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

Merger, rename, what?
This was supposed to no longer exist as of 1 week ago. We need to get it back on track. What are we going to do with it? Soxwon (talk) 19:44, 28 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm for retaining the content as a separate article, so renaming the article and further inviting other information, particularly the positive information that's largely missing from this article, strikes me as the best solution. There seemed to be a good bit of support for this course of action in the original discussion, so it seems like a fine way to go as far as procedure as well.  Croctotheface (talk) 19:48, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * does that work? Soxwon (talk) 19:52, 28 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Works for me. Only change I'll make is that the word "image" should be lowercase because this isn't a proper name.  Croctotheface (talk) 20:01, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * facepalm* Thank you. Soxwon (talk) 21:18, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Proposed structure for the revised article
Just an outline format to get started:

I. Lead A. Controversial/polarizing/whatnot figure. B. Extremely successful and popular with audience. C. Example allegations of critics. II. "Popular and succesful" (not an actual section header name) A. Sales figures for books, viewership/listeners for shows and other random numbers providing evidence of the "successful and popular" claim in lead. III. "Allegations of critics" (This is essentially the current "Critics and Rivals" section, which actually doesn't include any rivals anymore) IV. "Rivals, responses, and ribaldry" A. Relationships with other conservative rivals. B. Programs that use a similar format. 1. Radio 2. TV    C. Colbert? V. "Analysis of methods" (As currently in article, though the last two subsections should be moved to III) VI. "Controversies" (As currently in article)

There are a couple of other statements that should be changed, and sections II and IV are pretty much yet-to-be-written.


 * My main concern on the merits here is that I'd put "analysis of methods" either first or second; the peer reviewed study is among the most relevant content here. Some of the "controversies," also, are highly relevant to the way a large segment of the population sees him; much of the third party mainstream coverage that O'Reilly has received has been related to stuff like the comments about black people and George Tiller.  So we shouldn't put that stuff at the end by default.  Otherwise, we'd need to avoid using loaded language like "popular" for the positive stuff and vaguely dismissive language like "allegations" for negative stuff.  It should be easy enough to come up with neutral descriptions there that everyone an agree on.
 * I think that the first priority should be to actually write the content related to O'Reilly's commercial achievements and get a form of that into the article. Croctotheface (talk) 22:22, 28 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Getting some of the evidence of success in there seems like a reasonable first step. I was not proposing actual titles for the sections, just a sense of what they should cover.  I do think we should set context before we start diving into specific controversies, though.  He's a major figure in the US media, and most people know him as "the host of that radio/tv show" rather than for any particular controversy.


 * Concerns have been raised about the analysis that it is more than idle and impartial observation. If there were some evidence that the method used was a standard tool of journalism research and it was well validated and controlled, I would have a lot more faith in it, so I guess some research is necessary as to what response the academic community has had to the paper (the ultimate validation would be that other academics had adopted the study's methodology as a tool to use in their own analysis).  The media and O'Reilly may have responded to the study, but peer review is how academic work is judged.  [This site] doesn't list Journalism Studies as one of the reviewed journals (two quarterlies on the topic are, however, listed), so I have some doubts about the reception in the academic community.  [Google scholar] lists only four papers that have cited the analysis, which is better than zero but not exactly an influential work. SDY (talk) 23:02, 28 August 2009 (UTC)


 * As a side note, looking through the four papers that cite Conway's, three are dissertations available online. None of them use his methodology or depend on his results other than for a general description of Fox News and O'Reilly.  The fourth is not available, and it focuses on Colbert's "Better know a district" segment, so I will assume that it also does not rely heavily on Conway's work.  SDY (talk) 23:06, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I want to caution against using logic based on things like what "most people know him for" -- making a definitive statement that "most people know him as "the host of that radio/tv show" rather than for any particular controversy" is a contentious point you'd be hard pressed to support, coverage in reliable sources indicate otherwise. We should probably not try to base content decisions on subjective criteria like that.  Let's try to leave those sorts of rationales out of the content debate.  //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 00:19, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Let's try to leave some logic in the discussion too. There's a certain amount of common sense that has to be applied.  When CNN doesn't explain who he is when they write a story about him, they assume that you already know who he is.  They just introduce him as "Fox News host Bill O'Reilly" with no other explanation.  What's not said is hard to cite, but that doesn't mean that there's no evidence.  When Obama White House staff mention his name as someone in the media without explanation or defensiveness, I think we can safely say he's well known for things other than his missteps.  SDY (talk) 00:34, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Moving on
Since there appears to be little enthusiasm for making this article into the alternative to the AfD decision, I will implement Soxwon's proposal above sometime this weekend. For consistency, please reply at the main article. SDY (talk) 14:55, 2 September 2009 (UTC)


