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

message: Is it time to archive this talk page?  It is getting pretty long.  MrMurph101 06:25, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Archive

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

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

message: Why is the information regarding the Mackris harrassment suit not present in this article?
::It was here but moved back to the main article. MrMurph101 19:06, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sexual Harrassment Lawsuit 

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

message: Please read up on some cardinal wikipedia policies including original research.  Deriving your own conclusions from primary source data is a prime example of violating wikipedia's ban on original research--your interpretation of the census data CANNOT be included in a wikipedia article unless you publish your findings in a reputable source.  If you are convinced that the census data contradicts O'Reilly's claims, then go ahead and publish your conviction and we can then include it in an article.  The wording that you keep reverting was arrived at through a series of deliberations that 
Country Name     Total in Billions of U.S. $            (Year to Date) Total in Billions of U.S. $
France     5.03            53.05
Source: 
December 2005
Country Name     Total in Billions of U.S. $            (Year to Date) Total in Billions of U.S. $
France     4.98            56.25
Source: 
Above is a comparison of the month of May through the years 2003, 2004, and 2005; notice that the Total increases from 46.29 in 03 to 53.05 in 04 to 56.25 in 05. This clearly shows that overall trade increased during O'Reilly's alleged boycott.
Two things should be noted: overall trade did decreased by about a billion from 2002 to 2003 but this trend started early on in the year before the boycott was called (see statistics below for details) and this was just exports that decreased the United States continued importing French goods which in fact increased over all four years, but I can't say France didn't lose "potential" trade but I do know (with these statistics) that France did not lose "billions of dollars" of trade it had the year before.
Here below are the statistics of the first month of the boycott (March 03) with a comparison of the same month the year before (March 02), notice the 2003 decrease is too great to be explained with just these statistics because the difference between the two (Year to Date) Totals don’t match the difference in the totals of just this month, this means that the decrease had accumulated from before the boycott.
(The values given are for Imports and Exports added together.)
March 2002
Country Name    Total in Billions of U.S. $             (Year to Date) Total in Billions of U.S. $
France   4.27            12.32
Source: 
March 2003
Country Name    Total in Billions of U.S. $             (Year to Date) Total in Billions of U.S. $
France  4.04            11.33
Source: 
Here below are the statistics of the about billion dollar loss in trade over 2002 to 2003.
December 2002
Country Name    Total in Billions of U.S. $             (Year to Date) Total in Billions of U.S. $
France    3.91            47.43
Source: 
December 2003
Country Name    Total in Billions of U.S. $             (Year to Date) Total in Billions of U.S. $
France    4.35            46.29
Source: 
None of this information is original research; you need to understand what I wrote before you make mistakes. User: Pheoinixflame
The reason we cited and MENTIONED outside groups is to avoid violating wikipedia's policy against original research.  Looking at the census data and determining that it contradicts O'Reilly's claim is original research, and must be avoided.  Instead, we noted that other groups have looked at census data and we mentioned their findings, rather than our own opinions.  Once again, go back and read the deliberations on the subject and please do not alter a compromise that avoids violating the policies that your phrasing does not. Stanley011 05:38, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Memo to Pheoinixflame

message: I do not particularly like Bill O'Reilly.  I also do not particularly hate him though he sometimes has been offensive to things that I believe in.  Nevertheless, this page is really a POV Fork to me.  I think it is completely inappropriate for an encyclopedia.  But, I see it was nominated for deletion (on other grounds) previously.  It had strong support for keep.  I think I will nominate it again, but with different grounds.  That may not go forward, but I want the delete request to go forward with good reasons.--Blue Tie 00:04, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please read the page on deletion for a complete explanation. --Blue Tie 04:41, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Summary of my reasons:  I consider the article to be an uncyclopedic POV Fork such that a fix requires massive changes beyond the ordinary.  Indeed, being unencyclopedic, I do not think it really belongs. --Blue Tie 21:24, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

