Talk:Public image of Bill O'Reilly (political commentator)/Archive 3

message: Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Critics and rivals of Bill O'Reilly, I've merged Critics and rivals of Bill O'Reilly and Bill O'Reilly controversies under this more standard heading. I'm going to dump the former into the latter so that involved editors can figure out how to best sort it out. Cool Hand Luke 22:15, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Merged page histories

message: I don't remember any mention of O'Reilly denying he uses the term. I also don't believe he has guessed at the number of times he has used the term, as he did with his use of "Shut Up!!". I nominate this information to be moved to the "Other" section or deleted because he is offering his opinion every time he uses the term. If someone told him that he used the term often, and he replied saying he had only said it twice ever; It would belong under questionable factual accuracy. Anynobody 08:10, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point. I've moved the section.--HughGRex 13:18, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm glad you chose to move it rather than delete it, I can't think of any well respected journalist insulting people so directly and so often. I thought that journalists were supposed to be respectful even towards those they disagree with, not because they are supposed to be civil but because they'd like to interview them. He must know that people he insults are not going to line up to be on his show, so he must not care if they would appear on his show to debate. Going back to his "no spin zone" approach, giving one view and excluding all others is spin. Therefore if he wanted to really create a forum free of spin, he should be trying to get his "pinheads" to show up and debate him rather than alienating them. Anynobody 00:17, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I think it's worth mentioning also but should be combined with, possibly, a new section that discusses his interview style that include what he generally gets criticized for and accused of, (ie. name calling, telling guests to "shut up," interrupting, etc.).  Having each individual issue having its own section makes the article look bloated which what was why I put the clean up tag up in the first place.  MrMurph101 02:11, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Pinhead" factually 

message: Now that the two articles have been merged, with a new title, it may be time to go through this.  There is a lot of fluff here that needs to be weeded out but the trick is about how it can be done.  O'Reilly is a controversial guy which, for that reason, is going to attract a lot of criticism.  That is fine and it justifies a criticism article for him.  However, it seems that much of the time people add some topic that he addressed and therefore must be included and continuously bloats the article.  This stuff needs to be weeded out or consolidated better.  I would also recommend that a section be devoted to those who always criticize him (ie Media Matters, Olberman, Franken, etc.) and another devoted to criticisms that garnered more mainstream attention.  This is just an idea to try to help make the article better.  MrMurph101 02:31, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: While I think that bloat is basically an unavoidable consequence of having an article like this, I'm certainly not opposed to attempts to control it.  Regarding the idea of sectioning off the article, though, I'm not entirely sure how we'd set up standards for that sort of thing.  For instance, the Franken feud initially got a bunch of mainstream press, especially relating to the lawsuit.  It seems like your criteria is less about "mainstream attention" and more about distinguishing between his feuds with other media entities with platforms of their own and controversial statements he's made regarding issues that get coverage outside his own show.  This could certainly be one way to do it. Croctotheface 02:42, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That is another way of putting it.  It might not be a bad idea to have his fued with Franken put into its own article.  The fued is only a criticism against the person you decide not to like. MrMurph101 17:03, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree with you in general anon about the content.  A seperate article about the fued with Al Franken would be a good way to reduce the article size and it can just chronicle their feud in another article and hopefully not be there to criticize either one of them.  That's just an idea though.  The problem is if content is taken out it will just creep back in again.  I'm just suggesting there should be a way to streamline it better and explain it more concisely without every "nitpick" mmfa or other advocacy groups have to offer.  MrMurph101 01:09, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: This article needs to be more concise

message: This is about Bill'O comments about the drunk driving incident with an illegal immigrant. He had a face to face showoff in this with Geraldo Rivera. http://www.diversityinc.com/public/1679.cfm --Dark paladin x 16:33, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would, as this is a case that is still unfolding.  WAVY 10 22:34, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  should I add this in? 

message: This section does not actually contain any criticism of Bill O'Reilly.  Is it appropriate for this page? ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 00:16, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No. Removing it. Kyaa the Catlord 07:44, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fox Broadcasting Company Special on O.J. Simpson 

message: Bill O'Reilly once complained about liberals trying to "break down the white christian male power structure". Can we include something about this somewhere in the article?
Herorev 05:11, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Undue weight. If it was a big deal, and not just a stupid thing said by O'Reilly, you'd find some non-blog, non-copyvio sources. I'd also suggest removing these links due to their copyvio nature. Kyaa the Catlord 05:48, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "white christian male power structure" 

message: In the article covering Keith Olbermann, just for one example, the media watchdog group Media Research Center is referred to as a liberal group. There is no such mention in this piece, referring to both of the groups as "progressive." If conservative groups are to be identified as conservative, even if they do not clearly denote themselves as conservative, the obviously liberal groups should be stated as such, rather than as "progressive." Zookman12 02:01, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They shouldn't be labeled "conservative" in the Olbermann article unless they identify themselves as such. MrMurph101 02:45, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Identification of Media Watchdog Groups

message: I added a dubious tag here. I tried to access the article supposedly in the google cache and it led nowhere. I did a google search, no results. Anyone else have better luck? Kyaa the Catlord 19:42, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Publicity of Bio

