Talk:Public image of Bill O'Reilly (political commentator)/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Wrong direction for discussion

Being biased towards the left or the right doesn't make your statements of fact false, nor does being a centrist make your false claims factual. If Hitler says that 2+2=4, there is no reason to suggest it might not be true because he is (was) a fascist. If Mao states that 'most plants have green leaves', it's not any less true than a centrist saying the same thing. If the DailyKos publishes a fact backed up by indisputable sources, there is no reason to remove it simply because of their political orientation. If Rush Limbaugh provides facts that are indisputable, there is no reason not to include those statements either. Being centrist is no less of a bias than being left or right, in fact it is bias propped up with herd-mentality confidence and the specious 'conventional wisdom'. Just because the New York Times or the Wall Street Journal have more readers than the 'extremists' does not make their statements any more true, more relevant, or more informative. Controversy requires popular opinion (or it's not a controversy), but proving or disproving the controversy's validity does not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.175.213.215 (talk) 22:04, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Delete section on controversy over childhood home

THe facts have been established in regard to the childhood home issue. Any remaining issue should go under Al Franken-O'Reilly rivalry. O'Reilly's house was built by William Leavitt as part of his Levittown, New York development [1]. At this time the boundaries of Leavittown were defined by William Leavitt as part of a private development. When zip codes were introduced in 1963 the boundaries of Leavittown were redrawn into a squarish shape, conforming with the 11756 Zip Code. [2] Placing the parts of the Leavittown development where O'Reilly's family lived into Westbury. A map of the development from a New York Sun? article on the levittown development shows the boundareis of the development (built between 1947-52) and the current zip code boundaries (1963). The same redrawing of maps resulted in Billy Joel's Levittown family home being annexed by neighboring Hicksville in 1963. Mrdthree (talk) 14:14, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

The article seems to accurately reflect the facts you've stated, however I think the article also accurately reflects the scope of the controversy -- your assertion seems to be entirely concerned with the name of the city in which his childhood home resided, without consideration of the points contained therein (namely the misrepresentation of his background as a "poor folk"). The article seems to do a pretty good job of presenting both sides of this issue pretty well, IMHO. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 17:21, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd be OK with deleting the "childhood home" text from the section header. The controversy, as Blaxthos points out, is really about his upbringing. Secondarily, it's about the fact that he has said and implied that he had this hardscrabble childhood, and in doing so he chose to present facts in a certain way and combined fact with fiction in certain cases. He went to private school, and, intriguingly, he would've gone to Westbury high school, but he has made what's essentially a political decision to say Levittown instead because that carries the working class connotation that he wants to claim for himself, never mind that, name of the town aside, he didn't have such a tough time of it in reality. Croctotheface (talk) 17:54, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Are there third party commentaries on this particular feud? If not, then it isn't really newsworthy. If so, then you really should use those sources rather than primary sources. Bytebear (talk) 18:15, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Did you read the article, bytebear? I count eight sources, including The Washington Post, New York Daily News, etc... //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 19:21, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Blaxthos, I tried to verify those two news refs but it does not appear that either of those links are working anymore. I'll see if I can find archived ones. — Satori Son 19:27, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks -- it's been years since I have worked on this particular section, but I am sure they were available at one point -- regardless of their web accessibility (though archive.org may be able to help), they're still valid sources. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 20:32, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Deletion discussion closed - merge and redirect

I would like to thank all of the editors who contributed to the deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Criticism of Bill O'Reilly (political commentator) (3rd nomination). There was much food for thought, and you all gave me a great deal to consider in my role as closing administrator.

Ultimately, I found the concerns about POV forking persuasive. While a separate 'criticism of' article can give the impression of achieving compromise and balance, the effect is all too often one of sweeping editorial concerns under the rug. Proponents and opponents of a controversial figure each have their 'own' article to play with. While this can reduce the appearance of inter-editor conflict, we cannot legitimately achieve peace at the expense of intra-article balance or WP:WEIGHT. In the long run, it is far better to face up to disputes about reliability, sourcing, and inclusion as they arise, rather than letting them fester on 'less-important' or less visible subarticles.

I have chosen to allow two weeks for interested parties to discuss how best to merge this content (and to get on with actually doing so) before this page gets redirected. I hope that all of the stakeholders in this family of articles will have a chance to have their say on this, but in the meantime I'd like to offer some thoughts — nothing which follows should be taken as part of any etched-in-stone admin ruling; it's just my own off-the-top-of-my-head notions.

• I strongly suspect that the best course of action here is not to simply cut all of the content out of this article and paste it into the main article. Some no doubt will belong there, but both the length and the tone would be untenable if taken in toto. Yes, there will be discussion and disputes about striking an appropriate balance.

• Detailed material which discusses controversies releated to O'Reilly's media shows or books may belong in those particular sub-articles.