 * There doesn't seem to be consensus for the merger based on the recent discussions here. (It's highly dubious whether there was consensus for a merger in the original AfD, too.)  The above section is hardly evidence that there is "little enthusiasm" for anything, as there seems to be a wide agreement about what should be done.  Croctotheface (talk) 17:55, 2 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Unless you want to do a formal AfD review, consensus appears to exist for the merge. There isn't a wide agreement, but there was a decision made by the processes that Wikipedia uses for resolving these kinds of disputes.  It's not what I'd prefer either, but that was the decision that was made.  SDY (talk) 23:29, 2 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The closing admin said outright that he could've closed it either way. There does seem to be a consensus here for a general approach to reworking the article.  If you want to see content added to the article in accordance with that, then write the content and add it; don't just say that it's been a few days, nobody's written it, so we need to merge.  Yes, AfD is a common form of gathering consensus, but truthfully there was no consensus in that discussion, and the fact that an administrator decreed that, in fact, there was doesn't much mean anything.  We are not compelled to merge if we reach a consensus for a better solution.  Croctotheface (talk) 23:40, 2 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Very well, open an RFC, notify all of the people involved in the AFD, and try again. We can't just arbitrarily ignore it, though.  For controversial issues like this, process is important.  My guess is that we'll end up equally deadlocked.  Unless we have a real plan and someone who will actually execute the plan of turning this into a balanced "public image" article, I'm in favor of running the original AfD decision because it requires a lot less work to achieve an acceptable compromise, and I'm actually willing to get the work done.  If we implement the alternative, will you actually implement it?  Other than the proposal, and one framework I ventured which was immediately shot down, nothing concrete has happened to the article other than the name change.  SDY (talk) 04:32, 3 September 2009 (UTC)


 * We certainly can just ignore it; doing just that is precisely the spirit behind WP:IAR. As I've said, the fact that the closing admin picked "merge" rather than any other result from that discussion, which didn't express a consensus for much of anything, doesn't carry much weight.  The name change itself happened all of five days ago.  Don't have unrealistic expectations of the speed with which things will happen here.  Someone has to actually write the content, but I want to point out that there's nothing stopping that someone from being you.  Croctotheface (talk) 06:04, 3 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Or you could, for that matter, since it's your plan. In the spirit of WP:BOLD, though, unless someone else takes concrete action to implement your plan, I intend to implement the AfD decision.  I have no interest in implementing your plan, and I'm not going to do it for you because I don't believe it's a good solution (it's still an unnecessary content fork, the size issue doesn't convince me at all since so much of this could be condensed).  I'm not opposed to the alternative you've proposed, but it's been a month since the AfD and all that's happened is a name change and nothing has happened, so unless something happens, something will happen.  Simple enough, no?  SDY (talk) 06:50, 3 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, boldness or not, you don't get to decide by yourself. Claiming the AfD result as your rationale buts up against the facts, as there really was not a consensus for much of anything at that discussion, and the consensus here seems pretty strongly in favor of reworking the article, especially when you've just said that you're OK with it yourself.  I'll assume good faith (or perhaps deny reality is a better term) and not take your statements here and in the edit summary as your attempt to give me some kind of order or ultimatum.  I'm not interested in writing large scale new content for much of anything, and I'm not going to write the sections here.  However, I'm confident that we have editors who are interested in doing that and will do it.  A month since the AfD doesn't mean much; it's been about five days since a consensus emerged to rework the article, and people are busy with lives outside Wikipedia.  If you're impatient, the best solution would be to put the stuff you want to see in the article into the article.  If you're not interested in that, give other people a chance to do it.  Croctotheface (talk) 08:26, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

(undent) I have given other people a chance, and nothing has happened. I'd rather stick to the community decision than accept your determination of what is or is not consensus, especially on a controversial article. SDY (talk) 14:48, 3 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I already responded to this. The consensus to rework the article emerged less than a week ago.  The fact that one admin closed a discussion with no consensus as if it had one doesn't mean much of anything.  I already put some stuff in the article that can serve as a starting point for editors who want to write it.  Don't worry; it's going to happen.  Croctotheface (talk) 22:59, 3 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I've been otherwise unavailable. I completely agree with Croc's points listed above.  There is no deadline.  //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 00:14, 4 September 2009 (UTC)


