Talk:Public image of Bill O'Reilly (political commentator)/Archive 6

"Lynching Party" comment
If legitimate sourcing is provided, there's nothing wrong with having the section entitled "Lynching Party" comment, which was recently removed from the article. If the refs are appropriate, and criticism is corroborated, then this is the place where such information should be included. ~ Homologeo (talk) 17:59, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I have re-inserted with a more neutral presentation using reliable sources.  /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 18:56, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll let you put it into context, but as it stands, it is not neutral in the least. Arzel (talk) 21:40, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I made a small addition, most notably the fact that BOR was DEFENDING Obama against those that would "Lynch" her for her comments that many viewed to be Anti-American. Arzel (talk) 21:47, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

It would be more accurate to say that O'Reilly CLAIMED he was defending Michelle Obaba. If you listen to the tape, he was engaging in and allowing callers to engage in rank speculation about her love of country. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimintheatl (talk • contribs) 01:26, 24 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, Arzel, I don't think he was defending Ms. Obama. He was responding to a caller who was going to attack Ms. Obama based on the word of the callers friend, and BO said that he wanted more information before he went on this "party" against her.  He did say he sympathized with her about words being taken out of context, but I took it as he wasn't going to pile on without more information.  It may be a fine line distinction, but I think it was more of a "let's wait and see" comment. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 23:31, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * This is basically another MMfA meme against O'Reilly to try to find something they hope sticks. What would make this more significant is if this would garner more media coverage(ie. besides Olbermann) and maybe objections from major African American groups.  So far this has yet to reach Don Imus proportions.  However, BOR did offer somewhat of an apology yesterday so this still can be worth noting. MrMurph101 (talk) 01:25, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * In his appology he said he was defending Obama. You can listen to the whole thing,  and he is clearly defending Obama, giving her the benefit of the doubt.  What is most hypocritical about the whole thing, is that MM and KO attack BOR for defending one of their own because of one word he said.  Arzel (talk) 07:36, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

It is beyond disingenuous to say that he was defending Maichelle Obama. This was a blip of a story, an off-the-cuff comment which got little or no ply except from O'Reilly, who spent an entire two hour show on a phrase from a speech by the wife of a Presidential candidate....why did he find it necessary to stir up the controversy...so he cold defend her??? Jimintheatl —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimintheatl (talk • contribs) 01:39, 24 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't think the "besides Olbermann" standard really applies here; first of all, this was covered by both New York Magazine and Politico. So it's not just Olbermann's show.  Second, I don't see why any of the comments about O'Reilly "defending" Obama are relevant here.  The criticism is not that he was "attacking" her; it's that he outlined a situation where it would be "legit" to "lynch" her, which inspired criticism because of the words he used.  It's like if someone said that O'Reilly is "pretty smart for a [slur for Irish people]", that person got criticized, and then said that the criticism is invalid because he was "praising O'Reilly's intelligence".  Croctotheface (talk) 15:47, 23 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Just to clarify, "besides Olbermann" means that if there is more coverage than that makes it more worthy of inclusion. Olbermann is always criticizing BOR about something so its nothing new.  I did not contend there was no other coverage, just suggesting that inclusion is better merited that has coverage beyond Olbermann. MrMurph101 (talk) 04:29, 24 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Both of your sources are regurgitated tracebacks to the MM article, as are the KO comments, so they don't add anything. The aspect of BOR defending here are very relevant, it puts into context the situation, which MM and KO so conveniently leave out of there story.  Additionally, you strawman argument is not even close to the same situation.
 * I'm guessing that most didn't listen to the entire audio broacast, if they did they would clearly be able to see that BOR wasn't going to jump on the bandwagon and "lynch" Obama for comments she made which were probably taken out of context. He even used himself as an example that he sometimes makes comments that don't come out exactly the way he meant them to.
 * What is most ironic is that he is defending Obama against those that would take her spur of the moment comments out of context. While at the same time here we have MM and KO taking his words out of context and ignoring the fact that he was trying to defend Obama against those that doing to the same thing to her.  What a bunch of hypocrits.  Arzel (talk) 16:37, 23 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I have no idea why someone using MM as their source somehow makes it so that they are not "covering" the issue. My hypothetical comparison ("So-and-so is quite intelligent for a [racial/ethnic slur]") is perfectly appropriate, and it's certainly nothing like a straw man that I set up to argue against.  In an analogous situation, you choose to focus on the "quite intelligent" part of that sentence.  You might point to surrounding statements from the same speaker that focus on the subject of praising so-and-so's intelligence.  However, to the critics of the speaker, the important part is not the praise, but the slur.  You believe that the praise invalidates the slur, while others believe that it goes the other way.  Croctotheface (talk) 17:21, 23 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Covering what issue? The New York Magazine reference is reporting on MM coverage, they didn't do any additional research.  The Politicol reference does even less.  They repeat one phrase and link back to MM.  The reason your hypothetical is meaningless is because O'Reilly didn't make any kind of statement that Obama is intelligent even though she is Black (which what you are alluding to).  What O'Reilly was alluding to, was the use of "High tech lynching".  Seriously, do you hate O'Reilly that much to miss the point of what he was saying?  Arzel (talk) 22:18, 23 February 2008 (UTC)


 * "Additional research" is not somehow required when the issue at hand is whether certain material is present in sources. Both New York and Politico, as your own language says, reported on the controversy.  If some newspaper prints an AP story, that's not covering the issue?  Come on.  Are you seriously incapable of processing what my example is saying?  It has nothing to do with "intelligence" and everything to do with language versus purpose of remarks.  You assert that because the purpose of O'Reilly's comments was to say that it may be too soon to attack Michelle Obama, it is impossible that he did anything wrong.  O'Reilly's critics assert that because he made reference to circumstances where it could be "legit" to "go on a lynching party" against Michelle Obama, who is black, he was at best racially insensitive and at worst racist himself.  It's the same with my hypothetical: "Person X is [positive adjective] for a [racial slur]."  You would look at a sentence like that and say that the speaker of that statement is praising Person X, so it could not possibly be that he is doing anything bad.  For a lot of people, the use of a racial slur is a bigger deal.  Croctotheface (talk) 22:40, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

With regards to weight, is this comment really necessary? I agree, for example, the Franken book controversy and the Sylvia's comments are noteworthy because many entities discussed it. If we apply the same standard, then we would have to make a whole Criticism of NBC News page that is bigger than this solely comprising of O'Reilly's comments. I do my best to pay attention to O'Reilly and other remarks related to him and I simply haven't seen anything that requires an entry here. I could be wrong about it though, so I wanted to discuss it before outright removing it. Arnabdas (talk) 15:31, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


 * There's no bright line rule for what kind of criticism we should cover in an encyclopedia. This incident is still being mentioned in news pieces, as evidenced by the hits I got for a Google News search, and I got some 30,000 regular Google hits.  It was covered by large media outlets.  It is a valid criticism, and .  I understand your point regarding NBC News, but I don't really think it applies. O'Reilly gets criticized every day, too, and despite what some editors have suggested, this article does not come close to representing everything such criticism.  The "lynching party" thing does not strike me as an everyday criticism, especially given the nature of the comments and the way they fit into a larger category along with the Sylvia's thing and a bunch of comments he's made that we haven't decided to cover here.  Croctotheface (talk) 15:48, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Croc, I clicked the link you listed and saw 7 results. One of them was Huffington Post and three were of newspaper editorial boards that O'Reilly has had some documented feuds with. TIME however is a somewhat neutral source on it, but seems to be the only one. Still, there still hasn't been anywhere near the level of coverage that the other incidents have had. Arnabdas (talk) 17:15, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The link I provided was for sources from the last month, dating back to the second week in March. O'Reilly made this comment, and it made news, in the second or third week of February if I recall.  I provided that link to demonstrate that it is STILL in the news, even now.  My point remains that some kind of objective test like "a criticism that has appeared in 100 news stories" or "appeared in five of the following ten major news sources" isn't the best one for our encyclopedia.  The fact that there has been less coverage of this or that incident does not mean we can't or shouldn't mention it.  In my last post, I gave several reasons why I think we should.  In the previous discussion, I gave several major sources that referenced this controversy.  We handle this issue, I think, very well.  The section is not bloated and it presents information factually and neutrally.  I see no reason whatsoever to exclude it.  Croctotheface (talk) 17:20, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


 * OK, I understand what you're saying about it being current news, but I should point out the search was over the last month. I am not adamant in excluding it, but if I was asked to look at weight then this would probably be the first to go. I just have a problem with it being of the same category of the others.


 * How about this...make a new section that supercedes the Sylvia's comments and the Lynching Party comments that is titled "Alleged Racially Insensitive Remarks" or something along those lines? Arnabdas (talk) 17:35, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I'd be fine with combining them somehow. Croctotheface (talk) 05:08, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Olbermann Comment
I removed the Olbermann comment for a few reasons.
 * 1) The link back to Bush gives the impression that BOR made the comment in Jest, and has nothing to do with this situation.  Bush was refering directly to the use of Nooses and such purposely in jest or otherwise, there is no evidence that BOR did any such thing, furthermore he appologized if his comments offended anyone.
 * 2) MM has already commented on the issue, as has another source.  As much as I dislike MM, they provided factual information and included most of the audio from the broadcast.
 * 3) You don't need everyone's opinion, to do so gives undue weight to the criticism of BOR.

Blaxthos, why do you feel that it is ok for you to add a reference without an audio source, but others must have a source for comments you disagree with? Arzel (talk) 22:30, 23 February 2008 (UTC)


 * 1. It would be OR to do what Olbermann is doing, but it's not OR to report on him doing it. The issue of casual use of the term "lynching" is certainly relevant to what O'Reilly said.
 * 2 and 3. It would probably be a good idea to reduce the amount of quoting we do of Olbermann, but his opinion is relevant. We could condense the stuff that's at issue now and let readers find the whole text for themselves if they so choose.
 * Finally, I don't see why an audio source is necessary. The purpose of referencing is to allow someone to find the material if they want to look for it; if we can allow them to do that in one click, great, but it's not required.  Croctotheface (talk) 22:50, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to bother addressing Arzel's comments, as Croctotheface hit the nail on the head. Arzel, please note that this is now the second time you've made the incorrect assertion that references must be available via hyperlinks; it's no more a valid assertion than it was the last time.  /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 06:14, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Because of a precedent set on the Media Matters for America article regarding using satirical sources, I believe it is wholly appropriate to add the following line to the end of the Lynching Party comment paragraph: New York Magazine's Daily Intelligencer satirically noted, "We already know what his defense is going to be: It was taken out of context. It was just an expression that Bill accidentally used, because he doesn't even see color. In fact, he loves the blacks. He is best friends with Al Sharpton! Remember that time they went to Sylvias? Yeah. Someone's about to get lynched, all right, and it ain't Michelle Obama." (Source: http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2008/02/bill_oreilly_doesnt_want_to_ly.html) snark snark 98.215.54.162 (talk) 01:10, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * That's funny, but it doesn't really add an opinion that's not there already. In the other case you refer to, the satire added an opinion that was not already present. Croctotheface (talk) 01:30, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I have a disagreement with the original case. Is there any appropriate venue to discuss it further?  98.215.54.162 (talk) 21:39, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Editors are always welcome to give their opinions and voice their concerns. Can you be more specific?  /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 06:19, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Please see my comment on Croctotheface's user page w.r.t Stephen Colbert remark on MMfA article. 98.215.54.162 (talk) 04:04, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

French Boycott Edits
I got my wrist slapped by Blaxthos, for my POV edits on the French boycott. Basically, I changed it so O'Reilly's wild-eyed unsourced rantings are always being "stated," "said," etc. whereas his critics' well supported refutations were always being "claimed." This was meant somewhat sarcastically to highlight a big reason why O'Reilly even gets criticized... i.e., his egoamnia. But I was still being POV. I am glad I didn't go after the Michele Obama section... 'cause BOR did say he DIDN'T want to lynch her UNLESS he saw more evidence. Even though on one level he was joking, on another level he seems to seriously believe that he has the moral standing (thanks presumably to his status as the highest rated chat-show host on early evening cable) to decide if Mrs. Obama is or is not a patriot. Likewise, he definitely sincerely believed that he had the standing to impose a boycott on France, even though it was of course laughably ineffective. Speaking of having standing, Blaxthos claimed he has the standing to ban me from editing Wikipedia. Does he? I suppose there is no point in testing this. This particular article is fine as is, I have nothing to add to it... except to suggest that a separate article on the Olberman-O'Reilly feud might be worth creating. Timothy Horrigan (talk) 02:37, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * You concede that your edits were POV and inappropriate, so I don't really see much to address there. I just want to point out that Blaxthos used a standard warning template for non-neutral edits.  It wasn't that he asserted that he could block you, it was meant to warn you that blocking is a possible sanction for nonconstructive editing.  Croctotheface (talk) 05:37, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry if you got the wrong impression, Timmy. Please find my reply here.  /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 04:10, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

people are going overboard with this article . ..
should the "criticism of bill oreilly" article really be more than twice as long as the actual "bill oreilly" article? i don't think so. about two-thirds of this stuff is irrelevant and unworthy of inclusion - there's no need to list every argument this guy has gotten into in his life. he's not that important. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.135.98.147 (talk) 00:53, 15 March 2008 (UTC)


 * This is hardly every disagreement that he's gotten into. Perhaps because the man basically makes his living being controversial, most of the significant events associated with him have to do with controversies.  Croctotheface (talk) 03:27, 15 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, I agree. Much of this is really not noteworthy. Bytebear (talk) 05:31, 15 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I have trouble finding such entries. Arguably one or two.  I mean, it's noteworthy as far as anything that some pundit says can be noteworthy.  All of these received media attention outside niche sources.  Croctotheface (talk) 06:00, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't say criticisms by Eugene Robinson, for example, to be particularly noteworthy. Having a liberal attack the positions of a conservative (or vice versa) is not controversial.  It is simply par for the course. Bytebear (talk) 06:08, 15 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, for one, O'Reilly denies that he's a conservative. If the criticism were some generic liberal critique of a conservative position, I would agree with you.  Robinson is criticizing O'Reilly for making offensive comments about race, not for, say, opposing affirmative action.  Croctotheface (talk) 06:19, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Robinson is a liberal, and bias, and he is one opinion. You say, "ll of these received media attention outside niche sources."  But regardless of coverage (which in this case is minimal), it is a "niche source." Bytebear (talk) 16:39, 15 March 2008 (UTC)


 * There's nothing unverified in this article, and we've excluded plenty of verifiable stuff already. The notion that we can't report on someone's opinion because they have "bias" would disqualify literally everyone's opinion from being reported here.  Everyone has opinions and biases.  Again, I agree that some liberal criticizing O'Reilly because of a disagreement with his conservative opinion on some issue would be unremarkable.  All of these criticisms center on something other than disputing O'Reilly's positions on issues.  Croctotheface (talk) 07:17, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I think it's pretty important to keep in mind that the particular topics and facts within an article are not each required to meet the standards of the notability guidelines. The existence of reliable sources governs inclusion. Perhaps there could be some other reason as to why there is so much criticism of Bill O'Reilly... In any case, the idea that "much of this is not really noteworthy" is irrelevant, as notability is not applicable to article content. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 11:40, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The point still stands. If we were to add every left-wing criticism of this man, we would have a laundry list of one liners, which by the way, is against policy.  It also violates references in that we have no secondary reference picking up on the criticism.  The rule of thumb should be that a notable third party needs to be references, rather than the primary sources. Bytebear (talk) 19:06, 16 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Do you think that what's at this article is "every left-wing criticism" of Bill O'Reilly? I doubt it's even 1% of them.  To my knowledge, all of the criticisms here have appeared in secondary sources, and some of them were even initially made on news programs that are themselves secondary sources.  Besides, you're not even settling on one line of argument.  You've had three so far: first, that there's too much content here, or too much relative to the length of some other article.  Then, you said that the issue was "bias" from the critics.  Now, it's sourcing, even though the sourcing at this article is exhaustive.  What, specifically, do you want to remove from the article, and why?  Croctotheface (talk) 19:29, 16 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I fail to see how "the point still stands" when (1) the point is directly contradicted by our policies and guidelines; and (2) as Crock mentions, you grasp for whatever rationale might be applicable. Indeed.  /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:44, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, I didn't bring up the original point. I simply agreed with it.  This article is a dumping ground for critical commentary.  I am using several points to show that the main point of the original poster is correct.  WP:NOT says that Wikipedia is not a soap box, which listing critics essential is.  It also says it in not an indiscriminate collection of data, so every addition should be scrutinized.  Finally, according to WP:Sources, "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy."  I do not see many third-party published sources cited.  All I see are primary sources cited.  If you can find third party commentary on these criticism, then they are acceptable.  Otherwise, they are not.  Clear enough for you? Bytebear (talk) 00:01, 17 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, no, you didn't answer my question. What, specifically, do you want to remove from the article, and why? Croctotheface (talk) 00:36, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Indeed, instead of attempting to play hit the moving target with Bytebear I'm going to wait for specifics. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 01:55, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I gave you a specific example with Eugene Robinson. The paragraph simply describes the exchange, not any third party commentary on the issue. This is a direct violation of proper use of citations.  You need a third party to comment on the issue to take it into context, and then you would need another third party to take the other side to make the issue NPOV. Neither of these things are here, and it ends up soapboxing.  Bytebear (talk) 02:13, 17 March 2008 (UTC)


 * As is discussed above on this page, several other publications criticized O'Reilly for this. Olbermann's show is a secondary source in itself, as is Politico, etc. We don't need to represent points of view that don't exist in the sources to maintain neutrality.  Also, just as a point of interest, your previous comment regarding Robinson was not about sourcing, it was about the notion that his having opinions disqualified him from providing them for the article.  Croctotheface (talk) 02:20, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually my point was, and I will clarify, that it was not noteworthy, because no third party commented on it (other than the typical liberal outlets which report on everything attacking good ol' Bill. And yes, you do need an unbias source that comments on the non-neutral events. Non-Neutral issues are ok, if they are reported by reliable sources.  It isn't just about verifying the event. It is about putting it into context.  To do so ourselves amounts to original research.  I don't consider Olbermann a reliable source at least not his commentary. He clearly has a bias, which is fine but it needs to be stated for neutrality.  Bytebear (talk) 02:51, 17 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Politico is not "liberal" at all, and certainly not a "typical liberal outlet". Here are some hits on a Google News search; I'm sure there are more sources than these.  Basically everything else you said is misguided in one way or another: neutrality does NOT mean that we can't publish some form of criticism unless we also publish some sort of defense.  If the defense exists and it is printworthy and relevant, then we should include it.  WP:NPOV says that we represent "all significant views that have been published by reliable sources".  If it's not out there in the sources, we don't have to wait for it.  Croctotheface (talk) 02:57, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Politico was not used as a reference. So far I have found one news outlet commenting on it (reference 73), but certainly this was not noteworthy to make the New York Times, or any other national level media outlet.  By the way reference 72 is a broken link.  This example barely squeeks past the reference test, but just barely. Bytebear (talk) 03:05, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

As before, and ever-changing rationales aside, notability does not apply to content. It's moot. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 04:20, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I enjoy O'Reilly's program and I think this article is fine. He has made mistakes and they should be documented as for any politician or commentator. People can decide for themselves if the beef people have with him is worthy of him or not. He has been accused of being loud and often blurs lines between journalism and commentary. What I mean by that is he calls himself an "entertainer who bases his program on journalism" which I agree. Sometimes he calls himself a journalist though, so that's something some people have problems with when watching or listening to him.

Still, we cannot violate WP:BLP so any criticism should be sourced and documented properly. Media Matters tends to be dishonest with its criticism, using soundbites and gotchya statements. When referring to a criticism they may have, it should be documented with O'Reilly's response to the alleged smear and the actual Fox News transcript should be provided instead of MM's.

