Talk:Public image of Bill O'Reilly (political commentator)/Archive 1

message: Media Matters is a partisan outlet...references from there should be carefully observed. Rarely is the democrat attacked by Media Matters.
O'Reilly saying "i don't do personal attacks here" might not be an accurate statement on his part but it was a sound bite with Mike Farell on the program...it is not a controversy.
:Anonymous, Media Matters for America is indeed partisan.  As clearly noted on their website, they are "dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media."   Since they do this with carefully reproduced transcripts and direct links to unedited video, I'm not sure why you believe references from them should be "carefully observed."  Their facts and sources are reliable and accurate.  That said, I agree with you completely that the "personal attacks" addition was ludicrous as written and had no place here.Hal Raglan 21:57, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: He always says he doesnt do personal attacks on the radio. Insofar as that means he doesnt dig dirt on peoples personal lives, that is generally true (although he has threatened to dig up personal issues on some reporters who were reprting on OReilly's personal life). Insofar as calling someone a pinhead or stupid is a personal attack he does do personal attacks at least several times per show. Mrdthree 13:15, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I noticed that User:132.33.132.19 has reinstated the "IQ controversy" section, this time adding the detail that O'Reilly called Mr. Parfrey a "stupid dummy".  The citation/link that is provided goes nowhere.  I just performed a quick search thru Google with negative results for this alleged controversy.  I have requested User:132.33.132.19 provide another citation that links to a source that can verify the details.  If someone else can provide such a citation, please do so. Hal Raglan 21:21, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: User:132.33.132.19 has once again added this without providing a link that actually leads somewhere.  Without any proof that this actually happened, one must assume it is simply a hoax.Hal Raglan 04:05, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: O'Reilly claims he doesn't make personal attacks "here"

message: I'm not sure why Bill O'Reilly's alleged iq is a controversy. A controversy is a statement or action that involves a back and forth debate...this IQ statement is not a controversy but if erased, it will be back tommorow... so whatever floats your boat I guess.--Bairdso66 17:19, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I noticed that User:132.33.132.19 has reinstated the "IQ controversy" section, this time adding the detail that O'Reilly called Mr. Parfrey a "stupid dummy".  The citation/link that is provided goes nowhere.  I just performed a quick search thru Google with negative results for this alleged controversy.  I have requested User:132.33.132.19 provide another citation that links to a source that can verify the details.  If someone else can provide such a citation, please do so. Hal Raglan 21:21, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: User:132.33.132.19 has once again added this without providing a link that actually leads somewhere.  Without any proof that this actually happened, one must assume it is simply a hoax.Hal Raglan 04:05, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  IQ controversy 

message: I've added a request for citations for this section.  To be clear, what I want are sources showing that 1) O'Reilly "constantly pressured" the American Red Cross and 2) this pressure led to the Congressional hearings.  The American Red Cross article, which was used as a source for this controversy, doesn't even mention O'Reilly's name.  If O'Reilly has made a claim to being responsible, partially or otherwise, for the hearings, a quote indicating that should be included here.Hal Raglan 19:13, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: User:Hal Raglan, I changed "constant pressuring" to a more objective description of what O'Reilly did and provided some sources.  I think this should satisfy your first source request but let me know if you feel it needs to be further changed.  Regarding your second request, when I wrote that section, I didn't mean to imply that O'Reilly's actions directly led to the congressional hearings.  A subsequent congressional investigation on the issue O'Reilly trumpeted, though, did occur, so how would you suggest it be written about?  Lawyer2b 14:22, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Now that you've rewritten the section and provided adequate sources, I have a question for you.  Can this really be considered a controversy re:  O'Reilly? Certainly it was a controversial issue for the Red Cross.  The rest of the article deals with quotes or actions by O'Reilly that people found offensive or controversial in some way.  If this section is indeed accurate, I would say O'Reilly's involvement here was undeniably a good thing, definitely putting him in a favorable light, especially the info about O'Reilly's subsequent assistance in writing Red Cross policy.  As such, shouldn't this be removed from here and placed somewhere in the O'Reilly main article?  It seems really out of place here among all the negative stuff.  (I had originally requested that this be moved from the O'Reilly article, but now that you've written it in a much clearer way -- without the previous POV trumpeting about O'Reilly's "victory" -- I think it should be moved back.)Hal Raglan 19:46, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for the positive feedback. :-)  I'm fine with moving it back to his main entry; what should its subsection title be? Lawyer2b 23:39, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Possibly a new subsection under "Broadcasting career" devoted to "Noted accomplishments"?Hal Raglan 16:31, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  American Red Cross 

