Talk:Political views of Bill O'Reilly/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Quotes

I removed some weasel quotes, in "secular progressives" and "culture war". There is no need to have these quotes here because of the bias they entail, trying to make his vocabulary seem outlandish and stupid. Nor is it grammatically correct. Garric 06:05, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Jessica's Law

On the January 15, 2007 edition of Fox News' "The O'Reilly Factor", host Bill O'Reilly said of Shawn Hornbeck -- who was abducted at the age of 11, held for four years, and recently found in Missouri -- that "there was an element here that this kid liked about this circumstances" and that he "do[esn't] buy" "the Stockholm syndrome thing." O'Reilly also said: "The situation here for this kid looks to me to be a lot more fun than what he had under his old parents. He didn't have to go to school. He could run around and do whatever he wanted." When fellow Fox News host Greta Van Susteren pointed out that "[s]ome kids like school," O'Reilly replied: "Well, I don't believe this kid did." The following day, during his "Talking Points Memo" segment, O'Reilly responded to viewer mail criticizing his comments about Hornbeck. O'Reilly concluded: "I hope he did not make a conscious decision to accept his captivity because" his kidnapper "made things easy for him. No school, play all day long."

Does this really give us that much insight into O'Reilly--enough where it's encyclopedic and worth keeping? O'Reilly quotes like that are a dime a dozen. 69.12.143.197 16:19, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Random Cleanup

I'm sure some of my cleanup will be controversial. There are things I'm trying to get rid of, like statements that were already made, waivers that explicitly state it's O'Reilly's opinion (if he said it, then this was implied), and tacked-on off-topic sentences. This article has become a dumping ground for whatever people can find, so it isn't well organized, and the quality suffers. I might reorganize it into "Political Beliefs, Social Beliefs, and Economic Beliefs." 171.71.37.103 22:33, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Removed content

Feel free to clean this up, but the references didn't actually mention O'Reilly's views, so as per BLP, it was removed. 171.71.37.103 18:38, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

He has come down hard on the organization for its support of NAMBLA, which is the North American Man Boy Love Association, is currently being tried for responsibility in the rape and murder of a young boy. The ACLU defends NAMBLA's freedom of speech surrounding their publications and has said that the legal blame in the rape/murder should go to who committed it. The ACLU has said that they sometimes have to defend "unpopular" speech or speech that they don't agree with, including the Ku Klux Klan's, due to their perception that their only client is the Bill of Rights. O'Reilly's criticism, however, is that the organization defended NAMBLA pro-bono. O'Reilly alleges the secular progressive movement cares more about rehabilitation, which has traditionally been supported by more liberals than conservatives. Thus having the ACLU promote, according to him, a left wing agenda while not supporting causes of free speech that conservatives support. O'Reilly alleges that the ACLU is hypocritical because of that.

New York Times

On March 15, 2007 The New York Times ran an editorial titled "Immigration Misery" that had claimed a "screaming baby girl has been forcibly weaned from breast milk and taken dehydrated to an emergency room so that the nation's borders will be secure." Upon further investigation, the only two babies admitted to the hospital in the area of Bedford, Massachusetts (where the raid had taken place) were due to dehydration because of pneumonia and not as a result of being "forcibly weaned." O'Reilly has alleged that The Times made up the facts that the editorial was based on to promote a far-left agenda aimed at promoting illegal immigration in order to make the illegal immigrants into legal US citizens and register them as Democrats since the Democratic Party has traditionally promoted more entitlement programs that people in lower income classes (which most illegal immigrants are in) favor.

Shouldn't this be condensed into saying something like "O'Reilly believes that the Democrats court the low-income minority vote through social programs, and support amnesty because it would increase their voter base?" Most of that is New York Times criticism, and while it's by O'Reilly, this page seems to have become a place for people to dump anything relating to him. The criticism would probably be more useful at New York Times. 69.12.143.197 16:14, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I did try to put it in The Times article myself but had it undone. The reasoning was because although it was based on factual error, the piece was still an editorial. If they had said in their hard news coverage that the baby was forcibly taken away then that would be factually inaccurate and thus noteworthy. I don't agree with it myself because despite it being an editorial opinion, opinions must be based on facts to be credible. I would support you if you challenged it.Arnabdas 15:06, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

New article name

I think the article could use a better title. I just based it on the section of the parent article that this one split from. It needs to be more concise. I'm thinking Views of Bill O'Reilly or Opinions of Bill O'Reilly. Maybe someone has a better idea? MrMurph101 02:06, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Renaming is probably a good idea, "Politics of Bill O'Reilly" might work (I'm thinking of the Politics of Noam Chomsky article--another polarizing political figure) though that might be a bit too narrow in scope.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 02:33, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

True, politics is not the only thing he covers. I'll change it in a couple of days unless someone objects to it. MrMurph101 04:04, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Merge

The article should not be merged back into Bill O'Reilly. It was created and the content moved here due to that article being over twice the size of recommended length. If the article gets shrunk to a much smaller size, something unlikely to happen, then maybe a merge back could be in order. MrMurph101 00:42, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

While I agree that an article this long shouldn't be in the main article, I think it should be significantly weeded down, and then merged. I think it's around the same size as Shakespeare's most notable tragedies. The Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity were able to cover their respective commentators without long articles. One thing that MUST be done is to put a summary with the parent. Moving details out, but not replacing them with an overview is sloppy editing. 69.12.143.197 01:54, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

The thing is, if you weed down the article, it will just build back up again, and the cycle will continue. The issue with O'Reilly, as opposed to Hannity or Limbaugh, is that he does not identify as a conservative but an independent. He's usually considered a conservative but it would be POV to just label him that like you could the others you mentioned since they would self-identify the label and it would get little dispute so we have to just put is opinions on the table and let the reader decide. I do agree with you about putting a summary in the parent article, although we need to make sure it stays concise and not allow it to bloat too much like what is happening with the criticisms section. MrMurph101 02:37, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I would not have that much problem with a merge personally, though I don't have a huge problem with the article staying as it is either. It might be good though to prune this heavily and move it into the main article. Also, if this article does stay, we should find a way to allude to O'Reilly's conservatism in an NPOV way early on (meaning in the first paragraph). I know he's an "independent" and all, but the fact that he is on the conservative end of the spectrum is simply objectively true (and I know he's kinda with the Democrats on certain issues, overall though he is clearly a conservative if that label means anything). What O'Reilly says about his own political affiliation really does not matter, however we obviously would need reliable sources that demonstrate his conservatism. This would be a good thing to look for. Anyhow, a merge might be good.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 09:32, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with MrMurph101. If this is to be moved back to the Bill O'Reilly article, it must be trimmed down a lot. WP:SIZE dictates that the article would become, once again, too big.

