Talk:Public image of Bill O'Reilly (political commentator)/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

From former Bill O'Reilly controversies

Archive

Is it time to archive this talk page? It is getting pretty long. MrMurph101 06:25, 24 July 2006 (UTC) I guess I'll do it then. MrMurph101 02:58, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Article Size

I created a spinoff article for the "Critics and Rivals" section due to Wikipedia: article size. I put in a summary paragraph section that probably could be improved upon. MrMurph101 18:12, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Glick Interview Reference

In the interests of impartiality, I've deleted a reference in support of O'Reilly's claim to have helped the families of 911 Victims. Nothing indicates that's what he had in mind in making this claim, and similar sources are not provided in support of Glick's many claims.

Article Rename

Aren't these controversies stemming from The O'Reilly Factor, not with the person "Bill O'Reilly?" Shouldn't this article be renamed to reflect that? Kyaa the Catlord 14:06, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Sexual Harrassment Lawsuit

Why is the information regarding the Mackris harrassment suit not present in this article?

It was here but moved back to the main article. MrMurph101 19:06, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Appology to the nation

The sentences about sending the military to the Mexico US border has absolutely nothing to do with the section ´´Appology to the Nation´´ so I removed them. What do you all think? Stanley011 11:40, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

What is with this article

I need to start by saying that I am not an O'Reilly fan or against him at all, I hardly know anything about him except what I read here and maybe seeing a couple clips of his show as I flip through tv channels. But this has to be one of the worst wiki articles I have read. The title of this page would be much more descriptive if it read something like "Times O'Reilly was wrong." Very few of the events are much of controversies. At least with the information presented, sections such as false profanity allegations or the university of Oregon do not have any controvery and are just places where he was wrong. Now maybe there deserves to be a page chronicalling each of these instances but for someone who has sparked so much controversy in the discussion surely some things more controversial could be found. As irrelavant as it seems the bit about his boyhood home seems to be a bit more like controversy.

Someone really needs to redo the entire page for it to have any respect from people reading it. Content aside, the layout in general is much poorer than the average wikipedia article.

---MAC

• I agree, I too am hardly a "loyal bill fan" but i too see all too well that this article is guarded by left wing O'Reilly haters who have nothing better to do than shove their bile and hatred into otherwise NPOV articles--FurnaceOfMonkl 21:44, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Many editors share your concerns. This article was actually a lot worse at one time and a lot of content has been deleted. That is the problem with controverial public figures. Many editors, both intentionally and unintentionally, push their own POV and will cite, if they actually do, questionable sources. Many wikipedia guidelines are not followed often. I am actually thinking of proposing a wikiproject for controversial public figures to try to improve their articles and limit the issues that arise from the articles. MrMurph101 18:24, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Really, what a small effort people make to hide their anti-FOX bias, this article is supposed to be neutral, not a long list of reasons liberals don't like him. If anything, this article has gotten worse--FurnaceOfMonkl 14:08, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

This article exists because people have driven most of the criticism out of the mans bio. Of course it isn't going to contain much positive opinion of him. You shouldn't expect it to. Damburger 15:28, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I personally think this article should be deleted and started over again in the main bio page, adhering better to the WP:BLP policy. However, this article already has a failed Afd and split into a new article (by me) so that might not be the best thing to do. I know the BLP policy has now being heavily enforced mainly due to libel concerns but that does not mean criticisms and controversies should be entirely omitted. "Poorly sourced" can be subjective to some editors and I have not seen a specific guideline for this yet. Some might say Media Matters is a good source while others may consider it poor. It is heavily cited when something critical about O'Reilly is put in. An article entitled "Media Matters' criticisms of Bill O'Reilly" could be created with all the information that has been added whether kept or deleted and it would make a pretty long article. MrMurph101 20:07, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

So Bill's conservative cheerleaders delete any negative information from his main page with zeal, then come to the discussion on THIS page to complain that a separate page exists with the negative information that was deleted from the main biography? I'll just save you guys the trouble and delete the whole page, re-writing: "Bill O'Reilly's feces are as fragrant as a summer rose. Sometime in the near future O'Reilly plans to fly into space with Jesus and stop a comet from destroying Earth." Spazik007 01:52, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Why don't you respond to some of the points raised here with arguments reflective of a rational thought process, rather than emotional, anger-filled comments intended to incite similar reactions from others. You will find that reasoned, well-thought responses will gain you more respect on wikipedia (and in the real world) than trollish ones. Stanley011 03:23, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Heh. Trollish or not, it was at least funny. Spazik, I second Stanley's motion - but keep the sense of humor, we need it around here. ^_^ Kasreyn 11:33, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

University of Oregon Student Newspaper Controversy

I deleted this section as the text is incoherent. Anyone care to rewrite it so it makes sense? --Ogdred 13:09, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