I do think there is an area for improvement with regards to WP:WEIGHT. Olbermann and Franken tend to be fringe figures. The feud with Franken was publicized greatly, both by others and O'Reilly himself so that should have a mention. Olbermann is not seen as the standard bearer of news journalism, so although I think his criticisms should be included, we could try to establish it in a way that doesn't give undue weight to it since most people who know him remember him as a sports caster and not a newsman. Arnabdas (talk) 17:36, 19 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Olbermann is a "fringe figure"? I was under the impression Countdown with Keith Olbermann aired on one of the top 3 cable news networks.  I'm glad you understand that Wikipedia must only present reliably sourced information, however your characterization of the critics belies your point of view ("alleged smears", "media matters tends to be dishonest").  We are not going to present information in a particular way "since most people... remember him as a sportscaster", nor are we going to label critics as "dishonest" or "fringe figures".  Sorry.  /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 18:47, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I was referring to Olbermann as fringe because his ratings are dismal DESPITE being on one of the top 3 cable news networks in prime time, not because I see him as a Code Pink type of guy (which I don't believe he is from what little I know of him). The stuff I myself have seen from MM and Olbermann has tended to be dishonest and I called MM smearing O'Reilly because they tried to portray him as a racist which, despite whether or not his comments were ignorant or not, he isn't. Still, I have no beef because O'Reilly's response was put out so BLP was not violated and we were able to write of that incident in a fair way...something guys like Limbaugh and MM do not do. That of course is my own personal opinion and I wouldn't put it in the article itself. I work very hard at trying to separate my POV from my work here on wiki so I don't know where your beef is here with me policywise. Arnabdas (talk) 21:18, 19 March 2008 (UTC)


 * There's probably too much weight given to the Malmedy thing. That could be a lot more succinct.  Otherwise, I do think that your opinion of MM or Olbermann (there are plenty of people who would disagree with your dishonesty/unimportant charges) are not ones that the article should reflect.  Croctotheface (talk) 01:58, 20 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I believe the Malmedy section is so lengthy because of the complex sequence of events, and everyone wanted each point explicitly made. I have no objection to shortening it, but I believe every effort was made to reflect responses to the criticism (hence the lengthy section).  Regardless of that issue, I agree...  Arnabdas' opinion of Media Matters, or his belief that O'Reilly is (or is not) a racist, has no place in the article.  /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 02:11, 20 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Blaxthos and Croctotheface, I don't know why you both are suggesting that I am trying to include my personal opinion. I never suggested putting in MY opinion of O'Reilly or MM. That would constitute OR and violation of SOAP. Wikipedia is not anyone's personal journal, including mine. Arnabdas (talk) 12:39, 20 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry if I misread, Arnabdas. I fail to understand what purpose it would serve to label MM/Olbermann as "fringe viewpoints" and "dishonest" entities that "smear O'Reilly" in your response if you weren't advocating inclusion or consideration.  I do believe that you're acting in good faith, and I'm glad we're all working together to improve this article.  :-)  /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:24, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Huffington Post = Reliable Source?
I was under the impression that blogs are not considered RS unless if they are apart of some reliable outlet, for example, a blog off of ABC.com and the like? Arnabdas (talk) 19:23, 8 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Large blogs like the Huffington Post aren't "self-published", which is the language in WP:RS that excludes most blogs. Croctotheface (talk) 19:42, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * That's all fine, but I don't understand why they are not attributed as to who they are. If, let's say, The Weekly Standard, had something to say, it should be noted that they are conservative. When dealing with the HP, they should be attributed as to what pov they really are coming from and not portrayed as objective. Arnabdas (talk) 19:59, 8 April 2008 (UTC)


 * If the Huffington Post were associated with liberalism as the Weekly Standard is with movement conservatism, I'd agree. If you have a source that the Huffington Post "usually criticizes O'Reilly" or whatever it was that was in the article, then OK, we can put it in then.  Otherwise, it's opinion and therefore is not neutral writing.  Croctotheface (talk) 02:12, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * You're right, it's OR if it's not sourced. Thanks for the discussion. Arnabdas (talk) 14:43, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * See WP:V fifth note on blogs. &eta;oian   &Dagger;orever &eta;ew &Dagger;rontiers  00:31, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Recent edit war over the Peabody thing
My initial reason to revert this edit was that it was redundant with the rest of the section. Indeed, it is redundant: the FAIR piece quotes O'Reilly's segment on his show where he discusses the Robert Reno op-ed. We already discuss that and reference his denial here. Then, Jim changed it to talk about when O'Reilly was first made aware of the Peabody claims, but no source talks about a denial in that context. So, in this case, Jim's edits are making the page less accurate. I am further disturbed by his unwillingness to discuss and his penchant to revert and revert instead. Croctotheface (talk) 15:35, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * As seen with the numerous warnings he has received from numerous people as well as his perceived edit warring in this and other articles, it's something we as editors have to look out for. We have to either be vigilant in making sure his edits follow policy and guidelines through constant work and discussion or open up formal action with admins. Hopefully, he can just start discussing in a way that offers cooperation. Arnabdas (talk) 15:49, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Barbara Boxer Comments
User Jimintheatl put in some comments O'Reilly made about Boxer that MM picked up. We had discussed that it didnt really belong in the Politics of Bill O'Reilly and that if it was to be included anywhere, it could be included here. I didn't delete it yet because I edited it from the previous version into NPOV language, but I am concerned merely about weight and whether it rises to the same furor as the Sylvia's comments or the Franken controversy. I am tending to think no, but would like to hear other opinions on the matter. Arnabdas (talk) 18:06, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

This what Arnabdas said yesterday --  Arnabdas (Talk | contribs) (67,458 bytes) (Undid revision 204747529 by Jimintheatl (talk)NOT in its own section! Remove POV words, reduce size & place it in domestic) That's "place it in domestic" Which I did. Then he objected to it there and suggested maybe it could be here. Now he objects to it here??? Please Jimintheatl (talk) 18:53, 11 April 2008 (UTC) Is that what you'd call "cooperation?" Jimintheatl (talk) 19:04, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I just cut down some of the bulk of the section. I think that it can go here; yes, it wasn't as big a deal as some of the other issues here, but we don't need to use that kind of standard.  I also think that we could add some more relevant material here, such as O'Reilly shooting down a caller to his radio show who provided the correct quote ("truth") and saying she was misinformed.  Croctotheface (talk) 19:06, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Was this reported by anyone other than MM? A google search http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=+rice+boxer+o%27reilly brings up no other mention.  Is there even a report of Boxer complaining about it?  If this is just MM critizing BOR then it probably doesn't belong in the grand scheme of thing.  Arzel (talk) 22:07, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Wait: poorly sourced, that's not what the source says, OR, BLP NPOV, anything else...? Jimintheatl (talk) 00:49, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * And I'm sure it's not relevant that Bill O'Reilly repeatedly, despite attempts at correction, uttered false claims against a senior US Senator. Jimintheatl (talk) 02:02, 12 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Al Franken talked about it on his radio show. I'm sure there are others.  I'd be fine with removing the section header and bringing this item under the auspices of something else, like MM or Franken, but I don't think two sentences do any harm here.  This episode is pretty illustrative of a lot of criticisms of O'Reilly for bloviating and making stuff up.  Croctotheface (talk) 05:17, 12 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I moved it to the MM section under a subsection there. Like said before, it hasn't received as much attention as the others, so it is a matter of weight. I have no problem of it being included as it's written now. Just a matter of prominence in the article. Arnabdas (talk) 15:11, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Possible POV Pushing and Original Research Claims in Jeremy Glick Section
User Jimintheatl is claiming the Jeremy Glick section should have the fact that the show was taped in it. I find this unecessary information that does not add to the article. All of O'Reilly's programs are "live to tape" meaning though they are taped, they are recorded without stopping or editing. Jimintheatl asked why O'Reilly was apologetic for the viewers to see this when the program was taped. This seems to be OR and POV on his part IMO and should be excluded. What are other people's thoughts? Arnabdas (talk) 18:24, 16 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Is there any reliable source that says that the show was taped in the sense that O'Reilly could have prevented it's airing. If there is such a source then it should be added, if there isn't it's original research. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 18:43, 16 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't think the issue is whether O'Reilly could've prevented airing the segment. I"m quite sure that he could have if he really wanted to.  We need to be careful to not give the incorrect impression that the broadcast was live.  I think that before Jim made his edits, readers would likely be left with the wrong idea.  However, we need to also be careful not to imply criticisms that don't exist in reliable sources.  The notion that O'Reilly is somehow being mendacious by apologizing could be a valid criticism to include, but not if the most prominent person making it is a Wikipedia editor.  We should also be careful not to imply criticisms by presenting facts in a certain light.  I think that the version that Jim likes best is guilty of this as well.  Croctotheface (talk) 23:19, 16 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I used the source that was in the main Factor article that explains the "live to tape" format. However, I noticed at the end of the section contending O'Reilly "wrongly asserted" that Glick promoted the ol' Bush planned 9/11 conspiracy and the source is O'Reillysucks.com.  I'm not quite sure that that's a reliable source and at worse an attack site.  People may agree or disagree with that statement and may or may not be true.  At the moment it seems like OR at best since it comes across as an interpretation of the transcript.  MrMurph101 (talk) 02:41, 17 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Even if we don't cite someone who said O'Reilly was wrong, I know that Franken and Media Matters (and others too, almost certainly) have. Croctotheface (talk) 03:16, 17 April 2008 (UTC)


 * It's still at best an interpretation which is fine if it is noted that way since it is really a POV. It's pretty easy to figure out the usual suspects would agree with this but the way it's worded now really reeks of POV pushing.  MrMurph101 (talk) 03:42, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

My question about the live/tape issue is this: why does the article even include O'Reilly apologizing/saying he wouldn't have shown the Glick segment? It wasn't a live "Janet Jackson "nipple slip." It seems disingenuous for BOR to apologize, given that he was free not to air it, but did. The "live to tape" answer doesn't address the question, which is that the segment was taped hours before it was shown to the audience.  BOR knew what was on the tape before it aired; so why say he was sorry his audience was exposed to it, as he made the choice to air it? Jimintheatl (talk) 13:50, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * That's ridiculous because then the show itself would have been cut off. Time still needs to be filled after all. Since it's live to tape, it's basically a recording of a live, non-stop show. It's not like O'Reilly could find a whole new segment between 5pm and 8pm when his program airs and get it on air. It's original research. Rants by Franken, MM and ilk are not notable, it's obvious they criticize O'Reilly all the time. If we go by that standard, we need a whole article of Bill's criticisms of NBC News and a separate one of only his criticisms of The New York Times. Arnabdas (talk) 15:41, 17 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm a little confused about what the issue is. Upon reading the edit summarys and the initial comments here it seems that the issue was BO apology re: his audience seeing the segment was insincere since he had the option of not showing it.  However, there seems to be another issue of whether shows that are live to tape the same as taped, and what significance that holds in this particular case.  If the second one is the issue it is irrelevant, as the fact is that BO aired the segment and issued the apology.  If it is the first, then it is relevant and if reliably sourced should be in the article. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 18:19, 17 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm a little confused about your position. Are you saying that we should synthesize primary sources to imply that O'Reilly was insincere?  That's the issue here, to me.  If someone made the insincere apology criticism, then we can attribute it to them.  If that's not anywhere in the sources, then we violate a whole slew of policies by trying to get it in anyway.  Croctotheface (talk) 18:35, 17 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm asking if there is a reliable source that says BO had the option of not showing the segment, and that therefore his apology was insincere. In my first post you responded that that wasn't the issue.  So it kind of confused me, as the edit summary seemed to show that it was the issue. I appreciate your good faith in telling me about OR policies, but I am well aware of how the project works, and would not call on anyone to violate WP:SYNTH.  I am asking for the claim to be verified if that is the claim trying to be made. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 19:51, 17 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I apologize if my tone was a little off-kilter in my last post. I was genuinely confused by what you were suggesting, and I asked that question because my best reading of your prior post led me to believe you wanted to have the article say something that, by all rights, it should not.  I previously said that whether O'Reilly could've chosen not to air the segment wasn't really the issue here because I don't think it affects what we can say.  If someone made the criticism the way you're talking about--that is, someone who said that becuase O'Reilly could've chosen not to show the segment, his apology was insincere--then OK, put it in.  Short of that, I don't think the issue of whether O'Reilly could've chosen to not broadcast the segment is relevant by itself.  It would be a case of synthesis to use them to imply insincerity absent a direct insincerity criticism.  Croctotheface (talk) 07:38, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I kind of figured we were speaking past each other, hence the confusion. But your position is the point I was trying to make. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 21:19, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Ramsquire has identified the issue. The live-to-tape claim is a straw man. The notion that BOR had to run the segment or cancel the show is silly. Just last night they reran a segment from a few days earlier. Jimintheatl (talk) 20:26, 17 April 2008 (UTC)


 * This is just speculation. I don't think BOR had to run the segment or cancel the show but as the source shows, live-to-tape basically means it was recorded as if it were happening live.  Now, let's say he could have canceled the segment, he would have less than two hours to come up with something else and possibly have to jump through some hoops to get something else approved, or something else, we do not know. Until something more concrete appears, all we have is opinion. MrMurph101 (talk) 02:33, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

So he couldn't have rerun a previously aired segment? As he has done before and since? Instead, he had to inflict this horrible, awful apology-worthy segment on his poor audience? Please. It was all theatrics and posturing. Jimintheatl (talk) 11:00, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Jimintheatl if you think that's possible you're welcome to go and start a show yourself and prove to everyone how easy it is. Until Regardless, your argument is pure OR. Arnabdas (talk) 14:31, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

"Start a show and see how easy it is"? I suppose that's better than "I know you are but what am I," but not by a lot. Jimintheatl (talk) 21:18, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Childish comments not withstanding, several editors have now pointed out that any claims regarding airing the segment must be attributed to a reliable source. Wikipedia is not the place for original thought.  /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 22:20, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Blaxthos has been pushing his POV into this article on Bill O'Reilly and also Foxnews.24.27.130.12 (talk) 23:53, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * There's no place here for this kind of personal attack. Croctotheface (talk) 00:03, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I suppose I agree that some sort of criticism might need to be sourced here. I was originally raising the issue because it seems that allowing BOR to apologize for and denigrate a segment he chose to air is more than a little suspect. Sourcing is critical, but if the original source is suspect it creates a dilemma. And I agree with Croc that Blaxthos did not deserve that comment, but don't feel it rose to the level of a personal attack. Jimintheatl (talk) 00:11, 19 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Again, all you have is speculation, bordering on conspiracy theory. If you think something is suspect email media matters about it and maybe they'll investigate.  The problem is, no one has reported this (unless you can find something) so all there is is an original thought.  MrMurph101 (talk) 02:55, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

POV/bias--"Criticism of Bill O'Reilly" is supposed to be about criticism
Reverts/removal of edits because they are critical (and are examples of the methods BOR employs) seem to be POV-pushing (protective of BOR). Start a "Fans of Bill O'Reilly" article if necessary. Jimintheatl (talk) 23:54, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


 * This article focuses on criticism, yes, but not at the expense of contrary points of view on those criticisms. In other words, this article does not exist to detail only negative information about Bill O'Reilly.  We present a criticism, and if there are worthwhile points of view that disagree with the criticism, we present those, too. It likewise does not exist to delineate EVERY criticism of O'Reilly in an indiscriminate fashion.  If the article started doing anything like that, it would likely get deleted.  Croctotheface (talk) 05:50, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Fine. Add contrary points rather deleting the article. Jimintheatl (talk) 00:44, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Arzel--If you disagree with an article, deleting it is not an appropriate action. Jimintheatl (talk) 12:31, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to edit war with you but don't think this should be included unless their is independent coverage of the events. MM's always points out alleged errors in bor's reporting.  If we go by this standard, then we can just include every watchdog source(of any ideology) that points out these things in every wikipedia article which adds to unencyclopedic bloat.  MrMurph101 (talk) 21:08, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * When did "independent coverage" become the standard? It exists, but how have you determined this standard? Jimintheatl (talk) 21:23, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't claim to be the be-all end-all authority on this but I've seen this type of discussion elsewhere. Some people agree with this and some people don't.  It comes more down to editing philosophy than ideology for me.   There are those who are inclusionists who would say that anything that can be sourced can be put in an article no matter how obsure the content is and there are deletionists who want to delete everything that somewhere, somehow breaks a policy or guideline, or even an essay. Sometimes I think of deletionists as "wikifundamentalists."  I usually take the middle ground which some call "delusionists" (no I'm not delusional :P).  Anyway, I'm just stating my position that I believe an independent source gives more weight to an inclusion and keeps the article from getting bloated and agree with Croctotheface's statement that the article does not exist to delineate EVERY criticism of O'Reilly.  Also, if you want to see a standard to go by as to why not to include this read WP:INDISCRIMINATE. MrMurph101 (talk) 23:46, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Some specific criticism
Jim, the two sections you continue to include violate several WP policies. The Homophobic sections is simply an opinion by MMfA, yet you are presenting it in a way that MMfA has proof that he is Homophobic. WP is not a research paper here to prove something, in stating the material in this way you are in violations of WP:BLP issues by giving the impression that there is proof that BOR is homophobic, yet all that is known is that BOR does not approve of that lifestyle. MMfA has there own website to promote their views of BOR, those views should not be reporoduced here to such a degree as it is in violation of WP:WEIGHT issues, where minority views are given too much presentation. Additionally, there is no actual incident of criticism, only a statment that MMfA has evidence that BOR is homophobic, how is that even encyclopedic in the least? Furthermore the second reference is not reliable even if the this was something that should be included. The second section is regarding the medal of honor is incorrect. BOR clearly stated that he was upset that there was no "Primetime" covereage of the story from those news organizations, which is true. MMfA critized him for not noting that it was covered earlier in the day. The whole issue is pointless drivel, and to be completely explained would require additional expansion to put the entire issue into context. I am not about to expand on your POV insertion of the material, so if you feel that strongly about such a minor issue which doesn't appear to have garnered any other coverage you will have to present a neutral form. Arzel (talk) 12:54, 1 May 2008 (UTC) 1--Do you understand what "allegations" means? 2-You are factually incorrect. He later amended his complaint, after his error was exposed. Jimintheatl (talk) 17:48, 1 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Do you understand the WP policies regarding BLP's? You can't just put out allegations like that just because MMfA made some claim.  Provide some additional context that show BOR is homophobic.  Arzel (talk) 22:39, 1 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Also, that is NOT what MMfA said. They clearly made the statement that those other networks made non-primetime coverage.  Furthermore your additional statement was false.  Arzel (talk) 22:42, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

This article is about "Criticism." look it up. Stop making POV/fan-boy reverts. It is not constructive. Jimintheatl (talk) 01:48, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * User warned for BLP. Also, WP:NPA needs to be followed, Jim. Do not attack people for supposed "fanboy"-ism. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 03:00, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Please take a deep breath, relax. If a media monitoring group alleges (key word) a pattern of anti-gay/homophobic comments, and documents its claim, and launches a national campaign, how is that not a LEGITIMATE item for inclusion in CRITICISM.   The article does not say that BOR is homophobic; it says that the allegation has been made.  Jimintheatl (talk) 11:57, 2 May 2008 (UTC)


 * First, please preserve the thread here by indenting. Second, I think there is an argument to be made that the stuff about gay people is a difference of opinion--that is, O'Reilly would say that he's just presenting a nuanced view of the country's current social environment.  I don't think this article exists to describe criticisms that are mostly from disagreeing about issues.  The Michael Murphy thing seems to hinge on the interpretation of "cover".  If O'Reilly was mostly clear about the idea that he was talking about primetime and that "coverage" meant "prime time coverage", then this criticism strikes me as pretty weak.  Again, as I and others have said, this article does not exist to delineate every instance where someone has criticized O'Reilly.  We don't need to accept that because MM considers a particular line of criticism important it should be treated as important here.  We can exercise editorial discretion, and we should.  As I said before, if this article became a dumping ground for every criticism MM makes of O'Reilly, it would likely get deleted.  All that said, I think we could probably do a sentence or two about the homophobia thing, but a section is probably a bit much.  Croctotheface (talk) 17:04, 3 May 2008 (UTC)