• Specific controversies which received widespread media coverage and achieved significance and notability in their own right may be spun off into their own independent and balanced articles, though this route should be taken with extreme caution — I have a sneaking suspicion that much criticism and controversy which ignited the rarefied air of the blogosphere probably achieved relatively little mainstream impact. While I considered the proposals made to rename this article as a 'Controversies involving' rather than 'Criticism of', I feared that doing so would leave us with much the same problem of this article being a place to shuffle off all criticism (whether balanced by counterargument or not).

Best of luck to everyone, and I hope to see more of the frank but respectful conduct that pervaded the AfD. Your humble servant, TenOfAllTrades(talk) 00:23, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Just to begin discussion of the first bullet point, I'll go on record with my position that more or less everything here should go into the main article one way or another. That doesn't need to be a simple copy/paste, but setting aside sarcastic, nose-in-the air shots at the "rarefied blogosphere", I don't recall any serious objection to the quality of sourcing. I'd be open to the argument that certain considerations would suggest that some items should be handled in a place other than the biography...except that it seems such a view is not the consensus one. Croctotheface (talk) 00:47, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I have taken the liberty of suggesting some cuts: [3] Soxwon (talk) 01:05, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I think that proposal hits the mark. While more could be cut, an overinclusive merge is a good call to deal with the immediate issue: getting consensus for the text that is initially merged into the parent article. Additional paring can be fought about once the merge is complete.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 04:19, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to go on record here and state that I think this is the wrong call... No one really raised any real content concerns or pointed to obviously inappropriate content. This article went through a serious consensus-based rewrite not just a few months ago, and since then I think we've all agreed that we did a hell of a job, and that the content is wholly compliant with our content policies. The point has been made that most of the content here is so well sourced that the individual incidents pass WP:N in their own right. Given all of that, it is my utmost concern that the "merge" will be used as an end-run to excise negative information about O'Reilly (who's shtick is to incite controversy). The usual argument is undue weight, however if a subject is massively (or, in my opinion, primarily) known for being controversial, then a large amount of criticism is going to be expected (and appropriately noted in his article). Since this content clearly meets with content policies, a "merge" AfD shouldn't be used as a tool to whitewash sourced information. So, what I'd like to propose is that we follow through with a proposal that was starting to catch on right at the tail end of the AfD: create a new article along the lines of Critical reaction to Bill O'Reilly, that includes all relevant content -- critical acclaim as well as criticism. It seems (to me) that the AfD contained a lot of knee-jerk reactions to the name "Criticism of..." without giving any consideration to the fact that such articles are permitted both in WP:POVFORK and WP:SPLIT. Let's work towards creating a rounded article that is faithful to both the criticism and the acclaim. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 01:10, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I would certainly support this kind of action, and I agree that finding a merge consensus is a highly questionable proposition at best, since I don't think there was much of a consensus there for merging, and if anything there was more of a consensus for renaming and reconfiguring the article. I'm a little troubled by the fact that the closing admin seems to have seen his role as interpreting not consensus but the wisdom of the various positions offered. Should the merge go through, I do not support cutting any content at all in the process. Croctotheface (talk) 01:26, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree -- I don't really see a consensus for anything in the AfD... :) (or :(, depending on your outlook on such things!).  ;-) Point of order: by my count the !votes are evenly split as 12 to 12, which is hardly evidence of any consensus at all (not that we count votes... ) //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 02:33, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

(ec) For what it's worth – and let's face it, raw counts in AfD are a rough guide at best – I'd say there are (approximately) 18 votes to merge and redirect or to delete, compared to about a dozen keep votes with varying degrees of enthusiasm. Between those rough counts and the strength of arguments (as I judged them), I felt that the prevailing viewpoint was that this type of article was (in general) often not a good idea, and that the continued independent existence of this article (specifically) was not supported by the community. Make of that what you will. (If it makes you feel any better, I can't be sure it wasn't the wrong call either, but I'm pretty sure we won't know for certain either way for some months — and it wouldn't be any better if I'd made any other decision.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:42, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that if we reconfigured and renamed this article to include both criticism and praise that most of the concerns voiced by the (12 or 18) votes you considered as "delete" would be satisfied, no? As I've mentioned a few times, a lot of them simply seemed to react to the "Criticism of" focus, which can be alleviated. I can't support scattering all this germane content to the four corners of the Wikipedia (in my opinion, obscuring its cohesiveness and significance). I appreciate Ten's admission that the call could have gone either way, and I also admit that I can't clearly point to a consensus either way (which is why I find the "fix the article" path more in line with the questionable consensus than I do the "divide and hide" (joke!) path.) In a circumstance where consensus isn't clear, I think the better choice is to address the concerns instead of delete the article. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:37, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Soxwon's Proposal