On May 17, 2006 Bill O'Reilly while discussing controversial cartoons of Jesus that offended Christians published by a University of Oregon student newspaper- The Insurgent incorrectly claimed that the University's president Dave Frohnmayer had allowed the university's students to publish the cartoons, this is in fact untrue since Frohnmayer has no control over the content since the university newspapers are student-run and the school lacks the ability to remove funding because of a 2000 United States Supreme Court decision on the case Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System v. Southworth. The Insurgent- the newspaper that ran the cartoons was apparently responding to The Oregon Commentator's decision to publish controversial cartoons of the Islamic prophet Mohammed, which have sparked Muslim outrage and rioting in Europe. O'Reilly never discussed this on his program and attributed the printing of the cartoons to students who "apparently hate Christianity", and had on his show the editor of the rival student newspaper that ran the Muhammad cartoons— The Oregon Commentator.

[1][2][3][4]

Hello? Could anyone explain why the University Student Newspaper Controversy section was shortened? I just checked up on this article a day after I repost the section with extra text to make the it more coherent after reading User: Ogdred comments in the previous post above, then I come back here to see the section shorten by User: Ogdred with no other reason then irrelevancy (I know it is hard to write a valid reason for changes in that small box on the edit page but irrelevancy is a reason that can be easily challenged without a valid comparison). The newer version of the section I posted seemed fine to me, the removal of the more detailed section seems to me unexplainable. Here are the two versions of the section, first is the last one I posted and the shorten one posted by User: Ogdred:

On May 17, 2006 Bill O'Reilly while discussing controversial cartoons of Jesus that offended Christians published by a University of Oregon student newspaper- The Insurgent, he incorrectly claimed that the University's president Dave Frohnmayer had allowed the university's students to publish the cartoons; this is in fact untrue since Frohnmayer has no control over the content since the university newspapers are student-run and the school lacks the ability to remove funding because of a 2000 United States Supreme Court decision on the case Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System v. Southworth. The Insurgent- the newspaper that ran the cartoons was apparently responding to The Oregon Commentator’s (a rival student newspaper) decision to publish controversial cartoons of the Islamic prophet Mohammed, which have sparked Muslim outrage and rioting in Europe. O'Reilly never discussed this on his program and attributed the printing of the cartoons to students who "apparently hate Christianity", and had on his show the editor of the rival student newspaper that ran the Muhammad cartoons— The Oregon Commentator. O'Reilly during his interview with the editor made a comparison between the two publications and claimed that The Oregon Commentator is responsible and that The Insurgent was irresponsible, and later commented on his radio program that if a student newspaper published anything attacking a minority group (like Muslims, a religious minority in Oregon) the university would intervene and remove funding.[5][6][7][8][9]

On May 17, 2006, O'Reilly incorrectly claimed that the University of Oregon's president Dave Frohnmayer allowed the student newspaper, The Insurgent, university's students to publish controversial cartoons of Jesus. In fact, Frohnmayer has no control over the student-run newspaper. On his radio program, he later commented that if a student newspaper published anything attacking a minority group (like Muslims, a religious minority in Oregon) the university would intervene and remove funding.[10][11][12][13][14]

The two versions explain the basic controversy but the additional information adds info on O'Reilly never mentioning the newspaper printing the cartoons as response to the rival newspaper(the same rival newspaper that had it's editor on his show) and the section also explains why the university can't intervene in the student newspaper's affairs (the supreme court decision) so people on wikipedia aren't taking Media Matters word for it that the University can't intervene (which is something that should be avoided, except for the clips). I know this is long and with all the other sections seems a little excessive but this is a genuine controversy (Dispute of Accuracy) compared to some of the other stuff (Controversial subjects discussed by Bill O'Reilly), I'm adding the info back and if anyone wants to remove information be descriptive with your reasons. User: Pheoinixflame

Sorry -- in my original deletion and comment about the text being "incoherent", I meant that the writing here is in dire need of an editor; it is overly complicated and riddled with grammatical errors. If you re-read the first sentence, you'll understand what I mean. The new additions to the article added more issues about his double standard regarding Muslims and Christians, but didn't improve on the writing quality.

Now, the first (exceedingly long!) sentence says the controversy is that he was incorrect about Frohnmayer's authority:

"On May 17, 2006 Bill O'Reilly while discussing controversial cartoons of Jesus that offended Christians published by a University of Oregon student newspaper- The Insurgent, he incorrectly claimed that the University's president Dave Frohnmayer had allowed the university's students to publish the cartoons; this is in fact untrue since Frohnmayer has no control over the content since the university newspapers are student-run and the school lacks the ability to remove funding because of a 2000 United States Supreme Court decision on the case Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System v. Southworth."

But if the controversy is indeed the accuracy of O'Reilly's statement, most of what follows is irrelevant. But, if it is actually that his views are inconsistent or hypocritical, why bring up the court case at all? Or is the controversy that he didn't tell his audience about the original anti-Muslim cartoons?