 * OK, then add those sentences rather than reverting. Jimintheatl (talk) 17:33, 3 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Try to present in a neutral form. The first doesn't belong since this is not a place for you to present evidence that BOR is homophobic, if you can't see the BLP violations within then I am not sure what to say to you.  The second issue is simply not true, at least not in the biased way you continue to present.  I don't think it warrents inclusion, therefore it is not up to me to fix your biased presentation of material.  Try to work here instead.  Arzel (talk) 16:08, 5 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Jim, first a minor point about indents: use colons to indent, like others are doing. Add a colon for each level of reply.  Arzel, I actually don't know that BLP is an issue here, since it's not Jim providing his personal evidence of homophobia, he's reporting on someone else's opinion.  I think that the importance of the information and possibly neutrality concerns are fair to bring up, however.  Croctotheface (talk) 16:15, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I believe it is a BLP issue becuase it is a non-specific allegation. See my response below and replace it with other defamatory words without any context and I think you can see what I am saying.  Furthermore the heading alone reads like research since it is really only MMfA making the claim (the second reference is not reliable) but the title reads like a general statement, which is simply not the case.  Arzel (talk) 16:17, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for "getting it." Using Arzel's "standard," the entire article would violate BLP (which is why I can't believe he doesn't get it as well).  Jimintheatl (talk) 20:36, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, don't celebrate me too fast. I think that the homophobia thing could be dealt with in a sentence or two and that we should not have the full subsection.  Croctotheface (talk) 02:17, 6 May 2008 (UTC)


 * An allegation is something usually to be presented within court in an act to prove. To say that MMfA is alleging that BOR is homophobic, is a statement that they mean to prove this in some way.  You can't say here is the allegation and here is the proof at the same time, it is simply not gramatically correct.  Furthermore, the second reference is not reliable regardless of the situation.  Additionally, even if this was presented in the proper way there is no specific instance which is being addressed.  It simply says that MMfA says that BOR is homophobic without any specific statements.  It would be the same as saying MMfA has documented several instances where BOR is a murderer.  Could you say that in the same sentence without a BLP violation?  Without any specific action to comment you have a violation of BLP in which one entity is leveling allegations against another without any proof within the article.  WP has to be very careful about leveling allegations like this within it's articles, especially blanket statements which read like individual research.  Please do not continue to violate WP:BLP issues.  Arzel (talk) 16:07, 6 May 2008 (UTC)


 * That is indeed one definition of "allegation," but it can also be used synonymously with "assertion." While it's true that the section that is ths subject of this edit war does not cite specific examples, the MM page used to source it does.  There is a reasonable argument to be made that those specific examples are the result of homophobia, so I fail to see how reporting on that criticism violates BLP.  Furthermore, I doubt that you would be any happier with a longer section that quotes O'Reilly.  Croctotheface (talk) 16:23, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I withdraw my earlier suggestion that Arzel does "get it." He clearly does not.  It is difficult to respond to a sentence as muddled as "An allegation is something usually to be presented within court in an act to prove."  What does that even mean?  Before continuing your current course, I suggest you consult a dictionary (allege/allegation).  WP is not alleging that BO is homophobic by documenting the FACT that MM has ALLEGED that his pattern of statements reflect homophobic tendencies/attitudes. Jimintheatl (talk) 20:02, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) After some consideration, I've changed my mind and now I don't think this latest MMfA campaign belongs in the article. I do not agree with the BLP arguments made previously because it is not saying that BOR is homophobic, it's saying that MMfA has started a campaign to stop what BOR from doing what MMfA considers homophobic. However, I think the lack of outside traction and coverage in mainstream media of this campaign makes it an insignificant viewpoint and thus including it may violate WP:NPOV.Ramsquire (throw me a line) 16:31, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Considering the edit war over this homophobia entry has stretched out over a matter of days, may I suggest an RfC on these issues. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 22:46, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Soros/MM thing
The section that we've been edit warring over is blatant OR. O'Reilly says that MM is "funded" by Soros, MM denies this, and then because MM collaborates with a Soros organization, that proves that their funding comes from him? Arnabdas said in his edit summary that MM denies that they "work together," but nothing in the text of the article says or said that. If MM has gone on the record saying that they were never involved in any capacity with any organization involved with Soros, then maybe we could include something of this. Croctotheface (talk) 17:14, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The Media Matters for America article has a fairly understandable paragraph about this. maybe you can lift from there. Bytebear (talk) 17:33, 6 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Just to be clear, that whole section has to do with funding, too. Croctotheface (talk) 17:34, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring
There has been some recent edit warring, the subject of which I haven't taken the time to analyze. I notice the usual suspects doing their usual things, including a few strawmen arguments, accusations of WP:BLP violations, and repeated undo operations. Seeing as how Ramsquire has already suggested a request for comment, as a preliminary exercise could the respective viewpoints provide a brief neutral statement regarding the dispute? An editor has requested my involvement (which I have avoided until now), and I think it would be beneficial (for everyone, me included) if we started from scratch and moved forward instead of reviewing the arguments that already exist. Thanks. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 02:51, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, what I've been seeing is that User:Jimintheatl has been putting in content that other editors disaprove and revert him and he reverts back to his version which has been going on for quite a while now. I have not seen any support for his version beyond just including a briefer version of what he wants in the article.  I don't know if there is truly any BLP violation but it can be taken to WP:BLP/N if need be. I have not done any reverting on this issue but have stated there should be an independent source to give a stronger argument for inclusion. MrMurph101 (talk) 05:05, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * As this article is entitled "Criticism of Bill O'Reilly," I included a section on Media Matters national campaign to "send a message" to Fox about what MM alleges is an ongoing pattern of O'Reilly making homophobic or anti-gay comments.   Media Matters is one of the, if not the most prominent media monitoring organizations in the country.  Its campaign documents numerous statements made over the course of a number of years, and the campaign has received significant notice and comment, esp.on the net.  My edit was undone several times by editors without any discussion on the Talk page.  Arzel's objection, which I at first thought was facetious because it was so nonsensical, is that the article says that O'Reilly IS homophobic, which would violate BLP.  Others have said the edit would be OK if it were cut to 2 sentences (it is now 3) and not given its own subsection.  I'm not sure how that would work stylistically (I think it would be an awkward edit), so I asked those suggesting it for help.  In sum, I think the edit is newsworthy ( Google search will confirm), concise and should be included. Jimintheatl (talk) 17:42, 7 May 2008 (UTC)


 * My main objection, Jim, is that you don't seem to recognize consensus if it goes against what you want to do. You have continued to revert when the only kind of support anyone offered for anything like what you wanted was my suggestion that a briefer entry without a section might be OK.  At present, no other editor agrees with your position.  Even if you don't consider other editors' rationales compelling, you should not try to implement your changes with brute force edit warring.  As you have hopefully discovered by now, if you do that you will just keep getting reverted.  Croctotheface (talk) 18:28, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * My objection is to reflexive reverts or those based on specious reasons. I also have a hard time seeing "consensus" when there are only 2 or 3 people voicing opinions, esp. when those opinions are baseless (e.g., BLP) or come from editors who have admitted they have reverted or commented without bothering to read the cited material.  And, in fact, while I have admittedly pursued my positions aggressively at times, I have dropped or withdrawn proposed edits (after sufficient debate). Jimintheatl (talk) 19:17, 7 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Again, just because you don't find the rationale of other editors compelling, you are not entitled to just revert. This is a collaborative project, and you can't just disrespect a consensus because you, who are alone in your opinion, think that although several people disagree with you and nobody agrees with you, those who disagree somehow need to find more people that hold that opinion.  No, you need to find at least one other person who takes your side if you're going to sway the consensus.  Croctotheface (talk) 19:28, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree that it's a collaborative project, and, as I said, I HAVE shifted my positions on several edits in light of opposing opinions. But my frustration is with editors who revert without reading the cited material or policy-shop or offer transparently silly positions. I'm not sure that can be considered collaboration.  Jimintheatl (talk) 19:49, 7 May 2008 (UTC)


 * You can't just declare that although everyone else disagrees with you, they are bad for this or that reason and therefore you need not consider the fact that, as I mentioned, nobody else agrees with you. You seem to basically suggest here that the only rationale you need to revert someone is the belief that you are right and they're wrong.  That's not the case.  Croctotheface (talk) 19:54, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * You're putting words in my mouth. I will revert someone who says they reverted an edit without bothering to read the source.  I will revert someone if they offer patently false reasons for reverting (i.e., the claim that the edit states that O'Reilly is homophobic).  I expect disagreement, but I expect it to be informed. Isn't that part of the Wikpedia project?   And, again, my history shows that I have conceded to consensus even when I disagree. Jimintheatl (talk) 20:11, 7 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Doing the right thing one time in the past does not mean that everything else you do from then on is also right. Each of the reasons you just gave boil down to some version of disagreeing with the other editor involved in the dispute.  Don't you think that at least one other editor will come along who agrees with you if it's so obvious that you are right and the others are wrong?  Again, when you are alone in your opinion, you can't just say that even though nobody agrees with you, you're still in the right to revert them because they did this or that wrong.  You need to respect consensus all the time.  Croctotheface (talk) 20:15, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I think you're misunderstanding me. I respect disagreement.  But reverting an edit without reading the source is not disagreement.  Reverting based on demonstrably false grounds is not disagreement.  And please don't distort my history ("one time"), unless you were joking, in which case I forgive you. (And when is Blaxthos going to weigh in...I'm getting tired of saying the same thing.....as I suspect you are)Jimintheatl (talk) 21:18, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Second try
Thanks for responding, but I think this went off on a tangent. Instead of detailing what has occurred, and who is right or wrong, can we get a concise statement of what Jim wants included, and the sources for it, and then a brief statement as to why it shouldn't be included? Thanks. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 22:15, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Here is the edit I want included as a subsection of the MediaMatters section on the "Criticism" article. It is concise and relevant to "Criticism" for the reasons stated in my original response.  Thanks.

Allegations of Homophobia
Media Matters has alleged that O'Reilly has made homophobic or anti-gay remarks. To support its position it has documented numerous instances, consisting of comments made by O'Reilly as well as guests on his programs, which they believe ridicule or incite fear of the lesbian and gay community. Media Matters, with the support of some in the gay and lesbian community, has launched a campaign to stop such comments. Jimintheatl (talk) 22:45, 7 May 2008 (UTC)


 * The good and the bad. The good: There is a source besides Media Matters although I have not checked how reliable the other source is.  The bad: It does not carry enough weight to merit its own subsection unless there is more coverage of this issue.  My suggestion would be to add a brief version to the text that is already devoted to the Media Matters section, no subsection needed.  MrMurph101 (talk) 23:01, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Here's the thing, and why I questioned whether, stylistically, that approach is appropriate: The Media Matters section is essentially an overview of MM; it does not deal with specific complaints/issues/campaigns. Which is why a subsection makes more sense to me rather than inclusion in the MM overview.  In addition, there are a lot more sources/mentions on the MM/homophobia campaign I can add, but I did not want to overlink. Jimintheatl (talk) 23:33, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * One more thing...an encyclopedia is supposed to be a "comprehensive compendium" so rather thaan deleting edits one finds disagreeable, adding alternative or competing points of view would seem to be the proper response. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimintheatl (talk • contribs)
 * Not always. An encyclopedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.  Something could be added that meets all the standards but that does not necessarily means it should be included.  MM has a practically a whole database crticizing O'Reilly so what makes this stand out anymore than the others?  The answer could be how important the gay community is taking this.  Another run-of-the-mill MM criticism is one thing, but if their is significant outcries in the community about O'Reilly it should be through their voice and not Media Matters unless they reported it and not just come up with examples of what they think are homophobic.  MrMurph101 (talk) 01:49, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm good with adding more specific examples of MM's criticism of O'Reilly. I added this one because it is part of a coordinated national "action" campaign rather than their more typical practice of documenting something they find inaccurate or objectionable. Jimintheatl (talk) 11:55, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't look like queerty.com will qualify as a reliable source, especially given some of the inflammatory information that immediately jumps out on the front page (which looks suspiciously like a blog). I can support a brief two sentence mention in the existing section, but I don't see how this qualifies for its own subsection at this point. Can anyone suggest an appropriate version for inclusion? /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 00:22, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * How about, after the 2nd sentence in the current Media Matters section:"Among its complaints, Media Matters has alleged that O'Reilly has made homophobic or anti-gay remarks. To support its position it has documented numerous instances, consisting of comments made by O'Reilly, as well as guests on his programs, which they believe ridicule or incite fear of the lesbian and gay community." Jimintheatl (talk) 11:58, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Sounds acceptable to me, though I would simplify the second sentence as such:"To support its position, it has documented numerous instances of comments made by O'Reilly and his guests which Media Matters believes ridicules or incites fear of the lesbian and gay community."Other opinions? /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 12:09, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Including it as it's own subsection is absolutely moronic. Having it included at all is quite a stretch. There are many fringe groups out there who would accuse anyone of being homophobic, racist, what not. Their gotchya remarks and deceitful presentations are not included because it would be completely absurd and a gross violation of BLP. This is not a MM blog. For those who want to sit behind a computer in their sexual frustration so they may seethe in their hatred of Bill O'Reilly, there are plenty of anti-O'Reilly sites for them to peruse with. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a "let's bitch about O'Reilly" site. This is NOT worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia, has utterly no weight and should be discarded. Or are we going to support right wing accusations of Barack Obama being a Muslim because of some circumstantial and shaky evidence? Please stop the hypcrisy. Arnabdas (talk) 14:32, 9 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Your namecalling neither helps the discussion here nor improves the quality of the encyclopedia. Croctotheface (talk) 16:56, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I think Arnabdas illustrates perfectly my earlier point about the difficulty if not futility of "consensus" in certain situations. Also, if Arnabdas had bothered to do even cursory research (once again...), he would have discovered that the Barack Obama "Muslim allegations" are on Wikipedia. Jimintheatl (talk) 18:16, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Why can't we simply add a sentence in the MMfA section that says "MMfA has also accused BOR of inciting homophobia"-- with the same citation. I still believe that it is not a significant viewpoint to have its own section, but since MMfA is a critic of BOR, I don't have as much of a problem with this accusation being lumped into the general section.  Also, Jim as futile as you may think consensus is you are still required to engage in attempts to reach it.  Edit warring is just not acceptable.  Ramsquire (throw me a line) 19:03, 9 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure how much that sentence would really add to the article, actually, now that I think about it. It's probably better that a hot button issue like this not be sourced only to MM and just left out of the article entirely.  I think it's legit to source only to MM on something like a big factual issue.  This seems more in line with a disagreement, and if it came from a leading gay rights group, for example, it might be legit to include.  As it is, I think the section is too much and, contrary to my previous ruminations, a shorter mention wouldn't be any better. And, of course, Ramsquire is right that someone being recalcitrant (which, honestly, Jim is quite guilty of himself) does not somehow absolve you from the obligation to follow a consensus you disagree with.  Croctotheface (talk) 19:34, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm obviously in favor of adding the edit proposed by Blaxthos. And I never said that I have not and would not try to engage in attempts to achieve consensus, I just have no illusions about its likelihood with editors who offer opinions without research or adopt patently false positions. Jimintheatl (talk) 20:26, 9 May 2008 (UTC)


 * For what must be the sixth or seventh time, the issue is that you engaged in edit warring when you were completely alone in your position. Had you actually tried to achieve consensus, nobody would be criticizing you. Instead, you dismissed the fact that you were alone in your opinion because you believed that some number of factors disqualified the opinions of the editors who disagreed with you.  You need to understand that ignoring consensus is never OK, and neither is edit warring.  Croctotheface (talk) 20:53, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Look: I completely agree that in principle edit warring is wrong, absolutely. And I have admitted that I am a relative newcomer to Wikipedia and have tended to advocate my positions more vigorously than academia would allow, but have ultimately backed off on a number of proposed edits. I ask only that you consider Arnabdas's recent, and irrational, comment.  When editors revert without engaging on the Talk page, or without bothering to read the sources, (and admit doing so), or when editors policy shop or offer blatantly false objections to edits, then my course of action has been to oppose them vigorously, and then, either drop it, or, ultimately, appeal to "higher powers."Jimintheatl (talk) 01:04, 10 May 2008 (UTC
 * you know what? I agree, if you want to label it, that I have been fractious on this page.  But consider the source and subject: O'Reilly has said that he named his show because he wants to be a FACTOR IN THE STORY, wants to inject himself into the story.  So how do you describe a media figure who WANTS to be the story, or part of the story?   O'Reilly abhors "bland" coverage, practices a distinct brand of loud/confrontational journalism, loves the attention, thrives on controversy and self-promotion, so on a page devoted to controversy and criticism.....?  It seems unavoidable that the "Factor" of Bill O'Reilly (warts and all) will be part of the discussion.  Jimintheatl (talk) 02:33, 10 May 2008 (UTC)


