Talk:Criticism of Bill O'Reilly/Archive 4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Need for a seperate Article

Hi, I randomly came across this article, and I'm a bit curious as to why it needs to be seperated from the main Bill O'Reilly article. Typically, every celeberty page has some sort of criticism section connected to it. I don't quite understand why a completly seperate article needs to be maintained. I attempted to look into the archives, but I didn't see this discussion before. Please forgive me if you have been over this already. If you haven't, would someone mind explaining this to me? Thank you. --Tarage 20:23, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Probably because this article is very long, and it used to be longer. Croctotheface 21:03, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Reguardless, I'm just looking at similar entries on people in the media, and I don't see a 'Criticism of Chris Matthews'. Granted, I understand that O'Reilly is a more contaversial figure, but does it warent a completly seperate article? Do we need an article of the 'criticism of the criticism of Bill O'Reilly?' --Tarage 00:40, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

The fact that our treatment of other controversial figures, especially less controversial ones, should not necessarily be the model here. It may be the case that this would be a better model for our treatment of others. Second, this would be a fine place to put criticism of the criticism. Croctotheface 03:02, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

That last part was a bit of sarcasm, but I should appologize, as it was rude. I still don't understand the neccesity of having a seperate article. It gives the appearance of playing favorites, and concidering how much of this article is facing NPOV arguments, wouldn't it simply be easier to merge it? --Tarage 06:25, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Given the amount of criticism leveled at BOR it would be very difficult to write an article in a neutral tone by inclusion into the primary article, and the entire article would read like an attack on BOR. Arzel 20:13, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Isn't that what we have now? =\ --Tarage 06:35, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

It's not inappropriate for the "Criticism of O'Reilly" article to read like criticism. It would be inappropriate for the "Bill O'Reilly" article to do that. Besides, I don't think any of these criticisms are particularly unfair or lacking in merit. O'Reilly invites controversy. Croctotheface 07:16, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Pandering to Fox

It's pretty clear that this should not be a seperate article. The only reason is to protect O'Reilly. No other figure like O'Reilly has such a division. And where is mention of O'Reilly's repeated lies about Malmady and support for the Nazi version of that event? O'Reilly gets a pass again.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Abraxus rex (talk • contribs) — Abraxus rex (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

New "Race" section

The passage does not assert that O'Reilly was criticized. Croctotheface 21:20, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Obviously this is something that people are going to try and interject into this article, the only question is going to be how it is worded. O'Reilly today stated that he was trying to illustrate how the perception of black america being taken over by Rappers (sp?) and the like is a misconception and that the real black america is no different than white america. He blames Media Matters for taking his quotes out of context, and he has had some black leaders come to his defense as well. I propose it be removed for now while it is still fluid, and probably be put back into the article in neutral tone. Arzel 22:44, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't mind including it. It's getting mainstream coverage. However, the fomulations I reverted did not assert a criticism was made. Basically all of these sections should have a sentence that says "So-and-so criticized O'Reilly for", or a sentence that says much the same thing. There is clearly a foundation for criticism, and there clearly has been. However, to include that section, it should say what criticism was made and by whom, O'Reilly's response, response to the response, and so on, until it gets circular. I don't see a context issue here, though. The critics saw the way he spoke and the words he used as reflecting ignorance regarding black people. O'Reilly saw them as a way to communicate his feeling that black people are not so different. It's a difference of opinion over how to interpret what he said, not whether there was sufficient context present. Croctotheface 23:09, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Just to be clear: right now, the version that is going in and out of the article says basically, "On [date 1], O'Reilly said X. On [date 2], O'Reilly and others defended X as being about Y." There is no sentence where he is criticized for saying X. There is no evidence in that version of the section that describes criticism or controversy. I am not saying there is no criticism or contoversy; I know for a fact that it exists. However, it must be mentioned here, or else the section it does not belong. Croctotheface 23:12, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I restored the section and added that he was criticized by Media Matters, as well as Sharpton's reaction. Ward3001 00:59, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Although I think it is an unnecessary delaying tactic, I have been requested to leave this out until there is consensus. Consensus does not mean overwhelming majority. So far I don't see a huge degree of opposition to including this section, only to the specific wording. I will wait for now, but not for unneeded delays. Here is the section as I restored it. Please point out specific flaws, if any:

On the September 19, 2007 edition of The Radio Factor, while having a discussion about racial stereotypes with African American author and commentator Juan Williams^[1][2], O'Reilly mentioned a lunch he had with Rev. Al Sharpton at Sylvia's restaurant in Harlem. During the lengthy conversation, he is reported as saying that he "couldn't get over the fact that there was no difference between Sylvia's restaurant and any other restaurant in New York City. I mean, it was exactly the same, even though it's run by blacks, primarily black patronship." He later commented that, "There wasn't one person in Sylvia's who was screaming, 'M-Fer, I want more iced tea"^[3][4].

Karl Frisch, spokesman for Media Matters, said O'Reilly's comments were "ignorant and racially charged." Sharpton said he was taken aback that anyone would be surprised at how blacks acted at Sylvia's and will ask O'Reilly to explain what he meant. A spokesperson for Sharpton said that O'Reilly did not say anything offensive at the dinner. ^[5]

Ward3001 01:13, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I believe if this is to be included, then O'Reilly's response and the reaction to Media Matters(which they are getting criticized for) by others for this should be included also. MrMurph101 01:25, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with that, and invite anyone to add such information with citation(s) from reputable source(s). Ward3001 01:33, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I think the quotes used by MM should be removed from the crititism. I just listed to the entire broadcast, and MM takes two basic comments to promote their point of view. MM also leaves out a large section of the transcript, which when included give an entirely different perspective of the situation. In essence, MM is driving this criticism, which a respected black author has strongly denounced. It is clear that by listening to the entire broadcast, that O'Reilly, is trying to point out that places like Sylvia's is what black america is really about, and that the rap culture gives a negative impression regarding blacks. What is most interesting is that BOR actually criticizes mainstream media, which is predominately run by whites, for driving this impression that blacks are predominately the rap culture. If it is to be included, it should be known that this criticism comes directly from MM, and reinforce the idea that BOR was trying to portray, that black america is a respectable and important part of america, aside from the rappers, which he loathes with a passion. The comments from MM calling him ignorant should be removed. It should be known that MM has as a goal to have BOR kicked off the air, and this is a perfect example of that kind of attack. Arzel 01:44, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Look, this is an article on criticism of O'Reilly, regardless of whether any of us agree with the criticisms. Including MM criticism is legitimate because it is criticism. Rather than removing criticism because you disagree with it, provide the counterpoints to the criticisms. Add other points of view, but don't remove criticism. There is no consensus against including the section, and one of the primary critics is MM. Leave it. Ward3001 01:57, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

The factual accuracy of the criticism is not the issue as much as the notability of it. There has been mainstream coverage of it and debate about it beyond just Media Matters and O'Reilly. The issue has been reported by third parties so it is worthy of mentioning. If it was just another Media Matters "attack" that no one covers then there is no real notability in it. What needs to be done is put it in proper context in a NPOV way and cover the entire scope of the issue. MrMurph101 02:06, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I disgree that MM is not notable. But I agree that "the entire scope of the issue" should be presented. And, again, I invite anyone to do so with citations from reliable sources. Ward3001 02:12, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it's not the notability of MM but the notability of the content. It's not notable when there is no outside coverage of the matter. This is actually a sticking point, among a few, in the George Soros article about including O'Reilly's criticism because of lack of third party coverage. No one is arguing the O'Reilly is not notable there and that article has been locked for months and many are sick of discussing it. Anyway, I'm just saying that it's best to have a third party, preferably non-editorializing, source when including a criticism. MrMurph101 02:30, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Maybe I'm missing something here, but I fail to see how critics can be neutral, "non-editorializing", or whatever term you wish to use. By definition, critics are taking a side. They may be reported by unbiased sources (such as a newspaper), but it is impossible to have an article about criticsim of anyone without including someone's "editorializing" point of view. And, of course, counter agruments certainly should be included if available. Ward3001 02:43, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

(outdent)I said preferably. To me, the USA Today article in this case satisfies that criterion for me. It's more about the notability than the content itself. I wasn't gonna go into it but I wrote an essay arguing for guidelines in how the content of criticisms should be included due to how inconsistently it is applied in various articles based on the POV of editors who are motivated to edit a given article. I do not believe we have any major disagreement here, I just do not seem to be expressing what I'm trying to say too clearly. :) MrMurph101 03:01, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the "notability" argument, first of all, let's be clear with terms. The criticism need not satisfy WP:N, just WP:V. Second, this has been reported on by Good Morning America and, I would guess, other mainstream sources. Croctotheface 05:01, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Tell that to those who are resisting O'Reilly's criticism in the Soros article. MrMurph101 22:28, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

