Talk:Public image of Bill O'Reilly (political commentator)/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Tiller

This should go in, and the only reason I could fathom for not including it here is including it in his main bio instead. If the text that's been edit warred over does not sufficiently assert that there has been controversy or criticism, then here's a good place to start the research. Croctotheface (talk) 15:30, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree completely - there has clearly been notable criticism of O'Reilly regarding his comments about Tiller. I'll see if I can write something up that will work, if the previous wording wasn't being accepted. Dawn Bard (talk) 15:37, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not against it being in. However, I do think that it's better to wait around a week or so to put in breaking news and let things play out before adding it to an encyclopedia. This should be in wikinews first and once something can be encyclopedically be put in then add it. Maybe some day things will work like that but for now just let it stay. It might also be good to put in O'Reilly's response where he says he's not surprised about media reaction trying to blame him and fox news. MrMurph101 (talk) 16:47, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Attempts to correlate BOR with the death of Tiller smack of Coatrack. There is absolutely no evidence that BOR had anything to do wtih the death of Tiller, other than the musing of KO and MSNBC. Arzel (talk) 17:06, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd be OK with following Murph's suggestion of waiting to see what shakes out so that our article accurately reflects what's going on out there. We can certainly represent O'Reilly's response. As far as what Arzel said, this is not some fringe theory, and it's not being discussed only by Olbermann. There are hundreds if not thousands of articles from varied sources discussing O'Reilly in the context of Tiller's murder. The coverage is more than adequate for an independent article on the controversy, so exclusion on the grounds that it's only the "musing of KO and MSNBC" is way off base. If the current version is no good, then rewrite it so that it it's better. Croctotheface (talk) 17:35, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Arzel, I agree that the article should not simply say that O'Reilly had something to do with Tiller's death. That being said, however, there has been some notable criticism of the way that O'Reilly talked about Tiller, and that should be included. It's not only Olbermann, as Croctotheface said. Adding notable, sourced criticism isn't the same as correlating O'Reilly with Tiller's murder. Dawn Bard (talk) 17:46, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Agree with all statements made thus far (except Arzel's, of course :) ). //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 18:25, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree, if it is proved notable and worded objectively, however, the current 2,000-ish char wording doesn't (imo) belong in this article. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 20:31, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Far, far too recent to be added. It needs time to develop and while the criticism is relevant, the death is most certainly not linked definitively to BOR. Most of what I've seen is far left, the only thing not far left was an AP story reporting on the far left's commentary. I think this needs more time to develop. Soxwon (talk) 23:37, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

It must be included, per the standard proposed that it has received significant outside attention as well as lots of self-promotion from BOR. It needs to be condensed from its current form, but not censored.Jimintheatl (talk) 23:43, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Exactly - I was just coming here to say that BOR himself has noted the criticism. Not to mention that including the criticisms is not at all the same thing as saying that O'Reilly contributed to Tiller's murder. Dawn Bard (talk) 23:53, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

However, it should be mentioned that most of the MSM mentions of it have been limited to reporting the left-wing blogs bringing it up. Soxwon (talk) 23:54, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

There's no rush to include it right away... I'm inclined to say it should probably percolate for a while before this conversation should even come up.  :) That being said, let's not go out of our way to try and pre-emptively scuttle sources as "left-wing blogs" before anything has even been presented (here). Everyone is welcome to submit reliable sources demonstrating sustained notability... //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 23:56, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually, what I was saying, is that even the AP and NYT stories were mostly focused on reactions from such sites as Daily Kos, NPR, and Air America. I agree this should percolate so we could avoid the labeling, but so far that's all that's been presented in terms of WP:RS. Soxwon (talk) 23:58, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I think its overall too early, and that the focus of the text still dwells too much on things that shouldn't be in this article. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 00:12, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Agreed Soxwon (talk) 00:13, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I added in an semi-neutral POV (although ACLU is "liberal" by US standards, center-right by international standards) blurb at the end, hopefully to balance it out. Also, anyone have any thoughts on the proposed name change I proposed yesterday to Controversy over Bill O'Reilly's Commentary, or something similar? I feel it is better since controversy imo is more neutral and allows more pro-O'reilly to be added balancing out the article. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 00:27, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

<--(outdent)It still lacks mention that BOR is being criticised specifically for calling Tiller a "baby killer," and also it makes it seem like he only mentioned Tiller once in '06, when he mentioned him many more times. Dawn Bard (talk) 00:36, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Then we'd only be making more problems to fix, the reason we streamlined the article was to strip out specific nit-picky events and focus on general things. I feel like the entire thing should be paraphrased and made shorter to its core with opposite viewpoints presented if it is to be included at all. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 01:01, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