 * For the most part, I'm confused about what you're saying here. I don't know how many times people told you that edit warring is bad, and you continued to do it anyway.  It's not as if being a "newcomer" makes that concept of "stop what you're doing" difficult to understand.  Dismissing other editors as "policy shoppers" or whatever else really doesn't count for anything if you are alone in your opinion.  You still seem to cling to the idea that it's "less bad" because some of the editors who disagree with you have motivations you would consider bad.  That is not the case.  Croctotheface (talk) 15:42, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Point taken. Mea culpa.  I've screwed up at times.  (Big time, once; WTF was I thinking/drinking?  I fixed it, BTW) I've been, what did you say, recalcitrant, and I've admitted to obstreperousness.   I stand by my argument, though, that when people make flat-out false statements of FACT (not in my opinion, but objectively, demonstrably false)  or when they admit to reverting without bothering to read referenced material, then I do not regard their comments/edits with the same degree of deference I give others. That is not to say that I will reflexively revert as they/I have done before; I will instead immediately initiate Talk page discussions and hope for the best.  Jimintheatl (talk) 01:44, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Am I wrong to think that this had been resolved to add the compromise edit Blaxthos proposed? Jimintheatl (talk) 19:15, 14 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, that's a misconception. There is no consensus behind the idea that something of that nature should go in the article.  Editors are divided about that idea, and those who disagree haven't come around to your position.  Croctotheface (talk) 19:21, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Didn't Blaxthos intervene to resolve the dispute? Jimintheatl (talk) 21:15, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I am no moderator; I may not intervene or otherwise adjudicate any matters. I don't mind helping sort out the issues, and I try to facilitate productive discussion. I give my opinion, but it carries no authority or special weight. In this matter, I don't see any argument against inclusion that is based in policy or guideline, however I don't think this merits anything more than a sentence or two at this time. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:50, 14 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I think it may violate the undue weight provisions of NPOV. The viewpoint that O'Reilly is a homophobe or promotes homophobia is only being pushed by MMfA and some vaguely mentioned LGBT groups.  I am not sure if this rises to the level of a significant viewpoint.  IMHO, this should go into the MMfA article since they seem to be one of a few making this charge. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 22:58, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I see no evidence for violation other than your assertion that it "may" violate it; this doesn't carry much weight. It's clearly relevant and notable criticism by a notable organization and apparently backed up by organizations representing the LGBT community as well as other progressive organizations (e.g.).  For gosh sakes, this search gets over 200,000 hits; this is clearly not some fringe viewpoint.  csloat (talk) 23:20, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * First, your sources and many of the hits are from the blogosphere or self published websites, which would not be reliable. Second, to be clear, I do not believe it is a fringe viewpoint.  There is a lot of room on the scale from fringe to significant.  I am not sure where this is on that scale.  To put it another way, when BOR made his Sylvia's comments that was picked up in newspapers throughout the country, and discussed on various television programs as well as on the cable news circuit.  It was clearly notable and significant.  This MMfA campaign, not so much.  If GLAAD or some other major LGBT groups hold a press conference supporting this campaign I'll gladly withdraw my objection.  But until then I'm not sure it belongs. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 00:00, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * FTR- I am willing to compromise on this issue and place one sentence in the MMfA section describing their campaign as one of the criticism they have of BOR. I do however have undue weight concerns. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 00:04, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * If you have undue weight concerns, you have yet to express them convincingly. csloat (talk) 00:40, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Again-- "The viewpoint that O'Reilly is a homophobe or promotes homophobia is only being pushed by MMfA and some vaguely mentioned LGBT groups. I am not sure if this rises to the level of a significant viewpoint."  -- my undue weight concern is presenting a viewpoint as being more widespread than it actually is. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 20:42, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think MM's take on O'Reilly's comments is significant viewpoint. I think the whole issue is trivial. The test Blaxthos advocates, whereby the only means to exclude any fact is to show that it would expressly violate a policy, would mean that anything MM (or anyone) ever said about O'Reilly (or anyone else) would necessarily have to be included in our biographies of those people. That test itself violates WP:Not because it basically says that editors can't develop any means to discriminate among the information that an article could possibly have. It's not a workable standard. Croctotheface (talk) 02:32, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not advocating such a standard. The standard you advocate as an alternative, eliminating well sourced criticism from a page about criticism based on your own personal decision that a particular criticism is "trivial," is definitely not a workable standard. csloat (talk) 02:48, 15 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Not "what I say is trivial," what a consensus of editors decides is not worthy of inclusion. In your view, is there any criticism that is not appropriate to have here?  If I add information on literally every item MM has ever published about O'Reilly, would that be OK? Croctotheface (talk) 02:54, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Per suggestions above, I've rewritten and expanded this subject to include GLAAD and the Southern Poverty law Center. I believe this demonstrates sufficient weight and a broader criticism from a variety of sources on this matter. Jimintheatl (talk) 14:52, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you Jimintheat; hopefully this will satisfy even Croctotheface's "what I say is trivial" standard. Croctotheface - please do not make claims about "a consensus of editors" that are obviously outright false.  Thanks! csloat (talk) 15:19, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * This might be the most galling thing a Wikipedia editor has said to me, short of some nonsense from a vandal. I did not say that the there existed a consensus here; in fact, there is clearly no broad consensus for including or excluding this material (Actually, MrMurph's edit below suggests that even though I had seen no consensus before, there arguably did exist a consensus to exclude).  However, your position as I understand it is that NOTHING can be excluded if it fits the broad category of the article and exists in sources.  You never answered my question: do you believe it would be appropriate to include information on literally every criticism that Media Matters has made of Bill O'Reilly?  Croctotheface (talk) 15:38, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * (ec)Um, csloat, you need to check the edit history as well as the discussion. Arnabdas, Arzel, Kyaa the Catlord, are strongly opposed to the inclusion; myself, Ramsquire and Croctotheface while not strongly opposed have not advocated any inclusion.  Until you came along, no one but Jimintheatl has been a strong advocate of this inclusion.  Please do not make any claims about "consensus" that are obviously outright false. Thanks! MrMurph101 (talk) 15:42, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * It was clear to me that there was opposition to inclusion; it was also clear to me there were supporters. I certainly saw no evidence of the consensus cited by Croc and I thought his claim was false so I called him on it.  Sorry to gall you, Croc; I didn't mean to, and if you didn't mean to say that "a consensus of editors" had decided this was "not worthy of inclusion" then I apologize for interpreting your comments that way.  As for your question, I didn't answer it because it presented a false dichotomy; I mentioned before that it was a false dichotomy, so I'm not sure why you're raising it again.  I'm not advocating for any and every criticism to be included here; but certainly notable and verifiable criticisms on important topics such as homophobia ought to be included.  I'm a little disturbed that the issue of homophobia is deemed by some to be not worthy of attention here.  I do hope that the additions by Jim have addressed your concerns in this regard. csloat (talk) 18:53, 15 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I thought you were criticizing me because my standard was subjective, but your reasons for inclusion are just as subjective as my reasons for exclusion. When you say that this is a "notable and verifiable criticisms on important topics," only one of those adjectives, "verifiable," is not subjective.  We can determine if something is verifiable by applying WP:V.  I say it's "trivial," you say it's "notable."  Why do you ridicule me for having a "what Croc thinks is trivial" test when you just have a "what csloat thinks is notable" test?  Isn't it basically the same?  For the sake of argument, assume that all of the  items that MM has done on O'Reilly address some "important" topic like race, sexuality, war, journalistic ethics, and so forth.  (I don't think it's a stretch to assume this, since there are probably people who consider every such topic important.)  They are therefore all addressing something of importance and verifiable in the sense that MM has published an item outlining the criticism.  In your view, is there or is there not a basis to exclude any of those items from this article?  If there is, what is it?  Croctotheface (talk) 21:08, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry if I ridiculed you. My standard is not "what csloat thinks is notable"; I clearly indicated that I had reasons to think it was notable (reported in reliable sources; specific comments of known organizations; over 200,000 google hits) -- subjective, perhaps, but standards nonetheless.  Importance of the topic is certainly one aspect of the standard -- I think a paragraph about claims that O'Reilly hated Ford Pintos would be less "important" than the paragraph under consideration, for example.  Anyway, I'm not inclined to address further hypothetical situations that aren't relevant to the case before us -- if you want to come up with standards to include in WP:BLP or WP:V, that's great, but this isn't the right place for that discussion. csloat (talk) 21:48, 15 May 2008 (UTC)


 * This is the appropriate place to discuss inclusion standards for Criticism of Bill O'Reilly. Your first comments seemed to indicate that you believed that we should not exclude anything that's "sourced."  Then, indeed, you ridiculed me for suggesting that this text was not important enough to the topic at hand to include in an encyclopedia article.   To the notion that you're not inclined to address "further hypotheticals," you didn't even address my first one.  My concern is that my best reading of your reasoning still basically says, "If it doesn't violate WP:V and WP:BLP, it should go in."  I'm asking you if you are willing to articulate any reason to exclude content relating to criticism on the grounds that the content itself is not significant.  In other words, could there be an MM criticism on an "important" topic that, for any reason whatever, you would be comfortable excluding from this article?  I don't want to put words in your mouth and assume an answer one way or another, so I'd really appreciate if you could answer my question.  Croctotheface (talk) 02:11, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not interested in articulating a general standard for hypothetical information that you can then nitpick - I am interested in the material that is at issue right now. This page is about "Criticism of Bill O'Reilly"; the material criticizing him from notable organizations on a very important matter is what is at issue here, not some general standard that will cover every hypothetical situation.  Hope this helps. csloat (talk) 18:22, 16 May 2008 (UTC)


 * No, it doesn't help. I'm asking you a very simple question.  Could you conceive of ANY piece of criticism from a "notable organization" that does not fail WP:V that could be excluded from this article on any grounds?  If so, what are the grounds?  My understanding of your logic is that no such criticism could ever be excluded.  Is that right or wrong?  Croctotheface (talk) 19:19, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I answered your question with a hypothetical that fits your question (pintos, see above) and then added that the question itself is completely inappropriate (also see above). So I don't expect to offer further answers to such a question -- it's really not relevant to the issue at hand.  Hope this helps. csloat (talk) 20:11, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

So the difference is that you consider sexuality important while you consider cars unimportant? Setting aside that some people might feel cars are very important, what about excluding criticisms that relate to "important" topics? Must we include any criticism whatsoever about sexuality, so long as it does not fail WP:V? Because if you agree that we can exclude certain criticisms despite the fact that they concern "important' topics, exist reliable sources, come from "notable organizations," and don't fail WP:V, then I don't see how you can dismiss me for my "personal views" or "subjectivity" or whatever it is that you were talking about. The determination that a given criticism should be included does involve a degree of subjectivity and editorial discretion, as I thought you acknowledged earlier, but then you went back to saying something about my "personal views" versus what "reliable sources say."  You now seem to acknowledge that not everything that reliable sources say about criticism of O'Reilly belongs in this article.  Croctotheface (talk) 20:20, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
 * If you would like to add a paragraph about ford pintos we can discuss it; until that happens I see no point in continuing this discussion. If you have a specific argument as to why these specific criticisms of homophobia from top advocacy organizations don't belong in the article, let us know what that argument is; so far you are just hand waving. csloat (talk) 20:24, 16 May 2008 (UTC)


 * No, actually, you're the one who has not responded to the reasons I've given for excluding this material. Your responses have all been some variation on, "that's just your opinion" or "this content exists in sources/doesn't violate WP:V."  Because you won't actually engage my arguments on the merits here and just continue to maintain that the content is verifiable and therefore should go in the article, that leads to an obvious question.  If we accept that your response refutes my argument against inclusion, could we ever exclude any criticism that does not violate WP:V?  My belief is that we could not, and so that accepting your argument in this case would set a dangerous precedent for future cases.  If you are correct that "reliable sources say it" is enough to mandate inclusion, then no criticism from MM or any other "notable group" could be excluded here.  I do not intend to add trivial criticisms to the article, about Ford Pintos or anything else, to make a point that your argument here is flawed.  Croctotheface (talk) 21:06, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, you have yet to actually give a reason for excluding the material. Below you are nitpicking about interpreting it but you never gave a reason for excluding.  In this section you are simply asking non sequitur questions (actually, you are making demands, in a somewhat uncivil fashion).  You've ignored my arguments.  You state that I haven't shown verifiability, that is nonsense -- we have the CLAAD, SLPC, and MM sources which are all verifiable -- this is the first I've heard of your questions about verifiability but I think they are pretty easily put to rest since we can easily verify that these comments have been made by these organizations. If you're not planning to add information about pintos then why do you care what I think about it?  Your question about what else would not be notable here is just not relevant -- an interesting thought experiment to someone perhaps, but I find it boring.  csloat (talk) 23:56, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I concede that this is sourced and verified. I have a problem with the presentation and believe that there is a BLP violation involved in it, and I also believe that current consensus is for excluding the material, as six or so editors have expressed opposition, two have expressed vocal support, and one seems to be on the fence or leaning toward inclusion.  That, to me, does not represent a consensus to include the material.  My argument against inclusion is that the issue is not important enough to include.  It is not illuminating enough.  It boils down in many respects to a difference of opinion, and most differences of opinion should not be included at an article like this.  Your reason to include is just, as I understand it, that it passes WP:V.  I agree that it does not fail WP:V.  My question to you is whether everything that does not fail WP:V must be included.  If your main reason to include is that it does not fail WP:V, and that's all you say to my arguments for exclusion, then I'm left to believe that, yes, everything MM has ever said about O'Reilly can go here.  I believe that if we accept the standard you appear to be advocating, the article would turn into a disaster.  Croctotheface (talk) 04:36, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

GLAAD, SPLC
Jim's latest version makes it appear that GLAAD and SPLC have joined MM's campaign. However, the articles cited deal only with the false story about "lesbian gangs." I've removed the section because it takes SPLC out of context to suggest that they agree with the notion that O'Reilly has made "numerous comments" slurring gay people. There is also a degree of synthesis of original material here, in the sense that MM has made a broad critique while GLAAD and SPLC have made narrow ones, but placing the information together makes the criticism from these two groups seem stronger and broader than it is. The "lesbian gang" thing may be worthy of mention, but more as a factual issue than anything else. Croctotheface (talk) 15:52, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll try to address your critique. Jimintheatl (talk) 18:36, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * You're moving the goalposts now and nitpicking about the specifics. What is it about the charge of homophobia that you consider less worthy of inclusion here?  Whether homophobia comes out in factual errors or in biased language is not the relevant point.  As long as wikipedia isn't synthesizing this information to make a specific claim I don't see how your objection is appropriate. csloat (talk) 18:56, 15 May 2008 (UTC)


 * But the edit in question DID engage in synthesis, as I explained. It lumped all three groups (MM, GLAAD, and SPLC) into this idea of "numerous allegations" when in fact two of the groups just made a single criticism that, while it dealt with sexuality, was not alleging homophobia so much as it was explaining that O'Reilly bought into and publicized a bogus story.  The text I removed gave the incorrect impression that GLAAD and SPLC "joined" MM's campaign, or something like that.  The current revision is better, but I think that it's still guilty of grouping things that don't really belong together.  Croctotheface (talk) 20:59, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I see your argument; I think the current revision adequately addressed it. csloat (talk) 21:49, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I hope and believe the current edit addressed your concern. I don't think it amounted to SYNTHESIS, but I think the current edit is an improvement.  Thanks for fixing the edit, but even your fix fails to display the full edit.  I'm not sure what is going on. Jimintheatl (talk) 23:22, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll admit that the current wording is better than it had been, but the fact of the matter is that we need to point out that the comments were taken and sensationalized by GLAAD and MMfA based on a neutral reading of the source material (the transcript on Fox' website). Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 00:58, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
 * No we don't. This is not the place for editorializing.  If there are published sources saying GLAAD or anyone else did these things, those sources may be mentioned, but this is not the place for any individual Wikipedia editor's interpretation of what was published. csloat (talk) 02:13, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Obviously we should not editorialize, but I am still concerned that we are grouping two criticisms that are basically not alike together as if they are. MM is alleging a long history of slurring gay people. The other two groups are focused on a single case where O'Reilly bought into and publicized a false story. This could create the incorrect impression that these groups have somehow joined together or that the factual inaccuracy criticism somehow strengthens the slurring criticism. And, yet again, I think I'm comfortable mentioning the "lesbian gang" factual issue in that context, but I don't think the slurring argument really flies. Croctotheface (talk) 02:56, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Further, I don't see any suggestion that O'Reilly is a homophobe in those articles. I see them suggesting that he's innaccurate and sensationalizes, that he's dismissive in the case of the tg boy in Colorado, but not that he's inciting fear of gay people or fears them himself. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 03:04, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

For now, we should leave this out. As Murph pointed out above, there are two editors who are very vocal about including this information, but nobody else has really expressed much support. At least as many editors who have recently addressed this topic are opposed to inclusion as are in favor of it. For something negative in a BLP, I think we need a consensus to include. Furthermore, even if there were a consensus to include all this information, I still have concerns over how it's being presented, with weasel words, passive voice constructions, and the lumping together of a series of unrelated issues to suggest that GLAAD and SPLC have "joined" with Media Matters in their criticism of O'Reilly's attitude toward gay people. However, even if all of these issues were addressed, I think that by and large the issue should not go in the article. Croctotheface (talk) 17:03, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Just so we're clear: you're saying that even if your concerns are addressed, you oppose inclusion. Can you say why? Jimintheatl (talk) 17:28, 16 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I think that MM's criticism is that, in their view, O'Reilly's comments are inappropriate, while in his view they are not. To me, this is basically a disagreement about what the remarks mean, whether they're OK or not, and so forth.  People criticize O'Reilly's point of view all the time, and I think disagreeing about the meaning of the words he says sort of falls into the same category.  A criticism of this nature that's particularly widespread, like the Sylvia's thing, is fair game.  If it's not widespread, I don't really think the subject is compelling enough.  It's not distinguishable enough from the dozens or hundreds of other criticisms MM has made of him.  Croctotheface (talk) 17:54, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Your personal views on this matter really aren't that relevant; what is relevant is what the reliable sources say on this point. Please stop deleting this material.  Thanks. csloat (talk) 18:18, 16 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Just to be clear, you believe that nothing that "reliable sources say" can be excluded from this article? Is that the correct reading of what you've just said?  Croctotheface (talk) 18:20, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear, I'd appreciate it if you stopped putting words in my mouth based on false dichotomies. I explained above what was important, notable, and significant about this particular well sourced criticism.  I am not addressing r paragraphs other than the ones that you keep removing from the article.  Please do not remove it again. csloat (talk) 18:26, 16 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm asking you if you can conceive of any way to exclude any content. Because you won't say that you can, I'm left to assume that, no, you don't believe that anything on the subject of criticism of O'Reilly that "reliable sources say" can be excluded.  You dismiss any reason for inclusion or exclusion besides what "reliable sources say" as "personal views."  Well, all your reasons for inclusion except for the notion that it does not fail WP:V, are YOUR personal views.  If we set aside all of those "personal views" criteria, we're just left with "we should include it because it does not fail WP:V."  So, if we accept that logic here, then we are left with no means to exclude anything that does not fail WP:V from this article.  That's the regime that your logic supports.  I've invited you to explain how that's wrong, and you've refused.  The standard you apparently advocate would invite all sorts of bloat to this article.  It's not workable.  Croctotheface (talk) 18:31, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
 * You can assume what you want, but please stop acting like it is based on something I said. What I said is above, and if you can't quote it, it isn't there.  If you focus only on the issue at hand -- the documented and verifiable fact that notable antidefamation organizations have found that OReilly's activities encourage a climate of homophobia -- we might actually be talking to each other.  Unfortunately you seem only interested in carrying on a ridiculous hypothetical conversation that has nothing to do with improving this page.  I just don't find such a conversation stimulating or useful.  Have a good day. csloat (talk) 11:26, 17 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Whether O'Reilly thinks his words are appropriate is irrelevant; he is being criticized for them. Can I remind you that his article is called "Criticism of Bill O'Reilly."  Criticism on the same theme by three prominent organizations is not widespread?  Essentially, you are saying that you disagree with the criticism, which is your right, but you cannot honestly say that this is not absolutely appropriate for this article. Jimintheatl (talk) 18:32, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
 * No, I agree with the criticism. I disagree with the synthesis required to decide that these are "on the same topic."  That connection is tenuous at best. I disagree with the notion that this criticism is important enough to include.  You also appear to believe that no criticism by a prominent organization can be excluded.  You say it's from "three prominent organizations," but they are NOT all making the same criticism.  They are all making criticisms related to O'Reilly's discussion of sexuality, but that is not the same thing.  What you're doing is original synthesis of information to make a criticism appear stronger and more widespread than it is.  Croctotheface (talk) 18:36, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
 * So are suggesting it would be more appropriate to have several discreet sections discussing specific comments/criticisms rather than an overall theme? Jimintheatl (talk) 18:41, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
 * And aren't you.....edit warring? Jimintheatl (talk) 18:42, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Removing BLP violations is not considered edit waring. Croctotheface (talk) 18:48, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
 * You are edit warring Croctotheface. There are no BLP violations here and you are well aware of that.  Please stop distorting the issue.  Thank you. csloat (talk) 20:25, 16 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I have described the BLP violations several times. You are free to believe that my understanding is wrong, but I don't think it is.  Croctotheface (talk) 20:28, 16 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Please provide a specific example of the criticism you have made in edit summaries. Your general objections are difficult to address....Jimintheatl (talk) 18:46, 16 May 2008 (UTC)


 * For the sake of argument, I'll assume for the moment that the MM campaign could be included here. I believe that it should not, but for the purpose of answering your question, I'll assume the opposite.  It could be possible to group criticisms relating to a topic under the same section.  However, in this case, there is a lot more going on.  The "lesbian gang" business is basically a criticism of O'Reilly believing a false story and sensationalizing a false story.   MM's criticism is much broader: it basically says that O'Reilly has a long history of slurring gay people.  The text you want to include in the article places these very different concepts very close together and serves to imply that all of the organizations are basically making the same overall point.  It says that both MM and GLAAD "have criticized O'Reilly" for doing this and that, when MM's criticism takes the form of dozens of stories and a campaign against O'Reilly, while the GLAAD source has, I think, two or three sentences on O'Reilly within a much larger post.  This violates BLP, in my view, because it casts O'Reilly in a much more negative light than the sources do.  It blurs distinctions that the sources make to make him come off worse.  Croctotheface (talk) 18:47, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, to clarify, yes, it's possible to group related criticisms. My contention is that the factual accuracy criticism about the "lesbian gang" would better fall under the factual inaccuracies section.  The way it's presented here, in concert with MM's criticism, serves to bolster MM's criticism, which is not something that either GLAAD or SPLC said they agreed with.  Croctotheface (talk) 18:53, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