Personally I think the spin off article should stay, aside from WP:SIZE another guideline becomes important when articles get this large, Wikipedia:Summary style. Anynobody 02:52, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I see the debate has been lively. I'm going to remove the proposed move, this is just what happens to articles when they get big.

See also: Bill Clinton

. Anynobody 07:16, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

How does this fit the topic of the article?

In June 2007, Adweek Magazine sponsored a survey that asked participants who they trusted more as a source of political information between ABC News and Bill O'Reilly. According to the poll, 36% believe that O'Reilly is a better source than ABC News while 26% believe the opposite. According to the survey, 23% of Democrats believed that O'Reilly was a better source while 55% of Republicans believed the same.

Seeing no complaints, I removed it. While this might belong in the Bill O'Reilly or ABC News article, it doesn't belong in this one. 171.71.37.103 19:37, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

What if we wrote something to the likes of "O'Reilly feels the American news media is corrupt and often criticizes it for not reporting topics that hurt the liberal agenda. He has often stated that he is the only one in the media holding people accountable on both sides and slowly people are starting to wake up to what he feels is their corruption. A poll..."Arnabdas 15:02, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

That works better with the article. 171.71.37.103 18:32, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Liberal thought

What "liberal thought" does O'Reilly "draw on"? He is an extreme rightard, nothing liberal about him. Consequently, the intro section needs to be rewritten so that it says that he claims to draw on liberal thought, rather than that he actually does, which is bullshit.

O'Reilly has supported the Bush Administration's listening in on foreign calls in and out of the United States to help prevent terrorist attacks. However, he has severely criticized the Bush Administration for not going to the FISA courts to get warrants for the wire tapping and has said he would not support tapping calls made by domestic parties.[citation needed]

Assuming this is true, there are some liberal and some conservative ideas there. His stance on guns also shows both sides.

Read through the article.

It's also sloppy to use neologisms (rightard), semi-profanity (bullshit), and not sign your post. Your post seems very POV, which hurts it's credibility. 70.135.140.40 16:48, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I believe that when O'Reilly refers to "liberal thought" that he is referring to Classical Liberalism in the original meaning of the term and not in the context of what Liberal has come to mean in 20th century American politics. It may be useful for him to clarify this whenever he uses the term, since many Americans do not understand the difference, but he has in the past, on certain occasions, described the distinction for the benefit of his listeners.

He is NOT extreme Right at all-- he is a MIX of liberal and conservative. Stop reacting and start thinking!

71.208.230.141 00:09, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Oil Companies Debate with Neil Cavuto

Why was the debate with Neil Cavuto removed? It is a good reference that actually distances O'Reilly from conservatives and gives the reader a better idea of what his views are.Arnabdas 15:31, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup

Try not to make this just a place to dump quotes. Is what he's saying all that notable? Should it be integrated into an existing section? Personally, I think sections like the ACLU one should go over his criticisms about it, linking to quotes when necessary, so it reads like a coherent section, not a quote farm. 171.71.37.103 18:18, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I did remove one of the quotes from the ACLU section. The other two should stay as they specifically describe his position, first regards to the moral relativism he claims the ACLU supports due to their support of NAMBLA and the one calling them fascist is also noteworthy. I'll check out the rest of the article when I can. A lot of his positions have complex nuances to them that do not fall along conservative or liberal lines, therefore referencing quotes is the best way to accurately describe his position IMO. Arnabdas 19:34, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Soros chart.jpg

Image:Soros chart.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 05:41, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Boy Scouts

O'Reilly claims the Boy Scouts don't promote God, saying, "...the Scouts say no specific belief in God is necessary, only an acknowledgment of a higher power. And that power could be nature.", this is wrong since the Boy Scout Oath says, "To do my duty to God and my country" and the Scout Law includes, "A Scout is reverent toward God. He is faithful in his religious duties. He respects the beliefs of others." Fanra 03:12, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

You are correct, they do say that. However, O'Reilly's assertion is that because of the bylaws, the definition of what "God" can be is very liberal. I agree with you it should be mentioned (which is why I didnt delete it), but this is O'Reilly's POV page after all so it should be written with regards to his POV. Readers can then decide what's best. Arnabdas 16:20, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Possible title change

Shouldn't this be titled "Political views of Bill O'Reilly" or "Political positions of Bill O'Reilly"? Most of the articles that I've seen have their titles phrased that way. - Rjd0060 23:23, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I think it used to be. I forgot why they changed it. I personally think it should be "Viewpoints of BOR" since it encompasses many different viewpoints he has about life, not just in the political realm. I am for the change. Arnabdas (talk) 17:02, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Media Matters Description

Media Matters describes themselves as a "progressive" media watchdog group. Therefore, they automatically only criticize those without a liberal POV. That is by their own admission, not my personal analysis. Before people start giving warnings, we need to have a civil discussion. However, user User:Blaxthos has refused to engage in civil discussion about this. When I made a good faith effort to curb my initial language from the CNN Controversy section, he gave me a warning anyway. I requested we talk about the warning, but he refused to. I just want the people of this page who want it presented fairly to understand this. Arnabdas (talk) 17:07, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Find a source that supports your edit-- "that Media Matters only criticize those without a liberal POV". Otherwise your position is a non-starter at Wikipedia. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 16:55, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Ramsquire, I ask you to look at the analysis. Blaxthos is obviously putting out his own personal analysis. Let's go through it step by step-

1.Blaxthos stated Media Matters only criticizes conservatives from his edit of the article.

