Talk:Public image of Bill O'Reilly (political commentator)/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

NCMR and Free Press, Bill Moyers.

..........can't believe it wasn't added yet. Feel free to expand. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 00:59, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree this should be added and should be trimmed. I am, however, reluctant to engage with editors who misuse BLP or who casually issue accusations of bad faith.Jimintheatl (talk) 01:09, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

There might be something worth talking about there, but it shouldn't be the longest section in the article. Compared to a peer reviewed academic study, that is not especially significant criticism. We should trim this, remove the long quotes, and combine it with any similar accusastions. Croctotheface (talk) 02:14, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I removed as it would be difficult to present in a neutral point of view, especially the Wexler section. Provide some reliable unbiased 3rd party sources that talk about this incident or leave it out, otherwise it looks like an attack from those that dislike BOR and in violation of both WP:BLP and WP:NPOV. For example, part of the Wexler situation was that he listed as his Florida residenence a place that he could not legally reside. I am not saying that none of this could be incorporated, but it is certainly not neutral in it's current form. Arzel (talk) 03:24, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I must say I disagree, Arzel. I ask you, what is the purpose of this article? It is: Criticism of Bill O'Reilly. Criticism is criticism. This entire article is expanding on criticism. Likewise, it would be impossible to remove bias enough to satisfy everyone because the critics are biased. The only thing feasible is to make a objective coverage of biased views. I am merely stating what the critics have said. I tried to avoid commentary, rebuttals, refutes, etc. as that would not be a objective coverage of criticism. Criticism and Support are already on the main page. If people want to read about criticism, they come here. If people want to read (effectively anyway) both sides, they go to the main page. If people want to read opinions or have a debate, they go to blogs, and other sites (possibly even talk page). A [good] encyclopedia does not usually provide opinions of the editors on the subject talked about. We are only presenting what happened, not adding opinions/rebuttals to everything, as if we did that, that would not be objective. As for wexler, the only relevant part to this article is the accusation of ambushing. All other things pertain in the article on the wexler subject, not on "criticism of O'reilly." That is why I added the main article link at top of the wexler subsection. In the time you have been arguing about this, you could have easily edited and expanded the article to your liking, removing the clean up tag. Not that I am advocating you to go and add opinions on the criticism and rebuttals (as that is not objective coverage of criticism), but that you could have easily added on to it, as an wikipedia editor, more details about the subjects relevant to article, and have "neutralized" it as you see fit. In fact, I welcome you to do so. Please do not misuse WP:BLP and WP:NPOV to remove subjects which you object to that can easily be worked on. I find it laughable that a wikipedia user cannot add a new section under an article titled criticism without having to defend oneself.

Looking at your talk page, and their mention of your edit history, I would further suggest you not remove things in sections CLEARLY named criticism under the guise of WP:BLP and WP:NPOV that can be interpreted as presented neutrally. Remember, that your opinion is only one of many, and that not everyone sees things the way you do. If it seems possibly neutral or can easily be fixed, please actually edit it, instead of removing it. If WP:BLP and WP:NPOV was interpreted as broadly as you seem to suggest, all criticism sections would be inevitably removed on all article in wikipedia, as someone would always object to the criticism, and we would never be able to report on it. This is only a suggestion.

The above is my opinion and is not intended to offend anyone. Feel free to refute my opinion.

ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 00:03, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

WP is not the place to air your personal greivences against those you disagree with. A big problem with the secion you wish to add is that it states as fact that BOR expressed intent to "Ambush", and directed his staff to ambush, giving the impression that this is borderline illegal. In particular the Moyer section relies on Blogs, which are not classified as Reliable Sources for most of it's content. I've noticed that you have already reverted the section without discussion or addressing any of my earlier issues. Arzel (talk) 00:58, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I have discussed your earlier issues, to my view, have you read it? I do not have a personal grievance against O'reilly. Also, I said in edit, that you are free to change the word, instead of removing the coverage entirely, as that is censorship. Would you rather I cite the actual footage? I only used the blog to cite the quote. Not the other things, I COULD cite the actual video. If you have any other concerns, please state them. You are a editor like every other member, and I would like to point out again that you can simply revise the wording.

Edit: The Moyers section does not rely on blogs. It relies on coverage by the Huffington Post, MSNBC (which you would deny is a "legitimate source"), and Free Press (again which you would deny as a "legitimate source"). I will say again that the only thing sourced from the blog is the quote. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 01:00, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Huffingtion Post is a Blog, maybe not all of it, but what you were using was. The Wexler section was only a blog. If you want to include it find some non-blog sources and present in a neutral manner. Arzel (talk) 01:12, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

On the moyers part: See video of the actual thing: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y_2IZT4VgDY (yes video is biased based on the snippits, but ignoring those), would you deny the things said, that porter "failed" in what he wanted to do, and that he was given the same treatment as well on leaving? I am not saying it was a ambush, I put that because that's what the critics said, and we are covering the criticism. I am just asking, do you dispute all of the events written in it? If not, then please do not remove everything, and only change the things you find issue with. I am open to changing the word of ambushing, despite the fact that that is what the critics said, and that in putting it, imo, is fair coverage of criticism, but I will not tolerate complete removal on coverage of criticism when the entire article is about criticism, as that to me is censorship. I do find it intriguing that you object to the statement added that porter was treated the same way (ex badly) on leaving.

On Wexler: I am open to changes in Wexler part. What I feel is that the main thing needing mentioning is the accusation of ambushing as this page is about criticism first. The main article (see the template I added) is where everything else goes. I added incomplete because I did not know much of the counterargument (why the clean up tag is there). You are free to add some other information on it (I did note that what BOR said was true, at least, its interpreted that way to me, might not be evident enough, my fault)

I'd like to reitertate that I am and have been open to wording changes all this time. What I will challenge is complete removal.

ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 01:18, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest that you stop looking at this as a censorship issue. WP is governed by some pretty basic principles. WP:V, WP:UNDUE and WP:NEUTRAL and BLP's are bounded by WP:BLP. What you have presented thus far are biased views of these incidents and not at all neutral. The sources you have provided are largely based off Bloggers and non are actual mainstream news reports. The only non-blog source is KO, and given his known dislike of BOR anything he says must be taken with a grain of salt. Even if we ignore those facts for a moment, lets look at what BOR actually did. Dateline, 48 hours, 60 minutes, and other news programs rely on what you would call ambushing of their subjects ot get their story, as does Michael Moore. My point is that these kinds of interviews are not uncommon, therefore it is undue weight to present them in the manner you have, when what it really boils down to is that Moyer and Wexler accuse BOR of confronting them unanounced when they would not agree to be interviewed. If you want to summarize these two incidents I suggest you start with [Wexler] and look a neutral presentation before reinserting this biased version. Arzel (talk) 01:38, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Additionally, you are adding a fair amount of original research into your presentation. You can't watch the video and report on it, that is expressly against WP:OR Arzel (talk) 01:48, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

What you are ignoring is the video of the events in your constant claim of "no source". Also, the bloggers are critics. They accused him of ambushing. Free Press accused him of doing such. We are covering criticism. I feel that saying: Critics called the act ambushing appropriate. It also seems like you completely disregarded my earlier opinion on what the purpose of the article is. Instead, you seemed to ignore it, and bring up other issues that in my opinion, are negated by what I said. In going over the article, it seems you removed quite a parts that seemed negative, in addition to the campaign by free press, thus selectively presenting the events, that is does not seem objective to me. The article on Robert Wexler is a biography page. Not a criticism of Robert Wexler. You seem to be going about as if this is a BOR page, not a "Criticism of BOR" page, as you have not yet refuted my claim of the purpose of the article. I will say it again, the best I think one can do is present a objective coverage of biased views as the critics are biased. If one attempts to remove all "negative" things stated by the critics in the coverage of such, one is effectively biased against the critics.

IN REPLY TO YOUR EDIT (cause of edit conflict)I did not need to do original research, as I cited MSNBC/other people reporting it. I stated what happened. I only mentioned the video cause you seemed so ardent that there was no "legitimate source." Even so, how can you say a video is Original Research? I fail to understand it, and would someone please tell me how a video that I did not make, that was in the countdown cite, that was on Free Press' site, is original research. I am not watching the video and reporting ON the video. I am watching the video and writing what is shown/reported IN the video/news. I don't have the time to argue all day, nor the interest. Again, you seem to have ignored my entire original part on the purpose of the article. Arzel, you seem to be under the impression that WP:NPOV requires no negativity at all, or criticism, in this case, of Bill O'Reilly. However, not presenting the critics side of the story is not NPOV. I am quite confident that the current form passes WP:NPOV with minimal objections, in contrary to how you feel. Perhaps have a admin moderate it, or open a discussion to others?

ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 01:56, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Bit of advice Noian. CALM DOWN. The world is not ending. Thank you. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 02:09, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, got a little angry after having to reply/reiterate my opinion (which parts of seem ignored and unanswered) and figure out what was changed for the past few hours in a room getting progressively near 90 degrees due to my laptop's awful fan system. I usually edit everything I type like 3 times though, and didn't have the time to edit that. I'm never going to bother editing anything related to BOR/related conservatism subjects, as I don't have the time to argue over the neutrality of covering what the critics said..ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 02:34, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I have gone back and verified everything in the section was sourced. I even added Redundant mentions of the same source/different sources for same thing just so that there is no claims of no sources. I am quite confident the current version passes WP:NOR and Synthesis, with the only exception being:

'After the unsuccessful "ambush", several reporters used the same tactics that Porter Barry used on Moyers, as the producer left.' Edit: reworded it.

I am also quite confident that it passes WP:NPOV as it details both the critics point and the actual events.

ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 03:09, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

In reply to the blog comment: Huffington Post is cited/mentioned many times in other parts of the article. I fail to see why it cannot be used here. There is a entire section in the talk page on it, which presumably says if we source it, its not OR ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 05:43, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Noticed sources messed up slightly (reference code), so redid them ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 20:21, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Teen Pregnancy/Sources

This has gotten a good bit of play, so much so that BOR himself is covering and responding to it. As for Arzel's objections....The Huff Post is not a blog, the AJC is not a blog...They are news sites/sources which also host blogs. Jon Stewart is a satirist; satire is a form of criticism. I'm encouraged, though, that you have not (yet) raised the standard BLP objection.Jimintheatl (talk) 18:24, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm adding a quote from this talk page on Huffington Post:

'Large blogs like the Huffington Post aren't "self-published", which is the language in WP:RS that excludes most blogs. Croctotheface (talk) 19:42, 8 April 2008 (UTC)'

HP is already discussed. It's already used in many other areas of WP. There are exceptions to almost every WP rule. If the coverage is relevant, then in some cases (as is HP), its completely valid to use the source. Arzel, do not raise objections already discussed and dismissed. Also, wikipeidia is a Encyclopedia. It doesn't matter when criticism was said.

ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 20:13, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I would like to add that Youtube is (generally considered) a valid source if it is used in conjunction with {{cite video}} where the video is a episode of news/other that is relevant to the article, and the youtube link is just for the location of a copy of the video. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 01:11, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

THIS is a blog. The writer of this blog uses heresay for comments allegedly provided by BOR. This kind of information is expressly prohibited per WP:BLP Specifically WP:SELFPUB Self-published sources should never be used as third-party sources about living persons, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer; see WP:BLP#Reliable sources. This Does not mention BOR, yet for some reason you have included it twice now. Correction, it does mention BOR, not sure how I missed it, first section may have some merit. This is a blog, it simply summarizes The Daily Show, which is a fake news show. As such should never be used. From the RS Noticeboard Regarding parody sources They are sources only about themselves. If they are a canonical example of a notable or widespread form of satire regarding the subject, then they could perhaps be cited as an example thereof, but ideally only if there is an independent source identifying it as such. Guy (Help!) 23:47, 16 February 2008 (UTC) This event has certainly not reached whidespread notability. Finally, linking to The Daily Show Video, while not from YouTube like I thought orginally, doesn't add anything because The Daily Show is already not a reliable source. At Noian, please read WP:NOT, specifically WP:NOTNEWS. It is not the purpose of WP to report news, this is an encyclopedia. Arzel (talk) 01:38, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

The AJC is a newspaper, not a blog. The word is "hearsay." The Tucker AJC article explicitly mentioned Bill O'Reilly.Are you evn bothering to read before you revert?Jimintheatl (talk) 02:43, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

But this isn't reporting news. We're reporting events that happened, in this case criticism. The fact that the events (criticism) happened makes them news because of the fact that it happened recently is comical. That would mean that the Paraolympic Opening ceremonies couldn't be written about after it happened cause it would have been news, or that we couldn't write about the RNC after it happened because its "news." Please do not conform Wikipedia Policies to your own viewpoint.

Notability is arguable. Generally, if you can get 1 or 2 citations by reputable sources, it established notable.ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 01:53, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Read WP:UNDUE and WP:V, right now you have one source for the first part, and no sources that can verify the second part happened at all. Arzel (talk) 02:00, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Then use {{fact}} and let others have a chance to source it for once. In addition, issues with wording can be modified easily, much easier than the amount of time you've spent arguing/deleting. I included a sample based on your mention on the complain page (or whatever its called). It seems that User:Jim isn't on atm, so you might want to wait a day or two for more input from him (if you are waiting for a response that it) I take it you've withdrawn your news claim though? ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 02:07, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

If a fact tag is required then per WP:BLP it should be removed immediately without discussion. Overall I think the section is undue weight because there are not any third party reliable sources that reported on the controversy with Tucker with is the focus, and there is no evidence that it is actually a controversy. Arzel (talk) 02:13, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I never said that. I personally view fact tags as places that require citation (and you may disagree, not saying I am right, just clarifying a possible misunderstanding), which may have been omitted since writer thought it was obvious in the cite and that everything with citations already could have had {{fact}}. Also, are you arguing about source reliability or are you arguing about no source?. Since there are sources. I don't have anymore time to discuss today (night) so I'll discuss more tomorrow.....ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 02:35, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

You seem to be disregarding WP:BLP to serve your point of view. There are no reliable sources that say she was ambushed, nor are there any sources which purport to have first hand knowledge that she was even ambushed. Your addition of weasle words don't help in the least. Arzel (talk) 03:05, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

You are arguing over the reliability of the source, no? According to Washington post, they trust Atlantic Journal Constitution. (they list it under Bill O'reilly related articles.). Is washington post not a reliable source? in addition, note the word 'claim'. and the phrase following it. http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Bill+O'Reilly?tid=informline Also, how can there be no sources of critics calling it a ambush, when the article in question says "ambush?" ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 03:16, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Do you know the difference between a blog and a news report? A blog is like writing into the opinion page of your newspaper, only it gets published everytime because there is no content control. It does not matter what the WP thinks about the AJC, the fact is you are still using blog sources. Jim, you are not helping your situation by adding additional blogs. Arzel (talk) 13:47, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Major newspapers and magazines now host blogs. Blogs can also be run by 14 year old Joe Jones from his parents' basement. I think WP can and does distinguish between the two...Jimintheatl (talk) 12:05, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Please cite to where WP makes that distinction. You may be giving it too much credit. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 16:28, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

especially sections 2 and 3. As criticism can be and often is opinion, citing opinion pieces is entirely appropriate in this article. The "it" in your 2nd sentence doesn't have a clear antecedent; I hope this responds.Jimintheatl (talk) 21:42, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

My goodness. I was trying to be funny, I was joking. Sorry for not making my attempt at humor a bit more clear. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 22:59, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Ha Ha? Sorry if I didn't get it, but Arzel has been making the same hilarious argument all week. I was all laughed out.... And what was "it"?Jimintheatl (talk) 01:30, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

||Sigh||It's never a good sign when you have to explain a joke. Here goes--you said that WP knows the difference between a news blog done by journalists, and a 14 year old in his basement. I responded that you may be giving Wikipedia ("it") too much credit, since your posts seems to be based on commons sense, which is often in short supply here. That is all I was saying. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 16:32, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Before we cross into WP:IAR territory... Olbermann covered the story last night (I believe R.M. may have as well), thus alleviating sourcing concerns. However, that doesn't mean I'm for inclusion (undecided)... just that the discussion needs to be re-focused on the appropriateness of inclusion rather than blogwashing. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 17:31, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

So WP:NOR is gone and now replaced by WP:NOTABILITY eh? On to WP:SHOPPING we go! XD (just kidding) ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 04:32, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't see where I raised WP:N (which is not a content policy). I also didn't say I was convinced either way as to whether it should be included. I did provide you with sources that effectively end the WP:RS and WP:OR objections, and I did ask that we refocus the debate on whether it should be included. I'm perplexed by your reply. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 16:44, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I said I was just kidding. I meant that I'm happy that the WP:OR issues is finally settled. Nothing more. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 23:21, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Hey guys, sorry for being late :) Seriously, I don't care if this material is in or out, my "beef" is with some of the citations/blogs here. Can we post the citation here and then see if folks feel that it is a RS? I have removed two cites, but have been reverted and told that consensus has been reached. I see 3 or 4 folks here and nothing that definitive. Anyways, thank you, --Tom 21:36, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Read Blaxthos post above. Verifiability for the thing is already established. We are discussing notability. A simpler thing would be just to replace the current cites (which have been verified) with a simple {{cite video|}} template instead. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 00:02, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Reliable sources??