My cut only intended to try to focus this entry around what I thought was actually consider controversial here. --Ogdred 04:16, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I completely agree with you that the first sentence is really long (All in one sentence: Who, What, Where, Why) and you are right about the basic controversy (I said in my last post that both versions covered it) but the controversy doesn't have to limited to his false accusations against Frohnmayer (The name of the section is after all called University of Oregon Student Newspaper Controversy not False Accusations against University President) and should also cover O'Reilly's disputed coverage of the issue (including why the coverage is disputed).

The information is on topic and is relevant but the section could be shorter, if you can do this without sacrificing detail go ahead.

User: Pheoinixflame

The man makes his money by generating contraversy, and he is very good at it. So of course there is going to be a large information about those contraversys. This is wikipedia, the encycopedia that has everything in it that you wont find in mainstream encycopedia's. As long as it is factual and the information does not cause any harm. I think that it has a place on wikipedia. So basically stop gripping unless there is something unfactual in the article.

Memo to Pheoinixflame

Please read up on some cardinal wikipedia policies including original research. Deriving your own conclusions from primary source data is a prime example of violating wikipedia's ban on original research--your interpretation of the census data CANNOT be included in a wikipedia article unless you publish your findings in a reputable source. If you are convinced that the census data contradicts O'Reilly's claims, then go ahead and publish your conviction and we can then include it in an article. The wording that you keep reverting was arrived at through a series of deliberations that

Country Name Total in Billions of U.S. $ (Year to Date) Total in Billions of U.S. $

France 5.03 53.05

Source: [15]

December 2005

Country Name Total in Billions of U.S. $ (Year to Date) Total in Billions of U.S. $

France 4.98 56.25

Source: [16]

Above is a comparison of the month of May through the years 2003, 2004, and 2005; notice that the Total increases from 46.29 in 03 to 53.05 in 04 to 56.25 in 05. This clearly shows that overall trade increased during O'Reilly's alleged boycott. Two things should be noted: overall trade did decreased by about a billion from 2002 to 2003 but this trend started early on in the year before the boycott was called (see statistics below for details) and this was just exports that decreased the United States continued importing French goods which in fact increased over all four years, but I can't say France didn't lose "potential" trade but I do know (with these statistics) that France did not lose "billions of dollars" of trade it had the year before.

Here below are the statistics of the first month of the boycott (March 03) with a comparison of the same month the year before (March 02), notice the 2003 decrease is too great to be explained with just these statistics because the difference between the two (Year to Date) Totals don’t match the difference in the totals of just this month, this means that the decrease had accumulated from before the boycott.

(The values given are for Imports and Exports added together.)

March 2002

Country Name Total in Billions of U.S. $ (Year to Date) Total in Billions of U.S. $

France 4.27 12.32

Source: [17]

March 2003

Country Name Total in Billions of U.S. $ (Year to Date) Total in Billions of U.S. $

France 4.04 11.33

Source: [18]

Here below are the statistics of the about billion dollar loss in trade over 2002 to 2003.

December 2002

Country Name Total in Billions of U.S. $ (Year to Date) Total in Billions of U.S. $

France 3.91 47.43

Source: [19]

December 2003

Country Name Total in Billions of U.S. $ (Year to Date) Total in Billions of U.S. $

France 4.35 46.29

Source: [20]

None of this information is original research; you need to understand what I wrote before you make mistakes. User: Pheoinixflame

The reason we cited and MENTIONED outside groups is to avoid violating wikipedia's policy against original research. Looking at the census data and determining that it contradicts O'Reilly's claim is original research, and must be avoided. Instead, we noted that other groups have looked at census data and we mentioned their findings, rather than our own opinions. Once again, go back and read the deliberations on the subject and please do not alter a compromise that avoids violating the policies that your phrasing does not. Stanley011 05:38, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

you are well-advised to review on this very discussion page before earning yourself a block. Stanley011 20:04, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Stanley011, I feel your being dishonest about the statement I added; the information was already in the article. [21]O'Reilly's claim of France losing "billions of dollars" contradicts the U.S. census figures which state that total imports of French goods to the U.S. increased. If you feel the source in the article is not enough, here is some info from the U.S. Census Bureau Foreign Trade Division on total trade between the U.S. and France to help clarify anything you don’t understand.

(The values given are for Imports and Exports added together.)