But as it is it doesn't accurately reflect the criticism out there in a balanced way, and it looks like certain things are being kept out for POV reasons. Dawn Bard (talk) 01:07, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I realize that BOR was quite critical of Tiller in the past, however I must ask why BOR segment from 2006 is now controversial when it was not controversial before the murder of Tiller. There seems to be an attempt to link the segment of 2006 with the murder of Tiller and the whole section reads as WP:OR unless there is definative evidence that the two incidents are related the sections has to go for violation of WP:BLP Arzel (talk) 01:18, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any attempt in the article as it is now to tie BOR to the Tiller murder. And there would be no original research involved in adding properly sourced coverage of the criticims. Obviously whoever adds them can't add any editorialising, but that's standard everywhere on Wikipedia. Also, much of the criticism isn't just about the '06 piece, it's about the was he has talked about Tiller since. I also think it would be worth adding notable sourced rebuttals to the criticisms, like Howard Kurtz's piece in today's WaPo. But I think the very fact that someone as prominent as Kurtz is addressing these criticisms speaks to their notability. Dawn Bard (talk) 01:30, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

This section.

Tiller responded to O'Reilly's statements by demanding an investigation into the "inside source" through which the information was leaked, suggesting that Phill Kline, then the Kansas Attorney General, was responsible. Kline denied the charge. Tiller was later shot dead around 10:00 am Sunday, May 31, 2009 while serving as an usher during worship services at Reformation Lutheran Church in Wichita.

is particularly troubling. It implies that Tiller was murdered as a direct result of the 2006 segment and Tiller's response to BOR. This is a serious violation of WP:BLP. Arzel (talk) 01:24, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I agree with you there - that juxtaposition is not good. Dawn Bard (talk) 01:30, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I attempted to fix that. Still unhappy about the length of the thing, to say the least of if it should be in this article or not. Should be more concise. Edit Apart from what I feel is awkwardness, I feel that the current wording places O'Reilly in a semi-neutral light due to the ending part, since eople will always interpret things as they will. Thoughts, comments? ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 03:12, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Use of liberal

Considering the only source addressing the criticism says and I quote:

Within hours of the shooting that left Dr. Tiller dead on Sunday, Mr. O’Reilly found himself under attack from liberal journalists and bloggers who accused him of inciting violence.

Taking out the word liberal suggests mainstream criticism which isn't supported by the source given. Soxwon (talk) 02:33, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

First, your assertion that liberals are not "mainstream" despite having won the last two elections seems telling as far as where you're coming from. As I said in my edit summary, the sentence in the times is true, but it using the "liberal" label suggests the criticism has come ONLY from liberals. A single piece of criticism from someone who is not a liberal renders the text inaccurate. Croctotheface (talk) 03:43, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

"sigh" No, liberal organizations and blogs are as fringe as Rush and Sean Hannity (unless the previous 20 meant that conservative was mainstream). And you need to find a MAINSTREAM source that covers the topic and talks of criticism of O'Reilly. Right now the loan source is the NYT, and that covers the left-wing exclusively. Soxwon (talk) 03:48, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

You are seriously asserting that there's no such thing as a mainstream liberal? Croctotheface (talk) 03:58, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Noooo, but blogs and Daily Kos are considered fringe when compared to say, NYT or the Washington Post. They are in the same category as Rush and Sean Hannity as I said. Soxwon (talk) 04:06, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Mainsteam liberal should still be labeled a liberal. Bytebear (talk) 04:00, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Here's the thing. There are 18 pages worth of material, in 811 separate groups of hits, with one group containing over 8000 articles, that cover the O'Reilly/Tiller issue. I'm sure that there exists at least one person within those results who is unambiguously not a liberal (and I'm glad we could clear up that many liberals are mainstream). I'm not going to dig through those results to find those non-liberals. However, confronted with this situation, we have to choose between two different formulations: "criticized by media commentators" or "criticized by liberal media commentators." Both are accurate in a literal sense, but they raise separate issues. Leaving out "liberal" could suggest to readers that non-liberals have criticized O'Reilly. I contend that such an impression is almost certainly accurate, and since we are not introducing unverified text ("criticized by media commentators" is certainly both true and verifiable), it's the way to go. Including "liberal" suggests that ONLY liberals have criticized O'Reilly, which is probably false, and certainly arguable, since it could be that some commentators that you consider liberal, I would not, or that someone who all of us consider liberal does not consider himself liberal. It's far more problematic to include the label, so I vote for not including it. That said, I suspect that someone more driven than I will find an unambiguous non-liberal who criticized him, so this will be a non-issue soon. Croctotheface (talk) 04:22, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

In the end, we avoid using subjective and contentious labels like "liberal" whenever possible; such inclusions serve to poison the well. Readers don't need to be told what to think. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 11:51, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

True, readers don't need to be told what to think, but in the case at hand the only reliable source that has been cited apropos the "attacks" on O'Reilly following Tiller's murder describes the attackers as "liberal". Based on that source what should a reader think about O'Reilly's critics on the issue? If you don't like that fact find a reliable source that refers to these attackers/critics in a more general way. Badmintonhist (talk) 13:48, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Just replace it with examples and let readers draw their own conclusions. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 18:17, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

