Talk:Public image of Bill O'Reilly (political commentator)/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

Merged page histories

Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Critics and rivals of Bill O'Reilly, I've merged Critics and rivals of Bill O'Reilly and Bill O'Reilly controversies under this more standard heading. I'm going to dump the former into the latter so that involved editors can figure out how to best sort it out. Cool Hand Luke 22:15, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

"Pinhead" factually

I don't remember any mention of O'Reilly denying he uses the term. I also don't believe he has guessed at the number of times he has used the term, as he did with his use of "Shut Up!!". I nominate this information to be moved to the "Other" section or deleted because he is offering his opinion every time he uses the term. If someone told him that he used the term often, and he replied saying he had only said it twice ever; It would belong under questionable factual accuracy. Anynobody 08:10, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Good point. I've moved the section.--HughGRex 13:18, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad you chose to move it rather than delete it, I can't think of any well respected journalist insulting people so directly and so often. I thought that journalists were supposed to be respectful even towards those they disagree with, not because they are supposed to be civil but because they'd like to interview them. He must know that people he insults are not going to line up to be on his show, so he must not care if they would appear on his show to debate. Going back to his "no spin zone" approach, giving one view and excluding all others is spin. Therefore if he wanted to really create a forum free of spin, he should be trying to get his "pinheads" to show up and debate him rather than alienating them. Anynobody 00:17, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I think it's worth mentioning also but should be combined with, possibly, a new section that discusses his interview style that include what he generally gets criticized for and accused of, (ie. name calling, telling guests to "shut up," interrupting, etc.). Having each individual issue having its own section makes the article look bloated which what was why I put the clean up tag up in the first place. MrMurph101 02:11, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Where can this be verified? Shawn Hornbeck comments get O'Reilly cancelled as speaker

I removed this section under Shawn Hornbeck: O'Reilly was scheduled to be the keynote speaker at a dinner sponsored by the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children in Florida on March 2, 2007. On February 9, the NCMEC announced that O"Reilly had been replaced by John Walsh. The NCMEC official page doesn't say anything about it, and I've seen mention that his comments will not affect his keynote speaker role. I do think it is inappropriate for somebody that made comments like he did to be the keynote speaker, but until NCMEC announces a change we should not say anything one way or the other. Anynobody 01:05, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I see that this has been re-added to the article, but I plan to remove it momentarily again because a correction to the St. Louis Post-Dispatch article which originally reported that O'Reilly had been canceled by the NCMEC indicates that O'Reilly, not NCMEC, decided not to appear. The retraction is not available online, apparently, but appeared on page A2 of the February 22, 2007 edition of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch:

Representatives of Bill O'Reilly and the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children say the TV show host canceled his appearance at a fundraiser scheduled in Naples, Fla., next month. A story in the Metro section Friday incorrectly stated that the organization, which had received complaints about O'Reilly's on-air comments concerning Shawn Hornbeck, had removed O'Reilly as its speaker. The article also incorrectly stated that O'Reilly's representatives would not comment. Prior to publication, no one from the show had responded to a reporter's phone calls and e-mails requesting comment.

To that end, I've removed the statement.68.166.139.133 19:33, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's clear that his appearance was cancelled. Whether NCMEC talked O'Reilly into withdrawing (to save face) or whether he just thought it would be a good idea to withdraw is not known. It would be unencyclopedic to speculate that they sort of nudged him in any particular direction.

In a statement, the local branch of the NCMEC said that

In response to the numerous e-mails and inquiries we have received, we are providing the following update regarding the Collier County, Florida branch fundraising dinner scheduled for March 9, 2007 in Naples, Florida. Bill O’Reilly, host of The O’Reilly Factor, will not be a speaker at the dinner. The dinner will be held as scheduled. John Walsh, host of America’s Most Wanted, will be the keynote speaker.

Thus, I've reinserted the text, with a slight modification. Rather than saying that NCMEC cancelled O'Reilly, it now simply says "As a result of his comments, the Naples, Florida Chapter of the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children announced that O'Reilly's appearance at a $500-per-person fundraiser where he was to give the keynote address was cancelled. He was replaced by John Walsh." That is well sourced and accurate.--HughGRex 00:17, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Is it fair, though, to say that the appearance was canceled "as a result of his comments?" I think the statement would be even less biased were the sentence changed slightly to read "Following his comments, the Naples, Florida chapter..." 69.22.236.11 06:53, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, I wondered about how to phrase that. I think it's almost certain that there's a direct connection, but the citations don't explicitly support such a connection. Your phrasing is concise and NPoV, clearly an improvement. Thanks!--HughGRex 10:46, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

This article needs to be more concise

Now that the two articles have been merged, with a new title, it may be time to go through this. There is a lot of fluff here that needs to be weeded out but the trick is about how it can be done. O'Reilly is a controversial guy which, for that reason, is going to attract a lot of criticism. That is fine and it justifies a criticism article for him. However, it seems that much of the time people add some topic that he addressed and therefore must be included and continuously bloats the article. This stuff needs to be weeded out or consolidated better. I would also recommend that a section be devoted to those who always criticize him (ie Media Matters, Olberman, Franken, etc.) and another devoted to criticisms that garnered more mainstream attention. This is just an idea to try to help make the article better. MrMurph101 02:31, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

While I think that bloat is basically an unavoidable consequence of having an article like this, I'm certainly not opposed to attempts to control it. Regarding the idea of sectioning off the article, though, I'm not entirely sure how we'd set up standards for that sort of thing. For instance, the Franken feud initially got a bunch of mainstream press, especially relating to the lawsuit. It seems like your criteria is less about "mainstream attention" and more about distinguishing between his feuds with other media entities with platforms of their own and controversial statements he's made regarding issues that get coverage outside his own show. This could certainly be one way to do it. Croctotheface 02:42, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

That is another way of putting it. It might not be a bad idea to have his fued with Franken put into its own article. The fued is only a criticism against the person you decide not to like. MrMurph101 17:03, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

No, that's a POV Fork. We just need to remove comments from people, and remove the non-notable incidents. Quite honestly, we don't need this article at all... and comments from the "watchdog" groups should be left out entirely; if there is criticism, it can come from more notable people than organizations that have an actual stated agenda to push. We don't need to report on every single nitpick MMFA or FAIR has with O'Reilly - if we absolutely have to include them, just state that they have had many disputes, and leave it at that. Details in that subject are not needed - it's common sense. --75.21.241.167 21:41, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you in general anon about the content. A seperate article about the fued with Al Franken would be a good way to reduce the article size and it can just chronicle their feud in another article and hopefully not be there to criticize either one of them. That's just an idea though. The problem is if content is taken out it will just creep back in again. I'm just suggesting there should be a way to streamline it better and explain it more concisely without every "nitpick" mmfa or other advocacy groups have to offer. MrMurph101 01:09, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

"Neutrality" tag

User 70.134.116.241 added the tag on 22:00, 30 March 2007, without explanation. I'm removing it. If someone wishes to have a discussion about the article's NPoV status, they're invited to have it here.--HughGRex 23:15, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I kind of stumbled onto this article, and I must say it appears to be nothing more than a place to attack O'Reilly. For instance, the situation regarding his childhood home is a non-issue. By the information reported in this article, it would appear that he is telling the truth, so what is the criticism? This section then goes on to make a subdued attack on the income of his father (max of $35,000 a year) to give the illusion of a wealthy person in today's dollars, on behalf of a biased group in itself (FAIR). Even if it was valid, what is the point of the criticism other than to pile on anything possible to make O'Rielly look bad. Wikipedia is good for many things, but articles like this are nothing more than gossip soapboxes that serve little or no purpose. Arzel 17:08, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

With the internet age it should be easier to fact-check anything someone says, this is such a page. Here is listed MAJOR (small recent issues eventually get removed) issues and if such statements turn out to be nothing then the supporting evidence is cited. The rezoning of his childhood home is an issue solely because he calls his upbringing working class -if he looks into the backgrounds of politicians it's only right to look into his. If lies are told about either party its only right to keep them, so they can finally be put to rest (ie the incessant Al Gore and the internet story). If you dont like this page then work on it, how can holding someone accountable (as he says he does all the time) be bad? With facts and sources of course. Dmanning 03:41, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I didn't realize that Wikipedia was the source for fact finding for private individuals. Wikipedia is supposed to be a compilation of encyclopedic facts, never would such a collection of one-sided facts be presented in a reputable encylopedia.

Example: In November 2005 both Keith Olbermann and O'Reilly attended a charity fundraiser thrown by New York Yankees manager Joe Torre. Olbermann noted, "[O'Reilly] never got within 20 feet of me" and said "I swear to God every time I looked up, [O'Reilly] would suddenly look down." Olbermann also alleged that Fox News had been distributing his phone number and hacked into his e-mail.[citation needed]

How is that a controversy regarding O'Reilly? This is nothing more than hersay by Olbermann, and certainly should not be included. In in reference to my original problem with the article the location of his childhood home. I still don't see what the controversy is. The only real controversy that one could consider here is whether he grew up in a lower middle class home. One must remember that $1 is worth a lot more in some places than other places. The $35,000 adjusted for inflation in my area would have an adjusted purchase power of about $45,000 in todays dollars (because NY and it's sourounding area is so expensive). That wage for a family of four would be considered lower middle class. The primary problem with this article is that it seems to be looking for lies. Arzel 14:51, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Whaaaat??? I simply don't believe your assertion that $35K (in the 1950's) is equivalent to $45K (in today's dollars) in any region of the US, or that it was lower middle class in that era. How do you do that calculation? Do you have any reliable economic sources that support your POV?--HughGRex 10:25, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

The cost of living in NY area is approximately 197% of the cost of living in my home town currently, thus $90k is closer to $45k in current dollars, which is below the medium household income in my hometown. The assumption that $90k is the same throughout the US is a poor assumption to make. Do the comparison yourself. Arzel 22:48, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Careful: Nobody said anything about $90K "in current dollars." FAIR said that "$35,000 in 1978 would be worth over $90,000 in 2001 dollars." According to the Fed Bank of Minneapolis, that's roughly equivalent to $110K in 2007 dollars. That might not make you rich in Long Island, but it's hardly "humble."

I don't know anything about the demographics of your hometown, but the Bureau of Labor Statistics says that the NY-Long Island cost of living is only 10-15% higher than the least expensive urban area in the US. $110K in Long Island is equivalent to ca. $61K in the less expensive American non-urban small towns. (It's equivalent to $95K in Cleveland.) That's a pretty good living, wouldn't you say?--HughGRex 00:43, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I didn't compare to an urban area, not everyone lives in a large urban area. Compared to Bismark, ND (urban by ND standards), the cost of living in NY is roughly twice. While not poor, that is certainly not rich, and appears to be indicitive of a middle class household. The FAIR group is using the information to give the impression that he grew up in a wealthy home, but when you look at the actual purchase power to other parts of the country it is obvious that he grew up in a middle class home. Much of this really has to do with your personal interpretation of rich or middle class. It is difficult to make accurate comparison across regions and timeframes without additional research, but it is clear that FAIR has a specific agenda to provide a specific point of view which makes BOR look like a liar regarding his upbringing. Arzel 05:36, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think you read carefully what I had to say. I said "$110K in Long Island is equivalent to ca. $61K in the less expensive American non-urban small towns." I don't know what the CPI is in Bismark, but I bet $61K goes reasonably far.

Regardless of that fact, you miss the point. What did O'Reilly say?

He said, "You don't come from any lower than I came from on an economic scale"

I tell you: from Long Island to Anchorage, including Cleveland and Bismark, there are plenty of people who are lower on the economic scale than his family was. He was exaggerating the low economic status of his upbringing. That does not speak well of his credibility. Don't blame FAIR for investigating his claim.--HughGRex 10:15, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I did miss your $61K mark, but it doesn't change the fact it is still middle class. I will need to do a little research of my own to see if BOR was making a specific comments or a general comment, but I think you should look at the definition of Humble. It does not insinuate poorness.

Humble - Not proud or haughty: Not arrogrant or assertive. ranking low in a hierarchy or scale: Insignificant, unpretentious. Not costly or luxurious.

Not sure if I would call him humble today, and by his own statements he went to a private school; however as being raised Catholic this is hardly surprising. His statements are also that he was on the low economic scale in comparison with his peers in school. This is probably very true compared to his schoolmates. The real issue is he telling the truth? His father's salary is clearly not in the rich category, and compared to his neighbors and peers he probably was pretty low on the economic scale. I have had several Catholic friends that went to private school, some would say forced, in various cities, including the Chicago area. The one in Chicago had a father that made a salary similar to BOR's but her upbringing was very mundane and of middle class. Very Humble. The problem with FAIR is that they try to insinuate that he was not poor, therefor could not be humble. That is a dangerous causal relationship to make. Arzel 14:13, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

You seem to have abandoned any attempt at viewing and understanding O'Reilly's words, in favor of a very speculative interpretation. (Note: the word "humble" was mine, not O'Reilly's. He said, "You don't come from any lower than I came from on an economic scale." So I'm sorry to say that your running to the dictionary for a definition of "humble" was an exercise in irrelevance.) By your logic, Paul Allen's children could claim a low economic status, because their daddy isn't as rich as Bill Gates. But hey—we're easy. If you can find a Reliable Source which documents your interpretation, by all means include it in the article as counterpoint.--HughGRex 11:01, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

So my interpretation is speculative, where as yours is not? You put humble in quotes, and the context in which you wrote made it appear that you were quoting something O'Reilly stated, but this is irrelevant because instead of simply agreeing that your assumed definition of what humble is regarding O'Reilly you present an ad hominem towards me. However he has stated to be from a humble upbringing. Lets look at what he actually said. The link to that quote (link 56) http://www.niagarafallsreporter.com/franken.html is from a Niagara Falls review of an Al Franken book which makes a claim that he made that statement, and does not cite the original source. This is not a valid reference for this quote. According to the Washington Post (link 50), http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A62722-2000Dec12?language=printer, he made the following quote.