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

message: you can thank me later- The bird
:Unless you find a reliable source also discussing the anti-gay remarks, it can not be included as per the Biography of Living Persons guideline at Wikipedia.  Unsourced comments are potentially libelous and we can not take that risk.  ju66l3r 05:32, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see my edit of your section to get a better feel for a higher quality submission to Wikipedia.  Notice how inline references are accomplished with the <ref> tag and how I've modified the text to be a bit more explicit and removed the violation of copyright from the referenced article (you can't just cut'n'paste from the original source).  ju66l3r 05:51, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Added Anti gay remarks stuff 

message: Look people, we will have it two ways.
1. We will keep the page
2. Delete this page, but dump all the info into his article
Okay, you got that people? -The bird —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.189.97.150 (talk • contribs) .
:You don't get to decide on your own.  The AfD process continues until an administrator takes action based on consensus determined from the article's discussion entry at the AfD page.  Removing the AfD tag is considered vandalism.  ju66l3r 05:20, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think its fine to incorporate it in the main article. Some of it is already there. --Blue Tie 20:04, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Look, we are keeping this page, and it's not getting deleted 

message: It turns out, that even after showing TWO admins the info he needed he STILL got banned from an admin named Glen. He told me through MSN...Now I knew that wikipedian's admins were not the BEST on the internet, but after hearing this you guys have to be the most sick, vile people i've ever heard in my life. You all she be ashamed of yourselves, and put the anti-gay remarks back in the article, now that you have the info you need, since some jackass blocked him EVEN after he had the info he needed. Again the text was the following:On the December 8 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor, host Bill O'Reilly offered a Factor jacket to radio "shock jock" Howard Stern. After Stern said, "I won't wear it, but I will give it to a crack whore" and handed it back, O'Reilly told him: "I'm not having this on some lesbian somewhere. It's not going to happen."
and the source was - http://mediamatters.org/items/200512090016
Dragong4 05:51, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Okay what is wrong with you people? 

message: I do not know if the Mark Foley entry would be better served in the Fox News Channel controversies article.  It would also be better to find out whether it was just a typo or something pre-meditated.  It just seems like speculation right now.  MrMurph101 04:35, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This does not seem to be notable. Nor is the "Shut Up" line terribly notable either. I'm for removing these are trivia. Kyaa the Catlord 15:21, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Mark Foley

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

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

message: == Most Popular==
"As the most popular cable news commentator on American television"
Is there a source for this claim?  It either needs a citation or a reworking to something not so POV.
Good suggestion anon.  I reworded it and provided a citation. Stanley011 13:50, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I took the clean up tag off.  I'm not contesting that it needs cleaning up but it would be nice to hear something more specific than saying it has "tone issues" or "not that well written."  Maybe put something in the cleanup log if you or someone else wants to put that tag back up.  I checked the original log and did not see anything relating to this article.  MrMurph101 04:29, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I made this comment before I did some fairly substantial rewrites.  If you look at a version of the article from around the time I made this comment I think that you'll recognize why I didn't bother with specifics.  The writing was, as I said, just not very good, even in terms of readibility. Croctotheface 09:05, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

text: That's a good point.  Maybe we should put her back in the controversies article.  I believe she did have a negative comment toward Bill O'Reilly at one time but that, on its own,  does not make her a critic necessarily since she does not write or talk about him on a consistent basis.   MrMurph101 18:37, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  I also think the Glick section should be moved back to the controversies article.--Hal Raglan 13:59, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I moved them back but Glick may be better suited to be in the article for The O'Reilly Factor.  MrMurph101 23:39, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

text: It can be included. Just find a source. MrMurph101 
18:04, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

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

text: Is this even notable? Does anyone care that O'Reilly had a fit during one particular interview? Kyaa the Catlord 15:04, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Apparently a lot of people do, including NPR. I'd say that makes it pretty notable, and have accordingly reverted the removal. Seraphimblade 10:24, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Self-referential statements? You can do better than that. Notability hinges on having a variety of sources speaking on the subject. If there is a lasting criticism from NPR's Gross, there should be some more traffic related to it. Single sourcing is poor sourcing. Find more sources, please. Kyaa the Catlord 19:43, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Five days and noone seems to have an answer, this has been removed due to lacking notability. Kyaa the Catlord 02:48, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've reverted the removals-the information was sourced, which implicitly establishes notability. These are clear cases of criticism of O'Reilly (the subject of the article), are sourced, and belong here. Seraphimblade 10:18, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: One time blurbs are NOT notable, they are trivial. If you can show a pattern of criticism these should stay, if not, they should be removed. Kyaa the Catlord 19:41, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