2. A matter of well documented record is that Bill O'Reilly has been criticized by Media Matters.

3. However, Bill O'Reilly is not a conservative by his own self-identification. Therefore, Blaxthos' post about Media Matters only going after conservatives is incorrect on either one of two grounds-

a. Media Matters does in fact criticize those whom are not conservative

b. Blaxthos added your own personal interpretation to what O'Reilly's political ideology is.

That is why I argue that the description which Blaxthos added needs to be removed. Arnabdas (talk) 17:08, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Please see WP:SYN. There should be no analysis from Wikipedia editors. You need a source stating "the media watch dog group that criticizes media figures whom are not liberal". Otherwise that is your synthesis from the fact that Media Matters claims it is a progressive media watchdog for conservative misinformation. Please note that that description does not preclude criticism of liberals if they happen to be espousing what MM feels is conservative misinformation. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 18:32, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

OK I see your point. It should be rewritten to "a self-described watchdog group of conservative misinformation" as opposed to watchdog group of conservatives. I have no problem with that description. Arnabdas (talk) 17:25, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Other sources

Media matters is NOT I repeat NOT a reliable source. Contralya (talk) 06:38, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Removed information

A user removed all information supported by Media Matters references, with the statement that "Media Matters is not a reliable source". There are plenty of precedents around Wikipedia that concur that Media Matters does meet with the requirements of WP:RS, and information may not be excluded on that basis alone. As an informational heads up, I am publically stating that I will be reviewing those edits and re-inserting the referenced material over the next week (as time permits). Cheers! /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 06:57, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I have no problem with this myself. However, we have to keep in mind this is a POV page of O'Reilly's, not a criticism page (that exists elsewhere). The MM references are cool if they

• show (what they feel is) an opinion of O'Reilly's
• disprove a fact his opinion is based on
• show him being hypocritical.

Of course, this information should be challenged with actual Fox News transcripts instead of the "clever" video editing and out of context "gotchya" statements MM is notorious for. Arnabdas (talk) 16:41, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for being open. Your characterization of "gotchya[sic] statements MM is notorious for" is your personal opinion (not fact) and has no relevance here (as explained in the past). I do admit that I find it hard to keep the two pages seperate because often times the two are quite interrelated, and I'm not sure how we should proceed when such criticism revolves around the politics of Bill O. Suggestions welcome. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 16:52, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

The "gotchya" statements that I was referring to was how O'Reilly himself has responded to it by providing the actual transcripts and full video. The most recent eggregious example was the whole discussion with Juan Williams about the dinner with Al Sharpton that CNN ran with after taking a MM quote. MM tried to portray O'Reilly as a racist for those comments when Juan Williams himself found it absurd and O'Reilly provided the actual conversation on his website. O'Reilly doesn't respond to MM most of the time because he sees them as below him, but he responded to the situation because CNN ran with it without checking it out properly.

Still, that's neither here nor there. The way the two pages can be kept separate is simple. For the criticism page, one should only talk about criticizing O'Reilly himself as a person, a broadcaster, style of presentation, loudness, etc. Disagreeing with his pov does not warrant criticism of him. This page is about his point of view. Whatever his opinions are, whether we or others agree or not, is irrelevant. Now if he arrived to this opinion based on factual inaccuracy, then that would be warranted mention. For example, if he felt that The Times showed liberal bias for printing a certain story in a certain way, when in reality, they never had printed the story the way he claims, that would warrant being put in here. It's really a response to a particular point he, himself made. If it is a general criticism of conservative or liberal ideology that he subscribes to, putting it here wouldn't make sense. However, if he asserted his opinion on something and someone had a criticism of that opinion by saying "O'Reilly is wrong because of this, this and that," that would warrant inclusion. Arnabdas (talk) 22:34, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Info About Edwards and Giuliani

I put in the info about Edwards and Giuliani because the allegation is that he does not endorse politicians, but will say who is qualified or not qualified to run. I was merely addressing that issue so I included it in there. Arnabdas (talk) 18:40, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I saw some objections were due to WP:BLP, WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE. I don't see how this is violation of BLP because it is all sourced criticism of actions. NPOV doesn't apply for the points itself, since these are about his POV that certain politicians shouldn't be supported. However, if NPOV applies to the wording of the statements then feel free to cite it. Undue weight may be an issue, but it was again in reference to O'Reilly not supporting politicians but not endorsing any particular one. O'Reilly has gone after Edwards a lot and since this is about O'Reilly's opinions, it should be mentioned IMO. Arnabdas (talk) 18:49, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

A brief mention of his feelings on particular subjects is adequate, and was present before your edits. Wikipedia is not a forum for Bill O'Reilly (or his loyal followers) to espouse (Bill O's) criticism of politicians ad infinitum. A brief mention of Bill O'Reilly's politics is appropriate, using it as a soapbox definitely is not. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 20:11, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Yea, I see what you mean by brief, but putting in stuff on Edwards instead of the other mentions makes sense. O'Reilly has gone after Edwards often. I will take out some of the other information in favor of this to be current with times. Arnabdas (talk) 16:42, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Describing Secular Progressivism, NBC News and MSNBC

I added a bit on O'Reilly's criticism of NBC News and MSNBC. As of the past year or so, in my personal estimation of keeping track of him, he has dedicated practically a crusade towards the bias he sees of that network of its news coverage. Reading a bit over my additions I do see there being areas for improvement with regards to weight. I will try to summarize the paragraphs better in the next few days to cut down the length. Thanks for your understanding. Arnabdas (talk) 14:58, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for discussing, Arnabdas. I still object that it's not germane to the topic of the article... it's Politics of Bill O'Reilly, not Bill O'Reilly's thoughts about his competition. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 01:17, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your patient responses Blaxthos and your noteworthy concerns. You're right about that this is not about his "thoughts on competition" but much of O'Reilly's views come from the matter of what he perceives as media bias. He feels NBC News/MSNBC is eggregiously biased and cites examples of what he sees as bias. What is apart of this article is his perception of media bias and he uses NBC as a punching bag to hammer that home. That's why I feel it should be included. Arnabdas (talk) 14:52, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

