Talk:Public image of Bill O'Reilly (political commentator)/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Major flaws in sources

As I'm reading it, the following sources do not meet Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Sources. Many of these sources have problems and should not be used in Wikipedia in general, much less near or on a biography of a living person. Some of these could be dodged by at least changing this into a criticism of his programs and not the man himself (i.e. avoiding the stricter BLP sourcing requirements), but some simply need better sources.

Many of the references, i.e. Air America (#10) are from people on the other side of the political spectrum. That they disagree with and like to throw barbs at their political opponents gives them a conflict of interest which makes them highly unreliable sources. Al Franken's book (#42) is not a reliable souce on this topic.

Many of the references, i.e. #21, are blogs and may not be used for BLPs unless they are written by the subject of the piece (even then the BLP policy has restrictions).

Several of the sources, i.e. #27, are primary sources and are being used in a fashion that can easily be described as WP:SYN or WP:OR.

My preference for these types of articles is that the relevant criticisms (in this case I can see at least one) be merged into the main article, covered in an article other than a dedicated criticism article (a "controversies" article might be appropriate, several of the current entries could be covered in such if better sources were found).

This article is constantly used in "other stuff exists" arguments, and though those arguments have no merit, that is no excuse for not fixing this article. SDY (talk) 03:09, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome to make improvements as you see fit, but I caution you to be mindful of the difference between a "blog" and a self-published source. Full explanation here. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 12:21, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

"Self-published sources should never be used as third-party sources about living persons, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer; see WP:BLP#Reliable sources." SDY (talk) 00:47, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

These are not self-published sources. The policy specifically mentions this situation:

"Self-published blogs" in this context refers to personal and group blogs. Some newspapers host interactive columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control.

//Blaxthos ( t / c ) 01:28, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I missed the footnote. At any rate, it says "may." I do not believe that these are reliable sources, as they are clearly partisan and are not the quasi-journalism such as this piece, which is my guess as to what the policy was intended to use. I simply do not believe that open attack pieces such as [the pot calling the kettle] are reliable sources on anything but the writer's strongly-held opinion. This is a WP:BLP article, and there is a written demand for the highest quality sources, not ones that barely squeak by in a loophole in the policy. SDY (talk) 02:08, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Can I ask that you use a scalpel rather than an axe? Can you give specific reasons for specific deletions rather than deleting parts of numerous section of of a large article? The general objection to RS or Notability, w/o addressing a specific edit, is hard to respond to. Also, these edits have been vigorously and lengthily debated, so your wholesale deletions ignore the history of this page.Jimintheatl (talk) 00:53, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

(undent) I am using a scalpel, though I would rather use a wood-chipper for this particular article. Let's talk specific reasons on source #109: the source is openly an op/ed attack piece with no journalistic value. It does not document or analyze the event, it simply gives one person's very undiplomatic opinion about it. If this criticism were notable, other sources would have remarked on the criticism and a better source could be provided.

I'm largely concerned that this article has NPOV issues, and that stems in part from the fact that it is three times as long as the article on the subject. It reads like a soapbox, since it is nothing but a catalogue of misdeeds. It makes heavy use of primary sources and direct quotes rather than analysis by neutral third parties.

Let me be clear, I am opposed to all dedicated criticism articles because I believe that Wikipedia's overall coverage of a topic should have appropriate WP:WEIGHT, and that sequestering negative coverage is contrary to the principle of a neutral point of view. I would also endorse an article that was "Criticism of Adolf... Bah, Godwin's law. SDY (talk) 02:16, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

As a side point, I have reviewed the past logs, and the majority of them are other editors making the same points I have and being rebuffed by "soproveit." This is a WP:BLP, and the burden of evidence is much higher for inclusion than deletion. SDY (talk) 02:37, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

We do need to be aware of harmful statements in any Wikipedia article, however I think you may be coming across as trying to make a point. I do respect your willingness to admit that you are campaigning against all criticism articles. All of that being said, we have no requirement to ensure that a source itself is neutral; we simply must ensure that statements are verifiable via reliable sources, and are neutrally presented (distinctly different than from a neutral source). While I absolutely agree that the article needs improvement, I must point out that O'Reilly makes his living by making controversial statements. This, of course, means that he's going to have a copious amount of criticism surrounding him. Now, I haven't gone through every paragraph of the article in a while, and I won't say that all of the sources are secondary and meet with WP:RS; however, I will contend that there are plenty of politically-oriented fans of BillO who challenge additions to the article. In most cases, the sourcing is improved or the content is excised. I encourage you to continue challenging material you believe is inappropriate (as long as it's not pointed by your dislike for all criticism articles), and please be mindful of "footnotes" (and/or all of the sentences in the paragraph you quote).  :) //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 14:18, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I am indeed trying to make a point, but that is the objective of any side in an argument, yes? My primary objective is to deal with what I perceive to be a loophole in Wikipedia's policies that allows soapboxing on topics that are worthy of more than a little abuse. The point, however, is that instead of addressing my concerns you have reduced this to an argument against me instead of an argument against the allegations that this article appears to violate WP:SOAP, WP:SYN, WP:BLP#Sources, WP:WEIGHT, and possibly other policies. Do I have a point? Yes. Does that mean that I'm wrong? No. It would be ludicrous to cover Bill O'Reilly without covering criticism of him, but this article is a shining example of how not to do it. Make an honest effort to convince me that I'm wrong, not that I have a point, and I'll back off.

Bill O'Reilly is essentially a shock jock. He makes his living making controversial statements that are bound to attract criticism, which is why this page is so ludicrous. These are not Don Imus incidents, these are minor blips that do not appear to have been covered by the mainstream media. If they are truly notable criticisms, then they will have been covered by reliable secondary sources and this article will not be reduced to quote-mining from primary sources. Media Matters for America is not explaining or documenting criticism of Bill O'Reilly (secondary), they are criticizing Bill O'Reilly (primary). This article is not summarizing and condensing explanations or documentation of criticism of Bill O'Reilly (tertiary, a typical role for an encyclopedia) it has become a collection of criticisms of Bill O'Reilly (secondary, not encyclopedic), and it veers very closely to being a criticism of Bill O'Reilly (primary, clearly banned by Wikipedia policies). SDY (talk) 15:50, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I think you misunderstood Blaxthos point about WP:POINT. Or was that your point? In any case, you continue to make broad generalizations and sweeping deletions. Can you identify a single instance where the article itself criticizes BO, rather than documenting criticism of him?Jimintheatl (talk) 17:01, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

(undent) I'll bite. Let's take the "Boycott of French goods" section, which appears to be either irrelevant or direct criticism.

In March 2003, O'Reilly called for a boycott of French products and services sold in the United States, due to President Jacques Chirac's stance on the 2003 invasion of Iraq. In April 27, 2004; O'Reilly said, “They’ve lost billions of dollars in France” as a direct result of his boycott, referring to "The Paris Business Review" as his source, a publication that does not exist. O'Reilly then said about two months later that the boycott caused France to lose $138 million in business compared to the previous year.

(This is a description of O'Reilly's actions, not a summary of someone else's criticism of them)

The CBC and Media Matters for America have said that French exports to the US increased during the period of O'Reilly's boycott, citing U.S. Census Bureau figures.

(This is a description of O'Reilly's actions, not a summary of someone else's criticism of them)

In May 2007 O'Reilly announced he was ending the boycott upon the election of Nicolas Sarkozy as French President.

(This is a description of O'Reilly's actions, not a summary of someone else's criticism of them)

That's the section. It isn't about criticism, it is something that some people would object to and therefore could be regarded as criticism. Otherwise, it's irrelevant. I'm not disrupting Wikipedia to make a point, I'm just making a point and doing my best to deal with an article that has major problems. SDY (talk) 17:09, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for my absence from the discussion(busy in real life). I appreciate your detailed response, and while I may disagree with your solution, I do see the problem you identified. You seem to prefer obliterating problems, I would rather repair them(but no time now...). I'd return to your earlier point that BOR is essentially a shock jock. If that is the case, then isn't provoking controversy and criticism what he does? Which goes a long way explaining the length of the article. I'll be back....Jimintheatl (talk) 11:54, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Not trying to take the wind out of your sails (or to take the easy way out), but it's hard to argue in good faith when you've admitted you're just trying to make a point (no offense!). All the sources you've listed (save one, the Census Bureau) all qualify as reliable secondary sources, though your inline commentary makes it sound like they're primary sources (ie clips of BillO). That you don't "like" the source, or that you don't agree with policy, doesn't make them any less valid. Likewise, that you believe the criticism unworthy of inclusion ("a blip") doesn't give justification to remove it. Nay, we've had dozens (hundreds?) of discussions all over Wikipedia concerning notability versus verifiability, and you'll find repeatedly that notability doesn't cover content and the governing policies are WP:RS, WP:V, and WP:NPOV. Could this article be improved? Absolutely, and I have no doubt you'll help us with that.  :) //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 19:53, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