message: I believe the claim stated above in the section about the boycott of french goods is wrong. this is the website stated for reference:
Media Matters for America is a Web-based, not-for-profit, 501(c)(3) progressive research and information center dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media. 
a orginzation like that has no credit. period.
please post whatever concerns you have on my talk page  tiplickhahaha
:I'll post my concerns right here thank you very much, and you should log in so that we know that your signature is not a forgery!  An organization like what?  A 501(c) (3)?  I don't think their facts are incorrect.  The boycott has had considerable coverage on The Factor (here are just a few examples):
:* 3/11/2003 - http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,80769,00.html
:* 6/18/2004 - http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,123067,00.html
:* 2/18/2005 - http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,148011,00.html
:* 2/13/2006 - http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,184659,00.html
:I'll grant you that the Fox's partial transcript online for April 27, 2004 does not include the interview with Heather Mallick, but O'Reilly does make reference to it the next day  and the points have also been covered in Heather Mallick’s own column in The Globe and Mail and in numerous blogs.  "The Paris Business Review" has become a widespread topic of internet humor as a result of this incident.  So regardless of what you believe please check your facts before removing content.  Thanks.  MrFizyx 00:30, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *Actually its Fizyx, with an x.  It can be pronounced "Mr. Physics."  When I wrote the above note, I went overboard a bit, for some reason I was thinking that you had deleted the whole section.  When I realized the small editing that you had done, I felt like a bit of an ass.  You also deleted the wrong citation I think (though they had been out of order to begin with).  Ah well, this is such a silly article anyway.  My time would be better spent editing a more useful page.  Thanks for the reply. -MrFizyx 16:07, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  However, no such proof exists 

message: Regarding this section:  
:O'Reilly has since maintained that Glick remarked during the interview that George W. Bush orchestrated or had prior knowledge of the 9/11 attacks. While available transcripts do not support O'Reilly's claim...
According to a partial transcript here, Glick's words were:  
:GLICK: 	The people in Afghanistan --
:O'REILLY: 	Who killed your father!
:GLICK: 	-- didn't kill my father.
:O'REILLY: 	Sure they did! The al Qaeda people were trained there!
:GLICK: 	The al Qaeda people? What about the Afghani people?
:O'REILLY: 	See! I'm more angry about it than you are!
:GLICK: 	So, what about George Bush?
:O'REILLY: 	What about George Bush? He had NOTHING to do with it!
:GLICK: 	The Director -- senior -- as Director of the CIA.
:O'REILLY: 	He had NOTHING to DO with it!
:GLICK: 	So the people that trained a hundred thousand Mujahadeen who were...
I think it doesn't take much analysis or guesswork to realize whom Glick was referring to.  "The Director - senior - as Director of the CIA."  George W. Bush, Junior, was never Director of the CIA.  George H. W. Bush, Senior, was.  Glick seems to have been referring to Bush, senior.
Are there any objections to correcting the information in the article?  Kasreyn 23:02, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, we seem to be using everything from Rolling Stone to livejournal (!!) as sources at the moment...  The writer of the Rolling Stone piece seems to claim Glick had been interviewed and had made such an admission, but isn't very clear about when or how that happened.  I don't object to its inclusion.  Frankly, if I had been on O'Reilly's show and been treated so offensively and shabbily, there would have definitely been some insults coming out of my mouth during the commercial break.  So I don't find it hard to believe.  Kasreyn 21:42, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

