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

message: The source used to state that O'Reilly was a registered republican is Media Matters for America, which is a liberal media watchdog group. Since it is a partisan, it cannot be used to prove a fact. My advice is to either remove it or rewrite it to make it look like an opinion. Showtime2009 (talk) 00:55, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It was a New York Daily News reporter who broke it: "A reporter at the New York Daily News revealed that O'Reilly, despite claims of being an Independent, was a registered Republican. O'Reilly insisted this was a "clerical error" -- until the actual registration form surfaced, showing O'Reilly's signature and his check-mark in the box beside republican". There are reports in reliable sources, e.g. see . I will source it properly. Fences and windows (talk) 01:51, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Beyond that, his statement regarding the source "cannot be used to prove a fact" is equally baseless.  //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 02:10, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

text: Reads like a BLP violation.  Point seems to be to try and prove the BOR lied about his registration.  Material purely used to denigrate an individual is a violation of WP:BLP.  Arzel (talk) 17:35, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The only word in the entire paragraph that is questionable is "claimed"; you could possibly re-word the "However" sentence, but the core facts are not in dispute:  The DNNY did report O'Reilly's registration; BOR did say that he wasn't aware; O'Reilly did claim (change to "state") that there was no independent option; there was an option on the form to register as an unaffiliated voter.  WP:BLP is not a blanket excuse to remove verifiable information simply because it makes someone look bad.  If the argument is that it's not neutrally presented, then by all means make another suggestion.  //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:24, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

text: Given the lack of response from Arzel beyond his standard "BLP violation", I think your version is fair and accurate (other than changing "claimed" to "stated").  I think it's okay for you to insert inline citations and place your version in the article, Showtime2009.  //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:39, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The information is reliable, verifiable, and informative.  Regardless of whether or not people feel it reflects poorly upon him as a person, it is true, and it is useful to article readers attempting to understand the American political landscape, and Bill O'Reilly in particular.Pink-thunderbolt (talk) 17:06, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Registered Republican 

message: ::While I appreciate Blax's contributions in wording the result of Mackris's lawsuit (above) and his agreement in keeping falafels and loofahs out of this article (below), I can't go along with him on the title of the subsection, Sexual harassment incident. The mere fact that it is almost identical to the subtitle used in the talk page means little. In Wikipedia there are all sorts of talk page subtitles that should never be used in the article itself. The particular subsection title in question, I think we can agree, is a pretty clear example of begging the question. O'Reilly never admitted to sexually harassing Makris and the issue was never adjudicated in court. I think The Mackris lawsuit would be better and I might even accept The sexual harassment lawsuit but not The sexual harassment incident. Badmintonhist (talk) 04:35, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: DO NOT put in a section subheader!!!! It was a controversy surrounding O'Reilly -- one of many -- and that's it, nothing more. It was settled. It did not have a lasting impact on his career. So for the sake of retaining due weight and staying neutral, it is best (believe me) not to include a subheader. It is only elevating the prominence of the story, which is neither neutral or appropriate in terms of undue weight. Happyme22 (talk) 07:08, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: You have a point there, Happyme22. Standard outline form requires at least two items under a heading, so unless more were added it wouldn't meet that requirement. On the other hand, adding more is rather redundant since there are already a separate articles for both the Mackris lawsuit and for O'Reilly controversies. Badmintonhist (talk) 13:50, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: On top that, the controversy/critisicm/pardoy section is already tagged with a  template, which strongly recommends editors move whatever is in there and disperse of it throughout the article according to WP:WEIGHT and WP:NPOV; this is not uncommon and has been done with numerous articles. Adding yet another section header underneath one which should be removed means that both should be removed because neither adheres to NPOV or especially WEIGHT. It would be pretty easy to restructure this article because, unfortunately, there is not much written in it. I'm willing to take a whack at it. Happyme22 (talk) 17:15, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Subsection title

message: Please see Talk:Bill O'Reilly#Move to ambiguate. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 15:27, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The debate was just closed with no consensus. Zzyzx11 (talk) 09:35, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move to ambiguate 