It seems that there a some blogs, youtube links, and other questionable sources for this article. Like this for example. Can we remove these questionable sources and find better ones or tag them for sources? Thank you, --Tom 13:49, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

See above.Jimintheatl (talk) 18:02, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I read above. I also removed this as a non RS. Please do not add non reliable sources to this article since it does nothing to improve the article. Thank you, --Tom 20:19, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

If you have read the above, why are you ignoring the consensus?Jimintheatl (talk) 20:59, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

What consensus? There was debate with a few editor's chiming in about different RSs. Would the editors above, or anybody else, like to say that eandppub.com is a RS? I can't even tell who the author of that blog is? You have also violated 3RR. I won't revert for now but will try to get others involved.--Tom 21:09, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Normally I would ask you to please see and read: WP:IAR, WP:RAP (and note that the rules are principles. In this specific case, the determining factor for RS is not based on the general strict interpretation, but rather verifiability by other editors and relevancy), however I do think that you already know this though, as you've replied to the discussion above, and you have not gone and deleted contentious sections outright (which is something to be thankful for, seeing as Arzel does that all the time; which is against WP policy btw)), so it doesn't really apply here. Welcome to the discussion. :)

Also note that you have violated/are near violation of 3RR as well, and 3RR is a principle too (which is to say you can't go legalese on it), although to say the truth, I violate 3RR every day (if going by a strict definition), as the way I edit posts is to add things in small chunks. ;) I do thank you very much for your civility and willingness to discuss. :)

ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 00:00, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Edit: Please note that the Free Press one you stated is in the article because it is relevant to the statement (In response, Free Press Launched a campaign telling BOR to stop pretending to be a journalist, or some variation of it, I merely cited it to give it weight/so other editors would stop removing it outright under the claim of "no citation")ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 00:12, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

The external links do not meet Wikipedia standards. They should be removed. Bytebear (talk) 05:33, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Would you like to support your opinion?Jimintheatl (talk) 12:01, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Jimintheat1, it nows seems that 3-4 editors have said that the blog you want to add is not appropriate and have reverted you. What gives? Why is it so important to you that this link be included in the article? Maybe its time to saddle up? --Tom 13:22, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I count 4 editors favoring inclusion, and supporting their positions. 3 editors have opposed inclusions, one w/o any argument in support, 2 with the assertions that the cites are blogs--not true-- and that blogs are not RS--also untrue.Jimintheatl (talk) 13:31, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

As there is no consensus for inclusion, just leave it out. Again, you still haven't answer WHY is it SO important to include this link???? Can you answer that?--Tom 13:35, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

You continue to delete the E&P ref. Perhaps you are unfamiliar with E&P. From the WP article: "Editor & Publisher (E&P) is a monthly journal covering the North American newspaper industry. It is based in New York City. E&P calls itself "America's Oldest Journal Covering the Newspaper Industry" and describes itself on its website as "the authoritative journal covering all aspects of the North American newspaper industry, including business, newsroom, advertising, circulation, marketing, technology, online and syndicates.""Jimintheatl (talk) 18:14, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

This is not a blog? --Tom 18:20, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

This is a specious argument. And was resolved, I thought, in the discussion above. All blogs are not created equal; blogs are not per se unreliable.Jimintheatl (talk) 18:38, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

ok, so I 'll take that as a yes, this is a blog? Now WHY is it so important to include it? --Tom 19:10, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

It is a blog. There is no guideline or policy that forbids using all blogs as sources. WP:RS does not say we shouldn't use information from blogs; it says we shouldn't cite self-published sources. Blogs from larger publications, especially ones that have editorial control such as one by "the entire staff of Editor and Publisher," are not self published and can certainly be reliable sources. Croctotheface (talk) 19:57, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

See WP:EL "Links to blogs and personal web pages, except those written by a recognized authority (this exception is meant to be very limited; as a minimum standard, recognized authorities always meet Wikipedia's notability criteria for biographies)." Bytebear (talk) 22:09, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate that you attempted to support your position this time, but are you suggesting that Editor & Publisher is not a recognized authority? I don't think that's a plausible argument.Jimintheatl (talk) 23:20, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Further, and more importantly, you are confusing EXTERNAL LINKS with SOURCES/CITATIONS. You are deleting a reference/citation, not a link.Jimintheatl (talk) 23:24, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Has this source been peer reviewed? Bytebear (talk) 23:59, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Chill people!

A) WP:EL is not relevant here. It is a cite. Not a link. This is a external link.

B) Notability & Verifiability is already established for the Teen Pregnancy section (see Blaxthos post on Teen Pregnancy Section with WP:IAR comment). Do not bring this up again. I don't know about the others, but if there are citations, then it should be considered verified. General rule of thumb is 1-2 citations needed.

C) As per WP:RAP and WP:IAR, it is evident that appropriate citations vary from one article to another, therefore, do not use a strict interpretation of wikipedia policies. Please discuss. Non Self-Published "Blogs" such as Huffington Post and E&P are allowed to be sources. There was already a discussion about this earlier on the talk page.

D) Let's all try to avoid WP:SHOPPING, shall we? also, remember to use {{fact}}

E) Quoting WP:RS:

Self-published sources may be used only in very limited circumstances; see WP:V. When removing or challenging a reference to a self-published source, it is best to explain how it is being used inappropriately, rather than simply point out that the source is self-published.

No where does this say anything about blogs in general. Just Self-published sources

F) Quoting WP:V which clarifies the self-published blogs comment:

"Blogs" in this context refers to personal and group blogs. Some newspapers host interactive columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control. Where a news organization publishes the opinions of a professional but claims no responsibility for the opinions, the writer of the cited piece should be attributed (e.g., "Jane Smith has suggested ..."). Posts left by readers may never be used as sources.

ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 00:07, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

See WP:SPS "Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, knols, forum postings, and similar sources are largely not acceptable". What exactly make this blog more acceptable? Bytebear (talk) 00:38, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Did you ignore the little note next to it that goes to the bottom of WP:V (which is a policy and not a guideline, so it holds precedence over other guidelines) which specifically says:

"Blogs" in this context refers to personal and group blogs. Some newspapers host interactive columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control. Where a news organization publishes the opinions of a professional but claims no responsibility for the opinions, the writer of the cited piece should be attributed (e.g., "Jane Smith has suggested ..."). Posts left by readers may never be used as sources.

The above you quoted said self-published books, [self published] newsletters, [self published] personal websites, [self published] open wikis, and [self published] blogs. it is simple English prose to ignore repeating all those self-published, which you seem to have forgotten, and which I added in for you. Also, you are very close {imo) to WP:SHOPPING, not that I won't accept arguments, as I'm more than happy to refute any arguments.ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 00:42, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

So you are saying it's about not being self published? That a contributor to my wiki is more acceptable than me? No, "self published" is not implied in those examples. It only means self published books. and all others are by default self-published, regardless of who the contributor is. And no, I am not shopping, but showing that the same standards for external links also applies to citations. The standards are practically identical. Bytebear (talk) 00:51, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Did you even read what I posted on the note on WP:V? ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 00:59, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Quote WP:EL:

"WP:EL" redirects here; for information on edit locks, see Wikipedia:Edit lock. For the guideline on citation/reference links, see Wikipedia:Citing sources. For the style guide for internal links, see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links). For the related WikiProject, see Wikipedia:WikiProject External links.

Also, WP:V take precedence over WP:REF as WP:REF is a guideline and WP:V is a policy. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 01:02, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

If the source is not reliable, then there is no verifiability. If this is noteworthy, other sources will emerge. Find one. Bytebear (talk) 01:05, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

You are ignoring what I have said. To summarize:

WP:V tales precedence over WP:REF. WP:REF takes precedence over WP:EL as this is not a external link. WP:V clearly states that Blogs can be used as a source. You have not given proof other than purely stating that E&R or whatever it is you're arguing about is not reliable other than that it is a "blog" which is refuted by said above fact. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 01:08, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok, from WP:V: "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." Dies this source have such a reputation? Not that I am aware of. Huffington Post also is somewhat dubious, so, when we have some doubt, we need to look for additional sources to verify the issue. So, find another source. Bytebear (talk) 01:14, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Which issue? ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 01:33, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Blogs are opinions, and I think they fall under WP:RS "Great care must be taken to distinguish news reporting from opinion pieces. Opinion pieces are only reliable for statements as to the opinion of their authors, not for statements of fact. When citing opinion pieces from newspapers or other mainstream news sources, in-text attribution should be given. When adding contentious biographical material about living persons that relies upon news organizations, only material from high-quality news organizations should be used." Asher196 (talk) 01:56, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I already explained that blogs, if verifiable and notable, can be used. Why am I repeating myself?! I'm not stating that its already notable/verified, as I don't know what you are referring to, just that the argument that blogs can't be used is ludicrous. Blogs that are not self-published and belong to a newspaper are not opinions. See the WP:V cite note (which WP:V says that it overrules WP:RS since RS is a guideline and V is a policy.ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 02:05, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Clearly there is no consensus on inclusion, and you are ignoring the guideline because it doesn't fit what you want. It is very clear from that guideline that this is not appropriate. I keep telling you to find another more reliable source. It's that simple. But as it stands. it should be removed. I would also recommend reviewing WP:BLP and know that standards are higher on articles like this. Bytebear (talk) 02:09, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I am not ignoring the guideline. I am following the policy. It says clearly on WP:V that:

Because policies take precedence over guidelines, in the case of an inconsistency between this page and that one, this page has priority, and WP:RS should be updated accordingly. To discuss the reliability of specific sources, consult the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 02:15, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I went back and read the cite note which I missed earlier, and found that User:Noian is correct. Under some circumstances, blogs are reliable sources. Asher196 (talk) 02:18, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

@ bytebear:

Also, I will happily add another source, when you tell me which specific sources you are contentious of, as there have been more than one source argued this way, each under different beginning reasons, and I don't know which one still fails according to WP:V in your opinion, as each of the original reasons have been refuted (successfully imo), especially the blog one. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 02:20, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Just to let you know that Huffington post has already been discussed specifically, twice before, and each time was seemingly agreed that it is a reliable source. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 02:35, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

The references [1]] and [2] are both questionable. Jay Bookman is not notable, at least not enough to have a Wikipedia article about himself, so I would not call him a reliable source, and the secoud source cites the first source for it's informaiton, so it is fruit from a poisoned tree. Neither are acceptable. Bytebear (talk) 02:40, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I'll look over those tomorrow (no time atm, have to do homework), I've also asked specifically on Huffington Post and E&R on the reliable sources noticeboard, not because of this specific issue, but because HP has been raised imo one too many times, and I just want it settled, either way, and I don't have a clue about E&P, and therefore can't make a accurate opinion on it.

SEE EDIT BEFORE THIS. On your claim: Just because a person does not have a wikipedia article, does not render them not reliable, there are many less known reporters without wikipedia articles, wikipedia is not a collection of random information. Also, if someone else cites said person, that is irrelevant, if the said person is notable, then we can trust he/she is reliable in it and believes the source is reliable. I haven't seen it, so I can't give a accurate response, just responding to your overarching claims, which I feel shouldn't be overarching.ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 02:45, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Edit nvm, saw it, its old issue, already raised and settled, see Blaxthos post WAAY above. It has been reported by a news media (tv news media), and already verified. Simple thing would be to replace it with {{cite video|}}  Doneif you really are disturbed by the sources. 8th or 9th September Countdown (not sure as Blaxthos didn't specify what "last night" was (date) and since we're in international time, that can vary, and I didn't see that one as I don't have MSNBC as a cable channel, see here online: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677/#26615046.ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 02:50, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

The Olberman reference is better. As to the notability of a reporter, it is also about the news outlet they are reporting from. A CNN reporter has some credibility because it is CNN, NBC, NY Times, etc, but this Jay Bookman is not connected to any main stream media outlet. Bytebear (talk) 03:12, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Olbermann has a biased view of BOR and FNC as well. His opinion is simply part of his greater problem with FNC and BOR. There is no concensus to include the blog source Jim and Noian continue to add into this article. Even if they were, Blogs are not reliable sources under almost all situations. Arzel (talk) 03:44, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

User Arzel, the other blogs more than make up for it, it is criticism, and I HAVE ALREADY ARGUED THAT blogs can be used, as per consensus. I do thank you for not removing the section, reverting to previous version until concesus can be reached on weither or not to use critics. Also, you are not the one who decides if a tv news show is reliable or not, you do not own wikipedia, or the article.ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 04:04, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

From what I see, consensus is working against you. Bytebear (talk) 04:07, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

This is a different issue, Byte, that doesn't involve this. User:arzel has a history of removing criticism, and a personal biased view that sources (like huffington post and countdown) aren't valid sources. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 04:09, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Edit Concensus means that blogs can be used. (As in the concensus reached in WP:V, not other issues, clarifying. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 04:11, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

No, consensus as displayed by the very clear guidelines are that blogs are not reliable. I have to agree with Arzel on this issue. Local consensus is overwritten by official guidelines. If you contest, we can take it to arbitration or invite third parties to participate, but I think they would side with me. Bytebear (talk) 04:18, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