It is sufficient to say something along the lines of "O'Reilly frequently criticizes the news media in general, and NBC in particular, for having an alleged liberal bias". We need not give undue weight to the criticism by parroting Bill O's stance, considering that they are his competition. I'm interested in hearing others' opinions. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 16:53, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

You're right about weight. However, there should be sufficient mention about NBC News because HE actually gives a lot of weight to them with his media criticism. How about we take out the Spitzer comment because that just seemed to be an off the cuff remark. Maybe we can just add it in as another reference to a point of his assertion that it is a liberal network? That would reduce it by a paragraph. He does assert that they are anti-Bush/anti-Iraq War and pro-Obama. Let's keep those points, but put in the Spitzer thing as a reference of his perception of bias? Something along the lines of "O'Reilly has claimed on numerous occasions that NBC News and MSNBC are severely biased in favor of Democrats over Republicans." (cite Spitzer ref). What do you think of that? If you don't like it and want to open up friendly mediation I am for it. Arnabdas (talk) 14:56, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

You seem very willing to work with the community on finding compromise, and it is noted and appreciated. I'm still unsure of the merits of including this sort of thing, and so before I commit to any compromises I'd like to hear others' opinions besides ours... I'm not stonewalling, I just want some outside opinions on inclusion. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:59, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Film Politics

Exactly what does this mean? "O'Reilly has been very critical of the U.S. film industry's creation of slasher films such as the Saw series. He later compared them to the colloseum of ancient Rome" What is the correlation? It either needs to go or be expanded. Arzel (talk) 19:53, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I think O'Reilly's intention was to compare the gore in both forms of entertainment to be equal. On a side note, it's interesting how Rome fell when it became too decadent in ways like this. I hope that's not the case for the United States. Arnabdas (talk) 20:11, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Rome fell for a number of reasons. Regardless, it doesn't make any sense to include this without any context, if that context requires OR then the passages needs to go. Arzel (talk) 20:35, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I rewrote this section to make it clear what he was saying. Arzel (talk) 22:24, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Sean Combs thing

I hadn't realized where in the article this had been going. We should put it elsewhere, but it certainly does say a lot about how O'Reilly views the Republican party, which is wholly relevant to his politics. Croctotheface (talk) 21:17, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

That's not a bad idea -- a section on his views of the two major political parties; the only issue I see is it may tend to become a laundry list of quotes he's made about the parties. But that may be a good first step. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 23:22, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Arzel (talk) 04:59, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I would be for a new section as well, but hope it just doesn't devolve into a "gotchya" targetting of him. It should be all given in context and the entire conversation/segment should be sourced properly. Arnabdas (talk) 15:37, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

FDR, Bobby Kennedy, and the Republican Party comments

All this stuff is relevant to this article, but it speaks more to how he perceives these individuals, or the category of parties and historical politicians. I think it can all go someplace, but it does not speak to O'Reilly's "affiliation" without using OR to extract that meaning. Croctotheface (talk) 16:25, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I see your point here. How about a subsection of "admired politicians" or something along those lines? Arnabdas (talk) 16:31, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Registered Republican/"clerical misunderstanding"

I think that that section of the article is generous at best in terms of O'Reilly's explanation. He had to change his story a couple of times, and that's relevant for the readers if they're trying to figure out what actually happened here. Croctotheface 02:14, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Your point makes sense for the main article, but this is his POV article. He specifically says he is an independent and traditionalist. I think mentioning him previously being a registered Republican is valid, which it is. He actually was a registered Democrat at one time too, but I have no source for it. Arnabdas 15:57, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not saying that we should describe O'Reilly as a Republican. I'm saying that the current article text makes it seem like some clerk filed the wrong papers. O'Reilly checked "Republican" when he registered to vote. Whether there could be a "clerical misunderstanding" that resulted in that, i don't know. But we should let the readers decide based on a presentation of the facts and what O'Reilly said about them. The article doesn't really give people the information necessary to understand what happened. Croctotheface 18:56, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I see your point, but we should be again careful of the wording. This is his POV page however and we have to be mindful of that. I completely agree with you putting it on the Bill O'Reilly page, but this page is purely about his stances on various issues. Registration to a party doesn't necessarily mean adherence to certain positions on issues...there are many registered Democrats who could be considered conservative (Zel Miller) and many registered Republicans that can considered liberal (Lincoln Chaffee) from their positions. The page is about positions, not party affilliation. I agree Athat his party affilliation should be mentioned, even previous affilliations, since any current and previous affilliation will influence his thought process. The details of whether his party affilliation was a clerical misunderstanding or not tho still have nothing to do with his pov on issues themselves, but rather him as a person. That's why they should belong on his personal page and not on this page. However, if you can think of a statement that takes that into account I would love to read it. Arnabdas 14:55, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I mean, the fact that O'Reilly had said he was not a partisan, didn't believe in parties--and yet had been registered to one...I dunno, it seems relevant to me. I'd be fine with mentioning it in the main article rather than here. Croctotheface 20:58, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you. Him being registered to a party is a notable event. It should be mentioned as should his explanation to it. Of course then the reader can decide for him or herself. Still, I think we are in agreement that it doesn't have to do much with his actual views themselves. His positions are his positions regardless of what label we put on him. Arnabdas 16:48, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Comments to Sean P.Diddy Combs

Arnabdas--The MediaMatters article does not make the claim contained in your edit. The MM article focusses on the false assumption O'Reilly employed (that "self-made" people are Republican). Jimintheatl (talk) 17:01, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Yea I am not sure if we can put it in as it was before. I pretty much kept your most recent edit, just took out the wording with regards to reason why he said it. We can't conclude with definition that he was equating one as the reason for the other. He often gives a lot of guests playful banter IMO. Arnabdas (talk) 18:06, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Media Matters should be removed as a source for this section. They already classify him as a republican, to use them as a source simply re-enforses their pov, and WP is not a soapbox for anyone or by proxy any organization. Arzel (talk) 19:56, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Media Matters does not classify O'Reilly as a Republican, to my knowledge. Evidence? Jimintheatl (talk) 20:23, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