You're arguing that this section of the article is a well-sourced criticism of Bill O'Reilly and is therefore appropriate for Wikipedia? SDY (talk) 20:01, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Ideally, it probably needs a little more diversity in sourcing -- I know Keith Olbermann has lampooned BillO's "boycott" and factual misstatements as well, including the fabricated "Paris Business Review" statements. At the moment, one might make an argument against due weight, though I don't know how convincing that would be (especially given better sourcing, which is an easy fix). What I'm arguing is that you first either misunderstood or misrepresented the policy about appropriate sources, you then admitted that you don't think there should be any articles covering criticism, and finally you dismiss a sourced section as "irrelevant." This page is about criticism of Bill O'Reilly, and the subject of this section is verifiable sourced criticism of Bill O'Reilly -- ergo it's necessarily relevant. Dislike it though you may, I haven't seen a thoroughly convincing reason why it should go. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:52, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Encyclopedias are meant to inform, not persuade. Read the section again and my comments on it. The section is not about criticism, it is about something that O'Reilly has been criticized for and makes no mention of criticism. The section in question is either 1) a criticism of Bill O'Reilly in itself or 2) random details on a bit of O'Reilly's show (irrelevant to an article about criticism), neither of which are appropriate. I'm not even going to bother bringing up WP:WEIGHT when this article is three times as long as the main article on the person, but this is about what Wikipedia is WP:NOT. SDY (talk) 22:24, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Content Discussion

The problem with BOR is that generating criticism and controversy is just a list of "man bites dog" stories. Many of these incidents are par for the course for a person paid to have strong opinions, and detailed coverage implies that they are notable events when many are really just a day in the life of a talk show host. MMfA's criticism of O'Reilly is especially uneventful: "Organization created to criticize conservative media criticizes conservative media personality, story at 11." Notability may not cover content, but the thought process of notability is important for writing an article: why should the reader care? The reader should understand that BOR is a controversial person that has been criticized for many things, but the details really aren't that important and give this article the WP:UNDUE problem that it has. SDY (talk) 00:44, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

At some point in the past year, an editor (Ramsquire?) reorganized the article into its current three parts (methods, notable rivals/critics, and notable controversies). This improved the article significantly. You seem to have the greatest problem with the notable controversies part. You say that its a chronicle of a day in the life. Not even close. There are currently 16 controversies listed. BOR has had a TV show for, what, ten years?, and a radio show for 4-5, to say nothing of his books and columns. So this article covers a miniscule portion of the mess he makes. There are sites dedicated to his daily or weekly "bloviations" of note. If this article tried to keep up with those incidents and missteps, it would be infinitely longer. "Notability may not cover content" you say, but I suspect you misspoke. It's not enough and not notable to say "X, Y and Z criticized BOR" without including the subject and context of their criticism. I agree that the Boycott of French goods was too focussed on the subject matter rather than on the criticism of BOR's treatment of the subject matter, but that controversy was notable for a number of reasons: BOR's self-promotion of it and frequent reference to it, critics challenging the accuracy of his claims. When the top-rated cable commentator claims to have crippled the French economy, threatens another country with similar devastation(Canada), invents sources to support his claims, and is called on it by, among others, the CBC and MSNBC, (international and national attention to the dispute implies notability, I'd say). So it's my intention to try to rewrite that section for reinclusion.Jimintheatl (talk) 12:12, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

But Jim wouldn't the same purpose be filled with a summary sentence, and the example linked to reliable source instead of re-telling these episodes in such detail? For example, "BOR has been criticized for overstating his importance, such as when he exaggerated the effects of his call for a boycott of France (link)." If the reader is interested he can go read the story on his own. There are many things that can go in the article, but the question is should it go in. To be honest a lot of the stuff is simple examples of the same criticism. MMfA and FAIR have BOR sections on their webpages if someone is interested in it, I'm not sure Wikipedia should be doing the same. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 16:34, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes and no...I'll concede that some portions of the article which I've supported in the past (Boxer, Levin, Limbaugh) can be handled summarily as you suggest("BOR has insulted, been insulted by..." with refs) but can you name another significant media figure who has claimed to have devastated the economy of another country? I'm not aware of any in recent history. It's a singular accomplishment BOR promoted often, never mind that it was a figment of his imagination. That, to a large extent, is why I think it's Notable and deserves at least a little exposition. And along the same lines you suggest, the recent "stalking" brouhaha could possibly be incorporated into a condensed Moyers/Free Press section with other ambushes of note. But then doesn't OR become an issue?Jimintheatl (talk) 12:12, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I see your concern, but I don't think we need to highlight every instance of the criticism. Maybe it's because we see it differently, I see the criticism or controversy regarding the French boycott for example as being about his ego, not the specific claims he makes to inflate himself. So if we mention that he is an egomaniac, with one notable example, why would we need to highlight every other instance where his overstating things got him into controversy (i.e. the War on Christmas, which he won btw ;)). If we say he's been criticized for being "insensitive to racial issues" we don't need to list every example where he may have come across as a bigot. There are plenty of other websites dedicated to that sort of detailed retelling of incidents, and they could remain in the critics and rivals section. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 17:50, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

My concern is primarily that this reads like a list of grievances and important controversies when it's simply the times that BOR's normal behavior has taken a step over "the line." It should be clear from the article that within the bell curve of BOR's behavior, these are not particularly unexpected events. The message that BOR is anything but politically correct is the same, but without the tired and petty gnashing of teeth and detailed quotes chosen for their incendiary language. SDY (talk) 23:37, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

SDY: I'm not sure I follow: are you saying that the main BOR article should describe him, as you have, as essentially a shock jock," who regularly offends, misstates facts and is a tireless self-promoter? Although I think "some would say" that's accurate, I foresee a few problems....When you say it is a list of "important controversies" aren't you acknowledging Notability? I'm not trying to be cute, but I'm not sure what you're suggesting.Jimintheatl (talk) 15:57, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Ramsquire: I've NEVER advocated highlighting every instance of criticism or controversy. Just, as SDY says, the "important controversies." And I judge them by how much the rest of the media responds, and by BOR's own reaction/trumpeting. At one point, I proposed an edit along the lines you suggest as "insensitive to racial issues" on the topic of "insensitive to gays and lesbians" noting various comments he'd made. That proposal was rejected, I think on OR grounds, and a couple of the discrete incidents were included instead. If, as I think you are suggesting, we now condense/compile those separate events into broader themes, won't we encounter similar resistance?Jimintheatl (talk) 15:57, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I'll confess that the "every instance" is a bit of hyperbole on my part. I didn't mean it literally. Sorry if it was taken that way. If I remember correctly the reason the homophobic summary was rejected was due to lack of reliable sourcing in that it was two activist groups pushing a campaign and that viewpoint had not gotten mainstream coverage. That being said, if the article was to say "BOR is insensitive to racial issues" that would be an OR issue. However, to highlight that he "has been criticized by rivals for allegedly being insensitive to racial issues such as when he..." with proper sourcing and possibly a notable example would overcome the OR problem in my eyes. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 16:16, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

No worries. So, are you suggesting that we condense the article, for example, with something like "Critics claim BOR has exaggerated/misstated his own importance on a number of issues/campaigns" and cite French boycott, War on Christmas, Peabody Awards, Jessica's law, John Kerry's defeat, failures of numerous movies and TV shows, somebody stop me.....It would certainly shorten the article, and, without giving it a lot of thought, and seeing OR stumbling blocks ahead, I guess I'm OK with that approach. Jimintheatl (talk) 17:03, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

More like "Critics claim BOR has exaggerated/misstated his own importance on a number of issues/campaigns such as when he grossly exaggerated the effect of his French boycott or his claims to have won what he termed the War on Christmas" followed by reliable sources. Or whatever consensus deems to be notable/important examples of this trait. But only one or two major examples. I understand that this approach may come very close to original research, depending on the sources used and how they are applied, but considering the problems with the current artilce, a thoughtful application of IAR may be appropriate to get a better article provided there is consensus for such. Also, such an approach may makes this article unnecessary as a stand alone. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 18:12, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Shall we give it a go? I'm persuaded, I think, when I consider the frequency with which BOR seems to step in it (or stamp on it) so in theory I can see this article expanding geometrically..... Is there a need to round up (or notify) the usual suspects? As I seem to be more radioactive than you, perhaps you'd take the lead on this?(Back to the NCAA....)Jimintheatl (talk) 00:24, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Propose moving a section

The thing about the Red Cross and the United Way isn't really a criticism. It might be controversial, and it might involve a couple nattering nabobs, but it isn't really a criticism. Where to move it to isn't so clear, though, since it might be moved to one of the 9/11 articles or the Red Cross instead of the O'R article proper. SDY (talk) 03:44, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I would have to disagree. This is listed in the controversy section of the article. Considering it is one of the few controversies in this article that actually received mainstream attention as well as favorable coverage to the host, I think it would be counterproductive to remove it (making the article even more POV). Part of the problem of this article is that somehow it has evolved into a controversy and analysis article which partially explains why it is so bloated. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 16:45, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

This article was, at some point, about controversies that included the subject and not intentionally about criticism. Would it be possible to rework it as a controversies article, which might be fairly negative when justified instead of an indiscriminate collection of things the subject has said or done that happened to make someone angry? SDY (talk) 00:41, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually I thought that this started out as an analysis article but when the controversies became too large for the O'Reilly and Factor articles, it was moved here. I could be wrong though, I don't really remember. To be honest, I'd prefer that this article be blown up and the good parts, i.e. the analysis paragraph (sans teen pregnancy), and the Glick, Harlem restaurants, Ludacris, and Red Cross sections be merged into appropriate articles. The other "contoversies" could easily be summed up in a general sentence "BOR has been criticised by some for spinning facts/being hostile to certain victims/boorish/etc..." without going into tedious detail or creating an indiscriminate list of juvenile crap. My two cents. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 16:23, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

That sums up what I'd like to see as well. SDY (talk) 00:44, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Origins

Actually, this article is the result of adjudication at WP:AFD, specifically a merge of Critics and rivals of Bill O'Reilly and Bill O'Reilly controversies, hence the blended content. The articles were forked due to size guidelines of the parent article and later merged to simplify organization. To now argue that controversy isn't germane here simply because the title doesn't include the word is Wikilawyering, plain and simple, and ignores the history of its development. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 17:49, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Papillon's Art Palace as a source

This reference gives credit to this art palace place, which is really an online gallery from an artist that appears to give hosting space to her husband.