WP:V clearly states that non self-published blogs can be used. Arzel is referring to the countdown cite, not the blogs. (at least, as far as I know), I have already stated that policies overrule guidelines. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 04:20, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I believe we are on different pages here, I'm going to take a break.ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 04:22, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

break

(outdent) Who wants to make this project better? Seriously, raise of hands. Ok, again, for the 4th time, how does adding the www.eandppub.com blog post improve this article and more importantly, WHY is it so important that it be added?? This has still not been answered for the 4th time. And people wonder why Wikipedia is laughed at in the academic world? --Tom 13:10, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Wow, Tom... if we don't agree with you, we're not here to improve Wikipedia? Is that kinda like if I don't support a war I must not love our Troops?  ;-) One could very easily ask you why it's so important to the three musketeers (Tom, Arzel, ByteBear) to remove negative information about Fox and Bill O'Reilly -- after all, there is a lengthy and established precedent of behavior from all three of you. Fortuantely, we strive to assume good faith, and those sorts of discussions are (or should be) largely irrelevant. So, instead of policy shopping, ignoring opposing viewpoints and policies that don't support your position, and accusing those who don't agree with you of not "want to make this project better", why not try work with other editors? This isn't a pattern isolated to this thread (or even this talk page). /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 16:51, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Blaxthos, you are joking right? You are the king of negative information about Fox News. I have no agenda other than getting a truly reliable source. I offered my suggestion , which was if this is truly a newsworthy event, it would have reliable coverage. And yet, no one can come up with any. I am really disappointed in your attitude. Bytebear (talk) 17:26, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Tom, it seems pretty clear that you have a hostility toward citing any blog, no matter the editorial control or professional cachet. Your view is not the consensus view on this encyclopedia. I recall an earlier argument you raised on this board because someone added a Youtube clip of O'Reilly's show to source some statement he made, and you complained that it was bad to cite Youtube in any capacity. Then and now, you fail to recognize that the TECHNOLOGY of blogs or video hosting is neither reliable nor unreliable by definition. The Editor and Publisher blog can help the encyclopedia for the same reason that an article printed by Editor and Publisher could: it supplies information that verifies or enhances our articles. Croctotheface (talk) 18:00, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi Croctotheface(love the name), I don't now if hostility is the right word, but yes, I am not a "fan" of blogs and youtube links used as citations. Wikipedia is a true mess as far as policy and guidelines go, we all know this. The current policy says that blogs are largely not acceptable. Oh course there are exceptions to that. Anyways, I really don't want this to get heated or have "sides". Hopefully we all want to improve this project and try to get along. Cheers, --Tom 18:25, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Simple fact: if an event is noteworthy, sources outside of blogs will exist. We are all here to improve Wikipedia, and that includes replacing less acceptable references with better ones. If an event only is discussed in blogs, it isn't noteworthy enough to be included in Wikipedia. Bytebear (talk) 21:20, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

It does exist outside of blogs, just that the one thing outside of 'blogs' which I know of (RM might have done a report, ask Blaxthos) is KO's countdown, which user:Arzel refuses to allow to be used on a blanket ban. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 00:47, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

KO's Blogwashing doesn't make it any more reliable. This seems to be a common theme here. Someone blogs about an incident, and then some quazi reliable source comments on the blog and suddenly the incidence has been reported by a reliable source. This is insanity as far as I am concerned. Blaxthos, you will remember I was in your corner regarding John Edwards in a similar situation. To put this plainly, BLOGS should never be used as a primary source. If something is worthly on inclusion then it will be reported by a real reliable source, not some opinion from a biased point of view. Arzel (talk) 04:29, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

You still fail to see the point Arzel (WP:IDHT). I have stated again and again that it is in WP:V that blogs can be used. There is no blanket ban on it. In addition, WP:BLP makes references to WP:V on what can be used.ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 04:37, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I have to say that many of you arguing about not including blogs fail to see the point (WP:IDHT) which is blogs can be used due to WP:V (which overrules WP:REF), you can argue on the basis of notability/WP:NPOV or others, but WP:V and related are already settled more or less. On why it should be added (relav/not): it is a source. For a statement. out of many sources. Which was mentioned on a TV news show. Which is relevant to Criticism of BOR. Do I need to say more? Also (reliab), according to the answer to my post asking on Source reliability, E&P apparently has a good reputation, being accused of bias from both sides (at least, according to the board), so, yes, it is a reliable source. So, can this discussion please leave the blog-washing and move on to notability/relavance/npov if you still have objections?ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 00:41, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, I am sure we'll all be taken on a shopping spree.  ;-) /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 00:51, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Just copy+paste what has been said before (which I've found I have repeated the same arguments over and over without being refuted, like the WP:V one, which still has not been refuted successfully) on relevancy/npov (purpose of the article/ a new fun thing I found while being forced to read the policies more closely due to the shopping, which is that WP:BLP specifically says criticism (along with praise) can be included)), and notability would be the general rule of thumb of 1-2 [relevant/decent] sources (which I picked up off of a AfD experience). Although WP:SHOPPING doesn't apply (in enforcement anyway) yet until obscure policies/guidelines are used, like WP:EL (which has been used, but dropped), prose, or WP:IDONTLIKEIT. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 00:56, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Re-directing Discussion

(outdent) I am attempting to refocuse the discussion back to the original topic, which is reliability of the sources, not if blogs can be used or not. The issue is already settled in my opinion according to WP:V (although feel free to continue to argue above), so please discuss reliability (following WP:V and WP:RS, with WP:V taking precedence), notability, NPOV, or other issues below. Also, try to avoid WP:PS and keep on the topics originally discussed. If new concerns arise, please put them in a new section, so there isn't a large clump of discussion again on various topics such that newcomers ask the same questions again, and so we won't lose track of the original point. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 04:46, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Why won't you anwswer the question of WHY it is so important to add this cite? Asked now 5 times with zero answers. There are two other citations already. Also, yes or no question, no blathering, does the http://www.eandppub.com/ link help this article, yes or no:

• No. --Tom 13:02, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
• No. Arzel (talk) 14:15, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
• No. Bytebear (talk) 17:24, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Lets look at all the sources.

[3] Blog commenting on a fake news show.

[4] Opinion piece from AJC

[5] Daily Show Video, which by inclusion would seem to indicate that the primary story is that Stewart mocked BOR regarding this issue.

[6] Another Blog from the always reliable Huffpo.

[Keith Olbermann] and his regular bashing of BOR.

[7] Another Blog. Also we have the aforementioned E & P blog.

One reliable source, and a ton of crap to make this look like it is more of a controversy then it really is. Even if Blogs were reliable sources (which they are not) this whole section should be removed for undue weight. The WP Policies are quite clear. Blogs SHOULD NOT BE USED, yet we have here 4 blogs being used to present this as something more than it is. Arzel (talk) 14:03, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

A)Wikipedia is not a vote.

B)When did the number of sources in question expand? I thought we were only arguing over the two mentioned earlier? What exactly are we arguing over? Can we take things one at a time? Please do not set up straw men arguments arzel, I am certain we were not talking about all of those sources.

C)Wikipedia Policies are clear that BLOGS CAN BE USED IF NOT SELF PUBLISHED, WP:BLP, WP:V, BOTH state this.

ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 03:23, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi Arzel, would you mind also answering yes or no above? Thank you, --Tom 14:07, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Done. Arzel (talk) 14:15, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Also, I see that Blaxthos readded it with the edit summary that I removed it since I don't like it which is a gross mischaracterization, than you very much. Talk about the kettle calling the pot black, geesh--Tom 17:29, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Since the reliable source noticeboard has declared the source reliable and okay, I don't see what the problem is. Restored. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 17:33, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Blaxthos, can you please answer the questions above 1) WHY is it so important to add this link, feel free to blather and 2) yes or no to whether it helps this article, no blathering. Thank you, --Tom 17:47, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Tom, is it so difficult for you to post without disparaging other editors? Croctotheface (talk) 17:58, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Blaxthos, I see no where on the reliable source noticeboard where this source is considered reliable,or even mentioned at all. Can you be more specific? Bytebear (talk) 17:52, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

See this. --Tom 18:03, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

We need to figure out what the dispute is over here. Nobody benefits from editors batting a single citation in and out of the article. Are we discussing whether the criticism should be included at all? That's what Arzel seems to want to discuss. Are we discussing whether we can ever cite blogs? That's what Tom seems to want to discuss. Does the inclusion of this source affect the article in any way beyond whether the source is cited or not? It would be helpful if the editors involved here could make some brief statements about their goals here and also say what they think the result would be. For instance, an editor might say, "I want to remove the E&P citation because I consider it unreliable, which will then reveal the criticism it sources to be unreliable and compel us to remove it from the article." Croctotheface (talk) 17:58, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I see my attempt to refocus the discussion failed. If you had understood my rationale, Tom, you would have realized I was attempting to bring the discussion from 'blogs can't be used outright' to 'is this source notable/credible'. I see certain editors are still muttering about blogs not being able to be used. That is not a valid rationale, as I have stated again and again, that blogs can be used via WP:V and that using it as a blanket ban rationale holds no weight. You may do what Croc said above, and explain properly, being more specific. Also, please do not bring the discussion over to the noticeboard, keep it here, the noticeboard is solely for the determination of if the sources themselves are credible' and reputable enough, not notability, that is why it is the reliable sources noticeboard, not the notability/relevance noticeboard. I posted it for 3rd party opinion, not more arguing by parties already involved. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 02:38, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

You are bound to get bleedover to the noticeboards, you may as well accept this fact. Regardless of that however, there doesn't seem to be concensus that E&P is a reliable blog source. Additionally, as Croc noted I think the whole issue is undue weight. Arzel (talk) 03:17, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and how many of those dissenters are from this discussion? That differentiates between a third party opinion, and one which is not. Let the uninvolved parties settle the reliability of the sources, as it goes beyond the local consensus, and affects wikipedia much larger. We should not bring our specific issues into that. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 03:21, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

What is the end phase of this debate?

I'll ask this question again, since it was ignored the first time. I don't know WHY we are debating this. If we end up deciding to exclude the E&P source, will the only change be that we have two sources (109 and 110 in the current numbering) and not have 111 sourcing that sentence? If so, I don't really see what the big deal is either way. Or is this about trying to pick off sources one-by-one to show that the criticism itself should be excluded? If this is the case, then we should be debating the merits of the content rather than batting this one reference in and out of the article. Croctotheface (talk) 07:33, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Time to step off the train... it's pretty obvious that the three muskateers have one goal: remove negative information using any means necessary. I find it hard to continue to assume good faith when these three consistantly misrepresent policy and facts, ignore opinions that contradict their own, and always end up supporting excluding/removing criticism of the "right" (be it O'Reilly, FNC, etc.). If objectivity is the goal, one would expect to statistically see support for some issues and opposition to others. I humbly suggest that if an editor always, without fail, supports one ideology, then that editor is likely servicing an agenda. Unfortunately, this seems to have become a game of who will wear down first. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 18:13, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Well since you always get your way with your agenda pushing, its obvioulsy us wearing down. Also, please save your blathering reply to this about how outraged you are over my incivility since as always its the pot calling the kettle black. --Tom 14:44, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Blaxthos, you are out of line. Why not take a look at the efforts of Jim over the past several months. All he has done is try to interject minor random criticism with largely blog sourcing, and it has not just been me that has disagreed with him most of the time. Furthermore, you know I backed you on the John Edwards scandal. Why is it that you only see objectivity when it agrees to your point of view? Arzel (talk) 15:58, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

To be fair, Arzel is correct. Jim has asked me on several occasions to assist his efforts here, but thus far I haven't seen a reasoned argument worth supporting. I would agree that a lot of the suggestions have indeed been "minor random criticisms." Likewise, Arzel is closer to a statistical norm of supporting some things and opposing others. To that end, Arzel, I think you may be correct and it may not be fair to lump you in with the others. Sorry Arzel, my statement may not have been fair to you, however I strongly stand by my statement that editors who, regardless of policy, end up supporting a political ideology are indeed servicing an agenda. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:13, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Blaxthos. Arzel (talk) 00:30, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I think this is quite comical Blaxthos. One must only take the most superficial glance at your "contributions" to get a great example of an editor who seems to be serving some agenda. Thanks! Wikiport (talk) 06:19, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Arzel, Threeafterthree, Bytebear, and I have all been editing together for at least a year and a half. Nice try. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 12:17, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Guys, could you answer my question? Is the only thing at issue here whether that sentence has three sources or two? Or is that going to be used as a vehicle for something else? What are your ultimate goals with this debate? Croctotheface (talk) 17:54, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Hey Croc, I myself, being a minimalist, deletionist, no fan of blogs, youtube and the like, not liking material that isn't that notable or relevant or has happen in the last month ot two would say, does it really need to be added and does it make the article better? I really don't want to bicker any more over any of this personally. I usually try to remove stuff that shouldn't be that big a deal but folks disagree. Anyways, I will defer to others at this point. My real life might be getting in the way of my tinkering here real soon. Anyways, cheers to all and everybody stay cool! --Tom 18:27, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Neil Cavuto

This "soon-to-be famous/already famous" exchange is drawing a good bit of attention. As BOR has routinely railed against oil companies, it was fascinating to see someone ( another Fox anchor, no less) challenge his facts and demagogic tactics, and to do so in a calm, rational manner.Jimintheatl (talk) 16:08, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

This should be removed. If it turns into a story or becomes notable then maybe. Right now its notable or famous according to who? Are we going to mention every exchange BOR has? I am not going to revert until concensus is reached. Thank you, --Tom 16:16, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Remove unless it becomes a story. One source is another Blog. Jim, would you please stop relying on blogs as your primary source of information. WP is not a gossip page. Arzel (talk) 16:28, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Rush Limbaugh

User:Arzel has, w/o any comment on Talk, deleted the entire subsection on Rush Limbaugh. I am in favor of restoring the subsection and improving it as necessary.Jimintheatl (talk) 16:55, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure that this qualifies as that notable or relevant. Again, why not just stick to criticisms that have been widely reported by 3rd parties, rather than ever tit for tat exchange out there. --Tom 17:09, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

The #1 rated talk show host, who paved the way for so many of the talkers out there today, compares a competitor/pretender to his throne "Ted Baxter" and it doesn't merit a brief mention?I'd add the numerous refs to this remark but I know what would result.Jimintheatl (talk) 17:28, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Not really. Feel free to post the references here, that way, folks can read them and then decide if this material warrants inclusion. You could also try running a poll going forward or ask others to comment here as well. Thank you. --Tom 17:32, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I tend to agree that one insult from Limbaugh is not relevant to this article. In general, we try to report on criticisms that illuminate something. I think that (for example) the Bristol Palin/Jamie Lynn Spears criticism does, since it indicates, among other things, that O'Reilly has different standards for Republican politicians than for parents of an entertainer. Limbaugh calling a name...well, I certainly hope that we're not going to say that each time he does that, we need to report on it. We could perhaps add his name, along with a citation, to the list of other media figures who have criticized O'Reilly, but a section unto itself is too much. Croctotheface (talk) 18:09, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Croc -- if this warrants any mention at all (and I'm not sure it does), one sentence will do. Olbermann has covered it several times, but I think this is pretty trivial in the grand scheme of things. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 18:16, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm fine with a brief mention. Limbaugh and O'Reilly are often linked as conservative commentators, something O'Reilly objects to. BOR has called Rush an "entertainer" rather than a news analyst. I think a Limbaugh put-down of one of his supposed followers(in the sense of Limbaugh being the trailblazer not ideologically) is notable. But I'm curious about why this subsection has suddenly become objectionable? it's been here for two months without a problem...Jimintheatl (talk) 19:13, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Because consensus can change and often does. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 21:25, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