This section is becoming a WP:COATRACK We should really work on condensing it. Arzel 13:52, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I disagree that, at the current time, the section is a WP:COATRACK, which is based on the assumption that it is a nominal subject and a cover for a bias subject. I think the attention this issue has gotten, here and elsewhere, rules out the nominal part. And differing perspectives are presented to avoid the bias part. I'll repeat what I've said earlier: This is an article on criticism of O'Reilly; it is not the main biographical article on O'Reilly. Criticism necessitates points of view. That's not to say that the section can't become a coatrack, but not right now. If anything is becoming a coatrack, it's this discussion, but that's OK because Talk pages aren't required to adhere to NPOV. Ward3001 15:24, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what the title of the article is. Issues of WP:BLP apply to all articles regarding bibliographical information regarding a subject. Just because X says they are critical of BOR because of this, doesn't neccesisitate that it be included in the article. Arzel 16:56, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

First of all, I don't see where WP:BLP has been violated, so if it has, please explain. Secondly, "X says they are critical of BOR" may not necessitate inclusion, but it is perfectly appropriate to include criticism covered in mainstream media. An article on criticism can be much more inclusive of verifiable criticisms compared to the main biographical article. Otherwise there is no need for a separate article, or even a separate section on criticism. I don't think there's much disagreement that BOR is controversial, regardless of how much we agree or disagree with him. A core principle of Wikipedia is that the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth, and that's particularly true of an article on criticism. Ward3001 17:09, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

What I see is an issue where everyone that has something bad to say about BOR is having their comments included within this section stemming primarily from the presentation given by MM which has been denounced by many as a distortion of what BOR was saying. Almost all that has been presented as criticism is based off the presentation given by MM. Additionally, the weight given to those criticizing BOR seems to imply a stronger condenmation of the even then is truly the case. Additionally, there are problems within this case of using MM as a source for secondary criticism. Especially, now that there is evidence that MM may have presented BOR out of context (they made no attempt to clarify the context of the situation). Arzel 22:27, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Your point of view is identical to Bill O'Reilly's. We should represent that point of view as well as others. I don't think you have evidence that people were "duped" by MMfA. In fact, many people criticized O'Reilly both for the original comments and for lashing out at MM after the fact. Croctotheface 23:18, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Don't think so. Everyone that I have seen criticize BOR has done so based off the report by MM, and then criticized BOR's criticism of MM. Those that have come to BOR defense have actually listened to the entire broadcast and understood the context of what was said. BOR does say some stupid things, but to get denegrated as making racist comments for trying to open the eyes of whites that African Americans are more than just Rap is simply disgusting. Arzel 23:34, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Your argument, which is O'Reilly's argument, seems to use circular logic. You assume what you purport to be proving. You and O'Reilly purport to be proving that his comments are not racist. To do this, the argument is something like: 1. O'Reilly's overall attitude was racially tolerant. 2. O'Reilly's attitude was reflected in his full remarks. 3. So, anyone who thinks otherwise did not read or listen to his full remarks. That doesn't actually respond to the nature of the comments he made. He just assumes that they can't be racist; he doesn't explain why they're not. By contrast, the other argument is something like: 1. O'Reilly expressed surprise that black people act like white people do when they're at a restaurant. 2. O'Reilly said that black people are just now starting to value education. 3. Both of these attitudes rely on stereotypes and ignorance of how many black people live. 4. Therefore, O'Reilly's comments are ignorant and racially charged. Someone like Geist talked about listening to the whole segment and finding that the more he heard, the worse O'Reilly came off. That his overall attitude seemed grounded in surprise that black people can conduct themselves politely in a restaurant or dress the same as white people when they go to a show. O'Reilly, on the other hand, maintains, essentially, that it's impossible to say anything that stereotypes black people or is ignorant of how black people live if you are trying to make an overall point that people should not be ignorant or use stereotypes. In this case, O'Reilly just seems incapable of recognizing his condescending, ignorant, and paternalistic attitude toward black people. It's not the first time a white person has done that.

I hashed out this argument not because this is a forum to discuss the issue, but because you want the article to accept O'Reilly's point of view as its own and refuse to fairly represent the other side. The other side HAS a point. Per WP:NPOV, we have to acknowledge it. Croctotheface 01:52, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I'll comment later this weekend when I have more time. Arzel 14:09, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Removed section from Controversial topics discussed by O'Reilly

I removed the above section from Controversial topics discussed by O'Reilly. Quite honestly, I'd hardly consider this to be a controversial topic. Simply having someone reply to one of your statements is not a "controversial", it's simply another commutator giving their opinion on the topic. One of those sources is also Media Matters, and their hardly going to give a NPOV with O'Reilly, who they have a "beef" with. Any thoughts? CO₂ 22:12, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I have one thought, somewhat off the topic of Jennifer Moore, but relevant to your edit. Why do you think you have the right to remove an entire section before discussing it on the Talk page? That's not exactly the way things are usually done on Wikipedia. Ward3001 22:21, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Alright, I've reverted. However, what's your thoughts on the inclusion of this section into the article? I'd consider it to be "non notable" "controversy". It hardly received any attention other a few comments made by Media Matters, which doesn't like O'Reilly, and another commentators opinion. CO₂ 22:25, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, that other commentator gave his opinion on what O'Reilly said as well as his opinion on the issue. Also, to be clear, standard for inclusion here is not "notability" in the WP:N sense, but rather verifiability. Croctotheface 01:18, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

There is no real consensus on that clarity. It is verifiable that O'Reilly is a critic of Soros yet editors refuse to have that info in his article even when completely watered down and with third party sources. If the standard for O'Reilly was the same as Soros this article probably would not exist. This is an inconsistency that sorely needs to be addressed. MrMurph101 01:42, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Mrmurph, I'm not sure why you mentioned Soros, maybe another thread is needed for that discussion? Croctotheface, even if it is verifiable, that doesn't mean it is worth mentioning. I personally think this section has nothing to do with the criticism of O'Reilly, it's just a passing remark made by another commentator. If we are going to include this section, we should include nearly anything that receives any sort of comment or remark made, because those are all verifiable as well. CO₂ 02:33, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree that we can use editorial judgment as well. I did not say that any verifiable material relating to the topic should be included. I brought that up to make sure that we were not confusing "notable" in the sense of being "important enough to mention" with "notable" in the sense of WP:N. Croctotheface 02:51, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Right. I don't think this subject/topic is particularly important though, I don't see it as a major part of Criticism of Bill O'Reilly. Media Matters, one of the sources is always bashing him, and the other, like I said before, is another commentator. I think this section should be removed personally. Any thoughts on this? CO₂ 03:03, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I think that it's fine to include or fine to remove. At this point, we're getting more and more controversies and criticisms that are genuinely widespread. This one does seem minor by comparison. Still, I don't think we do any disservice including it. Croctotheface 03:16, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

The Soros comparison is relevant to this discussion even if only tangential. It may be splitting hairs to distinguish between WP:N and importance. It was not considered worthy to have O'Reilly's criticism of Soros if it just sourced the criticism to O'Reilly himself. WP:N was interpreted in that case as not having third party sources to justify that inclusion. Ironically, using MM to source O'Reilly's criticism was not considered reliable. Back to this discussion, it might be better to take this section out of the article unless there is notable coverage of it. This could be a good burden to use when deciding inclusion of any proposed material and would help satisfy any blp issues. MrMurph101 14:26, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

If a subject meets the criteria outlined at WP:N, then it would merit its own Wikipedia article. WP:N answers questions like, "Does this topic deserve an article?" WP:V answers questions like, "Can this content be included in an article?" Just get clear on this, please. You want to look at WP:V for sourcing questions, not WP:N. I'm not sure where Soros has to do with this: if there is something going on at the George Soros article, that doesn't necessarily affect what happens here. Editors there establish one kind of consensus, we can establish another. If they seem to be different approaches to the same question, it may be because different standards are appropriate for different articles, or perhaps one consensus is appropriate according to WP's operating principles and another is not. In time, the inappropriate consensus consensus will come around and become appropriate. That's generally how things work. Croctotheface 15:09, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but calling a NPOV dispute on the "Harlem Restaurant comments" hardly seems warranted to me. Just because Bill O'Reiley likes to call Media Matters For America a "Smear" site doesn't make it so. MMFA always gives the complete transcript of whatever they are covering as well as a clip of the radio or TV show. Besides, they are hardly the only source quoted in this section, so where is the NPOV dispute? You wanna find a different point of veiw on the topic and post it? Go right ahead, but don't pretend that there's a NPOV problem here when there isn't one. NPOV flag removed. --Allthenamesarealreadytaken 19:59, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Don't remove NPOV flags until resolution. Regarding MM and the Harlem Restaurant issue, MM did not include the entire transcript (Audio or Written) of the discussion with Jaun Williams. I believe the credibility of MM as a RS is in question. Arzel 14:08, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

This thread is not about the Harlem restaurant comments but another section. Although I'm a little guilty of going off topic here also. :) MrMurph101 02:39, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how this section is important enough to include in this article. CO₂ 20:19, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Notability vs. importance and the inclusion of critical material

I think that I should have used WP:IS(I know it's only an essay) instead of WP:N just to clear things up. I just want to get to the heart of the matter to which CO brought up in the last thread. I strongly believe that the inclusion of critical material should be consistent across the board. If we bring up the arguments in the Soros article as to why we should not include the O'Reilly criticism then we should apply that here also and everywhere for that matter. One of the reasons to not the include this info was because there were no independent sources covering O'Reilly's criticism so therefore it's not worth mentioning. The other reason for not including it was that this was an "attack" and in violation of blp so therefore we can't include this.