Yes. My interpretation of his saying "You don't come from any lower than I came from on an economic scale" is taking his words at face value. It requires no interpretation. I mistakenly put the word "humble" in quotes, but I'm trying now to focus on what he actually said—which is clear and difficult to spin in any other direction. As for ad hominems, I criticized your debating style, not you personally.--HughGRex 01:22, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

"We give you genuine information instead of the calculated spin stuff. We're the only show from a working-class point of view. . . . These other [talk shows] – they work for each other and their friends in L.A., New York and D.C. They're all just talking to each other! It's true. I understand working-class Americans. I'm as lower-middle-class as they come."

The FAIR report (link 43), http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1070, pulled this quote, "Bill O'Reilly rose from humble beginnings to become a nationally known broadcast journalist" from the dust jacket of his book. So as it is the section currently has a quote attributed to O'Reilly which is not cited back to its original source, and the only quote which does link directly back says that he is lower-middle-class, which is very much open to interpretation, and without actually growing up there in that time is impossible to validate. He certainly wasn't rich. Critics of O'Reilly clearly feel that he is not of lower-middle-class, but is he lying like the article would have you believe?? In any case the quote in the current article has to go. Arzel 16:50, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

The Niagara Falls Reporter is apparently a legit source. I haven't followed it back to the Franken book and neither, apparently, have you. Until we determine the quote's provenance, it's appropriate to fact-tag it, but not to delete it.--HughGRex 01:22, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Personally I think the citation that should be used is the one from the FAIR report. Following the wiki citations guideline. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citing_sources the original citation is not valid, and unless there is some way to actually link to the article in the NFR it would be hard to validate by anyone else. At least the FAIR report is properly cited, plus you can watch the video of him actually saying it. Arzel 02:05, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Franken's book puts the quote as New York Observer but its not in their public facing website. Adding a "Franken cites O'reilly as saying" is fine, there are many non-web citations on WP. Without nexus you cant get the article.Dmanning 02:10, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

You should really read the citation section. It is improper to copy a citation from an intermediate source without making clear that you saw only that intermediate source. For example, you might find some information on a web page which says it comes from a certain book. Unless you look at the book yourself to check that the information is there, your reference is really the web page, which is what you must cite. The credibility of your article rests on the credibility of the web page, as well as the book, and your article must make that clear. If you are going to cite a book then you need to do a proper book citation. I haven't seen non-web citations that don't link back to the actual article unless it is from a book. Regardless of this, I don't see what the problem is in citing an ACTUAL VERIFIABLE quotation. What is wrong with the one I suggested? The more you push the weakly cited quote the more it reeks of POV. Arzel 02:59, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Read it before which is why I phrased it the way I did. It is only precise and verifiable to list it as Franken citing this source as no web based intermediary exists. By all means ADD your source but do not remove the original quote as the paragraph derives from it. Investigation continues...—Preceding unsigned comment added by Dmanning (talk • contribs) 09:54, 25 April 2007

I have yet to see any further discusion on the POV'ness of this article. Given the current state of this article and the fact that almost everything in this article is already included in the primary article I am nominating for deletion. Arzel 13:37, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

An afd is not the way to go because it will be kept like it has the previous times. It would be better to hack away at what you think is extraneous here and go from there. My issue with the article isn't POV but how it is presented. My view is that the article should address the main themes of what the criticism of O'Reilly is and offer the main examples that have been brought up. The structure of this article has never been very good. MrMurph101 00:31, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

My problem with this article (and other similar articles) is that it appears to be nothing more than a gateway for another agenda or group. It is well known that groups like Media Matters are specifically targeting individuals it views to be conservative in the media. Their own site is extremely POV in regards to their reporting of every issue. Yet Media Matters is the primary source of information for many of the criticisms in this article. The whole point of this article is to put a disparaging light on Bill O'Reilly, and from my point of view could never be NPOV because it's purpose is to present items critical of BOR. To this point I must ask; what purpose does this article (and others) serve? They certainly don't benefit wikipedia. This is not limited to just the left or the right, all sides are guilty. When you have legions of people whose only purpose (it would appear) is to search for some comment or statement made by some well known public figure that appears controversal and then plaster it all over the net to try and disparage the person made the statement it degrads the whole purpose of a project like wikipedia. Furthermore, are these issues really controversal? What makes them controversal? Some of them are, but who draws the line? Arzel 02:09, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Media Matters is very POV. It seeks and points out what it views as conservative misinformation in the media. Nonetheless, it is well researched and transparent—its source is usually published information and/or transcripts from broadcast shows. O'Reilly is free to respond with point-by-point rebuttals. That he declines to do so (usually resorting to name-calling against his critics) indicates that, in most cases, he simply has no rebuttal. Nor have his defenders, in most cases, supported him with factual rebuttals.

You ask "who draws the line?" The answer is that editors do. We can (and do) discuss whether specific criticisms of O'Reilly are notable, and we reach a consensus as to whether or not to leave them in. With a conscientious effort, we can do a service to the intrepid surfer by striving to make this article, and articles like it, fact-based and meaningful.--HughGRex 10:25, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, O'Reilly does rebut his critics when he does something called "truth police" and actually provides examples beyond just name calling. Whether you agree with his rebutals or not they are there. It would be good to research O'Reilly's responses. So far his only responses put here are about his childhood home and the "shut up" line. It is harder to cite particular responses since not everyone can do a lexis/nexis search. Getting these responses would help balance the article. MrMurph101 23:20, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a democracy. If a majority or concensus of people felt the world is flat that does not make it so. This is one the primary problems wikipedia has today, concensus building and democracy regarding facts resulting in a gray area that is not only incorrect, but is unfortunately correct enough that most people reading the page won't know what is right or what is wrong without doing their own research on the subject seperate from wikipedia. As it is this type of article does no service to the intrepid surfer. For those that have a strong opinion one way or the other it doesn't really matter, but for those that don't really lean one way or the other (like myself) they are left not knowing how much is true and how much is POV attacks from other outside medium using their site as a now valid reference for their personal point of view. As it is I propose that Media Matters and all other left wing sites and organizations not be valid references for any article and corresponding right wing sites be similarly eliminated from reference. if this article is to continue in this format. As for O'Rielly not rebutting these attacks. Ask yourself, to what benefit? Many people currently regard wikipedia as a source of misinformation as it is (largely due to articles like this). For O'Rielly (or any other simillarly attacked person) to defend or rebutt these types of attacks is to legitimize them, particularly ones like his childhood home (which he could never win even though it is not a controversy). Arzel 13:43, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not yours. (1)Media Matters is a very well researched, well documented site that uses context in all of its excerpts, which you'ld know if you read it. (2)Wikipedia is not viewed as a source of misinformation and it isnt for articles like these, wikipedia requires a brain, it requires clicking on links occasionaly (GOSH!) and using it as you would any other resource. Wikipedia lives solely by the quality of its references and a link to MMFA saves linking to 5 other newspaper sites that may hide their articles behind registration screens. The fact that you dislike a left leaning is neither here-nor-there, similarly any right-leaning site I would have no problem with if it cites its sources and provides context. Now, "kindly remove the cork". Dmanning 20:25, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I never claimed ownership of Wikipedia, and I have read MM, but thank you for questioning my intelligence. My problem with MM and MRC is that they have a specific agenda to disparge the "other" side. You mention context, but who decides if the context is correct. MM and other sites like MRC don't report news, they make news out of news. They take comments made by others and report on those items they feel are controversal or damning against those they despise. Additionally, a lot of what MM and MRC do could be considered original research, and not an acceptable form of reference for wikipedia. Arzel 22:48, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

1. Reread what Dmanning wrote. S/he didn't question your intelligence.

Dmanning alluded to the fact that users of wikipedia "need a brain" alluding to the fact that either I don't have one, or didn't read up on MM. If I hadn't I certainly would not have made my original comments. Arzel 05:36, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't read it that way. When s/he said "wikipedia requires a brain," s/he was talking about the user of the resource, not you or other editors.--HughGRex 10:15, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Point taken, but s/he should really be more careful when making such statements, the context is not clear. Arzel 14:13, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

To clarify, I was refering to readers of any article. That they see when it was last edited, to read talk pages and check sources if anything seems dubious. I would do this for any information source. This is what I meant by "wikipedia requires a brain". Dmanning 19:15, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

2. Wikipedia editors are not allowed to post their own Original Research. Of course we are allowed to post others’ OR. See WP:OR. (Think about it: if we couldn't post the results of others' OR, we couldn't very well edit science articles.)

I did some more research on the OR aspect. If you re-read it again, one thing that is not covered is self-published material. Most of what MM has on it's page is self-published research. This in itself may preclude MM as a reliable source. Think about it, there is no journalistic standard for MM. They simply take commentary, quote a few lines, make observation to promote their point of view, and suddenly it is a reliable source? If something they post is picked up by mainstrem media then it would be worth of a reliable source comment, but as it is, a lot of it comes up as OR. In the context of scientific articles, information contained within must actually be published in a peer reviewed journal (I am guessing an accepted doctorial thesis would also be acceptable). MM does not come close this kind of comparison. Arzel 22:55, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

If MMfA is self-published then what is the new york times' website? "self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources" MMfA is none of these, nor is it an extension of original research. As Ive pointed out before, it very rarely gets involved in research beyond linking to previous articles, where it does it should be viewed on a link by link basis.Dmanning 01:20, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

What does the NY Times have to do with this discussion? MM may not be a blog or a personal website, but it does appear to be mostly OR. They do not appear to publish anything, most of what is on their website appears to be compilations of commentary with additional commentary. This is not to say what they have is not useful, but it is very POV. They seem to have a very obvious problem with FOX news, specifically O'Reilly. In any case they are not objective, and certainly do not attempt to be so. The result is you have an article that is very anti-O'Reilly, and many of the references are from a very anti-O'Reily website. I don't have a problem with critisism but when it comes mostly from groups that are already biased against him it appears to be very POV. All I suggest is that critisism be linked with additional sources that are not so obviously biased in their presentation. Arzel 07:34, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

The reference to the NY Times' website was trying to understand what you mean by self-published.. I have no problems with MMfA being POV, nor do I have problems with FAIR or FACT being POV but I agree that both should be used where appropriate; this is wildly different to your call for a blanket ban on all POV news gathering sites. It would be very difficult however to make every section even resemble balance as unfortunately fact-checking very often shows he's wrong. Balance could only come as a whole on the page, anything vindicating him would probably be weeded out as a trivial criticism or unfair criticism, so it seems a near impossible task.Dmanning 09:31, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

MM reads like a blog. They don't publish very much, almost all of their content is opinion and comments on commentary and news by other persons. It is almost like You Tube with commentary. Arzel 18:02, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I think Arzel doesn't understand the prohibition on using "self-published" websites. Wikipedia doesn't want editors to publish a website which is used to attack someone, and then use their own website in Wikipedia as a "Reliable Source." That would be a cheesy workaround to the No Original Research rule. (This prohibition has been routinely violated in the Alan S. Chartock article, wherein one editor has repeatedly tried to sneak his polemics into the article.) Unless David Brock is sneaking in here under the guise of a bunch of false names, that is not what is happening here.--HughGRex 11:01, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I know the prohibition on using "self-published" work. MM has over 20 of the reference links on this article. They have over 680 items (mostly commentary snipets with some additional opinion) attacking BOR on their website, he appears to be their primary target and is the most wildly attacked person on their site. This article appears to be nothing more than another outlet for BOR hate with MM being the primary contributor. Arzel 18:02, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Then, since you know (and, presumably, understand) the definition of "Original Research" and "self-published," I trust you'll abandon those lines of criticism, since they clearly don't apply to MMfA.

I still feel much of what MM does is original research, and is self-published. Thier own about us page even states they are a research center. Media Matters for America is a Web-based, not-for-profit, 501(c)(3) progressive research and information center dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media. http://mediamatters.org/about_us/ If their information is used in collaboration with addition reports from less-biased sources then I don't have a problem with them, and there are issues which fall into this realm. However, when MM is used as a primary source, and they are already dedicated to be biased (as we have agreed on), then what they introduce is clearly OR. Just because MM is a group doesn't change this fact. I have already been through a protracted debate regarding OR within the Matrix Scheme article which I played large part (and lost because what was presented, while true, was still OR). Arzel 02:05, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

So it's apparent that you don't understand the prohibition against Original Research and the concept of "self-published" in Wikipedia. For the last time: the prohibition against OR applies to Wiki editors, not to the sources we cite. From Wikipedia:No original research:

Original research (OR) is a term used in Wikipedia to refer to unpublished facts, arguments, concepts, statements, or theories. The term also applies to any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position — or, in the words of Wikipedia's co-founder Jimmy Wales, would amount to a "novel narrative or historical interpretation."…

Original research includes editors’ personal views, political opinions, and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position. That is, any facts, opinions, interpretations, definitions, and arguments published by Wikipedia must already have been published by a reliable publication in relation to the topic of the article. (my emphasis)

MMfA, which has performed the research and publication that you deem "original," is not a Wiki editor—and, thus, the prohibition does not apply to it. You can claim that it is invalid as a Reliable Source, but you'd need more information than its left-wing POV. You'd need to show examples where its veracity falls short. Such examples are very hard to find, because MMfA dots its i's and crosses its t's.