You say that "consensus can change" and I agree, but in this instance, there was ZERO opposition/no talk objection to the subsection before it was deleted. So there was no consensus for deletion; in fact, deletion was not discussed, nor was any edit at all. Nothing was objected to; nothing was discussed. So there was no consensus for change, let alone deletion. So, again, what gives with the sudden deletion of a subsection that had been in the article for two months w/o any objection?Jimintheatl (talk) 02:30, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Of course consensus can change, but this entire subsection was deleted w/o any discussion or any previous objection being raised. Editors had tinkered with and added to the original edit, but no one, that I can find on talk, had even suggested deleting the whole thing.Jimintheatl (talk) 23:20, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Or it can be bringing up the same argument later in hopes of removing criticism, but we are forced to assume good faith even to bad faithers ;) (trying to be sarcastic)

Nonetheless, I think that it should instead just be wrapped up and condensed, probably under its own section that includes all criticism by Rush Limbaugh/or a group, not that specific, as it isn't that large of a issue (if included at all).

edit I see User:Arzel has removed a entire section, again, without actually pointing out why all of it is not notable. I also fail to see how the NYT cite is not reliable. Restoring parts of it to obvious censuring. I do think that the criticisms of various people can be condensed though, probably through merging. The entire article feels like it needs streamlining, imo. (that does not mean elimination/censuring) ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 23:08, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Hey Noian, why not look at the edit history before spouting off. Several editors here agree that it doesn't belong. Arzel (talk) 23:20, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

This first appeared in mid-July. Until today, no one had seriously objected to it, let alone deleting it entirely. So I don't the "consensus" for deletion, when there had been no discussion at all.Jimintheatl (talk) 23:25, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I didn't say I didn't disagree with merging, as what I think Croc's point was. I do disagree with wiping parts of the page until condensing the page. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 23:22, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

At first glance. Murph's edit seems reasonable. My caveat would be: consider the subject of the article, who has explicitly stated that he injects himself into the story, to become a "factor" in the coverage...so when you say "others" involved in disputes/controversy, you may be opening a can of worms. Just saying. Jimintheatl (talk) 02:16, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Read the edit history again, you said that I deleted the material again, and I did not. Please be more careful in your allegations in the future. Arzel (talk) 23:26, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

My point is not that we should "merge" the information somewhere (Where would we "merge" it? It seems like that would look just like what's there already.) We could add Limbaugh to the list of media personalities who have criticized O'Reilly. There is no need to recount the specific name that he called O'Reilly, even if we decide that it's funny or appropriate. He calls people names all the time, and we shouldn't include all of them in the targets' Wikipedia biographies. I'm entirely in favor of removing the entire bit about Limbaugh. Croctotheface (talk) 01:59, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I meant the combining of sections, like what MrMurphy did in the changing to criticism by others, and streamlining it (as in cutting it down in length), although, sorry for not being clear. I'm sick atm, so I can't think strait. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 02:14, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Honestly, I think Murph's edit still leaves too much in. I just don't think that this is important enough that it raises to the level of a feud (as with Franken and Olbermann) and even then, Franken and Olbermann levied some criticisms that could be considered substantive. Limbaugh is just calling O'Reilly a name. I don't think we gain much from repeating it, and I think we're better off without that sentence. Croctotheface (talk) 02:25, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I personally feel that the article should be rewritten, and the said sentence be merely mentioned/merged among others (ex. O'reilly has also been criticized by ........... <cites> for being .......... <some counterclaims> Although I don't have the time to rewrite it, and I fear if it was left to certain users, the entire article would be whitewashed (is that the right word?).ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 02:38, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

There does not need to be any discussion if a section is removed. Is it the better way to go? yes. But it is not required. See WP:BOLD. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 22:14, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Can someone fix the archive bot code for this page?

Cause I evidently didn't apply it right, thanks.ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 23:05, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

NPOV

I have tagged this page. The efforts of Noian and Jimintheatl are turning this page into an attack page. Criticism is one thing, but to start listing everything that he has said that someone else has a problem with is going over the line. Arzel (talk) 23:25, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Please review WP:BLP and understand what added requirements exist. Also, so much of this is simply not notable. Bytebear (talk) 23:35, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

There is a big difference between listing criticism that is marginally notable and an attack page. A POV tag may be appropriate, but let's not exaggerate. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 23:38, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I have not added anything other than the bill moyers controversy, which I believe is very neutral in its presentation of criticism. All other actions were reverting the actions of other users. I fail to see how it is a attack page. You are not assuming good faith Arzel. Also, WP:BLP specifically allows criticism. I personally think the entire article needs a rewrite to condense/shorten/reformat, but not on the idea that its too "critical", or that it is a attack page. It is not in my opinion. I oppose any attempt to change the article into having nothing critical at all, as to present criticism without having a single critical word/phrase is biased against the critics. Basically the point is: I think the article presents things neutrally atm, however, I do think that some of the subjects should be condensed/merged/shortened. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 02:10, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Blaxthos, from Attack Page. "If the subject of the article is notable, but the existing page consists solely or primarily of personal attacks against that subject and there's no good revision to revert to, then the attack page should be deleted and an appropriate stub article should be written in its place."

Lets look at the article.

1. BOR spews propaganda at a rate higher than anyone in history. Biased study given undue weight, but conceed.

2.2 (FAIR) BOR is a perfect example of what is wrong with FNC. Why?

2.3 (Franken) BOR is a Liar. Dumb but still controversal, probably merge with childhood home

2.32 (KO) BOR is the worst person in the world. Part of the larger controversy

2.33 (Rush) BOR is Ted Baxter. Why?

2.33 (Calvuto) BOR is worse than the very politicians he castigates on his show. Why?

3.1 (Malmedy) BOR is a liar (selective reasoning by critics). Overstated and undue weight.

3.2 (French Goods) BOR is a liar. Why?

3.3 (Childhood Homw) BOR is a liar and his dad wasn't middle class. Dumb, but still controversal

3.4 (MMfA Christmas) BOR is a liar. Why?

3.5 (GLAAD) BOR is a liar and his appology is a non-appology. Why?

4.1 (VT NAS) Nas doesn't like BOR. Why?

4.2 (Red Cross) Clooney says BOR is a liar, but he did get the Red Cross to give more money, even in a positive there is at least something negative. Not controversal, added to give some balance.

4.3 (Glick) BOR was mean to Glick. Manufactured controversy.

4.4 (SF Military Recruitment) This was pretty stupid of him, a pretty good controversy. Controversial

4.5 (Hornbeck) Another dumb thing to say. Controversal

5 (Kitman) BOR is a hypocrite because he didn't like my book....why is this in here?

6 (Harlem Comments) BOR is a racist. Actual controversy

7 (Lynching comments) BOR is a racist. Somewhat controversal

8 (Bill Moyers) BOR Ambushes people. Why is this in here?

9 (Teen Pregnancy) BOR is a hypocrite and ambushes people. Why is this in here?

Those with Bold comments I will agree are actual controversies worth mentioning. The rest I think need some further explanation why they are important and don't fall under Attack Page guidelins. Arzel (talk) 16:27, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Reread the Attack quotation you used. It says "personal attacks," not disputes over inaccuracies, not controversial statements/positions, not questionable journalism. I do not think you can point to any portion of this article which attacks O'Reilly personally vs. detailing the numerous criticism of/controversies surrounding him.Jimintheatl (talk) 19:08, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

All of those are taken out of context. Also, I only added the Bill Moyers one. It also says critics claim. There is nothing wrong with that. The article does not present things like what you said. You are synthesizing, and taking things out of context. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 17:10, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

All???!? I summarized every single incident, and this is the basis of what each says. This is my case regarding what appears to be primarily an attack on BOR vis a vis this page. Now I ask why some of these incidents belong here when they are largely not controversal incidents regarding BOR. There are alot of people that criticize BOR for one reason or another, but I think for inclusion here the criticism should be relatively widespread (like the Harlem restaurant issue where many people criticized BOR) or part of a long standing dispute (like KO). Arzel (talk) 18:46, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Correct, you summarized in your own words and interpretation to support your non-argument. That does not mean that is how it is presented, and thus, is taken out of context and is synthesis. I never said anything about agreeing or not, just that it is taken out of context. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 20:07, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I have to say that I think it's pretty clear from this that Arzel is always inclined to take O'Reilly's side in these disputes. The notion that the Indiana University study is "biased" requires a rather large leap, considering that it was peer reviewed and published in a journal. Such a position assumes that not just the study's authors, but everyone involved in vetting the study is in the tank as an O'Reilly hater. In general, I think that some sections here could go, some are overly long, but most have merit and should remain. Croctotheface (talk) 19:03, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I think the study is biased because it doesn't do a contempory comparrison. I listen to the broad spectrum of politics from the extreme left of Randi Rhodes, the moderately left Maddow, Mostly moderate Ed Schultz (although left on some issues), Mostly moderate BOR (although right on some issues), and moderately right Hannity. I don't like Rush, so I don't listen to him...although I can't listen to Randi very long either. Now if you want to hear some propaganda, listen to Rhodes and Rush. If the study was actually trying to prove something worthwhile then they would have done best to compare him to one of his contempories, not some guy that most people have never heard and has been dead for years. And I don't take BOR's side on all issues, I noted he has done some dumb things. And you also don't see me trying to load up KO's article with a bunch of minor crap either. Arzel (talk) 00:28, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Arzel, do you recognize that you tend to believe O'Reilly's account and/or interpret events/studies in a manner that is always favorable to O'Reilly, and/or that you always give O'Reilly the benefit of the doubt? As Croc noted, we've yet to see you acknowledge validity of any sources critical of O'Reilly. I'll agree that you seem to give the same grace to Olbermann, but I don't think there's any doubt that the number and magnitude of O'Reilly's controversies far outweigh those of Olbermann, and come from a much broader spectrum of critics. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 00:47, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

When I was younger I had a pretty idological view of things, that most everything could be viewed as white or black, that there was a solution to everything that worked for everyone. However, as I have become older I have taken a pragmatic view of the world and it's problems. There are no solutions that work for everyone, life is a game such as Nash's equilibrium.

These criticisms almost always have some grey, unfortunately that is not usually reflected in the press world. Our news is dominated largely by negative stories which propogate themselves into articles here resulting in a caricature of the individual, the more popular the person the more exagerated the caricature, and the one of BOR based on his articles here is an Angry, lying, mysoginistic, hypocritcal, bossy, propaganda spewing, racist fearmonger.

Much of this seems to be driven by an irrational hatred of FNC because of the belief that FNC is a propaganda machine for the right-wing. I acknowledge that there is a broad based criticism and hatred of BOR, but it appears to me that the purpose of many editors here is that they feel everyone else should know how much they dislike BOR for one reason or another. I don't feel that this approach does the WP project any good. There is already a pretty strong public view that the media in general is liberally biased, and articles like this only reinforce this image (whether you believe that or not).

I suspect if people would let it, the KO article could be similarly loaded up with criticism like that from NAS, Rush, Calvuto, and so forth. He certainly has a list of Worst People in the World that I suspect have similar types of criticism's that could be included in his article. What I suggest, is that this article focus on those actual criticisms that actually are well covered (as I have done from pretty much the beginning), because some of the more recent additions are extremely petty and spiteful. Arzel (talk) 01:43, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

If your comment that Hannity is moderately right was not a typo, then your political compass needs adjustment. Consider BOR's somewhat similar frame: the "far right in the US is Timothy McVeigh; the far left is the New York Times....That's his construct, not mine. Consider also your black/white/grey comments in light of BOR's frame: he is the "culture warrior" who sees a black and white world where conservatives(or traditionalists) think America is a noble nation and must fight against liberals (or secular progressives) who blame America first. It seems to me that he embraces the very black/white world view which you claim to have rejected; and it is that absolutism, lack of nuance in his politics and pronouncements(to say nothing of his penchant for attention-seeking, confrontation and theatricality) that accounts for so much of the criticism and controversy he creates.Jimintheatl (talk) 13:43, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Define recent additions. I count only 3 of recent (that is, seeing as there has been around 100 replies on the talk page already on these three). If you seriously mean everything in the article (or near everything) as you've listed above, then I fail to see what you don't have disagreement with. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 01:52, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the study, "not writing the study Arzel would've written" is not the same as "bias." The fact that you do consider this a form of bias, again, strikes me as a product of your sympathy with O'Reilly. Your belief that Sean Hannity is "moderately right," I think, really speaks to your perspective here because there is nothing moderate about his politics whatsoever. He is a hardcore movement conservative. As far as this article, it's no different from any other article in that people tend to come by and add new stuff because it seems pertinent to them. Sometimes this added material doesn't really belong, and hopefully other editors fix that at some point. However, my issue is that O'Reilly is someone who, by virtue of his style and personality, deals in controversy, dishes out criticism, and tends to open himself up to it as well. He gets his facts wrong frequently, and since he puts himself out there as such a beacon of straight talk and "no spin" and all that, it's valid for WP to report when he is criticized for this kind of stuff.

The notion that this is an "attack" page is, to be perfectly honest here, just silly. This article has survived numerous AfDs with strong "keep" results. I can't see how that could happen with a real attack page. That these criticisms may be cited by someone who sought to attack O'Reilly does not mean that the criticisms, which we report on neutrally and accurately, are themselves "attacks." You equate "O'Reilly's reporting about X was incorrect" with having the same meaning as "O'Reilly is a liar," but they could scarcely be more different. The first statement deals with the issue on a factual level while the second is opinionated.

