Talk:Public image of Bill O'Reilly (political commentator)/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

Malmedy

As I noted above the archives are messed up. Previous discussion is therefore mostly messed up as well. So let me propose this question. Exactly what is the controversy that some would like to include into this article regarding the Malmedy incident? He did try to correct the incident, although not to the satisfaction of either KO or MMfA. He discussed the incident again [[1]] where he does get the story correct. This story is really part of the larger feud between KO and BOR where even the ADL gets into the act and calls on KO for appologize for a Hitler salute [[2]]. All this said there appears to be little if any real news reports on this incident. The first five pages of a [[3]] google search shows no news reports outside KO who already has an extreme dislike of BOR. Unless this can be shown to be more than KO and MMfA lambasting it really has no place here. Arzel (talk) 04:00, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, Arzel, but that's not how it works. Both Keith O'Reilly (MSNBC) and Media Matters fall under WP:RS (as previously explained all over wikipedia). Your characterization of this incident as "part of the largre feud between KO and BOR" is original research (and, ironically, is disproved by the existance of independant criticism by Media Matters). What policies and guidelines have given you the authority to decide when there is "enough" criticism to make a legitimate point? What gives you the ability to declare that "it has no place here" because of otherwise notable sources? I suggest there are none, especially given there are a good number of editors who believe it should be included. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 00:15, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I made no OR. The Jewish World Reiew called it part of the Olbermann/O'Reilly/MM feud. So, still want to propogate the BOR/KO/MMfA feud here at WP when the criticism has no place outside that feud? Arzel (talk) 01:36, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but you can't use the Jewish World Review's assessment of the situation as grounds to deny inclusion no matter how you slice it. There is no policy, guideline, or precedent that I know of that gives you (or the JWR) the authority to decide what is "really criticism" and is worthy of inclusion. There are clearly a number of editors who believe this merits inclusion going back a number of years; I see only attempts to scrub negative information without a clear reason to remove it. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 06:44, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I just want to say "chill" in response to this. Although it can be frustrating when someone objects to a change you want to make, there is nothing productive about making accusations that somebody is operating in bad faith. I bristle when editors accuse each other of just wanting to "scrub negative information" because there is just no way of knowing what someone else's motivation is. Croctotheface (talk) 16:15, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

It's a reasonable argument to say that because Olbermann was the only person referring to this item of criticism, we could exercise editorial judgment and decide not to include it. However, there are two compelling replies to that. First, even if we could make such a judgment, it appears that the consensus here is against making it. So while we are not compelled regardless of circumstances to include it, we are certainly able to make the editorial judgment to put it in, and that appears to be the case here. Second, it's not just Olbermann: here's a columnist making the criticism despite the fact that it's no longer a new news story. Croctotheface (talk) 16:20, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Croc: I apologize if my comments seem a little harsh. If you look a little closer you will notice that I made no direct accusation or comment on motive, and only noted that there have been multiple attempts (by one or two editors) to remove reliably sourced negative information from this article without a clear reason to do so and in the face of many editors who have given both opinions and guidelines as to why said information should be included. Beyond that, if you take a more macro view and incorporate all of the related articles (Fox News Channel, Bill O'Reilly, Media Matters for America, etc.) you will notice a clear pattern that seems more concerned with a particular viewpoint than objectivity and compliance with our policies & guidelines. However, I would again like to point out that I made no such explicit claim of bad faith... I'm just not prepared to roll over and allow such behavior to continue unchallenged ad infinitum (especially when there are clear reasons as to why this information should be included, as we've both now explained). /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 18:39, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Not sure why you put this comment here, since it's not in response to what I said right above it. In any case, my point remains that it is not productive to criticize what you perceive as editors' intentions. Instead, restrict yourself to responding to what they are saying about the matter at hand. Croctotheface (talk) 19:08, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I placed my response at the end of your comments. Regarding the rest, I always address the direct issues at hand in particular. WP:AGF states (emphasis in original) that This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary. Again, I've made no direct comment on any particualr editor or intentions. If you'd like to continue this discussion, it would probably be more productive on my talk page. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 19:40, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