Before getting to reduction of the text, my opinion is that we should decide on a home for this information. I would suggest that the IU study, and factual inaccuracy section go to the O'Reilly Factor article as well as the UW/Red Cross controversy information. The Marvin Kittman, Westbury/Levittown and Harlem comments, could go into the main bio. Finally the Tiller info could go into Tiller's article (where it is already discussed at length). The FAIR sections and Rival section should just be deleted since, within these new parameters, they now appear to be redundant with info in the parent articles. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 17:17, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I share a lot of Blaxthos's concerns above, so I don't want this response here to seem to indicate that I support moving the content rather than reconfiguring this article. However, the general attitude at the AfD discussion seemed to be that content should go back into the main bio, and I don't see a reason not to do that here. As I've said, I would not support removing any content for redundancy or any other reasons. Croctotheface (talk) 21:57, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Second that. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:26, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Odd, since you've said elsewhere that "personally, I think generally there is a difference between criticism of a person and criticism of a program." The IU study specifically analyzed the talking points memo, and has nothing to do with his personal life or any of his personal beefs. But then again, we've been here before, haven't we? Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 22:16, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

• Support a reorganization as Ramsquire has proposed, it seems a sensible implementation of the AfD decision. SDY (talk) 03:51, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
• Support, although I'm more inclined to ask for a deletion review as I really didn't see any "consensus". ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 00:08, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Why would you express support (let alone "support") when you apparently don't agree with moving the content anywhere? Croctotheface (talk) 04:57, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

It's very easy to disagree with the results but accept the process, so that's not strange at all. It's really the only way a project built on consensus is going to work. A review wouldn't hurt, but there did appear to be a consensus that this page in its current form isn't well supported (i.e. something should be done). Exactly what to do with the content was uncertain, and my guess is that the closing admin felt there was more support for the merge/scatter option than retaining the article and adding the balancing content (i.e. the something that should be done is merging/scattering). SDY (talk) 06:26, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

SDY's right on the mark. I may not agree with it, but I respect the result of the process, and in consideration of what the process mandated we do, I support this proposal. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 22:25, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

To both of you, there was no consensus whatsoever for "scattering," and I don't think many (any?) people even mentioned it as an option. Several people did mention that it should go into the bio, though, which is why the "scattering" proposal puzzles me so much. Incidentally, that someone would choose the word "scatter" seems to suggest a general dislike for the content, since scattering is what happens to, say, debris or fertilizer. To Noian specifically, you expressed in the same sentence that you felt that the admin's closing of the discussion was possibly/probably NOT mandated by the discussion, so I really don't understand your position here at all. Croctotheface (talk) 23:15, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm using the term "merging/scattering" to address the issue that not all of the content of this article would be merged into the main bio, but it shouldn't be deleted either. It's not really a straight merge, though that's the general concept. SDY (talk) 00:58, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

The reason I suggested the above was that since the AfD mandated a merge, I figured I'd see if a consensus can be formed to move the information to what I feel are appropriate destinations--I don't agree with the use of the term scattering. I don't see what is so confusing about making a suggestion to see if it has consensus, isn't that what talk pages are for? I feel that if we merge this info into the above articles, we would still be following the parameters of the AfD "ruling"-- even though it wasn't explicitly discussed. Also, if there is going to be a review, I would suggest that someone start the process as soon as possible since the 20th is fast approaching. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 23:42, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

To clarify: I feel that the ruling is "challenge-able" and that I disagree with it, but I really don't see a high chance of an different outcome from occurring based on some of the factors listed above such as people freaking out because of its name, or ignoring the fact that so-called "POVFORKS" are specifically allowed if the length is too long. (aka its reviewable but I don't see a point, the same arguments been in the last one as it was in the previous ones, it was even stated by the nominator that "Yes, I know this has been nominated for deletion before, but it's been a few months since the last try, so let's see if consensus has changed.") You have my support Croc if you want to list a review...probably list out the nominators reason, a tally of voting, rehashing the refutation that "POVFORKS" aren't allowed, stating how this isn't a POVFORK, and dispelling WP:IDONTLIKEIT and WP:OTHERSTUFF arguments that were in the nom. I feel that on a Wikilawyering note, there's a good chance of passing review, but if the overall community consensus is so blindingly "can't have articles named such and such" that it gets brought up over and over and over, what's the point? If the community wants to ban "criticism of" articles regardless of circumstance, then we should at least grudgingly embrace the change. On another note, I support Blaxthos' proposal over Soxwan's. I'm fine with either (hence the support), but I'd prefer Blaxthos'.ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 23:47, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Not to re-visit the AfD, but the rationale of the closing editor is on this page, and whether you agree with it is one thing but a) it's clear it wasn't just the name of the article that lead to his decision and b) he does say it might be appropriate to move the info into appropriate sub-articles. That is why I thought about what some are now calling "scattering". Soxwon's proposal was to cull text-- my proposal is that before we get to text, let's see where the stuff goes. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 00:09, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

(outdent)err...why is this section called soxwon's proposal then? I don't support culling.ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 00:15, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Because Soxwon's proposal was lost in the discussion over the AfD between Blaxthos, Croc and the closing admin. (It was one sentence with a link to his thoughts). I was basically responding to his proposal with mine. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 00:23, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Uh...