I am a little bit puzzled by your assertion that you "have from pretty much the beginning" of your involvement here been involved in writing about any kind of criticism. Everything that you've done here has been to reduce the force of the criticism. I don't think you've made a single change that made the article less sympathetic toward O'Reilly. Although you now acknowledge that some criticism belongs, I don't think that there's a single instance where, as an issue was being debated for the first time, you were a clear advocate for inclusion. If your position was not that the criticism should be removed entirely, you seemed to take a less extreme position grudgingly, and your tone suggested (to me at least) that you weren't so much in favor of including the criticism as resigned to the notion that the consensus would favor inclusion, so you just did what you could to reduce the force of the criticism. Now, all this is fine, except that you are now dismissing other editors, Jim and Noian, because their edits tend to be unsympathetic toward O'Reilly. If that's "bias" or somehow bad, how is it not that your sympathy for O'Reilly is not likewise a bias and likewise bad? Croctotheface (talk) 07:11, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Agree completely with Croc -- he's said more eloquently and patiently what I've been trying to point out for years. Bravo. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 11:41, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

(OD) Jim, Croc, and Blaxthos (through agreement) I fear have only read what they wanted and exposed there underlying bias which confirms my original explanation. Your assumption about me based on my perception of Hannity is a perfect example of seeing one side but not the other. None of you had any problem with my descriptions of Maddow or Shultz, whom from people on the right would consider to be much more left then I would describe. I think it is your own political compasses that need rearagnement. This completely explains your perception of me to be biased to the right. Crap that gets inserted into BOR's articles is almost ALWAYS past the line to the left. Jim is far past that line (Croc and Blaxthos you both would have to agree with me on that). My attempt to balance is therefore always viewed as sympathetic, but this is only because most everyone else here is to the left of me. In addition, the only reason I appear to be usually sympathetic to BOR is because I only comment on stuff that I feel is over the live (which unfortunately happens quite a bit lately). Additionally, I would like to believe in the WP project, but when articles like this get loaded up with a bunch of minor bullshit the entire project suffers. Now Croc and Blaxthos, why don't we make this a better article by getting rid of some of this petty stuff. Arzel (talk) 14:55, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I had no comment on your descriptions of Schults and Maddow because I have no familiarity with Schultz and only a little with Maddow. I am not sure what "line" you think I am past, but I have not concealed my disagreement with O'Reilly's methods and opinions and can defend the factual accuracy of my edits.Jimintheatl (talk) 16:37, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I have not seen the pages on Maddow or Shultz as your have said, and therefore that argument does not hold substantial weight. I am not interested in patrolling all of the wikipedia pages that have edit wars between self described liberals and conservatists. Heck, I can't even vote as I'm only a permanent resident, so it doesn't really matter to me that much. I completely agree with croctotheface's statement on why the page is not a attack page, and why neutral presentation of criticism is not attacking it or biased. I do concede that the article needs to be re-written, so that certain sections are shorter/cut (and only mentioned briefly generically ex. so-and-so has also criticized BoR on <overview>, <insert some counterclaim><insert source>), and that the presentation is nicer. That doesn't mean I'm for deleting of most of the criticism, only that I think it can be presented better, more concise.ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 16:02, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

As others have stated, we're completely unfamiliar with your descriptions of Maddow or others, which has absolutely no relevance here. Unsurprisingly, you continue to ignore the points we're making and trying to justify your behavior alluding to things we're not familiar or involved with. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 17:26, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, well if you want to be objective I suggest you all listen to the whole spectrum on a regular basis to get a real world view of things. The world does not exist in a vacuum. How can you possible have an objective opinion of BOR if you are oblivious to his contemporaries? I have addressed your points, you just don't like my response, why not address my points. Not a singe comment has been made on those petty criticism I have mentioned above. Now are we going to discuss this like adults or continue this character assasination of me? Arzel (talk) 17:46, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

But the problem here is: we are discussing this one article. That has nothing to do with others. In addition, our opinion of BoR is irrelevant if we put it aside and present things objectively. You can't say good journalists have no opinion on the subjects they report. Good journalists make sure their opinion doesn't affect the report. I'm not saying we are good journalists, but to base arguements on such irrelevant and personal attacks as that is irrelevant and not assuming good faith. Also, you were the one to bring up character assasination in the first place, saying me and Jim were biased and turning this into a attack article, which it was not. I personally view BoR neutrally atm, as one of his interviews with "liberal" Barrack Obama was overall fair (compared to what the blogger was claiming anyway), if excluding the many opinions he stated, but it still was fiarly okay (as in I couldn't notice any obviously loaded questions). We have adressed your criticism, have you not noticed? Read Croctotheface's reply. We specifically said that there is a difference between what you implied and how it actually is. Here is part of croc's reply below:

The notion that this is an "attack" page is, to be perfectly honest here, just silly. This article has survived numerous AfDs with strong "keep" results. I can't see how that could happen with a real attack page. That these criticisms may be cited by someone who sought to attack O'Reilly does not mean that the criticisms, which we report on neutrally and accurately, are themselves "attacks." You equate "O'Reilly's reporting about X was incorrect" with having the same meaning as "O'Reilly is a liar," but they could scarcely be more different. The first statement deals with the issue on a factual level while the second is opinionated.

ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 18:17, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Arzel, I don't think anyone's intent is character assassination, though I know how it feels when it seems everyone is critical of you. I think the major issues are: (1) you have made unsustainable claims ("attack page"); (2) your interpretations and explanations are always on one ideological side (whatever supports O'Reilly); (3) you present those interpretations as neutral fact; (4) when confronted with these points, you either bypass others' points completely and/or inject red herrings that have zero relevance here; and (5) you seem oblivious to the fact that your personal sympathies and bias seem to overrule objectivity almost every time (at least when it comes to FNC and Bill O'Reilly), as many many editors have pointed out over the last two years (especially recently). /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:32, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Arzel, I don't think anything I've said could be called "character assassination." I hope that you recognize that I always do my best to not make things personal here. My reply was addressed to you specifically because you sought to make an issue of Jim and Noian's edits as tending to insert content that is unsympathetic toward O'Reilly. I agree that there is such a tendency with them, but there is likewise a tendency with you to make the article more sympathetic toward him. In general, I don't think that we benefit by making content disputes about the editors involved. I don't think our perceptions of their personal politics should come to bear at all. If Jim and Noian are wrong, then editor consensus will come around to seeing as much. I hope that you have at least a little faith in me to join with you, as I have in the past, in rejecting trivial criticisms and trying to find an appropriate weight for others. I don't see what saying "this is becoming an attack page" really accomplishes. Croctotheface (talk) 07:58, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I never though this day would come. I would have to say that the calling out of Arzel as "always sympatethic to BOR" is a bit over the line and close to a personal attack. This is very close to the line to commenting on the contributor and not content. Now I don't think this article is an attack page, but if left to the contributions of Jim, without editors like Arzel, it would certainly become one. I do find it strange that we have three editors and paragraphs upon paragraphs calling out Arzel, but none on Jim who it seems continuously scours the blogs for nitpicky criticisms of BOR, and his consistent edit warring when his "contributions" are questioned. I have had my problems with Arzel, in the past and present, and probably will have more problems with him in the future-- as I often have serious problems with some of his rationales and methods. But in this case, he's right in his call for a higher level for inclusion, and to ask for sources of the highest order per BLP. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 18:06, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure if it's productive for me to respond to this, but I will anyway. I said that Arzel's arguments/methods/rationales have always had the end goal of making the article more sympathetic to O'Reilly. I have a hard time seeing how that's an untrue statement, and I don't see any evidence being offered to controvert that. I don't think that's "close to a personal attack," but if it is, then how is your comment that if "left to the contributions of Jim," this article would "become" an "attack page" any different? Croctotheface (talk) 19:42, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Croc, Read up on Correlation without Causation. Just because I don't insert negative information into BOR's articles doesn't mean I am always sympathetic. There is no shortage of editors that like to take it to BOR. To reiterate what I said earlier, perhaps in plainer terms. Almost every story has two sides, and is not black and white (regardless of what BOR might think). There is a tendency here to report BOR stories in black and white. All I have tried to do is balance out the stories to show both sides, or at least try to see both sides. Some people seem to think of this almost as if it were a game, and the goal is to win. This is not a game, we are talking about a living person, not an inanimate object. Why not take a look at Elizabeth Kucinich's article once. I fought tooth and nail to get rid of pointless drivel out of her article and BOR does not like Senator Kucinich at all. Arzel (talk) 01:47, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Arzel, we get your point. The issue is, it is not the point we were discussing (yes, this discussion went on a tangent), and even less with what croc was discussing (bad faith/bias/speculation). Yes, all is not "black and white", but what does that really have to do with the entire article?!. My opinion is that if it puts a summary of what happened (good or bad) + rebuttal (if available) + critic's criticism, then it sufficiently gives a balanced report of what happened/the criticism, which is what this article is about, in reply to your NPOV concern. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 03:54, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think I made any kind of argument having to do with causality, but I do apologize for saying that you as an individual are sympathetic to O'Reilly. I should've talked only about your edits and changes, but even then, I don't think this discussion is in a good place right now. I appreciate your desire to discuss the merits here, and I really think that we'd all be better off setting aside much of the rigamarole of the past few days. All the discussion about whether Jim is bad for the article, whether so-and-so would turn it into an attack page, and whether you or I are sympathetic or unsympathetic is not helpful. I regret the comments I made that kept us on this path. Let's refocus on the article's content and stop trying to discern other editors' intent. Croctotheface (talk) 04:37, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure if it's productive for me to respond to this, but I will anyway. I would prefer if you not treat me like some troll or newbie that you can easily dismiss. If you have an opinion that is different than mine, I will be more than willing to work it out with you to find a middle ground. The answer to your question is simple, based on his contributions, Jim seems to only want to add negative information to this article whether it is original research, poorly sourced, or weakly sourced. Without people objecting, and I never meant to imply Arzel is the only one, that is what the article will become. If that qualifies as a personal attack, so be it. Report me to ANI. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 20:27, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm replying here because to do so elsewhere would muck up the thread. I made that comment because I feared that a reply would escalate this, and it did. I meant nothing more by it. Croctotheface (talk) 04:37, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Ramsquire, I'm sure Croc's intent was not to offend or to even give the impression that Arzel is the only concern. To be honest, Jim's efforts may be well intentioned (at least in his mind), but the content additions proposed by Jim seem to often be poorly sourced minutiae. In this case I think Arzel got called out pretty hard because he went through the entire article, objecting to every section, and refusing to admit he may be biased or has a long pattern of that sort of behavior. I've noticed a trend on Wikipedia... a lot of reasonable, established, valuable editors avoid editing politically controversial pages. I suppose it's easier to reach the middle by letting the extremists battle it out, but I think the project would best be served if more established editors would participate in the discussions. To that end, we should avoid allowing either ideology to have undue influence, either in adding questionable material or making spurious arguments and/or policy shopping against inclusion of sourced, relevant material. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 22:46, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Blaxthos, I did NOT object to every section. I suggest you read it again. I am getting pretty pissed off about all of this missrepresentation crap. Arzel (talk) 01:22, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I have a general question to Ramsquire: when has criticism not been negative? Other than that, agree with most of the points above (both ramsquire and blaxthos). Btw: I do know that WP:V does not allow the inclusion of blogs as default, but on the other hand, it does not ban blogs as default either, and we were arguing earlier on that WP:V does not ban blogs on default, as some other editors were suggesting. Blogs still have to go through Reliability and verifiability/NPOV, but we were refuting the fact that one can discount blogs solely for the fact that they are blogs. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 22:51, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Criticism here, as I understand it, means analysis of. Think of a movie critic, sometimes they give positive criticism of a movie, sometimes negative. Also note that I do not take the position of no blogs ever, as you point out reliability is key, but so is consensus. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 23:09, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I never said you did. ;) but enough of the tangent, can we wrap up this and just call it resolved that the page is far from a attack page and that User:Arzel's objections to every section are warrant-less? I feel that we ought to be either rewriting the article or severely cleaning it up as the current way it presents things in seems it could be more concise. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 23:26, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Noian, that goes for you too. Read my concerns again. Arzel (talk) 01:31, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

You're concerns were essentially every section, which you listed most if not all of the general sections, listed your opinion next to them stating why you objected to them (mostly personal opinion/taken out of context, as croc explained), and flagging me and Jim as bad faithers who were blatantly turning this to a attack page. Am I wrong to assume that you objected to the entire article, as did others? ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 03:41, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I never said you did either. ;). Sometimes you have to state things so that there is no confusion. I agree that's it not an attack page but I can't dismiss all of Arzel's concerns either. I would agree with a clean-up if that is where the consensus goes, and I'll even try to help if I can. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 23:36, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

(OD) To ALL. I did not say that this page was an attack page, I said it is starting to turn into one. Many of the recent additions are marginal at best, which is why I applied the tag. Now are we going to discuss this or are we going to continue to talk about how I policy shop, or don't understand an attack page, or how I always take BOR side of the story or how I am biased. Maybe I should go over to KO's page and start adding every reliable blog source I can that says how much of an egotistical jerk he is, because if I was really a BOR fanboy that is what I should be doing. Arzel (talk) 01:31, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

That would be a clear violation of WP:POINT. I'm sure you're just blowing off steam, and I'm glad you aren't one to engage in such behavior. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 01:38, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

What I don't get is why we are still discussing this (actually I do, Blaxthos, as I read your talk page, but I don't know if this is the best place), which is obviously (to me) part red herring, part troll, and has no correlation to the article, which we've already established is not a attack page, and could use some cleaning up. Can we please move on from discussing about editors (that includes Arzel describing me/Jim incorrectly), non existent attack pages, objecting to every sections, and move onto cleaning up the article, maybe, if people really want to improve the article?

ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 03:44, 23 September 2008 (UTC) PS: CAN SOMEONE PLEASE FIX THE ARCHIVE BOT CODE I TRIED TO ADD? THIS TALK PAGE IS GETTING OUT OF HAND IN LENGTH. THANK YOU!!!!!!!!!!ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 05:20, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I would just manually archive it, but since there seems to be a bot malfunction, I think we are going to have wait until the kinks are worked out. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 16:50, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

NPOV/Cleanup

I'm starting this subsection to discuss actual changes (and hereby acknowledge my role in continuing the tangent, and apologize for doing so) to the article. Before getting into actual sections of the article, I'm wondering if we can agree on what the bar for inclusion is here? As a baseline I propose that the standard be criticisms covered in the MSM news sections, and that any blog info, if necessary, be added only to further flesh out certain details. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 16:50, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I think that it's possible that valid criticisms could conceivably not be covered in MSM news sections, and I think there's also an issue with defining that. First, I don't really think there is a major difference between mainstream media blogs and mainstream media news sections. Something published on a news organization's blog is still subject to the editorial control of that news organization, and they are still putting their weight behind it. In terms of setting the bar for coverage, I think that we would be better off with more loose language than a brightline test. However, I would prefer to focus more on how informative/illuminating/significant the criticism is and base most of the test around that. For instance, the Marvin Kitman thing, even if the coverage is not especially robust (I don't know if news shows besides Olbermann covered it), strikes me as very illuminating. O'Reilly granted Kitman access, said he would help him, and then completely turned on him because he wrote about Andrea Mackris. I think that you can learn a lot about O'Reilly from this, even if it turns out that there was more pressing news for papers and such to cover that day. By comparison, the Limbaugh namecalling did receive mainstream coverage, but I think that's plainly not illuminating and not informative, so it shouldn't go in. Croctotheface (talk) 17:54, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I would like to point out that I do want to avoid discussing every section (look at how long discussions are), so a bar line is a good idea. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 01:51, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Croc's suggestion makes a lot of sense. The only problem I see is that since it is a subjective standard, it can lead to further discussions like the one above. If we can somehow objectify Crocs idea, I think that may be the way to go. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 16:54, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I personally think that this approach is what has lead this article to its current state. Whether it is or is not illuminating (regarding Kitman) this approach applies a personal opinion regarding this particular incident. We (the collective we WP) are deciding what is most important to report not based on its relative weight in the world, but by subjective reasoning. I personally think that a good stick to measure would include two aspects. Note, this logic may very well work against my reasoning for removal of some incidents. I am simply looking for some standard that would ensure the inclusion of main incidents and removal of minor and petty incidents, and hopefully reduce fewer incidents like this.

1. Weight given by BOR. Topics that BOR has discused at length (like the Harlem Restaruant incident) are obviously notable regarding BOR.
2. Weight given by MSM not including Blogs from those organizations (like the Makris lawsuit) are also obviously notable.

Blogs from reliable sources I would agree are usable within the context of an event that already has some weight. Applied Logic.. (Blogs in this sense are RS Blogs).

A. Something reported almost exclusively by blogs and not discussed at any length by BOR should not be included.

B. Something reported by MSM would be evaluated by the weight of coverage. A single event without further comment by BOR and with limited MSM coverage should probably not be included, at least not immediately per WP:NEWS. If the event garners additional MSM coverage over time then it probably should be included.

C. Something reported almost exclusively by blogs and addressed by BOR should probably be covered. BOR gives the incident weight by his own actions even if there is no MSM coverage.