text: What media reaction? You have not made a case that there were any media sources that provide any support for these people being more than one time instances which are completely trivial and unworthy of note in an encyclopedic work. Kyaa the Catlord 22:08, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: NPR and O'Reilly are members of the media, major members at that. Their reactions are thus a verifiable media reaction, and would reach a nationwide and sizable audience. However, perhaps we should file for a third opinion here, if that would be agreeable to you? Seraphimblade 21:02, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In order to meet notability and BLP, you need third party sources. Primary sources are fantastic, but you have no evidence that shows that this one time spat is anything but trivial. Kyaa the Catlord 20:44, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

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

text: The problem is that the only sources you can find related to this are the people involved in the trivial, apparently singular instance. I asked weeks ago for any reference to them being critics or rivals to O'Reilly from an outside source. Franken and Olbermann's spats are notable and noted by others in the media world, but the others... well, the only ones saying they are rivals are themselves. "Look at me! I hate O'Reilly too!" isn't cutting it when the only one carrying the sign is ignored. Kyaa the Catlord 03:46, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Would agree that they're not "rivals" per se, however the sources cited certainly acknowledge "criticism". Primary sources may be used for facts which are not in dispute-and since in all these cases O'Reilly acknowledged and responded to the criticism, the fact that it occurred can hardly be considered to be in dispute! Now, of course, if O'Reilly denied the Gross incident ever occurred, for example, a primary source would be insufficient to establish that it did-but that's not the case here. However, as I said, as this is a BLP concern I'm quite willing to leave the section removed until we receive a third opinion (and of course perhaps permanently depending on what that opinion is.) Seraphimblade 08:01, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Its also a notability concern. We have huge sections of this, imho, superfluous article addressing non-notable instances. Kyaa the Catlord 08:07, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Once again-notability is for a whole subject. In this case, the question is "Is the phenomenon of criticism of Bill O'Reilly notable?" From there, any specific instance only need be germane to the article (which criticism of O'Reilly is, it's in the title!) and verifiable (which, in this case, primary sources establish just fine-it would be hard to imagine that O'Reilly would deny an occurrence he's previously spoken about himself!) It's quite similar to any subject which includes multiple instances of something-each individual instance might not be notable (if, for example, the Franken/O'Reilly instance were on its own notable, there should be an article entitled "Rivalry between Al Franken and Bill O'Reilly.") I would argue that, while such an article on its own would fail notability, all the instances in aggregate achieve it. In that case, however, no individual case need achieve notability-only verifiability. (So, for example, a person can't come in and put in "My friend John once said Bill O'Reilly sucks"-that would be criticism, but it would be unverifiable. The instances which you removed, however, are entirely verifiable and verified.) For another instances of "notability in aggregate", you may wish to look at the :Google bomb article-very few if any of these instances would be notable on their own, but in aggregate they paint a picture of a well-documented and notable phenomenon. However, if we deleted each individual example which on its own would not be notable, there'd be little to no article left! Only giving something its own article is an assertion that that thing standing alone is notable-including a subject in a topic on a larger article is only an assertion that, firstly, the event is verifiable, secondly, the event is an example of the phenomenon the article covers, and thirdly, that the example included is relevant to the subject of the article. I would hold that those three are met here. Seraphimblade 08:26, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fantastic, so we make this a gigantic list of every bloody instance where someone says something critical of Bill O'Reilly. Wikipedia is not a collection of trivia. We do not need to include every instance of someone being critical of O'Reilly, we only should include the ones that are notable. Gross and Moyers do not have the sort of rivalry that Olbermann and Franken do with O'Reilly and included them only serves to pad this article pointlessly. Kyaa the Catlord 08:34, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think "every trivial instance" should be included at all-however, an incident's applicability should be determined by consensus. At least in the Gross case, it ruffled quite a few feathers, caused NPR to issue a formal apology, and certainly sparked comment on both sides-that doesn't really seem a trivial thing. Seraphimblade 08:55, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is quasi-political fancruft though. Does it enhance this article? Is it better with it than without it? Not really, it happened and then quickly was water under the bridge even to the point of them having a nice chat about the interviewees book on O'Reilly's own show. Kyaa the Catlord 09:07, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well sure, and that's quite an interesting counterpoint to the ones before (where the rivalries are effectively "for life"). The fact that a controversy ended well doesn't mean it wasn't controversial-any more then if you and I come to agreement here it would mean we never had a debate. Seraphimblade 09:22, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If I was notable enough to have a wikipedia article, and was worthy enough to a have a similarly singular article like O'Reilly, I'd be happy to have you included. Seriously, this article probably shouldn't even exist. Olbermann doesn't have one, and he gets ripped quite often from the right (especially due to his brilliant career as a journalist prior to MSNBC, oh wait, he was on ESPN). Franken doesn't have a critics page, and he also gets ripped for being a comedian masquerading as a serious talk show host. Why is O'Reilly's critics and rivalries so notable that it deserves its own page? What makes ripping on Bill so special? Kyaa the Catlord 10:16, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you feel the article shouldn't exist at all, it may be best to list it on WP:AFD, as it doesn't meet any speedy criteria and a prod would assuredly be contested. Alternatively, if you can source a similar article on Olbermann or Franken, create away! If you're unfamiliar with AfD, I can walk you through the listing process. Seraphimblade 10:22, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