December 2003

Country Name Total in Billions of U.S. $ (Year to Date) Total in Billions of U.S $

France 4.35 46.29 Source: [22]

December 2004

I think this page should be deleted

I do not particularly like Bill O'Reilly. I also do not particularly hate him though he sometimes has been offensive to things that I believe in. Nevertheless, this page is really a POV Fork to me. I think it is completely inappropriate for an encyclopedia. But, I see it was nominated for deletion (on other grounds) previously. It had strong support for keep. I think I will nominate it again, but with different grounds. That may not go forward, but I want the delete request to go forward with good reasons.--Blue Tie 00:04, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

If there are POV problems, then why nominate it for deletion rather than working with others on fixing those problems that you perceive? Stanley011 03:37, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Please read the page on deletion for a complete explanation. --Blue Tie 04:41, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Summary of my reasons: I consider the article to be an uncyclopedic POV Fork such that a fix requires massive changes beyond the ordinary. Indeed, being unencyclopedic, I do not think it really belongs. --Blue Tie 21:24, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

It seems this proposal is hasn't got a "snowball's chance in hell". I am thinking of withdrawing it. --Blue Tie 13:42, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

The thing is, this article was created by editors of the article on O'Reilly in order to "offshore" the controversies, as it were. I don't tend to agree with POV forks, so I would tend to support the material being merged into Bill O'Reilly. But that seems to be unacceptable to some people (hmm, wonder why!) and so it cools its heels over here instead. Kasreyn 23:40, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Added Anti gay remarks stuff

you can thank me later- The bird

Unless you find a reliable source also discussing the anti-gay remarks, it can not be included as per the Biography of Living Persons guideline at Wikipedia. Unsourced comments are potentially libelous and we can not take that risk. ju66l3r 05:32, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Ah you want a source? Alright then here is your source - http://mediamatters.org/items/200512090016

If you STILL don't believe it, feel free to watch the video. - The bird

Please see my edit of your section to get a better feel for a higher quality submission to Wikipedia. Notice how inline references are accomplished with the <ref> tag and how I've modified the text to be a bit more explicit and removed the violation of copyright from the referenced article (you can't just cut'n'paste from the original source). ju66l3r 05:51, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Look, we are keeping this page, and it's not getting deleted

Look people, we will have it two ways.

1. We will keep the page 2. Delete this page, but dump all the info into his article

Okay, you got that people? -The bird —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.189.97.150 (talk • contribs) .

You don't get to decide on your own. The AfD process continues until an administrator takes action based on consensus determined from the article's discussion entry at the AfD page. Removing the AfD tag is considered vandalism. ju66l3r 05:20, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I think its fine to incorporate it in the main article. Some of it is already there. --Blue Tie 20:04, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Okay what is wrong with you people?

It turns out, that even after showing TWO admins the info he needed he STILL got banned from an admin named Glen. He told me through MSN...Now I knew that wikipedian's admins were not the BEST on the internet, but after hearing this you guys have to be the most sick, vile people i've ever heard in my life. You all she be ashamed of yourselves, and put the anti-gay remarks back in the article, now that you have the info you need, since some jackass blocked him EVEN after he had the info he needed. Again the text was the following:On the December 8 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor, host Bill O'Reilly offered a Factor jacket to radio "shock jock" Howard Stern. After Stern said, "I won't wear it, but I will give it to a crack whore" and handed it back, O'Reilly told him: "I'm not having this on some lesbian somewhere. It's not going to happen."

and the source was - http://mediamatters.org/items/200512090016 Dragong4 05:51, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Issues with this page

First of all, many of these issues are not controversies. Strangely, there is some inherent tautology in this article because it has the title controversies while at the same time has a section titled controversies. Although controversy can arise from some of the issues this article seems to question:

1. The factual accuracy of what O'Reilly says (and therefore by implication whether this is sloppy research, improvisation and poor judgment by the host or the deliberate falsification of information to gainsay or compromise guests).

2. The treatment of guests (lack of civility. lack of willingness to discuss issues that O'Reilly feels strongly about not discussing and name calling)

3. Denial of bias when apparent bias seems to be clear

4. Accusations of racism and sexism

I think that considering the extreme manner in which O'Reilly conducts his entertainment show an article covering these points would be in order. However, at the moment, this is not an article but a collection of issues. It lacks coherency, is, in places, overkilled with references as if it needs to drive so many points home. The film Outfoxed is only mentioned as a refernce whereas it is quiet an important document in claiming media bias.

I would suggest :

Removing the criticals and rivals section. Incorporating this is a longer intro section. Changing the article subheadings in someway similar to the way I have outlined above. Having some sort of introduction/overview of each section. Pruning the word content down by 50%. Readers can go to articles/references if they wish to know more.

whetehr it could then go back into the main page I don't know but at the moment this is unweildy. I would do it myself but don't have the time. But if someone starts I will return and assist.

Candy 11:57, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I think you raise some interesting points. In particular I agree that there is a problem with the sense of "controversies". I have recommended that this page be deleted because to me it looks like a POV Fork and Cruft. However, it has a strong Keep vote, so that RfD failed. However, I still think, even if the article is kept, it should be improved. Some of the things you mention make sense, but I just do not think a whole article focused on criticising this man is appropriate for NPOV in wikipedia. This article was originally about controversies. A somewhat silly idea because that is all O'Reilly deals in ... controversies. Its how he makes his money. It looks to me like it is half about controversies and half about O'Reilly's errors and faults (which, to me at least, are not controversial -- he makes mistakes. This is clear and sort of a "so what?"). The half that is about controversies is extremely light compared with the number of actual controversies he has reported on. So to me the article is very weak.