First, if you assume this can be included here, why do you keep removing it? You are citing BLP in the edit summary but you are not actually making a BLP based argument here. The BLP argument you make in the edit summary is nonsensical -- BLP does not rule out any criticism of a subject, and let's not forget that this page is about criticism! Why is this particular criticism excluded under BLP and not the other criticisms on the page? If you have only a problem with the lesbian gang thing, why are you removing the rest of it? And your comment about that is also not accurate -- the reason that the lesbian gangs thing was criticized by gay and civil rights advocacy organizations was not just because it was false but because it perpetuated homophobic stereotypes. A direct quote from the GLAAD page should be added to the page if that was in doubt (and apparently it was in doubt, judging from your misinterpretation): "The O'Reilly Factor segment essentially reported a national epidemic of lesbian gangs preying on young girls without offering one solid statistic or credible source," said Rashad Robinson, GLAAD's Senior Director of Media Programs. "This type of inaccurate tabloid journalism perpetuates dangerous stereotypes about lesbians and feeds a climate of homophobia, anti-gay discrimination and violence. That's the real national epidemic, but not one you're likely to see reported with such zeal by Bill O'Reilly." So are you ok with restoring the section now that we have this point straightened out? Thanks. Oh and by the way, instead of just demanding this stuff be censored, why not just add O'Reilly's response? csloat (talk) 19:06, 16 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Do you know what it means to assume something for the sake of argument? I assumed it so I could answer Jim's question better.  Regarding BLP, it was poorly sourced negative information.  I have already explained how: the text misused sources to suggest connections that were not there and cast O'Reilly in  a more negative light.  There is a big difference between criticizing someone for "inaccurate tabloid journalism" and criticizing them for homophobia.  GLAAD said that such irresponsible journalism "feeds a climate of homophobia," but that is very different from saying that O'Reilly is homophobic.  GLAAD was making a journalism criticism, not a homophobia criticism.  Croctotheface (talk) 19:14, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Well then you can add the appropriate qualifier in next time instead of deleting the whole thing. Your personal opinion that this is a "journalism criticism, not a homophobia criticism" is bizarre but irrelevant.  But if you think we should quote them exactly rather than summarizing them you'll get no argument from me. csloat (talk) 20:15, 16 May 2008 (UTC)


 * They are criticizing O'Reilly for his shoddy journalism, not because they think he attacked people based on sexuality. Lumping that criticism together with MM's, which basically says that O'Reilly has a long history of slurring gay people, serves to imply that other organizations are making that same broad criticism.  If GLAAD called on O'Reilly to stop slurring gay people or something like that, then there might be a different situation here.  They didn't do that.  I don't really see how you can interpret that quote as saying that GLAAD thinks O'Reilly is a homophobe.  It's not my "personal opinion" that they didn't call him a homophobe in that quote, it's just a fact.  Croctotheface (talk) 20:25, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Your personal interpretation of this or that is not relevant -- let's just use direct quotes and agree to disagree, OK? There is no point in continuing this.  Please restore the section using direct quotes rather than the summaries you mistakenly find inaccurate.  Thanks! csloat (talk) 20:51, 16 May 2008 (UTC)


 * My interpretation is no more or less relevant than yours. There is obviously a degree of interpretation that goes in here--we are writing an encyclopedia article that presents facts in context.  Choosing that context is certainly interpretive, so the notion that this is just "my opinion" is wholly unpersuasive.  My feeling is that this whole episode lacks the importance to include.  There does not exist a consensus of editors in support of including it, as Murph outlined above: I think there are about 10 editors who have weighed in here, and only two are strong advocates for inclusion.  Until such a consensus emerges for inclusion, this content does not belong.  Croctotheface (talk) 21:10, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
 * yes neither of our interpretations are relevant that's why I said if they are that different perhaps we can simply quote the sources directly rather than debating our interpretations? As for this lacking importance, that's obviously false, as I have shown above - the comments of GLAAD and SPLC as well as MMfA and 200,000 google hits are really unanswered by you except for this nitpicking about interpretation.  So can we move on now?  Thanks. csloat (talk) 23:30, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Your "this episode" comment makes me question your sincerity and whether you are reading or paying attention to the article or sources. What "episode" are you talking about?  This article is about a history and pattern of comments, not an episode. Jimintheatl (talk) 00:57, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Sloat, there is not a consensus in favor of including this. Whether something has or lacks importance is not a matter of fact, it's a matter of opinion, so you can't say that your opinion is "true" while mine is "false."  I don't think it's important or significant enough to include.  Apparently five or so other editors agree with me, and there's just the two of you who disagree.  That's not a formula for including the material. Jim,  I meant "this whole issue."  Croctotheface (talk) 04:39, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

BLP
I've placed this issue on the BLP noticeboard. I hope it can help reach a resolution. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 22:57, 16 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I just want to reiterate my BLP concerns so that anyone who might come here from the noticeboard need not wade through the rest of this discussion if they don't want to. Right now, the version going in and out of the article says "The Gay and Lesbian Alliance (GLAAD), Media Matters and the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) have each separately criticized criticized O'Reilly for making statements which these organization regard as homophobic or anti-gay."  However, neither the GLAAD or the SPLC item say that O'Reilly or his comments were "homophobic" or "anti-gay."  The closest anything comes is a quote in the SPLC item from someone in GLAAD, which Sloat quoted above and we discussed.  Saying that O'Reilly's incorrect reporting "creates a climate of homophobia and fear" is not at all the same as saying that O'Reilly himself made homophobic statements.  Because this assertion is false (neither GLAAD nor SPLC made that criticism, at least according to the sources cited) and serves to cast O'Reilly in a negative light, it represents unsourced or poorly sourced negative information and therefore is a BLP violation.   I also think that the last sentence, wherein the text mentions Media Matters' "similar concerns," inappropriately conflates a few lines from a GLAAD post that was mostly about other topics with a very broad critique from MM that is focused entirely on O'Reilly.  I think the purpose here is to lend GLAAD's cachet to MM's campaign, even though GLAAD has done no such thing themselves, at least based on what's been cited in the article.  Because this is also misleading and serves to cast O'Reilly in a negative light, it also strikes me as a BLP violation.  (Also, I feel that I would be remiss to mention this, even though it's not about BLP: currently, there does not exist a consensus to include this material.  Even if there were no BLP concerns, there is no consensus to include anything on this subject and therefore it should not go in.)  Croctotheface (talk) 07:57, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Umm, you're being nonsensical. You're the only one carrying on this argument at this point, and the additions and changes to language has more than met every single concern you've expressed.  Claiming a consensus out of thin air really doesn't help support your argument (which has successfully been shown to be completely bankrupt several times now).  I sense you may have ownership issues with this page. csloat (talk) 11:16, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * By the way, I would be happy supporting changing the text to say not that these orgs found OReilly homophobic but that his words "create a climate of homophobia and fear." That appears to be a compromise you would accept, based on your comments regarding BLP above -- am I correct?  If so, would you like to do the honors or should I? csloat (talk) 11:26, 17 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I described my BLP concerns in detail above. If you address them to my satisfaction, there will no longer be a BLP dispute.  There would still be a dispute over consensus (I count six editors against including this section and only two editors in favor).  The notion that my arguments about importance have "been shown to be completely bankrupt" is, well, completely bankrupt itself.  I see no evidence that you have convinced a single editor to come around to your position.  Six editors have expressed opposition to one degree or another to the edit you want to make.  I don't think that my arguments will convince you that you're wrong, but at this point I'm not the one who needs to convince others to come around to my position.  So long as three times as many editors opposed to inclusion, it should stay out of the article. Croctotheface (talk) 18:09, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I count one editor actually continuing this argument. You can't count editors who haven't spoken up about this in months, sorry; the paragraph has changed significantly since then.  At this point your actions are basically censorship of legitimate well sourced information of direct relevance to this page.  But that is neither here nor there - Wikipedia should not be about mob rule, and it is pretty sad that you have abandoned all pretense of discussing the actual arguments and issues here and have simply fallen back on bullying - "you may be right, but we outnumber you." csloat (talk) 18:59, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I have to agree with Croctotheface on this...as a hypothetical question, should we include all sourced praise of Bill O'Reilly in this article as well? Compliments are "criticism" just as much as complaints are. That would be fair, right? Kelly  hi! 19:07, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I think that it would be appropriate to include O'Reilly's response to the criticism, or the response of others to it, sure. I just don't see where we're talking about that here though -- we're talking about including a specific paragraph of criticism.  Every single argument Croc has raised about this paragraph has been addressed, and the paragraph has been changed to accommodate his suggestions.  Yet he still keeps censoring it -- do you support this deletion, and if so, why?  Thanks for your input. csloat (talk) 19:13, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * This should not be a coatrack article about every single nonsignificant entity that doesn't like what this pundit says. I think there are serious WP:SYN problems per Croc's arguments above. Kelly  hi! 19:17, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed -- this shouldn't be a coatrack article about nonsignificant criticism. That's not the issue here.  What SYN argument do you see?  There is no synthesis of unrelated sources; can you show it to me?  My most recent changes to the paragraph should have addressed the last of these concerns; can we move on now?  Thanks. csloat (talk) 19:22, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Let's wait for Croc to return to see if his concerns are satisfied. Kelly  hi! 19:23, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Sure; in the meantime, if you have no outstanding concerns, please stop the revert war. Especially when you haven't even bothered to look at the changes I made to the paragraph.  Thanks. csloat (talk) 19:26, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I did look at the changes, and I don't believe the concerns were satisfied. With BLPs we need to err on the side of caution. Why is so critical that your para be included in the article immediately? You should post your proposed changes here on the talk page, and only include them in the article once consensus is achieved. That's the way Wikipedia works. Kelly hi! 19:28, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I have an overarching concern with conflating the MM and SPLC/GLAAD pieces. As I said a while back, I think the SPLC/GLAAD criticism is narrow and deals with the "lesbian gang" story and, in GLAAD's case, a single other issue dealing with transgendered people. MM's criticism, on the other hand, is very broad and basically says that O'Reilly has a long history of slurring gay people. I think the first criticism could be included as a "factual accuracy" or "bad journalism" criticism: the fact that it relates to sexuality is tangential. Pairing it with MM's broad critique serves to bolster MM's argument when neither SPLC nor GLAAD have said that they intend to do that. Furthermore, I don't think MM's critique is important enough to include. It seems to me to be a difference of opinion over how to interpret these things that O'Reilly said. We wouldn't include someone criticizing O'Reilly for, say, supporting or opposing a certain law because that's fairly unremarkable in politics. The MM part should be left out because it just isn't important enough to include. Croctotheface (talk) 19:29, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd say that your BLP and SYNTH concerns have been addressed by recent edits. Your "factual accuracy" argument is  a straw man as GLAAD explicitly criticized O'Reilly for contributing to a homophobic climate, not for inaccuracy.  And, again, your opinion about the relative importance of a pattern of remarks described by MM as anti-gay is irrelevant; it's not a "difference of opinion," it's a clear, documented critical opinion--just because O'Reilly dismisses it or doesn't get it or doesn't care....that somehow negates the fact that the criticsm has been made?? Jimintheatl (talk) 21:18, 17 May 2008 (UTC)


 * An erroneous and sensationalized report could, as they say, "create a climate of homophobia," but that doesn't mean that they are calling O'Reilly a homophobe or saying that he is slurring gay people the way that MM has. Pairing those two issues is, as Kelly has said, original synthesis in violation of WP's no original research policy.  (By the way, I don't think you're using the term "straw man" correctly.)  Secondly, your position seems to be that any and every "documented critical opinion" MUST be included here.  As I've said before, that would be unworkable and essentially turn this article into, as Murph likes to say, a "Media Matters blog."  If your opinion that we must include all "documented critical opinions" prevails, then this article will bloat until it is deleted.  Croctotheface (talk) 22:44, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Here's straw man: we must include all "documented critical opinions."  No one arguing for inclusion is making that argument.  Further, MM's action campaign is explicitly titled "O'Reilly's Homophobia" and GLAAD explicitly talks about how BOR contributes to a climate of homophobia(I don't think they really care so much about the factually inaccuracy as they do the effect of the report).  So I apologize if I called your specious diversion a straw man.Jimintheatl (talk) 00:19, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
 * First, I think my position on what GLAAD has criticized is both clear and correct. Your speculation about what they care about does not comport with what they actually say: their criticism is for "sensationalizing" a false story, and they say that such shoddy journalism is especially bad in this case because it can lead to a climate of homophobia.  They in no way say that O'Reilly is homophobic, and yet that is what you kept trying to put in the article.  There is a world of difference between criticizing someone by calling them a homophobe and saying that their shoddy journalism spreads fear that could incite homophobia.  Second, the only argument for inclusion that you presented in your previous post was, "Your opinion about the relative importance of a pattern of remarks described by MM as anti-gay is irrelevant; it's not a "difference of opinion," it's a clear, documented critical opinion."  What I see there is a rejection of my contention that the criticism is not important enough because, you say, "relative importance...is irrelevant."  Why is it irrelevant?  Because, you say, "it's a clear, documented critical opinion."  If your logic here is correct, then any "clear, documented critical opinion" MUST be included because even if it is totally trivial, "relative importance is irrelevant."  If I'm reading your argument wrong, please tell me how.  Do you think that we could exclude a "clear, documented critical opinion" because we reach the consensus that it is just not important enough or informative enough to include?  My feeling is that yes, of course we could, and therefore this discussion should be about whether or not this particular criticism is important enough to include.  If you agree with that, then please stop with the, "It's sourced!"  "It's documented!" stuff.  I see the sources.  I am not disputing that Media Matters has made a criticism.  I'm disputing the notion that it should go in the article.  Croctotheface (talk) 00:48, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I hope you are being provocative; otherwise, I wonder whether you comprehend GLAAD's concern.GLAAD is quite explicit that BOR's "reporting engenders an atmosphere of fear and distrust of gay and lesbian people. Look at their name, that is their agenda, not generic media  inaccuracy.  Shoddy journalism?  GLAAD doesn't care about shoddy journalism.  They care about journalism which, as they explicitly state, contributes to a climate of homophobia (and golly, gee, broadcasting a bogus report about a "national epidemic" of pink-pistol-packin' lesbian gangs seeking to "lesbianize" the folks' daughters just might do that...or is that just a factual inaccuracy in your book? .....Please, show a little sense here...Jimintheatl (talk) 02:01, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
 * If they believed that O'Reilly intended to "encourage homophobia," which is what the article says they criticized him for, they could have said that. They did not.  The sources cited here make no reference to GLAAD saying that O'Reilly is a homophobe or that he intended to scare people about lesbians.  Their criticism was for "sensationalizing" a false story.  The quote reads, "This type of reporting creates a climate of homophobia."  Bad reporting produces bad result in people who see it.  That's a journalism criticism, not a sexuality criticism.  Also, what's your reply to the second part of what I said: do you believe that it is ever appropriate to exclude a "clear, documented critical opinion" from this article?  If someone comes along and adds a section on literally every item MM has published on O'Reilly, would you advocate keeping them in the article?  Croctotheface (talk) 02:16, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I've already addressed this straw man. You are the only one taking the all-inclusive position; I don't need to defend a position I don't hold.  And, I wonder if you've read GLAAD's critique.  Their general mission/concern is media defamation against gays and lesbians.  You are making a false distinction. Jimintheatl (talk) 13:18, 18 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't see how to interpret your remarks in a way that's consistent with anything but an all-inclusive position. If you don't believe that all "sourced criticism" needs to go in, then stop using variations on "it's sourced" and "it's criticism" to argue for inclusion. Regarding GLAAD, you need to appeal to their "general mission" because I'm obviously correct that they never criticized O'Reilly for "encouraging homophobia."  That statement in the article is just false; it's just not in the sources.  "GLAAD cares about sexuality" doesn't mean that they called O'Reilly a homophobe or believed that his intent was to slur gay people.  However, I don't think that there's really a purpose in having this discussion with you any longer.  Neither you nor Sloat is going to change his position, and unless something changes regarding how widespread this criticism is, neither am I.  At this point, I think our views are clear.  As far as I can tell, there's nobody but you two who has gone on record as supporting inclusion, while six or so other editors have supported exclusion.  Your focus should be on filing a request for comment or using some other method to seek out other editors in the hopes that they wade through this whole discussion and agree with you instead of me.  As it stands, there is not a consensus for including this material.  Croctotheface (talk) 16:02, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
 * You haven't been having an argument with me; instead you are attributing to me positions I do not hold. In addition, your comment about GLAAD confirms for me that you have not read GLAAD's statement, as they explicitly state that BOR's comments contribute to a climate of homophobia.Jimintheatl (talk) 20:00, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I quoted that statement above, and I explained that "This type of reporting creates a climate of homophobia" is different from "encourages homophobia." "Encourages" implies (if not accuses) that O'Reilly did something intentionally.  What they actually said criticizes the reporting as irresponsible.  Just to clarify your position: would it be correct to say that you believe that not all sourced criticism of Bill O'Reilly is appropriate to include here?  You agree with me that editors can reach a consensus that certain criticisms, despite being sourced/documented/etc, should not be included?  Croctotheface (talk) 01:04, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, the GLAAD criticism is for "reporting" a false story, not for "making statements." MM's criticism is for "making statements," so this is yet another example of attempting to strengthen the very broad criticism MM has made by incorrectly appending this narrow criticism to it.  Croctotheface (talk) 01:27, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * You are nitpicking and hand-waving. If you want to change "encourages homophobia" to "creates a climate of homophobia" and you think it makes a damn bit of difference, go for it.  But quit deleting the section.  And please stop putting words in other editors' mouths and claiming you are just "clarifying a position."  Jim didn't say that and you know it, nor did I, and your repetition of that is getting tedious. csloat (talk) 01:51, 19 May 2008 (UTC)


 * It's really puzzling that you would insist that I stop removing the section when you have no consensus to add it and something like three times as many editors have expressed opposition to inclusion, while you two are the only ones who have argued in favor of inclusion. Croctotheface (talk) 01:57, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * It's really puzzling that you would once again fall back on pure bullying ("we outnumber you") when you find yourself unable to respond to the arguments raised here. Please stop the phony consensus argument.  There is only one person actively defending censorship here on the talk page and that is you.  There appears to be one other who agrees with you but that editor refuses to make any arguments to support his points.  We have two editors actively opposed to the censorship.  So there is no "consensus."  Can you please stop raising phony arguments and actually deal with the merits of this issue?  Thanks. csloat (talk) 02:30, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I already made a long post below that's titled "discussing the merits," so the to your last question is "I already have." Your requirement that people "actively defend" their position is silly; you seem to think that people need to return here every time you change a comma.  Editors who opposed the initial change a few weeks back said that they believe the criticism is inappropriate to include in any form.  Besides, Murph, Kelly, Ramsquire, and Kyaa all expressed that they favor removing the content in the last three or so days.  That's five people including me.  Croctotheface (talk) 02:49, 19 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, this makes sense - per above, this is a WP:NOR problem caused by synthesis. Kelly  hi! 19:37, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Dirty phone calls?
What about the dirty phone call issue?

And his blowing up at Inside Edition? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.16.225.228 (talk) 18:28, 15 May 2008 (UTC)


 * The Andrea Mackris episode is detailed at the main article. Regarding the video, unless there's a significant criticism made, then I don't think it fits the bill here.  This is an article on criticism, not Things that might embarrass Bill O'Reilly.  Croctotheface (talk) 21:19, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Full protection
I've fully protected this talk page article because of edit warring. Work it out or please take this to dispute resolution--Hu12 (talk) 00:20, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Discussing the merits of the homophobia thing
All of the arguments that follow apply regardless of whether the content in question is sourced. It is sourced: Media Matters made the criticism, and the other two organizations each made a separate criticism. That we are dealing with "sourced criticism" is not in question, and so just simply saying "it's sourced" or "it's criticism, and this is an article on criticism," does not refute anything.

Media Matters' criticism, by itself, is not appropriate to include. It hinges on their interpretation of comments that O'Reilly has made throughout his career. They see him as "dishing the homophobia" and making "attacks" on gay people. That is a very strong and broad critique that is based on a difference of opinion regarding the nature of his comments. In general, differences of opinion of this kind should be excluded from articles like this, as people involved with politics get criticized all the time for things they say and positions they take.

The GLAAD and SPLC items are not related enough to the MM item to group them together. The issue there is a false report that O'Reilly did about violent "lesbian gangs." The criticism there is based not on "attacking" or slurring gay people, but rather making a false report that dealt with sexuality. The section in the article is written so as to completely blur the distinction between the very broad criticism that MM made and this narrow criticism of a single segment on O'Reilly's show. There is a big difference between what the GLAAD representative actually said ("This reporting contributes to a climate of homophobia") and saying that O'Reilly is a homophobe, made homophobic remarks, or "encouraged" others to be homophobic.

The basic criticism from GLAAD/SPLC is about journalism, not sexuality. The quote above goes after O'Reilly's reporting, not O'Reilly himself or "statements" he made. Saying that GLAAD criticized him for "statements" suggests that they feel that he in some way slurred gay people. Again, that inappropriately serves to enhance the Media Matters criticism.