According to the little clock on the top right of my page, it's the 20th (UTC anyway), have we agreed on anything yet? ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 05:08, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

This would be my proposed insertion for the bio. The rest we could work into the show article. I was double checking and realized that a lot of the harlem references were transcripts and sites like MMFA. I think that what I've proposed would good for the bio only. A more detailed insertion could go in the show article. Soxwon (talk) 05:20, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Reasons for cuts:

Marvin Kitman and his O'Reilly biography

The only working links are two criticism's of the book, and Olbermann's show. That's hardly notable, nor should the olbermann link be the only source for the story itself.

Critics

Redundant, already mentioned

Redcross

People and an opening statement from congress? Weak, but perhaps admissible...

Harlem

It's got sourcing, but it's all MMFA and crossfire, it never gets anything MSM besides a mention on the Today Show with Matt Lauer. Found USA Today, CBS. (Why weren't these sources used before? Section will be edited accordingly)

Now before the accusations of POV-pushing and whitewashing come (and they will), I also want to point out that this kind of poor sourcing isn't good for a WP:BLP and if it's so easy to find, get it and add it in before the article gets moved. Soxwon (talk) 05:33, 20 August 2009 (UTC) Soxwon (talk) 05:33, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

The Red Cross thing is probably an article on its own. With your proposal, would you include the lead language? SDY (talk) 01:08, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps, I'd go either way really. Soxwon (talk) 01:24, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Well we had Soxwon's proposal (cuts), Blaxthos Proposal (detailed blow, article rename, restructuring, and essential merger with praise sections), and Ramsquire's (now retired unfortunately) proposal, are we going with Soxwon's, or some sort of compromise? ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 03:28, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

On a side note

(by all means continue the discussion above, this is more of a side discussion) Going back to Blaxthos argument now that I think of it, it's very possible that "criticisms of" titled articles have been considered by some to be atrocious not because of content, but "name bias" (see WP:CRIT for example).

Based on the following from WP:CRIT:

Thus "Criticism of..." should be avoided (see WP:POV FORK). Preferred titles include "Critique", the synonym "review" which may also imply a more comprehensive study.[1], and "Reception". "Reception" sections should contain rebuttals immediately if available. As is the convention with summary-style articles, reception should generally start as sections of the main article and be spun off by agreement among the editors. Before being spun off, "Reception of ..." articles should contain rebuttals if available, once spun off the original article should contain a summary of the "Reception of ... " article.

I'm certain that everyone here didn't "willingly or unwillingly" contribute to this article for the purpose of "circumventing NPOV and concensus", but rather because the article was spun off due to length. If certain editors (who have won it seems based on AfD) seem to be feel this article based on the name is the work of intentional inclusion of material based that would fail NPOV, then I believe that this would be the best course of action, for those who feel that the material in the article should be kept in the way its organized (just throwing out ideas).

ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 02:44, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

(semi-unrelated to Blaxthos proposal) Another thing I noticed , when I went back to the admin's reason, is the assumption that this article here masks any "tensions", and that each camp has their own article to play with (praise and criticism). I don't know how others feel, but I feel that based on the long arguments and receptiveness of TWO major revisions from the talk page, I can't help but feel the admin's opinion does disservice to everyone who attempted to reach consensus about disputed content in this article. Issues have not "festered" on this article, there have been timely and long discussion when each section was added. There have been rewrites, and consensus was reached each time. Rather, certain people refused to accept this consensus, and kept screaming "POVFORK" instead of participating on talks of revisions. If they honestly feel this article fails the purpose (Wikipedia:POV_FORK#Article spinouts - "Summary style" articles), then they should participate in revisions to restore the article to its purpose rather than just deleting it ignoring the fact that such efforts to maintain the article quality were ongoing. Just my 2c, if anyone else feels we should bring this to deletion review (although an article name change would probably be inevitable). I'm rather busy with real life, so I don't want to bother starting a deletion review if there's no consensus for it. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 02:59, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

"Restore the article to its purpose..." What, in your opinion, is the purpose of this article? The length thing is a red herring. The main article isn't really that long compared to some articles (i.e. United States). This level of detail in the main article would raise WP:UNDUE problems, especially since the content here has at times been longer than the main article. In that sense, this article is not simply an extension of the main bio because it could not be inserted into that main page. How would retaining this article as a separate document serve WP:NPOV? For a controversial topic that seems to be the first and final concern. SDY (talk) 07:29, 21 August 2009 (UTC)