more often than not, so I don't have any negative opinion of the Church. My issue is with the profuse labeling. I'd have the same issue if a section in an article said Mr. Subject was born in New York City to Muslim parents. As a child he attended XYZ elementary school (which is a private Muslim school) then went on to college at ABCU, a small private college in Newark (which used to be Muslim). Again, it's stylistic. It just feels wrong to me. Being a stylistic matter, I'll defer to a majority opinion, while reserving the right to keep mine. --Elliskev 16:06, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

(outdent to left) I sort of also felt this was more of a styleistic issue. Is there really a NEED to "label" Marist at all? Just because it adds more detail is questionable as has been pointed out. I think mentioning BO's religious background is totally in keeping with other bios but that seems to be seperate from this issue. Again, I always like to see/know WHY material has been included in an article. Anyways, --Tom 16:46, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok - I don't think the "Catholic" label is crucial one way or another for Marist, and I wasn't suggesting any innuendo in any direction should be taken. I was reacting to a version of the sentence that said Marist is a "small, coeducational private" college (or words to that effect) and actually when O'R attended it was a small Catholic college and I think not co-ed but would have to check again. I don't think it's at all important to include that it was a Catholic college, just of mild interest as an indication of what kind of college he chose - no implications of any kind intended. And if you're from NY and/or have any knowledge of or connection to the Catholic colleges in NY, the description of "Small, co-ed private" would stick out as possibly incorrect because that's not what Marist has been known as for many years, which is why it caught my eye - that's all. And I do take Elliskev's point that the multiple "Catholics" may have looked like a point was trying to be made, but I wasn't trying to make it. Either way is ok with me. Tvoz |talk 17:49, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I hope I didn't insinuate that I thought a point was intended. Of course, it probably came off like that, as I'm not the most careful person with my words. Anyways, we can all smile. :) --Elliskev 18:04, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Just so you know, the reason the liberal editors attempted to promiscuously insert the word Catholic as many times as possible into this article is that it's religious code for conservative nut job. You see this in their frequent pointing out of how many Supreme Court Justices are 'Catholic' (read: Right wing wackos.) The editors at wikipedia are not as sophisticated in injecting their obvious liberal bias into their work as are the folks in the mainstream media, so it's easier to catch them. That was the case here.69.244.181.184 (talk) 06:53, 28 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.149.19.166 (talk)

Father worked for caltex?

I delinked caltex. Is there any more info on the company his father worked for? Is it even relevant or should just his occupation be mentioned? Thanks, --Tom 19:36, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

photo

The photo on the page makes him look like a scowling, mean SOB, which even if is your opinion, its just that, an opinion, and frankly makes the page look like it was put together by people that hate O'Reilly (which I suspect is at least partially true). I suggest a different picture, certainly there are more neutral ones out there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.219.24.204 (talk) 03:39, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

1. Pictures are not subjective -- either the picture is of the subject, or it is not. Pictures cannot convey opinions.
2. Likewise, your interpretation of the picture is also just your opinion.
3. Free images are harder to come by than you might think. Our rules mandate that a free image must be used when available. If you have a picture you have taken of Bill O'Reilly, you're welcome to upload it and submit it for use on the article.
4. Accusing editors of hating Bill O'Reilly is unnecessary. Attacking other editors' motives is a serious violation of WP:AGF and WP:NPA.

/Blaxthos ( t / c ) 04:03, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

If pictures can't be used to convey opinions, then how about a picture of O'Reilly with his tounge sticking out at the camera? Or one with him in mid-sentence with his eyes half-closed? The assertion that any ol' picture is just as good as any other is laughable and everyone knows it.

O'Reilly has had untold thousands of photos taken of him. Surely someone has one that works well, although the one up right now strongly suggests that whoever put it up was not a fan, to say the least.