D. Something reported by MSM and addressed by BOR should usually be included.

Arzel (talk) 18:44, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Attempting to find a standard that is purely "objective" is a fantasy. Unless we can somehow obtain ALL the data that exist for mainstream coverage and then analyze it by number of words/minutes/column inches and then portion out the number of words in our articles accordingly, then we are not following a purely "objective" standard for anything, let alone this article. The reason that editors disagree and that we resolve issues by discussion and consensus is that editorial discretion and figuring out the appropriate weight for content is not an "objective" issue. The mainstream media covers all sorts of plainly trivial things: fluff pieces, coverage of sporting events...the mainstream media publishes at least six or seven independent articles about ANY given NHL hockey game, no matter whether anything important happened, whether it's between teams who are playing with essentially nothing on the line. All of those games are plainly notable by the standard of WP:N, as they receive significant independent coverage. However, we make the SUBJECTIVE decision that despite that coverage, they don't illuminate or inform our readership in a significant way, so they don't get articles. Croctotheface (talk) 19:53, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Sporting events should be covered under WP:NEWS unless some notable element about the game took place, and there are many games that do have articles like the Ice Bowl. What bothers me here, and should bother most people, is that people actively look for criticism of BOR. Much of the stuff I would object to doesn't make MSM in any notable aspect, it is blogged about considerably, but just because a few bloggers have an opinion, doesn't mean their opinion is somehow notable. If we focus on actual events that took place where there was some action resulting in some measurable reaction then we would have notable incidents worth including. Much of what I have a problem with is something BOR said, some action, but no real counter-action from a measurable group, like the Limbaugh comment. Arzel (talk) 20:59, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Of course there will always be some subjectivity to what goes into the article and I agree that looking for a "purely objective" standard is fantasy. However, the more we can move the subjective towards something objective, the better it would be for the article. To that end, how about the information must contain significant analysis of BOR or his positions (not just name calling-- e.g. "he's Ted Baxter") and responded to specifically by either BOR himself or received substantial MSM news coverage from a variety of sources. I imagine that what is significant will be discussed heavily from time to time, but as there is no deadline, I think it would be a huge step if we also didn't have to discuss if the sourcing is sufficient. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 21:44, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree, and this is the crux of what I am saying. Statistically, it is impossible to have a standard that is purely objective, and I am not suggesting that such a standard be set, but it should be possible to present some general rules or guidelines that fit most of the time. Arzel (talk) 04:26, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, I did put forth a standard, and your criticism of it was that it was subjective. I think that something that increases the reader's understanding of O'Reilly, even if he hasn't commented on it or it hasn't received a ton of coverage, should still go in. I don't think we should write about anything that any blog has covered. There should be some mainstream attention, and I think we should be more inclined to focus on something that's received a lot of it than something that hasn't. However, criticism that has received only a little coverage--and again, I'm thinking of the Kitman thing, though that could've gotten more news coverage that's just not cited in the article--could say a lot about O'Reilly. I think the article is better off having this item, and I don't think the fact that O'Reilly didn't respond on his show should somehow preclude us from writing about it. Croctotheface (talk) 05:44, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't call that a standard. A standard has some set of rules which can be followed. Maybe this will help my explanation. Within statistics there is an approach called Multivariate Analysis. In essense it is a way to seperate a population into two (or more) distint groups. Our two groups would be worthy criticism and unworthy ciriticsm. The dividing line is the set of rules used to define each group. Statistically it is impossible to create a perfect dividing line, however it is not impossible to create a line which will work for 90% or more of all cases. There will still be things along this line that don't work perfectly, but most items still will. As it is now there appears to be a line that works for about 10% of the time. Your subjective reasoning of what would increase the reader's understanding of BOR makes such a line practically impossible to define because it is an abstract point of view that changes drastically for individual people. This, I think, is the main problem with this and many BLP articles. Editors go in with the feeling that readers need to know something. What does the Kitman section say that the reader needs to know in order to understand BOR. I would say if the reader really needs to know something then it will be covered appropriately by MSM with due weight. Arzel (talk) 14:36, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

In a strict sense, I don't think readers need to know much of anything about Bill O'Reilly. Editors would have to arrive at a consensus to determine whether readers did. My arguments on the merits, which you haven't responded to except to say that you don't like them, are that the mainstream media covers things that are not very compelling such as the Limbaugh comment or personality feuds and may not cover something that is, such as the Kitman issue. And, of course, if you want to say that mainstream coverage is the bulwark, it goes both ways: we can't "subjectively" exclude trivial criticism that has the requisite mainstream coverage because we decide it doesn't belong. Because of this, I don't think that attempting to portion space out proportional to mainstream coverage will produce the best possible encyclopedia article. Regarding my standard of using only items that significantly increase the reader's understanding, it's really no different from any number of legal standards: what is "substantial disruption" of schooling? However, I don't think that it's up in the air and subjective to the degree that you do. It might allow some criticisms that you would exclude, and it probably does, but that's not evidence that it's bad or wrong, just evidence that you and I don't agree about where to draw the line. I also want to note that, naturally, whatever we include still needs to be verifiable in reliable sources. I'm not saying that "some guy publishing a blog" is an adequate source, but certain blogs with editorial control that reference the story could be sufficient if the criticism were sufficiently illuminating. More generally, I think I've put my views forth pretty accurately. I'm going to stop responding for now unless we get more people participating. I don't think that a discussion involving three editors will be especially persuasive to cite later on, so unless more editors get involved, we're not really going to accomplish anything. Croctotheface (talk) 17:16, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with your last statement and believe that it would be nice if more of the editors who commented above would also participate in this discussion. Also, I think that the Kitman section would remain in the article under the guideline I proposed because it is something that was covered in MSM (the newsday review), and is fleshed out by Kitman's statements in a reliable medium. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 19:24, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I've been hesitant to contribute to this discussion because some editors tried to make the conversation about me (and others), and I felt my participation would be a distraction. That said, aren't we merely restating Notability, or trying to? With a figure as controversial, confrontational, self-promoting/aggrandizing...(fill in the blank) as O'Reilly, the very idea of some kind of objective standard of evaluating criticism of him is almost nonsensical. I'm happy to see that the previously raised notion that criticism of a living person violates BLP and that all blogs are unreliable have been conceded to be false...which had been a huge part of my frustration in Talk--the repeated objections based on patently false grounds. As for specifics about how to decide for or against inclusion, the one suggestion raised so far that seems to stray from notability and to which I object is the idea the BOR must himself have addressed the matter: using that standard, discussion of the sexual harassment suit could be excluded, as he has barely acknowledged and not discussed it.Jimintheatl (talk) 01:34, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

outdent I'm too busy to contribute to discussion.ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 02:13, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

To Jim-- the proposal isn't that BOR must himself have addressed the matter. I believe what Arzel is proposing is that if BOR addresses it, then any undue weight concerns are reduced as the subject clearly felt it was notable enough to address. But even if BOR doesn't address it, but it is picked up through several MSM and reliable sources, it would still go in. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 15:55, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. So where do we stand? Are we ready to start cleaning up this article? It has been a few days waiting for more thoughts. Arzel (talk) 02:46, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Personally I think it is time to be bold. If there is anything removed or added that is controversial, I'm sure there'll be a quick response. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 16:50, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm certainly not going to discourage bold editing, but I have to think that this discussion hasn't reached any kind of consensus. If Arzel acts based on his prior statements that something like half of this article should go, then I don't think that kind of change will stick. Croctotheface (talk) 17:37, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Bill O'Reilly on gays

Bill O'Reilly has run countless stories about gay people on his show and radio program, all of them negative. From saying gay people should not be open about thier sexuality (only heterosexuals should be in O'Reilly's view) to saying gay people shouldn't be allowed at a baseball park (only heterosexuals should be in O'Reilly's view) Bill O'Reilly has expressed his out right hatred of gay people and that needs to be noted in his biography. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.181.235.106 (talk) 08:54, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Is this covered in a reliable source that we can use? //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 11:50, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how this is criticism, perhaps in Bill O'reilly (if there is reliable sources) article, but I doubt its not already mentioned if it is reliable/sourced. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 21:34, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

It's certainly criticism, but as long as it's from some random editor as a primary source, it's just original research. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 23:30, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I meant in the way the anon user worded it which seemed like OR/statement, not criticism by notable/reputable critics. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 17:33, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Barney Frank

So it appears that not only must all criticism be included, but it must also be presented from a biased point of view. Yes, BOR did get into a yelling match with Barney Frank, but to play it off without any context does a huge diservice to the incident. BOR called out Frank because Frank regused to take any blame for the crisis and blamed it all on the Bush administration. If this is to be mentioned, then it must also be explained why BOR turned it into such a huge event. Jim, for the record, you deleted some of my additions because you claimed they were Blogs. Now I am not a big fan of NB as a source, and throw them in the same bucket as MMfA, but then you used the Huffington Post as a source without any sense of Irony. Arzel (talk) 03:50, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I didn't delete the ref because it was a blog (though I found your inclusion of a blog refreshing). I deleted it because it bordered on trivial (when did Alec Baldwin become an authority on economic policy? Why not include some Jay Leno jokes?)Jimintheatl (talk) 14:45, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

From WP:RS -- "Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand." I don't think the author of a letter to the editor or Alec Baldwin can be considered authoritative. Moreover, the focus of the criticism/subarticle is not on the facts/merits regarding the financial crisis, but on the conduct of the "interview."Jimintheatl (talk) 15:39, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Let's all remain calm now, and assume good faith, your opening statement was sort of bad faith User:Arzel. Going past that, I actually agree with you User:Arzel on having some counter-criticism/others, but I didn't read the parts you added, so I'm not sure if Jim's concerns hold weight too, so I'll refrain from supporting either side.ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 17:34, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

There are several that blame Frank at least partially for this crisis, even SNL parodied this with Frank taking blame. If you have a problem with NB we could just ref Real Time with Bill Maher, but the NB link is easier for a reader to go back and review. Additionally I didn't feel like loading up the ref list with a bunch of other references. The verbal tit for tat between the two is a minor issue, and I fail to see why Jim wishes to focus on this when the larger controversy is that BOR blames Franks and accuses him of claiming Frannie Mae and Freddie Mac of being sound shortly before they collapsed causing the loss of billions of dollars in investments. I actually think this is a very important and notable section, but reducing it down to the name-calling aspect doesn't do it service. This is an encyclopedia, not a gossip column. Arzel (talk) 01:39, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

If BOR is going to blame Frank for the financial mess, threaten to punch him, call him a "big fat toad," and even then Frank appears on the show(why?) to respond/explain and O'Reilly explodes/pitches a hissy fit/makes a fool of himself(not my characterizations but many media commentators, although I agree, then the issue/criticism is not the pros/cons and ins-n-outs of the crisis, but BOR's raging response/refusal to allow discussion.Jimintheatl (talk) 01:59, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

The point is: this was never about a discussion of the issue. That would take volumes. This was about BOR trying to simplify a complicated issue, smearing a Congressman, then exploding when that congressman tried to explain his position .Jimintheatl (talk) 02:01, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Just to note is this sourced Jim? As in is what you said stated by the sources? Also, I have to say the current wording is okay, if slightly more neutral in presenting the issue premise for the issue than what might be fair (if that makes sense, I might be wording it wrong). @ User:Arzel: only stating republicans for the financial bill is inaccurate, as a notable amount of democrats supported it (current version doesn't have it, so non issue, just heads up if you go for reverting next time to selectively revert, which incidentally, both of you are near 3RR). If there is a more detailed section on it elsewhere on wikipedia, perhaps use the {{main}} template?ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 02:28, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Jim, your version focuses on the Juvinile aspect. This is more important than that, so please leave out the juvinile name calling specifics. No-one cares about that, this is about a much larger issue, one that all Americans should be upset about. Noian, the original attempts to reign in Freddie and Fannie were some specific republicans. There were republicans that also voted against it because it was politically benificial to let Freddie and Fannie do what they were doing at the time. Arzel (talk) 16:56, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

My question is (it's not a rhetorical one, I've not taken a position on this), how is this analysis of O'Reilly or even a controversy? We really need to decide what is the focus/purpose of this article. Is it a summary of criticisms, expansions of various controversy, or just a list of tidbits that mention O'reilly? Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 20:23, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

The controversy/criticism, as I see it, arises from the substantial coverage of and critical reaction to "O'Reilly's "explosion/tantrum/outburst/meltdown/losing it." (descriptions from variety of sources, not mine) The episode exemplifies how many critics see O'Reilly: a loud name-calling bully who is long on volume and theatrics but short on substance. I added this edit not to debate who's right/wrong on the financial crisis, but as an illustration of O'Reilly's methods(and the critical reaction the incident received).Jimintheatl (talk) 21:27, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

And thus we get to the crux of this issue. Perhaps the discussion of the issue (Arzel's edit) should go into the Politics article, and then you can spell out more clearly what the criticism of BOR was from your sources. As it reads right now, it doesn't come across as much analysis of BOR but simply reciting two grown men calling each other names. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 21:44, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I think this should go in the The O'Reilly Factor article in a section that could highlight the more notable(I'm sure mostly controversial) events that happened on that show. Perhaps the whole "Controversial topics" section could possibly move over there too since the Factor program is where most of of O'Reillys controversy is based. MrMurph101 (talk) 21:57, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I was thinking along the same lines. It seems to me that this article is also serving as a controversies page as well. I was thinking about changing the sections into something like "Analysis of O'Reilly and his methods", "Notable Controversies" and "Rivals and Disputes" and then placing the items under the respective sections. I'd love to hear other's thoughts on it before proceeding though. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 22:25, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

As an organizing principle, your idea has a lot of appeal. The proof will be in the pudding, of course, but I endorse the concept. Bravo.Jimintheatl (talk) 03:05, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Reorganized Article

Here is my proposal for the reorganized article. I took out the Glick and "War on Christmas" sections because I agree with Murph's idea of moving them into the "O'Reilly Factor" article. I also took out the Limbaugh and Cavuto section which seem to be nothing more than namecalling, and the Limbaugh section specifically has been pointed out to be non-notable and trivial, and does not have support to continue to be in the article. Finally, I would ask that the Frank section focus more on the specific criticisms levelled against BOR, and less on the name-calling. Other than removing the above mentioned sources, and reordering, there was no other changes to the language of the current article. Your thoughts. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 16:55, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest moving the Teen Pregnancy section to Notable controversies. Why is it not possible or advisable to include Glick and War on Christmas items here as well as on Factor page? I would include the Limbaugh comment, esp. in light of comments O'Reilly has directed toward Limbaugh, and how he has tried to differentiate himself from him, but if consensus supports omitting the Limbaugh/Cavuto comments, so be it. Thanks for your work here.Jimintheatl (talk) 19:01, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Your welcome. There's no policy on repeating sentences throughout several articles, but it is a common practice-- due to space and length concerns-- to not repeat information and incidents across several articles. I'll wait until other voices show up before I take any further actions. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 19:11, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd leave Glick and the Christmas sections in for now, pending a consensus to address them elsewhere. I think the restructuring is otherwise an improvement and would support using it. Croctotheface (talk) 21:57, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I think we should leave it now, and just trim things later on after moving to the other articles and add {{main}}/{{see}} tag in response to jim's concerns.ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 22:55, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Does "it" refer to the Glick and War on Christmas stuff or does it refer to the article in general?Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 23:00, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