You don't have to assume good faith at any point, really, since it's unlikely that someone would be blocked for it. My point remains that your comment about other editors' desire to "scrub negative content" served no productive purpose. The fact that you did not address it to anyone specifically does not mean your meaning was unclear. I have nothing more to say about this topic. Croctotheface (talk) 20:09, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

<outdent> I just removed a bunch of material that used youtube as its source. This is the essence of OR. Anyways, I am not sure what the deal is, but can we avoid youtube since it really isn't an appropriate source? Thanks, --Tom 18:43, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps the less restrictive method would have been simply to delete the Youtube citations and placed fact tags on the info. However, there was also original research in the blurb as well. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 18:53, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

What's the issue you have with the youtube references? It's certainly not "the essence of OR" just to cite Youtube in any capacity. Something sourced to anything could be OR, I'm not sure why you're suggesting that nothing could ever be sourced to Youtube without being original research. Croctotheface (talk) 18:58, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think Youtube is the essence of OR either, but there is a general problem of seeing something on Youtube, and then re-telling what you saw here at Wikipedia. In this instance, if the Youtube clips are actually episodes of KO's show, it may not qualify as OR but there may be RS issues. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 20:15, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

(ec)It would largely depend upon the context. If you had a statement; "X has made controversal statements relating to Y" and then linked Youtube with X making the statement, then that would be OR. Arzel (talk) 20:18, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd certainly agree that your case would be OR, but that's not what Tom asserted above. Croctotheface (talk) 20:24, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Iam actually not sure what I asserted anymore :) Seriously, I personally don't like sourcing ANYTHING to youtube since WHO oversees how the material is uploaded and how can you verify anything there?? Videos can be doctored/edited ect. and then uploaded?? How do you know who is doing what?? It is a self publishing web site, correct? Youtube is an awesome site for videos but I do not think its an appropriate source for citable material for this project. Anyways, --Tom 20:42, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I've never thought about the authentication issue at Youtube. Most of the problems people have with that site revolves around the copyright violations that occur there. Your point is well taken (by me at least). Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 21:01, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think there's a serious concern that videos on to Youtube are doctored. In general, as far as I know, there is no policy or guideline that says it's inappropriate to cite Youtube. ("I don't like it" is certainly not a policy or guideline.) If the source we're dealing with is a TV broadcast, we could just as easily list the name and date of the broadcast as the source and not link to the video, though. "This is sourced to Youtube" in itself is not a reason to remove content. Croctotheface (talk) 21:27, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Agree with croc (edit conflict)... Instead of talking about hypotheticals, let's stick to the issue at hand. Arzel has a point, regarding saying something is controversial and then linking to the content that is allegedly controversial is original research. However, that isn't really relevant in this instance (there are plenty of other sources that discuss the controversy specifically). Regarding Tom's point... I don't think anyone disputes the validity of the content linked. Is it possible? Certainly, although I think the worst that would happen would be splicing segments out of order to change context -- fancy rendering and whatnot you see in hollywood movies isn't really realistic for youtube content. Does anyone actually alledge that we're talking about doctored clips? A clip used as supporting evidence to show that he did in fact say something is perfectly acceptable, especially without any allegation that it's not on the up and up. Youtube clips used to verify factual accuracy of claims made in other sources and that are not suspect are okay, IMHO. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:53, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

1. The general hypothetical and the speficic cites in this case are related. If you are placing a link to Youtube regarding a TV show, can you be sure that the Youtube clip is the undoctored stream of the TV show? You can't, unless you saw the show. If this is the situation, and there is no peer review process at Youtube to attest to the accuracy and authenticity of the clips, it makes Youtube an unreliable source. From WP:V-- Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.
2. In this case specifically, as I said before, I don't think erasing the whole section was the right way to go, you could have removed the Youtube citations, the synthesis in the section itself, and added {{fact}} tags wherever necessary. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 22:23, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I think we're confusing issues here. Youtube is not the source; but simply the vehicle by which the content is delivered. Youtube is nothing more than a hosting service, and unless there is evidence of foul play (and I doubt anyone is alledging foul play in this instance) I don't think that concern means one can automatically disqualify a source (the show) because of where it's hosted (youtube). If there are specific concerns of a faked video, that's a different animal, but that's not the case here. Make sense? /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 23:55, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that Youtube was used as the citation, not Countdown. In effect that's tainting an otherwise reliable source by putting it through this particular hosting service, since there is no system in place to make sure that it is in fact a reliable copy of what was shown on Countdown. If you were to use the actual transcript of a show from MSNBC that taint wouldn't exist, since there are copy editors to make sure the transcripts are accurate. So you're not disqualifying the source, you're just not taking this particular shortcut to the source that may be inaccurate for whatever reason. As Croc said, we could easily list the date and broadcast of the show as the citation, and if video confirmation is desired, the Youtube links could be ELs. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 01:12, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Conditional agree -- Countdown should be listed as the source, not youtube. However, unless the clip is suspect (it's not) then the fact that it's hosted is irrelevant. In any case, blanket removal of the source because youtube hosts it is not the answer. There is zero evidence that there has been any adulteration of the video, and I think it's irrelevant unless there is a question of validity. Again, youtube is the host, not the source. The solution is simply to change the source to reflect the countdown info, and use the youtube hosted portion of the show as verification; I'll look into fixing it asap. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 04:10, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