message: I've reverted this edit. The wording seemed a bit snippy, and it would have changed a section marked with a request for talk page discussion prior to changes. I don't think this deserves more than, just perhaps, a footnote in this article; perhaps not even that. This is discussed a bit in Criticism of Bill O'Reilly (political commentator)#Controversy about O'Reilly's childhood home and upbringing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wtmitchell (talk • contribs) 
:Without giving opinion of the overall appropriateness of inclusion anywhere, a sourced mention of it would belong in the overflow criticism article.  //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 22:12, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revert re Westbury vs Levittown 

message: out of O'Reilly's emoting self-talk in 2006, "If I could get my hands on Tiller -- well, you know. Can't be vigilantes. Can't do that. It's just a figure of speech." Notable? ↜Just  M E here , now 05:04, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  There are attempt from various quarters to make hay 

message: Why no mention of the Malmedy scandal and attempted coverup? — NRen2k5(TALK), 21:53, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Several editors have waged campaigns to either excise it or obfuscate the significance of the incident over the years.  If it's not here, it's probably been moved to the Criticism of Bill O'Reilly (political commentator) article... //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 12:22, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mamledy 

message: Many people believe that this person is utterly ridiculous and one-sided, which would make him prone to vandalism. Some of the wikipedia bigwigs should lock this page to unregistered users.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.116.32.205 (talk) 16:34, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  I think the page should be protected or locked 

message: Um, what about the whole "falafal"/"loofah" thing? Should that go on here?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.91.125.253 (talk) 00:32, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Falafal / loofah 

message: I have started the merging of content from Criticism of Bill O'Reilly which should of course be included in the general article. I have left out some sections of the criticism article that I thought looked slightly weasly (e.g. the sections that used the word "alleged" repeatedly). I have added them as full subsections to the relevant sections. Most of them as subsections to the section on political views and public reception (the subsections all show O'reilly making a political point and the public reaction to that viewpoint) and the part about his upbringing controversy in the "early life" section. I think that all in all the additions makes the article much closer to a balanced picture of a controversial public figure.·Maunus·ƛ· 14:59, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I just wanted to point out that the sections on the Red Cross, and the Indiana University study, seems like a better fit for the O'Reilly Factor article.  I feel more strongly about the IU study since it is explicitly about how he relays information on the program, and specifically the talking points memo. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 17:27, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Lets start by moving them to the Oreilly factor section and then see if there is a consensus to move them to the independent article on the show. Is that OK?·Maunus·ƛ· 17:31, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah that's fine.  I was just going on the record in both places since it seems like the discussion is going to get fractured over three or so articles.  I was thinking about leaving the same note on the O'Reilly Factor article talk page as well. But that move is fine for now. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 17:39, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: FTR, I know it's early in the merge process and all, but I'd like to also point out that Tiller is now mentioned twice in the article.  So I removed it from the beliefs section in the interim until a consensus is reached. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 18:37, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merging content 

message: Now if you want to start a debate over whether O'Reilly was right or wrong to do this -- in that case we could have a debate.  But of course he did it -- that is a repetitively demonstrated fact.Paul (talk) 06:26, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe this is the liberal equivalent of a birther. To claim one unbalanced individual's actions were solely caused by O'reilly is both unverifiable and laughable.  Soxwon (talk) 06:46, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Advocating murder 

message: I know that a lot of editors believe (I think mistakenly) that any kind of "criticism" or "controversy" section is by definition an inferior way to present material and that "integrating it within the main article," whatever that means, is always better.  The problem with that thinking is that it leads editors tto shoehorn material into places it really doesn't make sense for it to go.  For instance, the Andrea Mackris lawsuit certainly bears upon O'Reilly's personal life, but it also bears on his professional life, as Mackris was an employee.  It bears on his politics because it raises questions about his moralizing on issues related to sex.  A more logical approach, by far, would be to treat this matter in a section devoted more exclusively to it, or to other controversies.  It's much more in line with the way that a full-length biographical work would deal with it.  Marvin Kitman's biography, for instance, includes a separate chapter on the lawsuit.  Croctotheface (talk) 07:04, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree.  I think criticism sections lead to POV Forks, which is what happened and which is why the integration is taking place,  We are just setting things up to repeat what we are trying to repair. Bytebear (talk) 18:06, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  My point is not that it's always bad to "integrate," just that it's not always good, either.  Often, "integration" means awkwardly shoehorning something in a place where it doesn't belong, which is what's happened here with the Mackris episode and perhaps with others as well.  Croctotheface (talk) 20:04, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think a well structured article will have a place for each aspect of the content.  I think it's a cheap solution to just lump together a bullet list of unrelated issues without context, or relation to other aspects of the article. Bytebear (talk) 20:29, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Again, you're arguing against a straw man, not what I've actually said.  There is criticism or controversial material that can be integrated, but often it's not really integrated so much as awkwardly jammed into a section that doesn't really want it.  That's what's happened here with the Mackris lawsuit.  It's a mistake to think that the article is better because there is not a section called "criticism."  In some cases, the article could be worse because material that doesn't lend itself to integration was "integrated."  Croctotheface (talk) 21:52, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