You label MMfA's criticisms of O'Reilly as "attacks." That would seem to hint at a POV. O'Reilly labels his critics as "smear merchants," "the far-left smear sites," and a number of other childish insults. That's attacking. Simply reporting what the guy said is hardly "attacking."

Wikipedia is not an outlet for personal tit for tat. MM seems well capable of defending itself within the context of their own website without using wikipedia to forward their personal agenda. As such I don't see the MM entry littered with minor controversy, actually without controversy...which is quite incrediable considering the amount of criticisim they level against many others. Arzel 02:05, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't claim to know whether O'Reilly's the primary focus of its criticism, but he shares their stage with a plethora of right-wing and mainstream media sources. When they report right-wing dogma as news, or engage in insults that debase the public discourse, or make baseless assertions right out of the Republican National Committee's phrasebook, MMfA takes notice and publishes it. I don't think it's their fault that O'Reilly so frequently engages in the behavior that MMfA looks for.--HughGRex 01:22, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Whether BOR is the primary focus is slightly irrelevant, although his topic search list far outdistances that of anyone else. However, your viewpoint is obviously apparent. What you have to understand is that I don't really care what their viewpoint is. My primary problem with this type of nonsense being included as encylopedic is that it make wikipedia look like crap. This and other articles are extremely biased in that you have groups like MM actively looking for criticism which are then extended as fact within the context of these articles. Wikipedia should show no political ideology, and until that happens it can never be taken as serious information.......which leads me to my final point addressing your next comment. Arzel 02:05, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

For anyone to refute a claim made by MMfA all they must do is provide video or audio footage of what they said. To my knowledge this has NEVER happened. Its not that BOR et al don't care, quite the reverse infact. This article doesnt show political ideology, show me a single instace of this article advocating anything. It is not, it is a collection of criticisms of BOR along with sources as to why he was wrong or why he was vindicated. What you seem to be suggesting is that this article is a damn dirty hippy page because it disagrees with BOR...which frankly misses the point of the whole page.

I said that I think BOR doesn't care about wikipedia. He does reput things that MM says on his program which I have seen on some other video blogs. And how can you say this page doesn't show political ideology? MM which is liberal, attacks BOR who they view as conservative, and many of the links to criticisms are from MM. Much of the article (as pointed out in a later section of stuff that should be removed is slanted left. The whole childhood home is slanted liberal. Arzel 02:59, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

It really doesnt. It doesnt matter that MMfA is liberal and BOR 'traditionalist' you are confusing bias with being incorrect or untruthful AGAIN. Read through any of these paragraphs and find anything which advocates that the workers control the means of production or that supply-side economics is the only way to freedom. How can this page be slanted liberal, reporting inflation costs, it reports you decide.Dmanning 04:54, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

3. When you write "who decides if the context is correct," you miss the point. Unlike many blogs and pundits, MMfA doesn't misquote public figures in order to disparage them, and it provides much surrounding text when it quotes them—typically the whole paragraph, or a series of paragraphs. It also cites its sources, so that the intrepid surfer can click, read, and judge for him/herself. That's congruent with scholarly tradition—and, thus, MMfA should be viewed as a reliable source.--HughGRex 00:43, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think I stated that MM misquotes public figures. What I said is that they look for specific comments to attack people they disagree with. They certainly push the limits of context, and certainly do not provide any other viewpoints which might rebutt their comments. As someone that has worked with actual scholarly articles I can say that nothing MM has written would be worthy of any peer reviewed journal publication. An actual scholarly article provides both their point of view and limitations of their study. Groups like MM do not point out the limitations of their findings, of course who would expect them to, this is not their agenda. FAIR falls into the same pitfall, if they did not they would point out that BOR's fathers income extrapolation does not take into account regional or national differences in income. Which brings me back to my primarly problem with this article and other similar articles. They are not informational in the sense that you would expect an encylopedia to be, rather they serve as a personal or group opinion platform for groups that have a fundamental difference or problem with a specific person. I personally have problems with BOR as well, and he has made some ACTUAL controversal statements, but much of what is hear seems to be rather marginal. Arzel 05:36, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay, your point is well taken—that, by highlighting its own POV, MMfA isn't exactly scholarly. Nonetheless, by providing context and lynx to the source material, the site gives enough info to qualify as a Reliable Source.--HughGRex 10:15, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I disagree, most of what MM reports is transcripts of commentary, unfortunately they are only partial transcripts with specific sections in bold to emphasise the MM POV. They also include a lot of interpretation and original research on these transcripts to lead a person down a specific path. They do not report news. They make news, and then it is links here and elsewhere as a legitimate news report. Unless they are picked up by major news reporters, OR are included as a specific retort to something reported by the major news institutions they should not be used as the primary source of reference. Arzel 14:13, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Would they have to post a transcript of the entire hour of a talk radio show to give proper context? They start a transcript with beginning of a particular conversation thread, so that the reader can follow to the statement theyre point out, admittedly with their own emphasis (I rarely talk in bold font). I see very little research beyond pointing to their own previous reports; they contacted newspapers to ask if they were carrying coulter columns after her fag comment but it would be upto users of the site to wonder if that violates reliable source guidelines. Just because because MMfA has an agenda doesnt mean its commentry(not the blog posts ofcourse), sources or transcripts are wrong. Dmanning 19:15, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

You forget that their intention is to show inconsistancy and lies by specific people, they should be held to a higher standard for inclusion. I have a real problem with people/groups using segments of commentary to prove a point without the inclusion of everything leading up and including the point they are trying to make and then point to that as evidence with their own opinion. Furthermore, MM does not link back to the original article or video so someone can make their own objective view. Like I said earlier, I don't have a problem with collaboration, but when issues of controversy come up they should come from more than one source. Especially when that one source is dedicated to bringing that person off the air. If you cannot see the problem with such journalism, then perhaps you should take a step back and examine what kind of world you want to live in. If MM or MRC or any other group wants to point out flaws or attack individuals, that is fine, free speech, 1st amendment, all that (so long as it is not libelous or slanderous). However, to include it in an encyclopedic article that is supposed to be completely neutral and free of bias is wrong. Arzel 02:48, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Links only please, verifiable ones at that; Im holding you to a higher standard :P I agree there should be more sources but MMfA is a damn good one. Please read the whole of WP:POV. MMfA is unimpeached, easily proven wrong and never has been. I am not a fan of 'Attack Journalism' this is not it, it is a fact checking website to counter unchecked conservative bias. They do not provide a link to full content because they are not the copyright holder! They use a fair-use rationale for their extracts and if you dont believe the paragraphs and paragraphs of context then no-one will ever convince you. It is encyclopedic because as with any newspaper source they have FACTS and if they are ever wrong you can be damn sure you'll read about it. My world is one in which I never trust anyone who lies regardless of their politics, its an amazing and reliable world I assure you.Dmanning 04:54, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Arzel, I think it's incumbent on you to document instances where MMfA has quoted people out of context in order to push its POV. If you can't show that they don't provide context for their assertions, you cannot credibly say that they don't play fair.--HughGRex 11:01, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

It is difficult to go through everything they have done, and since I don't watch BOR it is more difficult, however in listening to the content from link 21 http://mediamatters.org/items/200701050011 (The Joe Scarborough incident) they have compiled several clips and audio commentary into one long segment without any commentary or setup for any of the events. This would not normally be a problem, but since they left out many segments and cut off commentary made by Bob Kohn who appeared to be defending BOR they have definately taken existing comments and put them into a format which makes BOR look bad, or worse depending on your point of view. Furthermore Kohn suggests that this was not a veiled attack on Olbermann (hoever the current article alludes to that fact because of opinion of KO). So there you go, at least one instance of information taken out of context by MM, perhaps if they had left in all the commentary they decided to piece together, furthermore they don't have links back to the uncut segments they comment on so that someone can get the whole story. As I also said earlier, this is not just a problem with MM.

The more I read this article and research the "controversies" the more apparent it is becoming that this is nothing more than a feud between BOR, MSNBC, MM, NBC, and KO that has spilled into wikipedia. Arzel 18:02, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

The work that you cite is a video which functions similarly to a political cartoon; it'd be silly to cite that. However, MMfA's articles are well sourced and they give the context of the quote—in addition to lynx to the source. That's valid. In response, O'Reilly accuses them of taking him out of context—but he never deigns to show how he was taken out of context. He doesn't even approach making his case. That should make the case that MMfA's credibility is light years ahead of O'Reilly's.--HughGRex 01:22, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

The more I read about BOR and some of the other bias on wikipedia, it is becoming more and more apparent that the reason you don't see much in the form of rebuttal to what is included on wikipedia, is that people like BOR don't care about wikipedia. It is a pointless endevour. Wikipedia has become an extension of the bloggers looking to reach a wider audience, and as such most of what is contiained within (at least politically charged biographies) is filled with bias. There are litteraly thousands of biographies with NPOV tags. Arzel 02:05, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Of course I wouldn't expect O'Reilly to publish rebuttals on Wikipedia, or to rebut specific Wikipedia entries on his TV or radio show. He does, however, pay attention to Media Matters for America. He takes exception to them on a regular basis. However, he rarely rebuts anything they say with facts. Instead, he engages in name-calling. That suggests (to me, and to many others who pay attention) that MMfA is correct in its citations of the facts of what O'Reilly has said, and that he has no fact-based rebuttal.

This page may look as though it's a bloggers' extension (though I challenge the implied characterization of MMfA as a "blog;" it's a media criticism publication), but it grew naturally out of the main Bill O'Reilly page, as the criticism section had become large and unwieldy. Many biography articles include a criticism section, and in some cases the section has needed a broken-out "Main Article." This article is a prime example of that, presumably because O'Reilly has made himself such a lightning rod for criticism.

In short: I can see no evidence that you've presented which invalidates MMfA as a source.--HughGRex 10:13, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Of course you don't and neither does dmanning. Neither of you have any objectivity regarding MM, and it becomes more and more obvious as this discussion goes on. BOR does rebutt MM, and you are correct that THEIR interpretation of such rebuttels are nothing but name calling. However, MM is no better in their name calling and subsequent rants by BOR. There is no point in even pointing them out, you can go to MM and read all about them, however according to MM they are just name calling. Lets pull back though.

That is flat-out false. MMfA does not engage in name-calling. When you say "There is no point in even pointing them out," that's a convenient dodge so that you don't have to offer up specific examples. MMfA scrupulously avoids name-calling.--HughGRex 10:13, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

As I stated earlier. I don't have a problem with MM being used as a collaborator, however I do have a problem with any such organization being used as the only source or primary source within an encylopedic article for the following reasons.

1. MM is not a newspaper or magazine, and is thus not held to the same journalistic standards.
2. MM is extremely biased in its reporting, often presenting analysis and research out of context. http://mediamatters.org/items/200701050011 (The Joe Scarborough incident) is a prime example as I have pointed out previously.
3. MM is self-published. Since it is neither a newspaper or a magazine I don't see how you can deny this.
4. MM is mostly OR. They take exisiting video and audio (some print) and present it in a new way along with their own research and analysis to drive a specific line of thought.
5. Very little of what they present is picked up by major news outlets (from what I have seen).
6. MM reads like a blog.

MM has many issues (to address an earlier point) where they are not fully truthful. The whole George Soros aspect is another issue in which what they present is not truthful. Additionally, I suspect that some of you work directly with MM.

Stop right there. So simply because someone disagrees with you, s/he is a "mole," planted by the opposition? You are making a charge which has no grounds. You are in violation of WP:AGF. You don't name names, but your argument here has been with Dmanning and me. Thus, as s/he apparently does, I take your allegation quite personally.

I have explained more than once why you are wrong about "self-published" and OR. You apparently don't understand or don't care. And now you resort to a highly insulting personal attack without any foundation. I'm done trying to explain anything to you.--HughGRex 10:13, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I know that there are many bloggers and others that constently look for percieved conservative lies and bias in the media (usually fox news). Seriously though, lets have some objectivity regarding these types of articles. I realize you hate (or at least seriously dislike) BOR, leave that for the bloggers and attack websites, wikipedia is not an outlet. Arzel 14:04, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

How am I not objective? I have never worked for MMfA, I work for an education website out of India. I have no hatred even dislike of BOR, when I had FOX News I watched him all the time... he is very entertaining but as has been pointed out all over the net sometimes gets his facts wrong. You are adressing points which Ive answered before, lets go for the last time:

• MMfA is not a newspaper or magazine but I hold it to the same standards, if it gets ANYTHING wrong it must retract it and apologise, this has never had to happen. You'ld hear about it if it did.
• Give a single out of context quote or source and you get a shiny prize. It gives reams and reams of context.
• You still dont understand self-published. That would be vanity publishing, or hosting your(a wikipedia user) own research on your website. slate is not self-published even though it doesnt have a print copy, GOSH.
• You also seem not to get OR. They pull quotes with context from transcripts, they present video the only editing being a cut to the next section they want to highlight. This is not a deliberate attempt to mislead, it is not even misleading as most often they will go to an advert break or to a new topic only to return later. Jumps are needed under fair-use for video, they cant use the whole thing. OR would be ringing up interview subjects, newspapers for comment. This has only happend with regard to how many papers were carrying Coulter columns, as I said before it would be upto users to decide if such a column was valid to cite but is not an excuse to ban MMfA.
• It doesnt matter what you think MMfA reads like, the fact it allows comments does not invalidate it. I suggest you have a look at BBC News articles, alot of them carry comments. Apart from that it does not carry personal attacks, does not engage in name calling in its articles.