Ok, let us translate this and replace Soros with O'Reilly and O'Reilly with MM. Based on this, if only MM is cited in criticizing BOR, then it should not be included because no other independent sources. Second, since O'Reilly believes MM are "smear merchants" using them would be considered an "attack" and therefore using them for citing O'Reilly criticism would be violating blp and should not be included. I am not saying it should be this way. What I am really asking for is consistency in applying how to critical material should be included since it is such a touchy subject. I can go along with critical material(sourced of course) being included or being compeletely left out or any point in between. It just needs to be consistenly applied and some sort of guidelines are badly needed. Ok, I'm done :) MrMurph101 02:39, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

My point remains that if htey have this or that consensus at Talk:George Soros, that does not somehow make it Wikipedia policy. If they develop a different set of principles regarding similar issues, it could be because the issues there are not so similar, or it could be because they have a different approach to editing. Because they have a certain approach, it does not follow that we should adopt it. Likewise, because we have a certain approach, it does not follow that they should adopt it over there. Croctotheface 23:15, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Why is this article being recommended for deletion?

Let me first apologize for not reading all of the threads posted below. I have skimmed them, however, and I cannot find a single reason in the article itself or on the discussion page as to why it should be deleted.

Everything in this article is factual and properly citied. O'Reilly is a controversial figure. Can anyone possibly refute that? Moving this information to either the main Bill O'Reilly article or the O'Reilly Factor article will not help either. Both of those articles are too large and bloated as it is.

Additionally, why is there a neutrality dispute over O'Reilly's race comments after having dinner with Al Sharpton? The media has covered this in detail. O'Reilly obviously stuck his foot in it, and now some overzealous WP editors are trying to make this a one-sided debate. If you feel that the section isn't neutral enough, simply quote O'Reilly's response to the criticism. Don't automatically tag it as POV. BadMojoDE 23:42, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

It should never have been nominated. --Statsone 04:03, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Peter Hart section

Murph, regarding the Soros parallel from your edit summary, are you saying that at George Soros, their position is that it's OK to have 63 words with a parahphrase but not 103 words with a direct quote? The quote does a much better job than the parahphrase--it shows exactly what Hart said. The cost of that is spending 40 more words. I'm not really sure what you're saying here. Could you help me? Croctotheface 03:12, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I missed the bit about Soros but I agree with your point. It is a direct quote and could be used. Nothing to do with BLP --Statsone 04:05, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

It's more complex than that. If it's that important for you to keep it that way I'm not going to revert it anymore. I actually put that info in there originally which was already in The O'Reilly Factor article. Anyway, if you want to look over the long, never ending debate at Talk:George Soros you'll probably have a better understanding at what I'm talking about. I just want to understand why this entry is ok while quoting O'Reilly criticizing Soros is so unacceptable and even a compromise to water it down by taking out direct quotes can't even get consensus and that article remains locked. I know you'll say(and have said) that this situation is different and editors motivated to edit different articles are going to come to different consensuses so just deal with it. I can not. This is inconsistency at best and really an issue of systemic bias that needs to be addressed. I really do not care if criticism of O'Reilly or anyone else of any persuasion whether presented as quotes or whatever. It just seems a real problem when one form a sourced criticism is acceptable while in another article a similar situation is presented it is considered a "smear" or "attack" mainly based on personal feelings and it can't be included unless there is a "strong consensus" to include. There is just something wrong with this picture here. MrMurph101 23:29, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Without having read through the stuff at the Soros article, my expectation would be that I would not object to quoting O'Reilly, or at least listing him as a critic. However, I can see reasons why the situation may not be totally similar. Croctotheface 23:38, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I think we agree generally with the issue. The only difference I see is that, all things being equal, O'Reilly would have more critical material due to his controversial nature. I don't expect Soros to have an equal amount of critical material and wouldn't tally up every critical entry on any article. The real issue is what standard we should use when including a criticism and not be wishy-washy about it from article to article. MrMurph101 01:52, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Upbringing - Working Class vs Middle Class

Did the historian on the Al Franken show actually say that BOR grew up in a middle class neighborhood and NOT a working-class neighborhood? Or is this synthesis of material that the historian said the neighborhood was middle class which would contridict with BOR's claim of working class? Because the terms are somewhat interchangable. Arzel 15:56, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

There is another issue in this section. It was taken out and then put back in just recently. The quote that O'Reilly said his father "never earned more than $35,000 in his life" and how fair translates that in 1978 dollars with being equivalent to 90,000 in 2001 dollars. Ok, this appears fine, but it ignores that facts that this was the year O'Reilly's father retired and one usually makes the most money their last year of work. This can be interpreted in many different ways and is at best inconclusive. Either we can write in all the possible interpretations to truly make this paragraph NPOV or just get rid of it which may be the best way to go. MrMurph101 22:18, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

The historian was very clera; she used words like "exaggeration" and talked about how if O'Reilly lived in the working class neighborhood, he would've been part of such-and-such high school district, and how he went to a private Catholic school anyway, and a bunch of other stuff You can listen to the broadcast--I posted a link to a site with the audio. Unsurprisingly, the anti-Franken group omitted all of that stuff from their Youtube video. Regarding the FAIR business, I think that their comment is basically factual. The issue I could see of that is that it doesn't articulate a criticism, not that it doesn't try to rationalize how ludicrous it is to say that you don't come from any lower on an economic scale. Basically, the interview with O'Reilly's mom belied a lot of the notion that O'Reilly's upbringing was hardscrabble; I suspect that Franken seized on the Westbury thing becuase, to someone who didn't live there, it seemed like an unambiguous lie. But his mother also talked about being able to send Bill to private school, taking yearly Forida vacations...the criticism that he sought to minimize how much money his family had is valid. Croctotheface 23:13, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I just finished listening to the entire section with the historian. The historian was clear on a few issues, but somewhat vague on other issues. Part of the problem is the defintion of town and soforth. She stated clearly that BOR did grow up in Levitown, and he grew up in Westbury. He did attend a private Catholic school, however this is not that notable as most Catholics attended Catholic school if the choice was available. She did not specifically make the statement that he grew up in a middle class neighborhood versus a working class neighborhood. I didn't hear her even mention working class. Franken did say that Levittown was working class. After listening to the historian I get the feeling that they are both right and both wrong. Franken is right in that BOR did not grown up in a poor area (ie did have it better than some), but he is technically wrong in stating that BOR grew up in the more upscale Westbury. BOR is right in that he grew up in Levittown, and he didn't have it as good as Franken would lead you to believe. But he is wrong to state that he had it rough. Now this is a matter of perception I suppose from BOR. Growing up where he did (according to the historian) BOR very well probably felt like he had it rough compared to his schoolmates, whom he has stated came from more affluent neighborhoods. As to the delinitation of middle class and working class, it is mostly semantics. By the pure definition of working class, and the description of Levittown in general BOR grew up in a working class neighborhood with a working class father. But working class doesn't just mean poor, and he clearly wasn't poor, and in this sense also would have been classified as growing up in a middle class neighborhood. This is probably what lead to the historian to use the word "exageration" without explicitly stating that BOR was lying.

As such I removed the comparison of middle class and working class as possible synthesis of material, but left in the "hardscrabble" comment which certainly seems apt. Arzel 23:51, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I think your edit is fine. If it mattered, I might quibble with some of what you said here, but I don't think there's any reason to, since the current version is neutral. Croctotheface 00:15, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

More about the racial comments

All you have to do is go to his shows website and listen to the full recording of the conversation about the Harlem restaurant, it is VERY CLEAR that the media manipulated the recording to make him sound racist. We need to show the EVIDENCE that he isn't racist, not just list the COMMENTS calling him racist.

Wikipedia has better standards than this, we should not be smearing public figures! Listen to the recording, anyone who does will know that it was an intelligent discussion about how some people fear African Americans because of the rap and gangster stuff.