text:  YOu are essentially arguing that some things just don't fit.  And I say that is not true, and that anything can be fit into a well formed article. I don't think I misrepresented your assertion.  I just disagree with it. Bytebear (talk) 00:24, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry, but you can't reasonably assert that any possible controversy or criticism already has a logical and proper place.  This article is far from comprehensive; as Croc has noted numerous times, jamming something into an improper place just to keep from having a dedicated section is counterproductive.  Also, I will pre-empt the idea that this will be used as some sort of syntaxical method for discarding content previously included elsewhere.  The AFD result itself is quite questionable, and since the rewrite a few months ago consensus has been pretty clear that the issue is the location of the content, not that it is in any way invalid.  //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 01:36, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

text: My point here is precisely that, in some cases, "the relevant section" does not exist.  You begin with the presumption that such a section must always exist, but I don't see evidence of that.  The Mackris lawsuit, for instance, is relevant to O'Reilly's personal life, professional life, and political positions, and it may further be relevant to other aspects of his life.  Attempting to pigeonhole it into one particular section simply because it must be "integrated" (in fact, doing this does NOT actually integrate it) does a disservice to the reader.  Neither WP:Structure nor the relevant section of the BLP policy say that criticism sections are bad by definition.  The Jimmy Wales quote that's featured so prominently in the WP:Criticism essay acknowledges that there are cases where such sections are appropriate.  I think that it would be helpful if editors actually read and responded to the substantive points I've raised here rather than relay a kneejerk, conventional wisdom "criticism bad 'integration' good" point of view.  Croctotheface (talk) 05:17, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  On the merits of "integrating criticism" 

message: Alright this is ridiculous, the amount was "undisclosed" so unless one or the other party officially comes out and confirms the amount it remains speculation on the part of the paper. Soxwon (talk) 00:10, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not speculation if their source is someone who HAS seen the settlement documents or who is close enough to the negotiation to know the kind of terms that were on the table.  We shouldn't use some form of the word "speculated" because that suggests that these major news organizations are just making shit up.  They're not; they have sources who are being referenced on background precisely because the settlement is confidential.  We don't need to say "reported," but we can't say "speculated" because that goes way too far in devaluing the accuracy of the information.  Croctotheface (talk) 05:10, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Speculated vs. Reported 

message: Hey guys.  I'm a little concerned with this line in the lead. Though many consider O'Reilly to be a conservative,[6][7] his views have been known to depart from mainstream conservative ideology[8][9].  This line seems to suggest there is some disagreement over whether O'Reilly is a conservative commentator.  I think that has to be fringe POV.  I think the wording has to be adjusted slightly.  I suggest the following "Though generally considered a conservative commentator, O'Reilly's views have been known to.......".  Anyone disagree? NickCT (talk) 14:03, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Not that "Many" is much better, "Generally" is also considered a weasel word.  Simply replacing one weasel word with another doesn't seem like much of an improvement.  The best thing to do would be to remove all the weasel words.  However, that probably won't happen, even if it follow WP policies.  A non-weasel word version could be.  Though O'Reilly has been considered to be a conservative,[6][7] his views have been known to depart from mainstream conservative ideology[8][9]. Arzel (talk) 14:24, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Arzel-  This is a little disturbing, but I think I may agree with you (I feel like I need to shower now).  I like your wording, though we have to change the verb tense from past perfect simple, to avoid implying that he was previously considered conservative, but is not any longer.  I suggest using the simple present tense. Though O'Reilly is considered to be a conservative,[6][7] his views have been known.... NickCT (talk) 14:47, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point, but the second part is still written in past tense.  How about.  Though O'Reilly is considered to be a conservative,[6][7] he has views which depart from mainstream conservative ideology[8][9]. Arzel (talk) 15:53, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