No need to hurl inane threats about rule violations at me. If you'll so much as glance above you'll notice that a number of the editors DO hate O'Reilly, which is fine with me, unless they let their personal biases get in the way of the article. I was merely making what I thought to be a prudent suggestion to slightly improve the article, though I was naive to think that I could do so without receiving a scolding. 12.219.24.204 (talk) 04:11, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

The picture isn't that bad. It may seem that some sort of publicity photo should be the norm but there are certain liscensing issues that have to be taken into account. Trying to get an image uploaded into wikipedia and keeping it can be quite a difficult task. MrMurph101 (talk) 05:05, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Agree with MrMurph101... also, if you can't make your point without accusing other editors of hating the subject, then your point likely has little value. Molehill -> mountain. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 14:06, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Media Matters and Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting

It might be useful to include the fact that these "watchdogs" are from the left, and would have a natural antagonism towards Mr. O'Reilly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.240.143.147 (talk) 06:44, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Your opinion of the organizations is noted, however we don't (or shouldn't) involve ourselves in using Wikipedia to characterize critics. Please see WP:NPOV. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 20:21, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Being a Troublemaker in College

So I was just listening to his radio program and heard him talk about how when he was at Marist, he threw a kid named Pierre out the window for selling drugs. He apparantly writes about it in his upcoming book. It's pretty hillarious to me and I think it goes to his "unconventional" way of approaching problems so it should be mentioned. Arnabdas (talk) 17:36, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:RECENTISM. Let's see if its picked up by any 3rd party reliable sources, and then discuss. This way we stay away from original research. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 19:57, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Why is the main article uneditable?

There is no apparent reason stated - why? Why is this public encyclopedia increasingly privatized? Who owns this page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.19.66.46 (talk) 09:18, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

The article is currently semi-protected due to frequent vandalism, but editors who are logged in can still edit the article. Gamaliel (talk) 16:27, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Ah! thank you, Gamaliel, for the insight. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.33.105.211 (talk) 01:01, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Kool Aid

Seen his show and he implies that listeners who disagree with him drink it. This should be mentioned. 205.240.144.129 (talk) 09:24, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Well those who disagree with him are being told to partake in an excellent product, and frankly I think that if you like him or don't like him or don't have an opinion of him you should drink delicious Kool-Aid (available at your local supermarket). If it gets picked up by neutral 3rd party news sources then we'll see, but It doesn't seem to add anything of substance to the article. 04:57, 4 April 2008 (UTC) Jax —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.203.224.233 (talk)

I watch FOX News and his comment is that IF you disagree with with him, the Kool Aid comment means that you are some kind of idiot, just as were the people who were with Jim Jones, who drank Kool Aid, which was poisoned. The comment means that you're a idiot in Bill O' Reilly's POV. Watch the show, and you'll see him using that comment on someone who disagrees with him. 65.173.105.133 (talk) 18:16, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Bill O'reilly's background

I do not understand why this article continues to say that Bill O'Reilly grew up in Levittown. He did not-he grew up in Westbury, a decidedly middle-class suburb. In a Washington Post article dated 12/13/2000 called The Life Of O'reilly his own mother is quoted as saying that he grew up in WESTBURY! Further, the link to the frankenlies.com site which purports to show a deed to the home shows no such thing. It is a mortgage agreement, not a land deed. This is proof of nothing.

Having "Levittown" in a place's mailing address does not necessarily mean that place is in the Hamlet of Levittown:

There are places that have a "Levittown, NY 11756" mailing address that are in the Hamlet of Plainedge and in the Hamlet of Salisbury* (and, there are places in the Hamlet of Levittown that have a "Bethpage, NY 11714", a "Wantagh, NY 11793" or a "Seaford, NY 11783" mailing address).Thewatcherman (talk) 11:55, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Stephen Colbert

WHY IS THERE NO MENTION ON THIS PAGE OF STEPHEN COLBERT???????????????????????? What a gaping omission! Travisritch (talk) 03:41, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Problem in Criticism