Just because CNN and NBC say it doesn't mean it's true, the evidence speaks for itself. Contralya 07:20, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

We've discussed this for a while. We represent O'Reilly's opinion in the article. I think that both you and he would do well to realize that people (such as Geist, who is quoted in the article) heard everything O'Reilly said and still felt that his attitude was condescending, ignorant, and stereotyped black people. The idea that the critics somehow allege that he was spewing hate for black people and the fact that he wasn't absolves him of any criticism for the remarks he did make...I don't see where you would get that from. Croctotheface 10:28, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

No, the news just used those few phrases, and didn't take into account the entire conversation, even if they say they did. Listen to it yourself! (though it is like an hour long) Contralya 12:27, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

But what is your point? The article does say that O'Reilly took issue with the criticism. As far as "taking into account the entire conversation", I know that he was generally trying to make the point that black people and white people are basically the same, and I know that he praised certain black people during the course of the segment. You seem to assume that a person is incapable of saying racially ignorant things or stereotyping a race of people in the middle of what is supposed to be a "pro-racial equality" segment. That doesn't follow. Unless these news reports said that he was in the middle of some sort of racist harangue, which to the best of my knowledge, nobody said, then what they did was report on controversial part, which is newsworthy, and leave out the rest, which is not. Croctotheface 12:35, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

This may be a bit off topic, but I'm sure there are others who have the same question: Could someone please tell me how to access the recording of the broadcast without paying for it? I looked over BOR's website but could only find paid access. Ward3001 15:09, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Here is the link to the page with an audio link. Arzel 23:09, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I listened to the first 6 minutes of that, and it seemed that MM got it about right. Granted the "thinking more and more for themselves" is mitigated by the later comment about Sharpton and Jackson, but he chose the order of those statements poorly (first impression and all that). The Sylvia's comments just blew me away. Prior to listening to that I really thought that MM was taking it out of context, but now it seems they weren't. As Croctotheface rightly points out, two different people can listen to the exact same thing and hear two different things. Personally, I'd be a little worried about anyone who didn't think the Sylvia's comments were disturbing as it suggests that they can understand where Bill is coming from… (Thanks for the link, btw.) Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:37, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

The media acts like he was SURPRISED that the Africans weren't rappers. That is were they lie. He was talking about how his grandmother thought from the television that all Africans were rappers and did drugs and stuff, he was saying that this is prejudice that he doesn't share and he condemns the ignorance. The news took his comments way out of context and painted him as a racist. Contralya 21:17, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, no, he did say that he "couldn't get over" the fact that a restaurant owned by blacks was similar to a restaurant owned by whites. He said that black people are "just starting to think for themselves". I don't really see what other meaning comments like that could have, particularly the ones about thinking and valuing education. Croctotheface 21:46, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

No, that is not quite what he said. Under the context that the "Sharpton's and Jackson's" tell black Americans how to think he said. I think black Americans are starting to think more and more for themselves. Under the premise from which made his comment there should be no controversy surrounding that comment. From the wording his toughts are that black Americans do think for themselves, and are listening less and less to Sharpton and Jackson. MM does a nice job of taking that out of context as well by stating that quote after the "M'fer" comment. Arzel 23:09, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Quote mining on behalf of groups like Media Matters. Carbon Monoxide 23:30, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I bet he said it BACK THEN, or was saying he thought it back then, I haven't listened to the radio thing (not worth the money), but if he recommended people listen to it and it had him actually being racist, he would go out of business. Face it, the Media covered it wrong, they spun it to smear him. Media matters specializes in editing quotes, like they did for that radio guy. I know for CERTAIN that he wasn't talking about veterans who protested the war, he was talking about people who dropped out of or failed training, and claim that they are veterans. If they can manipulate the radio guy's audio, they can do it to this guy. Never listen to that site, they doctor their information. Just because places like NBC and CNN show it doesn't mean it's true. They like to manipulate stories. Like how they NEVER show the stable areas of Iraq, and how they act like that Ann Coulter or whatever name was wasn't joking about women voting. Contralya 06:53, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Jeremy Glick citation

Sorry about posting this but I'm a little unclear on something. There's a "citation required" in the section about Jeremy Glick next to the quote that Mr O'Reilly said after the commercial break. Watching videos of the interview on youtube I was able to hear it for myself but would a link like this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3BAFb97L3KU be sufficient for a citation or is something else required? Thanks. Maestro1ca 16:50, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Feuds with other media personalities

Wouldn't these be better posted on the other personalities pages since these feuds seem to be one sided attacks on O'Reilly rather than a back and forth feud? It seems rather undue weight-y to place these large chunks of text on this page rather than that of those who are feuding at him. Kyaa the Catlord 09:48, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, this is the Criticism of Bill O'Reilly article. You'd be right if this were just the Bill O'Reilly article. Also, they might also be appropriate on the other personalities page, if they're not already included there. In your opinion, which criticisms deserve more weight? Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 13:11, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

O'Reilly has taken shots at both Franken and Olbermann although he does not mention Olbermann by name anymore, referring to him as "elements at NBC" I believe. We could either add some of O'Reilly's responses to show there is a feud there or just change the section title to "Criticism from other media personalities." MrMurph101 23:29, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

If O'Reilly's responses provide balance to the article, I think we should include them. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:38, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

In order to keep the "feuds" heading, I'd say these need to be fleshed out. Or perhaps a section name change to something along the lines of "Attacks on O'Reilly from other media personalities" would be better suited if we can't document these as a feud. Kyaa the Catlord 03:58, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I see what you're saying. If they are feuds, they should be fleshed out. If they're just one-way criticisms, the section should be renamed to "Criticism from other media personalities". ("Attacks" sounds a little more POV to me, and since this is in a O'Reilly specific article, I don't think we need to specify that the criticism is about him.) If there's a mixture, perhaps two sections could be created, depending on how many of each there are. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:33, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Sources for Criticism by Different People Listed in Intro Paragraph

I saw people like Savage, Rivera, Scarborough and Smith were listed as people whom have criticized O'Reilly. I think that anyone listed in this intro should have the criticism sourced. I do know that Savage has made fun of O'Reilly for his promotional material on billoreilly.com and Scarborough has also criticized O'Reilly's comments about MSNBC. Rivera just has a different POV than O'Reilly's...I don't think that just because someone disagrees with someone doesnt mean they are criticizing them, but rather criticizing their opinion, thus should not be mentioned. Arnabdas 16:42, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Rivera definitely criticized O'Reilly quite heavily on Bill's position regarding a drunk driver who was an illegal immigrant

Bill O'Reilly and Geraldo Rivera. (2007-04-05). The O'Reilly Factor. Fox News. Retrieved on 2007-10-26. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 16:54, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I understand that people disagree with O'Reilly, but criticizing him as a person or his method of analysis for his commentary? Arnabdas 16:02, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Right, it's fair to say that probably doesn't apply to Rivera, since most of the time they agree (I think).

However, why is the analysis limited to those criticisms as opposed to criticisms of his POV on particular issues? Is it because the article would be far too unwieldy otherwise? Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 16:22, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

When Rivera had his CNBC that was at the same time as O'Reilly there were some shots back and forth although not nearly to the extent as there is with Olbermann. But that is ancient history now. Anyway, there should be some sort of general agreement of who or what constitutes a critic/criticism. A one time criticism or disagreement by someone not generally known to be a critic of O'Reilly probably not worth mentioning. If the criticism is an example of a more general theme that others have picked up on also, then it can merit inclusion. To me, that might be the best way to do it. MrMurph101 01:11, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Deleted archives

Why were archives two, three and four deleted? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.103.148.245 (talk) 11:55, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure that they were deleted, I think the links are currently incorrect. Archive 2 seems to be located here. Can someone figure out how to fix the links?-Hal Raglan 22:35, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Mark Cuban

I am moving the Mark Cuban section here for discussion. It contains some inaccuracies, plus it is not currently referenced, nor is there any specific mention of controversy regarding BOR at this time. Arzel 23:23, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

For now, I'm not sure that this is significant enough to mention, even if the writing and sourcing were impeccable. Croctotheface 23:28, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Mark Cuban

During his November 12, 2007 "Talking Points," O'Reilly called HDNet Chairman and Dallas Mavericks Owner Mark Cuban "unamerican" for his involvement in the distribution of "Redacted," a movie based on a real-life incident from 2006 in which military personnel raped and killed a fourteen-year-old Iraqi girl. O'Reilly claimed that the movie's goal was to incite anti-American sentiment across the world and would ultimately place American Troops in jeopardy. However, O'Reilly never criticized the individuals involved in the rape and murder for inciting anti-American sentiment, which Cuban claims is far more damaging than a movie documenting the incident. O'Reilly continued by stating Cuban would have been thrown in jail by President Franklin D. Roosevelt during World War II, failing to acknowledge the historical truth that media broadcasting was encouraged by Roosevelt to fully inform the public of all aspects of war. Cuban later responded by inviting O'Reilly to actually watch and discuss the movie (which he had not done at the time of his comments). He also invited O'Reilly to an open debate of the movie on "Countdown with Keith Olbermann" with Olbermann acting as moderator.

Points of issue.

• DePalma created the movie to generate controversy.
• O'Reilly did criticize those involved in the rape and murder.
• I am not aware of BOR being criticized in general regarding this movie.
• There are no references or sources attributed to this.

Inclusion will require some substantial rewrite. Arzel 23:29, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

article NEEDS to be deleted!!!

I don't see how it's anywhere necessary to post everything he does week by week. He is a political PUNDENDT!@#$ and not only that but a lot of these criticisms are just so small and aren't anything big. They may be big to people because he's known VERY WELL, but just for that reason, it doensn't serve a right to create an entire page devoted to his critics!!!!!! And another unintended consequence is a rebutal page to these criticisms which would only be fair or renaming this page critics/rebutals so why don't we just scrap this uselessness RYNORT 01:45, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

It's been tried at least four times and it's not gonna happen. You may want to discuss what you think could be removed. A lot of content has been removed already. Also, you may want to look at WP:Recentism. MrMurph101 (talk) 02:00, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

FAIR's Peter Hart section needs to be taken out

for starters.... outfoxed is not a reliable source. It was a biased film. And for the amateurs, this guy is a loon. He wrote a book about how the IRA engaged in ethnic cleansing.