They classify him as a conservative or neo-con, which is their code word for all republicans, and the correlation between the two are unmistakable. In any case, to use a partisan source to provide a neutral evaluation makes little sense. The views of MM serve little purpose in this article as they already have a soapbox to preach from. Arzel (talk) 20:39, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

That's only your opinion, Arzel. The rest of the world may not see it the way you do, and as such your beliefs shouldn't be (won't be) used to exclude viewpoints of organizations with which you do not agree. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 22:07, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

The Media Matters cite is there because it provides a TRANSCRIPT of the conversation. Again the article does not refer at all to Media Matters comments about O'Reilly making a false assumption about "self-made men" becoming Republicans. The Wiki article merely refers to what O'Reilly said. Jimintheatl (talk) 22:19, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

It is a synthesis of material using MM to prove a point, ie that O'Reilly lied. It is also undue weight and original research to further that point by attributing that statement as a proof that O'Reilly is a republican. The primary problem here is that you are trying to interpret that O'Reilly meant that Combs should be a Republican because he said that he was self-made like he was, it is about as clear of a case of synthesis that you could see. Arzel (talk) 22:33, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Not that I can see. This is the same crap you tried to pull about Colbert's satirical "criticism" of Media Matters for making transcripts available. It's no more valid here than there. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 00:32, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi nice to see you too Blaxthos. Regardless of your opinion it is WP:SYNTH and thus a form of WP:OR. Please tell me what you are trying to imply as an author by including these comments? Seems to me you are trying to show that BOR is actually a republican, and by virtue of this passage that he makes this statement. Read up on SYNTH, but it clearly states that using A to show B, and B to show C is evidence that A is C is syntheisis of material, and this is clearly what is trying to be done here. Please defend your position rather than attack my character. Arzel (talk) 03:20, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Additionally, look at it from this angle. Assume the transcript was from BOR and not MM. The transcript itself doesn't make any statement to imply that BOR considers himself to be a republican (MM doesn't make that statement either). So what is the author trying to imply by inserting this passage. This section has nothing to do with what does or what does not make a republican. This section deals with BOR claiming that he is an independent. Inclusion of this statement is only being used to show that BOR is not an independent, but a republican. However, since the source doesn't make that claim, it is the very essence of WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. Blaxthos, I know you don't like me, but don't let that cloud your judgement. Arzel (talk) 03:28, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Arzel--You began with an untrue argument to critique the edit (that MM classifies BOR as a Republican) and now have simply deleted the entire edit. I don't see how that action is supported by this discussion. Jimintheatl (talk) 12:12, 28 March 2008 (UTC) From WP:SYNTH -- Summarizing source material without changing its meaning is not synthesis — it is good editing. Jimintheatl (talk) 12:15, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

To respond to your first statement, I did not have a chance to read the MM article at that time, but was speaking from a generalization of what MM does. After seeing the MM article, it is clear it wouldn't matter who the source was (as I stated above.) I'll not respond further to that issue since it is not germaine to the current discussion. Arzel (talk) 14:01, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Let me ask you Jim, what exactly is the purpose of that edit? What are you trying to say by including it? Arzel (talk) 13:58, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

It is what it is. Please do not undo again; it's bordering on abusive. Jimintheatl (talk) 16:22, 28 March 2008 (UTC) I think the current edit creates the proper context. Jimintheatl (talk) 16:32, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

You only made it worse including additional opinion. You statement of "it is what it is" is clear that you are interjecting original research, by synthesis of material. Arzel (talk) 17:47, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

What is your definition of "it is what is is?" You asked what I intended, which is irrelevant other than I intended factual accuracy. It is what it is = the facts/words speak for themselves. I am letting the facts (and BO's words) speak for themselves. Point to a fact that is wrong. You claim I injected opinion: where? Again, you began your objections to this edit, you admit, from a biased perspective (about MM), and made an edit without bothering to read the cited material. You have continued to maintain that bias. Jimintheatl (talk) 18:16, 28 March 2008 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimintheatl (talk • contribs) 18:12, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry Jim, "It is what it is" doesn't fly. You're the one arguing for inclusion, so the burden falls on you to state why it should be included.Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 16:44, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Did you read PROVEIT? It discusses sourcing. The cited source included a transcript of the conversation referred to in the edit. I'd say that qualifies. Jimintheatl (talk) 18:20, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I think Ramsquire was saying you need to prove how this proves his political affilliation as a Republican. In the transcript, O'Reilly never stated that "I am a Republican" so we have to be wary of BLP with regards to this issue since he has claimed far more times that he is an independent. We also have to consider WEIGHT since O'Reilly has said he is an independent numerous times while the sentence written is stringing together some quotes that promotes SYNTHESIS and OR. I am not decided yet on this matter. I definitely know it shouldnt be included the way you had it initially, but I suggest keeping it out of the article, as per BLP, until the issue can be resolved. Arnabdas (talk) 18:49, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