You have not provided a refutation of anything, merely engaged in speculation, to call MMfA a 'smear site' or an 'attack site' as its critics do is not a refutation. Again I tell you I have FULL objectivity, never worked for MMfA, never been funded by George Soros, never been a member of the communist party or the German National socialist party of 1933. I have no hatred of Billy O'Reilly or even dislike, I would love for him to stop making statements which turn out to be false but the only way for that to happen is for him to know he is being fact checked fully with everything he says. The worst I think of him is that he's a bully to anyone who disagrees with him on his show. NOW, its up to you to prove you've never worked for him. Lets have a look at your objectivity because I dislike conspiracy theories especially when I believe people arnt willing to listen. Dmanning 02:37, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I thought I had responded to this last night, but I see it didn't save. I only have a couple of minutes right now, but your source of inaccurate information regarding MM is the Cliff Kincaid accusation regarding the letter he received. It is also clear that they have definite ties to George Soros through their funding, however they steadfastly deny this even when faced with substantial evidence, yet when they would make a similar claim it is to be believed without question? Arzel 13:33, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Never read the kincaid letter so I have no idea what you're talking about, certainly havent used it as a source. The problem with saying they have been indirectly funded by Soros is that the money he gives to MoveOn goes into a pot for Moveon to see fit what to do with. Its equivalent to saying US taxpayers funded assination attempts on Castro or that I am the indirect owner of the UK Trident system. So, as you can see I dont 'believe it without question' I just ask more questions than accepting a chart, no matter how pretty it was. You have substantial evidence, which I will enjoy reading when you add it. Oddly though, Ive never seen why it would be bad for Soros to fund MMfA, it would make it more similar to Fox News and Rupert Murdoch I guess. Dmanning 20:00, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

The Kincaid letter is a better example, and it has been a contencious issue on the MM article. I personally don't know what the big deal is regarding Soros either, but MM has certianly gone to great lengths to distance themselves from him. I'm not saying that you should accept without question, but the evidence is certainly there, and to accept what MM says without question is the polar opposite as they made similar accusations regarding the Kincaid letter (in the context of the arguement.) Not sure what you mean by me adding evidence, I'll link it later, but in the mean time you can re-read what I posted earlier...... http://mediamatters.org/items/200701050011 (The Joe Scarborough incident) they have compiled several clips and audio commentary into one long segment without any commentary or setup for any of the events. This would not normally be a problem, but since they left out many segments and cut off commentary made by Bob Kohn who appeared to be defending BOR they have definately taken existing comments and put them into a format which makes BOR look bad, or worse depending on your point of view. Furthermore Kohn suggests that this was not a veiled attack on Olbermann (hoever the current article alludes to that fact because of opinion of KO). So there you go, at least one instance of information taken out of context by MM, perhaps if they had left in all the commentary they decided to piece together, furthermore they don't have links back to the uncut segments they comment on so that someone can get the whole story. Arzel 22:30, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I believe you are addressing a very legitimate point. The problem is, when someone or something is controversial, most of the research is done by those who are critical of that given subject and majority of those who are motivated to edit an article of a controversial subject usually come on the "anti" side of it. If the "pro" side of the subject is also motivated then we get edit wars. There is the notion of undue weight that could be considered also. This article was split from the main article due to it's length but as the last afd discussion showed, many recommended pairing it down to get all the "waffle" out of it. To me that's what needs to be done right now. MrMurph101 02:40, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree, I also feel as I stated above that POV reference sites not be used as references for issues dealing with political controversy. I propose that only mainstream media be allowed for reference in these issues. This alone should make these article much more appealing and palpable. Arzel 13:43, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

itsa me! INTELLECTUAL, EXCEEDINGLY POLITE FLAME WAR!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.119.70.136 (talk • contribs) 12:15, July 4, 2007

"Far left" complaint?

As an occasional Factor viewer, I've noticed O'Reilly frequency misuses the term "far left". He uses the term on many liberals and democrats, even though a standard definition of the far left would mean someone is either a communist or an anarchist. Does anyone else think this could be a section? On a semi-related and someone less important note, he also misuses "fascist" sometimes. By defition, facism is a far right ideology, but I have heard him label the ACLU on more than one occasion as being fascist. O'Reilly, of course, considers the ACLU to be far left. --2S 07:10, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

There are different "far Lefts" yes on the extremists chart, "far left" would mean communists and such, but politically, o'reilly is right describing some liberals/democrats as far left, because its used to describe someone who is extremly liberal.

Your far left is someone else's center. Avoid using extreme or far-anything in an article, it smacks of a debating tactic to ridicule anyone you don't agree with. My 1 pence, roughly 2 cents these days. Dmanning 03:26, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

It is clear to most "fair minded" people who watch his show that this self described independant is essentially a conservative republican. Thus, most views which differ from his are to his left. He has overused the 'far left' label so often that those who a true independant would describe as far left don't really stand out on his show. He also likes to use 'far left' followed by 'smear merchant' whenever a journalist brings up his sexual harassment case. I feel he would take less heat if would stop the spin regarding his personal politics.DAblog 03:37, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I could not disagree more. He uses the term far left for many reasons, but mostly to describe a minority pov that is not even shared amongst many Democrats, let alone most of the country. One example would be the partial birth abortion debate that many Democrats side with Independents and Republicans with. Most surveys show how the country is split 50/50 on Roe v Wade, but tend to be against partial birth abortion 75/25 (against/for). He has praised many Democrats, aside from guys like Lieberman but also people like Biden Bahye, JFK and even Bill Clinton. He even went on to say that Clinton had a good domestic policy. Furthermore, looking at his views on big oil, capital punishment and others, calling him a conservative Republican is frankly ridiculous. Using the term far-left is appropriate in many occasions IF they seem to have a radical leftist pov that is not in the mainstream. Arnabdas 16:27, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

should I add this in?

This is about Bill'O comments about the drunk driving incident with an illegal immigrant. He had a face to face showoff in this with Geraldo Rivera. http://www.diversityinc.com/public/1679.cfm --Dark paladin x 16:33, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I would, as this is a case that is still unfolding. WAVY 10 22:34, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Article size

This article is twice the 32kb size "limit" suggested. It should be trimmed to only the most important, relevant criticisms. Kyaa the Catlord 10:47, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree. What do you think should be axed? MrMurph101 23:21, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Starting from the top:

1. Al Franken by alternative names = trivia. Not encyclopedic.
2. Keith Olbermann - this entire section should be summarized. Its far too wordy.
3. Terry Gross - Very minor issue, seems to have been resolved. Not sure its on topic.
4. Bill Moyers - Sounds more like criticism of Bill Moyers than criticism of O'Reilly
5. Tucker Carlson - trivial off-hand remark
6. Scarborough - This seems like MSNBC/Fox News scuffling more than criticism of O'Reilly.
7. Larry King - Unnecessary, one time remark.
8. Malmedy - Sounds like O'Reilly's come clean on having this backwards. Cut it, closed issue.
9. University of Oregon "controversy" - Um, what? How is this criticism of O'Reilly?
10. Disputed claims/War on Christmas - Off-topic. Should be removed.
11. Boycott of France - Not criticism of O'Reilly, editorializing about one of his pet topics. Off topic, should be removed.
12. Peabody Award - Good example of something O'Reilly SHOULD be criticized about. Includes statements that are criticisms of him directly, should stay.
13. Mark Foley - Someone in Fox's graphics department goofed. Not criticism of O'Reilly, chop it out.
14. Shut Up - Pure trivia.
15. Childhood home - Um, what's the point of this section? Seems awfully trivial, probably can be cut.
16. Controversial topics... - Probably should be reworked to conform to WP:SUMMARY. If they don't have their own articles, a brief description is possibly acceptable. This seems like a list and probably should be reworked into a "List of common topics discussed on the O'Reilly Factor" article rather than this one.
17. The Other section should be cut wholesale, the sexual harrassment suit may be better suit on Bill's bio page. The rest is pretty obviously trivia.

We need to focus this article remembering that Wikipedia is not a soapbox. A lot of the subheads in this article read like rants against O'Reilly, not reports of public criticism of him. Kyaa the Catlord 09:06, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I thought I had responded to this earlier, but I notice my edits didn't save, but I did remove some of the section which obviously should not belong. I also agree that this article reads like rants against O'Reilly.

1. Agree
2. Agree
3. Agree, Removed
4. Agree
5. Agree, Removed
6. Completely Agree, is not encylopedic
7. Agree, Removed
8. Agree, should probably be summarized as resolved.
9. Agree, should maybe be moved to U or Oregon.
10. Agree
11. Agree
12. Agree
13. Agree, Removed
14. Agree, Removed
15. Agree, should be summarized, possibly moved to primary article of example of unfounded attack on BOR.
16. Agree
17. Agree Arzel 18:40, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

To offer a dissenting opinion. The following should stay:

• War on Christmas - He has made many more claims which have been false ie banning carols in elementary schools. Section can be expanded (every christmas probably)
• Peabody Award
• Boycott of France - He has made false claims about how effective this supposed boycott is.
• Childhood home - He calls his upbring poor working class, true man of the people. This has been discussed above.

I agree that the rest are resolved or not really relevant sections. Dmanning 19:50, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

The peabody award was something I'd marked as "Must stay". The rest of those are more suited for a "list of topics discussed on the O'Reilly Factor" article, not on criticism of O'Reilly. And in my opinion, you're wrong about the childhood home thing. I believe that the case that MMfA and FAIR are prejudiced sources has been clearly made and that their agenda is pushing this, not any sort of facts. Kyaa the Catlord 21:10, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Warning: Following the input from Arzel and Dmanning, I will be implementing the changes I suggested above tonight unless more input is given. (The questions from Dmanning will be addressed seperately so they will not be included in the edit.) Kyaa the Catlord 13:10, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I think Al Franken, KO, and possibly Rosie O'Donnel could go back to the main page under a "notable fueds" section since their fueds are discussed more than what is a criticism of BOR. MrMurph101 00:31, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Completed. The page is now 30kb. Still open issues: Simpson book section, Boycott of France, Childhood Home, War on Christmas. Kyaa the Catlord 07:05, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, I dont agree with some of the undiscussed cutting esp Jennifer Moore. Will look at how to reinclude a reduced version, without olberman let the user judge etc. I think jeremy Glick is a valid section, will look at adding it to his page rather than here.Dmanning 07:16, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

A much more streamlined version of Jennifer Moore could be included (but again, is it truly a criticism of BOR, or just something stupid he said? If we're including stupid statements by persons, we should put those on Wikiquote, not here.) Kyaa the Catlord 07:18, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, the Glick stuff should have been on his page since this is his primary claim to notability, not this one. Too much commentary is probably the biggest problem this page seems to endure. (Honestly, it was a week and the majority of the sections on this page went untouched or even worse, got further bloated....) Kyaa the Catlord 07:22, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I replaced the Jennifer Moore subsection. It can probably be summarized better than it is currently, the full quotes are probably unnecessary. (probably could use some citations as well) Kyaa the Catlord 07:25, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

The Glick incident should be listed both here and on the main O'Reilly page. One should not be seen as exclusive of the other. Clearly, O'Reilly has been criticized for it—so it belongs here.

I restored the Shawn Hornbeck section, since that's notable. Not only was O'Reilly criticized for it, but it likely precipitated his removal as the keynote speaker at the NCMEC event. It could be written more concisely, but it should not have been removed.--HughGRex 23:59, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

HughGRex. I disagree that an incident should be fully explained in two related articles. In anycase, your recent revision duplicated a bunch of stuff so I reverted to the previous. Arzel 00:30, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Arzel, similar to Glick it may be best to have the section primarily on their own page, provide a link if felt necessaryDmanning 00:42, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Not fully explained in two related articles; it should be fully explained in one, and briefly mentioned in the other.

I think I managed, this time, to restore the Hornbeck section without duplicating the whole bleedin' page. (Sorry'bout that, folks.)--HughGRex 00:54, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Exactly, and I'm a bit concerned that Hugh marked one of his reverts with "not discussed on talk" which is bullshit. I waited a week for responses, and took the considerations of those who spoke up into account before I started removing extraneous content. Now even more crap is creeping into the article, is Rosie's poem really necessary? Kyaa the Catlord 05:48, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Bullshit? That's not very civil language on your part.

I've read your point-by-point list, above, many times. Where, pray tell, does the name "Shawn Hornbeck" appear in your vaunted list? It doesn't. Your wholesale blanking of that section came as quite a surprise to me.

On what basis do you regard the Hornbeck case as "extraneous?"--HughGRex 10:40, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not the one who posted a blatantly false edit summary.

That's correct (as far as it goes); you're not. In fact, as far as I know, nobody "posted a blatantly false edit summary." You are the one who accused me of doing so. I showed that you had not discussed deleting the Hornbeck section prior to deleting it. Your accusations are without foundation, and they are not contributing to improving the article. Your credibility will be optimized, and you will receive the most cooperation in editing this article, when you resolve to refrain from making false accusations against your fellow editors.--HughGRex 11:50, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

The Hornbeck case is trivia in regards to BOR and would be better suited on Hornbeck's own article. This should not be a list, it should be a focused article about criticism of O'Reilly and minimally about those who make a living criticizing O'Reilly, such as Olbermann and Franken. The article needs to be better focused and removing the trivia from this page is a step in the right direction. Adding trivia about his talk shows should be discouraged. Kyaa the Catlord 02:51, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree that his comments about Hornbeck are trivia. He received a lot of criticism following his comments, as is demonstrated by the references in that section. The standard for notability is difficult to define. One reasonable standard would be, "Will people still be talking about this ten years from now?"