Another thing

News typically surounds investigative reporting. This being said, you have to be critical of people and organizations on a daily basis. IAlso I would like to know what is the bar for controversy because ever sense Bill graduated he's been doing investigative reporting even winning a local emmy. So am I to sit at my Television every night and write down everything that could be preceived as wrong in my own point of view and put it under this article?RYNORT 07:08, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Huh? I really have trouble following what you're asserting here. Your argument seems to be something like "because there could exist criticism of O'Reilly that would not be worth including in the encyclopedia, all criticism is therefore not worth including". That seems way off base to me, but I could be misunderstanding you. Could you help me understand here? Croctotheface (talk) 09:36, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Jeremy Glick

This whole thing was a big joke. If you watch the film on youtube, he talks about the mujadeen in a sly way that I even got confused with at first. Jeremy planned on doing this the entire time. Not only that but he has said to have said that he sat in front of the T.V. with a stop watch and time Bill O'Reilly to see when he loses it, which could have lead him into planning setting up Bill. I'm sure Bill realised what happened but didn't care to apologize because Glick set him up on an innuendo that confused most people. He wasn't very clear. So that is the reason for why Bill didn't apologize and kept at Glick after the interview. I guess it's what he calls apart of the Culture War. That being said.... let's kick Glick out of this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RYNORT (talk • contribs) 07:35, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

This isn't a forum for general discussion of the topic. This is one of the most significant O'Reilly controversies. The fact that you don't like that O'Reilly has been criticized for it in no way justifies "kicking it out". Croctotheface (talk) 09:34, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Well then please help me clarify the level of controversy that you guys are using. I don't think there is one.... more so if it just got you a little hyped.RYNORT 17:08, 27 November 2007 (UTC)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:Recentism —Preceding unsigned comment added by RYNORT (talk • contribs) 19:02, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

A) You linked to an essay, not a policy or guideline. B) You seem to be arguing at cross purposes. (I.e., your later criticism isn't related to your former criticism, and your former criticism seems to betray your later criticism.) Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:07, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

(Edit conflict, but I'll post anyway. I think Ben said what I'm trying to say a bit more concisely, but I'll go ahead with my bit just he same.) The episode was covered in books, a film, by news organizations, and by many blogs, including those written by notable commentators. Within the scope of this article, criticism of O'Reilly, it's important. Regarding WP:Recentism, in the first place, saying "read it and weep" is appallingly uncivil, and Wikipedia values civility greatly. Regarding the substance, the essay on "recentism" reflects one school of thought about editing the encyclopedia. Rather than engage in a debate about the merits of that approach here, I'll just say that the standards put forth in actual policies and guidelines, such as WP:V, in no way mandate that this content be removed. Your arguments so far have had a lot to do with trying to show that Glick is wrong or bad and not a lot to do with explaining why an episode that has received attention in numerous places is not suitable to write about here. Croctotheface (talk) 19:11, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Well I can think of an episode off hand where O'Reilly was criticised for his interview with the former Mrs. New Jersey. Would that to qualify to be in this article. I mean it was a topic of interest for a bit of time. And I just realised that the article fails to mention the NAACP. It seems that people are selectively choosing what to post on here, which puts a term of "biased" on the article which is frowned upon on wikipedia.—Preceding unsigned comment added by RYNORT (talk • contribs)

If you can find verifiable, reliable sources, by all means add it to the article. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:21, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I think your helping me make my point... I can sit there every night at 8 o'clock and write down every time there is a little scruffle like a month ago with Bernie on bill's interview with Ann Coulter but it seems overall pointless to. That's why i suggest we delete this article on the basis of bias material and a non NPOVRYNORT 19:26, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Two things: first, we're allowed to use a degree of editorial judgment regarding what is or is not important enough to mention. Not all verifiable information should be included in the article. As it stands, I think that the current version of this article focuses rather sharply on significant criticism and omits insignificant criticism. Second, this argument seems to be a rehash of the one I thought I perceived above, which is something like "because there could exist documented cases of criticism that are not worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, no criticism should be included." Regarding neutrality, I submit that the only alternative to having this article would be to have all or nearly all of this material presented at Bill O'Reilly. To not present this criticism anywhere would violate NPOV by failing to fairly represent the point of view of people who criticize O'Reilly. Putting all this content back into that article would make it too long and messy. Hence, this article exists. Croctotheface (talk) 19:33, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Well then I'll just have to go make a "rebuttal to criticisms page" sense the article title is Criticisms of Bill O'Reilly. The title page in itself is not fair. Maybe Suposed Criticisms would be better or Media coverage of Bill O'Reilly. Sense that's what most of this stuff is, a suposed ultra controversial topic that is above all better then the rest of the suposed topics.RYNORT 19:39, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

In many cases here, such as the Indiana University study and the Harlem comments, we take great care to represent O'Reilly's replies to the criticism. It's important to include all relevant points of view, and I think this article generally does well by that. If you want to help improve the article by adding them to places that they are lacking, by all means do that. Croctotheface (talk) 03:02, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

A third thing: I think you'd have a hard time finding reliable, secondary sources that discuss every single scuffle—especially as many as exist for Jeremy Glick. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:37, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Sense people love to cover him so much as wikipedia does, I highly doubt finding reliable sources would be hardRYNORT 19:40, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

If all of those scuffles are covered as well as the Jeremy Glick interaction, then a list of Bill O'Reilly scuffles could be created with each list item linked to an article discussing each particular scuffle. Anyways, your argument basically amounts to WP:ALLORNOTHING. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:47, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Your argument amounts to, slective additions based on the "coverage" of a certain segment or incident that was reported by sources such as Media Matters. When Bill's show is designed to be controversial, it's called investigative reporting. And also your argument amounts to the allowation of every night segments of the Bill O'Reilly's show that could amount to controversialness. We should get a Fox News Feed of his show then. And the all or nothing argument is an essay not a policy.RYNORT 19:55, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with selective additions. We can't do everything at once. Also, the bar I set for allowing every night's segments is high enough that it won't be met for every night's segments. Please read what I wrote again. I think you missed part of it. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:06, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

The problem with selective additions is Wikipedias policy of having to be unbiased when you more less said that only certain things belong here that were only covered that were "big" (to you)RYNORT 20:49, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

No, not to me—to reliable, verifiable sources. The philosophy behind Wikipedia is that if I choose to add something notable, reliable, and verifiable to an article, and you choose to add something notable, reliable, and verifiable to an article, eventually balance will be reached, as long as WP:WEIGHT is observed. Obviously there will be disagreements about what is notable, but that is why we have the WP:NOTABLE guideline. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:57, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

you still are not being clear on why these things make it to this article, some stuff is based on opinions which have no real significant value. The only real notable thing is Andrea Makris. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RYNORT (talk • contribs) 21:11, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

repetitiveness

Opening paragraph talks about numerous people that he has suposed controversies over and then there's another headline titles "Critics and rivals" which names like 4 people and are the same ones as in the opening paragraph. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RYNORT (talk • contribs) 19:29, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Lead sections by nature will have similar information as the rest of the article. However, please also note that you can edit the encyclopedia here, so if there's a change you can make that will improve the article, by all means implement it. Croctotheface (talk) 19:34, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Well in that case I would implement all of the changes that I want to, but as you know I would get a swarm of people going insane. So to state my reasons here first and have people comment and then i'll change it so they know that I'm right. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RYNORT (talk • contribs) 19:41, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Outfoxed mentions need to be deleted

Outfoxed did exactly what they charged fox as doing, Biased reporting. So they could have easily edited certain segments to make them appear in a certain way. And on the wiki page for outfoxed there's a source where a guy claims they just through a whole slough of stuff out there without checking any of it or asaking fox about it. So by wikipedia standards, outfoxed is not a right thing to be sourcing or implementing in the article here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RYNORT (talk • contribs) 19:47, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

We're allowed to represent their opinion. We don't need to only represent criticism from "unbiased" people; the fact that someone criticizes O'Reilly indicates from the outset that they have an opinion. The film doesn't need to conform to our NPOV policies to be a source for its own opinion. Croctotheface (talk) 03:05, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

My main point is is that they were alleged to have a lot of spin in that movie. So then the question is what does there opinion and not facts contribute to the overall article other then some people may agree with them even though many people have said they they engaged is biased reporting?

Huh? Croctotheface (talk) 04:22, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Outfoxed has been critically well received. Sure, it may not be unbiased but few "documentaries" are; that does not mean that the criticisms of Fox and O'Reilly do not have merit or should not be included on a page that is about criticisms of O'Reilly. After all, all critisms can be said to be biased. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 154.20.20.172 (talk) 11:02, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

source 51

Is from the "Raw Story" which has known to be sensational and or biased. Needs to be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RYNORT (talk • contribs) 19:59, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Sources 13/14 are unreliable, both blogs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RYNORT (talk • contribs) 20:18, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

source 21 is from rotten.com a twisted crazy site. Needs to be removed. And source 43 is from a site named "o'reilly sucks" which doesn't sound to reliable. Will need someone to get another source for what that citation is covering. And source 44 is broken and goes to a broken page link. Needs to be removed.—Preceding unsigned comment added by RYNORT (talk • contribs) 20:33, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

In all these cases, I don't see what is wrong with the sources or how they are unreliable. Do they get something wrong? Is the article worse WITHOUT a source there? Croctotheface (talk) 02:59, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

"Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." from the wiki reliable sources page. The O'Reilly sucks page could have changed words becuase he thinks O'Reilly sucks. So someone will have to get a transcript elsewhere. And that includes the other sites. We don't know if they did spin anything. Your just lying to yourself to use them becuase you happen to agree with them which is frowned upon on wikipedia if it is not a reliable source.RYNORT 04:07, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Citing a source is different from relying on it. If you want to replace these citations with cites to publications you consider more reputable, then by all means do that. "Someone will have to get a transcript elsewhere" does not improve the article. There is no evidence that any of the sourcing you contest is inaccurate. Croctotheface (talk) 04:22, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

The point is, is that it quotes an interview with Jeremy and where did they get that quote from? It appears it's from "O'Reillysucks.com" or w.e, So it's not about me going through and finding out if it is right or if it's not, it's the fact that it has to rely on reliable sources.