text: Talk about much ado about very little! I suggest we just leave this part of the lead as is. One problem with the "Though O'Reilly is considered to be a conservative" wording is that previous discussions resulted in an informal agreement (championed by Blaxthos among others) that we would not actually call someone a conservative, or a liberal, or a whatever unless that person actually called himself a conservative or a liberal or a whatever (as you might have guessed, that specific discussion involved whether or not we would label Keith Olbermann as a liberal). The wording "O'Reilly is considered to be a conservative" comes awfully close to Wikipedia directly calling him a conservative, a label that for whatever reasons O'Reilly rejects. Badmintonhist (talk) 17:06, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Arzel - Good counter point; however, I'm a little worried about the "He has views which".  This seems to suggest that all or many of his views depart, and goes back to the original issue over his conservative position seeming like a matter of contention.  I suggest we stick with his views have been known or switch to Though O'Reilly is considered to be a conservative,[6][7] some of the views he has expressed depart from mainstream conservative ideology[8][9]. (of course, this reintroduces a weasel word) Badmintonhist - I've never liked the "self labelling" arguement.  Oswald says he didn't kill Kennedy, yet we call him JFK's killer due to a perponderance of evidence. David Karesh labelled himself Christ.  His wikipedia page shouldn't agree with him.  I think what we have to do is agree on definitions for the words we are applying (i.e. a conservative is a person whose majority of expressed opinions are in-line with accepted conservative ideology), then see if that definition fits our subject (i.e. Bill O'Reilly).  If it does, then I see no problem calling the subject by the definition regardless if he calls himself a liberal, conservative, or a fairy.70.106.3.58 (talk) 19:56, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we should stick with the version that the consensus hammered out and agreed to, though ever so weakly, so as to not open up this can of worms again. This very issue was just discussed about two months ago. Happyme22 (talk) 22:31, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

text: Agreed. In my view there are a lot of things far worse about this article than the lead. Badmintonhist (talk) 22:52, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Nick raised a good point about the wording.  It would be nice to remove the weasel words from the lead, but I do realize that this is a difficult proposition.  It is clear that people do view him to be conservative.  It is also clear that his views do not always follow conservative ideology.  The question remains, is it possible to phrase this section in such a way to not use weasel words, but at the same time not make it appear that wikipedia is making a factual claim to his ideology, as Badmintonihist has stated.  I thought my first suggestion would be a good middle ground, but as Nick pointed out there are tense issues.  It may be best to leave the lead as stands, but leave suggestions open to improvements in wording.  My 2 cents.  Arzel (talk) 03:06, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah.  I agree.  Difficult to remove weasel words here.  However, I would be more comfortable if we switched to "Though generally considered a conservative commentator, O'Reilly's views have been known to.......".  This in my mind seems less weaselly.  Saying "generally" suggests general consensus.  Saying "many" suggests majority or significant minority opinion.  It seems to me as though the former would be a more accurrate presentation of sentiment.  This is really only a minor wording change and frankly I'm not overly concerned.  I just think it would be a slight improvement over the current wording.  Anyone object to me having my druthers? NickCT (talk) 04:02, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

text: can we say "Although" instead of "Though"? Bytebear (talk) 05:37, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, can we say "O'Reilly is generally considered a conservative commentator, though some of his positions diverge frmo conservative orthodoxy"?  //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 10:40, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Make that from conservative conservative orthodoxy and I think we have a winner. Soxwon (talk) 13:07, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Orthodoxy?  Is it a theology now? Who is the conservative pope? Bytebear (talk) 21:34, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Soxwon, how about we drop one of the "conservative"s in your proposal?  ;-)  //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 23:35, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: "O'Reilly is generally considered a conservative commentator, though some of his positions diverge from conservative orthodoxy" gets my thumbs up.  Without further objection, I am going to make it so in the next few hours.NickCT (talk) 20:45, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead Change