text: How about addressing my points? Was this in print, or is this just a blog? Rolling Stone is an entertainment rag and as such not  peer reviewed. This observation wasn't from a Glick interview, it wasn't a quote, and quite far from the horse's mouth. This is the only place I can find mention of this information. And yes our role is to challenge sources: WP:V 
Sources of dubious reliability In general, sources of dubious reliability are sources with a poor reputation for fact-checking, or with no fact-checking facilities or editorial oversight. Sometimes a statement can only be found in a publication of dubious reliability, such as a tabloid newspaper. If the statement is relatively unimportant, remove it.  
Sysrpl 23:50, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Where are you getting this information? I did a Lexis search for some of the web page's words in the Rolling Stone magazine and turned up zero hits. If it's in print care to tell me the volume and issue number? Sysrpl 15:28, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Glick interview 

message: He said the movie wouldn't sell well. It did. He made it a topic on his show about 1/2 dozen times, despite not seeing it. He said the awards it won was because of the alleged liberal biases in hollywood. Would this count as a controversy?
:I'd say it's only controversial if someone publically called him out on his failed prediction.  Did anyone besides you point this out?  Kasreyn 01:04, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's controversial because he also said Hollywood doesn't make good Westerns anymore and then saw 'Broken Trail' a couple weeks ago.--Red Titan 23:48, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Brokeback Mountain 

message: This article needs to be organized better.  It just seems like a laundry list of random issues at different levels of notability.  Perhaps different sections devoted to people, events, and personal issues.  Something like that. MrMurph101 02:15, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Organization 

message: Regarding Bill's October 28 Malmedy statements, I reviewed the video and Bill most definitely said "General, you need to look at the Malmedy massacre in World War Two, and the 82nd airborne who did it" . There was no break in his Bill's breath, all of his words were clearly audible, and when he finishes saying them his mouth was closed. Regardless of wether Bill might wanted to say more or not, those are the exact words that came out of his mouth. Please, leave his quote complete and let's not continue parse words. Sysrpl 21:40, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I listened to the same clip to which you referred and it appears to me that you are PROBABLY correct, though it is not as clear as you make it seem because as I stated, Clark cuts him off in mid sentence--also explain to me why the accompanying Media Matters transcript does not have O'Reilly saying "that did it." Stanley011 03:31, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm now convinced that Sysrpl is correct about the quote, but I can certainly see why there is confusion.  I downloaded both the windows media and the quick-time file.  The quick-time file is a much larger download but the sound and video are both more clear.  Throughout the segment the video runs just ahead of the audio.  This makes it appear that O'Reilly's mouth stops moving before the sentance is complete, meanwhile Clark's mouth begins to move before you can actually hear him begin to speak--thus the ambiguity.  It appears to me that you both have been editing in good faith and are trying to get the facts right.  This is good! -MrFizyx 04:10, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Stanley011, please keep you comments grouped together when pertaining to the same subject. There is no need to start a new section at the end of this page rehashing the discussions we've been having above. Sysrpl 16:34, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Also, for the sake of all Wikipedia users, please check your hyperboles at the door. No one is or has ever claimed to be infallible, and no one is proclaiming God sent us Media Matters. Your dramatic statements lessen the chances of you being taken seriously. Sysrpl 16:49, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Lighten up and take a joke. Stanley011 19:52, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good, thanks for telling everyone your comments are a joke. We can now safely ignore them. Sysrpl 22:43, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please, lets all do our best to keep the tone civil here. -MrFizyx 22:53, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sysrpl, I would greatly appreciate if you would avoid comments such as "we can now safely ignore them" (referring to my comments, 100% of which have been constructive).  I refer you to wikipedia's policy on civility if you would like to learn more about contributing constructively to our encyclopedia. Stanley011 00:51, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You posted a new section at the bottom of this page on the same subject. I was polite in pointing out where they should go, and asked you to please to check your hyperboles as they reduce the credibility of what you have to say. It was all good until you replied that it was a joke and made it personal by telling me to lighten up. Are you upset that agreed I with your statement about making joke comments, or that people should ignore your jokes? Either way I offer you my apology. I am sorry I said we should ignore your jokes. Now let's please drop the subject and all move on. Sysrpl 03:12, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I'd be very interested to learn in what way you consider "Lighten up and take a joke" to be constructive.  I don't feel you have, in this case, any superior moral position from which to lecture to Sysrpl in such a way, or to take a condescending tone towards him.  The "our" in "our encyclopedia" includes him.  Cheers, Kasreyn 03:58, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmm...I think they both could tone down the rhetoric, but why don't we move the civility discussion to Sysrpl's talk page since it has already continued there and doesn't help this article anyway. -MrFizyx 04:30, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm sorry--in writing, it is difficult to decipher tone and when you said "we can now safely ignore them" I originally thought you were referring to my comments in general, not the comments immediately preceding your response.  I was wrong--I hope you can forgive me. Stanley011 05:21, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The 82nd airborne quote 