You know what, scratch that, why not just make a copy on a user sandbox somewhere, have everyone reorganize it there, and then move back, that way, we will have all of the original source, and won't have to retype anything if we decide to expand/gut parts in the reorganization. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 23:37, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually it was in my workspace, which you can still get to and edit by using the link in my first commemt. But, in any case, I've moved it to the regular article now so you can make any changes that you want there. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 23:50, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Nvm, I didn't view the article earlier, just the diff which was confusing, didn't notice the namespace thing, I have no issues with the rewrite. Coincidentally, can we remove the NPOV tag? ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 20:51, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Potential rename

Please see Talk:Bill O'Reilly (commentator)#Requested move --Dweller (talk) 15:10, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

 Done I went ahead and moved the article to conform to the consensus on the biography page. --causa sui ^talk 15:42, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! I completely didn't even think about this article when the move was made. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 17:59, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Malmedy

this was a rather large section, why was it removed without discussion? im gonna go ahead and be bold and restore it. If it is innapropriat for some reason then say so. Gailim (talk) 04:20, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree it should be included, but needs editing for clarity.Jimintheatl (talk) 12:56, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

If memory serves correctly, we had a pretty detailed discussion about this incident a few years ago. I think the consensus at that time was that the section was necessarily that long because of the complex sequence of events regarding this incident. If any of the information were left out, it would impact (change) the significance of the event. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 20:51, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the complexity of the issue requires some detail, but have you actually read the thing lately? It needs work; editing is not necessarily cutting.Jimintheatl (talk) 21:40, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Do you have third party sources? Or is this just commentary on events? If it is the latter, it needs to be removed as falling under WP:OR. WP:BLP is very clear that unsourced material must be removed immediately. And before you say it is sourced, please review the rules regarding source materials in WP:Sources. Bytebear (talk) 01:40, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

The section is overblown and should be reduced for what is little more than a verbal gaffe. As I have noted in earlier discussion, BOR wrote about Malmedy prior to this incident with the proper context, so I removed the OR sentence. Arzel (talk) 05:01, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Just a minor caution: since BOR is one of the parties in the article (assumed) to say that what he wrote is the "proper" context is not neutral, as in all cases, involved parties skew the controversy in their favor. A third party narrative, or a compilation of both parties is much more neutral. I did look over it, and agree with your recent reversion (made a minor edit of it to make it transition better). ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 05:27, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Noian -- O'Reilly is not the definitive source on a controversy surrounding Bill O'Reilly. Likewise, the characterization of the incident as a minor "verbal gaffe" bends over backwards so far that paralysis surely follows. Cautious of WP:OR we must be, but there's little danger because there are several reliable sources that deal with this incident. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 13:04, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I say turn around and look at it for what it is, and you won't have to worry about breaking your back looking for controversy. :) Arzel (talk) 14:35, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Proposed Removals/Re-edit

Once again, I propose that we remove the Rush Limbaugh, Barney Frank and now Mark Levin's section of this article as it does not highlight a notable controversy, these men despite their opinions are not reliably sourced as critics or rivals of BOR, and finally the sections simply recite juvenile name-calling and provide no context to this article. I was under the impression that the Rush and Frank's section would be edited to provide actual commentary of the controversy, but that hasn't happened and now we have the Levin entry which is along the same lines as the first two. If the sections can't be written in a more sophisticated way, I strongly suggest removal. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 23:59, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Limbaugh and Levin are clearly talk radio rivals, and O'Reilly goes to some lengths to try to differentiate himself from them(and other admittedly conservative hosts). If you are saying expansion of the sections would increase your support for inclusion, we can do that, but is that really what you want to see? The Frank incident, especially, has received a great deal of comment and attention, and the section here could be significantly expanded quite easily.Jimintheatl (talk) 13:19, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Considering Limbaugh and Levin as rivals in this contest is a really broad interpretation. Clearly they are competitors, so in that sense they are rivals, but I believe the section is about persons who have had long-standing notable beefs with BOR-- I don't think Levin or Limbaugh fits into that category. Yes, the Franks section has received a lot of comment and attention, however the section we have here highlights none of that attention. It says BOR was criticized, but doesn't say how he was criticized, it just lists the idiotic name-calling. The Limbaugh entry has no context to the comment, and although the Levin thing has a context it's just simply bomb-throwing and adds nothing. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 17:36, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps revive the "others" sections and merge the sections that actually are relevant together, possibly with trimming/rewriting to focus it more on track? The other disputed non notable sections can be discarded. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 01:19, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Possible COI?

User:Fru23 has made many deletions of entire sections for minor issues in this article (despite a long debate over this before). In addition, some of the "reasons" for doing so seem beyond new wikipedia member level. The contribution log shows that the account is fairly new and only made changes to this page (as of now). I'm inclined to watch his/her contributions from now on, but I don't know if it would be justified.

See Special:Contributions/Fru23 for contributions

ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 23:00, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

It's tough to say if he's an SPA considering he only has 11 edits or so. But if you feel it's a sockpuppet created to edit war, you can request a checkuser or ask an admin for assistance (which will be the quicker way to go). Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 23:39, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I am not a single use account, I was been an IP editor for a while. I finally made an account after noticing my dynamic ips past malicious edits, I did not want to be associated with that. You are correct, I am more aware of wikipedias policies than most editors. Fru23 (talk) 23:56, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Noian A "minor issue" is more than enough reason to remove material from a bio. Please read WP:BOLD , WP:NPOV and WP:NN for more information regarding this subject, I would rather not have to explain it. Fru23 (talk) 00:07, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Please read WP:NOTLAW, WP:IAR, and WP:POL on why you don't use WP:WL (2nd point)

WP:NPOV is subjective and we've already debated on "neutrality" of criticism/the article. I know more than I want to on the other three due to previous discussions on this page with outright deletions. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 01:04, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Presumably this fru23 is the same person who was in chat today complaining that this article was biased, and saying he was a producer from the factor. In the spirit of naming policies, I choose WP:COI. -mattbuck (Talk) 00:14, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I guess I sort of lied, first off I never said I was from the factor, I said I was there on behalf of O'Reilly once, which I sort of am, I just wanted to test an idea, using that lie to make the chat more interesting for me. I admitted it on IRC later, there is no conflict of opinion as my past IP edits show. Sorry I lied, but I only mentioned it once in a three hour chat and only in that room.( I had similar conversation in wikimedia, enwikipedia and wikipedia and did not say that.) I have the logs if you would care to see them. Sorry for the trouble but I will not back down. Fru23 (talk) 00:39, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

A minor issue such as ONE citation out of more than one NOT reason to remove a ENTIRE SECTION. Deletion in this case is almost the same as censorship, as you could EASILY fix the minor issue instead of outright deletion, but instead choose to remove it, as you are looking to remove mention of the entire thing as it conflicts with your views.

We've already had a LONG discussion over almost every part of this article (from top of current talk page to here is appx. everything that has been discussed from September to now), especially on outright deletion for small issues and unsustainable pov claims that it is "biased" or "not covered" for sections that have already been discussed, and really, is there a point to do this again? If it was an actual attempt to reach a fairer view, then I wouldn't object like this, but really, the spirit of the deletions (as pointed out by Mattbuck, in WP:COI) is not to improve wikipedia, but to outright delete sections that a single member is contentious of due to minor, trivial, or easily remedied issues.

ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 00:57, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Edit Actually, this one statement on my talk pretty much summarizes the goal of Fru23:

Quote:

Almost all criticism pages are in violation with BOLP but this is one of the worst. The article should be outright deleted in accordance to WP:BOLP, it is a disgrace to wikipedia.

ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 01:24, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Note: Discussion on Media Matters split, please continue in section below. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 03:29, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for the crappy edit summaries. MediaMatters is not a source for a bio neither are blogs and random websites. This article is about a living person and therefor stricter rules apply to what is and is not acceptable in it. If mediamatters, some random website or a blog is the only source for something, it does not belong on wikipedia. I understand this article can not have a neutral point of view, not because of the editors or the facts, it is the very nature of a criticism article, they tend to morph into a unorganized list of everything and anything negative that the subject has said or done, well sourced or not. That is what this article has become, I feel it should be deleted but since that is unlikely, I will try to do the next best thing and clean it up. Tell me if you feel I am wrong. I would rather not spend that much time on this. The "spirit of the deletions" was to remove material that is not sourced or sourced poorly, I feel that is improving wikipedia. Stop ignoring WP:BOLP Fru23 (talk) 01:47, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Comment Blogs are allowed. There was a long discussion earlier on this. Self Published, Unreliable Blogs are not. But Reliable blogs are. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 01:54, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I understand that. But by far the most used source here, MediaMatters is not. Fru23 (talk) 02:03, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I really don't know enough on MediaMatters, I was just pointing out something that was accidentally stated wrong, perhaps start a new section for discussion on the blog in reliability/relevancy in this article? Criticism articles, as is software articles, and others, often have specific circumstances not clearly present in guidelines. Also, MM was not the other ref in your youtube deletion rationale, the one I was mentioning for the removal of a section for one bad citation when there was others in the section, so I don't know which edit you are referring to. Most of the other regular contributors to this page know more than me. I just have this on watch to counteract users outright removing information w/o discussion/thinking it through.ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 02:15, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sean_Hannity/Archive_1#Media_Matters consensus on the hannity article Fru23 (talk) 02:54, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Media Matters as a reliable source?

Note: Splitting discussion. Italics are relevant text copied from above. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 03:24, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for the crappy edit summaries. MediaMatters is not a source for a bio neither are blogs and random websites. This article is about a living person and therefor stricter rules apply to what is and is not acceptable in it. If mediamatters, some random website or a blog is the only source for something, it does not belong on wikipedia. I understand this article can not have a neutral point of view, not because of the editors or the facts, it is the very nature of a criticism article, they tend to morph into a unorganized list of everything and anything negative that the subject has said or done, well sourced or not. That is what this article has become, I feel it should be deleted but since that is unlikely, I will try to do the next best thing and clean it up. Tell me if you feel I am wrong. I would rather not spend that much time on this. The "spirit of the deletions" was to remove material that is not sourced or sourced poorly, I feel that is improving wikipedia. Stop ignoring WP:BOLP Fru23 (talk) 01:47, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Comment Blogs are allowed. There was a long discussion earlier on this. Self Published, Unreliable Blogs are not. But Reliable blogs are. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 01:54, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I understand that. But by far the most used source here, MediaMatters is not. Fru23 (talk) 02:03, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I really don't know enough on MediaMatters, I was just pointing out something that was accidentally stated wrong, perhaps start a new section for discussion on the blog in reliability/relevancy in this article? Criticism articles, as is software articles, and others, often have specific circumstances not clearly present in guidelines. Also, MM was not the other ref in your youtube deletion rationale, the one I was mentioning for the removal of a section for one bad citation when there was others in the section, so I don't know which edit you are referring to. Most of the other regular contributors to this page know more than me. I just have this on watch to counteract users outright removing information w/o discussion/thinking it through.ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 02:15, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sean_Hannity/Archive_1#Media_Matters consensus on the hannity article Fru23 (talk) 02:54, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Also see: Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/archive8#Media Matters for America ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 03:26, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

MMFA has consistently been upheld as a reliable source on Wikipedia. A partisan source is not a disqualification. Additionally, the moniker "blog" has been thrown about in an attempt to imply negative connotation as against policy, which is clearly misleading -- please understand the difference between a self-published source and a source with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 20:40, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Were? Not for a bio. Fru23 (talk) 21:02, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Were? If it is going on their article thats different. It is not reliable for a bio. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fru23 (talk • contribs) 21:08, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

American Red Cross and the United Way Section Rewrite

While I did revert Fru23's deletion, it was more for cohesion than view on the deletion. I do agree that it seems somewhat irrelevant that George Clooney be mentioned, unless it is in a specific person's criticism section (critics and rivals), although I find deleting it removes cohesion from the part, as it jumps from one thing, to congressional hearings, perhaps reword it and bring in slightly more solid criticism, or rewrite it so that its more cohesive without the middle part? ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 03:35, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

This is getting beyond ridiculous. George Clooney is mentioned not because of his beef with O'Reilly, but because he was a major player in a very notable controvery O'Reilly was invovled in. I know that many of the "criticisms" in this article seems to be about BOR vs. whoever, but that is not the case here. To not mention Clooney's opinion would be to cleanse the section of a very important part of the controversy, as Clooney was one of the leading movers in having the telethons in the first place. If this distinction can't be made then there is little hope for the future of the article. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 19:22, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Updating Intro

The main page's summary has far surpassed the intro in what is supposed to be the full article on criticism. I think it's time for a update, any thoughts? ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 07:16, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Limbaugh, again

As we said a few months ago, Rush Limbaugh calls people names all the time. It's not the least bit noteworthy when he does that. It doesn't illuminate or educate readers about Bill O'Reilly to read the Ted Baxter joke. And if we're going to put this in here, we'd need to insert Limbaugh's namecalling into every biography of everyone he's ever done it to. Every "feminazi" would have that name inserted in their biographies. This is not a clearinghouse of everything that anyone could ever consider criticism of O'Reilly; we need to use editorial discretion and pick what's important. Croctotheface (talk) 20:13, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Let me add one more comment here. If this article becomes a clearinghouse of everything negative that has ever appeared in the media about O'Reilly, it will get deleted. As time has gone on, the idea of "criticism articles" or "criticism sections" has received less and less support on the project. If we can't show that this article is restricting itself to what's important, it will eventually join the long line of articles like this one that have been deleted. Croctotheface (talk) 20:17, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I suppose one could technically call Limbaugh's comments "criticism", and may fall under the scope of this article generally, however I have to agree that some standard needs to be met for inclusion. Simple name calling, or being the butt of a joke, doesn't really strike me as worthy of inclusion. I suggest removing this content, and in the future trying to limit the article to analytical criticism with a modicum of context. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 20:36, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

100 percent agree with Croc and it's not just with the Limbaugh section as I mentioned above. If this article is going to be a repository of all the names Bill O'Reilly has been called, and all the names he has called someone, it does not belong here and should be deleted. It's time to come to a consensus for a standard For inclusion, or just call it a wrap and do away with this article entirely. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 20:58, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Is it clear enough yet that there's a consensus to further trim the article, or does this discussion have to stay open for a few more days? Cause to me it seems quite clear that there should be trimming based on consensus in this section. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 01:12, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

There's name-calling (he's an idiot) and there's name-calling (he's Ted Baxter). One is a generalized insult, the other is a specific cultural reference with definite connotations(as well as Olbermann echoes). In response to the earlier comment that Limbaugh's remark lacked notability, I added a few of the numerous references to his remark and could have added more(it was even mentioned as recently as this past weekend on NPR). Even so, if, as it appears, it should go, then it should go....Would a possible reference in the Olbermann section, something along the lines of Limbaugh also used the comparison, be worth considering? Jimintheatl (talk) 03:19, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I would argue that this article should be restricted to situations where O'Reilly seemingly violates his "no spin zone" claim. Keep in mind that O'Reilly courts controversy. Mere controversy alone is just part of the entertainment / ratings package. You can take the boy out of Inside Edition, but you can't take Inside Edition out of the boy. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 04:09, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored. There is no need to sanitize information about Mr. O. Wapondaponda (talk) 04:52, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

No censorship needed, just editorial judgment. Al Franken has written entire books about this character. We don't really need that much detail here. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 05:03, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

"editorial judgment". this sounds political. Wikipedia guidelines include WP:RS, WP:VERIFY. I believe that these should be the primary concerns and not WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Wapondaponda (talk) 05:27, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

• grumbles*We're trying to condense the information. Not censor. If you'd look at the history, most of the people here have been relatively centrist. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 05:34, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Seems to me that O'Reilly and Limbaugh have taken the occasional pot-shot at each other, but it's hardly newsworthy. Limbaugh is a Republican hack, whereas O'Reilly is a muckrucker with no particular political alliance, although he leans toward the conservative in general. Of course, when O'Reilly criticizes Limbaugh, it falls on deaf ears. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 05:41, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Glick

Before engaging any further in an edit war over whether Glick espoused 9/11 conspiracy theories, please note that what Glick actually said is, "...Our current president now inherited a legacy from his father and inherited a political legacy that's responsible for training militarily, economically, and situating geopolitically the parties involved in the alleged assassination and the murder of my father and countless of thousands of others..." That is something entirely different than the President planned the attacks. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 23:32, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

In effect, he was blaming the Bushes for helping foment the world political climate that resulted in the 9/11 attacks. And there are many, many Americans who agree with that viewpoint, even if they don't think the Bush administration either caused or knew about the 9/11 attacks before they occurred. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 05:35, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

"Big, fat toad"

Not sure if it belongs in the article or not, but he plainly did say it. Here's a Google search. Croctotheface (talk) 05:18, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

O'Reilly prides himself on not engaging in name-calling. I'm sure he meant it with affection. Like that time he called Al Franken an "idiot". I'm sure he was just teasing. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 05:33, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Proposal to merge some items to main O'Reilly articles

The main articles about O'Reilly (his biographical article, on his TV show, and his radio show) seem all a bit too sympathetic to O'Reilly if everything that's "controversial" about him is forked out into this article. Thus, I think that some of his notable controversies (such as his feud with Ludacris and his racist remarks about the Harlem restaruant) should be summarized in any of those articles while we expand on 'em in this article, or make adjustments based on undue weight/POV proportion.