The debate regarding Youtube is ancilary to this discussion, and it is not even needed for that matter. He said it and it is documented. The only question is to what point should it be included. As I noted earlier on June 27, 2005 he gave the correct account of the situation. [[4]] He misspoke, giving the incorrect description twice, to which KO noted. He made a futile attempt to explain away his misspeak stating. "In the heat of the debate with General Clark, my statement wasn't clear enough, Mr. Caldwell. After Malmédy, some were executed by American troops." to which KO dismissed. Newsbusters (yes, I know they are the conservative version of MM) has a detailed description of KO feud with BOR regarding this subject, along with a purported correction by BOR. [[5]]. Also as I stated earlier, at least partially, TMZ calls the BOR/KO issue a feud. [[6]].

So I ask, exactly what is the controversy? That BOR said what he said? He has apparently corrected himself, at least partially, according to two seperate sources (newsbusters and MM), although MM and KO did not accept his correction because he did not specifically appologize for his miss-statement. Now, it is obvious this is part of the ongoing feud between KO and BOR. We have a RS even stating as much. If this is to be included (which I think is pointless) it should be mentioned very briefly within the general feud between KO and BOR. Arzel (talk) 04:48, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't agree that this merits only a "very brief" mention, but I certainly think that the version that has been going in and out of the article is way too long. A single paragraph would do fine for me; I don't care where in the article we put it. Croctotheface (talk) 05:23, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

The version going "in and out" is excessively wordy, probably because it tries to explain the entire situation (how BOR "misspeaked" twice and his "appologize for his miss-statement", according to Arzel). Despite the butchery of English language, I think that it may be excessive, but doing any less will surely have some editors claiming foul play. Regarding the rest, the controversy exists and has received significant coverage, as such the mention will be more than "very brief" and extends far beyond just Keith Olbermann's comments. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 14:03, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll ask again. Exactly what is the controversy? Blaxthos, it is not according to me. It is according to both Newshounds and MM. Arzel (talk) 15:45, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Arzel, it's clearly laid out in the article (vis a vis the wordy version) as well as in the sources. If you're having trouble actually understanding the issue, then it's probably not wise for you to rail so hard against inclusion. It's best to remain silent when you don't understand what's going on... /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 19:11, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I ignore your attacks, I've become used to your MO. The section had been put into the Factual Inaccuracies section, however as I noted earlier BOR has commented on this incident correctly prior to these two incidents, and later tried to explain away his inaccuracy as being the heat of the moment. KO has criticized BOR for being appolgetic, vis a vis his subsequent Hitler salute in O'Reilly's honor. Then there are those that are saying that BOR is un-American for his comments. Determination of the actual controversy, or at least the context for discussion will probably help determine the best way to include this section. Perhaps you should do a little more research on the subject before making anymore comments. Arzel (talk) 19:26, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Bill (and you) can try to "explain away" as much as you like, but the fact that it did happen (multiple times!) and has been reliably sourced by multiple independant organizations (along with neutral presentation) are the governing policies and guidelines on this issue. The "Hitler salute" has nothing to do with this issue at all (and I don't care for the taste of red herring). I'm all for ensuring that "both sides" are included (hence the overly wordy version), but I'm not going to let you excise it because you don't think it's a real controversy -- clearly there are organizations, individuals, and wiki-editors who believe it should be included, and I've yet to see any sort of policy or guideline that mandates or justifies your attempted exclusion. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 07:45, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