Of course we can't know the answer at this point. However, we can look at two components: 1) How "big" was the news story, and 2) How controversial were his statements?

1) The news story wasn't that big; it was all over cable news for…what? Two weeks? 2) However, his statements were very controversial. Indeed, it's reasonable to surmise that they were calculated to promote controversy. Further, as the ACMEC story indicates, this will always be part of his "resume." It's tough to envision his ever being invited to give the keynote speech at one of their meetings again. And that's what makes it notable.--HughGRex 11:50, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with the elimination of vital information. Bill O'Reilly has a reputation for getting into controversies. Some people want to sanatize that. The article is way too short. If there needs to be a second page then so be it. Nothing is said about his feud with Snoop Dogg or Ludacris or other rappers. The Bill Moyers section needs to go back up because O'Reilly has a long-running grudge against him. Bill O'Reilly's slander of George Soros is not mentioned at all in the article. His childhood experience is another vital piece of information since he repeatedly claims to come from a lower-middle class background and the reason why he looks out for the "folks". That information proves he did not. His feud with Rosie O'Donnell has been going on for more than seven years and needs to be elaborated on. If anyone condenses the article again I will bring the information right back up. These controversies are the center of who Bill O'Reilly is.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.212.40.162 (talk • contribs) 11:22, 28 April 2007

Wikipedia is NOT wikiGOSSIP. It seems your intent is to use this page to disparage an idividual. Please read WP:BLP Arzel 14:25, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Verifiable, sourced statements are not gossip. wikigossip sounds fun though, you should start it. Dmanning 04:19, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

The controversies he's been in are NOT gossip they are truth. Wikipedia is about factual information to give a complete picture on the subject matter. Bill Moyers, Malmedy, Disputed claims/War on Christmas, Boycott of France, and his Childhood home will all be coming back onto the article. They are major campaigns he has conducted. He still has a boycott France section on his website four plus years later.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.212.43.170 (talk • contribs) 23:53, 28 April 2007

"Vital information?" according to whom? The only things "vital" to this article are notable criticisms of BOR. This article needs to conform to WP:SIZE. Adding trivial topics, such as Ludicris, is not helpful. Returning Bill Moyers, which focused more on BOR's criticism of Moyers than Moyers's alleged criticism of BOR is unnecessary and off-topic. Kyaa the Catlord 02:54, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Ludicris, similarly to Olberman and Snoop dogg is a spat and has no real criticism of his interview style or the way he uses his position in the media, that he disapproves of misogyny in rap music hardly makes him unique. I removed the Rosie ODonnell section as the private action is unprovable, the poem only says they were told not to talk about it, which means it may be a request by the producers unmotivated by legal threats. Other than that the criticism is that he uses his show to try and force channels to drop personalities, of which there are many examples already.Dmanning 04:20, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Take a look at the Oprah article. Every thing she has ever done in her life is on it. There are a dedicated few that want to sanatize the Bill O'Reilly article. It is wikipedians' job to represent their subject matter in an accurate light. The article has gone backward in doing that in the last month.

Oprah's had her show on much longer so there is more to talk about. O'Reilly has been around for a while but most of his fame has come from his Fox News show. I think the article is a lot better now, not because it is "sanitized" but because a lot of trivial information was removed. Some of it could probably go back in in a restructured format that describes the general themes of what the subject is being criticised for. This "dedicated few" discussed it on the talk page in this very section before much of it was deleted and editors had time to object. This article has gone more forward than backward. MrMurph101 03:43, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I've once again removed the "drunk girl got raped" story from the article. This does not seem to have any notability other than being presented by the biased Media Matters for America website and passing mention on MSNBC. Kyaa the Catlord 06:20, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I've once again put the "drunk girl got raped" AND murdered AND body left in a dumpster story back in(http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2006Jul27/0,4670,TeenStrangled,00.html). It is notable (fox news has 12 articles on their website concerning her death), it provides counterpoint to his defender of children status and goes far beyond typical blame the victim stories. Bias does not prove an unreliable source, prove its not what he said and receive a shiny prize. Its not upto you to decide what is passing and what isnt, very few pundit shows carry the same subject on more than one show. Deserves to be here.Dmanning 18:41, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Then source it to meet BLP. You need to put multiple sources for negative material. These sources NEED to be focused on the criticism of Bill O'Reilly, not on the rape-murder of this teenage girl. Kyaa the Catlord 01:36, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

And let's note that you're making allegations against BOR here. NPOV much? But looking at the raw facts, this woman was over 18 not a child and made a really bad choice. And yes, per BLP it is up to me to decide if an inclusion is poorly sourced and to remove it immediately if it does not meet the sourcing requirements for negative material. Multiple sources are REQUIRED for inclusion. Kyaa the Catlord 02:08, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I am not making allegations agianst O'Reilly, I am using commentry from Tucker Carlson which is from a primary source(NBC Website). The source clear is about it's critism of O'reilly himself. From BLP(Public figure):"If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article — even if it's negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it." Cited properly within the article, there is not cited requirement of multiple sources and I have acurately framed the reason for carlon's disagreement with O'Reillys statement. So how are BOTH poorly sourced? I have no agenda to push but where a section is relevant I have a desire to keep it, where there is support for O'Reilly I would love to include it. Goodwin's law is not a valid reason to remove a journalistic study of his style, a valid reason in my opinion would be that it takes an unfair sample - the talking points in which he gives his own opinion. I feel you are taking page reduction to justify stifling of valid sourced critism.Dmanning 02:45, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Wrong: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:BLP#Biased_or_malicious_content Kyaa the Catlord 04:18, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

"Editors should be on the lookout for biased or malicious content about living persons in biographies and elsewhere. If someone appears to be pushing an agenda or a biased point of view, insist on reliable third-party published sources and a clear demonstration of relevance to the person's notability." What is unreliable about Carlsons citation of Bill O'Reillys quote? I have sourced both quotes. If you believe Carlson to be unreliable then say so. I am not pushing an agenda, I am pushing Carlson's criticism of O'Reilly on this matter and I have phrased everything correctly under my reading of BLPDmanning 04:27, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Carlson and Olbermann's agenda, not yours. These are known "rivals", commercially and politically, of O'Reilly. Does this have a lasting effect on O'Reilly's notability? Of course it doesn't, the only links you can provide are transcripts of Carlson quoting O'Reilly as a "gotcha". This should not be included, but if it is, it should not get anywhere near as much "screen time" as it is currently. Kyaa the Catlord 04:34, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

The fact that they are rivals of O'Reilly is immaterial. Moreover, Carlson is, generally speaking, aligned with O'Reilly politically. If anything, his criticism of O'Reilly is thus more notable.--HughGRex 00:00, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I was refering to 'passing' how much time a item has on the show, not to your interpretation of policy. I have listed my objection to your intreptation, I dont see how it is poorly sourced or inappropriately phrased. I would ask you to work on a section rather than a straight deletion. Dmanning 02:45, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

BLP requires multiple, verifiable sources for negative material or immediate deletion, not discussion. Please make your case for inclusion by cited multiple sources. Kyaa the Catlord 04:11, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree. That section is purly a chance for O'Reilly rivals to take a shot at O'Reilly, and is a criticism of his opinion by Carson and Olbermann. Not notable. Arzel 19:18, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Criticisms allow critics to be critical? Well, really. Im not sure why being critical of a mans opinion makes something not notable, also that they are 'rivals' doesnt make their criticism invalid as both quotes are clearly framed and the supporting text cites the crtiticism clearly. It is a notable case (12 FoxNews articles cite the murder) and the first quote O'Reillys opinion which is then criticised by carlson. The quote is significantly different than you'ld expect from watching O'Reilly on a regular basis making it notable in its own right. I suggest eEither moving it to a tucker carlson section or leave it as it is, I agree that the quote template made it too large Dmanning 22:01, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

No, Kyaa, I don't believe that BLP "requires multiple…sources for negative material." WP:BLP says:

Example: A politician is alleged to have had an affair. He denies it, but the New York Times publishes the allegations, and there is a public scandal. The allegation may belong in the biography, citing the New York Times as the source.

Note: the example specifically endorses use of unflattering material based on a single source. Where does your invocation of the purported "multiple source rule" come from?--HughGRex 00:00, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Indiana

I see no reason to call this biased or 'Original Research' (theyre a university afterall) or a violation of BLP(Properly cited Primary source). It properly cites the journalistic study of solely O'reillys Editorials using propaganda techniques which they did because he calls his show the 'no spin zone'. My criticism is that it provides no peers to judge their result by, it only uses editorial content and treats him as a journalist (he isnt a newspaper style journalist, he's a commentator more akin to a columnist) but they claim it is valid based on public perception via a survey. Ive deleted that section once before citing these criticisms, but it keeps coming back so you can either engage in an edit war or have a discussion here. I'll add my criticism to the section as it stands. Watch how you go. Dmanning 22:01, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't appear to treat him as a journalist per se; it treats him as a commentator as far as I can tell from the summaries. The touchstone is Father Coughlin, not Dan Rather. In any case, though, any criticism of the study should come from published sources or it would be the "original research" here.csloat 22:11, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I had second thoughts about that too but the point remains its a commentry show. True, I did engage in the mortal sin of "Original research" extrapolating on whats written in the original source, feel free to clean it up Dmanning 22:17, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

This is self-published original research, perhaps not by the person inserting it into the page, but it has not been published outside IU. They allude to the fact that it will be published, but as of now it has not. The article is intentionally inflamatory, provides no statistical conclusions, and appears to be intiated to prove a point. Unless someone can provide a good reason why it should stay it has to go via WP:BLP under Biased or Malicious content. Arzel 23:10, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Please look at those definitions again please. Self-published? Indiana University Media Relations is a media outlet for the UNIVERSITY, self-published as a wikipedia idea is if it was available solely through the doctoral student's personal webpage. It isnt, its from a press release, thats the first source and what immediate release means. What is 8.88 name calling incidents/min but a statistical conclusion? They outline the reason for the survey clearly they are examining one of "powerful political voices in the media today" for use of propoganda techniques. Coughlin was the first major study in 'The Fine Art of Propaganda' by the IPA, which is the reason for comparison. Also, the comparison does not imply the two are the same, you read alot into it which simply isnt there. Show me that this piece is intentionally biased, please. Just because a research group produced a negative result DOES NOT show they started out with that intention or bias.Dmanning 00:23, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Dmanning, I can see that Arzel is reprising his/her interpretation of "self-published original research," argued above with respect to MMfA. S/he doesn't seem interested in citing specific sections of WP guidelines which support his/her position. If you cannot induce him/her to support his/her position with anything other than his/her rhetoric, perhaps at some point we will need an arbitrator to bust this deadlock and put that recurring fiction to rest.--HughGRex 10:33, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

In response to In any case, though, any criticism of the study should come from published sources or it would be the "original research" here (csloat) to me this is akin of having to prove your innocence. Under the pretense here anyone at any university could look at any public figure, take apart their words and come to some conclusion which would be critical of that person. I ask, is that what we want WP to become? Arzel 23:14, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

If they gain funding for a journalism doctorate AND submit their work to "Journalism Studies .. an international peer-reviewed journal, published by Routledge, Taylor & Francis" (Oooh look, its peer-reviewed) then I say fair game to them, all those years of study bring alot more credibility than the average joe. As for proving your innocence I ask you to look again at your post above, thats exactly what you're asking of The university of Indiana, prove that you didnt intentially publish a biased and malicious attack on bill O'reilly. A calm look at the full material should ease your worries of bias. I didnt realise the full paper was available here, I'll read it eventually.Dmanning 00:23, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Arzel, are you suggesting that the paper has not been accepted for publication in Journalism Studies 8:2 (2007)? In academia, "accepted for publication" is as good as publication. So now, it appears that you're trying to invalidate an academic paper as a source. Good luck with that.