This criticism against BOR was started by those on the left, particularly KO, MMfA, DK, DU, ect.. This much is not deniable. I don't think it is a NPOV violation to say that "Shortly thereafter" liberal's criticized BOR after the incident. Now if there is evidence of a weightable number of non-partisan's that later jumped on the bandwagon then it could be extended to indicate that other moderates later criticized BOR as well, but I havn't seen evidence that this is the case. Arzel (talk) 19:18, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I want to reiterate my point, since based on some of the replies, I think that some people may not have really processed it. Both versions ("liberal media commentators" and "media commentators" without any label) are accurate. Yes, liberals criticized him. Yes, media commentators criticized him. The notion that because a source said that liberals criticized him we must therefore use the label is highly suspect. The concerns raised by using a label outweigh the concerns raised by leaving it out. So, we should leave it out. Croctotheface (talk) 09:01, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Second that point. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 11:07, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Good point, but in all due respect gentlemen, do you really think that if the New York Times had noted that a well-known "progressive" media figure were being attacked by "conservatives" you wouldn't now be insisting that omitting such a qualifier raised critical "concerns"? Awareness of one's particular concerns is a wonderful thing. Badmintonhist (talk) 13:37, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Your explicit accusation of bad faith shows no "due respect" (towards your fellow editors, or this project in general). No need in dignifying a response beyond pointing that out -- responses like that deserve no consideration in building consensus. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 19:01, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I removed numerous and liberal from the sentence about BO inciting violence. Also fact tagged it. Who are the commentators making this point? TIA --Tom (talk) 18:18, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I prepared a lengthy reply to Badmintonhist's comment here, but I decided it wouldn't be wise to escalate what amounts to a personal squabble on the article talk page. I will say, however, that I strongly disagree with his premise here, and that I've found accusations of bad faith, which is what this amounts to, to be rather bad for the project and for our common goal of making a great encyclopedia. Croctotheface (talk) 18:42, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

No, being influenced by one's own political leanings, particularly on subtle issues, like this one, which could "go either way", is really not the same thing as "bad faith". It is often practiced quite inadvertently in Wikipedia by people on all sides of the political spectrum. I've done it myself. That's why self-awareness is very important for an editor. Badmintonhist (talk) 19:02, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not going to respond to this topic again here, as this is related to the article in a tangential way at best. (If you want to continue it on my talk page or somesuch, feel free.) I'll just say that suggesting that I would approach the the situation differently if the political affiliations were reversed strikes me as a rather strong charge, and I don't take particularly kindly to what it seems to be implying. If it was just a "be careful" kind of message, then OK, I don't want to make a huge deal out of it. But for the record, no, I would not change my opinion with regard to applying labels like "liberal" or "conservative" or whatever else solely because the affiliations here were reversed. In general, I don't find that applying those labels is very illuminating anyway. As Blaxthos said above, let the reader form her own opinion. Croctotheface (talk) 21:53, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Kind of split on this issue myself. I could see liberal being included if somehow the point was that only liberals criticize him or he was attacking a certain liberal cause. Liberal is a pretty broad stroke though and very relative. In this case, the issue is not about his fight with liberals though. If I had to lean one way, it would be to not include it. If it is to be included, it should be rewritten. Arnabdas (talk) 14:52, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Usually I don't think labels should be used. However, in this instance the immediate attack against BOR was from the left. This simply cannot be denied, and to not make that statement gives the impression that BOR was criticized by the media in general. Now if there is some evidence that the criticism expanded out to non-liberal/progressive/left sources then the section could be expanded to state as such. That said, there are numerous sources that make the statement that the criticism came from the left. Arzel (talk) 00:02, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

You're certainly free to disagree, and I don't have a ton to add to the conversation itself because this point seems to be covered by my previous one. The danger of suggesting that ONLY liberals criticized him (or "attacked" as you call it), which is probably untrue, long with the danger of using labels in general is greater than the threat posed by leaving the label out, which could be seen as suggesting that non-liberals criticized him, which is probably true. Again, both formulations are accurate and verifiable in a literal sense, as it's true that liberals criticized him and it's true that media commentators criticized him.