Although you make good points, your proposed edits do not necessarily improve it in the areas of concern to me but (I think) take it further into POV and Cruft. Incidentally, I am no fan of his. But I do not like turning wikipedia into a Hyde Park soapbox. O'Reilly clearly (and justly) generates some heat, and although I am sympathetic to some people who have problems with him, I think it is just wrong to build that perspective into wikipedia, either overtly or covertly. It lowers the quality of the encyclopedia.

Furthermore, I find O'Reilly difficult to classify. I have seen him do things that I thought were stupid or rude. Then I have seen him apologize for those things or reverse himself. I have seen him dismiss some guests, some who were even close to his viewpoint, and then I have seen him have patience with some guests who I felt did not deserve to be given air. Some people consider him a conservative. I think such labels are misleading, but it is clear that he advertises himself as some sort of advocate against various forms of proposed or actual social changes. That looks like what people consider to be social conservatism. But he is not strongly opposed to gay marriage, for example, which is a banner for many strong social conservatives. And many social conservatives are highly integrated with religious organizations and perspectives. O'Reilly (weirdly) is critical of BOTH specific religious organizations AND also critical of those who generally oppose a religious perspective. He is even critical of the Catholic Church, of which he is a practicing member. So he is hard to classify. It is like he sort of hates organized religion and also hates organized anti-religion! Similarly, there is almost no position on which he stands that does not require some degree of lengthy explanation to get the full gist of it.

You describe his show as "entertainment". I think this shows bias on your part since he claims it is a news show and it is advertised as such. (Thats ok with me... everyone has biases) I happen to agree that it is an entertainment show, but that is because I think all news presented on TV is "entertainment" and that is why we watch through the advertisements. However, there are different types of "entertainment", sitcoms, soaps, mysteries, religion and ... as we are discussing here... news shows.

Finally, I think it is probably important to note that O'Reilly does not claim to be unbiased. He claims to give both sides a fair hearing, which generally, I think he does. (Often he takes one side and the guest has the other side). There are some exceptions. I have never seen him have never seen him have a show that provided both sides to NAMBLA for example. There are apparently some arguments that he does not consider valid for a "fair and balanced" discussion. Actually, as I think about it, I agree with him on that. --Blue Tie 14:34, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

You do make some strong points here BlueTie and very eloquently. I don't see O'Reilly enough to have a grasp on the man nor have I read any of his books. Hoever, regardless of what he calls his programme it's far from what I expect as a news programme (notice I'm British and there's my bias). CNN is supposed to be news but it is a good chunk of speculation (although it really depends which version you are watching). I guess I need to watch some of his webcasts to see what he is like nowadays.

I would still like the article to be seriously changed if it is to stay. If it is to go, then a synopsis needs to go into his main page.

Candy 22:21, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I think its here to stay. I sometimes watch it. I think it would not be very interesting to someone from England because he focuses so much on US stuff. Once in a while, he gets me thinking. As far as news shows go, in the US, its all "Infotainment" now. Even the nightly news shows (Except possibly the Nightly Business Report on PBS) are working for ratings. --Blue Tie 22:50, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

beginning

I added to the beginning because it was just "bill oreilly has been the subject of controversy" or something similar. I added notable examples and counter-examples so that the reader doesn't have to scroll down to read about each individual controversy.

Mark Foley

I do not know if the Mark Foley entry would be better served in the Fox News Channel controversies article. It would also be better to find out whether it was just a typo or something pre-meditated. It just seems like speculation right now. MrMurph101 04:35, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

This does not seem to be notable. Nor is the "Shut Up" line terribly notable either. I'm for removing these are trivia. Kyaa the Catlord 15:21, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Why the $!@# did you people get rid of the anti-gay remark that was added?

Seriously, this will remain added untill somebody can PROVE otherwise. -TheBird

YouTube links

This article is one of thousands on Wikipedia that have a link to YouTube in it. Based on the External links policy, most of these should probably be removed. I'm putting this message here, on this talk page, to request the regular editors take a look at the link and make sure it doesn't violate policy. In short: 1. 99% of the time YouTube should not be used as a source. 2. We must not link to material that violates someones copyright. If you are not sure if the link on this article should be removed or you would like to help spread this message contact us on this page. Thanks, ---J.S (t|c) 04:57, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Proposal

I made a proposal to merge this and Critics and Rivals of Bill O'Reilly to a new "Bill O'Reilly controversies and criticisms" article. I made the proposal on the critics and rivals talk page. MrMurph101 22:14, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

From former Critics and rivals of Bill O'Reilly

Most Popular

"As the most popular cable news commentator on American television"

Is there a source for this claim? It either needs a citation or a reworking to something not so POV.