My view is that the journalism/factual accuracy criticism may be valid to include, provided it was described neutrally. The "history of attacking gay people" criticism from Media Matters should not be included here at all. If GLAAD or other prominent organizations and individuals explicitly joined this campaign or made similarly sweeping criticisms (that is, not one that singles out a single case of bad reporting), then that may be cause to reevaluate this situation.

Finally, talk page consensus does not support including these items. Significantly more editors have expressed opposition to inclusion than have said they want to include the item. Until that consensus changes, we should default to keeping this material out. Tweaks to the language should be presented on the talk page, not by reinserting the item into the article. If some version comes out that a consensus of editors supports, then it can go in the article after that consensus is reached. Croctotheface (talk) 01:54, 19 May 2008 (UTC)


 * You're just rehashing arguments that have been answered, Croc. First, GLAAD is not a "journalism" organization; they criticized OReilly for his comments because they contributed to a climate of homophobia, not because they were "journalistically" flawed.  Second, you are raising a straw man about whether BOR is a homophobe.  Nobody cares.  That's not what the paragraph you keep censoring says.  That paragraph says accurately that his comments were criticized for contributing to a climate of homophobia.  So I agree with you that a paragraph saying BOR was called a homophobe would be unacceptable here.  But that is not the paragraph you keep deleting.  Third, you are splitting hairs about whether the MM and GLAAD criticisms belong in the same section.  You have been deleting the whole section anyway which is inappropriate - if you think they belong in different headings then show us a better way to organize them rather than deleting them.  Fourth, your "original research" claim is a transparent red herring.  It depends on the hairsplitting about whether these comments are about sexuality or "journalism."  It also depends on the idea that there is some kind of "campaign" against BOR that MM and GLAAD are supposedly "joining."  These are your words; they do not appear in the text of the paragraph you keep censoring.  Hence, this is a red herring.  Finally, you again fall back on bullying to promote your point.  Claiming a phony consensus is not helpful here -- it is possible that there are other editors who agree with you, but if they refuse to even engage the discussion then all you are saying is "we outnumber you and we will edit war until we get our way."  That is a distinctly unhelpful approach to editing.  If you want to tweak the language of a paragraph do so without deleting it entirely -- if I see a misspelling in the intro, should I delete the intro and edit war until someone gets an improved version of the intro paragraph posted on the talk page, as you are suggesting we do with this paragraph? csloat (talk) 02:42, 19 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Did you actually read what I wrote? I don't think the MM criticism belongs at all; I would not favor putting it in a different spot from the other criticisms because I don't think it should be anywhere in the article.  If you agree that it should go, then we could work together to figure out how and where to put the GLAAD/SPLC criticism.  Five editors (myself, Murph, Ramsquire, Kyaa, and Kelly) have, since the 15th, said the content does not belong.  Only you two have said it should go in.  That seems like a consensus to me. Croctotheface (talk) 02:54, 19 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Out of town for awhile, but I agree with Croc and others as well. Arzel (talk) 03:15, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Can you say why? So far he has not made an intelligible argument.  The others as well - I haven't seen any of them except Croc try to defend this censorship, and his arguments are completely bankrupt as I have shown above.  Instead of responding he simply repeats himself.  Sigh...  I guess this page is dominated by users who prefer to keep any criticism off the page.  It is too bad the page is supposed to be about criticism. csloat (talk) 05:13, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * (EC) Croc has stated his position perfectly, so I feel no need to rehash it. The fact that you and Jim fail to agree with it shows an unwillingness to understand BLP issues within WP.  While this particular page may be about notable criticism that BOR has endured, WP in general is NOT a tabloid, which is what you and Jim apparently feel it should be.  Arzel (talk) 12:36, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * It is not possible to debate with someone who believes, as Arzel has said, that including negative comments about BOR violates BLP.Jimintheatl (talk) 14:56, 19 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with csloat's comments, but will add a few of my own, for what they're worth.

First, Croc's "it's sourced, it's criticism" canard is tiresome. No one, except Croc, has made that argument. Second, the 'difference of opinion" line is bizarre. Using that rationale, this entire article could be deleted (which I'm sure would delight BOR fans) because I see little evidence that BOR agrees with any of the criticism detailed in the article.  The mere fact that BOR disagrees with the criticism does not negate the fact that the criticism has been made. Third, both GLAAD and Media Matters are media watchdog orgs, so they necessarily criticize "journalism."  But they are not media ombudsmen and do not have a "pardon our errors" focus as Croc suggests.  Media Matters has a broader scope, looking for conservative misinformation/spin/talking points/etc, while GLAAD focuses on defamatory or harmful depictions of the GLBT community.  So to claim that GLAAD had a purely journalistic concern about factual inaccuracy is beyond disingenuous. Fourth, to say that X and Y have alleged that BOR has made comments which X and Y regard as contributing to a climate of homophobia is very different from saying BOR is a homophobe. Fifth, Croc continues to claim that GLAAD focuses on a single incident of bad reporting. This is a flat-out falsehood. Please read the sources. Jimintheatl (talk) 12:34, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Do we have any secondary sources covering this criticism? It certainly does not seem notable. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 13:24, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Can you say WHY "it does not seem notable?" I apologize if I'm asking you to support your position, but simply stating something does not make it true.Jimintheatl (talk) 14:15, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Onus is on the includer, not the other way around. Arzel (talk) 14:17, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * You understand this a Talk page, right? Jimintheatl (talk) 14:56, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * You understand that the talk page is where the includer provides their reasoning for inclusion when there is a dicussion, right? Your solution seems to be edit war.  Arzel (talk) 19:19, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The "includer?" I'm almost speechless.  Are there situations where debate is pointless?  Maybe....Jimintheatl (talk) 01:46, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * It is not notable because of the lack of coverage and notice it spawned. No one but self-published blogs have carried this "story" other than the primary sources. Get some secondary sources and maybe you can prove that the inclusion of this material is not undue weight. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 17:31, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, no one has carried "this story." Except, there is this one newspaper, perhaps you've heard of it,  it's called The New York Times.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimintheatl (talk • contribs) 17:58, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, they covered the "lesbian gang" thing, not the MM thing. I've already said that in my view the lesbian gang thing can go in.  I see no reason to include MM's broad criticisms.  They don't strike me as different enough from the multitudes of MM items criticizing O'Reilly that do not receive coverage in this article. Croctotheface (talk) 18:06, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * In reading the CQ article (it wasn't the NYT) it reads as if the situation is mostly resolved. Arzel (talk) 19:19, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Can someone explain what Arzel might mean by "the situation is mostly resolved?" Which situation?  And what resolution?  I can't imagine that he's referring to the GLAAD complaint, because that would be irrelevant.  I hope, but don't think it possible, that he is referring to this debate about inclusion.Jimintheatl (talk) 21:10, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * OK. No one has a clue as to what Arel meant. That's reassuring at least. Because, as with most of his objections, I too am baffled.Jimintheatl (talk) 01:40, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The CQ article was republished in the NYTimes. It doesn't matter how the article "reads as if" to you; what matters is that we now have a new canard about sourcing that has been effectively defeated.  Can you guys please stop deleting this section now?  Thanks. csloat (talk) 20:34, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter how brilliant you think your arguments are. Only you two favor inclusion, while six other editors favor exclusion.  You need to sway the consensus, either by changing people's minds or finding new editors who agree with you via a request for comment.  Until then, you need to stop edit warring to put your section in against the opinions of every other editor who has participated in this discussion in the last 5 days.  "Can you guys stop ignoring consensus now?  Thanks."  Croctotheface (talk) 22:01, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * You keep saying "consensus, consensus, consensus" based on numbers alone. But the arguments of the "Consensus Crowd" have been refuted point by point: BLP, the "any criticism is valid" straw man, single incident, no secondary sources, no media coverage, etc......So if all that is left is numbers, that is OK?  To my mind, that is intellectually dishonest.Jimintheatl (talk) 02:03, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Well I appreciate the honesty at least -- you're admitting your arguments have no merit whatsoever and that all you are left with is the bullying. csloat (talk) 22:38, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * When I said that your position boils down to saying "it's criticism," you called that a canard, but then the only reason you gave for inclusion was that "the criticism has been made." That sounds like "it's criticism" to me.  Are there any cases where "a criticism has been made" by Media Matters that you would favor keeping out of the article?  Croctotheface (talk) 17:37, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * A sampler. Please drop this nonsense.     Jimintheatl (talk) 21:50, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, so, you're willing to exclude those. Good, now we're getting somewhere.  Two things: first, please stop making all of your replies to my arguments for exclusion some variation on the notion of "sourced criticism."  You have just conceded that we should exclude those sourced criticisms you just listed from the article.  Second, I'm curious about the reasons you have for excluding those.  Why is it that they should not go in? Croctotheface (talk) 22:01, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Congrats. Pat yourself on the back for winning the argument you had with yourself and let's move on. The lock expires tomorrow and and I expect you intend to undo or delete.  Which of the remainder of your shifting positions have not been addressed?Jimintheatl (talk) 01:40, 20 May 2008 (UTC)


 * You didn't answer my question: on what grounds do you believe we should exclude all of those? To answer yours, none of my arguments have been addressed to my satisfaction.  It's not important enough.  It's a difference of opinion, and people disagree with O'Reilly all the time.  I don't see this case as much different from any of the ones you agree we should exclude.  MM criticizes O'Reilly all the time; this criticism does not distinguish itself.  No other group or individual else has made this broad argument that O'Reilly constantly attacks gay people.  Most importantly, six editors oppose including this information, and only you two favor it.  Even if you think that our position is bankrupt, it is the consensus.  The burden is on you to sway the consensus, it's not on me to convince you of anything.  Croctotheface (talk) 02:13, 20 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Go ahead and add them into the article and then we can debate that. If nobody is advocating adding them into the article, what value is such a debate?  The answer is here. csloat (talk) 22:41, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Are you still on this canard? Give it up -- that's not what this discussion is about and it never was. csloat (talk) 20:34, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Hey Croc, is it just the MM material that you and your six friends object to here? Are there any extant objections to GLAAD and the NYT as sources? csloat (talk) 03:18, 20 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I can't speak for my "friends," but my objection regarding the "lesbian gang" issue has dealt with the way it was described, not with its importance. I'm not endorsing anything that's in the article now, but I think that the "lesbian gang" criticism could be included, provided it were described appropriately.  I do not think the MM criticism belongs in the article in any capacity.  Croctotheface (talk) 03:24, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, apparently you can speak for your friends, since you continue to do so when it suits you. But we'll let them chime in as necessary.  So you acknowledge that the criticism by GLAAD - which was important enough to rate a CQ article that was eventually printed in the NYT - is important enough to include, but you take issue with the way it is described.  Please tell us what is wrong with the way it is described and suggest an alternative.  (To make this easier for you, do you have a problem with quoting directly?)  Thanks.  csloat (talk) 05:09, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Where did I speak for them? I just explained that they are on record as opposing the edits that you wished to make.  You were asking me to speculate about what they would be OK with in the future.  Anyway, I'd want to put it under the "disputes of factual accuracy" section and keep it to a couple of sentences.  Quoting directly is fine, so long as those quotes represent the heart of the criticism and are not plucked selectively to give a less than forthright impression of the issue.  Croctotheface (talk) 05:23, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * It's not a dispute about factual accuracy; try again. And stop edit warring - the second the page protection is removed there you are deleting the content that you even agree here would be ok.  Let's use direct quotes and call it what it is.  And don't raise yet another red herring -- "selective plucking" of quotes is not an argument that is relevant here at all.  Put the content back in the article.  Thanks. csloat (talk) 05:51, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to bother indulging you with responses if you continue to ignore the consensus, accuse me of edit warring, tell me what to do, or make snide remarks like "try again." Croctotheface (talk) 05:55, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Sigh* Look, no offense, man, but you're being a bully here. Instead of addressing the arguments, you keep moving the target -- first you say it's just the MM stuff that is objectionable, then you say the GLAAD quote is really not about what it manifestly says it is about, then you say that it is "selectively plucked" out of context; it seems like you will say anything you can think of to keep the material off the page.  When you fail to come up with further arguments you return to "the consensus wants it this way" -- that may be true but nobody is explaining why.  The consensus argument is just another way of saying that you will get your way through edit-warring so you don't have to explain yourself.  I'm just trying to find out if there is a way that this material can be put in here while satisfying your objections.  But you keep changing your objections every time you lose the argument.  And on top of it you continue the edit war -- instead of tweaking the material to show us what you think would be appropriate, you simply delete everything the second the page protection is lifted.  Anyway, it's frustrating; I apologize if my tone reflected too much of that frustration. csloat (talk) 06:38, 20 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm glad to see that you accept that the consensus is to exclude the material in question. Despite what you claim, I think it's pretty clear based on that consensus that I haven't "lost" any argument here.  The consensus formed against inclusion because, apparently, the other editors agree with my logic and disagree with yours.  I can imagine that would be frustrating, but you seem to think that the way to get the consensus to come around to your side is to attack and make snide remarks about me.  Our disagreement is about whether the Media Matters criticism is worthy of mention.  My argument is based on an evaluation of its lack of importance.  You seem to believe that you can "refute" my submission that the criticism lacks importance, but you can't.  You can't "prove" that something is so important that it must be mentioned here; you can only put forth your case and attempt to persuade other editors to form a consensus that agrees with you.  Likewise, you seem to think that making changes to the language makes a difference, but nothing of that nature can make the criticism itself more important.  You put forth your case, I put forth mine, and, as you acknowledge, the consensus here agrees with me and not with you.  Taking your frustrations out by attacking me will not get the content you want into the article.  Croctotheface (talk) 07:11, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * OK so the Media Matters cite is all you are arguing against? You can agree with a section about the GLAAD incident?  I am asking because you have persistently censored that material as well in your edit war.  We can discuss the Media Matters material after the other material is reinstated; if you agree please reinstate it.  Thanks. csloat (talk) 08:05, 20 May 2008 (UTC)


 * From now on, I'm not going to respond to any remarks from you that attempt to demean, disparage, or attack me in any way. You need to cut out all these references to "censorship" and whatever else.  The person without the support of consensus (in this case, it was you) is the one edit warring.  You need to apologize if you want me to work with you on this or anything else.  Croctotheface (talk) 08:49, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Apology was above; I thought you caught it earlier. Last sentence of the paragraph dated 06:38, 20 May 2008.  I haven't attempted to demean, disparage, or attack you, so you really aren't giving a reason for your refusal to engage the arguments here.  You're asking me to cut out my references to censorship but I don't know what to call it at this point.  And I'm not edit warring.  So it would be helpful if you stopped raising red herrings and actually addressed the issue at hand.  Thanks. csloat (talk) 09:18, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to go through and quote examples in which you disparaged and attacked me. You'd just deny that calling me a censor and whatever else is disparaging.  You may not be edit warring at this precise moment, but you certainly were edit warring a few days ago.  I've "addressed the issue at hand" plenty.  You don't agree with my point of view, which is your prerogative, but you seem to believe that simply saying that I'm wrong invalidates my argument.  Again, arguing with me doesn't serve a function anymore.  I don't need to convince you that I'm right because a consensus of editors agrees with me.  You need to work on swaying that consensus by changing the minds of other editors.  Until and unless that happens, I don't see any reason for me to continue discussing this with you because nothing I say will change your mind.  Trying to engage on the issues just resulted in your calling me a censor, making snide remarks about me, and on and on.  For the record, doing that might make you feel better, but it won't help you get the text you like put into the article.   Croctotheface (talk) 16:53, 20 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Though I believe Croc's objections to the Media Matters item are without merit, and he does seem to be speaking on behalf of his Gang of Six, I've included an edit along the lines he proposed. We'll see what happens next...A Dead-Ender aka Jimintheatl (talk) 12:14, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm joining Arzel's statement on your talk page. You are not here to contribute to the encyclopedia in a cooperative manner, please desist in edit warring your soapboxing into the article. You have not been able to find any supporting secondary or tertiary sources to support the inclusion of your material, per WP:V. You do not have any grounds to be tossing around slurs about other editors, Jim. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 12:17, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * You tried this silliness before, and I responded. If you are going to raise specious objections, at least bother to engage in the debate before raising them again.  Just tossing out the same debunked nonsense demonstrates that you are not serious about this debate. Hint: do you consider the New York Times a reliable source? Jimintheatl (talk) 13:31, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Glad to see you feel that adherence to Wikipedia's policies is "silliness." Well trolled. Is there a reason that you're not trying to improve your attempts at inclusion on the article by using these supposed secondary sources? Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 13:35, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Answer the question. What's wrong with the NYT as a source? csloat (talk) 15:42, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Can we stop mixing apples and oranges? No one is on record as wanting the GLAAD and SPLC criticisms out of the article entirely. The issue has always been whether they should be presented as being a part of the MMfA campaign. As long as the 'lesbian gang' issue is presented clearly, I believe the majority here has no problem with its inclusion. As for the MMfA campaign, there has been nothing put forth to respond to the undue weight claims made by Croc, Kyaa, Arzel and myself. With that being in the case, there is no reason for the "Gang of Six" as Jim has called us, to continuously comment. I'm not going to engage in a discussion where the other participants are being unnecessarily obtuse. As the one seeking inclusion, please meet your burden to show that the MMfA campaign is a significant viewpoint worthy of inclusion. If you can't do that, then drop it and move on. There is no deadline, and their are other articles which need attention as well. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 16:52, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Who is being obtuse? I have never said that we need a section on an "MMFA campaign."  I don't even know that there is such a "campaign."  I've been suggesting the inclusion of the material (that is now included) about O'Reilly being accused of encouraging homophobia -- the MMfA articles are part of that but they do not constitute a "campaign."  And the so-called "gang of six" have been removing the GLAAD and SPLC material as well as the MMfA material, so please do not accuse the other side of "mixing apples and oranges."  If you guys are ok with keeping the material in as it currently is (that is, this version), then I believe we have the beginning of a compromise.  So let's pursue that rather than raising false accusations. csloat (talk) 18:18, 20 May 2008 (UTC)


 * The issue with the prior version was that it made the scope of the SPLC/GLAAD lesbian gang criticism seem much greater, both in terms of describing it inaccurately and by pairing it with MM's sweeping criticism. Is everyone on board with the current version of the article?  Can we all just move on now?  Croctotheface (talk) 23:48, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm satisfied, tired and ready for a round of Kumbaya, provided Arzel doesn't think it violates BLP and Kyaa is willing to accept the NY Times as a reliable source. Joking, of course.  Thanks. Jimintheatl (talk) 00:23, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

== MMfA material ==

If we have the GLAAD & SPLC discussion behind us, perhaps it is time to address the MMfa material separately. I notice there is a section on MMfA criticism which includes O'Reilly's ad hominems against the organization. Do people think this would be the appropriate section to include other evidence of MMfA's criticisms against O'Reilly? If not, why not? Thanks. csloat (talk) 18:21, 20 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Are we organizing this article by critic or by topic? Are there relevant MoS/style guidelines?  Is this a question of organization or content?  I suspect your interpretation is the former, and there will be attempts by some to make it about the latter.  I suggest redefining your question more specifically... /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 19:25, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm actually asking about the content -- organization is a secondary question, but I asked about that section simply because that's the section already there. But I'm curious to hear what folks have to say about both. csloat (talk) 19:46, 20 May 2008 (UTC)


 * To sum up-- until shown otherwise, the viewpoint that O'Reilly is a homophobe or promotes homophobia (in a general sense) is an insignificant viewpoint being put forth mostly in the blogospere, and by a MMfA campaign (if you follow the cite you'll see it's part of their action center, and they describe it as campaign that people can join). Until independant third party sourcing of either the viewpoint or even of the MMfA campaign is produced, there is no reason to even discuss how to present the information. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 21:12, 20 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I tend to agree... the statements of either organization themselves are primary sources. Should we see this in multiple secondary sources we may revisit the issue, but I don't believe it's prudent to include this in its current form.  /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:19, 20 May 2008 (UTC)


 * We have a section on MMfA already -- why is the criticism there more or less notable than the one proposed to be added? csloat (talk) 23:33, 20 May 2008 (UTC)