As I said, that's basically what I've already said on the subject, but I think it responds to your concern here as well. However, there is currently, by my reading, more support contained in this discussion for excluding the label than for including it. I'm left puzzled as to why you saw fit to revert me with your only rationale being "sorry, I disagree." Wouldn't that same rationale justify a revert back? Croctotheface (talk) 06:29, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

It seems that the concern is putting in a blanket statement against all liberals. I agree with that. However, Arzel's point is valid...the attacks came from one side. I don't think most liberals agree with the criticism, and that's something O'Reilly himself would agree with, but he feels that the liberal activists are the ones behind it...the ideological ones whom he refers to as the far left. He also criticizes the people whom are not as, let's say, passionate in their views for not condemning those actions and just letting them run wild...e.g. the Boston Globe promoting Air America. Liberal shouldn't be used, but I am in favor of adding far left. Of course, there in lies the problem as "far left" is POV worded and not as factual and tempered as liberal. Arnabdas (talk) 13:35, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

First of all, drop the "attack" verbiage -- an "attack" is a violent or inappropriate assault; these are simply criticisms. Everyone who criticizes O'Reilly is not from "the far left", or "liberal"; neither are all criticisms regarding this incident from "the far left" or "liberal". In no case should Wikipedia attempt to label criticisms or otherwise spoon-feed an opinion to readers. Adding any sort of qualifier is unnecessary ("attack", "liberal", etc); and quite frankly egging people on with that sort of partisan caustic language is what incites incidents like Tiller's murder. There is no harm in leaving qualifiers out and letting them read sources and form their own opinion, and doing so is in keeping with the policies and spirit of Wikipedia. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 17:16, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Unless the source specifically says liberal sources. To label it otherwise is misrepresentation of the source. And I agree with Badmintonhist, you'd be complaining about a lack of a conservative label if this were the other way around. Soxwon (talk) 02:13, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Again with the ad hominem red herrings? Birds of a feather... //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 03:29, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

what about just listing the first few media to criticize and mention the first few's affiliation? EX ...A,B,C, considered liberal by D, were the first to criticize ... After X days, reporters from Y, Z (mainstream) began reporting on this.... This is both fair and balanced in my opinion.ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 02:52, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Then what's the advantage over not just leaving it unlabeled entirely? The only purpose of that wording is to label some of the criticism. There's no legitimate purpose in doing so, except to try and color it with a subjective opinion. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 03:32, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Badmiton explained what I was trying to go at better (as in same idea, but mine is worded poorly). ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 04:54, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me that there are a number of ways that this could be handled that ought to be acceptable to most of us. However, as long as Brian Stelter's article in the New York Times remains the only source it seems to me that "liberal" has to stay. To omit it changes the meaning of the statement, and since the Times/Stelter is our only authority (as of now), changing his meaning should be verboten. To make it clear that we are taking the Times/Stelter's word for it, they could be mentioned right in the text: i.e. "According to T/S, shortly thereafter some liberal media commentators pointed to O'Reilly's claims about Tiller as incitements to violence against the doctor."

Of course, other sources could be added which could change the dynamics of how this should be handled. We could use the specific critics as sources, rather than the Times which simply categorizes the sources, generically, in a way that some of our Wikipedia breathren don't like. Badmintonhist (talk) 04:02, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

P.S. As a former competitive badminton player I'm rather tickled by Blaxthos's "birds of a feather" comment, however snarky it was intended to be. Badmintonhist (talk) 04:11, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

There is no disadvantage to leaving out the questionably-accurate "liberal" label, and plenty of potential to mislead by leaving it in. Given that use of such a label is contentious already, and several established editors have pointed out the problems with leaving it in, this might be one you guys should let go of -- truly you don't think that anyone who has voiced concern over O'Reilly's "must be a liberal". Also, no snark contained -- only shuttlecocks think that ad hominem "YOU'D SAY DIFFERENT IF IT WAS A CONSERVATIVE" carries any weight or has any significance here.  :) //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 18:09, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Rubbish, Blax! Of course there is a disadvantage to it. It is simply wrong to change a WP:RS's

"Blaxthos is distrusted by many conservative Wikipedia editors." to an editor's "Blaxthos is distrusted by many Wikipedia editors."

Moreover, if editors can override a WP:RS's judgment as to whether O'Reilly's critics are liberals or Blaxthos's critics are conservatives then we really are only using the source as window dressing for what is really WP:OR. However, most of the editors involved in this discussion don't seem to actually have a problem with the NY Times's description of O'Reilly's critics in the Tiller matter. Badmintonhist (talk) 06:49, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but you're not ever going to convince me that Wikipedia should spoon-feed subjective labels of criticism. It's not reasonable to explicitly state or implicitly imply that "all criticism (on this issue) comes from liberals". How about this: if I can demonstrate, via reliable sources, that a social conservative has criticized O'Reilly on this issue, will you change your tune? //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 16:38, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I'm starting to wonder if this is really even worth mentioning in his biography. His show yes, but in his biography? We're coming on 4 weeks since this was first brought up, and still, most of the coverage is left-wing fringe (Daily Kos, MMFA, and whatnot). We haven't seen much coverage in the mainstream. I'd contend that this deserves a line or two in his biography at most. Soxwon (talk) 17:38, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Location within the article(s) is a secondary issue. Again, I'm re-positing this question: if it can be demonstrated (using reliable sources) that social conservatives (or other "non-liberal") figures have criticized O'Reilly on this issue, will you guys concede dropping the subjective "liberal" label? //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 18:01, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