The youtube clip of O'Reilly says it was from the closing segment of The O'Reilly Factor, when in fact it was on Inside Edition —Preceding unsigned comment added by Clarked2 (talk • contribs) 07:13, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I've fixed that. The section also says that the outburst has drawn "considerable criticism"; I've added a "citation needed" tag because I don't know of any criticism, other than murmurs on the internet and mockery by Stephen Colbert. Is there other criticism? Valacosa (talk) 07:26, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Does the word "irrationally" seem encyclopedic? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.219.28.164 (talk) 08:52, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I can't believe I'm saying this...but I wonder if this video/incident (no matter how much I enjoy it) is really relevant or encyclopedic? Jimintheatl (talk) 10:55, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

It is not. As well all know, WP is not a newspaper. If this was that important of a fact regarding his life it wouldn't have taken over a decade to surface. Arzel (talk) 11:41, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Precisely, Arzel. It justs seems to be a way to attack a person, with nothing credible to it, and therefore violates WP:BLP.--Bedford 19:30, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Right. If you keep editing out and hiding any evidence to support his criticisms, you will help maintain a spotless image of Bill O'Reilly. Nevermind the collective knowledge put together on wikipedia, only a few guards of this page will decide how one learns about a significant media figure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SonicKuz (talk • contribs) 21:39, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

To Bedford: This is a comment directed towards the inclusion of a single point, not a stage to lament about how Wikipedia is "attacking" Bill O'Reilly. To SonicKuz: exaggerated rhetoric does no one any good, and doesn't advance the discussion. This story has now been covered by major media outlets (several), and may merit mention. The circumstances have changed since all the relevant comments above were made. I'll follow up with some references in mainstream media shortly. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 22:05, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

This is just an attempt to smear O'Reilly. Anything from Inside Edition is ten years old.--Bedford 22:19, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

How is finding a 13+ year-old video of O'Reilly throwing a tantrum over a teleprompter snag "smearing him"? You clearly aren't familiar with the definition of smear. Merriam Webster says of smear: "usually unsubstantiated charge or accusation against a person or organization". There is no unsubstantiated charge or accusation against O'Reilly here. O'Reilly threw the tantrum out of his own volition and his actions in the video are his own. Why can't you accept the fact that the man had an unflattering moment in front of the camera? It happens all the time. It's happened to Olbermann, Scarborough, Buchanan, Dobbs, Matthews, Blitzer, Hume, Lauer, Gibson AND O'Reilly. Sorry to burst your bubble, but Bill O'Reilly is just like everyone else in that he ain't perfect. DEAL WITH IT. Ericster08 (talk) 00:04, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Like I said below, the recently circulated Inside Edition clip is CLEARLY notable. I added material about it. Daimerej (talk) 08:05, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Earlier, when the Youtube video stood alone, I wondered whether this video/incident warranted inclusion. The increased attention and parodies make me think that it might, but I still wonder if "Criticism" is the appropriate spot. Jimintheatl (talk) 13:59, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Links