It's a published analysis of O'Reilly's modus operandi. Thus, it belongs in an article entitled "Criticism of Bill O'Reilly."--HughGRex 00:56, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

The issue at hand is whether there should be OR criticisms of the study from random wikipedians. I suggest there should not be. If the study is as flawed as Arzel or Dmanning thinks, I'm sure there will be published critiques of the study soon enough. But we cannot insert what we think the limitations of the study are without referencing a source that backs up such claims. I've removed the OR; please do not restore it. Thanks, csloat 02:39, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the entire section because it is intentionally inflamatory. Please read WP:BLP. HughGRex, No, but accepted for publication and actually published are two entirely seperate situations. In any case, this type of information needs a reliable third source, and MM simply reprinting the information is not satisfactory. Arzel 05:45, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

It has been published, take the time and download the article I linked to, you'll see the academic journal logo. It has a primary source AND a secondary source. If you think it is biased prove it! Read what people say occassionaly and this conversation will be more civil and more progressive. As per BLP it is phrased correctly and sourced to the orginal article and original acedemic research, If you have more problems cite SPECIFIC lines of policy and your interpretation of it. It is not inflamitory as it demonstrates as statistical analysis that he uses propoganda techniques as laid out in 1930's research criteria, if you are offended by this then it is your own problem and not that of the research. If you believe there to be bias STATE EXACTLY why you think it is, I am no longer accepting any conspiracy at face value. I am begining to feel all time devoted to trying to ease your worries of bias are well and truely wasted, that you are unwilling to listen to me or even acknowledge that I may have a point. Please tell me why this peer-reviewed academic research is fundamentally biased specificly or you will lose all credibility in my eyes as someone to read the opinions of.Dmanning 06:19, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

"Non-biased?" Seriously, they compare BOR to nazis. Godwin's Law anyone? Kyaa the Catlord 06:27, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

WOW, none of you read it. Great research skills people! The original propoganda research done by the IPA was....was....guess.... on Coughlin. So, they dont compare him to the Nazis rather they demonstrate how the analysis is done and what the result was for the original case. Anything more is in your head. Godwin's law isnt wikipolicy plus as far as I remember only applies to usenet. Thankyou all for actually reading what I write. Dmanning 06:33, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I rewrote the summarization of the study to more accurately reflect the findings of this study. (And let's be honest, the previous summarization was nearly illegible.) Kyaa the Catlord 06:34, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

You rewote a duplication. Seriously, your suggesting that theyre saying O'Reilly is a Nazi is in your head. Look at the research, they are looking at techniques used in his editorials of persuasion and propoganda. If they'd used Stalin would you make the same fuss?Dmanning 06:39, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Please allow me to quote:

"The same techniques were used during the late 1930s to study another prominent voice in a war-era, Father Charles Coughlin. His :::sermons evolved into a darker message of anti-Semitism and fascism, and he became a defender of Hitler and Mussolini. In this :::study, O'Reilly is a heavier and less-nuanced user of the propaganda devices than Coughlin."

Not only do they compare BOR to nazis, they say he's worse than nazis. Nice. Kyaa the Catlord 10:40, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Lets clean this up right now. They are comparing his USE of propoganda not his viewpoints or his actions, with that of Coughlin. I dont see how that is shameful. They are saying his use of propoganda techniques is blunter, isnt that a good thing, that people can pick it up, that he isnt sneakier about it. A small point but Coughlin was not the whole Nazis. Your reaction though understandable is unfounded in intention. Propoganda is not something evil and insideous like the Nazis, its presenting a biased one dimensionial view of a subject. Everyone disapproves of the Nazis, fine, I do too. Saying they are comparing him TO a nazi (that he shares their views) is untrue and unfounded if you read the summary slowly and with a cool head. If you still unsure read the first 5 pages of the pdf file, they are looking at comparing the original study in the 1930s with their new one, no one is calling anyone else a Nazi.Dmanning 11:01, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

It is still a biased survey. They start with the preconception that BOR is a propagandist and work to prove their position. Its a hit piece in nice letterhead. Kyaa the Catlord 11:07, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

You started out with the preconception that the research was biased, you found a few pull quotes you could twist and proved your point. All in a nice readable font. QED Dmanning 11:15, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Seriously show me where they twisted the analysis, used one test knowing full well it would give the results they wanted that other anlysis wouldnt which is the only bias you can have in research. The closest they come is saying he has either an incisive or combatant style depending on your viewpoint. Your comment is pure speculation and unfortunately unusable. Gimme quotes. Dmanning 11:15, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Its a really bonehead study. They took a bunch of editorials, not news stories, and were surprised when they found that it there was a message being presented? Honestly, the definition of an editorial is the presentation of an opinion. You could run Olbermann's "Special Messages" through the same criteria and find he too is, omg, a propogandist. Or Anne Coulter's tirades. Or any politician running for office. Kyaa the Catlord 11:31, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

You managed to find my original objections at the begining of the thread then. When this is raised in another source you or I can append it. Until then I suggest you read the study and notice that they openly say they are taking content most similar to Coughlin's format. The study is trying to do several things at once, look at how propoganda has changed and how the analysis has changed and how methods can be updated. They say themselves that "This approach also provides a template for future content analysis studies, allowing for comparisons across media and programming genres" which I hope is taken up. Your opinion of the study doesnt invalidate it though, they single out o'reilly based on his viewing figures and declaration of 'no spin', they seem like very valid reasons to choose him to study, not that they have a vengence.Dmanning 11:52, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I honestly think that the "no spin" thing was a big mistake by O'Reilly and Fox. Noone is unbiased, even those who try to be, we're all products of our individual lives, experiences, whathaveyou. Or so the radio host I listen to says. :P I'm looking forward to finding something that rips this study to pieces, since it seems awfully... bad. Kyaa the Catlord 12:45, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Illegible? If so, the problem might be with your PC; maybe your monitor needs cleaning. See dictionary.com for the difference between "illegible" and "unreadable" and "unintelligible." :) --HughGRex 10:33, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Play nice.Dmanning 11:01, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Whether or not Wikipedia draws any conclusions from the "study" is not relevant in my opinion. I added this section yesterday purely because the IU piece was issued. It is not, I would submit, Wikipedia's place to decide whether or not the article is biased or fair, or indeed to make the judgement that it either should be included because it is fair or should not be included because it is biased. Wikipedia is a reference tool; it is an encyclopedia that cites sources. Whether you agree or disagree with this item, the fact it, the IU has made it publicly available, and Wikipedia ought to at least mention it because it's A) in the public domain and B) relevant to the topic under discussion. Wikipedia should not judge, it should mention that the article exists, include a link to it and let its readers decide. Whisperwolf 12:45, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

You should read what Wikipedia is not. We're not an indiscriminate collection of information. The information presented should be weighed and an intelligent decision should be made about whether or not it merits inclusion, especially on criticism articles. How this study pertains to the notability of BOR needs to be determined and evaluated as well. We are currently giving much too much weight to the critics of BOR than they are due and should be afford per BLP. (This article, the criticism section on BOR's article, the criticism subsection of TORF and the political beliefs of BOR all need to be looked at and merged into a coherent, well-sourced article.) Kyaa the Catlord 12:49, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Again, I don't think this argument holds water. An "indiscriminate collection of information" would no doubt quote the study in detail, either bemoaning the unfairness or glorifying how well it's written - and I agree, that kind of thing should not be in Wikipedia. But I didn't PUT that kind of thing. I linked to the study, and said it existed, and said its own public quote about what it says about itself. That's the kind of encyclopedic content Wikipedia should have - "this exists, here's a brief summary of its self-description and here is where it is if you want to study it further." Its inclusion was purely FOR the purposes of allowing someone to weigh its credibility or lack thereof; how can they do that, if they don't know it exists? Whisperwolf 13:11, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Relevance to notability comes directly from BLP's statements about criticism in such articles. This article was forked off of BOR's biography and still must follow the rules of BLP, if you don't like that... change BLP. Kyaa the Catlord 13:17, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think you understand where I'm coming from here. BLP states "The views of critics should be represented if their views are relevant to the subject's notability and are based on reliable secondary sources, and so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to side with the critics' material". This report is critical, there is no doubt about that. But the fact is, the item exists - albeit in a critical light - and even BOR himself devoted a segment on his show to talk about it. Whether or not it is JUSTIFIED in its criticism is not Wikipedia's place to decide; but an encyclopedia should show the full scene, and this report has become centre stage at least for a few days, when it comes to discussion about BOR. He's featured it, his critics have featured it, his supporters have featured it; each group with their own things to say about it. I included here because it exists and it's relevant. No other reason. We can argue whether its conclusions are justifed until we are blue in the face, but it exists and has become a talking point, and for those reasons if no other, it deserves to be mentioned in an encyclopedia article which discusses the criticism (unfounded or not) of BOR. Whisperwolf 13:26, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I have re-introduced this section, with further references including his own comments, and attempted to re-word it in such a way as to avoid accusations of bias for or against. I no longer quote what the study says about itself, just link to the press release and have introduced a new link to the actual study itself. I've also included a link to O'Reilly's own response, from Fox News.Whisperwolf 14:11, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

And I have removed it. Please read the article before you readd this section. Kyaa the Catlord 14:50, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

So it gets reworded to become more neutral - and you promptly remove it altogether again. Admittedly, somebody had readded almost verbatim the original entry, which perhaps I should have noticed before I rewrote this section, but this does strike me as "I don't like this, therefore I'm going to remove it." This is the very kind of criticism often aimed at BOR himself - that he edits out anything he doesn't agree with. Something more neutral was appropriate. I added it. You deleted it without any real reason. I HAVE read the entire article, several times, and also the sections that you mention in BLP (and yes, I HAVE noticed that you've raised this article on the BLP noticeboard) and my latest edit attempted to introduce both sides of the story, the study originally being published and the BOR response to it. Thank you for removing it just because it didn't meet with your explicit approval! Whisperwolf 15:00, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

No, it was removed for the reasons I stated. They're right out in the open. Happy Friday! Kyaa the Catlord 15:35, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't see the link to O'Reilly's response on the page. In any case, after reading the entire paper I must conclude that this research has many problems.

1. It compares two people seperated by over 70 years using methods developed almost 100 years ago. These methods were criticized for being crap back then, and have been little used or never used since that time. It does not compare him at all to any current individuals. K Olbermann's countdown would be a good comparison.
2. It focuses on ~ 140 2 minute segments of BOR's talking point memos and compares that to one or two 30 minute broadcasts of FC.
3. It doesn't provide any statistical results other than a Cronbecks Alpha in the initial inter-reliability testing.
4. The whole premise for the study appears to be BOR is a jerk and here is the proof.
5. Many of the references are very anti-BOR.

Its inclusion here before a proper response or criticism can be made is annalogous to reporting someone has been arrested and accused of some crime before charges are actually brought. This is gossip and fuel for a fire. Arzel 15:08, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

The O'Reilly comments were cited using youtube as the source. I'd like to see his counterpoints used in the article, but from a non-copyvio source. Kyaa the Catlord 15:35, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

That'ld be this transcript. He spends most of the time talking about Soros. The only criticism of the study is the implication that their name calling category isnt what the public would call name calling but thats a lot of exrapolation from the transcript. 1 is a missed chance but only limits the sort of statements that can be made, not the validity. In its conclusion it calls for a study of a left leaning communicator, which I hope is taken up. 3- Im not certain what else you'ld want done.. One of the criticisms they cite within the study is that it doesnt lend itself to extensive quantative analysis. 4 is your opinion and unsupported by their introduction to the study 5 I just cant find, the first note (sweetjesusIhatebilloreilly.com etc) cites that he has critics and frankens book used to show books have been written about his methods. A response has now been made by O'reilly and your analogy is wrong, its reporting that someone has been arrested and charged before a trial (his right to defend) has begun. The paragraph was phrased correctly and properly sourced, exactly as it shouldve been. It is not gossip to print an academic paper in a peer-reviewed journal and only fuel to a fire if you dont take the time to read it or the press release calmly.Dmanning 23:44, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Seriously, Arzel, that position is untenable. This is peer-reviewed published research based on a replicable study. You can nitpick all you want about the methodology, but until you publish those nitpicks yourself, they don't belong in an encyclopedia. csloat 00:16, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I still think the study is propoganda and extrememly biased. Furthermore it is a criticism of O'Reilly and I don't believe should be included. In anycase I have reworded it slightly and added responses and criticism of the study. Arzel 04:09, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what you think; it matters what the editors of Journalism Studies think. Second, this page is called "Criticism of Bill O'Reilly"; your argument that because it is a criticism of OReilly it should not be included is utterly nonsensical. csloat 07:08, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

It is this kind of inclusion that gets WP sued. This is a specific study to criticize BOR. It does not criticize any specific issue or comment he made. Further more you show your bias my removing the criticism defense made by BOR. Finally, if MM can be used for multiple references of criticism within this article, then newsbusters can be used to defend him. Arzel 12:16, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Laughable. WP is not going to get sued for citing a notable and verifiable study that was published in a peer reviewed academic journal. When your criticism is published in a reliable source it can stand too. "Newsbusters" is a blog and should not be cited as a reliable source. csloat 17:39, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

This is blatent slander, and verifiable is debatable. You can verify that it was done, but the conclusions are not veriviable. This "study" is strongly slanted against BOR, and has been reproduced and quoted by just about every left leaning blog and site I have seen. Their conclusion, which you included, is libelous. Newsbusters makes valid criticisms of the study which should not be ignored. You should be much more careful when dealing with BLP issues, WP should not be used in this manner. Additionally, my restatement was completely factual without any POV spin on the conclusions. Arzel 19:46, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

You are calling a replicable study by researchers with Ph.D.'s in the field "blatent [sic] slander." If you think the study is slanderous, call a lawyer. If you think the researchers fudged their methods or data, replicate the study, show what they fudged, and approach the ethics review board at Indiana University. If you just think they are wrong, replicate the research, show what is wrong with their methods or conclusions, and approach the editorial board of Journalism Studies with your paper. None of that is relevant. Wikipedia will not get sued for accurately citing the conclusions of published research. Newsbusters is not a WP:RS and should not be cited here, especially in response to a published academic study; newsbusters is a self-published blog. csloat 20:00, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

It never compares him TO a Nazi, it compares his USE OF PROPOGANDA WITH a nazi-sympathiser; I thought you'd read it. To say that it does is inflamatory and pushing the nazi button. In what way is it libelous, put forward your whole motion - ring O'Reilly and offer to help with the prosecution.Dmanning 20:42, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

csloat, First, they are not all Ph.D's. Only Grabe has a Ph.D (from what I have been able to determine). Graves is a doctorial student, Conway is unidentifiable. I have checked the IU pages, and have been unable to find anything attributing his educational status. One reason I believe it to be libelous is because it states as fact that O'Reilly puts forth Propoganda in excess of a notorious historical figure without a frame of reference or understanding of context. I suspect few people know what Coughlin said, but the implications are that O'Reilly is worse. The study parameters used are designed for conservative leaning analysis, thus the intitial parameters are already biased. Furthermore, it appears that there is political motivation for this study. Maria Elizabeth Grabe (the lead author) is a member of the Kinsey Institute, of which O'Reilly has been critical in the past. Furthermore, Grabe has a history of strong accusations regarding public figures. One intersting case is that she accuses Jerry Springer of being Morally Conservative. http://www.indiana.edu/~cpcr/Conway%20and%20Grabe.pdf "The goal of my study was to assess the Springer shows for fulfilling these social maintenance functions. My findings revealed that deviance from the traditional family values is frequently featured on the show, but that the studio audience and Jerry Springer played active roles in the public degradation of these transgressions, casting the show in a morally conservative light," One can determine quite easily that she applied similar techniques regarding O'Reilly to come up with her conclusion.