No I didn't avoid the question, as I'm saying this section should be cut down or removed as WP:FRINGE, and added to the The O'Reilly Factor considering the lack of MSM media coverage and this being a biography page. And no, one social conservative doesn't cancel out the fact that the only reason the NYT brought it up, was b/c of widespread play on sites such as Daily Kos, MMFA, and The Examiner. Soxwon (talk) 18:06, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Seriously? Croctotheface (talk) 19:53, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

No way you can try to assert WP:FRINGE when a simple gnews search shows dozens of reliable sources. I'm also not sure how you can say "I didn't avoid the question" with any sort of credibility and then go on to answer a different question without any attempt to actually answer my question. Re-read the section header, and then or the third time, if it wasn't clear: if it can be demonstrated (using reliable sources) that social conservatives (or other "non-liberal") figures have criticized O'Reilly on this issue, will you guys concede dropping the subjective "liberal" label? //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 20:32, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

And no, one social conservative doesn't cancel out the fact that the only reason the NYT brought it up, was b/c of widespread play on sites such as Daily Kos, MMFA, and The Examiner. That didn't answer your question? Soxwon (talk) 20:33, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Uh, no -- your opinion of "why" it was in a reliable source has no significance here. Try again. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 20:36, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

It helps to actually read the article. It states explicitly Within hours of the shooting that left Dr. Tiller dead on Sunday, Mr. O’Reilly found himself under attack from liberal journalists and bloggers who accused him of inciting violence. And again, plz give all those wonderful mainstream sources. Soxwon (talk) 20:39, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

That has nothing to do with the question I've posed three times now... It's obvious you refuse to acknowledge the point contained therein; additional dancing on your part isn't needed. If any of the other people who have objected to excluding "liberal" wouldn't mind commenting, it would be helpful. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 20:44, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

how many times do I have to say, No it won't? Soxwon (talk) 20:45, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Soxwon, thank you for explicitly acknowledging your true intent here. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 20:48, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Really Blaxthos, is disagreeing with you now a crime? I've said this several times in the course of this argument, you've just not bothered to read. One social commentator's opinion doesn't trump the NYT, that's hardly agenda pushing. I've asked for two things MSM sources giving this story significance and MSM sources that unambiguously describe criticism of O'Reilly that isn't tied into the left-wing bloggers. However, you and Croctotheface apparently feel finding such sources beneath your dignity, and as such, I see no reason why the portion should remain in the article in it's current WP:FRINGE form. Soxwon (talk) 20:51, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

If it's covered in multiple reliable sources, it's by definition not a fringe theory. It's not a "crime" to do anything on wikipedia, but it's in definite and obvious bad faith to admit that you won't change your position, regardless of evidence supplied. Good day. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:08, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Look, Blaxthos. All I ask for, is for one, ONE, MSM source (not Daily Kos, MMFA, or the Examiner, but the NYT, LA Times, or the Boston Globe) that isn't an op-ed piece or use the words "liberal" to describe the subject. That's all. Provide that, and I'll stop objecting. What I said was that 1 social commentator < NYT, not that I'd not change my mind no matter what. Now plz stop misrepresenting what I say, thank you. Soxwon (talk) 21:22, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

How about this, where it says O'Reilly is "under fire" without describing those doing the criticizing as liberals. Croctotheface (talk) 03:09, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Hahaha, we can't seem to break the good faith even now, eh croc?  :) I'll join in too.. how about Frank Schaeffer, a pro-lifer, former McCain staffer, and former anti-abortion activist who has gone on record criticizing O'Reilly and stating (from firsthand experience) that the rhetoric from O'Reilly and others contributes to an atmosphere conducive to violence? Is he a liberal too? //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 04:20, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

The UPI was exactly what I was asking for, that's all I wanted. Thank you. Soxwon (talk) 04:32, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Really, Soxwon... <soapbox> Let's not go setting a precedent that we have to present sources that meet with your approval in the future when a preponderance of the evidence yields an obvious conclusion. If you really believed no one but "liberals" have issued criticism, a little bit of investigative effort on your part could have avoided all of this. If you really didn't believe that, then you were just trying to prove a point. Either way, it's not really a constructive way to formulate consensus, and is something to try and avoid in the future. </soapbox> Forgive the digression. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 04:42, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Back to the point of the matter and the verbage being used. This attack against BOR was started on the Left, we can expand it out to show that others also jumped on the bandwagon, but to leave out where it started is disengenious. Arzel (talk) 13:37, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

No sir, trying to partition and label a certain slice of a larger pie is a blatant attempt to inject subjective opinion. There is no other reason than to imply that it's somehow less valid. Separate but equal? Why make the distinction at all? //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 13:50, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