message: I think the Malmedy section is kind of ridiculous, especially considering that is it true that American forces did kill German POW's, not by one source but by two. O'Reilly used an "authortarian" tone? That's how he always talks. 
"First, O'Reilly incorrectly recounted the Malmedy incident to a decorated, four star general using a scolding, authorative tone and wording; no apology from O'Reilly, a professional commentator, has been given to Clark or the viewers for allowing what he considered to be a heated exchange to cloud his ability to relay important facts correctly."
Who cares that Clark was a "decorated, four star-general?" The author here is clearly trying to make the point that O'Reilly was harassing a man above his credentials about something he wasn't qualified to talk about. This has no place in an unbiased article. And I still argue that O'Reilly wasn't wrong about the incident, just inadvertantly misleading. And what place does the author of this article have to say that O'Reilly owes ANYBODY an apology? 
I think this particular article should be marked as disputed neutrality since the original author of the section obviously has much against Bill O' Reilly. He really didn't say anything false. American troops did kill German POWs. I don't think he should issue a retraction or apologize the statement, what he should have said is "immediately following the events at Malmedy, American forces killed German POWS." To be honest with you, I think he was somewhat set up, as there is no name for the event considering the killing of the Germans, so the nearest event to it would be Malmedy. Either edit the section, mark it as disputed neutrality or get rid of it altogether. -C
: I will review the article and remove language that might seem biased that doesn't take away from important facts to allow others to form opinions (e.g. I'll remove decorated, although not four star general, even though both are true facts). However, a controversy implies a public dispute with opposing sides; Olbermann is the lead for making this a "public" dispute. There are four reasons given for listing it as a controversy, it would be good to tackle that reasoning. Because a controversy is a controversy, whether O'Reilly is right or wrong, being unfairly judged or not... the issue is that we are trying to record a public dispute. In fact, in this article there is an attempt to help explain how there might be a misunderstanding, but the fact is that it is still a controversy. Whidbey 05:23, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Biased much? 

message: I propose a new article called "Critics of Bill O'Reilly." Some of the entries here could be moved there since this article has become bloated.  I think it will help manage NPOV.  It is not controversial, in essence, to be critical of someone.  This way we can identify those who criticize O'Reilly and state their accusations and people can decide for themselves what to believe. MrMurph101 23:29, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Critics of O'Reilly

message: I am removing the following text from the article.
Known for his heated interviews and clashes with other media personalities, O'Reilly has entered into a feud with a fellow Fox News personality Neal Gabler, a member commentator on Fox News Watch.  In December of 2005, during the War on Christmas commentary by the network, Gabler attacked O'Reilly as well as John Gibson and Sean Hannity for what he perceived as their overzealous demagoguery.  O'Reilly initially ignored Gabler with a few simple remarks, but has since called for Gabler to be fired and referred to him as a "smear merchant" and a "rabid dog".
I do not believe this incident constitutes a controversy and part of the reason can be found in the first sentence.  O'Reilly is known for clashes with other media personalities and therefore the other personality needs to be more of a celebrity to generate controversy (e.g. Al Franken, or Keith Olbermann) There has been virtually no discussion of this incident in the media at all and even the media matters supporting links are neutral, simply confining themselves to detailing what Gabler said that upset O'Reilly and what O'Reilly said in his response.  Lawyer2b 22:00, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of "Neal Gabler" section 