The original piece, according to the page, is from pagesix.com, which is part of the New York Post. The NYP is a gossip and rumor publication which is rarely going to be a useful source for wikipedia (though it obviously has its place in the real world). Strangely enough, the NYP's archives indicate that the story exists, but the free abstract at this page doesn't resemble the art palace piece.

I am deleting the source. It cannot be verified to its original publisher and the original publisher is not a reliable source. It would be a valid source if Richard Johnson's opinions of O'Reilly were important, but it is not being used in that fashion and is therefore inappropriate. SDY (talk) 16:27, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I'll concur with WP:RS and WP:V concerns, but sources aren't judged as "valid" or not based on if an editor deems the content "important". A source is valid or it's not -- we approach a slippery slope when subjective editorial judgment replaces policy. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 23:49, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Sources are not "valid" or "invalid," it's the use of a source which is valid or invalid, and this is not a valid use of the source in question. This article makes heavy use of primary sources that have not been interpreted by a reliable secondary source, which is clearly banned by policy. There may be a case for WP:IAR since many of these things are only covered by secondary sources such as MMfA that have a vocal opinion and bias on a controversial subject (i.e. are unreliable). SDY (talk) 00:50, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Sources are either reliable ("valid" -- meeting with WP:RS), or they're not ("invalid" -- fails WP:RS). I don't know how I can state that any more clearly. Regarding their use, any controversy or criticism of O'Reilly that has a diversity of reliable sources meets the inclusion criteria. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 02:39, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

-(from WP:RS, emphasis in original) "Reliable sources... ...are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand." In other words, reliability is dependent on context. MMfA, for example, is a reliable source on their own opinion of BOR, but is not a reliable source on interpretations of other people's criticism.

-Can you explain to me what you think WP:WEIGHT means in this context? My take on it is that people who subscribe to these critical views are a small minority, and this article currently gives these marginal viewpoints inappropriate weight. SDY (talk) 03:53, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I think you're trying to lawyer the policy (albeit unintentionally). The intent of that part of WP:RS is to ensure that sources are germane to the context in which they are used (for example, the reliable source Journal of the American Medical Association can't be used in an article about architecture). In this particular case, Media Matters is generally considered a reliable source in its stated area of expertise (mass media). Regarding your question of due weight... while we certainly don't want to open the article to every crackpot with an axe to grind, I think it's generally sufficient evidence of BillO controversy/criticism when such controversy/criticism has appeared in multiple reliable sources (note my reference to "diversity of sourcing" in several previous responses). As far as I know, that's almost verbatim from policy.  ;-) //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 05:59, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I think we have very different views of MMfA, because from what I see of them they do appear to be crackpots with an axe to grind and not a reliable source. "Generally seen as reliable and authoritative" does not include sources with an obvious bias or agenda as far as I'm concerned. Xinhua's reporting on the Dalai Lama is not a "reliable source" and MMfA is unreliable on BOR for the same reason: they have a stated agenda and bias. Perhaps a third opinion or RFC on the sourcing on this article would be appropriate, because we have substantially different ideas on whether these sources are reliable. SDY (talk) 14:16, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Media Matters is in use all over Wikipedia as a source, and this isn't the first time the concern has been raised. Directly on point, please see the reliable source noticeboard, specifically Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/archive8#Media Matters for America (though there are probably other discussions in those archives as well). Can you cite any language in WP:RS that you believe disqualifies Media Matters? The consensus has repeatedly been that reliable and neutral aren't mutually exclusive statuses, and we can cite hundreds (possibly thousands) of examples of appropriate citations of Media Matters on Wikipedia. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 15:10, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

(undent) I don't see that consensus in the noticeboard. I see one editor claiming a consensus on another article that MMfA was used inappropriately and a lot of talk back and forth. They are reliable sources for their own opinions, but as primary sources they need a secondary source to give context and interpretation when they make claims that are likely to be challenged.

As for your demand that I provide sources, policy is pretty clear that advocating keeping a dubious section requires sourcing, where advocating removal of dubious information does not. For context, though, MMfA considers NPR to have a conservative bias or overly sympathetic to the conservative media, and I think that speaks volumes about how partisan they are.

The MMfA cites are fine so long as they are clearly attributed to MMfA as an openly partisan source and as long as they are given appropriate WP:WEIGHT.

Neither is true currently, and I don't see how we could meet WP:WEIGHT without turning this article into a partisan battleground, so I'm advocating massive reductions. SDY (talk) 02:36, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Possible approaches

I have a problem with dedicated criticism articles. I'm not really unique there, but I acknowledge that it's not a consensus opinion. There do appear to be some other folks that have issues with this article, so here's a brainstormed list of possible solutions:

1. Merge-Severely curtail the content and merge this page with the main BOR page. Some NPOV issues might arise on that article, and balancing them would require work.

2. Controversies-Re-purpose and re-title this page to a controversies page, and work the criticism information in as context for the controversies rather than a topic unto itself or simply delete it if not relevant. Some of the noted "feuds" could be worked into the main BOR page, though we would have to be careful not to make mountains out of molehills if a feud isn't particularly notable.

3. Cleanup-Address the existing article's flaws, in particular the incendiary quote-mining, a closer look at the expectations for controversial articles, looking for better sources (e.g. the "from the horse's mouth" primary sourcing on YouTube replaced by or interpreted by a reliable secondary source per WP:PSTS), and other issues.

4. Nuke and pave-Delete the current contents. A lot of the recent AfDs have been closed due to accusations of bad faith rather than honest evaluation of whether the article is appropriate for Wikipedia.

5. Something else-I don't have all the answers, and I'm open to suggestions. SDY (talk) 04:47, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

1. 4 is a non-starter with me(unless #1 is agreed upon, and good luck with that....) An article on BOR's controversies/criticism deals with the essence of what he does. I'm not sure whether you've followed the discussion I have been having with Ramsquire above, but it seems to be in line with #2(tho I'm not sure why labeling something Controversies rather than Criticism addresses your content issues....) I think we agree on who/what BOR is/does, so I would be OK with merge, but, if, as you said, BOR is essentially a shock jock, if that is his MO, then the "shocking" stuff will figure prominently(too prominently? big NPOV issues). #3? Cleaning up? The man thrives on making a mess. So it's going to be messy...Jimintheatl (talk) 01:39, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the second option is the most likely to find consensus. Partially I'd like to verify that these controversies are real controversies and not teapot tempests that wouldn't be interesting to anyone who wasn't a big fan of BOR or... those who are less happy with him. Looking at the conversation above, some of those could be condensed into the generic tussle with the people he likes to trade barbs with. How would we structure the article? The current structure isn't totally inappropriate, though it'd probably help to categorize the controversies (i.e. inappropriate remarks, factual errors, etc...) rather than have a laundry list. SDY (talk) 04:47, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

As long as Media Matters is continued to be used as a primary source it will be impossible to make any improvement. Most of what you see here is directly related to a beef MMfA or KO has with BOR. You then have a group of BOR haters which consistantly monitor MMfA in order to add new stupid crap to this article. The idiotic MMfA grip against BOR regarding the supposed War on Christmas is a good example of comments taken out of context and manufactured criticism. Arzel (talk) 14:25, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Given that you're both opposed to Criticism articles generally, and refuse to recognize the community consensus that they are appropriate, and that you have a history of trying to remove all negative information about BillO in the past, I don't know that we should give much weight to your attempts to cull this article (sorry!). Before you go saying "criticism should go" or "controversy should go", please re-read this (where this article was specifically created as a merge of Criticism and Controversy, properly decided by community-wide AFD). Arguments based in semantics are pretty pointy... //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:10, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I think the issue is that the argument is based in principles (i.e. NPOV) and particularly in this case that the contents of this article are more or less WP:TRIVIA, some that borders on WP:FANCRUFT. If we can't find a "real" source (i.e. not a partisan attack dog like MMFA) to demonstrate why this matters, I don't see much reason we should keep it. Notability may not directly address content, but common sense and WP:WEIGHT do. See also WP:CCC. SDY (talk) 01:17, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