It seems to me that your goal here is to discredit this article in any way possible. If you want to find a better source, find one. I submit that it is better to source statements to a publication that might not be exactly what we want than to leave the statement unsourced. It is clearly verifiable, even if it's not verified. If you want to find a better source to cite instead, do that. In all of these cases, I don't really think you would have trouble doing that. Otherwise, your argument seems to be less about "it would improve the article to do this" than "I found something suboptimal in the article, therefore I'm right that it should be deleted." Croctotheface (talk) 04:36, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

It would go against wikipedia guidelines period. We get you don't like O'Reilly but that doesn't mean that you can disobey wikipedia guidelines.RYNORT 04:43, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

(Remove Indent) Not agreeing with all that Rynort has to say, but 13 and 14 are blogs and should be removed. Arzel (talk) 05:00, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

media matters

I dispute Media Matters as a reliable source due to there philosophy of "exposing conservative misinformation" This seems to me that most of there arguments and written articles are from a slanted view. If this is the case, all links to mediamatters should go. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RYNORT (talk • contribs) 20:45, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

This is a question that has been discussed and resolved elsewhere. You're certainly not the first person to say this. We should not present MM's opinion as fact, but we can present things they say as factual as facts and present their opinion, attributed, as their opinion. Croctotheface (talk) 03:00, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

But what does there "Opinion" contribute if they are not facts? Nothing.RYNORT 03:40, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Fact is different from opinion. No opinions are facts, and no facts are opinions. Croctotheface (talk) 04:22, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for unknowingly agreeing with me.RYNORT 04:29, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for not knowing what you're talking about. It sounds to me like you're saying we can never write about opinions and only about facts? Croctotheface (talk) 04:32, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

MediaMatters is a biased organization period. You said that we can present what they say as facts? don't you see your circular reasoning?RYNORT 04:46, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

No, I have asserted two things about using MM as a source. First, they can be a source for their own opinion, and their opinion can be significant enough to include in articles such as this. As I mentioned below, their representatives are used as liberal media critics, presenting a point of view, on mainstream news shows. Their opinion can be notable and it is perfectly appropriate to source them as far as their own opinion. Second, we should not automatically dismiss everything they say as "not factual" as you seem to believe. If we need a transcript and they have one, then it is not the worst thing in the world to cite it. It may be better to cite a source that is not involved in opinionated analysis, but it is NOT better to have no citation. Croctotheface (talk) 04:50, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Questionable sources

(from the reliable sources page) "Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for fact-checking. Such sources include websites and publications that express views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, are promotional in nature, or rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions. Questionable sources should only be used in articles about themselves. (See below.) Articles about such sources should not repeat any contentious claims the source has made about third parties, unless those claims have also been published by reliable sources." So they are getting removed!RYNORT 04:04, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

What "contentious claims" exist here? The only claims that the sources you've referred to are, as far as I can tell, 100% factual and accurate. Croctotheface (talk) 04:22, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry but you are not well known throughout the world as an O'Reilly guru. Sorry sir!

And you're clearly not burdened with an excess of intelligence. Personal attacks are fun! Croctotheface (talk) 04:32, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

So then it would be alright to put my opinion about marijuana, the president, and any article I want? And it's the fact that your citing sources for typical criticisms of O'Reilly that aren't necesarily reliable and could be biased.RYNORT 04:38, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I really don't understand what you're trying to say here. The issue here isn't whether material here is an editor's personal opinion, it's whether the sourcing is adequate. I submit that it is. You counter that Media Matters should never be cited for any reason, and implicitly say that no criticism they make is newsworthy. The fact that their representatives have been invited on numerous mainstream news shows and that they are responsible for calling attention to some large-scale media scandals, including Don Imus's comments about the Rutgers basketball team, indicates to me that they are certainly respected enough as opinion journalists that their items can be newsworthy and that their opinion can be cited on a noteworthy event. Croctotheface (talk) 04:44, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

So by your standards, Fred Phelps should also be mentioned in this article. His comments were discussed on many news stations as well as the internet. And just because they were invited on 1 news station which was Olbermanns show does not make them a reliable source. I'm sorry once again sir!RYNORT 04:59, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

There could exist circumstances Phelps's opinions are worth acknowledging. Also, you clearly are not "well known throughout the world as a Media Matters guru", as MM representatives have been invited on shows other than Countdown. Croctotheface (talk) 05:03, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

To change my thoughts about them, please state the other stations. Also, I may not be a guru about Media Matters but one thing stands out and that's there slogan of "exposing conservative disinformation" which proves that they rely on there own opinions for writing articles. Wikipedia clearly states that these type of sources have no place or value in an article..RYNORT 05:06, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

(unindenting) I strongly doubt that it would change your opinion about them. Are you seriously proposing the standard that we can't cite anybody who "relies on their own opinions for writing articles"? We can't cite O'Reilly's criticism of Media Matters because it's informed by his opinion? Wikipedia certainly states no such thing as this, and certainly does not state it "clearly". We should not adopt MM's criticisms or opinions as our own, that's for certain, but that is NOT what is happening here. Criticisms of O'Reilly are described, attributed, and sourced. In many cases, O'Reilly's reply is also presented. That's how this article SHOULD work. We are not asserting that these criticisms are right, just that they're out there. Croctotheface (talk) 06:01, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

main problem

Media Matters is used as reference beyond the section about them.RYNORT 05:30, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

link 47

Says it's a video of sean hornbeck's parents being interviewed on msnbc but when you click it the video is Howard Kurts being interviewed by Olbermann on his latest book news wars. Which is weird becuause the link was used as a reference to Hornbeck's parents going on Olbermann's show and demanding that Bill O'Reilly appologize to Sean. I wonder how long this has been up there? Or for that matter did the Hornbeck's go on Olbermann's show at all and say that.RYNORT 08:52, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Again, you can edit this encyclopedia. If there is a misleading part of the article, you can edit it so that it is no longer misleading. Croctotheface (talk) 08:54, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

source 31

Just stating that it was from an Al Franken show on some date isn't a source is it? Transcripts for that show would be better. The source doesn't even have a link to an article discussing it. Please help verify the show that took place on that day.RYNORT 09:00, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

That's a perfectly adequate source. There is no requirement whatsoever that you be able to check, in one click, what the source says. If that were the case, we would be unable to cite actual books unless they're available online. Croctotheface (talk) 09:06, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

blogs

Sources 13,14 and 58 are blogs which should be removed, if someone could replace them that'd be great.RYNORT 09:15, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Source 13 is an Air America broadcast and source 14 is a video on ifilm, so I don't know what you're talking about there. Source 58 is a transcript that is reproduced on a blog. As i've said before, if you want to find better sources, please do. Do not repeat, to no end, requests for other people to find them here. If you don't want to do it yourself, you don't request it again and again; one will suffice. Croctotheface (talk) 09:20, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Relax.. didn't know someone changed 13/14 already. Also, don't try and intimidate people for trying to engage in a discussion, especially on a topic concerning sources.RYNORT 09:24, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

link 37

Is dead. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RYNORT (talk • contribs) 18:39, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

We can reference articles that were once available online but no longer are, much the way we can reference books that have never been available online. Croctotheface (talk) 19:19, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Wouldn't that just leave more room for inaccurate information to dwell?RYNORT 19:34, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

christman war bias

There were only two things that Bill was wrong on which were the religious stamps and Plano banning wearing clothing with the colors of red and green. The article said that O'Reilly's theory was proven false on numerous levels, and it was only two things.RYNORT 18:55, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not 100% sure that it was two and exactly two, but I could see a couple of ways to go with this. If there are exactly two issues where he was wrong, change references to "numerous" to say "two" instead. Or, just leave it as is because "numerous" could be understood to mean "more than one". Either is fine with me. Croctotheface (talk) 19:21, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Focus

Try not to rant and remember that the article is about Criticism of Bill O'Reilly. There seems to be a lot of and this happened and this happened to and someone said that and this person also does this, and have no relation to Criticism of Bill O'Reilly.RYNORT 19:13, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