Good suggestion anon. I reworded it and provided a citation. Stanley011 13:50, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

This article needs serious fixing

It has tone issues and is just not that well written. Croctotheface 08:26, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I took the clean up tag off. I'm not contesting that it needs cleaning up but it would be nice to hear something more specific than saying it has "tone issues" or "not that well written." Maybe put something in the cleanup log if you or someone else wants to put that tag back up. I checked the original log and did not see anything relating to this article. MrMurph101 04:29, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I made this comment before I did some fairly substantial rewrites. If you look at a version of the article from around the time I made this comment I think that you'll recognize why I didn't bother with specifics. The writing was, as I said, just not very good, even in terms of readibility. Croctotheface 09:05, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Cindy Sheehan

In what regard is Cindy Sheehan a critic or rival of Bill O'Reilly?--Hal Raglan 03:21, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

That's a good point. Maybe we should put her back in the controversies article. I believe she did have a negative comment toward Bill O'Reilly at one time but that, on its own, does not make her a critic necessarily since she does not write or talk about him on a consistent basis. MrMurph101 18:37, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I also think the Glick section should be moved back to the controversies article.--Hal Raglan 13:59, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I moved them back but Glick may be better suited to be in the article for The O'Reilly Factor. MrMurph101 23:39, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

CBC

Shouldn't the CBC be on this? They've openly challenged O'Reilly and Fox News to a televised debate. Doesn't that constitue some mention in this article?

It can be included. Just find a source. MrMurph101

18:04, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

My Mistake

In my edit summary, I meant to say it has not been released to the public yet, not published. MrMurph101 02:04, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Sweet Jesus

Should the website sweetjesusihatebilloreilly.com be mentioned here, and possibly the book? The writers seem overtly critical of him, and I think it's worth at least a quick mention. 216.250.13.69 04:20, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

No. Dubc0724 17:09, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Terry Gross

The Terry Gross section is too pro-o'reilly. It doesn't even say what she was actually asking. FYI, she was asking him to respond to why he was critizing reviewers of his book "Bill O'Reilly for Kids" especially when they weren't negative.

Is this even notable? Does anyone care that O'Reilly had a fit during one particular interview? Kyaa the Catlord 15:04, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Apparently a lot of people do, including NPR. I'd say that makes it pretty notable, and have accordingly reverted the removal. Seraphimblade 10:24, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Self-referential statements? You can do better than that. Notability hinges on having a variety of sources speaking on the subject. If there is a lasting criticism from NPR's Gross, there should be some more traffic related to it. Single sourcing is poor sourcing. Find more sources, please. Kyaa the Catlord 19:43, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

YouTube links

This article is one of thousands on Wikipedia that have a link to YouTube in it. Based on the External links policy, most of these should probably be removed. I'm putting this message here, on this talk page, to request the regular editors take a look at the link and make sure it doesn't violate policy. In short: 1. 99% of the time YouTube should not be used as a source. 2. We must not link to material that violates someones copyright. If you are not sure if the link on this article should be removed or you would like to help spread this message contact us on this page. Thanks, ---J.S (t|c) 04:57, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Tucker Carlson and Bill Moyers

Are their alleged rivalries with O'Reilly really notable? It sure does not seem like they go out of their way to criticize him regularly like Olbermann or Franken do... Kyaa the Catlord 15:14, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Five days and noone seems to have an answer, this has been removed due to lacking notability. Kyaa the Catlord 02:48, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I've reverted the removals-the information was sourced, which implicitly establishes notability. These are clear cases of criticism of O'Reilly (the subject of the article), are sourced, and belong here. Seraphimblade 10:18, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

One time blurbs are NOT notable, they are trivial. If you can show a pattern of criticism these should stay, if not, they should be removed. Kyaa the Catlord 19:41, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Sourcing concerns

To avoid splitting this issue into two sections, I've moved it here. Please note that notability must be established for the phenomenon/article subject as a whole (in this case, criticism of O'Reilly), not necessarily for every individual article section (though each section still need meet verifiability and cite a reliable, verifiable source). The sources in aggregate must prove notability for the full article. Notability must only be established for the section if, for example, one wanted to split into the separate article "Terry Gross' criticism of Bill O'Reilly", which of course is not being suggested here.

In this case, NPR can be primarily cited-firstly, the information sought is self-referential, and secondly, they're hardly acting in a self-serving manner-in fact, the ombudsman's commentary cited is self-critical and apologetic, hardly the hallmark of a puff piece. WP:RS says to be skeptical of primary sources and to use them sparingly, not "Absolutely never ever no way". This usage of them meets the exemption (facts are not in significant contention, subject's knowledge of self, not unduly self-serving). Also, while it was on his program rather then on the web, the fact that O'Reilly has -also- reported- significantly on this incident is not in serious dispute-so if both sides consider it a major incident, it really probably is. Finally, the incident is notable due to the "criticism of the critic" from her "own side" so to speak-Gross took a lot of heat over that one.