How is that any more subjective than what you suggest? I find it somewhat ironic that the source currently being used explicitly states that it was liberal commentators and bloggers that went on the attack yet some here wish to make their own subjective interpretation to point out that it wasn't just liberals. Do you deny that it was the left that was first and most virulent in the attack? WP uses verifiabilty as one of it's cornerstones, and this is certainly verifiable. If you want to include a small portion of the pie that is up to you. I already tried and was rebuked. To answer your question; it is important to use the distinction to cover what actually happened, and not what, I think, you wish had happened. Arzel (talk) 22:26, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

What I find "somewhat ironic" is that for all your goings-on about sourcing, we do not cite a source that says what you edited the article to say, that first, it was liberals, and then others joined in later. We do not have a source, as far as I've seen, that characterizes the criticism as a "virulent...attack" despite your constant repetition of such words. At this point, it's very hard to take you seriously when you apparently reject out of hand that there could be any merit whatsoever to criticizing O'Reilly for his remarks about Tiller. I have to agree with Blaxthos that when it's clear that criticism came from non-liberals, using the word the way you want to serves no purpose other than to attempt to make the criticism appear less valid. Croctotheface (talk) 23:09, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I never said there was no merit to the criticism of BOR. However, let us not be naive about this issue. It is an ideological affair in which BOR takes a right-wing approach and is criticized by the left for that approach. I also don't see how you believe it makes the criticism less valid. Your primary argument seems to be that there was at least one non-left source of crticism, thus we cannot make the claim that it was primarily from the left even though the vast majority of the sources clearly make the distinction. FTR, I didn't suggest the terminology of "virulent" within the article. Arzel (talk) 04:49, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I did not say that it makes it less valid, but I contend that labeling the criticism serves very little purpose other than to attempt to reduce its force. In particular, it seeks to reduce the criticism to "an ideological affair" that's easily explained away by O'Reilly's defenders as a left-right rigamarole. The issue here is not that O'Reilly expressed his opposition to late term abortions; he was not criticized for that. And "the vast majority of sources make that distinction"? I highly doubt that. We don't have a "vast" number of sources in the article here. Croctotheface (talk) 09:15, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Why even mention the Tiller thing?

Seriously? That whole part of the article should be removed. You disprove the criticism right in the section, for Christ's sake!PokeHomsar (talk) 03:35, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

You know, I'd tend to agree with you on that. It should go on the show article, not on his biography (I mean this is comparable to the Palin comment, yet we're moving into week 4 with nothing major coming recently. Soxwon (talk) 15:36, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Seriously? Croctotheface (talk) 19:53, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Secondarily, we don't need to focus on the allegedly "disproven" elements of the criticism; we could instead focus on the nature of the criticism that did not say O'Reilly "incited violence" but rather that his rhetoric was irresponsible, overblown, and unfortunate in light of the fact that Tiller was killed for the same reason O'Reilly said he had "blood on his hands." Croctotheface (talk) 19:56, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

First of all, if you actually combed through that (I did, first 10 pages) you'd notice a lot of it has nothing to do with the killing, is marginal at best, and almost all of the sites that relate are Daily Kos, MMFA, The Examiner etc. So yes, "seriously." Secondly, that's fine, but that relates more towards his show, not him as a person, and it is over-representing what appears to be more and more a fringe minority. Soxwon (talk) 20:01, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

There are thousands of results there, and many of them are from mainstream sources, mainstream op-ed writers, and on and on. If you're seriously arguing that this criticism is NOWHERE except the "fringes" when it has that kind of coverage...well, I just can't take that point of view seriously. The notion of where to place the criticism is a secondary issue, and it's far from the most important one at work here. Croctotheface (talk) 20:08, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Then instead of just making claims, SHOW ME! You can't just say "there are MSM sources," you need to bring them up. again, after the first 10 pages or so, most of the stuff was starting to copy other articles, or show articles that were unrelated. Soxwon (talk) 20:10, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I have no interest in digging through the results to find sources that will please you; I don't think you operate in good faith with respect to this article, so I don't think that would be a useful way to spend my time. If you looked through the first 10 pages as you said you did, you've already seen plenty of mainstream sources reporting on the controversy. If you dismiss them for whatever reason, then that's certainly your prerogative, but I'm not obligated to take it seriously. Croctotheface (talk) 20:17, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

That's a nice dust-off, if it were so easy, then why can't you just find one? Surely if it is so well represented you could find it within two pages? If it will plz you, I'll even find a neutral editor to comment on the situationSoxwon (talk) 20:19, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I could list dozens of mainstream sources, but they're all there within the results you say you looked at already. The bottom line here is that, yes, I am inclined to brush you off at this point because I don't think that anything I do or say will get you to support anything at all with respect to this article. Croctotheface (talk) 20:22, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

All I ask for is one, the NYT article used mentions the left-wing controversy, where is one directly addressing the issue? On a side note, I've asked Gwen Gale to comment. Soxwon (talk) 20:28, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