So what if he said it? What do you want people to know? That he said it? He has stated he misspoke, apparently not appologizing to the level that either you or KO would like. He also described the situation correctly in a prior situation. I'm not saying it should be completely scrubed, just to determine the proper context for inclusion. So, please explain what you want the section to say. What is the controversy? Because as far as I can tell KO is pissed because he said it (twice) and didn't appologize to the American soldiers that he incorrectly blamed. Look, I realize you hate BOR, but this hatred you seem to have for BOR is going to give you a heart attack. Arzel (talk) 17:28, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

The inappropriateness of your most recent comments is overwhelming. I won't bother explaining how exactly; if you don't understand by now chances are you never will. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 20:31, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Jeremyglickinterview.jpg

Image:Jeremyglickinterview.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 18:26, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Stockholm syndrome

I remember watching this episode and I think I remember him specifically saying that he wasn't saying Stockholm syndrome didn't exist, just that it was uncommon and didn't apply to this situation. It was a was awhile ago though so I may be mistaken, so could someone give a citation for O Reilly saying "He doesn't believe in Stockholm syndrome". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.229.77.97 (talk) 10:21, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

shuving incident cited to youtube

I removed that section. Wasn't this already discussed somewhere? Thanks, --Tom 14:44, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Colbert as a Critic?

How can one justify having Colbert listed as a critic of BOR? Yes he does a paradoy of BOR, but I haven't seen any specific reference where he is critizising BOR. Furthermore, is someone is going to be listed in the lead, they should have a specific section in the body describing some criticism. As such several should probably be removed from the lead per WP:LEAD. Arzel (talk) 19:42, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree that if there is no section on Colbert, he shouldn't be mentioned up top. Croctotheface (talk) 20:39, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I weeded out the less noteworthy critics, not saying they aren't critics but only the main ones should be in the lead. There could be a way to include their criticisms if you really want to. Also, I'm not sure about Colbert, it seems like OR to me unless you can find Colbert truly criticizing him, a sourced out-of-character criticism would carry more weight. MrMurph101 (talk) 00:59, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I find it hard to believe anyone doubts that Colbert is parodying O'Reilly. Though we do not use internal references within Wikipedia, you can find plenty of evidence of such by reading The Colbert Report, Stephen Colbert, and various Bill O'Reilly related articles. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 07:07, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

There is no doubt Colbert is parodying O'Reilly. However, parody does not automatically equal criticism. It more accurately equals satire which is sometimes regarded as the sincerest form of flattery. So by that we could argue Colbert is a big O'Reilly fan. I doubt that though but it shows how you can spin this. This is probably a classic case of WP:SYN as you can get. MrMurph101 (talk) 05:03, 9 February 2008 (UTC) Addendum: I hate the fact that you can't edit edit summaries :/ MrMurph101 (talk) 05:17, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I don't expect that satire is regarded, in any place, as flattery of any kind. Webster's defines it as "a literary work holding up human vices and follies to ridicule or scorn". Quite the opposite of flattery; in fact, that seems like criticism to me. However, I don't think we need a section on Colbert here. There are some cases where it's pretty clear that Colbert is satirizing O'Reilly in a way that is designed to heap scorn and ridicule on him, so I don't have an OR concern with some of that, but at the same time I think that this page is really more for direct criticism of O'Reilly. If we want to have a section that criticizes O'Reilly's style, we could include Colbert's remarks to the effect of parodying O'Reilly as a "poorly informed, high-status idiot", but otherwise I think we're better off without. Croctotheface (talk) 05:24, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Satire is the highest form of flattery or words to that effect is a well-known saying although it may be a little old-fashioned these days. There are things that go beyond the dictionary you know :) That being said, Colbert is already mentioned in The O'Reilly Factor article which is where it should be. MrMurph101 (talk) 05:35, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I think the saying you're thinking of is "imitation is the highest form of flattery". Satire, by definition, heaps scorn and ridicule on its targets. Croctotheface (talk) 05:41, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I think you're right, my bad. However, satire is not always negative. Right now I would say that calling Colbert a critic of O'Reilly would be like calling Uncyclopedia a critical site of wikipedia. Colbert seems to use O'Reilly and other pundits for that matter as a template(if I'm using the right term) to lampoon conservative talking points. Also, a better person that Colbert would be parodying would be, IMO, Wally George. MrMurph101 (talk) 05:55, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