Dmanning, I never said it compared him with a Nazi, I said Nazi sympathiser, actually the study said that. You are correct in that it specified the propoganda. One of my primary probles of this study is that it was designed to prove a point, that is not how research should be performed (if you cannot see the initial bias then anything I say will make little difference). I am not sure what the original hypothesis was, but the first research question (and the primary conclusion aspect) was How do Father Coughlin and Bill O’Reilly compare in terms of their use of the seven propaganda devices as identified by the IPA? Thus it was already pre-determined that BOR uses propaganda, and the hypothesis would be that BOR and FC use(d) propaganda equally. Regardless of the conclusion one could say that BOR uses propaganda to some degree. Arzel 21:53, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

"But analyses of O’Reilly tend to devolve into arguments of political left versus right and name calling - the same types of charges that are leveled at O’Reilly himself. A systematic and dispassionate approach that focuses on his rhetorical strategy and

presentation of people and ideas is much needed." (From the introduction to the study)

Purpose of the study, to leave left and right out of the debate and focus on how he uses rhetoric, seems plain and simple enough to me. There is no hypothesis presented, nor does there need to be, just a study of the text. The first question leaves the possibility of him not using propoganda at all or much less than FC, these would both equally be interesting report worthy results, so frankly your arguement doesnt stand up.

As to what they compare him with Nazi/Nazi-sympathiser doesnt matter because they at no point compare his values with those of FC and it is very important to say it is a comparison of his use of propoganda. That FC was a Nazi-sympathiser is irrelevant to the study. Dmanning 22:20, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

"The study parameters used are designed for conservative leaning analysis, thus the intitial parameters are already biased." Untrue, look at the IPA propoganda techniques. There are no conservative basis for any of them, infact plain folk is more commonly used by marxists and undoubtly I could find all of them in Stalin's speechs including Hero, Villain and Victim judgements too. The tool just isnt left-right biased and thats all the bias a study could have bar selective editing of the sources.Dmanning 22:53, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Dmanning is right but I'm not going to debate with you about your nitpicks with the study. As I said, if you think it is biased or unethical, take it up with the IU ethics review board. If you think it is wrong, get your own study published and then we can cite it here. Until then, your WP:OR isn't appropriate for this page. csloat 23:10, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

LOSE INDENT - From the Authors. "While our study does heed Carey’s suggestion of a return to case studies, concentrating on O’Reilly continues the IPA tendency of focusing on right-leaning communicators." Kind of nullifies "leaving the left and right out of the arguement". This also backs up my claim that the parameters are designed for conservative leaning analysis. As for not having a hypothesis, I am not sure what kind of analysis or research you have done, but without some initial question you don't have analysis or research. In anycase, the hypothesis was research question 1. How can you seriously claim that they do not compare BOR with the values of FC? The lead in on several blogs makes this direct comparison, there is obvious intent even if it is not spelled out directly. Regardless, I never said they compared BOR with the values of FC. Obviously neither of you can see the obvious initial bias in this study, or refuse to acknowledge it, but I still ask you both to look at this objectively. Besides, ask yourself, is this a criticism involving BOR, or is a criticism OF BOR. This article looked like an attack of BOR even before this addition, and it has only become worse. Arzel 04:09, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

"The lead in on several blogs makes this direct comparison"..SOLD!Dmanning 06:39, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

When you publish your nitpicks about the study in a WP:RS, we can include them here; otherwise they are immaterial. Until then, material published in blogs or unpublished claims dreamed up by wikipedia editors do not belong here. csloat 04:22, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

The lead on anti-BOR blogs...... When the two of you are done with your ad hominem approach perhaps it will be time to discuss further, but since you can seem to do nothing but that, I will assume that you have no defense. Arzel 12:23, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

That anti-BOR blogs should be so extreme doesnt suprise me, it certainly shouldnt suprise you, they havent read the study - just a summary I'ld assume. Humour, not an attack. However you miss that point that an objective reading of the study gives no such comparison (only a comparison of the use of propoganda) and Im suprised you would use blogs to defend your reasoning. Ad hominem? where have you been attacked. I ask for bias in the tools, how the IPA propoganda tools shows conservative bias and you give me suggestions of bias in the IPA and in the people who did the research (ad hominem, yes? the people rather than the tools/message). I ask for where the bias is and you say its 'obvious', if it were obvious you could show it clearly and simply (as my old logic and sets professor would say). Incidently, a hypothesis requires reasoning or else it is useless for predicting anything, if it has no hypothesis which the first question isnt then it is merely interested in the result without pre-judging what the study should find.Dmanning 12:54, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Let me clarify the section on the people rather than the tools. It has been established in previous threads that you believe biased people cannot create a reliable source/study, we differ on this. I agree that the tool maybe out of date, they seem interested in updating and reviving it as a useful tool, however as I have no journalism study experience it is not my place to analyse it. You have not managed to demonstrate (to me at least) that it is a hit piece or it has a bias against BOR, that it comes from a peer-reviewed journal is a valid reason to keep it provided the section with FC is correctly phrased (see above). As you are passionate about this I suggest you write to the editor of Journalism studies and request a reply from the original authors. As for this thread it seems we have reached some kindof end.Dmanning 13:33, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I stated ad hominem because you keep stating for me to publish my own study instead of discussing.

It is not that I don't believe biased people can perform unbiased research, but this study was prejudiced from the start. Research question 1 was the hypothesis "How do Father Coughlin and Bill O’Reilly compare in terms of their use of the seven propaganda devices as identified by the IPA?", if you cannot accept that, then everything else I say is lost. The remaining questions discussed the nature of the propaganda. There is no suggestion of bias, the authors state clearly that the IPA research deals primarily with right leaning communicators. I have now given several reasons why this study is biased. Presumption of propaganda use by the authors, continuation of IPA focus on right-leaning communicators, undrlying link of primary author to known controversy between BOR and IU. Why don't you provide some examples why it is not biased other than just saying I am wrong. Arzel 14:32, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I was the one who told you to publish your own study. That is not ad hominem; that is a serious point in terms of enforcing WP:NOR. Your comments about the study are not things we can use in Wikipedia, but if you publish your own study, we can quote it. Bottom line - it doesn't matter at all whether you think the study is biased. I think your arguments are weak, but even if they were airtight it would not matter -- the study is published in a WP:RS (and it survived peer review presumably by people in the field with far more credentials than you), and your comments are not. That's all that matters as far as Wikipedia is concerned. csloat 17:42, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Appologies to Dmanning.

csloat, it is ad hominem, and you continue to do so in your response. Please stop. Arzel 18:18, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

No, it's not; I explained that, so please read what I wrote above - this is not about insulting you; this is about enforcing the rule against original research. And please stop deleting valid sourced information with the phony claim that it is "undue weight." You are deleting one of the conclusions of the study. Stop it. csloat 19:36, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

You made a presumtion regarding my qualifications to serve your own point when in fact you are wrong. Arzel 20:01, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

My apologies. That is great news, Arzel. With your qualifications you should have no problem getting your research published in a peer-reviewed journal. When it is published, send me a copy and I will happily be the one to post the conclusion of your article to this Wikipedia page. csloat 20:12, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Your sarcasm is not lost. It is undue weight because it was not the focus of the study. It is simply cherry picked for impact. Arzel 03:36, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I was being entirely serious, not sarcastic. If you have the qualifications you say you do and you have the proof that this study is flawed, publish your results, and I will be the first to argue for their inclusion in this article. That is the way things work. As for the undue weight argument, that is silly. This is one of the conclusions of the study; on what basis do you claim it was "cherry picked for impact"? What impact? You are just deleting stuff you don't like. csloat 03:48, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

It has been repeated ad nauseum on every left blog I have seen, and is not needed for the context of the article. The same could be said that you include things you like. Arzel 04:23, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

The difference is between including material that is verifiable and comes from reliable sources as opposed to including your or my unsourced opinions. Sourcing to a blog (left or right) is simply not acceptable here except under unusual circumstances (e.g. blogs of known experts commenting on topics within their areas of expertise). csloat 04:59, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't even commenting on the NewsBusters blog, but obviously this is your primary point of contention. So I ask how are they different then Media Matters, especially in this situation? Please give me a good logical reason why a defense of BOR should not be allowed, especially when that defense makes a valid point which you yourself have backed. Arzel 12:46, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I have not backed this point, and I have not commented on Media Matters. I don't think we can populate this article with blog sources, and I don't think we should delete the valid conclusions of a verifiable peer-reviewed study. csloat 18:01, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

So you have no opinion on MM? Arzel 04:13, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Letter to the Editor of Time magazine

A letter to the editor is a letter sent to a publication in the hopes of publication, which is exactly what the Marine officer's letter was.... This is possibly the dumbest "edit war" ever. At the very least can you PLEASE rewrite what you keep changing the text to so it follows the common rules of the english language, DS? Kyaa the Catlord 18:29, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Your edit is mischaracterizing the letter which was NOT sent to the editor by the author. Perhaps reading the source would have cleared that up:

Written last month, this straightforward account of life in Iraq by a Marine officer was initially sent just to a small group of family and friends. His honest but wry narration and unusually frank dissection of the mission contrasts sharply with the story presented by both sides of the Iraq war debate, the Pentagon spin masters and fierce critics. Perhaps inevitably, the "Letter from Iraq" moved quickly beyond the small group of acquantainaces and hit the inboxes of retired generals, officers in the Pentagon, and staffers on Capitol Hill. TIME's Sally B. Donnelly first received a copy three weeks ago but only this week was able to track down the author and verify the document's authenticity. The author wishes to remain anonymous but has allowed us to publish it here — with a few judicious omissions.

Additionally, the letter says nothing about liberal watchdogs or that TIME magazine is like-minded. In fact, the letter is pretty neutral in it's description of the war. Please delete your fabrications. Deepstratagem 19:03, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Please realize that the space in which your letter to the editor is listed is more than just about your "find" at Time. Time may have printed what could be an internet meme or chain letter based on the writers insistance on hiding his/her identity. I'd like to just remove it based on the low level of verifiability of the source material that Time reprinted and leave the rest as the summary of criticism on BOR's statements on the Iraq war. Kyaa the Catlord 20:11, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

So you've changed your story... first you claim it's a letter to the editor and now you claim it has a low level of verifiability. Time has already verified the letter as shown above. Deepstratagem 20:29, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Newsflash, I'm willing to discuss this. How about you point out how this one liner in an article that Time magazine's online version had to split three times has an effect on Bill O'Reilly's notability? Are we giving this single line in a single article undue weight? The opinion that BOR is the "worst" voice in the debate on the War in Iraq seems to be a truly minority opinion, the majority of people who are discussing this issue would most likely agree that President Bush would be the worst voice in sea of voices talking about the Iraq conflict, followed by members of his cabinet, former members of his cabinet, and so on down the ladder until we reach BOR. Kyaa the Catlord 20:36, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

The article does not make the claims you attribute to the letter. The author of the letter is referring to talking heads, not politicians. The original wording in the article did not claim that BOR was the worst; only that a marine whose letter was read by many and made its way to high profile politicians accused Bill O'Reilly of politically slanted commentary. Now you have reworded the paragraph to include things NOT attributed or sourced in the article and then questioned the relevance of the source after the fact. Deepstratagem 21:03, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Then we'll be fine without it in the summary of the subsection. I can agree with that. Kyaa the Catlord 22:18, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Should be removed. One phrase out of a three page letter does not attribute the notability given. Arzel 01:09, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

What does the length have to do with it? It's TIME. Deepstratagem 04:59, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Undue weight. Period. Kyaa the Catlord 16:19, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I'll concede on "undue weight". Deepstratagem 17:22, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Fox Broadcasting Company Special on O.J. Simpson

This section does not actually contain any criticism of Bill O'Reilly. Is it appropriate for this page? ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 00:16, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

No. Removing it. Kyaa the Catlord 07:44, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Malmedy

I saw that the section on "Malmedy massacre" was removed for lacking in neutrality. Now I do not know for sure whether this is supposed to mean pro-O'Reilly or anti-O'Reilly, though I guess it is the latter. It is certainly true that it is too longish and that the resolution (that O'Reilly confused the sequence or the places, as someone stated above) is lacking. However, simply removing the section is not the thing to do. Other articles refer to this section. For instance, it is mentioned over at Keith Olberman, where K.O. uses this to accuse O'Reilly of having "defended the Nazis from World War II on three separate occasions". (This is what brought me over.) Now, what I found here (after digging in the history) did not confirm this comment, in fact revealed it to be ridiculous. Now, maybe that should be clarified over at K.O. but it would be nice to have comprehensive (though concise) and neutral coverage of these comments here as well. Otherwise K.O.'s comments will stand on their own. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 09:51, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

The fact that Olbermann doesn't let O'Reilly's admitted mistake die is a criticism of Olbermann, not O'Reilly. If you want to "balance" the Olbermann page, do it on his page, this is not the proper place for that. Kyaa the Catlord 12:11, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

It totally agree with your observations on KO.