message: "As the most popular cable news commentator on American television"
Is there a source for this claim?  It either needs a citation or a reworking to something not so POV.
Good suggestion anon.  I reworded it and provided a citation. Stanley011 13:50, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Most Popular

message: It has tone issues and is just not that well written. Croctotheface 08:26, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I took the clean up tag off.  I'm not contesting that it needs cleaning up but it would be nice to hear something more specific than saying it has "tone issues" or "not that well written."  Maybe put something in the cleanup log if you or someone else wants to put that tag back up.  I checked the original log and did not see anything relating to this article.  MrMurph101 04:29, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I made this comment before I did some fairly substantial rewrites.  If you look at a version of the article from around the time I made this comment I think that you'll recognize why I didn't bother with specifics.  The writing was, as I said, just not very good, even in terms of readibility. Croctotheface 09:05, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article needs serious fixing 

message: In what regard is Cindy Sheehan a critic or rival of Bill O'Reilly?--Hal Raglan 03:21, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a good point.  Maybe we should put her back in the controversies article.  I believe she did have a negative comment toward Bill O'Reilly at one time but that, on its own,  does not make her a critic necessarily since she does not write or talk about him on a consistent basis.   MrMurph101 18:37, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  I also think the Glick section should be moved back to the controversies article.--Hal Raglan 13:59, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I moved them back but Glick may be better suited to be in the article for The O'Reilly Factor.  MrMurph101 23:39, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cindy Sheehan 

message: Shouldn't the CBC be on this? They've openly challenged O'Reilly and Fox News to a televised debate. Doesn't that constitue some mention in this article?
:It can be included. Just find a source. MrMurph101 
18:04, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: CBC

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

message: Should the website sweetjesusihatebilloreilly.com be mentioned here, and possibly the book? The writers seem overtly critical of him, and I think it's worth at least a quick mention.
216.250.13.69 04:20, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No. Dubc0724 17:09, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sweet Jesus 

message: The Terry Gross section is too pro-o'reilly.  It doesn't even say what she was actually asking.  FYI, she was asking him to respond to why he was critizing reviewers of his book "Bill O'Reilly for Kids" especially when they weren't negative.
:Is this even notable? Does anyone care that O'Reilly had a fit during one particular interview? Kyaa the Catlord 15:04, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Apparently a lot of people do, including NPR. I'd say that makes it pretty notable, and have accordingly reverted the removal. Seraphimblade 10:24, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Self-referential statements? You can do better than that. Notability hinges on having a variety of sources speaking on the subject. If there is a lasting criticism from NPR's Gross, there should be some more traffic related to it. Single sourcing is poor sourcing. Find more sources, please. Kyaa the Catlord 19:43, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Terry Gross