message: I just watched the video of the ABA event discussed in this section.  The section has several problems.  To wit:
#Franken did not speak first, Ivins did.  O'Reilly spoke second and Franken spoke last.
#Franken and O'Reilly argued after Franken talked about O'Reilly's Peabodys; Franken did not interrupt O'Reilly's talk. 
#The fact that Franken exceeded the time limit is mentioned twice in section: Franken spoke for 20 minutes. O'Reilly claims the time limit was fifteen minutes but there is no other indication that this is the time limit.
I am going to make changes to the section accordingly.  
The Peabody Awards controversy seems to have been largely instigated by Franken (who called the Washington Post about it) and this could be integrated here. --JChap 04:40, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Franken spoke first and discussed the Peabody issue at length, exceeding the alloted time limit. Franken then interupted O'Reilly's speech and was told by O'Reilly to "shut up" twice. O'Reilly then noted that while Franken interrupted O'Reilly's speech, O'Reilly did not interrupt Franken's speech even though Franken exceeded the designated time limit for each speaker.
Reason, factually incorrect premise. Franken did not speak first. Ivins first spoke, O'Reilly speach followed, and Franken's speach was last. In addition, Franken did not interrupt O'Reillys speach. See also, the unresolved comments at the top of this section. Sysrpl 02:02, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I had changed it so it was correct, but someone changed it back. This is getting annoying.  I will revert this section to my last edit.  JChap 02:05, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I added some MUCH needed quotes to this section--I hope you like the new and improved version. Stanley011 05:23, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Stanley011, I apologize for my earlier statements in the Malmedy section. Having said that, I hope we can be respectful and analytical. In case of your latest edit, I am going to have to disagree. I don't believe we need a play by play psuedo-transcript of the incident. The complete video is linked as a reference and does more far justice than an interpretation. I understand it's diffcult to write a even description of the exchange. For example, you wrote the Bill tried to defend himself and Franken interrupted him, whereas I could point out that Franken was still standing at the podium wrapping up his speach when Bill began his verbal attack on Franken. Those type of point of view arguments could go on endlessly. For these reasons and I am reverting the section. Sysrpl 07:09, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's perfectly ok with me--however, I think we need to have the link to the video, in full, in a prominent place in the description itself, (something like: a link to the full video can be seen here) rather than just a footnote that links to the video.  I also think we should avoid pov terminology like "potshots" which I think we can do if we work together on improving the description. Stanley011 13:24, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

text: On second thought, I'm not sure that a blow by blow description is such a bad idea after all--for the benefit of wikipedia's deaf users.  I tried to locate a transcript of the full exchange (not just the "eruption") but am unable to.  If we do manage to, then we can linke to that in the article, but if not, I think we should have a complete description, as I have provided. Stanley011 13:27, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem, as I pointed out, is that this, and most any play by play, is it's gratutious point of view. I contend Franken was still speaking at the podium when Bill began to verbally assault Franken, while you say O'Reilly attempted to make statements defending himself and Franken kept interrupting. You give O'Reilly the last word, and I want to give Franken the last word. See how that works? It doesn't capture the spirit of the debate, it ignores the mounds of relevant dialog before and after whatever segment you describe, and it's all point of view. As I said before, the full two plus hour video is already linked to as source. If someone wants to watch it to form their own opinions, without an encyclopida entry guiding them along the way, they can. The video is a free resource, and extremely entertaining to watch. As far as accomidating deaf Wikipedia's users goes, I empathize with their condition, but we can't use them as an excuse to violate Wikipedia's non-point of view principles. Sysrpl 14:05, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm not using deaf people as an excuse and please do not imply that I am. Stanley011 14:17, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was not trying to imply that you were. Sysrpl 14:27, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