But still, I don't see that this page is titles "Current criticism ...". And I also cannot see how this is not "criticism".

Nonetheless it should be made clear here that this is an "old hat" and over there that there is a discrepancy between what O'R said and what KO made of it. I have attempted this over there but since this was mentioned in another context (criticism of KO for doing a Nazi salute) there is not much room for this.

Furthermore, the refusal letting this die can only be included as criticism of KO when we have a reference. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 12:29, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Its a case of undue weight. O'Reilly mistakenly stated that the US troops were the agressor twice, then admitted he was wrong. The criticism wasn't widely documented by third parties (other than Olbermann using it as a cover for his own "transgression"). Its awfully soapboxy to keep including this when it isn't a real criticism of Bill O'Reilly, but rather a very short series of mistakes which he's later made a retraction of.... Kyaa the Catlord 12:35, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I will comment in steps, please read them all for the result:

I agree that the criticism of this is totally silly (especially since there apparently have been German POWs killed by Americans in this context, only not at Malmedy).

On the other hand that wouldn't prevent the suitability of including it here, as neither "silly" nor "not real" criticism are excluded. After all, if someone criticised O'R for this it is a criticism.

However, if your observation that such a criticism wasn't widely made before Olbermann I agree that it's not needed to be covered here as it would be a non-notable criticism

So in the end, we do agree.

And thanks for improving my first attempt over at KO.

Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 12:58, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Hey, welcome to the darkside, BLP articles are evil. :P Kyaa the Catlord 13:29, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

The criticism did not come from Olbermann alone; it was also reported by Media Matters for America (as you must know, since you were the one who removed the Malmédy section). It's notable not simply because O'Reilly misspoke, but also because Fox News got caught scrubbing the transcript a day later. One could claim that that was Fox's dishonesty, not O'Reilly's, but surely the ultimate responsibility for his show lies with him.--HughGRex 10:57, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

The fact that an organization which exists solely to criticize what they perceive as "right wing bias" in the media complains about a "right wing" commentator does not make this any more notable than if it was posted on any other blog, even a well financed and backed one such as MMfA. Show me some mainstream media reports on this and you'll make a better case for notability. Kyaa the Catlord 13:51, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Instead of your not-so-subtle slam at MMfA as a "well financed and backed (blog)", let's describe it as a "well referenced media criticism site". Then, you might understand why I think it's obvious that MMfA meets the standard for verifiability.

I don't think your reliance on "mainstream media" holds water. O'Reilly himself isn't "mainstream media", so expecting a higher standard for inclusion of his critics is illogical.--HughGRex 13:10, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

If BOR is not mainstream media, then there is little reason for an article of controversies regarding BOR. I agree with Kyaa Arzel 01:07, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Your opinion comes as quite the surprise, doesn't it? You're on record, in several places, with the opinion that the article has no reason for existing. So why wouldn't you try, once again, to argue for deletion despite the fact that, when it was nominated for deletion in the past, the decision was keep? Here's a suggestion: ¿why not accept the consensus and move on already?

Why don't you take your own advice regarding the Malmédy incident? In all seriousness however, why the sudden attack of me and my motives? I give my support to Kyaa, and you jump down my throat. I may have the opinion that these types of articles have little if any long term value for WP, much of what is in most of them reeks of recentism. Even then you don't see me listing this article (or any other) for deletion, nor have I been pushing for the deletion of any article. Grow up. Arzel 13:50, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

1. I don't know what you mean by "Why don't you take your own advice regarding the Malmédy incident?"

2. You seem to be under the impression that stating and re-stating your opinion, and saying "I agree," is somehow contributing to improvement of the article. In IMHO, the place for supporting another editor is on his/her Talk Page.

3. You have, since you first stumbled onto this article, argued that it had no raison d'etre. You have even threatened to nominate for deletion. You can argue against your own words if you wish, but I don't see how it will benefit you.--HughGRex 11:33, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

O'Reilly frequently criticizes the "mainstream media",[1] so it's reasonable to infer that the phrase does not apply to him. Nonetheless, he is a powerful voice. He makes controversial and fact-challenged statements on a regular basis—thus this article's Raison d'être.--HughGRex 10:16, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Perceived consensus is no reason to stifle discussion, consensus is built from discussion and can be changed through discussion. Kyaa the Catlord 12:50, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

It wasn't "perceived consensus." It was an overwhelming vote in favor of keeping the article. Discussion is fine, but resurrecting the "this article should be deleted because it focuses on critics of O'Reilly" argument ad nauseum is not constructive discussion.--HughGRex 11:33, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

This is flawed logic. If someone criticizes people in general (Such as in, "People are unwilling to consider ideas that deviate from their own point of view."), does that automatically mean that the person making that statement is not human? The notion of whether Fox News and their personalities are mainstream or not is thorny for sure, and I'm not sure how useful it is to the encyclopedia. Croctotheface 20:26, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

If you read the context of O'Reilly's frequent criticism of the "mainstream media," you'll recognize that he does not wish to be counted among its denizens.

The real point is that MMfA is a prominent critic of O'Reilly. Unlike O'Reilly, it employs facts and gives references—quoting him in context—supporting its viewpoint. That is why its criticisms should be noted in an article entitled "Criticism of Bill O'Reilly".--HughGRex 11:33, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to urge that something about O'Reilly's statements about the Malmedy massacre in October 2005 be restored to this article. I watch over the article about the Malmedy massacre itself and the subsequent Malmedy massacre trial. After October 2005 there was extensive debate on their Talk page about including coverage of O'Reilly's comments there. The consensus was the issue was notable, because readers came to the Malmedy massacre article to check the facts; but also that it was primarily a story about O'Reilly, not about Malmedy history, so the coverage belonged here, not there. I've read the text deleted in April 2007. I think the part that quote's O'Reilly words and Fox's transcript is neutral and well-documented, if a bit long-winded. I can see how the bit about Olbermann and MMfA are off the topic, and probably belong in the Olbermann article. Could we please have a discussion about what is the NPOV objection is to that O'Reilly Malmedy story, fix it, and restore the result? I think the readers of the Malmedy massacre article deserve it. --Jdlh | Talk 04:57, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

• Someone added a mention of Bill O'Reilly's mistaken comment about the Malmedy massacre in that article again. I really think this issue needs to be documented in Wikipedia. It is clearly notable enough for various editors to add it repeatedly to the encyclopedia. I think this Criticisms article is the right place for a brief mention and citation. I wish that the editors here could get a consensus accepting such a mention. --Jdlh | Talk 17:43, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Why add it? Not notable. Really. Thanks, --Tom 18:52, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

"white christian male power structure"

Bill O'Reilly once complained about liberals trying to "break down the white christian male power structure". Can we include something about this somewhere in the article? [2] [3] [4] Herorev 05:11, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Undue weight. If it was a big deal, and not just a stupid thing said by O'Reilly, you'd find some non-blog, non-copyvio sources. I'd also suggest removing these links due to their copyvio nature. Kyaa the Catlord 05:48, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Identification of Media Watchdog Groups

In the article covering Keith Olbermann, just for one example, the media watchdog group Media Research Center is referred to as a liberal group. There is no such mention in this piece, referring to both of the groups as "progressive." If conservative groups are to be identified as conservative, even if they do not clearly denote themselves as conservative, the obviously liberal groups should be stated as such, rather than as "progressive." Zookman12 02:01, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

They shouldn't be labeled "conservative" in the Olbermann article unless they identify themselves as such. MrMurph101 02:45, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Publicity of Bio

I added a dubious tag here. I tried to access the article supposedly in the google cache and it led nowhere. I did a google search, no results. Anyone else have better luck? Kyaa the Catlord 19:42, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Virginia Tech

http://hiphopgame.com/forums/showthread.php?t=45086

George Soros

The George Soros article has been locked for a while due to a disagreement about whether to include the fact the O'Reilly has been a vocal critic(or attacker depending on one's POV) of him. It is getting close to an agreement but not quite. If anyone here wants to civilly weigh in on and help with the resolution that would be great. MrMurph101 17:20, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

French boycott section

I removed a youtube link as a reference and tag another sentence. Anyways, --Tom 23:46, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

What's the problem with referencing a video of his show? It's a primary source. Croctotheface 00:48, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Copy right issues and youtube is not considered a reliable source for a number of good reasons. Thanks, --Tom 13:20, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Copyright issues are one thing, and that's a fair point. However, the idea that a video of a broadcast could be considered an "unreliable" representation of what happened on that broadcast is puzzling to me. This is not a matter of an individual's self-published video. Regarding the content you removed, I don't find it all that compelling to include, but it could easily be sourced to a transcript of the interview. Croctotheface 20:27, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Not sure why the comment was removed. As it read one would assume he is still boycotting France, which is simply not true. I found another reference and re-inserted into the article. Arzel 02:32, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

lyingliar.com

I see that this site is used as a reference. Is this a proper source? Anyways, I am no fan of O'reilly but it seems that this article could use "better" sourcing. Thanks, --Tom 13:32, 23 August 2007 (UTC)ps, the links are not working anyway, so I removed them. --Tom 13:37, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I mean, that site is an anti-Al Franken site, not an anti-O'Reilly site. Of course, if all the links are broken, it's a moot point. Croctotheface 20:30, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Edit warring over sources

Honestly, just give me a break with this. The video is online. It could not be more clear that the information is verifiable. Whether we shouldn't link to it because of copyright issues or not, I don't know. But this whole "we need better sources" when anybody can click the link to the video to see exactly what Franken said...isnt there something better that we could be doing? Croctotheface 19:56, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Just don't include youtube links and we are done. What so hard about that? They are not considered reliable sources for this project. --Tom 20:50, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, YouTube can be considered a reliable source, but it is also likely to suffer from copyright problems. If the YouTube video can be shown to not violate copyright (e.g., if it were sponsored by Air America, which is not the case here), then it is a perfectly valid source. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:56, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

It says that compliance with reliable sources would be infrequent. youtube is basically garbage and should really be avoided, imho, it seems that this project can do much better. --Tom 13:25, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Not sure why we're at this level of indenting...I understand your point of view about Youtube. It does not seem consistent with the current consensus, so I'll ask you to try to avoid "enforcing" your beliefs here. Croctotheface 13:27, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

You (Tom) can't possibly be arguing the videos that CNN (for example) puts on YouTube (these obey copyright, btw) are somehow unreliable, can you? Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 13:44, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

This might seem amazing, but I don't ever go to youtube. I know I am a freak and the only person on the planet that doesn't go there but what can I say. CNN puts videos on youtube? OK. Can't we get those videos from CNN directly? My problem with youtube is, I am guessing here, anybody can put anything up there? Correct? What is the level of peer review? What is the level of authentication of material? I am suspected that both those of pretty poor. I personally don't believe a dam thing on the WWW. Like I said, I guess I am a freak :) Cheers! --Tom 18:06, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

The peer-review would be the same as the original broadcast (usually nada, but that doesn't prevent us from including articles from CNN, Washington Post, etc., which also don't have peer-review). The authentication question is trickier, but for a Wikipedia editor familiar with YouTube, i.e., everyone but you ;), it's easy to tell those clips that have been put up by reliable sources from those clips that have been put up by Tom, Dick, or Harry. As for the WWW in general, I hope you don't believe a damn thing on TV, magazines, or the newspapers, either! Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:52, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing that up. For the Franken criticism re: Joe Biden, the source is the broadcast. A citation is not "needed", the prior citation just needs to be reconfigured to avoid linking to copyrighted material. So long as we provide information that would allow someone to track down the source, the material is cited. Croctotheface 23:04, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely. Speaking of links, however, it appears that the link to the Air America site is now broken (due to Air America's changes and not Wikipedia's). I tried finding a new, copyright-obeying link, but could not. (Again, for others, a link is not actually required for a citation.) Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:15, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Colbert

I'm going to do some more research later, but I alluded to the criticism in the intro. The fact that The Colbert Report describes Colbert's caricature as a misinformed idiot is enough to avoid WP:OR for now. There are specific cases that can be mentioned though, the most recent I know of was when Colbert showed 5 clips of O'Reilly comparing Daily Kos to the Ku Klux Klan and proceeded to demonstrate why he thought "Papa Bear" was full of it. Narco 12:54, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

i wouldn't disagree that Colbert's parody can be critical of O'Reilly. However, except for the quote you described, I don't think there's enough direct evidence to mention much more than that. The idea that Colbert was criticizing O'Reilly during the Kos thing is an original interpretation of what happened. It's an interpretation I would agree with, but I don't think it's direct enough to mention here. Besides, I think there's information about Colbert at the Bill O'Reilly article anyway. It doesn't need to go everywhere. Croctotheface 15:48, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

What are you trying to say? It's our sacred duty to spread the Gospel According to Colbert to all corners of the Internet. But yeah, you're right. There's probably enough criticism but not enough weight to put it here. Narco 08:50, 10 September 2007 (UTC)