FYI: Arzel, as you admit you undid my initial edit without bothering to read the citation, incorrectly raised the issue of SYNTHESIS, and have continued to undo my edits, I have asked for an editor's assistance. Jimintheatl (talk) 18:41, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I made no such admission, please read my comment below. Arzel (talk) 22:05, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I think that goes to the heart of at least one of the issues here. We've had a good bit of misrepresentation and knee-jerk reactions. While I applaud the honesty in admitting that he made changes without even examining the content, I have a serious problem with the ad hominem nature by which Arzel attempts to immediately delete items without considering the content. Even if a rationale is later found for exclusion, that sort of behaviour does not do due diligence and makes it extremely difficult to assume any sort of good faith (especially having seen it repeatedly). I have not formed a complete opinion about this issue yet, mostly because the meat of the issue has been clouded by buzzwords and dubious claims. More consideration is needed... /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:37, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Please be more careful about your own reactions. My first comment was as 19:56, at which time I didn't have time to review the actual source material. I made no changes to the article regarding that part at that time, so I think Jim and Blaxthos owe a little bit of an appology there. My next comment was at 22:33. I had reviewed the source material and determined that it would not have mattered who the actual source was. I made my first edit to that section at 22:36. The real issue here is the reason for inclusion, if it is to show that BOR is a republican then it is WP:SYNTH which is by definition WP:OR. I cannot see any other reason to include that particular passage since it is not otherwise relevant to that section. Arzel (talk) 22:03, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for trying to clarify my earlier post Arnabdas but I'll speak for myself. Thank you. The "it is what it is" response is just not an appropriate response on a concensus driven project like this. The problem seems to be with the source Jim is using AND his use of it. It goes to the heart of verifiability. Is it reliably sourced that BOR's statement is evidence of his Republican affiliation or sympatico or is it not? He needs to explain how he sees the source fitting into the context of the section he put it in. Otherwise it appears to be indiscriminate info lodged in the article, and is therefore unencyclopedic. I don't have a problem with the edit content wise (unlike others), just style-wise. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 23:19, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Then I welcome your stylistic edits/suggestions. What I am objecting to is reflexive reverts. Jimintheatl (talk) 13:15, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Let me try and no doubt fail again: BO's political affiliations are the subject of this section, and subject of general debate. BO has made his "independence" an issue. He has been challenged on that issue. His voter registration itself challenged his claim. Arzel and others imply/state that because BO has said he is an independent, that should end debate. It seems to me to be an open question, at least. As evidenced by his voter registration. As evidenced by his comments. In other words, BO claims he is non-partisan; his critics disagree. His party affiliation is revealed, and he changes it. I think his comments about who should and should not be a Republican speak to this matter. Jimintheatl (talk) 02:15, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I think you are taking this a step or two too far. Yes, BOR claims to be independent. Yes, BOR was registered as a republican from 1994 to 2000. Yes, he claims it was a clerical misunderstanding. All of this is included in the article. What I think you are trying to do is "Prove" that he is in fact a republican, and that his registration as a republican was not a clerical mistake by using his exchange with SPD. This is the very essence of original research. By linking the comments as you did you are trying to tell the reader that BOR admits that he is a republican, when the truth is no one knows exactly what he is trying to say. Furthermore, the transcript which you are using is not a discussion of BOR's political beliefs. Even MM does not make this link, their report deals with a false assumption that BOR makes. If this is not the case then Ramsquire makes an eloquent statement. Arzel (talk) 04:57, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I am not trying to prove that BO is a republican. He raises the issue; he decries the partiality of the mainstream media and sets himself up as a neutral arbiter. I think it is His actions (registering as a Republican) and words (you should be a Republican; you're like me) clearly raise the question. It is not OR; I am merely using his statements. Jimintheatl (talk) 13:15, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

That is what OR is. You are putting those two comments (A and B) together to imply that he is C. A similar episode occured on the Keith Olbermann page where he once stated that he was a Liberal. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Keith_Olbermann#.22I.27m_a_liberal.22 This falls under BLP issues because you are trying to manipulate BOR's word. Per WP:BLP Wikipedia articles should respect the basic human dignity of their subjects. Wikipedia aims to be a reputable encyclopedia, not a tabloid. Our articles must not serve primarily to mock or disparage their subjects, whether directly or indirectly. What you are trying to do is show that BOR is a hypocrite, which is simply not cool. Arzel (talk) 14:23, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

It is not OR. I am not making a point or drawing a conclusion; you seem to be doing that for me. What I am saying is that BO's words and actions have meaning. I am not mocking or disparaging by citing his own words and actions. What conclusions do you draw from his words and actions, by the way? Jimintheatl (talk) 18:18, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

If you are not trying to make a point or allude to some conclusion, then what is the purpose of including it? When I read the entire transcript I get that BOR assumes that self-made people should be republicans. I also get that he claims he wasn't given anything, that he had to work for everything he has, and in that aspect SPD is like BOR, in that SPD also was not given anything. When you put the two sections together (like you have done) it reads that he thinks SPD should be a republican, and by that correlation he is like BOR and therefore BOR is a republican. This is the very essence of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. You wish to take two seperate comments and link them together to promote your point of view. Arzel (talk) 18:31, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

It is not OR. Because, in part, it is not two separate comments; it is a self-contained, organic conversation. It was suggested by someone earlier that this section is about BO's POV; would the edit more properly belong in the main article? Jimintheatl (talk) 19:33, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

It is indeed OR. To put them at that place in the article implies that there is some kind of connection between his voter registration thing and his comments about the Republican party. As Arzel said, that's basically the definition of synthesis. Croctotheface (talk) 18:25, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I obviously disagree. If you object to placement, where does it belong, then? Jimintheatl (talk) 19:35, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Somewhere else. "Views on American political parties," perhaps? Croctotheface (talk) 20:45, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Arnabdas-in your most recent edit, your edit summary falsely says that MM is saying BO is a Republican. It is not MM; it is BO's words. MMs does not address his aprty affiliation. Jimintheatl (talk) 21:22, 29 March 2008 (UTC) You also said that this os BO's POV page. Therefore, I have tried an edit on the main page. Jimintheatl (talk) 21:25, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Jim, I apprecite the discussion, but you saying that BO said that he is a Republican is simply incorrect. He has never said "I am a Republican" in your source. He HAS however said multiple times that he is an independent. It's a violation of BLP to allege that he is something that he is not. The issue you put up brings in a synthesis making people assume something. He is an independent as said numerous times and he never said that he was a Republican in this MM cited snippet. Therefore, we cannot conclude he is one. Violations of OR, SYNTHESIS, and BLP. You're right that this is his POV page, but his POV time and time again has specifically said he is NOT a Republican. The only way including it would be even possibly acceptable is if we cite who alleges this not to be the case, saying "According to MM, O'Reilly said this." Normally, that would seem fine, but on this issue of him not being a Republican I don't think even that would be acceptable because he has stated numerous times he is an independent. Arnabdas (talk) 15:23, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