 * The MMfA section is a general overview of one of the most persistent critics of BOR and BOR's response to them. It does not list any specific criticism. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 23:45, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Needless to say, the bit that Jim insists is "separate" (and yet is about the same material) doesn't belong either. I am beginning to become concerned that Jim's position--that the same content in a different place is somehow different enough that the consensus we've established does not apply--that I'm worried that he is interested only with pushing his point of view that O'Reilly is a bad guy. I don't know that it's productive to attempt to discuss anything with him on the talk page, since he does not seem to engage other with other editors in good faith. Croctotheface (talk) 01:01, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The MM section does list some specific criticisms, as agreed upon by prior talk page discussions (Boxer and Homophobia campaign---both have been there per talk for weeks; deletion now w/o consulting the history on talk is inappropriate).Jimintheatl (talk) 01:05, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I began an edit, some time ago, about MMs campaign to "Tell BOR to Stop the Homophobia." I initially proposed an independent subsection. After much debate, consensus was that a sentence or two in the MM section would be OK, but not a separate section. I agreed, and the sentences were added. Upon further research, I found additional organizations which had criticized BOR's comments about GLBTs, and attempted to consolidate the critique into a cohesive subsection. Consensus was reached, I thought, that the MM critique (already in the article) should not be merged with the GLAAD/SPLC material. Fine. But now editors want to remove previously agreed upon material? Based on what? They argued that the existing material should not be tied to the proposed edits; now, because the proposed edits have been independently added, the existing material should be removed?? Wow...Please, I have admittedly lost faith in some editors, but please review the talk history before reverting again. These are different debates, discussed, settled, I thought. Jimintheatl (talk) 01:27, 21 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Could you point out where this material was "agreed upon"? Being in the article is not prima facie evidence that people agree with it.  In my case, for instance, I just didn't know it was there.  Where on this talk page has a single editor expressed the view that something about MM's homophobia campaign can go in?  Six editors have recently expressed that it should not be included.  You are editing in bad faith here.  Croctotheface (talk) 01:31, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Your not knowing it was there is evidence that you weren't paying attention, not a basis for an accusation of bad faith. Review the discussion above, particularly under second try, and the prior section.  I initially proposed a separate subsection under Media Matters dealing only with their "Stop the Homophobic Comments" campaign.   I explicitly stated that I agreed to other editors' recommendation that what I had initially proposed as a subsection be reduced to a sentence or two, and I added the suggested edit.  You didn't object to this proposed resolution.  Given your history of almost instantly reverting my previous edits, I assumed you were in agreement.  (After that, you and I had a prolonged discussion about edit warring.)  During the discussion, Ramsquire, who agreed that a sentence or two could be appropriate, suggested that the edit might have more substance if GLAAD or others gay/lesbian org weighed in.  This prompted additional research and the subsequent, broader, proposed edit "Allegations of Homophobia" in which I attempted to merge the different groups' criticism.   Your objections to that edit were based on linking the different criticisms.  You never advocated removing the existing material; your doing so after the extended debate about GLAAD/MM stunned me and could have lead me to accuse you of bad faith.  I did not.  The MM edit has been sitting in plain sight; I cannot be responsible for your failure to read it.  I'd appreciate an apology.Jimintheatl (talk) 15:25, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I objected to the criticism on the ground that it was not important enough to include. I must've said that at least five separate times.  Did a single editor who opposed inclusion of this material expressly limit their opinion to opposing a separate section, while they said at the same time that they'd be OK with putting it up there in the MM section?  Show me one comment from an editor who said anything like that.  Croctotheface (talk) 16:30, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Your question is more than a little convoluted, so I am not sure whether this answers it: First, your sources and many of the hits are from the blogosphere or self published websites, which would not be reliable. Second, to be clear, I do not believe it is a fringe viewpoint. There is a lot of room on the scale from fringe to significant. I am not sure where this is on that scale. To put it another way, when BOR made his Sylvia's comments that was picked up in newspapers throughout the country, and discussed on various television programs as well as on the cable news circuit. It was clearly notable and significant. This MMfA campaign, not so much. If GLAAD or some other major LGBT groups hold a press conference supporting this campaign I'll gladly withdraw my objection. But until then I'm not sure it belongs. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 00:00, 15 May 2008 (UTC)   FTR- I am willing to compromise on this issue and place one sentence in the MMfA section describing their campaign as one of the criticism they have of BOR. I do however have undue weight concerns. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 00:04, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * At that point, there were, I think, 4 editors supporting this compromise and I made the edit. You then switched the discussion away from the specifics of the edit to a broader conversation about edit warring. I assumed we had moved on. So the removal weeks after seemed more than a little treacherous to me.Jimintheatl (talk) 19:27, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think my proposal ever got off the ground. It was just my attempt to compromise the issue as at that point, there was no consensus for inclusion or exclusion.  Now there seems to be a consensus for exclusion.  Also, there is some language in your post where you seem to imply that there has been some double dealing or duplicitous behavior by the editors in regard to the reversion.  I hope that you really don't believe that.  Everyone here has been consistent in their positions throught the discussion. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 20:21, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * (ec) I asked for an editor who was in favor of putting that text in the section, and you're saying that Ramsquire is?! Ramsquire is the editor who first removed it from the section!  If this isn't bad faith discussion, I don't know what is.  Croctotheface (talk) 20:24, 21 May 2008 (UTC)


 * We can agree on that: you don't know what it is. Look at this from my perspective: we had the entirely separate debate about edits to the MM section some time ago.  The initial edit I proposed was a subsection, which most opposed, including Ramsquire.  Then, after a lot of back and forth, the inclusion of a sentence or two rather than a subsection was suggested. Ramsquire explicitly stated "FTR" that he was willing to compromise.  So I added the briefer version, to which you made no objection(and given your constant monitoring of every edit I made, I had every reason to assume you were satisfied).. Ramsquire also made the GLAAD reference which prompted additional research.the later proposed edit I made "Allegations of Homophobia."  So then we began a separate, lengthy debate, ultimately resolved.  Then, after this resolution, I discover that Ramsquire removed the earlier MM edit he had agreed to!? My reaction was: WTF is this BS?  So, yeah, I'm saying that Ramsquire's removal was shocking and almost incomprehensible to me.  But, no, I did not accuse him of bad faith, unlike you.  Apologize, please.Jimintheatl (talk) 20:53, 21 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I asked for an example of an editor who expressed that they wished to exclude a separate section but include the material elsewhere. The best you could do was find someone who said that they "would be willing to consider" it.  After he finished considering it, he decided it should not go in, as evidenced by both his comments on the talk page and the fact that he was actually the editor who removed the content.  For you to offer him as an example of someone who was in favor of including the content misstates his position and, yes, is a bad faith representation of his views.  Croctotheface (talk) 21:00, 21 May 2008 (UTC)


 * This is what Ramsquire said: "I am willing to compromise on this issue and place one sentence in the MMfA section describing their campaign as one of the criticism they have of BOR." Not "willing to consider," but "willing to compromise and place."  Big difference.  Not that it matters to you.  Your arrogance is as breath-taking as it is unwarranted.  I no longer want an apology, as I would question its sincerity. Jimintheatl (talk) 00:30, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Jim, I'll apologize if you think I was trying to mislead you. I wasn't.  Yes, you are right, I was willing to compromise and allow one sentence describing the campaign at the end of the MMfA section.  However at that time the issue was at a stalemate.  My proposal was only to break the stalemate.  In my view the proposal was rejected, because it was never incorporated into the article.  Your edit was not what I intended, and then we got sidetracked by the GLAAD discussion, the article was locked for editing, and the fact that the edit was left in the article was overlooked.  In recent days, a more clear consensus for exclusion arose, and I just happened to notice it was still in there, so I removed it based on the now apparent consensus.  Sorry if I mislead you, it wasn't my intention. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 21:12, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I don't think you mislead me, but there clearly was a misunderstanding.  I thought we had settled the first MM-only debate, then initiated and settled the second, broader "homophobia" debate.  So I was floored when the MM edit was removed so long after it had been, I thought, resolved.  There had been lots of discussion about whether the MM stuff should be tied with the GLAAD/SPLC stuff, but absolutely no discussion about whether the existing MM stuff (which I was assuming was agreed upon after the first debate) should be removed. I greatly appreciate your comments; croc's appalling arrogance, on the other hand, well, let's just say it must be nice to think you're incapable of error.  Nice for him, not so much for anyone else.Jimintheatl (talk) 22:50, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Croc, please assume good faith. Some of your comments above are accusations of bad faith based on thin evidence indeed. This may be a misunderstanding; assume it is until something otherwise is demonstrated. And don't remove warnings from your talk page. I've reported your 3RR violation since you ignored the warning and immediately reverted again. csloat (talk) 02:09, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I've been assuming good faith. I now see ample evidence of bad faith to no longer operate with that assumption.  There is no reasonable basis to believe that all the editors who said that the MM criticism is not appropriate to include actually meant, "It shouldn't be at the end of the article, but it's perfectly OK a few sections up."  All of these people said that the criticism wasn't worthy of mention, and Jim put it in.  That's disruptive, against consensus, and because of the synthesis/weight issue, a BLP violation, too.  Croctotheface (talk) 02:13, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Since this edit war has not stopped and we have tried other means to settle this, I sent a report to WP:ANI. MrMurph101 (talk) 05:05, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * How about an RfC? ANI really isn't the place for content disputes, as I pointed out over there.  If the RfC doesn't work, mediation may be the next step.  But ANI seems entirely inappropriate here - what is the incident? csloat (talk) 10:11, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I reported to ANI due to the edit warring, not the content dispute. You and Jim keep trying to put in a version against consensus.  If an RfC was done in the first place, there may have been no need to go to ANI. However, at this point I believe it might be prudent to get an admin involved.  MrMurph101 (talk) 15:11, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Look, you're full of it Murph. I do not "keep trying to put in a version against consensus" -- that is a flat out lie.  My recent changes to the page have been trying to reach a compromise -- I backed off the MMfA stuff due to consensus and instead worked side by side with Croc to create an NPOV paragraph to deal with the material that the consensus agreed did belong in the article.  And if you look at the above section and the material that got left in the article itself you will see that we were successful in making a paragraph that everyone can be happy with.  I'm trying to be civil here but it is insulting to read a bald faced lie about myself -- one that can easily be proven false with a glance at the article's edit history -- by someone who didn't even bother to participate in the ongoing discussion but was quick to "report" my "behavior" to ANI. csloat (talk) 16:59, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Calm down buddy, I went to ANI so possibly an admin can look at this. You have not flattered yourself with some of your comments and have already been blocked for edit warring on this article. I can't help it if you have a guilty conscious about this.  If you have done nothing wrong I'm sure you will be exonerated. MrMurph101 (talk) 18:08, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The problem is not my guilty conscience; the problem is a phony ANI report made by you under false pretenses. Yes I was blocked; after the block ended I took the admin's advice and stopped reverting and promoted consensus.  Those actions were successful, and consensus was emerging on some of the issues until you came along. csloat (talk) 18:46, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, I've participated in this discussion long before you came along. I have already stated my position and did not feel the need to keep repeating myself.  I went to ANI because this has not stopped and was not confident things would change any time soon and felt it was time for an admin to weigh in on the situation.  MrMurph101 (talk) 21:34, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, until you came along a second time then. Either way, things were moving forward until you filed a report making false accusations against me. csloat (talk) 21:49, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Just to let you know, I withdrew any accusation against you of edit warring out of good faith. Things have appeared to "move forward" before on this issue but the problem still lingered that's why I did what I did. MrMurph101 (talk) 21:56, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I would greatly appreciate it if you would extend me the same courtesy. I think Ramsquire's comments and apology are evidence that a misunderstanding occurred.  Thanks.Jimintheatl (talk) 18:01, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I appreciate that - thank you. csloat (talk) 22:09, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

New MMfA discussion
Once more into the breach...trying to clarify MM's criticisms/role as critic. Round up the usual suspects? Jimintheatl (talk) 00:34, 26 May 2008 (UTC)


 * First problem: You give far too much weight to the gay and lesbian action.  It is nowhere near one of the main problems that MMfA has with BOR.  Second Problem:  Without any context they serve little purpose for your inclusion.  There is really no reason to provide examples of what they report about BOR, unless there are specific areas that they really focus on.  One area they do focus on is specific mis-information that BOR makes.  Arzel (talk) 01:08, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Um, OK, I'm afraid to guess what you meant, but what is "gay and lesbian action?" That comment aside, I think you just described my edit. MMs primarily focus on specific comments. But they have also compiled two more extensive reports based upon a series/pattern of those comments. I did not provide specific comments they mention, but as you suggest, noted two "specific areas that they really focus on." Your comment supports the edit. Jimintheatl (talk) 01:25, 26 May 2008 (UTC) OK. I am being reverted by one editor who has not provided an edit summary or engaged on the talk page and another editor who has proven that he does not know what "allegation" or "advocate" mean and whose comments on the talk page, I believe, support the proposed edit. It is difficult, if not impossible, to debate such people. Help. Thoughts.Jimintheatl (talk) 01:41, 26 May 2008 (UTC)


 * You know it is difficult to debate with someone that refuses to work in good faith. I admitted I was wrong about Advocate.  Normally you are an Advocate.  In any case to say BOR advocates or is even an Advocate regarding those issues is quite a stretch to make.  Arzel (talk) 01:48, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I am assuming you are acting in good faith. But you are also demonstrating a misunderstanding of basic terms and offering comments which appear to support my proposed edit (i.e., "unless there are specific areas that they really focus on," -- which was the point of the edit, to distinguish between their general, day-to-day work and the "specific areas they focus on" in their special reports.)  So when I say it is difficult to debate I am talking about a "failure to  communicate." Jimintheatl (talk) 13:17, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
 * First to answer your question about "Action". MMfA uses "Action" to describe their reports in which the call their members "To Action" by calling and complaining directly to the offending network  So...Action refers to the MMfA Action reports on BOR.  MMfA has had several "Action's" against BOR.  There are a couple of problems with what you are trying to do.  The biggest problem I personally have is that you have been trying for several days to try and get into this article (and others) something about BOR being Homophobic.  Even after relenting earlier you are now trying a new tactic.  Secondly, this is not an article about MMfA actions against BOR, if you go down the road you wish to go, then you are basically obligated to include all of the actions that MMfA has called on BOR, unless you can find reliable third party sources that make a claim that a few specific action deserve extra mention I don't see why this one is soo important to be mentioned.  Additionally, the way you wish to incorporate that section has no context unless it is expanded substantially, which then goes back to my previous point that this is not an article about MMfA actions against BOR.  Perhaps you can explain why those two issues are more important than any of the other issues that MMfA has with BOR.  Arzel (talk) 16:49, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll try to respond to your several points: (1) This is the second time you've mentioned "context." What do you mean?   (2) Your argument that mentioning one issue necessitates mentioning all is baseless.  No one would argue that.  (3)  Once again, reporting that Media Matters has ALLEGED that BOR has made comments it regards as homophobic is factually accurate and is very different from reporting that BOR homophobic.  Do you see the distinction? (4) Media Matters generally comments on a specific BOR report or comment.  In two instances, however, they have issued special reports collecting a series/patterns of remarks (homophobia, illegal immigration).  That is what distinguishes those reports from MM's usual work.  My proposed edit identifies their typical work(criticism of specific remarks) and distinguishes it from broader criticism in their "special" reports.  Jimintheatl (talk) 13:10, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Jim there is a significant consensus that the homophobia campaign not be placed in the article at this time. In fact you are the only one at this point, who continues to wish that it is included. Although consensus can change, your insistence will be viewed by many as an act of bad faith. Please understand, that you don't get around consensus by continously changing the language of the edit. This particular issue has been decided, for now at least. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 16:02, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Did you read the new proposed edit? Jimintheatl (talk) 17:28, 27 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Do you want me to file an RfC on user conduct? Ramsquire (throw me a line) 18:03, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Can I take that as a "no" to my question? My newly proposed edit is significantly different from the one previously discussed.  The old one was focused on subject matter, the new one addresses methods, not just the allegation of homophobia. At least that's how I see it.Jimintheatl (talk) 21:15, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm done Jim. If you keep this up, you are going to get reported at ANI and get blocked.  That's not my problem.  There are so many articles on here, that edit warring over this thing is just silly.  If you can't see that your new version, still contains information against consensus. There is nothing further for us to discuss. Have a nice life. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 21:52, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't deny that it contains information contained in a previous edit, but the thrust of this edit is entirely different. If you object to it, fine, I won't pursue, but at least acknowledge that this proposed edit was largely about methodology, rather than primarily about content.  I added this edit when MM authored a second report of broader scope (on illegal immigration). If we're done, we're done, but at least take a look at the edit. Jimintheatl (talk) 01:01, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Other editors are not required to reargue the same issue each time you change a comma. The consensus is against including the content, not one particular version of it.  You need to sway the consensus for it to go back in the article.  Reinserting it without establishing a consensus for inclusion will just get it force other editors to spend time reverting you when they could be improving the encyclopedia some other way. Croctotheface (talk) 00:28, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I just templated Jim due to his continued inclusion of material from "oreilly-sucks.com". Smear cites are innapropriate. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 14:05, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Article title: Criticism of Bill O'Reilly
Per WP:NPOV, might I suggest that the title of this article be changed? The problem with "criticism of..." is that it does not assume a neutral point of view and thus makes it difficult for the article to be balanced. My best suggestion is "Appraisal of..." which I think is pretty neutral, although some may disagree - I guess most likely because although the word itself is neutral, it contains "praise" within it.

Note that my comment is made simply from having seen the title of the article elsewhere. I have no comment on the article content nor whether the title has influenced the content or not. But I think that WP:NPOV#Article naming makes it pretty clear the title should be changed. (I appreciate there are other "Criticism of" articles but these are general not biographies of living persons, for which additional care is needed.)

Ros0709 (talk) 13:44, 21 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I'd have no objection to moving the article to that name. Croctotheface (talk) 16:24, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * "Appraisal of Bill O'Reilly"? Is there any precedent for such a title? csloat (talk) 16:52, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * There doesn't have to be -- there are few "Criticism of" articles on BLPs (maybe none if we leave out public-office holders). For what it's worth, there are 13 "Views on..." articles in this Wikipedia search page, including Martin Luther's views on Mary and John Calvin's views on Mary. Noroton (talk) 18:25, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * There's Criticism of Noam Chomsky, for example; and there appear to be hundreds of "Criticism of..." pages here. But perhaps this might be better -- see Support and criticism of Cindy Sheehan.  I just am not sure "appraisals" is accurate or useful as a title. csloat (talk) 18:59, 21 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree the name should be changed. The article title on one level is simply descriptive, but it's not unfair to say it does "suggest a viewpoint". The best context for criticism is in an article that also includes a range of reactions to O'Reilly.


 * Appraisal of ... seems too dispassionate for the passionate, sometimes ill-founded criticism of O'Reilly (and, frankly, for a public figure who comments on serious topics in a controversial way, unfair criticism should actually have a place in the article, since the fact that he gets wild as well as measured critiques is notable). I think Evaluations of ... would suffer from the same problem.


 * It seems to me that the best way to cover the various types of reactions to Bill O'Reilly is to title the article either Views on ... (my first choice; it's kind of vague and wide ranging, but so is the subject), or Public reactions to.... If we call it Controversies about ... then we'd need to justify quite a bit of participation in each dispute, and the title wouldn't include positive evaluations. Noroton (talk) 17:59, 21 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh, and I think it should be plural -- Appraisals of ... even though we don't normally use plurals in article names. In this case there might be a bit of confusion for some readers who might think we're talking about a single reaction. The reactions range so widely in tone, perspective and approach that the plural captures that aspect of the subject. Again, "appraisal" or "appraisals" just won't fit much of the content that will necessarily be in the article. Noroton (talk) 18:09, 21 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't much care what the article is called, but I don't think that we should include opinions we determine are "fringe" or "unfair" for the sake of demonstrating a range of opinion. Unless we have sources out there that describe certain opinions that way, we wouldn't be able to represent the "hysterical" nature of that opinion while writing from a neutral point of view.  Croctotheface (talk) 19:20, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Crock, for yet another straw man.Jimintheatl (talk) 01:54, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
 * FWIW - I agree "Views on" reads better than "Appraisals of" and is unambiguously neutral. Ros0709 (talk)
 * APPRAISALS seems to me not only bland but inaccurate, as the article does focus on Bill O'Reilly's critics. I don't see much in the article applauding or supporting him.  Calling things what they are is not a bad thing.Jimintheatl (talk) 19:36, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The article currently focuses on O'Reilly's critics, but as Ros states in the initial post, it really shouldn't. Ros is calling for both an article name change and a change in the focus to conform with WP:NPOV. Ideally, under WP:BLP and WP:NPOV, negative views about someone should be put within as much context as possible, including positive views, neutral views and information that can't be characterized as a view.
 * It's worth looking at what that Neutral point of view section states ("Article naming" subsection):


 * Sometimes the article title itself may be a source of contention and polarization. This is especially true for descriptive titles that suggest a viewpoint either "for" or "against" any given issue. A neutral article title is very important because it ensures that the article topic is placed in the proper context. Therefore, encyclopedic article titles are expected to exhibit the highest degree of neutrality. The article might cover the same material but with less emotive words, or might cover broader material which helps ensure a neutral view (for example, renaming "Criticisms of drugs" to "Societal views on drugs"). Neutral titles encourage multiple viewpoints and responsible article writing.