The Carlton piece, on the other hand, is notable for the exact opposite reason-while Carlton isn't as vocal a critic, he's on O'Reilly's "own side", so to speak. The facts of the incident aren't in much doubt and are easily verifiable (a non-copyright-infringing link to the video is even provided from the site and doesn't seem likely to disappear anytime soon). The writeup of that incident is not a "blurb", it's a full-length article. The article title is not necessarily "Vocal and repetitive critics of Bill O'Reilly", and while we probably should refrain from adding "Joe Johnson from Nowhereville once said 'Bill O'Reilly is an idiot'", these are certainly notable critics that provoked media reaction. Seraphimblade 20:45, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

What media reaction? You have not made a case that there were any media sources that provide any support for these people being more than one time instances which are completely trivial and unworthy of note in an encyclopedic work. Kyaa the Catlord 22:08, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

NPR and O'Reilly are members of the media, major members at that. Their reactions are thus a verifiable media reaction, and would reach a nationwide and sizable audience. However, perhaps we should file for a third opinion here, if that would be agreeable to you? Seraphimblade 21:02, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

In order to meet notability and BLP, you need third party sources. Primary sources are fantastic, but you have no evidence that shows that this one time spat is anything but trivial. Kyaa the Catlord 20:44, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Terry Gross NPOV

Section is still biased. I recommend that editor listen to interview first. At the very least, actual information (that presents her side) should be written.

Is there an interview or the like from her available on the matter? I think that would make a good addition to the section, if her reactions can be sourced. Seraphimblade 21:04, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Section reverts

Still disagree on these, but have filed for a third opinion. As this is a BLP, will agree to leave the section removed pending the outcome. Seraphimblade 01:45, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that the only sources you can find related to this are the people involved in the trivial, apparently singular instance. I asked weeks ago for any reference to them being critics or rivals to O'Reilly from an outside source. Franken and Olbermann's spats are notable and noted by others in the media world, but the others... well, the only ones saying they are rivals are themselves. "Look at me! I hate O'Reilly too!" isn't cutting it when the only one carrying the sign is ignored. Kyaa the Catlord 03:46, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Would agree that they're not "rivals" per se, however the sources cited certainly acknowledge "criticism". Primary sources may be used for facts which are not in dispute-and since in all these cases O'Reilly acknowledged and responded to the criticism, the fact that it occurred can hardly be considered to be in dispute! Now, of course, if O'Reilly denied the Gross incident ever occurred, for example, a primary source would be insufficient to establish that it did-but that's not the case here. However, as I said, as this is a BLP concern I'm quite willing to leave the section removed until we receive a third opinion (and of course perhaps permanently depending on what that opinion is.) Seraphimblade 08:01, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Its also a notability concern. We have huge sections of this, imho, superfluous article addressing non-notable instances. Kyaa the Catlord 08:07, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Once again-notability is for a whole subject. In this case, the question is "Is the phenomenon of criticism of Bill O'Reilly notable?" From there, any specific instance only need be germane to the article (which criticism of O'Reilly is, it's in the title!) and verifiable (which, in this case, primary sources establish just fine-it would be hard to imagine that O'Reilly would deny an occurrence he's previously spoken about himself!) It's quite similar to any subject which includes multiple instances of something-each individual instance might not be notable (if, for example, the Franken/O'Reilly instance were on its own notable, there should be an article entitled "Rivalry between Al Franken and Bill O'Reilly.") I would argue that, while such an article on its own would fail notability, all the instances in aggregate achieve it. In that case, however, no individual case need achieve notability-only verifiability. (So, for example, a person can't come in and put in "My friend John once said Bill O'Reilly sucks"-that would be criticism, but it would be unverifiable. The instances which you removed, however, are entirely verifiable and verified.) For another instances of "notability in aggregate", you may wish to look at the Google bomb article-very few if any of these instances would be notable on their own, but in aggregate they paint a picture of a well-documented and notable phenomenon. However, if we deleted each individual example which on its own would not be notable, there'd be little to no article left! Only giving something its own article is an assertion that that thing standing alone is notable-including a subject in a topic on a larger article is only an assertion that, firstly, the event is verifiable, secondly, the event is an example of the phenomenon the article covers, and thirdly, that the example included is relevant to the subject of the article. I would hold that those three are met here. Seraphimblade 08:26, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Fantastic, so we make this a gigantic list of every bloody instance where someone says something critical of Bill O'Reilly. Wikipedia is not a collection of trivia. We do not need to include every instance of someone being critical of O'Reilly, we only should include the ones that are notable. Gross and Moyers do not have the sort of rivalry that Olbermann and Franken do with O'Reilly and included them only serves to pad this article pointlessly. Kyaa the Catlord 08:34, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't think "every trivial instance" should be included at all-however, an incident's applicability should be determined by consensus. At least in the Gross case, it ruffled quite a few feathers, caused NPR to issue a formal apology, and certainly sparked comment on both sides-that doesn't really seem a trivial thing. Seraphimblade 08:55, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