I'm not sure if this link is worthy of inclusion in this article[5], because its from years ago, and would not normally be something I'd think should be, if it were not for the fact that Bill is known for his temper, and yelling at people, and the fact that this has been been rather notable though many parodied take-offs of this the original, for example: [6][7], and there are a lot more if you look around for them. So I think it's suitable for inclusion, but want to first allow it to pass the smell test here among regular editors to this article. Thanks.Giovanni33 (talk) 00:08, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Appears Dhewyard wiki-stalked me, but he is not a regular editor here so his view of this is taken with a lot of salt. But to answer his charge, this is not cherry-picking. Here is an New Report on MSNBC it that makes the claim its been seen over 400,000 times now.http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/24586540#24586540Giovanni33 (talk) 06:59, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Due to the popularity of those youtube clips, O'Reilly is now haunted by his unprofessional reaction on the long-lost Inside Edition outtake on youtube. He was obviously angry about a teleprompter malfunction. Also two other clips available: one shows him on an April 2007 segment when O'Reilly argued in a vicious manner at Geraldo Riviera in a debate about an illegal immigrant DUI case in Virginia, and the other from June 2006 when he threatened to boot Phil Donahue off his show set when O'Reilly took offense at Phil's comment about "O'Reilly wants to send other people's kids to fight in war", but O'Reilly stated his nephew enlisted in the US armed forces. Indeed O'Reilly is known to flame, quarrel and get easily upset at some of his guests, plus he self-jokingly said that's a behavioral trait of his New Yorker/East coast uprising: The popular stereotpye of New Yorkers are perceived as "tough-talkers" get highly-tempered and may use foul language to express their emotion...and O'Reilly does fit the stereotype. + Mike D 26 (talk) 10:53, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I added material about this. It is CLEARLY notable. Daimerej (talk) 08:03, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree its notable but I'm unsure about having a whole paragraph about it. But the link is notable enough for the external links section. It should be restored, I think, unless the one editor, DHwyward who is edit warring about, actually participates on the talk page to discuss his objections. We have a notable source above, MSNBC, that establishes this is not cherry picking.Giovanni33 (talk) 05:16, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Add Nas to Controversy and criticism

Someone please add rapper Nas to Controversy and criticism section because he has criticized Nas because of the Virginia Tech incident. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.54.0.168 (talk) 14:12, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Inside Edition outtake

• BLP/N response: I cleaned this up a bit more, noting it was a 20-year-old outtake (not the implied new video), added citations and O'Reilly's self-deprecating response, as well as removing the unsourced "backlash", as I found no verifiable major news coverage of criticism, only of reporting the matter. I'll check back for one clarification response if needed, but I don't intend to get bogged down in discussion as I'm only responding from the noticeboard to clear up BLP concerns. --Faith (talk) 19:49, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Just a minor Internet blip; even if it shows up on the back pages of some gossip rag, I wouldn't support including it. Heck, in my opinion it actually reflected well on O'Reilly ;-) <eleland/talkedits> 02:23, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I haven't seen anything that would indicate any criticism or controversy. Seems to be an amusing blurb if anything. Regardless it's such a tiny fraction that it is not notable enough to include in the bio. --DHeyward (talk) 03:06, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

See MSNBC links above, about it, and other satire take-off's of the original. This establishes its notability.Giovanni33 (talk) 05:18, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

• Final comment: It seems to be notable because it's discussed on major and minor news sources, as well as being spoofed by Comedy Central. I also note someone took out faulty, claiming it was not in the sources; however, the Globe specifically said "'I can't read it,' he roars, referring to a faulty teleprompter", so that should be replaced. Inclusion does not, IMO, violate BLP. Consensus will need to be reached to see if it is worth including. Please stop edit warring over the matter. Seek a 3O, if necessary. IMO, it's funny, O'Reilly responded to it with humour, and it's not a bad trivial inclusion, but it isn't criticism because it was not treated critically by those RS. --Faith (talk) 05:38, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree, unless there is a RS that is critical and uses this as an example, i.e. he has a bad temper as evidenced by this, then we should not say its criticism. But its notable and should be included either as Trivia, or in the EL section.Giovanni33 (talk) 06:47, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Agree. The Inside Edition section seems more appropriate. Jimintheatl (talk) 14:10, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

That is not concensus. Arzel (talk) 14:16, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

The actual link to video can probably never be included. The orginal YouTube posting was pulled because of COPYWR violations by Inside Edition's parent station. I know it has been shown outside of that, but there are probably still copywrite issues. I also agree it is triva. Arzel (talk) 12:46, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Of course the video may be included, though the tea leaves are still drying (the "criticism" aspect has yet to solidify). It's been reported by several reliable sources, including MSNBC and several newspapers (not to mention the subject of satire by Colbert and others), and the video is available from those sources (MSNBC website specifically may be linked). It's an outright misstatement to try and sell something as trivia when it has been the subject of multiple independent reliable sources. I'm not saying that it definitely should be included (or that we've thoroughly had time to debate the merits), but saying that it "can probably never be included" and that "it's trivia" is undoubtedly incorrect. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 22:49, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Didn't realize you were the arbiter of what can and cannot be included. All I am saying is that it may violate copywrite violations. I never said the story couldn't be incorporated, only that the actual video may not, please don't put words into my mouth. You say its not trivia, I say it is. Your opinion holds no more weight than mine, but to say I am undoubtedly incorrect is undoubtedly incorrect. I actually think that this instance, aonly with some of his other more outrageous outbursts could probably be it's own section, without delving too much into specifics. Something along the lines of this.