text: You know, just removing the sentence (as you have done) is actually a good edit.  I can accept the section as written. JChap 14:51, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I believe it was JChap who wrote the part about potshots, and also who has been for reverting your edits. Though I did the most recent revert. Reason, Franken "told a story" is more desciptive and accurate than "discussed". Franken's speach was a monologue, not a discussion, and he presented himself saying he had a story to tell about an incident with O'Reilly. With regards to the potshot sentence, I believe is accurate and adds to the article without violating point of view. Google's word dictionary answers.com defines potshot as a "A random or easy criticism" and gives the example "reporters taking potshots at the mayor". Since Bill is a reporter, and was criticising Franken without him present before the conference, I believe it's a fair non-point of view descriptive statement. Also, since I haven't been reverting you, and you have been busy reverting this section. I'd like to direct your attention to the WP:3RR rule. Sysrpl 15:07, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In the article, the term "potshot" describes statements in O'Reilly's speech behind the lectern: "I'm not calling anybody a 'Liar.' ... Not doing that... Don't call people 'big fat.' Not doing any of that. ... I don't get [talking points e-mailed to me].  I'm sure Al does. ..."  Potshot seems the best description for them.  "Criticism" implies a sustained logical argument.  That being said, O'Reilly's potshots were actually not all that important unless they caused Franken to tell the Peabody story and there's no indication that they did. JChap 15:19, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

text: You will be more effective if you provide actual arguments using evidence and reasoning, rather than just making conclusory statements. JChap 15:19, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, thanks for the advice. Stanley011 15:24, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Is the word "criticize" pov? How about "criticize without him around"? What about being concise and just saying "potshot"? Sysrpl 15:23, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What do you mean "criticize without him around?"  He was right next to him--didn't you even watch the video? Stanley011 15:25, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I did, but apparently you have not. Watch again it again. O'Reilly does his one-on-one interview section first and criticizes Franken. Also, please read my comments. I already said "criticising Franken without him present before the conference" Sysrpl 15:32, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK--you say "potshot," I say "criticize."  I think JChap's argument best expresses why that sentence does not belong in the article: "That being said, O'Reilly's potshots were actually not all that important unless they caused Franken to tell the Peabody story and there's no indication that they did."-JChap Stanley011 15:40, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also Sysrpl, I remind you not to mark your edits as "minor" when you are inserting, or re-inserting, entire sentences.  That box should only be marked for minor changes (correcting grammar on a small scale, and the like). Stanley011 15:44, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Franken book controversy 

message: Regarding Keith Olberman's "Worst Person in the World" (WPW) television segment, I removed the following wording from the article:
:"In this segment, Olbermann designates an individual, mostly public personalities (usually a conservative), who, some time in the week prior to that night's segment of Countdown, engaged in conduct or speech with which Olbermann disagrees, as the "worst person the world."
Reason, these statements are not factual. It is true Bill O'Reilly and Ann Coulter often make the list because they are public personalities that grab attention by making controversial statements, but the majority of the people highlighted in WPW though are random newsmakers (e.g. the woman who left her kid at Chuck E Cheese). All of this is handled with a humorous zeal as evidenced by the Keith's dramatic reading of the WPW title and the upside-down yellow smiley faces garbed in jailhouse uniforms that permeate the segment. This suggests that WPW are canidates are selected for their humorous effect and not because Keith disagrees with them. Either way, Keith's motivations for whom is picked is speculative, not factual, and as a consequence it doesn't belong in the article.  Sysrpl 22:27, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. Stanley011 00:46, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Keith Olberman 

message: Unless a source is provided, this image should be deleted ASAP. Stanley011 15:51, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The source of the image is that it is the very first result when using Google's Image Search for "o'reilly". The originating website appears to be www.courttv.com. Please feel free to add this information yourself to the image's wiki page, and please stop vandalizing my user talk page with continued requests/demands that I add this information myself. The source information is easily available, and I just told you exactly where to get it. For more information, please contact the web team of the CourtTV website and ask where they got the image, not me. --Ilyag 02:24, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unsourced O'Reilly image 

message: The result of this AfD discussion was keep.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  08:26, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bill O'Reilly controversies]] 