You're lawyering to make a point -- this article has been nominated for deletion countless times, and each time the community has firmly stated that it should remain. If your assertions that the article is nothing but trivia and fancruft then it certainly wouldn't have survived seven AFD nominations. Sorry to abandon the faith, but both of you have made it very clear that your intent is to remove as much negative information about O'Reilly as you can. You've made no demonstration that consensus has changed, especially given the massive indication that the community approves of Criticism of articles generally, and this article specifically. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 03:17, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

There are many other editors who also believe that dedicated criticism articles are inappropriate in general, and there are also other editors who have contributed to this very page that believe that at least some of the current content on this page is inappropriate. SDY (talk) 16:04, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Getting rid of crap

Alright, since when is a partisan attacking another considered controversy? If this were the case we'd have Limbaugh and Hannity all over the liberal pages. Every 'controversy' that was limited to A) Keith Olbermann, B) Al Franken, C) Media Matters, D) Cynthia Cooper and others, E) Any other liberal/progressive group has been taken out unless we can start adding Free Republic, Limbaugh and Co., and American Conservative Union to liberal pages and start "controversy sections" for them too. Soxwon (talk) 02:57, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

The question is, what in the article is worth saving? The academic study, although I have some doubts about the politics of it given the... visceral response that was given in its defense ("Kool-Aid left"), seems like it's worth including somewhere, although I really wouldn't call that controversy. The Harlem restaurant event seems at first glance to have that je ne sais quoi of controversy. The Glick thing also seems worth noting. In my opinion, it isn't controversy unless uninvolved third parties have noticed it (e.g. Rolling Stone decided to run an article on it). MMFA and the pundits are not "uninvolved" and my main beef with this article is that it uses MMFA and Olbermann as reliable interpreters of fact. SDY (talk) 15:52, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, for most of the controversies it was all from Media Matters. You'll notice I left the things you mentioned in, but a lot of the others were just Olbermann and co. blowing smoke and thus they were removed. Soxwon (talk) 16:20, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

You. as you said, are "gutting" the page, including sections that have been extensively debated, without any discussion on Talk. It's not helpful or appropriate.Jimintheatl (talk) 17:31, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Ok, then WP:CCC. Why are Al Franken, MMFA, and Olbermann attacking him "controversies?" Soxwon (talk) 17:51, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

You're confusing "controversy" and "criticism". Either way, both are appropriate for this article when properly sourced. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 18:46, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Fine, fine, does that mean that I can now fill Keith Olbermann and co. with loads of attacks by Limbaugh and Hannity? I removed things that were strictly limited to MMFA, Franken, Olbermann, and FAIR. Perhaps you could instead include sources outside these partisans?

According to WP:NOTABILITY:

Significant coverage is more than trivial Coverage of this topic seems to be limited to one of the four above every time.

Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability. Ok, where are sources outside MMFA, FAIR, Olbermann, and Franken

From WP:VERIFIABILITY:

Balance: Neutrality weights viewpoints in proportion to their prominence no prominence to these viewpoints

Basically the argument is the same. The partisan commentators are naturally going to attack each other. This article is a WP:POV fork and a WP:COATRACK and should be trimmed accordingly. Soxwon (talk) 19:00, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

 Soxwon (talk) 19:00, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I think that your first impulse (to threaten to start vandalizing an unrelated article) shows that your interest is more in fighting a battle than it is in improving the articles. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:24, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

No, I wouldn't do that, what I'm pointing out is that pundits attacking pundits is not WP:Notability and as such, most of this article isn't really notable. And if it's vandalism there, why isn't it vandalism here? Soxwon (talk) 21:31, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Blaxthos, I think that's the point we're disagreeing on: even if they were properly sourced, they would be inappropriate for this article because they give extensive coverage to marginal viewpoints. Simply put, no convincing argument has been given that we should care what MMFA thinks and that their view is worth covering in the article. Many people have opinions about BOR, why give theirs weight when they're just a partisan attack dog paid to attack people like BOR? SDY (talk) 23:07, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

WP:N does not apply to article content (see WP:NNC) and has nothing to do with this article. Regarding vandalism, making disruptive edits to other articles if you don't get your way here constitutes specific violations of WP:POINT, and probably WP:VANDAL generally. To be clear: we don't make changes to this article because you think something is incorrect elsewhere, and vice-versa. If you can't make a point without referencing another article as justification, then you likely don't have a valid point... //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 23:10, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

We're not talking WP:N, we're talking WP:UNDUE. I would appreciate it if you did not label anything and everything you disagree with as vandalism. I'm not going to get into discussions of what other articles do, because they could just as easily be as wrong as this one. If you look at the title of the page WP:WAX links to, it should be obvious why I don't consider those arguments productive. SDY (talk) 23:28, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Here's my point of contention: you classify my edits as vandalism, yet give the ok to the ones here. Why is that? Both would be pundits insulting pundits. What gives this WP:DUE with a distinct absence of reliable third party sources? And btw, I looked up the Media Matter's decisions AND the one for this: [1] [2] The one for Media Matter's said that it was to be avoided if possible. And the Noticeboard for this page clearly shows that ppl like you have been trying to keep this stuff for awhile. Soxwon (talk) 00:34, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

You explicitly "entered" this article, by your own admission, by "gutting it." Many editors have spent months debating its content. When you asked for advice, you were told to make a BOLD edit to one section and then engage on the Talk page; instead you chose to "gut" numerous sections. In my opinion, that constitutes vandalism. This is a contentious individual, a contentious subject, a contentious page. So gutting it as an initial approach is counter-productive.Jimintheatl (talk) 01:41, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

WP:CCC However, it just struck me that EVERY single 'criticism' was by MMFA, Al Franken, and Olbermann. And no that isn't covered in the 3RR, I've reported this, but seeing as how there was a misunderstanding I'll remove the report. Soxwon (talk) 01:46, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Can you please point to the policy you believe justifies removal of germane, sourced content? If the criticism is covered by multiple reliable sources, the entity issuing the criticism (be it MMFA or Olbermann or Jesus Christ) is irrelevant. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 19:15, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I think that's a massive misunderstanding of WP:UNDUE, which more or less says "cover content in relation to its relevance, and if marginal, don't cover it at all." Also, in most of these cases there aren't multiple reliable sources, there's a single source which is not particularly reliable. To quote Jimbo, of all people, "If your viewpoint is held by an extremely small minority, then _whether it's true or not, whether you can prove it or not_, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia..." SDY (talk) 00:59, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

You've yet to cite any specific examples of what you believe is lacking reliable sourcing. If you're going to start arguing that anything coming from "MMFA, Olbermann, or Franken" constitutes a fringe view, I suggest you check out (1) MMFA's budget, (2) Olbermann's ratings, and (3) the Senate election results. Nothing indicates those are "extremely small minorities"... //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 14:31, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, and perhaps for ONE that would be enough, but for ALL of them it seems like you could find some other sources that would constitute more than a fringe. WP:COMMONSENSE might apply in this situation. Soxwon (talk) 14:34, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I would, actually, argue that anything that comes solely from MMFA, Olbermann, and/or Franken is a minority view. If the mainstream media considers it "not fit to print" then I simply can't find any reason it's superduperimportant and must be included here, especially when it's not balanced against BOR and his supporters. As I've said above, including sufficient context to justify inclusion of the MMFA garbage would turn this page into a Crossfire-esque shouting match, and that's just not what Wikipedia is for. Why does Olbermann's opinion of BOR matter? Why does MMFA's opinion matter? They don't, they're just partisan hacks attacking partisan hacks, and the vast majority of people just don't care. SDY (talk) 14:41, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

It's hard to afford you any good faith when you continually attack opinions with which you do not agree, be them from other editors or nationally known organizations. Making blanket generalizations such as "MMFA garbage" shows that you really are pushing an agenda, because you truly are unwilling (unable?) to even consider that some of the criticism might be valid. If the basis of your argument is an ad hominem attack on its source ("MMFA garbage", "Olbermann doesn't matter", etc.) then you're not basing any of this on Wikipedia policy (ergo, POV warrior). If you'll look more carefully at what I've consistently said, you'll notice that I've always insisted on diversity of sourcing -- singular primary criticism doesn't cut it. However, once "multiple independent reliable sources" have published something, it becomes germane for inclusion (regardless of how you feel about MMFA, Olbermann, or Jesus Christ). //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:00, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I personally don't see what basis you get for these accusations. From what I've read of SDY, only MMFA garbage is really an attack on sources. The rest he has been continually pointing out that these viewpoints represent small minorities when compared to the mainstream press and other news groups that felt that all these so called controversies weren't fit for mentioning. The so-called multiple independent reliable sources argument doesn't hold water b/c as far as I can tell, Franken and Olbermann are not reliable sources. Also consider from WP:RS:

In articles about living persons, only material from high-quality news organizations should be used. While the reporting of rumors has a news value, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and should only include information verified by reliable sources. Wikipedia is not the place for passing along gossip and rumors.