 * This is a policy, remember. The current article title discourages editors from adding information that isn't a criticism of O'Reilly, and that's wrong. By the way, weaving criticism, when it exists, into our coverage of O'Reilly elsewhere is, I think, the preferred way to present it, and we should have at least some criticism in other articles about O'Reilly (I haven't checked, maybe it's all there. I know there's some at the main article.) The more context you put the criticism in, the better you can evaluate the criticism, it seems to me. Same with the praise. Noroton (talk) 20:05, 21 May 2008 (UTC)


 * The article is not supposed to be only negative items about BOR. Technically positive criticisms should be here as well. I don't think a name change is necessary, but this article is not meant to be a laundry list of all the bad things people think about BOR but rather an analysis of him as a commentator and pundit. If changing the name of it will help in that regard, so be it. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 20:07, 21 May 2008 (UTC)


 * The title could be changed to "Reception of Bill O'Reilly." I know in film articles the MoS suggests a "reception" section that reflects opinions of of said film. This could be a good way to go, especially for subjects that draw controversy. MrMurph101 (talk) 20:15, 21 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Agree with Ramsquire - the title can stay the same but there is no reason this needs to be only negative things. I also agree with Croc above that we should stick to notable and published criticisms, and should avoid fringe opinions.  But this is a really controversial media figure - there is still quite a bit that belongs here, and there is bound to be some disagreement about some of it. csloat (talk) 20:50, 21 May 2008 (UTC)


 * The problem with Criticsm of ... is that some editors who might contribute to the article may believe that the article is only supposed to be about negative opinions (and maybe responses to them). The word "criticism" can mean "evaluation" but its unclear, therefore confusing. To repeat a line or two from the passage I quoted above: encyclopedic article titles are expected to exhibit the highest degree of neutrality. The article might cover the same material but with less emotive words Reception of ... is certainly the kind of language used for films, but would it be appropriate for a person? To me, it brings to mind wedding receptions and receptions for ambassadors. In the last line of the paragraph just above the one I quoted at Neutral point of view, it says (in a different context, but the point still may apply), a name may not be appropriate, especially if it is a novel usage. This usage sounds a bit novel to me, but I'd prefer any option we've mentioned over "Criticism of". I think we should change the Criticism of Noam Chomsky and Criticism of Sylvia Browne names, too (I couldn't care less about the equivalent George Bush, Tony Blair, Hugo Chavez articles -- see Category:Criticisms of living persons articles). Noroton (talk) 21:58, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I see your point, but I give editors more credit. I think they can read and contribute as they see fit.  But, again, calling a thing by its name is OK, and it seems that this entry evolved from the "Critics and Controversy" section of the main BOR page.  So, if if it devoted to criticism/critical review/critiques....so be it.  Watering down language until it's meaningless is a larger crime than naming an article with a word with potentially negative connotations.  This is not to say that the criticisms should not be addressed/refuted; they should be.  But there is nothing subjective or biased about using the word "criticism" in an article about a confrontational public figure who levels, invites and draws a lot of criticism. Jimintheatl (talk) 01:52, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
 * You wrote, there is nothing subjective or biased about using the word "criticism" in an article. I've got no problem with the word or having criticism in the article, but what you've just said is counter to the policy quoted above. It says that can't be the focus of the entire article. And from what I've seen, editors do take the title as what the scope of the article should be. I've seen that numerous times in deletion debates. None of this is about whether criticism should be mentioned or be replied to in the article, but even both of those things together doesn't satisfy what WP:NPOV states. Noroton (talk) 03:30, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
 * My point is that it is simply a fact that Bill O'Reilly (like any controversial public figure) invites and receives a good deal of criticism. We should not include all criticism, and should present his response and responses of observers/supporters when notable.  And, I think the history of this article, esp. recent history, shows that there are plenty of editors ready to defend and support Bill O'Reilly. Jimintheatl (talk) 12:11, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
 * OK. Is there a name change that you could support? I think we can reach a consensus here. Noroton (talk) 17:55, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Critiques? In my dictionary, the primary definition of Criticism does include the word "disapproval," while Critique reads "a detailed analysis and assessment."  So it is a more neutral term.  But does it describe the existing article?Jimintheatl (talk) 18:11, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The article should conform to WP:NPOV. Article titles are part of that policy; this one does not (IMO) conform, and should be addressed. If the whole article does not conform either then that should be addressed too - but the title would be a good first step. I don't see in your argument a reason to not fix the title. Ros0709 (talk) 19:14, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with what Ros just said: Describing the existing article is not the goal, because the focus of the existing article is not now conforming with WP:NPOV. On Critiques of... I think this is worth looking at, especially the "usage note" paragraph (from American Heritage Dictionary? They use usage panels). That paragraph concludes by saying the word is neutral, but it also makes the point that most of their panel consider the word inappropriate when applied it to people. The synonyms on that page don't thrill me, but Opinions about ... might work. Any other suggestions? What do you think of Views on ... or Evaluations of ... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Noroton (talk • contribs)
 * You can describe a criticism and conform to NPOV is my point. If changing the title of the article would result in the exclusion of descriptions of negative commentary, then I would oppose the change.  Given the Amer Her Dic concern about applying critique to people, I played around with "Critiques of the Journalism/Statements/Work, etc, but wasn't happy with anything.  If changing the title is seen as important by most, and would not result in the exclusion as mentioned above, I think Assessments would be OK. Jimintheatl (talk) 21:23, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
 * (outdent) How so? If the article is exclusively about (negative) criticism then it is inherently non-neutral. A neutral article should consider all opinion, not just the negative; (sourced) negative opinion is allowed, but positive opinion should not be disallowed (in fact, they should both be present to provide balance). The intention behind the renaming is to expand rather than restrict the scope. Ros0709 (talk) 22:43, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
 * An article about negative criticism can certainly be neutral if it describes the criticism (without endorsing it) and the responses to the criticism. An article which states that J said C is an arrogant ass is neutral if in fact it was said, and sourced.  I have no problem with expanding the scope of the article; to my knowledge, no one has proposed, or objected to, positive criticism.  I don't know the genesis of this article, but the section from which I assume it grew in the main BOR page is entitled "Controversy and Criticism," so there is a critical (negative) aspect to its origins.  What I ultimately come back to is that BOR takes a fairly Manichean approach; he's a "culture warrior" fighting the good fight on behalf of "traditionalists" who think America is a noble nation vs. "Secular-progressives" who think America is fundamentally flawed and want to overturn the "white male Christian power structure."

I'm of course paraphrasing, but not by much. Anyone who divides the nation along such stark lines is in fighting mode and asking for a fight. Describing his self-declared culture war is not a violation of NPOV so long as we don't take sides, except for the side of factual accuracy.Jimintheatl (talk) 23:38, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree that an article can be "neutral" in the sense of neutrally describing criticism and the response to it. That's not the point of WP:NPOV, which clearly disallows this kind of scope, apparently because this kind of scope in itself is judged not to be neutral in terms of approaching the subject, even if done fairly on its own terms. I have no problem with having an article like this that has more criticism of O'Reilly than praise -- I think treatment of criticism of a public figure, particularly one who courts controversy, is going to be valuable, and I suspect there is a lot more criticism than praise for anyone who courts controversy. I could live with Assessments of ..., although it's not my first or second choice ("Views on" and "Evaluations of"). Noroton (talk) 02:12, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I guess it boils down to semantics in some ways. Going beyond the article title, perhaps there should be a peer review on this article. There may be some good recommendations and perhaps an MoS could be developed to deal with issues/articles like this one. MrMurph101 (talk) 22:43, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Discussion gone stale
I'd like to reinvigorate this discussion as I think we need to be sure concesus is reached. The lack of, for want of a better term, interest in continuing may of course indicate that the consensual view is that people are generally happy with the status quo. To reiterate my background: I know nothing about this individual and have not even read the article (it appears to be a whole can of worms I don't want to get into) but the title seems to me to be unambiguously against policy and, having read over the previous discussion on this page, it is clear that the title is being used to justify a bias in the article - which is exactly why the policy about titles is there. IMO this title really has to change to something neutral. Ros0709 (talk) 08:45, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think the title is being used to justify any kind of bias (particularly not given the eternal vigilance of editors here who oppose adding any new criticism of O'Reilly to the article), but I do think it is problematic in terms of policy. However, certain figures do attract a lot of criticism -- thus we have Criticism of Noam Chomsky, Criticism of Ellen White, Criticism of George W. Bush, Criticism of Hugo Chávez, Criticism of Sylvia Browne, Criticism of Vladimir Putin, even Criticism of Moses ... there is also precedent for "Support and Crticism of..." in Support and criticism of Cindy Sheehan, which may be a way to go here if the name must change.  But Wikipedia policy may require that all of this criticism be incorporated into the article Bill O'Reilly instead. csloat (talk) 17:45, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I think Ros may have been influenced by this thread. It does appear to make the point that negative stuff should be placed here while positive things should be placed elsewhere.  Also, it is customary to split criticism sections off when keeping them in the main article would make the main article too long.  I would have no problem with "Support and Criticism", but we would need to add support info to the article. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 18:39, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with everything Ros0709 said. We need to change this title. Noroton (talk) 00:03, 30 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I have no opinion whatsoever about the title. I'd be fine with keeping the title or with changing it to any of the options that anyone raised at any point the above discussion.  Croctotheface (talk) 00:21, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Malmedy redux
Something needs to be done about the Malmedy section. It's just too-long winded and Olbermann dependent at the moment. There are some who have stated that this shouldn't be in the article at all. I have nothing against the inclusion but it should be more concise. Any mention of this could probably be in the Olbermann section here since he's the only one who really brings this up at all. MrMurph101 (talk) 18:42, 7 June 2008 (UTC) (P.S. There is no policy saying you have to discuss before you remove material from articles.)


 * We've been through this before (maybe even had an RFC?). Though the section is a little lengthy, it's for clarity.  The reason the section is long is because there is a great possibility for confusion by simply glossing over the event.  There were two incidents, a reader email, FNC scrubbing the transcript, then FNC changed the transcript back -- without going into some detail, it's easy to misrepresent (or be misunderstood).  In discussions past, editors from several different viewpoints felt it was important to include exact details to ensure that the reader gets the full picture and is able to draw his own conclusion; basically, omitting any of the parts can drastically change perceptions (and so in this case more detail is better than less).  Regarding your assertion that it's an Olbermann thing, there are already multiple reliable sources in the article.  /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:34, 7 June 2008 (UTC)


 * There has been no RfC but plenty of discussion with a fairly even split about inclusion. It was agreed to be taken out, later an anon campaigned for it with no consensus but put it back in about a month later and it's stayed like that.  As for Olbermann, to clarify, I'm not talking about sourcing but the fact quite a chunk of the material is what he thinks of the incident which is extraneous.  Olbermann criticizing O'Reilly is about as surprising as the sun rising in the east.  That's basically what I'm getting at. MrMurph101 (talk) 00:20, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I didn't participate in the earlier debate, so cannot say what consensus was reached. I would oppose removing significant portions now w/o further debate. In this instance, I agree that brevity may be the enemy of clarity.Jimintheatl (talk) 01:03, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

If I'm understanding you, MrMurph101, the wording most likely needing revision is: "Olbermann lambasted O'Reilly for refusing to accept responsibility and distorting the truth, calling him a 'false patriot who would rather be loud than right.' He also compared the editing of the transcript to George Orwell's 1984." The language may be too detailed and targeted... how about a one sentence summary? Something to the effect of "On whatever air date, Olbermann took exception to the way Fox and O'Reilly handled the situation." There may be better wording, just tossing out ideas. I do think that we should keep some reference to Olbermann's comments to provide context to the section. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 03:54, 9 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm very confident that we can handle this matter at a length that's more akin to the weight it deserves. As it stands, it's one of the longest sections in the article, and I don't really think that's warranted for this issue.  My view is that we should cut it down to about five sentences.  Croctotheface (talk) 06:04, 9 June 2008 (UTC)


 * As I tried to make clear earlier, the section is so detailed because various editors felt that omitting details would allow perception to "lean" one way or another. What do you suggest we cull?  /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 13:13, 9 June 2008 (UTC)


 * It pretty much leans one way right now. This is really just an extension of the larger feud between BOR and Olbermann, and is currently worded to suggest that BOR actually believes the mistake he made.  And earlier version included the fact that BOR had earlier written an article about the incident in which he made the correct distinction in a June 27th 2005 article, which was several months prior to this incident.  Almost all the google hits regarding the incident are in relation to Olbermann's criticism of BOR.  Regardless of what is done, the statements that would lead one to believe that BOR actually believes that American troops killed German troops has to go.  Arzel (talk) 14:01, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

"White, Christian, male power structure"
I posted:

O'Reilly came under fire for supporting the supremacy of what he called "the white, Christian, male power structure" against the perceived threat of immigration of non-white, non-Christian, non-male immigrants:

"But do you understand what the New York Times wants, and the far-left want? They want to break down the white, Christian, male power structure, which you're a part, and so am I, and they want to bring in millions of foreign nationals to basically break down the structure that we have. In that regard, Pat Buchanan is right. So I say you've got to cap with a number."

It was reverted with the following reasons:

Unreliable sources. Think Progress is an anoynomous author. Democrat.org doesn't make any comments, only posts the transcript. C&R is a blog as well. No documented criticism to be found, only OR.

There is hardly any criticism at these links. Here are some better ones:    —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.105.5.127 (talk) 07:45, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

RfC: Article title
In the section above entitled "Article title: Criticism of Bill O'Reilly" it was asserted that the article title is against policy (specifically WP:NPOV) because "criticism" is primarily interpreted as negative and therefore encourages non-neutral content. This can be seen in several places in the talk page, eg "how is that not a LEGITIMATE item for inclusion in CRITICISM" when discussing a controversial claim. I believe it is fair to summarise that opinion so far is that the article title should be changed (some editors were neutral in that they saw no strong case for a change but similarly had no objection to a change being made) - but there is no concensus on a suitable alternative title and thus no mandate for a change to be made. Additional opinion is needed on this subject.


 * The word "criticism" doesn't hold negative connotations for me, but I understand that many people mistakenly consider the word to be negative. However, the only criticisms in this article are, as far as I can see, negative criticisms. So, regardless of how one interprets "criticism", the article name suits its content (although people expecting non-negative criticisms might not find what they are looking for). I think the article name is perfectly suitable. (See also: all articles beginning with "Criticism of" and "Criticisms of") − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 10:29, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Therein lies the problem. The article should not only contain negative criticism becuase that fails Ros0709 (talk) 11:11, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * If you'll have a look at those "prefix" pages I linked, you will see that the Wikipedia standard for articles on criticisms is to call the article "Criticism of foo" or "Criticisms of foo". − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 11:48, 11 July 2008 (UTC)


 * No change necessary - "Criticism of Foo" and "Foo controversies" are standard Wikipedia nomenclature. Beyond that, there is no such animal as "non-negative criticism" (at least in this situation)... I'm also pretty unclear as to how changing the title will somehow alter the content.  /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 12:01, 11 July 2008 (UTC)


 * "Non-negative criticisms" are either positive or neutral in nature, see? − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 12:06, 11 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I think the scope of the RFC should be broadened to living persons in general. My view is there should be consistency in how critical material is applied.  This article is a spinoff of a section of the parent bio of O'Reilly which normally happens when a section gets too big.  I have no problem with the essence of that.  There are other "Criticism of..." living persons articles so I do not object to the title of this article in its current form but wouldn't object if there was an agreement on a title change.  I would be a strong advocate toward a title change if this happened in other cases but that does not appear to be so.  I think it would be better to have an RFC about "Criticism of living persons" articles in general that leads to a more consistent approach to this. There was some talk about this on WT:BLP a while back but I do not believe a real conclusion was made.  MrMurph101 (talk) 04:31, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

White Cristian Male Section.
A section regarding BOR interview with McCain regarding the proposal last year to allow the families of illegal immigrants to be granted entry into America as part of a broad immigration proposal has been presented as criticism regarding BOR. I removed the section twice because of Blog sources and other sources which don't actually criticize BOR. It would appear the primary aspect of criticism, if any really exists regarding this issue, is McCain's response to the statement provided by BOR. Unless it can be shown that this a criticism of BOR, and that it was something of note I don't think it should be included. Arzel (talk) 14:13, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

POV?
This article has a distinct POV towards liberals, especially the Al Franken part. It makes it out to seem that Al Franken was 100% right and O'Reilly was 100% wrong. This is not the case, and Franken may have written this section himself. This part is shamefully liberal.PokeHomsar (talk) 07:57, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * That's pretty generic. Do you have specific criticisms? -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  14:31, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Added Red Cross Section
Per discussion on this talk page that the article may violate NPOV by focusing solely on negative criticisms of Bill O'Reilly when it should focus on all criticism, i have moved a section on the Red Cross/September 11th controversy to this article. I am currently looking for sources on O'reilly's work on Jessica (or is it Jennifers) law and would appreciate any help in that regard. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 18:23, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * O'Reilly is always pretty quick to claim credit for things and often thanks his audience for "making a difference." cum hoc ergo propter hoc -- Though O'Reilly claims the credit, it's unlikely we'll find many reliable sources that  link O'Reilly's efforts with the actual outcomes.  /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:55, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

BLP and whether Glick said Bush "orchestrated 9/11"
I do think that we need to point out that Glick did not say this. O'Reilly's attributing this statement to Glick, when Glick did not say it, is arguably defamatory and BLP guidelines require us to make it clear what Glick did and did not say. Croctotheface (talk) 19:42, 24 August 2008 (UTC)


 * You're absolutely correct. Can you formulate a proper version or would you like some assistance ?  /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:50, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * If "falsely" or "inaccurately" don't suffice, what about "O'Reilly claimed/alleged that JG said X.  Transcripts of the interview refute the claim/do not support the claim/reveal the claim to be inaccurate."Jimintheatl (talk) 23:08, 24 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Maybe that last part of that sentence should just be removed. It is very much open to interpretaion which invariably leads to some synthesis of material.  BOR clearly feels that Glick blames Bush at least partially for the attacks, and Glick did say that his father was killed by radical extremist trained by the US gov while Bush Senior was head of the CIA.  Now is that the same as "Orchestrating"?  I don't know, if the beginning events by Bush senior were what ultimately caused the end result then possibly....but I do think it is a quite a stretch.  Arzel (talk) 02:29, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * BO said that Glick accused Bush of "orchestrating" 9/11. That's not his opinion; that's about as serious a charge a journalist/commentator can level.  And there is nothing in the transcript to support that charge, unless you want to twist words to lose all meaning.Jimintheatl (talk) 11:54, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * That's nothing like "orchestrating." I suppose that the whole thing is interpretive to a degree, but honestly I'm fine with "incorrectly" or some variation on that.  We can interpret to a degree, otherwise it's impossible to use language at all.  If there's a more neutral phrase that you'd prefer, use it instead.  The answer is not to leave O'Reilly's claim, which everyone here seems to agree is not true, stand unchallenged in the article.  Croctotheface (talk) 02:47, 25 August 2008 (UTC)