It is quasi-political fancruft though. Does it enhance this article? Is it better with it than without it? Not really, it happened and then quickly was water under the bridge even to the point of them having a nice chat about the interviewees book on O'Reilly's own show. Kyaa the Catlord 09:07, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Well sure, and that's quite an interesting counterpoint to the ones before (where the rivalries are effectively "for life"). The fact that a controversy ended well doesn't mean it wasn't controversial-any more then if you and I come to agreement here it would mean we never had a debate. Seraphimblade 09:22, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

If I was notable enough to have a wikipedia article, and was worthy enough to a have a similarly singular article like O'Reilly, I'd be happy to have you included. Seriously, this article probably shouldn't even exist. Olbermann doesn't have one, and he gets ripped quite often from the right (especially due to his brilliant career as a journalist prior to MSNBC, oh wait, he was on ESPN). Franken doesn't have a critics page, and he also gets ripped for being a comedian masquerading as a serious talk show host. Why is O'Reilly's critics and rivalries so notable that it deserves its own page? What makes ripping on Bill so special? Kyaa the Catlord 10:16, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

If you feel the article shouldn't exist at all, it may be best to list it on WP:AFD, as it doesn't meet any speedy criteria and a prod would assuredly be contested. Alternatively, if you can source a similar article on Olbermann or Franken, create away! If you're unfamiliar with AfD, I can walk you through the listing process. Seraphimblade 10:22, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Response to WP:3O request:
Okay, I'm not exactly following the notability complaint here. Terry Gross is obviously notable. Granted, this alone is insufficient to include her, just as it would be insufficient grounds to include some random celebrity's opinion on intelligent design in intelligent design article because the celebrity is notable in some context. The person has to be notable in context relevant to the article. This appears to be the case: she hosts nationally-syndicated radio show that is often of a political nature. And since on the occasion of her interview with O'Reilly she leveled repeated criticisms against him, this would make her a critic, a notable critic, and a relevantly-notable critic.

Next there is the concern for abiding by WP:BLP. Kyaa the Catlord wrote, "In order to meet notability and BLP, you need third party sources." Strictly speaking, this is false. I quote the relevant passage from WP:BLP:

The article should document, in a non-partisan manner, what reliable third party sources have published about the subject and, in some circumstances, what the subject may have published about themselves. The writing style should be neutral, factual, and understated, avoiding both a sympathetic point of view and an advocacy journalism point of view. [emphasis added]

Unfortunately, the policy page doesn't state what these circumstances are. There are some limited third-party sources available, however:

• interview of Gross by Salon.com founder David Talbot[23]
• group interview on On the Media[24]
• editorial piece from Media Matters[25]
• mentionings on Washington Post[26][27]

And of course, there is the primary source, the interview itself. In light of all this, I see no reason by Gross should not be mentioned as a critic. Simões (^talk/_contribs) 11:14, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for doing the work for SBlade. It doesn't seem to have been too difficult. I'm still not sure why he didn't just find those sources in the first place. Kyaa the Catlord 11:23, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Also, I never said Gross wasn't notable in and of himself, my question was "Is this one time spat with O'Reilly notable?" Is it recentism? Is it sensationalism? Is it just plain cruft? These concerns should also be addressed. Kyaa the Catlord 11:26, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Some comments on the provided sources: 1. Gross admits that she was "intentionally controversial". In other words, the rivalry is 'acting'. 2. On The Media is a related show on NPR. I asked for third party sources, not more from NPR itself. 3. Partisan website with a solid record of being anti-O'Reilly. So we have 1 potentially solid new source. Kyaa the Catlord 12:49, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Proposal

I am proposing that we start a "Bill O'Reilly controveries and criticisms" article and take the more notable parts of the controversies and critics and rivals articles and merge them to this new article. There are many articles on controversial subjects that either have a "controversy and criticism" section or has been split into a new article. It can be organized better to avoid recentism and notablity issues and provide a more coherent structure once a consensus can be reached on what should or should not be included. There have been so many sections and subsections that have come and gone since the Bill O'Reilly controversies was still in the main article that we need to evaluate what is worth staying and what should be canned. This may be a better way to go instead of trying another afd for the entire article(s). The articles are too notable to merit deletion but certain sections may be canned if an afd-like discussion was proposed for them. Is this proposal a good idea? MrMurph101 21:52, 28 November 2006 (UTC)