That would seem to A) Dismiss MMFA as an RS and B) Take out most of what Mr. Franken and Mr. Olbermann allege. This along with the NPOV tutorial which clearly stated that minority viewpoints should "be included, but should not be given as extensive coverage as majority views. To do so would overstate the extent of controversy," would suggest that most of these controversies are unimportant and should be removed. Soxwon (talk) 22:38, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

The RSN has consistently concluded that MMFA qualifies as a reliable source. I'm sorry that you seem unable to comprehend what I was trying to convey. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 01:21, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I think what Soxwon is pointing out is that even if they are acceptable in some circumstances for use as a source, they are not a high-quality news organization. Looking at the RSN discussion you posted previously, I don't see any consensus in that that they are generally a reliable source, though they were appropriate for some specific things (there was a discussion about materials they host, for example). Calling some of the contents of this page gossip wouldn't be far off. SDY (talk) 06:33, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Per your edit summary: Past consensus is meaningless if it is based on unconvincing arguments, and no convincing arguments have been presented. I think you fail to understand the meaning of "consensus" -- if a consensus was reached, the arguments necessarily were convincing. By your logic, who determines if the argument is "convincing" ? It sounds like you believe your judgment trumps consensus. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 20:56, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Yet he's not alone, and according to WP:CCC:

Consensus is not immutable. Past decisions are open to challenge and are not binding, and one must realize that such changes are often reasonable. Thus, "according to consensus" and "violates consensus" are not valid rationales for making or reverting an edit, or for accepting or rejecting other forms of proposal or action.

United Way Section (AGAIN)

It has come up time and again that this section does not belong in this article. This position makes me wonder if editors here are truly aware of what controversy actually means. Out of all the "controversies" in this article, this is one of the most iron clad one. It was a highly public dispute between BOR, two major charities, and a celebrity. It received coverage in numerous mainstream independent sources. And BOR was given credit for changing the way these companies do business. It is just sad if editors here really believe that negative information about article subject + namecalling= controversy. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 17:50, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Welcome back. Same as it ever was....When you last appeared here, I believed you (and I)had made some progress on an idea for a "condensed" version of this article. Any interest/patience for revisiting that notion?Jimintheatl (talk) 23:27, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Alright, since it would seem that keeping a lot of the "controversies" is out of the question, how about creating seperate section for MMFA, Olbermann, and Franken's criticism/controversies and condensing them from there? Soxwon (talk) 14:12, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Why? Because you don't agree with them? //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 14:32, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

No, b/c they are getting an incredibly disproportional amount of space for their criticisms. Soxwon (talk) 14:37, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Heck from the NPOV tutorial:

Coverage should also be roughly in proportion to the number of experts holding each view. Views held by a significant minority should be included, but should not be given as extensive coverage as majority views. To do so would overstate the extent of controversy.

Surely this is the situation that is being described and thus the criticism's of Olbermann, Franken, MMFA, and others should be condensed accordingly. Soxwon (talk) 14:47, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

So your contention is that they constitute a "significant minority" ? //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 16:03, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

They are considering the lack of coverage in any major news source (even the NYT). Soxwon (talk) 16:12, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Two points. First, to Jimintheatl-- yes I would still like to work on a condensed article. Second, to Soxwon, do you have any response to my answer to your question re: "how is this a controversy"? If not I would like to place the section back into the article while we discuss the more tangential, and in my opinion, less significant controversies. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 18:35, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I suppose it's a controversy yes, though he was in fact correct (or so it seems) in this instance. Soxwon (talk) 18:49, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Re-Cap of Earlier Discussion and Request for Thoughts

In reference to the conversation Jim and I had a few weeks ago about condensing some of the controversies listed in the article, I'd like to hear thoughts from others about how to do it and still steer clear of OR, if possible. I'm willing to take the position that for a better article, this may be an instance where IAR may come into play. What Jim and I discussed was instead of the focus of the article being the trees, we concentrate on the forest. For example it seems, the Glick, Frank and Helen Thomas sections are examples of a larger criticism about his demeanor. The lesbian gangs, his upbringing and Malmedy dovetail with the selective editing section as examples of the criticism that BOR misleads his audience. The War on Christmas, Boycott of French Goods, Peabody seem to be about exaggerating his importance/ego. And the last group including the Harlem Restaurant comment, lynching, Hornbeck, San Fran, etc., are instances where either BOR was insensitive to a victim or group when speaking (or, giving him the benefit of the doubt, put his foot in his mouth). The problem in this article is that it reads as a laundry list with no focus or theme, and many of the items in it, just do not stand up to scrutiny as encyclopedic. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 19:36, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Your organizational schema seems fairly valid, and there is no doubt that the article needs some cohesion. I don't think that thematic grouping constitutes original research. I'd say go for it, with the caveat that we shouldn't toss out current or discourage future content on the basis of not fitting neatly into those general thematic groupings. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 20:53, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

The beginning of the article seems to focus on his general critics: namely Franken, MMFA, and Olbermann. Considering how much of the criticism is attributed to them, wouldn't it make more sense to attribute it to them and pare it down to proper proportion. Soxwon (talk) 22:21, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah well sort of. As I see it we'd try to merge the controversies portion into the appropriate sections of hopefully this article or the main articles. So you might add a sentence in MMfA saying they criticize him for misleading, and give one or two notable examples. In the earlier discussion I phrased it as adding a sentence where appropriate that BOR "has been criticized by rivals for allegedly misleading his audience such as when he..." with a notable sourced example. But I think we risk undue weight concerns if we phrase it like "Olbermann believes BOR to be a lying egomaniac" if this viewpoint is more widely held, or if it is in fact a fringe view. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 22:39, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I think that would be fair and hopefully we could get it down to a size that we could stick it into the BOR article. Soxwon (talk) 22:42, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

That is/was my other concern. It may drastically shrink this article to the point that it may no longer be necessary as a spin off. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 22:48, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I like the concept, and I would wholly endorse reducing this to a mergeable size, but I'd like to be wary of WP:SYNTH, especially since most of the sources in the current article are primary sources (i.e. they are not reliable secondary sources talking about criticism, they are the criticism itself). I also agree that condensing this into widely held views (e.g. BOR's accuracy of reporting is not that of a respected journalist) instead of making mountains out of molehills is an excellent move. I just wish that this could be sourced with references that are about the criticism rather than the criticism itself. Marvin Kitman's book sounds like a very reasonable source for the article, for example. SDY (talk) 23:04, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm very comfortable with the concept, have voiced my concern over the WP:OR issue, and anticipate that objection. I would point out that, as I understand the proposal, the article would be significantly condensed, but "ref-loaded" (i.e., BOR has been accused of/criticized for factual/historical distortions (12 refs), BOR has been criticized for "self-inflation" (5 refs) That said, and apologies to Ramsquire in advance, but he seems to be the least contentious editor on this contentious topic, and I'm prepared, if he is, to defer to his editorial judgment/skill on this revision.Jimintheatl (talk) 01:15, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I will try to complete a draft of something within the next few days. I suspect then the real drama will begin. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 16:05, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

(outdent)I really don't see how this proposal is controversial, go for it! ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 00:04, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Early and ROUGH Draft

Well, here it is. A draft so rough that if it's not handled carefully it could make you bleed. I'll now go to the sidelines and await your thoughts for improvements. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 19:48, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Looks good to me, clear and concise. If we could cut down analysis and maybe shorten a few others a bit we could stick this back in the main article. Soxwon (talk) 20:31, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I'll look at it tomorrow when I can give it some time. But thanks in advance.Jimintheatl (talk) 23:53, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Glancing at it, some thoughts:

• 1. Can we provide a cite for the rivalries between BOR and the various folks? I don't think it'd be too hard, really.
• 2. The section leads need work, since they don't logically follow into the sections they head.
• 3. For KO and BOR, has BOR responded to KO's criticism? If it's a rivalry, it should be clear it goes both ways. Also, in the same section, if the Soros link is fallacy, is it even really worth mentioning here? It's really more of an attack on MMFA, not really relevant to this article. BOR's opinion of MMFA is easy to demonstrate without getting lost into the details of the rivalry.
• 4. Can we either drop the MMFA bit in the "analysis" section or move it around a bit? The way it sounds currently a naive reader may think they were just another talking head in the conversation (they are obviously anything but). I'm not sure how much it adds, anyway, given that the response from the researchers is far more important and really far more damning anyway.
• 5. Can we cut back on the direct quotations? Most of them could be summarized to a few words (again, weight issue), and I think they're a ripe target if we want to get this down to mergeable weight.
• 6. Can we cut down on the clutter in the Harlem Restaurant section? Williams is reasonable, Jesse Jackson is very important, Matt Lauer is not, the Huffington Post stuff is not (and definitely runs afoul of WP:SPS anyway). I wouldn't use the Williams quote, but I think we should have a reference that explains his position on it. I would also pull the direct quote from BOR in the same section (the "in defense" one), it doesn't really add much. The line that is referenced gives the sentiment of it in less words.