You've grossly distorted what I said. MM did not say he is a Republican. BO did not say he is a Republican. The MM transcript contains BO's words, including "You should be a Republican...You're like me." Jimintheatl (talk) 18:30, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

OK Jim, so it said the first statement, followed by some time, then the second statement. How does that sequence of phrases warrant inclusion by enhancing this article to make it better? Arnabdas (talk) 19:25, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Answer this: has BO made a bid point of his political independence, denied any party affinity/affiliation? Has he been called on that? Has he been "caught" in a potential "exposure" of political affiliation? Has he pleaded "Oops, mistake, not mine, though?" Do his comments to P.Diddy also reveal something about his political leanings/orientation? Answers: yes, yes, yes, yes, and yes. By his insistence, despite the evidence (and not just in this instance), on his independence, O'Reilly makes his political affinity an issue. Jimintheatl (talk) 01:01, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

You have to engage in OR to extract the meaning that you extract from the comments he made about the party to Combs. It violates WP:NOR and WP:SYN in a textbook way. If you want to get more opinions, file a request for comment. Otherwise, I don't think there's much more to be said about this topic. The content could be OK, as I said, elsewhere in the article. Croctotheface (talk) 07:32, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Arnabdas--in a recent edit, you called for consensus. Given your continued policy shopping, I do not see how consensus is possible. Jimintheatl (talk) 12:41, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Jim, please follow wikis policy of good faith before you go accusing me of "policy shopping." Your specific reason to warrant inclusion this statement by MM is based on OR and SYN and is a violation of BLP. This is not even noteworthy. Everyone agrees it should not be included here. Arnabdas (talk) 15:34, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I have followed the good faith policy. Would you say that you have by automatically objecting to my edit without bothering to read the cited material? I do not see "everyone" agreeing on this issue. Jimintheatl (talk) 18:46, 2 April 2008 (UTC) Moreover, I have tried to engage in discussion by actually responding to your questions, while you have ignored mine. Jimintheatl (talk) 21:31, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Jim, all of your questions have been answered. You chose to ignore the answers and repeat the same points again. You're right...everyone does not agree on this issue...that is everyone besides yourself agrees on this issue. If you have a problem with the edit please file a request for comment as advised above. Otherwise, please accept the consensus. Thank you. Arnabdas (talk) 15:20, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

You and Arzel (with whom I may have confused you) agree; that's not consensus. Others (Blaxthos, Ramsquire, myself) are open to the inclusion of the edit, if we can get beyond wording and style issues. Jimintheatl (talk) 18:26, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually Croctotheface face also agrees that it is OR. Blaxthos has not made a final determination. This is really not a concensus issue in my mind, it is an OR issue. I agreed with Croctotheface below that it shows BOR beliefs regarding the republican party and probably could be incorporated into another section, but not in the sense that you are trying to induce that BOR is a republican. Arzel (talk) 02:35, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Precisely. Jim, please stop inserting the sentence (especially in pov wording you do) into the section anymore. File an RFC if you disagree with what we said. Other than that, this matter is closed and any further effort to put this in will be viewed as POV pushing on your part. Arnabdas (talk) 14:55, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

And by what authority can you declare a matter closed? As stated previously, there is a clear divide on the issue, and I have filed a request for an editor's assistance. Both you and Arzel reflexively oblected to or undid my edit without bothering to read the source material. You can hardly raise NPOV after such actions with a straight face. Jimintheatl (talk) 00:03, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

The "divide" here is between a large group of editors who disagree with you, a handful of editors who have not taken a position, and you, who are alone in your position. The consensus is against making the change you want to make. If you want to pursue more opinions on the matter, file a request for comment at WP:RFC. If you do not wish to do this, then you can't simply revert because you don't acknowledge that nobody agrees with you. Croctotheface (talk) 00:57, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Given that Arzel and Arnabdas objected to or undid the original edit without bothering to read the cited material, their biases are fairly obvious on this subject. Jimintheatl (talk) 14:20, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how that's at all relevant to this discussion. Croctotheface (talk) 15:15, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Not only is it irrelevant, his claim is false. I did in fact read the MM link and nowhere in there did I see any mention of O'Reilly saying he was a Republican. User jimintheatl is POV pushing OR research that does not belong in this particular section. Further reverts without opening up an RFC discussion on his part will be seen as vandalism. Arnabdas (talk) 16:10, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Jim, this is at least twice now where you have leveled a false accusation against me. I did read the original edit and reference before I made any changes. I admit I made a comment here in talk before reading the entire reference, but I DID NOT make any changes to the article until after reviewing the edit and the references. Arzel (talk) 17:02, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Arzel--I said OR (the conjunction). Words have meaning. You objected to the edit without bothering to read the cited material. To me, that is clear evidence of your bias. Jimintheatl (talk) 21:47, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I see no false accusations, and though one must be wary of running afoul of WP:NPA there is clearly no need to continue to assume good faith when there is (ample) evidence of questionable conduct (including half-truths and willful misrepresentation of facts and policy) on record over a period of months. That being sad, Arzel has made valid points in the past. It's always prudent to focus on the argument and not the editor, but neither is it required to completely ignore such patterns either (or shy away from shedding light on the situation). Tread cautiously. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 22:47, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Amen (or, as some might prefer, mega-dittoes). Jimintheatl (talk) 00:50, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Blaxthos, the false accusations were with regards to Jimintheatl saying both Azrel and I did not read the sourced material. I clearly did and Azrel says he did too. We have been patiently telling Jimintheatl to file a RFC if he disagrees with our consensus because he has not addressed any of our issues that we raise about why it should be included and how it makes the section better. Refusing to listen to and address the concerns of the community is POV pushing. He hasn't tried to include it again (yet) but refusing to adhere to wiki guidelines shows bad faith on his part and should be dealt with accordingly and appropriately if continued. Arnabdas (talk) 19:34, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Barbara Boxer Comments