BOR has made several well published outbursts on air and tape during his time as a commentator during both his time at Inside Edition and on his show The O'Reilly Factor. One such outburst was also parodied by Stephen Colbert on The Colbert Report.

That is pretty rough, and not sure how to phrase it completely. I know he personally didn't respond negatively to the IE story, but I can't remember his exact response. In general though, this one instance by itself isn't very notable considering his many years of broadcast work, but I do agree that he is known for flying off the handle. Arzel (talk) 01:30, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

The emphasis on may in the original was intended to convey the possibility of inclusion, as to trump what seemed to be an assertion that the issue is closed. Thank you for clarifying your intent. Trivial information is not covered by multiple independent reliable sources (especially news organizations); therefore something that has been reported by several large news organizations by definition is not trivial. I really was only trying to say that discussion is not moot and should continue (not that I definitely think this should go in). If it does, a short sentence or two is more than enough, as long as they're sourced. What's most curious is that the incident seems to have gotten enough attention that an article dedicated to the incident could probably pass WP:N. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 23:27, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I actually agree with you. I removed the section again, but don't take it to seriously. It doesn't seem to be criticism or even a controversy. The fact that it happened so long ago seems to have made it a curiousity of ammusement. Even O'Reilly finds it ammusing at this time. I still think it plays into his larger than life personality. I just don't know the best way to incorporate it, but It certainly shouldn't be lumped in with the controversy section (IMO). Arzel (talk) 18:22, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

It should be removed. Leaving on wikipedia will only smear his reputation. It is criticism anyway, and not a good one, since it is out of his character. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WikimaxFandB (talk • contribs) 16:08, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Beefs with other individuals/organizations

Just a reminder that WP is not an indiscriminate collection of information, like lists (read WP:NOT). The number of people BOR apparently has some current dispute with seems to grow over time to the point it becomes a long list of people, most of which have a very small issue with BOR. Please stick to the main and prominate issues. Arzel (talk) 14:11, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

It's a logical fallacy to summarily characterize any/all criticism as "beefs". You are correct in stating that this particular article may not be the correct place for criticism, and you are correct that Wikipedia is not a clearinghouse to post gripes. However, we have appropriate locations for reliably sourced, neutrally presented criticism. The community should decide what is appropriate for inclusion individually. Your "reminder" is inappropriate and can only be intended as a warning against suggesting additional content... it certainly suggests that you are predisposed against content that you believe is unflattering to the subject. We should avoid ad hominem (and other) logical fallacies and using subjective characterizations like "beefs"... sweeping generalities using pejorative language has no value. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 22:31, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

And the word "gripe" is any different? They are both informal terms for complaints. Why not work with me instead of attacking me or judging my actions, perhaps that is a little bit too much to ask. Arzel (talk) 01:18, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Posting preemptive warnings against content you believe might be a "very small issue" is improper and irresponsible. There is nothing to work with here... I just don't understand the purpose of your "reminder" if it wasn't to dissuade editors (which is not something we want to do). /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 02:12, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I have to disagree with you Blaxthos. I don't think Arzel's reminder is going as far as you take it (at least, I hope not) in terms of discouraging additional context. Tis article has been as my watchlist (going back as far 2004) and it is one of several articles that has recentism issues. The reminder may be a waste of time, but it's not a bad idea to at least ask editors to not list every single event that happens in the life of O'Reilly. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 17:11, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps a FAQ, similar to the one here, listing the general guidelines for content inclusion at this article would be a good idea. However, simply posting nebulous messages like that just doesn't seem very welcoming or progressive. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 23:31, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd have no problem with trying one, but call me a pessimist, I don't think it would work. Certain articles just attract the recentism phenomenom. No matter how much you ask editors to take a more long term view of the new information, someone else will always just add the latest event that occurred in the person's life. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 23:38, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