No idea why you think Gwen has any significance here that the rest of us don't (no offense, Gwen). At least you're up-front about canvassing. I'm inclined to agree with Croc -- it's pretty apparent from your persistence here and your obvious dancing in the section above that you're servicing an agenda and not acting in good faith -- and not really take your opinion all that seriously.  :( //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 20:42, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the personal attack, read WP:THIRD? I asked for a neutral admin, I've done so before and no one's objected. And I don't think you take any opinion contrary to your own seriously so I really don't care. I'm really growing tired of your POV-pushing. Soxwon (talk) 20:48, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Speaking only as a clumsy, clueless admin, does this have notable coverage and will it last? Could be and if that's true, I'd think this article would be where it belongs. However, I think content on this should only be sourced to articles which mostly deal with criticism of O'Reilly, not sundry fallout and moreover, given this is subpage of a BLP, only the most reliable sources should be cited, with the text closely tied to their content (quote if need be). The Daily Kos is borderline because some readers and editors will take it more as a gathering of ongoing blogs than as a web publication carrying articles: However, a blog posted on DK by a verifiable, published media expert with a reputation for fact checking might be ok. The pith is, be very wary of sources and don't let the article text span into something an editor might think they say, but they don't. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:52, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Alright, but wouldn't this go on The O'Reilly Factor article, rather than on his biography? With only one NYT article, this doesn't seem really notable to his life, but rather his show. Soxwon (talk) 20:57, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I looked at The O'Reilly Factor but it doesn't seem to deal much at all with specific incidents or criticism, so this would almost wholly throw off the weight of that article. If this article doesn't have a link there, too, it should. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:01, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Not sure I follow you. I'm saying that it should go there, rather than here, b/c the comments by O'Reilly were made mostly on the show, and were thus more a part of that than this. Soxwon (talk) 21:04, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Looks to me like a big swath of his current notability comes from the show and the criticism about Tiller is aimed squarely at him, not the show. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:08, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I see. However, is it really that big a portion of his life? I think a good comparison of this would be the Letterman incident going on. The main portion of it was put on the show's page, b/c the show was where it occurred. Another example would be Limbaugh, who had several controversies mentioned on his page, but the show page had them in greater detail, rather then blurbs. Soxwon (talk) 21:14, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Mind, O'Reilly's job is to stir up all kinds of political kerfluffle, so this kind of criticism is less of a personal smear from the outset (although there's a canny line which can't be crossed without overwhelming support from reliable sources). Anyway I don't know if it's a big portion of his life, but for now it seems to be a big portion of criticism about Bill O'Reilly. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:30, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Did you read WP:THIRD? It specifically talks about how and where to list a dispute (on WP:3O!), and when a circumstance qualifies). Specifically (emphasis in original):

If, after discussion, only two editors are involved, you may list the dispute below in the Active disagreements section.

So, why are you claiming justification via WP:THIRD when (1) this doesn't qualify; and (2) you didn't follow the process anyway? Just more evidence that you're not really interested in actually following Wiki practice or policy... //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 20:58, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

When I posted it, it was just Croctotheface and I. Secondly, again I've done this before with no complaints. Lastly, did you notice I didn't even start this topic? Soxwon (talk) 20:59, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

You believe you and Croc were the only two editors who have discussed the inclusion of the Tiller incident? I find myself unsurprised that you're trying to sell that with a straight face... Even if so, you didn't come close to following the WP:3O instructions. Ironically, the person from whom you sought opinion seems to squarely disagree with all of your points. Given your explicit acknowledgment that you won't change your stance, evidence be damned, I don't see any point in arguing with someone not here in good faith. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:04, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

No, but at that moment, we were the only two arguing as to whether it deserved inclusion in this article, or if it should be moved to the other page. And really, you never assumed good faith at all, so admitting only helps. Soxwon (talk) 21:07, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I think gathering input is always helpful, so long as it's not the dreaded WP:Forum shopping. Y'all, please comment on content and sources, not each other. Gwen Gale (talk)

Why not just do a RfC and see where this goes at this rate.... ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 19:47, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Someone could certainly file an RFC, but seriously, this subject has sufficient coverage to pass WP:N a hundred times over; there's no serious dispute about whether it merits inclusion. Croctotheface (talk) 19:52, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Blaxthos, we all know you're not an objective admin. Second of all, there is no evidence at all that Scott Roeder was an O'Reilly fan. This is like blaming the death of Private Long on Olbermann. Roeder was a radical who acted alone. Blaming anyone other than the shooter is irresponsible and appalling.PokeHomsar (talk) 16:26, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Ignoring the personal troll-bait, and focusing on the content (bait?)... the issue isn't whether O'Reilly is culpable or not, the issue is that he (O'Reilly) has been extensively criticized for creating an atmosphere conducive to violence and specifically targeting Tiller. Whether the criticism is valid or not is immaterial. Please see WP:V, specifically the very first sentence (emphasis in original): "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." Hope this helps. //Blaxthos ( t / c )