As has been said, it's anything but finished, but it's definitely a step in the right direction. As I discussed with Jim above, cutting this down to controversies and merging the criticism section is another option for getting this article away from its current title. SDY (talk) 02:11, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

1. Of course. Citations or fact tags will be needed in a lot more places once or if this thing ever becomes a final draft.

2&3. Agree somewhat. The problem is that Bill never mentions Olbermann by name and instead attributes it to Zucker and Immeldt or "NBC News". I saw a Salon piece on this a few months back, and could add that. But I suspect that some may argue its reliability as a source.

4. Agree.

5. I would have liked to, but because of verifiability concerns, I kept a lot of the quotes in. If more editors agree to trim them, then I will gladly do so.

6. I would keep Lauer in, since Today is an independent third party source covering the incident. As for the HuffPO sections, I think Ofari Hutchinson is prominent enough that his views could be in the section, the other guy not so much. I suppose he was put in there for balance.

I'll be happy to refine this article upon further comment. If you guys come to some sort of agreement and I'm not around (I'm rarely around Wikipedia on weekends), you have my permission to make changes in my workspace or move the article into a sandbox to tinker with it some more. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 15:56, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Again, thanks. I'm actually surprised by the length of the article. A few initial comments (sorry, real life intrudes and I want to give your efforts attention they're due).

1. The Moyers/Free press stuff, I think may have been under "methods" at one time as an example of the ambush tactic O'Reilly has been employing with increasing frequency. Given recent events, including comments by journalism profs, the ambush tactic should be mentioned. 2. If we want to condense this to fit within the main article, maybe the Harlem restaurant comment and lynching comments could be combined in an "Allegations of Racial Insensitivity(I hate that phrase) or "Racially-Charged Remarks" 3. As for the Olbermann feud, BO dares not speak his name, but has responded to direct questions about him, and it's clear that KO is the primary object of his NBC ire. 4. If we are serious about incorporating this into the main article, we would still need some serious trimming; so, before we go much further, I think we should get some kind of consensus from the Gang of Six(or However Many it is who have commented extensively here).Jimintheatl (talk) 00:08, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Interestingly enough Jim, just the other day while I was channel surfing (Saturday to be exact), I came across mentions of Fox News (including Bill O'reilly) in "In Context" on Russian Times (I think that's what it's called, asked a Russian classmate what RT stood for). I don't really remember its exact wording, but I think it mentioned touched briefly his methods (I know it was criticism) were hostile or something, and that it was helping propel right-wing extremist groups. I think it can be used as a cite for grouping together criticism of O'reilly's tactics (no. 1 in your comment). Edit: I don't recall Bill Moyers dispute ever being under methods, but I do agree it could go under there as a cite for a general section on criticism (accusations) of ambushing.ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 01:50, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Understanding that there is no deadline, here, I'm wondering if the relative silence over my rough draft over the past few days is due to some sort of consensus to use it. I don't want to rush the process, but I've seen that the history of this article is a flurry of discussion, and then silence once something is proposed. If there is no major objection to the rough draft, I'm going to clean it up some more and replace the existing article in the near future. Should I proceed? Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 00:28, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't see why not. Soxwon (talk) 01:21, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, although the intro seems to me as if it is worded such that it implies no moderate/conservative group ever criticized him, maybe change the wording so that it says "often liberal groups" or the like (maybe "mostly liberal groups" since often implies he's been criticized quite often...not sure on how to fix that actually). ' ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 01:53, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

In this instance, we shouldn't attach contested and/or subjective labels to critics. Let the reader make those sorts of judgments for himself. Certainly "liberals" aren't the only ones critical of O'Reilly; Wikipedia shouldn't attempt to color as such. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 11:35, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Controversy#Attribute_assertions more or less directly contradicts that, unfortunately. "Alternatively, a text from conservative or liberal alternative media or a focus group may be cited, provided the source is accurately labeled in neutral terms." (italics in original) It's just a style guideline, but the logic is sound: if we are going to use openly biased sources, we should characterize them as such. There is a suggestion in that same guideline that we should leave it to the link if there is an open dispute, but I don't see characterizing some of the more vocal critics (i.e. MMFA) as disputed. Some of the people listed in the lead are more ambiguous (Stewart, for example), but where the shoe fits, we should call it Cinderella. SDY (talk) 15:38, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

A style guide is a long way from the WP:NPOV policy. Regardless, "liberal" is a subjective label (ie, your opinion), as is your assertion that it is an "openly biased source." If a label goes in, it will be the chosen "progressive", not a contentious one decided by an editor. For any question about how contested the labeling MMFA is, simply review the MMFA or FNC talk page archives. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 18:47, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm fine with calling them progressive. Seriously, though, the style guides are there for a reason. In this particular case, it helps because it's guidance on a situation that isn't specific and thus isn't biased by the situation at hand, and I would hold that it is especially important to be bound by these guidelines on such a contested page. "Progressive" and "liberal" (in the context of US politics) mean exactly the same thing anyway, so I don't see why it's such a big deal. SDY (talk) 22:44, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

See, there's the rub -- not everyone shares your perception of "liberal" and "progressive". Labels are subjective, which is why we should avoid them when they're not necessary. Let the reader make his own judgment about the source, Wikipedia isn't supposed to color the information, just present it. That being said, I can live with progressive if a consensus of editors here feels labeling is necessary, I'm not deaf to compromise.  :) //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 23:28, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Here are a few of my suggestions: [3]. Some are content but quite a few are just style. See what you think. Soxwon (talk) 14:10, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the overall improvement on my draft but I do have a few small issues. In the "Misleading Information and Selective Edits" section, the criticism that O'Reilly misleads his audience appears to be attributed solely to MMfA, which could raise undue weight concerns. The second one is mostly a style question, namely shouldn't we name Franken as a rival since he is listed as one in the critics and rivals section? Other than that, I can live with your draft. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 16:15, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

On the first count I agree so that may be trimmed. For the second I just thought it was redundant. Soxwon (talk) 16:18, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I was thinking the criticism may be broader than just MMfA, so it should be attributed more broadly and genericaly as critics/rivals. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 17:12, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but for that particular statement, only MMFA was attributed. Soxwon (talk) 17:23, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Gotcha...I guess we could do a more broad statement and then add a {{fact}} tag, or just leave it as is for now. I'm cool either way. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 17:55, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Additional criticism of O'Reilly making misleading statements can be found all over MSNBC, The Nation, etc.; with a little more google-fu I was able to quickly find additional sources from local media outlets. I'd venture to say a little EBSCO or Lexis-Nexis access would yield even more. Point is, find more sources; don't try to sell it as an isolated criticism. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 00:25, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh plz, MMFA was all that was there, I didn't try to do anything you just had poorly sourced material. Soxwon (talk) 00:27, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

So instead of violating the spirit (if not policy) of Wikipedia by (intentionally?) mischaracterizing it as questionable criticism from a singular "progressive" view (note: I still have a problem with subjectively describing sources -- see here), why not put forth a little effort and find some sourcing? Unless, of course, your actual interest is more in giving a misleading impression that a MMFA is the only source of such criticism rather than objectively improving the article... Also "I" don't "have" anything; I didn't author or edit the section. Interesting that you phrase it as if this is an editor-vs-editor battleground.  :( //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:05, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

No, but when my main goal for the edit was style, I'm not going to go through and look for sources. I noticed that all the sources were Media Matters, attributing statements to sources makes for less weasel wording. The fact is, "these critics" isn't good b/c critics can change from claim to claim so I felt change was needed and all the sources were MMFA so I couldn't change it to anyone else. As for the you, in the context I meant, it was supposed to be more towards you all sense than just you (I can't think of another example, but it's just part of my rural heritage I swear). Soxwon (talk) 21:17, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. I would caution against just going for style when we're condensing and culling content. I'll see if I can't dig up some sources to help distribute the view beyond MMFA.  :) //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 00:59, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

For the moment, I would hold off on replacing the existing article until we decide whether incorporation into the main article is desirable or possible. The current revision is still too long to incorporate, I think. Jimintheatl (talk) 21:24, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) We can just do it in stages. If everyone is on board, more or less, with Soxwon's version, we can put it up and then make further suggestions/edits. If at the end there is enough information to make this a stand alone article, then fine. If it become's a stub, then we can discuss merging. But let's not stop the progress we've made because it isn't reaching an expected end result. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 18:42, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

New round of changes

[4] Disclaimers: I'm human, I have POV as much as the next person. I edited these as much for style as possible. However, if you feel that I took out something that was important, please just say so. :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Soxwon (talk • contribs) 19:01, 22 April 2009

1. I'd remove "partisans" from the lead. It's the type of label that could lead to verification concerns and could be attacked for POV. Besides, even without the language, the lead would have the same effect.
2. How about: Among the conclusions, the study found that O'Reilly used propaganda far more often than Coughlin, and that he was three times more likely to engage in name calling, and found a consistent pattern of casting non-Americans in a negative light including construing illegal aliens and foreigners as physical threats to the public and never featured in the role of victim or hero. Since the immigration debate is one of his calling cards, I think this analysis should be spelled out a bit more.