It was just a simple reminder, perhaps a FAQ note would have been sufficient. Arzel (talk) 18:14, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Media WATCHDOG Groups?!?

Are we seriously calling Media MATTERS and FAIR "media watchdog groups"? Nothing could be further from the truth, as any clear-thinking individual can see by briefly perusing these websites. These are far-left wing organizations with a clear agenda: smear anything that doesn't propagandize liberal extremism. Moderators: Please review these sites, observe the bias against Fox News and O'Reilly in particular, and adjust the phrase "media watchdog group" accordingly. At the VERY least, please change the phrase to "liberal extremist media watchdog groups" or "far-left wing media watchdog groups". To let it stand as it is now is a MASSIVE oversight and lends credibility to those who have none.

Saynotokrypto (talk) 07:39, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

You're clearly pushing a POV here.Jimintheatl (talk) 12:19, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Characterization of Media Matters

At the request of Jimintheatl I'm addressing the characterization of Media Matters here. I looked at the earlier debate, and while I didn't think the scare quotes and use of "left-wing" were appropriate, I also do not think it is appropriate to signify them only as a "media watchdog" group with no particular perspective. However, after looking around the site a bit more I disagree with my own edit. I had "Liberal group" which is roughly accurate, but I see on the Fox_News_Channel_controversies that they are referred (using wiki markup here) -- [[Progressivism in the United States|progressive]] [[interest group]]. This is much more accurate, that page has been carefully edited and seems to have passed muster there, so it makes sense to use it here, too. I'm going to make this change now. --BunnyColvin (talk) 16:06, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Progressive is fine by me regarding Media matters. They describe themselves that way. The "quotation marks" had to go.Jimintheatl (talk) 20:26, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

We will stick to the words used by the organization in question. We will not attempt to label them using the Wikipedia voice. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 03:34, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Who said anything about labeling anybody? Referring to an organization with an extreme left-wing agenda as "progressive" is a euphemism to the extreme, and is inconsistent with the Wikipedia mission. If we're going to start using adjectives that only the organization itself uses to describe themselves, then we have a LOT of pages to edit. We can start by changing the Fox News Channel's page opening line from "Fox News Channel (FNC) is a United States-based..." to "Fox News Channel (FNC) is a Fair and Balanced United States-based...". It's all about full disclosure here, people. Unless we want to change Osama bin Laden's "label" from "Islamic Militant" to "Allah-serving Islamic Freedom Fighter"? Anybody prepared to do that? No? Then why do it for Media Matters and FAIR?Saynotokrypto (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 23:27, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

You yourself said it should be labeled a "liberal extremist" media group. Is it not labeling only when you say it? Media Matters is a progressive group, and there are many conservatives who think the progressive movement is misguided. You are going to have to bring more to the table than just your opinion of their politics. While they often go hand in hand, leftist and progressive are by no means synonymous.F33bs (talk) 22:58, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

If an organization uses a term in self-description that doesn't make spurious/undue claim, it's okay to use on Wikipedia. Anything beyond that becomes subjective editorial opinion, which is clearly prohibited. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 00:52, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Barry Nolan

Does the Nolan stuff belong in a bio of O'Reilly. There is nothing connecting O'Reilly to his firing, in the sense of making the decision to fire him. If Nolan is noteworthy enough to have his own article, it should go there. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 20:31, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