I cleaned up the severe POV worded statements of O'Reilly about Barbara Boxer that Media Matters cites. I did not remove it since the source is there and it is in NPOV wording now, but I am opening up discussion about its inclusion due to weight. O'Reilly doesn't like Boxer that's clear, but to have several lines devoted to her seems to be giving her too much weight. He maybe has mentioned her name 5 times at most in the past year (and that's stretching it) and has not devoted any radio or tv segments to her as of late. As opposed to his criticism of, say, NBC News which is almost daily, I am not so sure if these Boxer comments really are notable vis a vis weight in the article. Arnabdas (talk) 20:44, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

The "truth/troops" thing might be legit for the criticism article. It was certainly a good example of O'Reilly being a bit dense. The other thing was basically just the usual O'Reilly fare; it didn't illuminate his politics at all. I don't think either belong. Croctotheface (talk) 21:21, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I see an issue here where the section reads as original research. Presented in a way to 'prove' that O'Reilly made a false accusation. However, unless this supposed accusation is a known topic it has no relevance within the article. Arzel (talk) 14:19, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, so it seems we are in agreement in taking it out then from this particular article with a possible mention in the criticism of article? It may belong there, but the issue is again of weight. Some of the topics there were given far more highlighting. Arnabdas (talk) 15:27, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I basically agree with that. The truth/troops thing certainly got O'Reilly some criticism, so it could go in that article. Neither of these items illuminate O'Reilly's politics in a meaningful way. I'm also very disturbed by the way that Jim just reverts and reverts with the hope that it will cause people who disagree with him to give up. Croctotheface (talk) 15:31, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Arnabdas suggested including it in the domestic politics section. Jimintheatl (talk) 17:33, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I suggested including it there, if anywhere. I wasn't sure about it later because of weight. He barely mentions Boxer, so I wasn't sure about including it because Boxer is just not an important topic of his vis a vis something like Soros or NBC News. Arnabdas (talk) 17:54, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

No. You said "place it in domestic." Not "if anywhere." You can look it up. Jimintheatl (talk) 20:05, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Edwards/Homeless Vets

The citation provided is from Bill O'Reilly. As there is a question about his distortion of Edwards' comments, it is not appropriate to cite O'Reilly's show as evidence of anything other than what O'Reilly said. As I said earlier, O'Reilly originally said there were not 200,00 homeless vets. Only after he was proven wrong did he develop the economic link. Jimintheatl (talk) 19:19, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Jim, I want to thank you for opening up discussion on this matter as opposed to just reverting edits. With that said, I find it perplexing why O'Reilly's own comments are not supposed to be from his own site or the FNC transcripts of his show. Those are his comments and that's what should be cited, not some Media Matters filter or the like. This is pure common sense. The issue of Edwards though is moot with regards to this section since this is an NBC News beef O'Reilly has. Still, if you want to put a sourced statement by Edwards up and write out something to the point of "Edwards denies O'Reilly's claims" then that of course would be legitimate. However, I do caution you to not go on a rant about it because again, the issue is about O'Reilly and NBC News in this section, not Edwards and O'Reilly beefs. Arnabdas (talk) 19:33, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

In that case, it seems appropriate to either reduce or move the information. My point was that using O'Reilly as the source for what Edwards said was inappropriate, because O'Reilly "spun" what Edwards said after statistics supported Edwards claims about the number of vets. Edwards never said that the vets were homeless because of the economy; O'Reilly created that. Jimintheatl (talk) 20:12, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Saying what Edwards originally said is fine. Whether you think O'Reilly spun it or not is irrelevant. O'Reilly stated his position. It's fair to say what he stated first, the critique of it, and what he stated second. One can counter argue that O'Reilly always meant to say his criticism was of the economy. That's why putting in editor's opinions in wikipedia is a no-no. Arnabdas (talk) 20:18, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I didn't insert my opinion; I removed yours (or whoever wrote the original) which said that Edwards made the comment about homeless vets while giving a speech on economics. Not true. He made the remarks (played and criticized by O'Reilly) during a concession speech after losing the Iowa caucuses. Jimintheatl (talk) 20:48, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Thats what O'Reilly said. He interpreted it that way. That is sourced. Arnabdas (talk) 14:14, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

No, no, no. That's not sourced, that's accepting O'Reilly's POV. The entry originally said "During a talk on economic policy, Edwards said...(homeless vets)." That is not what happened. O'Reilly made his original criticism of Edwards about his concession speech after the Iowa caucusses, not a policy speech. O'Reilly's later linkage of the homeless vets remark to Edwards larger theme was after the fact, revisionist history. Jimintheatl (talk) 01:20, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Once again YOUR interpretation. What about NPOV and OR do you not understand? Arnabdas (talk) 14:27, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Seriously, did you bother to read or watch the cited material? (I ask based on past performance). If you did, can you answer two simple questions (1) The Edwards remarks commented upon by O'Reilly, were they made during a concession speech or during an economic policy speech? (2) When O'Reilly initially criticized Edwards' remarks, did he say anything at all about Edwards economic agenda? There are non-subjective answers to both of those questions. Jimintheatl (talk) 17:38, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

It does not matter when the comments were made and whether or not Edwards was doing back flips while making it, what matters is O'Reilly's motivation is CLEARLY iterated in the source. You not believing O'Reilly is a violation of BLP, OR, WEIGHT (because it's an NBC section) NPOV (possibly). In another word (with all due respect), irrelevant. Arnabdas (talk) 18:32, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm shocked, shocked that you can't answer those questions. What don't you get about NPOV? Jimintheatl (talk) 18:37, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Be shocked all you want. The entry stays as it is and you are not removing sourced information from the article and violate several wiki guidelines in doing so. Open up an RFC if you want to take things further. Please also refrain from making disruptive edits that go against wikipedia procedure. Arnabdas (talk) 19:43, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Here's the thing: I don't even know what you are complaining about, and am not sure you do either. I am not advocating for any changes. Jimintheatl (talk) 21:15, 18 April 2008 (UTC)