Except, you do not understand: unless Roeder was influenced by O'Reilly to kill Tiller, the whole point is moot. If O'Reilly's influence of a violent environment didn't incite Roeder, Roeder was not influenced by O'Reilly to go crazy and kill Tiller.PokeHomsar (talk) 16:42, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

What policy do you believe justifies your assertion? //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 17:20, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I think the policy of common sense. Or is that not a policy on Wikipedia, Blax? If there is no evidence at all connecting O'Reilly's rhetoric to Roeder, than there's no way that O'Reilly influenced Roeder. I would credit the crazy anti-abortion group Roeder belonged to as inditing his behavior, since he was a member of it well before O'Reilly started reporting on Tiller. Common sense should win the day here. But, when it comes to politics, common sense is always the first casualty. Then, common decency goes out the window.PokeHomsar (talk) 17:41, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

No, "common sense" is not a policy, however WP:V is (and seems to be directly on point). In this sort of circumstance, I'm sure you will understand the community choosing Policy.  :) //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 17:55, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Except you can't verify anything about the story. There's no connection, so thusly, it can neither be verified nor confirmed.PokeHomsar (talk) 18:07, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

The verification is that the criticism exists, not that it's true or not. Again, please see WP:V, specifically the very first sentence (emphasis in original): "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 18:18, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I've gotta go with Blax and Croc on this one. It's like previous debates Wikipedia editors have had over accusations of bias against Fox News and MSNBC. The threshold was not to prove bias but to prove that "reliable sources" had made accusations of bias. So here, the threshold is prove that some critics (of some substance) have accused O'Reilly of promoting an atmosphere of violence around Tiller. It is not to prove that O'Reilly actually did influence Roeder in his violent act. Badmintonhist (talk) 18:40, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

General Changes

So both sides are satisfied, I'd be willing to drop the "Though initially..." though I think it would be important to note what got the ball rolling. I also inserted abortion into the first paragraph, as w/o it the reader hasn't a clue why he was killed or why he was labeled "baby killer." (though they could probably assume from the label he's an abortion doctor rather than a mass murderer). Soxwon (talk) 21:46, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

The section could use work in general, to be honest. I think that we should refocus the criticism away from centering on "incitement" and toward those who criticized O'Reilly for overheated and irresponsible rhetoric that took on an especially tragic and unfortunate character when Tiller was murdered. I suspect that you might find that the version I'd ultimately like to see more agreeable. However, for the time being, I don't understand this whole "initially" business or why some editors feel it's so important to associate this criticism with liberals. Well, I guess I do have a guess as to why editors feel it's so important, but that guess butts up pretty strongly against the presumption of good faith I try to maintain toward other Wikipedians. Croctotheface (talk) 22:47, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Well as I said, I'd be willing to get rid of it, but Arzel brought it up again. I think the purpose it might be intended for is to show how the ball got rolling, but that's only speculation. I'll take it out if that's what everyone wants. Also, if you have any other changes you feel necessary go ahead and make them. Soxwon (talk) 22:54, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I bring it up because it is eminently clear that this whole thing started because of criticism from the left. The initial stories are all from the point of view that the left was criticising BOR, and it is doubtful that it would even be an issue if left-wing bloggers had not made an issue. Clearly, BOR's verbal attacks on Tiller were not notable prior to Tiller's death. The goal of some here to try and make it appear that it was MSM in general on the attack of BOR is simply not true and not verifiable. BTW. Croc, I did include another sentence to imply wider criticism, and you deleted it. Arzel (talk) 21:01, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but there's no valid reason to separate some of the critics here -- the order in which they were presented is irrelevant. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:08, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

The order is irrelevant? I don't suppose you can back up that statement. I really don't see how you can honestly claim that this was not started if not for the strong attacks directed against BOR from left-wing bloggers and media commentators. There is undeniable and verifiable references that clearly make the disctintion. Arzel (talk) 04:35, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I haven't seen a source cited that says no non-left wingers would have criticized O'Reilly if not for the left wingers who did. Did I miss where that source was cited? If we're just sort of going by our gut here, then I have to say that I'd be shocked if O'Reilly were not criticized for this regardless of what left wingers said or when they said it. By the way, I don't recall a source that said initially liberals were doing the criticism, but then it was picked up by non-liberals later. Did I miss that one as well? Croctotheface (talk) 04:38, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Removed, any other changes? Soxwon (talk) 04:52, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

The first paragraph should give more background on the criticism itself. I think what's most important is that we focus less exclusively on "role he had in the shooting" or "incitement" criticisms and more of the irresponsible/poor taste/callousness criticisms, as I think they're both more widespread and more relevant. Croctotheface (talk) 05:10, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Alright, ideally these criticisms will come from critics that are qualified, do you have any that pretty summarize the field of criticism? Soxwon (talk) 05:47, 23 June 2009 (UTC)