Other than for some grammer checks, that's the only comments I have, I think it's ready to replace the article and to see what happens from there. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 20:07, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I'll go with 1 and try and maybe paraphrase 2 a bit then go into grammarnazi mode :). Soxwon (talk) 20:11, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I concur on the "partisans" thing. "Media personalities" maybe? It should be clear that while some of these people have influence, none of them are "important" in the sense that they don't have any influence on Fox's decision to run the show (other than actively encouraging it by providing free publicity). SDY (talk) 01:16, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

This article sucks

All it is a collection of negative stuff people said about Oreilly. I dont really like him but come on, how is this neutral? Also even if it was not insanely biased how does this warrant a encyclopedia page? You can find random negative comments on any1 from someone with a apposing view. I would understand the need for this page if some of the criticism was from important sources but almost all off it is from Bill Oreilly opposites who's jobs are sort of to attack him. Every time Oreilly goes off on someone it does not necessarily deserve inclusion in an article. DRxAWESOME (talk) 15:49, 26 April 2009 (UTC){{|DRxAWESOME}}

The above sections are addressing your concerns, if you want you can participate. Soxwon (talk) 17:04, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Ok, who put spa by my name? DRxAWESOME (talk) 21:56, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea, but as far as I'm concerned, your actions are essentially similar to previous editors who were detrimental to progress, mostly due to not being aware of the existing discussions (as in denouncing this article without looking at how everyone is already trying to fix it, nice choice of section name btw). ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 01:03, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Need for reviews

[5], alright, I've grammar checked it, but at this point I need others to read through it as I may start making mistakes having worked on it for so long. Soxwon (talk) 01:53, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I have some minor tweaks to the article, but I can do it after it goes into the mainspace (i.e changing "Democrat Party" to "Democratic Party" or "Democrats"). Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 17:36, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Uh, can someone tell me whats happening? DRxAWESOME (talk) 22:04, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

No need to explain, it's all on this page for you to read or skim. Several people had the same concerns you did. And we're in the middle of a process that we hope will fix those concerns. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 23:25, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Done...for now...?

I've implemented the changes discussed, and uploaded the new article. I've taken the relative silence of the editors over the past week and a half as meaning that the current version is one we can all live with and thus a consensus. It's been a pleasure working with all of you. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 16:41, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to continue to try and cut it down until it can be inserted in the main article, but I think the new version is much better than the previous. Thnx to all who contributed :) Soxwon (talk) 18:17, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

*sigh* apparently DRxAWESOME felt it necessary to report this to the BLP/Noticeboard w/o informing anyone: [6] Soxwon (talk) 18:23, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

lol, ya I did, it's a little better but I still think it has blp issues. DRxAWESOME (talk) 20:19, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the article still has problems, mostly because the idea of a dedicated criticism article is in itself objectionable, but this is at least a step in the right direction. I unfortunately have very limited Internet access and can't do much for now. The reduction to controversies and the merging of pure criticism is probably a better solution than trying to merge this whole article, though. SDY (talk) 21:50, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Honestly, I don't see any path to getting this article small enough that it could be merged into the parent article unless it was reduced to a paragraph describing the criticisms with no examples given. I suspect that if that were done, then editors would want the paragraph deleted because it violates NPOV. Anyhow, it seems that there is consensus to close this step of the process at least. At this point, I'll bow out of the remaining process, unless I'm needed for some advice or something. As I've said before, it's been a pleasure. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 22:42, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I feel it should at least be smaller than the Bill O'Reily main article. Soxwon (talk) 00:06, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

As per my comments on your talk page, although there was a consensus to remove the laundry list and use a more summary style, there hasn't been any demonstrated consensus for reducing the article to that small a size as of yet. I don't want the tenuous agreement we may have now ruined so quickly after achieving it. (Typing that made me feel a bit like Truman in dealing with the Soviets after WWII, and no I'm not calling anyone a communist or socialist. ;)) Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 00:31, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I have reverted myself and will wait. However, I still think that having a Criticism article larger than the parent is a violation of POV fork. Soxwon (talk) 00:34, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Honestly, I don't think the current state of this article is much of an improvement over the last time I read it. I'm sure that the editors here are working in good faith to conform to the 'pedias content policies, but I think the premise of this article is so fundamentally flawed that it may not be possible to come to an NPOV formulation. The idea that we should have an entire, lengthy article devoted to the criticism of a public figure strikes me as fully at odds with the NPOV, BLP and undue weight policies. We end up with text formulated as a sort of call and response act - O'Reilly's many critics and competitors decry, O'Reilly defends. Decry, defend, decry, defend. While it may seem in development that this produces a sort of balance, it really does not. This article should be merged into the main O'Reilly article - its content ought to receive the sort of scrutiny applied to a BLP, and each piece of information should have its relevance weighed against the goal of a whole and informative biographical article. Nathan ^{T (formerly Avruch)} 21:38, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you, but this takes time and lots of compromise. Soxwon (talk) 23:40, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Considering the number of AfD's the article has been through, I think the community has spoken quite clearly and forcefully, I might add, that it believes the premise of the article is both encyclopedic and not fundamentally flawed. Let's continue to work for actual solutions and not get sidetracked by these wistful fancies.  ;) Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 18:27, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I've read through the arguments in the AfDs, and the arguments for retaining were neither clear nor forceful, though the arguments given for deletion in many cases had even less merit. SDY (talk) 05:33, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

You might want to re-read what you responded to. I'm talking about the end result, not any specific argument. The almost unanimous result in each of the previous AfD's (including a few speedy keeps) shows where the community is at regardless of how you or I view their arguments. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 16:59, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Moving forward

Since there is some agreement that the current changes do not address the issues with this article, I'd like to propose the next step: moving the article to a better title.

"Criticism of" raises some substantial issues for WP:UNDUE, since there will likely never be an agreement over what is "notable" criticism. The first option is to move it to a "Controversies" title, since controversy is more obviously evident (i.e. if finding sources is at all difficult, it's not that controversial). One of my major concerns with the article as it was and could be is simply that it doesn't have clear inclusion or exclusion criteria, and this would help keep out the teapot tempests.

A second option would be to make the article about criticism (used in the Roger Ebert sense of critic) of the O'Reilly Factor programs, which insulates the problems from the stronger BLP rules that cause so many headaches for this article. Ratings for the radio and TV shows and similar mundane details can also be included. Positive reviews could also be reasonably included, which would do some good for balance purposes.

There was some initial discussion of the first option above, and I think the second was briefly discussed on the noticeboard. I'd prefer the first, since that appears to be the way the article is going anyway. SDY (talk) 05:33, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm curious about what your desired "end game" for this article is. Would you be satisfied with the content as is if it were retitled "controversies"? Based on your statement above that you feel that the lopsided support that keeping the article has received in numerous AfDs is not evidence for a forceful consensus behind keeping this article, I'm curious about whether you'd prefer an endgame where this article became something that no longer resembles its current form. The bottom line is that many of these criticisms and controversies actually have enough sourcing to merit standalone articles per WP:N; I'd have a hard time going along with anything that further removed material from WP. Croctotheface (talk) 07:26, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. If some honestly believe this article shouldn't be in Wikipedia I suggest they propose an AfD with "merit-filled arguments" unlike the previous ones and let the community decide. Although, I think the current article is good step in the right direction and not a finished product, I can't support further removal of information unless I have some idea of what the actual end game is. However if this is simply about naming the article, I would not have a problem with "Reception of" or "Analysis of". I do have to be honest here and say that I don't think the problems with this article is with its name, but rather with us as editors. I just don't think on a general level we have the proper training or expertise to do this adequately without supervision or guidance, but that's a discussion for another day. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 17:21, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

(undent) My expectation for this article is that it will be moved away from the current title, which is a floodgate for problematic content (i.e. one-sided coverage). I don't think that most of the content is necessarily unencyclopedic or inappropriate, but it has to be presented in a different fashion. "Reception" is awkward just because it's a broadcast program, which leads to ambiguity since there's a second logical meaning. "Analysis" runs the risk of inviting WP:NOR, though the one study is logically covered there. "Controversies" seems to cover the encyclopedic content best, and the impression in the end should be that this is a merged group of topics that would be too short for their own articles, rather than a directed assessment of the man or his message. SDY (talk) 01:19, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

How would "a merged group of topics" be different from what's here now? Again, my argument is that many of these topics have received enough coverage from sources to merit their own articles--whether they should have their own articles is a different question--and I'm not comfortable removing content at this point. Croctotheface (talk) 02:39, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

This article uses weasel words, cherry-picked quotes, dubious sources, and has a clear editorial tone that is eager to punish O'Reilly for his many sins. The concepts in the article are valid content, but it needs a total rewrite and most of the literal content (i.e. the actual words) should go. For example, take the sentence "Critics of O'Reilly allege that although he calls his program a "no-spin zone", O'Reily misleads his audience by presenting false information and engaging in misleading and selective editing." It starts with weasel wording, uses a word to avoid, editorializes a snap at the "no-spin" and goes on...