No idea what this is supposed to mean. What material in this article is unrelated to criticism of BOR? Croctotheface (talk) 19:22, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

opening paragraph bias

The definition of issue from the princeton dictionary is "an important question that is in dispute", and the paragraph says "controversial issues" and the definition of controversial is "marked by or capable of arousing controversy". Now someone like me and others don't see how these things about him are that "controversial". Now it could be to people that don't like Bill O'Reilly but not to others so I'm taking out the word controversial to keep the article unbiased.RYNORT 19:19, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

That could be a relic from when the article was called something like "Bill O'Reilly controversies". I'm fine with having the lead's language focus on criticism rather than controversy. Croctotheface (talk) 19:23, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

incorrect info

The section where it talks about Bill O'Reilly's claims that George Soros funded the project by the group is wrong. O'Reilly said George Soros has donated 5 million to the university itself, and not directly to the group of kids there doing the university. Can someone please correct that.RYNORT 19:31, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Again, if you want to see changes made, make them. If you want to rephrase the section, maintaining its neutral tone, to better reflect what O'Reilly said, then by all means do that. Croctotheface (talk) 19:35, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

disputed tag

What parts are exactly being disputed? You see, I'd hate to assume there are some neocon parrots hanging around trying to just pull down the appearance of the article instead of stating their specific concerns, allowing others to improve the article. ¶ dorftrottel ¶ talk ¶ 23:52, December 6, 2007

Read the posts above ^^^ That's what's being disputed. Crocktotheface has totalitarian control over this article, and please don't go around saying stuff like "neocon parrots" you really hurt your integrity for trying to be an unbiased editor of wikipedia.RYNORT 07:15, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

O'Reilly vs. Senator Claghorn

[[Image:Jeremyglickinterview.jpg|thumb|left|230px|The Jeremy Glick interview as seen in Outfoxed]]

Kenny Delmar as Senator Claghorn

The open-mouthed illustration of O'Reilly (see left) appears to have been chosen to subliminally express a mocking, anti-O'Reilly point of view. Compare with this image from the radio and film blowhard character called Senator Claghorn. Certainly someone can find a better image than the existing O'Reilly image. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 04:19, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Assuming you're being serious, do you really think the picture of Jeremy Glick is much better? The truth is, whenever you take a still-shot of someone who's not deliberately posing, it's not going to be flattering. I don't see this as a problem. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 15:39, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

That doesn't mean it's appropriate for use in this so-called encyclopedia. And I agree the Glick photo is not much better. The upper-left photo looks like the guy from Everybody Loves Raymond. I don't see how this little collection of goofy-looking photos adds anything to the article, unless it's deliberately intended to make O'Reilly look silly. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:58, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

O'Reilly spends most all of his time on air making himself look (and sound) silly. But I agree that the image doesn't add much to the article. I dorftrottel I talk I 16:06, December 7, 2007

I don't question that the show is entertaining. Aside from that, between Inside Edition-style muckraking and celebrity bashing and/or puff pieces, there is the occasional expository and useful information, which is a worthwhile reason to watch the show. Zeroing in on the Glick story is really old news for the article at this point. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:15, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, it was yet another major slipup on O'Reilly's part. Initially, you were talking about the image. Are you now arguing removal of the entire section? To that I certainly wouldn't agree. I would however agree to condensing and merging this article into the the main O'Reilly article because I think these criticism articles (and sections, for that matter) are nothing but a POV-feast anyway. I dorftrottel I talk I 16:25, December 7, 2007

No, the section is valid. The illustration is superfluous unless it is specifically intended to make O'Reilly look bad, which makes it POV-pushing and thus should be deleted. Maybe I should just go ahead and do that myself? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:36, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Go ahead. As I said, in my opinion the image doesn't make O'Reilly look any worse than IRL, but it serves no illustrative purpose either. I dorftrottel I talk I 16:41, December 7, 2007

Done. The photo also fails the fair-use argument, as it is full resolution. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:45, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

That's, erm— actually a good point. I'm not a licensing expert though. Maybe file a request at Wikipedia:Copyright problems? Or upload a new, web-resolution version of the screenshot? I dorftrottel I talk I 17:08, December 7, 2007

Somebody else can try that if they want. Every time I upload a photo that I didn't personally take, I have a head-on collision with the deletionists. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:12, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Even a fair-use version has to justify its existence. Despite my previous comment, I agree this doesn't add to the article. (I'm also not a fan of the deletionists, though.) Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:14, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

The photo is fair use of an image that accurately illustrates an important event discussed on this page. Nonsense about whether the photo was intentionally created to make OReilly look bad is barely worth responding to; there is no basis for making that claim. This article is about criticism of bill oreilly, and the Outfoxed discussion of the Glick interview is a notable instance of such criticism. csloat (talk) 21:54, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Fully agree as far as the section itself is concerned, but I really don't see how the image adds anything to the prose. I dorftrottel I talk I 00:34, December 8, 2007

I agree that it's nonsense about whether the photo was intentionally created to make O'Reilly look bad, but I also completely agree with you, dorftrottel that it doesn't add anything to the prose (but that the section itself is an important event). Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 03:38, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

What is the purpose of this section on the talk page? What about this comment, or any of the following comments, contributes to improving this article? Could you explain that to me? This talk page exists to discuss improvements for the Criticism of Bill O'Reilly article. This comment here exists only to, in the words of its author, "bash" O'Reilly. That has absolutely nothing to do with improving this article. Such off-topic material is considered inappropriate and can be removed. Croctotheface (talk) 06:42, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Attempts to scrub the Malmedy massacre

Today I noticed Arzel (talk · contribs) removed a sourced section on the Malmedy massacre with the reasoning "This has already been discussed, please go to talk", and re-inserted a qualifying "Criticism from left-wing groups" header. I see numerous problems with this (continued) behavior:

1. There is no discussion justifying the removal on the discussion page at all -- a blatant falsehood on the part of Arzel.
2. When I challeneged this removal, he left this message on my talk page, in which he explains that he's not sure which article the discussion occured, but he assured me that "general agreement is that it was not deemed an actual controversy", while citing no consensus or discussion to actually support his claim.
3. If one reads the archives of this article, one easily finds a discussion from 2006 which (properly) concludes:

   " Because a controversy is a controversy, whether O'Reilly is right or wrong, being unfairly judged or not... the issue is that we are trying to record a public dispute. In fact, in this article there is an attempt to help explain how there might be a misunderstanding, but the fact is that it is still a controversy."

4. Arzel again removed sourced material, claiming he "knows it was discussed" and that it is "full of synth". I welcome his efforts to ensure that we're compliant with WP:SYN and WP:OR, however as noted in the previous discussion linked above, the sourced section tries to explain both the controversy and Bill's possible misunderstanding of the facts in an objective light. In 'no case is there justification for removal, as Arzel falsely asserts.
5. We do not qualify criticisms with characterizations such as "left-wing" -- clearly a violation of WP:NPOV.

I did not make that assertation. It may have been within the reversion unnoticed. Arzel (talk) 18:02, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I am re-inserting the section, and will leave a courtesy 3RR notice for Arzel. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 16:02, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Editing Censor

I had seen a Countdown with Keith Olbermann on YouTube about a harsh criticism of Bill O'Reilly regarding his misrepresentation of the Malmedy massacre. When I read this article I wondered why there was no reference to that criticism here. I thought it was a well documented, high profile, legitimate criticism. There is plenty of published reference to it and there is footage widely available of Bill O'Reilly making the statements that have earned him this harsh scorn. I decided that I would take the time and do my best to document this criticism fairly and accurately. I spent a good chunk of a day checking facts and trying to make sure that I interjected nothing outside of what was stated in the MSNBC broadcast only to find that my labor was deleted in less than ten minutes by a user named Arzel. His only comment was to look at the talk page and I did so but found nothing regarding this issue. I only found someone else asking why the Malmedy controversy wasn't covered in this page. It seems to me that both of our questions were answered in that it may have appeared before but has been deleted. I must suspect that this is the work of conservative supporters of Bill O'Reilly. I freely admit that I am not a fan of O'Reilly's but that does not disqualify me as an editor. I tried very hard to satisfy the quality, verifyability and neutrality standards and everything I wrote is verifyable with the two Youtube links and the Mediamatters link. I watched Bill O'Reilly make these statements with my own eyes as did thousands or millions of others and I recorded every word in quotes verbatim. They aren't basement recordings on public access TV(Countdown with Keith Olbermann and The O'Reilly Factor), they are both nationally syndicated programs watched by millions of viewers.

The Article is called "Criticism of Bill O'Reilly", not "Neutral Talking Points on Bill O'Reilly." So the ideal content added to this is accurate statements of well documented, well backed up criticism. I can't imagine how my section has not satisfied this criteria. If you would like to edit the section with legitimate facts that counterbalance Olbermann's perspective or if you would like to post your reasoning as to why this section doesn't belong and even criticize me, I wholeheartedly welcome you. I would love to hear your position, but deleting the section outright without justification is nothing more than censorship. Wikipedia is a tool for sharing information whether you find that information palatable or not. Everyone at Wikipedia encourages you to Check facts, and dispute inaccuracies but If you don't like reading truthful criticism of O'Reilly, don't read it. I would just request that you don't deprive others of that information. I would have no objection at all to an article appearing called "Praise of Bill O'Reilly" so long as the information therein was also accurate. I love Wikipedia and I thank everyone who honestly tries to make it better.