In general, I agree that most of what Colbert does is not critical of O'Reilly. Some of his bits pretty clearly are. However, this page is really for more specific criticisms, and unless we want a section that recounts criticism of O'Reilly's blustery style, then I don't think Colbert really fits in. Croctotheface (talk) 06:31, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Satire may not always be negative but it is always critical; in my experience some people just aren't sophisticated enough to understand it (note: this is not meant as any sort of commentary on the editors commenting herein). Also, critical and criticism are from the same base word. I find it very difficult to believe that one can keep a straight face while saying Colbert is not being critical of O'Reilly simply because he uses satire instead of direct commentary. Also, the article is not entitled "Direct Criticism of Bill O'Reilly", and I think it does the article an injustice to attempt to exclude it on that basis. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 06:36, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

unindent-Satire is not always critical and I can keep a straight face about Colbert not being critical just because he spoofs O'Reilly. FWIW, you may be completely right, Colbert may be writhing in total hatred of all things O'Reilly that would make Olbermann seem mild for all we know. On the other extreme Colbert could just be doing this to get some laughs and not even care about politics. The truth is in the middle somewhere I'm sure. To be clear, I'm not trying to deny that Colbert is a critic or preventing a mention of him in this article in some form but will go with Croc's point about how a version could fit in. I guess we can agree to disagree. MrMurph101 (talk) 06:50, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

There is a distinct difference between a spoof and satire... I don't think that how Colbert personally feels about O'Reilly is really the issue. What is at issue is that Colbert is critical of O'Reilly vis a vis a satirical television show that lampoons O'Reilly. Symantics aside, let's work together to find an acceptable version. I haven't given much thought on the mechanics of inclusion; I've been more concerned with why it should be included to this point. Suggestions welcome. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 08:41, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't have a problem to put at the end of the lead with something to the effect of "Stephen Colbert also parodies O'Reilly in his show The Colbert Report." It brings in Colbert without having to directly say he's a critic. MrMurph101 (talk) 16:07, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

We should probably also quote Colbert's statements to the effect that he has described the character a poorly-informed idiot. Croctotheface (talk) 21:52, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Homeless vets

I'm actually surprised that no one has brought this up since it has been ongoing but what about this homeless vets controversy? I found a source that's not from the usual suspects which is somewhat balanced but more on the anti-O'Reilly side. I'm not saying that this should or should not be included but might merit discussion before putting a good version if we decide on any type of inclusion. Thoughts? MrMurph101 (talk) 05:38, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Olbermann has been talking about it for a while now, and I think he's referenced others' criticsims as well. I think that given that there have now been protests and widespread criticism it should probably be included. I would try to find several sources to ensure objectivity, but I support inclusion. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 06:34, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Olbermann bashes BOR on pretty much everything, so that is not much of a surprise. Hennessey is not really an objective source either. I'm not saying this doesn't belong but it is going to get pretty long I would suspect since it started because Edwards claimed their were 200,000 homeless vets sleeping under bridges and on grates because of the ecomony, and BOR said 1) there are not 200,000 homeless vets (which was his opinion not based on facts) even though their may be as many as 195,000 according to his own guest from the department of Veterans Affairs. 2) If their are homeless vets, then many of them have other problems, and the economy is not the primary reason. The VA has also stated they are ready to help. Arzel (talk) 14:39, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

All of that is well and good (although I question the accuracy of your suppositions), but it has no relevance towards our discussion here. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 06:21, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Interesting application

This can be used for any article although it's still experimental and not to be taken to seriously at this point. Someone is evaluating the "trust" of wikipedia artiles with the darker the shade the more into question the trust could be. This article as it was in Feb. of 2007 which is quite different than it is now and much of what was shaded is not here anymore. An interesting thing to check out if nothing else. MrMurph101 (talk) 21:41, 21 February 2008 (UTC)