Read through the main bio section of the main O'Reilly article, and you'll learn about O'Reilly's education from Catholic school to British college to Harvard, former career with ABC/CBS/Inside Edition/some local TV stations, but little about the controversial statements he makes on his radio/TV shows. --Andrewlp1991 (talk) 20:48, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm always amused by the dichotomy of the interpretation of why this article exists. On one side we have those who say this is just here to attack O'Reilly and the other say this is here to sort of "sweep under the rug" any critical content from the main articles to make them squeeky clean. Anyhow, my position is that the treatment should be consistent with any other blp. O'Reilly is an opinionated guy who brings controversy so there is no doubt there should be examples of his controversies but the debate is what is deserving of being included. You could go to Media Matters and find something almost everyday that amounts to a criticism or a controversy but that would bloat the article and some could interpret this as an attack page.

I think what the problem of this article is that it focuses too much on minutia and less on the big picture. The article needs to focus on the more general criticisms and the items given subsections should really just be details in the broader section. The way the article is structured it makes people come in with the latest criticism or controversy du jour and giving it its own subsection that may or may not be worth including in some way but it usually bloats the article.

That being said, since most, if not all, of his controversies have come since he started The O'Reilly Factor article most of the critical material could be put there (similar situation to Countdown with Keith Olbermann). There are others with different perspectives who are involved with this article so it would be good to hear their input also. MrMurph101 (talk) 05:27, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not the newspaper, Media Matters, or your place to vent your hatred to a pundit. I'd agree with condensing this article a bit, since not everything tracked by Media Matters is really front-page material. On the main O'Reilly articles we need to acknowledge at least that Mr. O'Reilly and his shows have brought up criticism/controversy. --Andrewlp1991 (talk) 06:38, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I think you misread what Murph said. As he said, if we included EVERYTHING that MM says about O'Reilly, we'd have a hundred pages here. As to the rest of the above discussion: regardless of the differences of opinion as to why there should be merging, I think there may in fact be a broad base of editors willing to see some merging done. I agree with Murph that this article could do a much better job with, say, making the factual accuracy section into a cohesive and coherent section rather than a collection of distinct subsections. Anyway, I don't have time to really get into this in detail, but I wanted to put something down for now, and hopefully I can expand my position later. Croctotheface (talk) 06:53, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd also support some merging as well as the elimination of the non-notable trivial stuff (e.g. the Levin section). Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 18:04, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

This article may soon be deleted

There is a discussion to remove all "Criticism" articles: [8], [9]. Everyone is welcome to participate.Biophys (talk) 21:54, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

An obvious misrepresentation. WP:ANI report may be found here. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 22:06, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Misinterpretation of what?Biophys (talk) 22:14, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

You're canvassing. It's a deletion of ONE article, not every criticism article. That is what you're misrepresenting. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:55, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Seeing as how this article has already survived numerous AfD's, I don't see how this is any close possibility. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 23:58, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Suggested move

This article should be moved to "List of criticisms of Bill O'Reilly (political commentator), each of the criticisms listed should be sourced back to the persons or interest group criticizing him and summarized with spin-offs for the major criticisms. In its current form, it is bordering on being an indiscriminate list of criticisms and is in danger of being taken back to AfD. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 09:26, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

You want to take it from one article to many articles? Also, who is the "interest group" that smacked O'Reilly down for saying that the young teen Hornbeck liked being abused? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 10:02, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

No, I'd actually prefer that we be rid of this attack page but I'm being realistic here, this is a LIST not an article and should reflect that. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 14:52, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Everything cited here is true and verifiable, so if it seems like an "attack page", that just comes with the territory. If you don't like O'Reilly's approach to things, that's your problem. And keep in mind this was originally part of the main article until it got too big and had to be spun off. So you propose spinning it off further, which I assure you will only make it LARGER. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:08, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I'd rather have the specific criticisms spun into the articles related to the critics in summary style with perhaps a summarized list of them left here to direct interested readers back to the critics articles. Needless to say, this high school thesis of why O'Reilly is a very bad man does not need to exist in such detail as it does. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 15:11, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

That's your spin on the article. In fact, he loves controversy; he thrives on it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:15, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure he does. But is it wikipedia's place to be Media Matters for America lite and craft talking point lists such as this? What serious encyclopedia does that? This article presents the criticism as fact, then provides evidence to support it which is essay building, not building an encyclopedia. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 15:22, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

It sounds like this move proposal might be more about making a point than about improving the encyclopedia. If you believe we should treat the material more as a whole and less as a list, then let's improve the article that way. Croctotheface (talk) 19:24, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

It seems that this article is stuck in this weird holding pattern where most of the editors here agree that it has serious problems, but no one has any idea how to fix it, or even how to come to a consensus on how to start the solution. Is there another form of community review outside of AfD? Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 21:54, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if I'd take such a broad view, Ramsquire. We're always going to have people pushing a particular point of view and making suggestions that are likely only done to make a point. If there are concerns that have not been previously addressed we should certainly do so; if there are issues raised that have resolved previously via consensus we should refer them to previous discussions. I don't know that I'd wholly categorize the situation as "we all think there are serious problems and we just don't know how to fix them", as a lot of this has already been discussed. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:29, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Since I was totally ignoring the "contributions" of well known POV pushers and only discussing the work of the more serious contributors, I stand by my opinion. "We" all seem to agree that the article needs work, but don't seem to be able to move it forward. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 21:54, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

It's certainly not my intent to suggest that there isn't room for improvement. Regardless of other contributions, I don't think we should buy into ad infinitum discussions that seem to be raised just to make a point. The initial editor has stated that he wants to eradicate criticism of Bill O'Reilly entirely. The proper course of action is to point him to the numerous previous discussions instead of wringing our hands and perpetuating nonproductive generalizations.  :) //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 22:49, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Amen to that. I think the previous reorganization helped the article a lot, but the general complaint that the article should be deleted/sucks/is flawed doesn't get anyone very far.Jimintheatl (talk) 00:53, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Maybe the article could focus more on "prominent stories" than just "criticisms". For example, he was relentless in his coverage of the Catholic priest molestation scandals, and incurred the wrath of some of his fellow Catholic spokesmen/apologists. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:22, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

You propose adding new information. That will not satisfy the initial editor. And it does reinforce the point that controversy is O'Reilly's medium and forte.Jimintheatl (talk) 00:57, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

The problem with some of the supposed "criticisms" is that it would be possible to find sources that agree with his approach to things. Some might say he was courageous to say what he did about the Hornbeck kid, for example. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:23, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Fine. Add it. Debate it, but it's still controversy---O'Reilly says an abducted abused kid "enjoyed" his captivity...how can that not generate/be part of controversy? Add other people who voiced similar thoughts and see what happens.Jimintheatl (talk) 04:09, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Serious problems with this article

I think that this article should remain tagged based on the fact that the majority of it is just splitting hairs. Lighthead ^þ 01:25, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

That may be your opinion, however let's stick to specific issues instead of rhetorical "I don't like it" arguments. {{POV}} templates are for specific violations of WP:NPOV, not for editors who disagree with the content. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 02:17, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

It would be helpful if the hairs supposedly being split could be specified.Jimintheatl (talk) 02:25, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I take it back. Maybe it's just the size then. Lighthead ^þ 03:08, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Separating the signal from the noise and keeping this article to a manageable size has always been difficult, especially given that an incendiary person such as O'Reilly garners criticism with everything he says. While I have no doubt that there is probably some questionable material in the article, I think the general rule has been material that has significant coverage in multiple reliable sources qualifies for inclusion, provided it is neutrally presented and properly cited. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 04:21, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Only thing I have to say about this is that I generally don't like linking the notability guideline within discussions of article content. Although we certainly want to discuss material within the article that is notable in the plain language sense, notability in the WP:N sense shouldn't really enter into the equation. Croctotheface (talk) 05:19, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

And I think that after researching the article a little bit the other main thing that bothers me is that the majority of the references are from far-left websites such as CSN.com, The Huffington Post, Media Matters, MSNBC.com, just to name a few. The fact that an article is backed up by references is arbitrary if the majority of those references are from these websites. Lighthead ^þ 02:28, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I must confess that your use of O'Reilly's language ("far left"), and your characterization of MSNBC that way make me question your motivation here. MSNBC is unquestionably a reliable source. Is your interest here improving the article or just denigrating it with a tag? How can we make it better? Croctotheface (talk) 04:20, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd suggest making making an honest attempt at sourcing it from non-biased sources would be a good step. The heavy reliance on media matters, the huffington blogs, and other non-neutral "publications" is a serious issue that continues to be ignored. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 10:53, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

"Non-biased" sources? Meaning ones you agree with? Sorry, if you rule out "non-biased" sources, then Fox News itself becomes an invalid source. The Hornbeck story, for example, you may not like being in this article, but it's verifiable and it actually happened that way, and he had to re-explain himself several times due to all the ridicule that was dumped on him. The problem is not with the facts - it's with the underlying assumption that O'Reilly's opinion was "wrong". It's entirely possible you could find a source that would say "O'Reilly had a point" and would explain why. Then you would have a fairer presentation in this article. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 11:08, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

You are making allegations that I want the Hornbeck info out of the article. Stop attacking me and try for a change to understand that these sources do not meet our policies. This has been gone over time and time again on RSN and by reviewing the consensus there, we should not be using such sources are not suitable for "facts" but only for their own opinions. In presenting "fact" from them, we have a serious problem with WP:REDFLAG and WP:BLP. But I don't expect that following policy will work here, its more fun and lulz to attack the messenger. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 11:58, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I made no such allegation, that's just an example of one area that's been debated. But if you have a guilty conscience, I can't fix that. The reality is that defenders of O'Reilly don't like this information being visible, so they attack it by attacking the supposed "bias" of the sources, even though those sources are reporting what happened. And I'm saying that if you go down that road, then you also have to rule out Fox News as a source, because it is every bit as "biased" as it claims MSNBC is. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:14, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd suggest you stop treating wikipedia as a battleground and/or avoid pages where you leap to attack other users for the past actions of persons trying to make this page more NPOV. I have not mentioned that MSNBC is biased, I stated that HuffPo and MMfA have in the past been discussed at length on the reliable sources noticeboard and the consensus is that we should not be using them for facts, they are only notable for their own opinions and when used for that purpose this must be presented as their opinion properly. I'm not following you down your "foxnews/msnbc" bunnytrail as this is not directly related to the websites which have an agenda in their reporting as MMFA and HuffPo do. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 13:29, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Your suggestion has been noted and logged. You may personally be neutral about MSNBC, but it was mentioned in the same breath as the others you have a problem with. And even if those sites have an "agenda" it does not automatically nullify their factual value. If they say "O'Reilly said this and that's bad" that's a combination of news and commentary that does not automatically nullify the "news" part of it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:29, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Kyaa-- can you provide a link to these discussion and consensus on MMfA and HuffPO? I'm too lazy right now to look for it myself. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 19:59, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

The references that deal with Fox News are there as "evidence" to your claim. If anyone has an agenda it's you guys! Lighthead ^þ 20:27, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

And just to interject a point of humor here, even Saturday Night Live understands that MSNBC is just as biased as Fox News (Did you see Ben Affleck parodying Keith Olbermann?), you're the only guys not in on the joke. Lighthead ^þ 20:36, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

(removing indents) Fox News is also a reliable source. More generally, I'm not sure that there is a consensus never to use Media Matters to source factual content, but it would hardly be a major issue to go through and find different sources for the same facts. Looking for those sources is certainly not a neutrality issue in any case. Croctotheface (talk) 21:30, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

The important thing, as I see it, is to separate facts from commentary, and to try to neutralize or balance commentary. Fox News, MSNBC, CNN, etc. do plenty of commentary. The way to tell the difference is, "Joe Schmo did this thing and it's good/bad." That's half fact and half commentary. The first half, assuming it wasn't made up or distorted, is usable. The second half is the problem that underlies this article - the assumption that because he said or did this stuff, then it's bad. It's controversial. That's a fact. Good or bad, or criticism-worthy, is a point of view. He really savaged that Glick guy when he could have asked gentler questions instead of stoking the fires. The guy had just lost loved ones, for God's sake. But O'Reilly has the sensitivity of a porcupine, so Glick also kind of asked for it, if he were to think about it, i.e. he should have known better than to go on a show like O'Reilly's. With the Hornbeck story, O'Reilly dared to ask, "Why didn't Hornbeck run away?" and was beaten up for it, despite it being a fair question that many would wonder about. His bull-in-the-china-shop approach got him in trouble for that one. The main problem with the article is the underlying one-sidedness of the point of view. The facts of the stories, and their being controversial, are not in doubt. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 21:45, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I for one don't agree with O'Reilly's methods as presented in the article, but the extensiveness of it smacks of partisanism (bear in mind that I'm not necessarily calling those who had a hand in it partisan). I realize that Jimintheatl called me on saying that it was splitting hairs, but that's the way I see it. Just look at the section about Barbara Boxer, come on... Lighthead ^þ 23:12, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

YouTube

What about the growing number of videos on YouTube highlighting his aggressive approach to interviewing, not to mention the clips circulating of him throwing a tantrum and swearing in the studio? And the subsequent remixed versions hehe... ArdClose (talk) 13:18, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah? What about them? cheshire (talk) 06:56, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

That's just part of O'Reilly's charm. His often childish behavior keeps the ratings high. And youtube, one of the great inventions of our time, captures many of them. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 07:02, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10