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

message: Are their alleged rivalries with O'Reilly really notable? It sure does not seem like they go out of their way to criticize him regularly like Olbermann or Franken do... Kyaa the Catlord 15:14, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Five days and noone seems to have an answer, this has been removed due to lacking notability. Kyaa the Catlord 02:48, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've reverted the removals-the information was sourced, which implicitly establishes notability. These are clear cases of criticism of O'Reilly (the subject of the article), are sourced, and belong here. Seraphimblade 10:18, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: One time blurbs are NOT notable, they are trivial. If you can show a pattern of criticism these should stay, if not, they should be removed. Kyaa the Catlord 19:41, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tucker Carlson and Bill Moyers 

message: To avoid splitting this issue into two sections, I've moved it here. Please note that notability must be established for the phenomenon/article subject as a whole (in this case, criticism of O'Reilly), not necessarily for every individual article section (though each section still need meet verifiability and cite a reliable, verifiable source). The sources in aggregate must prove notability for the full article. Notability must only be established for the section if, for example, one wanted to split into the separate article "Terry Gross' criticism of Bill O'Reilly", which of course is not being suggested here.
In this case, NPR can be primarily cited-firstly, the information sought is self-referential, and secondly, they're hardly acting in a self-serving manner-in fact, the ombudsman's commentary cited is self-critical and apologetic, hardly the hallmark of a puff piece. WP:RS says to be skeptical of primary sources and to use them sparingly, not "Absolutely never ever no way". This usage of them meets the exemption (facts are not in significant contention, subject's knowledge of self, not unduly self-serving). Also, while it was on his program rather then on the web, the fact that O'Reilly has -also- reported- significantly on this incident is not in serious dispute-so if both sides consider it a major incident, it really probably is. Finally, the incident is notable due to the "criticism of the critic" from her "own side" so to speak-Gross took a lot of heat over that one.
The Carlton piece, on the other hand, is notable for the exact opposite reason-while Carlton isn't as vocal a critic, he's on O'Reilly's "own side", so to speak. The facts of the incident aren't in much doubt and are easily verifiable (a non-copyright-infringing link to the video is even provided from the site and doesn't seem likely to disappear anytime soon). The writeup of that incident is not a "blurb", it's a full-length article. The article title is not necessarily "Vocal and repetitive critics of Bill O'Reilly", and while we probably should refrain from adding "Joe Johnson from Nowhereville once said 'Bill O'Reilly is an idiot'", these are certainly notable critics that provoked media reaction. Seraphimblade 20:45, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What media reaction? You have not made a case that there were any media sources that provide any support for these people being more than one time instances which are completely trivial and unworthy of note in an encyclopedic work. Kyaa the Catlord 22:08, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: NPR and O'Reilly are members of the media, major members at that. Their reactions are thus a verifiable media reaction, and would reach a nationwide and sizable audience. However, perhaps we should file for a third opinion here, if that would be agreeable to you? Seraphimblade 21:02, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In order to meet notability and BLP, you need third party sources. Primary sources are fantastic, but you have no evidence that shows that this one time spat is anything but trivial. Kyaa the Catlord 20:44, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Sourcing concerns

message: Section is still biased.  I recommend that editor listen to interview first.  At the very least, actual information (that presents her side) should be written.
:Is there an interview or the like from her available on the matter? I think that would make a good addition to the section, if her reactions can be sourced. Seraphimblade 21:04, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Terry Gross NPOV 