message: The addition of O'Reilly's comments about Letterman being a tough interview have nothing to do with him calling him a "card carrying memeber of the secular progressive movement" One addresses his religious leaning "or lack there of" and the other lauds his journalistic ablity. The article is set up now, to look as though O'Reilly "flipped-flopped" so to speak--Bairdso66 16:40, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it is.  Please keep these allegations balanced, people.  Mrmiscellanious 02:24, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I see that too.  The section states that O'Reilly had a change of opinion on Letterman.  There is no real example or even an implication of this. MrMurph101 03:16, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was bold and changed this.  I retained a mention of him praising Letterman for doing tough interviews, since it was interesting in the light of Letterman doing a tough interview of O'Reilly himself.  However, I deleted the rest of the quote of him praising Letterman.  This extended discussion of a rather minor incident could perhaps be edited down more.  JChap 10:47, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Letterman 

message: I read the reference to O'Reilly's retraction of the Plano, Texas school not allowing red and green clothes.  It was really "plates and cupcakes."  I put the example in the article but it was, admittedly, awkardly added to the sentence.  This seems pretty trivial to me.  Even some of those sympathetic to MM on the comments to their article thought it was not really worth mentioning.  Does this need to be included in the article? MrMurph101 04:29, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is pretty trivial, but it is an example of one of O'Reilly's "false or inaccurate" claims (admittedly very minor and, in fact, one that puts O'Reilly in a somewhat favorable light, as he did publicly correct his error).  I don't think the section would be compromised in any great way if this one example would be removed, if others agree with you that it is too trivial to include.Hal Raglan 15:35, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I like how it is, and don't regard it as trivial. +1 for leaving it. Airumel 21:48, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trivial references 

message: A few years back a group of protesters organized by Larry Flint called for the death of O'Reilly outside a news station.  I'll get some information on the event and post it.--Red Titan 23:48, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Larry Flint picket 

message: I've removed this contentious link (in the section regarding O'Reillys on air threats) in order to try and help resolve this particular conflict. The text has remained the same, saying the legality of the threat is disputed, because the MSNBC link that remains does contain a dispute of the legality of the threat. Damburger 10:33, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The prison planet link 

message: I'm not sure if it's exactly appropriate for us to be trying to either prove or disprove the effectiveness of O'Reilly's proposed boycott.  Either way, we are essentially engaging in original synthesis.  We should simply cite the fact that O'Reilly called for such a boycott, cite whatever facts we have on how many people joined him, cite any sourced responses / rebuttals from notable sources, and that's it.  It's not appropriate for us to put on our "economist" hats and attempt to wring a boycott success or boycott failure by torturing various statistics.  I've listened to some of the best economists alive admit their incomprehension about why the economy does what it does.  Even they don't really know.  So let's leave out our speculation over whether random econ statistic x proves the boycott worked or not.  We're not qualified.  Kasreyn 05:52, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If commentary should be avoided, then this needs to be removed:  "Although the effect of O'Reilly's call for a citizen boycott is not as clear or direct as he makes it seem, if it had any effect at all..."--Hal Raglan 13:23, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Agree except for one thing, Stanley:  if any notable source has specifically rebutted O'Reilly's claims of the effectiveness of his boycott, then we should include a description of the rebuttal.  Kasreyn 21:00, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. Stanley011 09:34, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I respectfully disagree.  The sentence "The U.S. census reveals that the amount spent on total French imports to the United States increased during the period of O'Reilly's boycott" implies that O´Reilly´s call for a boycott had some effect on the value of French imports.  We are not justified in making that implication unless there is an accessible third party source that supports that implication. Stanley011 12:14, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I added the line about Media Matters publishing the report, in the same style as we have been doing for the other sources we cited.  Do you think that´s fair? Stanley011 13:13, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I changed the wording to reflect the variety of sources that you diligently found and provided.  How does it sound now? Stanley011 13:49, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Do you honestly think O´Reilly is so powerful as to have any effect on trade from one nation to another? Stanley011 14:47, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

text: ´´Proof´´ is POV because it gives a truth value to the sources provided.  Our job here is not to decide that the sources are right or wrong, but to report what they said.  Therefore, I changed it to ´´to support their claim.´´  What do you think? Stanley011 16:27, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: You know,