P.S. Thanks Blaxthos for the support. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Benevolence one (talk • contribs) 17:17, 21 December 2007 (UTC) --Benevolence one (talk) 16:57, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't and won't have time to research this for at least a few days, but I know there have been discussions in the past somewhere within the related articles of BOR. One of the primary problems with this specific "criticism" is that it comes from Olbermann, who is already biased against BOR for a number of reasons. His opinion, and it just that, is an opinion which only promotes his anti-BOR point of view. Most of his opinion is based on MM reports, ergo the entire controversy is really from just one source. In as much it is a poorly sourced point of criticism which in essense criticizes BOR for making a verbal gaff which has since been acknowledged and corrected. I don't object to valid criticism of BOR, but at the same time much of his criticism is directed from a known entity (MM) which has a stated agenda against BOR and FNC. Olbermann has a long standing feud with BOR going back many years and his opinion is not even remotely neutral. Arzel (talk) 18:09, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm... I don't mean to toot my own horn here (let's not be juvenile OK). But this is a situation where I think objective sources would diffuse a lot of this situation. As the editor notes, if this was covered extensively, then I am sure it can be found without using the offending Olbermann references. FTR- I know I may be biased on this one since I am on the record as detesting Olbermann -- so the less I see of him here and/or anywhere the better. However, please also note, that my dislike of Olbermann began way before I knew his politics, ...(remove possible BLP violations). Finally, please let us remember to assume good faith. Questioning editors motives (i.e. calling them conservative supporters of Bill O'reilly and censors) run contrary to that goal. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 20:26, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Ramsquire. It would be better to find a better source than Olbermann. If this were O'Reilly criticizing someone (*cough*George Soros*cough*) it would be considered a BLP attack. Anyway, I'm not against putting in a Malmedy mention, but there must be a better way of presenting it. MrMurph101 (talk) 03:36, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

1. To Arzel: What occurs on other articles' talk pages has little relevance here; in this particular circumstance we have on-point discussion with an excellent conclusion as to why this information should be included. You can't use a discussion elsewhere as some sort of binding precedent here. You haven't even given us any links to read this alleged consensus (irrelevant as it may be).
2. MSNBC in general is considered mainstream media, and meets with WP:RS (just as Fox News Channel does for the same reason). Additionally, Olbermann is pretty good at stating exactly what he's quoting and where he gets his information. Beyond all of that, I would say that he has a fair reputation for factual accuracy and accountability. I've seen him retract statements made (and even apologize for content when it was over the top).
3. To Ramsquire: Additional sources may be forthcoming, and would probably serve to diffuse the knee-jerk reaction of some to the mere mention of Herr Olbermann. You always strive to be purely objective (and it's appreciated), but please note that your response necessarily shows that your bias (recognized by you) has less to do what what Olbermann says and more about what he did in the past. ESPN fiasco certainly doesn't disqualify his journalistic capacity here (even if it is mixed with editorial opinion). Also note that I've made no question of motives, only of conduct.
4. To MrMurph101: What WP:BLP concerns, exactly? There is no defammatory language or unattributed claim, and I don't see that there is much of a dispute about factual accuracy (does anyone argue that the facts did not occur as presented?)... WP:BLP is not an open-ended justification to remove content. Please be more specific regarding WP:BLP justifying removal of the entire section.

Hope this helps. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 04:57, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Blaxthos, tell that to some of those over at George Soros. A similar situation happened there(just replace Olbermann with O'Reilly) and resulted in the article being locked for a long time and the admin said that a strong consensus must be made for inclusion. I think the content should stay removed until there is an agreement to this inclusion. I'm doing this out of consistency in approach more than validity to arguments. By the way, the BLP concern would be that as this moment, the inclusion is too reliant on Olbermann, a rival of O'Reilly right now, and no independent sources that would be needed to keep this from looking like an "attack" like those who didn't like O'Reilly's criticism of Soros to be mentioned. MrMurph101 (talk) 05:08, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

What occurs on other articles' talk pages has little relevance here. I really contest that notion. That kind of mentality, IMHO, is damaging to wikipedia's reputation. It leads to inconsistencies across the encyclopedia and gives the nay-sayers ammo for allegations of hypocrisy. To help keep out bias on the project, there should always be a consistent, agreed upon approach, especially to contentious subjects. MrMurph101 (talk) 05:20, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Wow, quite a hot button! Ramsquire, Your point about good faith is well taken and if I have offended anyone I am truly sorry. We are all here to make Wikipedia better and I salute you all for your efforts. I certainly understand the BLP issue and if Olbermann hadn't provided video for me to see for myself, I too would be skeptical of the intentions of his assertions. If he had merely read O'Reilly's statements I would certainly have initially provided more "reliable sources." But the Countdown segment provides video, widely available on YouTube, of O'Reilly making the statements. In this instance, I think, O'Reilly himself can be regarded as the source, as though Olbermann were providing an internet link to O'Reilly's own site. In the segment I authored, I provided the dates, quotes, and links for anyone to see these statements being made, I provided alternate corroberation in his contention that the transcript was manipulated, I stated all facts with neutral words like "incorrectly", and I attributed the criticism to Keith Olbermann. As I have said earlier, it is not a bio page so nothing was thrown in surreptitiously; it is an article detailing criticisms that have been made toward Bill O'Reilly. I sited a criticism made by Olbermann, I provided the facts that he based that criticism on and I provided clear, reliable, unambiguous sources to verify that all claims in the article were accurate. If it were my friend Joe, I could see this as a simple attack but thousands or millions saw all broadcasts mentioned and I believe few would argue that both personalities are "high profile." Some of you seem to be under the notion that sources themselves must be neutral but how could topics like abortion, gay rights or stem cell research be covered if that were the case? I would argue that everyone who is knowledgeable in those areas is biased one way or the other. Wikipedia's own neutrality page states "NPOV requires views to be represented without bias. All editors and all sources have biases - what matters is how we combine them to create a neutral article." If you can show me the bias in my writing and suggest better phrasing I am happy to co-operate. I also did not rant regarding Obermann's criticism like he did. I stated why he criticized him and summed up his position by quoting his statement calling O'Reilly a "false patriot who would rather be loud than right." As far as alternate sources for corroboration go, I typed in the words "O'Reilly" and "Malmedy" in Google and got 6,950 hits. The problem with this is that many of the other articles and posts I have read are much harsher in their criticism. They all seem to agree on the facts but I haven't seen any that I would characterize as "dispassionate" and most don't provide the O'Reilly video to support their criticism. Are these references acceptable? If so, I'd be happy to add links. The Mediamatters link corroborates the manipulation of the transcript and the misstatement. I also have the link to the transcript on Fox's website of the May 30, 2006 edition of The O'Reilly Factor which contains one of the misstatements if that helps. The simple fact that it happened a year and a half ago is why I suspect I haven't found articles from sources that I'd prefer like Reuters and CNN.

Other than that, help me fix it up if you aren't satisfied with it. Please don't just delete it. If you could site specific lines of contention and alternate ways to phrase it I'd love to see it. I want the segment to be neutral but not censored so help me out guys. I am totally willing to work with you here. I have also read more than once that O'Reilly's "verbal gaff", "has since been acknowledged and corrected." Arzel, you aren't the only one to say this but I have not found evidence that O'Reilly ever acknowledged or corrected this statement anywhere. If you could back up this claim with a link I'd really appreciate it and I'd be happy to mention it in this section. --Benevolence one (talk) 07:33, 22 December 2007 (UTC)--99.236.34.112 (talk) 07:26, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

BLP does not just address main bio articles, but anything related to the subject just to clarify. Anyway, I don't dispute your arguments but may have been playing it more safe than I have to. The concept of criticism throughout wikipedia is pretty contentious throughout wikipedia and some believe that there should not be any articles or sections devoted to articles. The current presentation was too Olbermann dependent to stand on its own, IMO. However, there is a section in this article devoted to the fact that Olbermann criticizes O'Reilly. I'll say this could be mentioned there and I wouldn't have any issues with it. However, for the section to stand alone, it would be better to get other sources that are more neutral (ie non-editorial) that have reported on this incident. If you can do that go ahead and put it in and we can work on it. MrMurph101 (talk) 07:45, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

That makes sense. I just want to make sure that we don't throw the baby out with the bathwater... lots of zealots try to use WP:BLP to justify scrubbing of all/any negative content, which is not the intent of the policy. A section standing on its own should include more than one source, agreed... I'll see if I can dig some up in the coming weeks (doubtful it will be difficult). Happy holidays! /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 06:54, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I certainly think that this subject bears inclusion in the article, but the version that goes in should probably be much shorter than what was inserted recently. Croctotheface (talk) 09:29, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I know this has been discussed before, but it appears that the archives have been deleted. Archive [[1]] goes from May 31, 2006 to July 24, 2006. Archive [[2]] which is named one but under a different header is from Aug 18, 2006 to November 8, 2006. Somehow a month is missing between those two. This page currently starts at Sep 15, 2007. So there is a whole year worth of discussion missing from the archives since then. This needs to be fixed as I know it was discussed previously. Arzel (talk) 23:42, 27 December 2007 (UTC)