message: Still disagree on these, but have filed for a third opinion. As this is a BLP, will agree to leave the section removed pending the outcome. Seraphimblade 01:45, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is that the only sources you can find related to this are the people involved in the trivial, apparently singular instance. I asked weeks ago for any reference to them being critics or rivals to O'Reilly from an outside source. Franken and Olbermann's spats are notable and noted by others in the media world, but the others... well, the only ones saying they are rivals are themselves. "Look at me! I hate O'Reilly too!" isn't cutting it when the only one carrying the sign is ignored. Kyaa the Catlord 03:46, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Would agree that they're not "rivals" per se, however the sources cited certainly acknowledge "criticism". Primary sources may be used for facts which are not in dispute-and since in all these cases O'Reilly acknowledged and responded to the criticism, the fact that it occurred can hardly be considered to be in dispute! Now, of course, if O'Reilly denied the Gross incident ever occurred, for example, a primary source would be insufficient to establish that it did-but that's not the case here. However, as I said, as this is a BLP concern I'm quite willing to leave the section removed until we receive a third opinion (and of course perhaps permanently depending on what that opinion is.) Seraphimblade 08:01, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Its also a notability concern. We have huge sections of this, imho, superfluous article addressing non-notable instances. Kyaa the Catlord 08:07, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Once again-notability is for a whole subject. In this case, the question is "Is the phenomenon of criticism of Bill O'Reilly notable?" From there, any specific instance only need be germane to the article (which criticism of O'Reilly is, it's in the title!) and verifiable (which, in this case, primary sources establish just fine-it would be hard to imagine that O'Reilly would deny an occurrence he's previously spoken about himself!) It's quite similar to any subject which includes multiple instances of something-each individual instance might not be notable (if, for example, the Franken/O'Reilly instance were on its own notable, there should be an article entitled "Rivalry between Al Franken and Bill O'Reilly.") I would argue that, while such an article on its own would fail notability, all the instances in aggregate achieve it. In that case, however, no individual case need achieve notability-only verifiability. (So, for example, a person can't come in and put in "My friend John once said Bill O'Reilly sucks"-that would be criticism, but it would be unverifiable. The instances which you removed, however, are entirely verifiable and verified.) For another instances of "notability in aggregate", you may wish to look at the :Google bomb article-very few if any of these instances would be notable on their own, but in aggregate they paint a picture of a well-documented and notable phenomenon. However, if we deleted each individual example which on its own would not be notable, there'd be little to no article left! Only giving something its own article is an assertion that that thing standing alone is notable-including a subject in a topic on a larger article is only an assertion that, firstly, the event is verifiable, secondly, the event is an example of the phenomenon the article covers, and thirdly, that the example included is relevant to the subject of the article. I would hold that those three are met here. Seraphimblade 08:26, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fantastic, so we make this a gigantic list of every bloody instance where someone says something critical of Bill O'Reilly. Wikipedia is not a collection of trivia. We do not need to include every instance of someone being critical of O'Reilly, we only should include the ones that are notable. Gross and Moyers do not have the sort of rivalry that Olbermann and Franken do with O'Reilly and included them only serves to pad this article pointlessly. Kyaa the Catlord 08:34, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think "every trivial instance" should be included at all-however, an incident's applicability should be determined by consensus. At least in the Gross case, it ruffled quite a few feathers, caused NPR to issue a formal apology, and certainly sparked comment on both sides-that doesn't really seem a trivial thing. Seraphimblade 08:55, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is quasi-political fancruft though. Does it enhance this article? Is it better with it than without it? Not really, it happened and then quickly was water under the bridge even to the point of them having a nice chat about the interviewees book on O'Reilly's own show. Kyaa the Catlord 09:07, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well sure, and that's quite an interesting counterpoint to the ones before (where the rivalries are effectively "for life"). The fact that a controversy ended well doesn't mean it wasn't controversial-any more then if you and I come to agreement here it would mean we never had a debate. Seraphimblade 09:22, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If I was notable enough to have a wikipedia article, and was worthy enough to a have a similarly singular article like O'Reilly, I'd be happy to have you included. Seriously, this article probably shouldn't even exist. Olbermann doesn't have one, and he gets ripped quite often from the right (especially due to his brilliant career as a journalist prior to MSNBC, oh wait, he was on ESPN). Franken doesn't have a critics page, and he also gets ripped for being a comedian masquerading as a serious talk show host. Why is O'Reilly's critics and rivalries so notable that it deserves its own page? What makes ripping on Bill so special? Kyaa the Catlord 10:16, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you feel the article shouldn't exist at all, it may be best to list it on WP:AFD, as it doesn't meet any speedy criteria and a prod would assuredly be contested. Alternatively, if you can source a similar article on Olbermann or Franken, create away! If you're unfamiliar with AfD, I can walk you through the listing process. Seraphimblade 10:22, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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