 * There is no new consensus, the two of you agree but I clearly don't. That's not exactly a quorum considering the number of people who weighed in on the AfD.  When you have the content for a reasonable article, I will not object to this being recreated.  Until then, I'm going to implement the AfD decision because this is not a reasonable article.  If you really feel I'm being too bold, bring it to AN/I.  SDY (talk) 00:35, 4 September 2009 (UTC)


 * You seem to be saying, in essence, that you and only you get to decide. The AfD discussion is not sacrosanct in the first place; there's nothing wrong with reaching a different consensus here, especially considering that there was no consensus at the AfD in the first place.  In the second place, you can't have it both ways and say that we're fine to reach a consensus to rework the article...but only if you sign off on it.  Croctotheface (talk) 01:00, 4 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I disagree with SDY's assertion that he can go and implement changes to which two longtime editors object simply because he feels there is some sort of urgency. The closing admin has backed off based upon (1) the questionable call of the AFD, (2) the promise of several editors to take it to WP:DRV should the article be deleted, (3) the changes made to address the concerns of most of the "drive-by" delete !votes, (4) ongoing active discussion of article improvements.  While there is a consensus that the deficiencies can be addressed, there is no way you can use a questionable AFD decision as justification to implement sweeping changes based upon your sole judgment (especially when it is opposed by established editors).  //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 04:52, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

(undent) In short:
 * 1) There is no consensus to overturn the AfD decision (we aren't agreeing on anything).
 * 2) In discussions for the AfD, it appeared there was reasonable support for either merging or expanding. The closing administrator chose merge, but admitted it was not a strong answer.  It appears to me that either course of action was appropriate.
 * 3) Almost nothing has been done with this article since the AfD decision.
 * 4) One of the basic tenets of editing is WP:SOFIXIT. Since the alternative has not been implemented, I am implementing the original decision to fix the problems identified that led to the article being listed for AfD.

If you choose to revert, either open a case at AN/I or an equivalent action under the dispute resolution process. I will do so if you do not. SDY (talk) 22:21, 4 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Did you bother to even consult the closing admin, or is this entirely to prove a WP:POINT? You're opposed by two editors directly, and there seems to be a pretty clear indication that people have worked through or past the AFD discussion .  Quite frankly, you have no standing to blank pages and delete content (as an involved editor); continuing to do so will be willful disruptive behavior.  //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 01:07, 5 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Feel free to add any additional comments at Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents. SDY (talk) 02:24, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Proposed merged article
OK, I have merged some content and then self-reverted the main BoR article. The two things that are here but not there are the analysis (which I've trimmed a little) and the specifics on the lesbian gangs, childhood home, and other errors. What else from this article should be merged?

Actually, looking at it, it seems that a lot of stuff has been merged already, trimmed slightly to give proper weight for a non-dedicated article. What is here that is not addressed there? I'll give you guys a day or two to look. SDY (talk) 00:56, 4 September 2009 (UTC)


 * If we're going to merge, I support putting all the content into the main article. Much of it is notable enough for its own article, and it's all highly relevant to the subject.  Croctotheface (talk) 01:01, 4 September 2009 (UTC)


 * It is, from what I can tell, mostly there already, and what wasn't there I'm pretty much adding with the proposed revision. It's trimmed down a bit and worded differently, obviously.  Mostly I want to make sure that we don't lose any of the references that are currently on this page, since those are such a pain to find.  I think the only thing that was cut was the Kitman book, which might be an interesting reference to use but doesn't seem to be important enough to include, as Soxwon pointed out above.  SDY (talk) 04:51, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Note from the closing admin
I have placed the redirect, per my close of the AfD. All of the article content remains available in the article history, including useful information, links, and references which may belong in other articles.

When I closed the AfD, I allowed a two-week deadline for mergers to take place; we're now at nearly a month. If there is a need to modify my closure, Deletion Review is the correct forum. I expect that the editors of this page understand that further edit warring over the redirect would be inappropriate and may draw sanctions. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:09, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Merge
Just as I suspected, this AFD was used as a method to simply bury the content and forget about it. I'll be initiating a WP:DRV in the next few days. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 20:34, 18 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I'll undo my edit-- the redirect. From reading the closing admin's last edit it seemed like he wanted the redirect to stick-- the threat of sanctions and all.  I've asked Soxwon what was going on but didn't get an answer, yet.  But if there is some agenda going on in the background, I'll just stay out of this.  Ramsquire (throw me a line) 20:55, 18 September 2009 (UTC)