It's relevant because of where it's placed (in the "controversy" section, under the sexual harassment lawsuit) and because he was protesting Bill O'Reilly's receipt of the award, which is why he was fired. He does have his own (very brief) entry here, but I'd make the case that it's relevant to O'Reilly's bio and the two articles should be reciprocally connected. Nhansen (talk) 06:42, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it is relevant, but didn't want to be the first to bring it up. It's placement doesn't make it more relevant either. The guy was fired through no action of BOR, so I am not even sure how it is a controvery of BOR. I woud put it down as a minor note in history, unless this Nolan guy becomes very notable himself. Arzel (talk) 13:57, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

The section may be germane in Criticism of Bill O'Reilly, as it is significant in relation to the Mackris event. However, I have to agree that this doesn't meet the burden of inclusion in this article. Can someone move it to the appropriate article?  :-) /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 16:49, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

It was already in the Nolan article, so I just deleted it from this article. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 19:32, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

controversies should be in the lead - if there are any

wp:lead:The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should establish context, summarize the most important points, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and briefly describe its notable controversies, if there are any.

When a person states things like veterans brains sleeping under the bridge and all veterans are on drugs and people like Keith Olbermann dedicate time to debunking this.[[8]] Then that on it's own is enough controversy in it self. Billo has a whole page with them: Criticism_of Bill O'Reilly Safe to say that controversy exists. Among the biggest in the whole world IMHO. It would not have it's own page if there was doubt about it. Gdewilde (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 12:42, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

This last line says this: "Mackris' complaint also quoted O'Reilly as he described alleged retaliation by Fox towards anyone who sued Fox for sexual harassment or anyone else who posed a threat to Fox.[23][24]"

And…? This dangling bait doesn't really tell us anything. Quoted what? Was something pulled that explained what this meant?

--UnicornTapestry (talk) 00:54, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Those issues are not significant in the overall picture of the person. They are isolated and insignificant, at least for the lead. Bytebear (talk) 17:50, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Malvenue (talk) 18:13, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately O'Reilly didn't say those things. The meaning behind the veterans comments in particular are twisted from the original statements and context. If you are basing your justification for repeating them on a propagandist like Olbermann who really IS the epitome of the biased idealogue, I strongly suspect you'd believe anything a left-winger like him has to say. The truth is out there if you are willing to find it. Try listening to Mr. O'Reilly with an open mind then make your own judgements rather than having them spoon-fed to you by liberals/haters with an agenda.Malvenue (talk)

Why is he listed as being conservative?

When’s the last time he talked about exploding deficits and the 9.5 trillion dollar debt? When’s the last time he talked about the need for limited government and congressional oversight of the executive branch? When’s the last time he advocated a foreign policy based on limited intervention in the world? Could the answers to all three questions be, NEVER, NEVER and NEVER? I do believe they are. If anything, he's a Neoconservative in every sense of the term. Ericster08 (talk) 13:45, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that neocons have coopted the word 'conservative' as sounding ever so much pleasant than 'right wing', which sadly leaves conservatives no home of their own.  :--24.175.195.64 (talk) 18:54, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

That is indeed sad. Ericster08 (talk) 20:18, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Let's try to stay in compliance with WP:Talk. Discussing the sad state of "true conservatives" isn't really appropriate here. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 21:26, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Bill to appear in an upcoming movie

On today's Radio Factor (7/22/08) Bill announced he would be appearing in an upcoming movie with Kelsey Grammer, John Voight and others being directed by David Zucker. A simple web search revealed he will be starring as himself in the film "An American Carol" set for release in the fall of 2008. I would have added this to the article but there doesn't appear to be any edit features, which makes sense. Strangely enough there is not warning about the editing features being disabled, either. Malvenue (talk) 18:07, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

While this will probably end up making it into the article, we're not a crystal ball, nor do we encourage the use of primary sources (especially in biographies) or original research. Addition would probably be immature at this point. Regarding "disabled edit features", I don't see that the article is protected or semi-protected -- you should be able to make changes by clicking "edit this page" on the tabs at the top. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 18:16, 22 July 2008 (UTC)