message: The George Soros article has been locked for a while due to a disagreement about whether to include the fact the O'Reilly has been a vocal critic(or attacker depending on one's POV) of him.  It is getting close to an agreement but not quite.  If anyone here wants to civilly weigh in on and help with the resolution that would be great.  MrMurph101 17:20, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: George Soros

message: I removed a youtube link as a reference and tag another sentence. Anyways, --Tom 23:46, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What's the problem with referencing a video of his show?  It's a primary source. Croctotheface 00:48, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Copy right issues and youtube is not considered a reliable source for a number of good reasons. Thanks, --Tom 13:20, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Copyright issues are one thing, and that's a fair point.  However, the idea that a video of a broadcast could be considered an "unreliable" representation of what happened on that broadcast is puzzling to me.  This is not a matter of an individual's self-published video.  Regarding the content you removed, I don't find it all that compelling to include, but it could easily be sourced to a  transcript of the interview. Croctotheface 20:27, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure why the comment was removed.  As it read one would assume he is still boycotting France, which is simply not true.  I found another reference and re-inserted into the article. Arzel 02:32, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: French boycott section

message: I see that this site is used as a reference. Is this a proper source? Anyways, I am no fan of O'reilly but it seems that this article could use "better" sourcing. Thanks, --Tom 13:32, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I mean, that site is an anti-Al Franken site, not an anti-O'Reilly site.  Of course, if all the links are broken, it's a moot point.  Croctotheface 20:30, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [http://lyingliar.com/index.htm lyingliar.com]

message: Honestly, just give me a break with this.  The video is online.  It could not be more clear that the information is verifiable.  Whether we shouldn't link to it because of copyright issues or not, I don't know.  But this whole "we need better sources" when anybody can click the link to the video to see exactly what Franken said...isnt there something better that we could be doing?  Croctotheface 19:56, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just don't include youtube links and we are done. What so hard about that? They are not considered reliable sources for this project. --Tom 20:50, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, YouTube can be considered a reliable source, but it is also likely to suffer from copyright problems. If the YouTube video can be shown to not violate copyright (e.g., if it were sponsored by Air America, which is not the case here), then it is a perfectly valid source. Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 20:56, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It says that compliance with reliable sources would be infrequent. youtube is basically garbage and should really be avoided, imho, it seems that this project can do much better. --Tom 13:25, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Not sure why we're at this level of indenting...I understand your point of view about Youtube.  It does not seem consistent with the current consensus, so I'll ask you to try to avoid "enforcing" your beliefs here.  Croctotheface 13:27, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  You (Tom) can't possibly be arguing the videos that CNN (for example) puts on YouTube (these obey copyright, btw) are somehow unreliable, can you? Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 13:44, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This might seem amazing, but I don't ever go to youtube. I know I am a freak and the only person on the planet that doesn't go there but what can I say. CNN puts videos on youtube? OK. Can't we get those videos from CNN directly? My problem with youtube is, I am guessing here, anybody can put anything up there? Correct? What is the level of peer review? What is the level of authentication of material? I am suspected that both those of pretty poor. I personally don't believe a dam thing on the WWW. Like I said, I guess I am a freak :) Cheers! --Tom 18:06, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The peer-review would be the same as the original broadcast (usually nada, but that doesn't prevent us from including articles from CNN, Washington Post, etc., which also don't have peer-review). The authentication question is trickier, but for a Wikipedia editor familiar with YouTube, i.e., everyone but you ;), it's easy to tell those clips that have been put up by reliable sources from those clips that have been put up by Tom, Dick, or Harry. As for the WWW in general, I hope you don't believe a damn thing on TV, magazines, or the newspapers, either! Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 22:52, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

text:  Thanks for clearing that up.  For the Franken criticism re: Joe Biden, the source is the broadcast.  A citation is not "needed", the prior citation just needs to be reconfigured to avoid linking to copyrighted material.  So long as we provide information that would allow someone to track down the source, the material is cited. Croctotheface 23:04, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutely. Speaking of links, however, it appears that the link to the Air America site is now broken (due to Air America's changes and not Wikipedia's). I tried finding a new, copyright-obeying link, but could not. (Again, for others, a link is not actually required for a citation.) Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 23:15, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit warring over sources 

message: I'm going to do some more research later, but I alluded to the criticism in the intro. The fact that The Colbert Report describes Colbert's caricature as a misinformed idiot is enough to avoid WP:OR for now. There are specific cases that can be mentioned though, the most recent I know of was when Colbert showed 5 clips of O'Reilly comparing Daily Kos to the Ku Klux Klan and proceeded to demonstrate why he thought "Papa Bear" was full of it. Narco 12:54, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: i wouldn't disagree that Colbert's parody can be critical of O'Reilly.  However, except for the quote you described, I don't think there's enough direct evidence to mention much more than that.  The idea that Colbert was criticizing O'Reilly during the Kos thing is an original interpretation of what happened.  It's an interpretation I would agree with, but I don't think it's direct enough to mention here.  Besides, I think there's information about Colbert at the Bill O'Reilly article anyway.  It doesn't need to go everywhere. Croctotheface 15:48, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What are you trying to say? It's our sacred duty to spread the Gospel According to Colbert to all corners of the Internet. But yeah, you're right. There's probably enough criticism but not enough weight to put it here. Narco 08:50, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Colbert