Structurally the article is fine, but the writing is appropriate for a persuasive essay, not an encyclopedia and is in my mind beyond salvage. So as far as "retaining content" I agree we should keep the topics, but that does not include any of the current presentation. SDY (talk) 03:03, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

As far as I know, that sentence went in because of the campaign you appear to have spearheaded to condense the content. I took this article off my watchlist for a while; as far as I know, it was not there when I started, and that whole revamp campaign happened in the interim. As far as the notion of cherry picking, I submit that you cherry picked that particular line. The entirety of the coverage of the Indiana University study, for example, is assiduously neutral. The bottom line is that this article comes off as unflattering to O'Reilly because some of the things he has done paint an unflattering picture of him. The conclusion of that study is not ambiguous and it's not favorable to him. That's not "tone" talking; it's just what an peer-reviewed academic study says. The fact that you would say that literally every word in this article must be changed suggests to me that your goal here is to complain about the article any way you can until it is either removed or unrecognizable. As others have said, the community has spoken quite clearly that this article should stay. Your position that the entirety of the article must go is looking like a very lonely one. Croctotheface (talk) 04:07, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I cleaned up the Indiana University bit, actually. It previously had some pretty incendiary statements, i.e. implications about "kool-aid left" and Jonestown. A long-winded retort from MMFA was taken out as well. A lot of the really crazy stuff has been dealt with, actually, and reading through it again it's not as bad as it was, and I'm remembering some things that appear to have been taken out since I last read it. I admit that I was wrong to characterize the article as beyond repair.

At any rate, that particular line and the section it's in need some work. The bottom line, though, is that the article is unflattering to O'Reilly because it's a dedicated criticism article: it will always be unflattering by nature. Dealing with this problematic construction by moving it to a more neutral title still seems appropriate. SDY (talk) 04:37, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

To SDY - we (the community) understand your position. Roger. SYN-ACK. 10-4. Acknowledged. However, you need to come to grips with the fact that the community writ large has wholly and repeatedly rejected your position that criticism articles are inappropriate -- both generally, and this article specifically. For evidence of such, simply see the 5 (or more) AFD's for the page, in which the community overwhelmingly, unequivocally stated that this article is appropriate. No amount of repeating yourself will change that, so please -- we hear you, but the community disagrees. Get on board or move on out. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 09:16, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Noooo, the community has agreed this article is worth keeping, nowhere did they say that it should be kept in its current form (in fact, it has been repeatedly said it needs some major changes). SDY has just said that there should be some changes which I agree with. Soxwon (talk) 12:21, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

(undent) As for the community in general, one other "criticism" article of a notable public figure has similarly been changed in the recent past (March of this year).

My ideal image of this as a list of controversies that happen to include O'Reilly also makes this article more useful as documentation of those events. The article ends up being about those events, instead of being about Bill O'Reilly. Frankly I'm also a little concerned that the main O'Reilly article is diminished because all of the criticism has been banished to the back closet, and this information would make a lot more sense in context. I seriously think that some of this content could be merged to Bill_O'Reilly_(commentator)#Political_beliefs_and_public_perception and/or The O'Reilly Factor, to the benefit of all of the articles. Note that neither of these articles currently contains any specifics of criticism whatsoever (the TV show's article has some vague comments).

I have no problem whatsoever with the content of the article being unflattering to O'Reilly, but it looks like just another internet rant if it's unflattering by design. SDY (talk) 14:30, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

There is no rant here, as all statements in the article are (now) attributed to reliable sources. Perhaps it's not "unflattering by design", but rather an accurate reflection of criticisms O'Reilly has earned for himself. One can't expect the O'Reilly well to be pure if he spends most of his time pissing in it. Again, we've had countless warriors try to eradicate this article from Wikipedia, and those efforts have been rejected by the community every single time. You've provided no evidence that there is some large, unspoken consensus that this article is inappropriate -- in fact, quite the opposite appears to be true. As Crockspot adeptly noted earlier, you've made it abundantly clear that your ultimate goal is to get rid of this article entirely. Given your relentless pursuit of this end, I find it increasingly difficult to assume good faith that your intent is to simply "clean up" the article within community expectations, and increasingly more likely that "your goal here is to complain about the article any way you can until it is either removed or unrecognizable." Your steadfast characterization of an academically peer-reviewed study as "intending to punish O'Reilly" belies your real intent and indicates that you don't really understand what qualifies as a reliable source. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 14:45, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I think you are misunderstanding SDY, he simply wants to change the page to reflect how the events related to O'Reilly, rather than spending so much time on details of what may or may not have happened. No one is out to just delete the whole page and to continue that is his agenda is absurd. It is also hard to assume your neutral position with statements like this: Perhaps it's not "unflattering by design", but rather an accurate reflection of criticisms O'Reilly has earned for himself. One can't expect the O'Reilly well to be pure if he spends most of his time pissing in it. Soxwon (talk) 14:54, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't think there's any misunderstanding this, or his aggressive promotion of the concepts contained therein. Please note my almost-complete silence during the rewrite, because I wanted to respect the process. The article did need significant work. That being said, the continued promulgations and condensations seem pretty focused, the intent ultimately being to eradicate all criticism entirely (be it through the guise of good-faith improvements). //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:59, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Correct. Criticism is by nature opinions, not facts. Encyclopedias deal in facts. A person's opinions or an organization's public statements are facts, but they are generally facts about that person or organization. For example, MMFA's opinion of O'Reilly is meaningful to MMFA, but marginally relevant to O'Reilly except when he reacts to their opinions. That O'Reilly is misleading and inaccurate and nefariously cacklingly evil may be WP:TRUTH, but Wikipedia does not exist to make judgments, just to collect relevant facts (as opposed to indiscriminate information). SDY (talk) 22:49, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Probably worth reading Wikipedia:Attack page, especially since this is a BLP. If the point of this article is to disparage Bill O'Reilly, it should be deleted under those provisions. If the point of this article is to document some notable events which involve him, then it's just another encyclopedia page. SDY (talk) 15:09, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

To SDY's statement above: My ideal image of this as a list of controversies that happen to include O'Reilly also makes this article more useful as documentation of those events. The article was in fact such a list before we condensed the article. Further, everyone was given an opportunity to comment, make changes, disagree, etc., while the newer version was created and laid in stasis for two weeks. I'm reading that sentence as your belief that the article was better in its previous form. If Soxwon and I moved too fast and the prevailing opinion is that the newer version is worse than what was there before, I have no problem reverting the article back to its older form. One last thing to add to the acronym soup of these talk page, your idea may violate WP:NOTNEWS and also lead to constant expansion of the article because of WP:RECENTISM. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 17:25, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

No, the recent version is much better: it condenses some of the things that were being given undue weight. I'm not exactly sure how a list of events is going to have problems with recentism, though. The reason I'm focusing on moving it to a "controversies" focus is simply because it puts an obvious "barrier to entry" for the minor teapot tempests that boil off O'Reilly on a daily basis. There are one or two sections now that are distilled criticism, and these are moving towards a mergeable size. SDY (talk) 20:46, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

My concern with changing the article to more of a list of events is that based on experience, on this article and others, the end result is often similar to how this article was before the changes. Editors often have a tough time evaluating if the item they read on the blog of their choice or on the Internet or newspaper has encyclopedic value of a long term nature, and attempt to add it to the article. I guess I am not seeing how the controversies focus provides a barrier to entry. It seems to me that it would actually open the door to more trivial information. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 21:02, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

(undent) I see your point, but I don't think there is an optimal solution. Ultimately, though, a controversy article should be about the controversies. Editors will always have a rough time deciding on what is undue with such a controversial figure, but "it obviously fits, it's criticism" is much harder to deflect than "a couple people in the blogosphere noticed, so it's a controversy." Neither is perfect, and I'm frankly much happier with the article now than when I first saw it.

I agree that something should be done to keep the article from attracting more of the "hatercruft" and moving the article away from a poisonous title seems, to me, to be a way to accomplish that. Stronger guidelines on criticism articles would definitely accomplish the same objective, but there was little interest in creating them last I checked (an RfC earlier this year). SDY (talk) 21:25, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that a list of events would not be an improvement. I'm still of the opinion, which I think is not a minority view outside this talkpage, that we ought to move away from maintaining a "Criticism of" article and towards integrating the most significant information into the main Bill O'Reilly article. We are, after all, intending to create not a hit piece or a laundry list of criticism but a balanced biography of a living individual. As a secondary and far less important (for our purposes) motivation, I'd like to avoid someday reading about O'Reilly using his "slash and burn Wikipedia article" as an example of how liberals have hijacked Wikipedia and to argue that what Wikipedia really needs is a massive influx of O'Reilly fans as editors. Comments on how he is pissing in the well should certainly be avoided, both for that reason and for many others. Nathan ^{T (formerly Avruch)} 21:38, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

The problem with that is that then forks due to length would be by default banned if your practice would be in place, which would harm certain articles where criticism, or controversy is lengthy (ex. controversy over Nanjing Massacre). Actually, I propose we rename this article Controversy of Bill O'Reilly's Commentating Methods or something similar. I think controversy is more neutral.ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 04:00, 2 June 2009 (UTC)